Why say no to God? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Kimstu

08-19-2000, 06:36 PM

squirrel asked: My life completely changed, I went from deep depression to fullfilled joy in a matter of minutes. Granted, I had to give up some aspects of my life that I really didn't want to, but now that they're gone, God makes sure that I don't miss them. My question for you is this: why would you turn something like that down?

Other posters here have done a good job of making the points that not everybody is "deeply depressed" when not believing in God nor "joyfully fulfilled" when they do believe. I'd like to address what I see as a deeper moral issue: namely, true convictions are not something you change for motives of personal gain. If you really don't believe deep down that God exists, it is immoral to try to convince yourself or others that you do believe it just in order to lay hands on the goodies, emotional or spiritual, you think it may offer.

I'm always amazed at many theists' obliviousness to the contemptible paltriness of their arguments along the lines of "isn't heaven, or God's love, a good thing? why would you turn it down?" (I said something like this to lambda in the deductive arguments for God thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=34772), but the discussion never went very far.) If a bank robber tried to hand me some stolen cash, I wouldn't take him/her up on that; sure, I could use the money, but I won't commit or be accessory to a crime in order to get it. So don't come around insulting me with your offers of "fulfilled joy" either; if I have to betray or deny my honest convictions in order to get it, it isn't worth it and I don't want it. And I can't believe that any God I could ever respect would really want me to do that, either.

Dr. Lao

08-19-2000, 06:42 PM

Curious minds want to know!
I like that attitude :)! It was said before, but I'll say it again. You are assuming that the lives of atheists, myself included, were the same as yours before you made your spiritual decision (i.e. empty, and guilt ridden). If this was the case your disbelief that others could voluntarily live like this while a better way existed would be justified. However, I am happy as an atheist, as are many others. There are even some stories of people here abandoning a religious lifestyle for an irreligious one because they felt as disatisfied and empty in the church as you did away from it. And, again it was said before, that many find peace in religions other than Christianity. I suppose you could argue that you have more peace, but that would be hard to verify. I realize your belief is strong, but so is that of others.

A note to the others who posted derisive comments: I know im_a_squirrel comments seemed arrogant to you, but he/she is trying to learn. It takes great strength to ask a question the answer to which might alter your beliefs, and he/she deserves to be cut some slack.

oldscratch

08-19-2000, 07:01 PM

Maybe this will help you.. If someone came up to you and said (and no offense is intended)

Before I came into my relationship with Kali, my life was empty, and I felt guilty about so many of the stupid things that I'd done. Once I allowed Kali to vindicate me, I felt a great burden being lifted from me. My life completely changed, I went from deep depression to fullfilled joy in a matter of minutes. I was able to fully embrace aspects of my life, such as my love of destruction, that I felt guilty about before. I was able to feel completely free. My question for you is this: why would you turn something like that down?

Anyway, I hope you see that such an argument would have no effect on you.

Guinastasia

08-19-2000, 07:02 PM

I myself am officially a Catholic, although not a very good one.
However, I don't think that MY way is the way for everyone.
What if someone else has a different set of beliefs? And they think that MY religion is wrong? I mean, everyone believes that THEIR religion is the right one.
So I believe it is. I think ALL religions are the right ones, all Gods are one...just different ways of worship...
So I guess I've got my ass covered.

August West

08-19-2000, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by im_a_squirrel
Before I came into my relationship with Jesus Christ, my life was empty
And what is it full of now? Thinking about what the Invisible Man in the Sky thinks of your every action?

and I felt guilty about so many of the stupid things that I'd done. Once I allowed Christ to forgive me, I felt a great burden being lifted from me.
I'm sure abdicating personal responsibility is uplifting.

I had to give up some aspects of my life that I really didn't want to, but now that they're gone, God makes sure that I don't miss them.
So you had to give up things you found enjoyable in order to please the almighty. What if you're wrong? (I'm tired of hearing that question directed at me.) All of that potential happiness was wasted.

Is it that you have stuff in your life that you don't want to get rid of?
Happiness, free will, my own moral code, non-judgemental friends, reason are a few things I don't want to get rid of.

Road Rash

08-19-2000, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by im_a_squirrel
Ok. This is mostly an opinion question for all you who enjoy good stimulating debate. I am a born again Christian, so there are certain things (viewpoints, etc) that come from atheists and others that I don't understand. I'm not trying to offend, but I just don't really see the logic. Before I came into my relationship with Jesus Christ, my life was empty, and I felt guilty about so many of the stupid things that I'd done. Once I allowed Christ to forgive me, I felt a great burden being lifted from me. My life completely changed, I went from deep depression to fullfilled joy in a matter of minutes. Granted, I had to give up some aspects of my life that I really didn't want to, but now that they're gone, God makes sure that I don't miss them. My question for you is this: why would you turn something like that down? Is it that you have stuff in your life that you don't want to get rid of? Curious minds want to know!

OH BOY, HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY.

Yes, I went through a religious phase of my life. That Jesus high will turn into Jesus hangover likely in the not too distant future, then the true meddle of your faith will set in. Trying to stay the ostentatioulsy joyous will wear most people out. Better to be mellow happy to nuetral most of the time.

You have talked about this great joy, but nothing about tangible accomplishments since this conversion. This is where the meddle of your faith gets tested. I have known many people who have been overwhelmed by emotion upon a conversion, but over time they have mostly gone back to normal, looking beck at their "religious" phase with humor or embarassment.

The best Christians to me are not the ones with fake grins of their faces trying to put a Jesus reference into everything they say.

Freyr

08-19-2000, 08:18 PM

I_a_S: an addendum, my life has been rather happy. No more or worse than anyone else's. I had my usual shares of ups and downs.

One point you need to consider is this, many of us have given up on the Xian Church, but not necessarily on the Xian God. As I've stated in another thread (Friend or God convert me) I left the Xian church for a variety of reasons, least of which was my homosexuality. But I also have problems with other aspects of the J/C/I God. I'm on good terms with him, but I simply don't follow his path.

Here things might get a bit prickly:

IMHO, one of the worst things Xianity has ever done is hide or obliterate the ability to chose your own spiritual path. The other choices are there, but they're damned hard to find.

If you did find one and try to follow it you'd be looked upon as odd, peculiar or even (ahem) queer (in the old sense of the word). :) Up until the past few decades, anyone practicing anything other than good ole Protestant Xianity was considered suspect. Even today, when the topic of religion is brought up, Xianity dominates it. Anything else is almost an afterthought.

The point of this is, many of us don't practice Xianity for various reasons. We've put a lot of thought and effort into our choices. In the same way you don't want to give up your relationship with the Nazarene, I don't want to give up Wicca.

Irrevere

08-19-2000, 08:44 PM

WEll wring, that was a very well thought out argument but unfortunately I already agreed with you. Some sort of automatic spell checker (I'm assuming) changed my "raison" to reason. I was actually trying to use the shortened version of the french phrase "raison d'etre", or reason to be.

My point was just yours that humans have an inherent need to belong and that without some sort of "reason to be" they WILL feel empty and alone.

Ain't modern't technology grand?

Gawd I hope it doesn't happen again because I don't know how else to explain my true meaning without using the word that is being automatically wiped out. Hopefully the quotation marks will set things straight. If not you'll have to live with being confused :).

Irrevere

08-19-2000, 08:47 PM

Well that's what I get for skimming. It didn't do what I thought it did.

Anyway, my statement is still valid even if it's explaination was wrong.

Scratch that, modern technology isn't grand. Human error is.

beakerxf

08-19-2000, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Irrevere
WEll wring, that was a very well thought out argument but unfortunately I already agreed with you. Some sort of automatic spell checker (I'm assuming) changed my "raison" to reason. I was actually trying to use the shortened version of the french phrase "raison d'etre", or reason to be.

No, your original post featured the term "raison", but changed when I quoted you. I was proofreading my post and in a moment of analness corrected your "misspelling". My bad.

MysterEcks

08-20-2000, 02:31 AM

im_a_squirrel said:

I'm not trying to offend, but I just don't really see the logic.

You see, squirrel, I don't see the logic to believing Christianity or any other religion. This question is therefore doomed from the start, since we aren't going to understand each other's points of view.

My question for you is this: why would you turn something like that down?

Sorry, squirrel, but you miss the whole point. You make it sound like we (agnostics and atheists) are rejecting an offer, but the offer is for something we don't believe exists. It is therefore an offer of nothing.

It's all well and good that you are happy with your beliefs, and I wouldn't try to take that away from you even if I could. But I don't want what you're giving out, any more than I want what the crack pushers sell. You will just have to be content with letting me muddle through in my own way.

nashiitashii

08-20-2000, 02:43 AM

Well, I found my life where I was being schooled in Christian thought to be opressing and it didn't suit me. Christianity isn't the religion for me, and right now I remain agnostic until I find a religion that matches my thoughts on life. If I don't, I will remain an agnostic from then on. Every person has their own way that is suited for them, and this is why religion has been successful aside from the people who are forced to become whatever religion they are.

David B

08-20-2000, 07:55 AM

MysterEcks said:
You see, squirrel, I don't see the logic to believing Christianity or any other religion. Good point. I'd like to know where in Christianity Squirrel finds this "logic" to which he is referring.

cheezit

08-20-2000, 08:46 AM

It would seem to me that for Christianity to be "logical", one would first have to believe that the Bible was the word of God and completely true. It also seems that if a person does not believe that the Bible is true, then Christianity, or any other religion, for that matter, is pointless, or not logical.

im a squirrel apparently believes that the Bible is 100% true and is the word of God, so therefore it is logical to him/her.

Typo Negative

08-20-2000, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by im_a_squirrel
Once I allowed Christ to forgive me, I felt a great burden being lifted from me. My life completely changed, I went from deep depression to fullfilled joy in a matter of minutes.

Tried it. Really, I did. I felt nothing at all like what you describe. In fact, I felt nothing period. No connection whatsoever. And a connection, not fullfilled joy, was what I was after. I called out for God and he wasn't there.

I took this to mean either 1) God does not exist, or 2) God did not care to answer. Both amount to the same thing.

Eutychus

08-20-2000, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by threemae
The Assosciate Tender of The Holy Goldfish

Whatever happened to the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Have we lost sight of the true faith?

DoctorJ

08-20-2000, 10:33 AM

I made this analogy on another, similar thread, but I think it's worth repeating.

You're walking down the street, when a mysterious-looking gentleman approaches you with a cashier's check for a million dollars and a gun. He tells you that the million-dollar check can be yours, and all you have to do to receive this free gift is believe, absolutely and deep in your heart, that Regis Philbin is the President of the United States. If you refuse to believe that, he is going to shoot you through the head.

I concede that it is possible that Regis is the President. There could have been a coup within the last ten minutes during which the people installed Regis as the new leader. It's possible that all the media are tied up in a vast conspiracy designed to hide the reality of President Philbin.

However, it is not bloody likely, and I don't have any reason to believe such a thing other than your admonishment to do so. You could offer me all the money in the world, and I would never be able to convince myself, for sure and without any reason for thinking so, that Regis is the President.

Now why would I turn down that free gift?

Dr. J

David B

08-20-2000, 10:34 AM

Cheezit said:
It would seem to me that for Christianity to be "logical", one would first have to believe that the Bible was the word of God and completely true. It also seems that if a person does not believe that the Bible is true, then Christianity, or any other religion, for that matter, is pointless, or not logical.

im a squirrel apparently believes that the Bible is 100% true and is the word of God, so therefore it is logical to him/her.Something is either logical or it is not. It cannot be logical to one person but not others. At least, not objectively. Squirrel may think it's logical, but that does not make it so.

For example, if the word of the Bible is indeed 100% true, as you have said, then it is still missing logic because there is no way to logically explain why there is so much evidence that says the Bible is not 100% true.

Triskadecamus

08-20-2000, 10:46 AM

Squirrel,

It’s simple

They don’t believe you.

I am a Christian, and I don’t believe you.

Your drive by witnessing has accomplished nothing but exposing your smug self-righteousness to everyone but yourself. Before doing it again, you might consider how much service you have accomplished for Our Lord by doing this.

You cannot be the Savior, you can only be the Saved Soul. That is a minor part in the drama of the world. It requires a humble man with a desire to take on the difficult task of living quietly in a way that honors the Lord. When someone asks you how you have become the man you are, then you witness.

You are probably the same person who started other threads under different names, and then never answered. You are a great comfort to Satan. (Not the poster, the Prince of Evil) You make Christ’s message sound selfish, trivial, and greedy. You display vanity and pride, and bigotry, and call them Christianity.

Pray more, talk less. Grow up a lot.

I ask the forgiveness of all those who are not of the Christian faith, for you, and for myself.

Tris

Gaudere

08-20-2000, 10:51 AM

Whatever happened to the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Have we lost sight of the true faith?You know, it's the decline of good old-fashioned IPU values in this country that are causing all of today's problems. Heresies like the Righteous Goldfish are springing up right and left, luring young minds with their flashy toilets while a good honest IPUer can't even eat the Holy Round Meal in a public school. All these other "religions" are simply attempts by the Purple Oyster of Doom to disguise the One True Way, and I hate to say it, but I think he's been quite effective. You know, I met someone the other day who hadn't even heard of the IPU! I guess I better start witnessing on public message boards; that's the only thing that will halt the crime, poverty, cruelty and misery so prevalent in this modern world.

pldennison

08-20-2000, 11:09 AM

I'm sure it didn't escape most people that the OP was im_a_squirrel's first post ever. Maybe if this question wasn't asked with increasing frequency by hit-and-run sock puppets who never stick around to see any answer's, people wouldn't get as pissed off about it. Same with the proliferation of "Why Are Christians So [insert derogatory adjective here]/" threads.

galen

08-20-2000, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by im_a_squirrel
Ok. This is mostly an opinion question for all you who enjoy good stimulating debate. I am a born again Christian, so there are certain things (viewpoints, etc) that come from atheists and others that I don't understand. I'm not trying to offend, but I just don't really see the logic. Before I came into my relationship with Jesus Christ, my life was empty, and I felt guilty about so many of the stupid things that I'd done. Once I allowed Christ to forgive me, I felt a great burden being lifted from me. My life completely changed, I went from deep depression to fullfilled joy in a matter of minutes. Granted, I had to give up some aspects of my life that I really didn't want to, but now that they're gone, God makes sure that I don't miss them. My question for you is this: why would you turn something like that down? Is it that you have stuff in your life that you don't want to get rid of? Curious minds want to know!

Frankly, it really doesn't matter whether there is a god. If there is, then, as far as we know, it has not exerted an influence on the Universe since the Big Bang. Otherwise, we would see the laws of physics violated all over the place. We don't.

With regard to Jesus. Whether he existed or not is open to question. We have only the New Testement's word on that. Was he divine? There is no reason to think so. Did he promote justice? Well, according to the New Testement, yes. But then why do so many "Christians" support unjust political regimes all over the world? In this country( the US), the mass base of the extreme right lies precisely amoung the mass of born again Christians. They sing the praises of the vilest, slimeist, most hypocritical politicians in this country.

If "Christians" took the New Testement seriously, they would support the struggles of workers, women, gays,children, and the third world peoples. They would be against the militarists, money lenders, tyrants, wife beaters, and gay bashers. They aren't. All the polls show that the "Christians" support an oppressive political agenda. Therefore, most them are hypocrites.

Stratocaster

08-20-2000, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by galen
If "Christians" took the New Testement seriously, they would support the struggles of workers, women, gays,children, and the third world peoples. They would be against the militarists, money lenders, tyrants, wife beaters, and gay bashers. They aren't. All the polls show that the "Christians" support an oppressive political agenda. Therefore, most them are hypocrites.
You will, of course, provide a source for such a slanderous assertion, correct?

cheezit

08-20-2000, 01:10 PM

David B said:

"Something is either logical or it is not. It cannot be logical to one person but not others. At least, not objectively."

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your, pardon me, logic. Why can something be logical to me but not logical to you? Or vise versa. Just as a wild, way out there, for instance. Suppose that you decided, after years of thought and planning, that you had come up with the perfect way to rob a bank. It was an infallible plan. It could not, in your mind, fail. Therefore it was logical to you. Now I, on the other hand, knowing that people that rob banks NEVER get away with it, and eventually get caught, know that robbing banks is NOT logical because you WILL get caught.

And then there is this.. Why is MORE logical to believe in the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" than it is to believe in God?
I suppose that it is just up to each individual person to see things as they want to see them. The only thing that really concerns me, with the many varieties of beliefs, is that not everybody can be right. The real question, it seems to me, is, Who is right?

