NationStates Jolt Archive

May I ask what you mean by that?

Who defines cruelty? Maybe what you call cruelty others would call kindness.

Before you accuse God of cruelty you need to have a definition for cruelty and why it is wrong.

True, and you will find that definition rather clearly in almost all cultures throughout human history. Humans know what's moral and what's not. If they didn't, no society could exist.
The only exceptions that were ever made to the inborn sense of morality had to be justified by religion or ideology.

Anti-social? If thats what you think the christians around you are they are not very good christians at all, we are suposed to tell the world about jesus christ and to a great extent we do.

Yep, loudly, clearly, repeatedly, unnecessarily and preferably at rather unsocial hours.
Seriously, do you honestly think there still a single person anywhere in the USA or Western Europe who hasn't heard the story yet? There is no need to stand in crowded pedestrian zones on Saturday mornings with megaphones preaching to people who, if they wanted to hear that again, would be in church.

Changing the subject. Jesus isn't Jehovah. That's been covered, clearly. You're clearly not paying attention, or as Bottle pointed out, you're a liar. Keeping up the good service to the commandments, bearing false witness.
Pathetic, at that.
Are we, or are we not, arguing about what Christians believe? Whether or not the God they describe themselves is worthy of being worshiped, or not. In so doing you can’t then change your argument to why you think Christian theology itself is wrong, that’s a different debate.

I showed with John 1, that Christian theology says Jesus was the word of God, and was God, and all things were created through him and for him and nothing was created that wasn’t created by him. That indicates that Jesus IS himself God. Every argument about that theology then has to account for that premise.

...of which there's no proof, which means, no main ingredients. And since you don't have them either, you can not possibly substantiate your claim, rendering you ever more ineffectual in this topic….
You’ve made a mistake. I don’t’ need the proof because I’m not the one that wrote the test results/report. The NT is the report, they are the witnesses, they described the events and the scenario and the ingredients. Unless you and I recreate the test then you and I cannot ‘prove’ that they are wrong or lying. Simple scientific methodology means you have to repeat the experiment as it’s described to see if you get the same results. YOU said the scientific data proves it can’t happen, I simply pointed out to you that you didn’t repeat the conditions described. And I was correct, you didn’t, and I didn’t claim that I had done the experiment so saying I didn't assemble the ingredients is irrelevant.


… You should consider running away if you have any dignity at all. Seriously. This is humiliating for you. I would almost feel bad except mentalities like the one you're expressing are ... as stated before, quite clearly mentally unsound and, frankly, delusional and dangerous. I'll take it that it's play acting though, for forumplay, since you really couldn't be seriously that whack.

Maybe you can explain this last quote of yours for me. Is this more like flaming and flamebaiting OR is it more like an ad hominem attack? Is it a position argument of yours or is just insulting for the sake of insulting? Just curious what passes as acceptable debate style from your point of view.

Certainly not literal. Prove it.
I already proved that the Christian Bible says it’s true. And since the discussion is about Christian theology, that’s all that matters. IF you wanted me to prove that it really happened, that’s a different argument. The witnesses we have say that it did happen, the evidence they provide is their own testimony. You don’t have to believe it or be convinced, but that’s a different topic. They were convinced of it and thus it IS a part of the Christian theology which IS the topic here. Christ WAS resurrected by their account and testimony, thus, I did prove it for the sake of this discussion.

Again, to argue with the bible as your SOLE ineffable source clarifies your lack of faculty to discuss this issue rationally.
The bible IS the source of Christian theology, of course I’m quoting from it since we are talking about Christian theology. When arguing about Constitutional law you can’t logically criticize people that quote the constitution itself, that just wouldn’t make sense, so why do you try to pretend that I shouldn’t quote the Bible when discussing Christian theology? You seem to have a prejudice affecting you conclusion there.

I'll give you props though, because you embody exactly the kind of christian conspiracy the OP is shooting for. Bravo!
Glad to be of service.

Well, heres one such study that highlights the dispute of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and pretty much concludes that the "accepted history" of them is likely all false, and several reason why it draws such a conclusion.

Heres a little taste.
Actually, that entire quote, is about ‘who’ wrote the scrolls. Who recorded them and who put them in the caves, where were they written, etc., etc., etc. And the controversy about that is well known to me. If the Qumran community did or did not write them and if they did or did not live in that archaeological site has NOTHING to do with what is written on the scrolls and if entire segments of the scripture we have today has been deleted, as was your claim. Your claim was not supported but your evidence with that quote. (side point: I don’t need you to link a source for that quote myself because I read many articles about that very subject and I’ve seen it before, but not everyone that reads this forum will be familiar with it, you should link your source so that they can reference it themselves if they want).

Uhmm..maybe becuase maybe nearly a hundred years after the fact, the destruction of the temple wasnt such a hot topic?
It was a VERY hot topic in the Jewish and Christian community a hundred years later. They had a secondary uprising because of it in 130-135AD (which failed to win back the temple area), the entire Jewish community had to rewrite their understanding of Temple and Synagogue because of it, the Jewish community created the Talmud in 200AD in order to survive the loss of the Temple, the Sadducees theology ceased to exist in the 1st century because of the loss of the Temple (and they were mentioned as adversaries of Jesus in conversation in the NT several times and in several places, but never once does the NT mentioned that they ceased to exist , and the best reason for that to be is because the gospels were written before the Temple destruction and before the loss of the Sadducees as a group), but clearly the Temple Destruction was a very hot topic in the 2nd century.

Wow. Catch up with the times, friend.
Heres a quick sample, easily obtained from even Wiki:
Apparently you forgot what you said. You said, Even the earliest of them was likely written no earlier than 90-120 a.d, eliminating the possibility of any first hand accounts. and I pointed out that Paul died before that so unless he wrote a lot of books while he was dead some of the books must be older than that… And now your sources says: Seven of the epistles of Paul are now generally accepted by most modern scholars as authentic which proves my point so you proved I was correct with your source. Some of the NT books had to be written before 64AD, at least 7 of them by your own source.

You're still assuming that I believe in any form of god.
And you still didn't answer the question.
I am not assuming that you believe in God. The conversation is Christianity theology and what they teach, and I answer from the Christian point of view.

If god is omnipotent and omniscient and therefore set up the whole world right from the begining, knowing full well what it would turn out like, why would he include an episode that sees his son die? He could just as well have set the whole scenario up entirely different after all, couldn't he?
Yes I have answered it, but they weren’t all responses to your posts alone, other people have asked as well so maybe you didn’t see all of my responses. But I’m happy to repeat what I said before.

Sin leads to Death and Death is what Jesus/God was destroying when Christ was begotten on earth as Jesus. Jesus can't be resurrected (the destruction of Death) unless he dies first. Christ himself volunteered to die for the forgiveness of our sins, and Christ is God. Thus, the God that created the world also saved the world and resurrected his Son for those who want eternal life, they can believe in him and do as he preached.

As to whether a different type of bridge could have been made… if the bridge from death to life is a blue bridge or a red bridge it is irrelevant, the fact that Jesus is the bridge is the important part. The reason that Jesus died was because he went to death in order to conquer it, it’s the same reason he become human, to save us (build the bridge) from both sides of the chasm that is between us and God (and eternal life), from God’s side he came and from our side he completed the bridge.

Yep, loudly, clearly, repeatedly, unnecessarily and preferably at rather unsocial hours.
Seriously, do you honestly think there still a single person anywhere in the USA or Western Europe who hasn't heard the story yet? There is no need to stand in crowded pedestrian zones on Saturday mornings with megaphones preaching to people who, if they wanted to hear that again, would be in church.

That’s not a valid complaint. Example: Now that one has graduated from Higher Education, they may have no further need for fifth grade mathematics textbook teachings. However, this does not remove the need for fifth grade mathematics textbook teachings because other people are still in fifth grade still need the teachings. We isolate the fifth graders from the higher education students so the non-fifth graders don’t have to be bothered with the lessons for the fifth graders. But in this topic of preaching the word and spreading the good news of Jesus and Christianity in general, the whole world is all mixed together, the are no isolated or separated groups from who has and who has not learned the lesson yet. So the whole world is taught the same lessons over and over again because the whole world always has new people that need to hear the lesson…

Too the last part, im not posting because you do a much better job debating for christ than I do. It is redundant and unnecessary for me to post because you are so great at it.

Your help is always welcome please join in :D
Additionally, I was apparently wrong about that statement as well :p But RLI Rides Again and I have killed threads before and I was starting to think that we had done it again...

Yes I have answered it, but they weren’t all responses to your posts alone, other people have asked as well so maybe you didn’t see all of my responses. But I’m happy to repeat what I said before.

Sin leads to Death and Death is what Jesus/God was destroying when Christ was begotten on earth as Jesus. Jesus can't be resurrected (the destruction of Death) unless he dies first. Christ himself volunteered to die for the forgiveness of our sins, and Christ is God. Thus, the God that created the world also saved the world and resurrected his Son for those who want eternal life, they can believe in him and do as he preached.

As to whether a different type of bridge could have been made… if the bridge from death to life is a blue bridge or a red bridge it is irrelevant, the fact that Jesus is the bridge is the important part. The reason that Jesus died was because he went to death in order to conquer it, it’s the same reason he become human, to save us (build the bridge) from both sides of the chasm that is between us and God (and eternal life), from God’s side he came and from our side he completed the bridge.

Right. So either god isn't omnipotent (as in, he could not "destroy death" without killing Jesus), or else he could have, but didn't, which makes him rather sadistic on the whole.
Now, this is just focusing on ONE death the bible claims to be directly linked to and approved by god, if not downright executed by his own hand. There are literally countless of others who are killed by god himself, or his agents (Joshua, Moses, Solomon, etc.). Assuming an all-powerful and all-knowing god, he must really be a total prick.



That’s not a valid complaint. Example: Now that one has graduated from Higher Education, they may have no further need for fifth grade mathematics textbook teachings. However, this does not remove the need for fifth grade mathematics textbook teachings because other people are still in fifth grade still need the teachings. We isolate the fifth graders from the higher education students so the non-fifth graders don’t have to be bothered with the lessons for the fifth graders. But in this topic of preaching the word and spreading the good news of Jesus and Christianity in general, the whole world is all mixed together, the are no isolated or separated groups from who has and who has not learned the lesson yet. So the whole world is taught the same lessons over and over again because the whole world always has new people that need to hear the lesson…

It would seem you've only read part of my post.
I'm not complaining about religious folk teaching their offspring at home or in churches, synagogues or mosques. That's what they're for, after all.

What I do have a problem with is them going from door to door, disturbing people in their daily business with their uninvited preaching, or worse still, putting themselves in the middle of crowded places with amplifiers and giving people headaches.

What I do have a problem with is them going from door to door, disturbing people in their daily business with their uninvited preaching, or worse still, putting themselves in the middle of crowded places with amplifiers and giving people headaches.
I live near two different churches, and it really pisses me off how they ring their bells to announce 8, 9, and 10am services on Sundays. The bells are really, really loud. Sunday is one of two days I get to sleep in, or would get to sleep in if the churchies could get over themselves and quit needing to announce AMG WE ARE REALLY RELIGIOUS! to the whole neighborhood.

Church bells served a function back when few people had personal clocks or watches, and when you had to be calling the faithful back from out in the fields and whatnot. But I live in Foggy Bottom. There is absolutely no purpose for those church bells aside from blaring their personal religiousness at the neighborhood. It's selfish, it's rude, and it's a behavior that no secular organization would be allowed to get away with.

Right. So either god isn't omnipotent (as in, he could not "destroy death" without killing Jesus), or else he could have, but didn't, which makes him rather sadistic on the whole.
Now, this is just focusing on ONE death the bible claims to be directly linked to and approved by god, if not downright executed by his own hand. There are literally countless of others who are killed by god himself, or his agents (Joshua, Moses, Solomon, etc.). Assuming an all-powerful and all-knowing god, he must really be a total prick.

We’ve been through this before too, this anger at God because people die. I’ve pointed out that Even the non-religious have to know that Life comes from death. Life is sustained by the consumption of itself... Try sustaining yourself by eating something that wasn't alive once. It's how life works.

If we can like something about life (even with death), then we can also be thankful for what life we do have and if we are thankful for something in life we can thank God for that thing.

And you said: Why do you assume I've got a problem with death? I don't. It's part of the deal, you live, you die. End of story. then.

So again, now, why are you complaining about death? God or no God you have death, disbelieving in God because you don’t like that we die, and sometimes horribly and under horrible conditions, does not solve your problem. If it is as you say, that you have no problem with the deal, you live, you die. End of story, then you can’t complain about it. Either you have a problem with death or you don’t, which is it?

...
It would seem you've only read part of my post.
I'm not complaining about religious folk teaching their offspring at home or in churches, synagogues or mosques. That's what they're for, after all.

You may want to shut certain people up and lock them away in their isolation, but most of us will choose to not let you do that. do I really have to make examples of other groups of people that have been 'shut-up' or segregated in society, or do you concede the point?

What I do have a problem with is them going from door to door, disturbing people in their daily business with their uninvited preaching, or worse still, putting themselves in the middle of crowded places with amplifiers and giving people headaches.

