During this time of year, one of the most common sights is the Nativity Scene. Whether at the numerous churches (especially in the Bible Belt, where I live), or as Christmas decorations outside and inside of homes. So I started to wonder to myself this year: just how much BS does Jesus' origin story have? I already knew of a few details that were blatantly false, but taking the assumption that Jesus actually existed, how much of his story could have actually been true?
First, when was Jesus born? It is clear that Jesus was not born in the split between BC and AD. Since the Bible claims that King Herod was reigning at the time of Jesus' birth, and King Herod died in 4 BC, Jesus had to have been born before then. As for the star that appeared over Bethlehem, there are too many possible explanations for what could have caused this "new star" to appear in the sky, such as planetary alignments or supernovas, to peg Jesus' birth to specific year. But contrary to what Christians claim, Jesus' birth (if it happened at all) did not likely occur in 1AD.
Also, Jesus was not born in December. Not only would it have been terrible for Herod to force every citizen to travel in the winter (more on that later), details in the Bible point to Jesus' birth occurring during one of the warmer months. No shepherd would have willingly froze his balls off watching his sheep munch on dead grass in the middle of the night. The December date was decided on because of a Jewish tradition, in which righteous men died on the same day of their conception. Jesus died in March, therefore, he was assumed to have been born nine months later in December. Sorry, Christians, but if you're going to say that Jesus is the reason for the season, at least claim the right season. Try Spring or Summer.
Next, who visited Jesus? According to tradition, Jesus was visited by three wise men, or kings, or magi, from the East. The Bible gives no such number, but like many details of Jesus' origin story, it was added later and weakens the credibility of the story. Number of visitors aside, I find it rather suspicious that foreign men of such importance would be familiar enough with Jewish prophecies (even more so than the Jews, apparently) to willingly pack up their things and go to worship the "king of the Jews." Somehow, they supposedly followed an astrological object, not only to a specific town, but to a specific house. Not only that, but these three kings conveniently didn't bother to identify themselves, making it impossible to verify the story by tracking them down. This entire part of the story smells strongly of bovine manure.
Did Jesus' parents really have to travel for a census? Just think about this for a moment. The king of the civilized world decides to count all of the citizens underneath him. And he decides that the best way to do this is to require all of the men to travel to their place of birth? Why not leave them where they are and just ask them where they are from? How is their place of origin even relevant for a census? Requiring so many people to travel all at once would have been a terrible and stupid idea. And of course, there is no evidence that such a thing ever happened. This was clearly a storytelling trick to force Jesus' parents to go to Bethlehem so that Jesus could be born there and fulfill a prophecy.
Did Mary and Joseph really have to escape from Herod? According to the Bible, Jesus' parents were warned by the wise men/magi/kings that Herod considered Jesus a threat, and advised that they flee for their safety. An angel even appeared before Joseph to give him the same message. Then Herod had every boy in Bethlehem under the age of two to be slaughtered. However, despite King Herod being despised by many people, no historians ever recounted him ordering an entire townful of male babies and infants to be killed. And besides, why would an unbeliever like Herod feel threatened by a baby of a carpenter anyway? Unless he believed that the boy was destined to rise up and replace him as ruler, which he had no reason to suspect as someone who was not a Jew and likely saw many false Messiahs rise and fall.
Other details added to the story later, which were likely untrue, include Mary and Joseph being turned away at an inn. Inns only existed on major roads, not inside little insignificant cities like Bethlehem. The Greek word "kataluma," was mistranslated as "inn," when it's usually used to describe a guest room, such as the one where the Last Supper took place in. People also wrongly assume that Jesus was born in a barn. The place was more akin to a kitchen. The lower floor was for the animals, yes, but there was an upper floor for the people.
It can also be implied from details in the Bible that the wise men did not appear until two years after Jesus' birth. The wise men were also not likely to be the respected symbols they're portrayed to be, but were more like traveling salesmen who were typically viewed as shady. The gifts of frankincense and myrrh were even common Aphrodisiacs.
Mary's virgin birth was not declared official Christian dogma until 1854. Before Pope Pius IX made it canon, the idea was first held by a small cult.
Oxes and asses were also never mentioned in the original stories, but were added later to fit Old Testament prophecy. Many other animals were also added over the years just for the sake of it, including a camel, an eagle, a leopard, and more.
So in conclusion, the entire origin story of Jesus is a load of bologna. It started so in its conception (pun intended), and evolved to be more and more unlikely as Christians added and took away details of the story. What do you think? Are there any other BS details of Jesus' backstory that don't hold up under scrutiny that I didn't talk about?
References:
http://www.livescience.com/49228-nativity-story-facts-history.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_21986_6-things-people-get-wrong-about-bibles-christmas-story.html
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 21, 2016, 06:00:15 PM
but taking the assumption that Jesus actually existed, how much of his story could have actually been true?
Apparently, as I understand it, he couldn't have been born
after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE, and he couldn't have been born
before the census of Quirinius in 6 CE.
So, I conclude that he was never born at all.
Is this a fallacy?
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 21, 2016, 06:12:05 PM
Apparently, as I understand it, he couldn't have been born after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE, and he couldn't have been born before the census of Quirinius in 6 CE.
So, I conclude that he was never born at all.
Is this a fallacy?
That is quite a pickle. But then again, God does exist outside of time and space, so maybe he was born in 6 AD and then entered a time loop and magically appeared in Mary's arms before 4 BC.
Yeah, maybe Jesus was a time lord!
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yTHHsAeyJa8/UeBVC-u8GPI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/KQ-yxs-lUJ4/s1600/Jesus+and+tardis.jpg)
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 21, 2016, 06:12:05 PM
Apparently, as I understand it, he couldn't have been born after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE, and he couldn't have been born before the census of Quirinius in 6 CE.
So, I conclude that he was never born at all.
Is this a fallacy?
They didn't have a very good dating system back then ... generally we don't know who the governor of a given province was, at any given time, too many provinces, too many gaps. In Rome time was reckoned by the "consuls" .. two new guys, each year. That was eventually correlated into the AUC date ... based on a fictitious date for the founding of Rome by Romulus. From there, you can make an equally fictitious correlation to the Julian date (number of days since 44 BC when Julius Caesar, at the suggestion of Cleopatra, brought the Egyptian solar calendar to Rome. I am not sure there hasn't been gaps in the Julian date in actual counting, the current Julian date may be based on interpolation. This was cross checked with other sources of dates of course, which is why even in 730s AD .. when the AD system came into use (thanks to the Venerable Bede up in Northumbria), using calendrical calculations by Dionysius Exiguous ... from around 500 AD ... got it a bit wrong. There is no exact way to know these dates, they are still plus or minus several years, in absolute years, though in many cases, according to ancient record, we know some relative dates (X happened so many years after Y happened). But then you are having to trust ancient records for that. The best modern dating (not 100%) would have King Herod the Great die in 4 BC ... there is no year zero. Dec 31 1 BC is followed by Jan 1 1 AD. Similarly Pontius Pilatus was Propaetor (not Procurator) in Judea from 26 to 36 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclogue_4 ... just read this in the original a few days ago ...
Often avoided by apologetics ... this is the actual source of the re-used nativity story ... originally it was about the expected first son of Marcus Antonius, to his wife Octavia (sister of Octavian, the Emperor) ... and it turned out to be a first daughter.
People forget that the title of "Savior" is a title of Augustus Caesar, borrowed from the ancestors of Cleopatra. Augustus was also "son of god" after the pumpkinification of Julius Caesar (from a later satire about Emperor Claudius).
Of course Jewish prophecy and Egyptian paganism figured into this also. The nativity star would have originally been the comet that appeared at the death of Julius Caesar, which heralded his elevation to godhood.
BORING! No radiation. No nuclear explosion. No toxic waste. Not even a dark matter explosion! You won't be writing for Marvel anytime soon. I'd try DC. They like boring super heroes.
Here's a stumper for you. What exactly did Jesus dying on the cross do for us? As far as I can tell it didn't do anything at all for us. Before Jesus we could get to Heaven if we just became Jews. After Jesus we could get to Heaven if we just became Christians. Aside from not having to pointlessly slaughter my best goats any more I can't see any way this was anything more than a rebranding.
Quote from: widdershins on December 22, 2016, 09:39:10 AM
BORING! No radiation. No nuclear explosion. No toxic waste. Not even a dark matter explosion! You won't be writing for Marvel anytime soon. I'd try DC. They like boring super heroes.
Here's a stumper for you. What exactly did Jesus dying on the cross do for us? As far as I can tell it didn't do anything at all for us. Before Jesus we could get to Heaven if we just became Jews. After Jesus we could get to Heaven if we just became Christians. Aside from not having to pointlessly slaughter my best goats any more I can't see any way this was anything more than a rebranding.
Well, now we have peace on earth.
(https://www.ghanastar.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/accrareport_isis-using-mustard-gas-in-attacks-according-to-tests-and-reports.jpg)
Err... Good will toward men?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_A8OvbYblbA/Ty5dO1oC-GI/AAAAAAAAA0Y/fJ3HzsES0Zo/s1600/Westboro-Baptist-Church.jpg)
Umm... Yeah, I got nothing.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 21, 2016, 06:00:15 PM
During this time of year, one of the most common sights is the Nativity Scene. Whether at the numerous churches (especially in the Bible Belt, where I live), or as Christmas decorations outside and inside of homes. So I started to wonder to myself this year: just how much BS does Jesus' origin story have? I already knew of a few details that were blatantly false, but taking the assumption that Jesus actually existed, how much of his story could have actually been true?
First, when was Jesus born? It is clear that Jesus was not born in the split between BC and AD. Since the Bible claims that King Herod was reigning at the time of Jesus' birth, and King Herod died in 4 BC, Jesus had to have been born before then. As for the star that appeared over Bethlehem, there are too many possible explanations for what could have caused this "new star" to appear in the sky, such as planetary alignments or supernovas, to peg Jesus' birth to specific year. But contrary to what Christians claim, Jesus' birth (if it happened at all) did not likely occur in 1AD.
Also, Jesus was not born in December. Not only would it have been terrible for Herod to force every citizen to travel in the winter (more on that later), details in the Bible point to Jesus' birth occurring during one of the warmer months. No shepherd would have willingly froze his balls off watching his sheep munch on dead grass in the middle of the night. The December date was decided on because of a Jewish tradition, in which righteous men died on the same day of their conception. Jesus died in March, therefore, he was assumed to have been born nine months later in December. Sorry, Christians, but if you're going to say that Jesus is the reason for the season, at least claim the right season. Try Spring or Summer.
Next, who visited Jesus? According to tradition, Jesus was visited by three wise men, or kings, or magi, from the East. The Bible gives no such number, but like many details of Jesus' origin story, it was added later and weakens the credibility of the story. Number of visitors aside, I find it rather suspicious that foreign men of such importance would be familiar enough with Jewish prophecies (even more so than the Jews, apparently) to willingly pack up their things and go to worship the "king of the Jews." Somehow, they supposedly followed an astrological object, not only to a specific town, but to a specific house. Not only that, but these three kings conveniently didn't bother to identify themselves, making it impossible to verify the story by tracking them down. This entire part of the story smells strongly of bovine manure.
Did Jesus' parents really have to travel for a census? Just think about this for a moment. The king of the civilized world decides to count all of the citizens underneath him. And he decides that the best way to do this is to require all of the men to travel to their place of birth? Why not leave them where they are and just ask them where they are from? How is their place of origin even relevant for a census? Requiring so many people to travel all at once would have been a terrible and stupid idea. And of course, there is no evidence that such a thing ever happened. This was clearly a storytelling trick to force Jesus' parents to go to Bethlehem so that Jesus could be born there and fulfill a prophecy.
Did Mary and Joseph really have to escape from Herod? According to the Bible, Jesus' parents were warned by the wise men/magi/kings that Herod considered Jesus a threat, and advised that they flee for their safety. An angel even appeared before Joseph to give him the same message. Then Herod had every boy in Bethlehem under the age of two to be slaughtered. However, despite King Herod being despised by many people, no historians ever recounted him ordering an entire townful of male babies and infants to be killed. And besides, why would an unbeliever like Herod feel threatened by a baby of a carpenter anyway? Unless he believed that the boy was destined to rise up and replace him as ruler, which he had no reason to suspect as someone who was not a Jew and likely saw many false Messiahs rise and fall.
Other details added to the story later, which were likely untrue, include Mary and Joseph being turned away at an inn. Inns only existed on major roads, not inside little insignificant cities like Bethlehem. The Greek word "kataluma," was mistranslated as "inn," when it's usually used to describe a guest room, such as the one where the Last Supper took place in. People also wrongly assume that Jesus was born in a barn. The place was more akin to a kitchen. The lower floor was for the animals, yes, but there was an upper floor for the people.
It can also be implied from details in the Bible that the wise men did not appear until two years after Jesus' birth. The wise men were also not likely to be the respected symbols they're portrayed to be, but were more like traveling salesmen who were typically viewed as shady. The gifts of frankincense and myrrh were even common Aphrodisiacs.
Mary's virgin birth was not declared official Christian dogma until 1854. Before Pope Pius IX made it canon, the idea was first held by a small cult.
Oxes and asses were also never mentioned in the original stories, but were added later to fit Old Testament prophecy. Many other animals were also added over the years just for the sake of it, including a camel, an eagle, a leopard, and more.
So in conclusion, the entire origin story of Jesus is a load of bologna. It started so in its conception (pun intended), and evolved to be more and more unlikely as Christians added and took away details of the story. What do you think? Are there any other BS details of Jesus' backstory that don't hold up under scrutiny that I didn't talk about?
References:
http://www.livescience.com/49228-nativity-story-facts-history.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_21986_6-things-people-get-wrong-about-bibles-christmas-story.html
Meh, nothing there that a bit of apologetics can't fix. Where's Randy?
Quote from: SGOS on December 22, 2016, 01:29:38 PM
Meh, nothing there that a bit of apologetics can't fix. Where's Randy?
Oh, all Randy did was avoid answering tough questions and repeat the same shit over and over again. While I think that the Bible and Christianity are both complete garbage, I wouldn't insult apologists by associating them with Randy.
Jesus was a high level litch
Quote from: widdershins on December 22, 2016, 09:39:10 AM
BORING! No radiation. No nuclear explosion. No toxic waste. Not even a dark matter explosion! You won't be writing for Marvel anytime soon. I'd try DC. They like boring super heroes.
Here's a stumper for you. What exactly did Jesus dying on the cross do for us? As far as I can tell it didn't do anything at all for us. Before Jesus we could get to Heaven if we just became Jews. After Jesus we could get to Heaven if we just became Christians. Aside from not having to pointlessly slaughter my best goats any more I can't see any way this was anything more than a rebranding.
Come on, widdershins..............................he is the sacrificial LAMB! Not a goat! He died for your sins, my man, so you could get to that place you could already get to anyway.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/animals-religious_sacrifice-god-sacrifices-animal_sacrifices-old_testament-aexn132_low.jpg)
When you think, if I were Jesus I'd be pretty pissed off. So your dad is the creator of the universe, he made everything and everyone you know, so you'd think being the son of the creator of everything, you would have been given at least some level of power he has. I mean Franklyn Richards, son of Reed and Sue, got given the power to alter reality on a cosmic level, leagues above his parents, yet for Jesus, all he gets is a healing power, the power to shaman water walk in wow, and do a self res, like shamans in wow.
I'd expect more from a dad who can do anything, but instead just fucks with people for fun.. actually now I think of it, that makes more sense why jesus didn't get anymore powers given to him.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 22, 2016, 05:53:18 PM
Come on, widdershins..............................he is the sacrificial LAMB! Not a goat! He died for your sins, my man, so you could get to that place you could already get to anyway.
So what you're saying is that the story goes a little like this...
Man, this is going to suck! It's literally going to kill me to do this, but it is my purpose in life.
"Guys! There's another door around here...AAAAHHHH!"
You are born, you live, you die. I find the middle part to be most interesting. For some people, they have a death fixation. So Jesus' fictional death is much less interesting to me than his fictional life ... but I don't value his fictional birth much either.
Did you help someone today, someone who needed it, and wanted it? Did you provide help with compassion and without arrogance? Pray, repent, help ... repeat cycle. But I think that without a change of heart ... your help will be weak or inverted. And if you expect this to happen thru Adam Smith's Hidden Hand ... then you are kidding yourself. You don't repent or do good deeds, without intention. Prayer is a refocussing of your intention. Will you do something or nothing? If you do something, will it be a good thing, and will you do it with the right intention? No, you don't have to be a theist to do this, you just have to be a human being.
Quote from: Baruch on December 27, 2016, 11:29:39 AM
You are born, you live, you die. I find the middle part to be most interesting. For some people, they have a death fixation. So Jesus' fictional death is much less interesting to me than his fictional life ... but I don't value his fictional birth much either.
Did you help someone today, someone who needed it, and wanted it? Did you provide help with compassion and without arrogance? Pray, repent, help ... repeat cycle. But I think that without a change of heart ... your help will be weak or inverted. And if you expect this to happen thru Adam Smith's Hidden Hand ... then you are kidding yourself. You don't repent or do good deeds, without intention. Prayer is a refocussing of your intention. Will you do something or nothing? If you do something, will it be a good thing, and will you do it with the right intention? No, you don't have to be a theist to do this, you just have to be a human being.
Great message. I think of it daily. Just a couple of quibbles. I don't call it prayer, but reflection. And I don't need an underpinning of Adam Smith or anyone else. Just check in with myself and do what I think I should. Repent is an interesting word--totally ruined by theists. I call it change. I reflect on something I did, or did not do, and try to determine if I was right in my action, or inaction. If so, then I strive to change.
Great message, tho...................
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 27, 2016, 12:27:54 PM
I reflect on something I did, or did not do, and try to determine if I was right in my action, or inaction. If so, then I strive to change.
So, you strive to change when you were
right in your action or inaction?
Hmmm... :headscratch:
Quote from: Baruch on December 27, 2016, 11:29:39 AM
You are born, you live, you die. I find the middle part to be most interesting. For some people, they have a death fixation. So Jesus' fictional death is much less interesting to me than his fictional life ... but I don't value his fictional birth much either.
“A free man thinks of nothing less than of death, and his wisdom is a meditation, not on death, but on life.â€
Baruch Spinoza,
Ethics
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 27, 2016, 04:49:31 PM
So, you strive to change when you were right in your action or inaction?
Hmmm... :headscratch:
Well, hell ya, man. Who wants to walk around right all the time!!
Quote from: widdershins on December 22, 2016, 09:39:10 AM
BORING! No radiation. No nuclear explosion. No toxic waste. Not even a dark matter explosion! You won't be writing for Marvel anytime soon. I'd try DC. They like boring super heroes.
Here's a stumper for you. What exactly did Jesus dying on the cross do for us? As far as I can tell it didn't do anything at all for us. Before Jesus we could get to Heaven if we just became Jews. After Jesus we could get to Heaven if we just became Christians. Aside from not having to pointlessly slaughter my best goats any more I can't see any way this was anything more than a rebranding.
His self sacrifice was a means to spread His teachings and example throughout the world
Quote from: Baruch on December 27, 2016, 11:29:39 AM
You are born, you live, you die. I find the middle part to be most interesting. For some people, they have a death fixation. So Jesus' fictional death is much less interesting to me than his fictional life ... but I don't value his fictional birth much either.
Did you help someone today, someone who needed it, and wanted it? Did you provide help with compassion and without arrogance? Pray, repent, help ... repeat cycle. But I think that without a change of heart ... your help will be weak or inverted. And if you expect this to happen thru Adam Smith's Hidden Hand ... then you are kidding yourself. You don't repent or do good deeds, without intention. Prayer is a refocussing of your intention. Will you do something or nothing? If you do something, will it be a good thing, and will you do it with the right intention? No, you don't have to be a theist to do this, you just have to be a human being.
Good post
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 07, 2017, 09:10:33 PM
His self sacrifice was a means to spread His teachings and example throughout the world
Just what the fuck sacrifice did this fiction perform? If jesus is god, or the son of god, then offing yourself proves nothing. You know you are going to live at the highest level of heaven. You know that you can come back as a human if for some reason you'd want to. That is not much of a sacrifice; in fact it is not sacrifice, but showboating.
What example is he supposed to be promoting? And if he wanted to promote it around the world, why not go around the world? Surely he would know how to do that? Let's face it--your god is not only lacking, but is truly stupid.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 07, 2017, 09:17:06 PM
Just what the fuck sacrifice did this fiction perform? If jesus is god, or the son of god, then offing yourself proves nothing. You know you are going to live at the highest level of heaven. You know that you can come back as a human if for some reason you'd want to. That is not much of a sacrifice; in fact it is not sacrifice, but showboating.
