I thought religion led to Bingo, and raffles and potluck.

"Slowly but surely being swept into oblivion...."

I'd say the real message here is that at least 70% believe in Heaven. By definition, then, they don't believe in oblivion.

I've read passages in the Bible that state Heaven is only through Jesus. I've also read passages that suggest God simply accepts those He's decided to like. The interesting thing is the lack of contradiction in these two positions.

I'd say the real message here is that at least 70% believe in Heaven. By definition, then, they don't believe in oblivion.

I was saying that the days of hateful, exclusivist positions that deny the value of other faiths are numbered. People will probably always believe in some sort of afterlife- it's at the very least a comforting notion.

I've read passages in the Bible that state Heaven is only through Jesus. I've also read passages that suggest God simply accepts those He's decided to like. The interesting thing is the lack of contradiction in these two positions.

You have to believe in the exclusive validity of the Bible before those passages carry any weight. For many, there is no reason to hold that belief. There is no evidence that any one religion or religious text is more true than any other- there is only individuals' beliefs. In a global society where people constantly come into contact with righteous followers of other faiths (or no faith), one has to do something to reconcile each religion's restatement of the idea behind the passage, "Nobody comes to the father except by me".

"Nearly half also thought that atheists could go to heaven dragged there kicking and screaming, no doubt and most thought that people with no religious faith also could go."

"However, his kids revealed that in 2002 Ray gave each of them $1 million."

it was actually $500k tax free spread over 4 years. I signed/forged Sheila's last large check for $125k from Ray's estate because she was in New Orleans doing a gig & needed some cash right away a few years back...

BANI

I had a dream one night (I lived in L.A. then) I was riding in a taxicab in the Philippines and my dad suddenly appeared on the seat next to me. He told me he'd passed away and had come to tell me he loved me, was proud of me, and wanted me to take care of my mother and sister.

I woke up and my pillow was drenched from tears I'd shed during the dream. I went to the front door to get the paper and there was a telegram slipped under the door, "I'm so sorry to tell you your father passed away suddenly last night from a heart attack".

I crossed paths with Ray Charles a few times. The last time my wife and I were walking through the lobby of our hotel (around 1987 or so) and I bumped (literally) into a friend from L.A. I hadn't seen in a couple of years. His name was JT (James Taylor). He was carrying a bass and told me he was in town with Ray. My wife and I went to the show that night and had a ball. What a gracious, one of a kind performer he was.

Buddha is the one true path.

My wife and I went to the show that night and had a ball. What a gracious, one of a kind performer he was.

#7 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Well, this is one of his grand daughters here in the front top half of Star & Tribune last week:>)

"I had a dream one night (I lived in L.A. then) I was riding in a taxicab in the Philippines and my dad suddenly appeared on the seat next to me. He told me he'd passed away and had come to tell me he loved me, was proud of me, and wanted me to take care of my mother and sister."

Cool!

BANI

Nice to see where she was .... Salvation Army. We have an 'Angel Tree' down here at the Salvation Army at Christmastime. You pick a family to adopt for Christmas and buy what the kids put on their lists. Is that what she was doing?

Are you in the music biz? I've been in it my whole life. I got to know Ray some when I was music director for an equally well known entertainer. We'd be parked in Vegas for 2 weeks at a time 16-20 weeks a year playing the main showrooms. Acts playing the Strip would hang out after hours. Quite a fun experience for a wet behind the ears then 22 year old. I didn't know Ray well, but he was always really nice.

Ya, that dream was a Godsend. I was somewhat better prepared for the news. I had just started working with the act I mentioned in #11. He got to fly out and hang out the first week I had the gig. The entertainer was his favorite. Glad dad, a kind hearted factory worker who adopted my late sister and I, got to see that.

Here's a pic of him maybe a year after we were adopted together:

I'm at Sheila's home for the nite here.

Hope the article below answers some of your questions about this branch of the family...her daughter in the picture at Salvation Army above is w/0 a father this particular lifetime, so I'm her 'father' this lifetime in spirit.

adopted & then finding the birth father with the same musical karma ~ veri interesting life you chose for yourself this time around:>)

BANi

I just sent you an email at the email address on your User Blog

Wanted to share a couple things I don't want the trolls to feed on. When I posted about my mom and sister's deaths this year 101ST used it for months as troll bait. No need to feed the trolls LOL

AU :-)

Thanks!

and what about dogs, great whites and chickens, ebola and herpes, where are they gonna go?

There was an interesting episode of This American Life a few weeks back related to this. Rev. Carlton Pearson, once an up-and-coming evangelical preacher, was denounced by his supporters, driven from his church, and ostracized for preaching his "gospel of inclusion."

It's a great episode and definitely worth a listen.

"You have to believe in the exclusive validity of of the Bible before these passages carry any weight...."

Is not a logical statement. My assertion was the Bible said two different things about judgment and the afterlife that, though disparate, weren't contradictory.

You've got good people telling you amazing things abot the afterlife in this thread. Not the first stories I've heard of this sort and not the last, I am sure.

The point would not be whose "text" is most correct but whether these people are lying or not. If they're truthful then there is an afterlife and by extension a God.

Most of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, is just an attempt to get people the believe that much.

Somewhat related story Saturday in the Times of London - atheist writer says Africa needs God to engage with the world and improve its lot.

You religious folks are all nutters... you realize that, right? But hey, if you want to believe your invisible friend is also the all-powerful sky god, then feel free.

it's quite easy to verify that all living creatures die and there is no evidence that one, some or all of those dead creatures reanimate (except for the movies) Sorry, dead is dead!

all belief in an afterlife does is make facing death a bit easier, nothing else!

**** I thought religion led to Bingo, and raffles and potluck.
.....#1 | Posted by dxlingr *******

......no......religion leads to Jihad.......

"If you want to believe...."

Someone above stated he had a dream. Scroll up and read it. That story is either a lie or it isn't. Depending upon what you "want" to believe, you objective darling you.

"Sorry, dead is dead...."

The fascinating thing to me is this---If concepts of an afterlife are created merely for the comfort of the believer---Why also have a concept of judgment?

Or maybe you think the promise of judgment is never daunting?

If they're truthful then there is an afterlife and by extension a God.

Not necessarily-read Childhood's End.

And the "judgement" aspect has always been a good way to make people do what they're told. Remember, until recently, and still not completely, religion has always been closely bound to/used by the power structure. Divine right and all that...

Last time religious folk tried to buck the "obey your masters" line, the Pope and Reagan had them whacked.

"The fascinating thing to me is this---If concepts of an afterlife are created merely for the comfort of the believer---"
you got that wrong, humans are aware of their pending death and wish to escape it, to live forever with sky daddy. The muslim who found out that souls have no PeePee went berserk (72 virgins and no PeePee)

"Or maybe you think the promise of judgment is never daunting?" What a stupid conjecture!

"Poll: 65% Believe All Religions Go to Heaven"

YEAH!

But Only One gets to have a Naked Picnic in the Sky with Jesus!

Sincerely

The Dobson/Robertson/Warren/Dead Falwell Cult

"To live forever with sky daddy...."

But if you're in Hell, you don't do that. In your rush to be rude, you didn't understand my point.

Your position is the afterlife is nothing wish-fulfillment. Well, why the flies in the ointment, if one can wish them away?

"Read CHILDOOD'S END?---I have, at least twice---That could have been God---Just as Clarke's monolith in 2001 could have been God.

But you're on the right track. The bigger the universe the more room for things to die but not be dead.

Acts 4:12. John 14:6.

Demons became demons forever because they rebelled against God. Humans who rebelled against God will not enter heaven. God is no respector of persons --- everyone is on equal ground: the beggars and the kings or celebrities, be they John Lennon or Oprah (God is warning her to repent). In front of the King of Kings, all humans stands powerless and in need of God's mercy.

(Please for your own eternal sake, do not mock and rethink seriously).

Bill wiese was shown hell to warn those who have heard the Gospel but still takes God's wordly lightly and make fun of things they cannot understand.

Will be back later. There really is a heaven and God really wants you there --- but you must come His way. (Will be back later.... gotta go for now).

Yeah, but have you heard the one about the Three Little Pigs?

Then there are the pure nutcases like takeitez who think they or their pals have some special connection to God.

They tend to make it easy for agnostics to become atheists and laugh at religion as a whole.

Maybe God is looking down saying,
(in the manner of Dr. Cox from "Scrubs")
"Ree-hee-heeeally?!?!"

"Slowly but surely, America is rejecting the poisonous dogmas of exclusivism. It is refreshing to know that the obnoxious adherents of various religions are members of a vocal minority, and their pernicious agendas are slowly but surely being swept into oblivion."
-ZombieHunter

That's amazing!
How'd you know the name of my Christian band--
"Poisonous Dogmas of Exclusivism"?

Or our opening act "Prencious Agenda Yielding Oblivion"?

You been cyber-stalking me?

Buddha is the one true path.#8 | Posted by rastaninja at 2008-12-29 04:04 AM | Reply

How's that work?

He's still in his grave...

All dogs don't go to heaven. The Westminster Confession of Faith sums it up in Chapter III.

"Sorry, dead is dead...."

Is it?

I have always been fascinated with how we define ourselves by, or perhaps more importantly how we are defined by our container: the human body.

If the human body is removed, that is, dies, what remains?

Energy.

Is it still you?

No. Yes. Maybe.

The energy that was being channeled through the wiring in the human body is now free. Do "you" remain a cohesive, thinking, individual entity? Or does the energy once contained in your body simply dissipate and scatter to become part of the background noise of the universe.

If life after death exists in the classical Christian belief, what form will it take? For example, will the extremely obese, diabetic, sickly woman be required to spend eternity in that body? Will the 99-year old man, dead from a stroke, frail, hunchbacked, poor eyesight be forced to spend eternity in that old broken body? Are we stuck forever in body time at the moment we pass?

"Oprah (God is warning her to repent)" - Takitez

Did God appear on her show and tell her this? Or on Larry King's show? Or one of the late night shows? Because I didn't read anything about this in any newspapers or net news sources.

When I was growing up, I was taken to church every Sunday, and the one thing I never got was how an all loving, compassionate God could send so many people to hell. I don't think s/he does, so I guess I'm one of the 65% who thinks that if heaven exists, many more people get in than some believers of various religions seem to think.

Speaking of heaven and hell put me in mind of a show I heard reprised a few weeks ago on "This American Life":

Heretics

The story of Reverend Carlton Pearson, a renowned evangelical pastor in Tulsa, Oklahoma, who cast aside the idea of Hell, and with it everything he'd worked for over his entire life.

Carlton Pearson's church, Higher Dimensions, was once one of the biggest in the city, drawing crowds of 5,000 people every Sunday. But several years ago, scandal engulfed the reverend. He didn't have an affair. He didn't embezzle lots of money. His sin was something that to a lot of people is far worse: He stopped believing in Hell.

Reporter Russell Cobb takes us through the remarkable and meteoric rise of Carlton Pearson from a young man to a Pentecostal Bishop: from the moment he first cast the devil out of his 17-year-old girlfriend, to the days when he had a close, personal relationship with Oral Roberts and had appearances on TV and at the White House. Just as Reverend Pearson's career peaked, with more than 5,000 members of his congregation coming every week, he started to think about Hell, wondering if a loving God would really condemn most of the human race to burn and writhe in the fire of Hell for eternity.

Once he starts preaching his own revelation, Carlton Pearson's church falls apart. After all, when there's no Hell (as the logic goes), you don't really need to believe in Jesus to be saved from it. What follows are the swift departures of his pastors, and an exodus from his congregationwhich quickly dwindled to a few hundred people. Donations drop off too, but just as things start looking bleakest, new kinds of people, curious about his change in beliefs, start showing up on Sunday mornings.

Buddha is the one true path.#8 | Posted by rastaninja at 2008-12-29 04:04 AM | Reply

How's that work?

He's still in his grave...

That's not what Buddhists believe. They in reincarnation.

Sorry: They believe in reincarnation.

Tibetan Buddhists, for example, believe:

His Holiness the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is head of the Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism. Although just 22 years old, the Karmapa is seen as the embodiment of wisdom and compassion and is regarded by many followers as a living Buddha.'

there is no female God, so they have to diddle with humans
i.e. Mary got diddled to have Jesus, Mary was married to Joseph but God got dibs (like the royalty in England got dibs on their female subjects, they got that idea from God) But Mary didn't cheat, it's not cheating when God diddles!

so when he shows up and says "Spread" to your wife, just say thank you to SkyDaddy and go to a movie and be thankful he let you live.

Tibetans believe many different aspects of Buddha are reincarnated over and over as humans

Slowly but surely, America is rejecting the poisonous dogmas of exclusivism. It is refreshing to know that the obnoxious adherents of various religions are members of a vocal minority, and their pernicious agendas are slowly but surely being swept into oblivion.

...

I was saying that the days of hateful, exclusivist positions that deny the value of other faiths are numbered.

----

Pot meet kettle.

Speakin' o' Jesus 'n' Buddha 'n' all the rest...

Everyone should give at least one good listen to the greatest band to come out of Texas since... well, I don't know...maybe ever...

THE GOURDS!

The gorgeous and heartfelt "Hallelujah Shine" will shine a little light on the subject at hand.

"Buddhists believe in reincarnation."

This then makes the assumption that the energy released from the body after the body ceases to function remains somehow cohesive, then later enters and adapts to the new, growing life. Add to this that the energy is now being processed through new pathways, through a new and growing (and dying) body, thus an individual personality is created, but there is still the remnant(s) of the previous life/lives. Quite the leap.

Quite the leap.

Yes, but to me it is no more of a leap of faith to believe that the energy that is released from the body can live forever in heaven or hell than it is to believe that that same energy can live again, and perhaps repeatedly, here on earth. Although I admit it took me a while to reach that conclusion since I had been taught as a child, "You only live once" and then you go to heaven or hell. I don't remember being taught about purgatory, another option for some folks.

Some people believe in reincarnation. Some people believe in heaven and hell. But either way, yes, it's a leap of faith.

I suggest that people interested in Buddhism read the Tibetan Book of the Dead to fully understand the Buddhist perpective on reincarnation- or rather one of those perspectives. It's also a good read in and of itself.

When I was growing up, I was taken to church every Sunday, and the one thing I never got was how an all loving, compassionate God could send so many people to hell. I don't think s/he does, so I guess I'm one of the 65% who thinks that if heaven exists, many more people get in than some believers of various religions seem to think.
-Gal Tuesday

If only more people shared your beliefs, Gal...

I believe it was Reinhold Niebuhr who said that the "essential self" is no different five minutes after death than it was five minutes before.

(Please for your own eternal sake, do not mock and rethink seriously).

#32 | Posted by takitez

"Speak well of everyone at all times"

Dale Carneigeeclub

"Speak well of everyone at all times...if possible"

Bani

I should say either option is a leap of faith for me. Other people claim to know for sure, and perhaps for a fact, that heaven/hell, purgatory, the happy hunting ground, reincarnation, etc. exist. I know what I believe, what I have experienced, what I hope, but I can't claim to have irrefutable proof that would convince anyone else. I also know that mostly I don't know. Much is a unknown, unknowable, a mystery. At least to me.

All dogs don't go to heaven. The Westminster Confession of Faith sums it up in Chapter III.

www.reformed.org

Free will, that bastion of human autonomy, is subject to one's nature...either regenerate or unregenerate.

#39 | Posted by MACV1972

All Dogs Go to Heaven (1989)

Right, Gal.

But I could't believe in a man who couldn't defeat death.

Not sure he could help me in a tangible way...

