I'll throw a coal into this fire

[gecko]

First of all, I want to say hello. My name is Brian, and I was once quite the skeptic myself. I didn't really believe in God, and I didn't really believe in the paranormal. I searched for years and years to find what I so desperately wanted to, to no avail, and I eventually began to find such amazing things.

I learned the power of prayer. I learned the power of faith. And yes, I learned the power of paranormal. And I can't be silent about it. Though I feel like the biggest idiot here, and I doubt any of you will believe me...I can't just sit here and not say anything. It would be a crime, no, it would be a sin.

I can't really say for sure how much I'll be on here, maybe not ever again, so please aim me at geckonfg or email me at geckonfg@yahoo.com if you need to talk. Flame me if you like. It's worth it if in the end I can help anyone.

Now, let's get to what I want to talk about. So many things I'd like to talk about. My amazing experiences with God and lucid dreams. Oh...the list could go on. But I'm going to talk about auras.

If you don't know, auras are a type of "energy" that all living creatures have. If you want to read more about this energy, I suggest a book title "The Secret Life of Plants". It's very compelling. But, ahem, on to the explanation.

All living things have auras. Similarly, all inaninmate objects have a color "glow" around them. Scribble a dark blue pen very hard into a sheet of white paper, until it is solid and large. Stare at it. Do you see yellow around it? I hope you will.

Seeing this light is a primitive means of seeing an aura. It's the same concept. If you really want to question this world, as a skeptic would, go on the ride of your life with me. Go to this website: http://www.thiaoouba.com/aura_eye_exercise.htm

I encourage you to look around it, and try the exercises. Until you are very good at it. Then, look in the mirror against a white wall, the room decently lit, and look at your own forehead. I pray, to the God of this world, that you can see it. See your aura. And, once you see that it is not the opposite color, you will know that it is something more than a light reflection. This aura may also change, which only reaffirms this belief.

In time, if you truly question your beliefs and go on this adventure with me, you may be able to see other auras. I fondly remember seeing a blatant red aura of my brother's cat after relaxing by myself, breathing deeply and just thinking about life for awhile. It was one of the most exhilarating experiences of my life.

I just want you to try. That's all I ask. I guarantee this is real. I don't want to make anyone mad, I dont' want to stir things up. I just want you to question your beliefs, as I did so long ago. And I know, if you can find this, you can find God, and so much more...and I can't find a purpose in this world greater than trying to help my brothers and sisters of this world find their father.

Haha, I probably sound like quite the quack. I understand everything you're thinking! A few years back I'd think I was a quack no doubt. I'd flame myself! What a concept. Just, keep an open mind, and try this. Or talk to me. Flame me. Yell at me. Just THINK about it. That's all I ask.

Good luck to all of you who are daring enough to step out of your comfort zone. May we all find what we are looking for on this journey.

I apologize deeply for how long this is. But this may change your life forever, so its worth it.

[SezMe]

Have you been in contact with Kramer regarding the $1 million challenge. Imagine the chance to "change your life forever" twice in one lifetime :)

Keep us posted.

[gecko]

wow thanks for such a quick reply. But how can I possibly prove something like that? The old "find where behind a wall I am" parable doesn't work, and I can explain why if you need.

[geni]

Originally posted by gecko
Stare at it. Do you see yellow around it? I hope you will.


Strightforward visual illusion it's a contrast effect. simular to this:

http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/shadow.jpg

[arthwollipot]

I HAVE thought about it. I've thought about it a lot. I was once an apatheist - I didn't know whether there was a God or not and I didn't care. Then I was "saved" into a pentecostal church. Well, you can read of my experiences elsewhere. Once I started realising what bunk it all was, I drifted away. Straight into the neo-pagan spiritual stuff. I played hard. I cast spells, I tried to summon up ghosts.

None of it worked. I didn't see a single spirit. I didn't get mystical insight from the Tarot cards. God didn't answer my prayers, and never once did I see an aura.

So sorry Brian, but "been there, done that" and discovered it was rubbish.

[Vortex]

Originally posted by gecko
wow thanks for such a quick reply. But how can I possibly prove something like that? The old "find where behind a wall I am" parable doesn't work, and I can explain why if you need.
So, in other words, you have no evidence at all to support any of your outlandish claims?

[CFLarsen]

gecko,

Welcome to the forum.

I think it would be most enlightening if you hung around here, because I for one would very much like to know more about these auras you see.

Are you willing to be tested?

[SezMe]

Originally posted by gecko
wow thanks for such a quick reply. But how can I possibly prove something like that? The old "find where behind a wall I am" parable doesn't work, and I can explain why if you need.
There is a very simple way you could prove it. Here is a simplistic outline.

1. Select a Subject "A".
2. Confirm that you can see A's aura in a way you are comfortable.
3. Have A stand behind an opaque screen that just covers his shape. Confirm that you can still see A's aura.
4. Leave the room.
5. Come back in the room. Tell the tester whether A is behind the screen.
6. Repeat 4,5 several times.

If you can see A's aura, you should hit 100% If I were to perform the test, I would get 50% right (random guessing).

Details to be arranged.

I second Larson. Welcome to the forum and I hope you stick around to pursue this matter further.

Edited for fingers getting ahead of brain.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by gecko
I learned the power of prayer.

What is the power of prayer?

[MRC_Hans]

Welcome here, gecko!

Originally posted by gecko
First of all, I want to say hello. My name is Brian, and I was once quite the skeptic myself. I didn't really believe in God, and I didn't really believe in the paranormal. I searched for years and years to find what I so desperately wanted to, to no avail, and I eventually began to find such amazing things.

Searching desparately for things to beieve is hardly being skeptical.

I learned the power of prayer. I learned the power of faith. And yes, I learned the power of paranormal.

Well, do enlighten us.

And I can't be silent about it. Though I feel like the biggest idiot here,

No worries mate, you are FAR from the biggest idiot here ;). For instance, you express yourself excellently.

and I doubt any of you will believe me...I can't just sit here and not say anything. It would be a crime, no, it would be a sin.

Then do get it off your chest.

I can't really say for sure how much I'll be on here, maybe not ever again, so please aim me at geckonfg or email me at geckonfg@yahoo.com if you need to talk. Flame me if you like.

As long as you act in a civil way, there is little risk of flaming.

It's worth it if in the end I can help anyone.

Certainly, and who knows? The one you help might turn out to be yourself.

Now, let's get to what I want to talk about. So many things I'd like to talk about. My amazing experiences with God and lucid dreams. Oh...the list could go on. But I'm going to talk about auras.

Ahh, fine! A nice and testable subject. We'll love it.

If you don't know, auras are a type of "energy" that all living creatures have.

Ahh, but which kind of energy will that be? After all, there is only a limited number of different kinds of energy.

If you want to read more about this energy, I suggest a book title "The Secret Life of Plants". It's very compelling. But, ahem, on to the explanation.

It is also very old. From the 1960ies. Yes, I read it. It is the one that claims that plants have higher morals than humans. Higher HUMAN morals even. And that plants can read our minds. I replicated some of the expriments in that book. Didn't work, I'm afraid.

All living things have auras. Similarly, all inaninmate objects have a color "glow" around them. Scribble a dark blue pen very hard into a sheet of white paper, until it is solid and large. Stare at it. Do you see yellow around it? I hope you will.

Just stare at any high-contrast vision, and you will see such a phenomenon. It is because of the way our eyes and vision system works. Do you want me to explain it to you?

*snip*
I pray, to the God of this world, that you can see it. See your aura.

Your prayers are heard. This is something anybody can learn to see. Because it is connected to how our eyes function.[7b]

And, once you see that it is not the opposite color, you will know that it is something more than a light reflection. This aura may also change, which only reaffirms this belief.

[b]Yes, it is a side-effect to how vision works.

*snip*

Good luck to all of you who are daring enough to step out of your comfort zone. May we all find what we are looking for on this journey.

Have you considered that it might be you who is in a comfort zone? You are hiding behind your beliefs, while WE are out here in the stark world of realities.

*snip*

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Ladewig
What is the power of prayer? For Christian prayers, between 0.1 - 1 W depending on how loud you pray. Muslem prayers from minareths go up to hundreds of Watts.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by gecko
wow thanks for such a quick reply. But how can I possibly prove something like that? The old "find where behind a wall I am" parable doesn't work, and I can explain why if you need. No need. We already know why it doesn't work ;).

Hans

[Ashles]

An interesting optical illusion:

http://www.yorku.ca/eye/hermann.gif

Do you see the 'auras' in the intersections?

It works by a well known visual processing trick.

Explanation here (http://www.yorku.ca/eye/hermann1.htm)

I have also worked in a holistic healing centre with people who claimed to be able to read auras via Kirlian photography.
They couldn't really.

Good luck to you if you feel a better person for your beliefs.

But don't asume that we haven't already thought about many of these things already. I have questioned my beliefs many times. It is what made me a sceptic.


Welcome to the forum, but if you are hoping to 'save' anyone then you may end up a tad disappointed.

And I wouldn't attach too much of your faith in what is basically a trick of visual processing.
'Auras' don't mean anything and they don't tell us anything, otherwise they would actually be used for useful applications like telling us when people were lying or whether they were in the next room etc.

One question - when you saw your brother's cat's aura, was it a bright summer's day? Was it outside?

[TheBoyPaj]

And an explanation of the negative after-image effect:

"When we stare at an object for some time, its image is projected onto the same place in our retina. After some time, the receptors in that area become "fatigued." This means that the molecules of visual pigment become bleached because of the unrelenting stimulation by one image or one color. Without a break to allow the visual pigment molecules to recharge, most of the molecules can not sense the arrival of new photons. If the object upon which we are fixating is one color, the receptors responding to the stimulus are differentially depleted, while the pool of other color receptors may be ample. Then when we stare at a blank wall or a white sheet of paper, those receptors whose visual pigments are depleted fire less frequently than they otherwise would. That is, they under-report the true strength of the stimulus."

from http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/biol405_03/labs/Lab%20Report%20writeup%20web.htm

Still, it would be nice to devise a test that doesn't involve standing behind a wall. Why is that not possible, Gecko?

[Ed]

We had a thread like this some time ago. To recapitulate:

Tell me, have you been tested for glaucoma recently? Do you get headaches?

[gecko]

wow, this is great!

First of all, I appreciate the mature tone everyone is taking for the most part. The internet is often a place for unneccessary rudeness and blatant ignorance. However, I will try to get to everything you have all said.

Indeed, to those of you who have talked about light and optical illusions. Indeed, a light "aura" is around every object, living or dead. That was just my point. So you can see it. However, if you are able to see it on a living object, the colors vary considerably and have nothing to do with the color of the actual being. Isn't that wierd? So auras and "light reflections" are seen in the same way, only the auras colors seem irrational or random in the realm of science.

I'm glad you're thinking with your head, whoever said the stand behind a screen thing. I'm not so keen on going into some million dollar challenge as a christian that has only done auric work for very short amounts of time though! Also, I've never tried to see an aura from behind a screen...i mean, maybe it should work, right? It would be wierd to not have a chakra to look at. Hmm, if some people could try to orchestrate this sometime and I could try to prove it it would be cool and all, if anyone lives in colorado, but I admit I'm unsure of my abilities and its something I don't ever practice(my whole purpose of talking about paranormal is to try and help people find God).

Ah, and finally to the power of prayer part. I can't make you believe in the power of prayer, you just have to take my word for it lol. Sure, the examples I have can be coincidence, but I'm not so sure.

My biggest example is extremely personal and embarrassing, so please try to be somewhat understanding in my hesistance towards talking about it. When I was about 13, I was addicted to the sick(at least from a christian perspective) habit of masturbation. No doubt, this is something that plagues most all men, especially at this age. Anyway, after a couple years of dealing with this burden, and just about giving up, I started praying. I hadn't really believed all my life, but something was about to turn around.

Wierd stuff started happening. I doubt anyone will believe me here. One day, I was thinking about it, about to do something I shouldn't have, and people came home. It was far earlier then they were supposed to. Of course, there was some rational explanation that "followed".

Another time it was the cat coming up to me. Once it was a song that perfectly applied, out of a playlist of 2,000. Other times somebody would start talking to me on aim that i never talked to or didn't like me. But it was always something.

I know this all sounds wierd, but its all so true. You can go all Hume on me and say I'm making up cause and effect relationships...but somewhere along the way it has to be more than coincidence. I think this was it.

I understand your skepticism towards it all. In this world of science or reason it seems as though everything once thought to be magical is being discovered to be reasonable and rational. So, why wouldn't everything just become like that? That is the opinion many hold.

There is nothing natural or logical about the experiences I've had with prayer. This is just one example of so many. Maybe I'm just trying harder, maybe I'm looking for findings where they don't exist, maybe I'm just a nutcase. But I'll die looking, die loving God, and die a nutcase then.

Finally, about the aura thing. Nay, I doubt that I can actually prove it to you. Why do you think I gave you that website to take a look at? Because I don't think it would take that long to learn. And this isn't one of those "you have to believe to learn" bs arguments. You can learn. You can see. If you try.

If none of you want to take the time to do this, very well. If none of you want to believe a word I say, I guess that's all right too. I will try to stick around so you can all learn more about me and the amazing story that has been my life though.

Just remember, this is your life. Even if its a 1/1000000 possibility, what if there is a god who loves you? What is everlasting life awaits? Isn't it worth spending your life trying to find out?

Have a nice day. See ya around.

Brian

[Psiload]

Originally posted by gecko
***snip***
If you don't know, auras are a type of "energy" that all living creatures have. If you want to read more about this energy, I suggest a book title "The Secret Life of Plants". It's very compelling. But, ahem, on to the explanation.

***snip***

http://www.xenu.net/archive/techniques/tomato.jpg

Claims of "plant perception" were thoroughly debunked long ago.

http://skepdic.com/plants.html


All living things have auras. Similarly, all inaninmate objects have a color "glow" around them. Scribble a dark blue pen very hard into a sheet of white paper, until it is solid and large. Stare at it. Do you see yellow around it? I hope you will.
So you can differentiate between animate and inanimate objects? i.e.- between an artificial plant, and a real one? Can you do this from a distance?

I'll bet you one million dollars(of the JREF's money) that you can't... and I'll even double dog dare you to try.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by gecko
Just remember, this is your life. Even if its a 1/1000000 possibility, what if there is a god who loves you? What is everlasting life awaits? Isn't it worth spending your life trying to find out?

Personally? No. If there's no evidence for something, spending your life preparing for it (to the exclusion of other more immediate pursuits) seems a little pointless to me.

I will try to stick around so you can all learn more about me and the amazing story that has been my life though.

Well, if you must. It might be relevant to put that stuff in Community though.

[rppa]

Originally posted by gecko
However, if you are able to see it on a living object, the colors vary considerably and have nothing to do with the color of the actual being. Isn't that wierd? So auras and "light reflections" are seen in the same way, only the auras colors seem irrational or random in the realm of science.

The website you gave seems to disagree with you.

These auric colors are not random. Following is a list of Auric Pairs of colors for all clean colors of the rainbow (monochromatic colors).

red gives turquoise aura, turquoise gives red aura
orange gives blue aura, blue gives orange aura
yellow gives violet aura, violet gives yellow aura
green gives pink aura, pink gives green aura

Furthermore, the "training" exercises are the kinds of optical illusion that many of us are already familiar with. They have everything to do with the physiology of human vision, and nothing to do with mystic energy.

When I was about 13, I was addicted to the sick(at least from a christian perspective) habit of masturbation.

I found this statement very telling of the limited nature of your experience with this big broad world. Most people, Christian or not, would not consider masturbation to be a "sick habit" though that 19-th century attitude does still persist here and there.

[Ashles]

Yeah but that website also think that the world is going to explode because of global warming:

A wacky theory (http://sci-e-research.com/geophysics.html)
Witten by a man who has a PhD and is apparently "Head of Geophysics Division, Scientific E Research P/L, Melbourne, Australia" yet who strangely isn't aware that the earth has been much hotter in the past and had much higher CO2 levels.
A link (http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#600,000,000years)

Brian, I am afraid that website is a very average example of the genre, making amazing claims about auras, healing and astral travel that are not borne out by reality or actual experiments.

It's hardly a wild ride.

Also I am confused where you say this:
Just remember, this is your life. Even if its a 1/1000000 possibility, what if there is a god who loves you? What is everlasting life awaits? Isn't it worth spending your life trying to find out?
Maybe Allah is the 1/1000000 possibility. Are you researching him?
What about fairies.
Bigfoot.
Crop circles...

There just isn't enough time.

[IXP]

Originally posted by gecko
If you want to read more about this energy, I suggest a book title "The Secret Life of Plants".

If you want to learn more about what energy is, I would suggest Richard Feyman's "Lectures on Physics". Using words that you don't know the meaning of really does not impress me.

IXP

[Psiload]

http://www.thiaoouba.com/aura_eye_exercise.htm

This page contains some of the silliest things I've ever seen.

A good look around will prove that the Nature is very fond of Auric Pairs. Take any red colored bird and you can be sure, that this bird will have turquoise body parts too.

Let's see... The Cardinal? Nope... no turquoise. The Robin?... nope. Well, so much for that theory. :rolleyes:

How about this one?:

Global Warming: can Earth explode as a result of Global Warming?

And this:

Q. What about toilets on Thiaoouba ?

A. On Thiaoouba they use a kind of device that looks similar to our toilet, but isn't. It simply disintegrates the waste as it comes out - into elementary particles I guess. No water, no paper, no smell, nothing. Michel was scared that this machine might disintegrate his private parts...
oooooo-kay.


Or this gem:

Overcoming Gravity

No, they have Tara on their waists and Litolac in their hands. These produce certain vibrations which neutralise the cold magnetic force of the planet, allowing for neutralisation of the gravitational force. Even a weight of millions of tonnes compares with that of feathers. Then, by other vibrations, resembling those of ultra-sound, they can steer themselves precisely to wherever they choose, as they are doing now. On this planet everyone wanting to travel some distance uses this method ...'


Brian... buddy.

You have to be careful about leaving your mind so wide open that your brain falls out. You're not going to find answers in this type of quasi-spiritual, pseudo scientific gobbledygook..

Take it form me... I went down that path when I was young and impressionable, and it's a long, tough struggle back to reality. There are no answers over there...

that way be dragons.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by IXP
If you want to learn more about what energy is, I would suggest Richard Feyman's "Lectures on Physics". Using words that you don't know the meaning of really does not impress me.

IXP

Good thinking, IXP... let's get this lad started down the right path:

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393317552/qid=1109700553/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-1920780-3436702?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

The Demon-Haunted World : Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039453512X/qid=1109700653/sr=8-3/ref=pd_bbs_3/104-1920780-3436702?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Great books... available at your local library.

Any more suggested reading?

[Ipecac]

Brian,

Welcome to the forum.

You said you used to be a skeptic. Now you reveal that at the age of 13 you had a "sick habit" of masturbating and worked hard to stop. I suspect you considered it a problem because of religious pressures. This begs the question, just WHEN were you a skeptic? When you were 10?

Your comment about masturbation is one of the reasons I hate what religion does to people. How much grief, shame and pain did you go through because you were made to feel guilty about a perfectly natural act which had no adverse consequences to anyone? The masturbation wasn't the problem. The problem was the guilt you were made to feel.

Ipecac

[IXP]

Originally posted by Psiload
Any more suggested reading?

In a lighter vein:

"Candide", Voltaire,
"Don Quixote", Cervantes
'Catch-22", Heller
"Gravity's Rainbow", Pynchon
"Giles Goat Boy", Barth
"The Tin Drum", Grass
"Group Portait With Lady", Boll

IXP

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally posted by gecko
wow, this is great!

First of all, I appreciate the mature tone everyone is taking for the most part. The internet is often a place for unneccessary rudeness and blatant ignorance. However, I will try to get to everything you have all said. Hans did an excellent job of answering your first post. I do hope you look carefully at what he had to say. Allow me to try this one.

Indeed, to those of you who have talked about light and optical illusions. Indeed, a light "aura" is around every object, living or dead. That was just my point. So you can see it. However, if you are able to see it on a living object, the colors vary considerably and have nothing to do with the color of the actual being. Isn't that wierd? So auras and "light reflections" are seen in the same way, only the auras colors seem irrational or random in the realm of science.Perhaps your observations were not systematic. Try your hypothesis on people in front of the same background, preferably a neutral color, and make sure these people have the same color clothes and hair, (you may have to cover the hair with a neutral color). Then try it with some variable altered such as the hair or clothes. And so on.

In order to really test your hypothesis you need to start by recognizing it IS an hypothesis you want to test, not a preconceived belief you want to reinforce.

See if you can account for the variable colors you supposedly see by some other explanation than an aura. Don't assume the colors you see aren't opposite of the colors you stare at, instead just record what you see and look for a pattern. If it turns out blonds or people with red shirts or people with dark skin all have consistent aura colors you will have your answer as to how the illusion is occurring.

Until you have several pages of meticulously collected data, your conclusions are invalid. You are reinforcing your preconceived hypothesis rather than seriously testing it.

I'm glad you're thinking with your head, whoever said the stand behind a screen thing. I'm not so keen on going into some million dollar challenge as a christian that has only done auric work for very short amounts of time though! Also, I've never tried to see an aura from behind a screen...i mean, maybe it should work, right? It would be wierd to not have a chakra to look at. Hmm, if some people could try to orchestrate this sometime and I could try to prove it it would be cool and all, if anyone lives in colorado, but I admit I'm unsure of my abilities and its something I don't ever practice(my whole purpose of talking about paranormal is to try and help people find God).Your proselytizing tactic is unlikely to get you anywhere in this forum. Your unwillingness to take the time to test your hypothesis will not convince anyone of your hypothesis. And why not go for the million and donate it to some Christian charity?

Ah, and finally to the power of prayer part. I can't make you believe in the power of prayer, you just have to take my word for it lol. Sure, the examples I have can be coincidence, but I'm not so sure.Well the scientific testing of prayer supposedly came up with a few positive results so I took the time to check them out. Not a single study I reviewed actually showed prayer had any effect. None of the positive results were actually valid by scientific standards. I looked at all the studies I could find, there aren't too many. (Apparently testing that faith thing is too much of a gamble. What if the research showed there was no difference between persons prayed about or persons who prayed and those who weren't or don't respectively?)

My biggest example is extremely personal and embarrassing, so please try to be somewhat understanding in my hesistance towards talking about it. When I was about 13, I was addicted to the sick(at least from a christian perspective) habit of masturbation. No doubt, this is something that plagues most all men, especially at this age. Anyway, after a couple years of dealing with this burden, and just about giving up, I started praying. I hadn't really believed all my life, but something was about to turn around.Why on Earth would masturbating be 'sick'? A 'burden'? That's just plain bizarre. So your logic, (I'm guessing about some of this here), is the church interprets some statement about hedonism in the Bible to mean masturbation, convinces you to feel guilty about it, then convinces you God can save you from yourself? You poor man. I do hope you get help for your undeserved feelings of manufactured guilt over a very natural, normal human behavior.

Wierd stuff started happening. I doubt anyone will believe me here. One day, I was thinking about it, about to do something I shouldn't have, and people came home. It was far earlier then they were supposed to. Of course, there was some rational explanation that "followed".

Another time it was the cat coming up to me. Once it was a song that perfectly applied, out of a playlist of 2,000. Other times somebody would start talking to me on aim that i never talked to or didn't like me. But it was always something.

I know this all sounds wierd, but its all so true. You can go all Hume on me and say I'm making up cause and effect relationships...but somewhere along the way it has to be more than coincidence. I think this was it.And your basis for thinking these things were God's interventions is? The mere fact there were many of these 'events'? It would seem to me your own self control, also a very normal human trait, was the cause of whatever decision you made over whatever circumstances you are applying this to. The fact you found some external reason to take a certain course of action in no way makes your choice the result of that external reason. No matter how you choose to slice it, at the end of the day, you took the action you did, not the cat, not the music, not the person returning home.

I understand your skepticism towards it all. In this world of science or reason it seems as though everything once thought to be magical is being discovered to be reasonable and rational. So, why wouldn't everything just become like that? That is the opinion many hold. Apparently you don't understand, (my skepticism at least, I can't speak for anyone else's). Once you figure out what the scientific process is, how it works and why it works, (if you do), you will be better able to assess your own beliefs, and then you will understand my skepticism.

There is nothing natural or logical about the experiences I've had with prayer. This is just one example of so many. Maybe I'm just trying harder, maybe I'm looking for findings where they don't exist, maybe I'm just a nutcase. But I'll die looking, die loving God, and die a nutcase then.Or perhaps just die with the myths you currently believe in.

Finally, about the aura thing. Nay, I doubt that I can actually prove it to you. Why do you think I gave you that website to take a look at? Because I don't think it would take that long to learn. And this isn't one of those "you have to believe to learn" bs arguments. You can learn. You can see. If you try.

If none of you want to take the time to do this, very well. If none of you want to believe a word I say, I guess that's all right too. Who is unwilling to take the time here? What nonsense.

I will try to stick around so you can all learn more about me and the amazing story that has been my life though.

Just remember, this is your life. Even if its a 1/1000000 possibility, what if there is a god who loves you? What is everlasting life awaits? Isn't it worth spending your life trying to find out?What if there isn't a god and you wasted your one and only life on it?

Have a nice day. See ya around.

Brian You too.

As a final note, you certainly aren't the first person to try convincing people of your beliefs based solely on your personal testimony. After all, that's what Christian proselytizing is all about.

But for people like me who have absolutely no reason to follow your baseless beliefs, you'll need more than some dumb claim of how happy I will be if I just try it. I'm already happy. That's your first incorrect premise. My son, my family and my two dogs already love me, so I don't need to make up some other source of 'love' either.

I have found all religions to be very interesting but very much based in mythical beliefs begun as human social structure and natural brain mechanisms evolved to try to control or explain the world. The myths have been perpetuated throughout history and, I assume also throughout pre-recorded history, by men, (mostly but women had some part in it), to manipulate other people for the men's personal gain or for misguided altruistic reasons, or just to feel better that lots of people believe the same myths, (religion plays a social role as it identifies us vs. them).

Now that we humans have a much better understanding of the natural world, and better mechanisms for determining why things are the way they are, and definitely much better mechanisms to control the world around us, we no longer need be using mythical mechanisms that did not accomplish any of the above. We are clearly better off with science than with prayer. Science has proved a more reliable mechanism for understanding the world and the Universe for that matter.

And as to the group identity thing, science has shown that genetically we are all one race. Wars are perpetuated by the 'us vs. them' beliefs. We will be better off as a society if and when we can eliminate the 'us vs. them'. Science has a better chance of doing that than religion.

I wonder if you will truly read and learn anything from this forum? Start by trying to confirm your beliefs with careful observation instead of just reinforcing what you already believe. Remember, you can't 'learn' anything if all you do is reinforce what you already know.

[AngrySteve]

Originally posted by gecko

Isn't it worth spending your life trying to find out?

Brian [/B]

Sorry, i will avoid the temptation to be rude.
You are not rude yourself, i just don't agree

My view is there is no God.
There is no reincarnation. We would all need to have memories of our past lives. The few that do haven't convinced me yet
That doesn't mean i'm not prepared to look into claims

I will not spend this one single life that i have in pursuit of fairy stories, or worshipping non-existent entities. And i feel slightly sorry for those people that do.

One crack of the whip, we've got to keep things real sometimes.
Let's not have our heads in the clouds right through life.
Let's not waste it

Find out what? Everybody dies eventually

[Aussie Thinker]

Sigh….

Note to self : This guy posted nice polite stuff.. avoid ranting about his completely illogical conclusions, inability to be tested, inability to respond to ANY sensible queries and…

The impending FACT that he will either stop responding VERY soon or just proselytize, regale us with further anectodes and repeat over and over again how if we “just open our minds� we too could have these wonderful insights !

BTW.. Psiload.. can I use that one.. “Don’t open your mind too much your brain might fall out�… LOL.

[IIRichard]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ashles
[B]An interesting optical illusion:

http://www.yorku.ca/eye/hermann.gif

Do you see the 'auras' in the intersections?

It works by a well known visual processing trick.

Explanation here (http://www.yorku.ca/eye/hermann1.htm)

Hey Geko:

Hang around, you haven't been flamed yet. Both my son and I have had "lucid" dreams and I think that some scientists now believe that they are possible.

Interstingly, I have a retinal detachment in one eye and macular degeneration in the other. Most of these optical illusions which depnd on interpreting the image bifocally don't work with me. I can't see the auras above frinstance. I never could see those 3D patterns that used to be so popular..:)

[gecko]

umm, umm, umm *looks around nervously*

I'm sorry, I can't possibly reply to all of the things you all said...and I'm sorry, but I can't possibly prove God to you. Think about it from the perspective that God exists. If he does exist(i know he does, but i'm taking this at a neutral perspective), then he gave us the free will to choose or reject him. That is clear. Therefore, he wouldn't let us PROOVE he exists, because that would not be choosing him. It would be learning to be forced to choose him. Understand?

So, in all respects, its illogical that God could ever be proven.

