NationStates Jolt Archive

. To the best of my ability, I have respected you. I expect the same.

if it were an eye for an eye, the world would be blind.

Now I forgot who said that, but it is pretty true

never expect to get what you give. Your going to be a very disappointed person if you do

if it were an eye for an eye, the world would be blind.

Now I forgot who said that, but it is pretty true

never expect to get what you give. Your going to be a very disappointed person if you do
That was Gandhi. Expecting what you give is actually a good principle. People will often live up to it if they know that that is what's expected of them.

There's a fundamental difference between eye for an eye and the Golden Rule-- namely that one is about reciprocating good behavior, and one is about reciprocating bad behavior.

That was Gandhi. Expecting what you give is actually a good principle. People will often live up to it if they know that that is what's expected of them.

You are obviously refering to those who are actually kind

now how many of those do we have on this Earth?

a religous rule I made up? No, wrong. Based on the definition of religion as I had always understood it, my statements were true.
I have never heard any authority say that "all religions view the worship of other gods as sinful." You said stating opinion is no way to get someone to concede. In that case, are you prepared to show the factual basis or authoritative source for that statement? If you don't have one, then we must conclude that it is just your opinion, stated as if it was fact.

You use the broader definition, which, while a valid definition, is not what I have come to know as the common definition. I based my statements on the definition I knew, which also is a valid definition.
But would you not agree that, if the conversation is to be ecumenical -- as it has been for several hundred pages -- then the broader definition is more appropriate in the current context?

Now if you don't mind, the personal attacks are not appreciated. To the best of my ability, I have respected you. I expect the same.
I beg your pardon if you think a little sarcasm is a personal attack, but if you like, we can call ourselves even, since I found your remarks about animism and "opinion" to be unnecessarily condescending and dismissive. My sarcasm was in response to that.

I have never heard any authority say that "all religions view the worship of other gods as sinful." You said stating opinion is no way to get someone to concede. In that case, are you prepared to show the factual basis or authoritative source for that statement? If you don't have one, then we must conclude that it is just your opinion, stated as if it was fact.

But would you not agree that, if the conversation is to be ecumenical -- as it has been for several hundred pages -- then the broader definition is more appropriate in the current context?

I beg your pardon if you think a little sarcasm is a personal attack, but if you like, we can call ourselves even, since I found your remarks about animism and "opinion" to be unnecessarily condescending and dismissive. My sarcasm was in response to that.

Do I have to spell it out?

D R O P I T . L E T I T G O .

You are obviously refering to those who are actually kind

now how many of those do we have on this Earth?
If you treat people kindly, they are more likely to treat you kindly in return. Everybody has some degree of kindness in them. Even our late friend Adolf loved his wife, despite his otherwise callous disregard for human life.

if it were an eye for an eye, the world would be blind.

Now I forgot who said that, but it is pretty true

never expect to get what you give. Your going to be a very disappointed person if you do
He is getting what he gave. Apparently, Sensible Insanity was not aware that his remarks were insulting to me. I did tell him so, but... oh, well. Now both he and I know how it feels to be brushed off high-handedly. I'm happy to back off and lighten up, if he will, too.

If you treat people kindly, they are more likely to treat you kindly in return. Everybody has some degree of kindness in them. Even our late friend Adolf loved his wife, despite his otherwise callous disregard for human life.

You may, or may not be confusing love with kindness

and Muravyets is confusing respect with kindness

Do I have to spell it out?

D R O P I T . L E T I T G O .
Why? It's not like it's going to go anywhere or lead to anything. Why can't we play it out? This isn't a fight. Haven't you people seen fights on this forum? Hell, haven't you seen the three fights that have been in just the last 150 pages of this thread (and I wasn't even in any of those). This is nothing like that. This is just two cats pissing under the same porch. We can meow at each other a few more times without the world coming to an end.

If you treat people kindly, they are more likely to treat you kindly in return. Everybody has some degree of kindness in them. Even our late friend Adolf loved his wife, despite his otherwise callous disregard for human life.

also Im going to add that what some people call kind, may not be considered the same by another

like my dog brought a mangled rabbit to my door at midnight last night...

well it stunk up my house for 6 hours straight. Im sorry, but im not going to give him a dead animal in return.

Or maybe not allowing someone to pull the plug when they are dying and in pain, and want to end it all, when they beg you to let it all end...because you think you are being kind...

Why? It's not like it's going to go anywhere or lead to anything. Why can't we play it out? This isn't a fight. Haven't you people seen fights on this forum? Hell, haven't you seen the three fights that have been in just the last 150 pages of this thread (and I wasn't even in any of those). This is nothing like that. This is just two cats pissing under the same porch. We can meow at each other a few more times without the world coming to an end.

agreed. Also, if we let it go, this place would reek with boredom

Whoever started the post and made the poll, nice job targeting only theists and atheists on this matter. You completely ignored the agnostics, who take no stance because they don't know, feel they can't know, or don't have enough evidence of either case to accept either as the definite truth.

Whoever started the post and made the poll, nice job targeting only theists and atheists on this matter. You completely ignored the agnostics, who take no stance because they don't know, feel they can't know, or don't have enough evidence of either case to accept either as the definite truth.

why should we involve people who have nothing to argue?

You may, or may not be confusing love with kindness

and Muravyets is confusing respect with kindness
Good insight. I value kindness, but I value respect equally. In fact, I think respect is of more immediate importance than kindness in many circumstances. I felt that Sensible Insanity's remarks were disrespectful to me, and that is why I responded to him the way I did.

why should we involve people who have nothing to argue?
We have nothing to argue? I argue that it's not definite yes or no. I argue that it's not a black and white matter. I argue that you can't assume a god doesn't exist just because it hasn't been proven to exist and vice versa. Agnostics have plenty to argue concerning the existence of a god/gods

Good insight. I value kindness, but I value respect equally. In fact, I think respect is of more immediate importance than kindness in many circumstances. I felt that Sensible Insanity's remarks were disrespectful to me, and that is why I responded to him the way I did.


I understand thereasoning of your actions completely. Maybe Im trying to correct the use of the word 'kindness'

Or maybe not allowing someone to pull the plug when they are dying and in pain, and want to end it all, when they beg you to let it all end...because you think you are being kind...

This one has always confused me...

if an animal is suffering, we put it down graciously, to spare it the pain of a slow, agonizing death. It doesn't matter that the animal cannot ask for death, and what if the animal wants to live out the remainder?

But we call it inhumane to let an animal suffer, so we have it put down.

But when a human, who has the ability to ask for release, is in the exact same situation, we call it inhumane to end their suffering? Isn't forcing a terminal patient to live, when they're in that kind of agony, akin to torture?

I'm sorry, but I have to say that I'm with Kevorkian on this one.

We have nothing to argue? I argue that it's not definite. I argue that it's not a black and white matter. I argue that you can't assume a god doesn't exist because it hasn't been proven to exist and vice versa. Agnostics have plenty to argue concerning the existence of a god/gods
What do you think we have been doing for the past 500 pages?

This one has always confused me...

if an animal is suffering, we put it down graciously, to spare it the pain of a slow, agonizing death. It doesn't matter that the animal cannot ask for death, and what if the animal wants to live out the remainder?

But we call it inhumane to let an animal suffer, so we have it put down.

But when a human, who has the ability to ask for release, is in the exact same situation, we call it inhumane to end their suffering? Isn't forcing a terminal patient to live, when they're in that kind of agony, akin to torture?

I'm sorry, but I have to say that I'm with Kevorkian on this one.
I personally agree with you. I was just using the situation as a metaphor

He is getting what he gave. Apparently, Sensible Insanity was not aware that his remarks were insulting to me. I did tell him so, but... oh, well. Now both he and I know how it feels to be brushed off high-handedly. I'm happy to back off and lighten up, if he will, too.

He did back off and lighten up.

And I've been on this thread off and on from pretty early on. I've seen some fights, yes. And I've seen worse fights-- ever tried to debate religion on the RLA forums? It's like competing with monkeys in poo-throwing.

also Im going to add that what some people call kind, may not be considered the same by another

like my dog brought a mangled rabbit to my door at midnight last night...

well it stunk up my house for 6 hours straight. Im sorry, but im not going to give him a dead animal in return.

Or maybe not allowing someone to pull the plug when they are dying and in pain, and want to end it all, when they beg you to let it all end...because you think you are being kind...
True, there is such thing as relative moral standards, but your dog bringing you a dead rabbit is his sign of affection for the friendship you have shown him. There's a little bit of a communication breakdown, but a dead rabbit on your doorstep is better than the dog chomping down on your hand or something.

What do you think we have been doing for the past 500 pages?
Exactly the reason I tend to avoid forums in the first place, everyone has already said what I ever want to say 100 times by the time I find a forum I can contribute to. :headbang: Point taken

agreed. Also, if we let it go, this place would reek with boredom
Meow-purr. *sharpens claws on furniture* ;)

There is a God, and there is only one path to him. Jesus.
Except for that whole break in the "holy" line, where he iterates:

"Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani!"

Whatever did you think that meant, hmmm?

Whoever started the post and made the poll, nice job targeting only theists and atheists on this matter. You completely ignored the agnostics, who take no stance because they don't know, feel they can't know, or don't have enough evidence of either case to accept either as the definite truth.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm a theist, but the agnostics are the only ones who are correct. It is impossible to know for absolute sure whether there is a God.

I personally agree with you. I was just using the situation as a metaphor
*nods* I know, I was hoping to add a new topic tho, because piss fights are annoying :)

I understand thereasoning of your actions completely. Maybe Im trying to correct the use of the word 'kindness'
Cool. It's not a word I use often.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm a theist, but the agnostics are the only ones who are correct. It is impossible to know for absolute sure whether there is a God.
True.

I can name so many people who would start saying the bible is proof

then I get to spend the next hour trying to convince them the bible was written by man, not God

Do you have faith in God?
But is there a god?

2 very different questions.
First one: if a god is, it should have faith in the human condition, it made it.
The human sentients should not have faith in a god leaving them to misery (stop that free willy thing!).

The second one is more of your business, blah blah blah....



The High Priest
- **** you all in peace -

Yes, without question. (answering the poll :p)

Do you have faith in God?
But is there a god?

2 very different questions.
First one I should say the if a god is, it should have faith in the human condition, it made it.
The human sentients should not have faith in a god leaving them to misery.

The second one is more of your business, blah blah blah....



The High Priest
- **** you all in peace -

um...what?

Do you have faith in God?
But is there a god?

2 very different questions.
First one: if a god is, it should have faith in the human condition, it made it.
The human sentients should not have faith in a god leaving them to misery (stop that free willy thing!).

The second one is more of your business, blah blah blah....



The High Priest
- **** you all in peace -

muuuch better. I understand it now, and I have no clue how to argue with it, cause it is really late and Im tired as crap.

the point of this post? I Nazi the crap out of grammatical errors, even though I make alot of them

We have nothing to argue? I argue that it's not definite yes or no. I argue that it's not a black and white matter. I argue that you can't assume a god doesn't exist just because it hasn't been proven to exist and vice versa. Agnostics have plenty to argue concerning the existence of a god/gods

I think I understand where you're coming from... not so much the conversation, which has allowed for an agnostic view, but for the poll itself, which is missing the "I'm not sure" option... correct?

He did back off and lighten up.
And in the morning, after my coffee and my yoga, I'll feel like accepting that. But right now, with my fur up, it's not enough. He would have to acknowledge that I am more likely to know about animism than he is, because it is my religion, for me to make nice right now, before the tonic of sleep followed by yoga and coffee.

And I've been on this thread off and on from pretty early on. I've seen some fights, yes. And I've seen worse fights-- ever tried to debate religion on the RLA forums? It's like competing with monkeys in poo-throwing.
<snip>
I'd like to think that what Sensible Insanity and I are doing is more in the line of a pissing contest. It seems ever so slightly less uncivilized. Easier to clean up, at any rate.

But whatever. I'm going to bed now. Tomorrow, we shall say no more about it. Of course, if I log on tomorrow and find a sweet message here from Sensible Insanity making nice for having hurt my feelings (without meaning to, of course), then I will purr and cuddle up and apologize for hurting his feelings and bring him a freshly killed mouse, and we'll all be happy and the bunnies can go back to dancing in the meadows.

But in the meantime, I'm going for the sleep cure. Ciao.

And in the morning, after my coffee and my yoga, I'll feel like accepting that. But right now, with my fur up, it's not enough. He would have to acknowledge that I am more likely to know about animism than he is, because it is my religion, for me to make nice right now, before the tonic of sleep followed by yoga and coffee.


I'd like to think that what Sensible Insanity and I are doing is more in the line of a pissing contest. It seems ever so slightly less uncivilized. Easier to clean up, at any rate.

But whatever. I'm going to bed now. Tomorrow, we shall say no more about it. Of course, if I log on tomorrow and find a sweet message here from Sensible Insanity making nice for having hurt my feelings (without meaning to, of course), then I will purr and cuddle up and apologize for hurting his feelings and bring him a freshly killed mouse, and we'll all be happy and the bunnies can go back to dancing in the meadows.

But in the meantime, I'm going for the sleep cure. Ciao.

this metaphor of a pissing contest leads me to images similiar to a watergun fight

thanks guys, nice talkin to ya

bed


~Dragoon

And in the morning, after my coffee and my yoga, I'll feel like accepting that. But right now, with my fur up, it's not enough. He would have to acknowledge that I am more likely to know about animism than he is, because it is my religion, for me to make nice right now, before the tonic of sleep followed by yoga and coffee.


I'd like to think that what Sensible Insanity and I are doing is more in the line of a pissing contest. It seems ever so slightly less uncivilized. Easier to clean up, at any rate.

But whatever. I'm going to bed now. Tomorrow, we shall say no more about it. Of course, if I log on tomorrow and find a sweet message here from Sensible Insanity making nice for having hurt my feelings (without meaning to, of course), then I will purr and cuddle up and apologize for hurting his feelings and bring him a freshly killed mouse, and we'll all be happy and the bunnies can go back to dancing in the meadows.

But in the meantime, I'm going for the sleep cure. Ciao.

In the end, I fear our personalities are probably too much alike. You're demanding an apology before giving one. I feel I already made my ammends and shouldn't have to specifically apologize for each and every triviality during the lengthy discussion.

I don't need, nor want an apology from you, or for you to make nice, as I feel we were both simply expressing ourselves. And there's nothing wrong with human expression that needs apologizing over.

Do you have faith in God?
But is there a god?

2 very different questions.
First one: if a god is, it should have faith in the human condition, it made it.
The human sentients should not have faith in a god leaving them to misery (stop that free willy thing!).

The second one is more of your business, blah blah blah....



The High Priest
- **** you all in peace -
I really have no clue whatsoever what you are talking about. I think it's along the "blame God" line of thinking, but I can't tell for sure... it's just too damn nonsensical:headbang:

"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.
It's worth it. They don't look aged at all (although they started young).
VX Gas Attack is on it, with an update in vid footage - plus there's an information media segment on it worth a gander.
And the special from Too Dark Park - Spasmolytic. :D
And the special from Last Rights - Love In Vein :D :D

They have a good live show. The only thing i didn't like (surprisingly enough) is that, being industrial, they needed some "augmentation" on sound for the performance - but at least it was original material for it.
At some points Ogre sings over himself in octave or harmony, which is cool.
The sound thickness is so powerful for the tougher ones (Inquisition, Harsh Stone White) that it would normally put the lighter ones to shame (Deep Down Trauma Hounds), but even those sounded good. The only one missing was the guest drumming by Danny Carey for UseLess :( (they didn't even do it, nor Goneja).

It's worth the $. :)

Five minutes? But, you haven't paid... :o
I've got you there.
No you haven't. I could be arguing in my spare time.

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

Thread envy?

now there's a new psycological condition I would love to see a psychiatrist try to tackle. :D
Eutrusca "Grendel" might be of use here. *nods*

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'
Where you from, boy?
-Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, sir.
Only two things come out of Oklahoma ...
So, where you from, puppet?

I never liked that definition of evil, because it seems to imply that evil is never explicitly willed, as if those that kill, rape, or steal simply lacked one quality or another. It almost removes evil acts from the realm of free will since it seems to claim that a different choice would have been made if only the person making the choice had possessed consideration or compassion.

Many people have compassionate or condsiderate urges, but still do evil things in spite of those desires. In that way, an evil act lacks consideration, but it is not simply the lack of consideration, but it is the conscious choice to override consideration that I regard as evil.
I agree with that, although substitute "very, very bad" for "evil".

So, human beings alter creation by creating evil?
You just stated as much, yourself (creation being "what is"). :)

Either God imbued us with greater power than we realised, or we simply took what already existed and named it evil. The latter possibility, though, conflicts with the concept of sin, since if there is no evil in all of creation, then humans can do nothing to earn damnation.
We do have power, and all spiritual power is a) immaterial and b) greater than "what is" (that's what makes it power). Love is a power. Sin, too, is described as a power.

The former, that we somehow alter creation to create evil by choice, implies that we were created with that ability. If God created human and is himself without evil, then how was God able to give humanity an ability to create a quality he lacks?
The claim that God is without evil is made by a scant few. You defined 'evil' as a conscious decision to override ones inherent consideration for others, so in that regard (and as we are made in God's image, so can look to ourselves to define him) God is also capable of consciously overriding consideration. That isn't to say that he does it, though there are some Biblical examples that would appear to fit.

Happiness and sadness (ie. unhappiness) are polar opposites, but can exist in the same person, at the same time. The question still remains, however - would we recognize one without the other as a reference?
Impossible to say, as we don't have the capability to choose to experience only one in our lifetimes, or go without any particular emotion. I do believe that we would.

It's perfectly tied!

Or it was before I voted.

Still 1032:1031 is impressive.

Hm, the thread title implies that a god exists whether or not I have faith in it. I can't comprehend the existence of anything godly, because it doesn't seem logical to me.

Whoever started the post and made the poll, nice job targeting only theists and atheists on this matter. You completely ignored the agnostics, who take no stance because they don't know, feel they can't know, or don't have enough evidence of either case to accept either as the definite truth.
We are not ignored by the poll at all. Those agnostics who are undecided have no place responding on the issue of the existence of God. Existence is absolute (yes or no).

1. - Well i think it does. Pure opinion here.