Then hang a no solicitation sign on your entrance, pass an ordinance in your local municipality (whatever it might be) outlawing the behavior of door to door solicitation. But if you are in a public place where people are allowed to voice their opinions and make solicitations, you have nothing legitimate to complain about the religious persons doing it if you allow everyone else to do it...

I live near two different churches, and it really pisses me off how they ring their bells to announce 8, 9, and 10am services on Sundays. The bells are really, really loud. Sunday is one of two days I get to sleep in, or would get to sleep in if the churchies could get over themselves and quit needing to announce AMG WE ARE REALLY RELIGIOUS! to the whole neighborhood.

Church bells served a function back when few people had personal clocks or watches, and when you had to be calling the faithful back from out in the fields and whatnot. But I live in Foggy Bottom. There is absolutely no purpose for those church bells aside from blaring their personal religiousness at the neighborhood. It's selfish, it's rude, and it's a behavior that no secular organization would be allowed to get away with.

Church bells serve a function still. You may not appreciate it, you may not like it, but other people have different opinions. If you move in next to a pig farm it’s your own fault the air in your yard smells… If you become strong enough politically, you will be able to silence the church bells, or close down a pre-existing pig farm, this is true. But then you would simply be no better than a new bully in town, not a town without bullies.

What practical function to church bells serve, then?

Guilting the populace into going to Church.

You may want to shut certain people up and lock them away in their isolation, but most of us will choose to not let you do that. do I really have to make examples of other groups of people that have been 'shut-up' or segregated in society, or do you concede the point?
I don't think the argument is "it should be illegal for people to solicit in public places like that" but "They're being very rude."



Then hang a no solicitation sign on your entrance, pass an ordinance in your local municipality (whatever it might be) outlawing the behavior of door to door solicitation. But if you are in a public place where people are allowed to voice their opinions and make solicitations, you have nothing legitimate to complain about the religious persons doing it if you allow everyone else to do it...

Again, complaining that something is rude is not the same as saying it should be banned.


Church bells serve a function still. You may not appreciate it, you may not like it, but other people have different opinions. If you move in next to a pig farm it’s your own fault the air in your yard smells… If you become strong enough politically, you will be able to silence the church bells, or close down a pre-existing pig farm, this is true. But then you would simply be no better than a new bully in town, not a town without bullies.

What practical function to church bells serve, then?

My ex has a great sign on his door. A couple of nicely dressed folks with bible in hand. Circle with slash over them. I want one.


Just came across this while looking for one like it.

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you."

Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"

John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shit out of you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"

John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?"

Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

From the Desk of Karl
1.Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2.Use alcohol in moderation.
3.Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
4.Eat right.
5.Hank dictated this list Himself.
6.The moon is made of green cheese.
7.Everything Hank says is right.
8.Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9.Don't use alcohol.
10.Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11.Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the shit out of you.

Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"

Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me: "How do you figure that?"

Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

Me: "We do?"

Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."

Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary: She blushes.

John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."

Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"

John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary: She looks positively stricken.

John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."

Mary: She faints.

John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.



Sound Familiar?

I don't think the argument is "it should be illegal for people to solicit in public places like that" but "They're being very rude."
That wasn't one of the options I saw in what she said: I'm not complaining about religious folk teaching their offspring at home or in churches, synagogues or mosques. That's what they're for, after all. That looks to me like she wants them to shut up in the public forum... If she meant something other than what she said then I agree with you.


Again, complaining that something is rude is not the same as saying it should be banned.
Rudeness in the public forum seems to be very common today, but if so it is not a specific religious creation or problem. Shouting people down off of the public stage in a University auditorium or at the stage from the audience section in Televisions shows etc., seems to be a weekly occurrence these days. Blaming this lack of courtesy in the public on the religious alone seems like scapegoating me.


What practical function to church bells serve, then?
Are you trying to get me to try and convince you that they have worth? I hope not, because that's not what I meant. I tried to convince that other people think they have worth and these other people have rights too. The stronger political power will win those conflicts. My point was that if the bells are shut down or the pig farm is moved, then the political winds simply changes, 'justice' is not served either way. Some people like the sound of church bells, that was simple enough to prove they serve a purpose still.

That wasn't one of the options I saw in what she said: I'm not complaining about religious folk teaching their offspring at home or in churches, synagogues or mosques. That's what they're for, after all. That looks to me like she wants them to shut up in the public forum... If she meant something other than what she said then I agree with you.
Well, I read it as "those annoying guys shouting in the middle of the street are so damn rude," but I can see how you'd read it as "it should be banned."


Rudeness in the public forum seems to be very common today, but if so it is not a specific religious creation or problem. Shouting people down off of the public stage in a University auditorium or at the stage from the audience section in Televisions shows etc., seems to be a weekly occurrence these days. Blaming this lack of courtesy in the public on the religious alone seems like scapegoating me.

Oh, I'm against rudeness in general. Now, it's arguable that religious people claim that they're so much better than everybody else, that they should demonstrate that with their behavior, but I won't argue that too much, because I'm not really sure that's fair. But it does seem to me (and, I admit, this is anecdotal evidence) that the people who most often do the annoying shouting in public areas are religious. At the student center at my University, there's occasionally demonstrations/protests. And which ones go the most out of their way to be annoying? The "You're going to hell, convert!" ones, and the anti-choice "Every sperm is sacred" guys.
I'm on the Obama campaign chapter at my school, and we managed to hand out fliers without excessive rudeness-- we wouldn't try to force people to listen to us/talk to us unless they were genuinely interested. But we wouldn't shout at them when they weren't. Those who try to go out and convert never do this, in my experience, they will shout at everybody about how "they're going to hell."
Again, I'd defend their legal right to do all this, but it doesn't mean that I don't think they're excessively rude, and I wish that they wouldn't do it. The same, though, applies to any organization that intentionally makes itself excessively annoying.

Are you trying to get me to try and convince you that they have worth? I hope not, because that's not what I meant. I tried to convince that other people think they have worth and these other people have rights too. The stronger political power will win those conflicts. My point was that if the bells are shut down or the pig farm is moved, then the political winds simply changes, 'justice' is not served either way. Some people like the sound of church bells, that was simple enough to prove they serve a purpose still.

Okay. Some people like heavy metal. Would you say that I'm not being rude if I blast my heavy metal music, full volume, at 7 in the morning when people are trying to sleep? Would I be able to say, "well, there's nothing rude about it, because there's no noise ordinance here?" Of course not! I know last year, I lived in the dorms at my school, and there were these guys who always blasted their music at 3 in the morning. If churches aren't rude to wake people up with their bells, neither are these guys.

Now, really, the only case where I think the law should step in is where churches currently get special exemptions from noise ordinances. While we shouldn't specifically require them to shut up with their bells if there's no rules in the area, neither should we give them special exemption from the laws that everybody else has to follow.

I live near two different churches, and it really pisses me off how they ring their bells to announce 8, 9, and 10am services on Sundays. The bells are really, really loud. Sunday is one of two days I get to sleep in, or would get to sleep in if the churchies could get over themselves and quit needing to announce AMG WE ARE REALLY RELIGIOUS! to the whole neighborhood.

Church bells served a function back when few people had personal clocks or watches, and when you had to be calling the faithful back from out in the fields and whatnot. But I live in Foggy Bottom. There is absolutely no purpose for those church bells aside from blaring their personal religiousness at the neighborhood. It's selfish, it's rude, and it's a behavior that no secular organization would be allowed to get away with.

The university I attended (which happens to be a secular institution) actually has bells, and they have them set to ring every hour. Makes me glad I don't live near the university, heh.

*snip*
Again, I'd defend their legal right to do all this, but it doesn't mean that I don't think they're excessively rude, and I wish that they wouldn't do it. The same, though, applies to any organization that intentionally makes itself excessively annoying.
You and I agree.

Okay. Some people like heavy metal. Would you say that I'm not being rude if I blast my heavy metal music, full volume, at 7 in the morning when people are trying to sleep? Would I be able to say, "well, there's nothing rude about it, because there's no noise ordinance here?" Of course not! I know last year, I lived in the dorms at my school, and there were these guys who always blasted their music at 3 in the morning. If churches aren't rude to wake people up with their bells, neither are these guys.
If it's not against the rules, and you live next to them, how is it not an expected behavior? Your choice (if you don't want to hear it) is to not live there, as far as I can tell. OR, get enough political/management power to change the rules.

Now, really, the only case where I think the law should step in is where churches currently get special exemptions from noise ordinances. While we shouldn't specifically require them to shut up with their bells if there's no rules in the area, neither should we give them special exemption from the laws that everybody else has to follow.

Special exemptions are a part of the reigning power scheme that I've been talking about. If they have an exception then the public power system (generally speaking) agrees with it. Change the power system, or the rules.

The railroad tracks near my neighborhood used to be nothing but an arm and warning lights, so the train would blow it's horn every time it went past that intersection, day or night. We couldn't absolve them of the responsibility of hitting anyone so we couldn't just tell them not to blow their horns, so we had to meet a state standard to change the intersection to it could qualify as a non horn required intersection. We had to find another way to tell them to shut up, so we voted to spend money on the public works required to change the intersection... HOWEVER, what if my locality voted against the extra taxes to change the intersection? Would I then still have something legitimate to complain about? I suggest no, it's my fault for living there were they don't mind the noise. And I think the same thing applies to bells and loud music from your neighbors residence.

Apparently you forgot what you said. You said, Even the earliest of them was likely written no earlier than 90-120 a.d, eliminating the possibility of any first hand accounts. and I pointed out that Paul died before that so unless he wrote a lot of books while he was dead some of the books must be older than that… And now your sources says: Seven of the epistles of Paul are now generally accepted by most modern scholars as authentic which proves my point so you proved I was correct with your source. Some of the NT books had to be written before 64AD, at least 7 of them by your own source.

You missed the entire point of the article, friend.
The main point it stressed is that nearly 60% of the material we attribute as written by Paul...was most certainly not.
SOME of the epistles are believed accurate, while most scholars agree that the majority of his works....were not.
They arent even attributable to anyone close to him.

This means they surely were written long after Paul was dead and gone.

As for the DSC, that was merely one example of unknown dates, unknown authors and edited text from them. it was merely the first such example I found with a very casual search.
Theres plenty of references to exactly what Im reffering to, and anyone who claims to "write" about such topics, surely doesnt need me to do thier homework for them.
They are easy to find, as modern technology has come a long way, and new information is being gleaned from such ancient texts all the time.

The simple fact of the matter is, that the dates are unknown, and still topics of debate even among scholars of the matter.
Neither of us truly fits into that category.

Putting any of them before 70 a.d is a bit of a stretch and you and I both know it. Even the Gospel of Thomas, wich some think may have been as early as 40 a.d is debated.

Yep, loudly, clearly, repeatedly, unnecessarily and preferably at rather unsocial hours.
Seriously, do you honestly think there still a single person anywhere in the USA or Western Europe who hasn't heard the story yet? There is no need to stand in crowded pedestrian zones on Saturday mornings with megaphones preaching to people who, if they wanted to hear that again, would be in church.

Actually, yes, many people don't know about jesus. And who stands with mega phones? Ahh thats right its the anti-war nuts. I am aware there are acceptions, and some christians do so but the vast majority of "megaphoners" are liberals protestors.

You and I agree.


If it's not against the rules, and you live next to them, how is it not an expected behavior? Your choice (if you don't want to hear it) is to not live there, as far as I can tell. OR, get enough political/management power to change the rules.

The point is, even if it's not against the rules, doesn't mean it's not impolite. It's the same as the people who go and make an ass of themselves on the street corner and annoy everybody. Sure, they can do it, but, because it's very annoying, I'd consider people who do it to be rude.


Special exemptions are a part of the reigning power scheme that I've been talking about. If they have an exception then the public power system (generally speaking) agrees with it. Change the power system, or the rules.

Yeah, I do want to get rules that grant special exemption to organizations merely because they are religious changed. Special favoritism to "recognized" religions is a violation of the Church-State seperation, in my mind, because it specifically endorses those religions at the expense of others.


The railroad tracks near my neighborhood used to be nothing but an arm and warning lights, so the train would blow it's horn every time it went past that intersection, day or night. We couldn't absolve them of the responsibility of hitting anyone so we couldn't just tell them not to blow their horns, so we had to meet a state standard to change the intersection to it could qualify as a non horn required intersection. We had to find another way to tell them to shut up, so we voted to spend money on the public works required to change the intersection... HOWEVER, what if my locality voted against the extra taxes to change the intersection? Would I then still have something legitimate to complain about? I suggest no, it's my fault for living there were they don't mind the noise. And I think the same thing applies to bells and loud music from your neighbors residence.
Ah, but the difference here is that the train blows its whistle for a practical reason: it's for safety. It's not because "some people like how the horn sounds," which was your stated reason for the church bells.

Actually, yes, many people don't know about jesus.

... You seriously think that most--or even a large number of-- people who aren't Christians aren't Christians because they've never heard of Jesus? Seriously? In the US, we're confronted with the Jesus story so often that just about everybody knows about it.
That's part of what's so annoying about a lot of Christians-- the sheer arrogance. They think "well, obviously the reason people aren't Christian is that they aren't aware that the Bible says that Christianity is true! If they knew that the Bible said this stuff, they'd believe it!" They simply can't accept that people have looked at the Bible and said "this is bullshit." They think it's impossible, and that quoting a few Bible quotes is a convincing argument to a non-Christian.


