NationStates Jolt Archive

As a monist, I believe that all things in the universe are one. God is all these things and the relationships between them.

Why is the relationship between all things significant enough to label as God?

So, Neo Art, who by his own words "withholds judgement" is wrong by not picking one equal over the other?

You, who have chosen one equal over the other, are correct in your method?

No. Neo Art would be wrong only if he picked one over the other and then held it to be fact instead of an unsupported belief. I don't think Neo Art does that. I think he understands the assumptions he makes.

I have chosen to believe that god exists, but I have access to information that he does not (i.e. personal revelations) so I am not making this decision based solely on unproven assumptions. I am a theist because it is the most rational explanation for that which I have experienced.

No. Neo Art would be wrong only if he picked one over the other and then held it to be fact instead of an unsupported belief. I don't think Neo Art does that. I think he understands the assumptions he makes.

I have chosen to believe that god exists, but I have access to information that he does not (i.e. personal revelations) so I am not making this decision based solely on unproven assumptions. I am a theist because it is the most rational explanation for that which I have experienced.

Ah, the Gary Busey method. Well, Neo Bretonnia has personal revelation that Mormonism is the One True Faith, and I'm willing to bet that if he isn't a Poe, Truly Blessed has personal revelation from what he thinks is God.

In fact, I bet if I went to people of all the religions you don't believe in, I'll find many people with very sincere belief that they have personal revelations that their belief is true.

Many of their personal revelations are incompatible with that of others. Some number of personal revelations must be wrong, though not necessarily yours.

But then, of course, we could define "revelation" as "proof that a belief is false", and something like the dictionary or common usage wouldn't stop us.

EDIT: It also occurs to me that, since we can arbitrarily define anything as "God" so as not to be limited, we could define "God" as "any cognition at all". Then, God has evidence and reason to believe it exists, merely by even asking the question. We could define God as "isotopes of hydrogen", something experimentable and within the sphere of science. Once you can call label anything you want God, it can't help but be real.

Why is the relationship between all things significant enough to label as God?

Complicated. Several factors.

During my 'visions', it seems like the most important thing that is being communicated to me.

When I then attach significance to the relationships I see, things like morality and ecology have far more significance than they did before. If god is the underlying relationship between all the elements of a biosphere, we then have a spiritual obligation to protect those relationships as well as the cute and furry animal-of-the-day in the WWF ad.

Complicated. Several factors.

During my 'visions', it seems like the most important thing that is being communicated to me.

When I then attach significance to the relationships I see, things like morality and ecology have far more significance than they did before. If god is the underlying relationship between all the elements of a biosphere, we then have a spiritual obligation to protect those relationships as well as the cute and furry animal-of-the-day in the WWF ad.

Things like "importance" and "signficance" are internal value judgements. They come from you. You can call them God if it makes you feel big and wired into something really super duper relevant and profound, I can see why a mind would want to organize and label it that way.

Complicated. Several factors.

During my 'visions', it seems like the most important thing that is being communicated to me.

When I then attach significance to the relationships I see, things like morality and ecology have far more significance than they did before. If god is the underlying relationship between all the elements of a biosphere, we then have a spiritual obligation to protect those relationships as well as the cute and furry animal-of-the-day in the WWF ad.

Is the relationship tangible or conceptual?

Ah, the Gary Busey method. Well, Neo Bretonnia has personal revelation that Mormonism is the One True Faith, and I'm willing to bet that if he isn't a Poe, Truly Blessed has personal revelation from what he thinks is God.

In fact, I bet if I went to people of all the religions you don't believe in, I'll find many people with very sincere belief that they have personal revelations that their belief is true.

Many of their personal revelations are incompatible with that of others. Some number of personal revelations must be wrong, though not necessarily yours.

Many people have experiences they would define as personal revelations. They are usually defined as either mystical experiences or numinous ones.

Most people who experience them tend to try to define and integrate them according to their cultural context. Busey, having grown up Xian, defined it in Xian terms. I was raised an atheist, so I assumed for a long time that I was going to soon experience other symptoms of psychosis. As it turns out, I am not crazy.

But then, of course, we could define "revelation" as "proof that a belief is false", and something like the dictionary or common usage wouldn't stop us.

EDIT: It also occurs to me that, since we can arbitrarily define anything as "God" so as not to be limited, we could define "God" as "any cognition at all". Then, God has evidence and reason to believe it exists, merely by even asking the question. We could define God as "isotopes of hydrogen", something experimentable and within the sphere of science. Once you can call label anything you want God, it can't help but be real.

Does this have a point?

Many people have experiences they would define as personal revelations. They are usually defined as either mystical experiences or numinous ones.

Most people who experience them tend to try to define and integrate them according to their cultural context. Busey, having grown up Xian, defined it in Xian terms. I was raised an atheist, so I assumed for a long time that I was going to soon experience other symptoms of psychosis. As it turns out, I am not crazy.



Does this have a point?

Yes, it proves that the sun gives us light by burning trillions of jehovahs to death :p

Things like "importance" and "signficance" are internal value judgements. They come from you. You can call them God if it makes you feel big and wired into something really super duper relevant and profound, I can see why a mind would want to organize and label it that way.

Yes, significance is purely subjective. Thanks for catching up.

Just to be clear. I don't think that the relationships are god simply because they are significant to me.

I subjectively attach significance to those parts of god that I call relationships because of my experiences of god.

See the difference?

Is the relationship tangible or conceptual?

I'm not sure. I don't think that relationships can be so easily defined as one or the other. Some may fall into one category. Some into another, and others may fall into neither or both.

The ecological relationship between predator and prey seems more tangible than the philosophical relationship between dialectics and Marxism, but both are god.

Many people have experiences they would define as personal revelations. They are usually defined as either mystical experiences or numinous ones.

Most people who experience them tend to try to define and integrate them according to their cultural context. Busey, having grown up Xian, defined it in Xian terms. I was raised an atheist, so I assumed for a long time that I was going to soon experience other symptoms of psychosis. As it turns out, I am not crazy.

Does this have a point?

Sure, and I'll elaborate (but then I have to go to work for a while, but I'll check back).


When you were telling other's how little they understand science (while you were making a basic mistake about it yourself), I noticed that you were quite adamant on what science is, what it is not, what proof is, what it is not. You appealed to the definitions of these things, to try to illustrate why you thought you were right.

A rigorous precision of language seemed fairly important to you, to help you show why others were "confused" and "didn't understand basic" things.

Yet, when simple definitions are applied to your claims and ideas, oh, why, that's just other's being "limited", right? They aren't as deep and profound, they're stuck with the actual meanings of words, how simplistic.

The fact is, those words have connotations as well as definitions. Things like "God" and "spiritual" carry something in their use, and you use those terms, trying to gain all the weight of their connotation, but without actually having to use them for what they are definined as meaning.

It would be like a somebody saying "I have an infinite IQ!" and when somebody takes issue, they say "Well, I define infinite as any number on any scale. When discussing something important like the human mind, we shouldn't be so limited by dictionaries and mathematics. Now, as I was saying, I have an infinite IQ!"

Its just not that meaningful.

Yes, significance is purely subjective. Thanks for catching up.

Just to be clear. I don't think that the relationships are god simply because they are significant to me.

I subjectively attach significance to those parts of god that I call relationships because of my experiences of god.

See the difference?

Again, you contradict yourself. When asked why you label it as God, you said:

Complicated. Several factors.

During my 'visions', it seems like the most important thing that is being communicated to me.

When I then attach significance to the relationships I see, things like morality and ecology have far more significance than they did before. If god is the underlying relationship between all the elements of a biosphere, we then have a spiritual obligation to protect those relationships as well as the cute and furry animal-of-the-day in the WWF ad.

Thus, by your own clearly illustrated line of reasoning, you WERE claiming that the "Several factors" that justify that label were because of their significance. The premise is right there, in your own words.

You might want to "catch up" with your own posts.

EDIT: To be clear, when asked why you label it as God, you talked about "importance" and "signficance" in your visions. That was the very character of those experiences that you presented as your reasoning. Seriously, read your own post.

I am arguing that god's empirical verifiability is unimportant, and probably impossible due to the quality of god. So to attempt to study god as something that can be objectively analysed seems foolish.


No, the problem isn't that the wrong tools are being used - there's nothing foolish about studying the world with the same set of objective, empirical tools... is the fact that 'god' can't be assayed in that fashion a fault in the logic? A fault in the person?

No - it's a fault in the evidence for 'god'.


I just want people to realise that many of the complaints made by atheists about the provability of god seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the relationship between the divine and science.

That's not it, though - the 'misunderstanding', if there is one, is that the study of 'god' is intrinsically unscientific, because it starts with an unfalsifiable premise.

The fact that you need to use a whole different toolbox to ascertain the truth of 'god', is evidence that there IS no god.

If that is the case then the Bible is a book of lies. Really compelling lies that have fact figures that have lasted centuries. Wouldn't it long since have passed away by now?

No.

There are still people today practising veneration of the Gods of Egypt... and those stories are even older than the christian ones.

Would you say that the Egyptians must be right, because their stories are older?

I'm not sure. I don't think that relationships can be so easily defined as one or the other. Some may fall into one category. Some into another, and others may fall into neither or both.

The ecological relationship between predator and prey seems more tangible than the philosophical relationship between dialectics and Marxism, but both are god.

But you said there was an underlying relationship between all things. I'm not talking about lots of different relationships. I'm talking about this unifying relationship, this 'god' that is the relationship between all things. Is this God tangible, or conceptual?

Sure, and I'll elaborate (but then I have to go to work for a while, but I'll check back).


When you were telling other's how little they understand science (while you were making a basic mistake about it yourself), I noticed that you were quite adamant on what science is, what it is not, what proof is, what it is not. You appealed to the definitions of these things, to try to illustrate why you thought you were right.

A rigorous precision of language seemed fairly important to you, to help you show why others were "confused" and "didn't understand basic" things.

Yet, when simple definitions are applied to your claims and ideas, oh, why, that's just other's being "limited", right? They aren't as deep and profound, they're stuck with the actual meanings of words, how simplistic.

The fact is, those words have connotations as well as definitions. Things like "God" and "spiritual" carry something in their use, and you use those terms, trying to gain all the weight of their connotation, but without actually having to use them for what they are definined as meaning.

It would be like a somebody saying "I have an infinite IQ!" and when somebody takes issue, they say "Well, I define infinite as any number on any scale. When discussing something important like the human mind, we shouldn't be so limited by dictionaries and mathematics. Now, as I was saying, I have an infinite IQ!"

Its just not that meaningful.

You seem to believe that I know exactly what connotations you have in your head about the word god. The fact is that I don't.

I have clearly stated what model of god I believe is the correct one, and I have clearly defined how it is different from the classical view of god, so you can't accuse me of pulling arbitraray definitions out of thin air.

They know the men's names Casper, Melichor, Balthasar


Wow you guys are tough.

Have you read the Lemony Snickett books? They made a movie losely based on the concept.

If you read the books, they claim to be an accurate history of the lives of the Baudelaire orphans, and they go on (for something like a dozen books) detailing the intimacies of several years of these children's lives... who they met, and where, etc.

Does that mean that the children in the books are real?

I could simply point out that a belief in a lack of god is equivalent to a belief in the Easter Bunny as neither have any evidence for such a belief.

you could. ANd in response, I could simply point out that you are probably very comfortable and not at all conflicted in your belief that the easter bunny does not exist

so why, if you're perfectly fine with saying "dragons and unicorns and trolls and faeries do not exist" do you find contention when someone says "dragons and unicorns and trolls and faeries do not exist, and neither does god"?

You probably have a very long list of things you are pretty sure do not exist. And yet, by your own logic, an atheist who says "there is no god" has just as much backing to that claim as you do when you say "there is no easter bunny".

Yet you don't seem to have a problem with the fact that you don't believe in an easter bunny. Why do you have issue with those who don't believe in god?

Complicated. Several factors.

During my 'visions', it seems like the most important thing that is being communicated to me.

When I then attach significance to the relationships I see, things like morality and ecology have far more significance than they did before. If god is the underlying relationship between all the elements of a biosphere, we then have a spiritual obligation to protect those relationships as well as the cute and furry animal-of-the-day in the WWF ad.

Why?

Why do we have a greater spiritual obligation if god is the underlying relationship? Broken ecology is broken ecology, god or no god. What you are talking about could be referred to in many ways... the life of the world, the circle of life, the balance of nature... Gaia... you can come up with a thousand ways to DESCRIBE it (and that's fair)... the question is - why do you take that description and call it 'god'.

Why do you then argue 'god' in those terms, knowing that your descriptors don't match the standard 'definition'?

Again, you contradict yourself. When asked why you label it as God, you said:

Thus, by your own clearly illustrated line of reasoning, you WERE claiming that the "Several factors" that justify that label were because of their significance. The premise is right there, in your own words.

You might want to "catch up" with your own posts.

EDIT: To be clear, when asked why you label it as God, you talked about "importance" and "signficance" in your visions. That was the very character of those experiences that you presented as your reasoning. Seriously, read your own post.

I'm not playing this game where I explain over and over again how you are misrepresenting my position.

The significance I attach to anything is purely subjective.

When Hydesland asked why I thought the relationship was significant to be called god, I should have clarified that I don't find the significance of the relationship to be the reason why I think the relationship is god.

I think all things are god, and that includes all relationships as well.

No, the problem isn't that the wrong tools are being used - there's nothing foolish about studying the world with the same set of objective, empirical tools... is the fact that 'god' can't be assayed in that fashion a fault in the logic? A fault in the person?

No - it's a fault in the evidence for 'god'.

So, when you can't detect odours with a magnifying glass, it's the fault of the evidence of the odour?

That's not it, though - the 'misunderstanding', if there is one, is that the study of 'god' is intrinsically unscientific, because it starts with an unfalsifiable premise.

The fact that you need to use a whole different toolbox to ascertain the truth of 'god', is evidence that there IS no god.

So, since science can't be used to ascertain the truth of my love for bacon, does that constitute evidence that I have no love for bacon?

But you said there was an underlying relationship between all things. I'm not talking about lots of different relationships. I'm talking about this unifying relationship, this 'god' that is the relationship between all things. Is this God tangible, or conceptual?

God is not just the relationship between all things. God is all things. That includes all relationships.

God is not just the relationship between all things. God is all things. That includes all relationships.

I still don't understand, why did you decide to just label 'all things, and their relationships' as God?

So, when you can't detect odours with a magnifying glass, it's the fault of the evidence of the odour?


Why pick just one tool out of the toolbox? We don't measure sounds with our eyes, or light with our ears. Our 'toolbox' is a collection of things. If you want to refer to it as one tool, then that tool wouldn't be the methodology.

And yes, if smell can not be detected by the same methodology as sight, we have a problem.


So, since science can't be used to ascertain the truth of my love for bacon, does that constitute evidence that I have no love for bacon?


Who says sceince can't ascertain that truth? It can measure a host of indicators that you love bacon, although it could be being fooled every time... but then again, the same is true of your OWN senses... it's possible you HATE bacon, and just think you love it.

Anyway - isn't 'I love bacon' like a universal constant or something?

So, since science can't be used to ascertain the truth of my love for bacon, does that constitute evidence that I have no love for bacon?

Improper analogy. Love, like all emotional responses, is a neurochemical response. We can certainly (theoretically) test for the neurochemicals and brain reactions you have in response to eating bacon, and thus demonstrate that you have a certain mental and physical response to it, which we define as love.

you could. ANd in response, I could simply point out that you are probably very comfortable and not at all conflicted in your belief that the easter bunny does not exist

so why, if you're perfectly fine with saying "dragons and unicorns and trolls and faeries do not exist" do you find contention when someone says "dragons and unicorns and trolls and faeries do not exist, and neither does god"?

You probably have a very long list of things you are pretty sure do not exist. And yet, by your own logic, an atheist who says "there is no god" has just as much backing to that claim as you do when you say "there is no easter bunny".

Yet you don't seem to have a problem with the fact that you don't believe in an easter bunny. Why do you have issue with those who don't believe in god?

I have never seen the easter bunny.

I have seen god.

And I don't actually care. I just like arguing against the atheists because it's more difficult than arguing against the theists.

Why?

Why do we have a greater spiritual obligation if god is the underlying relationship? Broken ecology is broken ecology, god or no god. What you are talking about could be referred to in many ways... the life of the world, the circle of life, the balance of nature... Gaia... you can come up with a thousand ways to DESCRIBE it (and that's fair)... the question is - why do you take that description and call it 'god'.

Why do you then argue 'god' in those terms, knowing that your descriptors don't match the standard 'definition'?

Are you asking why I define god the way I do?

Because I experienced god as a mystical unity of all things, and I have yet to find any evidence to doubt that experience. I don't really care about the standard description. I looked at it and it is illogical and inconsistent with what we experience. You and I both know that the classical model of god has vast problems of internal consistency and consistency with the observed world. The model I believe in explains my experiences and is logically consistent within itself and with our observed environment.

I have never seen the easter bunny.

I have seen god.


What if, however, someone has claimed to see the Easter Bunny? Would their claim no be just as valid as someone claiming to have seen God?

I still don't understand, why did you decide to just label 'all things, and their relationships' as God?

Because that is how I experienced god in my visions.

Why pick just one tool out of the toolbox? We don't measure sounds with our eyes, or light with our ears. Our 'toolbox' is a collection of things. If you want to refer to it as one tool, then that tool wouldn't be the methodology.

And yes, if smell can not be detected by the same methodology as sight, we have a problem.

If god cannot be detected by scientific methodology, then a lack of detection does not constitute evidence of absence.

Who says sceince can't ascertain that truth? It can measure a host of indicators that you love bacon, although it could be being fooled every time... but then again, the same is true of your OWN senses... it's possible you HATE bacon, and just think you love it.

Anyway - isn't 'I love bacon' like a universal constant or something?

Of course science can ascertain truth. It simply can't ascertain all truth. There truths out there that can,t be scientifically determined.

Improper analogy. Love, like all emotional responses, is a neurochemical response. We can certainly (theoretically) test for the neurochemicals and brain reactions you have in response to eating bacon, and thus demonstrate that you have a certain mental and physical response to it, which we define as love.

Love may have certain neurochemical responses attached to it, but that is a far cry from defining love as just that. The emotional aspect of it exists on a non-material level. And that emotional existence cannot be ascertained through scientific means.

What if, however, someone has claimed to see the Easter Bunny? Would their claim no be just as valid as someone claiming to have seen God?

Yes.

But not to me.

But not to me.

So, correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is that the validity of an arguement, in relation to the existance of God, is determined soley by your personal experiances?


I think I can agree with that, provided I am understanding correctly.

Because that is how I experienced god in my visions.


Do you not see how nonsensical that sounds? How can you 'experience' all things? At least, how can you experience all things unless you experience some sort of unifying connection?

Are you asking why I define god the way I do?


No, exactly the opposite.


Because I experienced god as a mystical unity of all things, and I have yet to find any evidence to doubt that experience. I don't really care about the standard description. I looked at it and it is illogical and inconsistent with what we experience. You and I both know that the classical model of god has vast problems of internal consistency and consistency with the observed world. The model I believe in explains my experiences and is logically consistent within itself and with our observed environment.

Given that the definitions attributed to 'god' are SO problematic... why do you look at this universe-united... and say... YOU I will call 'god'.

If god cannot be detected by scientific methodology, then a lack of detection does not constitute evidence of absence.



Constitute? No.

Suggest... yeah, maybe.


Of course science can ascertain truth. It simply can't ascertain all truth. There truths out there that can,t be scientifically determined.


That's a statement of faith.

You are arguing that the scientific methodology should sometimes have special exceptions because.... some 'truths' that you claim exist outside of it. Moreover - you consider it's inability to deal with these things that might or might not exist beyond it's remit... to be a weakness in the tool.

So, correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is that the validity of an arguement, in relation to the existance of God, is determined soley by your personal experiances?


I think I can agree with that, provided I am understanding correctly.

Kinda.

If you and I were standing somewhere, and I said to you, 'I saw god', and then someone else came up a few seconds later and said 'I saw the easter bunny', you and I would have different reactions.

You would assume that we were both wrong, or lying, or somehow deluded. Which would be the correct assumption to make. Unless you had also seen god or the easter bunny, but let's assume that you haven't.

I, on the other hand, would also assume that the easter bunny person was lying, wrong, or deluded, but I would have a different view on my own experience, one that would be impossible to share with you.

I, on the other hand, would also assume that the easter bunny person was lying, wrong, or deluded, but I would have a different view on my own experience, one that would be impossible to share with you.

so, if someone says they saw the easter bunny, that person is lying, wrong, or deluded. Yet...no possibility of that with you? Not at all possible you're just wrong, or deluded?

Why should I respect your beliefs then, and conclude that you are anything other than wrong, deluded, or a liar? Why should I extend to you the courtesy of respecting your beliefs, if you are so unwilling to extend the same courtesy to others?

it's a damned circular argument. You don't believe in the easter bunny, because you've never seen it. Thus you conclude that anyone who did see it is wrong, deluded, or a liar, because you believe the easter bunny doesn't exist, because you've never seen it. Why should I conclude any differently for you?

You, in essence, are an easter bunny atheist. And are unwilling to accept the possibility that the easter bunny exists. And thus conclude that anyone who claims to have seen the easter bunny...didn't.

How are you any different from atheists who, upon hearing that you believe you saw god, conclude simply, that you did not, and are either wrong, crazy, or a liar?

You would assume that we were both wrong, or lying, or somehow deluded. Which would be the correct assumption to make. Unless you had also seen god or the easter bunny, but let's assume that you haven't.