2. - But how could it be "all good" if we don't know what "all good" is? And what would be the point? If there was no murder, we wouldn't know if it was good or not unless we have experience with murder and know what it is.

3. - yeah very clever. Maybe we don't have a word for it, but we know what the opposite of Infinity IS, so we can still appreciate it.

1 & 2 - you really aren't engaging all cylinders. What you and I are both describing - and yet, for some reason, only I want it... is basically THE description of the Christian version of Heaven.

3) There IS no opposite of infinity.

3) There IS no opposite of infinity.
Oh yeah?! What about ANTI-finity, smart guy?

You said that one cannot choose what evidence they will and will not accept. From this follows the idea that one cannot choose what evidence they will and will not accept.


Which is fair enough. But that doesn't mean they would HAVE no evidence.


If you cannot choose what evidence you will and will not accept, how can you determine what matters are to be dealt with empirically or non-empirically. You just accept or don't accept evidence - you cannot choose which evidence to accept or not accept.


Whether or not I CHOOSE the evidence, doesn't effect the evidence.

If evidence is 'empirical', it should be dealth with empirically - regardless of my views.


I was under the impression you were talking about what would make a "better" world. As the word "better" is inherently subjective, our perception and interpretation is all that can possibly matter in the discussion.

"Better" is not an empirical term. It is subjective. You may think that a world with only good would be "better". Someone else might disagree. Neither can be demonstrated empirically, as they are based completley in your subjective of view of what would be "better".


If I am colour-blind, I might have difficulty perceiving the differenc between green and blue. I wouldn't be able to tell WHICH was more 'blue', and which more 'green'.

But, blue would still be 'bluer' than green, would it not? Whether or not I could conceive it... whether or not I could discern it. Whether or not I could describe it.

I don't see HOW a world of no suffering would be considered arbitrary in comparison to a world WITH suffering.

I don't think that is subjective... I think that would be EMPIRICALLY 'better'.


But, without sadness, would you ever know happiness?

Yes. Why not? Maybe you have thus far managed not to break a leg... but that doesn't mean you are not 'happy' to have two working legs.

Doesn't that notion run contrary to the concept of God's omniscience? He created everthing and is everywhere, so how can you move away from him?

First of all, "being everywhere" is omnipresence, not omniscience. Omniscience is knowing everything. Meanwhile, when I talk of moving away from God, I am not talking about a physical movement, but a mental one.

Further, if you equate good with God, where does evil come from? All things come from God, yet not evil? Then is there another source, and is that what I move towards when I move away from God?

You do not need a source for a lack of something. There are sources of light in the universe. Is there also a source of darkness? Or is darkness simply defined by a lack of light?

Which is fair enough. But that doesn't mean they would HAVE no evidence.

Whether or not I CHOOSE the evidence, doesn't effect the evidence.

If evidence is 'empirical', it should be dealth with empirically - regardless of my views.

If I am colour-blind, I might have difficulty perceiving the differenc between green and blue. I wouldn't be able to tell WHICH was more 'blue', and which more 'green'.

But, blue would still be 'bluer' than green, would it not? Whether or not I could conceive it... whether or not I could discern it. Whether or not I could describe it.

I don't see HOW a world of no suffering would be considered arbitrary in comparison to a world WITH suffering.

I don't think that is subjective... I think that would be EMPIRICALLY 'better'.

Yes. Why not? Maybe you have thus far managed not to break a leg... but that doesn't mean you are not 'happy' to have two working legs.

Most people, including those people who consider themselves scientifically grounded, do not live their individual lives according to scientific precepts.

Take risk assessment for example. While we should be far more fearful of just getting into a car, we exhibit far more fear of serial killers, nuclear powerplants, and flying on aircraft - when the math shows us that these other "threats" are orders of magnitude less probable than being killed or maimed in a car accident.

Even things like guns fall into this category. The odds of you, as a gun owner, accidentally shooting yourself (or having your child under the age of 16 accidentally shooting themself) is marginal at best compared to common household accidents such as falling in the bath or falling down the stairs.

More kids are killed in swimming pool drownings every year than in firearm accidents, yet I don't hear a stampede of protesting mothers aginst swimming pools.

We have nothing to argue? I argue that it's not definite yes or no. I argue that it's not a black and white matter. I argue that you can't assume a god doesn't exist just because it hasn't been proven to exist and vice versa. Agnostics have plenty to argue concerning the existence of a god/gods

But, Agnostic is parallel to the question of theism/atheism. It isn't an answer.

If you believe it is not possible to know for sure, if there is a god/gods - but you lean towards the idea that there IS - you are an Agnostic Theist.

On the other hand, if you believe it is not possible to know for sure, if there is a god/gods - but you lean towards the idea that there is NOT - you are an Agnostic Atheist.

Agnosticism is a modifier on the subject of 'belief'... it is not an answer to the question of belief.

It's worth it. They don't look aged at all (although they started young).
VX Gas Attack is on it, with an update in vid footage - plus there's an information media segment on it worth a gander.
And the special from Too Dark Park - Spasmolytic. :D
And the special from Last Rights - Love In Vein :D :D

They have a good live show. The only thing i didn't like (surprisingly enough) is that, being industrial, they needed some "augmentation" on sound for the performance - but at least it was original material for it.
At some points Ogre sings over himself in octave or harmony, which is cool.
The sound thickness is so powerful for the tougher ones (Inquisition, Harsh Stone White) that it would normally put the lighter ones to shame (Deep Down Trauma Hounds), but even those sounded good. The only one missing was the guest drumming by Danny Carey for UseLess :( (they didn't even do it, nor Goneja).

It's worth the $. :)

It's on 'the list'. :)

Gotta love Ogre... oh how I wish my copy of Bedside Toxicology wasn't 4000 miles East of me... :(

But, Agnostic is parallel to the question of theism/atheism. It isn't an answer.

If you believe it is not possible to know for sure, if there is a god/gods - but you lean towards the idea that there IS - you are an Agnostic Theist.

On the other hand, if you believe it is not possible to know for sure, if there is a god/gods - but you lean towards the idea that there is NOT - you are an Agnostic Atheist.

Agnosticism is a modifier on the subject of 'belief'... it is not an answer to the question of belief.
Pretty much.

I had the same initial reaction to the poll as AH, the reaction of, "Hey, what about MY belief system!" I agree that agnostics tend to get ignored in the shuffle a lot, and it does tend to give one a teeny tiny chip on the shoulder.

But, the fact remains, there is no agnostic answer to the question, "Is there a God?" The entire point of agnosticism is that we don't (and possibly can't) know the answer to that question, but the EXISTENCE of the question is not in despute.

Oh yeah?! What about ANTI-finity, smart guy?

I'm willing to 'believe'... let us discuss the properties... ;)

Which is fair enough. But that doesn't mean they would HAVE no evidence.

Of course not. But it would be useless to ever try and get people to agree on evidence - on what evidence is pertinent, etc. because they would have no choice in the matter.

Whether or not I CHOOSE the evidence, doesn't effect the evidence.

No, but it affects how the evidence is used. If you cannot choose what evidence you will and will not accept, then you cannot rationally examine it and use it to come to conclusions. Rationality depends upon the ability to examine and either accept or reject evidence. It depends upon the ability to decide which evidence is pertinent. Neither is possible without the possibility of choice.

If I am colour-blind, I might have difficulty perceiving the differenc between green and blue. I wouldn't be able to tell WHICH was more 'blue', and which more 'green'.

But, blue would still be 'bluer' than green, would it not? Whether or not I could conceive it... whether or not I could discern it. Whether or not I could describe it.

Blue and green are defined by wavelenths. Tell me, what measurable physical property defines "better".

I don't think that is subjective... I think that would be EMPIRICALLY 'better'.

Once again, you have to define "better". It is an inherently subjective term dependent upon our perception of a situation. What I think is "better", you may think is "worse".

Yes. Why not? Maybe you have thus far managed not to break a leg... but that doesn't mean you are not 'happy' to have two working legs.

I have experienced injury, however. I have had experiences with those who do not have the use of their legs. And so on....

If I did not know it was possible to lose the use of my legs, I would have no reason to be "happy" that they both work.

Both happiness and unhappiness require some sort of reference. Otherwise, the words themselves are meaningless.

Most people, including those people who consider themselves scientifically grounded, do not live their individual lives according to scientific precepts.

Take risk assessment for example. While we should be far more fearful of just getting into a car, we exhibit far more fear of serial killers, nuclear powerplants, and flying on aircraft - when the math shows us that these other "threats" are orders of magnitude less probable than being killed or maimed in a car accident.

Even things like guns fall into this category. The odds of you, as a gun owner, accidentally shooting yourself (or having your child under the age of 16 accidentally shooting themself) is marginal at best compared to common household accidents such as falling in the bath or falling down the stairs.

More kids are killed in swimming pool drownings every year than in firearm accidents, yet I don't hear a stampede of protesting mothers aginst swimming pools.

I'm not entirely sure where it fits in...

But - on the other hand, I guess I am an exception - because I have taken intercontinental flights with nary a worry, and am not too perturbed at my proximity to nuclear power plants.. but I constantly am concerned about my safety on the road...

Pretty much.

I had the same initial reaction to the poll as AH, the reaction of, "Hey, what about MY belief system!" I agree that agnostics tend to get ignored in the shuffle a lot, and it does tend to give one a teeny tiny chip on the shoulder.

But, the fact remains, there is no agnostic answer to the question, "Is there a God?" The entire point of agnosticism is that we don't (and possibly can't) know the answer to that question, but the EXISTENCE of the question is not in despute.

I consider myself an Atheist.

I find myself firmly in the 'I don't believe in God' camp.

I'm not sure it is possible to KNOW... I'm not sure there COULD be an evidence good enough to 'prove it' to me... but I'm also not sure there is NO WAY I could be convinced.

So - I'm almost 'agnostic' about Agnosticism... but I LEAN towards the idea I can never know for sure... for the above reason - I just can't imagine what MIGHT convince.

I am an Implicit Atheist, tending towards Agnosticism.

But - to me - the question of whether I believe in god, is actually more important than whether I think I 'could'... so I identify myself as Atheistic.

3) There IS no opposite of infinity.
Regardless of what Massmurder said, it's not a matter of opposites but of contrasts. Our world is contrasted to infinity, as our mortality is contrasted to eternity.

I consider myself an Atheist.

I find myself firmly in the 'I don't believe in God' camp.

I'm not sure it is possible to KNOW... I'm not sure there COULD be an evidence good enough to 'prove it' to me... but I'm also not sure there is NO WAY I could be convinced.

So - I'm almost 'agnostic' about Agnosticism... but I LEAN towards the idea I can never know for sure... for the above reason - I just can't imagine what MIGHT convince.

I am an Implicit Atheist, tending towards Agnosticism.

But - to me - the question of whether I believe in god, is actually more important than whether I think I 'could'... so I identify myself as Atheistic.
See, and this is why I get so bitchy when all "non-believers" are lumped together.

We're supposed to give a crap about the differences between the gazillion different sects of Jeebus-ism, yet they get to lump all non-God-believers under the uniform heading of "atheist."

*Pout* Jerks.

Blue and green are defined by wavelenths. Tell me, what measurable physical property defines "better".

Once again, you have to define "better". It is an inherently subjective term dependent upon our perception of a situation. What I think is "better", you may think is "worse".


No - I don't have to define it. I'm not quibbling semantics.

Look at it 'pragmaticlly', if it helps. In terms of the pragmatic view - which is 'better', a world where children get raped and murdered... or where they don't.


I have experienced injury, however. I have had experiences with those who do not have the use of their legs. And so on....

If I did not know it was possible to lose the use of my legs, I would have no reason to be "happy" that they both work.

Both happiness and unhappiness require some sort of reference. Otherwise, the words themselves are meaningless.

You are right, the words ARE meaningless. They are OUR handles on the concepts, not ;iteral realities.

Answer me a question - how many people get raped, murdered, tortured... in 'Heaven'?

You do not need a source for a lack of something. There are sources of light in the universe. Is there also a source of darkness? Or is darkness simply defined by a lack of light?
*polite applause*

Regardless of what Massmurder said, it's not a matter of opposites but of contrasts. Our world is contrasted to infinity, as our mortality is contrasted to eternity.

My 'world' is infinite.... and my 'mortality', conjectural.

I have experience boundaries to neither.

My 'world' is infinite.... and my 'mortality', conjectural.

I have experience boundaries to neither.
Okay, I'm totally stealing that.

See, and this is why I get so bitchy when all "non-believers" are lumped together.

We're supposed to give a crap about the differences between the gazillion different sects of Jeebus-ism, yet they get to lump all non-God-believers under the uniform heading of "atheist."

*Pout* Jerks.

It's probably because people don't often get killed in the name of a 'sect' of Atheism. It annoys me that the 'religious' establishments (not individuals... some are far better about such things) tend to define ALL other gods and 'systems', and ALL atheists and skeptics, into 'not us'.

To me - there is a HUGE leap of faith between Implicit and Explicit Atheism - but, apparently, that distinction is ONLY important (again, generalising, I know) to the Atheists.

Okay, I'm totally stealing that.

*bows*

Oh crap... just noticed... if you are going to steal it... can you correct my spelling... ;)

It's probably because people don't often get killed in the name of a 'sect' of Atheism. It annoys me that the 'religious' establishments (not individuals... some are far better about such things) tend to define ALL other gods and 'systems', and ALL atheists and skeptics, into 'not us'.

Yup. It wouldn't annoy me so much, except these people usually end up trying to tell me what I believe, since they're so sure they know exactly what narrow set of beliefs must be held by all people who don't believe in God.


To me - there is a HUGE leap of faith between Implicit and Explicit Atheism - but, apparently, that distinction is ONLY important (again, generalising, I know) to the Atheists.
Yup again. Yet this distinction is totally ignored, while the trivial differences in beliefs about the specific properties of the supreme diety are debated ad nauseum.

No - I don't have to define it. I'm not quibbling semantics.

Look at it 'pragmaticlly', if it helps. In terms of the pragmatic view - which is 'better', a world where children get raped and murdered... or where they don't.
Pragmatically, neither is 'better' or 'worse' than the other. Depends on circumstances. If there are too many children, it may be more practical to have a few killed off, or it may not.

The only significant context where the latter is 'better' is in how it affects the individual observer emotionally, and in terms of values.

My 'world' is infinite.... and my 'mortality', conjectural.

I have experience boundaries to neither.
You're not going to die?! Lucky bugger.

And I should envy that there's no end to the day in your world, too.

You're not going to die?! Lucky bugger.

And I should envy that there's no end to the day in your world, too.

Maybe I'll die, maybe I won't. I certainly haven't YET, so I have no basis for comparison.

As for the day/night thing... I thought you intended physical boundaries as being 'finite'... but, until one day a day just goes on and on and on, my world is, temporally, only as 'finite' as the latest second I've experienced... no?

See, and this is why I get so bitchy when all "non-believers" are lumped together.

We're supposed to give a crap about the differences between the gazillion different sects of Jeebus-ism, yet they get to lump all non-God-believers under the uniform heading of "atheist."

*Pout* Jerks.

It's why I call them God-people.

Pragmatically, neither is 'better' or 'worse' than the other. Depends on circumstances. If there are too many children, it may be more practical to have a few killed off, or it may not.

The only significant context where the latter is 'better' is in how it affects the individual observer emotionally, and in terms of values.

Ah... I see where you and I differ... you are making 'pragmatic' conditional... I was meaning 'ideal'.

Yup again. Yet this distinction is totally ignored, while the trivial differences in beliefs about the specific properties of the supreme diety are debated ad nauseum.

And, often - the difference that causes so much strife, is over something as trivial as 'which verse is more important'...

Yup. It wouldn't annoy me so much, except these people usually end up trying to tell me what I believe, since they're so sure they know exactly what narrow set of beliefs must be held by all people who don't believe in God.

It's the "So-much-less-holy-than-thou" 'Agnostics' that annoy me..."Atheism and Theism are the same." "I don't fall [as thought it's below them, ugh] into the whole mess."

It's the "So-much-less-holy-than-thou" 'Agnostics' that annoy me..."Atheism and Theism are the same." "I don't fall [as thought it's below them, ugh] into the whole mess."

Theists and atheists can find common ground in their mutual distaste for Agnostics? :p

No - I don't have to define it. I'm not quibbling semantics.

Look at it 'pragmaticlly', if it helps. In terms of the pragmatic view - which is 'better', a world where children get raped and murdered... or where they don't.

But why a pragmatic view? This is exactly why the word "better" cannot be objectively defined or used in a discussion like this. I might disagree that pragmatism is a good way to define "better". To me, "better" might be "more purple."

And Willamena makes a good point - that pragmatism, in its strictest sense, may require the killing of children, although most of us would never go that route - pragmatic or not.

Answer me a question - how many people get raped, murdered, tortured... in 'Heaven'?

None. But could those in heaven truly be thankful for that fact if they didn't know about such things?

See, and this is why I get so bitchy when all "non-believers" are lumped together.

We're supposed to give a crap about the differences between the gazillion different sects of Jeebus-ism, yet they get to lump all non-God-believers under the uniform heading of "atheist."

*Pout* Jerks.

To be fair, one could lump all God-believers under the heading "theist."

One cannot define the beliefs or philosophical system of another completely by any given grouping. No matter how small you make the grouping, the individual will be different from any other individual in some way.

Theists and atheists can find common ground in their mutual distaste for Agnostics? :p

Then where do we place agnostic theists or agnostic atheists? Or do they have distaste for themselves?

*boggle*

But why a pragmatic view? This is exactly why the word "better" cannot be objectively defined or used in a discussion like this. I might disagree that pragmatism is a good way to define "better". To me, "better" might be "more purple."



It could... to you. To me, I consider the amount of suffering more important than the amount of purple.

How about we assume 'suffering' as a marker?


None. But could those in heaven truly be thankful for that fact if they didn't know about such things?


DO they 'know about such things'?

Then where do we place agnostic theists or agnostic atheists? Or do they have distaste for themselves?

*boggle*

*chews arm*

...Eww, I do taste bad. Yeah, I think we have a distaste for ourselves.

DO they 'know about such things'?

If an afterlife exists, I don't think we forget the life we've led. So, yes, a person who went to "heaven" would know about such things.

Then where do we place agnostic theists or agnostic atheists? Or do they have distaste for themselves?

