Questions for Jesus-Freak

[mylfmyhnr]

We weren't sinful to begin with and the catch 22 is gone, how do you keep missing this fact?
if we chose sin by eating the apple we were capable of sin and therefore we were created sinful. that an imputus was needed to begin the process of sin doesn't mean that it wasn't there to begin with. a chemical reaction doesn't start until both chemical are brought into contact with one another; however, the capcity for the reaction is already there.

[RandFan]

Or maybe, just maybe you aren't playing with a full deck. There's that pesky logic again. Sorry you are having a difficult time with this RR. Your statement is Ad hominem (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem).

Whether I am or am not playing with a full deck has no bearing on the argument.

Feel free to read through the very thread you are posting in and maybe you will understand. She made a similar statement about myself and my religion, I did it back to prove a point. That would be fine if you didn't persist in the absurd and bigoted claim.

...and in this case it certainly is my opinion that her Mormon heritage has led to bitterness. This is a bigoted remark. One without any foundation.

Furthermore, I never said "All former Mormons are bitter."Entirely irrelevant. You are making claims about Beleth that are without foundation.

You have irrationally drawn my statement into that, when that is not what I said at all. Judging from your title "Mormon Atheist" you used to be one too, and somehow think my comment towards Beleth includes you. It doesn't, so get over it.I never for one moment thought it did include me. That's not the point.

[RationalReverend]

There's that pesky logic again. Sorry you are having a difficult time with this RR. Your statement is Ad hominem (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem).
I was not insulting your intelligence, I was referring to you not having the back story.

Honestly, we could do this 50 times back and forth and you would still be bitching about something or other. Feel free to label me however you want.

[RandFan]

I was not insulting your intelligence, I was referring to you not having the back story. The idiom has a specific meaning (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/260000.html). I can accept that you missused it on accident.

[flume]

RR, I'm curious about your login ID - are you an actual minister, or did you choose that ID for other reasons?
If you are a minister, if you want to, you could tell us what your denomination is, what your background is, whether you currently are connected with a church, any other info that you think might be appropriate.
Also if you want to, you could tell us how you stasnd on evolution and vaious versions of creationism.

(sorry if you've already answered these questions somewhere and I missed it.)

[mylfmyhnr]

You can't blame god for our mistake, our mistake was to listen to some one else and lesser god, an angel who fell into sin and made sin possible.
did god create all the universe and everything in it or not?? come on now... is he omnipotent or not?? is he capable of making the universe exactly what he wants it to be or not?? if he is and he did then the "fall" of man, and the "fall" of an angel had to have been preplanned!!! to say otherwise is to say god failed.

I can see if a person doesn't want to follow the word that's cool but to sway others through reasoning that may be false, when there’s other explanations, that is still going to be your problem in the end.
No one is putting boundaries on science but science is putting boundaries on God and that's not right.
oh please. if you read most of the biblical threads they eventually come down to the 6 day/6,000 year/millions of years old debate. claiming that religion doesn't put boundries on science is as silly. and claiming that you can't attempt to sway someone through science cause it may be wrong but you can sway through god cause he's obviously true is mindnumbing logic.

Said and done so what's the problem?
Move on please it’s a good thing.
I have seen my father do this for me and I do it for my child and she will do it for her child and that's why we are family.
This is why we rely on each other and God.
but i didn't create the problem that i'm blaming my children for then making them worship me because i saved them from themselves!

[RationalReverend]

The idiom has a specific meaning (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/260000.html). I can accept that you missused it on accident.

Alright then....

[RationalReverend]

RR, I'm curious about your login ID - are you an actual minister, or did you choose that ID for other reasons?
If you are a minister, if you want to, you could tell us what your denomination is, what your background is, whether you currently are connected with a church, any other info that you think might be appropriate.
Also if you want to, you could tell us how you stasnd on evolution and vaious versions of creationism.

(sorry if you've already answered these questions somewhere and I missed it.)

I would, but then there would be an onslaught of postings debating every single point. I'll just say that I am a college student who is a lay minister on the side. I study the Bible and Theology in college.

[Beleth]

Honestly, we could do this 50 times back and forth and you would still be bitching about something or other. Feel free to label me however you want.
Right back atcha.

[Ichneumonwasp]

As a somewhat impartial observer who read the previous thread to which RR refers I hope I won't worsen the situation by interjecting.....

Maybe both sides should take a step back. From RR's perspective, it is a little disconcerting to be invited into a hornet's nest, and I can't think of any other way of referring to a biblical discussion with Dr. X. From Beleth's perspective, she was only trying to introduce you to someone with whom you would have had a very entertaining discussion (however it ended); she has done it before because Dr. X will not come over here, I gather, because of some past experiences (in fact, I have personally seen Beleth invite Dr. X to this site to discuss matters with someone posting here). Calling Dr. X a jerk (however correct the assessment may be, and I do not generally agree with it) makes you look like you are rationalizing an exit for which you could have said simply, "I respectfully decline." I don't think anyone need take offense or continue to bring up the past. And I mean that for all sides. Including me.

Frankly I agree with Beleth that you and Dr. X in discussion would be interesting and entertaining. Probably more entertaining for us, but everyone can be selfish at times. That previous statement, by the way, is a sign of respect.

I used to go to the Skeptic site under a previous name (Akhmet) and joined someone else in disparaging this site before I actually experienced it in any depth. Beleth jumped on me about that. She was right. I like this place very much and many of the people with whom I have interacted.

Shake hands?

[Beleth]

Shake hands?
Been there, done that. He offered his hand; I extended mine to shake his, and he spat in it.

I only fall for that once.

[RationalReverend]

Been there, done that. He offered his hand; I extended mine to shake his, and he spat in it.

I only fall for that once.

I seem to remember your offer of truce to contain backhanded remarks. But regardless, I do not truly have any problem with you whatsoever. If you want our jockeying and back and forth to end, just say the word. Reconciliation is always an option for me.

*extends hand*

Do as you see fit.

[Beleth]

I seem to remember your offer of truce to contain backhanded remarks.
You remember incorrectly.

*extends hand*

Do as you see fit.
See my previous post.

[RationalReverend]

You remember incorrectly.


See my previous post.

Then it is your choice not mine.

[Ossai]

edge
Well for me God has been proven. You start off strong with a lie. (If god were proven you would have evidence, not necessarily what you call evidence, but actual evidence.

Dowsing too Ignoring all dowsing comments, carry to other thread.

but this is my point, he decided that we would be made as we are, sinful, and he also decided that he wouldn't tolerate the sinful in his presence. if that's not a catch 22 i don't know what is.
We weren't sinful to begin with and the catch 22 is gone, how do you keep missing this fact? If the sin is gone then Jesus is irrelevant now. Sorry, Adam and Eve were created pure but sinned, everyone else was cursed by god. God made Adam and Eve, god being omnipotent created them so that they would have no choice but to sin. Again, there was a design flaw in which case the fall is god’s fault and god is not omnipotent. Or, god did not introduce a design flaw in which case they did exactly as intended, in which case god is a sick evil bastard.

You can't blame god for our mistake, our mistake was to listen to some one else and lesser god, an angel who fell into sin and made sin possible. Wrong again. Until Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge they could not know that listening to some one besides god was wrong. The knowledge of that did not exist.

