NationStates Jolt Archive

(qudos to Terry Pratchett) The Flying Spaghetti Monster (in all his noodly goodness).

Your post makes me happy.

Meh.

Thread is too long...

And you just made it one post longer. How ironic.

To me the question of god is ultimately a moot point. If there is no god then I have nothing to worry about. If there is, and he likes the way I live my life, then he can send me to heaven. If he doesn't then he can send me to hell; I wouldn't really like that god's heaven anyway.

I figure that I should just live my life as best I can and deal with whatever comes after death when I get there.

Yeah, I did read that part, and I say you are misinterpreting it. Jesus was passing through, they get to talking, the old woman says, "When that saviour fellow arrives, then we'll get the real story." And Jesus says, "Hey, that's me."

That doesn't mean he was coming to speak specifically to them. All it indicates is that word came to them beforehand that he was coming, which the desciples could have done in John 4:8, but it was already all the news since the Pharisees made such a stink about him (John 4:1-3).if you read the arguments, Jocabia is arguing Literal Meaning from the bible. thus you cannot say what is indicated, alluded, or even inferred, but you have to think Literal, as it was written.

The woman did have faith and when Jesus told her that they did not truely know the nature of God, she did say that the Christ would come and explain/teach them. and Jesus said that he was that teacher, Specifically saying that he was the Christ whom the woman said would explain all things to them (the Samaritans)

if you read the arguments, Jocabia is arguing Literal Meaning from the bible. thus you cannot say what is indicated, alluded, or even inferred, but you have to think Literal, as it was written.

The woman did have faith and when Jesus told her that they did not truely know the nature of God, she did say that the Christ would come and explain/teach them. and Jesus said that he was that teacher, Specifically saying that he was the Christ whom the woman said would explain all things to them (the Samaritans)

But you are guilty of the same crimes...

"He said go forth to EVERY NATION" - you claim is related to the earlier rule about only preaching to Jews - but this is something you infer.

"He claimed to be the Christ the Samaritan awaited" - you claim this relates to what Jesus was HERE for - but this is something you infer.


All he actualyl said to the Samaritan, was that the person they had been waiting for, to 'explain' it all - was him. He made no comments about his mission, or who he was 'for'.

I was thinking about a friend I lost to breast cancer awhile back and how she didn't deserve to die. She had an asshole husband for many years. He was abusive, and when they got divorced, he would go to their sons wrestling meet.. with his bimbo girlfriend.

She was always kind and a good listener to anyone who talked to her. Since she was a teacher, when she died, everyone lost a good friend. We all were affected by her.

Her son is graduating soon, her daughter is getting married this summer. She was happy and upbeat, even with cancer and going through chemo.

Well.. I started thinking why would God let her die? She was a good person. She shouldn't have been taken, it wasn't her time.

I wasn't relisios to begin with.. but I thought there was some sort of higher being (God). But I don't feel that way anymore. What God would do that to someone?

Do you think there is a God?

EDIT: And why do you feel that way?

I don't think God let her die. I personally believe God has a very difficult time trying to look after billions (or more than that?) of people, some of whom shout out for God when they drop a plate on the floor or get excited about something. I believe that God tried to help all those who need and deserve help, but just is unable to get there in time sometimes, due to helping someone else at the time. If not so, then why would God let innocent babies dies? You can give me all the "it's God's plan" rubbish for adults, but what's the point of a baby being born just to die? What would be the point of the baby being born in the first place?

I also have a theory: There are Angels to protect us. Each Angel is probably in charge of several people, therefore they can not deal with everyone at once, and inevitably some people unfortunately are not helped. But to help cope with this, we all have intuition - that funny feeling we get when something bad is about to happen (or is happening). This is so that when bad things happen (or are about to happen), human mortals can go to wherever their instinct leads them to and prevent or stop the bad situation. Unfortunately, it would appear that many people ignore these feelings (and that many people have simply lost them, possibly due to the non-use of them, not to mention the skeptics who keep saying they're a load of rubbish), which are also there to protect ourselves, not just other people (how many times have you heard someone who's been attacked say "I knew something was wrong" but they hadn't acted on their instincts <also proves they are not a load of rubbish?). So because of this, the Angels have a LOT of work on their hands, maybe too much for them to cope with.

So during the time that the Angels (and the few humans who still use and act on their intuition) are trying to prevent bad things happening and stop bad things happening, what is God doing? Well my theory is that God is busy helping those who'd bodies have died (can you imagine dying and not knowing what to do once you're in the afterlife - where to go, what's going on, etc?) and is also there for the Angels to come to for advice, or for situations where the Angels need God to step in (they may need God to step in in a lot of situations, but as I said, God may be very busy doing the other stuff I said - so here, I'm talking for example about major events that would take the Angels away from other important duties if they were to all get together to deal with those events). Kind of like when you call the police for assistance in emergency, but the emergency is so major that the Officers can not deal with it on their own - they need the Chief to step in.

And one final theory to add: God's busy steering the planet, stopping it crashing into other planets and asteroids etc.

And why do I believe in God? Because God's helped me. I'm sure people will dispute that, or say I'm some kinda religious nut... but I'm not religious, and I believe in God from personal experience.

P.S. just remembered. There was once a christian who was gonna be an ambulance person. he decided to join the police instead, as it would be helping people, but in a different way. and at the time i read about him, every time he had gone to an incident where someone was either dying or dead, he would rush in and either sometimes, often, or always (can't remember which) announce "it's not their time yet". which proves they weren't SUPPOSED to die and that God didn't want them to, in my opinion.

if you read the arguments, Jocabia is arguing Literal Meaning from the bible. thus you cannot say what is indicated, alluded, or even inferred, but you have to think Literal, as it was written.

The woman did have faith and when Jesus told her that they did not truely know the nature of God, she did say that the Christ would come and explain/teach them. and Jesus said that he was that teacher, Specifically saying that he was the Christ whom the woman said would explain all things to them (the Samaritans)
I *am* talking about a literal interpretation. She said she would get him to explain when he comes by, not that he was coming to teach. Then the woman went back to town and said, "Hey, come and see this guy. Could he be the Christ?" If he was coming to teach, you wouldn't think they'd have to go out on the road to see him. John 4:40: "...they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days." Doesn't sound like he was expecting to stay and teach.

There really aren't, you know...
Exactly. I already addressed this, hoping for a response from The blessed Chris, but I don't think he's been back since then...

They are discussing him in context, so none of that matters.
Hmm...I can't help but wonder what the point is of discussing cryptic, poorly translated writings about a person who probably didn't exist...

It's like discussing Don Quixote all over again.

Hmm...I can't help but wonder what the point is of discussing cryptic, poorly translated writings about a person who probably didn't exist...

It's like discussing Don Quixote all over again.
Good book!

well i have to say about people who have faith in god is...

Fuck you and him! Go 666

DEATH TO GOD AND HIS BELIVERS:mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper:




one last thing................:upyours:

Exactly. I already addressed this, hoping for a response from The blessed Chris, but I don't think he's been back since then...

Probably because he has tried this approach before. It might have been him... quite a few people have tried it. They post that kind of claim, and then, when denied, they can't find any evidence to back up their claims... or they quote Josephus, ignoring the fact that he was something like 75 years away from being 'contemporary', and was certainly not a witness to ANY events. (Not to mention, the relelvent parts of Josephus are thought to have largely been edited at a later date).

I don't take the Bible as being accurate. I told you the purpose of my argument. I do take the messages of Jesus as fairly clear. One of them was that he came only for the Jews.

First you say you don't take it as accurate, then you say it is accurate, now you say you don't.
You take literal meaning from some verses but argue with interpretation and specualtion on others.
You accuse others of what you yourself do.

I'm getting the picture that you are just being contrary for contrary's sake.

But you are guilty of the same crimes...

"He said go forth to EVERY NATION" - you claim is related to the earlier rule about only preaching to Jews - but this is something you infer.sorry, but that is what You and Jocabia were inferring. you claimed that means only the Jews, I was arguing "all Nations = anyone reguardless of nationailty."

"He claimed to be the Christ the Samaritan awaited" - you claim this relates to what Jesus was HERE for - but this is something you infer.I only said that he Identified himself as the Christ the woman discribed, the one who would "Teach" them all things. in direct response to Jocabia's challange to find where he said that he was there for others and not just non-Jews. Remember, you and Jocabia argued that he was there "Only for the Lost Sheep of Isreal" so why say I am He, in reference to the one who would teach them and not again as "I am the Christ who is here for Isreal." or "I am Isreal's savior" unless he was there to teach them.


All he actualyl said to the Samaritan, was that the person they had been waiting for, to 'explain' it all - was him. He made no comments about his mission, or who he was 'for'.thank you for agreeing that his teachings is not just for the Jews.

well i have to say about people who have faith in god is...

Fuck you and him! Go 666

DEATH TO GOD AND HIS BELIVERS:mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper:




one last thing................:upyours:

Unsurprisingly you got your insult wrong. In all likelyhood 666 is a misprint of 616 that originally appeared as the devil's number. In any case is is not a numerical representation of evil as much as it is a 1000 year old political code to complain about politics rather than hell or demons.

Good book!
Certainly much better than the bible.

sorry, but that is what You and Jocabia were inferring. you claimed that means only the Jews, I was arguing "all Nations = anyone reguardless of nationailty."


No no - He had earlier, very clearly stated - he was here ONLY for the Jews.

Thus - when we read the latter reference - which doesn't specify PEOPLES, only 'nations'... we have to bear in mind his earlier EXPLICIT prohibition on the Gentiles.

You infer a different meaning, because you want to feel that the 'great commission' covered you... rather than being an afterthought.

The latter references are non-specific, but the earlier are VERY specific. The two cannot be reconciled to find the answer you claim, unless you choose to ignore part of the scrupture, or infer a meaning that doesn't fit.


I only said that he Identified himself as the Christ the woman discribed, the one who would "Teach" them all things. in direct response to Jocabia's challange to find where he said that he was there for others and not just non-Jews. Remember, you and Jocabia argued that he was there "Only for the Lost Sheep of Isreal" so why say I am He, in reference to the one who would teach them and not again as "I am the Christ who is here for Isreal." or "I am Isreal's savior" unless he was there to teach them.


If you actually read what it says - the Samaritan says "The woman saith unto him I know that Messias cometh which is called Christ when he is come he will tell us all things".

She doesn't say Messiah will come for us.. or to us. Just that he will tell us things.

Jesus says "I am he, the one who speaks to you.""... does he mean he is the anointed, or that he is the one who will tell? Both?

None of the ways you interpret that exchange has Jesus saying I am HERE FOR the Samaritan, or any other Gentile.


thank you for agreeing that his teachings is not just for the Jews.

Don't construct strawman arguments. That is not what I said. That is not what He said. Once again - you infer what you wish to see.

If you actually read what it says...
I couldn't find a nice way to say that.

I couldn't find a nice way to say that.

*sigh* I'll probably end up misrepresented about it, anyway...

It's amazing to me that this thread continues.

And you didn't find one. You found where they spoke of a Savior and Jesus said, that Savior is I.

If you bothered to read what we have said, you would see that we did defeat the challenge.

Again, vagueness that you try to make specify the opposite of his other quotations. He says essentially "you're talkign to the Savior." It doesn't say anything about being there for them, though you try to say otherwise.

Oh for the Lord's sake. He said he was the Savior. There. This case is finally closed.

but for someone who can be soo specific, it's funny that he does accept that responsiblity for others that are non-Jew. by Accepting it, he does counter the implied restriction that his teachings are for jews only.

unless you're going to claim that the Samaritans "Stole" his lessions as well.

Here here.

Who said stole? They aren't secrets. They simply aren't designed for them.

SO you are saying that they shouldn't have been taught the teachings of Jesus? What a piece of Horse Crap.

There is a God and there is a Devil. Everything happens for a reason. if you learned something from her and really loved her thats all that matters. Everyone is goin to die someday, thats the truth and you have to come to terms with death. its the way of life. Death is not the end, its simply a moment in time. Trust that she went to heaven for she deserved it. if you do not believe in god then you will most likely end up in hell. or if you curse at him for what he did to your friend. Dont go to hell, it is a place for people who curse at god for what he did to you and then sided with the devil like me. Dont follow the path to the Dark, its hard and painful. better to believe that god will take care of your friend.

SO you are saying that they shouldn't have been taught the teachings of Jesus? What a piece of Horse Crap.
No, he's not saying that!

Really.

I think I helped in that thread.. do I get unwavering salivatory appreciation?

:D
Well, i suspect your angle on that whole thing is covered by the munchies. :p

Also - i am not a jealous god - in fact, i encourage your involvement with other gods. I like to watch *salivates*
...well, i guess you DO sorta get salivatory appreciation!

Well, i suspect your angle on that whole thing is covered by the munchies. :p

Also - i am not a jealous god - in fact, i encourage your involvement with other gods. I like to watch *salivates*
...well, i guess you DO sorta get salivatory appreciation!
*plays some moby music*

People they come together
People they fall apart
No one can stop us now
'Cause we are all made of stars

Slow slow slow, come come
Someone come come come
Even love is goin' 'round
You can't ignore what is goin' 'round
:eek: ;)

Was this too random? Or did it make sense?

I wonder how many people 'got it'. :)
Well, you never seem to shake my faith that you'll get it ... speaking of which, i *just* became aware of the The Greater Wrong of the Right *LIVE* DVD from Skinny Puppy!!
And, i bought it. But i'm practicing all week, so i haven't sat down to watch it yet. :(
It's got two discs - live performances on disc one of I'mMortal, Warlock, Inquisition, Hexonexxon, Convulsion, Testure, and Harsh Stone White! Woohoo!
Disc two has archive footage from Last Rights and Too Dark Park!
*salivates*

*dances weasel dance*
http://67.18.37.14/32/176/emo/happydance3.gif

This topic is one that has been discussed and argued over for many years in the past and will continue on for many many years to come. The fact is everyone has there own beliefs, and noone should be attacked for those beliefs, nor should they have others beliefs forced upon them.
I myself used to believe in god, until my aunty and my little sister died within months of each other. Then my step dad raped me and my family is now falling apart and what can I say, I lost my faith. I cannot see why god would want to put ppl thru so much pain, it doesnt make sense. But that is my opinion. Others choose to believe in God, then so be it... That is their perogative. Im not gonna go OMG how could u believe him, blah blah blah. That truth is, the topic of GOD has been over analysed way too many times. People just need to let it go... Believe what they want and respect other beliefs.

Unsurprisingly you got your insult wrong. In all likelyhood 666 is a misprint of 616 that originally appeared as the devil's number. In any case is is not a numerical representation of evil as much as it is a 1000 year old political code to complain about politics rather than hell or demons.
:D
Good post. *nods*

This topic is one that has been discussed and argued over for many years in the past and will continue on for many many years to come. The fact is everyone has there own beliefs, and noone should be attacked for those beliefs, nor should they have others beliefs forced upon them.
I myself used to believe in god, until my aunty and my little sister died within months of each other. Then my step dad raped me and my family is now falling apart and what can I say, I lost my faith. I cannot see why god would want to put ppl thru so much pain, it doesnt make sense. But that is my opinion. Others choose to believe in God, then so be it... That is their perogative. Im not gonna go OMG how could u believe him, blah blah blah. That truth is, the topic of GOD has been over analysed way too many times. People just need to let it go... Believe what they want and respect other beliefs.
Sorry to hear about your Aunt and Sister. :(

I hope you are pressing charges with your Step Father. :mad:

Dont go to hell, it is a place for people who curse at god for what he did to you and then sided with the devil like me. Dont follow the path to the Dark, its hard and painful.
http://hem.bredband.net/b232251/stuff/cheneyemperor.jpg

EDIT: What, no smilies?
M'kay ...

http://www.world-of-smilies.com/html/images/smilies/starwars/sidholo0.gif
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/maulhood.gif
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb029.gif

Sorry to hear about your Aunt and Sister. :(

I hope you are pressing charges with your Step Father. :mad:

Thank you, It was 2 years ago now so Im ok. And yes, of course i am...

*plays some moby music*


:eek: ;)

Was this too random? Or did it make sense?
If i knew more Moby .... :(

I think i get it, but that's basically my mantra so i don't rip my own head off on any given day ... and/or turn my alignment.

The real question is can God be proven. What evidence satisfies each person is the question. Does your evidence need to be "pulled up into heaven and God needs to ring your neck" or would you still think your crazy. If the Physics community declared and proved God exist would you accept it. Athiesm is a new concept to humanity and new idealogies have a key component of having idealogical methods of denial of other beliefs nomatter what that other belief is. My question is WHAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE WILL PROVE GOD TO YOU?


What suprises me is that the poll is SO EVENLY SPLIT. 1 vote difference

Athiesm is a new concept to humanity

...Apparently the Greeks are new....

I *am* talking about a literal interpretation. She said she would get him to explain when he comes by, not that he was coming to teach. Then the woman went back to town and said, "Hey, come and see this guy. Could he be the Christ?" If he was coming to teach, you wouldn't think they'd have to go out on the road to see him. John 4:40: "...they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days." Doesn't sound like he was expecting to stay and teach.now when has Jesus ever proclaimed himself something he wasn't. the woman said she was waiting the Christ who would explain all things. Can you explain something, or declare or tell without teaching?

and also notice that Jesus began preaching to her without her asking. he asked for a drink. (John 4:7)
she replied in surprise at the fact that a Jew was speaking to a Samaritan. (John 4:9)
and his reply was the beginnings of the lessons about God's Generosity, unasked and uninvited. Now if the Lessions were only for Jewish Ears, why this teaching? unless Jesus meant for his sermons and lessons to be heard by *all*, initiated by God's flock from Isreal.

Thank you, It was 2 years ago now so Im ok. And yes, of course i am...
May he get all that he deserves.

