PDA

View Full Version : Man is god!



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Russian Lad
03-06-2010, 18:29
Originally Posted by shurale
You should want to go to heaven even if He takes there people like Chikatilo and Ted Bundy. Just because in Hell you will be in pain and that pain will be eternal.

[/I]

Shurale
according to my knowledge, human beings will be punished according to their
mistakes/sins. There is no way hell can be eternall. God is a God of Love, He cannot stand to see His children suffer forever. That is not,was not His intention.

See?! You are even disagreeing with each other on the most fundamental issues of your faith...

shurale
03-06-2010, 18:51
Len,

1) Where is your knowlegde derived from? Mine is from the Bible.
1) God is God of Tough Love.
2) There are children of God and children of Satan. Children of God believe in Jesus, believe in His ressurection and get His Grace. Children of Satan don't believe Jesus or they don't believe He is the Son of God and they don't believe in His ressurection.
3)
7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Hell = Eternal punishment in Eternal fire for children of Satan, i.e. for all those who don't believe that God sacrificed His beloved Son Jesus.
8) "In the face of pain there are no heroes, no heroes, he thought over and over as he writhed on the floor, clutching uselessly his disabled left arm.” 1984
Love God or suffer the consequences.





Originally Posted by shurale
You should want to go to heaven even if He takes there people like Chikatilo and Ted Bundy. Just because in Hell you will be in pain and that pain will be eternal.

[/I]

Shurale
according to my knowledge, human beings will be punished according to their
mistakes/sins. There is no way hell can be eternall. God is a God of Love, He cannot stand to see His children suffer forever. That is not,was not His intention.

MickeyTong
03-06-2010, 19:08
If all is just matter then there is no inherent value in any life at all, we're all just temporary towers of vibrating molecules (TTOVM). Transforming the state of one TTOVM into another state ("killing" a person) has no meaning. There is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" for vibrating molecules. Yet there is practically 100% universal agreement among humankind that killing is "wrong."

Killing is "wrong" unless your God tells you to do it, which he did quite often in the Old Testament.

Your TTOVM analogy can be directed straight back to the Faithful. If heretics et al are doomed to eternal damnation anyway, fleeting tortures inflicted on them in this world are as nothing - especially if torture brings them to The True Faith (it worked on Winston Smith, who became a True Believer after accepting that his beloved be tortured instead of himself).

One of the leaders of the Cathar Crusade said: "Kill them all: God knows His own." So for him, even killing fellow-believers counted for nothing relative to Eternity.

shurale
03-06-2010, 19:11
Where do people get the idea that God is some kind of hippy?

How many times do we have the word "punish" in the following quotations?
(And I didn't even reach Proverbs).

1.Genesis 4:13
Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear.

2.Genesis 15:14
But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions.

3.Genesis 19:15
With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."

5.Exodus 20:5
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,


8.Exodus 32:34
Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin."

9.Exodus 34:7
maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

10.Leviticus 18:25
Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives [a] any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. 3 I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name.

14 " 'But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, 15 and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant, 16 then I will do this to you: I will bring upon you sudden terror, wasting diseases and fever that will destroy your sight and drain away your life. You will plant seed in vain, because your enemies will eat it. 17 I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you.

Leviticus 26:18
" 'If after all this you will not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins seven times over.

Leviticus 26:28
then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over.

Numbers 14:18
'The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.'

Deuteronomy 5:9
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Deuteronomy 22:18
and the elders shall take the man and punish him.

Judges 8:16
He took the elders of the town and taught the men of Succoth a lesson by punishing them with desert thorns and briers.

1 Samuel 15:2
This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.

2 Samuel 7:14
I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.

1 Chronicles 21:7
This command was also evil in the sight of God; so he punished Israel.

Ezra 7:26
Whoever does not obey the law of your God and the law of the king must surely be punished by death, banishment, confiscation of property, or imprisonment.

Ezra 9:13
"What has happened to us is a result of our evil deeds and our great guilt, and yet, our God, you have punished us less than our sins have deserved and have given us a remnant like this.

Ezra 9:13
"What has happened to us is a result of our evil deeds and our great guilt, and yet, our God, you have punished us less than our sins have deserved and have given us a remnant like this.

Job 19:29
you should fear the sword yourselves; for wrath will bring punishment by the sword, and then you will know that there is judgment. "

Job 21:19
It is said, 'God stores up a man's punishment for his sons.' Let him repay the man himself, so that he will know it!

Job 34:26
He punishes them for their wickedness where everyone can see them,

Job 35:15
and further, that his anger never punishes and he does not take the least notice of wickedness.

Job 37:13
He brings the clouds to punish men, or to water his earth and show his love.

Psalm 59:5
O LORD God Almighty, the God of Israel, rouse yourself to punish all the nations; show no mercy to wicked traitors. Selah

Psalm 73:14
All day long I have been plagued; I have been punished every morning.

Psalm 81:15
Those who hate the LORD would cringe before him, and their punishment would last forever.

36.Psalm 89:32
I will punish their sin with the rod, their iniquity with flogging;

Psalm 91:8
You will only observe with your eyes and see the punishment of the wicked.

shurale
03-06-2010, 19:13
Murder is wrong.
You shall not murder is the commandment.


Killing is "wrong" unless your God tells you to do it, which he did quite often in the Old Testament.

Your TTOVM analogy can be directed straight back to the Faithful. If heretics et al are doomed to eternal damnation anyway, fleeting tortures inflicted on them in this world are as nothing - especially if torture brings them to The True Faith (it worked on Winston Smith, who became a True Believer after accepting that his beloved be tortured instead of himself).

One of the leaders of the Cathar Crusade said: "Kill them all: God knows His own." So for him, even killing fellow-believers counted for nothing relative to Eternity.

shurale
03-06-2010, 19:22
Len,

the NT talks of eternal punishment as well.

Matthew 25:46
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Luke 12:48
But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Luke 21:22
For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

Acts 7:7
But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves,' God said, 'and afterward they will come out of that country and worship me in this place.'

Romans 13:4
For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

2 Corinthians 10:6
And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.

1 Thessalonians 4:6
and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you.

2 Thessalonians 1:8
He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

2 Thessalonians 1:9
They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

Hebrews 2:2
For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment,

Hebrews 10:29
How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Hebrews 12:6
because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son."

Revelation 17:1
[ The Woman and the Beast ] One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits on many waters.

Bogatyr
03-06-2010, 20:50
Killing is "wrong" unless your God tells you to do it, which he did quite often in the Old Testament.

Your TTOVM analogy can be directed straight back to the Faithful. If heretics et al are doomed to eternal damnation anyway, fleeting tortures inflicted on them in this world are as nothing - especially if torture brings them to The True Faith (it worked on Winston Smith, who became a True Believer after accepting that his beloved be tortured instead of himself).

One of the leaders of the Cathar Crusade said: "Kill them all: God knows His own." So for him, even killing fellow-believers counted for nothing relative to Eternity.

Mickey, Mickey, Orthodoxy does not promote torture, and considers killing a horrible sin. Those who claim to act in the name of religion don't necessarily have the approval of the Church. The Roman Catholics went pretty far astray in the inquisition but that wasn't part of the Orthodox Church.

It is the materialists who have no basis in declaring killing "wrong" -- to them (you?) we're all just blobs of goo flapping around on a rock, so it doesn't matter what happens to this blob or that blob. To a materialist there can be no right and no wrong, and THAT is insane!

Bogatyr
03-06-2010, 20:54
A great find, Viola! So, what do the believers say to this? Or they prefer to stick their heads into sand now?


A good site indeed:
http://godisimaginary.com/

Please check out the 2000 years of writings of the Church and the Holy Fathers. When you're ready to engage in a serious conversation, we can discuss that site and its contents in relation to the mountains of knowledge on the Orthodox side. But it hardly seems worth the effort, based on your behavior in discussions such as this one. For now you've already admitted as much that you're here for juvenile purposes.

So, who's head is really stuck in the sand?

rusmeister
03-06-2010, 21:06
So you'll know about gods who died every winter solstice and were reborn at the spring solstice, saving us by bringing vegetation back to life.





Of course, the feminist perspective holds that it is the blood sacrifice made by women every month which ensures the continued life of our species. And that male circumcision was a pathetic attempt by disaffected androcentrists to duplicate women's ability to create life. (Not that I blame them for being disaffected - matriarchal societies were not idyllic paradises touted by radical feminists.)

Hi, Mickey,
I'll point out that the ideas you defend are drawn from modern historians, and have very little in the line of primary sources to suggest anything along the lines of Christianity as merely 'copping' Paganism. If you look at the sources, you'll see that this is so. Essentially everything you could possibly show me that really supports those views dates from after 1900, and mostly after 1970.

No primary sources, no believe nothing. Equestrian excretion. (That also is an exaggeration of a position, but the general line is true.)

shurale
03-06-2010, 21:55
Please check out the 2000 years of writings of the Church and the Holy Fathers. When you're ready to engage in a serious conversation, we can discuss that site and its contents in relation to the mountains of knowledge on the Orthodox side. But it hardly seems worth the effort, based on your behavior in discussions such as this one. For now you've already admitted as much that you're here for juvenile purposes.

So, who's head is really stuck in the sand?

What is Orthodoxy? Bible + circa 2000 years of Tradition? And what comes first?

yakspeare
03-06-2010, 22:36
Russian Lad,

I will happily answer any and all of your questions....i was offline (working).

I would not use Shurale's posts as proof of disagreement etc...his entire concept is as wrong as those two videos we have seen. I don't know if he is a believer who is just in error or someone,like yourself, who has studied religion in the past and just trying to stir up debate an argument. Not really my place to judge.

I thanked both videos because I enjoyed watching them, I watched somewhat valid argument jump off on tangent which the viewer(after accepting the first few things as true) readily accepts unless they are educated enough in what we believe and what is actually in the bible to see through it. It is quite a common tactic, Jehovah's witness and Mormons use it every day(and i used to be a Mormon so I know).

You know sometimes an outsider can lead us away in error but also can be the shining light of truth when we are indeed at fault.

The life of a christian is supposed to be of SELF-sacrifice and not putting anything before God, then your family and friends and preferable little for yourself....i remember when i got divorced the first time and everything I owned could fit in my car. Oh the freedom...i suddenly realised i could go anywhere and do anything. as the saying goes after a while we don't own things, they own us. What it is talking about is affairs of the heart that if anything else comes first you have to give it up.

He also calls some to a much higher calling, and few accept it too. that is to 100% devote yourself to God and to stay single. They do warn that few can deal with this and it is better to marry than burn with passion but then you focus on your family more etc.

Many christians and indeed the message often from the pulpit, is this jesus friend guy who if you believe in him he will make you healthy, wealthy and free pass to eternal paradise...without what i call the forgotten gospel of giving up your own will and desire, perhaps risking persecution and death, to follow what the bible says.

The video talked about the 613 rules of Judaism and in error attributed this to righteousness....Jesus infact called them a pack of vipers, dogmatic people who enforced rules without realising the spirit behind those rules. The temple was a market place and hypocrisy was everywhere. you don't have to follow 613 rules to be better than the pharisees...you just have to not be a hypocrit! Infact Christ freed us from those rules.

Jesus was also talking about his here and now in his speeches, although it is a guide for the future. So in some ways it is specific to each situation and giving advice-these are conversations which we can draw upon but have to understand when he says " get up, pick up your mat and walk" people don't rush around now buying mats or look for people on mats to practice their preaching etc on. We can't literally follow Jesus around Judea etc...but we get the implication behind this. The statements about flesh and blood are pretty obvious in meaning especially when it refers to HIS flesh and HIS blood- even if it was advocating cannibalism it would only be his blood we could claim on...and the coward rose from the dead and went to heaven so we can't dig up his body and feast on him. :P

Russian Lad
03-06-2010, 23:04
Yakspeare, all what you are saying is very good, but the Bible is so full of contradictions. Even that movie Viola posted shows it quite clearly. It contains verses from the Bible, so it is hard to deny the obvious.


YouTube- The best optical illusion in the world!!


Please check out the 2000 years of writings of the Church and the Holy Fathers. When you're ready to engage in a serious conversation, we can discuss that site and its contents in relation to the mountains of knowledge on the Orthodox side. But it hardly seems worth the effort, based on your behavior in discussions such as this one. For now you've already admitted as much that you're here for juvenile purposes.

I don't need to read piles of books on Christianity in order to read the Bible. And when reading the Bible I can see many contradictions in what Jesus himself says. Either contradictions or total incompatibility with the modern life.
Have you sold all your possessions to have an eternal life yet? It seems to be a stringent requirement that Jesus himself instituted. Have you obeyed it? It is just one little example.

Bogatyr
03-06-2010, 23:17
What is Orthodoxy? Bible + circa 2000 years of Tradition? And what comes first?

The Orthodox Church is the Church of the Apostles. Chronologically, the Orthodox Church existed before the New Testament: the Orthodox Church wrote and canonized the New Testament. Many consider the Church to have started when the Holy Spirit filled the Apostles at Pentecost. It is also the Holy Tradition of worship as taught by Jesus to the Apostles and as the Apostles taught to their disciples, and so on down through the ages.

If you're asking about the relative importance in the Church, the Bible is of utmost importance, as is Tradition, they go hand in hand. The Bible is inseparable from the Church (which again is the living Body of Christ).

Jack17
03-06-2010, 23:30
Russian Lad,

I will happily answer any and all of your questions....i was offline (working).

I would not use Shurale's posts as proof of disagreement etc...his entire concept is as wrong as those two videos we have seen. I don't know if he is a believer who is just in error or someone,like yourself, who has studied religion in the past and just trying to stir up debate an argument. Not really my place to judge.

I thanked both videos because I enjoyed watching them, I watched somewhat valid argument jump off on tangent which the viewer(after accepting the first few things as true) readily accepts unless they are educated enough in what we believe and what is actually in the bible to see through it. It is quite a common tactic, Jehovah's witness and Mormons use it every day(and i used to be a Mormon so I know).

You know sometimes an outsider can lead us away in error but also can be the shining light of truth when we are indeed at fault.

The life of a christian is supposed to be of SELF-sacrifice and not putting anything before God, then your family and friends and preferable little for yourself....i remember when i got divorced the first time and everything I owned could fit in my car. Oh the freedom...i suddenly realised i could go anywhere and do anything. as the saying goes after a while we don't own things, they own us. What it is talking about is affairs of the heart that if anything else comes first you have to give it up.

He also calls some to a much higher calling, and few accept it too. that is to 100% devote yourself to God and to stay single. They do warn that few can deal with this and it is better to marry than burn with passion but then you focus on your family more etc.

Many christians and indeed the message often from the pulpit, is this jesus friend guy who if you believe in him he will make you healthy, wealthy and free pass to eternal paradise...without what i call the forgotten gospel of giving up your own will and desire, perhaps risking persecution and death, to follow what the bible says.

The video talked about the 613 rules of Judaism and in error attributed this to righteousness....Jesus infact called them a pack of vipers, dogmatic people who enforced rules without realising the spirit behind those rules. The temple was a market place and hypocrisy was everywhere. you don't have to follow 613 rules to be better than the pharisees...you just have to not be a hypocrit! Infact Christ freed us from those rules.

Jesus was also talking about his here and now in his speeches, although it is a guide for the future. So in some ways it is specific to each situation and giving advice-these are conversations which we can draw upon but have to understand when he says " get up, pick up your mat and walk" people don't rush around now buying mats or look for people on mats to practice their preaching etc on. We can't literally follow Jesus around Judea etc...but we get the implication behind this. The statements about flesh and blood are pretty obvious in meaning especially when it refers to HIS flesh and HIS blood- even if it was advocating cannibalism it would only be his blood we could claim on...and the coward rose from the dead and went to heaven so we can't dig up his body and feast on him. :P
I like the Epicurean's Epithet inscribed on many Roman sarcophogi: I was not, I was, I am no more, Who cares?

Just skimming all these posts makes my head spin. I don't like religion for the same reason I don't like chess - it's too hard. People play chess for amusement; it's not amusement for me, I have to think too much! Similarly, religion is suppose to edify life; no it doesn't, it's too much of a burden, too many rules, too much thought. I don't need it. Now sex, I don't need to think about sex, it comes naturally and is a real pleasure that brings true happiness - same for booz.

However, I want to thank all you believers on this site for confirming my beliefs because all your mumbo jumbo makes my head spin! You all have the secret to happiness and always want to proselytise. Here's my advice to you for happiness: find some really cute chick (or guy, as the case may be) take her home, put on some good music, break out a bottle of good Scotch and get it on with her. It don't get no better than that. And there's few better places to do it than Moskva! You getting all this down RL?

yakspeare
03-06-2010, 23:37
Yakspeare, all what you are saying is very good, but the Bible is so full of contradictions. Even that movie Viola posted shows it quite clearly. It contains verses from the Bible, so it is hard to deny the obvious.


YouTube- The best optical illusion in the world! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI&feature=player_embedded#)!



I don't need to read piles of books on Christianity in order to read the Bible. And when reading the Bible I can see many contradictions in what Jesus himself says. Either contradictions or total incompatibility with the modern life.
Have you sold all your possessions to have an eternal life yet? It seems to be a stringent requirement that Jesus himself instituted. Have you obeyed it? It is just one little example.

I would happily go through it verse by verse to show no contradiction. I have read it as both a believer and non believer so many times. If you take a verse out of context, anything can appear contradictory...but when it is part of a passage, part of a narrative, part of a culture and with intent towards someone(the reader or the person in conversation) you will find those contradictions do not exist.

Jesus' teachings were displaying the thoughts of the heart(ie sermon of the mount) rather than religiously following laws was the way to heaven. The opposition then was not atheists, it was dogmatic people who would tick the box of how 613 rules they followed.

Lets say someone is sick minded, quite depraved and malicious and has fantasies about killing sprees, killing animals for torture and dreams of disgusting sex acts with minors etc...and YET does not act on these impulses(perhaps in fear of some divine punishment) and actually follows those 613 laws...but in his heart he is an evil man in the true sense of the world...this person will not be saved by his outer works, (because of his heart is more important)and in this case fail the test. I think you would agree this is a much better standard and means Mafia who run to priests etc aren't guaranteed salvation in the least.

So Jesus regularly complained, that when he had his 12 and the 70 that he needed people to give up everything then and there(2000 years ago) and come immediately to spread the message without hesitation...there are many examples where people say " oh i just need to do this first" and he tells them no. The teachings were specific to the time and place...but we can use this to try and walk a better christian life and remind ourselves that God is first and material things are well down the list.

But absolutely we should get off our butts and spread the message and again it is useful when the world criticizes us to motivate and challenge us. Many christians know they can do better...it is all about choice too...some of us will scrape in using as much grace as God gives....other people sanctify their whole being to God's service and indeed give up everything for that higher calling. Perhaps if you met more people who led such a holy life , your opinion may well be different. The harvest is many and the workers few.

Bogatyr
03-06-2010, 23:44
Yakspeare, all what you are saying is very good, but the Bible is so full of contradictions. Even that movie Viola posted shows it quite clearly. It contains verses from the Bible, so it is hard to deny the obvious.


YouTube- The best optical illusion in the world! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI&feature=player_embedded#)!



I don't need to read piles of books on Christianity in order to read the Bible. And when reading the Bible I can see many contradictions in what Jesus himself says. Either contradictions or total incompatibility with the modern life.
Have you sold all your possessions to have an eternal life yet? It seems to be a stringent requirement that Jesus himself instituted. Have you obeyed it? It is just one little example.

You're reading a book (the most important book) written by my Church, yet you don't want to consider the writings of my Church discussing the meaning of and the implications of that same book. You're taking your mistaken personal impressions and stewing in them rather than making an effort to understand the Church's explanation for these "incompatibilities." You are of course free to have your opinions, but to enter serious discussion you need to (as rusmeister says) read our *best* defenses and explanations of our beliefs and deal with them. I don't claim to have the best explanations at my fingertips, but I can point you at some sources (and others have here as well, many times).

It's true, few live the lives of strict acetism called for in the Bible and lived by Our Lord, the Apostles, and the Holy Fathers and Saints. We have (my family), however, moved in that direction: from the soft and decadent comfort of life in the US: a house in the San Francisco suburbs, multiple cars, high paying (yet soul-crushing) high tech job in the United States, to an apartment in Russia and drastically reduced income, in order to live in Holy Russia in the thick of Orthodoxy, and to make it the center of our lives. So hopefully we're on our way, turning away from rampant and insane consumerism and materialism and towards God. We're actively participating in the struggle that we are called to by the Church. And I know how very far I still need to go.

shurale
03-06-2010, 23:47
The grass withers, the flower fades;
but the word of our God will stand for ever.

MickeyTong
04-06-2010, 00:06
Hi, Mickey,
I'll point out that the ideas you defend are drawn from modern historians, and have very little in the line of primary sources to suggest anything along the lines of Christianity as merely 'copping' Paganism. If you look at the sources, you'll see that this is so. Essentially everything you could possibly show me that really supports those views dates from after 1900, and mostly after 1970.

No primary sources, no believe nothing. Equestrian excretion. (That also is an exaggeration of a position, but the general line is true.)

Hello Rus,

Actually, I'd be interested to hear from a practising Jew as to why Jesus is not the Fulfilment of The Law, nor the Word made flesh, nor anything else purported by Christians. Their scholarship and traditions pre-date 1900.

Sasha girl
04-06-2010, 00:51
Hello Rus,

Actually, I'd be interested to hear from a practising Jew as to why Jesus is not the Fulfilment of The Law, nor the Word made flesh, nor anything else purported by Christians. Their scholarship and traditions pre-date 1900.

Hello Mickey.
I am not trying to answer this question addressed to Rusmeister, just to remark probably ( and I am not a practising Jew).
There is just an unlogic - there is no possibility of law fulfilment on the planet Earth, as it has lost pureness and not a paradize. God ( or Jesus ) can do it by force, but then there is no choice. When there is no choice there is no you.

yakspeare
04-06-2010, 00:59
Hello Rus,

Actually, I'd be interested to hear from a practising Jew as to why Jesus is not the Fulfilment of The Law, nor the Word made flesh, nor anything else purported by Christians. Their scholarship and traditions pre-date 1900.

Hi Mickey...i have done a lot of study of the Jewish faith and I am currently learning Hebrew which is the most enjoyable and interesting language i have learnt so far.

I am not Jewish, but i have considered it and I very much admire what they believe which is a lot more inclusive than christianity on who gets saved etc.

Fact is, if it wasn't my deepest of deepest convictions that Jesus was the son of God, I would be a Jew. I even explored the possibility of Messianic Jew(basically Christian Jews) but really the actual standard to become a Jew(which is quite difficult) actually prevents this.

Still, I have their arguments and apologetics bookmarked on my computer. As i said i challenge everything. Some of their claims are easier to refute than others, they do have a home ground advantage so to speak, but certainly the questions raised by the Jews require a christian to be on their toes so i have no problem supplying the ammunition to challenge us.

http://www.drazin.com/chap1.phtml the contents is at the top with a scroll down menu and covers almost every area and is very interesting reading.

this one gives more information about Jewish life and beliefs and is recommended also:

http://www.beingjewish.com/

shurale
04-06-2010, 01:02
So, if you were arguing with an adherent of Hara Krishna and he asked you to
read writings of their "holy fathers", you would read them?
Or if you argued with a Buddhist, you would read their writings in order to disprove Buddhism?

"The evidence of the early texts suggests that the Buddha was born in a community that was on the periphery, both geographically and culturally, of fifth century BCE northeast India."

The mountain of knowledge of Buddhists should bigger than the Orthodox mountain, I daresay.


