Topic awaiting preservation: Here we Go again

Yet again there are christian groups attacking childrens cartoons. Their most recent target the annoying little yellow sponge that everybody loves: Spongebob Squarepants, along with a second round at that abominable purple dinosaur: Barney. (I AM NOT ATTACKING ALL CHRISTIANS NOR AM I TRUELY TRYING TO ATTACK ANY RELIGION MERELY POINTING SOMETHING OUT).

I got this off of the news on UPN 23 this morning. From what I heard what they are saying is this:
The latest spongebob movie/cartoon has content that can be interpreted as having material suggesting acceptance of a gay life style, therefore spongebob is gay. I guess this is the same thing they're saying about Barney.

THIS IS ABSURD! Anything can be interpreted so that it has content suggesting that. Besides if somebody wants to be gay, let them. Leave them alone. That's what they want, to be left alone to live out their lives in what they decided would make them happy. If they want to have a same-sex partnership fine. As long as they don't try to force anybody else to be gay. And as far as media making kids gay. That is absurd to. Yes the media does influence people of ALL ages. But ultimately the individual has the choice. If a kid plays a James Bond game and can't tell the differance between the game and what is acceptable in real life, it isn't the games fault. It is the fault of the child and of the parent. The child for being so stupid and the parent for not doing it's job of knowing what the child is playing, making sure he or she understands the differance between the game and reality. These kids that commit violent crimes and blame it on video games and movies are more often than not using them as scapegoats because they can't face up to the fact that THEY MADE THE DECISION to do what they did. There wasn't any telepathic brainwave coming through the television that brain controlled Billy an told him to shoot Sally. The gaming console didn't sprout limbs and force a gun into Billy's hand and them make him pull the trigger, nor did Pierce Brosnan jump out of the DVD player and do any of that. There are ratings on those things for a reason. But I digress, do you think Spongebob is gay? Are these extremists out of line?

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

Extremists are rarely in-line.

Your right about that. I just get tired of people that are constantly doing that sort of thing. Especially the ones that do it just for the publicity.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

These are the same people trying to get Evolution out of the classroom, and sex education as well.

Such people are rarely rational.

This thread could so easily parallel the stickers thread.

I have to admit that I think children's television has gone downhill for years - there is certainly a case to answer regarding the quality of some children's programmes...

...but that's just a little ridiculous, isn't it?

I used to love reading Sherlock Holmes as a kid. I suppose I'm lucky that I turned out 'straight', having been exposed to literature depicting what so easily could be interpreted as a gay relationship between an opium-addicted detective and a doctor.

Frankly, in light of this revelation, I'm surprised I don't wear a deerstalker and smoke unrefined opiates in a clay pipe, while playing the violin badly!

quote:

---

White Hawk said:
I suppose I'm lucky that I turned out 'straight', having been exposed to literature depicting what so easily could be interpreted as a gay relationship between an opium-addicted detective and a doctor.

---

I agree with everything you wrote there, Sangreal. Over here in England we got this, don't know if you heard about it, but some people seem to be blaming a game for this.

quote:

---

If games like this influence kids, they should be taken off the shelves.

---

No, he shouldn't kill someone after playing a video game.
If someone is that mentally unhinged, they shouldn't be playing these games. You can't blame real, brutal murder on a virtual representation of it.

Here's the bonehead himself. http://www.family.org/

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

sex education as well

---

Out, or changed? I agree that it should be changed, like it is being changed now, but it shouldn't be ousted. That's just stupid.

You are right WH. But they did effect you subconciously. They may not have effected you to the point of wanting to do opium, but you now associate opium with Sherlock Holmes. That is sometimes enough for some people, especially little children.

quote:

---

AlterEgo said:

If someone is that mentally unhinged, they shouldn't be playing these games. You
can't blame real, brutal murder on a virtual representation of it.

---

You are right, but you can blame the desensitization of young people's minds on it.

Ehtheist, did you read Dr. Dobsin's refutation article on the page you posted? He states that he does not have anything against Spongebob, but against the company that used him. That company was not just gay-tolerant, but pro-gay. He said in a conference that he had concerns about this video, and probably named a few of the cartoon characters in it. A reporter centered on one, then the news media got a hold of it. It is an interesting article.
[disclaimer]
I want to point out that I do not agree with Dr. Dobsin, and I think that he is too idealistic, and not realistic enough. The point I am trying to make is that this is another good example of the media blowing things out of proportion, again
[/disclaimer]

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

That company was not just gay-tolerant, but pro-gay.

---

Quibbling Gid, pure and simple quibbling. The point is, he is a bigot. It is not that he is pointing his ridiculous finger at a cartoon character, but that he is singling out individuals for hatred and reviling.

This is contrary to all human rights profiles.

Now, I appreciate this is a time-honoured xian practice, but that don't make it right!

BTW I am both gay-tolerant and pro-gay. You write those words as though there were somehting worn with that.

Another interesting spin the xian right has come up with, they have declared words like "tolerance" anathema as they promote acceptance of gays.

Apalling ignorance.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

Apalling ignorance

---

On that, I can agree.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

he is singling out individuals for hatred and reviling.

---

Whoah! Now where did that come from? I never heard of hate in the Bible, except towards evil. Men are not evil, but are tempted by it. My stance (and possibly Dr. Dobsin's stance too, though I am just guessing) is to love the homosexual, but hate the homosexuality. I think I have said this before. The act is evil, not the person.

Jesus loved all the world, that is why He died for it. I love this verse, becuase it helped me in an area. It was pointed out to me by Sy Rogers, an ex-homosexual (I guess you could call it). I like it.

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

---

(emphasis mine)

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Gideon, Gideon, Gideon! Such faulty logic...but then one must remember religon and logic have nothing in common.

Love the homosexual, hate the hosexuality?

Typical xian excuse for rationale.

It is nothing less than an attempt to try to show tolerance while expressing hatred. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Like inhaling and exhaling they cannot be seperated.

Nor should they be. There is nothing to hate in homosexuality, but a great deal of hate is expressed about it by that particular sect called xianity.

Fortunately, there are relatively few xians, unfortunately they are voluable, who have such narrow and biased views. Views which seem to me to be diametrically opposite to those espoused by their supposed saviour.

But you all manage to convice yourselves your personal interpretation of that book of myths allows you to perpetrate the most heinous expression of vile hatred with complete impunity.

Seems pretty desperate to me to be so insecure in your faith as to have to constantly defend it.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Umm...Ehtheist has some good points here..and some that are not so good...
Good one:
People I have met with hugely intolerant views normally say that they are christians (i am not saying all christians just a vast majority) and say that they follow christian 'doctrine' or teachings whatever you want to call them. Then when you look at non-christian peoples there are a good amount of them that have views that are more 'christlike' than christians.

Not so good one:
Some christians continually defend their faith because they are continually being attacked for it by people who say they have an open mind or say that the christian person should be more open minded. (Which whether you mean to or not it sounds like you are doing this not just in this thread but in others as well...not to say that the other side is innocent of the same 'injustice')

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

Well, I see groups of Xians so : There are those, who are willing to follow their belief, etc and keep it to themselves for themselves.

And then there are those, who feel compelled to impose their belief on others be it verbally or through laws, etc.

It is the second group that I feel is necessary to keep an eye on, and fight. The first group normally doesn't bother me, even though I may not agree with what they believe - they are not bothering others, nor are they forcing their beliefs upon others.

The act of trying to force beliefs on another is an attack in and of itself. And forceful conversion is an act of violence, IMHO.

Sang WS pretty much sums it up (are you sure we aren't related WS?).

As I believe I pointed out on one of these threads, I am a live and let-live sort of fella.

But when anyone like Gid raises their head out of the promordial slime (which they don't believe in) and tries to tell me or others their way is the ONLY way. Then it is time to don the figurative gauntlets.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Ehtheist-
So are you saying that loving a person, but despising what that person does is wrong? That is what I am saying. That is what Jesus is saying. He died for people that were doing things He thought were dispicable: rape, murder, prostitution, etc. Sacrificial death for a friend is the highest love that one person can show for another. And even since some don't believe that Jesus' death did anything, He still died for us. That is love. While we were still in our sinful selves, fornicating, robbing, murdering, lying, mastubating, stealing, slandering, all the things Jesus hates, He died for us.

Your analogy is wrong. I am sure that you are gulity of this very act you are condemning too. Do you agree with everything your parents or siblings do? But do you still love them? Same feeling.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Love the homosexual, hate the hosexuality?

---

It is like loving the Communist and hating the Communism. I love the person, but do not like what that person does. Is that so hard to grasp?

Even if you believe there is nothing to hate in homosexuality, that does not mean others share your same belief. You need to remember that before you go making statements like that. I know I am guilty of it, and I am trying to work on it, but that still does not mean that it is right. (Huh, do you know that you just did what you accuse xians of doing? Huh.)

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

But you all manage to convice yourselves your personal interpretation
of that
book of myths allows you to perpetrate the most heinous expression of vile
hatred with complete impunity.

---

Well, if hating evil and loving good are heinous expressions, then I am guilty.

[quick comment]You are right Sangreal, 100%[/quick comment]

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

The act of trying to force beliefs on another is an attack in and of itself.

---

So would you label teaching only Evolution in the class room a forcing of beliefs on a child WS? You see, the comment goes both ways. For Christians and non-Christians. It would be nice if both could lay off for a while, but the contest for who is right goes on like the contest between two little kids. When will we ever learn?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

*sigh*

quote:

---

So would you label teaching only Evolution in the class room a forcing of beliefs on a child WS?

---

Evolution is a fact you moron! Get that through your thick skull. The process of evolution is what is in the theory stage. So, no, it is not forcing beliefs on anyone, anymore than E=MC^2 is!

Idiot.

Teaching children facts that we know about reality is part of learning. Belief is a totally different subject, altogether. Facts are universal, beliefs are personal.

Evolution is not the same as Belief., just as a fact is not the same as a belief.

But we have already proven that, time and time again, and shown for all to see (well, except yourself - I guess some kinds of blindness have no cure) . It is your belief that prevents you from accepting the fact - well, that is your problem. It won't change the fact, however. Just like the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a fact. Not accepting that it is a fact will not change it.

