If the Rapture occured, would Superman fight against God? [Archive] - Page 2

Roadtoad

28th February 2006, 07:14 AM

I have to second what Flick said about Barna, but I also have to caution that, yes, Barna does have an agenda. He's not going to hide information, or play games with it, but consider what he's asking about in the first place, and you can see where his bias lies.

At the same time, he's not trying to hide it, either. That's another plus.

But the problem I see with the data is that for most people who attend Church, it's practically mandated that they be there when the doors are opened. I have lost count of the number of pastors I've heard declare from the pulpit that if the doors are open, people need to be there. Then these same pastors can't understand why Brother Smith or whomever is getting a divorce, because his family claims they never spend any time together.

In fact, one of the more irritating aspects of that attitude is that it makes it harder to get the Church moving towards doing what Christ insisted it should. Sure, most soup kitchens and homeless shelters have some Christian involvement, but realize that you're seeing the old 80/20 rule, that 80 percent of the work is being done by 20 percent of the people.

Which brings me to one of my earlier points: It's no surprise to me that the Church would actually seriously consider the trite premise behind this thread. They've got plenty of time to do that while they wait for Christ to return, but no time to do what Jesus said to do in the first place: Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, heal the sick, attend to the incarcerated. And God forbid you should suggest involvement in anything like that, or want to do that yourself. Suddenly, there's no room for the likes of a lib like you!

delphi_ote

28th February 2006, 08:35 AM

Also as to your above post, the category is specifically-- "Non Profits, Other than Church." So, I think its all pretty legit. If you have other numbers, I will be happy to look at them.

Christians (36%) are more likely than non-Christians (27%) to help a non-profit organization each week. (1999)

That's the one statistic in that list that doesn't explicitly mention afterward, "other than a church." If someone were trying to pull a fast one, that's how they'd do it. The burden should be on them to show me their methodology. They don't link to the sources of these numbers anywhere on the page. You've shifted the burden to me. If I am skeptical of their numbers, surely I can dig around their site and excavate their methodology. That's not the way sociology works.

And Roadtoad, I'm disappointed in you. You're accepting these numbers because there's a name in front of them. In statistics and surveys, that's the worst kind of argument. We don't know if these numbers are self reported or gathered from financial records of some kind. Either way, we'd be likely to see biases we can't account for with just the numbers. We have no idea what the sample size is or how the samples were selected. What do they mean by "non-Christian?" They don't even report the errors of their estimates. To a statistician, that means "We asked everyone in America"

Unacceptable.

Beerina

28th February 2006, 08:50 AM

If I am a reasonably good person, but don't believe in Jesus, isn't it evil for God to throw me into Hell, i.e. torture me for ever and ever (or even just a little bit?)

And if I am straying because the Devil led me astray, isn't it also wrong to throw such a person into Hell?

And isn't it even worse given God created all this, knowing it would all unfold exactly as it has? "I know 99 out of 100 people I'll end up sending to Hell. Ahh, what the Hell, I'll create it all anyway!"

Sounds like a mighty, mighty evil thing to do if you ask me.

Belz...

28th February 2006, 10:38 AM

If I am a reasonably good person, but don't believe in Jesus, isn't it evil for God to throw me into Hell, i.e. torture me for ever and ever (or even just a little bit?)

Oh, no, Bee. if you don't accept Jesus as your personnal saviour, that's it for you. And since only 144000 people will be saved, this means that, contrary to scripture, belief cannot be the only requirement. Beats me how ANYONE could make it into heaven this way.

Jesus Baby Daddy

28th February 2006, 11:29 AM

If I am a reasonably good person, but don't believe in Jesus, isn't it evil for God to throw me into Hell, i.e. torture me for ever and ever (or even just a little bit?).

But he loves you. :i:

Ducky

28th February 2006, 02:00 PM

So am I going to hell for not believing in Jesus (despite being a good person) kathy?

Roadtoad

28th February 2006, 05:12 PM

And Roadtoad, I'm disappointed in you. You're accepting these numbers because there's a name in front of them. In statistics and surveys, that's the worst kind of argument. We don't know if these numbers are self reported or gathered from financial records of some kind. Either way, we'd be likely to see biases we can't account for with just the numbers. We have no idea what the sample size is or how the samples were selected. What do they mean by "non-Christian?" They don't even report the errors of their estimates. To a statistician, that means "We asked everyone in America"

Unacceptable.

I accepted it because in the past, Barna has been fairly reliable. You're right, I should probably have taken a closer look at how the numbers were gathered. Because it does make a difference.

Ducky

28th February 2006, 07:24 PM

I don't see an answer to my question from Kathy.

stamenflicker

28th February 2006, 07:35 PM

That's the one statistic in that list that doesn't explicitly mention afterward, "other than a church." If someone were trying to pull a fast one, that's how they'd do it. The burden should be on them to show me their methodology. They don't link to the sources of these numbers anywhere on the page. You've shifted the burden to me. If I am skeptical of their numbers, surely I can dig around their site and excavate their methodology. That's not the way sociology works.

And Roadtoad, I'm disappointed in you. You're accepting these numbers because there's a name in front of them. In statistics and surveys, that's the worst kind of argument. We don't know if these numbers are self reported or gathered from financial records of some kind. Either way, we'd be likely to see biases we can't account for with just the numbers. We have no idea what the sample size is or how the samples were selected. What do they mean by "non-Christian?" They don't even report the errors of their estimates. To a statistician, that means "We asked everyone in America"

Unacceptable.

The 1999 reference I'm certain is to a 1999 examination Barna's group did, which I'm also certain is just a website summary. I emailed them to find out the specifics. They may point me to his book:

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Resource&ResourceID=183

He puts one of these out each year, and I've seen a few copies before. They give sample size, full survey questions, methods, etc. Again, if you have your own numbers, I'd be happy to look at them. I've not noticed any real public outcry to any numbers Barna has ever put out-- from either side of the fence and he's often critical of both.

I have no problem with you doubting the authenticity of the numbers. I doubt most numbers I see anyplace. The real question for me is why you would bother spending the energy to doubt them, unless of course A) you have other numbers or if maybe B) something about the numbers does not match your experience of the world. I guess there is the possibility that the numbers offend you, but then we'd be back to point B, unless the offense was illogical.

Flick

Roadtoad

28th February 2006, 09:24 PM

I don't see an answer to my question from Kathy.

Nor will you.

kurious_kathy

2nd March 2006, 11:00 PM

So am I going to hell for not believing in Jesus (despite being a good person) kathy?
Scripture tells us that no one comes to the Father but through Christ! So yes anyone who chooses to deny Jesus died on that cross for their sin will not be redeemed. It is still my hope that even though you are still saying you don't believe in Jesus, somehow He may turn you around to know He is the way, the truth, and the light of this world.

I don't know how God might be able to reach you FS but I am still praying that somehow you will come to believe before your life here on earth has ended. It's a bit of a profound thing in my opinion, but I do believe God does have His perfect timing in each and everyone of our lives.... "AKA a moment of revelation or a wake up call." I know He doesn't want to lose any of us.

In my own case I know God extended lots of extra grace and mercy in my life to finally reach me! If you ask me there is a God shaped void in everyones heart that only Jesus can fill. Call it a divine pending appt. if you like. I still tend to think it's just a matter of time to see what can happen to bring one to see the light!

So FS I will not tell you that you are going to hell, because I believe you can still be reached. Don't ask me how, but I am asking the Lord to reveal Himself to you in a very real and personal way. And the great thing about living a life based on faith is there is always hope! You may choose to get upset with me for having this belief, but that won't change my mind. I will still be praying.

Roadtoad

2nd March 2006, 11:11 PM

That's fine that you'll be praying, Kathy. The problem is, you're still PREACHING!

Just how much more often do we have to ask you to stop preaching to everyone here? Even your fellow Evangelicals are sick of it!

People are trying to engage you in CONVERSATION, but you're so busy trying to be important, so busy trying to convert people, that you hear nothing. You are wasting everyone's time, and worse, driving people away from what you claim you want to draw them to. It's insulting. It's offensive. And we're tired of it. Act like a damned adult.

kurious_kathy

2nd March 2006, 11:41 PM

delphi_ote

3rd March 2006, 02:13 AM

The real question for me is why you would bother spending the energy to doubt them, unless of course A) you have other numbers or if maybe B) something about the numbers does not match your experience of the world. I guess there is the possibility that the numbers offend you, but then we'd be back to point B, unless the offense was illogical.

Numbers are thrown around everywhere without people understanding what they mean or critically analizing them. Unless you are intellectually lazy (the false dichotomy you presented in this post makes me suspect you probably are,) you should always question statistics, especially from a source that might have a vested interest in the results. People extrapolate all kinds of conclusions from survey numbers without ever establishing precisely where the numbers came from or worrying about whether or not they understand them in the first place. You yourself drew conclusions from these numbers without understanding them:

Pretty close.

Are the numbers close? What biases might there be in the data? Are these based on survey questions? If so, what was the wording of the survey question? What response options were the survey takers given? How was the sample collected? When was the sample collected? What average is reported? What is the expected error? Who collected and compiled the data and what are their qualifications? Who funded the study and why was it conducted?

If you don't know any of this, you might as well measure non-profit volunteering by counting the number of chocolate bars by the check out counter at your local grocery store.

Belz...

3rd March 2006, 05:37 AM

Complexity

3rd March 2006, 06:03 AM

KK - I couldn't care less what you think, feel, or believe.

You believe in a petty, nasty, and childish god with less evidence than children have for Santa Claus - at least they get presents and the cookies disappear.

Grow up.

Spidey13

3rd March 2006, 07:06 AM

Rt, FS asked me if I believed He was going to go to hell, so I answered Him. I do not see anything wrong with sharing from my heart of faith what I believe. The fact that you don't like what I'm sharing is obvious. I'm sorry if my sharing my faith when I answer a direct question about it is offensive to you. The fact remains I care about people and I love God. I really wish you would not choose to get upset with me for this.

Yes, you answered him, and then you PREACHED. It was a yes or no question. All you needed to put was a yes or no, and possibly why you believe so (i.e. the Bible says so). That was all that was asked of you. After that you went on to tell FS how you wish he could be saved, how you wish God would reach him, blah, blah, blah. THAT was the preaching, which FS did NOT ask for. Get it yet?

Beerina

3rd March 2006, 07:48 AM

Spidey13

3rd March 2006, 08:11 AM

And, of course, there's this...

It is still my hope that even though you are still saying you don't believe in Jesus, somehow He may turn you around to know He is the way, the truth, and the light of this world.

Do you not see this? You are saying it's Jesus' job to turn FS around, not FS himself. Therefore, if FS burns in hell, it was Jesus' fault, not fowlsound's. So, if FS goes to hell, you should blame Jesus for not doing his job, right?

elliotfc

3rd March 2006, 08:13 AM

If God existed, and if Superman existed, and the Rapture occured, would Superman fight against God for throwing people into Hell? Would he try to save them?

You're also assuming in this situation that God throws people into Hell.

Also, what if some people don't want to spend eternity with God, but would desire the alternative? Would Superman respect that?

But seriously, as a philosophical point, good people would stand up against God for throwing, say, an Islamic child into Hell. (Or, for that matter, a Christian child, should Islam be correct.)

Right. This all revolves around the "throwing people into Hell" bit I think.

As for what good people would or would not do that would depend on them, unless, you would define whether or not they were good on your particular point (a good person would stand up to God if God threw kids into hell). I think the "could" aspect is less debateable that the "would" aspect.

Joe Doe lived a decent, caring life. He just didn't believe in God. God decides to give Joe an eternal life of pain and misery. Wouldn't Superman, or any caring, good individual, try to save Joe?

Well I can't speak for Superman. As far as salvation, only one *person* can save anyone (Jesus). If you're talking advice, I'd advise Joe Doe to ask for reconciliation with God in the next one.

Now let's say that you're assumptions here are absolutely the way it goes down (putting aside my disagreements). If Joe Doe....
1) lived a decent caring life
2) asked and desired to be connected to God for eternity despite rejecting God in the temporal sphere
3) understood that a *purgation* would be necessary/suitable as part of the process
but...God still gave him eternal pain and misery...I think I could hardly try to save Joe, as that would be outside of my paygrade. I'd try to be an advocate for Joe but I'd suspect that advocacy would be pretty futile. I'd probably give my opinion even if it meant I was risking a similar fate. That's probably the best I could do.

As for Superman, I think God would limit his powers or something, or make a whole bunch of kryptonite or what not.

Isn't believing in God so you don't get punished a practical, but cowardly, philosophy?

I don't know. Is it cowardly to want to get good grades in a high school so that you can go to a good college? It seems like if you *really* want to get negative about someone's desire to achieve something (a good job, a good spouse, eternal life) you can label it as cowardly.

Like...let's say someone flunks out of high school and can't get a good job, but goes around saying that he/she is not a coward because he/she didn't play the game like all of the other suckers and all the benefits that people garner for playing the game is just because they are afraid of the consequences of not playing the game.

Or...let's say someone calls someone a coward for wearing a seat belt, or, for not being willing to run hell-mell into the middle of the street to get a piece of paper that maybe blew out of their grasp.

See, it all depends on the judgers attitude toward the other. If you want to think about these people as "cowardly", that's a debatable, but legitimate point. For example, I could just as well accuse people who try to be logical as being cowards, afraid of being illogical. That's a valid position.

Now, validity doesn't necessarily mean fair, or practical, or open-minded.

And don't say you want to "save Joe" preemptively before he dies/the Rapture occurs, because God also wants you to be good, which is good. Joe is good, but is going to Hell anyway.

Right. Good works can not, on their own, merit salvation. If they could, there would be no point in the salvific act.

The point that is made in response to that is "well, then there is no reason to do good works". But a person who has true faith in Jesus would naturally do good works. Of course a person who doesn't have faith in Jesus could also do good works. But religion is an advocate for faith. We don't need religion to do good works (I actually don't believe that as an absolute, simplistic statement, but I'll just say it because my reply is long enough I think).