If i knew more Moby .... :(

I think i get it, but that's basically my mantra so i don't rip my own head off on any given day ... and/or turn my alignment.
Hm.. shit it just took me 5 minutes to write "Hm".. evil sick head cold. >=(
I was trying to say "We are all gods yadda yadda; lets make love yadda yadda.."

You know.. you don't confuse me anymore.. :eek:

You know.. you don't confuse me anymore.. :eek:

...Ruffy has transcended...

Hm.. shit it just took me 5 minutes to write "Hm".. evil sick head cold. >=(
I was trying to say "We are all gods yadda yadda; lets make love yadda yadda.."

You know.. you don't confuse me anymore.. :eek:
That's because you're no longer apostate ...
you're in the fold ...
Heh ... aprostate.
So why didn't you quote Joan Osborne? ;)

...Ruffy has transcended...
Exactamundo. *bows*

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/abduct.gif
http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/owen/scatter.gif

HECK YES!

HECK YES!
:)

Good, good.

:)

Good, good.

Yepp...

Yepp...
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/1264.gif

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/1264.gif

glad to see your happy

glad to see your happy
oh gawd...now I sound like those AIM robots!

oh gawd...now I sound like those AIM robots!
That's when you start using SMILIES!!!
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/114.gif

This topic is one that has been discussed and argued over for many years in the past and will continue on for many many years to come. The fact is everyone has there own beliefs, and noone should be attacked for those beliefs, nor should they have others beliefs forced upon them.
I myself used to believe in god, until my aunty and my little sister died within months of each other. Then my step dad raped me and my family is now falling apart and what can I say, I lost my faith. I cannot see why god would want to put ppl thru so much pain, it doesnt make sense. But that is my opinion. Others choose to believe in God, then so be it... That is their perogative. Im not gonna go OMG how could u believe him, blah blah blah. That truth is, the topic of GOD has been over analysed way too many times. People just need to let it go... Believe what they want and respect other beliefs.
Please accept my sympathy for all you've been through -- I'm glad you're getting through it (and prosecuting) -- and I'd also like to thank you for that post. Excellent statement of tolerance as a principle. Well said.

Id hate to sound like the big conservative boogeyman, but evangelism in the perpespective of whoevers trying to do the convincing is really noble, if your beliefs state that you love the person you are talking to and you dont want them to go to hell then what are you going to do about it, id talk to them, not beat them up or go to war like confused people have done in the past.

Id hate to sound like the big conservative boogeyman, but evangelism in the perpespective of whoevers trying to do the convincing is really noble, if your beliefs state that you love the person you are talking to and you dont want them to go to hell then what are you going to do about it, id talk to them, not beat them up or go to war like confused people have done in the past.

Id hate to sound like the big conservative boogeyman, but evangelism in the perpespective of whoevers trying to do the convincing is really noble, if your beliefs state that you love the person you are talking to and you dont want them to go to hell then what are you going to do about it, id talk to them, not beat them up or go to war like confused people have done in the past.

what the computer glitch???

That's because you're no longer apostate ...
you're in the fold ...
Heh ... aprostate.
So why didn't you quote Joan Osborne? ;)
Teehee!
Moby was on my my mind.. ;)

what the computer glitch???
just click on the Delete/edit option in the lower right corner, click on delete message and then the button. no biggie

HECK YES!
Beck is awesome.

now when has Jesus ever proclaimed himself something he wasn't. the woman said she was waiting the Christ who would explain all things. Can you explain something, or declare or tell without teaching?

and also notice that Jesus began preaching to her without her asking. he asked for a drink. (John 4:7)
she replied in surprise at the fact that a Jew was speaking to a Samaritan. (John 4:9)
and his reply was the beginnings of the lessons about God's Generosity, unasked and uninvited. Now if the Lessions were only for Jewish Ears, why this teaching? unless Jesus meant for his sermons and lessons to be heard by *all*, initiated by God's flock from Isreal.
If I may:

Here's the gist as I got it from Jocabia's argument:

Jesus was not SENT for anyone other than the Jews because the Jews were God's chosen people, so God was interested in saving them. But Jesus was not going to not speak to gentiles and pagans because being friendly to them was PART OF THE MESSAGE THAT HE WAS SENT TO THE JEWS TO DELIVER. So if you take it that way, you could say that part of Jesus's message TO THE JEWS was to welcome non-Jews into the society in a way they had not done before. And that's why Jesus pointed out examples of faith in pagans, criminals, tax collectors and other social outcasts, and why he performed miracles for them and shared his teachings with them if they asked. He was trying to TEACH THE JEWS SOMETHING.

Now as to this "all the Nations" argument, all I know about its is that, in my ecumenical life experience, "the Nations" was a traditional way of referring to the Hebrew tribes -- much the way the Native North Americans in the eastern regions were referred to as The Five Nations. They were five large tribes covering a lot of territory, but they were all the same ethnic/cultural grouping. Just because some Bible references say "Nations," there is no reason to assume they are talking about anybody but the Hebrew tribes. Now, considering that the ancient Hebrew tribes were often at war with each other over territory and also TRIBAL STATUS AND IMPORTANCE, a teacher like Jesus who wanted people to get over fighting with their neighbors would certainly have emphasized that he was there for "all the Nations" if he wanted to emphasize that he was not there to reinforce the power agenda of any given tribe. He might especially have done that if he wanted to be seen as fulfillling the messiah prophecy. So there is nothing wrong with Jocabia's insistence that "all Nations" still just means the Jews.

were still arguing over this? well it looks like only half of you are:p

from looking at the arguments it looks like were going in circles so here is a new option iam correct about every thing;) :) its a good way to end a debate

Id hate to sound like the big conservative boogeyman, but evangelism in the perpespective of whoevers trying to do the convincing is really noble, if your beliefs state that you love the person you are talking to and you dont want them to go to hell then what are you going to do about it, id talk to them, not beat them up or go to war like confused people have done in the past.
Well, that's nice of you and all, but I hope you can take "No, thanks" for an answer.

My problem with evangelism -- of any religion -- is that I think it is rude. If you want just to evangelize to people in obvious trouble in need of spiritual guidance, or if you want to try to sell me on your religion just by being a living example of a wonderful and happy life, fine. But when even the nicest, most well-intentioned person comes up to me and starts telling me, with all sincerity, that my life choices are going to send me to hell and that, whatever I'm doing, it's wrong -- well, I can't help but be deeply offended. It strikes me as a profound lack of respect for the person you want to convert to imply that they can't even make such basic decisions for themselves.

So when someone comes up to me in the nicest possible way and asks if I'd like to hear a true message of Christ, I say "No, thank you," as gently as possible, and I expect that to be the end of the conversation.


EDIT: All right, there was a Scientologist I flipped the bird at once, but that was a different situation. And there was Mormon I was tempted to punch once, but he wasn't being nice.

were still arguing over this? well it looks like only half of you are:p

from looking at the arguments it looks like were going in circles so here is a new option iam correct about every thing;) :) its a good way to end a debate
No, I'm right about everything. Die, heretic! :p

No, I'm right about everything. Die, heretic! :p
nope your wrong, iam right;)
and iam not heritic i have not black cat!
*meoww*
i swear its not mine
*shoos cat a way*

If I may:

Here's the gist as I got it from Jocabia's argument:

Jesus was not SENT for anyone other than the Jews because the Jews were God's chosen people, so God was interested in saving them. But Jesus was not going to not speak to gentiles and pagans because being friendly to them was PART OF THE MESSAGE THAT HE WAS SENT TO THE JEWS TO DELIVER. So if you take it that way, you could say that part of Jesus's message TO THE JEWS was to welcome non-Jews into the society in a way they had not done before. And that's why Jesus pointed out examples of faith in pagans, criminals, tax collectors and other social outcasts, and why he performed miracles for them and shared his teachings with them if they asked. He was trying to TEACH THE JEWS SOMETHING. But I don't think he specifically sought out non-Jews to preach to, did he? He never went to Roman public hang-outs to preach to the Romans, for instance, even though they were just as plentifully available as the Samaritans.Point: While I do agree that it seems that Jesus was sent to the Jews, and that his message of acceptance seems plausible. There is other things to consider. Jesus was a Jew. but remember some of his teachings. some that were repeated so frequently here on this board. Removing the "plank in your own eye" as well as "Physcian Heal thyself." Indications that Jesus was there to heal the Jews and get them back on track. so while I do not argue that Jesus was sent to save the Jews, there is nothing in the scripture to say that his lessions were only meant for the Jews.

also, I did make that mention that the reason why Jesus was so harsh at first to non-jews [Canaanite woman in Mat. for instance] and it gradually lessened to treating them like Jews was because he was showing his disciples (as well as others) the sin of such racial discrimination. however, that was as well recieved as other view points. so I am glad to see it remarked upon in a better way. Thank you.

Now as to this "all the Nations" argument, all I know about its is that, in my ecumenical life experience, "the Nations" was a traditional way of referring to the Hebrew tribes -- much the way the Native North Americans in the eastern regions were referred to as The Five Nations. They were five large tribes covering a lot of territory, but they were all the same ethnic/cultural grouping. Just because some Bible references say "Nations," there is no reason to assume they are talking about anybody but the Hebrew tribes. Now, considering that the ancient Hebrew tribes were often at war with each other over territory and also TRIBAL STATUS AND IMPORTANCE, a teacher like Jesus who wanted people to get over fighting with their neighbors would certainly have emphasized that he was there for "all the Nations" if he wanted to emphasize that he was not there to reinforce the power agenda of any given tribe. He might especially have done that if he wanted to be seen as fulfillling the messiah prophecy. So there is nothing wrong with Jocabia's insistence that "all Nations" still just means the Jews.very reasonable. but then won't the tribes of Gentiles as well as Samaritans and other people also be considered Nations as well? Remember, he was specific in Mathew that he was sent to the Lost Sheep of Isreal. as well as when he first sent out his disciples, he did state where not to go. so why the broad use of All Nations unless he means the tribes of all people, Jews, Gentiles, Samaritans and whomever else?
As for this Samaritan woman, let's treat this story as if it were history (which it is not) and put it into the context of the time. Gonna need to break this down. sorry :p The Samaritan woman was a pagan, as I understand it. The pagan cultures of the time interacted a lot and were exposed to each other's religions regularly. In fact, it was common for people to practice the cults of gods imported from other cultures along with their own.if you take verse 19-26 of John 4, she is referring to God and not some Pagan religion. the contention she remarks upon between Samaritans and jews is that Jews require worship towards Jerusalem, Jesus then remarks that the where is not important but who is worshiped (God). now the quote about salvation from the Jews can be taken to mean that the lessons he (Jesus) is teaching the Jews to be spread out to the Samaritans.
Also note her reference to Jacob and Joseph. so they are faithful to God (or at least she is.)
If we take the Jesus story as history, too, we can know that there was a lot of buzz going round about this Jesus person and the controversy over this prophecy he was stirring up. From what I understand, messiah claimants were a dime a dozen in ancient Judea, so I think it's a fairly safe bet to say the neighboring pagans would have some superficial familiarity with the concept -- similar to my understanding of Christianity, perhaps. But this time, the word was "No, no, this guy's for real. You should listen to him some time." So, considering the cultures of the time, it is not unreasonable that a pagan Samaritan would have gone down to where Jesus was expected to pass by in order to meet him and hear what he had to say JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY.except that Jesus has reminded the Jews of times where others were blessed while the Jews were not. [Luke 4:24-29]. it does appear that the Faith of those outsiders were stronger than that of the Jews during Jesus's time. Also the brief exchange between the Samaritan woman and Jesus would not be called convincing unless the woman (and others in her town) already had faith in God and saw something in him that rang true.

and this verse 42And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world. which means that while they heard all the other "Prophets" they tended not to believe them. infact, it also indicates that they didn't believe this woman who was saying similar things that was told to her. 28The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,

29Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ? so they didn't believe her, but did him.

After all, isn't that what the story describes -- the woman goes to meet Jesus. Jesus does not seek her or her people out. He's just passing through.the woman does not go out to meet Jesus, she was just walking by, and Jesus Called out to Her. Initiating the contact and, by loose definition of the term, sought her out by calling to her.

So there's this obviously not Jewish woman hanging around, and maybe Jesus says something like, "Can I help you?" And she says, "Yeah, um, I'm looking for this person everybody says is this messiah who they all say can explain the whole universe." And Jesus is like, "Um, I think that's me." And she's like, "Oh, good. So...what's it all about then, huh?" It would be like if I came to you as an expert on your religion and asked you about it. It doesn't mean you were sent to minister to me or anything. If the result of our conversation is that you convert me, then I guess you're really good at explaining it, but it still doesn't mean you were sent for me and IT DOESN'T MEANT I CAME TO YOU LOOKING FOR A SAVIOR FOR MYSELF. From what I get, the Samaritan woman did not expect to be "saved" by Jesus. She just wanted to hear what he had to say.sorry, but read John 4 again. if we take it to be history and just as factual as the rest of the Accounts of Jesus, then he called out to her while she was drawing water. He initiated the spritual teaching by introducing the concept of the "Water of Life" while she was only adhering to the customs of interaction between Jews. also note her reaction when Jesus Called out.
9Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.note the last line, [Note: in some versions, it's clear that she didn't speak that line while others say she did. I will leave that to you to decide.] For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. that means it's the Jews who ignore the Samaritans. again, possibly something Jesus was working to remove.

So just because Jesus's message was accepted by gentiles, it doesn't mean they were its originally intended audience.if the message was not intended for the Gentiles, why would Jesus spread them to the Gentiles? by saying, claiming or insisting that the message was Intended for the Jews, that mean's Jesus (who is supposed to be doing God's will,) is deliberatly going against God and amending his purpose by spreading the word to other groups outside the Jews. something I cannot picture Jesus doing. unless the message was for everyone but the Jews needed to learn them first.

now this line... 22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. is an indication that the word of God and the lessons taught to them by Jesus is to be spread out to everyone, by the Jews, a reference that All Nations is infact not limited to Jews.

Glad to see different evidence and viewpoints being presented instead of the same things repeated. :D

nope your wrong, iam right;)
and iam not heritic i have not black cat!
*meoww*
i swear its not mine
*shoos cat a way*
My black cat is fatter than your black cat. I win! IGOR--oil the rack and get those stakes fired up -- and fire up some steaks, too, while you're at it. It's party time. :cool:

No, I'm right about everything. Die, heretic! :p
weeell... you are standing to my right... or are you at my other right? :p

My black cat is fatter than your black cat. I win! IGOR--oil the rack and get those stakes fired up -- and fire up some steaks, too, while you're at it. It's party time. :cool:

*glares*
not fair...its not my fault
/*eyes food*
so i get dinner right?

were still arguing over this? well it looks like only half of you are:p

from looking at the arguments it looks like were going in circles so here is a new option iam correct about every thing;) :) its a good way to end a debate
I don't consider this an argument, but a discussion. even with GnI and with Jocabia.

I mean if we were having an argument, it would be more of a ...

a: is not!
b: is too!
a: is Not!
B: Is Too!


but then, someone would be needed to keep time. I can only afford 5 minutes... :(

[QUOTE=I V Stalin]I'm agnostic, but if you're only going to put Yes and No as options, I lean more towards no.

Whats agnostic?

I am a Deistic Atheist, meaning I believe in some kind of creating intelligence to the universe, but I firmly believe that no divine being/s affect the course of human history.

In short, there is a God...

But God doesn't care.

And a God that doesn't care is effectively the same as No God.

[QUOTE=I V Stalin]I'm agnostic, but if you're only going to put Yes and No as options, I lean more towards no.

Whats agnostic?

Wiki answers all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

I am a Deistic Atheist, meaning I believe in some kind of creating intelligence to the universe, but I firmly believe that no divine being/s affect the course of human history.

In short, there is a God...

But God doesn't care.

And a God that doesn't care is effectively the same as No God.

Why do you believe in a creator?

If there is no intervention, for what purpose was the universe created?

By what means was the universe created?

Point: While I do agree that it seems that Jesus was sent to the Jews, and that his message of acceptance seems plausible. There is other things to consider. Jesus was a Jew. but remember some of his teachings. some that were repeated so frequently here on this board. Removing the "plank in your own eye" as well as "Physcian Heal thyself." Indications that Jesus was there to heal the Jews and get them back on track. so while I do not argue that Jesus was sent to save the Jews, there is nothing in the scripture to say that his lessions were only meant for the Jews.

also, I did make that mention that the reason why Jesus was so harsh at first to non-jews [Canaanite woman in Mat. for instance] and it gradually lessened to treating them like Jews was because he was showing his disciples (as well as others) the sin of such racial discrimination. however, that was as well recieved as other view points. so I am glad to see it remarked upon in a better way. Thank you.
I'm just glad it made sense. Thanks.

very reasonable. but then won't the tribes of Gentiles as well as Samaritans and other people also be considered Nations as well? Remember, he was specific in Mathew that he was sent to the Lost Sheep of Isreal. as well as when he first sent out his disciples, he did state where not to go. so why the broad use of All Nations unless he means the tribes of all people, Jews, Gentiles, Samaritans and whomever else?
Not necessarily, if we take the gospels as reflecting the words of Jesus, since Jesus was a Jew of Judea. It would be too great a leap, in my opinion, to say that he was using the term in what would have been such an unusual way at the time.

I should make clear that I'm not a big fan of scriptures or literal interpretations -- or even arguments like this (no offense). That's why I like the fact that my religion has no scriptures. There is no question that the myths are symbolic, so the specific wording of this or that story of our gods doesn't matter at all. So I'm one of those people who is always asking why the specific content of the Bible has to matter so much? Why can't it be the gist that matters? But that's just a pagan's point of view.

The way I see it, arguments like this between you all and Jocabia can never be resolved by reference to the texts because the texts were written and then rewritten by completely different sets of people for different reasons.