Please check out the 2000 years of writings of the Church and the Holy Fathers. When you're ready to engage in a serious conversation, we can discuss that site and its contents in relation to the mountains of knowledge on the Orthodox side. But it hardly seems worth the effort, based on your behavior in discussions such as this one. For now you've already admitted as much that you're here for juvenile purposes.

So, who's head is really stuck in the sand?

is4fun
04-06-2010, 02:05
Mickey, Mickey, Orthodoxy does not promote torture, and considers killing a horrible sin. Those who claim to act in the name of religion don't necessarily have the approval of the Church. The Roman Catholics went pretty far astray in the inquisition but that wasn't part of the Orthodox Church.

It is the materialists who have no basis in declaring killing "wrong" -- to them (you?) we're all just blobs of goo flapping around on a rock, so it doesn't matter what happens to this blob or that blob. To a materialist there can be no right and no wrong, and THAT is insane!

The absolute shallowness of believers on this site has again left me breathless in disbelief and laughing hysterically. My eyes continue to roll as the absurdities continue to roll in. Take this previous post by Bogatyr for example: “orthodoxy does not promote torture, and considers killing a horrible sin.” Do not the orthodox believe in a hell? What is hell? More likely a place where one’s soul will be tortured, NO? LOL You people have absolutely no logical consensus to your beliefs. Yep, interpretations will continue to build as expected and I also expect insane logic will continue to surface. Termed as BS.

I also love those who quote passages out of this fictitious compilation of fantasies likely conceived by charlatans or people experiencing attention deficit. I can offer countless quotations from well known philosophers, writers, politicians and just plain grounded people like myself about the absurdity of a creator; however, what would be the point? Given the audacious manner by many of the believers and the steadfast incongruity of their posts with other believers, it is obvious that indeed a creator is a great story along the same lines of Roger Rabbit or Happy Feet of which I enjoyed.
OK, one poster did indeed get it right and I will relay a story from an author who summarizes the poster’s realism:

- Mr. Clemens was once asked whether he feared death. He said that he did not, in view of the fact that he had been dead for billions and billions of years before he was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.

yakspeare
04-06-2010, 02:26
is4fun,

your dismissive, condescending tone and mocking of religion is not what i would characterize as being a "grounded man". your sheer contempt is obvious. why not discuss things in a more pleasant tone and provide quotes from the philosophers you admire.

as for torture and killing, gee you like to twist it don't you? We aren't to judge and we let the fate of those who die without Christ for him to decide. The statement by the poster was in reference to OUR actions. We aren't to kill and torture.

is4fun
04-06-2010, 02:39
is4fun,

your dismissive, condescending tone and mocking of religion is not what i would characterize as being a "grounded man". your sheer contempt is obvious. why not discuss things in a more pleasant tone and provide quotes from the philosophers you admire.

as for torture and killing, gee you like to twist it don't you? We aren't to judge and we let the fate of those who die without Christ for him to decide. The statement by the poster was in reference to OUR actions. We aren't to kill and torture.

- As I expected, yet another interpretation of what logic is and what it is not. Clothed in mysticism, shrouded in magic and more than always willing to deceive as always. Let us do a little experiment shall we? I will post your answer on another website and as I receive answers from those who interpret your words I will post them here? Fair?

len
04-06-2010, 09:41
DEDICATED TO IS4fun, Russian Lad,SV1973a, who have been strongly adamant to reason and sense


48And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

49And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.

50But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.

51But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, ............


my knees will hurt for your course.

Bogatyr
04-06-2010, 09:50
So, if you were arguing with an adherent of Hara Krishna and he asked you to
read writings of their "holy fathers", you would read them?
Or if you argued with a Buddhist, you would read their writings in order to disprove Buddhism?

"The evidence of the early texts suggests that the Buddha was born in a community that was on the periphery, both geographically and culturally, of fifth century BCE northeast India."

The mountain of knowledge of Buddhists should bigger than the Orthodox mountain, I daresay.

In order to hold a coherent conversation, it is absolutely necessary to understand the position of all sides, yes. I however do not put myself in the position of needing to "disprove" Buddhism to a Buddhist. If I did, then I would have to have a much deeper understanding of it, yes.

Of course, the "my mountain is bigger than your mountain" point is irrelevant.

levinn
04-06-2010, 09:59
Hello,

You gave very good information but i think that man is not god. we know that man can do everything here and invented so many things. but he is not god. god give birth to humans he is the creator of man and we have to remember that.

thanks!!

_________________

Viola
04-06-2010, 10:32
A great find, Viola! So, what do the believers say to this? Or they prefer to stick their heads into sand now?


A good site indeed:
http://godisimaginary.com/

RL, I like this video as a mental excercise only but I am at the side of believers, I like the idea of God.
Belief doesn't need any logical proof that's why it is called belief. Have to omit this discussion though, can't read long posts :D

Bogatyr
04-06-2010, 10:35
Similarly, religion is suppose to edify life; no it doesn't, it's too much of a burden, too many rules, too much thought. I don't need it. Now sex, I don't need to think about sex, it comes naturally and is a real pleasure that brings true happiness - same for booz.

Sex and alcohol, the true paths to happiness? How many AIDS-infected alcoholic and drug addicted prostitutes have "true happiness" I wonder? According to you they must be the happiest people in the universe because they have the highest volume of these "commodities."

And you non-believers have the nerve to call believers "insane!"



However, I want to thank all you believers on this site for confirming my beliefs because all your mumbo jumbo makes my head spin! You all have the secret to happiness and always want to proselytise. Here's my advice to you for happiness: find some really cute chick (or guy, as the case may be) take her home, put on some good music, break out a bottle of good Scotch and get it on with her. It don't get no better than that. And there's few better places to do it than Moskva! You getting all this down RL?

Indulging the passions leads to darkness, loneliness, despair, and destruction. One need not look to religion at all for ample proof of this. Drug addicts are "happy" when they get their fix. Do you consider them to have "happiness" in general?

The Truth is not hard: 1) Love God, and 2) Love one another [in the *real* sense of the word Love, not "getting it on" with everything that moves]. Everything else derives from these.

Who made the rule that the Truth had to be "easy" to understand (in totality)? That's the claim made by most atheists, a favorite of their straw-man tactics.

Who can really wrap their mind around the totality and vastness of the Universe, time, creation, space, gravity, matter, eternity, infinity, thought, etc? Yet do you doubt their existence just because it's "hard?"

shurale
04-06-2010, 13:21
Voltaire liked the idea of God.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."


RL, I like this video as a mental excercise only but I am at the side of believers, I like the idea of God.
Belief doesn't need any logical proof that's why it is called belief. Have to omit this discussion though, can't read long posts :D

Russian Lad
04-06-2010, 14:00
You getting all this down RL?

Sure thing, Teacher:). All written down on a parchment scroll in English, Russian and Hebrew already, to be passed on to the future generations of Your followers:).

Indeed, you believers say Christianity does not promote torture, yet you want to torture my soul in hell, and I get a hunch most ruthless and inhumane methods of torture are planned to be used. Yet another discrepancy in a rather long row of suchlike vicissitudes.

Viola, why do you need mental exercises at all? Enjoy the irrationality of your faith. After all, being irrational makes a woman a woman...


Voltaire liked the idea of God.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

Of God, yes. I also think there might be an awesome force out there that can be possibly termed as God. But I am sure the Bible has nothing to do with real God, on account of it being rather primitive, extremely contradictory and unhealthy from the scientific standpoint.

shurale
04-06-2010, 14:16
Advantages of being believing in True God (i.e. Christian one)

1. Ultimate reward (Heaven)
2. Power of prayer (and faith healing). Do use common sense before you pray.
3. Benefits of being a member of a community. For example, you can be a horrible bore, people will always listen to you.
4. You can write and sell books about miracles, power of prayer, faith healing, etc.

And do not forget that if you don't believe in Him, He Will Spread Dung Upon Your Face and Corrupt Your Seed!


Disadvantages of believing in True God (i.e. the Christian one)
1. You have to tithe

So, as you an see advantages outnumber the disadvantages

shurale
04-06-2010, 14:22
I would like to repeat my question

Was Isaiah wrong?

The grass withers, the flower fades;
but the word of our God will stand for ever.

Matt24
04-06-2010, 14:24
Hello Rus,

Actually, I'd be interested to hear from a practising Jew as to why Jesus is not the Fulfilment of The Law, nor the Word made flesh, nor anything else purported by Christians. Their scholarship and traditions pre-date 1900.

The Messiah was predicted by the Prophecies, there are three major obstacles to Jews accepting Jesus as the Messiah:

Tasks: Jesus didn't build the third temple;
he didn't bring all the tribes home to Israel; and
He didn't end all war and conflict, disease and oppression.

Credentials: The prophecies predict that the Messiah will be a direct descendent of David, and in turn a descendent of Jacob (Yisrael), depending on who and or what you read, whereas Joseph might have been of David's line, Mary was not - the whole virgin birth chapter is also of huge consequence, we kind of wonder how Christians cope with the idea, if Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph - can he be the Messiah if you hold that the old testament is the word of God?

The third point is Jesus' conduct during his worldly travels - At the route of Judaism is a belief that the ancient laws and the commandments are permanent and sacred, even the Messiah will have no power to change them, the most cited activities of Jesus that suggest that he is not the Messiah is his working over the sabbath - even miracles are supposed to wait until dusk.


Bearing in mind I'm totally lapsed and from an extremely liberal tradition, this might not meet with the complete approval of more active Jews, but it pretty much reflects my understanding of why the Jews didn't accept Jesus as the messiah.

Russian Lad
04-06-2010, 14:34
Indulging the passions leads to darkness, loneliness, despair, and destruction. One need not look to religion at all for ample proof of this. Drug addicts are "happy" when they get their fix. Do you consider them to have "happiness" in general?

The Truth is not hard: 1) Love God, and 2) Love one another [in the *real* sense of the word Love, not "getting it on" with everything that moves]. Everything else derives from these.


There are statistics that clearly show that Christians commit crimes at the same rate as atheists.
Do you think that in order to be a caring, non-violent person without bad habits one necessarily needs to believe in Jesus? That's total BS.

yakspeare
04-06-2010, 14:53
The Messiah was predicted by the Prophecies, there are three major obstacles to Jews accepting Jesus as the Messiah:

Tasks: Jesus didn't build the third temple;
he didn't bring all the tribes home to Israel; and
He didn't end all war and conflict, disease and oppression.

Credentials: The prophecies predict that the Messiah will be a direct descendent of David, and in turn a descendent of Jacob (Yisrael), depending on who and or what you read, whereas Joseph might have been of David's line, Mary was not - the whole virgin birth chapter is also of huge consequence, we kind of wonder how Christians cope with the idea, if Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph - can he be the Messiah if you hold that the old testament is the word of God?

The third point is Jesus' conduct during his worldly travels - At the route of Judaism is a belief that the ancient laws and the commandments are permanent and sacred, even the Messiah will have no power to change them, the most cited activities of Jesus that suggest that he is not the Messiah is his working over the sabbath - even miracles are supposed to wait until dusk.


Bearing in mind I'm totally lapsed and from an extremely liberal tradition, this might not meet with the complete approval of more active Jews, but it pretty much reflects my understanding of why the Jews didn't accept Jesus as the messiah.

Of Jesus lineage it appears he was descended from David on BOTH sides....as it appears Mary was also of that line...furthermore under Jewish law and Joseph declaring the child was his(as he had to) it made him of that line , even if it was not biological. Such a rule is in the book of Numbers.

King David>

Nathan-Mattatha-Menna-Melea-Ekiakim-Jonam-Joseph-Judah-Simeon-Levi-Matthat-Jorim-Eliear-Joshua-Er-Elmadam-Cosam-Addi-Melki-Neri-Shealtiel-Zerubbabel-Rhesa-Joanan-Joda-Josech-Semein-Mattathias-Maath-Naggai-Esli-Nahum-Amos-Mattathias-Joseph-Jannai-Melki-Levi-Matthat-Heli >MARY (Jesus's birth mother).

King David>

Solomom-Rehaboam-Abijah-Asa-Jehoshaphat-Jehoram-Uzziah-Jotham-Ahaz-Hezekiah-Manassheh-Amon-Josiah-Jeconiah-Shealtiel-Zerubbabel-Abiud-Eliakim-Azor-Zadok-Akim-Eliud-Eleazar-Mattham-Jacob- >JOSEPH ( Jesus's legal father)

Bogatyr
04-06-2010, 15:33
There are statistics that clearly show that Christians commit crimes at the same rate as atheists.
So? People can call themselves whatever they want to. Also, the Church doesn't claim it is filled with Saints, on the contrary, the Church is populated entirely with sinners. My personal experience though is that people who are committed Orthodox and actively participating in the struggle we are all called to are the most pleasant and loving people I've ever encountered. Outside of the Church it's very hit or miss, mostly "miss" though. That's not a generalization or claim, just an observation.


Do you think that in order to be a caring, non-violent person without bad habits one necessarily needs to believe in Jesus? That's total BS.

You sure like inventing imaginary positions and attributing them to others. It's easy to argue with straw-men.

Why even bother addressing what you write when you're just going to go off again on some new random tangent complaining that we believe in something ridiculous which we clearly don't believe in?

Russian Lad
04-06-2010, 16:00
The Truth is not hard: 1) Love God, and 2) Love one another [in the *real* sense of the word Love, not "getting it on" with everything that moves]. Everything else derives from these.


See what you said above. "Everything else derives from the Love of God". I assumed that you included into "everything else" all the positive attributes a man has. It was only logical to surmise that non-believers either don't have or lack such attributes. And you confirm this in the last post about "mostly a miss" notion.
Sorry, but you are just yet another religious demagogue unable to maintain a logical conversation. Better stick to the "Faith does not need a proof" concept, because you cannot do better than that, it seems.
Don't portray your faith as something mysterious or as something hard to understand - I have been there.

shurale
04-06-2010, 16:14
So Faith, is it easy to understand or hard to understand?
I was reading your posts, those of Lad and Bogatyr (also those of Yakspear) and I don§t get it... easy or hard?

Russian Lad
04-06-2010, 16:25
So Faith, is it easy to understand or hard to understand?
I was reading your posts, those of Lad and Bogatyr (also those of Yakspear) and I don§t get it... easy or hard?


Easy. Like I said before, there are four major motives:
1) Fear of death and desire to have some sort of life after death, preferably a nice one (the concept of Heaven).
2) Desire to be better than others (even better than other fellow Christians in some not that rare cases).
3) Desire to get "something special" from God in this life - a good job, a raise, a new car, good health, you name it.
4) Religion is promoted by ruling classes, because it gives them a better control over the masses.

That pretty much sums it all up.

shurale
04-06-2010, 16:32
We are better than others, we were washed of our sins and hence we are as white as snow and later on we will judge angels. The Bible says so and thus it is true.


Easy. Like I said before, there are four major motives:
1) Fear of death and desire to have some sort of life after death, preferably a nice one (the concept of Heaven).
2) Desire to be better than others (even better than other fellow Christians in some not that rare cases).
3) Desire to get "something special" from God in this life - a good job, a raise, a new car, good health, you name it.
4) Religion is promoted by ruling classes, because it gives them a better control over the masses.

That pretty much sums it all up.

Russian Lad
04-06-2010, 16:45
We are better than others, we were washed of our sins and hence we are as white as snow and later on we will judge angels. The Bible says so and thus it is true.

Well, thank you for confirming that.

MickeyTong
04-06-2010, 17:26
The Messiah was predicted by the Prophecies, there are three major obstacles to Jews accepting Jesus as the Messiah:........


Thanks Matt.

I've stumbled across this site, which is a comprehensive and blistering refutation of Christianity from a Jewish perspective.

http://www.drazin.com/index.phtml

MickeyTong
04-06-2010, 17:30
We are better than others, we were washed of our sins and hence we are as white as snow and later on we will judge angels. The Bible says so and thus it is true.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2gx3d47.jpg

Bogatyr
04-06-2010, 17:54
See what you said above. "Everything else derives from the Love of God". I assumed that you included into "everything else" all the positive attributes a man has. It was only logical to surmise that non-believers either don't have or lack such attributes. And you confirm this in the last post about "mostly a miss" notion.
Sorry, but you are just yet another religious demagogue unable to maintain a logical conversation. Better stick to the "Faith does not need a proof" concept, because you cannot do better than that, it seems.
Don't portray your faith as something mysterious or as something hard to understand - I have been there.

No you continue to misunderstand, but I guess that's the way you are. You read what you expect to see based on the opinions you've already formed.

Bogatyr
04-06-2010, 17:58
So Faith, is it easy to understand or hard to understand?
I was reading your posts, those of Lad and Bogatyr (also those of Yakspear) and I don§t get it... easy or hard?

It's "easy" to present the most important points in a simplistic summary. This summary leaves a great deal of critical information unsaid, that's the nature of a "summary."

It's "hard" (meaning it takes effort) to read the details, learn, and to live the life we're called to live.

Russian Lad
04-06-2010, 18:41
It's "easy" to present the most important points in a simplistic summary. This summary leaves a great deal of critical information unsaid, that's the nature of a "summary."

It's "hard" (meaning it takes effort) to read the details, learn, and to live the life we're called to live.

A summary is a summary. A brief synopsis. You disagree with its four points? Shurale seems to agree with them, since he did not challenge them but fully confirmed one of the points.
Believe me it takes a much harder and greater effort to realize that there is no life after death and that a higher being, even if it exists, does not care about me and won't give me anything, no matter how hard I ask. However, it does not make me a worse person than most Christians are in this life.
A nice visual aid, Mickey:).

shurale
04-06-2010, 19:05
I am a sinner. I don't deny it. Also, my faith is not very strong. That of Bogatyr's should be stronger if he came from San Francisco to Holy Russia.
But the bible says that the worst sinner who belives in Him is better than a non-believer.
Is it so Bogatyr?


A summary is a summary. A brief synopsis. You disagree with its four points? Shurale seems to agree with them, since he did not challenge them but fully confirmed one of the points.
Believe me it takes a much harder and greater effort to realize that there is no life after death and that a higher being, even if it exists, does not care about me and won't give me anything, no matter how hard I ask. However, it does not make me a worse person than most Christians are in this life.
A nice visual aid, Mickey:).

Jack17
04-06-2010, 19:12
So? People can call themselves whatever they want to. Also, the Church doesn't claim it is filled with Saints, on the contrary, the Church is populated entirely with sinners. My personal experience though is that people who are committed Orthodox and actively participating in the struggle we are all called to are the most pleasant and loving people I've ever encountered. Outside of the Church it's very hit or miss, mostly "miss" though. That's not a generalization or claim, just an observation.


You sure like inventing imaginary positions and attributing them to others. It's easy to argue with straw-men.

Why even bother addressing what you write when you're just going to go off again on some new random tangent complaining that we believe in something ridiculous which we clearly don't believe in?
Bogatyr, people believe in all kinds of things. Beliefs are fine, whatever makes a person happy and doesn't hurt someone else is no problem.

But beliefs are not facts. I question religion when it asserts its beliefs to be fact; therefore, let me ask, has anyone uncovered a birth or death certificate for Joshua bar Joseph of Nazareth aka "The Christ" from the early first century AD?

The problem with confusing fantazy and fact is that all sorts of mischief often ensues, i.e., The Thirty Years' War, 9/11, etc. My beliefs are that the highest good in this life consists of sex with beuatiful women, great food and booz, great art, a nice dacha in summer with a banya, great literature, great music (Jussi Bjoerling, Ivan Koslovsky, Sergei Lemeshev, Schubert's C minor Quintet), etc, etc. The difference between my beliefs and "religious" beliefs is that I couldn't care less whether anyone else shares my beliefs. They're only my beliefs.

Russian Lad
04-06-2010, 19:21
But the bible says that the worst sinner who belives in Him is better than a non-believer.

One of the reasons why church-going is so popular amongst the Russian mafia.
They repent after each murder they commit, it's in the policy. Basically, the church gives them the licence to kill.

Jack17
04-06-2010, 19:31
One of the reasons why church-going is so popular amongst the Russian mafia.
They repent after each murder they commit, it's in the policy. Basically, the church gives them the licence to kill.
PM me on this one RL, since it's not a religious question; but I thought you said the Militsia took over all the Mafia's business in Russia?

MickeyTong
04-06-2010, 19:39
Mickey, Mickey,

It is the materialists who have no basis in declaring killing "wrong" -- to them (you?) we're all just blobs of goo flapping around on a rock, so it doesn't matter what happens to this blob or that blob. To a materialist there can be no right and no wrong, and THAT is insane!

Bogatyr, Bogatyr....

Do you really believe that when you are in the presence of a "materialist" that you may be casually murdered? Compassion and empathy are qualities possessed only by Eastern Orthodox Christians (and, maybe, Roman Catholics)? Perhaps you should go to church and stay there, for your own safety. Take your wife and kids with you - who knows what "materialists" are capable of doing to them.

You may have been taught, and believe, that morality and ethics come only from God and that an absence of faith in the authorities you depend upon inevitably leads to amorality, but this is really just a conceit of theists and a serious slander/strawman against athesits.

shurale
04-06-2010, 19:53
Atheists are made not to murder by the laws of the state.
When they know they can get away with MURDER (note that I use the word murder, there is an important difference between murder and killing), they do murder.
Also, even a hen doesn't scratch for nothing, as Czechs say. That is an atheist easily becomes a murderer when there is some material interest.
In short, it is not safe to be around atheists, but
"The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold."
The fact that we are still alive is a miracle and another evidence of His existence.



Bogatyr, Bogatyr....

Do you really believe that when you are in the presence of a "materialist" that you may be casually murdered? Compassion and empathy are qualities possessed only by Eastern Orthodox Christians (and, maybe, Roman Catholics)? Perhaps you should go to church and stay there, for your own safety. Take your wife and kids with you - who knows what "materialists" are capable of doing to them.

You may have been taught, and believe, that morality and ethics come only from God and that an absence of faith in the authorities you depend upon inevitably leads to amorality, but this is really just a conceit of theists and a serious slander/strawman against athesits.

is4fun
04-06-2010, 20:14
How interesting and predictable it is when the original post contained a fact, a scientific fact that man had indeed created a living organism; an organism not unlike those we live with every day and are able to replicate under the same conditions as all other organisms on this planet. What is the most predictable part of the thread is, as always, the believers trying to change or reinterpret the subject so as to base their beliefs as if they were never wrong without any factual information that would dispute these findings other than quoting, interpreting or dreaming from a fictitious work of prose. Shame on you!

For those of you who have children, I truly hope that this deception does not carry further than a Santa or Darth Vader for in this day and age your children would be seriously hindered in their development as productive, competitive and wise minded individuals ready and willing to compete and survive into the next generation.

Russian Lad
04-06-2010, 20:15
Atheists are made not to murder by the laws of the state.
When they know they can get away with MURDER (note that I use the word murder, there is an important difference between murder and killing), they do murder.
Also, even a hen doesn't scratch for nothing, as Czechs say. That is an atheist easily becomes a murderer when there is some material interest.

Excellent! I want to take a shorter version for a quote!!!

is4fun
04-06-2010, 20:20
Atheists are made not to murder by the laws of the state.
When they know they can get away with MURDER (note that I use the word murder, there is an important difference between murder and killing), they do murder.
Also, even a hen doesn't scratch for nothing, as Czechs say. That is an atheist easily becomes a murderer when there is some material interest.
In short, it is not safe to be around atheists, but
"The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold."
The fact that we are still alive is a miracle and another evidence of His existence.

Absolute madness. LOL You have a rock and the majority have cognition. Too funny

rusmeister
04-06-2010, 21:07
Bogatyr, people believe in all kinds of things. Beliefs are fine, whatever makes a person happy and doesn't hurt someone else is no problem.