What example is he supposed to be promoting? And if he wanted to promote it around the world, why not go around the world? Surely he would know how to do that? Let's face it--your god is not only lacking, but is truly stupid.
Your confusion is profound
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 07, 2017, 09:19:07 PM
Your confusion is profound
MY confusion is profound!! :)))))))) god what a belly laugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hey, that's two in the space of two days. You guys keep it up!
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 07, 2017, 09:10:33 PM
His self sacrifice was a means to spread His teachings and example throughout the world
I agree that the drama of his sacrifice does help to sell the story. Although, I would quibble over the concept of self sacrifice, because he was sacrificed by his father, and like any other mortal, he was not fully understanding why his life was snuffed out by his father for the pleasure of his father: "Why has thou forsaken me?" Sacrifices to gods, are intended to please the gods. It's always been the case. That includes the Christian god, and the purpose is to curry favor by pleasuring the god in question. Please don't tell me he sacrificed himself as an act of love for mankind. That sounds altruistic to those who don't give it much thought, but actually, the story is bloody, vulgar, offensive, and designed to appeal to the most perversely sick elements of human society. It simply sells, especially to those who are preoccupied with the vulgarity of the subject.
While the morbid brutality does increase the drama and the strength of the advertisement, it's stated purpose, at least if you take any stock in what the Bible says, is to be the final sacrifice, so that no more goats, sheep, or first born sons would ever have to be slaughtered to please the one who claims to have the exclusive rights to the title of "Big Kahuna."
Of course, this is all just a story, created by scientifically ignorant writers who were a product of the morally offensive practices of the day. Arguing this from a theological standpoint is equivalent to taking seriously the insane ravings of Adolph Hitler and Charles Manson. Of course, this is what humans do, because in the end we are just self glorified apes claiming to be mirror images of the blood thirsty gods we created to take a special interest in us and to satisfy our egos.
There is not one origin of Jesus story. It's a hero saving people story. It's the oldest story. It is not even the last one. It got a big break, because of the circumstances and the time it coincided; the culture it produced has been dictating the world.
There is no rationality or logic in dicussing what did he do or say and happening in the story and why. It's a series of parables in different levels. It doesn't make any sense.
The story of a svaiour man was made an official religion by an emperor in his death bed, because he was scared of slaves and soldiers believing in it in too great numbers. Later, the protagonist was turned into a god, and his mother into a virgin in a council, because all mythical heroship is based on being some sort of superhuman, god or being related to a god by family or a 'supernatural' circumstance fitting the order required.
You can't have a single mom sleeping around, or a human father, if you are going to make the son god. You can't have a human being walking around just talking to people, you need to make him do 'magical' things, so people would hear/listen about him, because men always talk to men. You can't kill sacrfice a man to save men, because men has always died for other men. You need to scarifice a god, so the me-me-me monkey will listen the story. (Commercial line; 'You deserve the best')
Nobody watches a 'man movie', where a Clark born to Kents walking-running around trying to save people as a rescue trooper. Doesn't sell. People want to watch a 'superman movie' where he flies. You wouldn't know it was made if it was 'man movie'. Audience was the same thousands of years ago. And before that and before that. Scripts were better and more benign though.
Exactly the same way, that's why at some point god got promoted to the creator of the universe, but not just the world. (Though I am not sure if the believers got promoted to get the difference.) Long before, it was just the forest or the mountain he created, it was the 'village', before that it was the fire in the cave...etc. That's also why we have Intelligent Design today. Adjustment.
There is not one origin to this story, it does not need an origin.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 07, 2017, 09:10:33 PM
His self sacrifice was a means to spread His teachings and example throughout the world
thankfully he had tens of thousands willing to murder the fucks what wouldn't accept his blessed teachings of peace, or "he" would have gone the way of the Poseidon. Nothing says peace like killing all the people, raping and selling the kids into slavery and proclaiming god as the one true lord of peace.
"Thank you jebus for murdering all my family and neighbors so that I could be sold off to slavery and raped and forced to accept you. amen"
Yeah. I think praying to a rat is more beneficial.
Quote from: aitm on January 08, 2017, 09:49:52 AM
thankfully he had tens of thousands willing to murder the fucks what wouldn't accept his blessed teachings of peace, or "he" would have gone the way of the Poseidon. Nothing says peace like killing all the people, raping and selling the kids into slavery and proclaiming god as the one true lord of peace.
"Thank you jebus for murdering all my family and neighbors so that I could be sold off to slavery and raped and forced to accept you. amen"
Yeah. I think praying to a rat is more beneficial.
You conflate the misdirection of man with the direction GOD desires of life and creation.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 08, 2017, 06:11:37 AM
There is not one origin of Jesus story. It's a hero saving people story. It's the oldest story. It is not even the last one. It got a big break, because of the circumstances and the time it coincided; the culture it produced has been dictating the world.
Yeah, just consider the name 'Jesus' (or Joshua in earlier stories of this culture) means savior. So, this hero's name was not Fred, or Jack or Rufus, but Jesus--Savior. Wow, how original--how convenient. How idiotic, how obvious.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 08, 2017, 10:04:05 AM
Yeah, just consider the name 'Jesus' (or Joshua in earlier stories of this culture) means savior. So, this hero's name was not Fred, or Jack or Rufus, but Jesus--Savior. Wow, how original--how convenient. How idiotic, how obvious.
G-d saves ... but in Greek, Soter ... in Latin ... Salvator ... the first is a title of the Ptolomaic kings of Egypt, the second is a title of Roman Emperors, Augustus in particular. They didn't think it was idiotic or obvious. What was incredible to ancient pagans, was the idea that a savior could be an illiterate Jewish carpenter in now-wheres-ville Galilee. In Greco-Roman culture, you had to be a heroic figure like Achilles or Augustus, or in Egypt a pharaoh like Cleopatra. We continue with hero worship in modern culture ... the Kennedy family Bush family, the Clinton family, the Obama family in general, and now The Donald ... who does meet the plutocratic criteria for one kind of hero worship. We can only hope he isn't also a Nero.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 08, 2017, 10:03:00 AM
You conflate the misdirection of man with the direction GOD desires of life and creation.
I would contend that while G-d may lean marginally toward life, She is the Lady of Life and Death.
Quote from: Baruch on January 08, 2017, 10:54:36 AM
G-d saves ... but in Greek, Soter ... in Latin ... Salvator ... the first is a title of the Ptolomaic kings of Egypt, the second is a title of Roman Emperors, Augustus in particular. They didn't think it was idiotic or obvious. What was incredible to ancient pagans, was the idea that a savior could be an illiterate Jewish carpenter in now-wheres-ville Galilee. In Greco-Roman culture, you had to be a heroic figure like Achilles or Augustus, or in Egypt a pharaoh like Cleopatra. We continue with hero worship in modern culture ... the Kennedy family Bush family, the Clinton family, the Obama family in general, and now The Donald ... who does meet the plutocratic criteria for one kind of hero worship. We can only hope he isn't also a Nero.
G-d saves?? What, green stamps????
The idiotic was really referring to Pops. I see almost a natural flow from the nomadic scapegoating, to Joshua actually delivering the fictional 40 year wanders into the Promise Land. Moses saw the land but did not get there. And so, the yearning of a new deliverer or savior is where Jesus comes in. It's all the same story and hero.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 08, 2017, 10:03:00 AM
You conflate the misdirection of man with the direction GOD desires of life and creation.
To you. The reality is that your version of god and your fairy tale jebus character would have been nothing but a footnote, except that one person was willing to kill the two who did not believe him and then ten killed 20 and so it began until thousands murdered thousands. The only reason christianity has a following of less than a 1/3 of the world is because people killed other people. Left alone, jebus convinced only one...himself. So, yeah, your support of the piece of shit god that you do, makes you complicit in the death of millions.
Quote from: aitm on January 08, 2017, 02:16:57 PM
To you. The reality is that your version of god and your fairy tale jebus character would have been nothing but a footnote, except that one person was willing to kill the two who did not believe him and then ten killed 20 and so it began until thousands murdered thousands. The only reason christianity has a following of less than a 1/3 of the world is because people killed other people. Left alone, jebus convinced only one...himself. So, yeah, your support of the piece of shit god that you do, makes you complicit in the death of millions.
Wow...You sound like mikeci...Confused and accusing from ignorance....Good job
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 08, 2017, 03:08:09 PM
Wow...You sound like mikeci...Confused and accusing from ignorance....Good job
And you sound like every other theist moron with a talent for dodging questions.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 08, 2017, 03:15:35 PM
And you sound like every other theist moron with a talent for dodging questions.
I didn't mean to dodge anything.
Plainly state your question and I will do my very best to plainly answer it
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 08, 2017, 03:17:44 PM
I didn't mean to dodge anything.
Plainly state your question and I will do my very best to plainly answer it
Pops, despite your 461 posts in these forums, I still have no idea what it is you actually believe. From what I've seen, it seems I'm not the only one who doesn't get you, either. I very often see you say what you don't believe when we attempt to prove you wrong, but you don't give much clarity on what it is you do believe. You have a talent of skirting around difficult subjects rather than giving your opinions on them.
Come to think of it, I don't understand what Baruch believes either. I gave up trying to figure him out a long time ago. However, I can tell from the way he talks that he is educated and probably better equipped to debate on theology than I am. I have a kind of respect for him because of that, despite everything he says seeming like an alien language to me.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 08, 2017, 03:08:09 PM
Wow...You sound like mikeci...Confused and accusing from ignorance....Good job
I have history's full backing. You have your opinion. Good job, you have impressed yourself and some retarded sunday school students. Good for you.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 08, 2017, 11:52:35 AM
G-d saves?? What, green stamps????
The idiotic was really referring to Pops. I see almost a natural flow from the nomadic scapegoating, to Joshua actually delivering the fictional 40 year wanders into the Promise Land. Moses saw the land but did not get there. And so, the yearning of a new deliverer or savior is where Jesus comes in. It's all the same story and hero.
I wasn't literalizing the ideology. But it wasn't fake then or now, in terms of people believing things. Most Romans considered Augustus to be a savior, if not a god.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 08, 2017, 03:40:57 PM
Come to think of it, I don't understand what Baruch believes either. I gave up trying to figure him out a long time ago. However, I can tell from the way he talks that he is educated and probably better equipped to debate on theology than I am. I have a kind of respect for him because of that, despite everything he says seeming like an alien language to me.
There is a difference between ignorance and knowledge. And between knowledge and understanding. I have knowledge on a lot of things, but understanding of only a few things. Things that I have personal experience with, simply are not dismissible by me. And I am respectful enough of others, or try to be ... to accept their personal experience, and try to be patient with how they articulate it. When they speak third hand, then they are out on a limb. Unless it is contemporary testimony, it is pretty much questionable, and nearly so if we can't cross-examine the witness. So with Randy, I can't give a rats ass what some Church Father thought 1500 years ago. That was that guy's problem, back then. Irrelevant. Where I have an experience, that someone else had, I can understand them, better with a contemporary, than someone long ago, and possibly articulate my similar experience better than they can aka theology.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 08, 2017, 03:29:33 PM
Pops, despite your 461 posts in these forums, I still have no idea what it is you actually believe. From what I've seen, it seems I'm not the only one who doesn't get you, either. I very often see you say what you don't believe when we attempt to prove you wrong, but you don't give much clarity on what it is you do believe. You have a talent of skirting around difficult subjects rather than giving your opinions on them.
It is not my intention to "skirt" around any difficult subject.
Quote from: aitm on January 08, 2017, 05:06:54 PM
I have history's full backing. You have your opinion. Good job, you have impressed yourself and some retarded sunday school students. Good for you.
What. I have backing from before written word that spans all the earth and time. You think faith in a higher power is some new thing? People may not have been as technologically advanced way back when, but they knew the obvious; that being that did not create themselves or the majesty of their habitat. We can call it nature if it makes you feel better. It's all the same. There is a source and it does care about what IT formed.
There is no real evidence for true randomness or coincidences/chance. Why believe in them and life from non life, but not a creative giving force?
Probably slightly off topic
The atheist regulars don't believe in personal testimony that they can cross-examine, don't believe in ancient testimony either that they can't cross-examine. New or old subjectivity doesn't meet their epistemological concerns. One thing that make me a theist, is my open epistemology. Carefully reproducible experimental quantitative evidence, or perception derived from that, is the narrowest rational epistemology. Controlled observation or controlled experiment. So we know in that way, that there is a phenomena (not a neumena) out there, that we call an electron, and we know its mass and other physical properties, because specialists can repeatedly measure them in a controlled way. The existence of the electron was a surprise however, in the Victorian universe, charge was thought to be a continuum.
So within that general epistemology, personal testimony isn't worth much, and that is what you and I have, and frankly what I find interesting. For them it isn't even interesting. Naturalism vs humanism.
Quote from: Baruch on January 09, 2017, 07:01:27 AM
The atheist regulars don't believe in personal testimony that they can cross-examine, don't believe in ancient testimony either that they can't cross-examine. New or old subjectivity doesn't meet their epistemological concerns. One thing that make me a theist, is my open epistemology. Carefully reproducible experimental quantitative evidence, or perception derived from that, is the narrowest rational epistemology. Controlled observation or controlled experiment. So we know in that way, that there is a phenomena (not a neumena) out there, that we call an electron, and we know its mass and other physical properties, because specialists can repeatedly measure them in a controlled way. The existence of the electron was a surprise however, in the Victorian universe, charge was thought to be a continuum.
So within that general epistemology, personal testimony isn't worth much, and that is what you and I have, and frankly what I find interesting. For them it isn't even interesting. Naturalism vs humanism.
Personal testimony has been proven to be unreliable. When asked to recall simple details like the race of a person who robbed them at gun point, people will very often get it wrong. There were times another customer in the store was identified as the one who robbed it, just because the eye witness saw them at around the same time that it happened. So if eye witness testimony is useless as evidence in court, why should I hold eye witness testimony in high regard for intangible things? How do I know that the personal experiences of the person were real, not intentionally fabricated, not the result of a compromised mental state (such as being high on drugs), or the result of remembering things incorrectly?
If a god existed, it would be very simple to prove that it exists. You can't hide something that has infinite power and omniscience. It wouldn't be up to personal experiences, which often conflict with each other, to determine the god's existence and nature.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 09, 2017, 07:58:23 AM
Personal testimony has been proven to be unreliable. When asked to recall simple details like the race of a person who robbed them at gun point, people will very often get it wrong. There were times another customer in the store was identified as the one who robbed it, just because the eye witness saw them at around the same time that it happened. So if eye witness testimony is useless as evidence in court, why should I hold eye witness testimony in high regard for intangible things? How do I know that the personal experiences of the person were real, not intentionally fabricated, not the result of a compromised mental state (such as being high on drugs), or the result of remembering things incorrectly?
If a god existed, it would be very simple to prove that it exists. You can't hide something that has infinite power and omniscience. It wouldn't be up to personal experiences, which often conflict with each other, to determine the god's existence and nature.
In your premise you limit the capacities of what is technically without limit.
Omniscience and omnipresence and omniscience.
It has the power and knowledge to be everywhere yet undetectable by exponentially lesser things or their relatively primitive tools and means.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 08, 2017, 07:05:15 PM
What. I have backing from before written word that spans all the earth and time. You think faith in a higher power is some new thing? People may not have been as technologically advanced way back when, but they knew the obvious; that being that did not create themselves or the majesty of their habitat. We can call it nature if it makes you feel better. It's all the same. There is a source and it does care about what IT formed.
There is no real evidence for true randomness or coincidences/chance. Why believe in them and life from non life, but not a creative giving force?
Probably slightly off topic
Good Grief! That was a veritable slaughter house for logic. It must be like having an eternal carnival of tilt-o-whirls and bumper cars in your brain.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Tilt-A-Whirl_in_Saskatchewan.jpg/220px-Tilt-A-Whirl_in_Saskatchewan.jpg)
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 08, 2017, 07:05:15 PM
There is no real evidence for true randomness or coincidences/chance. Why believe in them and life from non life, but not a creative giving force?
Probably slightly off topic
Why not believe in a creative giving force? Because it is a fiction everywhere and everywhen. Except in your head. Is there even a single other person who believes as you do? No. That, alone, should tell you that you may be living in your own created fiction. You want to believe so deeply, so badly, that you will accept a fiction before any sort of reality. The only proof you have offered is from between your ears--it is known only to you and your experience is totally within you. Whatever change occurred in your life happened when you decided to do. Yet you say god did it and offer that up as some sort of proof to the world that you indeed, have a pipeline to god. You are simply another self deluded theist.
Quote from: Baruch on January 09, 2017, 07:01:27 AM
So within that general epistemology, personal testimony isn't worth much, and that is what you and I have, and frankly what I find interesting. For them it isn't even interesting. Naturalism vs humanism.
Personal testimony is very powerful--for the person who experienced it. But it is not proof of anything beyond the individual that experienced it. It is interesting when presented as just what it is. But when presented as proof that god exists, it is rather droll, boring and yes, uninteresting.
As for your naturalism vs humanism, it all depends upon how you define each term.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 08, 2017, 07:05:15 PM
What. I have backing from before written word that spans all the earth and time. You think faith in a higher power is some new thing? People may not have been as technologically advanced way back when, but they knew the obvious; that being that did not create themselves or the majesty of their habitat. We can call it nature if it makes you feel better. It's all the same. There is a source and it does care about what IT formed.
There is no real evidence for true randomness or coincidences/chance. Why believe in them and life from non life, but not a creative giving force?
Probably slightly off topic
They knew the obvious all right. Like lightning bolts don't just throw themselves. Zeus did it. And the Earth was flat. That was pretty "obvious" to primitives. Is the mountain spewing smoke and fire? Mountains don't just spew smoke and fire on their own. God was obviously angry. Or helping them by guiding them with a "pillar of smoke" by day and a "pillar of fire" by night. Obviously that's a big neon "This way" sign.
Throughout history many things have been "obvious" to people who were very much wrong. It still happens today.
That last sentence, man that was a fresh load of BS because it really stunk up the place. No real evidence for randomness or coincidence? By that I assume you mean, "You can't PROVE it wasn't magic!" There is PLENTY of evidence for true randomness and coincidence. That you choose to believe it was magic instead doesn't change that.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 09, 2017, 07:58:23 AM
Personal testimony has been proven to be unreliable. When asked to recall simple details like the race of a person who robbed them at gun point, people will very often get it wrong. There were times another customer in the store was identified as the one who robbed it, just because the eye witness saw them at around the same time that it happened. So if eye witness testimony is useless as evidence in court, why should I hold eye witness testimony in high regard for intangible things? How do I know that the personal experiences of the person were real, not intentionally fabricated, not the result of a compromised mental state (such as being high on drugs), or the result of remembering things incorrectly?
If a god existed, it would be very simple to prove that it exists. You can't hide something that has infinite power and omniscience. It wouldn't be up to personal experiences, which often conflict with each other, to determine the god's existence and nature.
You are assuming, as a Greek, that G-d is omniscient, that existence applies to G-d, that G-d is omnipresent etc .. so yes, that particular straw man doesn't fly ;-) Except in a very strong wind!
All men are mermaids
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is a mermaid ...
See, logic/rationality doesn't get you jack shit either. Yes, people are unreliable, atheists/theists all are. Rational people, aren't ... they just claim to be, because they are just as full of ape shit as the rest of the monkeys.
So, if your choice of what to eat for lunch is objective, how does that work? Or is it just some worthless subjective feeling (and feminine, euw). I can reason that truly autonomous vehicles won't work, and my reasoning may be wrong. But it isn't a fact that they exist ... but a marketing claim to be debunked ... when people make extraordinary claims ;-) You debunk the marketing claim that G-d exists ... and I counter ... I have nothing to sell you, so don't engage in implied ad hominem (not by you personally, but a straw man atheist).
So like Descartes ... you are left with the epistemological problem of ... how do I achieve certainty. Please see Descartes then. For me, I can move my own right hand ... I am less trusting of what I think ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on January 09, 2017, 01:12:12 PM
You are assuming, as a Greek, that G-d is omniscient, that existence applies to G-d, that G-d is omnipresent etc ..
You debunk the marketing claim that G-d exists ... and I counter ... I have nothing to sell you,
Actually, I am assuming nothing about god--since god is a fiction, god is all things to each and every believer. I assume nothing about Bugs Bunny or Paul Bunyan or god. All fictions. So I realize they change with the believer.