And who stands with mega phones? Ahh thats right its the anti-war nuts. I am aware there are acceptions, and some christians do so but the vast majority of "megaphoners" are liberals protestors.

My personal experience is that street evangelists are far more common than anti-war protests or other liberal causes-- and I live in a University town that has several active student political organizations!

Generally, anti-war protesters do one of two things: they hand out fliers, or they have a rally somewhere-- generally somewhere that you go there specifically if you want to protest against the war. There's not any sane argument that handing out fliers is any where near as annoying as shouting "you're all going to hell! Repent you sinners! How can you be so stupid to not believe in God, THE BIBLE SAYS THAT GOD EXISTS, AND THE BIBLE MUST BE RIGHT BECAUSE IT SAYS IT'S RIGHT!" Maybe you could argue that about an anti-war rally, but I'd disagree with you.

We’ve been through this before too, this anger at God because people die. I’ve pointed out that Even the non-religious have to know that Life comes from death. Life is sustained by the consumption of itself... Try sustaining yourself by eating something that wasn't alive once. It's how life works.

If we can like something about life (even with death), then we can also be thankful for what life we do have and if we are thankful for something in life we can thank God for that thing.

And you said: Why do you assume I've got a problem with death? I don't. It's part of the deal, you live, you die. End of story. then.

So again, now, why are you complaining about death? God or no God you have death, disbelieving in God because you don’t like that we die, and sometimes horribly and under horrible conditions, does not solve your problem. If it is as you say, that you have no problem with the deal, you live, you die. End of story, then you can’t complain about it. Either you have a problem with death or you don’t, which is it?

And again, I have no problem with death. I have a problem with the notion of worshipping a deity that causes humans to suffer, for whatever reason. Is that so hard to grasp?

That wasn't one of the options I saw in what she said: I'm not complaining about religious folk teaching their offspring at home or in churches, synagogues or mosques. That's what they're for, after all. That looks to me like she wants them to shut up in the public forum... If she meant something other than what she said then I agree with you.


Rudeness in the public forum seems to be very common today, but if so it is not a specific religious creation or problem. Shouting people down off of the public stage in a University auditorium or at the stage from the audience section in Televisions shows etc., seems to be a weekly occurrence these days. Blaming this lack of courtesy in the public on the religious alone seems like scapegoating me.

I think you are deliberately misunderstanding me.
I had said that Christians shouldn't be surprised to ger negative reactions due to their behaviour. When asked about what kind of behaviour I was referring to, I gave this example.
I have at no point said anything about making it illegal to speak publicly, I have simply pointed out that being Christian is no excuse for being rude. I don't excuse rudeness in anyone else, so why would I make an exception for religious people?

Actually, yes, many people don't know about jesus. And who stands with mega phones? Ahh thats right its the anti-war nuts. I am aware there are acceptions, and some christians do so but the vast majority of "megaphoners" are liberals protestors.

Er, what planet do you live on? I haven't seen any left-wing demonstrations with megaphones since the late 70s here. The guys blocking up the pedestrian zones on Saturdays and trying to get Ann Summers out of business here usually brandish bibles...

You missed the entire point of the article, friend.
The main point it stressed is that nearly 60% of the material we attribute as written by Paul...was most certainly not.
SOME of the epistles are believed accurate, while most scholars agree that the majority of his works....were not.
They arent even attributable to anyone close to him.

This means they surely were written long after Paul was dead and gone.
Although I do not agree with this assessment, I do not agree that it is proven that Paul did not write all of the works attributed to him, for the sake of this discussion with you I have already granted you that point though so I’m working with sources you agree with. So we can safely agree that Paul wrote at least seven books in the NT. Yes? Then remember that tidbit for the last part. And I don’t know what you mean by 60% of his writings not by him anyway, 7 of 13 is more than 40%…It’s more than fifty percent. (Again though, I’m not conceding that the other letters aren’t written by him, but I’m using your sources for this discussion, so we can agree on at least the seven).

As for the DSC, that was merely one example of unknown dates, unknown authors and edited text from them. it was merely the first such example I found with a very casual search.
Theres plenty of references to exactly what Im reffering to, and anyone who claims to "write" about such topics, surely doesnt need me to do thier homework for them.
They are easy to find, as modern technology has come a long way, and new information is being gleaned from such ancient texts all the time.
I agree that there is much information in the Dead Sea Scroll (DSS) research field, online and off. What I said was that what you posted did not support your claim that they show whole sections of the scripture we had before the DSS's were discovered to be missing. We have (in the DSS's) complete documents like the Isaiah scroll, but mostly many fragments of other documents, and some new sectarian documents. Most of the documents do match the copies we had previously and the DSS's allow us to have better faith in the documents we already had and especially where they match with the Masoretic text and Septuagint Greek manuscripts and DSS altogether. You said their discovery showed how the scripture had changed, but mostly it shows how it has NOT been changed. Like it or not, that’s where the field sits today.

...
Putting any of them before 70 a.d is a bit of a stretch and you and I both know it. Even the Gospel of Thomas, wich some think may have been as early as 40 a.d is debated.
Putting some of them before 70AD is not a stretch at all. It seems you aren't reading your own links... Or maybe you don't understand the implications of the wiki link you provided. I'll list it, then you'll see.

1. Paul wrote at least 7 books.
2. Paul died between 64AD and 67AD.

How many books must be written before 70AD? Answer: at least 7.

Although I am arguing that all of the NT can and could have been written in it's entirety before 70AD, before I prove that, I have to debunk your ALL of the NT books are late writings assertions. Which I have now done with your own sources.

Er, what planet do you live on? I haven't seen any left-wing demonstrations with megaphones since the late 70s here. The guys blocking up the pedestrian zones on Saturdays and trying to get Ann Summers out of business here usually brandish bibles...

You do realize that many churches, are chock full of people that weren't Christians less than five years ago? New people are joining churches all the time, converting from other religions, or non-religious states. You have heard it all before but other people hear it with new ears from time to time and are moved to dedicate or re-dedicate themselves to Christ and they join churches.

And again, I have no problem with death. I have a problem with the notion of worshipping a deity that causes humans to suffer, for whatever reason. Is that so hard to grasp?

The response is the same if it is death or suffering then. If we deny God's existence, does the suffering go away? Of course not.

Then what benefit is there in denying God because we blame him for suffering, if it still exists without God?

Some people testify that God helps them through their suffering, why should we dismiss their testimony? Why should we only accept the claims that God causes suffering, but we know that suffering doesn't go away even if we do deny him? Why deny God to the people that say they have been helped by God when they are suffering?

Denying God because of suffering serves no purpose. It does not improve our condition one wit, it can only harm our condition if the people that testify that God helps them while they suffer are correct and it can't hurt if he doesn't.

You do realize that many churches, are chock full of people that weren't Christians less than five years ago? New people are joining churches all the time, converting from other religions, or non-religious states. You have heard it all before but other people hear it with new ears from time to time and are moved to dedicate or re-dedicate themselves to Christ and they join churches.

At the same time, people who have been in the church their entire lives are leaving, either to different denominations, to different religions, or to no religion at all.

You've mentioned that the quantity of people in a given church is in constant flux. No one disputes this. Your point?

The topic I am bringing up today is those wacky Christian conspiracy theories about the end of the world/apocalypse and an elaborate set of events which they have translated from the drug fueled rantings of Paul into the modern era. These usually revolve around the Middle East crisis, Israel, but also occasionally talk about events outside that region. Despite the 'questionable' historical worth of Revelations, some wackos seem intent that this apocalypse will be happening any day now (religious wackos were also probably saying this 100 years ago but anyway), so in the meantime an entire generation of hucksters and profit-mongering 'Christians' have come out of the woodwork with their books to make their sweat buck from the collective ignorance of the common Christian. I have even heard that some Christians take this whole thing so seriously that they will say things like 'Nothing matters because Jesus will be coming back soon'. Of course this distracts them from the fact that they are dirt poor and just gave all their money to the divine folks at the GOP.

Anyways, that's my rant, what DO YOU think of this strange phenomenon?

Most sensible Christian Churches will tell you that the writings of Paul (I might add far from being drug fueled) are cryptic teachings about events that had already passed. At the time of Paul's writing Christianity was under seige and a lot of secretive Christian symbols came out of this; the chi-rho, the fish etc. The book of revelations is another product of the time.

The thing I find disturbing is the general movement from people belonging to more (for want of a better word), sane churches, such as the Anglican Communion Churches, Roman Catholic Churches, Orthodox Churches, Lutheran Churches etc into the more evangelical ones. With so many crazies around I can fully understand why people abandon religion altogether

The thing I find disturbing is the general movement from people belonging to more (for want of a better word), sane churches, such as the Anglican Communion Churches, Roman Catholic Churches, Orthodox Churches, Lutheran Churches etc into the more evangelical ones. With so many crazies around I can fully understand why people abandon religion altogether

You think Roman Catholicism is sane?

"Birth control is bad because wimminz shuld be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen!" :rolleyes:

You think Roman Catholicism is sane?

"Birth control is bad because wimminz shuld be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen!" :rolleyes:

Actually the Catholic viewpoint is that God is somehow present in sex and the openess to childbirth. Do not ask me to explain that, I do not understand it fully myself. But by and large I do think Catholicism is sane. They do not encourage a literal interpretation of the bible, and while the Vatican may drag it's heels there is a certain degree of reason in much of what they say, reason that is not present in the teachings of many of the other Churches.

And again, I have no problem with death. I have a problem with the notion of worshipping a deity that causes humans to suffer, for whatever reason. Is that so hard to grasp?

I've never really understood this position, that God is mean so I'm not going to worship Him. Now, obviously you have other reasons for not worshiping God (not believing in him, for starters) but doesn't seem that if there really was a grouchy, omnipotent Being, you would want to worship It, and hope it hurts you slightly less than others?

Church bells served a function back when few people had personal clocks or watches, and when you had to be calling the faithful back from out in the fields and whatnot. But I live in Foggy Bottom. There is absolutely no purpose for those church bells aside from blaring their personal religiousness at the neighborhood. It's selfish, it's rude, and it's a behavior that no secular organization would be allowed to get away with.
With all due respect, grow up. Once a week you have to hear bells; it's not really that bad.
Churches have done far worse things. Far worse.

Actually the Catholic viewpoint is that God is somehow present in sex and the openess to childbirth. Do not ask me to explain that, I do not understand it fully myself. But by and large I do think Catholicism is sane. They do not encourage a literal interpretation of the bible, and while the Vatican may drag it's heels there is a certain degree of reason in much of what they say, reason that is not present in the teachings of many of the other Churches.
I'm sorry, but telling people not to use condoms-- especially people who have no other source of information, like those in Africa-- knowing full well that it will increase unwanted pregnancy and STDs automatically disqualifies any group of people from being "sane." Especially when they have to deliberately lie to do so. They actually tell people over there, "Condom makers actually coat the condoms with AIDS to destroy Africa!"

With all due respect, grow up. Once a week you have to hear bells; it's not really that bad.
Churches have done far worse things. Far worse.

Oh, certainly they have done far worse. But to me and, I assume, to Bottle, it's a symptom of something much larger: the rules (whether rules of polite behavior or the rules of law) that everybody else is expected to follow do not apply to people if it so happens that they say they're doing it for an invisible fairy. And that is a serious problem.

That and it's just really fucking annoying to get woken up by those bells, especially if you have to get up early every other day for work/school/what have you.

Oh, certainly they have done far worse. But to me and, I assume, to Bottle, it's a symptom of something much larger: the rules (whether rules of polite behavior or the rules of law) that everybody else is expected to follow do not apply to people if it so happens that they say they're doing it for an invisible fairy. And that is a serious problem.

That and it's just really fucking annoying to get woken up by those bells, especially if you have to get up early every other day for work/school/what have you.

It makes me genuinely curious what would happen if I blasted my music at 6 in the morning and told the authorities when they showed up at my door that I was calling together the faithful of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You've mentioned that the quantity of people in a given church is in constant flux. No one disputes this. Your point?

It isn't enough to fuel the capacitor.
Even if we reach 80 miles an hour.

Actually the Anglican and Uniting Church's these days are much more open and focus much more on the 'social gospel' rather than the stupid non-issues the evangelical crazies in Mericah are mental about.

Are we, or are we not, arguing about what Christians believe? Whether or not the God they describe themselves is worthy of being worshiped, or not. In so doing you can’t then change your argument to why you think Christian theology itself is wrong, that’s a different debate. Perhaps you missed my point *surprise*, but at least you're bothering to ask, which swells me more than just the slightest that there's hope in this commerce.


I showed with John 1, that Christian theology says Jesus was the word of God, and was God, and all things were created through him and for him and nothing was created that wasn’t created by him. That indicates that Jesus IS himself God. Every argument about that theology then has to account for that premise. Okay, so here's the fun of your theology. If that's true, God was dead for three days.



Still stickin' to that?


