QUOTE (PuckSR+Jul 12 2007, 04:24 PM)
Let us simplify this all again....Mr. Parsons claimed that Thalidomide was "the cure" for leprosy. Myself and Genesplicer pointed out that this was incorrect....and that at best it is considered a treatment for a side-effect of leprosy. Mr. Parsons argued that he was correct.... Genesplicer linked to several websites, all indicating that Genesplicer was ABSOLUTELY correct. Mr. Parsons now claims that he mistakenly recalled old information, and had not been updated on the usage of Thalidomide. Thalidomide was introduced in the mid 1960s as a treatment for a side effect of leprosy.... So even if Mr. Parsons made an honest mistake....he was remembering medical science from the 1960s, and he was incorrectly remembering it. Mr. Parsons, Genesplicer and myself have searched the internet....and we can find NO reference to Thalidomide ever being used to directly treat leprosy. It is up to you to prove otherwise.... Otherwise....you are a DEFINITE LIAR
"argued that he was correct" where?
And PuckSR your post #236438 says:
PuckSR as (I) have already stated (I) saw it on television, it was in the nineties.
That (I) have, just now, been further elucidated on the subject and Agree well, that makes me Honest, not 'a liar' but it is NO surprise that you would miss that one completely.
BTW 60 Minutes did a Show on the Subject of thalidomide being used as treatment-cure for Leprosy and asked the Children of Thalidomide what they though of that.
You two little attack boys are really obvious, and you do it simply to try to defend PuckSR's offensiveness towards me, Her Lie about me.....
What a Pair of "Futzers"
And PuckSR your post #236438 says:
QUOTE
Thalidomide is not the drug to cure leprosy...it is a drug used to treat complications of leprosy.
So you have Contradicted yourself and geneTHEspitterPuckSR as (I) have already stated (I) saw it on television, it was in the nineties.
That (I) have, just now, been further elucidated on the subject and Agree well, that makes me Honest, not 'a liar' but it is NO surprise that you would miss that one completely.
BTW 60 Minutes did a Show on the Subject of thalidomide being used as treatment-cure for Leprosy and asked the Children of Thalidomide what they though of that.
You two little attack boys are really obvious, and you do it simply to try to defend PuckSR's offensiveness towards me, Her Lie about me.....
What a Pair of "Futzers"
I posted this before, but Mr. Parson’s seems to have overlooked it.
Mr. Parsons,
Your character and you god’s grace are failing again. You have yet to answer directly and honestly the questions posed to you related to the thread topic.
Let’s take your claim that there either were no amputees back in the time of Jesus or that they all died. Prostetic use that predates Jesus.
Link
I can’t address if Jesus ever met any amputees. It Is hard enough to find anything to prove that Jesus was not anything more than a mythic figure to begin with.
But this still ignores the bigger question of why in all of mankind’s history has the xian god never healed an amputee? Why is amputation not correctable by the all powerful xian god but other diseases are?
Mr. Parsons,
Your character and you god’s grace are failing again. You have yet to answer directly and honestly the questions posed to you related to the thread topic.
Let’s take your claim that there either were no amputees back in the time of Jesus or that they all died. Prostetic use that predates Jesus.
Link
I can’t address if Jesus ever met any amputees. It Is hard enough to find anything to prove that Jesus was not anything more than a mythic figure to begin with.
But this still ignores the bigger question of why in all of mankind’s history has the xian god never healed an amputee? Why is amputation not correctable by the all powerful xian god but other diseases are?
I appreciate the admission of error Mr. Parsons....maybe there is hope for you yet.
You, however, do exemplify one of my least favorite characteristics. You back-peddled first.
It was something that would have taken you all of 2 minutes to look up, but when we first challenged your claim....you backpeddled and tried to defend it. Maybe in the future you can just turn around...and check it out without the hullabaloo
BTW...is your argument that the Xian God NEVER healed an amputee because he couldn't find any?
I am sure there have been worthy amputees in the last 2000 years......and I am sure plenty of them had faith....
So why weren't they healed?
You, however, do exemplify one of my least favorite characteristics. You back-peddled first.
It was something that would have taken you all of 2 minutes to look up, but when we first challenged your claim....you backpeddled and tried to defend it. Maybe in the future you can just turn around...and check it out without the hullabaloo
BTW...is your argument that the Xian God NEVER healed an amputee because he couldn't find any?
I am sure there have been worthy amputees in the last 2000 years......and I am sure plenty of them had faith....
So why weren't they healed?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 13 2007, 11:30 AM)
I posted this before, but Mr. Parson’s seems to have overlooked it.
Mr. Parsons,
Your character and you god’s grace are failing again. You have yet to answer directly and honestly the questions posed to you related to the thread topic.
Mr. Parsons,
Your character and you god’s grace are failing again. You have yet to answer directly and honestly the questions posed to you related to the thread topic.
Again with the personal attacks.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 13 2007, 11:30 AM)
Let’s take your claim that there either were no amputees back in the time of Jesus or that they all died. Prostetic use that predates Jesus.
Link
Link
You make a case of evidence of prosthetic use, you do not make a case for anyone renowned to have performed miracles to have been present and available as to have been enabled to have performed the Miracle of the healing of an Amputee.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 13 2007, 11:30 AM)
I can’t address if Jesus ever met any amputees. It Is hard enough to find anything to prove that Jesus was not anything more than a mythic figure to begin with.
And hence-thusly You agree with me. Neat.
Sorry if this had you confused....
Who?
ALL OF THEM
This is the DUMBEST post you have ever made.
ANALOGY: No one has ever used a stapler to climb a wall.
Your response: Who hasnt?
Here is the fun part Mr. Parsons, you get to pick.
No one has EVER performed this miracle. Not a proper emissary of God, not a proper emissary of Vishnu, and not even the random atheist.
NO ONE....NO ONE....NO ONE
Now, there have been people capable of performing miracles(or do you disagree) and God is capable of performing them without a conduit. Yet no one, not even God, has ever performed this miracle.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 13 2007, 11:30 AM)
But this still ignores the bigger question of why in all of mankind’s history has the xian god never healed an amputee? Why is amputation not correctable by the all powerful xian god but other diseases are?
No, it does not, it is what you two are doing, as both of you keep missing (and (I) keep asking you two too) WHO? is the Person Renowned to have be able to act as God's 'Emissary' and have God Act through them as to Perform what are regarded by Witnesses to the event as Miraculous in their Nature?!
And No "Who is on first" although funny is not apropos.
PuckSR 'Back-pedaling' by making further reference to what it was that (I) had been working under the knowledge of is not 'back-pedaling' it is recall-remembrance as sourced from 'inner knowledge remembrance's'....back-pedaling is what you do.
No Wonder you forget that too, forgetful you.
And No "Who is on first" although funny is not apropos.
PuckSR 'Back-pedaling' by making further reference to what it was that (I) had been working under the knowledge of is not 'back-pedaling' it is recall-remembrance as sourced from 'inner knowledge remembrance's'....back-pedaling is what you do.
No Wonder you forget that too, forgetful you.
Not a personal attack but a simple observation. You have yet to answer a question directly and honestly. You have continue to post replies to parts of posts you have taken out of context, launched into tangents, resorted to juvenile name manipulations , equivocations and insults. If you care to prove me wrong, then answer the questions posed directly and honestly rather than engaging in any of the afore mentioned activities.
You claimed that there were not amputees in ancient times. That is another erroneous claim of your’s hence the link to show the use of prosthetics in ancient times.
An all powerful god would need no emissary or conduit to act through. An all powerful god could simply make the miracle happen and cure the afflicted person.
Are you trying to say that the xian god needs a person to act through? That would make him/her/it less than all powerful.
So again, you have not answered the question. We are not talking about the mythic figure of Jesus, but a specific question about the xian god and related claim of miracle healings.
Why in the recorded history of mankind has there never been a record of any amputee being healed? The amputations doesn’t even have to be a limb. A finger or toe regenerating would suffice.
Stop avoiding answering a direct question. Why does the xian god supposedly heal other afflictions but not amputation?
You claimed that there were not amputees in ancient times. That is another erroneous claim of your’s hence the link to show the use of prosthetics in ancient times.
An all powerful god would need no emissary or conduit to act through. An all powerful god could simply make the miracle happen and cure the afflicted person.
Are you trying to say that the xian god needs a person to act through? That would make him/her/it less than all powerful.
So again, you have not answered the question. We are not talking about the mythic figure of Jesus, but a specific question about the xian god and related claim of miracle healings.
Why in the recorded history of mankind has there never been a record of any amputee being healed? The amputations doesn’t even have to be a limb. A finger or toe regenerating would suffice.
Stop avoiding answering a direct question. Why does the xian god supposedly heal other afflictions but not amputation?
QUOTE
No, it does not, it is what you two are doing, as both of you keep missing (and (I) keep asking you two too) WHO? is the Person Renowned to have be able to act as God's 'Emissary' and have God Act through them as to Perform what are regarded by Witnesses to the event as Miraculous in their Nature?!
Sorry if this had you confused....
Who?
ALL OF THEM
This is the DUMBEST post you have ever made.
ANALOGY: No one has ever used a stapler to climb a wall.
Your response: Who hasnt?
Here is the fun part Mr. Parsons, you get to pick.
No one has EVER performed this miracle. Not a proper emissary of God, not a proper emissary of Vishnu, and not even the random atheist.
NO ONE....NO ONE....NO ONE
Now, there have been people capable of performing miracles(or do you disagree) and God is capable of performing them without a conduit. Yet no one, not even God, has ever performed this miracle.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jul 14 2007, 12:06 AM)
Sorry if this had you confused....
Who?
ALL OF THEM
This is the DUMBEST post you have ever made.
ANALOGY: No one has ever used a stapler to climb a wall.
Your response: Who hasnt?
Here is the fun part Mr. Parsons, you get to pick.
No one has EVER performed this miracle. Not a proper emissary of God, not a proper emissary of Vishnu, and not even the random atheist.
NO ONE....NO ONE....NO ONE
Now, there have been people capable of performing miracles(or do you disagree) and God is capable of performing them without a conduit. Yet no one, not even God, has ever performed this miracle.
I don't believe in miracles.:-) A miracle is defined as something that is unable to be explained by the laws of nature. Considering only a small portion of the brain is functioning, and that there has been no breaking news about the complete laws of nature revealed, and also that it would have been ignorance for a stone age man to regard as a miracle an event we would take for granted today, then it is quite probable that one's idea of a miracle is only a guideline for the state of one's understanding of the potential within.
People talk of the miracle of birth, or the tragedy of death, but again I believe in neither of those, only in transformation.
Lui
Who?
ALL OF THEM
This is the DUMBEST post you have ever made.
ANALOGY: No one has ever used a stapler to climb a wall.
Your response: Who hasnt?
Here is the fun part Mr. Parsons, you get to pick.
No one has EVER performed this miracle. Not a proper emissary of God, not a proper emissary of Vishnu, and not even the random atheist.
NO ONE....NO ONE....NO ONE
Now, there have been people capable of performing miracles(or do you disagree) and God is capable of performing them without a conduit. Yet no one, not even God, has ever performed this miracle.
I don't believe in miracles.:-) A miracle is defined as something that is unable to be explained by the laws of nature. Considering only a small portion of the brain is functioning, and that there has been no breaking news about the complete laws of nature revealed, and also that it would have been ignorance for a stone age man to regard as a miracle an event we would take for granted today, then it is quite probable that one's idea of a miracle is only a guideline for the state of one's understanding of the potential within.
People talk of the miracle of birth, or the tragedy of death, but again I believe in neither of those, only in transformation.
Lui
I do not believe in miracles either, but a simpler definition of a miracles might be an event that runs contrary to natural laws.
For example: 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples
If someone did this and got 3 apples, then they have just performed a miracle. Miracles of this nature have been claimed, but it is also very difficult to verify this sort of thing.
Now, technically this might not be a miracle, but merely our misunderstanding of the laws of nature...but given our rather firm grasp on addition I would be willing to consider this a miracle since it so firmly ran against well-researched laws of nature.
Amputee healing is the ultimate...because it is almost impossible to fake, runs completely contrary to established natural laws, yet would be a very simple action for God to perform. If it is so simple, and obviously would help people out a great deal...why doesn't God perform this miracle? EVER?
The answer is simple and straightforward....God doesn't perform miracles, and no one performs them for God. The frequency of a miracle is inversely proportional to the difficulty of "faking" that miracle.
Only a few people raised from the dead....but tons of "crippled people" get healed. Sounds a little sketchy to me....
It is kinda like the story of the Loch Ness Monster, Aliens, and Bigfoot. Tons of sightings, yet only a few that got it on film. Even most of those are woefully bad and normally not demonstrative of the accounts other people frequently have experienced.
i.e. Guy without a camera talks to bigfoot, guy with camera gets shaky footage of bigfoot walking for 3 seconds on film.
Sounds a lot like the reports of miracles doesn't it....
And both have another thing in common...they both never get the "holy grail". We never get irrefutable evidence of either miracles or the Loch Ness monster. Seem odd to you?
For example: 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples
If someone did this and got 3 apples, then they have just performed a miracle. Miracles of this nature have been claimed, but it is also very difficult to verify this sort of thing.
Now, technically this might not be a miracle, but merely our misunderstanding of the laws of nature...but given our rather firm grasp on addition I would be willing to consider this a miracle since it so firmly ran against well-researched laws of nature.
Amputee healing is the ultimate...because it is almost impossible to fake, runs completely contrary to established natural laws, yet would be a very simple action for God to perform. If it is so simple, and obviously would help people out a great deal...why doesn't God perform this miracle? EVER?
The answer is simple and straightforward....God doesn't perform miracles, and no one performs them for God. The frequency of a miracle is inversely proportional to the difficulty of "faking" that miracle.
Only a few people raised from the dead....but tons of "crippled people" get healed. Sounds a little sketchy to me....
It is kinda like the story of the Loch Ness Monster, Aliens, and Bigfoot. Tons of sightings, yet only a few that got it on film. Even most of those are woefully bad and normally not demonstrative of the accounts other people frequently have experienced.
i.e. Guy without a camera talks to bigfoot, guy with camera gets shaky footage of bigfoot walking for 3 seconds on film.
Sounds a lot like the reports of miracles doesn't it....
And both have another thing in common...they both never get the "holy grail". We never get irrefutable evidence of either miracles or the Loch Ness monster. Seem odd to you?
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jul 13 2007, 08:06 PM)
Sorry if this had you confused....Who?ALL OF THEM This is the DUMBEST post you have ever made. ANALOGY: No one has ever used a stapler to climb a wall.Your response: Who hasnt? Here is the fun part Mr. Parsons, you get to pick. No one has EVER performed this miracle. Not a proper emissary of God, not a proper emissary of Vishnu, and not even the random atheist. NO ONE....NO ONE....NO ONE Now, there have been people capable of performing miracles(or do you disagree) and God is capable of performing them without a conduit. Yet no one, not even God, has ever performed this miracle.
This is without a doubt about the silliest post (I) have seen in a Science forum, because if you already know 'no one' then why would you even ask this Inane thread's question? 
after that, well...
after that, well...
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+ Jul 13 2007, 02:47 PM)
Not a personal attack but a simple observation. You have yet to answer a question directly and honestly.
That too is an outright lie and a defamatory Libel, An Affront to my reputation.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+ Jul 13 2007, 02:47 PM)
You claimed that there were not amputees in ancient times.
No, Not 'none' just few, so that one is one of your uses of a semantic evasion.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+ Jul 13 2007, 02:47 PM)
An all powerful god would need no emissary or conduit to act through. An all powerful god could simply make the miracle happen and cure the afflicted person.
Yes but that is not the way of the God which is the truth and Creator of this place. OBVIOUS to even the most non-scientific people around, but not you.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+ Jul 13 2007, 02:47 PM)
Are you trying to say that the xian god needs a person to act through? That would make him/her/it less than all powerful.
No that would keep the "whole and entire truth" (God) protected from errant assaulting accessories like yourself.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+ Jul 13 2007, 02:47 PM)
So again, you have not answered the question.
Only in 'appearance' as you are, just now, about to ask it in another form as to mislead, even farther.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+ Jul 13 2007, 02:47 PM)
We are not talking about the mythic figure of Jesus, but a specific question about the xian god and related claim of miracle healings.
What Claims?? Whose claims?? you haven't presented a SHRED of Evidence of ANY CLAIMS....
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+ Jul 13 2007, 02:47 PM)
Why in the recorded history of mankind has there never been a record of any amputee being healed?
Uhmmm let me guess, because as far as recorded history goes it has never occurred ergo Been recorded as having occurred....Duh!
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+ Jul 13 2007, 02:47 PM)
The amputations doesn’t even have to be a limb. A finger or toe regenerating would suffice.
Then how about a Liver!
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+ Jul 13 2007, 02:47 PM)
Stop avoiding answering a direct question.
Back up this claim, Justify your accusation!!
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+ Jul 13 2007, 02:47 PM)
Why does the xian god supposedly heal other afflictions but not amputation?
Where do you get that claim from?? Back up this claim, Justify your accusation!!
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+ Jul 13 2007, 11:30 AM)
I posted this before, but Mr. Parson’s seems to have overlooked it.
Mr. Parsons,
Your character and you god’s grace are failing again.
Mr. Parsons,
Your character and you god’s grace are failing again.
Hummm no, look Post # 229051 and note that the 'independent witness' of such, posted directly below the evidence of it finds concordance from me.
Overlooking your stellar support of libel claims in the past, your reputation as you have established it here and across the web is not something worthy of defense. You have yet to answer the question directly or honestly. That statement is not liable since it is true.
Overlooking your stellar support of libel claims in the past, your reputation as you have established it here and across the web is not something worthy of defense. You have yet to answer the question directly or honestly. That statement is not liable since it is true.
No, Not 'none' just few, so that one is one of your uses of a semantic evasion.
As you posted before:
Not a semantic evasion (nice copy of my terminology), just illustrating what you have posted before. It is not my fault you can’t keep your claims straight of remembering what it is you posted or claimed earlier.
Not a semantic evasion (nice copy of my terminology), just illustrating what you have posted before. It is not my fault you can’t keep your claims straight of remembering what it is you posted or claimed earlier.
Yes but that is not the way of the God which is the truth and Creator of this place. OBVIOUS to even the most non-scientific people around, but not you.
So your all-powerful god isn’t since he/she/it is limited in not being able to directly cure amputations or that he/she/it needs a person to operate through. So if your god is not all powerful, then why call he/she/it god?
And this is a prime example of you not answering a question directly an honestly. If it is an honest answer, then your not-so-all-powerful god has to be protected from his/her/its own creations? I didn’t see an emoticon so I know it just cannot be sarcasm.
And this is a prime example of you not answering a question directly an honestly. If it is an honest answer, then your not-so-all-powerful god has to be protected from his/her/its own creations? I didn’t see an emoticon so I know it just cannot be sarcasm.
Only in 'appearance' as you are, just now, about to ask it in another form as to mislead, even farther.
Same question over and over. You just cannot or will not answer it.
So you are claiming that miracles like healings do take place but others have to provide proof of these healings for you? And you claim that Jesus never healed any amputees since he never met any or it would have been recorded in the xian bible? So, there are no claims that god healed anyone directly in the xian bible? It is not my job to support your argument but you should at the very least know the material and religion you are trying to defend.
So you are claiming that miracles like healings do take place but others have to provide proof of these healings for you? And you claim that Jesus never healed any amputees since he never met any or it would have been recorded in the xian bible? So, there are no claims that god healed anyone directly in the xian bible? It is not my job to support your argument but you should at the very least know the material and religion you are trying to defend.
Uhmmm let me guess, because as far as recorded history goes it has never occurred ergo Been recorded as having occurred....Duh!
Thank you for finally answering be it in your normal puerile way. So this means in all of recorded history, god has never healed an amputee. So back to the question you keep avoiding. Why does god have limitation in healing or chooses not to heal amputees?
That goes back to the previously mention intellectual disconnect. People have no problem in expecting organs and internal healing well out of sight but cannot accept that a limb will grow back. So again, why does god have or choose such a limitation?
That goes back to the previously mention intellectual disconnect. People have no problem in expecting organs and internal healing well out of sight but cannot accept that a limb will grow back. So again, why does god have or choose such a limitation?
Back up this claim, Justify your accusation!!
You just agreed that no amputee has been healed in recorded history so I need not back up that which you already agree to. My observation stills stands. You have yet to answer the question directly and honestly but keep dancing around the issue.
Your relgion and the xian bible you based your jesus argument on has recorded god healing poeple but not amputees. So again Why does the xian god supposedly heal other afflictions but not amputation?
Your relgion and the xian bible you based your jesus argument on has recorded god healing poeple but not amputees. So again Why does the xian god supposedly heal other afflictions but not amputation?
Prove your claim!
Your last post here is proof enough. You have yet to answer directly and honestly the questions posed to you related to the thread topic. Why does the xian god supposedly heal other afflictions but not amputation?
First of all, xian is and abbreviation for Christian so you are being redundant here. I am not the one supporting the idea that miracles happen or trying to explain the selective nature of how miracles seem or are claimed to occur. You have defended the xian god or a similar monotheistic god and his/her/its selective use of claimed unlimited power applied in a rather selective manner.
First of all, xian is and abbreviation for Christian so you are being redundant here. I am not the one supporting the idea that miracles happen or trying to explain the selective nature of how miracles seem or are claimed to occur. You have defended the xian god or a similar monotheistic god and his/her/its selective use of claimed unlimited power applied in a rather selective manner.
Do you have any evidence of any Miracles ever having taken place?