Once he starts preaching his own revelation, Carlton Pearson's church falls apart. After all, when there's no Hell (as the logic goes), you don't really need to believe in Jesus to be saved from it. What follows are the swift departures of his pastors, and an exodus from his congregationwhich quickly dwindled to a few hundred people. Donations drop off too, but just as things start looking bleakest, new kinds of people, curious about his change in beliefs, start showing up on Sunday mornings.

~GT

The Heaven/Hell Carrot/Stick dichotomy has always struck Spud as being a rather cheap and obvious tactic used to enforce religious beliefs based on fearmonbgering and snakeoil sales techniques.

Nice to hear someone is trying another tack.

That story reminds Spud of the evangelical preacher who tried to ease off on the gay bashing sermons in favor of sermons that promoted pro-enviromental stands as being more moral. He also lost members fer this bit of mini-apostacy but eventually ended up gaining new ones.

This article regarding a majority of ecumenical sentiments is somewot encouraging to Spud. Particularily after last year when Pope Benny picked Cardinal Biffi to deliver the Lenten meditations.

That guy preached that the anti-Christ was coming and that he would be "a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist".

Leaving Spud to wonder if Biffi thought Jesus was gonna come back as war mongering, earth defiling, narrow minded bigot.

Man has always made God in his own image and in Biffi's case that seems doubly true.

Back on topic?

Just because there isn't a heaven or a hell doesn't mean people shouldn't live their lives like their was.

Be Well.

...or Oprah (God is warning her to repent).

#32 | Posted by takitez

The best self retort here in DR in the last 48 hours?

Just because there isn't a heaven or a hell doesn't mean people shouldn't live their lives like their was.

Be Well.

#59 | Posted by dethspud

Hamlet:
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

This is a transcript of a Cold War Era Mike Wallace interview with Niebuhr for anyone interested in politics and religion.

When I was growing up, I was taken to church every Sunday, and the one thing I never got was how an all loving, compassionate God could send so many people to hell. I don't think s/he does, so I guess I'm one of the 65% who thinks that if heaven exists, many more people get in than some believers of various religions seem to think

The gates of hell are locked from the inside. God does not need to damn anyone; we damn ourselves.

Hell is complete disassociation from God. The afterlife is the thus the perfection of our choices in this life.

If we deny God in our thoughts and deeds in this life; why would we want to be with God in the afterlife?

Hell, therefore, is not the result of God's anger, but the results of his respect for our own decision not to be with him.

In general I agree that all religions can lead to salvation. At the same time, salvation is only through Christ--the logos. Remember he is the way, the truth and the light. If you seek truth, you seek Christ no matter what name you give him.

Cheers

"Speak well of everyone at all times...if possible"
#55 | Posted by Bani at 2008-12-29 02:34 PM | Reply

...As modeled so effectively here on the Drudge Retort every day!

Absolute idealism admits man's transcendence over nature; and it has the advantage over naturalism in its appreciation of the depth of the human spirit. Idealism will not admit, however, that man transcends his reason; consequently, it equates the individual self with the "Absolute" and loses individuality in the universal spirit.11 The self then becomes only an aspect of the universal mind, the cosmic reason. Idealism discounts the individuality that depends upon the particularity of the body. The naturalistic portion of modern culture strips the self of transcendence and reduces it to a stream of consciousness.12 When man is identified with the natural order, when time becomes everything, when history is self-explanatory, individuality is lost. Niebuhr said that this philosophy runs throughout the modern capitalistic, bourgeois pattern of life. Romanticism tried to save individuality by giving it unqualified significance. It emphasized the essence of man as feeling, imagination, and will. It ignored the norm of reason or the norm of God and absolutized each individual instead. But romanticism eventually recoiled from this self-glorification (all but Nietzsche) and replaced the individual with a collective individual such as the state or nation. The collective individual then became the center of existence. Niebuhr said that this is the cultural history of modern nationalism.13

In summary, Niebuhr said that individuality, the most unique emphasis of modern culture, cannot be maintained within the presuppositions of modern culture.

In idealism the individual is able to transcend the tyrannical necessities of nature only to be absorbed in the universalities of impersonal mind. In the older naturalism, the individual is able for a moment to appreciate that aspect of individuality which the variety of natural circumstances creates; but true individuality is quickly lost because nature knows nothing of the self-transcendence, self-identity and freedom which are the real marks of individuality. In romantic naturalism the individuality of the person is quickly subordinated to the unique and self-justifying individuality of the social collective. Only in Nietzschean romanticism is the individual preserved; but there he becomes the vehicle of daemonic religion because he knows no law but his own will-to-power and has no God but his own unlimited ambition.14

Using this criticism, Niebuhr negated these competing anthropologies. He maintained that Christianity can give a vantage point which presents a proper balance of both freedom and involvement. In the history of thought the Christian emphasis on individuality is best expressed in the Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. "Without the presuppositions of the Christian faith," said Niebuhr, "the individual is either nothing or becomes everything."15 Niebuhr held that Christianity accepts all that is valid in the presuppositions of modern culture, but does not fall prey to its errors.

Right, Gal.

But I could't believe in a man who couldn't defeat death.

Not sure he could help me in a tangible way...

I think that Buddhists do find that Buddha and his teachings do just that. On the surface, the way is very different from Christ's way and his teachings, but if you dig a little beneath the surface, and not very far at that, you will see the similarity between the two teachings when it comes to the ultimate importance of love and compassion. Christ is said to have died once so that all men could live; the Buddha, I believe, is thought to have vowed keep being reborn in order to bring all sentient beings to enlightenment, to love and compassion. Both are trying to save mankind, if you will, albeit in different ways. If Christ consciousness met Buddha consciousness, I bet they'd both meld into love and compassion. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't start a religious war about which one was right.

George Carlin said, and I paraphrase, that Jesus and Budda came to Earth to show people they didn't need religion and that people could save themselves and, to show how well the people learned this lesson, they started religions based on Jesus and Budda.

I believe it was Reinhold Niebuhr who said that the "essential self" is no different five minutes after death than it was five minutes before.

www.religion-online.org

#54 | Posted by Corky

Good stuff. Thanks for the link.

...As modeled so effectively here on the Drudge Retort every day!

#65 | Posted by kirk

Thank you...I think?

Oohrah,

Thanks for the tip. I like to read books on religious topics and will keep McDowell's in mind.

The gates of hell are locked from the inside. God does not need to damn anyone; we damn ourselves.

I guess that depends on what you define heaven and hell as. Eternal communion/separation from God? Eternal peace/torment? Continued existence/oblivion? Figments of the wishful imagination? Different people would have different views on the equivalence of these concepts, and there's no way to evaluate any claims in this area.

What evidence is there to support even the existence of a heaven and a hell? Beyond the words in the Bible or other religions' scriptures, there is none. The Bible, with its claims of "I am the way and the truth and the light and no one comes to the father except by me", can only make pointless self-validating propositions. They both assume their own truth and deny the truth of other similar statements based on zero evidence. They are just-so stories that one accepts or does not accept based on faith. If people are going to accept myth and ad hoc religious accounts, it's at least refreshing to know that many will rewrite those stories to be more inclusive.

Welcome, ZOT.

I love Neibuhr and his existential Christianity, if only to counter both the anti-intellectual "Christians" and the supposedly superior intellectually atheists.

He was a great philosophical counter to some of the more terrifying political and religious philosophies of the early part of his century.

And, he wrote the Serenity Prayer, something most people don't know.

Grendel,

Yes, I am in agreement with your post. As I've posted here before:

"Truth is one, the sages speak of it by many names." the Rig Veda

from the Kabir Book:

"Friend, hope for the Guest while you are alive.
Jump into experience while you are alive!
Think ... and think ... while you are alive.
What you call "salvation" belongs to the time before death.

If you don't break your ropes while you're alive,
do you think
ghosts will do it after?

The idea that the soul will join with the ecstatic
just because the body is rotten --
that is all fantasy.
What is found now is found then.
If you find nothing now,
you will simply end up with an apartment in the City of Death.
If you make love with the divine now, in the next life you will have the face of satisfied desire..

So plunge into the truth, find out who the Teacher is,
Believe in the Great Sound!

Kabir says this: When the Guest is being searched for,
it is the intensity of the longing for the Guest that does all the work.
Look at me, and you will see a slave of that intensity."

In general I agree that all religions can lead to salvation. At the same time, salvation is only through Christ--the logos. Remember he is the way, the truth and the light. If you seek truth, you seek Christ no matter what name you give him.

To me, the logos, the truth and the light, the one and only way is love. It's as simple and as difficult as that. Last night I mentioned watching "Beyond Our Differences" on PBS, and someone on that show, I think it might have been Desmond Tutu, said that the bottom line truth is that love will win out in the end, despite all evidence to the contrary. Deep in my heart or soul or spirit, that's what I believe. I think he also quoted Gandhi: "Hate has never displaced hate, and violence cannot end violence."

Loving God Includes:

Affirmation 1: Walking fully in the path of Jesus, without denying the legitimacy of other paths God may provide humanity;

Matthew 11:28-29; John 8:12; John 10:16; Mark 9:40

As Christians, we find spiritual awakening, challenge, growth, and fulfillment in Christ's birth, life, death, and resurrection. While we have accepted the Path of Jesus as our Path, we do not deny the legitimacy of other paths God may provide humanity. Where possible, we seek lively dialog with those of other faiths for mutual benefit and fellowship.

We affirm that the Path of Jesus is found wherever love of God, neighbor, and self are practiced together. Whether or not the path bears the name of Jesus, such paths bear the identity of Christ.

We confess that we have stepped away from Christ's Path whenever we have failed to practice love of God, neighbor, and self, or have claimed Christianity is the only way, even as we claim it to be our way.

From "The Phoenix Affirmations"

"What evidence is there to support even the existence of a heaven and a hell?"

I don't think that heaven and hell are supposed to exist as physical entities of any type. My understanding is that being with God or in the presence of God is "heaven". And being away from God is "hell".

I don't think that heaven and hell are supposed to exist as physical entities of any type. My understanding is that being with God or in the presence of God is "heaven". And being away from God is "hell".

Posted by fyi at 2008-12-29 03:32 PM

To many, but there are those who believe in Hades, the lake of Fire, the Pearly Gates of Heaven, Satan, etc, etc.

You can fool some people sometime, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

I don't think that heaven and hell are supposed to exist as physical entities of any type. My understanding is that being with God or in the presence of God is "heaven". And being away from God is "hell".

#77 | Posted by fyi

:>)

I believe in Frosty Root Beer, REAL tomatoes, and those crunchy little things you put on the top of your salad.....

I really enjoyed this conversation today. Will check back in later.

Namaste to all of you. :-)

What evidence is there to support even the existence of a heaven and a hell? Beyond the words in the Bible or other religions' scriptures, there is none.

It is your choice to exclude the bible as evidence. I don't.

Of course, your point begs the question of what you would accept as evidence.

Cheers

Oh, I like those I Believe lists. Anyone remember the one Kevin Kosner's character said in Bull Durham? :-)

Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days- Crash Davis, Bull Durham

To me, the logos, the truth and the light, the one and only way is love. It's as simple and as difficult as that. Last night I mentioned watching "Beyond Our Differences" on PBS, and someone on that show, I think it might have been Desmond Tutu, said that the bottom line truth is that love will win out in the end, despite all evidence to the contrary. Deep in my heart or soul or spirit, that's what I believe. I think he also quoted Gandhi: "Hate has never displaced hate, and violence cannot end violence."

Gal,

Yes, I think this is the understanding we are evolving toward.

Cheers

"To many, but there are those who believe in Hades, the lake of Fire, the Pearly Gates of Heaven, Satan, etc, etc." - Kanrei

True. But I see no reason to provide "proof" of heaven or hell because of them.

But you do get to the bottom-line point of all of the religious discussions on this board. "Religion" is invariably required to mean some literal interpretation, be it of the Bible or of the God of the Bible or of God as a physical being in our universe or etc. Or a tool used by the elites in power. Doesn't mean I have to view it that way, and my purpose is to keep trying to point that out.

I had a Mormon friend who told me about the degrees of glory or something like that. Long story short, even Hitler can get into heaven's ghetto. I can't figure out now why everyone hates Mormons, they let everyone in in the end.

"I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter." - Kanrei

As someone who enjoys baseball more for its stats than anything else, gotta disagree with you on the DH. In fact I now consider you the devil! hehehe

"I can't figure out now why everyone hates Mormons, they let everyone in in the end."

LOL FF

George Carlin said, and I paraphrase, that Jesus and Budda came to Earth to show people they didn't need religion and that people could save themselves and, to show how well the people learned this lesson, they started religions based on Jesus and Budda.

#68 | Posted by kanrei at 2008-12-29 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nothing new under the sun. Carlin was repeating a version of the Pelagian heresy from 5th century. Most free will advocates today are semi-pelagian; believing that salvation requires God provision in Christ but holding that individual choice is the final determinant.

Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius (ad. 354 ad. 420/440). It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because humanity does not require God's grace for salvation (beyond the creation of will),[1] Jesus' execution is devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Christian theology.

This heresy denies the Biblical truth claim that there is only one name given under heaven whereby we must be saved (i.e., Jesus Christ).

"9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son. 10He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. 11And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life." 1 John 5:9-12

"43Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:43-44

No man (universal negative)...No man can (total inability) come to me, except the Father (if the Father does not enable...no man can come to Christ). Man cannot save himself.

"Bill wiese was shown hell to warn those who have heard the Gospel but still takes God's wordly lightly and make fun of things they cannot understand"

No matter how many times I see this, it always makes me laugh. If BIll was shown hell why can't everyone else, then there is no dissent....secondly the gospels are gods words, except when those words become obsolete or flat out wrong with the natural world, and lastly the line of making fun of things they don't understand (implying the wise and powerful oz concept all religions espouse). The irrefutable as well as unsupportable position of faith. Well faith is not scientific and there is no convincing a faith based fanatic to accept fact even when it's all around them every day. Resolve to evolve people, then the world will truly be a better place.

LM

"Bill wiese was shown hell to warn those who have heard the Gospel but still takes God's wordly lightly and make fun of things they cannot understand"

Jesus put no stock in such warnings either.

24"Then he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.' 25But Abraham said, Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.'

27"Then he said, I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.' 29Abraham said to him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' 30And he said, No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31But he said to him, If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.'" Luke 16:24-31

Those who reject the Bible are "without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Ephesians 2:12

"To many, but there are those who believe in Hades, the lake of Fire, the Pearly Gates of Heaven, Satan, etc, etc." - Kanrei

Our vision of the afterlife, of these places (if place is, indeed, the correct word or idea) is through a glass darkly. Our understanding of what some other existence is like can only be filtered through our understanding of this existence--thus these metaphors have taken shape.

They are mere models of the truth made for our limited imagination and experience, the way a black and white diagram of the solar system in a text book is a two dimensional model of the truth rather than the thing itself.

After all, can a caterpillar with its head, turned down and fixed on the leaf it is chewing ever comprehend what it will be like to fly as a butterfly above the trees?

Cheers

#85 | Posted by kanrei

Oh, my. :-)

Yep, that's the list I meant. Thanks for posting it. That moive is one of my guilty pleasures.

#94 - Grendel

Blessed are those who can waste poetry on the unbelieving. But I'd advise you to beware of metaphors and similies - literalists will berate you!

Satan and his followers rebelled against God and they were cursed to deformed creatures and desolation (Having known heaven once and been denied it forever, Satan is filled with hatred for God, and will come after mankind with the same hatred, as humans carry the image of God.). HELL IS MADE FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS.

Adam and Eve disobeyed God and were banished from paradise (called Eden). Now no human upon death can be given automatic entry into heaven, hence they enter the spirit world where Satan rules and are tortured by Satan and his minions.