Polycarp

08-20-2000, 01:22 PM

If "Christians" took the New Testement seriously, they would support the struggles of workers, women, gays,children, and the third world peoples. They would be against the militarists, money lenders, tyrants, wife beaters, and gay bashers. They aren't. All the polls show that the "Christians" support an oppressive political agenda. Therefore, most them are hypocrites.

And of course all atheists are sociopathic egotists with no ethical code. And every pagan sacrifices babies to the devil on May Eve. :(

Try reading a little on what Christians do, for good or evil, rather than believing some anti-Christian hogwash. This is the mirror image of what the Institute for Creation Science thinks the folks behind the Skeptical Inquirer are.

After church this morning my wife and I decided to skip out on a meeting regarding a letter drive petitioning Congress to forgive Third World debt to discuss with our Lesbian friend what is involved in a ministry of prayer for healing, and what it does not involve (visualize Oral Roberts for the latter). We are by no means alone; it's just that the Falwells of the world get all the juicy stories.

I don't blame you for getting upset, though. According to the press, "most Christians" are more interested in getting you saved and a pledging member of their church than they are in the needs of the world. It's been my experience that this is far from so, but you need to get behind the scenes and one-on-one to find it out sometimes.

Gaudere

08-20-2000, 01:35 PM

Not that I am trying to defend tarring a giant group of people with the same brush, but I believe galen was trying to differntiate between people who say they're Christians and people who act like they are. At least, that's what his putting "Christians" in quotes said to me. If someone spoke about atheists who did un-atheistic things and referred to them as "atheists" with the quotes, I'd think it entirely proper to imply that their "atheist" label was suspect. So by referring to "Christians" and not Christians, he's specifically excluding those Christans who *do* follow their teaching. However, I don't think that "christians" who support oppresive polical regimes are quite as prevalent as galen implies, although those that *do* support such things certainly are noisy.

The Ryan

08-20-2000, 02:30 PM

Even though there are now over forty messages in this thread, only one of which is by im_a_squirrel, we should remember that it has been only two days. However, I would like to add another objection to the OP: the OP clearly assumes that the reader believes in God. After all, the question "Why have you said no to God" is meaningless if the person in questtion does not believe in God. If im_a_squirrel believes that everyone believes in God, this means two things:
im_a_squirrel claims to have the ability to read our minds;
im_a_squirrel is calling everyone who claims to not believe in God a liar.

Originally posted by cheezit
Why can something be logical to me but not logical to you?
Something can seem logical to one person, but not to another. But it is either logical or not.

It was an infallible plan. It could not, in your mind, fail. Therefore it was logical to you.
You don't seem to understand what "logical" means. It means that, given some set of assumption, the conclusion can't be wrong. It does not mean that one believes oneself to be infallible, any more than flight consists solely of the belief that one can jump off tall buildings without dying. Furthermore, it is not the plan itself that is logical or not, it is the alledged proof that the plan cannot fail.

Now I, on the other hand, knowing that people that rob banks NEVER get away with it, and eventually get caught, know that robbing banks is NOT logical because you WILL get caught.
Again, simply believing that the plan will fail is not the same as the plan actually failing. Furthermore, you are committing an inductive fallacy from going from the claim "no one has gotten away with it" (which is itself an untrue statement; uncaught bank robbers just don't get much media coverage) to "no one can get away with it".

MysterEcks

08-20-2000, 03:08 PM

David B said:

For example, if the word of the Bible is indeed 100% true, as you have said, then it is still missing logic because there is no way to logically explain why there is so much evidence that says the Bible is not 100% true.

The problem started with a series of mistranslations. In the Old Testament the term was translated as "the Lord God," when it was really "the LardGod." Then, to compound things, in the New Testament "Christ" ("Messiah") was mistakenly dervived from what should have been "Crisco"("Lard In A Can").

This is why religious "proofs" contain so much slippery logic.

Dr. Lao

08-20-2000, 06:40 PM

David B. wroteSomething is either logical or it is not. It cannot be logical to one person but not others. At least, not objectively. Squirrel may think it's logical, but that does not make it so.
Logic is a method which always requires assumptions. Squirrel's logic is sound within his set of assumptions. Since he hasn't posted back yet to clarify, I'll make a guess at his assumptions.

(1) God exists
(2) People who follow God are happy
(3) People who don't follow God are disatisfied
(4) Anyone can choose to follow God if they wish
(5) People seek happiness

His conclusion that all people should follow God is logical given these assumptions. Your decision not to believe God is based on a different set of assumptions and it is likely equally logical. We can try to show that some of his assumptions are inaccurate, but there is no way to prove it to him. This is one way something can be logical but appear illogical.

SqrlCub

08-21-2000, 08:24 AM

Guys, please don't call that person Squirrel. I don't want to be confused with his brand of trolling. I was almost happy to see yet another Sqrl come to the board until I saw the troll that came from it.

HUGS!
Sqrl

Polycarp

08-21-2000, 09:22 AM

Not to worry, Sqrl...most of us retain enough sanity to distinguish between you and him...and he uses im_a_squirrel anyway...which makes me wonder if he's starring in a Swedish porn flic! ;)

As I keep trying to maintain, and I think so far only Lib. agrees with me on, logic is a system for making deductions and inferences from a set of data. You can reason clearly and logically from an invalid data set. It is perfectly logical to arrive at Fred Phelps' conclusion working from his premises. And it is perfectly logical to conclude the "stopgap theory" of creation science (where God in mid-October 4004 BC creates fossils and mineral deposits that appear to be hundreds of millions of years old, presumably chuckling sadistically at the world's greatest practical joke as he does so) if you assume the literal truth of Genesis 1.

Lib. and I reason logically from a dataset that includes the presence of a loving God. Gaudere, slythe, and David, and other "pragmatic atheist" posters, reason logically from a set that does not include Him, and in the absence of evidence presumes His absence. (It's important to note the distinction between "presume" and "assume" here.) Freyr, Sqrl, and others reason logically from a dataset that presumes some "spiritual" force pervading nature -- their evidence for this presumption being sensorial and intuitive on the basis of what they experience in nature -- which does not lead them to the conclusion of a personal, "other" (as opposed to His creation) God. A variety of people reason illogically from one of these three datasets, or a variety of variations thereon. (Chaim Keller would be the obvious example of a person working from a variant on Lib.'s and mine that does not include an avataric intrusion of that God into history in the early decades A.D., though he accepts into his dataset theophanic and prophetic invasivenesses of that God in periods preceding the one we add.)

It would follow that many of us can reason logically, but only a selected group of them will come up with valid conclusions because the others will be working with erroneous datasets. This is one reason why I find it useful to have an atheist whom I respect check my logic assuming a theist dataset for the purposes of the check. Because atheist, monotheist, and polytheist logicians are all prone to bring in "hidden assumptions" that are so much a parcel of their worldviews that they are not seen as assumptions but as an element of the conclusion, making the logic sequence circular rather than syllogistically or inductively valid.

sailor

08-21-2000, 09:35 AM

I was lost in my life until I found (pick one)
Yoga
Holistic Medicine
Wicca
Transindental Meditation
Islam
Buhdism
Staring for hours into a light bulb
. . . Why don't any of these work for you? I don't understand.
Actually... my life was empty until I discovered masturbation. It has been a daily joy ever since.

Liberal

08-21-2000, 09:40 AM

Dr. Lao

Logic is a method which always requires assumptions. Squirrel's logic is sound within his set of assumptions.

You are correct. Our axioms make a great deal of difference, and can derive two opposite conclusions — both equally true!

There are also the undefined terms. And the terms that are defined are cloaked in self-referential tautology.

The Ryan

08-21-2000, 02:18 PM

Polycarp
It would follow that many of us can reason logically, but only a selected group of them will come up with valid conclusions because the others will be working with erroneous datasets.
Actually, in logic the term "valid" refers to whether a conclusion logically follows from the premises. The truth of the premises is irrelevant to the validity of the argument.

Libertarian:
You are correct. Our axioms make a great deal of difference, and can derive two opposite conclusions — both equally true!
Something is either true or not. If something is true, then its opposite must be false. Just because you can derive something from a set of axioms doesn't make it true.

Polycarp

08-21-2000, 02:30 PM

Point taken -- I got my terms switched. The point I tried to make is that it is quite possible to have a valid logical sequence which results in false conclusions because it works from a false dataset...something I hope was clear despite my erroneous vocabulary.

And while I'm responding to TheRyan, let me add that an unfortunate juxtaposition of sentences in my earlier post on this page does not imply that I think Chaim reasons illogically -- I gave him as an example of someone using a variant of the theist dataset, failing to notice that the sentence bringing them up started by referring to the possibility of illogical conclusions from any of the datasets. Sorry, Chaim!!

Tretiak

08-21-2000, 03:05 PM

For some reason when I read the subject I thought this would be a discussion of Pascal's wager. And even though it isn't, the OP seems to have a thread of this in it:

"God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up... Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, you knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose... But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

This is one of the most famous arguments ever presented for believing in God. Note, however, it does not discuss the existence of God. Certainly philosophers have had certain problems with this. Many have naturally pointed out that this argument may apply to almost any god. And Pascal's argument about reason essentially being a wash is totally off the mark. It certainly seems to say your reason can tell you not to believe in God, yet you still should, which to many would be a tautological impossibility.

Of course, anyone who claims to know for sure there is no God is frequently just as guilty of arrogance and presumption as someone who claims there is one.

Ptahlis

08-21-2000, 03:40 PM

A truer adherent to Pascal's Wager I never saw portrayed than in "The Mummy." (Recent remake starring Brendon Frazer(sp?)) In this movie, a weaselly character named Benny is faced with the undead mummy slowly approaching. He reaches into his shirt and pulls out a fistful of medallions and holy symbols, offering up a prayer to each in turn, waiting for it to work, and then moving on to the next. Now that's hedging your bets!

Jack Batty

08-21-2000, 03:50 PM

Pascal's wager.

Ok, so you're telling me that there is a belief out there that someone is thoroughly convinced of. And because someone is thoroughly convinced of it, there is a possibility that it might be true. Because there is a possibility that it might be true, I should ignore everything I absolutely know to be true, and bet that he's right, just in case?

Ok, tell you what.
If the sun sets tonight, you pay me $1000.
If a syphilitic armadillo flies out of my left nostril at midnight tonight and does his best Johnny Carson impression, I'll pay you $1000.

Deal?

Ptahlis

08-21-2000, 04:07 PM

Well Jack, Pascal was thinking only in terms of God/No God and one's eternal resting place. He didn't really even try to extend his argument to Shiva, Allah, or any of those...sniff...other deities. Many Christian proselytizers who try witnessing here bring up arguments to support the belief in a god, often not seeming to realize that it doesn't necessarily follow that it supports their particular god. Pascal's argument is along those lines as well. By using his logic you should really do your best to believe in every god that comes along, (except the bad ones who do really icky things to you in the Great Beyond.)

Tretiak

08-21-2000, 04:17 PM

Jack,

I think the point Pascal was trying to make (although erroneously in my opinion) would translate more to...

If the sun sets tonight, you pay me $0.0000000001.
If a syphilitic armadillo flies out of my left nostril at midnight tonight and does his best Johnny Carson impression, I'll pay you $999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999.

Jack Batty

08-21-2000, 04:32 PM

Oh, you didn't tell me there were odds.

Anyway, I apologize. Try not to take me too seriously when I start talking about syphilitic armadillos.

But my original argument holds true, I believe. In fact I might make the same points regarding Pascal's wager, as others have made to the OP. By the way, it may just be my opinion, but I read Pascal's wager in a similar vein. That is, he is referring to God. Capital G. Not a generic deity. And it still seems like a wimpy argument. It would be like a Christian testifying for three hours on your doorstep, in attempt to convince you that God exists as he believes, and ending up asking you to "maybe" consider what he has been saying.

Cardinal

08-21-2000, 10:49 PM

OK, I admit that Squirrel posited a question that presumes quite a bit. And with many of the people here, it's too much. Got it.

BUT... while y'all might be pretty sick of being told about the "true path," using misrepresentations and straw man attacks only demeans yourselves. Degenerating to name calling essentially (only in more florid terms) and making wild attacks on something that are by definition beyond your knowledge (why Sq. is a Christian, whether he is venal enough to believe it just for the supposed benefits, and whether he has given up personal responsibility) is, frankly, kind of embarrasing.

Yes, in case I have any chance of being misread here, this is a "shame, shame" post. I know we can all do better than this, even to an OP not as eloquent as many would like, or even arguably a little niave about some of the people here, or threads previously discussed.

Many good points were made in opposition, but the venom is something I can do without around here. The SDMB has been notable for its retention of a good natured dorm-room discussion atmosphere, and I would hope it continues.

Ultimately, the meaning of man and God is something that cannot be proven as such with history, or science. Some will insist on those genres of proof, others will allow for discriminating personal revelation. Some will opt for making it up to suit themselves.

The only argument I'd like to make about this myself is that I would at least hope we could agree that spirituality should be an attempt to accurately describe spiritual reality. And if there is a spiritual reality, then whatever it is, that's what it is. Wishing it to be different doesn't do any more good than a four-year-old deciding to treat himself as if he is part of a different family because he's mad at his parents.

I hope this doesn't step on toes, for my part, I'm tired of people acting like they can re-invent the universe on a whim. Anyway, thanks for lisnen'

Liberal

08-22-2000, 06:05 AM

The Ryan

Something is either true or not. If something is true, then its opposite must be false. Just because you can derive something from a set of axioms doesn't make it true.

Given parallel lines A and B on plane P, which is true, that they intersect, or that they do not?

Poly

The point I tried to make is that it is quite possible to have a valid logical sequence which results in false conclusions because it works from a false dataset...something I hope was clear despite my erroneous vocabulary.

In the truth table, if A is a false proposition and B is a true proposition, then "A implies B" is a true implication. The implication "A implies B" may also be written, "if A then B". Thus, if two minus three is greater than zero, then two is greater than three.

True, but so what?

tracer

08-22-2000, 09:35 AM

Dave Swaney wrote:

I would at least hope we could agree that spirituality should be an attempt to accurately describe spiritual reality.

Spiritual reality!
Jumbo shrimp!
Military intelligence!
Freezer burn!

BillyBoy

08-22-2000, 12:21 PM

BUT... while y'all might be pretty sick of being told about the "true path," using misrepresentations and straw man attacks only demeans yourselves. Degenerating to name calling essentially (only in more florid terms) and making wild attacks on something that are by definition beyond your knowledge (why Sq. is a Christian, whether he is venal enough to believe it just for the supposed benefits, and whether he has given up personal responsibility) is, frankly, kind of embarrasing.

In looking back through the thread, I don't see all that many misrepresentations. Which ones are you talking about?
As for attacks on something without definition, wouldn't you say that the true nature of spirituality is one of the least well-defined things going? Religious faith is, by definition, beyond the realm of factual knowledge.

Many good points were made in opposition, but the venom is something I can do without around here.

Looking back again through the posts, it really seems like this thread has been relatively venom-free.

I agree whole-heartedly with the air of peaceful and enlightened exchange that you are trying to promote; however, I think there are other threads that are in much more dire need of "shaming" - why waste it here, in a relatively civilized (as far as message boards go) discussion?

Sweet_Lotus

08-22-2000, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by tracer
Jumbo shrimp!
[/B]

Jumbo shrimnp is not an oxymoron since "shrimp" is a noun and "jumbo" is the adjective. Seafood is entirely capable of being large, and its largeness in no way compromises its identity as seafood.

TampaFlyer

08-22-2000, 03:31 PM

> My life completely changed, I went from deep depression to fullfilled joy in a matter of minutes.

Reminds me of my first orgasm. ;)

Cardinal

08-22-2000, 11:32 PM

Venom, to an extent:
There is no "something like that." God does not exist. You're fooling yourself.
Yes I don't want to rid myself logic, reason and common sense to believe in a moral authority in the sky with out any credible evidence to support it.

Assumptions about why IAS is a Christian:
Just because you've decided to listen to what others tell you and believe them blindly, doesn't mean a) that you're right or b)that anyone else wants to hear it.
I strongly urge you to give your life back over to yourself and start thinking for yourself.
Squirrel, just because your life was empty doesn't mean everybody's is. Some of us don't need a crutch.
I'm sure abdicating personal responsibility is uplifting.