You have argued and taken the position as an apologist for the record of miracles as recorded in the xian bible. Are you now trying to claim to be skeptical of the same bible and related myths your were defending earlier?
Again, you have taken the position as the apologist supporting the myth and stories of such miracles as recorded in the xian bible and relating to Jesus. Are you now claiming that these are not viable stories or that you no longer defend them?
Again, you have taken the position as the apologist supporting the myth and stories of such miracles as recorded in the xian bible and relating to Jesus. Are you now claiming that these are not viable stories or that you no longer defend them?
You accuse God of "Hatred" of Amputees, have you any evidence of that?
You are evidently not reading my posts then. I have never claimed that god hated amputees. I have asked you since you have taken the position as an apologist for the myths in the xian bible and the faith why the xian god seems so selective in his/her/its application of healing miracles and has never healed any amputee.
Again, not my supposition but rather your mistaken claim that I ever stated that god hates amputees.
Again, not my supposition but rather your mistaken claim that I ever stated that god hates amputees.
Do you have any evidence that what you are calling a "Xian God" has actually NOT healed an Amputee?
Again, you have taken the position as an apologist for the xian bible, the related stories in it regarding miracle healings and the faith. Since you support the claims it falls upon you to provide evidence or proof to support said claims. It does not fall upon those questioning the claim to prove it did not happen.
And again, I am not the one taking the position of defending the xian bible and related claims of miraculous healing. You can stop equivocating a seemingly taking both positions of the argument and define where you stand unless your intention is not to actually take a position but just to be disruptive.
Are you now after defending the claims of the xian bible stating that the stories are false? Have you changed your mind after defending the xian god and Jesus regarding miracles that none actually have taken place? If you want to take both side of the debate, you are welcome to do so, but that means you are not actually debating but just playing games and wasting the time of those who came here to actually debate the matter.
Well, that was certainly specious....
There also might be a loch ness monster, bigfoot, a mysterious teacup floating in space, and a flying spagetti monster....
I could say that Jesus Christ was a flaming homosexual.....
Since you have no evidence that he slept with men or women...
You have no evidence that he DIDNT sleep with men....
So, using your logical reasoning, Jesus Christ might have LOVED the company of men.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+ Jul 13 2007, 11:30 AM)
You have yet to answer directly and honestly the questions posed to you related to the thread topic.
Prove your claim!
QUOTE
That too is an outright lie and a defamatory Libel, An Affront to my reputation.
Overlooking your stellar support of libel claims in the past, your reputation as you have established it here and across the web is not something worthy of defense. You have yet to answer the question directly or honestly. That statement is not liable since it is true.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That too is an outright lie and a defamatory Libel, An Affront to my reputation. |
Overlooking your stellar support of libel claims in the past, your reputation as you have established it here and across the web is not something worthy of defense. You have yet to answer the question directly or honestly. That statement is not liable since it is true.
No, Not 'none' just few, so that one is one of your uses of a semantic evasion.
As you posted before:
QUOTE
Meat in the argument? where?
No Amputees means No Argument.
No Amputees means No Argument.
Not a semantic evasion (nice copy of my terminology), just illustrating what you have posted before. It is not my fault you can’t keep your claims straight of remembering what it is you posted or claimed earlier.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Meat in the argument? where? No Amputees means No Argument. |
Not a semantic evasion (nice copy of my terminology), just illustrating what you have posted before. It is not my fault you can’t keep your claims straight of remembering what it is you posted or claimed earlier.
Yes but that is not the way of the God which is the truth and Creator of this place. OBVIOUS to even the most non-scientific people around, but not you.
So your all-powerful god isn’t since he/she/it is limited in not being able to directly cure amputations or that he/she/it needs a person to operate through. So if your god is not all powerful, then why call he/she/it god?
QUOTE
No that would keep the "whole and entire truth" (God) protected from errant assaulting accessories like yourself.
And this is a prime example of you not answering a question directly an honestly. If it is an honest answer, then your not-so-all-powerful god has to be protected from his/her/its own creations? I didn’t see an emoticon so I know it just cannot be sarcasm.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No that would keep the "whole and entire truth" (God) protected from errant assaulting accessories like yourself. |
And this is a prime example of you not answering a question directly an honestly. If it is an honest answer, then your not-so-all-powerful god has to be protected from his/her/its own creations? I didn’t see an emoticon so I know it just cannot be sarcasm.
Only in 'appearance' as you are, just now, about to ask it in another form as to mislead, even farther.
Same question over and over. You just cannot or will not answer it.
QUOTE
What Claims?? Whose claims?? you haven't presented a SHRED of Evidence of ANY CLAIMS....
So you are claiming that miracles like healings do take place but others have to provide proof of these healings for you? And you claim that Jesus never healed any amputees since he never met any or it would have been recorded in the xian bible? So, there are no claims that god healed anyone directly in the xian bible? It is not my job to support your argument but you should at the very least know the material and religion you are trying to defend.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What Claims?? Whose claims?? you haven't presented a SHRED of Evidence of ANY CLAIMS.... |
So you are claiming that miracles like healings do take place but others have to provide proof of these healings for you? And you claim that Jesus never healed any amputees since he never met any or it would have been recorded in the xian bible? So, there are no claims that god healed anyone directly in the xian bible? It is not my job to support your argument but you should at the very least know the material and religion you are trying to defend.
Uhmmm let me guess, because as far as recorded history goes it has never occurred ergo Been recorded as having occurred....Duh!
Thank you for finally answering be it in your normal puerile way. So this means in all of recorded history, god has never healed an amputee. So back to the question you keep avoiding. Why does god have limitation in healing or chooses not to heal amputees?
QUOTE
Then how about a Liver!
That goes back to the previously mention intellectual disconnect. People have no problem in expecting organs and internal healing well out of sight but cannot accept that a limb will grow back. So again, why does god have or choose such a limitation?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then how about a Liver! |
That goes back to the previously mention intellectual disconnect. People have no problem in expecting organs and internal healing well out of sight but cannot accept that a limb will grow back. So again, why does god have or choose such a limitation?
Back up this claim, Justify your accusation!!
You just agreed that no amputee has been healed in recorded history so I need not back up that which you already agree to. My observation stills stands. You have yet to answer the question directly and honestly but keep dancing around the issue.
QUOTE
Where do you get that claim from?? Back up this claim, Justify your accusation!!
Your relgion and the xian bible you based your jesus argument on has recorded god healing poeple but not amputees. So again Why does the xian god supposedly heal other afflictions but not amputation?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Where do you get that claim from?? Back up this claim, Justify your accusation!! |
Your relgion and the xian bible you based your jesus argument on has recorded god healing poeple but not amputees. So again Why does the xian god supposedly heal other afflictions but not amputation?
Prove your claim!
Your last post here is proof enough. You have yet to answer directly and honestly the questions posed to you related to the thread topic. Why does the xian god supposedly heal other afflictions but not amputation?
Lets see, if God Did Heal Amputees, then all Amputees would regrow limbs such that it would be viewed as commonplace and NOT miraculous in Nature.
Heck, Given human Nature people would be cutting of there own limbs, just to watch them re-grow.
This is an Inane topic.
Heck, Given human Nature people would be cutting of there own limbs, just to watch them re-grow.
This is an Inane topic.
"The man with the world renowned ability to feeel 'others' from afar."
Read: Dirty old man with long arms.
Read: Dirty old man with long arms.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Jul 17 2007, 01:34 PM)
Lets see, if God Did Heal Amputees, then all Amputees would regrow limbs such that it would be viewed as commonplace and NOT miraculous in Nature.
Heck, Given human Nature people would be cutting of there own limbs, just to watch them re-grow.
This is an Inane topic.
Fallacy of composition argument and you didn’t answer the question, again.
The only thing inane was your post and spin on the topic.
Heck, Given human Nature people would be cutting of there own limbs, just to watch them re-grow.
This is an Inane topic.
Fallacy of composition argument and you didn’t answer the question, again.
The only thing inane was your post and spin on the topic.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 17 2007, 02:10 PM)
Fallacy of composition argument and you didn’t answer the question, again. The only thing inane was your post and spin on the topic.
(I) know this is very difficult for you so, slowly, W-h-a-t Q-u-e-s-t-i-o-n?? and heres the really hard part for you, (I) know, b-e s-p-e-c-i-f-i-c...
Your premise if about as sound as is your thinking.
(I) know this is very difficult for you so, slowly, W-h-a-t Q-u-e-s-t-i-o-n?? and heres the really hard part for you, (I) know, b-e s-p-e-c-i-f-i-c...
Your premise if about as sound as is your thinking.
Only the same question you have failed to answer directly or honestly for the last few posts, if not pages. Why does the xian god supposedly heal other afflictions but not amputation?
Please, no more fallacious attempts at an answer like your last one.
Please, no more fallacious attempts at an answer like your last one.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Jul 17 2007, 11:34 AM)
Lets see, if God Did Heal Amputees, then all Amputees would regrow limbs such that it would be viewed as commonplace and NOT miraculous in Nature.
Heck, Given human Nature people would be cutting of there own limbs, just to watch them re-grow.
This is an Inane topic.
That's an incredibly inane answer.
He/She/It allegedly heals cancer, but I don't see people going out and trying to get cancer just so they can be healed.
Heck, Given human Nature people would be cutting of there own limbs, just to watch them re-grow.
This is an Inane topic.
That's an incredibly inane answer.
He/She/It allegedly heals cancer, but I don't see people going out and trying to get cancer just so they can be healed.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 17 2007, 05:11 PM)
Overlooking your stellar support of libel claims in the past, your reputation as you have established it here and across the web is not something worthy of defense. You have yet to answer the question directly or honestly. That statement is not liable since it is true.
Ha, so true...
Ha, so true...
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 17 2007, 03:21 PM)
Only the same question you have failed to answer directly or honestly for the last few posts, if not pages. Why does the xian god supposedly heal other afflictions but not amputation?
Please, no more fallacious attempts at an answer like your last one.
To Xian From Christian Xian, it is exceedingly difficult to answer a question when the one posing the question provides no support for their initial Supposition.
Do you have any evidence of any Miracles ever having taken place?
Have you any proof that they were 'of God' or 'Of God's Hand'?
You accuse God of "Hatred" of Amputees, have you any evidence of that?
Anything that supports that supposition?
Do you have any evidence that what you are calling a "Xian God" has actually NOT healed an Amputee?
As A Hypothetically posed question this one reeks of inanity, as all you can do is make suppositions but never establish any proofs or proving of anything well, other then that you like to suppose things....
gmilam Have you any evidence of that claim?? heals Cancer?? How Ridiculous a follow through, people would go out to get cancer just to have it healed, little bit more difficult a task than an amputation......funny that (I) need to explain that to you
Please, no more fallacious attempts at an answer like your last one.
To Xian From Christian Xian, it is exceedingly difficult to answer a question when the one posing the question provides no support for their initial Supposition.
Do you have any evidence of any Miracles ever having taken place?
Have you any proof that they were 'of God' or 'Of God's Hand'?
You accuse God of "Hatred" of Amputees, have you any evidence of that?
Anything that supports that supposition?
Do you have any evidence that what you are calling a "Xian God" has actually NOT healed an Amputee?
As A Hypothetically posed question this one reeks of inanity, as all you can do is make suppositions but never establish any proofs or proving of anything well, other then that you like to suppose things....
gmilam Have you any evidence of that claim?? heals Cancer?? How Ridiculous a follow through, people would go out to get cancer just to have it healed, little bit more difficult a task than an amputation......funny that (I) need to explain that to you
A couple of things......
A) You do know that Xian=Christian ok?
I have a LOT of proof that no amputee has ever been healed. I have the COMPLETE lack of proof that it occured....and that counts as a LOT of proof.
C) I don't think God ever performed ANY miracles, then entire purpose of this argument is that if we hypothetically assume God heals....then why doesn't he heal amputees.
A) You do know that Xian=Christian ok?
I have a LOT of proof that no amputee has ever been healed. I have the COMPLETE lack of proof that it occured....and that counts as a LOT of proof.C) I don't think God ever performed ANY miracles, then entire purpose of this argument is that if we hypothetically assume God heals....then why doesn't he heal amputees.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jul 18 2007, 10:39 AM)
A couple of things......A) You do know that Xian=Christian ok? I have a LOT of proof that no amputee has ever been healed. I have the COMPLETE lack of proof that it occured....and that counts as a LOT of proof. C) I don't think God ever performed ANY miracles, then entire purpose of this argument is that if we hypothetically assume God heals....then why doesn't he heal amputees.
So Christian God means healing Miracles through Jesus Christ.
Biblical History says he healed the lame, so indication of? whether or not those were amputees?
No evidence that he did, no evidence that he did not.
No Solution available just speculations.
So to answer your question honestly and directly and rationally.... "then why doesn't he heal amputees?" (the ? is my addition) there is no evidence to indicate that he did not, nor that he did, there is only testimony from humans of what they could record, back in a day when the recording of events was somewhat difficult, to say the least, as most people, back then, could neither read nor wrote, never-mind that they hadn't even invented, nor dreamt of, the typewriter .....yet.
Does that do it?
(A redundant question )
I have a LOT of proof that no amputee has ever been healed. I have the COMPLETE lack of proof that it occured....and that counts as a LOT of proof. C) I don't think God ever performed ANY miracles, then entire purpose of this argument is that if we hypothetically assume God heals....then why doesn't he heal amputees.So Christian God means healing Miracles through Jesus Christ.
Biblical History says he healed the lame, so indication of? whether or not those were amputees?
No evidence that he did, no evidence that he did not.
No Solution available just speculations.
So to answer your question honestly and directly and rationally.... "then why doesn't he heal amputees?" (the ? is my addition) there is no evidence to indicate that he did not, nor that he did, there is only testimony from humans of what they could record, back in a day when the recording of events was somewhat difficult, to say the least, as most people, back then, could neither read nor wrote, never-mind that they hadn't even invented, nor dreamt of, the typewriter .....yet.
Does that do it?
(A redundant question )
QUOTE
To Xian From Christian Xian, it is exceedingly difficult to answer a question when the one posing the question provides no support for their initial Supposition.
First of all, xian is and abbreviation for Christian so you are being redundant here. I am not the one supporting the idea that miracles happen or trying to explain the selective nature of how miracles seem or are claimed to occur. You have defended the xian god or a similar monotheistic god and his/her/its selective use of claimed unlimited power applied in a rather selective manner.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To Xian From Christian Xian, it is exceedingly difficult to answer a question when the one posing the question provides no support for their initial Supposition. |
First of all, xian is and abbreviation for Christian so you are being redundant here. I am not the one supporting the idea that miracles happen or trying to explain the selective nature of how miracles seem or are claimed to occur. You have defended the xian god or a similar monotheistic god and his/her/its selective use of claimed unlimited power applied in a rather selective manner.
Do you have any evidence of any Miracles ever having taken place?
You have argued and taken the position as an apologist for the record of miracles as recorded in the xian bible. Are you now trying to claim to be skeptical of the same bible and related myths your were defending earlier?
QUOTE
Have you any proof that they were 'of God' or 'Of God's Hand'?
Again, you have taken the position as the apologist supporting the myth and stories of such miracles as recorded in the xian bible and relating to Jesus. Are you now claiming that these are not viable stories or that you no longer defend them?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Have you any proof that they were 'of God' or 'Of God's Hand'? |
Again, you have taken the position as the apologist supporting the myth and stories of such miracles as recorded in the xian bible and relating to Jesus. Are you now claiming that these are not viable stories or that you no longer defend them?
You accuse God of "Hatred" of Amputees, have you any evidence of that?
You are evidently not reading my posts then. I have never claimed that god hated amputees. I have asked you since you have taken the position as an apologist for the myths in the xian bible and the faith why the xian god seems so selective in his/her/its application of healing miracles and has never healed any amputee.
QUOTE
Anything that supports that supposition?
Again, not my supposition but rather your mistaken claim that I ever stated that god hates amputees.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Anything that supports that supposition? |
Again, not my supposition but rather your mistaken claim that I ever stated that god hates amputees.
Do you have any evidence that what you are calling a "Xian God" has actually NOT healed an Amputee?
Again, you have taken the position as an apologist for the xian bible, the related stories in it regarding miracle healings and the faith. Since you support the claims it falls upon you to provide evidence or proof to support said claims. It does not fall upon those questioning the claim to prove it did not happen.
QUOTE
As A Hypothetically posed question this one reeks of inanity, as all you can do is make suppositions but never establish any proofs or proving of anything well, other then that you like to suppose things....
And again, I am not the one taking the position of defending the xian bible and related claims of miraculous healing. You can stop equivocating a seemingly taking both positions of the argument and define where you stand unless your intention is not to actually take a position but just to be disruptive.
Are you now after defending the claims of the xian bible stating that the stories are false? Have you changed your mind after defending the xian god and Jesus regarding miracles that none actually have taken place? If you want to take both side of the debate, you are welcome to do so, but that means you are not actually debating but just playing games and wasting the time of those who came here to actually debate the matter.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Jul 18 2007, 11:10 AM)
So Christian God means healing Miracles through Jesus Christ.
Biblical History says he healed the lame, so indication of? whether or not those were amputees?
No evidence that he did, no evidence that he did not.
No Solution available just speculations.
So to answer your question honestly and directly and rationally.... "then why doesn't he heal amputees?" (the ? is my addition) there is no evidence to indicate that he did not, nor that he did, there is only testimony from humans of what they could record, back in a day when the recording of events was somewhat difficult, to say the least, as most people, back then, could neither read nor wrote, never-mind that they hadn't even invented, nor dreamt of, the typewriter .....yet.
Does that do it? (A redundant question )
No because you are limiting the time frame. Why in all of human history (that would include modern times) has god, any god, not healed an amputee?
History and our world if rife with claim upon claim of the existence of an all powerful god. Why then can such a being not heal the body of that which we are also told he/she/it created? Why is the healing power of this god or creator limited or restricted?
Biblical History says he healed the lame, so indication of? whether or not those were amputees?
No evidence that he did, no evidence that he did not.
No Solution available just speculations.
So to answer your question honestly and directly and rationally.... "then why doesn't he heal amputees?" (the ? is my addition) there is no evidence to indicate that he did not, nor that he did, there is only testimony from humans of what they could record, back in a day when the recording of events was somewhat difficult, to say the least, as most people, back then, could neither read nor wrote, never-mind that they hadn't even invented, nor dreamt of, the typewriter .....yet.
Does that do it?
(A redundant question )No because you are limiting the time frame. Why in all of human history (that would include modern times) has god, any god, not healed an amputee?
History and our world if rife with claim upon claim of the existence of an all powerful god. Why then can such a being not heal the body of that which we are also told he/she/it created? Why is the healing power of this god or creator limited or restricted?
QUOTE
No evidence that he did, no evidence that he did not.
No Solution available just speculations.
So to answer your question honestly and directly and rationally.... "then why doesn't he heal amputees?" (the ? is my addition) there is no evidence to indicate that he did not, nor that he did, there is only testimony from humans of what they could record, back in a day when the recording of events was somewhat difficult, to say the least, as most people, back then, could neither read nor wrote, never-mind that they hadn't even invented, nor dreamt of, the typewriter .....yet.
No Solution available just speculations.
So to answer your question honestly and directly and rationally.... "then why doesn't he heal amputees?" (the ? is my addition) there is no evidence to indicate that he did not, nor that he did, there is only testimony from humans of what they could record, back in a day when the recording of events was somewhat difficult, to say the least, as most people, back then, could neither read nor wrote, never-mind that they hadn't even invented, nor dreamt of, the typewriter .....yet.
Well, that was certainly specious....
There also might be a loch ness monster, bigfoot, a mysterious teacup floating in space, and a flying spagetti monster....
I could say that Jesus Christ was a flaming homosexual.....
Since you have no evidence that he slept with men or women...
You have no evidence that he DIDNT sleep with men....
So, using your logical reasoning, Jesus Christ might have LOVED the company of men.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 18 2007, 11:15 AM)
First of all, xian is and abbreviation for Christian so you are being redundant here. I am not the one supporting the idea that miracles happen or trying to explain the selective nature of how miracles seem or are claimed to occur. You have defended the xian god or a similar monotheistic god and his/her/its selective use of claimed unlimited power applied in a rather selective manner.
No (I) Have not.
English as a Language seems over your head.
English as a Language seems over your head.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 18 2007, 11:15 AM)
You have argued and taken the position as an apologist for the record of miracles as recorded in the xian bible.
And that little statement of yours is proof of that. And BTW no! (I) have not.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 18 2007, 11:15 AM)
Are you now trying to claim to be skeptical of the same bible and related myths your were defending earlier?
Neither, try reading and not injecting what you would like to believe is there and read what is actually there.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 18 2007, 11:15 AM)
Again, you have taken the position as the apologist supporting the myth and stories of such miracles as recorded in the xian bible and relating to Jesus.
No (I) have not that is YET ANOTHER of your false assertions, Spurious & Ignorant Claims.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 18 2007, 11:15 AM)
Are you now claiming that these are not viable stories or that you no longer defend them?
Since you cannot keep anything (I) type straight in your mind, why would (I) wonder at how it is that you come up with such ridiculous statements.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 18 2007, 11:15 AM)
You are evidently not reading my posts then. I have never claimed that god hated amputees.
Try reading the rest of the thread as not everything is centered upon you - egotist.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 18 2007, 11:15 AM)
I have asked you since you have taken the position as an apologist for the myths in the xian bible and the faith why the xian god seems so selective in his/her/its application of healing miracles and has never healed any amputee.
(I) have asked you where it is that you think that (I) have taken the position of apologist, (I) have not, but obviously it is well stuck in your brain, not difficult to get small things stuck in even smaller spaces.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 18 2007, 11:15 AM)
Again, not my supposition but rather your mistaken claim that I ever stated that god hates amputees.