*boggle*

Maybe they have some kind of psychotic break every few years where their conflicting arrogance and uncertainty send them on a rage-fueled, homicidal excursion through a city centre with a blunt instrument.

Maybe I'll die, maybe I won't. I certainly haven't YET, so I have no basis for comparison.

As for the day/night thing... I thought you intended physical boundaries as being 'finite'... but, until one day a day just goes on and on and on, my world is, temporally, only as 'finite' as the latest second I've experienced... no?
The day is a 'physical boundary', delineated by the time we set aside to sleep. A second is finite. A moment is finite. An event is finite. And our experiences of events are finite.

To get a bit back on topic.

Myself, I don't believe in God, be it a he or she or an it, nor do I have any reason to. The Ten Commandments are nothing more then a guidlines to live a better life really and are reasonable. Thou Shalt Not Kill, so on and so forth.. The Holy Bible is just a story book that goes over the same points, but it would seem in different ways. Well, atleast to me that is.

Ah... I see where you and I differ... you are making 'pragmatic' conditional... I was meaning 'ideal'.
I don't understand.

It could... to you. To me, I consider the amount of suffering more important than the amount of purple.

How about we assume 'suffering' as a marker?
But 'the suffering' affects someone, personally, and that why it has importance. That's not necessarily pragmatic at all.

night

of

the

living

dead

thread

!!!

*snip*
Shaun of the living dead thread.

(i.e. it's fun)

I dont think there is a god, If any person dedicated to a religion, and they traced it back, they'd find that the only reason there was a first religion was to explain how the world worked, now we know because of science, we dont need god.

What an excellent joke. I admire you very much.

Oh, thanks. I like your style too.

I dont think there is a god, If any person dedicated to a religion, and they traced it back, they'd find that the only reason there was a first religion was to explain how the world worked, now we know because of science, we dont need god.
Science tells us no such thing. Science is no substitute for a relationship with the divine.

Oh, thanks. I like your style too.
Hey, that's rude.

I dont think there is a god, If any person dedicated to a religion, and they traced it back, they'd find that the only reason there was a first religion was to explain how the world worked, now we know because of science, we dont need god.

Was it? Don't you have to first assume that there is no god to come to the conclusion that religion only came about to explain how the world works? And, in that case, wouldn't it be a bit circular to use it as a disproof of god?

Hey, that's rude.

What? Is style a euphanism now?

In the end, I fear our personalities are probably too much alike. You're demanding an apology before giving one. I feel I already made my ammends and shouldn't have to specifically apologize for each and every triviality during the lengthy discussion.

I don't need, nor want an apology from you, or for you to make nice, as I feel we were both simply expressing ourselves. And there's nothing wrong with human expression that needs apologizing over.
Well, so much for dancing bunnies. We know where we stand with each other. Too bad, but oh well.

I really have no clue whatsoever what you are talking about. I think it's along the "blame God" line of thinking, but I can't tell for sure... it's just too damn nonsensical:headbang:
I thought he was just commenting on the fact that the thread title and the poll question are two different topics.

What? Is style a euphanism now?

Everything is a euphamism, if you're talking to the right people.

If an afterlife exists, I don't think we forget the life we've led. So, yes, a person who went to "heaven" would know about such things.

Is that scriptural? Or just - they way you like it?

Me - I like your idea. I like the idea of meadows and bunnies, and thinking back the the 'bad old days' so we can appreciate it now, how good we've got it.

But - I realise that is just me hoping for some kind of wish-fulfillment. I've no REASON to believe that model.


My mother-in-law, a STAUNCH Southern Bappy Person, is firmly convinced we DO forget EVERYTHING about our mortal lives, once we 'get to heaven'... because she thinks it would be impossible to exist in a state of bliss if we knew those we'd formerly loved, were having their figgins toasted for all eternity.

It's a good argument. I certainly can't fault it.

The day is a 'physical boundary', delineated by the time we set aside to sleep. A second is finite. A moment is finite. An event is finite. And our experiences of events are finite.

I work nights, and only sleep 3 or 4 hours a day. A second IS finite, as far as WE can tell... but, maybe, only because we haven't 'met' a infinite one?

It is also entirely arbitrary... we 'invented' the concept, so it is not surprising that it conforms to our ideas.

Is an event finite? Isn't the whole 'process' of entropy 'an event'? Isn't it as finite as time and space?

Are our experiences finite? Are we not just limited by our AWARENESS? And - isn't it possible that YOUR awareness is very different to mine... so 'infinite' awareness is only improbable?

I don't understand.

I say 'pragmatic', and you make assumptions... 'yes, but under SOME circumstances...'

That isn't an 'ideal' form of pragmatism, it is conditional.

Well, so much for dancing bunnies. We know where we stand with each other. Too bad, but oh well.

Personally, I thought you deserved more courtesy than you received.

You made good arguments that illuminated the error of the way... but your 'opponent' (quite rudely, I thought - despite the 'attempt' at grace) totally rubbished your efforts and arguments, with his/her claim that it was entirely his/her own efforts that led him/her to realise his/her error.

And - since an insult is less about what Person A 'means', and more about what Person B thinks it means... it would have been good form for your opponent to offer an earnest apology.

That's my point-zero-two dollars. :)

Is that scriptural? Or just - they way you like it?

It's more an idea inherent in the very idea of an "afterlife". Our memories and experiences are a part of who we are. If we somehow lose these in the "next life", it is no longer "us" who are living.

There is very little that can be drawn directly from scriptures about the afterlife - and you know I don't rely completely upon them anyways.

My mother-in-law, a STAUNCH Southern Bappy Person, is firmly convinced we DO forget EVERYTHING about our mortal lives, once we 'get to heaven'... because she thinks it would be impossible to exist in a state of bliss if we knew those we'd formerly loved, were having their figgins toasted for all eternity.

That's nice, but it means that she does not believe she will go to heaven. "She" does not exist without her memories and experiences. I'm not even sure what part of her could go to heaven if all things before must be forgotten. Are all beings in heaven without perception?


I say 'pragmatic', and you make assumptions... 'yes, but under SOME circumstances...'

That isn't an 'ideal' form of pragmatism, it is conditional.

"Ideal" form of pragmatism is a bit of an oxymoron, don't you think? The very idea of pragmatism is that you do what is practical in the situation which exists. The very definition invokes a conditional.

It's more an idea inherent in the very idea of an "afterlife". Our memories and experiences are a part of who we are. If we somehow lose these in the "next life", it is no longer "us" who are living.


Well - while I think the modern conception of 'soul' or 'spirit' is a HUGE distance from the Hebrew scriptural definition(s)... I assume that it is the soul (or maybe spirit, the two seem interchangable, now) that many people think does the after-life partying.


There is very little that can be drawn directly from scriptures about the afterlife - and you know I don't rely completely upon them anyways.


It would be hard to rely on any one scriptural reference. But - doesn't that mean that your 'model' really IS just wishful thinking?

I can certainly conjure images of MANY 'afterlife' scenarios that don't match the peaches-and-cream model. Not least being the joyous future many Christians think I deserve just for being me.


That's nice, but it means that she does not believe she will go to heaven. "She" does not exist without her memories and experiences. I'm not even sure what part of her could go to heaven if all things before must be forgotten. Are all beings in heaven without perception?


Again - I assume this is the 'spirit body, or soul passenger... or whatever the thing is.


"Ideal" form of pragmatism is a bit of an oxymoron, don't you think? The very idea of pragmatism is that you do what is practical in the situation which exists. The very definition invokes a conditional.

And, pargamatism in an 'ideal' situation? I don't see it as contradictory.

I think one can choose to be open and receptive, but that does not guarantee that one will actually receive anything. So, in other words, you can choose to WANT to believe.

Likewise, if you believe, you can "turn away from god," but can you actually stop believing in his existence? Or would you just be choosing to ignore his existence?
Yes, it's a process without a guaranteed outcome. The religious traditions I referred to hold that by opening oneself up to, or by aligning one's self with, God, one is embraced by God (or divinity or whatever). Thus one may achieve the evidence one needs to actually believe in God. That belief may well be delusional (I would argue it probably is), but nonetheless sincere.

Similarly, by turning away from God, one can achieve seperation from the divine, thus lose evidence of it and consequently, over time, belief.

Neither outcome is guaranteed - not everyone has the necessary mindset either way - but when they happen in such circumstances the belief or lack thereof is a consequence of a choice made.

I work nights, and only sleep 3 or 4 hours a day. A second IS finite, as far as WE can tell... but, maybe, only because we haven't 'met' a infinite one?
If it was infinite, it wouldn't be a second, would it!

It is also entirely arbitrary... we 'invented' the concept, so it is not surprising that it conforms to our ideas.
We invented the measurement of time, not time itself.

Is an event finite? Isn't the whole 'process' of entropy 'an event'? Isn't it as finite as time and space?
I know diddely-squat about entropy, I'm sorry. The whole 2nd Law debates baffle me. As far as I can tell, it is a measurement done by scientists, so yes, it is finite. If you refer it as a process that is continuous, never-ending, well, there are those learned people who claim that the universe had a beginning and will have an ending, so it is as finite as any universal processes are.

But the only significant events are those we experience ourselves.

Are our experiences finite? Are we not just limited by our AWARENESS? And - isn't it possible that YOUR awareness is very different to mine... so 'infinite' awareness is only improbable?
Experiences have beginning and endings, that is what makes them finite. That events are subjectively perceived, that they are interpreted differently by individuals, that our perception of them is limited by awareness, guarantees that the experience of each of them is finite. We are subject to the passage of time. Our awareness is of a moment in time called "now", an awareness that orders the world in a manner that allows for a "then" and a "when", a past and a future. The experience of each event is unique, different from one that came before, and different from any that will follow. That, too, is finity (not a word, but it should be): an event experienced once can never be repeated exactly the same, because at least one variable has irrevocably changed, time.

I say 'pragmatic', and you make assumptions... 'yes, but under SOME circumstances...'

That isn't an 'ideal' form of pragmatism, it is conditional.
No, you say 'pragmantic', and I look it up in the dicitonary... I know I've heard it used a few times, but I like to be sure I know what we're talking about. "Of or pertaining to a practical point of view or considerations..." The word introduces circumstantial conditions, not I.

If it was infinite, it wouldn't be a second, would it!


Yes. If that is what the definition was taken to mean, in that special circumstance.

It is semantic. This is like disproving God with square circles.


We invented the measurement of time, not time itself.


And thus, the measurement is entirely arbitrary. But, we have no other 'mechanism' for quantifying time.


I know diddely-squat about entropy, I'm sorry. The whole 2nd Law debates baffle me. As far as I can tell, it is a measurement done by scientists, so yes, it is finite. If you refer it as a process that is continuous, never-ending, well, there are those learned people who claim that the universe had a beginning and will have an ending, so it is as finite as any universal processes are.


Or - as infinite, as the case may be.


But the only significant events are those we experience ourselves.


Why? They are only significant TO US, but that says nothing to their 'real' significance.


Experiences have beginning and endings, that is what makes them finite. That events are subjectively perceived, that they are interpreted differently by individuals, that our perception of them is limited by awareness, guarantees that the experience of each of them is finite. We are subject to the passage of time. Our awareness is of a moment in time called "now", an awareness that orders the world in a manner that allows for a "then" and a "when", a past and a future. The experience of each event is unique, different from one that came before, and different from any that will follow. That, too, is finity (not a word, but it should be): an event experienced once can never be repeated exactly the same, because at least one variable has irrevocably changed, time.

No - our OBSERVATION of experiences appears finite... but we don't know that. How do you KNOW that, when you watch the steam evaporate out of your kettle... you are not actually, simultaneously 'experiencing' EVERYTHING, throughout all time? You COULD be... but you are only AWARE of a tiny fraction.

And - even within that fraction - what is the level of 'detail' you experience. Is it possible that, under hypnosis, you might be able to identify details you didn't KNOW you knew about that experience? ISn't it even possible, you COULD be able to identify details you couldn't realistically have observed?

No, you say 'pragmantic', and I look it up in the dicitonary... I know I've heard it used a few times, but I like to be sure I know what we're talking about. "Of or pertaining to a practical point of view or considerations..." The word introduces circumstantial conditions, not I.

Which is why I clarified... which clarification you now seem to be arguing with...

Yes, it's a process without a guaranteed outcome. The religious traditions I referred to hold that by opening oneself up to, or by aligning one's self with, God, one is embraced by God (or divinity or whatever). Thus one may achieve the evidence one needs to actually believe in God. That belief may well be delusional (I would argue it probably is), but nonetheless sincere.

Similarly, by turning away from God, one can achieve seperation from the divine, thus lose evidence of it and consequently, over time, belief.

Neither outcome is guaranteed - not everyone has the necessary mindset either way - but when they happen in such circumstances the belief or lack thereof is a consequence of a choice made.
Yes, I see what you are saying. I guess I'm saying that the "seed of belief" (if you will), i.e. the ability to believe (in god, in the supernatural, in anything else you like), is inherent in the individual, and if it is not there, then there is no way to create it, or install it, or something. The person who receives an experience of a god, and who becomes a believer in that god as a result, must already have within them the capacity to believe in such a thing as a god. If they do not, they will come up with other explanations for their experience.

Well - while I think the modern conception of 'soul' or 'spirit' is a HUGE distance from the Hebrew scriptural definition(s)... I assume that it is the soul (or maybe spirit, the two seem interchangable, now) that many people think does the after-life partying.

And do they not think that the soul or spirit encompasses your personality - who you are?

It would be hard to rely on any one scriptural reference. But - doesn't that mean that your 'model' really IS just wishful thinking?

Depends on whether or not you believe guidance from the divine can be received. Anything and everything any human being thinks about the divine *might* be wishful thinking. It might be divinely inspired. It might even be, to a point, hard-wired in.

Again - I assume this is the 'spirit body, or soul passenger... or whatever the thing is.

What exactly is this thing if it is not us? And how can we say that we will have "life eternal" if we do not continue to exist - if some "piece" of us that was completley unaffected by everything that made us who we are goes on, can we really say that we have gone on?

And, pargamatism in an 'ideal' situation? I don't see it as contradictory.

There would be absolutely no need for pragmatism in an ideal situation. One wouldn't have to determine the "best" course of action in an ideal situation - because the only course of action would be the ideal one.

Methinks you should read Genesis. It's made very clear that it was the serpent who was 'more crafty than any of the wild animals' who persuaded Eve to eat the fruit; Satan isn't even mentioned until the book of Numbers if I recall correctly.

Me have read Genesis actually and you have taken it very literally rather than looking at it, so the serpant was just a walking talking thing walking around the garden of Eden tempting things? i think not monsieur, since God had already created Angels and Arch-angels then there was a Satan or Lucifer or any other Devil name you wish to call him! so Chapter Three of Genesis clearly refers to a Serpant but later on is identified as the Devil. Denial. this leads to satan's denying of the Truth of God's word and maligning of God's character and motives! so when you read the bible do you take a literal point of view? because thats a bad way to read it !

The person who receives an experience of a god, and who becomes a believer in that god as a result, must already have within them the capacity to believe in such a thing as a god. If they do not, they will come up with other explanations for their experience.

And even if they have that capacity, they might still interpret the experience differently, and find another explanation.


Me have read Genesis actually and you have taken it very literally rather than looking at it, so the serpant was just a walking talking thing walking around the garden of Eden tempting things? i think not monsieur, since God had already created Angels and Arch-angels then there was a Satan or Lucifer or any other Devil name you wish to call him! so Chapter Three of Genesis clearly refers to a Serpant but later on is identified as the Devil. Denial. this leads to satan's denying of the Truth of God's word and maligning of God's character and motives! so when you read the bible do you take a literal point of view? because thats a bad way to read it !

(a) What Scripture describes the creation of angels and archangels and such?

(b) What Scripture clearly identifies the serpent as Satan? Was this identified or assumed?

(c) Why is it that there is no evidence of a "Satan" in the ancient Hebrew religion until after the Babylonian exile, where they were exposed to religions with opposing "good" and "evil" deities?

(d) If you are not taking a literal point of view of the Bible, why must the event as described in the Bible have taken place at all? It might be an allegory for something else, and the serpent need not be Satan.

Personally, I thought you deserved more courtesy than you received.

You made good arguments that illuminated the error of the way... but your 'opponent' (quite rudely, I thought - despite the 'attempt' at grace) totally rubbished your efforts and arguments, with his/her claim that it was entirely his/her own efforts that led him/her to realise his/her error.

And - since an insult is less about what Person A 'means', and more about what Person B thinks it means... it would have been good form for your opponent to offer an earnest apology.

That's my point-zero-two dollars. :)
Thanks. I said I'd probably have a different take on it after sleeping, but it turns out I don't. I still think he was rude to me. I know I was being touchy about it, but I felt I had good reason in that I got touched, i.e. provoked in a minor way by the rudeness. It seemed a pretty simple set-up from my point of view. This person made a statement of purported fact. I -- and several other people, too -- came back with facts that debunked his statement. The only response any of us got was to watch him treat me in a very dismissive and snippy manner, even up to his remarks about how he doesn't think an apology is required, but he still thinks I owe him one. Whatever. Compared to the kinds of offensive remarks made by certain parties on this forum, this is really nothing to get upset over, but it still bothers me. Just a little.

Oh, well. Enough of it. I'll just say thank you because you made me feel better by letting me know I'm not the only one who saw it that way. Maybe it's just the two of us, but at least I'm not alone in my little room. Walking away from it now.

And even if they have that capacity, they might still interpret the experience differently, and find another explanation.

Agreed. Having the capacity to believe does not guaranty that one will believe. But not having the capacity to believe pretty much does guarantee that one will not believe.

And even if they have that capacity, they might still interpret the experience differently, and find another explanation.



(a) What Scripture describes the creation of angels and archangels and such?

(b) What Scripture clearly identifies the serpent as Satan? Was this identified or assumed?

(c) Why is it that there is no evidence of a "Satan" in the ancient Hebrew religion until after the Babylonian exile, where they were exposed to religions with opposing "good" and "evil" deities?

(d) If you are not taking a literal point of view of the Bible, why must the event as described in the Bible have taken place at all? It might be an allegory for something else, and the serpent need not be Satan.
God created thye Angels - Job 38:4-7 describes the angels worshipping God as He was creating the world – “Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7). So, although the Bible does not specifically say when God created the angels, it was sometime before the world was created. Whether this was a day before, or a thousand years before, we cannot be sure.

dont forget that the Bible is God's spoken word why should he reviel everything in the First Chapters?