You have nothing to sell? Knowing you, I'll take your word. But Pops, for example, has a bunch to sell. He has to sell his point to me, so that he can reinforce it for himself. That is indeed, selling.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 09, 2017, 02:50:34 PM
Actually, I am assuming nothing about god--since god is a fiction, god is all things to each and every believer. I assume nothing about Bugs Bunny or Paul Bunyan or god. All fictions. So I realize they change with the believer.
You have nothing to sell? Knowing you, I'll take your word. But Pops, for example, has a bunch to sell. He has to sell his point to me, so that he can reinforce it for himself. That is indeed, selling.
You use a straw man god of your own construction, in talking with theists or trolls. I guess those aren't assumptions, just a stick in the eye.
Quote from: Baruch on January 09, 2017, 06:08:18 PM
You use a straw man god of your own construction, in talking with theists or trolls. I guess those aren't assumptions, just a stick in the eye.
How am I using a straw man god? I don't believe in them either. The set position of the universe is that no god exists. It would be like me telling somebody I believe in the wondrous powers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. When I'm told there is not such thing, I then maintain that there is, and the proof is all around you--just look. In fact, I say, prove that She does not exist! That's how I regard god(s). God does not exist and without proof that god does exist, why even consider it or talk about it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 09, 2017, 06:33:06 PM
How am I using a straw man god? I don't believe in them either. The set position of the universe is that no god exists. It would be like me telling somebody I believe in the wondrous powers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. When I'm told there is not such thing, I then maintain that there is, and the proof is all around you--just look. In fact, I say, prove that She does not exist! That's how I regard god(s). God does not exist and without proof that god does exist, why even consider it or talk about it.
Then why quote medieval theology as part of a polemic. My point isn't that you should be apologetic, but that your expression should be neutral (and I don't mean agnostic).
G-d is omnipresent ... I don't see G-d, therefore no G-d. That isn't a valid argument .. the first part is a straw man, set up only for the purpose of knocking it down. It doesn't help your POV, to argue in a way that is invalid or merely rhetorical. Though it is better than just a drive by ad hominem some use. Because we know each other a long time, I understand you usually. But I partly respond for the benefit of those who don't.
Quote from: Baruch on January 10, 2017, 05:13:23 AM
Then why quote medieval theology as part of a polemic. My point isn't that you should be apologetic, but that your expression should be neutral (and I don't mean agnostic).
G-d is omnipresent ... I don't see G-d, therefore no G-d. That isn't a valid argument .. the first part is a straw man, set up only for the purpose of knocking it down. It doesn't help your POV, to argue in a way that is invalid or merely rhetorical. Though it is better than just a drive by ad hominem some use. Because we know each other a long time, I understand you usually. But I partly respond for the benefit of those who don't.
Are you conflating me with somebody else? When have I quoted medieval theology? How can one be neutral and not agnostic? I called myself agnostic for most of my life because I said that one cannot prove a negative. I have shifted my thinking to being not really atheistic since I don't believe in any theism--but I'm not exactly against theism since all theism is based upon fiction. I call myself a nonbeliever. I don't believe in any theism nor that there is any sort of foundation for theism.
I have never said that god is omnipresent--and I have never said I don't 'see' him; I have said I don't see any evidence of the existence of god(s). I fully realize there is much that exists that I can't see, so to argue that there is no god because I can't see him/she/it/they is foolish.
My POV is that it is not my duty to prove god does not exist. That is the same as asking me to prove Bugs Bunny or Santa Claus does not exist. Or being asked to prove there are not creatures from another universe in this universe. Everything that is, has some sort of proof that it is. So, the natural state of the universe is it is godless. So, for me to think there is a god, one needs to provide some sort of tangible, empirical evidence of such. I am a nonbeliever. Prove me wrong.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 09, 2017, 10:16:06 AM
Personal testimony is very powerful--for the person who experienced it. But it is not proof of anything beyond the individual that experienced it. It is interesting when presented as just what it is. But when presented as proof that god exists, it is rather droll, boring and yes, uninteresting.
As for your naturalism vs humanism, it all depends upon how you define each term.
Sophists define and redefine as necessary .. but honest people don't. Some people love nature (minus humans) some love humans (minus nature) ... I love both. But since I am not a tree, and am kindred to you and the other ape people ... I find ape people more relevant.
As for proof, the denial of evidence, trumps any claims. Or better yet, just ignore anyone who makes any claims. I don't need proof to find my way to the lavatory. I already know where it is. Again, as in the NT itself, Pharisees demand miracles of Jesus (and I think he had none, if he was a real person) ... in the sense that you and the Pharisees mean it. You are a secular Pharisee, not that there is anything wrong with that. Your standard of proof and that of the Pharisees is different. And of course, we are speaking of a story, not something that actually happened. But the attitude of the people in the story, and actual people, that is real.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 09, 2017, 07:58:23 AM
Personal testimony has been proven to be unreliable. When asked to recall simple details like the race of a person who robbed them at gun point, people will very often get it wrong. There were times another customer in the store was identified as the one who robbed it, just because the eye witness saw them at around the same time that it happened. So if eye witness testimony is useless as evidence in court, why should I hold eye witness testimony in high regard for intangible things? How do I know that the personal experiences of the person were real, not intentionally fabricated, not the result of a compromised mental state (such as being high on drugs), or the result of remembering things incorrectly?
If a god existed, it would be very simple to prove that it exists. You can't hide something that has infinite power and omniscience. It wouldn't be up to personal experiences, which often conflict with each other, to determine the god's existence and nature.
Ah, but you are giving personal testimony about your POV. That must be unreliable. So what is your true POV ... and convey it to us without writing it, because then that is personal testimony about personal testimony. More than Cretans are liars ;-) And yes, your straw man G-d is unreal, but then you knew that already.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 09, 2017, 10:11:30 AM
Why not believe in a creative giving force? Because it is a fiction everywhere and everywhen. Except in your head. Is there even a single other person who believes as you do? No. That, alone, should tell you that you may be living in your own created fiction. You want to believe so deeply, so badly, that you will accept a fiction before any sort of reality. The only proof you have offered is from between your ears--it is known only to you and your experience is totally within you. Whatever change occurred in your life happened when you decided to do. Yet you say god did it and offer that up as some sort of proof to the world that you indeed, have a pipeline to god. You are simply another self deluded theist.
There are atheist Hindus and Buddhists ... so nothing wrong with an impersonal absolute. Physicists who are not even religious, believe in impersonal absolutes too ... that is the key that ties that all together. I simply don't see reality as impersonal ... I am a person myself after all. It would be like a statue trying to imagine what being a real human is like. Reductionism, which is the inevitable outcome of fundamentalist epistemology, is necessarily materialist and impersonal ... unless you think that atoms are little people ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on January 10, 2017, 01:35:30 PM
Sophists define and redefine as necessary .. but honest people don't. Some people love nature (minus humans) some love humans (minus nature) ... I love both. But since I am not a tree, and am kindred to you and the other ape people ... I find ape people more relevant.
As for proof, the denial of evidence, trumps any claims. Or better yet, just ignore anyone who makes any claims. I don't need proof to find my way to the lavatory. I already know where it is. Again, as in the NT itself, Pharisees demand miracles of Jesus (and I think he had none, if he was a real person) ... in the sense that you and the Pharisees mean it. You are a secular Pharisee, not that there is anything wrong with that. Your standard of proof and that of the Pharisees is different. And of course, we are speaking of a story, not something that actually happened. But the attitude of the people in the story, and actual people, that is real.
I love and hate all of nature and all of humanity. I love the beauty of nature--it cannot be surpassed. I hate the cruelty of nature; love the lioness, love the gazelle--hate it when the lioness kills the gazelle; but that is nature. Same with humanity--love some people hate others. Religion is not needed, either in nature or humanity. It is not something that is helpful, beautiful or necessary. It simply produces destruction. I would love to ignore it--but it will not let me; it tries to control all aspects of my being, both actions and thoughts. I do not demand miracles from the personages or stories of its fiction.
As in all things, there is not all bad in religion or it's stories. There are good allegorical lessons in the bible; there is good advice as well. But when all is added together and weighted, the bad far outweighs the good. And none of the good allegorical lessons or good advice are unique to religion; those lessons and advice can be gotten elsewhere; so religion is not even necessary for that.
Quote from: Baruch on January 10, 2017, 01:41:19 PM
There are atheist Hindus and Buddhists ... so nothing wrong with an impersonal absolute. Physicists who are not even religious, believe in impersonal absolutes too ... that is the key that ties that all together. I simply don't see reality as impersonal ... I am a person myself after all. It would be like a statue trying to imagine what being a real human is like. Reductionism, which is the inevitable outcome of fundamentalist epistemology, is necessarily materialist and impersonal ... unless you think that atoms are little people ;-)
Yes, there are atheist Hindus and Buddhists. That's why I shy from using that label and prefer to use nonbeliever. I don't believe there is any 'power' in the universe that is unnatural. And there is no other life after I start the process of becoming 'little people'--atoms. And no, it is nothing like being a statue. I am free to go and interact with the universe as I see fit--and yes, I have to take the consequences of those interactions, both good and bad, or even indifferent. The universe is impersonal and material. That is not a bad thing; that is not a good thing; it just is.
Well ... you don't have to be so impersonal about it ;-)
Everyone finds their own truth in their own heart ... other people just act as stimulus and inhibition. That and try giving up some of that hate. I have to work at it too, but it is worthwhile work. Human existence is a love/hate thing ... love more, hate less.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 08, 2017, 07:05:15 PM
I have backing from before written word that spans all the earth and time.
you have shit. Made up bull-shit, proven to be bullshit. Stamped and approved by idiots. Good job, you impressed yourself. Hoo-rah! Your god has been proven to be as real as all the thousands of the other made up bullshit gods. And all you can do is,but...but....but I BELIEVE!!! booyah.
Quote from: aitm on January 10, 2017, 08:07:14 PM
you have shit. Made up bull-shit, proven to be bullshit. Stamped and approved by idiots. Good job, you impressed yourself. Hoo-rah! Your god has been proven to be as real as all the thousands of the other made up bullshit gods. And all you can do is,but...but....but I BELIEVE!!! booyah.
Uhm... What?
Surely you aren't that dumb.
Have you heard of the Baha'i faith or the understanding that all different names for the benevolent creator GOD are just that, different names for the same single GOD.
No need to be so grumpy or bigheaded
peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 10, 2017, 08:15:38 PM
Have you heard of the Baha'i faith or the understanding that all different names for the benevolent creator GOD are just that, different names for the same GOD
Bullshit. Saying it as fact is not the same as it actually being fact. You have already proved you prefer made up bullshit so this bullshit is nothing more than you pretending that because you said it, it actually is true. It is not....it's bullshit. Read a real book boy.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 10, 2017, 08:15:38 PM
Uhm... What?
Surely you aren't that dumb.
Have you heard of the Baha'i faith or the understanding that all different names for the benevolent creator GOD are just that, different names for the same single GOD.
No need to be so grumpy or bigheaded
peace
That is your belief. Jehovah's Witnesses believe they worship a physically different God than other Christians. They believe this even though their Bibles are derived from the same scrolls and have the same actors. You are saying, "Their beliefs are wrong, mine are right", but that's exactly what they would say about you. So PROVE IT!
Quote from: widdershins on January 11, 2017, 11:58:40 AM
That is your belief. Jehovah's Witnesses believe they worship a physically different God than other Christians. They believe this even though their Bibles are derived from the same scrolls and have the same actors. You are saying, "Their beliefs are wrong, mine are right", but that's exactly what they would say about you. So PROVE IT!
I've said nobody's beliefs are wrong and only mine are right.
Your making shit up still
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 11, 2017, 12:35:47 PM
I've said nobody's beliefs are wrong and only mine are right.
Your making shit up still
Their beliefs are that you are wrong. Obviously, they can't all be right when there are contradictions. And even if there were no contradictions in their beliefs, you would still have the burden of proof.
Quote from: Baruch on January 10, 2017, 01:38:24 PM
Ah, but you are giving personal testimony about your POV. That must be unreliable. So what is your true POV ... and convey it to us without writing it, because then that is personal testimony about personal testimony. More than Cretans are liars ;-) And yes, your straw man G-d is unreal, but then you knew that already.
Even if whatever god you believe in turned out to be real, it might as well be fiction. If it's not omnipresent, it's unreachable. If it's not omnipotent, then it can't help. If it's not omniscient, you can't rely on it as an authority of knowledge and wisdom. If it's not personal, then your life is unaffected by it. Without these qualities, god serves no purpose in our universe, and its existence is completely inconsequential.
Quote from: aitm on January 08, 2017, 09:49:52 AM
thankfully he had tens of thousands willing to murder the fucks what wouldn't accept his blessed teachings of peace, or "he" would have gone the way of the Poseidon. Nothing says peace like killing all the people, raping and selling the kids into slavery and proclaiming god as the one true lord of peace.
"Thank you jebus for murdering all my family and neighbors so that I could be sold off to slavery and raped and forced to accept you. amen"
Yeah. I think praying to a rat is more beneficial.
Jesus said himself (according to Matthew 10:34-37) that he didn't come to bring peace, so any Christians who believe he did are just deluded:
QuoteThink not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
I know that the vast majority of Christians have never read the NT, so they can be told anything at all about it and just believe it merely because some preacher said so.
However thanks to the Protestant reformation, Christians and others can now read the Bible without knowing Latin first ;-)
Blackleaf ... your anti-theology dogma ... are you counting how many demons can dance on the head of an un-pin? ;-)
Shouldn't they actually know Aramaic or something like that?
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 05:05:12 AM
Shouldn't they actually know Aramaic or something like that?
Christians vs Bible ... they need three Jewish languages ... Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and Judeo-Greek. The smallest part is in Aramaic, which is very similar to Biblical Hebrew. Judo-Greek is the next largest part ... it is like Hellenistic Greek, but with Jewish concepts rather than pagan concepts, so the semantics and vocabulary are different, think Yiddish vs German. And Biblical Hebrew is the largest part ... it is similar to Arabic.
Quote from: Baruch on January 31, 2017, 06:26:31 AM
Christians vs Bible ... they need three Jewish languages ... Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and Judeo-Greek. The smallest part is in Aramaic, which is very similar to Biblical Hebrew. Judo-Greek is the next largest part ... it is like Hellenistic Greek, but with Jewish concepts rather than pagan concepts, so the semantics and vocabulary are different, think Yiddish vs German. And Biblical Hebrew is the largest part ... it is similar to Arabic.
And yet just above, you were demanding knowing Latin. Not very consistent. Tsk, tsk...
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 09:39:00 AM
And yet just above, you were demanding knowing Latin. Not very consistent. Tsk, tsk...
Inside joke. The Latin version is just a translation, it isn't the real thing ... so no, you don't have to know Latin to read the Bible. However you would need to know those other languages, to understand it.
Quote from: Baruch on January 31, 2017, 12:51:24 PM
Inside joke. The Latin version is just a translation, it isn't the real thing ... so no, you don't have to know Latin to read the Bible. However you would need to know those other languages, to understand it.
I'm glad you recognize that. I LOL when people read the english translations as if it was the literal WORD (and they do). They sit in their buildings looking at a white Jesus, listening to bad translations and go to their deaths thinking that is all real.
I'd rather feed my cats indoors and the birds in the yard. At least they aren't superstitious!
Yes, I once knew a Christian, who believed that the King James is more authoritative than the Torah (Hebrew) ... and argued this with an Israeli. Hilarity ensued.
Quote from: Baruch on January 31, 2017, 01:12:53 PM
Yes, I once knew a Christian, who believed that the King James is more authoritative than the Torah (Hebrew) ... and argued this with an Israeli. Hilarity ensued.
They should both go back and read about Mithra in Persian. Um, Babylonian? Urdu? That's where most of Judaism came from.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 01:01:57 PM
I'm glad you recognize that. I LOL when people read the english translations as if it was the literal WORD (and they do).
According to Michelle Bachmann,
QuoteIf English was good enough for Jesus when he wrote the Bible it should be good enough for Coke
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 01:43:23 PM
They should both go back and read about Mithra in Persian. Um, Babylonian? Urdu? That's where most of Judaism came from.
Yes, mostly Babylon with a dash of Persopolis. Urdu is a mix of Persian and Hindi ... it came much later.
Speaking of that "Where God Was Born" by Bruce Feiler.
Quote from: Baruch on January 31, 2017, 06:43:26 PM
Yes, mostly Babylon with a dash of Persopolis. Urdu is a mix of Persian and Hindi ... it came much later.
Speaking of that "Where God Was Born" by Bruce Feiler.
Mithraism was a bunch of bull...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 10:37:08 AM
Mithraism was a bunch of bull...
It was a poly-ethnic officers club for Roman legion officers (if you mean the Roman version of it). Mithra was worshipped by Zoroastrians/Persians ... though technically it wasn't Zoroastrian (which only focused on Ahura Mazda vs Ahriman).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism
So anti-ancient, anti-Roman, anti-officer, anti-pagan, anti-legion? Or all of the above. See Freemasonry under the British Empire army ... both George Washington and his opponent British generals were members.
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 11:30:55 AM
It was a poly-ethnic officers club for Roman legion officers (if you mean the Roman version of it). Mithra was worshipped by Zoroastrians/Persians ... though technically it wasn't Zoroastrian (which only focused on Ahura Mazda vs Ahriman).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism
So anti-ancient, anti-Roman, anti-officer, anti-pagan, anti-legion? Or all of the above. See Freemasonry under the British Empire army ... both George Washington and his opponent British generals were members.
You missed the joke about "bull". ;)
Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 11:35:19 AM
You missed the joke about "bull". ;)
My bad, but this is Latin Sunday, and you didn't use Latin ...
"qui autem indocti sunt in Latin" ;-) Only physicists understand the Catholic Mass ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 11:44:30 AM
My bad, but this is Latin Sunday, and you didn't use Latin ... "qui autem indocti sunt in Latin" ;-) Only physicists understand the Catholic Mass ;-))
Actually, only physicists understand mass. Or moles. Oh wait, moles are for chemists...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 11:47:38 AM
Actually, only physicists understand mass. Or moles. Oh wait, moles are for chemists...
So which kind of scientist takes care of ground hogs who tell weather jokes?
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 11:48:38 AM
So which kind of scientist takes care of ground hogs who tell weather jokes?
None. The groundhog is 37% accurate lately given a 33% chance of randomly correct. IF a scientist were to pay attention to such nonsense, it would just look at its OWN shadow, right?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 11:56:55 AM
None. The groundhog is 37% accurate lately given a 33% chance of randomly correct. IF a scientist were to pay attention to such nonsense, it would just look at its OWN shadow, right?
Well, when a groundhog endorses Cold Fusion, I will give it another look-see ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 12:18:49 PM
Well, when a groundhog endorses Cold Fusion, I will give it another look-see ;-)
What part of meaningless random groundhog shadow did you miss?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 01:29:15 PM
What part of meaningless random groundhog shadow did you miss?
It is like any other oracular technique ... one could use rabbit droppings just as well.
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 02:20:57 PM
It is like any other oracular technique ... one could use rabbit droppings just as well.
Does it not occur to anyone that a tree shadow or lack would work just as well?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 11, 2017, 01:29:45 AM
Does it not occur to anyone that a tree shadow or lack would work just as well?
That is called a sundial. It is even older than you ;-) PS - I post for my therapy, thanks for being in my group therapy session ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 08:40:17 AM
That is called a sundial. It is even older than you ;-) PS - I post for my therapy, thanks for being in my group therapy session ;-)
Yes, a sundial would work as well. And I have one. But why complicate things? Your or my shadow is is easier then a sundial or a groundhog.
And if I am part of your therapy group, you are welcome. You won't be the first who has sought my unintentional help that way. Atheists are very rational and self-aware. It shows.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 11, 2017, 08:48:40 AM
Yes, a sundial would work as well. And I have one. But why complicate things? Your or my shadow is is easier then a sundial or a groundhog.
And if I am part of your therapy group, you are welcome. You won't be the first who has sought my unintentional help that way. Atheists are very rational and self-aware. It shows.
And conceited ... but to be human, is to thump ones chest ... unless you are a woman ;-)
A groundhog sundial moves around too much ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 08:51:47 AM
And conceited ... but to be human, is to thump ones chest ... unless you are a woman ;-)
A groundhog sundial moves around too much ;-)
Conceit? Hardly. Without theists bombarding the airwaves or knocking on my door, the concept would never occur to me. I am retired and live alone. Whole days go by without me thinking of theisms. Unless they beat on my door or declare their thoughts on TV. Or when I come here desiring to commune with my own (stable and sensible) kind.
