Topic awaiting preservation: Scary web site!

Quotes from the The American Taliban

quote:

---

"With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew."

Bailey Smith

---

OMFG!!!
Does any of those nut have a brain



(Edited by poi on 08-29-2005 03:02)

Want to hear something really disturbing: I once thought Ann Coulter was hot.

Where was I? Gah! I won't be banned for admitting that will I?

Anyway, that listing needs updated to include Rev. (...cough...) Robertson's calls for the assassination of Hugo Chavez.

I don't know why, anyone who wants to kill a guy offering me cheap gas is no friend of mine.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Great galloping Goose bumps!

Geez, keep those people south of the border willya?

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

Now...there is nothing there that I have not heard and/or read before.

but.....holy shit it is frigthening to see all together like that...

if there were a god to pray to, i would pray that he smite the christian-right before they destory the world...

Even scarier (and that was a very scary look at the Xian Right, I must agree! ) are the number of Asylumites that would agree with that site and the views depicted there, IMHO.

How do people get so messed up?

I know a few of the people on that list very well and would just like to let you good people know that those are extreeemely sensationalistic quotes taken out of context. I can only surmise the reason for doing so would be to whip peoples of a more liberal mindset into the opposite end of this same perceived hatred, so uh, beware

You guys are starting to sound a bit like the pharisees sitting in judgement over an adulterous woman these days, looking for division and someone to beat down. Again, beware.

And of course, I apologize in advance for telling you how to behave

JKMbabry: It makes no doubt those quotes are taken out of context, but still many goes really really far.

Then show us the full context, that we me take some comfort in your allegation.

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:

---

"Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity, as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed'"

---

I'd really, really like to see your "taken out of context" apply to this. Note that "religions" is the key word used here. That encompasses all the others here, that are not Xian - like Buddhists and Hindus, for example. That is just not true, no matter how you draw the context.

quote:

---

"With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew."

---

I don't think there IS a context one can say that in, and appear any differently.

quote:

---

"Yes, religion and politics do mix. America is a nation based on biblical principles. Christian values dominate our government. The test of those values is the Bible. Politicians who do not use the bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office."

---

I'm trying really, really hard to think of a context where that doesn't sound like a religious fanatic. Really. Maybe I am just not smart enough.

quote:

---

"American Veterans are to blame for the fag takeover of this nation. They have the power in their political lobby to influence the zeitgeist, get the fags out of the military, and back in the closet where they belong!"

---

This is so repugnant, that I as a Veteran cannot for the life in me see ANY way that can be said in a context that isn't insulting, and downright meanspirited. But maybe I am wrong. Please enlighten me.

quote:

---

"AIDS is a racial disease of Jews and African American (derogatory word removed), and fortunately it is wiping out the (word replaced) Homosexuals. I guess God hates (word replaced) Homosexuals for several reasons. There is one big reason to be against (word replaced) Homosexuals and that is because every time some white boy is seduced by a (word replaced) Homosexual into becoming a (word replaced) Homosexual, means his white bloodline has run out."

---

JK, I don't believe even you can support this - I'm hoping you somehow overlooked it. I hope so.

Anything by Jerry Falwell is...not worth mentioning here. It is not worthy of being considered, because it is such garbage, that there is no reason to include it here.

The same goes for Jimmy Swaggert -

quote:

---

"Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it...Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory."

---

That is one of the stupidest thing I have ever heard - not a scientific Fact? Oh. I see. Ok, so, the sceintists who follow the defining criteria of what a scientific fact is, coin it a scientific fact (that evolution occurs, and has been measured).

quote:

---

"Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody's pseudo-right to worship an idol."

---

Just wondering what other context that can be meant in, and still not be what it is - a fanatical statement.

quote:

---

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different...More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."

---

Yup. Why, just the other day, I heard they gassed a few hundered thousand more evangelical Xians. Serves them right!

There are a lot of others, as well - a looooong list. But those that I have mentioned above are a good start.

I'm ready to be enlightened.

JK - it is clear that some of those quotes are out of context. It is clear that the purpose of collecting them like that was to make a point.

But with many of those quotes, it is simply not possible to them in a context where they would be anything other than horrifying.

Context my ass. Much more than not, those quotes can be taken as stand alone, and any context you put them in they come out sounding the same.

Jade, take note....THESE are the people who need prayers.....NOT homosexuals.

(Not that I think prayer would do much good for these people--but these are the evil ones. Not atheists, not feminists, not homosexuals, not any other group. And somebody needs to take Pat Robertson by those two little horns growing out of his head and sling him around a little bit.)

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

oh good gravy, when am I supposed to get any work done?

you people. Serves me right for speaking in this forum against all better judgement and personal policy

The only thing I really have time to summarize my earlier commentary:

quote:

---

JK, I don't believe even you can support this - I'm hoping you somehow overlooked it.

---

overlooked correct, I saw a lot of good men quoted out of context and a lot of mean bastards that I didn't bother to read cuz I'd heard them before and was repulsed. I did look at what was posted under the names of a few men I was familiar with to see what the bias was inclined to point out. One that stood out as an example of out-of-context sensationalism was Tony Evans:

quote:

---

"The demise of our community and culture is the fault of sissified men who have been overly influenced by women."

---

This guy is a very caring man. I don't like the way he dresses or his wife's hair or the stereotypical eloquent blackmaaaaan way he presents his message etc etc etc, but I've heard him talk on a few occassions and he has nothing but love and wisdom to give. The quote provided out of context, and jammed into the context of that setting unfairly lumped him in with some real psychos, making his out of context words look psycho by association. This is what I have issue with regarding this page, that is what I attempted to communicate in a quick shot earlier.

My issue with you *guys* lately is that I grow weary of the clutter of derisive speak threads in the /quickchanges. I've known the majority of you guys for a while now and I know you've got more love than hate in there but damn if you're not beginning to resemble a band of bullies on the playground that are feeling their strength over the younger kids. That'd be tragic to see that developing scenario come to it's full fruition. My perspective is valid, there are probably more who share, whether it's worth your consideration is of course entirely up to you. I simply miss the days when the volume of energy expended in these types of threads was devoted to sharing knowledge and growing friendships instead.

this is the OzoneAsylum?

So, JKM, you cannot produce any evidence these were taken out of context?

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

Ann Coulter said "Not all muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are muslim.
Response: Anybody heard of the IRA????
How about the KKK or Neo-Nazis (which is what most of these extremist morons sound like)

"Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity, as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed'"
Response: Ummm....how about the crusades. Christians: "AHH! They're differant. They smell bad and don't answer to the name of Jesus. KILL THEM!!!!!!!!!" Or Maybe the fact that Hitler was a christian. What about that king, William the Conqueror, wasn't it. Raped and tortured his own people and called himslef the first CHRISTIAN king.

I could conitnue with all of them but I will save your time.

"When people say 'clean as a whistle' they forget that a whistle is full of spit."

Two more things:
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

Response:
1.Two words: Nuremburg Trials
2.War does not sanction murder. The killing of noncombatants is just that, especially when it serves no real purpose.

"When people say 'clean as a whistle' they forget that a whistle is full of spit."

quote:

---

So, JKM, you cannot produce any evidence these were taken out of context?

---

Haha, not at the moment bro, but you can knock yourself out

In fact JKM, you cannot produce the quotes in context at all.

Yours is merely a feeble, feckless and impotent attempt to divert from the truth.

Toddle off now, your credibility has been shredded.

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:

---

JKMabrysaid:

My issue with you *guys* lately is that I grow weary of the
clutter of derisive speak threads in the /quickchanges. I've known the
majority of you guys for a while now and I know you've got more love
than hate in there but damn if you're not beginning to resemble a band
of bullies on the playground that are feeling their strength over the
younger kids. That'd be tragic to see that developing scenario come to
it's full fruition. My perspective is valid, there are probably more
who share, whether it's worth your consideration is of course entirely
up to you. I simply miss the days when the volume of energy expended in
these types of threads was devoted to sharing knowledge and growing
friendships instead.

this is the OzoneAsylum?

---

Here here! Well said that man.

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

In fact JKM, you cannot produce the quotes in context at all.

Yours is merely a feeble, feckless and impotent attempt to divert from the truth.

Toddle off now, your credibility has been shredded.

---

Ya boo sucks, Diogenes every thread you engage yourself in you end up insulting someone, why is this? It also worries me that you also only participate in the Phylosophy and other silliness section of a Web Designer forum...

of course, you're not the only person that's guilty of this...

Cheers,

Diogenes, Just because JKM doesn't have every interview or speech transcript these quotes came from doesn't mean he hasn't made a good point. Your posts however come off just as arrogant as these 'American Taliban' quotes, but yours are not out of context.

Don't be silly. One is insulted only if one wishes to be. If my observations and opnions are not couched in PC lingo, tough.

Don't take too much on yourself Blaise, worrying about what other's do and why can lead to bleeding ulcers.

Skitz, if he is going to claim the quotes are out of context, then he damned well better be prepared to prove it. Until then, my comment stands unchallenged.

It is often considered arrogant when someone dares to challenge another's point of view. (we need a 'shrug' slimy).

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:

---

Here here!

---

Somewhat agreeable, bu even though I have been dragged through their muck, does not mean that they have nothing to offer others.
For me the jury is still out on this idea. MAybe 4 years is enough to know, but I can't vouch for that. I'm new, and I'm expecting such responses. Maybe people should just get used to this fact?

quote:

---

Ya boo sucks, Diogenes every thread you engage yourself in you end up insulting someone, why is this?

---

* Ditto, see above *

quote:

---

Just because JKM doesn't have every interview or speech transcript these quotes came from doesn't mean he hasn't made a good point.

---

Then let him, or you, or anyone, start a new thread, quote one of those quotes, and defend it, as if it WERE taken out of context. Show us your wisdom.

quote:

---

my comment stands unchallenged.

---

Hurray for you

I realize that you seem to put a lot of stock in that idea, but it is really quite meaningless.

You need to grasp this dio - people here, for the most part, don't really give a shit about being 'PC', so you not being PC has nothing to do with anything, as much as like to think that's what a person's problem is.

JK clarified his statement quite thoroughly. If it's not what you wanted from him....oh well. Move on...

quote:

---

It also worries me that you also only participate in the Phylosophy and other silliness section of a Web Designer forum

---

Just because he doesn't participate in the Web Designer parts of this forum has no bearing on anything he posts. (Whether I or anyone else agree with him or not.)

I usually only participate in the Phylosophy and other Silliness section, the Ozone section and the Photography section. Does that mean that my opinions are not valid?

JK wimped out. He made an unsubstantiated claim and when asked to prove it, he ran.

There would be no point at all in my taking part in the computer skills part of this marvellous forum as my computer skills begin and end with turning the damn thing on.

Why anyone would be concerned about that fact, is beyond my simply ability to comprehend.

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

He didn't "wimp out"
He made a statement, and later clarified his point.

The fact that his clarification doesn't match what you think his original statement should have weighed in as, is completely immaterial.

And yes, which parts of the forum you participate in is also immaterial.

Ok DL, have it your way.

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:

---

Jade, take note....THESE are the people who need prayers.....NOT homosexuals.

(Not that I think prayer would do much good for these people--but these are the evil ones. Not atheists, not feminists, not homosexuals, not any other group. And somebody needs to take Pat Robertson by those two little horns growing out of his head and sling him around a little bit.)

---

I make no assumptions on the state of anyone's soul. And you guys just still don't get it. I harbor no predjudices at anyone person who is not a Chrisitian or does not follow Christian principles. I might add that regardless most of you still follow Christian principles regardless of what you claim . Attempts to find a comaderie with these quoted persons with all the Christian faithful only shows a narrow prejudical uneducated mentality in regard to Christianity. These quoted persons do not speak for all Christianity. They are not national spokespersons for the Christians souls who inhabit the earth. This is either ignorant or blind by choice to percieve all faithful religious persons in this regard. Persons are not made inherrentaly evil. The perform evil acts because they follow evil by choice. And are allowed to change and follow good by choice to be redeemed. We are given chances to make good for a bad or wayward thoughts of judgement. I make no presumptions on the state of a persons soul on a degree of evil one embraces. For one to say these quoted persons are evil is to be in judgement. Most of you in your post regarding Anti-Christian debates generalize Christians acts of one in relation to all the whole of Christianity when debating your point. This is a misquied view. One can never have a well thought out rational discussion with one who sees only what he chooses to see by prejudice and does not open his mind to spiritual possibilities. You lash out t "closeminded" and refer it back to you in return. You don't understand what you don't feel or have felt regarding ones spiritual character. So, how do you propose to undertand them or want to understand them. Your so bent on revolutionizing Christian thought to your secularized idologies you miss the real message. In your accusations you may be no different from those you quoted. All Christians who embrace idologies that are contrary to Christ's message usually have an underlying motive or cause, be it political or whatever. A well informed guided Christians can see beyond these quoted persons intent.

But, all persons need prayers, not a select few and this includes myself. I pray for everyone regardless, to seek Christ's counsel in their daily life.

quote:

---

JK wimped out. He made an unsubstantiated claim and when asked to prove it, he ran.

---

I made no unsubstantiated claim, I offered words for consumption. Do I need to prove what I said was is true? If you don't trust me that's fine, if you require proof to believe, that's fine as well. I'd like to even provide it for you but it would take more time than I have. If prioritizing a tasklist and moving "satisfy diogenes" to the bottom of said list is "wimpy" I'm a giant wuss. Frankly you're not on my list atm, no offense.