That is why Philosophy is not taught in the same course as Geology, Physics (though some might disagree here with quantum mechanics and Chaos Theory...hehe), Mathematics, Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, etc.

I'll give you some concrete examples.

Evolution has not been the basis for launching any wars (nor can it really be - it just states a fact), nor for killing people in masses. In fact, none of the Sciences has been the basis for starting a war, or the slaughter of huge masses of humans.

Belief has been responsible for the deaths of huge amounts of humans, wars, atrocities, etc. This is becasue Beliefs have little to do with fact. Since they cannot be proven, one way or the other, that leaves them open to be attacked by other Beliefs that are contrary. It is in this structure, that one finds the seed of the problem. And thus, since there are those who feel that they must impose their beliefs on others, and there are those who resist this, it often comes to bloodshed.

You will note that those who accept the fact of Evolution are not gathering up arms, are not asking that YECs be somehow banished from the US, or from existence, or have their Beliefs outlawed (and are also not threatening anyone with "you are going to de-evolve into Primordial Soup!" or somesuch nonsense). Some who accept the fact of Evolution have indeed united it with their Belief. In fact, irregardless of what one believes, it doesn't make the fact go away. All that those who accept the fact of Evolution are saying, is that as with all Scientific Disciplines, it is necessary to teach it so that the children have a sound basis in Science, in fact - any conclusions that lead to a belief are purely individual and personal in nature and have nothing to do with the fact of Evolution, nor the teaching of it. That there are some Beliefs that have been soundly disproven through Evolution is not the fault of Evolution, or the fact - it is the fault of the Belief (just like the belief in a flat earth, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary).

Since YEC cannot establish itself as a fact (because it is based on Belief, and lacks evidence, and doesn't stand up under scientific analysis), it has no place in public school. There are enough private schools and religious schools that teach such. If the parents in question wish that their children be educated with such, they have a clear choice.

However, those who don't accept the fact because it conflicts with their Belief, are prepared to wage war and attack the position of Evolution. Note that they can't do this on a factual basis (because they can't - otherwise, the Scientific Community would have already done so) - so they resort to political means to attempt to force their beliefs on others. They ARE NOT CONTENT TO LET A FACT BE A FACT!, but want (and not only want, but feel through their Belief, that they are in the right to do so) to force their beliefs on others, IRREGARDLESS! When that fails, they resort to violence.

We see examples of this all over the world - the Middle East is a prime example of this kind of schooling. We also see where it can lead to. We have a long history of examples, and what they can lead to, both with christian examples, and others.

quote:

---

you see, the comment goes both ways. For Christians and non-Christians. It would be nice if both could lay off for a while, but the contest for who is right goes on like the contest between two little kids. When will we ever learn?

---

There is no contest who is right - a fact is a fact. Evolution is right, because it is a fact. Belief has no factual basis here, so loses to Evolution. This does not mean that the Christian Belief is wrong - it means that the YEC Belief is wrong! There are a many Christians that have no trouble accepting the fact of Evolution and still practicing their Belief. The same goes for many non-Christians. So, it is not all Christians that are causing the problem here - it is a relatively minor group that are radical in the nature of their Belief that is causing the problem - YECs. And it is not just groups of radical Christians that suffer from this, but also radical groups of other religions, as well.

So yes, the comment does go both ways, and it is nice to see you finally agreeing for once. Both radical Christian groups and non-Christian groups who do not accept the fact of Evolution do need to lay off fighting with each other (and against the fact of Evolution) like little kids, and finally accept the fact.

So, when will you ever learn? That is what we (those who accept Evolution as a fact) are waiting for.

Let us remember too it is xians who bomb abortion clinics killing and maiming people. It is xians who shoot doctors who, among their other skills, perform abortions.

It is xians who demand children from rape or incest, who may well be born badly handicapped, be brought to term. It is xians who demand a woman carry through an unwanted pregnancy despite the fact to do so may threaten her health or put a burden upon her which would result in the child either being abused or under-nourished among other dismal possibilities.

It is NOT xians who are there with support, financial and otherwise, for these poor women and their children.

On another note Gid, why is there no historical record of this chap xist? We have detailed records of the life and times of the Romans 2000 years back, yet there is no mention of this fella the bible makes such a fuss about.

I doubt he actually existed, I think the whole thing is a concocted story aimed at getting people to adhere to certain beliefs which somhow benefitted the fellas concocting the yarn.

This make you a sucker.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

I doubt he actually existed, I think the whole thing is a concocted story aimed at getting people to adhere to certain beliefs which somhow benefitted the fellas concocting the yarn.

---

Again I must say that this glosses far too quickly over the deeper issues at hand.

For starters, there is as much evidence for Jesus' existence as can be expected for a jewish prophet of the time.

We have detailed records of important romans of the time. How many detailed accounts do we have of individual jews of the time? Not many.

Why? Because, quite frankly, nobody really cared. The romans provide the majority of our knowledge of the time period, and they didn't record much of the Jews' activities. They certainly wouldn't be overly concerned with documenting the life of yet another jewish prophet declaring the coming of their lord yet again.

It was old hat.

Except that Jesus *did* manage to make a difference, and make an impact.

The stories of his "miracles" and the accounts of the gospels are undoubtedly riddled with myth and legend for the sake of perpetuating the grandeur and establishing the "divinity" of the man, but there is no cause to doubt the existence of Jesus.

It is also important to note that, although his name and legend were used to establish control and further political aims later on, his own professed views at the time were quite radical, and radical in a way far different from those in the jewish community looking for armed rebellion against the romans.

I think that this significant difference in approaches is enough in itself to say that jesus was real. His original teachings are not prone to the abuse that later christian doctrine (primarily those by Paul, and later his catholic heirarchial protoges) were riddled with.

It is most interesting to me how unchristian many of these early christian writings are.

What in the 'revelation' is even the slightest bit gruonded in the teachings of Jesus? What in Paul's writings is based in the actual teachings of Jesus?

Not much, from my what I have read. In both cases, we have someone claiming to have these things revealed to them by Jesus himself....well after Jesus' death. But aside from this meritless claim, what is there to connect the writings to Jesus?

Nothing.

This differentiation is also enough on its own to set aside doubt in the existence of Jesus as a person.

The real doubt lays in the later abuse of his name.

Sometimes simple answers are the right one.

Why try to complicate the issue?

To rely on the bible as the only source of in formation for this so-called messiah is foolish in the extreme as the document is so badly flawed.

One cannot accept one source of highly questionable authenticity for proof.

If he was such a gadfly to the romans, Jew or not, it seems nore probable than not there would have been some mention of the pesky lad.

So, why has not a word been found? The obvious response is because he, like the entire bible, is a myth.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

To rely on the bible as the only source of in formation for this so-called messiah is foolish in the extreme as the document is so badly flawed.

---

But it is not the *only* source.

Granted, there are not many....but they are there.

quote:

---

If he was such a gadfly to the romans,...

---

But he wasn't. He was a bigger problem for the jewish leaders who had made themselves comfortable than he was anyone else.

The romans would have had no real reason to take note of him.

I have to agree with DL on this - though there isn't any concrete evidence of Jesus' existence, it is the sudden and abrubt change in the religous faith of the jews at that time period, and all the different sects that sprung up afterwards, that offer huge amounts of secondary evidence. We know that something happened at that time - something different than before.

Now, I'm not saying that it is proven that Jesus existed - I'm saying that there is a lot of secondary evidence that tends to support that a man named Jesus did live and did have an influence on the jewish faith and religion of the time.

Most of what DL has said so far pretty much sums things up about this.

(Edited by WebShaman on 02-21-2005 16:25)

Well, I am afraid I must respectfully disagree.

Hearsay is not evidence.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Etheist I think it's much more than hearsay, afterall Christianity is the most successful cult of all time. There had to be a cause for such effect to take place. Whatever his name was, there had to be an individual who had an impact on the ideas of that time.
Just like Buddha had a radical view and opposed many teachings of Hinduims way before Jesus....
This things didn't just spontaneously happened.


DL summed it up pretty well and I have to agree with him on that.

^ That has to be the most reasoned response that I have witnessed from you to date, Ruski. Kudos, you've come a long way.

Well then, show me.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

First off, what do you mean a Xian? This word was new to me so I took the time to look it up in: Webster's New World College Dictionary: 4th edition.
Xian 1. city in NC China, on the Wei Rivier; Capital of Shaanxi province: population, 2,185,000. 2. City in Chinese mythology believed to be the city of peace.
I am sorry, but this is the only definition I can find. By saying Xian do you mean any follower of a religion? If so Ehtheist your arguement is significantly flawed as there are many cases were there are followers of religions giving care while people who have no religion deal out destruction, and vice-versa. All of life, and death, si like a two way street, nothing goes only one way.
Also:
WS - Quote:"Well, I see groups of Xians so : There are those, who are willing to follow their belief, etc and keep it to themselves for themselves.

And then there are those, who feel compelled to impose their belief on others be it verbally or through laws, etc.

It is the second group that I feel is necessary to keep an eye on, and fight. The first group normally doesn't bother me, even though I may not agree with what they believe - they are not bothering others, nor are they forcing their beliefs upon others.

The act of trying to force beliefs on another is an attack in and of itself. And forceful conversion is an act of violence, IMHO."

On this point we agree completely beliefs (religious or not) should not be imposed upon others. In fact at least in the case of religion, it can not be done. The same way freedom cannot be truly forced upon somebody who doesn't truly want to be free. (don't ask me who, i don' know but im sure their out there somewhere.) If you try to force your religion or beliefs on someone they are not practicing their beliefs they are practicing YOUR beliefs. This is not right. Nobody should have the right to do so. Nobody should do so.
I am merely saying in my previous post that both sides are being hypocritical. Both sides are being close-minded about the other sides 'open-mindedness'. If either side had a truly open mind than niether would be participating in childish acts like targeting the other side in a verbal fight, but, instead have a formal debate. (which is what this site used to be about.Correct?) Unfortunately, Both sides are 'donning the figurative gauntlets' as soon as they see the slightest movement in the 'primordial ooze' that they may or may not believe in.
Niether side is truly listening to the other. Merely trying to force the other to agree, with the consequence of not agreeing being ridicule. Both religion and science are guilty of this.