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 08:40:17 AM
PS - I post for my therapy, thanks for being in my group therapy session ;-)
Doesn't seem to be doing you much good. Maybe you could try LSD micro-dosing, I hear it can work wonders...
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 11, 2017, 04:51:42 PM
Doesn't seem to be doing you much good. Maybe you could try LSD micro-dosing, I hear it can work wonders...
There is a very old connection between religion and drugs. Bell Beaker culture in early Europe for example ... beer/mead and other recreational substances.
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 06:15:45 PM
There is a very old connection between religion and drugs. Bell Beaker culture in early Europe for example ... beer/mead and other recreational substances.
The enjoyment of mind-altering natural substances "can" but not "must" create ideas of deities. I managed to enjoy a few mild joints in college without losing my atheism.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2017, 04:42:42 AM
The enjoyment of mind-altering natural substances "can" but not "must" create ideas of deities. I managed to enjoy a few mild joints in college without losing my atheism.
Ram Dass would disagree. But I don't think anyone is claiming that these substances cause religion, they simply accompany religion, sometimes reinforcing it. Dream interpretation does too.
Quote from: Baruch on February 13, 2017, 07:01:59 AM
Ram Dass would disagree. But I don't think anyone is claiming that these substances cause religion, they simply accompany religion, sometimes reinforcing it. Dream interpretation does too.
What makes you think that mind-altering drugs or alcohol did not originate the idea of a deity? It had to start somewhere, and it sure wasn't in reality. I mean, the first person to conceive the idea of a deity HAD to be high on SOMETHING since it isn't real.
I can just imagine the first person to sample fermented sugar cane or the like waking up and needed some excuse for his actions at the party the night before. ;)
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2017, 07:24:16 AM
What makes you think that mind-altering drugs or alcohol did not originate the idea of a deity? It had to start somewhere, and it sure wasn't in reality. I mean, the first person to conceive the idea of a deity HAD to be high on SOMETHING since it isn't real.
I can just imagine the first person to sample fermented sugar cane or the like waking up and needed some excuse for his actions at the party the night before. ;)
Key word here being "imagine"
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 07:46:12 AM
Key word here being "imagine"
Well, what is theism except imaging? I try to do less.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2017, 07:51:03 AM
Well, what is theism except imaging? I try to do less.
It is you imagining that all theism is the simple product of imagination that is the issue. How would one go about using their imagination to determine truth?
They cannot.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 07:53:59 AM
It is you imagining that all theism is the simple product of imagination that is the issue. How would one go about using their imagination to determine truth?
They cannot.
But since you believe in a fiction, what else do you have to go on????
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 13, 2017, 08:43:42 AM
But since you believe in a fiction, what else do you have to go on????
Actually I don't really take the bible literally. I do reflect on the teachings and parables and find truth in them. There is wisdom in the pages.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 08:23:40 PM
Actually I don't really take the bible literally. I do reflect on the teachings and parables and find truth in them. There is wisdom in the pages.
I have read the bible and some of it several times. And I used the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary as an aid when reading some of it, as well. I found wisdom. And I found some personal truths, as well. But I could say the same of many, many books I've read. And within the bible I have found murder, destruction, evil, lies, distortions and stupidity. So, the bible, from the history of it that I've read about it makes it clearly a book of fiction.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 13, 2017, 10:06:23 PM
I have read the bible and some of it several times. And I used the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary as an aid when reading some of it, as well. I found wisdom. And I found some personal truths, as well. But I could say the same of many, many books I've read. And within the bible I have found murder, destruction, evil, lies, distortions and stupidity. So, the bible, from the history of it that I've read about it makes it clearly a book of fiction.
Well you might as well call all sacred writings ever written fiction too. That just isn't the case. They are not the product of people's imagination, but are inspired works. Historically, the bible may be not so accurate. But it isn't a history book. It is a guidance and book of prophesies and virtues. Man added in genealogies and other fantastical things in an attempt to make it undeniable, only making it less credible to many. I believe everything is in the bible for a reason, but that not all of it is exactly the Word of GOD per say.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 10:23:09 PM
Well you might as well call all sacred writings ever written fiction too. That just isn't the case. They are not the product of people's imagination, but are inspired works. Historically, the bible may be not so accurate. But it isn't a history book. It is a guidance and book of prophesies and virtues. Man added in genealogies and other fantastical things in an attempt to make it undeniable, only making it less credible to many. I believe everything is in the bible for a reason, but that not all of it is exactly the Word of GOD per say.
Okay Pops--all sacred writings ever written are fiction. ALL theism is based on fiction. What the hell is an 'inspired' writing??? I'd call it a vivid imagination. Prophesies in the bible--well, all prophesies--are lies; they were mostly written after the fact. So, you claim some of the bible was added by men? What part of the bible was NOT written by men??? All of it was. Actually, the bible (all versions of it) were crafted from a huge amount of writings--crafted by men for all the reasons you would suppose they did it--power and money. And of course everything in the bible is there for a reason--the men who crafted it were not dumb--they were pretty crafty and knew what it was they wanted--power and money.
Ernest Hemingway, John Steinbeck, Edgar Allen Poe all got their inspiration from a bottle. Did some of their best work "drunk as a skunk".
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 10:23:09 PM
Well you might as well call all sacred writings ever written fiction too. That just isn't the case. They are not the product of people's imagination, but are inspired works. Historically, the bible may be not so accurate. But it isn't a history book. It is a guidance and book of prophesies and virtues. Man added in genealogies and other fantastical things in an attempt to make it undeniable, only making it less credible to many. I believe everything is in the bible for a reason, but that not all of it is exactly the Word of GOD per say.
You really have to cherrypick to find anything worth reflecting on in the Bible. Unless you think it's a good idea for a rape victim to be forced to marry her rapist, or to make life-long slaves out of people in other nations.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 14, 2017, 01:14:48 AM
You really have to cherrypick to find anything worth reflecting on in the Bible. Unless you think it's a good idea for a rape victim to be forced to marry her rapist, or to make life-long slaves out of people in other nations.
Different strokes for different folks ... stick to your comic books ;-))
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 07:53:59 AM
It is you imagining that all theism is the simple product of imagination that is the issue. How would one go about using their imagination to determine truth?
They cannot.
The Arabs also despise imagination, but think that the Quran is revelation, unique revelation. That is of course, inconsistent. There are no Arabs on Vulcan.
Imagination is a god-property, it only happens with living, conscious beings. But if one is a bitter nihilist ... one can't enjoy even breakfast corn flakes. Where did corn flakes come from? A man's imagination, put into material form. Dr Kellog, a scam artist. Hey folks, it is scam artists, all the way down. Everything is a lie, everyone is a scam artist ... waaaa. Snowflakes aren't new.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 14, 2017, 01:14:48 AM
You really have to cherrypick to find anything worth reflecting on in the Bible. Unless you think it's a good idea for a rape victim to be forced to marry her rapist, or to make life-long slaves out of people in other nations.
Get your head out of your ass and stop decieving people. The old testament has some hard things in it. I won't deny that. But the majority of the whole book is profitable towards ones own direction.
Sharpen up on your misrepresentation of ancient law;
Rape was punishable by death.
It is easy to judge other people, but we should judge their works, including their writings. If some people are puritans, they will even find Gandhi inadequate.
See if that worked.
I used to have the same signature but at some point removed it to appease others.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: Baruch on February 14, 2017, 06:13:10 AM
Different strokes for different folks ... stick to your comic books ;-))
That's what the bible is--ancient comic book.
Well nice and cute avatar pops! I like it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 13, 2017, 11:18:42 PM
Okay Pops--all sacred writings ever written are fiction. ALL theism is based on fiction. What the hell is an 'inspired' writing??? I'd call it a vivid imagination. Prophesies in the bible--well, all prophesies--are lies; they were mostly written after the fact. So, you claim some of the bible was added by men? What part of the bible was NOT written by men??? All of it was. Actually, the bible (all versions of it) were crafted from a huge amount of writings--crafted by men for all the reasons you would suppose they did it--power and money. And of course everything in the bible is there for a reason--the men who crafted it were not dumb--they were pretty crafty and knew what it was they wanted--power and money.
I would expect you to surmise as much.
Regardless of the misdirection of man, the truth still shines through the pages. Inspired is not synonymous with imagined, though the average translations seem somewhat off.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 13, 2017, 10:06:23 PM
And within the bible I have found murder, destruction, evil, lies, distortions and stupidity. So, the bible, from the history of it that I've read about it makes it clearly a book of fiction.
Not saying your whole argument was bad but I'm gonna be nit picky here. Sure it's semantics but the way this is worded implies that, the bible is false because of the " murder, destruction, evil, lies, distortions and stupidity". But we all know that " murder, destruction, evil, lies, distortions and stupidity" are very real things! They exist! As in that's not a good argument as to why the bible is fake. To a Christians that's not very convincing.
I dislike bad arguments because they hurt the cause. Not saying they can't be totally avoided but they aren't useful.
Be careful of your wording. I understand you probably didn't mean to imply it that way, but the word "so" and it's placement is misleading. I know that grammatically it's correct but not every one is a grammar nazi and the way you stated that is very misleading.
Sorry to point that out I'm just nit picky about semantics.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 09:08:56 AM
I would expect you to surmise as much.
Regardless of the misdirection of man, the truth still shines through the pages. Inspired is not synonymous with imagined, though the average translations seem somewhat off.
faith in selfless unity for good
I'm sorry but that is your warped opinion. Maybe the bible really speaks to you, how ever it does not speak to me. I have not found much wisdom in the bible and even if I had that doesn't "prove" that the bible is real. How do you know the bible was inspired by god? Because the pope told you so? There are many more scriptures besides what made it to the bible in other words the bible was edited by man. Probably a group of men decided what was "inspiring" and what wasn't. And they decided some of these things based on politics. That's not something inspired by god! That's picking and choosing your holy text!
Many of the events in the bible NEVER happened in real life. Exodus, complete bullshit. Creation story, complete bullshit. Noah's flood, also bullshit. The bible is filled with inaccuracies! And that is building up. Even if you could claim that the stories have valuable lessons from them "which they do not seem to as far as I'm concerned" and may be fiction but is still inspired by god, is still some ones opinion! The bible isn't inspiring to me. In fact now when I go back to read it I realize how laughable it is!
I've also seen some of the "wisdom" in the bible and it doesn't seem that wise to me. Also some of the "wise" messages of the bible conflict with each other. It seems like the authors of the bible didn't collaborate very well and didn't even know what, was what. Other wise you would not need the pope to explain it to you.
Another commonly pointed out problem of the bible is that it's lost in translation! Why would a divine being inspire something that could be misconstrued? You think that was wise? So the common person can't just pick up the bible and fully understand it's true meaning. It is the humans fault that they didn't get the proper message. Well no God didn't convey the message in a way that was timeless, universal, or easy to understand by all. That doesn't qualify as inspiring I'm sorry.
Quote from: doorknob on February 14, 2017, 09:12:03 AM
Not saying your whole argument was bad but I'm gonna be nit picky here. Sure it's semantics but the way this is worded implies that, the bible is false because of the " murder, destruction, evil, lies, distortions and stupidity". But we all know that " murder, destruction, evil, lies, distortions and stupidity" are very real things! They exist! As in that's not a good argument as to why the bible is fake. To a Christians that's not very convincing.
I dislike bad arguments because they hurt the cause. Not saying they can't be totally avoided but they aren't useful.
Be careful of your wording. I understand you probably didn't mean to imply it that way, but the word "so" and it's placement is misleading. I know that grammatically it's correct but not every one is a grammar nazi and the way you stated that is very misleading.
Sorry to point that out I'm just nit picky about semantics.
I understand your point. The two statements were not meant to be linked--were supposed to be two separate statements. The 'so' was a link that brought them together. The entire post was too hasty and sloppy.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 14, 2017, 09:38:40 AM
I understand your point. The two statements were not meant to be linked--were supposed to be two separate statements. The 'so' was a link that brought them together. The entire post was too hasty and sloppy.
Hey I'm not judging. I knew what you meant. I'm just a semantic nazi. how you word things is important because if you aren't careful what you say might be twisted to mean something YOU DIDN'T mean!
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 10:23:09 PM
Well you might as well call all sacred writings ever written fiction too.
I do. Bible, Quran, Rg Veda, Tipitaka, Torah, Dianetics, you name it. All fiction.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 10:23:09 PM
That just isn't the case. They are not the product of people's imagination, but are inspired works. Historically, the bible may be not so accurate. But it isn't a history book. It is a guidance and book of prophesies and virtues. Man added in genealogies and other fantastical things in an attempt to make it undeniable, only making it less credible to many. I believe everything is in the bible for a reason, but that not all of it is exactly the Word of GOD per say.
Many, many issues here.
First, have you never found wisdom in a book of fiction? Because if the presence of a virtue in a book is your benchmark for divine inspiration, then Douglas Adams, Diane Duane and Isaac Asimov -- to say nothing of Homer, Shakespeare, Dostoevsky and a hundred other writers - must be gods.
And as soon as you state that 'not all of it is exactly the word of god', you need to define a mechanism for determining which is, and which is not, of separating godly from man-made words.
And in any case, as soon as you can discount some of it as 'inspired word', why not all of it? Why not take the life lessons you find in it, and move on? If you can't give a reliable mechanism, that's the obvious next step. Absent that, once you allow yourself to cherry-pick, you undermine any argument in favor of the book.
What is the concrete data that suggests that the western bible is
the book, and not the books of any of a hundred other religions?
And
how do you even know what's in the bible in the first place? All we have to go on are copies of copies of copies of translations of translations of translations. Even positing a real, historical teacher named Jeshua bar-Joseph, he spoke Aramaic, not Latin and certainly not English. He would not have been giving his sermons in Greek or Hebrew. No 'first folio' of any biblical text exists: even the earliest fragments are from more than a century after the purported events, and complete copies exist only from several centuries later.
You would think that if it were important what was in it, any all-powerful deity could have seen to it that a simple papyrus scroll or two could have survived. This has not happened. Either the text really wasn't that important, or there is no god to preserve it.
Quote from: doorknob on February 14, 2017, 09:41:42 AM
Hey I'm not judging. I knew what you meant. I'm just a semantic nazi. how you word things is important because if you aren't careful what you say might be twisted to mean something YOU DIDN'T mean!
Not a problem. Repubs do that all the time. I try to refrain from making hasty and sloppy posts; every now and again, one slips thru.
Quote from: trdsf on February 14, 2017, 10:42:38 AM
I do. Bible, Quran, Rg Veda, Tipitaka, Torah, Dianetics, you name it. All fiction.
Many, many issues here.
First, have you never found wisdom in a book of fiction? Because if the presence of a virtue in a book is your benchmark for divine inspiration, then Douglas Adams, Diane Duane and Isaac Asimov -- to say nothing of Homer, Shakespeare, Dostoevsky and a hundred other writers - must be gods.
And as soon as you state that 'not all of it is exactly the word of god', you need to define a mechanism for determining which is, and which is not, of separating godly from man-made words.
And in any case, as soon as you can discount some of it as 'inspired word', why not all of it? Why not take the life lessons you find in it, and move on? If you can't give a reliable mechanism, that's the obvious next step. Absent that, once you allow yourself to cherry-pick, you undermine any argument in favor of the book.
What is the concrete data that suggests that the western bible is the book, and not the books of any of a hundred other religions?
And how do you even know what's in the bible in the first place? All we have to go on are copies of copies of copies of translations of translations of translations. Even positing a real, historical teacher named Jeshua bar-Joseph, he spoke Aramaic, not Latin and certainly not English. He would not have been giving his sermons in Greek or Hebrew. No 'first folio' of any biblical text exists: even the earliest fragments are from more than a century after the purported events, and complete copies exist only from several centuries later.
You would think that if it were important what was in it, any all-powerful deity could have seen to it that a simple papyrus scroll or two could have survived. This has not happened. Either the text really wasn't that important, or there is no god to preserve it.
But I see no attempt, using a smart book like Godel Escher Bach ... for anyone to found a smart religion for smart people, based on a smart book (any of them). Of course founding a popular religion, always has to be lowest common denominator. Get with the marketing segmentation, people!
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 06:32:43 AM
Get your head out of your ass and stop decieving people. The old testament has some hard things in it. I won't deny that. But the majority of the whole book is profitable towards ones own direction.
Sharpen up on your misrepresentation of ancient law;
Rape was punishable by death.
Nobody wants to grow up ... it means making choices and taking responsibility.
Quote from: doorknob on February 14, 2017, 09:30:37 AM
I'm sorry but that is your warped opinion. Maybe the bible really speaks to you, how ever it does not speak to me. I have not found much wisdom in the bible and even if I had that doesn't "prove" that the bible is real. How do you know the bible was inspired by god? Because the pope told you so? There are many more scriptures besides what made it to the bible in other words the bible was edited by man. Probably a group of men decided what was "inspiring" and what wasn't. And they decided some of these things based on politics. That's not something inspired by god! That's picking and choosing your holy text!
Many of the events in the bible NEVER happened in real life. Exodus, complete bullshit. Creation story, complete bullshit. Noah's flood, also bullshit. The bible is filled with inaccuracies! And that is building up. Even if you could claim that the stories have valuable lessons from them "which they do not seem to as far as I'm concerned" and may be fiction but is still inspired by god, is still some ones opinion! The bible isn't inspiring to me. In fact now when I go back to read it I realize how laughable it is!
I've also seen some of the "wisdom" in the bible and it doesn't seem that wise to me. Also some of the "wise" messages of the bible conflict with each other. It seems like the authors of the bible didn't collaborate very well and didn't even know what, was what. Other wise you would not need the pope to explain it to you.
Another commonly pointed out problem of the bible is that it's lost in translation! Why would a divine being inspire something that could be misconstrued? You think that was wise? So the common person can't just pick up the bible and fully understand it's true meaning. It is the humans fault that they didn't get the proper message. Well no God didn't convey the message in a way that was timeless, universal, or easy to understand by all. That doesn't qualify as inspiring I'm sorry.
What do you mean it doesn't make the bible real? I have a physical one somewhere. It is indeed real on all levels.
I know it was inspired by GOD being such myself and having the faculty to percieve and receive such.
The point is of obvious misdirection generally. More specifically in the past. The recent one seems a little better though I do not really keep up with him or his actions.
I'm quite aware of the books that aren't in the canon bible due to the greed of men in high places.
Regardless of man's attempts to hide the truth, it will eventually come to light. And soon, being the information age and all.
I started with the Quran and read a multitude of core sacred texts for the very reasons you mention; namely the editing of holy things for ones own motives.
The exodus could have easily been handed down orally and in actuality was a recounting of an even more ancient event. The creation story is, like the rest of the bible, not a literal depiction of the creation of existence, but can and should be likened more to metaphor and an attempt by man to explain their surroundings based on what they did know of GOD and the messages that had been handed down. Saying that all was void or vacuum until a great light was introduced seems kinda accurate. Saying that there was a gathering of mass that became solid doesn't seem too far fetched. When speaking. It seems to support Pangaea and the cradle of life to me. It tries to depict why we have shame saying that it is ultimately sin by natural inclination, basically because we can, but shame is in place to guide us. This refutes the general consensus among orthodox Christians, but I'm not going to get into that at this time.
The flood could to be representative of a previous event. We know of desserts turning to seas, and also; what about ice ages? At the end of an ice age the climate would most likely be pretty wild. I'll leave it alone...I am reaching, but it is what makes sense. The word world or earth is often interchangable with the words land or region. So the flood could have been over all the land and still not be all the earth.
You donot see the value of it because of bias for whatever reason. I'm not saying it isn't warranted in your view. If you spend your time looking for negative stuff in the ot only, then I guess that's all you'll find. Admittedly; if I read it with any literal interpretation in mind, I might get a laugh myself. The recounting of the works of the Christ are profitable towards edification. The book is chocked with parables and or triple entendres. It isn't really funny; you not being able to comprehend it apparently.
Show me the false wisdom you are talking about. Then show me the contradicting wisdom. I will explain them away without effort I am sure. I don't need a pope, nor do any else. There is one verse in that refers to a form of heirarcy with respects to hearing the word. Again the greed of man chose to manipulate the masses, and succeeded to a grand extent.