-Elliot

elliotfc

3rd March 2006, 08:51 AM

But what if he doesn't turn around? He's still a decent, kind individual. Isn't it evil to put such a person into a lake of lava?

No, because it's evil to be proud. A person can pat him/herself on the back for eternity proclaiming "but I was good I was good I was good", but we all must submit before God. It isn't about being good (although that's a necessary corrollary), but free will. A machine can be good, a machine can not have free will.

Putting people into lakes of lavas...now that's one hell of a serviceable metaphor, ain't it? I say that because atheists and agnositcs are just as hung up about such an idea as the believers. That's good. Now take the lake of lava and take it to the FOURTH POWER. That's *really* how bad hell is. Now, add an infinite rain of really sharp pitchforks and a smell of rotten meatloaf and Yanni music and take all of that to the EIGHTEENTH power. That's how bad hell is. But really it's even worse than that!

Yeah. Christians think that hell is *really bad*! Thank God the atheists and agnostics can't let go of that. If they could, then hell would be no big deal. But see, it is a big deal. So at least we agree on that.

And as for God throwing people into hell, he won't co-exist with the proud who can't get over the fact about how good and decent they were, all on their own they'll have God know! And why shoud the proud be subjected to having to exist for eternity in communion with a God who isn't impressed by that? What would be more painful? Swallowing your pride or suffering in hell?

Think about that. Really think about that. Beerina, you're happy to work with the analogies you work with. Try working with this one. Can you conceive of yourself kneeling before the throne of God, recognizing him as the source of all goodness, and not approaching Him from a position of worthiness and merit but with penitence? Is that beyond you? Would you be incapable of doing that? If so, then what's the big deal? Why should you have to jump through that hoop? Take the alternative...which is surely more palatable than doing what you'd be loathe to do. Or else you'd do it.

But I have faith that you'd yield to objective reality (for what it's worth, which may not be very much). I don't buy the 99.99% stuff. Atheists and agnositics are after objective reality, and will take it when they get it. That's my line and I'm sticking with it. Of course there will be a few who'll prove me wrong (but it isn't about me I guess).

And isn't creating reality, knowing tens of billions of people will ultimately live, but that 99.99+% of them will end up being tortured for ever and ever, an incalculably evil act to initiate?

No, because once you have the percentage, or the ratio, you're dealing with calculations.

As for eternal torture...you'd get used to it. It would become objective reality. Would oblivion be preferable? I don't know. Nobody knows. No human has ever reported on what it's like to be tortured for eternity, or, what oblivion is like. I've heard a lot of skeptics talk about how insufferable heaven would be, but they could hardly know that either.

If hell is the deserved state of the proud...I can surmise that the proud would never want oblivion...and never want to live as a subject of God...so they'd settle for the alternative (go ahead and spruce up the analogy all you want, I think the worse the analogy is, the BETTER!). At least in the alternative you can complain forever about how unfair God is and what a good person you were. You'll always have that. Because that's what it's all about after all. Merit, merit in spite of God and religion, merit on your own terms and of your own volition. And God will never be palatable to the proud, because they'd have the universe run in their particular way and they'd tell that to God for all eternity.

And even if God chose not to look into the future, or heck, even if he couldn't, he'd at least know it was a strong possibility, which would also make the act evil.

I dunno, I reject this. Think about parents. What if their children become mass murderers? Worst case scenarios shouldn't judge our actions.

Or take intelligence and creativity in general. Intelligence and creativity have worked hand in hand to enable the greatest human atrocities imaginable. But we're not about to say that intelligence and creativity are therefore evil.

And if he didn't know it was even a strong possibility, that makes Him a carless experimenter and he has no business whatsoever torturing his experimental victims.

So it comes down to free will after all. Because that's the catch. What, the careful experimenter would exclude the possibility of evil choices, right?

But I do admit that it can be viewed as an experiment. And any good scientist knows that you can't very well conduct an experiment and then fret about it. Unless you're questioning the morality of the experiment...say, kind of like the Nazi medical experiments. That you can take up with God...but you'd have to understand that you could only take that up with God because the experiment enables your existence. A bit of a bind.

Having said all of this, I do think you have legitimate issues here and God will address them much more coherently that I possibly could. I'm just doing best I can here. I encourage you to fixate on the worst possible hell scenarios you can come up with. It is important to respect how bad Hell is. Being eternally cut off from God's grace is as bad as it can get.

-Elliot

Belz...

3rd March 2006, 10:20 AM

No, because it's evil to be proud.

You mean, proud like someone who thinks his species is so magnificent that it MUST have been created by an omnipotent, perfect God ?

elliotfc

3rd March 2006, 11:29 AM

So in other words: You just preach here.

You know, you can pat yourself on the back all you want about how much good you do. Kathy doesn't need to do that. You had to.

Kathy just revealed that she has physical limitations. That doesn't mean anything to you, you just put her in the "all she does is preach box". You can pat yourself on the back for that one to.

And if God exists, you can tell God about how much good you did even though you didn't believe in God, and you can tell God how you told that Kathy person, the one who "just preach[ed] here" off. And that will be like so totatlly impressive for sure.

Most people I know go through phases in life. Sometimes you are more able to do things, sometimes less able. Having to impress other people may mean more to you at some points in your life, and less during other points in your life. Your reply to Kathy, and her reply to you, gives a nice snapshot of where two people are in their life journey. If it gives you validation to know that you do more than a Christian with physical limitations who "just preach[es] here", score one for you. Tell all your friends.

Or, most evangelical fundies aren't back-slappers, or, need to tell atheists what they do when it comes to these sorts of things.

But you keep on bean counting there, and go back to your atheist friends, and feel extra good about yourselves in this regard.

[QUOTE]As for physical limitations, does having half a pound of titanium holding my spine together count? Sorry, I don't have much sympathy, though I hope you get well whatever your illnesses are.

Yeah, you don't have sympathy, that comes across quite clear. Many people have variable ability to deal with personal handicaps. If it means a lot to you to announce to a closed community how you are "superior" to Kathy in this regard, point taken. Keep up the good work.

-Elliot

elliotfc

3rd March 2006, 11:32 AM

You mean, proud like someone who thinks his species is so magnificent that it MUST have been created by an omnipotent, perfect God ?

But God created all species, not just humans.

-Elliot

Belz...

3rd March 2006, 01:04 PM

But God created all species, not just humans.

-Elliot

That's besides the point. I see you didn't get what I said.

elliotfc

3rd March 2006, 01:08 PM

You mean, proud like someone who thinks his species is so magnificent that it MUST have been created by an omnipotent, perfect God ?

I guess I didn't get what you said, but then you don't try to re-iterate, so maybe you could?

-Elliot

Belz...

3rd March 2006, 01:13 PM

I guess I didn't get what you said, but then you don't try to re-iterate, so maybe you could?

-Elliot

Done and done:

I meant that to believe that a perfect God is an explanation for our existence is somewhat pedantic, because it presupposes that only a perfect beign could make such a wonderful species.

Taffer

3rd March 2006, 04:26 PM

But God created all species, not just humans.

-Elliot

You have some evidence for this, I suppose?

elliotfc

3rd March 2006, 04:29 PM

Done and done:

I meant that to believe that a perfect God is an explanation for our existence is somewhat pedantic, because it presupposes that only a perfect beign could make such a wonderful species.

Assuming that we're a wonderful species of course.

I think I get your point. You're saying that using God as an explanation for our existence means we're proclaiming how special we are (pride), and my only comeback to that is what I already said...God created everything, so that actually doesn't mean we're all that special. Now, most believers take extra steps, like saying that humans have souls, or free wills, or what not. There is a hierarchy in nature, recognizing that doesn't equate to pride.

-Elliot

Roadtoad

3rd March 2006, 10:07 PM

Orangutango

4th March 2006, 04:19 PM

God created everything, so that actually doesn't mean we're all that special.

I would disagree by stating two observations (according to Christian beliefs)...

1) According to the bible, we (i.e. humans) are created in god's image.

and

2) Humans are the only ones of his creations that he is concerned about being worshiped by.

I would think that would make us pretty darned special in that god's eyes, considering that every other life form on the planet is mere "window dressing" to be used by man as he sees fits (paraphrasing: according to the bible).

Now, most believers take extra steps, like saying that humans have souls, or free wills, or what not. There is a hierarchy in nature, recognizing that doesn't equate to pride.

Then perhaps "arrogance" might be a more appropriate term...? Such as how those who subscribe to these beliefs think that the universe revolves around them (in a "spiritual" sense)?

It takes a special kind of arrogance, imo, to believe that some unseen entity (i.e. god) created reality solely for our benefit.

kurious_kathy

4th March 2006, 10:55 PM

Perhaps this is so, Elliot. But the problem, as has been noted before, is just how fine a line we're forced to walk before we can claim "salvation." And, frankly, I question the justice and mercy of a God who is so freaked by my asking questions of Him, that the mere act of asking condemns me to an eternity of misery. A lot of ground in such a short post, but I'm funny that way.
Hi RT, none of us are perfect, only Christ was perfect. Salvation is based on whether we believe He died to save us. We all ask questions sometimes. I myself often ask God why there is so much pain in this life? I hate to see so much pain and suffering in this world. All I can say is each of us can choose to share love and try to lend a hand when we are able, right? I know you don't know me personally, but I really do care about people. You sound like you do too.
I went through an emotional couple of days after watching a documentary film called "Into The Arms Of Strangers" ever heard of it? It was based on the history of some children that were transported from Germany to be saved from Hitler. We all know many lives were lost in that war, but some were saved. I got all worked up and could not help but ask God why he let Hitler get away with killing so many people? These things always bother me.

Roadtoad

5th March 2006, 02:10 PM

Belz...

6th March 2006, 05:49 AM

I think I get your point. You're saying that using God as an explanation for our existence means we're proclaiming how special we are (pride), and my only comeback to that is what I already said...God created everything, so that actually doesn't mean we're all that special.

Unless you assume that the entire universe, per Genesis, is made especially FOR us.

elliotfc

6th March 2006, 08:06 AM

You have some evidence for this, I suppose?

Hey.

I was replying to someone else's post. The person was working within the Christian construct, so I answered it within the Christian construct.

Thanks for hoping though!

-Elliot

elliotfc

6th March 2006, 08:14 AM

Perhaps this is so, Elliot. But the problem, as has been noted before, is just how fine a line we're forced to walk before we can claim "salvation." And, frankly, I question the justice and mercy of a God who is so freaked by my asking questions of Him, that the mere act of asking condemns me to an eternity of misery. A lot of ground in such a short post, but I'm funny that way.

a) Is God "freaked by [your] asking questions of Him"? Does this come from what Christians tell you, or generally preach? Did you get that notion from Job? Actually in my theology God will be happy to answer questions you have about Him (I'd keep them...maybe not necessarily respectful, but non-belligerent).

b) Following a, it's fine to question the justice and mercy of God. and I believe that people will be allowed to do that for all of eternity if they so desire. Now, questioning it will not change or alter God's justice or mercy, yet it will be respected by God I believe. Meaning, you don't have to respect it if you don't want to. God will not force you to respect his justice/mercy.

c) Working with the assumption that questioning God leads to eternal misery, at least you have that given. We have to accept objective reality. If that's the way it is, you still have the free will to question God, and maybe get a sense of nobility and contentment with that (along with the eternal pain of course).

Having said all of this...

I think that hell is the eternal and complete separation from God. What does that mean exactly? That's a tough one. So let's make the most horrible pictures of hell and work with them. That seems reasonable to me. That's what Jesus did. If you're turned off by those pictures...well, that's kind of the point.

I am satisfied that skeptics find such constructs of hell to be horrible. So do Christians.

-Elliot

elliotfc

6th March 2006, 08:21 AM

I would disagree by stating two observations (according to Christian beliefs)...

1) According to the bible, we (i.e. humans) are created in god's image.

and

2) Humans are the only ones of his creations that he is concerned about being worshiped by.

Those are good points, but then that's objective reality (created by God), and recognizing that is not equivalent to human pride.

I would think that would make us pretty darned special in that god's eyes, considering that every other life form on the planet is mere "window dressing" to be used by man as he sees fits (paraphrasing: according to the bible).

Fair enough. Plus God became a human and didn't become a goose (as far as we know).

Then perhaps "arrogance" might be a more appropriate term...? Such as how those who subscribe to these beliefs think that the universe revolves around them (in a "spiritual" sense)?

Well...again, if we're talking about God creating humanity in his own image as being an objective fact, then I don't see how it's arrogant to recognize objective reality. It is what it is.

Now to obsess over it...well, that could be arrogant. But in this case it seems like you're obsessing over it more than me at least.

I don't believe that Christians believe that the universe revolves around them in a spiritual sense. There could be Jesus-types for extraterrestrial races throughout the universe.

It takes a special kind of arrogance, imo, to believe that some unseen entity (i.e. god) created reality solely for our benefit.

It would also be arrogant to assume that believers are as hung up about this fact as you are. Also, reality is greater than humans (most, if not all, Christians believe in a hierarchy of being and reality which also extends past us).

Also, we are stewards of creation so there is responsibilty as well.

I've said about all I want to about this one...I think it's much ado about little, but I do respect your opinion and see where you're coming from. Seeing how you don't believe any of this, and assuming that you think people have made this all up, I get your perspective.

One question I would have...does this like bug you or something? Do you pound desks when thinking about this?

-Elliot

elliotfc

6th March 2006, 08:25 AM

Yup. Sort of like I figured. You are dishonest, cowardly, and lost. You have no knowledge of God, of Christ, or spirituality. Talking with you is a waste.

If you had any shred of decency, Kathy, there might be something worth discussing. You haven't any. There isn't. You embarass my wife, my son, my friends. Good bye.

If talking with Kathy is a waste...what does that say about you? Cease and desist, or else an observer would think you're getting something out of this. And then it wouldn't be a waste now, would it? Be consistent.

Kathy, the individual finds internal benefit in insulting you. All humans need ways to cope. On his deathbed he can remember how great of a person he was and how horrible us Christians are. If this is important to him we should respect him. At least you give meaning to his life. What an all-star. May he be remembered by like everybody and extolled for at least a few weeks or something.