I'm no wuss and I run from no serious work that needs to be done. The fact that I don't rate you shouldn't be taken as an insult, it's not meant that way. And I'm happy to pretend that you haven't offended me in the interest of common decency and friendliness

quote:

---

I simply miss the days when the volume of energy expended in
these types of threads was devoted to sharing knowledge and growing
friendships instead.

---

I hear you, JK.

I hear you.

And I agree.

Oh hell JK, I am in no way offended. I sure don't take criticism or critique personally and frankly, can't understand people who do.

My point is you, claimed the quotes were out of context.

This is the sort of response one usually hears from politicians (which is why I always taped them during interviews).

The quotes are violent and elitist. If someone claims they are not, taken in context of the entire speech, it didn't seem unreasonable to me for that person to provide evidence to back up the claim.

When said person then advises they simply don't have the time to do so, one is naturally suspicious of their ability to do so.

If the issue is not important enough for you to substantiate, then one wonders why you bothered to comment at all?

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

Fuck women! Fuck men! Fuck old people!
Fuck jews! Fuck black people! Fuck white people!
Fuck italian people! Fuck chinese people!
Fuck heterosexuals! Fuck homosexuals!

Now you can easily take "Fuck black people!" out of the context ...
because what i really meant was: Fuck everyone!

I've been deceived in my life too. Media has made many people
look worse than they are and some better than they are. Even
individuals have deceived me with their speaches. I don't think
anyone is entirely evil nor good (especially good). It's usually
the values that matter.

I can't say religious people are evil. Even terrorists. Neither
muslim nor christian. (oh yea there are christian terrorists too,
not counting the countless number of thieves, murderers and
raipists that are almost non existant in muslim countries)
Terrorists don't take their ideas from thin air! ... It's the religious
leaders who have the money, the power, do the converting and
planning. They are usually also well educated and know how to
manipulate those who have been less fortunate in their lives...
I'm sure some of the TERRIBLE terrorist are just poor hopeless
guys taken from streets and brainwashed to do evil biddings ...

Noone is born evil.

[codeNoone is born evil.][/code]

You never met my ex-mother-in-law.

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:

---

I hear you, JK.

---

I should hope to think that that this is not a specific feeling.

"Giving" is an inherent US attribute! Whether it be on our home court, or overseas, the US helps mankind, and at any given oppourtunity!

" You are no match for Lord Gorlok! "

quote:

---

Fuck women! Fuck men! Fuck old people!
Fuck jews! Fuck black people! Fuck white people!
Fuck italian people! Fuck chinese people!
Fuck heterosexuals! Fuck homosexuals!

Now you can easily take "Fuck black people!" out of the context ...
because what i really meant was: Fuck everyone!

---

That is a very poor example. Because if you really mean to say "fuck everyone", then just say it. By specifically mentioning groups, you may think that you are saying "fuck everyone", but it easily comes accross as a direct insult to that particular group.

For example, this

quote:

---

"With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew."

---

It really doesn't matter what context one puts that in - it is STILL derogatory, and it is false (Jews can belong to different religions, right?).

It is also a statement dripping with bigotry.

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

WebShaman, I know most of these quotes are bad in whatever context but in some cases you can't really judge people that easily.

A month ago or so a journalist came up to me in my little hometown. Asked me something and left. Later when I bought the paper there was a tiny, stupid looking picture of me and under that a few lines that at first I couldn't recognise. The idea was about the same but the words were different and made me sound stupid.


Btw I hate it when people don't get a joke and then just can't shut up. When someone makes a bad joke or you don't get it. Just shut up. There's no need to say "Hey, this joke is shit.". That just creates a totally different outcome for the conversation. One that was not desired by the one who spoke first.

quote:

---

One that was not desired by the one who spoke first.

---

So the person 'listening' is to blame? Me thinks you may do well in politics.

quote:

---

WebShaman, I know most of these quotes are bad in whatever context but in some cases you can't really judge people that easily.

---

I never said that one could.

*shrug*

The majority of the quotes on that page are heinous.

I went through them one by one and did find a few that I don't think belong at all. I'm just pulling out a few to comment on.

quote:

---

Beverly LaHaye (Concerned Women for America)
"Yes, religion and politics do mix. America is a nation based on biblical principles. Christian values dominate our government. The test of those values is the Bible. Politicians who do not use the bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office."

---

This is a perfectly valid personal opinion no different than many here who say religious citizens have no business in public office.

quote:

---

Gary Bauer (American Values)
"We are engaged in a social, political, and cultural war. There's a lot of talk in America about pluralism. But the bottom line is somebody's values will prevail. And the winner gets the right to teach our children what to believe."

---

This is actually true. This is really the way it works most of the time and I believe every group in this country needs to be active in trying to influence our society in the way they feel is best for all of us. This should not be something to be feared but rather a wake up call to support what you believe is right.

quote:

---

James Dobson (Focus on the Family)
"Those who control the access to the minds of children will set the agenda for the future of the nation and the future of the western world."

"State Universities are breeding grounds, quite literally, for sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV), homosexual behavior, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, alcoholism, and drug abuse."

"Today's children... They're damned. They're gone."

---

The first 2 quotes seem quite accurate. The third one is probably referring to the fact that there is only a certain amount of time you have in a young person's life to make significant impressions. It kills me to think of the number of children that have been lost to poor education in our public schools.

quote:

---

James Kennedy (Center for Reclaiming America)
"The Christian community has a golden opportunity to train an army of dedicated teachers who can invade the public school classrooms and use them to influence the nation for Christ."

---

Again, this is precisely what every group who cares about the future should be working on. Our society is built upon competing ideas and efforts. I think it is a healthy mechanism as long as fundamental rights are maintained.

quote:

---

John Ashcroft (Attorney General)
"Civilized people - Muslims, Christians, and Jews - all understand that the source of freedom and human dignity is the Creator."

---

Um... duh? Note he does not exclude anyone in this statement. He is simply stating a common teaching that these three great religions share.

quote:

---

Keith A. Fournier (Catholic Way)
"We need a legal strategy which protects the rights of those of us who hold Christian convictions which will afford us the opportunity to contend once again for the mind of this culture."

---

This seems perfectly sensible to me.

quote:

---

Rush Limbaugh
"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the
mainstream of society."

---

This is pure satire and anyone familiar with Rush Limbaugh should know that.

quote:

---

Tony Evans (Promise Keepers)
"The demise of our community and culture is the fault of sissified men who have been overly influenced by women."

---

I assume he is referring to the feminization of much of our current culture. This is an actual phenomenon and should be discussed and analyzed. It is questionable whether or not suppressing masculinity in our culture's males is wise. I don't claim to fully understand its implications but you don't make those kinds of societal modifications without serious effects.

In case anyone skims this post then I want to reiterate how I began it.

The majority of the quotes on that page are heinous.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 09-05-2005 07:01)

Your ratrionalization of some of the ones you chose to quite is no less heinous.

Lahaye's quite is an expression of elitism and exclusion. It is frightening in that it would exclude the majority of people in the US who do not adhere to her narrow beliefs.

Dobson is just plain scary. To make a blanket statement about Universities shows his overwheening pride, overwheming ignorance and bias.

To claim all the kids of today are lost is completely wrong to begin with and incomplete as a statement. He should have, had he any interest in truth, concluded with (at the very least);"In my opinion". The only place truly poor education occurs is where the fallacies of the bible are promoted.

Kennedy's phrasing reveals the true attitude of the xian right. He uses the word "invade".

If the biased and antiquated teachings of religion were welcome, there would be no need to "invade".

Ashcroft excluded millions of people who do not hold with xianity and who also vote in the US.

Fournier is saying, "We aren't making the sort of headway we need on our own to have complete power, we need to get laws to MAKE people think and act the way WE think they should". This is typical of the mindset.

You may see Limbaugh as being satirical, but he merely echoes similiar statements heard by the likes of Dobson.

Evans is one of those men who feels challenged by feminism. It is surprising how many xian men have similiar feelings.

There are however many men who's minds are not fogged by religious dogma do not feel so challeneged.

Then of course there are the sports types, but that is a whole other problem.

It is worrisome Bug that you should go to such trouble to be an apologist for such frankly bigoted, exclusionist and elitist opinions.

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

Your rationalization of some of the ones you chose to quote is no less heinous.

Lahaye's quote is an expression of elitism and exclusion. It is frightening in that it would exclude the majority of people in the US who do not adhere to her narrow beliefs.

Dobson is just plain scary. To make a blanket statement about Universities shows his overwheening pride, overwheming ignorance and bias.

To claim all the kids of today are lost is completely wrong to begin with and incomplete as a statement. He should have, had he any interest in truth, concluded with (at the very least);"In my opinion". The only place truly poor education occurs is where the fallacies of the bible are promoted.

Kennedy's phrasing reveals the true attitude of the xian right. He uses the word "invade".

If the biased, exclusionist and antiquated teachings of religion were welcome, there would be no need to "invade".

Ashcroft excluded millions of people who do not hold with xianity and who also vote in the US.

Fournier is saying, "We aren't making the sort of headway we need on our own to have complete power, we need to get laws to MAKE people think and act the way WE think they should". This is typical of the mindset.

You may see Limbaugh as being satirical, but he merely echoes similiar statements heard by the likes of Dobson.

Evans is one of those men who feels challenged by feminism. It is surprising how many xian men have similiar feelings.

There are however many men who's minds are not fogged by religious dogma do not feel so challeneged.

Then of course there are the sports types, but that is a whole other problem.

It is worrisome Bug that you should go to such trouble to be an apologist for such frankly bigoted, exclusionist and elitist opinions.

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

Dio, you cannot complain about exclusionism if you favor it too. Can you? Don't you hold the exact opposite of what Lahaye said? For instance, I believe you would probably agree with this:

No, religion and politics do not mix. America is a nation based on the principles of the Enlightenment and rationalism. Christian values must never dominate our government. The fact that many citizens think the Bible is the basis of our society is frightening. Politicians who agree and attempt to use the bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office.

Isn't this simply a case of differing opinions in a pluralistic society?

James Dobson has a lot of experience in this area and to call him ignorant of the state of our education system just doesn't seem accurate to me. I don't agree with everything he has to say, particularly in his views on the role of women, but there are a great many things he has right. The pathetic state of our public school system is one of them.

I specifically stated that Ashcroft's statement was non-exclusionary because I knew that a defensive reader would take them as such. If you read it exactly as stated, it is simply making an observation about 3 groups of people who adhere to 3 major religions. In fact, adherents to those religions do believe what he explained.

Being challenged by women taking their rightful place in human society is one thing. Being concerned that inhibiting males from being male may have negative effects on society is another. There are cases where this is happening and I do worry about it. You do not help women by hurting men and visa versa. All people in our society must be encouraged to become the best they can each be individually. I pointed out the Evans quote because I believe he was probably referring to the latter.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Isn't this simply a case of differing opinions in a pluralistic society?

---

No, it is not.

One view supports the premise of the creation of our government. The other goes against its very fiber.

Excluding religious people from government and excluding areligious people from our government strikes me as opposite sides of the same coin.

I do not agree with her statement because I believe someone who does not use the bible should be allowed to hold public office. However, I do not think what she is saying necessarily goes against the fiber of our government. I am thinking mainly of the idea that religion serves as the guide to many of the things we do in government. Quotes like this come to mind:

quote:

---

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

--George Washington, from his Farewell Address

---

quote:

---

I consider ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man.

--Thomas Jefferson to Augustus B. Woodward, 1824

---

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugs, religion also serves as a guide that lead to some of the worst atrocities in our history.

One cannot just "pick and choose" here.

I agree with DL's post.

I believe very deeply in the seperation of the Church and State. This is however different from excluding those who believe in one religion or another from State - individuals may believe what they wish. But when in an official postion of office, allowing ones religion dictate policy, and erecting laws to that end, is clearly a violation of the principle of the seperation of Church and State.

And clearly making public statements like "no-one belongs in politics unless they believe like we do" is just...bollocks.

That said, there have been many State leaders that have been deep believers, and still managed to do their duty and keep seperate Church and State.

^ Amen.

What do you mean one cannot "pick and choose here"?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Jeese Helms - "All Latins are volatile people. Hence, I was not surprised at the volatile reaction."

---

While i feel that Helms is an idiot in general, my experience dating latin girls completely supports this statement

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

(Edited by Fig on 09-06-2005 02:03)

quote:

---

Excluding religious people from government

---

For the record, I did not read past this sentence yet.

Nothing about excluding religious people from government was said. And as far as I know, nobody here has ever suggested such a thing.

There is a *HUUUUUUGE* difference between a 'religous person' in govnerment, and a person who will use a position in government for the sake of furthering religious ideology. Your statement above to Diogenesis spoke of the latter.

Right. The statement is exclusionary rather than inclusive. It is clear from all of ther statements that the genral belief of those making them is that the government should be made up entirely of "right-thinking" (read: xian) people.

I have no problem with people with religious beliefs holding office so long as they are not trying to force those beliefs on others.

In fact, here in Canada, it has worked very well. We have had a succession of Catholic PM's and yet there is strong protection for a woman's right to abortion.

The current threat to that right comes from a bunch of right wing xians who, no surprise, are friendly with Dumbya. As well, Dobson, has recently opened a lobbying office here to promote his regressive ideas. He will find his reception less than cordial, except among those relative few who share his archaic views.