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast with him') and Rev. 20:2 ('And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years'.

Again God's Spoken word

Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? There were alot of Religions in the world at the time of Moses himself i.e Egyptians had there God's. Some where Good and some Where Evil so there was much evil b4 Babylon???? so why cut out half the story?

And the clear statement in the first answer is as the same as the Fourth Question!

there is alot to read 66 books in all and people still dont understand the world yet God can tell you alot.

Yes. If that is what the definition was taken to mean, in that special circumstance.

It is semantic. This is like disproving God with square circles.
Uh, which circumstance? Did I miss something?

A 'second' is definitional, it is a measurement. Since a finite thing has a beginning and an ending, and a measurement necessarily has a beginning and an ending, it is appropriate.

And thus, the measurement is entirely arbitrary. But, we have no other 'mechanism' for quantifying time.
...hence arbitariness is irrelevant.

Or - as infinite, as the case may be.
Granted.

Why? They are only significant TO US, but that says nothing to their 'real' significance.
Because that's what significant means, it means something important TO US (conscious, thinking life-forms). Unless you are implying there is something else in the universe that the events should be significant to. (God? The universe itself? Do they care?)

No - our OBSERVATION of experiences appears finite... but we don't know that. How do you KNOW that, when you watch the steam evaporate out of your kettle... you are not actually, simultaneously 'experiencing' EVERYTHING, throughout all time? You COULD be... but you are only AWARE of a tiny fraction.

And - even within that fraction - what is the level of 'detail' you experience. Is it possible that, under hypnosis, you might be able to identify details you didn't KNOW you knew about that experience? ISn't it even possible, you COULD be able to identify details you couldn't realistically have observed?
There is nothing "apparent" about our experience of events --experience from a unique, subjective perspective --having a fixed beginning and an ending. If events went on forever, we would probably go insane with information overload, but they don't, thank Brad.

I know that I am not experiencing the entire time-frame BECAUSE I am aware of only a tiny fraction of it. Experience is what we are aware of at any given moment: "a particular instance of personally encountering or undergoing something".

The level of detail is irrelevant. Amount of memory recall would be irrelevant. Whether by conscious or subconscious awareness, the experience still fits the definition of finite --it begins and it ends.

Which is why I clarified... which clarification you now seem to be arguing with...
What is "an ideal form of pragmatism" then?

Yes, I see what you are saying. I guess I'm saying that the "seed of belief" (if you will), i.e. the ability to believe (in god, in the supernatural, in anything else you like), is inherent in the individual, and if it is not there, then there is no way to create it, or install it, or something. The person who receives an experience of a god, and who becomes a believer in that god as a result, must already have within them the capacity to believe in such a thing as a god. If they do not, they will come up with other explanations for their experience.
With this agument I think I agree, though it's speculation on my part; hence my qualifier about necessary mindsets.

However, whether one has the 'seed of belief' or not, one may still make an independent choice about turning to or from God, no? (Though it may of course influence the individual's decision about whether or not to make such a choice.)

God created thye Angels - Job 38:4-7 describes the angels worshipping God as He was creating the world – “Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7). So, although the Bible does not specifically say when God created the angels, it was sometime before the world was created. Whether this was a day before, or a thousand years before, we cannot be sure.

Where in that does it say that God created them? Where does it say that there are different types (ie. archangels)?

The point is that most angelology came from other sources and have been incorporated.

dont forget that the Bible is God's spoken word why should he reviel everything in the First Chapters?

The Bible is not "God's spoken word." The Bible is a collection of documents written by men who we believe to have been inspired by God. The two are not equivalent. God did not dictate the Bible to anyone, nor did God write it and hand it down from on high.

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast with him') and Rev. 20:2 ('And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years'.

How does this demonstrate that the particular serpent in the garden is Satan? All it does is say that Satan is a serpent - specifically a dragon (which would likely still have its legs - go figure). It does not say that all serpents - or the particular one in the garden, is Satan.

Once again, you are presuming things based on what you have been taught about Scripture, not what is there.

Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

The Tree was in Eden - long before any other religions. There is no evidence whatsoever of a "Satan" as opposed to God in Hebrew religion until after the Babylonian exile - long after Moses, David, and Solomon.

And the clear statement in the first answer is as the same as the Fourth Question!

How does anything at all in the first statement answer the fourth question? You gave me no indication whatsoever of why you claim the Bible should not be read literally, but still take this story as a literal story.

With this agument I think I agree, though it's speculation on my part; hence my qualifier about necessary mindsets.

However, whether one has the 'seed of belief' or not, one may still make an independent choice about turning to or from God, no? (Though it may of course influence the individual's decision about whether or not to make such a choice.)
That's my point of view, but with that one quibble, I think we're pretty close to being on the same page.

EDIT: Not a "quibble." More like a "caveat."

Yes, I see what you are saying. I guess I'm saying that the "seed of belief" (if you will), i.e. the ability to believe (in god, in the supernatural, in anything else you like), is inherent in the individual, and if it is not there, then there is no way to create it, or install it, or something. The person who receives an experience of a god, and who becomes a believer in that god as a result, must already have within them the capacity to believe in such a thing as a god. If they do not, they will come up with other explanations for their experience.
I cannot imagine a person with no capability to believe anything ... belief is a value (of truth) that we place on knowledge, and that would imply that the person was unable to assign values to anything, or unable to comprehend what truth is. Such a person would be severely handicapped.

With increased knowledge comes new belief.

This online comic is not entirely unrelated to our topic.
Dinosaur Comics (http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=790)

My mother-in-law, a STAUNCH Southern Bappy Person, is firmly convinced we DO forget EVERYTHING about our mortal lives, once we 'get to heaven'... because she thinks it would be impossible to exist in a state of bliss if we knew those we'd formerly loved, were having their figgins toasted for all eternity.

i have never met anyone who believed that. is it a common SB belief?

My Baptist experience was equally strange. I went to a Baptist Sunday School for about a year, and I remember this one time when they told us kids to take a black crayon to signify sin, and a red crayon to signify the blood of Christ, and cover a piece of paper with the black, the cover over it with the red, and those of us who had faith, would have their paper turn white as the blood purified the sins...

(true story, no kidding)

My Baptist experience was equally strange. I went to a Baptist Sunday School for about a year, and I remember this one time when they told us kids to take a black crayon to signify sin, and a red crayon to signify the blood of Christ, and cover a piece of paper with the black, the cover over it with the red, and those of us who had faith, would have their paper turn white as the blood purified the sins...

(true story, no kidding)

wow

what was the point of that exercise? to show children that they have no faith? or did some twit really believe that the paper would turn white? how did you feel when it didnt work?

wow

what was the point of that exercise? to show children that they have no faith? or did some twit really believe that the paper would turn white? how did you feel when it didnt work?

I tries to cheat and cover it up with a white crayon :)
of course, that didn't work either.

My mom tells me the church had us do quite a lot of similarly absurd things. She came early to pick us up one day and caught them yelling at the whole class that we were all going to go to hell unless we behaved the way they told us to. That was the last day there for my siblings and I.

I tries to cheat and cover it up with a white crayon :)
of course, that didn't work either.

My mom tells me the church had us do quite a lot of similarly absurd things. She came early to pick us up one day and caught them yelling at the whole class that we were all going to go to hell unless we behaved the way they told us to. That was the last day there for my siblings and I.
glad to hear that. the whole "Fire and Brimstone" way of preaching is really part of the lessions of Jesus.

I cannot imagine a person with no capability to believe anything ... belief is a value (of truth) that we place on knowledge, and that would imply that the person was unable to assign values to anything, or unable to comprehend what truth is. Such a person would be severely handicapped.

With increased knowledge comes new belief.
I don't think there is anyone who lacks a capacity to believe in anything. But I do think that, because different people process information and develop thought differently, then different people will have or lack the capacity to believe different things. This would explain why some people can accept belief on faith, while others must have some reality to base their beliefs on, while yet others cannot believe in anything that is not demonstrably real, and so forth. I do not believe that it is just a matter of choosing whether or not to buy into this or that religious construct. I think that the things we believe in are linked to the way we think, which is connected to the ways our brains work.

Don't know if anyone mentioned this but...

http://www.chick.com/default.asp

Makes me realise how Christianity can sometimes be too devout. I'm not flaming the other guys here, but this is a good example IMO. These guys could be called fundementalists, for lack of a better word, but they say that Catholics are evil and will go to hell, how hailing mary is a sin under the ten commandments, Catholics worship god too! They also CONFESS what they did wrong, just like the catholics they hate. But read it for yourself, for I may be wrong about somethings

Thanks. I said I'd probably have a different take on it after sleeping, but it turns out I don't. I still think he was rude to me. I know I was being touchy about it, but I felt I had good reason in that I got touched, i.e. provoked in a minor way by the rudeness. It seemed a pretty simple set-up from my point of view. This person made a statement of purported fact. I -- and several other people, too -- came back with facts that debunked his statement. The only response any of us got was to watch him treat me in a very dismissive and snippy manner, even up to his remarks about how he doesn't think an apology is required, but he still thinks I owe him one. Whatever. Compared to the kinds of offensive remarks made by certain parties on this forum, this is really nothing to get upset over, but it still bothers me. Just a little.

Oh, well. Enough of it. I'll just say thank you because you made me feel better by letting me know I'm not the only one who saw it that way. Maybe it's just the two of us, but at least I'm not alone in my little room. Walking away from it now.

:)

As always, you are welcome. :)

a religous rule I made up? No, wrong. Based on the definition of religion as I had always understood it, my statements were true.

You use the broader definition, which, while a valid definition, is not what I have come to know as the common definition. I based my statements on the definition I knew, which also is a valid definition.

Now if you don't mind, the personal attacks are not appreciated. To the best of my ability, I have respected you. I expect the same.

A definition as you understood it was wrong. Maybe you didn't make it up. Still wrong.

The problem is you said Buddhism is not a religion in response to someone else's comment. They said Buddhism was a religion. You said they were wrong. They weren't. That makes your statement *gasp* wrong. Accept. Feed off it. Enjoy it.

You used a Judeochristian-centric definition that ignores many other religions and upon being corrected embarrassed yourself. You could be a little more graceful upon discovering your error.

And followers of Buddhism will all tell you the same. It is NOT a religion. Just because a government classifies it as one, doesn't make it so.

Edit: sorry, felt the need to add a supporting source and exerpts

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm

And how did this one work out for you? Oh, that's right. Because you can find some people that don't consider it a religion doesn't make you right to agree with them. Some people think ID is science. They're wrong too. You eventually admitted it, but it was after being very rude. I think it's worth highlighting just how very wrong you were.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion

Using a reliable dictionary that is not centered on Judeo-Christianity, religion is defined in a way that is more inclusive. You admit to using a definition that cannot be found in Webster's Dictionary that excludes a large portion of the world's devoutly religious and act like anyone who noticed was over-sensitive to the point of being quite a bit condescending and insulting to them for defending their own religious views.

Regardless of what Massmurder said, it's not a matter of opposites but of contrasts. Our world is contrasted to infinity, as our mortality is contrasted to eternity.
GOOD post. *bows*

God created thye Angels - Job 38:4-7 describes the angels worshipping God as He was creating the world – “Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7). So, although the Bible does not specifically say when God created the angels, it was sometime before the world was created. Whether this was a day before, or a thousand years before, we cannot be sure.

dont forget that the Bible is God's spoken word why should he reviel everything in the First Chapters?

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast with him') and Rev. 20:2 ('And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years'.

Again God's Spoken word

Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? There were alot of Religions in the world at the time of Moses himself i.e Egyptians had there God's. Some where Good and some Where Evil so there was much evil b4 Babylon???? so why cut out half the story?

And the clear statement in the first answer is as the same as the Fourth Question!

there is alot to read 66 books in all and people still dont understand the world yet God can tell you alot.


I find this amusing. You talk about the word of god... you talk about how it is somehow divine... and yet you ignore something.

Yes - our Authorised King James Bible has 66 books in it. But - are you aware the Catholics still have 73? Did you know the texts we call the 'apocrypha' were considered core texts until 1885? Did you know that the King James text refers to, or quotes, a further 22 books, which are not considered part of the canon?

Did you know, the translations for the King James text actually consisted of 80 texts?

Did you know that there were originally considered somewhere in the ballpark of 600 'biblical' texts... and that Constantine started a process we still follow today, which is reducing the numbers of 'accepted texts' over time to match doctrine?


I find it bizzare that people can be SO SURE about what they are reading... and NOT realise they are reading a FRACTION of what HAS been considered the important scripture of Christianity. To me - it is as strange a concept, as someone believing they know 'all about' Jesus, because they have read Revelation...


But - to address some of the points you made:

1) How does one determine to read some parts of the scripture as 'literal', and others not? For example - it seems OBVIOUS to me, that the Resurrection is a metaphor.

2) It isn't just the conception of Statan that changes after the exile in Babylon. The Hebrews acquired their first real written tradition, a set of creation stories (very reminiscent of Babylonian ones, actually), and a Code of Laws (practically identical to Babylonian ones... even carved in stone).

3) That old serpent is CALLED Satan... he is 'termed as' adversary. That is not the same as saying he IS 'Satan'. Reading the scripture carefully, shows that 'satan' isn't one entity anyway... but a concept, or a job title.

4) Read the Hebrew, Job 38:7 describes 'Sons of God', or - maybe even 'Young Gods'. 'Angels' is an English translation... and not necessarily a good one.

...Yes - our Authorised King James Bible has 66 books in it. <top rate demonstration of well-read-manship>
Wow. :)

Wow. :)

More *bows*.

I certainly don't claim to know everything, but it is not going to be from want of trying. I kick ass at Trivial Pursuit, too - except the sport questions.

:)

Jocabia: wow... talk about beating a dead horse...

did you only bother reading half the conversation,m and then not even see the resolution? The problem was that neither of us were wrong, depending on which definition was used. And both definitions were correct.

Go troll elsewhere please.

And how did this one work out for you? Oh, that's right. Because you can find some people that don't consider it a religion doesn't make you right to agree with them. Some people think ID is science. They're wrong too. You eventually admitted it, but it was after being very rude. I think it's worth highlighting just how very wrong you were.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion

Using a reliable dictionary that is not centered on Judeo-Christianity, religion is defined in a way that is more inclusive. You admit to using a definition that cannot be found in Webster's Dictionary that excludes a large portion of the world's devoutly religious and act like anyone who noticed was over-sensitive to the point of being quite a bit condescending and insulting to them for defending their own religious views.
Thanks for this. The thing is, I don't think the spat was even over anyone defending their religious views. To me, it seems like a case of someone who did not like being wrong and did not want to concede a point to someone else. It's not a fun experience to have, but at least it's nothing like a real attack on someone's religious beliefs. Man, do you remember that war I had with some guy several months ago who got a bug up his ass to denounce my religion? That was unpleasant.

Jocabia: wow... talk about beating a dead horse...

did you only bother reading half the conversation,m and then not even see the resolution? The problem was that neither of us were wrong, depending on which definition was used. And both definitions were correct.

Go troll elsewhere please.

Actually - I'd say you WERE wrong. I realise I'm not Jocabia... but he is not the only person who might think so.

Not only were you wrong, but you were ungracious in your admission, not to mention more than a little 'spikey' about it.

But it's cool. Muravyets has 'moved on'. Perhaps you should, too?

Jocabia: wow... talk about beating a dead horse...

did you only bother reading half the conversation,m and then not even see the resolution? The problem was that neither of us were wrong, depending on which definition was used. And both definitions were correct.

Go troll elsewhere please.

Actually, I just logged in and I was involved in the conversation yesterday. Meanwhile, you are still wrong and you don't get. You could argue that racism is justified depending on your definition of black, but I'm not going to buy that either. See, this is the problem, you don't actually accept you're wrong even though she and I both were using the definition found in Webster's and you were using a JudeoChristian-centric made-up definition that discounts every religion that's not JudeoChrisitian. Suggesting that polytheistic RELIGIONS, animistic RELIGIONS and various other RELIGIOUS ideologies are not religions is wrong, and it can be shown to be so. The fact that you continue to defend it proves it is no dead horse. It's sad you can be this wrong and still act as if being a prick to M was justified.

Thanks for this. The thing is, I don't think the spat was even over anyone defending their religious views. To me, it seems like a case of someone who did not like being wrong and did not want to concede a point to someone else. It's not a fun experience to have, but at least it's nothing like a real attack on someone's religious beliefs. Man, do you remember that war I had with some guy several months ago who got a bug up his ass to denounce my religion? That was unpleasant.

I wasn't fortunate enough to party to it. I think it's amusing that he acts as if it's settled but continues to defend his error as if it were not exactly that.

But it's cool. Muravyets has 'moved on'. Perhaps you should, too?

say what? I had moved on. I hadn't said jack about it for several pages. Muravyets continued for a short bit, but yes did move on... then this joker pops up trolling some more... and yet I'm the one that didn't move on? o_O wow... just... wow

long live the trolls I guess

say what? I had moved on. I hadn't said jack about it for several pages. Muravyets continued for a short bit, but yes did move on... then this joker pops up trolling some more... and yet I'm the one that didn't move on? o_O wow... just... wow

long live the trolls I guess

So when you replied to me, you didn't intend for me to post a reply? And I'm trolling? I was involved in that conversation and I've been offline up until I posted again. You replied to me. You were wrong. You are still wrong. So I said so. 'This joker' is simply calling bullshit on your, well, bullshit. Telling you you're wrong and then proving it isn't trolling. It's called debate. I'm certain you've heard of it, though you seem to be more interested in complaining because our definition of religion is inclusive of *gasp* all religions.

By the way, the accepted origin of the word religion is from the latin word 'religio' which the Romans used to refer to the worship of demons. It was pre-Jesus and it was used to refer to the worship of supernatural spirits. They could not be classified as deities.

I wasn't fortunate enough to party to it. I think it's amusing that he acts as if it's settled but continues to defend his error as if it were not exactly that.
It actually makes me feel better about myself. I thought I was being too touchy, but apparently not. So now I'm kinda glad I met him. ;)

EDIT: And if you missed the aforementioned war, btw, you were lucky.