-Elliot

elliotfc

6th March 2006, 08:29 AM

Unless you assume that the entire universe, per Genesis, is made especially FOR us.

I dunno, I guess you can draw that implication from Genesis. Or, definitely from a certain perspective, you could draw that conclusion. I don't think they (the divinely inspired constructors of Genesis) had any real idea how vast the universe is/was.

And like I said before, there's responsibility involved too.

OK fine, I'll relent on this one. Yeah, based on Genesis, humans have to think they are pretty darn special. I think that every human being in existence is pretty darn special. If that makes me proud, it's a kind of pride that differs greatly from an insidious personal pride where a person makes him/herself free from being a servant of God.

-Elliot

Ossai

6th March 2006, 09:14 AM

elliotfc
I think that hell is the eternal and complete separation from God.
God is supposed to be omnipresent. How can you be separated from something that is everywhere?

Originally Posted by Orangutango :
I would disagree by stating two observations (according to Christian beliefs)...

1) According to the bible, we (i.e. humans) are created in god's image.

and

2) Humans are the only ones of his creations that he is concerned about being worshiped by.
Those are good points, but then that's objective reality (created by God), and recognizing that is not equivalent to human pride.
If it’s objective reality then there would be proof for it.
You have just made a baseless assertion, care to try and back it up?

Well...again, if we're talking about God creating humanity in his own image as being an objective fact, then I don't see how it's arrogant to recognize objective reality. It is what it is. It is not objective fact. It is a baseless assertion and will remain so until evidence is presented.

I don't believe that Christians believe that the universe revolves around them in a spiritual sense. You don’t know many Christians, do you?
It would also be arrogant to assume that believers are as hung up about this fact as you are. Ahem, see any fundamentalist Christian to set you straight about what you believe.

Ossai

elliotfc

6th March 2006, 09:46 AM

elliotfc

God is supposed to be omnipresent. How can you be separated from something that is everywhere?

I should have probably have made it "God's grace" instead of God...or maybe not. I don't believe that God is omnipresent. The individual has the free will to exclude God from his/her...errr...heart. That hell is thought of as a physical place is serviceable, but that isn't exactly it, I don't think.

A so-called omnipresent individual can place contingincies on presence if so desired. "Omnipresent"...a nice thought, but I don't think we can pin God down with omni-words. The omni-words are not God. God is God, and he is what he is, not what we would have him to be.

If it’s objective reality then there would be proof for it.

I disagree. There really is no such thing is proof. Things are what they are. We can label something proof, but it isnt proof. It is what it is. See, if there were no humans there'd be no proof. You'd just have stuff. You'd also have objective reality. But no proof.

You have just made a baseless assertion, care to try and back it up?

As for the baseless assertion bit Ossai, you're trying to have it both ways, and I'm not going to go along with that.

First, you trot out the omnipresent thing. Now, can I possibly back that up? No, but you trot it out anyways.

And with something else, you'll trot out the "care to try and back it up" line.

Please be consistent. You can use the "care to try and back it up" line across the board, and then there would really be no reason to have a dialogue, would there?

It is not objective fact. It is a baseless assertion and will remain so until evidence is presented.

Again, someone used Genesis as an argument. THAT SOMEONE WAS A SKEPTIC! Now, why aren't you using that line on THEM? I reply working within the construct that was presented to me BY THE SKEPTIC.

So, demonstrate your ability to be consistent. Decree that all skeptics must NEVER use the Bible in their arguments. Because the Bible is just baseless assertion, ain't it? And if not, you are not interested in fairness, but in attacking believers to satisfy the needs within you.

You don’t know many Christians, do you?

We all have to believe in something. If that's what you believe, go for it.

Now, are you interested in challenging your own beliefs? Let's find out! Send me a message to my CP. I'll supply you with...12 phone numbers or so. Why that number you may be wondering...why not more, or less? Send me a message. I'll give you a clear answer. Follow up, call the numbers I give you. Then you'll find out how many Christians I know. But that would take effort. Let's see what you do. Effort, or faith? When it comes to this point, I'm happy to set you straight, and it's better to have other people speak for me on this one, I think.

Ahem, see any fundamentalist Christian to set you straight about what you believe.

Any? You're wrong. But stick with your religious beliefs if you'd like. Does it really matter? Has any post of yours that I've ever replied to ever mattered? Back on ignore with you, the ONLY skeptic on this entire forum I've ever found intolerable. Nice one kid.

-Elliot

Roadtoad

6th March 2006, 10:00 AM

If talking with Kathy is a waste...what does that say about you? Cease and desist, or else an observer would think you're getting something out of this. And then it wouldn't be a waste now, would it? Be consistent.

I get little out of it. Rather, when my friends are insulted or assaulted in any way, shape or form, I stand up for them. You do what is right, first and foremost.

Kathy, the individual finds internal benefit in insulting you. All humans need ways to cope. On his deathbed he can remember how great of a person he was and how horrible us Christians are. If this is important to him we should respect him. At least you give meaning to his life. What an all-star. May he be remembered by like everybody and extolled for at least a few weeks or something.

-Elliot

There is no benefit in insulting someone. And, technically, I still fall into the "Christian" category. I am angered by her need to degrade and insult people she knows nothing about.

And, Elliot, if you'd ever read many of my posts, you'd realize that I am the very last person who would fall prey to the idea that I'm some sort of saint. I'm not. I know this better than you realize. My big fear is that I will die without doing more to protect those who are being harmed, that I will remain silent when someone requires an advocate. That, Sir, is Hell. Knowing that you could have done more to make a real difference, and you did NOTHING.

Preaching accomplishes NOTHING. It gives everyone a nice warm feeling, but in the end, it's a huge goose egg in the record. Dwight L. Moody knew this, and when you read through some of his sermons, you read his constant call for ACTION on the part of the listener.

Kathy is not here to call anyone to action. She's not here to heal wounds, to create peace, or to discuss action which can be taken. She's not interested in anything like that. She's here to PREACH, to massage her own ego. It accomplishes nothing. She insults my friends, she degrades the beliefs of others, she belittles those she doesn't understand. She's a troll.

The question has been asked, but not answered. Read through this thread again, then tell me where Kathy has ever answered one direct question. She hasn't.

If she insults my friends again, I'll be right back here. If she doesn't want to deal with me, it's simple. Answer the questions asked, as others have, or at least engage others in the discussion. Be honest with people. If you don't have an answer, say so. Don't insult other people, and act like a grown woman. No one wants to deal with this infantile behavior on her part. Be responsible and accountable. Otherwise, like WanderinWTF, Billiefan2000, 1inChrist, and a whole host of others, she can STFU.

Orangutango

6th March 2006, 10:07 AM

Well...again, if we're talking about God creating humanity in his own image as being an objective fact, then I don't see how it's arrogant to recognize objective reality. It is what it is.

That would depend if you think that those who subscribe to this notion can, in fact, be truly objective over what they are told to believe from a literal interpretation of the bible: i.e. man was created in god's image to the exclusion of any other opinions/theories/conclusions.

To possess the kind of unshakable, blind-faith in the explinations given forth from the bible... a book that offers little in the way of tangible evidence to back up it's myriad claims... does take a certain kind of arrogance, in my opinion; just as it also takes a specific form of arrogance to believe that the religion they personally adhere to is the "one, true faith" of god over every other religion.

Now to obsess over it...well, that could be arrogant. But in this case it seems like you're obsessing over it more than me at least.

You had posted a statement in regards to mankind not being all that special in god's creation. I made one post presenting my counter argument. How does this fit into your definition of being "obsessed"...?

I don't believe that Christians believe that the universe revolves around them in a spiritual sense. There could be Jesus-types for extraterrestrial races throughout the universe.

I would think that you would be in the minority in this view, given the fact that all throughout the bible it "reinforces"... for lack of a better term... humanity's special and unique role in god's creation. It is not therefore surprising to believe, whether it is true or not, that in a spiritual sense, Christians (and most other, modern-day religions) view themselves (and their souls) to be the sole focus of their divine creator's attention.

As to your musings on their possibly being other "Jesus-types" on other worlds... since we can only speculate on this matter, I would put forth this opinion that since the bible states in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son", that the concept of their being "other" saviors besides Jesus would fly against traditional Christian beliefs.

It would also be arrogant to assume that believers are as hung up about this fact as you are.

An interesting choice of words since we are talking about one, specific topic. If you would like to debate other aspects of religious beliefs, then I will try to "tear myself away" from my "obsession" over this particual subject.

<snip> Also, reality is greater than humans

In a physical sense, I would agree with you. In a spiritual sense, I would not.

Also, we are stewards of creation so there is responsibilty as well.

How and where did you come to this conclusion? On the surface, it sounds quite similar to my viewpoint that Christians believe that the universe (i.e. creation) revolves around themselves...

I've said about all I want to about this one...I think it's much ado about little, but I do respect your opinion and see where you're coming from. Seeing how you don't believe any of this, and assuming that you think people have made this all up, I get your perspective.

Likewise. Thank you for sharing your viewpoint.

One question I would have...does this like bug you or something? Do you pound desks when thinking about this?

Not particularly... since it is unethical for me to keep Christians locked up in my basement in order to torture these kinds of answers out of, I am afraid that I am left to seek clarification to those questions that I might have on forums such as this.;)

Jen

Ossai

6th March 2006, 10:14 AM

elliotfc
The individual has the free will to exclude God from his/her...errr...heart. Ah, so you don’t believe in scripture.

Please be consistent. You can use the "care to try and back it up" line across the board, and then there would really be no reason to have a dialogue, would there? Apparently now with you, since you don’t try and you can’t back it up.

Now, are you interested in challenging your own beliefs? Let's find out! Send me a message to my CP. I'll supply you with...12 phone numbers or so. Why that number you may be wondering...why not more, or less? Send me a message. I'll give you a clear answer. Follow up, call the numbers I give you. Then you'll find out how many Christians I know. But that would take effort. Let's see what you do. Effort, or faith? When it comes to this point, I'm happy to set you straight, and it's better to have other people speak for me on this one, I think.
and
Any? You're wrong. But stick with your religious beliefs if you'd like. Does it really matter? Has any post of yours that I've ever replied to ever mattered? Back on ignore with you, the ONLY skeptic on this entire forum I've ever found intolerable. Nice one kid.
Well which is it?

Ossai

elliotfc

6th March 2006, 10:15 AM

I get little out of it. Rather, when my friends are insulted or assaulted in any way, shape or form, I stand up for them. You do what is right, first and foremost.

If she's insulting people that's a whole other issue, but even then you can only trade insults for so long.

There is no benefit in insulting someone. And, technically, I still fall into the "Christian" category. I am angered by her need to degrade and insult people she knows nothing about.

She shouldn't be doing that, I just read the first and last page of the thread before I jumped in so I probably missed a lot of that.

And, Elliot, if you'd ever read many of my posts, you'd realize that I am the very last person who would fall prey to the idea that I'm some sort of saint. I'm not. I know this better than you realize. My big fear is that I will die without doing more to protect those who are being harmed, that I will remain silent when someone requires an advocate. That, Sir, is Hell. Knowing that you could have done more to make a real difference, and you did NOTHING.

That would be hell...but at the same time, you really must not hold onto that forever. I don't think it's as simple as saying "I'm sorry, now it doesn't matter!" I've got this idea that NOBODY has any idea about what hurting another person really means. Like with all of the people I've hurt in my life, I can say I'm sorry and feel bad about it and ask for forgiveness, but I've still got something coming to me. I have to almost experience what it was about (I think that's part of the after-life process). And then I'll really be sorry. But at some point you have to let go of all that. You're sorry, you're forgiven, but if you can't let go of that, yes, you would be in hell. Even really bad sins are forgiveable, the worst ones too, and if you can't let go of that, if you can't get over the fact of *you* hurting someone and accept forgiveness for that, you would be in hell. That would be pride, I hurt someone I did I I I I I I. Yes. Understand it, experience it, be connected with the action totally and the person you hurt, and then let God wash that way. So it's not easy, but God has conquered sin. Let him conquer it.

Preaching accomplishes NOTHING.

Opinion that would garner much disagreement. You might have to define what you mean by accomplish...and list somethings that would be accomplishments.

It gives everyone a nice warm feeling, but in the end, it's a huge goose egg in the record.

Bah! Preaching can give you a horrible horrible feeling as well...it can put you to sleep to...give you a headache. Runs the spectrum.

Dwight L. Moody knew this, and when you read through some of his sermons, you read his constant call for ACTION on the part of the listener.

Yeah but that would be preaching actions.

Yes, preaching by itself is pretty weak. If the people being preached to get out and start doing stuff, then the preaching gains something in the potency department.

Kathy is not here to call anyone to action. She's not here to heal wounds, to create peace, or to discuss action which can be taken. She's not interested in anything like that. She's here to PREACH, to massage her own ego. It accomplishes nothing. She insults my friends, she degrades the beliefs of others, she belittles those she doesn't understand. She's a troll.

But she has called people to action, based on all the replies.

OK enough for me being an advocate for Kathy then, she has yet to directly respond to one of my posts so who knows what the deal is.

-Elliot

Ossai

6th March 2006, 10:18 AM

My pm to elliotfc

Now, are you interested in challenging your own beliefs? Let's find out! Send me a message to my CP. I'll supply you with...12 phone numbers or so. Why that number you may be wondering...why not more, or less? Send me a message. I'll give you a clear answer. Follow up, call the numbers I give you. Then you'll find out how many Christians I know. But that would take effort. Let's see what you do. Effort, or faith? When it comes to this point, I'm happy to set you straight, and it's better to have other people speak for me on this one, I think.
Ok, pm me the list; I'll give them a call.
You will also need to give me your full name.
While I'm at it, I'll also ask them a few questions about what exactly they believe.

elliotfc

7th March 2006, 08:25 AM

That would depend if you think that those who subscribe to this notion can, in fact, be truly objective over what they are told to believe from a literal interpretation of the bible: i.e. man was created in god's image to the exclusion of any other opinions/theories/conclusions.

Right, but I'm differentiating *being objective* from objective reality.

Objective reality just is.