As for this bit of doggeral:

quote:

---

No, religion and politics do not mix. America is a nation based on the principles of the Enlightenment and rationalism. Christian values must never dominate our government. The fact that many citizens think the Bible is the basis of our society is frightening. Politicians who agree and attempt to use the bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office.

---

Religion and politics have always mixed, they should not be married.

NO religious doctrine should ever dominate any government, we see how it has ruined many people in the past and in the middle east today.

It IS frightening that so many people are so foolish and so eaily lead.

Policiticans who attmept to use religious doctrine in their role as politicians must not be allowed to do so. What they do in their private lives is up to them.

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

Seems to me the hardcore xians' screaming for their values to be entrenched in gov't is the same bunch screaming about too much gov't in our lives.

It just further reinforces *my basic belief* =) that organized religion in all it's many flavors is all about Power and Control nothing more.

Argue/debate all the scriptures, the origins of life...the original sin etc. it all boils down to power and control.

I don't know about you but I figure all flavors of *government* already have too much power and control.

Bugs, wehn you say things like "I am thinking mainly of the idea that religion serves as the guide to many of the things we do in government.", there is are also things like "Eye for an eye" and such beliefs that if the unbelievers will not believe, then put them to the sword.

European history is full of example of Xian Belief heavily mixed in with the State - where the borders of Church and State blur, or are non-existant.

And we see many examples of the horrors of such a combination.

That is what I meant by saying you cannot pick and choose. The potiential to do positive things is there, sure. But the potiential to do negative things is also there.

And it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have the Church and State together, and still treat all citizens as Equal under the Law. What about Muslems, Hindu's, Buddhists, Native American Indians with their cultural beliefs, etc?

"Such will be tolerated, but you will go to xian schools, learn xian things, and behave like a good xist!" Or else!

I'm sorry, but that is not the America that was founded in the Constitution, that is not the America that is meant in the Bill of Rights.

No, but it is the America envisioned and striven for by the xian right in all it's flavours.

The enemy is at the gate, but he left his mind behind and operates strictly by rote and dogma.

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 *HUUUUUUGE* difference between a 'religous person' in govnerment, and a person who will use a position in government for the sake of furthering religious ideology. Your statement above to Diogenesis spoke of the latter.

---

This expresses the view of quite a few of you right? Not sure what's meant by "religious ideology" there but for the sake of my point let's replace it with "abortion ban" since that's a clear divide and I think probably solidifies the abstract "religious ideology"... What if the contituents want this? We are a democratic republic yes? This is not a church/state issue, as far as I'm aware the Consitution forbids the government from establishing a religion (this is why we left Europe aye?) not from making laws that conform with the will and moral values of the people.

This whole debate is a matter of perspective, which is why I normally choose not to engage at all, noone's listening or trying to see from the other's pov, for years now but one thing I have noticed, a few of you (normally) more mature/educated/eloquent/vocal lefties (for lack of a better
pigeonhole) are mean and at times, foolish. Perfect example:

quote:

---

The enemy is at the gate, but he left his mind behind and operates strictly by rote and dogma.

---

That's both mean and foolish from where I sit. The mean is obvious, the foolish is you pretending that you've seen it from their point of view, or understand their point of view. To think that you are better than the next man (enough so to not give a second thought to insulting them outright) while you rail against someone whom you perceive to be doing the very same within the framework of govt or media or whatever.

The Senator that goes to the hill to pass the law banning abortion, perhaps he does so because his constituents require it of him? Add to that the love he feels for life and the deep conviction he holds himself. Add to that his experiences with a family member who struggled through an abortion and regretted it etc etc etc... Is this man a mindless shell operating strictly by rote and dogma?!

I don't expect to ever change anyone's mind about anything but I'd like us to try to see things from each other's point of view and be kind to one another. If we can walk a mile in each other's moccasins it's a lot harder to hate/insult each other, and we begin to see more clearly.

I should make it clear that I do not favor a state religion nor do I agree with that quote from Lahaye. I firmly believe in the way the founders set up our government by keeping sectarian religion from running state affairs.

What I object to most strongly is the efforts of the secular Left to remove any trace of religion and openly religious people from public life. I know that the vast majority of you here, perhaps all of you, would never favor or support such a thing and for that I am quite thankful and appreciative.

Dio, I honestly thought I had heard you say that you didn't think religous people should hold public office [edit]In previous threads[/edit]. I apologize for that. I have a tendency to project positions onto debate opponents. I have heard such sentiments from some prominent people in some of Bill Buckley's debates over the years.

DL-44, you are quite right in pointing out that nobody here suggested that religious people should be excluded from holding political office.

I acknowledge there are those on the Right who do favor a theocracy. I do not think it represents the majority view by a long shot. If Lahaye was actually saying she favored a law requiring a religious test for office then she is a fool for holding such a position. I took her quote as an opinion about who should hold office and not calling for a legal requirement.

WS, getting away from "picking and choosing" is part of what is wrong with our current society. If we don't know how to judge right from wrong, who do you suggest we leave it up to? I think we should become more involved with "picking and choosing" and not less.

Take our laws against murder as an example. Wouldn't it be ludicrous to suggest we throw them out because they are found in the Bible and other religious texts throughout the world? One has to look at the intent of the law and do one's best to "pick and choose" what is truly right from wrong. It is not a perfect process and it never will be but that is our job.

The Mosaic Law was revolutionary for its time compared with the societies of the day. We look at it and think it is barbaric in some respects but how often do we study it in its historical context? Many of our current laws in this country are based firmly in the Judeo-Christian traditions and that is simply a fact of history like it or not.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 09-06-2005 21:58)

quote:

---

WS, getting away from "picking and choosing" is part of what is wrong with our current society. If we don't know how to judge right from wrong, who do you suggest we leave it up to? I think we should become more involved with "picking and choosing" and not less.

---

On this point, I agree to disagree.

WS, you know that some of the worst mass murder of the last century was done by atheistic regimes. Do you have similar distrust of that combination? I'm not sure I understand your position as it strikes me as looking for a solution that requires no serious thinking on the part of the citizen.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

[

quote:

---

JKMabry said:

This is not a church/state issue, as far as I'm aware the Consitution forbids the government from establishing a religion (this is why we left Europe aye?) not from making laws that conform with the will and moral values of the people.

---

It does not in any way exclude laws which happen to agree with religion. It does exclude laws which are an enforcement of religion.

Is this a very grey area? Certainly. Your examples seem to me to be very far from the reality of the situation being discussed here though. Of course such scenarios exist. But more often, and as we can see from many of the people quoted on that page, we have people using political office as a pulpit, and trying to use law to enforce what they feel their religion demands.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

Take our laws against murder as an example. Wouldn't it be ludicrous to suggest we throw them out because they are found in the Bible and other religious texts throughout the world? One has to look at the intent of the law and do one's best to "pick and choose" what is truly right from wrong. It is not a perfect process and it never will be but that is our job.

---

Yes, it would be ludicrous to suggest we throw laws against murder out because they are found in the bible.

The basis of murder being illegal is *not* in any way biblical. It has been illegal in countless societies before and after, with and without, the bible.
(Of course, in most cases, those societies which did base their law on biblical sources also used the bible to determine who to kill and when... )

That is far different from, say, a law stating that we shall have no god before the judeo-christian god, or a law in regard to our use of graven images, or about taking the "lord's" name in vain, etc..

Certainly, and that is where the "freedom of religion" concept comes in. The goal is a society that allows people to practice their religion, or lack thereof, freely and without government intervention.

DL-44, weren't you and I talking once about Dubya praying about how to govern the nation? I thought your position was this was totally wrong. Am I recalling that accurately? If so, how do you see that in relation to allowing/disallowing religious people from public office? What I mean is that for the truly devout Xian, we are to ask God's direction in all important choices we make in life. I do not see this as a problem, do you? I would be interested in NoJive's and Dio's views on this as well.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

"abortion ban" ....What if the contituents want this?

---

Well the problem here JKM kinda goes like this, (at least my argument does.)

One day the 'constituents' elect someone who endorses *their* position that any female under the age of majority who finds herself pregnant is required by law to undergo an abortion and anyone who hides or helps her avoid the abortion is subject to: bla bla. And that's why your senator on the hill, painful tho' his personal experiences may be, should be telling his constituents that even tho' he agrees with them he cannot support such a law (banning abortion* because of what the 'other side' will likely do. To protect the 'other-side' from the 'other-side* is imo, pretty much what secularism boilds down to.

quote:

---

What if the contituents want this? We are a democratic republic yes?

---

This is the classic catch 22. In your last federal election the constituents cast more votes for the other guy but even if you forget about all the shennanigans and outright bullshit that went on there and look at it from the One person/One vote scenario this too is a bunch of hooey if you believe (as I did for eons) that this results in the 'will of the people.'

The 'First Past the Post' method of electing represenatives/gov'ts etc does not in fact result in true proportional representation as we have been lead to beleive.
But hey..that's a whole debate unto itself. =)

Jk, if the majority of constituents wanted a ban on abortion, there would be one.

There is not because the majority of constituents don't want one.

Let us deal with facts not 'what-ifs'.

The fact is, the religious right want an abortion ban and they are willing to do anything to get it, in the face of obvious facts that the majority of people do not want it.

There is no perspective at all in this matter. It is hard, cold fact the xian right are attempting to establish a theocracy in the US.

If they ever do, there wil be another civil war and the xian right are ournumbered.

As for being mean, truth often hurts. I myself am pretty much immune to insults and so and don't worry a bit if someone chooses to decide something I said was insulting. Up to them.

Bug, no apology required...see above.

As for "Praying to god" for direction...there is no god and so in my view of things, it is just an excuse for despots to do what they want under the flag of religion.

There is historical precedent...inquisition ring a bell?

At least the murderous aethists did their crimes honestly and not blaming it on some fictitious being.

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

My quick 2 cents:

Setting aside the issue of abortion, as it is widely debated and comes down to whether a person considers the baby in the womb worthy of having rights, all groups want something that does not necessarily reflect the views of the majority.

But, what the majority wants means nothing at all, or should mean nothing at all. Our Republic was not set up as an all-out democracy with majority rule, it was set up to protect the rights and liberties of the individual above the whims of the mob and also above the whims of Washington.

People have been brainwashed into thinking we are a pure democracy -- a sad development that happened in the last century -- and if they knew what that really meant, they would be totally against it. If I and five others who happen to be on the town council decide that your property, which has been in your family for generations, would be a nice place to put a shopping mall, we can vote to take your land away, your property, your livelihood, your happiness, and there is nothing you can do to stop us. That is democracy.

On the other hand, as originally intended by those who instituted the united States, who loathed democracy in the pure form, there is nothing you can do, as I am shielded in my rights, my property, by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am a sovereign individual and I make my own laws when it comes to me.

What the majority of constituents wants stops -- or should stop -- at the point where it infringes on another's liberties. There is no middle-ground here, because as we see quite clearly, once you cross the threshold of allowing the majority to dictate what the minority is allowed to do with their own lives, the downward spiral into tyranny begins. Government grows into a massive uncontrollable entity, and in the end, nobody's liberty is safe.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

Your examples seem to me to be very far from the reality of the situation being discussed here though

---

You may very well be right man, I'm not wholely on topic here, just entered to offer a tidbit, drawn back to plead for sanity etc etc. I'm workin on a pretty high-level overview vibe kind of conversation here, despite Diogenes' insistance that I conform to his/her conversational (formal debate?) requirements

Dio Ram : I am not talking about abortion, I simply used it as a concrete substitute in place of an abstract to try and make my point more clear by giving a practical example.

quote:

---

There is no perspective at all in this matter.

---

And you have proved my point most excellently with your words here, I thank you. There is always differing perspectives, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not, whether you agree or not...

quote:

---

WS, you know that some of the worst mass murder of the last century was done by atheistic regimes. Do you have similar distrust of that combination? I'm not sure I understand your position as it strikes me as looking for a solution that requires no serious thinking on the part of the citizen. - Bugs

---

Bugs, they didn't however justify such with Religious reasons, did they? I have a critical thinking process, when it comes to anyone in power - to consider otherwise, is to invite being used and duped. This is why Mr. Bush did not dupe me.

quote:

---

What the majority of constituents wants stops -- or should stop -- at the point where it infringes on another's liberties. There is no middle-ground here, because as we see quite clearly, once you cross the threshold of allowing the majority to dictate what the minority is allowed to do with their own lives, the downward spiral into tyranny begins. Government grows into a massive uncontrollable entity, and in the end, nobody's liberty is safe. - Ram

---

This is a very nice post. Well said.

quote:

---

And you have proved my point most excellently with your words here, I thank you. There is always differing perspectives, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not, whether you agree or not...
- JKM

---

JKM, I'm agreeing with you 100% here, and therefore, I am disproving your point I would also like to add, that every opinion is as valid as the next.

WS and RAM, good posts.

But I have a faint memory running about in the back of my head about a recent newstory from the US in which it was revealed the Bush Feds have quietly passed a law which would allow them the take your home or business away if it was decided (by whom, one wonders) the land could be made better use of.

JK, the reason I see it not a matter of perspective, is because there is no perspective on facts. On opinion, faith, philosphopy, child rearing etc, certainly, but facts are facts.

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

Dio: Kelo vs. New London

What is happening now is most states are coming forth with legislation to "protect" us. I think I've said it before, it is a shame it has to be done that way rather than just following the original tenets, but better than having a bulldozer in front of your home. There are still many cases where the proposed legislation is stalling... We'll just have to wait and see.