For the record, I am not hostile to the existance of a god. I am merely hostile to the existance of the God of Abraham, and doubt very much in the existance of a "personal God".

Knowing what (admittedly little) I know about you, I would probably assume that you had a deeply personal, spiritual, and moving experiance that was very significant and potentially life changing, and that "seeing God" may be the only way to adequitly describe the experiance.

I, on the other hand, would also assume that the easter bunny person was lying, wrong, or deluded, but I would have a different view on my own experience, one that would be impossible to share with you.

Which begs the question, why would you write off someone else's experiance so quickly yet believe your own was really what you saw?

Assuming that we would write off the Easter Bunny person so quickly just because we so widely accept in our society that the Easter Bunny is a load of crap, perhaps a better question is:

You have "seen God". If another person told you they had also "seen God", would you believe them? Even if their experiance or vision of God was entirely different from your own?

Do you not see how nonsensical that sounds? How can you 'experience' all things? At least, how can you experience all things unless you experience some sort of unifying connection?

If you think that sounds nonsensical, you should see it from my viewpoint. I'm trying to describe a wordless experience using words.

I did experience a unifying connection.

No, exactly the opposite.

Given that the definitions attributed to 'god' are SO problematic... why do you look at this universe-united... and say... YOU I will call 'god'.

Because it seemed like a good word to fit this awesome creative force. I could call it something else if you like.

Constitute? No.

Suggest... yeah, maybe.

Only if we expected to find evidence.

That's a statement of faith.

You are arguing that the scientific methodology should sometimes have special exceptions because.... some 'truths' that you claim exist outside of it. Moreover - you consider it's inability to deal with these things that might or might not exist beyond it's remit... to be a weakness in the tool.

The idea that all truth can be arrived at scientifically is a statement of faith. I am not so sure that my denial of that is also one.

We know that science only deals with the natural world. We also know things like 'the rules of football' are not part of the natural world, yet they exist. So, once we accept that things exist outside of the domain of science, we must also accept that these things will have truths inherent in them that will not be scientifically verifiable.

We know that science only deals with the natural world. We also know things like 'the rules of football' are not part of the natural world, yet they exist. So, once we accept that things exist outside of the domain of science, we must also accept that these things will have truths inherent in them that will not be scientifically verifiable.

and yet once again we stumble across the difference between entities and concepts.

well fine, yes, it's a fair assumption, I mean if we want to define god as a generalized conceptual "thing" about which no predictions can be made, then sure, it would be inherently unfalsifiable because we couldn't even tell what would, in essence, falsify it.

Which, fine, if that's the direction you want to take it. It just strains my own personal sense of logic to believe in something that is undefiniable. What, exactly, is it that you believe in?
Didn't we already discuss the idea that god can perhaps be better described as a 'concept' than a thing, much as the 'past' is so described?

Does it strain your own personal sense in logic to believe in something, like the past, that is undefinable?

No...because you have all sorts of criteria in place to 'define' the concept of the past. Just as people who believe in god as a concept have all sorts of criteria in place to define that concept.

How easily though can you define what about the past you believe in?

Because it seemed like a good word to fit this awesome creative force.


It's not just a unifying force, now... but a creative one?


I could call it something else if you like.


If I like? You're having an argument that doesn't exist - you're quibbling over the emaning of god, where 'god' is a word you've applied to something somewhat arbitrarily.

It's like you and I debating why horses are/are not good at running - and me finding out you mean 'rabbit', when you say 'horse'.


Only if we expected to find evidence.


Why wouldn't we expect to find evidence?


The idea that all truth can be arrived at scientifically is a statement of faith. I am not so sure that my denial of that is also one.


It's not so much that 'all truth can be arrived at scientifically' - it's that the model we use EVERY day is a scientific one... and it works. Every day.

Denial of that premise, is claiming special exception.


We know that science only deals with the natural world. We also know things like 'the rules of football' are not part of the natural world, yet they exist. So, once we accept that things exist outside of the domain of science, we must also accept that these things will have truths inherent in them that will not be scientifically verifiable.

But we can measure those 'rules' of football, can't we?

You were asked for a definition, and you've give a fair one. When you use the term God, I can respect that this is what you mean.

But God as defined in the dictionary is very different, and I think that might cause confusion.

I mean this in utter seriousness, and not in some snarky way...but isn't it just a LITTLE foolish to try to look to the dictionary to define something as vast, complex, and eternally philosophised about as 'god'?

I mean this in utter seriousness, and not in some snarky way...but isn't it just a LITTLE foolish to try to look to the dictionary to define something as vast, complex, and eternally philosophised about as 'god'?

More foolish than trying to discuss 'god' without making sure we're even talking about similar things?

so, if someone says they saw the easter bunny, that person is lying, wrong, or deluded.

No. Wrong. I am assuming that. I don't know for sure if they are or not.

Yet...no possibility of that with you? Not at all possible you're just wrong, or deluded?

Of course the possibility exists. But I won't assume it.

Why should I respect your beliefs then, and conclude that you are anything other than wrong, deluded, or a liar? Why should I extend to you the courtesy of respecting your beliefs, if you are so unwilling to extend the same courtesy to others?

it's a damned circular argument. You don't believe in the easter bunny, because you've never seen it. Thus you conclude that anyone who did see it is wrong, deluded, or a liar, because you believe the easter bunny doesn't exist, because you've never seen it. Why should I conclude any differently for you?

I didn't say you should. I said you or anyone else would make the same assumption I make, that they are wrong somehow. Just like you're probably assuming that I was wrong somehow when I experienced god.

How are you any different from atheists who, upon hearing that you believe you saw god, conclude simply, that you did not, and are either wrong, crazy, or a liar?

Because I realise I am making an assumption while you seem to be jumping to conclusions.

For the record, I am not hostile to the existance of a god. I am merely hostile to the existance of the God of Abraham, and doubt very much in the existance of a "personal God".

Knowing what (admittedly little) I know about you, I would probably assume that you had a deeply personal, spiritual, and moving experiance that was very significant and potentially life changing, and that "seeing God" may be the only way to adequitly describe the experiance.

Which begs the question, why would you write off someone else's experiance so quickly yet believe your own was really what you saw?

Assuming that we would write off the Easter Bunny person so quickly just because we so widely accept in our society that the Easter Bunny is a load of crap, perhaps a better question is:

You have "seen God". If another person told you they had also "seen God", would you believe them? Even if their experiance or vision of God was entirely different from your own?

I think it would depend on what their vision told him or her.

If god told them that we are all one and we should try to live in harmony with all creation, and they seemed lucid and clean, I would probably leave it as undecided.

If they told me that god had told them to kill all the jew whores or something equally repulsive, I probably wouldn't.

But the difference between the two is one of degree. It would still be possible that the evil vision person was right and me and the other hippy vision person are wrong.

Didn't we already discuss the idea that god can perhaps be better described as a 'concept' than a thing, much as the 'past' is so described?

Does it straing your own personal sense in logic to believe in something, like the past, that is undefinable?

No...because you have all sorts of criteria in place to 'define' the concept of the past. Just as people who believe in god as a concept have all sorts of criteria in place to define that concept.

How easily though can you define what about the past you believe in?

here's the problem. The ideas of "concept" and "god" can not exist within themselves. A concept can not create. It can not destroy. It can not think or talk. It can not do anything, because it is not a thing which can do.

To use the very terminology used. God the creator. I talked to god. I saw god. Concepts can not do those things because a concept is no thing at all.

It doesn't strain my logic to conceive of a concept which does not have the characteristics of an entity. It does however strain my logic, and the english language, to conceive of a concept that can do anything, like talk to GoG

But by your logic, belief in the lack of an Easter Bunny with magical powers to conceal its existence is ALSO equivalent to the belief in the Easter Bunny.
Again, I thought we'd moved beyond comparing god to a 'thing'. Your Easter Bunny, I assume, would be a thing that either exists, or does not, and therefore doesn't really work if you're using it as an analogy.
In other words, depart at will from the meanings inherent in language, so you could essentially saying anything, and when challenged "Oh, I don't go by meanings so basic as the dictionary".
Basic dictionary meanings are good if the discussion remains very basic.

It would be like me going to court and saying "Your honor, yes, my client killed her willfully, maliciously, and without justification, but that is not murder. Please stop being so limited by your defintions."
Buh?

That fails to work on so many levels, I'm not sure I'm going to start.

Because I realise I am making an assumption while you seem to be jumping to conclusions.


Except, of course, when people assume you to be lying, delusional, or incorrect...well they're just wrong, of course.

Seems to me that you make a lot of conclusions. The main one being, anyone who assumes of you what you would assume of others is incorrect.

I think it would depend on what their vision told him or her.

If god told them that we are all one and we should try to live in harmony with all creation, and they seemed lucid and clean, I would probably leave it as undecided.

If they told me that god had told them to kill all the jew whores or something equally repulsive, I probably wouldn't.

But the difference between the two is one of degree. It would still be possible that the evil vision person was right and me and the other hippy vision person are wrong.

I will mull this over, but I must depart (going to see a movie with the lady). This is an interesting conversation, and Ill be back tonight to continue it.

I think it would depend on what their vision told him or her.

If god told them that we are all one and we should try to live in harmony with all creation, and they seemed lucid and clean, I would probably leave it as undecided.

If they told me that god had told them to kill all the jew whores or something equally repulsive, I probably wouldn't.

But the difference between the two is one of degree. It would still be possible that the evil vision person was right and me and the other hippy vision person are wrong.

What if the vision disproves a main part of christianity (such as, say "humans were created in jehovah's image!")?

If you think that sounds nonsensical, you should see it from my viewpoint. I'm trying to describe a wordless experience using words.


I appreciate that it's incredibly difficult to articulate ineffable experiences like this.


I did experience a unifying connection.


And do you think this connection exists independent of you? Do you think it is tangible? Otherwise, why couldn't it just be a product of your psyche, this connection just being a perception?

and yet once again we stumble across the difference between entities and concepts.

Or, things that can be scientifically analysed, and those that cannot. Concepts, as you noted, fall into the latter category.

It's not just a unifying force, now... but a creative one?

It seemed that way.

If I like? You're having an argument that doesn't exist - you're quibbling over the emaning of god, where 'god' is a word you've applied to something somewhat arbitrarily.

It's like you and I debating why horses are/are not good at running - and me finding out you mean 'rabbit', when you say 'horse'.

I defined my model of god quite clearly. Am I supposed to apologise that it is not the same as the more classical model of god?

Why wouldn't we expect to find evidence?

Because god is one of those things that doesn't leave evidence.

It's not so much that 'all truth can be arrived at scientifically' - it's that the model we use EVERY day is a scientific one... and it works. Every day.

Denial of that premise, is claiming special exception.

Yes. We use it every day. To study a wide, but not comprehensive, range of phenomena.

But we can measure those 'rules' of football, can't we?

How wide is the rule that says the ball must go into the end zone in order to qualify as a touchdown?

Oh wait. It has no width.

I guess you can't measure it.

It seemed that way.


Creative, as in it created the universe as we know it?

Except, of course, when people assume you to be lying, delusional, or incorrect...well they're just wrong, of course.

Seems to me that you make a lot of conclusions. The main one being, anyone who assumes of you what you would assume of others is incorrect.

They are only wrong if they believe their assumptions to be facts or scientific conclusions. If they are aware of making an assumption and call it one, then they are perfectly correct.

I will mull this over, but I must depart (going to see a movie with the lady). This is an interesting conversation, and Ill be back tonight to continue it.

Holes in popcorn boxes...

What if the vision disproves a main part of christianity (such as, say "humans were created in jehovah's image!")?

Then it disproves a main part of Xianity.

And do you think this connection exists independent of you? Do you think it is tangible? Otherwise, why couldn't it just be a product of your psyche, this connection just being a perception?

I assume that it exists independently of me. But I have no way of testing that assumption.

More foolish than trying to discuss 'god' without making sure we're even talking about similar things?

Uh...he gave a definition of what he means by 'god'. And also made it clear on countless occasions that his definition of god is at odds with the judeo-christian (being the most common conception in our societies) definition.

So if you were taken unawares by the fact that GoG was not in fact talking about the judeo-christian god, I'm not sure why you'd assign fault for that to someone other than yourself...

Creative, as in it created the universe as we know it?

I believe, and now we're getting even farther into things that I have no proof or evidence for, that god is in the process of creating herself and that is what the Universe is. That process.

I assume that it exists independently of me. But I have no way of testing that assumption.

Is it intelligent? Does it have consciousness?

I believe, and now we're getting even farther into things that I have no proof or evidence for, that god is in the process of creating herself and that is what the Universe is. That process.

To create ex nihilo is unnatural, ergo your God must be supernatural. :p

I believe, and now we're getting even farther into things that I have no proof or evidence for, that god is in the process of creating herself and that is what the Universe is. That process.

ahh, so it is an entity, and not just "a concept"

I defined my model of god quite clearly. Am I supposed to apologise that it is not the same as the more classical model of god?


You basically defined 'god' as... well, 'NOT god'.

It's not whether apology is required... it's WHY you'd choose to apply an apparently inappropriate title.


Because god is one of those things that doesn't leave evidence.


So you say. You could say there's no evidence because there's no cause.

"See these footprints? No? That's because elephants don't leave footprints."

"What do you mean 'or maybe there's no elephants'?"


Yes. We use it every day. To study a wide, but not comprehensive, range of phenomena.


Okay. Still - why plead special exception?


How wide is the rule that says the ball must go into the end zone in order to qualify as a touchdown?

Oh wait. It has no width.

I guess you can't measure it.

Gravity has no 'width' either...

Then it disproves a main part of Xianity.

Well, I've seen what jehovah looks like, and it disproves both (1) the idea that humans look like him and (2) the idea that if you look at him you die.

For the record, he looks a lot like this (but without the snake):

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/8476/sv0212se8.png

It's not a 100% match, but it's surprisingly close.

here's the problem. The ideas of "concept" and "god" can not exist within themselves. A concept can not create. It can not destroy. It can not think or talk. It can not do anything, because it is not a thing which can do. It does no good to reduce a concept to its constituent parts in order to figure out how a concept can act on the physical, existing world. Again, returning to the concept of the 'past'. The past has certaintly been a force of 'creation' or 'destruction', but exactly HOW is somewhat complex. It isn't the concept itself, using some sort of existing power somehow...human or non-human, existing actors, within the 'vehicle' of the past did something that resulted in something else happening.

Yet if we just to point to that...and say, look...that guy in the past dropped a cup, and it shattered...is that what you mean by 'the past'? So is that guy actually 'the past' since he was a force for destruction? It doesn't make sense. You can't talk about concepts like that.

But concepts don't simply exist somewhere up above us with no real impact. You may want to point to specific indicia of the effect of a concept, in order to understand what that concept is about...but if you focus too entirely on those indicia, you miss the big picture...you lose the concept.

Is it intelligent? Does it have consciousness?

I don't know. I would assume that if it is conscious, it is so on a level that would be incomprehensible to a human mind.

To create ex nihilo is unnatural, ergo your God must be supernatural. :p

:eek2:

ahh, so it is an entity, and not just "a concept"

Actually, it is both and more.

You basically defined 'god' as... well, 'NOT god'.

It's not whether apology is required... it's WHY you'd choose to apply an apparently inappropriate title.

Okay, I get the point that my definition is very different from the one you're used to. Is there somewhere you're going with this?

So you say. You could say there's no evidence because there's no cause.

"See these footprints? No? That's because elephants don't leave footprints."

"What do you mean 'or maybe there's no elephants'?"

What kind of evidence would god leave? Assuming that god actually has certain qualities that would make god or her effects evident to humans.

Okay. Still - why plead special exception?

It's not special exception if science regulary excludes those phenomena from its purview.

Gravity has no 'width' either...

It has direction and force, for lack of a better word. Two measurable qualities. The rules of footbal have no measurable qualities.

ahh, so it is an entity, and not just "a concept"
Oh come on now.

That's like saying 'oh you said IN the past, that means the past must be something that exists ah ha! Caught you!'

So when I say 'Mother Earth' (Kikâwînaw Askiy), do you assume I mean a person? Doubtful.

Uh...he gave a definition of what he means by 'god'. And also made it clear on countless occasions that his definition of god is at odds with the judeo-christian (being the most common conception in our societies) definition.

So if you were taken unawares by the fact that GoG was not in fact talking about the judeo-christian god, I'm not sure why you'd assign fault for that to someone other than yourself...

I didn't say I was taken unawares. I'm saying that I think it's counterproductive to use the same catchphrases to describe things that are radically different. The problem isn't about whether we should bring dictionaries to the table - it's whether the conversation is taking place on the same page.

I don't know. I would assume that if it is conscious, it is so on a level that would be incomprehensible to a human mind.


If it cannot be perceived by normal, natural methods, wouldn't this also be another reason why the term supernatural is accurate? I just don't see what you have against the term.

I didn't say I was taken unawares. I'm saying that I think it's counterproductive to use the same catchphrases to describe things that are radically different. The problem isn't about whether we should bring dictionaries to the table - it's whether the conversation is taking place on the same page.

Oookay...so if he called it Omâmawi Ohtâwîmâw and then talked about it the way he already has, would you have any further labelling objections?

Okay, I get the point that my definition is very different from the one you're used to. Is there somewhere you're going with this?


To be honest - it seems disingenuous. It seems like hiding.

Looking for ways to define whether god can be 'proved' or not... but the goalposts are shifting... and, again, trying to be honest - it looks like something between hiding, and trying to derail.


What kind of evidence would god leave? Assuming that god actually has certain qualities that would make god or her effects evident to humans.


I would assume (and this is me) that God would have to be evidenced in more than just a 'gap' - it would have to be an absolute gap. Those mountains flinging themselves in the sea, that kind of thing. Minimum. Because anything less can be explained away. Hell - even those swimming mountains could be explained away if we're going to allow special excpetion... what makes it 'god' doing it, and not ghosts, goblins, or space aliens?


It's not special exception if science regulary excludes those phenomena from its purview.


Like... things that don't exist?

Weird the way science does that.


It has direction and force, for lack of a better word. Two measurable qualities. The rules of footbal have no measurable qualities.

I don't believe that's true. I believe you could watch the game being played, and derive measurable data from your observations that would give you clues as to what the laws were governing that system... no?

If it cannot be perceived by normal, natural methods, wouldn't this also be another reason why the term supernatural is accurate? I just don't see what you have against the term.

Because it has these connotations that when god wants to do something in the world, he does something supernatural like split the ocean or burn a bush. In my mind, god works through solely natural means that can not be separated from the natural world around us and must follow natural laws.

To be honest - it seems disingenuous. It seems like hiding.

Looking for ways to define whether god can be 'proved' or not... but the goalposts are shifting... and, again, trying to be honest - it looks like something between hiding, and trying to derail.

I am not looking for ways to define whether god can be proved or not. I'm just wondering why everyone assumes that god can be.

I would assume (and this is me) that God would have to be evidenced in more than just a 'gap' - it would have to be an absolute gap. Those mountains flinging themselves in the sea, that kind of thing. Minimum. Because anything less can be explained away. Hell - even those swimming mountains could be explained away if we're going to allow special excpetion... what makes it 'god' doing it, and not ghosts, goblins, or space aliens?

Oh. Evidence of the supernatural. Too bad science assumes (http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm) that the supernatural doesn't exist.

Like... things that don't exist?

Weird the way science does that.

Like subjective opinions. And other thigs that exist but are not material.

I don't believe that's true. I believe you could watch the game being played, and derive measurable data from your observations that would give you clues as to what the laws were governing that system... no?

That doesn't change the fact that the rules themselves can't be studied scientifically.

EDIT: I have to go. it's been fun.

Oookay...so if he called it Omâmawi Ohtâwîmâw and then talked about it the way he already has, would you have any further labelling objections?

I'd have less problems, certainly - because it wouldn't be carrying as much baggage to the table. More importantly - we might not be seeing these collisions of understanding.

To my mind, what he's describing might be better termed Kikâwînaw Askiy, though. I'd have even less problems, then.

I'd have less problems, certainly - because it wouldn't be carrying as much baggage to the table. More importantly - we might not be seeing these collisions of understanding.

To my mind, what he's describing might be better termed Kikâwînaw Askiy, though. I'd have even less problems, then.

Yeah well, personal preference of mine is to never refer to my understanding (limited as it inherently is) of the universe as 'god', but I sort of get why other people want to use that term.

I am not looking for ways to define whether god can be proved or not. I'm just wondering why everyone assumes that god can be.


I don't assume god can be proved.


Oh. Evidence of the supernatural. Too bad science assumes (http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm) that the supernatural doesn't exist.


Err... actually, even the source you presented doesn't even say that - your source just says it 'opposes' mystical explanations.


That doesn't change the fact that the rules themselves can't be studied scientifically.


Ah. Like gravity?

Yeah well, personal preference of mine is to never refer to my understanding (limited as it inherently is) of the universe as 'god', but I sort of get why other people want to use that term.

I think I agree. I know there's a lot about... well, a lot.... that I don't know. That doesn't mean I'm going to call that whole gray area 'god'.

I think I agree. I know there's a lot about... well, a lot.... that I don't know. That doesn't mean I'm going to call that whole gray area 'god'.

Though I do run into a lot of difficulty even getting into a conversation about all those things about the universe without first beginning with a label (ie.god) that gives people a sort of frame of reference.

You may remember the adverts on busses in the UK saying "There probably is no God" -apparently the people behind it are being accused of breaking the UK advertising code as according to Christian Voice there is plenty of evidence for God.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7818980.stm

"There is plenty of evidence for God, from people's personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world.