So when you replied to me, you didn't intend for me to post a reply? And I'm trolling? I was involved in that conversation and I've been offline up until I posted again. You replied to me. You were wrong. You are still wrong. So I said so. 'This joker' is simply calling bullshit on your, well, bullshit. Telling you you're wrong and then proving it isn't trolling. It's called debate. I'm certain you've heard of it, though you seem to be more interested in complaining because our definition of religion is inclusive of *gasp* all religions.

By the way, the accepted origin of the word religion is from the latin word 'religio' which the Romans used to refer to the worship of demons. It was pre-Jesus and it was used to refer to the worship of supernatural spirits. They could not be classified as deities.
I posted the dictionary definition, from the Oxford-English dictionary. There is no English dictionary that is as well respected. The primary definition is the one I have been following. I was NOT wrong. However, neither was Muravyets, as their definition was one of the secondary definitions.

So, yes, you are a troll, and you can kiss my backside. At least Muravyets I can respect, you 2 piece of trash trolls on the other hand... well... heh, whatever

I posted the dictionary definition, from the Oxford-English dictionary. There is no English dictionary that is as well respected. The primary definition is the one I have been following. I was NOT wrong. However, neither was Muravyets, as their definition was one of the secondary definitions.

So, yes, you are a troll, and you can kiss my backside. At least Muravyets I can respect, you 2 piece of trash trolls on the other hand... well... heh, whatever
By "you 2 piece of trash trolls" do you mean Jocabia and Grave_n_idle? Oh, dear, this is an awkwardity, because they are two of the posters I respect the most. Shall I be judged by the company I keep? That would be so frigging tragic. Well, I'd better resolve the issue by losing your "respect" on my own merits.

The fact of the matter is that you were wrong, on the facts. Yes, yes, I know all about your OED definition, but there are a couple of niggling little problems with it.

First, you already conceded (grudgingly) that both Buddhism and animism are religions, according to the OED definition of religion. So how can you now claim that you were right in saying that they are not religions?

Second, the primary entry in the OED definition reads:
1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
You say that this is the passage that makes you right (despite the fact that you already conceded that you were wrong), but of the two religions in question, only Buddhism does not worship a god or gods. Animism does, so by this criterion, you are still wrong about animism.

Third, at this point it is unclear what you are saying you were right about. Are you saying you were right in saying that Buddhism and animism are not religions? But you have already conceded that you were wrong about that. Are you saying that you were right in your initial statement that "all religions treat the worship of other gods as sinful"? But Buddhism and animism are examples of religions that do not think that way, and since they are, in fact, religions, then your initial statement must be wrong also.

So, no matter how you slice it, you come up wrong. You were mistaken. It's just that simple. The only reason any of us is still talking about it is because you also come up rude and persistent. But one thing I need to make clear is that, while I am willing to "move on" from an insult, I can never just "move on" from an obvious incidence of misinformation. In other words, I'll let you be rude to me, but I will not let you say things that are just plain not so.

oh my. The piss fight certainly got hotter

between the same people too...shame...im so lost, I dont feel like reading long posts and three pages right now

oh my. The piss fight certainly got hotter

between the same people too...shame...im so lost, I dont feel like reading long posts and three pages right now
Oh, sweetie, you're in the wrong thread, then. Not only are we quite bullheaded, we're also amazingly long-winded around here. Sensible Insanity will fit right in, no doubt.

Actually, Sensible Insanity has decided to just avoid the matter entirely at this point, as it doesn't seem to matter what's said, it will only become twisted, chewed up and spat back at them.

I said my piece pages back, but people keep digging it up trying to create a fight. I'll answer other topics in this thread, but I'm done with the idiotic arguement.

Actually, Sensible Insanity has decided to just avoid the matter entirely at this point, as it doesn't seem to matter what's said, it will only become twisted, chewed up and spat back at them.

I said my piece pages back, but people keep digging it up trying to create a fight. I'll answer other topics in this thread, but I'm done with the idiotic arguement.
So is it normal to speak of yourself in third person? Or is it meant to be humorous?

And its the internet...Thats just how its done

Wow... Muravyets, do you have nothing better to bitch about than dictionaries? Honestly, you can take stuff out of context and skew it to make it look like SI is being all hypocritical, but in reality he is willing to admit he made a mistake and you won't let that go. It gets OLD.

Wow... Muravyets, do you have nothing better to bitch about than dictionaries? Honestly, you can take stuff out of context and skew it to make it look like SI is being all hypocritical, but in reality he is willing to admit he made a mistake and you won't let that go. It gets OLD.


You've never been in an actual debate have you? If you've ever watched a Lincoln-Douglas debate, the whole point gets down to a dictionary reference. In fact, the latest one I was in got down to our version and meaning of 'freedom'. So please, don't do the bitching about Muravyets's correct way to debate.

You've never been in an actual debate have you? If you've ever watched a Lincoln-Douglas debate, the whole point gets down to a dictionary reference. In fact, the latest one I was in got down to our version and meaning of 'freedom'. So please, don't do the bitching about Muravyets's correct way to debate.
I don't deny that debates can frequently get down to semantics. However, Sensible Insanity concede that his original definition of religion was not the widely accepted one and was incorrect to a degree. I have been in debates, and it's bad form to keep drilling something into the ground after your opponent has conceded the point (Although this is a rarity because very few people outright admit that they were wrong).

I don't deny that debates can frequently get down to semantics. However, Sensible Insanity concede that his original definition of religion was not the widely accepted one and was incorrect to a degree. I have been in debates, and it's bad form to keep drilling something into the ground after your opponent has conceded the point (Although this is a rarity because very few people outright admit that they were wrong).

When he posts I posted the dictionary definition, from the Oxford-English dictionary. There is no English dictionary that is as well respected. The primary definition is the one I have been following. I was NOT wrong. However, neither was Muravyets, as their definition was one of the secondary definitions.

So, yes, you are a troll, and you can kiss my backside. At least Muravyets I can respect, you 2 piece of trash trolls on the other hand... well... heh, whatever

I hardly consider that as to conceding one's fault. Especially the whole " I WAS NOT WRONG" bit. And then calling Muravyets a 'piece of trash troll'.

Yeah....

I find this amusing. You talk about the word of god... you talk about how it is somehow divine... and yet you ignore something.

Yes - our Authorised King James Bible has 66 books in it. But - are you aware the Catholics still have 73? Did you know the texts we call the 'apocrypha' were considered core texts until 1885? Did you know that the King James text refers to, or quotes, a further 22 books, which are not considered part of the canon?

Did you know, the translations for the King James text actually consisted of 80 texts?

Did you know that there were originally considered somewhere in the ballpark of 600 'biblical' texts... and that Constantine started a process we still follow today, which is reducing the numbers of 'accepted texts' over time to match doctrine?


I find it bizzare that people can be SO SURE about what they are reading... and NOT realise they are reading a FRACTION of what HAS been considered the important scripture of Christianity. To me - it is as strange a concept, as someone believing they know 'all about' Jesus, because they have read Revelation...


But - to address some of the points you made:

1) How does one determine to read some parts of the scripture as 'literal', and others not? For example - it seems OBVIOUS to me, that the Resurrection is a metaphor.

2) It isn't just the conception of Statan that changes after the exile in Babylon. The Hebrews acquired their first real written tradition, a set of creation stories (very reminiscent of Babylonian ones, actually), and a Code of Laws (practically identical to Babylonian ones... even carved in stone).

3) That old serpent is CALLED Satan... he is 'termed as' adversary. That is not the same as saying he IS 'Satan'. Reading the scripture carefully, shows that 'satan' isn't one entity anyway... but a concept, or a job title.

4) Read the Hebrew, Job 38:7 describes 'Sons of God', or - maybe even 'Young Gods'. 'Angels' is an English translation... and not necessarily a good one.

The apocrypha is a collection of some books which were inspired by man!

Notice the Book of Judas? written by Judas? didnt he hang himself after taking back his Silver from the Pharisees? so the book that was supposedly written by him can only have been written by some other person.

The Ressurection a metaphor or simply just were Jesus rose from the Dead which was spoke about in the Old Teastement. i dont understand were your coming from?

2.were do you get your information from ? im confused at all this Babylonian Exile stuff ?

3. so he's just some random serpant who creeps into Eden the devil co-existe's in some random place. so your saying there was a Devil before the Devil? the Devil isnt just alone he Bought all manner of fallen angels with him!

4. sorry i dont know any Hebrew. so i cant really read the Hebrew version! so you must be able to read hebrew and read it in hebrew or looked on a website that has many hebrew stuff on!

5. I read the New King James Bible, also many other books. there's Pilgrams Prgress by John Bunyon, people like the Wesley's the Great Reformers who made it possible to have the Bible in England. the first Translation into English by John Wycliff who was burnt at the Stake for Herecy in England but the bible in English is still here today and being translated inot many different Launguages.

Theres a program which has all version of the Bible and the Apocraphya and all the commentary's on all the books and is very interesting to see it all

As a Christian i look at the Posts on here and Understand that people dont really understand what the Bible means? even i dont understand all of it!

I don't think there is anyone who lacks a capacity to believe in anything. But I do think that, because different people process information and develop thought differently, then different people will have or lack the capacity to believe different things. This would explain why some people can accept belief on faith, while others must have some reality to base their beliefs on, while yet others cannot believe in anything that is not demonstrably real, and so forth. I do not believe that it is just a matter of choosing whether or not to buy into this or that religious construct. I think that the things we believe in are linked to the way we think, which is connected to the ways our brains work.
But see I think that the object of belief is irrelevant to the capacity to believe. So you're talking about a capacity to believe in certain things. But the discussion was that whether or not they believe in them is not dependent upon them, not a choice (I thought you agreed with what Grave's said earlier).

I think that some people cannot accept on faith because the object of faith has not been explained to them in a way that they can understand. If it is, then belief will happen. But that says nothing about 'capacity to believe' --the capacity to believe is always there, in potential.

Don't know if anyone mentioned this but...

http://www.chick.com/default.asp

Makes me realise how Christianity can sometimes be too devout. I'm not flaming the other guys here, but this is a good example IMO. These guys could be called fundementalists, for lack of a better word, but they say that Catholics are evil and will go to hell, how hailing mary is a sin under the ten commandments, Catholics worship god too! They also CONFESS what they did wrong, just like the catholics they hate. But read it for yourself, for I may be wrong about somethings
They can also be called terrorists for lack of a better term. :)

How on EARTH is this STUPID thread still OPEN!?!?!?!?!

Woah...dude.

Im gonna save you from Grave-slapping, and catch you right here.



The apocrypha is a collection of some books which were inspired by man!

Umm..they all were.
The Gospel of Thomas for instance...114 sayings of Jesus.
Do you consider that to be inspired by man?

Notice the Book of Judas? written by Judas? didnt he hang himself after taking back his Silver from the Pharisees? so the book that was supposedly written by him can only have been written by some other person.

Dude...

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were written anywhere from 80-200 years after the Death of Jesus.
NONE of these texts were written by the supposed author, and were probably transcribed by fifth-hand information.
By those standards, the Gospel of Judas is equally valid, or invalid.

The Ressurection a metaphor or simply just were Jesus rose from the Dead which was spoke about in the Old Teastement. i dont understand were your coming from?

How about Jesus' death and ressurection being a metaphor for the change, and second-chance christianity is supposed to inspire within its followers?
"You were re-born unto God"...that kinda thing.

2.were do you get your information from ? im confused at all this Babylonian Exile stuff ?

He...umm...reads.
Jeez.

3. so he's just some random serpant who creeps into Eden the devil co-existe's in some random place. so your saying there was a Devil before the Devil? the Devil isnt just alone he Bought all manner of fallen angels with him!

No..he is saying that "devil" is a job title.
A demon, we'll say, sent with a purpose to harrass the populace.
The bible pretty much explains that, up until the New Testament redefined the term to mean "One devil...wich we will call Satan."



5. I read the New King James Bible, also many other books. there's Pilgrams Prgress by John Bunyon, people like the Wesley's the Great Reformers who made it possible to have the Bible in England. the first Translation into English by John Wycliff who was burnt at the Stake for Herecy in England but the bible in English is still here today and being translated inot many different Launguages.

You should look up "The book of common prayer"
It was the first version of the bible printed in English..so the common folks who didnt speak latin could read it.
You may be surprised to learn that it is incomplete, and only contains certain verses, and books....only what they aristocracy wished the common folks to know....makes em easier to control.

As a Christian i look at the Posts on here and Understand that people dont really understand what the Bible means? even i dont understand all of it!

As an Athiest, I think that means its poorly written...but hey...wadda I know?

I posted the dictionary definition, from the Oxford-English dictionary. There is no English dictionary that is as well respected. The primary definition is the one I have been following. I was NOT wrong. However, neither was Muravyets, as their definition was one of the secondary definitions...
As reluctant as I am to jump into this discussion, my pedantry requires me to point out that things in a dictionary are not listed in an order of "primary, secondary...", they are listed in a order of common usage, in differing contexts. Yours was obviously the more common usage in the UK in that context.

How about Jesus' death and ressurection being a metaphor for the change, and second-chance christianity is supposed to inspire within its followers?
"You were re-born unto God"...that kinda thing.
I haven't read it in decades, but I think it likely originally was a metaphor for something similar... but not the way it is presented by the Gospels. There, it is not presented as a metaphor, but as literal truth.

I haven't read it in decades, but I think it likely originally was a metaphor for something similar... but not the way it is presented by the Gospels. There, it is not presented as a metaphor, but as literal truth.


I think it got lost in the translation from Aremeic, or Hebrew, to Greek, to Latin, to English.
Or, equally as likely...deliberately altered or omitted.

I think it got lost in the translation from Aremeic, or Hebrew, to Greek, to Latin, to English.
Or, equally as likely...deliberately altered or omitted.
Actually, I think that even at the time of the writing of the Gospels, the metaphor was no longer understood.

Jesus talks a *lot* in metaphor, trying to impress on his people what the metaphor means. Even at the time of Jesus, the metaphors are not widely understood.

(I blame dead Greek guys.)

Actually, I think that even at the time of the writing of the Gospels, the metaphor was no longer understood.

Jesus talks a *lot* in metaphor, trying to impress on his people what the metaphor means. Even at the time of Jesus, the metaphors are not widely understood.

(I blame dead Greek guys.)


I tend to go for the deliberate part.
The Church has been distancing itself from the actual CONTENT of Jesus message, and instead focused on his divity.
They imply that the most important thing, is to belive he was the son of god, and that he died on the cross...thus assurance to all believers of a reward.

They shy away from the message of peace, and goodwill, and instead, focus on the dogma.

So..I think it was deliberately re-worded to eliminate the metaphor, and print it as if it were fact.

I tend to go for the deliberate part.
The Church has been distancing itself from the actual CONTENT of Jesus message, and instead focused on his divity.
They imply that the most important thing, is to belive he was the son of god, and that he died on the cross...thus assurance to all believers of a reward.

They shy away from the message of peace, and goodwill, and instead, focus on the dogma.

So..I think it was deliberately re-worded to eliminate the metaphor, and print it as if it were fact.
To me, Occam's Razor would indicate that be the less likely explanation. The sheer amount of work involved in robbing learned people of the metaphor is unimaginable.

On the other hand, the Greek philosophers of the first millennia B.C. had a proactive hand in rewritting the way the world saw ...the world. Learned people from all walks of life were exposed to their philosophies, and gained by them. They actually thought themselves *better off* by understanding things differently than the old metaphorical ways.

To me, Occam's Razor would indicate that be the less likely explanation. The sheer amount of work involved in robbing learned people of the metaphor is unimaginable.


Occams Razor can eat canned monkey-poo.

Its not so much "robbing learned people of the metaphor", as its "carefully redirecting the focus on some old texts."

As I mentioned earlier, "The Book of Common Prayer" was one such example of letting a group of people read selected portions of the bible.
Mainly ones that stressed obedience,and duty.
Its easier to control people, when you tell them what "God" wants them to believe.

The Church has done the same thing with Jesus message.
They have carefully worded the texts, (or edited, I should say) to focus on the Death, ressurection, and divinty of Jesus, and not his messages.
They make the gravest sin...not being one of them.
"Join us...and all is forgiven....Join us not...and be tortured in Hell, forever."

Sick to the Doctrine....increase membership.
Those are the primary goals of organized religion.

Occams Razor can eat canned monkey-poo.

Its not so much "robbing learned people of the metaphor", as its "carefully redirecting the focus on some old texts."

As I mentioned earlier, "The Book of Common Prayer" was one such example of letting a group of people read selected portions of the bible.
Mainly ones that stressed obedience,and duty.
Its easier to control people, when you tell them what "God" wants them to believe.

The Church has done the same thing with Jesus message.
They have carefully worded the texts, (or edited, I should say) to focus on the Death, ressurection, and divinty of Jesus, and not his messages.
They make the gravest sin...not being one of them.
"Join us...and all is forgiven....Join us not...and be tortured in Hell, forever."

Sick to the Doctrine....increase membership.
Those are the primary goals of organized religion.
And I think you can re-write the text all you want, but that won't remove the metaphor from learned people who understand it, who live it, who pass down what it means, no matter how gradual the change. People don't just look at the new words and say, "Hey! It means something different now. I'm going to change my belief."

The Book of Common Prayer is a different situation. It was introduced to people who had no prior knowledge of the metaphor or what it means, as their first introduction to the religion. They were not learned people, those were back home in southern Europe.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the Church did change Jesus' message over the centuries, that they did focus on things they shouldn't have, and I also believe it was out of ignorance, because they did not understand the metaphor themselves, because of political pressures, and because the world they lived in and the mind-set of man had changed, irrevocably.

I don't deny that debates can frequently get down to semantics. However, Sensible Insanity concede that his original definition of religion was not the widely accepted one and was incorrect to a degree. I have been in debates, and it's bad form to keep drilling something into the ground after your opponent has conceded the point (Although this is a rarity because very few people outright admit that they were wrong).

Let me just point out - Sensible Insanity made a point, which is fine in debate.

His (her?) point was attacked, and shown to be erroneous - which is also to be expected if a posituion is less than tenable.

Sensible Insanity took it upon himself,, or herself, to explain to Muravyets just exactly what it is animists believe - bear in mind, Muravyets is a 'confessed' animist.