Jesus came to open a door back to God and heaven by paying the price of human sin/rebellion. If you wish to escape hell and return to God and heaven, JESUS is the only way (John 14:6).
******************************
****************

I feel for Carlton Pearson. His parents were church ministers. But in some sort of a scandal they passed away under some clouds. Carlton Pearson could not bear the thought of his parents going to hell (no one knows), so he rationalized a loving God will not send anyone to hell, or that eternal hell does not exist.
******************************
******

God is no respecter of persons. Oprah and the homeless guy in the street stands on equal ground as far as approaching God is concerned. (People so awed with celebrities cannot understand this concept). God forbid, but IF Oprah goes to hell, her billions and worldwide celebrity will not be able to buy her any infuence or comfort in hell.

A South American youth was shown heaven and hell. He saw John Lennon in hell --- Lennon was looking intensely at Jesus and finally begged to be released from hell. Jesus did not respond, so later Lennon began to curse Jesus in anger. He saw a grandmother too who in her earthly life simply went through religious motion and worshipped all those idols/images South American Catholics revere.

In heaven he saw Mary grieved at being worshipped by some Catholics and begged to send message not to pray to her or worship her.

Jesus paid the price and has the key of death and hell (Revelation 1:18).

I beg of you, investigate with an open heart. Don't go to hell.

"I beg of you, investigate with an open heart. Don't go to hell." - Takitez

Where else are they going to hear you speaking for God after they die?

"Oprah and the homeless guy in the street stands on equal ground"

so what kind of job will you have in heaven, AC Mech seeding the clouds or just a lapdog for Jesus, or just happily stoned on drugs? will you have or be a boss, chance for advancement to head god lover? what do you have to look forward to, so happy for an unknown existance!

religion is "prepare your resume now"!

In heaven he saw Mary grieved at being worshipped by some Catholics and begged to send message not to pray to her or worship her.

As if Catholics worship Mary. Catholics venerate Mary. There is a big difference.

Cheers

As if Catholics worship Mary. Catholics venerate Mary. There is a big difference.

Cheers

#100 | Posted by Grendel at 2008-12-29 05:55 PM | Reply | Flag

A prayer to someone sounds like worshiping to me.

But I'd advise you to beware of metaphors and similies - literalists will berate you!

Yes, avoid them like the plague. Ha, ha.

Truthfully, I don't believe in fundamentalism or strict literalism of any kind.

To process the world/experience at any and all levels is to engage in an act of interpretation.

In regard to scripture, there are two types of people: those who interpret and those who choose to ignore that they they interpret.

Cheers

A prayer to someone sounds like worshiping to me.

Veneration is respect.

Not necessarily. Prayer is communication. Veneration is respect; it is not worship deserving of the deity. Catholics pray to Mary for assistance because of her special relationship with God, but any assistance that Mary gives is because it is allowed by God himself.

Notice in the "Ave Maria" which you link, the prayer pays respect to this special relationship that Mary shared with God and then asks Mary "to pray for us sinners." It does not ask Mary to act independent of God. In fact Mary's actions are akin to our own--praying to God.

Cheers

Hamlet: And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

#61 | Posted by Bani

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"

~Robert Browning

Be Well.

If not worship, GRENDEL, why the special elevation of Mary?

Though completely human, her role as "theotokas" sets her apart from every other human. Surely the bond between mother and child is the strongest bond that humans can comprehend. Catholics believe that this human connection between God and human as experienced by Mary is preserved in her existence in heaven. Thus when we as Catholics ask Mary to intercede for us, we are invoking the living memory of that loving relationship and implore Mary to call upon a mother's compassion and mercy to present our needs before God.

Is it necessary for Catholics to pray to Mary? No, but it is how many connect to the most fundamental human connection between God and humanity.

That is my best explanation.

Cheers

"Why pray to Mary?"

The theory is the same as with humans. The easiest way to get a man to act on your request is to go through his mother.

That's a noble thought, Grendel. Evangelicals respect Mary too, but not in that way (no perpetual virginity, no immaculate conception). Scripture is completely silent about veneration of or prayer to Mary.

Just hang on to this one: John 15. And the Holy Spirit (Jude 20).

Eternity sounds like hell to me, no matter where you end up.

Grendel, I see that re praying to Mary, the painter's brush and the stone mason's hammer agree. But a hammer is not a good following act, so I'll have to learn to stay out of your way. Carry on.

"Eternity sounds like hell to me, no matter where you end up." - Yav

And yet so many people yearn for immortality in this world.

YAV, maybe you don't quite understand the terror and the loneliness and hopelessness of hell yet. When you get thirsty, try not to drink water for another day. One feature of hell is constant thirst but not a single drop of water (Luke 16:24).

##############################
######

Mickey Robinson (Youtube it and go to his sermon) experienced Psalm 16:11 in heaven ---

He said that some people talk about playing golf in heaven to kill time; but he discovered that feeling the presence of God was so blissful/pleasurable (no earthly vocabulary to describe it) that he didn't want to move an inch from it....

The theory is the same as with humans. The easiest way to get a man to act on your request is to go through his mother.

FYI,

Yours has the virtue of carrying the gist of what I was trying to say much more concisely. There is something to be said about the economy of words in getting a point across.

Cheers

What evidence is there to support even the existence of a heaven and a hell? Beyond the words in the Bible or other religions' scriptures, there is none.
-ZombieHunter

It is your choice to exclude the bible as evidence. I don't.
-Grendel

I'm not excluding the Bible as "evidence". I'm saying that all of the claims contained within the Bible are a collection of ad hoc statements that one is just expected to swallow whole. They are assumptions that never be evaluated- that's extraordinarily weak evidence. That being said, there's nothing wrong with believing in any religion under the vast majority of circumstances. Faith is not a fault in and of itself.

In general I agree that all religions can lead to salvation. At the same time, salvation is only through Christ--the logos. Remember he is the way, the truth and the light. If you seek truth, you seek Christ no matter what name you give him.
-Grendel

The only reasons to believe that humans stand in need of divine salvation or that such salvation occurs through Christ are those aforementioned just-so stories. For the sake of advancing discussion, I'll assume that they are indeed true. If so, then the Christ you refer to is something far larger than the many Christians acknowledge. By claiming that the fundamental truths of all religions can be contained within the truth of Christ, Jesus becomes a concept beyond a person, resurrection deity, and savior. Christ is something that permeates, defines, and arguably transcends all existence. Christ is truth- something no one narrow system of beliefs can claim to monopolize something as broad and inclusive as truth. When the thinkers of other religions have pondered the fundamental questions regarding existence and the nature of knowledge, they come to similar conclusions.

These are certainly fascinating notion to entertain, though like all religious claims, they are not ones that can ever be confirmed. Perhaps this is their greatest virtue. The uncertainty allows religion to evolve in response to the "selective pressures" of society. In this case, I would say that the pressure would be the issues raised by the inability of one religion to account for the apparent validity of others religious claims or the righteousness of their followers. As Gal has pointed out, religions are evolving- converging on identical fundamental truths over time.

The belief systems of humans are like quantum states- they are unique, but they describe the same object and can exist in superposition.
The delicate superpositions inevitably break down, as do our senses of religious unity. This happens in large part because of the meddling of people who want to use religious beliefs as justification for a cause of their choice.

"They (Bible stories) are assumptions never to be evaluated...."

Whenever there is a debate about religion, these stories and ideas are evaluated. Hard to understand you on this point.

"They are not ones (religous claims) that can ever be confirmed...."

Exacept that they often seem to receive such confirmation. I refer to Bani's excellent story recounted above as an example.

Science, appearing here at my invitation as a thinking and living being six-feet tall with striking blue eyes, has decided not to accept certain classes of data for reasons of his own.

I understand the reasons for his selection. But Science laughs, between sips of flavored vodka, at anyone who then states the excluded data is always invalid. Non-selected does not mean untrue.

This puts me mind of leopards. Leopards are the only big cat thriving currently. Why? Because they've come to live quietly in human dominated areas. How can they do that? Because no one looks for them.

I have a scientist friend who refuses to accept Christ's resurrection because it was a unique event and he doesn't believe in unique events.

So he's created a model universe without unique events. I'm quite sure it must be accurate.

I'm not excluding the Bible as "evidence". I'm saying that all of the claims contained within the Bible are a collection of ad hoc statements that one is just expected to swallow whole. They are assumptions that never be evaluated- that's extraordinarily weak evidence. That being said, there's nothing wrong with believing in any religion under the vast majority of circumstances. Faith is not a fault in and of itself

Well, that is one way of looking at it, but it is not the only one. The point of scripture, in my estimation is not merely to exist as a collection of statements to be swallowed whole, accepted and regurgitated at will. Scripture is the avenue of a relationship between humanity and the divine and needs to be examined and understood the way human relationships are.

All relationships are based on faith and all relationships require give and take and challenge us.

Scripture is not something to be consumed no more than another person solely exists for us to use; scripture is meant to challenge us, to provoke response! It is meant to be questioned, examined, parsed, probed considered. Its meaning is meant to be developed, and shaped and change as we change and develop and grow. In short it is meant to be a catalyst for what we are doing right here and now--challenging each other in our search for the truth.

We should not see scripture as merely a collection of statements no more than we should see a person as a collection of statements about a person's identity.

In regard to the assumptions of biblical statements being evaluated, well any systematic understanding of the world contains assumptions that must be accept ad hoc.

The much celebrated scientific view of the universe and the scientific method are no different in that regard.

The only reasons to believe that humans stand in need of divine salvation or that such salvation occurs through Christ are those aforementioned just-so stories.

No, not at all. There seems to be built into the psyche of all humanity --that is the need to connect to the divine and the need for the divine to provide some kind of conduit for that connection. This is evident in the myths and philosophy of almost every culture. It is arguable that the yearning for the eternal for the sublime, which is manifest in all humanity and is present in all myth and religious writings, has its best articulation in the gospel stories--at least I would argue that. Thus as Aquinas believed, all religious and philosophical expressions that are earnest responses to the divine contain a grain of truth.

Cheers

In heaven he saw Mary grieved at being worshipped by some Catholics and begged to send message not to pray to her or worship her.

And yet others claim to see her and receive messages from her:

Do you believe in miracles?

In 1981, the Virgin Mary appeared to six children at the Catholic shrine of Medjugorje, in former Yugoslavia.

She has appeared every day since.

Millions have discovered the Medjugorje messages. Mary is asking every person to return to God before it's too late... before her ten secrets about the world's future come to pass.

In regard to the assumptions of biblical statements being evaluated, well any systematic understanding of the world contains assumptions that must be accept ad hoc.

I will never find peace in a description of the Universe that depends on ad hoc propositions- scientific or religious in nature. I must know the "how" and "why", and I gain satisfaction from the pursuit of those answers. I hold science in high regard because it most effectively answsers those questions in the majority of the areas that interest me. Science has its limits, though, and that is where I find the application of religious myths to be quite rewarding.

Scripture is not something to be consumed no more than another person solely exists for us to use; scripture is meant to challenge us, to provoke response! It is meant to be questioned, examined, parsed, probed considered. Its meaning is meant to be developed, and shaped and change as we change and develop and grow.

I agree with you. Among the greatest virtues of the sacred texts of all religions are their ability to provoke thought and sustain debate over millennia. I take issue with the certainty of some believers (and non-believers). There is no reason to claim to know definitively what form the Divine takes, nor is there any reason to say that it doesn't exist. That's how holy-rollers and militant atheists operate- they don't want to entertain the notion that there are other possibilities. Holy rollers expect you to swallow religious myth whole. Atheists don't even want to take a bite. That's the whole point of this article and the Pew poll- people are tending to move away from this certainty and venture deeper into the waters of uncertainty.

There seems to be built into the psyche of all humanity --that is the need to connect to the divine and the need for the divine to provide some kind of conduit for that connection. This is evident in the myths and philosophy of almost every culture. It is arguable that the yearning for the eternal for the sublime, which is manifest in all humanity and is present in all myth and religious writings, has its best articulation in the gospel stories--at least I would argue that.

I agree with you once again when you speak of the universal thirst for a connection to something greater than oneself. Individuals' opinions on how eloquently and accurately this yearning is rendered will inevitably differ. I prefer Sufi poetry, parts of the Vedas, and Kabbalistic writings like the Sepher Yetzirah. I also am overcome with wonder when I study the evolution of the elegant molecular machinery of life. The Gospels speak most strongly to you, and I'm sure other texts also carry meaning for you as well. It's a matter of personal preference more than anything else- beauty may lie in the eye of the beholder, but we all enjoy the experience of something beautiful.

I obviously misunderstood your concept of salvation. The concept, to me, refers to being spared of some inherent flaw by a supernatural hand, and I reject this notion. Humans are indeed flawed, but we hold all of the keys to our own salvation (and destruction). I include the tenets of religions among these- spirituality is an essential part of the human experience, but the improvement of the human species does not depend on the whims of an invisible entity. It depends entirely on our actions and choices.

Veneration is respect.

Not necessarily. Prayer is communication. Veneration is respect; it is not worship deserving of the deity. Catholics pray to Mary for assistance because of her special relationship with God, but any assistance that Mary gives is because it is allowed by God himself.

Notice in the "Ave Maria" which you link, the prayer pays respect to this special relationship that Mary shared with God and then asks Mary "to pray for us sinners." It does not ask Mary to act independent of God. In fact Mary's actions are akin to our own--praying to God.

Cheers

#104 | Posted by Grendel at 2008-12-29 06:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Veneration? Worship? Whatever. Mary is not the mediator God has ordained for the church.

"5For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, 7for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostleI am speaking the truth in Christ and not lyinga teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth." 1 Timothy 2:5-7

"14Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." Hebrews 4:14-15

"23Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. 24But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

26For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever." Hebrews 7:23-28

Look.
Ive studied the bible in depth. read it cover to cover many times. I've done exhaustive concordance studies. I wanted to know and understand what I was constantly having shoved in my face.

The bottom line is this: If a person TRULY beleives what they read in this book then they have no right to pride themselves in anyway.

I will admit that I did find some very convincing things in the old testament, some deplorable, but some strange unexplanible things. But then again I've seen magicians do some pretty unexplainable things.

What I've learned: None of it can be proven. It all has to be taken at face value. Its a book that has a story and thats it. You want to live your life by it? Go ahead. You want me to live my life by something that is questionable at best? Sorry leave me alone.

You really want to know how to tell a persons level of faith in god and the "holy scriptures"? 1. find out how tight their purse strings are.
2. They would have to be completely honest with their private lives because its always easier to do he right thing in the presence of others... but what do they do when only in the presence of god, the only one who matters anyway if you go by their bible.

"They have no right to pride themselves in any way...."

Just an odd statement. You studied the Book but you missed the point.

"None of it can be proven..."

Nothing can be proven to an existential certainty. Nothing. You )yes, you)live your life by a set of decision rules that make you feel comfortable. It could never be more complicated than that. That's what materialism means.

But I say good for you. Live your life the best way you can.

I'll introduce you to my scientist friend that won't accept the existence of unique events despite understanding (because he is really an honest man)there's nothing intrinsically impossible about them. Maybe you'll have fun together, who knows?

Look.
Ive studied the bible in depth. read it cover to cover many times. I've done exhaustive concordance studies. I wanted to know and understand what I was constantly having shoved in my face.

The bottom line is this: If a person TRULY beleives what they read in this book then they have no right to pride themselves in anyway.

I will admit that I did find some very convincing things in the old testament, some deplorable, but some strange unexplanible things. But then again I've seen magicians do some pretty unexplainable things.