The only thing that I have seen that brings these people back to reality is church based rehabs, nothing else works. Ignorance. Link to some studies. (All the ones I know of, church based have the same chance of working as going cold turkey.)

As long as science says onward and upward I don't have a problem but when it looks back and says there is no god because that's what you are doing, then I got a problem and not all people of science do that. You are declaring your ignorance is greater than all the accumulated knowledge of humanity for the past 300+ years. Arrogant thy name is edge.

I can see if a person doesn't want to follow the word that's cool but to sway others through reasoning that may be false, when there’s other explanations, that is still going to be your problem in the end. If the reasoning is false, then point out where. Your explanations are about as reliable as your dowsing when properly controlled.

No one is putting boundaries on science but science is putting boundaries on God and that's not right. Actually, you in declaring the musings of bronze age tribesmen to be sacrosanct have placed the boundary on god. The bible, as has been pointed out numerous times, has a variety of contradictions, both internal and external. Think about it edge, in declaring the bible untouchable you have declared human advancement worthless. If you want to go live in a mud hut and follow sheep and goats around all day and fear the sun falling into the ocean, be my guest, but don’t sit in front of a computer and declare science wrong when, with each message you post you prove science correct again and again.

Do you think that the flesh they found in T rex is 70 million years old? Apparently you didn’t even read the linked article.

Ossai

[Cosmo]

How do evolutionists respond to the zero likelihood of life arising by chance?

Your first sentence is plainly incorrect, hence I can safely ignore the rest of your post.

[flume]

So how does The Fall fit in with evolution? The fall came after the seven days of creation. Maybe evolution was just the transmat device for transition from Eden to the harsh fallen world. Maybe the transition from Eden to the earth is what took billions of years.

[bignickel]

Your first sentence is plainly incorrect, hence I can safely ignore the rest of your post.
I've already him asked which books he read that gave him such a warped understanding of evolution (so I can tell people not to bother with them).

He still hasn't done so, and instead said he mis-wrote. I wonder if he mis-wrote again?

[RandFan]

Your first sentence is plainly incorrect, hence I can safely ignore the rest of your post.:D

It reminds me of a Steven Colbert interview.

"If you are so right, why won't you admit that you are wrong?"

[strathmeyer]

Then it is your choice not mine.

So, are you guys like, broken up now?

Would it be appropriate for, say, someone to ask one of you out?

[RationalReverend]

So, are you guys like, broken up now?

Would it be appropriate for, say, someone to ask one of you out?

Hmm, are you a female heterosexual?

[Lonewulf]

Hmm, are you a female heterosexual?

You mean you'd turn down an offer from a female homosexual?

[RandFan]

You mean you'd turn down an offer from a female homosexual?Not on your life.

[Foster Zygote]

You mean you'd turn down an offer from a female homosexual?

Hell, I am a female homosexual... trapped in a man's body.

[RandFan]

Hell, I am a female homosexual... trapped in a man's body.Me too. Still, I can't seem to get dates with other lesbians, unless they too are trapped in a man's body.

[Foster Zygote]

Me too. Still, I can't seem to get dates with other lesbians, unless they too are trapped in a man's body.

Are you asking me out on a date?

[RandFan]

Are you asking me out on a date?:D

[Foster Zygote]

:D

I'm not hearing a "no".

[Ysidro]

JREF Forums: The Swingingest Place on the Internet!

[Lonewulf]

As I initiated this dialogue, I feel unclean.

[bruto]

You mean you'd turn down an offer from a female homosexual?

Been there, done that - well, of course I didn't know at the time, and perhaps neither did she, but believe me it ends badly.

Remember the old adage: "Alimony, the [rule8]ing you get for the [rule8]ing you got?" Well, just take away about 98 percent of the "got" part. :(

[Lonewulf]

Been there, done that - well, of course I didn't know at the time, and perhaps neither did she, but believe me it ends badly.

Remember the old adage: "Alimony, the [rule8]ing you get for the [rule8]ing you got?" Well, just take away about 98 percent of the "got" part. :(

Prenuptials, man. Prenuptials.

[jesus_freak]

Man and to think that I got married without a prenup...Well I guess that I will just have to make sure that my marriage is centered around Christ and not get divorced...I know I know I am so 1934

[gypsey]

jesus_freak
Man and to think that I got married without a prenup...Well I guess that I will just have to make sure that my marriage is centered around Christ and not get divorced...I know I know I am so 1934



:monconfused:

[bruto]

Man and to think that I got married without a prenup...Well I guess that I will just have to make sure that my marriage is centered around Christ and not get divorced...I know I know I am so 1934

Good idea, JF, as long as the one you're with is as committed as you are. Life comes up with some pretty big surprises, and unilateral monogamy doesn't work well at all.

[slingblade]

Man and to think that I got married without a prenup...Well I guess that I will just have to make sure that my marriage is centered around Christ and not get divorced...I know I know I am so 1934

How often do you hit your wife? Humiliate her in public? Cheat on her? Lie to her? Steal her grocery money to buy crack? That's what my Christ-centered ex-husband did. The one who's a minister now.

Funny how we ended up divorced.....

[mylfmyhnr]

not to change directions radically, but... there is always the argument that science changes as it evolves, that this is the prime method for scientific avancement... well, here (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2007-03-15-species-diversity_N.htm) is the proof. the beauty of science is that the good scientists are willing to a) hear the other side and b) change their opinions when confronted with opposing evidence. and, i'm sure we'll hear it, i admit that not all scientists are this way and that there will always be opposing views... my point is that at least science is willing and able to change. there is a whole process given an apt title to explain it: the scientific method. observation, description, prediction, control, falsifiablility. it's a controlled method that is repeatable. and yet religion is based on the idea of, "well we believe he's really god, and we believe that what he says is true, though we can't prove or disprove it in a scientific manner. but, yeah, it's true". the whole "because the bible proves it true" argument isn't valid. it's like saying that i looked at a cat and decided that because it didn't have udders it didn't give milk and i then published my theory. others decided that, hey, they don't have udders, she must be right! and then went on to tell everyone they knew about it. except that we can prove the falsity of the statement. religion is contingent on belief with no scientific proof, no scientific evidence to prove or disprove each and every seperate religious belief system.

[jesus_freak]

How often do you hit your wife? Humiliate her in public? Cheat on her? Lie to her? Steal her grocery money to buy crack? That's what my Christ-centered ex-husband did. The one who's a minister now.

Funny how we ended up divorced.....
wow let me answer these one at a time...1)never! 2)hopefully not very often but I will have to ask her 3)by "cheat" on her I assume you mean have sex with others, if that is correct the answer is 0 4)I can't say I never lie to her but I try not to...if that means anything 5) never...like I have told you before, I really do feel bad for you about having to deal with a husband like this, but that is no reason to get upset at God.

[slingblade]

wow let me answer these one at a time...1)never! 2)hopefully not very often but I will have to ask her 3)by "cheat" on her I assume you mean have sex with others, if that is correct the answer is 0 4)I can't say I never lie to her but I try not to...if that means anything 5) never...like I have told you before, I really do feel bad for you about having to deal with a husband like this, but that is no reason to get upset at God.

I can't be upset at something that doesn't exist.

I'm mad at the god-pushers. I wish you could get that. Really get it.

But if wishes were horses, etc.

[RationalReverend]

I can't be upset at something that doesn't exist.