But beliefs are not facts. I question religion when it asserts its beliefs to be fact; therefore, let me ask, has anyone uncovered a birth or death certificate for Joshua bar Joseph of Nazareth aka "The Christ" from the early first century AD?

The problem with confusing fantazy and fact is that all sorts of mischief often ensues, i.e., The Thirty Years' War, 9/11, etc. My beliefs are that the highest good in this life consists of sex with beuatiful women, great food and booz, great art, a nice dacha in summer with a banya, great literature, great music (Jussi Bjoerling, Ivan Koslovsky, Sergei Lemeshev, Schubert's C minor Quintet), etc, etc. The difference between my beliefs and "religious" beliefs is that I couldn't care less whether anyone else shares my beliefs. They're only my beliefs.

Looks like Carbo has a new ID. Hi, Carbo!

I believe murder and rape are bad. Is it or is it not a fact that they are?

It looks to me like your definition of "fact" is a little narrow. It excludes a lot of things that we would acknowledge as facts even though they are not testable according to the scientific method.

You're basically saying that there is no truth, and that you can't even defend what you believe as true, as they are "only your beliefs". Well, if there is no truth, nothing you say can be true.


(Kirk) "Everything Harry Mudd says is a lie!"
(Mudd) "Listen to me, Norman. I'm lying."
Star Trek TOS "I, Mudd"

There IS truth and a true nature of the universe, and it is entirely possible that a particular view actually has a most complete grasp of that. If that's so, then what they believe also happens to be the truth.

On mischief from confusing fantasy and fact -
sex with beautiful women - diseases
great food - obesity
booze - alcoholism
art, literature, music, etc - pretty and pleasant, but when you're up against death as something that is happening to you and not just others, they are of precious little comfort.
They just don't provide answers to death. Your formula ignores the complete end of you.

Have you read Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilyich"?

Bogatyr
04-06-2010, 21:09
Bogatyr, Bogatyr....

Do you really believe that when you are in the presence of a "materialist" that you may be casually murdered?

No, you missed the point entirely (surprise, again). My point was that even though people claim to be materialists, as one did here recently, in reality they are not. They believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong. If I were in the presence of a pure materialist, someone who *thoroughly* believes there is no right and wrong, I would probably be in fear for my life, for such a person would be a lunatic by pretty much everybody's standards.



Compassion and empathy are qualities possessed only by Eastern Orthodox Christians (and, maybe, Roman Catholics)?

Where do you get this stuff? I never said so. No, my parents and the rest of my family are not Orthodox and they are wonderful people. I know many wonderful people who are not Orthodox. My earlier point was about it being a numbers game: in my experience extremely high percentages of serious Church goers are really fabulous people. Outside the Church, the percentages plummet. In my experience.



You may have been taught, and believe, that morality and ethics come only from God and that an absence of faith in the authorities you depend upon inevitably leads to amorality, but this is really just a conceit of theists and a serious slander/strawman against athesits.

Most would say that's ironic (but it's not, irony is not just "an amusing coincidence" as so many take it to mean today), using a straw-man argument based on straw-man arguments. What's that, a Meta-Straw-Man argument? You (all) don't know what I've been taught, and seem not to be listening when it comes to what we believe.

rusmeister
04-06-2010, 21:21
To Bogatyr I'll say that Mickey has often shown himself to be reasonable, even when he disagrees. Certain other posters are on my "ignore" list - I HAVE given up trying to say anything to them. Their hatred of faith is dogmatic and amenable to nothing. That includes is4fun and Russian Lad (unfortunately - I'd be happy to dialog with them if attitudes were different). I no longer see their posts except as reflections when you quote them. It (the ignore list) saves a lot of grief and lets you focus on those with whom you CAN have dialog. But some people here are not incorrigibly anti-faith.


Bogatyr, Bogatyr....

Do you really believe that when you are in the presence of a "materialist" that you may be casually murdered? Compassion and empathy are qualities possessed only by Eastern Orthodox Christians (and, maybe, Roman Catholics)? Perhaps you should go to church and stay there, for your own safety. Take your wife and kids with you - who knows what "materialists" are capable of doing to them.

You may have been taught, and believe, that morality and ethics come only from God and that an absence of faith in the authorities you depend upon inevitably leads to amorality, but this is really just a conceit of theists and a serious slander/strawman against athesits.

George Washington also thought this. Would you casually dismiss his words?


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

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

It is clear to me that Bogatyr is NOT saying that unbelievers have no morals whatsoever - only that as the basis they have for them is subjective, that morals can be changed at will, with the winds of popular fashion, and so DOES lead to amorality - not necessarily in every aspect, but certainly in some. For example, in our time sexual immorality is rampant - not having an absolute standard, a great many people choose whatever standard allows them the most pleasure at the moment. Whether this corresponds to the true nature and impact of sexual relations is another question - and as Bogatyr pointed out, the level of permissiveness - aka "freedom", has not lead to greater happiness. People are no more happy today than they were a century or two, or a millennium ago. They have only attained public approval to instantly gratify their wishes. That this does NOT result in greater happiness is manifestly obvious. That people are unsatisfied after gratifying desires is also manifest. Therefore, it cannot be our temporal fleshly desires that bring happiness in and of themselves. In and of themselves, they are empty acts, that leave us no better off fulfilled than unfulfilled.

yakspeare
04-06-2010, 21:31
How interesting and predictable it is when the original post contained a fact, a scientific fact that man had indeed created a living organism; an organism not unlike those we live with every day and are able to replicate under the same conditions as all other organisms on this planet. What is the most predictable part of the thread is, as always, the believers trying to change or reinterpret the subject so as to base their beliefs as if they were never wrong without any factual information that would dispute these findings other than quoting, interpreting or dreaming from a fictitious work of prose. Shame on you!

For those of you who have children, I truly hope that this deception does not carry further than a Santa or Darth Vader for in this day and age your children would be seriously hindered in their development as productive, competitive and wise minded individuals ready and willing to compete and survive into the next generation.

how interesting that you did not understand the science of it in the least, they had to borrow natural living cells to get the process to happen, only they kill those cells off later to have the pure "life" ....and science may very well be able to create life on its own...i don't know why you think this proves anything against christianity...God made man>> whatever man makes God obviously permitted under his scientific laws...(and i mean real science which we have only scratched the surface on).

So your scientific facts aren't really facts at all, i mean we just know so little about everything anyway. we can't account for the weight of the universe, and theorize it on dark matter , we don't know what caused the big bang...and we don't even have a universal law of gravitation.

Jack17
04-06-2010, 21:33
Looks like Carbo has a new ID. Hi, Carbo!

I believe murder and rape are bad. Is it or is it not a fact that they are?

It looks to me like your definition of "fact" is a little narrow. It excludes a lot of things that we would acknowledge as facts even though they are not testable according to the scientific method.

You're basically saying that there is no truth, and that you can't even defend what you believe as true, as they are "only your beliefs". Well, if there is no truth, nothing you say can be true.

Star Trek TOS "I, Mudd"

There IS truth and a true nature of the universe, and it is entirely possible that a particular view actually has a most complete grasp of that. If that's so, then what they believe also happens to be the truth.

On mischief from confusing fantasy and fact -
sex with beautiful women - diseases
great food - obesity
booze - alcoholism
art, literature, music, etc - pretty and pleasant, but when you're up against death as something that is happening to you and not just others, they are of precious little comfort.
They just don't provide answers to death. Your formula ignores the complete end of you.

Have you read Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilyich"?
Rusmeister, you are a worthy debating partner and a very intelligent man with whom I just happen to disagree on the matter of religion.

As for "Truth," I can't do any better than Pontius Pilate, "What is Truth?"

As for "fact," I suspect any common definition of the word "fact" would be too narrow for you.

As for "murder and rape," I refer you to the second sentence of my previous post.

As for "Carbo," Wow! That is quite possibly the greatest compliment I've received in memory. Let's face it, no one on this Expat.ru site comes close to Carbo in the quality of their English prose Rusmeister - not you and not me even. Anyway, I know Carbo; Carbo is a friend of mine; and let me tell you Rusmeister, I am no Carbo! Anyway, Carbo is much younger and has more hair than I do.

Jack17
04-06-2010, 21:43
How interesting and predictable it is when the original post contained a fact, a scientific fact that man had indeed created a living organism; an organism not unlike those we live with every day and are able to replicate under the same conditions as all other organisms on this planet. What is the most predictable part of the thread is, as always, the believers trying to change or reinterpret the subject so as to base their beliefs as if they were never wrong without any factual information that would dispute these findings other than quoting, interpreting or dreaming from a fictitious work of prose. Shame on you!

For those of you who have children, I truly hope that this deception does not carry further than a Santa or Darth Vader for in this day and age your children would be seriously hindered in their development as productive, competitive and wise minded individuals ready and willing to compete and survive into the next generation.
"For those of you who have children, I truly hope that this deception does not carry further than a Santa or Darth Vader for in this day and age your children would be seriously hindered in their development as productive, competitive and wise minded individuals ready and willing to compete and survive into the next generation."

is4fun, that ain't for fun. Even for a dyed-in-the-wool agnostic like myself, your admonition goes a little, no, a lot too far. We're not all that different than the folks living a few hundred years ago and I dare say that Religion didn't hold back the wisdom or creativity of Rafaello, Michelangelo or Bach. Even in my own, albeit far less illustrious case, 8 years of Jesuit training hasn't curbed my enthusiasm for drugs, sex and classical music.

SV1973a
04-06-2010, 21:47
I dare say that Religion didn't hold back the wisdom or creativity of Rafaello, Michelangelo or Bach. Even in my own, albeit far less illustrious case, 8 years of Jesuit training hasn't curbed my enthusiasm for drugs, sex and classical music.

Perhaps not these people, but religion DID hold back great minds like Blaise Pascal and Isaac Newton.

Russian Lad
04-06-2010, 21:50
Certain other posters are on my "ignore" list - I HAVE given up trying to say anything to them. Their hatred of faith is dogmatic and amenable to nothing. That includes is4fun and Russian Lad (unfortunately - I'd be happy to dialog with them if attitudes were different). I no longer see their posts except as reflections when you quote them. It (the ignore list) saves a lot of grief and lets you focus on those with whom you CAN have dialog. But some people here are not incorrigibly anti-faith.


A typical Christian. An ostrich sticking his head into the sand to avoid debate.
Good riddance. I haven't banned a single poster while I have been on this site, nor do I have an intention to do so. I am not an ostrich. Wonder if I should start PMing all my posts to Rusmeister, just to annoy the guy:) What do you think, guys?:)

yakspeare
04-06-2010, 21:55
Excellent! I want to take a shorter version for a quote!!!

Don't get too excited...Shurale has very little biblical basis for his beliefs, infact he is twisting scripture so much the "devout christian" tag is quite in doubt.


I will comment on the "prayer to the milk jug" youtube link.

Yes it is absolutely correct!

Of course it is!

If not how would the buddhist, Hindu, Jehovah's witness and muslim etc believe their prayers are being answered when they are clearly not. Christians fall into the very same trap.

My sister is like this, has to pray just about to get out of bed in the morning. Her Holy life is commendable but I can see the children hate it and I sympathize.


For those who doubt the power of prayer etc, you are often right! One of my pet hates when i was a realtor was attending seminars on positive thinking etc and that you can change your reality by thinking positive...they have books like "the secret" making millions out of this.

There is of course some benefit to a certain level of positive thinking but these guys go to far and many christians turn the gospel message into something similar.

The church as a body desperately requires a renewed reformation and a Gospel and message without power is impotent. I tell anyone...Christ promised the power that came with spreading the word, signs and wonders, people healed and the dead raised. i side with the Atheists on this one- God really isn't hiding, if you spread the truth he will back you. If he doesn't then he doesn't care or isn't real.

The thing is, I would be the first to join the Atheist ranks if i could. I would relish it! The very problem I face is my knowledge that God exists. I can't possibly apologise for it, it is NOT some magical voodoo called faith. I have been, frankly, quite a terrible christian but I do have one thing on my side. the Truth.

I have had my own bones brought back into my body and fully healed. I have had one another experience I am convinced was an Angel, I have healed the sick. I could do a WHOLE lot more and know i should, but I just don't want to and is my shame. I was called to Russia when i was 19(Siberia infact) which is why I will probably never go there. It can be quite a curse to actually know the truth guys, seriously. How wonderful to hide behind what appears common sense logic...if God didn't part the Red sea, turn water into wine, rise from the dead and all this, then CLEARLY we are insane to believe this. The road to the real power, to being made Holy requires an enormous amount of self-sacrifice and you can be hated far more than a few Atheists on a forum can dislike you! I know I risk everything in this, the desire for a normal life, and the fact is I d have an escape clause...He will give it to me but then how do you look back from eternity knowing you could do something truly wonderful and you instead had the quiet suburban life with a bunch of kids and a mortgage?

BUT, if there is ANY shred of truth and the Christian God DOES exist, no matter how incredible it is to us, then the christian, as imperfect and foolish as they often are, is indeed wise.

I have already given the link on the Jewish faith which Mickey mustn't of seen when he reposted it...it is good christians know what we actually believe and be challenged on it.

Atheists, if you really want to win this argument, challenge the christians on the real power of healing. Question them for evidence etc and make them read and re-read the scriptures until they until understand it is a foundation of christianity that these things MUST be done.

Believe me, you are doing us a huge favour, in the long run if you do.

SV1973a
04-06-2010, 22:00
A typical Christian. An ostrich sticking his head into the sand to avoid debate.
Good riddance. I haven't banned a single poster while I have been on this site, nor do I have an intention to do so. I am not an ostrich. Wonder if I should start PMing all my posts to Rusmeister, just to annoy the guy:) What do you think, guys?:)

I think you shouldn`t.
You are right though about not banning people. I never banned anybody either, and don`t ever intend to as well.

Jack17
04-06-2010, 22:02
Perhaps not these people, but religion DID hold back great minds like Blaise Pascal and Isaac Newton.
'Did hold back great minds like Isaac Newton?' SV1973a, that is quite possibly the loopiest thing I've read on this site which has no shortage of loopy posts.

The reason in that statement is more confounding than anything espoused by any religion.

So, by your reasoning, if Sir Isaac had not been exposed to 18th Century English Protestantism, he would have gone beyond the Principae Matmaticae to formulate a Theory of Everything (TOE)? Wow, this thread has proved one thing: You don't need to be religious to be crazy. Anyway, in addition to inventing Calculus and creating the Physics that put man on the moon, Newton was a frustrated alchamist, certainly not a main line Christian.

is4fun
04-06-2010, 22:02
how interesting that you did not understand the science of it in the least, they had to borrow natural living cells to get the process to happen, only they kill those cells off later to have the pure "life" ....and science may very well be able to create life on its own...i don't know why you think this proves anything against christianity...God made man>> whatever man makes God obviously permitted under his scientific laws...(and i mean real science which we have only scratched the surface on).

So your scientific facts aren't really facts at all, i mean we just know so little about everything anyway. we can't account for the weight of the universe, and theorize it on dark matter , we don't know what caused the big bang...and we don't even have a universal law of gravitation.

I don’t think you understand. These people created life. OK, let’s say they brought the dead back to living. Where is your science?

Russian Lad
04-06-2010, 22:02
The thing is, I would be the first to join the Atheist ranks if i could. I would relish it! The very problem I face is my knowledge that God exists. I can't possibly apologise for it, it is NOT some magical voodoo called faith. I have been, frankly, quite a terrible christian but I do have one thing on my side. the Truth.

I have had my own bones brought back into my body and fully healed. I have had one another experience I am convinced was an Angel, I have healed the sick. I could do a WHOLE lot more and know i should, but I just don't want to and is my shame. I was called to Russia when i was 19(Siberia infact) which is why I will probably never go there. It can be quite a curse to actually know the truth guys, seriously. How wonderful to hide behind what appears common sense logic...if God didn't part the Red sea, turn water into wine, rise from the dead and all this, then CLEARLY we are insane to believe this. The road to the real power, to being made Holy requires an enormous amount of self-sacrifice and you can be hated far more than a few Atheists on a forum can dislike you! I know I risk everything in this, the desire for a normal life, and the fact is I d have an escape clause...He will give it to me but then how do you look back from eternity knowing you could do something truly wonderful and you instead had the quiet suburban life with a bunch of kids and a mortgage?


Yak, it is really an amazing story that you shared with us, I was quite impressed, a shame I wasn't there:). But what if it wasn't Jesus but some alien force? Or Buddha? Or something of sorts? What conclusive evidence do you have for yourself that it was Jesus and the company (Holy Spirit, whatever there is in the Bible)?

Russian Lad
04-06-2010, 22:04
I think you shouldn`t.
You are right though about not banning people. I never banned anybody either, and don`t ever intend to as well.

SV, I am a cunning dude sometimes, my whole intention was just to make someone copy-paste this post so that he could read it:). Of course I would never be PM-ing him all the time. Thanks for cooperation:).

SV1973a
04-06-2010, 22:05
Atheists are made not to murder by the laws of the state.
When they know they can get away with MURDER (note that I use the word murder, there is an important difference between murder and killing), they do murder.
Also, even a hen doesn't scratch for nothing, as Czechs say. That is an atheist easily becomes a murderer when there is some material interest.
In short, it is not safe to be around atheists, but
"The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold."
The fact that we are still alive is a miracle and another evidence of His existence.

Shurale,
A couple of months ago my neighbours were getting on my nerves with loud noises at night.
You know I am an atheist, so I would like your advice:
-should I kill them?
-should I murder them?
-how do you think my chances are of getting away with murder?

Russian Lad
04-06-2010, 22:12
A couple of months ago my neighbours were getting on my nerves with loud noises at night.
You know I am an atheist, so I would like your advice:
-should I kill them?
-should I murder them?
-how do you think my chances are of getting away with murder?

Oh, man! You have actually been waiting for TWO MONTHS? I have killed my neighbors just after they moved in and started making noises. Being an atheist (or agnostic, that is) I would kill for a wrongly tuned fart produced in my presence!
If they drink vodka befriend them and treat them to potions containing some methanol. They best way, I have discovered. On par only with pillow smothering. Try both.

SV1973a
04-06-2010, 22:20
Oh, man! You have actually been waiting for TWO MONTHS? I have killed my neighbors just after they moved in and started making noises. Being an atheist (or agnostic, that is) I would kill for a wrongly tuned fart produced in my presence!
If they drink vodka befriend them and treat them to potions containing some methanol. They best way, I have discovered. On par only with pillow smothering. Try both.

Well, they have been quiet ever after that incident. I suppose some other atheist neighbour took care of the job already.
But thanks for the tip about the methanol. If it doesn`t kill them, it will certainly blind them.

is4fun
04-06-2010, 22:20
To Bogatyr I'll say that Mickey has often shown himself to be reasonable, even when he disagrees. Certain other posters are on my "ignore" list - I HAVE given up trying to say anything to them. Their hatred of faith is dogmatic and amenable to nothing. That includes is4fun and Russian Lad (unfortunately - I'd be happy to dialog with them if attitudes were different). I no longer see their posts except as reflections when you quote them. It (the ignore list) saves a lot of grief and lets you focus on those with whom you CAN have dialog. But some people here are not incorrigibly anti-faith.



George Washington also thought this. Would you casually dismiss his words?



It is clear to me that Bogatyr is NOT saying that unbelievers have no morals whatsoever - only that as the basis they have for them is subjective, that morals can be changed at will, with the winds of popular fashion, and so DOES lead to amorality - not necessarily in every aspect, but certainly in some. For example, in our time sexual immorality is rampant - not having an absolute standard, a great many people choose whatever standard allows them the most pleasure at the moment. Whether this corresponds to the true nature and impact of sexual relations is another question - and as Bogatyr pointed out, the level of permissiveness - aka "freedom", has not lead to greater happiness. People are no more happy today than they were a century or two, or a millennium ago. They have only attained public approval to instantly gratify their wishes. That this does NOT result in greater happiness is manifestly obvious. That people are unsatisfied after gratifying desires is also manifest. Therefore, it cannot be our temporal fleshly desires that bring happiness in and of themselves. In and of themselves, they are empty acts, that leave us no better off fulfilled than unfulfilled.


Making reference to someone who disagrees with one’s knowledge hardly qualifies another to post reference that another’s knowledge should not be read. Just like any other religious fanatic who always tries to sequester the realistic ideas of those who are not “in-line” with the rest of religious non-reality. The pattern of these fanatical posters are clear, they do not wish that the weak read alternative messages which are based in fact but rather maintain control with messages cloaked in mystysism.

SV1973a
04-06-2010, 22:32
'Did hold back great minds like Isaac Newton?' SV1973a, that is quite possibly the loopiest thing I've read on this site which has no shortage of loopy posts.

The reason in that statement is more confounding than anything espoused by any religion.

So, by your reasoning, if Sir Isaac had not been exposed to 18th Century English Protestantism, he would have gone beyond the Principae Matmaticae to formulate a Theory of Everything (TOE)? Wow, this thread has proved one thing: You don't need to be religious to be crazy. Anyway, in addition to inventing Calculus and creating the Physics that put man on the moon, Newton was a frustrated alchamist, certainly not a main line Christian.

I took this from Wikipedia, but I was familiar with the fact. I have an interest in natural sciences, and have read a couple of Newton biographies.

Newton was also highly religious, though an unorthodox Christian, writing more on Biblical hermeneutics and occult studies than the natural science for which he is remembered today.

So my claim is, Newton might have achieved more. He certainly had the intellect and the will power to understand scientific phenomena. Would he have discouvered the Theory of Everything? No, because scientific knowledge was definitely not up to it by that time. He did not know about forces that interact at interatomary level (did not even know what an atom was), nor did he know about the relation between mass and energy.
However, other fields of physics, mathematics and chemistry certainly were within reach for Newton.
Imagine that Newton laid the foundations for electromagnetic theory so that Maxwell`s discoveries would have happened 50 or 100 years later.

Main thing I wanted to say, all time Newton wasted on religion, was lost for serious scientific ideas.
The same is valid for Blaise Pascal and no doubt for many other scientists.

MickeyTong
04-06-2010, 22:43
No, you missed the point entirely (surprise, again). My point was that even though people claim to be materialists, as one did here recently, in reality they are not. They believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong. If I were in the presence of a pure materialist, someone who *thoroughly* believes there is no right and wrong, I would probably be in fear for my life, for such a person would be a lunatic by pretty much everybody's standards.


Where do you get this stuff? I never said so. No, my parents and the rest of my family are not Orthodox and they are wonderful people. I know many wonderful people who are not Orthodox. My earlier point was about it being a numbers game: in my experience extremely high percentages of serious Church goers are really fabulous people. Outside the Church, the percentages plummet. In my experience.



Most would say that's ironic (but it's not, irony is not just "an amusing coincidence" as so many take it to mean today), using a straw-man argument based on straw-man arguments. What's that, a Meta-Straw-Man argument? You (all) don't know what I've been taught, and seem not to be listening when it comes to what we believe.

Missed the point, again??? You use the word "materialists" as a blanket (and derogatory) term in the way that some use the term "religion" as if they are "all the same". You seem to be claiming that morality requires a supernatural basis whereas I insist that it does not. Empathy and compassion, and the morality they evoke, have evolved in us because we are social animals - the psychopaths without morality are an aberration (but an alarming 3% of the population).

What you believe? You believe that the Orthodox Church is the body of Christ the Saviour - the Word that was in the beginning and will be forever more. Beliefs and behaviours outside that church deviate from the truth about the universe and our place/role in it, to varying degrees, with "materialists" pretty low in the True Order Of Things.