While there is an overwhelming amount of war and other violence that can be blamed, war does not solely belong to religion. War is inherantly and completely the fault of humans. There are many battles and other forms of violence that was not started because of religion. In fact, regardless of whether religion had started a war or not science is just as guilty of the outcome for helping create more and more ghastly weapons to kill, maim and harm with.

People need heroes, people need systems to organize themselves by and help with decisions. Whether or not it is a tangible and internationally accepted system of wieghts and measurements or some invisible divine being that demands a strict code of ethics. It doesn't matter. Arguing whether or not science is a better system or religion is a better system is as pointless as arguing whether Batman does more good or Superman does more good. It doesn't matter whether or not you want to believe you were made by some mighty being or had the best genes hand-picked through the ages by a bunch of wide-eyed gorillas, the bottom line is that all things must end. You will die, and from there your body will be eaten by worms and made into dirt. Such is the law of nature. If your going to bash at someone because they want to believe in something other than a book that is over a thousand years old and has been translated from dead languages two or three times or hit them with proverbially gauntlets because they choose to believe that there is something more powerful than them that controls their destiny, you might as well hang a screen door on a submarine for all the good your doing. YOUR NOT GOING TO GET ANYWHERE!!!!!! All you will do is end up making more enemies than allies and shove people off this forum ( we have already lost Ramasax from what I have heard thanks to a member already mentioned in this post).

As far as teaching evolution in school goes verse teaching creationism goes this is what I suggest:
TEACH THEM BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!
They are THEORIES nothing more and nothing less and the only time they will ever be more than a theory is (maybe depending on what you believe) after we die. So give the kids a choice say: "Charles Darwin came up with The THEORY of Natural Selection, (explanation of the THEORY). At the same time there was another THEORY: Creationism, (explanation of the creationist THEORY)." Then let the kid decide for himself or herself.
Ehtheist, you also said that the simple answer is usually the right one. That is correct some of the time. Usually when you have all the information on a situation, if you go with a simple solution without all the facts or correct facts you could land yourself in a very extreme case like Charles Manson's Helter Skelter.

Here would be the simple way to prove which THEORY is correct:
If god (any god or divine being) exists than creationists would most likely be the correct party.

If god (any god or divine being) does NOT exist than evolutionists would be the corret party.

Simple straight forward. Correct? No.
Why?
Because you still have the scenerio that a divine being created some stuff and then that stuff evolved into better stuff. Or devovled into worse stuff, depends on your point of view.
Again please correct me if I am wrong because your posts suggest this to me: You believe that the best way to open a closed mind is through forced entry. From my experiances with this, forced entry generally makes the door to the mind slam shut even harder.

Also 2000 years from now people will most likely being writing the part of history that includes us. You and I will probably not make it into the pages of the history book does this make the whole book wrong? The government now can suppress things are you under the impression that the roman government couldn't suppress someting back then?

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

On a hunch I looked further into the dictionary:
You could mean:

Zion: 1. a canaanite fortress in Jerusalem captured by David and called in the Bible "City of David" 2. the jewish people 3.heaven; the heavenly city 4.the theocracy of God 5. the hill in Jerusalem on which the Temple was built: Zion has historically been regarded by the Jews as a symbol of the center of Jewish national life 2. Jerusalem 3. the land of Israel. Also the hebrew poetic name for Palestine.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

Sang:

xian is just shorthand for christian. just like xmas = christmas

quote:

---

As far as teaching evolution in school goes verse teaching creationism goes this is what I suggest:
TEACH THEM BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!

---

I agree... and this is the creationism I want taught. Can you tell me why it shouldhn't be?

quote:

---

The Raven is truly a trickster who liberates humankind from a clamshell, then in one story sets the universe in order, only to threaten it with chaos in the next. The Raven is the most greedy, mischievous and lecherous creature imaginable, but almost without meaning to, teaches humans the arts of living a good life.

---

http://www.civilization.ca/aborig/haida/hapmc01e.html

etheist - what type of evidence would mae you happy?

If "hearsay" is not sufficient, at least on some level, then we will need to discount some pretty significant historical figures.

Would you like a birth certificate? Driver's License? Maybe a receipt on his "players" card?

He is mentioned, if only briefly, in both Roman and Jewish histories.

It seems to me that you are willing to simply accept that his entire existence was a myth, as it would fit more neatly into your view of things.

While I find myself in agreement with you on many things, this trend in your outlook is troubling...as it mirrors the outlook that we both (all) seem to be pointing out as a very poor one in people like Gideon.

The act of creating from scratch a myth about a man like Jesus, who preached the views that he did, with the outcome and impact that was acheived by his views and acts, would be a more labor intensive act than performing the alleged miracles would be...

My views on Jesus' "miracles" and divinity are fairly well explained throughout a variety of threads here, and are clearly in the realm of myth. However, the exageration of his acts is not the same as the total creation of his identity...and he impact of his presence is enough to define his existence, seperate from any religious dogma.
Much in the same way that we can identify a black hole by the effect it has on its surroundings...

~shrug~

I'm not out to prove anything - I don't care what your view on his existence is...it just seems you are taking the "easy" out and fitting the results into your view rather than the other way around.

And that is cause for concern whether you are on the side of religion or not.

quote:

---

As far as teaching evolution in school goes verse teaching creationism goes this is what I suggest:
TEACH THEM BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!

---

I agree as well.
Evolution belongs in a science class, where scientific issues are taught.

Creationism bleongs in a mythology class, where ancient texts such as the genesis account, the wide array of greek, egyption, norse, and other mythologies are taught.

quote:

---

They are THEORIES nothing more and nothing less

---

And once again, let me point out that you are blatantly wrong.
Evolution is a fact. The precise method is a matter of theory.

Creationism is a story, It is in no way whatsoever a scientific theory, nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with science.

If you beleive it to be "true", that is your perogative. But it is not a scientific issue.

(until you have a device to measure "faith" and the effect it has on reality...)

quote:

---

and the only time they will ever be more than a theory is (maybe depending on what you believe) after we die.

---

So your theory is that our theories will be revealed...like a blind taste test of two different brands of colas, after our death?
Fascinating...

quote:

---

So give the kids a choice say: "Charles Darwin came up with The THEORY of Natural Selection, (explanation of the THEORY). At the same time there was another THEORY: Creationism, (explanation of the creationist THEORY)." Then let the kid decide for himself or herself.

---

And where do we stop?
As nojive very adequately illustrated, the list of creation myths is very long and varied. Do you propose that we include all creation myths alongside the scientific fact of evolution, as if the two things actually had something to do with each other?

Can we please focus for a moment...again...on the fact that evolution is not a story about the creation of the universe? Can we go back to the understanding that evolution is a scientific explanation of how species came to be the way they are? It does not explain how they started. it does not address the issue of whether or not there is a god. It does not attempt, nor could it ever, the meaning of life, or our purpose here.

It explains the way things happen.

God or no. Jehovah, Ra, Zeus, Loki, it's all irrelevant and has no place in a science class.

FWIW

Thanks DL, saved me some writing.

When you say xist is mentioned in early Roman and Jewish ( I presume non-biblical?) writings, please provide a link to same as I have not yet encountered them.

That is the sort of proof I would like to see. Authoritative please, not some bible study group.

I agree certain zealots need to not only be kept an eye upon, but occasionally slapped down.

The Gideons of the world are not a threat, far too simple minded to be dangerous. Suitable only for a bit of fun now and again.

The guys you have to keep an eye on are the "Focus on the family" sorts, Dobson et al.

Their latest bit of insanity is the conclusion Schreck 2 is another cartoon which promotes the (non-existant) "gay agenda".

It is not surprising they are ready to believe in a non-existant conspiracy since they already believe in a non-existant superior being.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Sangreal, please read DL's posts. Then read them again.

quote:

---

As far as teaching evolution in school goes verse teaching creationism goes this is what I suggest:
TEACH THEM BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!
They are THEORIES nothing more and nothing less and the only time they will ever be more than a theory is (maybe depending on what you believe) after we die. So give the kids a choice say: "Charles Darwin came up with The THEORY of Natural Selection, (explanation of the THEORY). At the same time there was another THEORY: Creationism, (explanation of the creationist THEORY)." Then let the kid decide for himself or herself.
Ehtheist, you also said that the simple answer is usually the right one. That is correct some of the time. Usually when you have all the information on a situation, if you go with a simple solution without all the facts or correct facts you could land yourself in a very extreme case like Charles Manson's Helter Skelter.

---

As DL has already mentioned (and I stated), Evolution is a fact!. It doesn't matter if you accept it as a fact or not - that does not change anything outside of your head. Just like not accepting that the world is round will not cause it to suddenly become flat. What you have posted just shows your lack of knowledge. I suggest that your corrigate this. However, Evolution will not stop if you don't *shrugs* Your choice. But suggesting that it is a Theory is wrong when it is included in the same breath as Creationism.

You need to really learn about these things - and seeing that you and Gideon (and others) are having problems defining exactly what the fact of Evolution is, it needs to be better taught in school apparently. It also looks like some forms of religious belief may be hindering some from accepting it, as well. This is a process of limiting oneself (and blinding oneself to the truth - something that Xians are not supposed to do - one shall not bear false witness). So your argument here is not really correct that Evolutionists are attacking Creationists - on the contrary. It is the other way around. The Evolutionists are responding to attacks, and deficits in the knowledge of Creationists. Tell the Creationists to stop attacking, and to start learning - and the whole thing will stop. Evoltuion is not a belief that is being forced on others. It is a part of Science that needs to be taught and learned.

This is why I am against teaching Creationism. It is, as DL pointed out, a story, a myth, first of all. Second, which Creation story, myth should we then teach? Third, and most important, how should it be taught? Should it be taught according to those who believe deeply in it, or should it be taught as a story, a myth, and really open up a can of worms (if one thinks that such radial groups are pushing their agendas hard now, wait until their deep beleifs are taught in school as stories and myths!) ? And if one teaches it according to those who believe deeply in it, then there goes the seperation of church and state, right out the window.