Once it became clear that Sensible Insanity's position was untenable, he (or she) made a 'press statement' kind of post about he/she had educated himself or herself... and discovered the error of his/her ways.

The post was -I thought, brusque and fairly offensive to those posters who had been presenting contrary arguments.

So - what we might have got, and everyone would have been happy: something along the lines of "You know, you are right. The secondary definition is.... etc.. and I guess that might be the more popular usage. I was also wrong about certain aspects of animism..."

But, what we DID get, was something along the lines of: "Actually, I WAS right, all along... but I have also discovered (on my own, thanks) that there is another interpretation..."

One says "Thank you very much"... one says "Fuck you very much".


I do not yet respect Sensible Insanity - it is possible to have debate without offending other posters. If offending other posters to the point they despair of debating with you is a 'win'... well, good luck to Sensible Insanity with that - but it isn't why I debate, and I'm not going to accept such behaviour as 'agreeable'.

And - of course - I wasn't involved in Sensible Insanity's little byplay with Muravyets. She really had moved on. But when I logged in, I thought Sensible Insanity's approach was sufficently obnoxious to merit a response...

If Sensible Insanity is still getting "drilled into the ground" - it is because he/she has refused to show good grace - and would rather fight about that, than about the topic, or the issues of discussion.

I am unrepentent about offering words of encouragement to Muravyets - she has made a hell of a contribution to the thread. I am unrepentent about stepping in alongside Jocabia in commenting on the bad form perceived in Sensible Insanity's technique. I am unrepentent in addressing the points raised by someone who has decided to resort to calling me a 'troll', because I dared to address his/her debate etiquette.

When he posts

I hardly consider that as to conceding one's fault. Especially the whole " I WAS NOT WRONG" bit. And then calling Muravyets a 'piece of trash troll'.

Yeah....

Exactly... 'piece of trash troll'... is hardly appropriate language for an adult debate.

Occams Razor can eat canned monkey-poo.


Excellent.

Sigged.

How on EARTH is this STUPID thread still OPEN!?!?!?!?!


Heheh heres a little tip for ya, if you don't want to see this post, don't open it.

Woah...dude.

Im gonna save you from Grave-slapping, and catch you right here...


My thanks, friend, for bearing this cross for me. I was just reading ahead before typing one of my usual sermons... and find you've already more-than-capably dealt with the issue for me.

Again - my thanks. :)

My thanks, friend, for bearing this cross for me. I was just reading ahead before typing one of my usual sermons... and find you've already more-than-capably dealt with the issue for me.

Again - my thanks. :)


Your welcome.

I figured I'd give him the easy way out, instead of being made to look like an idiot, by someone whos far more versed in scripture than I..

"Bearing this cross"....*snicker*..

Jesus puns.

But see I think that the object of belief is irrelevant to the capacity to believe. So you're talking about a capacity to believe in certain things. But the discussion was that whether or not they believe in them is not dependent upon them, not a choice (I thought you agreed with what Grave's said earlier).

I think that some people cannot accept on faith because the object of faith has not been explained to them in a way that they can understand. If it is, then belief will happen. But that says nothing about 'capacity to believe' --the capacity to believe is always there, in potential.

I think the point Muravyets is making - is pretty close to something I said.

She words it as: "because different people process information and develop thought differently, then different people will have or lack the capacity to believe different things. This would explain why some people can accept belief on faith, while others must have some reality to base their beliefs on..."

I word it as "I lack the ability to believe without evidence..."

I think we are addressing the same point - Muravyets is just looking for WHY it might be so.

Actually, I think that even at the time of the writing of the Gospels, the metaphor was no longer understood.

Jesus talks a *lot* in metaphor, trying to impress on his people what the metaphor means. Even at the time of Jesus, the metaphors are not widely understood.

(I blame dead Greek guys.)

It is ironic that people can accept a book full of parables... but cannot accept that the metaphorical content might go beyond just the bits 'in quotations'... so to speak.

And I think you can re-write the text all you want, but that won't remove the metaphor from learned people who understand it, who live it, who pass down what it means, no matter how gradual the change. People don't just look at the new words and say, "Hey! It means something different now. I'm going to change my belief."

The Book of Common Prayer is a different situation. It was introduced to people who had no prior knowledge of the metaphor or what it means, as their first introduction to the religion. They were not learned people, those were back home in southern Europe.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the Church did change Jesus' message over the centuries, that they did focus on things they shouldn't have, and I also believe it was out of ignorance, because they did not understand the metaphor themselves, because of political pressures, and because the world they lived in and the mind-set of man had changed, irrevocably.

But, the metaphors were deliberately obscured... the reason why we had to have a first 'English translation' so recently, is because organised Christianity kept the scripture in Latin expressly SO that the information could be 'protected'. If your peasants don't KNOW the 'will of god', you can get them to do whatever you want, with the few bits you carefully explain to them.

Even at Nicea - there was a deliberate attempt to obscure metaphors... to the point of choosing to exclude texts, or condemn 'heretical' beliefs that differed from what was (being decided as) the 'corret', literal interpretation.

And, if you go back further - there are three 'historical' Gospels, and one later Gospel, that is already setting out to redefine the message... to turn the nascent Christian church into another 'mystery' faith.

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were written anywhere from 80-200 years after the Death of Jesus.
NONE of these texts were written by the supposed author, and were probably transcribed by fifth-hand information.
By those standards, the Gospel of Judas is equally valid, or invalid.
Not really. Not only were the four canonical gospels not written 80-200 years after the death of Jesus (you see, it's hard for Ignatius and Irenaeus in the 2nd century to commend something that wouldn't be written until 230AD; the most common view I've heard is that they were written between 60/70AD and 90/100AD, which places them 70 years from Jesus' crucifixion, maximum. The Gospel of Judas is not only discredited by its late date, but also by its style and content. Jesus proclaims gnostic tenets (which he is unlikely to have uttered, considering his traditional Jewish background), appears and disappears periodically. There is no plot in the sense in which the canonical gospels have a proper storyline, no real locations or interactions. It's not a piece of narrative, but of theology.
How about Jesus' death and ressurection being a metaphor for the change, and second-chance christianity is supposed to inspire within its followers?
"You were re-born unto God"...that kinda thing.
Christianity is meaningless without the resurrection, inasmuch as by the resurrection Jesus is vindicated; his message and achievement are thereby sanctioned with divine authority. Moreover, the evangelistic zeal which penetrated the early Church is explained, by the early Christians themselves, with the resurrection. There's no doubt that to the apostles the resurrection was a real event, not a fiction.
You should look up "The book of common prayer"
It was the first version of the bible printed in English..so the common folks who didnt speak latin could read it.
You may be surprised to learn that it is incomplete, and only contains certain verses, and books....only what they aristocracy wished the common folks to know....makes em easier to control.
The Book of Common Prayer is "the foundational prayer book of the Church of England and also the name for similar books used in other churches in the Anglican Communion. It replaced the four Latin liturgical books with a single compact volume in English. First produced in 1549 it was drastically revised in 1552 and more subtly changed in 1559 and 1662. It has been substantially replaced in most churches of the Anglican Communion but it is in use in England in a few places and remains, in law, the primary liturgical prayer book of the Church of England. It was introduced during the Reformation." (Wikipedia)
In other words, the Book of Common Prayer isn't supposed to be a Bible, but, er, a book of prayers. Nor is it true that this was the first version, since the Wycliffe New Testament precedes it by 160 years. Moreover, in terms of social control, having no English Bible at all seemed to work fine; why introduce one, and risk the possibility of rebellion? Plus, William Tyndale actually translated the Bible into English again before the Book of Common Prayer, starting with the New Testament in 1525-6.

Your welcome.

I figured I'd give him the easy way out, instead of being made to look like an idiot, by someone whos far more versed in scripture than I..

"Bearing this cross"....*snicker*..

Jesus puns.

:) I like to keep my vocabulary appropriate. :)

Hey BTW, GnI,
I was wondering if you remember a few pages ago, the topic was the severity if various sins (or it could have been another thread).

I posted saying that I believe the bible illustrates that learning is the most grevious one, and used Genesis as a reference.

Did you happen to read that bitter, cynical, admittedly jaded little post of mine, and if you did, what did ya think?

But, the metaphors were deliberately obscured... the reason why we had to have a first 'English translation' so recently, is because organised Christianity kept the scripture in Latin expressly SO that the information could be 'protected'. If your peasants don't KNOW the 'will of god', you can get them to do whatever you want, with the few bits you carefully explain to them.

Even at Nicea - there was a deliberate attempt to obscure metaphors... to the point of choosing to exclude texts, or condemn 'heretical' beliefs that differed from what was (being decided as) the 'corret', literal interpretation.

And, if you go back further - there are three 'historical' Gospels, and one later Gospel, that is already setting out to redefine the message... to turn the nascent Christian church into another 'mystery' faith.
I am more than willing to say both malice and ignorance played a part in it, but you can probably imagine that I place more significance on the loss of a certain mindset (the one spoken of in that article on 'Astrology's Bad Reputation'). I think it a shame we can never go back to that mindset, and know what it was like.

Not really. Not only were the four canonical gospels not written 80-200 years after the death of Jesus (you see, it's hard for Ignatius and Irenaeus in the 2nd century to commend something that wouldn't be written until 230AD; the most common view I've heard is that they were written between 60/70AD and 90/100AD,

This is where people whos knowledge of ancient texts begin to disagree.
Ive watched a lot of talking about the earliest biblical texts, and even the top experts whos knowledge on the subject far outweighs any opinions you'll find on this forum, tend to disagree.

Most of the experts tend to agree that The Gospel of Thomas, may have been the earliest at @40 A.D
Not all of them agree on this however.

SOME of the same ones say that John, and Matthew were likely written shortly thereafter, but however most of them agree that 60 A,D is probably a touch early, and far more likely late 1st century.



which places them 70 years from Jesus' crucifixion, maximum. The Gospel of Judas is not only discredited by its late date, but also by its style and content. Jesus proclaims gnostic tenets (which he is unlikely to have uttered, considering his traditional Jewish background),

I would say that if the Quotes from Thomas ( a gnostic text) are ver-batim, then perhaps Jesus was a bit more Gnostic than you credit him.



Christianity is meaningless without the resurrection, inasmuch as by the resurrection Jesus is vindicated;

I disagree completely.
If we take the approach of listening to what Jesus said, and not what he MAY HAVE BEEN, then the ressurection becomes nearly pointless.

How much his teachings concerned proper behaviour while on earth?
MOST of them.
How to treat one another.
Respect God, and yourself.
The list goes on, but the point remains that Jesus spoke of faith, and obedience to God, and not nessecarily to the Church.
The Church however, points to the ressurection as being the most important aspect of Jesus purpose on earth.

"You are cursed to hell the day you are born, and will burn forever...UNLESS..you join us, and join us, becuase Jesus sacrificed himself in exchange for the sins we did/will do/are doing."

Its like being scared into taking a black belt, without having been taught karate.




The Book of Common Prayer is "the foundational prayer book of the Church of England and also the name for similar books used in other churches in the Anglican Communion. It replaced the four Latin liturgical books with a single compact volume in English. First produced in 1549 it was drastically revised in 1552 and more subtly changed in 1559 and 1662. It has been substantially replaced in most churches of the Anglican Communion but it is in use in England in a few places and remains, in law, the primary liturgical prayer book of the Church of England. It was introduced during the Reformation." (Wikipedia)
In other words, the Book of Common Prayer isn't supposed to be a Bible, but, er, a book of prayers. Nor is it true that this was the first version, since the Wycliffe New Testament precedes it by 160 years. Moreover, in terms of social control, having no English Bible at all seemed to work fine; why introduce one, and risk the possibility of rebellion? Plus, William Tyndale actually translated the Bible into English again before the Book of Common Prayer, starting with the New Testament in 1525-6.[/QUOTE]

So..other than my being mistaken about its being the first of its kind, I was still right.

Good find.

Not really. Not only were the four canonical gospels not written 80-200 years after the death of Jesus (you see, it's hard for Ignatius and Irenaeus in the 2nd century to commend something that wouldn't be written until 230AD; the most common view I've heard is that they were written between 60/70AD and 90/100AD, which places them 70 years from Jesus' crucifixion, maximum. The Gospel of Judas is not only discredited by its late date, but also by its style and content. Jesus proclaims gnostic tenets (which he is unlikely to have uttered, considering his traditional Jewish background), appears and disappears periodically. There is no plot in the sense in which the canonical gospels have a proper storyline, no real locations or interactions. It's not a piece of narrative, but of theology.


Of course - the texts that Ignatius and Irenaeus commend... might NOT be the texts we know by the same names... or may only be the same texts in small details.

Most common dating does set the Gospels fairly early - but it is based on assumptions made IN the reading of the texts - rather than any empirical measure OF the texts.

It is not hard to realise, though - that the Gospels, even if ALL written in the AD 60-70 period, would STILL most likely have been written by a generation LATER than the crucifixion, if not two generations... still FAR from eye-witness accounts.

Regarding Jesus... his 'traditional Jewish background'? His 'background' is alleged to be far from 'traditional'... he wasn't 'raised' is a conventional Jewish society at all, in as much as most of his formative years were spent in Egypt. It is popular thought that Jesus actually closely follows traditions of Buddhism, and has been argued that he might follow Essenic traditions.

It is folly to assume that we can certainly know anything about what his upbringing MIGHT have been like. Certainly - to disclude 'Gnostic-sounding' scripture based ON our assumptions, is a huge leap of faith.

It sounds like an even bigger leap of faith to disclude the Gospel of Judas based on style, or perceptions of what you THINK a Gospel text SHOULD read like.

Let me point you in the directions of Kerouac's "On the Road" or Thompson's "Fear and Loathing..."... consider them, perhaps, the Gospel of Judas... while something like "The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin" might be one of your more 'conventional' Gospels.

Is "On the Road" any LESS autobiographical for it's style? Is "Fear and Loathing..." LESS reliable as truth, because it does not match the style of Franklin's more pedestrian autobiography?

You are reading 'literature', remember... no matter who the author is, or what the subject matter.


Christianity is meaningless without the resurrection, inasmuch as by the resurrection Jesus is vindicated; his message and achievement are thereby sanctioned with divine authority. Moreover, the evangelistic zeal which penetrated the early Church is explained, by the early Christians themselves, with the resurrection. There's no doubt that to the apostles the resurrection was a real event, not a fiction.


YOUR version of Christianity might be meaningless... but that doesn't mean the MESSAGE of Christ is meaningless. Maybe your 'version' SHOULD be meaningless? The 'evangelistic zeal' of the early Church - is explained by a spiritual resurrection, not a physical one.


The Book of Common Prayer is "the foundational prayer book of the Church of England and also the name for similar books used in other churches in the Anglican Communion. It replaced the four Latin liturgical books with a single compact volume in English. First produced in 1549 it was drastically revised in 1552 and more subtly changed in 1559 and 1662. It has been substantially replaced in most churches of the Anglican Communion but it is in use in England in a few places and remains, in law, the primary liturgical prayer book of the Church of England. It was introduced during the Reformation." (Wikipedia)
In other words, the Book of Common Prayer isn't supposed to be a Bible, but, er, a book of prayers. Nor is it true that this was the first version, since the Wycliffe New Testament precedes it by 160 years. Moreover, in terms of social control, having no English Bible at all seemed to work fine; why introduce one, and risk the possibility of rebellion? Plus, William Tyndale actually translated the Bible into English again before the Book of Common Prayer, starting with the New Testament in 1525-6.

"The Book of Common Prayer" served more than one purpose... it contained Psalms, and tiny snippets of scripture... such as 'The Epistle" and "The Gospel" - both of which were largely 'chosen/designed/edited' to place women in a subjugated position with 'divine authority'.... EXACTLY the sort of thing we have been talking about:


The Epistle[/i] (from a 1549 version)]"WHOSOEVER findeth an honest faithful woman, she is much more worth than pearls. The heart of her husband may safely trust in her, so that he shall fall in no poverty. She will do him good and not evil, all the days of her life. She occupieth wool and flax, and laboureth gladly with her hands. She is like a merchant's ship that bringeth her vittles from afar. She is up in the night season to provide meat for her household, and food for her maidens. She considereth land and buyeth it, and with the fruits of her hands she planteth a vineyard. She girdeth her loins with strength, and courageth her arms. And if she perceive that her housewifery doeth good, and candle goeth not out by night. She layeth her fingers to the spindle; and her hand taketh hold of the distaff. She openeth her hand to the poor, yea she stretcheth further her hands to such as have need. She feareth not that the cold of winter shall hurt her house, for all her household folks are clothed with scarlet. She maketh herself fair ornaments, her clothing is white silk and purple. her husband is much set by in the gates, when he sitteth among the rulers of the land. She makes cloth of silk, and sells it, and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. Strength and honor is her clothing, and in the latter day she shall rejoice. She openeth her mouth with wisdom and in her tongue is the law of grace. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not her bread with idleness. Her children shall arise, and call her blessed; and her husband shall make much of her. Many daughters there be that gather riches together; but thou goest above them all. As for favour it is deceitful, and beauty is a vain thing: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she is worthy to be praised. Give her the fruit of her hands, and let her own works praise her in the gates."

The Gospel[/i] (from a 1549 version)]"AND one of the Pharisees desired Jesus that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisees house, and sat down to meat. And behold, a woman in that city (which was a sinner,) as soon as she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisees house, she brought an Alabaster box of ointment, and stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with her tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. When the Pharisee (which had bidden him) saw that, he spake within himself, saying; if this man were a prophet, he would surely know who and what manner of woman this is that touched him, for she is a sinner. Jesus answered and said unto him; Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he said; Master, say on. There was a certain lender which had two debtors, the one ought him five hundred pence, and the other fifty. When they had nothing to pay, he forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? Simon answered and said; I suppose that he to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him; thou has truly judged. And he turned to the woman, and said to Symon; Seest thou this woman? I entered into thy house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss: but she since the time I came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint, but she hath anointed my feet with ointment. Wherefore I say unto thee, many sins are forgiven her; for she loved much. To whom less is forgiven, the same doth less love. And he said unto her; thy sins are forgiven thee. And they that sat at meat with him, began to say within themselves. Who is this which forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman. Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace."

I am more than willing to say both malice and ignorance played a part in it, but you can probably imagine that I place more significance on the loss of a certain mindset (the one spoken of in that article on 'Astrology's Bad Reputation'). I think it a shame we can never go back to that mindset, and know what it was like.