Haha, about the comment about being a skeptic and the masturbation thing...I thought it was a sin before i was a full believer. But even when I was a skeptic, I considered myself a christian. Maybe that seems wierd.

Ok, I can't tell you that everything on that site is real, or that ghosts ghouls and goblins exist. All I can attest to, of the things I've looked into, are lucid dreams and auras.

I'm sorry, I really don't think I can prove these auras in the ways you guys are asking. With the whole wall...I can't imagine seeing through this wall, and about the plant thing...no how can I see auras from a long distance away!

Haha, well, this whole thread went, well, exactly how I suspected it would. I can't prove to you that auras exist anymore than that my name is brian...lol.

[gecko]

oh, and about the cat thing. I almost didn't read that post.

Indoors, I think it was a little bright maybe, the carpet was white and the cat was black.

[gecko]

three posts in a row! I should just edit...

Finally, I don't think I'm a better person for believing. I don't think I'm better than any of you or any of that crap. *refrains from saying a christian slogan that will make you all mad* We all make plenty of mistakes and who am I to judge? I'm really not that different from all of you, I would bet.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by IIRichard

Interstingly, I have a retinal detachment in one eye and macular degeneration in the other. Most of these optical illusions which depnd on interpreting the image bifocally don't work with me. I can't see the auras above frinstance. I never could see those 3D patterns that used to be so popular..:)
That shouldn't make any difference to the illusion described, or the effects described by Paj or geni. The effect Brian describes is nothing to do with binocular vision.

And I don't see any reason why lucid dreams are considered controversial. If you mean that some people have a degree of control in their dreams then that hardly seems paranormal in any way.

Edited to delete my question which Gecko already answered.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by gecko
oh, and about the cat thing. I almost didn't read that post.

Indoors, I think it was a little bright maybe, the carpet was white and the cat was black.
Thanks for answering. I think you see where I was going with the question (I was actually going to ask if the cat was black).

Oh well I hope it all works out.

I really can't understand why any religion would consider masturbation a sin, or where it says in the bible that you shouldn't, but hey, I'm a sceptic.

I doubt that you are significantly different from us, except that we put more reliance in science and the things that we can actually experience and find evidence of. I think you would find that we are all pretty moral people who live decent and productive lives.

And we are probably more relaxed some of the time. :)

[jmercer]

Well, Brian... I'm a skeptic, and I consider myself an active Christian, too. It's an apparent contradiction - but one I've managed to at least compartmentalize, if not outright reconcile for myself. :)

You have been treated politely here, which is something I'm pleased to note. There are lots of reasons for that, but I think mostly because you came in here openly and honestly stating your beliefs. I respect you for that. (And others who do likewise, such as Beth Clarkson.)

I have no problem with sincere individuals who want to share their beliefs, as long as they're not offensive about it and don't attempt to "sneak in under the radar."

I would like to ask you a question, though, if I may.

You've bravely (and nervously!) entered a notorious skeptics forum, providing information and stating your beliefs - beliefs which you know will absolutely not be accepted at face value, and that you have very little hope of convincing anyone about. (And in fact, you entered a forum that specifically could have resulted in some really painful flaming. It's pretty clear you understood that from the start, given title of your post.)

Why did you do this?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by gecko
I'm sorry, I can't possibly reply to all of the things you all said...and I'm sorry, but I can't possibly prove God to you. Think about it from the perspective that God exists. If he does exist(i know he does, but i'm taking this at a neutral perspective), then he gave us the free will to choose or reject him. That is clear. Therefore, he wouldn't let us PROOVE he exists, because that would not be choosing him. It would be learning to be forced to choose him. Understand?

So, in all respects, its illogical that God could ever be proven.


Since you admit that there's no proof that God exists, why believe in him at all?

Why not also avoid stepping on cracks? You wouldn't want to break your mother's back.

[gecko]

Originally posted by jmercer
Well, Brian... I'm a skeptic, and I consider myself an active Christian, too. It's an apparent contradiction - but one I've managed to at least compartmentalize, if not outright reconcile for myself. :)

You have been treated politely here, which is something I'm pleased to note. There are lots of reasons for that, but I think mostly because you came in here openly and honestly stating your beliefs. I respect you for that. (And others who do likewise, such as Beth Clarkson.)

I have no problem with sincere individuals who want to share their beliefs, as long as they're not offensive about it and don't attempt to "sneak in under the radar."

I would like to ask you a question, though, if I may.

You've bravely (and nervously!) entered a notorious skeptics forum, providing information and stating your beliefs - beliefs which you know will absolutely not be accepted at face value, and that you have very little hope of convincing anyone about. (And in fact, you entered a forum that specifically could have resulted in some really painful flaming. It's pretty clear you understood that from the start, given title of your post.)

Why did you do this?

I don't know...its a long story I guess...

About the aura thing. I accept that I might be full of baloney, and might be looking into something that isn't there. However, I thought I might be able to prove it, and if I could prove the paranormal, it would be more likely that you would belive in God.

To tell you a little about myself, I searched for years for evidence of the paranormal. I think I moved some paper with my mind, but its probably speculation. I had some pretty wierd experiences with feeling energy, but I was never too sure of them. I thought I heard voices a few times, but I didn't really know. And auras were one of the few things that actuallly held some merit(along with lucid dreams, which is apparently accepted).

My search didn't end there though. I started looking for God, praying that I could find him. Prayed my little heart out. When I was 15(i'm actually only 16 just so you know) I wrote an English Composition II paper on evolution vs. creationism (yeah, started college when I was 14). I foudn a lot of evidence supporting the scientific basis of both actually. But none of this made me truly believe.

This is where the whole masturbation thing came into place. From age 12 or so to age 15, this was something that deeply troubled me. I know most people think its ok, but it just seemed so wrong to me. Not even on a christian basis. So I prayed about it. And that's when all that wierd stuff happened.

Nowadays, I don't really care about the paranormal to be blunt. The only time I use it is as a crutch to the existence of God. And I'm not saying "accept all christian doctrine" because that's ignorant. I'm talking about the existence, of a loving, omnipotent God that gave us life and free will and who we are supposed to believe and have faith in. I don't know every little doctrinal aspect and the truths of this world.

So yeah...it all came down to wanting to tell people about my faith in God. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some wierd Mormon missionary that wants people to find God because it gives me a better chance of the afterlife. I just want people to think about it, to look for Him, to pray to find Him, and I think you will find Him.

The aura information I was providing you with is about 3 years old, back when I liked that stuff. Go figure, a little kid looking for paranormal! It's the classic story. Nowadays, I don't really care about it(other than the reasons I specified), but I do believe there is a lot out there that we can't readily explain. And I still believe that science will never explain it all.

I understand the skepticism of everyone here, and I can only ask that you live your lives vigilantly in the hopes of finding that which is true. And don't be so quick to dismiss emotions, intuiton, and things like that. Reason isn't everything!

Well...if you want more experiences, I can try to pull some more out of my bag sometime. But I think you catch my drift, granted you don't fall asleep in the midst of these obnoxiously long posts.

Wait, I do want to say one more thing. I know a lot of christians say that God can only be found through faith and not works, right? I'm sure you're familiar with this if you have read Galatians. However, I think that being a good person and fighting for what is good is very important, and can bring us to religion and bring us to our faith. That is an opinion though. "God" and "Good" are one in the same really...maybe :p

Well, that is all for right now...but I'm sure there will be more to reply to! I hope you all find what you are looking for in life.

Brian

[Ashles]

There are a lot of points you have raised there Brian. And we aren't going to jump all over you just for being a Christian (if anyone does just ignore them :) ).
On the whole we try not criticise people who believe in God as it is not really an area where either side can make much progress by debate, and belief in God can be very positive and helpful for many people.

We tend to have more issues with specific and demonstrable claims (like, "I can dowse" or "The Bible Code can predict the future" etc.). Things that can actually be demonstrated.

I would have a question about this though:
Originally posted by gecko
My search didn't end there though. I started looking for God, praying that I could find him. Prayed my little heart out. When I was 15(i'm actually only 16 just so you know) I wrote an English Composition II paper on evolution vs. creationism (yeah, started college when I was 14). I foudn a lot of evidence supporting the scientific basis of both actually.
I would be interested if you could provide any scientific evidence at all for creationism.
Noone else has ever been able to, so I am interested in hearing what you think constitutes scientific evidence towards creationism.

[gecko]

skeptigirl...you said something about changing the hair colors or there being a strange relationship of some kind to explain the varying colors, while all inanimate objects share an opposite reflection? This makes no sense to me.

As far as I can see, the fact that somebody with brown hair would yield a yellow or blue aura(the only two I have seen from looking at myself) alone is evidence, since the colors are different.

Do I think I can prove it under the conditions you prescribe? Of course not. If nobody else could, I know I can't. The only way I could, while nobody else could, is if i was the only person on earth who could see these darn things. And somehow I doubt it.

This is why I was asking YOU. I was asking you to take the time to actually try out one of these wacky periods of experimentation, as I have many times in my life sadly enough, often to no avail. But once and awhile I hit something. I understand if you think I'm a quack and don't feel like wasting your time though...

I'm sorry to all of those of you who say I presented no more evidence than a testimony. That's the only evidence I have! Well, and that shrewd aura stuff I just talked about...oh well.

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was saying that you weren't happy, or that your lives were worthless. I can't say I didn't mean it, that is what I meant. And it was a rude assumption.

Hah...well...here I am, a kid sitting at his computer, thinking he could make a difference! Well, I gave it my best...I suppose I can stick around awhile. What else do I have to do with my life anyway?(sorry, had to step on my own arguments a bit lol)

[IIRichard]

Originally posted by Ashles
That shouldn't make any difference to the illusion described, or the effects described by Paj or geni. The effect Brian describes is nothing to do with binocular vision.

And I don't see any reason why lucid dreams are considered controversial. If you mean that some people have a degree of control in their dreams then that hardly seems paranormal in any way.

Edited to delete my question which Gecko already answered.

All I can say is that I don't see the circles that are supposed to be in the intersections. I USED to see them but I don't anymore. Most optical illusions I can still see but there are many that just don't work for me anymore. Yeah, that's anecdote but for me, it's reality.

HEY BRIAN: (called proof by shouting, very popular)

How do you reconcile your Christian beliefs with the new age stuff? The Bible is filled with warnings against witchcraft, divination, magic and astrology. You have a problem my friend.

PS - I'm a Christian and I take it seriously.

[Aussie Thinker]

Gecko,

umm, umm, umm *looks around nervously*

Don’t be too nervous.. its only an internet forum.. not Judgement day !

I'm sorry, I can't possibly reply to all of the things you all said...and I'm sorry, but I can't possibly prove God to you. Think about it from the perspective that God exists. If he does exist(i know he does, but i'm taking this at a neutral perspective), then he gave us the free will to choose or reject him. That is clear. Therefore, he wouldn't let us PROOVE he exists, because that would not be choosing him. It would be learning to be forced to choose him. Understand?

Nope that doesn’t make sense.

You have mentioned that you are a Christian. Then according to that religion your God has “proven� his existence over and over again in the past. He has appeared to an instructed MANY humans and sent his own son to die for our sins. If he could do SOOO much in the past a simple television appearance today does not seem to big an issue.

So, in all respects, its illogical that God could ever be proven.

To us these are just excuses to avoid the logical conclusion.. no proof.. no logic.. no existence.

Haha, about the comment about being a skeptic and the masturbation thing...I thought it was a sin before i was a full believer. But even when I was a skeptic, I considered myself a christian. Maybe that seems wierd.

Yep VERY weird.

If you thought masturbation was a “sin� then you where never a sceptic as I would label one. You must have had a lot of Chrisitan guilt etc laid on you. I am talking the real fundamental stuff here too.

Ok, I can't tell you that everything on that site is real, or that ghosts ghouls and goblins exist. All I can attest to, of the things I've looked into, are lucid dreams and auras.

Sure looney site may have one item of truth amongst the 30 items that are complete balderdash, but isn’t it prudent to assume that a site that is FULL of inanity is a poor resource to highlight as an evidence of your particular belief ?

I'm sorry, I really don't think I can prove these auras in the ways you guys are asking. With the whole wall...I can't imagine seeing through this wall, and about the plant thing...no how can I see auras from a long distance away!

Let me paraphrase.. “the auras I see are ONLY in my own head.. they do not actually exist in reality.. when tested in any meaningful way they cannot be spotted�

Haha, well, this whole thread went, well, exactly how I suspected it would. I can't prove to you that auras exist anymore than that my name is brian...lol.

NO totally incorrect. You can produce AMPLE evidence to show us your name is Brian (if you had to). Also having a name Brian is a completely logical, unmagical, normal thing.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by gecko
...When I was about 13, I was addicted to the sick(at least from a christian perspective) habit of masturbation. No doubt, this is something that plagues most all men, especially at this age...

On behalf of proud masturbators everywhere, I demand an apology for calling our sacred hobby "sick."

[jmercer]

Brian,

Thank you for answering my question - I really appreciate it, especially since you showed so much candor.

Many people here have made some positive remarks and given you some suggestions about your current belief status... I fully understand why you sought ways to validate your beliefs through the various avenues you've tried. After reading your post, I believe that there may be another reason for you joining us here and presenting your beliefs to us beyond what you stated - even if you're not ready to embrace it quite yet.

I suggest that you take your time, stay in the forums, and engage the people here with questions about your viewpoints, and how it may differ from theirs. Don't challenge them ; simply consider what they say and why they say it.

You may find the experience very rewarding.

[gecko]

ok ok...let me try to touch on a few things that have come about this time...

first off, to compare auras to occultist witchcraft is just wrong. "witchcraft" refers to "magick" which refers to things like communicating with demons, raising the dead, and shooting fireballs out of your fingers. So saying that there is some type of spiritual energy that connects human beings or what not seems totally different.

To the person with the tiger head avatar...I'm not exactly sure what to say. From here I can really take the stance that either a)those event are parabolic -or- b)times have changed. However, if God blatantly proved his existence to us like that, we wouldn't believe in him on faith, and therefore we wouldn't really love and respect him.

And finally, on the masturbation topic...clearly I have sparked some ridicule for my comments on it. Using the term "sick" was an opinion I guess...an opinion I clearly thought was shared by more people. *shrugs* I'm sorry if I offended anyone and I guarantee it wasn't my intention.

[gecko]

two more things I forgot:

About the evidence for creationism, it is mostly two fold. The first part is evidence against evolution. Amongst this evolution are the following things, which are obviously delved into more depth in my paper:

1. the big bang theory, although possible, is strange and unlikely. They say you can't get something from nothing, but in order for the universe to be created, SOMETHING has to come from nothing. Even if it is the smallest substance believable, something has to come.

2. This whole randomly springing up organism is kind of flawed. For this organism to spring up, all these amino acids have to form into proteins in nearly impossible fashions, and then you need dna to replicate the protein. However, there is no dna, so where does one get the dna?

3. There is no fossils of transitional forms between mammals-sea mammals and birds-reptiles. And archaeoteryx is hardly evidence.

The other part of my argument for scientific creationism is some young world beliefs:

1. the sun has been shown to be shrinking and would be touching the earth 200 million years ago according to uniformitarianism

2. The earth's magnetic field has been decaying too fast, it would be too powerful back then

3. The sun depletes itself of energy too fast

4. There would be too many minerals on the ocean's bed


These are just a few of the things included in this english paper...and I'm not possibly saying that creationism can be proven on a scientific basis. It can't.

The second part is to jmercer. I don't know exactly what you meant about a bigger calling here, but I am kind of enjoying it here and I'll try to stick around and peruse the place. However, if you want to convince me to be skeptical, I have to admit I'm pretty hard nosed in my beliefs, just like everyone else...

[gecko]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Since you admit that there's no proof that God exists, why believe in him at all?

Why not also avoid stepping on cracks? You wouldn't want to break your mother's back.

I didn't mean that I haven't found my own proof(my long testimony, or in other words my life lol), just that I can't prove it. I know people like a shut and closed case, a simple proof, an easy way out, but I can't provide this. And I mean, if I could, somebody smarter and more experienced than me would've done it long ago...

I guess you'll all probably jump on that with some sayings like "then why are you here?"...well, I don't know! Just felt like it I guess.

[IIRichard]

Having thought about this for awhile, I was about to post a reply to the effect that either this kid is who he says he is and we'd better treat an obviuosly troubled kid gently OR he's a troll and let's see what happens.

Based upon his continued replies, I'd vote for troll.

Sorry Kid. You did have a chance.

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by gecko
ok ok...let me try to touch on a few things that have come about this time...

first off, to compare auras to occultist witchcraft is just wrong. "witchcraft" refers to "magick" which refers to things like communicating with demons, raising the dead, and shooting fireballs out of your fingers. So saying that there is some type of spiritual energy that connects human beings or what not seems totally different.

To the person with the tiger head avatar...I'm not exactly sure what to say. From here I can really take the stance that either a)those event are parabolic -or- b)times have changed. However, if God blatantly proved his existence to us like that, we wouldn't believe in him on faith, and therefore we wouldn't really love and respect him.

And finally, on the masturbation topic...clearly I have sparked some ridicule for my comments on it. Using the term "sick" was an opinion I guess...an opinion I clearly thought was shared by more people. *shrugs* I'm sorry if I offended anyone and I guarantee it wasn't my intention.
Welcome, you seem to be sincere from what I've read in your previous posts in this thread. I think it's important to keep being sincere and not act like a troll, especially on this forum, you can learn alot.
As for the auras question. If you are interested in some kind of experiment, you can refer to my post (ahem.. yes, a touch of narcissism on my part) in this thread as to an experiment set-up.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=52643
However, if God blatantly proved his existence to us like that, we wouldn't believe in him on faith, and therefore we wouldn't really love and respect him.
Why do you think that people would not love and respect god if he/she showed us proof of existence? Why would we love him/her any more on faith than on proof?

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by gecko
The other part of my argument for scientific creationism is some young world beliefs:
1. the sun has been shown to be shrinking and would be touching the earth 200 million years ago according to uniformitarianism
Evidence please
Originally posted by gecko
2. The earth's magnetic field has been decaying too fast, it would be too powerful back then
Evidence please
Originally posted by gecko
3. The sun depletes itself of energy too fast
Evidence please
Originally posted by gecko
4. There would be too many minerals on the ocean's bed

Evidence please

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by KelvinG
On behalf of proud masturbators everywhere, I demand an apology for calling our sacred hobby "sick."

I stand beside you, brave friend. We mustn't stand for this persecution!

Ours is a time honored tradition of unsullied reputation.

Edit: Brian, we're just being funny. Don't worry.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by gecko

About the evidence for creationism, it is mostly two fold. The first part is evidence against evolution. Amongst this evolution are the following things, which are obviously delved into more depth in my paper:

1. the big bang theory, although possible, is strange and unlikely. They say you can't get something from nothing, but in order for the universe to be created, SOMETHING has to come from nothing. Even if it is the smallest substance believable, something has to come.

2. This whole randomly springing up organism is kind of flawed. For this organism to spring up, all these amino acids have to form into proteins in nearly impossible fashions, and then you need dna to replicate the protein. However, there is no dna, so where does one get the dna?

3. There is no fossils of transitional forms between mammals-sea mammals and birds-reptiles. And archaeoteryx is hardly evidence.

The other part of my argument for scientific creationism is some young world beliefs:

1. the sun has been shown to be shrinking and would be touching the earth 200 million years ago according to uniformitarianism

2. The earth's magnetic field has been decaying too fast, it would be too powerful back then

3. The sun depletes itself of energy too fast

4. There would be too many minerals on the ocean's bed




All of these have been dealt with pretty thoroughly on the talk.origins web site, to which I refer you. Brief summary -- all of the statements that you make are contradicted by firm scientific evidence, and most of them hinge on fundamental misunderstandings.

[delphi_ote]

Substitute "Creator" for "Big Bang" and we get "the creator theory, although possible, is strange and unlikely..."

"...in order for the universe to be created..." So assuming the universe is created, the big bang is unlikely? Isn't that going in a circle?

[Winny]

Originally posted by gecko
two more things I forgot:

About the evidence for creationism ... The first part is evidence against evolution. ... :


You might be interested to read through some of the FAQs at www.talkorigins.org

There are some great articles on transitional fossils and various young-earth proof fallacies.

Be careful about making absolute statements like these;

==============================

1. the sun has been shown to be shrinking and would be touching the earth 200 million years ago according to uniformitarianism

2. The earth's magnetic field has been decaying too fast, it would be too powerful back then

3. The sun depletes itself of energy too fast

4. There would be too many minerals on the ocean's bed

====================

In this forum you will be challenged on this sort of statement and asked to supply proof. You will struggle to do that, because all four points have been dealt with and discarded.

cheers

Winny

[gecko]

yeah...I was just trying to answer the question about what I had written my paper about that long ago...

I can try to look at the link sometime, although it sounds like I'll be in for quite the snore.

I didn't truly intend to try to be evolutionists at their own game, especially with my knowledge. Anyway, I guess this thread has pretty much died, so I"ll look around a bit if I can.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by gecko
yeah...I was just trying to answer the question about what I had written my paper about that long ago...

I can try to look at the link sometime, although it sounds like I'll be in for quite the snore.

I didn't truly intend to try to be evolutionists at their own game, especially with my knowledge. Anyway, I guess this thread has pretty much died, so I"ll look around a bit if I can.

Hi Brian,

Welcome to the forum.

One very important problem with your "evidence against evolution" is that it isn't against evolution.

In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Evolution does not deal with:

1) The origins of the Universe

2) Origins of life

3) Age of the Earth (although it helps support the overwhelming evidence that the Earth and Universe are very very old)

Evolution in its broadest sense is absolute and indisputable FACT. We can see this broad evolution at work every day. I see it in my children.

What is THEORY in evolution is the exact mechanisms for change in species. We're still learning in this area and surprises still abound. Genetics have both re-affirmed the FACT of evolution and radically changed some of the THEORY.

[Aussie Thinker]

Gecko,

1. the big bang theory, although possible, is strange and unlikely. They say you can't get something from nothing, but in order for the universe to be created, SOMETHING has to come from nothing. Even if it is the smallest substance believable, something has to come.

This always begs the obvious question.. Where did God come from ?.. You either have.. Universe springs from Nothing or.. Universe created and God springs from nothing.. doesn’t it seem you just add in an extra layer of unexplainable complexity ?

2. This whole randomly springing up organism is kind of flawed. For this organism to spring up, all these amino acids have to form into proteins in nearly impossible fashions, and then you need dna to replicate the protein. However, there is no dna, so where does one get the dna?

Yet everything EVER explained has had a natural beginning. Isn’t it just logical to firstly assume life had a natural beginning too ? Secondly most of these things the proteins, acids and self replicating molecules HAVE been shown to be able to arise naturally. Why throw in the complexity of an inexplicable being ?

3. There is no fossils of transitional forms between mammals-sea mammals and birds-reptiles. And archaeoteryx is hardly evidence.

You obviously haven’t seen much about Whale evolution and the fossils with residual “legs� etc. See this

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html

or

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/whales/allabout/Evol.shtml


The other part of my argument for scientific creationism is some young world beliefs:

1. the sun has been shown to be shrinking and would be touching the earth 200 million years ago according to uniformitarianism

The rates of expansion and contraction of the Sun are assumed to be variable over time. You are extrapolating from a limited block of information. For example.. if you examined a human child from age 0-16 you would assume they would be 30 feet tall by the time they are 80 years old ?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/sun_shrinking.html


2. The earth's magnetic field has been decaying too fast, it would be too powerful back then

See above.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html


3. The sun depletes itself of energy too fast

I have no idea what you are talking about here

But I assume it falls into a similar category as the above creationist furphies!

4. There would be too many minerals on the ocean's bed


In answer to all of the above you seem to be taking a completely flawed creationist line about extrapolation from limited and specific blocks of data. Each of these can be answered with simple Google searches.

I suggest every time you read a creationist argument go to www.talkorigins.org and find the complete debunking of it

We expect you to at least argue from information not ignorance.

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by gecko
The other part of my argument for scientific creationism is some young world beliefs:
1. the sun has been shown to be shrinking and would be touching the earth 200 million years ago according to uniformitarianism
I dispute your statement :) .
from:http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part5/section-7.html

The Sun is a yellow, G2 V main sequence dwarf. Yellow dwarfs live about 10 billion years (from zero-age main sequence to white dwarf formation), and our Sun is already about 5 billion years old.
We still have about 5 billion years left to go. Some other interesting facts about stars: http://www.seasky.org/cosmic/sky7a01.html
Originally posted by gecko
2.The earth's magnetic field has been decaying too fast, it would be too powerful back then
This may shed a little more light on decay of the Earth's magnetic field.
From:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.html

Earth's magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say. If the trend continues, the field may collapse altogether and then reverse. Compasses would point south instead of north.

From:http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnetic_031212.html

Hundreds of years could pass before a flip-flopped field returned to where it was 780,000 years ago. But scientists at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union cautioned that scenario is an unlikely one.
"The chances are it will not," Bloxham said. "Reversals are a rare event."
Instead, the weakening, measured since 1845, could represent little more than an "excursion," or lull, which can last for hundreds of years, said John Tarduno of the University of Rochester.
Originally posted by gecko
3.The sun depletes itself of energy too fast
Not for billions of years.
From:http://www.seasky.org/cosmic/sky7a01.html

The main sequence is the point in a star's evolution during which it maintains a stable nuclear reaction. It is this stage during which a star will spend most of its life. Our Sun is a main sequence star. A main sequence star will experience only small fluctuations in luminosity and temperature. The amount of time a star spends in this phase depends on its mass. Large, massive stars will have a short main sequence stage while less massive stars will remain in main sequence much longer. Very massive stars will exhaust their fuel in only a few hundred million years. Smaller stars, like the Sun, will burn for several billion years during their main sequence stage. Very massive stars will become blue giants during their main sequence.
Originally posted by gecko
4. There would be too many minerals on the ocean's bed
You are going to have to be more specific on this one. Too many minerals on the ocean's bed in relation to what?
Originally posted by gecko
These are just a few of the things included in this english paper...and I'm not possibly saying that creationism can be proven on a scientific basis. It can't.
If creationism can't be proven scientifically, than it has no basis in reality, wouldn't you agree? Science deals with proving whether a theory can be real or not. If you yourself admit that creationism can't be proven, then you have just admitted that creationism is not real. :)

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by Winny
In this forum you will be challenged on this sort of statement and asked to supply proof.
Winny

BTW, Welcome to the board :)

[arthwollipot]

Given that arguing with creationists is sort of my hobby, I was going to jump in here and talk about gecko's so-called "evidence" for creationism. But I see that I'm too late.

I'll just post a link instead:

How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html) at Talk.Origins.

Don't panic, gecko. We only asked what evidence you used so that we could jump down your throat and show you how it wasn't true.

And I accept your statement that you do not now believe that these things actually consitute evidence for creationism. I am sure you see (now if not before) how incorrect they are.

[Soapy Sam]

Gecko-

There are opinions and there are facts.

You mentioned your opinion about masturbation and admit surprise to find most folk here do not share that opinion. (As I do not). For what it's worth, I congratulate you on your self discipline.
You have a perfect right to your opinion. but facts are something else. While I admire the lengths you went to in researching your English paper, the evidence you mention is factually dead wrong. I suspect this is due to your reliance on poor source data, most, I expect, from the internet.

Others have suggested various reliable books and sites, well worth reading. I won't burden you with more.

At sixteen, there is a vast amount you cannot know, or be expected to know, about the scientific data which underlies the general tenor of this website. Many people here are specialists with long experience in the fields you mentioned.
I advise you to take their advice. Many folk are sceptical, but few of them end up here. Few of the regular posters here reached their present philosophical views without long thought. Some are sixteen, some younger, many a lot older. Some are indeed religious, most not.

Before dismissing evolution in particular, learn to understand it first. It is not simple. If you think you understand it and it does not make sense, you may be right- but I find it more probable that you have not understood it.

As for cosmology- I listen to the folks who know.

As for gods- They have their business , perhaps. I have mine.

Thank you for posting your thoughts here. I hope you stick around.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by gecko
...
The other part of my argument for scientific creationism is some young world beliefs:

1. the sun has been shown to be shrinking and would be touching the earth 200 million years ago according to uniformitarianism
...
I'll allow others to deal with the science, but this statement reminded me of another discussion quite a while back on usenet which demonstrates how this sort of extrapolation can be abused.

This, on the extinction of the dinosaurs (quoted by me on sci.skeptic).

"One of the best explanations I've heard was a thread drift from an astronomical discussion on how fast the moon's orbit was moving away from the earth. Someone asserted 1cm per year/decade/century.

Needless to say someone did the backward calculation and concluded that the dinosaurs (the tall one's at least) were wiped out by the moon orbiting the earth at a height of 6 feet."

I can only guess that your shrinking sun calculation is based on a similar error.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by gecko
I can try to look at the link sometime, although it sounds like I'll be in for quite the snore.
That's what is slightly worrying.

You believe you have scientific evidence against evolution.

We provide you with a link that explains scientifically and in detail why your information is incorrect. And it is a really interesting site.

Yet strangely you are not interestd in reading it.

Are you not interested in knowing whether information you have is incorrect or not?

