Ron... I was under the assumption that we know one another (from a previous thread), nevertheless I was totally oblivious to the fact that anyone in my life would harbour such resentment towards me on account of my personal faith. Feel free to contact me personally. I would feel a lot more comfortable knowing which people in my life consider me to be (at best) delusional and intellectually inferior.
God bless.
christians are brainwashed wrote:
Are you saying advocating something is the same as forcing? If you really believe something, then I think you should share it with the rest of the world. Like your crusade with minimalist shoes.
There's a difference between suggesting and forcing. I think less shoe is best -- it's worked well for me and those I know who have done it. But I'm not looking down/regulating anyone from wearing whatever they want to wear.
I'm not sure you realize what the word hypocritical means. It would be hypocritical if I criticized you for having sex with a prostitute then I went and did the same thing. It would be hypocritical for a Hindu to preach against eating cows then he ate a cheeseburger. Not sure how that pertains to what you wrote, I think there may be some other word you're looking for.
The hypocrysy is not in the act but in the criticism of the act. You wouldn't want to be looked down as immoral because you eat burgers.
Yes "moral" to an extent is an individual's perspective; extracting any elements of religion, I would say to act morally is to act toward others as you would like to be treated. As far as private indulgences, such as drugs or sex, to act in a way so that if people could see your every action, you would be considered a "good" person. I realize that is also a subjective term, so by "good" I'll say someone who evidences a character we would want in a best friend.
I assume that this is not criticism of what I wrote.
Most countries have laws against extramarital sex. I don't think mommy and daddy having drunken orgies with their friends every night will produce the right environment to make their kid an ideal citizen.
This is like the Rush Limbaugh argument -- attempting to make the other side seem as dangerous and ludicrous as possible. It's not just that two people can do what they want with other concenting adults, but they have to be intoxicated and they have to be exposing children to the environment. Nowhere did I mention child endangerment.
Second, I'd like to see a list of more than 100 countries that have enforcable laws against adultery. You could probably get a number of countries with governments inclined towards Islam (of course, while prohibiting adultery they would also endorse polygamy), and the US (and likely other industrialized countries) have a number of blue laws, but they only exist because they're ancient and non-enforced.
I don't know what you're trying to say about legitimate source. What constitutes legitimate in your view? Jesus opposed these things, and I am willing to take the word of anyone who can conquer death (this point should be rather beyond dispute if you actually do some research).
Again, your whole arguement for a universal system of morals and ethics goes out the window if they're based on the the Resurrection of Jesus -- see the previous description of the development of the Bible. Furthermore, reference the Council of Nicea where the Christian Bishops "decided" that Jesus was, in fact Divine. Among others the Christian Bishops Arius, Theonas, Secundus, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis were excommunicated because they did not believe in Jesus' divinity.
At some point, there had to be a first human couple. If you deny this, then it means there were humans 5 trillion years ago, obviously not the case. So the first humans had to have incestual relations in order to propagate. I'm not sure I buy this "inkling" or "innate" feeling. I do know the Bible preaches against incest, so our society has evolved in such a way that we are brought up being repulsed at the idea. We are all products of some original incest.
You write as if one day there were no humans and the next day there were two. You have groups of primates together, just as you do today. There was never a point when a single male/female human couple gave rise to all others on the planet. It's not as if Lucy was all by herself.
For Trackhead...The last written book in the book is the Gospel of John. He died long after Paul. Another example of history is written. The accounts are produce at toward the end of a life. When the New Testament was put together it was organized into a system as seen with any book. If you read the first chapter you can see the intelligence in his writing. There are two groups for the writing: Jewish (logos for them equals "Divine Voice" as Genesis when God said for Let there be light, Let there be water, and on) and then Romans & Greeks (logos for them equals "Divine Reason" there is dark, light, seasons, and much more therefore a system exists and has to have a force). What John means with his logos is "Divine Person" meaning Christ. That is the answer creation and systems.
In Genesis it states "Let us create...that means it is not only God" and commonly "through, by, and only Christ" is stated in the New Testament. John was one of the closest to Jesus.
Oh give it a rest, you mook. You know very well what I was saying so stop twisting my words. You wanna believe in ghosts, that's fine, but to any rational intelligent being, the eyewitness account of the "risen" Christ are about as believable as redneck UFO sightings.
What I did say (sigh) was that if a lot of the stories about what he did and said were true (that's a big if) then he was an inspirational leader who somewhat resembled many 20th-century left-wing revolutionary leaders. Thus, you can understand how his legend arose and how he achieved such a following.
Other than that, thanks for illustrating the point of many on this thread. I was making a well-reasoned argument without chastizing anyone for their beliefs and you quickly label it "hatefull bile" [sic] because it didn't conform to your naive ideas.
You mean, like that pre-race prayer goes in one ear and out the other? Or how the Constitution went in one ear and out the other on millions of christian nut jobs? Or how the things Jesus appeared to actually stand for certainly were lost on America's christian community?