It is a historical fact that, no matter who Jesus may have been preaching to, it was the Romans who picked up on his message and fully established the new religion, and they were pagans before that, not Jews. They took stories and source materials from Jewish writers and translated and edited them and compiled and further translated and edited them over the years to produce a Christian Bible which would speak from a Christian point of view to Christians. And since they had been gentiles/pagans beforehand, it should be no surprise that they would treat "all Nations" as referring to all people in the world -- i.e. themselves.

But the historical Jesus was not a pagan/gentile, and actually, he wasn't a Christian, either. He was a Jew, and he was involved with the idea of fulfilling the messiah prophecy in a radical and unexpected way. The messiah prophecy was specific to the Jews, and had no relevance whatsoever to the pagans/gentiles. So Jesus's involvement with that prophecy is a strong indicator that he was preaching to the Jews. If he went to the pagans with the messiah concept as understood by the Jews of the time (which was the only way the term could be understood in those days), it would have had no more meaning to them than, for instance, this argument does for me. They might have understood it in an academic way, if they were at all interested in Jewish religion, but for it to have personal spiritual meaning for them, they would have had to completely redefine the word "messiah," which they did do, in fact.

I'm saying that I see an irreconcilable disconnect between the history of the development of the Christian religion and the spiritual meaning of the scriptures as myth. Because ancient Jewish sources were passed through, if you will, a prolonged alchemical process of transmogrification into an entirely new and different religion, phrases such as "all Nations" and "Lost Sheep" become meaningless. They are forever divorced from whatever their original meanings were. They are mere literary decoration at this point.

So if we look at the Bible for religious history, I think Jocabia is right and Jesus preached to the Jews only. But if we look at the Bible for mythic spiritual meanings, then you are right and the message is for everyone who wants it. And from my point of view, I see you and Jocabia literally comparing apples and oranges. I think you are both right about your own arguments and both wrong about each other's.


NOW AS TO THIS SAMARITAN STORY:
I am so sorry! I realized that I had misread your post and that this part of my post was off base, so I went back and edited it out, but too late. Sorry to make you do all that work for nothing. :D

Gonna need to break this down. sorry :p <snip>

Glad to see different evidence and viewpoints being presented instead of the same things repeated. :D
Astonishing that there's still stuff to be mined here, eh?

*glares*
not fair...its not my fault
/*eyes food*
so i get dinner right?
Oh, you'll be the guest of honor, trust me. *looks for tape measure to measure Antikythera for rack*

weeell... you are standing to my right... or are you at my other right? :p
No, I'm on your left, then two rights, left again past the bathroom, then upstairs and... :)

I'm just glad it made sense. Thanks.


Not necessarily, if we take the gospels as reflecting the words of Jesus, since Jesus was a Jew of Judea. It would be too great a leap, in my opinion, to say that he was using the term in what would have been such an unusual way at the time.except in the OT, scripture that would've been taught at the time, also makes reference to Nations when referring to other tribes of Non-Jews. so it is a wonder that All nations were used and not anything else that would indicate Jewish tribes.

I should make clear that I'm not a big fan of scriptures or literal interpretations -- or even arguments like this (no offense).

[snipped for space]

I think you are both right about your own arguments and both wrong about each other's.Honestly, I've never taken the Bible literally, and this is the first time I've looked at it as a Historical Reference. I've always looked for the lessons within the verses and that helps me dictate the meaning behind the language.

NOW AS TO THIS SAMARITAN STORY:
I am so sorry! I realized that I had misread your post and that this part of my post was off base, so I went back and edited it out, but too late. Sorry to make you do all that work for nothing. :D no sweat, it was fun to actually look at these scriptures with a different mindset... As I do to try to understand the other's viewpoint.

Astonishing that there's still stuff to be mined here, eh?as long as it can be discussed civily and rationally... yes.

No, I'm on your left, then two rights, left again past the bathroom, then upstairs and... :)*follows directions and ends up in the Female nurses showers ..... again...*

*follows directions and ends up in the Female nurses showers ..... again...*
:eek: *Slaps JuNii. Hard* Pervert!

:eek: *Slaps JuNii. Hard* Pervert!
Gets 'em every time. :D

except in the OT, scripture that would've been taught at the time, also makes reference to Nations when referring to other tribes of Non-Jews. so it is a wonder that All nations were used and not anything else that would indicate Jewish tribes.
That would be the translated OT. There's also the unavoidable problem of the fact that we are speaking English, while the Jewish scriptures were written in Hebrew, and the early Christian texts were written in several languages, none of which are spoken today, at least not in the same form -- except for Hebrew. In English, words like "nation" and "people" have several usages including both "us" and "them," but in other languages, there are different words to indicate one's own nation/people versus foreign or "other" nations/people. I have no idea whether Hebrew does that or not. If you want to really press the point, you need to refer to the original language usages, and in the present thread, the only person still participating who has read all the materials in the source languages is GnI.

Honestly, I've never taken the Bible literally, and this is the first time I've looked at it as a Historical Reference. I've always looked for the lessons within the verses and that helps me dictate the meaning behind the language.
Yep, and Jocabia is placing the scriptures into their historical/cultural contexts and arguing that, while Jesus was apparently preaching to the Jews for the benefit of the Jews, his message was also picked up by others who heard it and benefitted from it. Whereas you are saying he was preaching to everyone for everyone's benefit from the start.

Looking at it from an outsider's point of view, it seems to me that Jocabia's version fits the historical context better as part of a story of the origin of the religion, while your version works better as a mythic concept of the impact and spread of the religion's message.

no sweat, it was fun to actually look at these scriptures with a different mindset... As I do to try to understand the other's viewpoint.

as long as it can be discussed civily and rationally... yes.
Believe me, I appreciate the opportunity. I have had many happy experiences like this, but I've had many unfriendly battles, too.

:eek: *Slaps JuNii. Hard* Pervert!
what... you weren't like that yester... I mean... Sorry, wrong turn!

Gets 'em every time. :D
yup... I gets 'em every time... *transfers digital pics to harddrive.*

what... you weren't like that yester... I mean... Sorry, wrong turn!
I'm so sorry. I didn't recognise you for a moment. It is me! So...do you want to meet up again and err...;)

I'm so sorry. I didn't recognise you for a moment. It is me! So...do you want to meet up again and err...;)
Well, now that I've got you two sorted out, I'm off to bed. WITHOUT you two. Ciao for now.

i know theres a God and Jesus and i believe in them. course thats just me being a "brain washed christian" i guess.

i know theres a God and Jesus and i believe in them. course thats just me being a "brain washed christian" i guess.

Well, if that's all you have to say on the topic than the answer is yes, but if you have reasons for your faith or specific personal beliefs that you would care to articulate then the answer would be no.

i know theres a God and Jesus and i believe in them. course thats just me being a "brain washed christian" i guess.

Nah. I wouldn't call anyone "brain washed" if they know what they stand for, spend time researching it out, and truly believe it. I kinda laugh when people say that about Christians though, I guess I find it ironic. Anyways.

This is a cool little conversation to read. Much better then the other "hot head" forums I've seen. You guys actually know logic, lol. Well, I only read like 2 pages.

Nah. I wouldn't call anyone "brain washed" if they know what they stand for, spend time researching it out, and truly believe it. I kinda laugh when people say that about Christians though, I guess I find it ironic. Anyways.

This is a cool little conversation to read. Much better then the other "hot head" forums I've seen. You guys actually know logic, lol. Well, I only read like 2 pages.

What!?!
You didn't read through all 506 pages of this thread before joining in?
Truly I say to you, god frowns upon such insolence.

Teehee!
Moby was on my my mind.. ;)
Of course he was ... he was on my mind.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/676.gif
So quick - who's he kin to?
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/265.gif

I don't think God let her die. I personally believe God has a very difficult time trying to look after billions (or more than that?) of people, some of whom shout out for God when they drop a plate on the floor or get excited about something. I believe that God tried to help all those who need and deserve help, but just is unable to get there in time sometimes, due to helping someone else at the time. If not so, then why would God let innocent babies dies? You can give me all the "it's God's plan" rubbish for adults, but what's the point of a baby being born just to die? What would be the point of the baby being born in the first place?

I also have a theory: There are Angels to protect us. Each Angel is probably in charge of several people, therefore they can not deal with everyone at once, and inevitably some people unfortunately are not helped. But to help cope with this, we all have intuition - that funny feeling we get when something bad is about to happen (or is happening). This is so that when bad things happen (or are about to happen), human mortals can go to wherever their instinct leads them to and prevent or stop the bad situation. Unfortunately, it would appear that many people ignore these feelings (and that many people have simply lost them, possibly due to the non-use of them, not to mention the skeptics who keep saying they're a load of rubbish), which are also there to protect ourselves, not just other people (how many times have you heard someone who's been attacked say "I knew something was wrong" but they hadn't acted on their instincts <also proves they are not a load of rubbish?). So because of this, the Angels have a LOT of work on their hands, maybe too much for them to cope with.

So during the time that the Angels (and the few humans who still use and act on their intuition) are trying to prevent bad things happening and stop bad things happening, what is God doing? Well my theory is that God is busy helping those who'd bodies have died (can you imagine dying and not knowing what to do once you're in the afterlife - where to go, what's going on, etc?) and is also there for the Angels to come to for advice, or for situations where the Angels need God to step in (they may need God to step in in a lot of situations, but as I said, God may be very busy doing the other stuff I said - so here, I'm talking for example about major events that would take the Angels away from other important duties if they were to all get together to deal with those events). Kind of like when you call the police for assistance in emergency, but the emergency is so major that the Officers can not deal with it on their own - they need the Chief to step in.

And one final theory to add: God's busy steering the planet, stopping it crashing into other planets and asteroids etc.

And why do I believe in God? Because God's helped me. I'm sure people will dispute that, or say I'm some kinda religious nut... but I'm not religious, and I believe in God from personal experience.

P.S. just remembered. There was once a christian who was gonna be an ambulance person. he decided to join the police instead, as it would be helping people, but in a different way. and at the time i read about him, every time he had gone to an incident where someone was either dying or dead, he would rush in and either sometimes, often, or always (can't remember which) announce "it's not their time yet". which proves they weren't SUPPOSED to die and that God didn't want them to, in my opinion.

Does anyone else see a disparity between this theory and the concept of an omnipotent, omnipresent and omnicogniscient God? Or are we back on the idea of "can God make a rock that is too heavy for himself to lift?"?

Or are we back on the idea of "can God make a rock that is too heavy for himself to lift?"?
It's only page 506 as of this reply, so i imagine we probably are. :(

I believe that there is a god. I dont believe in the one true faith or that one religion is right whilst another is wrong. My Uncle for years was against any kind of religion and didnt believe there was a god. His wife (My aunt) was a catholic. They went on holiday to Croatia and visited a town called Medjugorje where Mary was meant to have appeared to a group of children during the 70s and 80s when the country was oppressed by communists. Anyway he claims to have seen the Virgin Mary appear to him in a church. He is completely changed on the idea of god and now is a devout catholic. When I seen the change in him it has made me believe. Im not a devout catholic and dont practise but i believe there is a god. You can take this information any way you like, If you believe great, If you dont ok all i ask you to do is be open to the possibility that there is.

The real question is can God be proven. What evidence satisfies each person is the question. Does your evidence need to be "pulled up into heaven and God needs to ring your neck" or would you still think your crazy. If the Physics community declared and proved God exist would you accept it. Athiesm is a new concept to humanity and new idealogies have a key component of having idealogical methods of denial of other beliefs nomatter what that other belief is. My question is WHAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE WILL PROVE GOD TO YOU?


What suprises me is that the poll is SO EVENLY SPLIT. 1 vote difference
No, that's not the real question at all. It matters not one bit whether god exists.

The poll isn't about god's existence.

now when has Jesus ever proclaimed himself something he wasn't. the woman said she was waiting the Christ who would explain all things. Can you explain something, or declare or tell without teaching?

and also notice that Jesus began preaching to her without her asking. he asked for a drink. (John 4:7)
she replied in surprise at the fact that a Jew was speaking to a Samaritan. (John 4:9)
and his reply was the beginnings of the lessons about God's Generosity, unasked and uninvited. Now if the Lessions were only for Jewish Ears, why this teaching? unless Jesus meant for his sermons and lessons to be heard by *all*, initiated by God's flock from Isreal.
He didn't proclaim himself something he wasn't. What he proclaimed is that he's that fellow who would be passing through.

You can explain without teaching, yes. "To explain" and "to teach" are two different verbs. Learning is another matter. And regardless, whether he taught isn't the question --the question is whether he came to teach.

What you call preaching is actually called a conversation. Or are you one of those people who feels every Jehovah's Witness who approaches you on the street is "preaching"?

Is this the source of your complaint that "for the Jews" means Jesus can't talk to anyone else? Not so.

were still arguing over this? well it looks like only half of you are:p

from looking at the arguments it looks like were going in circles so here is a new option iam correct about every thing;) :) its a good way to end a debate
I agree.

I'm out of here, anyway. People are being bullheadedly stupid, and that's not debate.

Nah. I wouldn't call anyone "brain washed" if they know what they stand for, spend time researching it out, and truly believe it. I kinda laugh when people say that about Christians though, I guess I find it ironic. Anyways.
It's good of you to be so lenient, but don't you think you've made a bit of a leap here? The dude just said, "I know God and Jesus are real and I believe in them," and from this you assume that he 1) completely understands the concepts he is claiming to stand for, 2) has spent time researching it, and 3) truly believes it.

For one thing, the overwhelming majority of people who profess belief in God will actually founder quite seriously if you ask them to provide a working definition of God. If you start examining their definition, you end up with threads like this one, where people spend hundreds of pages trying to work out whether or not God can/will/should do such and such.

For another thing, nearly nobody who professes belief in Jesus has actually read the real Bible. I'd say that's a pretty goddam fundamental piece of "research" that somebody should do, if we're going to start requiring research at all. I mean, if you're going to profess belief in the Word of God, don't you think maybe you should...um...read it?

As for the last qualification, "truly believing," I don't really see how that's much of a qualification at all. I don't care how truly somebody believes that the world is flat, I'm still gonna call them a dumbass if they start insisting that circumnavigation is impossible because the boats will fall off the edge of the world. I think we do the religious a grave disservice when we pretend that the strength of one's misconceptions somehow validates them.

I agree.

I'm out of here, anyway. People are being bullheadedly stupid, and that's not debate.
Ok, tag me and I'll swap in!

I like this thread. If I come back every hundred pages or so, the discussion will have wrapped all the way around and gotten back to the same place as when I left!

This thread has seven and a half thousand posts, give or take and I haven't read any of them or replied to the thread at all until now.


"Do you have faith in God?"



No.

This thread has seven and a half thousand posts, give or take and I haven't read any of them or replied to the thread at all until now.


"Do you have faith in God?"



No.
Ditto on the first bit.

The Mods should go back to locking things after 1300 posts:eek: ...

I have faith in God one time i couldn't find my shoes and in the morning i did.
All because of a little prayer.:cool:

I'm a jansenist! God Rules, people suck! Viva Newton, death to all mathematics!

Whoa look at how tight the voting is, my vote tipped it one in the favour of no.

I'd like to believe in a God, but my rational sensibilities say to me THERE'S NO PROOF! THERE'S NO PROOF!

And I am one of those people who needs proof to believe something.

Although I do believe in the message of religion: i.e. Christ's love and compassion, and love thy neighbour etc. But I feel there are too many contradictions in the Bible for example to believe that God has ordained these things and it is not simply human nature.

Ok, tag me and I'll swap in!

I like this thread. If I come back every hundred pages or so, the discussion will have wrapped all the way around and gotten back to the same place as when I left!
Consider yourself tagged. Good luck

Although I do believe in the message of religion: i.e. Christ's love and compassion, and love thy neighbour etc. But I feel there are too many contradictions in the Bible for example to believe that God has ordained these things and it is not simply human nature.
The thing that gives me the willies is when people act like religion is actually the source of ideas like, "be kind to your fellow humans" or "do unto others as you would have done unto you." These concepts are so fundamental to me that it is scary to think there are people who need religion to get them to follow such rules. Don't these people possess any sense of empathy? Surely they aren't actually so psychopathic that they require God to command them to feel compassion?

Well, you never seem to shake my faith that you'll get it ... speaking of which, i *just* became aware of the The Greater Wrong of the Right *LIVE* DVD from Skinny Puppy!!
And, i bought it. But i'm practicing all week, so i haven't sat down to watch it yet. :(
It's got two discs - live performances on disc one of I'mMortal, Warlock, Inquisition, Hexonexxon, Convulsion, Testure, and Harsh Stone White! Woohoo!
Disc two has archive footage from Last Rights and Too Dark Park!
*salivates*

*dances weasel dance*
http://67.18.37.14/32/176/emo/happydance3.gif

"No word shall shake my faith..." :) Not fooling anyone, my friend... you know I can see what you really are...

Oooh... I didn't even know that little treat was out. I'll have to see whether any of these backwater media outlets can help me - but I'm not holding my breath. I'll probably end up ordering it online... I don't see how I can say no to SP.

I don't consider this an argument, but a discussion. even with GnI and with Jocabia.

I mean if we were having an argument, it would be more of a ...

a: is not!
b: is too!
a: is Not!
B: Is Too!


but then, someone would be needed to keep time. I can only afford 5 minutes... :(

Five minutes? But, you haven't paid... :o

The Mods should go back to locking things after 1300 posts:eek: ...


Why?

I mean, I appreciate use of server space, etc... but if a thread is active, even after 7500 posts... and still MOSTLY on topic - surely that is a good thing?

The only thing the lower cap ever really did was limit spam (which this thread, mainly, isn't).. and cause people to start second, third, fourth incarnations of popular issues.

I'm not sure why it seems to ANNOY some people so much, to see an active thread that is greater than some random length they feel is 'appropriate'...

The thing that gives me the willies is when people act like religion is actually the source of ideas like, "be kind to your fellow humans" or "do unto others as you would have done unto you." These concepts are so fundamental to me that it is scary to think there are people who need religion to get them to follow such rules. Don't these people possess any sense of empathy? Surely they aren't actually so psychopathic that they require God to command them to feel compassion?
Absolutely! And my experience has been that people who think that way always end up violating the principles they claim to believe in and live by. I say it's because it's not really THEIR belief system. It's somebody else's system (the pope's or whoever's) that they are just conforming to, either out of fear of being alone or for some payoff (wealth today and heaven tomorrow). So when push comes to shove, when they really feel pressured, then compassion, charity, love thy neighbor, etc, all go right out the window because they never really believed it to begin with.

I've met people -- Protestants, Catholics and Muslims -- who have asked me with total sincerity "If it weren't for God/the Bible/the Quran, what would stop people from killing each other?" I don't want to live next door to those people. As far as I'm concerned, they are ticking timebombs.

I agree.

I'm out of here, anyway. People are being bullheadedly stupid, and that's not debate.
:( Don't leave yet. We're getting a fresh wind. And Bob Dole has asked some good questions of new posters. (I can't believe I actually said that about Bob Dole. :)) I don't think this thread will last very much longer, but if the mods don't close it, there might be another good week in it.

Absolutely! And my experience has been that people who think that way always end up violating the principles they claim to believe in and live by. I say it's because it's not really THEIR belief system. It's somebody else's system (the pope's or whoever's) that they are just conforming to, either out of fear of being alone or for some payoff (wealth today and heaven tomorrow). So when push comes to shove, when they really feel pressured, then compassion, charity, love thy neighbor, etc, all go right out the window because they never really believed it to begin with.

I've met people -- Protestants, Catholics and Muslims -- who have asked me with total sincerity "If it weren't for God/the Bible/the Quran, what would stop people from killing each other?" I don't want to live next door to those people. As far as I'm concerned, they are ticking timebombs.

This reminds me of a thread I once made about whether or not it was possible for religious people to be 'moral'.

Same kind of thing you just said - if you are following someone else on EVERY 'moral' decision, you aren't being 'moral'... you are being obedient.

I've met people -- Protestants, Catholics and Muslims -- who have asked me with total sincerity "If it weren't for God/the Bible/the Quran, what would stop people from killing each other?" I don't want to live next door to those people. As far as I'm concerned, they are ticking timebombs.
No joke...talk about scary.

For any religious person who has ever thought that way, try looking at yourself from the perspective of a non-believer. Imagine if somebody said to you, "Without a talking dog telling you to behave yourself, what reason would there be to refrain from eating babies?" You'd back away slowly and start looking for the exits, right? Well, that's how you bloody well sound when you insist that only belief in a magical sky fairy is stopping you from raping and murdering other people.

Personally, I don't need to be bribed with Heaven or threatened with Hell. I don't WANT to hurt other people! I don't want to kill anybody or rape anybody or steal any thing! I know it feels shitty when I get hurt, and my sense of empathy allows me to understand that other people probably feel similarly shitty if I hurt them. I don't desire to inflict pain on others, so I try to avoid hurting people.

Yet, because I don't include God in my belief system, most of my fellow Americans believe that I am inherently LESS moral than a person who requires God to keep them from becoming an axe murderer. Loverly.

This reminds me of a thread I once made about whether or not it was possible for religious people to be 'moral'.

Same kind of thing you just said - if you are following someone else on EVERY 'moral' decision, you aren't being 'moral'... you are being obedient.
For some reason, people are perfectly willing to accept that concept if the "someone else" is another human or a government or an organization, but as soon as you suggest that the "someone else" might be God they all flip out.

Why?

I mean, I appreciate use of server space, etc... but if a thread is active, even after 7500 posts... and still MOSTLY on topic - surely that is a good thing?

The only thing the lower cap ever really did was limit spam (which this thread, mainly, isn't).. and cause people to start second, third, fourth incarnations of popular issues.

I'm not sure why it seems to ANNOY some people so much, to see an active thread that is greater than some random length they feel is 'appropriate'...
Well, it is hard for newcomers to get into when the conversation has been going on this long. Some brave people are diving in fresh at this point, and I like that a lot, but we'll have to see if their perspectives open fresh lines of discussion or end up repeating what has gone before since it really is too much to ask them to look back and see what's already been covered. I mean, come on, I wouldn't order my worst enemy to go sort through all the minute side arguments that have been and gone so far.

But I agree, 1300 posts is ridiculously short. Attention span, people! It's a thing worth having.

Why?

I mean, I appreciate use of server space, etc... but if a thread is active, even after 7500 posts... and still MOSTLY on topic - surely that is a good thing?

The only thing the lower cap ever really did was limit spam (which this thread, mainly, isn't).. and cause people to start second, third, fourth incarnations of popular issues.

I'm not sure why it seems to ANNOY some people so much, to see an active thread that is greater than some random length they feel is 'appropriate'...
It surprises the shit out of me that this thread hasn't been hijacked uberly yet.

I've decided to accept this thread as my child, and let it give me attention. ;)

Well, it is hard for newcomers to get into when the conversation has been going on this long. Some brave people are diving in fresh at this point, and I like that a lot, but we'll have to see if their perspectives open fresh lines of discussion or end up repeating what has gone before since it really is too much to ask them to look back and see what's already been covered. I mean, come on, I wouldn't order my worst enemy to go sort through all the minute side arguments that have been and gone so far.

But I agree, 1300 posts is ridiculously short. Attention span, people! It's a thing worth having.

I wouldn't expect anyone to come weaving in and immerse themselves in all 7500 posts... but the repitition thing happens anyway... I mean - if you start a new thread every 1300 posts... all the same points are going to get pulled up anyhow. At least when a thread IS this long, those who have been relatively involved with it for a prolonged period KNOW that subject X has already been raised, 6 times.

I've met people -- Protestants, Catholics and Muslims -- who have asked me with total sincerity "If it weren't for God/the Bible/the Quran, what would stop people from killing each other?" I don't want to live next door to those people. As far as I'm concerned, they are ticking timebombs.
Just ask them: "With God/the Bible/the Quran, what prevents them from killing each other?"

It surprises the shit out of me that this thread hasn't been hijacked uberly yet.

I've decided to accept this thread as my child, and let it give me attention. ;)

That's one of the other things... some threads turn to spam on the fourth page. If one IS productive (and NOT all spam), you'd have thought that a GOOD thing?

:( Don't leave yet. We're getting a fresh wind. And Bob Dole has asked some good questions of new posters. (I can't believe I actually said that about Bob Dole. :)) I don't think this thread will last very much longer, but if the mods don't close it, there might be another good week in it.
It seems I enjoy the topic too much to stay away.

That's one of the other things... some threads turn to spam on the fourth page. If one IS productive (and NOT all spam), you'd have thought that a GOOD thing?
Personally, I think this thread just makes some people insecure about the size of their own threads.

Just ask them: "With God/the Bible/the Quran, what prevents them from killing each other?"

Ironic really... the sheer volume of killing, etc. that IS done in the names of these moral compasses.

Ironic really... the sheer volume of killing, etc. that IS done in the names of these moral compasses.
In the name of, perhaps. Because of? No.

Personally, I think this thread just makes some people insecure about the size of their own threads.

I should make some comment about it not being the size of the thread that matters, but what you do with it.... :D

In the name of, perhaps. Because of? No.

It's a fine line... and, obviously, those who are in the 'club' will choose to see their 'club' as the only 'true' club... and any other vision as aberrant.

Have people died in the name of Christianity? Yes.

Have people died BECAUSE of Christianity? Yes.

SHOULD people die because of Christianity... here's the fine line... you can preach it either way... Jesus came to be a sword... the Messiah is supposed to bring fire and the sword...

absolutely! my mom died of cancer when i was eleven, and ever since then ive been convinced that there is a G-d. ive come to the conclusion that people die when their work on earth is done. her life and death affected so many people in so many ways that i think its impossible for it all to have been a coincidence. so yes, i do believe there is a G-d, and i actually think hes a pretty nice guy, although he does have a warped sense of humor...

Have people died BECAUSE of Christianity? Yes.
I disagree. I do not believe the line that 'religion turns people evil' for a moment. For someone to commit such acts in the name of God, there must be something not quite right with them in the first place.

It's very easy for people to find excuses as to why some people are violent, but the fact is that some people will always be violent.

absolutely! my mom died of cancer when i was eleven, and ever since then ive been convinced that there is a G-d. ive come to the conclusion that people die when their work on earth is done. her life and death affected so many people in so many ways that i think its impossible for it all to have been a coincidence. so yes, i do believe there is a G-d, and i actually think hes a pretty nice guy, although he does have a warped sense of humor...
I think you need to buy a new keyboard. The o key isn't working properly.

It's a fine line... and, obviously, those who are in the 'club' will choose to see their 'club' as the only 'true' club... and any other vision as aberrant.

Have people died in the name of Christianity? Yes.

Have people died BECAUSE of Christianity? Yes.

SHOULD people die because of Christianity... here's the fine line... you can preach it either way... Jesus came to be a sword... the Messiah is supposed to bring fire and the sword...
Yeah, it's just more of the No True Scotsman thing. There are people who insist that anybody who would kill because of their belief in Christianity isn't a "True Christian," or that no "True Muslim" would go on a violent jihad. Personally, I think that since religion is 100% invented by human beings, one person's conception of their religion is as valid as another person's.

There ARE people who have done horrible things because of religion. There are also people who have done horrible things for plenty of other reasons and then attributed their actions to religious belief. The existence of one does not preclude the existence of the other.

No joke...talk about scary.

For any religious person who has ever thought that way, try looking at yourself from the perspective of a non-believer. Imagine if somebody said to you, "Without a talking dog telling you to behave yourself, what reason would there be to refrain from eating babies?" You'd back away slowly and start looking for the exits, right? Well, that's how you bloody well sound when you insist that only belief in a magical sky fairy is stopping you from raping and murdering other people.

Personally, I don't need to be bribed with Heaven or threatened with Hell. I don't WANT to hurt other people! I don't want to kill anybody or rape anybody or steal any thing! I know it feels shitty when I get hurt, and my sense of empathy allows me to understand that other people probably feel similarly shitty if I hurt them. I don't desire to inflict pain on others, so I try to avoid hurting people.

Yet, because I don't include God in my belief system, most of my fellow Americans believe that I am inherently LESS moral than a person who requires God to keep them from becoming an axe murderer. Loverly.
There'a new book out -- I have to look up the title and author, some historian or something -- my mom is reading it -- anyway it is about this very subject. It's about the phenomenon of BELIEF in modern America. The author's thesis is that, in very recent times, Americans have shifted from believing in god/religion/whatever to believing in belief (author's term). He is examining it as a current social phenomenon. He says that professing a belief in God is becoming more important, socially, than actually living in accordance with one's professed beliefs -- as if professing the belief is becoming a relgious ritual unto itself. Apparently, he uses this to explain why we see so many Americans stamping and fuming over Christianity and how we all have to follow its principles, while at the same time behaving in ways that are in complete violation of those very principles. And their constant defense is that they believe in God, Christ, etc., and that they are protecting or promoting that belief.

So, you and I don't believe in their concept of God, and that's what they are focusing on as making us immoral, no matter what we do or how we live.

According to this academic. I haven't read the whole book yet (mom's not done with it), but I think the notion is interesting in light of this thread.

What really are we debating here?

Just ask them: "With God/the Bible/the Quran, what prevents them from killing each other?"
That's what I do ask them, and while they are pondering it, I try to make a break for the nearest exit. :)

I disagree. I do not believe the line that 'religion turns people evil' for a moment. For someone to commit such acts in the name of God, there must be something not quite right with them in the first place.

It's very easy for people to find excuses as to why some people are violent, but the fact is that some people will always be violent.

Perhaps you draw your own conclusions, for your own reasons... and thus, didn't really give this point much thought.

Are you aware of an early Christian writer, that some called Paul?

Yeah, it's just more of the No True Scotsman thing. There are people who insist that anybody who would kill because of their belief in Christianity isn't a "True Christian," or that no "True Muslim" would go on a violent jihad. Personally, I think that since religion is 100% invented by human beings, one person's conception of their religion is as valid as another person's.

There ARE people who have done horrible things because of religion. There are also people who have done horrible things for plenty of other reasons and then attributed their actions to religious belief. The existence of one does not preclude the existence of the other.

I agree, entirely.

He didn't proclaim himself something he wasn't. What he proclaimed is that he's that fellow who would be passing through.the woman said that they were waiting for the Christ who would explain things to them. not the christ. but the Christ who will explain things to them.

and he said I am he. not I am the christ for the Jews, but I am he. to mean that I am the christ who will explain things to you.

You can explain without teaching, yes. "To explain" and "to teach" are two different verbs. Learning is another matter. And regardless, whether he taught isn't the question --the question is whether he came to teach.true, Learning is on the listener. Oh and the question isn't whether he came to teach but the fact that he taught non-Jews.

and we can go back and forth on Explain and Teach which would distract from the thread... (as if that hasn't happened before :rolleyes: :p )

What you call preaching is actually called a conversation. Or are you one of those people who feels every Jehovah's Witness who approaches you on the street is "preaching"? while that would be true, verse 41 proves different. 41And many more believed because of his own word; so he converted people there. and usually, when conversion of faith occurs, it's through witnessing, preaching and teaching.

Is this the source of your complaint that "for the Jews" means Jesus can't talk to anyone else? Not so.no, my complaint is that Jesus being sent only for the Jews does not mean that his Teachings are Only for the Jews.

Perhaps you draw your own conclusions, for your own reasons... and thus, didn't really give this point much thought.

Are you aware of an early Christian writer, that some called Paul?
:rolleyes:

Probably.

I'll save my replies for later though. Although you'll probably have moved on another 1,000 posts by then and I won't have the foggiest what you're talking about.

this is one close poll, was leaning ever so slightly to 'yes' last time I checked

Five minutes? But, you haven't paid... :o
but... but... I just did.

but... but... I just did.

Nice try. I'm not going to argue about it, until you pay. :)

Absolutely! And my experience has been that people who think that way always end up violating the principles they claim to believe in and live by. I say it's because it's not really THEIR belief system. It's somebody else's system (the pope's or whoever's) that they are just conforming to, either out of fear of being alone or for some payoff (wealth today and heaven tomorrow). So when push comes to shove, when they really feel pressured, then compassion, charity, love thy neighbor, etc, all go right out the window because they never really believed it to begin with.

I've met people -- Protestants, Catholics and Muslims -- who have asked me with total sincerity "If it weren't for God/the Bible/the Quran, what would stop people from killing each other?" I don't want to live next door to those people. As far as I'm concerned, they are ticking timebombs.just answer yes. and calmly explain these new fangled things call Laws. that these Laws will protect you from killers and muggers and such. and if those who did perpetuate harm to anyone is punnished by these laws. Infact, these laws (if you live in the US) also protects you from being forced into a religion as well as protects them from being forced out of a religion.

That's one of the other things... some threads turn to spam on the fourth page. If one IS productive (and NOT all spam), you'd have thought that a GOOD thing?
This is true, I may not agree with GnI, Jocabia, Willamena and others, but they did challenge my views of the Bible.

Just ask them: "With God/the Bible/the Quran, what prevents them from killing each other?"
In serious answer to this:

I do ask them this question, and their answer is what frightens me. Every single one of them (I'd estimate I've had about 10 such conversations in my life) tells me that they follow the rules because they are afraid of being punished in the next life -- in other words, because of the threat of hell. They don't say "Because God/the Bible/the Quran teaches me to love people." They say -- literally -- that "God/the Bible/the Quran tells me that if I hurt people I'll go to hell."

This tells me that they are not getting a positive message from their religion at all. Their religions give them positive messages, but they don't hear them or they discount them. And it further tells me that they enter into their religion already carrying negative feelings or no feeling at all for their fellow human beings and that they are already open to following through on impulses to harm others. And it further tells me that just the law of the land is not enough to stop them from hurting people. They have to be threatened with a really big punishment -- eternal damnation and torment -- before they will restrain themselves.

I have even challenged them about that. How far would they really go? Some, to their credit have stopped and looked kind of afraid of where their line of thinking was taking them, but some have considered it and admitted that they think they would steal and cheat and even kill if those restraints were not there because they think it would be a matter of dog-eat-dog survival.

The people who have said these things to me were not sketchy characters. They were co-workers, neighbors, seemingly ordinary folks, people you would never expect to say such things. I mean, look at all the public figures yelling about how America will be doomed if it doesn't conform to the Bible. I see in them an echo of this idea that the Bible is the only thing that stops lawlessness -- and that the law itself is not enough. Look at the people we see here in this forum who advocate torture of terror suspects. These people are not torturers; they don't advocate it under any other circumstances. And many of them claim to be Christians. Yet, under pressure, their commitment to the compassionate message of Christianity collapses and it's "burn the witch" time. When you challenge them about this, their defense is "They're out to get me and that trumps all rules. It's about survival."

This speaks to the way they think about themselves and about other people.

Personally, I think this thread just makes some people insecure about the size of their own threads.
Thread envy?

now there's a new psycological condition I would love to see a psychiatrist try to tackle. :D

Have people died BECAUSE of Christianity? Yes.

You can say that about just about anything, see:

Have people died BECAUSE of Coconuts? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Toasters? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Murder? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Sex? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Folding Chairs? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Religion? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Politics? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Boredom? Yes (probably a couple right now)
Have people died BECAUSE of Death? Yes

You have no argument. well that's not true you have a small argument just like everyone else, good for you.

This is true, I may not agree with GnI, Jocabia, Willamena and others, but they did challenge my views of the Bible.

Indeed. Any thread that DOESN"T make me think something new, is a thread I lose interest in pretty quickly.

Non religous people need to stop making assumptions about why religous people become religous, how would they know,

concerning bad christians, did the terrorists who ran into the world trade center refelct islam...of course not, so dont let back eggs reflect the religon as a whole, no one is perfect only cleansed of their sin through jesus christ, but that is no excuse to be a bad person

Absolutely! And my experience has been that people who think that way always end up violating the principles they claim to believe in and live by. I say it's because it's not really THEIR belief system. It's somebody else's system (the pope's or whoever's) that they are just conforming to, either out of fear of being alone or for some payoff (wealth today and heaven tomorrow).

THeir are 2 ways of living, conforming your religeon to urself or conforming urself to ur religeon, u cant make up something out of thin air aand believe it is real, it makes no sense, it would be like me inventing 100 greek gods worshiping them and believing in them just to suit me, instead i get fullfillment and eventually salvation from acting like jesus, thats the payoff and thats worth it, so in a way ur right their is a payoff we are working towards, the cool thing about it is that god doesnt care if u become a christian to not go to hell or to go to heaven.

You can say that about just about anything, see:

Have people died BECAUSE of Coconuts? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Toasters? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Murder? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Sex? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Folding Chairs? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Religion? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Politics? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Boredom? Yes (probably a couple right now)
Have people died BECAUSE of Death? Yes

You have no argument. well that's not true you have a small argument just like everyone else, good for you.
I don't see why you feel the need to be so defensive about it. Why is it so hard to accept that religion can be the cause of suffering or pain? Accepting that does not mean that religion is worthless or evil. Religion can be used to discourage violence, just as it can be used to encourage it. Religion can be used to warp an otherwise-good person, just as it can be used for positive, healing efforts. I don't see why that's such a radical notion.

You can say that about just about anything, see:

Have people died BECAUSE of Coconuts? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Toasters? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Murder? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Sex? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Folding Chairs? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Religion? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Politics? Yes
Have people died BECAUSE of Boredom? Yes (probably a couple right now)
Have people died BECAUSE of Death? Yes

You have no argument. well that's not true you have a small argument just like everyone else, good for you.

Is there a point you were making?

If one looks at the number of people who have died 'in the name' of Coconuts, I'd imagine it would be fairly small. Similarly - I wouldn't expect many people to have been martyrs for Folding Chairs, or to have carried out wars because they thought they were doing 'the will of' Toasters.

I'm sure there are people who have committed murder, with the profound belief that they were the tool of... well, maybe SOMETHING you listed... but I know there have been people that have committed murder because they THOUGHT God, Satan, or the Easter Bunny (maybe) was whispering messages to them. THOSE people, we generally refer to as 'insane'... and THOSE aren't really the people I'm talking about.

just answer yes. and calmly explain these new fangled things call Laws. that these Laws will protect you from killers and muggers and such. and if those who did perpetuate harm to anyone is punnished by these laws. Infact, these laws (if you live in the US) also protects you from being forced into a religion as well as protects them from being forced out of a religion.
Haha. You've obviously never lived next door to criminals. If such people had any sense of empathy or compassion, they would not be hit men, gangbangers, drug dealers or rapists. The law doesn't stop them from being those things. It may stop them from doing it -- or from doing it again, at least -- but it cannot stop them from being the kind of people who would do it. I say these people who think religion is the only thing stopping people from doing harm to each other are the same.

Two quotes on point:

"Where men have manners, laws are unnecessary. Where men have no manners, laws are broken." -- Disreali, I think.

"A man must have a poor moral sense if he needs religion to make a gentleman of him." -- don't remember who said that, sorry.

The point is, no matter what rule they are using -- the law or the Bible -- anyone who needs rules to tell them it's bad to hurt people is someone I won't trust to obey those rules.

Non religous people need to stop making assumptions about why religous people become religous, how would they know,


Because - believe it or not - not all non-religious people have ALWAYS been 'non-religious'...


concerning bad christians, did the terrorists who ran into the world trade center refelct islam...of course not, so dont let back eggs reflect the religon as a whole, no one is perfect only cleansed of their sin through jesus christ, but that is no excuse to be a bad person


There are those that are positive reflections of any ideology... religious, political, whatever. There are also those that are NEGATIVE reflections... of EVERY ideology.


THeir are 2 ways of living, conforming your religeon to urself or conforming urself to ur religeon, u cant make up something out of thin air aand believe it is real, it makes no sense, it would be like me inventing 100 greek gods worshiping them and believing in them just to suit me, instead i get fullfillment and eventually salvation from acting like jesus, thats the payoff and thats worth it, so in a way ur right their is a payoff we are working towards, the cool thing about it is that god doesnt care if u become a christian to not go to hell or to go to heaven.

But, it's okay if your god was 'made up' by someone else, a long time ago?

Have people died BECAUSE of Christianity? Yes.I would think that those people died because of someone's interpretation of their Religion.

and I use THEIR RELIGION because all Religions are guilty of this.

SHOULD people die because of Christianity... here's the fine line... you can preach it either way... Jesus came to be a sword... the Messiah is supposed to bring fire and the sword...
and a sword can be used to protect, a fire to provide.

Swords and flames are tools and it's man that decides how such tools are used.

now when the Messiah returns... He will be welding the sword and flame and I bet alot of people wont like what he does with it. ;)

the woman said that they were waiting for the Christ who would explain things to them. not the christ. but the Christ who will explain things to them.
No, she didn't say that. Her purpose there was to get water from the well.

There are other Christs in the story?

and he said I am he. not I am the christ for the Jews, but I am he. to mean that I am the christ who will explain things to you.
He said, "I who speak to you am he," in response to, "I know that Messiah is coming." How do you leap from there to "I have come here to teach to you"? He was IDENTIFYING himself to her, that's all.

"When he comes, he will explain everything to us," is a direct continuation of her conversation expressed in 4:11, 4:15, 4:19. Why do you think she went off about worshiping on the mountain? (*hint* Their conversation isn't about water.)

true, Learning is on the listener. Oh and the question isn't whether he came to teach but the fact that he taught non-Jews.
No, the question is really whether he came there to teach the Samaritans. You are the one going off-topic with some odd belief that that means he can't teach them.

and we can go back and forth on Explain and Teach which would distract from the thread... (as if that hasn't happened before :rolleyes: :p )

while that would be true, verse 41 proves different. so he converted people there. and usually, when conversion of faith occurs, it's through witnessing, preaching and teaching.
Verse 41 is about his conversation with the old woman? I didn't realise. Golly, I'll have to burn my Bible now.

You do realise that verse 41 is talking about his words spoken during the two days, don't you?

Conversion isn't done by the one speaking. You do know that, don't you?

no, my complaint is that Jesus being sent only for the Jews does not mean that his Teachings are Only for the Jews.
Turn that around: Jesus being sent only for the Jews, or Jesus teaching being only for the Jews, doesn't mean that Jesus can only teach Jews.

I don't see why you feel the need to be so defensive about it. Why is it so hard to accept that religion can be the cause of suffering or pain? Accepting that does not mean that religion is worthless or evil. Religion can be used to discourage violence, just as it can be used to encourage it. Religion can be used to warp an otherwise-good person, just as it can be used for positive, healing efforts. I don't see why that's such a radical notion.

I did list religion int he list, if you noticed.

And Grave n Idle the answer to your question is!...... No

Also I never said people die 'in the name' of coconuts, I siad people die because of them, I never mentioned the 'in the name of' thing I was focusing more on the 'because of' if you noticed. Gee why do people have to be so particular.

Non religous people need to stop making assumptions about why religous people become religous, how would they know,

concerning bad christians, did the terrorists who ran into the world trade center refelct islam...of course not, so dont let back eggs reflect the religon as a whole, no one is perfect only cleansed of their sin through jesus christ, but that is no excuse to be a bad person



THeir are 2 ways of living, conforming your religeon to urself or conforming urself to ur religeon, u cant make up something out of thin air aand believe it is real, it makes no sense, it would be like me inventing 100 greek gods worshiping them and believing in them just to suit me, instead i get fullfillment and eventually salvation from acting like jesus, thats the payoff and thats worth it, so in a way ur right their is a payoff we are working towards, the cool thing about it is that god doesnt care if u become a christian to not go to hell or to go to heaven.
Then you're agreeing with me, right?

And just because they didn't make up the religion themselves, if they don't really believe in its principles but only conform to it out of some self-serving need, then it's just as meaningless to them as if it was just all made up out of thin air.


BTW, I happen to think that ALL religions are just made up out of thin air, in that they are systems of thought designed to help us explore spiritual concepts and experiences, and that they do not describe or explain physical realities.

And I'm a polytheist. ;)

In serious answer to this:

I do ask them this question, and their answer is what frightens me. Every single one of them (I'd estimate I've had about 10 such conversations in my life) tells me that they follow the rules because they are afraid of being punished in the next life -- in other words, because of the threat of hell. They don't say "Because God/the Bible/the Quran teaches me to love people." They say -- literally -- that "God/the Bible/the Quran tells me that if I hurt people I'll go to hell."
But now they've made it personal, and you asked a general question about Christians (as they had asked a general question about atheists).

Christians do kill, nothing prevents that.

This tells me that they are not getting a positive message from their religion at all. Their religions give them positive messages, but they don't hear them or they discount them. And it further tells me that they enter into their religion already carrying negative feelings or no feeling at all for their fellow human beings and that they are already open to following through on impulses to harm others. And it further tells me that just the law of the land is not enough to stop them from hurting people. They have to be threatened with a really big punishment -- eternal damnation and torment -- before they will restrain themselves.

I have even challenged them about that. How far would they really go? Some, to their credit have stopped and looked kind of afraid of where their line of thinking was taking them, but some have considered it and admitted that they think they would steal and cheat and even kill if those restraints were not there because they think it would be a matter of dog-eat-dog survival.

*snip*
I've known one or two Christian people like that, though haven't had much chance to discuss things with them in depth. One fellow had a good argument against the Golden Rule: If you truly believe others should, in all rights, "do to you" harm because of what you do to them, the Rule is license for that.

I don't quote the Golden Rule anymore.

But now they've made it personal, and you asked a general question about Christians (as they had asked a general question about atheists).
Yes, because it seems they cannot see beyond their own personal fears, so they project those fears onto the whole world and use them as the explanation for everything. When you discuss it with them, you quickly see that it is a personal issue, not a general one.

Christians do kill, nothing prevents that.
I don't think that was the part of the thought process behind their initial question. They weren't asking about what makes people choose avoid violence or what makes people care about each other. They were assuming that a world of hurt already exists full of people just itching to kill each other, and they were asking what holds all that violence at bay. They don't seem to believe that many people don't WANT to hurt others.

The whole question is, in my opinion, an expression of fear.

I've known one or two Christian people like that, though haven't had much chance to discuss things with them in depth. One fellow had a good argument against the Golden Rule: If what you truly believe others should, in all rights, "do to you" harm because of what you've done to them, the Rule is license for that.

I don't quote the Golden Rule anymore.
That sounds like a very self-serving interpretation of the Golden Rule, to me.

Yes, because it seems they cannot see beyond their own personal fears, so they project those fears onto the whole world and use them as the explanation for everything. When you discuss it with them, you quickly see that it is a personal issue, not a general one.


I don't think that was the part of the thought process behind their initial question. They weren't asking about what makes people choose avoid violence or what makes people care about each other. They were assuming that a world of hurt already exists full of people just itching to kill each other, and they were asking what holds all that violence at bay. They don't seem to believe that many people don't WANT to hurt others.

The whole question is, in my opinion, an expression of fear.
That makes sense.

That makes sense.
:)

In follow-up: My reaction to people like that is that I fear fearful people. If a person is ruled by their fears to that great a degree, that is not someone I would trust to have around me in a crisis. Who knows how they will react to pressure, or when the self-control that makes them trust their religion to protect them will break down?

Haha. You've obviously never lived next door to criminals. If such people had any sense of empathy or compassion, they would not be hit men, gangbangers, drug dealers or rapists. The law doesn't stop them from being those things. It may stop them from doing it -- or from doing it again, at least -- but it cannot stop them from being the kind of people who would do it. I say these people who think religion is the only thing stopping people from doing harm to each other are the same.

Two quotes on point:

"Where men have manners, laws are unnecessary. Where men have no manners, laws are broken." -- Disreali, I think.

"A man must have a poor moral sense if he needs religion to make a gentleman of him." -- don't remember who said that, sorry.

The point is, no matter what rule they are using -- the law or the Bible -- anyone who needs rules to tell them it's bad to hurt people is someone I won't trust to obey those rules.unfortunately, without laws, you run into Might makes Right. but I'll leave that for another thread, :D

How about we all get along?
My friend has different coloured hair to me, but I ignore and accept it and we're friends, I could force him to change his hair colour and dye it but I don't, I just accept it and let us both get on with out lives.

Or we could not, you all seem to enjoy arguing anyway, arguing makes you both happy so you could just carry on.

How about we all get along?
My friend has different coloured hair to me, but I ignore and accept it and we're friends, I could force him to change his hair colour and dye it but I don't, I just accept it and let us both get on with out lives.

Or we could not, you all seem to enjoy arguing anyway, arguing makes you both happy so you could just carry on.
We're not arguing. Some of us are debating points (extremely fine and minute points -- they know who they are ;)), and some of us are conversing about ideas. Join in. It's fun.

I would think that those people died because of someone's interpretation of their Religion.

and I use THEIR RELIGION because all Religions are guilty of this.


I wasn't picking on Christianity particularly... it's just the scripture most people on NS seem most familiar with.

Also - since many currently portray Islam as a religion of hate, I was illustrating that the 'religions of love' are similarly divided.


and a sword can be used to protect, a fire to provide.

Swords and flames are tools and it's man that decides how such tools are used.

now when the Messiah returns... He will be welding the sword and flame and I bet alot of people wont like what he does with it. ;)

A sword is used to protect? What do you do - hide behind it?

A sword is protection in as much as it is an assurance of retaliatory violence. Or pre-emptive violence.

just so you know 'yes' is still winning, why is no one mentioning it?

I did list religion int he list, if you noticed.

And Grave n Idle the answer to your question is!...... No

Also I never said people die 'in the name' of coconuts, I siad people die because of them, I never mentioned the 'in the name of' thing I was focusing more on the 'because of' if you noticed. Gee why do people have to be so particular.

I wonder which question...

No, she didn't say that. Her purpose there was to get water from the well.true, but for the waiting part, John 4:25

There are other Christs in the story?there are other religions, and the Rabbis did not believe Jesus to be the Christ. that's why they insisted he be Crucified

He said, "I who speak to you am he," in response to, "I know that Messiah is coming." How do you leap from there to "I have come here to teach to you"? He was IDENTIFYING himself to her, that's all.read further, she said I know that the Messiah is coming and he will explain all things to us, and his reponse is I am he that you speak of. agreement to her entire discription... including the "Explaining to us" part.

"When he comes, he will explain everything to us," is a direct continuation of her conversation expressed in 4:11, 4:15, 4:19. Why do you think she went off about worshiping on the mountain? (*hint* Their conversation isn't about water.)the same reason why Jews worship Towards Jerusalem there is no indication that worshipped any other God.

No, the question is really whether he came there to teach the Samaritans. You are the one going off-topic with some odd belief that that means he can't teach them. I suggest you read back to the dialogue between Jocabia and Myself. the argument was that Jesus's teachings were only ment for the jews. and Jocabia wanted a verse that stated that he was there for people other than the Jews.

Verse 41 is about his conversation with the old woman? I didn't realise. Golly, I'll have to burn my Bible now.

You do realise that verse 41 is talking about his words spoken during the two days, don't you?really? spoken to whom? the Samaritains? who were converted by what Jesus Said right? so that inidicates preaching and teaching of Gods word to.... non Jews right?

Conversion isn't done by the one speaking. You do know that, don't you?Conversion is done by a turning of one's belifs and faith. it doesn't say that Jesus performed miracles but talked to them. and their conversion of faith indicates that the talk is preaching

Turn that around: Jesus being sent only for the Jews, or Jesus teaching being only for the Jews, doesn't mean that Jesus can only teach Jews.exactly my point and Jesus teaching non Jews indicates that his lessons were not only for Jews. something other people here were arguing against.

unfortunately, without laws, you run into Might makes Right. but I'll leave that for another thread, :D
Yes, let's leave that aside for now, but my point is that I don't hurt people because I don't want to hurt people, NOT BECAUSE, IF I DID, I'D GET PUNISHED FOR IT. I feel no impulse to hurt anyone. In fact, I feel the opposite impulse. When I have a choice of actions to take in a situation, and choice A would get me through it without hurting someone, and choice B would get me through it but at someone else's expense, I will always choose A, even if B would be quicker, easier and more profitable to me. That is because hurting someone is a negative factor to me. I don't want to to do it. I want to see smiles everywhere, all around me. Nobody taught me to feel this way. I just do because I have a sense of fellow-feeling with other beings. I see them as being similar to myself.

So when some moral system -- be it law or religion -- comes to me and says, if people do XYZ, they'll be punished for it, my reaction is, why would anyone ever do XYZ? Who would someone even think to do such things? So the proposed punishment holds no terror for me because I would never earn it.

So the laws against murder do not actually control my behavior because I never consider murder an option in any situation. So the punishments for murder never enter into my decision making process. Same with the laws of the Bible.

I guess the bottom line is I -- and most other people, I think -- do not need to be STOPPED from doing these things because we never would do them anyway.

I wasn't picking on Christianity particularly... it's just the scripture most people on NS seem most familiar with.

Also - since many currently portray Islam as a religion of hate, I was illustrating that the 'religions of love' are similarly divided.Just making sure that it's not just one religion... that's all. ;)



A sword is used to protect? What do you do - hide behind it?defend the weak. Defend those who cannot protect themselves. and you can Parry with a sword.

A sword is protection in as much as it is an assurance of retaliatory violence. Or pre-emptive violence.same thing with a sheild.

just so you know 'yes' is still winning, why is no one mentioning it?
1 vote ahead (last time I checked) and you're getting all excited? Do you have money riding on this? Sorry to break it to you, but it's not a race.

Yes, let's leave that aside for now, but my point is that I don't hurt people because I don't want to hurt people, NOT BECAUSE, IF I DID, I'D GET PUNISHED FOR IT. I feel no impulse to hurt anyone. In fact, I feel the opposite impulse. When I have a choice of actions to take in a situation, and choice A would get me through it without hurting someone, and choice B would get me through it but at someone else's expense, I will always choose A, even if B would be quicker, easier and more profitable to me. That is because hurting someone is a negative factor to me. I don't want to to do it. I want to see smiles everywhere, all around me. Nobody taught me to feel this way. I just do because I have a sense of fellow-feeling with other beings. I see them as being similar to myself.

So when some moral system -- be it law or religion -- comes to me and says, if people do XYZ, they'll be punished for it, my reaction is, why would anyone ever do XYZ? Who would someone even think to do such things? So the proposed punishment holds no terror for me because I would never earn it.

So the laws against murder do not actually control my behavior because I never consider murder an option in any situation. So the punishments for murder never enter into my decision making process. Same with the laws of the Bible.

I guess the bottom line is I -- and most other people, I think -- do not need to be STOPPED from doing these things because we never would do them anyway.unfortunatly, not eveyone has our self control. ;)

Oh and by 'Our', I mean anyone who really doesn't need the Law or Religion or any fear of punnishment to do the right thing. :D

Yes, let's leave that aside for now, but my point is that I don't hurt people because I don't want to hurt people, NOT BECAUSE, IF I DID, I'D GET PUNISHED FOR IT. I feel no impulse to hurt anyone. In fact, I feel the opposite impulse. When I have a choice of actions to take in a situation, and choice A would get me through it without hurting someone, and choice B would get me through it but at someone else's expense, I will always choose A, even if B would be quicker, easier and more profitable to me. That is because hurting someone is a negative factor to me. I don't want to to do it. I want to see smiles everywhere, all around me. Nobody taught me to feel this way. I just do because I have a sense of fellow-feeling with other beings. I see them as being similar to myself.

So when some moral system -- be it law or religion -- comes to me and says, if people do XYZ, they'll be punished for it, my reaction is, why would anyone ever do XYZ? Who would someone even think to do such things? So the proposed punishment holds no terror for me because I would never earn it.

So the laws against murder do not actually control my behavior because I never consider murder an option in any situation. So the punishments for murder never enter into my decision making process. Same with the laws of the Bible.

I guess the bottom line is I -- and most other people, I think -- do not need to be STOPPED from doing these things because we never would do them anyway.

I know I haven't been a part of this conversation and I only read back a few pages, so feel free to slam me if I'm outta line. =)

Anyways, all of this makes sense and I have only one question: Do you think you would feel the same about these actions if you were raised in a society where they were not seen as being wrong? You say no one taught you, but any belief you hold - in fact, your personality itself - is largely a product of how/where/when you were brought up.

I tend to think of "carrot-stick" religions as immature religions. To anyone out there who feels this way, do not take "immature" to be an insult. I just think the religion itself is not yet fully developed. As children, we do not yet understand *why* we cannot do certain things. As we mature, we no longer need the carrot or stick to do the right thing and avoid the wrong things, because we understand why they are right or wrong. I don't need someone standing behind me with a stick to know that I shouldn't steal - I empathize with those who would lose out in the deal, and thus would not do it.

Religion, I think, can go through the same maturation. Christ, I believe, was trying to remove the "carrot/stick" mentality and replace it with a true understanding of good and evil, of right and wrong. To this end, Christ seemed to be suggesting that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter. Unfortunately, it didn't all go that way. Many forms of Christianity never progressed beyond that mentality, and many have gone right back to suggesting that the letter of the law is more important than its spirit.

Just making sure that it's not just one religion... that's all. ;)


No - you know me... I'm fine with any religion, and equally un-fine with the extremes of all.

If religion is between you and god, and it helps you - knock yourself out. It's when your religion becomes intrusive into MY life, that we have a problem.

(*obvious note, that I'm sure you already got... but has to be made for the benefit of others... by 'your' religion... I am not actually referring to you, personally, or your chosen faith specifically. Void where prohibited. Dealer retains incentives.)


defend the weak. Defend those who cannot protect themselves. and you can Parry with a sword.


You CAN parry with a sword - but a sword is a symbol - it is a length of metal shaped to be sharp on the sides and pointy on the end (obviously - sword designs vary, but this is general)... with a small amount of un-deadly-ness to hold onto.

To pick the sword SPECIFICALLY as the symbol, is to represent very real harm... a sword is a very business-like tool for change - it changes living people into dead people.


same thing with a sheild.

The shield has an entirely different symbolism - since it's basic design is defence... add to which, the shield wasn't the symbol for the Old Testament messiah, or for the New Testament christ.

No - you know me... I'm fine with any religion, and equally un-fine with the extremes of all.

If religion is between you and god, and it helps you - knock yourself out. It's when your religion becomes intrusive into MY life, that we have a problem.

(*obvious note, that I'm sure you already got... but has to be made for the benefit of others... by 'your' religion... I am not actually referring to you, personally, or your chosen faith specifically. Void where prohibited. Dealer retains incentives.)



You CAN parry with a sword - but a sword is a symbol - it is a length of metal shaped to be sharp on the sides and pointy on the end (obviously - sword designs vary, but this is general)... with a small amount of un-deadly-ness to hold onto.

To pick the sword SPECIFICALLY as the symbol, is to represent very real harm... a sword is a very business-like tool for change - it changes living people into dead people.



The shield has an entirely different symbolism - since it's basic design is defence... add to which, the shield wasn't the symbol for the Old Testament messiah, or for the New Testament christ.point is, a symbol is just a symbol its what the person viewing the Symbol uses it for. Love, or hate, Peace or war. Unity or division

and not too keen on my Mid east History... but I don't think most of em used sheilds when fighting. thought that was introduced by the Romans.

1 vote ahead (last time I checked) and you're getting all excited? Do you have money riding on this? Sorry to break it to you, but it's not a race.
1895 people? methinks a lot of puppetry magic here. :p

1895 people? methinks a lot of puppetry magic here. :p

How many people are on NS on a semi-regular basis?

This thread has been going on for quite a while, so even with some puppetry, you would expect lots and lots of votes.

point is, a symbol is just a symbol its what the person viewing the Symbol uses it for. Love, or hate, Peace or war. Unity or division


But, Jesus explains why he 'brings the sword'... and it IS for division. He does not come to make peace.

If he IS the Messiah of the Jews, the fire and the sword are definitely not symbols of peace and unity.


and not too keen on my Mid east History... but I don't think most of em used sheilds when fighting. thought that was introduced by the Romans.

Well - you DID raise the issue of shields... not I.

But, as far as I know - the Assyrian Empire was using shields AT LEAST 800 bc, since they used to use a combination of full-length shields, alternated with a second rank of archers.

They also used smaller, leather shields, in combination with iron swords or axes, or with slings or spears.

I'm not sure WHY we are talking about shields in the region - but Mesopotamians were definitely using shields centuries before the New Testament time.

I know I haven't been a part of this conversation and I only read back a few pages, so feel free to slam me if I'm outta line. =)

Anyways, all of this makes sense and I have only one question: Do you think you would feel the same about these actions if you were raised in a society where they were not seen as being wrong? You say no one taught you, but any belief you hold - in fact, your personality itself - is largely a product of how/where/when you were brought up.
This is a very good question. I personally believe that what we are is a nearly equal combination of nature and nurture. Our personalities are what they are from birth, but what we do with what we are, how we express it, etc, is shaped by our life experience, including the norms of the society we grew up in.

To show that nurture does not actually supercede nature, we need only look at the millions of "misfits" in the world who, for one reason or another -- some positive, some negative -- do not and CANNOT fit in perfectly with the norms and expectations of their societies. Some would not fit in anywhere (such as serial killers) while most others would find more accepting social groups elsewhere. So I take this as showing that society is not where we get our personalities from.

So with that in mind, I am fairly confident that, if I had grown up in a society that considered violence or exploitation a good thing, I would be a misfit who would go against the grain of the society. People would be looking at me askance and saying, "What's wrong with her? Why can't she just hit him and take his money already?"

I mean, hell, I'm an American. If nurture ruled nature, I could be expected to enjoy shooting and hunting, and to support the "almighty dollar" brand of capitalism, and wealth as status symbol, and Manifest Destiny, etc. But I don't, because when I look at those parts of my culture, all I see is the people and creatures that are hurt by them, and the SOCIAL rewards to me for believing in them are actually negated by the pain of those exploited by them, in my thinking. This makes me, to a degree, a misfit in American society. I'm here saying that my society is wrong about these things and should find another way to express itself. So, obviously, the culture I was raised in did not instill this particular set of values in me.

I tend to think of "carrot-stick" religions as immature religions. To anyone out there who feels this way, do not take "immature" to be an insult. I just think the religion itself is not yet fully developed. As children, we do not yet understand *why* we cannot do certain things. As we mature, we no longer need the carrot or stick to do the right thing and avoid the wrong things, because we understand why they are right or wrong. I don't need someone standing behind me with a stick to know that I shouldn't steal - I empathize with those who would lose out in the deal, and thus would not do it.

Religion, I think, can go through the same maturation. Christ, I believe, was trying to remove the "carrot/stick" mentality and replace it with a true understanding of good and evil, of right and wrong. To this end, Christ seemed to be suggesting that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter. Unfortunately, it didn't all go that way. Many forms of Christianity never progressed beyond that mentality, and many have gone right back to suggesting that the letter of the law is more important than its spirit.
I agree with you, but I don't think it's so much the fault of the religion as it is the fault of its followers. It's the old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

However, I still think the impulses we feel towards others are inherent in our individual natures, good or bad. I talk to parents and to friends who work in infant/toddler daycare and early childhood education, and they all report the same phenonmena. As babies develop into toddlers and then children, you can see the thought processes of concern for others developing in them. You see it in their behavior. For instance, among toddlers, it is common to see a two children vying for the same toy, and one child hits the other and takes the toy. Now, the adult impulse may be to intervene at this point, and try to tell the child not to do that, but parents and professionals tell me that, if they do not intervene, it will very often happen that the child who did the hitting will see that the other child is crying and then try to make that child feel better with a hug or gentle touch and may even give the toy back. All this without ever being told to do so. And these are kids who can't even speak full sentences yet, so obviously, they are not reasoning out a complex issue. They are reacting emotionally and empathetically.

And then there are children who do not respond postively or at all to the crying of the child they hurt. I think those patterns of emotional response or lack thereof will continue all through the person's life, regardless of the society that raises them.

true, but for the waiting part, John 4:25

read further, she said I know that the Messiah is coming and he will explain all things to us, and his reponse is I am he that you speak of. agreement to her entire discription... including the "Explaining to us" part.
Now we're just uselessly butting heads.

the same reason why Jews worship Towards Jerusalem there is no indication that worshipped any other God.
Can you repeat that in English, please?

I suggest you read back to the dialogue between Jocabia and Myself. the argument was that Jesus's teachings were only ment for the jews. and Jocabia wanted a verse that stated that he was there for people other than the Jews.
Right. I got that, but you seem to think it means something other that what it means.

really? spoken to whom? the Samaritains? who were converted by what Jesus Said right? so that inidicates preaching and teaching of Gods word to.... non Jews right?
Yes, it does. So?

Conversion is done by a turning of one's belifs and faith.
There's a scary thought. Brainwashing!

it doesn't say that Jesus performed miracles but talked to them. and their conversion of faith indicates that the talk is preaching
It may indeed be preaching. I guess we'll never know, because it's not in the Bible. All the Bible says is that his words caused people to covert.

exactly my point and Jesus teaching non Jews indicates that his lessons were not only for Jews. something other people here were arguing against.
YOU were the one arguing that it meant Jesus couldn't teach to others.

That's why I jumped in in the first place.

This is a very good question. I personally believe that what we are is a nearly equal combination of nature and nurture.

I'm iffy on the "equal combination", but I certainly think both are a big part of it.

Our personalities are what they are from birth, but what we do with what we are, how we express it, etc, is shaped by our life experience, including the norms of the society we grew up in.

I would argue that what we do and how we express ourselves are both parts of the overall personality, but that might just drop us into a semantics argument.

To show that nurture does not actually supercede nature, we need only look at the millions of "misfits" in the world who, for one reason or another -- some positive, some negative -- do not and CANNOT fit in perfectly with the norms and expectations of their societies. Some would not fit in anywhere (such as serial killers) while most others would find more accepting social groups elsewhere. So I take this as showing that society is not where we get our personalities from.

I would take it as showing that society is not the sum total of the development of personality, not that we get nothing from society. Misfits who absolutely don't fit in at all are incredibly few and far between. Most misfits don't fit into certain stereotypes, for whatever reason, but fit the rest of society just fine.

So with that in mind, I am fairly confident that, if I had grown up in a society that considered violence or exploitation a good thing, I would be a misfit who would go against the grain of the society. People would be looking at me askance and saying, "What's wrong with her? Why can't she just hit him and take his money already?"

This is good, at least. I'd like to think that I would be the same - but I can't say for sure without experiencing it. But there are things that I do think are shaped largely by society. My view of modesty, for instance, was probably largely shaped by what is and is not generally acceptable, as well as the reactions I have seen to various modes of dress. Had I grown up in a society where women were routinely topless, would I consider such dress immodest?

I mean, hell, I'm an American. If nurture ruled nature, I could be expected to enjoy shooting and hunting, and to support the "almighty dollar" brand of capitalism, and wealth as status symbol, and Manifest Destiny, etc.

Not necessarily. If those closest to you as a child (presumably your parents, aunts, uncles, etc.) enjoyed shooting, hunting, capitalism, wealth as a status symbol, etc., etc., then the point would stand. But "American" does not and really never has described anything resembling a cohesive group.

I agree with you, but I don't think it's so much the fault of the religion as it is the fault of its followers. It's the old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

In the context in which I was using it, there is no way to separate the religion from the followers - as religion is a personal thing. If we were to get into what religious leaders actually taught vs. what their followers got out of it, or if we were talking about general labels like "Christian", I would agree. But I am referring to religion both as the spiritual path taken by an individual and how collections of individuals change their ideas over time, so separation of the religion from the followers won't really work in this case.

However, I still think the impulses we feel towards others are inherent in our individual natures, good or bad. I talk to parents and to friends who work in infant/toddler daycare and early childhood education, and they all report the same phenonmena. As babies develop into toddlers and then children, you can see the thought processes of concern for others developing in them. You see it in their behavior. For instance, among toddlers, it is common to see a two children vying for the same toy, and one child hits the other and takes the toy. Now, the adult impulse may be to intervene at this point, and try to tell the child not to do that, but parents and professionals tell me that, if they do not intervene, it will very often happen that the child who did the hitting will see that the other child is crying and then try to make that child feel better with a hug or gentle touch and may even give the toy back. All this without ever being told to do so. And these are kids who can't even speak full sentences yet, so obviously, they are not reasoning out a complex issue. They are reacting emotionally and empathetically.

I find this very interesting. But what of less obvious examples - actions with less immediate results or where the person being harmed is not actually present? A child who does something and then sees another cry knows that they have hurt that person. But, over time, they don't have to see tears. Eventually, that child will (hopefully) be able to think about an action before it is even carried out, and realize what their response to it might be. If their response would be negative, they will empathize ahead of time, as it were, and avoid the action altogether.

And then there are children who do not respond postively or at all to the crying of the child they hurt. I think those patterns of emotional response or lack thereof will continue all through the person's life, regardless of the society that raises them.

To a point, perhaps, but children can be shown the results of their actions, even if they don't pick up on it at first. Young autistic children, for instance, often have little to no conception that their actions even affect others, much less the ability to empathize. But, over time, they can develop these abilities.

Now we're just uselessly butting heads.yep.

YOU were the one arguing that it meant Jesus couldn't teach to others.
That's why I jumped in in the first place.
nope, read back, it was argued by others that the great commission does not mean All Nations to mean everyone but only Jews. My argument is that his Teachings is meant for everyone and not just Jews.

Well - you DID raise the issue of shields... not I.

But, as far as I know - the Assyrian Empire was using shields AT LEAST 800 bc, since they used to use a combination of full-length shields, alternated with a second rank of archers.

They also used smaller, leather shields, in combination with iron swords or axes, or with slings or spears.

I'm not sure WHY we are talking about shields in the region - but Mesopotamians were definitely using shields centuries before the New Testament time.just curious about Mid east Armament. that's all. :)

Originally Posted by Willamena
YOU were the one arguing that it meant Jesus couldn't teach to others.
nope, read back, it was argued by others that the great commission does not mean All Nations to mean everyone but only Jews. My argument is that his Teachings is meant for everyone and not just Jews.
No, I'm saying that what the others said means something to you that it doesn't mean to them. You were arguing that that was what it means to them --it doesn't.

If you listen to what Jocabia and Grave_n_idle said, they were telling you that "for the Jews", "all nations", etc., mean something other than what you think they mean.

No, I'm saying that what the others said means something to you that it doesn't mean to them. You were arguing that that was what it means to them --it doesn't.