Now, being objective...well, that's a subjective judgment, isn't it? Someone can be objective and be wrong. Ignoring for a second whether or not a believer is objective, that's a different question from whether or not they are right or wrong.

Now, are believers objective? I dunno. They can probably tell you some other theories that are out there, and say they reject them, and give you reasons for rejecting them. But they believe in the Bible. Well, yeah, everyone has something to work from. Other people believe in other things. But the "other things" can be proven, or observed. Yeah. And some things can't be proven, and can't be observed. No doubt this is very clear cut to you, no doubt you couldn't possibly think like believers. Yeah, they're thinking differently from you. You call the way you think objective, and they don't fit with that. They think they're more objective than you. But they're wrong, and you're right.

See, this is why I differentiate thinking objectively from objective truth.

To possess the kind of unshakable, blind-faith in the explinations given forth from the bible...

What do you mean blind? It takes eyes to read the bible, arf arf arf arf arf.

...a book that offers little in the way of tangible evidence to back up it's myriad claims...

But the book was written 2000 and more years ago, so the expectation that you have for it isn't there, but others don't have that expectation for a book that was written 2000 and more years ago.

...does take a certain kind of arrogance, in my opinion; just as it also takes a specific form of arrogance to believe that the religion they personally adhere to is the "one, true faith" of god over every other religion.

Fair enough. Anytime anyone asserts something over another that can be held as arrogance. No doubt you see the believers as particularly egregious because they don't have tangible evidence to back up their assertions. That's what the believers say about materialists. I'll let you have that word.

You had posted a statement in regards to mankind not being all that special in god's creation. I made one post presenting my counter argument. How does this fit into your definition of being "obsessed"...?

I was thinking relatively, I should have mentioned that. Skeptics take pride (hmmm, maybe I should use a different word) in their knowledge of the bible, the details, the problems, how it doesn't fit with the way the world works as we perceive it. Many skeptics (OK, I won't include you) are adamant with holding the believer to verses in the Bible, telling them *but this is what you believe, it's right here, let me quote it to you*. In such a situation, there is a relative obsession with the Bible. There are probably 283 skeptics on this forum who can quote the Bible better than I can. And I'm the believer! Like arrogance, obsession is viewed as a negative word, so I probably shouldn't have used it.

I would think that you would be in the minority in this view, given the fact that all throughout the bible it "reinforces"... for lack of a better term... humanity's special and unique role in god's creation.

There is some polling about how Americans view extraterrestrial life.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/PublicOpinionPolls.htm

I don't advocate that website by any means! There are polling links on it.

God's creation is commensurate to earth in the Bible. The size of the universe was not understood/comprehended back then. Does humanity play a special role on earth? Well...yeah. Everybody believes that, right? Even the people who *don't believe that* (environmentalists, some Eastern religions) do believe it, because they appeal to people when they argue their case.

You are correct, the Bible does give humanity a special role in God's creation...my only point is that earth is what is being talked about. God told Adam to take care of the garden, not to take care of the sun or Jupiter.

It is not therefore surprising to believe, whether it is true or not, that in a spiritual sense, Christians (and most other, modern-day religions) view themselves (and their souls) to be the sole focus of their divine creator's attention.

Effectively that is how it shakes out. But we understand that his eye is on the sparrow, or, at least that's what the Bible says. Our focus is on Jesus, the incarnation of God, that's the most important thing to us, so we talk about that the most. But we understand that God is responsible for all of creation, even though that's not foremost on our minds.

As to your musings on their possibly being other "Jesus-types" on other worlds... since we can only speculate on this matter, I would put forth this opinion that since the bible states in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son", that the concept of their being "other" saviors besides Jesus would fly against traditional Christian beliefs.

Yeah, it would seem that way, but fundamentalist Christians are open to the idea of extraterrestrial life. I'm not kidding. They may not think about it as much because I guess we don't really know all that much about extraterrestrial life.

Maybe you can do what I do all the time, if you're interested. Get with a fundamentalist Christian, and ask him/her if God could *beget* (now that word deserves its own thread) his son in a different part of the universe. I don't think you'd get a sharp and firm no and a denunciation of being a blasphemer. I never have. Usually I get a maybe, or, I haven't ever thought about it. Yes, it's not a traditional Christian belief because effectively it has no real meaning, we don't know anything about extraterrestrial life and if it's out there, it has nothing to do with us. For that reason traditional fundamentalists may just shrug their shoulders, but surely God could beget Jesus whenever and wherever he wants.

An interesting choice of words since we are talking about one, specific topic. If you would like to debate other aspects of religious beliefs, then I will try to "tear myself away" from my "obsession" over this particual subject.

Nothing is coming to mind right now. In general, when a skeptic starts a thread like "Noah and the ark" or "The miracles of Jesus" you know what's coming. A deconstruction of the "supernatural" bits in the Bible. And that's coming from people who don't believe in the Bible. Now, why a non-believer in the Bible would really be interested in pursuing such topics...well, certainly there are some excellent reasons for it. I'd put them, however, under the general auspices of obsession, not pathological obsession, just a quirky obsession. Hey, I'm obsessed with lots of materialist beliefs and I don't believe in those. I'm not trying to knock anybody here. Everybody is obsessed about stuff, right? Some people have to watch 24 every week, I could care less, but that's not a bad thing, it just is.

How and where did you come to this conclusion? On the surface, it sounds quite similar to my viewpoint that Christians believe that the universe (i.e. creation) revolves around themselves...

Of course you don't mean that literally. The Bible has man as the pinnacle of creation, the thing God made before he rested. Specifically, man is placed on Earth. All of the other stars in the universe have nothing to do with us. As we define the universe today, I disagree that Christians believe that the universe revovles around them. As the universe was defined centuries ago...sure, why not I guess, I wouldn't phrase it as you do, but whatever.

But a good post Jen, thanks.
-Elliot

Orangutango

7th March 2006, 12:55 PM

Right, but I'm differentiating *being objective* from objective reality.

Objective reality just is.

I had to go back to the your original post that I had quoted off of to see where my misunderstanding occured:

Originally Posted by elliotfc :

Well...again, if we're talking about God creating humanity in his own image as being an objective fact, then I don't see how it's arrogant to recognize objective reality. It is what it is.

You were using this as as example in regards to objective fact/objective reality, while I was looking at the whole context of your statement from a belief viewpoint: i.e. that you were making a claim that humanity being created by god was an (objective) fact.

Now, being objective...well, that's a subjective judgment, isn't it? Someone can be objective and be wrong. Ignoring for a second whether or not a believer is objective, that's a different question from whether or not they are right or wrong.

Now, are believers objective? I dunno. They can probably tell you some other theories that are out there, and say they reject them, and give you reasons for rejecting them. But they believe in the Bible. Well, yeah, everyone has something to work from. Other people believe in other things. But the "other things" can be proven, or observed. Yeah. And some things can't be proven, and can't be observed. No doubt this is very clear cut to you, no doubt you couldn't possibly think like believers. Yeah, they're thinking differently from you. You call the way you think objective, and they don't fit with that. They think they're more objective than you. But they're wrong, and you're right.

See, this is why I differentiate thinking objectively from objective truth.

A good point. And you are correct... our claims/arguments/beliefs are indeed subjective.

What do you mean blind? It takes eyes to read the bible, arf arf arf arf arf.

Smartypants.:p

My "blind-faith" comment was meant to distinguish between two different extremes that faith can have on the way an individual perceives reality.

For instance... it takes a certain amount of faith to believe... using my eyes, ears and a certain amount of caution... that I can walk across a busy street and make it safely to the other side, whereas if I were to close my eyes, cover my ears and step forth boldly into the street with the belief that my guardian angel with protect me from harm... that is an example of blind-faith.

For the record, I have no problems with individuals having some form of faith in regards to what they perceive to be a loving and benevolent diety. I do have a problem with those who chose to view the world... and act accordingly with... the "unshakable, blind-faith" they possess that tells them that their views and beliefs are not only righteous and just, but are backed up by a god that cannot be proven to exist.

To be perfectly honest... the same can be said for those atheists who can be just as zealous about their own viewpoints. I consider myself an agnostic; I do not believe in any version or interpretation of an intelligent god(s)/creator due to that I have never seen any evidence... one way or the other... to prove otherwise... I am objective enough, however, to admit that this "proof" could indeed exist, and that it as of yet has not been discovered.

But the book was written 2000 and more years ago, so the expectation that you have for it isn't there, but others don't have that expectation for a book that was written 2000 and more years ago.

Fair enough.

I was thinking relatively, I should have mentioned that. Skeptics take pride (hmmm, maybe I should use a different word) in their knowledge of the bible, the details, the problems, how it doesn't fit with the way the world works as we perceive it. Many skeptics (OK, I won't include you) are adamant with holding the believer to verses in the Bible, telling them *but this is what you believe, it's right here, let me quote it to you*. In such a situation, there is a relative obsession with the Bible. There are probably 283 skeptics on this forum who can quote the Bible better than I can. And I'm the believer! Like arrogance, obsession is viewed as a negative word, so I probably shouldn't have used it.

And, in hindsight, I can see where my choice of the word "arrogance" was inflammatory in regards to this discussion. I do believe the word applies to specific instances in regards to religion and faith in general, but I do admit that my own personal bias played a role in using that term.

There is some polling about how Americans view extraterrestrial life.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/PublicOpinionPolls.htm

Thank you for the link... I did indeed check out each of the links on that web page to see if their were any polls dedicated to (or at least mentioning) the breakdown of individuals who consider themselves believers in extraterrestrial life. Unfortunately, I only found one mention in one of the surveys (from 1995, if I remember correctly) that listed that "45% of churchgoers believe in extraterrestrial life".

Just out of idle curiosity, if anyone here has any information or links to other studies regarding this topic, I would appriciate hearing about them.

I would also like to mention that I hope that more people that share your faith believe in life on other worlds. Our vast and beautifully awe-inspiring universe would somehow be lessened, imo, if we were the only ones to recognize it.

You are correct, the Bible does give humanity a special role in God's creation...my only point is that earth is what is being talked about. God told Adam to take care of the garden, not to take care of the sun or Jupiter.

Effectively that is how it shakes out. But we understand that his eye is on the sparrow, or, at least that's what the Bible says. Our focus is on Jesus, the incarnation of God, that's the most important thing to us, so we talk about that the most. But we understand that God is responsible for all of creation, even though that's not foremost on our minds.

I came across this link that I think you would find interesting to this subject:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1813.htm

Although I like your personal viewpoint on this matter, I must still hold to my opinion that, although there might be some room for interpretation, the bible, at the very least, infers that mankind... and his salvation thereof... is his chief and sole concern in the cosmos.

[quote]Maybe you can do what I do all the time, if you're interested. Get with a fundamentalist Christian, and ask him/her if God could *beget* (now that word deserves its own thread) his son in a different part of the universe.

A good idea. I do know of at two fundamentalist (born again?) Christians that I work with. I'll try and ask between today and the end of the week what their personal views are. I'll let you know what they say.

Of course you don't mean that literally. The Bible has man as the pinnacle of creation, the thing God made before he rested. Specifically, man is placed on Earth. All of the other stars in the universe have nothing to do with us. As we define the universe today, I disagree that Christians believe that the universe revovles around them. As the universe was defined centuries ago...sure, why not I guess, I wouldn't phrase it as you do, but whatever.

I should have added that the universe "revolves around themselves in a spiritual sense", as I had done earlier in that post. In that context, I was making an observation that your comment about mankind being the stewards of creation seemed pretty much in line with my comment.

Thank you for a great discussion.

Jen:)

AWPrime

7th March 2006, 01:21 PM

As some of you might know, God is the final boss in Doom 666.

Your mission: Kick his $#^ with the BFG and the Iron Shotgun.

kurious_kathy

7th March 2006, 09:21 PM

She shouldn't be doing that, I just read the first and last page of the thread before I jumped in so I probably missed a lot of that.

That would be hell...but at the same time, you really must not hold onto that forever. I don't think it's as simple as saying "I'm sorry, now it doesn't matter!" I've got this idea that NOBODY has any idea about what hurting another person really means. Like with all of the people I've hurt in my life, I can say I'm sorry and feel bad about it and ask for forgiveness, but I've still got something coming to me. I have to almost experience what it was about (I think that's part of the after-life process). And then I'll really be sorry. But at some point you have to let go of all that. You're sorry, you're forgiven, but if you can't let go of that, yes, you would be in hell. Even really bad sins are forgiveable, the worst ones too, and if you can't let go of that, if you can't get over the fact of *you* hurting someone and accept forgiveness for that, you would be in hell. That would be pride, I hurt someone I did I I I I I I. Yes. Understand it, experience it, be connected with the action totally and the person you hurt, and then let God wash that way. So it's not easy, but God has conquered sin. Let him conquer it.

But she has called people to action, based on all the replies.
I don't know whether I have called people to action, but I am sorry so many take me as preaching at them. I am probably not a very good debater, but that doesn't mean I haven't tried to converse with many people here. And I only share things from my perspective and what I think scripture provokes us to think about. I don't even really know what gifts God has given me and wants me to use too much at this point in my Christian walk.
All I know is I had a very supernatural experience with God and I think about it everyday. I'll never forget being turned around and I am here to testify to the fact that Jesus is very much the way, truth and life. I am sorry if this statement coming from me offends so many here on this board.

I shared this tid bit on another board today that someone started a thread called "Tell Me About Forgiveness" I would just like to copy it to you to possibly add a bit to what you have stated here Elliot on the subject of forgiveness...http://www.firestream.net/viewtopic.php?p=507772#507772

Forgiveness is not always easy though is it? I think when it comes to people like me in the past that played the victim role a little too much, it can be something that seems impossible on ones own strength. Have you ever been victimized by someone to the point you really didn't know how you could ever let it go and forgive them?
How can we forgive that person that hurt you so bad? You want to but you just don't know how. To me Jesus sets the example for us to follow, and sometimes I think many of us struggle to forgive others. This is why to me scripture helps so much. Like this other example of when Jesus hung there on that cross even though he did nothing to deserve being there...