What I've learned: None of it can be proven. It all has to be taken at face value. Its a book that has a story and thats it. You want to live your life by it? Go ahead. You want me to live my life by something that is questionable at best? Sorry leave me alone.

You really want to know how to tell a persons level of faith in god and the "holy scriptures"? 1. find out how tight their purse strings are.
2. They would have to be completely honest with their private lives because its always easier to do he right thing in the presence of others... but what do they do when only in the presence of god, the only one who matters anyway if you go by their bible.

#125 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2008-12-29 09:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Look. Genuine Christians are just faithfully holding forth the Gospel to others in obedience to Christ.

"19Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. Matthew 28:19-20

"If a person TRULY believes what they read in this book then they have no right to pride themselves in anyway."

I totally agree. A genuine Christian is an undeserving sinner guilty of cosmic treason against the Holy, Sovereign God. Personal righteousness (or more correctly, what we deem personal righteousness) is as filthy rags before God. The only righteousness that counts for anything is Christ's. A Christian sharing the Gospel is like one beggar telling another beggar where to find food. The Christian should share the message; not shove the message, since the Christian has no personal, innate power whatever to make disciples. The Christian is only responsible to present the Gospel.

"14Now thanks be to God who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place. 15For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. 16To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life." 2 Corinthians 2:14-16

I wanted to know and understand what I was constantly having shoved in my face.

Assuming that once you were no longer a minor, you have to make your face available to have anything shoved into it. If it is personal evangelism you speak of, tell them you aren't interested in what they have to say. You sound as though you can handle yourself in such situations.

You sound as though you can handle yourself in such situations.

#127 | Posted by MACV1972 at 2008-12-29 10:37 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You sound like some of the clowns at work that talk constantly about their faith and never cracked open a bible.

Besides, I am tired. tired of having a prayer in jesus' name before the public school sports events.
Tired of hving to go to a church to attend my kids art show from public school, pay to get in and listen to the prayers then sing the shit...

You are likely ok wih this shit thouh becaus you are right...

Nothing can be proven to an existential certainty. Nothing. You )yes, you)live your life by a set of decision rules that make you feel comfortable. It could never be more complicated than that. That's what materialism means.

Sure it can if we agree on something then it is a fact to us.

I don't agree with you so........

You are right and I'm wrong???

Negative ghost rider.... You beleive in something that I don't.

If it makes you feel good (materialism per you) then go fer it....

You sound as though you can handle yourself in such situations.

#127 | Posted by MACV1972 at 2008-12-29 10:37 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You sound like some of the clowns at work that talk constantly about their faith and never cracked open a bible.

Besides, I am tired. tired of having a prayer in jesus' name before the public school sports events.
Tired of hving to go to a church to attend my kids art show from public school, pay to get in and listen to the prayers then sing the shit...

You are likely ok wih this shit thouh becaus you are right...

#128 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2008-12-29 10:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

I rarely talk about my personal faith. If an opportunity arises, I will talk about the Gospel...the difference being the focus is on what Christ has done in history. I don't do that at work where my position would make that inappropriate. I share in web forums where people are free to consider or ignore what I have to say.

As for the Bible, I have studied since God effectually called me to Christ forty-one plus years ago. Lord willing, I will finish reading it cover to cover for the third consecutive year on Wednesday. I read through the New Testament on two other occaisions (recovering from surgery). That doesn't make me better...just (hopefully) better informed.

As for prayers before sporting events and art shows in churches, if you believe it a waste of time and place no value on it, why not take some satisfaction in being considerate; humoring the less fortunate, deluded souls; not begrudging them them the solace of what you apparently consider as their empty rituals? Aren't you there for your kids? How big of a deal is it if you put no stock in religious observances?

Nothing can be proven to an existential certainty. Nothing. You )yes, you)live your life by a set of decision rules that make you feel comfortable. It could never be more complicated than that. That's what materialism means.

Sure it can if we agree on something then it is a fact to us.

I don't agree with you so........

You are right and I'm wrong???

Negative ghost rider.... You beleive in something that I don't.

If it makes you feel good (materialism per you) then go fer it....

#129 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2008-12-29 10:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Nothing can be proven to an existential certainty. Nothing."

Its is true that I could never prove the truth claims of the Bible to your satisfaction. That's not how it works. Only God can enlighten whom he chooses to enlighten. That doesn't make those he enlightens intrinsically better than those He doesn't. You won't find anything within anyone that recommends that individual to God or that merits God's favor. We are all from the same lump of fallen humanity. God's choices are His choices...hidden in his secret council.

The Westminster Confession adequately sums up effectual calling in Chapter ten:

Chapter X
Of Effectual Calling
I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.

II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.

So, you are free to reject anything I say and no one can really force you to conform to Christ. You are free to live your life as you see fit, as long as God gives you breath.

As for prayers before sporting events and art shows in churches, if you believe it a waste of time and place no value on it, why not take some satisfaction in being considerate; humoring the less fortunate, deluded souls; not begrudging them them the solace of what you apparently consider as their empty rituals?

That's all well and good if your an atheist. Otherwise, how do you decide whose God to pray to? Do you expect non-Christians to shut up and roll with it because they are a not in the majority? That's what the Saudi religious police expect non-Muslims to do during daily prayers.

As for prayers before sporting events and art shows in churches, if you believe it a waste of time and place no value on it, why not take some satisfaction in being considerate; humoring the less fortunate, deluded souls; not begrudging them them the solace of what you apparently consider as their empty rituals?

That's all well and good if your an atheist. Otherwise, how do you decide whose God to pray to? Do you expect non-Christians to shut up and roll with it because they are a not in the majority? That's what the Saudi religious police expect non-Muslims to do during daily prayers.

#132 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2008-12-29 11:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you do not believe in the God to whom the people at a particular gathering are praying, I am assuming you are not personally joining in and praying but remain silent and respect their right to pray. Or, would you demand that they not pray because you don't agree with them or condone their praying? Being considerate does not equate to "rolling with it."

IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.

I find these words to be quite an effective embodiment of the repulsive tendency for religions to use their presumption of their own validity as a launchpad for attacks on others. If there is anything "pernicious" and "detestable" in this world, it is the pathetic notion that acceptance or rejection of an unverifiable ideology is somehow a valid measure of a person. Modern society has no need of antiquated absolutes such as these. The gradual rejection of such exclusivist positions is a bold and compassionate step forward in religious thought that acknowledges the common truth that all seek, albeit through different means. In claiming that only the followers of Jesus will be spared damnation, the Westminster Confession is also stating that this state of affairs is sanctioned by a supposedly benevolent God. A follower of another faith, or no faith, therefore rightfully deserves an eternity of torment for the fault of not holding a specific belief. Their righteousness and contributions to society are utterly insignificant when viewed in light their mere thoughts regarding Jesus. How petty. How arbitrary. How hateful.

This is a poisonous ideology that must be annihilated.

If you do not believe in the God to whom the people at a particular gathering are praying, I am assuming you are not personally joining in and praying but remain silent and respect their right to pray. Or, would you demand that they not pray because you don't agree with them or condone their praying? Being considerate does not equate to "rolling with it."

Personally, I will join in the religious rituals of others because I find it interesting and do not adhere to any one belief system. Others who follow different faith traditions feel differently. My point is that there is no reason to make concessions to Christianity while ignoring other belief systems simply because 75% of the American population subscribes to the beliefs of one or another Christian sect. Membership in the majority does not give anyone the "right" to special privelages. Why should non-Christians be forced to "be considerate" by sitting through Christian prayers? Why can Christians simply "be considerate" by keeping their prayers to themselves? Public prayers should either be crafted in a way that makes them inclusive, or scrapped entirely. If people feel the need to pray to their own personal deity, there is nothing preventing them from doing so privately.

IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.

I find these words to be quite an effective embodiment of the repulsive tendency for religions to use their presumption of their own validity as a launchpad for attacks on others. If there is anything "pernicious" and "detestable" in this world, it is the pathetic notion that acceptance or rejection of an unverifiable ideology is somehow a valid measure of a person. Modern society has no need... How arbitrary. How hateful.

This is a poisonous ideology that must be annihilated.

#134 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2008-12-30 12:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

The Westminster Confession of Faith is a Reformed confession of faith, in the Calvinist theological tradition. Although drawn up by the 1646 Westminster Assembly, largely of the Church of England, it became and remains the 'subordinate standard' of doctrine in the Church of Scotland, and has been influential within Presbyterian churches worldwide.

In 1643, the English Parliament called upon "learned, godly and judicious Divines", to meet at Westminster Abbey in order to provide advice on issues of worship, doctrine, government and discipline of the Church of England. Their meetings, over a period of five years, produced the confession of faith, as well as a Larger Catechism and a Shorter Catechism. For more than three centuries, various churches around the world have adopted the confession and the catechisms as their standards of doctrine, subordinate to the Bible.

The key operative phrase = "subordinate to the Bible."

You are free to reject the Bible. I find your rant to be quite an effective embodiment of the repulsive tendency for the anti-christian to use their presumption of their own validity as a launchpad for attacks on Christ and Christians.

Chapter ten of thw Westminster Confession is based on the following Scripture:

Romans 8:28And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. EPH 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.

Why can Christians simply "be considerate" by keeping their prayers to themselves?

It's called freedom of religion. In this country, it's a constitutional right. You have the constitutional right to get up and leave and pursue your happiness elsewhere or be courteous and considerate of those exercising their religious freedom.

Speaking of religious freedom, non-Christians have an equal right to exercise their religious freedom in this country. Of course there are individuals and groups who have problems with anyone exercising religious freedom if the religion doesn't equate to theirs; but, that is no legitimate basis to infringe on the rights of others. For those who feel that having to listen to others exercise their religious freedom infringes on some right not to have to listen to them, they have an option they can exercise. It's called the door.

It's called freedom of religion. In this country, it's a constitutional right.

Yes, indeed. One person's freedom to exercise their religion ends where another's begins. Why can't a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or Buddhist deliver an invocation? Are they not free to do so by your reasoning? If they can, who is anyone to deny the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster from adding its two cents' worth? No one has the right to impose religious beliefs on others through demonstrations in the public arena- those demonstrations "respect an establishment of religion". The principles set forth in the constitution establish this country as a secular; the constitution is exactly why endorsements of religion have no place in the public affairs of this country. Denying any religious organization a public platform from which they can proclaim their beliefs, whether through prayer or proselytization, does not prevent the free exercise of religion. It establishes equality for all of them. Private institutions and organizations are, of course, not bound by the establishment clause and are free to do what they wish.

You have the constitutional right to get up and leave and pursue your happiness elsewhere or be courteous and considerate of those exercising their religious freedom.

Christianity in the US has long enjoyed the benefit of a double-standard in government. Allowing this inequality to persist has nothing to do with being considerate. As far as getting rid of me or others who demand an end to government support of Christianity, you will not be that fortunate.

For those who feel that having to listen to others exercise their religious freedom infringes on some right not to have to listen to them, they have an option they can exercise. It's called the door.

You can excercise yer religious freedom in church or mosque or synagogue or temple or in the privacy of yer own home but you can't do it on the steps of city hall.

Forcing others to listen to public prayers is a form of prosilytizing that is noxious to the unconverted or those who hold different beliefs.

Don't like it? Use the door.

Go visit yer church. Pray up a storm or sommat.

Be Well.

You are free to reject the Bible. I find your rant to be quite an effective embodiment of the repulsive tendency for the anti-christian to use their presumption of their own validity as a launchpad for attacks on Christ and Christians.

There is nothing wrong with faith in general, or Christianity in particular- until they becomes vehicles of hate. I have nothing against Christ or Christians. I do, however, reject the untenable notions of Christian superiority that some cling to. Furthermore, I reject the components of any religion that groundlessly devalue nonbelievers or claim to monopolize the path to truth and righteousness. Many religions have made great contributions to humanity, but exclusivism is not one of them.

Speakin' o' Jesus 'n' Buddha 'n' all the rest...

Everyone should give at least one good listen to the greatest band to come out of Texas since... well, I don't know...maybe ever...

THE GOURDS!

The gorgeous and heartfelt "Hallelujah Shine" will shine a little light on the subject at hand.

www.imeem.com

Ya gotta get in the water!

#50 | Posted by cbob at 2008-12-29 02:20 PM

They also do a really kick-ass cover of 'Gin & Juice'!

The fact that people still believe in heaven/hell at all is testimony to the utter failure of modern "civilization".

OOOGAH BOOOGAH BOOOGAH BOOOOGAH!!!!

Why can Christians simply "be considerate" by keeping their prayers to themselves?

What? Do what their God told them to do?

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Naw. They'd rather force everyone to see and hear their piety.

Someone described burning in hell to me once as the yearning that comes with regret. Not so much a physical torture but the burning desire for another chance that will never be & the loss of hope. That can eat at your soul as much as any fire can eat at your body and as it is the soul/spirit in question not the "shell" that makes perfect sense to me.

It's called freedom of religion. In this country, it's a constitutional right.

Yes, indeed. One person's freedom to exercise their religion ends where another's begins. Why can't a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or Buddhist deliver an invocation? Are they not free to do so by your reasoning? If they can, who is anyone to deny the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster from adding its two cents' worth? No one has the right to impose religious beliefs on others through demonstrations in the public arena- those demonstrations "respect an establishment of religion". The principles set forth in the constitution establish this country as a secular; the constitution is exactly why endorsements of religion have no place in the public affairs of this country. Denying any religious organization a public platform from which they can proclaim their beliefs, whether through prayer or proselytization, does not prevent the free exercise of religion. It establishes equality for all of them. Private institutions and organizations are, of course, not bound by the establishment clause and are free to do what they wish.

You have the constitutional right to get up and leave and pursue your happiness elsewhere or be courteous and considerate of those exercising their religious freedom.

Christianity in the US has long enjoyed the benefit of a double-standard in government. Allowing this inequality to persist has nothing to do with being considerate. As far as getting rid of me or others who demand an end to government support of Christianity, you will not be that fortunate.

#139 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2008-12-30 01:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

I have no problem with ending government support of any religion. It's why I only rarely share the Gospel at my guvmint job. If asked, I share. The Constitution proscribes the establishment of a state sponsored religion or church (e.g., the Church of England). The history of religious persecution with the support and endorsement of the crown in England is a direct antecedant to this constitutional check against a national church. The anti-christs in this country seek to go beyond the constitutional protection from religious persecution dubbed "separation of church and state" to separate God and all reference to God from public discourse. Those hypocrites who seek to silence the witness to Christ and the Gospel are worse than those overly zealous believers accused of forcing religion on others. They loudly proclaim their right to express their anti-religion opinion while favoring the stifling of religious expression. Again, I have no problem with those who protest government sponsorship of religion. I do have a problem with those who extend that to protest religious expression by private citizens in the public square.

"the stifling of religious expression"

LOL

For those who feel that having to listen to others exercise their religious freedom infringes on some right not to have to listen to them, they have an option they can exercise. It's called the door.

You can excercise yer religious freedom in church or mosque or synagogue or temple or in the privacy of yer own home but you can't do it on the steps of city hall.

Forcing others to listen to public prayers is a form of prosilytizing that is noxious to the unconverted or those who hold different beliefs.

Don't like it? Use the door.

Go visit yer church. Pray up a storm or sommat.

Be Well.

#140 | Posted by dethspud at 2008-12-30 01:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry, Tater. You don't get to sequester religious expression from the public square. Even native American Indians are no longer restricted to the reservation.

"It's a fact because both of us believe in it...."

Is not a statement I accept. It's not even a statement scientists accept, though they gloss over the very real point it's all they really have.