I don't doubt that many sincere believers - in any supernatural faith - struggling to become better people, are really fabulous people.

Can you not see that when you make claims about your religion, you sound the same as other people making claims for their religions?

And you (personally) don't know what I have been taught.

Regards, and best wishes.

Bogatyr
05-06-2010, 00:01
Missed the point, again??? You use the word "materialists" as a blanket (and derogatory) term in the way that some use the term "religion" as if they are "all the same". You seem to be claiming that morality requires a supernatural basis whereas I insist that it does not. Empathy and compassion, and the morality they evoke, have evolved in us because we are social animals - the psychopaths without morality are an aberration (but an alarming 3% of the population).

I use the term "materialist" in a "derogatory" manner here because I do not believe there are really any such people. To me, "materialist" means a person that believes in nothing beyond matter, who has *no sense of right and wrong*, from any source whatsoever. And people pretty much universally have a sense of right and wrong, in or out of any faith, so when someone claims to believer in nothing but matter I think such a person is personally deluded and/or just very inconsistent, and was pointing that out. It has nothing to do with Orthodoxy or Christianity. It's not really a terribly important point, and one that everyone seems to be missing, so I'll just drop it.



What you believe? You believe that the Orthodox Church is the body of Christ the Saviour - the Word that was in the beginning and will be forever more. Beliefs and behaviours outside that church deviate from the truth about the universe and our place/role in it, to varying degrees, with "materialists" pretty low in the True Order Of Things.

That's pretty close, good job. I wish you (and mostly others) would stick to those clear doctrine and dogma in our discussions instead of making things up. "Materialist" was a semantic point as I explained about, I think you're making too much of it.



Can you not see that when you make claims about your religion, you sound the same as other people making claims for their religions?

So? When was that part of the discussion? I could say "Can't you see that you sound like all atheists?" but it doesn't add anything -- it's a bit of a non-sequitor.



And you (personally) don't know what I have been taught.

The difference is I never claimed to know what you have been taught -- why do you claim to know what I have?



Regards, and best wishes.
Likewise.

MickeyTong
05-06-2010, 00:20
So? When was that part of the discussion? I could say "Can't you see that you sound like all atheists?" but it doesn't add anything -- it's a bit of a non-sequitor.




I agree that all atheists will say there is no supernatural agency, but none of us have conflicting beliefs about the nature of that nonexistant agency, nor do we say "We have the blueprint for how humans should be".

Theists do have conflicting beliefs about the nature of their deity(ies), and conflicting blueprints for the human race; all claiming that their beliefs and blueprints are the only valid ones. If you want to claim to outsiders that your religion is The Truth, you should expect some hard questions. Or a silent and indulgent smile.

MickeyTong
05-06-2010, 00:43
"Materialist" was a semantic point as I explained about, I think you're making too much of it.


I am a materialist but I'm not amoral, as you say materialists are, neither do I think that there is nothing other than "matter". But matter is the hardware, without which there would be no software such as love, compassion, intelligence, understanding, appreciation of beauty/colour/musicpoetry, or morality. Nor gravity, nor sub-atomic forces. Although these are non-material they are not immaterial.

Sorry if you think I'm making too much of it.

Bogatyr
05-06-2010, 01:08
I am a materialist but I'm not amoral, as you say materialists are, neither do I think that there is nothing other than "matter". But matter is the hardware, without which there would be no software such as love, compassion, intelligence, understanding, appreciation of beauty/colour/musicpoetry, or morality. Nor gravity, nor sub-atomic forces. Although these are non-material they are not immaterial.

Sorry if you think I'm making too much of it.

Know what's interesting about software?

It is created :)

MickeyTong
05-06-2010, 01:17
To Bogatyr I'll say that Mickey has often shown himself to be reasonable, even when he disagrees.


George Washington also thought this. Would you casually dismiss his words?



It is clear to me that Bogatyr is NOT saying that unbelievers have no morals whatsoever - only that as the basis they have for them is subjective, that morals can be changed at will, with the winds of popular fashion, and so DOES lead to amorality - not necessarily in every aspect, but certainly in some. For example, in our time sexual immorality is rampant - not having an absolute standard, a great many people choose whatever standard allows them the most pleasure at the moment. Whether this corresponds to the true nature and impact of sexual relations is another question - and as Bogatyr pointed out, the level of permissiveness - aka "freedom", has not lead to greater happiness. People are no more happy today than they were a century or two, or a millennium ago. They have only attained public approval to instantly gratify their wishes. That this does NOT result in greater happiness is manifestly obvious. That people are unsatisfied after gratifying desires is also manifest. Therefore, it cannot be our temporal fleshly desires that bring happiness in and of themselves. In and of themselves, they are empty acts, that leave us no better off fulfilled than unfulfilled.

Thanks for recognising my reasonableness.

As for G Washington: no, I would not casually dismiss his words, but I don't think he (or anyone else) should always be believed.

"Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." Here he seems to say that moral and ethical behaviour can be conceded to well educated people without religion, but the Lumpen need to be kept in line by religion.

It is not only religious people who know that sexual incontinence doesn't bring happiness, nor is it only Christians who are monogamous. And I don't think that morals can be changed at will - officially sanctioned morals can vary over time and place, but personal morality is not so flexible.

MickeyTong
05-06-2010, 01:31
Know what's interesting about software?

It is created :)

As soon as I clicked the Submit Reply button I knew someone would retort with something like "Ahaaa....but hardware was a first thought in someone's mind before it was made."

The "Big Bang" is a misnomer. The universe devoped when a singularity expanded. The characteristics of that singularity, and its origins, are probably unknowable. Possibly that singularity still exists, outside space and time as it was when it expanded. Or possibly this is just the best idea that science can come up with at this time.

Carbo
05-06-2010, 02:42
Looks like Carbo has a new ID. Hi, Carbo!

Rusmeister, I can say that, absolutely honestly, I am not Jack.

We live in different countries, and although we met up for a very pleasant drink when he was on Moscow once, we are not the same person.

yakspeare
05-06-2010, 03:02
Russian Lad,

I have some pretty good reasons to believe it was indeed the Christian God.

What burden of proof is required though? the civil balance of probabilities or the criminal beyond a reasonable doubt? or something even greater?

This was not the first experience for me, and it wasn't even(to me), the most spectacular...but what it was is the most medical and scientifically challenging.

Firstly the massive coincidence of a verse i had never been used in such context being mentioned to me the day before and how absurb that verse seemed on its own in the conversation. This very same verse "sprung to my mind" at the moment it happened in such a profound way. the very moment that clear verse appeared in my head, i had the very real sensation of hundreds if not thousands of hands adjusting my fall, on which was certain death head first.

This was the verse which i had never heard except the abridged version spoken by the Devil to Christ(and thus different to this one):

For He will give His angels special charge over you to accompany and defend and preserve you in all your ways of obedience and service.

They shall bear you up on their hands, lest you dash your foot against a stone.

The words of the Doctor too, were like a command. A very specific command to "get up and walk"...i cannot explain the feeling that overcame me at that point, far stronger than any adrenaline...i went from lethargy and broken spirit to a fully healed man. The bible "get up and walk" verse resonated so loudly in my ears at this time. It was also profoundly strange(though not impossible) for a Doctor to speak in such manner.

I can say also, that afterwards I had some trouble fellowshipping with other believers as to walk into a church almost brought me to my knees(and did occasionally)....our human bodies and minds not only struggle intellectually with God...but literally can't bear his presence in their natural state. you only know how dirty something is when you see something so clean next to it.

You can't comprehend the power and perhaps never witness it. you have to realise that not all who call themselves "christians" are even getting to Heaven, it about how you think and not the actions. It means a life of giving up everything for him. i think i got a taste of what could be, which i have perversely resisted so far.

Galatians 4:6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"

The sensation , this feeling that fills my whole being is not that of a distant God , but of our true Father. Feelings of course be subjective but not all of them are.it is nothing like any narcotic.

Russian Lad
05-06-2010, 03:19
The words of the Doctor too, were like a command. A very specific command to "get up and walk"...i cannot explain the feeling that overcame me at that point, far stronger than any adrenaline...i went from lethargy and broken spirit to a fully healed man. The bible "get up and walk" verse resonated so loudly in my ears at this time. It was also profoundly strange(though not impossible) for a Doctor to speak in such manner.


I guess if I were you I would find that doctor and talk to him (and to all others who saw you that night before and after the hospital), would ask the details about my condition when I was rushed into the hospital and the change that he must have seen. Also I would ask what made him say something strange as "get up and walk", under the circumstances you described. Your story might have far reaching results. You come across as a reasonable person, so I have no grounds not to believe you as to what happened. It is all rather amazing.


I have some pretty good reasons to believe it was indeed the Christian God.

What burden of proof is required though? the civil balance of probabilities or the criminal beyond a reasonable doubt? or something even greater?

There are quite many stories out there coming from people who claim they were abducted and in some cases healed by aliens.
I have seen some strange objects in the sky a few times in my life, I am inclined to believe it is possible. Actually, the vector of the civilization development tells me my computer, for example, is not necessarily something that was invented here on Earth. But that's another long story.

Jack17
05-06-2010, 05:12
Rusmeister, I can say that, absolutely honestly, I am not Jack.

We live in different countries, and although we met up for a very pleasant drink when he was on Moscow once, we are not the same person.
Yes Rusmeister, and Carbo would never have such a tasteless avatar as mine.

Jack17
05-06-2010, 05:21
I took this from Wikipedia, but I was familiar with the fact. I have an interest in natural sciences, and have read a couple of Newton biographies.

Newton was also highly religious, though an unorthodox Christian, writing more on Biblical hermeneutics and occult studies than the natural science for which he is remembered today.

So my claim is, Newton might have achieved more. He certainly had the intellect and the will power to understand scientific phenomena. Would he have discouvered the Theory of Everything? No, because scientific knowledge was definitely not up to it by that time. He did not know about forces that interact at interatomary level (did not even know what an atom was), nor did he know about the relation between mass and energy.
However, other fields of physics, mathematics and chemistry certainly were within reach for Newton.
Imagine that Newton laid the foundations for electromagnetic theory so that Maxwell`s discoveries would have happened 50 or 100 years later.

Main thing I wanted to say, all time Newton wasted on religion, was lost for serious scientific ideas.
The same is valid for Blaise Pascal and no doubt for many other scientists.
"unorthodox Christian????"

That is some understatement, he was an alchemist trying to turn lead into gold. Not that your conclusion follows your premise, but it would be more correct to say his dedication to alchemy robbed him of time better spent on other pursuits.

But since neither of us has had the opportunity to psychoanalyze Sir Isaac, it could be just as well said that his alchemical pursuits may have acted as a muse to his more strictly scientific endeavors. Your conclusion is just a conjecture without a reasoned argument.

We agnostics have to be careful here, or these religious zealots will pick us apart.

2ndWind
05-06-2010, 05:37
To me, the referenced dialogue is simply a contrived exercise pretending to illustrate reasoning. Perhaps the technique works with school children.


Orthodox. You know, the early Christians were accused of being cannibals by their enemies. However, cannibals eat dead meat. In the Mystery we do not partake of dead meat, but of living flesh, the Flesh of the God-Man. It is alive not only through Its union with His human Soul, but also through Its union with the Divine Spirit. And that makes It not only alive, but Life-giving.I believe that I have read of "cannibalistic" tribesmen who believe that by eating the flesh of a vanquished but strong and courageous warrior foe they would gain the attributes of that foe. How is this different from the belief that by eating the flesh of a god then one gains "eternal life" - i.e. becomes "godlike"?
Now, the concept of eating flesh while it is still living (as described in the referenced passage) adds an even more macabre aspect to the ritual.

To the present day, I believe that there are men who believe that they can gain certain desired animal traits by eating certain animal parts such as powdered rhinoceros horn being used in Chinese medicine as an aphrodisiac.

2ndWind
05-06-2010, 06:58
I'll second Bogatyr's recommendation to 2ndWind to check out Clark Carlton. I grew up Baptist and he just totally nails everything that was wrong with the Baptists, . . .

(To 2nd Wind:) I think you might find an awful lot in common with that man, certainly at least as far as what he realized about the Baptists.

As my search developed, it turned out that the problem wasn't with the Baptists or any other organization but with the whole concept of theism. Once I came to understand (from my viewpoint anyway) that there was no more evidence for a god than there was for a tooth fairy then the search was over. It wasn't a matter of finding the "right" or "true" denomination or faith - all are based on the human imagination.


As to your other ideas, about cannibalism, etc, you ought to trouble yourself to find out how we really see it - what you'd have to do to get us to accept anything you say is correctly describe what we believe. As stated below, the Orthodox do not use the Roman Catholic term "transubstantiation" but still believe in a magical transformation of the bread and wine.

From Wikipedia:
In Roman Catholic theology, "transubstantiation" means the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood (respectively) of Christ in the Eucharist . . .

Some Greek confessions use the term "transubstantiation", but most Orthodox Christian traditions play down the term itself, . . . while adhering to the holy mystery that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ during Divine Liturgy

It may not have been clear that I have no interest in "debating" you or any other theist. I do not try to convert theists. Knowing that theists believe in a magical being(s) and lots of other imaginary stuff is enough for me to know.

I think it is likely that theists know that their beliefs are insane and are therefore driven to recruit, by any means, others to some version of theism. Recruiting between theistic groups (such as between christians and muslims) is more a matter of ego, power and money. Theists seem to believe that if they have great numbers of members (nominal or otherwise) then it validates their beliefs and shows them to be sane.

I hold that if every human on earth sincerely stated a belief in a single denomination, such as Russian orthodox, it would not make their beliefs any more true or the members any less insane.

Bogatyr
05-06-2010, 10:00
As soon as I clicked the Submit Reply button I knew someone would retort with something like "Ahaaa....but hardware was a first thought in someone's mind before it was made."

The "Big Bang" is a misnomer. The universe devoped when a singularity expanded. The characteristics of that singularity, and its origins, are probably unknowable. Possibly that singularity still exists, outside space and time as it was when it expanded. Or possibly this is just the best idea that science can come up with at this time.

Stating a prediction of an entirely reasonable response, or couching a statement in disclaimers about potential rebuttals, in no way detracts from the reasonable nature of that response or those rebuttals!

It is also entirely predictable that atheist responses of the sort "Christians are insane, etc." will appear to most Christian posts here. In your minds does that make them less valid because we Christians can see them coming?

And, while we're on the subject of "reasonable" (and you being recommended as reasonable), reasonable people know that the presence of multiple overlapping and sometimes contradictory explanations ("theists do not agree") does not preclude the possibility that one of them is in fact the truth. Also, the absence of multiple explanations ("atheists are unified...") does not constitute in any way proof or support of the veracity of the unified position (flat earth, etc.).

Speaking of the creation of the universe, it's amusing how "reasonable and rational" scientists can say in the same breath without any self-criticism: 1) we do not know the origins of the universe, the true origins are *unknowable*[1], and 2) the Christian explanation is wrong.

[1] unknowable meaning unprovable. Scientists will all agree I'm sure that there was a cause.

rusmeister
05-06-2010, 11:49
Don't get too excited...Shurale has very little biblical basis for his beliefs, infact he is twisting scripture so much the "devout christian" tag is quite in doubt.


Hi yakspeare,
There is so much that I agree with you on - so much that IS compatible with Orthodox teaching that I would add little to.

Here, though, I would say that if Shurale is quoting Scripture, he has 'as much of a Biblical basis' as you do. This is the problem of claiming the text of Holy Scripture itself as the authority that arbitrates what it means. It's exactly like saying that the Constitution interprets itself, that we don't need institutional judges to interpret it.
The problem of authority.

MickeyTong
05-06-2010, 12:56
Stating a prediction of an entirely reasonable response, or couching a statement in disclaimers about potential rebuttals, in no way detracts from the reasonable nature of that response or those rebuttals!

I thought I implied that I walked right into your response, not that it was unreasonable.

It is also entirely predictable that atheist responses of the sort "Christians are insane, etc." will appear to most Christian posts here. In your minds does that make them less valid because we Christians can see them coming?

I actually have fairly precise criteria as to what constitutes mental illness, and belief in supernatural agencies per se is not among them. I only have one mind, I don't represent others, and predictable rebuttals are not necessarily invalid.


And, while we're on the subject of "reasonable" (and you being recommended as reasonable), reasonable people know that the presence of multiple overlapping and sometimes contradictory explanations ("theists do not agree") does not preclude the possibility that one of them is in fact the truth. Also, the absence of multiple explanations ("atheists are unified...") does not constitute in any way proof or support of the veracity of the unified position (flat earth, etc.).

I agree with that. As for cosmology, I really have very little understanding of what scientists are saying. As for God The Creator - I don't believe, but I could be wrong. Hey, I'm just a nurse, all I do is help sick people return to competent functionality.

Speaking of the creation of the universe, it's amusing how "reasonable and rational" scientists can say in the same breath without any self-criticism: 1) we do not know the origins of the universe, the true origins are *unknowable*[1], and 2) the Christian explanation is wrong.

[1] unknowable meaning unprovable. Scientists will all agree I'm sure that there was a cause.

"Reasonable and rational" are not the sum total of a human being.

I had thought/hoped/teased (when I wrote about a singularity - outside time and space - whose characteristics were unknowable) that someone would have pointed out that this sounds a bit like...er...God.

But atoms, too, were once believed to be indivisible, so maybe the singularity will become a triunity...or more.


Anyway, I'm glad you've accepted Rusmeister's recommendation of my reasonableness: it is all too easy to stick a derogatory label on the "other". If you don't agree with my politics you are a nazi/neo-con/fascio-capitalist/racist or a lefty/liberal/commie/etc. If you don't share my beliefs about God you are a mindless/cannibal/heretic-burner or amoral/filthy-souled/dupe of Satan.

But I don't have to be reasonable. In real life (not expat.ru) I deal with many Christians, mostly Protestant, and I do not discuss religion with them. If they press me on the issue I play dumb. If they continue to press - in their condescending, patronising manner - I say something that makes them put me on their "ignore list".

MickeyTong
05-06-2010, 12:58
How does one do multi-quotes????????????

shurale
05-06-2010, 13:06
I have a worrying question, 'When are children old enough to be chastized with the rod of correction?'
I know that they will not die if I beat them (that is what the Bible says), but I would like to know technical details, when they are old enough to be punished with a rod, the ideal material of the rod of the correction, how many stripes, etc? :question:

SV1973a
05-06-2010, 13:26
I have a worrying question, 'When are children old enough to be chastized with the rod of correction?'
I know that they will not die if I beat them (that is what the Bible says), but I would like to know technical details, when they are old enough to be punished with a rod, the ideal material of the rod of the correction, how many stripes, etc? :question:

Certainly not before they reach the age of 150, but preferably only from 175 upwards.

Bogatyr
05-06-2010, 13:53
How
does
one do multi-quotes????????????

Just type in (quote) This is a quote! (/quote) with the parentheses changed to square brackets.

Bogatyr
05-06-2010, 14:11
"Reasonable and rational" are not the sum total of a human being.
Amen! I hope is4fun, 2ndwind, etc. are listening.



I had thought/hoped/teased (when I wrote about a singularity - outside time and space - whose characteristics were unknowable) that someone would have pointed out that this sounds a bit like...er...God.

Of course, it's the natural response, so I thought I'd avoid "the tired and trite mystic babbling" that we Christians (as claimed by is4fun, etc.) love so much.



Anyway, I'm glad you've accepted Rusmeister's recommendation of my reasonableness: it is all too easy to stick a derogatory label on the "other". If you don't agree with my politics you are a nazi/neo-con/fascio-capitalist/racist or a lefty/liberal/commie/etc. If you don't share my beliefs about God you are a mindless/cannibal/heretic-burner or amoral/filthy-souled/dupe of Satan.

I don't intend to label people at all. Unlike apparently many of the posters here, and in severe contrast to what most people seem to assume, I (representing Christians, at least the Orthodox sort) don't think I'm better than anybody else. If you look carefully at the collected threads on this site I think you'll see though a very clear pattern that it is the posters who typically oppose the Christian position who most frequently and regularly resort to childish name-calling and spiteful invective. Not to mention entirely misrepresenting the Christian position, and having no apparent desire to actually understand it, while continuing to criticize that which they don't understand.

Russian Lad
05-06-2010, 15:34
Not to mention entirely misrepresenting the Christian position, and having no apparent desire to actually understand it, while continuing to criticize that which they don't understand.


Haven't it dawned on you yet by this stage that most people who oppose you here are all former Christians, some of whom even have certain theology education (like me, for instance)? You repeat the above argument over and over again, though it is based on nothing, and quite the opposite is true. We understand you only too well. Usually I don't resort to name calling, but when a person seems to me dumb beyond repair he is just asking for it.
I assure you atheist people who have never dealt with Christianity would never post on this thread, it would be too boring for them.

Bogatyr
05-06-2010, 15:56
Haven't it dawned on you yet by this stage that most people who oppose you here are all former Christians, some of whom even have certain theology education (like me, for instance)? You repeat the above argument over and over again, though it is based on nothing, and quite the opposite is true. We understand you only too well. Usually I don't resort to name calling, but when a person seems to me dumb beyond repair he is just asking for it.
I assure you atheist people who have never dealt with Christianity would never post on this thread, it would be too boring for them.

That may be the case for some (former Christians, and by the way it's interesting to note that very few of the "formers" were Orthodox. I don't blame you for becoming disillusioned with your faith, again I refer you to Clark Carlton), but it is certainly not the case for all! If you can't see that then you have a very peculiar sort of vision.

And again with the names! Sigh.

Russian Lad
05-06-2010, 16:08
but it is certainly not the case for all! If you can't see that then you have a very peculiar sort of vision.

Ok, I will try it without names. How did you understand "most" in my previous post? You may conduct a poll if you like.

YouTube- Richard Dawkins - Asked: "What if you're wrong?" - South Park

shurale
05-06-2010, 17:55
Proof by intimidation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matt24
05-06-2010, 19:12
today we mitz'd some stage of the nummer last sons religious development, it was a beautiful,ceremony,most of the crowd were orthodox christians, one of my oldest friends was a Japanese Buddhist and he took all the beautiful photos, wtf, my version of the book says good people will make it, the bad uns will rot in the fiery pit, bible yourself senseless dudes, I look forward to buying you a pint in the eternal hotel bar

Bogatyr
05-06-2010, 19:41
There's lots of good stuff out there for Dawkins fans to chew on:

Just a tidbit:
http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_goddelusionreview2.htm

Jack17
05-06-2010, 22:33
today we mitz'd some stage of the nummer last sons religious development, it was a beautiful,ceremony,most of the crowd were orthodox christians, one of my oldest friends was a Japanese Buddhist and he took all the beautiful photos, wtf, my version of the book says good people will make it, the bad uns will rot in the fiery pit, bible yourself senseless dudes, I look forward to buying you a pint in the eternal hotel bar
This forum makes me dizzy; guess that is why I read it, kind of like a roller coaster ride.
They said Seinfeld was a show about nothing; guess this is the forum about nothing, but everybody watches. Shalom chabat.

shurale
05-06-2010, 22:56
He didn't crash that plane into pulp, killing all passengers aboard, including some women and children.
He doesn't do that. He doesn't cause children to get leukemia, http://www.cancer.org/docroot/cri/content/cri_2_4_3x_how_is_leukemia_diagnosed_24.asp

and He didn't kill Lizzie Van Zyl in Bloemfontein concentration camp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LizzieVanZyl.jpg.

But He permits and permitted all this evil because we have free will.
People who die in plane crashes have free will. So they die.

Lizzie Van Zyl had free will. So she died.