YOUR facetious nature knows no bounds. Try - it is relevant to the thread - twit.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 18 2007, 11:15 AM)
Again, you have taken the position as an apologist for the xian bible, the related stories in it regarding miracle healings and the faith. Since you support the claims it falls upon you to provide evidence or proof to support said claims. It does not fall upon those questioning the claim to prove it did not happen.
Again with your "position" insertion, are you always so certain of your own lies like that?? that is really inane and almost frightening.....does your employer know your like this?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 18 2007, 11:15 AM)
And again, I am not the one taking the position of defending the xian bible and related claims of miraculous healing. You can stop equivocating a seemingly taking both positions of the argument and define where you stand unless your intention is not to actually take a position but just to be disruptive.
Oh! NOW you ask me to "take a position" but (I) have, and you, naturally missed it completely.
astronomy says objects are in orbit, so indication of? whether or not those were teacups?
No evidence that there are, no evidence that there are not
No Solution available just speculations.
So to answer your question honestly and directly and rationally.... "then why aren't there teacups in space?" (the ? is my addition) there is no evidence to indicate that there are not, nor that there are, there is only testimony from humans of what they could record, back in a day when the recording of events was somewhat difficult, to say the least, as most people, back then, could neither read nor wrote, never-mind that they hadn't even invented, nor dreamt of, the typewriter .....yet.
YES....I DID USE YOUR LOGIC....
Learn how to construct and evaluate logical arguments before you make an *** out of yourself again.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 18 2007, 11:15 AM)
Are you now after defending the claims of the xian bible stating that the stories are false? Have you changed your mind after defending the xian god and Jesus regarding miracles that none actually have taken place? If you want to take both side of the debate, you are welcome to do so, but that means you are not actually debating but just playing games and wasting the time of those who came here to actually debate the matter.
Once again, you seeing yourself ......just a little bit more clearly....and obvious
And thereafter flies off the deep end PuckSR ranting on about how the absence of evidence other than testimony inferrs the existence of all sorts of Mythical Imaginings that have little or no Recorded History attributable to them.
P.S. PuckSR you did not succeed at "using my logic", no surprise either.
And thereafter flies off the deep end PuckSR ranting on about how the absence of evidence other than testimony inferrs the existence of all sorts of Mythical Imaginings that have little or no Recorded History attributable to them.
P.S. PuckSR you did not succeed at "using my logic", no surprise either.
QUOTE
Biblical History says he healed the lame, so indication of? whether or not those were amputees?
No evidence that he did, no evidence that he did not.
No Solution available just speculations.
So to answer your question honestly and directly and rationally.... "then why doesn't he heal amputees?" (the ? is my addition) there is no evidence to indicate that he did not, nor that he did, there is only testimony from humans of what they could record, back in a day when the recording of events was somewhat difficult, to say the least, as most people, back then, could neither read nor wrote, never-mind that they hadn't even invented, nor dreamt of, the typewriter .....yet.
No evidence that he did, no evidence that he did not.
No Solution available just speculations.
So to answer your question honestly and directly and rationally.... "then why doesn't he heal amputees?" (the ? is my addition) there is no evidence to indicate that he did not, nor that he did, there is only testimony from humans of what they could record, back in a day when the recording of events was somewhat difficult, to say the least, as most people, back then, could neither read nor wrote, never-mind that they hadn't even invented, nor dreamt of, the typewriter .....yet.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Biblical History says he healed the lame, so indication of? whether or not those were amputees? No evidence that he did, no evidence that he did not. No Solution available just speculations. So to answer your question honestly and directly and rationally.... "then why doesn't he heal amputees?" (the ? is my addition) there is no evidence to indicate that he did not, nor that he did, there is only testimony from humans of what they could record, back in a day when the recording of events was somewhat difficult, to say the least, as most people, back then, could neither read nor wrote, never-mind that they hadn't even invented, nor dreamt of, the typewriter .....yet. |
astronomy says objects are in orbit, so indication of? whether or not those were teacups?
No evidence that there are, no evidence that there are not
No Solution available just speculations.
So to answer your question honestly and directly and rationally.... "then why aren't there teacups in space?" (the ? is my addition) there is no evidence to indicate that there are not, nor that there are, there is only testimony from humans of what they could record, back in a day when the recording of events was somewhat difficult, to say the least, as most people, back then, could neither read nor wrote, never-mind that they hadn't even invented, nor dreamt of, the typewriter .....yet.
YES....I DID USE YOUR LOGIC....
Learn how to construct and evaluate logical arguments before you make an *** out of yourself again.
This forum's a joke. Three people head to head, talking more and more BS. It may as well be usenet.
I blame evolution for everything. When you get to the bottom of what makes evolution work, you'll find an uncaring nothing staring back at you. The big bang is to blame for Jesus, and God. I blame evolution for this absolutely insane world, and people that care more about Paris f-u-c-k-i-n Hilton than they do about helping to cut back on pollution. People that rape your mom is evolution's fault. People that blow up your cities in the name of religion is evolution's fault, not a God that doesn't exist. Get used to it, evolution don't give a flying hoot about you or what you're trying to prove. And it's spawned you bloody three that typify the crap that evolution can evolve., he he!!!!!!!
I blame evolution for everything. When you get to the bottom of what makes evolution work, you'll find an uncaring nothing staring back at you. The big bang is to blame for Jesus, and God. I blame evolution for this absolutely insane world, and people that care more about Paris f-u-c-k-i-n Hilton than they do about helping to cut back on pollution. People that rape your mom is evolution's fault. People that blow up your cities in the name of religion is evolution's fault, not a God that doesn't exist. Get used to it, evolution don't give a flying hoot about you or what you're trying to prove. And it's spawned you bloody three that typify the crap that evolution can evolve., he he!!!!!!!
I spoke about your defense of your god and jesus elsewhere, so onto this.
You claim:
You claim:
You accuse God of "Hatred" of Amputees, have you any evidence of that?
I never used the phrase nor stated that.
And again, I never stated god hates amputees.
And again, I never stated god hates amputees.
does your employer know your like this?
LOL. At least I have one.
Then, to use an Emery-ism , “sound of like you have a pair” and state for the record what your position is. Since it would mean you are committing to one side or the other, I doubt you will. Sort of removes your ability to waffle.
With your “Accept that God is the Creator” posting, not to mention the claim that science “taught properly” can prove god, it is obvious that you are a theist. So care to finally answer the question directly?
Why in all of recorded history has any monotheistic god never healed an amputee? Why would an all-powerful god be limited in the ability to cure via miracle or choose to withhold it from his/her/its devout followers?
Just for the record, I apologize....
By the way, I have turned to God.....and then I realized that Deism is a much better explanation of this world. God didn't answer my prayers, but not because he was not listening...but because he does not answer.....
How should I service God? I am far more concerned with servicing humanity
QUOTE
Try reading the rest of the thread as not everything is centered upon you - egotist.
You claim:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Try reading the rest of the thread as not everything is centered upon you - egotist. |
You claim:
You accuse God of "Hatred" of Amputees, have you any evidence of that?
I never used the phrase nor stated that.
QUOTE
YOUR facetious nature knows no bounds. Try - it is relevant to the thread - twit.
And again, I never stated god hates amputees.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| YOUR facetious nature knows no bounds. Try - it is relevant to the thread - twit. |
And again, I never stated god hates amputees.
does your employer know your like this?
LOL. At least I have one.
QUOTE
Oh! NOW you ask me to "take a position" but (I) have, and you, naturally missed it completely.
Then, to use an Emery-ism , “sound of like you have a pair” and state for the record what your position is. Since it would mean you are committing to one side or the other, I doubt you will. Sort of removes your ability to waffle.
With your “Accept that God is the Creator” posting, not to mention the claim that science “taught properly” can prove god, it is obvious that you are a theist. So care to finally answer the question directly?
Why in all of recorded history has any monotheistic god never healed an amputee? Why would an all-powerful god be limited in the ability to cure via miracle or choose to withhold it from his/her/its devout followers?
At least I can say....with all confidence that my "deistic" God hasn't ever caused an amputee.....
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Also, the story of the "healed ear" came from the Gospel of John. It is odd that Jesus' most amazing miracle came from a mystery author who wrote in the 3rd century. Why was it not mentioned in Mark?
"And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear."(Matthew 26:51)
"And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear."(Mark 14:47)
"And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him."(Luke 22:50-51)
"Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus."(John 18:10)
PuckSR: Just for the record, the account of the "healed ear" comes from the gospel of Luke, NOT John. All 4 gospels mention the cutting off of the ear...Luke simply gives a fuller account of the incident. By the way, Jesus' "most amazing miracle" would be in giving you a new heart...if you would ever turn to Him in sincerity, that is. Why doesn't God heal amputees? One reason is that people like you, who don't give a damn about amputees, but rather take pleasure in alcohol-induced philosophizing, are too busy wasting their time on threads like this instead of giving their lives to the genuine service of God. The harvest is plenteous, but the laborers few. Take care.
P.S. None of my comments are to be seen as any sort of defense to anything that Mr. Robin Parsons has written, because they're not.
"And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear."(Matthew 26:51)
"And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear."(Mark 14:47)
"And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him."(Luke 22:50-51)
"Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus."(John 18:10)
PuckSR: Just for the record, the account of the "healed ear" comes from the gospel of Luke, NOT John. All 4 gospels mention the cutting off of the ear...Luke simply gives a fuller account of the incident. By the way, Jesus' "most amazing miracle" would be in giving you a new heart...if you would ever turn to Him in sincerity, that is. Why doesn't God heal amputees? One reason is that people like you, who don't give a damn about amputees, but rather take pleasure in alcohol-induced philosophizing, are too busy wasting their time on threads like this instead of giving their lives to the genuine service of God. The harvest is plenteous, but the laborers few. Take care.
P.S. None of my comments are to be seen as any sort of defense to anything that Mr. Robin Parsons has written, because they're not.
QUOTE
PuckSR: Just for the record, the account of the "healed ear" comes from the gospel of Luke, NOT John. All 4 gospels mention the cutting off of the ear...Luke simply gives a fuller account of the incident. By the way, Jesus' "most amazing miracle" would be in giving you a new heart...if you would ever turn to Him in sincerity, that is. Why doesn't God heal amputees? One reason is that people like you, who don't give a damn about amputees, but rather take pleasure in alcohol-induced philosophizing, are too busy wasting their time on threads like this instead of giving their lives to the genuine service of God. The harvest is plenteous, but the laborers few. Take care.
Just for the record, I apologize....
By the way, I have turned to God.....and then I realized that Deism is a much better explanation of this world. God didn't answer my prayers, but not because he was not listening...but because he does not answer.....
How should I service God? I am far more concerned with servicing humanity
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
By the way, I have turned to God.....and then I realized that Deism is a much better explanation of this world. God didn't answer my prayers, but not because he was not listening...but because he does not answer.....
PuckSR: I certainly don't claim to know much about you, but I do recall you mentioning that you considered the Roman Catholic priesthood at one point in your life. If this is what you are referring to when you speak of "turning to God", then I think I know your problem.
You do....
So you understand that I found issue with their deep theological and philosophical justifications for God?
Thank goodness....maybe you can help me then.....
My biggest problem was that while an argument could be made for God, no argument could be made for the type of God most typically worshiped...and it seemed like every justification for any particular feature of God seemed to negate the existence of his other features.
I am glad I finally have someone to talk to about all of this...
I knew I was in trouble, because if the catholic church(with some of the brightest minds and longest histories) couldn't figure it all out properly....then the rest of the "trained in a garage" minister religions with a heavy reliance on biblical literalism were totally screwed. Heck, imagine those poor bastards who think they "figured it out", but couldn't tell you the difference between Descartes and Aquinas. I talked to one of those guys on here who argued he wasn't a "christian", but merely a follower of Jesus....talk about an idiot
Since we both seem to be somewhat of amateur religious scholars, maybe we can have a good laugh at anyone dumb enough to believe in a literal reading of the ENGLISH(can you imagine the stupidity) translation of the bible
You do....
So you understand that I found issue with their deep theological and philosophical justifications for God?
Thank goodness....maybe you can help me then.....
My biggest problem was that while an argument could be made for God, no argument could be made for the type of God most typically worshiped...and it seemed like every justification for any particular feature of God seemed to negate the existence of his other features.
I am glad I finally have someone to talk to about all of this...
I knew I was in trouble, because if the catholic church(with some of the brightest minds and longest histories) couldn't figure it all out properly....then the rest of the "trained in a garage" minister religions with a heavy reliance on biblical literalism were totally screwed. Heck, imagine those poor bastards who think they "figured it out", but couldn't tell you the difference between Descartes and Aquinas. I talked to one of those guys on here who argued he wasn't a "christian", but merely a follower of Jesus....talk about an idiot
Since we both seem to be somewhat of amateur religious scholars, maybe we can have a good laugh at anyone dumb enough to believe in a literal reading of the ENGLISH(can you imagine the stupidity) translation of the bible
If "servicing humanity" is truly your desire, than it should find no greater opportunities for fulfillment than in the true service of the Christian God. While His disciples were busy "jockeying for position" in the kingdom to come, Jesus replied:
But that is just the point....the "christian God" doesn't need people serving him....
He is an all-powerful deity, and I am sure he can handle himself...
As fall as following his "plan", don't you think the creator of all reality already has us "following his plan"?
Do you think God is so dumb as to come up with a plan that requires us to praise and worship him regularly?
PuckSR: I certainly don't claim to know much about you, but I do recall you mentioning that you considered the Roman Catholic priesthood at one point in your life. If this is what you are referring to when you speak of "turning to God", then I think I know your problem.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
How should I service God? I am far more concerned with servicing humanity
If "servicing humanity" is truly your desire, than it should find no greater opportunities for fulfillment than in the true service of the Christian God. While His disciples were busy "jockeying for position" in the kingdom to come, Jesus replied:
"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But is shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister: And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."(Matthew 20:25-28)
There has never been a greater servant to humanity than Jesus Christ. Good night.
If "servicing humanity" is truly your desire, than it should find no greater opportunities for fulfillment than in the true service of the Christian God. While His disciples were busy "jockeying for position" in the kingdom to come, Jesus replied:
"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But is shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister: And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."(Matthew 20:25-28)
There has never been a greater servant to humanity than Jesus Christ. Good night.
QUOTE
PuckSR: I certainly don't claim to know much about you, but I do recall you mentioning that you considered the Roman Catholic priesthood at one point in your life. If this is what you are referring to when you speak of "turning to God", then I think I know your problem.
You do....
So you understand that I found issue with their deep theological and philosophical justifications for God?
Thank goodness....maybe you can help me then.....
My biggest problem was that while an argument could be made for God, no argument could be made for the type of God most typically worshiped...and it seemed like every justification for any particular feature of God seemed to negate the existence of his other features.
I am glad I finally have someone to talk to about all of this...
I knew I was in trouble, because if the catholic church(with some of the brightest minds and longest histories) couldn't figure it all out properly....then the rest of the "trained in a garage" minister religions with a heavy reliance on biblical literalism were totally screwed. Heck, imagine those poor bastards who think they "figured it out", but couldn't tell you the difference between Descartes and Aquinas. I talked to one of those guys on here who argued he wasn't a "christian", but merely a follower of Jesus....talk about an idiot
Since we both seem to be somewhat of amateur religious scholars, maybe we can have a good laugh at anyone dumb enough to believe in a literal reading of the ENGLISH(can you imagine the stupidity) translation of the bible
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| PuckSR: I certainly don't claim to know much about you, but I do recall you mentioning that you considered the Roman Catholic priesthood at one point in your life. If this is what you are referring to when you speak of "turning to God", then I think I know your problem. |
You do....
So you understand that I found issue with their deep theological and philosophical justifications for God?
Thank goodness....maybe you can help me then.....
My biggest problem was that while an argument could be made for God, no argument could be made for the type of God most typically worshiped...and it seemed like every justification for any particular feature of God seemed to negate the existence of his other features.
I am glad I finally have someone to talk to about all of this...
I knew I was in trouble, because if the catholic church(with some of the brightest minds and longest histories) couldn't figure it all out properly....then the rest of the "trained in a garage" minister religions with a heavy reliance on biblical literalism were totally screwed. Heck, imagine those poor bastards who think they "figured it out", but couldn't tell you the difference between Descartes and Aquinas. I talked to one of those guys on here who argued he wasn't a "christian", but merely a follower of Jesus....talk about an idiot
Since we both seem to be somewhat of amateur religious scholars, maybe we can have a good laugh at anyone dumb enough to believe in a literal reading of the ENGLISH(can you imagine the stupidity) translation of the bible
If "servicing humanity" is truly your desire, than it should find no greater opportunities for fulfillment than in the true service of the Christian God. While His disciples were busy "jockeying for position" in the kingdom to come, Jesus replied:
But that is just the point....the "christian God" doesn't need people serving him....
He is an all-powerful deity, and I am sure he can handle himself...
As fall as following his "plan", don't you think the creator of all reality already has us "following his plan"?
Do you think God is so dumb as to come up with a plan that requires us to praise and worship him regularly?
Edit.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
But that is just the point....the "christian God" doesn't need people serving him....
He is an all-powerful deity, and I am sure he can handle himself...
As fall as following his "plan", don't you think the creator of all reality already has us "following his plan"?
Do you think God is so dumb as to come up with a plan that requires us to praise and worship him regularly?
PuckSR: Before addressing your post, I'd like to briefly remind you of my great disdain for wasting time, especially now with another child to raise/take care of. As a result, I have absolutely no intention of getting into any sort of drawn out discourse on this thread or elsewhere. Knowing your propensity to be sarcastic, "philosophical"(in your mind, anyway) and, to use your own terminology, "a prick at times", I will just make a quick comment/suggestion or two and then go on my merry(?) way. First of all, the "kingdom of God" is just that...a kingdom. Kingdoms have delegated authority within them, do they not? The king, or in this case, the King of kings, doesn't do everything. Christians are supposed to be "ambassadors for Christ"(II Corinthians 5:20). If the professing ambassadors don't know enough about the kingdom to properly represent it or, in many cases, don't even know the King Himself, then the fault lies with the people and not with God. It's not really an issue of whether or not God "needs" help, but, rather, whether or not God can find the type of "helpers" that He is looking for...those who are MOVED WITH COMPASSION FOR OTHERS as Jesus Christ was/is. Since I already made reference to the size of the potential harvest versus the number of true laborers in a previous post to you, I'll now present that same message in a fuller scope.
"But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd. Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest."(Matthew 9:36-38)
Having read enough of your posts, it is my observation(others, including you, might disagree) that you are not "moved with compassion" in the least. Rather, as I've already suggested, you seem to be a sarcastic, sometimes drunk(according to your own testimony), antagonistic, cynical troublemaker...hardly the type of "recruit" that the Lord is looking for. As such, I would suggest that you WORK ON YOURSELF for a good long time BEFORE criticizing the work, or lack thereof, of others. You know, remove the beam from your own eye FIRST. When Jesus originally made the statement that I cited above, there were actually MANY PROFESSING LABORERS in the vineyard. Problem was that the vast majority of them were self-serving HYPOCRITES. Sadly, the same situation exists today, probably/possibly to a much worse degree.
As far as "following God's plan" is concerned, "NO", I don't believe that the vast majority of people on the face of this earth are "following" either God or His "plan". To me, this can best be summed up with the following portion of scripture:
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"(Matthew 23:37)
Christ pleaded with the children of Israel through His prophets who had the Spirit of Christ in them(I Peter 1:11) long before His incarnation. See the contrast between Christ's "will" and the "will" of the people:
"...how often would I have gathered thy children together..."
There is the "will" of Christ.
"...and ye would not!"
There is the "will" of the people.
In most cases, sad to say, it is no different today.
In regards to people "praising and worshipping God regularly", I would simply suggest to you that if you genuinely had an encounter with God, then worship would be a normal result(not something demanded of you) as you realized the great gulf between you and your Creator...a great gulf that can only be bridged through Jesus Christ.
Anyhow, my plate is full. Having put my hand to the plow many years ago, I don't really have much time to waste debating those who desire nothing but strife. I hope you will consider what I've said and not just respond with more sarcasm. In either case, as always, I wish you the best. Take care.
He is an all-powerful deity, and I am sure he can handle himself...
As fall as following his "plan", don't you think the creator of all reality already has us "following his plan"?
Do you think God is so dumb as to come up with a plan that requires us to praise and worship him regularly?
PuckSR: Before addressing your post, I'd like to briefly remind you of my great disdain for wasting time, especially now with another child to raise/take care of. As a result, I have absolutely no intention of getting into any sort of drawn out discourse on this thread or elsewhere. Knowing your propensity to be sarcastic, "philosophical"(in your mind, anyway) and, to use your own terminology, "a prick at times", I will just make a quick comment/suggestion or two and then go on my merry(?) way. First of all, the "kingdom of God" is just that...a kingdom. Kingdoms have delegated authority within them, do they not? The king, or in this case, the King of kings, doesn't do everything. Christians are supposed to be "ambassadors for Christ"(II Corinthians 5:20). If the professing ambassadors don't know enough about the kingdom to properly represent it or, in many cases, don't even know the King Himself, then the fault lies with the people and not with God. It's not really an issue of whether or not God "needs" help, but, rather, whether or not God can find the type of "helpers" that He is looking for...those who are MOVED WITH COMPASSION FOR OTHERS as Jesus Christ was/is. Since I already made reference to the size of the potential harvest versus the number of true laborers in a previous post to you, I'll now present that same message in a fuller scope.