I'm mad at the god-pushers. I wish you could get that. Really get it.

But if wishes were horses, etc.

You are mad at me because of the personal failings of your ex-husband?

Hmmm, not very rational.

[slingblade]

You are mad at me because of the personal failings of your ex-husband?

Hmmm, not very rational.

Oh, please. I do get so tired of this intentional pretense at misunderstanding.

Not biting, get another fish.

Oh, and I don't recall that I was addressing you in the post you quoted. Unless you are willingly taking on the label of god-pusher.

[Lonewulf]

Oh, and I don't recall that I was addressing you in the post you quoted. Unless you are willingly taking on the label of god-pusher.

Which is strange, as I haven't seen "Rational Reverend" doing any actual pushing. Which is good.

But I haven't seen him do any actual discussion, rational or not... which is okay, I guess.

[slingblade]

And let's just never mind the ad hom, while we're at it. :D

EDIT:

Just wanted to add this. This is a god-pusher, and one of the more infamous of the group.
And this is how I was reared, in this kind of church, with this kind of God-gives-you-good-things indoctrination. Those are real people in those seats, you know. And every one of them believes this man and what he pushes about gawd. It's such a shame.

Or maybe you think he isn't real? Maybe you think he's a fluke? An anomaly? I assure you, he's not as much of an anomaly as it might be more comfortable to think.

qxqRN5vjDHQ

[Mashuna]

Now that JF is back, I'm going to shamelessly repost an earlier question I asked. This was originally in response to a statment JF made about evolution, I couldn't tell if he genuinely thought he had an accurate idea about it.

Jesus Freak, do you believe that evolutionary theory states anywhere that a dog has or ever would give birth to a mouse? Has anyone ever defended that (frankly bizarre) statement?

[bruto]

wow let me answer these one at a time...1)never! 2)hopefully not very often but I will have to ask her 3)by "cheat" on her I assume you mean have sex with others, if that is correct the answer is 0 4)I can't say I never lie to her but I try not to...if that means anything 5) never...like I have told you before, I really do feel bad for you about having to deal with a husband like this, but that is no reason to get upset at God.

I don't think Slingblade is saying she's mad at you and RR, nor that she's mad at God. She means, I think, (and a look around at the world says she's right even if you conveniently dismiss the content of her own direct experience) that saying you're a Christian and your marriage is centered around Christ is meaningless as an indicator of how you'll do as a husband, because while you may well use those principles as a guide to the best behavior, many use the same set of beliefs as an excuse for the worst.

Deep and ardent faith is no guarantee of good behavior, and if it convinces you, as sadly it seems to convince many, that anything you do according to your understanding of it is incapable of error, it's quite likely to be the opposite. If your faith in Christ helps you to be a better man, all the better, but we'd all do well every once in a while to step back and make sure we're also behaving well in a way that doesn't need a label, an argument, or a justifying text.

[strathmeyer]

wow let me answer these one at a time...1)never! 2)hopefully not very often but I will have to ask her 3)by "cheat" on her I assume you mean have sex with others, if that is correct the answer is 0 4)I can't say I never lie to her but I try not to...if that means anything 5) never...like I have told you before, I really do feel bad for you about having to deal with a husband like this, but that is no reason to get upset at God.

Well, now we know that you care more about talking banally about yourself than you care about others...

[RationalReverend]

And let's just never mind the ad hom, while we're at it. :D

EDIT:

Just wanted to add this. This is a god-pusher, and one of the more infamous of the group.
And this is how I was reared, in this kind of church, with this kind of God-gives-you-good-things indoctrination. Those are real people in those seats, you know. And every one of them believes this man and what he pushes about gawd. It's such a shame.

Or maybe you think he isn't real? Maybe you think he's a fluke? An anomaly? I assure you, he's not as much of an anomaly as it might be more comfortable to think.

qxqRN5vjDHQ

my apologies, I was under the impression that you would view all evangelizing Christians as "god-pushers"

[RationalReverend]

But I haven't seen him do any actual discussion, rational or not... which is okay, I guess.

Likewise.

[slingblade]

I don't think Slingblade is saying she's mad at you and RR, nor that she's mad at God. She means, I think, (and a look around at the world says she's right even if you conveniently dismiss the content of her own direct experience) that saying you're a Christian and your marriage is centered around Christ is meaningless as an indicator of how you'll do as a husband, because while you may well use those principles as a guide to the best behavior, many use the same set of beliefs as an excuse for the worst.

Exactly, Nail on the head time and all that.

Deep and ardent faith is no guarantee of good behavior, and if it convinces you, as sadly it seems to convince many, that anything you do according to your understanding of it is incapable of error, it's quite likely to be the opposite. If your faith in Christ helps you to be a better man, all the better, but we'd all do well every once in a while to step back and make sure we're also behaving well in a way that doesn't need a label, an argument, or a justifying text.

Well said; bravo!

[slingblade]

my apologies, I was under the impression that you would view all evangelizing Christians as "god-pushers"

Well, hon, that depends. It really does.


What reason have I to believe in god, in your opinion, that does not require some kind of bargain be struck?

I mean, we can't really say that the Christian God's love is unconditional. If you choose not to believe in or worship this particular God, something very bad is going to happen to you after death. And it's never going to stop happening to you. This is a punishment with no lesson to be learned. It's just sheerest eternal torture for daring to make up your own mind.

You realize that if I offer you the choice of having a cookie or having your hand cut off, that there really is no choice there, right? Not for a rational mind.

We are still talking about "rationality," right?

We can use Solomon as an anecdotal example. So these two women are arguing over a baby, right? And Solomon, in his wisdom, says "Okay, here's your choice: I can give the baby to one of you, or I can cut him in half, and you can both have a piece."

This is not a choice. Not for a rational mind, and most people, being rational, would recognize that.

One of the women did. She used her rational mind and came up with an alternative not offered: "I will give the child to the other woman, so that he may live."

Solomon did not offer this choice. He did not say, "Well, one of you could be big about this, think of the child instead of yourself, and just let him go." That woman gave the matter thought, and made a better choice, not offered.

So what kind of choice do you tell me your God offers? Pick the really pleasant-sounding thing or the really UNpleasant-sounding thing. And why torment? Is he really that thin-skinned about not being chosen? Why not just: "Look, I made you and everything you see. Even everything you can't see. And since I made you, I know what your weaknesses are. Just do us all a favor, including yourself: live the very best life possible, and you'll reap rewards all the way through it. Live a crappy life, and you'll get what you deserve during it. And when it's all over, I'll bring you all here, with me, and love you forever, regardless."

Seriously: don't you think the choices supposedly offered by a god sound more like the petulance of some really hung-up, control-hungry, very human power-mongers?

Really?

[RandFan]

Seriously: don't you think the choices supposedly offered by a god sound more like the petulance of some really hung-up, control-hungry, very human power-mongers?Yes, in fact it is very likely that god was patterned after the kings of the times. God mirrors the culture of the Jews and that is why he is "king of kings". I've always thought that I could come up with a more reasonable and equitable plan. But to be fair I was borne after civilization had experienced significant enlightenment. It's really not fair to pit modern day reason against bronze age myths. If I were to invent a god and a plan of salvation it most certainly would not come with eternal punishment.