Children with leukemia have free will. So they die.

If a person had genetic defects and therefore had profound mental retardation, you can say he had free will because he died.

Some people are born dead. They had free will nonetheless.

- What did John die of?
- Oh dear, he had free will.





Is it like when He crashes a passenger plane into a pulp, killing all passengers aboard, including some women and children? Your God, He is a practical prankster, it seems... Other than that, I am a believer in a supreme being, but not in the primitive tale in the Bible. Yeah, and He does not care about us at all, like we don't care about the fate of tape worms. Or you think differently? I would like an honest and direct answer, not a snot-munching equivocal ambiguity wrapped in windy theological ruminations in the style of russmeister.

Russian Lad
05-06-2010, 22:59
There's lots of good stuff out there for Dawkins fans to chew on:

Well, the difference between me and you is that I am nobody's fan, I just happen to agree with most of what the man is saying.

shurale
05-06-2010, 23:32
Lad, are you a father? Parenthood is a true blessing of God because it helps us understand Him.
So, are you?


YouTube- Eric Clapton - My Father's Eyes (Official Music Video)

12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

Russian Lad
05-06-2010, 23:36
Lad, are you a father? Parenthood is a true blessing of God because it helps us understand Him.
So, are you?

Not yet (at least officially), but I don't think it bears any relevance to the matter at hand. My father is obviously a father:), but he is an atheist, and what is more, he is a hard-core communist. So, it is absolutely unimportant.

Russian Lad
05-06-2010, 23:42
I can only agree with Dawkins:


Dawkins thinks that if his book fails to have the desired effect, this can only be because ‘dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument, their resistance built up over years of childhood indoctrination using methods [such as issuing] a dire warning to avoid even opening a book like this, which is surely a work of Satan.’[6] On the other hand, anyone who is ‘open-minded’, whose ‘childhood indoctrination was not too insidious… or whose native intelligence is strong enough to overcome it’, will ‘need only a little encouragement to break free of the vice of religion altogether.’[7]



Bogatyr, did you actually read this book? (like, the whole book, not a couple of pages). I doubt it.

shurale
06-06-2010, 00:11
Heavenly Father is obviously a father, not a mother :-).
And first Christians had more in common with your earthly father than you think.
So perhaps your father should give it a try.

Acts 44 Chapter 2
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Christian_communism_logo.svg




Not yet (at least officially), but I don't think it bears any relevance to the matter at hand. My father is obviously a father:), but he is an atheist, and what is more, he is a hard-core communist. So, it is absolutely unimportant.

Russian Lad
06-06-2010, 00:19
And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Well, have you sold all your possessions or given them to the poor? As I remember, the Bible says you cannot have eternal life if you don't do that. This question goes to all the believers: how can you have any hope of eternal life if you don't comply with this request put forward by Jesus himself? I seriously doubt any of you have complied.

shurale
06-06-2010, 00:53
I think this question was answered in this thread at least once. Getting rid of all possessions is not a pre-requisite.
You don't have to if you believe that Jesus is Son of God.

It is true, Jesus also said to a wealthy man
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

However,
25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" 26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men it is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

So you, if you are wealthy, it is a heavy burden that makes it impossible for you enter the Heavenly Kingdom.
But if you accept Jesus as your Saviour, He will help you carry that burden, and you will enter the Heavenly Kingdom.
Because Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.
I don't write as well as Russmeister, but I hope I could make it clear for you.
Is it now?

Are you aware of the fact that the last emperor of Russia is a saint of the Russian Orthodox Church?
Was he poor or wealthy? Do you see my point now?



Well, have you sold all your possessions or given them to the poor? As I remember, the Bible says you cannot have eternal life if you don't do that. This question goes to all the believers: how can you have any hope of eternal life if you don't comply with this request put forward by Jesus himself? I seriously doubt any of you have complied.

shurale
06-06-2010, 01:07
Also, if you sell all your possessions and give them to the poor, how are you going to tithe?

Malachi 3:8
"Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. "But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' "In tithes and offerings.

Leviticus 27:32
The entire tithe of the herd and flock—every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd's rod—will be holy to the LORD.

Russian Lad
06-06-2010, 01:15
Also, if you sell all your possessions and give them to the poor, how are you going to tithe?

Malachi 3:8
"Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. "But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' "In tithes and offerings.

That's exactly why the Bible is a compilation of contradictory fairytales. No, it is not clear to me. How about Luke 18:18-22? Mathew 19:21?

shurale
06-06-2010, 01:26
That's exactly why the Bible is a compilation of contradictory fairytales. No, it is not clear to me. How about Luke 18:18-22? Mathew 19:21?

What is not clear to you, RL?

Russian Lad
06-06-2010, 01:29
What is not clear to you, RL?

Shall I quote those verses? You are supposed to sell everything to have eternal life. That's what Jesus said.
And how do you determine who is rich and who is poor? I am an Abramovich compared to a hobo from the street, for example.

shurale
06-06-2010, 12:16
Russian Lad,

you don't get it, because you don't see the whole picture. You see a single dab on the picture and you pronounce that it makes no sense.
Jesus indeed said "“… sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.”
But He said it to that particular wealthy man. Why?
Because for the wealthy man his riches were more important than God.
Jesus didn't mean that wealth is bad. He meant that it should not be more important for us than Heavenly Father (and Himself and the Holy Ghost).
So, I repeat that wealth that God almighty provides us with is not bad. It's our attitude. Our attitude when we treasure more temporal things, such as wealth, or science, or beautiful music, or paintings, or sex with members of the opposite sex, or sport, or war, or "Mother Nature" than Him.

Jesus also said,
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

However,
Honour your father and your mother so that you may live long in the land that Yahweh your God is giving you.

– Exodus 20:12

Is there is a contradiction in the Bible? of course not! Firstly, there are no contradictions in the Bible. Whatsoever. Secondly, "Hate" in NT is a hyperbole, hate means "love less". You must everything less. Put God first.

Do you know the story of the first patriarch Abraham and his son Isaac?
Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"...
When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.

You see, Abraham loved his son, but his love of God was so strong, that his love to his offspring was like hate in comparison.

Therefore a devout Christian can be wealthy, (and they are http://www.bennyhinn.org/default.cfm), have wives, children, and enjoy life to the full, as long as he is ready to sacrifice all that wehn God tells him to.




Shall I quote those verses? You are supposed to sell everything to have eternal life. That's what Jesus said.
And how do you determine who is rich and who is poor? I am an Abramovich compared to a hobo from the street, for example.




Shall I quote those verses? You are supposed to sell everything to have eternal life. That's what Jesus said.
And how do you determine who is rich and who is poor? I am an Abramovich compared to a hobo from the street, for example.

Bogatyr
06-06-2010, 13:11
I can only agree with Dawkins:

Bogatyr, did you actually read this book? (like, the whole book, not a couple of pages). I doubt it.

I have not, perhaps I will at some point, but I've seen enough of his style and his "substance" in reviews to conclude he's not the best that atheist thinking has to offer. Which is not to say I will not consider other sources of atheist philosophy. Dawkins seems too full of simple assertions, bad logic, ad hominim rhethoric to be seriously considered a "best" source. He's a popular source, because he blows a lot of hot air and makes a lot of noise and produces memorable sound bites. Asserting that anyone who disagrees with him cannot be a rational, thinking person, is not the sort of argument that a rational, thinking person would actually make, and is not the sort of author I would like to invest my time in.



Dawkins’ only reviews a subset of the available arguments for God; but having swiftly dismissed these arguments as ‘vacuous’[77], he invalidly concludes that there is therefore ‘no evidence to favour the God Hypothesis.’[78] Even if Dawkins’ critique of the arguments he examines were sound, this conclusion simply would not follow. In point of fact, Dawkins’ critique of the arguments from God is unsound in each and every one of the cases reviewed above. Dawkins repeatedly depends upon blowing over ‘straw man’ versions of his targets, and he offers objections that are themselves easily revealed as ‘vacuous’. Indeed, Dawkins’ rebuttals are self-contradictory on several occasions. Moreover, Dawkins’ supposedly ‘unrebuttable rebuttal’ to the God hypothesis is, as we have seen, anything but.

Far from wanting to warn anyone against ‘even opening a book like this,’[79] I recommend that believers and non-believers alike apply their ‘native intelligence’[80] to reading The God Delusion. However, I suggest doing so with help from a list of logical fallacies. Readers can then enjoy a stimulating game of ‘Eye Spy’. In particular, look out for examples of: self-contradiction, begging the question[81], attacking a straw man[82], data picking[83], wishful thinking[84], appeal to ridicule[85] and various ad hominim attacks[86] from simple name-calling[87] to ‘poisoning the well.’[88] Blowing away houses made from philosophical straw is a praiseworthy endeavour; but Dawkins’ frequent substitution of straw houses for the real thing means that his critique of religion has more puff than bite.


Have you read the writings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church? Have you read contemporary works like Lewis, Chesterson, and made the effort to understand them in their entirety? You shouldn't have the objections that I have about Dawkins because Lewis and Chesterson don't have Dawkins's habit of insulting those who disagree with them.

Also, (to 2ndwind) has it dawned on you that the most of the people here presenting the Christian position themselves were former atheists and agnostics, who converted as adults? And if your studies did not include the Orthodox position (which it probably did not if you're coming from the Baptist angle) then your education and background does not apply to what the Orthodox proponents here are presenting.

Bogatyr
06-06-2010, 14:13
Not yet (at least officially), but I don't think it bears any relevance to the matter at hand. My father is obviously a father:), but he is an atheist, and what is more, he is a hard-core communist. So, it is absolutely unimportant.

Ah! I don't necessarily agree with "unimportant." I wish you all the best then, and implore you to make use of the resources at your fingertips in SPB: Churches, priests, monasteries, reams and reams of reading material not generally available to English speakers. And, in words you'll probably recognize and have already stated you agree with as a form of argument, if reading the Holy Fathers...


...fails to have the desired effect, this can only be because ‘dyed-in-the-wool [atheist]-heads are immune to argument, their resistance built up over years of childhood indoctrination ...On the other hand, anyone who is ‘open-minded’, whose ‘childhood indoctrination was not too insidious… or whose native intelligence is strong enough to overcome it’, will ‘need only a little encouragement to break free of the vice of [atheism] altogether.

Russian Lad
06-06-2010, 16:26
"Hate" in NT is a hyperbole, hate means "love less".

Ah, all right, I finally get it. Everything that does not fit the big picture is a hyperbole. As a linguist I can tell you that hate involves much more than loving less, semantically.

shurale
06-06-2010, 16:27
They are a brood of vipers. What else can you expect from them?

"You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell? :bomb:


Amen! I hope is4fun, 2ndwind, etc. are listening.


sic


I don't intend to label people at all. Unlike apparently many of the posters here, and in severe contrast to what most people seem to assume, I (representing Christians, at least the Orthodox sort) don't think I'm better than anybody else. If you look carefully at the collected threads on this site I think you'll see though a very clear pattern that it is the posters who typically oppose the Christian position who most frequently and regularly resort to childish name-calling and spiteful invective. Not to mention entirely misrepresenting the Christian position, and having no apparent desire to actually understand it, while continuing to criticize that which they don't understand.

Russian Lad
06-06-2010, 16:36
"You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

Even if hell and heaven existed:

"I will be bored in heaven, and I have seen hell on earth" (Alexander Cherny, a Russian poet). If you, Shurale, haven't seen hell on earth yet, I guarantee you you will. And when you face it, remember me, Russian Lad. At that very moment.


Have you read the writings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church? Have you read contemporary works like Lewis, Chesterson, and made the effort to understand them in their entirety? You shouldn't have the objections that I have about Dawkins because Lewis and Chesterson don't have Dawkins's habit of insulting those who disagree with them.

I have read the Bible, I have read some Chesterton, it should be more than enough to form my own view. I find the concept of Holy Fathers ridiculous - they were mere mortals, like you and me.

shurale
06-06-2010, 16:40
So it is about you the verse was written
"22Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit,"[a]and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."


sic



I have read the Bible, I have read some Chesterton, it should be more than enough to form my own view. I find the concept of Holy Fathers ridiculous - they were mere mortals, like you and me.

Russian Lad
06-06-2010, 16:47
So it is about you the verse was written
"22Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit,"[a]and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

No, I thought it was about you, lol.

shurale
06-06-2010, 16:55
I will pray for you, Russian Lad.

Matthew 5:44
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,


No, I thought it was about you, lol.

Russian Lad
06-06-2010, 16:58
Matthew 5:44
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

Lol again. I don't view you as my enemy, you just happen to be under the power of delusion, in my view. That's the problem with you Christians - you view atheists and agnostics as your enemies. Makes you a rather blood thirsty and even dangerous lot:).

rusmeister
06-06-2010, 17:07
It may not have been clear that I have no interest in "debating" you or any other theist. I do not try to convert theists. Knowing that theists believe in a magical being(s) and lots of other imaginary stuff is enough for me to know.

I think it is likely that theists know that their beliefs are insane and are therefore driven to recruit, by any means, others to some version of theism. Recruiting between theistic groups (such as between christians and muslims) is more a matter of ego, power and money. Theists seem to believe that if they have great numbers of members (nominal or otherwise) then it validates their beliefs and shows them to be sane.

I hold that if every human on earth sincerely stated a belief in a single denomination, such as Russian orthodox, it would not make their beliefs any more true or the members any less insane.

It's stuff like this that makes me lose respect for you, 2W.
You display no knowledge whatsoever of intelligent Christian apologetics aimed precisely at the question of theism you raise (and for which you already have answers that clearly do NOT take those apologetics into account. I could respect views that did - even though I hold them to be false views - but I can't respect ones that descend to the level of name-calling such as above is not worthy of an intelligent thinker - who takes on and defeats the BEST of opposing thought - not the worst.

As long as you talk like that there doesn't seem much point in responding even to your more intelligent comments.

rusmeister
06-06-2010, 17:14
We agnostics have to be careful here, or these religious zealots will pick us apart.
Quite.
Lewis said, on reflecting on his own struggle to maintain his atheism, that
A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.

shurale
06-06-2010, 17:27
God is Our Heavenly Father.
We are His sons. Some are prodigal ones.
===
11Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. 12The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them.
13"Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

17"When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' 20So he got up and went to his father.
"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

21"The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.[a]'

22"But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. 24For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate.

25"Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'

28"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'

31" 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' "

shurale
06-06-2010, 17:59
The boy climbs on a chair and starts to rock. I tell him he will fall. He isn't listening. He falls. It was obvious to me, that the boy would fall. I didn't cause evil to the child but I permitted it. The boy has free will, I want a child, not an automaton. So, I observe him rock till he falls and starts to cry.
The same day the boy jumps on the bed. It is more fun than rocking on the chair. He jumped on the bed on another occasions and he didn't fall. Who is right? Father or son? :-) I am right. This time he did fall.
Afternoon. The boy has found a metal bobby pin, and I see him near the AC power socket. He wants to stick that bobby pin in the socket. I tell him not do that. :9451: He blatantly disobeys. He gets electrocuted. On one hand, one child with free will is less, but the other hand, the remaining children shall be more obedient. :D

2ndWind
06-06-2010, 18:54
(to 2ndwind) has it dawned on you that the most of the people here presenting the Christian position themselves were former atheists and agnostics, who converted as adults?

Hi Bogatyr,
No, I had not given that any thought. Perhaps those members had simply become disenchanted with/frustrated with or simply tired of their earlier faith based belief system, whatever it might have been, and decided to call themselves atheists/agnostics.

It took me a long time to come to the realization that my problem was not with any particular religion or denomination but with theism itself. Once I realized that I could find no basis for a belief in any god/gods/spirits or magic then I had no further interest in learning more about any religion. I now feel that a belief in any variety of theism is simply preposterous.


And if your studies did not include the Orthodox position (which it probably did not if you're coming from the Baptist angle) then your education and background does not apply to what the Orthodox proponents here are presenting.You are correct in saying that my background does not include study of the orthodox churches. However, as I stated above, I now have no interest in learning more about any religion.

I have determined that, as far as I am concerned, "the emperor has no clothes" and cannot believe that anything short of "wishful thinking" would lead to a belief in orthodoxy or any theistic belief.

While I was attending the Baptist school, I attended various churches and took notes on sermons. I recall a particular instance where the sermon was on the christian bible. After the service, I met with the preacher for a few minutes and asked him how we could be sure the bible was true. He said it was because the bible says that it is true. We then went the usual round and round because the only real basis for belief that the bible is the word of a god is faith.

First there must be faith that a god exists.
Then faith in the belief that this god wrote a book (but only one book).
Then faith that this god did not permit any of the human writers/compilers/editors/translators/publishers/printers/etc. to make any mistakes of either omission or commission.
Then faith that preachers/priests/individual readers correctly divine the meaning of passages which were written hundreds or thousands of years ago.
Then faith that the god has created places of eternal reward and eternal punishment.
Then faith that if one correctly follows the rules as presented in the bible then he will go (after death) to the place of reward and otherwise to the place of punishment.

A lot of "faith" (mind control) is required to prevent the intrusion of reality when a casual examination of reality indicates to many of us that theism is an empty shell.

Since I do not have faith that a god exists (In fact, I am convinced that there is none.) then, for me, there is no basis for any of the other "faith based" steps.

shurale
06-06-2010, 20:41
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known,

do not yield to him or listen to him

Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death.

God didn't command to aim apologetics.
God didn't command to respect views.
God didn't command to defeat the opposing thought.
He commanded to stone.

10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

As simple as that.
And no need for lengthy discussions.



It's stuff like this that makes me lose respect for you, 2W.
You display no knowledge whatsoever of intelligent Christian apologetics aimed precisely at the question of theism you raise (and for which you already have answers that clearly do NOT take those apologetics into account. I could respect views that did - even though I hold them to be false views - but I can't respect ones that descend to the level of name-calling such as above is not worthy of an intelligent thinker - who takes on and defeats the BEST of opposing thought - not the worst.

As long as you talk like that there doesn't seem much point in responding even to your more intelligent comments.

rusmeister
07-06-2010, 07:48
Hi Bogatyr,
No, I had not given that any thought. Perhaps those members had simply become disenchanted with/frustrated with or simply tired of their earlier faith based belief system, whatever it might have been, and decided to call themselves atheists/agnostics.

It took me a long time to come to the realization that my problem was not with any particular religion or denomination but with theism itself. Once I realized that I could find no basis for a belief in any god/gods/spirits or magic then I had no further interest in learning more about any religion. I now feel that a belief in any variety of theism is simply preposterous.

You are correct in saying that my background does not include study of the orthodox churches. However, as I stated above, I now have no interest in learning more about any religion.

I have determined that, as far as I am concerned, "the emperor has no clothes" and cannot believe that anything short of "wishful thinking" would lead to a belief in orthodoxy or any theistic belief.

While I was attending the Baptist school, I attended various churches and took notes on sermons. I recall a particular instance where the sermon was on the christian bible. After the service, I met with the preacher for a few minutes and asked him how we could be sure the bible was true. He said it was because the bible says that it is true. We then went the usual round and round because the only real basis for belief that the bible is the word of a god is faith.

First there must be faith that a god exists.
Then faith in the belief that this god wrote a book (but only one book).
Then faith that this god did not permit any of the human writers/compilers/editors/translators/publishers/printers/etc. to make any mistakes of either omission or commission.
Then faith that preachers/priests/individual readers correctly divine the meaning of passages which were written hundreds or thousands of years ago.
Then faith that the god has created places of eternal reward and eternal punishment.
Then faith that if one correctly follows the rules as presented in the bible then he will go (after death) to the place of reward and otherwise to the place of punishment.

A lot of "faith" (mind control) is required to prevent the intrusion of reality when a casual examination of reality indicates to many of us that theism is an empty shell.

Since I do not have faith that a god exists (In fact, I am convinced that there is none.) then, for me, there is no basis for any of the other "faith based" steps.

Whoa whoa whoa!
(Since I'm trying to keep you off my "ignore list" here and give you a fair hearing)

You say that you don't want to learn any more about religion.

Then you base your prime arguments against religion on the Baptist thought of your earlier days - which I also reject soundly, and agree with you. the kind of thinking presented in the image you posted is equally, no, MORE offensive to intelligent believers. We agree with you! We also think it incredibly stupid, mindless and disgusting!

Only we don't believe that.

We don't believe that "God wrote a book". Orthodox Christians do NOT call the Bible "The Word of God" (That title belongs to Jesus Christ). We believe the Bible was written by humans, and although inspired by God, is written from the cultural understandings and POVs of the people who wrote the various books and letters.

We don't believe that "God prevented any mistakes". Some things that we read require interpretation - beyond literal words to their understanding in context.

For some reason, we accept ancient historical documents. We do not question the existence of Plato, Julius Caesar or Marcus Aurelius, or even that someone might have been there and wrote down what they said. How could that stuff survive for millenia? How could we correctly divine and understand what they are saying?

We don't believe that heaven and hell are necessarily "places" - although place imagery is sometimes used as something we can relate to.

We don't see salvation (which we understand DIFFERENTLY from the Baptists) as a matter of "following rules".

In short, you are properly objecting to those aspects of the Baptist faith that you so thoroughly reject, and so far we agree with your reasoning. But when it comes to what we actually believe - lo! You are ignorant! (In the sense of "not knowing".) And you apparently don't even want to learn (talk about an anti-intellectual attitude...).

That will tend to retard any discussion. It only casts you as an anti-religious fanatic - that doesn't even know the best of what he attacks. I'd think you would reject a similar attitude to intelligent and cultured atheism.

Maybe you don't intend that. But it's sure what intelligent believers will get from you.

yakspeare
07-06-2010, 09:00
i began my faith from logic and forever it will stand on logic, as well as countless experiences of confirmation.

My great love is astronomy....and when i look at the night sky i am full of wonder....the complexity of it all and how much we don't know , puts me in a state of awe....my natural thought is that their was a creator...that the universe came from something, somehow. current scientific theory is that, rather than the big bang they believed in 50 years ago, the universe could even have "blinked" into existence...where gravitational forces and matter literally make nothing become something. ie you can condense all matter in the universe into something so small it possibly was not even there....this is current scientific theory and hence look for the "god particle" as to separate gravity and to make the universe appear you require an EXTERNAL force that is not energy or matter as we know. So astronomy now advocates a "god" who did this, though does not suggest he is personal. This is mainstream astronomy,not christian.

I look at that and see how desperately scientists are trying to avoid God, refusing to go to that conclusion, which in this instance is the more logical one. The message has been out for thousands of years on the subject but i don't blame the scientists for exploring every possibility but when they naturally preclude God then that isn't really every possibility explored...far better to leave that option open...as it stands science currently supports a god or god energy as being the creator of the universe.

we also see remarkable patterns in nature such as fibonaci numbers and other things that suggest design, i look at how complex organism can be on this planet and even us being self aware and debating this topic(instead of just mating,sleeping and eating) gives credence to the idea we are somewhat special. our planet fitting in the zone of life of our sun, our atmosphere that gives us air to breathe and protection from radiation...there are just so many parts of the puzzle that fit just right , to say there was no creator puts all this in the world of chance and randomness...and the odds of all that occurring are just so minute, that again God comes up as a more logical choice.

Then I look at the biblical manuscripts, some less than 3 years after Christ's death, most about 40 years later. the successful spread of this message in such a short time, to regions as far and wide as India, Armenia and other places. The sheer quantity of such manuscripts(24000) backed up by secular and Roman records suggest there was indeed a man named Jesus, who walked the Earth and claimed many things about being the son of God.

CS Lewis says it best when he says Jesus was never a good teacher, he was either evil, a lunatic or who he said he was. the bible leaves no other intepretation from his words.