I agree... and so have others. After all, isn't that basically the 'true' meaning of the Eden story?

Hey BTW, GnI,
I was wondering if you remember a few pages ago, the topic was the severity if various sins (or it could have been another thread).

I posted saying that I believe the bible illustrates that learning is the most grevious one, and used Genesis as a reference.

Did you happen to read that bitter, cynical, admittedly jaded little post of mine, and if you did, what did ya think?

I'm not sure if I saw it, my friend... but if you can find a reference, I'd very much like to peruse it.

It actually fits with a certain essay I am writing at the moment, although I am arguing that the sins are LESS important, and that the current Christian church is actually condemned by it's manner of adherence to it's perceived heirarchy of 'virtues'.

Your perspective doesn't sound counter to scripture:

Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Heheh heres a little tip for ya, if you don't want to see this post, don't open it.
You seem to be under the impression that people who visit this forum are sentient beings with the ability to control their behavior. Clearly, we have not been reading the same threads.

;)

I agree... and so have others. After all, isn't that basically the 'true' meaning of the Eden story?
I don't think so. I have heard that suggested, that the story symbolises a change in consciousness, but you have to remember that the people who originally created the myth were not aware that their consciousness was changing. It works as a modern day symbolism, not as an original one.

I don't think so. I have heard that suggested, that the story symbolises a change in consciousness, but you have to remember that the people who originally created the myth were not aware that their consciousness was changing. It works as a modern day symbolism, not as an original one.

'Loss of innocence'... I get the feeling they might have been describing, on some level, something they couldn't put a finger on.

Worth remembering, the Hebrew paradigm-shift happened quite some time before they documented it... their 'consciousness' was, perhaps, 'changed' by the time they wrote the histories.

I tend to go for the deliberate part.
The Church has been distancing itself from the actual CONTENT of Jesus message, and instead focused on his divity.
They imply that the most important thing, is to belive he was the son of god, and that he died on the cross...thus assurance to all believers of a reward.

They shy away from the message of peace, and goodwill, and instead, focus on the dogma.

The organized churches have also all focussed on the Anselmian theory of atonement - one that was drawn from the already established system of penance (a system that was not scriptural, but was the early church's solution to what to do about a Christian who sinned once again after converting).

I think, when you strip away that bias, the Abelardian theory of atonment is actually much clearer - that Christ's purpose was to turn followers to God out of love, rather than fear - to take religion out of the "carrot-stick" mentality, allowing it to mature into following out of a sense of what is right, and out of love.

'Loss of innocence'... I get the feeling they might have been describing, on some level, something they couldn't put a finger on.
Possibly.

Worth remembering, the Hebrew paradigm-shift happened quite some time before they documented it... their 'consciousness' was, perhaps, 'changed' by the time they wrote the histories.
Oh, almost certainly it was. But the creation of the myth is the gradual process over many centuries or millennia that evolved orally, naturally. The written form is a static 'photograph' of one point in its development.

I don't deny that debates can frequently get down to semantics. However, Sensible Insanity concede that his original definition of religion was not the widely accepted one and was incorrect to a degree. I have been in debates, and it's bad form to keep drilling something into the ground after your opponent has conceded the point (Although this is a rarity because very few people outright admit that they were wrong).
Yet, after conceding that he was wrong, he stilled tried to claim he was right -- and that is a big no-can-do. If he had just dropped it, then it would be over, but if someone tries to keep claiming an already conceded point -- and especially if he attacks others while doing it -- then I will call him on it.

As to my methods, there is no better way to show that person's arguments or claims are wrong than to be able to use his own supporting material against him. Sensible Insanity brought that dictionary definition into play, and that made it fair game.

Grave, your sig suggests that those two events are the same event, but...

1 Chronicles 21:4 The king's word, however, overruled Joab; so Joab left and went throughout Israel and then came back to Jerusalem. 5 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah.

2 Samuel 24: 4 The king's word, however, overruled Joab and the army commanders; so they left the presence of the king... 9 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to the king: In Israel there were eight hundred thousand able-bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand.

Originally Posted by Willamena
But see I think that the object of belief is irrelevant to the capacity to believe. So you're talking about a capacity to believe in certain things. But the discussion was that whether or not they believe in them is not dependent upon them, not a choice (I thought you agreed with what Grave's said earlier).

I think that some people cannot accept on faith because the object of faith has not been explained to them in a way that they can understand. If it is, then belief will happen. But that says nothing about 'capacity to believe' --the capacity to believe is always there, in potential.
I think the point Muravyets is making - is pretty close to something I said.

She words it as: "because different people process information and develop thought differently, then different people will have or lack the capacity to believe different things. This would explain why some people can accept belief on faith, while others must have some reality to base their beliefs on..."

I word it as "I lack the ability to believe without evidence..."

I think we are addressing the same point - Muravyets is just looking for WHY it might be so.
Yes, that is pretty much where I was trying to go. In every single culture that has been observed and recorded, regardless of its traditions, religion, or even era, there have been individuals who believe in a spiritual reality and individuals who do not believe in a spiritual reality. Whether a spiritual reality actually exists or not is not relevant to this issue. Neither is the cultural conditioning or even the actual life experience of the individuals because regardless of both an individual either believes or he doesn't, and that's all there is to it.

I ask myself, why is this so? How is it possible for two people raised in the same culture, taught the same religion, given very similar personal experiences, to have two diametrically opposed views of reality? I think it may speak to an inherent difference in the brains of the individuals. I think it is a matter of natural variation.

Look at the poll -- We have over 2000 votes from people who could be anyone, from anywhere, with any kind of life experience, yet the poll has been close to 50/50 from the start, consistently even over how many days has it been so far? I commented on this ages ago, and some people told me they thought the even split was not significant, but I do think it's significant.

Maybe someday, someone will run a study based on a poll like this that goes on for years without interruption. I personally suspect that the 50/50 split would remain consistent, regardless of where the respondents are from or what is going on in the world at any given time. If the capacity or lack thereof to believe in a spiritual reality is part of natural human variation, then this implies that there is survival-based value in BOTH ways of thinking, in BOTH ways of interpreting experience. So the capacity to believe comes before experiences that challenge belief.

Anyway, it's a possibility. An "it could happen" kind of thing.

Originally Posted by Willamena
And I think you can re-write the text all you want, but that won't remove the metaphor from learned people who understand it, who live it, who pass down what it means, no matter how gradual the change. People don't just look at the new words and say, "Hey! It means something different now. I'm going to change my belief."

The Book of Common Prayer is a different situation. It was introduced to people who had no prior knowledge of the metaphor or what it means, as their first introduction to the religion. They were not learned people, those were back home in southern Europe.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the Church did change Jesus' message over the centuries, that they did focus on things they shouldn't have, and I also believe it was out of ignorance, because they did not understand the metaphor themselves, because of political pressures, and because the world they lived in and the mind-set of man had changed, irrevocably.
But, the metaphors were deliberately obscured... the reason why we had to have a first 'English translation' so recently, is because organised Christianity kept the scripture in Latin expressly SO that the information could be 'protected'. If your peasants don't KNOW the 'will of god', you can get them to do whatever you want, with the few bits you carefully explain to them.

Even at Nicea - there was a deliberate attempt to obscure metaphors... to the point of choosing to exclude texts, or condemn 'heretical' beliefs that differed from what was (being decided as) the 'corret', literal interpretation.

And, if you go back further - there are three 'historical' Gospels, and one later Gospel, that is already setting out to redefine the message... to turn the nascent Christian church into another 'mystery' faith.
If I may, I think you are both right.

On the one hand, I agree whole-heartedly with GnI and the assertion that the organized church has used religious "mystery" and control over education and information to control populations in a successful bid to consolidate power in the hands of a clerical elite. I think this is true of all organized religions, to varying degrees of success.

On the other hand, I also agree whole-heartedly with Willamena that there is another, more direct way of viewing myths and religious metaphor that emphasizes the direct involvement and experience of the individual and that in ancient societies (and some modern "traditional" societies) this method of understanding was more widely encouraged for everyone.

Perhaps it is the difference between "mystery" and "mysticism," if we understand a mystery religion as one that does not ecourage exploration of the mystery, and mysticism as the practice of exploring mysteries.

In all religions, there is a sort of multi-tiered way of experiencing and understanding the religion. There are always people who just skim the surface of the religion; some are satisfied with a good set of rules to follow; others are satisfied with a magical formula that can "explain" everything easily or reassure them about their anxieties. Such people are always a challenge to serious religious teachers and prey to those who would exploit religion to gain personal power.

I don't think Willamena's picture of religion ever held 100% sway, but I do think there was a time in western culture when it was more commonly encouraged. There is no doubt in my mind that modern monotheist religions actively discourage it, and I believe they do this for power, not spirituality.

EDIT: I'd like to mention that there are still, today, religious traditions that actively encourage the mindset Willamena talks about. Tantrism, for instance.

Yes, that is pretty much where I was trying to go. In every single culture that has been observed and recorded, regardless of its traditions, religion, or even era, there have been individuals who believe in a spiritual reality and individuals who do not believe in a spiritual reality. Whether a spiritual reality actually exists or not is not relevant to this issue. Neither is the cultural conditioning or even the actual life experience of the individuals because regardless of both an individual either believes or he doesn't, and that's all there is to it.
Alright. I suppose my only problem is that the phrase "capacity to believe" doesn't describe what you are stating. My pedantry again, but it caused me to misunderstand what you were saying. The way I see it, whether they believe or not they still have the capacity to believe. A cup has a capacity, it holds a certain amount of liquid whether the liquid is there or not.

I ask myself, why is this so? How is it possible for two people raised in the same culture, taught the same religion, given very similar personal experiences, to have two diametrically opposed views of reality? I think it may speak to an inherent difference in the brains of the individuals. I think it is a matter of natural variation.

Look at the poll -- We have over 2000 votes from people who could be anyone, from anywhere, with any kind of life experience, yet the poll has been close to 50/50 from the start, consistently even over how many days has it been so far? I commented on this ages ago, and some people told me they thought the even split was not significant, but I do think it's significant.

Maybe someday, someone will run a study based on a poll like this that goes on for years without interruption. I personally suspect that the 50/50 split would remain consistent, regardless of where the respondents are from or what is going on in the world at any given time. If the capacity or lack thereof to believe in a spiritual reality is part of natural human variation, then this implies that there is survival-based value in BOTH ways of thinking, in BOTH ways of interpreting experience. So the capacity to believe comes before experiences that challenge belief.

Anyway, it's a possibility. An "it could happen" kind of thing.
I don't know what to make of the poll, myself --I wouldn't have guessed this result if I'd been asked to guess. The poll, though, isn't about the capacity to believe in God, it is about the belief. It's about the liquid, not the cup. In other words, the belief in God --yes or no --does not reflect on the capacity to believe in God. The liquid, or whatever contents it might have, doesn't indicate anything about the cup. Similarly, the belief held doesn't say anything about the capacity to believe.

But perhaps you mean something else by "the capacity to believe."

Yes, that is pretty much where I was trying to go. In every single culture that has been observed and recorded, regardless of its traditions, religion, or even era, there have been individuals who believe in a spiritual reality and individuals who do not believe in a spiritual reality. Whether a spiritual reality actually exists or not is not relevant to this issue. Neither is the cultural conditioning or even the actual life experience of the individuals because regardless of both an individual either believes or he doesn't, and that's all there is to it.

I ask myself, why is this so? How is it possible for two people raised in the same culture, taught the same religion, given very similar personal experiences, to have two diametrically opposed views of reality? I think it may speak to an inherent difference in the brains of the individuals. I think it is a matter of natural variation.

Look at the poll -- We have over 2000 votes from people who could be anyone, from anywhere, with any kind of life experience, yet the poll has been close to 50/50 from the start, consistently even over how many days has it been so far? I commented on this ages ago, and some people told me they thought the even split was not significant, but I do think it's significant.

Maybe someday, someone will run a study based on a poll like this that goes on for years without interruption. I personally suspect that the 50/50 split would remain consistent, regardless of where the respondents are from or what is going on in the world at any given time. If the capacity or lack thereof to believe in a spiritual reality is part of natural human variation, then this implies that there is survival-based value in BOTH ways of thinking, in BOTH ways of interpreting experience. So the capacity to believe comes before experiences that challenge belief.

Anyway, it's a possibility. An "it could happen" kind of thing.

I can certainly SEE advantages to a society or group that has two such different perspectives... a versatility.

The only problem I see with your idea, is that I think there are a LOT of people who really don't KNOW if they believe or not - and so, would answer the question incorrectly, unless the test was very careful in it's execution... able to dig out an answer that might not even be consciously KNOWN.

Alright. I suppose my only problem is that the phrase "capacity to believe" doesn't describe what you are stating. My pedantry again, but it caused me to misunderstand what you were saying. The way I see it, whether they believe or not they still have the capacity to believe. A cup has a capacity, it holds a certain amount of liquid whether the liquid is there or not.
For "capacity" read "ability." Maybe that is closer to my mark.

There are cups and then there are forks. Neither is inherently, qualitatively "better" than the other, but they don't work the same and can't do the same things. I think that some people lack the ability to believe similarly to the way a fork lacks the ability to hold tea (and a cup lacks the ability to spear things). In this sense, we can say that some people do, in fact, lack a certain, specific kind of receptive capacity.

I don't know what to make of the poll, myself --I wouldn't have guessed this result if I'd been asked to guess. The poll, though, isn't about the capacity to believe in God, it is about the belief. It's about the liquid, not the cup. In other words, the belief in God --yes or no --does not reflect on the capacity to believe in God. The liquid, or whatever contents it might have, doesn't indicate anything about the cup. Similarly, the belief held doesn't say anything about the capacity to believe.

But perhaps you mean something else by "the capacity to believe."
I don't think the poll is a measure of "capacity/ability." I think it is illustrating an existing condition in society, i.e. a near 50/50 split between those who believe in a god and those who don't. I think this condition may be significant and worthy of study. My opinion is that there is a likelihood that further study would reveal that, among believers and non-believers there is a percentage of people for whom their decision is in no way a matter of choice.

Alright. I suppose my only problem is that the phrase "capacity to believe" doesn't describe what you are stating. My pedantry again, but it caused me to misunderstand what you were saying. The way I see it, whether they believe or not they still have the capacity to believe. A cup has a capacity, it holds a certain amount of liquid whether the liquid is there or not.


I don't know what to make of the poll, myself --I wouldn't have guessed this result if I'd been asked to guess. The poll, though, isn't about the capacity to believe in God, it is about the belief. It's about the liquid, not the cup. In other words, the belief in God --yes or no --does not reflect on the capacity to believe in God. The liquid, or whatever contents it might have, doesn't indicate anything about the cup. Similarly, the belief held doesn't say anything about the capacity to believe.

But perhaps you mean something else by "the capacity to believe."

Imagine if your cup has holes in it. Very small ones.

I pour water in - and it just cannot hold it. I pour Jello in, and it holds it just fine.

Maybe some of us have jello in our heads?

Imagine if your cup has holes in it. Very small ones.

I pour water in - and it just cannot hold it. I pour Jello in, and it holds it just fine.

Maybe some of us have jello in our heads?
Wow, that's actually a damn good metaphor.

Is there any problem Jello can't solve?!

I can certainly SEE advantages to a society or group that has two such different perspectives... a versatility.

The only problem I see with your idea, is that I think there are a LOT of people who really don't KNOW if they believe or not - and so, would answer the question incorrectly, unless the test was very careful in it's execution... able to dig out an answer that might not even be consciously KNOWN.
Yes, that's possible. Even probable.

The split could be caused by something else. It could even be a statistical illusion. I just suspect that it isn't, and that's all it is -- a suspicion.

Wow, that's actually a damn good metaphor.

Is there any problem Jello can't solve?!
None whatever. To the Jello vats! :D

There is no doubt in my mind that modern monotheist religions actively discourage it, and I believe they do this for power, not spirituality.
That's a very wide blanket you are casting over Christianity.

I was a Catholic wedding in Chicago once, at this huge beautiful church, and it was the second-only time I've been in a church in my life. It looked so much smaller from the outside... kind of like a Tardis. The priest first polled the crowd to get a gauge for how many non-Catholics might be there, with the intention of adapting his speech accordingly. There were enough of us that he shuffled papers and launched into a very lovely speech about what marriage means from a Catholic perspective, explaining along the way the meaning and purpose of the symbolism employed in the wedding. It was quite well done, and he had a very good understanding of the metaphors involved and no compunction about explaining them to others. I can tell you, it left me with a real respect for Catholicism.

Grave, your sig suggests that those two events are the same event, but...

1 Chronicles 21:4 The king's word, however, overruled Joab; so Joab left and went throughout Israel and then came back to Jerusalem. 5 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah.

2 Samuel 24: 4 The king's word, however, overruled Joab and the army commanders; so they left the presence of the king... 9 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to the king: In Israel there were eight hundred thousand able-bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand.

What is it you are trying to say?

That the census numbers are different? This I know... it is one of the other contradictions (which may be resolved by Joab's unique approach to data gathering)... but as you continue reading each passage - God gives David's seer the capacity to choose a punishment, and he chooses pestilence - in both cases. Are you saying these are, in fact, duplicate, but entirely identical, events?

Wow, that's actually a damn good metaphor.

Is there any problem Jello can't solve?!

It is, after all, the food of the gods, is it not?

:D

That's a very wide blanket you are casting over Christianity.

I was a Catholic wedding in Chicago once, at this huge beautiful church, and it was the second-only time I've been in a church in my life. It looked so much smaller from the outside... kind of like a Tardis. The priest first polled the crowd to get a gauge for how many non-Catholics might be there, with the intention of adapting his speech accordingly. There were enough of us that he shuffled papers and launched into a very lovely speech about what marriage means from a Catholic perspective, explaining along the way the meaning and purpose of the symbolism employed in the wedding. It was quite well done, and he had a very good understanding of the metaphors involved and no compunction about explaining them to others. I can tell you, it left me with a real respect for Catholicism.

I think the idea might be that all sin, even if all do not sin to the same extent.

There is no real denying that the Catholic church has a history of manipulating scripture (and incidental butchery) purely for control purposes. Just because they are currently NOT the worst offenders in the pack of usual suspects, doesn't mean they are pure as driven snow.