"But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd. Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest."(Matthew 9:36-38)
Having read enough of your posts, it is my observation(others, including you, might disagree) that you are not "moved with compassion" in the least. Rather, as I've already suggested, you seem to be a sarcastic, sometimes drunk(according to your own testimony), antagonistic, cynical troublemaker...hardly the type of "recruit" that the Lord is looking for. As such, I would suggest that you WORK ON YOURSELF for a good long time BEFORE criticizing the work, or lack thereof, of others. You know, remove the beam from your own eye FIRST. When Jesus originally made the statement that I cited above, there were actually MANY PROFESSING LABORERS in the vineyard. Problem was that the vast majority of them were self-serving HYPOCRITES. Sadly, the same situation exists today, probably/possibly to a much worse degree.
As far as "following God's plan" is concerned, "NO", I don't believe that the vast majority of people on the face of this earth are "following" either God or His "plan". To me, this can best be summed up with the following portion of scripture:
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"(Matthew 23:37)
Christ pleaded with the children of Israel through His prophets who had the Spirit of Christ in them(I Peter 1:11) long before His incarnation. See the contrast between Christ's "will" and the "will" of the people:
"...how often would I have gathered thy children together..."
There is the "will" of Christ.
"...and ye would not!"
There is the "will" of the people.
In most cases, sad to say, it is no different today.
In regards to people "praising and worshipping God regularly", I would simply suggest to you that if you genuinely had an encounter with God, then worship would be a normal result(not something demanded of you) as you realized the great gulf between you and your Creator...a great gulf that can only be bridged through Jesus Christ.
Anyhow, my plate is full. Having put my hand to the plow many years ago, I don't really have much time to waste debating those who desire nothing but strife. I hope you will consider what I've said and not just respond with more sarcasm. In either case, as always, I wish you the best. Take care.
Science is trying to heal amputees
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/142
And we're going to have more and more success.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/142
And we're going to have more and more success.
Newguy, my rather rude post was made because of two things....
1) Your rather odd remark about catholicism. While I am no longer a catholic, I found the rationale and logic that they offered was far superior to anything else I had encountered. Catholicism struck me as the "educated" denomination. I had, at no point, an issue with anything but the very core beliefs of Christianity. You imply that originally being a catholic was my problem because you believe that the only way someone could "turn out like me" is if a traumatic event changed their life. I can assure you that I did not "lose faith in God" because of an event, but rather came gradually to a conclusion based on thought and logical reasoning. No one encouraged my dismissal of faith, except for those who are so religious that they turn a blind eye to reality.....
2) The rather asinine assumption that Christians frequently make....mainly that your God is obviously "the God" and that your religious beliefs are obviously the appropriate ones that everyone should hold. Your religious beliefs and views of God are no more supported than a myriad of other beliefs, but your confirmation bias is enormous. You therefore denounce everyone else, despite the fact that they have just as much validity as your beliefs possess. In the end, you may be right. Your views of how God functions and how to properly worship him might be correct, but if this occurs it will be because of luck and not because of any "true knowledge". The hubris with which you act is shameful, and not recognizing that it is hubris is a sin in and of itself.
1) Your rather odd remark about catholicism. While I am no longer a catholic, I found the rationale and logic that they offered was far superior to anything else I had encountered. Catholicism struck me as the "educated" denomination. I had, at no point, an issue with anything but the very core beliefs of Christianity. You imply that originally being a catholic was my problem because you believe that the only way someone could "turn out like me" is if a traumatic event changed their life. I can assure you that I did not "lose faith in God" because of an event, but rather came gradually to a conclusion based on thought and logical reasoning. No one encouraged my dismissal of faith, except for those who are so religious that they turn a blind eye to reality.....
2) The rather asinine assumption that Christians frequently make....mainly that your God is obviously "the God" and that your religious beliefs are obviously the appropriate ones that everyone should hold. Your religious beliefs and views of God are no more supported than a myriad of other beliefs, but your confirmation bias is enormous. You therefore denounce everyone else, despite the fact that they have just as much validity as your beliefs possess. In the end, you may be right. Your views of how God functions and how to properly worship him might be correct, but if this occurs it will be because of luck and not because of any "true knowledge". The hubris with which you act is shameful, and not recognizing that it is hubris is a sin in and of itself.
If I may interrupt for a second.
It is a common belief among many protestant religions that the Catholic church is evil, the tool of Satan, the Antichrist. Some of them quietly acknowledge this, others quite vocally.
Do a quick google on catholic AND antichrist. You will find hundreds of hits. Right off the bat I found this one.
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1359.cfm
As for them seeming to be the educated religion...
"Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste..."
I am not saying I agree, condone or endorse these opinions... Just putting it out there for informational purposes only.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
It is a common belief among many protestant religions that the Catholic church is evil, the tool of Satan, the Antichrist. Some of them quietly acknowledge this, others quite vocally.
Do a quick google on catholic AND antichrist. You will find hundreds of hits. Right off the bat I found this one.
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1359.cfm
As for them seeming to be the educated religion...
"Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste..."
I am not saying I agree, condone or endorse these opinions... Just putting it out there for informational purposes only.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Newguy, my rather rude post was made because of two things....
1) Your rather odd remark about catholicism. While I am no longer a catholic, I found the rationale and logic that they offered was far superior to anything else I had encountered. Catholicism struck me as the "educated" denomination. I had, at no point, an issue with anything but the very core beliefs of Christianity. You imply that originally being a catholic was my problem because you believe that the only way someone could "turn out like me" is if a traumatic event changed their life. I can assure you that I did not "lose faith in God" because of an event, but rather came gradually to a conclusion based on thought and logical reasoning. No one encouraged my dismissal of faith, except for those who are so religious that they turn a blind eye to reality.....
PuckSR: I am quite puzzled as to why you would find my "remark" about catholicism to be "rather odd". I think(know) that I have made my views about Catholicism plainly known for all to see. Have you missed ALL of my references throughout this forum? I'm pretty sure that you haven't. I have NEVER "implied" that a "traumatic event changed your life". This is simply a figment of your imagination and it is not the first time that you've stated this. I always address issues head on and there is never any need to "read between the lines" for some hidden meaning in what I write.
1) Your rather odd remark about catholicism. While I am no longer a catholic, I found the rationale and logic that they offered was far superior to anything else I had encountered. Catholicism struck me as the "educated" denomination. I had, at no point, an issue with anything but the very core beliefs of Christianity. You imply that originally being a catholic was my problem because you believe that the only way someone could "turn out like me" is if a traumatic event changed their life. I can assure you that I did not "lose faith in God" because of an event, but rather came gradually to a conclusion based on thought and logical reasoning. No one encouraged my dismissal of faith, except for those who are so religious that they turn a blind eye to reality.....
PuckSR: I am quite puzzled as to why you would find my "remark" about catholicism to be "rather odd". I think(know) that I have made my views about Catholicism plainly known for all to see. Have you missed ALL of my references throughout this forum? I'm pretty sure that you haven't. I have NEVER "implied" that a "traumatic event changed your life". This is simply a figment of your imagination and it is not the first time that you've stated this. I always address issues head on and there is never any need to "read between the lines" for some hidden meaning in what I write.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
2) The rather asinine assumption that Christians frequently make....mainly that your God is obviously "the God" and that your religious beliefs are obviously the appropriate ones that everyone should hold. Your religious beliefs and views of God are no more supported than a myriad of other beliefs, but your confirmation bias is enormous. You therefore denounce everyone else, despite the fact that they have just as much validity as your beliefs possess. In the end, you may be right. Your views of how God functions and how to properly worship him might be correct, but if this occurs it will be because of luck and not because of any "true knowledge". The hubris with which you act is shameful, and not recognizing that it is hubris is a sin in and of itself.
Irrespective of Who is "the God", to use your terminology, as I have repeatedly stated, my participation in this forum is directly linked to the defense of Biblical Christianity as opposed to that which professes to be Christianity with no Biblical support. I know, from some of your previous posts throughout this forum, that you seem to be bothered by this. Well...tough. You always have the option of ignoring my posts even as I have the same option where your posts are concerned...an option that I've taken on many occasions, I might add. If you have a problem with the scriptures that I cite, then show me how my interpretations are wrong. No, rather, you'll just continually claim that the Bible cannot be trusted as a reliable source because of textual problems, "unknown"(in your mind, anyway) authors, etc. Isn't that correct? I'm not sure what you meant by my "confirmation bias", so I won't comment on that at this time. Your comment about my "hubris" actually made me laugh.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hubris
Main Entry: hu·bris
Pronunciation: 'hyü-br&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek hybris
: exaggerated pride or self-confidence
- hu·bris·tic /hyü-'bris-tik/ adjective
"Exaggerated pride"? To my knowledge(I am somewhat sleep-deprived), I've been guilty of two "exaggerations" on this forum and neither one was even remotely linked to "pride". Once, in my haste to post, I gave an exaggerated number of Protestants who were burned at the stake for their lack of belief in the Catholic doctrine of "transubstantiation". Adoucette quickly pointed out my mistake and I immediately apologized for the exaggerated number(I was actually referring to the number of Protestants that were killed for rejecting various Catholic beliefs and NOT just "transubstantiation"), blushing emoticon and all. On another occasion, I gave an accidental "exaggerated" timeframe in regards to an ear-related problem with my mother-in-law(she's sitting in the next room, by the way)...an "exaggeration" THAT I POINTED OUT MYSELF after dialoguing with my mother-in-law on the phone. So what are you talking about? Am I not the guy who has repeatedly stated that the vast majority of my fellowship with God has come in the form of PERSONAL CORRECTION? What is "prideful" about that? Am I not also the guy who probably holds the physorg record for the most apologies offered, whether publicly or privately? What is "prideful" about that? As far as "self-confidence" is concerned, my confidence is in Jesus Christ, as He has proven Himself to be faithful for the last 18+ years of my life. If I'm "shameful" about anything related to my participation in this forum(aside from what I've already apologized for in the past), then I'm "ashamed" that I've wasted so much time on this forum with people like you who seem to take pleasure in arguing. Although I suspect that the following "quote" wasn't originally made by Ross Perot, I am reminded of something that he said while running for President some years ago. He said:
"It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
Perhaps if you spent a little(a lot) less time bitching about all of the things that are wrong with "god" and a little(a lot) more time actually making a difference in this world...
Take care.
Irrespective of Who is "the God", to use your terminology, as I have repeatedly stated, my participation in this forum is directly linked to the defense of Biblical Christianity as opposed to that which professes to be Christianity with no Biblical support. I know, from some of your previous posts throughout this forum, that you seem to be bothered by this. Well...tough. You always have the option of ignoring my posts even as I have the same option where your posts are concerned...an option that I've taken on many occasions, I might add. If you have a problem with the scriptures that I cite, then show me how my interpretations are wrong. No, rather, you'll just continually claim that the Bible cannot be trusted as a reliable source because of textual problems, "unknown"(in your mind, anyway) authors, etc. Isn't that correct? I'm not sure what you meant by my "confirmation bias", so I won't comment on that at this time. Your comment about my "hubris" actually made me laugh.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hubris
Main Entry: hu·bris
Pronunciation: 'hyü-br&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek hybris
: exaggerated pride or self-confidence
- hu·bris·tic /hyü-'bris-tik/ adjective
"Exaggerated pride"? To my knowledge(I am somewhat sleep-deprived), I've been guilty of two "exaggerations" on this forum and neither one was even remotely linked to "pride". Once, in my haste to post, I gave an exaggerated number of Protestants who were burned at the stake for their lack of belief in the Catholic doctrine of "transubstantiation". Adoucette quickly pointed out my mistake and I immediately apologized for the exaggerated number(I was actually referring to the number of Protestants that were killed for rejecting various Catholic beliefs and NOT just "transubstantiation"), blushing emoticon and all. On another occasion, I gave an accidental "exaggerated" timeframe in regards to an ear-related problem with my mother-in-law(she's sitting in the next room, by the way)...an "exaggeration" THAT I POINTED OUT MYSELF after dialoguing with my mother-in-law on the phone. So what are you talking about? Am I not the guy who has repeatedly stated that the vast majority of my fellowship with God has come in the form of PERSONAL CORRECTION? What is "prideful" about that? Am I not also the guy who probably holds the physorg record for the most apologies offered, whether publicly or privately? What is "prideful" about that? As far as "self-confidence" is concerned, my confidence is in Jesus Christ, as He has proven Himself to be faithful for the last 18+ years of my life. If I'm "shameful" about anything related to my participation in this forum(aside from what I've already apologized for in the past), then I'm "ashamed" that I've wasted so much time on this forum with people like you who seem to take pleasure in arguing. Although I suspect that the following "quote" wasn't originally made by Ross Perot, I am reminded of something that he said while running for President some years ago. He said:
"It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
Perhaps if you spent a little(a lot) less time bitching about all of the things that are wrong with "god" and a little(a lot) more time actually making a difference in this world...
Take care.
QUOTE (gmilam+)
If I may interrupt for a second.
It is a common belief among many protestant religions that the Catholic church is evil, the tool of Satan, the Antichrist. Some of them quietly acknowledge this, others quite vocally.
Do a quick google on catholic AND antichrist. You will find hundreds of hits. Right off the bat I found this one.
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1359.cfm
gmilam: Just for the record, I consider myself(irrespective of PuckSR's viewpoints in regards to what I'm about to say) to be NEITHER Catholic NOR Protestant. Although I do PROTEST against most of what Roman Catholicism teaches, I have an enormous amount of PROTESTS where so-called "Protestantism" is concerned as well. In fact, since becoming a Christian about 18 1/2 years ago, I have spent almost no time in "Catholic circles", but much time in so-called "Protestant circles". Most of the abominations that I've personally witnessed have been within so-called "Protestantism". Satan is NOT limited to the Roman Catholic church by any means.
It is a common belief among many protestant religions that the Catholic church is evil, the tool of Satan, the Antichrist. Some of them quietly acknowledge this, others quite vocally.
Do a quick google on catholic AND antichrist. You will find hundreds of hits. Right off the bat I found this one.
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1359.cfm
gmilam: Just for the record, I consider myself(irrespective of PuckSR's viewpoints in regards to what I'm about to say) to be NEITHER Catholic NOR Protestant. Although I do PROTEST against most of what Roman Catholicism teaches, I have an enormous amount of PROTESTS where so-called "Protestantism" is concerned as well. In fact, since becoming a Christian about 18 1/2 years ago, I have spent almost no time in "Catholic circles", but much time in so-called "Protestant circles". Most of the abominations that I've personally witnessed have been within so-called "Protestantism". Satan is NOT limited to the Roman Catholic church by any means.
QUOTE (gmilam+)
As for them seeming to be the educated religion...
"Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste..."
I am not saying I agree, condone or endorse these opinions... Just putting it out there for informational purposes only.
Ah, yes..."Sympathy for the devil." Perhaps PuckSR can attach a midi file of this song to his posts as this seems to be his favorite tune.
"Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste..."
I am not saying I agree, condone or endorse these opinions... Just putting it out there for informational purposes only.
Ah, yes..."Sympathy for the devil." Perhaps PuckSR can attach a midi file of this song to his posts as this seems to be his favorite tune.
QUOTE (gmilam+)
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
Yeah, here's a "sneak preview"...
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
The Argument Sketch, from Monty Python's Flying Circus
If you want to see a video of this sketch, then you can view it here:
http://www.theintarweb.org/thumbnails.php?d=Fun%20Stuff
You'll need to scroll down a bit and you'll also need to have Windows Media Player on your computer.
Yeah, here's a "sneak preview"...
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
The Argument Sketch, from Monty Python's Flying Circus
If you want to see a video of this sketch, then you can view it here:
http://www.theintarweb.org/thumbnails.php?d=Fun%20Stuff
You'll need to scroll down a bit and you'll also need to have Windows Media Player on your computer.
QUOTE (Mirrorman+Jul 19 2007, 01:39 AM)
This forum's a joke.
I blame evolution for everything. When you get to the bottom of what makes evolution work, you'll find an uncaring nothing staring back at you. The big bang is to blame for Jesus, and God.
Religion and science have always had a somewhat uneasy relationship.
“Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat.” (John Morley)
I blame evolution for everything. When you get to the bottom of what makes evolution work, you'll find an uncaring nothing staring back at you. The big bang is to blame for Jesus, and God.
Religion and science have always had a somewhat uneasy relationship.
“Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat.” (John Morley)
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Jul 19 2007, 10:37 AM)
Science is trying to heal amputees
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/142
And we're going to have more and more success.
I enjoy the lectures that are presented at TED even though some of the presenters have a simplistic outlook on what politicians they support. Some just come across as groupies.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/142
And we're going to have more and more success.
I enjoy the lectures that are presented at TED even though some of the presenters have a simplistic outlook on what politicians they support. Some just come across as groupies.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Jul 19 2007, 05:22 PM)
Religion and science have always had a somewhat uneasy relationship.
“Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat.” (John Morley)
Could have sworn I said "this forum's a joke" in connection with the never ending argument going on between a Mr Parsons, PuckSR and Genesplicer.
I can well understand why science and religion have an uneasy time together.
Someone tells me evolution is all there is, and I was trying to go along with that and clarify the consequences of such a belief. It should be clear that when a terrorist hurls a plane into a tower that the logical comment from someone who believes in soley evolution should be "damn evolution", not damn religion! I mean, get it right if one wishes to believe only in evolution. Personally I see more than just evolution, so apologies for getting a little too on it yesterday. I also have a healthy mistrust of bible bashers, sorry.
Good Morley quote. And what of the sun? It certainly shines unconditionally on both the supposed good and evil.
“Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat.” (John Morley)
Could have sworn I said "this forum's a joke" in connection with the never ending argument going on between a Mr Parsons, PuckSR and Genesplicer.
I can well understand why science and religion have an uneasy time together.
Someone tells me evolution is all there is, and I was trying to go along with that and clarify the consequences of such a belief. It should be clear that when a terrorist hurls a plane into a tower that the logical comment from someone who believes in soley evolution should be "damn evolution", not damn religion! I mean, get it right if one wishes to believe only in evolution. Personally I see more than just evolution, so apologies for getting a little too on it yesterday. I also have a healthy mistrust of bible bashers, sorry.
Good Morley quote. And what of the sun? It certainly shines unconditionally on both the supposed good and evil.
QUOTE (Mirrorman+Jul 19 2007, 06:39 PM)
I also have a healthy mistrust of bible bashers, sorry.
I agree. Individuals should be judged on their conduct not their alleged beliefs.
I agree. Individuals should be judged on their conduct not their alleged beliefs.
You are claiming that arguments against blind religious adherents is a joke or it is wrong to argue against such and you post a non sequitur as this?
The terrorists were not motivated by evolution to fly the planes into the towers. Moreover, recognizing their religious faith and motivations behind their actions is not a belief in that or any religion. It is simply recognition of their religion.
The terrorists were not motivated by evolution to fly the planes into the towers. Moreover, recognizing their religious faith and motivations behind their actions is not a belief in that or any religion. It is simply recognition of their religion.
I also have a healthy mistrust of bible bashers, sorry.
And a polarized mindset it appears. Questioning the claims of the xian bible or any other religion is not bashing no more than questioning an unsubstantiated claim is attacking.
PuckSR’s feedback appears to spot on.
QUOTE
It should be clear that when a terrorist hurls a plane into a tower that the logical comment from someone who believes in soley evolution should be "damn evolution", not damn religion! I mean, get it right if one wishes to believe only in evolution.
The terrorists were not motivated by evolution to fly the planes into the towers. Moreover, recognizing their religious faith and motivations behind their actions is not a belief in that or any religion. It is simply recognition of their religion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It should be clear that when a terrorist hurls a plane into a tower that the logical comment from someone who believes in soley evolution should be "damn evolution", not damn religion! I mean, get it right if one wishes to believe only in evolution. |
The terrorists were not motivated by evolution to fly the planes into the towers. Moreover, recognizing their religious faith and motivations behind their actions is not a belief in that or any religion. It is simply recognition of their religion.
I also have a healthy mistrust of bible bashers, sorry.
And a polarized mindset it appears. Questioning the claims of the xian bible or any other religion is not bashing no more than questioning an unsubstantiated claim is attacking.
PuckSR’s feedback appears to spot on.
QUOTE (Mirrorman+)
It should be clear that when a terrorist hurls a plane into a tower that the logical comment from someone who believes in soley evolution should be "damn evolution", not damn religion! I mean, get it right if one wishes to believe only in evolution.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+)
The terrorists were not motivated by evolution to fly the planes into the towers. Moreover, recognizing their religious faith and motivations behind their actions is not a belief in that or any religion. It is simply recognition of their religion.
GeneSplicer: I could be totally wrong, but I think you missed(unless I'm the one who missed it, which is a distinct possibility) the point that Mirrorman was attempting to make(I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this "point"...I'm just offering a different interpretation of what he/she said). It seems to me that Mirrorman is/was suggesting that IF evolution is correct, THEN religious fanaticism is the result of said evolution and therefore evolution should shoulder the blame for it. Like I said, I could be wrong, but that is what I think he/she was attempting to say. Additionally(this one I'm pretty sure of), I think that both you and Derek1148 misunderstood the following statement by Mirrorman:
GeneSplicer: I could be totally wrong, but I think you missed(unless I'm the one who missed it, which is a distinct possibility) the point that Mirrorman was attempting to make(I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this "point"...I'm just offering a different interpretation of what he/she said). It seems to me that Mirrorman is/was suggesting that IF evolution is correct, THEN religious fanaticism is the result of said evolution and therefore evolution should shoulder the blame for it. Like I said, I could be wrong, but that is what I think he/she was attempting to say. Additionally(this one I'm pretty sure of), I think that both you and Derek1148 misunderstood the following statement by Mirrorman:
QUOTE (Mirrorman+)
I also have a healthy mistrust of bible bashers, sorry.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
I agree. Individuals should be judged on their conduct not their alleged beliefs.