So from logic, and what is more likely i came to two conclusions: there is some sort of God and there was indeed a man named Jesus.

I could use the same argument for buddhism, there was indeed a siddharta gautama but buddha's teachings never even mentioned a God or gods and were really a world view on how to behave in this life...so he isn't competition. Nor is Islam, which draws a lot of its beliefs from the bible but misunderstands most of it and even changes it from issac being sacrificed to ishmael, thus making the arabs "God's chosen people". Muhammed's bloodthirsty conquest of the Arabian peninsula also suggest he was but a man.

I am really left with only three religions to choose from(judaism,christianity and zorastarim(sp)), alternatively i could choose to make my own or ignore it....but i can't NOT believe as logic dictates it is the more suitable course, perhaps why so many atheists i meet a so angry about it all...they are perhaps deep down fighting what they know. i was once an atheist so i do remember. i don't proclaim all feel this and act this way but i do note some in this thread do.

On the debate that non-christians are less moral etc than christians....i certainly believe our conscience is a gift from God of how to behave and what is right....infact most cultures have quite similar ideas of what is right and wrong in general. i find the argument that this is evolutionary based as in the best interests of the community that such practices developed, rather weak. many of our customs are self sacrificing for others but also having some individual roles and freedoms. marriage is a good example...polygamy is common is some cultures but is far outweighed by monogomy. where polygamy is practised there is still a head wife. if survival of the species was important we would, like some animals, breed as often as we could without any limitations...literally you see a member of the other sex and say"it's for the tribe" and jump him/her. I just think that deep down our conscience is there which keeps us in basic view of the ten commandments and the seven commandments to Noah. It is based on a natural law which stems from somewhere.

Thus christians and non christians can both be morally right and good people(as we define good) as this echo of conscience we are born with. The conscience can become seared, however, when you start doing certain behaviour it becomes less and less difficult to do....exposed to bad influence people become used to it....a child soldier in the sudan who has seen the horrors of war, can kill a man quicker than i could, as this part of his conscience has been seared by abuse and pain. The bible then is a guide for what is good and right, and in some areas we have been conditioned already to find some behaviour acceptable when it really isn't. thus we can turn to it for the answers of what God expects of us. Like the Jew who reads the Talmud, it is said you don't just read the Talmud but study it all your life. The more you study it the less likely you are to sin. So too it is with christianity...we are all sinners and naturally bad and do stupid and sometimes horrible things but if we read the bible and fellowship with other believers and do so with the right attitude then we are less likely to do such harmful things. certainly there are some pious atheists and who are wonderful people-but in a world where morals and values are considered relative, it is much harder for them to be good than us. those who are, it's a credit too them doing so without help. God , and not man, will decide their fate based on what they know and how they behave compared to what they know.

I personally believe a "christian" who ignores the bible and acts in an unchristlike manner is in far more danger of hellfire than an Atheist who lives to help his fellow man. But if you have knowledge of God's existence and deny him, your destiny is certain. Thus i was compelled to be in the christian camp, when atheism was so much more convenient to me.

is4fun
07-06-2010, 16:24
i began my faith from logic and forever it will stand on logic, as well as countless experiences of confirmation.

My great love is astronomy....and when i look at the night sky i am full of wonder....the complexity of it all and how much we don't know , puts me in a state of awe....my natural thought is that their was a creator...that the universe came from something, somehow. current scientific theory is that, rather than the big bang they believed in 50 years ago, the universe could even have "blinked" into existence...where gravitational forces and matter literally make nothing become something. ie you can condense all matter in the universe into something so small it possibly was not even there....this is current scientific theory and hence look for the "god particle" as to separate gravity and to make the universe appear you require an EXTERNAL force that is not energy or matter as we know. So astronomy now advocates a "god" who did this, though does not suggest he is personal. This is mainstream astronomy,not christian.

I look at that and see how desperately scientists are trying to avoid God, refusing to go to that conclusion, which in this instance is the more logical one. The message has been out for thousands of years on the subject but i don't blame the scientists for exploring every possibility but when they naturally preclude God then that isn't really every possibility explored...far better to leave that option open...as it stands science currently supports a god or god energy as being the creator of the universe.

we also see remarkable patterns in nature such as fibonaci numbers and other things that suggest design, i look at how complex organism can be on this planet and even us being self aware and debating this topic(instead of just mating,sleeping and eating) gives credence to the idea we are somewhat special. our planet fitting in the zone of life of our sun, our atmosphere that gives us air to breathe and protection from radiation...there are just so many parts of the puzzle that fit just right , to say there was no creator puts all this in the world of chance and randomness...and the odds of all that occurring are just so minute, that again God comes up as a more logical choice.

Then I look at the biblical manuscripts, some less than 3 years after Christ's death, most about 40 years later. the successful spread of this message in such a short time, to regions as far and wide as India, Armenia and other places. The sheer quantity of such manuscripts(24000) backed up by secular and Roman records suggest there was indeed a man named Jesus, who walked the Earth and claimed many things about being the son of God.

CS Lewis says it best when he says Jesus was never a good teacher, he was either evil, a lunatic or who he said he was. the bible leaves no other intepretation from his words.

So from logic, and what is more likely i came to two conclusions: there is some sort of God and there was indeed a man named Jesus.

I could use the same argument for buddhism, there was indeed a siddharta gautama but buddha's teachings never even mentioned a God or gods and were really a world view on how to behave in this life...so he isn't competition. Nor is Islam, which draws a lot of its beliefs from the bible but misunderstands most of it and even changes it from issac being sacrificed to ishmael, thus making the arabs "God's chosen people". Muhammed's bloodthirsty conquest of the Arabian peninsula also suggest he was but a man.

I am really left with only three religions to choose from(judaism,christianity and zorastarim(sp)), alternatively i could choose to make my own or ignore it....but i can't NOT believe as logic dictates it is the more suitable course, perhaps why so many atheists i meet a so angry about it all...they are perhaps deep down fighting what they know. i was once an atheist so i do remember. i don't proclaim all feel this and act this way but i do note some in this thread do.

On the debate that non-christians are less moral etc than christians....i certainly believe our conscience is a gift from God of how to behave and what is right....infact most cultures have quite similar ideas of what is right and wrong in general. i find the argument that this is evolutionary based as in the best interests of the community that such practices developed, rather weak. many of our customs are self sacrificing for others but also having some individual roles and freedoms. marriage is a good example...polygamy is common is some cultures but is far outweighed by monogomy. where polygamy is practised there is still a head wife. if survival of the species was important we would, like some animals, breed as often as we could without any limitations...literally you see a member of the other sex and say"it's for the tribe" and jump him/her. I just think that deep down our conscience is there which keeps us in basic view of the ten commandments and the seven commandments to Noah. It is based on a natural law which stems from somewhere.

Thus christians and non christians can both be morally right and good people(as we define good) as this echo of conscience we are born with. The conscience can become seared, however, when you start doing certain behaviour it becomes less and less difficult to do....exposed to bad influence people become used to it....a child soldier in the sudan who has seen the horrors of war, can kill a man quicker than i could, as this part of his conscience has been seared by abuse and pain. The bible then is a guide for what is good and right, and in some areas we have been conditioned already to find some behaviour acceptable when it really isn't. thus we can turn to it for the answers of what God expects of us. Like the Jew who reads the Talmud, it is said you don't just read the Talmud but study it all your life. The more you study it the less likely you are to sin. So too it is with christianity...we are all sinners and naturally bad and do stupid and sometimes horrible things but if we read the bible and fellowship with other believers and do so with the right attitude then we are less likely to do such harmful things. certainly there are some pious atheists and who are wonderful people-but in a world where morals and values are considered relative, it is much harder for them to be good than us. those who are, it's a credit too them doing so without help. God , and not man, will decide their fate based on what they know and how they behave compared to what they know.

I personally believe a "christian" who ignores the bible and acts in an unchristlike manner is in far more danger of hellfire than an Atheist who lives to help his fellow man. But if you have knowledge of God's existence and deny him, your destiny is certain. Thus i was compelled to be in the christian camp, when atheism was so much more convenient to me.

I would be correct in substituting the word astrology in place of astronomy.

Faith defined is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing. Physical observation or empirical evidence does not necessarily play a role in this concept thus should be discounted as illogical when considering any confirmations about scientific validity. The author has used the word faith as a misnomer.

A natural thought came into your mind that a creator exists and this is considered as logic?

I think this topic would be related more to cosmology which is the study of the universe and man’s relation to it.

Firstly, the Big Bang theory indeed was derived from as early as the 1920s and still continues to be a valid explanation for many that our universe was conceived from a singularity, as background microwave radiation from that single point is still present and readily observable throughout the cosmos. Also observable is the fact that our universe is expanding from a central point which one can only conclude from regressing time that it started from a central point. Of course one should never assume that a single theory based on science with some evidence can be based a fact; even if there is observable and empirical evidence. A few anomalies do exist regarding current theories. One such anomaly is the fact that our universe is not only expanding but actually increasing in speed which at this point there are no universally accepted explanations as to why this is happening. Eventually a physical explanation will be found much as Copernicus had proved the earth was not placed in the center of the universe albeit in direct conflict of the church at that time and many decades later. While science is continually being tested by new and possible explanations based on observation and other evidences that may one day fill the voids still yet undiscovered, religion continues to press ahead trying to poison the efforts of those trying to provide honesty, integrity and understanding about our world and the universe that surrounds us.

Current mainstream theories in cosmology include:

Big Bang theory.

Multiverse theory,
Some scientists believe that our universe is embedded or are in parallel with many universes. These theories are derived from quantum physics which are based on physical and observable properties of subatomic particles. One such theory tries to explain the relationship between quantum mechanics and General relativity i.e. Superstring Theory. I can go on to try to explain these very compelling ideas based on observable evidences but I will save time and provide a link to some information:

String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Calabi-Yau-alternate.png" class="image"><img alt="Calabi-Yau-alternate.png" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Calabi-Yau-alternate.png/220px-Calabi-Yau-alternate.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/55/Calabi-Yau-alternate.png/220px-Calabi-Yau-alternate.png

Tying Einstein’s theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics has been difficult utilizing current mathematical models which some suggest would require the invention of new maths to relate the two. This is not at all impossible as Newton did invent calculus in his day.

The Higgs Boson or “God Particle” is currently being sought through the Large Haldron Collider in CERN. They were theorized to exist as early as the 1960s along with many other subatomic particles which already had been found to exist based on the theories of others.

The Higgs Boson or “God Particle” will help to explain the origin of mass in the universe and is currently being sought through the Large Haldron Collider in CERN. It was theorized to exist as early as the 1960s along with many other subatomic particles that have already been found to exist based on the theories of others. A profound understanding of the universe really has nothing to do with desperation but only a deep curiosity beyond the boundaries of those who are imprisoned by their own beliefs. Our author again synonymously confuses logic with faith.

I figure the complexity of life is not all too difficult given the original topic of this thread. After all, life had been created in a laboratory by a man very recently. OK, brought back from the dead as disputed by an earlier post.
The truth is science has recently discovered many planets that may harbour potential life. Given the myriad of environments on earth in which these life forms exist, it is not inconceivable that life does exist on others without the same. Mathematically it is inconceivable that life doesn’t exist in this universe, even intelligent life. Even the Vatican was forced to admit to this in May 2008.

These parts of the puzzle, as the author states, are continually being revealed through science. Given religions’ contribution to mankind I would indeed say they are the ones “just mating, sleeping and eating”.

I conclude this long winded self reflection by the author as being most predictable. Relying on yet undiscovered anomalies of science to forward his argument that a creator exists, embellishing half-truths of already discovered scientific fact and misleading the readers into believing that a creator exists based on text written in a time when technology basically was limited to the use of the wheel are patterns seldom deviated from previous posts. Like many religious fantasists, trying to see the forest through the trees has never been a strong pursuit. Given the extended time religion has remained to flourish freely and its odious record in historic and present day; also, the sole reliance of unsubstantiated texts and their interpretation without observable evidences. I will continue to remain unconvinced.

Russian Lad
07-06-2010, 22:05
Since I'm trying to keep you off my "ignore list" here and give you a fair hearing

LOL

Jack17
07-06-2010, 22:50
"I will continue to remain unconvinced."

It's all a magnum mysterium; it's just that modern physics comes a little closer to the truth, in my opinion, than religion. But keep in mind, is4fun, there are as many competing views among serious physicists today as there are different churches within Christendom. There are dozens of "string theory" variants and many physicists who don't subscribe to "string theory" at all.

The difference between science and religion is that scientists are humble enough, regardless of their view, to admit none of them have developed a Theory of Everything (TOE); whereas, every religion believes only it has all the answers.

shurale
08-06-2010, 11:11
Was it Bogathyr who said that living in SPB is a great thing because you can talk to orthodox priests and monks?
So, why do we need go-betweens?

Bogatyr
08-06-2010, 11:31
Was it Bogathyr who said that living in SPB is a great thing because you can talk to orthodox priests and monks?
So, why do we need go-betweens?

This is a FAQ/FAM (Frequently asked Question / Misconception) about Orthodoxy. I'm in a rush to get to work but google and I'm sure you will find sufficient answers. But to give some sound-bitish quick answers, Christianity is not about "You (alone) and God". God is not "my personal (meaning individual) Lord and saviour." In the Church which is the body of Christ I am in (or rather, I strive to be) communion with God along with all my brothers and sisters in Christ. My priest in the US said: "one Christian, no Christian" Priests cannot serve the liturgy alone (monk hermits are exceptions to this), there must be at least one other present. We do not see priests and Saints as those who "are in the way" between me and God, but rather as those who have achieved so much that we want to learn from them, and ask them to pray on our behalf, since all prayers from others, but especially the prayers of the righteous and the Saints are very strong.

Do you see University instructors as "go betweens" between you and, say, knowledge in Physics? Or are they rather teachers, people experienced in knowledge that you can learn from and grow with? It's not a perfect analogy since Physics is not God but you get the idea, I'm sure.

rusmeister
08-06-2010, 12:01
every religion believes only it has all the answers.
C'mon, Jack - it is fairer to say that a religion believes that it is most correct on describing what the nature of man and the universe actually is.

I believe that the Roman Catholic Church has a great many of 'the answers' just as right as Orthodox do, Protestants less so but still a lot more than most, other religions still less - but still quite a bit, and atheists and agnostics least of all - but they still have a good deal of truth.

And of course, there are a great many questions which religions do not claim to attempt to answer.

shurale
08-06-2010, 12:48
If we were a little group of sailors/passengers of a sunken ship on a deserted island, and our priest tragically died (drowned/was eaten by sharks), would we have to do without a priest or choose someone to work in this position?




This is a FAQ/FAM (Frequently asked Question / Misconception) about Orthodoxy. I'm in a rush to get to work but google and I'm sure you will find sufficient answers. But to give some sound-bitish quick answers, Christianity is not about "You (alone) and God". God is not "my personal (meaning individual) Lord and saviour." In the Church which is the body of Christ I am in (or rather, I strive to be) communion with God along with all my brothers and sisters in Christ. My priest in the US said: "one Christian, no Christian" Priests cannot serve the liturgy alone (monk hermits are exceptions to this), there must be at least one other present. We do not see priests and Saints as those who "are in the way" between me and God, but rather as those who have achieved so much that we want to learn from them, and ask them to pray on our behalf, since all prayers from others, but especially the prayers of the righteous and the Saints are very strong.

Do you see University instructors as "go betweens" between you and, say, knowledge in Physics? Or are they rather teachers, people experienced in knowledge that you can learn from and grow with? It's not a perfect analogy since Physics is not God but you get the idea, I'm sure.

yakspeare
08-06-2010, 13:32
is4fun

your post amuses me because you fail to understand what i was actually saying and keep addressing me as "the author" lol.

i WASN'T a believer when i made such conclusions that there is a God...it was part of the process that convinced me that there is a God.

You are making a great deal of assumptions about space science, there is SUGGESTION that the universe is expanding(it is not fact), other scientists also suggest it could later shrink too....there are countless THEORIES about the formation of the universe, even black holes are still in the theory stage we can only infer their existence by the action of gravity on other stars and gases...still doesn't actually mean a black hole is doing it. Nor is there ANY evidence of so called dark matter whose weight is supposed to take up the majority of the weight of the universe for any of these theories to hold water. Thus to believe in the big bang and so forth requires JUST as much faith or even more than it requires to believe a God did it.

You accept on faith that Atoms exist...but a scientist can actually show them...but then subatomic particles smaller than neutrons, protons and positrons(in anti matter as compared to koino matter) are also mostly theorized....some of the theories behind basic chemistry at the molecule level and below are quite profound and it is all on "faith" they are assumed. not fact. even observing such particles can affect their nature and give different results and yet science is the art of observation and testing again and again....newton could drop an apple a thousand times and it become a scientific law....and yet no universal law of gravity exists because it conflicts with einstein at the sub atomic level and at the size of stars and suns...there are very few facts in science and i think we would only know 1% at most of all acquired knowledge in the universe from before, now and forever...hence there is 99% room for a God.

Based on the fact it requires just as much faith or more to NOT believe in God and to believe in Evolution, chance, big bang and so forth- a belief in God can be equally rational as a belief in no God...and it requires no indoctrination, weakness,cultural bias or mental illness to support either.

is4fun
08-06-2010, 13:46
"I will continue to remain unconvinced."

It's all a magnum mysterium; it's just that modern physics comes a little closer to the truth, in my opinion, than religion. But keep in mind, is4fun, there are as many competing views among serious physicists today as there are different churches within Christendom. There are dozens of "string theory" variants and many physicists who don't subscribe to "string theory" at all.

The difference between science and religion is that scientists are humble enough, regardless of their view, to admit none of them have developed a Theory of Everything (TOE); whereas, every religion believes only it has all the answers.

I am inclined to believe that indeed there are many different theories as to String Theory, Parallel Universes, Dimensional Universes and even the Big Bang, however, the point I wish to make clear is that most, if not all of these theories, are derived from observation through meticulous scientific study. The Haldron Collider in CERN for example was built at great expense to generate the energies needed to detect new particles of which will provide us a better understanding on how our universe is put together. This enormous expense had been agreed because science in the past had been proven relatively correct in many cases based on work from previous colliders able to generate far less energies. Data collected from these devices I am sure will be analyzed for many years, perhaps hundreds; however, from these analysis’ will eventually be derived an exact and indisputable evidence on how the universe was created and man’s place in it.

When I look into the night sky, I am unable to imagine a great puppeteer pulling strings here on earth. My String Theory will be routed from observable evidences that make unequivocal sense regardless of which theory becomes accepted.

As for the Fibonacci numbers that is purported to mimic the complexities of design, I agree; but the original author failed in providing the relationship between the mathematics and a creator. Truthfully, I was unable to understand any link as it was a man who discovered the relationship between numbers and nature’s complexities. We utilize this form of mathematics in Chaos and Fractal Theory.

It is illogical to fill the voids of sciences’ current shortcomings with religious doctrine as new discoveries are continually pending. They are two unequivocally different camps. I would consider science remains millennium steps ahead of religion and one only has to look at this point from a current and historical perspective. Throughout sciences’ early history, religious leaders have been modifying their interpretative beliefs around indisputable facts based on observations that cannot be disputed. A simple math is recognized to dispute earth’s central celestial role, a simple eyepiece to magnify the sun’s blemishes are observed and the universe is now not perfect, or (my favorite) incongruous interpretations by other dreamers of existing religious doctrine are burned at the stake by religious fantasists’ who prevail in power. LOL

Is the fight against the Taliban a Christian against Muslim thing? To many Christians I suspect yes but to a forward thinker it is simply the eradication of fanatical thought which continues to stifle freedom, subjugates the population into sub servitude and prolongs the day when all peoples live together in peace.

shurale
08-06-2010, 13:57
So, prayers of people who make their belief in God their profession (or trade?)
are stronger than prayers of plumbers, bakers, firefighters, pilots, bankers, carpenters or others?
but rather as those who have achieved so much
What have they achieved?
Anyway, what I had wanted to ask.... Have they seen God? Does God talk to them?



This is a FAQ/FAM (Frequently asked Question / Misconception) about Orthodoxy. I'm in a rush to get to work but google and I'm sure you will find sufficient answers. But to give some sound-bitish quick answers, Christianity is not about "You (alone) and God". God is not "my personal (meaning individual) Lord and saviour." In the Church which is the body of Christ I am in (or rather, I strive to be) communion with God along with all my brothers and sisters in Christ. My priest in the US said: "one Christian, no Christian" Priests cannot serve the liturgy alone (monk hermits are exceptions to this), there must be at least one other present. We do not see priests and Saints as those who "are in the way" between me and God, but rather as those who have achieved so much that we want to learn from them, and ask them to pray on our behalf, since all prayers from others, but especially the prayers of the righteous and the Saints are very strong.

Do you see University instructors as "go betweens" between you and, say, knowledge in Physics? Or are they rather teachers, people experienced in knowledge that you can learn from and grow with? It's not a perfect analogy since Physics is not God but you get the idea, I'm sure.

Bogatyr
08-06-2010, 14:02
If we were a little group of sailors/passengers of a sunken ship on a deserted island, and our priest tragically died (drowned/was eaten by sharks), would we have to do without a priest or choose someone to work in this position?

Well that's easy, the same thing we're supposed to do when with a priest, the same thing we're supposed to do even if not shipwrecked on a desert island: pray and repent, love God, love your neighbor.

Bogatyr
08-06-2010, 14:13
So, prayers of people who make their belief in God their profession (or trade?)
are stronger than prayers of plumbers, bakers, firefighters, pilots, bankers, carpenters or others?
but rather as those who have achieved so much
What have they achieved?
Anyway, what I had wanted to ask.... Have they seen God? Does God talk to them?

In the case of the Saints they have achieved communion with God through succeeding in a lifelong struggle against the passions via acetism and prayer. The Trinity and the Holy Theotokos have appeared to and communicated with Saints, yes.

No, it has nothing to do with profession, it has to do with spiritual proximity and maturity, through a life of prayer, fasting, Church services, struggle, loving God truly and striving to live the life Our Lord led.

Here's a good link to read, that might help with some of your questions:

http://www.saintseraphim.com/information/?page=article6&sub=a

shurale
08-06-2010, 14:17
But there has to be some priest?
Would you suggest, "O.K. guys, you fish, you collect firewood, you hunt wild pigs, I will pray for you and at the end of the day you give me one thenth of all catch (one tenth of firewood, one tenth of the pig you killed)?


Well that's easy, the same thing we're supposed to do when with a priest, the same thing we're supposed to do even if not shipwrecked on a desert island: pray and repent, love God, love your neighbor.

SV1973a
08-06-2010, 14:25
But there has to be some priest?
Would you suggest, "O.K. guys, you fish, you collect firewood, you hunt wild pigs, I will pray for you and at the end of the day you give me one thenth of all catch (one tenth of firewood, one tenth of the pig you killed)?

I volunteer for priest !!!

GaNozri
08-06-2010, 14:51
I usually stay away from Russmeister's religion threads, but, if i didn't believe in G-d I would have absolutely no reason to continue.

shurale
08-06-2010, 14:53
What do you think of the phrase "Seeing is believing"?

shurale
08-06-2010, 16:01
Bogatyr,
thank you for the link. I am reading it.

Here is what I came across on that web page.

I think that historians, especially military historians, can readily illustrate for us what constitutes human history: wars, shedding of blood, violence, cruelty. The 20th Century is thought of as an era of exalted humanism. Yet it has demonstrated its level of "perfection" by exceeding in the amount of bloodshed, all that was shed in the prior centuries of human history combined. If our forefathers could have seen what was to come in the 20th Century, they would have shuddered in horror at the scope of the cruelty, injustice, and deceit. This is a paradox beyond human comprehension: as the history of mankind has unfolded, man has acted in direct opposition to those very guiding principles, goals, and ideals toward which he had initially directed all of his efforts.