That is a perfect example though of exactly the type of thing the US founders sought to protect us from when constucting the Bill of Rights.

In any case, the fight is far from over...

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 09-08-2005 01:19)

TX for the link Ram and the re-assurance the fight is not over. I can see canadian governments licking their collective lips over this sort of thing.

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:

---

What I mean is that for the truly devout Xian, we are to ask God's direction in all important choices we make in life...

---

and once it happens in government's office, it truly becomes nothing more than...well, thereocracy.

I assume this is exact reason, USA wanted to seperate church and state, simply so that decisions in President's possition would not be based on "conversation with Jesus".

Bugs:

quote:

---

DL-44, weren't you and I talking once about Dubya praying about how to govern the nation? I thought your position was this was totally wrong.

---

Even if it wasn't DL, my position is yes, this is totally wrong. My reasons are many and as usual I'll ramble on far too long in a very disjointed manner. So feel free to bail out now. =) So from this heathens pov.

When Dubya states publically he's praying to god AND getting answers a couple of things are going on. He's pandering to the xian right he so rather cleverly manipulated leading up to the last election. And (imo) sets the stage to shirk any responsibility by using that good old 'get out of jail free' card available to all xians.

I've said this before and will again. When things go well it's 'praise the lord.' When things go bad it's ' the lord works in mysterious ways. We can't know gods plan.' or variations there of.

In other words if you work hard and all goes well you pass on all credit and if things go bad, responsibility also gets passed on. Ergo you're not responsible for either, so don't blame me. Don't thank me.

And I think dubya more than any other politician I've ever seen uses this 'card.' I bet you can count on one finger of one hand how many times he's said "I" made a mistake.

Then to top it off the hardcore xain's are saying... 'we hear ya dubya... ain't your fault... we still with ya dubya.' Dubya then casts his gaze skyward and says 'thankya lord.' as he wipes his brow.

As Dio said in one of these threads (so many similar posts I can't keep track -- plus I've not been online a lot lately) Anyhooo somewhere here Dio mentioned that here in Canada we've had a succession of Prime Ministers of the catholic persuasion and I have yet to see, perhaps make that 'determine' how their particular faith has played a role in their decisions as PM.

That is not to say matters of faith are never heard and loudly so. The recent 'gay marriage' legislation saw a few members of the ruling liberals quit the party and sit as independents over the issue. And if memory serves... a catholic bishop or archbishop threatened the PM with excommunication if he didn't vote against the legislation. Ya right... excommunicate the direct link to the top office in the land. Good thinkin' there.

Now in the past 10-15 years, there's been a bit of a shift in our federal political scene and I'm going to try for the readers digest version because, it's important in order to understand what's happening now.

The two main Federal political parties in Canada *were,* for eons the Liberals and Conservatives with the Liberals winning more elections. (again this is the RD version) Then somewhere along the line the New Democratic Party emerged on the Federal scene and tho' it has never come close to forming gov't it has at times elected enough represenatives to make its presence know and felt. The NDP are seen by some as 'godless socialists.' Socialists yes... godless I somehow doubt.

Then 10-12-15 years ago there emerged from the bible-belt of Canada (Southern Alberta) The Reform Party of Canada. Its first leader, born again xian Preston Manning is the son of Ernest Manning a much loved politician and evangelical minister who in the 1930's embarked on a gov't sanctioned Eugenics program the disastrous results of which are still being felt and 'settled' today.

The younger Manning, in the 60's was involved with the Rand Corporation and to this day won't say what he did there. And when you consider Donald Rumsfeld is a past chairman of Rand and Connie Rice a former trustee of Rand, cynics and skeptics like me don't think it could have been anything terribly beneficial. He said nicely. =)

When the Reform Party first emerged it put forward a platform of 'change', most of which, a 'reasonable' person could agree with. Preston himself, when presenting his 'changes' was very articulate... calm for the most part, certainly never out of control nor over the top. He does however have that Barney Fife look about him and after leading the party, out of the desert if you will, to more than respectable results (electing MP's) he never attained the brass ring.

Preston was replaced as leader by Stockwell Day a young turk with 'the looks' required for politics these days...and then he was replaced by Stephen Harper and it is Stephen who is now the head of the "Conservative" party. What??? 'conservatives???what did i miss???

Well you missed the circus and sideshows of sideshows.

Because the "Reform Party" was a grassroots movement based in the bible-belt most of the first candidates from across the country were born-again Xians. Well it didn't take long for the nutbars take off their wrappers. Good old fashioned racist remarks started coming out. Stockwell, the good looking young turk who wanted to be Prime Minister blurted out something about the earth being 5k years old. It just went on and on and on. And I was gleefully cheering them on I must admit.

In an effort to 'ressurect' itself into something more appealing, Reform changed its name to the 'Alliance Party' after pulling in some "Conservatives" who had become disenchanted with their own party's election results.

Then the 'Alliance' and 'Conservative' parties united in a wonderfully ugly and bitter battle that resulted in the "Conservative Alliance" (I beleive is the name) and it is Stephen Harper, a born again Xian, leading that party today. For how much longer tho'... is rather iffy. Just in the past few days there's been something of a purge in the 'conservative' office and what isn't quite clear yet is who was shown the door. The old die hards from the Reform days or die hard conservatives.

Regardless, when we next vote federally...and not that long from now... the 'Liberals' will simply point to.. and quote the nutbars. The Conservatives will point to Liberal corruption and the funnelling of millions and millions of taxpayer dollars to the Liberal party and thier friends etc.

The big problem for the 'conservatives' is that if you don't take a majority of the seats in Ontario and Quebec you can never form a 'majority' gov't. In Quebec where both Liberals and Conservatives field candidates it is the 'Bloc Quebecois' (yes another party lol) which always takes the majority of the seats there. Add to that...that Quebec is largely catholic...producing most of our Prime Ministers over the years...PM's that as a rule don't usually mention religion...I can't see Quebecers voting 'conservative' if there's even a hint of a born-again ban abortion..oh and btw the earth's only 5k old. Won't happen.


And Personally I wouldn't vote for anyone who publiclly states they talk to god and get answers. Keep your religion to yourself Mr./s politicians. I don't have much of a problem when I hear a politician say something like.. 'our prayers and thoughts are with them.' I have a huge problem when I hear a politician say... "Pray with me"... "The nation prays with you." First words outta my mouth... " Oh...just fuck off!" It is sanctimonious self-serving insincere claptrap period.

OH.. almost forgot the mission statement of the 'Parti Quebecois' is to separate from Canada and there they sit in our house of parliament. Gotta luv it. =)

We've got some pretty ugly problems up with corruption and outright thievery and I am something less than pleased with the Liberals but recently a woman on a vancouver talk-show pretty much summed up my feelings with our 'scandalous v born-again' politicians when she said: "I'd rather be robbed than preached at."

Now why didn't I just say that at the beggining and get it over with. <lol>

If nothing else... you'll have a better take on the results of our next election. =)

Good summary No-Jive, living up to your handle.

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

Bugs - I don't recall that conversation, though I don't doubt it.

Before I answer that fully though, let me ask you a quesstion:

How would you feel about our president holding a seance when faced with tough policy decisions, and basing his decisions on that outcome? Or getting together with the coven to cast spells, or holding ritual sacrifices to Baal in order to get guidance for our nation?
Or if the president came out and told the public that he was doing what he knew Satan wanted him to do?

{{edit - nojive, I haven't read your full post yet - will when I get home. too long for reading at work }}

(Edited by DL-44 on 09-08-2005 18:14)

As long as it is only sacrifices to Baal I am fine with it. The blood of a thousand virgins can never hurt.

Kidding aside, that is a good point, and one that I hadn't thought about at all, very good point. I am not sure exactly where you might want to go with it, but I am interested.

Dan @ Code Town

Or going out into the redwoods of California to worship a giant owl and perform pagan rituals.

Oh wait, that one's real.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Where are you going to find a thousand virgins? Born-again ones don't count.

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

NoJive,

That was a very interesting read I understand the jist was you'd rather be robbed than preached at. Ok, I hear you and I appreciate the fact that you recognize there are no easy answers to our political problems.

It shouldn't come as any surprise that I don't like being preached at either. When it comes to politicians who are responsible for defining public policy I prefer individuals who will produce the results in society I would most like to see. In other words, if I have a choice between how they live their personal lives and what kind of policy they enact, I choose the policy. This sets the ground work for my answer to DL's question.

DL-44,

How would I feel about the president holding a seance etc? Well, exactly how I felt when I heard about Nancy Reagan consulting an astrologer which I assumed Ronnie condoned and/or participated. I was extremely disappointed. I was not, however, calling for his resignation or anything of the sort.

Assuming any of the hypothetical presidents were legitimately elected by the American public, I would support them just as any other president we've had. I would of course criticize them for actions I considered wrong but that is my duty as a good citizen. I would honest in pointing out that I would prefer them to honor the one true God but support them as president because that is how our system is designed.

Honestly, I want people in our government who will enact beneficial public policy and I know for a fact that nonXian and Xian leaders can do this effectively. This is why I am not concerned in the very least about Dubya and his praying. In fact, I applaud the fact that he says he goes to God for guidance. How is that any different from anyone going to whatever guidance they have come to rely on?

I would consider it proper for any president we duly elect to uphold the oath of office he or she swears. I fully expect them to draw upon sources of guidance and decision making that have gotten them to the place they were.

Here's another example. I remember a lot of criticism during the Clinton years about how Hillary was the one really running the presidency. Even if that had been the case, I don't know either way, I found it perfectly within the bounds of normal political game play. Married couples often share all sorts of things and how could anyone expect there to be no influence from one's spouse in a situation like that? I know that is a little different from the topic at hand but not far in the way I view things.

I hope that helps explain how I view this a little better. I look forward to your reply.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Those quotes are one reason why we europeans do not take america (as a state not as individuals) serious anymore. Lots of us(meaning europeans) ask themselves where has that great state gone that helped us 50 years ago and wich constitution is based on seperating church and politiks (read it if you don`t belive). We europeans have grown up with lots of different religions and ways of life but still we found a way of living together (ok i know ther still is the IRA but also the European Union)

and that brings me to a nother question... who made those taliban leaders so antio west??? well i must say it was the west its self by occupiing there lands for centuries drawing borders where they wanted and then leaving the country in amess.... who can blame them??? well i can`t! Yes their ways are not the best but its the only way they know it and that has nothing to do with their religion but wih the way they get manipulated. And the statements in those quotes are the same fanatism as the one used in arabic countries.

quote:

---

"With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew."

---

christianity derove from jewish religion ...........



PEOPLE LERN FROM THE PAST !!!

Whether it is astrology, any of the pantheon of gods, rolling the bones or casting chicken entrails, it is all frightening because it is nothing more than a form of slight-of-hand in which the person doing the praying, casting etc, uses to justify their doing exactly what they want.

This bears repeating, because it seems there are a number of people who still refuse to acknowledge this basic fact.

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

Bugimus - I don't recall asking for Bush's resignation based on his religion either.
But I am frightened by anyone who is in a position of leadership and tells the public they are acting on what some imaginary being wants them to do.

You say you would express that you wish they would follow the one true god.
You must understand that to me, all you are saying is "I want you to follow my superstition instead of yours".

People will rely on the guidance they are used to getting, certainly. I would prefer that guidance come in some sort of tangible form...
IC an accept that religion is not going to go away, and that our public officials are going to be influenced by it no mater what. I have a very big problem when a public official claims to be taking instruction from dieties.

Now, I want to clarify specifically here though:
if our president came out in a press conference, and told the public that he was doing "what he knew Satan wanted him to do", would you be ok with that?

If you would, I'll be very surprised and have to give that some thought.

If you would not, then you understand somewhat how I feel about him saying that he is doing what he knws 'god' wants him to.

quote:

---

Now, I want to clarify specifically here though:
if our president came out in a press conference, and told the public that he was doing "what he knew Satan wanted him to do", would you be ok with that?

If you would, I'll be very surprised and have to give that some thought.

If you would not, then you understand somewhat how I feel about him saying that he is doing what he knows 'god' wants him to.

---

Well DL, you must see it the way we see it. God believers mean: He is doing what "good wants him to do" So if it may be more acceptable to you to think that is what he would mean maybe you would not have a problem with it.

I really don't understand what you are trying to convey here. That a US president would ever give a press conference and publicly embrace "Satan" ??????? Though many leaders of countries do evil acts and initiate evil practices in their countries it may have nothing to do with religion. Its about power. Bad power what we determine is evil. Throughout all of history secularized establishments in the name of country, nation, etc rule according to their own ideologies. They repress their people with evil, torture, tyranny, and force them to live in an athestic society. So they are doing what evil wants them to do.

As you youself quoted before regarding "God". It is a generic word used to describe what God is. Same thing for Satan. Satan expresses evil. Is the Satan name his real identity? Its a name we have given evil. He can also say " what he knew that evil wanted him to do" if your trying to stress that point.



On another note:

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeese Helms - "All Latins are volatile people. Hence, I was not surprised at the volatile reaction."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



While i feel that Helms is an idiot in general, my experience dating latin girls completely supports this statement

chris

---

Fig. Why as opposed to other cultures of women????? I am eager to hear your response.

Jade: it is very important that you understand one thing though.

*You* equate "god" with good, and "satan" with evil.

These are the conventions of your religious view.

But the president is not saying "i'm doing what is good".

He is saying that there is an entity, called by the name "God", who wants him to do these things, and he knows that this is what "God" wants..