Straw Man attacks on Christianity as a whole:
And what is it full of now? Thinking about what the Invisible Man in the Sky thinks of your every action?

Some of the things that I'll give a hearty "Amen!!" to:
The best Christians to me are not the ones with fake grins of their faces trying to put a Jesus reference into everything they say.
They would be against the militarists, money lenders, tyrants, wife beaters, and gay bashers.
With the caveat that I'm not sure what the money lenders are here for exactly, and (having no intention of diverting this thread from its intended course) because I'm completely against bashing gays, literally or verbally, it doesn't mean that I believe they're doing something that's good for them. The two aren't the same thing.

Also:
I'm not saying that spirituality isn't complicated. Of course. But if there is such a thing as spirituality (in other words, spirits that are not like ourselves; that's pretty much what it means), then they are what they are, and our interactions or lack of them are what they are, and have the effects that they do. No matter of wishful thinking will change that.

And no, you can't have spirituality without spirits. That's called philosophy, not spirituality. Being nice is not spirituality. Believing in something non-material is.

NAWOC

08-24-2000, 10:15 PM

It sounds like the usual to me:
- Friedrich Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals
- Derrida On Deconstructionism
- Foucault on Post-modernism

The Bible is the best "dataset" there is, who honestly has read it, and studied it? I've met a lot of Christians and non-Christians alike that have not studied the literature of the "other"; and truly, having studied non-Christian literature all my life, the Bible is a breath of fresh air.

God is dead, that's pretty dumb: from someone who only believes in what he/she sees, but has nothing to do with creation in the slightest (man's life is insignificant). The point is, people don't want the truth, they want what makes them happy, and happiness is ever changing. People will always forever be lost. God is for those that would believe, the weak, the humble, not the proud, or the selfish. Why would God reveal himself to them? Only if he saw in them a good heart, that he could use for his purposes. God's wisdom is a mystery, he's really awesome and incredible.

Religion, philosophy, politics are of men. God is the most real, man simply a creation of his. The smartest men and women I know are believers, in fact that's why I changed my major in college to Physics, because the physicists confounded by the incredible creation of the universe were believers to the core of an incredible God, making the world in his liking.

1st Corinthians 1:20-29 says:
Where is the one who is wise?
Where is the debater of this age?
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the follishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength....

God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;
God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of God.

What Is Salvation? (http://www.salvation.com/si/)

JDeMobray

08-24-2000, 11:01 PM

. . . And we're off to the races again. You guys all realize (especially the nice and logical ones of you out there on both sides of the issue) that NOTHING!!! ever gets resolved on one of these threads right?

And that's the Truth. ;D

Satan

08-24-2000, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by NAWOC

It sounds like the usual to me:
- Friedrich Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals
- Derrida On Deconstructionism
- Foucault on Post-modernism
What sounds like the usual to you - there's a lot of stuff in this thread. And how does any of it sound like the above?

The Bible is the best "dataset" there is, who honestly has read it, and studied it? I've met a lot of Christians and non-Christians alike that have not studied the literature of the "other"; and truly, having studied non-Christian literature all my life, the Bible is a breath of fresh air.

How so?

God is dead, that's pretty dumb: from someone who only believes in what he/she sees, but has nothing to do with creation in the slightest (man's life is insignificant).

You haven't been paying attention. First of all, I don't think anyone said God is Dead. A few people claimed that He never existed to begin with, however.

And atheists do not feel that life is insignificant. In fact, it can be argued that if this mortal coil is all we have, you're bound to treat it with a lot more reverence than if you think that this is just some shit you deal with before the real rewards, don't you think?

The point is, people don't want the truth, they want what makes them happy, and happiness is ever changing.

What if the truth makes you happy? What if your truth is not my truth?

People will always forever be lost.

Some people have more faith in people. If God created such a fucked up race of people, what does this say about Him (or Her)?

God is for those that would believe, the weak, the humble, not the proud, or the selfish.

My, that sure makes *ME* want to be His cheerleader. :rolleyes:

Why would God reveal himself to them? Only if he saw in them a good heart, that he could use for his purposes.

So what you're3 saying is that for those who tried but failed to hear Him, they were... I dunno... not worthy of being revealed to? My, what a petty tyrant. I'm so glad that I don;'t know this person you speak of.

God's wisdom is a mystery, he's really awesome and incredible.
Such a mystery that we have so many different names for Him and ways to worship Him while some people don't even think He was ever there.

Religion, philosophy, politics are of men. God is the most real, man simply a creation of his.

Some would say that God is a creation of man.

The smartest men and women I know are believers, in fact that's why I changed my major in college to Physics, because the physicists confounded by the incredible creation of the universe were believers to the core of an incredible God, making the world in his liking.

I don't see many members of the clergy at MENSA meeetings.

Not to say that relgious people are dumb, but your statement is patently false unless you simply don't know enough people to really count here.

Nice Bible quote too. I suppose you have some words from The Koran as well?
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, two weeks, two days, 2 hours, 28 minutes and 40 seconds.
5524 cigarettes not smoked, saving $690.51.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 5 days, 4 hours, 20 minutes.

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/i]

Opus1

08-24-2000, 11:56 PM

The smartest men and women I know are believers, in fact that's why I changed my major in college to Physics, because the physicists confounded by the incredible creation of the universe were believers to the core of an incredible God, making the world in his liking.

I don't see many members of the clergy at MENSA meeetings.

Not to say that relgious people are dumb, but your statement is patently false unless you simply don't know enough people to really count here.

Just thought I'd step in and provide some statistics here. According to this (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm) article, belief rates among members of the National Academy of Sciences are astoundingly low. Not only are they well below belief rates of the general public, but they have been steadily declining since 1914. To top it off, the most prestigious and accomplished scientists are the least religious.

Also, there is a spectacular website (http://www.webspawner.com/users/cfxx/) which presents the results of numerous studies, all showing statistically significant negative correlations between intelligence/education and religosity.

As an atheist, I consider all of these data strong support for my lack of belief. Not that I consider argument from authority valid, but it seems to me that if God existed, his existence would be just as evident (probably more evident) to the most intelligent members of his creation, not less evident.

Satan

08-25-2000, 12:23 AM

I started a new thread on the tangent that Opus1 started, since it is something I myself have often wondered about and I think it deserves its own debate.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=35958
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, two weeks, two days, 3 hours, 18 minutes and 19 seconds.
5525 cigarettes not smoked, saving $690.69.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 5 days, 4 hours, 25 minutes.

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/i]

Liberal

08-25-2000, 05:39 AM

Hu?H Whot ya'll are talkign aoubt?

Cardinal

08-25-2000, 10:31 PM

I've been bothered by some things said in this thread by the Christians, and they remind me of so many other things said in other threads. Driving along to a client, it came to me what bugs me about these replies.

Hey Christians:

No one was ever converted without some form of personal revelation, and writing posts that are basically complaining at the non-Christians on this board for not believing is an extremely poor-return method of doing anything productive.

PEOPLE ARE LOVED INTO THE "KINGDOM," NOT BULLIED.

And this is not a setting very conducive to doing that. Being mad at non-Christians for not believing is not only not productive, it doesn't even make much sense when it's really examined.

Mockingbird

08-26-2000, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by Triskadecamus

I ask the forgiveness of all those who are not of the Christian faith, for you, and for myself.

Tris
[/B]
Dear Tris:

Please find enclosed your own words, bend over, and insert them rectally until such time as you can not be a religious bigot of hypocritical zeal.

Liberal

08-26-2000, 09:10 AM

Wow.

Cardinal

08-26-2000, 12:29 PM

OK, I think I officially despair of having even the semblance of a low key discussion on these topics around here. What is it in people like Hastur that bring these things out? Plus, I really don't understand at all how Trisk. deserves something even close to this. I suppose this isn't a case for the moderators, but JEEEEEZZZZZ!

For anyone interested (I'm not sure why you would be, but anyway,) in my slant on these threads, see the thread titled "Witness."

Triskadecamus

08-26-2000, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Hastur
Originally posted by Triskadecamus

I ask the forgiveness of all those who are not of the Christian faith, for you, and for myself.

Tris

Dear Tris:

Please find enclosed your own words, bend over, and insert them rectally until such time as you can not be a religious bigot of hypocritical zeal. [/B]

So, I am guessing from this that you are not forgiving us.

That is of course your own choice.

Tris

Gaudere

08-26-2000, 02:31 PM

Please find enclosed your own words, bend over, and insert them rectally until such time as you can not be a religious bigot of hypocritical zeal.

[Moderator Hat ON]

Hastur, Do NOT post anything like this ever again in this forum. Understood? Go to the Pit if you feel the unbearable need to post such charming witticisms.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

Mockingbird

08-26-2000, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Triskadecamus

So, I am guessing from this that you are not forgiving us.

That is of course your own choice.

Tris
[/B]

The point, and the anger behind my post, was that after lambasting the previous poster for not 'witnessing' in a way you considered appropriate, you did the same thing.

Your request for forgiveness, as it encompassed those who did not worship your god, came off as arrogant and insulting. Just because others have a faith that is not yours does not give you carte blanche to feel that they must be pitied and prayed for until they come to your point of view.

Triskadecamus

08-26-2000, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Hastur
The point, and the anger behind my post, was that after lambasting the previous poster for not 'witnessing' in a way you considered appropriate, you did the same thing.

Yes, from the point of view of a non-Christian we were both witnessing. I was addressing the intent of his words, and the likely result. I felt it important that the Lord not be represented by what I felt was a smug condemnation of His Children. (That would be all men, in case you wondered, although I do not expect that you share that view.)

Your request for forgiveness, as it encompassed those who did not worship your god, came off as arrogant and insulting.

I was not aware that asking forgiveness was an insult. Please never forgive me again.

That is a specifically personal request for you, at your insistence. It pains me that you find my request so insulting. To the rest of the non-Christians on the board, I do not withdraw my request for their forgiveness. I do not think it was an insult to them.

Just because others have a faith that is not yours does not give you carte blanche to feel that they must be pitied and prayed for until they come to your point of view.

I never asked you to come to my point of view. Your anger elicits my concern, but I don't think it is pity. However you seem absolute in your disregard for any compassion I might have for you, so I will attempt to withhold it from you.

The rest of the posters on the board must grant or deny their forgiveness for my presumption as they see fit. I have great confidence that they do not find it insulting, for the most part.

Tris

jmullaney

08-26-2000, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Dave Swaney
[B]No one was ever converted without some form of personal revelation, and writing posts that are basically complaining at the non-Christians on this board for not believing is an extremely poor-return method of doing anything productive.

I'm willing to bet no one really ever groks calculus without a personal revelation either. (OK, maybe not, but there are a number of areas where people suddenly slap their forehead and go "oh, I get it") Are you saying no one should teach calculus?

jmullaney

08-26-2000, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Satan
Originally posted by NAWOC
Why would God reveal himself to them? Only if he saw in them a good heart, that he could use for his purposes.
So what you're3 saying is that for those who tried but failed to hear Him, they were... I dunno... not worthy of being revealed to? My, what a petty tyrant.

I think he clearly means the people who aren't even trying -- i.e. the proud and haughty. You really lambasted this guy with a number of ungracious and petty points like this, do you know that?

Mockingbird

08-26-2000, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Hastur
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Triskadecamus

I ask the forgiveness of all those who are not of the Christian faith, for you, and for myself.

Tris

The point is this... you don't have a right to ask forgiveness for others. To do so is to assume that they need to be forgiven and is arrogant and flawed 'logic'

For you to pray for the forgiveness of another puts you in a position of judgement. I think your faith has a clear policy on judging others.

I doubt I am the only one who feels/thinks this way.

andros

08-26-2000, 03:36 PM

Hellllooooo!!!!

Earth to Hastur!!!

Pull your head out, willya?

Tris was not asking God to forgive you.

She was asking you to forgive her.

As in, "on behalf of myself and me fellow Christians, I'm sorry for this bizarre little squirrel fella."

Got it?

Triskadecamus

08-26-2000, 03:40 PM

Hastur, I was asking your forgiveness, I wasn't praying to you.

I have withdrawn that request. Don't forgive me.

Don't assume that no one else was offended by the assumption that failing to be Christian could be only the result of a character flaw. For that, I asked forgiveness of the forum, and with your single exception, I still feel that it deserves apology. The fact that I apologized for another was not an implication that I felt he needed my judgment, but that the forum should hear that his judgment was not the Lord’s.

You continuing anger over a simple apology is difficult for me to understand. However, you unwillingness to accept the withdrawal of that apology is perplexing.

Don’t forgive me. Hate me, if you wish.

Tris

Cardinal

08-26-2000, 03:52 PM

I'm willing to bet no one really ever groks calculus without a personal revelation either. (OK, maybe not, but there are a number of areas where people suddenly slap their forehead and go "oh, I get it") Are you saying no one should teach calculus?

Of course not. By personal revelation, I meant something that is truly personal, not something that can be truly and accurately communicated to another person. Calculus can be proven to anyone intelligent enough to follow the logic. Hence, no arguments, no Great Debates about calculus.

Spirituality, on the other hand, is something that cannot be proven by logic, only indicated by history or slight hints from science, one's trusted friends, personal experience, etc.

BTW, seeing the recent flame throwing going on in here lately, thanks for actually asking the question, and not guessing at the meaning and going on the attack first.

Cardinal

08-26-2000, 03:56 PM

Hastur,

My main point would be that no matter which position you're taking on this whole thing, wow, man, that's some ball of anger you've got there. At the very least, this is not the forum to display it. Your points are in danger of not being considered because of the delivery.

Liberal

08-26-2000, 04:03 PM

Hastur

Boy, I thought I had been the champion hand-stabber, but I surrender the title.

Too bad I'm not still an atheist, because now I have no opportunity to apologize to all the theists here on your behalf. As it happens, I am embarrassed for them regarding you, much in the same way that I am embarrassed for the faithful regarding FoG. Knowingly or otherwise, you have assailed the gentlest and most loving Spirit ever to grace this message board, and have aligned yourself against people you might have intended to impress. You see, most of the atheists here are people of high ethical character and great intelligence. It is likely that they are stunned beyond words that you have arisen in their midst.

I'm only thankful that I learned before you came that the Madalyn Murray O'Hair mindset is as anathema to genuine atheism as the Jimmy Swaggert mindset is to genuine faith.

(Sorry, moderators, if this was too stern. If you edit it, I will understand.)

Tris

I know you don't need my encouragement, but I offer it anyway. May God comfort you. And may He bless your enemies and give them new eyes with which to see.

Triskadecamus

08-26-2000, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Libertarian
Tris
I know you don't need my encouragement, but I offer it anyway. May God comfort you. And may He bless your enemies and give them new eyes with which to see. [/B]

Thanks, Lib. But watch out where you throw those blessings! Don't want you taking a hit from the shrapnel.

:rolleyes:

(Was that cruel?)

Tris

P. S.Andros, lookit da beard, man! (http://www.geocities.com/sdpeoplepages/triskadecamus.html)

Liberal

08-26-2000, 05:12 PM

Cruel? No.

I suppose I can be something like the hapless kid who is trying to help his big brother, but who is usually more an annoyance than a help. At any rate, I do not fear the shrapnel from God's blessings. I welcome that He purge from me whatever He discerns needs purging. If I cling to something that is a stumbling block to Him, then I am better off that He smash my hands that hold the thing than that He leave me alone.

Mockingbird

08-26-2000, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by andros
Hellllooooo!!!!

Earth to Hastur!!!

Pull your head out, willya?

Tris was not asking God to forgive you.

She was asking you to forgive her.

As in, "on behalf of myself and me fellow Christians, I'm sorry for this bizarre little squirrel fella."

Got it?

Tris said to pray for forgiveness for all those not of the Xian Faith. That to me is nasty and judgmental. Got it?

Triskadecamus

08-26-2000, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Hastur
Tris said to pray for forgiveness for all those not of the Xian Faith. That to me is nasty and judgmental. Got it?

No, Tris did not.

Get it?

Tris

Stratocaster

08-26-2000, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Hastur
Tris said to pray for forgiveness for all those not of the Xian Faith. That to me is nasty and judgmental. Got it? [/B]
Yes, everyone seems to understand, Hastur, that this was your original interpretation--that Tris was asking God to forgive those who weren't Christian. What is perplexing is that you continue to cling to this despite the clarification from Tris and others that what she actually asked for was YOUR forgiveness (and other non-Christians), on behalf of Christians who were less than generous and open-minded.