You’ve made a mistake. I don’t’ need the proof because I’m not the one that wrote the test results/report.You can't get proof anyway, so it's fairly convenient to argue from that point of view. I, however, would have almost no problem coming up with copious evidence to support the premise that in controlled circumstances, approximately 100% of people are not .. repeat .. NOT resurrected from the dead once they are actually dead. Using a text that has been translated *how many* times for *how many* reasons about many things that have already been disproven (or never proven) just means that the evidence weighs quite strongly against you, for which, yes, faith is your only recourse to continue to purport that anything like resurrection actually occurred.
The NT is the report,No matter how many different "accounts" there are, nor how many times they contradict each other.
they are the witnesses,I would call that into question in a particular courting manner if i thought it was feasible ... instead i go with the harder course of accepting results instead of flights of fancy.
they described the events and the scenario and the ingredients. HEAVY on the MSG and delusional aspects, and you can be pretty happy that science and reason were so important to the common masses at the time. ... Oh, wait ...
Unless you and I recreate the test then you and I cannot ‘prove’ that they are wrong or lying. Simple scientific methodology means you have to repeat the experiment as it’s described to see if you get the same results.The important thing about this sentence here is your consideration of "scientific methodology", for which you woefully disdain to support your faith system.
YOU said the scientific data proves it can’t happen, I simply pointed out to you that you didn’t repeat the conditions described.The conditions described ... wait for it ... are what, again?
God was dead for three days? Is that it?
And I was correct, you didn’t, and I didn’t claim that I had done the experiment so saying I didn't assemble the ingredients is irrelevant.And in not having done it, and in not having *any* evidence to support it (yes, evidence, not fiction), it would stand to reason that you're arguing from false premise.


Maybe you can explain this last quote of yours for me. Is this more like flaming and flamebaiting OR is it more like an ad hominem attack? Is it a position argument of yours or is just insulting for the sake of insulting? Just curious what passes as acceptable debate style from your point of view.Ah - i think it was the nature of your post that made it appear lacking sanity, for which it would have been pretty humiliating to pursue. I commend you, in your response, for your attempts to be reasonable in your presentation. That isn't particularly humiliating.


I already proved that the Christian Bible says it’s true.Which doesn't make it true just because someone says it. Are there some bridges you're interested in? Perhaps a pyramid scheme? Do you know you have some long lost relatives of royalty in certain countries in Africa?
And since the discussion is about Christian theology, that’s all that matters.No, it's about conspiracies on part of religious minded people, specifically christians (although it probably won't be by the locktime).
IF you wanted me to prove that it really happened, that’s a different argument. The witnesses we have say that it did happen, the evidence they provide is their own testimony.I find no fault with this statement, well put.
You don’t have to believe it or be convinced, but that’s a different topic. Perhaps what makes it the same topic is the effort put forth by people to convince other people of things they themselves cannot quantify while simultaneously regarding their own statements as powerful, connotative and persuasive.
They were convinced of it and thus it IS a part of the Christian theology which IS the topic here. Christ WAS resurrected by their account and testimony, thus, I did prove it for the sake of this discussion.You only proved their intent for conspiracy, but i'll accept your point to the degree it merits.


The bible IS the source of Christian theology, of course I’m quoting from it since we are talking about Christian theology. When arguing about Constitutional law you can’t logically criticize people that quote the constitution itself, that just wouldn’t make sense, so why do you try to pretend that I shouldn’t quote the Bible when discussing Christian theology? You seem to have a prejudice affecting you conclusion there. If you're talking about actual EVIDENCE of anything, other than tautological, it should be addressed the nature of your presentation.


Glad to be of service. :)

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you."

Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"

John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shit out of you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"

John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?"

Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."
Hahahaha!!!!
*FLORT*
:fluffle:

Actually, yes, many people don't know about jesus.Actually, yes, many MORE people don't know that the jesus concept is lifted, like everything else in that religion, from former sources, as in Mithra and Horus. Sad how so many of those people don't know the shame of purporting their fallacies without even knowing who they plagiarized from. Embarassing.

And who stands with mega phones? Ahh thats right its the anti-war nuts.As compared to the completely sane pro-killing people. You know, the ones that ... what ... break serious commandments, like not killing, or something.
Completely fucking sane. You can tell because being pro-war comes with the sensibility of employing non-lethal methods foremost in all altercations, only relying on murder/killing in the LAST resort, of course ... and knowing that pro-war people know that understanding the situation for mutually beneficial results is important and cost-effective. Not bloodthirsty, vindictive, bellicose and bestial in the most lowly fashion at all. Especially for corporate benefit, lo!

I am aware there are acceptions, and some christians do so but the vast majority of "megaphoners" are liberals protestors.Megaphoners are protesting liberals? They must be trying to keep up with the rightwing radio and tv efforts of Limblob, Weiner, Faux, Leprechaun, and all those other twisted, demonic/demonizing diseased waste.

snip

snip

EPIC.

EPIC.

Amen to that!

I've never really understood this position, that God is mean so I'm not going to worship Him. Now, obviously you have other reasons for not worshiping God (not believing in him, for starters) but doesn't seem that if there really was a grouchy, omnipotent Being, you would want to worship It, and hope it hurts you slightly less than others?

The God of the OT is a needy asshole. Why any self-respecting person would prostrate themselves to such a jerk is mystifying. But in the end, that's not the real point.

The real point is that the more terrifying a God is described as being, the less believable that God becomes. One only needs to read as far as the book of Job to realize the God of the OT is a ridiculous myth.

But I see the argument you're making. To actually believe in that God and reject him because he's a douche seems bizarre. You'd think if someone was so gullible to believe the mythology, they wouldn't have enough mental will to resist worshipping it.

They'd have to be some sort of nit-wit masochistic contrarian.

Although I do not agree with this assessment, I do not agree that it is proven that Paul did not write all of the works attributed to him, for the sake of this discussion with you I have already granted you that point though so I’m working with sources you agree with. So we can safely agree that Paul wrote at least seven books in the NT. Yes? Then remember that tidbit for the last part. And I don’t know what you mean by 60% of his writings not by him anyway, 7 of 13 is more than 40%…It’s more than fifty percent. (Again though, I’m not conceding that the other letters aren’t written by him, but I’m using your sources for this discussion, so we can agree on at least the seven).

Ok. Dont get me wrong. Im not trying to assertain that there were no early works. The entire point to anything I have been said, is that there is doubt, in all articles of the DDS, especially concerning thier dates of origin, and thier authorship.
As for the missing sections, we arent talking about entire mysterious books
that appear to have been erased.
More like paragraphs, and sentences, and names.
What does this mean?
Merely that full knowledge of the entire contents and teachings, remain forever unknown, becuase there was deliberate editing involved at some point
in the documents history.
Also, considering how many peices of scolls were removed, some nothing more than numbers, letters and symbols, its impossible to know what they all were or what they said.

Ergo, its not wise to use such ancient texts, however valuable to the history of religion, and its contribution to thier own libraries, its use as any sort of solid proof of the existance of God, or divinity.
This is important, becuase of Kontor"s claim that such works prove something
that ultimately, regardless of its validity, cannot be proven.

I had thought you meant to continue his arguement. You do not.
It seems you wish to debate dates of origin, and that isnt really an arguement either of us can win, can we?
You can say they all were written by Paul, and before 70 A.d, and I can show
you a wiki article that highlites the debate among scholars to its authenticity.

Why?
Becuase theyre all articles of antiquity, and scholars love to endlessly debate about such things and when they were written, and ultimately, they rarely agree.

Regardless of who is right or wrong, whats the end result in this arguement?
I convert you to Atheism?
You convert me to Christianity?
Fucking doubtful, either way, it seems.

I think the point is, its fine for either of us to believe whatever we want, but using very old, mysterious texts, in order to provide tangible proof of something in any spiritual group, isnt always a good idea.

So?
Do we keep going around with the date and time arguement?

The God of the OT is a needy asshole. Why any self-respecting person would prostrate themselves to such a jerk is mystifying. But in the end, that's not the real point.

The real point is that the more terrifying a God is described as being, the less believable that God becomes. One only needs to read as far as the book of Job to realize the God of the OT is a ridiculous myth.

But I see the argument you're making. To actually believe in that God and reject him because he's a douche seems bizarre. You'd think if someone was so gullible to believe the mythology, they wouldn't have enough mental will to resist worshipping it.

They'd have to be some sort of nit-wit masochistic contrarian.

Sigworthy as always. :)
*bows*

The God of the OT is a needy asshole. Why any self-respecting person would prostrate themselves to such a jerk is mystifying. But in the end, that's not the real point.

The real point is that the more terrifying a God is described as being, the less believable that God becomes. One only needs to read as far as the book of Job to realize the God of the OT is a ridiculous myth.

You'll get no arguement from me concerning God and his prickness, but as for Job, its meant to be a lesson, taught in the extreme.
This guy had every horrible thing happen to him as a mere bet between God and Satan. Thats an action of a monsterous prick.

But, if you take it as its probably meant to be taken, you see a moral lesson in faithfulness, even when things are at thier worst.
Nice thought, eh? Meh, I say...
BUT..consider the time when these stories were an oral tradition, and the way to make them remember it, was to make the suffering of Job, so horrible, that it was like an ancient horror movie, that gave you nightmares.

So the story became ridiculous in its porportions to "sink in".

Course...thats if you believe any of it.
*shrug*

You'll get no arguement from me concerning God and his prickness, but as for Job, its meant to be a lesson, taught in the extreme.
This guy had every horrible thing happen to him as a mere bet between God and Satan. Thats an action of a monsterous prick.

But, if you take it as its probably meant to be taken, you see a moral lesson in faithfulness, even when things are at thier worst.
Nice thought, eh? Meh, I say...
BUT..consider the time when these stories were an oral tradition, and the way to make them remember it, was to make the suffering of Job, so horrible, that it was like an ancient horror movie, that gave you nightmares.

So the story became ridiculous in its porportions to "sink in".

Course...thats if you believe any of it.
*shrug*

The monstrous callousness God displays towards Job is just the beginning of the silliness. You also have to buy into the premise - that God and Satan were sitting around trash-talking each other like a couple of dim-wits trying to one-up each other.

Then God gets all "I'll show you Satan!" and calmly proceeds to destroy the lives of many good people just to grab a thread-win in Hell's General Forum. It's so ridiculous on so many levels that it still shocks me that the idiots at Nicaea let that book in the final draft. What the hell were they thinking?

The monstrous callousness God displays towards Job is just the beginning of the silliness. You also have to buy into the premise - that God and Satan were sitting around trash-talking each other like a couple of dim-wits trying to one-up each other.

Then God gets all "I'll show you Satan!" and calmly proceeds to destroy the lives of many good people just to grab a thread-win in Hell's General Forum. It's so ridiculous on so many levels that it still shocks me that the idiots at Nicaea let that book in the final draft. What the hell were they thinking?

Heh, maybe they were swallowed whole by a whale, and spent an entire year wanking?

:)

The monstrous callousness God displays towards Job is just the beginning of the silliness. You also have to buy into the premise - that God and Satan were sitting around trash-talking each other like a couple of dim-wits trying to one-up each other.

Then God gets all "I'll show you Satan!" and calmly proceeds to destroy the lives of many good people just to grab a thread-win in Hell's General Forum. It's so ridiculous on so many levels that it still shocks me that the idiots at Nicaea let that book in the final draft. What the hell were they thinking?

You know, maybe God and Satan were just two very huge Gary-Stus. And we all know what happens in stories where there are two Gary-Stus. :p

For those that don't know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Stu

The response is the same if it is death or suffering then. If we deny God's existence, does the suffering go away? Of course not.

Then what benefit is there in denying God because we blame him for suffering, if it still exists without God?

Some people testify that God helps them through their suffering, why should we dismiss their testimony? Why should we only accept the claims that God causes suffering, but we know that suffering doesn't go away even if we do deny him? Why deny God to the people that say they have been helped by God when they are suffering?

Denying God because of suffering serves no purpose. It does not improve our condition one wit, it can only harm our condition if the people that testify that God helps them while they suffer are correct and it can't hurt if he doesn't.


Again, as stated before, I don't deny god. It doesn't make the slightest difference to my life if god exists or not.
But it does worry me that people worship a being that creates so much hate, suffering, death and destruction, and call him "good" and even "moral".

I live near two different churches, and it really pisses me off how they ring their bells to announce 8, 9, and 10am services on Sundays. The bells are really, really loud. Sunday is one of two days I get to sleep in, or would get to sleep in if the churchies could get over themselves and quit needing to announce AMG WE ARE REALLY RELIGIOUS! to the whole neighborhood.

Church bells served a function back when few people had personal clocks or watches, and when you had to be calling the faithful back from out in the fields and whatnot. But I live in Foggy Bottom. There is absolutely no purpose for those church bells aside from blaring their personal religiousness at the neighborhood. It's selfish, it's rude, and it's a behavior that no secular organization would be allowed to get away with.

Wow I really feel for you. Try living next to a mosque in Delhi for a year then maybe you'd get some sympathy.

For reference I am not a muslim, but I have grown to quite like the call to prayer for all it's disruptiveness to one's sleep patern.

I'm sorry, but telling people not to use condoms-- especially people who have no other source of information, like those in Africa-- knowing full well that it will increase unwanted pregnancy and STDs automatically disqualifies any group of people from being "sane." Especially when they have to deliberately lie to do so. They actually tell people over there, "Condom makers actually coat the condoms with AIDS to destroy Africa!"