If you listen to what Jocabia and Grave_n_idle said, they were telling you that "for the Jews", "all nations", etc., mean something other than what you think they mean.
and what do they say All Nations as in to "teach All Nations" means?

and what do they say All Nations as in to "teach All Nations" means?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11090004&postcount=6903
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11090975&postcount=6940

I'll ignore controversial arguments that take place before this post, and continue on if there is controversy afterwards, simpley because I will not argue with so many pages of information.

Here is my personal story:

Me and God.

I was raised catholic until I, well, began to doubt. I blame the preacher who told me that "America is entering a great war, and because of our sinfulness, we will lose." And I began wondering if he knew a damn thing about the rest of the world, and why God only cares about America.

Losing my faith, I became Wiccan. Most kids go to Wicca to piss off their parents... For me it was the only other religion I knew about (save for Judeaism). Of course, that "phase" I went through lasted only a year in half until college came around. I wanted to be a philosophy teacher and in Comparative Religions was told to prove and disprove every religion. And, well, for all practical purposes, we did. Obviously there were philosophical biases involved.

I've always been a crusader for Gay rights as long as a leftist. Alot of people call me communist, I do not accept that or any title. It was while proving that The Christian God does not hate homosexuals that I sort of rediscovered Christianity. I found that me and God were on the same side alot of the time. Christ did not care to use violence (I'm not saying he was a pacifist, people), and asked for peopel to give what they have for those who needed it.

Now, before anyone bitches about my statement about Homosexuals, please note that the word used in the original Greek meant "Pervert" or "Sexual Deviant." Now, we also know that the Greeks of the time were also very tolerant of Homosexuality, so you would think they would use the word that meant Homosexual and not Pervert.

Am I a Christian? No. I'm still agnostic. But I think I have a better understanding of who or what God is.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11090004&postcount=6903
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11090975&postcount=6940
now, how can non jews be saved if all of Jesus's words and teachings are only taught to the Jews?

Now remember, keeping with their interpretation of the Bible...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11079487&postcount=6544
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11078584&postcount=6466

to all those that do not believe in Jesus Christ.

If your right and i'm worng, no biggy, we die thats it GAME OVER.

but if im right your going to hell and im not.

to all those that do not believe in Jesus Christ.

If your right and i'm worng, no biggy, we die thats it GAME OVER.

but if im right your going to hell and im not.


To which, a muslim may say:

"If your right and I'm wrong, no biggy. We die that's GAME OVER. But, if I am right you are going to hell and I'm not."

So, why Christianity above others? Others who claim to be the true faith?

Prepare ye the way of the Lord.

Come to the Lord Savior Jesus Christ before it is too late. The Lord wants us all in heaven and is sadden when we reject him. Do not reject him for the angels rejoice when people come to accept the Lord Savior Savior Jesus Christ.

YOU ALL ARE COMMIE RED BASTARDS THAT ARE GOING TO HELL!:mad: :mp5:

That is all thank you for your time.

1 vote ahead (last time I checked) and you're getting all excited? Do you have money riding on this? Sorry to break it to you, but it's not a race.

I just find it funny that when you atheists are winning even by a little bit you have to shout about it yet when you're losing (it's not a race, I know) you just saty shtum, like whenever people ask evolutionists how nothing exploded, they stay quiet.

now, how can non jews be saved if all of Jesus's words and teachings are only taught to the Jews?

Now remember, keeping with their interpretation of the Bible...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11079487&postcount=6544
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11078584&postcount=6466

there were no Christians to teach until after Jesus's death. Pentecost was when Christians came about.

now, how can non jews be saved if all of Jesus's words and teachings are only taught to the Jews?

Now remember, keeping with their interpretation of the Bible...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11079487&postcount=6544
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11078584&postcount=6466
That's just it --you misrepresent their interpretation of the Bible...

"For the Jews" does not mean "are only taught to the Jews".

It's the same thing with the Samaritans --Jesus stopped to teach to them, but he wasn't THERE to teach FOR them. You don't seem to understand the difference in that simple English phrase.

like whenever people ask evolutionists how nothing exploded, they stay quiet.

Huh?

YOU ALL ARE COMMIE RED BASTARDS THAT ARE GOING TO HELL!:mad: :mp5:

That is all thank you for your time.

So...

Who's using the family braincell this year?

Prepare ye the way of the Lord.

Come to the Lord Savior Jesus Christ before it is too late. The Lord wants us all in heaven and is sadden when we reject him. Do not reject him for the angels rejoice when people come to accept the Lord Savior Savior Jesus Christ.
No, thank you.

No, thank you.

Huh, you beat me to it.


Yeah, same deal here. I'll just take one grave please, pass on the fiery damnation and 'God'.

I just find it funny that when you atheists are winning even by a little bit you have to shout about it yet when you're losing (it's not a race, I know) you just saty shtum, like whenever people ask evolutionists how nothing exploded, they stay quiet.
They stay quiet? How long have you been on this board?

Prepare ye the way of the Lord.

Come to the Lord Savior Jesus Christ before it is too late. The Lord wants us all in heaven and is sadden when we reject him. Do not reject him for the angels rejoice when people come to accept the Lord Savior Savior Jesus Christ.

Generally I don't listen to people who use language from over a century ago...

I just find it funny that when you atheists are winning even by a little bit you have to shout about it yet when you're losing (it's not a race, I know) you just saty shtum, like whenever people ask evolutionists how nothing exploded, they stay quiet.

Explain what exactly you mean by "how nothing exploded".

Explain what exactly you mean by "how nothing exploded".

I'm wondering that too. Many years of biology, and I don't recall anything in evolutionary theory having to do with "nothing exploding".

I'm wondering that too. Many years of biology, and I don't recall anything in evolutionary theory having to do with "nothing exploding".
Well, there is the Cambrian explosion. :)

lol

(That's the one, so I hear, where new species appeared out of thin air.)

So...

Who's using the family braincell this year?

How'd you know we only had one braincell!?!......
.....YOU MUST BE A COMMIE SPY DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

I just find it funny that when you atheists are winning even by a little bit you have to shout about it yet when you're losing (it's not a race, I know) you just saty shtum, like whenever people ask evolutionists how nothing exploded, they stay quiet.
I know it's a long thread but that doesn't absolve you of ALL responsibility for keeping up with it. I am not an atheist. I do not believe that there is no god or no such thing as a god. I am a polytheist. That means I believe in many gods. Rather the opposite of atheist. This has been made clear several times in this thread.

And as I said earlier about the poll: It's not a race. The only one who thinks anyone is trying to "win" something on this topic seems to be you.

Right. There are no winners when it comes to debating a deity, as far as I can tell. Except perhaps those who allow some productive discussion to expand their minds.

well I'm not going through 100 pages of posts...its late where I am...I'm tired...I'm sorry your not gonna get the effort you deserve from me...but the simple truth is that yes there is a God...yes theres right and wrong...We've all sinned...we've all fallen short of hte glory of God...God made the universe...therefore he makes the rules...the wages of sin is death...we're all deserving of death...but God came down to this earth, lived among us, we killed him on the cross, he payed for our sins up there, and now all we have to do is put our hope in him and eternal life is ours...its your choice you know...to quote someone some of you might've heard of "which hand holds you sould would you like to guess one? if that scares you to death let that be a lesson, its your decision make it the best one" I'll pray for you...I hope your friend knew the Lord...but yeah...I'll be praying for you dude...God cares even though right now it might not seem that way...God is a just god...and you know...we gotta pay for the wrong we do...if God didn't love us so much we'd all be in hell right now with lucifer and all the other fallen angels because we've all sinned and fallen short...but God does love us, came down and died for us he did...payed the price for us...if you just believe than eternal life with him is yours...Life isn't fair people like to say...they're right...it isn't, thats the beauty of grace...its not fair really that were not in hell...I'm tired and probably repeating myself...again I'm sorry...please though...please if you get the chance...find a bible...pick it up read it...with an open mind just look at the words and read 'em...I'll be praying for God to move in you...

you all should go check out Kent Hovind aka Dr. Dino, he's really awesome...smart guy...
God Bless

The two above posts are SO very obscene...

well I'm not going through 100 pages of posts...its late where I am...I'm tired...I'm sorry your not gonna get the effort you deserve from me...but the simple truth is that yes there is a God...yes theres right and wrong...We've all sinned...we've all fallen short of hte glory of God...God made the universe...therefore he makes the rules...the wages of sin is death...we're all deserving of death...but God came down to this earth, lived among us, we killed him on the cross, he payed for our sins up there, and now all we have to do is put our hope in him and eternal life is ours...its your choice you know...to quote someone some of you might've heard of "which hand holds you sould would you like to guess one? if that scares you to death let that be a lesson, its your decision make it the best one" I'll pray for you...I hope your friend knew the Lord...but yeah...I'll be praying for you dude...God cares even though right now it might not seem that way...God is a just god...and you know...we gotta pay for the wrong we do...if God didn't love us so much we'd all be in hell right now with lucifer and all the other fallen angels because we've all sinned and fallen short...but God does love us, came down and died for us he did...payed the price for us...if you just believe than eternal life with him is yours...Life isn't fair people like to say...they're right...it isn't, thats the beauty of grace...its not fair really that were not in hell...I'm tired and probably repeating myself...again I'm sorry...please though...please if you get the chance...find a bible...pick it up read it...with an open mind just look at the words and read 'em...I'll be praying for God to move in you...
I thought Jesus was God's son, not God..

To which, a muslim may say:

"If your right and I'm wrong, no biggy. We die that's GAME OVER. But, if I am right you are going to hell and I'm not."

So, why Christianity above others? Others who claim to be the true faith?


I'd like you to check out Lee Strobels book "the case for christ" its a good read...could save your soul lol God loves ya' and I'll be prayin' for ya

=)

I thought Jesus was God's son, not God..

john 1:1 "In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The word in this verse refers to Jesus

I encourage you to find a Gideons bible or something and read just John chapter 1...its really the best thing for you...I can't really say much that'll stack up to what just reading the actual book will do for ya'

I'm agnostic, but if you're only going to put Yes and No as options, I lean more towards no.

Edit: Ooooh...5000 posts. :)

Aslo Agnostic,couldnt really choose one but would have to go towrd no.

I'm iffy on the "equal combination", but I certainly think both are a big part of it.


I would argue that what we do and how we express ourselves are both parts of the overall personality, but that might just drop us into a semantics argument.


I would take it as showing that society is not the sum total of the development of personality, not that we get nothing from society. Misfits who absolutely don't fit in at all are incredibly few and far between. Most misfits don't fit into certain stereotypes, for whatever reason, but fit the rest of society just fine.


This is good, at least. I'd like to think that I would be the same - but I can't say for sure without experiencing it. But there are things that I do think are shaped largely by society. My view of modesty, for instance, was probably largely shaped by what is and is not generally acceptable, as well as the reactions I have seen to various modes of dress. Had I grown up in a society where women were routinely topless, would I consider such dress immodest?
I think our differences on the line that each of us draws between nature and nurture and which parts of ourselves count as "personality" is so fine that we could end up arguing over three word phrases like JuNii, Jocabia, et al. Let's skip it, since it's off topic. I'll just sum up by saying that I give a lot of weight to inherent personality traits, such as aggressiveness, fearfulness, sensitivity, introversion, extroversion, optimism, pessimism, etc. I don't count them MORE than life experience and upbringing, but I think they are the driving force behind how each individual reacts to their life experiences.

Not necessarily. If those closest to you as a child (presumably your parents, aunts, uncles, etc.) enjoyed shooting, hunting, capitalism, wealth as a status symbol, etc., etc., then the point would stand. But "American" does not and really never has described anything resembling a cohesive group.
I admit it was not a perfect example, but I wish you had done a bit more with the point I was making about misfits. I didn't mean to suggest that misfits don't fit in AT ALL, just that there will always be people who don't fit in to some degree or another, and those people can be seen as evidence that, while nurture SHAPES personality, it doesn't create it.

In the context in which I was using it, there is no way to separate the religion from the followers - as religion is a personal thing. If we were to get into what religious leaders actually taught vs. what their followers got out of it, or if we were talking about general labels like "Christian", I would agree. But I am referring to religion both as the spiritual path taken by an individual and how collections of individuals change their ideas over time, so separation of the religion from the followers won't really work in this case.
I don't know. I think I disagree with you on this. Christianity is a well developed religion with fairly cohesive texts, teachings, rituals, etc, among its various sects. Yet there are many people who treat it as the kind of simplistic "carrot and stick" set-up you described. How is that possible, if we cannot say that the followers are just failing to get into the depths of it? My point was that the religion is not simplistic, but some followers' understanding of it is. Somewhat like people who just eat the icing off a cake. That doesn't mean that the whole dessert they were given consisted of nothing but icing. It also doesn't mean they were not satisfied with just the icing or were necessarily cheated out of something because they only got the icing. But to say that the dessert was just icing would not be accurate. Likewise, in my opinion, to say that Christianity is a simplistic religion because some of its followers treat it simplistically also would not be accurate.

I find this very interesting. But what of less obvious examples - actions with less immediate results or where the person being harmed is not actually present? A child who does something and then sees another cry knows that they have hurt that person. But, over time, they don't have to see tears. Eventually, that child will (hopefully) be able to think about an action before it is even carried out, and realize what their response to it might be. If their response would be negative, they will empathize ahead of time, as it were, and avoid the action altogether.
Well, yes, it is hoped that the child will learn to predict that bad actions will hurt others and choose to avoid those actions. Helping him do that as quickly as possible is the job of his parents. My point is that empathy does not have to be learned. Attaching cognition, imagination, reason and prediction to empathy does have be learned, but not the feeling of empathy itself. Further, my next point suggests that empathy CANNOT be taught. If the child does not have it, he will not learn it. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean he will not grow up a properly socialized person with a life full of happy and satisfying relationships. It just means, in his own mind, he will never feel the same way about people that an empathetic person does.

To a point, perhaps, but children can be shown the results of their actions, even if they don't pick up on it at first. Young autistic children, for instance, often have little to no conception that their actions even affect others, much less the ability to empathize. But, over time, they can develop these abilities.
The vast majority of human beings, whether they have an inherent impulse towards fellow-feeling or not, can and will learn -- sometimes quite easily -- to control their behavior according to a reward/punishment model, but this is not the same thing as having an empathetic or sensitive or caring personality, as your example of autistic children shows.

I really wish people would stop believing so much of what was written in textbooks many ages ago and claim that THAT is the truth of the world and that the laws must be obeyed otherwise they'll end up in a bad place.

I wish people would just believe in their hearts and believe in the goodness of humanity, and where that goodness would eminate into the character of that individual.

the people above using the something from nothing apologetics arguement...or trying lol are refering to the Big Bang not evolution itself. if you go really to the hardcore hardcore big bang theorists they say that in the beginning there was all the unniverse compacted into a speck of dust that was infinitely small. smaller than this period . and one day it exploded and poof the unniverse...this alone defies a couple basic laws of physics...like matter being created or destroyed...and the theorem of entropy...you know that matter is inevitably going to become disorganized...not organized...and if you believe the Big Bang theory it seems that the unniverse is coming into order...not falling out of it...uhm I like to just go back and back and say where'd that come from when I debate...so where did the very first matter come from (that alone is an absurd statement since all the matter in the unniverse has...always been there...so there is no "first") and if you spend some time thinking it through you really cannot have infinite time and if you can't have infinite time at some point you have to have a beginning of matter...and nothing but God can explain the origination of matter...I dunno I'm not the greatest organizer of thoughts but you know who is? Lee Strobel...and Kent Hovind, I HIGHLY recommend you check out all of there stuff...it might do you some good...and of course read a Bible...best book in the world you know? I really like it...just read it...anywhere...pick it up and read it...amazing the things it does...I'll be praying for all ya' atheists lol

I'd like you to check out Lee Strobels book "the case for christ" its a good read...could save your soul lol God loves ya' and I'll be prayin' for ya

=)
Faith and Reason by Ronald Nash is a better argued book on the matter. Essential reading for an apologist. :)

my favorite apologetics arguement of all time though is the Conciousness...it just speaks for itself...how...on EARTH...are we concious...creative...cognitive...how do we have personalities? how do we have emotions? how are we not survival of the fittest...eat sleep reproduce organisms...how are we so complex if not for being made in the image of an intelligent designer...

the people above using the something from nothing apologetics arguement...or trying lol are refering to the Big Bang not evolution itself. if you go really to the hardcore hardcore big bang theorists they say that in the beginning there was all the unniverse compacted into a speck of dust that was infinitely small. smaller than this period . and one day it exploded and poof the unniverse...this alone defies a couple basic laws of physics...like matter being created or destroyed...and the theorem of entropy...you know that matter is inevitably going to become disorganized...not organized...and if you believe the Big Bang theory it seems that the unniverse is coming into order...not falling out of it...uhm I like to just go back and back and say where'd that come from when I debate...so where did the very first matter come from (that alone is an absurd statement since all the matter in the unniverse has...always been there...so there is no "first") and if you spend some time thinking it through you really cannot have infinite time and if you can't have infinite time at some point you have to have a beginning of matter...and nothing but God can explain the origination of matter...I dunno I'm not the greatest organizer of thoughts but you know who is? Lee Strobel...and Kent Hovind, I HIGHLY recommend you check out all of there stuff...it might do you some good...and of course read a Bible...best book in the world you know? I really like it...just read it...anywhere...pick it up and read it...amazing the things it does...I'll be praying for all ya' atheists lol
I thought you said you were too tired to put effort into this? Seriously, you need to read at least some of the thread. This is not a theists versus atheists argument, and no one is talking about evolution or the origin of the universe at all. Do try to keep up. Who knows, you might have something to add. It could happen.

my favorite apologetics arguement of all time though is the Conciousness...it just speaks for itself...how...on EARTH...are we concious...creative...cognitive...how do we have personalities? how do we have emotions? how are we not survival of the fittest...eat sleep reproduce organisms...how are we so complex if not for being made in the image of an intelligent designer...
Who's the author?