Yeah, that would be terrible.
fleetfoot wrote:
from the first, second and third centurys
"centuries"
over 5oo people
"500"
jesus did not teach
"Jesus"
a freind of christianity
"friend" "Christianity"
the bible states
"Bible"
Sceintist tell us
"Scientists"
most people as prejudice as you
"prejudiced"
anything beyond there own hatefull bile.
"their" "hateful"
truth behold wrote:
he chained smoke
"chain smoked"
JR Tolkien was a devout christian
"JRR Tolkien" "Christian"
because there material
"their"
We're on two different wave lengths (in more ways than one) right now. I think you're missing my point, and you obviously feel I'm missing yours, so why don't we just drop it?
I fear that you haven't quite understood my points here, or may be ascribing to me views expressed by others on the thread. I hold no resentment towards individuals who are religious.
I have friends, close friends in fact, who are practicing Christian, Buddhist, or Judaist. I don't appreciate them any more or any less than my atheist friends just based on their spiritual orientation. But when we do get into discussions about such matters I will maintain that my view is superior - and I will claim logical reasoning, critical thinking, and common sense in my favor. So I guess you can say that I in that context consider them intellectually inferior to me, but it's really not fair. That would be like claiming intellectual superiority over someone who's a uniquely talented artist just becaue I'm better at math.
I had an unwelcome opportunity in my life to think long and hard about issues of religion (not faith) and in the process went from being agnostic (indifferent) to impassioned atheist who considers religion a destructive social disease. That doesn't mean I blame the ill, but I do think we should fight those who spread it.
The term "delusional" I use for those who have the disease in an advanced state. Those who think they have a personal relationship with Jesus, those who claim they've seen or heard or spoken with god, those who see Mary on a cheese sandwich or on a slab of concrete under a bridge, etc. It's a matter of degree, I suppose. Do you expect Jesus to bail you out if you have calf cramps at mile 21? Or are you simply inspired by his legend and use that to dig deeper and run through the pain? That sort of thing.
I'm not gonna reveal my identity here, because emotions run high on this topic and I prefer to keep it in the anonymous sphere where one can be provocative and brutally honest without worrying about politically correctness. I would make these same points in any face-to-face conversation, but I would sugarcoat them.
For us not use to technology as I admire with Dr. Jack Daniels in trying to write emails. It is challenging because we speak better in person. I apologize if there are errors in the writing.
You explain how over 500 people can make up that Christ rose? Instead of saying simply not possible. As I seen with anti-religious people is they listen or read sentence to make a judgement. There is no depth of research. I can show you in person the Roman, Jewish, and Gentile accounts on the event. There are people currently that teach the event happend who are not about religion. It is a tough pill for them to admit and teach as the evidence stares them in the face. When you actually think about the event and try to cover this up it brings more questions into play? The historical physical evidence is overwhelming for the Bible and its events. That is why I enjoy studying this area because it is one of the longest known history books from Old to New Testament. Then you to see all the great cultures through the book. It is a neat history book to read. I can visit those places today and look at materials from thousand of centuries ago.
I find prayer to be a little more beneficial at the end of a race..... I can get downright religious shuffling thru the final mile after hitting the wall in a Marathon... I'm certain others can relate....
What extra-Biblical source claimes 500 people saw the Resurrected Christ?
correction wrote:
truth behold wrote:he chained smoke
"chain smoked"
JR Tolkien was a devout christian
"JRR Tolkien" "Christian"
because there material
"their"
You know, "corection", your problem is that you simply have no faith in his grammar. You just need to trust it and the truth will show itself.
And "truth behold" just wrote another totally illiterate message discussing his research about the Bible. I have to say that his inability to write in proper English (and I'm not talking about typos and spelling errors, he has serious flaws in his tenses, sentence structure, clarity, etc.) leads me to believe that he cannot read and understand the written word thus making his assertion that he is well studied simply wrong. To understand the complexity of the sources and interpretation of the Bible would take a level of reading comprehension and critical thought that he clearly lacks.
I read many papers each week. Email is informal. College writing has become poorer with this type of style. You have to able to transition to formal writing. That is why spell check helps the older generation you do not respect.
Ironically Charles Darwin was a profess christian. If you can understand "logos" in ancient culture then it opens your eyes to what many like Charles Darwin were trying to figure out and still today. In the Roman and Greek cultures as I stated earlier, logos meant to them "Divine Reason". This logic is such things as light, dark, and seasons show a system has to exist. Therefore a force needs to be present. We know Romans and Greeks believed in many gods. Darwin had the same notion to this thought and wanted to explore the matter further to bring a better answer through his scientific research. Then he got blocked by the logos of "Divine Voice". This logic is created things happen by a God as seen in Genesis. He speaks and it is created. The only creation to carry a God's voice and knowledge of this Higher Being is the human. No animal or other matter has the logic to reason or profess there is a Higher Being. We therefore as a human cannot come from a chimps, monkeys, or whatever evolution matter devised throughout the years. That was taken out of context by scientist after him. