[Moderator Hat ON]
Do NOT call your fellow posters “numbnuts” in this forum. Thank you.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
[sub]Anesthetized legumes?[/sub]
Homebrew wrote:
<gasp!> You mean The International Flat Earth Society might not have a completely accurate picture of the Cosmos?! :eek:
Incidentally, I flirted a little bit with an older woman today at the local supermarket. (It was the first time in a while I’d caught the attention of a woman who wasn’t wearing a ring.) When she happened to run into me again outside, she asked: “I have one question. Do you love the Lord?”. I felt a bunch of different emotions at that moment, but primarily disappointment. You see, I figured she was approaching me again and asking me such a question, at least partly, because she was honest-to-goodness interested in me and wanted to know if we’d be compatible if we, you know, started going out together. (And heaven knows – or at least, the IPU knows – I’ve wanted to date a woman again for quite some time.) It was the nicest gesture any woman had made to me in months, maybe longer.
I asked “Which Lord?” just to be sure she was talking about what I thought she was talking about, and she replied, “The Lord God in Heaven, Jesus,” and a couple of similar phrases that I don’t recall right now. I felt kinda bad about having to break the news to her, but I told her in all honesty, “I do not believe such a god exists.”
Darn. She was kinda cute.
Tracer,
Ordinarilly, as you know, I am receptive to criticism and will own up when I find it valid. But this is no such case. I saw it, and I didn’t even know it had happened. I can’t help it if a poster is cherry picking what he reads and is not formulating a proper flow of argument from post to post, but instead is jerking around here and there for the purpose of, not arguing, but provoking and reacting.
Furt,
I will give the maximum leeway in matters like these. I was not unlike Lolo when I was a young Marxist Existentialist Atheist.
Good counter-point.
Now, if the bible was never literally true then it was never the word of God, no more inspired by God than, say, the Great Gatsby, and should be taken no more seriously than the Odyssey.
So, why then base a religion on a work of fiction wherein you pick and choose?
What then is literal and metaphorical? When the bible suggests we love another is it suggesting we have sex constantly? 
The problem is not the bible supposedly being wholly flawless, I am not unappreciative of metaphor, but the necessaity to pick and choose.
Even if the bible was never literally true and the message lies in its allegories and metaphors, those too are many flawed.
The Bible is antiquated. It is a story having little to no bearing on common world, save a few idioms easily learned and espoused through common life experience.
**
I’ll check it out.
Lolo,
I pray that there is no book that you do not cherry pick. People who do this sort of cherry picking become our greatest scientists, leaders, and thinkers. Those who do not end up doing what Jesus calls “straining gnats and swallowing camels”.
It’s just a book. It was put together as a comendium after extensive Nicene battles over incredibly piddly shit. And yet, a thinking person is capable of getting to its core, and pulling out what is right and true. The fact that those truths might be different in substance for each of us does not invalidate our faith anymore than the same circumstance invalidates peoples’ love and appreciation of art or music or culture.
You and I both can read Peanno’s proof that 1+1=2, and both come away with completely different impressions and insights, and yet still both understand certain fundamental things about it. In fact, one of us can pooh-pooh his proof altogether by refusing to accept his fifth axiom.
That’s just the nature of epistemology.
(P.S., I hope you enjoy this kind of dialog. Stop throwing out bullshit and insults, and you’ll stop getting them in return. You’re not the only person with feelings, you know.)
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Libertarian ***
I pray that there is no book that you do not cherry pick. People who do this sort of cherry picking become our greatest scientists, leaders, and thinkers. Those who do not end up doing what Jesus calls “straining gnats and swallowing camels”.*
Do you believe in heaven and hell?
If any may pick and choose, what then is a Christian?
**
It is JUST a book. So why the religion?
Do you believe Jesus was the Son of God?
If any may pick and choose, what then is true, what is false, what makes anyone a Christian?
**
If people spew BS, I’ll call them on it.
Lolo,
Yes, I do.
It is one who loves (in the sense of charity).
That one perplexes me, too. Jesus Himself despises religion.
I believe that Jesus is God.
What is true is what proclaims God’s love. What is not is what doesn’t. A Christian is a person who follows Christ’s example of love, charity, and forgiveness, and trusts in Him.
Hmmm. A prudent man will know when he is being called as well as when his own voice is sounding. There are too many voices here (including — in fact, mostly — atheists) who are calling you out, my friend, for you to ignore and maintain intellectual credibility. I for one am eager to learn in the next few posts whether you apply your stringent requirements to yourself as well as to others.
I cannot believe you gave me so much shit, only to admit you think Jesus is God.
Clearly, you’re never going to get past that, and I really think it’s a shame.
How can we possible have a discussion when you really think Jesus is God?
IMHO, that claim deserves no consideration.
You are the victim of a CON.
Don’t bother reponding. If you can’t see the bullshit in that story, I have nothing to say to you.
Okay, Gaudere. Your call at this point. I think we pretty much get the picture now. Thanks for letting us try to make a go of it.
Lolo, a quick question:
Is it, in your mind, possible to accept that some persons might arrive at the conclusion that Jesus was/is in some manner the earthly expression of who God is, accepting this due to intellectual integrity as opposed to “blindly buying the teachings of a church whose influence depends on people blindly accepting what they give out”? (That’s not a quote from you, of course, but a paraphrase of something I read some years ago that appears to summarize the view I get the impression you espouse.)
If not, then you have some study to do regarding human nature. If so, we have a debate to continue here.
How can you possibly believe someone said to have walked on water, turned water into wine, and casted out demons was the son of an invisible sky deity?
A lot of people believe a lot of different things. Some of those people may be wrong. They may be deluded.
But they are no less deserving of respect.
And I’m sorry you don’t believe that.
“They may be deluded.”
well, at the very least, you’re honest.
Hmmm.
When you find somebody who believes that, let me know.
I’ve got my hands full trying to explain what I do believe to somebody who’s firmly convinced that all Christians are ipso facto lobotomized.
BTW, Edlyn is Libertarian’s wife. Both post here, under separate accounts. The reason for the confusion earlier was that she clearly didn’t realize that the “open account” was his when she composed her post, and could not of course change it, hence posting the later clarification that what was in his name was in fact her comment.
You’re under no obligation to say anything to either of them regarding it. But I know they’d both be touched by an expression from you that you do understand what happened.
Is it even possible for you to drop the snide comments even briefly?
Let me explain my point more fully. I know people who believe that cold fusion is a theoretical possibility. They might be correct, but they might be deluded. I know people who believe that time travel is possible–they too may well be fooling themselves. I know people who believe in ghosts. I think they’re completely deluded, but never having seen a ghost I cannot be absolutely certain they’re wrong.
I know people who believe in gods. I think they are probably incorrect in their beliefs, at very least in specifics. But I cannot honestly say, with absolute conviction, that they are wrong–because I have no evidence that they are completely wrong.
And, my friend, you don’t either.
slim to none…
[loud redneck voice]
and slim just left town!
[end redneck voice]
Proof of nothing?
We all know the logical flaw in that there argumentation. And ifin I may say so, I b’lieve lack of evidence for one thing is not support for another.
alright, I’ll stop the snide comments… for now!
By your rationale, though, anything my imagination can produce therefore deserves equal consideration? and some more than others b/c it makes someone feel better or can’t be completely disregarded b/c joe blow had an “experience” they can’t explain?
To that, I say, nonsense.
I have not said a thing about respecting ideas, just people (and even then it’s a matter of showing respect). If I encounter someone who is dead-convinced that he can cast spells and curses, I’ll likely think the guy is a loon. But I certainly won’t be rude enough to tell him so. I will definitely see if he’s open to discussion of his beliefs, but if he isn’t, there’s no sense whatsoever in my telling him he’s an idiot who believes stupid stuff that makes no sense. Even if he is.
understood
andros wrote:
Even if he shows you his character sheet?