? I never said I thought there was anything wrong with contraception. I would aprreciate it if you read my posts properly. If that is someone's religious viewpoint that they disagree with contraception, then they are entitled not to use it.

I might add that the Catholic Church also condemns sex outside of marriage. Were people actually listening to them that would stop AIDS and other STDs in it's tracks, far more effectively than the use of condoms which are not 100% effective at any rate. If they don't listen to them on the big things, why would they listen to them on the little things like contraception?

The blaming of the Catholic Church for the AIDS epidemic in Africa is a poorly hashed attempt to find a scapegoat for a growing problem. It is very easy to blame Catholicism for having an anti-contraception teaching, however this ignores the fact that the AIDS epidemic is also prevalent in areas which are not majority Catholic. Furthermore, many highly Catholic States, Spain and Italy spring to mind, do not have a problem with STDs. Empirical evidence does not support any such theory.

I might also add several prominent African Bishops have stated that if you are going to 'sin' and have sex outside of marriage it is better to use a condom.

? I never said I thought there was anything wrong with contraception. I would aprreciate it if you read my posts properly. If that is someone's religious viewpoint that they disagree with contraception, then they are entitled not to use it.

I might add that the Catholic Church also condemns sex outside of marriage. Were people actually listening to them that would stop AIDS and other STDs in it's tracks, far more effectively than the use of condoms which are not 100% effective at any rate. If they don't listen to them on the big things, why would they listen to them on the little things like contraception?

Cause it's conveniet.
How many men have you met who actually like using condoms, aside from the fact that you have to buy them first of all?
If the Catholic church cared about people and reality rather than their notion of a perfect world, they would tell them something like "You know, it's not good to fuck around outside marriage, but if you absolutely HAVE to do it, at least use a condom and don't endanger your partners, spouse and future children."
Telling them "condoms will give you AIDS in the first place", like many priests still do with the quiet sanction of Pope Palpatin, is an act of pure immorality and evil.


The blaming of the Catholic Church for the AIDS epidemic in Africa is a poorly hashed attempt to find a scapegoat for a growing problem. It is very easy to blame Catholicism for having an anti-contraception teaching, however this ignores the fact that the AIDS epidemic is also prevalent in areas which are not majority Catholic. Furthermore, many highly Catholic States, Spain and Italy spring to mind, do not have a problem with STDs. Empirical evidence does not support any such theory.

*lol
Ireland is very "Catholic" as well. But people here get enough secular education to know how to use condoms and why. And they do use them.
The problem with many African countries is, the only education available to a great number of people is organised by faith communities. I'm not singling out the Catholic church here, as other denominations are just as bad if not actually worse.
Italians, Spanish and Irish have access to impartial education (i.e. facts rather than dogma) and they have access to books and the internet if they need further information. That simply isn't the case in many places in Africa.

Now, IMHO, the best way to fight this problem would be to establish well-funded educational institutions and offer their services to developing countries. Send teachers, train local teachers, provide teaching material, provide access to information.
People aren't stupid, in general. They only resort to irrational beliefs if no one explains real circumstances and connections to them.
Most Africans wouldn't even know what a virus is, what a cell is, what the immune system does. How could they understand how condoms will protect them? And as long as they don't understand, they'll keep falling for people telling them bullshit about the virus being so small, it would get through the condom anyway, or about condoms being laced with AIDS, or about raping virgins to cure AIDS.

With all due respect, grow up. Once a week you have to hear bells; it's not really that bad.

With all due respect, this is an internet forum. Get over yourself.


Churches have done far worse things. Far worse.
So because churches have done worse things, I can't also find their bell-blaring routine to be rude?

Learn2multitask, dude. I can be disgusted with churches for multiple things at the same time. I think their selfish and disrespectful behavior with their bells is a small issue, but a very symbolic one. It is an example of how they put their own self-satisfaction above respect for their community, despite their oh-so-Christian faith.

Oh, certainly they have done far worse. But to me and, I assume, to Bottle, it's a symptom of something much larger: the rules (whether rules of polite behavior or the rules of law) that everybody else is expected to follow do not apply to people if it so happens that they say they're doing it for an invisible fairy. And that is a serious problem.

That and it's just really fucking annoying to get woken up by those bells, especially if you have to get up early every other day for work/school/what have you.
Precisely.

Are church bells the most serious problem in my life? Fuck no. Do I think church bells are the most significant assholish thing that Christians have ever done? Fuck no. Frankly, for somebody to act as if that's what I'm claiming is basically no different than them calling me a moron right to my face, because that's what you'd have to be to make such a claim. (And no, adding "with all due respect" beforehand doesn't fix that.)

As several other people have pointed out, being needlessly loud and disruptive at early morning hours is rude. It's rude when my next-door neighbors choose to blare their music or yell at their Xbox at 5am. And it's about 100 times as rude when the churches blare their bells, because my neighbors are only disturbing maybe 6 people in the adjacent apartments, while the church bells disturb every person within a 4 block radius.

No, it's not illegal for the church to be rude in this way. It's just profoundly unChristian, that's all, which I'm sure they aren't remotely concerned about.

Wow I really feel for you. Try living next to a mosque in Delhi for a year then maybe you'd get some sympathy.

For reference I am not a muslim, but I have grown to quite like the call to prayer for all it's disruptiveness to one's sleep patern.
You seem to have mistaken me for somebody else. I think it's equally rude for a mosque to blare the call to prayer or for a church to blare their bells or for a used car lot to start blaring a jingle over the loud speakers in the early morning hours.

I might add that the Catholic Church also condemns sex outside of marriage. Were people actually listening to them that would stop AIDS and other STDs in it's tracks, far more effectively than the use of condoms which are not 100% effective at any rate. If they don't listen to them on the big things, why would they listen to them on the little things like contraception?

People do listen, and they get AIDS because of it.

Please educate yourself. The BBC had a great special on the Catholic church's lies a while back. One charming feature was the bit about the church telling a woman that it would be sinful to use condoms with her HIV+ husband. See, the woman is listening to the church. She's faithful. She was a virgin when she married. And she's going to listen to the Church when it tells her not to use condoms. And she'll get HIV. And so will her kids, most likely. And the Church isn't going to provide her with medication or medical help. They'll just tell her that it's her fault for having been married off to a man with HIV (even though women don't have much choice in the matter in most countries where the Church is pulling this crap).

There's a specific story on film in which a nun tells an HIV+ man that he shouldn't use a condom "because the virus will pass through." This, by the way, is a flat-out lie. Very Christian of her to say that to him.


The blaming of the Catholic Church for the AIDS epidemic in Africa is a poorly hashed attempt to find a scapegoat for a growing problem. It is very easy to blame Catholicism for having an anti-contraception teaching, however this ignores the fact that the AIDS epidemic is also prevalent in areas which are not majority Catholic. Furthermore, many highly Catholic States, Spain and Italy spring to mind, do not have a problem with STDs. Empirical evidence does not support any such theory.

The Catholic Church actively helps to spread HIV and AIDS. They lie, flat out, about condoms. Seriously, they LIE. Complete and total dishonesty. If their motives are so pure, why would they be lying?

According to Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the Vatican's spokesperson on family affairs, "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom."

This is a lie. Flat out, no question. It is medically untrue. And the Vatican has been informed of as much, by many different organizations and medical experts, including the WHO.


I might also add several prominent African Bishops have stated that if you are going to 'sin' and have sex outside of marriage it is better to use a condom.
And Nairobi Archbishop Raphael Ndingi Nzeki says "AIDS has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms."

Funny, the Vatican never made any effort to correct this lie.

It isn't enough to fuel the capacitor.
Even if we reach 80 miles an hour.

You know, I avoided responding to this, but I couldn't resist.


Neeeeeeeeeeeerd. :D

Christian missionaries were spreading their beliefs by word of mouth, and letters. Paul wrote to the church in Rome, for example, before he visited there the first time. The Roman Church was receptive to letters and had been proselytized very early, but to assume that they had no writing is to assume that Paul wrote to them first? No, that doesn’t seem to make a logical step from what we know about them. Why not just assume the most logical course, which would be, that there was writings between Rome and Jerusalem Christians, including the possibility of the Gospels and letters from the Apostles.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point: I'm sure that there were apocalyptic writings around a fair time before 70AD, but as far as I'm concerned the Gospels were almost certainly not among them. There's plenty of apocalyptic preaching in letters which Paul wrote (which even I would accept were written before his death :p) and if we give an early dating to the Didache (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html) then that would be another example.

The Christian theology I write about most certainly came about before the Temple destruction. Paul clearly wrote about the theology I’m talking about and Paul clearly died before the Temple destruction.

Paul certainly preached that Christians had become a new temple, but as far as I remember he never suggests that the old temple has been destroyed. The only relevant passages that I can find are:

1 Corinthians 3:16
Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?

1 Corinthians 3:17
If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

1 Corinthians 6:19
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

1 Corinthians 8:10
For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols?

1 Corinthians 9:13
But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?

2 Corinthians 6:16
What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."

All taken from the NIV.

On the other hand, the Gospel accounts all emphasise the physical destruction of the old temple and can be read as historical references. There's no passage in Paul which can be read in the same way, the only one which comes close is 1 Corinthians 3:17.

I agree that the smugness factor should exist, IF it was written with hindsight advantage. In short, there isn’t a flat, in your face, example made of the Temple destruction. There should be if it was written after the event.

I think there are enough references to indicate that the author was aware of the events. I can't think of any instance where the Gospel writers refer to events which occurred after the Ascension (with the sole exception of Luke's introduction/dedication), but my knowledge of the Bible isn't great so please correct me if I'm wrong. For example, none of the Gospels mention Paul or his conversion, despite the fact that he was by far the most influential person in Early Christianity as a whole, and they simply tell us that Peter was the 'rock' without using hindsight to tell us what he would go on to do to justify that title. The writers were primarily interested in Jesus and the theology surrounding him, they had little desire to make more than the briefest mention of future events.

The pigs die. They lose, they are drowned by their own demons, Jesus wins. Clearly they can not be the ‘victors’ who destroy the Temple. IF the Roman legion symbol were a lion, something could be made out of that, if it were a dragon, something could be made out of that, if it were a dog, something could be made out of that. The roman pig symbol was a symbol for that legion for reasons unrelated to the gospel and not recorded in it.

The pigs most certainly lose but there's no indication that the demons do: nowhere does Mark say that Jesus tricked them by sending them into the pigs or that they made a mistake in asking him to do so. The demons got what they asked for. I think the parallels are unlikely to be mere coincidence, and it's certainly a plausible reference to Jerusalem, even if it isn't a certain one.

They may be prophetic predictions. They may not be. But they are not evident enough to clearly be retrodictions (if I understand what you mean by that word and I think I do)… I think most (if not all) of the references to the destruction of the Temple were actually Jesus talking about his own crucifixion and his body as the Temple being rebuilt afterwards. However, I am open to more data in this specific scenario of options…

Retrodiction isn't really the right word but I'm not sure if there is one. Vaticinium Ex Eventu is one possibility but I try to avoid Latin jargon where possible. Suffice to say I mean a 'prediction' which was written after the actual event with unknown intent.

You bring up a very interesting point, but why does a passage need to have only one meaning? I can think of several passages with multiple meanings, like as the wandering in the desert. In this case the author is portraying Jesus as being cast down, just as the temple was, but only one of them gets up again three days later.

I’ll post the whole thing…

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm or this one http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html


We can see, from reading the entirety of the passage, that Irenaeus is speaking specifically of the topic of when did the Apostles get filled with the spirit and became knowledgable of God's message so that they could write authoritative messages and gospels. He was defending against the accusation that they didn’t know what they were talking about, yet, because the accusers seem to be saying that the gospels were written so early that proper Theology from God wasn’t given yet or not understood properly yet. But Irenaeus says that the authority came to them while they were in Jerusalem (still), the entire first part of his small chapter section here is all about the Pentecost event and the timelines in it are in relevance to that event.

The words, After their departure is showing that they wrote ‘after’ they were authorized by the spirit (Pentecost). The references to Peter and Paul in Rome is separated from the reference to Mark by a period, not a comma. This overall implication is that the main timeframe against the day of Pentecost is being referenced again for Mark and Luke. John is clearly, ‘afterward.’

I think the natural reading is that Mark was written after Peter and Paul's death, as any other reading would require Markan priority, which is something that all the Church Fathers rejected. The passage seems to be written chronologically, and when read this way it is more consistent with what we know about early views on the authorship of the Gospels.

However, lets assume that your opinion is correct for a moment, and say that the After their departure comment is about after the deaths of Peter and Paul in Rome. If so, then the gospels of Mark and Luke could still be completed in two years and John a full three years after that still AND still this could all occur before 70AD and the destruction of the Temple easily enough. So, even if your opinion of the reference to “After their departure” is correct, Irenaeus does not refute my a pre 70AD date for any of the gospels.

Theoretically, but it seems more likely that GMark would have taken some time to be circulated and accepted as authorative before 'Luke' and 'Matthew' based their accounts on it. I don't see this as a conclusive argument because I don't accept Irenaeus' authority on the matter.