The difference is very vast. I don't expect that you will grasp this, in all honesty. But to those of us who do not beleive in your diety, it's an extremely important distinction.

And of course, everything that I have just typed is all completely seperate from the acts of the man involved. Whether the things this man has done are good or evil is a topic too large for this thread, but suffice to say that I would call it, on a whole, the latter.

Truest thing you ever wrote jade

quote:

---

Though many leaders of countries do evil acts and initiate evil practices in their countries it may have nothing to do with religion. Its about power. Bad power

---

But you have to know it applise in the US as well.

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:

---

DL-44 said:

*You* equate "god" with good, and "satan" with evil.

---

I think because the vast majority of the public also sees it this way is the reason I would not be ok with the president stating that in a press conference, DL. *If* I knew that his particular religion equated Satan's will with "goodness" then I would be ok with it because I would understand the context. So if you had used the name Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, etc. instead of Satan I would have not had to qualify the answer. Jade took care of that for me.

I should point out that I'm quite positive I'm in the minority on this. I think most Xians in the country would be up in arms if any of the hypothetical cases were to be realized.

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

Whether it is astrology, any of the pantheon of gods, rolling the bones or casting chicken entrails, it is all frightening because it is nothing more than a form of slight-of-hand in which the person doing the praying, casting etc, uses to justify their doing exactly what they want.

---

Now the first part of that, Dio, is an extremely bigotted statement, and the second part cannot be proven.


On this looking to God thing with American presidents, this has been hardly uncommon over our history. Do you fear this more now than before? If so, what's changed? Many of our past presidents appealed to God on many occasions both personally and publicly.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

Now the first part of that, Dio, is an extremely bigotted statement,

---

How???


.

Still reflecting on your other commetns Bugs, will get back to them.

Because he assumes religion is trash and his world view is not. That is as bigotted as my view that there is only one God. My views are bigotted, and that is why I don't worry about that being pointed out, but I get tired of areligious folks assuming their views are superior. I just wanted to see how Dio would react I know it is impossible to offend him so there's nothing for me to lose, LOL!

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 09-14-2005 00:08)

quote:

---

"I know it is impossible to offend him so there's nothing for me to lose, LOL!"

---

Sure ya can... . just call him a xian! =)

Ha! Cool!

Dio is a xian, Dio is a xian, neener neener neener

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Cute.

You are reading things into things again Bug.

I never suggested aetheism is better than xianity, just completely realistic, whereas xianity and all other forms of faith, are totally unrealistic.


As for bigoted...well the Bush family has the corner on that particular market.

Nor does my statement meet the definition http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/b/b0242400.html
Although I am sure you may find a dict. with a def. which suits you better.

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

Hold on a sec there, you don't actually know Xianity is totally unrealistic. That's a judgement call on your part. I have come to a different conclusion based on the same historical data we both have access to. It claims to be based on a historical event that very well could be valid.

I'm curious, would you consider me a bigot by the definition you cite?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I know xianity is totally bogus because there is not one shred of proof, of hard evidence to sustain it.

It is a faith, you believe because you want to and everything follows from that.

Once one wishes to believe in something one will make all manner of allowances and ignore fact and evidence which is contrary to that will to believe.

No, I don't think you are a bigot. Being a xian does not make one a bigot, it also does not prevent one from being one.

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

If Xianity was just a faith, then it would lose a tremendous amount of credibility for me.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 09-14-2005 07:08)

It is merely a faith.

There is no credibility.

There is more hard evidence to support the existance of King Arthur, whom we know to be fictitious, than there is to support the myth of either a god or a xist.

gods evolved when ancient people sought explanations for thunder, lightening, earthquakes, floods, famine etc and other ancient people learned that through manipulation of these beliefs they could also manipulate people and acquire power.

It remains so today. Religion is big business and tax free to boot. As well, as a religious leader you get away with all manner of crimes.

You may take all the above as a matter of fact...not faith.

quote:

---

Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can?t be taken on its own merits.
Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith", 1992

---

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

Bugimus:

quote:

---

If Xianity was just a faith, then it would lose a tremendous amount of credibility for me.

---

What is it if it's not a faith

quote:

---

If Xianity was just a faith, then it would lose a tremendous amount of credibility for me.

---

Christianity REQUIRES faith. The only way you can believe in God and in the reserection of Jesus is through faith. There is no evidence for the existence of either. Every time anyone asks a religious leader questions about the existence of God, the answer is that you have to rely on faith to believe. If Christianity is not a faith, then what is it that you believe in - what do you have besides faith that makes you believe in God?

Evidence.

I would have thought this was understood after all the discussions here over the years. I think what you mean to say is that there is no conclusive proof of God or the resurrection. To say there is no evidence makes no sense at all.

Why do we accept the theory of evolution? It's based on the evidence we have to work with. We don't have conclusive proof of it as we all know when more data rolls in we may have to refine our understanding of the physical universe.

It is a very similar thing with Xianity. We have evidence that points to its validity and that leads a great many people to then take the step of faith. The evidence consists of historical accounts of people and events ~2000 years ago. There is also the rest of the bible that deals with people and events going back to at least 1200 BCE.

I acknowledge that all of this evidence leads people to different conclusions but it is evidence all the same. That was my point. If I had emphasized the word "just", it might have been clearer; "If Xianity were just a faith..."

Other religions are not based in historical events and neither do they claim to be. Those religions are intended to be based solely in faith. Xianity is different in that respect. For instance, if the authorities of the day could have produced Christ's body after his death on the cross, there would have been no Xianity as we know it.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

That?s ridiculous, it's like saying that I have evidence that gods of Olympus exist because people worshiped them for ohh so long and we have evidence of mount Olympus, all the art works etc. and the rest... you gotta depend on faith.

The only difference is that Xians made god out of man as opposed to natural force.

Bugimus, you know there is a constant mention and agreement between biblical scholars that a man Jesus never claimed to be god and worship of him as a deity developed centuries after his death.
(source: History of God, Karen Armstrong)

Beside all those things Webshaman mentioned on Jewish explanation that Jesus did not fit messianic prescriptions...ehh

Not that you going to care...whatever.

Bugimus: Sorry, but after all the discussions here over the years I thought it was clear to every body ( well, except the absolute bigots/creationist here ) that Evolution IS a fact. And as Ruski said, the historical ground of the Bible is highly questionned.

quote:

---

For instance, if the authorities of the day could have produced Christ's body after his death on the cross, there would have been no Xianity as we know it.

---

And if the authorities had even the slightest reason to do so within the timeframe that it would have been plausible to do so, then perhaps that could be seen as some sort of legitimate argument...

The fact that we only the gospels, written several decades later, to tell us of this miraculous resurection seems to be a prety clear message that nobody outside the christian community knew or cared much about the supposed event.

As for evolution - as has been noted in the many conversations, we *do* know that evolution is fact. Do we know all the details? No. Does knowing that evolution happens dictate the evolutionary path any particular species has taken? No. But we observe it in nature, in laboratory settings, etc.

quote:

---

Ruski said:

...you gotta depend on faith.

Bugimus, you know there is a constant mention and agreement between biblical scholars that a man Jesus never claimed to be god and worship of him as a deity developed centuries after his death. (source: History of God, Karen Armstrong)

---

Faith is required, yes. But there is a huge difference between believing in Xianity based on historical evidence and believing in the purple penguin that dictates the weather here on earth with zero evidence.

Ruski, the only way you can say no one worshipped Christ as deity is if you disprove the passages in the bible that clearly say he was. I think those passages are sound. Just as in the political community, you will find liberal as well as conservative biblical scholars. You will not find agreement from *all* biblical scholars on that topic. You find yourself agreeing with the liberal scholars as I do with the conservatives.


poi, I can accept it as fact only in the sense that all scientific theories are such until a better explanation avails itself. There are far too many problems with the current theory for me, personally, to casually call evolution "fact". I do NOT have a better explanation for you and no one else does either. You know me well enough to know that I do not accept Creationism as such. My personal view is certainly that God created the universe and that science is the best tool for understanding the details of how that played out. I believe it is unlikely any of us will be alive when a huge jump in understanding occurs about the origins of life on this planet.


DL, I've got to come back to your point as I'm pressed for time at the moment.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

The fact that we only the gospels, written several decades later, to tell us of this miraculous resurection seems to be a prety clear message that nobody outside the christian community knew or cared much about the supposed event.

---

The conversion of thousands of civilizations should be considered miraculous. Considering the conversion is due to the the ressurection of one man in the history of 2000 years and up to this point no other human person can or will ever be regarded as the the son of the living God. A perpetuated bogas story would last as long as the ministry of Christ has.

quote:

---

As for evolution - as has been noted in the many conversations, we *do* know that evolution is fact. Do we know all the details? No. Does knowing that evolution happens dictate the evolutionary path any particular species has taken? No. But we observe it in nature, in laboratory settings, etc.

---

So if the theory of evolution proves to be factual one day, what does it mean to Christianity? If you are judging by the literal meaning of Genesis, your guilty of still being stuck in the literal 7 day creation mentallity like some of my Protestant brothers. Remember the writers use 7 all thoughout scripture to represent fullness. That is the point the Genesis writers are trying to convey. That creation was made to its perfection before the fall of man. So if I am understanding your view correctly your argument against the creative process of God as opposed to the evolution theory doesn't hold any kind of water. A billions light years traveled could be only a day trip to an intelligent designer or an instant who very much operates ouside the realms of time.



The gosples written are not the only recorded writings regarding Christ. Its just some of them chosen as inspiried writings used as a tool of faith. There are many older writings that did not make it into scripture, which still exist and corroborate the ministry of Christ. Before there was scripure the faith was very much alive for 300 years by oral evangelization of its believers spread thoughout the known world. Because you can't prove the humanity/divinity of Christ doesn't make it false. Simply because Christ is not here on earth right now for you to run test on as far a his miracles or works. . When he returns maybe some will have the opportuinity to follow him to understand. Or not. But we as Christians know when you see us you are suppose to see him in the metaphysical by His spiritual works that we should emulate. Becasue that is the sole purpose on why he came and is a God/Man. Because you do not accept this way of belief, or do not understand the central heartfelt message you will continue to thow out conjectures of your own.
Who are the famed scientist who have proclamimed or do proclaim now that there is no God? And if he did or does, he is very foolish because he cannot prove it.

(Edited by jade on 09-14-2005 21:34)

Round and round it goes. As noted earlier, if one of faith allows the tiniest bit of fact to enter, that one will begin to doubt.

Begin to doubt and you no longer have faith.

No longer having faith though can open the mind to reality.

You are a sharp cookie Bug, but your mind is eternally closed on this issue, making excuses and concocting rational to support the insupportable.

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:

---

The conversion of thousands of civilizations should be considered miraculous. Considering the conversion is due to the the ressurection of one man in the history of 2000 years and up to this point no other human person can or will ever be regarded as the the son of the living God. A perpetuated bogas story would last as long as the ministry of Christ has.

---

Well, let me see...if we are basing things according to this - what about Hindus, Budhists, Shinto, etc?

Sometimes Jade, I wish you would post something that makes a little more sense. It is really becoming tiresome

quote:

---

Ruski, the only way you can say no one worshipped Christ as deity is if you disprove the passages in the bible that clearly say he was.

---

Well, Bugs, everything I have been posting about the Jews, the rules for a Messiah, and Jesus points directly in this direction, doesn't it? If the Bible is the truth, then Jesus is not the Messiah, obviously. If Jesus is the Messiah, then the Bible is not truth. That then makes everything in it suspect.

I suspect this is one of the major reasons why Jews do not embrace the New Testament, and therefore are not subject to this Quandry like Xians are. The Jews are confident that God does not lie to them, and the Old Testament is their proof of this. Therefore, for the Jews, Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because he did not meet the requirements laid down by God himself, through the Prophets (also decided through rules laid down by God to the Jews). If these rules come into question, then what a Prophet is comes into question, the word of God comes into question, and so does all that that has been left out of the Bible because it was not written by a Prophet (as decided by the rules laid down by God). That in turn puts the Old Testament into question, which of course totally shoots down the New Testament.

quote:

---

the theory of evolution

---

- Evolution is a fact - the process is (as are most things in Science) constantly being refined and better explored. Take Newtonian Physics, for example. A nice model, and it works. Then came Einstein, and expanded on it. Then came full quantum physics, which added even more. Does Quantum Physics make Newton Physics false? No - otherwise, all of a sudden, rockets being sent into space wouldn't be getting there, calculations would be off, etc.

Comparing Evolution (Science) to a religious belief is like comparing apples and oranges. They are just not the same thing, and cannot be measured or compared accordingly. One is based on a series of applied processes, and reproducable results that are reliably testable. The other is based on...belief.

And one belief is just as valid as the next. We know this to be true. Muslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos, Xians, etc all have members that are totally convinced that their beliefs are true.

quote:

---

If I had emphasized the word "just", it might have been clearer; "If Xianity were just a faith..."

---

There was no need to emphasize the word just. I picked up on that, and my response is still the same.

quote:

---

To say there is no evidence makes no sense at all.

---

It makes all the sense in the world because there is no evidence. All there is is some writings from people who want us to believe based on faith.

Jade, I hope you also understand that there would not be all this faith if you Catholics hadn't killed/tortured everyone who didn't agree with your faith for the past thousand years.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

The conversion of thousands of civilizations should be considered miraculous.