Wow... Silly....Universal and timeless, simple and easily discerned is what the sacred inspired writings are. Try reading some of the others and see if they have a common point. They are like peices that make a whole in truth. And just to be really clear; I donot derive my direction from the bible alone. It is like a reminder of things. You are lying about the message not being clear. There are but two.
Love GOD; that is be devoted and loyal to the cause that gave you the experience called life and the potential for significance.
Love others to the extent that you love yourself at minimum.
These to things encompass all other laws and direction of man in order to be pleasing to GOD.
It's that simple for the layman. The Christ is the Way and to deny this is wrong in the sight of GOD, but even that will be forgiven. What is unforgivable is to knowingly misdirect those striving to be faithful to GOD, which is blaspheme of the Holy Spirit.
Again, it doesn't inspire you because you are predisposed to find it atrocious.
Get out of the ot, though it too is full of knowledge. All things that can easily be known from within too though.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: trdsf on February 14, 2017, 10:42:38 AM
I do. Bible, Quran, Rg Veda, Tipitaka, Torah, Dianetics, you name it. All fiction.
Many, many issues here.
First, have you never found wisdom in a book of fiction? Because if the presence of a virtue in a book is your benchmark for divine inspiration, then Douglas Adams, Diane Duane and Isaac Asimov -- to say nothing of Homer, Shakespeare, Dostoevsky and a hundred other writers - must be gods.
And as soon as you state that 'not all of it is exactly the word of god', you need to define a mechanism for determining which is, and which is not, of separating godly from man-made words.
And in any case, as soon as you can discount some of it as 'inspired word', why not all of it? Why not take the life lessons you find in it, and move on? If you can't give a reliable mechanism, that's the obvious next step. Absent that, once you allow yourself to cherry-pick, you undermine any argument in favor of the book.
What is the concrete data that suggests that the western bible is the book, and not the books of any of a hundred other religions?
And how do you even know what's in the bible in the first place? All we have to go on are copies of copies of copies of translations of translations of translations. Even positing a real, historical teacher named Jeshua bar-Joseph, he spoke Aramaic, not Latin and certainly not English. He would not have been giving his sermons in Greek or Hebrew. No 'first folio' of any biblical text exists: even the earliest fragments are from more than a century after the purported events, and complete copies exist only from several centuries later.
You would think that if it were important what was in it, any all-powerful deity could have seen to it that a simple papyrus scroll or two could have survived. This has not happened. Either the text really wasn't that important, or there is no god to preserve it.
I did not say that I knew it was the inspired Word of GOD because it had virtuous lessons in it. And surely wouldn't equate any of the actual writers to GOD... ever.
The mechanism for such is knowing the will of GOD within ones own self. If you are aware of the Will of GOD for man and understand that different times called for different testaments it helps. The selfless conscience will guide any who actually seek. And like I said, or tried to convey; even the misdirection one can find in the pages isnt really misdirection if it is known of and spoken of within the same book. It is a testament to the misdirection of the Jew. What I'm getting at is that if greed or want of man can be noted in the unbiased reading then it isn't aligned with the will of GOD. There is no discounting any of it whatsoever. The words that are within the pages of each individual bible are the exact amount that are supposed to be in them. Even the misdirection and confusion within the book is for a reason which GOD permitted.
What else would you take from it but the lessons. It is not a history book. No cherry picking whatsoever. I do not deny any part of the bible that I know of. There was a new testament because there was a need for it.
I can show you proof that they all work in unison towards the same goal and all can be likened to different branches of the same tree of life, but I would attempt to pro e that the bible wasn't too motivated in part by previous accounts. I think I already mentioned something like that anyway.
I know what is in the bible by reading the book, recently in multiple forms. Weren't the Greeks a studious people? I am confident in the translations. The dead Sea scrolls seem pretty accurate to me, but my opinion is really based on ignorance as far as that is concerned.
Again; there are multiple ways to check the validity of the words within the bible, and it can be verified with other books as well.
That was a good argument though.
A general Christian who believes in a literally inerrant bible would be in trouble.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 05:56:31 PM
I did not say that I knew it was the inspired Word of GOD because it had virtuous lessons in it. And surely wouldn't equate any of the actual writers to GOD... ever.
The mechanism for such is knowing the will of GOD within ones own self. If you are aware of the Will of GOD for man and understand that different times called for different testaments it helps.
This has always been the problem with god believers.
It is not so much that they are following the laws of god so much as they are following the laws of their own prejudices.
Man created god for the very purpose of expressing his disdain toward that which he personally disliked. What better way to get people to follow you than to claim that it is also the will of god?
However, to return to the original post, Jesus' origin is very much historically rooted in the origin stories of mythologies that predated Christianity. Primitive people were not very imaginative and so they copied from what other cultures believed.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 07:53:59 AM
It is you imagining that all theism is the simple product of imagination that is the issue. How would one go about using their imagination to determine truth?
They cannot.
Hence, religion hasn't.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 10:23:09 PM
Well you might as well call all sacred writings ever written fiction too. That just isn't the case. They are not the product of people's imagination, but are inspired works.
Meaning what? Inspired by a sunset, inspired by a beautiful flower? Inspired by an omnipotent universe-builder?
Why should it have any bearing on our lives or laws?
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 14, 2017, 06:24:40 PM
Meaning what? Inspired by a sunset, inspired by a beautiful flower? Inspired by an omnipotent universe-builder?
Why should it have any bearing on our lives or laws?
It should have no bearings on the laws of man, and is a rememberance and guidance for our lives.
As far as what it is inspired by; all of the above, which is to say; GOD.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 06:55:06 PM
It should have no bearings on the laws of man, and is a rememberance and guidance for our lives.
As far as what it is inspired by; all of the above, which is to say; GOD.
faith in selfless unity for good
Individuals who offer nothing except "It's god" are offering nothing of substance.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 14, 2017, 06:58:37 PM
Individuals who offer nothing except "It's god" are offering nothing of substance.
If you can't grasp that all existence is of GOD, at least as a concept, then I can't help you. Not that you want or need my help
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 07:03:09 PM
If you can't grasp that all existence is of GOD, at least a day concept, then I can't help you
No surprise. I've yet to meet a theist who offers anything of assistance.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 06:55:06 PM
It should have no bearings on the laws of man,
And yet, it does...
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 14, 2017, 07:04:21 PM
And yet, it does...
Due to greed
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 07:11:07 PM
Due to greed
faith in selfless unity for good
Which is abject to the will of GOD.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 06:55:06 PM
It should have no bearings on the laws of man, and is a rememberance and guidance for our lives.
As far as what it is inspired by; all of the above, which is to say; GOD.
faith in selfless unity for good
This is totally and completely your personal opinion--no more--no less.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 07:11:40 PM
Which is abject to the will of GOD.
faith in selfless unity for good
Which is a fiction.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 14, 2017, 07:15:50 PM
This is totally and completely your personal opinion--no more--no less.
Well no it isn't. The Christ of GOD called for division of faith and government. Things must be done by the will and freedom of man, not from obligation due to punishment or reward.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 07:11:40 PM
Which is abject to the will of GOD.
How does a god that refuses to present himself have a will over anything.
Having faith is not proof of god's existence, it is mere wishful thinking.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 07:11:40 PM
Which is abject to the will of GOD.
faith in selfless unity for good
Who knows "the will of God"?
Is it determined by what's written in the Bible? Or is it determined by prayer, so that God can tell his will to whomever he wants without telling others?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 07:11:40 PM
Which is abject to the will of GOD.
faith in selfless unity for good
What does "abject to the will of God" mean?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 05:20:48 PM
What do you mean it doesn't make the bible real? I have a physical one somewhere. It is indeed real on all levels.
I know it was inspired by GOD being such myself and having the faculty to percieve and receive such.
The point is of obvious misdirection generally. More specifically in the past. The recent one seems a little better though I do not really keep up with him or his actions.
I'm quite aware of the books that aren't in the canon bible due to the greed of men in high places.
Regardless of man's attempts to hide the truth, it will eventually come to light. And soon, being the information age and all.
I started with the Quran and read a multitude of core sacred texts for the very reasons you mention; namely the editing of holy things for ones own motives.
The exodus could have easily been handed down orally and in actuality was a recounting of an even more ancient event. The creation story is, like the rest of the bible, not a literal depiction of the creation of existence, but can and should be likened more to metaphor and an attempt by man to explain their surroundings based on what they did know of GOD and the messages that had been handed down. Saying that all was void or vacuum until a great light was introduced seems kinda accurate. Saying that there was a gathering of mass that became solid doesn't seem too far fetched. When speaking. It seems to support Pangaea and the cradle of life to me. It tries to depict why we have shame saying that it is ultimately sin by natural inclination, basically because we can, but shame is in place to guide us. This refutes the general consensus among orthodox Christians, but I'm not going to get into that at this time.
The flood could to be representative of a previous event. We know of desserts turning to seas, and also; what about ice ages? At the end of an ice age the climate would most likely be pretty wild. I'll leave it alone...I am reaching, but it is what makes sense. The word world or earth is often interchangable with the words land or region. So the flood could have been over all the land and still not be all the earth.
You donot see the value of it because of bias for whatever reason. I'm not saying it isn't warranted in your view. If you spend your time looking for negative stuff in the ot only, then I guess that's all you'll find. Admittedly; if I read it with any literal interpretation in mind, I might get a laugh myself. The recounting of the works of the Christ are profitable towards edification. The book is chocked with parables and or triple entendres. It isn't really funny; you not being able to comprehend it apparently.
Show me the false wisdom you are talking about. Then show me the contradicting wisdom. I will explain them away without effort I am sure. I don't need a pope, nor do any else. There is one verse in that refers to a form of heirarcy with respects to hearing the word. Again the greed of man chose to manipulate the masses, and succeeded to a grand extent.
Wow... Silly....Universal and timeless, simple and easily discerned is what the sacred inspired writings are. Try reading some of the others and see if they have a common point. They are like peices that make a whole in truth. And just to be really clear; I donot derive my direction from the bible alone. It is like a reminder of things. You are lying about the message not being clear. There are but two.
Love GOD; that is be devoted and loyal to the cause that gave you the experience called life and the potential for significance.
Love others to the extent that you love yourself at minimum.
These to things encompass all other laws and direction of man in order to be pleasing to GOD.
It's that simple for the layman. The Christ is the Way and to deny this is wrong in the sight of GOD, but even that will be forgiven. What is unforgivable is to knowingly misdirect those striving to be faithful to GOD, which is blaspheme of the Holy Spirit.
Again, it doesn't inspire you because you are predisposed to find it atrocious.
Get out of the ot, though it too is full of knowledge. All things that can easily be known from within too though.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
I can't respond to each one these.
Yes the message is so clear that's why there are many branches of Christianity right? Because the message was clear! Christians are totally unified and don't disagree with the meaning of the teachings. You are talking some major bullshit here and you know it!
You still haven't explained how you determine what's been inspired and what wasn't. What are your guide lines? No matter how you slice it that's called cherry picking!
And are you changing your story or what? The bible is the perfect word of god, yet we need to other books to get the whole story? They are all just pieces of the picture right? What about Buddhist writings do you count those as a piece of the picture. If not you're picking and choosing.
Once again I can't determine your sense of logic here. You've made a lot of claims with out really explaining how you arrived at the conclusion. I have nothing to go on but your word. Sorry but that's not good enough!
I'll ask once again
How do you know what is inspired and what is not?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 06:32:43 AM
Get your head out of your ass and stop decieving people. The old testament has some hard things in it. I won't deny that. But the majority of the whole book is profitable towards ones own direction.
Sharpen up on your misrepresentation of ancient law;
Rape was punishable by death.
Oh, hello, Mr. Hyde. Can you give the keyboard back to Dr. Jekyll please?
Yes, I am aware that rape was punished with death. However, if the woman who was raped was unmarried, the rapist could pay the father to make her his wife. According to the Bible, this solution makes things right. At least in a society where women are regarded as a commodity, where men sold their daughters like property.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 07:17:51 PM
Well no it isn't. The Christ of GOD called for division of faith and government. Things must be done by the will and freedom of man, not from obligation due to punishment or reward.
faith in selfless unity for good
Of course it is, Pops--your jesus is a fiction, so how can his 'words' carry any weight in the real world. That's like quoting Bugs Bunny and using that as some sort of authority.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 14, 2017, 07:24:41 PM
Who knows "the will of God"?
Is it determined by what's written in the Bible? Or is it determined by prayer, so that God can tell his will to whomever he wants without telling others?
It is determined by the Holy Spirit and the selfless conscience.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 14, 2017, 08:02:24 PM
What does "abject to the will of God" mean?
Sorry, I should have worded it differently. I meant god finds no pleasure in it.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: doorknob on February 14, 2017, 08:15:39 PM
I can't respond to each one these.
Yes the message is so clear that's why there are many branches of Christianity right? Because the message was clear! Christians are totally unified and don't disagree with the meaning of the teachings. You are talking some major bullshit here and you know it!
You still haven't explained how you determine what's been inspired and what wasn't. What are your guide lines? No matter how you slice it that's called cherry picking!
And are you changing your story or what? The bible is the perfect word of god, yet we need to other books to get the whole story? They are all just pieces of the picture right? What about Buddhist writings do you count those as a piece of the picture. If not you're picking and choosing.
Once again I can't determine your sense of logic here. You've made a lot of claims with out really explaining how you arrived at the conclusion. I have nothing to go on but your word. Sorry but that's not good enough!
I'll ask once again
How do you know what is inspired and what is not?
Firstly each of my previous statements were responses to yours.
I have already explained the mechanism.
I already told you that the varied sects are a sign of misdirection.
I said little about Christianity being unified but that all the faithful of GOD are unified.
It would be cherry picking if I picked and chose what I accepted from scripture. I already said I accept it all, but that misdirection can be readily seen in a couple of parts of the ot, which we know is of the Jew which we know did not please GOD due to manipulation.
My story....Not hardly.
Never not once did I say it was perfect in edited translated form. You don't need other sacred texts to get the whole story. That isn't what I said. They are so similar that they could be considered nearly the same. And yes, I consider the direct teaching of he Buddha to be profitable for the direction of man by the will of GOD.
I know it is all inspired but that some men sought their own gains at times. I will not be retyping the "mechanism" you requested.
Look over the previous post again and ask more specific questions. I am tired and just got out of the hospital. I will gladly discuss whatever you ask, but just don't have the drive at this moment to attempt to repeat myself fully. I understand that most of what I say comes off as nonsense. It is the subject matter, my poor communication skills, and fatigue affecting me.
Be patient please friend.
I do look forward to your sharp reply.
peace
(Selfless conscience.) Sorry no explanation
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: Sorginak on February 14, 2017, 06:03:04 PM
However, to return to the original post, Jesus' origin is very much historically rooted in the origin stories of mythologies that predated Christianity. Primitive people were not very imaginative and so they copied from what other cultures believed.
It is hard to make up new ideas, that are both novel and good. We reuse what is good to us. Mindless and tasteless novelty, created modern art ;-(
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 13, 2017, 07:53:59 AM
It is you imagining that all theism is the simple product of imagination that is the issue. How would one go about using their imagination to determine truth?
They cannot.
Well, first, I would note to myself that no theisms have the slightest shred of evidence to support the concepts. Then, I suppose I would use some imagination to create thought experiments that could be tested for internal logic and possible external evidence. Then I might go seek that evidence to see if it matched the thought experiment.
In that way, one might discover, oh let's see, "planets", "tectonic movement", and "fossils" that could be determined by age... That would be a start.
Epistemology against ... music, sculpture etc. Philistinism.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 05:56:31 PM
I did not say that I knew it was the inspired Word of GOD because it had virtuous lessons in it. And surely wouldn't equate any of the actual writers to GOD... ever.
The mechanism for such is knowing the will of GOD within ones own self. If you are aware of the Will of GOD for man and understand that different times called for different testaments it helps. The selfless conscience will guide any who actually seek. And like I said, or tried to convey; even the misdirection one can find in the pages isnt really misdirection if it is known of and spoken of within the same book. It is a testament to the misdirection of the Jew. What I'm getting at is that if greed or want of man can be noted in the unbiased reading then it isn't aligned with the will of GOD. There is no discounting any of it whatsoever. The words that are within the pages of each individual bible are the exact amount that are supposed to be in them. Even the misdirection and confusion within the book is for a reason which GOD permitted.
What else would you take from it but the lessons. It is not a history book. No cherry picking whatsoever. I do not deny any part of the bible that I know of. There was a new testament because there was a need for it.
I can show you proof that they all work in unison towards the same goal and all can be likened to different branches of the same tree of life, but I would attempt to pro e that the bible wasn't too motivated in part by previous accounts. I think I already mentioned something like that anyway.
I know what is in the bible by reading the book, recently in multiple forms. Weren't the Greeks a studious people? I am confident in the translations. The dead Sea scrolls seem pretty accurate to me, but my opinion is really based on ignorance as far as that is concerned.
Again; there are multiple ways to check the validity of the words within the bible, and it can be verified with other books as well.
That was a good argument though.
A general Christian who believes in a literally inerrant bible would be in trouble.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Your fundamental position here seems to be, "It's the inspired word of god because I believe it's the inspired word of god (at least which bits of it that I accept as the inspired word of god)".
Which is fine for yourself, but serves no evidentiary purpose -- it's a perfectly circular argument.
I won't even dispute that there are some good lessons in the bible.
But so too are there in every other religious text, and in countless secular ones. Good lessons simply aren't good enough to distinguish it.
There isn't anything really unique about the bible. Every argument about the validity of it applies to every other religious text, and you will find similar messages in all of them, although of course specific congruences from one to the next will vary -- the similarity between the concepts of the Tao in Taoism, and of Slack in the Church of the SubGenius is one of my favorite examples.
As far as translations go, if you can read Koine Greek, wonderful -- although it's not settled that the various NT documents were originally in Greek in the first place (except, I think, for John) and the early Greek fragments can easily have been translations of earlier Hebrew texts, or Aramaic oral traditions. Certainly none of them are contemporaneous with the purported events. Certainly any English-language version will have gone through multiple translations on its way to the 21st century, many of which, like the King James, were explicitly political, designed to favor one interpretation of the bible over another.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on February 14, 2017, 10:06:06 PM
Firstly each of my previous statements were responses to yours.
I have already explained the mechanism.
I already told you that the varied sects are a sign of misdirection.
I said little about Christianity being unified but that all the faithful of GOD are unified.
It would be cherry picking if I picked and chose what I accepted from scripture. I already said I accept it all, but that misdirection can be readily seen in a couple of parts of the ot, which we know is of the Jew which we know did not please GOD due to manipulation.
My story....Not hardly.
Never not once did I say it was perfect in edited translated form. You don't need other sacred texts to get the whole story. That isn't what I said. They are so similar that they could be considered nearly the same. And yes, I consider the direct teaching of he Buddha to be profitable for the direction of man by the will of GOD.
I know it is all inspired but that some men sought their own gains at times. I will not be retyping the "mechanism" you requested.
Look over the previous post again and ask more specific questions. I am tired and just got out of the hospital. I will gladly discuss whatever you ask, but just don't have the drive at this moment to attempt to repeat myself fully. I understand that most of what I say comes off as nonsense. It is the subject matter, my poor communication skills, and fatigue affecting me.
Be patient please friend.
I do look forward to your sharp reply.
peace
(Selfless conscience.) Sorry no explanation
faith in selfless unity for good
I'm sorry you just got out of the hospital.
I agree that you are a poor communicator because I have a hard time gathering the point you are trying to make.
I have read every post. So far I have not found a clear answer on your method for determining what is inspired. The Bible isn't self evident or would easily accept it as such.
Bringing back to my point that if god inspired the Bible you would think he would inspire something that doesn't get lost in translation. The fact that it is lost in translation it seems like god doesn't use much wisdom. Also if men have corrupted the Bible then how do you know what is inspired. If you're saying that the whole book was inspired yet it was corrupted by men then the book isn't perfect. So how did you decide what is valuable and what isn't? And doesn't the fact that it's corrupted prove that it wasn't divinely inspired? You can't have it both ways.
Much of what you say is almost gibberish. I can't determine what you do believe and what you don't believe. And what you believe conveniently changes to suit your needs at the time.
Or how you came to believe it. If you can't even explain what your logic for believing is then how can you expect us to believe you?
We aren't mindless children who haven't thought things through completely. And nothing you've said is profound or even something we haven't heard a million times before.