Faith and Reason by Ronald Nash is a better argued book on the matter. Essential reading for an apologist. :)


woah I thought I was alone in here lol hey how ya' doin, got a region by any chance? aim maybe? or myspace? I'll look into your book there...I just suggested that one honestly because its the only one I've been exposed to...I wish I had more time and energy to research this stuff...anyways If your don't have a region you can join me and my friends...lol I'll have to ask for the password...they changed it recently for some reason...yeah...God Bless dude =O

Muryavets, out of curiosity, what religion do you follow, if any?

Who's the author?

I think I worded that one wrong...it wasn't a book and I shouldn't of capitalized it...I just like the arguement...sorry 'bout that...

woah I thought I was alone in here lol hey how ya' doin, got a region by any chance? aim maybe? or myspace? I'll look into your book there...I just suggested that one honestly because its the only one I've been exposed to...I wish I had more time and energy to research this stuff...anyways If your don't have a region you can join me and my friends...lol I'll have to ask for the password...they changed it recently for some reason...yeah...God Bless dude =O
Send me a Telegram if you'd like to talk about the books.

I thought you said you were too tired to put effort into this? Seriously, you need to read at least some of the thread. This is not a theists versus atheists argument, and no one is talking about evolution or the origin of the universe at all. Do try to keep up. Who knows, you might have something to add. It could happen.

sorry...thought it'd turned into one =O I'm new to these forums but I bet theres thousands of those threads isn't there....seems like quite the lost cause...can't get through to people on the internet really anyways...ahh well...I really like that joke hows it go..."argueing over the internet is like competing in the special olympics, even if you win, your still retarded"

515 paiges o.o

I thought you said you were too tired to put effort into this? Seriously, you need to read at least some of the thread. This is not a theists versus atheists argument, and no one is talking about evolution or the origin of the universe at all. Do try to keep up. Who knows, you might have something to add. It could happen.


the poll question did kinda say is there a God...soooooooooooooooo i kinda took that well...I think its obvious how I took it...

Muryavets, out of curiosity, what religion do you follow, if any?
Animism.

Mentions in this thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11097823&postcount=7099
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11102288&postcount=7209

sorry...thought it'd turned into one =O I'm new to these forums but I bet theres thousands of those threads isn't there....seems like quite the lost cause...can't get through to people on the internet really anyways...ahh well...I really like that joke hows it go..."argueing over the internet is like competing in the special olympics, even if you win, your still retarded"
Well, this thread has turned into quite the brain-fest, so if you want to box with some intellectuals, stick around, but the going gets a bit thick now and then.

But if you bring up evolution again, something will be thrown at you -- a dinner roll or something.

the poll question did kinda say is there a God...soooooooooooooooo i kinda took that well...I think its obvious how I took it...
There have been complaints about the poll question not matching the thread title. The poll has mostly been ignored for the last 100 pages or so, except to comment on how close it's been.

There have been complaints about the poll question not matching the thread title. The poll has mostly been ignored for the last 100 pages or so, except to comment on how close it's been.
Yes, the poll is a fuck up. I blame my ranting for it.

They stay quiet? How long have you been on this board?

okay then, how did nothing explode? no answer.....

EDIT: just realised I made an error that's why people are confused, I meant big bang theorists not evoloutionists, but they're effectivly the same thing anyway. I was using it as a comparision, ask a big bang theorsits how the universe was created and they'll say 'the big bang' ask them what was before that, they generally shut up but some say 'first there was nothing, and then it exploded' it makes me laugh every time

I know it's a long thread but that doesn't absolve you of ALL responsibility for keeping up with it. I am not an atheist. I do not believe that there is no god or no such thing as a god. I am a polytheist. That means I believe in many gods. Rather the opposite of atheist. This has been made clear several times in this thread.

And as I said earlier about the poll: It's not a race. The only one who thinks anyone is trying to "win" something on this topic seems to be you.

ok, to let you know I am trying to not support either side as I see plus's on both sides. But I've always thought that if Christians are right then the Atheists will most likely end up in hell, but if the Atheists are right they both end up dead for all eternity. The Atheists never win, either way they lose, whereas the Christians have a small chance of ending up in heaven. So surely it'd be best to be a Christian, just in case. I mean eternal bliss sounds so much better than plain old death.

okay then, how did nothing explode? no answer.....

EDIT: just realised I made an error that's why people are confused, I meant big bang theorists not evoloutionists, but they're effectivly the same thing anyway. I was using it as a comparision, ask a big bang theorsits how the universe was created and they'll say 'the big bang' ask them what was before that, they generally shut up but some say 'first there was nothing, and then it exploded' it makes me laugh every time


It makes you laugh because you are ignorant of modern physics. Why do you assume that an affect must have a cause? Things happen all the time without cause. Matter comes into existance and matter goes out of existance, atoms decide that they want to decay all of a sudden. Big Bang is a proven theory. You make the assumption that everything needs a cause. Since Big Bang has been proven and your assumption has not, perhaps it's about time to reconsider your position on causality.

It makes you laugh because you are ignorant of modern physics. Why do you assume that an affect must have a cause? Things happen all the time without cause. Matter comes into existance and matter goes out of existance, atoms decide that they want to decay all of a sudden. Big Bang is a proven theory. You make the assumption that everything needs a cause. Since Big Bang has been proven and your assumption has not, perhaps it's about time to reconsider your position on causality.

If you can show me nothing exploding I shall believe you, these days you can prove anything to people less knowledgable than you by using fancy words. And the fact they teach all of this in schools doesn't help, you're brainwashing kids into thinking what you want them to. Ask someone how the world came about: Big Bang. They just think it explains itself, but it doesn't, people need to be taught what it is so they can understand it. If Atoms decide to decay then surely they wouldn't decay I would'nt decide to decay cause then I'd disappear and I would like to stay here. Everything does need a cause. And why, the 'Big Bang'. Would it have actually made any noise? I mean there wouldn't be anyone around to hear it, so why would it bother maing any noise?

If you can show me nothing exploding I shall believe you, these days you can prove anything to people less knowledgable than you by usiong fancy words, and the fact they teach all of this in schools doesn't help, you're brainwashing kids into thinking what you want them to. Ask someone how the world came about: Big Bang. They just think it explains itself, but it doesn't, people need to be taught what it is so they can understand it. If Atmos decide to decay then surely they wouldn't decay I woudl'nt decide to decay cause then i'd disappear and I would like to stay here. Verything does need a cause. And why the 'Big Bang' would it have actually made any noise? I mean there wouldn't be anyone around to hear it, so why would it bother maing any noise? Causality? What the hell?

It has nothing to do with brainwashing. What possible advantage would anyone get by tricking them into thinking Big Bang ias true. Why not trick them into thinking something that supports the atheist argument a little more, like steady state theory. Look, the proof of the big bang is extremely complex. You need to be able to understand general relativity, 3D vector space mathematics, linear equations, complex numbers, quantum mechanics, etc... A lot of stuff. You need to do a lot of study in order to understand the proof. But since not everyone is smart enough, or doesn't have enough time or interest to go to university and study physics and mathematics, we have to trust the scientists discoveries. They know more than everyone else on the topic, so you have to trust them. It's their job. Now to make sure that they don't intentionally fool us, which they would get nothing out of anyway, we have lots of unbiased scientists, aheist scientists and religious scientists all analysing the proof. There are religious people, believe it or not, that accept that the big bang is fact. If you tried actually learning a little, you could find out, using a simplistic model, why the big bang is a fact. The proof is there, you just have to look at it.

It has nothing to do with brainwashing. What possible advantage would anyone get by tricking them into thinking Big Bang ias true. Why not trick them into thinking something that supports the atheist argument a little more, like steady state theory. Look, the proof of the big bang is extremely complex. You need to be able to understand general relativity, 3D vector space mathematics, linear equations, complex numbers, quantum mechanics, etc... A lot of stuff. You need to do a lot of study in order to understand the proof. But since not everyone is smart enough, or doesn't have enough time or interest to go to university and study physics and mathematics, we have to trust the scientists discoveries. They know more than everyone else on the topic, so you have to trust them. It's their job. Now to make sure that they don't intentionally fool us, which they would get nothing out of anyway, we have lots of unbiased scientists, aheist scientists and religious scientists all analysing the proof. There are religious people, believe it or not, that accept that the big bang is fact. If you tried actually learning a little, you could find out, using a simplistic model, why the big bang is a fact. The proof is there, you just have to look at it.

I didn't mean intentionally brainwashing that would be stupid. It's just the way schools only give kids one option to believe and if a teacher says it, it must be true. I'm not saying 'lets introduce I.D' but I don't like the way the schools teach and present things like the Big Bang and Evoloution as fact. School told me how evoloution was correct and there's all sorts of 'evidence' to prove it such as the fossil record. But after doing my own research I realised that the fossil record is strong evidence against evoloution. I just don't believe in teaching people unproven theories and presenting them as fact.

ok, to let you know I am trying to not support either side as I see plus's on both sides. But I've always thought that if Christians are right then the Atheists will most likely end up in hell, but if the Atheists are right they both end up dead for all eternity. The Atheists never win, either way they lose, whereas the Christians have a small chance of ending up in heaven. So surely it'd be best to be a Christian, just in case. I mean eternal bliss sounds so much better than plain old death.

Are you channeling Pascal?

But after doing my own research I realised that the fossil record is strong evidence against evoloution. I just don't believe in teaching people unproven theories and presenting them as fact.

If thats truly the conclusion you reached, I suggest you backtrack again.
Fossil evidence pretty much proves itself.
If you want to believe in Creation, thats great, but to ignore the truth, makes you a bit of a fool, now doesnt it?

I didn't mean intentionally brainwashing that would be stupid. It's just the way schools only give kids one option to believe and if a teacher says it, it must be true. I'm not saying 'lets introduce I.D' but I don't like the way the schools teach and present things like the Big Bang and Evoloution as fact. School told me how evoloution was correct and there's all sorts of 'evidence' to prove it such as the fossil record. But after doing my own research I realised that the fossil record is strong evidence against evoloution. I just don't believe in teaching people unproven theories and presenting them as fact.


They teach Big Bang as fact because it is fact. Microevolution is also fact. A proven fact. The theory of macroevolution on the other hand is still but a theory. It is a theory because there are still 3 main unanswered questions concerning evolution. And it is to be taught as a theory. If your teacher tried telling you it was fact, then he/she needs to be corrected.But something exploding from nothing is, unfortunately, a fact. Get used to it.

Evolution is proven... You can see evolution in diseases and in humanity.

What studies have you undertaken to determine the fossil record is proof against evolution?

Are you channeling Pascal?

Who's Pascal? To save argument I'll just say yes, yes I am.

I didn't mean intentionally brainwashing that would be stupid. It's just the way schools only give kids one option to believe and if a teacher says it, it must be true. I'm not saying 'lets introduce I.D' but I don't like the way the schools teach and present things like the Big Bang and Evoloution as fact. School told me how evoloution was correct and there's all sorts of 'evidence' to prove it such as the fossil record. But after doing my own research I realised that the fossil record is strong evidence against evoloution. I just don't believe in teaching people unproven theories and presenting them as fact.

Evolution and the big bang are completely unrelated though. THe theory of evolution is a flawed theory which explains how evolution works. Evolution itself is not in question, but our understanding of it is not yet complete.

The big bang is another matter, because we have very little understanding of it, and we dont even know if it really happened. However, it is the only explanation we have for how the universe began, and until someone comes up with something better we're stuck with it. Either it suddenly came into existence, or it always existed. Neither of those is strictly possible but thats all we have.

Who's Pascal? To save argument I'll just say yes, yes I am.


Pascal was a heretic who came up with 'Pascals Wager'. A very flawed argument for christianity. Look it up on Wiki.

you could go to an evangelical church or a free church or a church which is Good! unlike many church's today with there rituals and beliefs but free church and those that READ the bible and Study it are a good way to understand who God is and Who You are? I'm a Christian and before i was i didnt believe that there was a thing such as a big bang because I always thought that you needed a Conclusion in sience and Well they havnt proven one and never will, also fossils? well God did punish many people on earth for breaking His law i.e Sodom and Gomorrah. The Great Flood of Noah well theres a strong case for the wiping out of beast i.e dinosaurs and fossils, You need to understand it more before you take up your Point on what christanity is before you knock it.

Everybody is a sinner that what the Bible says and we know that we just dont accept it. but God gave us Something that we can trust in even thou we sin everyday that will get me or you or them into heaven, it might sound wierd but its all in the Bible and if you want to Understand it more Try find a Good Church.

You can all have a go at me now i dont mind :D

Evolution and the big bang are completely unrelated though. THe theory of evolution is a flawed theory which explains how evolution works. Evolution itself is not in question, but our understanding of it is not yet complete.

The big bang is another matter, because we have very little understanding of it, and we dont even know if it really happened. However, it is the only explanation we have for how the universe began, and until someone comes up with something better we're stuck with it. Either it suddenly came into existence, or it always existed. Neither of those is strictly possible but thats all we have.


Our knowledge of Big Bang is far more detailed than you lead on. Don't go giving people the wrong impression.

Evolution is proven... You can see evolution in diseases and in humanity.

What studies have you undertaken to determine the fossil record is proof against evolution?

The fossil record I've noticed is strong evidence for the Christianity bibilical flood of Noah, and also, claims that the record shows transitions between species is false as it doesn't show any gradual changes in species there are no half-species as it were no 'missing links'. Another thing that bugs me is the Archeopteryx argument. 'Look it's a bird and a reptile!' no it's not, it's a bird. It has a collar bone that lets it flap it's wings, yes it flew! Any dinosaur fossils that have been said to be linked to Archeopteryx don't have collar bones, were did the collar bone come from? did it just appear from nowhere? It's a bird. Sure it may have 'evolved' from dinosaurs but if Archeopteryx is the link beteween birds and dinosaurs where's the link between dinosaurs and archeopteryx?

(apologies if I spelt Archeopteryx wrong, I couldn't be arsed to look it up)

Our knowledge of Big Bang is far more detailed than you lead on. Don't go giving people the wrong impression.

Sorry, my point is that we know evolution happens because we can see the evidence, but the big bang cannot be observed or verified. I have no problem with the theory, or the teaching of it, its just that its very hard to know exaclty what happened and how. Still, its the only theory available so I shouldnt complain.

you could go to an evangelical church or a free church or a church which is Good! unlike many church's today with there rituals and beliefs but free church and those that READ the bible and Study it are a good way to understand who God is and Who You are? I'm a Christian and before i was i didnt believe that there was a thing such as a big bang because I always thought that you needed a Conclusion in sience and Well they havnt proven one and never will, also fossils? well God did punish many people on earth for breaking His law i.e Sodom and Gomorrah. The Great Flood of Noah well theres a strong case for the wiping out of beast i.e dinosaurs and fossils, You need to understand it more before you take up your Point on what christanity is before you knock it.

Everybody is a sinner that what the Bible says and we know that we just dont accept it. but God gave us Something that we can trust in even thou we sin everyday that will get me or you or them into heaven, it might sound wierd but its all in the Bible and if you want to Understand it more Try find a Good Church.

You can all have a go at me now i dont mind :D

The bible says the world is only 6000 years old.

IE: the bible is horribly untrustworthy, as we all know thats totally wrong.

Sorry, my point is that we know evolution happens because we can see the evidence, but the big bang cannot be observed or verified. I have no problem with the theory, or the teaching of it, its just that its very hard to know exaclty what happened and how. Still, its the only theory available so I shouldnt complain.

Big Bang can be observed. Cosmic Background Radiation? Expanding universe?

Big Bang can be observed. Cosmic Background Radiation? Expanding universe?


Rubber band Theory?

well you can tell that to the people who believed in its word and were killed and punished I.E like Jesus himself infact when you die you can tell God himself that, im sure he'll understand

The bible says the world is only 6000 years old.

IE: the bible is horribly untrustworthy, as we all know thats totally wrong.

How do you know how old the world is? I doubt very much you've been around 6000 years, or several million. Why does it matter how old the world is the important thing is it exists.

The fossil record I've noticed is strong evidence for the Christianity bibilical flood of Noah, and also, claims that the record shows transitions between species is false as it doesn't show any gradual changes in species there are no half-species as it were no 'missing links'. Another thing that bugs me is the Archeopteryx argument. 'Look it's a bird and a reptile!' no it's not, it's a bird. It has a collar bone that lets it flap it's wings, yes it flew! Any dinosaur fossils that have been said to be linked to Archeopteryx don't have collar bones, were did the collar bone come from? did it just appear from nowhere? It's a bird. Sure it may have 'evolved' from dinosaurs but if Archeopteryx is the link beteween birds and dinosaurs where's the link between dinosaurs and archeopteryx?

(apologies if I spelt Archeopteryx wrong, I couldn't be arsed to look it up)


You need to understand that just because the evidence hasn't been discovered yet, doesn't mean that the theory is completely incorrect. It just means that you have to be patient.

And nobody said that everything in the bible is a complete lie. In a lot of cases the bible is historically accurate. The flood did happen. But just because a flood happened doesn't mean that it happened the way it did in the bible.

You need to understand that just because the evidence hasn't been discovered yet, doesn't mean that the theory is completely incorrect. It just means that you have to be patient.

And nobody said that everything in the bible is a complete lie. In a lot of cases the bible is historically accurate. The flood did happen. But just because a flood happened doesn't mean that it happened the way it did in the bible.

Ok once the evidence is found I'll belive you.

How do you know how old the world is? I doubt very much you've been around 6000 years, or several million. Why does it matter how old the world is the important thing is it exists.

Because we're inquisitive animals and we like to know these things.