(Edited by WebShaman on 02-22-2005 09:24)

I have seen this word used twice now and can find no mention of it in several dictionaries. Can someone enlighten me?
"CORRIGATE"

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Man - this thread got a little intense!

I don't have the energy to weigh in on the dogma discussion, DL and WS seem to be doing a fine job of it - we've all had so much practice, right? How many times have we run evolution and creation science through the dabate machine around here?

To hark back to the original post regarding dear ol' Spongebob -

These people really need to get a life. There are so many other, worse things going on in the world today, why on earth do we need to worry about the sexual orientation of a freakin' cartoon? There are so many other places from which kids pull their input...
I have been shaking my head about these things since the Fallwell/Tinky-Winky bulls**t.


I wish more folks would read up on their Christian History before getting into these sorts of arguments...
There's a lot more to it than the Bible and what they teach in your respective church, and the information is freely available to those who search for it.

Must be me, dosn't seem intense at all. just a serious discussion.

We, or someone likle us, will be discussing these issues until the religious side is proved to be myth.

But even then, there will be some desperate folks who will not accept that proof.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Teaching children facts that we know about reality is part of learning. Belief
is a totally different subject, altogether.

---

Aren't facts technicaly beliefs since you can only believe what you percieve? The only things I know as fact are those that I can see, feel, touch, taste, smell. All others I can't be certain of. I also can't be certain that you are real and not a figment of my imagination. An interesting little point. Reality is based on the believer, not the facts.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Reality is based on the believer, not the facts.

---

Uhhh...no.

Just because you don't believe that there are cars, doesn't mean that you will not be run over on the street by one.

quote:

---

Aren't facts technicaly beliefs since you can only believe what you percieve?

---

No. There are lots of facts that one cannot perceive directly, like being able to see Quarks, for example.

Someone who is born blind doesn't know what color is, or that it exists because they cannot see it. But that doesn't change the fact that color (and light, for that matter) exists.

quote:

---

I also can't be certain that you are real and not a figment of my imagination.

---

You may not be certain, but others are.

I think, therefore I am - and others think, therefore, they are. And whether or not this is all real is irrelevant - for us, it is real, for all intents and purposes!

Now, you can start waxing philosophic but that is normally the last retreat of the desperate.

And I am not interested in discussing things with you further. Take this as a last comment.

Bye.

(Edited by WebShaman on 02-23-2005 14:08)

(Edited by WebShaman on 02-23-2005 17:14)

Then you admit you don't "know" there is a god or was a xist as "The only things I know as fact are those that I can see, feel, touch, taste, smell. All others I can't be certain of".

Problem with your arguments Gid, is you say whatever is expedient at the time, forgetting what you have previously said.

Goes to credibility, of which you have none.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Wow Webshaman, so just because you don't believe in things, doesn't mean they aren't there? Hmmm....

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I think, therefore I am - and others think, therefore, they are.

---

How do you know other's think? Can you see inside thier minds? Are you psychic?!?! Get out of my head!

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Then you admit you don't "know" there is a god

---

I don't "know" there is a God. That is where faith comes in. Actually, there is enough proof to sway me, so it really isn't faith, but I like to say that anyway.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Problem with your arguments Gid, is you say whatever is expedient at the time,
forgetting what you have previously said.

---

Sometimes, yes. But this was an experiment, and it went quite well. Both you and Webshaman have acknowledged (either directly or indirectly) that there are things outside of our own perceptions that are real.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Only in your dreams Gid.

I am still waiting for the proof there is a god, any god I won't make it hard on you.

Before you trie the tired 'prove there isn't' ploy let me remind you the proof must come from the one making the claim. You claim there is a god while it is patently obvious there is none.

I am still waiting.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Only in your dreams Gid.

---

You can see my dreams too?!?! AHHH!

Have you ever looked at a sunset Ehtheist? I love em. They are so beautiful. Every time I look at one of those beautiful picturesque moments, I know that I am not alone. God is a beautiful artist.

But as for proof, like scientific proof? Numbers and mathematical formulas? God has been proven be Steve Urwin Phd (not the Croc hunter) to be 67% probable if I remember correctly. He has a few arguments that pushes it to 100%, but those are discarded so that a number that isn't a cop-out can be attained.

Do you not like actuaries? How about miracles? There was one posted on the C v. E thread not too long ago. And the man at my church. That was a miracle. And countless others. How do you explain those?

Do you not like miracles? How about fulfilled prophecies? Isaiah 52 & 53 were written hundreds of years before Jesus was born yet He fulfilled all of the prophecies. Many of which were outside of His control.

You see, God may not be able to be measured, but He is there and shows us His might and power and glory and beauty and love through many other venues. The proof is there. The question is: will you accept it?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

The beauty of prophecy is it's ability to be interpreted in so many ways. Like the 'psychic' which charges youy $60 a minute to give you generalities which you will convince yourself are specific to you.

A sunset is just a sunset Gid it is not proof of a god. If it is particulalry gorgeous it may be proof of pollution though.

There are no miracles Gid, things happen and people feel a need to attribute it to something, black-cats or rabbits feet are as likely an influence.

I am unable to find anything by Unwin on god, but he seems to know a bit about engines, is god a Nissan Gid?

You have posted no proof that a sane, mature, clear-thinking individual could accept as such and you never will.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Psychics do that, yes. Some of them. But the prophets do not. It is kinda hard to place generalities on the things that happened. Actually, really hard.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

it may be proof of pollution though.

---

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

things happen and people feel a need to attribute it to something

---

What if people attribute it to something, then things happen? That is a miracle. Not waiting for something good to happen then saying "glory to God!" It is asking God for something and praising His name, then it happening.

Sorry about the Unwin thing. I spelled it wrong. Here: Stephen D. Unwin, PH.D. The Probablitiy of God: A Simple Calculation That Proves the Ultimate Truth. It was a good book, but I don't suggest reading it fast. It has many calculations in there that took me a while to grasp (I read this about 2 years ago).

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

The Probablitiy of God: A Simple Calculation That Proves the Ultimate Truth.

---

Was torn apart by Mathmaticians, and totally discredited.

You really are wasting your time, Ehtheist.

I know WS, but I am a bit bored right now.

As usual, you are not listening Gid. Prohpecy can be interpreted in many ways and the current interpreters (clergy), as their predecessaors back to when Grog was telling the tribe how the hunting will be next year by looking at the entrails of some luckless animal, will do so in the way which puts the very best light on the faith.

Your silly query about miracles is nothing more than an attempt to again try, unsuccessfully, to justify an untenable contention.

Unwin was undone. Of course, the faithful of late have been only too happy to grab anything vaguely 'scientific' to try to bolster their crumbling faith.

Reading the "Scrolls" yet?

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Alright, may be i worded myself wrong once again. I do that alot. Stating the FACT that things evovle is a fact, and not a theory. Gideon will admit this. Things do evolve. Stating that all things on earth started from a single cell organism or protoplasm or whatever and then slowly formed the rest of all the animals is a THEORY it has not been proven to be the exact way things are formed. This is the same reason that saying all things were made by a divine being snapping his or her or it's fingers and *POOF!* everything is in existence is a theory. Maybe not a scientific theory but a theory. When I said that I merely meant that niether should be taken out of schools, all people should have an equal chance to form their own oppinions on whatever they want without hindrance. Evolution never says that there isn't a god it just says that animals and plants continously make themselves better. Simple definition i know but sometimes simple answers are the best.
As far as Gideon's stupidity, you have no actual proof of his intelligence. Ehtheist, you, somebody who has called himself a person who believes in live and let live, are merely attacking his intelligence because he doesn't conform to your BELIEF. He can be stubborn, and rather ignorant at times but someone who gets straight A's in all honors classes, and letters three times, (Band, ACADEMICS, and latin) is not stupid. If we are going to have a formal debate let's get rid of insults.

Creationism does not have to be taught as science, nor should it be. Religion is not science. One option could be to have an elective class that is based on teaching the differant teachings of all the major religions. And in somewhere in there creationism can be taught. If done correctly, and not the class is not called a mythology class, then anybody with a rational mind would have no problem with it.

By the way I believe webshaman was looking for the word collaborate.
Last time i checked the only thing i have ever heard be corrigated (if it is spelled correctly, i am not sure that i spelled it how it should be) is cardboard. I.e. corrigated cardboard.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

Corrugated.

The only circumstance in which I would accept creationism being taught in schools is if there were an optional, non-credit, course on comparative religions.

As to stupidity vs intelligence, one may very well be intelligent, study and learn well and spew back the learning under controlled conditons to earn high marks.

Where 'smart' (as opposed to stupid) enters the picture is applying all that thar book larnin' to every-day existance.

This Gid does not do well and thus he is stupid in many ways. BTW with his often fractured use of language I wonder about those marks you report.

If a man wandered into your shop and explained he had just seen a pig with wings and that it spoke to him and promised him a hell of a nice place in which to live if only he (the man) would stop eating bacon...you would be calling for the fella's in the nice truck who have those swell jackets with the extra-long arms and neat buckles.

This is xianity and makes as much sense.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

it just says that animals and plants continously make themselves better.

---

No it doesn't.

Important misconception.
Evolution states that living things mutate, generally in adaptation to their environment, and that these mutations get passed on to offspring.

It does not qualify the mutations. There is no implication of better or worse.

This may seem like a small point to some of you, but it is an extremely significant one.

quote:

---

Creationism does not have to be taught as science, nor should it be. Religion is not science. One option could be to have an elective class that is based on teaching the differant teachings of all the major religions. And in somewhere in there creationism can be taught.

---

Fantastic. The important parts of that are "elective" and that it would cover more than one religion. No problem with that.

But that is not what what was said before, not by far.

What was said many times here was that the religious concept of creationism should be taught as a counter to the scientific fact of evolution. And that is completely unacceptable in every way.

I have decided the word WS was seeking may have been "corroborated", it fits contextually.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

One option could be to have an elective class that is based on teaching the differant teachings of all the major religions.