I think this is well-written. Especially, this one

If our forefathers could have seen what was to come in the 20th Century, they would have shuddered in horror at the scope of the cruelty, injustice, and deceit.

However, if we read the source
we find this

1 Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

I think it is indeed a paradox.


In the case of the Saints they have achieved communion with God through succeeding in a lifelong struggle against the passions via acetism and prayer. The Trinity and the Holy Theotokos have appeared to and communicated with Saints, yes.

No, it has nothing to do with profession, it has to do with spiritual proximity and maturity, through a life of prayer, fasting, Church services, struggle, loving God truly and striving to live the life Our Lord led.

Here's a good link to read, that might help with some of your questions:

http://www.saintseraphim.com/information/?page=article6&sub=a

len
08-06-2010, 16:31
What do you think of the phrase "Seeing is believing"?

"I don't believe it," barks Thomas. "I don't believe a word of it. You're seeing what you want to see. Jesus is dead. I saw him die, and part of me died with him. But he's dead, and the sooner you accept that fact, the better off you'll be. Give it up!"

Peter pleads with him. "Thomas, I saw him myself, I tell you, and he was as real as you are!"

Thomas is cold, with an edge in his voice that cuts like ice. "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

But Thomas's anger cools, and by the next Sunday evening he is eating with his fellow disciples in the same locked room. Suddenly, Jesus stands among them once again and speaks -- "Shalom, peace be with you."

All the blood drains from Thomas' face. Jesus turns to him and speaks plainly, without any hint of rancor or sarcasm, "Put your finger here, see my hands." Jesus holds out his scarred hands for him to examine. Thomas recoils. Not out of fear, really, but from a mixture of amazement and revulsion.

Jesus begins to open his outer garment and says, "Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
My Lord and My God

Thomas is weeping now and then begins to sob out loud. Jesus reaches out and puts a hand on his shoulder. Then Thomas slips to his knees and says in awe, "My Lord and my God!"

Thomas, "Doubting Thomas," as he is sometimes called, is the first disciple to put into words the truth that Jesus is both Lord and God. "Doubting Thomas" utters the greatest confession of faith recorded anywhere in the Bible.

Jesus replies, Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

shurale
08-06-2010, 16:46
Yakspeare, will you kill this girl
http://www.firstdallas.org/mediafiles/little-girl.jpg

if a righteous man told you that you have to?



Don't get too excited...Shurale has very little biblical basis for his beliefs, infact he is twisting scripture so much the "devout christian" tag is quite in doubt.

sic

len
08-06-2010, 16:53
Yakspeare, will you kill this girl
http://www.firstdallas.org/mediafiles/little-girl.jpg

if a righteous man told you that you have to?

Actually you should answer that Shurale because you can do anything your priests/elders tell you to including killing. So can you kill that girl Shurale?

GaNozri
08-06-2010, 17:51
Bogatyr,

1 Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

I think it is indeed a paradox.

Do not take this literally. Just like the Lord said: "steal everything that belongs to the Egyptians".........

meaning egotism, from which the Jews, at that time (before the destruction of the second Temple) were liberated.

shurale
08-06-2010, 18:09
Len,

I cannot kill that girl. I blame my atheist upbringing for that. I know it is a poor excuse.
I can only pray that God will help me overcome my weakness and teach me complete obedience.
Here is a great article about complete obedience http://www.biblestudyemail.com/karmelich_1samuel/1samuel15.htm

Let’s Pray: Heavenly, father, we thank you for these lessons about obedience. Help us to remember daily that we are saved by Your grace, but that grace demands obedience as gratitude for what You’ve done for us. Search out our lives, and show us ways where we are still not doing Your will in our lives, even if that revelation is painful. Guide as, and give us the boldness to go forth to do your will, as we live to glorify You. In Jesus name we pray, Amen.


Actually you should answer that Shurale because you can do anything your priests/elders tell you to including killing. So can you kill that girl Shurale?

rusmeister
08-06-2010, 18:11
But there has to be some priest?
Would you suggest, "O.K. guys, you fish, you collect firewood, you hunt wild pigs, I will pray for you and at the end of the day you give me one thenth of all catch (one tenth of firewood, one tenth of the pig you killed)?

This is like saying, "There has to be some doctor?" "Give me part of your catch and I will heal you and take care of your health."

Priests are desirable. So are doctors. As doctors remind us to take care of our physical health, so priests remind us to take care of our spiritual health. Saying, "I can live without doctors - I don't need any intermediaries between me and Nature" shows a profound ignorance of the usefulness of doctors, n'est-ce-pas?
So it is with priests. And if you are in or want to stay out of legal trouble, so it is with lawyers - and so on.

GaNozri
08-06-2010, 18:11
I'll join you in your prayer, as soon as I'm done with my toke and my drink.

rusmeister
08-06-2010, 18:13
I usually stay away from Russmeister's religion threads, but, if i didn't believe in G-d I would have absolutely no reason to continue.

I didn't know this was my thread. Does that mean I can ask to have the thread locked?

GaNozri
08-06-2010, 18:19
Anything you say, Sir!


RESPECT!


P.S. even though, half the time I can't make the effort to read your unbeleivably long and boring posts.

Bogatyr
08-06-2010, 18:38
Bogatyr,
thank you for the link. I am reading it.


You are quite welcome. Also for those seeking, searching, or otherwise interested:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com

a good place to start is

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/

shurale
08-06-2010, 19:01
Matthew 2:16-18:

Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry; and sending killed all the men children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the prophet, saying: A voice in Rama was heard, lamentation and great mourning; Rachel bewailing her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

These poor children were "the first buds of the Church killed by the frost of persecution".
====
O.K. It says that the file is too large to be attached but I like the painting at the link
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Matteo_di_Giovanni_002.jpg

shurale
08-06-2010, 19:15
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "
8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves [b] and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.

10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel: 11 "I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions."
===
The Lord was grieved that the chosen people didn't put to death the donkeys of Amalekites.

shurale
08-06-2010, 19:22
James 14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.


This is like saying, "There has to be some doctor?" "Give me part of your catch and I will heal you and take care of your health."

Priests are desirable. So are doctors. As doctors remind us to take care of our physical health, so priests remind us to take care of our spiritual health. Saying, "I can live without doctors - I don't need any intermediaries between me and Nature" shows a profound ignorance of the usefulness of doctors, n'est-ce-pas?
So it is with priests. And if you are in or want to stay out of legal trouble, so it is with lawyers - and so on.

GaNozri
08-06-2010, 19:25
James 14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

This applies to doctors, priests, drug dealers, and prostitutes. IMHO.

rusmeister
08-06-2010, 21:08
Anything you say, Sir!


RESPECT!


P.S. even though, half the time I can't make the effort to read your unbeleivably long and boring posts.

Physics is really boring - to people who don't understand physics. Most other disciplines - ditto.

yakspeare
08-06-2010, 21:22
i love astrophysics...i much rather debate it than even religion...I am still waiting for my two theories i wrote 17 years ago will come to fruition ...but i have seen others suggest similar now...the area that interests me the most is antimatter and its formation and its prevalence in the universe and particularly in collapsing stars. Nothing excites me more, even when i was both right and wrong about the gravitational pull of our "tenth" planet( correct strength but wrong m**** changing the distance)..it was such an exciting time in my life and how i wished i had pursued it more. :(

GaNozri
08-06-2010, 21:46
Nothing excites me more, even when i was both right and wrong about the gravitational pull of our "tenth" planet( correct strength but wrong m**** changing the distance. :(

You must be such a geek!

Matt24
08-06-2010, 23:10
You must be such a geek!
at last an opportunity to share some geek jokes with a civilian audience:
What do astrophycicists use for contraception? Their personalities boom boom! What's the point of astrophycicists? To make particulate chemists seem interesting...in the kingdom of the geek APs are generally considered the most replaceable by machinery and or real geeks better at maths, quantom mechanics is the 'bird catcher' these days, that and of course particulate chemistry.

shurale
08-06-2010, 23:29
I hate astrophysics. Astrophysicists worship Satan and tell lies.
They should be hung before the Lord.

===
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
=================


i love astrophysics...i much rather debate it than even religion...I am still waiting for my two theories i wrote 17 years ago will come to fruition ...but i have seen others suggest similar now...the area that interests me the most is antimatter and its formation and its prevalence in the universe and particularly in collapsing stars. Nothing excites me more, even when i was both right and wrong about the gravitational pull of our "tenth" planet( correct strength but wrong m**** changing the distance)..it was such an exciting time in my life and how i wished i had pursued it more. :(

is4fun
08-06-2010, 23:41
at last an opportunity to share some geek jokes with a civilian audience:
What do astrophycicists use for contraception? Their personalities boom boom! What's the point of astrophycicists? To make particulate chemists seem interesting...in the kingdom of the geek APs are generally considered the most replaceable by machinery and or real geeks better at maths, quantom mechanics is the 'bird catcher' these days, that and of course particulate chemistry.

Yes, reading through the threads I recon one would be fed up; so in recognition of Matt24's attempt to soften the atmosphere I wish to post a little something I found funny to lighten the conversation. But only for a moment!

Taoism
Shit happens.
Buddhism
If shit happens, it's not really shit.
Islam
If shit happens, it's the will of Allah.
Protestantism
Shit happens because you don't work hard enough.
Judaism
Why does this shit always happen to us?
Hinduism
This shit happened before.
Catholicism
Shit happens because you're bad.
Hare Krishna
Shit happens rama rama.
T.V. Evangelism
Send more shit.
Atheism
No shit.
Jehova's Witness
Knock knock, shit happens.
Hedonism
There's nothing like a good shit happening.
Christian Science
Shit happens in your mind.
Agnosticism
Maybe shit happens, maybe it doesn't.
Rastafarianism
Let's smoke this shit.
Existentialism
What is shit anyway?
Stoicism
This shit doesn't bother me.

MickeyTong
09-06-2010, 01:31
“Internally, I have felt as I’ve gotten older that I am not the same as my body, despite all of the neuroscience. How do I put this? What’s clear is that I depend entirely on the integrity of my body. As things in my brain change—if I were to develop a tumor, for example —that could completely change who I am, how I think. So I’m somehow yoked to my brain in a very strong way, and the question for all of us is, are we yoked to it 100 percent or is there some other little bit going on?"

https://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/the-soul-seeker

Jack17
09-06-2010, 02:00
From the same article:

"Eagleman explains that Frances Crick, the Nobel laureate biologist at the Salk Institute, once told him, “What we lose in mystery we gain in awe,”

Exactly the same experience I have when in bed with a girl 20 years my junior.

shurale
09-06-2010, 02:14
A nice site.

http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page

And thanks to all for your posts.

shurale
09-06-2010, 02:21
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.
~Proverbs 1:7

Atheists don't fear the Lord therefore they are fools who despise wisdom and discipline.
Btw, if we are to imitate Jesus, then it should be ok to call the spade the spade. Jesus didn't mince words after all, when He rebuked pharisees.
Good night.

Jack17
09-06-2010, 02:59
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.
~Proverbs 1:7

Atheists don't fear the Lord therefore they are fools who despise wisdom and discipline.
Btw, if we are to imitate Jesus, then it should be ok to call the spade the spade. Jesus didn't mince words after all, when He rebuked pharisees.
Good night.
I'm a fool for love.

shurale
09-06-2010, 10:47
Everything is shit.

Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
Philippians 3:8-9 (KJV)



Yes, reading through the threads I recon one would be fed up; so in recognition of Matt24's attempt to soften the atmosphere I wish to post a little something I found funny to lighten the conversation. But only for a moment!

Taoism
Shit happens.
Buddhism
If shit happens, it's not really shit.
Islam
If shit happens, it's the will of Allah.
Protestantism
Shit happens because you don't work hard enough.
Judaism
Why does this shit always happen to us?
Hinduism
This shit happened before.
Catholicism
Shit happens because you're bad.
Hare Krishna
Shit happens rama rama.
T.V. Evangelism
Send more shit.
Atheism
No shit.
Jehova's Witness
Knock knock, shit happens.
Hedonism
There's nothing like a good shit happening.
Christian Science
Shit happens in your mind.
Agnosticism
Maybe shit happens, maybe it doesn't.
Rastafarianism
Let's smoke this shit.
Existentialism
What is shit anyway?
Stoicism
This shit doesn't bother me.

is4fun
09-06-2010, 21:23
“Internally, I have felt as I’ve gotten older that I am not the same as my body, despite all of the neuroscience. How do I put this? What’s clear is that I depend entirely on the integrity of my body. As things in my brain change—if I were to develop a tumor, for example —that could completely change who I am, how I think. So I’m somehow yoked to my brain in a very strong way, and the question for all of us is, are we yoked to it 100 percent or is there some other little bit going on?"

https://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/the-soul-seeker

A pretty good article even though written in first person.
Certainly a memorable truth:

“Eagleman explains that Frances Crick, the Nobel laureate biologist at the Salk Institute, once told him, ‘What we lose in mystery we gain in awe...”

shurale
09-06-2010, 21:50
Len,

I have read this story, thank you for this dramatized version of it.

Matthew 10:16
I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves

Think it over.



"I don't believe it," barks Thomas. "I don't believe a word of it. You're seeing what you want to see. Jesus is dead. I saw him die, and part of me died with him. But he's dead, and the sooner you accept that fact, the better off you'll be. Give it up!"

Peter pleads with him. "Thomas, I saw him myself, I tell you, and he was as real as you are!"

Thomas is cold, with an edge in his voice that cuts like ice. "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

But Thomas's anger cools, and by the next Sunday evening he is eating with his fellow disciples in the same locked room. Suddenly, Jesus stands among them once again and speaks -- "Shalom, peace be with you."

All the blood drains from Thomas' face. Jesus turns to him and speaks plainly, without any hint of rancor or sarcasm, "Put your finger here, see my hands." Jesus holds out his scarred hands for him to examine. Thomas recoils. Not out of fear, really, but from a mixture of amazement and revulsion.

Jesus begins to open his outer garment and says, "Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
My Lord and My God

Thomas is weeping now and then begins to sob out loud. Jesus reaches out and puts a hand on his shoulder. Then Thomas slips to his knees and says in awe, "My Lord and my God!"

Thomas, "Doubting Thomas," as he is sometimes called, is the first disciple to put into words the truth that Jesus is both Lord and God. "Doubting Thomas" utters the greatest confession of faith recorded anywhere in the Bible.

Jesus replies, Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

shurale
10-06-2010, 15:16
It makes sense to fear God because lots of evil things can happen to you if you don't. God doesn't mince words when He talks about punishment for disobedience.

Exodus 20:5
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Leviticus 18:25
Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.

Deuteronomy 28:30
30A man will be engaged to a woman, but before they can get married, she will be raped by enemy soldiers. Some of you will build houses, but never get to live in them. If you plant a vineyard, you won't be around long enough to enjoy the first harvest.

Isaiah 36:12
But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

shurale
10-06-2010, 15:20
The Bible says many times that a good man fears God.

We should be lead by the example of Abraham.

Genesis 22:12
"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

(That was said when Abraham was about to slaughter his son).

shurale
10-06-2010, 15:24
Be good, fear God and be blessed.

Psalm 112:1
Praise the LORD. Blessed is the man who fears the LORD, who finds great delight in his commands.

shurale
10-06-2010, 15:27
1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

shurale
10-06-2010, 15:31
Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Former_Kreditbanken_Norrmalmstorg_Stockholm_Sweden.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Former_Kreditbanken_Norrmalmstorg_Stockholm_Sweden.jpg/220px-Former_Kreditbanken_Norrmalmstorg_Stockholm_Sweden.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/4/4f/Former_Kreditbanken_Norrmalmstorg_Stockholm_Sweden.jpg/220px-Former_Kreditbanken_Norrmalmstorg_Stockholm_Sweden.jpg

rusmeister
10-06-2010, 20:16
Shurale, I think people will just drop off the thread if you carpet-bomb it with Bible verses. I think a lot of Bible verses, but you're not going to get people to seriously consider anything you might be trying to say primarily on the strength of Bible verses.

is4fun
12-06-2010, 16:22
Like a blind man attempting to cross a busy street without the aid of a cane that would enable him to stimulate his other senses to navigate but only to rely on his creator, not common sense, so as not to be killed, shurale continues to drown his own intellect with his nonsensical quotes. As expected...

2ndWind
12-06-2010, 20:41
Like a blind man attempting to cross a busy street without the aid of a cane that would enable him to stimulate his other senses ...
To "get into" the bible or any other work of fiction, whether book, movie or live theater, one must have a "willing suspension of disbelief".

The following from Wikipedia:
"Suspension of disbelief or 'willing suspension of disbelief' is a formula named as such in English by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge to justify the use of fantastic or non-realistic elements in literature. Coleridge suggested that if a writer could infuse a 'human interest and a semblance of truth' into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative."

Once someone has suspended his power to disbelieve and transferred a great portion his reasoning ability to a "higher power" (through the "higher power's" representatives - priests, pastors, etc.) then he is little more than a zombie.

Upon leaving a theater or finishing a book, one returns to reality and can logically review/analyze the experience. However, religion (using the device of "faith") requires the believer to continue the "make believe" permanently. Any chink in the armor of faith could sentence the believer to eternal torture.

Willy
12-06-2010, 21:29
Like a blind man attempting to cross a busy street without the aid of a cane that would enable him to stimulate his other senses to navigate but only to rely on his creator, not common sense, so as not to be killed, shurale continues to drown his own intellect with his nonsensical quotes. As expected...


And that's what makes this forum great!


Good to know there are people dummer than me in this world.

is4fun
12-06-2010, 22:49
"a willing suspension of disbelief"

Absolutely true! Excellent prose also. :)

shurale
14-06-2010, 12:56
People like to believe what they like to believe. Someone is a vegetarian and likes sex, so he believes he will be reincarnated as a rabbit. Jack likes sex with young girls and he (I assume) likes meat, so he prefers to believe in non-existance of God. I like to belive in afterlife (and I hope I will get to heaven). So I believe in God. Even if it means that I have to believe also in talking snakes, talking donkeys, and basilisks.
Its latter end -- as a serpent it biteth, And as a basilisk it stingeth.

len
14-06-2010, 13:46
People like to believe what they like to believe. Someone is a vegetarian and likes sex, so he believes he will be reincarnated as a rabbit. Jack likes sex with young girls and he (I assume) likes meat, so he prefers to believe in non-existance of God. I like to belive in afterlife (and I hope I will get to heaven). So I believe in God. Even if it means that I have to believe also in talking snakes, talking donkeys, and basilisks.
Its latter end -- as a serpent it biteth, And as a basilisk it stingeth.

what is that image supposed to depict?

Russian Lad
14-06-2010, 14:03
and I hope I will get to heaven

What do you plan to do there?

shurale
14-06-2010, 14:07
What do you plan to do there?

play chess and venerate God. Or venerate God and play chess. Sex can get boring but chess is a heavenly game.

shurale
14-06-2010, 14:08
what is that image supposed to depict?

Basilisk. A biblical creature.

is4fun
14-06-2010, 14:42
play chess and venerate God. Or venerate God and play chess. Sex can get boring but chess is a heavenly game.

Veneration? Who would you play chess with might I ask? Not with your god surely. This queen bee has the ability to snuff you out like a little mite based on my understanding from your own words. Oh, I see; your playing with the rest of those who make it to your level in astrospaceheavenlybibliogicalIdon'twishtoknowanythingbetter. LOL

shurale
14-06-2010, 16:33
Do you equate atheism with intelligence and faith with stupidity? Yes or no?

I would play chess with saints.
YouTube- Louis Armstrong - When The Saints Go Marching In


Veneration? Who would you play chess with might I ask? Not with your god surely. This queen bee has the ability to snuff you out like a little mite based on my understanding from your own words. Oh, I see; your playing with the rest of those who make it to your level in astrospaceheavenlybibliogicalIdon'twishtoknowanythingbetter. LOL

is4fun
14-06-2010, 17:31
If I equate faith with stupidity then I wish to provide you and the readers on the definition of this ill-gotten morsel of a WORD:

“Faith defined is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing. Physical observation or empirical evidence does not necessarily play a role in this concept thus should be discounted as illogical when considering any confirmations about scientific validity.”

You have not been reading nor understanding this thread or posting logical debates. Rather, you have been seeding this thread with written words based on your limited understanding of what you have read in religious text. I may also add you may have other motives in posting your poisonous philosophy.

Now, if we wish to consider the logical aspect of empirical evidence as in turning to something that we experienced in the past and test this experience so it should rein true with others, scientists’ theories are only validated once others can test the same hypothesis over and over and over and over. Can you say the same with your fantasy? Yes, chess with the saints, LOL, get your act together.

shurale
14-06-2010, 17:42
The Word of God is poisonous philosophy???


If I equate faith with stupidity then I wish to provide you and the readers on the definition of this ill-gotten morsel of a WORD:

“Faith defined is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing. Physical observation or empirical evidence does not necessarily play a role in this concept thus should be discounted as illogical when considering any confirmations about scientific validity.”

You have not been reading nor understanding this thread or posting logical debates. Rather, you have been seeding this thread with written words based on your limited understanding of what you have read in religious text. I may also add you may have other motives in posting your poisonous philosophy.

Now, if we wish to consider the logical aspect of empirical evidence as in turning to something that we experienced in the past and test this experience so it should rein true with others, scientists’ theories are only validated once others can test the same hypothesis over and over and over and over. Can you say the same with your fantasy? Yes, chess with the saints, LOL, get your act together.

is4fun
14-06-2010, 17:44
The Word of God is poisonous philosophy???

There is no god. Live with it!

MickeyTong
14-06-2010, 22:53
YouTube- "The Mysterious Stranger" a very creepy children's cartoon that should not be banned...

shurale
16-06-2010, 19:58
Why such vehemence? I believe you are possessed.


There is no god. Live with it!

yakspeare
16-06-2010, 20:12
Shurale i am considering changing my religion to whatever you are not.

is4fun
16-06-2010, 23:27
Why such vehemence? I believe you are possessed.

Possessed? LOL Evidently this word would only be attributed to someone who believes in some other entity which takes mental and physical control of something/somebody else. Possessed by what; an ant, a giraffe, a cow or a chicken? Who, what or which of your machinations have led you on this path of absolute fantasy and insecurity?

My vehemence arises to those who cannot prove a single iota of ancient text in the existence of a higher power but only can quote and interpret ancient text to their own comfort and subterfuge.

Jack17
18-06-2010, 09:10
some other entity which takes mental and physical control of something/somebody else.

A wife?

is4fun
18-06-2010, 17:41
A wife?

A big thanks! :)

Willy
19-06-2010, 11:02
YouTube- Zeitgeist [Religion] The Greatest Story Ever Sold (1of 3)

YouTube- Zeitgeist [Religion] The Greatest Story Ever Sold (2 of 3)



YouTube- Zeitgeist [Religion] The Greatest Story Ever Sold (3 of 3)





For me, this tells it best.


Did god make man or did man make god?

is4fun
20-06-2010, 17:08
YouTube- Zeitgeist [Religion] The Greatest Story Ever Sold (1of 3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw&feature=related)

YouTube- Zeitgeist [Religion] The Greatest Story Ever Sold (2 of 3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc-mrJf45Hg&feature=related)



YouTube- Zeitgeist [Religion] The Greatest Story Ever Sold (3 of 3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjAegPhQOUg&feature=related)





For me, this tells it best.