"But there is scant evidence on the other side, so I think the advertisers are really going to struggle to show their claim is not an exaggeration or inaccurate, as the ASA code puts it."

Yeah right

I think it's fairly stupid, cause neither side will accept the other's evidence.

I mean this in utter seriousness, and not in some snarky way...but isn't it just a LITTLE foolish to try to look to the dictionary to define something as vast, complex, and eternally philosophised about as 'god'?

Philosophy itself, especially the subset Mathematic, is vast, complex, and widely "philosophised about", and they benefit quite a bit from reasonable consistency with language.

Making up your own definitions to co-opt all the connotations of a word without having to actually fit its defined criteria seems more "foolish", if you're serious about communicating ideas.

The fact is, the further you get from things like the dictionary, common usage, and all the things that define language and make it useful as a tool for describing ideas, the more arbitrary you're getting.

GoG is free to do that, just like I could decide that because "crime" is vast, complex, and widely philosophized about, I can make up a completely different definition than it has in English. Then I can tell people they are commiting "crime" based solely on my definition, and since its so "vast and complex", they can't defend themselves by pointing out that what they're doing doesn't fit any codified defintion of "crime".

Philosophy itself, especially the subset Mathematic, is vast, complex, and widely "philosophised about", and they benefit quite a bit from reasonable consistency with language.

Making up your own definitions to co-opt all the connotations of a word without having to actually fit its defined criteria seems more "foolish", if you're serious about communicating ideas.

The fact is, the further you get from things like the dictionary, common usage, and all the things that define language and make it useful as a tool for describing ideas, the more arbitrary you're getting. Why are you so wedded to the Judeo-Chrisitian definition of god? Because we're using English to communicate in?

GoG is free to do that, just like I could decide that because "crime" is vast, complex, and widely philosophized about, I can make up a completely different definition than it has in English. Then I can tell people they are commiting "crime" based solely on my definition, and since its so "vast and complex", they can't defend themselves by pointing out that what they're doing doesn't fit any codified defintion of "crime".

More like, maybe it would help if you recognised that 'crime' is defined in many different ways, and that many different judicial systems exist, and just because 'crime' may be defined according to anglo common-law norms in the dictionary does not mean that we can not have a conversation, in English, about other conceptions of crime.

Why are you so wedded to the Judeo-Chrisitian definition of god? Because we're using English to communicate in?


This is not a case of not using the Judeo-Christian definition of God, this is essentially a case of not using the definition of God full stop. The same definition of God that essentially covers almost every religion on earth, and what is meant by the word in philosophical discourse and writings. Although GoG's definition may fall under that definition, that is what is being debated.

Again, I thought we'd moved beyond comparing god to a 'thing'. Your Easter Bunny, I assume, would be a thing that either exists, or does not, and therefore doesn't really work if you're using it as an analogy.

Any "thing" that exists can be compared to another "thing", otherwise it doesn't even have enough existence to be a "thing" itself. Even the idea of a non-existing "thing" can be compared to other things. An idea is a thing. A relationship is a "thing". Even by GoG's definition, all the relationships are God, so God is a thing.


Basic dictionary meanings are good if the discussion remains very basic.


More elaborate discussion can call for more elaborate other terms, but doesn't require being inconsistent with simple ones. You can have a discussion about the entire set of complex numbers without ever having to make up new definitions for what an integer is. In other areas of philsophy, you can develop increasingly complex premises, that can all be interally and logically consistent with the fundamental, simple definitions within them.

If your discussion has become so complex that you have to change the underlying definitions to make it work, complexity isn't the problem. Linguistic consistency is.


Buh?

That fails to work on so many levels, I'm not sure I'm going to start.

"Why, why, you're so wrong, I can't concisely give a cogent argument as to why!"

That's okay. This idea is so complex, we'll just change the meaning of the word "fails" to mean "succeeds", and the dictionary won't interfere because that's only for simple discussion.

Why are you so wedded to the Judeo-Chrisitian definition of god? Because we're using English to communicate in?

I used the English dictionary definition, which isn't applied soley to the Judeo-Christian model. If you don't like it, give your own, like GoG did, and I'll try to remember that's your version.


More like, maybe it would help if you recognised that 'crime' is defined in many different ways, and that many different judicial systems exist, and just because 'crime' may be defined according to anglo common-law norms in the dictionary does not mean that we can not have a conversation, in English, about other conceptions of crime.

Then the onus is on you, when using a term in a context where it would have a reasonably given defintion, to say that you're changing the defintion or using a different one, but then you must fairly surrender the connotations that are attached to the term in that culture.

There's evidence for the existence of God. Just not good evidence. Old, suspect, supposedly-eyewitness accounts of something extremely unlikely, supported by vague and often nonsensical prophecy? That's evidence, if you really want to call it that. But it's little wonder why even the most accomplished religious philosophers have to rely on words like 'ineffability,' 'quidditas' and 'haecceitas.'

Though I do run into a lot of difficulty even getting into a conversation about all those things about the universe without first beginning with a label (ie.god) that gives people a sort of frame of reference.

I think this does well to illustrate some part of the problem.

Yes, other cultures have different concepts of God, of crime. They have words for that in their language, which carry the appropriate meanings and connotations.

When you go to another culture, another language, if you try to equate a completely different version of crime/God/whatever, by translating it as that term or word, you're only making it more confused. You're moving between reference frames without the necessary translations. You are, in effect, mistranslating your idea to their language.

It would almost be better to introduce the idea in its original tongue or word or find some other term that doesn't have all the baggage, to preserve meaning. The new idea can be just as valid, maybe even more so, but if you really want to deliver the idea to the other person, using a word that means something so starkly different in their culture and language isn't helpful.

Gift-of-God has an idea of what God is, that is so different from what the term means linguistically, that it is not well-described by that term in this language. GnI seemed to know a word that may better reflect the other cultures or references that this idea comes from.

But if I go somewhere and use the word "God", that word has baggage, that is "married" to the word by the nature of what language is and how it works. If you're serious about conveying an idea, then using words that, in a particular culture language, mean something very, very different, you aren't really communicating.

GnI seemed to know a word that may better reflect the other cultures or references that this idea comes from. What word is that exactly? And why are you assuming GoG's understanding of 'god' has come from other cultures or is so incompatible with the linguistic frame of refernce of the language we are using?

Frankly, if you cannot understand at this point how he has used the word 'god' to mean something other than the judeo-christian deity, I do not buy that this is a problem inherent in the use of the English language or the title 'god'...but rather that the problem lies in your own mental rigidity.

So much ado over a name....feel free to think of GoG's conception of 'god' under a different title in your own mind when you think about it, if that helps you. I think his use of the English language to describe the concept is quite capable of being understood.

Communication is not a unilateral exercise. Your problems with the term are a shoddy excuse for refusing to engage in the process between human beings that is communication.

"Why, why, you're so wrong, I can't concisely give a cogent argument as to why!" Rather, I'd prefer you attempt to make your point using something other than the law, since your very attempt highlights your extreme ignorance of the subject. And I grow tired of schooling people like you for free. Not to mention taking you to task for your unnuanced view of the definition of 'murder' would be a hijack.

Basically this is the proposition. Are you capable of debating the issue without resorting to dictionary twatiness? Because really, it serves no purpose.

Frankly, if you cannot understand at this point how he has used the word 'god' to mean something other than the judeo-christian deity

The fact that you're still talking about the 'judeo-christian' definition of God, even though that's completely irrelevant to anything, and that nobody is using that definition at all, suggests that you may be skipping parts of his post.

The fact that you're still talking about the 'judeo-christian' definition of God, even though that's completely irrelevant to anything, and that nobody is using that definition at all, suggests that you may be skipping parts of his post.

Well you know what? Let him bring on HIS definition from whatever dictionary he is currently worshipping then. He can then say look, this is what god means and if you want to deviate from that in any way, then you have to find a new word for it, otherwise I'm going to ignore everything you say because neener neener, that's not the right word!

This linguistic douchebaggery is tiresome.

Ugh, how the FUCK did I end up posting in a thread about god? *self-medicates*

What word is that exactly? And why are you assuming GoG's understanding of 'god' has come from other cultures or is so incompatible with the linguistic frame of refernce of the language we are using?

You were the one who brought up other cultures' views in reference to what he was saying. Seriously, go back and look. And in the English language, the anchoring frame of reference is the dictionary, as much as you want to dismiss it as "twatiness".


Frankly, if you cannot understand at this point how he has used the word 'god' to mean something other than the judeo-christian deity, I do not buy that this is a problem inherent in the use of the English language or the title 'god'...but rather that the problem lies in your own mental rigidity.

Its a big thread, so I can see where you missed me saying "I'll try to remember that when you use the term, thats what you mean."


So much ado over a name....feel free to think of GoG's conception of 'god' under a different title in your own mind when you think about it, if that helps you. I think his use of the English language to describe the concept is quite capable of being understood.

But as I've pointed out, his chosen term doesn't really fit its meaning in the English language. I can understand what he wants it to mean, I can accomodate for his sake, but it honestly does lead to confusion. Consistency in language doesn't have to be twatiness.


Communication is not a unilateral exercise. Your problems with the term are a shoddy excuse for refusing to engage in the process between human beings that is communication.

The problem is, that process is effected by frames of reference, and by the weight and implication that is carried in certain words. When you use a word in a language that is so divorced from its meaning in that language and culture, communication suffers.

Rather, I'd prefer you attempt to make your point using something other than the law, since your very attempt highlights your extreme ignorance of the subject. And I grow tired of schooling people like you for free. Not to mention taking you to task for your unnuanced view of the definition of 'murder' would be a hijack.

By all means, I'll use a different example.

Suppose the term "happy" meant something in one language, and something completely different in another. If you go to the other, and use "happy" to describe something to the people in that language that it doesn't mean in their language, you're hindering your own attempt to communicate. You can blame them all you want, call them twats or douchebags, but language itself, as a communal tool of describing ideas is what you're up against.


Basically this is the proposition. Are you capable of debating the issue without resorting to dictionary twatiness? Because really, it serves no purpose.

We're having this conversation using words, and those words have meanings. You can try to completely change them, but then you're defeating the purpose of language.

I'm sure I don't know near as much about the law as you, but the law benefits from many "terms of art", and a rigorous, precise application of language is helpful in the law. It can be equall helpful in philosophy, math, engineering, cooking, or theology. Wanting to make use of that isn't "twatiness".

The fact that you're still talking about the 'judeo-christian' definition of God, even though that's completely irrelevant to anything, and that nobody is using that definition at all, suggests that you may be skipping parts of his post.

Neesika is skipping several parts of what I've said, and her assertions reflect that.

I understand that you're not taking sides or saying that I'm right, but I do appreciate that somebody is paying attention.

Well you know what? Let him bring on HIS definition from whatever dictionary he is currently worshipping then. He can then say look, this is what god means and if you want to deviate from that in any way, then you have to find a new word for it, otherwise I'm going to ignore everything you say because neener neener, that's not the right word!

This linguistic douchebaggery is tiresome.

Ugh, how the FUCK did I end up posting in a thread about god? *self-medicates*

I think the point of mentioning that you seem to be skipping several parts of my posts is that I'm not saying I'm going to ignore it, I'm saying it makes it more difficult. There is a tremendous difference.

And wanting a certain clarity and consistency in terms doesn't amount to "worship" any more than a machinest choosing the correct tool means he's worshipping his tool box.

I didn't say I was taken unawares. I'm saying that I think it's counterproductive to use the same catchphrases to describe things that are radically different. The problem isn't about whether we should bring dictionaries to the table - it's whether the conversation is taking place on the same page.

That's a fairly brilliant way of putting it.

Holes in popcorn boxes...


;)

Yeah well, personal preference of mine is to never refer to my understanding (limited as it inherently is) of the universe as 'god', but I sort of get why other people want to use that term.

I think this is the problem. I think that some people do experiance deeply spiritual moments that one cannot define in any suffecient way, and so, by default, they refer to it as "seeing God", because it is the best way to adequitly convey their experience to someone who did not share it. Its like when you tell someone you really enjoy something they havent tried, and when asked to describe it, some people default to saying 'It was like sex.'

There could be very logical, rational, tangable reasons for said experiances (neuroscience is at the very, very begining of exploring these experiances), or he could really have "seen God". I know which of the two Im more inclined to believe, based of my nature and what I know and have experianced, but I a willing to admit the possibility that I am wrong, because Im not arrogant enough to presume to know what cannot possibly be known. Almost arrogant enough, but not quite there yet :p.

I think what needs to be kept in mind is the difference between GoG's experiance of seeing God (which I personally believe, as I said earlier, that he did indeed have a deep spiritual revelation that had a profound effect on his life, and "seeing God" is perhaps the best description) and the Pat Robertson kind of "talking to God", where God tells him to pretty much blame the gays for all the world's ills (which I find to be evidence of Robertson's delusions at best and a blatant, dangerous lie at worst).

Watching one law student tell the other law student how much he doesn't know about law is like watching the bee tell the fruit fly that he's just too small to understand the world.

The fact is, the word "god" has some meaning, in a cultural context. It has connotations associated with it. You can try to argue against that, if you wish, but it doesn't really change the matter.

Watching one law student tell the other law student how much he doesn't know about law is like watching the bee tell the fruit fly that he's just too small to understand the world.

The fact is, the word "god" has some meaning, in a cultural context. It has connotations associated with it. You can try to argue against that, if you wish, but it doesn't really change the matter.

Agreed, and thats why I think its important to define what exactly your talking about from the outset. I would have probably never used the word "God" in this situation, and even if I did I wouldnt have said "I saw God", but "it was like seeing God".

However, I didnt have the experiance, and we all have different ways of expressing ourselves:p/end cheap Disney movie.

Cornelius Tacitus (55 A.D.) a heathen historian, who is considered to be one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, recorded Christ’s crucifixion in detail as seen in his annals contained in 18 volumes.

Josephus (37-97 A.D.) A Jewish historian who wrote the history of his people in 20 volumes recorded the account of the life of Christ, His teaching, His miracles, and the detailed account of His crucifixion, which was ordered by Pontius Pilate. He mentioned also that Christ appeared to the disciples alive on the third day.

Lucian, the Greek, an outstanding Greek historian, wrote on the crucifixion of Christ and of the Christians who were willing to die for their faith in the Christ.

Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor sent to Tiberius Caesar a full report of the crucifixion of Christ. This report was one of the documents with which Tertullian, a Christian scholar, supported his famous defense of the Christians

Cornelius Tacitus (55 A.D.) a heathen historian, who is considered to be one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, recorded Christ’s crucifixion in detail as seen in his annals contained in 18 volumes.

Josephus (37-97 A.D.) A Jewish historian who wrote the history of his people in 20 volumes recorded the account of the life of Christ, His teaching, His miracles, and the detailed account of His crucifixion, which was ordered by Pontius Pilate. He mentioned also that Christ appeared to the disciples alive on the third day.

Lucian, the Greek, an outstanding Greek historian, wrote on the crucifixion of Christ and of the Christians who were willing to die for their faith in the Christ.

Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor sent to Tiberius Caesar a full report of the crucifixion of Christ. This report was one of the documents with which Tertullian, a Christian scholar, supported his famous defense of the Christians

1. None of this is relevent.
2. I find it funny that Christ's existance is apperantly so well documented yet doubt in some historic circles. You fail.

They know the men's names Casper, Melichor, Balthasar


Wow you guys are tough.
try finding a source for these names and some history of their lives some day.

when you do, report back on what you have discovered.

Cornelius Tacitus (55 A.D.) a heathen historian, who is considered to be one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, recorded Christ’s crucifixion in detail as seen in his annals contained in 18 volumes.

Josephus (37-97 A.D.) A Jewish historian who wrote the history of his people in 20 volumes recorded the account of the life of Christ, His teaching, His miracles, and the detailed account of His crucifixion, which was ordered by Pontius Pilate. He mentioned also that Christ appeared to the disciples alive on the third day.

Lucian, the Greek, an outstanding Greek historian, wrote on the crucifixion of Christ and of the Christians who were willing to die for their faith in the Christ.

Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor sent to Tiberius Caesar a full report of the crucifixion of Christ. This report was one of the documents with which Tertullian, a Christian scholar, supported his famous defense of the Christians
since you are so up on this.

pull out the quotes from the sources you reference and we can take a look at them together.

Watching one law student tell the other law student how much he doesn't know about law is like watching the bee tell the fruit fly that he's just too small to understand the world.

The fact is, the word "god" has some meaning, in a cultural context. It has connotations associated with it. You can try to argue against that, if you wish, but it doesn't really change the matter.

The coolest part is, when GoG was telling you how uninformed you were about "basic science" because you said something he felt didn't meet its definition, that was fine with Nee. She wasn't as concerned with such "mental rigidity" when GoG applied it.

When GoG asserted things about what proof is or isn't, definitions seemed to be fairly important, and Nee had no problem with him telling others that they were wrong if what they said didn't fit his concept of those things.

But if somebody else does it, Nee calls it "twattery" and "douchebaggery".

Maybe after I've had Crim, I'll be better with those kinds of double standards.

That's a fairly brilliant way of putting it.Yeah, he does that sometimes. :)

Sorry to ask again, but I'm not sure the question ever really got answered. Tangent with GoG and all that.

So: If you're an atheist like me, what would you accept as evidence that God exists?

I remember several people said they'd accept various miracles. Spontaneous limb growth, people praying and then miracles happen, etc etc. But why accept those? It's not as if they prove that God exists; all they show about God is that someone's using his name to make magic tricks happen. Sure it could be this God, but why in hell would I assume it was? Isn't that, with the infinite alternate possibilities, the most ridiculous assumption ever? I believe I would describe that as completely unsupportable (unless you happen to be in on the Jesus thing). In fact I wouldn't accept any evidence - certainly not physical evidence - that a being called God exists and has the typical deity properties. But hey, that's just me being honest.

Returning to the original question, my other point was this: if these people, these Christians, regard the apparent design in nature as evidence for their God, who are we - nonbelievers all - to gainsay them? It is, after all, their religion. Unless we are prepared to say that we know what they believe better than they do (which I'm not, and don't), I see no reason why their statement "There is evidence for God" cannot stand and be perfectly justified. They made the game; if you want to contradict them you have to play by their rules. Just because you can mouth the words "God probably doesn't exist" doesn't mean you've countered the Christian's "God exists." You don't win at basketball by taking the ball and running off the court with it. Similarly, we can't take this philosophical God idea and shoot it down as if that's all there is to it. It's quite clear just listening to a religious person that what they say about God and what they believe about God are two separate things. Are we supposed to take whatever some idiot Christian says completely out of its context and then give them a good thrashing because they're so incredibly stupid how could they possibly say that? Let's have a look in the mirror.

Either attack their beliefs - if you can - or get off the court.

personal experience, however anecdotal, is all the evidence i need for the existence of something big, friendly and invisible that gives great hugs.

i have no corresponding evidence however, for anything else anyone (or any several) pretends to know about it.

That's a fairly brilliant way of putting it.

Yeah, he does that sometimes. :)

*bows, humbly*

Sorry to ask again, but I'm not sure the question ever really got answered. Tangent with GoG and all that.

So: If you're an atheist like me, what would you accept as evidence that God exists?

I remember several people said they'd accept various miracles. Spontaneous limb growth, people praying and then miracles happen, etc etc. But why accept those? It's not as if they prove that God exists; all they show about God is that someone's using his name to make magic tricks happen. Sure it could be this God, but why in hell would I assume it was? Isn't that, with the infinite alternate possibilities, the most ridiculous assumption ever? I believe I would describe that as completely unsupportable (unless you happen to be in on the Jesus thing). In fact I wouldn't accept any evidence - certainly not physical evidence - that a being called God exists and has the typical deity properties. But hey, that's just me being honest.


none of these miracles will ever happen so we dont need to discuss whether or not they are REALLY proof of god or not. why analyse the meaning of something that wont ever happen?



Returning to the original question, my other point was this: if these people, these Christians, regard the apparent design in nature as evidence for their God, who are we - nonbelievers all - to gainsay them? It is, after all, their religion. Unless we are prepared to say that we know what they believe better than they do (which I'm not, and don't), I see no reason why their statement "There is evidence for God" cannot stand and be perfectly justified. They made the game; if you want to contradict them you have to play by their rules. Just because you can mouth the words "God probably doesn't exist" doesn't mean you've countered the Christian's "God exists." You don't win at basketball by taking the ball and running off the court with it. Similarly, we can't take this philosophical God idea and shoot it down as if that's all there is to it. It's quite clear just listening to a religious person that what they say about God and what they believe about God are two separate things. Are we supposed to take whatever some idiot Christian says completely out of its context and then give them a good thrashing because they're so incredibly stupid how could they possibly say that? Let's have a look in the mirror.

Either attack their beliefs - if you can - or get off the court.

its fine by me if they consider the existence of the world as proof of god. its not fine by me for them to suggest that it should convince ME of god's existence.

if i put "god probably doesnt exist" on the side of a bus, its up to THEM to prove me wrong.

i dont think they can.

Cornelius Tacitus (55 A.D.) a heathen historian, who is considered to be one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, recorded Christ’s crucifixion in detail as seen in his annals contained in 18 volumes.

Josephus (37-97 A.D.) A Jewish historian who wrote the history of his people in 20 volumes recorded the account of the life of Christ, His teaching, His miracles, and the detailed account of His crucifixion, which was ordered by Pontius Pilate. He mentioned also that Christ appeared to the disciples alive on the third day.

Lucian, the Greek, an outstanding Greek historian, wrote on the crucifixion of Christ and of the Christians who were willing to die for their faith in the Christ.

Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor sent to Tiberius Caesar a full report of the crucifixion of Christ. This report was one of the documents with which Tertullian, a Christian scholar, supported his famous defense of the Christians

Tacitus is thought to have lived from 56 to 117 AD. And he didn't start writing until 98 AD. Which means he would have been born at least a generation after the alleged Biblical events, and would have started writing about them at least TWO generations after they are supposed to have taken place.

Josephus appears to have lived from 37 to about 100 AD. Antiquities wasn't written until about 94 AD. Which means he would have been born after the crucifixion is supposed to have happened, and started writing about it TWO generations after.

Lucian lived from 125 AD to some time after 180 AD. He was born almost a century after the events of the Bible are supposed to have transpired. It is unlikely that Lucian wrote anything before the middle of the second century - so his writing would be a hundred years after the events it claims to describe.

Tertullian wasn't even born until about 160 AD, and his conversion to Christianity didn't occur until about 198 AD, so his apologist works cannot have appeared before some date close to the beginning of the third century. Its worth noting, in Tertullian's case, that he refers to the Acts of Pilate, but that we know of at least one set of fraudulent documents attributed to Pilate.


What it boils down to - there is no documentary evidence of Jesus that originates DURING his alleged earthly ministry.

The earliest work AFTER the alleged crucifixion, is all heavily biased - there is no early source written outside of the 'church'.

The earliest independent sources were written at least half a century after the crucifixion, and were not written by witnesses.

All of which tells us there is NO contemporary, independent, reliable evidence.

none of these miracles will ever happen so we dont need to discuss whether or not they are REALLY proof of god or not. why analyse the meaning of something that wont ever happen?So, these miracles haven't ever happened and won't ever happen. I can really tell you know this by experience. I was merely pointing out that whoever says god "probably" doesn't exist is unlikely to have any good reason for accepting any evidence that he does. In that case, why put the probably? Hoping to fool some people, or even ourselves, into thinking we're "open minded" (whatever that means)? No, no. Brevity is next to godliness. God doesn't exist.

its fine by me if they consider the existence of the world as proof of god. its not fine by me for them to suggest that it should convince ME of god's existence.

if i put "god probably doesnt exist" on the side of a bus, its up to THEM to prove me wrong.

i dont think they can.Tell me why it isn't legitimate again? We're not out to find evidence of your conception of God, we're out to provide evidence of theirs - and I believe I pointed out that the two are not the same.

While I agree with you in that I'm not going to be affected by their apologetics to any significant degree, I have no interest in saying they're wrong. If you can be wrong, then there's a possibility of being right. But I don't see that possibility here. Religion is just something people do. If the natural design of the world is evidence of their God, then fine, it's evidence. It doesn't force me to believe as they do any more than peer pressure "forces" you to do stupid things, or the English language "forces" you to use proper grammar.

Tacitus is thought to have lived from 56 to 117 AD. And he didn't start writing until 98 AD. Which means he would have been born at least a generation after the alleged Biblical events, and would have started writing about them at least TWO generations after they are supposed to have taken place.

Josephus appears to have lived from 37 to about 100 AD. Antiquities wasn't written until about 94 AD. Which means he would have been born after the crucifixion is supposed to have happened, and started writing about it TWO generations after.

Lucian lived from 125 AD to some time after 180 AD. He was born almost a century after the events of the Bible are supposed to have transpired. It is unlikely that Lucian wrote anything before the middle of the second century - so his writing would be a hundred years after the events it claims to describe.

Tertullian wasn't even born until about 160 AD, and his conversion to Christianity didn't occur until about 198 AD, so his apologist works cannot have appeared before some date close to the beginning of the third century. Its worth noting, in Tertullian's case, that he refers to the Acts of Pilate, but that we know of at least one set of fraudulent documents attributed to Pilate.


What it boils down to - there is no documentary evidence of Jesus that originates DURING his alleged earthly ministry.

The earliest work AFTER the alleged crucifixion, is all heavily biased - there is no early source written outside of the 'church'.

The earliest independent sources were written at least half a century after the crucifixion, and were not written by witnesses.

All of which tells us there is NO contemporary, independent, reliable evidence.

Well said. Does Pontius Pilate count? He was out side the church I would say. I believe he did send a report back. I of course do not have a copy of that document. From what you are writing it looks like you want an eye witness account? That is tough evidence to come by.

Generally you have to understand the culture we are talking about. We are talking about a people that were largely shepherds. They were a very nomadic people. They record very little. The other complication is that they have been destroyed, conquered, burned to the ground, they were all pretty much taken away into captivity by at least 2 different people.

Again just generally I watched the series the Bible revealed just because there is not evidence that the Exodus took place does not mean that it didn't happen. if there were it would likely be at the bottom of the Red Sea difficult to recover if not impossible.

The one research kind of summed it up. "We see no evidence that the Red Sea parted" and what evidence did you hope to find?



This from wiki

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

The first physical evidence relating to Pilate was discovered in 1961, when a block of limestone was found in the Roman theatre at Caesarea Maritima, the capital of the province of Iudaea, bearing a damaged dedication by Pilate of a Tiberieum.[7] This dedication states that he was [...]ECTVS IUDA[...] (usually read as praefectus iudaeae), that is, prefect/governor of Iudaea. The early governors of Iudaea were of prefect rank, the later were of procurator rank, beginning with Cuspius Fadus in 44.

The inscription is currently housed in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, where its Inventory number is AE 1963 no. 104. Dated to 26–37, it was discovered in Caesarea (Israel) by a group led by Antonio Frova.

If we could figure out how to part it again then maybe we would see evidence of chariots etc. Not likely going to happen though.

Another problem is Egypt is notorious for not recording their failures.

They found a ton of people name Moses, Moses was apparently a common name at the time, in their document but they could point to the one the was "The Moses". Again why would they he was born of a Jewish slave, he orphaned and taken in by Egyptian I am not going to say royal family but let say higher ups.

He likely would have been considered Egyptian.

So, these miracles haven't ever happened and won't ever happen. I can really tell you know this by experience. I was merely pointing out that whoever says god "probably" doesn't exist is unlikely to have any good reason for accepting any evidence that he does. In that case, why put the probably? Hoping to fool some people, or even ourselves, into thinking we're "open minded" (whatever that means)? No, no. Brevity is next to godliness. God doesn't exist.

Tell me why it isn't legitimate again? We're not out to find evidence of your conception of God, we're out to provide evidence of theirs - and I believe I pointed out that the two are not the same.

While I agree with you in that I'm not going to be affected by their apologetics to any significant degree, I have no interest in saying they're wrong. If you can be wrong, then there's a possibility of being right. But I don't see that possibility here. Religion is just something people do. If the natural design of the world is evidence of their God, then fine, it's evidence. It doesn't force me to believe as they do any more than peer pressure "forces" you to do stupid things, or the English language "forces" you to use proper grammar.

i guess it comes down to people feeling that being agnostic is intellectually superior to being atheists.

so "probably" makes them feel as if there is room for the possibility of some kind of god existing in some way.

did i erase the part where i said that i dont care what they consider true or proof as long as they dont insist that i have to go along with it?

Another thing comes to mind. I tell this to people at work all the time. If we knew what we were looking for then we might have greater success in finding said evidence.

Well said. Does Pontius Pilate count? He was out side the church I would say. I believe he did send a report back. I of course do not have a copy of that document. From what you are writing it looks like you want an eye witness account? That is tough evidence to come by.

Generally you have to understand the culture we are talking about. We are talking about a people that were largely shepherds. They were a very nomadic people. They record very little. The other complication is that they have been destroyed, conquered, burned to the ground, they were all pretty much taken away into captivity by at least 2 different people.

Again just generally I watched the series the Bible revealed just because there is not evidence that the Exodus took place does not mean that it didn't happen. if there were it would likely be at the bottom of the Red Sea difficult to recover if not impossible.

The one research kind of summed it up. "We see no evidence that the Red Sea parted" and what evidence did you hope to find?



This from wiki

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

The first physical evidence relating to Pilate was discovered in 1961, when a block of limestone was found in the Roman theatre at Caesarea Maritima, the capital of the province of Iudaea, bearing a damaged dedication by Pilate of a Tiberieum.[7] This dedication states that he was [...]ECTVS IUDA[...] (usually read as praefectus iudaeae), that is, prefect/governor of Iudaea. The early governors of Iudaea were of prefect rank, the later were of procurator rank, beginning with Cuspius Fadus in 44.

The inscription is currently housed in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, where its Inventory number is AE 1963 no. 104. Dated to 26–37, it was discovered in Caesarea (Israel) by a group led by Antonio Frova.
if there is some document somewhere from pilate reporting about the crucifixion, by all means POST IT.

if you cant find it, its because it doesnt exist. it would be the most important non biblical document in all christendom. it it existed everyone would know about it.

Another thing comes to mind. I tell this to people at work all the time. If we knew what we were looking for then we might have greater success in finding said evidence.
isnt that the problem? we feel that there must be some kind of god-being out there but we have no idea of what that would be. everything we have been TOLD about this god guy is untrue.

try finding a source for these names and some history of their lives some day.

when you do, report back on what you have discovered.

They do know where they are buried. Maybe our friends in Iran will help us out on this, what do you think?


Marco Polo claimed that he was shown the three tombs of the Magi at Saveh south of Tehran in the 1270s:

In Persia is the city of Saba, from which the Three Magi set out and in this city they are buried, in three very large and beautiful monuments, side by side. And above them there is a square building, beautifully kept. The bodies are still entire, with hair and beard remaining.[20]

A Shrine of the Three Kings at Cologne Cathedral, according to tradition, contains the bones of the Three Wise Men. Reputedly they were first discovered by Saint Helena on her famous pilgrimage to Palestine and the Holy Lands. She took the remains to the church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople; they were later moved to Milan (some sources say by the city's bishop, Eustorgius I[21]), before being sent to their current resting place by the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I in AD 1164. The Milanese celebrate their part in the tradition by holding a medieval costume parade every 6 January.

A version of the detailed elaboration familiar to us is laid out by the 14th century cleric John of Hildesheim's Historia Trium Regum ("History of the Three Kings"). In accounting for the presence in Cologne of their mummified relics, he begins with the journey of Helena, mother of Constantine I to Jerusalem, where she recovered the True Cross and other relics:

Queen Helen… began to think greatly of the bodies of these three kings, and she arrayed herself, and accompanied by many attendants, went into the Land of Ind… after she had found the bodies of Melchior, Balthazar, and Gaspar, Queen Helen put them into one chest and ornamented it with great riches, and she brought them into Constantinople… and laid them in a church that is called Saint Sophia



I do have the same problems as some of you.



Why couldn't the Bible be originally written in English? No offense but Hebrew is so limited a language it doesn't translate well to any other language

There were 150 authors of the Bible. While does seem to flow pretty well. It causes doubt. There was something like 1000 years from the beginning of the Bible to the last rendition.

Why did they have to write in parables? Why can't you just come out say. Do this, don't do that. Live like this, work like this, pray like this, go to school like this, love like this. Like an instruction manual on how to get to Heaven.


The first problem is trying to use the Bible as a history book. It has elements of history but is not really a history book. It is book on how to live your life and get the most enjoyment. It is fairly straight forward on what the rules are.

isnt that the problem? we feel that there must be some kind of god-being out there but we have no idea of what that would be. everything we have been TOLD about this god guy is untrue.

How so?

Why couldn't the Bible be originally written in English? No offense but Hebrew is so limited a language it doesn't translate well to any other language

*head explodes*

They do know where they are buried. Maybe our friends in Iran will help us out on this, what do you think?


Marco Polo claimed that he was shown the three tombs of the Magi at Saveh south of Tehran in the 1270s:

In Persia is the city of Saba, from which the Three Magi set out and in this city they are buried, in three very large and beautiful monuments, side by side. And above them there is a square building, beautifully kept. The bodies are still entire, with hair and beard remaining.[20]

A Shrine of the Three Kings at Cologne Cathedral, according to tradition, contains the bones of the Three Wise Men. Reputedly they were first discovered by Saint Helena on her famous pilgrimage to Palestine and the Holy Lands. She took the remains to the church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople; they were later moved to Milan (some sources say by the city's bishop, Eustorgius I[21]), before being sent to their current resting place by the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I in AD 1164. The Milanese celebrate their part in the tradition by holding a medieval costume parade every 6 January.

A version of the detailed elaboration familiar to us is laid out by the 14th century cleric John of Hildesheim's Historia Trium Regum ("History of the Three Kings"). In accounting for the presence in Cologne of their mummified relics, he begins with the journey of Helena, mother of Constantine I to Jerusalem, where she recovered the True Cross and other relics:

Queen Helen… began to think greatly of the bodies of these three kings, and she arrayed herself, and accompanied by many attendants, went into the Land of Ind… after she had found the bodies of Melchior, Balthazar, and Gaspar, Queen Helen put them into one chest and ornamented it with great riches, and she brought them into Constantinople… and laid them in a church that is called Saint Sophia



I do have the same problems as some of you.



Why couldn't the Bible be originally written in English? No offense but Hebrew is so limited a language it doesn't translate well to any other language

There were 150 authors of the Bible. While does seem to flow pretty well. It causes doubt. There was something like 1000 years from the beginning of the Bible to the last rendition.

Why did they have to write in parables? Why can't you just come out say. Do this, don't do that. Live like this, work like this, pray like this, go to school like this, love like this. Like an instruction manual on how to get to Heaven.


The first problem is trying to use the Bible as a history book. It has elements of history but is not really a history book. It is book on how to live your life and get the most enjoyment. It is fairly straight forward on what the rules are.
no no no

not evidence that someone later believed that they existed. millions of people today believe that they exist. it means nothing.

evidence that they existed AT THE TIME. that the names werent just made up at a later date. that anything about them (even the scant info in the bible) wasnt made up by some believer later on.

believing that any of those things are proof of anything about the magi is rather like believing that the crusaders really did bring back pieces of the true cross.

By the way I just want say Ashmoria and Grave N Idle are awesome to talk to. Kudos to both of you. You can't talk about this stuff anywhere else.

How so?
how so what?

no no no

not evidence that someone later believed that they existed. millions of people today believe that they exist. it means nothing.

evidence that they existed AT THE TIME. that the names werent just made up at a later date. that anything about them (even the scant info in the bible) wasnt made up by some believer later on.

believing that any of those things are proof of anything about the magi is rather like believing that the crusaders really did bring back pieces of the true cross.

We see statues of Buddha does that mean he didn't exist either. We are all just made up? We are just figment of each other's imagination.


I think what you are refering to is Doubt. Is there room for Doubt? Unquestionably there is tons of room. The bad guys want it that way.

Think about just for a moment. Let suppose you play for the other team. You know the one who were kicked out what would you do?

First discredit the Bible.

Make a whole bunch of Different religions so people get confused. Islam, Judaism, Christian, Buddha, Hindu

Make several versions of Bibles King james, Good News

Create division and discord within the church. Eastern Orthodox vs. Roman Catholic, Roman Catholic Vs. Protestant, then add all the sects. Latter day Saints, Jehovah Witness, Jews for Jesus

Make reason the focus. Because it is so difficult to believe and remain faithful with all this evidence.

Really what is wrong with me sleeping with another man's wife?

Why should I have to go to church on Sunday?
I can sleep in and watch cartoon when I wake up.

Why shouldn't be able to date/marry a man?

One little lie won't kill me?

Besides it is easier than telling the truth

It is systematic and it works it is easy to discredit anything. Everything that we are talking about happen so long ago how can we be sure it really happened?


Playing right into their hands.

We see statues of Buddha does that mean he didn't exist either. We are all just made up? We are just figment of each other's imagination.


that there ARE statues of buddha is in no way proof that buddha ever existed. they are only proof of the existence of buddhism.

did buddha really exist? beats me. i have no idea of what issues might be involved, if any.



I think what you are refering to is Doubt. Is there room for Doubt? Unquestionably there is tons of room. The bad guys want it that way.

Think about just for a moment. Let suppose you play for the other team. You know the one who were kicked out what would you do?

First discredit the Bible.

Make a whole bunch of Different religions so people get confused. Islam, Judaism, Christian, Buddha, Hindu

Make several versions of Bibles King james, Good News

Create division and discord within the church. Eastern Orthodox vs. Roman Catholic, Roman Catholic Vs. Protestant, then add all the sects. Latter day Saints, Jehovah Witness, Jews for Jesus

Make reason the focus. Because it is so difficult to believe and remain faithful with all this evidence.

Really what is wrong with me sleeping with another man's wife?

Why should I have to go to church on Sunday?
I can sleep in and watch cartoon when I wake up.

Why shouldn't be able to date/marry a man?

One little lie won't kill me?

Besides it is easier than telling the truth

It is systematic and it works it is easy to discredit anything. Everything that we are talking about happen so long ago how can we be sure it really happened?


Playing right into their hands.

im not sure what point you are making here. but if i were making a point in this vein i would be saying that religion is always a metaphor and not meant to be taken as literal truth. that is as true of the bible as it is of the iliad or the vedas. they are guides for your life, not histories written with modern sensibilities.

Why couldn't the Bible be originally written in English?

...because the bible was written before english existed?

...because the bible was written before english existed?
and what should that matter to god?

Why couldn't the Bible be originally written in English? No offense but Hebrew is so limited a language it doesn't translate well to any other language

Same is true for English. If God wanted a clear and concise document with no room for interpretation, He should have put the knowledge of an exact language into the heads of the writers.

He did not - so apparantly He likes those little theological disputes that often involve bloodshed.

...because the bible was written before english existed?

I know just wishful thinking on my part. Even Greek would be better. just about any other society at the time would been a better choice and we may have had record.

Same is true for English. If God wanted a clear and concise document with no room for interpretation, He should have put the knowledge of an exact language into the heads of the writers.

He did not - so apparantly He likes those little theological disputes that often involve bloodshed.



He doesn't like them. Humans, as per usual get wrong, misinterpret as we see fit. No where in the Bible does it say

Thou shall kill every sob that doesn't believe what you do. How is it God fault if we get it wrong. Not too mention largely the motives are not even religious but political for lack of better word.

He doesn't like them. Humans, as per usual get wrong, misinterpret as we see fit. No where in the Bible does it say

Thou shall kill every sob that doesn't believe what you do. How is it God fault if we get it wrong. Not too mention largely the motives are not even religious but political for lack of better word.

If he really didnt like it he would have been more clear, to avoid these petty little theological dispute.

I don't assume god can be proved.

An example of you making that assumption:
...we're talking about 'proving' him/her...

Err... actually, even the source you presented doesn't even say that - your source just says it 'opposes' mystical explanations.

An example of you making this very assumption:
And I suspect most people do the same. You don't see rain on your window and immediately assume God sprang a leak, right?

Ah. Like gravity?

Are you suggesting that gravity cannot be studied using the scientific method?

-----------

I would like to clarify something. When I use the word god in my arguments with respect to the underlying assumptions about god, I am discussing the classical model of god, not the god I believe in. if I do otherwise, I try to be as clear a possible about which model of god I am using.

Having said that, the vast majority, perhaps all, of the arguments still stand for both these models of god.

Isnt that the problem? we feel that there must be some kind of god-being out there but we have no idea of what that would be. everything we have been TOLD about this god guy is untrue.


My question was how is that you feel everything you were TOLD about this god guy was untrue? What were you told about this God guy first?

Isnt that the problem? we feel that there must be some kind of god-being out there but we have no idea of what that would be. everything we have been TOLD about this god guy is untrue.


My question was how is that you feel everything you were TOLD about this god guy was untrue? What were you told about this God guy first?

My mother told me the standard Christian tripe. God loves all of us soooo much that he sent his only son, who was perfect, to die horribly for our sins so we can go to heaven if we believe in him.

Futher research on my part when I got older showed how absurd such claims were, especially about the perfection and benevolance of this God.

Isnt that the problem? we feel that there must be some kind of god-being out there but we have no idea of what that would be. everything we have been TOLD about this god guy is untrue.


My question was how is that you feel everything you were TOLD about this god guy was untrue? What were you told about this God guy first?
in our case (assuming you to be a christian) its the bible.

virtually nothing beyond the most general of facts--there was an egypt, there was a rome--is factually true.

and what should that matter to god?

..because he would have created english along with the bible?

..because he would have created english along with the bible?
its not beyond his abilities.

granted that it would have been rather inconvenient to have his holy word written in a language that no one understood.

but since he was quite willing to do so with the golden plates of mormonism....

that there ARE statues of buddha is in no way proof that buddha ever existed. they are only proof of the existence of buddhism.

did buddha really exist? beats me. i have no idea of what issues might be involved, if any.




im not sure what point you are making here. but if i were making a point in this vein i would be saying that religion is always a metaphor and not meant to be taken as literal truth. that is as true of the bible as it is of the iliad or the vedas. they are guides for your life, not histories written with modern sensibilities.

Well said I can't even add to this.

The earth is a battle ground for hearts and minds. Jesus was extremely unpopular in his time. He went against the grain. He told a lot of people what they didn't want to hear. They all got together and had him killed.

Getting into heaven is not about:

What you eat - Eat whatever you like it makes no difference
What you wear - you could add circumcision in this group

Everything they thought they knew they got wrong

Sabbath - You don't do work on the Sabbath, Jesus said it is okay to do Good Works anytime.

He made very clear he was not taking away or adding anything to the 10 commandments

They all can be boiled down into 2 laws

Love god

and

Treat you neighbor as you would yourself

Jesus had some excellent teachings.

Store up your treasures in heaven where moths and thieves can't get to them

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."
But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.

Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he?
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!

Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits.

that there ARE statues of buddha is in no way proof that buddha ever existed.

We have bits of his body though. Just like we have bits of Mohammed (as well as quite a few direct descendants - he kept quite busy) and bits of L Ron Hubbard. The amount of evidence for these "prophets" having existed in the flesh is quite sufficient.

Of course, that they were real men does not mean they were truly relaying messages from higher powers.

Unfortunately we have no parts of Jesus, except for those claims of churches that they owned "the holy foreskin" and "the holy umbilical cord" in the past but regretfully misplaced them. He also does not seem to have sired any children, despite novels to the contrary.

Getting into heaven is not about:

What you eat - Eat whatever you like it makes no difference
What you wear - you could add circumcision in this group

Everything they thought they knew they got wrong

Sabbath - You don't do work on the Sabbath, Jesus said it is okay to do Good Works anytime.


So, all those dietary restrictions, the over 600 other commandments...where did they get those from?

Love god


I am sorry, but I am bad at obeying "love me" orders :(

If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.


Okay, practice what you preach then. I ask you to give $20 to St. Jude's Children's hospital in the name of Nationstates.

I also force you to go miles to my house and mow my law.

I also want your shirt, and the computer you're typing on.

If you can preach it, you can live it...can't you?

Unfortunately we have no parts of Jesus, except for those claims of churches that they owned "the holy foreskin" and "the holy umbilical cord" in the past but regretfully misplaced them. He also does not seem to have sired any children, despite novels to the contrary.

Somebody out there claims they had...God's Schmuck?

Well said I can't even add to this.

The earth is a battle ground for hearts and minds. Jesus was extremely unpopular in his time. He went against the grain. He told a lot of people what they didn't want to hear. They all got together and had him killed.

Getting into heaven is not about:

What you eat - Eat whatever you like it makes no difference
What you wear - you could add circumcision in this group

Everything they thought they knew they got wrong

Sabbath - You don't do work on the Sabbath, Jesus said it is okay to do Good Works anytime.

He made very clear he was not taking away or adding anything to the 10 commandments

They all can be boiled down into 2 laws

Love god

and

Treat you neighbor as you would yourself

First of all, everyone is reincarnated eventually. Everyone. You merely get an intermission between lives (which will be several hundred years of happiness for people like Gandhi, and several hundred years of torment for people like Hitler).

Second of all, the quality of the intermission depends on whether you're a good person or a bad person, and the length determines how good/evil you are. Someone who's kind and atheist will have a happier intermission than someone who follows the ten commandments but is also a major jerk.

Somebody out there claims they had...God's Schmuck?

Quite a few Churches in fact. Sometimes two at the same time (which raises interesting questions about Jesus' anatomy :))

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

We have bits of his body though. Just like we have bits of Mohammed (as well as quite a few direct descendants - he kept quite busy) and bits of L Ron Hubbard. The amount of evidence for these "prophets" having existed in the flesh is quite sufficient.

Of course, that they were real men does not mean they were truly relaying messages from higher powers.

Unfortunately we have no parts of Jesus, except for those claims of churches that they owned "the holy foreskin" and "the holy umbilical cord" in the past but regretfully misplaced them. He also does not seem to have sired any children, despite novels to the contrary.
are you sure they are really bits of buddhas body?

not that i know anything about it.

i DO know that there are traditional stories about the birth of buddha that are factually untrue. but i think that they are local traditions not part of the generally accepted as true stuff.

are you sure they are really bits of buddhas body?

Not entirely, no - one can never be. However, they have been named as such consistently in the past few thousand years. Considering he also had a social position of some import (son of a princess) instead of an easily overlooked one (son of a carpenter) he probably lived.

Of course, as said, that says nothing about the validity of his teachings nor of the more.. how shall I say... fantastic claims about his life.

Not entirely, no - one can never be. However, they have been named as such consistently in the past few thousand years. Considering he also had a social position of some import (son of a princess) instead of an easily overlooked one (son of a carpenter) he probably lived.

Of course, as said, that says nothing about the validity of his teachings nor of the more.. how shall I say... fantastic claims about his life.
ive never looked into the validity of the life of buddha.

but as buddhism has evolved it doesnt much matter whether or not he did. he wasnt a god afterall.

Well said. Does Pontius Pilate count? He was out side the church I would say. I believe he did send a report back. I of course do not have a copy of that document. From what you are writing it looks like you want an eye witness account? That is tough evidence to come by.

Generally you have to understand the culture we are talking about. We are talking about a people that were largely shepherds. They were a very nomadic people. They record very little. The other complication is that they have been destroyed, conquered, burned to the ground, they were all pretty much taken away into captivity by at least 2 different people.

Again just generally I watched the series the Bible revealed just because there is not evidence that the Exodus took place does not mean that it didn't happen. if there were it would likely be at the bottom of the Red Sea difficult to recover if not impossible.

The one research kind of summed it up. "We see no evidence that the Red Sea parted" and what evidence did you hope to find?



This from wiki

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

The first physical evidence relating to Pilate was discovered in 1961, when a block of limestone was found in the Roman theatre at Caesarea Maritima, the capital of the province of Iudaea, bearing a damaged dedication by Pilate of a Tiberieum.[7] This dedication states that he was [...]ECTVS IUDA[...] (usually read as praefectus iudaeae), that is, prefect/governor of Iudaea. The early governors of Iudaea were of prefect rank, the later were of procurator rank, beginning with Cuspius Fadus in 44.

The inscription is currently housed in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, where its Inventory number is AE 1963 no. 104. Dated to 26–37, it was discovered in Caesarea (Israel) by a group led by Antonio Frova.

Pontius Pilate doesn't count because there is no good evidence that he ever wrote anything about the issue. There are CLAIMS he wrote things - but no documents exist now. And one set of 'Pilate' documents that WERE found... turned out to be 5th century fakes.

So - what was in the Pilate documents, IF they existed? There's just no way to know for sure.

What's all this about nomad culture? Evidence of the historicity of JESUS should be prevalent in the documentation of one of the most convincing examples of NOT being nomadic. Jesus is supposed to have been born under Roman rule, within the sphere of Roman control. Theoretically - someone wandering around raising the dead (not to mention, raising HIMSELF from the dead, later) should be recorded - not by Jews, but in Rome.

If we could figure out how to part it again then maybe we would see evidence of chariots etc. Not likely going to happen though.

Another problem is Egypt is notorious for not recording their failures.

They found a ton of people name Moses, Moses was apparently a common name at the time, in their document but they could point to the one the was "The Moses". Again why would they he was born of a Jewish slave, he orphaned and taken in by Egyptian I am not going to say royal family but let say higher ups.

He likely would have been considered Egyptian.

Where are you getting your information?

Egypt are not 'notorius for not recording their failures'. Egypt are notorious for being almost anally obsessive about recording EVERYTHING.

Moses isn't a common Egyptian name - it's not actually an Egyptian name, at all - it's a fragment. In Egyptian, 'Moses' name (if he existed) would have simply meant 'born' - which is kind of nonsensical.

What WAS common, was the -ms particle appearing in a name context - example Ra-ms (Ramses) basically meaning 'born of Ra'.

Pontius Pilate doesn't count because there is no good evidence that he ever wrote anything about the issue. There are CLAIMS he wrote things - but no documents exist now. And one set of 'Pilate' documents that WERE found... turned out to be 5th century fakes.

So - what was in the Pilate documents, IF they existed? There's just no way to know for sure.

What's all this about nomad culture? Evidence of the historicity of JESUS should be prevalent in the documentation of one of the most convincing examples of NOT being nomadic. Jesus is supposed to have been born under Roman rule, within the sphere of Roman control. Theoretically - someone wandering around raising the dead (not to mention, raising HIMSELF from the dead, later) should be recorded - not by Jews, but in Rome.



You are correct but keep in mind they were out the outskirts of the empire. If it had of happened in Rome yes it would have been recorded. They may have heard rumor back home but that is about it.

Jews to this day down play the whole event, it almost never happened, they will grudgingly admit he was a man and his approximate time of birth but that is it.

He was an outcast, a criminal to them. He was stirring up the people, a rebel.

Those were the trumped up charges they put against him. King of the Jews. That he was encouraging the people not to pay taxes which was against the law.

Pilot even said I can find no fault with this man why would you have me kill him? You know everyone today wants to save him, to somehow go back and undo this deed. The whole purpose was he was suppose to die. He sacrificed himself for us. Self-sacrifice that is what the story is about. He loved us more than he loved himself.

They do know where they are buried. Maybe our friends in Iran will help us out on this, what do you think?


We 'know where they are buried'... but we don't really. We have a story where certain traditions say certain things. We don't really KNOW a whole lot.


Why couldn't the Bible be originally written in English?


Because it was written by Jews?


No offense but Hebrew is so limited a language it doesn't translate well to any other language


Other way round, actually. Hebrew is not a 'technical' language, like English - so ideas that take pages to explain in English might just be a few words, or even a few characters, in Hebrew.


There were 150 authors of the Bible.


We don't know how many authors there were.


There was something like 1000 years from the beginning of the Bible to the last rendition.


Six or seven hundred years, maybe.... from the time the first books appeared on paper (so to speak) to the canonisation of the collection.


Why did they have to write in parables?


Because the goal is to create a text that is spiritually enlightening, not necessarily technically accurate. A lot of people forget that.


Why can't you just come out say. Do this, don't do that. Live like this, work like this, pray like this, go to school like this, love like this. Like an instruction manual on how to get to Heaven.


Your 'multiple authors' concept accounts for part of this - the Bible isn't ONE set of lessons... it's maybe hundreds of - often contradictory - lessons.


The first problem is trying to use the Bible as a history book. It has elements of history but is not really a history book.


This is very true.


It is book on how to live your life and get the most enjoyment. It is fairly straight forward on what the rules are.

No, it really isn't.

If you look at the text, and find where Jesus actually does his real preaching, you fall back on the Beatitudes. Contrast the lessons of Jesus actually PREACHING, with the lessons surrounding him in NT text... and you'll find theories that basically directly contradict.

Everything I need to know about Jesus I learned from Jesus Christ Superstar

We see statues of Buddha does that mean he didn't exist either. We are all just made up? We are just figment of each other's imagination.


Therein lies the rub - if you're going to say every god EXCEPT Jehovah is imaginary... and everyone ELSE is saying Jehovah is imaginary... how is any one story preferable to any other?


I think what you are refering to is Doubt. Is there room for Doubt? Unquestionably there is tons of room. The bad guys want it that way.


Apparently, so do the 'good guys' - Thomas is the only one allowed to touch the resurrected Jesus... apparently 'doubt' gets you special benefits.


Think about just for a moment. Let suppose you play for the other team. You know the one who were kicked out what would you do?


WHat would I do? I'd write a book pretending to be god dictating it. That's one of my problems with the idea of the 'divine inspiration' of the Bible... why take it for granted, when 'the other side' would do EXACTLY the same thing?


First discredit the Bible.

Make a whole bunch of Different religions so people get confused. Islam, Judaism, Christian, Buddha, Hindu


Make a whole bunch AFTER you discredit the bible? There were multitudes of religions BEFORE the bible was even written.


Really what is wrong with me sleeping with another man's wife?


Property.


One little lie won't kill me?

Besides it is easier than telling the truth


And, according to the Bible, it's okay.

Okay, practice what you preach then. I ask you to give $20 to St. Jude's Children's hospital in the name of Nationstates.

I also force you to go miles to my house and mow my law.

I also want your shirt, and the computer you're typing on.

If you can preach it, you can live it...can't you?

I give regularly to Saint Jude's I am not sure how you do it for Nationstates?


I don't know where your house is? Westchester somewhere it rumored. Your brother was making trouble for a strip club that wanted to open up shop near his house. He threatened to expose anyone who went there to the newspaper.


You can have my shirt and my coat. I need my computer for work. :)

An example of you making that assumption:


That doesn't show what you think it shows.

I make no assumptions about proving god, because it is irrelevent to me. Don't confuse my talking 'within the assumptions of the debate'... for me assuming anything, myself.


Are you suggesting that gravity cannot be studied using the scientific method?


It can't be studied directly.

I give regularly to Saint Jude's I am not sure how you do it for Nationstates?


I don't know where your house is? Westchester somewhere it rumored. Your brother was making trouble for a strip club that wanted to open up shop near his house. He threatened to expose anyone who went there to the newspaper.


You can have my shirt and my coat. I need my computer for work. :)

3rd Option under "Donate Now", "Donate for someone special", just put in the name nationstates and get your receipt.

Give your shirt and coat to charity, get a receipt.

Sell your computer, give it to the poor, get a receipt.

There are lots of jobs where you don't need a computer.

By the way, when you said earlier the Jews had it all "wrong" about food restrictions, etc, where do you suppose they got those restrictions and rules from?

You are correct but keep in mind they were out the outskirts of the empire. If it had of happened in Rome yes it would have been recorded. They may have heard rumor back home but that is about it.


A bit more than a rumour. If someone is walking around Roman occupations literally raising people from the dead - that should be getting some mention... somewhere.


Jews to this day down play the whole event, it almost never happened, they will grudgingly admit he was a man and his approximate time of birth but that is it.


Maybe Jews aren't 'playing the events down'... maybe the events just didn't happen... and the Bible writers are 'playing the events UP'.


He was an outcast, a criminal to them. He was stirring up the people, a rebel.


Worse than that - IF Jesus was real, the fact that he taught versions of the law that were different to the Tanakh teachings, would have made him a 'false prophet'. 'Outcast' and 'criminal' are nothing compared to that.


Those were the trumped up charges they put against him. King of the Jews. That he was encouraging the people not to pay taxes which was against the law.

Pilot even said I can find no fault with this man why would you have me kill him?


Which is more of a reason to doubt - Jesus' crimes would have been religious crimes, and Pilate wouldn't have pressed Hebrew holy law.


You know everyone today wants to save him, to somehow go back and undo this deed. The whole purpose was he was suppose to die. He sacrificed himself for us. Self-sacrifice that is what the story is about. He loved us more than he loved himself.

That's not the point of the story. Self-sacrifice is actually irrelevent. What is important is supposed to be the lack of a sin nature of the sacrifice.

We 'know where they are buried'... but we don't really. We have a story where certain traditions say certain things. We don't really KNOW a whole lot.



Because it was written by Jews?



Other way round, actually. Hebrew is not a 'technical' language, like English - so ideas that take pages to explain in English might just be a few words, or even a few characters, in Hebrew.



We don't know how many authors there were.



Six or seven hundred years, maybe.... from the time the first books appeared on paper (so to speak) to the canonisation of the collection.



Because the goal is to create a text that is spiritually enlightening, not necessarily technically accurate. A lot of people forget that.



Your 'multiple authors' concept accounts for part of this - the Bible isn't ONE set of lessons... it's maybe hundreds of - often contradictory - lessons.



This is very true.



No, it really isn't.

If you look at the text, and find where Jesus actually does his real preaching, you fall back on the Beatitudes. Contrast the lessons of Jesus actually PREACHING, with the lessons surrounding him in NT text... and you'll find theories that basically directly contradict.


This what I was trying to get to all along what was contradictory in your mind?


Okay 600 years I was ball parking

Yeah like Sons of God and Daughters of man? Why couldn't they just say angels. Yes we get it, they were acting outside of Divine Guidance.

Well said

Because the goal is to create a text that is spiritually enlightening, not necessarily technically accurate. A lot of people forget that.


Can you even find evidence that Egypt was conquered several times by several different people. We see pictures of the "Sea People" could be Philistines could be anyone really where did they come from? Who knows?

We know from other cultures that this was the case. Rome for one.

With regard to Exodus they took pretty much everything that wasn't nailed down when they left.

About the closest we can get is King David and only from scraps of stone with his name Chiseled into the rock.

http://bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm

Just to be clear I do have trouble with credibility of some of this stuff.


If the Hebrews lived in Goshen or thereabouts, they would have been using Egyptian materials, equipment, etc., thus it would be difficult to prove a different people lived in Egypt. Furthermore, if there were evidence, I would expect a reluctance on the part of the Egyptians to offer opportunities for Jews to look for evidence of their existence in Egypt and their successful exodus.

http://judaism.about.com/od/torah/f/moses_proof.htm

The same would go for poking around for Noah's ark. We don't get co-operation from the local governments. It frustrates everyone.


http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/6562/apologetics/thera.html


So most of these are not my words but words of scholars and other educated people.


Most importantly would be "You have to know what you are looking for" and then maybe you can find it.

How about Egyptian artifacts in the Holy Land? No wait everyone has those.


All through Exodus it calls him Pharaoh couldn't just once you mention his name? Come on pleaseeeeee? Like Ramses or whoever.....


I forgot one other source which has been criticized but I feel is pretty good.

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

Discovery Channel has lot of stuff on the Bible you can find some of it on youtube.

3rd Option under "Donate Now", "Donate for someone special", just put in the name nationstates and get your receipt.

Give your shirt and coat to charity, get a receipt.

Sell your computer, give it to the poor, get a receipt.

There are lots of jobs where you don't need a computer.

By the way, when you said earlier the Jews had it all "wrong" about food restrictions, etc, where do you suppose they got those restrictions and rules from?

For the record I am wearing a blue plaid shirt and AC/DC t-shirt, vintage, For those about to Rock Tour - Done I doubt they will take them but - done. I wear a blue Pea coat similar to what long shore men wear.

20$ works for me. St. Jude's - done Forgot to mention the receipt number.

Your Donation Confirmation # is 617678

There are lots of jobs where you don't need a computer.

Response: I don't have time to learn how to fish, nor do I have a boat. I do have some spare ones (computers) I could give

By the way, when you said earlier the Jews had it all "wrong" about food restrictions, etc, where do you suppose they got those restrictions and rules from?

I know where they got that from but that all changed when Jesus came. Which is why they hated him. He overturned the money changers tables in the temple, also not good for business.


By the way side note for anyone in the USA getting a receipt is hard for this stuff.

A bit more than a rumour. If someone is walking around Roman occupations literally raising people from the dead - that should be getting some mention... somewhere.



Maybe Jews aren't 'playing the events down'... maybe the events just didn't happen... and the Bible writers are 'playing the events UP'.



Worse than that - IF Jesus was real, the fact that he taught versions of the law that were different to the Tanakh teachings, would have made him a 'false prophet'. 'Outcast' and 'criminal' are nothing compared to that.



Which is more of a reason to doubt - Jesus' crimes would have been religious crimes, and Pilate wouldn't have pressed Hebrew holy law.



That's not the point of the story. Self-sacrifice is actually irrelevent. What is important is supposed to be the lack of a sin nature of the sacrifice.



Okay in order Pilot was trying to keep the peace. He was kind of a governor sent into the wilderness much against his own wishes. The actual title was Prefect of Judea. He was trying to prevent an uprising. So they want this guy killed, why? Beats me. Which is why he washed his hands of the whole thing. Of the ordinary people in the Bible I feel some sympathy for him. I hope they had mercy on him he committed suicide.

From wiki on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate

Pilate hesitates to condemn Jesus, but changes his mind when the crowd insists and the Jewish leaders remind him that Jesus's claim to be king is a challenge to Roman authority. However, for fear of an uprising Pilate would have been obliged to give in to the demands of the crowd in order to fulfill his duty thoroughly.


Later down the article

Pilate fell under misfortunes in the reign of Caligula (AD 37–41), was exiled to Gaul and eventually committed suicide there in Vienne.



That's not the point of the story. Self-sacrifice is actually irrelevant. What is important is supposed to be the lack of a sin nature of the sacrifice.[/QUOTE]

That is also true. It doesn't diminish the sacrifice.


With regard to the other stuff even the Jews won't confirm he raised anyone from the dead, healed anyone etc. It runs contrary to their wishes. As with just about everythin else with regard to proof. It is there getting to it that is difficult because of ...

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12.


Like I said before because they want it that way sowing seeds of doubt. You can't attack the message, you can't attack the source, so you attack access to the information.

The hallmark of the weak argument, attack the arguer. Claim that it's a conspiracy, talk about how you're oppressed.

If you can't defend the argument, then it's a shitty argument, that has nothing to do with those that argue against you.

The hallmark of the weak argument, attack the arguer. Claim that it's a conspiracy, talk about how you're oppressed.

If you can't defend the argument, then it's a shitty argument, that has nothing to do with those that argue against you.

I am not sure which side you are arguing for but I agree.

By the way, when you said earlier the Jews had it all "wrong" about food restrictions, etc, where do you suppose they got those restrictions and rules from?

I know where they got that from but that all changed when Jesus came. Which is why they hated him. He overturned the money changers tables in the temple, also not good for business.

So, even by your own premise, they didn't have it wrong. They were given one set of rules, then had the rules changed on them. You're contradicting yourself.

A few things did change for our benefit. By our I mean Gentiles. All the rules changed after Jesus came. You no longer have to make sacrifices either. I guess there was a policy change in heaven?

These are my words not sanctioned by the church but you could be sort of cafeteria and follow both with very little trouble. You would just follow the dietary laws, get circumcised and do no work on Saturday and go to church on Saturday. All of this totally possible.

Eating Kosher is no fun but it is doable. The tough part comes with Jesus himself. He either is or is not the son of god on that you have to make up your own mind. I think he is. You die, you get up to Heaven. You are judged and they tell you. Nope you got it wrong Jesus was not the Messiah.

You say but, but, but....

I guess you would have all that other stuff to fall back on.


If you want to 100% sure become a vegetarian then you are good for at least 3 or 4 the major religions on this planet.

If Buddha was right it doesn't matter because we are all coming back. if the Hindu's are right I personally am screwed because I have no idea what they are about, but I think we are coming back. Make sure you get in the right lineup when you get up there.