---

They have those in colleges already. Public funds should not be used to teach this in public schools. That is what the churches are for.

Why xianity is a dieing religion and why I and others resist the sheer ignorance they promote'

http://traditionalvalues.org/urban/

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/

Sadly, this is just one of far too many examples of the hatred these folks promote , foster and encourage.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

Individuals may be free to pursue such behaviors as sodomy, but we will not and cannot tolerate these behaviors. They frequently lead to death.

---

source: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/

Yeah! I know a hell lot of people who died of sodomy. Actually I could have quoted the whole site, but this one was utterly ridiculous.

[explicit-edit] Sodomy might hurt, but it does not kill ... unless God kills a kitten. [/explicit-edit]



(Edited by poi on 03-02-2005 04:17)

Ah, finally! I've been waiting for the new bumper sticker and here it is:

SODOMY KILLS!

thanks for that...

In fact it does kill, a number of gays have been killed...by xians, we had a kid here in Vancouver beaten to death just because he was gay. The thugs didn't claim it was due to xian motives though, but where else would they get such negative attitudes?

I am highly suspicious a number of these Holier-than-thou types very likely enjoy anal sex with their wives. Or perhaps with the children of their parishoners.

Anal sex is a fact of life period.

Very few prisoners in various institutions will consider themselves gay, though they may be both the the quarterback and wide receiver while in prison.

As with most things, there is a great deal of hypocrisy involved.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Was torn apart by Mathmaticians, and totally discredited.

---

Which mathematicians? I haven't read anything about them yet.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Prohpecy can be interpreted in many ways

---

This is true, of course, but sometimes prophecy is very specific. There were some Jewish scholars (can't think of the names now) that decided upon the criteria for the Messiah a few hundred years before Jesus was born. I find it interesting that Jesus fulfilled each and every one of the prophecies. Kinda hard don't you think? I mean, a few, yes, but all? There were even specific ones like: the Messiah had to come from King David's line, He had to be born in the smallest tribe Bethlehem, his clothes had to be taken away and distributed by lots, he had to be beaten to a pulp, the bones in his body had to never break, and many others. They were very specific. And it is amazing how Jesus fit them all. But then, people could just stick their heads in the sand and dismiss it all. Their choice.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Your silly query about miracles

---

Silly query or not, it is something to think about. Could there really be something to it?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Sillier and sillier, you have no evidence, save the mythical bible, that any of these so-called prophecies came true in the person of your alleged messiah.

Are the original writings of the Jewish prophets extant or merely 'reported' in your bible?

Do you not know what circular reasoning is?

Do you not ever think about what you are writing?

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Never mind Ehtheist. Why do you imply that I am dumb? Why should I even consider a conversation, if all you do is dismiss what I have to say as silly? I thought for the ages huh?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

I find it interesting that Jesus fulfilled each and every one of the prophecies. Kinda hard don't you think?

---

Not when people simply create the circumstances after the fact that lead to those fulfillments...

He came form David's line? Sure he did

He came from bethlehem? even many christian scholars conced that he probably did not come to bethelehem until a few years after birth, and many are pretty confident he was never there at all.

It's most certainly not hard to beleive that those details were manufactured, given the wide variety of information the early roman catholic manufactured.

Things like Christmas, Easter, Mary's virginity, etc, etc, etc...

Gid I see you are unable to answer my question and that you have leapt to a conclusion.

Asking you whether you think before you write (something I am prone to as well) is not saying you are dumb-which means BTW, unable to speak.

So far, everything you have said is silly to my mind and aside from biblical references (remember circular reasoning?) you have nothing to substantiate your allegations or your faith.

Prophecies are, as DL pointed out, always infallible when made after the fact.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

So, Ehtheist, since you think something is silly that means it's wrong? What if I think 2+2 eqauling 4 is silly? Does that means it equals five? You seem to think that since you don't agree with something (which you do have the right to do) it gives you the right to ridicule the person who has an opposing oppinion. So what if Gideon wants to believe in a book that may or may not be thousands of years old. He is not saying there is no such thing as science he merely wishes to believe that there is some greater being. Where is the harm in that? He isn't going around shooting evolutionists for their beliefs (or at least I haven' heard about it if he is.). All you have done so far is agree with statements made by others, and dismiss anything that anybody else has to say that might go against the thoughts in-grained in your own head as silly. You tell Gideon that he and all the other people like him are being hard-headed and closed-minded by foolishly holding on to the erver-unraveling thread that is their faith and beliefs for fear that those beliefs may be undermined. YOU ARE DOING THE SAME. The differance between Gideon's thread of faith and yours is that your's is a thread of science. If your going to debate, debate. Don't just rely on agreeing with others who come with their own info and dismissing anything you might not agree with as silly. Wake up, bring your own materials to the table, and debate. This means analyzing both sides info no matter how 'silly' trying to figure out where their coming from, forming an oppinion and then find things to support that oppinion. Then once new info arises repeating this process. You and a lot of people in this forum (including myself) seem to have skipped trying to figure out where each side is coming from, and then have gotten stuck at repeat. Perhaps we are too lazy, or just scared that we might be wrong. Maybe I am at fault, my Gideon is, maybe you are, but it really doesn't matter. I am getting sick and tired of all this mud-slinging. That's all this is. Gideon throws mud in WS's eyes, then WS's makes a defending gesture, then you throw mud in Gid's eyes, and then I have to throw mud at you both. There's always going to be some religion. The book of that religion is always going to have it's defenders and it's skeptics. All books can be argued as fictional. This is the way of history. This was part of the reasoning behind my thread that stated that you could kill a god. (If one exists at all). I wish people would be more open-minded about their own close-mindedness.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

And you were doing so well.

Please keep up you practicing - type a few words, then hit [enter]. practice practice practice...

it's amazing how much better you can get your point across when you type things in a manner that will prompt people to actually read it...

Sangreal, you obviously haven't been paying attention - I'm not against religion here, nor is my stance anti-religious. All I am pointing out, is a certain religious sect's stance is at odds with Science fact.

Now, normally it would end there. But this particular follower doesn't wish to accept the fact that they are wrong. In fact, this particular follower in this case (Gideon) is suggesting that the facts are wrong. However, all the evidence points to the opposite.

Now, if Gideon was to say, "well, those are indeed the facts, but I still believe..." then I could care less.

Nice tirade Sang, you seem to on one hand to be granting me permission to have an opinion and then condemning me for having it.

I seem to recall providing some links and opinions not reflected by others and if someone posts somthing I agree with it makes more sense to say so then re-hash the thing.

If you, like Gid, choose to believe something obviously true is silly, then you like Gid, will be thought silly by others.

That is your choice and decision.

I defend your right to do so, but reserve my own right to think and say you are a damn fool for holding such a belief in the face of obvious facts.

I am impressed my opinion makes sufficient impact on you to inspire you to such a lengthy response however.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

I do not mean to day that you are not allowed to have an oppinon. I merely meant to point out that you have 'rehashed' the same thing over and over.

*Before I go on I need to clarify something better*
Xian, Xianity is not a religioius following. It is a city in CHINA. Zion is however. It is a name for a branch of the Jewish faith which, amongst, other things states that you must be born a Jew. And practice things that non-Zionic Jews practice. So please if you mean Christianity say Christianity. It will make these things go a lot smoother.

There I am done clarifying.

Both Christianity and Zionistic religions have some very silly points. I will agree with you on that. All religions do. But it does make some, SOME good points.

The above statement can be said for evolution.
In the beggining of it's discussions two evolutionists submitted to the French Academy of Science that, due to evolution, one could find similiarities between an invertabrate and a human. This can be accomplished by taking the human and bending it over backwards in a bow so that it's head is sticking up it's own butt. (and yes in this case sodomy kills ) If you don't believe me I can post the exact quote from the book I am currently have on loan from a local library called he Evolution Wars: A guide to the debates by Michael Ruse. Ehtheist even you will agree that it sounds a little silly to submit that as a scientific finding.
Even then it is entirely reasonable to say that things make themselves better.

And when you look at how complex things are it is not entirely absurd to say that there was some divine help. I don't see why creationism and evolutionism cannot be mixed.

Also,
Sorry if I have offended you Ehtheist, but if you reread some of your posts you do come across as very anti-religious. When you keep in mind that inflection of voice can not be put into typing and that Zion means the Jewish faith. There is one post were it seems that you want to blame ALL wars on religion. But, while I will agree that an overwhelming number are, there are some that are not. Take WW1, that was a war without the aid of religion.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

Also I feel that we need to define evolution if we are going to debate on it. As I expect many of us have gottin into heated arguements about the existence of God, only to find ourselves arguing completely at cross purposes.
The atheist is denying a God who looks little bit like aSanta Claus in a bed sheet, sitting on a cloud surrounded by angels with wings. The christian is asserting a God that is the very foundation of our being or some such thing.

The christian would be appalled to learn tht he or she is supposedly defending the odd entity that the atheist is denying. The atheist has never really though seriously about the being that the Christian is affirming.

So without further delay.

There are three things the term evolution can apply to,
First there is what we ight call the very fact of evolution. By this is meant the very idea that all organisms -- you and I, cabbages, kings, kangaroos and crabs, living and dead -- are the end result of a long process of development, from forms vastly differant.

Second there is the path or paths of evolution, knwon technically, as phylogeny. Here we are dealing with the tracks that evolution take through time. When did life occur on earth? When did mulitcellular orgaisms evolve from simpler forms? Fossil records, missing links and all that.

Third and finally we have the question of the causes or mechanisms or THEORY of evolution. What makes the whole process go and work? What drives evolution? What is its motive force? In physics, ths was Newton's great achievement. He did not discover that the planets go round the sun. Thsi was the job of copenicus. He did not map the heavens accurately. Tycho Brahe did this. He did find the planetary motions. Kepler's job. Nor did he work out what happens down here on eath. Galileo. But he did find the law of inverse gravitational attraction and show how everything follows from this -- orbiting planets and soaring cannon balls. Fo this reason alone, we venerate Newton and his genius. Likewise we have such questions in evolutionary biology. Is there a biological equivalent to the force of gravitiational attraction and, if so, does it work in the same way? Is there indeed one prime cause, or are there many such forces that collectively make for the overall mechanism? And is the whole thing theoretical, and if so in what sense?