If you are happy to ignore scientific evidence and choose to believe something different then that is entirely your right.
But unfortunately you can't then try to use scientific evidence to prove the non-scientific viewpoint.

[Darat]

Originally posted by gecko

...snip...

However, if God blatantly proved his existence to us like that, we wouldn't believe in him on faith, and therefore we wouldn't really love and respect him.

...snip...

Have you considered that this didn't stop Jesus proving himself before and after the resurrection? What has caused God to change the "rules"?

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by gecko
. However, if God blatantly proved his existence to us like that, we wouldn't believe in him on faith, and therefore we wouldn't really love and respect him.



What are you talking about?

1) Why should anyone have love and respect for an entity that refuses to make its existence known? My parents have made their existence known to me and I love and respect them. You seem to be suggesting that any love and respect for God would be diminished or eliminated if God suddenly appeared.

2) Why does God care if we love and respect it?

3) If God really does care about our love and respect, then why does the God of the Bible do so many things that would make any rational being feel anything but love and respect - e.g. killing innocent children in Noah's flood, killing innocent children during Passover, telling Abraham to cut the throat of an innocent child, etc.


- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Here's a quick piece of advice. If you are not willing to change your mind about creationism after being presented with evidence against it, you probably aren't going to be cut much slack with your aura and God theories. So enjoy the polite phase while it lasts.

Lasltly, for a more detailed account of why it is silly to love and respect a being who refuses to make its existence known, please read Kissing Hank's Behind (http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv)

[supercorgi]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Your comment about masturbation is one of the reasons I hate what religion does to people. How much grief, shame and pain did you go through because you were made to feel guilty about a perfectly natural act which had no adverse consequences to anyone?
Ah but...

CHORUS:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

GIRL:
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

CHORUS:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

MUM:
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.


etc. Thanks to Monty Python


Sorry I couldn't resist. ;)

[rppa]

Originally posted by gecko
first off, to compare auras to occultist witchcraft is just wrong. "witchcraft" refers to "magick" which refers to things like communicating with demons, raising the dead, and shooting fireballs out of your fingers.

I'm pretty sure that those who claim to be Wiccans would disagree entirely with that characterization, since they would tell you it has nothing to with either communicating with demonds, raising the dead, or shooting fireballs out of their fingers. Spot on otherwise, though.

And finally, on the masturbation topic...clearly I have sparked some ridicule for my comments on it.

Really? I missed that ridicule. I saw considerable anger at the culture that led you to feel what many considered unwarranted feelings of guilt and self-disgust. But I didn't see anyone ridiculing you. What I mostly saw was pity and sympathy.

Using the term "sick" was an opinion I guess...an opinion I clearly thought was shared by more people.

Bingo. A major step forward, the ability to distinguish between opinion and "fact". Even if you'd found your opinion was more widely held, it would still not change its "opinion" status.

*shrugs* I'm sorry if I offended anyone and I guarantee it wasn't my intention.

I don't see evidence of this "offending".

The only thing I've seen people bristle at so far is that old creationist stuff you trotted out. These lists are full of distortions and misstatements, and some of them were debunked decades ago. Yet the same distortions keep cropping up. I don't want to get into one of *those* debates, but you shouldn't be too surprised that when you post blatantly false material, people will attack the material.

You're free to believe in creationism, but I find it telling that when someone is told an argument is based on falsehoods, they continue not only to believe the conclusion, but to repeat the falsehoods.

[metamorphium]

Hi gecko,

I understand why you are seeking for such things. I think that a lot of us has been there too. But you know what? When you discover how marvelous and magical is the real world when you learn how it works and discover things which are sometimes hard to believe but you can always prove them you have to be a skeptic because you have no time for things you have

1, convince yourself they are true
2, rely on illusions / tricks / self persuasion / placebo to keep believing in 1

But the problem I see with your post is similar to eg. ufo sighting. The more you know about astronomy the less ufo you see. If you fight against evolution, you should know it and understand it. Especially in case of evolution and genetics when you understand the basics it's hard to doubt since it's so logical and fitting together. If you believe in auras you should be well aware about optical illusions. The list could go on and on. Only with understanding of the real world you can eventually come with something new without decepting yourself.

Also be careful about that site. It belongs to Chalko (so called PhD. in laser physics) who - surprise - sell some kind of expensive T-shirts supposed to harmonise your body. Also this guy is very rude on forums if someone disagrees with him which looks like those T-shirts are not much harmonizing for him. :-)

Oh and lucid dreaming works. It's not paranormal, but woo's are using this brain effect (I don't know if it has been explained how it works) to prove some paranormal stuff which is obviously not present. It's typical to pseudo science to throw a few valid pieces of information (testable) to throw you off track and make you more susceptible to their claims.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by rppa
I'm pretty sure that those who claim to be Wiccans would disagree entirely with that characterization, since they would tell you it has nothing to with either communicating with demonds, raising the dead, or shooting fireballs out of their fingers. Spot on otherwise, though.

Really? I missed that ridicule. I saw considerable anger at the culture that led you to feel what many considered unwarranted feelings of guilt and self-disgust. But I didn't see anyone ridiculing you. What I mostly saw was pity and sympathy.

. . . [snip for brevity]

You're free to believe in creationism, but I find it telling that when someone is told an argument is based on falsehoods, they continue not only to believe the conclusion, but to repeat the falsehoods.

RPPA, excellent post.

[gecko]

if you think that this isn't stuff i consider, think about, look into, examine, you are wrong...

there is more to the decisions i make than just reason alone. And you won't be able to find God if you dismiss everything to coincidence or chance. You have to follow what you feel once in awhile, of course examining the reasonable evidence also.

[gecko]

Originally posted by metamorphium
Oh and lucid dreaming works. It's not paranormal, but woo's are using this brain effect (I don't know if it has been explained how it works) to prove some paranormal stuff which is obviously not present. It's typical to pseudo science to throw a few valid pieces of information (testable) to throw you off track and make you more susceptible to their claims.

Don't forget that its also "typical" for people to only embrace things after someone else has concluded they are true. However, many things that haven't been proven are probably true, right? So we have to think for ourselves once in awhile, bearing in mind that there are things that can't be explained or are unknown.

EDIT: And this is what really starts to bother me I suppose. As a skeptic, you should assume that God might be real, but rather you are just assuming that he isn't. Sometimes you jsut have to accept that there are things that can't be explained. Can you explain love? What, do you think its some super-human chemical reaction to make humans reproduce? If you really think that, clearly it hasn't happened to you, since its really something more. Its on the spiritual level just like a relationship with God.

There is more to the world than meets the eye. Even the eye of greats like einstein! Eventually you have to accept that there is so much going on, there are so many testimonies, that SOMETHING has to be out there!

[gecko]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Nope that doesn’t make sense.

You have mentioned that you are a Christian. Then according to that religion your God has “proven� his existence over and over again in the past. He has appeared to an instructed MANY humans and sent his own son to die for our sins. If he could do SOOO much in the past a simple television appearance today does not seem to big an issue.
You're really missing the ball on this one. If God is a loving God that gave us free will to choose or reject him, why would he so blatantly prove himself to us? Wouldn't he want us to find him? Trust me, as someone who has found this...I can attest to this. How amazing it is. I mean, c'mon, would all these people really live and die for God just because they're afraid of dieing? Isn't it possible that there really is something you're all missing, something that the reason of a fallible creature like a human can miss?

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by gecko
EDIT: And this is what really starts to bother me I suppose. As a skeptic, you should assume that God might be real, but rather you are just assuming that he isn't. Sometimes you jsut have to accept that there are things that can't be explained. Can you explain love? What, do you think its some super-human chemical reaction to make humans reproduce? If you really think that, clearly it hasn't happened to you, since its really something more. Its on the spiritual level just like a relationship with God.


But, love isn't an all-knowing, all-powerful being who lives in the sky. :p

I believe it is possible a being of supra-high intelligence designed the universe to support life (I just find find such a possibility extremely unlikely). But then, such a being would not a God in the sense that he was all-knowing or all-powerful. Nor would it be a personal God which is looking after me specifically.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by gecko
why would he so blatantly prove himself to us?

Prove? I'd say he went out of his way to confuse the issue. What proof are you speaking of?

[Palimpsest]

You're really missing the ball on this one. If God is a loving God that gave us free will to choose or reject him, why would he so blatantly prove himself to us? Wouldn't he want us to find him?

Well, apparently he didn't use to. With the plagues of Egypt and the pillar of fire and the feeding of the multitudes and all sorts of sign, the Bible doesn't describe a discreet god or loving god. When I read the Old Testament, I see a jealous, "in-your-face" deity that sets out rules and punishes those that disobey. In the bible, people didn't rely on faith to "know" God. Funnily enough, that still didn't stop them from straying and sinning. So I guess having proof of God doesn't remove our free will?

[Aussie Thinker]

Gecko,

Don't forget that its also "typical" for people to only embrace things after someone else has concluded they are true. However, many things that haven't been proven are probably true, right? So we have to think for ourselves once in awhile, bearing in mind that there are things that can't be explained or are unknown.

Trouble is my own personal opinion, faith and “feeling� is based on an incredible range of flawed human perception and misinformation and just general lack of expertise.

I like my own opinions too.. but when science and logic reject them,,, SO DO I !

EDIT: And this is what really starts to bother me I suppose. As a skeptic, you should assume that God might be real, but rather you are just assuming that he isn't.

You really don’t understand a sceptical position at all. The sceptical position is ASSUME Nothing is real until evidence shows it is. The DEFAULT and logical position is assume NO god until some sort of evidence points to it !

Sometimes you jsut have to accept that there are things that can't be explained.

No you don’t have to accept that.. my position is EVERYTHING can be explained.. eventually.

Can you explain love? What, do you think its some super-human chemical reaction to make humans reproduce? If you really think that, clearly it hasn't happened to you, since its really something more. Its on the spiritual level just like a relationship with God.

Love is EASILY explained. It is the word applied by humans to a combination of various basic human needs, companionship, lust, friendship, reproduction etc etc. Most of these same things can be applied to animals too but to a lesser extent. Eg why does a Mother beast lose its own life defending its young ? Love ?

There is more to the world than meets the eye. Even the eye of greats like einstein! Eventually you have to accept that there is so much going on, there are so many testimonies, that SOMETHING has to be out there!

Testimony.. shmestimony.. do you get yet our unreliable human testimony is ? It is basically worthless in terms of scientific evidence.

You're really missing the ball on this one. If God is a loving God that gave us free will to choose or reject him, why would he so blatantly prove himself to us? Wouldn't he want us to find him?

LOL.. I’m missing the ball ? You really have to come to terms with how illogical and contradictory is a God that would hide from us then condemn us to hell for not finding him. A God that has appeared PLENTY in the past but NEVER anymore. A God that would love us but sentence us to a pointless interim existence on Earth ?? If any of this makes sense to you you are not thinking critically enough.

Trust me, as someone who has found this...I can attest to this. How amazing it is. I mean, c'mon, would all these people really live and die for God just because they're afraid of dieing?

So those Muslim suicide bombers have WAY more faith than you.. is their God any more believable ?

Isn't it possible that there really is something you're all missing, something that the reason of a fallible creature like a human can miss?

I am sure there are zillions of things I am missing.. but I am not inventing illogical Gap Fillers to cover for them !

[arthwollipot]

Originally posted by gecko
Don't forget that its also "typical" for people to only embrace things after someone else has concluded they are true. However, many things that haven't been proven are probably true, right? So we have to think for ourselves once in awhile, bearing in mind that there are things that can't be explained or are unknown.

I see where you're trying to come from here, but I simply do not believe that there are things that can't, in principle, be explained.

Materialistic science has done so well at explaining things that the ancients attributed to gods or the supernatural. What reason is there to suppose that there is some "barrier" which stops certain phenomena from being explainable?

Originally posted by gecko

EDIT: And this is what really starts to bother me I suppose. As a skeptic, you should assume that God might be real, but rather you are just assuming that he isn't.

Um, sorta kinda not. As a skeptic you should not assume the existence of anything unless it is conclusively demonstrated. So you start from a position that states a phenomenon doesn't exist, then start looking for evidence that it does. Sure, you're open to the fact that the evidence may demonstrate its existence, but you don't start by already believing it exists. So while you are sorta kinda right with your statement that a skeptic should assume that God might exist, you are also sorta kinda wrong.

Originally posted by gecko

Sometimes you jsut have to accept that there are things that can't be explained. Can you explain love? What, do you think its some super-human chemical reaction to make humans reproduce? If you really think that, clearly it hasn't happened to you, since its really something more. Its on the spiritual level just like a relationship with God.

You are underestimating the power and complexity of chemical reactions. Also the human brain. Also the ability of natural selection to reinforce these ideas. Also the...

Yes, I have been (am) in love. Yes, it's a chemical reaction. A marvellous, incredible chemical reaction. Not a super-human one, but a very human one indeed. There is no spiritual level, because it can all be explained on this one.

Originally posted by gecko

There is more to the world than meets the eye. Even the eye of greats like einstein! Eventually you have to accept that there is so much going on, there are so many testimonies, that SOMETHING has to be out there!

Ah. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy.

Yes. But we're working on it.

[SherryA]

Gecko, I think I'm older than you and many, if not most, of those who've posted in response to your original statement. Most of the replies from forum members were cool, cogent, and wise. Mine will border on hysterical.

I am a fifty year old woman, a writer of supernatural fiction. I was also a chronicler of people's beliefs. I was never an actual believer in the paranormal, but I was fascinated by the humanistic aspects of belief: What do we believe? Why do we believe? These were the questions that interested me. These are serious questions. I don't like it when people minimize them. Folklore is important. Myth is important. Religious concepts are important. These are legitimate subjects, worthy of note, maybe worthy of study, because all these things are records of who we have been, who we are, and when the day finally comes when we comprehend the world as it is, folklore, myth--and maybe even religion--will still be valuable, if only as records of who we were.

But literal belief in many of these things is a leach on your brain, I'm telling you.

Why? Not because it's stupid to be intriqued by the so-called unknown, but because it blinds us to what is right before our eyes. Tell me why people are more interested in UFOs than in galaxies? Why are you more interested in auras (optical illusions) than in the incredible complexity of the human animal these auras supposedly surround? WHY? Why don't more of us realize what a phantasmagoria surrounds us, one that our own senses and hard science shows us? If there is a god, he/she/it is in the details. I'm talking about the details you can see with your own eyes, or under a microscope, or under a telescope. Sure there are things we don't know. When I learn all there is to know that we already know, maybe I'll get started on the unknown! I don't have time for that, not in this--possibly my only--lifetime.

While promoting my books, I came into contact with thousands and thousands of TRUE believers in ghosts, Bigfoot, Tarot, you name it. I was accosted by many people who were convinced they'd been abducted by aliens. The sheer weight of the numbers of people who are caught up in such things amazes and depresses me to this day. Why? Because there's so much in the real world that ought to blow our minds.

If you were my son, I'd advise you to go ahead and explore these things to the hilt, but test them, test them, test them, as others on the forum have instructed you.

Then feast your mind on what we know. Read, or just read parts of Carl Sagan's DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD, SHADOWS OF FORGOTTEN ANCESTORS, PALE BLUE DOT; read books like THE SECRET LIFE OF DUST, A BIOGRAPHY OF WATER. Walt Whitman wasn't being overly-poetic when he said "every leaf is a miracle." ---Sherry Austin

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by gecko
You're really missing the ball on this one. If God is a loving God that gave us free will to choose or reject him, why would he so blatantly prove himself to us? Wouldn't he want us to find him?

I have all sorts of things I want to say, but let me instead just sum it up by saying: "Go read as much Mark Twain as you can."

[gecko]

I think I'm going have to confess that I really have no interest in doing as you advise...

First of all, this life is short, and I think trying to understand the world is hopeless. We will never be able to understand it, so we're better off just living in it to the best of our abilities instead of just sitting around studying. This is, of course, just my opinion...

I don't know what good all this reasoning and research will do me. I already accept that my mind is too feeble to understand the absolute. I think it is from this inabilty to understand that non believing may really come from. Its just something innate, something you feel, something you somehow know and cannot shake, at least for me.

Yeah...I realize I can never explain it...what can I say? I want to give you some advice of my own though...stop looking around and thinking about the world on this scientific aspect, and just look at the world. In all its marvel and beauty. How everything works. Take a deep breath of the air. Try to forget about all the tags and labels you have for this world, and just revel in this beautiful, God created earth...and know that the little nit picky rules and regulations of science really mean nothing.

[ilk]

Originally posted by gecko
I think I'm going have to confess that I really have no interest in doing as you advise...

First of all, this life is short, and I think trying to understand the world is hopeless. We will never be able to understand it, so we're better off just living in it to the best of our abilities instead of just sitting around studying. This is, of course, just my opinion...

I don't know what good all this reasoning and research will do me. I already accept that my mind is too feeble to understand the absolute. I think it is from this inabilty to understand that non believing may really come from. Its just something innate, something you feel, something you somehow know and cannot shake, at least for me.

Yeah...I realize I can never explain it...what can I say? I want to give you some advice of my own though...stop looking around and thinking about the world on this scientific aspect, and just look at the world. In all its marvel and beauty. How everything works. Take a deep breath of the air. Try to forget about all the tags and labels you have for this world, and just revel in this beautiful, God created earth...and know that the little nit picky rules and regulations of science really mean nothing.

I have a piece of advice for you: If you think understanding the world is too hard, don't think you are in a position to tell other people how to live their lives. That's just some common sense, science and religion don't come into it.

[Aussie Thinker]

Gecko,

I think I'm going have to confess that I really have no interest in doing as you advise...

I think I predicted this very attitude in my first post. Oddly enough it was you who started by offering US advice.

First of all, this life is short, and I think trying to understand the world is hopeless. We will never be able to understand it, so we're better off just living in it to the best of our abilities instead of just sitting around studying. This is, of course, just my opinion...

Yep and it’s a reasonable opinion.. but when you come here “advising� people who DO examine a lot of lifes mysteries expect the short shrift your “advice� may receive.

I don't know what good all this reasoning and research will do me. I already accept that my mind is too feeble to understand the absolute.

Forgive me but I would paraphrase this as.. I have my belief and NOTHING is going to change it so why bother !

I think it is from this inabilty to understand that non believing may really come from.

Whoa.. did you read that ?.. It actually the OPPOSITE.. an inability to understand leads to a BELIEF.. if you understand something you don’t believe you KNOW !

Its just something innate, something you feel, something you somehow know and cannot shake, at least for me.

Forgive me again but this is exactly the attitude that mental patients have !

Yeah...I realize I can never explain it...what can I say? I want to give you some advice of my own though...stop looking around and thinking about the world on this scientific aspect, and just look at the world. In all its marvel and beauty. How everything works. Take a deep breath of the air. Try to forget about all the tags and labels you have for this world, and just revel in this beautiful, God created earth...and know that the little nit picky rules and regulations of science really mean nothing.

Those picky little rules and regulations are FACTS.. your God is a mythical man made creation. I think you will find advising us to fantasise rather than base our lives on reality will fall on rather deaf ears.

I’ll give you something to dwell on.

Man is actually the great creator.. he created his own Gods. I always find this a delicious irony !

[gecko]

ok...apparently I came off too strongly in some way unbeknownst to me. I wasn't trying to tell you how to live your lives, sure maybe how I think you should live your lives, but not trying to come here as the absolute authority on everything.

So I fabricated God, eh? The funny thing is, you can't know this. You will never be able to know. The opinion that something isn't real is a constant, perpetual uncathartic opinion. You see, you could be living your whole life being wrong about this, because you can never know. Granted, all you can do is follow what seems most logical to you: for you, that is the stacked up evidence through reason, and through me, it is my personal experiences. I guess that's all.

EDIT: ok let's just end this shall we? I came here to hear what everyone else had said, to try and tell them where I'm coming from...I did that, and it didn't work. But at least I still believe, so I guess it didn't work either way. I know some kindred folk like jmercer welcomed me to stick around, but I think I am going to have to just take my leave. Therefore, I bid you all ado.

I don't think I'm some great thing or superior life form for believing, don't think this. I don't dislike any of you for not believing, I don't look down at you at all. We are all in this together, you know? There are forces of evil working against us. Dont' even bother to yell at me for saying it. I'm not coming back...you may think I'm running away. You may think I'm a coward. Does it really matter? No. So I'll just go now, so you can all go on with your lives. God Bless(and I really, really, really, really, really do mean that. Trust me.)

Brian

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by gecko
ok let's just end this shall we? I came here to hear what everyone else had said, to try and tell them where I'm coming from...I did that, and it didn't work.

I have this rule I apply to debate... having been wrong many times in my life, I don't assume that I'm absolutely right this time, so I debate to learn, not necessarily to win.

The rule is this: Only have an argument where your objective is a better understanding of the truth, not just a restatement of your position.

Just a thought...

[gecko]

I understand what you're saying. This holds true for every argument save one to me.

I will never change my opinion about God. I never can, I dont' think. I can't explain it. That's why I don't see any point in getting into it...

As I said, I just came here to say what I thought, and hear what y'all had to say. I appreciate you all for your opinions and wish you the best.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by gecko
I will never change my opinion about God. I never can, I dont' think. I can't explain it. That's why I don't see any point in getting into it...
Well, Brian, that is just a load of crap. The very first sentence in the very first paragraph in your OP was this:

First of all, I want to say hello. My name is Brian, and I was once quite the skeptic myself. I didn't really believe in God, and I didn't really believe in the paranormal.
I thought your OP indicated an openess to dialogue. Subsequent posts slowly led me to change my mind. Your last post makes it clear that you are a hypocritical liar.

Bah. Go away.

[metamorphium]

Hey gecko,

I see what you mean. You thought: I'll come here say them about optical illusion trick, they will try it, fall for it and I'll easily convince them ... of God. They will believe immediately and everybody will be happy ever after.

I am sorry, it didn't work. Instead it was a nice discussion which could have given you some insight on how some tiny portion of real world works. You obviously don't have a desire to learn some of that so I am signing off this thread.

SherryA: unfortunately I don't think that primary desire of woo's is to discover something new. Much too usually they simply want to get easy money. Given the prices of their *services* it's entirely unlikely those persons are even remotely interested in anything else than balooney. And the result in combination with how people are susceptible to manipulation is the world filled with people believing in nonsense.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally posted by gecko
umm, umm, umm *looks around nervously*

I'm sorry, I can't possibly reply to all of the things you all said...and I'm sorry, but I can't possibly prove God to you. Of course not. Because if you actually think through your beliefs one step at a time, your beliefs will unravel.Think about it from the perspective that God exists. If he does exist(i know he does, but i'm taking this at a neutral perspective), then he gave us the free will to choose or reject him. That is clear. Therefore, he wouldn't let us PROOVE he exists, because that would not be choosing him. It would be learning to be forced to choose him. Understand?Sorry to tell you this, but your particular twisted logic here is a Christian propaganda smoke screen. Why would 'God' produce a world where all you ever have to indicate his presence is a story passed on by someone else to you? Why shouldn't 'God' appear before all of us and say follow me? Why would it be more satisfying to 'God' to have people believe only without evidence?

Perhaps there is some verse in the Bible you'd care to cite that says something like, "And God said to the people, "I'm going to conceal my existence. I demand you worship me but it won't satisfy me unless you worship me against all odds. It is up to you to convince the next generation and for that generation to tell the next generation and so on about my existence. If you fail, all your children will go to hell."So, in all respects, its illogical that God could ever be proved.No, it isn't illogic, it is Christian rationalization for continuing to believe something that is so obviously a myth. Coyote didn't steal fire from heaven. Pele is a volcano, not a real being. And the Christian religion is just as mythical as is Zeus and Vishnu......Ok, I can't tell you that everything on that site is real, or that ghosts ghouls and goblins exist. All I can attest to, of the things I've looked into, are lucid dreams and auras. Looked in to? No you haven't. You decided 'whatever' and then refused to look at 'whatever' in any sort of critical way......Haha, well, this whole thread went, well, exactly how I suspected it would.Too bad, though, I had some hope you actually might think about what other people had to say here. I can't prove to you that auras exist anymore than that my name is brian...lol. Not without something more than your personal testimonial. If I testified to you that the Earth was going to open up and swallow you tomorrow would there be any reason at all for you to say, "Gee, OK. If you're telling me this it must be true"?

[SherryA]

SherryA said earlier:

Why don't more of us realize what a phantasmagoria surrounds us, one that our own senses and hard science shows us? If there is a god, he/she/it is in the details. I'm talking about the details you can see with your own eyes, or under a microscope, or under a telescope.

SherryA says now:

Brian/Gecko, I suspect you entered the forum for deeper reasons than you know, and I'm impressed with the compassionate tone of forum members who have responded to the thread you started. I'm not telling you not to believe in god, son. Send me a private message or email me through my website and I'll discuss it with you. ---SherryA.

www.sherryaustin.com

[Tricky]

Originally posted by gecko
I will never change my opinion about God. I never can, I dont' think. I can't explain it. That's why I don't see any point in getting into it...
Respectfully, I submit that you will change your opinion about God. You may continue to believe in Him/Her/It but your conception of God will change, as it has already. It is neither possible nor praiseworthy to hold a single set of views that are immune to revision with more information. Frankly, I always find it odd that People of Faith take such pride in being uable to admit error.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by gecko
I think I'm going have to confess that I really have no interest in doing as you advise...

First of all, this life is short, and I think trying to understand the world is hopeless. We will never be able to understand it, so we're better off just living in it to the best of our abilities instead of just sitting around studying. This is, of course, just my opinion...

I don't know what good all this reasoning and research will do me. I already accept that my mind is too feeble to understand the absolute. I think it is from this inabilty to understand that non believing may really come from. Its just something innate, something you feel, something you somehow know and cannot shake, at least for me.

Yeah...I realize I can never explain it...what can I say? I want to give you some advice of my own though...stop looking around and thinking about the world on this scientific aspect, and just look at the world. In all its marvel and beauty. How everything works. Take a deep breath of the air. Try to forget about all the tags and labels you have for this world, and just revel in this beautiful, God created earth...and know that the little nit picky rules and regulations of science really mean nothing.
This really is an incredibly sad post. Watching someone declare they have no interest in learning always actually upsets my in a deep way.
It's like taking the gift of this amazing brain that we have been given and then just wanting to throw it in the bin.

Even if someone thinks that God exists how could they possibly feel that God wouldn't want them to learn and discover?

The fact is gecko you know that doing some learning would show you how wrong you are in several of your currently held beliefs. Your knowledge about creationism and evolution is just plain wrong, and is demonstrably wrong. But you actively refuse to read the real information because you wish to cling to the lies that you are using to bolster your beliefs.

Do you not think your faith would actually be stronger if you were able to read all the true facts about evolution and then still be able to love God? Is your faith so weak that you avoid anything challenging?

I will never change my opinion about God. I never can, I dont' think. I can't explain it. That's why I don't see any point in getting into it...
Maybe you will change your mind, maybe you won't. But believe me gecko, you're not exactly the first 16 year old in history to be utterly convinced of something, only to later change their mind.

I'm sorry if it appears as if I am coming across strongly - I enjoy debate with people with different opinions or beliefs, but when people actually openly admit they are not interested in finding out the truth about life (to the extent of avoiding reading anything that mght challenge their worldview) then I think that person has given up on one of the most important parts of living -
searching for new knowledge and information.

If there is a God I can't believe he would want people to bury their head in the grounds.

This is also how groups end up not understanding other groups and how fundamentalism and hatred are spread.

We are not claiming there is no God, merely that we don't know. In the absence of any evidence I have personally come to the conclusion there isn't one. And I have travelled widely, been in love, done many interesting and varied things and seen things of staggering beauty, both man-made and natural.

I actually think I appreciate the world more fully than you currently do, because you appear to be scared of learning about certain areas. I don't have that fear.

But if you change your mind and do wish to learn more about new areas then please feel free come back and question.

[SherryA]

Metamorphium wrote:

SherryA: unfortunately I don't think that primary desire of woo's is to discover something new. Much too usually they simply want to get easy money. Given the prices of their *services* it's entirely unlikely those persons are even remotely interested in anything else than balooney. And the result in combination with how people are susceptible to manipulation is the world filled with people believing in nonsense.

Sherry A responds: Yes, Meta, there's a lot of truth in what you say, but I've met hundreds and hundreds of people (they approach me at book signings with nothing to "sell") who are simply hungry to believe. In fact, they don't want my money; they buy MY book, believing--wrongly, and when I can I warn them otherwise, I do--that it will confirm their hope that the dead aren't really dead.

This desperation is often heart-wrenching, I'm telling you. Because of my subject matter, they assume I am sympathetic to their belief in the paranormal. I've had people come up to me in tears. They've lost a parent or spouse or child and they depend on the belief that their dead are not really dead just to put one foot in front of the other for one more day. That's all the more reason to despise those charlatans who prey on their emotions, and, as all of us who are fans of Randi know, there are way too many of them. They bring out the worst in me, don't doubt it. I'm as angry at them as any of you. Yet even the charlatans, as Randi has pointed out, are often innocent in a way: Some of them, a minority no doubt, have deluded themselves that they are in contact with the dead or can govern their own lives and help others govern their lives by diviniations such as aura reading and astrology. Many times other people have duped them into believing they're gifted at palm reading or are psychic, as Randi's video, SECRETS OF THE PSYCHICS, shows so well. All my life people have told me I'm psychic and I can't convince them otherwise. I just happen to be someone who knows better. I find myself wanting to choke the Sylvia Brownes of the world and wanting to pat the hands of the other type, and lead them out of the woods.