I admit that the burning of Rome could be a problem for me though,. However, if Paul and Peter died in 64AD, the same year of the fire, and both Mark and Luke wrote their gospels immediately thereafter, inspired but the loss of their teachers of course they would have begun right away for fear of forgetting something and ‘driven’ by the belief in their cause etc., finish quickly) then writing about Jesus and the Gospel message in the Luke and Mark gospel without mentioning the fire would be understandable for the fire was contemporary with them in the extreme and they were not writing a daily log or journal of themselves, but a history… So I would even with your assumption of the meaning of After their departure, still stand behind the claim that the gospels were pre-70AD writings because they do not include the devastating effects of the persecutions of Christians and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. (Matthew being prior to it and John being authored too far away from the fire event for it to matter to him but still close enough to the Temple that it’s destruction should have made an impact in his gospel if he wrote after it. But it does not so we can assume that he wrote prior to it still).

I think you might be over stating the effect of Nero's persecution in the aftermath of the fire. Tacitus doesn't specify the number killed, and there is much debate over how many people would constitute an "immense multitude'. It wasn't an empire-wide persecution (those didn't come until the third century) and nobody's even sure how many Christians there were in Rome at the time. It might not have been worth mentioning for an author in Greece or Judea.

Side note: have you noticed that every time you and I discuss this topic we scare away the other posters… :p :(

I can't say I blame them. :D

SNIP

That is awesome. Mind if I steal it to send out to the listserv for a Freethought group that I'm in?

It isn't enough to fuel the capacitor.
Even if we reach 80 miles an hour.

Two 8's.


But where this thread's going, we don't need 8's.

Heh, maybe they were swallowed whole by a whale, and spent an entire year wanking?

:)

Whale wanking. Awesome.
Remniscient of shark-jacking.

You know, I avoided responding to this, but I couldn't resist.


Neeeeeeeeeeeerd. :D
They coulda said "1.21 jigawatts" instead of/in addition to 80 *sic*, but hey, that's what the net's for. Nerds. Neeeeeeeeeeeerds. e+1.517913

Teehee! ;)
You're cute.

No, he's telling the truth. Most of the posts in this thread ARE from anti-Christian bigots. And say what you want, but Christ IS coming back to get us. It could be any time.

Ok. Dont get me wrong. Im not trying to assertain that there were no early works. The entire point to anything I have been said, is that there is doubt, in all articles of the DDS, especially concerning thier dates of origin, and thier authorship.
As for the missing sections, we arent talking about entire mysterious books
that appear to have been erased.
More like paragraphs, and sentences, and names.
What does this mean?
Merely that full knowledge of the entire contents and teachings, remain forever unknown, becuase there was deliberate editing involved at some point
in the documents history.
Also, considering how many peices of scolls were removed, some nothing more than numbers, letters and symbols, its impossible to know what they all were or what they said.
Ergo, its not wise to use such ancient texts, however valuable to the history of religion, and its contribution to thier own libraries, its use as any sort of solid proof of the existance of God, or divinity.
This is important, becuase of Kontor"s claim that such works prove something
that ultimately, regardless of its validity, cannot be proven.

I had thought you meant to continue his arguement. You do not.
It seems you wish to debate dates of origin, and that isnt really an arguement either of us can win, can we?

On the whole, compared to any other work of antiquity, we have vastly more proof of what the scriptures said/say then any other contemporary work, more than compared to any other writings. We have thousands of references and documents that confirm and establish what the scriptures say and said, compared to mere dozens or less of other documents from their contemporary timelines. It is an unrealistic complaint to say that since these witnesses (NT writings) don’t always exactly agree that we can’t now determine what they said. IF that standard was held to all other documents from antiquity we would act like we know next to nothing of the ancient world at all. We could be arguing about whether or not Julius Caesar ever went to England, or Egypt, of if he ever existed at all or if he was just a mythological figure made up by the Emperors to justify their existence and the replacement the Senatorial system of power in Rome.

Whereas there are only 10 copies of Caesars’ Gallic Wars, which was to have taken place between 58BC and 44BC we have no copies that are older than 900AD, nearly a thousand year gap and only 10 copies of it to examine…

And Tacitus’ Annals history of the Emperors of Rome, from about 117AD, we have about 20 copies fragments and references to it, but none of them are older than 1100AD, so there is about a 1000 year gap between his writings and our mere 20 copies…

But the NT Documents (like the gospels and the epistles, which is mainly what you and I have been discussing) we have well over 5,000 items of evidence. Fragments as old as 114AD, individual books as old as 200AD, most of the NT by 250AD and complete copies from 325AD. So, we have hard evidence that comes from less then one hundred years later AND we have references to what scriptures the church fathers said they were reading then (which additionally places the dating of the scriptures to earlier than those authors still). To argue that the scriptures have been so altered and changed (if on purpose or by accident) is to ignore the fact that the scholars in that field today could now reassemble the entire NT from references and quotes alone, from the early works of the church fathers. You can try to change the scriptures (like you said has been done), but if you do it everyone else will know that you did it. No single church or scholar or government has the power to change the Bible to their liking AND then reasonably expect to convince the rest of us that their changed scripture is the oldest and correct one. When groups do try to do just that though, like the Jehovah Witnesses Bible (for example), they have to pretend (like you do) that the ancient documents from the middle ages and older can’t be relied upon. But they are wrong, those evidences are documents etc., that we can use to recreate the entire NT, and older documents still are being found all the time. This is why altered Bibles are not used in the scholarly world of Biblical Archaeology or in most Churches today, they are easy to discover and debunk. If a person questions their personal Bible, they can go out and very quickly do just a little research and find a couple of ‘commentary Bibles’ and read them, compare them to each other and then that person will have a ‘real good idea’ of what the original authors meant to say in their native tongues and put in historical context for the reader. To argue otherwise is to argue from prejudice against the topic or out of ignorance of the topic.



You can say they all were written by Paul, and before 70 A.d, and I can show
you a wiki article that highlites the debate among scholars to its authenticity.

Why?
Becuase theyre all articles of antiquity, and scholars love to endlessly debate about such things and when they were written, and ultimately, they rarely agree.

Regardless of who is right or wrong, whats the end result in this arguement?
I convert you to Atheism?
You convert me to Christianity?
Fucking doubtful, either way, it seems.

I think the point is, its fine for either of us to believe whatever we want, but using very old, mysterious texts, in order to provide tangible proof of something in any spiritual group, isnt always a good idea.

So?
Do we keep going around with the date and time arguement?

We don’t need to keep going around and around if you don’t want. If you don’t make blanket statements like you were making before (but you are not now) that all the books are late written, or that any of the books are from generations after the fact, then I won’t continue to bring up evidences that show those attacks on the antiquity of the Bible to be erroneous.

I simply wanted to defend the fact that the bible they had then is the bible we have now, I can’t make anyone believe what the Bible says about God, only that what it says now IS what it said then for the most part and in every part that has anything to do with important theology or doctrine questions…

Perhaps you missed my point *surprise*, but at least you're bothering to ask, which swells me more than just the slightest that there's hope in this commerce.

Okay, so here's the fun of your theology. If that's true, God was dead for three days.

Still stickin' to that?

You can't get proof anyway, so it's fairly convenient to argue from that point of view. I, however, would have almost no problem coming up with copious evidence to support the premise that in controlled circumstances, approximately 100% of people are not .. repeat .. NOT resurrected from the dead once they are actually dead. Using a text that has been translated *how many* times for *how many* reasons about many things that have already been disproven (or never proven) just means that the evidence weighs quite strongly against you, for which, yes, faith is your only recourse to continue to purport that anything like resurrection actually occurred.
No matter how many different "accounts" there are, nor how many times they contradict each other.

I can’t make you believe it, so I’m not really trying to. But what I am arguing with you about is the attempt to discredit what the words themselves say by questioning that they said it at all. You do that when you say things like, a text that has been translated *how many* times for *how many* reasons about many things that have already been disproven (or never proven). This claim of yours, that the text isn’t a reliable text of itself is different than to say, I simply don’t believe it. The ‘believe’ part I can’t help you with but the (paraphrase) I don’t believe it actually said that originally anyway stuff I can argue with. I can refer you to what I said elsewhere, which was, you can say that but it is then simply ignoring the fact that the scholars in that field today can reassemble the entire NT from references and quotes alone from the early church fathers works, if someone changed what it said in the last seventeen hundred years, we would know.


The conditions described ... wait for it ... are what, again?
God was dead for three days? Is that it?


Again, I can’t make you believe it anymore than Jesus could make everyone he spoke to believe him either. But as for that little comment that “God was dead for three days” stuff is simply a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Christian theology. The theology is this, Christ is God but not all of God. Christ being dead for three days =/= God being dead for three days even though Christ does = God.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point: I'm sure that there were apocalyptic writings around a fair time before 70AD, but as far as I'm concerned the Gospels were almost certainly not among them. There's plenty of apocalyptic preaching in letters which Paul wrote (which even I would accept were written before his death :p) and if we give an early dating to the Didache (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html) then that would be another example.
My point there was that IF we agree that the Church in Rome was by necessity communicating with other churches then they must have been writing letters back and forth. So where are these writings? You brought up a good example right there with the Didache (but it doesn’t help here in the Rome question specifically because from my understanding the Didache [which I do think is authentic Christian writings] was only used in the Syrian area and never made it as far west as Rome) but the example of writings like that is still a good one.

But yes, the churches were likely talking to each other with letters then, so again, where are they for Rome? The easy answer is why should we assume that the documents that we have now and especially the ones that claim they are the writtings of the apostles and epistles from that period, are false and not the correct ones? We don’t have other older gospels that have better or even equal historical claims to being from that first century period. It is most likely that the canon gospels did come from that period because there are no other documents that could fill the bill and have archaeological support for being anywhere near that age.


Paul certainly preached that Christians had become a new temple, but as far as I remember he never suggests that the old temple has been destroyed.
Paul didn’t mention the Temple as a location, he talked about it as ‘the Law.” And he spoke a lot about how the Law was done away with and replaced by the new covenant. The Book of Romans, as a matter of fact deals with it extensively. Such as: Romans 7:6
But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. And in this way he explained how the Christian does not need the Law that come from worshiping God at the Temple in Jerusalem.

On the other hand, the Gospel accounts all emphasise the physical destruction of the old temple and can be read as historical references. There's no passage in Paul which can be read in the same way, the only one which comes close is 1 Corinthians 3:17.
I agree that both temples are talked about… In support of your view:

Matthew 25
1 Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. 2But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."

But not all of the statements were about the Temple itself, other times when Jesus talked about the Temple being destroyed, it was usually followed by a statement by Jesus saying that he would rebuild it in three days. Such as:

Matthew 26:61
and said, "This man said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.'"

If this was written AFTER the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, and it was like you think of it as, as a reference to the actual event, then why would they say that Jesus would rebuild it in three days since they would by then know that Jesus didn’t rebuild it in three days?

It makes more sense for a simple story to begin and end the prophesy in the same book IF the author knows the outcome of the prophesy as he is writing it. For example, Jesus’ resurrection prophesy of his own body in three days is accomplished in the end of the same book. But for the Temple destruction prophesy the event is not accomplished in the book so it makes more sense to assume that it was written before the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. The story comes to a close and it accounts for Jesus talking about himself and not about a future events such as his returning again and/or when Temple is destroyed in, most likely because the book was written before those events took place so they couldn’t be described.


I think there are enough references to indicate that the author was aware of the events. I can't think of any instance where the Gospel writers refer to events which occurred after the Ascension (with the sole exception of Luke's introduction/dedication), but my knowledge of the Bible isn't great so please correct me if I'm wrong. For example, none of the Gospels mention Paul or his conversion, despite the fact that he was by far the most influential person in Early Christianity as a whole, and they simply tell us that Peter was the 'rock' without using hindsight to tell us what he would go on to do to justify that title. The writers were primarily interested in Jesus and the theology surrounding him, they had little desire to make more than the briefest mention of future events.

I agree that this can be reasonably said. But I do point out that they mention Peter as the rock that Christ will build his church on. And in the case of the city of Rome, with a Christian community in existence before Paul ever went there, it’s hard to imagine that he was the primary leader of that Christian community. Peter on the other hand could be the primary Church leader of the Roman Christians, either in person or through his own followers and assistants. Later, when Paul went there, he too could be a leader of the Roman Christians.

The pigs most certainly lose but there's no indication that the demons do: nowhere does Mark say that Jesus tricked them by sending them into the pigs or that they made a mistake in asking him to do so. The demons got what they asked for. I think the parallels are unlikely to be mere coincidence, and it's certainly a plausible reference to Jerusalem, even if it isn't a certain one.
If the demons won, then the legion logo should have been of the demon, but it was a pig, and the pigs lost. I can see an argument for this going either way though. One person could argue that God has no coincidences, and another could argue that it mere coincidence, but obviously someone could argue it is mentioned intentionally (as you are). I don’t find the evidence to be conclusive evidence either way though. IF it turns out that the gospel was written afterwards, in argument could be made this story with pigs was put in on purpose. But if the gospel was written before as I think it was, I’m not bothered by the pig reference. But like I said before, how many other logos could have been used by the Romans and we could have looked for references to those animals in the scripture and we would find something…

You bring up a very interesting point, but why does a passage need to have only one meaning? I can think of several passages with multiple meanings, like as the wandering in the desert. In this case the author is portraying Jesus as being cast down, just as the temple was, but only one of them gets up again three days later.
The statement that a passage can have more than one meaning is even MORE true if one assumes that the Christian God being spoken of really had some effect over which words were chosen for the scriptures.