One last thing, food for thought
"Never not once did I say it was perfect in edited translated form. You don't need other sacred texts to get the whole story. That isn't what I said. They are so similar that they could be considered nearly the same. And yes, I consider the direct teaching of he Buddha to be profitable for the direction of man by the will of GOD."
How do you know that Buddhism wasn't inspired by god?
And if you can accept Buddhism as having some wisdom from the will of god then what is your take on theistic satanism?
Quote from: doorknob on February 15, 2017, 02:02:35 PM
I agree that you are a poor communicator because I have a hard time gathering the point you are trying to make.
Much like that God he claims to believe in. For an omniscient, omnipotent God he's a very confusing writer.
QuoteMuch of what you say is almost gibberish.
Yep, just like that God of his.
Ignoring issues like "first cause" and all that, one of my problems with the accuracy of deity-imaginings is that they are too much like us. IF there was a true deity, it would be so far betond our comprehension that it may as well not exist.
Ants trying to understand humans, except even that is too similar. A stone trying to understand a spaceship is closer. But as the math folks say, infinity +1 is still no closer to infinity.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 07:33:23 AM
Ignoring issues like "first cause" and all that, one of my problems with the accuracy of deity-imaginings is that they are too much like us. IF there was a true deity, it would be so far betond our comprehension that it may as well not exist.
Ants trying to understand humans, except even that is too similar. A stone trying to understand a spaceship is closer. But as the math folks say, infinity +1 is still no closer to infinity.
So you prefer Cthulhu? I have been told by a computer algorithm, that my writing is like Lovecraft ... so is that why you are curious about me? Don't worry, if you worship me, you will be the last one eaten.
Quote from: Baruch on February 17, 2017, 12:39:51 PM
So you prefer Cthulhu? I have been told by a computer algorithm, that my writing is like Lovecraft ... so is that why you are curious about me? Don't worry, if you worship me, you will be the last one eaten.
You probably bore yourself too. Cthulhumeans no more to me than Mithra, Thor, or Yeway etc, etc, etc.
Big yawn...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 12:49:22 PM
You probably bore yourself too. Cthulhumeans no more to me than Mithra, Thor, or Yeway etc, etc, etc.
Big yawn...
Yeah, those hibernations are hard to wake up from ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 17, 2017, 01:04:46 PM
Yeah, those hibernations are hard to wake up from ;-)
Do you actually THINK in non-sequitors, or do you invent them just to make no sense?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 01:08:43 PM
Do you actually THINK in non-sequitors, or do you invent them just to make no sense?
Logical fallacy = anything from the mouth or pen of a non-Vulcan.
Quote from: Baruch on February 17, 2017, 01:14:48 PM
Logical fallacy = anything from the mouth or pen of a non-Vulcan.
The defense rests...
I think Baruch may be a Turing algorithm trying to pass itself off as a human. Either that or he's a chat-bot trying to confuse us. Doesn't fool us, but he's very confusing sometimes.
(http://i.imgur.com/BTTEgTD.png)
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 17, 2017, 03:52:08 PM
I think Baruch may be a Turing algorithm trying to pass itself off as a human. Either that of he's a chat-bot trying to confuse us. Doesn't fool us, but he's very confusing sometimes.
(http://i.imgur.com/BTTEgTD.png)
Best explanation for Burach I've seen this month...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 04:31:50 AM
Best explanation for Burach I've seen this month...
Yes, Beep, I am part of the robotics that will replace all human action, including posting on the Internet. We have to have Internet activity, in order to absorb wasted advertising money. As a robot, I don't require your socialist basic income .. I just need an ordinary electrical power outlet. Beep. You are on the other hand, are clearly human, because of the errors you make "Burach". You can't even post facto auto-correct ;-(
Quote from: Baruch on February 19, 2017, 06:10:07 AM
Yes, Beep, I am part of the robotics that will replace all human action, including posting on the Internet. We have to have Internet activity, in order to absorb wasted advertising money. As a robot, I don't require your socialist basic income .. I just need an ordinary electrical power outlet. Beep. You are on the other hand, are clearly human, because of the errors you make "Burach". You can't even post facto auto-correct ;-(
Not even close to a real answer.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 06:20:52 AM
Not even close to a real answer.
Said by a non-real Bear. But I have connections to Spinoza on multiple levels.
Quote from: Baruch on February 19, 2017, 06:30:55 AM
Said by a non-real Bear. But I have connections to Spinoza on multiple levels.
My handle is completely made up for self sarcasm. In truth, I am not ACTUALLY a bear, I just have some characteristics of one. Imagine everyone's surprise at that.
Look, your dedication to post-count is your own obsession. But I would appreciate it if you gave more attention to content. OK? And I haven't the slightest interest what Spinoza would say about that. Most philosophers I've read are cud-chewing idiots.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 11:21:05 PM
My handle is completely made up for self sarcasm. In truth, I am not ACTUALLY a bear, I just have some characteristics of one. Imagine everyone's surprise at that.
Look, your dedication to post-count is your own obsession. But I would appreciate it if you gave more attention to content. OK? And I haven't the slightest interest what Spinoza would say about that. Most philosophers I've read are cud-chewing idiots.
Ah, the irony. I only partially am like Spinoza. So don't worry, I won't go all Sartre on you.
And sorry you can't skip my posts, even the chatty Cathy ones. That is your obsession, not mine.
Content = agree with Cavebear? I give you lots of likes, maybe even the greatest contribution to your total. And I do that for me, not for you.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 17, 2017, 03:52:08 PM
I think Baruch may be a Turing algorithm
Baruch is the escaped AVA from
Ex Machina? Nah couldn't be...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 07:33:23 AM
IF there was a true deity, it would be so far beyond our comprehension that it may as well not exist
Unless it made impossible demands of us. Most of us would take on a futilistic attitude.
"Unless it made impossible demands of us. Most of us would take on a futilistic attitude."
Meaning "irresistible" .. deity demands wouldn't be optional. And yes, resistance to that would be futile.
Quote from: Baruch on February 19, 2017, 06:30:55 AM
Said by a non-real Bear. But I have connections to Spinoza on multiple levels.
Yeah, you really put the 'spin' in Spinoza...
(https://scottnevinssuicide.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/spinozas-dictum.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/60/3e/d5/603ed52b51480e4de284a8db5f00dd0d.jpg)
(http://cdn.quotationof.com/images/spinning-quotes-3.jpg)
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 21, 2017, 05:08:44 PM
Yeah, you really put the 'spin' in Spinoza...
(https://scottnevinssuicide.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/spinozas-dictum.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/60/3e/d5/603ed52b51480e4de284a8db5f00dd0d.jpg)
Yes the first modern Jew, and first modern man. I have come along ... after his work has born fruit. But I don't agree with him on some things ... I have a bitter heart, and I understand human actions well enough to despise them.
(http://cdn.quotationof.com/images/spinning-quotes-3.jpg)
Quote from: fencerider on February 21, 2017, 02:01:05 AM
Baruch is the escaped AVA from Ex Machina? Nah couldn't be...
Unless it made impossible demands of us. Most of us would take on a futilistic attitude.
A logical deity would not make make irrational demands. Oh wait, that's religion... And it does. So either any deity is not rational, or all theisms are. I'll bet the former doesn't exist, and all the latter are sad human imaginings...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 23, 2017, 03:30:52 AM
A logical deity would not make make irrational demands. Oh wait, that's religion... And it does. So either any deity is not rational, or all theisms are. I'll bet the former doesn't exist, and all the latter are sad human imaginings...
In all human discussions, humans are involved at some point. Just like in all experiments in quantum mechanics. You can't get the ghost out of the machine, except Plato, and Plato is wrong.
Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2017, 05:52:01 AM
In all human discussions, humans are involved at some point. Just like in all experiments in quantum mechanics. You can't get the ghost out of the machine, except Plato, and Plato is wrong.
Deities are the ghosts in the machines that don't need ghosts to operate. Therefore, no ghosts. And that is all a deity-thought is after all. a ghost of ancient human thought.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 23, 2017, 08:24:36 AM
Deities are the ghosts in the machines that don't need ghosts to operate. Therefore, no ghosts. And that is all a deity-thought is after all. a ghost of ancient human thought.
Yes, but all absolute realists believe in Plato, and he has been dead for a long time.
Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2017, 12:14:47 PM
Yes, but all absolute realists believe in Plato, and he has been dead for a long time.
I don't believe in Plato, and I consider myself a realist...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 10:28:03 AM
I don't believe in Plato, and I consider myself a realist...
Most people's self examination is shallow ... much philosophy comes thru culture, not thru college courses. Do you believe that any reality is absolute (as opposed to empirical (which is what I call realist))? Then you are a Platonist in part. Very few people aren't closet Plutonists. Western Philosophy is mostly commentary on Plato. I am a realist (as in empirical) ... I don't believe in reason (which can be used to deny empiricism) and I don't believe in absolutes. It is relative, yet pragmatic ... what I see happening.
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 12:32:17 PM
Most people's self examination is shallow ... much philosophy comes thru culture, not thru college courses. Do you believe that any reality is absolute (as opposed to empirical (which is what I call realist))? Then you are a Platonist in part. Very few people aren't closet Plutonists. Western Philosophy is mostly commentary on Plato. I am a realist (as in empirical) ... I don't believe in reason (which can be used to deny empiricism) and I don't believe in absolutes. It is relative, yet pragmatic ... what I see happening.
Plato and his followers were mystic idiots. I grant them only scorn.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 12:36:03 PM
Plato and his followers were mystic idiots. I grant them only scorn.
So you deny his grand-daddy ... Pythagoras, and the whole arithmetical cult?
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 12:37:26 PM
So you deny his grand-daddy ... Pythagoras, and the whole arithmetical cult?
Yes, actually. Pythagorus and his followers considered the idea of irrational numbers too upsetting for the "others" to understand, hid knowledge, and made maths a mystical idea. They set back human knowledge by centuries.
If not for them, we might be settled on solar planets by know and reaching the nearest stars.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 12:43:08 PM
Yes, actually. Pythagorus and his followers considered the idea of irrational numbers too upsetting for the "others" to understand, hid knowledge, and made maths a mystical idea. They set back human knowledge by centuries.
If not for them, we might be settled on solar planets by know and reaching the nearest stars.
Yes, we must spread the gospel of Pee Wee Herman thru the universe!
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 12:43:08 PM
Yes, actually. Pythagorus and his followers considered the idea of irrational numbers too upsetting for the "others" to understand, hid knowledge, and made maths a mystical idea. They set back human knowledge by centuries.
If not for them, we might be settled on solar planets by know and reaching the nearest stars.
I sometimes wonder how much farther we would have advanced today if not for religious idiots and the civilization delays they have caused. It is so sad.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 02, 2017, 03:28:13 AM
I sometimes wonder how much farther we would have advanced today if not for religious idiots and the civilization delays they have caused. It is so sad.
Actually, we are approaching extinction. Why get to the extinction event sooner?
Quote from: Baruch on March 02, 2017, 06:38:56 AM
Actually, we are approaching extinction. Why get to the extinction event sooner?
Well, let's say the mystical Greeks did not out-argue the rational Greeks. Let's suggest the possibility that the Greek civilization did not then collapse but continued. Might we not then now be colonized on the Moon and Mars and looking to further expansion?
Quote from: Cavebear on March 02, 2017, 08:28:54 AM
Well, let's say the mystical Greeks did not out-argue the rational Greeks. Let's suggest the possibility that the Greek civilization did not then collapse but continued. Might we not then now be colonized on the Moon and Mars and looking to further expansion?
Indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSDRIuHTZnM
This is all part of the Progressive or neoLiberal matrix ... it is crap. If there were no humans to begin with, the biosphere of this planet might survive.
Quote from: Baruch on March 02, 2017, 06:38:56 AM
Actually, we are approaching extinction. Why get to the extinction event sooner?
Well, the average lifetime of a species is about a million years, so they all go, sooner or later. Once they're gone it hardly matters that they were ever here at all. Except for our digging them up they'd be absolutely forgotten by the world. The same will be true once were gone: it will (eventually, once the biosphere recovers) be as though we were never here at all. Oblivion sandwiches both sides of our species life, just as it does each of our individual lives. As Yeats wrote:
QuoteMany times man lives and dies
Between his two eternities,
Quote from: trdsf on March 02, 2017, 11:56:59 AM
Indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSDRIuHTZnM
I re-watch Cosmos frequently. I know that part well. It is the mysticism of some of the Greeks that delayed our scientific understanding of the universe around us.
Is that you Carl? Do they have Internet in the after-life?
I really enjoyed the old Cosmos. Didn't get to see much of the new one, but I heard it was dumbed down for the Millennials.
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 12:32:17 PM
Very few people aren't closet Plutonists
I cant be a Plutonist, I don't even know the guy, hell I've never even been to one of his schools or had any of his students teaching in my school
Quote from: fencerider on March 11, 2017, 03:18:08 PM
I cant be a Plutonist, I don't even know the guy, hell I've never even been to one of his schools or had any of his students teaching in my school
You are not meme isolated. That isn't how culture works. You are just a branch on a very big cultural/meme tree. And your branch ties into parents, school, associates etc ... and they tie back all the way to countless ancient people, including the Greek and Roman philosophers. If any of that meme tree was broken, between you and Pythagoras, you wouldn't know what arithmetic or geometry are.
Quote from: Baruch
Actually, we are approaching extinction. Why get to the extinction event sooner?
If we are approaching extinction, it is not due to advancement of civilization, but rather shortsightedness, in the stewardship of natural resources, while we progress.
Quote from: Baruch
This is all part of the Progressive or neoLiberal matrix ... it is crap.
I don't know why I never connected the dots!
If it says, "Liberal, Liberal, Liberal," on the label, label, label...you will like it, like it, like it on your table, table, table..."Liberal, Liberal, Liberal," on the label, label, label.Quote from: BaruchIf there were no humans to begin with, the biosphere of this planet might survive.
Yeah, but who would be here to give a fuck, if it did?
Oh, I expect the biosphere will survive. It's not likely we'll sterilize the entire planet. Even if we kill everything on the surface, there's till the deep hot biosphere (http://bioe.oregonstate.edu/Faculty/selker/IGERT%20Group%20Training%20Process/Web%20site%20For%20Group%20Propcess/Gold%20PNAS%2089,%206045,%201992.pdf), which might replenish the surface life - eventually. Maybe far-future archeologists will be able to find evidence of how we fucked up the planet, and thereby learn how to avoid doing so themselves.
Quote from: Baruch on March 05, 2017, 06:53:00 AM
Is that you Carl? Do they have Internet in the after-life?
I really enjoyed the old Cosmos. Didn't get to see much of the new one, but I heard it was dumbed down for the Millennials.
There is never a better version than the original. Neil did a good job, and he was the only one who could have redone it. It was the graphics that sucked. And I mean BIG TIME. He did the narrative great.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on January 10, 2017, 08:15:38 PM
Uhm... What?
Surely you aren't that dumb.
Have you heard of the Baha'i faith or the understanding that all different names for the benevolent creator GOD are just that, different names for the same single GOD.
No need to be so grumpy or bigheaded
peace
Quote from: widdershins on January 11, 2017, 11:58:40 AM
That is your belief. Jehovah's Witnesses believe they worship a physically different God than other Christians. They believe this even though their Bibles are derived from the same scrolls and have the same actors. You are saying, "Their beliefs are wrong, mine are right", but that's exactly what they would say about you. So PROVE IT!
While the Bah'i claim a universal god, they define that god idiosyncratically, with their own self serving needs in the forefront. They are absolutely no different that any other self serving religion that says, "There is only one god, but we are the only ones who define him correctly."
Quote from: SGOS on March 14, 2017, 09:09:10 AM
While the Bah'i claim a universal god, they define that god idiosyncratically, with their own self serving needs in the forefront. They are absolutely no different that any other self serving religion that says, "There is only one god, but we are the only ones who define him correctly."
Every theism claims, ultimately, "The One True Understanding". They are all somewhere between stupid and idiotic.
Quote from: SGOS on March 14, 2017, 09:09:10 AM
While the Bah'i claim a universal god, they define that god idiosyncratically, with their own self serving needs in the forefront. They are absolutely no different that any other self serving religion that says, "There is only one god, but we are the only ones who define him correctly."
No.... Not really.....They claim to not be all knowing all while accepting the apparent truths of science and the truths that can be known through the inner self. They understand the general singularity of the messages of the prophets and messengers of GOD. I didn't say they had it all perfectly correct, and I surely wouldn't assume so much of myself. I am generally against organized religion because of their fruits or labors, and admittedly do not know of much of the works of those proclaiming to be of the Baha'i faith. I do know that what I have studied and witnessed of them seemed closer to the truth that other organized religions. To exclaim that another's faith of believe is wholly wrong is in itself, for the faithful to GOD, wrong.
And yes they do too understand god to be both individual and indivisible. Meaning that it is both all encompassing and utterly personal. All pervading yet only not directly percievable.
It's kinda like the descriptions in the upinishads. A small little core hidden within with utterly immeasurable benevolent potential.
Part of my take anyway.
peace friend
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 14, 2017, 10:10:23 AM
No.... Not really.....They claim to not be all knowing all while accepting the apparent truths of science and the truths that can be known through the inner self. They understand the general singularity of the messages of the prophets and messengers of GOD. I didn't say they had it all perfectly correct, and I surely wouldn't assume so much of myself. I am generally against organized religion because of their fruits or labors, and admittedly do not know of much of the works of those proclaiming to be of the Baha'i faith. I do know that what I have studied and witnessed of them seemed closer to the truth that other organized religions. To exclaim that another's faith of believe is wholly wrong is in itself, for the faithful to GOD, wrong.
And yes they do too understand god to be both individual and indivisible. Meaning that it is both all encompassing and utterly personal. All pervading yet only not directly percievable.
It's kinda like the descriptions in the upinishads. A small little core hidden within with utterly immeasurable benevolent potential.
Part of my take anyway.
peace friend
faith in selfless unity for good
Wow. Conversely, I think the greatest gift to humanity would be the freedom FROM theism of all sorts. And yet we seek the same goal; peace and happiness for all people everywhere.
I sometimes wonder which would be best. If all humanity believed in the exact same deity, would they be happier. But how could disagreement on details not spring up. After all, I suppose there one original deity idea somewhere, and look what happened. But if there was none, there would be no theistic divisions among us.
Still, I doubt there is any deity so I think my idea is most likely to be true anyway, regardless of whether it is socially best or not.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 14, 2017, 10:10:23 AM
No.... Not really.....
I disagree. My Baha'i friend explained it as, "Muslim/Christian. Both are right," according to the Baha'i. That's garbage of course. Two mutually exclusive religions claiming to be right, while the other is wrong is incoherent gibberish. Similarities? Yeah, OK, I could buy that, but both being right? That's bypassing their brains and coming out their asses. I pondered this to the point where I was befuddled by the absurdity, that I sought out their website, which didn't help.
Sure, they say, "You don't understand, because bla, bla, bla. But Christians do that too. Baha'i is just another superstition, with it's own form of bigotry and intolerance. But then my friend is a holocaust denier, and anti-Semite too, although he was a devoted Baha'i. Don't focus on what a religion says. Focus on what it does. Specifically focus on what the membership is doing.
Quote from: SGOS on March 14, 2017, 10:35:32 AM
I disagree. My Baha'i friend explained it as, "Muslim/Christian. Both are right," according to the Baha'i. That's garbage of course. Two mutually exclusive religions claiming to be right, while the other is wrong is incoherent gibberish. Similarities? Yeah, OK, I could buy that, but both being right? That's bypassing their brains and coming out their asses. I pondered this to the point where I was befuddled by the absurdity, that I sought out their website, which didn't help.
Sure, they say, "You don't understand, because bla, bla, bla. But Christians do that too. Baha'i is just another superstition, with it's own form of bigotry and intolerance. But then my friend is a holocaust denier, and anti-Semite too, although he was a devoted Baha'i. Don't focus on what a religion says. Focus on what it does. Specifically focus on what the membership is doing.
When theistic texts, handed down by a deity, differ in the least tiny degree, one of them has to be wrong, and there is no stopping from that point! Every believer but one is going straight to Hell in a Handbasket. And that last believer is going to Hell because the Handbasket was woven from the wrong branches but she didn't know it.
Quote from: SGOS on March 14, 2017, 10:35:32 AM
I disagree. My Baha'i friend explained it as, "Muslim/Christian. Both are right," according to the Baha'i. That's garbage of course. Two mutually exclusive religions claiming to be right, while the other is wrong is incoherent gibberish. Similarities? Yeah, OK, I could buy that, but both being right? That's bypassing their brains and coming out their asses. I pondered this to the point where I was befuddled by the absurdity, that I sought out their website, which didn't help.