You keep up the good work, all you bright young minds! --- SherryA.

[Ipecac]

Ya know, Brian, when I was 16 I believed the same things you believe. I was unshakeable in my faith and certain of how the world works. As I became wiser, I realized that dogma and closed-mindedness weren't going to teach me anything about life and reality. When I abandoned my religious beliefs I was absolutely liberated. Living without superstition is infinitely preferable to a life of close-minded belief.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Ya know, Brian, when I was 16 I believed the same things you believe. I was unshakeable in my faith and certain of how the world works. As I became wiser, I realized that dogma and closed-mindedness weren't going to teach me anything about life and reality. When I abandoned my religious beliefs I was absolutely liberated. Living without superstition is infinitely preferable to a life of close-minded belief.


If I may build on Ipecac's post. Brian, if you want a hearty laugh, print this entire thread out, seal it in an envelope and give it to a relative or friend with the instructions that he or she should return the envelope to you when you are 26.

[rppa]

Originally posted by gecko
I think I'm going have to confess that I really have no interest in doing as you advise...

First of all, this life is short, and I think trying to understand the world is hopeless. We will never be able to understand it, so we're better off just living in it to the best of our abilities instead of just sitting around studying. This is, of course, just my opinion...

I could never understand where the anti-science attitude comes from. This really saddens and frightens me. So you are saying that all scientific advance was a bad thing, because it was the result of people striving to understand just a little more about the world than was known before? We should all go back to sleeping in caves and pounding rocks? Because we can never know everything we are obligated never to try to learn ANYTHING?

To me an obvious question for a religious person who says things like this is, "Do you think God gave you a brain but wants you never to use it?" But as I have seen fundamentalists leaders railing against courses in critical thinking, I'm afraid I know the answer to that question.

How do you reconcile your attitude that it is wrong to learn new things about the world, with living in an artificial home, using the telephone, driving a car or riding a bus, wearing cloth, etc? Doesn't it seem evil to you to take advantage of people who have studied the world to learn how to make life a little more comfortable, since such study is evil?

[gecko]

well, I told myself I wouldn't post here anymore, but jref has some thing where they send me cocky emails that people are responding, so I read the replies, and then as a result I feel I have to say something...

For the record, I do think about my beliefs. A lot. I understand that whole unraveling faith thing as you start to look at all these arguments, trust me I've talked to more people about God vs. no God then you know. And its always the same...they try to convince me of their beliefs, I try to convince them of mine.

Here's the thing: when people confess that they are only going to believe what can be proven to them EMPIRICALLY, they aren't going to find God. You have to look to something deeper than the deep hollows of your own mind, something you don't even understand yourself.

So to those of you who said you once believed but now no longer do, please don't give up. If you read the Bible, you will learn readily that Satan's tongue is that of this "fallible reason" that he uses to try and make you doubt and think otherwise. Isn't it possible that your faith was shattered by such fallacious speech? It seems possible to me.

I'm not anti all learning, I was simply suggesting that we all go out and appreciate the world in our own eyes, completely aside from the tags and thoughts science throws upon them. And if those ideas we generate are flawed, so what. The thoughts science generates also are.

Finally, someone said I should study more into creationism vs. evolution. Why? Both are possible. The only time I really cared about the scientific evidence is when I felt unsure. So it really doesn't do me any good.

I'm going to assume that you are all sincere in your requests for me to "stick around". And learning is a good thing. So ok ok, I pledge to be open minded with what I read: in fact I'm becoming a little more unsure of these auras as I hear more lol. I only ask you do the same.

Brian

PS: and finally, for the 500 claims at how ignorant I am, how inept I am to learning anything, I can't help but throw it all back at you. How do you know that you all aren't ignorant and I actually know that which is true?

[Steven Howard]

Originally posted by gecko
well, I told myself I wouldn't post here anymore, but jref has some thing where they send me cocky emails that people are responding, so I read the replies, and then as a result I feel I have to say something...


You can turn that feature off in the User Control Panel.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by gecko
If you read the Bible, you will learn readily that Satan's tongue is that of this "fallible reason" that he uses to try and make you doubt and think otherwise.

Are you saying that reason is satanic? Someone else once said that here, you know.

But hang on. While composing your post, didn't you try to put across reasoned points? How do we know you're not the devil?

[rppa]

Originally posted by gecko
Here's the thing: when people confess that they are only going to believe what can be proven to them EMPIRICALLY, they aren't going to find God.

So you believe that God will never be manifested empirically in your own life, or in anyone else's. OK.

I'm not anti all learning,

Perhaps you aren't. But you SPEAK against all learning.

I was simply suggesting that we all go out and appreciate the world in our own eyes, completely aside from the tags and thoughts science throws upon them. And if those ideas we generate are flawed, so what. The thoughts science generates also are.

You're saying, unlike what you said earlier, that it is indeed a good thing to study the world and learn from observation. I'm all for personal curiosity and exploration. It helps you realize that science is a thing that touches all of us.

Science is a formalized system for adding other people's observations to our own. When this system was created, it allowed us, as a collective body, to advance knowledge and the quality of life. You say somehow it's good to make 10 observations on your own and draw conclusions from your limited data sample, but somehow if you get together with 10 other people and draw stronger conclusions from 100 observations, that's bad.

I don't get it.

You also seem to be saying that science hasn't found all the answers yet, therefore the knowledge that has been obtained is worthless. Then again I prevail upon you to stop using electricity, computers, telephones, cars, clothing, houses, artificial heat, or any manufactured goods. Because all of those things are the result of people learning a small thing and applying that knowledge empirically.

PS: and finally, for the 500 claims at how ignorant I am, how inept I am to learning anything,

You may be ignorant. That's not a crime, or a sin. You seem to be professing a pride in your ignorance, an awareness that there is knowledge out there which you are going to refuse to learn. That *is* a sin.

I can't help but throw it all back at you. How do you know that you all aren't ignorant and I actually know that which is true?

Those of us who are curious and make an effort to learn more tomorrow than we knew today, know that we are making an effort to learn more tomorrow than we knew today.

If there is a book, and I read it, and you refuse to, then I can say with utter confidence that I know more about the content of that book than you do. I'm not saying whether that makes me a better person than you do, but the objective data is certainly that I have information which you don't. That's incontestable.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by gecko
well, I told myself I wouldn't post here anymore, but jref has some thing where they send me cocky emails that people are responding, so I read the replies, and then as a result I feel I have to say something...
That's an option you can turn off in your settings.

And how on earth can the e-mails be cocky? What do they say other than notifying you that you have responses?

For the record, I do think about my beliefs. A lot. I understand that whole unraveling faith thing as you start to look at all these arguments, trust me I've talked to more people about God vs. no God then you know. And its always the same...they try to convince me of their beliefs, I try to convince them of mine.

Here's the thing: when people confess that they are only going to believe what can be proven to them EMPIRICALLY, they aren't going to find God. You have to look to something deeper than the deep hollows of your own mind, something you don't even understand yourself.
But that's exactly the problem isn't it. Your system doesn't even allow for the possibility of there being no God so you are only looking to bolster what you have already decided.
And looking "deeper than the deep hollows of your own mind" sounds very exciting but it doesn't actually mean anything useful does it.
You are coming across rather arrogant, implying to a lot of people older than you that you are the only one of us who has seriously thought deeply about these issues. We have all been 16, and we know how certain you can feel of things at that age. I guarantee this changes.

So to those of you who said you once believed but now no longer do, please don't give up. If you read the Bible, you will learn readily that Satan's tongue is that of this "fallible reason" that he uses to try and make you doubt and think otherwise. Isn't it possible that your faith was shattered by such fallacious speech? It seems possible to me.
So you are advocating deserting reason and logic. Well then you kind of lose your way in life don't you. What do you do then?
You could of course try and live solely by the Bible, with all it's contradictory advice and encouragement to absolve yourself of responsibility for your own decisions.
And then it's time to start shunning menstruating women, and not eating shellfish and condemning homosexuals etc. (Although the bible doesn't actually say anything about homosexuals)

I'm not anti all learning, I was simply suggesting that we all go out and appreciate the world in our own eyes,
I already have done to an extent, I would guess, far, far beyond what you have gecko.

completely aside from the tags and thoughts science throws upon them. And if those ideas we generate are flawed, so what. The thoughts science generates also are.
But science constantly tries to correct its own flaws. Religion doesn't.

Finally, someone said I should study more into creationism vs. evolution. Why? Both are possible.
Well there is only evidence for one of them.

The only time I really cared about the scientific evidence is when I felt unsure. So it really doesn't do me any good.
So you felt unsure, cared about the scientific evidence, yet totally ignored it, or failed to read it.
Anyway ealier you said there was scientific evidence for creationism. This was incorrect. You could at least have the strength to admit you were incorrect about that.

I'm going to assume that you are all sincere in your requests for me to "stick around". And learning is a good thing. So ok ok, I pledge to be open minded with what I read: in fact I'm becoming a little more unsure of these auras as I hear more lol. I only ask you do the same.

Brian

PS: and finally, for the 500 claims at how ignorant I am, how inept I am to learning anything, I can't help but throw it all back at you. How do you know that you all aren't ignorant and I actually know that which is true?
We aren't the ones who refuse to expose ourselves to information.
I have read the bible, studied religions, visited many creationist and fundamentalist sites as well as reading the scientific information.
I have read both sides of the debate. You freely admit you haven't.
That hardly puts you in a strong position to be able to claim knowledge.

What you have is purely a belief based on no evidence. That's your right of course. And if you accept that then that's okay. (Obviously that means that you can't argue for it logically as you are dismissing logic as a tool of Satan - too bad)

But you mentioned creationism and evolution, and there are very clear facts on the subject that I hoped you might be interested in learning, so that you don't trot out debunked and incorrect information to others for the rest of your life.

If you do so in future I hope you realise that you will actually be lying, as you now know that there is information out there that shows what you are claiming to be false.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by gecko
***snip***
PS: and finally, for the 500 claims at how ignorant I am, how inept I am to learning anything, I can't help but throw it all back at you. How do you know that you all aren't ignorant and I actually know that which is true?***snip***

Because ignorance is invariably the end result of belligerent refusal to critically examine one's beliefs.

Because the truth is rarely ever discoverd by those that aren't willing to step out of the confines of their own skulls to search for it.

[Moose]

PS: and finally, for the 500 claims at how ignorant I am, how inept I am to learning anything, I can't help but throw it all back at you. How do you know that you all aren't ignorant and I actually know that which is true?

Ah, Brian, two corrections, as I see it:

1) Ignorance: Ignorance isn't something to be ashamed of. We all start out life knowing very little, and as we grow, we learn. There are many things I'm ignorant of. I'm twice your age, and yet formal logic is something I'll only ever have a rudimentiary grasp of. (Grammar too, judging by this post.)

Ignorance is something we all have to strive against. But so long as we're striving, we have nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of.

2) Inept: Actually, nobody's saying you're inept at learning. I personally have no doubt at all you're a bright kid. No, what we're worried about is your unwillingness to question any portion of your beliefs. "I've seen it all" is a dangerous opinion to hold so early in one's life.

I'm almost exactly twice your age and I'm nowhere near a point where I'd be comfortable resting on my laurels. If I'm as wise as I hope I am, I won't be anywhere near done learning and challenging my perceptions of the world when I'm twice my age.

You see, the reason nobody's particularly worried about you "actually know[ing] what is true" is that scepticism is all about coming to grips with our limitations... our ignorance... and not being afraid of being proven wrong.

Those who apply for the Challenge need only be able to provide clear, repeatable evidence that claim [whatever] is correct.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by SherryA
I'm not telling you not to believe in god, son. Send me a private message or email me through my website and I'll discuss it with you. ---SherryA.

www.sherryaustin.com

Nice website. I'll have to check out your books. :)

[supercorgi]

Originally posted by gecko
First of all, this life is short, and I think trying to understand the world is hopeless. We will never be able to understand it, so we're better off just living in it to the best of our abilities instead of just sitting around studying. This is, of course, just my opinion...

Brian, I am sorry that you have taken the easy way out and assumed just because one person cannot understand everything in the universe, that therefore the search for knowledge is a useless waste of time. You are bright young man that is basically commiting yourself to a life of ignorance and denying yourself the chance to learn some of the wonderous things we already know about how the world works. You've given up before you've even started and that's really sad.

If all people took this view, mankind wouldn't even be mankind. The first pre-human would have never picked up that first stone and realized that it could help him cut and smash things and help him get food. We would have never built on that so simple and basic of discoveries and you wouldn't have the clothes you wear, the telephone you talk on, and the computer you're reading this on today.
I want to give you some advice of my own though...stop looking around and thinking about the world on this scientific aspect, and just look at the world. In all its marvel and beauty. How everything works.
Umm...how are you going to know how everything works if you've absolutely given up on trying to understand how things work? And I think you're totally misguided as to what a skeptical and scientific viewpoint add to someone's view of the world. I sit here looking out my window, enjoying the perfect blue of the sky, the lovely songs of the birds, and the motion of the tree branches in the breeze. All very, very beautiful and serene. I marvel at how beautiful nature can be.

But the fact that I understand why the sky is blue, why birds sing, and what causes the tree branches to move, in no way lessens my enjoyment of the beauty around me. If fact, my knowledge enhances my enjoyment of everything and gives me another whole level of enjoyment which I think you are missing out on. The amazing complexity of the world around me and knowing how beautifully it all works together is a constant source of wonder to me. The fact that I am here, a conscious, curious mammal with a big brain, who has the capacity to appreciate beauty and know what lies behind that beauty, is a source of wonder. And guess what? I don't have to believe in God, or that God waved his hand and made it all happen, in order to experience this wonder. It just is and everything I learn about how the world works increases this sense of wonder.

I'm sorry that you're going to be missing out on all this by just sitting there with your smug attitude, denying the usefulness of exploration and learning, and just saying "God did it" without any proof whatsoever that there even is a God. And why is it you religious types always pity us poor atheists because you think we must lead sad, grey little lives just because we don't believe in the "glory of God"? Sorry, it's just not true. In fact, I pity all you blinded, religious types because you miss out on the wonder and beauty in this life and in the real world because you're so busy worrying about the next life.

[SherryA]

Okay, folks, let's not forget that it is a sixteen year old young man who began this thread. I'm concerned he might feel he's being ganged up on. Yes, I know debate is what forums are about. And yes, I know he started this one, and, for the most part, I think we've addressed his issues fairly, but remember, the views he expresses, however wrong we think they are, are also held by people many years older, with much more education and experience. If---IF---we are wiser than he, how many of us were so wise at sixteen? Think back to what you were interested in, what you believed, what fascinated you at sixteen? It takes many, many years and much experience for most of us to be able to swallow skepticism and agnosticism. His outlook is not at all unusual for one his age, or even many years older. And I think he is much, much more open than his emails suggest. Let's take the approach that the late Carl Sagan and his wife, Ann Druyan did, and remember that, except for out and out money-grubbing charlatans, most people who express these views are trying--as all of us continue to do--to understand the world and their place in it.

--- Sherry Austin.

www.sherryaustin.com

[SherryA]

Re: God in the details

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SherryA
I'm not telling you not to believe in god, son. Send me a private message or email me through my website and I'll discuss it with you. ---SherryA.

www.sherryaustin.com

Sherry writes: Brian, I repeat that offer in case you didn't see it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jmercer wrote:
Nice website. I'll have to check out your books.

Sherry writes: Thanks, Jmercer. Actually, the first book is ghost stories, which might not interest many skeptics. However, they are fictional stories. The fictional ghost story genre is one most people don't know about because they are over-shadowed by campfire-type tales and stories "told for the truth," the kind most people who read ghost stories demand. However, the short, fictional ghost story or weird tale, does have many fans among hardcore skeptics and atheists such as S.T. Joshi, the well-known H.P. Lovecraft scholar. He has many books out, THE MODERN WEIRD TALE, among them, as well as many books on supernatural literature and skepticism. His most recent book is GOD'S DEFENDERS: WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND WHY THEY ARE WRONG. He makes excellent points, though, as with most books published by Prometheus Books, they are ascerbic for many people's taste. Strangely enough, I have found that some of the most fervent champions for supernatural fiction are people who would never take a shred of it seriously. I'm one of those, I guess.

My next book I'd describe as naturalized gothic, and afterwards, I hope to write nonfiction, as described on my website.

[gecko]

thanks sherry, but I'm fine. Of course I'm being ganged up on, they disagree with me, so they have to state what they believe.

First of all, about the Satan + reason thing. No, of course not all reason is satanic, I was just saying to those who once believed in God but suddenly found themselves barraged by varying beliefs, trying to get them to forsake their faith, that can be Satan. On the day Jesus was born, Satan fought in the form of a dragon to slay the virgin mary and her son Jesus Christ. However, Satan failed, and thenceforth vowed to try and stop all from believing Christ, aka God. So if you had all these thoughts trying to get you to reason beyond your beliefs, that very well may have been Satan.

Once again, when you say that ignorance is ok you are still assuming I am ignorant. "Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in spirit, in faith, in purity." 1 - Timothy 4:12

So maybe I'm ignorant, maybe I'm not. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. Right? Oh man, that was intended to be confusing wordplay. Oh well.

To the person with the cool dog avatar(which i really like!), I dont' think I've taken the "easy way out" and assumed that because we can't learn everything we shouldn't learn anything. I think we should try to learn, but we should also try to live. I don't know, maybe it sounds wierd, but sometimes I think its better to just stop caring about all the things science says, all the labels, and just love the world for what it is. It gives such a glorious opinion of this world, which is, in fact, a creation by a perfect being. Even with the fallible corruption, pollution, and evils of humans, there's some perfect about this world that I can't describe. But you're not going to find that in a science book, I promise.

Finally, I didn't mean to sound like "I've seen it all". I just don't know how reasoning through my own mind, rather than through that which is divine, will help me in my faith at all. If you mean so that I can repel contrary claims by other people, and therefore strengthen my faith by testing it, I guess I understand what you're saying there. But I don't think reading about the world in a science book is going to really strengthen that.

psiload, or the guy with the super frightening pirate avatar(yeah, I remember people by these avatars, if I stay awhile i'll go find a gecko one :p )...your comment makes no sense my friend. By stepping out of my own reason, I AM stepping out of the confines of my own skull. That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm accepting that my mind can't comprehend the supernatural, and I am therefore searching for it on a spiritual level. Knowledge comes in more forms than just one, as does intelligence. They are all really relative in the end. So bear in mind that reason may not be the best, or only, way to find God.

I apologize for how long my posts get. Try to understand that I am honestly attempting to reply to every message I get, though I'm sure I miss some. The ball is in your court, so one of you can choose your racket and smack it back with ten-fold the speed (hehe sorry I like tennis :)).

Brian

[jmercer]

I've noticed an upsurge in the science-fiction and fantasy genre's of the supernatural stories, and I've been following a few of my favorite authors. (And authoress's, assuming I'm spelling that correctly...)

Frankly, I really enjoy the way these writers create a logically self-consistent alternative world, and then play out storylines that are constrained by the "new rules". For me, one of the best parts is the inherent self-consistency of the better writers.

Sorry about the derail, folks - back to lurking and reading this thread. :)

[gecko]

oh, haha, and sorry about the "cocky emails" thing. There's just something about "Hey gecko, 30 more people replied to your post" that screams "haha going down punk". In reality they're not really cocky.

And I can turn that off? How?

[gecko]

Originally posted by jmercer
I've noticed an upsurge in the science-fiction and fantasy genre's of the supernatural stories, and I've been following a few of my favorite authors. (And authoress's, assuming I'm spelling that correctly...)

Frankly, I really enjoy the way these writers create a logically self-consistent alternative world, and then play out storylines that are constrained by the "new rules". For me, one of the best parts is the inherent self-consistency of the better writers.

Sorry about the derail, folks - back to lurking and reading this thread. :)

Is there really a female version of the word author? I thought the word could imply either gender. *shrugs*

[jmercer]

Originally posted by gecko
oh, haha, and sorry about the "cocky emails" thing. There's just something about "Hey gecko, 30 more people replied to your post" that screams "haha going down punk". In reality they're not really cocky.

And I can turn that off? How?

Click the "User CP" button at the top, go to "Edit Options", and look under messages - just click on the "No" for getting an email to forum posts. :)

[Moose]

Originally posted by gecko
Is there really a female version of the word author? I thought the word could imply either gender. *shrugs*

It'd be news to me if there was. :)

[SherryA]

Jmercer, the derail into fantasy literature was my bad, not yours.

Jmercer and Gecko, yes the word author applies to both sexes. Personally, I prefer writer.

Gecko, my mentioning science books in my earlier posts was only an abbreviated way to say look at what IS. As you've pointed out, you don't have to go to science to see that what we know, what we can experience with our senses is extraordinary beyond our ability to comprehend it. Books by excellent science writers, who have both knowledge and verbal finesse, can deepen your appreciation, just as reading good books on any subject can. People who putter around in gardens, hike, or climb mountains know this implicitly, but what scientists can tell us deepens our understanding so much. As Carl Sagan liked to say, "it makes for a more majestic view." It doesn't much matter how you connect with the real world, as long as you do, and as long as you know that even if everything you believe falls away, there is still wonder in the world, and no one can take that away from you.

About this part of your post, Gecko:

First of all, about the Satan + reason thing. No, of course not all reason is satanic, I was just saying to those who once believed in God but suddenly found themselves barraged by varying beliefs, trying to get them to forsake their faith, that can be Satan. On the day Jesus was born, Satan fought in the form of a dragon to slay the virgin mary and her son Jesus Christ. However, Satan failed, and thenceforth vowed to try and stop all from believing Christ, aka God. So if you had all these thoughts trying to get you to reason beyond your beliefs, that very well may have been Satan.

This is simply not so, buddy. This is a STORY. Here's where wider reading can help you out. The more you read of the world's great literature (this is NOT saying you have not), the more you read of mythology and all the creation stories and legends of how evil came into the world, the more you will see what story is. Whatever god there is gave us a mind to use and I don't believe he'd plant a Satan in it for the pure pleasure of watching him trip us up. ---SherryA.

[Psiload]

***snip***

psiload, or the guy with the super frightening pirate avatar(yeah, I remember people by these avatars, if I stay awhile i'll go find a gecko one :p )...your comment makes no sense my friend. By stepping out of my own reason, I AM stepping out of the confines of my own skull. That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm accepting that my mind can't comprehend the supernatural, and I am therefore searching for it on a spiritual level. Knowledge comes in more forms than just one, as does intelligence. They are all really relative in the end. So bear in mind that reason may not be the best, or only, way to find God.

Brian
Here you go...

The Geico Gecko:
http://www.my-funny-stuff.com/images/geicopic.jpg

or maybe you'd prefer The Gordan Gecko:

http://www.aftonbladet.se/kvinna/0308/23/NYHETER-23s00-michael-98.jpg

Do we still have the 100 or something posts "earn your avater" rule?

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Psiload
Here you go...

The Geico Gecko:
http://www.my-funny-stuff.com/images/geicopic.jpg

or maybe you'd prefer The Gordan Gecko:

http://www.aftonbladet.se/kvinna/0308/23/NYHETER-23s00-michael-98.jpg

Do we still have the 100 or something posts "earn your avater" rule?

Methinks it's 50 (not that I'd know...)

Speaking of which... the little title under your name changes occasionally (in my case, from "New Member" to "Student"). What prompts that ?

[Darat]

Originally posted by El_Spectre
Methinks it's 50 (not that I'd know...)

Speaking of which... the little title under your name changes occasionally (in my case, from "New Member" to "Student"). What prompts that ?

It's 50 for an avatar.

As for the title change, well we run a very advanced text parsing system that evaluates each and every post you make. It categorises and works out your belief system and your level of true scepticism™ then it generates an appropriate title well it’s either that or it's auto triggered on reaching a certain number of posts. I can't remember which. ;)


(Edited for words.)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by gecko
Is there really a female version of the word author? I thought the word could imply either gender. *shrugs*

Yep. Author & Authoress. :)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Moose
It'd be news to me if there was. :)

Merriam-Webster Online certainly thinks so - Authoress (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=authoress)

[gecko]

yeah but then that begs the question whether you have to have something published to be considered an author/authoress...well this is off topic.

50 posts eh? Hmm...and you know, that geico gecko joke really hits home. The other forum that I sometimes post on(a christian forum ironically enough, I suppose the two cancel out) had somebody make fun of me with the same darn thing. Haha. Oh well.

[SherryA]

I can't be sure, Gecko, but I don't believe the one who posted your "picture" meant to make fun of you. The way I look at it, you've kind of endeared yourself to us and that picture seals it. --SherryA

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Darat
It's 50 for an avatar.
It categorises and works out your belief system and your level of true scepticismâ„¢ then it generates an appropriate title

Heh... it's funny, I get my forum notifications at a gmail address, and the ads all tend to be for religion and astrologists :)

[gecko]

Originally posted by SherryA
I can't be sure, Gecko, but I don't believe the one who posted your "picture" meant to make fun of you. The way I look at it, you've kind of endeared yourself to us and that picture seals it. --SherryA

Hehe, yeah don't worry I wasn't really offended...though the story about that geico guy actually is true!

endeared myself to you? How so?

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by gecko
[B]psiload, or the guy with the super frightening pirate avatar(yeah, I remember people by these avatars, if I stay awhile i'll go find a gecko one :p )...your comment makes no sense my friend.

Do you mean me? That's a real picture of me. I'm not a pirate!

By stepping out of my own reason, I AM stepping out of the confines of my own skull. That's exactly what I'm doing.

And MY comment made no sense? :confused:

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by gecko
endeared myself to you? How so?

Some members here recognize their younger selves in you, maybe?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by gecko
Here's the thing: when people confess that they are only going to believe what can be proven to them EMPIRICALLY, they aren't going to find God. No. They also aren't going to "find" unicorns, or the Philosopher's Stone, or that the pyramids were built by reptilian aliens called the Anunnaki, or that Planet X is causing volcanos to erupt, or... That's the thing about empirical proof --- it makes it harder to prove things which aren't true.

Now, you want to use a different kind of reasoning... just for God? What does that tell you about your position? Will you also apply this same reasoning to the reptilian aliens and Planet X, or is it only your beliefs which get to have a completely different standard of proof?

Would you say, please, what this different standard of proof is? I am meant, it seems, to accept not only empirical proof, but proof gecko style. So what is your alternative standard of proof?

[Psiload]

Originally posted by gecko
yeah but then that begs the question whether you have to have something published to be considered an author/authoress...well this is off topic.

50 posts eh? Hmm...and you know, that geico gecko joke really hits home. The other forum that I sometimes post on(a christian forum ironically enough, I suppose the two cancel out) had somebody make fun of me with the same darn thing. Haha. Oh well. I didn't offer it as an insult... I really thought It'd make a cool avatar.

btw... my avatar isn't a pirate. It's a character from a very... intriguing, shall we say... movie directed by Stanley Kubrick titled A Clockwork Orange (based on a book by Anthony Burgess).

The movie is rated R, so you might want to ask your parents(or pastor's) permission before watching it...

kidding... :D I'm only kidding... I'm such a kidder.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by gecko
well, I told myself I wouldn't post here anymore, but jref has some thing where they send me cocky emails that people are responding, so I read the replies, and then as a result I feel I have to say something...

For the record, I do think about my beliefs. A lot. I understand that whole unraveling faith thing as you start to look at all these arguments, trust me I've talked to more people about God vs. no God then you know. And its always the same...they try to convince me of their beliefs, I try to convince them of mine.

Here's the thing: when people confess that they are only going to believe what can be proven to them EMPIRICALLY, they aren't going to find God. You have to look to something deeper than the deep hollows of your own mind, something you don't even understand yourself.

So to those of you who said you once believed but now no longer do, please don't give up. If you read the Bible, you will learn readily that Satan's tongue is that of this "fallible reason" that he uses to try and make you doubt and think otherwise. Isn't it possible that your faith was shattered by such fallacious speech? It seems possible to me.

I'm not anti all learning, I was simply suggesting that we all go out and appreciate the world in our own eyes, completely aside from the tags and thoughts science throws upon them. And if those ideas we generate are flawed, so what. The thoughts science generates also are.

Finally, someone said I should study more into creationism vs. evolution. Why? Both are possible. The only time I really cared about the scientific evidence is when I felt unsure. So it really doesn't do me any good.

I'm going to assume that you are all sincere in your requests for me to "stick around". And learning is a good thing. So ok ok, I pledge to be open minded with what I read: in fact I'm becoming a little more unsure of these auras as I hear more lol. I only ask you do the same.

Brian

PS: and finally, for the 500 claims at how ignorant I am, how inept I am to learning anything, I can't help but throw it all back at you. How do you know that you all aren't ignorant and I actually know that which is true?