But IF the temple was going to be thrown down AND Jesus was going to be thrown down, I think the idea of which would be rebuilt faster would be more prominent. What could have been such a ‘easy’ victory tale, from the Christian point of view, is left to possible connections only through innuendo and secret suggestion, it doesn’t fit well with the other examples the authors use to show off Christ’s glory and even explained afterwards in secret revelation to the apostles after hard to understand parables stories.

I think the natural reading is that Mark was written after Peter and Paul's death, as any other reading would require Markan priority, which is something that all the Church Fathers rejected. The passage seems to be written chronologically, and when read this way it is more consistent with what we know about early views on the authorship of the Gospels.

I don’t see it that way. The Matthew gospel spoken of is a Hebrew version (which you and I have talked about before and came to no agreement on, but that is a different discussion), and that Hebrew version is not in my mind the same gospel as the one we have for Matthew today. According to Irenaeus, the Hebrew version is the first gospel. Then Mark and Luke’s version (and Luke itself pretty much says straight up that his is not first, but it came later and thus probably later than Mark, which was also being read in Rome) and modern scholars agree that Mark was likely used when Luke and Matthew (our Greek version) was written so there is no conflict there. So here’s the timeline in my mind from these evidences of Irenaeus.

??-50?AD Matthew (Hebrew version) first gospel recorded early and before Rome (sayings gospel which influenced GThomas or we suspect “Q” to be, perhaps it is Q.)
45-64AD Mark (while Peter is alive and before or during living in Rome
55-64 AD Luke is started (and maybe finished) before Paul’s death in Rome, while using Mark which is available in the same city.
64AD Rome Burns and Nero kills the top 2 Christian church leaders in Rome at the time (Peter and Paul) on the same day or at least in close proximity to each other.

*Unknown date, but before 70AD and maybe well before it, Matthew Greek version is written. This time he writes in Greek and a story history of Jesus life instead of a sayings gospel (the Hebrew one was most likely just a sayings gospel and Matthew would be inspired by reading Mark’s gospel and he feels the need to clarify what the first Matthew gospel did not include,. He either didn’t have or didn’t need to use Luke’s version). But this Matthew gospel does not need to be written in Rome as I know of no reference to it in Luke or Mark and so I figure it most likely wasn’t written there, but they both had the sayings version of Matthew (Hebrew).
*John is written before 70AD in Syria somewhere… Uninfluenced by design or unintentionally by the other gospels.

I can see all the gospels existing exactly as they do AND help understand both why Q and a Hebrew version of Matthew have been talked about presently and in the past.

Theoretically, but it seems more likely that GMark would have taken some time to be circulated and accepted as authorative before 'Luke' and 'Matthew' based their accounts on it. I don't see this as a conclusive argument because I don't accept Irenaeus' authority on the matter.
If you look at my timeline (above) and consider that Luke would have Mark available to him AND the Matthew Hebrew version for sure AND even a possible Matthew Greek version available to him (But I know of no reason why he needed the Greek Matthew version to have what we have today) the circulation time concern is a non issue because Peter’s followers and Pauls followers are in the same city at the same time when they are both killed by Nero, the followers were likely actually the same group of Christians, not two different camps anyway.

I think you might be over stating the effect of Nero's persecution in the aftermath of the fire. Tacitus doesn't specify the number killed, and there is much debate over how many people would constitute an "immense multitude'. It wasn't an empire-wide persecution (those didn't come until the third century) and nobody's even sure how many Christians there were in Rome at the time. It might not have been worth mentioning for an author in Greece or Judea.

Nero didn’t need to kill many Christians to have a huge impact on the group, he just needed to kill the two top leaders of the community. Peter was probably the ‘bigger’ leader then (in hindsight we have all of Paul’s letters so he is more influential now, but then it would have been Peter as the main leader and Paul as the apologetic and theology teacher. Peter as the eye-witness to the events and miracle worker and natural group leader). Either way, you want to throw a community into a hissy-fit? Go in and grab the top leaders and chop a head off and hang the other on an upside down cross… Odds are you won’t have to kill too many people before this is breaking news in the international Christian world community.


I can't say I blame them. :D :p

I can’t make you believe it, so I’m not really trying to.Well, that's better for both of us, truly.
you can say that but it is then simply ignoring the fact that the scholars in that field today can reassemble the entire NT from references and quotes alone from the early church fathers works, if someone changed what it said in the last seventeen hundred years, we would know. [/quote]See, that's the point, PLENTY of people DO know. Josephus, Tacitus and "Q"? :rolleyes:
How someone becomes a "scholar" in a field so full of tripe is just amazing, but not so amazing when considering how hard the "intelligent design" crowd is attempting (and failing) in a field of reason, reproducability, and results.


Again, I can’t make you believe it anymore than Jesus could make everyone he spoke to believe him either. But as for that little comment that “God was dead for three days” stuff is simply a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Christian theology.No it isn't, and you really shouldn't go on about how everyone ELSE "misunderstands" the "literature".
IF he was god, and he was dead for three days, which quite clearly is the point of having killed him (since the bounty of flesh for sin wouldn't be fulfilled any other way), then he was dead and the UNIVERSE was bereft of its creator for three days, humming along quite nicely. Or he wasn't dead, and christianity as a whole is a bunch of suckers about the "transfiguration".
The theology is this, Christ is God but not all of God. Christ being dead for three days =/= God being dead for three days even though Christ does = God.See, this is the humiliating part i'd mentioned just a little while back - the one you made out to be possible flaming.

No, he's telling the truth. Most of the posts in this thread ARE from anti-Christian bigots.I bet school was fun for people who were always afraid of having the inconsistencies and contradictions of their unfounded philosophies exposed for people to openly mock. Seeing as anyone who might do such a thing was obviously a bigot :rolleyes:
I bet there's a lot of anti-Flat Earth bigots around here too, just waiting for their chance to cut loose on an unsuspecting and undeserving public.
And say what you want, but Christ IS coming back to get us.Gee, thanks for letting me say what i want! *wipes brow* Christ moved on to greener pastures, being a fixation of the time. It's not the dark ages anymore. We don't have to be afraid of all the bullshit he was afraid of at the time ... and we sure as hell don't have to be afraid of the bullshit a few of his psycho followers espoused so vehemently.

It could be any time.Mmmhmmm, yeah, everyone's waiting for their ships to come in. Kudos to you for trying to instill fear in me, too .. i'll keep that in mind when i'm on my deathbed and decide to renounce every bit of sense, reason and experience in hopes that my being is defiled by a bunch of little nasty beasties at the hand of god.
http://www.abhota.info/
http://2think.org/hundredsheep/skeptic/predictions.shtml
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9941/index.html
*that one's a good one. Tom Lehrer!*
http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrld.htm
Oh ... i hope i'm not gonna scare you with volumes of literature that really doesn't jibe with your assessment up there.
Don't be frightened.

Ohshucksiforgotourname, you are absolutely right, Jesus is coming back, but unfortunately he won't be taking you because of you're support of capitalism and conservatism, which is against the communistic message of Christ.
http://www.lincolnsblog.com/Articles/Religion/Communist%20Jesus/CommunistJesus1.jpg

Ohshucksiforgotourname, you are absolutely right, Jesus is coming back, but unfortunately he won't be taking you because of you're support of capitalism and conservatism, which is against the communistic message of Christ.
http://www.lincolnsblog.com/Articles/Religion/Communist%20Jesus/CommunistJesus1.jpg

That has nothing to do with it, you are saved if you believe that Jesus died on the cross and came back to life and that he is God. If you believe that I guess you are a born again, no matter how much I may disagree with you politically.

That has nothing to do with it, you are saved if you believe that Jesus died on the cross and came back to life and that he is God. If you believe that I guess you are a born again, no matter how much I may disagree with you politically.
Actually no, I refuse to take part in organized religion because I believe that was against Jesus' message of good works above dogmatism. I am also a Marxist so I believe in reality and what I see, and I put no weight whatsoever in insubstantial , fantasistic ideologies which aren't attached to meaningful action and material betterment.

That has nothing to do with it, you are saved if you believe that Jesus died on the cross and came back to life and that he is God."Saved" is just about the last word you should use in that context ... although i can think of it kinda like having saved my sexuality for marriage. :p
If you believe that I guess you are a born again, no matter how much I may disagree with you politically.I don't need to interlope here much, but i suspect that a big part of the problem between the two apparent natures of poster in this particular thread is how easy it is for one side to rationalize ANYone's motives or natures.
At least, how easy an answer comes with so superficial a consideration.

Actually no, I refuse to take part in organized religion because I believe that was against Jesus' message of good works above dogmatism. I am also a Marxist so I believe in reality and what I see, and I put no weight whatsoever in insubstantial , fantasistic ideologies which aren't attached to meaningful action and material betterment.

Your in for an unpleasant surprise when you die......

Your in for an unpleasant surprise when you die......

You know this because you've been dead ... AND, you've been Eureka Australis when it happened?
Or because you read somewhere something about something happening when you're dead that isn't as obvious as being, well, dead? Written by people themselves, who also weren't dead at any point in time prior to writing about something they had no experience with? You mean those bearers of false witness?
And you're different because ...?

Your in for an unpleasant surprise when you die......
You have no idea how many times I have heard that, growing up and all in an Anglican family. But to be honest I came to the conclusion from reading the Gospel that Jesus was about helping people and social justice. I think the notion that the whole salvation of humanity is based on 'believing' in Jesus, a man who lived over 2k years ago for a bit over 3 of so decades, forgetting the people who lived and died before him, and before Christianity was known to the world, is quite frankly stupid and against the compassion of Jesus. I think that Jesus was a product of his time, and generally ahead of his time in his thinking.

You know this because you've been dead ... AND, you've been Eureka Australis when it happened?
Or because you read somewhere something about something happening when you're dead that isn't as obvious as being, well, dead? Written by people themselves, who also weren't dead at any point in time prior to writing about something they had no experience with? You mean those bearers of false witness?
And you're different because ...?

Well either way im covered. If your right, BAM! Nothing. If im right....

But unfortunately it does not matter in your mind, I hope one day you will change your view.

I think that Jesus was a product of his time, and generally ahead of his time in his thinking.

Right on.

You know this because you've been dead ... AND, you've been Eureka Australis when it happened?
Or because you read somewhere something about something happening when you're dead that isn't as obvious as being, well, dead? Written by people themselves, who also weren't dead at any point in time prior to writing about something they had no experience with? You mean those bearers of false witness?
And you're different because ...?
This is what irks me about 'Christians' these days, they are so obsessed with a few obscure passages about salvation, passages which are a product of paganistic mythology and historical development - which is what the gospel really is. Evangelicals have this strange notion that you have to someone telepathically tell 'God' that you accept him and then it's a instant go into heaven card, it's so ludicrous in it's simplicity and narrow mindedness that I sigh sometimes.

Well either way im covered. If your right, BAM! Nothing. If im right....

But unfortunately it does not matter in your mind, I hope one day you will change your view.
Fail.
Pascal's Wager is a False Dichotomy: what if the Muslims are right? What if the Hindus are right? Or the Buddhists? Or the Shintos? Or the various branches of Paganism? What if Ragnorak is coming soon, instead of Jesus?

What if some god that nobody has ever heard of is right, and what he's most interested in is honest investigation and rational thinking? Then Creationists like you are the ones that are screwed for forsaking science for superstition.

Well either way im covered. If your right, BAM! Nothing. If im right....If you're right, i'm not worried. I did exactly what i was supposed to do. Same as "Satan".
Purpose for everyone, w00t!

But unfortunately it does not matter in your mind,Wrong. ALL faith matters in your mind.
I hope one day you will change your view.
You should consider how much some people have endured to come to the conclusions they have. I, perhaps, have already had my view changed a few times, through experience, reason, pain, and pleasure.
I would *hope* that your hope is for my well being, and not for vindication of your religion. I would *hope* the same for you. :)

Fail.
Pascal's Wager is a False Dichotomy: what if the Muslims are right? What if the Hindus are right? Or the Buddhists? Or the Shintos? Or the various branches of Paganism? What if Ragnorak is coming soon, instead of Jesus?

What if some god that nobody has ever heard of is right, and what he's most interested in is honest investigation and rational thinking? Then Creationists like you are the ones that are screwed for forsaking science for superstition.

You'll understand, i hope, that when i say "I LOVE you", it's in context, right? It's not gonna make things ... erm, uncomfortable?
*bows*

This is what irks me about 'Christians' these days, they are so obsessed with a few obscure passages about salvation, passages which are a product of paganistic mythology and historical development - which is what the gospel really is. Evangelicals have this strange notion that you have to someone telepathically tell 'God' that you accept him and then it's a instant go into heaven card, it's so ludicrous in it's simplicity and narrow mindedness that I sigh sometimes.
Agreed. Not everyone can be Flanders. :)

If you're right, i'm not worried. I did exactly what i was supposed to do. Same as "Satan".
Purpose for everyone, w00t!
Wrong. ALL faith matters in your mind.