If that is the case, then Mirrorman has an odd view of just what evolution is and what it seeks to address. Everything that mankind does cannot be traced back to evolution as a root cause no more than if a person were to totally be vested in a religion could trace everything mankind does back to that religion.
If that is the case, then Mirrorman has an odd view of just what evolution is and what it seeks to address. Everything that mankind does cannot be traced back to evolution as a root cause no more than if a person were to totally be vested in a religion could trace everything mankind does back to that religion.
It seems to me that you both took Mirrorman's comment about "bible bashers" to mean those who are opposed to the Bible and "bash" it. However, apparently, "Bible basher" and "Bible thumper" are synonymous.
If that is true, then he can clarify what he means. It could be as you point out a region quirk.
Out of curiosity....what teachings of the catholic church do you disagree with?
I am interested, because I have found a great deal of anti-catholic sentiment still remaining in protestant circles(probably as remnants from the protestant reformation).
So, if you could just list them....I would be interested to know what they are....
Also, yes I do disagree with you "not being a protestant". A protestant is a christian who rejects catholicism. That would be you right?
You are claiming that arguments against blind religious adherents is a joke or it is wrong to argue against such and you post a non sequitur as this?
********************
I'm merely saying that to someone who doesn't entertian a belief in a creator God they cannot look to anything else but that thing they call evolution, which they also say began as an accident and has no purpose. That is the catalyst. Of course I know these people think they are doing something in the name of religion! But isn't it logical to a non believer that this is all a product of evolotion?
GeneSplicer: I could be totally wrong, but I think you missed(unless I'm the one who missed it, which is a distinct possibility) the point that Mirrorman was attempting to make(I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this "point"...I'm just offering a different interpretation of what he/she said). It seems to me that Mirrorman is/was suggesting that IF evolution is correct, THEN religious fanaticism is the result of said evolution and therefore evolution should shoulder the blame for it. Like I said, I could be wrong, but that is what I think he/she was attempting to say.
******************
Look, I don't mean to come across as troublesome. that's point number one! yes, thank you Newguy, you've worded it right. I was trying to follow the thread of what evolution is capable of in an existence without God. I've been told ther eis no dierection in evolution, no purpose, nor perfection, and it was an accident in the beginning that got the ball rolling. Then is it not safe to say that every single event, the crusades, the gold medals the romancing and broken hearts, you know, everything, is a product of this said evolution? I can't see any other explanation. I don't personally believe all there is is evolution.
As for the bible basher phrase, sorry again if that too was not taken in the way I wanted to put it across. In England we use that phrase a lot. A bible basher is like a 5th gospel evangelist, who likes to bash people on the head with their bible. It isn't just the bible, many books are used to bash people on the head with.
I've read the bible many times in my twenties, and did not come to the conclusions that many church goers are taught to come to. So I stay away.
If that is the case, then Mirrorman has an odd view of just what evolution is and what it seeks to address. Everything that mankind does cannot be traced back to evolution as a root cause no more than if a person were to totally be vested in a religion could trace everything mankind does back to that religion.
If that is true, then he can clarify what he means. It could be as you point out a region quirk.
Right, so you are saying there is more than evolution? What else is there then?
Again, I believe your notion of evolution is the oddest I have heard to date. Evolution does not address anything other than change of a species over time.
While it is a fact that evolution does challenge the xian biblical claim of a creation by the very nature of the theory, it does not seek nor should be used as a defacto replacement for the remaining topics the xian religion seeks to address.
Your views are rather polarized and simplistic. I do not have to entertain a belief in a creator to recognize a religion or the claims, facets and nuances of that religion.
Again, I believe your notion of evolution is the oddest I have heard to date. Evolution does not address anything other than change of a species over time.
While it is a fact that evolution does challenge the xian biblical claim of a creation by the very nature of the theory, it does not seek nor should be used as a defacto replacement for the remaining topics the xian religion seeks to address.
Your views are rather polarized and simplistic. I do not have to entertain a belief in a creator to recognize a religion or the claims, facets and nuances of that religion.
Look, I don't mean to come across as troublesome. that's point number one! yes, thank you Newguy, you've worded it right. I was trying to follow the thread of what evolution is capable of in an existence without God. I've been told ther eis no dierection in evolution, no purpose, nor perfection, and it was an accident in the beginning that got the ball rolling. Then is it not safe to say that every single event, the crusades, the gold medals the romancing and broken hearts, you know, everything, is a product of this said evolution? I can't see any other explanation. I don't personally believe all there is is evolution.
Considering you have totally misunderstood what evolution seek to address, it is not surprise. The origin of life, biogenesis or abiogenesis, is not a topic evolution seeks to address. That spin comes from the opinions of theist who grossly distort what evolution is for their own ends.
I would suggest that you read what evolution seeks to address and do so from not-theistic sites and sources.
I said no such thing. Let me be more specific so you cannot misinterpret it again.
Everything that mankind does cannot be traced back to evolution as a root cause no more than if a person were to totally be vested in a religion could trace everything mankind does back to that religion. A person can believe, in the non-religious manner, in evolution and totally reject the mythology that is religion and the outlook would still be the same.
Life and existence does not have to have purpose.
Again, I believe your notion of evolution is the oddest I have heard to date. Evolution does not address anything other than change of a species over time.
*******************
Well Gene if it is too simplistic and I still haven't made it clear what I am trying to say then best leave that one.:-)
Well, it is my understanding that "only one church" existed for 1500 years. I would say that the pope has sufficient historical evidence to back up his claim. I also see this as similar to what almost every denomination of every religion attempts to do.
I do not know of too many religions that teach "we are probably wrong, and those of opposing religious/political views have just as much chance of being right". That is just an issue of human nature my friend
"primacy of the pope"-Catholics think that the pope is in charge, Eastern Orthodox churches have their own version of the pope. That is more of a political statement than a religious one....
"means of salvation"-sorry couldn't find this anywhere in the article.
It might be helpful if you simply stated the tenets of the faith that you disagree with, since Catholics do have the advantage of writing their beliefs down.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+)
And a polarized mindset it appears. Questioning the claims of the xian bible or any other religion is not bashing no more than questioning an unsubstantiated claim is attacking.
It seems to me that you both took Mirrorman's comment about "bible bashers" to mean those who are opposed to the Bible and "bash" it. However, apparently, "Bible basher" and "Bible thumper" are synonymous.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_56151193...ble-basher.html
Bi·ble-bash·er (plural Bi·ble-bash·ers)
noun
Definition:
U.K. ( slang )
Same as Bible-thumper
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18616861...le-thumper.html
Bi·ble-thump·er (plural Bi·ble-thump·ers)
noun
Definition:
vehement promoter of Christianity: a committed Christian whose outspoken evangelizing is regarded by some as extreme ( slang ) ( offensive )
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bible+basher
1. Bible basher
Not a satanist, and not one who bashes the Bible. A Bible Basher is someone who constantly goes around forcing the word of the bible on everyone else, and claims that everything BUT the Bible is evil. Some Bible Bashers even say music is evil because "in the bible" it says that Lucifer was the conducter of God's Orchestra, and say that Lucifer knows how music works on people so he is "hidden in the music, sending you subliminal messages"
For whatever that's worth...
It seems to me that you both took Mirrorman's comment about "bible bashers" to mean those who are opposed to the Bible and "bash" it. However, apparently, "Bible basher" and "Bible thumper" are synonymous.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_56151193...ble-basher.html
Bi·ble-bash·er (plural Bi·ble-bash·ers)
noun
Definition:
U.K. ( slang )
Same as Bible-thumper
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18616861...le-thumper.html
Bi·ble-thump·er (plural Bi·ble-thump·ers)
noun
Definition:
vehement promoter of Christianity: a committed Christian whose outspoken evangelizing is regarded by some as extreme ( slang ) ( offensive )
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bible+basher
1. Bible basher
Not a satanist, and not one who bashes the Bible. A Bible Basher is someone who constantly goes around forcing the word of the bible on everyone else, and claims that everything BUT the Bible is evil. Some Bible Bashers even say music is evil because "in the bible" it says that Lucifer was the conducter of God's Orchestra, and say that Lucifer knows how music works on people so he is "hidden in the music, sending you subliminal messages"
For whatever that's worth...
QUOTE
GeneSplicer: I could be totally wrong, but I think you missed(unless I'm the one who missed it, which is a distinct possibility) the point that Mirrorman was attempting to make(I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this "point"...I'm just offering a different interpretation of what he/she said). It seems to me that Mirrorman is/was suggesting that IF evolution is correct, THEN religious fanaticism is the result of said evolution and therefore evolution should shoulder the blame for it. Like I said, I could be wrong, but that is what I think he/she was attempting to say.
If that is the case, then Mirrorman has an odd view of just what evolution is and what it seeks to address. Everything that mankind does cannot be traced back to evolution as a root cause no more than if a person were to totally be vested in a religion could trace everything mankind does back to that religion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| GeneSplicer: I could be totally wrong, but I think you missed(unless I'm the one who missed it, which is a distinct possibility) the point that Mirrorman was attempting to make(I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this "point"...I'm just offering a different interpretation of what he/she said). It seems to me that Mirrorman is/was suggesting that IF evolution is correct, THEN religious fanaticism is the result of said evolution and therefore evolution should shoulder the blame for it. Like I said, I could be wrong, but that is what I think he/she was attempting to say. |
If that is the case, then Mirrorman has an odd view of just what evolution is and what it seeks to address. Everything that mankind does cannot be traced back to evolution as a root cause no more than if a person were to totally be vested in a religion could trace everything mankind does back to that religion.
It seems to me that you both took Mirrorman's comment about "bible bashers" to mean those who are opposed to the Bible and "bash" it. However, apparently, "Bible basher" and "Bible thumper" are synonymous.
If that is true, then he can clarify what he means. It could be as you point out a region quirk.
QUOTE
Just for the record, I consider myself(irrespective of PuckSR's viewpoints in regards to what I'm about to say) to be NEITHER Catholic NOR Protestant. Although I do PROTEST against most of what Roman Catholicism teaches, I have an enormous amount of PROTESTS where so-called "Protestantism" is concerned as well. In fact, since becoming a Christian about 18 1/2 years ago, I have spent almost no time in "Catholic circles", but much time in so-called "Protestant circles". Most of the abominations that I've personally witnessed have been within so-called "Protestantism". Satan is NOT limited to the Roman Catholic church by any means.
Out of curiosity....what teachings of the catholic church do you disagree with?
I am interested, because I have found a great deal of anti-catholic sentiment still remaining in protestant circles(probably as remnants from the protestant reformation).
So, if you could just list them....I would be interested to know what they are....
Also, yes I do disagree with you "not being a protestant". A protestant is a christian who rejects catholicism. That would be you right?
QUOTE (newguy+Jul 19 2007, 07:16 PM)
It seems to me that you both took Mirrorman's comment about "bible bashers" to mean those who are opposed to the Bible and "bash" it. However, apparently, "Bible basher" and "Bible thumper" are synonymous.
If you are correct in your interpretation then I would have responded differently. However, I am still of the opinion that individuals should be judged for their conduct not for their alleged beliefs.
If you are correct in your interpretation then I would have responded differently. However, I am still of the opinion that individuals should be judged for their conduct not for their alleged beliefs.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
If you are correct in your interpretation then I would have responded differently. However, I am still of the opinion that individuals should be judged for their conduct not for their alleged beliefs.
Derek1148: I have absolutely no problem with people being judged for their conduct/actions, however, ofttimes people's actions are a direct result of their beliefs, so it's not always possible to separate the two. I do, admittedly, find it rather amusing that this is your stated position, though...especially after you referred to me as a "Jesus freak" on another thread not too long ago. Whatever.
PuckSR: I'll respond to your post later when I have more time available...
Derek1148: I have absolutely no problem with people being judged for their conduct/actions, however, ofttimes people's actions are a direct result of their beliefs, so it's not always possible to separate the two. I do, admittedly, find it rather amusing that this is your stated position, though...especially after you referred to me as a "Jesus freak" on another thread not too long ago. Whatever.
PuckSR: I'll respond to your post later when I have more time available...
Edit.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 19 2007, 06:52 PM)
You are claiming that arguments against blind religious adherents is a joke or it is wrong to argue against such and you post a non sequitur as this?
********************
I'm merely saying that to someone who doesn't entertian a belief in a creator God they cannot look to anything else but that thing they call evolution, which they also say began as an accident and has no purpose. That is the catalyst. Of course I know these people think they are doing something in the name of religion! But isn't it logical to a non believer that this is all a product of evolotion?
GeneSplicer: I could be totally wrong, but I think you missed(unless I'm the one who missed it, which is a distinct possibility) the point that Mirrorman was attempting to make(I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this "point"...I'm just offering a different interpretation of what he/she said). It seems to me that Mirrorman is/was suggesting that IF evolution is correct, THEN religious fanaticism is the result of said evolution and therefore evolution should shoulder the blame for it. Like I said, I could be wrong, but that is what I think he/she was attempting to say.
******************
Look, I don't mean to come across as troublesome. that's point number one! yes, thank you Newguy, you've worded it right. I was trying to follow the thread of what evolution is capable of in an existence without God. I've been told ther eis no dierection in evolution, no purpose, nor perfection, and it was an accident in the beginning that got the ball rolling. Then is it not safe to say that every single event, the crusades, the gold medals the romancing and broken hearts, you know, everything, is a product of this said evolution? I can't see any other explanation. I don't personally believe all there is is evolution.
As for the bible basher phrase, sorry again if that too was not taken in the way I wanted to put it across. In England we use that phrase a lot. A bible basher is like a 5th gospel evangelist, who likes to bash people on the head with their bible. It isn't just the bible, many books are used to bash people on the head with.
I've read the bible many times in my twenties, and did not come to the conclusions that many church goers are taught to come to. So I stay away.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 19 2007, 07:31 PM)
If that is the case, then Mirrorman has an odd view of just what evolution is and what it seeks to address. Everything that mankind does cannot be traced back to evolution as a root cause no more than if a person were to totally be vested in a religion could trace everything mankind does back to that religion.
If that is true, then he can clarify what he means. It could be as you point out a region quirk.
Right, so you are saying there is more than evolution? What else is there then?
QUOTE
I'm merely saying that to someone who doesn't entertian a belief in a creator God they cannot look to anything else but that thing they call evolution, which they also say began as an accident and has no purpose. That is the catalyst. Of course I know these people think they are doing something in the name of religion! But isn't it logical to a non believer that this is all a product of evolotion?
Again, I believe your notion of evolution is the oddest I have heard to date. Evolution does not address anything other than change of a species over time.
While it is a fact that evolution does challenge the xian biblical claim of a creation by the very nature of the theory, it does not seek nor should be used as a defacto replacement for the remaining topics the xian religion seeks to address.
Your views are rather polarized and simplistic. I do not have to entertain a belief in a creator to recognize a religion or the claims, facets and nuances of that religion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm merely saying that to someone who doesn't entertian a belief in a creator God they cannot look to anything else but that thing they call evolution, which they also say began as an accident and has no purpose. That is the catalyst. Of course I know these people think they are doing something in the name of religion! But isn't it logical to a non believer that this is all a product of evolotion? |
Again, I believe your notion of evolution is the oddest I have heard to date. Evolution does not address anything other than change of a species over time.
While it is a fact that evolution does challenge the xian biblical claim of a creation by the very nature of the theory, it does not seek nor should be used as a defacto replacement for the remaining topics the xian religion seeks to address.
Your views are rather polarized and simplistic. I do not have to entertain a belief in a creator to recognize a religion or the claims, facets and nuances of that religion.
Look, I don't mean to come across as troublesome. that's point number one! yes, thank you Newguy, you've worded it right. I was trying to follow the thread of what evolution is capable of in an existence without God. I've been told ther eis no dierection in evolution, no purpose, nor perfection, and it was an accident in the beginning that got the ball rolling. Then is it not safe to say that every single event, the crusades, the gold medals the romancing and broken hearts, you know, everything, is a product of this said evolution? I can't see any other explanation. I don't personally believe all there is is evolution.
Considering you have totally misunderstood what evolution seek to address, it is not surprise. The origin of life, biogenesis or abiogenesis, is not a topic evolution seeks to address. That spin comes from the opinions of theist who grossly distort what evolution is for their own ends.
I would suggest that you read what evolution seeks to address and do so from not-theistic sites and sources.
QUOTE
Right, so you are saying there is more than evolution? What else is there then?
I said no such thing. Let me be more specific so you cannot misinterpret it again.
Everything that mankind does cannot be traced back to evolution as a root cause no more than if a person were to totally be vested in a religion could trace everything mankind does back to that religion. A person can believe, in the non-religious manner, in evolution and totally reject the mythology that is religion and the outlook would still be the same.
Life and existence does not have to have purpose.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jul 19 2007, 11:58 PM)
Again, I believe your notion of evolution is the oddest I have heard to date. Evolution does not address anything other than change of a species over time.
*******************
Well Gene if it is too simplistic and I still haven't made it clear what I am trying to say then best leave that one.:-)
QUOTE (Mirrorman+Jul 19 2007, 11:21 PM)
As for the bible basher phrase, sorry again if that too was not taken in the way I wanted to put it across. In England we use that phrase a lot.
I misinterpreted your post. As George Bernard Shaw wrote: "England and America are two countries separated by a common language."
I misinterpreted your post. As George Bernard Shaw wrote: "England and America are two countries separated by a common language."
QUOTE (Derek1148+Jul 20 2007, 01:29 AM)
I misinterpreted your post. As George Bernard Shaw wrote: "England and America are two countries separated by a common language."
Yeah, so my American friends and me joke about a lot!
The keystone of the entire structure of the spiritual and physical universe is Rhythmic Balanced Interchange between all opposites....Walter Russel
Yeah, so my American friends and me joke about a lot!
The keystone of the entire structure of the spiritual and physical universe is Rhythmic Balanced Interchange between all opposites....Walter Russel
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Out of curiosity....what teachings of the catholic church do you disagree with?
I am interested, because I have found a great deal of anti-catholic sentiment still remaining in protestant circles(probably as remnants from the protestant reformation).
So, if you could just list them....I would be interested to know what they are....
PuckSR: This would be one of many:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/
Pope: Other denominations not true churches
Benedict issues statement asserting that Jesus established ‘only one church’
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 9:52 a.m. ET July 10, 2007
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.
Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.
On Saturday, Benedict revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by reviving the old Latin Mass. Traditional Catholics cheered the move, but more liberal ones called it a step back from Vatican II.
Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.
In the latest document — formulated as five questions and answers — the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II’s ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been “erroneous or ambiguous” and had prompted confusion and doubt.
It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, “Dominus Iesus,” which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the “means of salvation.”
In the new document and an accompanying commentary, which were released as the pope vacations here in Italy’s Dolomite mountains, the Vatican repeated that position.
“Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” the document said. The other communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles.
‘Identity of the Catholic faith’
The Rev. Sara MacVane of the Anglican Centre in Rome, said there was nothing new in the document.
“I don’t know what motivated it at this time,” she said. “But it’s important always to point out that there’s the official position and there’s the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together that goes on at all levels, certainly between Anglican and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics.”
The document said Orthodox churches were indeed “churches” because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed “many elements of sanctification and of truth.” But it said they lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope — a defect, or a “wound” that harmed them, it said.
“This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an ‘internal constitutive principle’ of the very existence of a particular church,” the commentary said.
Despite the harsh tone of the document, it stresses that Benedict remains committed to ecumenical dialogue.
“However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive, it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith,” the commentary said.
‘Not backtracking on ecumenical commitment’
The document, signed by the congregation prefect, U.S. Cardinal William Levada, was approved by Benedict on June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul — a major ecumenical feast day.
What think ye of the Pope's comments, especially in regards to the "primacy of the Pope", Jesus establishing "only one church" and the "means of salvation"? I await your reply.
I am interested, because I have found a great deal of anti-catholic sentiment still remaining in protestant circles(probably as remnants from the protestant reformation).
So, if you could just list them....I would be interested to know what they are....
PuckSR: This would be one of many:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/
Pope: Other denominations not true churches
Benedict issues statement asserting that Jesus established ‘only one church’
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 9:52 a.m. ET July 10, 2007
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.
Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.
On Saturday, Benedict revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by reviving the old Latin Mass. Traditional Catholics cheered the move, but more liberal ones called it a step back from Vatican II.
Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.
In the latest document — formulated as five questions and answers — the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II’s ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been “erroneous or ambiguous” and had prompted confusion and doubt.
It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, “Dominus Iesus,” which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the “means of salvation.”
In the new document and an accompanying commentary, which were released as the pope vacations here in Italy’s Dolomite mountains, the Vatican repeated that position.
“Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” the document said. The other communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles.
‘Identity of the Catholic faith’
The Rev. Sara MacVane of the Anglican Centre in Rome, said there was nothing new in the document.
“I don’t know what motivated it at this time,” she said. “But it’s important always to point out that there’s the official position and there’s the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together that goes on at all levels, certainly between Anglican and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics.”
The document said Orthodox churches were indeed “churches” because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed “many elements of sanctification and of truth.” But it said they lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope — a defect, or a “wound” that harmed them, it said.
“This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an ‘internal constitutive principle’ of the very existence of a particular church,” the commentary said.
Despite the harsh tone of the document, it stresses that Benedict remains committed to ecumenical dialogue.
“However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive, it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith,” the commentary said.
‘Not backtracking on ecumenical commitment’
The document, signed by the congregation prefect, U.S. Cardinal William Levada, was approved by Benedict on June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul — a major ecumenical feast day.
What think ye of the Pope's comments, especially in regards to the "primacy of the Pope", Jesus establishing "only one church" and the "means of salvation"? I await your reply.
And in other breaking news, Coke announces that its product is better than Pepsi.
The above two statements look like scrambling for market share
The above two statements look like scrambling for market share
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+)
I know how much NewGuy loves the pope, so I post this for your consideration.
PuckSR --->
"I'll get you for that, you b@stard! Have him burned at the stake at once!"
PuckSR --->
"I'll get you for that, you b@stard! Have him burned at the stake at once!"
GeneSplicer: This picture actually appeared in the "amNew York" newspaper.
You know what they say, don't you?
"A picture is worth one thousand words."(originally, "One picture is worth ten thousand words.")
You know what they say, don't you?
"A picture is worth one thousand words."(originally, "One picture is worth ten thousand words.")
QUOTE
What think ye of the Pope's comments, especially in regards to the "primacy of the Pope", Jesus establishing "only one church" and the "means of salvation"? I await your reply.
Well, it is my understanding that "only one church" existed for 1500 years. I would say that the pope has sufficient historical evidence to back up his claim. I also see this as similar to what almost every denomination of every religion attempts to do.
I do not know of too many religions that teach "we are probably wrong, and those of opposing religious/political views have just as much chance of being right". That is just an issue of human nature my friend
"primacy of the pope"-Catholics think that the pope is in charge, Eastern Orthodox churches have their own version of the pope. That is more of a political statement than a religious one....
"means of salvation"-sorry couldn't find this anywhere in the article.
It might be helpful if you simply stated the tenets of the faith that you disagree with, since Catholics do have the advantage of writing their beliefs down.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jul 18 2007, 07:38 PM)
YES....I DID USE YOUR LOGIC....
Because you have no logic skills of your own, Being a mimic is not a use of 'Logic skills' it is simply being an Ape'r - Copy-cat - plagiarist.
Therefore this....
Awww...are you mad because I used your own argument against you?
The nice thing about logic is that it if the argument is valid....the argument is valid.
In other words, if you make an argument that is flawed, I can highlight your flawed argument by changing the argument
Get over...just because I am right doesn't mean you have to be angry
Therefore this....
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jul 18 2007, 07:38 PM)
Learn how to construct and evaluate logical arguments before you make an *** out of yourself again.
Applies directly to you...only...
P.S. Take your attack twit and .......Run
Careful though, (I) suspect your attack twit is about to Go 'kamikaze' on you, thoroughly infuriated they are....
P.S. Take your attack twit and .......Run
Careful though, (I) suspect your attack twit is about to Go 'kamikaze' on you, thoroughly infuriated they are....
That photo is awesome!
I can only imagine how offended some people must be! I feel sorry for them.
I can only imagine how offended some people must be! I feel sorry for them.
QUOTE
Because you have no logic skills of your own, Being a mimic is not a use of 'Logic skills' it is simply being an Ape'r - Copy-cat - plagiarist.
Awww...are you mad because I used your own argument against you?
The nice thing about logic is that it if the argument is valid....the argument is valid.
In other words, if you make an argument that is flawed, I can highlight your flawed argument by changing the argument
Get over...just because I am right doesn't mean you have to be angry
NewGuy,
The only thing the color picutre is missing is the “red eye” effect.
The only thing the color picutre is missing is the “red eye” effect.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jul 20 2007, 02:01 PM)
Awww...are you mad because I used your own argument against you?
Ha hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jul 20 2007, 02:01 PM)
The nice thing about logic is that it if the argument is valid....the argument is valid.
WoW what a brilliant insight! 
Did you figure that one out, a-l-l b-y y-o-u-r-s-e-l-f? or did your Weenespliker 'Attack Germ' figure it out for you?....then again, could he? (Nah!)
Did you figure that one out, a-l-l b-y y-o-u-r-s-e-l-f? or did your Weenespliker 'Attack Germ' figure it out for you?....then again, could he? (Nah!)
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jul 20 2007, 02:01 PM)
In other words, if you make an argument that is flawed, I can highlight your flawed argument by changing the argument
Uhmmm you might want to re-read what you have posted here as it is a rather (Exceedingly) flawed argument. Totally
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jul 20 2007, 02:01 PM)
Get over...just because I am right doesn't mean you have to be angry
Typical of your ilk, first you ask me if (I) 'am mad' then you assume and assert your question as somehow answered (Where??).....did you hear something? Voices? Are you hearing Voices? or still just making it up as you go along?
Funny too, as you already know the answer to this threads posit.
You're about as 'Right' as left.
or still just making it up as you go along?Funny too, as you already know the answer to this threads posit.
You're about as 'Right' as left.
QUOTE (El Machinae+)
That photo is awesome!
I can only imagine how offended some people must be! I feel sorry for them.
El Machinae: Why do you "feel sorry for them"? Because they were offended by the picture or because they're duped by the Pope? Please clarify. Thanks.
I can only imagine how offended some people must be! I feel sorry for them.
El Machinae: Why do you "feel sorry for them"? Because they were offended by the picture or because they're duped by the Pope? Please clarify. Thanks.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+)
NewGuy,
The only thing the color picutre is missing is the “red eye” effect.
GeneSplicer: What's the matter? That picture wasn't scary enough for you? Try this one on for size:
There are quite a few people on the web who have noticed the startling resemblance between Pope Benedict(Arnold) and Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars. Apparently, someone went so far as to substitute a picture of Emperor Palpatine in place of a photo of Pope Benedict(Arnold) on Wikipedia.
http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/002806.php
Wikipedia to tighten grip
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales says the wiki Web encyclopaedia written and edited by Internet users from all over the world plans to impose stricter editorial rules to prevent vandalism of its content.
Following the election of the new Pope Benedict in April, a user substituted the pontiff's photo on the Wikipedia site with that of the evil emperor from Star Wars, Reuters says. "The picture was only on the page for a minute. But whoever opens the article at this moment will get annoyed -- and therefore doubt our credibility," Wales told German daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung.
The pic of Palpatine may have been up only a minute, but the link to the version of the article with the picture intact was all over the blogs. It was pretty funny, but embarrassing to Wikipedia.
Anyhow...
Sorry I missed the "means of salvation" bit....I honestly looked for it...
I know what you are getting at, but I cannot really say much as to the authority of the pope. He holds a unique position in that he is the actual elected leader of the catholic church. There is some doctrine about infallibility and such....but I couldn't really comment.
The whole bit about the infallibility of the pope is seen as a miracle similar to "Sola Scriptura" infallibility. The lesson I took from it all is that most people need some form of absolute authority in their religion. Look at the authority that people(in the vein of Lockian political philosophy) that people bestow on their religious leaders.
I could obviously point out that I do not believe the pope to be divinely inspired, but it is important to note that I give no more credibility to the idea of "Sola Scriptura". Actually, when you consider that the modern bible was molded and shaped by what would today be considered "the vatican", I think that if anything I would have to take the authority of the pope over the authority of scripture.
Hope that response is a little bit more detailed, but basically I never saw the belief in the authority of the pope as significantly different than any other religion or denominations "Authority" figures. I also would argue that the leadership provided by catholic politics has at times provided a great deal of insight(in the realms of philosophy and theology), but that just like any political structure is very vulnerable to deceit and corruption. I honestly believe that Pope Benedict is an intelligent man, but his intentions seem to be far from mine. I could not defend his actions or words, merely his intellectual ability.
I feel sorry for the people who are of the mindset that their Catholicism is being persecuted and that this photo is another example of such persecution. In general, society is pretty mean to the idea of Catholicism and so people could start to see offense where none was intended. Like this photo.
I don't know if I'd say that too many people have been 'duped' by the current Pope. The vast number of Catholics became Catholics because of their families, and did so under the previous Pope. It's familial pressure to believe that's the main reason for the belief.
Ummm...did you just refer to the Pope as the anti-christ?????
Look, people are not "in general mean towards Catholics". Catholics catch a lot of flack, but they catch the flack because of the matter in which they are organized.
Take, for example, Methodists. If I disapproved of methodism...then who could I attack but a methodist?
Or, to go in a non-religious direction. If I disapprove of the current state of the economy and the taxes that I have to pay....who do I almost immediately turn on?
I become angry at the President. Now, the president has no direct control over taxes or the state of the economy(unless he recently nominated someone to an economic office)...but when the economy flounders the president's approval rating drops.
In other words, Catholics catch more flack because they actually have a target. Most of the complaints against the catholic church center around either the organizational structure or common practices.
i.e. The pope is the antichrist
Why do Catholics pray to saints?
Why do the have confession?
Why do they kneel during mass?
etc....
The only thing the color picutre is missing is the “red eye” effect.
GeneSplicer: What's the matter? That picture wasn't scary enough for you? Try this one on for size:
There are quite a few people on the web who have noticed the startling resemblance between Pope Benedict(Arnold) and Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars. Apparently, someone went so far as to substitute a picture of Emperor Palpatine in place of a photo of Pope Benedict(Arnold) on Wikipedia.
http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/002806.php
Wikipedia to tighten grip
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales says the wiki Web encyclopaedia written and edited by Internet users from all over the world plans to impose stricter editorial rules to prevent vandalism of its content.
Following the election of the new Pope Benedict in April, a user substituted the pontiff's photo on the Wikipedia site with that of the evil emperor from Star Wars, Reuters says. "The picture was only on the page for a minute. But whoever opens the article at this moment will get annoyed -- and therefore doubt our credibility," Wales told German daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung.
The pic of Palpatine may have been up only a minute, but the link to the version of the article with the picture intact was all over the blogs. It was pretty funny, but embarrassing to Wikipedia.
Anyhow...
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
"means of salvation"-sorry couldn't find this anywhere in the article.
PuckSR: I was a little disappointed with your answers, especially in regards to the "primacy of the Pope". As a former(?) Roman Catholic, you ought to be more familiar with the Roman Catholic beliefs surrounding the Pope, especially since you mentioned once before that you considered becoming a Catholic priest at one point in your life. Don't let me do all the work for you... I'll give you some more time to respond more fully and if you don't REALLY open the subject up, then I will.
QUOTE
It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, “Dominus Iesus,” which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the “means of salvation.”
PuckSR: I was a little disappointed with your answers, especially in regards to the "primacy of the Pope". As a former(?) Roman Catholic, you ought to be more familiar with the Roman Catholic beliefs surrounding the Pope, especially since you mentioned once before that you considered becoming a Catholic priest at one point in your life. Don't let me do all the work for you... I'll give you some more time to respond more fully and if you don't REALLY open the subject up, then I will.
QUOTE
I was a little disappointed with your answers, especially in regards to the "primacy of the Pope". As a former(?) Roman Catholic, you ought to be more familiar with the Roman Catholic beliefs surrounding the Pope, especially since you mentioned once before that you considered becoming a Catholic priest at one point in your life. Don't let me do all the work for you... I'll give you some more time to respond more fully and if you don't REALLY open the subject up, then I will.
Sorry I missed the "means of salvation" bit....I honestly looked for it...
I know what you are getting at, but I cannot really say much as to the authority of the pope. He holds a unique position in that he is the actual elected leader of the catholic church. There is some doctrine about infallibility and such....but I couldn't really comment.
The whole bit about the infallibility of the pope is seen as a miracle similar to "Sola Scriptura" infallibility. The lesson I took from it all is that most people need some form of absolute authority in their religion. Look at the authority that people(in the vein of Lockian political philosophy) that people bestow on their religious leaders.
I could obviously point out that I do not believe the pope to be divinely inspired, but it is important to note that I give no more credibility to the idea of "Sola Scriptura". Actually, when you consider that the modern bible was molded and shaped by what would today be considered "the vatican", I think that if anything I would have to take the authority of the pope over the authority of scripture.
Hope that response is a little bit more detailed, but basically I never saw the belief in the authority of the pope as significantly different than any other religion or denominations "Authority" figures. I also would argue that the leadership provided by catholic politics has at times provided a great deal of insight(in the realms of philosophy and theology), but that just like any political structure is very vulnerable to deceit and corruption. I honestly believe that Pope Benedict is an intelligent man, but his intentions seem to be far from mine. I could not defend his actions or words, merely his intellectual ability.
[removed]
QUOTE
El Machinae: Why do you "feel sorry for them"? Because they were offended by the picture or because they're duped by the Pope? Please clarify. Thanks.
I feel sorry for the people who are of the mindset that their Catholicism is being persecuted and that this photo is another example of such persecution. In general, society is pretty mean to the idea of Catholicism and so people could start to see offense where none was intended. Like this photo.
I don't know if I'd say that too many people have been 'duped' by the current Pope. The vast number of Catholics became Catholics because of their families, and did so under the previous Pope. It's familial pressure to believe that's the main reason for the belief.
QUOTE (El Machinae+)
In general, society is pretty mean to the idea of Catholicism and so people could start to see offense where none was intended.
El Machinae: "In general"? From a religious standpoint, Roman Catholicism, from all accounts that I've seen, has in excess of 1 billion adherants worldwide. Additionally, due to their vast ecumenical moves/strategies, they have been forming alliances with many other religions over the years. I briefly documented some of this quite some time ago...perhaps I'll offer more substantial proof when I have more time available to me. From a political standpoint, I trust you're already aware of the clout that the Vatican holds with world leaders. With this in mind, how you can believe that "In general, society is pretty mean to the idea of Catholicism" is somewhat of a mystery to me. As the prophesied antichrist power of scripture, the Papacy/Vatican will not rest content until a future Pope sits in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem...a seat foreordained for Jesus Christ at His return. Time will prove this to be the case. In the meantime, I thank you for clarifying your comments.
Take care.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/08...eral/index.html
Pope John Paul II buried in Vatican crypt
Millions around the world watch funeral
Saturday, April 9, 2005 Posted: 6:32 AM EDT (1032 GMT)
VATICAN CITY (CNN) -- Pope John Paul II was buried Friday in a crypt under St. Peter's Basilica after a funeral Mass that millions of people around the world watched.
Guests attending the elaborate open-air service in St. Peter's Square cheered and applauded, many chanting "Santo, Santo" -- a call for John Paul to be canonized. Some pilgrims who came from the pope's homeland waved Polish flags.
"Today, we bury his remains in the earth as a seed of immortality -- our hearts are full of sadness, yet at the same time of joyful hope and profound gratitude," Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said in the homily during the Mass.
Tens of thousands of people, including hundreds of world leaders, paid a final tribute to the leader of the world's 1 billion Roman Catholics, while others watched the ceremony on giant TV screens.
In Poland, 800,000 people gathered in a vast field in Krakow to watch the funeral, many having spent the previous night attending Mass and gathering around bonfires.
As the Vatican ceremony began, a single bell tolled while distinguished guests took their seats outside the cathedral church -- the same place where, in 1978, Karol Wojtyla first emerged as John Paul II.
Applause erupted as John Paul's coffin -- topped with a cross and an "M" for Mary -- was brought out into the windy square from St. Peter's Basilica.
Before the public Mass began at 10 a.m. (4 a.m. ET), the pope's body was placed in a cypress coffin during a private ceremony.
In a ritual new to the procedure, a white silk veil was placed over his face and a special prayer said.
By tradition, various medals, imprinted with the dates of the pontificate, were placed in the coffin, along with a parchment, sealed in a lead tube, summarizing the pope's life.
Twelve pallbearers carried the casket out of the church and into the square.
The book of the Gospel was placed on the coffin, and a breeze blew its pages as the Vatican's Sistine Choir sang the Gregorian chant "Grant Him Eternal Rest, O Lord."
There followed a procession of 160 cardinals, dressed in bright red vestments.
The German-born Ratzinger, dean of the College of Cardinals and a possible successor to the pope, read the homily tracing the pontiff's life from his days as a factory worker in Nazi-occupied Poland to his last days as the head of the church.
Ratzinger said John Paul was a "priest to the last" and said he had offered his life for God and his flock "especially amid the sufferings of his final months."
"We can be sure that our beloved pope is standing today at the window of the Father's house, that he sees us and blesses us," Ratzinger added, pointing to the window where John Paul made his final public appearance.
Up to 2 million people gathered in Rome to mourn the pope, who died Saturday at 84.
At least 300,000 people filled St. Peter's Square and spilled out onto the wide Via della Conciliazione leading toward the Tiber River, as several hundred thousand others watched on giant video screens set up across the Italian capital.
"It is our last chance to say goodbye," a Polish woman said, explaining why she made the journey.
Four kings, five queens, at least 70 presidents and prime ministers and more than 14 leaders of other religions were attending alongside the faithful.
President Bush, the first sitting U.S. president to attend a papal funeral, headed the delegation from the United States. Britain's Prince Charles postponed his wedding for a day to attend.
Accompanying Bush were his father, former President George H.W. Bush, and former President Clinton.
The crowds of mourners presented security challenges for Italian authorities.
Metal detectors were installed in St. Peter's Square, and security forces were increased to 15,000, including 1,500 military forces, an official said.
Two Italian F-16 fighter jets intercepted a suspicious plane heading to Rome's Ciampino airport Friday, hours after the funeral, The Associated Press quoted Italian news agencies as saying.
The ANSA agency said the Lear Jet 131 was searched after landing and no bomb was found. An initial report from the news agency quoted intelligence sources as saying it was feared a bomb might be on board the plane, according to AP.
City officials predicted that 5 million pilgrims will have visited the Vatican this week.
"We've never seen a funeral like this, with the millions of people that are coming to Rome ... to be here to celebrate the life of John Paul II," said the Rev. Thomas Reese, editor of the Catholic magazine America.
The Vatican on Thursday published John Paul II's 15-page spiritual testament in which a reflective pontiff considered having his funeral in Poland.
The College of Cardinals has met daily to plan the funeral and a conclave that will choose the pope's successor.
After nine days of mourning that follow the funeral, the conclave is set to begin April 18, and 117 cardinals -- all younger than 80 -- are eligible to attend.
El Machinae: "In general"? From a religious standpoint, Roman Catholicism, from all accounts that I've seen, has in excess of 1 billion adherants worldwide. Additionally, due to their vast ecumenical moves/strategies, they have been forming alliances with many other religions over the years. I briefly documented some of this quite some time ago...perhaps I'll offer more substantial proof when I have more time available to me. From a political standpoint, I trust you're already aware of the clout that the Vatican holds with world leaders. With this in mind, how you can believe that "In general, society is pretty mean to the idea of Catholicism" is somewhat of a mystery to me. As the prophesied antichrist power of scripture, the Papacy/Vatican will not rest content until a future Pope sits in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem...a seat foreordained for Jesus Christ at His return. Time will prove this to be the case. In the meantime, I thank you for clarifying your comments.
Take care.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/08...eral/index.html
Pope John Paul II buried in Vatican crypt
Millions around the world watch funeral
Saturday, April 9, 2005 Posted: 6:32 AM EDT (1032 GMT)
VATICAN CITY (CNN) -- Pope John Paul II was buried Friday in a crypt under St. Peter's Basilica after a funeral Mass that millions of people around the world watched.
Guests attending the elaborate open-air service in St. Peter's Square cheered and applauded, many chanting "Santo, Santo" -- a call for John Paul to be canonized. Some pilgrims who came from the pope's homeland waved Polish flags.
"Today, we bury his remains in the earth as a seed of immortality -- our hearts are full of sadness, yet at the same time of joyful hope and profound gratitude," Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said in the homily during the Mass.
Tens of thousands of people, including hundreds of world leaders, paid a final tribute to the leader of the world's 1 billion Roman Catholics, while others watched the ceremony on giant TV screens.
In Poland, 800,000 people gathered in a vast field in Krakow to watch the funeral, many having spent the previous night attending Mass and gathering around bonfires.
As the Vatican ceremony began, a single bell tolled while distinguished guests took their seats outside the cathedral church -- the same place where, in 1978, Karol Wojtyla first emerged as John Paul II.
Applause erupted as John Paul's coffin -- topped with a cross and an "M" for Mary -- was brought out into the windy square from St. Peter's Basilica.
Before the public Mass began at 10 a.m. (4 a.m. ET), the pope's body was placed in a cypress coffin during a private ceremony.
In a ritual new to the procedure, a white silk veil was placed over his face and a special prayer said.
By tradition, various medals, imprinted with the dates of the pontificate, were placed in the coffin, along with a parchment, sealed in a lead tube, summarizing the pope's life.
Twelve pallbearers carried the casket out of the church and into the square.
The book of the Gospel was placed on the coffin, and a breeze blew its pages as the Vatican's Sistine Choir sang the Gregorian chant "Grant Him Eternal Rest, O Lord."
There followed a procession of 160 cardinals, dressed in bright red vestments.
The German-born Ratzinger, dean of the College of Cardinals and a possible successor to the pope, read the homily tracing the pontiff's life from his days as a factory worker in Nazi-occupied Poland to his last days as the head of the church.
Ratzinger said John Paul was a "priest to the last" and said he had offered his life for God and his flock "especially amid the sufferings of his final months."
"We can be sure that our beloved pope is standing today at the window of the Father's house, that he sees us and blesses us," Ratzinger added, pointing to the window where John Paul made his final public appearance.
Up to 2 million people gathered in Rome to mourn the pope, who died Saturday at 84.
At least 300,000 people filled St. Peter's Square and spilled out onto the wide Via della Conciliazione leading toward the Tiber River, as several hundred thousand others watched on giant video screens set up across the Italian capital.
"It is our last chance to say goodbye," a Polish woman said, explaining why she made the journey.
Four kings, five queens, at least 70 presidents and prime ministers and more than 14 leaders of other religions were attending alongside the faithful.
President Bush, the first sitting U.S. president to attend a papal funeral, headed the delegation from the United States. Britain's Prince Charles postponed his wedding for a day to attend.
Accompanying Bush were his father, former President George H.W. Bush, and former President Clinton.
The crowds of mourners presented security challenges for Italian authorities.
Metal detectors were installed in St. Peter's Square, and security forces were increased to 15,000, including 1,500 military forces, an official said.
Two Italian F-16 fighter jets intercepted a suspicious plane heading to Rome's Ciampino airport Friday, hours after the funeral, The Associated Press quoted Italian news agencies as saying.
The ANSA agency said the Lear Jet 131 was searched after landing and no bomb was found. An initial report from the news agency quoted intelligence sources as saying it was feared a bomb might be on board the plane, according to AP.
City officials predicted that 5 million pilgrims will have visited the Vatican this week.
"We've never seen a funeral like this, with the millions of people that are coming to Rome ... to be here to celebrate the life of John Paul II," said the Rev. Thomas Reese, editor of the Catholic magazine America.
The Vatican on Thursday published John Paul II's 15-page spiritual testament in which a reflective pontiff considered having his funeral in Poland.
The College of Cardinals has met daily to plan the funeral and a conclave that will choose the pope's successor.
After nine days of mourning that follow the funeral, the conclave is set to begin April 18, and 117 cardinals -- all younger than 80 -- are eligible to attend.
QUOTE
As the prophesied antichrist power of scripture, the Papacy/Vatican will not rest content until a future Pope sits in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem...a seat foreordained for Jesus Christ at His return. Time will prove this to be the case.
Ummm...did you just refer to the Pope as the anti-christ?????
Look, people are not "in general mean towards Catholics". Catholics catch a lot of flack, but they catch the flack because of the matter in which they are organized.
Take, for example, Methodists. If I disapproved of methodism...then who could I attack but a methodist?
Or, to go in a non-religious direction. If I disapprove of the current state of the economy and the taxes that I have to pay....who do I almost immediately turn on?
I become angry at the President. Now, the president has no direct control over taxes or the state of the economy(unless he recently nominated someone to an economic office)...but when the economy flounders the president's approval rating drops.
In other words, Catholics catch more flack because they actually have a target. Most of the complaints against the catholic church center around either the organizational structure or common practices.
i.e. The pope is the antichrist
Why do Catholics pray to saints?
Why do the have confession?
Why do they kneel during mass?
etc....
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Ummm...did you just refer to the Pope as the anti-christ?????
PuckSR: Hi, my name's newguy. Nice to meet you. Seriously, where have you been? I've made such references CONTINUALLY for about the last two years. Have you honestly missed them all?
PuckSR: Hi, my name's newguy. Nice to meet you. Seriously, where have you been? I've made such references CONTINUALLY for about the last two years. Have you honestly missed them all?
I must have missed them, or ignored them as comedic.....
Honestly, I thought people quit "identifying" the anti-christ at about the same time that we quit having witch hunts......
But I do remember you being one of those "literal reading of revelations" guys....how is that working out? Doomsday any day now?
Honestly, I thought people quit "identifying" the anti-christ at about the same time that we quit having witch hunts......
But I do remember you being one of those "literal reading of revelations" guys....how is that working out? Doomsday any day now?
Referring to the Pope as the “anti-Christ” does seem gratuitous.
Think about it Pope=all of Catholicism
George Bush = All of america, or even all the west...
etc....
You don't hear death to America, death to Jeff in Iowa.....
George Bush = All of america, or even all the west...
etc....
You don't hear death to America, death to Jeff in Iowa.....
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
You don't hear death to America...
PuckSR: You're joking, right? There are people chanting "Death to America!" all over the place. Would you like me to cite you some examples? Perhaps you didn't word your statement correctly?
PuckSR: You're joking, right? There are people chanting "Death to America!" all over the place. Would you like me to cite you some examples? Perhaps you didn't word your statement correctly?
QUOTE (newguy+Jul 22 2007, 01:20 PM)
There are people chanting "Death to America!" all over the place.
Do you a solution? In your opinion, which administration in the last thirty years did the best job relative to the Middle East?
Do you a solution? In your opinion, which administration in the last thirty years did the best job relative to the Middle East?
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
Do you a solution? In your opinion, which administration in the last thirty years did the best job relative to the Middle East?
Derek: You ought to be aware by now that I am of the mindset(and a rational mindset, at that) that there are deep "religious" undertows to the violence in the Middle East. Since "religion" is such a major part of the problem(and it is), "religion" ought to be considered as a major part of the solution as well. So you don't misunderstand what I'm saying, let me give you an example from what just transpired in Washington, D.C. over the last few days:
http://noworldsystem.com/2007/07/20/christ...-attack-iran-2/
Christians United for Israel call on US to attack Iran immediately
Yitzhak Benhorin
Y Net News
July 19, 2007
WASHINGTON - Thousands of members of Christians United for Israel headed to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to lobby Congress on behalf of the Jewish state.
The group’s founder, the Reverend John Hagee, declared, “We support Israel because we are Bible-believing Christians,” and said the world needs to see that “the sleeping giant of Christian Zionism has awakened.”
Hagee said that the entire Christian world kept quiet during World War II and allowed the genocide of the Jewish people. “This time we will not be silent,” Hagee said.
At “A Night to Honor Israel” banquet, Hagee called on President Bush to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He also called for American divestment from Iran, which he compared to Nazi Germany as a threat to the Jewish people.
Hagee said Mideast tensions shouldn’t be blamed on Israel, but on Islamic radicals and moderate Muslims who won’t condemn them.
Hagee continued to warn against Iranian President Ahmadinejad, calling him the new Hitler, saying the Iranian president will use a nuclear bomb to destroy Israel the first chance he gets.
Ahmandinejad must be stopped, Hagee said, calling on the United State to attack Iran immediately.
‘We must end the madness’
Former speaker of the US House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, who is considering running for the Republican Party’s presidential candidate, said at the event that if US President George W. Bush really wanted to get a message across to Hamas, he should move the US Embassy to Jerusalem “tomorrow morning”.
Gingrich charged that instead of fighting to win, President Bush is now pursuing appeasement through a proposed Mideast peace conference.
Comparing that to the attempted appeasement of Nazi Germany at Munich before World War II, Gingrich said, “We don’t have a peace process. We have a surrender process.”
Gingrich said the United States and western civilization are in a global conflict with radical Islam, and must choose between victory and surrender.
Gary Bauer, who ran for the Republican Party nomination for President of the United States in 2000, also spoke at the rally, saying, “You are Ahmadinejad, Hamas, and Hizbullah’s worst nightmare, because you support Israel. They are telling you to give back land. We are telling you, don’t give back one inch.”
Israeli Ambassador to the US Salai Meridor, told the protesters, “We must end this nightmare. We must end the madness. We must make it clear to the Iranians that all options are on the table and that there is no way they will be allowed to hold nuclear weapons.”
First of all, a lot of what transpires in the Middle East is "fueled" from other regions of the world, INCLUDING THE GOOD OLD USA. As I've noted on the "Atheism Ranting" thread in the past, John Hagee, and others like him, have quite a large number of supposed Christians(their hearts are a BILLION MILES from Christ's...almost as far away as your heart is, in other words) who are affecting policy making decisions regarding the Middle East. Because of their faulty Biblical view that the "land" of Israel was somehow "promised" to the Jews that presently occupy it by God, they are rallying politicians to keep Israel from "giving back one inch" of the land in the Middle East and also calling on the United States to have a preemptive military strike against Iran. How "Christian" of them. Knowing you to have a warped view of Christianity yourself, I wholeheartedly expect that you would gladly sign up with them at the drop of a hat. I, on the other hand, will continue to educate as many people as I can to what the scriptures actually say in regards to "the promised land" so that a land for peace deal can possibly be considered. In other words, I will do my best to shoot a tranquilizer dart about the size of the Empire State Building into the @ss of this "awakening giant of Christian Zionism." There are many other aspects of "religion", IF PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD AND OBEYED, that would be conducive to peace in the Middle East and elsewhere, for that matter. However, since there are so many HYPOCRITES(like you, for example) in this world, any ideas of lasting peace prior to Christ's return are only a pipe dream, I'm afraid. Although I don't believe that a total solution is obtainable(due to the aforementioned "religious" undertows and HYPOCRITES), I do wholeheartedly believe that some people can be INDOCTRINATED IN A POSITIVE WAY. You know...love your neighbour as yourself...turn the other cheek...overcome evil with good...etc., etc...all the things that you apparently despise, based upon previous conversations with you. Since people are "religiously" indoctrinated to blow each other up and to defend their supposed "promised land", why can't they be "religiously" indoctrinated to love each other? My Jesus said to preach the gospel to every nation. Your "Jesus" apparently said to kill or be killed. I'll stick with my Jesus, thanks. Does that begin to answer your question? I'll hold off on your "administration" related question for now, except to say this:
Since it will take someone(s) who can rightly comprehend and explain the scriptures (that are misused by many to justify killing) to STOP the senseless killing in the Middle East and elsewhere, the last place I'd be looking for help is to HYPOCRITICAL POLITICIANS like President Bush or his predecessors.
There. Satisfied? No? Well, then try not to pull a hamstring as you race against T-cell to hit the button to wipe Mecca off of the map, okay?
Derek: You ought to be aware by now that I am of the mindset(and a rational mindset, at that) that there are deep "religious" undertows to the violence in the Middle East. Since "religion" is such a major part of the problem(and it is), "religion" ought to be considered as a major part of the solution as well. So you don't misunderstand what I'm saying, let me give you an example from what just transpired in Washington, D.C. over the last few days:
http://noworldsystem.com/2007/07/20/christ...-attack-iran-2/
Christians United for Israel call on US to attack Iran immediately
Yitzhak Benhorin
Y Net News
July 19, 2007
WASHINGTON - Thousands of members of Christians United for Israel headed to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to lobby Congress on behalf of the Jewish state.
The group’s founder, the Reverend John Hagee, declared, “We support Israel because we are Bible-believing Christians,” and said the world needs to see that “the sleeping giant of Christian Zionism has awakened.”
Hagee said that the entire Christian world kept quiet during World War II and allowed the genocide of the Jewish people. “This time we will not be silent,” Hagee said.
At “A Night to Honor Israel” banquet, Hagee called on President Bush to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He also called for American divestment from Iran, which he compared to Nazi Germany as a threat to the Jewish people.
Hagee said Mideast tensions shouldn’t be blamed on Israel, but on Islamic radicals and moderate Muslims who won’t condemn them.
Hagee continued to warn against Iranian President Ahmadinejad, calling him the new Hitler, saying the Iranian president will use a nuclear bomb to destroy Israel the first chance he gets.
Ahmandinejad must be stopped, Hagee said, calling on the United State to attack Iran immediately.
‘We must end the madness’
Former speaker of the US House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, who is considering running for the Republican Party’s presidential candidate, said at the event that if US President George W. Bush really wanted to get a message across to Hamas, he should move the US Embassy to Jerusalem “tomorrow morning”.
Gingrich charged that instead of fighting to win, President Bush is now pursuing appeasement through a proposed Mideast peace conference.
Comparing that to the attempted appeasement of Nazi Germany at Munich before World War II, Gingrich said, “We don’t have a peace process. We have a surrender process.”
Gingrich said the United States and western civilization are in a global conflict with radical Islam, and must choose between victory and surrender.
Gary Bauer, who ran for the Republican Party nomination for President of the United States in 2000, also spoke at the rally, saying, “You are Ahmadinejad, Hamas, and Hizbullah’s worst nightmare, because you support Israel. They are telling you to give back land. We are telling you, don’t give back one inch.”
Israeli Ambassador to the US Salai Meridor, told the protesters, “We must end this nightmare. We must end the madness. We must make it clear to the Iranians that all options are on the table and that there is no way they will be allowed to hold nuclear weapons.”
First of all, a lot of what transpires in the Middle East is "fueled" from other regions of the world, INCLUDING THE GOOD OLD USA. As I've noted on the "Atheism Ranting" thread in the past, John Hagee, and others like him, have quite a large number of supposed Christians(their hearts are a BILLION MILES from Christ's...almost as far away as your heart is, in other words) who are affecting policy making decisions regarding the Middle East. Because of their faulty Biblical view that the "land" of Israel was somehow "promised" to the Jews that presently occupy it by God, they are rallying politicians to keep Israel from "giving back one inch" of the land in the Middle East and also calling on the United States to have a preemptive military strike against Iran. How "Christian" of them. Knowing you to have a warped view of Christianity yourself, I wholeheartedly expect that you would gladly sign up with them at the drop of a hat. I, on the other hand, will continue to educate as many people as I can to what the scriptures actually say in regards to "the promised land" so that a land for peace deal can possibly be considered. In other words, I will do my best to shoot a tranquilizer dart about the size of the Empire State Building into the @ss of this "awakening giant of Christian Zionism." There are many other aspects of "religion", IF PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD AND OBEYED, that would be conducive to peace in the Middle East and elsewhere, for that matter. However, since there are so many HYPOCRITES(like you, for example) in this world, any ideas of lasting peace prior to Christ's return are only a pipe dream, I'm afraid. Although I don't believe that a total solution is obtainable(due to the aforementioned "religious" undertows and HYPOCRITES), I do wholeheartedly believe that some people can be INDOCTRINATED IN A POSITIVE WAY. You know...love your neighbour as yourself...turn the other cheek...overcome evil with good...etc., etc...all the things that you apparently despise, based upon previous conversations with you. Since people are "religiously" indoctrinated to blow each other up and to defend their supposed "promised land", why can't they be "religiously" indoctrinated to love each other? My Jesus said to preach the gospel to every nation. Your "Jesus" apparently said to kill or be killed. I'll stick with my Jesus, thanks. Does that begin to answer your question? I'll hold off on your "administration" related question for now, except to say this:
Since it will take someone(s) who can rightly comprehend and explain the scriptures (that are misused by many to justify killing) to STOP the senseless killing in the Middle East and elsewhere, the last place I'd be looking for help is to HYPOCRITICAL POLITICIANS like President Bush or his predecessors.
There. Satisfied? No? Well, then try not to pull a hamstring as you race against T-cell to hit the button to wipe Mecca off of the map, okay?
QUOTE (newguy+)
Knowing you to have a warped view of Christianity yourself, I wholeheartedly expect that you would gladly sign up with them at the drop of a hat. However, since there are so many HYPOCRITES(like you, for example) in this world, any ideas of lasting peace prior to Christ's return are only a pipe dream, I'm afraid. My Jesus said to preach the gospel to every nation. Your "Jesus" apparently said to kill or be killed. I'll stick with my Jesus, thanks. Does that begin to answer your question?
You certainly have demonstrated your ability to debate without the use of insult. Your style is very diplomatic and conducive to open discussion.
I have spoken to Christ on many occasions and He has not advised me that He is opposed to the war (or my singing “Onward, Christian Soldiers”).
As I have asked you before: if war is so evil and innocents are suffering, why doesn’t your god end the war?
You certainly have demonstrated your ability to debate without the use of insult. Your style is very diplomatic and conducive to open discussion.
I have spoken to Christ on many occasions and He has not advised me that He is opposed to the war (or my singing “Onward, Christian Soldiers”).
As I have asked you before: if war is so evil and innocents are suffering, why doesn’t your god end the war?
“Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable”. (John Kenneth Galbraith)
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
I have spoken to Christ on many occasions and He has not advised me that He is opposed to the war (or my singing “Onward, Christian Soldiers”).
I would like to know what you mean exactly by "spoken to Christ". How exactly did you speak to Christ?
Also I am wondering if the Christ you are speaking to is the same Christ that newguy "speaks" to, How do both of you get different answers?
I ask this out of curiosity and I don't intend to disturb your dialog with newguy. Please do continue.
I would like to know what you mean exactly by "spoken to Christ". How exactly did you speak to Christ?
Also I am wondering if the Christ you are speaking to is the same Christ that newguy "speaks" to, How do both of you get different answers?
I ask this out of curiosity and I don't intend to disturb your dialog with newguy. Please do continue.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
You certainly have demonstrated your ability to debate without the use of insult. Your style is very diplomatic and conducive to open discussion.
Derek1148: Yes, I have demonstrated my ability to debate without the use of insult, haven't I? Does truth "insult" you? If so, then that's your problem, not mine.
Derek1148: Yes, I have demonstrated my ability to debate without the use of insult, haven't I? Does truth "insult" you? If so, then that's your problem, not mine.
QUOTE (newguy+)
Knowing you to have a warped view of Christianity yourself...
Did this "insult" you? Would you like me to post some of your comments from other threads and compare them to what the scriptures teach? If so, your "warped view of Christianity" will be plain for all to see. No "insult" there.
Did this "insult" you? Would you like me to post some of your comments from other threads and compare them to what the scriptures teach? If so, your "warped view of Christianity" will be plain for all to see. No "insult" there.
QUOTE (newguy+)
I wholeheartedly expect that you would gladly sign up with them at the drop of a hat. However, since there are so many HYPOCRITES(like you, for example) in this world, any ideas of lasting peace prior to Christ's return are only a pipe dream, I'm afraid. My Jesus said to preach the gospel to every nation. Your "Jesus" apparently said to kill or be killed.
Once again, if you'd like, I'll gladly post some "quotes" OF YOURS from other threads that will plainly show that there was nothing "insulting" in my statement. Here's a little sample of your bloodlust:
Once again, if you'd like, I'll gladly post some "quotes" OF YOURS from other threads that will plainly show that there was nothing "insulting" in my statement. Here's a little sample of your bloodlust:
QUOTE (Derek1148+ "Whitherward USA?")
I don’t know about that. I was praying for a war.
What else? Oh yeah:
What else? Oh yeah:
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
I have spoken to Christ on many occasions and He has not advised me that He is opposed to the war (or my singing “Onward, Christian Soldiers”).
For those who aren't familiar with our brief "Onward, Christian Soldiers" dialogue:
For those who aren't familiar with our brief "Onward, Christian Soldiers" dialogue:
QUOTE (newguy+ "Whitherward USA?")
If you honestly believe that Jesus Christ wants people to sing "Onward Christian Soldiers" while conducting military drills, then your heart is a BILLION MILES from His.
QUOTE (Derek1148+ "Whitherward USA?")
I believe “Onward Christian Soldiers” is an inspirational song. In the days when I sang it, I spoke to Christ frequently. He never responded that He objected to the song.
In your response now, as in your response then, you conveniently omitted the fact that your were singing it WHILE CONDUCTING MILITARY DRILLS. Christ's "weapons" are spiritual...NOT natural. Would you like me to explain this to you? If so, it shall be my pleasure.
In your response now, as in your response then, you conveniently omitted the fact that your were singing it WHILE CONDUCTING MILITARY DRILLS. Christ's "weapons" are spiritual...NOT natural. Would you like me to explain this to you? If so, it shall be my pleasure.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
As I have asked you before: if war is so evil and innocents are suffering, why doesn’t your god end the war?
War will not cease until the return of Christ.
"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."(Isaiah 2:2-4, also see Micah 4:1-3)
There. If you truly want to "learn of his ways", then "beat your sword into a plowshare and your spear into a pruninghook." Not very appealing to a bloodthirsty murderer like you, is it? No, I didn't think so. So, before you go about TEACHING WAR some more, would you like to comment on what I said in my previous post about "religious" undertows and HYPOCRITES? After all, it was a response to a question that you asked me. Thanks.
War will not cease until the return of Christ.
"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."(Isaiah 2:2-4, also see Micah 4:1-3)
There. If you truly want to "learn of his ways", then "beat your sword into a plowshare and your spear into a pruninghook." Not very appealing to a bloodthirsty murderer like you, is it? No, I didn't think so. So, before you go about TEACHING WAR some more, would you like to comment on what I said in my previous post about "religious" undertows and HYPOCRITES? After all, it was a response to a question that you asked me. Thanks.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
“Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable”. (John Kenneth Galbraith)
"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
(Matthew 26:52)
Or, if you don't mind a paraphrase(this might be the exact words):
"Blood begets blood as dog begets dog." (Charlton Heston's girlfriend, Esther, in Ben Hur)
"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
(Matthew 26:52)
Or, if you don't mind a paraphrase(this might be the exact words):
"Blood begets blood as dog begets dog." (Charlton Heston's girlfriend, Esther, in Ben Hur)
I would like to continue our discussion. Unfortunately, I have an obligation right at this moment (there is group I am preaching the virtues of war to). I’ll return and pick up the debate later.
QUOTE (newguy+)
War will not cease until the return of Christ.
So I can enjoy war until the return of Christ.
Do you have an approximate ETA on Him?
So I can enjoy war until the return of Christ.
Do you have an approximate ETA on Him?
Not to sound snooty or anything, but isn't the topic miracles...
If it is I can't see how this debate that is going on is even closely related to miracles though maybe I missed some insightful part of this posting that everyone else has been able to comprehend. Miracles are things we can see and have no explanation for scietifically so how does debating the war in Iraq even come close to covering these said miracles. Now if you look to the statement where smeone said they were speaking with Christ so I have to say maybe the talking to people long dead and doing this in any fashion would present that a miracle has taken place.
If so what do you speak with Christ about and how often and what exactly does he have to say. Being one to believe in miracles, because I did challenge God to show me and maybe regret it today... I do definatly agree that miracles are possible though I am confused by how this thread is even touching on miracles... I make it a point to pray everyday for our soldiers and do so with hopes it may save some lives though at the same time I pray for everyone to have fewer losses. I also strongly believe that speaking to others with just a mere thought is something that is highly classified though it works positivly. I'd like to hear a real debate on miracles rather than more war retoric...
Who else do you converse with other than God or Christ and does it have any effect... I mean telekinesis uses the Alpha section of your brain waves according to Intelligence professionals who have told me that's the only part of it that could be shared with me. I have to ask real questions relating to what we would percieve as miracles since I have found that there is a real answer for most questions scientifically if you ask the proper people. That is something that should be an interesting side to this debate. However, I do not see how the Iraq war has anything to do with Miracles as what miracles has it shown. That the Palestinian people are more in tune with this. They study these things more and are more well versed in this field of study maybe... Maybe someone has directed you in a confusing manner to keep your eyes on this ridiculous war rather than miracles in a Miracle thread as so far I am not seeing miracles happen in the Middle East other than those leaders I feel a good strong connection with and make it a part of my life to converse with them, though never during one of these stupid tests they keep giving me trying to figure out my potentials as an Epileptic which has been hidden from me my whole life since I was 5 yrs. old by our wonderful Govt. A miracle to me would be well a lot differant than war...
Not sure how this is important or even relevant as we have lost the war in the Middle east as Iran and Syria have made an agreement for Iran to share any weapons with Syria as long as they do not make any agreement with Isreal over Lebanon and continue to keep their strong grasp on the nation.
So where is the miracle dis-cussion...
If it is I can't see how this debate that is going on is even closely related to miracles though maybe I missed some insightful part of this posting that everyone else has been able to comprehend. Miracles are things we can see and have no explanation for scietifically so how does debating the war in Iraq even come close to covering these said miracles. Now if you look to the statement where smeone said they were speaking with Christ so I have to say maybe the talking to people long dead and doing this in any fashion would present that a miracle has taken place.
If so what do you speak with Christ about and how often and what exactly does he have to say. Being one to believe in miracles, because I did challenge God to show me and maybe regret it today... I do definatly agree that miracles are possible though I am confused by how this thread is even touching on miracles... I make it a point to pray everyday for our soldiers and do so with hopes it may save some lives though at the same time I pray for everyone to have fewer losses. I also strongly believe that speaking to others with just a mere thought is something that is highly classified though it works positivly. I'd like to hear a real debate on miracles rather than more war retoric...
Who else do you converse with other than God or Christ and does it have any effect... I mean telekinesis uses the Alpha section of your brain waves according to Intelligence professionals who have told me that's the only part of it that could be shared with me. I have to ask real questions relating to what we would percieve as miracles since I have found that there is a real answer for most questions scientifically if you ask the proper people. That is something that should be an interesting side to this debate. However, I do not see how the Iraq war has anything to do with Miracles as what miracles has it shown. That the Palestinian people are more in tune with this. They study these things more and are more well versed in this field of study maybe... Maybe someone has directed you in a confusing manner to keep your eyes on this ridiculous war rather than miracles in a Miracle thread as so far I am not seeing miracles happen in the Middle East other than those leaders I feel a good strong connection with and make it a part of my life to converse with them, though never during one of these stupid tests they keep giving me trying to figure out my potentials as an Epileptic which has been hidden from me my whole life since I was 5 yrs. old by our wonderful Govt. A miracle to me would be well a lot differant than war...
Not sure how this is important or even relevant as we have lost the war in the Middle east as Iran and Syria have made an agreement for Iran to share any weapons with Syria as long as they do not make any agreement with Isreal over Lebanon and continue to keep their strong grasp on the nation.
So where is the miracle dis-cussion...
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Jun 30 2007, 05:17 PM)
No, as....
Babies being born, all the time...Yup!
Food, Still grows....YUP!
Still living ...still....YUP!
Knows how to show me just how inane (Self deceived) another can really be...YUP!
And yet when you wonder about these types of miracles you still would try to debunk them. Isn't that an amazing stance to take. I guess you have confused me greatly on many fronts. Men of faith lose faith when yo being to talk about it directly. That is more than confusing to me.
Babies being born, all the time...Yup!
Food, Still grows....YUP!
Still living ...still....YUP!
Knows how to show me just how inane (Self deceived) another can really be...YUP!
And yet when you wonder about these types of miracles you still would try to debunk them. Isn't that an amazing stance to take. I guess you have confused me greatly on many fronts. Men of faith lose faith when yo being to talk about it directly. That is more than confusing to me.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Jul 23 2007, 12:46 AM)
QUOTE (newguy+)
War will not cease until the return of Christ.
So I can enjoy war until the return of Christ.
Do you have an approximate ETA on Him?
Sorry to butt in..:-) In my view the return of Christ depends on your heart.
Changing the illusion of the thing, into the reality of the One.
"When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the (Father's) domain]."..Gospel of Thomas (I think)
Balance. Married masculine and feminine. War is for the spiritually poor. Spiritual hipocrites beget the opposite, and together they lock horns in a primevil dance for pride. They are never lifted up into victory, but must live to fight again, and again.
To unravel the reasons for the latest wars, one must go to the previous and the one before that. Balance is about opening the heart to common sense, a sense common to all, which is Love, which is Christ, the marriage of the dual thinking mind.
So I can enjoy war until the return of Christ.
Do you have an approximate ETA on Him?
Sorry to butt in..:-) In my view the return of Christ depends on your heart.
Changing the illusion of the thing, into the reality of the One.
"When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the (Father's) domain]."..Gospel of Thomas (I think)
Balance. Married masculine and feminine. War is for the spiritually poor. Spiritual hipocrites beget the opposite, and together they lock horns in a primevil dance for pride. They are never lifted up into victory, but must live to fight again, and again.
To unravel the reasons for the latest wars, one must go to the previous and the one before that. Balance is about opening the heart to common sense, a sense common to all, which is Love, which is Christ, the marriage of the dual thinking mind.
After a quick review of many Church's opinions I would say that those are not the best works from our history to be applying to ourselves though I do happen to agree vehemently and oddly with that stance though I also wonder why the churches have decided to take the stance they yhave against it. I guess it is quite an interesting book I will mayhaps peruse it as the direct vehement hatered shown about it automatically by churches it makes me more than interested what they wish to hide there that is so important to them they have to debunk it directly.... It just reminds me of people like Galileo who fought their entire lives and still wound up not being praised for their work during their lifetime. Just because we see that the church debunks something it may let us to be led to it for some reasom as they are known for the entire range of it to have covered up every scientific advancement. As long as this is the case unfortunantly we're not here to name the times they have done this as I could name a few more than they would like probably. I just caution people that do not, "Look for the truth in much harder places to find" though at the same time we should certainly caution ourselves so we do not get stuck on the wrong thing... I personally feel there is a section that does that unfortunantly as people disregard the rest of it for that.
@newguy
It was "death to America, death to Jeff in Iowa"....
I assumed that the classic chant of "death to america" would be common enough that we would not have a misunderstanding....
It was "death to America, death to Jeff in Iowa"....
I assumed that the classic chant of "death to america" would be common enough that we would not have a misunderstanding....
QUOTE (newguy+)
You ought to be aware by now that I am of the mindset(and a rational mindset, at that) that there are deep "religious" undertows to the violence in the Middle East. Since "religion" is such a major part of the problem(and it is), "religion" ought to be considered as a major part of the solution as well. So you don't misunderstand what I'm saying, let me give you an example from what just transpired in Washington, D.C. over the last few days:
Wow...
That makes so much sense....
Anger is such a major part of the problem with violence, so anger should be part of the solution????
Are you crazy?
I would say that if "theism" is such a major part of the problem, maybe "atheism" should be part of the solution.....
Oh, please post them....
Post the originals(scripture) though....you know....the ones that dont exist....
Don't post any of these copied "full of error" versions, go get the original....since it is the word of God and all!!!!!
Go blow Sola Scriptura out your ***
Oh, please post them....
Post the originals(scripture) though....you know....the ones that dont exist....
Don't post any of these copied "full of error" versions, go get the original....since it is the word of God and all!!!!!
Go blow Sola Scriptura out your ***
I wholeheartedly expect that you would gladly sign up with them at the drop of a hat. However, since there are so many HYPOCRITES(like you, for example) in this world, any ideas of lasting peace prior to Christ's return are only a pipe dream, I'm afraid. My Jesus said to preach the gospel to every nation. Your "Jesus" apparently said to kill or be killed.
It was still insulting....
Truth can be insulting....
Let me give you an example.....
You are a believer in Sola Scriptura....
I could say "You believe in the bible as the absolute word of God"....that is the nice version
Or I could say "You recklessly worship the words of mortal men, who are just as fallible as anyone else, while investing all of your spiritual faith in a flawed version of the text that has been poorly translated into your language of choice. It boggles the mind why someone would be that dim-witted"...the insulting version.
They are both true statements....but one is STILL insulting....also according to your definition I get to take a great deal of liberty with the term "truth".
Now I say this while fully disagreeing with Derek. He is a bloodthirsty freak who honestly frightens me. He believes that every conflict is between good and evil, and he foolishly believes that he can decipher the battle lines. His bloodlust is also decidedly anti-Christian, as far as I understand Christianity
It was still insulting....
Truth can be insulting....
Let me give you an example.....
You are a believer in Sola Scriptura....
I could say "You believe in the bible as the absolute word of God"....that is the nice version
Or I could say "You recklessly worship the words of mortal men, who are just as fallible as anyone else, while investing all of your spiritual faith in a flawed version of the text that has been poorly translated into your language of choice. It boggles the mind why someone would be that dim-witted"...the insulting version.
They are both true statements....but one is STILL insulting....also according to your definition I get to take a great deal of liberty with the term "truth".
Now I say this while fully disagreeing with Derek. He is a bloodthirsty freak who honestly frightens me. He believes that every conflict is between good and evil, and he foolishly believes that he can decipher the battle lines. His bloodlust is also decidedly anti-Christian, as far as I understand Christianity
So where is the miracle dis-cussion...
You are on a web-based forum where a bunch of ADhD science nerds frequently get online to stroke their egos and satisfy their primal desire for conflict. Miracles just wasn't good enough kindling for a good fight, so two theistic individuals decided to change the topic to something more conducive. They will eventually attract some of the religiously atheistic individuals like *cough* Kaneda. The debate, like all debates in this particular section, will eventually wind down into theism vs atheism. The only threads that don't go this way are the ones which focus on a mentally unstable individual with delusions of grandeur.
It was an interesting theological question, but no one really wanted to defend it. Perhaps the theists saw it as a trap, or maybe they were just so blindly religious(like Mr. Parsons) that they couldn't even get their heads around the concept.
In the end, if you follow the progression of most of these threads, they begin their life with either inflammatory or noble pursuits, but always end with insanity.
Yeah, a god who is so active that he never:
Heals amputees
Makes himself publicly known
Allows people to commit atrocities in his name
Yeah, that God is going to come down and stop a war.....
If God doesn't bother to fix the problems that only he has the power to correct, why would he bother to fix the problems that REGULAR PEOPLE have the power to fix?
So where is the miracle dis-cussion...
How about, a miracle is a word the unknowing use in order to make sense of the potential held within the imagination? Primitive man would consider most things we do nowadays as miracles. We may consider the instant manifestation of our desires as a miracle. Yet we're told God can do that.
Yeah, a god who is so active that he never:
Heals amputees
Makes himself publicly known
Allows people to commit atrocities in his name
Yeah, that God is going to come down and stop a war.....
If God doesn't bother to fix the problems that only he has the power to correct, why would he bother to fix the problems that REGULAR PEOPLE have the power to fix?
Are you suggesting that God may not exist?
Yeah, a god who is so active that he never:
Heals amputees
Makes himself publicly known
Allows people to commit atrocities in his name
Yeah, that God is going to come down and stop a war.....
If God doesn't bother to fix the problems that only he has the power to correct, why would he bother to fix the problems that REGULAR PEOPLE have the power to fix?
That's is a very good point. Reminds me of the joke about a guy hanging from a cliff. A
helicopter comes along and offers to rescue the man, who says "no, I believe in the power of Jesus and he will send his angels to come rescue me". So the helicopter goes away. An ambulance arrives to help and the guy dangling from a cliff gives the same speil to them. Eventually the guy falls off the cliff, and goes before God. The man asks why after all those years of faith in him that he didn't answer his prayers. God just says "well I sent you a helicopter, an ambulance and many other things".
If the inside out is in illusion, then the outside in will also be an illusion. At this stage of our evolution we are taking blindness for sight. Those that think there's a heaven out there somewhere, where ambulance men can be sent out from and heal all the amputees should still be writing letters to santa claus.
Wow...
That makes so much sense....
Anger is such a major part of the problem with violence, so anger should be part of the solution????
Are you crazy?
I would say that if "theism" is such a major part of the problem, maybe "atheism" should be part of the solution.....
QUOTE
Did this "insult" you? Would you like me to post some of your comments from other threads and compare them to what the scriptures teach? If so, your "warped view of Christianity" will be plain for all to see. No "insult" there.
Oh, please post them....
Post the originals(scripture) though....you know....the ones that dont exist....
Don't post any of these copied "full of error" versions, go get the original....since it is the word of God and all!!!!!
Go blow Sola Scriptura out your ***
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Did this "insult" you? Would you like me to post some of your comments from other threads and compare them to what the scriptures teach? If so, your "warped view of Christianity" will be plain for all to see. No "insult" there. |
Oh, please post them....
Post the originals(scripture) though....you know....the ones that dont exist....
Don't post any of these copied "full of error" versions, go get the original....since it is the word of God and all!!!!!
Go blow Sola Scriptura out your ***
I wholeheartedly expect that you would gladly sign up with them at the drop of a hat. However, since there are so many HYPOCRITES(like you, for example) in this world, any ideas of lasting peace prior to Christ's return are only a pipe dream, I'm afraid. My Jesus said to preach the gospel to every nation. Your "Jesus" apparently said to kill or be killed.
QUOTE
Once again, if you'd like, I'll gladly post some "quotes" OF YOURS from other threads that will plainly show that there was nothing "insulting" in my statement. Here's a little sample of your bloodlust:
It was still insulting....
Truth can be insulting....
Let me give you an example.....
You are a believer in Sola Scriptura....
I could say "You believe in the bible as the absolute word of God"....that is the nice version
Or I could say "You recklessly worship the words of mortal men, who are just as fallible as anyone else, while investing all of your spiritual faith in a flawed version of the text that has been poorly translated into your language of choice. It boggles the mind why someone would be that dim-witted"...the insulting version.
They are both true statements....but one is STILL insulting....also according to your definition I get to take a great deal of liberty with the term "truth".
Now I say this while fully disagreeing with Derek. He is a bloodthirsty freak who honestly frightens me. He believes that every conflict is between good and evil, and he foolishly believes that he can decipher the battle lines. His bloodlust is also decidedly anti-Christian, as far as I understand Christianity
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Once again, if you'd like, I'll gladly post some "quotes" OF YOURS from other threads that will plainly show that there was nothing "insulting" in my statement. Here's a little sample of your bloodlust: |
It was still insulting....
Truth can be insulting....
Let me give you an example.....
You are a believer in Sola Scriptura....
I could say "You believe in the bible as the absolute word of God"....that is the nice version
Or I could say "You recklessly worship the words of mortal men, who are just as fallible as anyone else, while investing all of your spiritual faith in a flawed version of the text that has been poorly translated into your language of choice. It boggles the mind why someone would be that dim-witted"...the insulting version.
They are both true statements....but one is STILL insulting....also according to your definition I get to take a great deal of liberty with the term "truth".
Now I say this while fully disagreeing with Derek. He is a bloodthirsty freak who honestly frightens me. He believes that every conflict is between good and evil, and he foolishly believes that he can decipher the battle lines. His bloodlust is also decidedly anti-Christian, as far as I understand Christianity
So where is the miracle dis-cussion...
You are on a web-based forum where a bunch of ADhD science nerds frequently get online to stroke their egos and satisfy their primal desire for conflict. Miracles just wasn't good enough kindling for a good fight, so two theistic individuals decided to change the topic to something more conducive. They will eventually attract some of the religiously atheistic individuals like *cough* Kaneda. The debate, like all debates in this particular section, will eventually wind down into theism vs atheism. The only threads that don't go this way are the ones which focus on a mentally unstable individual with delusions of grandeur.
It was an interesting theological question, but no one really wanted to defend it. Perhaps the theists saw it as a trap, or maybe they were just so blindly religious(like Mr. Parsons) that they couldn't even get their heads around the concept.
In the end, if you follow the progression of most of these threads, they begin their life with either inflammatory or noble pursuits, but always end with insanity.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jul 23 2007, 06:57 AM)
Now I say this while fully disagreeing with Derek.
You have to be aggressive to defeat evil.
“It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.” (Albert Einstein)
By the way, God just might be on my side. If not, all He has to do is stop the war.
You have to be aggressive to defeat evil.
“It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.” (Albert Einstein)
By the way, God just might be on my side. If not, all He has to do is stop the war.
QUOTE
By the way, God just might be on my side. If not, all He has to do is stop the war
Yeah, a god who is so active that he never:
Heals amputees
Makes himself publicly known
Allows people to commit atrocities in his name
Yeah, that God is going to come down and stop a war.....
If God doesn't bother to fix the problems that only he has the power to correct, why would he bother to fix the problems that REGULAR PEOPLE have the power to fix?
QUOTE (Zarabtul+Jul 23 2007, 03:54 AM)
After a quick review of many Church's opinions I would say that those are not the best works from our history to be applying to ourselves though I do happen to agree vehemently and oddly with that stance though I also wonder why the churches have decided to take the stance they yhave against it. I guess it is quite an interesting book I will mayhaps peruse it as the direct vehement hatered shown about it automatically by churches it makes me more than interested what they wish to hide there that is so important to them they have to debunk it directly.... It just reminds me of people like Galileo who fought their entire lives and still wound up not being praised for their work during their lifetime. Just because we see that the church debunks something it may let us to be led to it for some reasom as they are known for the entire range of it to have covered up every scientific advancement. As long as this is the case unfortunantly we're not here to name the times they have done this as I could name a few more than they would like probably. I just caution people that do not, "Look for the truth in much harder places to find" though at the same time we should certainly caution ourselves so we do not get stuck on the wrong thing... I personally feel there is a section that does that unfortunantly as people disregard the rest of it for that.
Church was much more into politics at the time. Jesus's buddhist views were not to the liking of , shall we say, the wish to control the human evolution. When Jesus said "love they neighbor as yourself" this was an effort to introduce a bit of Buddhism into the minds of those that still sacrificed animals to their god, and shunned gentiles.
Anyway, I invested time many years ago in perusing a lot of books that were deemed not fit for the bible. And I must say some of what I read was a bit over the top, and some of it set the seeds for further exploring. Some are fearful of questioning. But really if there is a God forbidding one to question things, in a world that is supposedly in Satan's hands , then I'd already be planning my getaway from the kinda heavenly regime that God obviously runs! The truth should never fear being questioned, only deciet should.
Church was much more into politics at the time. Jesus's buddhist views were not to the liking of , shall we say, the wish to control the human evolution. When Jesus said "love they neighbor as yourself" this was an effort to introduce a bit of Buddhism into the minds of those that still sacrificed animals to their god, and shunned gentiles.
Anyway, I invested time many years ago in perusing a lot of books that were deemed not fit for the bible. And I must say some of what I read was a bit over the top, and some of it set the seeds for further exploring. Some are fearful of questioning. But really if there is a God forbidding one to question things, in a world that is supposedly in Satan's hands , then I'd already be planning my getaway from the kinda heavenly regime that God obviously runs! The truth should never fear being questioned, only deciet should.
QUOTE (Zarabtul+Jul 23 2007, 12:51 AM)
So where is the miracle dis-cussion...
How about, a miracle is a word the unknowing use in order to make sense of the potential held within the imagination? Primitive man would consider most things we do nowadays as miracles. We may consider the instant manifestation of our desires as a miracle. Yet we're told God can do that.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jul 23 2007, 04:31 PM)
Yeah, a god who is so active that he never:
Heals amputees
Makes himself publicly known
Allows people to commit atrocities in his name
Yeah, that God is going to come down and stop a war.....
If God doesn't bother to fix the problems that only he has the power to correct, why would he bother to fix the problems that REGULAR PEOPLE have the power to fix?
Are you suggesting that God may not exist?
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jul 23 2007, 04:31 PM)
Yeah, a god who is so active that he never:
Heals amputees
Makes himself publicly known
Allows people to commit atrocities in his name
Yeah, that God is going to come down and stop a war.....
If God doesn't bother to fix the problems that only he has the power to correct, why would he bother to fix the problems that REGULAR PEOPLE have the power to fix?
That's is a very good point. Reminds me of the joke about a guy hanging from a cliff. A
helicopter comes along and offers to rescue the man, who says "no, I believe in the power of Jesus and he will send his angels to come rescue me". So the helicopter goes away. An ambulance arrives to help and the guy dangling from a cliff gives the same speil to them. Eventually the guy falls off the cliff, and goes before God. The man asks why after all those years of faith in him that he didn't answer his prayers. God just says "well I sent you a helicopter, an ambulance and many other things".
If the inside out is in illusion, then the outside in will also be an illusion. At this stage of our evolution we are taking blindness for sight. Those that think there's a heaven out there somewhere, where ambulance men can be sent out from and heal all the amputees should still be writing letters to santa claus.
So, if there is no God then that would explain an absence of miracles and why He doesn’t stop the war.
There is one question that remains though. Who decides what is evil? Would it be you or some Jesus freak? How about an atheistic Marxist philosopher?
There is one question that remains though. Who decides what is evil? Would it be you or some Jesus freak? How about an atheistic Marxist philosopher?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.