Don't drink the KOOL AID!

[Moose]

The movie is rated R, so you might want to ask your parents(or pastor's) permission before watching it...

kidding... :D I'm only kidding... I'm such a kidder. [/B]

He's not kidding about the rated R part though. Man, is it ever. *chuckle*

[Gr8wight]

On the day Jesus was born, Satan fought in the form of a dragon to slay the virgin mary and her son Jesus Christ


I beg your pardon? They didn't teach me that at Sunday school.

[The Mighty Thor]

gecko,

Have you seen the extremely funny "Life of BRIAN"?

[gecko]

Well, let's try to get to everything I read...

TheBoyPaj, no I didn't think you were a pirate! I meant the psiload guy, but apparently he wasn't either. *shrugs*

Ok, of the replies I've seen, the biggest one that it seems I should reply to involves the different kind of reasoning...maybe reasoning was a bad term. Hmm, this is hard to explain. *leans on his computer for what seems like eternity*

Ok, well, I believe in souls obviously, and a spiritual realm. And these spiritual things you obviously can't sense with your senses(at least not the 5 basic ones). It's something you just kind of feel I guess. Hmm, does that make sense? I don't think it does. Umm, its just something that goes beyond reasoning. Its something that you know without telling, without even thinking about. It's innate or something...umm...yeah.

You quoted me saying "different type of reason" and then started talking about "proof". What a fallacy! They're not really the same thing. Evidence is generally gathered empirically, but it can also be gathered based on our feelings and experiences. So maybe that's the infamous "gecko proof" lol.

Psiload, I actually don't have a pastor, since I don't go to church. We christians aren't as stereotypical as you may think ;) Also, I know you were just kidding...try not to fall into the belief that as a christian I'm some "pure", "boring", or "perfect" person. Ok, I realize I talked about all the masturbation stuff so maybe that's where that belief came from, but, ah forget it. And maybe I'll snipe that geico guy just for the fun of it when I have enough posts, since you were so thoughtful to surf the web. ;)

This whole post is a mess. I'm trying to explain the stuff I feel(which is hard enough in itself) to people who don't feel it. Yuck.

Oh, and Gr8wight...yeah they don't teach that in sunday school, or church, or anything like that. They want everyone to think Jesus and God are just "really nice guys" or something. You can read more about this in John Eldredge's "Wild at Heart". It's a long story, and I would just be paraphrasing the book, so I won't go into it.

And to TheBoyPaj's other comment...about the stepping out of one's own skull. That was more of a pun than strong argument, I just meant that by trying to comprehend the supernatural or divine that is beyond my own brain capacity, aka my skull. Oh well.

I'll be back in about 5 hours to find 20 more posts...hahaha. Have a good one, the weekend's here if you're in the US.

Brian

[gecko]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
gecko,

Have you seen the extremely funny "Life of BRIAN"?

*shrugs*

Nope. What's it about? Is it relevant to anything or just the same name?

[patnray]

Originally posted by gecko
I don't know what good all this reasoning and research will do me. I already accept that my mind is too feeble to understand the absolute. I think it is from this inabilty to understand that non believing may really come from.
I don't believe that for a minute. Your well written posts make it clear that your mind is not to feeble to understand. Although you are young and still have much to learn, you are clearly intelligent and articulate.

I do believe you are being told your mind is too feeble to understand. This is a classic "conversion technique" used to "convert" military recruits or brian wash political dissidents as well as by religious proseletizers (and some psychotherapists). First convince the recruit that he is worthless and incabable of thinking for himself. Then, when his defenses are sufficiently broken down, offer him salvation in the form of the military, or the State, or God. As long as they embrace this solution they are saved from their own "worthlessness".

Thus you are made to believe that perfectly normal biological behaviour is "wrong" and a sinful. And you are made to believe that your mind is feeble. But you are given a way out as long as you accept god. T'ain't so...

As for "it is from this inabilty to understand that non believing may really come from", I suggest the opposite. The more we do understand, the more constrained religion becomes. It fails miserably at explaining the physical world. The more we learn the more religion becomes confined to spritual and ethical matters, which is fine, because these matters are more appropriate for religious thought. But the conflict between religious pronouncements about the physical world is upsetting to those who cannot accept religious texts as parables and allegories and insist it must be literally true.

From my perspective the christian bible is about humanity and the difficulties of the human condition, not about god. It is the human themes that resonate with all of us that give it its enduring power, not the supernatural wrappings....

But then I see the story of Adam and Eve as an escape from hell and ascension to paradise as they exercised their ability to acquire and use knowledge (which is what seperates them from the animals), not the other way around. But that negates the "original sin" concept so useful for breaking down people's sense of self worth (and makes Eve a heroine)...

Think about it...

[Moose]

endeared myself to you? How so?

You seem to be a likable fellow, and you've handled yourself with a commendable degree of grace in this thread. That's something people can respect, even if they must eventually agree to disagree.

The Geiko gecko rocks.

Brian, this is just something for you to consider: No pressure (from me) or anything. This isn't something we're going to resolve this week.

But you see, there really is no conflict between science and faith. That conflict is purely a man-made construct, and has, IMO, more to do with domination than a search for the truth.

The basic question science is attempting to solve is "how?" How does the universe function? If I throw this ball really hard, what will it do? How can we better survive our environment? How can we detect natural disasters sooner so we can save more lives?

Science does not attempt to answer "why?" Why does the universe as we know it exist? Do we have a special purpose? This, perhaps, is a question best left to one's individual faith.

Brian, I suspect you're at the stage where the "why" is more interesting to you than the "how". That you're content to let the physical world attend to itself so long as you can come to understand your role in it? Am I right?

Many of us, I think, have come to realize that there's really no clear answers to the "why". I, for one, finally came to realize that my purpose in life is what I make of it. No more, no less. I am a product of my actions and my choices. I can be moral because it's in my nature to be moral. That's plenty enough purpose for me.

As I became comfortable with that realization, I started to see the world for the marvellously interesting place it really is. I want to know how things work. The "why" can attend to itself.

[The Mighty Thor]

Sorry gecko. I was trying to be humourous. Monty Python's "Life of Brian" is a film that some Christians find offensive. You'd need to see it to understand.

[The Mighty Thor]

It occurs to me that gecko and jambo are about the same age and both have seen auras and describe weird experiences. They are also fervently "religious" in one way or another.

I wonder what denomination gecko is? He doesn't go to church and believes in apocrypha and creationism. What branch of Christianity is that? I'd like to know who is feeding him this stuff. It sounds very cultish.

Oh, on the teenager thing -- could their "experiences be anything to do with this:

It's not just the hormones ...
Scientists are discovering the real reasons for the hell of adolescence, writes Vivienne Parry
Thursday March 3, 2005
The Guardian
Something very strange happens at puberty, when truckloads of hormones begin arriving by the day. Children who were once sweet, helpful and good fun to be around turn, almost overnight, into grunting creatures, who wear nothing but black, lie abed until noon and consume 5,000-calorie snacks (followed immediately by saying that they are still hungry).
They are spotty, frequently smelly, and grow out of every item of clothing they have in the space of a few months. Their boredom threshold plummets and they do not seem able to concentrate on anything for more than five minutes at a time. You begin to wonder whether your child is a changeling, swapped with your own by an alien from the Planet MTV while you weren't looking.
Teenagers are trapped in limbo, neither children nor adults. An excruciating mix of vulnerability and potential, which by turns engages, inspires and alienates adults - everything they do has a high intensity feel about it. We know this because our own adolescent experiences - our first kiss, the first time we fell in love, the first time we drove a car alone - still burn brightly 30 or 40 years on.

. . . more interesting stuff in this article at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1428573,00.html

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by gecko
On the day Jesus was born, Satan fought in the form of a dragon to slay the virgin mary and her son Jesus Christ. However, Satan failed, and thenceforth vowed to try and stop all from believing Christ, aka God. So if you had all these thoughts trying to get you to reason beyond your beliefs, that very well may have been Satan.





I consider this post to be the straw that broke the camel's back. I am of the opinion that gecko is a troll. If I post in this thread again, please feel free to mock me relentlessly.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by gecko
You quoted me saying "different type of reason" and then started talking about "proof". What a fallacy!You seem to be talking to me here, and yet not quite. I quoted you as sayingHere's the thing: when people confess that they are only going to believe what can be proven to them EMPIRICALLY, they aren't going to find God. You were talking about proof. You said "proven to them EMPIRICALLY". They're not really the same thing. Evidence is generally gathered empirically, but it can also be gathered based on our feelings and experiences. So maybe that's the infamous "gecko proof" lol.Ah. I thought that might be it. The trouble is, that goes for so many beliefs, doesn't it? Not just Christians, but Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims. The 9/11 bombers were using the "gecko proof" --- they had no empirical evidence that their suicide and murder would get them a special place in Paradise --- but they had "feelings and experiences" which convinced them that it was so.

Now, here's something to think about. If Christianity is true, then the "gecko proof" has led most people to be wrong. So what is the "gecko proof" worth? It's wrong most of the time. Why should it be right for you?I'm trying to explain the stuff I feel(which is hard enough in itself) to people who don't feel it. Yuck.This is not usually so hard to do. I like the comic operettas of Gilbert and Sullivan --- that wasn't so difficult, was it? But you are also trying to explain why the "stuff you feel" is a good basis for an outlook on the world that encompasses everything from the pettiest details of morality to the grandest concepts of cosmology. Does that leave a bad taste in your mouth? Yuck.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I consider this post to be the straw that broke the camel's back. I am of the opinion that gecko is a troll. If I post in this thread again, please feel free to mock me relentlessly.

I looked up the John Eldredge guy and his book "Wild at Heart". He seems to be trying to appeal to young Christian men. It looks kind of cultish with "camping out with the boys" weekends and videos, DVDs, and lectures.

It all sounds a bit creepy to me.

You can read the "reviews" here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785268839/103-2366658-1369467

[SherryA]

Gecko wrote:

Hehe, yeah don't worry I wasn't really offended...though the story about that geico guy actually is true!

endeared myself to you? How so?

SherryA wrote:

I don't know. I think some of us want to adopt you. We're like kangaroos with empty pouches. You, little kangaroo, hopped into the forum and we want to capture you and put you in our collective, protective pouch. ---SherryA.

[gecko]

Moose:
All right. About the "how" or "why". Does the "how" really matter at all? I guess maybe it could, but obviously the "why" is more important as far as I can see.

You say the "why" is something we can never find out. How do you know this? Just because you haven't found it doesn't mean its not there.

Ladewig:
Beautiful. We're down to name calling now...just because we don't necessarily understand each other it doesn't make me wrong and you right...

The Mighty Thor:
Somehow I doubt you read the entire book, or really looked at the deeper meaning behind the text. First of all, the book is NOT directed towards young men at all! It's directed towards older men!

Since the opinion you're getting is from someone who hasn't read the book, here's mine. The current christian, church going world has destroyed masculinity and femininity as we know it. The men are predictable, not spontaneous, they are passive, not bold, they are weak, not strong, and they are blind followers, not leaders in their own lives. Meanwhile, the women are bland, not unique, hesitant, not seductive, blind, not creative, and so much more. That is the heart of this book, and there is some great stuff here.

About that whole "teenager" quote...this is an exciting mess of stereotypes! Ok, so I'm a teenager, so I can't pay attention? I have a 3.814 GPA in college thank you very much; I've been going there since I was 14. I can't control my emotions and temptations? Well, you heard the whole masturbation thing, it took some time but I got through that, and I've pledged to dedicate my will to living as morally and respectfully as I can.

Come on, this is a total joke. Being discriminated by my age is just plain ridiculous. I really appreciate people saying that I am "smart for my age" or whatever, but it kind of comes off as an insult at the same time. How many years we've lived on this earth doesn't matter half as much as the experiences we've had in life. However, none of the experiences I try to talk about are taken seriously, because everyone's too busy spouting "ah, youth" and forgetting about the possibility that my words actually have truth in them! Forget it.

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by gecko
Being discriminated by my age is just plain ridiculous.

Yes it is. I'm sure most of us remember feeling the same way at your age. This isn't a case of "you're young so you're dumb", it's a case of "these are really tough subjects that take a long, long time to understand".

Even with age (I'm only 28, but I imagine someone here in their 60's will back me up) this stuff isn't simple. The counterarguments to religious explanations are complex. No one person is an expert on physics, biology, cosmology, mathematics, etc. but collectively we (the enquiring people in the world, not just this forum) are building a decent set of knowledge.

Almost always, "unorthodox" arguments against strong scientific theories are based in a misunderstanding (or intentional distortion) of those theories. I don't mean to pick on ya, but some of your arguments fall into this category.

If you want to just have faith, that's fine. But if you really are interested in learning, and claim to refute certain theories, then you really need to understand those theories first.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by gecko
Since the opinion you're getting is from someone who hasn't read the book, here's mine. The current christian, church going world has destroyed masculinity and femininity as we know it. The men are predictable, not spontaneous, they are passive, not bold, they are weak, not strong, and they are blind followers, not leaders in their own lives. Meanwhile, the women are bland, not unique, hesitant, not seductive, blind, not creative, and so much more. That is the heart of this book, and there is some great stuff here.
There are at least two things wrong here. First, it is "Christianism" (hey, a new word :) ) to lump all Christians in these categories. You certainly didn't like the implication that "all kids are stupid" so you ought to then be wise enough to not use the above descriptions for all Christians.

But you are true...behaving according to your descriptions would certainly be consistent with the bible. Jesus/god likes his disciples "like children." They are to obediantly follow jesus. In fact, one of the 10C's is something about no other god ("blind followers"). Women are treated like dirt in the bible and told to keep their yap shut and obey their husbands. One of the 10C's equates them to property.

So, gecko, your wrong categorization of Christians is right according to the bible. :o

[Explorer]

Originally posted by geni
Strightforward visual illusion it's a contrast effect. simular to this:

http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/shadow.jpg

Doesn't work for me A and B are very different shades of grey. Even if you mask them individually from their surroundings A is very much darker in comparison. Can't get a swatch by pressing the mouse key either.

[Soapy Sam]

Edit Double post.

[Soapy Sam]

Come on, this is a total joke. Being discriminated by my age is just plain ridiculous. I really appreciate people saying that I am "smart for my age" or whatever, but it kind of comes off as an insult at the same time. How many years we've lived on this earth doesn't matter half as much as the experiences we've had in life. However, none of the experiences I try to talk about are taken seriously, because everyone's too busy spouting "ah, youth" and forgetting about the possibility that my words actually have truth in them! Forget it.- gecko

I recall when "a discriminating individual" was what we all aspired to be. Strange how the word has acquired a negative connotation in the last half century.

Brian. Do you play with thirteen year olds much these days? Or do you find them childish and uninteresting?

Welcome to getting old. You are acquiring prejudice, like the rest of us.

If you were forty and held the views you do now, few people here would waste their time discussing them with you. It would be a waste of time.

At sixteen, your views are far from unusual.
At sixteen I used to cry , listening to John Denver. He was so profound.
This is not mockery, unless it's self mockery.
Believe me, we have all been there. You, on the other hand have not been fifty. There IS a difference.

No teenager likes to be told he's a typical teenager. He knows he's unique. Special. Different from the herd. His jeans are different from their jeans, his teeshirt is not like other teeshirts.
Oh, I remember. (Just. I'm fifty in May).

Life is a joke, and a rather sick one. You can blame your god, (whose humour seems to be lavatorial), or you can blame evolution. You choose. As you get older it gets funnier and more tragic at the same time.

You are sixteen and seething in sex hormones. That can be a major pain, for you and those around you, but we all learn to live with it. You have the advantage of being intelligent. (If it is an advantage. Sometimes I wonder.)

A few thoughts to ponder:-

Much poetry, music and fiction beloved of teenagers is anathema to older people. This is a fact. Why do you think this is?

Someone earlier suggested that at 26 you will find this thread deeply embarassing. Why do you think that is?

Insects used to grow up to several feet across.
Why do you think they don't now?

Ladewig accused you of being a troll. You did not know how to turn off emails, but you did not ask what he meant by a troll.
Why was that?

Edit to add:- Explorer. I can't convince myself about that either.
I've seen it before and printed it out on an hp laserjet and an Epson 850 C. I then cut the squares out and showed them to several people -all of whom could tell the shades apart consistently.

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Explorer
Doesn't work for me A and B are very different shades of grey. Even if you mask them individually from their surroundings A is very much darker in comparison. Can't get a swatch by pressing the mouse key either.

I've seen this done with a picture and a paper mask (at TAM3) and just now checked w/ a graphics program. They are the same color (hex #6b6b6b if you're HTML inclined) indeed.

[Soapy Sam]

We need a printer expert. It's certainly got me bamboozled.

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
We need a printer expert. It's certainly got me bamboozled.

nah... check this out. A bit quick and dirty, but it makes the point.

[TheBoyPaj]

Print it on a good printer, then fold it like those old Mad Magazine pages so that they are next to each other. The colours are the same. And you get a satirical comment about George Bush or something.

[Aussie Thinker]

Yeah that is the best optical illusion I have ever seen.

I had guys at work who just refused to believe they were the same colour.. they thought i rigged it on the computer (when i slid them together).

They would only believe when they cut it out from a printed copy.. even then they lined it up over and over !

[Moose]

Originally posted by gecko
Moose:
All right. About the "how" or "why". Does the "how" really matter at all? I guess maybe it could, but obviously the "why" is more important as far as I can see.

And the fact that we're likely discussing this, as the whim takes us, likely more than half-a-continent away doesn't impress you any?

What about the fact that some enterprising folks can survive (thanks to science which allows them to bring contained oxygen, conserve body heat, and pack equipment light enough to carry) this so they can bring back photos (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050306.html) like this.

Or that if you wanted to, you could decide to travel anywhere in europe, on a whim, and probably get there in time for breakfast.

I dare say the "how" is important.

Even these (http://students.washington.edu/kye/212/jpeg/Archeology/bronze-stone.jpg) folks cared about the how. (I imagine they worried about the why too, when they saw this (http://www.bestdealsontheweb.net/lightning.jpg). It is the "how", however, that provided answers we can be comfortable with. We know this is a perfectly normal natural occurrence and nobody needs to be appeased.

You say the "why" is something we can never find out. How do you know this? Just because you haven't found it doesn't mean its not there.

Nothing wrong with searching for the "why". We're an inquisitive species, and the hard questions are only that much more attractive to us for the challenge.

Incidentally, if you really feel you have found the "why", then congratulations. But why rest on your laurels? Time to figure out the "how", or at least as much of it as you can.

Oh, and nobody's saying you're not smart 'cause you're young. Don't mistake "smart" for "inexperienced". It's not patronizing, simply a recognition of reality. We all went through it.

[Soapy Sam]

Originally posted by El_Spectre
nah... check this out. A bit quick and dirty, but it makes the point.

Good grief!

My eyes still don't believe my brain. :cool:

[The Mighty Thor]

gecho said

Somehow I doubt you read the entire book, or really looked at the deeper meaning behind the text. First of all, the book is NOT directed towards young men at all! It's directed towards older men!

Since the opinion you're getting is from someone who hasn't read the book, here's mine. The current christian, church going world has destroyed masculinity and femininity as we know it. The men are predictable, not spontaneous, they are passive, not bold, they are weak, not strong, and they are blind followers, not leaders in their own lives. Meanwhile, the women are bland, not unique, hesitant, not seductive, blind, not creative, and so much more. That is the heart of this book, and there is some great stuff here.

If these stereotypes are being posited by Eldredge, I have no real interest in reading his right-wing propaganda. So, maybe you would be Christian enough to share with us what he thinks Christians should be like and why you think Eldredge has a monopoly on the truth?

I assume by the dichotomies you present that you think Christian men should be bold, strong, and 'leaders'. Don't you think a church full of such types would soon self-destruct with all these bold, strong, macho men all wanting to be leaders? Does Eldredge ever talk about compassion, mutual respect, love of your neighbour?

Women should be unique (aren't we all?), seductive, creative . . . and so much more according to you and your mentor. But Christian women are 'blind'? What on earth is that supposed to mean, Brian? It sounds like good old patiarchal misogyny to me, like in Timothy with a reversal of the bolded part. to allow for a bit of seduction.

2:9. In like manner, women also in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire:
2:10. But, as it becometh women professing godliness, with good works.
2:11. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.
2:13.For Adam was first formed; then Eve.
2:14. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression.
2:15. Yet she shall be saved through child bearing; if she continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.

Is Eldredge saying all Christian men in the liberal tradition are "girlie men"? And women should be "seductive" -- i.e. "tending to entice into a desired action or state". That rings alarm bells for me of the David Koresh or "whores for Christ" kind :(

Who recommended Eldredge to you? Have you been to any of the "camps"? What were they like?

[Sloe_Bohemian]

This is a great conversation and Gecko is to be commended for maintaining a pretty high level of polite and intelligent discourse; given his beliefs.

I skipped over a couple pages in the middle, but did Gecko decide he was no longer a believer in paranormal events on earth? I see that he is no longer arguing he can prove them. In fact I see that he has retreated to saying empirical proof doesn't address the real issues. Which means that there is no physical, or material, interaction between God or any other supernatural elements and any part of the physical Universe.... otherwise they could be tested empirically.

Gecko, if you seek to maintain a strong Christian faith, but you're trying to reconcile it with the physical universe (which has shown no evidence of miracles, or the influence of supernatural elements)... then perhaps you will find this useful. 2Co:4:18: While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

So now you don't have to feel the need to "prove" your faith in Christianity with belief in auras or pink unicorns... you can safely compartmentalize your faith outside of the physical universe and you can use the Bible to back up that position.

[gecko]

Ahem, hmm, yes, well...

The reason I didn't ask what a troll is is because I had heard it used on this board. From what I have heard, it is someone who pretty much blabs on and on, keeps picking fights and falling down, doesn't care what anybody says but keeps shooting off their mouth. Things like that. You referred to Ron D, aka AForce1, as one also. So don't act like I don't know what you're talking about. :)

The Mighty Thor...your analysis of the book was quite inaccurate. Saying that men should be bold, strong, and leaders doesn't say they shouldn't be humble, compassionate, and kindred. You see, there are two sides to this spectrum. What Eldredge was saying is that christian men have the "really nice guy" part played, but they should really be protectors of the household and a leader as a man should be.

As for the woman part...you rank seductiveness and being a whore together...who taught you that bs? Who said that by being seductive you are cheating on your husband? Those are really horses of two different colors...a woman can be seductive without being a slut.

Finally...what does Eldredge ask of men and women alike? That they strive to be all these things. If you look around the world today...what do people do? Generally, they sit around at home, they go to the office, they watch television, or they go on the computer. How often do people really exercise? How often do people take risks? How often do people go on adventures?

This is where his book really takes off. We should explore this wild and mysterious world God has made...and we should be adament and energetic about soaking it up and enjoying it. This is not to say we shouldn't settle down, get a good job, and be a good caretaker of our children. Both are required really.

Eldredge isn't saying play the tough guy role. When he says to be bold, it doesn't mean to pick fights. He doesn't encourage violence in one part of his book. Similarly, he doesn't encourage women to engage in any unlawful sexual acts. What he does encourage is that we live life to the fullest, so to speak.

Right wing? Hardly. Nothing Eldredge says is fundamental. Fundamental, right wing christians would actually have quite contrary opinions. In pretty much every sense. Eldredge's book isn't degrading to women in the least, trust me. You'll just have to read it I guess. :)

You say women were treated like dirt. Were they treated like dirt by God? No. Were they treated like dirt by Jesus? Hardly. He lifted up and forgave people of all origins, including Mary who was a prostitute as I'm sure you will all recall. So, if women were mistreated, that was a sign of the times, not an act of God.

Sloe_Bohemian: yes, I have ceased talking about the paranormal stuff lately. I find myself too caught up in debating the religious stuff now. However, I still am holding at this time that, as far as I can see, even if there are optical illusions, auras produce unpredictable or explainable colors, and are therefore at this point authentic to me. I am, however, open to contrary evidence.

About the whole "how" vs. "why" thing. I agree that it is ok to try and learn how the world works, and if you enjoy it that's great. I'm just trying to say there's so much to learn, and to accept there's a lot of things we can't understand. And also, you know to enjoy the world, and to respect it in its splendor without always worrying about the "how". I still hold there are amazing things we can learn without the veil of reason. Maybe it is only a youthful mind that can see this because I haven't been so hardened to only use my head and not my heart. Who knows.

All right, that's all for now. Have a good day everybody.

Brian

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by gecko
You say women were treated like dirt. Were they treated like dirt by God? No. Gen 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.

[turtle]

Originally posted by gecko


Nope. What's it about? Is it relevant to anything or just the same name?

Monty Python's Life of Brian! Only the best movie ever! :D (Okay, all movies I really like are the "best movie ever," anyway...) :D

Quite relevant, yes. Google it or something.

Surely you know Monty Python? You must know Monty Python, right? Right?

[ilk]

Originally posted by turtle
Monty Python's Life of Brian! Only the best movie ever! :D (Okay, all movies I really like are the "best movie ever," anyway...) :D

Quite relevant, yes. Google it or something.

Surely you know Monty Python? You must know Monty Python, right? Right?

He's 16, raised religious and presumably american (apologies if wrong on this point). There is every possibility that his Pythonic education is sorely lacking

[Winny]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Gen 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.

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB

[gecko]

Originally posted by Winny
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB

Well, yeah...if you nit pick the old testament you can find virtually anything you want ascribed into one passage.

However, the fact remains...Jesus is God, his will is the will of God, and I think we've already been over his treatment of women. This is really more a sign of the times that these words shine through and not the will of God.

When wives are told to submit to their husbands or whatever, you should note that husbands are told to do the same plenty of times by Paul. Once again...I think looking at the big picture is far more important than nit picking. And I have to say a few people have nit picked things I said and taken them out of context too...though that isn't really relevant!

Yeah...seen a little monty python...I'll have to be brutally honest in saying it didn't really appeal to me. Same with Will Ferrel movies. Had a decently liberal upbringing actually...I'm more in the middle on the political scale now, but that isn't really relevant...anyway as far as comedies are concerned, Back to the Future all the way. A little old, but a great nonetheless. All right see ya.

[Winny]

Originally posted by gecko
Well, yeah...if you nit pick the old testament you can find virtually anything you want ascribed into one passage.



I'm genuinely curious. How do you decide which parts of the bible to disregard and which parts to accept? Do you just accept that the New Testament is the real deal and the Old Testament is straight out of woo-woo land or is it more complicated than that?

Assuming that it is more complicated than that, could you let me know what rule I should apply in deciding which passages of the bible I can safely ignore and which parts are truly the word of God and literally true?

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by ilk
He's 16, raised religious and presumably american

I'd wager MP is as widely known in the US as the UK at this point... at least the popular sketches. Perhaps not to a 16 year old. however.

you gibbering twit!
(oh, I'm sorry... this isn't Abuse?)

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Winny
How do you decide which parts of the bible to disregard and which parts to accept?

Well DUH... the parts that fortell JC are true, the rest are silly :)

I've had this argument with a friend a number of times... it's amazing how freely people interpret that book.

[gecko]

twisting my words again...

the thing I said was to look at the book as a whole, not nit pick little passages to make a claim one way or another.

Why? Because, the Bible leaves room for mounds of interpretation. Much of the book is parabolic in nature. I've heard druggies use quotes about "enjoying the herbs and natures of the world" or something to justify smoking pot...heck I've heard people use the Bible to justify just about anything. And as far as I'm concerned, claiming that God thinks women inferior is just about as much BS as the whole druggie thing.

Love your neighbor...love your enemies, treat everyone with compassion, yadda yadda all this stuff...the only reason anyone would think it is against women is from a few isolated texts, many of which are easily justifiable.

Ok that's my two cents...and yeah monty python is really popular here, I've told people its not my fav and they kind of look at me like an idiot... *shrugs*

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by gecko
the thing I said was to look at the book as a whole, not nit pick little passages to make a claim one way or another.

Why? Because, the Bible leaves room for mounds of interpretation. Much of the book is parabolic in nature. I've heard druggies use quotes about "enjoying the herbs and natures of the world" or something to justify smoking pot...heck I've heard people use the Bible to justify just about anything. And as far as I'm concerned, claiming that God thinks women inferior is just about as much BS as the whole druggie thing.

Love your neighbor...love your enemies, treat everyone with compassion, yadda yadda all this stuff...the only reason anyone would think it is against women is from a few isolated texts, many of which are easily justifiable.

Ok that's my two cents...and yeah monty python is really popular here, I've told people its not my fav and they kind of look at me like an idiot... *shrugs*

You do realize that you're basically saying the Bible has no meaning whatsoever - that anyone can use it to interrupt anything in any way?

Of course, history shows this view to be quite accurate.

(Oh, and all that love your neighbor/compassion "stuff" is all JC and the Sunshine Band. Most everybody else are about stoning people to death. :D )

[Winny]

Originally posted by gecko
twisting my words again...

the thing I said was to look at the book as a whole, not nit pick little passages to make a claim one way or another.

Why? Because, the Bible leaves room for mounds of interpretation. Much of the book is parabolic in nature. I've heard druggies use quotes about "enjoying the herbs and natures of the world" or something to justify smoking pot...heck I've heard people use the Bible to justify just about anything. And as far as I'm concerned, claiming that God thinks women inferior is just about as much BS as the whole druggie thing.



First of all, I'm new around here and I apologise if I'm continuing this conversation on the wrong part of the boards. I'm not especially fond of the various smiley faces, so just imagine vividly that I've got the appropriate one right about here.

Gecko - I apologise if I've twisted your words. I didn't think I had, but perhaps you are in a better position than me to decide that.

I *am* genuinely curious though. You have hinted at a belief in the literal truth of at least one of the creation stories in the bible. I would guess that there are other parts of the bible that you believe to be literally true?

At the same time, it would seem that you word prefer not to believe that God's exhortations to rape, murder, torture and enslave various peoples are true.

How do you decide what is true and what is untrue in the bible? You obviously don't discount the OT entirely, so there are parts of it that you believe and parts that you ignore. How do you decide on that?

You've spoken of taking "the book as a whole". Have you read the entire book? Did you think God was correct to forbid men with crushed testicles from going to church? Do you think it's reasonable that a victim of rape should be forced to marry the rapist? Do you think it was a worthy endeavour to collect the foreskins of your enemy? Do you think that God was right to threaten to smear faeces on the faces of his enemies? Do you think it was acceptable for God to kill 42 young children for making fun of His prophet?

When you take the book as a whole, God seems a fairly cranky, irrational and unpredictable kind of chappy to be honest.

[gecko]

umm...no I haven't read the entire Bible...only most of the new testament.

Ok, I can't really address all the things you mentioned, since I'm not really familiar with all these passages you are apparently referring to. However, yes, the Old Testament is very brutal, and God is not a peace-loving hippy God in it. But I wasn't trying to imply that he is.

God does punish sinners. The existence of hell makes this quite prevalent. He says he is a jealous God time and time again. However, this does not mean that he is also forgiving....

God is Jesus. That is a fact. Therefore, to look at who God is, look at who Jesus is. I don't know anything about Jesus forcing rape victims to marry their rapist, or anything like that. Sure, punishing sinners is a reality, but that whole rape line freaked me out a bit and that seemed really out of the blue.

In conclusion, I don't know. I'm sorry. I don't know how to interpret the Bible exactly. I'm kind of winging it. I accept that a lot of my beliefs are probably a little off. But I don't know if all those little things really matter. I think I get the big picture, and I'm glad that I do. I hope this helps, though I'm not sure it does, and I'll try to help in any way I can. Thanks for your replies.

Brian

[gecko]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
You do realize that you're basically saying the Bible has no meaning whatsoever - that anyone can use it to interrupt anything in any way?

Of course, history shows this view to be quite accurate.

(Oh, and all that love your neighbor/compassion "stuff" is all JC and the Sunshine Band. Most everybody else are about stoning people to death. :D )

Indeed, anyone can interpret it in any way. But that hardly means that there isn't a true intrepitation, and it doesn't mean it doesn't have any meaning.

[turtle]

Originally posted by gecko




Yeah...seen a little monty python...I'll have to be brutally honest in saying it didn't really appeal to me.

Gasp! "Didn't appeal to you...???" ah well, woo, or skeptic, no matter, if that's the case, there's no hope! NONE!

[turtle]

Originally posted by gecko
umm...no I haven't read the entire Bible...only most of the new testament.


God is Jesus. That is a fact.

Brian

It is most assuredly not :nope: "a fact." At all.

It is your opinion. Your belief. Your faith. Your religion. Well and fine. But it is not a "fact."

[Palimpsest]

Yeah...seen a little monty python...I'll have to be brutally honest in saying it didn't really appeal to me. Same with Will Ferrel movies.
Hissssssss.... Mentioning Monty Python and Will Ferrell in the same breath?

[turtle]

Originally posted by gecko
Indeed, anyone can interpret it in any way. But that hardly means that there isn't a true intrepitation, and it doesn't mean it doesn't have any meaning.

How can an "interpretation" be "true?" Who decides that?

It may have meaning; obvioulsy it does, for millions of people. I'm not about to argue (much) with that. Believe what you will, and who really truly deeply knows, for a fact? No one. I don't care if people believe in baby jesus or what have you, just leave me alone about it.

That aside, just who is doing the "true" interpretating?

What if you come along and say yours is the one, true, interpretation, but others come along and say oh no, brother, it's us that has the one and true interpretation? See what a mess we have? Oh, wait, we've seen that before. As in, throughout history. Including up til now. Silly me.

[gecko]

Originally posted by turtle
How can an "interpretation" be "true?" Who decides that?

It may have meaning; obvioulsy it does, for millions of people. I'm not about to argue (much) with that. Believe what you will, and who really truly deeply knows, for a fact? No one. I don't care if people believe in baby jesus or what have you, just leave me alone about it.

That aside, just who is doing the "true" interpretating?

What if you come along and say yours is the one, true, interpretation, but others come along and say oh no, brother, it's us that has the one and true interpretation? See what a mess we have? Oh, wait, we've seen that before. As in, throughout history. Including up til now. Silly me.

Umm...who decides which is true? God obviously.

I'm not saying my interpretation is true. I'm not saying christians intrepret it all just right. That wasn't what I'm saying at all.

What I was saying is just because there are many intrepretations of something doesn't mean there is a right one. That should be pretty obvious though. If somebody says 2+2=3, someone else says its 4, and someone says its 5, then the second is right right? So varying opinions can exist with only one being right.

[arthwollipot]

Originally posted by gecko
Umm...who decides which is true? God obviously.

How do you know what is true and what is not? God obviously knows, but how do you know?

I suggest that there is only one way to decide whether a thing is true or not, and that is to examine the evidence.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by gecko
God is Jesus. That is a fact. Therefore, to look at who God is, look at who Jesus is.
OK, gecko, let's do that very thing. Jesus went around gathering his disciples and told them to leave their families right now and go with him. You want to comment on those family values?

You want another example? OK, Jesus rejected his own mother and wanted to have nothing to do with her. You want to comment on that family value?

The problem, gecko, is that there is no support for your religious beliefs,
even in that very religion's bible.

Can you, then, give us some evidence that you are not making all this nonsense up as you go along?

[turtle]

Originally posted by gecko
Umm...who decides which is true? God obviously.

Ah.

That's assuming that G-d exists.

That's assuming that, even if G-d, God, GOD, god, Goddess, goddess, etc. does exist, that he/she/it/they will talk to you.

That's assuming that if he/she/it/they do talk to you, this "interpretation" is correct. In some sacred myths, "god" is a Trickster. A truth teller one moment, a liar the next, and many things in between other times.

Answer this question: so, God decides what is true, which interpretation is true. Okay. So how does one get this interpretation? God tells it to you, I assume?

Okay.

But what if, as I had asked earlier, you say God gave you interpretation A, and someone else comes along and says, "Nope, Gecko, you're deluded, for it is I that has the real interpretation. How do I know? God told me!"

Well, this means:

You're lying.
Or, the other guy is lying.
Or, God is lying.
Or, you're both deluded.

Can you have two truths? (I say you can, but hey, that is a wholeother argument! :D )

Wars have been fought, and are being fought, over this very point. Do you disagree?

I'm not saying my interpretation is true. I'm not saying christians intrepret it all just right. That wasn't what I'm saying at all.

What I was saying is just because there are many intrepretations of something doesn't mean there is a right one.

? Do you mean that there is a right interpretation? Answer please: yes or no.

If yes, then does that mean you believe, as you said at the top here, that God decides what is right? If so, we get back to what I just said: how do you respond to those points?

That should be pretty obvious though. If somebody says 2+2=3, someone else says its 4, and someone says its 5, then the second is right right? So varying opinions can exist with only one being right.

"2+2=3" is not an interpretation!, it's someone who can't count, or is lacking in cognitive abilities. 2+2=4 is a FACT, and there is not "interpretating" about it.

You cannot use a mathematical example to illustrate a point of religion.

[Winny]

Originally posted by gecko
umm...no I haven't read the entire Bible...only most of the new testament.

I think you probably should read a bit more of the OT. Especially if you are going to believe what's written there!

Look, there are plenty of other people here that will be banging this gong pretty furiously, so I'll try not to make this too windy.

The trouble is that you're relying on the bible as fact in some circumstances - for example as a history of creation - and much of the bible just doesn't make sense. Read just the first two chapters of the first book. There are two different creation stories!

It's one thing to hold a set of values and beliefs and call them Christian, it's another thing altogether to claim that the bible is a reliable document in deciding how to live your life. Your earlier comments on creationism seemed to lean toward biblical inerrancy.

The bible has almost nothing useful to say as a scientific document. It has a few messages on ethics and morals, but they're pretty confused to be honest. It is an interesting historical document, telling some stories of an ancient, nomadic tribe and the gradual ascent of their war-god to the point where they considered him the only God.

Your natural curiosity should at least be a little aroused by some of the questions that have been put to you in this forum. I hope you decide to look in to it further.

[rppa]

Originally posted by Winny
I think you probably should read a bit more of the OT. Especially if you are going to believe what's written there!

There are some pretty explicit contradictions.

Example: OT says the law says "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".

Jesus says "You know that eye for an eye law? Don't do that anymore."

[gecko]

well...let's see.

First of all, no I don't know "the truth" as you put it! God didn't come down and say "Hey Brian, here's the true interpretation of the Bible". My entire point was that it can be intrepreted in many different ways, and we have no way(while on this earth) to know which is true. We have to take what personal knowledge we have of God, read the Bible critically, yadda yadda and try to get as close as we can.

Your quotes about Jesus were skewed. Leaving your family if you have a greater calling isn't necessarily a bad thing. Are you going to say there should be no soldiers? Those people have to leave their families to go to war. Second, leaving someone's parents to pursue their real lives is perfectly natural too. Grow up with your parents, leave them to be with your spouse...that's a widely held belief not only by people but also in the Bible.

Yes, I am currently reading the Bible through, and I intend to finish the whole thing. I don't know why you think it is so imperitent that I have read it all before I try to post about this though...

My mathematical example is still sound as far as I can see. If you assume that God exists...which we were doing. Our issue wasn't with his existence at this time but the interpretation thing. So we are assuming he exists. Therefore, there has to be some truth about him, in other words, some correct intrepretation about him, or some fact of sorts. That's the same as 2+2=4, its a sound fact. However, there are many intrepretations, and I don't know which is right, if any, only that there is a truth worth searching for. And I don't think your type of searching is the way to find it.

arthwollipot, I dont' know what is true. I think I touched on this above though...I'm not trying to profess that I know everything...hardly.

The OT and the NT do have a lot of contradictions with the changes of the times. The OT is a world where God operates and runs freely, influencing people and regulating the sins of humankind. However, in this day and age, he has given us the free will to make of our lives what we will. Our judgment awaits, though just at a different time.

[turtle]

Originally posted by rppa
There are some pretty explicit contradictions.

Example: OT says the law says "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".

Jesus says "You know that eye for an eye law? Don't do that anymore."

No one disputes there are "some pretty explicit contradictions" in the Bible. But the Bible, the Christian Bible that is, includes both the OT and the NT. You can't reject the OT because it's bothersome. If you say you're a Chrisitan, then you have to grapple with both the OT, and NT.

Edited to say: Oops, sorry, got posters mixed up, thought you were Gecko.

But, my point about the OT and NT -- Gecko, it's a valid point.

[turtle]

Originally posted by gecko
well...let's see.

First of all, no I don't know "the truth" as you put it! God didn't come down and say "Hey Brian, here's the true interpretation of the Bible". My entire point was that it can be intrepreted in many different ways, and we have no way(while on this earth) to know which is true. We have to take what personal knowledge we have of God, read the Bible critically, yadda yadda and try to get as close as we can.

That's fine. Clears up what you were trying to say. I wasn't clear if you believed some people have the "true interpretation" or what.

Your quotes about Jesus were skewed. Leaving your family if you have a greater calling isn't necessarily a bad thing. Are you going to say there should be no soldiers? Those people have to leave their families to go to war. Second, leaving someone's parents to pursue their real lives is perfectly natural too. Grow up with your parents, leave them to be with your spouse...that's a widely held belief not only by people but also in the Bible.

Are you sure that's what the Bible says, or is that your interpretation?

How many translations and versions of the Bible have you read?

Yes, I am currently reading the Bible through, and I intend to finish the whole thing. I don't know why you think it is so imperitent that I have read it all before I try to post about this though...

It seems to me that if one is going to discuss something, one should know about the thing being discussed.

My mathematical example is still sound as far as I can see.

No, it's not.

If you assume that God exists...which we were doing.

No, it's what YOU are doing. (I am however, for the sake of this discussion, it is certainly not an issue of belief with me.)

Our issue wasn't with his existence at this time but the interpretation thing. So we are assuming he exists. Therefore, there has to be some truth about him, in other words, some correct intrepretation about him, or some fact of sorts.

I get that.

But so far, history has proven that there is no "correct interpretation" -- if there were, there wouldn't be any debates like this going on!

That's the same as 2+2=4, its a sound fact.

2+2=4 is a "sound fact." Interpretations of the Bible, or any religious doctrine, is not.


However, there are many intrepretations, and I don't know which is right, if any, only that there is a truth worth searching for. And I don't think your type of searching is the way to find it.

Not sure who you're posting to here....if you mean me, how do you know what I'm doing?

arthwollipot, I dont' know what is true. I think I touched on this above though...I'm not trying to profess that I know everything...hardly.

While you've addressed this to arthwollipot, I'll respond to this too -- I know that's not what you're professing.

The OT and the NT do have a lot of contradictions with the changes of the times. The OT is a world where God operates and runs freely, influencing people and regulating the sins of humankind. However, in this day and age, he has given us the free will to make of our lives what we will. Our judgment awaits, though just at a different time.

And that is your opinion, your belief, your interpretation.

You are free to hold those, and I am not one to stop you or make laws against you believing such.

But it is ONLY your opinion/faith/belief, and not a fact, and not the "TRUTH."

[rppa]

Originally posted by turtle
No one disputes there are "some pretty explicit contradictions" in the Bible. But the Bible, the Christian Bible that is, includes both the OT and the NT. You can't reject the OT because it's bothersome. If you say you're a Chrisitan, then you have to grapple with both the OT, and NT.

Except that in the teaching of Jesus which I paraphrased, he actually tells you to reject Old Testament law. Now, if you call yourself a Christian, which presumably means you are trying to be a follower of Christ, why would you turn your back on such an explicit teaching and say, "Yeah I know you said that but I'm told I have to believe all the old laws are infallible, even the ones you told me to throw out."

Remember the Pharisees, who kept trying to trip him up on the basis of Old Testament law? Over and over he's telling his followers, "throw out the Old Testament." Ever read the words that appear in the traditional communion prayer? Again paraphrasing, "you know that old Covenant? Forget that. We're starting over with a new Covenant."

The fact that organized churches tried to shoehorn all the old stuff back in after the founder threw it out, doesn't mean there is some absolute requirement that you MUST go with that policy in order to call yourself a Christian. Historically, right after Jesus' death (if you believe historically there was a Jesus and a death), the people creating the organized religion started distorting the message.

[songstress]

Brian,

Thanks for giving an alternative view. What you say is food for thought, indeed!

Love,
Patsy.
xxxxx

[songstress]

Ashles,

Thank goodness I have found someone who agrees with me about so-called 'man made' global warming.

Love,
Patsy.
xxxxxx

[Ashles]

Originally posted by songstress
Ashles,

Thank goodness I have found someone who agrees with me about so-called 'man made' global warming.

Love,
Patsy.
xxxxxx
Erm, huh?

[turtle]

Originally posted by rppa
Except that in the teaching of Jesus which I paraphrased, he actually tells you to reject Old Testament law. Now, if you call yourself a Christian,


I am not a Christian.

which presumably means you are trying to be a follower of Christ, why would you turn your back on such an explicit teaching and say, "Yeah I know you said that but I'm told I have to believe all the old laws are infallible, even the ones you told me to throw out."

Pointless to discuss this without exact cited passages from the Bible that you are referring to.

Although, while this may be so, it is also so with many other passages on many other subjects. Full of contradictions, OT and NT.

If you could provide specific quotes/passages from text, that would be very helpful.

It'd also be helpful (although a bit tedious, I'm sure) to quote from a couple of different sources, different translations.


Remember the Pharisees, who kept trying to trip him up on the basis of Old Testament law? Over and over he's telling his followers, "throw out the Old Testament." Ever read the words that appear in the traditional communion prayer? Again paraphrasing, "you know that old Covenant? Forget that. We're starting over with a new Covenant."[B][QUOTE]

See above in regards to contradictions.

And then, there' s always the old Christian vs. take over of Jewish law which is a wholeother ballgame!

[B][QUOTE] The fact that organized churches tried to shoehorn all the old stuff back in after the founder threw it out,

What founder? Who do you mean?

doesn't mean there is some absolute requirement that you MUST go with that policy in order to call yourself a Christian. Historically, right after Jesus' death (if you believe historically there was a Jesus and a death), the people creating the organized religion started distorting the message.

LOL, the "distortion" started long before that. As well as after. Anyhoo. . .

[turtle]

Originally posted by rppa
Except that in the teaching of Jesus which I paraphrased, he actually tells you to reject Old Testament law. Now, if you call yourself a Christian, which presumably means you are trying to be a follower of Christ, why would you turn your back on such an explicit teaching and say, "Yeah I know you said that but I'm told I have to believe all the old laws are infallible, even the ones you told me to throw out."

Remember the Pharisees, who kept trying to trip him up on the basis of Old Testament law? Over and over he's telling his followers, "throw out the Old Testament." Ever read the words that appear in the traditional communion prayer? Again paraphrasing, "you know that old Covenant? Forget that. We're starting over with a new Covenant."

The fact that organized churches tried to shoehorn all the old stuff back in after the founder threw it out, doesn't mean there is some absolute requirement that you MUST go with that policy in order to call yourself a Christian. Historically, right after Jesus' death (if you believe historically there was a Jesus and a death), the people creating the organized religion started distorting the message.

In all of this debate, which is fun and I enjoy it tremendously, I just want to point out a couple of things:

There's the assumption God exists. There's also the assumption that this god is also Jesus. A Christian concept of God.

There's also the assumption that the Bible was "written" by this God -- that is, so divinely inspired that it surpassed man. Man may have been the tool -- the physical writer of such words, but they were not his words, they were words of this divine being. Or, that there were two gods, one who wrote the OT, and a newer, improved version, Jesus, who inspired the NT.

That's a lot of faith going on there. That all the men who wrote the words that appear in the Bible -- OT and NT -- were never once mistaken, misinterpreted, passed off as being divine when they weren't, were never mistranslated, re translated, re re re re re translated, edited, re-edited, etc.

And yet people go beyond using this text as an inspirational guide and insist it's the word of a God. . .

And people here think I'm a woo for believing in ghosts or psi.

[rppa]

Originally posted by turtle
What founder? Who do you mean?

That would be that guy who the religion was named after, who you're a supposed follower of if you call yourself a Christian. I'm not addressing you personally, but I'm just saying that if you want to be a Christian, I would sort of think the teachings of Christ, as recorded in whatever source available, would be what you follow. As opposed to contradictory doctrinal stuff added by other people a couple of centuries later.

So if there's this guy, and you worship him and think his words are perfect, and he says that we're not supposed to be following the OT anymore, it seems strange to raise the OT to this divine infallible level.

[turtle]

Originally posted by rppa
That would be that guy who the religion was named after, who you're a supposed follower of if you call yourself a Christian. I'm not addressing you personally, but I'm just saying that if you want to be a Christian, I would sort of think the teachings of Christ, as recorded in whatever source available, would be what you follow. As opposed to contradictory doctrinal stuff added by other people a couple of centuries later.

I see your point, but, first of all, I will remind you, I am not a Christian.

Secondly, it wasn't Jesus Christ who started Christianity -- it was (roughly) various sects of Jews who created a religion based on JC. Big difference there -- JC didn't come along and say "Hey, I'm starting a religion, it's called Christianity, come follow me."

I find it funny that you will not give the same amount of religious faith to the OT because it's full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff" when the NT also is full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff."

You're also assuming that the only time "stuff" was added to the Bible was by "other people a couple of centuries later" but at no other time.

So if there's this guy, and you worship him and think his words are perfect, and he says that we're not supposed to be following the OT anymore, it seems strange to raise the OT to this divine infallible level.

As I said, show some direct quotes from the Bible that illustrate these points.

[turtle]

Originally posted by rppa
That would be that guy who the religion was named after, who you're a supposed follower of if you call yourself a Christian. I'm not addressing you personally, but I'm just saying that if you want to be a Christian, I would sort of think the teachings of Christ, as recorded in whatever source available, would be what you follow. As opposed to contradictory doctrinal stuff added by other people a couple of centuries later.

So if there's this guy, and you worship him and think his words are perfect, and he says that we're not supposed to be following the OT anymore, it seems strange to raise the OT to this divine infallible level.

I have a question for you: if everyone follows JC and/or the Bible the way it's all supposed to be, why oh why are there so many denominations?

If everyone were in agreement, there would be no need.

Obviously, people are not in agreement.

Why is that I wonder?

[rppa]

I see your point, but, first of all, I will remind you, I am not a Christian.

That would be why I said "I'm not addressing you personally".

Secondly, it wasn't Jesus Christ who started Christianity -- it was (roughly) various sects of Jews who created a religion based on JC. Big difference there -- JC didn't come along and say "Hey, I'm starting a religion, it's called Christianity, come follow me."

Yes, you're right. He said "I'm changing the rules for Jews".

I find it funny that you will not give the same amount of religious faith to the OT because it's full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff" when the NT also is full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff."

You misunderstand me. First of all, when I talk about other people coming along a couple of centuries AD and adding contradictory doctrinal stuff, I'm not referring to the OT. I'm no biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that nothing in the OT post-dates the Gospels.

What I really had in mind when I said that was such things as the "just war doctrine", and a bunch of stuff added by various popes and church leaders over the centuries for the purposes of the immediate political needs of their time (the ban against priests marrying for instance). On just war, Jesus according to the Gospels was pretty clear: Don't kill people, not even if you think they're bad people and you're doing it for me. So IMO when somebody comes along and says we're going to kill people in the name of Christ, they're committing a boo-boo.

But as a matter of fact, I think the post facto "contradictory doctrinal stuff" starts almost right away in the NT, beginning with the writings of Paul, a guy who I blame for a lot of the ills committed in the name of Christianity.

So where did I leave you with the impression that I give X amount of faith to either OT or NT?

You're also assuming that the only time "stuff" was added to the Bible was by "other people a couple of centuries later" but at no other time.

I think that's reasonable, since that's when the Bible we know was created, at a religious meeting where they kept the Books they liked and threw out a bunch which didn't fit their views. But actually I didn't talk about adding anything to the Bible at all. When I talk about "additional doctrine" I'm talking about doctrine which has been established by church leaders outside of the Bible.

As I said, show some direct quotes from the Bible that illustrate these points.

I'm not sure what points you mean as you appear to be reading the exact opposite of my intended meaning. You may be asking me to defend a "point" which is diametrically opposite to what I've been saying. For instance, you may be asking me to show you a Biblical quote containing a doctrine which I'm saying is extra-Biblical.

Also, all I've been saying is that Biblical literalism seems to be against the teachings of Christ as recorded in the Gospels. Did that come across at all? You seem to have read me as a literalist, or perhaps as a NT literalist.

At any rate I don't have a Bible at hand.

You know that the direct teachings of Christ are, if anywhere, only in the first four books of the NT, right? The other books are other stuff. And even those first four books were written decades after the historical time of Jesus.

[Winny]

Originally posted by rppa
Except that in the teaching of Jesus which I paraphrased, he actually tells you to reject Old Testament law.
No he doesn't. He tells us to keep the old testament laws, here:

Matthew 5:17-18
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

That's pretty unambiguous.

Therefore, my Christian friends, he is endorsing the law that forces a victim of rape to marry her attacker.

Unfortunately, in other parts of the bible, he also tells us to disregard the old laws (eg Luke 16:16)

This is just one of many, many contradictions within the NT.

Gecko - you have acknowledged that the divine word of the Lord contradicts itself between the OT and the NT. Now you see that it also contradicts itself entirely within the NT. How can you use such a book as any sort of a guide? Can a Christian simply interpret the bible in whatever way he choses? Doesn't this render it a little meaningless?

cheers

Winny

[rppa]

Originally posted by turtle
I have a question for you: if everyone follows JC and/or the Bible the way it's all supposed to be, why oh why are there so many denominations?

This would be one of those points where you appear to be attributing a viewpoint to me which is diametrically opposite to the one I've actually been trying to say.

For the record: I think almost *NOBODY* is following JC, *including* the authors of the NT, which would make it logically impossible to follow both JC and the Bible, or even the NT, in full.

Edited to add: Living in Pennsylvania now, I run into a lot of Quakers. I often come away from such meetings thinking the Quakers may be the best of us, our highest ideal. They come closer than anybody at following what I believe was the original message.

If everyone were in agreement, there would be no need.

I *really* don't know where I might have implied that everyone was in agreement.

Obviously, people are not in agreement.

Why is that I wonder?

Because they're people, and it's a hard ideal for humans to follow. Much easier to do what you want, kill who you want, and try to convince a majority of your people that God is on your side.

[turtle]

Originally posted by rppa
I see your point, but, first of all, I will remind you, I am not a Christian.

That would be why I said "I'm not addressing you personally".

Just being clear.

Secondly, it wasn't Jesus Christ who started Christianity -- it was (roughly) various sects of Jews who created a religion based on JC. Big difference there -- JC didn't come along and say "Hey, I'm starting a religion, it's called Christianity, come follow me."

Yes, you're right. He said "I'm changing the rules for Jews".[/B][/QUOTE]

LOL, where does he say that? Please post some direct quotes or passages from the Bible to support these paraphrases of yours.

I find it funny that you will not give the same amount of religious faith to the OT because it's full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff" when the NT also is full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff."

You misunderstand me. First of all, when I talk about other people coming along a couple of centuries AD and adding contradictory doctrinal stuff, I'm not referring to the OT. I'm no biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that nothing in the OT post-dates the Gospels.

Oy.

that's not my point.

The Bible, OT, NT, has been written by men, as in , human beings, who say they were divinely inspired by God. That doesn't make it so. The OT, NT ,has also been re translated, edited, and re re re re re re up to this moment in history.

The OT predating the NT has nothing to do with these points.

[/B][/QUOTE] What I really had in mind when I said that was such things as the "just war doctrine", and a bunch of stuff added by various popes and church leaders over the centuries for the purposes of the immediate political needs of their time (the ban against priests marrying for instance). On just war, Jesus according to the Gospels was pretty clear: Don't kill people, not even if you think they're bad people and you're doing it for me. So IMO when somebody comes along and says we're going to kill people in the name of Christ, they're committing a boo-boo.[/B][/QUOTE]

And the NT is immune from such additions, deletions, translations, and editing? See above.

But as a matter of fact, I think the post facto "contradictory doctrinal stuff" starts almost right away in the NT, beginning with the writings of Paul, a guy who I blame for a lot of the ills committed in the name of Christianity.

So where did I leave you with the impression that I give X amount of faith to either OT or NT?

Because you've said you don't put much stock in it. Didn't you?

You're also assuming that the only time "stuff" was added to the Bible was by "other people a couple of centuries later" but at no other time.

I think that's reasonable,

You think, or you know? Are you forming opinions on the history of biblical text on what you think, or what you know?

since that's when the Bible we know was created, at a religious meeting where they kept the Books they liked and threw out a bunch which didn't fit their views. But actually I didn't talk about adding anything to the Bible at all. When I talk about "additional doctrine" I'm talking about doctrine which has been established by church leaders outside of the Bible.

Are you referring the Council of Nicea?

"church leaders outside of the Bible?" WTF? Please explain.

Look, can you understand the fact that the Bible, NT, OT, within a Christian contect, has been, as I've said several times already, translated, mistranslated, edited, messed with, added to, etc. ? Yes or no?



As I said, show some direct quotes from the Bible that illustrate these points.

I'm not sure what points you mean as you appear to be reading the exact opposite of my intended meaning. You may be asking me to defend a "point" which is diametrically opposite to what I've been saying. For instance, you may be asking me to show you a Biblical quote containing a doctrine which I'm saying is extra-Biblical.[/B][/QUOTE]

You keep saying JC said "don't follow the OT" and I'm asking you for a citation. Is that so hard? Little matter if it comes from the NT, OT, or some other source.

I am asking you for the source of your comments.

Also, all I've been saying is that Biblical literalism seems to be against the teachings of Christ as recorded in the Gospels. Did that come across at all? You seem to have read me as a literalist, or perhaps as a NT literalist.

Does anyone see the irony in this?
Biblical literalism is agasint the teachings of Christ -- as recorded in the Gospels! LOL. Sounds literal to me.

At any rate I don't have a Bible at hand.

Go get one then. You're the one making the arguments here, all I'm doing is asking you to support your assertions. You can probably look it up on the net, even.