That's all. Why do you continue to return to your original reaction now that it's clear it was a misunderstanding that you reacted to in a blatently discourteous manner?

Triskadecamus

08-26-2000, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Libertarian
[B]I suppose I can be something like the hapless kid who is trying to help his big brother, but who is usually more an annoyance than a help.

Lib, Email me.

Sorry to do that in a forum. (Well, sorry to anyone who is not offended by apologies.)

Tris

Tris is a guy, see? (http://www.geocities.com/sdpeoplepages/triskadecamus.html)

Stratocaster

08-26-2000, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Triskadecamus
Tris is a guy, see? (http://www.geocities.com/sdpeoplepages/triskadecamus.html) [/B]
I'll need more proof than an admittedly impressive beard.

Uh, wait a minute, no I don't...

Opus1

08-26-2000, 09:41 PM

One has to admire im_a_squirrel's trolling abilities. S/he has garnered 90+ responses in this thread, plus a spin-off thread which now has 70+ responses, all from a single paragraph. Not bad, not bad!

Mockingbird

08-26-2000, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Triskadecamus

I ask the forgiveness of all those who are not of the Christian faith, for you, and for myself.

Tris

As you are not in Congress, you do not have the Congressional Power called revise and extend. Revise and extend allows you to change what you have said into what you would have liked to have said. This is the way Congresspeople and Representatives control the belated spin of their words in the Congressional Record(read it in Cecil's column).

In this quote, which I have not modified, you asked for forgiveness of all those who are not of the Christian faith.
I found and still find this offensive and took you to task for it. I cannot see, though I have looked, and asked others, how it could be interpreted as anything else but exactly what it is.

Regarding Bob Cos 2 cents into this:

All I see from christians is intolerance for anything that is not their faith. What I see is monothetists running roughshod over others, as people of their faith have done for two thousand years. Blood has been spilled, innocents have been murdered, and all in the name of a deity that is supposed to embody love.

The inherent arrogance of modern christians that there is someone within this society that has not heard their message and that they must go out and reiterate it ad infinitum is beyond annoying. I have personally read more of the Bible than most who have bothered me with it. They come to my house, bug me when I am reading in the park, and at times leaflet my car. I only share my views if someone asks and I wish christians would do the same.

To close, I don't feel I misunderstood a thing. The above quoted sentence is quite clear, and I feel as justified as when I first posted. If you and your bretheren still feel you must dogpile on me for your own defense, go for it. It won't make you right or true.

waterj2

08-26-2000, 10:38 PM

Tris's meaning has been explained to you clearly a couple times already. Your failure to understand it at this point makes you out to be an idiot. Luckily, I sincerely believe that the Christians here know better than to have their rightfully low opinion of you affect their opinions of atheists such as myself.

I have to say that I have occasionally taken offense at the evangelical actions of Christians. Here, however, people such as Libertarian and Triskadekamus have quite often astounded me with their expressions of faith. While my life experiences still have not given me a reason to have faith, I have a greater understanding of, and respect for, faith as a result of their posts.

Triskadecamus

08-26-2000, 11:23 PM

Hastur,

Examine each of these statements, and summarize the difference.

I ask forgiveness of these folks.

I ask forgiveness for these folks.

Hint: check out the number, and order of the letters in the fourth word. Although the letters are very similar, the specific words formed by them are somewhat different.

I am really stunned by your overwhelming anger. I hold you in no specific ill will for your beliefs. I said one of the things stated above. You relentlessly imply that that statement means what the other one says. That simply is not so. I do not ask that you be forgiven for anything. I don’t ask that non-Christians be forgiven for anything. I ask the readers in this forum who are not Christians to forgive . . . [shoot, I can’t even remember who it was!] . . . and ME.

Tris

Mockingbird

08-26-2000, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by Triskadecamus

I am really stunned by your overwhelming anger. I hold you in no specific ill will for your beliefs. I said one of the things stated above. You relentlessly imply that that statement means what the other one says. That simply is not so. I do not ask that you be forgiven for anything. I don’t ask that non-Christians be forgiven for anything. I ask the readers in this forum who are not Christians to forgive . . . [shoot, I can’t even remember who it was!] . . . and ME.

Tris
[/B]

You misjudge taking you to task for your words as anger.
I think everyone is responsible for what they say and when they put their words to anything of any seeming permanence, they must be willing to back them up. Faith, like thought, must be able to stand up to questioning to have any value.

Gaudere

08-27-2000, 12:02 AM

Hastur, seriously...you misunderstood. Everyone else understood what Tris was saying, and many of us are not Christian, or even theist. Tris asked us non-Christians to forgive some of the less sterling examples of Christianity. Now, *they*--the less-than-sterling Christians--might get pissed at him for that, but us godless/unChristian sorts weren't insulted by him at all. Get it?

[Moderator Hat ON]

Waterj2, calling him an idiot is not appropriate or helpful either. ::sigh:: Will y'all please chill out and stop yelling at each other?

[Moderator Hat OFF]

Triskadecamus

08-27-2000, 12:15 AM

Hastur,

Do "of" and "for" have the exact same meaning to you?

This is important. If you really think that is the case, please just say so.

Tris

waterj2

08-27-2000, 01:00 AM

I meant to say that he was in danger of looking like an idiot on this issue. I do believe that is an acceptable observation in this forum. I have no opinion on the matter of his intelligence in general. I apologize for being unclear.

As I see it, Tris (also let me apologize for bastardizing the unabbreviated version in my last post) is the highest authority on the matter of what he meant. I have never seen any evidence that Tris has ever misrepresented himself on this board. Therefore, I will accept his word as to what he meant.

Perhaps a better phrasing would have been to put the "of all non-Christians" part between "ask" and "forgiveness". Yes, it was slightly vague the way it was written. To call Tris a liar because you decided to intrepret a mildly ambiguous sentence structure in a different way than he claims to have meant it begs the question of how you know better. How do you know better than Tris (and myself, Libertarian, Andros, and Guadere) what Tris was trying to say? Why is our interpretation of the sentence so blatantly wrong that it is more likely that Tris (who has earned the respect of pretty much everyone around here) is simply lying?

NAWOC

08-27-2000, 01:37 AM

,

You answered my post with much anger, and I'm not surprised.
4 years ago, I didn't believe in a God, and I was doing everything my way, and doing great at it.

One day, I asked myself, if God is there, then he can reveal himself to me. So I prayed thinking, if he's not there, no harm, I'll know it was foolishness, and I'll keep going my own way, and I won't doubt that anymore. I prayed, and 2 weeks later, he answered, incredible miracle. My unbelief turned to belief, and all of a sudden, I saw not only God, but "SATAN" also, and that's why I tell everybody about God, and Jesus: because, , You're a BIG LIAR, you know there is a God, and you him, and as long as you'll live, you'll let everybody know how dumb and foolish it is to give your life over to Jesus Christ.

And I've never physically hurt a single person in my life as a Christian, I have love for people, which is not self-seeking, and I appreciate people much more now. I go into prisons every Sunday to talk with those that want to come to a Chapel service. Those that have received a penalty for their crimes, know sometimes that taking God seriously is more important. Many don't want to know God, and the thought of him, but haven't yet received punishment for their crimes: lust, pride, ego, judgment.
I made my first real Christian friend 4 years ago. I know some Mormons, Muslims, and others but I'm not an expert in religious studies... But Jesus is my best friend, and I share him with everybody. Jesus didn't fight all those wars, and kill all those people in the name of "religion"! Men did and they misused the name of the Lord for their own power and self-seeking motives which I believe were more of the nature of evil than the Lord. Even those that would mock God in the name of evil are blind to their own hurt and pain, and that's why I share Jesus with you all. Because Jesus is peace, and joy, in this life, and beyond this life. Jesus is for the family, for ALL people groups and for all men and women. That's why he died, not to accuse, but to free. Ultimately, he choses on whom to have mercy now, because he's the King, THE KING!!!! You can't judge Christianity by what you see on TV, those are people. You have to judge Christianity on the fact that Jesus is or is not truly resurrected. If he's resurrected, you can talk to him. If he's not he won't answer, if he is alive, he can answer. For you to find out!

Thanks for revealing your exasperation at my last post, it clearly reveals who you are, right now, but even that will change, as things will change for me to. When your life is over, we'll find out, you your way, me my way. And by the way, there is some talk of all this Christian stuff: like notes on cars, people preaching, etc... But there's way more evil out there in our faces everyday than Christian people trying to bring love to us (although you have to watch out for "cults"): pornography, , gangs, all kinds of wickedness that really hurts but that is glamorized on billboards and TV, and the internet, and movies. Just a thought, but God created this world so that people would make their own choice about the matter, and you are definitely free to yours. Signing off...

andros

08-27-2000, 07:42 PM

P. S.Andros, lookit da beard, man!

I know, Tris. I'm very, very sorry. I just re-read page two, saw my post, and about collapsed from shame. It was a typo, I know you're a man, I'll slink off now . . .

Chewie

08-27-2000, 09:27 PM

In light of the flame battle I will try to be clear.
For myself, Christianity has little to do with feelings and more to do with Philosophy. It starts thus;
There are, as I see it, 2 possible ways to veiw our reality,i.e. the physical universe, the spiritual realm, whatever you believe exists. Either it was created, or it just happened, i.e. is exists independently of a source, it is self-existant(I don't know if that is actually a word, but I think the meaning is clear).
Personally, I am unable to believe that it just happened. Therefore my starting axiom is that all that exists was created by a thinking, personal being. God.
Given a self-existant, creator God (his name when asked was "I am"), I find I must assume a purpose for that creation.
To date the Bible provides the clearest exegesis of the nature of the creator God. However, I believe that this can only be found with open-minded study of the Bible. Truth is my goal, not happiness. N.B. I believe that God created the universe, but I don't believe it was done at 9 am, some morning in the year 4004 B.C.
Given that we are all created by the same God, it would seem logical that much of our nature would reflect that, thus we have a startling similarity between many religions and ethics systems, also between the abuse of same systems. So we have Christian fundies trying to tell us the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago, and Noah carried dinosaurs in the ark, and we have Hindu fundies saying that when a husband dies, the wifes should throw themselves on the funeral pyre, and Islamic fundies saying that America is the great satan, and carrying bombs in prams. If anyone has a problem with that, I would love to debate it, all accept the first axiom. I don't think axioms are provable.

Satan

08-27-2000, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by NAWOC

You answered my post with much anger, and I'm not surprised.

Please show me the anger? I answered it with questions. Let's see how well you get around to answering my questions in your reply...

4 years ago, I didn't believe in a God, and I was doing everything my way, and doing great at it.[/quoe]

Newsflash: I do believe in God. So this answers my supposed motives and not what I actually said. And erroneously at that. Not a great start, sparky.

In fact, I don't see you answer anything I asked, now do you? You respond to my criticisms of your post with a bunch of witnessing after saying I must not believe.

I will, of course, ask some more questions about some things you said while not answering my other questions. Let's see you ignore these like you did the first, please..

[quote]I prayed, and 2 weeks later, he answered, incredible miracle.

Well, some people claimed to pray for YEARS and even a lifetime qwithout this revelation. Were these people not honest in their pursuit? Or did God not need or want them?

And I've never physically hurt a single person in my life as a Christian, I have love for people, which is not self-seeking, and I appreciate people much more now.

This supposes that one must need Jesus to treat people as you do. Familiar with Secular Humanism, maybe? Are you claiming that only followers of Jesus can act as you do?

No matter where you go with this, it's a meaningless point, sparky. People who are not Christian manage this somehow, people who are Christian fail miserably at this somehow.

All this proves is that you personally needed to believe in Jesus in order to do soemthing that many others manage to do just because they feel it is the right thing to do. Donesn't say much about you as a person, IMHO.

Fortunately, not everyone is like this.

I go into prisons every Sunday to talk with those that want to come to a Chapel service. Those that have received a penalty for their crimes, know sometimes that taking God seriously is more important. Many don't want to know God, and the thought of him, but haven't yet received punishment for their crimes: lust, pride, ego, judgment

This answers none of my questions and seems irrelevant to anything. Gee, some prisoners are Christian and some are not. This is not a huge shocker.

I made my first real Christian friend 4 years ago. I know some Mormons, Muslims, and others but I'm not an expert in religious studies... But Jesus is my best friend, and I share him with everybody.

If you do not know about their religions, how do you know they are not right and yours is wrong?

Oh, and Mormons are Christians too, you know.

I snipped a bunch of blatant witnessing which came so far from answering any of the questions I asked you it is silly. I mean, you claim how angry I am and even go so far as to say...

Thanks for revealing your exasperation at my last post, it clearly reveals who you are, right now, but even that will change, as things will change for me to.

...as in, my post shows what I am, yet you do NOT see that I too believe in God, and you cannot reply to anything I actually DID say. Funny.

Quick recap: I asked questions. Pointed, specific questions to answer your post.

You replied back that I am angry (I wasn't) and that I don't believe (I do) and then did not respond to a single thing I asked and instead just launched into how great Jesus is.

If you think this is good enough, you've got the wrong forum.
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, two weeks, five days, 49 minutes and 16 seconds.
5641 cigarettes not smoked, saving $705.17.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 5 days, 14 hours, 5 minutes.

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/i]

Dr. Lao

08-27-2000, 11:46 PM

Personally, I am unable to believe that it just happened. Therefore my starting axiom is that all that exists was created by a thinking, personal being. God.I'm not sure how you got from the fact that the universe was created, to the fact that a thinking, personal being creating it. Most of the universe is quite impersonal, made of gas and dust. Why should it's creator be thinking and personal?Given a self-existant, creator God (his name when asked was "I am"), I find I must assume a purpose for that creation.If you don't like the idea of a self-existant universe, why do you accept a self-existant God? You seem to have the classic if-God-made-us-who-made-God problem going on here. And why do you assume, if God created the universe with a purpose, that the purpose is understandable or relavent to human beings? Also, people may create things with a purpose, but why must God behave in a likewise manner?Given that we are all created by the same God, it would seem logical that much of our nature would reflect that, thus we have a startling similarity between many religions and ethics systems, also between the abuse of same systems.I think it is possible to reason why there are similarities between religions and ethics systems without assuming God created us. Religions or ethics systems that don't promote ideas that hold a particular society together are rejected by that society or the society falls apart. Any abuses that disrupt a society too much are eliminated or they destroy that society. Therefore, we are left with a set of societies that have similar beliefs and similar abuses. This is exactly what is observed.If anyone has a problem with that, I would love to debate it, all accept the first axiom. I don't think axioms are provable.No they aren't provable, however, I think you may be assuming more than you first thought.

Liberal

08-28-2000, 06:00 AM

Dr. Lao

If you don't like the idea of a self-existant universe, why do you accept a self-existant God?

Forgive my butting in, but that can be an invalid comparison. A man whose whole experience tells him that atoms and waves come from other atoms and waves might reasonably postulate an early universe with low entropy. And a man's comprehension of omnipotence and omniscience might reasonably lead him to postulate an Eternal God.

Czarcasm

08-28-2000, 07:51 AM

If I've got to choose between a self-existant universe, which does exist because we can see, feel, hear, and touch it, and a self-existant "god", of which there is no physical evidence, guess which one I'd believe in first?

Liberal

08-28-2000, 08:09 AM

Oh, I would grant you that, Slythe, were that the pertinent consideration.

I agree that because you can sense the universe (and most people can sense it in varying degrees — though some are blind, some are deaf, etc.) you are compelled to conclude that at least the tautology of atoms (your brain) sensing atoms (the universe) constitutes self-existence. But what you cannot sense, and what is under consideration in my remarks to Dr. Lao, is whether the universe is eternal or temporal. In fact, because the time-line is unilaterally dimensional — the past exists solely as a ghost awareness, and the future as merely an induced conception — there is only the discreet now. But, oops, even that is gone.

For all the other dimensions, you have traversability. For width, you have where you are and left of you and right of you. You can go left and right at will. For depth, you have where you are and in front of you and behind you, with the capability to go anywhere in that continuum. For height, you have where you are and below you and above you, and you can take yourself to anywhere therein. But with time, you have no choice except to recall your past, anticipate your future, and be where you are.

You accept physical evidence as proof of the physical universe, and that is understandable. I do the same.

But for proof of the Spritutal, spiritual evidence is required. Those of us who have this evidence, obviously subjective in nature since our Spirit is our own essence, are compelled by the same reason to believe in God. You might protest that evidence of the physical is repeatable, whereas evidence of the spiritual is not. But I would answer that you are wrong. The instrument for detecting the Spirit is the heart (our essence), and I submit that if you were my essence, that is, you had my DNA, my life experience, and my consciousness, you would see exactly what I do, thereby repeating the experiment.