A billion years is quite sufficient to punish anyone. I really doubt there would be any justification to make it that long for most people. Perhaps Hitler and Fred Phelps. Whatever the length of time it would not be and could not be the same length for all people. That is by definition unjust. That is why we don't give life imprisonment to all offenders. Some get probation and some 10 years, 15, etc. Also, I most certainly wouldn't include any punishment that was cruel or unusual like unrelentingly being consumed by fire. My plan of salvation would be about education and translating lessons learned from mortal life to an eternal one. It would include reconciliation. In all sincerity I don't want the person who wronged me to be punished for time and all eternity. I want that person to realize that he or she had wronged me and to pay some price for that wrong. Let them be punished until they are contrite then let them into the party. Eternal punishment would be an eternal buzz kill for me. I most certainly could not be happy knowing that people, men, women and children were suffering because they were "born into sin" and their nature was to commit sin and they didn't "find god" or some similar notion.

As it is, any "plan of salvation" that includes eternal bliss for all who believe and eternal pain and torment for those people who were born with inquisitive minds and or who found the evidence lacking is at best equivalent to the cutting off of a thief's hands. It's barbaric and antithetical to the concept of a just god. It's also not possible unless god wipes the memories of those who were saved so they will be free of the knowledge that there exists beings who will suffer for a billion years and that is but a blink in time of their torment.

The idea of brain washing to make people happy is just plain weird.

[bruto]

Seriously: don't you think the choices supposedly offered by a god sound more like the petulance of some really hung-up, control-hungry, very human power-mongers? That's always been my problem with the biblical God. He's so small and so human in scale. Biblical tubthumpers are always ready to pull out "God's unfathomable plan" when contradictions arise or things go wrong that they can't explain, but whenever they think they understand, it's that petulant unimaginative little guy with the magic tricks that they come up with, the god they'd be if they were God.

[slingblade]

I'm thinking, just musing in text, that if I were a god, I might do it something like this:

I make you fallible, able to do right and wrong. You can hurt, or you can help.

I give you a brain capable of reason. You know right from wrong, perhaps in the sense that helping is generally better than hurting.

I make you capable of exerting free will. You get to choose to help or to hurt. But there will be consequences for both, good and bad.

And I make myself and my abilities widely known to you all. I am active. I take part in your lives, by making reward and punishment immediate and pertinent. You don't have to "choose" to believe in me, because I'm real, and I'm here and you all know it.

Pretty much like Ur Mom. Only I really DO have eyes in the back of my head, and my reach knows no limits.

So, what happens now? Provided I covered everything....like I said, I'm musing in text.

There is no Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, from which you cannot eat. Doesn't exist. I give you this knowledge freely. You're going to need it.

So. I want you to work, to contribute to others and keep yourself occupied. I want you to earn what you have, so you'll appreciate it. You can choose not to work. But if you don't work, you don't....anything, really. You do without. How much you "earn" depends on how much you do. You do just enough, you get the necessities. You do more, you get more. But you are gonna have to work really, really, really hard to get rich. It frankly won't be worth it.

What about sickness? Hmmm...why have it? Ah, some of you need to die, and some sooner than others. We have to make room for more, and living forever isn't fun for lots of reasons. But, that kind of assumes I make just the one earth, and that you get old. I could make more planets. I could let you live as long as you like, and just move the excess to new planets, infinitely. I could create a place for you to go rest from life for a while; like death, but temporary. Whenever you were ready to be born again, just say the word and do it again. I think the idea of eternal paradise is just lazy. :)

Maybe I won't have sickness. Unless it's a bring-it-on-yourself kind of sickness. To encourage you to be clean about yourselves, I'll create bacteria and junk that will make you sick if you go dirty. I'm not forcing you to choose cleanliness (which is, after all, next to me); I'm just saying if you don't choose it, you're gonna be one sick mamma-jamma. Not an eternal punishment: one that is pertinent and immediate. And one you can rectify by taking a bath and washing the dishes. Simple.

But things like cancer....I might give those a miss.

What about crime? Hey, I'm the police, judge, and jury. You hurt someone, I know it. You hurt someone bad, I send you back to start all over again. It's diaper time for you, junior. But why are you going to want to hurt someone? All you have to do is work at a job that pleases you (because it's going to be possible to have that, in my cosmos), and you will have the things you both need and want. A lot of the pain that causes pain will simply not exist. No one should be going hungry, or naked, or hurt....

Mental illness. Nope, I'm just not going to have that. Everyone will have a good brain. If you get injured, I'll fix it. And ugliness. Nope. You can all be reasonably pretty. And you can explore ways to make yourselves prettier, if you want to.

Now, what about the things we do to hurt ourselves, like over-eating, binge-drinking, drug-abuse?

That's hard. I have to let you choose. But your choice could end up hurting someone. Okay, so if you do, I'll fix the damage you did, and send you back to Nappyland. Start over; try again. But there should be no harm in sitting home or with friends, having a couple of drinks. No harm in making a pan of "special brownies." Although I'm torn on smoking. Well, if life can be generally pleasant, why am I creating things that mess with your head and your health? I have choices to make here, too. If life is good, do you really have a need for things like alcohol and heroin? For example, I mean? Maybe I won't make stuff like that. Boy, that's a hard one.

Sex. [cue trumpets] It's good for at least two things: it makes more of you, and it can be lots of fun. But it's not a toy, although it might utilize a few. No sex with kids. Period. They have better things to do, like learning about the rest of life, in order to be better able to cope with highly emotional and physical things like sex. I think I ought to change things up just a bit so that your bodies and minds develop into their adult forms without all the horny-making hormones. I'll turn those on at maturity. In fact, maybe it would be better if puberty happened really fast, and a lot later. Say, at 20. One month you have a tall but childlike body, and in about a month, you've transformed into an adult. However I do it, I'll make sure that first the mind is ready, and then the body follows. Yeah. The other way is just backwards.

So, did I get it all? What do you think? Can I be god? :D

[Jack]

But to be fair I was borne after civilization had experienced significant enlightenment.
Hmmmm....

[jesus_freak]

I'm thinking, just musing in text, that if I were a god,
Oh come on, just follow some of the new age junk and learn that you ARE a god!

[RandFan]

RF: But to be fair I was borne [sic] after civilization had experienced significant enlightenment.

Jack:
Hmmmm....:D

[RandFan]

Oh come on, just follow some of the new age junk and learn that you ARE a god! "Junk"? I don't believe in it but what gives you the right to call it junk? How is it objectively inferior to anything from the past? BTW, please see Argumentum ad antiquitatem. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#antiquitatem)

[slingblade]

Oh come on, just follow some of the new age junk and learn that you ARE a god!

Uh, no I'm not.

I'm not even very good at being a person. Very imperfect, quite flawed. No way do I think I'm a god.


What an odd thing to say. Or believe.

[jimbob]

Having skimmed through thisthread, I feel the following statement might be pertinant, basic idea from Terry Pratchett.

I believe there is no god, but the god I don't believe in is the CofE god; I think this god is quite a lot harder to dismiss.

I would say that the following is true for many inthe CofE, and probably less so for other Anglican churches)

As far as I can understand, there are many (probably most) in the CofE who accept evolution and that the flood was a myth to explain a local severe flooding, and that the bible was an ancient attempt to explain real happenings (with varying degrees of supernatural intervention).

Of course the CofE actually goes all the way to the former Bishop of Durham, who stated that the virgin birth was probably a metaphor, and that the bodily resurrection was also...