You should consider how much some people have endured to come to the conclusions they have. I, perhaps, have already had my view changed a few times, through experience, reason, pain, and pleasure.
I would *hope* that your hope is for my well being, and not for vindication of your religion. I would *hope* the same for you. :)

I do hope for your well being I have no wish for you to die. Why would you think I did? Simply because we disagree does not mean I want you to be lined up and shot like Mr. eureka here.

You'll understand, i hope, that when i say "I LOVE you", it's in context, right? It's not gonna make things ... erm, uncomfortable?
*bows*

Fail.
Pascal's Wager is a False Dichotomy: what if the Muslims are right? What if the Hindus are right? Or the Buddhists? Or the Shintos? Or the various branches of Paganism? What if Ragnorak is coming soon, instead of Jesus?

What if some god that nobody has ever heard of is right, and what he's most interested in is honest investigation and rational thinking? Then Creationists like you are the ones that are screwed for forsaking science for superstition.

Well doesnt the koran say something about christians going to heaven to? Im not a murderer so I don't have bad karma *checks his life* yep, still covered.

You'll understand, i hope, that when i say "I LOVE you", it's in context, right? It's not gonna make things ... erm, uncomfortable?
*bows*

:D I do my best.

Well doesnt the koran say something about christians going to heaven to? Im not a murderer so I don't have bad karma *checks his life* yep, still covered.

Except you still ignored half the religions on the list, especially the last, hypothetical God, which actually seems (marginally) less unlikely to me than the Christian God. You know, the scientist God. Indeed, wouldn't a God capable of designing the entire universe and everything in it have to be the ultimate scientist? Wouldn't he value objective pursuit of the truth over blind faith?

Yea God is the ultimate scientist so to speak. Anyway since knows enough to design every thing its seems like a good idea to do what he says to do.

Kontor, imagine this, a poor Germanic peasant, born hundreds of years before Christ, dies one day. He will now spend the rest of eternity being tortured in Hell because he lived before Jesus. Does this fit with the image of an all-compassionate God?

I could go on all day with these analogies.

Kontor, imagine this, a poor Germanic peasant, born hundreds of years before Christ, dies one day. He will now spend the rest of eternity being tortured in Hell because he lived before Jesus. Does this fit with the image of an all-compassionate God?

I could go on all day with these analogies.

God knows what is in the poor germanic peasants heart. If he truly believed in and wanted to follow God, God would know.

Yea God is the ultimate scientist so to speak. Anyway since knows enough to design every thing its seems like a good idea to do what he says to do.

Well, then wouldn't he prefer honest, objective investigation using rational methods to blind faith in something just because an ancient book says so?

If he truly believed in and wanted to follow God, God would know.This is where the ice gets very, VERY thin.
Consider carefully the point of arguing about this from hereon.

I can tell you this:

The Gospel of Peter implies that Jesus informs Peter that everyone goes to Hell for a time, and then everyone is let in to Heaven.
He apparently tells Peter to keep in on the DL, so that folks dont go all willy-nilly sinning everywhere.

and of course, some christian will mention that this particular text, is a Gnostic text, and that this particular "word of god", isnt as good as thier "word of god".

God knows what is in the poor germanic peasants heart. If he truly believed in and wanted to follow God, God would know.

Well, chances are he didn't. He would have truly believed in Odin and Thor, as that is who he was told the gods are.
Same as god might in fact be Ganesha, but since you've been told all your life that the biblical god is the one to believe in, you never considered that in the first place.

So, no, chances are the germanic peasant didn't want to follow the biblical god, cause he'd never even heard of him.

God knows what is in the poor germanic peasants heart. If he truly believed in and wanted to follow God, God would know.Who? The fabricated Jewish god? Jews, including Yeshua, knew nothing of germanic peasants, and thus their puppet god, their idol, knew nothing either.

I can tell you this:

The Gospel of Peter implies that Jesus informs Peter that everyone goes to Hell for a time, and then everyone is let in to Heaven.
He apparently tells Peter to keep in on the DL, so that folks dont go all willy-nilly sinning everywhere.

and of course, some christian will mention that this particular text, is a Gnostic text, and that this particular "word of god", isnt as good as thier "word of god".

That's vaguely reminiscent of Anne Rice's Memnoch the Devil.

I can tell you this:

The Gospel of Peter implies that Jesus informs Peter that everyone goes to Hell for a time, and then everyone is let in to Heaven.
He apparently tells Peter to keep in on the DL, so that folks dont go all willy-nilly sinning everywhere.

and of course, some christian will mention that this particular text, is a Gnostic text, and that this particular "word of god", isnt as good as thier "word of god".

I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about the pros and cons of the Gospel of Peter (but we only have 1 copy of a section of it and we can't confirm that the Gospel of Peter mentioned by the church fathers is in fact the same gospel we rediscovered from that grave in Egypt anyway)...

But the main thing I can say is that the Gospel of Peter does NOT say what you said it says anywhere in it. Perhaps you are thinking of something else? Maybe the Apocalypse of Peter, or the Preaching’s of Peter, or the Acts of Peter? Or something altogether different I don't know, but it's not in the gospel of Peter so I can hardly argue with what you've said until you tell me where it can be found...

Well doesnt the koran say something about christians going to heaven to? Im not a murderer so I don't have bad karma *checks his life* yep, still covered.

Well, let's see.

Book 2 (The Cow)

Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry,
and the Christians, and those Sabaeans,
whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works
righteousness - their wage awaits them with their Lord,
and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.
...

And they say, "None shall enter Paradise
except that they be Jews or Christians."
Such are their fancies. Say: "Produce your proof,
if you speak truly."
Nay, but whosoever submits his will to God,
being a good-doer, his wage is with his Lord,
and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.

It appears that so long as you submit your will to God and act righteously, you're in. Congratulations.

Unless you converted away from Islam to become a Christian, then you're screwed.

Well, let's see.

Book 2 (The Cow)

Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry,
and the Christians, and those Sabaeans,
whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works
righteousness - their wage awaits them with their Lord,
and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.
...

And they say, "None shall enter Paradise
except that they be Jews or Christians."
Such are their fancies. Say: "Produce your proof,
if you speak truly."
Nay, but whosoever submits his will to God,
being a good-doer, his wage is with his Lord,
and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.

It appears that so long as you submit your will to God and act righteously, you're in. Congratulations.

Unless you converted away from Islam to become a Christian, then you're screwed.

And we have a contradiction between the two.

And we have a contradiction between the two.

Care to elaborate?

Care to elaborate?

The utter lack of contradiction in biblical passages is, in and of itself, inherently contradictory?

The utter lack of contradiction in biblical passages is, in and of itself, inherently contradictory?

Well, actually, there are other passages in the Koran that suggest a not-so-pleasant reception for Christians, so I suppose that could be seen as a contradiction, but I don't think that's what Corny's referring to.

Well, actually, there are other passages in the Koran that suggest a not-so-pleasant reception for Christians, so I suppose that could be seen as a contradiction, but I don't think that's what Corny's referring to.

Ah, I wasn't aware the passages were from the Koran.

working in the mental health field i think christianity in its self can fit the criteria of mental illness

Cleaning bed pans doesn't count.

Ah, I wasn't aware the passages were from the Koran.

Hm. I thought it was clear from the context. *shrug*

Cleaning bed pans doesn't count.

You should maybe leave them alone then, to their own merits? The bed pans?

Yea God is the ultimate scientist so to speak. Anyway since knows enough to design every thing its seems like a good idea to do what he says to do.
I'll thank you not to flagrantly insult scientists.

Your God is not a scientist. If you're right, then your God already knows all the answers. If I'm right, your God is an image in your own head. Either way, he's not a scientist.

I'll thank you not to flagrantly insult scientists.
I don't how that's offensive, personally. It is, for instance, entirely accurate to point out that Frankenstein was a scientist in the appropriate novel. Surely the suggestion that someone of less than perfect moral standing could be described as a person of science is not to be taken as a direct slur against science or scientists themselves?

I don't how that's offensive, personally. It is, for instance, entirely accurate to point out that Frankenstein was a scientist in the appropriate novel.

The character of Dr. Frankenstein was, indeed, a scientist (if one is willing to suspend disbelief a bit). The character of the Christian God, however, is not.


Surely the suggestion that someone of less than perfect moral standing could be described as a person of science is not to be taken as a direct slur of science or scientists themselves?
Huh? What does moral standing have to do with what I was saying?

If the Christian God exists as the Christians define Him, then he's not a scientist. If he doesn't exist, then he's also not a scientist. Moral standing has nothing to do with it.

I'll thank you not to flagrantly insult scientists.

Your God is not a scientist. If you're right, then your God already knows all the answers. If I'm right, your God is an image in your own head. Either way, he's not a scientist.

You're right, God is not a scientist. But how on earth is it insulting to scientists to call him one? If someone told me God was the job I have, I think I would be flattered--after I condemned the person to eternal damnation for his flagrant heresy, of course.

Huh? What does moral standing have to do with what I was saying?

If the Christian God exists as the Christians define Him, then he's not a scientist. If he doesn't exist, then he's also not a scientist. Moral standing has nothing to do with it.
Well, I just have trouble seeing why it's insulting if it's as simple a matter of fact as that. If he's not a scientist then he's not, just like that, and that's as personal as it gets. Surely there must be some emotional repugnancy at this figure in order to find the suggestion actually offensive?

You're right, God is not a scientist. But how on earth is it insulting to scientists to call him one?

Because he's not one. It's insulting to toss around the title of scientist as if it were meaningless. That's my life's work, my father's life's work, my grandfather's, and countless other humans throughout history. Your life is better because of the contributions these people have made, so have a little respect.

If someone told me God was the job I have, I think I would be flattered--after I condemned the person to eternal damnation for his flagrant heresy, of course.
There's nothing flattering about somebody trivializing what I do.

Well, I just have trouble seeing why it's insulting if it's as simple a matter of fact as that. If he's not a scientist then he's not, just like that, and that's as personal as it gets. Surely there must be some emotional repugnancy at this figure in order to find the suggestion actually offensive?
What is repugnant is how so many people blithely toss around the words "science" and "scientist" however they please.

If you want to be called a scientist, DO SCIENCE. It actually takes some effort, you know, and it's pretty damn insulting to claim that you get to be called a scientist when you don't actually do any of the work required to earn that name.

It's like how Creationists want their personal myths to be called "science" even though they can't be bothered to do any science. They want the status and the label, but they don't want to have to earn it the way actual scientists do. That's insulting to those of us who do what it takes to be a scientist.

Because he's not one. It's insulting to toss around the title of scientist as if it were meaningless. That's my life's work, my father's life's work, my grandfather's, and countless other humans throughout history. Your life is better because of the contributions these people have made, so have a little respect.

There's nothing flattering about somebody trivializing what I do.

Look, just because you had to sacrifice many things to acheive the level of education one needs to do scientific research, IE; the intense study and loss of social life like many such folks have, enabling you to learn about our world with such annoying things like stone cold facts is no reason not allow such things like "Creation Science" wich operates on the "Because we say so" Theory.

See, dilligent research in controlled environments mean nothing when compared to the omnipotent power of denial.
How many times has the "Shroud of Tourin" been carbon14 dated to the 12th century?
Each time theres a big outcry each time, and someone claiming the tests arent accurate becuase of some traces of mold or some ridiculous crap.

For some reason, theres a chemical imbalance in thier brain, (or maybe its our brains) that cuases the need for "faith". Maybe some sort of seratonin addiction, or endorphine addiction...point is, they WANT to believe in it, and so in thier minds, it becomes real.

Whatever it comes from, we dont have the "faith" gene.
Our universe is based on evidence.

Look, just because you had to sacrifice many things to acheive the level of education one needs to do scientific research, IE; the intense study and loss of social life like many such folks have, enabling you to learn about our world with such annoying things like stone cold facts is no reason not allow such things like "Creation Science" wich operates on the "Because we say so" Theory.

See, somebody gets it. :D


See, dilligent research in controlled environments mean nothing when compared to the omnipotent power of denial.
How many times has the "Shroud of Tourin" been carbon14 dated to the 12th century?
Each time theres a big outcry each time, and someone claiming the tests arent accurate becuase of some traces of mold or some ridiculous crap.

For some reason, theres a chemical imbalance in thier brain, (or maybe its our brains) that cuases the need for "faith". Maybe some sort of seratonin addiction, or endorphine addiction...point is, they WANT to believe in it, and so in thier minds, it becomes real.

I have to admit, there are people for whom "faith" does appear to be pathological.


Whatever it comes from, we dont have the "faith" gene.
Our universe is based on evidence.
The thing is, I still practice what I preach. I don't go around insisting that I'm a Christian even though I refuse to actually do anything Christian. I don't go around telling everybody that I'm "faithful" when the reality is that I think their faith is lame.

All I ask is that Christians show the same respect, and stop calling themselves (or their god) "scientists" when they aren't.

[Note for the intentionally stupid: There are Christians who HAVE earned that right, and who DO actively engage in science. This is obviously not aimed at them.]