Whenever I hear someone mention "concessions to Christianity", I immediately think of other someones complaining about "concessions to Islam".

People tend to identify who is the enemy from their point of view.

Sorry, Tater. You don't get to sequester religious expression from the public square. Even native American Indians are no longer restricted to the reservation.

Personally, I abhor "religious" expression in a public forum. The United States is going to become more and more religiously heterogeneous. Expression will take the form of 5 calls to prayer by Muslims in addition to the praying at pep rallies, etc. It's going to become a cacophony of strident voices, all based on inarguable "faith." It was offensive enough when I was in public school and had to say the Lord's Prayer at our school's sporting events. Or when after a health class film on human sexuality, the Dean of boys got up to lecture us all on what the Bible said - denying everything that we'd just seen in the film.

It seems there are two viable choices:

Ensure that everyone has the same right to practice their religion in their mosques, synagogs, churches, assembly halls, their homes - but ban the display/promotion at public functions.

- or -

Grant everyone a turn at the podium and at every public event.

synagog= synagogue*

Sorry, Tater. You don't get to sequester religious expression from the public square. Even native American Indians are no longer restricted to the reservation.

Personally, I abhor "religious" expression in a public forum. The United States is going to become more and more religiously heterogeneous. Expression will take the form of 5 calls to prayer by Muslims in addition to the praying at pep rallies, etc. It's going to become a cacophony of strident voices, all based on inarguable "faith." It was offensive enough when I was in public school and had to say the Lord's Prayer at our school's sporting events. Or when after a health class film on human sexuality, the Dean of boys got up to lecture us all on what the Bible said - denying everything that we'd just seen in the film.

It seems there are two viable choices:

Ensure that everyone has the same right to practice their religion in their mosques, synagogs, churches, assembly halls, their homes - but ban the display/promotion at public functions.

- or -

Grant everyone a turn at the podium and at every public event.

#152 | Posted by YAV at 2008-12-30 10:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Two choices...

Freedom of Speech...including religious speech

or

Suppression of Freedom of Speech...starting with religious speech and who knows where it ends.

Moses, Christ and Muhammad, you dualistic Abrahamic believers with your one true God and your eternal egoistic soul desperate for divine approval make me tired.

Your wars and hatreds show no signs of abating.

You hate those that were your brothers yesterday.

You do not understand divinity, even as it walks among you nor do you understand the message of your prophets.

How can a God who is love cast his creatures into a lake of fire? How can such a God command one tribe to slay another?

The words make no sense.

They are the projection of the fears of man onto God.

Be quiet, look inside and see what is really there. God is not waiting to be worshiped with your rites and rituals.

He is with you now. Now. Now!

Experience him and find a way to live in peace, without the craving and grasping and regretting.

Have the simple courage to seek him where his voice may still be heard and not in ancient texts and holy buildings tended by those you deem more righteous than yourself.

Peace is God's wish for us.

The rest is truly blasphemy.

That a person can be saved only through Jesus is a point on which I disagree with most Christians. I don't believe Jesus had any need or requirement for exclusivity. My reading of Jesus is that he wanted all of humanity to be saved. He wasn't looking for ways to exclude people. What he preached to his audience was what they could understand in their frame of reference, in their limited worldview. I think that he intended humans throughout history to view his preachings within their worldview, knowing it would be one which is much larger than that of his time. And with that greater understanding should come a fuller understanding of his message, beyond the literal verbage. Looking at the big picture, reading between the lines, etc. Jesus said that it was hard for a rich man to get into heaven. Didn't say impossible.

I think Jesus had two intentions. One was to atone for something through his death. The other was to describe a right way to live. Not _the_ right way, not _the_ only way. The rest, being humans with free will, was left up to us.

If Jesus had _written_ a manifesto indicating that only through him and only in the way he proscribes in that manifesto can one attain heaven, then I'd give that viewpoint serious validity. That what he spoke wasn't even written down at the time of his speaking definitely leads me to believe the message was a widely diffused one.

"One was to atone for something through his death."

Confusing, the God that can't die and always was, atones tru his death, what's that! And what's that God screwing the married virgin Mary to get Jesus, was Joseph pissed off? (he didn't get laid on his wedding night?) Come on clean up your fairy tales!

Wow, dying for a god that can't die is a huge sacrifice, who would have known!

Christians have a lot of sins, Muslims have even more sins, I have a lot less sins as I am neither! So I am much happier!

"Christians have a lot of sins,"

Are you sure? Cause I'm a Christian and I don't have very many. And am very happy - except when I look at the economy.

Freedom of Speech...including religious speech

or

Suppression of Freedom of Speech...starting with religious speech and who knows where it ends.

-MACV1972

You are creating the illusion of a dichotomy here in order to further your goal of inserting religion into the workings of a secular government. Freedom of speech is a right that applies to individuals, not the government. The government does not enjoy unrestricted speech- it is prohibited from favoring specific religious institutions. You erroneously use free speech to defend government endorsements of religion. In removing partisan prayer from the affairs of the state no individual speech is being suppressed- people still have the right to worship and proclaim their faith publicly. They are simply restricted from bringing their faith into the issues of our secular government. If you want to see suppression of free speech and restriction of religious freedom, look at China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or the former USSR. Maintaining the secular nature of American government is in no way comparable to this sort of tyranny. Those who claim otherwise are victims of religious delusions of persecution.

Why do those who wish to see religion infiltrate the public sector rely so heavily on impotent arguments replete with straw men, circular reasoning, slippery slopes, and leaps of logic? Perhaps these individuals stir the pot with appeals to emotion and irrational arguments because their positions enjoy only a feeble foothold in reason.

Perhaps these individuals stir the pot with appeals to emotion and irrational arguments because their positions enjoy only a feeble foothold in reason.

Perhaps?

They never understand the specious reasoning used would undercut their very right to free speech and freedom of religion.

Don't go to hell.

#97 | Posted by takitez

Or takitez will bug you for eternity!

Fools. Only Jehovah's Witnesses go to heaven.

Cause I'm a Christian and I don't have very many (sins).

#158 | Posted by fyi

me neither & I'm not even a Christian this lifetime...(Thank God!:>)

Bani, life is like a vapor and I'm here on earth only for a while --- but your conscience and memory will bug you for eternity should you die in your arrogance and fall into the hands of tormentors (Satan and his minions).

ncemeat'. We all commit typos. I got what you meant though.

Matthew 7

Judging Others

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

(Takitez: "That doesn't apply to me. God told me so 'cause I'm an extra special Christian who can show you where Jesus was wrong")

I have a scientist friend who refuses to accept Christ's resurrection because it was a unique event and he doesn't believe in unique events.

So he's created a model universe without unique events. I'm quite sure it must be accurate.

#120 | Posted by Zed

I don't refuse to accept some versions of Christ's resurrection at all....it still doesn't make him the only begotten to over 5 billion people on this planet...& if it was his astral body that was seen and/or some ufo genie that did the magic then ~ that still doesn't make him anymore God's son than you or I.

He's interesting ancient historical figure, though, for sure for now & probably a while longer yet:>)

Thanks for caring AU....

Bani seemed to be mocking my faith by saying I'll be bugging for eternity --- so I corrected it by saying my life is short and I won't be around here on earth that long. Does that seem like judging to you?

Matthew 7 says what it says. Read it often and try practicing it awhile ....

:-)

Some versions of Christ's resurrection? I suppose I've read a few of those. There'd be only the one that matters. UFO's and astral projections are not interesting but not good enough. Like my dear scientist friends, I only want to worship the real.

John the Baptist, sent to prepare the way for Jesus, preached:

".... You brood of vipers! who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (Matthew 3:11).

Ouch....AU ought to pull Matthew 7 on him.

Whups---Astral projections and flying saucers are very interesting, indeed. So are good comics.

Freedom of Speech...including religious speech

or

Suppression of Freedom of Speech...starting with religious speech and who knows where it ends.

-MACV1972

You are creating the illusion of a dichotomy here in order to further your goal of inserting religion into the workings of a secular government. Freedom of speech is a right that applies to individuals, not the government. The government does not enjoy unrestricted speech- it is prohibited from favoring specific religious institutions. You erroneously use free speech to defend government endorsements of religion. In removing partisan prayer from the affairs of the state no individual speech is being suppressed- people still have the right to worship and proclaim their faith publicly. They are simply restricted from bringing their faith into the issues of our secular government. If you want to see suppression of free speech and restriction of religious freedom, look at China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or the former USSR. Maintaining the secular nature of American government is in no way comparable to this sort of tyranny. Those who claim otherwise are victims of religious delusions of persecution.

Why do those who wish to see religion infiltrate the public sector rely so heavily on impotent arguments replete with straw men, circular reasoning, slippery slopes, and leaps of logic? Perhaps these individuals stir the pot with appeals to emotion and irrational arguments because their positions enjoy only a feeble foothold in reason.

#159 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2008-12-30 03:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you read my earlier post (#147) you would see that I don't support government sponsored religious speech. My issue is with those who say Christians and people of other religions should restrict their praying and other forms of religious expression to their church, synagogue, etc. and stay out of the public square. I don't consider the public square a government square. I'm not talking about forums that the government controls. If atheists, gays, war protesters, etc. can express their views on the street and in other public venues, Christians have the same right to express themselves.

Amen to MACV1972's last sentence. (post #172)

Bani, life is like a vapor and I'm here on earth only for a while --- but your conscience and memory will bug you for eternity should you die in your arrogance and fall into the hands of tormentors (Satan and his minions).

#164 | Posted by takitez

your seemly ongoing moronic posts have a way of being a mirror of your actual future to come sometimes, you know, not your perceived benedictions about other's spirituality outside your sphere of God'e eternal influences.

perhaps "judging others" unduly is the Christian 'sin' that you need to work on in this particular lifetime?

Blessings:>)

If you read my earlier post (#147) you would see that I don't support government sponsored religious speech. My issue is with those who say Christians and people of other religions should restrict their praying and other forms of religious expression to their church, synagogue, etc. and stay out of the public square. I don't consider the public square a government square. I'm not talking about forums that the government controls. If atheists, gays, war protesters, etc. can express their views on the street and in other public venues, Christians have the same right to express themselves.

I guess I missed that, and I owe you an apology. I support your right, and the right of others, to voice their religious opinions in non-government public forums.

How about people like Bani and Americanunity going about judging others and yet cannot see the obvious?

That a person can be saved only through Jesus is a point on which I disagree with most Christians. I don't believe Jesus had any need or requirement for exclusivity. My reading of Jesus is that he wanted all of humanity to be saved. He wasn't looking for ways to exclude people. What he preached to his audience was what they could understand in their frame of reference, in their limited worldview. I think that he intended humans throughout history to view his preachings within their worldview, knowing it would be one which is much larger than that of his time. And with that greater understanding should come a fuller understanding of his message, beyond the literal verbage. Looking at the big picture, reading between the lines, etc. Jesus said that it was hard for a rich man to get into heaven. Didn't say impossible.

I think Jesus had two intentions. One was to atone for something through his death. The other was to describe a right way to live. Not _the_ right way, not _the_ only way. The rest, being humans with free will, was left up to us.

If Jesus had _written_ a manifesto indicating that only through him and only in the way he proscribes in that manifesto can one attain heaven, then I'd give that viewpoint serious validity. That what he spoke wasn't even written down at the time of his speaking definitely leads me to believe the message was a widely diffused one.

#156 | Posted by fyi at 2008-12-30 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, are you saying Jesus was confused when he said the following?

"6Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." John 14:6

"25Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. 26But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. 30I and My Father are one."
John 10:25-30

"10And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?"

11He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,

And seeing you will see and not perceive;

15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.

Their ears are hard of hearing,

And their eyes they have closed,

Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,

Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,

So that I should heal them.'" Matthew 13:10-15

"63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father." John 6:63-65

Takit-
What's the obvious? I think I missed it. (Is it that everyone who doesn't worship your God in your way goes to hell?)

What is the "obvious"? The existence of angels and demons an waging eternal war for our souls? Ah, yes, that is quite obvious if you're tripping on acid and listening to Stairway to Heaven backwards (which, incidently, I suggest you do at some point in life). I find the hateful delusions of Christian supremacy to be far more obvious.

If you read my earlier post (#147) you would see that I don't support government sponsored religious speech. My issue is with those who say Christians and people of other religions should restrict their praying and other forms of religious expression to their church, synagogue, etc. and stay out of the public square. I don't consider the public square a government square. I'm not talking about forums that the government controls. If atheists, gays, war protesters, etc. can express their views on the street and in other public venues, Christians have the same right to express themselves.

I guess I missed that, and I owe you an apology. I support your right, and the right of others, to voice their religious opinions in non-government public forums.

#175 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2008-12-30 08:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Cool.

How about people like Bani and Americanunity going about judging others and yet cannot see the obvious?

#176 | Posted by takitez

such as?

interesting Gnostic history on satelite History Channel at the moment:>)

"Bani, life is like a vapor and I'm here on earth only for a while..."

#164 | Posted by takitez at 2008-12-30 07:35 PM | Reply | Flag: Unfortunately, you can't count on that "a while"

LOL, wondering where Hans was, and lo and behold! (Thx for not pulling up some old lines stored in your system for effective distraction).

That what he spoke wasn't even written down at the time of his speaking definitely leads me to believe the message was a widely diffused one.

#156 | Posted by fyi at 2008-12-30 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

That, (writing down what he spoke at the time of his speaking) wasn't a 1st century practice. John and Matthew walked with Him for the three years of His public ministry. Mark and Luke wrote from the accounts of eye (and ear) witnesses. If you don't accept that the Scriptures are inspired by God (God breathed) and that these men were led by the Holy Spirit in recording the words Jesus spoke, then I can see why you find it difficult to rely on them.

Speaking of religious freedom, non-Christians have an equal right to exercise their religious freedom in this country. Of course there are individuals and groups who have problems with anyone exercising religious freedom if the religion doesn't equate to theirs; but, that is no legitimate basis to infringe on the rights of others. For those who feel that having to listen to others exercise their religious freedom infringes on some right not to have to listen to them, they have an option they can exercise. It's called the door.

#138 | Posted by MACV1972 at 2008-12-30 01:05 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Nice, then at the next 8th grade awards banquet held at the local penetcostal church I'll bring a copy of the koran and begin praying at the same time as the clown they call a preacher... K

"It's a fact because both of us believe in it...."

Is not a statement I accept. It's not even a statement scientists accept, though they gloss over the very real point it's all they really have.

#150 | Posted by Zed at 2008-12-30 09:19 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I agree.

LFTHNDTHRDS, (post #185), don't you think you might be behaving like the guy who kept talking in the movie house and got shot at? --- of course, none in that pentecostal church would shoot you, let alone bring a gun, but their gathering is not for listening to Koran. You can request a different meeting at another time for such an occasion, though I think they may exercise their freedom and not attend your reading of the Koran.

Nice, then at the next 8th grade awards banquet held at the local penetcostal church I'll bring a copy of the koran and begin praying at the same time as the clown they call a preacher... K

#185 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2008-12-30 08:32 PM | Reply | Flag: Violation of establishment clause

There's no reason for a preacher to be praying at an awards banquet for a public school, regardless of what building it happens in. Private schools, though, can do what they want. And yes, I think you should give them all a big "Allahu akbar" if they try to pull it off again. Or, better yer, come dressed as a pirate to support Pastafarianism.

The older you get the easier it is to see existence as being primarily a war for "souls". for lack of a better word for it.

Lots of people do appear to make deals with the "Devil", for lack of a better word for that.

but their gathering is not for listening to Koran.

#187 | Posted by takitez

The gathering lfthndthrds describes isn't for listening to the bible either, hence the point.