Dr. Lao

08-28-2000, 01:35 PM

Forgive my butting in, but that can be an invalid comparison. A man whose whole experience tells him that atoms and waves come from other atoms and waves might reasonably postulate an early universe with low entropy. And a man's comprehension of omnipotence and omniscience might reasonably lead him to postulate an Eternal God.Just because you can imagine a time in the past when the universe had lowest entropy (time zero) it doesn't necessarily follow that the universe must have been created. People only really have a concept of time as a change in entropy. We remember instances of lower entropy because that is the way the chemical reactions in our brain work. Therefore, it is impossible to imagine a "time" before the time of lowest entropy because it has no meaning. In this context an eternal anything has no meaning. Our common everyday experience tells us that time marches on oblivious to the material world, experiment says that time is part of the material world. Sorry, but I'm not very good at explaining this. However, I think that a zero time in the universe does not necessarily imply a created or non self-existant universe.

Liberal

08-28-2000, 01:53 PM

Oh, I agree with you. It doesn't necessairly follow. I have heard someone before define time as a change in entropy. But then, one could reasonably assert that that is the definition of motion (and many other things) as well.

At any rate, the universe, from God's Absolute Reference Frame, is nothing more than the mis-en-scène for man to act out his moral play. God's Godness is not contingent on His being the Creator of the universe, but on His being the Love Everlasting.

NAWOC

08-28-2000, 03:47 PM

"The Bible is a breath of fresh air"
Proverbs 3:5-6 'Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding, in all your ways acknowled him and he will direct your paths.' My sister spoke these words to me when I was 19, and 4 years later they became more than 'oxygen' to my soul.

Who said God is ? If he's not , he's alive. The Bible says in Romans 1, we've all been given knowledge of God in the creation all around us. So to believe that there is no God, is to believe a lie (even you must agree to that since you believe in God). So those that don't believe in God I would say to them that to them God is .

"Just some shit you deal with before the real rewards, don't you think?" Actually life is incredible, especially with Jesus and in relationship with God, being forgiven of my sins. And it gets better even after I die. Don't count me in with the terminology you used.

"What if the truth makes you happy? What if your truth is not my truth?" You believe God exists, so do I. So we agree, it's the same truth; furthermore, TRUTH is not relative to you and I, either we know the truth (though I think we don't have the capacity to know the entire truth yet) or we are in a lie. I believe Jesus is the Truth just like he claimed to be, and that makes me happy. What I originally said is that people want what makes them happy as a means to say what is true or not, instead of doing vice versa: TRUTH whatever the cost, which is what Jesus was all about I believe (at least in the book of Matthew as I read it).

To the response on my comment on the lostness of people: "I don't have much faith in people, but I do have faith in God, and in God, people can do ANYTHING. If I happen to have faith in a person, it is because I have faith in God, it's hard to explain. The human race needs to know its loving God. God did not create a "fucked" up race of people like you tried make me look to have written. God created man in his own image, but man decided to sin because he was given free will. Our DNA is in the likeness of God, and functions in the universe that he also created. Jesus allowed us to reestablish our covenant relationship with God and be forgiven of our sins, that's the cross.

"I don't see many members of the clergy at MENSA meetings". The belief I'm talking about has nothing to do with "RELIGION" nor the "clergy" as you state. My belief is my relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I never suggested a majority, I suggested there were believers among the physics professors.

You said:
"Some would say that God is a creation of man".
Then you said later:
"I do believe in God".
You defend the belief in no God, and yet believe in a God. That's dishonest, or at least misleading.

The anger I referred to has to do with "cuss" words you used. If you're not angry, please don't use cuss words. If I misinterpreted those emotions, apologies.

About secular humanism: I believe secular humanism is empty. I lived in France for many years, a very atheist country, yet very humanist. I think secular humanism is based on "good works"; which is not what I believe the Bible teaches, so it's not comparable to doing things as an outgrowth of the impact of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ in a person's life.

You also said something that reminded me again of Nietszche: "All this proves is that you personally needed to believe in Jesus in order to do something that many others manage to do just because they feel it is the right thing to do. Doesn't say much about you as a person." Those are the exact words of a former roommate of mine in college. He also went on to say his higher IQ made him superior to me: 165 IQ. This happened when I became a Christian. 2 years later, his confidence in himself and doing things his "own" way led him to a dark alley, where a gun was put to his head. Luckily, I was told by his parents he cried out to God, and the robber spared him. He's now alive and well; and, I'm not sure how he's doing with God right now. Why do I say this to you? Just to warn you, to watch out for what you say. You use the words: to "manage to do the same" without God. My little experience tells me all that the word "manage" means is sweep the dust and our sins under the bed so that nobody sees them, to appear like were fine on the outside. God wants to clean up the inside, so that the outside would be a reflection of HIS work on the inside.

"If you do not know about their religions." I didn't say I did not know, I said I'm not an expert.
Mormons do not believe in Jesus as the only way to the Father, rather that is should be through the recognition of Joseph Smith as prophet and the Mormon one true church.
The book of Mormons contradicts the Bible on multiple accounts:
Alma 46:15 'believers were called Christians in 73 BC'
Acts 11:26 'believers were called Christians at Antioch, after the and resurrection of Christ'
The Bible says that many that call themselves Christian on that day will see Jesus and he will say: "get away from me, I never knew you." My hope is in him, that I am saved by faith in him.

You seemed to want a quote from the Koran?
Sura 4:31 "Men have the authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. So good women are obedient, guarding the unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and banish them to beds apart and beat them; then if they obey you, seek not occasion against them." This is not a belief that I have about the God I serve.

"sparky" hmmm...

Anyway, all this just to say, "why say no to God?"
- To do things are own way
- To glorify or idolize "humanity". Humanity is God.
- There is no God.
- Because is the one I serve
- Haven't thought much about it
- It just doesn't make complete sense to me yet.
- Haven't found him.
- If he's there, let him show himself (remember the criminals at the side of Jesus on the cross? If you are the Messiah, save yourself. But the other trusted, and was accepted by God).
- Those are some reasons I come up with

- SAY YES!!!
Bye

xanadu

08-28-2000, 03:58 PM

CLAPTON IS (the one and only) GOD!!!!!

Satan

08-28-2000, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by NAWOC

If he's not (dead), he's alive. The Bible says in Romans 1, we've all been given knowledge of God in the creation all around us. So to believe that there is no God, is to believe a lie (even you must agree to that since you believe in God). So those that don't believe in God I would say to them that to them God is.

1) As I said, many people feel that God never existed. Something that was never alive cannot be dead by definition.

2) Using The Bible to make a point about the Bible is called circular reasoning.

Actually life is incredible, especially with Jesus and in relationship with God, being forgiven of my sins. And it gets better even after I die. Don't count me in with the terminology you used.

This does not answer my question. I asked if logically, one would treat life with a little more urgency and as something precious if they knew that was all there was for them, just as certainly as you know there's something beyond this. Please answer the question.

You believe God exists, so do I. So we agree, it's the same truth; furthermore, TRUTH is not relative to you and I, either we know the truth (though I think we don't have the capacity to know the entire truth yet) or we are in a lie.

1) I believe in God. I never said He was anything like the one you place your faith in.

2) Why must there only be one Truth? Some people prefer vanilla over chocolate. Does one posess "TRUTH" and the other a lie?

I don't have much faith in people, but I do have faith in God, and in God, people can do ANYTHING.

I have seen non-believers do great things. I would say that Gandhi did many great things - He did not worship Christ. Do tell me, what of him? What of others?

God did not create a "fucked" up race of people like you tried make me look to have written. God created man in his own image, but man decided to sin because he was given free will.

Man "decided" to sin? Actually, according to your mythos, we are punished forever due to the sin of two people. Doesn't seem fair to me.

You said: "Some would say that God is a creation of man". Then you said later: "I do believe in God". You defend the belief in no God, and yet believe in a God. That's dishonest, or at least misleading.

There is nothing dishonest here. I said that "some would say" something. I did not say that *I* would say it, did I?

Ever heard of devil's advocate? Did you catch my user name? I ain't named Satan because I'm gonna swallow your soul, Sparky...

And that does not answer my question. If you wish it to be from an actual non-believer, I'm sure a real-life authentic atheist can help you out here. Any volunteers?

The anger I referred to has to do with "cuss" words you used. If you're not angry, please don't use cuss words. If I misinterpreted those emotions, apologies.

The words I use are my own. I speak like this. I will try not to speak like this if it offends you (though I am not one to be offended with mere words myself), but just to make a last point, sometimes I am fucking happy. :D

About secular humanism: I believe secular humanism is empty. I lived in France for many years, a very atheist country, yet very humanist. I think secular humanism is based on "good works"; which is not what I believe the Bible teaches, so it's not comparable to doing things as an outgrowth of the impact of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ in a person's life.

1) I don't care what Secular Humanism means to you. Non-Christians won't care much about what Christ means to you because they do not practice Christianity. What i asked is why isn't it possible for Secular Humanists to be just as good as you claim to be with Christ on your side, as you implied?

2) The Bible also teaches that "by their works, I will know them," which tells me that works do count for something, and that it ain't you to judge them.

You also said something that reminded me again of Nietszche: "All this proves is that you personally needed to believe in Jesus in order to do something that many others manage to do just because they feel it is the right thing to do. Doesn't say much about you as a person." Those are the exact words of a former roommate of mine in college. He also went on to say his higher IQ made him superior to me: 165 IQ. This happened when I became a Christian. 2 years later, his confidence in himself and doing things his "own" way led him to a dark alley, where a gun was put to his head. Luckily, I was told by his parents he cried out to God, and the robber spared him. He's now alive and well; and, I'm not sure how he's doing with God right now. Why do I say this to you? Just to warn you, to watch out for what you say. You use the words: to "manage to do the same" without God. My little experience tells me all that the word "manage" means is sweep the dust and our sins under the bed so that nobody sees them, to appear like were fine on the outside. God wants to clean up the inside, so that the outside would be a reflection of HIS work on the inside.

Bully for your roomate. This all means nothing, and i stand by what I said - People who do not belive manage to act exactly in a manner that you claim was not possible for you without Christ. I maintain that this is a character flaw of yours, not your roomate's and not those who manage to do so.

You then slam Mormons when all I did was maintain that they were Christians. I never said they were "right," just that they - just as Protestants, Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses - are Christians as well as you are. Or do you disagree?

You seemed to want a quote from the Koran?... This is not a belief that I have about the God I serve.

(Joshua 10:40) So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

This is not something I want the God I serve to do.
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, two weeks, five days, 19 hours, 26 minutes and 48 seconds.
5672 cigarettes not smoked, saving $709.05.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 5 days, 16 hours, 40 minutes.

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!

Ptahlis

08-28-2000, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Satan
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NAWOC

And that does not answer my question. If you wish it to be from an actual non-believer, I'm sure a real-life authentic atheist can help you out here. Any volunteers?

Are you kidding? I just got one name for you: FriendofGod. I'll spell you when your head is flattened enough I guess, but for right now, you are handling the brick wall just fine.

Cardinal

08-28-2000, 11:42 PM

NOWAC -

(A disclaimer for the rest of the posters here: we know each other IRL)

Please stop. Whatever the validity of your points, the tone is off-putting. I know you, and even I think the tone is attacking.

Despite his handle, Sat. has replied with intelligence, and you have called him names.

This reminds me of a concept I got from John Wimber - Did you really expect non-Christians to act like Christians? And if you don't, then don't get mad at them when they don't know what you're talking about. I'm guessing that you've met people who have "needed" a push, but I seriously doubt that this is the place.

Please, please read my post again about bullies. And read 1 Cor. 2:14.

P.S. Way to post, Libertarian.

NAWOC

08-30-2000, 01:47 AM

Dave,
If your opinion is shared by the rest of the group, I will stop posting. But I think it's getting good, great and intelligent questions are being raised. Why don't you try to answer Sat. questions?
I'm not sure what "tone" your are referring to, I've been honest in my emails, even with my character faults which I know I have, I'm pretty weak I know, but someone once told me that: "a saint is someone that keeps getting thrown on the ground and stomped on, but he keeps getting back up", so I'm trying to participate. We've been having a discussion; can less intelligent people also participate? I don't recall having called Sat. any names(?). The one rule is: to not be a "jerk", that is the "straight dope" agreement. I don't think I've been a jerk, but if I'm wrong, I'll take the penalty and leave. Thanks for calling me though on this Dave.

Ptahlis,
I've played soccer all my life, I'm used to getting hit in the head, but thanks for the support (even if you meant it against me).

Sat.,
I think that's cool you quit smokng. I don't think I "slammed" Mormons. I do believe Mormonism is not equal to Christianity, in the sense that I described that we believe in different things (and I know they call themselves Christians). I also believe there are Protestants and Catholics that are not Christians (it's a personal matter of the heart and faith in Jesus Christ). I define "Christian" as a personal relationship with God through Christ; whomever says Jesus Christ is Lord and believes it is a "Christian" according to what I believe the word means. I also love the God of the Old Testament and how he was incredible in battle, but the God of the Old Testament has changed, when he sent Jesus to die for our sins. I find that an incredible 'ry, God has a personality, a character, emotions, WOW!!Jesus, was the atoning sacrifice for our sins, so God deals with people differently ever since, that's what I think.

"which tells me that works do count for something, and that it ain't you to judge them" -- you're right, point well taken

"Doesn't seem fair to me." -- I know! Why does their sin have to affect me? It no longer has to affect us, because of what Jesus did on the cross.

"I would say that Gandhi did many great things - He did not worship Christ. Do tell me, what of him? What of others?" I don't know what of them. God makes that decision.

"I asked if logically, one would treat life with a little more urgency and as something precious if they knew that was all there was for them, just as certainly as you know there's something beyond this. Please answer the question."
Yes, I think they would.

Unless someone requests that I stay in, I will no longer post. By this I will know what this group desires.

Satan

08-30-2000, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by NAWOC

I think that's cool you quit smokng.

Thank you. So does my fiancee, without whom...

I don't think I "slammed" Mormons. I do believe Mormonism is not equal to Christianity, in the sense that I described that we believe in different things (and I know they call themselves Christians).

I was being glib and trying not to write a novel by saying "slammed." You merely said they were "wrong."

The point I was trying to make is that they are Christians, period.

I also believe there are Protestants and Catholics that are not Christians (it's a personal matter of the heart and faith in Jesus Christ).

Maybe you should allow people to label themselves as they wish? If someone says they are a Christian, why do they have to pass the NAVOC test? After all, it is between God and them, I think, as only He will know what is in their hearts, right?

Personally, I dislike labels which would make someone try and put me into a box. However, it seems that you are putting people in a box by thinking they should conform to what YOU say makes a Christian, IMHO.

I define "Christian" as a personal relationship with God through Christ; whomever says Jesus Christ is Lord and believes it is a "Christian" according to what I believe the word means.

By that definition, I believe that Satan (the real dude, not me) is a Christian. :)

I also love the God of the Old Testament and how he was incredible in battle, but the God of the Old Testament has changed, when he sent Jesus to die for our sins. I find that an incredible (angry), God has a personality, a character, emotions, WOW!!Jesus, was the atoning sacrifice for our sins, so God deals with people differently ever since, that's what I think.

I am going to ask you a slew of questionsd that this brings up to me. Feel free to only take on what seems most imnportant to you or just any general comments you might have. Otherwise, this would be more like an interview than an exchange and that's not what either of us want and that also seems to dissuade folks from joining in.

So God changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament? Well, if He could change then, why couldn't he change now? How do you know there isn't a prophet right now who is seeing and directly witnessing God changing right now? What prevents you from hearing this person and reading the Really, Really New Testament and saying what you just said about God of the OT - that he's different now? Why would a perfect God suddenly change so much - I mean, He was perfect, right?

Why does their sin have to affect me? It no longer has to affect us, because of what Jesus did on the cross.

We're not in Eden anymore...

I don't know what of them. God makes that decision.[./quote]

Ah, humility and admitting you don't know something! There's hope here...

I'm gonna give a little bit of myself here, since you don't know exactly what you're dealing with. Feel free to tear it apart if that is your desire. I don't anticipate changing or anything, but you put your views out there, so I may as well respond in kind.