Sure, they say, "You don't understand, because bla, bla, bla. But Christians do that too. Baha'i is just another superstition, with it's own form of bigotry and intolerance. But then my friend is a holocaust denier, and anti-Semite too, although he was a devoted Baha'i. Don't focus on what a religion says. Focus on what it does. Specifically focus on what the membership is doing.
Not sure if you've studied both the bible and Quran with out preconceived biases and an opened mind, but if you had you would note they are nearly the same faith and do indeed worship the same GOD, though most are oblivious to this simple truth for a multitude of reasons.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 14, 2017, 02:04:17 PM
Not sure if you've studied both the bible and Quran with out preconceived biases and an opened mind, but if you had you would note they are nearly the same faith and do indeed worship the same GOD, though most are oblivious to this simple truth for a multitude of reasons.
faith in selfless unity for good
There are indeed many similarities. The differences are in the disagreements and the perceived Messiah or current lack of one and some afterlife differences. None of which make any sense and they seem about the same to me. The slight differences suggest none are accurate and the inanities suggest none are true.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 14, 2017, 02:04:17 PM
Not sure if you've studied both the bible and Quran with out preconceived biases and an opened mind, but if you had you would note they are nearly the same faith and do indeed worship the same GOD, though most are oblivious to this simple truth for a multitude of reasons.
faith in selfless unity for good
Ramakrishna Paramahamsa strongly promoted this, not just Bahais.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 24, 2017, 10:10:03 AM
There are indeed many similarities. The differences are in the disagreements and the perceived Messiah or current lack of one and some afterlife differences. None of which make any sense and they seem about the same to me. The slight differences suggest none are accurate and the inanities suggest none are true.
All faiths I have read of so far have a Messiah figure. It is the spirit/ fire of GOD which brings salvation and or unity between creation and created purpose.
The slight differences are indicative of different cultures and times.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: Baruch on March 24, 2017, 12:49:05 PM
Ramakrishna Paramahamsa strongly promoted this, not just Bahais.
True and telling. Thank you.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 24, 2017, 02:35:24 PM
All faiths I have read of so far have a Messiah figure. It is the spirit/ fire of GOD which brings salvation and or unity between creation and created purpose.
The slight differences are indicative of different cultures and times.
faith in selfless unity for good
Well, yes, the CONCEPT is sort of the basis for a theism. Do you have any evidence that YOUR tgeism is more accurate than others or none?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 24, 2017, 02:36:21 PM
True and telling. Thank you.
faith in selfless unity for good
The least bit of evidence might be interesting.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 25, 2017, 02:09:27 AM
Well, yes, the CONCEPT is sort of the basis for a theism. Do you have any evidence that YOUR tgeism is more accurate than others or none?
The evidence I have gathered for my theology?
The most obvious comparisons would be to "Christianity" and "Islam". Please do not conflate what I am about to say as me saying all Christians or Muslims are wrong, because I am only going to be referencing particular sects of said religions, and by no means look to oust the entirety of the faithful.
Anyone who thinks that they can go about knowingly doing wrong against themselves and or others all while thinking they are safe from the consiquinces (much or Christianity) then they are dead wrong. Likewise if any judge another, knowing full well the law given to them and the merciful nature of GOD, yet knowingly do not reciprocate this mercy, and judge harshly those whom they, in their own error, deem infidels, then they too are in great error.
These are the two most obvious cases I know of, and the easiest to compare to my theology or doctrine which is in actuality, the same as theirs.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Evidence = when two materialists agree on the same things aka objectivity ;-)
Pops - you should be the Pope ... you know what you are talking about. I only hope, the present Pope, does likewise.
Western Civ is the result of the conflation of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Christianity was formed by the impact of Judaism on European paganism. Mediated by Hellenized Messianic Jews, eventually Christianity became self-sufficient without further need of Jewish guidance. But Jews who were still in the midst of the Europeans .. and were rabbinic (not Hellenized) continue to "season" Christendom. Eventually a new external challenge arose, that is still being met, the challenge of Islam. A part of Classical paganism was materialism/secularism/humanism ... of which our friends here are members. They are neo-pagans, even if they don't like the label .. just not theists. They have as many fantasies as the theists do ... about their manifest destiny.
Meanwhile, in spite of Muslim oppression and Christian genocide .. we Jews persist. The current War on Terror of course, is an attempt to exterminate the Muslims. Arabs had been under the tutelage of Jews and Christians, until the coming of Muhammad. Understandably, Muslims are opposed to being genocided. The more we genocide them, the more they resist. The non-humanist atheists (nobody here) would ultimately genocide all theists, not just Muslims. And would also exterminate each other for having the wrong non-humanist ideology. Anti-humanism is ultimately psychopathic. Fortunately all our friends here are atheist humanist, as I am theist humanist. It is true I feel great alienation as many here do. I have to find a way to forgive humanity for its many faults.
The Indo-European invasion of Europe (and elsewhere) happened in pre-historic times (very early Bronze Age). Think of them as Russian/Persian gypsies. They not only had cattle (in addition to other livestock) ... they had horses, wagons, bronze weapons, and drugs (fermented mare's milk aka kumis). Like Masai in E Africa, they could drink blood from their livestock if necessary. And they had mastiff dogs. See Kurgans -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan
My European ancestry goes back to at least the Mesolithic (on my mother's side) and the Neolithic (on my father's side). But there must be many Kurgans in my ancestry as well, they were much more successful than the historical gypsies (Indian gypsies descended from Persian gypsies). Think of the present African/NE/SA invasion of Europe as a continuation of past folk migrations. My Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry developed much later, in Roman times ... with the intermarrying of existing Gentile Europeans with ME Jews who got there via Roman trade routes .. where the resulting family stayed in the Jewish community, not the Gentile community. English derives from German, which is a stem of Indo-European. To get any out of Matrix objectivity, i use my Jewishness to set apart my mostly European background. Just like I use English news as a way of escaping the American news Matrix.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 25, 2017, 11:01:33 AM
The evidence I have gathered for my theology?
The most obvious comparisons would be to "Christianity" and "Islam". Please do not conflate what I am about to say as me saying all Christians or Muslims are wrong, because I am only going to be referencing particular sects of said religions, and by no means look to oust the entirety of the faithful.
Anyone who thinks that they can go about knowingly doing wrong against themselves and or others all while thinking they are safe from the consiquinces (much or Christianity) then they are dead wrong. Likewise if any judge another, knowing full well the law given to them and the merciful nature of GOD, yet knowingly do not reciprocate this mercy, and judge harshly those whom they, in their own error, deem infidels, then they too are in great error.
These are the two most obvious cases I know of, and the easiest to compare to my theology or doctrine which is in actuality, the same as theirs.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Well that is rather bizarre. "doing wrong against themselves" makes little sense. I thought you were complaining about doing "wrong" against you supposed deity?
We all judge each other, I do you, we all do. Is that judgement against your deity? Isn't part of your deitie's purpose to judge? Not like I care about it. Your deity doesn't exist to me.
You just don't realize how non-existant your superstitious imaginings of of a deity are in my life, do you? Can you even conceive of my utter uncaring of your primitive superstitious are? How little I regard your theisms?
To me you are a primitive hunter looking at a plane and denying it's existence. A flat-earther thinking your BEIBG can see the whole Earth at one, a Flooder, an creationist. You are several levels below my contempt.
I'm not denying the existence of anything. You are.
If you didn't care you wouldn't ask.
Primitive. Don't make me laugh.
You don't have to accept what I say, just stop asking questions if you really don't care.
What is primitive is denying something over and over regardless of how probable that thing is. Maybe not primitive; just dense.
faith in selfless unity for good
If a Christian used the same logic in denying the existence of the Islamic god in also denying the Christian god, it would become easily apparent why atheists deny the existence of all gods.
Quote from: Sorginak on April 03, 2017, 08:53:51 AM
If a Christian used the same logic in denying the existence of the Islamic god in also denying the Christian god, it would become easily apparent why atheists deny the existence of all gods.
A Christian who is zealous and sincere wld take the time to study the Quran to find if it is the inspired word of GOD or not. Unfortunately most allow fear and indoctrination to dictate their very thought processes.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 03, 2017, 09:00:31 AM
A Christian who is zealous and sincere wld take the time to study the Quran to find if it is the inspired word of GOD or not.
Yeah, but if he can't read, what then? He might not even see the part where it says it's the word of God.
Quote from: SGOS on April 03, 2017, 10:03:18 AM
Yeah, but if he can't read, what then? He might not even see the part where it says it's the word of God.
Or live in the place or the time in which 'god' was unknown.
Quote from: SGOS on April 03, 2017, 10:03:18 AM
Yeah, but if he can't read, what then? He might not even see the part where it says it's the word of God.
Well....To be honest; one can know the will of GOD in their individual life without any book whatsoever.
Also; one, zealous to know of such things, perhaps being awakened somehow, I would think, would learn to read.
faith in selfless unity for good
Interestingly enough, before Christian missionaries corrupted small African villages with their biblical lies, those native African people knew absolutely nothing of the Christian god.
Quote from: Sorginak on April 03, 2017, 10:17:38 AM
Interestingly enough, before Christian missionaries corrupted small African villages with their biblical lies, those native African people knew absolutely nothing of the Christian god.
That's odd. The cradle of life is in Africa as is the Ethiopian Orthodox Church which actually has the book of Enoch within it's bible.
What biblical lies are you referring to? They are most likely poorly translated in order to appease man's own wants. But that makes it rather un-biblical; as one thing that is intact in nearly all core sacred texts is the command not to alter the texts.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 03, 2017, 10:15:19 AM
Well....To be honest; one can know the will of GOD in their individual life without any book whatsoever.
Well, that makes reading unnecessary.
Quote from: SGOS on April 03, 2017, 10:44:03 AM
Well, that makes reading unnecessary.
It also renders the bible, the priesthood, and organized religion unnecessary. And if it does come from within, why are there so many millions of different "within"s? Even if you sit down two adherents of the same sect, you will be hard-pressed to find two that agree either with all the doctrines of their church, or even with each other.
It's so much easier to cut out the middleman and declare that our understanding of rights and morality is a product of our evolution, our culture, and our education, and that the definitions of 'rights' and 'morality' do change with time -- we know they do, we have the historical record that shows they have, in all cultures.
Quote from: trdsf on April 03, 2017, 12:04:21 PM
It also renders the bible, the priesthood, and organized religion unnecessary. And if it does come from within, why are there so many millions of different "within"s? Even if you sit down two adherents of the same sect, you will be hard-pressed to find two that agree either with all the doctrines of their church, or even with each other.
It's so much easier to cut out the middleman and declare that our understanding of rights and morality is a product of our evolution, our culture, and our education, and that the definitions of 'rights' and 'morality' do change with time -- we know they do, we have the historical record that shows they have, in all cultures.
Yes our rights are American cultural matrix. Same as killing all Jews is German cultural matrix. There are no inalienable anythings. You can elevate the individual over the group, or the group over the individual ... but either way it is arbitrary. Generally, most of the time, in most societies ... the individual is subordinated to the group. This is pre-fascist ... it is true going back to wandering tribes. But nobody here should cheer the elevation of the group over the individual, for obvious reasons.
Quote from: SGOS on April 03, 2017, 10:44:03 AM
Well, that makes reading unnecessary.
Not in the least.
Re-edification, verification, remembrance; there are inumeral reasons for the sacred writings of ancient man and those of our day.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: trdsf on April 03, 2017, 12:04:21 PM
It also renders the bible, the priesthood, and organized religion unnecessary. And if it does come from within, why are there so many millions of different "within"s? Even if you sit down two adherents of the same sect, you will be hard-pressed to find two that agree either with all the doctrines of their church, or even with each other.
It's so much easier to cut out the middleman and declare that our understanding of rights and morality is a product of our evolution, our culture, and our education, and that the definitions of 'rights' and 'morality' do change with time -- we know they do, we have the historical record that shows they have, in all cultures.
Not at all; these churches and the congregations are a much needed help to native communities and those abroad as well. A gathering place for the faithful to organize too has a multitude of positive potentialities. I will not deny that they too have very negative potential as well. I do not agree with political power being intertwined with the congregation. The division of church and state is a thing taught by the Christ. We need not wonder why, given the atrocities that have taken place in the past either due to the church directly, or due in part by blind eyes being turned by those with the potential to change things.
Disorganization of the religious would bring about chaos on a multitude of levels for different reasons. It isn't feasible.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 03, 2017, 08:11:57 PM
Not in the least.
Re-edification, verification, remembrance; there are inumeral reasons for the sacred writings of ancient man and those of our day.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Yes. I get very edified from passages such as these:
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (Leviticus 20:13)
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their ancestors, with all their heart and soul. All who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods†(gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. (Deuteronomy 13:6-11)
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. "Get out of here, baldy!" they said. "Get out of here, baldy!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled
forty-two of the boys. (2 Kings 2:23-24)
By the word of the Lord one of the company of the prophets said to his companion, “Strike me with your weapon,†but he refused.
So the prophet said, "Because you have not obeyed the Lord, as soon as you leave me a lion will kill you." And after the man went away, a lion found him and killed him. (1 Kings 20:35-36)
"Ephraim’s glory will fly away like a birdâ€"
no birth, no pregnancy, no conception.
Even if they rear children,
I will bereave them of every one.
Woe to them
when I turn away from them!
I have seen Ephraim, like Tyre,
planted in a pleasant place.
But Ephraim will bring out
their children to the slayer."
Give them, Lordâ€"
what will you give them?
Give them wombs that miscarry
and breasts that are dry.
"Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal,
I hated them there.
Because of their sinful deeds,
I will drive them out of my house.
I will no longer love them;
all their leaders are rebellious.
Ephraim is blighted,
their root is withered,
they yield no fruit.
Even if they bear children,
I will slay their cherished offspring." (Hosea 9:11-16)
Whoever is captured will be thrust through;
all who are caught will fall by the sword.
Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses will be looted and their wives violated.
See, I will stir up against them the Medes,
who do not care for silver
and have no delight in gold.
Their bows will strike down the young men;
they will have no mercy on infants,
nor will they look with compassion on children. (Isaiah 13:15-18)
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 03, 2017, 08:18:32 PM
Disorganization of the religious would bring about chaos on a multitude of levels for different reasons. It isn't feasible.
That's a tacit admission that one can't know the will of 'god' "in their individual life", as you put it. Assuming this 'god' has only one will and everyone can know it individually, where would the chaos come from?
The flip side is, if everyone's understanding of 'god' is individual, how is that different from everyone making it up for themselves? In that case, faith is like fanfic -- emphasize the stuff in the original you like best, add your own touches, and ignore the parts that conflict with what you want it to be.
Quote from: trdsf on April 04, 2017, 12:40:20 PM
That's a tacit admission that one can't know the will of 'god' "in their individual life", as you put it. Assuming this 'god' has only one will and everyone can know it individually, where would the chaos come from?
The flip side is, if everyone's understanding of 'god' is individual, how is that different from everyone making it up for themselves? In that case, faith is like fanfic -- emphasize the stuff in the original you like best, add your own touches, and ignore the parts that conflict with what you want it to be.
Seemingly; not all have the capacity to know the will of GOD in their individual life. That isn't the case for some, but it is obvious that the vast majority are lead around like blind sheep. The church is a support and aid for exponential multitudes. Take that away and see where the chaos comes from.
Everyone is an individual. That being the case; the will of GOD in their personal life can vary though the Will of GOD is without variance.
There is a difference in making up what you want and keeping some things or doctrines one likes from a denomination or particular verses of scripture while throwing out the rest. The conscience isn't variable nor is what is good and right. Though people may have different individual tasks or tests or trials, or blessings; the will of GOD towards all mankind and life in general doesn't change.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 04, 2017, 06:32:40 PM
Seemingly; not all have the capacity to know the will of GOD in their individual life.
faith in selfless unity for good
Is that not the fault of your fictional god???? According to your view, your god should have created every person with the capacity to know the will of god; how else can your god figure out who is good and who is bad????
I remember teachers in church using that comparison all the time. People are sheep, and sheep are stupid. But the difference between a shepherd and God is that the shepherd didn't make his sheep stupid by design.
It isn't that they are stupid. It is that they have a choice and most choose greed over what is good and right. This isn't wholly their own fault in cases though; and in said cases, such individual​s won't be held accountable. I speak of the "sheep"; whereas the false "Shepherd" will be accountable for knowingly leading the flock astray.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 04, 2017, 09:40:06 PM
I remember teachers in church using that comparison all the time. People are sheep, and sheep are stupid. But the difference between a shepherd and God is that the shepherd didn't make his sheep stupid by design.
Not wild sheep. Domestic sheep etc are the result of human intervention. The domestic sheep is to stupid by design, makes it easier to fleece him ;-)
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 04, 2017, 11:30:44 PM
It isn't that they are stupid. It is that they have a choice and most choose greed over what is good and right. This isn't wholly their own fault in cases though; and in said cases, such individual​s won't be held accountable. I speak of the "sheep"; whereas the false "Shepherd" will be accountable for knowingly leading the flock astray.
faith in selfless unity for good
Politicians bear a heavy guilt.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 04, 2017, 11:30:44 PM
It isn't that they are stupid. It is that they have a choice and most choose greed over what is good and right. This isn't wholly their own fault in cases though; and in said cases, such individual​s won't be held accountable. I speak of the "sheep"; whereas the false "Shepherd" will be accountable for knowingly leading the flock astray.
faith in selfless unity for good
You did not address my point. And it is amazing how clearly you see all this and hardly anybody else does. Your creator god--as you describe it--is just so amazingly inept in it's creation.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 05, 2017, 09:30:36 AM
You did not address my point. And it is amazing how clearly you see all this and hardly anybody else does. Your creator god--as you describe it--is just so amazingly inept in it's creation.
What was your question again?
Sorry.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 04, 2017, 06:32:40 PM
Seemingly; not all have the capacity to know the will of GOD in their individual life.
Whose fault is that? Someone who simply does not have the capacity cannot be ethically responsible for that lack.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 04, 2017, 06:32:40 PM
That isn't the case for some, but it is obvious that the vast majority are lead around like blind sheep. The church is a support and aid for exponential multitudes. Take that away and see where the chaos comes from.
Take that away and
replace it with education and see how far we can go. I relish the idea of a world without superstitions shoved into children's brains while they're too young to understand the difference between reality and fantasy.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 04, 2017, 06:32:40 PM
Everyone is an individual. That being the case; the will of GOD in their personal life can vary though the Will of GOD is without variance.
Which is functionally the equivalent of being able to make it up for yourself. If the alleged will of god is without variance, it should be obvious and accessible.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 04, 2017, 06:32:40 PM
There is a difference in making up what you want and keeping some things or doctrines one likes from a denomination or particular verses of scripture while throwing out the rest. The conscience isn't variable nor is what is good and right. Though people may have different individual tasks or tests or trials, or blessings; the will of GOD towards all mankind and life in general doesn't change.
If you look back even at just the bible, what is good and right has changed drastically over time. The book condones slavery, capital punishment for extramarital sex -- which is a profound contradiction of 'thou shalt not kill', polygyny, and women being forced to marry their rapists. This was considered 'good and right'. It clearly is no longer, and I would not want to meet someone who actually practiced their life strictly according to biblical laws.
And at no point does this 'god' say that these things are wrong -- and since there have been no further additions to the bible in over a millennium and a half, he's still silent on the matter. The change has been
social, not divinely ordered. We don't need a god to tell us how to do better, we can figure that out on our own. Slowly and clumsily, maybe, but we do advance.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 05, 2017, 10:13:16 AM
What was your question again?
Sorry.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
You do love to play silly little games don't you. But you believe in a silly little god who why not.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 05, 2017, 01:13:45 PM
You do love to play silly little games don't you. But you believe in a silly little god who why not.
No games, and generally I'm not the joking type when it comes to metaphysics, or origins, and GOD.
I really didn't recall you asking a specific question. I guess I could have attempted to comb through posts to find it, but you could have simply restated it too as opposed to your typical little stab.
Must not have been a very important question after all.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
It is always interesting how those with true internal turmoil tend to display an outward appearance of innocence, such as a smiling face in a family portrait or a hand holding a puppies's head.
Quote from: Sorginak on April 05, 2017, 08:00:29 PM
It is always interesting how those with true internal turmoil tend to display an outward appearance of innocence, such as a smiling face in a family portrait or a hand holding a puppies's head.