Takitez, are you retarded?

Don't answer for yourself. Go get your care-giver to come answer that.

Lots of people do appear to make deals with the "Devil", for lack of a better word for that.

The earliest Christians believed in a spiritual not bodily resurrection of Jesus. Good piece by Dan Barker that I paste below:

Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?
by Dan Barker

This article first appeared in Abuse Your Illusions: The Disinformation Guide To Media Mirages and Establishment Lies, edited by Russ Kick, 2003.
During the 19 years I preached the Gospel, the resurrection of Jesus was the keystone of my ministry.[1] Every Easter I affirmed the Apostle Paul's admonition: "If Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain."[2] I wrote a popular Easter musical called "His Fleece Was White As Snow" with the joyous finale proclaiming: "Sing Hosanna! Christ is Risen! The Son has risen to shine on me!"[3]

But now I no longer believe it. Many bible scholars[4] and ministers--including one third of the clergy in the Church of England[5]--reject the idea that Jesus bodily came back to life. So do 30% of born-again American Christians![6]

Why? When the Gospel of John portrays the post-mortem Jesus on a fishing trip with his buddies and the writer of Matthew shows him giving his team a mountain-top pep talk two days after he died, how can there be any doubt that the original believers were convinced he had bodily risen from the grave?

There have been many reasons for doubting the claim, but the consensus among critical scholars today appears to be that the story is a "legend." During the 60-70 years it took for the Gospels to be composed, the original story went through a growth period that began with the unadorned idea that Jesus, like Grandma, had "died and gone to heaven" and ended with a fantastic narrative produced by a later generation of believers that included earthquakes, angels, an eclipse, a resuscitated corpse, and a spectacular bodily ascension into the clouds.

The earliest Christians believed in the "spiritual" resurrection of Jesus. The story evolved over time into a "bodily" resurrection.

LOL, Dan Barker is under deception --- I have seen his challenge on the ressurection event and he was wrong. In fact I'm writing a book and this correction on dan Barker's ignorance will be included.

There's no reason for a preacher to be praying at an awards banquet for a public school, regardless of what building it happens in. Private schools, though, can do what they want. And yes, I think you should give them all a big "Allahu akbar" if they try to pull it off again. Or, better yer, come dressed as a pirate to support Pastafarianism.

#188 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2008-12-30 08:41 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I have been in contact with the ACLU and the school.
It's really sad to hear the Administration's response to my complaints.

LFTHNDTHRDS, (post #185), don't you think you might be behaving like the guy who kept talking in the movie house and got shot at? --- of course, none in that pentecostal church would shoot you, let alone bring a gun, but their gathering is not for listening to Koran. You can request a different meeting at another time for such an occasion, though I think they may exercise their freedom and not attend your reading of the Koran.

#187 | Posted by takitez at 2008-12-30 08:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

T, put down the hash pipe, youre fucking high...
I told you this is a Public School function...
Shouldn't it be ok to hold it at a mosque or a synagogue? Cant I bring some Wicca worship material to share???

You are a peice of work...

LOL, Dan Barker is under deception --- I have seen his challenge on the ressurection event and he was wrong. In fact I'm writing a book and this correction on dan Barker's ignorance will be included.

#193 | Posted by takitez

Warren finally has some competition?

His international 30 million hardcover record will be hard to beat...but DR's special devil slayer has to profoundity to clear Warren's confusions up as well, I'm sure!

Blessings:>)

So, are you saying Jesus was confused when he said the following?

"6Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." John 14:6
-Takitez

I would not presume to know the thoughts going through the head of the man who wrote the book of John all those decades after the death of Jesus. What possesses a person to write an account of events long before their lifetime as if they witnessed them firsthand? Perhaps something similar to the thoughts of the author of A Million Little Pieces. As far as Jesus being confused... I'm confused as to why people today think he said any of the things attributed to him in the Bible- all of those words were written decades to centuries later.

John 14:6 is one of a number of self-validating statements in the Bible. Assuming that these are indeed Jesus' words, all he is saying is that he is God- he never offers any proof. He is God, and God doesn't have to prove himself. Makes perfect sense. All of the "miracles" are just outlandish stories which also have no proof. I know a person with bipolar disorder who, when manic, thought she was God and claimed to have cured a case of cancer by looking at a person. I didn't believe her any more than I believe the Bible (and not because we all know God has to be a dude). The point is, you can believe or disbelieve in the Bible, but your opinion either way is equally justifiable. It's also entirely irrelevant in matters that concern the material world. Believers have faith in scriptures, while nonbelievers have faith in the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Believers who toss around passages like they are the end-all-to-be-all regarding the universe need to get a grip on reality. All of their claims contain an implicit "If my fairy tale is correct, then..." at the beginning.

... 'held at the local pentecostal church...'

And I was also assuming most of the students were Christian and didn't mind the prayer.

to profoundity = the brillant profoundities

Months back there was a revival in BR about 15 miles from here called "just for jesus"

The parish public school system excused the absence, sent home a permission slip, and gave transportation on public school busses!

I'll look for the article and post it..

These folks are out of control..

T, put down the hash pipe, youre fucking high...
I told you this is a Public School function...
Shouldn't it be ok to hold it at a mosque or a synagogue? Cant I bring some Wicca worship material to share???

If Takitez were smoking hash, his mind would be far more receptive to ideas ouside the realm of the narrow dogma that he adheres to. He would also be too hungry and/or mesmerized by the itunes visualizer to post anything on DR. I think the problem of most people who take religion too seriously is that they are not high enough. Except maybe the original "assassins".

Hold a school function in a Mosque?! Are you kidding? Those places are full of terrorists!

A synagogue you say? But they killed Jesus!

Wicca? You mean we can Bar-B-Que us some witches? Yee Haw!

"He (Jesus) mever offers any prooof He is God...."

You have actually read the Gospels?

Say not what your country can do for you.... who can forget that line.

I believe John clearly remembered the John 14:6 declaration of Jesus. John testified: "We declare unto you... what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands..." (1 John 1:1).

"Nonbelievers have overwhelming faith in science to the contrary....?

Really? And what "science" would that be?

Oh, I see. It's not that Jesus offers no "proofs". That's just you speaking. What you mean is He doesn't offer proofs that you like.

And I was also assuming most of the students were Christian and didn't mind the prayer.
-Takitez

The faith breakdown of the student body is irrelevant. The government, which includes public schools, is not permitted to endorse any religion. That includes an endorsement through prayer at school functions. Perhaps you can explain how the students' beliefs magically amend the constitution.

heres one of the articles

Hash puts you in contact with "outside realms"? "Science" again?

If ... were smoking hash...

Zombie, actually John Lennon was doing some dope and his receptive mind imagined the song IMAGINE .... 'no heaven' --- truly no heaven for him as he is in hell now (to be honest).

(Even if he borrowed the name John).

John 14:6

"All the miracles are just outlandish...."

Just curious, you know that how? Be "scientific".

If Takitez were smoking hash, his mind would be far more receptive to ideas ouside the realm of the narrow dogma that he adheres to

Zom

Yeah you're right thanks or reeling me back in...

Maybe its the draino he/she is drinkin...

"... truly no heaven for him as he is in hell now (to be honest)."

You've spoken?

Dawkins says there are no miracles because he doesn't believe in them. Yup, that's his position. I'm sure it's beyond him why that's funny.

there was a revival in BR

I was wondering what backwater you were posting from.

I lived there in the early 80's after my new Mississippi bride refused to live in Lafayette.

Back then, it was right on the cusp of S. and N. La.

Sounds like the cusp of crazy may have moved a bit further to the southwest since then.

And I was also assuming most of the students were Christian and didn't mind the prayer.

#198 | Posted by takitez at 2008-12-30 09:20 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I hate to be ugly here but thats your problem asshole... you could care less if I pay my taxes and expect the Govt run schools to abide by the constitution. You dont give two shits if I dont want to be exposed to this...

If it weren't for my Kids having to deal with the consequences of mean spirited psudo christians I would have already filed a law suit...

ZOMBIEHUNTER, you are a mass of unexamined assumptions. That doesn't make you smart and it sure as hell doesn't make you objective. Unreflective and therefore arrogant about covers it.

Betelg, I've already shed some information on John Lennon in post #97.

I do admit I've been sharing these info with 'divine' ulterior motive.

"Nonbelievers have overwhelming faith in science to the contrary....?
-Zed misquoting me

If you're going to quote me, Zed, at least do so accurately. My words were: You can believe or disbelieve in the Bible, but your opinion either way is equally justifiable. It's also entirely irrelevant in matters that concern the material world. Believers have faith in scriptures, while nonbelievers have faith in the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Here is a sample of the ovewhelming evidence to the contrary:

- The Gospels were not written by the men whose names appear in the titles- they were written long after any person who ever lived with Jesus had died.
- There is no evidence for the divinity of Jesus beyond the ad hoc claims of the Gospels.
- Resurrection, "faith healing," demonic possession, parthenogenesis, or any other "miracle" mentioned in the Bible are incompatible with the laws of science.
- Christianity fails to provide a mechanism for said miracles beyond the intervention of an entity whose existence is supported by absolutely no evidence (beyond the aforementioned unreliable accounts).
- Christianity cannot distinguish its fanciful claims as any more valid than the mutually exclusive claims of any other religion that has ever been or will ever be followed by humans.

I was wondering what backwater you were posting from.

I lived there in the early 80's after my new Mississippi bride refused to live in Lafayette.

Back then, it was right on the cusp of S. and N. La.

Sounds like the cusp of crazy may have moved a bit further to the southwest since then.

#214 | Posted by silver_ironist at 2008-12-30 09:42 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I enjoy the New Orleans area a lot more.. Moved back here about 8 years ago from N.O.

ZOMBIE, there are many that will offer evidence contrary to your understanding of the dating of the Gospels. If you've really looked into this at all you must know that.

I think I'd pitch in for Zed and say that all the assertions (so-called overwhelming evidence) by Zombie in post 218 are inaccurate.

Hash puts you in contact with "outside realms"? "Science" again?

#208 | Posted by Zed at 2008-12-30 09:33 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Nope just the facts. Product testing has proven it.

As for "evidence", all you argue is taste. Your taste versus someone else's and somehow you think you know better.

Archeology is the scientific discipline that bears upon the truth of the Gospels, and so far the news from them is good.

Of course, I've had people argue that even if the events of the Bible are proven true that proves nothing about God (?)

"Product testing has proven it...."

From what I'm able to observe, if intoxicated enough, even stupid seems exciting.

"Christianity fails to prove a mechanism for the miracles...."

I suppose if there were a mechanism they wouldn't be miracles. Word games, ZOMBIE.

ZOMBIE, there are many that will offer evidence contrary to your understanding of the dating of the Gospels. If you've really looked into this at all you must know that.

#220 | Posted by Zed at 2008-12-30 09:52 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I think I'd pitch in for Zed and say that all the assertions (so-called overwhelming evidence) by Zombie in post 218 are inaccurate.

#221 | Posted by takitez at 2008-12-30 09:52 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

So lets say Zombie is totally wrong.

Do either of you two scholars have any hard evidence of anything you preach?

Why then can't any other publication out there that claims to be the inspired word of God be true.

The book of Morman to me is a crock of shit also but to them its the word of God...

Are you going to say that Joseph Smith was a lunatic and ridicule him?

ZOMBIEHUNTER, you are a mass of unexamined assumptions. That doesn't make you smart and it sure as hell doesn't make you objective. Unreflective and therefore arrogant about covers it.
-Zed

The irony of this statement is incredible, considering its source. Your beliefs rest entirely on unexamined assumptions, and your ignorance is the "virtue" that allows you to make the outlandish statements you so often do regarding science. I couldn't care less if a blind follower of religious dogma thinks that I am not objective. I am "unreflective" to you because my reflections hail from a perspective that you do not value and are frequently incompatible with your beliefs. I am indeed arrogant. It is an inevitable consequence of dealing with fools such as yourself who cling to fabricated ideologies and vigorously defend them as fact, all the while remaining blind to their own ignorance and delusions.

Those who struggle with or vehemently deny the truth claims of the Bible oppose themselves. They are captive to the fallen nature, as we all were at one time.

"24And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

"8For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,

And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." 1 Corinthians 1:18

"21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1 Corinthians 21-25

"13These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:13-14

"Christianity fails to prove a mechanism for the miracles...."

I suppose if there were a mechanism they wouldn't be miracles. Word games, ZOMBIE.

#225 | Posted by Zed at 2008-12-30 09:58 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Miracles? isn't that what David copperfield does??

talk about stupid... You beleive in magic tricks written in pages of a book that you can't even see...

Youre easy

"Partheogenesis...Incompatible with science...."

I've heard biologists lecture on the mechanism making parthenogensis in humans possible.

Does that prove Christ? Not from your point of view, given there's now something "real" connected with it from your point of view.

But if the virgin birth had no known biological "mechanism", that proves it wasn't real either. Right? Ever study logic, my boy?

Archeology is the scientific discipline that bears upon the truth of the Gospels, and so far the news from them is good.

I'm excited to see how archaeologists are busy proving your supernatural claims. Please share.

LFTHNDTHRDS,

Too much to discuss here, so if you're serious, for once read a book by an evangelical and do some thinking: EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT (Josh McDowell).

Any Mormon here? Please YOUTUBE: Mormon lady went to hell.

"Your beliefs rest on unexamined assumptions..."

My dear ZOMBIE---If you held to your "philosophy", if you spoke only to those things and as much about those things as science permits---You would have ceased to speak sometime back.

ZOMBIE, there are many that will offer evidence contrary to your understanding of the dating of the Gospels. If you've really looked into this at all you must know that.

#220 | Posted by Zed

A "Misquoting Jesus" review

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. So many hands have altered and edited the now lost originals that we will never know for sure what those originals said. I find it amusing that the Christian Right in America spends its energy attacking evolution, arguing that teaching evolution is teaching atheism. For Ehrman, learning about the Bible is what caused his belief to change. He still believes in God, but no longer believes the Bible is an inerrant source of the Word. It would be interesting to know how many people became less religiously devout after learning science versus learning about Bible and church history. Instead of convincing believers not to read Dawkins and Darwin, the biblical literalists might better spend their energy keeping folks away from Ehrman (in fact, backlash books attacking Ehrman --- often personally --- and defending Biblical infallibility are already appearing). Ehrman isn't an atheist assaulting belief; he is just a scholarly believer saying he feels the evidence is clear that the gospels were written by men with personal agendas, and both accidentally and intentionally altered over the centuries by other men with agendas of their own. Then, from all the texts that existed, some other men with agendas selected the canon and deemed the other texts apocrypha. The main thrust of what Jesus said and did is undoubtedly in there, but that's all we can be sure of. For believer or atheist, I recommend Misquoting Jesus to anyone with an interest in where this ancient anthology that has helped shape our culture came from.

"Outlandish statements regarding science..."

I may have uttered a few. But if so they were honest mistakes.

The fact is, I think I understand science better than you do. I'd have to, because I first had to square my beliefs with "rationality" before I could accept them.

Ever study logic, my boy?

#230 | Posted by Zed at 2008-12-30 10:04 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

LOL

I can hear my teenage son now...

"dad, my girlfriend is pregnate and we never had sex, just logic"

Youre kidding right???

On the subject of Mary... If I had got pregnate and hadn't had sex with Joseph I'd be looking for a real barn burner of a fucking story too...

Lemme see.... God did it... now whos going to question God???

Yep thats it God did it to me.... He Said this the Messiah that prophet Isaiah talked about....

You know the one we've been told about all our lives...

Now thats fucking logic!

Mormon lady went to hell.