I do not know what the difference between that and agnostocism, and what it leaves.

A god that created the universe and then remains bound to obey physical laws?


I know the following point has ben made before, but it can bear repeating:

Why would a creator fabricate the evidence that the Earth was 4 G yrs old, and give us the intellect and observational skills to deduce this, then only tell the partial truth to a group of obscure semitic tribes, and the actual truth to only one of them?

The "universe" described in Genesis seems very small to me, rather what one might expect for a neolithic/bronze age tribe that has some contact with other tribes in a small part of the Middle East. This contact does include some shared myths (Gilgamesh being the most famous version).

I would also say that some of the Genesis passages make more sense (in the English translations that I *can* read) to me if "God" is just part of a pantheon for the purposes of the myths, "Let us make man in our own image"

This makes sense when one looks at the surrounding tribes, would someone please confirm if Yahweh was actually part of other tribes pantheons? I vaguly recall seeing that it was but can't remember the details.

Jim

[Foster Zygote]

If I were to invent a god and a plan of salvation it most certainly would not come with eternal punishment.

I've long thought that a more fitting punishment for the evil one has done would be to experience the suffering one has deliberately inflicted on others that one didn't already feel bad about. If the person you wronged forgave you then you get a free pass for that incident. And piddly little stuff like reading your kid sister's diary or not letting that guy in front of you in traffic wouldn't count. So people like Pol Pot, Hitler, Napoleon, Idi Amin etc. would be in "Hell" for quite a long time as they experienced the pain they inflicted on each and every person who suffered as a result of their actions. That includes the people who suffered emotionally as a result of their crimes. Someone who tortured and murdered a young girl would have to endure not only her suffering but the lifetime of suffering inflicted on each of her family and friends. After one had shared the suffering one had caused then that person would be admitted to Paradise.

[Hokulele]

So, did I get it all? What do you think? Can I be god? :D


I like your version of "How to be god" much better than most I have seen. I would only add one thing: If someone breaks something (or someone), it is up to them to "fix it", not you as god. If they do not "fix it" or if it is taking too long, give them ulcers and ingrown toenails until they clean up their mess.

Then send them back to diapers.

So, does that make me a "slingbladist"?

[jesus_freak]

Every time I open this topic I think I will find more questions... this has gotten waaaaay off course. Anyone have a question for me? I will try to answer it as best I can...and if I don't reply right away I am not trying to avoid it if it is a legit question.

[Hokulele]

OK, here is a question for you. Do you feel that atheists are amoral? Do you think that an atheist could or could not have as strict a moral code as as some one of your denomination? Please understand, I am not trying to make fun of your beliefs or shake your faith, I am simply hoping you can understand my perspective and respect the choices I have made.

[jesus_freak]

OK, here is a question for you. Do you feel that atheists are amoral? Do you think that an atheist could or could not have as strict a moral code as as some one of your denomination? Please understand, I am not trying to make fun of your beliefs or shake your faith, I am simply hoping you can understand my perspective and respect the choices I have made.
No I think an atheist can have morals because God gave us all a conscience...and yes I am sure that some atheist would be considered more moral than myself...the big differance between us is that I ask for forgiveness of my sins...before I was a born again Christian I think I was still a pretty moral person, only because of my conscience

[Hokulele]

No I think an atheist can have morals because God gave us all a conscience...and yes I am sure that some atheist would be considered more moral than myself...the big differance between us is that I ask for forgiveness of my sins...before I was a born again Christian I think I was still a pretty moral person, only because of my conscience


Thank you for your honest response. I have posed this question to other christians, and have been saddened by some of the responses I have been given.

[RationalReverend]

Thank you for your honest response. I have posed this question to other christians, and have been saddened by some of the responses I have been given.

The concept of the virtuous sinner comes up in Pastoral Theology.

[Mashuna]

Every time I open this topic I think I will find more questions... this has gotten waaaaay off course. Anyone have a question for me? I will try to answer it as best I can...and if I don't reply right away I am not trying to avoid it if it is a legit question.

I'll try mine again, if that's ok. Here's a quote of yours from near the start of the thread:

I believe that a black lab and a poodle have a common ancestor...it was a dog, not a duck or a elm tree, but a dog! as far as I know no dog has ever givin birth to a mouse

My question was,


Jesus Freak, do you believe that evolutionary theory states anywhere that a dog has or ever would give birth to a mouse? Has anyone ever defended that (frankly bizarre) statement?

I really didn't know if you were stating your genuine view of evolution when you were talking about dogs and mice.

ETA I also think it's appropriate that I post in R&P for my 666th post :)

[slingblade]

I like your version of "How to be god" much better than most I have seen. I would only add one thing: If someone breaks something (or someone), it is up to them to "fix it", not you as god. If they do not "fix it" or if it is taking too long, give them ulcers and ingrown toenails until they clean up their mess.

Then send them back to diapers.

So, does that make me a "slingbladist"?

By "fix it," I meant if your brain gets damaged, I (as God) would repair it. Bad brains cause a lot of problems, you know.

And start tithing immediately.

:D

[Ossai]

jesus_freak
Every time I open this topic I think I will find more questions... this has gotten waaaaay off course. Anyone have a question for me? I will try to answer it as best I can...and if I don't reply right away I am not trying to avoid it if it is a legit question. Does this mean you’ll go back and answer the question you’ve been ignoring? Have you bothered to read any of the links ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2405136&postcount=407) posted that actually describe evolution or the simple examples ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2405687&postcount=412) and not the fundy misinformation you’ve been spouting? Misinformation, i.e. lies, which should, at the very least, cause you to question the source.

Or, how about the numerous questions edge has refused to answer?

No I think an atheist can have morals because God gave us all a conscience... False. A conscious is a result of nurture and environment. Otherwise you have to propose at least two gods or a second power capable of changing the conscious of entire cultures.

the big differance between us is that I ask for forgiveness of my sins But do you actually work to make recompense or do you just ask god for forgiveness and go on with your life?


RationalReverend
The concept of the virtuous sinner comes up in Pastoral Theology. And your point, oh irrational one?

Ossai

[Hokulele]

By "fix it," I meant if your brain gets damaged, I (as God) would repair it. Bad brains cause a lot of problems, you know.


OK, got it. Makes sense to me.

And start tithing immediately.


Do you take PayPal? ;)

:D


:wackynotworthy:

[Hokulele]

The concept of the virtuous sinner comes up in Pastoral Theology.


And what are your thoughts on that?

[edge]

Or, how about the numerous questions edge has refused to answer?
I need no questions I work in the back. “Shades of Bruce Almighty.”
I'm a busy man.
I can't give you the answers that you want, most of mine come from within and experiences that just happen as I go along through life.
If you are not a believer than you won’t have the same experiences.
Some one else said this, Nathyn,

{quote] Any romantic, existential, or mystic description of these facts and they have to angrily rant. Deep down, they are upset about death and feel the need to drag everybody else with them, because misery loves company. To truly probe truth with the strongest skepticism yields the fact that all that we know is founded upon intuition, in which case it's hard to even really condemn one idea or another.

[/quote]
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2442617#post2442617

There are truths we will never fathom.

[edge]

Slingblade is describing Heaven, or the after life, or possibly the way it will be.
Things are going to change that's the promise.
The when is on us too.
The way I see it we are pushing it.