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

Sorry Ehtiesit. I should have said webshaman not your name in the last paragragh of the post two above this one.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

No apology required, I was and am not offended. I am anti-religious, have said so. Xian is a widely used shorthand form, live with it.

Of course the butt statement is ridiculous and sirely not meant to be taken seriousl. The death of the subject would be required in order to accomplish that feat in fact. Though there are many people who metaphorically have their heads up there.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Sangreal said:

Xian, Xianity is not a religioius following.

---

Sangreal, "Xian" and "Xianity" are abbreviations where "X" stands for "Christ". I will continue to use these abbreviations just as I will continue to use "IMO" "IMHO" "YMMV" "BTW", you get the point. If you learn to adapt to developing situations I believe that will make things go even smoother.

FWIW

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Saw this a bit up...

quote:

---

afterall Christianity is the most successful cult of all time. There had to be a cause for such effect to take place.

---

Got me thinking a bit (dangerous stuff, I know)
If Jesus han't been executed, would there be Cristianity today?
After all, a lot in the bible (most of it actually) is based on Jesus dying for our sins...


/Dan

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?The Internet treats censorship as a malfunction and routes around it.? (-Barlow, John Perry) }-

Dying for your sins maybe.

However you make a good point and one I had not previously considered.

Nothing like making a martyr to perpetuate an otherwise dead proposition.

We gotta go back in time and stop old Pontious!

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

the crucifixion is definitely central to christianity, without there would have been no christ, no messiah that followed the OT prophecies.

anyone happen to watch discovery today? 'jesus: the complete story' looked at a lot of historical evidence for jesus, his life, etc., interesting stuff.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

DmS said:

If Jesus han't been executed, would there be Cristianity[sic] today?

---

One word answer: nope.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

It's most certainly not hard to beleive that those details were manufactured,
given the wide variety of information the early roman catholic manufactured.

---

[speaking about the prophecies]
Well, ofcourse. It is more believeable that they were made, pre-Roman Catholic Church, though. Since the Catholic Church did not begin until roughly 300 AD, I would be surprised if they were able to effect writtings that had been in the Jewish heritage for many, many, many, generations. Of course, there are always discrepencies in everything we hear, read, see, do, etc. But speaking logically, it is more probable that the prophecies were written pre-Jesus.

And as for things being tampered with after Jesus, maybe. I seriously doubt that someone could pull something of tat magnitude off, but hey, no-one has been to the moon yet, right?

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

you are dumb-which means BTW, unable to speak.

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

you have nothing to substantiate your allegations or your faith.
Prophecies are, as DL pointed out, always infallible when made after the
fact.

---

That seems a key point in our discussion. If the prophecies were made before Jesus had appeared on earth, were fulfilled by Him, and were not changed afterwards, then this argument would collapse, huh?

As for substantiating my allegations, plenty. My faith, even more.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Now, normally it would end there. But this particular follower doesn't wish to
accept the fact that they are wrong. In fact, this particular follower in this
case (Gideon) is suggesting that the facts are wrong.

---

I seem to be doing more acceptance than you are WS. But I do not contest facts. Facts are facts, and that is the end of it. I am meerly a little leery about the interpretations of those facts, that is all.

Hey, Bugs, I am no Xian. I am a Christian. When you place the X there like in X-mas, you are effectively removing Christ from the Christian and Christ from the Christmas. If you wish to do that, go ahead. I prefer to take a little more time to allow my savior's name to be placed in my description.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

But speaking logically, it is more probable that the prophecies were written pre-Jesus.

---

Well no kidding...

nobody suggested otherwise...

If you think that is what I said, then you need to re-read what I said...

As for the "tampering" that you find so implausible....we've been through that plenty of times.

Tampering was the name of the game...

But I'll post more on that later, in a thread that will address a few related issues.

^I'll be looking forward to it

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

If you think that is what I said, then you need to re-read what I said...

---

Well, I guess it was a little on the foggy side to me. I didn't know if you were implying the tampering of the documents that were written pre-Jesus, or the documents written post-Jesus, pre-Catholic Church. I tried to cover them both, just in case.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

As for the "tampering" that you find so implausible....
we've been through that
plenty of times.

---

Probably, but thanks to my excellent memory, I tend to forget things, and it takes a few times before I retain it. Just ask Sangreal, it took me weeks to remember his name, and he is my best friend! Well, wait, don't ask Sangreal, he has about as good a memory as I do...

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Tampering was the name of the game

---

I thought religion was the name of the game?

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

I thought religion was the name of the game?

---

Sure.

And what you need for a good religion is a good set of stories...

and what you need for a good set of stories, when those stories need to fit very precise criteria, is some good tampering...

=)

As for what kind of tampering I referred to above - it is extremely simple. We know *nothing* as historical fact about Jesus' life. We know only some stories that even the most generous historians say were written - at best - 20 years after the death of Jesus, by essentially unknown people (later attributed to such people as matthew, mark, luke and john, among others).

Not so amazing that Jesus was made to fit these prophecies given such circumstances...







(Edited by DL-44 on 04-02-2005 22:18)

The correct spelling of truly is "truly". :P

I take it, sad, you have something to add to the topic, that is on topic?

quote:

---

DmS said:

If Jesus han't been executed, would there be Cristianity today?

---

I would have to say, no. I can't think how it possibly could since the death part of the death, burial & resurrection is a key element. It is concievable Christ could have garnered a following but I don't see how he would have stood out in history without such extraordinary claims surrounding Xianity as we know it.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

We know *nothing* as historical fact about Jesus' life. We know only some
stories...

---

DL, that has me wondering what we do know as historical fact then. What is the criteria for judging something as historical fact?

I have a good book at home that contains an essay from a biblical scholar who states what we could know about Jesus Christ *without* the NT docs. I'll see if I can dig that up later on.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

We have a very small handful of 'offhand' mentions of his name from extrabiblical sources.

None have any detail whatsoever of who/what he is. He is generally mentioned in the context of the christian movement, and not directly as a person...

They certainly do not state anything regarding his childhood, parentage, etc...

There are many historical figures we know only from a few mentions here and there.

We accept in all of those cases that we *don't* know much, and probably can't trust half of the sources to be accurate in any way.

To suggest that the gospels contain accurate information about things like Jesus' lienage, his childhood, and things of that nature is absolutely preposterous.

And also, as I have said *many* times over - we accept that our historical facts may change as we learn more about ancient subjects.

For some bizarre reason, people don't want to accept that when it comes to Jesus...



(Edited by DL-44 on 05-17-2005 00:32)

(Edited by DL-44 on 05-17-2005 00:33)

I quite agree that we should be prepared to apply the same analysis to Christian documents as any other in history. When we do that, we find that the NT docs are far better supported than any other work of antiquity. What I mean is that the number of copies that we have and their nature point very conclusively to what you've mentioned before, DL. That the gospel stories point to source material within the life spans of the apostles.

I realize this is not a dunker, but it is significant considering how much time has passed since then. I'll reiterate that we are no longer arguing about the historical basis of the accounts but more about their validity. I believe you have already moved to that battlefield yourself because we are now discussing whether the accounts that we have in the canon were simply the ones that prevailed out of alternative ones.

I believe if we were having this conversation perhaps a decade or two ago, we would be more focused on whether there was any basis even for the existence of a man called Jesus at that time.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Hmmm....This will have to be my last post--for now. But anyways, I managed to stumble across this section of the site and now, am deciding to take to task some of these issues that were brought up.....

"Does God exist? If so, give me one shred of evidence that shows that God exists."

Now...For you folks here who believe the above statement, forgive me for my frankness in speech and my firmness in what I am about to say.

Ready?

Here we go.....

At some point in time, you DID believe that One Supreme Being existed. When you were a child or in your younger years, you KNEW that there was One Supreme Being that DID EXIST! Later on, you decided to THROW AWAY that part of you that told you that there was One Supreme Being! Why? Because you didn't want to think about God!!!!

And so? What happened? God decided to let you do what you wanted to do--hoping that you would one day turn back to Him....And sirs, even if I had all the evidence in the world to show you that PROVED that God existed, you STILL wouldn't believe it....because you have already chosen to NOT to believe in God....

"Well...You can't deny the scientific evidence that Evolution took place in order for the world to be created."

Please go to drdino.com

Also, please consider this....Some people say that God used Evolution in order to create the world!! Nope....In Genesis 1:2, it states that the world had no form, that there was water, and finally, it states that there was wind. Evolution states that there was nothing--then a big bang! NOTHING!
The Bible, as I have stated before, says that the earth had no form, that water existed, and that wind existed. There is a contradiction here--and if you believe in the Bible, you have to go with what the Bible says and get of the other opinion.

"....You still haven't disproved Evolution...."

You're right...I haven't. But, now I will....In order for something to exist, that something has to have properties that when used, produce that "something."

Now, I will get a bit geeky on you here, and start using computer terms and by each term, I will show you, quite graphically, what is supposed to happen if the Big Bang took place....

Something=big bang

Dim lblBigbang as integer (A declaration sentence that declares the Big Bang into existence.)

Now, in the computer world, we have if...then....else statements. They show us what is supposed to happen when the value (Big Bang) is true or false....

In the following statement, I will assign the term "properties" as the properties for the Big Bang. Ya ready? Here we go...


If lblBigbang is true
Then run "properties"

Else

end

"What does the 'end' stand for?"

It means that the program must end. Why is it that if lblBigbang is false, that the whole world stops its own running process??

My friend, you should know that if there is one tiny error in the making and design in this world, that the whole world falls apart. The same thing happens with a computer program. (Warning: If, then, else statement ahead!) ...If there is ONE letter misspelled in the coding process (the process that tells the computer what to do), than, when you run the program, it stops and shows you an error message.

....The next question is this....Who makes the program? Well, if you know EVERYTHING there is to know about coding computer programs, then you can make ONE GIANT PROGRAM ALL BY YOURSELF! Likewise, the world has one giant Programmer (note the capital "P"). That Programmer is God. If He knows everything there is to know about this world, than SURELY He can build the GREATEST program of all----earth. And finally....He created and put humans IN this GIANT program in order to make us happy.

Is this not the same thing as artificial intelligence? Do not programmers put some sort of artificial intelligence in all their programs? ie. a calculate button, an add button, etc....

So, there you have it....There is a God that DOES exist! And all He wants you to do is trust in Him for EVERYTHING you EVER need!

--JFB

..."Why is it that if lblBigbang is false, that the whole world stops its own running process?? "

Here's another reason why....Evolution states that there was NOTHING--then a Big Bang. Now, as I have stated earlier, if the Big Bang really took place, then it has to have properties that existed BEFORE it took place!! And, as Evolution stated, NOTHING existed before the Big Bang! Therefore...since nothing existed before the Big Bang, than we can safely conclude that NOTHING existed! Therefore, the properties of the Big Bang didn't exist! ....And therefore, since the properties of the Big Bang didn't exist BEFORE it took place, then the Big Bang simply never happened!

Purely scientific, ladies and gents...

--JFB

^ Please look up Guth's Grand Guess.

And Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang. Two entirely seperate things. They are not even related, with the small exception that without the Big Bang having happened, we probably wouldn't then have Evolution.

Oh and your equation? It should go like this :

10 If lblBigbang is true

20 Then run "properties"

30 Else 10

40 properties

Of course, that is rather simply put - there needs to be some randomizing before 10.


Next nutcase, please.

That's nice, fritzy.

I suppose you feel you have a point somewhere in what you said.

I'm glad you have a perspective you are happy with.

Nothing that you said has anything to do with anything at all, and all of your nonsense has been discussed here many times.

People like your 'dr dino' are nothing but nut cases.

Anyone who accepts something from one of the many ancient creation myths as absolute fact despite all of our knowledge to the contrary is a nutcase.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

I have a good book at home that contains an essay from a biblical scholar who states what we could know about Jesus Christ *without* the NT docs. I'll see if I can dig that up later on.

---

All I have time for at this moment is to get this in from "Jesus Outside the New Testament: What Is The Evidence?" by Edwin M. Yamauchi. This was a chapter in the book "Jesus Under Fire" by Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland...

quote:

---

Even if we did not have the New Testament or Christian writings, we would be able to conclude from such non-Christian writings as Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger that: (1) Jesus was a Jewish teacher; (2) many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; (3) he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; (4) he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; (5) despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by A.D. 64; (6) all kinds of people from the cities and countryside--men and women, slave and free--worshiped him as God by the beginning of the second century.

---

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Wow. I'm shocked. I thought even a pre-school drop-out would be able to distinguish between the Big Bang theory and Evolution..!
A lesson to us all that we should at least do a quick Google on the subjects we attempt to argue about.

Anyway - I have a suggestion for you, Fritzy. It is stipulated that nothing existed before the Big Bang. I put it to you that nothing existed within the physical realm of this universe before the Big Bang. Now, I know that there are some of you who see the whole idea of hyperspacial physics as pure bunkum (including those who argue that the planets of our solar system radiate more heat than they absorb from the Sun for wholly independent and only tenuously plausible reasons), but this theory - which is over a hundred years old - is now being looked at by scientists as being possibly the very unifying principle that might gel the various realms of theoretical physics.

An upshot of this is that it may be quite possible that the Big Bang was a cataclysmic event within the incompressible aether of our physical universe, and that space is only apparently empty (even when completely isolated from, and devoid of detectable energy), but actually saturated in a here-to-forth indirectly demonstrable 'matter' that not only influences, but directly dictates and transmits the physical interactions of this universe!.

If you think the Big Bang is unbelievable, you're going to be incredulous at what comes out of the science community in the next decade!

Oh, and you should note that this theory has nothing to do with evolution, primate rutting cycles, or the flavour of ice-cream.

==I don't believe it! Somebody stole my sig!!==

Bugs - those are the sources which are always quoted when such evidence is asked for.

Unfortunately, they really are very vague and brief in their mentions of Jesus. They are basically mentions of Jesus' followers and mention Jesus only in the context of being the figurehead of the group - they simply do not speak to the nature of Jesus himself.
So even though they are not 'christian' writings, they are writings about christians, and not about Jesus per se.

There are plenty of websites which quote the actual passages....i'll see if I can dig them up as my memory is slightly foggy on the specifics.

From a purely historical perspective, we would infer from these sources that this figure 'Jesus' probably did exist, and probably did in fact preach a form of judaic reform.

Beyond that...

The gospels themselves are certainly embellished at the very least. How much and in what way depends on which gospel we're talking about, and is certainly open to speculation.
And it's not a matter of debate as to whether or not the 4 that we have were chosen from a broader array - we know this to be true.



(Edited by DL-44 on 05-17-2005 18:29)

quote:

---

The gospels themselves are certainly embellished at the very least

---

How does one come to the certainty that they are embellished?
Can you give me some specifics.

DL, they are the quotes most often given simply because they are the ones that exist. I mentioned them in the spirit of looking at what we could say about Jesus Christ as a historical figure if that were all we had to go on. This is probably what would be said if there were no Xianity and we were studying that section of written history. Jesus would be mentioned in say one paragraph probably, if that.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Sirs....As I have stated before, you are still trying to come up with excuses to NOT believe in God--and like I said before as well, you have already chosen to NOT believe in God when you know deep down inside that He does exist.

...Yes, I have followed the Bible thus far and have come to this conclusion--when I do what the Bible tells me to do, then I experience success. However, if I don't, then I experience failure. The Bible even states this fact itself!! So, I must be on the right track if, when I do what the Bible tells me to do, I experience success.

Failure in ANYTHING is a result of two things:

1. I am doing something wrong.
2. I don't know what Truth is or I am uncertain about what I am supposed to do in order to get a correct result.

I know that there must be one correct answer for Truth because I know that in life, when I do certain things, I get in trouble or I mess up. But, when I do other things, I experience success. Therefore, if the above statement is true, then there must be ONE ANSWER for my situation....

--JFB

quote:

---

...Yes, I have followed the Bible thus far and have come to this conclusion--when I do what the Bible tells me to do, then I experience success. However, if I don't, then I experience failure. The Bible even states this fact itself!! So, I must be on the right track if, when I do what the Bible tells me to do, I experience success.

Failure in ANYTHING is a result of two things:

1. I am doing something wrong.
2. I don't know what Truth is or I am uncertain about what I am supposed to do in order to get a correct result.

---

Let us see how your blatherings really hold up, shall we?

I saw those who really believed in God (I guess you would label them as good Xians) die from bullet wounds, shrapnel, and explosions in Iraq and in Kuwait. Since they failed to survive, I guess they were doing something wrong.

Likewise, I saw those who didn't believe in God (I wouldn't label them as Xians at all) and those who actively worshipped Satan survive. I guess they were doing something correct.

JFritzyB, what you consider "logic", is so flawed, that all I can ascertain from your posts is that you are trolling. Either that, or you are a distant pre-evolutionary cousin to Gideon.

Fact is, in the above situations, it doesn't really matter what you believe - quantum physics is deciding your fate.

Thus, Failure in anything is not necessarily a result of two things. It can be the result of one thing, or a combination of many.

And anyway, what you call "failure", I call a "learning experience".

You fail.

I learn.

I don't need an excuse not to believe in God. I swept away the illusions, and embraced reality.

JFritzyB:

quote:

---

And, as Evolution stated, NOTHING existed before the Big Bang!

---

First of all Evolution do NOT talk about the Big Bang and vice versa.

Next, you should read some articles/books about string theory. And for that I highly recommend you the The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Brian Greene. A 3x1h documentary has been made from this book and broadcasted on Nova ( it's availabe in VHS and DVD ). You'll see that these theories manage to unify the Standard Model and the Quantum Theory and makes the concept of "big bang(s)" incredibly simple to understand. Actually my jaw almost drop when I saw this part of the documentary.

In *really* short, imagine that everything exist in more than 3 physical dimensions, and that matter is made of extremely thin coords and sheets. What happen when 2 sheets collides ? Bang!!

Sure the Standard Model and Quantum Theory have some limits. Those limits are met in extreme cases such as black holes, and what we call the "Big Bang".

Does it even striked you once, that everything ( the matter and energy ) may have always existed ? No beginning, no end. It just is.

quote:

---

you are still trying to come up with excuses to NOT believe in God

---

IMHO, this is you who is searching an excuse ... for your ignorance.

quote:

---

you have already chosen to NOT believe in God when you know deep down inside that He does exist.

---

You know what ? I know deep inside that "He" does NOT exists. And cherry on the cake I don't follow the Bible and experience success.

I noticed you mentionned Dr Dino. Young Padawan, you're late, Gideon introduced us to that prick few months ago.



(Edited by poi on 05-17-2005 23:08)

quote:

---

The Bible even states this fact itself!! So, I must be on the right track if, when I do what the Bible tells me to do, I experience success.

---

Yup. Definitely a poor defence for a fanatical mass murderer... but a good one for you.

..and you have already chosen to believe in a god, even though you know deep down in your heart that you believe that you have chosen to believe in a god, even though you believe in a god deep down in your heart so you already chose to believe in a god before you believed you had a choice... or something like that.

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-17-2005 23:16)

I'm not sure how you're defining success, JFritzyB, but I tend to agree with your point. The Bible outlines a way of living and God promises that if we live according to His ways, we will not just survive but live live more abundantly.

WS, if JFritzyB is defining success as being richer, better looking, driving nicer cars, never getting sick, etc than anyone else then that is not biblical at all. But I suspect you have completely missed his actual meaning which is that those who follow God reap spiritual blessings and an inner joy that has to be exprienced to truly appreciate.

The whole idea that God's people are immune to hardship is utterly absurd. God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike. I know there are church's out there that will tell you different but they are mistaken.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

It is impossible to have a serious conversation about such things.
Fritz, you are obviously a rather disturbed person. Your grasp on reality has either been badly shaken or has never existed.

I will not argue about the existence, or lack thereof, of your superhero.

I will also not waste the time it would take to explain how absurdly off the mark you are with your "science" - because all the information is out there and freely available, and the conversations that have happened here could set you straight...but I doubt very seriously that will look objectively on anything at all.

I don't need excuses not to beleive in your mytghical figure.

However, you are very obviously showing a graet need for excuses to beleive in him, and the frighteningly common ability to twist facts and ignore giant holes in logic, and to generally bungle all the scientific principles you try so desperately to 'disprove'.

I would be happy to continue the discussion regarding the gospels and other texts, with anyone intelligent enough to have such a conversation.

I will not participate in yet another "i'm gonna disprove reality" conversation, with someone I must guess is here in some relation to gideon...

quote:

---

WS, if JFritzyB is defining success as being richer, better looking, driving nicer cars, never getting sick, etc than anyone else then that is not biblical at all. But I suspect you have completely missed his actual meaning which is that those who follow God reap spiritual blessings and an inner joy that has to be exprienced to truly appreciate.

---

I did not miss his "actual meaning", Bugs. I was once very religious, and I have experienced spiritual blessings and inner joy.

I have since learned, that one can follow a different path, and still reap spiritual peace and inner joy.

Without god.

And that is the point. There is a choice.

I'm happy for him, if he has found a path in life that makes him happy. There is nothing wrong with that.

The problem is, he is stating that it is the ONLY way, the one true way. And that is just not true.

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-18-2005 08:51)

WS, if you really understood the biblical concept I mentioned then I don't understand how you could say this:

quote:

---

I saw those who really believed in God (I guess you would label them as good Xians) die from bullet wounds, shrapnel, and explosions in Iraq and in Kuwait.
Since they failed to survive, I guess they were doing something wrong.

Likewise, I saw those who didn't believe in God (I wouldn't label them as Xians at all)
and those who actively worshipped Satan survive. I guess they were doing something correct.

---

This was specifically what bothered me about your post. It really surprised me because I thought you did understand that God never promised that bad things would never happen to good people. The entire book of Job was intended to make that very point. So am I misunderstanding your reply to JFB? If so, what exactly did you mean to say?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I would guess the point would be something along the lines of "getting a bullet in the head can't really be called 'success'"

That is exactly how I read it too... but that means he missed the point... which is what I said. Taking a bullet in the head is completely irrelevant when discussing "success" measured from biblical theology.

It is perfectly clear to me that the definition of success from a materialist world view differs from a Xian world view and I assumed that WS also understood that; thus my confusion.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugs, that was pure sarcasm, and it says everything it is supposed to say. I think you mis-understood it.

I know very well that the God never promised the believers an easy ride - the story of Job is evidence of this.

You will notice the " " next to each example - maybe I should of spelled it out a bit more plainly.

You see, JFritzyB is talking in ABSOLUTES

quote:

---

I know that there must be one correct answer for Truth because I know that in life, when I do certain things, I get in trouble or I mess up. But, when I do other things, I experience success. Therefore, if the above statement is true, then there must be ONE ANSWER for my situation....

---

Absolutes apply to everything, because according to him, there is only one Truth.

I presented examples from RL experiences that disprove this.

You see, if JFritzyB believes that that is the path for himself, fine. As I said, I have no problem with that.

But what he feels is correct for himself, doesn't necessarily apply to others. I'm also pointing out that there are other answers for his situation, that he is not seeing - that there are other ways of looking at things, from different perspectives.

quote:

---

It is perfectly clear to me that the definition of success from a materialist world view differs from a Xian world view and I assumed that WS also understood that; thus my confusion.

---

I am also very well aware of this.

Sirs...there is a difference between right and wrong--however, you seem to perceive the answers to right and wrong as a PREFERENCE--rather than a Truth.

If I think it's right to kill someone, well, than since I think this is the right thing to do, I'll just...DO IT! (Yeah, I can kinda understand WHY some people think this way--makes them have a sense of security inside. Whatever they do, is right because they think that it's the RIGHT thing to do...)

...If humans do decide what's right and wrong, than tell me...where is that PERFECT HUMAN who KNOWS ALL THINGS?!!! Is it me (or I)?? Is it you? Is it ANYBODY? Doesn't ANYBODY have ANY answers?

"Well, you don't have to have the answers in life--you just gotta...MOVE ON!"

I'm sorry folks, but there is hope to be found--and teaching people that there is no way to discover Truth will make them become UNSTABLE!! Ask any SMART Psychologist and he'll tell you that when something is uncertain, than there is instability and where there is instability, there is chaos--and where there is chaos, there is DESTRUCTION!!

...If someone tells me that I'm a fool for saying that there is only ONE TRUTH TO FOLLOW, I ask him this question...What if what you said was true in the physical realm? What if we could eat our eggs before we cooked them? What if we lived in our house before building it? And finally...What if we built a roof instead of a foundation first????

Please note that these things CAUSE CHAOS! NOT order!!! Look at Mathematics--what if there were MANY ways to come up with the answer to 2+2=4?? What if 2+2=5? How about TEN? No, FIFTEEN!! How about ONE HUNDERED AND ONE??!!!

You say, "Why, that's OBSURD! That's NOT possible! 2+2 can ONLY EQUAL FOUR!"

HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT! Aren't you being a fool in saying that there is ONE TRUTH TO FOLLOW AND USE in order to come up with the answer "4"? Aren't you being "narrow-minded" and "hypocritical" for saying such things? I mean, HOW PREJUDICED CAN YOU GET! Don't you know that WE decide what the right answer is ON OUR OWN??!

...Do you see what I'm saying? I'm saying that your reasoning is off somewhere else./..

In fact, while we're on the subject of relativism, let me tell you about a young man who talked to me once and "told me the Truth about relativism." And yes, he FIRMLY believed it to be the Truth!

In fact, he basically told me..."How DARE you say that there is only ONE Truth to follow! You're being narrow-minded and stupid!" Well, I told him this..."Let's say you come up to a guy on the street who doesn't believe in gravity and imagined what the world would be like without gravity. He then proceeded to tell you that this was the Truth--however, he said you didn't have to accept it or believe it. Now, wouldn't you at LEAST tell this dude some facts of life?"

"Wouldn't you at LEAST say, 'Look...That's not the way it happens in the real world' and then maybe try to kindly convince him of the Truth of this matter?? Better yet, how should you react when he starts calling you 'narrow-minded' and 'hypocritical' for telling him this? Does him calling you these things, cause the Truth to disappear? NO!" (And not to be too rough with ya, but the Truth of the matter is that the Truth IS the Truth--whether you like it or not.)

Another part of Relativism states that what society says is right, IS right!

The trouble is, what if....


Society says killing is right

A decade later....

Society says killing is wrong


WHO IS RIGHT??!!!

(Edited by JFritzyB on 06-29-2005 09:38)

(Edited by JFritzyB on 06-29-2005 09:42)

quote:

---

...Do you see what I'm saying? I'm saying that your reasoning is off somewhere else./..

---

Yup, yours is WAAAYYYYYY off. 2+2=4 can be proven. So can the existence of gravity. Proving the existence of ONE TRUTH, as you call it, is not possible to prove. It is a philosophical concept.

The same goes for Universal concepts of right and wrong. There is no proof of such, whatsoever. If anything, there is a tendence of proof in Nature against such. Right is, what one is able to force on others. Wrong is, what one can force on others. When this force fails, then right/wrong concepts change accordingly.

We humans tend to see such as being unjust (i.e. personal disatisfaction); thus, we have created different forms of governing, to control and guide the type of force used and how it is used and enforced. The Divine Right of Kings, Dictatorships, different types and styles of Democracy, Socialism, etc.

Religion has been in the business for ages, and still is. And they all tend to have one thing in common - only they (the particular religion in question) has the "right" answer, the ONE TRUTH. The problem with that is inherent - as long as there are rival beliefs, there can be no concrete concept of ONE TRUTH, because another exists.

So, which ONE TRUTH is the ONE TRUTH?

Show me the evidence. I want facts, I want evidence that I can test for, that I can reproduce.

The truth is whatever you perceive it to be.

It's like pain in medicine. There are people who are really hurting when they say they are in pain. There are people who are lying in order to get drugs. Then, there are your people who are in great pain but deny it. (that happens mostly with the elderly because they "don't want to be a burden" or the somewhat prideful people who generally hate to see themselves as needing help.) And of course, there are varying degrees in the TOLERENCE of pain. (What I may find as extremely painful, you may find as just an annoyance)

And generally, we can usually tell which group they fall into when they ask (or don't ask) for pain medicine.

But we HAVE to dispense medicine according to THEIR perception of pain. This is what we are taught, and this is what we have to follow. I won't say that there aren't times when this rule doesn't come into conflict, because it does. But the fact remains that, in the end, we have to accept and respect THEIR peception of what THEIR pain is.

So truth is like pain. It's whatever YOU perceive it to be.

What has this got to do with science vs. religion?

Truth, like pain, is on a spectrum. Science and Religion are just two opposite ends of the same spectrum. And everybody in the world falls on varying places on that spectrum. Proof vs. Faith. Grounded vs. "up in the clouds". Reality vs. Spiritual. However you want to put it, it's all on the same spectrum. The only problem is, that unlike pain, noone is willing to let it rest and accept anyone elses perception of truth while retaining their own. I don't try to force my perception of pain on you, or dispence medicine to you based on MY perception of pain.

I don't know where the hell I'm trying to go with this. But it sounded good. Ignore it or elaborate on it. I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

There is only one truth and that is reality.

Reality is all about us and for the most part can be seen heard, touched experienced or otherwise quantified.

Religion does not meet these parameters.

That is the only truth.

You may obfuscate and become as anfractuous as you wish, but from this basic fact of life you cannot escape.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

...there is a difference between right and wrong--however, you seem to perceive the answers to right and wrong as a PREFERENCE--rather than a Truth.

---

This is correct.

What one perceives as 'right' is not necessarily what another believes. If we differ in our idea of right and wrong, then we have demonstrated 'preference'. I'm not willing to back down on what I feel is truly wrong, so my preference must be truth - at least, to me.