For the record, I believe that God speaks to peopple differently, and that just because some people use the name Jesus, and others Yahweh, others say Allah and others say The Invisible Pink Unicorn, they are still dealing with the same person.

I mean, I call a domesticated feline creature who drinks milk a cat, whereas someone who is Spanish will call it a gato. It's still the same animal, no?

I believe that God does not hold it against you for failing to do things with the right silly ritual that some man made up thousands of years ago to make the religion look appealing to pagans and get them to convert.

I believe that we all have worth, and we all can be good people. Not perfect, but pretty damn good if we set our minds to it.

I have faith in my fellow man. Is my faith tested? All the time. But I still see more good than bad in people, and the thought of a God telling someone who never read a Bible (do you want to know how many people in India and Asia throughout history who died and could never know the deal with JC? Who never had a chance? It's a staggering number, I'm sure.) that they were wrong and that He would turn His back on them and send them to hell, or telling someone else that they read the wrong Bible the same thing, is repugnant and NOT a forgiving, loving God but a petty tyrant.

Feel free to disagree with me. Lord knows, I get shit from Christians and atheists alike at times. But this works for me on several levels.

For one thing, logically, I don't know why God would send my Jewish grandmother to hell for talking to Him and cutting out the middle man, but my fundamentalist Protestant brother-in-law can say with authority that he "questions" my other grandmother's soul before her dead body is even cold in front of us, when that grandmother prayed to Jesus every day of her life and thanked Him for every day of her life until she died. She just had the audacity to do this in a Catholic church. Meanwhile, my Protestant brother-in-law is heaven-bound, even though he is an asshole who would say to grieving family members that my grandmother's salvation was "questionable."

I know that the common thing to ask is "If Hitler repented, he would go to heaven but Gandhi would go to hell," but I see it a little more personally. Because if my grandmothers are in hell and my brother-in-law is in heaven, I have no desire to go to heaven whatsoever.

And that, ultimately, is what a majority of Christians say is what Christianity says. Not all - there are some folks here who feel similar to myself but who call themselves Christians - but certainly a majority.

Personally, I blame Paul... ;)

[quote]"I asked if logically, one would treat life with a little more urgency and as something precious if they knew that was all there was for them, just as certainly as you know there's something beyond this. Please answer the question."

Yes, I think they would.

Excellent. I agree totally. Of course, the parameters of your faith says that isn't enough for God, and that's fine for you to say and believe, even if I don't concur. Just please don't say that atheists cannot be moral like some other people of faith have intoned. Why, even a Vice Presidential candidate has said as much recently... :rolleyes:

Unless someone requests that I stay in, I will no longer post. By this I will know what this group desires.

I am not the police here. I appreciate honest debate. Yes, I can be a bit of an asshole sometimes. But I generally post in dirent parallell to what I am responding to and my frustration level. Please, don't take it personally.
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, three weeks, 5 hours, 51 minutes and 17 seconds.
5729 cigarettes not smoked, saving $716.22.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 5 days, 21 hours, 25 minutes.

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/i]

Ptahlis

08-30-2000, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by NAWOC
Unless someone requests that I stay in, I will no longer post. By this I will know what this group desires.

Here's the deal NAWOC: We have been subjected to drive-by-witnessing and convert-the-unsaved threads on this board before. Others have been here much longer than I, but even I can describe the typical Witnessing Poster.

WP#1: The Drive-ByWrite an initial post describing all the ways Jesus is going to save us. Option packages include: professing how sad you are for those that will not see the light, saying a few things about how Satan (the older one, not the poster) has led nonbelievers astray, questioning the possibility of a moral atheist, threatening with hellfire possibly, tossing in a version of Pascal's Wager, decrying the ills of society and how it is all because of religious decline. Posts may also be spruced up with arguments lifted directly from Jack Chick if desired. Then, the originator of the OP disappears forever after maybe a follow up or two. (Big example here is im_a_squirrel, the originator of this thread.) In these threads, people meticulously pick apart the flaws in the post. Occasionally someone with a similar outlook to the OP posts a few short reiterations of same. Sometimes more thoughtful theists will come and post their interpretations of the arguments. Sometimes nonbelievers may be offended, and sometimes Christians will be embarassed. Eventually, if enough time goes by without further pulpit pounding, the thread either moves into other debates or just dies.

WP#2: The Missionary Write the same sort of OP, or post within an existing thread, as the above, customized to taste. Except this time the poster is tenacious. People will again pick apart the flaws in the arguments. Said poster will rebut, usually with Bible verse. Other interpretations of the verse will be offered by more liberal, less literal Christians. The writer of the OP will usually ignore any questions too tough, or promise to get back to it and then hope the matter drops. Stubbornly, Missionary Posters will try and use the Bible to prove the Bible even after being shown that it is not a valid argument. They will provide nothing but opinion and anecdotal evidence to back their assertions when posters more able than I provide link after link that shows an assertion to be untrue. In short, they are on a mission of propaganda and proselytizing, and refuse to engage in an honest debate. They question nothing of their own beliefs, and are truly unwilling or unable to accept any evidence or arguments that fail to support their preconceptions, and aren't really interested in learning the other side's point of view.

WP#3: The Surprise Witness Occasionally, someone starts out as either of the above, or at least has the appearance of the Drive-By or the Missionary at first glance. What is different about these folks is that they stay around, listen, and engage in a real exchange of ideas. They don't dodge issues, they don't spout dogma as an argument. They examine their own beliefs, and they consider others' beliefs honestly. They actually do learn about why atheists don't believe, and why other theists believe differently. They find the flaws in people's arguments, including their own. In short, they learn to discuss and debatewith the people on the board, rather than preach at the people here. I call this category the Surprise Witness because quite frankly, it is a rare thing to find someone of a fundamentalist bent who comes to "witness to the heathens" that will actually try and engage in debate honestly.

All in all, the above is just my opinion of course, and they are sweeping generalizations, not exhaustive categorizations. There are other types here, like Polycarp, Libertarian, Triskademus, cm_keller, etc., that post about their beliefs, debate honestly, and are all-around good guys. Some of them may or may not think of what they do as witnessing (well, cmk is Jewish, so he probably doesn't :D), but my list refers to the Fundamentalist brand of witnessing in particular, not these guys or those like them. For them I would have to have a category of "Gentleman Witness." I should hope, as would most anyone else here I think, that you end up being WP#3. If you are, please do continue to post. If you merely see this board as ripe conversion fodder, then I'm afraid you've made a mistake, and should probably seek stray sheep in some other pasture. We've been up and down and all around this meadow before.

Triskadecamus

08-30-2000, 10:55 AM

You are welcome to stay, NAWOC, but let me caution you, there are a lot of really smart heathens here.

Tris

Polycarp

08-30-2000, 11:31 AM

Rules for the Type #4 witness post:

1. Be honest. You may think it's cute to hide your interest in making converts behind discussion of some related issue. But God can see through it, and He doesn't. And the same is true for most of your readers. There is not a regular poster here who does not understand that I think something terrific happened when God came into my life, and that I want to share that experiencce with as many people as possible. Why do I not get flamed? See below.

2. Be sincere. Tell the truth as you know it. Don't bring in somebody else's argument. Make the points you feel proper to make in your posts and respond to people's objections. God is not going to lose points because you don't know the answer. He will, on the other hand, if his witness engages in BS. And the fact that you have questions about what He has in mind on some given topic is not going to turn people off to Him, but on the contrary make them feel closer to you -- you're not the Expert Christian With All The Answers; you're one of us poor blokes with some answers and some questions, on the same playing field.

3. Respect others. God did not send you here on a Mission to Spread the Light -- there are as many people here who have spent at least as much time thinking about these ultimate issues and seeking for answers as in your home church, and probably more. And every single one of them has a moral code by which he lives, and a set of "beliefs" regarding the metaphysics of the world we live in that he holds as sincerely as you do. The belief sets happen to differ far more widely than you're probably used to. But you'll get used to that. On the other hand, the moral codes are pretty close to identical, differing in a few details here and there. They may not be the one you are familiar with. But that's unfortunate; they're founded on a formula you may be familiar with: "love your neighbor as yourself." The theists add the first half to that; the others do not. (And note that some of the theists are animists, for whom loving God equals love of the cosmos and all its details, including butterflies and trees.)

4. Engage in honest debate. This has pretty well been covered above, but it needs stressing. Ask questions, and give answers to questions you're asked. Post as you would be posted to.

5. Play by the house rules. There is a common consensus here that the universe and the laws that appear to govern it are legitimate bases for debate. Anything else you care to bring into play is subject to discussion regarding whether it is useful evidence. Not everybody "believes in" the Bible, and among those who do there is a wide range of values to be placed on how much of it is to be taken as literal and how much is poetic language of one form or another. A Bible verse proves nothing except how well you've memorized it. It may be pertinent as evidence in an argument, to stress a point you've arrived at from another angle. It is never appropriate here as a "given" from which a point may be proved (unless the question at hand is as arcane as "is there anything in the Bible about Lesbians?").

And, you know something? Those aren't bad rules for Christian witness in real life either. ;)

Ptahlis

08-30-2000, 11:58 AM

Gee Trisk, thanks! :D Even if you wouldn't put me in the category, I think that's new sig line material!

gobear

08-30-2000, 11:58 AM

Polycarp, almost thou persuadest me. (Festus to Paul in Acts for everybody else) I knew there was a reason I like you so much.

I'm an ex-Christian, now an atheist, and a good reason for that would be folks like NAWOC. You are speaking from a position of superiority and arrogance when you should be reflecting humility as a sinner who's been redeemed by the atonement of Jesus Christ and brought to new life in the Holy Spirit through your belief in the Resurrection.

Folks like Polycarp and Tris speak with faith, but in a humble and compassionate way. They listen to other posters and treat them like people, not targets of conversion.

Your worst fault, NAWOC, is that you treat people like objects, and that is a grievous sin against God. You're also helping the Devil spread unbelief by being so obnoxious that folks who might otherwise have been receptive to the message of salvation have had their hearts hardened, and when you are called to judgement, you will have to answer for it unless you repent of your sin.

Remember what Paul wrote in his First Letter to the Corinthians, "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but I have not charity, it profits me nothing."

Satan, it's not a slam to say Mormons aren't Christians.
Technically, their beliefs differ so much from orthodox Christian doctrine(they deny the Trinity, the believe in a multiplicity of separate gods, they deny the Atonement and the Resurrection) that they really do form a separate religion. For their part, the LDS believe that the rest of Christendom are false churches that teach error, and that the LDS church is the only true Christian religion. I've known lots of LDS folk, and they're all great people, and one of my housemates is a Mormon. If we judge folks by conduct and acting as Christians are supposed to, the Mormons would win, handsdown.

Ptahlis

08-30-2000, 12:02 PM

...then suddenly, Ptahlis sees to his shame that he has misspelled Trisk's handle in the sig line. Morosely, Ptahlis picks up his tray to go sit at the "stupid heathens'" table. :(

Triskadecamus

08-30-2000, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Ptahlis
...then suddenly, Ptahlis sees to his shame that he has misspelled Trisk's handle in the sig line. Morosely, Ptahlis picks up his tray to go sit at the "stupid heathens'" table. :(

Wow! A me quote in a sig line! I am honored!

Can I sit wit you guys?

Tris

Ptahlis

08-30-2000, 12:08 PM

...and yet, what's this? The corrected spelling now appears on the sig line of the previous post, leaving all to wonder what the hell Ptahlis is talking about. Ptahlis meanwhile reflects that the SDMB indeed works in mysterious ways...

NAWOC

08-30-2000, 12:09 PM

Ptahlis,
"They examine their own beliefs, and they consider others' beliefs honestly. They actually do learn about why atheists don't believe, and why other theists believe differently." I think this will help me research my own beliefs, and I've already found there are certain thoughts I definitely need to polish. I thought those were 3 thoughtful analogies of yours.
"If you merely see this board as ripe conversion fodder..." I do think everybody benefits from serving Jesus, but I am learning already some of what makes you all tick. Thanks...

Triskadecamus,
"There are a lot of really smart heathens here". God made some people very smart for a reason I think; hopefully, I'll be smart as well.

Sat'n,
Nothing personal, I'd like to attempt to answer a couple of your questions:
Ah, the "NAWOC test"! Interesting... I think we all have certain biases, so it's hard to be completely objective; however, hopefully, the nawoc test is "scriptural" (which means to me 'authoritative'). If it is not, on the basis of scripture, then it definitely needs to be revised.
About the freedom to label yourself: sure... We can say anything we want about ourselves. I may say I'm a millionaire, but on what basis? Maybe I have a million in my personal retirement fund, or own a million dollar business (two different things). We have to agree on terms first, then use the right labels. It's on the definition of the terms that I disagree. I ran into this problem as an undergrad in my other major: Anthropology, as related to concepts of 'love' and 'worship' and other stuff in different ures, this was the concept I defended though my professors were I felt MUCH MORE relativistic.
About God changing from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Yes, I believe God is perfect! I think God was planning the transition all along, but this is something I will continue to look into. I found a url for this:
http://www.bible.org/docs/q&a/q&a-281.htm#TopOfPageIs the God of the OT the same as the God of the NT?

About God with different names, I think that makes sense:
Paul stood before Greeks and told them the "unknown God" that they serve (the name printed on a statue) is the same God as the Christian God (but I don't think he's an invisible pink unicorn.)

"I still see more good than bad in people". I think that points to God, and reveals we have some of God in us (which goes back to the fact that he put us together in our mother's wombs and knows us perfectly). After all, if the God fo the Bible is all good which he states he is (100% love), and we are partially good, and "good" is something we want for ourselves as humans then: God seems like a worthy cause to research and follow.

Leads me to the point: what about those s in the OT.
http://www.bible.org/docs/q&a/q&a-286.htm#TopOfPageA Moral Problem-The slaughter of the Canaanites (Josh 6, 8, 10). (Bottom of the page)
I suppose, just like pruning sometimes helps a tree grow bigger/healthier. God did the same sort of thing in history with people, especially in regards to HIS people, the Israelites. Now, God has stretched his blessing to all people, even gentiles (which would be us). I don't think there is ANY room to criticize Jews.

"silly ritual". I don't think chosing to follow a leader is a ritual. I was once interrogated by a group saying that I wasn't a Christian; because, I didn't accept the Lord in a specific way: heard the gospel, understood it, repented, confessed it, and got baptized. I think right now that being a Christian is a matter of acknowledging Jesus as Lord and Savior, and chosing to follow him: it involves repentence, baptism, and good works in the process of following him.

http://www.bible.org/docs/q&a/q&a-267.htm#TopOfPageHow does the gift of prophecy fit with Hebrews 1:1 as it seems the role of prophets ended with the coming of Christ?
Some fundamentalists think there is no "prophecy" today. But I think otherwise, God is God, he can give the gift of prophesy to a man today no problem, just like any other gifts (healing, tongues, etc...). Prophecy usually will be accepted by the rest of the body of Christ as being true (that would be the test of validation). After all:
Romans 12:6 says: "And we have different gifts,8 according to the grace given to us. If the gift is prophecy, that individual must use it in proportion to his faith."

Romans 10:12 says: "For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him. 10:13 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." If a muslim acknowledges Jesus as Lord, he's saved!

As far as the Jew that does not go through Jesus: Romans also says that the Jews are under a covenant relationship with God: "11:28 In regard to the gospel they are enemies for your sake (talking about Israel to the gentiles), but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers. 11:29 For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. 11:30 Just as you were formerly disobedient to God, but have now received mercy due to their disobedience, 11:31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may1 receive mercy. 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience so that he may show mercy to all." Because of this, I respect and love Jews immensely; after all, they ARE in my opinion still God's people in the covenant. Yet, as Christians, it's almost like we are grafted into the Jewish faith, only with a Messiah that has already come.

I know a lot of great believing Catholics, and I'm more on the Protestant side of the equation in regards to formalities. There are wonderful Catholic believing people in my opinion, I know many personally. It's definitely more about "content" then "form" I think.

Promised, I'll try not to post this long in the future!

Liberal

08-30-2000, 12:14 PM

Ptahlis

I want to believe that your sig line changed, but I have never had a sig line change before. [... sigh ...] I'll just take you at your word and believe that you believe your sig line changed. ;)

[Note: Wherever Tris sits, I would like to sit at his feet and eat the scraps that fall from his plate.]

NAWOC

08-30-2000, 12:31 PM

goboy,

I definitely see your point, and I think I have A LOT of growing up to do. I hope one day you'll forgive guys like me. Some of us are trying, we're just slow. Also, you have to remember, I grew up for the most part in another country: France, and for some reason, Americans think French are arrogant (maybe they are!). I'm 25, and I've moved over 19 times growing up, across Oceans and speaking several languages. I don't know how to relate with people very well. Please have a little mercy. 5 years ago, I was a wreck, the biggest punk out there, I didn't care about anyone, probably why I drank a lot and did .

Comments like yours definitely help me out, thank you for your honesty.

I want to go slam myself into a wall. I used to really dislike myself, so I think there is still a battle within me going on! If I'm arrogant, it's because I wish I were better and I know that's a sin. I have so many sins! How does a non-christian work out "sin" issues? Do you do it only with "will" power?

polycarp,
You're a voice of wisdom and reason, pray for me.

Liberal

08-30-2000, 12:55 PM

NAWOC

Love.

NAWOC

08-30-2000, 01:03 PM

Libertarian, awesome,

But's that's why I said "yes" to God, because the Bible said "God is love", and I knew that's what I needed. Because I didn't know how to love, and the very first time I recognized love was 4 years ago.

Where and how do you learn to 'love'? What is love for you?

Ptahlis

08-30-2000, 01:05 PM

Well then welcome aboard NAWOC.

Originally posted by NAWOC

the nawoc test is "scriptural" (which means to me 'authoritative').

Just for clarity's sake, do you ascribe to Biblical literacy? Do you believe that nothing is a parable unless expressly labeled as such or are you of the opinion that some things within are myths whose essence is true even if the particulars are exaggerated? How about inerrancy? Are there possible translation and selection errors within or is it the absolutely perfect word of God?

About God changing from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Yes, I believe God is perfect! I think God was planning the transition all along, but this is something I will continue to look into.

Well NAWOC, this puzzles me a little. The usual definition of perfect implies unchanging and complete. Perfect is an absolute term. What kind of "perfect" would you ascribe to God? Is he temporally perfect, in other words, a perfect fit for each moment as it comes, but ultimately changable in response to our needs?

"silly ritual". I don't think chosing to follow a leader is a ritual. I was once interrogated by a group saying that I wasn't a Christian; because, I didn't accept the Lord in a specific way: heard the gospel, understood it, repented, confessed it, and got baptized. I think right now that being a Christian is a matter of acknowledging Jesus as Lord and Savior, and chosing to follow him: it involves repentence, baptism, and good works in the process of following him.

...snip...

I know a lot of great believing Catholics, and I'm more on the Protestant side of the equation in regards to formalities. There are wonderful Catholic believing people in my opinion, I know many personally. It's definitely more about "content" then "form" I think.

But of course you know that baptism is a ritual, right? If baptism is a required, rather than a preferred, step in receiving salvation, then it is hardly unfair to say that God judges people not only by what is in their hearts, but in the form their worship takes. I am confused as to whether you consider that particular ritual to be required or whether it is unnecessary.

Ptahlis

08-30-2000, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Libertarian
Ptahlis

I want to believe that your sig line changed, but I have never had a sig line change before. [... sigh ...] I'll just take you at your word and believe that you believe your sig line changed. ;)

[Note: Wherever Tris sits, I would like to sit at his feet and eat the scraps that fall from his plate.]

That's okay Lib. We can agree to disagree... Heretic! ;)

Ptahlis

08-30-2000, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by NAWOC

I want to go slam myself into a wall. I used to really dislike myself, so I think there is still a battle within me going on! If I'm arrogant, it's because I wish I were better and I know that's a sin. I have so many sins! How does a non-christian work out "sin" issues? Do you do it only with "will" power?

Well, leaving aside the non-Christian theists out there, I can say that much of what you might call sin is to me a character flaw. Pride, envy, sloth, gluttony, etc.. are all things that we have to work on when we catch them in ourselves. We just try to do better. I find myself wondering what it is that you think would be different for you just because you are a Christian. Don't you see your flaws and work to improve them? I realize that you probably pray for guidance and strength, but it's still you that must control your own behavior is it not?

Cardinal

08-30-2000, 01:21 PM

NAWOC -

One of my all time heros is George Wallace, the Alabama governor. Why, all you people cry, who are familiar with his stance on integration?

Because he had the guts to publicly make an about-face. It's one of the things I try to do when needed, but the people who really do it in a convincing manner are truly among my heros.

And now that includes you.

Dr. Lao

08-30-2000, 02:03 PM

I don't want to muddle the issue any further, but NAWOC talked about Yahwah (OT christian god). I think the most interesting thing about Yahwah is that he assumes other gods exist. "Thou shalt not take any other gods before me" implies the existance of other gods. This is in sharp contrast to the similar Muslim statement, "There is only one god Allah and Muhammad is his prophet." The OT commandment implies other gods exist, but Yahwah is the god of the Isrealites. This is consitant with the language elsewhere in the OT. The pillar of Islam I quoted says that while people may be able to think of other gods and worship them, they are not real and there is only one God with a capital G named Allah. And Allah is everybodies God, not just one group's god.

As for Satan's point about the changing God and how do we know he's not different today, Muslims make the same point. They recognize earlier revalations as genuine but incomplete. Abraham, Moses, and Jesus heard the word of God, but didn't get the whole message, but they each got a more complete revalation than the previous one. Muhammad had the latest and the greatest revalation, and it was complete enough to be the last one for humanity. We got the message and judgement day was coming soon.

From today's perspective, however, even Muhammad's revalation is getting moldy. It's been 1400 years and no last judgement, maybe he heard God wrong too.

NAWOC

08-30-2000, 02:24 PM

Biblical literacy? Yes, to a certain extent. I'm studying a little about Biblical Archaelogy and Eponyms (it seems that most dates are right on in the Bible). There is an apparent contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2, which I haven't yet really solved, and the story of the creation I have "faith" that somehow will make sense scientifically (it may have to do with the time back then being slower, or a different concept of days, but I'm not sure on that...). I don't believe there are myths in the Bible nor exagerations necessarily. I believe that for most of what I've read soo far, maybe about 2/3 of the Bible, it's definitely not to be taken as such. I also see Revelations as an "imagery" of what is to come, given as revelation from the Holy Spirit.

"Is God temporally perfect, in other words, a perfect fit for each moment as it comes, but ultimately changable in response to our needs?" If we were not able to petition to the Lord in prayer, what would be the purpose of prayer? I think prayer can be worshipful, but I think we are also to go to his throne and ask! The Christian God definitely wants us to ask and interact with him. If we don't, how will we receive? I think God is perfect in as much as we can understand: in justice, in righteousness, in mercy, in grace. Being perfectly just also means rules can change, and so God would be able to change the rules if he wished. God being God, he also knows the future, and what will come of things, when and how we will or could or would do certain things, and etc... That's a hard concept to follow.

Actually, as I've experienced baptism, when I became a Christian, alone in my room with no witnesses I was saved (I believe). When at church they asked if people wanted to get baptized, I remember getting all excited and thinking "I DO, I DO, I DO". There is a belief called "baptismal regeneration" that makes baptism essential for salvation, but most pastors and preachers I've talked to don't believe this is scriptural. So baptism is really something you do to mark your new creation in Christ: it's like a form of reward, for me it was an unforgettable feeling of being brand new.

Dr. Lao,
Could it be that the statement you bring up about the God of the OT is suggesting that God is saying: "I have no competition, don't go and make (thus invent) Gods for yourself, it wouldn't be right, they would all be fake?", but maybe that's reading into it... Because I'm thinking about the scripture that says he is the "alpha and the omega" (which entails "everything" put together, the beginning and the end, which basically implies there is nothing comparable to him: especially of godly form)!
I do agree with you that prophets and leaders of the OT were only given messages partially (not the whole thing). I do believe that Jesus knew the end however, because after all, we as Christians are waiting for his return, which is what he announced.
About the final judgment, I don't believe it has come time yet. I still think God would like everyone on earth to hear his message first, to know about Christ. But he could chose to come anytime. There are still many people groups (almost 1000 or more I believe) that haven't heard the gospel, and as many as 2000 or 3000 languages that don't have the Bible nor a dictionary). I can check on those statistics if someone wants me to.

I did have a conversation with some Muslims once about what you talked about Dr. Lao, and they certainly did let me know that according to their faith, I don't stand a chance as a Christian.

Opus1

08-30-2000, 03:17 PM

Nawoc:I'm studying a little about Biblical Archaelogy and Eponyms (it seems that most dates are right on in the Bible). There is an apparent contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2, which I haven't yet really solved, and the story of the creation I have "faith" that somehow will make sense scientifically (it may have to do with the time back then being slower, or a different concept of days, but I'm not sure on that...). I don't believe there are myths in the Bible nor exagerations necessarily.

Hmm. Interesting. Do you believe that there was a global flood circa 2500 B.C.E.? If so, then how did the Egyptians and Chinese fail to notice their own annihilation?

Do you consider all of the Biblical miracles literally accurate? Talking donkeys, women turning into salt, witches bringing men back from the dead, angels copulating with humans, people building a giant tower into the sky, causing God to scatter their languages? Those aren't myths?

No exaggerations? Do you think that 2.5 million Israelites were in captivity in Egypt, and then roamed through the desert for 40 years? I have some articles showing the logistical difficulties involved in such a trek. I'd be happy to post/e-mail them. How about the giant casualty numbers in the battles, where hundred of thousands died? There is no possible way that any nation could have had enough supply lines to support that many soldiers in those days. Those aren't exaggerations?

I do believe that Jesus knew the end however, because after all, we as Christians are waiting for his return, which is what he announced.

Read your Bible a bit more carefully. Jesus did not know the end. He specifically says that only the father knows when the end will come, not even him. He did predict that it would come in the lifetime of his followers however.

P.S. The line about God being the alpha and the omega in Revelations is thought by most scholars to be a late interpolation. See http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm

Freyr

08-30-2000, 03:23 PM

...for some reason, my posting to this thread got lost.

Oh, well! PolyCarp you're Da Man!! That was a great post! Certainly the spirit of Forseit speaks thru you!

FYI, Forseti is a little known Norse god. It was said that when Odin was out traveling in the 9 worlds, Forseti would sit in his place and dispense judgements to those who came before him, and all who did so went away pleased. You've certainly have my vote!

Polycarp

08-30-2000, 04:23 PM

I was wondering who that one-eyed guy was that asked to use my login. Kinda creepy with those ravens on his shoulders! ;)

Ptahlis

08-30-2000, 04:45 PM

Hmm. Let me see if I can be a little more specific with regards to the question of perfection and change. Your previous post intimated to me that you believed God had changed his basic nature from the Old Testament to the New. Your most recent explanation sounds more like you are saying that God himself did not change, merely his behavior. In other words, he can change his mind in response to our prayers, but he himself is unchanged.

andros

08-30-2000, 05:49 PM

"Well, let's hear it for old Odin
Those ravens were forbodin'
Until the giants rode in
He was good enough for me

Gimme that old-time religion . . ."

NAWOC

08-30-2000, 06:55 PM

tracer

08-30-2000, 08:01 PM

NAWOC, alias "sparky", wrote:

You seemed to want a quote from the Koran?
Sura 4:31 "Men have the authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. So good women are obedient, guarding the unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and banish them to beds apart and beat them; then if they obey you, seek not occasion against them." This is not a belief that I have about the God I serve.

Oh no?

Genesis 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

Colossians 3:18 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."

1 Timothy 2:9 "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;"

1 Timothy 2:11-12 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

1 Peter 3:1 "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands;"

And there's boatloads more o' these gems at http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women_list.html

Liberal

08-30-2000, 08:13 PM

NAWOC

Libertarian, awesome,

But's that's why I said "yes" to God, because the Bible said "God is love", and I knew that's what I needed. Because I didn't know how to love, and the very first time I recognized love was 4 years ago.

Where and how do you learn to 'love'? What is love for you?

Cherish people. Love them like they were your own siblings. You stand with them before God, loved equally but not more.

[Note: some of you might be sick of rehearing what follows, but I offer it for the benefit of NAWOC. I won't blame you if you skip it.]

Hear my testimony, if you will. I am a deeply committed (though very imperfect) Christian, with a background that runs the gamut, from Buddhism to Myownism to Satanism to Christ. Here, I have learned more about our wonderful Savior from the Atheists than I had in years from the Bible Thumpers. One thing I learned here is that those Thumpers worship a book. The Bible is not the word of God. Jesus is the Word of God.

Here, I have been humbled by the Atheists. I was sure they were miserable and deficient, unable to experience God's love. I thought I was respectful of them, but I was not, because deep inside, I pittied them. My attitude was something like yours, 'Oh, the poor things. If only they knew'.

But I went into ernest prayer one day, frustrated that Gaudere claimed a joy to herself that I did not believe she deserved. Why? Because she would not say that she believed in God. I cried out in tears, "Lord, how could she possibly be happy? She doesn't even believe you exist!"

I heard God's voice in my heart. Instantly, I was convicted and saw all of reality in a whole new way. He said to me, "I am the Love Everlasting. Anything men say about me with their minds is vapor. I cannot be known by the mind, but only by the heart. Stop dividing the world between theists and atheists, and start dividing it rightly as I do. There are those who love and those who don't. Those who love, they are my disciples."

Suddenly, my heart changed. I understood. Gaudere is my Sister in Spirit. She loves. If she is an atheist, then so am I! It is a meaningless term metaphysically, because it deals with what the brain apprehends, and not with what the heart comprehends. I know that when Gaudere sees Jesus, she will adore Him because her heart is filled with love and she already adores His Spirit every day, in the way she loves and cares for others.

Remember that His Spirit cannot be constrained by our labels and our dark, foggy understanding. He is eternal. From His perspective, the universe has already died out and all of this is already finished. Those who love are already in the Kingdom of God. As Jesus said, His Kingdom isn't here, and it isn't there, it is within you.

If you want to learn how to love people, get to know some of these wonderful brothers and sisters of ours who call themselves Atheists. For all you know, one of them (or all of them) might be our Lord incarnate. (Take care what you do to the least of these...) Hear them out. Be patient. Listen. They will not rob you of your faith because you know the source of their love. But that doesn't make you any better than them. Remember too that the last shall be first.

Anyway, I hope that helps. God go with you always.

Cisco

08-30-2000, 08:41 PM

"I am the Love Everlasting. Anything men say about me with their minds is vapor. I cannot be known by the mind, but only by the heart. Stop dividing the world between theists and atheists, and start dividing it rightly as I do. There are those who love and those who don't. Those who love, they are my disciples."

Ok, i read the first page of this and then skipped to the last few posts on the third page without any intention of posting, but when i saw this quote i had to say something. So...(whoever wrote this)...you're saying that GOD said this to you?!! I mean, were you saying that god literally filled your ears with his voice and said this exact quote to you or were you speaking figuratively? If you actually believe that god said this to you then lets take a second to think about what "god" said to you. Is not the brain the organ we use to think? the organ we use to speak, read and regulate everything that goes on in our bodies? how can we 'know god' without the brain? how could you read the bible, how could you speak about it, and how could you type that post without it? Now lets think about the heart.. when was the last time one of you thought about something using your heart instead of your brain? Here, just take a look at this cecil quote:

"...the most primitive peoples surely noticed that the heart pounded during times of stress, whether from chasing game or pining for a beloved, and they also saw that if you took a spear through it you died. It was only natural to conclude that the heart was the home base of courage, love, the life essence, and other good stuff..."

Of course the brain was found guilty of all of this stuff that was originally thought to be the work of the heart. Think twice next time you feel like repeating those voices in your head.

Gaudere

08-30-2000, 10:51 PM

He's not referring to the physical heart, Cisco. I think Lib is quite aware that the lump of muscle in his chest has no neurons to think with; and presumably, so is God, bein' omniscient an' all. There are other defintions of "heart"; "the emotional nature", "compassion", "love", "courage", "the essential part of something." Leaven Lib's quote with a little understanding of metaphor and see if that helps understanding.

nick

08-30-2000, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by DoctorJ
I made this analogy on another, similar thread, but I think it's worth repeating.

You're walking down the street, when a mysterious-looking gentleman approaches you with a cashier's check for a million dollars and a gun. He tells you that the million-dollar check can be yours, and all you have to do to receive this free gift is believe, absolutely and deep in your heart, that Regis Philbin is the President of the United States. If you refuse to believe that, he is going to shoot you through the head.

I concede that it is possible that Regis is the President. There could have been a coup within the last ten minutes during which the people installed Regis as the new leader. It's possible that all the media are tied up in a vast conspiracy designed to hide the reality of President Philbin.

However, it is not bloody likely, and I don't have any reason to believe such a thing other than your admonishment to do so. You could offer me all the money in the world, and I would never be able to convince myself, for sure and without any reason for thinking so, that Regis is the President.

Now why would I turn down that free gift?

Dr. J

This is a good analogy, although "admonish" means the opposite of what I think you intended :)

I don't see how adopting a religion could possibly FREE you from guilt. I would think having to worry about "sinning" all the time would make one feel extreme guilt for everything that could be perceived as "bad".

Satan

08-31-2000, 01:34 AM

Libertarian

Thank you. That ruled.

(Hey Gaurere, don't tell him you're really miserable, okay? ;))
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, three weeks, one day, 4 hours, 26 minutes and 51 seconds.
5767 cigarettes not smoked, saving $720.92.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 35 minutes.

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/i]

Triskadecamus

08-31-2000, 02:24 AM

Libertarian,

You go, boy!

Boldly spoken, with great passion. From this is born some understanding of where the Word dwells.

Tris

Opus1

08-31-2000, 02:08 PM

Opus1,
I went to Borders Bookstore, to answer your flood question, 'cause I didn't know. I'm still not 100%, but here's what I found (Oxford Press, and another book: "Evidence that demands a verdict" by Josh McDowell). Apparently there are flood accounts found all over the world for that time period (2500 BC to 2400 BC): Greeks, Hindus, Chinese, Mexicans, Algonquins, Hawaiians. One list of Sumerian kings treats the flood as a historical reference point, names 8 kings and then interrupts the kingly order to say "Then the Flood swept over the earth and when kingship was lowered again from heaven, kingship was first in Kish." Also, a similar story is given of a man called Ziusudra by the Sumerians, and Utnapishtim by the Babylonians. The basic story is the same; although, the Biblical story of Noah would suggest it's not mythology. How does it "really" fit into time and what history books say: right now, I'm not sure, I can live with that, we'll find out in time I think.

Tell me Nawoc, do you always use Christian apologetics as geology textbooks? I’m not at all surprised that every culture in the world has a flood myth. I’ve known that for quite some time. Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html) is a list of scores of them from around the world. The reason that so many places have flood myths is because 1) virtually all civilization arose near either oceans or rivers, places prone to frequent flooding, and 2) all ancient peoples considered the immediate surrounding area to be the entire world, so that a local flood was often considered a global flood by people who didn’t know any better.

The story of Noah is most likely inspired by the massive flooding in the Black Sea that occurred circa 7500 years ago. It was a huge flood, but not a global one. To see the evidence against a global flood, here are two excellent articles which demonstrate why the Biblical account is greatly exaggerated:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/flood.html

If you don’t want to read the entire articles, I’ll provide you with two pieces of evidence right here.
1) Overlapping tree ring data goes back 11,000 years, showing no sign of a global flood.
2) Ice core samples dating back 160,000 years do not show a global flood either.

The Tower of Babel:
Found an Archaeological account that Ur-Nammu, king of Ur from about 2044 to 2007 BC supposedly received orders to build "a great ziggurat (temple tower) as an act of worship to the moon god Nannat." A 'stele' monument about five feet across and ten feet high reveals Ur-Nammu's activities. One panel or clay tablet shows the erection of the tower offending the gods, so the gods threw down what the men had built, scattered them abroad, and made their speech strange. This sounds like the Tower of Babel to me, except that what the tablets or the people of the days depicted as gods, was what the Bible and the believers of the time knew was the God of the Hebrews. Some people to check out as references are: Free Joseph P. "Archaeology and Bible History", Max Mueller, Otto Jespersen, Alfredo Trombetti especially in regards to the origin of languages being rooted in a single language.

So, the existence of a Babylonian myth proves the legitimacy of a Hebrew myth? In case you didn’t know, the predominant theory among Biblical scholars is that the first eleven chapters of Genesis were borrowed from Babylonian mythology: The creation is taken from the Enuma Elish; the Flood from the story of Ut-Napishtim (which you mentioned), etc. So the parallels between the Tower of Babel in the Bible and the story of Ur-Nammu are hardly surprising.

The question is not whether there was ever a giant ziggurat somewhere in the Middle East. The question is whether all languages developed as a result of God scattering people due to the construction of this tower. There are records of different languages existing prior to 2000 B.C.E. Does this interest you? Does it convince you that such a story is a myth invented by a primitive people to explain why their neighbors didn’t speak the same language as they did?

Other miracles, like a woman turned into a pillar of salt, and the 600,000 I believe Hebrews in the desert? Yes, I don't have a problem believing that. We've seen some blind eyes see, limbs grow out, and people freed from cancer, even this year. I don't think that's a problem for God.

Really? This is most interesting if true. Please show me an instance of somebody regrowing a missing or damaged limb. I would prefer an article from a peer-reviewed journal such as the JAMA or NEJM, but any strong evidence will do. Even a before/after picture of someone with a limb that was previously missing would be convincing, if you could prove that the picture of the person with the limb is the earlier, not later one.

Now, on to Lot’s wife. Why exactly do you believe this story? Even assuming that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, we still have a large numbers of people between the original event and its eventual recording in the Bible. Let’s assume that Lot told Abraham, who told Isaac, who told Jacob, who told Levi, who told Kohath, who told Amram, who told Moses, who wrote it down. This means that the Biblical account is eighth hand, at best! If you were to hear an eighth hand account of a similar event today, would you believe it? Why or why not? If someone were to tell you today that his donkey talked to him, or that a witch brought someone back from the dead, would you believe that? How much more evidence would you require before believing such a tale? Why do you not apply this same standard to the Bible? Do you give the same leniency to other ancient religious texts? Do you think that Krishna had a chariot which could fly, because the Vedas say so? Why or why not?

You don’t seem interested in the number of numerical exaggerations in the Bible, but I’ll post some articles about them anyway. Remember, in many instances, it is the size of the opposing army which is unbelievably high, not the Israelite army, so you can’t claim divine help here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1995/1/1num95.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1995/1/1casu95.html

andros

08-31-2000, 04:13 PM

opus, don't want to derail you, but I have two minor nitpicks.

Firstly, you said:

[a Sumero-Babylonian origin of Genesis is] the predominant theory among Biblical scholars

I think you would be better served by saying "some Biblical scholars."

Secondly:

Even assuming that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, we still have a large numbers of people between the original event and its eventual recording in the Bible.

Not a problem if Moses took dictation from his Boss.

chadg033

08-31-2000, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by im_a_squirrel
Before I came into my relationship with Jesus Christ, my life was empty, and I felt guilty about so many of the stupid things that I'd done. Once I allowed Christ to forgive me, I felt a great burden being lifted from me.

I'm sorry, but when I feel like my life is empty, I go find some friends or go out on dates. Also, if I am feeling guilty about something, it goes away after a while. I don't need to tell my midnight drunken rampants to someone else.

kinoons

08-31-2000, 09:04 PM

Why say no to God? It's just as good to ask why say yes.

Can anyone on this MB prove, beyond any doubt, that there is a God? I haven't met anyone yet who can.

At the same time, is there anyone who can disprove the existence of God? withstanding that it would be difficult to disprove the existence of a "myth" (excuse the use of myth, cannot think of a better term at the moment) I haven't met anyone yet who can

I feel very happy about my life. I feel that I am living it the best that I can, and that I am doing the right things. If there is a God, I don't believe I would change the way I live. But why should we do the right thing because God says so, shouldn't we just do the right thing?

So, until someone can offer some definite proof, I refrain from a decision either way.

DoctorJ

08-31-2000, 09:10 PM

This is a good analogy, although "admonish" means the opposite of what I think you intended.
from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Main Entry: ad·mon·ish
Pronunciation: ad-'mä-nish
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English admonesten, from Middle French admonester, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin admonestare, alteration of Latin admonEre to warn, from ad- + monEre to warn -- more at MIND Date: 14th century
1 a : to indicate duties or obligations to b : to express warning or disapproval to especially in a gentle, earnest, or solicitous manner 2 : to give friendly earnest advice or encouragement to
--

No, I think 1a or 2 actually was what I was going for. Of course, I was on call at the VA when I wrote that, so who the hell knows?

Carry on.

Dr. J

Chewie

09-01-2000, 06:35 AM

Sorry I haven't replied previously, but on three attempts previously my computer has hung, or my connection has died just as I pushed the submit button. Thank you for your initial reply to my post, I dislike sloppy thinking especially when I'm the one doing it.
I've just had a look through one of my C.S.Lewis books ( Miracles) and found that it took him several chapters to go from the position of " the universe was created" to "the creator is an intelligent personal being".
Another query. Does it annoy people here if I quote Lewis at all? I've found that he had a great way of expressing complex ideas simply. I'll just leave this post at this point to see if I can actually submit it.

Chewie

09-01-2000, 07:15 AM

Yay! my post worked! How about this line of thought? I believe that in addition to the space-time continuum (nature), there exists another realm, the supernatural. If one doesn't beleive in the idea of the supernatural, one can't really start on theism, because anything can be explained away as mass hypnotism, or delusion, or something Freudian, if you really want to. My point is that the evidence of our senses is interpreted on the basis of our philosophy, even If we don't believe in philosophy, and don't realise we all have one. So unless we examine our axioms and reasoning, we are pretty much stuck in the cage provided by the opinions of those around us, or, even worse, newspapers and T.V. Thus, fanatics of all stripes are born.
This is why I'm grateful to Dr Lao for bringing me up short.
I'll get feedback on the possibility of the supernatural realm before I continue that line of reasoning.
And Trace, when you look up those verses, I suggest you look at the context. The Pauline epistles also say, husbands love your wives, as Christ loved the church, when He layed down his life for the church. Sorry I can't give chapter and verse, but its right next to some of the ones you quoted. It also says submit yourselves one to another in the same area somewhere. Quoting out of context is a classic way to get the bible to say whatever you want it to say. I believe its a technique used often by reporters and Creationists to twist around what someone was actually trying to say. I'm not suggesting that you are trying to do that, but it is easy to do.
Lib, cool testimony dude. I've never actually heard an audible voice like that, I have however, arrived at the same conclusion by reasoning and studying the bible (no doubt with a little help from the boss). My understanding is that Christs death and resurrection give Him the moral right to decide who He will, or will not, intercede with the Father for. The Bible tells me that His heart is for all to be saved, and many who consider themselves the elect will be in deep ka-ka, when the time comes.
What does annoy me is this idea that Christianity involves somekind of surrender of one's reason. With that kind of Gospel presented, its no wonder there are so many dedicated atheists around.

A girl

09-01-2000, 04:54 PM

What the Jesus followers don't understand is they can obtain the same feelings of peace and freedom and love or whatever no matter what god they'd worship. I know, I tried it. I worshipped Batman. I prayed to him and everything. It started off as kind of a self-humoring joke, but I gotta tell ya it was kinda nice, after begging Bats to grant my humble plea should he see fit, to think, well, it's in Batsy's hands now, so whatever will be, will be. It was a relief to not have to worry about it any more. It really did work, as far as feeling like a stone was lifted. And as it so happens, "Batman" listened to my prayer. But after initial granting, the whole plan didn't work out, so I just chocked it up to Batsy determining what was best for me. I don't live this way really, it was kind of a one-time experiment, but quite eye-opening!

I can see where they're coming from and how they get these feelings. Then they want to share, because it's like peer pressure, the more people you hang out with that you can get to do what you do, then you won't feel like you're doing something silly.

I mean, think of some of the crazy stuff that goes on that doesn't make sense, but as long as there's more than one of them doing it, they think it's okay, or that Jesus approves.

I like worshipping Batman, at least he'd be my god for free.

A girl <---- Batist :)

Polycarp

09-01-2000, 05:23 PM

Well, all these Batists have freaky evangelistic ideas anyway!! ;)

Dr. Lao

09-01-2000, 08:22 PM

Does it annoy people here if I quote Lewis at all?Doesn't bother me. Just do expect to use him as evidence.I've found that he had a great way of expressing complex ideas simply.If you use the quotes in this way, to clarify, feel free to do so. If fact you can quote anything you like, if the idea is to make a point clearer. Using a citation as evidence requires that more strict standards be used. For example, it doesn't make much sense to use Bible passages to prove the truth of the Bible. However, you could use other works unrelated to the Bible to show consistencies.So unless we examine our axioms and reasoning, we are pretty much stuck in the cage provided by the opinions of those around us, or, even worse, newspapers and T.V. Thus, fanatics of all stripes are born.I agree with this completely. Looks like we have another Libertarian, Polycarp, Triskadecamus et al. on our hands here. By which I mean a really smart Christian. You'll have all us atheists running scared in no time! ;)

BTW, welcome to the SDMB!

Chewie

09-01-2000, 09:15 PM

Thanks for the welcome, Dr Lao. I really enjoy this board, and intend to post here a fair bit. My apologies in advance for errors in logic, I can only plead a complete lack of formal training. I've found, as I've entered adulthood(?), that all my real education has come from my recreational reading, which says something pretty disgusting about our school system.

Polycarp

09-01-2000, 09:44 PM

I am truly glad, Chewie, that you've joined us!

Suggestion: look at some of the old threads ( you have to reset the View Posts From dropdown box at the upper right of the Great Debates thread list to get to them). We've been over a lot of ground in the past year or so, and you may want to not reinvent the wheel, but bring new perspectives to some of the older topics -- as well as working in new ones, of course. One sequence in particular to look at is the ones titled "The Atheist (Non)Religion" which got into a lot of depth on what people believed and why, with remarkably little hostility.

And learn to let the hostility towards what people call "drive-by evangelists" drop off your shoulders. Nobody here wants to be witnessed to (unless to prove a point), they want to learn, to expand their horizons, to see others' point of view. I see that in you too already, but I can predict that there will be a few people who mistake you for the pop-in-witness-and-disappear crowd, simply because you're an "out" Christian online.

Welcome and enjoy!

Occam

09-03-2000, 02:09 PM

I don't think the Bible and logic are mutually exclusive. In order to apply logic at all you need axioms or at least provable statements. Seriously, find something wrong with these:

I believe there is an ultimate creator.
I believe he is involved in our daily lives.
I believe he loves us.
I believe if I am good enough I will go to him.

No one can say any of these are false....but these are what religious types use as justification and/or direction in their daily lives.

Worst of all, those that wield logic as a weapon have a shield of science which is ineffective because you can't disprove the above. So, until we have scientific proof there is no God and a couple of axioms even the most religious will agree upon and they prove though logic there is no God ya'll are wasting your time with this.

Lemur866

09-03-2000, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Occam
I don't think the Bible and logic are mutually exclusive. In order to apply logic at all you need axioms or at least provable statements. Seriously, find something wrong with these:

I believe there is an ultimate creator.
I believe he is involved in our daily lives.
I believe he loves us.
I believe if I am good enough I will go to him.

No one can say any of these are false....but these are what religious types use as justification and/or direction in their daily lives.

Worst of all, those that wield logic as a weapon have a shield of science which is ineffective because you can't disprove the above. So, until we have scientific proof there is no God and a couple of axioms even the most religious will agree upon and they prove though logic there is no God ya'll are wasting your time with this.

Hi Occam. Yes, of course you are able to postulate whatever axioms you wish, and there is no way to refute them. But, if we take the advice of your namesake, we will refrain from postulating unneccesary axioms, or axioms that have no consequences.

I would hold that I cannot prove through logic that there is no god, any more than I can prove (here we go again) that there are no invisible pink unicorns. What I can do is state that I have no reason to believe in invisible pink unicorns or gods, and until I do I will disbelieve in them.

You can say that there is a creator. If you say that it is an axiom without proof, fine. But that's not good enough for me and others like me. I want something more. Here we see "creation", the universe. You say that it couldn't have just happened, it had to have some sort of creator. Fine, but postulating a creator doesn't help, since we are left with the question of where the creator came from. If you say that nothing can be created from nothing, so therefore the universe requires a creator, then I can reply that since nothing can be created from nothing that the creator requires a creator.

So, we are left in a quandry. You say that my belief in a creation without a creator is just as illogical as your belief in an uncreated creator, which may be true. But I would respond that I admit that I don't know where the universe came from, although some people have had some ideas. I agree, it is mysterious. But we cannot explain the mystery away by substituting another mystery, that explains nothing. The only thing to do is live with the mystery.