---

Hardly.
Depending on what point in history we wish to go back to, there are a variety of basic reasons for conversions:

1) in the earliest times, it was justice. *finally* here's someone offering reward for our miserable existence.

2) for very long periods of time, in many different places, it was the sword: convert or die. Yeah...real miraculous there

3) for a great deal of other times and places, it was a matter of politics and economics. the church was the original 'big business' in medeival europe.

quote:

---

Considering the conversion is due to the the ressurection of one man in the history of 2000 years

---

The conversion of so many people has nothing to do with the 'ressurection of one man' it has to do with the dogma and doctirne of the very large organization of the catholic church, and with all of the things mentioned above.

quote:

---

and up to this point no other human person can or will ever be regarded as the the son of the living God.

---

At the time of Jesus it was very common for emperors and kings to be called the son of god. In fact, it is a very common thread throughout many times and places.

The significance that is attached to that phrase today simply wasn't there at the time...

quote:

---

A perpetuated bogas story would last as long as the ministry of Christ has.

---

Human history and psychology is all about perpetuated bogus stories

quote:

---

So if the theory of evolution proves to be factual one day,

---

Um, as noted above, it *has* been proven factual.

quote:

---

what does it mean to Christianity?

---

I really couldn't care less what it means to christianity. That's up to you to decide for yourself.

quote:

---

The gosples written are not the only recorded writings regarding Christ. Its just some of them chosen as inspiried writings used as a tool of faith. There are many older writings that did not make it into scripture, which still exist and corroborate the ministry of Christ.

---

I am very well aware of the extrabiblical gospels. I have often told you about them, if you recall. Most of those not in the bible do not have any reference whatsoever to the resurrection.

So if very few of the christian writings, and not a single non-christian writing has any reference at all to such a thing happening, what does this tell us?

quote:

---

Before there was scripure the faith was very much alive for 300 years by oral evangelization of its believers spread thoughout the known world.

---

Well, the scritpure that came to be the new testament was all written within the first two centuries....so I'm not sure how there could have been faith for 300 years prior to that....?

quote:

---

Who are the famed scientist who have proclamimed or do proclaim now that there is no God? And if he did or does, he is very foolish because he cannot prove it.

---

And as has been said so many times it's ridiculous - something that cannot be disproven cannot be proven.
The burden lies on the person who would show that something *does* exist when there is a complete lack of evidence for it.

Using your logic, I will now proclaim that Bugimus' anal-dwelling weather penguin not only exists, but is the one true penguin. I have witnessed it, and now it is written.

There is now almost as much evidence for the anal-dwelling-weather-penguin as there is for the resurection of Jesus.

If you would say it is not true - you are very foolish, for you cannot prove it.

It is much easier to believe than to give up on your way to immortality. Disbelief is not for those who are weak of heart and mind. Religion gives a sense of protection to those who seek shelter and brings riches and power to those who understand it. Who would turn down an offer of eternal protection and immortality? An offer that also provides simple answers to all the questions in the universe. Only those who are strong enough to accept the reality.

When you die you just DIE. Poof! Game over! The machine broke.

People tend to subconsciously think that they are in the center of the universe and everything spins around them. That's exactly where all the ideas of souls, reincarnation, life after death (the foundation for most religions) etc come from. That's because it is impossible for any of us to imagine the sensation of dying and that life goes on without us. Just as it is impossible to imagine infinite universe. We don't want to accept that our part in this world is miniscule at best.

Actually I'm guessing that dying is something like falling asleep ... except for the pain in some cases. One moment you are there, the other you are dead.

quote:

---

Before there was scripure the faith was very much alive for 300 years by oral evangelization of its believers spread thoughout the known world.

---

Even if most of this were true, it was not spread "throughout the known world". It was known in a small portion of the world. It didn't get spread throughout the known world until it was embraced by the Romans and became the official religion of the Holy Roman Empire.

DL-44:

quote:

---

Using your logic, I will now proclaim that Bugimus' anal-dwelling weather penguin not only exists, but is the one true penguin. I have witnessed it, and now it is written.

There is now almost as much evidence for the anal-dwelling-weather-penguin as there is for the resurection of Jesus.

If you would say it is not true - you are very foolish, for you cannot prove it.

---

You really want to make her go nut

It way well do that, but that paragraph is meant to make a very valid and serious point, despite the inherent sarcasm.

Here is another scary site...well, at least a scary article;

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=15261

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

Good bit Dio.

quote:

---

Bush brings together the holiness zeal of Christian evangelicalism with patriotic fundamentalism.

---

About as succinct and accurate as it can get.

quote:

---

Ruski, the only way you can say no one worshipped Christ as deity is if you disprove the passages in the bible that clearly say he was. I think those passages are sound. Just as in the political community, you will find liberal as well as conservative biblical scholars. You will not find agreement from *all* biblical scholars on that topic. You find yourself agreeing with the liberal scholars as I do with the conservatives.

---

Yes "the scripture" says it, but there are others that DO NOT, and they are one of the early Christian writings with completely different ideas and concepts on Jesus and god.

Plus, the library of new testament as we know it, has long been modified and collected specifically to fit a certain agenda, the concept of trinity is an example, it did not come to be until about 4th century...and the main theology of Christianity as we know today, was dictated by a man (Saul/Paul) who hasn?t even met Jesus himself...

Hell the four main gospels that tell a story of Jesus' life contradict each other, some mention events that did not even occur in other. For example Luke was Greek, there for we have a concept of virgin birth present since Greek mythologies were full of virgin births of various heroes, while other authors absolutly dont mention anything about virgin birth.

If you look at something Like gospel of Thomas...now that?s completely different theology and highly contradictive to western Christianity, even New testamnet itself...

Truly disturbing. These people have authority??

Abandon hope...

quote:

---

Well, the scritpure that came to be the new testament was all written within the first two centuries....so I'm not sure how there could have been faith for 300 years prior to that....?

---

Your saying you were unsure if there was Christian faith before the written sriptures were made known to the known world???? Are you not reading your history books???? Up to the point where the Cath church complied the scripture you must be saying they made up the NT. The faith was very much alive and was spread all over continents by the apostles and their followers before anything was complied regarding faith. If you knew the history of the scriptures you would know that there were not many NT texts circulated because they were hand written by monks for hundreds of years even after the canon of scripture was proclamimed. It took a year to produce one bible and all writers had to be very careful in translation and hold true to the meaning of scriptures. This seems an impossible task, but they did. Usually only the religious kept the scriptures, then the elite before they were made more available to the lay person and followers. In acient times many could not afford them and of if they were ordered it would take years to get one. Most followers had to know the faith by pictures, wall & stone paintings, church windows, etc. (Thats were we get 1st story, 2nd, 3rd story, 4th story bldgs from. Because in the acient times the pictures told a religious history).

Even if the Christian faith was embraced by the Roman empire many years later as you think, it could still be part of the fulfillment of holy spirits desire to spread its message. No doubt that is one of the reasons for the continued growth. Even when the faith was underground it was growing by leaps and bounds.


I really think you are not understanding the magnitude of the growth of Christian faith in the first two hundred years. ( Remember Rome's persecutions of Christians in the thousands in many arenas for entertainment)

quote:

---

quote:When you die you just DIE. Poof! Game over! The machine broke.

---

(If you know this, where is your proof of this since no one person that has ever died proved this to you?

(Edited by jade on 09-15-2005 16:17)

Man, you probably subscribe to that last site I posted.

I see you also have doubts about the faith you support so strongly;

quote:

---

If you know this, where is your proof of this since no one person that has ever died proved this to you

---

Isn't the mythological return from death of a man the whole basis for your religion?

It has always been my contention that those who make the biggest fuss about their religion are those with the least faith in it.

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

Keeping up with the theme; http://www.4religious-right.info/introduction2.htm

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:

---

The conversion of so many people has nothing to do with the 'ressurection of one man' it has to do with the dogma and doctirne of the very large organization of the catholic church, and with all of the things mentioned above.

---

Sorry, but it does. Just ask them. Many are being coverted today and they are not Catholics, they are Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Jahovah Witnesses, etc. So whats your answer to this? They have no catholic in them.

quote:

---

Using your logic, I will now proclaim that Bugimus' anal-dwelling weather penguin not only exists, but is the one true penguin. I have witnessed it, and now it is written.There is now almost as much evidence for the anal-dwelling-weather-penguin as there is for the resurection of Jesus.

---

Well , for the simple fact that there are no Penguinites followers today. And there are not Pengunite churches. Really DL you logic seems foolish.
I know you would rather be a Pengunite than a Christian, Right? That would be more logical for you to believe.

quote:

---

Plus, the library of new testament as we know it, has long been modified and collected specifically to fit a certain agenda, the concept of trinity is an example, it did not come to be until about 4th century...and the main theology of Christianity as we know today, was dictated by a man (Saul/Paul) who hasn?t even met Jesus himself...

---

In the end it really doesn't matter how you were able to understand, dissect, make fun of or prove scripture is false, because that is not where the heart of Christianity lies.
Its the heart of the human person in its quest know God. So if the cannon of scripture was never introduced and there were never ever any bibles handed out, would we still have a Christian faith? Yes, we would because the first 300 plus years proves it. So, all the did Paul say this right or wrong or did Peter really go there are there and if there was never ever anything written down regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ would Christianity still be alive today? I say yes because we still have the Church or churches who would spread the message of Jesus Christ who died so that we could live forever beyond time. And that is all we need to know. The Church will always be the pillar and foundation of truth who will guide all Christians in the millenniums to come. It would be a very silly and foolish thing for us to say that all other sect who do not follow Jesus are not saved. Since his ressurection there are civilizations who were never taught the ways of the Lord. Where did they go? to Hell. I think not. We who know and still deny by our actions will be in danger of loosing their souls.

(Edited by jade on 09-15-2005 17:03)

(Edited by jade on 09-15-2005 17:10)

Jade you are missing something very important...the heart of christianity has always lied in the concept of "convert or die." (exculding few good men) and those websites are an example of what can happen again.

Europeans literary rape all the continets and force fed their bullshit ideologies worldwide, not to mention America, Asia, Africa.

Message of peace my ass, CAtholic Church didnt do shit about slavery, burning innocent victims alive, or tortuing anyone who wasnt xian.

Like someone has mentioned, christianity was born and died on the cross and will never ever be there again.

I see she ignored my point about her gaff.

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:

---

DL-44 wrote:

Well, the scritpure that came to be the new testament was all written within the first two centuries....so I'm not sure how there could have been faith for 300 years prior to that....?

---

quote:

---

Jade wrote:

Your saying you were unsure if there was Christian faith before the written sriptures were made known to the known world????

---

It is not a matter of whether there was faith before the scriptures were written, but rather a matter of math. The scriptures were written within 200 years of the "resurrection", therefore the faith could not have existed for 300 years before they were written.




(Edited by briggl on 09-15-2005 17:52)

Jade: there is little in your post coherent enough to respond to. One of the things that needed to be addressed, briggl took care of.

Another is this:

quote:

---

I know you would rather be a Pengunite than a Christian, Right? That would be more logical for you to believe.

---

It is equally logical, based on the evidence.

Again you try to use the fact that a lot of people beleive in jesus as a means of aying it must be true. This is moronic.

quote:

---

In the end it really doesn't matter how you were able to understand, dissect, make fun of or prove scripture is false, because that is not where the heart of Christianity lies.

---

Which is exactly what we have said to you - you don't care about the reality, you want your beleif to be true and so to you, it is. That's fine. That's up to you. But you can't try to argue that the facts add up, and then when they don't just say 'oh well it doesn't matter anyway'

quote:

---

So if the cannon of scripture was never introduced and there were never ever any bibles handed out, would we still have a Christian faith? Yes, we would because the first 300 plus years proves it.

---

Again you are showing your ignorance of the subject. As I stated above, and briggl reiterate, the scripture that is today known as the bible existed starting in the mid-late 1st century, and growing up through the early-mid second century. The teachings of christianity were based on these texts (and vice-versa, of course). You cannot, therefore, talk about 300 years prior to scripture, as there was no 300 years between christ and scripture.

quote:

---

Again you are showing your ignorance of the subject. As I stated above, and briggl reiterate, the scripture that is today known as the bible existed starting in the mid-late 1st century, and growing up through the early-mid second century. The teachings of christianity were based on these texts (and vice-versa, of course). You cannot, therefore, talk about 300 years prior to scripture, as there was no 300 years between christ and scripture.

---

Again you are so totally wrong and showing your ignorance on the subject. There has never, ever been any changes to the pre-portestant catholic bible since from the original canon of scripture dating back toe the 3rd century. There is only the king james verson and the Catholic bible.

King James bibles have deletions of books, modifications and translations from the orignal catholic bible.

(Edited by jade on 09-15-2005 18:45)

I think not...

100+ Versions of the Bible
Catholic Encyclopedia: Version of the Bible

Dan @ Code Town

^ Ouch!

I felt that from here...

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Again you are showing your ignorance of the subject. As I stated above, and briggl reiterate, the scripture that is today known as the bible existed starting in the mid-late 1st century, and growing up through the early-mid second century. The teachings of christianity were based on these texts (and vice-versa, of course). You cannot, therefore, talk about 300 years prior to scripture, as there was no 300 years between christ and scripture.

---

quote:

---

Jade said:

Again you are so totally wrong and showing your ignorance on the subject. There has never, ever been any changes to the pre-protestant catholic bible since from the original canon of scripture dating back to the 3rd century. There is only the king james verson and the Catholic bible.