That puppy is dead prick. And I have repeatedly tried to remove that pic as it was a mistake and my avatar is generally left blank.
I am the furthest from innocence that you will ever know.
I'm not fake.
You want to see turmoil?
Me?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170406/ffcb20647afc8cfdfc4937735163ebad.jpg)
There you go. Would you like that I display my poverty and squalor?
faith in selfless unity for good
Ooops, modified because some people do not understand how to use commas.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 05, 2017, 08:22:03 PM
You want to see turmoil?
Me?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170406/ffcb20647afc8cfdfc4937735163ebad.jpg)
There you go. Would you like that I display my poverty and squalor?
faith in selfless unity for good
I am uncertain how that is a display of turmoil. You seem like someone who might need to shave, but otherwise fine.
Quote from: Sorginak on April 05, 2017, 08:28:19 PM
I am uncertain how that is a display of turmoil. You seem like a someone who might need to shave, but otherwise fine.
It is an inward thing. But it was pegged. What I took offence to was the insinuating that I am being somehow fraudulent or fake.
Thanks though
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 05, 2017, 07:57:39 PM
No games, and generally I'm not the joking type when it comes to metaphysics, or origins, and GOD.
I really didn't recall you asking a specific question. I guess I could have attempted to comb through posts to find it, but you could have simply restated it too as opposed to your typical little stab.
Must not have been a very important question after all.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
It's not like it was buried somewhere in the middle of 50 pages. One page back from this one. That's how far it is. And it took me only a few seconds to locate it.
Quote from: Sorginak on April 05, 2017, 08:00:29 PM
It is always interesting how those with true internal turmoil tend to display an outward appearance of innocence, such as a smiling face in a family portrait or a hand holding a puppies's head.
Internal boiling is good, shows the kettle is about ready to pour hot water over the tea leaves. Can't read tea leaves, without steeping, followed by drinking. One old Zen master caused a disciple to achieve enlightenment, by simply pouring tea ... and kept pouring as the tea went over the edge of the tea cup. Tea leaf reading was unnecessary that time.
And nobody is innocent for long, not one. Nor would I want them to be. Experience is the best teacher.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 05, 2017, 08:22:03 PM
That puppy is dead prick. And I have repeatedly tried to remove that pic as it was a mistake and my avatar is generally left blank.
I am the furthest from innocence that you will ever know.
I'm not fake.
You want to see turmoil?
Me?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170406/ffcb20647afc8cfdfc4937735163ebad.jpg)
There you go. Would you like that I display my poverty and squalor?
faith in selfless unity for good
Jeebus! ;-)
Quote from: Sorginak on April 05, 2017, 08:28:19 PM
I am uncertain how that is a display of turmoil. You seem like someone who might need to shave, but otherwise fine.
Some youth are too young for proper facial hair ;-) Peach fuzz much?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 03, 2017, 10:37:33 AM
That's odd. The cradle of life is in Africa as is the Ethiopian Orthodox Church which actually has the book of Enoch within it's bible.
What biblical lies are you referring to? They are most likely poorly translated in order to appease man's own wants. But that makes it rather un-biblical; as one thing that is intact in nearly all core sacred texts is the command not to alter the texts.
faith in selfless unity for good
Oh yes, let's let's accept the modern bible as literal truth. (coff, coff). That's an error. I'll give you an example: "The tenth Commandment, commonly but wrongly translated as “thou shalt not covet,†illustrates how internal structure or etymology can be misleading. Like the English “host†and “hostile†that share a root but don’t mean the same thing, the words for “desirable†and “take†in Hebrew come from the same root. It’s the second word, “take,†that appears in the Ten Commandments. But translators, not recognizing that related words can mean different things in this way, misunderstood the Hebrew and wrongly translated the text as “thou shalt not covet†for what should have been “thou shalt not take.†.
Get the idea?
Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2017, 05:29:32 AM
Oh yes, let's let's accept the modern bible as literal truth. (coff, coff). That's an error. I'll give you an example: "The tenth Commandment, commonly but wrongly translated as “thou shalt not covet,†illustrates how internal structure or etymology can be misleading. Like the English “host†and “hostile†that share a root but don’t mean the same thing, the words for “desirable†and “take†in Hebrew come from the same root. It’s the second word, “take,†that appears in the Ten Commandments. But translators, not recognizing that related words can mean different things in this way, misunderstood the Hebrew and wrongly translated the text as “thou shalt not covet†for what should have been “thou shalt not take.†.
Get the idea?
Outstanding! And there are words in the original Hebrew that even rabbis don't know what they mean. Not that you need to believe in the book that was translated from ... it is just Jewish literature. But I suspect many here would take Les Miserables, in the original French, as gospel ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2017, 05:29:32 AM
Oh yes, let's let's accept the modern bible as literal truth. (coff, coff). That's an error. I'll give you an example: "The tenth Commandment, commonly but wrongly translated as “thou shalt not covet,†illustrates how internal structure or etymology can be misleading. Like the English “host†and “hostile†that share a root but don’t mean the same thing, the words for “desirable†and “take†in Hebrew come from the same root. It’s the second word, “take,†that appears in the Ten Commandments. But translators, not recognizing that related words can mean different things in this way, misunderstood the Hebrew and wrongly translated the text as “thou shalt not covet†for what should have been “thou shalt not take.†.
Get the idea?
Sorta....Covet is to desire or want.
The faithful to GOD are to be wanting in no thing, and desire naught but what is good and right in the sight of GOD.
faith in selfless unity for good
I don't care who covets what. Just don't covet any of my stuff.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 07, 2017, 07:58:05 AM
Sorta....Covet is to desire or want.
The faithful to GOD are to be wanting in no thing, and desire naught but what is good and right in the sight of GOD.
faith in selfless unity for good
And "desire" is not the same as "take". The taking is the ancient crime. Covet all you want, but do not take.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2017, 08:17:09 AM
And "desire" is not the same as "take". The taking is the ancient crime. Covet all you want, but do not take.
To want is the precursor and motivation to take.... greed is the issue.
If you want not then what motivation is there to take from another?
faith in selfless unity for good
It's OK to take a greedy guy's loot. You are punishing the greedy guy in God's name. You can even get coupons to Heaven. But if you don't covet, you won't take his loot, and the system breaks down.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 07, 2017, 09:16:39 AM
To want is the precursor and motivation to take.... greed is the issue.
If you want not then what motivation is there to take from another?
faith in selfless unity for good
Thinking of doing something is not the same as doing it. Human will gives some control. Desire to take is not the same as taking.
Quote from: SGOS on April 07, 2017, 08:10:46 AM
I don't care who covets what. Just don't covet any of my stuff.
They can covet my stuff all they want--just don't take it. :)
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 07, 2017, 09:16:39 AM
To want is the precursor and motivation to take.... greed is the issue.
If you want not then what motivation is there to take from another?
faith in selfless unity for good
If you 'want not' then what motivation is there to do anything?
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 07, 2017, 09:59:46 AM
If you 'want not' then what motivation is there to do anything?
This is a clue that religion was created by the elite to keep the riff raff out of their hair.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 07, 2017, 09:16:39 AM
To want is the precursor and motivation to take.... greed is the issue.
If you want not then what motivation is there to take from another?
faith in selfless unity for good
The idea of the thought sin wasn't in the Bible until Jesus showed up. In the Old Testament, doing was the sin. God didn't care about intent. Just look at what he did to the man who dared to put his hand on the Ark of the Covenant. He did it to keep the Ark from falling over, but God was like, "Nope. Rules are rules. I said no touching, so you're dead now."
Quote from: SGOS on April 07, 2017, 10:10:58 AM
This is a clue that religion was created by the elite to keep the riff raff out of their hair.
Remember, priests originally were the only ones who could read/write. In fact, they are the ones that took writing from book-keeping into literature. Control the narrative, or it controls you. All power to Marduk!
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 07, 2017, 09:16:39 AM
To want is the precursor and motivation to take.... greed is the issue.
If you want not then what motivation is there to take from another?
faith in selfless unity for good
Buddha said so ;-) Not just greed, but even wanting. Calm the mental monkey.
Quote from: SGOS on April 07, 2017, 09:25:10 AM
It's OK to take a greedy guy's loot. You are punishing the greedy guy in God's name. You can even get coupons to Heaven. But if you don't covet, you won't take his loot, and the system breaks down.
You give the loot to G-d ... G-d needs it more than you. See the incident in the Book of Joshua, regarding the spoils of Ai.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 07, 2017, 09:59:46 AM
If you 'want not' then what motivation is there to do anything?
Consumer much? Will you die with the most boy toys?
Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2017, 09:38:30 AM
Thinking of doing something is not the same as doing it. Human will gives some control. Desire to take is not the same as taking.
I agree and didn't say it was
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 07, 2017, 09:59:46 AM
If you 'want not' then what motivation is there to do anything?
You can want a thing without it being dependent on a reward or consiquinces. The motivation is from doing what one knows to be right....For the sake of it itself.
faith in selfless unity for good
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 07, 2017, 01:05:04 PM
You can want a thing without it being dependent on a reward or consiquinces. The motivation is from doing what one knows to be right....For the sake of it itself.
faith in selfless unity for good
Only enlightened conscience does that.
Quote from: Baruch on April 07, 2017, 01:10:23 PM
Only enlightened conscience does that.
I didn't say that, and do not consider my conscience to be enlightened, or me. To know of things and still not do them, or actively turn from them is THE sin.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Sin is invented nonsense.
Quote from: Baruch on April 07, 2017, 12:54:25 PM
Consumer much? Will you die with the most boy toys?
Seems to me that is a shallow (consumerism) conclusion to reach based on what I said. Seems more a reflection of you than me.
I want to help my neighbor with that fence. I want to rescue that dog that needs food and shelter. I want to give that homeless man a jacket for the chilly nights he must endure. I want to go see a baseball game. I want to help my wife with dinner prep. I want to vacuum the house. I want to hold my dog. I want to take a nap. I want to play my computer game. I want to go for a walk. I want to..................................I could go on and on. Yes, some is I want to buy something; but not all that much any more. When I have no motivation, then I usually just take a nap.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 07, 2017, 07:59:47 PM
Seems to me that is a shallow (consumerism) conclusion to reach based on what I said. Seems more a reflection of you than me.
I want to help my neighbor with that fence. I want to rescue that dog that needs food and shelter. I want to give that homeless man a jacket for the chilly nights he must endure. I want to go see a baseball game. I want to help my wife with dinner prep. I want to vacuum the house. I want to hold my dog. I want to take a nap. I want to play my computer game. I want to go for a walk. I want to..................................I could go on and on. Yes, some is I want to buy something; but not all that much any more. When I have no motivation, then I usually just take a nap.
When I have no motivation, I argue with people on the internet. lol
Wanting to buy something is not the same as desiring to take that something from a neighbor. Covet all you want and get it for yourself honestly. Take not... ;)
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 07, 2017, 06:36:38 PM
I didn't say that, and do not consider my conscience to be enlightened, or me. To know of things and still not do them, or actively turn from them is THE sin.
peace
faith in selfless unity for good
Sin is a religious failing with deistic punishments. Did you mean an ethical failure?
Quote from: Cavebear on April 12, 2017, 06:24:51 AM
Sin is a religious failing with deistic punishments. Did you mean an ethical failure?
You seem to be basing your assertions on partial truths friend.
Sin for me is that thing knowingly done or knowingly not done regardless of perceived ability to do so, and perceived good and/or right reason/ motivation to do so. It is a subjective and personal thing.
Sin is known after the fact by shame.
The conscience is the link to The creative force and benevolent nature there of.
Just because the word sin brings conotations of organized religion for some apparently; for me it has very little to do with the congregation, or the attempt by the powerful, to manipulate the masses. Not that those things haven't or don't currently happen, just that the word sin isn't synonymous with what you stated.
The word is a descriptor. My use of said word doesn't agree with your own.
peace
Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 12, 2017, 09:18:12 AM
You seem to be basing your assertions on partial truths friend.
Sin for me is that thing knowingly done or knowingly not done regardless of perceived ability to do so, and perceived good and/or right reason/ motivation to do so. It is a subjective and personal thing.
Sin is known after the fact by shame.
The conscience is the link to The creative force and benevolent nature there of.
Just because the word sin brings conotations of organized religion for some apparently; for me it has very little to do with the congregation, or the attempt by the powerful, to manipulate the masses. Not that those things haven't or don't currently happen, just that the word sin isn't synonymous with what you stated.
The word is a descriptor. My use of said word doesn't agree with your own.
peace
Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
Pops, the problem you have in trying to describe to us what your religion is, is just that; it is yours. It is defined by you. So, you are always right--for you. I reject most of your personal definitions, for I have my own. For me there are no 'Truths'--not one! There are some 'truths'--for me. Those are the ethical lines (I don't see anything as a moral) I will not cross--but those are personal and I don't expect you to share them. We all live in our own little universes--and my universe rejects much of what your universe espouses.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 12, 2017, 10:57:50 AM
Pops, the problem you have in trying to describe to us what your religion is, is just that; it is yours. It is defined by you. So, you are always right--for you. I reject most of your personal definitions, for I have my own. For me there are no 'Truths'--not one! There are some 'truths'--for me. Those are the ethical lines (I don't see anything as a moral) I will not cross--but those are personal and I don't expect you to share them. We all live in our own little universes--and my universe rejects much of what your universe espouses.
So you draw some dividing line between ethical and moral?
Interesting
Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
Quote from: popsthebuilder on April 12, 2017, 09:18:12 AM
You seem to be basing your assertions on partial truths friend.
Sin for me is that thing knowingly done or knowingly not done regardless of perceived ability to do so, and perceived good and/or right reason/ motivation to do so. It is a subjective and personal thing.
Sin is known after the fact by shame.
The conscience is the link to The creative force and benevolent nature there of.
Just because the word sin brings conotations of organized religion for some apparently; for me it has very little to do with the congregation, or the attempt by the powerful, to manipulate the masses. Not that those things haven't or don't currently happen, just that the word sin isn't synonymous with what you stated.
The word is a descriptor. My use of said word doesn't agree with your own.
peace
Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
You must let them predefine words, so that their conclusions (which they have already drawn) make sense. As a shameless AF poster ... I know I am forgiven.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 12, 2017, 10:57:50 AM
Pops, the problem you have in trying to describe to us what your religion is, is just that; it is yours. It is defined by you. So, you are always right--for you. I reject most of your personal definitions, for I have my own. For me there are no 'Truths'--not one! There are some 'truths'--for me. Those are the ethical lines (I don't see anything as a moral) I will not cross--but those are personal and I don't expect you to share them. We all live in our own little universes--and my universe rejects much of what your universe espouses.
I agree with you. But be careful not to claim "objective" status for morals or ethics elsewhere (other than to state the obvious, that it is the rationalization of the powerful) As a demigod, you are powerful, powerful enough to define words to your liking, absolve yourself or not of guilt, to put yourself in relative opposition to society or the authorities. Even Heracles didn't tell King Eurystheus where to stuff his 12 labors.
Quote from: Munch on December 22, 2016, 07:17:40 PM
When you think, if I were Jesus I'd be pretty pissed off. So your dad is the creator of the universe, he made everything and everyone you know, so you'd think being the son of the creator of everything, you would have been given at least some level of power he has. I mean Franklyn Richards, son of Reed and Sue, got given the power to alter reality on a cosmic level, leagues above his parents, yet for Jesus, all he gets is a healing power, the power to shaman water walk in wow, and do a self res, like shamans in wow.
I'd expect more from a dad who can do anything, but instead just fucks with people for fun.. actually now I think of it, that makes more sense why jesus didn't get anymore powers given to him.
John 10:18 No one takes it (my life) from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
And most think he only used that power once....*shrugs*
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 11:36:51 PM
John 10:18 No one takes it (my life) from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
And most think he only used that power once....*shrugs*
Part of the more general theological condition of "kenosis" or "emptying". This is part of the profound mystery of incarnation. Except I think that every real person is Jesus, not just fictional ones.
Quote from: Baruch on April 15, 2017, 12:11:46 AM
Part of the more general theological condition of "kenosis" or "emptying". This is part of the profound mystery of incarnation. Except I think that every real person is Jesus, not just fictional ones.
"Ye are gods."? Surely you jest!
From where I am looking by what I have found, if the story of Jesus is all allegory, it's a retelling of universal Truth. If the story of Jesus of his true, it's a reoccurrence of universal Truth.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 15, 2017, 12:16:53 AM
"Ye are gods."? Surely you jest!
From where I am looking by what I have found, if the story of Jesus is all allegory, it's a retelling of universal Truth. If the story of Jesus of his true, it's a reoccurrence of universal Truth.
Wrong definition of truth. The logicians use Newspeak. 2+2=4 isn't true, it is consistent. Don't make metaphors into similes. All human stories, including my own, your own ... these are all ad-lib fictions. In that sense Buddha is right, our egos are fictions, same as Shakespeare's Hamlet. Some fictional characters have more verisimilitude ... but literary critics can never be completely tamed. All the world is a stage, and we are but B-movie actors. History is propaganda, same as hagiography and mythology. It is just some of it is supported by the secular state (aka history). Herodotus started truthiness.
But yes, the bits and pieces of the literary creation that is Jesus ... came from many source. including Kabbalah ... see the Gospel of Mary.
And yes, I am a funny guy, just got to get it off my jest.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 11:36:51 PM
John 10:18 No one takes it (my life) from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
And most think he only used that power once....*shrugs*
Considering 'he' is a fiction, I would imagine he can come and go as he pleases--or as often as 'his' fans write that into the script.
I allow that the bible states many important ways of people living together well. But the "living together well" came first and the bible simply codified that. Humans have been homo sapiens for about 200,000 years and learned how to live together all that time before the bible. That some ancient nomadic tribe consolidated a few vague legends (a flood, a few battles, a time of slavery) means very little in the course of human history (as brief as THAT is).
There is nothing in the bible that is not taken from other older cultures, and little advice that wasn't already understood in the cultures that surrounded them. Seriously, do you think think it was a revelation that one should respect the elders and not steal from neighbors?
The bible is only the first written record of standard inter-human practices by a small tribe of nomads who met a lot of other peoples and caught on to writing at the right time.
I do admire them for that, BTW.
Yep ... 190,000 years without agriculture .. and then it all goes to hell. Hunter/gatherer heaven aka Garden of Eden.
I wonder what kind of garden paradise goes through the mind of someone living in the deserts of the middle east
Quote from: fencerider on June 17, 2017, 04:19:54 PM
I wonder what kind of garden paradise goes through the mind of someone living in the deserts of the middle east
Water, lots of water. Figs. Water. Shade. Water. Women. Water; POOLS of water. Water spraying everywhere. Water flowing past your feet, and your feet in it. Water. Oh, and women... And water.
Quote from: fencerider on June 17, 2017, 04:19:54 PM
I wonder what kind of garden paradise goes through the mind of someone living in the deserts of the middle east
The Quran is quite detailed about it ... like an oasis ... only better. Paradise comes from the Persian word for the Shah's garden. The Iranians are good at gardening, though their land isn't as hostile as the Hejaz.
Young women in the oasis of course, friendly women who never age or get pregnant or bitch. But that is the male version ;-) Figs were the first domesticated plant. But oasis mostly have dates. And no snakes ... venomous snakes also live in oasis, and ruin an otherwise wonderful visit. The oldest recorded Semitic message, is an anti-snake spell in an early Egyptian pyramid.
hmmm so the Garden of Eden has some fig trees, a few lakes, and the wives of Abel, Cain, and Seth were waiting for them when they got there. Didn't have to tell me there are no snakes. I roasted those guys on the campfire last night.
Quote from: fencerider on June 19, 2017, 03:38:37 AM
hmmm so the Garden of Eden has some fig trees, a few lakes, and the wives of Abel, Cain, and Seth were waiting for them when they got there. Didn't have to tell me there are no snakes. I roasted those guys on the campfire last night.
If an Arab catches a snake in an oasis, they sew its mouth shut. Parseltongue you know! Genesis repeats very old folk tales, which often relate to very old folk customs.
Quote from: fencerider on June 19, 2017, 03:38:37 AM
hmmm so the Garden of Eden has some fig trees, a few lakes, and the wives of Abel, Cain, and Seth were waiting for them when they got there. Didn't have to tell me there are no snakes. I roasted those guys on the campfire last night.
Well, I said "deserts of the middle east", not Garden Of Eden". I was curious about desert fantasies. No offense though... I sort of see the connection.