#232 | Posted by takitezombie

speaks God's Prophet in DR!

I'm sorry---I don't understand you---I don't have a girlfriend, my wife would object.

I've heard biologists lecture on the mechanism making parthenogensis in humans possible.

I'm sure you have. I've heard a physicist lecture about how anti-gravity devices are possible to construct... using magnets. Unfortunately, you know far too little to recognize a quack when you see one. Or, if this person was actually a legitimate scientist, perhaps you ignored the vast difference between inducing an unfertilized female egg to divide in a petri dish and having this process occur natually, and then produce a human being. Perhaps you could explain how maternally imprinted genes are transformed spontaneously into paternally imprinted genes, in vivo, so that the offspring is actually viable. Ever study molecular biology, my boy?

I'm sorry---I don't understand you

Doesnt suprise me at all...

You do have that little problem understanding anything besides what you choose.

selecive understanding...

- The Gospels were not written by the men whose names appear in the titles- they were written long after any person who ever lived with Jesus had died.

Of course you are relying on the record of some other fallible men and putting your trust in their words. Interesting.

- There is no evidence for the divinity of Jesus beyond the ad hoc claims of the Gospels.

Other than the witness of the Holy Spirit...which the genunine Christian knows and has experienced...and the unbeliever is incapable of knowing...

- Resurrection, "faith healing," demonic possession, parthenogenesis, or any other "miracle" mentioned in the Bible are incompatible with the laws of science.

That's why it's called the supernatural. Your laws of science cannot operate without God...and when He chooses, He can suspend them.

- Christianity fails to provide a mechanism for said miracles beyond the intervention of an entity whose existence is supported by absolutely no evidence (beyond the aforementioned unreliable accounts).

Not to worry. You'll get to meet Him eventually...uh, perhaps you should worry if you continue in unbelief.

- Christianity cannot distinguish its fanciful claims as any more valid than the mutually exclusive claims of any other religion that has ever been or will ever be followed by humans.

So you say. But, isn't that YOUR truth claim...that the Bible is untrue? Why should anyone believe you? You can't prove your truth claims. All you can do is question and deny God's truth; you can't invalidate it. I'll go with God on that, thank you.

#218 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2008-12-30 09:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Any Mormon here? Please YOUTUBE: Mormon lady went to hell.

#232 | Posted by takitez at 2008-12-30 10:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Ever Youtube "selfrighteous wannabe christian went to hell"?

Not that there is a hell in my opinion..

just wondering if you were ever brave enough to push those letters into the search window.

Please YOUTUBE: Mormon lady went to hell.

"...after she was given a shot of morphine..."

- Christianity fails to provide a mechanism for said miracles beyond the intervention of an entity whose existence is supported by absolutely no evidence (beyond the aforementioned unreliable accounts).

Not to worry. You'll get to meet Him eventually...uh, perhaps you should worry if you continue in unbelief.

Mac ~ a good man, too!

I've met him many, many times over the last 2000 years in past lives & afterwards.

He personally even told me he wasn't 'the one & only begotten'!

But what a great Soul he is as he continues helping those ~ like takeitslow ~ find their (any?) way home eventually life after life:>)

You skeptics can be funny sometimes .... hey, you have one life to think and yell as you wish. But let me solemnly warn you: Hell is no joke! (keep that in mind).

As for the genuine seekers, please know that God is using all modern means to reach out to people and letting some people experience certain supernatural events so others may see and hear --- that means God really (really) wants you in heaven and wish for you to get there HIS WAY (not Oprah's idea of millions of ways to God --- do not be deceived).

Any Muslim? Youtube: Jesus saves a dying Muslim.

There is no evidence for the divinity of Jesus beyond the ad hoc claims of the Gospels.
-ZH

Other than the witness of the Holy Spirit...which the genunine Christian knows and has experienced...and the unbeliever is incapable of knowing...
-Mac

So you mean to say that there is this secret, Christians-only experience that magically occurs when you believe in Jesus, and it validates all of the irrational claims of this religion. Funny how I never got that during my Christian days... must not have been a "true believer," huh? This is just another undetectible, undescribable, piece of conveniently contrived supernatural "proof".

So you say. But, isn't that YOUR truth claim...that the Bible is untrue? Why should anyone believe you? You can't prove your truth claims. All you can do is question and deny God's truth; you can't invalidate it. I'll go with God on that, thank you.

My claim is that the Bible does not allow itself to be evaluated as true or untrue. Personally, the Bible or any other group of unverifiable claims doesn't mean that much to me, at least as far as "truth" goes. Hell, Dianetics might be "true" for all anyone knows. I approach a reading of the Bible like I do Rumi or Plotinus- primarily for the enjoyment of the experience. If there are ideas that I like or find reasonable, I will adopt them, and if there are ideas that I don't, I will reject them.

All I can do is deny "God's truth"? That's laughable- you can't establish that truth to begin with. You just assume that it exists, and, poof, there it is, simply because you think it to be there. You accurately observe that I cannot invalidate Christianity's claims, or in a broader sense those of any religion. To me, that is the hallmark of a useless proposition. If I cannot tell whether a set of claims is true or false, what good are they to me? What a feeble defense to fall back on- "you can't falsify my claims". Well, you can't falsify the belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Pirates, Beer Volcanoes, and Strippers. You say, "I'll go with God." That is a preference, manifested in faith, though one with no grounding in fact. I have no problem with you believing and practicing what you want, but I do have a problem with you trying to convince others that a book full of fairy tales as if it contains some sort of infallable fact while refusing to produce any proof.

"You skeptics can be funny sometimes..."

:>)

The Journey of Souls

#155 | Posted by silver_ironist at 2008-12-30 12:08 PM |

SI,

Your post reminds me of another Kabir poem I like:

Are you looking for me? I am in the next seat.
My shoulder is against yours.
You will not find me in the stupas, not in Indian shrine rooms,
Nor in synagogues, nor in cathedrals
Not in Masses, nor Kirtans, not in legs winding around your own neck,
nor in eating nothing but vegetables.
When you really look for me, you will see me instantly
You will find me in the tiniest house of time.
Kabir says: Student, tell me, what is God?
He is the breath inside the breath.

translated by Stephen A. Mitchell, "The Enlightened Heart"

I think one can find God in stupas and cathedrals, etc., but not everyone who goes there does find him and you don't have to go there to find him. Or to have "him" find you.

PAX

Hell is no joke! (keep that in mind).
-Takitez

Not this crap again... Prove it, if you must. At least the youtube videos are marginally entertaining.

Any Muslim? Youtube: Jesus saves a dying Muslim.
-Takitez

He had shingles. "...two doctors walked in and started talking back and forth... his Indian system is not fighting back..." But Jesus sure put the fight back in him.

Wow. Allahu akbar! Does that piss you off, Takitez? How about this one: Hail Xenu!

Zombie (and Bani), no I'm not offended by your 'exercised' response at all.

Sure I have more: choose (youtube) one of them: Dr. Maurice Rawlings, Dr. Donald Whitaker (a friend of Ringo Starr), or Mickey Robinson.

BANI

I was on another thread debating with a war hungry Orange County Republican partisan regarding our involvement in Iraq, a subject that doesn't appeal to my better nature. Pop on this thread, read your link, and am reminded what life's all about in the big picture of things ....

Peace and headbands

:-)

For believer or atheist, I recommend Misquoting Jesus to anyone with an interest in where this ancient anthology that has helped shape our culture came from.

Bani,

I have the book but haven't read it yet. I have read the book Erhman co-authored on the Gospel of Judas though and listened to a tape of his debunking the Da Vinci Code. I think he is an interesting Biblical scholar.

And I love Kabir, Gal ~ the Hindu poet-mystic in the 15th century.

He sure was hounded for his spirituality by the Muslim & Hindu followers because his poems/songs weren't kosher in his day either:>)

Qumran 7Q5-Gospel of Mark- before A.D. 68

Magdalene Papyrus--Gospel of Matthew--Circa A.D. 66

The interestig thing to note, of course, is that both documents existed within the life spans of the Apostles and others who knew Christ personally.

Hardly what I'd consider "proof," though some of the vids were entertaining.

N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (which usually goes by the name DMT) is probably one of the most thoroughly mind-fucking psychedelic substances known to man. Its onset is nearly instantaneous, and it produces immersive and profound experiences that frequently involve contact with "another," transport to otherworldly realms, or some form of communication with the divine.

It also happens to be produced by the pineal gland, and it is released in large quantities as death nears. Did Dr. Rawlings patients or any of these people who claim to have firsthand "knowledge" of hell actually have some undetectible, intangible soul taken for a Dante-ish journey through the underworld before they were resucitated? I can't disprove the notion. Were they under the influence of an unfathomably powerful psychedelic chemical known to be present in the brain and also known to facilitate the same sort of experiences? This is far more plausible. Occam.

"They (Gospels) were written long after any person who knew Jesus died..."

So, we can at least dispense with that one.

Some thoughts:

1. Science is an a posteriori method of modeling the universe created by beings that exist within that universe. The model can be updated and revised as new evidence presents itself. If predictions fail, premises need to be reevaluated. Science advances by incorporating the previously unexplainable into these models. Science never proves anything is true....it only rejects what must be false. The process will never be complete, and there are multiple overlapping possible models. (Godel's incompleteness theorem).

2. The deistic conception of God, i.e. one that is PURELY supernatural and exists beyond space and time is one that cannot be evaluated by science. Since obviously such a being by definition does not interact with the natural world, it produces no data with which to build theory, no means by which to test a hypothesis. Scientists cannot weigh in on this subject.

3. Some (most religions) however, claim that their God does interact with the natural world. In some cases these claims are falsifiable (not necessarily false). They thus become the purview of science.

4. Primitive religions put forth claims like, "the sun is a man on a chariot," or "Zeus lives on Mount. Olympus and is the source of lightening." These claims were falsifiable and ended up being rejected as we learned more about the world around us.

5. The argument from ignorance, i.e. "we don't know how it happens (yet), so therefore god must do it," is dangerous to the faithful. As scientific knowledge expands, the so-called god-of-the-gaps is relegated to an ever smaller sphere. To build a theory, you must do more than simply push the problem back a step.

6. Scientists currently have models of the universe that do not include miracles, resurrection, ghosts or anything of the sort. They do not include these items because there is not (yet) a need; the models work fine (predict) without them.

7. If the faithful wish to use science (instead of faith or revelation) as the basis for an argument for the existence of their god, the burden of proof is thus on them to a) find events/phenomena that cannot be explained by current models. b) propose a hypothesis (God exists and....) c). offer observable implications of that hypothesis so that scientists can evaluate it against other competing hypotheses....this last part is key.

8. Example: "we noticed that you scientists can't explain property X of black holes. We can explain it using Allah. Furthermore, here are the following predictions that are consistent with Allah being the cause but not consistent with Yahweh or Jesus or the Flying Spaghetti monster being the cause."

9. Divine revelation may be a source of knowledge, however it is a) not knowledge arrived at through deduction b)not knowledge arrived at through science and c) therefore cannot be evaluated using those two systems.

So, we can at least dispense with that one.

#256 | Posted by Zed

says who, Warren's disciples?

Bani,

Yeah:

Kabir did not classify himself as Hindu or Muslim, Sufi or Bhakta. The legends surrounding his lifetime attest to his strong aversion to established religions. From his poems, expressed in homely metaphors and religious symbols drawn indifferently from Hindu and Muslim belief, it is impossible to say of their author that he was Brhman or Sf, Vedntist or Vaishnavite. He is, as he says himself, "at once the child of Allah and of Rm."[14] In fact, Kabir always insisted on the concept of Koi bole Ram Ram Koi Khudai..., which means that someone may chant the Hindu name of God and someone may chant the Muslim name of God, but God is the one who made the whole world.

And I love Kabir, Gal ~ the Hindu poet-mystic in the 15th century.

He sure was hounded for his spirituality by the Muslim & Hindu followers because his poems/songs weren't kosher in his day either:>)

I would wager that's what makes his writings interesting, even centuries later, rather than being unoriginal and uninspiring. I've been googling more Kabir, and I've got an idea of one of the things I'll be using my Borders gift card to go out and get. I really like this guy- thanks for turning me on to him Gal+Bani.

"Therefore cannot be evaluated using those system..."

Is entirely correct and the source of most of the "sceintific" dispute in this thread.

Somebody learned to ride a bicycle and then sees the universe in terms of two wheels.

"Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father." John 6:63-65

So the way to The Way is through the Father. Odd. That contradicts what Jesus is supposed to have said.

Or is there really no such thing as free will?

PPaladin- thanks for going to the trouble to spell all of that out so nicely.

"Says who...?"

Whups. Just me being logical again. My idea is that if something existed while someone could have been alive that someone could have read it or even written it.

But, again being "scientific", I guess it's possible everyone who physically knew Christ died within thirty years or so following his death.

But didn't someone invoke Occam earlier? I thought they did.

I'm sorry---I don't understand you---I don't have a girlfriend, my wife would object.

#238 | Posted by Zed at 2008

Why is that Zed?

"Sceintists currently have models of the universe that include no miracles..."

Technically true. Physicists tend to use the term "singularity" to describe any event that does not appear to obey known laws.

Word games again? You bet.

On Kabir's death:

One popular legend of his death, which is even taught in schools in India (although in more of a moral context than a historical one), says that after his death his Muslim and Hindu devotees fought over his proper burial rites. The problem arose since Muslim custom called for the burial of their dead, whereas Hindus cremated their dead. The scene is depicted as two groups fighting around his coffin one claiming that Kabir was a Hindu, and the other claiming that Kabir was a Muslim. However, when they finally open Kabir's coffin, they found the body missing. Instead there was a small book in which the Hindus and Muslims wrote all his sayings that they could remember; some even say a bunch of his favourite flowers were placed. The legend goes on to state that the fighting was resolved, and both groups looked upon the miracle as an act of divine intervention. In Maghar, his tomb or Dargah and Samādhi Mandir still stand side by side.[15]

imagine that, John Lennon!

good thing the bible hasn't been updated with Rumi & Kabir poems ~ peace might break out!

Zombie,

I don't own any of Kabir's books, but I have several anthologies by Robert Bly that contain his work. Stephen Mitchell is thought to be a good translator of many poets, including Kabir. Another poet that I like is Hafiz:

"Stop Being so Religious

What
Do sad people have in
Common?

It seems
They have all built a shrine
To the past
And often go there
And do a strange wail and
Worship.

What is the beginning of
Happiness?

It is to stop being
So religious
Like That."

translated by Daniel Ladinsky

Physicists tend to use the term "singularity" to describe any event that does not appear to obey known laws.

Word games again? You bet.

#266 | Posted by Zed at 2008-12-30 11:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are you trying to sound like an idiot, or does it just work out that way?

But didn't someone invoke Occam earlier? I thought they did.

#264 | Posted by Zed at 2008-12-30 11:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Right. And the general rule of Occam's Razor would suggest that Jesus body rose physically from death...

???

"I couldn't care less if a blind follower of religous dogma doesn't think I'm objective...."

1) Five bucks says you eat your liver because of it.

2) I haven't seen a "blind follower" in a long time. It's always nice to think the opposition isn't as educated and smart as you are, or that they're too cowardly to take on hard questions.

You'll get over most of this with age, I think.

PPaladin's statements here echo those of Stephen Jay Gould, who conceived of science and religion as two non-overlapping "magisteria" whose claims to truth and methods of arriving at truth could not be compared. The boundary between the two is still something that will be argued, especially by fools who resist the waning authority of their aforementioned god-of-the-gaps. That is not especially concerning, as the facts provided by science are not subject to debate, only denial, and those who deny fact are inevitably swept aside by the progress of humanity.

Unfortunately, science and religion are not carbon copies of one another. Scientific claims can be compared and contradictions can be resolved. No analagous process exists for religious claims. Religions leave us with arbitrary and indefensible claims of superiority and exclusive validity- these claims are made by many religions and are all mutually exclusive. There is no way to reconcile these differences. Takitez can make dire warnings of hellfire to non-christians all day, and the hindu guy who used to live in my dorm would say that Takitez' narrow-mindedness will reflect poorly when his soul is reborn. Nothing changes.

The Resurrection of Christ was a singularity, BETELG---The physicists have me covered,

"What
Do sad people have in
Common?

"It seems
They have all built a shrine
To the past
And often go there
And do a strange wail and
Worship."

was at an Ethopian wailing funeral once a few years back as one few outsiders allow to attend ~ Hafiz nails the scene there!

Technically true. Physicists tend to use the term "singularity" to describe any event that does not appear to obey known laws.

Word games again? You bet.

The operative term there is "known laws." We do not yet understand it (we may never understand it). Physicists certainly haven't given up on the subject.

Miracle: "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs."

You are certainly free to offer up the hypothesis that singularities are indeed miracles. You just have to offer a way to evaluate this hypotheses against competing hypotheses, some of which will not invoke divine intervention. Otherwise you are back to the god-of-the-gaps.

If not...it's just faith and there is nothing wrong with that. Kierkegaard has some nice writing on the subject.

"The facts provided by sceince are not subject to debate..."

Only if you have absolutely no respect for science at all. If this were football, you'd be penalized half the distance to goal.

I haven't seen a "blind follower" in a long time. It's always nice to think the opposition isn't as educated and smart as you are, or that they're too cowardly to take on hard questions.

I don't need to merely "think" that some people blindly lap up the dogma laid at their feet. Others provide the necessary proof every day.

So you mean to say that there is this secret, Christians-only experience that magically occurs when you believe in Jesus, and it validates all of the irrational claims of this religion. Funny how I never got that during my Christian days... must not have been a "true believer," huh? This is just another undetectible, undescribable, piece of conveniently contrived supernatural "proof".

#246 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2008-12-30 10:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Dude. This guy seriously openly believes that only Christians who believe EXACTLY the way he does are the "real" Christians. He can also quote as much Scripture to back his beliefs as Christians who believe otherwise can quote. He somehow believes that his quoting of Scripture is magically more important then THEIR quoting of Scripture.

Yes, that means he offers exactly equal "proof" to that of a clinic bomber, but is incapable of realizing that each offer the same amount of "proof". And you think you're going to get him to think rationally about Christianity in general, when he can't even see past his own nose far enough to realize THAT basic fact? He doesn't argue from a normal believer's viewpoint at all, he argues from some demented position that he is correct, and nothing the Bible says can possibly be open to interpretation.

You're essentially arguing with someone who does not have a properly functioning brain. What are you expecting to accomplish?

"We may never understand it..."

Yes....And we may never understand miracles. Your point?

"Some people blindly lap up..."

Really? And what's "blind" here? That someone disagrees with you? LOL. Gee, I guess it's just too damned bad I can never articulate a viewpoint.

So the way to The Way is through the Father. Odd. That contradicts what Jesus is supposed to have said.

Or is there really no such thing as free will?

Yav,

There are lots of contradictions in the Bible. Some might call them paradoxes. "No one comes to the Father, but by Me." Personally, I translate that to mean that Jesus, the Prince of Peace, is love incarnate, and that no one comes to the Father but through love. "We love, because he first loved us." Or as Islam says, "Allah calls to him whom he wills." (Something like that.) The catch is, I think, that God wills us all.

"If God
Invited you to a party
And said,

"Everyone
In the ballroom tonight
Will be my special
Guest,"

How would you treat them
When you
Arrived?

Indeed, indeed!

And Hafiz knows
There is no one in this world

Who
Is not upon
His Jeweled Dance
Floor."

~ Hafiz ~ trans. by Ladinsky

Yes....And we may never understand miracles. Your point?

#280 | Posted by Zed

aren't they great!

"A miracle is a changed consciousness"

said somebody...

And feel free to get your panties in a wad over my statement if you want. Not only is your brain not functioning properly, but you are a heretic to your own God as well. There are several different translations of the Bible. There are several different ways to interpret all of it. God gave people free will so that they can learn form each other. If you truly believe that your type of Christian is the only "real" type of Christian, then you are not worshiping and having a personal relationship with God.

You are worshiping your CHURCH, and having a personal relationship with IT'S PASTOR. Somehow I think if it all comes down that the Christian God _is_ the real one, I think he's going to be a lot more lenient on the Atheist who lives his life in a good manner then he is on the people who try to speak FOR God.

"The facts provided by sceince are not subject to debate..."

Only if you have absolutely no respect for science at all.

You are likely confused on what, in the scientific sense of the term, fact actually is. Measurement techniques can be refined, and theories can be amended to better reflect reality, but fact is indisputible. Scientists can add to the precision with which the charge of the electron is measured, for example, but that does not change the fact that, at the energies that we commonly encounter, there is a particle with the charge, mass, spin, magnetic moment, and other properties of the electron. Wave-like and particle-like behavior of electrons are facts, as well. The theories that explain these behaviors can always be improved upon, but that does not change the facts.

"Fact is indisputable...."

I'd agree with that, existentially at least. Now, do you agree there's more than the scientific method useful in obtaining facts?

I'm going to bed. But the next time I see you I'll tell you of facts that are and have been debated. Yes, there is an existential reality. But you and I just describe it, we don't know it.

The Resurrection of Christ was a singularity, BETELG---The physicists have me covered,

#274 | Posted by Zed at 2008-12-31 12:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

If you had even the most transient idea of what you were talking about it would be easier to take you seriously.

Really? And what's "blind" here? That someone disagrees with you?

Hardly. People are blind when they apply the assumptions of religion to matters that can be investigated by science or when they defend claims of a religion's exclusive validity despite the impossibility of supporting these claims.

Yes....And we may never understand miracles. Your point?

I thought we were taking about what science can and can't accomplish.

My point is that "we do not currently understand something" is not per se an argument for the existence of god. If you want to use SCIENCE to argue for his (?) existence, you need to also offer testable implications.

Of course, you could try deductive logic (e.g. ontological argument) or some other form of argument instead.

Takit-
re: A South American youth was shown heaven and hell. He saw John Lennon in hell --- Lennon was looking intensely at Jesus and finally begged to be released from hell. Jesus did not respond, so later Lennon began to curse Jesus in anger. He saw a grandmother too who in her earthly life simply went through religious motion and worshipped all those idols/images South American Catholics revere....

You are a lunatic.

...9. Divine revelation may be a source of knowledge, however it is a) not knowledge arrived at through deduction b)not knowledge arrived at through science and c) therefore cannot be evaluated using those two systems.

#257 | Posted by ppaladin123

Ta fer that entire postage. It solidified some concepts fer Spud that were previously unexpressable.

Flagged it "newsworthy" just cos.

And we may never understand miracles.

~Zed.

Fergit miracles fer a sec can anyone explain to Spud wot the fuck Miracle Whip is?

Is it Mayonaisse or not?

Did God invent it?

To wot end?

Spud simply can't wrap his wee head around the concept.

Be Well.

"The Resurrection of Christ was a singularity, BETELG---The physicists have me covered"
-Zed

Zed, I have to praise your innovation here, but you honestly have no idea what you're talking about. The physicists have you covered in ridicule. Do you have the faintest idea what a singularity actually is? I thought actually trying to explain it to you, but why bother? You are not the type of person who recognizes or accepts fact when it is presented.

"Fact is indisputable...."
-Me

I'd agree with that, existentially at least. Now, do you agree there's more than the scientific method useful in obtaining facts?
-Zed

Absolutely not.

Fact is indisputable...."
-Me

I'd agree with that, existentially at least. Now, do you agree there's more than the scientific method useful in obtaining facts?
-Zed

Absolutely not.

Well that is the problem with "divine revelation," as an attempt to prove the existence of god. There is no way for those who do not already believe to evaluate the claim because there are no agreed upon criteria as in the use of science or logic. If the blessed begin the make specific predictions then scientists can get to work.

It took me a while, but I finally fond one of my favorite Sufi poems:

"O my Lord,

if I worship you
from fear of hell, burn me in hell.

If I worship you
from hope of Paradise, bar me from its gates.

But if I worship you
for yourself alone, grant me then the beauty of your Face."

Rabia, an early Sufi from Iraq and one the better known women Sufi poets.

You're essentially arguing with someone who does not have a properly functioning brain. What are you expecting to accomplish?
-Soheifox

I was hoping to be exposed to an intelligent argument on claims of Christian superiority. I found an argument.

aren't they great!

"A miracle is a changed consciousness"

said somebody...

:-)

Gal,

That's elegantly simple.

(The Rabia poem)

I was hoping to be exposed to an intelligent argument on claims of Christian superiority. I found an argument.

Zombie Hunter,

Yav,

As you can see I'm pretty "fond" of it. ;-)

O my Lord,

If I worship you
from fear of hell, burn me in hell.

If I worship you
from hope of Paradise, bar me from its gates.

But if I worship you
for yourself alone, grant me then the beauty of your Face."

Rabia, an early Sufi from Iraq and one the better known women Sufi poets.

Damn, that some beautiful stuff, Gal.

Spud luffs this place!

Be Well.

Time is the school in which we learn,
Time is the fire in which we burn.

And feel free to get your panties in a wad over my statement if you want. Not only is your brain not functioning properly, but you are a heretic to your own God as well. There are several different translations of the Bible. There are several different ways to interpret all of it. God gave people free will so that they can learn form each other. If you truly believe that your type of Christian is the only "real" type of Christian, then you are not worshiping and having a personal relationship with God.

You are worshiping your CHURCH, and having a personal relationship with IT'S PASTOR. Somehow I think if it all comes down that the Christian God _is_ the real one, I think he's going to be a lot more lenient on the Atheist who lives his life in a good manner then he is on the people who try to speak FOR God.

#284 | Posted by soheifox at 2008-12-31 12:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

You're quite a piece of work...reading what you will into my posts and analyzing my heart and life from your contrived internet tea leaves. I present the Scriptures in the hope that God may speak to you and others. I submit them for your consideration. I'm not responsible to obtain this result or that. The Bible is God's revelation of Himself to man. You are free to reject it; most do.

"13"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matthew 7:13-14

As for your thought that God "is going to be a lot more lenient on the Atheist who lives his life in a good manner then he is on the people who try to speak FOR God..."

" The fool has said in his heart,

"There is no God."

They are corrupt,

They have done abominable works,

There is none who does good.

2 The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men,

To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.

3 They have all turned aside,

They have together become corrupt;

There is none who does good,

No, not one." Psalm 14:1-3

So, if there are any "panties in a wad," they would be yours...based on your vitriolic posts.

I've already had "singularity" explained to me, ZOMBIE, by physicists. If you want to give your definition I can give your theirs and the bunch of you can fight.

"We do not currently understand something is not an argument for God...."

Of course not. The point is it's not an argument for science. "We're working on it", or "We'll get to it", are just placeholding statements. Things you tell your wife when you haven't taken out the trash, or don't want to.

"Science", the way you gentlemen tend to describe it, is a paranoid system that really has all the answers to everything either now or in the future. Something you complain religion asserts.

If you think science really will understand everything at some point, that's an act of pure faith. Faith is something else you complain about.

One time atheist, C. S. Lewis, offered a classic response to Hume's arguments against miracles:

"Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely uniform experience' against miracles, if in other words they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle."[1]

It could be that what we call miracles are the result of our limited perspective, of our "seeing through a glass darkly." It could be that in the grand scheme of things they aren't miracles at all, but that doesn't make them any less miraculous from our perspective. As someone already quoted: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Or, according to M Theory, there are multiple universes in which, one might surmise, the seemingly miraculous might be mundane.

Corky,

Yes, or even universes where what is mundane here is seen as miraculous there.

Or, according to M Theory, there are multiple universes in which, one might surmise, the seemingly miraculous might be mundane.
#310 | Posted by Corky

I think that's what some are arguing is going on in this 'brane. All miracles are actually mundanities shrouded by factual and/or scientific ignorance.

lol Gal

That might be even more interesting. What might they think of a being that blows gas out of both ends?

-going on in this 'brane

Excellent PBS Nova on Mars last night, btw.

They found a particularly noxious to life chemical in Martian soil, but..... there is a scientist who grows a bacteria in his lab that thrives on the substance.

One wonders what kind of being that bacteria might evolve into.

"Excellent PBS Nova on Mars last night, btw."

Already on my DVR.

Already on my DVR.

Same here, and thanks for the review Corky. I'm looking forward to watching it!

Welcome, YAV

and Happy New Year to all.

"That, (writing down what he spoke at the time of his speaking) wasn't a 1st century practice. John and Matthew walked with Him for the three years of His public ministry. Mark and Luke wrote from the accounts of eye (and ear) witnesses. If you don't accept that the Scriptures are inspired by God (God breathed) and that these men were led by the Holy Spirit in recording the words Jesus spoke, then I can see why you find it difficult to rely on them." -- Macv1972

The essence of my post was that I did not believe that the Bible should be taken literally. You have provided a reason why they _could_ be, but not one why they _should_ be.

It's not that I find it difficult to rely on them, it's that I believe they have meaning beyond the literal interpretation and that meaning is the more important of the two, by far.

"Other than the witness of the Holy Spirit...which the genunine Christian knows and has experienced...and the unbeliever is incapable of knowing..." -- Macv1972

An example of circular logic. Also one of "exclusive knowledge". Neither is proof of anything to the impartial observer.

The biggest problem I, as a Christian, have with literal interpretation of the Bible are those two issues which are intrinsic in every "position" provided by its espousers. Note how in your initial response to my post you kept quoting Scripture. That is unequivocally saying that you are right because, well, you are right. Not impressive.

"Of course, I've had people argue that even if the events of the Bible are proven true that proves nothing about God" -- Zed

Given that "miracles" can't be proven this long after the event(s), I would argue that position myself. The Bible is a series of allegorical tales based in real world settings. Sometimes those settings reflect actual events, sometimes they don't. But they are intended as a guide to living a life per God's wishes, not as a compendium of proofs of God's existence.

"Scientists currently have models of the universe that do not include miracles, resurrection, ghosts or anything of the sort. They do not include these items because there is not (yet) a need; the models work fine (predict) without them." -- Ppaladin

However, that does not mean they don't exist. Merely that science does not see a need for them.

"My point is that "we do not currently understand something" is not per se an argument for the existence of god." -- Ppaladin

I agree. However, it is an argument against the claim that God does _not_ exist, which is how I (and others) use it.

Now, do you agree there's more than the scientific method useful in obtaining facts?
-Zed
Absolutely not. Zombie

I have the impression that theories are usually created through inductive or deductive logic, then established or disproved using science. So I think I might disagree with both of you. (I love doing that)

"Other than the witness of the Holy Spirit...which the genunine Christian knows and has experienced...and the unbeliever is incapable of knowing..." -- Macv1972

An example of circular logic. Also one of "exclusive knowledge". Neither is proof of anything to the impartial observer.

The biggest problem I, as a Christian, have with literal interpretation of the Bible are those two issues which are intrinsic in every "position" provided by its espousers. Note how in your initial response to my post you kept quoting Scripture. That is unequivocally saying that you are right because, well, you are right. Not impressive.

#319 | Posted by fyi at 2008-12-31 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let's approach this from a different angle.

How do you (you personally) know that you are a Christian?