---

What does that have to do with the fact that you cannot fit 300 years of Christian faith into a period of time that is less than 200 years?




(Edited by briggl on 09-15-2005 20:29)

I think the view that I am trying to convey is that the original text before tanslations cannot be changed or revised after the offiical cannon was closed in the 3rd century. They fact that the early church intended to put the faith inspirations on book form does not change the truths. Whether you get the greek, hewbrew, etc versions does not change the gospel message. To get a better understanding of faith for all followers the translators were careful not to put different words that may lead followers to err in the original meaning to stress the central message of Christ ministry.

I'm an utter failure when it comes to math but without the help of a calculator even I can come up with the answer to that one.

So what's your excuce Jade?

Sorry. I really meant 300 yrs. Not 200.

How many time has it been pointed out to her that the 'scriptures', 'bible', etc have been, bowdlerized, mistranslated, delibertly changed, etc even unto modern times?

She is intellectually incapable of accepting facts which counter her life-long brain-washing.

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

There are so many things wrong in what you are saying that I cannot bear to address them again - I've addressed them all many times before. I will touch on this:

quote:

---

I think the view that I am trying to convey is that the original text before tanslations cannot be changed or revised after the offiical cannon was closed in the 3rd century.

---

1) "original" texet is a very vague thing. We have *no* original texts whatsoever for the bible.

2) before which translations? the texts we have were all translated and reworked many times

3) the 'official' canon was not sealed by the catholic church untl the 16th century, actually. As for the agreements reached by *some* groups of churches, which did give us the same collection that was later declared offical, that happened in the 4th century, not the 3rd.

4) To quote (or paraprhase) Bert Ehrman, scholar, author, Oxford proffesor, "there are more differences in the texts of the known versions of the new testament than there are words in the new testament"
Sounds to me like that means there were some changes and revisions happening

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

1) "original" texet is a very vague thing. We have *no* original texts whatsoever
for the bible.

---

It is correct that we have no original documents. I think the earliest fragment dates to 129CE? But what we do have is hundreds of copies that clearly point to original texts that had to exist by the end of the 1st century. And those texts contain all of the major Xian doctrines.

All of this talk about changes and mistranslations is really misleading IMO. Sure there are hundreds of versions of the Bible and each one of them can be compared with the early texts. All of that sort of scrutiny is available for all to study.

I've said this before and I'll say it again regarding the NT documents. The current debate is much less about their historical reliability and much more about whether the claims found within them are based in actual events. Of course, the most important one is the resurrection because the entire faith hinges on that one event. The reason is that if it did not occur, then all of Jesus' teaching could only be that of a man, not God. He specifically predicted he would rise from the dead in 3 days.

Part of the reason I believe the resurrection did occur is because of what the Apostles did after that event. I cannot fathom why all of them would go to the lengths they did without some extraordinary event or motivation. I believe the way they lived and died by the gospel goes against human nature as I've come to understand it. They gained nothing tangible from their holding to their claims, nothing tangible by way of what one would expect like luxury, riches, and prestige. They received scorn and faced imprisonment, torture, and for all but one a painful execution. This is very compelling for me.

--------
Ok some catch up from a ways back up there:

DL, I think the authorities did have much reason to produce that body. I'm not talking about the Romans but the Jewish leaders. They went out of their way to silence this troublemaker Jesus and what did they get after the crucifixion but more troublemakers. And they turned up right in the middle of the celebration of Pentecost just days after Jesus' death. It would have been very annoying and problematic for them just as Jesus had proved to be. It would have been extremely easy to put it all to rest by simply pointing out Jesus was just a man lying in a tomb.

quote:

---

briggl said:

It makes all the sense in the world because there is no evidence. All there is
is some writings from people who want us to believe based on faith.

---

Fair enough. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one then.

quote:

---

Ruski said:

...the concept of trinity is an example, it did not come to be until about 4th
century...and the main theology of Christianity as we know today, was dictated
by a man (Saul/Paul) who hasn?t even met Jesus himself...

---

The trinity while never being called that in the early text is apparent for anyone who cares to read it. I think what you are referring to is the fact that it became an "official" doctrine in the 4th century which I would agree with.

As I stated earlier in this post, the main doctrine of Xianity can be placed decades after Jesus walked the earth, not centuries. I'll have to look up the details of how we know that, I don't have it on the top of my head.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I suspect this is one of the major reasons why Jews do not embrace the New
Testament...

---

WS, the NT was written by Jews. Jews don't accept it? Only some of them do. Historically speaking, virtually the entire early church consisted of Jews who did not see the same problem you're pointing out between the Old and New Testaments.

quote:

---

Arthurio said:

When you die you just DIE. Poof! Game over! The machine broke.

---

Quite possible, Arthurio, quite possible. What fascinates me about your post is why we humans are not comfortable with this reality. Our longing for legacy and immortality continues to support, at least in my mind, that we may have been created for such.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Nope;

quote:

---

Our longing for legacy and immortality continues to support, at least in my mind, that we may have been created for such.

---

This longing was created in you by religion to support religion.

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:

---

Bugimus said:

Part of the reason I believe the resurrection did occur is because of what the Apostles did after that event.

---

Of course, we're still relying on the same set of texts for our documentation of what the apostles did....
We can't say that one part of the story is true becuase of what happens in a different part of the story...

quote:

---

the 'scriptures', 'bible', etc have been, bowdlerized, mistranslated, delibertly changed, etc even unto modern times?

---

This is a fact.

Who deny's this?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" You are no match for Lord Gorlok! "

Jade denies it, read her posts.

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:

---

Jade denies it, read her posts.

---

Dio, If I may?

quote:

---

There has never, ever been any changes to the pre-portestant catholic bible since from the original canon of scripture dating back toe the 3rd century. There is only the king james verson and the
Catholic bible.

---

Blindly you are admitting changes of the bible.

You are merely stating your choice of biblical interpretaion.

Hypocrit comes to mind.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" You are no match for Lord Gorlok! "

Zynx, it is beside the more important point that we have access to very early versions of what was written in the 1st century. It's a very important fact that often gets overlooked because it's easier to dismiss it all than to have to do any serious investigation.

Anyways, DL, the reliability of the documents themselves is as good as, and actually better, than any other work of antiquity. Therefore I think we can take many of the basic accounts found there to be credible. I'm not necessarily throwing in the more remarkable claims of deity and miracles but certainly the descriptions of the ministry and travels of Jesus as well as the geographical and cultural information. When it comes to the travels of Paul's missionary journies, for instance. I see no reason whatsoever to doubt that he made those trips.

So I'm not sure we should treat everything found there with equal credibility.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Zynx, it is beside the more important point that we have access to very early versions of what was written in the 1st century. It's a very important fact that often gets overlooked because it's easier to dismiss it all than to have to do any serious investigation.

---

My point Bug, is that CHANGES, have occured within the bible. This is FACT. And if you chose to live by the "early versions", and others chose to live by the "later" versions, both of you must admit that the bible has changed, from it's first creation(Pun intended).

quote:

---

Therefore I think we can take many of the basic accounts found there to be credible.

---

Credible, meaning FACTUAL?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" You are no match for Lord Gorlok! "

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

Zynx, it is beside the more important point that we have access to very early versions of what was written in the 1st century. It's a very important fact that often gets overlooked because it's easier to dismiss it all than to have to do any serious investigation.

---

Not really. We have a couple of scraps from the second century, maybe about credit-card size, with very little content to look at, and therefore nothing of a scope to compare with later versions.

The earliest significant portions of text that exist are from some time in the 4th century.
That is hardly a timeframe during which I would be comfortable in saying that nothing could have changed or evolved, or that the content would remain - giving the benefit of the doubt for a moment and saying that it might have begun - credible.

quote:

---

Anyways, DL, the reliability of the documents themselves is as good as, and actually better, than any other work of antiquity.

---

I really don't see how that can be said. I also don't see how it would be relevant. When we look at other ancient documents, we *assume* they are full of elaborations, exagerations, and outright fabrications. It's a given. So when we accept something that is written in antiquity, we do so knowing that the majority of it will *not* be accurate, and many aspects of a person will be greatly exagerated or wholly fabricated.

To say that somehow, given the timeframe between the events, and the writing of the stories of these events, and given the timframe between the writing of them, and the earliest actual copies of the texts, and given the inherent nature of such stories, to say that *these* texts somehow escaped such a process is unfounded and goes back, again, to the 'i want it to be true' syndrome. Can we "prove" it didn't happen, as Jade would challenge? Of course not. But we don't have to.

quote:

---

Therefore I think we can take many of the basic accounts found there to be credible. I'm not necessarily throwing in the more remarkable claims of deity and miracles but certainly the descriptions of the ministry and travels of Jesus as well as the geographical and cultural information. When it comes to the travels of Paul's missionary journies, for instance. I see no reason whatsoever to doubt that he made those trips.

---

Certainly there are going to be aspects of reality in it. This was written with the intent of having it believed. It would not be written without plausible or even without factual information being incorporated. That would serve no purpose at all, and these texts were obviously wirtten with a purpose.

[/quote]

quote:

---

So I'm not sure we should treat everything found there with equal credibility.

---

Agreed. For instance, that whole 'resurection' thing has no credibility at all

The very use of the word 'version' acknowledges the fact the things were changed; "ver·sion Listen: [ vûrzhn, -shn ]
n.


A description or account from one point of view, especially as opposed to another: Your version of the accident differs from mine.

a. A translation from another language. b. often Version A translation of the entire Bible or a part of it.

A particular form or variation of an earlier or original type: downloaded the latest version of the software from the Internet.

An adaptation of a work of art or literature into another medium or style: the film version of a famous novel. "

It does not mean "verbatim copy", which is what folks like Jade need to believe.

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:

---

WS, the NT was written by Jews. Jews don't accept it? Only some of them do. Historically speaking, virtually the entire early church consisted of Jews who did not see the same problem you're pointing out between the Old and New Testaments.

---

Bugs, it was not written by Jews who followed the Jewish Faith - they were converts to the teachings of Jesus. And if you are going to be using such phrases as "the early church" then you are quite frankly admitting the point and are aware of this. Whether or not they saw the same problem or not is nowhere documented. How then can you say they did not see the same problem I am pointing out? If they had any contacts back to their old religious base, then they might have known - I have no idea how widespread such knowledge was back then among regular followers of the Jewish Faith and the Torah was, etc. If they knew of the Laws laid down for the determining of what a Prophet was and what a Messiah was, then obviously they were aware of this problem. I largely suspect, however, that back then the Rabbis probably kept such information among themselves - but I have no proof of this, other than how secretive the Jews are about the inner workings of their Faith and Beliefs.

quote:

---

Anyways, DL, the reliability of the documents themselves is as good as, and actually better, than any other work of antiquity.

---

I would like to know just what you are using as a comparison here, Bugs. I can name a few things from Ancient times that are very reliable - way more reliable than the Bible, for instance. Since you are including as a blanket statement "any other work of antiquity", then I would like you to show proof of this.

Cuneform clay tablets found in Iraq, for instance, are so much more reliable than anything found in the Bible, it is not funny. That alone shoots down your blanket statement. We can also talk about Papyrus sheets of documents that the Egyptians recorded, that are more reliable. There are examples of Greek Works, that are more reliable. The Chinese have documentation that would make the Bible writers green with envy, when it comes to reliablility. All are "works of antiquity".

Do I need to add more?

(Edited by WebShaman on 09-16-2005 10:21)

Of the original versions from about 400AD we have around 14K copies of the original NT manuscript. There about 150k variations here. This is a ton of variation. But, a variation is not what you might think. A single word was misspelled in 3k manuscripts and this accounts for 3k variations. Many of these changes are the order of words, misspellings, and gramatical errors. But with the 14k copies, you are able to get a concensus.

This is important, you can get a mathematical consensus. So argueing about the changes after the fact is not all that important. The important period is really from death 35AD to around 400AD where it was standardized. Everything afterwords is not all that important.

Those 400 years are important, that is a lot of time, with a whole lot going on.

Now, with these changes and these translations, we can easily argue that this book is not something that is bound by a perfection of god. This book has differences, from the beginning. There are some problems with it. I can look at my bible right now and see the footnotes where there are two meanings to a given word at least once ever 10 pages.

For example, In the first page of genisis you will read about the spirit of god flowing over the land. Spirt can also be translated as "the wind." Depending on who you are talking with, this issue with the translation can be very important. So, it can also be argued that the translations can cause a whole lot of confusion, and do interperate many differences.

One thing that I will point out is that what is commonly called "The Message," or might be the idea behind the words, is very much intact. You can definately not say that all the words are correct, but the idea is intact, and has made it down through the last 1600 years.

This whole thing goes on just to point out that it is not very fair to argue the bible over the last 1600 years, but I would also point out that it is very fair to argue about the time period between death 35AD to when the book was agreed upon in 400AD.

** Note my years might float +-100 years.

Dan @ Code Town

Sans comment: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.shtml

http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd.html

http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.php

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:

---

When you add up all of the following facts, the case for the existence of Jesus as an historical person becomes rather remote: 1) there are no proven, legitimate references to the existence of Jesus in any contemporary source outside of the New Testament (which is really not a contemporary source, as it was written from 30 to 70 years after Jesus supposedly died), 2) There is no evidence that the town of Nazareth, from which Jesus' mother supposedly came, ever existed at the time he was supposedly living there, 3) the existence of Jesus is not necessary to explain the origin or growth of Christianity (were the Hindu gods real'?), 4) the New Testament accounts do not provide a real "biography" for Jesus until you look at the Gospels. The earlier Pauline epistles imply only that he was a god, and 5) the biblical accounts of the trial and death of Jesus are logically self-contradictory and legally impossible. Jesus could not have been executed under either Roman or Jewish law for what he did. Whatever you call what he did, it was not a capital offense under either system. Rather, it looks like someone is trying to make Old Testament prophecies of the death of the Messiah come true by fabricating a scenario which simply doesn't make sense legally.