Luke 23:33-35 The Crucifixion
When they came to the place called The Skull, there they crucified Him and the criminals, one on the right and the other on the left. But Jesus was saying, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing " And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves. And the people stood by, looking on. And even the rulers were sneering at Him, saying, "He saved others; let Him save Himself if this is the Christ of God, His Chosen One."

Ducky

7th March 2006, 09:41 PM

Scripture tells us that no one comes to the Father but through Christ! So yes anyone who chooses to deny Jesus died on that cross for their sin will not be redeemed. It is still my hope that even though you are still saying you don't believe in Jesus, somehow He may turn you around to know He is the way, the truth, and the light of this world.

I don't know how God might be able to reach you FS but I am still praying that somehow you will come to believe before your life here on earth has ended. It's a bit of a profound thing in my opinion, but I do believe God does have His perfect timing in each and everyone of our lives.... "AKA a moment of revelation or a wake up call." I know He doesn't want to lose any of us.

In my own case I know God extended lots of extra grace and mercy in my life to finally reach me! If you ask me there is a God shaped void in everyones heart that only Jesus can fill. Call it a divine pending appt. if you like. I still tend to think it's just a matter of time to see what can happen to bring one to see the light!

So FS I will not tell you that you are going to hell, because I believe you can still be reached. Don't ask me how, but I am asking the Lord to reveal Himself to you in a very real and personal way. And the great thing about living a life based on faith is there is always hope! You may choose to get upset with me for having this belief, but that won't change my mind. I will still be praying.

And you don't think this is a condescending point of view for you to have? "Believe what I do and you won't go to hell" is very condescending becasue it implies that someone who does not believe what you do is not on the same level, or worthy of as much respect as you because you are saved and they are not.

PS. Like many others on this forum, kathy, I've been through the ringers of Chrsitianity. You can keep it. You have nothing to offer me I haven't already seen and walked away from. In fact, you're just reiterating the same tired arguments I've heard before, though you do it with less flowery ways to hide the hypocricy.

kurious_kathy

7th March 2006, 10:43 PM

And you don't think this is a condescending point of view for you to have? "Believe what I do and you won't go to hell" is very condescending becasue it implies that someone who does not believe what you do is not on the same level, or worthy of as much respect as you because you are saved and they are not.

PS. Like many others on this forum, kathy, I've been through the ringers of Chrsitianity. You can keep it. You have nothing to offer me I haven't already seen and walked away from. In fact, you're just reiterating the same tired arguments I've heard before, though you do it with less flowery ways to hide the hypocricy.
On the contrary FS I very much believe in the golden rule, "Treat others the way you want to be treated." God help us all not be emotionally shut down to eachothers need to be cared about and loved. Isn't love the greatest commandment? And I want everyone here to know that I love them. How can this be, I don't even know you guys and many of you don't even like me, but I still care about you,"even if you don't want me to?" I would just hope for the best to happen to others, not the worse.

And when I bring up my past please let me clear up any misunderstanding. I have struggled with forgiveness in the past, but now because I look to God for that myself, I can and do willing give forgiveness to others. Even the people that in my past did terrible things that caused me much heartache. Don't you see the spritual context to that?

God's grace is real and he extends it to us in so many ways. Forgiveness is a good example of what a life built on principles of faith can be. None of us are perfect, but it's nice to know we are forgiven. These are the important things if you ask me.

You guys call me a fundy, I'm still not in agreement with you about that. I have many unique things about myself outside of who I am in Christ. I'm sure if I stick around long enough you guys will realize I'm not this really hardcore fundy even though I do have a heart for God!

ImaginalDisc

7th March 2006, 10:47 PM

On the contrary FS I very much believe in the golden rule, "Treat others the way you want to be treated." God help us all not be emotionally shut down to eachothers need to be cared about and loved. Isn't love the greatest commandment?

Actually, it's not amoungst the top ten. The first one says "love me, me, me, me, me, me, ME! Love me, and no other gods, because I'm so...selfless."

Then the bible's full of instances where god murders millions of people, or better yet, commands his followers to kill people, because they've never even heard of him.

Does god like to be murdered? Because if god really treats others as he likes to be treated, then he loves being murdered something fierce.

And I want everyone here to know that I love them. How can this be, I don't even know you guys and many of you don't even like me, but I still care about you, even if you don't want me to. I would just hope for the best to happen to others, not the worse.
And when I bring up my past please let me clear up any misunderstanding. I have struggled with forgiveness in the past, but now because I look to God for that myself, I can and do willing give forgiveness to others. Even the people that in my past did terrible things that caused me much heart ache. Don't you see the spritual context to that? God's grace is real and he extends it to us in so many ways. Forgiveness is a good example of what a life built on principles of faith can be. None of us are perfect, but it's nice to know we are forgiven. These are the important things if you ask me.
You guys call me a fundy, I'm still not in agreement with you about that. I have many unique things about myself outside of who I am in Christ. I'm sure if I stick around long enough you guys will realize I'm not this really hardcore fundy even though I do have a heart for God!

Put down your cross, and pick up a book.

Ducky

7th March 2006, 10:48 PM

On the contrary FS I very much believe in the golden rule, "Treat others the way you want to be treated." God help us all not be emotionally shut down to eachothers need to be cared about and loved. Isn't love the greatest commandment? And I want everyone here to know that I love them. How can this be, I don't even know you guys and many of you don't even like me, but I still care about you,"even if you don't want me to?" I would just hope for the best to happen to others, not the worse.

And when I bring up my past please let me clear up any misunderstanding. I have struggled with forgiveness in the past, but now because I look to God for that myself, I can and do willing give forgiveness to others. Even the people that in my past did terrible things that caused me much heartache. Don't you see the spritual context to that?

God's grace is real and he extends it to us in so many ways. Forgiveness is a good example of what a life built on principles of faith can be. None of us are perfect, but it's nice to know we are forgiven. These are the important things if you ask me.

You guys call me a fundy, I'm still not in agreement with you about that. I have many unique things about myself outside of who I am in Christ. I'm sure if I stick around long enough you guys will realize I'm not this really hardcore fundy even though I do have a heart for God!

So you wish others to tell you that you are mislead, less than they are in stature, and that you are going to burn in hell?

Belz...

8th March 2006, 05:51 AM

I don't know whether I have called people to action, but I am sorry so many take me as preaching at them. I am probably not a very good debater, but that doesn't mean I haven't tried to converse with many people here.

I think "convert" was the word you were looking for.

Belz...

8th March 2006, 05:52 AM

On the contrary FS I very much believe in the golden rule, "Treat others the way you want to be treated." God help us all not be emotionally shut down...

Why do you continuously do this ? Stop quoting the damned bibble! Stop preaching your senseless drivel. If you have evidence to provide then do so, otherwise STOP THIS!

OdwinOddball

8th March 2006, 09:25 AM

On the contrary FS I very much believe in the golden rule, "Treat others the way you want to be treated."

Have to drop out of lurker mode to reply to this. It is quite frankly one of the most hypocritical statements I have ever seen someone make.

KK. Read. close now. If you want others to treat you like you treat them, well here goes.

You're ideas are regurgitated hogwash from an ancient text written by primitve savges living in a harsh enviornment. Your god is a represntative of pure evil by all defintitions of the word. By serving him you serve evil. You are a worthlesss human being that has suffered entirely thru her own stupidity.

Not very nice things to say, but it is EXACTLY the same as what you have said on this board, just a tad bit more blunt.

Get over yourself. Stop quoting scripture and considering yourself better than all of us "poor godless heathens". No one here wants to hear the same tired god rhetoric we have heard a thousand times from other bible thumping fundies. Stop trying to spread the word of your savage diety. We have already heard his ******** from far more intelligent and well-spoken people than you and rejected it.

KK you say you don't want to preach, well every time you proclaim the truth of your gods way or quote scripture, guess what, thats preaching.

Belz...

8th March 2006, 10:09 AM

You're ideas are regurgitated hogwash from an ancient text written by primitve savges living in a harsh enviornment. Your god is a represntative of pure evil by all defintitions of the word.

A very good summary of ANY religion.

No one here wants to hear the same tired god rhetoric we have heard a thousand times from other bible thumping fundies.

Ah! But EVERY bibble-thumping fundy thinks the arguments he brings were NEVER brought to the attention of the unbeliever! How terribly clever of them, yes ?

ETA: Welcome to the forums, by the way.

Beerina

8th March 2006, 11:19 AM

Hi RT, none of us are perfect, only Christ was perfect.

He did get violently angry at the money changers, who were just honest businessmen taking advantage of the god Yahweh's peculiar desire to be paid in local Jewish money instead of Roman coin.

I guess that makes both Jesus and Yahweh appear less than perfect. Nevermind.

delphi_ote

8th March 2006, 11:26 AM

Ah! But EVERY bibble-thumping fundy thinks the arguments he brings were NEVER brought to the attention of the unbeliever! How terribly clever of them, yes ?

Of course. It was enough evidence to trick their tiny mind into belief, why shouldn't it trick us as well?

Belz...

8th March 2006, 01:13 PM

Of course. It was enough evidence to trick their tiny mind into belief, why shouldn't it trick us as well?

It's like some people who, sitting on their couch at home, think they've finally toppled the theory of evolution: surely, none of those smart-ass scientists have considered MY arguments yet.

delphi_ote

8th March 2006, 01:20 PM

It's like some people who, sitting on their couch at home, think they've finally toppled the theory of evolution: surely, none of those smart-ass scientists have considered MY arguments yet.

You bring up a good point. They sit in their couch at home. Do they go to the lab and test their ideas? Do they go catalogue observations? Do they make calculations or computer simulations? Do they survey other work in the field? Do they get an education so they can speak technically with other experts?

It seems to me they're not just intellectually lazy, they're physicially lazy as well.

Belz...

8th March 2006, 03:28 PM

Roadtoad

8th March 2006, 06:32 PM

Like Roadtoad says:

What the hell did you just say?

stamenflicker

8th March 2006, 07:26 PM

You yourself drew conclusions from these numbers without understanding them

Actually delphi, my conclusions don't come from the numbers at all, but instead from my experience and interaction with other people, both theists and atheists involved in the three non-profits I volunteer with. The numbers just happen to reflect pretty accurately my experience of the world, therefore I have little reason to doubt them.

Again, if these numbers don't reflect your experience, then fine. No one is saying they need to. So step off your statistical high horse if you either A) have no numbers of your own, or B) are unwilling to share a view of the world that disagrees with them.

Flick

delphi_ote

9th March 2006, 12:07 AM

Again, if these numbers don't reflect your experience, then fine. No one is saying they need to. So step off your statistical high horse if you either A) have no numbers of your own, or B) are unwilling to share a view of the world that disagrees with them.

Unbelievable. Are you actually that intellectually dishonest and lazy? You've sited numbers you admit are not valid as evidence to support your assertion. You've admitted to supporting those numbers only because they match your expectations. The default assumption is not that whatever numbers are posted first are valid until other numbers are presented.

Either you let these numbers bear proper scrutiny or you retract them and argue from your experience. You can't have your cake and eat it too with statistics.

Belz...

9th March 2006, 05:32 AM

Like Roadtoad says:

What the hell did you just say?

He basically says that people believe in what they WANT to believe.

Roadtoad

9th March 2006, 07:40 AM

Oh.

elliotfc

9th March 2006, 07:50 AM

I had to go back to the your original post that I had quoted off of to see where my misunderstanding occured:

Yeah, my fault for the misunderstanding. I should have said "if" God created humans, but I just said it.

For instance... it takes a certain amount of faith to believe... using my eyes, ears and a certain amount of caution... that I can walk across a busy street and make it safely to the other side, whereas if I were to close my eyes, cover my ears and step forth boldly into the street with the belief that my guardian angel with protect me from harm... that is an example of blind-faith.

We'd call it blind faith because if the demonstrable result. That's why I wouldn't classify your example with religious belief/faith.

So you've got the faith which corresponds to everyday experience (falling off a 98 story building is hazardous to your health), the faith which does not correspond to everyday experience (your example, a guardian angel *not* protecting you when you walk blindfolded into the street), and the faith that has nothing to do with everyday experience.

You can believe in God and get by everyday just fine. You can not believe in God and get by everyday just fine. That's why I don't like it when religious believers are held to be irrational. A religious believer can understand science and how the world operates just fine, as well as any materialist. They have additional faiths and beliefs that do not conflict with their more "grounded" beliefs. You could use Occam's Razor and judge that to be unnecessary (not that Occam's Razor is anything more than what it is, a thought exercise), but
the beliefs can co-exist just fine.

For the record, I have no problems with individuals having some form of faith in regards to what they perceive to be a loving and benevolent diety. I do have a problem with those who chose to view the world... and act accordingly with... the "unshakable, blind-faith" they possess that tells them that their views and beliefs are not only righteous and just, but are backed up by a god that cannot be proven to exist.

ACT being the key word. Yes, religous believers are motivated to act in ways that a non-religous believer may not be motivated to act. For example, if you believe you are connected to an authority that supercedes all conventional secular moralities and all earthly civil and legal authorities, you are liable to do things that other people, confined by other moralities and authorities, probably wouldn't do. In this sense, religious belief has the potential to make religious believers dangerous.

To be perfectly honest... the same can be said for those atheists who can be just as zealous about their own viewpoints.

Correct, but they would be sort of like zealous religious believers, right? An atheist who does not feel confined by tradional secular morality, or any governmental authority, but is an authority to him/herself can be extremely dangerous. It's all about who you make "God". You can believe in a God from a holy book, you can believe yourself to be God, or you can have a working secular morality as a God. Everybody has to submit to some authority, even if that authority is the self. That's why religious believers are apt to say that even hardened skeptics have religious belief, they just define their gods differently (so differently that they don't refer to them as gods).

Thank you for the link... I did indeed check out each of the links on that web page to see if their were any polls dedicated to (or at least mentioning) the breakdown of individuals who consider themselves believers in extraterrestrial life. Unfortunately, I only found one mention in one of the surveys (from 1995, if I remember correctly) that listed that "45% of churchgoers believe in extraterrestrial life".

Assuming that by churchgoer we mean a person who attends church weekly...30% of Americans are churchgoers.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week908/analysis1.html

I think that at least 90% of Americans believe in God, so you still have 60% of the population who aren't covered by churchgoer, but who have religious belief. Let's say 2/3rds of those people believe in extraterrestrial life. So that's over 50% of the population believing God, and believing in extraterrestrial life.

I think that definitely has theological ramifications. Granted, we may not consider those ramifications because the existence of extraterrestrial life has no practical reality to us.

I would also like to mention that I hope that more people that share your faith believe in life on other worlds. Our vast and beautifully awe-inspiring universe would somehow be lessened, imo, if we were the only ones to recognize it.

I have a working theory...working in that it works for me. :)

Many agnostics see the size of the universe as a reason to *NOT* believe in God. If the universe is so big, and we just occupy an infinitely small piece of it with no other life out there, that is a bit of a headscratcher. But, if the universe is so big, and does include lots of life, the size of the universe would basically quarantine all of the life from each other. Exactly. My theory is that God wants all of the life in the universe quarantined from each other.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1813.htm[/URL]

Interesting stuff, eh?

I have my own theories about "extraterrestrial" visitations. Namely they aren't extraterrestrial visitations. I subscribe to the Keelian "ultraterrestrial" explanation. Translated into religious lingo, we're talking demons and/or tricksters.

Although I like your personal viewpoint on this matter, I must still hold to my opinion that, although there might be some room for interpretation, the bible, at the very least, infers that mankind... and his salvation thereof... is his chief and sole concern in the cosmos.

Right, and I'd say that fits with the understanding of the day. Their definition of cosmos was, well, very limited. If you were to go back 2000 years and talk about how there are hundreds of billions of stars in the universe and that it would take dozens of years, travelling at the speed of light, to reach even the closest stars, they'd probably look at you funny.

-Elliot

elliotfc

9th March 2006, 08:04 AM

Forgiveness is not always easy though is it?

No, and it shouldn't be I don't think. If sin is a big deal, and if hurting another person is a big deal, forgiveness should also be a big deal. Not in a melodramatic way. A big deal in that it is meaningful and significant.

In a Judeo-Christian theological sense, forgiveness has evolved quite a bit. In the OT, you had to sacrifice animals in order to *hide* your sin from God. God took this idea and worked with it, Jesus being the true sacrifice who doesn't hide sins, but washes them clean. Since Christians believe that Jesus was a big deal, it follows that God's forgiveness is a big deal. In the Lord's Prayer we ask God to forgive us as we forgive others, and by linking the two, it follows that when we forgive others, that's a big deal too.

I think when it comes to people like me in the past that played the victim role a little too much, it can be something that seems impossible on ones own strength. Have you ever been victimized by someone to the point you really didn't know how you could ever let it go and forgive them?

Yes, and we see that played out all the time. When we see grieving parents in a courtroom tell the killer of their child "I hope you burn in hell", that is a very real and very appropriate emotional response. It also is an unchristian response. No sin, no matter how despicable, is so big that God will not forgive it. And if we want God to forgive our sins, we must forgive the sins of others. We don't have any leeway on that point.

And when you dwell on your own personal victimization, that can become a false god.

How can we forgive that person that hurt you so bad? You want to but you just don't know how. To me Jesus sets the example for us to follow, and sometimes I think many of us struggle to forgive others. This is why to me scripture helps so much. Like this other example of when Jesus hung there on that cross even though he did nothing to deserve being there...

Exactly.

-Elliot

elliotfc

9th March 2006, 08:08 AM

ZirconBlue

9th March 2006, 08:14 AM

You can't have your cake and eat it too with statistics.

Oh, yeah? Well, what about this (http://www.aibonline.org/resources/statistics/cake.html)?

"Raising the bar," by Lyle Niedens in Milling & Baking News, March 9, 2004 (Vol. 83, No 2), p. 19-20, 22-23. This product perspective profiles the snack cake and pie categories. According to data from the market research company Information Resources Inc., snack pie dollar sales fell 6.8% for the 52-week time period ending December 7, 2003.

elliotfc

9th March 2006, 08:21 AM

Actually, it's not amoungst the top ten. The first one says "love me, me, me, me, me, me, ME! Love me, and no other gods, because I'm so...selfless."

No, it certainly does not say that.

The Christian will quote Jesus, while you will manipulate a quotation from the Old Testament. What's the point?

Then the bible's full of instances where god murders millions of people, or better yet, commands his followers to kill people, because they've never even heard of him.

Where does god murder millions of people in the Bible? If you're talking the Flood, were millions of people around back then? And as for God, he is the giver of life, he can take life away, that isn't murder. If the state executes someone that isn't murder because they are exercising their own authority, and then goes quadruple (at least! arf arf arf) for God.

As for commanding his followers to kill people, it was an extremely competitive world in that respect back then! Usually the way you'd demonstrate the power of your god would be to send a bunch of armed men somewhere (loosely an army I guess) and have them kill a whole bunch of people, and then you'd show how strong your particular god was. That was the environment the Jews grew up in. Like, one was intertwined with the other. And gods were always commanding you to kill your neighbors. Pretty weird, huh! But even then, if the gods really were commanding you to kill your neighbors it wouldn't be murder, because murder is illegal (not authorized by the state). And back then, every government was linked to a particular god. Pretty weird, huh!

So that was the operating procedure back then, and once you understand that, the OT makes quite a bit of sense. Yes, we can throw the word murder around, but we'd be doing that in the context of how our society defines and thinks of things, but, that would be cultural imperialism on our part, and people understood things really differently back then.

Does god like to be murdered? Because if god really treats others as he likes to be treated, then he loves being murdered something fierce.

No, actually, if you read the Bible, Jesus really didn't enjoy the experience one bit!

Put down your cross, and pick up a book.

Well that's a silly thing to say! And what book do you think she'll pick up? Arf arf arf arf arf.

You tried really hard with this post, that has to be worth something I guess.

-Elliot

elliotfc

9th March 2006, 08:23 AM

So you wish others to tell you that you are mislead, less than they are in stature, and that you are going to burn in hell?

Personally, if somebody thinks I'm going to hell, I'd like them to tell me that! Hell is a HUGE DEAL. If I didn't believe in hell, I could care less.

Now, some people don't believe in hell, but, they really care when people tell them they are going to hell. Neato!

-Elliot

elliotfc

9th March 2006, 08:24 AM

Why do you continuously do this ? Stop quoting the damned bibble! Stop preaching your senseless drivel. If you have evidence to provide then do so, otherwise STOP THIS!

To be fair, this ought to apply to every skeptic...out of curiosity Belz, do you get angry with skeptics who quote the Bible?

That would be fair, right?

-Elliot

Roadtoad

9th March 2006, 08:45 AM

To be fair, this ought to apply to every skeptic...out of curiosity Belz, do you get angry with skeptics who quote the Bible?

That would be fair, right?

-Elliot

He tends to, particularly when it's out of context, or misused, or someone tries to make Christians and Jews sound worse than they are. Belz is fair that way.

elliotfc

9th March 2006, 08:51 AM

You're ideas are regurgitated hogwash from an ancient text written by primitve savges living in a harsh enviornment.

Hogwash? Pigs aren't kosher! Maybe some other kind of wash.

Get over yourself. Stop quoting scripture and considering yourself better than all of us "poor godless heathens". No one here wants to hear the same tired god rhetoric we have heard a thousand times from other bible thumping fundies.

I don't think that's correct, several skeptics in this community frequent places like raptureready. Many skeptics go out of their way to read "tired god rhetoric". Maybe most skeptics on this board don't.

But I understand where you are coming from. It's nice to have a refuge. The Puritans (sorry, I was reading up on the Puritans recently!) had a similar idea. All of these Quakers were always invading their territory. And it wasn't that they didn't want Quakers to exist...they were fine with the reality that Quakers lived in other places. They just didn't want Quakers living in their communities. It's kind of like that. And the Quaker would hang around, trying to convert Puritans, and the Puritan authorities would reasonably tell them "looky here, you can believe whatever you want, but we've heard it all before and we're not interested so please go away". And then if they came back the Puritians would brand them with an H on their forehead!

Now I know you wouldn't go that far, but it's completely human for you to want to have a place where you are free of dealing with certain kinds of people. Now, like the Quakers, Kathy is in earnest, so you can't appeal to her by asking her to stop preaching. I see two options. One, track her down and brand her forehead with a particular letter of the alphabet. Two, put her on ignore!

Given your expressive opinions to Kathy, you probably see her as being completely unreasonable. The proactive thing is *not to allow her to determine your moods*. By putting her on your ignore list, you eradicate her opinions without waiting for her to acquiesce to your request.

-Elliot

elliotfc

9th March 2006, 08:53 AM

He tends to, particularly when it's out of context, or misused, or someone tries to make Christians and Jews sound worse than they are. Belz is fair that way.

That's good, as long as he is even-handed.

Maybe there ought to be rules applied to this forum, like, "all posters are not permitted to use the Bible as *evidence* when making points".

-Elliot

stamenflicker

9th March 2006, 08:53 AM

Unbelievable. Are you actually that intellectually dishonest and lazy?

Lazy maybe, or perhaps I'm just simply cheap since you've provided no really good reason to purchase the book these stats are listed in.

You've sited numbers you admit are not valid as evidence to support your assertion. You've admitted to supporting those numbers only because they match your expectations.

No where have I admitted they aren't valid. I've stated that Barna is widely recognized as a reliable source of statistical information. His numbers have been cited by authorties far more prevelant than little ole me in places far more important than this little ole board. My experience in the times that I have worked with his raw data finds the data to be about as valid as any other polling statistic, including Gallop which his numbers often stand alongside.

So I'm taking the numbers as they stand on a dual basis: reputable authority (which you question without evidence) and personal experience (which you seem hesitant to offer). I also rest assured that the information is available for me to purchase should I have some kind of massive doubt.

You make it seem that this is utterly uncommon, but it happens all the time. People read summaries of findings and accept them as IS, knowing that a) more information is likely available, b) trusting that this information has been viewed by professionals more intellectually vested in the data result.

Sometimes it is wrong, as with the recent case of Korean cloning science (Wait, it's just those pesky Christians out distributing bad data!!!). Sometimes the world just jumps on a number or a finding without doing the homework. The fault there lies not within those of us who read the cloning summary in Discover magazine or heard about it on NPR. The fault rests with those who professionally reported the results without doing their homework.

Either you let these numbers bear proper scrutiny or you retract them and argue from your experience. You can't have your cake and eat it too with statistics.

I will do neither. I've emailed the Barna group to request the back methodology on their website summary data. If I don't receive the information, I will accept the numbers for the two reasons I cited. If you don't like it, that's fine. I'll poor a cup of coffee with my saved cake and watch you pout.

If I'm wrong on such a matter of dire importance to the universe, then I'll barf it back up, walk away, then somehow manage to live with these grave consequences of misleading data.

Flick

elliotfc

9th March 2006, 09:00 AM

[QUOTE]Ah! But EVERY bibble-thumping fundy thinks the arguments he brings were NEVER brought to the attention of the unbeliever! How terribly clever of them, yes ?[QUOTE]

Untrue! I'd say only a minority would think that.

By and large, the individual fundy thinks he/she can do a better job at *delivering* the arguments...or, maybe he/she could catch the unbeliever on a good day, or something.

But like the John 3:16 guy, you know they that they know that the arguments have been presented before. To them it may be a matter of persistence, not originality or taking away someone's virginity when it comes to hearing theological argumentation. A compulsion. I think that some fundamentalists take to it really well because it can be a compulsion, and their individual personality may be good for it.

-Elliot

elliotfc

9th March 2006, 09:09 AM

He did get violently angry at the money changers, who were just honest businessmen taking advantage of the god Yahweh's peculiar desire to be paid in local Jewish money instead of Roman coin.

I guess that makes both Jesus and Yahweh appear less than perfect. Nevermind.

It was definitely aggressive. A very human response. It doesn't say that he injured any persons in doing this.

I think the common *defense* for Jesus is that the poor were unjustly seperated from approaching God by the system of buying animals to sacrifice. The temple was *his* house (if someone set up a table in your house, would you get upset?) and Jesus was about to eradicate the animal sacrifice system with his own sacrifice.

The Christian does not believe that God must not be violent by the way. Of course you can quote the Bible yourself to prove that. :) Would God be violent with Satan? Sure, most Christians believe he was.

-Elliot

elliotfc

9th March 2006, 09:11 AM

Of course. It was enough evidence to trick their tiny mind into belief, why shouldn't it trick us as well?

I know I know I know I know!

It shouldn't trick you because...you don't have a tiny mind! Yeah, that's it You are smart, and they are dumb! Tee hee!

-Elliot

delphi_ote

9th March 2006, 09:12 AM

I will do neither.

So these numbers are above scrutiny?

delphi_ote

9th March 2006, 09:13 AM

I know I know I know I know!

It shouldn't trick you because...you don't have a tiny mind! Yeah, that's it You are smart, and they are dumb! Tee hee!

Hmm... it seems we have further evidence here of my "tiny mind" point.

delphi_ote

9th March 2006, 09:22 AM

Actually delphi, my conclusions don't come from the numbers at all...

You've sited numbers you admit are not valid as evidence to support your assertion.

No where have I admitted they aren't valid.

Not a big fan of consistency, are you?

delphi_ote

9th March 2006, 09:25 AM

Oh, yeah? Well, what about this (http://www.aibonline.org/resources/statistics/cake.html)?

Lies! All lies! Feast your eyes on this (http://www.bakingbusiness.com/feature_stories.asp?ArticleID=70310)!

elliotfc

9th March 2006, 09:39 AM

You bring up a good point. They sit in their couch at home. Do they go to the lab and test their ideas? Do they go catalogue observations? Do they make calculations or computer simulations? Do they survey other work in the field? Do they get an education so they can speak technically with other experts?

It seems to me they're not just intellectually lazy, they're physicially lazy as well.

I disagree with physically lazy. It doesn't take a lot of physical exertion to go a lab for instance. I think that believers may work in, well, you know, blue collar type jobs because of their lack of education. The less educated will tend to have jobs which will employ more brawn than brains. So you're wrong on that one. Take people who unload trucks. They've probably not as smart as you, because it is obvious by the things you say that you are way smart! But I bet they are stronger than you. You must admit that there lots of stupid people who are not physically lazy. Take people who lack the intelligence to drive cars. So they have to walk places. But that isn't physically lazy, to walk five miles to get somewhere. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you're not smart for not recognizing this. You are so smart that your intellect is way beyond such banalities (even though you brought it up, but let's ignore that, our smartness (or at least your smartness) can enable us to compartmentalize) that you probably didn't use a computer model to determine whether or not unsmart people are also physically lazy. Maybe you can bust out the computer model later today to verify this though, because that would be the smart thing to do.

Anyhow...objective reality is not contingent on calculations and computer simulations and what not. Because before we had calculations and computers and what not we had objective reality. And computer simulations have yet to tell us what the first *effective* biological organism was exactly...when it came into existence...where it came into existence...what was the process behind it, all that. Hey, I admire the attempt, and it gives you smart people something to do, because if you couldn't do that you'd have to do some job that would be beneath you and that would SUCK. Seriously though, these intellectual exercises only work in the intellect...and if they correspond to the objective reality of the past, you could only believe that by faith.

I think skeptics of what you believe in are more cognizant of the limits and general uselessness of your exercises. You can come up with all the mathematical models you want, but the past is in the past and you ain't going to be observing the unobservable anytime soon. Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm really interested in the past meself! And believe me I've got my eye on Szostak. A smart guy like that doing the science and look what he's proven...that, errr, when you mix RNA and fatty acids and clay you get, errr... things that may or may not be protobionts. Something like that! It's really brilliant stuff.

Anyhow keep up the good work science dude! And don't take it personally if we don't genuflect before your science. In fact, we'll just selectively choose what to go with. Yeah, those are the breaks! Like, the things you can explain about what happens around us everyday, we'll take those. And the things you can explain about what happens in days of yore which are forever unobservable...well, certainly they give you something to believe in, so in that we respect them. And that you can proclaim your superiority for your brand of faith is pretty neato! It must be pretty sweet to be smarter than most people, and to have a community where you can tell people how smart you are, and how stupid everybody else is, and then like other people can say "hey I know what you mean, I so smart and they so dumb". And you can say such things with a straight face too! And nobody would mock you either, because it's just so *obvious* by reading what you say that you have a big brain. Because how could anybody be skeptical about your intelligence? You can't, you really can't. Not even a caculation or computer model could prove you to be anything less than smart.

-Elliot

elliotfc

9th March 2006, 09:42 AM

Hmm... it seems we have further evidence here of my "tiny mind" point.

Exactly. I agree that you are making a point about your tiny mind. You so smart!

I relent. Keep the faith, you so smart, don't let *anybody* suggest otherwise.

-Elliot

delphi_ote

9th March 2006, 09:45 AM

Exactly. I agree that you are making a point about your tiny mind. You so smart!

I relent. Keep the faith, you so smart, don't let *anybody* suggest otherwise.

http://www.perkydesigns.com/Pee_Wee_herman-2.jpg
I know you are, but what am I? Ha ha!

delphi_ote

9th March 2006, 10:07 AM

I disagree with physically lazy. It doesn't take a lot of physical exertion to go a lab for instance. I think that believers may work in, well, you know, blue collar type jobs because of their lack of education. The less educated will tend to have jobs which will employ more brawn than brains. So you're wrong on that one. Take people who unload trucks. They've probably not as smart as you, because it is obvious by the things you say that you are way smart! But I bet they are stronger than you. You must admit that there lots of stupid people who are not physically lazy. Take people who lack the intelligence to drive cars. So they have to walk places. But that isn't physically lazy, to walk five miles to get somewhere. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you're not smart for not recognizing this. You are so smart that your intellect is way beyond such banalities (even though you brought it up, but let's ignore that, our smartness (or at least your smartness) can enable us to compartmentalize) that you probably didn't use a computer model to determine whether or not unsmart people are also physically lazy. Maybe you can bust out the computer model later today to verify this though, because that would be the smart thing to do.
Not a word of that was relevant to my point (nor does it seem to be internally relevant to itself.) It would seem you're the one patronizing and looking down your nose at the blue-collar worker. I've known plenty of such workers who came up with brilliant engineering ideas while on the job. They were creative and brilliant. They understood intuitively how electricity works better than I did after taking two years of courses on electronics.

My point was that it's simple to sit around and make junk hypotheses from the couch. It takes physical effort to test a hypothesis. If you want knowledge, you have to work and think. If you want to be taken seriously when you have an idea, all you have to do is test it.

Anyhow...objective reality is not contingent on calculations and computer simulations and what not. Because before we had calculations and computers and what not we had objective reality. And computer simulations have yet to tell us what the first *effective* biological organism was exactly...when it came into existence...where it came into existence...what was the process behind it, all that. Hey, I admire the attempt, and it gives you smart people something to do, because if you couldn't do that you'd have to do some job that would be beneath you and that would SUCK. Seriously though, these intellectual exercises only work in the intellect...and if they correspond to the objective reality of the past, you could only believe that by faith.
Computer calculations have put men on the moon and cured diseases. Equivalent feats can't be attributed to your pseudointellectual posturing.

I think skeptics of what you believe in are more cognizant of the limits and general uselessness of your exercises. You can come up with all the mathematical models you want, but the past is in the past and you ain't going to be observing the unobservable anytime soon. Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm really interested in the past meself! And believe me I've got my eye on Szostak. A smart guy like that doing the science and look what he's proven...that, errr, when you mix RNA and fatty acids and clay you get, errr... things that may or may not be protobionts. Something like that! It's really brilliant stuff.
Are you being sarcastic here? This man's work is brilliant. Coupled with Joyce's work, we're starting to understand how an RNA world might work. It's all still in the very early stages, but we're working to understand how life began and how RNA molecules work. It's ironic that you mention this particular example. I happen to be working right now on an RNA world project. If you'd like to discuss some current work in the field, I'd be glad to do that.

Anyhow keep up the good work science dude! And don't take it personally if we don't genuflect before your science. In fact, we'll just selectively choose what to go with. Yeah, those are the breaks! Like, the things you can explain about what happens around us everyday, we'll take those. And the things you can explain about what happens in days of yore which are forever unobservable...well, certainly they give you something to believe in, so in that we respect them. And that you can proclaim your superiority for your brand of faith is pretty neato! It must be pretty sweet to be smarter than most people, and to have a community where you can tell people how smart you are, and how stupid everybody else is, and then like other people can say "hey I know what you mean, I so smart and they so dumb". And you can say such things with a straight face too! And nobody would mock you either, because it's just so *obvious* by reading what you say that you have a big brain. Because how could anybody be skeptical about your intelligence? You can't, you really can't. Not even a caculation or computer model could prove you to be anything less than smart.
More pseudointellectual posturing turned full on rant. If you want someone to take you seriously, read, study, think, and test your ideas.

stamenflicker

9th March 2006, 02:41 PM

So these numbers are above scrutiny?

These numbers are not worth the energy to scrutinize. However, the reality that you have selected these numbers for scrunity as opposed to the many numbers which I am certain both clutter and enhance your life, or the many numbers which often appear on this board in these threads, is nothing short of facinating to me. What about the reality-- check that-- the possibility of believers and non-believing people volunteering equal amounts bothers you?

Not a big fan of consistency, are you?

I thought you were the smart one. Could you logically break down the three snips you've selected and demonstrate to me the inconsistency?

I have never reached a conclusion on my ability to float in the pool by computing my buoyancy. Does that mean the numbers aren't valid? What it means is that the numbers are of little concern when I go swimming. I can successfully post on this board that I float pretty well.

Barna's numbers may or may not be valid, the truth is I don't care because they are consistent with what I would expect. But I never said the numbers were not valid, only that I didn't reach my conclusions from them. Do you have reasons to suspect they are not valid? Trumped-up? Biased? Misleading? Untrue? Scrutinize away brother... you know we can't have those pesky Christians volunteering as much as we do cause it might mess with our stereotyping.

Flick

ImaginalDisc

9th March 2006, 03:03 PM

No, it certainly does not say that.

Oh, you're right. It's much worse than that. Exodus 20:1. Hold on, let me copy/paste it

1 And God spake all these words, saying,

2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Ok, "I am a jealous murderous god who will kill you if you don't worship me." Now that's just special.

The Christian will quote Jesus, while you will manipulate a quotation from the Old Testament. What's the point?

I've quoted Jesus too. Try reading the bit where he denies healing from a gentile until she prostrates herself, and calls herself a dog.

Where does god murder millions of people in the Bible? If you're talking the Flood, were millions of people around back then?

Of course not. It never happened. Oh, you mean according to the Bible? It doesn't say. I dunno know about you, but I'd object to even one murder.

And as for God, he is the giver of life, he can take life away, that isn't murder.

Really? Is it murder if a father kills his sons? Of course it is.

If the state executes someone that isn't murder because they are exercising their own authority, and then goes quadruple (at least! arf arf arf) for God.

And who gave god this authority? Here on earth, governments are instituted amoungst men.

As for commanding his followers to kill people, it was an extremely competitive world in that respect back then! Usually the way you'd demonstrate the power of your god would be to send a bunch of armed men somewhere (loosely an army I guess) and have them kill a whole bunch of people, and then you'd show how strong your particular god was. That was the environment the Jews grew up in. Like, one was intertwined with the other. And gods were always commanding you to kill your neighbors. Pretty weird, huh! But even then, if the gods really were commanding you to kill your neighbors it wouldn't be murder, because murder is illegal (not authorized by the state). And back then, every government was linked to a particular god. Pretty weird, huh!

No, it's not weird at all. I have a great of experiance with theocracies. My country is rapidly becoming one.

So that was the operating procedure back then, and once you understand that, the OT makes quite a bit of sense. Yes, we can throw the word murder around, but we'd be doing that in the context of how our society defines and thinks of things, but, that would be cultural imperialism on our part, and people understood things really differently back then.

Now I see! Once we accept that murder isn't murder when you're killing people from other tribes, and that a mericful, omnipotent god can't help you live a prosperous life without rapine pillage and plunder it all makes sense!

No, actually, if you read the Bible, Jesus really didn't enjoy the experience one bit!

Ahem, it was illustrating that god does not treat others as he wishes to be treated.

delphi_ote

9th March 2006, 11:07 PM

These numbers are not worth the energy to scrutinize. However, the reality that you have selected these numbers for scrunity as opposed to the many numbers which I am certain both clutter and enhance your life, or the many numbers which often appear on this board in these threads, is nothing short of facinating to me. What about the reality-- check that-- the possibility of believers and non-believing people volunteering equal amounts bothers you?
They're not worth the energy to you because you're intellectually lazy. You want to draw conclusions when you don't have the evidence to do so. Every statistic thrown out as a fact is worth scrutiny. If the statistic doesn't hold up to even the slightest criticism (for example, if no information is provided about how the data was gathered) the numbers themselves are worthless. Especially poll numbers. It's your claim that religious and non-religious volunteer the same amount.

Your insinuation that my objections are because of some personal motive is more evidence of your mental lackadaisicalness. Rather than proving your point, you're trying to take a shortcut through Strawman Alley, Ad Hominem Lane, Red Herring Avenue, and Poisoned Well Highway. I have no way from my personal experience to know nationally who is more likely to volunteer for community service. I have not made a conclusion. You have.

Could you logically break down the three snips you've selected and demonstrate to me the inconsistency?
My bad. I assumed you were being rational and admitting these numbers alone were not evidence to back up your assertion. I assumed you were backing away from them and using your personal experience alone to support your argument. You were instead asserting that these numbers are correct because they match your personal experience. Just so I'm clear, the logic goes something like this, right?

The numbers are valid, because they match your personal experience.
Your personal experience is supported by the numbers.

A->B
B->A
Therefore, A and B.

Nice that you've taken us along the scenic Logic Circle.

Barna's numbers may or may not be valid, the truth is I don't care because they are consistent with what I would expect.
I really can't add anything to that. Thanks.

Do you have reasons to suspect they are not valid? Trumped-up? Biased? Misleading? Untrue? Scrutinize away brother... you know we can't have those pesky Christians volunteering as much as we do cause it might mess with our stereotyping.
Thanks for bringing us home by Appeal To Ridicule Street to Genetic Fallacy Lane. It's unfortunate that you drove for so long without taking us anywhere.

kurious_kathy

10th March 2006, 10:11 PM

Exactly. I agree that you are making a point about your tiny mind. You so smart!

I relent. Keep the faith, you so smart, don't let *anybody* suggest otherwise.

-Elliot
This scripture a was sharing earlier with others tonight and after reading what's going on here with you guys I just wanted to go ahead and share it for food for thought.
Romans 14:9-13
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' " So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.

I am of course sharing this in a loving manner!

Ducky

10th March 2006, 10:40 PM

blahblahblahblahblah

http://www.kepplah.com/stuff/puppy/DSC02298.jpg

delphi_ote

11th March 2006, 09:56 AM

" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.'
So I guess this explains the whole altar boy scandal...

Roadtoad

11th March 2006, 12:53 PM

Sorry, DO. Not funny. I wasn't an altar boy, but still...

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Kathy, this is part of the problem with your posts: Yes, you're sharing this in a loving manner, and it's an important verse, regardless of your spiritual estate. But for God's sake, think about it for a moment. People have told you: Don't spend your time quoting the Bible all the time.

If this were a once in a while thing, it wouldn't have been so bad. But it's almost all you do! Why couldn't you have said...

"You know, I found for myself that I've got so much going on in my own life, with Church, with starting to help out community organizations, and with my family, that I don't have time to waste judging other people. If I had to give an account to God for how I lived my life, I don't want to have to try and explain why I spent so much time trying to make other people look smaller, in some weird way to build myself up."

See, I don't get this. You're obviously smart enough to pick up on things that this board represents, so why can't you get this? Why do you constantly have to PREACH? People here don't relate to PREACHING. We communicate. We talk. We joke. We laugh. We offer advice to one another. And sometimes, we cry. It is one person to another. Not one down to another.

That, m'dear, is what makes you a troll.

delphi_ote

11th March 2006, 04:28 PM

Sorry, DO. Not funny. I wasn't an altar boy, but still...
Sorry, RT. My sense of humor can be a little off sometimes...

Ducky

11th March 2006, 04:32 PM

Sorry, RT. My sense of humor can be a little off sometimes...

Sometimes?

Ahem. More puppy pics please.

delphi_ote

11th March 2006, 10:29 PM

Sometimes?

Ahem. More puppy pics please.

http://www.cutelittlekittens.com/files/images/general/395_clk_253.jpg
Ahem indeed.

Ducky

11th March 2006, 11:55 PM

http://www.cutelittlekittens.com/files/images/general/395_clk_253.jpg
Ahem indeed.

Bloody communist.

http://www.gotpetsonline.com/pictures-gallery/dog-pictures-breeders-puppies-rescue/beagle-pictures-breeders-puppies-rescue/pictures/beagle-0185.jpg

Genesius

12th March 2006, 05:55 AM

Bloody communist.

Tremble before the awesome cuteness of kitties!

http://www.cutelittlekittens.com/files/images/general/91_clk_216.jpg

http://www.cutelittlekittens.com/files/images/british_shorthair/thumbs/t_857452544205_0_bg_203.jpg

http://www.cutelittlekittens.com/files/images/ocicat/7_516.jpg

http://www.cutelittlekittens.com/files/images/kittens/thumbs/t_g_on_bed_800x600_488.jpg

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

and finally:

http://www.cutelittlekittens.com/files/images/general/110_clk_405.jpg

"Mr. Fowlsound, sir? How can you prefer puppies over me?"

stamenflicker

13th March 2006, 07:22 AM

You want to draw conclusions when you don't have the evidence to do so.

I've more than once stated that Barna releases data that is respected in many circles. That is evidence that these numbers are probably as accurate as we have. But this is evidence you don't seem to care much for.

The numbers are valid, because they match your personal experience.
Your personal experience is supported by the numbers.

No my personal experience is about as valid as it is going to get at the moment, considering the absence of other numbers. That's quite a bit different than the roadmap you are trying to put me on.

Barna summarizes one of his surveys in this way:

The data described above are from telephone interviews with a nationwide random sample of 1002 adults. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample is ±3 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. The data for previous years' surveys was conducted in the same manner, using the same sampling techniques and survey questions, and also based on samples of 1000 or more randomly selected adults. All of the interviews were conducted from the Barna Research Group telephone interviewing facility in Ventura, CA. Adults in the 48 continental states were eligible to be interviewed and the distribution coincided with the geographic dispersion of the U.S. adult population. Multiple callbacks were used to increase the probability of including a reliable distribution of adults.

I emailed them again for the specifics on this survey because I've known Barna surveys that include as many as 5,000 to 10,000 samples. In both of my emails I included your question regarding the possibility that they may have omitted the phrase "outside of church" (intentionally or by accident) in bullet point #2 of the original link. In the meantime, with the absence of information, there is no good reason to believe the numbers are not valid-- or at least about as valid as any other polling numbers go. Feel free to continue the lazy record and try to reset the needle every now and then for good measure.

As you continue the dance, remember in the absence of information the onus is really on you to demonstrate why any reasonable person would not accept them as is, since you appear unable to shed doubt on the source, unable to provide your own numbers, and you are certainly unable to erase my personal experience.

And you're welcome to call me childish or any other name you desire, but the reality of the situation is that you have chosen one data set to antagonize in the presence of many other polls available to atagonize. That I decide to ask you "Why these numbers as opposed to any other?" is a legitimate question.

Flick

delphi_ote

13th March 2006, 08:09 AM

Barna summarizes one of his surveys in this way:
That's the type of information I would require for these numbers before I would draw any conclusions from them. It would also be nice to know the survey questions asked (if this data was gathered by survey. We don't even know that for certain.)

As you continue the dance, remember in the absence of information the onus is really on you to demonstrate why any reasonable person would not accept them as is, since you appear unable to shed doubt on the source, unable to provide your own numbers, and you are certainly unable to erase my personal experience.
No, it isn't. In the absence of information, the onus is on everyone not to draw conclusions. But since you've produced these numbers and made a claim based on them, the onus is on you to support the numbers if you want to use them as evidence.

And the onus is on Barna to report all of the things I've asked for if they're going to publish these numbers on their website. What they're doing is unethical:
From The American Statistical Association's Ethical Guidelines for Statistical Practice (http://www.amstat.org/profession/index.cfm?fuseaction=ethicalstatistics)
C. Responsibilities in Publications and Testimony
5. Account for all data considered in a study and explain the sample(s) actually used.
6. Report the sources and assessed adequacy of the data.
7. Report the data cleaning and screening procedures used, including any imputation.
8. Clearly and fully report the steps taken to guard validity. Address the suitability of the analytic methods and their inherent assumptions relative to the circumstances of the specific study. Identify the computer routines used to implement the analytic methods.
9. Where appropriate, address potential confounding variables not included in the study.
10. In publications or testimony, identify the ultimate financial sponsor of the study, the stated purpose, and the intended use of the study results.
11. When reporting analyses of volunteer data or other data not representative of a defined population, include appropriate disclaimers.
12. Report the limits of statistical inference of the study and possible sources of error. For example, disclose any significant failure to follow through fully on an agreed sampling or analytic plan and explain any resulting adverse consequences.
I shouldn't have to buy their book to find the basics of their methodology. A couple sentences at the top of the page would do. Without that information, we don't even know what we're discussing.

elliotfc

16th March 2006, 08:10 AM

Not a word of that was relevant to my point (nor does it seem to be internally relevant to itself.)

What was your point, besides calling people names?

It would seem you're the one patronizing and looking down your nose at the blue-collar worker. I've known plenty of such workers who came up with brilliant engineering ideas while on the job. They were creative and brilliant. They understood intuitively how electricity works better than I did after taking two years of courses on electronics.

No, I was being patronizing about you, thank you for giving ups to the blue collar workers by the way, I agree that they intuitively understand things better than you.

My point was that it's simple to sit around and make junk hypotheses from the couch.

a) Have you verified this? Or is this just a thought exercise?
b) Do you have a moral objection to something being *simple*?
c) Junk is relative.

It takes physical effort to test a hypothesis.

It takes physical effort to lift a Bible too.

If you want knowledge, you have to work and think.

You could pick it up by osmosis.

If you want to be taken seriously when you have an idea, all you have to do is test it.

Yes, but some ideas can't be tested. If you have a bias against those ideas, that is a personal choice that ought not extend to insulting others. You have a bias against ideas that can't be tested, so you call people who accept those ideas physically and intellectually lazy. Can you prove that bias scientifically? Only by personal fiat.

I have as much disdain for you, for these personal constructions, than you have for those to whom you express disdain.

Computer calculations have put men on the moon and cured diseases. Equivalent feats can't be attributed to your pseudointellectual posturing.

a) I think there are more important things than putting men on the moon. I have nothing against putting people on the moon, but I'm more impressed with innumerable things that don't take computer calculations.
b) I have no problem with curing diseases, and diseases were treated before computers.
c) I have use for the things you espouse, and will continue to enjoy the benefits of the things you espouse. In this we are the same. I have no reason and no need to insult people who aren't driven by computer calculations and *intellectual posturing*. You do. In this we are different.

Are you being sarcastic here? This man's work is brilliant. Coupled with Joyce's work, we're starting to understand how an RNA world might work.

It is brilliant, and confirms my beliefs.

It's all still in the very early stages, but we're working to understand how life began and how RNA molecules work.

I agree that you think it is helping you understand how life began. In that I'm glad you are able to do busywork to confirm your beliefs. It is meaningful to you, and I respect that. I have absolutely no problem with people occupying themselves to confirm their beliefs.

If you want to make that research commensurate to "how life began"...

It's ironic that you mention this particular example. I happen to be working right now on an RNA world project. If you'd like to discuss some current work in the field, I'd be glad to do that.

I can't think of any particular questions I have regarding that, but wish you all the best on it. My only intent here is to be dismissive of your dismissive attitudes. That attempt has failed completely I reckon, and in hindsight, it wasn't worth the effort.

More pseudointellectual posturing turned full on rant. If you want someone to take you seriously, read, study, think, and test your ideas.

Yeah, it was a rant. I'm not at all interested if you take me seriously or not, because I don't take you seriously, as I attempted to express. If you want to believe that I don't read or study or think or test ideas, that's on you, it doesn't really matter.

-Elliot

elliotfc

16th March 2006, 08:34 AM

Oh, you're right. It's much worse than that. Exodus 20:1. Hold on, let me copy/paste it

Ok, "I am a jealous murderous god who will kill you if you don't worship me." Now that's just special.

You are sabotaging what you *thought* you were doing.

If the words *speak for themselves*...if the copy/paste had any meaning...*WHY THE NEED TO PARAPHRASE*.

The paraphrase indicatese that it ISN'T much worse than that, because you had to paraphrase it

I've quoted Jesus too. Try reading the bit where he denies healing from a gentile until she prostrates herself, and calls herself a dog.

God did not become incarnate to perform miracles 24/7. Matthew 15:24 gives the specific reason that God became incarnate. Jesus is the true and final fulfillment of the Judaic covenant, and he was sent *for* the Jews. That his disciples would take the word to the Gentiles is the commission of all followers of Christ.

Jesus compared his followers to sheep. Is it surprising that he would compare a Gentile woman to a dog? Not really. God can use any analogy he wants. Will we get the point of the analogy, or will we can indignant that God is "insulting" us? That's where pride comes in.

Was the Gentile woman to proud to deal with this analogy. No. And her faith was her reward.

In my reading of the passage, I see Jesus making a point to his disciples, and Jesus confirming the faith of a Gentile. You are welcome to draw an alternative message from it.

Also a general point...no where in the Bible does it say that God murders people. *You* are saying that God murders people in the Bible. Killing and murder are not the same thing. As a theological point, I don't know if God can murder people, because he has the authority to give and take life. Murder is unauthorized killing.

Now, can unauthorized killing be immoral? Yes, but it has to be judged to be so. So you would judge God? That's great, but understand, a believer is not keen on your judgements of the only true judge.

And who gave god this authority? Here on earth, governments are instituted amoungst men.

No one gives God authority.

No, it's not weird at all. I have a great of experiance with theocracies. My country is rapidly becoming one.

Perhaps, but my understanding of world history leads me to believe otherwise. When the government starts demanding that people take loyalty oaths to a religion and imprisons those who refuse, then I will be more sympathetic to this claim. I don't think you actually do have a great deal of experience with theocracies by the way. As a thought exercise, place yourself in England in the 1500s/1600s. That would be an intellectual exercise, granted, but more of a true experience then what you today claim. As far as I can see, you have religious freedom at this point in time here, and have throughout your life. Do you disagree?

Now I see! Once we accept that murder isn't murder when you're killing people from other tribes, and that a mericful, omnipotent god can't help you live a prosperous life without rapine pillage and plunder it all makes sense!

It is true that they didn't think they were committing murder then, and we judge that to be murder today. Who knows, 1500 years from now abortion may be outlawed, and they may judge abortions that happen today as murder. In this sense the word *murder* is truly relative.

Now, you may believe in objective morality (I guess you do since you're really keen on this) so you may disagree with me here.

In the understanding at the time, the particular god of a particular race did expect you to treat the members of other tribes who had different gods quite horribly. I don't celebrate that, but I do recognize the reality of that understanding, and I recognize how we evolved out of that not through the *success* of that practice. In other words, it failed. The raping/pillaging religion did *not* win out by raping/pillaging. Rather, it was through victimization that Christianity emerged and took hold.

Ahem, it was illustrating that god does not treat others as he wishes to be treated.

Exactly. God does not want us to treat others as people treated each other in the early books of the O.T. Now you're getting it.

-Elliot

elliotfc

16th March 2006, 08:36 AM

So I guess this explains the whole altar boy scandal...

How often do you think about the altar boy scandal, out of curiosity?

Meaning, if you read a passage from the Bible, is it pretty common for the altar boy scandal come to your mind?

That's interesting. I don't know how prevalent, or natural, or common, that association is.

-Elliot

Orangutango

16th March 2006, 10:25 AM

Just a quickie...

I didn't forget to try and get some thoughts from a few of my more spiritual co-workers in regards to extraterrestrial life and a Jesus-type savior. I drive for a living (at night), so I don't usually see these particular co-workers that I would like to pose the question to.

I'll post here what they might have to say when I can.

Jen

elliotfc

16th March 2006, 11:02 AM

Orangutango

16th March 2006, 11:15 AM

No worries Jen.

If you drive at night, along with your co-workers...I'm thinking you'd all have some UFO stories to share. Right?

-Elliot

Funny you should mention that...:D

I first stared driving for the company I work at back when I was 17 (3rd shift... 9pm-2am).

I remember driving down Rt 15 in Connecticut when I noticed this brightly pulsating light in the sky (about as bright as Venus) that seemed to shift colors between blue, green, red and white. During that trip, I was listening to my favorite radio talk show hosted by Dave Feeda, who did a version of Art Bell's "Coast to Coast" (he would talk about all the fun stuff like ghosts, ufo's and such).

Being completely mesmerized by this light in the night sky (and after determining that it was not an aircraft, since it remained stationary the entire time I was observing it), I stopped at a rest area to call in the program. I was put on the air, where I then proceeded to tell the host that there is a strange, unexplained light in the sky, before going on to describe it.

After I had hung up the phone and went back to my car to listen to the radio, other people started calling in to say that they, too, could see the object I had refered to.... each one stating similar comments that they wondered if it might be a ufo.

Imagine my complete surprise and accute embarassment when another caller called in to state that what we were all looking at was, in fact, the Dog Star, Sirius.:blush: (To this day, I still am amazed at it's scintillating display)

Just goes to show how even someone who considers themselves a skeptic can suffer a momentary lapse of reason...:D