By the way, what kind of Christian are you? I'm not a Christian, but I have a Bible in my library.

You know that the direct teachings of Christ are, if anywhere, only in the first four books of the NT, right? The other books are other stuff. And even those first four books were written decades after the historical time of Jesus.

Ah. Brings up another point. So, God is Jesus, Jesus is God, right? So what does it matter? Wasn't Jesus as God (pre Jesus God) setting the stage for new, improved Jesus-God in the OT? So all those "other books are other stuff" would be somewhat important, would they not?

And they're not the "direct teachings of Christ" just because some people who said they were are.

[turtle]

Originally posted by rppa
This would be one of those points where you appear to be attributing a viewpoint to me which is diametrically opposite to the one I've actually been trying to say.

No. This would be a question that I'm asking you out of curiosity.

For the record: I think almost *NOBODY* is following JC, *including* the authors of the NT, which would make it logically impossible to follow both JC and the Bible, or even the NT, in full.

LOL, then why bother?

It is your opinion, your interpretation of what JC, the authors of the NT, OT, whatever-T, etc. 'really meant.'

By the way, if one believes the Bible is the literal word of God/JC, then following "both JC and the Bible" would not be "logically impossible."

Edited to add: Living in Pennsylvania now, I run into a lot of Quakers. I often come away from such meetings thinking the Quakers may be the best of us, our highest ideal. They come closer than anybody at following what I believe was the original message.

I *really* don't know where I might have implied that everyone was in agreement.

I didn't say you did.
I asked you a question.


Because they're people, and it's a hard ideal for humans to follow. Much easier to do what you want, kill who you want, and try to convince a majority of your people that God is on your side.

What's the "ideal?" Seems to be quite elusive. If it weren't, everyone would be in agreement. Simple.

[gecko]

Originally posted by Winny

*cut*

Gecko - you have acknowledged that the divine word of the Lord contradicts itself between the OT and the NT. Now you see that it also contradicts itself entirely within the NT. How can you use such a book as any sort of a guide? Can a Christian simply interpret the bible in whatever way he choses? Doesn't this render it a little meaningless?

cheers

Winny [/B]

Winny,

Trying to find the truest meaning of the Bible, just like trying to find every little thing we believe, is a process that takes up someone's entire life no doubt. Does it render it meaningless? Hardly. There is a lot of wisdom that can be found in the book, just as there is a lot of ambiguity. That's why I don't read study Bibles...its somebody's interpretation of it. No doubt, to truly understand the word of God wholly, I would want to learn, what is it, Greek? Hebrew? The original language in which the Bible is written. It has undergone many translations.

As you probably know, most people do try to use the Bible in whatever way they see fit. I have heard people defend the most outrageous claims by citing one line from the Bible and taking it at hein sight. I talked about taking the book as a whole, and although I haven't read it all, I think the deepest meanings behind the Bible are clear...need I really paraphrase them? They are the foundations of what a christian is "supposed" to be. Kind, caring, forgiving(that's a big one), compassionate, unafraid, strong, devoted, pure, sanctimonious, whatever. The Bible is a good reference, but basing everything we do on it can be risky.

Brian

[rppa]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by turtle
I find it funny that you will not give the same amount of religious faith to the OT because it's full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff" when the NT also is full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff."



Oy.

that's not my point.

The Bible, OT, NT, has been written by men, as in , human beings, who say they were divinely inspired by God.

Oy. Not mine either. I fully agree. I just thought it was strange when I made a statement about stuff being added centuries AD and you interpreted this as being a statement about the Old Testament.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

I've said, in as many ways as I can think of, that the NT, far from being divine, is the work of humans and is deeply flawed.

In addition to your interpretation of "centuries AD" as "OT", I was also trying to point out that when I say "teachings of Christ, as they are recorded in the Gospels", I'm not saying "all of the NT". I'm not having a theological argument with you, just trying to point out that when you read Holy Roman Empire and tell me I'm talking OT, or read Gospels and tell me I'm talking about the NT entirely, you're misreading me.

I'd be having the same argument if I started talking about post Revolutionary America and you told me I was talking about Medieval France, if I was talking about the Beatles and you wanted to know why I was saying those things about George Gershwin.


The OT predating the NT has nothing to do with these points.

Which I wasn't arguing. The OT predating the NT just has to do with the interpretation of the phrase "doctrine added a couple of centuries AD".

And the NT is immune from such additions, deletions, translations, and editing? See above.

See? You did it again! Where did I say that?

Because you've said you don't put much stock in it. Didn't you?

No.

Edited for clarity. No, I don't put much stock in it. Yes, I said that.

You think, or you know? Are you forming opinions on the history of biblical text on what you think, or what you know?

I'm pulling together my murky memories of what actual biblical scholars have said or written, including the lady who wrote that book about the Gnostic Gospels.

Are you referring the Council of Nicea?

Possibly. Wasn't there something at Worms? Who dropped the Gospel of Thomas?

"church leaders outside of the Bible?" WTF? Please explain.

Can't. Didn't say it. Let's see, you seem to have taken a phrase from one sentence, "church leaders", and attached it to another from another sentence, "outside of the Bible".

What I actually said was that church leaders, over the centuries, have created DOCTRINE. And that while using the Bible as justification, when a leader writes words down with his own pen, and says "this is what you are to believe now", those are extra-Biblical words. See? Something written by the current Pope, for instance, would qualify as words that aren't part of the Bible. He's a church leader. His words are not in the Bible. Therefore what he writes is "outside of the Bible".

By the way, what kind of Christian are you? I'm not a Christian, but I have a Bible in my library.

I don't know. You're making up my viewpoint, you tell me.

OK, how's this? I'm the kind who is doing his best to muddle through all the extraneous stuff added over the centuries and figure out what the ideal of human behavior intended by Christ might have been. I'm the kind who won't drop down dead if Christ turns out never to have existed, since the ideal is the important thing.

Ah. Brings up another point. So, God is Jesus, Jesus is God, right?

Who are you quoting now? Not me.

So what does it matter? Wasn't Jesus as God (pre Jesus God) setting the stage for new, improved Jesus-God in the OT? So all those "other books are other stuff" would be somewhat important, would they not?

Not in my opinion. Have I made that clear enough yet?

Also, you once again seem to have moved the meaning of one of my sentences around. I was saying the Gospels are not the entirety of the NT. When I said "the other books are other stuff" I was referring to the other books of the NT. When you take this phrase and (apparently) apply it to the OT, you are attributing words to me which I didn't say. I was merely making the point that when I talk Gospels, I'm not talking about the whole NT. In that short paragraph (which nevertheless was long enough to misconstrue) I didn't mention or refer to the OT at all.

So "not in my opinion" in the original sentence means that, no I don't think the other books of the NT are that important to me personally. Since you redirected "other books" to mean OT I guess I'll add that I don't spend a lot of time worrying about those either.

And they're not the "direct teachings of Christ" just because some people who said they were are.

That's correct. That would be the intent of my statement to do with the fact that the four Gospels were all written ex-post-facto.

It's fascinating how completely every word I've said has been turned upside down. I can't imagine who you are actually reading or arguing with. It isn't me, as I don't recall disagreeing with you on anything except the historical period I was talking about.

[gecko]

Reading over my post, I realized what you are going to say. You're going to ask what meaning christians should find in their lives...what they should do. Right? Well, I don't know for 100% sure, but here are my thoughts.

Christians often like to think there's some little list of what they have to do to be good people, or to get into heaven, or what have you. In my opinion, there's no little list. We are all put here with the goal to find God, love him, and help others do the same(this IS my opinion). So, how do we do that? In whatever way we see best I guess. With the Holy Spirit in our hearts, and the Bible in our hands, we have to forge our own way in life and decide how we can best spread God's will to the world.

For people good at speaking, maybe they want to become a pastor. For adventurous, compassionate people, maybe a missionary. For someone who acts well, they can make mounds of money, give it all to charity, and be a good person along the way. You can make your life what you will no matter what your interests or talents are.

Again, my opinion, this is what I'm basing what I'm saying on. If you have any questions, ask away. If not, have a good one(well, have a good one regardless lol).

Brian

[turtle]

Originally posted by rppa
Originally posted by turtle
I find it funny that you will not give the same amount of religious faith to the OT because it's full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff" when the NT also is full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff." [/B

(To all skeptics in here: now I understand why some of you resort to insults and sarcasm out of sheer frusration. Not that it makes it okay. But I understand.)

Oy.

that's not my point.

The Bible, OT, NT, has been written by men, as in , human beings, who say they were divinely inspired by God.

Oy. Not mine either. I fully agree. I just thought it was strange when I made a statement about stuff being added centuries AD and you interpreted this as being a statement about the Old Testament.

You are not understanding my points and questions at all.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

Do I take that literally?:D

I've said, in as many ways as I can think of, that the NT, far from being divine, is the work of humans and is deeply flawed.

In addition to your interpretation of "centuries AD" as "OT", I was also trying to point out that when I say "teachings of Christ, as they are recorded in the Gospels", I'm not saying "all of the NT". I'm not having a theological argument with you, just trying to point out that when you read Holy Roman Empire and tell me I'm talking OT, or read Gospels and tell me I'm talking about the NT entirely, you're misreading me.

I'm not misleading you. I'm trying to understand what you are saying.


I'd be having the same argument if I started talking about post Revolutionary America and you told me I was talking about Medieval France, if I was talking about the Beatles and you wanted to know why I was saying those things about George Gershwin.

Fine. But this does not apply. (unless we're talking about the influence of Gershwin, if any, upon the Beatles, lol)

I'm asking you direct questions, you are not answering them.

The OT predating the NT has nothing to do with these points.

Which I wasn't arguing. The OT predating the NT just has to do with the interpretation of the phrase "doctrine added a couple of centuries AD".

And the NT is immune from such additions, deletions, translations, and editing? See above.

See? You did it again! Where did I say that?

I will once again make this clear and easy for you: I didn't say you said this, I am asking you a question! Do you, or do you not, agree with the above statement?

Because you've said you don't put much stock in it. Didn't you?

No.[/B]

Hmm. Have to go back and read your posts.

Edited for clarity. No, I don't put much stock in it. Yes, I said that.

??? Oh, never mind. So you do acknowledge saying you don't put much stock in it? Okay then. sheesh.

You think, or you know? Are you forming opinions on the history of biblical text on what you think, or what you know?

I'm pulling together my murky memories of what actual biblical scholars have said or written, including the lady who wrote that book about the Gnostic Gospels.

Are you referring the Council of Nicea?

Possibly. Wasn't there something at Worms? Who dropped the Gospel of Thomas?

You're the one who brought it up, not me. Don't you know what you're talking about?

"church leaders outside of the Bible?" WTF? Please explain.

Can't. Didn't say it. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes you did.

Let's see, you seem to have taken a phrase from one sentence, "church leaders", and attached it to another from another sentence, "outside of the Bible".

I'll find you the post.

What I actually said was that church leaders, over the centuries, have created DOCTRINE.

Yep.

And that while using the Bible as justification, when a leader writes words down with his own pen, and says "this is what you are to believe now", those are extra-Biblical words. See?

I now understand that this is what you meant. You were not clear before.

Something written by the current Pope, for instance, would qualify as words that aren't part of the Bible. He's a church leader. His words are not in the Bible. Therefore what he writes is "outside of the Bible".

Which brings me to another point. Wouldn't anyone, any human, who wrote whatever words appear in the Bible, be also considered "outside of the Bible?"

By the way, what kind of Christian are you? I'm not a Christian, but I have a Bible in my library.

I don't know. You're making up my viewpoint, you tell me.

I am not "making up" your "viewpoint." I am trying to understand what you are saying, and trying to get you to be clear. Do not evade the question.

OK, how's this? I'm the kind who is doing his best to muddle through all the extraneous stuff added over the centuries and figure out what the ideal of human behavior intended by Christ might have been. I'm the kind who won't drop down dead if Christ turns out never to have existed, since the ideal is the important thing.

Cool.

Ah. Brings up another point. So, God is Jesus, Jesus is God, right?

Who are you quoting now? Not me.

Stop being so defensive and worried about "who are you quoting now" -- I didn't put that in quotes, so it should be clear that I am not quoting anyone. I am asking you if, being a Christian, you believe that JC is God, and God is JC etc. It's a question. Do you have an answer?

So what does it matter? Wasn't Jesus as God (pre Jesus God) setting the stage for new, improved Jesus-God in the OT? So all those "other books are other stuff" would be somewhat important, would they not?

Not in my opinion. Have I made that clear enough yet?

Barely.

So pre JC god was just what? Messing around?

And they're not the "direct teachings of Christ" just because some people who said they were are.

That's correct. That would be the intent of my statement to do with the fact that the four Gospels were all written ex-post-facto.

It's fascinating how completely every word I've said has been turned upside down.

It's fascinating how completely every word I've said has been turned upside down. Yes, isn't it?

I'm asking you questions, answer them please.

Should be simple enough.

Part of why I'm asking you questions is because I do not understand much of your points. Therefore, I ask. See how it works?

I can't imagine who you are actually reading or arguing with. It isn't me, as I don't recall disagreeing with you on anything except the historical period I was talking about.

As I said, why you're so defensive I have no idea. I'm asking you questions about Christianity. You did say you were a Christian, right?

[rppa]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by turtle
No. This would be a question that I'm asking you out of curiosity.

OK, out of curiosity, you're asking me "If everyone follows JC and/or the Bible correctly, then why are there so many denominations?"

Since I don't agree with your premise, I can't figure out how I'm supposed to answer. Out of curiosity, why if Sylvester Stallone is the greatest actor of our time, didn't he win a lifetime Oscar this year? I'm curious what your answer to this is.

LOL, then why bother?

Why bother what?

It is your opinion, your interpretation of what JC, the authors of the NT, OT, whatever-T, etc. 'really meant.'

Yes, it is my opinion of what JC "really meant". When we choose our moral ideal, what else do we have except our best attempt at figuring out what that ideal is?

Everything after "the authors" is stuff you added that I didn't say.


By the way, if one believes the Bible is the literal word of God/JC, then following "both JC and the Bible" would not be "logically impossible."

That's correct. You are gradually circling closer to my own viewpoint, in between interjecting whoever you are channeling. So when I said it's logically impossible to follow both JC and the Bible, and when I said that the message started to go wrong with Paul, I'm pretty sure I'm saying I don't think the Bible is the literal word of God.

When I say that everything past the first four books of the Gospel is where humans started to inject their own prejudices, starting with Paul, and got it wrong, I am not saying the Bible, even the post Gospel books of the NT, are the literal word of JC.

When I say that the four Gospels were written decades after the time of Christ, I am not saying that the four Gospels are the literal word of JC.

Let me repeat it: The authors of the NT got it wrong. I think the message that comes through in the four Gospels is reasonably intact, but there are obvious personal notes added and differences in emphases.

You will not get a statement from me that the authors of any book in the Bible were anything but fallible humans, doing fallible translations. Any attempt to create such a position for the purposes of having someone to argue with is what we call a "strawman".

What's the "ideal?" Seems to be quite elusive. If it weren't, everyone would be in agreement. Simple.

It is. We're not. Simple, isn't it?

But as I said, I admire the Quakers. I think they seem to be closest.

So why am I not a Quaker? Because I don't have the courage to be a pacifist. I think a military is still necessary.

But wait, doesn't that mean my personal beliefs are against what I think is the ideal I've said I'm trying to follow, my view of JC's original intent?

Yes. On that score, I fall short. I just think I'm being more honest than people who want to claim God fights on their side in a war. Wars are not Christian. They may be necessary, but when you fight a war you are turning your back on the Christian ideal. If Jesus were here today, there's no question in my mind he'd be a pacifist. And against capital punishment, which once again I am uncertain that I believe is never appropriate.

It will be interesting to see what the strawman version of me looks like next.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by turtle
To all skeptics in here: now I understand why some of you resort to insults and sarcasm out of sheer frusration. Let's just check if we got the same result... because you, and other trolls like you, twist our words when discussing scepticism just as freely as you twist rppa's when discussing religion? That's what I got.

[Dr Adequate]

Fopr example, the stupid troll posts... Originally posted by turtle
I am not "making up" your "viewpoint." I am trying to understand what you are saying, and trying to get you to be clear. Do not evade the question. ... and then immediately afterwards quotes the answer rppa gives to the question she asked, just in case we couldn't check for ourselves that she was lying, and that rppa has not "evaded the question". But she has lied and lied again and again about the contents of people's posts on this forum, and it seems that the shame of being exposed again and again as a stupid, pathetic, malicious liar does not deter her --- I don't know why. Perhaps, for some people, lying is its own reward.

[rppa]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by turtle
Are you referring the Council of Nicea?

You're the one who brought it up, not me. Don't you know what you're talking about?

No, not a clue. I'm fascinated by Biblical history, but it runs out of my head as soon as I'm done hearing it.


"church leaders outside of the Bible?" WTF? Please explain.

Can't. Didn't say it.

Yes you did.

Did not, did not. At any rate, I tried to clarify I was talking about extra-biblical doctrine added by church leaders. Is that clear enough? (Probably not).

Which brings me to another point. Wouldn't anyone, any human, who wrote whatever words appear in the Bible, be also considered "outside of the Bible?"

No, a human who wrote words that are in the bible would be considered, in my view, to be an author of words in the bible. If they're in the Bible, I wouldn't use the phrase "outside of the bible".

By the way, what kind of Christian are you? I'm not a Christian, but I have a Bible in my library.

I'm not in my library.

I am not "making up" your "viewpoint."

When you quote my viewpoint and it isn't mine, I consider that "making up my viewpoint".

I am trying to understand what you are saying, and trying to get you to be clear. Do not evade the question.

I'm not trying to be evasive. You seem to be under the impression that you have asked me a question I haven't answered. I have no idea what that might be.

Stop being so defensive and worried about "who are you quoting now" -- I didn't put that in quotes, so it should be clear that I am not quoting anyone. I am asking you if, being a Christian, you believe that JC is God, and God is JC etc. It's a question. Do you have an answer?

Yes. My answer would be "No".

And my answer to "What kind of Christian are you?" would be "the kind who would have been burned at the stake a couple of hundred years ago".


So pre JC god was just what? Messing around?

Beats me. Was there a pre JC god? All we've got is the OT, which is a bunch of writings by a bunch of fallible humans. I have no opinion on the "pre JC god". And very little on the "post JC god".

I'm asking you questions, answer them please.

Not trying to be difficult. I've answered every time I've been aware of a question. Not sure what question you think I've evaded.

Part of why I'm asking you questions is because I do not understand much of your points. Therefore, I ask. See how it works?

If you're interested in the ideosyncratic self-made theology of a single, not very scholarly person, sure. Seems kind of a limited field of study. Certainly won't give you any insights into the theology of anyone else self-identified as Christian here.

So ask. As I said, I am not aware of any question you've asked which I haven't answered. Truly. I am a contrary bastard, but a sincerely contrary one, and I don't mind answering.

As I said, why you're so defensive I have no idea.

I hate being misquoted.

I'm asking you questions about Christianity.

Advice: Asking me questions about my personal theology may not be a good way to get there.

You did say you were a Christian, right?

Not in this thread, and not ever in direct conversation with you. However, it is true I apply that label to myself. It is also true that my theology has been described by DrAdequate as classic agnosticism.

Pain in the ass, aren't I? But if you really, for some reason, want to ask me about my own bizarre views on Christianity, feel free.

[Ipecac]

I'm confused. (Okay, this may not be breaking news, I admit.)

Is it my imagination or do RPPA and Turtle agree and are merely talking past one another? I kept thinking they were addressing someone else as they both seemed to be saying the same things but they have continued to hammer on each other.

I got so confused I stopped reading their back and forth, but don't they basically agree?

[turtle]

Originally posted by rppa
Originally posted by turtle
No. This would be a question that I'm asking you out of curiosity.

OK, out of curiosity, you're asking me "If everyone follows JC and/or the Bible correctly, then why are there so many denominations?"

Since I don't agree with your premise,

You "don't agree with my premise? It's not a "premise." It's a question. Do you deny that there are numerous Christian denominations? yes or no?

I can't figure out how I'm supposed to answer. [/B]

Of course you can't. You haven't been able to answer most of my questions. But try. It's a simple question.

Out of curiosity, why if Sylvester Stallone is the greatest actor of our time, didn't he win a lifetime Oscar this year? I'm curious what your answer to this is.

You've proved my point! It may be youropinion that he is the greatest actor of all time. Certainly not mine. Furthermore, if I am of the opinion he stinks, and I happen to be on the Oscar committee, and you are not, it doesn't matter what you think, but more importantly, it doesn't matter if you're right, -- you may be -- but I'm the one with the power! My vote counts, yours doesn't.

LOL, then why bother?

Why bother what?

Why bother believing in the religion?

It is your opinion, your interpretation of what JC, the authors of the NT, OT, whatever-T, etc. 'really meant.'

Yes, it is my opinion of what JC "really meant". When we choose our moral ideal, what else do we have except our best attempt at figuring out what that ideal is?

Everything after "the authors" is stuff you added that I didn't say.


By the way, if one believes the Bible is the literal word of God/JC, then following "both JC and the Bible" would not be "logically impossible."

That's correct. You are gradually circling closer to my own viewpoint, in between interjecting whoever you are channeling.

Ha! Funny.

So when I said it's logically impossible to follow both JC and the Bible, and when I said that the message started to go wrong with Paul, I'm pretty sure I'm saying I don't think the Bible is the literal word of God.

When I say that everything past the first four books of the Gospel is where humans started to inject their own prejudices, starting with Paul, and got it wrong, I am not saying the Bible, even the post Gospel books of the NT, are the literal word of JC.

When I say that the four Gospels were written decades after the time of Christ, I am not saying that the four Gospels are the literal word of JC.

Let me repeat it: The authors of the NT got it wrong.

You don't know that. You can think it's possible, but it's not a fact. You have no idea if they got it wrong or not.

I think the message that comes through in the four Gospels is reasonably intact, but there are obvious personal notes added and differences in emphases.

You will not get a statement from me that the authors of any book in the Bible were anything but fallible humans, doing fallible translations. Any attempt to create such a position for the purposes of having someone to argue with is what we call a "strawman".


What's the "ideal?" Seems to be quite elusive. If it weren't, everyone would be in agreement. Simple.

It is. We're not. Simple, isn't it?

But as I said, I admire the Quakers. I think they seem to be closest.

So why am I not a Quaker? Because I don't have the courage to be a pacifist. I think a military is still necessary.

But wait, doesn't that mean my personal beliefs are against what I think is the ideal I've said I'm trying to follow, my view of JC's original intent?

Yes. On that score, I fall short. I just think I'm being more honest than people who want to claim God fights on their side in a war. Wars are not Christian. They may be necessary, but when you fight a war you are turning your back on the Christian ideal. If Jesus were here today, there's no question in my mind he'd be a pacifist. And against capital punishment, which once again I am uncertain that I believe is never appropriate.

It will be interesting to see what the strawman version of me looks like next.

If you knew what "strawman' meant we might have something there.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Ipecac
I'm confused. (Okay, this may not be breaking news, I admit.)

Is it my imagination or do RPPA and Turtle agree and are merely talking past one another? I kept thinking they were addressing someone else as they both seemed to be saying the same things but they have continued to hammer on each other.

I got so confused I stopped reading their back and forth, but don't they basically agree?

I don't see how I can possiblly agree with much of what Gecko or rppa say, since:

I am not a Christian.

I don't believe the texts in the OT and NT are "divine."

And a whole bunch of other stuff.

[rppa]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ipecac
I'm confused. (Okay, this may not be breaking news, I admit.)

Is it my imagination or do RPPA and Turtle agree and are merely talking past one another?

In my opinion, yes. I already told Turtle that.

I kept thinking they were addressing someone else as they both seemed to be saying the same things but they have continued to hammer on each other.

I got so confused I stopped reading their back and forth, but don't they basically agree?

I'm confused too. Turtle *is* addressing someone else, some shadow version of me.

And I still don't know what the mysterious question I'm evading might be.

[turtle]

Originally posted by rppa
Originally posted by turtle [/i]
Are you referring the Council of Nicea?

You're the one who brought it up, not me. Don't you know what you're talking about? [/b]

No, not a clue. I'm fascinated by Biblical history, but it runs out of my head as soon as I'm done hearing it.[/B]


"church leaders outside of the Bible?" WTF? Please explain.

Can't. Didn't say it.

Yes you did.

Did not, did not. At any rate, I tried to clarify I was talking about extra-biblical doctrine added by church leaders. Is that clear enough? (Probably not).

Which brings me to another point. Wouldn't anyone, any human, who wrote whatever words appear in the Bible, be also considered "outside of the Bible?"

No, a human who wrote words that are in the bible would be considered, in my view, to be an author of words in the bible. If they're in the Bible, I wouldn't use the phrase "outside of the bible".[/B][/QUOTE]

Ooooo, I love it! We're getting surreal now. My favorite.

Religious men came together to decide what should go in, and what should go out, of the Bible. Right?

'kay.

Now.

Meanwhile, of course, there is the Bible itself. What is the Bible? Words. A collection of a whole lot of words. Written by people. Men. Humans. Their words, their interpretations. Literally it's not "outside the Bible" I suppose, but my point is: it was written by men, people, humans, with their own biases, judegements, agendas, ideas, ideals, opinions, interpretations. So it's all just that, and nothing more.

By the way, what kind of Christian are you? I'm not a Christian, but I have a Bible in my library.

I'm not in my library.

I am not "making up" your "viewpoint."

When you quote my viewpoint and it isn't mine, I consider that "making up my viewpoint".[/B][/QUOTE]

I am trying to understand what you are saying, and trying to get you to be clear. Do not evade the question.

I'm not trying to be evasive. You seem to be under the impression that you have asked me a question I haven't answered. I have no idea what that might be.

Snort! :rolleyes:

Stop being so defensive and worried about "who are you quoting now" -- I didn't put that in quotes, so it should be clear that I am not quoting anyone. I am asking you if, being a Christian, you believe that JC is God, and God is JC etc. It's a question. Do you have an answer?

Yes. My answer would be "No".

You don't have an answer?

Or you don't believe that God is Jesus? So do you mean Jesus is Jesus, and not God? What kind of wacky Christian thing is that?

And my answer to "What kind of Christian are you?" would be "the kind who would have been burned at the stake a couple of hundred years ago".


So pre JC god was just what? Messing around?

Beats me. Was there a pre JC god?

You tell me. You're the Christian.

All we've got is the OT, which is a bunch of writings by a bunch of fallible humans. I have no opinion on the "pre JC god". And very little on the "post JC god".

I'm asking you questions, answer them please.

Not trying to be difficult. I've answered every time I've been aware of a question. Not sure what question you think I've evaded.

Part of why I'm asking you questions is because I do not understand much of your points. Therefore, I ask. See how it works?

If you're interested in the ideosyncratic self-made theology of a single, not very scholarly person, sure. Seems kind of a limited field of study. Certainly won't give you any insights into the theology of anyone else self-identified as Christian here.

So ask. As I said, I am not aware of any question you've asked which I haven't answered. Truly. I am a contrary bastard, but a sincerely contrary one, and I don't mind answering.

As I said, why you're so defensive I have no idea.

I hate being misquoted.

I'm asking you questions about Christianity.

Advice: Asking me questions about my personal theology may not be a good way to get there.

I can't imagine a more interesting and valid insight into the minds of Christians than to ask those who profess to be Christians. It's the anthropologist in me, lol.

You did say you were a Christian, right?

Not in this thread, and not ever in direct conversation with you. However, it is true I apply that label to myself. It is also true that my theology has been described by DrAdequate as classic agnosticism.

Pain in the ass, aren't I?[/B][/QUOTE]

If you want to proudly display that label feel free, if it makes you feel all big and secure and all.

But if you really, for some reason, want to ask me about my own bizarre views on Christianity, feel free.

"For some reason?" Uh, it's a forum right? Where people get together and discuss things?

[turtle]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Let's just check if we got the same result... because you, and other trolls like you, twist our words when discussing scepticism just as freely as you twist rppa's when discussing religion? That's what I got.

Ah, Dr. A who cannot resist the opportunity to insult me.

I am not a troll. So stop lying, you filthy, vile liar.

[turtle]

Originally posted by rppa
OK, how's this? I'm the kind who is doing his best to muddle through all the extraneous stuff added over the centuries and figure out what the ideal of human behavior intended by Christ might have been. I'm the kind who won't drop down dead if Christ turns out never to have existed, since the ideal is the important thing.[/B]

Are you a closet Christian?

The "ideal" of Christianity is a Christian ideal, der. Why not some other religion? Obviously it's because, for you, Christianity says something to you that moves you, or you wouldn't (obviously) respond to it so strongly. So you are a Christian. A doubting one, an agnostic Christian even, if there is such a thing, suppose there could be, but, a Christian.

[rppa]

Which brings me to another point. Wouldn't anyone, any human, who wrote whatever words appear in the Bible, be also considered "outside of the Bible?"

No, a human who wrote words that are in the bible would be considered, in my view, to be an author of words in the bible. If they're in the Bible, I wouldn't use the phrase "outside of the bible".