Did god make man or did man make god?

Yes, I did have a ponder at some of the video and found it a compilation of a trend reaching huge proportions of those who are now, had and have questioned current or historic events. I am not totally convinced, however, even a semi unrestricted internet has indeed brought many of those together who agree in much the same manner that religion is a fantasist’s crutch personally and mentally voiding them of any responsibility of actions based on their own decisions unwittingly based on the care of an oppressor. Absolutely shameful!

The Zeigeist Movie is based on the ideas of Jaque Fresco

Zeitgeist: the Movie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Zeitgeist-themovie.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/dc/Zeitgeist-themovie.jpg/200px-Zeitgeist-themovie.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/d/dc/Zeitgeist-themovie.jpg/200px-Zeitgeist-themovie.jpg

yakspeare
20-06-2010, 19:28
as i have posted previously the assertions that Horus has any similarity to Jesus christ are quite ludicrous. horus was not born on 25th december, did not have 12 disciples, did not die and be raised again 3 days later, was not a virgin birth etc and he was the sky God(the falcon) and not the Sun God(which was Ra)...anyone with even a high school exposure to Egyptology knows this. it is plain and simple rubbish.

There ARE similarities between various religions, even christianity, but trying to link it with egyptology is just lame.

by all means believe what you like, but at least do some research, which the zeitgiest movie clearly did not do.

Willy
20-06-2010, 19:52
as i have posted previously the assertions that Horus has any similarity to Jesus christ are quite ludicrous. horus was not born on 25th december, did not have 12 disciples, did not die and be raised again 3 days later, was not a virgin birth etc and he was the sky God(the falcon) and not the Sun God(which was Ra)...anyone with even a high school exposure to Egyptology knows this. it is plain and simple rubbish.

There ARE similarities between various religions, even christianity, but trying to link it with egyptology is just lame.

by all means believe what you like, but at least do some research, which the zeitgiest movie clearly did not do.



Who cares, it was a nice story and sounded pretty good to me.

I don't care to do research because I really don't care if there is a god or not, it ain't going to stop me from doing what I think is right.

is4fun
20-06-2010, 22:34
as i have posted previously the assertions that Horus has any similarity to Jesus christ are quite ludicrous. horus was not born on 25th december, did not have 12 disciples, did not die and be raised again 3 days later, was not a virgin birth etc and he was the sky God(the falcon) and not the Sun God(which was Ra)...anyone with even a high school exposure to Egyptology knows this. it is plain and simple rubbish.

There ARE similarities between various religions, even christianity, but trying to link it with egyptology is just lame.

by all means believe what you like, but at least do some research, which the zeitgiest movie clearly did not do.

The only research which has been done by anyone who has met with a fallacy called a bible or a koran are those who wish to control. Open your mind... What text have you from your book which can make mankind a safe place?

Bogatyr
21-06-2010, 10:22
The only research which has been done by anyone who has met with a fallacy called a bible or a koran are those who wish to control. Open your mind... What text have you from your book which can make mankind a safe place?

1) The only thing an open mind is good for is closing on the truth.

2) "Love your neighbor."

is4fun
23-06-2010, 00:18
1) The only thing an open mind is good for is closing on the truth.

2) "Love your neighbor."

1) The only thing an open mind is good for is closing on the truth.

What a statement indeed. You have certainly been conjured by those who wish to control you and have fallen into their guise. Your absolute adherence to an entity, which has never existed, is only a testimonial to those who know you are indeed susceptible to their reasoning. Typical of religious fanatics; personal salvation is above of all others even when sons and daughters are concerned.

2) "Love your neighbor."

Had your neighbor been Ted Bundy could you have loved him?

farsideofthelune
23-06-2010, 00:29
as i have posted previously the assertions that Horus was not a virgin birth

There ARE similarities between various religions, even christianity, but trying to link it with egyptology is just lame.



That's what Wikipedia says about Horus's birth, for what it's worth:

Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris, except his penis which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish,[5][6] and used her magic powers to resurrect Osiris and fashion a gold phallus[7] to conceive her son. In another version of the story, Isis was impregnated by divine fire.[8] Once Isis knew she was pregnant with Horus, she fled to the Nile Delta marshlands to hide from her brother Set who jealously killed Osiris and who she knew would want to kill their son.[8] There Isis bore a divine son, Horus.

So there is a motive of immaculate conception, even though she probably wasn't a virgin, since she had a husband.

yakspeare
23-06-2010, 08:37
firstly the egyptian gods were just that..gods....they were not mortals in their mythology so it is quite a stretch to say this is even close to a human virgin woman who conceives a child with the help of a god....certainly stories like Hercules half man/half god are far more similar than anything egyptian. what i think zeitgiest has done is select a mythology most people know little about and then utterly invent similarities.

is4fun, even if you don't believe in religion and believe they stem from fancy imaginations...they still have a history...a time when they started and a reason for them starting etc. they then should be appreciated and studied for their impact on daily life and shaping of culture. i have read books on aliens, ghosts and government conspiracy theories etc as well as studied most of the major religions in some detail-islam i want to learn more about at the moment so i am studying Quran Arabic to understand it. i am also studying modern and biblical hebrew(all three are quite similar). THAT is someone who has an open mind and willingness to learn.

just because i know the truth doesn't mean i don't want to know why others think different. You can say there is no God all you like, you can rant and scream at all the bad things the church has done, but there will be a day when it all becomes very, very clear to you. it will be logical, precise and totally make sense. unfortunately that day may be too late but c'est la vie. :)

2ndWind
23-06-2010, 09:07
just because i know the truth . . .

I believe that you believe that you know the truth. In my opinion, the faith with which you believe your statement to be true and the forcefulness with which you project your beliefs still does not make them anything more than your beliefs. I submit that you are entitled to your beliefs, just as I believe that I am entitled to mine. Problems should be expected if you decide that your are entitled to yours but others are not entitled to theirs.

Just because I, as a liberal, believe that everyone is entitled to his or her own beliefs, does not mean that I don't hold my own beliefs as dear as you hold yours.

Willy
23-06-2010, 09:28
firstly the egyptian gods were just that..gods....they were not mortals in their mythology so it is quite a stretch to say this is even close to a human virgin woman who conceives a child with the help of a god....certainly stories like Hercules half man/half god are far more similar than anything egyptian. what i think zeitgiest has done is select a mythology most people know little about and then utterly invent similarities.

is4fun, even if you don't believe in religion and believe they stem from fancy imaginations...they still have a history...a time when they started and a reason for them starting etc. they then should be appreciated and studied for their impact on daily life and shaping of culture. i have read books on aliens, ghosts and government conspiracy theories etc as well as studied most of the major religions in some detail-islam i want to learn more about at the moment so i am studying Quran Arabic to understand it. i am also studying modern and biblical hebrew(all three are quite similar). THAT is someone who has an open mind and willingness to learn.

just because i know the truth doesn't mean i don't want to know why others think different. You can say there is no God all you like, you can rant and scream at all the bad things the church has done, but there will be a day when it all becomes very, very clear to you. it will be logical, precise and totally make sense. unfortunately that day may be too late but c'est la vie. :)





"but there will be a day when it all becomes very, very clear to you."

It will become clear to you too. What will you do when you can't find the pearly gates?

farsideofthelune
23-06-2010, 13:03
firstly the egyptian gods were just that..gods....they were not mortals in their mythology so it is quite a stretch to say this is even close to a human virgin woman who conceives a child with the help of a god....certainly stories like Hercules half man/half god are far more similar than anything egyptian. what i think zeitgiest has done is select a mythology most people know little about and then utterly invent similarities.


One of the Catholic dogmas is that Mary, The Holy Mother of God, was born of immaculate conception just like her son, Jesus. What does that make her? Half-human, half-divine.

At the same time, the Orthodox perceive her as purely human - having been born of a man and a woman.

Unfortunately, The Book and dogmas have so many motives that can be quite easily traced back to earlier religious beliefs and myths of ancient peoples that if you examine it closely, it looks like a patchwork.

I don't think people are basing their religious beliefs on The Book anyway. There is probably a great deal of personal irrational thinking and mysticism that leads one to believe.

is4fun
24-06-2010, 01:12
Science can indeed be manipulated through monetary incentives and this is evident in the past and especially now. This can never be denied. So there is good science and bad science but the science that is brought on by fraudulent or unaccepted means will always be found out if scientific observation is permitted to exist. Has anyone here heard about the thamaldihide babies of the early ‘60s, asbestos mining in the 70s or a correlation of lung cancer and cigarette smoking? Had it not been for science things would have certainly turned out worse, don’t you think?

Now we come to this cretin text who so many like to interpret based on their flavor of the day; some creator’s will, fate or whatnot. Historically, how many times has all ancient text been wrong, or better yet, the oppressor’s interpretation of that exact text? Real science has only been left to flourish for the last hundred years or so and look how far that has taken us. We are in space and have discovered how biological life is manifested through our thought processes ! Man is truly the only god that ever existed! :)

yakspeare
24-06-2010, 08:42
One of the Catholic dogmas is that Mary, The Holy Mother of God, was born of immaculate conception just like her son, Jesus. What does that make her? Half-human, half-divine.

At the same time, the Orthodox perceive her as purely human - having been born of a man and a woman.

Unfortunately, The Book and dogmas have so many motives that can be quite easily traced back to earlier religious beliefs and myths of ancient peoples that if you examine it closely, it looks like a patchwork.

I don't think people are basing their religious beliefs on The Book anyway. There is probably a great deal of personal irrational thinking and mysticism that leads one to believe.

i actually agree with most of this. I am neither Catholic or Orthodox. I am protestant. As such, we believe that the church adopted many pagan practices and beliefs in the 4th, 5th centuries when Christianity became the state religion of Rome. We do not believe the first pope was Peter(or indeed that he was even leader of the church) and mother/son worship veneration , especially the focus on Mary- is entirely pagan in origin..as is praying to statues that weep etc, having shards of the cross(which Ivan Grozniy used to march into battle with).

We think Mary was a simple woman and give her no importance at all.

farsideofthelune
24-06-2010, 22:41
Now we come to this cretin text who so many like to interpret based on their flavor of the day; some creator’s will, fate or whatnot. Historically, how many times has all ancient text been wrong, or better yet, the oppressor’s interpretation of that exact text? Real science has only been left to flourish for the last hundred years or so and look how far that has taken us. We are in space and have discovered how biological life is manifested through our thought processes ! Man is truly the only god that ever existed! :)

Nietzsche? God's dead? The Ubermensch?

is4fun
25-06-2010, 00:42
Nietzsche? God's dead? The Ubermensch?

Common sense. Isn't that enough for you?

robertmf
25-06-2010, 01:11
All arguments boil down to eschatology

robertmf
25-06-2010, 01:18
1) The only thing an open mind is good for is closing on the truth.

2) "Love your neighbor."

What about "Do unto others before they do unto you" :question:

From a DNA reproduction point-of-view this makes more sense - and looking back historically it also makes more observational sense.

As for your 1), I personally believe an "optimist" is somebody that doesn't know enough :soccer:

farsideofthelune
25-06-2010, 01:19
All arguments boil down to eschatology

What's an ultimate personal apocalypse? Death, I guess.

MickeyTong
25-06-2010, 01:41
All arguments boil down to eschatology

YouTube- Re:Evolution

2ndWind
26-06-2010, 09:13
We think Mary was a simple woman and give her no importance at all.
The early church fathers were concerned with tying up any loose ends of their new religion and noted that if Jesus was born of an ordinary earthling then he would inherit "original sin" since all humans are condemned to this fate. In order to fix this embarrassing little problem they decreed that the conception of "Mary" was immaculate. In other works, god made a "one time exception" and the fertilized egg that became Mary was not tainted with "Original sin".

This was/is a really big deal since the entire christian religion is based on the idea that only the human sacrifice of the son of god is sufficient to provide mankind a possible (but not guaranteed) escape from "original sin". (Some conditions apply.)

If Mary's conception were not immaculate than she would have been born in sin. She would have passed on this sin to her son, jesus. How could his sacrifice have been sufficient to cleanse mankind of original sin if he, himself, were born sinful?

The church fathers thought a lot about these things.

-------------------------------------------------
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!Sir Walter Scott (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Sir_Walter_Scott/), Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.

yakspeare
26-06-2010, 09:27
the early church fathers came up with no such doctrine. If Jesus wasn't entirely a man also- he would be irrelevant to us.

original sin itself can be debated but Jesus was carried to term by Mary who was a normal Jewish girl.

shurale
26-06-2010, 14:48
.....

shurale
26-06-2010, 15:19
"I submit that you are entitled to your beliefs, just as I believe that I am entitled to mine."

If your beliefs are different and you have the insolence to speak about them, then God whose name is Jealous commands to stone you.
Deuteronomy 13:13
'If you hear that in one of the towns, there are men who are telling people to go and worship other gods, it is your duty to look into the matter and examine it.'

Deuteronomy 13:15-16
'If it is proved and confirmed, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword.'

But you know it as you studied the bible.
Love your neighbour who is a true believer.


I believe that you believe that you know the truth. In my opinion, the faith with which you believe your statement to be true and the forcefulness with which you project your beliefs still does not make them anything more than your beliefs. I submit that you are entitled to your beliefs, just as I believe that I am entitled to mine. Problems should be expected if you decide that your are entitled to yours but others are not entitled to theirs.

Just because I, as a liberal, believe that everyone is entitled to his or her own beliefs, does not mean that I don't hold my own beliefs as dear as you hold yours.

shurale
26-06-2010, 15:25
This link is great, but unfortunately I cannot upload it.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/religious_tolerance/dt13_13-15.html

yakspeare
26-06-2010, 15:38
i am glad shurale that you are not a christian and not my religion. I would hate my religion to be represented by you. Your antics suggest you are, by far ,more an enemy to truth and what christians beleieve than 2ndwind,is4fun or russian lad etc...

shurale
26-06-2010, 17:20
The Bible doesn't tell how people should be stoned, but the video

YouTube- Muslim stoning people to death

shows how it may have been in the Moses times

(Moses, Joshua, Saul, David, Solomon, etc)

and here are more awesome stoning scenes.

YouTube- Iranian Documentary "Women In Shroud": Execution by Stoning

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

tsarski
26-06-2010, 18:07
The Bible doesn't tell how people should be stoned, but the video

YouTube- Muslim stoning people to death (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGaXxtvf2bM&feature=related)

shows how it may have been in the Moses times

(Moses, Joshua, Saul, David, Solomon, etc)

and here are more awesome stoning scenes.

YouTube- Iranian Documentary "Women In Shroud": Execution by Stoning (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6s5JT7y4zk)

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Why are you so hung up about stoning people? These are not Christian things that we do, yes the Jews did it and the Muslims do it today. If you are a follower of Christ then you would know what he said, " Love your enemies, bless those who curse you. " Matt 5:44
Have you also read John 8:3-11?
Our Lord asks of us Christians mercy rather than condemnation of our fellow man.

shurale
26-06-2010, 18:17
OK. But why did the Jews do it?


Why are you so hung up about stoning people? These are not Christian things that we do, yes the Jews did it and the Muslims do it today. If you are a follower of Christ then you would know what he said, " Love your enemies, bless those who curse you. " Matt 5:44
Have you also read John 8:3-11?
Our Lord asks of us Christians mercy rather than condemnation of our fellow man.

tsarski
26-06-2010, 19:49
OK. But why did the Jews do it?

I'm sure that Yakspeare covered it earlier with you. The Jews were under the "Law of Moses" which was fulfilled by Christ when he was crucified on the cross. Hence, Christians, since that time, are not under the Law. Also the influence on not stoning people for Christians came from John 8:3-11.
Just as a note, even in the time of Jesus this ordinance was not observed to the letter.

Willy
26-06-2010, 21:51
I'm sure that Yakspeare covered it earlier with you. The Jews were under the "Law of Moses" which was fulfilled by Christ when he was crucified on the cross. Hence, Christians, since that time, are not under the Law. Also the influence on not stoning people for Christians came from John 8:3-11.
Just as a note, even in the time of Jesus this ordinance was not observed to the letter.




Well it seems that old Yakspeare is a hypocrite and maybe you shouldn't believe what he says. In another thread he's trying to f**k Fibre and Darya at the same time. Should I start collecting stones?

yakspeare
26-06-2010, 22:44
er Willy get a grip on reality will ya?

Gee whiz.

Christians don't stone nor do they judge...Jesus walked around with prostitutes and tax collectors. Did i claim perfection? I am just a normal guy who likes to have fun on this forum which includes jokes as well as debate more serious topics. I am not trying to f*ck anyone, thank you.


How do we know Jesus was a Jew?

He lived at home until he was 33.
He went into his father's business
His mother felt he was a God!

yakspeare
26-06-2010, 22:46
0

Willy
26-06-2010, 22:49
er Willy get a grip on reality will ya?

Gee whiz.

Christians don't stone nor do they judge...Jesus walked around with prostitutes and tax collectors. Did i claim perfection? I am just a normal guy who likes to have fun on this forum which includes jokes as well as debate more serious topics. I am not trying to f*ck anyone, thank you.


How do we know Jesus was a Jew?

He lived at home until he was 33.
He went into his father's business
His mother felt he was a God!




As soon as you get a grip on your Religion and stop using the parts that fit your mood at the time. Either you believe in it all or you don't believe in any of it.

It's a sin just to think about having sex with two girls at the same time, isn't it?

yakspeare
26-06-2010, 23:14
awww someone needs a hug.

firstly, you don't know what I believe and you have already admitted you don't care to know about what we believe.

No it is not a sin to think about having sex with two women at the same as such(not that i was even remotely thinking that gee- i have no idea what they even look like).

it is much simpler than that:

Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 15:19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

James 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.

James 1:15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

so you have to look upon/gaze upon someone(which i havent) then you have to think about it and dwell upon it to give rise to sin(which i haven't). Ans all such sins are considered equally bad in God's eyes and of course i do sin- i have never pretended i didn't. Infact it is quite impossible not to-hence why Jesus was on the cross in the first place and we aren't trying to follow 613 laws of the old testament. sinners go to heaven, just not every sinner.

Willy
26-06-2010, 23:17
awww someone needs a hug.

firstly, you don't know what I believe and you have already admitted you don't care to know about what we believe.

No it is not a sin to think about having sex with two women at the same as such(not that i was even remotely thinking that gee- i have no idea what they even look like).

it is much simpler than that:

Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 15:19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

James 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.

James 1:15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

so you have to look upon/gaze upon someone(which i havent) then you have to think about it and dwell upon it to give rise to sin(which i haven't). Ans all such sins are considered equally bad in God's eyes and of course i do sin- i have never pretended i didn't. Infact it is quite impossible not to-hence why Jesus was on the cross in the first place and we aren't trying to follow 613 laws of the old testament. sinners go to heaven, just not every sinner.



That's what I love about Jesus freaks, they can always find a way not to have follow the word.

yakspeare
26-06-2010, 23:31
er you talking about threesomes in the fibre n willy thread then criticize me for talking about it once= you are a hypocrit not I.

You have no idea what the "word" actually is, and I have no trouble following HIM thank you very much. You openly admit you choose to bask in your own narrow minded ignorance and what is also hypocritical is saying you don't care about such things than post even in this thread your theories and ideas and criticisms of others.

Am i allowed to use a generalization like you did and say like how "non Jesus freaks" are hypocrits? You are certainly a shining example of one. I respect and understand an Atheist's beliefs as well as many other religions-but you can't show us the same courtesy can you?

Willy
26-06-2010, 23:51
er you talking about threesomes in the fibre n willy thread then criticize me for talking about it once= you are a hypocrit not I.

You have no idea what the "word" actually is, and I have no trouble following HIM thank you very much. You openly admit you choose to bask in your own narrow minded ignorance and what is also hypocritical is saying you don't care about such things than post even in this thread your theories and ideas and criticisms of others.

Am i allowed to use a generalization like you did and say like how "non Jesus freaks" are hypocrits? You are certainly a shining example of one. I respect and understand an Atheist's beliefs as well as many other religions-but you can't show us the same courtesy can you?



Sorry I'm not an Atheist.

And I when to church until I was 10 years old, then my dad asked me if I would like to keep going. I said no, I think it was pretty good of my dad to show me this and let me make up my own mind when he himself did not believe in Jesus.

No, you can believe any stupid things you want, but if your going to argue here about them well people may not agree and they may think you not so smart.

All I'll say to you about my religion is that it is the oldest and dates back 10,000 years.

yakspeare
27-06-2010, 00:22
There are only two religions that go back that far in their true form(not modern intepretations of them) and I have studied them both. One of them, the one with the sacred Avesta, is truly fascinating and i was fortunate to visit its birthplace. I have read its sacred writings. The other, that Talmud one, I am exploring in greater depth now, learning the language(both modern and old) and learning the oral tradition as well as the written one i knew already but was only in Englsih. I am extremely tolerant of other religions and my next goal is a Bachelor of Arabic Studies(If my pursuit of Medicine doesn't get in the way-i will do one or the other depending what my partner lets me get away with).

the only other religion that can really qualify for that time frame is animism but that is more a general concept and a variable from tribe to tribe and region to region. No other religions date back that far.

Willy
27-06-2010, 00:31
There are only two religions that go back that far in their true form(not modern intepretations of them) and I have studied them both. One of them, the one with the sacred Avesta, is truly fascinating and i was fortunate to visit its birthplace. I have read its sacred writings. The other, that Talmud one, I am exploring in greater depth now, learning the language(both modern and old) and learning the oral tradition as well as the written one i knew already but was only in Englsih. I am extremely tolerant of other religions and my next goal is a Bachelor of Arabic Studies(If my pursuit of Medicine doesn't get in the way-i will do one or the other depending what my partner lets me get away with).

the only other religion that can really qualify for that time frame is animism but that is more a general concept and a variable from tribe to tribe and region to region. No other religions date back that far.



Sorry there are more.

yakspeare
27-06-2010, 02:36
sorry there aren't, name one.

SV1973a
27-06-2010, 08:36
How do we know Jesus was a Jew?

He lived at home until he was 33.
He went into his father's business
His mother felt he was a God!

It looks more like it that Jesus was Italian then.

Willy
27-06-2010, 08:59
It looks more like it that Jesus was Italian then.





Yeah, I wonder how Sal is doing?

SV1973a
27-06-2010, 09:24
An old man dies and arrives at the gates of heaven.
Here he is greated by Saint-Peter.

Saint-Peter : Name please ?

Old man : I have forgotten. I am so very old, and my memory is not working too well.

Saint-Peter : Sorry, then I can`t let you in. But maybe, you could give us some clues and we might be able to track down your identity.

Old man : I lived a modest life as a carpenter in a sunny country. I had just one son, and he became famous. Everybody knows him. They even wrote a book about him.

With these pieces of information Saint-Peter starts to think. A carpenter..., a sunny country... that must be the Holy Land... a famous son... that must be our Lord Jesus... a book ... that must the Bible. It all fits!!!

He turns around to one of his angels and says : `Quick, go and get Jesus as fast as you can. His father Joseph is here`.

Soon after that, Jesus arrives and cries out : FATHER !!!

To which the old man replies : PINOCCHIO !!!

shurale
28-06-2010, 00:10
So it was good for Jews to stone people (for pre-marital sex or for gathering sticks on Saturday) because God told them so, but it is bad for Christians to do the same?



I'm sure that Yakspeare covered it earlier with you. The Jews were under the "Law of Moses" which was fulfilled by Christ when he was crucified on the cross. Hence, Christians, since that time, are not under the Law. Also the influence on not stoning people for Christians came from John 8:3-11.
Just as a note, even in the time of Jesus this ordinance was not observed to the letter.