So this is something that recently came to me in another discussion in another forum, a long time ago.

One of the Messianic prophecy is that the Messiah would be born into the family of King David. However, if we are to believed that Jesus was born without Joseph's help (since the David bloodline run through his family, not Mary) then wouldn't it be fair to say that Jesus Christ did not come from the David Family bloodline?

You may remember the adverts on busses in the UK saying "There probably is no God"

What's their point? What are they really hoping to accomplish with these ads except kicking up a ruckus? You got nothing better to do, you got to piss in people's cornflakes? It's like those threads you see on here occasionally, those threads that seem to exist only start arguments.

It usually starts off kind of like this: 'Hey, why are (name of group poster dislikes or disagrees with) always (some fill-in-the-blank absurd hyperbole)? Does anybody know what's up with that?' And then somebody else chimes in with 'it's because they're stupid and/or evil' or some other equally well-reasoned argument. Then somebody else says 'oh yeah, well your group does thus-and-so' and 38 pages later, nothing whatsoever has been resolved.

A few things did change for our benefit. By our I mean Gentiles. All the rules changed after Jesus came. You no longer have to make sacrifices either. I guess there was a policy change in heaven?


And this is why Jesus cannot be Messiah.

According to Jewish tradition, Messiah doesn't need to be a prophet (indeed, what he NEEDS to be is a mortal king)... but he certainly CAN'T be a false prophet.

Jesus claimed a change to the rules... thus, he can't be Messiah.

(And that's only one of a whole host of reasons why he can't have been the Messiah the Jews were waiting... and are STILL waiting... for).

So this is something that recently came to me in another discussion in another forum, a long time ago.

One of the Messianic prophecy is that the Messiah would be born into the family of King David. However, if we are to believed that Jesus was born without Joseph's help (since the David bloodline run through his family, not Mary) then wouldn't it be fair to say that Jesus Christ did not come from the David Family bloodline?

It doesn't matter, either way - if it DID trace through Mary, she is a descendent of Jeconiah, and his offspring will NEVER inherit the throne of David.

Another one of the (many) dis-qualifications.

What's their point? What are they really hoping to accomplish with these ads except kicking up a ruckus? You got nothing better to do, you got to piss in people's cornflakes? It's like those threads you see on here occasionally, those threads that seem to exist only start arguments.

It usually starts off kind of like this: 'Hey, why are (name of group poster dislikes or disagrees with) always (some fill-in-the-blank absurd hyperbole)? Does anybody know what's up with that?' And then somebody else chimes in with 'it's because they're stupid and/or evil' or some other equally well-reasoned argument. Then somebody else says 'oh yeah, well your group does thus-and-so' and 38 pages later, nothing whatsoever has been resolved.It's taken you how long to realize this? Don't let it take any longer to realize that this situation isn't changing anytime soon.

So this is something that recently came to me in another discussion in another forum, a long time ago.

One of the Messianic prophecy is that the Messiah would be born into the family of King David. However, if we are to believed that Jesus was born without Joseph's help (since the David bloodline run through his family, not Mary) then wouldn't it be fair to say that Jesus Christ did not come from the David Family bloodline?


Yeah I defer to the Bible on this. I guess Joseph was his earthly father. So did Joseph's blood run through Jesus's veins I guess it did not. You could look at it a sort of an adoption?

On side note how does that work in the Monarchy? If a king or queen was to adopt a son would it be considered his or her blood? I think we are in the right place to ask such a question. Tons of people from the U.K. in here.

Yeah I defer to the Bible on this. I guess Joseph was his earthly father. So did Joseph's blood run through Jesus's veins I guess it did not. You could look at it a sort of an adoption?

On side note how does that work in the Monarchy? If a king or queen was to adopt a son would it be considered his or her blood? I think we are in the right place to ask such a question. Tons of people from the U.K. in here.

Joseph didn't adopt Jesus, did he? And... are you seriously arguing a LEGAL relationship might satisfy the prophecy of Messiah?

It's taken you how long to realize this? Don't let it take any longer to realize that this situation isn't changing anytime soon.

I don't know, it just seems like they could be doing something better with their time and their money. I wish I had so much money I could waste some of it just to piss people off.

Joseph didn't adopt Jesus, did he? And... are you seriously arguing a LEGAL relationship might satisfy the prophecy of Messiah?

I don't know someone else brought up the question. I think it is splitting hairs but ehhh...

let's see born of the House of David - Check
Magi from another religion show up at his birth to worship the new born king. - Check
Turns water into wine - Check
Walks on Water - Check
John the Baptist know who he is before he is introduced - check
Cast out demons left, right and center - Check
Said demons all know him before they are introduced - Check
Cures blindness - Check
Cures the crippled - Check
Brings the dead back to life - Check
Somone touches the hem of his garmet and is cured not even touching him - Check

Feeds 5000 people with 5 fishes and a few loaves of bread - Check
Comes back from the dead - Check

I don't know what more you would need to say this is the one.

No other prophet did such things. He did not change any of the 10 Commandments. What he did change and it may have been for the Gentiles was the customs. Don't eat pigs, shellfish etc. He changed to eat what you like. Don't do any work on the Sabbath. He said you can do good works on the Sabbath. All his apostle knew, all of them changed their lives to serve him and his ministry.

Who else is there.

Buddha? He never said he was to be worshiped
Mohamed? He was a very influential prophet and a great man but not the one
Still to come? maybe but why did the curtain in the temple get torn asunder. I believe the word used was rend. Jesus is the closest we have. If someone comes along and trumps him then fine but until then he seems like the one. Jesus fulfilled each of the signs of the Messiah. He would come into the city riding on a small donkey. He would speak in parable and few would understand him. There were several others I can't recall them off the top of my head.

It is by far the easiest religion on the planet. No food restrictions. You don't have be born into it. The 10 commandments still apply but the boil down into only 2 rules Love God and love your neighbor. You don't have to be circumcised. Worship any day you like but we normally do it on Sunday. Sabbath is now open. Pray in private. Do good works back up your words with deeds. You don't have to journey to the Holy Land (Mecca) or anywhere else. Marry whomever you like in any religion or lack there of. You get all the best holidays. You don't have to buy your seat you can sit anywhere you like. Dress how you like, you do not have to dress up or dress a certain way in public. No turbans, ya mica, no black clothes with large black hats. You can wear you hair as you like. If you make a mistake just ask for forgiveness, no sacrifice is needed. I mean really what could be easier?

If you have ever witness what is done on the Sabbath, it is really weird. You have to be home before Sundown. You are not allowed to turn on a light, drive a car, lift heavy objects, tearing paper is forbidden. There were all these weird rules and Jesus did away with all that.

I don't know someone else brought up the question. I think it is splitting hairs but ehhh...

let's see born of the House of David - Check
Magi from another religion show up at his birth to worship the new born king. - Check
Turns water into wine - Check
Walks on Water - Check
John the Baptist know who he is before he is introduced - check
Cast out demons left, right and center - Check
Said demons all know him before they are introduced - Check
Cures blindness - Check
Cures the crippled - Check
Brings the dead back to life - Check
Somone touches the hem of his garmet and is cured not even touching him - Check

Feeds 5000 people with 5 fishes and a few loaves of bread - Check
Comes back from the dead - Check

I don't know what more you would need to say this is the one.

No other prophet did such things. He did not change any of the 10 Commandments. What he did change and it may have been for the Gentiles was the customs. Don't eat pigs, shellfish etc. He changed to eat what you like. Don't do any work on the Sabbath. He said you can do good works on the Sabbath. All his apostle knew, all of them changed their lives to serve him and his ministry.

Who else is there.

Buddha? He never said he was to be worshiped
Mohamed? He was a very influential prophet and a great man but not the one
Still to come? maybe but why did the curtain in the temple get torn asunder. I believe the word used was rend. Jesus is the closest we have. If someone comes along and trumps him then fine but until then he seems like the one. Jesus fulfilled each of the signs of the Messiah. He would come into the city riding on a small donkey. He would speak in parable and few would understand him. There were several others I can't recall them off the top of my head.
you have missed the point.

you have to discover what the bible says the messiah is supposed to be like and what he is supposed to do.

outside of "be of the house of david" which is problematical because joseph isnt the father of jesus, none of these other things are part of the requirements.

If you have ever witness what is done on the Sabbath, it is really weird. You have to be home before Sundown. You are not allowed to turn on a light, drive a car, lift heavy objects, tearing paper is forbidden. There were all these weird rules and Jesus did away with all that.

Nah, he didn't. Paul did, and long after Jesus was dead. What you are doing is what Paul decided he wanted you to do, Jesus didn't come up any of that stuff.

Nah, he didn't. Paul did, and long after Jesus was dead. What you are doing is what Paul decided he wanted you to do, Jesus didn't come up any of that stuff.
so true.

jesus said he was to enforce the law not change it.

or something like that.

It is by far the easiest religion on the planet. No food restrictions. You don't have be born into it. The 10 commandments still apply but the boil down into only 2 rules Love God and love your neighbor. You don't have to be circumcised. Worship any day you like but we normally do it on Sunday. Sabbath is now open. Pray in private. Do good works back up your words with deeds. You don't have to journey to the Holy Land (Mecca) or anywhere else. Marry whomever you like in any religion or lack there of. You get all the best holidays. You don't have to buy your seat you can sit anywhere you like. Dress how you like, you do not have to dress up or dress a certain way in public. No turbans, ya mica, no black clothes with large black hats. You can wear you hair as you like. If you make a mistake just ask for forgiveness, no sacrifice is needed. I mean really what could be easier?

If you have ever witness what is done on the Sabbath, it is really weird. You have to be home before Sundown. You are not allowed to turn on a light, drive a car, lift heavy objects, tearing paper is forbidden. There were all these weird rules and Jesus did away with all that.

A religion for the lazy? Wow, that sounds so... spiritually fulfilling.

A religion for the lazy? Wow, that sounds so... spiritually fulfilling.

Join us! or, you know, not.

so true.

jesus said he was to enforce the law not change it.

or something like that.

Jesus said it is okay to do Good Works on the Sabbath. The apostles working in Jesus name took away circumcision. See below this is what he was getting rid of.

http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bin/tw/tw-mag.cgi?category=Magazine36&item=1115662605


The Pharisaic tradition, by Jesus’ day, had developed into an array of petty rules having to do with the minutiae of the law. It focused on physical works that had little to do with the spirit and intent of the law—and which, in fact, often violated the law (Matthew 15:1–9; Mark 7:1–13; John 7:19; Galatians 6:13).

The sometimes-absurd contradictions within Pharisaic law are especially apparent in the rules of Sabbath observance. Edersheim writes: "On no other subject is Rabbinic teaching more painfully minute and more manifestly incongruous to its professed object." Edersheim charges the scribes with "terribly exaggerated views on the Sabbath" and "endless burdensome rules with which they encumbered everything connected with its sanctity" (ibid., Book II, 2.52, 2.53). "In not less than twenty-four chapters [of the Mishna], matters are seriously discussed [regarding Sabbath observance] as of vital religious importance, which one would scarcely imagine a sane intellect would seriously entertain." Yet "in all these wearisome details there is not a single trace of anything spiritual—not a word even to suggest higher thoughts on God’s holy day and its observance" (ibid., 2.778–779).

For example, the law included detailed regulations regarding what constituted a "burden" that could not be carried on the Sabbath; for example, pieces of paper, horses hairs, wax, a piece of broken earthenware or animal food. Generally a burden was anything as heavy as a dried fig, or a quantity sufficient to be of any practical use (e.g. a scrap of paper large enough to be converted into a note or a wrapper). It prescribed what might or might not be saved if one’s house caught on fire. Only those clothes that were absolutely necessary could be saved. But one could put on a dress, save it, then go back and put on another. One could not ask a Gentile to extinguish the flames. But if he did so voluntarily, he should not be hindered. One could eat food on the Sabbath lawfully only if it had been specifically prepared for the Sabbath on a weekday. If a laying hen laid an egg on the Sabbath, it could not be eaten. But if the hen had been kept for fattening and not laying, the egg could be eaten, since it would be considered a part of the hen that had fallen off! These regulations considered studying the Mishna on the Sabbath more important than studying the Bible. The Hagiographa (the Old Testament "Writings") were not to be read on the Sabbath except in the evening. And there are many other similar examples.

"In not less than twenty-four chapters [of the Mishna], matters are seriously discussed [regarding Sabbath observance] as of vital religious importance, which one would scarcely imagine a sane intellect would seriously entertain."

Of course. A sane intellect would simply believe that the torturous human blood sacrifice of an ostensibly innocent person is the correct way to deal with wrongdoings.

After all, forgiveness can't happen unless somebody is butchered for it.

Jesus said it is okay to do Good Works on the Sabbath. The apostles working in Jesus name took away circumcision. See below this is what he was getting rid of.

http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bin/tw/tw-mag.cgi?category=Magazine36&item=1115662605


The Pharisaic tradition, by Jesus’ day, had developed into an array of petty rules having to do with the minutiae of the law. It focused on physical works that had little to do with the spirit and intent of the law—and which, in fact, often violated the law (Matthew 15:1–9; Mark 7:1–13; John 7:19; Galatians 6:13).

The sometimes-absurd contradictions within Pharisaic law are especially apparent in the rules of Sabbath observance. Edersheim writes: "On no other subject is Rabbinic teaching more painfully minute and more manifestly incongruous to its professed object." Edersheim charges the scribes with "terribly exaggerated views on the Sabbath" and "endless burdensome rules with which they encumbered everything connected with its sanctity" (ibid., Book II, 2.52, 2.53). "In not less than twenty-four chapters [of the Mishna], matters are seriously discussed [regarding Sabbath observance] as of vital religious importance, which one would scarcely imagine a sane intellect would seriously entertain." Yet "in all these wearisome details there is not a single trace of anything spiritual—not a word even to suggest higher thoughts on God’s holy day and its observance" (ibid., 2.778–779).

For example, the law included detailed regulations regarding what constituted a "burden" that could not be carried on the Sabbath; for example, pieces of paper, horses hairs, wax, a piece of broken earthenware or animal food. Generally a burden was anything as heavy as a dried fig, or a quantity sufficient to be of any practical use (e.g. a scrap of paper large enough to be converted into a note or a wrapper). It prescribed what might or might not be saved if one’s house caught on fire. Only those clothes that were absolutely necessary could be saved. But one could put on a dress, save it, then go back and put on another. One could not ask a Gentile to extinguish the flames. But if he did so voluntarily, he should not be hindered. One could eat food on the Sabbath lawfully only if it had been specifically prepared for the Sabbath on a weekday. If a laying hen laid an egg on the Sabbath, it could not be eaten. But if the hen had been kept for fattening and not laying, the egg could be eaten, since it would be considered a part of the hen that had fallen off! These regulations considered studying the Mishna on the Sabbath more important than studying the Bible. The Hagiographa (the Old Testament "Writings") were not to be read on the Sabbath except in the evening. And there are many other similar examples.
jesus DID good works on the sabbath.

but that is not the same as saying that kosher laws and sabbath rules no longer apply.

he said he was here to uphold all the rules not to change them. surely you know that verse. id hate to have to find it on my own.

jesus DID good works on the sabbath.

but that is not the same as saying that kosher laws and sabbath rules no longer apply.

he said he was here to uphold all the rules not to change them. surely you know that verse. id hate to have to find it on my own.

He didn't change the 10 Commandments.


The sacrifices were animals and birds never humans. That will certainly get you smitted.

Jesus says he comes not to abolish but to fulfill "the law and the prophets". What laws and prophets was Jesus referring to? Jesus defines "the law and the prophets" in Matthew 7:12:


It is clearly stated when a Pharisee asks Jesus about which commandment in the law is the greatest (22:36):37 He said "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS HANG ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS."

These are the "you have heard it said..but I say unto you..." In six cases of important issues of Mosaic Law, Jesus dares to contrast his word with God's words. Even more startling, in three cases, on divorce, oaths and vows, and retaliation, Jesus revokes the letter of the Law and replaces it with his own diametrically opposed commands. Immediately after having said he has come to fulfill the scriptures, Jesus sets aside some of them! Apparently the process of "fulfillment of scriptures" includes alterations. In all six antithesis, Jesus applies the Golden Rule to make his alterations of scripture. In the last one, Jesus turns the laws of retaliation upside down and stresses loving even your enemy and doing good.

The sacrifices were animals and birds never humans. That will certainly get you smitted.

Right. Of course. Anybody who arranged for a human to be sacrificed for sins, instead of an animal, would deserve to be "smitted".

Only sacrifice animals, like, say, lambs. Not humans. Human sacrifice has no place in Christianity. Right.

He didn't change the 10 Commandments.


The sacrifices were animals and birds never humans. That will certainly get you smitted.

Jesus says he comes not to abolish but to fulfill "the law and the prophets". What laws and prophets was Jesus referring to? Jesus defines "the law and the prophets" in Matthew 7:12:


It is clearly stated when a Pharisee asks Jesus about which commandment in the law is the greatest (22:36):37 He said "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS HANG ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS."

These are the "you have heard it said..but I say unto you..." In six cases of important issues of Mosaic Law, Jesus dares to contrast his word with God's words. Even more startling, in three cases, on divorce, oaths and vows, and retaliation, Jesus revokes the letter of the Law and replaces it with his own diametrically opposed commands. Immediately after having said he has come to fulfill the scriptures, Jesus sets aside some of them! Apparently the process of "fulfillment of scriptures" includes alterations. In all six antithesis, Jesus applies the Golden Rule to make his alterations of scripture. In the last one, Jesus turns the laws of retaliation upside down and stresses loving even your enemy and doing good.
that seems a stretch to me.

he said that they are the greatest commandments but not the ONLY ones.

Right. Of course. Anybody who arranged for a human to be sacrificed for sins, instead of an animal, would deserve to be "smitted".

Only sacrifice animals, like, say, lambs. Not humans. Human sacrifice has no place in Christianity. Right.

With the possible exception of Jesus. Yes true for ordinary humans.

A better way to view this is he clarified the law. He fulfilled both the intent and the letter of the law. He did modify some, abolish others.


He got rid of the ones that served no spiritual purpose. My words not his. Why were they there in the first place? I don't know you will have to ask him when you meet him. I am inclined to believe that those were suggested ways of living not really meant to be law with regard to Kosher.

God was quite clear the penalty for working on the Sabbath. First was Jesus working in Healing the sick...not really. The Apostles took the rest and ran wth it.

With the possible exception of Jesus. Yes true for ordinary humans.

The...possible...exception of Jesus.

The central premise of the Christian religion.

Yes, other than that, there isn't any human blood sacrifice in the Christian Religion. Other than the entire basis of it.

I'm very close to calling Poe.

A better way to view this is he clarified the law. He fulfilled both the intent and the letter of the law. He did modify some, abolish others.

So, you've gone from "he didn't change it" to "he did modify some, abolish others".


He got rid of the ones that served no spiritual purpose. My words not his. Why were they there in the first place? I don't know you will have to ask him when you meet him. I am inclined to believe that those were suggested ways of living not really meant to be law with regard to Kosher.

God was quite clear the penalty for working on the Sabbath. First was Jesus working in Healing the sick...not really. The Apostles took the rest and ran wth it.

So, the laws that were delivered to the Israelites by God, according to the bible that you believe proves who jesus is, served no spiritual purpose. You're inclined to believe they were just suggestions.

I think you're taking some, leaving others, and running in circles.

The...possible...exception of Jesus.

The central premise of the Christian religion.

Yes, other than that, there isn't any human blood sacrifice in the Christian Religion. Other than the entire basis of it.

I'm very close to calling Poe.
while youre talking to him could you ask him to shut that damned raven up? its keeping me awake.

I know he is going to hit me with Abraham asked to sacrifice his son. It was test. Just see if he would do it? If you really thought he was going to make him kill the son that he gave him in thefirst place you have been reading carefully, that is not how he works.

He tests all of us, everyday. He doesn't test you with more than you can bear.

Jews to this day down play the whole event, it almost never happened, they will grudgingly admit he was a man and his approximate time of birth but that is it.

The Romans took a Jewish prophet, called him their own, and the resulting West has used him to persecute the Jews through the millenia. This farcical idea that Pilate was somehow innocent, as though the Romans were the blessed, history is written by the winners I guess.

How Christians have the temerity to act as though the Jewish faith is theirs to discuss and patronise I'm not sure.

Why not go take Mohammed as well, paint him white and have him born on Christmas Day?

I don't know how they sleep at night.

while youre talking to him could you ask him to shut that damned raven up? its keeping me awake.

It was the first one out of the ark the raven. It never came back. i think ravens work for the other team.

I know he is going to hit me with Abraham asked to sacrifice his son. It was test. Just see if he would do it? If you really thought he was going to make him kill the son that he gave him in thefirst place you have been reading carefully, that is not how he works.

So, when somebody mentions the human blood sacrifice of an ostensibly innocent human for the remission of sin...you "know" I must be referring to...Abraham sacrificing Isaac?

That's who you think of?

Human blood sacrifice, to appease God, death of an innocent man to achieve forgiveness...and, to you, that says "Abraham and Isaac".

And you're hear to share with us all about Christianity, right?


He tests all of us, everyday. He doesn't test you with more than you can bear.

Of course not. That's why he doesn't test some people on the fundamental premise of their own claimed theology.

Okay, Poe. Fess up.

It was the first one out of the ark the raven. It never came back. i think ravens work for the other team.
hence the constant squawking! its making me mad, i tell ya, mad... its starting to sound like a beating heart!

It was the first one out of the ark the raven. It never came back. i think ravens work for the other team.