---

From The Jesus of History: A Reply to Josh McDowell

This is really, really good. I never really considered these points.

This is also pretty good -

quote:

---

It's inconceivable that no one at the time bothered to write down anything about the most important person in the whole of human history. Writing was common back then. People wrote letters. Historians wrote commentaries on current events. The Romans wrote and kept legal documents about trials. It's considered one of the best documented periods of history. Yet no one wrote anything about this Jesus; no one painted a portrait of this Jesus; no one drew a sketch of this Jesus; no one cast a coin depicting this Jesus; no one made a statue of this Jesus; no one makes any reference whatsoever to this Jesus.

---

from Evidence that Jesus Never Existed I think we tend to underestimate how far along the Romans were with communication methods, and the availability of schooling in the way of writing, reading, etc. Also something that I never really gave much thought to.

I take it that the third link, So what about Jesus? is somehow...a mistake? Or is it supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, coming last after the other two links, so that when one reads what is posted there, one has a good chuckle?

quote:

---

WarMage said:

it is very fair to argue about the time period between death 35AD to when the book was agreed upon in 400AD.

---

Correct. For the most part, changes after that point would be minor and trackable. However, we're not talking soley about grammatical and spelling errors. We do have many examples of a scribe adding his own twist to the story, or omitting significant portions of the story, and other things like that.

The whole point I've tried to make is in regard to two time periods:

1) that between the death of Jesus and the writing of the gospels (between 50 and 80 years or so...)

2) that between the time of those writings and the time of Constantine (another 200+ years), when the bishops became more coherently connected, and things became more standardized (and more and more things which had previously been church doctrine had been declared heretical), which is the time that we start seeing significant portions of intact biblical texts.



(Edited by DL-44 on 09-16-2005 18:19)

Balance, WS, just balance.

As well, I thought it interesting to show the sort of rationalizing the faithful are subjected to and urged to adopt.

Were she a little more literate, jade might have writted that apologia.

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:

---

Zynx said:

Credible, meaning FACTUAL?

---

Certainly some of them, yes. It should be considered fact that the man Jesus Christ walked this earth and that the NT was written about him. Many of the details found there are, of course, to be scrutinized and tested.

Zynx, I've never said there have been no changes additions, scribal errors, differences in the copies we have, etc. I've maintained that we know a great deal about the New Testament and the early texts that it must have been based on. So through careful study an research we can get a very good view of the message the original authors intended to record.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

We have a couple of scraps from the second century, maybe about credit-card
size, with very little content to look at, and therefore nothing of a scope to
compare with later versions.

---

I looked up the one I was referring to. It's a fragment from the gospel of John and it is the earliest we have. It contains material from chapter 18. It has 5 verses, 3 on one side and 2 on the other. It's about 2.5 x 3.5 inches. It dates around 100-150 CE.

quote:

---

WarMage said:

This whole thing goes on just to point out that it is not very fair to argue the
bible over the last 1600 years, but I would also point out that it is very fair
to argue about the time period between death 35AD to when the book was agreed
upon in 400AD.

---

Your point is extremely well taken. I am pleased to see general agreement on this. It may not seem important to argue the reliability of the documents from the 4th century on but all you need do is look back through the many threads on this topic to see it is not commonly understood. I consider this progress in our collective understanding of the topic at hand.

Also, you can just imagine how substantial the discovery of that fragment from John's gospel was when it was discovered in 1934. There were many German theologians who were very skeptical of John's gospel but this showed it was around much sooner than they thought. It was also discovered in Egypt which was quite remote from where it was probably composed somewhere in Asia Minor.

Let's focus on the period from crucifixion to the 4th century then. I'll see what I can dig up in that regard different from what's already been said.


WS, I'll get back to your points when I get a bit more time.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Why should it be considered FACT a man named jesus christ walked the earth and that the NT was written about him?

There is absolutely no historical evidence to substantiate this, quite the contrary.

No, you cannot quote the bible to prove your point...circular reasoning...the bible enjoys no credibility whatsoever as an accurate source of anything and most especially as regards the myth of xist.

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:

---

It should be considered fact that the man Jesus Christ walked this earth

---

I must caution you here, Bugs. I would tend towards maybe accepted by many, but not factual, at least not until some factual evidence is unearthed proving it.

Though I tend to believe that a man named Jesus of Nazareth did live (and die) - I do not believe there was a man named Jesus Christ as described in the NT. These are two totally different things - one has a lot of circumstantial evidence (the first one) - and though no direct evidence exists, there is circumstantial evidence, albeit small. The second has absolutely no evidence, whatsoever supporting it, be it direct or circumstantial.

I think that is an important distinction to make, though for me the issue is linguisstic.

"Jesus Christ" is not a full name - it is a first name followed by a title. Just as "Mahatma Gandhi" is not a full name - it is a title followed by a first name.

Whether Jesus is to be called christ, and what that means, is an issue that goes on yet another tangent

Right, properly speaking one should say; "Jesus the christ".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

Intersting, if a bit hysterical; http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/meta_jesus.htm

I always wondered about this; http://www.christianorigins.com/etymology.html

Surely this is the last word: http://www.cannabisculture.com/backissues/cc11/christ.html

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:

---

Certainly some of them, yes.

---

Seriously? I just don't see it that way.

Facts back then were passed onto the masses, with a "teller", and a "scribe". This "teller" would have picked his "scribe". That did not guarantee that this "scribe" was wise, intelligent, nor understanding in the MANY ways of writing.

"Scribes" back then, would elaborate upon the stories they were told/given. This was not done so much as a scribes vanity, as it was a scribes lack of understanding of the ancient language, they we scribing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

(Edited by Zynx on 09-17-2005 05:50)

Zynx, that is one of the worst examples of fallacy passing for a post that I have seen in awhile here.

You really, really need to first research the stuff, before posting.

Now, pull that foot out of your mouth, and go out and research it. Shoo!

Maybe you are defending the bible as factual?
Maybe your saying that the bible was not written by scribes?
Maybe you know of a person who was there, and you have his diary.
Maybe you just believe the whole book.
Maybe I was not specific enough, about which sections of the bible I find questionable.

But no matter what I think, you seem to know exactly what I meant, and this perceived, falsely I might add, knowledge you think you have of me is wrong, and that I need to go do more research. This is the second time you have posted with this manner of thinking.

How do you get that head through the doorway?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

Just go research Literacy and the Roman Empire.

Come back when you are done.

Thank you.

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Maybe you are defending the bible as factual?
Maybe your saying that the bible was not written by scribes?
Maybe you know of a person who was there, and you have his diary.
Maybe you just believe the whole book.
Maybe I was not specific enough, about which sections of the bible I find questionable.

---

Maybe you have a point.
Maybe some day you'll learn how to get it across effectively.

Until then, I am left with nothing to go on, and nothing in your posts lately that can even be responded to in any meaningful way other than this.

quote:

---

Just go research Literacy and the Roman Empire.Come back when you are done.Thank you.

---

Not sure what the Roman Empire had to do with those who wrote did or did not write the bible.

Here's a better site with one explanation.
http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/compare/scribes.htm
" Basically, what is being told through the prophet is that the scribes have made changes in the Law of Yahweh in their writings. Does this mean that the text of Scripture containing the Law has been altered by the scribes to change its meaning? Does it mean that they have written misinterpretations of the Law?

Who are the scribes?

Halley's Bible Handbook states that "scribes were copyists of the Scripture. Their business was to study and interpret, as well as copy, the Scriptures. Because of their minute acquaintance into the Law, they were also called lawyers, and were recognized authorities. The decisions of leading scribes became oral law, or 'tradition.'"

Considering how meticulous the scribes were in their copying, there is probably less likelihood of their altering of the text. However, this possibility cannot be completely ruled out. There is some evidence of this having been done on occasion. An example is the altering of Yahweh's name to LORD, L-rd, or Jehovah.

There is more evidence of the misinterpretation of the Law by the scribes. Yahshua made reference to this.

From Smith's Bible Dictionary we read, "They devoted themselves to the careful study of the text, and laid down rules for transcribing it with the most scrupulous precision. As time passed on, 'the words of the scribes' were honored above the Law. It was a greater crime to offend against them than against the Law. The first step was taken toward annulling the commandments of God for the sake of their own traditions."

It would appear that there may have been personal gain for scribes in their misinterpretation of the Law. Their status in society was very high. They were the ones who supposedly best knew the Law.

There had been warnings against adding to or taking from the Law prior to this time. References include Deuteronomy 4: 2, Deuteronomy 12: 32, and Proverbs 30: 5-6. Apparently, the scribes of Jeremiah's day had not heeded these warnings. The references do not mean the "Bible" as some Christians believe, but the Law. Where a version uses "Word," it means the Law. Yahweh stressed the importance of obeying the Law. This is clear in both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. In Deuteronomy 28: 45 is a warning of what will happen if people do not keep the Laws of Yahweh. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

If you look about 30 or so posts up to my last one you will see that it addressed everything you mention here. However you seem to come to some different conclusions than what that which is mathematically based.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

Not sure what the Roman Empire had to do with those who wrote did or did not write the bible.

---

Have you never heard of the Holy Roman Empire? The Holy part refers to the Catholic Church. The Holy Roman Empire had a great deal to do with forming Christianity into what it is today, including helping to revise biblical texts into the form that they currently have.

quote:

---

If you look about 30 or so posts up to my last one you will see that it addressed everything you mention here. However you seem to come to some different conclusions than what that which is mathematically based.

---

Mathematically based?

I don't consider, after researching who did or did not write the bible, that very little, if any of it is factual. Other than describing events arch-e-o-logical known to have happened.

So while I see where I was wrong, I don't see where I was completely off topic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

He didn't say you were off-topic. He said that he already stated the points in your post.

And I'm still at a loss, after your lengthy elaboration, as to the actual point of what you are trying to say. It seems like you are working very hard at trying to argue something, but can't quite get it out.

Try stating your point right off the bat. Use an opening statement that points out what you are trying to say, and why (or how it fits into the conversation). Then perhaps your elaborations will have the context they need to make sense.

quote:

---

He didn't say you were off-topic. He said that he already stated the points in your post.

---

My comment was meant for WS, as it was he who first asked me to shoo.

quote:

---

And I'm still at a loss, after your lengthy elaboration, as to the actual point of what you are trying to say. It seems like you are working very hard at trying to argue something, but can't quite get it out.

---

DL, WS's first response, while polite, was very general. I didn't see any specifics mentioned about where I was wrong. And after I did more research, what I found was that I was wrong, but not completely way off topic.

quote:

---

Try stating your point right off the bat. Use an opening statement that points out what you are trying to say, and why (or how it fits into the conversation). Then perhaps your elaborations will have the context they need to make sense.

---

I appreciate that. And I will keep trying to conform here. I just hope you/others don't find my lack of conformity, as an oppourtunity to slam and degrade me. I'd rather people just tell me where I'm wrong. It's actually quite helpful. Humans were born to make mistakes, so don't hold it against me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

It's not a matter of a lack of conformity - it's a simple matter of effective communication. I see that you do have points. But they are very often totally lost.
My advice was not intended to lay down a rule for fitting in, just a suggestion to help make sure the point does come through.

And while some of what I say can come across as slams - it's very rarely actually meant that way

quote:

---

It's not a matter of a lack of conformity - it's a simple matter of effective communication.

---

DL, many-a-times there exists a "I am this web-sites policing cop", and I thought you played that role.

quote:

---

I see that you do have points. But they are very often totally lost.

---

Lost? I see that. Again, I only HOPE. that one could give me more specifics, regarding where I was wrong.

quote:

---

My advice was not intended to lay down a rule for fitting in, just a suggestion to help make sure the point does come through.

---

I appreciate that. I'm sorry, but I didn't see your posts as "advice". I honestly thought you were just being mean, when you felt my posts were wrong/incorrect.

quote:

---

And while some of what I say can come across as slams - it's very rarely actually meant that way

---

DL, I again appreciate your response. And don't worry chum! I have a very tough skin. I can take it.

" Now back to your regularly scheduled program. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

Ahhh...you took the shoo! thing really seriously? Sorry about that - it was meant to express now off you go, research it - it wasn't meant that you should go away.

And honestly, no-one is saying that you need to conform - I'm not sure that there is anything to conform to. DL is spot on when he says

quote:

---

it's a simple matter of effective communication. I see that you do have points. But they are very often totally lost.

---

Remember when you were instructed in how to quote a source, and do a link to it? That is not conformity, it is a way to more effective communication here. We have a variety of unique members here, who all have unique points of view, opinions, thoughts, and beliefs. There is nothing to conform to - if there is, I'm not sure what it is, other than maybe communicating effectively.

As for

quote:

---

"I am this web-sites policing cop"

---

we don't really have anything like that - we do have a guard Wolf...hehe. But seriously, the Mad Scientists do a bit of such, but that is part of the job. There is a saying here, that used to apply (and I would like to think it still does) - "We police our own".

Gotcha.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "