Christ Jesus- i dont know what you think this is.
So i have managed my own copy of the 'satanic rituals' and I'm beginning to read quite a few pages, it seems there seems
just a small issue i must discuss.
I grew up in a very strict christian background. Mostly southern baptist.
I've so tried for many many years to rid myself of the strictures of this crap , in my view, outdated religion,
and this has proven qiute difficult.
One reason I was so glad to find this online community.
You all seem to be a very, very intelligent people.
The thing that gets me about most of what I've read is the misplacement of a lot of anger.
It seems to be mostly focused on Jesus himself. So I'm not defending Jesus' so-called "divinity" or his claim that
he was 'God's' son. I am that, as far as I'm concerned, (is heresay). I wasn't there, I don't know.
But, what we do know about Jesus? Is that his basic message, barring all the dogma and stigma that has been
built up around him is "wouldn't the world be a lot greater of a place if people were nice to each other for a change?"
Like I said, not defending him. You want to attack his possibly eroneous claims that he was the son of god,
fine. I don't really believe it myself. You want to attack God itself,
fine. As far as I'm concerned he's got a whole hell of a lot of explaining to do, starting with the platypus.
(seriously, was he just like, burning a doobie and the phone rang?) But Jesus himself,
the man, not the son of god, actually seemed like a really nice person.
As I stated before, his basic message was we're all here, let's try to be kind to each other for once.
If you seriously want someone to direct satanic anger at, direct it at the people who
have taken his image and put it up on a podium. The people who have turned his words into
"holy writ", not the guy who said it. The image of Jesus (and Satan, and God, for that matter)
has become so distorted over the intervening years between here and when he was alive that no one
really knows what went down. Direct your anger at the televangelist who says that you must trust i
n god to take care of everything.
Basically what I say is, if slang Jesus (the figurehead of christianity)
in the same way that christians have attacked Satan (and indeed anything that seems remotely out of their ken,
then aren't you just as bad as they are. If I'm being an *** here, please let me know.
I will believe in ME, SATAN.
(ye gods I hope I don't get banned for this.)
Thanks Mr Sock puppet.
thats awsome who woulda known satanism was so smart to put it all together an tell poeple how messed up religion is an how mesed up all words that were spoken by great men have been twisted to the ideals of greedy men
QUOTE (ffis9339+Aug 2 2009, 11:47 AM)
You want to attack his possibly eroneous claims that he was the son of god,
fine. I don't really believe it myself. You want to attack God itself,
fine.
God in some way(s) is said to have come to Earth in Jesus, and did what he did for us. I believe he also did it so we would have no right bitching about having to die, since he did it too. And if we appreciate what he did etc then we get to live on after death as he is said to be doing. It's pretty easy to comprehend, and makes sense. That doesn't mean there aren't people too stupid to appreciate it of course, but it still makes sense to some who can.
. . .
fine. I don't really believe it myself. You want to attack God itself,
fine.
God in some way(s) is said to have come to Earth in Jesus, and did what he did for us. I believe he also did it so we would have no right bitching about having to die, since he did it too. And if we appreciate what he did etc then we get to live on after death as he is said to be doing. It's pretty easy to comprehend, and makes sense. That doesn't mean there aren't people too stupid to appreciate it of course, but it still makes sense to some who can.
. . .
QUOTE (ffis9339+)
Direct your anger at the televangelist who says that you must trust in god to take care of everything.
Basically what I say is, if slang Jesus (the figurehead of christianity)
in the same way that christians have attacked Satan (and indeed anything that seems remotely out of their ken,
then aren't you just as bad as they are. If I'm being an *** here, please let me know.
I will believe in ME, SATAN.
It seems most likely your hero Satan is responsible for a lot of the things you complain about. And he would certainly like to see you damned to Hell, so that being the case you might think twice about how much you want to trust or worship him.
Basically what I say is, if slang Jesus (the figurehead of christianity)
in the same way that christians have attacked Satan (and indeed anything that seems remotely out of their ken,
then aren't you just as bad as they are. If I'm being an *** here, please let me know.
I will believe in ME, SATAN.
It seems most likely your hero Satan is responsible for a lot of the things you complain about. And he would certainly like to see you damned to Hell, so that being the case you might think twice about how much you want to trust or worship him.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 5 2009, 09:28 AM)
It seems most likely your hero Satan is responsible for a lot of the things you complain about. And he would certainly like to see you damned to Hell, so that being the case you might think twice about how much you want to trust or worship him.
How do you know that Satan isn't the good guy? Satan stands for pleasure and happiness while god stands for self-inflicted misery.
How do you know that Satan isn't the good guy? Satan stands for pleasure and happiness while god stands for self-inflicted misery.
Here's the rub: If you believe in Satan, then you must believe in God. There is only one source of information pertaining to Satan, and that is the bible. Therefore, if Satan exists, worshiping it would be the most incredibly stupid thing a person can do.
It's not as if you can take the concept of an eternal afterlife, the soul, the goodness of God and other aspects of the bible as allegory while you assign Satan a literal existence. The existence of of Satan is intimately bound up with the cosmology of the bible, which includes the immortal soul, the afterlife of torment awaiting the wicked, and the ultimate victory of God.
It's just ridiculous. You take a bunch of fairy tales, assume they're true, and then act in a manner which should -according to your own belief system- result in you suffering an eternity of torment.
It's all rebelliousness and wishful thinking. Stop listening to black metal and goth rock, stop reading Anne Rice, and go take a course in theology.
It's not as if you can take the concept of an eternal afterlife, the soul, the goodness of God and other aspects of the bible as allegory while you assign Satan a literal existence. The existence of of Satan is intimately bound up with the cosmology of the bible, which includes the immortal soul, the afterlife of torment awaiting the wicked, and the ultimate victory of God.
It's just ridiculous. You take a bunch of fairy tales, assume they're true, and then act in a manner which should -according to your own belief system- result in you suffering an eternity of torment.
It's all rebelliousness and wishful thinking. Stop listening to black metal and goth rock, stop reading Anne Rice, and go take a course in theology.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 5 2009, 02:45 PM)
How do you know that Satan isn't the good guy? Satan stands for pleasure and happiness while god stands for self-inflicted misery.
He's the one that got himself outcast. We're told his objective is to trick people into an afterlife of eternal tourment along with him. One way he has of doing that, if he exists, is by denying his own existence. That's what the Satanic Bible tries to lead people to believe,
_________________________________________________________
All religions of a spiritual nature are inventions of man.
He has created an entire system of gods with nothing more
than his carnal brain. Just because he has an ego and cannot
accept it, he has had to externalize it into some great
spiritual device which he calls "God."
p.44
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
but I believe LaVey believed in God and Satan even though he denied it.
_________________________________________________________
The Ingredients Used In The Perfomance Of A Satanic Ritual
C. Imagery
. . . "A Greek gentleman of magical persuastion" went about
constructing the woman of his dreams: "His work completed, he
fell so convincingly and irrevocabley in love with the woman
he had created that she was no longer stone, but mortal flesh,
and alive and warm; and so the magus, Pygmalion, received the
greatest of magical benedictions, and the beautiful Galatea
was his."
P. 125-126
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
number seven of the thirteen steps:
"Turning counter-clockwise, the priest points with the sword
to each cardinal point of the compass and calls fouth the
respective Princes of Hell: Satan from the south, Lucifer from
the east, Belial from the north, and Leviathan from the west."
P.131
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
What could be more Satanlike, than to get people damned to Hell simply by persuading them to believe he doesn't exist
. That sounds like what such a being would want.
He's the one that got himself outcast. We're told his objective is to trick people into an afterlife of eternal tourment along with him. One way he has of doing that, if he exists, is by denying his own existence. That's what the Satanic Bible tries to lead people to believe,
_________________________________________________________
All religions of a spiritual nature are inventions of man.
He has created an entire system of gods with nothing more
than his carnal brain. Just because he has an ego and cannot
accept it, he has had to externalize it into some great
spiritual device which he calls "God."
p.44
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
but I believe LaVey believed in God and Satan even though he denied it.
_________________________________________________________
The Ingredients Used In The Perfomance Of A Satanic Ritual
C. Imagery
. . . "A Greek gentleman of magical persuastion" went about
constructing the woman of his dreams: "His work completed, he
fell so convincingly and irrevocabley in love with the woman
he had created that she was no longer stone, but mortal flesh,
and alive and warm; and so the magus, Pygmalion, received the
greatest of magical benedictions, and the beautiful Galatea
was his."
P. 125-126
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
number seven of the thirteen steps:
"Turning counter-clockwise, the priest points with the sword
to each cardinal point of the compass and calls fouth the
respective Princes of Hell: Satan from the south, Lucifer from
the east, Belial from the north, and Leviathan from the west."
P.131
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
What could be more Satanlike, than to get people damned to Hell simply by persuading them to believe he doesn't exist
. That sounds like what such a being would want.
What if Satan and Jesus are both aliens from different planets? Maybe they are archetypes of their respective races? Jesus would be from a United Federation of Planets type of race, while Satan could be from a Shadows (Babylon 5) type of race. In that case, Satan wouldn't be evil, but just have a different way of going about things.
QUOTE (gendo+Aug 5 2009, 07:51 PM)
What if Satan and Jesus are both aliens from different planets? Maybe they are archetypes of their respective races? Jesus would be from a United Federation of Planets type of race, while Satan could be from a Shadows (Babylon 5) type of race. In that case, Satan wouldn't be evil, but just have a different way of going about things.
Whether that's how it is or not, he might be in favor of you believing it if it could prevent you from having a good afterlife.
Whether that's how it is or not, he might be in favor of you believing it if it could prevent you from having a good afterlife.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 6 2009, 07:20 PM)
Whether that's how it is or not, he might be in favor of you believing it if it could prevent you from having a good afterlife.
So alien Jesus now hands out afterlives? Could you be more ridiculous?
So alien Jesus now hands out afterlives? Could you be more ridiculous?
LaVey did what he did just to piss people off and show them how stupid they were.
There is no "satanist" movement outside of sarcasm.
The fact that Xtian's and others believe there is some segment of people actively worshipping the devil is hilarious though.
There is no "satanist" movement outside of sarcasm.
The fact that Xtian's and others believe there is some segment of people actively worshipping the devil is hilarious though.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 6 2009, 08:18 PM)
LaVey did what he did just to piss people off and show them how stupid they were.
He did it to make money, and I believe also to please his lord the beast.
He did it to make money, and I believe also to please his lord the beast.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
There is no "satanist" movement outside of sarcasm.
The fact that Xtian's and others believe there is some segment of people actively worshipping the devil is hilarious though.
I have no doubt there are people who worship Satan. LaVey didn't convince everyone. What makes you think he did?
The fact that Xtian's and others believe there is some segment of people actively worshipping the devil is hilarious though.
I have no doubt there are people who worship Satan. LaVey didn't convince everyone.
What makes you think he did?
QUOTE (gendo+Aug 6 2009, 08:12 PM)
Jesus now hands out afterlives? Could you be more ridiculous?
There are parts of the New Testament that indicate he has something to do with it.
There are parts of the New Testament that indicate he has something to do with it.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 8 2009, 09:51 PM)
There are parts of the New Testament that indicate he has something to do with it.
You didn't quote that properly.
You didn't quote that properly.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 9 2009, 03:18 AM)
He did it to make money, and I believe also to please his lord the beast.
An Alien beast that you are weak agnostic about??
An Alien beast that you are weak agnostic about??
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 8 2009, 10:03 PM)
You didn't quote that properly.
If you're talking to me about leaving out the idiocy about Jesus being an alien,
it's because I felt like leaving out one part of the idiocy. Do you now want to pretend that a guy that was born on Earth, is somehow an alien but his "father" who we have no reason to believe was born on Earth, is a native? Yes, you probably like to believe all that.
Do you think there are many people who built the houses they were born in, btw? Do you think it makes any difference what age they were when they began construction? What if they don't get it built before they die , then do you think they somehow never existed, or what 
?
If you're talking to me about leaving out the idiocy about Jesus being an alien,
it's because I felt like leaving out one part of the idiocy. Do you now want to pretend that a guy that was born on Earth, is somehow an alien but his "father" who we have no reason to believe was born on Earth, is a native? Yes, you probably like to believe all that. Do you think there are many people who built the houses they were born in, btw? Do you think it makes any difference what age they were when they began construction? What if they don't get it built before they die
, then do you think they somehow never existed, or what ?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 9 2009, 10:13 AM)
Do you now want to pretend that a guy that was born on Earth, is somehow an alien but his "father" who we have no reason to believe was born on Earth, is a native? Yes, you probably like to believe all that.
So now you're promoting alien/human sexual intercourse? EWWWWWWWW
So now you're promoting alien/human sexual intercourse? EWWWWWWWW
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 9 2009, 03:16 PM)
So now you're promoting alien/human sexual intercourse? EWWWWWWWW
No, but it wouldn't matter if I was.
_________________________________________________________
Rishathra
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In Larry Niven's Ringworld novels, rishathra is "sexual practice outside one's own species but within the intelligent hominoids."[1] It is not generally considered a taboo and is often used by the myriad hominids of the Ringworld as a way of sealing agreements, such as trade contracts and peace treaties. Humans, though not native to the Ringworld, share a common descent with the hominids of the Ringworld and may participate freely in rishathra.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishathra
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
No, but it wouldn't matter if I was.
_________________________________________________________
Rishathra
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In Larry Niven's Ringworld novels, rishathra is "sexual practice outside one's own species but within the intelligent hominoids."[1] It is not generally considered a taboo and is often used by the myriad hominids of the Ringworld as a way of sealing agreements, such as trade contracts and peace treaties. Humans, though not native to the Ringworld, share a common descent with the hominids of the Ringworld and may participate freely in rishathra.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishathra
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 9 2009, 11:10 PM)
No, but it wouldn't matter if I was.
_________________________________________________________
Rishathra
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In Larry Niven's Ringworld novels, rishathra is "sexual practice outside one's own species but within the intelligent hominoids."[1] It is not generally considered a taboo and is often used by the myriad hominids of the Ringworld as a way of sealing agreements, such as trade contracts and peace treaties. Humans, though not native to the Ringworld, share a common descent with the hominids of the Ringworld and may participate freely in rishathra.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishathra
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
Rishathra
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In Larry Niven's Ringworld novels, rishathra is "sexual practice outside one's own species but within the intelligent hominoids."[1] It is not generally considered a taboo and is often used by the myriad hominids of the Ringworld as a way of sealing agreements, such as trade contracts and peace treaties. Humans, though not native to the Ringworld, share a common descent with the hominids of the Ringworld and may participate freely in rishathra.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishathra
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
QUOTE (wiki+)
Schizophrenia (pronounced /ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/), from the Greek roots skhizein (σχίζειν, "to split") and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-; "mind") is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental disorder characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality.
smile 
God Loves You.
To the OP, Self Worship. You could at least waste your time to do something positive for life. That kind of mentality is stupefying.
God Loves You.
To the OP, Self Worship. You could at least waste your time to do something positive for life. That kind of mentality is stupefying.
The reason many physical/natural scientists dislike the idea of Christ is because they prefer a definition/image of God/power that occurs at a very different scale from humans and other life in the biosphere. So when people talk about Jesus as being the son of God or an embodiment of divinity in human form, this confuses them because they view the universe as being far beyond human influence. Logically if the power of a black-hole or a star is supposed to dwarf human power, then how could a human have the power of God?
In order to understand the concept of Christ or the holy spirit, you have to be able to imagine the idea that the complexity and power of the universe exists as an image in the human mind. Then, if you look at the human spirit as capable of experiencing all the power that it can imagine and observe, then you can see how it is possible to imagine a powerful being that re-created itself in the human spirit. The stories of Christ are really just a way of modeling the infinite power of the human spirit in terms of a human on Earth. The book of genesis is a story that models the creative power of God and how that power is instilled in humans. The stories of Christ does the same thing at the level of a human being who, himself, discovers the creative power of God within his own spirit.
Study the parallel between the story of the flood of Noah and the story of the crucifixion of Christ. In the first, God sacrifices "His" own creation because he becomes disappointed in human evil. Then he realizes afterward that humans should be allowed to make mistakes and he creates rainbows as a peace-offering that he will never destroy humans again in this way.
Then, in the story of Christ the reverse happens. Human evil becomes so powerful that it actually tries to destroy God by crucifying Christ. Then the irony come in the resurrection and ascent of Christ and the promise of eternal life/God. I.e. God could not be destroyed by destroying Christ, the same way that God could not destroy all humans in the flood. God's forgiveness of human evil after the flood is similar to Christian forgiveness of humans after the crucifixion.
Religion is most enlightening when you study it as meaningful stories. It does not matter if the stories are factual any more than it matters whether time exists or is imaginary. You just study the stories and experience enlightenment, the same as when you study the physical/natural universe and experience the same. Wisdom involves being able to witness your cognitive mechanisms themselves instead of just experiencing them as a reaction to something outside yourself. The philosopher, Kant, is good at this. One of his books, I forget the title, starts by explaining time and space as cognitive phenomena. He recognized already in the 18th century that physics relied on human cognitive projections to make sense of empirical observations. Some people today still have no consciousness of this.
In order to understand the concept of Christ or the holy spirit, you have to be able to imagine the idea that the complexity and power of the universe exists as an image in the human mind. Then, if you look at the human spirit as capable of experiencing all the power that it can imagine and observe, then you can see how it is possible to imagine a powerful being that re-created itself in the human spirit. The stories of Christ are really just a way of modeling the infinite power of the human spirit in terms of a human on Earth. The book of genesis is a story that models the creative power of God and how that power is instilled in humans. The stories of Christ does the same thing at the level of a human being who, himself, discovers the creative power of God within his own spirit.
Study the parallel between the story of the flood of Noah and the story of the crucifixion of Christ. In the first, God sacrifices "His" own creation because he becomes disappointed in human evil. Then he realizes afterward that humans should be allowed to make mistakes and he creates rainbows as a peace-offering that he will never destroy humans again in this way.
Then, in the story of Christ the reverse happens. Human evil becomes so powerful that it actually tries to destroy God by crucifying Christ. Then the irony come in the resurrection and ascent of Christ and the promise of eternal life/God. I.e. God could not be destroyed by destroying Christ, the same way that God could not destroy all humans in the flood. God's forgiveness of human evil after the flood is similar to Christian forgiveness of humans after the crucifixion.
Religion is most enlightening when you study it as meaningful stories. It does not matter if the stories are factual any more than it matters whether time exists or is imaginary. You just study the stories and experience enlightenment, the same as when you study the physical/natural universe and experience the same. Wisdom involves being able to witness your cognitive mechanisms themselves instead of just experiencing them as a reaction to something outside yourself. The philosopher, Kant, is good at this. One of his books, I forget the title, starts by explaining time and space as cognitive phenomena. He recognized already in the 18th century that physics relied on human cognitive projections to make sense of empirical observations. Some people today still have no consciousness of this.
light in the tunnel,
No. The reason why many "physical/natural scientists" reject the notion of god is because they are well aware of the tendency for humans to make sh*t up to make themselves feel better. If god actually existed, its existence would be a mystery, not a common belief among a large portion of the world's population. Religion is what is called a "meme complex;" a collection of ideas and beliefs that spread from person to person. In other words, Jesus = lolcats.
No. The reason why many "physical/natural scientists" reject the notion of god is because they are well aware of the tendency for humans to make sh*t up to make themselves feel better. If god actually existed, its existence would be a mystery, not a common belief among a large portion of the world's population. Religion is what is called a "meme complex;" a collection of ideas and beliefs that spread from person to person. In other words, Jesus = lolcats.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 11 2009, 02:28 PM)
Study the parallel between the story of the flood of Noah and the story of the crucifixion of Christ. In the first, God sacrifices "His" own creation because he becomes disappointed in human evil. Then he realizes afterward that humans should be allowed to make mistakes and he creates rainbows as a peace-offering that he will never destroy humans again in this way.
After that study how Aniken Skywalker became Darth Vader and then was saved by Luke.
And study how rainbows are natural, and must have always been around.
After that study how Aniken Skywalker became Darth Vader and then was saved by Luke.
And study how rainbows are natural, and must have always been around.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 11 2009, 10:28 AM)
It does not matter if the stories are factual any more than it matters whether time exists or is imaginary. You just study the stories and experience enlightenment, the same as when you study the physical/natural universe and experience the same.
One summer a long time ago, the seven sacred council fires of the Lakota Sioux came together and camped. The sun was strong and the people were starving for there was no game.
Two young men went out to hunt. Along the way, the two men met a beautiful young woman dressed in white who floated as she walked. One man had bad desires for the woman and tried to touch her, but was consumed by a cloud and turned into a pile of bones.
The woman spoke to the second young man and said, "Return to your people and tell them I am coming." This holy woman brought a wrapped bundle to the people. She unwrapped the bundle giving to the people a sacred pipe and teaching them how to use it to pray. "With this holy pipe, you will walk like a living prayer," she said. The holy woman told the Sioux about the value of the buffalo, the women and the children. "You are from Mother Earth," she told the women, "What you are doing is as great as the warriors do."
Before she left, she told the people she would return. As she walked away, she rolled over four times, turning into a white female buffalo calf. It is said after that day the Lakota honored their pipe, and buffalo were plentiful. (from John Lame Deer's telling in 1967).
So by your quote above would you say that the story of the White Buffalo is as valid as Christianity? Or that the stories of Olympian gods are as much truth or myth as Christianity?
One summer a long time ago, the seven sacred council fires of the Lakota Sioux came together and camped. The sun was strong and the people were starving for there was no game.
Two young men went out to hunt. Along the way, the two men met a beautiful young woman dressed in white who floated as she walked. One man had bad desires for the woman and tried to touch her, but was consumed by a cloud and turned into a pile of bones.
The woman spoke to the second young man and said, "Return to your people and tell them I am coming." This holy woman brought a wrapped bundle to the people. She unwrapped the bundle giving to the people a sacred pipe and teaching them how to use it to pray. "With this holy pipe, you will walk like a living prayer," she said. The holy woman told the Sioux about the value of the buffalo, the women and the children. "You are from Mother Earth," she told the women, "What you are doing is as great as the warriors do."
Before she left, she told the people she would return. As she walked away, she rolled over four times, turning into a white female buffalo calf. It is said after that day the Lakota honored their pipe, and buffalo were plentiful. (from John Lame Deer's telling in 1967).
So by your quote above would you say that the story of the White Buffalo is as valid as Christianity? Or that the stories of Olympian gods are as much truth or myth as Christianity?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 11 2009, 02:28 PM)
The reason many physical/natural scientists dislike the idea of Christ is because they prefer a definition/image of God/power that occurs at a very different scale from humans and other life in the biosphere. So when people talk about Jesus as being the son of God or an embodiment of divinity in human form, this confuses them because they view the universe as being far beyond human influence. Logically if the power of a black-hole or a star is supposed to dwarf human power, then how could a human have the power of God?
To get an idea you would have to try to figure out the relationship between God and Jesus. How could you? You can't even try, if you never try. Since no one says Jesus had the power of God afaik, it appears you're not even asking an honest question.
To get an idea you would have to try to figure out the relationship between God and Jesus. How could you? You can't even try, if you never try. Since no one says Jesus had the power of God afaik, it appears you're not even asking an honest question.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 11 2009, 04:38 PM)
To get an idea you would have to try to figure out the relationship between God and Jesus. How could you? You can't even try, if you never try. Since no one says Jesus had the power of God afaik, it appears you're not even asking an honest question.
Good point. Let me clarify. The point of the Christ-mythology that God "the father" sent a human son to Earth is this: People worshipped God before Christ but they were alienated from "Him" because they only imagined his existence as a supernatural being far from them in time/space/spirit.
The Christ-story tells people not to look away from humanity for divinity, but instead to conceive divinity in human form. Then, Christ tells people (mary magdelene specifically) not to worship him but to become holy themselves. He is basically telling people to discover God within themselves instead of worshipping him or his father.
So by the relationship between God and Christ, I mean the relationship between them as narrative-figures that has the potential to teach people to experience God for themselves, through the holy spirit, instead of seeking divinity outside of themselves - as many people continue to view God and even Christ, contrary to his teachings.
QUOTE
To get an idea you would have to try to figure out the relationship between God and Jesus. How could you? You can't even try, if you never try. Since no one says Jesus had the power of God afaik, it appears you're not even asking an honest question.
Good point. Let me clarify. The point of the Christ-mythology that God "the father" sent a human son to Earth is this: People worshipped God before Christ but they were alienated from "Him" because they only imagined his existence as a supernatural being far from them in time/space/spirit.
The Christ-story tells people not to look away from humanity for divinity, but instead to conceive divinity in human form. Then, Christ tells people (mary magdelene specifically) not to worship him but to become holy themselves. He is basically telling people to discover God within themselves instead of worshipping him or his father.
So by the relationship between God and Christ, I mean the relationship between them as narrative-figures that has the potential to teach people to experience God for themselves, through the holy spirit, instead of seeking divinity outside of themselves - as many people continue to view God and even Christ, contrary to his teachings.
light in the tunnel
Im guessing you didnt notice my question to you.
Im guessing you didnt notice my question to you.
QUOTE (orestis+Aug 11 2009, 03:11 PM)
So by your quote above would you say that the story of the White Buffalo is as valid as Christianity? Or that the stories of Olympian gods are as much truth or myth as Christianity?
Sorry, I read your story but I missed the question because it was along the bottom of the text box.
Honestly, I do not get the spiritual significance of the White Buffalo story from reading your version of it. That doesn't say anything, though, because I had to study the stories of Christ for A LONG TIME before I started to be able to make any meanings from them.
Generally, the validity of any narrative depends on whether it can be applied fruitfully. A valid lie, for example, might be a lie that successfully deceives the person who believes it. An invalid lie is one that is transparent and doesn't trick anyone.
If the stories of Christ work to help you discover something about spirituality and the existence of God, i.e. what God is and how s/he/it works, then it has a certain validity. If it doesn't, or if you resist it to prevent it from working for you, then you will invalidate it. Since there are no empirical tests for spiritual things, you can't validate or invalidate on the basis of empirical data alone. You need to observe your own spiritual experience in order to validate or invalidate. You might possibly even need to create a spiritual experience using the story in question before it becomes valid for you in any way.
Is the white buffalo story a meaningful one to you, or do you just post it as nonsense to illustrate that Christian mythology is just as nonsensical as any other metaphorical mythology? Obviously it is possible to invalidate any knowledge by relativizing it in this way. However, doing so does not get you any closer to understanding it in any meaningful way. The only way to do that is to study something deeply and seek meaning in it. When you do this in good faith, you will (eventually) discover/create meaning. Seek and you will find, as they say in faith-based disciplines.
Sorry, I read your story but I missed the question because it was along the bottom of the text box.
Honestly, I do not get the spiritual significance of the White Buffalo story from reading your version of it. That doesn't say anything, though, because I had to study the stories of Christ for A LONG TIME before I started to be able to make any meanings from them.
Generally, the validity of any narrative depends on whether it can be applied fruitfully. A valid lie, for example, might be a lie that successfully deceives the person who believes it. An invalid lie is one that is transparent and doesn't trick anyone.
If the stories of Christ work to help you discover something about spirituality and the existence of God, i.e. what God is and how s/he/it works, then it has a certain validity. If it doesn't, or if you resist it to prevent it from working for you, then you will invalidate it. Since there are no empirical tests for spiritual things, you can't validate or invalidate on the basis of empirical data alone. You need to observe your own spiritual experience in order to validate or invalidate. You might possibly even need to create a spiritual experience using the story in question before it becomes valid for you in any way.
Is the white buffalo story a meaningful one to you, or do you just post it as nonsense to illustrate that Christian mythology is just as nonsensical as any other metaphorical mythology? Obviously it is possible to invalidate any knowledge by relativizing it in this way. However, doing so does not get you any closer to understanding it in any meaningful way. The only way to do that is to study something deeply and seek meaning in it. When you do this in good faith, you will (eventually) discover/create meaning. Seek and you will find, as they say in faith-based disciplines.
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 9 2009, 10:20 AM)
An Alien beast that you are weak agnostic about??
If so then he was less agnostic about it than I am, which sounds likely enough even though he tried to give the impression he was a strong atheist. That being the impression he tried to give it was probably a lie, since apparently he lied about pretty much everything:
http://www.churchofsatan.org/aslv.html
If so then he was less agnostic about it than I am, which sounds likely enough even though he tried to give the impression he was a strong atheist. That being the impression he tried to give it was probably a lie, since apparently he lied about pretty much everything:http://www.churchofsatan.org/aslv.html
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 12 2009, 02:55 AM)
Christ tells people (mary magdelene specifically) not to worship him but to become holy themselves. He is basically telling people to discover God within themselves instead of worshipping him or his father.
So far I can't buy all that. I believe you're right that Jesus told people not to worship him, but wrong about him telling them not to worship God. Quite the contrary is true, from my understanding.
If so then he was less agnostic about it than I am, which sounds likely enough even though he tried to give the impression he was a strong atheist. That being the impression he tried to give it was probably a lie, since apparently he lied about pretty much everything:
http://www.churchofsatan.org/aslv.html
He was worshiping the wrong Alien??
So....
It's OK if I kill people as long as I forgive them after?
So....
It's OK if I kill people as long as I forgive them after?
As long as you just drown them. Preferably on a nice, slow dunking stool! Just to sop the witchcraft out to distill into a salable product, you know...
No beheadings or burnings allowed!
Is the white buffalo story a meaningful one to you, or do you just post it as nonsense to illustrate that Christian mythology is just as nonsensical as any other metaphorical mythology?
I don't know that Lakota Sioux would appreciate you calling their culture nonsense. They seemed to have been doing fine before Christianity and smallpox brought the blessed word of Jesus to them.
You have a lot of predecessors on this forum. Hell, you might even be a new incarnation of one of them. "Here I am," they say. "Prepare to be amazed and enlightened. I have the Truth."
They end up getting the same treatment you're getting. And will continue to get as long as you pontificate about religion and argue science with people who have put time and effort into learning it.
I don't know that Lakota Sioux would appreciate you calling their culture nonsense. They seemed to have been doing fine before Christianity and smallpox brought the blessed word of Jesus to them.
You have a lot of predecessors on this forum. Hell, you might even be a new incarnation of one of them. "Here I am," they say. "Prepare to be amazed and enlightened. I have the Truth."
They end up getting the same treatment you're getting. And will continue to get as long as you pontificate about religion and argue science with people who have put time and effort into learning it.
I have been replying to a lot of posts with PMs now because I don't want to see the forum filled up with petty bickering that detracts from interesting scientific discussion. There is no reason to get territorial about this forum. If you have an idea that is interesting to you, and you want to discuss it with other people, you seek a forum that you like on the internet and you post your idea, no?
I have my ideas about science and religion the same as you do and anyone else does. There is no reason for you or anyone else to insult the things I say. If you have constructive arguments about the issues I raise, why can't you post those instead of commenting on me and bullying me with "the treatment" you say "people like me" deserve. You're witch-hunting on a scientific forum. Doesn't that disturb you?
As for the Sioux white buffalo story, I did not say it was nonsense. I asked YOU if you posted it to prove that religion was nonsense OR if you really saw meaning in it. Anything that humans discover meaning in is meaningful. I cannot (yet) see the meaning in this mythology, but I also admitted that it took me a long time studying Christian mythology before I was able to get any meaning out of that. So there's no religion-degrading on my part - I was just asking what your intentions were in bringing up a completely different religion than the one that was on the table.
If you want to discuss Sioux white buffalo mythology, why don't you start a thread and explain some specifics that make it an interesting and relevant theme for discussion. Maybe you will help some people discover something new spiritually and learn something new in the process yourself.
If you have constructive arguments about the issues I raise, why can't you post those instead of commenting on me and bullying me with "the treatment" you say "people like me" deserve. You're witch-hunting on a scientific forum. Doesn't that disturb you?
I have given constructive arguments in the past. The response was, "No, you're wrong, god says so." Eventually that will be your stance. Go through the posts in this topic. It gets tiring after a while, going over the same old things. You came here to teach, not to learn.
As far as "witch-hunting," YOU came HERE. Nobody went looking for you. If you want to evangelize on a science forum don't start whining about being bullied.
And no, it doesn't disturb me. Actually, I've been reserved. But that can, and most likely, will change.
So far I can't buy all that. I believe you're right that Jesus told people not to worship him, but wrong about him telling them not to worship God. Quite the contrary is true, from my understanding.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+)
So by the relationship between God and Christ, I mean the relationship between them as narrative-figures that has the potential to teach people to experience God for themselves, through the holy spirit, instead of seeking divinity outside of themselves - as many people continue to view God and even Christ, contrary to his teachings.
I can't believe it unless you post some quotes. Since he encouraged people not to worship himself, it seems highly unlikely that he enouraged anyone to attempt their own divinity. I remember him encouraging people to forgive each other but don't remember him particularly praising anyone for their excellent relationship with God, much less encouraging anyone to consider themselves to be holy or devine.
I can't believe it unless you post some quotes. Since he encouraged people not to worship himself, it seems highly unlikely that he enouraged anyone to attempt their own divinity. I remember him encouraging people to forgive each other but don't remember him particularly praising anyone for their excellent relationship with God, much less encouraging anyone to consider themselves to be holy or devine.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 13 2009, 12:46 AM)
If so then he was less agnostic about it than I am, which sounds likely enough even though he tried to give the impression he was a strong atheist. That being the impression he tried to give it was probably a lie, since apparently he lied about pretty much everything:http://www.churchofsatan.org/aslv.html
He was worshiping the wrong Alien??
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 12 2009, 07:29 PM)
So far I can't buy all that. I believe you're right that Jesus told people not to worship him, but wrong about him telling them not to worship God. Quite the contrary is true, from my understanding.
I can't believe it unless you post some quotes. Since he encouraged people not to worship himself, it seems highly unlikely that he enouraged anyone to attempt their own divinity. I remember him encouraging people to forgive each other but don't remember him particularly praising anyone for their excellent relationship with God, much less encouraging anyone to consider themselves to be holy or devine.
It's not that he didn't want people to understand and do the will of God. It was that people were worshipping God by making themselves small and powerless in comparison. Christ wanted people to discover God (by being reborn spiritually) and realize their potential to do "His" will.
Forgiveness is what God did after killing everyone except Noah and his family in the flood. Forgiveness is therefore an aspect of divinity.
He didn't encourage people to "consider themselves" holy or divine in some kind of ego-status mode. He encouraged people to recognize God and themselves as children of God, and act in the spirit of God for their own good and the good of others.
I can't believe it unless you post some quotes. Since he encouraged people not to worship himself, it seems highly unlikely that he enouraged anyone to attempt their own divinity. I remember him encouraging people to forgive each other but don't remember him particularly praising anyone for their excellent relationship with God, much less encouraging anyone to consider themselves to be holy or devine.
It's not that he didn't want people to understand and do the will of God. It was that people were worshipping God by making themselves small and powerless in comparison. Christ wanted people to discover God (by being reborn spiritually) and realize their potential to do "His" will.
Forgiveness is what God did after killing everyone except Noah and his family in the flood. Forgiveness is therefore an aspect of divinity.
He didn't encourage people to "consider themselves" holy or divine in some kind of ego-status mode. He encouraged people to recognize God and themselves as children of God, and act in the spirit of God for their own good and the good of others.
QUOTE
Forgiveness is what God did after killing everyone except Noah and his family in the flood.
So....
It's OK if I kill people as long as I forgive them after?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 12 2009, 01:39 PM)
Generally, the validity of any narrative depends on whether it can be applied fruitfully.
Reality is what remains when you stop believing in it.
If everyone that believes in God and Jesus as his son died, would the narative of God and Jesus still be reality?
Of do you even consider it reality now?
Reality is what remains when you stop believing in it.
If everyone that believes in God and Jesus as his son died, would the narative of God and Jesus still be reality?
Of do you even consider it reality now?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Aug 12 2009, 04:22 PM)
So....
It's OK if I kill people as long as I forgive them after?
As long as you just drown them. Preferably on a nice, slow dunking stool! Just to sop the witchcraft out to distill into a salable product, you know...
No beheadings or burnings allowed!
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 12 2009, 09:39 AM)
Is the white buffalo story a meaningful one to you, or do you just post it as nonsense to illustrate that Christian mythology is just as nonsensical as any other metaphorical mythology?
I don't know that Lakota Sioux would appreciate you calling their culture nonsense. They seemed to have been doing fine before Christianity and smallpox brought the blessed word of Jesus to them.
You have a lot of predecessors on this forum. Hell, you might even be a new incarnation of one of them. "Here I am," they say. "Prepare to be amazed and enlightened. I have the Truth."
They end up getting the same treatment you're getting. And will continue to get as long as you pontificate about religion and argue science with people who have put time and effort into learning it.
QUOTE (orestis+Aug 13 2009, 05:13 AM)
I don't know that Lakota Sioux would appreciate you calling their culture nonsense. They seemed to have been doing fine before Christianity and smallpox brought the blessed word of Jesus to them.
You have a lot of predecessors on this forum. Hell, you might even be a new incarnation of one of them. "Here I am," they say. "Prepare to be amazed and enlightened. I have the Truth."
They end up getting the same treatment you're getting. And will continue to get as long as you pontificate about religion and argue science with people who have put time and effort into learning it.
I have been replying to a lot of posts with PMs now because I don't want to see the forum filled up with petty bickering that detracts from interesting scientific discussion. There is no reason to get territorial about this forum. If you have an idea that is interesting to you, and you want to discuss it with other people, you seek a forum that you like on the internet and you post your idea, no?
I have my ideas about science and religion the same as you do and anyone else does. There is no reason for you or anyone else to insult the things I say. If you have constructive arguments about the issues I raise, why can't you post those instead of commenting on me and bullying me with "the treatment" you say "people like me" deserve. You're witch-hunting on a scientific forum. Doesn't that disturb you?
As for the Sioux white buffalo story, I did not say it was nonsense. I asked YOU if you posted it to prove that religion was nonsense OR if you really saw meaning in it. Anything that humans discover meaning in is meaningful. I cannot (yet) see the meaning in this mythology, but I also admitted that it took me a long time studying Christian mythology before I was able to get any meaning out of that. So there's no religion-degrading on my part - I was just asking what your intentions were in bringing up a completely different religion than the one that was on the table.
If you want to discuss Sioux white buffalo mythology, why don't you start a thread and explain some specifics that make it an interesting and relevant theme for discussion. Maybe you will help some people discover something new spiritually and learn something new in the process yourself.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 13 2009, 09:47 AM)
If you have constructive arguments about the issues I raise, why can't you post those instead of commenting on me and bullying me with "the treatment" you say "people like me" deserve. You're witch-hunting on a scientific forum. Doesn't that disturb you?
I have given constructive arguments in the past. The response was, "No, you're wrong, god says so." Eventually that will be your stance. Go through the posts in this topic. It gets tiring after a while, going over the same old things. You came here to teach, not to learn.
As far as "witch-hunting," YOU came HERE. Nobody went looking for you. If you want to evangelize on a science forum don't start whining about being bullied.
And no, it doesn't disturb me. Actually, I've been reserved. But that can, and most likely, will change.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 13 2009, 08:47 AM)
I have been replying to a lot of posts with PMs now because I don't want to see the forum filled up with petty bickering that detracts from interesting scientific discussion. There is no reason to get territorial about this forum. If you have an idea that is interesting to you, and you want to discuss it with other people, you seek a forum that you like on the internet and you post your idea, no?
Because you're a coward and you don't want your ridiculous replies out in the open?
The funny thing about science is that there are actual right and wrong answers. There's no such thing as a personal opinion when it comes to science. If your opinion is not backed up by evidence, you are wrong. I don't think it qualifies as a witch-hunt per se, but I would like to see those who abuse science put in their place. People who come out and say "I disagree with scientists and researchers because I feel that I am right, and they are ignoring my point of view" make me sick. Think Jenny McCarthy and her "quest" to stop vaccination, which if successful would leave us open to a multitude of diseases. It's just stupid.
Because you're a coward and you don't want your ridiculous replies out in the open?
QUOTE
I have my ideas about science and religion the same as you do and anyone else does. There is no reason for you or anyone else to insult the things I say. If you have constructive arguments about the issues I raise, why can't you post those instead of commenting on me and bullying me with "the treatment" you say "people like me" deserve. You're witch-hunting on a scientific forum. Doesn't that disturb you?
The funny thing about science is that there are actual right and wrong answers. There's no such thing as a personal opinion when it comes to science. If your opinion is not backed up by evidence, you are wrong. I don't think it qualifies as a witch-hunt per se, but I would like to see those who abuse science put in their place. People who come out and say "I disagree with scientists and researchers because I feel that I am right, and they are ignoring my point of view" make me sick. Think Jenny McCarthy and her "quest" to stop vaccination, which if successful would leave us open to a multitude of diseases. It's just stupid.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 13 2009, 10:06 AM)
Because you're a coward and you don't want your ridiculous replies out in the open?
Speaking of ridiculous replies...
I posted the following just the other day:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=425138
Speaking of ridiculous replies...
I posted the following just the other day:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=425138
QUOTE (Me+)
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 11 2009, 10:17 PM)
my experience is that people who have been exposed to a lot of Christianity reject it vehemently because it was pushed on them so hard for so long. When they create enough freedom/distance from it for themselves they will be able to discuss it without bias. But until then their rejection is usually colored by passion instead of pure reason (i.e. dispassionate reason - i.e. reason without insistently decrying things deemed "beyond reason.")
That doesn't explain people born to secular families who vehemently reject religion, and there are many such people.
You make the same mistake that idiots always make when trying to find a cause for a social occurrence: You think there must be a single one.
Well, news flash: There's isn't. People reject religion for just as wide a variety of reasons as they accept religion. Deal with it.
To which the latest addition to our dumbass collection replied (via PM):
That doesn't explain people born to secular families who vehemently reject religion, and there are many such people.
You make the same mistake that idiots always make when trying to find a cause for a social occurrence: You think there must be a single one.
Well, news flash: There's isn't. People reject religion for just as wide a variety of reasons as they accept religion. Deal with it.
To which the latest addition to our dumbass collection replied (via PM):
QUOTE (Dumbass+)
I actually appreciate your point, but not your insulting language.
I'm not going to report it this time but I will next time. By the way, I never claimed that my explanation was the single cause - I was just noting one explanation that I've noticed. You're free to post your own without attacking and insulting me.
And of course, I replied to that:
I'm not going to report it this time but I will next time. By the way, I never claimed that my explanation was the single cause - I was just noting one explanation that I've noticed. You're free to post your own without attacking and insulting me.
And of course, I replied to that:
QUOTE (Me+)
You are possibly the most clueless member this forum has. The only moderator doesn't give a crap about insulting language, or anything else you've threatened to report people over. So report away you stupid dipshit.
P.S. Stop PMing people.
And naturally, the jackass replied:
P.S. Stop PMing people.
And naturally, the jackass replied:
QUOTE (Dumbass+)
So you basically want to start a war with me?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 12 2009, 10:14 PM)
He didn't encourage people to "consider themselves" holy or divine in some kind of ego-status mode. He encouraged people to recognize God and themselves as children of God, and act in the spirit of God for their own good and the good of others.
That still wouldn't make them holy or divine or anything close to it, as you suggested to begin with.
That still wouldn't make them holy or divine or anything close to it, as you suggested to begin with.
QUOTE (orestis+Aug 13 2009, 05:13 AM)
I don't know that Lakota Sioux would appreciate you calling their culture nonsense
It sure appears to be none the less. I've heard Inuit say that in the old days men could change into bears, but I've never really believed that one either. Could it be true? How about the thing about the burning bush? COULD it be true? Maybe it is, so if so, how?
It sure appears to be none the less. I've heard Inuit say that in the old days men could change into bears, but I've never really believed that one either. Could it be true? How about the thing about the burning bush? COULD it be true? Maybe it is, so if so, how?
QUOTE (orestis+)
. . . .
They end up getting the same treatment you're getting. And will continue to get as long as you pontificate about religion and argue science with people who have put time and effort into learning it.
So far I haven't seen anyone else try to think realistically about the possibility of God's existence. I haven't seen a sign that any of you have put any time, effort or thought into it at all.
They end up getting the same treatment you're getting. And will continue to get as long as you pontificate about religion and argue science with people who have put time and effort into learning it.
So far I haven't seen anyone else try to think realistically about the possibility of God's existence. I haven't seen a sign that any of you have put any time, effort or thought into it at all.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 13 2009, 03:06 PM)
There's no such thing as a personal opinion when it comes to science.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 13 2009, 03:06 PM)
There's no such thing as a personal opinion when it comes to science.
And this is why you are and will always be an ignorant caveman.
The bible?
Really?
I call bullshit
Let me think...
Most of the ideas you have about Satan either come from non-biblical rabbinical writings, non-biblical Christian mythology, or Islam.
In fact, Satan doesn't get much mention AT ALL in the bible.
You kind of lied. Sorry, I call them like I see them
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 13 2009, 11:39 AM)
And this is why you are and will always be an ignorant caveman.
QUOTE (lzurha+Aug 5 2009, 08:19 AM)
thats awsome who woulda known satanism was so smart to put it all together an tell poeple how messed up religion is an how mesed up all words that were spoken by great men have been twisted to the ideals of greedy men
You've been deceived/ lied to.
A definition of religion is return to bondage - think of it as a prison. Jesus set you free from the law.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary...t_Jesus_Part_1/
You've been deceived/ lied to.
A definition of religion is return to bondage - think of it as a prison. Jesus set you free from the law.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary...t_Jesus_Part_1/
QUOTE (TracerTong+Aug 13 2009, 12:10 PM)
You've been deceived/ lied to.
A definition of religion is return to bondage - think of it as a prison. Jesus set you free from the law.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary...t_Jesus_Part_1/
I never ceases to amaze me how Christians can say that they believe in Jesus, not religion. That's like saying: I eat bread, not food.
A definition of religion is return to bondage - think of it as a prison. Jesus set you free from the law.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary...t_Jesus_Part_1/
I never ceases to amaze me how Christians can say that they believe in Jesus, not religion. That's like saying: I eat bread, not food.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 13 2009, 12:18 PM)
I never ceases to amaze me how Christians can say that they believe in Jesus, not religion. That's like saying: I eat bread, not food.
Being a former churchgoer, I can assure you that it's incredibly common for Christians to claim that Christianity is not a religion. The most common reason given is that they define religion as 'a proscribed set of behaviors designed to garner favorable treatment in the afterlife,' whereas they then define Christianity as a set of beliefs.
What they don't tell you is that their beliefs are designed to garner favorable treatment in the afterlife, and that a person's beliefs decide their actions. So not only do all other religions then break down to a set of beliefs, but a 'true' Christian will behave in a proscribed way.
Being a former churchgoer, I can assure you that it's incredibly common for Christians to claim that Christianity is not a religion. The most common reason given is that they define religion as 'a proscribed set of behaviors designed to garner favorable treatment in the afterlife,' whereas they then define Christianity as a set of beliefs.
What they don't tell you is that their beliefs are designed to garner favorable treatment in the afterlife, and that a person's beliefs decide their actions. So not only do all other religions then break down to a set of beliefs, but a 'true' Christian will behave in a proscribed way.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 13 2009, 12:22 PM)
Being a former churchgoer, I can assure you that it's incredibly common for Christians to claim that Christianity is not a religion. The most common reason given is that they define religion as 'a proscribed set of behaviors designed to garner favorable treatment in the afterlife,' whereas they then define Christianity as a set of beliefs.
What they don't tell you is that their beliefs are designed to garner favorable treatment in the afterlife, and that a person's beliefs decide their actions. So not only do all other religions then break down to a set of beliefs, but a 'true' Christian will behave in a proscribed way.
Back when I was much stupider, I was guilty of all of the above.
What they don't tell you is that their beliefs are designed to garner favorable treatment in the afterlife, and that a person's beliefs decide their actions. So not only do all other religions then break down to a set of beliefs, but a 'true' Christian will behave in a proscribed way.
Back when I was much stupider, I was guilty of all of the above.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 13 2009, 12:36 PM)
It sure appears to be none the less. I've heard Inuit say that in the old days men could change into bears, but I've never really believed that one either. Could it be true? How about the thing about the burning bush? COULD it be true? Maybe it is, so if so, how?
So far I haven't seen anyone else try to think realistically about the possibility of God's existence. I haven't seen a sign that any of you have put any time, effort or thought into it at all.
Hey Dinky-Dao. You, An Alien Is God, are going to comment on nonsense?
And about thinking of... Some of us are in our 50's and 60's, have spent years thinking about it and have come to conclusions. Do you think you are the first person who has contemplated god?
So far I haven't seen anyone else try to think realistically about the possibility of God's existence. I haven't seen a sign that any of you have put any time, effort or thought into it at all.Hey Dinky-Dao. You, An Alien Is God, are going to comment on nonsense?
And about thinking of... Some of us are in our 50's and 60's, have spent years thinking about it and have come to conclusions.
Do you think you are the first person who has contemplated god?
QUOTE
Here's the rub: If you believe in Satan, then you must believe in God. There is only one source of information pertaining to Satan, and that is the bible. Therefore, if Satan exists, worshiping it would be the most incredibly stupid thing a person can do.
It's not as if you can take the concept of an eternal afterlife, the soul, the goodness of God and other aspects of the bible as allegory while you assign Satan a literal existence. The existence of of Satan is intimately bound up with the cosmology of the bible, which includes the immortal soul, the afterlife of torment awaiting the wicked, and the ultimate victory of God.
It's just ridiculous. You take a bunch of fairy tales, assume they're true, and then act in a manner which should -according to your own belief system- result in you suffering an eternity of torment.
It's all rebelliousness and wishful thinking. Stop listening to black metal and goth rock, stop reading Anne Rice, and go take a course in theology.
It's not as if you can take the concept of an eternal afterlife, the soul, the goodness of God and other aspects of the bible as allegory while you assign Satan a literal existence. The existence of of Satan is intimately bound up with the cosmology of the bible, which includes the immortal soul, the afterlife of torment awaiting the wicked, and the ultimate victory of God.
It's just ridiculous. You take a bunch of fairy tales, assume they're true, and then act in a manner which should -according to your own belief system- result in you suffering an eternity of torment.
It's all rebelliousness and wishful thinking. Stop listening to black metal and goth rock, stop reading Anne Rice, and go take a course in theology.
The bible?
Really?
I call bullshit
Let me think...
Most of the ideas you have about Satan either come from non-biblical rabbinical writings, non-biblical Christian mythology, or Islam.
In fact, Satan doesn't get much mention AT ALL in the bible.
You kind of lied. Sorry, I call them like I see them
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 13 2009, 07:28 PM)
The bible?
Really?
I call bullshit
Let me think...
Most of the ideas you have about Satan either come from non-biblical rabbinical writings, non-biblical Christian mythology, or Islam.
In fact, Satan doesn't get much mention AT ALL in the bible.
You kind of lied. Sorry, I call them like I see them
What ideas do I have about Satan, o great and powerful Puck? Use your mental powers and pick my brain from afar you obsessive, trolling, pathetic excuse for a sack of monkey crap.
WHat's the hell is wrong with you? This is the second time you've shown up in a thread to quote some post I made days ago and try to one up me, and the third time you've acted like a jackass for no reason. Seriously, I want to know what your problem is. Explain it to me. Does it bother you that I disagreed with you once? Heaven forbid anyone should disagree with you, nevermind that they later change their mind.
Perhaps it's the fact that I continually pointed out your use of fallacies when you tried to convince me that hate crime laws were wrong. Does that bother you? That's your own damn fault for arguing so poorly.
So what is it, dumbass? What is it about me that makes you froth at the mouth so much that you can't resist trolling?
For the record, most of those 'non-biblical' accounts were written well after the texts which became the bible. The Apocrypha, the Talmud and the "scriptures" are the three main sources of information about Satan. If those three, which do you think your average westerner would have even heard of, let alone read?
Oh wait, it must be the Apocrypha, because you called "bullshit".
You're full of crap, and you have nothing better to do that try to one up me. That's really sad. I almost feel sorry for you, but then I remember that in addition to having no life, you're also a jackass, and then I just feel kind of a cross between disgust and amusement.
Really?
I call bullshit
Let me think...
Most of the ideas you have about Satan either come from non-biblical rabbinical writings, non-biblical Christian mythology, or Islam.
In fact, Satan doesn't get much mention AT ALL in the bible.
You kind of lied. Sorry, I call them like I see them
What ideas do I have about Satan, o great and powerful Puck? Use your mental powers and pick my brain from afar you obsessive, trolling, pathetic excuse for a sack of monkey crap.
WHat's the hell is wrong with you? This is the second time you've shown up in a thread to quote some post I made days ago and try to one up me, and the third time you've acted like a jackass for no reason. Seriously, I want to know what your problem is. Explain it to me. Does it bother you that I disagreed with you once? Heaven forbid anyone should disagree with you, nevermind that they later change their mind.
Perhaps it's the fact that I continually pointed out your use of fallacies when you tried to convince me that hate crime laws were wrong. Does that bother you? That's your own damn fault for arguing so poorly.
So what is it, dumbass? What is it about me that makes you froth at the mouth so much that you can't resist trolling?
For the record, most of those 'non-biblical' accounts were written well after the texts which became the bible. The Apocrypha, the Talmud and the "scriptures" are the three main sources of information about Satan. If those three, which do you think your average westerner would have even heard of, let alone read?
Oh wait, it must be the Apocrypha, because you called "bullshit".
You're full of crap, and you have nothing better to do that try to one up me. That's really sad. I almost feel sorry for you, but then I remember that in addition to having no life, you're also a jackass, and then I just feel kind of a cross between disgust and amusement.
Just because it is the oldest document to mention someone doesn't mean that it is the main source of information.
IF you want to have a discussion, we can.
What ideas do you have about Satan?
You said:
"There is only one source of information pertaining to Satan, and that is the bible"
I proved you wrong.
Also, most of the common myths surrounding Satan are not found in the bible.
Cast out of heaven? Not in the bible
Refused to prostate before Adam? That is in the Koran
Hooves and horns? Not in the bible
Dominion over Hell? Not in the bible
The term Hell? Not in the bible
Seems like a lot of stuff about Satan is found in other sources...
P.S.
What is my problem?
You were wrong. You make mistakes, and I will point them out. You say things without thinking, and I will roast you for them.
IF you want to have a discussion, we can.
What ideas do you have about Satan?
You said:
"There is only one source of information pertaining to Satan, and that is the bible"
I proved you wrong.
Also, most of the common myths surrounding Satan are not found in the bible.
Cast out of heaven? Not in the bible
Refused to prostate before Adam? That is in the Koran
Hooves and horns? Not in the bible
Dominion over Hell? Not in the bible
The term Hell? Not in the bible
Seems like a lot of stuff about Satan is found in other sources...
P.S.
What is my problem?
You were wrong. You make mistakes, and I will point them out. You say things without thinking, and I will roast you for them.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 13 2009, 08:16 PM)
Just because it is the oldest document to mention someone doesn't mean that it is the main source of information.
Are you going to claim that the Talmud and the Apocrypha are well known to your average westerner? If not, then the Bible would have to be the main source of such information for your average westerner.
Congratulations. You proved a sweeping generalization wrong (in contexts that don't apply to this discussion.)
You've implied that you already know, so why don't you tell me?
You've implied that you already know, so why don't you tell me?
Also, most of the common myths surrounding Satan are not found in the bible.
Cast out of heaven? Not in the bible
Refused to prostate before Adam? That is in the Koran
Hooves and horns? Not in the bible
Dominion over Hell? Not in the bible
The term Hell? Not in the bible
Please quote to me where in my post I mentioned any of those aspects...
In fact, if you were to actually pay attention to my recent posts, you might note that I ascribed hell as not being a part of Jesus' teachings. One might (if not on a desperate quest to one up me) conclude then from my mention of an afterlife of torment that I was speaking in the context of western views on Christian cosmology (which I made clear I was doing in my last post).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_tea...about_the_Devil
So then you have no problem with me calling you a dishonest sack of ѕhit after your recent spate of straw men in another thread, right? I mean, you said it yourself, I posted "without thinking," and I tend to agree with that. I should have said "christian tradition and the bible" instead of just "the bible".
Now please, continue with your quest. This is amusing.
Glad you admitted you were wrong, but you new statement is still wrong.
You said
"There is only one source of information pertaining to Satan, and that is the bible"
even with your change,
"There is only one source of information pertaining to Satan, and that is christian tradition and the bible""
you are still wrong.
Islam, Jewish tradition, and fiction writers have contributed a great deal to the mythology surrounding Satan
It is ok, we will get you being factually accurate eventually.
P.S.
I think you misunderstand "strawman" arguments.
A strawman argument is an argument which is predisposed to be in my favor because of how it is phrased. It is an argumentative tautology. I think you have been abusing the term.
Are you going to claim that the Talmud and the Apocrypha are well known to your average westerner? If not, then the Bible would have to be the main source of such information for your average westerner.
Congratulations. You proved a sweeping generalization wrong (in contexts that don't apply to this discussion.)
QUOTE
IF you want to have a discussion, we can.
What ideas do you have about Satan?
What ideas do you have about Satan?
You've implied that you already know, so why don't you tell me?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| IF you want to have a discussion, we can. What ideas do you have about Satan? |
You've implied that you already know, so why don't you tell me?
Also, most of the common myths surrounding Satan are not found in the bible.
Cast out of heaven? Not in the bible
Refused to prostate before Adam? That is in the Koran
Hooves and horns? Not in the bible
Dominion over Hell? Not in the bible
The term Hell? Not in the bible
Please quote to me where in my post I mentioned any of those aspects...
In fact, if you were to actually pay attention to my recent posts, you might note that I ascribed hell as not being a part of Jesus' teachings. One might (if not on a desperate quest to one up me) conclude then from my mention of an afterlife of torment that I was speaking in the context of western views on Christian cosmology (which I made clear I was doing in my last post).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_tea...about_the_Devil
QUOTE
You were wrong. You make mistakes, and I will point them out. You say things without thinking, and I will roast you for them.
So then you have no problem with me calling you a dishonest sack of ѕhit after your recent spate of straw men in another thread, right? I mean, you said it yourself, I posted "without thinking," and I tend to agree with that. I should have said "christian tradition and the bible" instead of just "the bible".
Now please, continue with your quest. This is amusing.
QUOTE
So then you have no problem with me calling you a dishonest sack of ѕhit after your recent spate of straw men in another thread, right? I mean, you said it yourself, I posted "without thinking," and I tend to agree with that. I should have said "christian tradition and the bible" instead of just "the bible".
Now please, continue with your quest. This is amusing.
Now please, continue with your quest. This is amusing.
Glad you admitted you were wrong, but you new statement is still wrong.
You said
"There is only one source of information pertaining to Satan, and that is the bible"
even with your change,
"There is only one source of information pertaining to Satan, and that is christian tradition and the bible""
you are still wrong.
Islam, Jewish tradition, and fiction writers have contributed a great deal to the mythology surrounding Satan
It is ok, we will get you being factually accurate eventually.
P.S.
I think you misunderstand "strawman" arguments.
A strawman argument is an argument which is predisposed to be in my favor because of how it is phrased. It is an argumentative tautology. I think you have been abusing the term.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 13 2009, 09:36 PM)
Glad you admitted you were wrong, but you new statement is still wrong.
You said
"There is only one source of information pertaining to Satan, and that is the bible"
even with your change,
"There is only one source of information pertaining to Satan, and that is christian tradition and the bible""
you are still wrong.
Islam, Jewish tradition, and fiction writers have contributed a great deal to the mythology surrounding Satan
It is ok, we will get you being factually accurate eventually.
Do you need a definition of context? You seem to have a great deal of trouble understanding the concept.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/context
Wow, did you ever get that definition wrong...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Wow, did you ever get that definition wrong...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manA straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1] [2]
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/straw-man/
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.htmlThe Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a positionthe "straw man"not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context.
It's not an 'argumentative tautology', it's a fallacy of ambiguity and a form of a red herring.
A tautology is either a proposition which is true under no matter which values you use for it's variables, or a rephrasing or repetition of previously stated claims or information which serves no purpose other than to pad a dialogue.
Do you need an explanation of why each argument I've labeled as such actually is a straw man? I'll be happy to oblige.
I never claimed that genetic disposition to alcohol is a "powerful force," in fact I had not mentioned genetic disposition at all at that point.
I never claimed that genetic disposition to alcohol is a "powerful force," in fact I had not mentioned genetic disposition at all at that point.
I didn't know that Jews drank weak wine at passover.
I never claimed nor implied that Jews drink weak wine at passover, nor did I ever even mention passover.
I never claimed nor implied that Jesus didn't drink beer, nor did I ever even mention beer, nor would his drinking of beer to the exclusion of wine have any bearing on the alcohol content of the wine in the story I mentioned.
I never claimed nor implied that Jesus didn't drink beer, nor did I ever even mention beer, nor would his drinking of beer to the exclusion of wine have any bearing on the alcohol content of the wine in the story I mentioned.
I don't think they watered down their beer back then.
Having never even mentioned beer, I could not have possibly made any claims about it's strength.
I've already addressed this one: I never said that all Buddhists believe any one specific thing, Nor did I claim that all rebirths happen on this material plane. Although I admit that my phrasing could be seen as implying such, I was merely making a generalization.
I've already addressed this one: I never said that all Buddhists believe any one specific thing, Nor did I claim that all rebirths happen on this material plane. Although I admit that my phrasing could be seen as implying such, I was merely making a generalization.
There is nothing in the doctrine of reincarnation that prevents heaven and hell from existing.
Again, I already addressed this one: I never said that Buddhism prohibits heaven or hell or any other plain of existence.
Again, already addressed, but I'll rephrase it, because you seem to have quite a bit of difficulty understanding me.
I never claimed the Christian in question was an alcoholic. My comments to which you were responding were made regarding alcoholics, not this man.
Again, already addressed, but I'll rephrase it, because you seem to have quite a bit of difficulty understanding me.
I never claimed the Christian in question was an alcoholic. My comments to which you were responding were made regarding alcoholics, not this man.
Even the studies that do suggest that alcoholism is genetic agree that there are also environmental factors, and that without exterior influences most people will not become alcoholics.
Another one which I already addressed: I never said that the sole cause of alcoholism was genetics, nor did I ever even imply it.
Already addressed, but here we go again: I didn't claim it was watered down. I claimed it was weak. Weak wines (not watered down wines) tend to be sweeter than stronger wines, and I believe are those most likely to be served during a celebration, for that and other reasons.
So there you go. You're sitting here claiming that you're taking me to task for posting 'factually inaccurate' claims, yet you're lying through your teeth about what I'm saying in order to argue with me.
What you're really doing, (and it doesn't take a psychologist to realize this) is trying to discredit me, to make me look bad, or to one up me. However, you're failing miserably, because you're just demonstrating your own inherent dishonesty in the process. Edward 3 and Confused2 try to do this all the time. It's really quite amusing, because it just demonstrates how much emotional stake you have in what happens on this forum, which is pretty pathetic.
Get over it, dude.
Or not.
Like I said, it's amusing every time some looser feels the need to fixate upon me and follow me around from thread to thread trying to one up me.
You said
"There is only one source of information pertaining to Satan, and that is the bible"
even with your change,
"There is only one source of information pertaining to Satan, and that is christian tradition and the bible""
you are still wrong.
Islam, Jewish tradition, and fiction writers have contributed a great deal to the mythology surrounding Satan
It is ok, we will get you being factually accurate eventually.
Do you need a definition of context? You seem to have a great deal of trouble understanding the concept.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/context
QUOTE
I think you misunderstand "strawman" arguments. A strawman argument is an argument which is predisposed to be in my favor because of how it is phrased. It is an argumentative tautology. I think you have been abusing the term.
Wow, did you ever get that definition wrong...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think you misunderstand "strawman" arguments. A strawman argument is an argument which is predisposed to be in my favor because of how it is phrased. It is an argumentative tautology. I think you have been abusing the term. |
Wow, did you ever get that definition wrong...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manA straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1] [2]
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/straw-man/
QUOTE
A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it. |
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.htmlThe Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a positionthe "straw man"not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context.
It's not an 'argumentative tautology', it's a fallacy of ambiguity and a form of a red herring.
A tautology is either a proposition which is true under no matter which values you use for it's variables, or a rephrasing or repetition of previously stated claims or information which serves no purpose other than to pad a dialogue.
Do you need an explanation of why each argument I've labeled as such actually is a straw man? I'll be happy to oblige.
QUOTE
Or are you just assuming that a genetic pre-disposition to alcoholism is a very powerful force? I guess you know you are making this assumption in the face of a lot of research?
I never claimed that genetic disposition to alcohol is a "powerful force," in fact I had not mentioned genetic disposition at all at that point.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Or are you just assuming that a genetic pre-disposition to alcoholism is a very powerful force? I guess you know you are making this assumption in the face of a lot of research? |
I never claimed that genetic disposition to alcohol is a "powerful force," in fact I had not mentioned genetic disposition at all at that point.
I didn't know that Jews drank weak wine at passover.
I never claimed nor implied that Jews drink weak wine at passover, nor did I ever even mention passover.
QUOTE
Also, Jesus probably drank beer.
I never claimed nor implied that Jesus didn't drink beer, nor did I ever even mention beer, nor would his drinking of beer to the exclusion of wine have any bearing on the alcohol content of the wine in the story I mentioned.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also, Jesus probably drank beer. |
I never claimed nor implied that Jesus didn't drink beer, nor did I ever even mention beer, nor would his drinking of beer to the exclusion of wine have any bearing on the alcohol content of the wine in the story I mentioned.
I don't think they watered down their beer back then.
Having never even mentioned beer, I could not have possibly made any claims about it's strength.
QUOTE
The point I was making is that Buddhists(at least some Buddhists) still believe in a higher state of existence than this existence which we are all currently experiencing.
I've already addressed this one: I never said that all Buddhists believe any one specific thing, Nor did I claim that all rebirths happen on this material plane. Although I admit that my phrasing could be seen as implying such, I was merely making a generalization.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The point I was making is that Buddhists(at least some Buddhists) still believe in a higher state of existence than this existence which we are all currently experiencing. |
I've already addressed this one: I never said that all Buddhists believe any one specific thing, Nor did I claim that all rebirths happen on this material plane. Although I admit that my phrasing could be seen as implying such, I was merely making a generalization.
There is nothing in the doctrine of reincarnation that prevents heaven and hell from existing.
Again, I already addressed this one: I never said that Buddhism prohibits heaven or hell or any other plain of existence.
QUOTE
But he isn't an addict. He has never had a drink before in his LIFE.
Again, already addressed, but I'll rephrase it, because you seem to have quite a bit of difficulty understanding me.
I never claimed the Christian in question was an alcoholic. My comments to which you were responding were made regarding alcoholics, not this man.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But he isn't an addict. He has never had a drink before in his LIFE. |
Again, already addressed, but I'll rephrase it, because you seem to have quite a bit of difficulty understanding me.
I never claimed the Christian in question was an alcoholic. My comments to which you were responding were made regarding alcoholics, not this man.
Even the studies that do suggest that alcoholism is genetic agree that there are also environmental factors, and that without exterior influences most people will not become alcoholics.
Another one which I already addressed: I never said that the sole cause of alcoholism was genetics, nor did I ever even imply it.
QUOTE
Also, have you ever tasted watered down wine?
Already addressed, but here we go again: I didn't claim it was watered down. I claimed it was weak. Weak wines (not watered down wines) tend to be sweeter than stronger wines, and I believe are those most likely to be served during a celebration, for that and other reasons.
So there you go. You're sitting here claiming that you're taking me to task for posting 'factually inaccurate' claims, yet you're lying through your teeth about what I'm saying in order to argue with me.
What you're really doing, (and it doesn't take a psychologist to realize this) is trying to discredit me, to make me look bad, or to one up me. However, you're failing miserably, because you're just demonstrating your own inherent dishonesty in the process. Edward 3 and Confused2 try to do this all the time. It's really quite amusing, because it just demonstrates how much emotional stake you have in what happens on this forum, which is pretty pathetic.
Get over it, dude.
Or not.
Like I said, it's amusing every time some looser feels the need to fixate upon me and follow me around from thread to thread trying to one up me.
Just an afterthought...
How's the factual accuracy of that definition of "straw man" doing?
How's the factual accuracy of that definition of "straw man" doing?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 14 2009, 01:50 AM)
Are you going to claim that the Talmud and the Apocrypha are well known to your average westerner? If not, then the Bible would have to be the main source of such information for your average westerner.
Nope word of mouth.
Most Westerners would fail a well written "Bible or Not" quote quizz.
Nope word of mouth.
Most Westerners would fail a well written "Bible or Not" quote quizz.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 14 2009, 05:34 AM)
Nope word of mouth.
Most Westerners would fail a well written "Bible or Not" quote quizz.
That's why I said the following:
So far I haven't seen anyone else try to think realistically about the possibility of God's existence. I haven't seen a sign that any of you have put any time, effort or thought into it at all.
Hey Dinky-Dao. You, An Alien Is God, are going to comment on nonsense?
I've commented on a fair amount of nonsense. For example: the suggestion that God could be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years seems to be clearly nonsense from my pov.
I've commented on a fair amount of nonsense. For example: the suggestion that God could be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years seems to be clearly nonsense from my pov.
But that is solely your invention.
YOU came up with it through the process of false dichotomies.
No one else says that.
But then your logic leads us to believe that you think that it was possible for us to have existed on a lifeless planet.
Do you believe that there are people that can run but not walk? You would have us believe you can handle advanced probability but not the basics of probability.
Thinking realistically means rejecting the original idea if it leads to absurdities, like space aliens causing what you think they caused.
Most Westerners would fail a well written "Bible or Not" quote quizz.
That's why I said the following:
QUOTE (Me+)
I mean, you said it yourself, I posted "without thinking," and I tend to agree with that. I should have said "christian tradition and the bible" instead of just "the bible".
I think a lot of non-Christians would be shocked at just how closely the common perception of Christian beliefs resembles actual Christian beliefs. Even churches that claim the Bible is the true and only source of information about god often assert that the devil's fall from grace was true, despite the fact that it appears in the writings of Enoch, and not at all in the bible.
I think a lot of non-Christians would be shocked at just how closely the common perception of Christian beliefs resembles actual Christian beliefs. Even churches that claim the Bible is the true and only source of information about god often assert that the devil's fall from grace was true, despite the fact that it appears in the writings of Enoch, and not at all in the bible.
QUOTE (orestis+Aug 13 2009, 05:52 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda pointed out+)
So far I haven't seen anyone else try to think realistically about the possibility of God's existence. I haven't seen a sign that any of you have put any time, effort or thought into it at all.Hey Dinky-Dao. You, An Alien Is God, are going to comment on nonsense?
I've commented on a fair amount of nonsense. For example: the suggestion that God could be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years
seems to be clearly nonsense from my pov.QUOTE (orestis+)
And about thinking of... Some of us are in our 50's and 60's, have spent years thinking about it and have come to conclusions. Do you think you are the first person who has contemplated god?
So far I'm the only one I've encountered who tries to think about it realistically. If you do too, then you're the only other one so far. If you think you do, then try sharing something you think is worthwhile if you have anything. Discussing the possibility that he doesn't exist isn't part of it btw. That is extremely obvious, but there are people who think that disbelief is a way of thinking about his existence realistically , or whatever variation of the absurd idea. Strong atheists in general have the weirdest religious faith and beliefs of all, from what I've learned in these forums.
Do you think you are the first person who has contemplated god?So far I'm the only one I've encountered who tries to think about it realistically. If you do too, then you're the only other one so far. If you think you do, then try sharing something you think is worthwhile if you have anything. Discussing the possibility that he doesn't exist isn't part of it
btw. That is extremely obvious, but there are people who think that disbelief is a way of thinking about his existence realistically , or whatever variation of the absurd idea. Strong atheists in general have the weirdest religious faith and beliefs of all, from what I've learned in these forums.QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 14 2009, 01:41 PM)
So far I'm the only one I've encountered who tries to think about it realistically. If you do too, then you're the only other one so far. If you think you do, then try sharing something you think is worthwhile if you have anything. Discussing the possibility that he doesn't exist isn't part of it btw. That is extremely obvious, but there are people who think that disbelief is a way of thinking about his existence realistically , or whatever variation of the absurd idea. Strong atheists in general have the weirdest religious faith and beliefs of all, from what I've learned in these forums.
Does posting the same thing over and over again help you to wank off?
btw. That is extremely obvious, but there are people who think that disbelief is a way of thinking about his existence realistically , or whatever variation of the absurd idea. Strong atheists in general have the weirdest religious faith and beliefs of all, from what I've learned in these forums. Does posting the same thing over and over again help you to wank off?
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 14 2009, 06:41 PM)
I've commented on a fair amount of nonsense. For example: the suggestion that God could be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years
seems to be clearly nonsense from my pov.But that is solely your invention.
YOU came up with it through the process of false dichotomies.
No one else says that.
But then your logic leads us to believe that you think that it was possible for us to have existed on a lifeless planet.
Do you believe that there are people that can run but not walk? You would have us believe you can handle advanced probability but not the basics of probability.
Thinking realistically means rejecting the original idea if it leads to absurdities, like space aliens causing what you think they caused.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Also, most of the common myths surrounding Satan are not found in the bible.
Cast out of heaven? Not in the bible
PuckSR: Yes and no. "Yes" in the sense that, according to scripture, Satan still presently has access to heaven. "No" in the sense that, according to scripture, there is a day coming in which Satan will be cast out of heaven.
"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."(Revelation 12:7-12)
As I've already explained on the "Pope-pourri" thread, this "short time" of Satan's "great wrath" is the same "shortened days" that Jesus spoke of in His Olivet discourse. This "short time", 3 1/2 years/42 months/1260 days/a time, times and half a time, will start with a future Pope's pronouncement from a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem that he is "god". In other words, Satan's "casting down" will perfectly coincide with the Pope's/antichrist's exalting of himself. Anyhow...
Cast out of heaven? Not in the bible
PuckSR: Yes and no. "Yes" in the sense that, according to scripture, Satan still presently has access to heaven. "No" in the sense that, according to scripture, there is a day coming in which Satan will be cast out of heaven.
"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."(Revelation 12:7-12)
As I've already explained on the "Pope-pourri" thread, this "short time" of Satan's "great wrath" is the same "shortened days" that Jesus spoke of in His Olivet discourse. This "short time", 3 1/2 years/42 months/1260 days/a time, times and half a time, will start with a future Pope's pronouncement from a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem that he is "god". In other words, Satan's "casting down" will perfectly coincide with the Pope's/antichrist's exalting of himself. Anyhow...
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Refused to prostate before Adam? That is in the Koran
In this, you are correct. This is definitely NOT in the Bible.
In this, you are correct. This is definitely NOT in the Bible.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Hooves and horns? Not in the bible
Although it is NOT in the Bible, it is possibly influenced by the Bible. Allow me to explain. There are instances in the Bible where angels are referred to as "stars". With such being the case, Satan is ofttimes depicted as a fallen star. This, I would suggest to you, has something to do with the use of the pentagram or upside/down(fallen) star.
http://irelandsown.net/baphomet.jpg
If you view the image that I linked to, then you will notice that this fallen star/pentagram is ofttimes also depicted as a goat's head. Since the connection between Satan and a goat already exists, it is possible that somehow the "hooves and horns" have been added descriptors of Satan. I recognize that there are other connections to the "hooves and horns", such as resemblances to Pan and the such. I'm merely making a possible suggestion...
Although it is NOT in the Bible, it is possibly influenced by the Bible. Allow me to explain. There are instances in the Bible where angels are referred to as "stars". With such being the case, Satan is ofttimes depicted as a fallen star. This, I would suggest to you, has something to do with the use of the pentagram or upside/down(fallen) star.
http://irelandsown.net/baphomet.jpg
If you view the image that I linked to, then you will notice that this fallen star/pentagram is ofttimes also depicted as a goat's head. Since the connection between Satan and a goat already exists, it is possible that somehow the "hooves and horns" have been added descriptors of Satan. I recognize that there are other connections to the "hooves and horns", such as resemblances to Pan and the such. I'm merely making a possible suggestion...
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Dominion over Hell? Not in the bible
Definitely not in the Bible.
Definitely not in the Bible.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
The term Hell? Not in the bible
Well...as we both know, the term "Hell" does appear in both the Old and New Testaments. If you want to argue that, in these instances, it is a poor/misleading translation, then go right ahead. The word does appear quite often, though.
Welcome back.
Well...as we both know, the term "Hell" does appear in both the Old and New Testaments. If you want to argue that, in these instances, it is a poor/misleading translation, then go right ahead. The word does appear quite often, though.
Welcome back.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Even churches that claim the Bible is the true and only source of information about god often assert that the devil's fall from grace was true, despite the fact that it appears in the writings of Enoch, and not at all in the bible.
MjolnirPants: Not so fast. There are instances in scripture where not only individuals are being addressed, but also the spirits that are driving/inspiring them. For example:
"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence to me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."(Matthew 16:21-23)
Peter, obviously, is not Satan, but was being influenced by him at this time. With such being the case, we can still learn something about Satan by observing his influences upon different individuals. With this in mind, please consider the following:
"Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffic; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more."(Ezekiel 28:11-19)
That MORE THAN A MAN is being described here seems pretty obvious.
Twice this individual is referred to as the "cherub that covereth" or the "covering cherub". A "cherub" is an angel within the pages of scripture. The "covering" cherub is quite possibly/probably of even greater significance. The Bible states that Moses' earthly tabernacle was a "pattern of things in the heavens" and a "figure of the true"(Hebrews 9:23-24). I doubt, therefore, that there is any coincidence surrounding Moses' COVERING the mercy seat with two CHERUBS. In other words, the Bible would seem to indicate that the true mercy seat in heaven is COVERED by two CHERUBS or angels. If such is indeed the case, then it is quite possible that this particular "covering cherub" originally held one of these two spots. Many Bible scholars view this "covering cherub" as none other than Satan, himself. IF they are correct, then this "covering cherub" definitely "fell". Anyhow, some other things of note from this passage in Ezekiel...
This "cherub" was "in Eden the garden of God". Scripture indicates that Satan was there, as well...
This "cherub" had every precious stone as its covering and his heart was lifted up because of his beauty. Doesn't have to be Satan, but could be.
This "cherub" had "tabrets and pipes". For this reason, many make the link between Satan and music. I recognize, however, that some minor translations translate these words as "settings and sockets". In either case, it's unlikely that a mere man is being referred to in such a manner.
"Thou wast upon the holy mountain of God..." Open to translation, but could be referring to Satan.
"Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created...". Hold on, now. This doesn't bode too well with FALLEN man/mankind. Sounds like a created angel to me...
Anyhow, this and other passages are most likely the places where the churches that you mentioned go to in order to "assert that the devil's fall from grace is true". For whatever that's worth. Take care.
MjolnirPants: Not so fast. There are instances in scripture where not only individuals are being addressed, but also the spirits that are driving/inspiring them. For example:
"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence to me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."(Matthew 16:21-23)
Peter, obviously, is not Satan, but was being influenced by him at this time. With such being the case, we can still learn something about Satan by observing his influences upon different individuals. With this in mind, please consider the following:
"Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffic; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more."(Ezekiel 28:11-19)
That MORE THAN A MAN is being described here seems pretty obvious.
Twice this individual is referred to as the "cherub that covereth" or the "covering cherub". A "cherub" is an angel within the pages of scripture. The "covering" cherub is quite possibly/probably of even greater significance. The Bible states that Moses' earthly tabernacle was a "pattern of things in the heavens" and a "figure of the true"(Hebrews 9:23-24). I doubt, therefore, that there is any coincidence surrounding Moses' COVERING the mercy seat with two CHERUBS. In other words, the Bible would seem to indicate that the true mercy seat in heaven is COVERED by two CHERUBS or angels. If such is indeed the case, then it is quite possible that this particular "covering cherub" originally held one of these two spots. Many Bible scholars view this "covering cherub" as none other than Satan, himself. IF they are correct, then this "covering cherub" definitely "fell". Anyhow, some other things of note from this passage in Ezekiel...
This "cherub" was "in Eden the garden of God". Scripture indicates that Satan was there, as well...
This "cherub" had every precious stone as its covering and his heart was lifted up because of his beauty. Doesn't have to be Satan, but could be.
This "cherub" had "tabrets and pipes". For this reason, many make the link between Satan and music. I recognize, however, that some minor translations translate these words as "settings and sockets". In either case, it's unlikely that a mere man is being referred to in such a manner.
"Thou wast upon the holy mountain of God..." Open to translation, but could be referring to Satan.
"Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created...". Hold on, now. This doesn't bode too well with FALLEN man/mankind. Sounds like a created angel to me...
Anyhow, this and other passages are most likely the places where the churches that you mentioned go to in order to "assert that the devil's fall from grace is true". For whatever that's worth. Take care.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Strong atheists in general have the weirdest religious faith and beliefs of all, from what I've learned in these forums.
Certainly not more weird than the faith in a alien god who has a human son whose enemy is an alien beast.
Certainly not more weird than the faith that this alien god takes a personal interest in your life
Certainly not more weird than the faith in a alien god who has a human son whose enemy is an alien beast.
Certainly not more weird than the faith that this alien god takes a personal interest in your life
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 14 2009, 07:16 PM)
Although it is NOT in the Bible, it is possibly influenced by the Bible. Allow me to explain. There are instances in the Bible where angels are referred to as "stars". With such being the case, Satan is ofttimes depicted as a fallen star. This, I would suggest to you, has something to do with the use of the pentagram or upside/down(fallen) star.
The Pentagram is from the planet Venus. Which of course was called many things including the Morning Star and the Evening Star.
My understanding is that if you plot the position of Venus on the Summer Solstice for 40 years it forms the pentagram.
The Pentagram is from the planet Venus. Which of course was called many things including the Morning Star and the Evening Star.
My understanding is that if you plot the position of Venus on the Summer Solstice for 40 years it forms the pentagram.
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 14 2009, 03:01 PM)
MjolnirPants: Not so fast. There are instances in scripture where not only individuals are being addressed, but also the spirits that are driving/inspiring them. For example:
Anyhow, this and other passages are most likely the places where the churches that you mentioned go to in order to "assert that the devil's fall from grace is true". For whatever that's worth. Take care.
Well, it appears you make a good point for once.
I was -of course- referring to Satan being cast out of heaven, and though you seem to have taken my meaning to be something different, your evidence indicates that there is mention of Satan being cast out of heaven in the bible.
Well, there goes the 'factual accuracy' of another of Puck's claims, even if it is one I held to be true, myself.
Anyhow, this and other passages are most likely the places where the churches that you mentioned go to in order to "assert that the devil's fall from grace is true". For whatever that's worth. Take care.
Well, it appears you make a good point for once.
I was -of course- referring to Satan being cast out of heaven, and though you seem to have taken my meaning to be something different, your evidence indicates that there is mention of Satan being cast out of heaven in the bible.
Well, there goes the 'factual accuracy' of another of Puck's claims, even if it is one I held to be true, myself.
First, let me agree. My definition for strawman arguments was not good. Your is much better. I think you illustrate a problem perfectly though.
There IS NO central argument. We are all throwing around random bullshit at this point. It is a conversation more than a thread after the first 50 posts.
There IS NO central argument. We are all throwing around random bullshit at this point. It is a conversation more than a thread after the first 50 posts.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Already addressed, but here we go again: I didn't claim it was watered down. I claimed it was weak. Weak wines (not watered down wines) tend to be sweeter than stronger wines, and I believe are those most likely to be served during a celebration, for that and other reasons.
And I explained, as a vintner, that weak wines are almost impossible to make without modern controls. The only way you could get a "weak" wine back in those days is if you watered it down!!!
Now, do you have any experience making wine? I didn't think so
You really have no idea what you are talking to
You really have no idea what you are talking to
Well...as we both know, the term "Hell" does appear in both the Old and New Testaments. If you want to argue that, in these instances, it is a poor/misleading translation, then go right ahead. The word does appear quite often, though.
It isn't an issue of translation.
WORD HISTORY
Hell comes to us directly from Old English hel. Because the Roman Church prevailed in England from an early date, the Romanthat is, Mediterraneanbelief that hell was hot prevailed there too; in Old English hel is a black and fiery place of eternal torment for the damned. But because the Vikings were converted to Christianity centuries after the Anglo-Saxons, the Old Norse hel, from the same source as Old English hel, retained its earlier pagan senses as both a place and a person. As a place, hel is the abode of oathbreakers, other evil persons, and those unlucky enough not to have died in battle. It contrasts sharply with Valhalla, the hall of slain heroes. Unlike the Mediterranean hell, the Old Norse hel is very cold. Hel is also the name of the goddess or giantess who presides in hel, the half blue-black, half white daughter of Loki and the giantess Angrbotha. The Indo-European root behind these Germanic words is *kel, to cover, conceal (so hell is the concealed place); it also gives us hall, hole, hollow, and helmet.
That fills out my argument a bit more roundly than I did the other day.
The term "Hell" is roughly like the term "Hades". Every English translation of the bible uses the term "Hell" because they are English(and their language is inherited from people who believed in a fiery underworld called Hel)
And from Wikipedia
"The Christian doctrine of hell derives from the teaching of the New Testament, where hell is typically described using the Greek words Tartarus or Hades or the Hebrew word Gehenna. These three terms have different meanings and must be recognized. Tartarus occurs only once in the New Testament in II Peter 2:4 and is translated as a place of incarceration of demons. It mentions nothing about human souls being sent there in the afterlife. Hades has similarities to the Old Testament term, Sheol as "the place of the dead", or in other words, the grave. Thus, it is used in reference to both the righteous and the wicked, since both wind up there eventually.[9] Gehenna refers to the "Valley of Hinnon", which was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. It was a place where people burned their garbage and thus there always a fire burning there. Bodies of those deemed to have died in sin without hope of salvation (such as people who committed suicide) were thrown there to be destroyed.[10] Gehenna is used in the New Testament as a metaphor for the final place of punishment for the wicked after the resurrection."
So, the concept of an underworld full of fire and such either derives from Hel or could be argued derives from one of the many works of literature describing it. Neither of these is the bible.
And I explained, as a vintner, that weak wines are almost impossible to make without modern controls. The only way you could get a "weak" wine back in those days is if you watered it down!!!
Now, do you have any experience making wine? I didn't think so
QUOTE
What you're really doing, (and it doesn't take a psychologist to realize this) is trying to discredit me, to make me look bad, or to one up me. However, you're failing miserably, because you're just demonstrating your own inherent dishonesty in the process. Edward 3 and Confused2 try to do this all the time. It's really quite amusing, because it just demonstrates how much emotional stake you have in what happens on this forum, which is pretty pathetic.
You really have no idea what you are talking to
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What you're really doing, (and it doesn't take a psychologist to realize this) is trying to discredit me, to make me look bad, or to one up me. However, you're failing miserably, because you're just demonstrating your own inherent dishonesty in the process. Edward 3 and Confused2 try to do this all the time. It's really quite amusing, because it just demonstrates how much emotional stake you have in what happens on this forum, which is pretty pathetic. |
You really have no idea what you are talking to
Well...as we both know, the term "Hell" does appear in both the Old and New Testaments. If you want to argue that, in these instances, it is a poor/misleading translation, then go right ahead. The word does appear quite often, though.
It isn't an issue of translation.
WORD HISTORY
Hell comes to us directly from Old English hel. Because the Roman Church prevailed in England from an early date, the Romanthat is, Mediterraneanbelief that hell was hot prevailed there too; in Old English hel is a black and fiery place of eternal torment for the damned. But because the Vikings were converted to Christianity centuries after the Anglo-Saxons, the Old Norse hel, from the same source as Old English hel, retained its earlier pagan senses as both a place and a person. As a place, hel is the abode of oathbreakers, other evil persons, and those unlucky enough not to have died in battle. It contrasts sharply with Valhalla, the hall of slain heroes. Unlike the Mediterranean hell, the Old Norse hel is very cold. Hel is also the name of the goddess or giantess who presides in hel, the half blue-black, half white daughter of Loki and the giantess Angrbotha. The Indo-European root behind these Germanic words is *kel, to cover, conceal (so hell is the concealed place); it also gives us hall, hole, hollow, and helmet.
That fills out my argument a bit more roundly than I did the other day.
The term "Hell" is roughly like the term "Hades". Every English translation of the bible uses the term "Hell" because they are English(and their language is inherited from people who believed in a fiery underworld called Hel)
And from Wikipedia
"The Christian doctrine of hell derives from the teaching of the New Testament, where hell is typically described using the Greek words Tartarus or Hades or the Hebrew word Gehenna. These three terms have different meanings and must be recognized. Tartarus occurs only once in the New Testament in II Peter 2:4 and is translated as a place of incarceration of demons. It mentions nothing about human souls being sent there in the afterlife. Hades has similarities to the Old Testament term, Sheol as "the place of the dead", or in other words, the grave. Thus, it is used in reference to both the righteous and the wicked, since both wind up there eventually.[9] Gehenna refers to the "Valley of Hinnon", which was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. It was a place where people burned their garbage and thus there always a fire burning there. Bodies of those deemed to have died in sin without hope of salvation (such as people who committed suicide) were thrown there to be destroyed.[10] Gehenna is used in the New Testament as a metaphor for the final place of punishment for the wicked after the resurrection."
So, the concept of an underworld full of fire and such either derives from Hel or could be argued derives from one of the many works of literature describing it. Neither of these is the bible.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
I was -of course- referring to Satan being cast out of heaven, and though you seem to have taken my meaning to be something different, your evidence indicates that there is mention of Satan being cast out of heaven in the bible.
No, NewGuy provided you with a strange example of twisted apologetics.
The passage he quoted is actually making heavy use of metaphor. NewGuy also didn't claim that these passages explicitly justified the idea of Satan as a cast out angel. He said that they may be where a church justifies the concept on biblical grounds. There is also a church that justifies picking up rattlesnakes via the bible, but it isn't a widely held belief that the bible instructs people to pick up rattlesnakes.
No, NewGuy provided you with a strange example of twisted apologetics.
The passage he quoted is actually making heavy use of metaphor. NewGuy also didn't claim that these passages explicitly justified the idea of Satan as a cast out angel. He said that they may be where a church justifies the concept on biblical grounds. There is also a church that justifies picking up rattlesnakes via the bible, but it isn't a widely held belief that the bible instructs people to pick up rattlesnakes.
PuckSR: What the HELL are you talking about? You initially said:
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
The term Hell? Not in the bible
Perhaps you don't know what a "term" is? "The term Hell" appears MULTIPLE times throughout the pages of scripture. I tried to give you an out by offering you the opportunity to complain about "translation". Instead, you went on about "Word History". What does "Word History" have to do with your initial claim? Nothing. Let's look at your latest faulty conclusion, shall we?
Perhaps you don't know what a "term" is? "The term Hell" appears MULTIPLE times throughout the pages of scripture. I tried to give you an out by offering you the opportunity to complain about "translation". Instead, you went on about "Word History". What does "Word History" have to do with your initial claim? Nothing. Let's look at your latest faulty conclusion, shall we?
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
So, the concept of an underworld full of fire and such either derives from Hel or could be argued derives from one of the many works of literature describing it. Neither of these is the bible.
Once again, I ask: "What the HELL are you talking about?" I'm well aware that there are different Hebrew and Greek words that are translated as "hell" in the Bible. However, I'm also well aware THAT THE CONCEPT OF AN UNDERWORLD FULL OF FIRE is spoken of in the Bible, regardless of which word it was translated from or into. For example, in Luke's gospel, we read:
"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame..."(Luke 16:19-24)
I'll pause here. The Greek word that is translated as "hell" in this passage is "hades". It is clearly described as "an underworld full of fire", to use your terminology. Who the HELL cares that such a place was described as "hell"? Would it have mattered if it was described as "heck"? It's still "an underworld full of fire", isn't it? You must be more drunk than usual. In stark contrast, one of the other Greek words that is translated as "hell", the word "gehenna", is actually describing a place of fire that will be on the earth's surface and NOT below it. For example:
"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."(Mark 9:43-48)
Here, in all three instances, the Greek word that is translated as "hell" is the word "gehenna". As you previously noted, the word "gehenna" refers to "the valley of the son of Hinnom"...a valley which is by the entrance of the east gate in Jerusalem(Jeremiah 19:2). This valley is clearly above ground. Why did Jesus refer to it, three times, as a place "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched"? Because He was quoting from the prophet Isaiah, who said:
"For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."(Isaiah 66:22-24)
If you had any understanding of the Bible(you don't), then you would understand that the scriptures repeatedly foretell of a time when Jesus(the Lord) will reign over the earth from the throne of David in Jerusalem. With such being the case, when we read of how "all flesh will come to worship before Him", it is to be understood that all flesh will be coming to Jerusalem to do so. As they go forth from Jerusalem(through the eastern gate), they will look upon the carcases of those who have transgressed against the Lord...for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched. In other words, they will be viewing these people in "gehenna" or the valley of the son of Hinnom which will be ignited(according to several passages) at Christ's return. This "gehenna" is apparently the "lake of fire" which is spoken of in the book of Revelation as well. In any case, this "hell"(gehenna) is above ground whereas the other "hell"(hades) is below ground. BOTH are clearly described as places of fire, so what the HELL are you talking about?
Once again, I ask: "What the HELL are you talking about?" I'm well aware that there are different Hebrew and Greek words that are translated as "hell" in the Bible. However, I'm also well aware THAT THE CONCEPT OF AN UNDERWORLD FULL OF FIRE is spoken of in the Bible, regardless of which word it was translated from or into. For example, in Luke's gospel, we read:
"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame..."(Luke 16:19-24)
I'll pause here. The Greek word that is translated as "hell" in this passage is "hades". It is clearly described as "an underworld full of fire", to use your terminology. Who the HELL cares that such a place was described as "hell"? Would it have mattered if it was described as "heck"? It's still "an underworld full of fire", isn't it? You must be more drunk than usual. In stark contrast, one of the other Greek words that is translated as "hell", the word "gehenna", is actually describing a place of fire that will be on the earth's surface and NOT below it. For example:
"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."(Mark 9:43-48)
Here, in all three instances, the Greek word that is translated as "hell" is the word "gehenna". As you previously noted, the word "gehenna" refers to "the valley of the son of Hinnom"...a valley which is by the entrance of the east gate in Jerusalem(Jeremiah 19:2). This valley is clearly above ground. Why did Jesus refer to it, three times, as a place "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched"? Because He was quoting from the prophet Isaiah, who said:
"For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."(Isaiah 66:22-24)
If you had any understanding of the Bible(you don't), then you would understand that the scriptures repeatedly foretell of a time when Jesus(the Lord) will reign over the earth from the throne of David in Jerusalem. With such being the case, when we read of how "all flesh will come to worship before Him", it is to be understood that all flesh will be coming to Jerusalem to do so. As they go forth from Jerusalem(through the eastern gate), they will look upon the carcases of those who have transgressed against the Lord...for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched. In other words, they will be viewing these people in "gehenna" or the valley of the son of Hinnom which will be ignited(according to several passages) at Christ's return. This "gehenna" is apparently the "lake of fire" which is spoken of in the book of Revelation as well. In any case, this "hell"(gehenna) is above ground whereas the other "hell"(hades) is below ground. BOTH are clearly described as places of fire, so what the HELL are you talking about?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
I was -of course- referring to Satan being cast out of heaven, and though you seem to have taken my meaning to be something different, your evidence indicates that there is mention of Satan being cast out of heaven in the bible.
I truly wish to avoid re-visiting this conversation.
Let us go with the idea of the translation.
My original point, which I encourage you to ignore, was that the concept of "hell" is framed very heavily around mythical places described in Norse(and to a lesser extent Greek) mythology and works of fiction by various authors.
***NewGuy, you need to remember that I think of Hell as a fictitious place****
To draw on an analogy, Frankenstein's monster is often perceived in a way that is not at all in line with the character that Mary Shelley created.
a few examples:
Most people refer to the large 'monster' as Frankenstein. He is in fact Frankenstein's monster.
Many derivative works portray him as unable to speak, but he masters language
Many derivative works portray him as unintelligent, but he was originally written as a highly intelligent and well-read character.
He also originally was a sensitive being, not a gross monster that acted without reason.
The original depiction of Hell in the bible is very vague, which fits well with a culture that didn't have a strong tradition of an afterlife(Judaism is fairly vague on this). The mythology and characterization of Hell was popularized when Christianity gained popularity amongst Romans, which had a very vivid and powerful depiction of the afterlife.
I truly wish to avoid re-visiting this conversation.
Let us go with the idea of the translation.
My original point, which I encourage you to ignore, was that the concept of "hell" is framed very heavily around mythical places described in Norse(and to a lesser extent Greek) mythology and works of fiction by various authors.
***NewGuy, you need to remember that I think of Hell as a fictitious place****
To draw on an analogy, Frankenstein's monster is often perceived in a way that is not at all in line with the character that Mary Shelley created.
a few examples:
Most people refer to the large 'monster' as Frankenstein. He is in fact Frankenstein's monster.
Many derivative works portray him as unable to speak, but he masters language
Many derivative works portray him as unintelligent, but he was originally written as a highly intelligent and well-read character.
He also originally was a sensitive being, not a gross monster that acted without reason.
The original depiction of Hell in the bible is very vague, which fits well with a culture that didn't have a strong tradition of an afterlife(Judaism is fairly vague on this). The mythology and characterization of Hell was popularized when Christianity gained popularity amongst Romans, which had a very vivid and powerful depiction of the afterlife.
MjolnirPants is right. I did, apparently, take his meaning to be something different than what he intended. When he spoke of "the devil's fall from grace", I didn't realize that he was referring to being cast out of heaven. I thought that he was referring to his "fall" from a perfect being to an imperfect being. That, therefore, is what I was addressing. In regards to "being cast out of heaven", I already told you that Satan hasn't yet been, but eventually will be. Did you bother to read my post?
Not to be mean NewGuy, but when you start interpreting the bible and treating all of the events in it as "factual"...I generally tune out
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
No, NewGuy provided you with a strange example of twisted apologetics.
The passage he quoted is actually making heavy use of metaphor. NewGuy also didn't claim that these passages explicitly justified the idea of Satan as a cast out angel. He said that they may be where a church justifies the concept on biblical grounds.
MjolnirPants is right. I did, apparently, take his meaning to be something different than what he intended. When he spoke of "the devil's fall from grace", I didn't realize that he was referring to being cast out of heaven. I thought that he was referring to his "fall" from a perfect being to an imperfect being. That, therefore, is what I was addressing. In regards to "being cast out of heaven", I already told you that Satan hasn't yet been, but eventually will be. Did you bother to read my post?
The passage he quoted is actually making heavy use of metaphor. NewGuy also didn't claim that these passages explicitly justified the idea of Satan as a cast out angel. He said that they may be where a church justifies the concept on biblical grounds.
MjolnirPants is right. I did, apparently, take his meaning to be something different than what he intended. When he spoke of "the devil's fall from grace", I didn't realize that he was referring to being cast out of heaven. I thought that he was referring to his "fall" from a perfect being to an imperfect being. That, therefore, is what I was addressing. In regards to "being cast out of heaven", I already told you that Satan hasn't yet been, but eventually will be. Did you bother to read my post?
QUOTE
Perhaps you don't know what a "term" is? "The term Hell" appears MULTIPLE times throughout the pages of scripture. I tried to give you an out by offering you the opportunity to complain about "translation". Instead, you went on about "Word History". What does "Word History" have to do with your initial claim? Nothing. Let's look at your latest faulty conclusion, shall we?
I truly wish to avoid re-visiting this conversation.
Let us go with the idea of the translation.
My original point, which I encourage you to ignore, was that the concept of "hell" is framed very heavily around mythical places described in Norse(and to a lesser extent Greek) mythology and works of fiction by various authors.
***NewGuy, you need to remember that I think of Hell as a fictitious place****
To draw on an analogy, Frankenstein's monster is often perceived in a way that is not at all in line with the character that Mary Shelley created.
a few examples:
Most people refer to the large 'monster' as Frankenstein. He is in fact Frankenstein's monster.
Many derivative works portray him as unable to speak, but he masters language
Many derivative works portray him as unintelligent, but he was originally written as a highly intelligent and well-read character.
He also originally was a sensitive being, not a gross monster that acted without reason.
The original depiction of Hell in the bible is very vague, which fits well with a culture that didn't have a strong tradition of an afterlife(Judaism is fairly vague on this). The mythology and characterization of Hell was popularized when Christianity gained popularity amongst Romans, which had a very vivid and powerful depiction of the afterlife.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Perhaps you don't know what a "term" is? "The term Hell" appears MULTIPLE times throughout the pages of scripture. I tried to give you an out by offering you the opportunity to complain about "translation". Instead, you went on about "Word History". What does "Word History" have to do with your initial claim? Nothing. Let's look at your latest faulty conclusion, shall we? |
I truly wish to avoid re-visiting this conversation.
Let us go with the idea of the translation.
My original point, which I encourage you to ignore, was that the concept of "hell" is framed very heavily around mythical places described in Norse(and to a lesser extent Greek) mythology and works of fiction by various authors.
***NewGuy, you need to remember that I think of Hell as a fictitious place****
To draw on an analogy, Frankenstein's monster is often perceived in a way that is not at all in line with the character that Mary Shelley created.
a few examples:
Most people refer to the large 'monster' as Frankenstein. He is in fact Frankenstein's monster.
Many derivative works portray him as unable to speak, but he masters language
Many derivative works portray him as unintelligent, but he was originally written as a highly intelligent and well-read character.
He also originally was a sensitive being, not a gross monster that acted without reason.
The original depiction of Hell in the bible is very vague, which fits well with a culture that didn't have a strong tradition of an afterlife(Judaism is fairly vague on this). The mythology and characterization of Hell was popularized when Christianity gained popularity amongst Romans, which had a very vivid and powerful depiction of the afterlife.
MjolnirPants is right. I did, apparently, take his meaning to be something different than what he intended. When he spoke of "the devil's fall from grace", I didn't realize that he was referring to being cast out of heaven. I thought that he was referring to his "fall" from a perfect being to an imperfect being. That, therefore, is what I was addressing. In regards to "being cast out of heaven", I already told you that Satan hasn't yet been, but eventually will be. Did you bother to read my post?
Not to be mean NewGuy, but when you start interpreting the bible and treating all of the events in it as "factual"...I generally tune out
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
I truly wish to avoid re-visiting this conversation.
PuckSR: Why's that? I thought that you ENJOYED beatings? Have you amended your ways?
PuckSR: Why's that? I thought that you ENJOYED beatings? Have you amended your ways?
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Let us go with the idea of the translation.
My original point, which I encourage you to ignore, was that the concept of "hell" is framed very heavily around mythical places described in Norse(and to a lesser extent Greek) mythology and works of fiction by various authors.
***NewGuy, you need to remember that I think of Hell as a fictitious place****
I'm well aware that you think of "hell" as a fictitious place. So what? You claimed that "the term Hell" doesn't appear in the Bible. It does. Then you changed your tune and started chirping about "Word History" that has nothing to do with anything. The concept of a fiery hell is clearly spoken of in scripture, as I've already demonstrated. You're wrong...just admit it. It won't kill you(Derek's wooden stake will, though )
My original point, which I encourage you to ignore, was that the concept of "hell" is framed very heavily around mythical places described in Norse(and to a lesser extent Greek) mythology and works of fiction by various authors.
***NewGuy, you need to remember that I think of Hell as a fictitious place****
I'm well aware that you think of "hell" as a fictitious place. So what? You claimed that "the term Hell" doesn't appear in the Bible. It does. Then you changed your tune and started chirping about "Word History" that has nothing to do with anything. The concept of a fiery hell is clearly spoken of in scripture, as I've already demonstrated. You're wrong...just admit it. It won't kill you(Derek's wooden stake will, though
)QUOTE (PuckSR+)
To draw on an analogy, Frankenstein's monster is often perceived in a way that is not at all in line with the character that Mary Shelley created.
a few examples:
Most people refer to the large 'monster' as Frankenstein. He is in fact Frankenstein's monster.
Many derivative works portray him as unable to speak, but he masters language
Many derivative works portray him as unintelligent, but he was originally written as a highly intelligent and well-read character.
He also originally was a sensitive being, not a gross monster that acted without reason.
Somehow, I thought that you would have used DRACULA as an analogy...I'm not sure why?(Derek laughed)
a few examples:
Most people refer to the large 'monster' as Frankenstein. He is in fact Frankenstein's monster.
Many derivative works portray him as unable to speak, but he masters language
Many derivative works portray him as unintelligent, but he was originally written as a highly intelligent and well-read character.
He also originally was a sensitive being, not a gross monster that acted without reason.
Somehow, I thought that you would have used DRACULA as an analogy...I'm not sure why?(Derek laughed)
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
The original depiction of Hell in the bible is very vague, which fits well with a culture that didn't have a strong tradition of an afterlife(Judaism is fairly vague on this). The mythology and characterization of Hell was popularized when Christianity gained popularity amongst Romans, which had a very vivid and powerful depiction of the afterlife.
Dude, I know that you're a vintner...do you own a steam shovel, too? You're digging yourself an even deeper hole. Who knows? Maybe you'll dig down deep enough to view hell for yourself? "Judaism is fairly vague" on an afterlife? Dude, are you swimming in wine as you post? The biggest debate between the Pharisees and the Sadducees was centered around an afterlife. Where've you been? Never mind...don't tell me. Afterall, this is a "G"-rated forum.
Dude, I know that you're a vintner...do you own a steam shovel, too? You're digging yourself an even deeper hole. Who knows? Maybe you'll dig down deep enough to view hell for yourself? "Judaism is fairly vague" on an afterlife? Dude, are you swimming in wine as you post? The biggest debate between the Pharisees and the Sadducees was centered around an afterlife. Where've you been? Never mind...don't tell me. Afterall, this is a "G"-rated forum.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Not to be mean NewGuy, but when you start interpreting the bible and treating all of the events in it as "factual"...I generally tune out
You mean when I show your claims in relation to the Bible to be patently false, then you "tune out". No problem. Why do you even bother "tuning in" in the first place? No need to answer that, either. Like I said, welcome back.
You mean when I show your claims in relation to the Bible to be patently false, then you "tune out". No problem. Why do you even bother "tuning in" in the first place? No need to answer that, either. Like I said, welcome back.
You know, the more I read of your narrow-minded crap, the gladder I am you left the Joint.
"scripture", my ***.
"scripture", my ***.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 14 2009, 06:25 PM)
First, let me agree. My definition for strawman arguments was not good. Your is much better. I think you illustrate a problem perfectly though.
There IS NO central argument. We are all throwing around random bullshit at this point. It is a conversation more than a thread after the first 50 posts.
Then the point of all this is what? That you're just going to engage in any form of dishonesty to try to make me look bad, no matter what?
Right. You're on a quest to maintain the factual accuracy of this forum. That explains why you haven't said a word about 4Dumbass' claim to have discovered the physiological cause of homosexuality after reading three articles on medicine. That explains why you would post a definition of a term without bothering to look it up, first. (and giving it an utterly meaningless description in the process... "Argumentative tautology" indeed...) That would explain a whole host of other things you either have or haven't done which contradict this notion...
The fact is, I've offered an explanation that fits with all the evidence. The only thing you've offered as justification is hypocritical bullshit.
Right. You're on a quest to maintain the factual accuracy of this forum. That explains why you haven't said a word about 4Dumbass' claim to have discovered the physiological cause of homosexuality after reading three articles on medicine. That explains why you would post a definition of a term without bothering to look it up, first. (and giving it an utterly meaningless description in the process... "Argumentative tautology" indeed...) That would explain a whole host of other things you either have or haven't done which contradict this notion...
The fact is, I've offered an explanation that fits with all the evidence. The only thing you've offered as justification is hypocritical bullshit.
Now, do you have any experience making wine? I didn't think so
Did I ever claim to? I didn't think so. Did I ever sit here and lecture you about winemaking? I didn't think so. Yet you, who has no experience with alcoholism, felt justified in trying to lecture people who have such experience about what causes it and how it works. Hypocrite much?
So adding un-fermented grape juice is physically impossible?
And where's the evidence? I'm just suppose to take your word for it?
And even if you're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong about this specific matter: How does that change anything? Did you taste the wine that was served before the 'magic' wine? How do you know how good it was? Maybe it was watered down even more than the stuff Jesus made.
So adding un-fermented grape juice is physically impossible?
And where's the evidence? I'm just suppose to take your word for it?
And even if you're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong about this specific matter: How does that change anything? Did you taste the wine that was served before the 'magic' wine? How do you know how good it was? Maybe it was watered down even more than the stuff Jesus made.
No, NewGuy provided you with a strange example of twisted apologetics.
Really? Must I take your "expert" opinion on this?
(I see you never clicked on that definition of "context" I gave you...)
No ѕhit, sherlock. Being cast off the "mountain of God" is obviously a metaphor. However, it's also a metaphor that can quite easily be interpreted as referring to being cast out of heaven.
(I see you never clicked on that definition of "context" I gave you...)
No ѕhit, sherlock. Being cast off the "mountain of God" is obviously a metaphor. However, it's also a metaphor that can quite easily be interpreted as referring to being cast out of heaven.
NewGuy also didn't claim that these passages explicitly justified the idea of Satan as a cast out angel.
What is this, straw man #10? I never said he did. In fact, I explicitly acknowledged that he didn't.
That's right. Are you going to claim that snake handling is not mentioned in the bible?
That's right. Are you going to claim that snake handling is not mentioned in the bible? And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
So basically that's just a red herring. That's about the 20th fallacy you've engaged in trying to argue with me in the past two days (I've only been counting the straw men, but I can point out the others if you think anyone needs some proof). Good God, man, aren't you the most dishonest little prick? You're making newguy look like a paradigm of virtue.
There IS NO central argument. We are all throwing around random bullshit at this point. It is a conversation more than a thread after the first 50 posts.
Then the point of all this is what? That you're just going to engage in any form of dishonesty to try to make me look bad, no matter what?
QUOTE
You really have no idea what you are talking to
Right. You're on a quest to maintain the factual accuracy of this forum. That explains why you haven't said a word about 4Dumbass' claim to have discovered the physiological cause of homosexuality after reading three articles on medicine. That explains why you would post a definition of a term without bothering to look it up, first. (and giving it an utterly meaningless description in the process... "Argumentative tautology" indeed...) That would explain a whole host of other things you either have or haven't done which contradict this notion...The fact is, I've offered an explanation that fits with all the evidence. The only thing you've offered as justification is hypocritical bullshit.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You really have no idea what you are talking to |
Right. You're on a quest to maintain the factual accuracy of this forum. That explains why you haven't said a word about 4Dumbass' claim to have discovered the physiological cause of homosexuality after reading three articles on medicine. That explains why you would post a definition of a term without bothering to look it up, first. (and giving it an utterly meaningless description in the process... "Argumentative tautology" indeed...) That would explain a whole host of other things you either have or haven't done which contradict this notion...The fact is, I've offered an explanation that fits with all the evidence. The only thing you've offered as justification is hypocritical bullshit.
Now, do you have any experience making wine? I didn't think so
Did I ever claim to? I didn't think so. Did I ever sit here and lecture you about winemaking? I didn't think so. Yet you, who has no experience with alcoholism, felt justified in trying to lecture people who have such experience about what causes it and how it works. Hypocrite much?
QUOTE
And I explained, as a vintner, that weak wines are almost impossible to make without modern controls. The only way you could get a "weak" wine back in those days is if you watered it down!!!
So adding un-fermented grape juice is physically impossible?
And where's the evidence? I'm just suppose to take your word for it?
And even if you're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong about this specific matter: How does that change anything? Did you taste the wine that was served before the 'magic' wine? How do you know how good it was? Maybe it was watered down even more than the stuff Jesus made.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And I explained, as a vintner, that weak wines are almost impossible to make without modern controls. The only way you could get a "weak" wine back in those days is if you watered it down!!! |
So adding un-fermented grape juice is physically impossible?
And where's the evidence? I'm just suppose to take your word for it?
And even if you're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong about this specific matter: How does that change anything? Did you taste the wine that was served before the 'magic' wine? How do you know how good it was? Maybe it was watered down even more than the stuff Jesus made.
No, NewGuy provided you with a strange example of twisted apologetics.
Really? Must I take your "expert" opinion on this?
QUOTE
The passage he quoted is actually making heavy use of metaphor.
(I see you never clicked on that definition of "context" I gave you...)
No ѕhit, sherlock. Being cast off the "mountain of God" is obviously a metaphor. However, it's also a metaphor that can quite easily be interpreted as referring to being cast out of heaven.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The passage he quoted is actually making heavy use of metaphor. |
(I see you never clicked on that definition of "context" I gave you...)
No ѕhit, sherlock. Being cast off the "mountain of God" is obviously a metaphor. However, it's also a metaphor that can quite easily be interpreted as referring to being cast out of heaven.
NewGuy also didn't claim that these passages explicitly justified the idea of Satan as a cast out angel.
What is this, straw man #10? I never said he did. In fact, I explicitly acknowledged that he didn't.
QUOTE
There is also a church that justifies picking up rattlesnakes via the bible, but it isn't a widely held belief that the bible instructs people to pick up rattlesnakes.
That's right. Are you going to claim that snake handling is not mentioned in the bible?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is also a church that justifies picking up rattlesnakes via the bible, but it isn't a widely held belief that the bible instructs people to pick up rattlesnakes. |
That's right. Are you going to claim that snake handling is not mentioned in the bible? And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
So basically that's just a red herring. That's about the 20th fallacy you've engaged in trying to argue with me in the past two days (I've only been counting the straw men, but I can point out the others if you think anyone needs some proof). Good God, man, aren't you the most dishonest little prick? You're making newguy look like a paradigm of virtue.
QUOTE (newguy+)
That, therefore, is what I was addressing. In regards to "being cast out of heaven", I already told you that Satan hasn't yet been, but eventually will be. Did you bother to read my post?
Your own quoted passage mentions a being whom you fairly adeptly equate with satan being "cast ... as profane out of the mountain of God..."
Whether that is actually referring to satan being cast out of heaven, or falling from god's good graces is beside the point: It could be interpreted either way.
Shockingly, I find myself agreeing with you again. Whether the word is called "Hell" or "Gehenna" or "Bumcake" is utterly irrelevant.
Shockingly, I find myself agreeing with you again. Whether the word is called "Hell" or "Gehenna" or "Bumcake" is utterly irrelevant.
First, let me agree. My definition for strawman arguments was not good. Your is much better. I think you illustrate a problem perfectly though. There IS NO central argument. We are all throwing around random bullshit at this point. It is a conversation more than a thread after the first 50 posts.
The reason I'm quoting this again is because I have another response to it which comes in a different vein.
I wouldn't mind calling a truce.
I see no disadvantages in trying to get along, and I see plenty of disadvantages to come from constantly defending myself against a poorly-thought-out crusader trying desperately to prove me wrong.
In your case, I see no disadvantages in laying off the guy you apparently hate for arguing with you in the past, and plenty of disadvantages to come from following me around, making a fool out of yourself trying to prove me wrong.
I'm not going to ask you for an apology, because it seems to me that listening to me gloat this far about how poor your attempts have been is bad enough without being asked to set aside your pride and apologize to a man whom you obviously despise.
Similarly, I'm not going to offer you an apology because... Well, you started it, and you had it coming.
So what do you say? Are you man enough to get the fuсk over whatever your problem is with me and go back to the good-ole atheists & agnostists vs lunatics arrangement, or is my stance on hate crime laws and the use of fallacies too unforgivable for you to consider not trying to nitpick my every post for something you can one-up me over?
Perhaps I should have said: Do you know ANYTHING about making wine?
I can read up on alcoholism just as you can read up on winemaking.
You haven't bothered to read up on winemaking. I have bothered to read up on alcoholism. I generally find that a lot of religious morons(Alcoholics Anonymous ) have created a ton of myths mostly centered around blaming alcohol abuse on an external source.
Perhaps I should have said: Do you know ANYTHING about making wine?
I can read up on alcoholism just as you can read up on winemaking.
You haven't bothered to read up on winemaking. I have bothered to read up on alcoholism. I generally find that a lot of religious morons(Alcoholics Anonymous ) have created a ton of myths mostly centered around blaming alcohol abuse on an external source.
So adding un-fermented grape juice is physically impossible?
And where's the evidence? I'm just suppose to take your word for it?
And even if you're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong about this specific matter: How does that change anything? Did you taste the wine that was served before the 'magic' wine? How do you know how good it was? Maybe it was watered down even more than the stuff Jesus made.
I didn't say it was impossible. I said that it wouldn't do anything.
Why?
Because the un-fermented grape juice would become FERMENTED GRAPE JUICE as soon as you added it to wine. IOW, the grape juice would start fermenting because of the yeast that was still in the original wine.
Wait...I answered that...in a different thread.
Would you please refrain from thread-hopping.
This whole discussion about weak wine was in a DIFFERENT THREAD, keep it there
Your own quoted passage mentions a being whom you fairly adeptly equate with satan being "cast ... as profane out of the mountain of God..."
Whether that is actually referring to satan being cast out of heaven, or falling from god's good graces is beside the point: It could be interpreted either way.
QUOTE
Perhaps you don't know what a "term" is? "The term Hell" appears MULTIPLE times throughout the pages of scripture. I tried to give you an out by offering you the opportunity to complain about "translation". Instead, you went on about "Word History". What does "Word History" have to do with your initial claim? Nothing. Let's look at your latest faulty conclusion, shall we?
Shockingly, I find myself agreeing with you again. Whether the word is called "Hell" or "Gehenna" or "Bumcake" is utterly irrelevant.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Perhaps you don't know what a "term" is? "The term Hell" appears MULTIPLE times throughout the pages of scripture. I tried to give you an out by offering you the opportunity to complain about "translation". Instead, you went on about "Word History". What does "Word History" have to do with your initial claim? Nothing. Let's look at your latest faulty conclusion, shall we? |
Shockingly, I find myself agreeing with you again. Whether the word is called "Hell" or "Gehenna" or "Bumcake" is utterly irrelevant.
First, let me agree. My definition for strawman arguments was not good. Your is much better. I think you illustrate a problem perfectly though. There IS NO central argument. We are all throwing around random bullshit at this point. It is a conversation more than a thread after the first 50 posts.
The reason I'm quoting this again is because I have another response to it which comes in a different vein.
I wouldn't mind calling a truce.
I see no disadvantages in trying to get along, and I see plenty of disadvantages to come from constantly defending myself against a poorly-thought-out crusader trying desperately to prove me wrong.
In your case, I see no disadvantages in laying off the guy you apparently hate for arguing with you in the past, and plenty of disadvantages to come from following me around, making a fool out of yourself trying to prove me wrong.
I'm not going to ask you for an apology, because it seems to me that listening to me gloat this far about how poor your attempts have been is bad enough without being asked to set aside your pride and apologize to a man whom you obviously despise.
Similarly, I'm not going to offer you an apology because... Well, you started it, and you had it coming.
So what do you say? Are you man enough to get the fuсk over whatever your problem is with me and go back to the good-ole atheists & agnostists vs lunatics arrangement, or is my stance on hate crime laws and the use of fallacies too unforgivable for you to consider not trying to nitpick my every post for something you can one-up me over?
QUOTE
Did I ever claim to? I didn't think so. Did I ever sit here and lecture you about winemaking? I didn't think so. Yet you, who has no experience with alcoholism, felt justified in trying to lecture people who have such experience about what causes it and how it works. Hypocrite much?
Perhaps I should have said: Do you know ANYTHING about making wine?
I can read up on alcoholism just as you can read up on winemaking.
You haven't bothered to read up on winemaking. I have bothered to read up on alcoholism. I generally find that a lot of religious morons(Alcoholics Anonymous ) have created a ton of myths mostly centered around blaming alcohol abuse on an external source.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Did I ever claim to? I didn't think so. Did I ever sit here and lecture you about winemaking? I didn't think so. Yet you, who has no experience with alcoholism, felt justified in trying to lecture people who have such experience about what causes it and how it works. Hypocrite much? |
Perhaps I should have said: Do you know ANYTHING about making wine?
I can read up on alcoholism just as you can read up on winemaking.
You haven't bothered to read up on winemaking. I have bothered to read up on alcoholism. I generally find that a lot of religious morons(Alcoholics Anonymous ) have created a ton of myths mostly centered around blaming alcohol abuse on an external source.
So adding un-fermented grape juice is physically impossible?
And where's the evidence? I'm just suppose to take your word for it?
And even if you're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong about this specific matter: How does that change anything? Did you taste the wine that was served before the 'magic' wine? How do you know how good it was? Maybe it was watered down even more than the stuff Jesus made.
I didn't say it was impossible. I said that it wouldn't do anything.
Why?
Because the un-fermented grape juice would become FERMENTED GRAPE JUICE as soon as you added it to wine. IOW, the grape juice would start fermenting because of the yeast that was still in the original wine.
Wait...I answered that...in a different thread.
Would you please refrain from thread-hopping.
This whole discussion about weak wine was in a DIFFERENT THREAD, keep it there
Well, it's time to be painfully honest...even though I take no pleasure in what I'm about to say...
QUOTE (Granouille+)
You know, the more I read of your narrow-minded crap, the gladder I am you left the Joint.
Granouille: Sorry(genuinely) to hear that. Exactly what "narrow-minded crap" were you referring to? Tell me, why is it that it doesn't bother you when people like PuckSR misrepresent what the Bible plainly states, but you get all up in arms when I simply clarify its teachings? Incidentally(I withheld from mentioning this to you earlier because I didn't want you think that I had any ill-will towards you...I don't), you seem rather "narrow-minded" yourself. Quite frankly, the way that you run "The Joint" seems rather comparable to the things that you claim to detest about "God". You know, no "hell"(yet you'll gladly banish people, won't you?)...no vindictiveness/vengeance(yet you seem to be full of it)...etc., etc. Anyhow, like I've said before, I commend you for starting your own forum...even if you're happy that I've left it. Take care.
Granouille: Sorry(genuinely) to hear that. Exactly what "narrow-minded crap" were you referring to? Tell me, why is it that it doesn't bother you when people like PuckSR misrepresent what the Bible plainly states, but you get all up in arms when I simply clarify its teachings? Incidentally(I withheld from mentioning this to you earlier because I didn't want you think that I had any ill-will towards you...I don't), you seem rather "narrow-minded" yourself. Quite frankly, the way that you run "The Joint" seems rather comparable to the things that you claim to detest about "God". You know, no "hell"(yet you'll gladly banish people, won't you?)...no vindictiveness/vengeance(yet you seem to be full of it)...etc., etc. Anyhow, like I've said before, I commend you for starting your own forum...even if you're happy that I've left it. Take care.
The fact that you have absolutely nothing to say that is original should be a clue, but since clues don't seem to be available to slavishly dogmatic 'Christians', you won't be able to understand why I consider you narrow-minded.
Tough, eh?
Tough, eh?
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 14 2009, 08:59 PM)
Perhaps I should have said: Do you know ANYTHING about making wine?
Yes.
Yet you strongly implied that there's no harm in an alcoholic having a drink... Odd...
Yet you strongly implied that there's no harm in an alcoholic having a drink... Odd...
I generally find that a lot of religious morons(Alcoholics Anonymous ) have created a ton of myths mostly centered around blaming alcohol abuse on an external source.
Ahh, because the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and their analogues in every developed nation that I can think of are all wrong when they say that alcoholism is a disease... You know better, because you drink and read something about alcoholism...
Wait, isn't impaired judgement a symptom of intoxication?
Hey dumbass: You brought it up here. I made a reference to it in an entirely different context (one that obviously wasn't meant to begin the argument anew in this thread), and you seized upon it. Probably because you know it's one of the very very few points of contention between us that you have a chance of being right about.
Come to think of it, that theory would also explain why you respond to so few of my points in general. My last post in this thread contained 5 distinct points, yet you only responded to two of them. One of my other posts in this thread contained over a dozen distinct points, yet you only responded to one. Cherry-picking is a fallacy, too.
Fallacy - an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion.
One would have to make a conclusion to be guilty of a fallacy.
Fallacy - an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion.
One would have to make a conclusion to be guilty of a fallacy.
Hey dumbass: You brought it up here. I made a reference to it in an entirely different context (one that obviously wasn't meant to begin the argument anew in this thread), and you seized upon it. Probably because you know it's one of the very very few points of contention between us that you have a chance of being right about.
OR I have ADD and I dont bother to keep track of which thread I am reading most of the time and I just respond to whatever crap I happen to see first
I didn't say that alcoholism wasn't a disease.
I said that Christian groups (like AA) have strongly promoted the idea that it is external, you know what...nevermind. It really isn't worth arguing
Here is the crux of my point
Alcoholism is a disease, just like obesity is a disease.
Alcohol doesn't cause alcoholism in the same way that candy bars don't cause obesity.
Alcoholism and Obesity are both genetic in nature, but people who are drunks or obese are not necessarily suffering solely from a genetic disorder(or an illness of any type)
In fact, alcoholism and obesity are very similar.
I could write pages explaining my views on this topic, but I don't really want to waste my time. This is a cheap side show on the internet.
As far as "every developed nation", who the hell cares?
Almost every developed nation embraced slavery at some point.
The AMA and the APA classified homosexuality as a disease.
Let me summarize my position:
Some people have a genetic predisposition towards alcohol addiction
Most people do not have any predisposition towards alcohol addiction
Alcohol addiction requires a number of factors
Most people who drink alcohol will NEVER become alcoholics.
In my mind alcohol addiction is akin to video game addiction. It takes a special type of person. Some people get addicted to video games, while other play them regularly with no addiction.
Now, alcohol is an addictive substance. In the same way that caffeine is an addictive substance. You dont find yourself consuming 5 gallons of coffee a day after drinking coffee for a year.
BTW...
You know "anything" about wine making?
You asked me how I knew they didn't understand the working of yeast 2000 years ago. That demonstrates a basic lack of knowledge of history, biology, and enology.
That is kind of the point
That is kind of the point
I've drank 5 liters of coke in a day.
Several times I"ve kicked the habit but then convinced myself that one can or small bottle wouldn't hurt.
But soo get to the point where I would drink 5 litres a day if I didn't restrain myself.
But, are you drinking it for the caffeine or are you drinking it because you like soda?
Jesus did not exist; he was a myth created by Paul (Saul) of Tarsis circa 70CE. Paul was a self-loathing mysoginist (and it has been speculated that he hated his homosexuality).
Physfan
Physfan
Yes...
Because he didn't move stars, have wise men bring him gifts, or perform any miracles.
He was a common person who attracted some attention by being a "prophet"(or something similar). There were a lot of these guys running around. Jesus was one of them.
Let me put it to you this way.
If you wanted to manufacture a religion(as you argue Paul did), would you chose to base it around a totally fictitious individual or would you tack your sail to some random guy who got killed.
Yes.
QUOTE
You haven't bothered to read up on winemaking. I have bothered to read up on alcoholism.
Yet you strongly implied that there's no harm in an alcoholic having a drink... Odd...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You haven't bothered to read up on winemaking. I have bothered to read up on alcoholism. |
Yet you strongly implied that there's no harm in an alcoholic having a drink... Odd...
I generally find that a lot of religious morons(Alcoholics Anonymous ) have created a ton of myths mostly centered around blaming alcohol abuse on an external source.
Ahh, because the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and their analogues in every developed nation that I can think of are all wrong when they say that alcoholism is a disease... You know better, because you drink and read something about alcoholism...
Wait, isn't impaired judgement a symptom of intoxication?
QUOTE
Wait...I answered that...in a different thread. Would you please refrain from thread-hopping. This whole discussion about weak wine was in a DIFFERENT THREAD, keep it there
Hey dumbass: You brought it up here. I made a reference to it in an entirely different context (one that obviously wasn't meant to begin the argument anew in this thread), and you seized upon it. Probably because you know it's one of the very very few points of contention between us that you have a chance of being right about.
Come to think of it, that theory would also explain why you respond to so few of my points in general. My last post in this thread contained 5 distinct points, yet you only responded to two of them. One of my other posts in this thread contained over a dozen distinct points, yet you only responded to one. Cherry-picking is a fallacy, too.
QUOTE
Cherry-picking is a fallacy, too.
Fallacy - an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion.
One would have to make a conclusion to be guilty of a fallacy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Cherry-picking is a fallacy, too. |
Fallacy - an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion.
One would have to make a conclusion to be guilty of a fallacy.
Hey dumbass: You brought it up here. I made a reference to it in an entirely different context (one that obviously wasn't meant to begin the argument anew in this thread), and you seized upon it. Probably because you know it's one of the very very few points of contention between us that you have a chance of being right about.
OR I have ADD and I dont bother to keep track of which thread I am reading most of the time and I just respond to whatever crap I happen to see first
QUOTE
Ahh, because the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and their analogues in every developed nation that I can think of are all wrong when they say that alcoholism is a disease... You know better, because you drink and read something about alcoholism...
Wait, isn't impaired judgement a symptom of intoxication? blink.gif
Wait, isn't impaired judgement a symptom of intoxication? blink.gif
I didn't say that alcoholism wasn't a disease.
I said that Christian groups (like AA) have strongly promoted the idea that it is external, you know what...nevermind. It really isn't worth arguing
Here is the crux of my point
Alcoholism is a disease, just like obesity is a disease.
Alcohol doesn't cause alcoholism in the same way that candy bars don't cause obesity.
Alcoholism and Obesity are both genetic in nature, but people who are drunks or obese are not necessarily suffering solely from a genetic disorder(or an illness of any type)
In fact, alcoholism and obesity are very similar.
I could write pages explaining my views on this topic, but I don't really want to waste my time. This is a cheap side show on the internet.
As far as "every developed nation", who the hell cares?
Almost every developed nation embraced slavery at some point.
The AMA and the APA classified homosexuality as a disease.
Let me summarize my position:
Some people have a genetic predisposition towards alcohol addiction
Most people do not have any predisposition towards alcohol addiction
Alcohol addiction requires a number of factors
Most people who drink alcohol will NEVER become alcoholics.
In my mind alcohol addiction is akin to video game addiction. It takes a special type of person. Some people get addicted to video games, while other play them regularly with no addiction.
Now, alcohol is an addictive substance. In the same way that caffeine is an addictive substance. You dont find yourself consuming 5 gallons of coffee a day after drinking coffee for a year.
BTW...
You know "anything" about wine making?
You asked me how I knew they didn't understand the working of yeast 2000 years ago. That demonstrates a basic lack of knowledge of history, biology, and enology.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 15 2009, 04:31 AM)
Alcoholism is a disease, just like obesity is a disease.
Are you sure about that?
If that is true, then any abnormal or self-destructive behavior could be defined as a disease.
Are you sure about that?
If that is true, then any abnormal or self-destructive behavior could be defined as a disease.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 15 2009, 04:31 AM)
Now, alcohol is an addictive substance. In the same way that caffeine is an addictive substance. You dont find yourself consuming 5 gallons of coffee a day after drinking coffee for a year.
I've drank 5 liters of coke in a day.
Several times I"ve kicked the habit but then convinced myself that one can or small bottle wouldn't hurt.
But soo get to the point where I would drink 5 litres a day if I didn't restrain myself.
I've drank 5 liters of coke in a day.
Several times I"ve kicked the habit but then convinced myself that one can or small bottle wouldn't hurt.
But soo get to the point where I would drink 5 litres a day if I didn't restrain myself.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 15 2009, 04:43 AM)
I've drank 5 liters of coke in a day.
Several times I"ve kicked the habit but then convinced myself that one can or small bottle wouldn't hurt.
But soo get to the point where I would drink 5 litres a day if I didn't restrain myself.
Addictive substances generally have a strong negative physical reaction when withdrawn from the body. Barbituate and heroin withdrawal can be fatal.
Several times I"ve kicked the habit but then convinced myself that one can or small bottle wouldn't hurt.
But soo get to the point where I would drink 5 litres a day if I didn't restrain myself.
Addictive substances generally have a strong negative physical reaction when withdrawn from the body. Barbituate and heroin withdrawal can be fatal.
QUOTE
Are you sure about that?
If that is true, then any abnormal or self-destructive behavior could be defined as a disease.
If that is true, then any abnormal or self-destructive behavior could be defined as a disease.
That is kind of the point
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are you sure about that? If that is true, then any abnormal or self-destructive behavior could be defined as a disease. |
That is kind of the point
I've drank 5 liters of coke in a day.
Several times I"ve kicked the habit but then convinced myself that one can or small bottle wouldn't hurt.
But soo get to the point where I would drink 5 litres a day if I didn't restrain myself.
But, are you drinking it for the caffeine or are you drinking it because you like soda?
QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 15 2009, 02:58 PM)
That is kind of the point
But, are you drinking it for the caffeine or are you drinking it because you like soda?
Well I don't pop the caffiene pills because I like pills.
But, are you drinking it for the caffeine or are you drinking it because you like soda?
Well I don't pop the caffiene pills because I like pills.
QUOTE
But Jesus himself, the man, not the son of god, actually seemed like a really nice person.
Jesus did not exist; he was a myth created by Paul (Saul) of Tarsis circa 70CE. Paul was a self-loathing mysoginist (and it has been speculated that he hated his homosexuality).
Physfan
I beg to differ.
I think Jesus was real. I think some of the stories are true.(in the sense that they had some basis in fact)
I think Paul created modern Christianity. He stood against Peter and James(brother of Jesus), and created a new Pro-Roman version of Christianity
He
I think Jesus was real. I think some of the stories are true.(in the sense that they had some basis in fact)
I think Paul created modern Christianity. He stood against Peter and James(brother of Jesus), and created a new Pro-Roman version of Christianity
He
QUOTE
I think Jesus was real.
Alright then, provide some evidence of his historicity; some contemporaneous record? You won't because there is none.Physfan
No, you wont...outside of a random mention by a Jewish historian who was speaking on second-hand information.
However, we have several examples of proto-Christian activity that predates Paul.
In fact, given that after Paul we still had heavy activity(confirmed via letters) of Peter...that it can be assumed that even if Paul did totally fabricate Christianity, that he did so via a conspiracy with several other people.
However, we have several examples of proto-Christian activity that predates Paul.
In fact, given that after Paul we still had heavy activity(confirmed via letters) of Peter...that it can be assumed that even if Paul did totally fabricate Christianity, that he did so via a conspiracy with several other people.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I think Jesus was real. Alright then, provide some evidence of his historicity; some contemporaneous record? You won't because there is none. |
.
I repeat; Jesus did not exist.
Physfan
I repeat; Jesus did not exist.
Physfan
I dont really see why it matters.
I tend to think that most myths are based in some truth.
We already learned our lesson about treating myths as complete fiction with the Illiad.
It doesn't mean that anything about Jesus is inherently true, but almost all historians agree that a person named Jesus who had some leadership of a Jewish sect did exist.
This whole absence of evidence=evidence of absence is a bit silly
I tend to think that most myths are based in some truth.
We already learned our lesson about treating myths as complete fiction with the Illiad.
It doesn't mean that anything about Jesus is inherently true, but almost all historians agree that a person named Jesus who had some leadership of a Jewish sect did exist.
This whole absence of evidence=evidence of absence is a bit silly
QUOTE
almost all historians agree that a person named Jesus who had some leadership of a Jewish sect did exist.
Really? With no evidence? If this is the case, it is a ridiculous deference to the xian cultists. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| almost all historians agree that a person named Jesus who had some leadership of a Jewish sect did exist. |
Really? With no evidence? If this is the case, it is a ridiculous deference to the xian cultists.
This whole absence of evidence=evidence of absence is a bit silly
This whole absence of evidence=evidence of absence is a bit silly
So you are suggesting that, for many, the most significant man in history left no trace? Despite stars moving and wise men bringing expensive gifts, the "son of god" went completely unheralded in his own time. Pardon me while I cough, but that proposition is nonsense.
Physfan
Physfan
QUOTE
So you are suggesting that, for many, the most significant man in history left no trace? Despite stars moving and wise men bringing expensive gifts, the "son of god" went completely unheralded in his own time. Pardon me while I cough, but that proposition is nonsense.
[QUOTE]Yes...
Because he didn't move stars, have wise men bring him gifts, or perform any miracles.
He was a common person who attracted some attention by being a "prophet"(or something similar). There were a lot of these guys running around. Jesus was one of them.
Let me put it to you this way.
If you wanted to manufacture a religion(as you argue Paul did), would you chose to base it around a totally fictitious individual or would you tack your sail to some random guy who got killed.
Puck,
I have no idea how your mind works, however, it doesn't seem to have much consistency about the train of thought. Right, let's look at the points as you make them;
I have no idea how your mind works, however, it doesn't seem to have much consistency about the train of thought. Right, let's look at the points as you make them;
QUOTE
Because he didn't move stars, have wise men bring him gifts, or perform any miracles.
That is what xians believe; do you believe these events occurred?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Because he didn't move stars, have wise men bring him gifts, or perform any miracles. |
That is what xians believe; do you believe these events occurred?
He was a common person who attracted some attention by being a "prophet"(or something similar). There were a lot of these guys running around. Jesus was one of them.
He was a common person who attracted some attention by being a "prophet"(or something similar). There were a lot of these guys running around. Jesus was one of them.
There were many then, just as there are many now. What made Jesus special, if you believe a person existed as described in the bible?
Physfan
QUOTE
Let me put it to you this way.
If you wanted to manufacture a religion(as you argue Paul did), would you chose to base it around a totally fictitious individual or would you tack your sail to some random guy who got killed.
If, as it did happen that Paul wrote his stories about 70 to 80 years after the alleged events, one was to write such stories, what difference would it make whether a real or fictitious person was used? Paul wasn't around when the alleged events occurred and there wasn't any written record of the existence of a Jesus. Paul may have relied on verbal accounts but the reliability of any such stories must be questionable? What seems clear is that Paul was a self-loathing individual who hated his body more than anything. "Pleasures of the flesh" were "sinful" punishable by his god forever. What a sick ***!If you wanted to manufacture a religion(as you argue Paul did), would you chose to base it around a totally fictitious individual or would you tack your sail to some random guy who got killed.
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+)
Jesus did not exist; he was a myth created by Paul (Saul) of Tarsis circa 70CE.
Physfan: Yoo-hoo! Paul/Saul of Tarsus used to murder Christians PRIOR TO HIS CONVERSION. Just who do you suppose that these Christians whom Paul/Saul was murdering followed? The Jesus that Paul/Saul LATER "created"?
Physfan
Physfan: Yoo-hoo! Paul/Saul of Tarsus used to murder Christians PRIOR TO HIS CONVERSION. Just who do you suppose that these Christians whom Paul/Saul was murdering followed? The Jesus that Paul/Saul LATER "created"?
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
I think Paul created modern Christianity.
PuckSR: If by "MODERN Christianity" you mean what presently exists, then let me be the first to inform you that Paul would WEEP PROFUSELY if he saw the present-day state of so-called "Christendom". Additionally, Paul didn't "create" anything. He merely expounded upon the OLD TESTAMENT scriptures and shewed the people of his time(and our time) how they testified of Christ. This is why we continually read things such as the following:
"Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ."
(Acts 17:1-3)
"And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening."(Acts 28:23)
Paul preached a Jesus/Christ Whom was found(by those who aren't blind, that is) within the pages of the Old Testament law, psalms and prophets.
Wait...
Don't tell me, let me guess...
Paul wrote the law, the psalms and the prophets, too...
PuckSR: If by "MODERN Christianity" you mean what presently exists, then let me be the first to inform you that Paul would WEEP PROFUSELY if he saw the present-day state of so-called "Christendom". Additionally, Paul didn't "create" anything. He merely expounded upon the OLD TESTAMENT scriptures and shewed the people of his time(and our time) how they testified of Christ. This is why we continually read things such as the following:
"Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ."
(Acts 17:1-3)
"And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening."(Acts 28:23)
Paul preached a Jesus/Christ Whom was found(by those who aren't blind, that is) within the pages of the Old Testament law, psalms and prophets.
Wait...
Don't tell me, let me guess...
Paul wrote the law, the psalms and the prophets, too...
QUOTE
Physfan: Yoo-hoo! Paul/Saul of Tarsus used to murder Christians PRIOR TO HIS CONVERSION. Just who do you suppose that these Christians whom Paul/Saul was murdering followed? The Jesus that Paul/Saul LATER "created"?
And the contemporaneous records for this are where?Physfan
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 17 2009, 12:16 AM)
QUOTE (Physfan+)
Jesus did not exist; he was a myth created by Paul (Saul) of Tarsis circa 70CE.
Physfan: Yoo-hoo! Paul/Saul of Tarsus used to murder Christians PRIOR TO HIS CONVERSION. Just who do you suppose that these Christians whom Paul/Saul was murdering followed? The Jesus that Paul/Saul LATER "created"?
The followers of James of church of Jerusalem.
Some people believe that it was James that Jesus named as his successor. I was just reading about it last night.
edit and Saul didn't write all the previous stuff but he no doubt read it.
you are taking it as a given that his account is accurate. Maybe he read the prophesy and made stories that fit.
Jesus did not exist; he was a myth created by Paul (Saul) of Tarsis circa 70CE.
Physfan: Yoo-hoo! Paul/Saul of Tarsus used to murder Christians PRIOR TO HIS CONVERSION. Just who do you suppose that these Christians whom Paul/Saul was murdering followed? The Jesus that Paul/Saul LATER "created"?
Well, thats wrong.
Paul died 70 years after the BIRTH of Jesus(according to Paul's own timeline)...your math is way off.
So, lets do the math.
Jesus died in 30 A.D.
Paul died in 65 A.D.
Paul was roughly the same age as Jesus. In fact, Paul knew Jesus's brother.(James)
So, either Paul made up Jesus AND James AND Peter or Paul talked two guys in pretending to have known this fake Jesus. He also convinced one of them to lie about a fake famous brother.
Your knowledge of this topic is woefully lacking
Well, thats wrong.
Paul died 70 years after the BIRTH of Jesus(according to Paul's own timeline)...your math is way off.
So, lets do the math.
Jesus died in 30 A.D.
Paul died in 65 A.D.
Paul was roughly the same age as Jesus. In fact, Paul knew Jesus's brother.(James)
So, either Paul made up Jesus AND James AND Peter or Paul talked two guys in pretending to have known this fake Jesus. He also convinced one of them to lie about a fake famous brother.
Your knowledge of this topic is woefully lacking
Paul wasn't around when the alleged events occurred and there wasn't any written record of the existence of a Jesus.
This is wrong.
There ISN'T any current written record, back 2000 years ago there might have been all sorts of written records.
Probably..in fact they are questionable
However, this would disprove your hypothesis that Jesus was a total fabrication on the part of Paul.
Probably..in fact they are questionable
However, this would disprove your hypothesis that Jesus was a total fabrication on the part of Paul.
What seems clear is that Paul was a self-loathing individual who hated his body more than anything. "Pleasures of the flesh" were "sinful" punishable by his god forever. What a sick ***!
I agree
Paul preached a Jesus/Christ Whom was found(by those who aren't blind, that is) within the pages of the Old Testament law, psalms and prophets.
Except it was Paul who espoused abandoning Kosher law(via a story about Peter) and abandoning the covenant requiring circumcision.
I guess those weren't important laws to the Jewish people?
Let's ignore this for right now. I say this because I would rather immediately address a gross misunderstanding of history on the part of Physfan, than get into some debate about the role of Paul in the early Christian church.
I am an atheist and I even agree he is wrong.
Physfan: Yoo-hoo! Paul/Saul of Tarsus used to murder Christians PRIOR TO HIS CONVERSION. Just who do you suppose that these Christians whom Paul/Saul was murdering followed? The Jesus that Paul/Saul LATER "created"?
The followers of James of church of Jerusalem.
Some people believe that it was James that Jesus named as his successor. I was just reading about it last night.
edit and Saul didn't write all the previous stuff but he no doubt read it.
you are taking it as a given that his account is accurate. Maybe he read the prophesy and made stories that fit.
QUOTE (newguy @ Aug 17 2009+ 12:16 AM))
QUOTE (Physfan+)
Jesus did not exist; he was a myth created by Paul (Saul) of Tarsis circa 70CE.
Physfan: Yoo-hoo! Paul/Saul of Tarsus used to murder Christians PRIOR TO HIS CONVERSION. Just who do you suppose that these Christians whom Paul/Saul was murdering followed? The Jesus that Paul/Saul LATER "created"?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
The followers of James of church of Jerusalem.
Some people believe that it was James that Jesus named as his successor. I was just reading about it last night.
buttershug: OH, YOUR "god"(Satan)!!! My brain almost fell out of my head when I read your response. "It was James THAT JESUS NAMED AS HIS SUCCESSOR". Then that means that Jesus wasn't "created" by Paul, jacka$$, as he would have "existed" before Paul started preaching about Him. Somebody please explain that to him for me. Thanks.
Some people believe that it was James that Jesus named as his successor. I was just reading about it last night.
buttershug: OH, YOUR "god"(Satan)!!! My brain almost fell out of my head when I read your response. "It was James THAT JESUS NAMED AS HIS SUCCESSOR". Then that means that Jesus wasn't "created" by Paul, jacka$$, as he would have "existed" before Paul started preaching about Him. Somebody please explain that to him for me. Thanks.
QUOTE (Physfan+)
And the contemporaneous records for this are where?
Physfan: Hey, YOU are the one who claimed that Paul/Saul of Tarsus "created" Jesus...
Where is YOUR proof?
This ought to be good...
Physfan: Hey, YOU are the one who claimed that Paul/Saul of Tarsus "created" Jesus...
Where is YOUR proof?
This ought to be good...
QUOTE
If, as it did happen that Paul wrote his stories about 70 to 80 years after the alleged events, one was to write such stories, what difference would it make whether a real or fictitious person was used?
Well, thats wrong.
Paul died 70 years after the BIRTH of Jesus(according to Paul's own timeline)...your math is way off.
So, lets do the math.
Jesus died in 30 A.D.
Paul died in 65 A.D.
Paul was roughly the same age as Jesus. In fact, Paul knew Jesus's brother.(James)
So, either Paul made up Jesus AND James AND Peter or Paul talked two guys in pretending to have known this fake Jesus. He also convinced one of them to lie about a fake famous brother.
Your knowledge of this topic is woefully lacking
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If, as it did happen that Paul wrote his stories about 70 to 80 years after the alleged events, one was to write such stories, what difference would it make whether a real or fictitious person was used? |
Well, thats wrong.
Paul died 70 years after the BIRTH of Jesus(according to Paul's own timeline)...your math is way off.
So, lets do the math.
Jesus died in 30 A.D.
Paul died in 65 A.D.
Paul was roughly the same age as Jesus. In fact, Paul knew Jesus's brother.(James)
So, either Paul made up Jesus AND James AND Peter or Paul talked two guys in pretending to have known this fake Jesus. He also convinced one of them to lie about a fake famous brother.
Your knowledge of this topic is woefully lacking
Paul wasn't around when the alleged events occurred and there wasn't any written record of the existence of a Jesus.
This is wrong.
There ISN'T any current written record, back 2000 years ago there might have been all sorts of written records.
QUOTE
Paul may have relied on verbal accounts but the reliability of any such stories must be questionable?
Probably..in fact they are questionable
However, this would disprove your hypothesis that Jesus was a total fabrication on the part of Paul.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Paul may have relied on verbal accounts but the reliability of any such stories must be questionable? |
Probably..in fact they are questionable
However, this would disprove your hypothesis that Jesus was a total fabrication on the part of Paul.
What seems clear is that Paul was a self-loathing individual who hated his body more than anything. "Pleasures of the flesh" were "sinful" punishable by his god forever. What a sick ***!
I agree
QUOTE (NewGuy+)
Paul preached a Jesus/Christ Whom was found(by those who aren't blind, that is) within the pages of the Old Testament law, psalms and prophets.
Except it was Paul who espoused abandoning Kosher law(via a story about Peter) and abandoning the covenant requiring circumcision.
I guess those weren't important laws to the Jewish people?
Let's ignore this for right now. I say this because I would rather immediately address a gross misunderstanding of history on the part of Physfan, than get into some debate about the role of Paul in the early Christian church.
I am an atheist and I even agree he is wrong.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
edit and Saul didn't write all the previous stuff but he no doubt read it.
buttershug: Well, you seem to believe that Saul existed, then. Perhaps you'd like to answer Physfan's question, then? By the way, Paul/Saul did read it...
Physfan: Yoo-hoo! Paul/Saul of Tarsus used to murder Christians PRIOR TO HIS CONVERSION. Just who do you suppose that these Christians whom Paul/Saul was murdering followed? The Jesus that Paul/Saul LATER "created"?[/QUOTE]
buttershug: Well, you seem to believe that Saul existed, then. Perhaps you'd like to answer Physfan's question, then? By the way, Paul/Saul did read it...
QUOTE (buttershug+)
you are taking it as a given that his account is accurate. Maybe he read the prophesy and made stories that fit.
NO! I'M NOT! Sorry to yell...you seem a little drowsy. No caffeine pills, today? As I've explained to YOU numerous times already(even though you can't recall any of them), I've tried the words of Paul(and others) in regards to Christ, MYSELF, and found them to be true. Don't even bother asking me what that means...I've already explained it numerous times, contrary to your repeated claims to the contrary.
NO! I'M NOT! Sorry to yell...you seem a little drowsy. No caffeine pills, today? As I've explained to YOU numerous times already(even though you can't recall any of them), I've tried the words of Paul(and others) in regards to Christ, MYSELF, and found them to be true. Don't even bother asking me what that means...I've already explained it numerous times, contrary to your repeated claims to the contrary.
QUOTE (newguy+Aug 17 2009, 12:46 AM)
Physfan: Yoo-hoo! Paul/Saul of Tarsus used to murder Christians PRIOR TO HIS CONVERSION. Just who do you suppose that these Christians whom Paul/Saul was murdering followed? The Jesus that Paul/Saul LATER "created"?[/QUOTE]
QUOTE (buttershug+)
The followers of James of church of Jerusalem.
Some people believe that it was James that Jesus named as his successor. I was just reading about it last night.
buttershug: OH, YOUR "god"(Satan)!!! My brain almost fell out of my head when I read your response. "It was James THAT JESUS NAMED AS HIS SUCCESSOR". Then that means that Jesus wasn't "created" by Paul, jacka$$, as he would have "existed" before Paul started preaching about Him. Somebody please explain that to him for me. Thanks.
Jesus Son of God may have been created by Saul who became Paul.
But that does not mean that there was not a Jesus leader of a Jewish cult.
Physfan have you read S.G.F. Brandon's The fall of Jerusalem and the Cristian Church? It's referenced in a book I'm reading.
Some people believe that it was James that Jesus named as his successor. I was just reading about it last night.
buttershug: OH, YOUR "god"(Satan)!!! My brain almost fell out of my head when I read your response. "It was James THAT JESUS NAMED AS HIS SUCCESSOR". Then that means that Jesus wasn't "created" by Paul, jacka$$, as he would have "existed" before Paul started preaching about Him. Somebody please explain that to him for me. Thanks.
Jesus Son of God may have been created by Saul who became Paul.
But that does not mean that there was not a Jesus leader of a Jewish cult.
Physfan have you read S.G.F. Brandon's The fall of Jerusalem and the Cristian Church? It's referenced in a book I'm reading.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Except it was Paul who espoused abandoning Kosher law(via a story about Peter) and abandoning the covenant requiring circumcision.
I guess those weren't important laws to the Jewish people?
I guess those weren't important laws to the Jewish people?