[RationalReverend]

And what are your thoughts on that?

It is why it is important for us to stress the nature of righteous and unrighteous, not as a standard of works, but as covered by the cross and uncovered.

[Hokulele]

It is why it is important for us to stress the nature of righteous and unrighteous, not as a standard of works, but as covered by the cross and uncovered.


Does this mean that some one who is coverd by the cross, but performs occasional unrighteous works is some one you would rather have in your community than one who is uncovered but righteous?

[slingblade]

Slingblade is describing my self-delusional belief in Heaven, or the after life, or possibly the way it will be.
Things are going to change that's the promise.
The when is on us too.
The way I see it we are pushing it.

Pah! No, I'm not. Fixed it for you, bolded.

And if the Christian god did exist, I'd hope I am pushing it. I'd hope I'm pushing every cosmic button he's got.

[Ossai]

edge
I can't give you the answers that you want, most of mine come from within and experiences that just happen as I go along through life. Stuff that you make up in order to feel justified in your bigotry.

Ossai

[bruto]

edge
Stuff that you make up in order to feel justified in your bigotry.

Ossai

Maybe this depends on how you define your terms.

Edge is certainly very opinionated, and very sure of beliefs that most of us find untenable, and I enjoy hammering on him in all sorts of ways, but I do not recall seeing anything from him that I would have called bigotry.

[Ossai]

Bigotry based on religion is still bigotry.

[bruto]

Bigotry based on religion is still bigotry.

I quite agree. I have not seen an instance where Edge expressed bigotry based on his religion. I could easily have missed it in this long thread. Can you cite?

[Miss Anthrope]

I quite agree. I have not seen an instance where Edge expressed bigotry based on his religion. I could easily have missed it in this long thread. Can you cite?

From earlier in the thread, a quickly found example:

Un-like you she is a Christian...I would like to meet her rather than the likes of you any day.

[Hokulele]

From earlier in the thread, a quickly found example:


Can you provide a link so we can view context?

No offense, but the skeptic in me wants to make sure that isn't just purely cherry-picked to show edge in the worst possible light. Edge and I have debated a couple of times, both publicly and via PM, and I really haven't seen anything I could call bigoted or hateful, even though our positions were completely opposite.

[Miss Anthrope]

Can you provide a link so we can view context?

No offense, but the skeptic in me wants to make sure that isn't just purely cherry-picked to show edge in the worst possible light. Edge and I have debated a couple of times, both publicly and via PM, and I really haven't seen anything I could call bigoted or hateful, even though our positions were completely opposite.

I found it on page four of his posting history, sorry, I'm not going back to find it, it was indeed on this thread.

Also, examples abound in his posting history for "The Bible is 100% True and to be Taken Literally", where he says of unbelievers "Satan has you" and that god does not reveal things to unbelievers, and also says that he, personally, can see the light of god in peoples eyes, that a "demon" murdered a friend, this person being a demon because he was not Christian.

[Hokulele]

I found it on page four of his posting history, sorry, I'm not going back to find it, it was indeed on this thread.

Also, examples abound in his posting history for "The Bible is 100% True and to be Taken Literally", where he says of unbelievers "Satan has you" and that god does not reveal things to unbelievers, and also says that he, personally, can see the light of god in peoples eyes, that a "demon" murdered a friend, this person being a demon because he was not Christian.


Got it, here is the link.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2383758#post2383758 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2383758#post2383758)

In context, that was pretty brutal, but he does seem to have been goaded into it. The rest you mention is very intolerant, deluded, and just plain odd (side note, I didn't read the other thread through, it was just too much for my poor little brain). To be fair though, from what I have seen, he does take quite a bit of abuse before he snaps like that. I would say that religious bigotry in reverse is used quite a bit on him, and that often triggers it.

[bruto]

From earlier in the thread, a quickly found example:

Close enough, I guess. :(

Sorry, Edge. I've always counted you as one of the more civil posters from the fundamentalist camp, but even if others have dealt you similar nasties and goaded you into it, some of the comments cited are over the line between very opinionated and bigoted.

[edge]

Close enough, I guess. :(

Sorry, Edge. I've always counted you as one of the more civil posters from the fundamentalist camp, but even if others have dealt you similar nasties and goaded you into it, some of the comments cited are over the line between very opinionated and bigoted.

Things like that make me angry especially when she, “Kathy" isn't here to defend herself.
The one thing I don't do is talk behind your backs.
Some of the things that you say are insulting, I turn my check once and twice but the third time well then, there a time to fight and a time to win.
Like I said there are friends of mine who don’t believe and I get along with them fine.
You, in my eyes, are in danger.
So I might just be your best friend or just a nuisance to you what ever you think

nails3jesus0
Just the name is An insult, she took what the reverend said about her and turned it on Kathy.
Kathy wasn’t even there.
And why are you crying about this?
Like you all don’t do this every day on here.

Go to the flame war the Atheist started there's your example.
And I'm not perfect that’s why I ask for guidance every day.
And yes I flamed his (_!_) back, it’s called venting!

If I were bigoted I wouldn’t be here.
I can take it so should you.

And if the Christian god did exist, I'd hope I am pushing it. I'd hope I'm pushing every cosmic button he's got.

Whether you like it or not the truth is the truth you can't change that and you are fulfilling a prophecy.

Does this mean that some one who is covered by the cross, but performs occasional unrighteous works is some one you would rather have in your community than one who is uncovered but righteous?

Of course not, would you want to deal with slings X?
People who say they are but are not are in even deeper bullspit.
I would have to beat him up. :)

[edge]

Hokulele, Beleth, I talked with my mother the other day everybody that was there seen it as it happened on the spot.
She retold to me, a story that she said happened right before WW2, you interested?

[edge]

Stuff that you make up in order to feel justified in your bigotry.

Ossai

I wish that were true it would be simple for me to be what I liked to be.
Then I would be what I liked to be.
So I take into account what I'm suppose to be and the word is right and what I like is wrong.
We are all more than what we like, I have got over what I like and am thinking of what I should be.
I try to walk with God He's got one long stride.
But then he stops and points.....
You just have to be able to be able, to pick up on it.
Simple, listen to the stories that people relate to you.
You won't listen with out picking apart what has been related to you so that you can justify your beliefs. Does that make me what you want, to justify yourself?
I have no Idea what is in store for you.
You may make it before me.
I just don’t take any chances but like I said I’m not perfect.

[RandFan]

Things like that make me angry especially when she, “Kathy" isn't here to defend herself.

This is an open forum.
She is more than welcome to come here and defend herself.
Her arrogant and pompous posts make it difficult for me to have any sympathy for her. She will not discuss issues. She is blatantly obtuse and willfully ignorant.

You, in my eyes, are in danger.You, in the eyes of Muslims are in danger. We care as much about your opinion as you do theirs.

Whether you like it or not the truth is the truth you can't change that... Neither can you. Neither can Muslims. Neither can Sikhs. Neither can Hindus.

All of those religions.
All those people who believe what they believe because of geography or familial bonds.

And you want us to believe that we are in danger for not following your brand of mythology.

Why?

Please, I would really, really like to know?

You say the truth is the truth. Well, right back at you. Your beliefs wont change the truth.

So, what is your basis for believing we are in danger for not believing in the Christian theology?