Ooooo, I love it! We're getting surreal now. My favorite.

Not intentionally.

Religious men came together to decide what should go in, and what should go out, of the Bible. Right?

Yes. So once those people call that collection of words "The Bible", the words in it become "the words in the Bible".

Meanwhile, of course, there is the Bible itself. What is the Bible? Words. A collection of a whole lot of words. Written by people. Men. Humans. Their words, their interpretations.

That's right.

Literally it's not "outside the Bible" I suppose, but my point is: it was written by men, people, humans, with their own biases, judegements, agendas, ideas, ideals, opinions, interpretations. So it's all just that, and nothing more.

That's right. Also a bunch of oral mythology that may have been passed on for millenia in the Jewish people before being written down in any form. I find that fascinating.

So what strikes you as surreal in that?
I am asking you if, being a Christian, you believe that JC is God, and God is JC etc. It's a question. Do you have an answer?

You don't have an answer?

Yes, I have an answer. No I don't think JC is God and God is JC.

Or you don't believe that God is Jesus? So do you mean Jesus is Jesus, and not God? What kind of wacky Christian thing is that?

Very wacky, I admit. See words below on "self-made", "ideosyncratic", etc.

However this is not a standpoint in which I am alone. One of my favorite pastors espoused this viewpoint at the hearing at which he was being given his current church. Conservative leaders decided to make an example of him and he actually underwent an ecclesiastical heresy trial. From which he was acquitted, or at least kept his pulpit.

Wonderful human being. Great guy. One of those who is truly leaving the world a better place, in a big way.

Which is what it's all about, isn't it?

I'm asking you questions, answer them please.

So you say. Still can't figure out what question you're looking for an answer on.

I can't imagine a more interesting and valid insight into the minds of Christians than to ask those who profess to be Christians. It's the anthropologist in me, lol.

Good luck. If you ask 10 million Christians, you'll probably get at least nine million theologies. Good luck making sense of that.

Pain in the ass, aren't I?

If you want to proudly display that label feel free, if it makes you feel all big and secure and all.

See when you add words like "big" and "secure", or even "proud", that would be interjecting emotional content that wasn't there. You're extrapolating.

"For some reason?" Uh, it's a forum right? Where people get together and discuss things?

Sure, but as topics of discussion go, I don't find myself as endlessly fascinating as you seem to. As I said, I'm a really bad place to start if you want to find out something about Christian theology in general. I'm only a good place to start if you want to find out stuff about me. And I don't think I deserve my own personal thread. I'm just not that interesting. Leave that to Ian.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally posted by Moose
It'd be news to me if there was [a word for female author]. :) News flash: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

One entry found for authoress.
Main Entry: au·thor·ess
Pronunciation: 'o-th(&-)r&s
Function: noun
: a woman authorNot that I am encouraging use of this archaic term.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Fopr example, the stupid troll posts... ...

For example, the stupid skeptoid Dr. A posts another insult and lie filled post for no other reason than to flame, annoy, irritate, and oh, troll.

Dr. A - -never missing an opportunity to be loathsome.

Self appointed skeptoid of all things personally annoying to him.

Wow.

You must have quite a life there kiddo. Just chock full of good times.

and then immediately afterwards quotes the answer rppa gives to the question she asked, just in case we couldn't check for ourselves that she was lying, and that rppa has not "evaded the question".

Yeah, whatever. Care to post the specific example? Dr. "A" -- (wondering why you need to tell us you're "adequate")

But she has lied and lied again and again

Hey, I said, knock it off you moronic clown vile filled filthy liar.

(I'm going on the premise here that since Dr. A can do it, it's okay for me to fling back his very insults to me. If not, gee whiz, so sorry, and maybe the mods here can do something about his non stop abuse. Just, you know, wondering. Thanks.)


about the contents of people's posts on this forum, and it seems that the shame of being exposed again and again as a stupid, pathetic, malicious liar does not deter her --- I don't know why. Perhaps, for some people, lying is its own reward.

Hey, you added "malicious" to the list. Did you get a new dictionary?

You are SO boring. :s2:

[Moose]

Thanks Skeptigirl, someone already mentionned it back somewhere before the thread got hijacked.

Turtle and rppa, should you two be playing the religious sophistry game in the religion forum? This is getting more than a little off-topic* for the thread (and forum, for that matter).

(* Derailed, actually. Not unlike one of Ian's hijacks. About as "interesting" too. IMO.)

[El_Spectre]

Sigh... we have people attempting to argue minutiae of a book cobbled together from dozens of other books, and bastardized, changed and miscopied for thousands of years.

At risk of being a tad insensitive, I submit this for consideration:

[turtle]

Originally posted by rppa
Ooooo, I love it! We're getting surreal now. My favorite.

Not intentionally.

Religious men came together to decide what should go in, and what should go out, of the Bible. Right?

Yes. So once those people call that collection of words "The Bible", the words in it become "the words in the Bible".

Meanwhile, of course, there is the Bible itself. What is the Bible? Words. A collection of a whole lot of words. Written by people. Men. Humans. Their words, their interpretations.

That's right.

Literally it's not "outside the Bible" I suppose, but my point is: it was written by men, people, humans, with their own biases, judegements, agendas, ideas, ideals, opinions, interpretations. So it's all just that, and nothing more.

That's right. Also a bunch of oral mythology that may have been passed on for millenia in the Jewish people before being written down in any form. I find that fascinating.

("may have been?" uh huh.)

So what strikes you as surreal in that?

I meant the direction the thread is going in general. I thought you weren't a literalist, lol?

I am asking you if, being a Christian, you believe that JC is God, and God is JC etc. It's a question. Do you have an answer?

You don't have an answer?

Yes, I have an answer. No I don't think JC is God and God is JC.

Oh. Then you're not a Christian.

Or you don't believe that God is Jesus? So do you mean Jesus is Jesus, and not God? What kind of wacky Christian thing is that?

[/B][/QUOTE]Very wacky, I admit. See words below on "self-made", "ideosyncratic", etc.[/B][/QUOTE]

See above.

However this is not a standpoint in which I am alone. One of my favorite pastors espoused this viewpoint at the hearing at which he was being given his current church. Conservative leaders decided to make an example of him and he actually underwent an ecclesiastical heresy trial. From which he was acquitted, or at least kept his pulpit.

Wonderful human being. Great guy. One of those who is truly leaving the world a better place, in a big way.

Might be a peach of guy. Fine. Doesn't sound like a Christian to me though. Not that I care, except for sake of argument.

Which is what it's all about, isn't it?

I'm asking you questions, answer them please.

So you say. Still can't figure out what question you're looking for an answer on.

Well, keep trying.

I can't imagine a more interesting and valid insight into the minds of Christians than to ask those who profess to be Christians. It's the anthropologist in me, lol.

Good luck. If you ask 10 million Christians, you'll probably get at least nine million theologies. Good luck making sense of that.

Absolutely. I find that completely interesting. Fact is, we do have "nine million theologies" ....

Pain in the ass, aren't I?

If you want to proudly display that label feel free, if it makes you feel all big and secure and all.

See when you add words like "big" and "secure", or even "proud", that would be interjecting emotional content that wasn't there. You're extrapolating.


No s***! Wow.

"For some reason?" Uh, it's a forum right? Where people get together and discuss things?

Sure, but as topics of discussion go, I don't find myself as endlessly fascinating as you seem to.

Hey, you and the other guy started this about this topic, not me.

As I said, I'm a really bad place to start if you want to find out something about Christian theology in general. I'm only a good place to start if you want to find out stuff about me. And I don't think I deserve my own personal thread. I'm just not that interesting. Leave that to Ian.

Har har.

You're being evasive, you have been throughout. Fine. That's the way you want to play, I'll stop. Guess you think you can post but others aren't supposed to respond. Got it.

[turtle]

Originally posted by El_Spectre
Sigh... we have people attempting to argue minutiae of a book cobbled together from dozens of other books, and bastardized, changed and miscopied for thousands of years.

At risk of being a tad insensitive, I submit this for consideration:

How very interesting. Is it because I'm a woo? Trying to find out exactly what someone means, is saying, believes, asking for specifics, for citations, is par for the course here? And yet when I do it, I'm called names by that snooze fest Dr. A and compared to Ian?

LOL.

I agree, it's not getting anywhere, and I'm fine with giving up the thread. I just thought, you know, silly me, after all, I am a woo, that trying to discuss something and get at things was the deal around here.

I'm wrong, again!

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by geni
Strightforward visual illusion it's a contrast effect. simular to this:

http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/shadow.jpg

I didn't follow this post, but I just want to say something...I really HATE that illusion. It screws with my mind.

I saved it as a jpeg file and messed around with it on the paint program. Crazy stuff.

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by turtle
How very interesting. Is it because I'm a woo?

Nope. I don't use that term anyway... it encourages an "us vs. them" mindframe that I think is counterproductive.

No, posting pictures like mine isn't particularly productive either.

It's not your beliefs. The bible is a collection of stories, most of which have changed (if only through translation) numerous times. Moreover, the main characters are often supernatural.

So, we have ancient stories with non-human psychologies, and the stories aren't accurate (to the originals) anyway. Even if I believed the stories, they are so distorted at this point that quibbling over meanings of individual verses (and indeed words!) seems silly to me.

[rppa]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by turtle
("may have been?" uh huh.)

Perhaps you know more than I do about the length of time during which Jewish history was entirely oral. Yes, "may have been millenia". Do you have a closer figure?

Oh. Then you're not a Christian.

As an anthropologist, you should learn that there is not a single block of beliefs, including on the divinity of Jesus, which defines a Christian. As I said, I know at least one highly-respected Christian minister who also does not believe Jesus was divine.

Since you profess ignorance on the range of Christian beliefs, it seems odd for you to pass judgement on who is and isn't allowed to call themselves a "real" Christian.

Might be a peach of guy. Fine. Doesn't sound like a Christian to me though. Not that I care, except for sake of argument.

So now you're an expert. This no longer sounds like a person with idle curiosity.

Yet he's a minister, he leads a large, thriving flock, who feel he provides for their spiritual needs, he's highly respected in his denomination (which is mainstream). The elected leaders of his denomination heard him out and decided he was still qualified to be an ordained minister in their denomination. Why do you feel the urgent need to go in there and defrock him as "not a Christian"?

Absolutely. I find that completely interesting. Fact is, we do have "nine million theologies" ....

So I tried to tell you. But when I didn't fit your pre-conceptions, you suddenly decided you were an expert on which theologies were and weren't allowed in the spectrum.

Newsflash: In every denomination, a million people will give you a million different answers about their beliefs, and all will call themselves Christians. That's just part of the messy business of being human beings.

[rppa]

Originally posted by Moose
Thanks Skeptigirl, someone already mentionned it back somewhere before the thread got hijacked.

Turtle and rppa, should you two be playing the religious sophistry game in the religion forum? This is getting more than a little off-topic* for the thread (and forum, for that matter).

(* Derailed, actually. Not unlike one of Ian's hijacks. About as "interesting" too. IMO.)

Well, it wasn't my intention to talk about me.

What were we talking about? Didn't this start out as a gecko thread?

Edited to add

(Dragging back on the tracks)

The aura link Gecko provided initially lists the classic complementary colors, known to every art teacher. The reason blue objects have a yellow afterimage (or "aura") has to do with human vision. The color pairs listed are those which are opposite each other in the classic CIE Chromaticity Diagram (http://www.biyee.net/v/cie_diagrams/)

[Moose]

Originally posted by turtle:
And yet when I do it, I'm called names by that snooze fest Dr. A and compared to Ian?

Before you go off and martyr yourself, turtle, you'll kindly note a second name sitting directly next to yours, very nearly the only two names talking at each other for a page and a half.

It seemed an accurate description...

[Moose]

Originally posted by rppa:
Didn't this start out as a gecko thread?

Yeah, I think he got buried somewhere around page four.

[turtle]

Originally posted by El_Spectre
Nope. I don't use that term anyway... it encourages an "us vs. them" mindframe that I think is counterproductive.

No, posting pictures like mine isn't particularly productive either.

It's not your beliefs. The bible is a collection of stories, most of which have changed (if only through translation) numerous times. Moreover, the main characters are often supernatural.

So, we have ancient stories with non-human psychologies, and the stories aren't accurate (to the originals) anyway. Even if I believed the stories, they are so distorted at this point that quibbling over meanings of individual verses (and indeed words!) seems silly to me.

Agreed.

[gecko]

ooh ooh...me?

Yeah...I did get buried, but that's all right. I was getting mighty sick of debating it all anyway.

This whole thread kind of was grabbed and dragged in another direction, but I suppose that's fine. Now I have to skip through these 500 line long posts by turtle with 10 million different quotes. No offense, just saying its hard to read it all.

So I'm lost where this whole thing has gotten to. I've dropped out, to be frank. I'll try to hang around JREF, but to be honest this was the only post I was really messing with, with the exception of the Christian vs. Sketic...so if you don't see me around don't call an ambulance or anything. :)

[turtle]

Originally posted by rppa
[QUOTE]Originally posted by turtle
[B]("may have been?" uh huh.)

Perhaps you know more than I do about the length of time during which Jewish history was entirely oral. Yes, "may have been millenia". Do you have a closer figure?

Oh. Then you're not a Christian.

As an anthropologist, you should learn that there is not a single block of beliefs, including on the divinity of Jesus, which defines a Christian. As I said, I know at least one highly-respected Christian minister who also does not believe Jesus was divine.

I don't want to tick off anyone here, I thought this thread was to be done? Not sure...but, I can't resist!

(just an aside, I'm not an anthropologist, just like I'm not a musical comedy star -- although both resise within me and need to come out at times.)

But, it seems to be that the core foundation of being a Christian is that one believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ. If you don't believe that, you're not a Christian. You might be some new off shoot or something, but not a Christian.

/QUOTE] Since you profess ignorance on the range of Christian beliefs, it seems odd for you to pass judgement on who is and isn't allowed to call themselves a "real" Christian.

Did I profess ignorance? Hmmm...

I said I'm not a Christian. (by the way, I went to Catholic School for 8 years.)

I don't know about all the denominations, true.

But see above. Anyone, Christian or non, knows that for one to be a Christian, one needs to accept its basic foundational beliefs. Christ being LORD being GOD is the most basic of them all.

Might be a peach of guy. Fine. Doesn't sound like a Christian to me though. Not that I care, except for sake of argument.

So now you're an expert. This no longer sounds like a person with idle curiosity.

I didn't say I was an expert. I'm expressing my opinion. You're passing judgement on what amount of interest one should have on a given topic, it seems.

Yet he's a minister, he leads a large, thriving flock, who feel he provides for their spiritual needs, he's highly respected in his denomination (which is mainstream). The elected leaders of his denomination heard him out and decided he was still qualified to be an ordained minister in their denomination. Why do you feel the urgent need to go in there and defrock him as "not a Christian"?

I don't have an "urgent need." Hey, aren't you being emotional and adding extra words, you know, extrapolating, lol?

I'm sure lots of people love him. Believe in his version. Groovy. Who am I to argue? I'm not stopping him or anyone from believing in anything, am I? I'm just saying, doesn't sound like Christianity to me.

Absolutely. I find that completely interesting. Fact is, we do have "nine million theologies" ....

So I tried to tell you. But when I didn't fit your pre-conceptions, you suddenly decided you were an expert on which theologies were and weren't allowed in the spectrum.

Yeah, fine, so you say. Yawn.

Newsflash: In every denomination, a million people will give you a million different answers about their beliefs, and all will call themselves Christians. That's just part of the messy business of being human beings.

Hmm, still, they tend to cling to one or the other, and there are slight variations on nit picky things, but the general idea is, if you're a Baptist, you're not a Roman Catholic, etc. shrug.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Moose
Before you go off and martyr yourself, turtle, you'll kindly note a second name sitting directly next to yours, very nearly the only two names talking at each other for a page and a half.

It seemed an accurate description...

Hey, don't play the "don't play the victim card with me" game. I'm not "martyring" myself. I didn't bring it up.

Ian hasn't contribued to this, now has he?

I can't help it if religion is one of my favorite debate topics, don't read the thread if it bores you, jump in any time with insights of your own if you like.

[Moose]

I can't help it if religion is one of my favorite debate topics, don't read the thread if it bores you, jump in any time with insights of your own if you like. [/B]

Since you've asked so nicely, here's an insight for you: JREF has set aside a lovely forum (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=9) for your "[one of] favorite debate topics". Why not take this up there among people who actually want to discuss this stuff?

Enjoy.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Moose
Since you've asked so nicely, here's an insight for you: JREF has set aside a lovely forum (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=9) for your "[one of] favorite debate topics". Why not take this up there among people who actually want to discuss this stuff?

Enjoy.

At the risk of appearing a "martyr" and or victim, I didn't start this thread, ... so fine. Humpf. Next time I'll check in with others to be sure it's okay I post, lol. Anyone wants to continue talking about religion go over there then. I wonder who's there? (goes off to see . . .)

'kay. Here's the link, for those who care:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53611

[Moose]

True, you didn't start the thread. Gecko did, and until he got buried, the thread was brisk, civil, and remained entirely on topic: scepticism, critical thought, and the paranormal.

Look, I'm really not trying to pick on you here (seriously), but the JREF maintains a dozen forums for clarity. Something for just about everybody, easily located by topic of interest.

Nagging over.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by turtle
Yeah, whatever. Care to post the specific example? Dr. "A"I did, of course. And there's no point in pretending I didn't, because everyone can read the posts and see that you're lying.Originally posted by Dr Adequate
For example, the stupid troll posts...
Originally posted by turtle
I am not "making up" your "viewpoint." I am trying to understand what you are saying, and trying to get you to be clear. Do not evade the question. ... and then immediately afterwards quotes the answer rppa gives to the question she asked, just in case we couldn't check for ourselves that she was lying, and that rppa has not "evaded the question". But she has lied and lied again and again about the contents of people's posts on this forum, and it seems that the shame of being exposed again and again as a stupid, pathetic, malicious liar does not deter her --- I don't know why. Perhaps, for some people, lying is its own reward. Originally posted by turtle
... you moronic clown vile filled filthy liar.

[turtle]

Originally posted by turtle
Yeah, whatever. Care to post the specific example? Dr. "A"

I did, of course. And there's no point in pretending I didn't, because everyone can read the posts and see that you're lying.

Hey, you! Back the flippin' fig off, you loser. What a dipwad you are. You are so d*** tiresome. Don't you have anything better to do than waste time and space and bore everyone with your non stop assualts?

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
For example, the stupid troll posts...

quote:

Originally posted by turtle
I am not "making up" your "viewpoint." I am trying to understand what you are saying, and trying to get you to be clear. Do not evade the question.

... and then immediately afterwards quotes the answer rppa gives to the question she asked, just in case we couldn't check for ourselves that she was lying,

You're not too bright are you? Now why would I post a reply to something that allegedly "proves" I was "lying?" :rolleyes:

and that rppa has not "evaded the question". But she has lied and lied again and again about the contents of people's posts on this forum, and it seems that the shame of being exposed again and again as a stupid, pathetic, malicious liar does not deter her --- I don't know why. Perhaps, for some people, lying is its own reward.

Ya know, there's a difference between not understanding someone, and "lying." I've told you this before. Are you too dense and stupid and dull to know this? Seems you are. Idiot.

You know this of course, you vile, filthy, dirty, malicious pompous clown of an ass, rof.

Your trolling and flaming is ridiculous, pathetic, slightly amusing, irritating, and pathetic.

Didn't you already say all this? :s2:


Originally posted by turtle
... you moronic clown vile filled filthy liar.

Your point? I just requoted your own words to me. And? So? We care? Not.

Was all this worth it, you poor bored pathetic loser you?

Jesus Christ, get a life you pompous ass. (another quote.) Like I said, if it's okay for you to post this tripe and abuse and the mods seem to think it's fine, I'm flinging it back. I don't have room for this nonsense, I don't keep it in my yard.

[Dr Adequate]

Your defense seems to be that every time you attribute a stupid gibble of nonsense to someone as their opinion it's 'cos you're too dumb to understand them.

Then try a little harder, or go away.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by turtle
You're not too bright are you? Now why would I post a reply to something that allegedly "proves" I was "lying?" :rolleyes: Wow. Your insane fantasies about human motivations now apparently encompass yourself.

"Now why" would you "post a reply" to something that "allegedly proves" you were "lying"? You don't know? Is that a mystery to you?

Someone explain to turtle why she wouldn't want to be thought a liar.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Wow. Your insane fantasies about human motivations now apparently encompass yourself.

"Now why" would you "post a reply" to something that "allegedly proves" you were "lying"? You don't know? Is that a mystery to you?

Someone explain to turtle why she wouldn't want to be thought a liar.

You're really quite the little gnarled gnome of a psycho-path, aren't you?
AREN'T YOU??!!! :D

You f****** nutcase you.

Give it up. It's going nowhere, babe. NOWHERE.

Loser.

Oh, sorry. Make that "filthy dirty vile maliscious pompous ass of a clown" loser, ROF.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Your defense seems to be that every time you attribute a stupid gibble of nonsense to someone as their opinion it's 'cos you're too dumb to understand them.

Then try a little harder, or go away.

You know, if you weren't so hell bent on being such a rude nasty smelly snarly little skeptoid, I would. But then what fun would you have if I left?

Sorry, you're not a moderator, you have no power here, little man.

Now go play with your 'adequate' little self, and let the rest of us continue on.

[turtle]

Originally posted by turtle
You're really quite the little gnarled gnome of a psycho-path, aren't you?
AREN'T YOU??!!! :D

You f****** nutcase you.

Give it up. It's going nowhere, babe. NOWHERE.

Loser.

Oh, sorry. Make that "filthy, dirty, vile, maliscious-moronic pompous ass of a clown" loser, ROF.

[arthwollipot]

I'm unsubscribing this thread. It was interesting once.

[Winny]

Originally posted by arthwollipot
I'm unsubscribing this thread. It was interesting once.

Well I was kinda hoping to continue with Gecko, but I think he's lost interest and now I have too.

The whole thing went from interesting to tedious to offensive in a page or so.

Turtle & Dr A, you are peas in a pod. Please make your way to the flame room.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Winny
Well I was kinda hoping to continue with Gecko, but I think he's lost interest and now I have too.

The whole thing went from interesting to tedious to offensive in a page or so.

Turtle & Dr A, you are peas in a pod. Please make your way to the flame room.

Hey, pay attention. I didn't start any of this with Dr. A. He's been at me, and after me, since the moment I started posting here at JREF. The mods don't do anything about it. Reasoning with him didn't do any good. Am I to just take his crap? I am in no damn "pod" with that rude vile psycho flame-bee troll.

If you need further proof, he's already followed me to the thread on religion in the appropriate place, and posted to me.

Relax. You spoke too soon anyway. I put him on ignore, so your whining about me being in the same "pod" as Dr A was for nothing, lol.

Sheesh.

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by turtle
Hey, pay attention. I didn't start any of this with Dr. A.

That's spiffy. Much like dancing and sex, flame wars take 2. If you want to stop it, just walk away kid.

[turtle]

Originally posted by El_Spectre
That's spiffy. Much like dancing and sex, flame wars take 2. If you want to stop it, just walk away kid.

Why can't any of you take responsibility for your actions? He calls me names and follows me around and attacks me. That seems to be okey dokey with everyone. I tell him to buzz off, and I'm at fault?

Pathetic.

As I posted to winny, didn't you just read my post? He's on ignore. I'm in the other thread.

So why don't you all stop posting about my behavior and that way I won't have to respond? In other words: just walk away, "kid."

[Dr Adequate]

An entire post from turtle.Originally posted by turtle
You're really quite the little gnarled gnome of a psycho-path, aren't you?
AREN'T YOU??!!! :D

You f****** nutcase you.

Give it up. It's going nowhere, babe. NOWHERE.

Loser.

Oh, sorry. Make that "filthy dirty vile maliscious pompous ass of a clown" loser, ROF. Her entire post. That was the reasoning offered from beginnning to end. That was all she had to say for herself. I'd like to quote this now.
Originally posted by turtle (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870807876)
I am not a troll. So stop lying, you filthy, vile liar.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally posted by gecko
Umm...who decides which is true? God obviously.

I'm not saying my interpretation is true. I'm not saying christians intrepret it all just right. That wasn't what I'm saying at all.

What I was saying is just because there are many intrepretations of something doesn't mean there is a right one. That should be pretty obvious though. If somebody says 2+2=3, someone else says its 4, and someone says its 5, then the second is right right? So varying opinions can exist with only one being right. But the guy who says 2+2=4 can also provide evidence why that answer is correct and the other 2 aren't.

It's very hard to defend the Bible, gecko, because the Bible does not support what Christians claim it supports. It isn't even possible to explain why Jesus is the 'son' of God. Does God have a wife?

You could rationalize something, I'm sure, but try this one. God makes man. Man pisses God off. God punishes man. God has a son. God sends his son to get beat up by man so God can forgive man for the thing that pissed God off in the first place.

Think about it. What possible logic could explain why God couldn't have just said, "Crawl on the ground a bit and ask to be forgiven and I will do so." God supposedly "sends" Jesus. It isn't that Jesus said, "Gee Dad, let me take the punishment for these sinners." So one is supposed to believe the Jesus story is some big sacrifice God makes because he 'loves' people.

"Here, let me cause my son pain so I can forgive you." It's really very stupid if you actually think about it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally posted by Winny
...
At the same time, it would seem that you word prefer not to believe that God's exhortations to rape, murder, torture and enslave various peoples are true.

.... Did you think God was correct to forbid men with crushed testicles from going to church? ........ Do you think it was a worthy endeavour to collect the foreskins of your enemy? Do you think that God was right to threaten to smear faeces on the faces of his enemies? Do you think it was acceptable for God to kill 42 young children for making fun of His prophet?

When you take the book as a whole, God seems a fairly cranky, irrational and unpredictable kind of chappy to be honest. I do buy your premise here. There are plenty of very bad things in the Bible. I am curious though, as to where these particular passages I left in your quote above are.

[turtle]

Originally posted by skeptigirl


You could rationalize something, I'm sure, but try this one. God makes man. Man pisses God off. God punishes man. God has a son. God sends his son to get beat up by man so God can forgive man for the thing that pissed God off in the first place.

Think about it. What possible logic could explain why God couldn't have just said, "Crawl on the ground a bit and ask to be forgiven and I will do so." God supposedly "sends" Jesus. It isn't that Jesus said, "Gee Dad, let me take the punishment for these sinners." So one is supposed to believe the Jesus story is some big sacrifice God makes because he 'loves' people.


That sums it up for me as well. Why does someone want to believe in such a petty and vindictive being?

[Steven Howard]

Originally posted by skeptigirl
I do buy your premise here. There are plenty of very bad things in the Bible. I am curious though, as to where these particular passages I left in your quote above are.

I'm not Winny, but I know some of these.

Crushed testicles:

Deuteronomy 23:1. "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD."

Collecting foreskins:

1 Samuel 18:25-27. David kills 200 Philistines and brings their foreskins to Saul as a dowry for Saul's daughter Michal.

Killing 42 children:

2 Kings 2:23-24. Children make fun of Elisha's bald head. Yahweh sends two "she bears" to eat 42 of them.

[jmercer]

Yeah, the bible's full of nasty things... the better to keep you in line with, sez the organized religion of your choice...

Just remember - the bible is written by people supposedly inspired by God. However, apparently nobody gave God the option to edit the book, so it's really, really hard to say if any of it is accurate or not. FWIW, I think the bible may have some seeds of truth buried in it at places; however I strongly suspect that a lot of it is fictional, and should largely be taken as parables should be... not as a literal meaning, but as an Aesops Fable moral lesson.

Additionally, the thing's been translated into so many different languages during so many different periods of history, I seriously doubt that it looks much like any of the original texts.

In example, take a look at the Ten Commandment Versions (http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm) . Even this link I gave you has a fundamental translation error, albeit one of current Talmudic and Christian texts. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" was actually "Thou Shalt Not Murder (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html) ". Apparently, the Hebrews of the period differentiated between murder and self-defense, and it was either purposely or accidently mis-translated at some point.

[Harlequin]

Originally posted by turtle
Edited to say: Oops, sorry, got posters mixed up, thought you were Gecko.Wow. Hard to believe that this one little post was what killed the thread. From that minor mistake, rppa and Turtle went into a quote-spiral.

Dr. A, you seem to intensely dislike Turtle. :hit: I've followed along as this developed through several other threads. At this point, I would suggest ignoring her posts. What seems to happen is that you wait until she gets on a rant and then you push her over the edge. Are you hoping she'll go so far that she gets banned?

[SezMe]

Originally posted by jmercer
In example, take a look at the Ten Commandment Versions (http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm) . Even this link I gave you has a fundamental translation error, albeit one of current Talmudic and Christian texts. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" was actually "Thou Shalt Not Murder (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html) ". Apparently, the Hebrews of the period differentiated between murder and self-defense, and it was either purposely or accidently mis-translated at some point.
I don't agree with the "murder" translation. After all, what is murder but unlawful killing. So another way to write "Thou shalt not murder" is "It is unlawful to kill unlawfully" which, of course, is meaningless.