But - kudos for a Tardis reference. :)

It is, after all, the food of the gods, is it not?

:D
God and Geriatrics:D

That's a very wide blanket you are casting over Christianity.

I was a Catholic wedding in Chicago once, at this huge beautiful church, and it was the second-only time I've been in a church in my life. It looked so much smaller from the outside... kind of like a Tardis. The priest first polled the crowd to get a gauge for how many non-Catholics might be there, with the intention of adapting his speech accordingly. There were enough of us that he shuffled papers and launched into a very lovely speech about what marriage means from a Catholic perspective, explaining along the way the meaning and purpose of the symbolism employed in the wedding. It was quite well done, and he had a very good understanding of the metaphors involved and no compunction about explaining them to others. I can tell you, it left me with a real respect for Catholicism.
Ha. It is a very broad blanket indeed. I cast it over all religions, not just Christianity.

In fact, I have a very high regard for Christianity. I consider its basic teachings to morally sound and its metaphors to be beautiful, profoundly insightful, and transcendant.

But I am too much the realist -- or maybe just a plain old cynic -- to kid myself about the nature of any organization. I tend to judge real people by their real actions and real things by the real effects they have on the world. You and I have both had positive experiences with Catholic priests who were excellent spiritual teachers. I have also had negative experiences with Catholic priests who were bigots of the most extreme variety. To me this says nothing about the nature of the organization of the Church as a whole. You must understand that I do not equate the religion with its church. To my mind, a church is just a suit of clothes a religion wears -- just the outward expression of the core message. I have no problem separating them.

With that in mind, I do not look to individual priests to exemplify the Catholic Church for me. Rather, I look to the structure and history of the organization. Looking at it that way, it is hard to avoid concluding that the church has spent much of its existence focused on exercising social control and amassing material wealth at the expense of its followers. It is indistinguishable from any other demogogic form of government in that way. That there are priests who can still focus on spirituality within such an organization is a credit to those priests rather than their church.

Also, please keep in mind that I have the same cynical view of all organized religions, including my own (to the extent it is organized). I could point to what I see as similar problems and abuses in Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, various protestant sects, pagan and animist religions, and so forth. History shows this pattern of organizational power-grabbing again and again.

For "capacity" read "ability." Maybe that is closer to my mark.

There are cups and then there are forks. Neither is inherently, qualitatively "better" than the other, but they don't work the same and can't do the same things. I think that some people lack the ability to believe similarly to the way a fork lacks the ability to hold tea (and a cup lacks the ability to spear things). In this sense, we can say that some people do, in fact, lack a certain, specific kind of receptive capacity.
...But only if their cups are forks. Gotcha.

:)

(It's still not right, but I do understand it.)

Imagine if your cup has holes in it. Very small ones.

I pour water in - and it just cannot hold it. I pour Jello in, and it holds it just fine.

Maybe some of us have jello in our heads?
LOL!

Well, if the cup has holes in it, then it has an infinite capacity. :)

*mutters*jello-for-brains*mutters*

What is it you are trying to say?

That the census numbers are different? This I know... it is one of the other contradictions (which may be resolved by Joab's unique approach to data gathering)... but as you continue reading each passage - God gives David's seer the capacity to choose a punishment, and he chooses pestilence - in both cases. Are you saying these are, in fact, duplicate, but entirely identical, events?
Okay, I hadn't read further yet. Will do so.

I think there is a God. What created the universe? If you say the big bang what created that? If you say anything else ask what created that. The answer will come to some supreme god-like being.

I think there is a God. What created the universe? If you say the big bang what created that? If you say anything else ask what created that. The answer will come to some supreme god-like being.

Or Jell-o.

I think there is a God. What created the universe? If you say the big bang what created that? If you say anything else ask what created that. The answer will come to some supreme god-like being.
then where did god come from?

I think there is a God. What created the universe? If you say the big bang what created that? If you say anything else ask what created that. The answer will come to some supreme god-like being.
Then what created that?

I don't think the poll is a measure of "capacity/ability." I think it is illustrating an existing condition in society, i.e. a near 50/50 split between those who believe in a god and those who don't. I think this condition may be significant and worthy of study. My opinion is that there is a likelihood that further study would reveal that, among believers and non-believers there is a percentage of people for whom their decision is in no way a matter of choice.

To be fair, the posters on NS or even the population which takes internet polls in general are not really accurate measures of society as a whole. Religiosity studies done with general populations have generally come up with percentages of atheists ranging from 1-14% (according to the last site I saw that listed several reputable studies).

Of course, religiosity studies in general are difficult. No matter how carefully a question is worded, it will most likely exclude someone's belief. And the questions in most studies are skewed towards what the writer sees as being "religious".

Lewba's study, which is often cited, asked incredibly Judeo-Christian centered questions, and concluded that those who answered no were atheists. The problem was that his question was, "Do you believe in a personal God who interacts directly with human beings...." Many theists would answer no to this. Most polytheists would answer no. His other questions were just as skewed.

Looking at the poll question - "Is there a god?" A polytheist may answer "no", because such a person would be thinking, "No, there isn't a god, there are multiple gods." A person who believes in a presence of some sort, but thinks the word "god" is associated too much with other religions, might answer no for that reason. And so on....

In a situation like this, where the possible beliefs are as varied as the believers, getting a "scientific" count from which one can draw real conclusions doesn't really seem to be easy - if possible at all.

I posted the dictionary definition, from the Oxford-English dictionary. There is no English dictionary that is as well respected. The primary definition is the one I have been following. I was NOT wrong. However, neither was Muravyets, as their definition was one of the secondary definitions.

So, yes, you are a troll, and you can kiss my backside. At least Muravyets I can respect, you 2 piece of trash trolls on the other hand... well... heh, whatever

I continue to ignore your ad hominems. Are you actually suggesting that the primary definition of religion, the one most people use, excludes most people from it? Ridiculous. Interesting that Webster's does not include ANY similar definition, as I linked to. Did Webster's miss the primary definition of Religion or do they simply not hold to a definition that seems to forget the origin of the word and denies the religious preferences of the majority of the world throughout the majority of history.

But, hey, keep making that compelling troll comments. I have yet to insult you. So far, you've insulted four people in this thread. But I suppose we're trolling, no?

Actually, Sensible Insanity has decided to just avoid the matter entirely at this point, as it doesn't seem to matter what's said, it will only become twisted, chewed up and spat back at them.

I said my piece pages back, but people keep digging it up trying to create a fight. I'll answer other topics in this thread, but I'm done with the idiotic arguement.

And you were wrong a few pages back, and continue to be wrong. You claim that what you quoted is the 'primary' definition, but it not only excludes most of the religions for most of the world for most of history, but even many monotheists, such as many Christians don't believe in a controlling God. Your claims are absurd and you continue to defend them with venom and insults.

Wow... Muravyets, do you have nothing better to bitch about than dictionaries? Honestly, you can take stuff out of context and skew it to make it look like SI is being all hypocritical, but in reality he is willing to admit he made a mistake and you won't let that go. It gets OLD.

Actually, I was the one 'bitching' about it and he didn't admit he made a mistake. He tried BS way of excusing his insults by pretending like everyone was right. The 'definition' he used wasn't just exclusive of the majority of the world's religions but when challenged on it, he was insulting and considers anyone who doesn't defend his behavior to be 'peice of trash trolls'.

What is it you are trying to say?

That the census numbers are different? This I know... it is one of the other contradictions (which may be resolved by Joab's unique approach to data gathering)... but as you continue reading each passage - God gives David's seer the capacity to choose a punishment, and he chooses pestilence - in both cases. Are you saying these are, in fact, duplicate, but entirely identical, events?
I was trying to say they seemed like different events, yes, but reading further they are the same event.

And I found this footnote from the New American Bible:

1 [1] A satan: in the parallel passage of 2 Sam 24:1 the Lord's anger. The change in the term reflects the changed theological outlook of postexilic Israel, when evil could no longer be attributed directly to God. At an earlier period the Hebrew word satan ("adversary," or, especially in a court of law, "accuser"), when not used of men, designated an angel who accused men before God (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7; Zechariah 3:1-2). Here, as in later Judaism (Wisdom 2:24) and in the New Testament, satan, or the "devil" (from the Greek translation of the word), designates an evil spirit who tempts men to wrongdoing.

To be fair, the posters on NS or even the population which takes internet polls in general are not really accurate measures of society as a whole. Religiosity studies done with general populations have generally come up with percentages of atheists ranging from 1-14% (according to the last site I saw that listed several reputable studies).

Of course, religiosity studies in general are difficult. No matter how carefully a question is worded, it will most likely exclude someone's belief. And the questions in most studies are skewed towards what the writer sees as being "religious".

Lewba's study, which is often cited, asked incredibly Judeo-Christian centered questions, and concluded that those who answered no were atheists. The problem was that his question was, "Do you believe in a personal God who interacts directly with human beings...." Many theists would answer no to this. Most polytheists would answer no. His other questions were just as skewed.

Looking at the poll question - "Is there a god?" A polytheist may answer "no", because such a person would be thinking, "No, there isn't a god, there are multiple gods." A person who believes in a presence of some sort, but thinks the word "god" is associated too much with other religions, might answer no for that reason. And so on....

In a situation like this, where the possible beliefs are as varied as the believers, getting a "scientific" count from which one can draw real conclusions doesn't really seem to be easy - if possible at all.
For the sort of reasons you've put forward, you'll find a lot of the more serious statistical studies into religion tend to avoid trying to measure belief directly and instead use proxies, such as religious affiliation or membership of faith communities. Such measures are simpler to operationalise, and tend to be a lot more robust for trends and comparison purposes. (However, these proxy measures will tend to yield higher results for 'believers' than direct measures of belief, typically by 10-15 percentage points in Britain for example.)


Addressing Muravyets' intuition about the likely split between believers and non-believers over time and across different communites, most international comparisons show a wide range in the incidence of 'believers' in different countries. From memory, this range is from about 35% to over 95%. Of course, given all the social, philisophical, political &c changes that arisen over recent history and are still ongoing, this may not be a 'steady state' condition. There probably are a lot of people who profess belief who don't really believe, and very possibly vice versa.

For the sort of reasons you've put forward, you'll find a lot of the more serious statistical studies into religion tend to avoid trying to measure belief directly and instead use proxies, such as religious affiliation or membership of faith communities. Such measures are simpler to operationalise, and tend to be a lot more robust for trends and comparison purposes. (However, these proxy measures will tend to yield higher results for 'believers' than direct measures of belief, typically by 10-15 percentage points in Britain for example.)
And of course, this points up the problem with religiosity, as Dem was talking about. People can join a religious organization for all kinds of reasons, their own personal belief system notwithstanding.

Addressing Muravyets' intuition about the likely split between believers and non-believers over time and across different communites, most international comparisons show a wide range in the incidence of 'believers' in different countries. From memory, this range is from about 35% to over 95%. Of course, given all the social, philisophical, political &c changes that arisen over recent history and are still ongoing, this may not be a 'steady state' condition. There probably are a lot of people who profess belief who don't really believe, and very possibly vice versa.
I see that this is the entire problem with my concept -- it is just an intuition. It's something that I developed from reading history, and thinking about side subjects which are not the main topic of the histories I was reading. I obviously don't have enough data to actually make a point out of it, and from what you and Dem and GnI have said, I see that it is unlikely I ever will. Oh, well.

I was trying to say they seemed like different events, yes, but reading further they are the same event.

And I found this footnote from the New American Bible:

1 [1] A satan: in the parallel passage of 2 Sam 24:1 the Lord's anger. The change in the term reflects the changed theological outlook of postexilic Israel, when evil could no longer be attributed directly to God. At an earlier period the Hebrew word satan ("adversary," or, especially in a court of law, "accuser"), when not used of men, designated an angel who accused men before God (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7; Zechariah 3:1-2). Here, as in later Judaism (Wisdom 2:24) and in the New Testament, satan, or the "devil" (from the Greek translation of the word), designates an evil spirit who tempts men to wrongdoing.

It's an interesting one. I've been explaining the 'real' meaning of 'satan' for years - it is interesting to see the New American Bible actually acknowledge it... :)

However - their explanation actually makes matters worse - since one account is specific that God is the 'cause'... and the 'old' use of "HaSatan" would at least FIT that... 'satan' as agent of God..

This explanation of 'an evil spirit' actually makes the conflict more pronounced.

It seems not so much an explanation of 'satan' as it is an objective explanation of the use of the word in the context of the text. So, they are also acknowledging how the word has changed.

It seems not so much an explanation of 'satan' as it is an objective explanation of the use of the word in the context of the text. So, they are also acknowledging how the word has changed.

Well - first, I disagree... they are explaining how they THINK the use of the word has changed. In actuality, the meaning might popularly have still been pretty much the same at that point - with some of the overlap of the dualities seen in Egyptian religion, for example - begininning to show.

But, more importantly, second... as I said, the two versions become LESS reconcilable if you start allowing that the passage means an evil spirit - because the other passage is fairly clear that it is 'god' who is the prime origin.

If it is Satan, using the 'old' meaning... it can still be stretched to fit the same mould as 'Job'. If it is an 'evil spirit' (so that God doesn't have to be associated with evil)... then the OTHER reference - claiming God as the originator - contradicts it.

And of course, this points up the problem with religiosity, as Dem was talking about. People can join a religious organization for all kinds of reasons, their own personal belief system notwithstanding.
Indeed. I was merely developing the theme. (Plus, I did a research project into all this as part of my Masters, and get precious little chance otherwise to air my knowledge. ;) )

I see that this is the entire problem with my concept -- it is just an intuition. It's something that I developed from reading history, and thinking about side subjects which are not the main topic of the histories I was reading. I obviously don't have enough data to actually make a point out of it, and from what you and Dem and GnI have said, I see that it is unlikely I ever will. Oh, well.
There may not be the data to allow you to quantify the split between those who can and those who can't, but that doesn't make it a worthless model. It's certainly an interesting alternative to the old left brain/right brain and liberal/conservative models.

Indeed. I was merely developing the theme. (Plus, I did a research project into all this as part of my Masters, and get precious little chance otherwise to air my knowledge. ;) )
Please, air away, every chance you get. :) I'm fascinated by the reasons why people do what they do.

There may not be the data to allow you to quantify the split between those who can and those who can't, but that doesn't make it a worthless model. It's certainly an interesting alternative to the old left brain/right brain and liberal/conservative models.
Thanks, I appreciate that. But without supporting data, of course, I can't make a point of it in a debate context. It can only be part of a what-if speculative conversation. I love those, but this is a debate forum.

"So let's rejoice with loud fa-lal -- falalala, falalala
That Nature always does contrive -- falalalala
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little liberal
or else a little conservative"
-- Gilbert & Sullivan, "Iolanthe" :D

(You just reminded me of it.)

For the sort of reasons you've put forward, you'll find a lot of the more serious statistical studies into religion tend to avoid trying to measure belief directly and instead use proxies, such as religious affiliation or membership of faith communities. Such measures are simpler to operationalise, and tend to be a lot more robust for trends and comparison purposes. (However, these proxy measures will tend to yield higher results for 'believers' than direct measures of belief, typically by 10-15 percentage points in Britain for example.)

Why would they yield higher percentages of believers? What abou all the believers who do not go to church or do not affiliate themselves with other religions?

This is exactly the problem. We cannot use "goes to church" or "identifies with a given group" as measures of religiosity because all those who join churches or identify with a denomination are not necessarily believers and all who do neither are not necessarily non-believers. And the trends in religion seem to be moving away from organized religion (which is essentially what these would measure) and into more personalized religion - something damn near impossible to measure.

Even asking, "Are you religious or non-religious?" wouldn't work, because you get those who would say "non-religious" because they are "not religious, but spiritual."

Why would they yield higher percentages of believers? What abou all the believers who do not go to church or do not affiliate themselves with other religions?

This is exactly the problem. We cannot use "goes to church" or "identifies with a given group" as measures of religiosity because all those who join churches or identify with a denomination are not necessarily believers and all who do neither are not necessarily non-believers. And the trends in religion seem to be moving away from organized religion (which is essentially what these would measure) and into more personalized religion - something damn near impossible to measure.

Even asking, "Are you religious or non-religious?" wouldn't work, because you get those who would say "non-religious" because they are "not religious, but spiritual."
I think it's a function of the trend away from belief in the hundred years or so. Membership of faith communities tends to be operationalised as being by birth, or at least assimilation pre-adulthood (eg baptism or confirmation). So lapsed believers get counted in with believers by that measure. (Though you can still see the trend away from belief over decades, as less people are born to religious parents. Retention rates are higher for secularism.)

There's a similar, though generally lesser, effect with religious affiliation - respondants tend to default back to their faith community, unless they've made a conscious decision to move away from it.

There may well be believers who don't consider themselves part of any identified religion, but most serious studies would move beyond the simple yes/no question (if they bother asking it in the first place), and give respondants a multiple choice option for membership or affiliation which would include spritualism, agnosticism and atheism, not to mention the ever-popular 'other'.

So for the four broad measures, it generally goes:

Highest results: Membership*
Then Affiliation
Then Belief
Lowest results (by a long way in modern economies): Active compliance with relevant religious practise.


*NB: This measure can be reduced in those religions or denominations that set conditions on adult membership, eg adult baptism or regular attendance, but these are a minority.

Eight... THOUSAND... posts???

All of this to ask if someone has faith in God???

Sweet mother of all that's crap!

Aaaah!

Leave the dead R.I.P. please.

:p

Wow, 2100, that's a shit load of voters.

Holy fuck, half this forum has “faith” in a poorly developed fictional character? I thought the people on this thread were more enlightened than that. I mean, what the fuck? This place really is going to the conservatives.
Conservatives? You mean Christians and other religious people. Christians are not necessarily conservatives. Some Christians are conservatives.

This really is a pet peeve of mine, when people assume that Christian is synonymous with conservative. It is especially annoying for me because in my view the teachings of Jesus dovetail more with socialism than capitalism.

Yeah, kind of like how Hitler didn't personally murder the Jews, he just allowed them to be killed for his purpose. Which is why we all honor Hitler for His blessed vision.

I'm telling you, Christianity is just Stockholm syndrome writ large.

Did "Christianity" do something terrible to you once? You seem to hate it even more than other religions.

Sorry. No resurrections here.