[Hokulele]

Hokulele, Beleth, I talked with my mother the other day everybody that was there seen it as it happened on the spot.
She retold to me, a story that she said happened right before WW2, you interested?


Sorry I didn't see this earlier. You are welcome to tell me your stories if you like (PM, unless you want the world to see), but one word of advice, I will listen to them as stories and treat them as stories. I understand the significance to you, but please understand that they will have much less significance to me. I am very comfortable with my world view, I do not believe in Christianity, any flavor thereof, and never will. This is not due to a lack of understanding. I went to a private Episcopal high school. I have read the bible cover to cover three times, once as scripture, once as literature, and once as history. I have studied other religions as well, and have personally visited many religious sites world-wide. Short of a personal visitation (and I mean some god, directly to me in person, not some other person's description of a visitation or revelation), there is nothing that will convince me of the correctness of any religious viewpoint. I am not saying this to belittle your viewpoint, but to make it clear that while I can understand and sympathize with your beliefs, I will never share them. If there is anything you would like to know about how I reached my personal opinions, please ask.

One other word of advice, I can see how this can be a very hostile environment to you and your views. I would recommend stepping back and cooling off before responding to certain posts (I know I have to at times), as your thoughts here are permanent and very public. If you and people like you (such as Jesus Freak and Rational Reverend) want your points to be taken seriously, please read your posts prior to submitting and think, is this what I really want people to think of me and my opinions? If the answer is yes, submit away.

Please do not be offended by any of this, it is merely my opinion, and is meant to help in creating dialog rather than diatribe.

[edge]

I can write this one here, but it will take time to do.
I need a copy for myself.
This is about the children being inocent.

You, in the eyes of Muslims are in danger. We care as much about your opinion as you do theirs.

Their hearts are bent toward God.
Yours' is not.

[skeptifem]

nails3jesus0
Just the name is An insult

uh its a JOKE. lighten up, really.

I dont remember what I specifically said about kathy, but shes rude to everyone. So I have a hard time caring much.

[Foster Zygote]

I can write this one here, but it will take time to do.
I need a copy for myself.
This is about the children being inocent.



Their hearts are bent toward God.
Yours' is not.

But their hearts are not bent toward Jesus. They reject him as their savior.

[RandFan]

I can't give you the answers that you want, most of mine come from within and experiences that just happen as I go along through life. So many different experiences, so many different beliefs. People used to believe the world was flat based on intuition.
People used to believe that the sun circled the earth based on intuition.
People used to believe that blood letting cured illness based on intuition.

Humans advanced when they realized that intuition was of limited value and devised ways to overcome intuition to find truth.

To truly probe truth with the strongest skepticism yields the fact that all that we know is founded upon intuition, in which case it's hard to even really condemn one idea or another. Few if any condemn the car. Hardly, most people simply get into the car and go.

This is an abuse of skepticism and philosophy. Empiricism might not be absolute but when the rubber hits the road it is the only thing that most of us can reasonably agree on.

There are truths we will never fathom.Old saw. This tells us absolutely nothing. It proves nothing. We might as well believe in leprechauns, fairies and even Santa Claus because, well, there are truths we will never fathom.

Yet you don't believe in Santa Claus. If your best friend did you would think him delusional. Why?

[bruto]

Yet you don't believe in Santa Claus. If your best friend did you would think him delusional. Why?Because Santa Claus answers too many requests. This shows him to be a second-rater. The real God would blow you off every time.

[RandFan]

Because Santa Claus answers too many requests. This shows him to be a second-rater. The real God would blow you off every time.Damn, I like it.

[flume]

uh its a JOKE. lighten up, really.
.It's a joke about torture, and in particular it's a joke about the torture of a person whom some people here feel close to. I think it is tasteless and unnecessarily rude. I don't like being told to 'lighten up' about things I care about, so I think the same is probably true for the Christians here. Maybe many people here find it perfectly okay or funny. I don't. I don't like the jokes and mockery on the wayofthemaster radio and I don't like this one either. It's your choice to use it as an ID though.

(adding: I like the content of your posts. But the ID grates on me every time I see it.)

[RandFan]

It's a joke about torture, and in particular it's a joke about the torture of a person whom some people here feel close to. I think it is tasteless and unnecessarily rude. I grew up devotely religious and I used to be offended by many things directed at religion. I'm not hostile to religion per se but I don't feel that we should be so guarded about such humor depending of course the setting. I understand your being offended but I'm not sure it is necassary. Why do you feel offended? Are you offended by all jokes about religion or only those that pertain to issues that you feel are particularly sacred or sensitive in some way?

FWIW, I would be careful not to be offensive in many settings but this being a skeptics forum I'm not sure that it is reasonable to expect this degree of sensitivity from others. But I'm really not sure. I'm not belliteling you. You have a right to your feelings and I otherwise respect them.

[flume]

Are you offended by all jokes about religion or only those that pertain to issues that you feel are particularly sacred or sensitive in some way? I'm probably too sensitive. But for some Christians Jesus is seen as a real and caring being with whom they have a personal relationship. If someone's mother or brother had suffered through something terribly painful, I wouldn't think that was a subject for a joke or insult. Whether the ID is funny or not is a matter of opinion, and it can be hard to defend opinions. I probably wouldn't have mentioned my opinion, but the phrase 'lighten up' is one that causes a knee-jerk reaction for me.

(BTW although I was raised as a Methodist, I have been an nonbeliever for most of my life. This is not a personal issue for me, just a projection of how I imagine other people might feel, and a concern for their feelings.)

[edge]

but this being a skeptics forum

What does this mean exactly?
Wriggle room?
To be a skeptic you must be?

[RandFan]

What does this mean exactly?Many if not most of us don't blindly accept claims. I just challenged an atheist's claim that atheists can be truly good and Christians can't. That claim invites skepticism even from those of us who are atheists.

To be a skeptic you must be?Willing to question world views and commonly held beliefs. Avoid believing based on intution. Question beliefs that are simply intuitive. To name but a few.

[slingblade]

What does this mean exactly?
Wriggle room?
To be a skeptic you must be?

Doubtful. Mr. Randi said at TAM that he wanted (or had?) a t-shirt that read "I doubt that."

But the danger now is that we'll get into the mental masturbation that goes along with every statement of definition. Oh, what the hell; I was feeling stressed anyway and a good wank fixes that every time.

No, anticipating a question, I do not doubt everything, all the time, no matter what evidence or proof is presented to me. I can be convinced. However, I put my concrete away, and now reserve the right to change my mind when and if presented with new info that alters my previous conclusion.

I just try to accept that even with all I know, I don't know everything, and even what I know can change, and sometimes should change.

I no longer allow myself to blindly accept what I'm told. I don't swallow anymore, and boy is Ric unhappy. But there it is.


Okay, now let the name-calling, teasing, arguing, and general unpleasantness begin.

[wolfgirl]

I'm probably too sensitive. But for some Christians Jesus is seen as a real and caring being with whom they have a personal relationship. If someone's mother or brother had suffered through something terribly painful, I wouldn't think that was a subject for a joke or insult.Just because they see him as a real being, doesn't mean that everyone does. So if I or n3j0 (is that better?) think he's just a mythological being, he's fodder for humor just like any other fictional character. Much different from someone's mother or brother.

[skeptifem]

Just because they see him as a real being, doesn't mean that everyone does. So if I or n3j0 (is that better?) think he's just a mythological being, he's fodder for humor just like any other fictional character. Much different from someone's mother or brother.


I find it hard to compare someone who lived thousands of years ago (even to a christian) the same as someone who is alive and breathing and in your family. when someone you are close to is in pain everyone they love lives it every day, it hurts everyone. I always imagined the effect of jesus upon believers to be the opposite.

I mean most people dont find the life of brain to be so terribly offensive, despite a bunch of people being tortured and singing 'always look on the brighter side of life'. its a joke about the same event.

[bignickel]

It's a joke about torture, and in particular it's a joke about the torture of a person whom some people here feel close to. I think it is tasteless and unnecessarily rude.
Christians use the torture and execution device that killed their god as a symbol, and "nails3jesus0" is tasteless and rude...?

If Christians find torture offensive, they should probably consider a different symbol. Then again: I'm not sure I've seen anything in the Bible that condemns torture outright, which might explain a great deal of history of the Church.

It's odd that a religion that prides itself on being moral (to the point that 'atheists can't be moral') doesn't seem to teach any concept like 'causing pain to other people is wrong'. Just pi$$ing off the Big Guy in the Sky is wrong.

[Ladewig]

Some of the things that you say are insulting, I turn my check once and twice but the third time well then, there a time to fight and a time to win.


One way to judge Christianity is by seeing how closely its adherents follow the instructions.

I see that you are willing to follow the words of Christ as many as two times before ignoring them because you are not getting the desired result. So much for that seven-times-seventy stuff.

[flume]

I find it hard to compare someone who lived thousands of years ago (even to a christian) the same as someone who is alive and breathing and in your family. when someone you are close to is in pain everyone they love lives it every day, it hurts everyone. I always imagined the effect of jesus upon believers to be the opposite.

I mean most people dont find the life of brain to be so terribly offensive, despite a bunch of people being tortured and singing 'always look on the brighter side of life'. its a joke about the same event.Well it probably is just me then. I love Monty Python but not torture sketches. Probably I was scarred for life by stupid Sunday school classes talking about the crucifixion when I was too young.
nails3jesus0, I would have guessed you picked the login ID because it was edgy humor. If you go for edgy humor then it seems to me you're assuming that someone might not think it is funny. Isn't that an underlying part of that kind of joke? But it isn't a big deal. You get to use whatever ID you like (subject to the JREF), I get to think whatever I like about it. I get to post whatever I like about it. No one has to agree. I don't like the ID, but also I can see that it's a minor issue.

It's odd that a religion that prides itself on being moral (to the point that 'atheists can't be moral') doesn't seem to teach any concept like 'causing pain to other people is wrong'. Just pi$$ing off the Big Guy in the Sky is wrong.I think that is covered under the golden rule.

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

What really interests me in these threads is why JF and fundamentalists in general are so closed-minded about evolution.

[temporalillusion]

So here's a question, what piece of information, what evidence, what proof would it take to convince you jf that evolution is the best theory to describe "the origin of the species"?

[skeptifem]

flume- hey its all good. :)

[bruto]

What really interests me in these threads is why JF and fundamentalists in general are so closed-minded about evolution.

They've staked everything, or what they perceive to be everything, on their faith that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Once that step is made, nothing at all can be admitted that contradicts it. Some people manage to reconcile even very strong biblical faith with the idea that the book contains metaphor, and that its inerrant authority in spiritual matters was never meant to supplant scientific inquiry, or even that there is some mysterious way that both science and scripture will eventually coincide, making it possible to accept both at least tentatively, and await the unifying outcome. It seems that JF is unprepared for even this degree of flexibility, and his only option, however he dresses it up in the finery of tendentious pseudo-science, is to reject science itself. I will give JF the benefit of the doubt, and say that he is deceived, but I will not give the vociferous proponents of creationism on whom he relies that benefit. They are liars, desperate to discredit science at any price, including the violation of the most fundamental principles of honesty that they should be representing.

His signature line pretty well sums up the problem. Uncomfortable with the almost inevitable charge of rejecting science in principle and practice in favor of wilful ignorance, the only alternative is to redefine science to mean something else. Thus, he and the ratbag evangelists he seems to rely on for ammunition are not satisfied to say "evolution is bad science," but "evolutionists are not scientists at all." He feels free to accuse proponents of natural selection as liars, but bristles when the charge is returned.

JF's take on science really all boils down to this:

Science does not deliver perfect answers that accord with the scripture, therefore it is not science. Faith delivers perfect answers that accord with the scripture, therefore we will now call faith "science."

[Ossai]

flume
I'm probably too sensitive. But for some Christians Jesus is seen as a real and caring being with whom they have a personal relationship. You do bring up an interesting point. I’ve always wondered how people can claim to have a personal relationship with someone with whom they’ve never meet or interacted. The closet parallel I’ve ever found would be some celebrity stalker.

Ossai

[Lonewulf]

You do bring up an interesting point. I’ve always wondered how people can claim to have a personal relationship with someone with whom they’ve never meet or interacted. The closet parallel I’ve ever found would be some celebrity stalker.

Good point, there.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Are we still allowed to ask questions in this thread, because I have one (well, technically since this is a question, two)?

Are we all gods?

[flume]

I’ve always wondered how people can claim to have a personal relationship with someone with whom they’ve never meet or interacted.
I first began to question religion when a friend in 8th grade started going on about her personal relationship with Jesus and how you weren't saved without that. I knew Jesus wasn't talking to me in my heart, and at first I worried about it. The more I worried, the more I thought, and the more I thought about it, the more I doubted the whole thing.

[RandFan]

I knew Jesus wasn't talking to me in my heart, and at first I worried about it. Jesus used to talk to me in my heart. Now I take a blood thinner and heart medication. It's all better.

[Hokulele]

It's when Jesus starts talking to you in your head you have to worry.

[bignickel]

Posted by bignickel
It's odd that a religion that prides itself on being moral (to the point that 'atheists can't be moral') doesn't seem to teach any concept like 'causing pain to other people is wrong'. Just pi$$ing off the Big Guy in the Sky is wrong.


I think that is covered under the golden rule.

Nope. I would have thought so to, but as the Inquisition showed us:
"If I was a heathen Pagan, I would want someone to do everything possible to make me see the light and convert to Christianity. Therefore: torturing others to do the same to them is OK."
Throw in 'saving people from a life of hell', and you have priests baptizing babies before bashing their heads in. Lovely.

I think I should invent a new axiom: There is no axiom, no matter how cleverly and tightly written, that can not be twisted to condone any behavior under the sun. (Including this one)

[bignickel]

Jesus used to talk to me in my heart. Now I take a blood thinner and heart medication. It's all better.

I may never be a Rand fan, but I am definitely a RandFan fan. :)

[RandFan]

I may never be a Rand fan, but I am definitely a RandFan fan. :):) Cool, it was good meeting you at TAM BTW.

[Foster Zygote]

Are we still allowed to ask questions in this thread, because I have one (well, technically since this is a question, two)?

Are we all gods?

No, just some of us.

[Hammer_of_Thor]

JesusFreak (or any other believers here),

If you are still around I only have one question for you.

Is something wrong because god commands it or does god command it because it is wrong?

[Tanstaafl]

I may never be a Rand fan, but I am definitely a RandFan fan. :)


I second this!