Okay, that's it. I call Poe.

Okay, that's it. I call Poe.
what?

youre getting grumpy.

It is a question of the deepest interest, how Christians have been able to maintain two parallel but entirely contradictory attitudes to Jews. The one, as described above, the effect of which has been to remove Jews from the sphere of the human altogether. The other, full of piety and respect, expressed in reverence for the Jewish Bible, in tender pilgrimages to the Jewish places of Jesus's birth and upbringing, and even, in some quarters, in the fond adoption of Old Testament names for their offspring. The mind is a wonderful thing, capable (when it chooses) of entertaining apparently irreconcilable emotions. In this case, it is as though Christians simultaneously know and don't know that Jesus was Jewish, but in order for the not knowing to win supremacy over the knowing they have had to do mental violence to themselves, of which the collateral victims have been the Jews.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/09/christianity-judaism)

The Romans took a Jewish prophet, called him their own, and the resulting West has used him to persecute the Jews through the millenia.

How Christians have the temerity to act as though the Jewish faith is theirs to discuss and patronise I'm not sure.

Why not go take Mohammed as well, paint him white and have him born on Christmas Day?

I don't know how they sleep at night.



Now, now we are getting to it. Jesus was a Jew. He came to save the jewish people he says so frequently. I can't speak to Mohammed. From what I have heard I think he was a good man. I personally have nothing against any religion.

Rome tried furiously to stamp Christians out. Remember? I have to admit Jews have had more than their fair share of hardship. I personally thank them. I don't know the reasoning behind that. I can tell you it did not come from the Bible.

Rome tried furiously to stamp Christians out. Remember?

Only before they co-opted it and made it their own, revising history to make the Romans look good and the Jews look bad.

As did the exculpation of his moral counterpart, Pontius Pilate. In proportion as the name of Judas sank, so did that of Pilate rise. Though a governor of bloody reputation, Pilate was turned by stages into a man of sorrowing conscience. It was the "Jews" who called for Jesus's destruction - though there was scant reason for them to do so - while Pilate washed his hands. In this way, though the crucifixion will come to be susceptible to the most subtle and sublime theological interpretations, the events leading up to it take on the melodramatic qualities of pantomime - good versus evil, the material versus the spiritual, the innocent gentile world versus the perfidious Jewish one.

All this blather about the saintly Jesus and his wonders, spoken as though 'gospel' just tends to show that Christians are as ignorant of their religion as any other, parroting the twisted lies of the NT.

...and it leads to the OP, no God as described can exist as written by humans, manipulated for political ends.

Perhaps there's a higher being, that much we can only speculate, that's it.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/09/christianity-judaism)



You nailed it. Those were all human deeds. Humans get it wrong. Time and time again. No where did God say force the Jews to convert that was us. No where did God says it is okay to have Pogroms. Nowhere did God say it is okay to build concentration camps. Those were twisted humans. The goes for the Inquisition all of that.

Now, now we are getting to it. Jesus was a Jew. He came to save the jewish people he says so frequently. I can't speak to Mohammed. From what I have heard I think he was a good man. I personally have nothing against any religion.

Ah, to save the Jews, or "perfect" them as Ann Coulter says. Certainly there can be no salvation in their own religion. Its tenets need to be "altered and abolished" as you put it. Only Christianity can save the Jews.


Rome tried furiously to stamp Christians out. Remember? I have to admit Jews have had more than their fair share of hardship. I personally thank them. I don't know the reasoning behind that. I can tell you it did not come from the Bible.

Right, because nowhere in the Bible are the Jews put through hardship and tribulation by God.

I'm grumpy and you're a Poe.

Only before they co-opted it and made it their own, revising history to make the Romans look good and the Jews look bad.



All this blather about the saintly Jesus and his wonders, spoken as though 'gospel' just tends to show that Christians are as ignorant of their religion as any other, parroting the twisted lies of the NT.

...and it leads to the OP, no God as described can exist as written by humans, manipulated for political ends.

Perhaps there's a higher being, that much we can only speculate, that's it.


Why would Romans even care about Jesus. They had enough trouble of their own. All they cared about was taxes anything that interferes with that is going to get hit. Pilot was a mean, cruel guy and was transferred because of it.

Ah, to save the Jews, or "perfect" them as Ann Coulter says. Certainly there can be no salvation in their own religion. Its tenets need to be "altered and abolished" as you put it. Only Christianity can save the Jews.



Right, because nowhere in the Bible are the Jews put through hardship and tribulation by God.

I'm grumpy and you're a Poe.

Now you are quoting Ann Coulter? Wow. I am a Poe. Lenore, Raven the man was very good.

You nailed it. Those were all human deeds. Humans get it wrong. Time and time again. No where did God say force the Jews to convert that was us. No where did God says it is okay to have Pogroms. Nowhere did God say it is okay to build concentration camps. Those were twisted humans. The goes for the Inquisition all of that.

Sure, God never asked his followers to smite the unbelievers.

...and Jesus, either you follow him or perish, he came not in peace but with the sword to divide those who did believe from those who did not.

It really doesn't matter, the fact is that if you accept that the Bible is mostly a political tool, why bother interpreting it, why take the word of Paul that you need to convert others to what is essentially a tool of repression, and it's been used that way since it started.

Why discuss it at all other than a document, it's why I quite like 'There is probably no God', it's as much as one can say and the only response, really, is that 'There might be a God'.

Rationally, that's as much as one can say on the subject.

Arguing against Christianity using the Bible is like fucking for virginity really.

Sure, God never asked his followers to smite the unbelievers.

...and Jesus, either you follow him or perish, he came not in peace but with the sword to divide those who did believe from those who did not.

It really doesn't matter, the fact is that if you accept that the Bible is mostly a political tool, why bother interpreting it, why take the word of Paul that you need to convert others to what is essentially a tool of repression, and it's been used that way since it started.

Why discuss it at all other than a document, it's why I quite like 'There is probably no God', it's as much as one can say and the only response, really, is that 'There might be a God'.

Rationally, that's as much as one can say on the subject.

Arguing against Christianity using the Bible is like fucking for virginity really.

Wow. Just Wow. I don't even know where to go with this argument. Bible is mostly a political tool. i suppose you could say that. Only because human want it that way. Repression? Wow. I read it a different way. It is about peace and love and joy and self-sacrifice, Being good to your neighbor. Giving to widows an orphans. Healing the sick. Searching for wisdom. If you do the right things you will be rewarded.

Well I need some sleep. I will check back in when I get to work.

Wow. Just Wow. I don't even know where to go with this argument. Bible is mostly a political tool. i suppose you could say that. Only because human want it that way. Repression? Wow. I read it a different way. It is about peace and love and joy and self-sacrifice, Being good to your neighbor. Giving to widows an orphans. Healing the sick. Searching for wisdom. If you do the right things you will be rewarded.

Really? Let's look at your first post in this thread shall we?

I think probably misfortune is headed their way. They are probably in a world of trouble. You know he has a really long memory. You might as well go outside and paint a big target on you. Lightning aim here.

Hmm...

I don't know someone else brought up the question. I think it is splitting hairs but ehhh...

let's see born of the House of David - Check
Magi from another religion show up at his birth to worship the new born king. - Check
Turns water into wine - Check
Walks on Water - Check
John the Baptist know who he is before he is introduced - check
Cast out demons left, right and center - Check
Said demons all know him before they are introduced - Check
Cures blindness - Check
Cures the crippled - Check
Brings the dead back to life - Check
Somone touches the hem of his garmet and is cured not even touching him - Check

Feeds 5000 people with 5 fishes and a few loaves of bread - Check
Comes back from the dead - Check

I don't know what more you would need to say this is the one.


The only one of these that is even remotely connected to Messianic prophecy is the David connection, which Jesus fails on for several reasons.


No other prophet did such things.


Elijah raised the dead, didn't he?

Enoch and Elijah both translated to heaven without dying.

etc.

The original incarnation of the Buddha performed miracles half a millenium before the New Testament texts were written.


He did not change any of the 10 Commandments.


The 'Ten Commandments' don't apply to Gentiles, anyway.


What he did change and it may have been for the Gentiles was the customs. Don't eat pigs, shellfish etc. He changed to eat what you like. Don't do any work on the Sabbath. He said you can do good works on the Sabbath.


That's the law - which is why Jesus was a FALSE prophet... which would explain the death-sentence. Of course, if the Jews had really tried Jesus for his crimes, he'd have been stoned, not crucified.


Buddha? He never said he was to be worshiped
Mohamed? He was a very influential prophet and a great man but not the one
Still to come? maybe but why did the curtain in the temple get torn asunder. I believe the word used was rend. Jesus is the closest we have. If someone comes along and trumps him then fine but until then he seems like the one. Jesus fulfilled each of the signs of the Messiah. He would come into the city riding on a small donkey. He would speak in parable and few would understand him. There were several others I can't recall them off the top of my head.

A couple of points:

One: Christians often claim that Jesus 'fulfilled the requirements of Messiah' - but then they list of things that were never considered necessary of Messiah. Fixing the lists so you can claim you fulfilled them sounds to me like cheating.

Two: Bahá'u'lláh. Look it up.

It is by far the easiest religion on the planet. No food restrictions. You don't have be born into it. The 10 commandments still apply but the boil down into only 2 rules Love God and love your neighbor. You don't have to be circumcised. Worship any day you like but we normally do it on Sunday. Sabbath is now open. Pray in private. Do good works back up your words with deeds. You don't have to journey to the Holy Land (Mecca) or anywhere else. Marry whomever you like in any religion or lack there of. You get all the best holidays. You don't have to buy your seat you can sit anywhere you like. Dress how you like, you do not have to dress up or dress a certain way in public. No turbans, ya mica, no black clothes with large black hats. You can wear you hair as you like. If you make a mistake just ask for forgiveness, no sacrifice is needed. I mean really what could be easier?

If you have ever witness what is done on the Sabbath, it is really weird. You have to be home before Sundown. You are not allowed to turn on a light, drive a car, lift heavy objects, tearing paper is forbidden. There were all these weird rules and Jesus did away with all that.

Being 'easy' is irrelevent. If it's 'easy' but wrong, it's still wrong, no matter how easy.

"There is plenty of evidence for God, from people's personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world.


That's not proof. And the natural world isn't handling beauty alone, it can be really disgusting as well.

I know he is going to hit me with Abraham asked to sacrifice his son. It was test. Just see if he would do it? If you really thought he was going to make him kill the son that he gave him in thefirst place you have been reading carefully, that is not how he works.


You've read Job, I assume.

Now, now we are getting to it. Jesus was a Jew. He came to save the jewish people he says so frequently. I can't speak to Mohammed. From what I have heard I think he was a good man. I personally have nothing against any religion.


Actually, Jesus ONLY came to save the Jewish people, according to his own words. He expressly made a point of forbidding his followers from preaching to others.

Which is why the whole 'Great Commission' bullshit tacked on to the stories after he died, just totally doesn't fit.

I can see why they did it - Christianity would have died out quickly as a sect of Judaism, if it hadn't branched out.

Wow. Just Wow. I don't even know where to go with this argument. Bible is mostly a political tool. i suppose you could say that. Only because human want it that way. Repression? Wow. I read it a different way. It is about peace and love and joy and self-sacrifice, Being good to your neighbor. Giving to widows an orphans. Healing the sick. Searching for wisdom. If you do the right things you will be rewarded.

Is the peace the bit where they carry out an anti-semitic genocide all across Caanan?

Is the love the bit about killing all the oldest children? Or is it the bit about killing the men, women and children, and then ploughing them into the earth?

Is the joy the bit about killing your own children? Or is it the bit where other people kill them for you? Or is it the offering your daughters to mobs? Or is it having sex with your own children?

The self-sacrifice bit... would that be the bit about the slavery laws? Or is it the bit where rape is only a crime if it's commited within earshot of a town? No - I got it - it's the bit where the punishment for rape is being forced to marry your victim, right?

Seriously - there is some positive material in the Bible... but it's certainly not cover-to-cover sweetness and light.

I don't know someone else brought up the question. I think it is splitting hairs but ehhh...

let's see born of the House of David - Check
Magi from another religion show up at his birth to worship the new born king. - Check
Turns water into wine - Check
Walks on Water - Check
John the Baptist know who he is before he is introduced - check
Cast out demons left, right and center - Check
Said demons all know him before they are introduced - Check
Cures blindness - Check
Cures the crippled - Check
Brings the dead back to life - Check
Somone touches the hem of his garmet and is cured not even touching him - Check

Feeds 5000 people with 5 fishes and a few loaves of bread - Check


Comes back from the dead - Check

I don't know what more you would need to say this is the one.

No other prophet did such things.

In 2 Kings 4:42-44 Elisha feeds 100 with 20 loaves and has bread to spare at the end.

Vespasian is said by Tacitus and Suetonius to have healed a blind man and a cripple (indeed, some modern scholars argue that the account of Jesus doing the same was lifted from Roman propaganda by the author of Mark)

You may remember the adverts on busses in the UK saying "There probably is no God" -apparently the people behind it are being accused of breaking the UK advertising code as according to Christian Voice there is plenty of evidence for God.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7818980.stm

"There is plenty of evidence for God, from people's personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world.

"But there is scant evidence on the other side, so I think the advertisers are really going to struggle to show their claim is not an exaggeration or inaccurate, as the ASA code puts it."

Yeah right

People have a right to believe in things-even irrational things, even an imaginary friend that cares what kind of person they are. It may be the only true "Freedom" some people have left-the freedom to believe that their pathetic lonely squalid miserable existence matters to some higher being, who loves them and cares for them and wants them to to be happy or safe or honourable, some imaginary friend that will set them free from bondage, or take care and show kindness when the gas ovens cook the lives from them or the guards are raping them.

Faith makes wounds (as we can see in the Middle East) but it also HEALS wounds-through Faith, a man with no other geas to force him to forgive a stranger can forgive them, through faith, a man can find the strength to endure inhumanities most people can't even imagine. Faith can (and has) force a wealthy man to give some measure of comfort to the poor (instead of a bribe to the Government), Faith can make a weak man show strength, and a strong man be gentle.

Faith has turned criminals into Citizens, and prevented murder, suicide, and theft. Faith can be GOOD. BUT, faith does only good on an individual basis.

Faith can also be bad-but we already know about that-we're bombarded with how it can be twisted to do evil, great evil.

Denial of faith makes great evil more likely-when your 'ethics' are purely situational, the expedient becomes its own faith, and expediency is how you get things like Stalin's treatment of the Ukraine, Purges, Hitler's "Final Solution", and other uncounted horrors (Pol Pot's "Year Zero", for instance.)

Does god exist? who cares, if the question itself prevents a man from doing evil, or helps him to do good, does it really MATTER?

I suspect this is going to back-fire horribly on Christian Voice: if the Atheist ads are banned then the Humanist association will be able to use the precedent to remove religious ads; even if they're upheld, the fact that the ASA forced them to add 'probably' to the slogan will given them precedent to demand 'probably' or 'allegedly' on any future advertising along the lines of "Jesus died for your sins" or "God said...".

All in all, the comedy value of this campaign is well worth the £150,000 :p

there is plenty of evidence that we live in a universe that is too big and too strange for anyone to honestly claim to know what cannot exist. there is little or none to suggest that what is not known is under any obligation to conform to what anyone pretends to know about it.

my personal experiences and observations suggest to me that a big, invisible friend exists, and a lot of little invisible friends too, some of the latter curling up on top of my covers when i go bed at night, when THEY feel like comming by and doing so, and the former giving me great hugs when i'm alone by myself in the woods.

these experiences and observations neither confirm nor deny their connection to the claims of organized beliefs.

Denial of faith makes great evil more likely-when your 'ethics' are purely situational, the expedient becomes its own faith, and expediency is how you get things like Stalin's treatment of the Ukraine, Purges, Hitler's "Final Solution", and other uncounted horrors (Pol Pot's "Year Zero", for instance.)

Hitler never 'denied faith': he considered himself to be a Christian. If you want to understand the historical origins of the Final Solution then you could do worse than reading Martin Luther's 'The Jews and their lies', you might find many of the proposals sound familiar...

Still, even disregarding this historical error, we can put your claim to the test: if we look at modern countries, which have better human rights records: fiercely secular France and Sweden (both of which are also very atheistic) or pious Iran and Saudi Arabia? Sure, there are a few exceptions (like China) but in general the more secular countries have far more respect for human rights.

Sure, there are a few exceptions (like China) but in general the more secular countries have far more respect for human rights.

China has its own top-down dictated dogma, one doesn't need a God to have a faith that skews ones ability to make a rational decision. One can probably say the same for most governments to varying degrees, those that make the initial assumption that their authority over other people's lives is primary and all flows from that.

Faith and religion are just a facet of a wider human problem, merely one that appeals to an unprovable higher authority, which makes it among the most pernicious.

I have no truck with personal belief, we all have them in our own odd way, I have no truck with having an opinion either, I merely have an issue with authority based on assumption.

Is the peace the bit where they carry out an anti-semitic genocide all across Caanan?

Is the love the bit about killing all the oldest children? Or is it the bit about killing the men, women and children, and then ploughing them into the earth?

Is the joy the bit about killing your own children? Or is it the bit where other people kill them for you? Or is it the offering your daughters to mobs? Or is it having sex with your own children?

The self-sacrifice bit... would that be the bit about the slavery laws? Or is it the bit where rape is only a crime if it's commited within earshot of a town? No - I got it - it's the bit where the punishment for rape is being forced to marry your victim, right?

Seriously - there is some positive material in the Bible... but it's certainly not cover-to-cover sweetness and light.



Okay in order

We are talking about the chosen people I believe here. He said he would drive them out like a hive of Wasp because to the corruption of those societies. I guess somehow they were upsetting God possibly by Sacrificing human children? Remember the Baals and all that. He was building a nation where there was none. He was setting the stage for further events namely the birth of Jesus. Without a nation of Israel the would be no savior, no house of David. I guess God felt that was more important. How many times did he warn not to pray to idols? How many times did he have to knock sense back into our heads? We would comply for a time and then slowly sink back into it.

With regard to Egypt who's suffering is more important 400 years of the Jew suffering or one brief instance of the Egyptian suffering. Keep in mind they to were not doing the right things. Egypt was already on the list for their action he was just able to do 2 at once. The hardening heart thing I am not sure what to make of that of that other than he was trying to make an example of them. Don't mess with the chosen people. He also made the Jews pay for it with sacrifices, it allow him to get priests. There was some balancing.

This one

Is the joy the bit about killing your own children? Which one?

Or is it the bit where other people kill them for you? Which one is that?

Or is it the offering your daughters to mobs? That was Lot's idea if I have your quote right. Besides we saw what happend to Soddom and Gommarah. My question is how bad of a city do you have to be so that God has to personally come down and take look for himself? The nerve and they want to have sex with your angels. I would have smacked them down as well. He was making an example of them if you mess up and try to rape for lack of a better word foreigners you better be ready for the burning sulfur.


Or is it having sex with your own children? Where was that?


Slavery was common all through the region. They would have been there whether we like it or not.


No - I got it - it's the bit where the punishment for rape is being forced to marry your victim, right? I must admit I don't know that reference either. It sounds like Jewish law to me. I don't think that has a Biblical basis. Back to Humans frequently get stuff wrong.

Actually, Jesus ONLY came to save the Jewish people, according to his own words. He expressly made a point of forbidding his followers from preaching to others.

Which is why the whole 'Great Commission' bullshit tacked on to the stories after he died, just totally doesn't fit.

I can see why they did it - Christianity would have died out quickly as a sect of Judaism, if it hadn't branched out.

The synoptic gospels state that the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom. According to Josephus, the curtain in Herod's temple would have been nearly 60 feet (18 m) high and 4 inches (100 mm) thick. According to Hebrews 9:1-10, this curtain was representative of the separation between God and man, beyond which only the High Priest was permitted to pass, and then only once each year (cf. Exodus 30:10) to enter into God's presence and make atonement for the sins of Israel (Leviticus 16). Bible expositors agree that the rending of the veil is symbolic of Jesus establishing a new and living way of access to God (Hebrews 9:11-15).




You are correct in a sense the Apostles did that. Pentecost . The crucifixion of Jesus was the last straw so to speak. That was the break with Judasim.


The Book of Acts goes on to describe how the apostles spoke in languages they had not learned (xenoglossy). While visitors to Jerusalem from around the Roman Empire understood the languages spoken, some misunderstood and thought that the apostles were drunk or possessed.


Then the Apostle Peter, standing with the eleven other apostles, spoke to the crowd. He explained that these strange events had been predicted by the prophet Joel, and that Jesus' resurrection from the dead and exaltation to heaven had been prophesied by David. Peter explained that these events confirmed David's prophecy. Peter then exhorted his listeners to turn to Christ. When Peter was asked what men should do he responded by saying "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." About three thousand responded to Peter's sermon and were baptized and were therefore "added" to the number of believers, or the church.

*snip*yay! This argument again! Ok, so there are a few major issues with your argument. The first is the ludicrous statment that all non-faith based morals are based on expendiency. Honestly that just a rediculous supposition. Morals are based on an individuals life experiences and faith has little to no bearing on exactly how fixed those morals are. A simple example is that people derive different ideals from the same faith (openess and tolerance vs. Bigotry for example) this faith itsself is interpreted via experience and is not some "fixed in stone" "only basis for morals" type of thing. A second issue is your assumption that on an individual level faith is a good thing. Faithis probably on of the biggest breeders of bigotry and ignorance as well as limiting freedom on an individual level and allowing an individual to do terrible things based on the idea that that's what their god wants. So no, it's not important wether god exists or not, either way religion is a bad thing.

You've read Job, I assume.


Job wasn't asked to sacrifice his children, nor were they offered in sacrifice to God. They were taken from him not the same thing. That was collateral damage and you could say not done by God. He allowed him to be tested and/or removed his protection from Job.

The synoptic gospels state that the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom. According to Josephus, the curtain in Herod's temple would have been nearly 60 feet (18 m) high and 4 inches (100 mm) thick. According to Hebrews 9:1-10, this curtain was representative of the separation between God and man, beyond which only the High Priest was permitted to pass, and then only once each year (cf. Exodus 30:10) to enter into God's presence and make atonement for the sins of Israel (Leviticus 16). Bible expositors agree that the rending of the veil is symbolic of Jesus establishing a new and living way of access to God (Hebrews 9:11-15).

Once again, the bible is false. Using it in an argument is as ridiculous as saying "I'm right because the voices in my head learned it from the lawn gnome!".

Job wasn't asked to sacrifice his children, nor were they offered in sacrifice to God. They were taken from him not the same thing. That was collateral damage and you could say not done by God. He allowed him to be tested and/or removed his protection from Job.
or you could say that job isnt meant to be a real person. the book is a discussion of why bad things happen to good people.

http://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/the-patience-of-job/

Q. Where did the term “patience of Job” come from?

A. It refers to Job’s refusal to condemn God when Satan was allowed to destroy his family and his livestock, essentially turning him from a rich man into a childless pauper overnight. Instead he entered into a series of dialogs that culminated in a fascinating conversation with God Himself. In the end Job saw the error in his ways, sought forgiveness, and everything was restored.

The main idea running through the Book of Job is that when we justify ourselves, by saying that we don’t deserve to experience catastrophic loss, we condemn God, in effect accusing Him of being unjust.

Had Job not been a sinner, God could not have authorized Satan to torment him, and through his patient attempts to understand this, we learn valuable lessons. “For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” (Romans 15:4)

The only one of these that is even remotely connected to Messianic prophecy is the David connection, which Jesus fails on for several reasons.



Elijah raised the dead, didn't he?

Enoch and Elijah both translated to heaven without dying.

etc.

The original incarnation of the Buddha performed miracles half a millenium before the New Testament texts were written.



The 'Ten Commandments' don't apply to Gentiles, anyway.



That's the law - which is why Jesus was a FALSE prophet... which would explain the death-sentence. Of course, if the Jews had really tried Jesus for his crimes, he'd have been stoned, not crucified.



A couple of points:

One: Christians often claim that Jesus 'fulfilled the requirements of Messiah' - but then they list of things that were never considered necessary of Messiah. Fixing the lists so you can claim you fulfilled them sounds to me like cheating.

Two: Bahá'u'lláh. Look it up.



Since we are on the subject I am fascinated by this as well. Enoch and Elijah both translated to heaven without dying. The people following along after Enoch got killed as well.

Two: Bahá'u'lláh. Look it up. On your advice I did. I will get back to you.

In 2 Kings 4:42-44 Elisha feeds 100 with 20 loaves and has bread to spare at the end.

Vespasian is said by Tacitus and Suetonius to have healed a blind man and a cripple (indeed, some modern scholars argue that the account of Jesus doing the same was lifted from Roman propaganda by the author of Mark)



Thank you for that quotes. I had forgot about Elisha. Okay so other prophets can bring people back to life and heal the sick. He can make Iron Axe head float that is a pretty cool trick as well.

or you could say that job isnt meant to be a real person. the book is a discussion of why bad things happen to good people.

I don't think there is any reason to think he wasn't real. He had wife, kids, friends. I am sure evidence is difficult if not impossible to come by. I think the burden of proof lies on people who say he didn't exist and ditto for God how are you going to prove such a statement?

The positive side has the Bible for backup. Some doubt it's credibility but never the less it is there.

What does the negative side have? Radar?

I think the burden of proof lies on people who say he didn't exist and ditto for God how are you going to prove such a statement?

God ? Easy.
"Vishnu is the only god. Logically, your Judeo-Christian god can therefor not exist."
Feel free to prove me wrong ;)

The positive side has the Bible for backup. Some doubt it's credibility but never the less it is there.

What does the negative side have? Radar?

Other holy writings :p
And the Bible as well of course. If your book for instance claims the earth is older than the sun, it is up to you to explain why all evidence points to the contrary ;)

The fact is, the word "god" has some meaning, in a cultural context. It has connotations associated with it. You can try to argue against that, if you wish, but it doesn't really change the matter.

Indeed it has. Did you try to make a point or was this just some random tidbit of information? Every lexical word has connotations associated with them. And the "meaning" of the word varies greatly depending how, when and by whom it is used. One could even argue that newly coined words carry connotations with them on a phonological level.

It never ceases to amaze me how often the "internet atheists" tend to think that they have the correct and better understanding of the concept of god than the "internet theists" do. This bit is not directed spefically at you Neo Art or at anyone else for that matter, just thinking aloud here.

-Snip-
And in the English language, the anchoring frame of reference is the dictionary, as much as you want to dismiss it as "twatiness".

-Snip-

But as I've pointed out, his chosen term doesn't really fit its meaning in the English language. I can understand what he wants it to mean, I can accomodate for his sake, but it honestly does lead to confusion. Consistency in language doesn't have to be twatiness.
-Snip-


Out of all the lexical dictionaries for the English language to which one are you refering as THE dictionary? Given that any decent dictionary has more than one definition for every lexical item it gets even more complicated. Additionally I'd like to point out that no dictionary can be considered as the be all end all definitive book of the lingustic study of semantics, seeing that they are written in English.

As for the second paragraph, if what GoG tries to denote with the word "god" does not fit in the English language then how come you can understand him. Are you guys speaking in tongues now?

I don't think there is any reason to think he wasn't real.

As you say yourself 'evidence is difficult if not impossible to come by'

I think the burden of proof lies on people who say he didn't exist and ditto for God how are you going to prove such a statement?

No the burden of proof always lies with the people who claim something to be the case, they have to provide evidence that it is the case.

The positive side has the Bible for backup. Some doubt it's credibility but never the less it is there.

What does the negative side have? Radar?

The Bible cannot be taken as evidence of anything - it is a collection of stories lifted from a large number of sources. The new testament is based on second hand accounts so even that cannot be seen as a reliable historical source. The inconsistencies within the new testament itself show that the authors were in the process of embellishing the story. Things like the virgin birth that are taken by some people as true and fundamental to their faith are simply translation errors.

God ? Easy.
"Vishnu is the only god. Logically, your Judeo-Christian god can therefor not exist."
Feel free to prove me wrong ;)



Other holy writings :p
And the Bible as well of course. If your book for instance claims the earth is older than the sun, it is up to you to explain why all evidence points to the contrary ;)



Right so the Hindus can point to their version of the Bible as being "proof". There is no reason to believe them to be untrue. To my knowledge no Christian group is trying to say that?

Right so the Hindus can point to their version of the Bible as being "proof". There is no reason to believe them to be untrue. To my knowledge no Christian group is trying to say that?

Eeehm - if you believe your God is the only one, your creation story is right and so on - you ARE saying that other religions are wrong if they differ from yours. "If A is the only truth, B cannot be".

The problem is increased by the fact that one can add more and more of these religions. Buddhism. Sikhism. Scientology. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. The belief that this piece of cheese on the table in front of me is actually a manifestation of the sole supreme being. One can continue this infinitely.

Now tell me - why is e.g. Christianity better, or at least "more true" than all those other religions and things one can pull out of ones arse ?

Right so the Hindus can point to their version of the Bible as being "proof". There is no reason to believe them to be untrue. To my knowledge no Christian group is trying to say that?

No Christian group is trying to say that other Gods arent real?


Really? Is that the arguement you really want to make?

Out of all the lexical dictionaries for the English language to which one are you refering as THE dictionary? Given that any decent dictionary has more than one definition for every lexical item it gets even more complicated. Additionally I'd like to point out that no dictionary can be considered as the be all end all definitive book of the lingustic study of semantics, seeing that they are written in English.

Yes, the several I looked at had several definitions each, and his fit none of them, nor the the general connotation of the word.


As for the second paragraph, if what GoG tries to denote with the word "god" does not fit in the English language then how come you can understand him.
Are you guys speaking in tongues now?

As was already explained in the thread, we can understand him now because he described his own definition, which I then agreed to try to accomodate.

If a person decides "book" means "a four legged animal with horns that gives milk", I can understand him or her once they explain that's the definition they're using, requiring no "speaking in tongues". It doesn't make it less confusing for open discourse or less of a departure from English.

Indeed it has. Did you try to make a point or was this just some random tidbit of information? Every lexical word has connotations associated with them. And the "meaning" of the word varies greatly depending how, when and by whom it is used. One could even argue that newly coined words carry connotations with them on a phonological level.

That's why he said "in a cultural context". If you're going to be snotty, try to read more carefully.

I don't think there is any reason to think he wasn't real. He had wife, kids, friends. I am sure evidence is difficult if not impossible to come by. I think the burden of proof lies on people who say he didn't exist and ditto for God how are you going to prove such a statement?

The positive side has the Bible for backup. Some doubt it's credibility but never the less it is there.

What does the negative side have? Radar?

So, by your logic, you must now covert to Islam or be a hyprocrite.

Mohammad was real, had wife, kids, friends. The burden of proof lies on you to disprove he was the messenger of God.

Same with many other religions, so, better start daily perpetual conversion.

Job wasn't asked to sacrifice his children, nor were they offered in sacrifice to God. They were taken from him not the same thing. That was collateral damage and you could say not done by God. He allowed him to be tested and/or removed his protection from Job.

Right. Being killed as a sacrfice for God isn't the same as being killed for purposes arranged by God. One is much better.

Of course, you've also pointed out that anybody doing human blood sacrifice for sin should be "smitten", meaning the whole basis of the christian religion should be smitten.

China has its own top-down dictated dogma, one doesn't need a God to have a faith that skews ones ability to make a rational decision. One can probably say the same for most governments to varying degrees, those that make the initial assumption that their authority over other people's lives is primary and all flows from that.

Faith and religion are just a facet of a wider human problem, merely one that appeals to an unprovable higher authority, which makes it among the most pernicious.

I have no truck with personal belief, we all have them in our own odd way, I have no truck with having an opinion either, I merely have an issue with authority based on assumption.

The wider human problem you speak of is something that quite simply appears to be inherent to the human animal. If "God" or "Gods" are outlawed, the state just steps into the role-and that kind of power is inherently corrupting to the people running it.

People, in large groups, want dogmas, they want to have an authority figure, a daddy, a god. Individuals can be reasonable and rational, groups are not.

Yes, the several I looked at had several definitions each, and his fit none of them, nor the the general connotation of the word.



As was already explained in the thread, we can understand him now because he described his own definition, which I then agreed to try to accomodate.

If a person decides "book" means "a four legged animal with horns that gives milk", I can understand him or her once they explain that's the definition they're using, requiring no "speaking in tongues". It doesn't make it less confusing for open discourse or less of a departure from English.

This is from dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god

god (gŏd) Pronunciation Key
n.
1.God
A)A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
B)The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2.A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3.An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4.One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5.A very handsome man.
6.A powerful ruler or despot.

I don't know, number four atleast seems to fit his definition.

Really in any discussion about god and religion, it is quite rational to assume that people have their own definitions of god.

That's why he said "in a cultural context". If you're going to be snotty, try to read more carefully.

Umh, yeah. After that I tried to point out that so does any other lexical word. If his point was that GoG should have used another term for his "god" because that word has "some meaning, in a cultural context. It has connotations associated with it." Then I merely pointed out that whatever word GoG had chosen to use it would still have had "some meaning, in cultural context. And had connotations associated with it."

So, by your logic, you must now covert to Islam or be a hyprocrite.

Mohammad was real, had wife, kids, friends. The burden of proof lies on you to disprove he was the messenger of God.

Same with many other religions, so, better start daily perpetual conversion.

Because I have respect for him doesn't mean I agree with him or his followers. I have no reason to believe he wasn't a messenger of God. Messenger and Messiah are not the same things.

Right. Being killed as a sacrifice for God isn't the same as being killed for purposes arranged by God. One is much better.

Of course, you've also pointed out that anybody doing human blood sacrifice for sin should be "smitten", meaning the whole basis of the christian religion should be smitten.



There are several parts to God.

God's Moral will - These are the laws we already have discussed
God's Sovereignty - This is his control over everything

These further breakdown into the following:

1. Where God commands, we must obey or face the consequences
2. Where there is no command, God gives us the Freedom and responsibility to choose
3. Where there is no command, God gives us wisdom to choose.


God's Sovereign will is :
1. Certain - It will be fulfilled
2. Detailed - Includes all things
3. Hidden - Except when revealed by Prophecy
4. Supreme - Without violating human responsibility or making God the author of Sin
5. Perfect - Working all things together for God's glory and our Good.

I don't think there is any reason to think he wasn't real. He had wife, kids, friends. I am sure evidence is difficult if not impossible to come by. I think the burden of proof lies on people who say he didn't exist and ditto for God how are you going to prove such a statement?

The positive side has the Bible for backup. Some doubt it's credibility but never the less it is there.

What does the negative side have? Radar?
there is no reason to think that he was a real person because he is unconnected to anyone else in the bible.

and job cracks at the end. he very much questions god.

No Christian group is trying to say that other Gods arent real?


Really? Is that the argument you really want to make?

This one requires a whole ton of clarification. It would depend on which Christian you ask first. In the Jewish and Christian tradition.

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;

Do not have any other gods before me.

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,


It doesn't say that no other Gods exist.

Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many. I want to set it forth in a plain and simple manner; but to us there is but one God--that is pertaining to us; . . . I say there are Gods many and Lords many, but to us only one, and we are to be in subjection to that one, . . . (History of the Church, Vol.6, p.474).

"Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared [it]? ye [are] even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, [there is] no God; I know not [any]." (The Holy Bible, Isaiah 44:8)

"And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen." (The Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 31:21)

"Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen." (D&C 20:28)

there is no reason to think that he was a real person because he is unconnected to anyone else in the bible.

and job cracks at the end. he very much questions god.


Who wouldn't crack. He doesn't curse God. I still think he is "the Man". Of the ordinary everyday people in the Bible he is pretty cool.

I would have broken like old china I think. Snapped....

Truly Blessed:

I. AM. GOD!

You are the one that has to prove me wrong.

By the way I just want say Ashmoria and Grave N Idle are awesome to talk to.Very true. They rock.
You can't talk about this stuff anywhere else.Sure ya can! On the subway, corners of intersections, around the work water cooler, at length in chain emails, out the upstairs windows of your apartment complexes with passers-by, in line at the DMV ....

This is from dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god

god (gŏd) Pronunciation Key
n.
1.God
A)A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
B)The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2.A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3.An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4.One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5.A very handsome man.
6.A powerful ruler or despot.

I don't know, number four atleast seems to fit his definition.

Really in any discussion about god and religion, it is quite rational to assume that people have their own definitions of god.

The example given for number 4 explains exactly why it doesn't fit. People can idealize or follow anything. If somebody follows something like "money" or anything else they are idealizing, calling it their "god" by #4 means they are making it a "god" by worshipping, not worshipping it because its a god. Seriously, think what the example in #4 is meant to illustrate.

From what GoG has said, he believes his version of God would be God even if he didn't worship it, so #4 doesn't fit. Neither do the others.



Umh, yeah. After that I tried to point out that so does any other lexical word. If his point was that GoG should have used another term for his "god" because that word has "some meaning, in a cultural context. It has connotations associated with it." Then I merely pointed out that whatever word GoG had chosen to use it would still have had "some meaning, in cultural context. And had connotations associated with it."


Yes, and that's exactly why picking a word whose "meaning in cultural context" is closer to what he's trying to describe would be useful. That was the point.

There are several parts to God.

God's Moral will - These are the laws we already have discussed
God's Sovereignty - This is his control over everything

These further breakdown into the following:

1. Where God commands, we must obey or face the consequences
2. Where there is no command, God gives us the Freedom and responsibility to choose
3. Where there is no command, God gives us wisdom to choose.


God's Sovereign will is :
1. Certain - It will be fulfilled
2. Detailed - Includes all things
3. Hidden - Except when revealed by Prophecy
4. Supreme - Without violating human responsibility or making God the author of Sin
5. Perfect - Working all things together for God's glory and our Good.

Uh huh. And evidently, according to you've said, human blood sacrifice doesn't play a role, with "the possible exception of Jesus", the central premise of the whole religion. Got it.

This one requires a whole ton of clarification. It would depend on which Christian you ask first. In the Jewish and Christian tradition.

So, what are you claiming? That there is more than one God or only one God?

You quoted D&C and BoM, do you believe LDS Theology and Cosmology is correct?

Truly Blessed:

I. AM. GOD!

You are the one that has to prove me wrong.

Me I know better than that.

But just for the record I have a few questions?

What is up with the platypus? In fact the whole continent of Australia?

How did you get the gas inside the Bombardier beetle?

Why haven't you returned my letters?

Why are Sea Horses the only species where the male caries the young? By the way all you budding evolutionists explain that one to me. I think Sea Horse are akin to Babel fish.

What's the Devil middle name? If you knew he was going to turn against you why did you let him live in the first place?

Where was Eden?

Why did you give freewill in the first place?


Any Deity worth his/her salt can explain those.

Me I know better than that.

But just for the record I have a few questions?

...

Any god worth his salt would expect you to seek the answers to these yourself.

Why did you give freewill in the first place?

Given most followers seem to willingly give it up to devote themselves to an arbitrary concept, one does wonder as to this.

What is up with the platypus?Success, of course.

In fact the whole continent of Australia?Hmmm, perhaps you need to contrast with chains of volcanoes for an understanding there.


How did you get the gas inside the Bombardier beetle?Same way i got the gas in the mites that secrete your sweat smell.

Why haven't you returned my letters?
Because there aren't enough pop-ups and the perfumes you use are limited and less erotic than remniscient of houses after a fire and having been doused thoroughly with water hoses.

Why are Sea Horses the only species where the male caries the young?Perhaps you should hang out with penguins for a while to give you a different perspective.
By the way all you budding evolutionists explain that one to me.Now you're putting them before God. For shame.
I think Sea Horse are akin to Babel fish.As in, you stick it in your ear (or whatever orifice) and it will translate *whatever* for you?

What's the Devil middle name?Bending. No seriously, there is no such thing. I only put that in concept in place so you could gain some perspective on consequence, the obvious importance of free will. "He" is actually me.
If you knew he was going to turn against you why did you let him live in the first place?"He" never turned against anyone anymore than I did.

Where was Eden?In the wishes of the feeble and the hopes of the desperate. You'll have better luck with Nod.

Why did you give freewill in the first place?There is no such thing, silly! Each one of you is living out a very small part of the vast experience that is me, simultaneously!

Any Deity worth his/her salt can explain those.Funny you should bring up salt. *giggles*

So, what are you claiming? That there is more than one God or only one God?

You quoted D&C and BoM, do you believe LDS Theology and Cosmology is correct?


I myself am not making any claims. The Bible says there are other Gods but there is only one God for us.


When you say Christian you have to add which Christians you are talking about. if we reign it in and say Catholics then the answers get smaller.

Latter Day Saints is interesting. They essentially claim we are the Lost Tribe of Israel. which is kind of weird because most of us came from Europe in the USA.

The book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. In my opinion they start off on the right foot but get lost somewhere. They do have some good quotes which is why I used them, which kind of sum up how Christians feel about the is there more than one God thing. Do I support everything they do - No.

I was born Protestant My mother side was United, my father side was Anglican. I became Catholic through Marriage. This is when I started studying what I believed. I explored Buddhism and several others during the process. I came back to Catholic.

Buddhism has some awesome ideas about how to live in the here and now but not the afterlife. The idea of being a Bodhisattva has some appeal to me. I have listened to the Dalai Lama. I think he is a wonderful man with some great ideas.

If we have a choice when we get up there I would get in this lineup for the opportunity to come back. I don't think we get choice so that is why I follow Christ.


My problem is laying all this stuff at God's doorstep when it is clearly us who have got it wrong.


By the way by saying all this I will probably do another year in Purgatory if i am lucky. Probably solitary confinement. So that makes about 10 to 20 years by now.

Success, of course.

Hmmm, perhaps you need to contrast with chains of volcanoes for an understanding there.


Same way i got the gas in the mites that secrete your sweat smell.

Because there aren't enough pop-ups and the perfumes you use are limited and less erotic than remniscient of houses after a fire and having been doused thoroughly with water hoses.

Perhaps you should hang out with penguins for a while to give you a different perspective.
Now you're putting them before God. For shame.
As in, you stick it in your ear (or whatever orifice) and it will translate *whatever* for you? Yes also proof God Exists. No other animal except there cousin the pipe fish can do this.

Bending. No seriously, there is no such thing. I only put that in concept in place so you could gain some perspective on consequence, the obvious importance of free will. "He" is actually me.
"He" never turned against anyone anymore than I did.

In the wishes of the feeble and the hopes of the desperate. You'll have better luck with Nod.

There is no such thing, silly! Each one of you is living out a very small part of the vast experience that is me, simultaneously!

Funny you should bring up salt. *giggles*

Perhaps you should hang out with penguins for a while to give you a different perspective.
Now you're putting them before God. For shame.
As in, you stick it in your ear (or whatever orifice) and it will translate *whatever* for you? Yes also proof God Exists. No other animal except there cousin the pipe fish can do this. Although they don't translate very well when stuck in your ear. I did hear a lot of squishing sounds but that was it. Hey you never know.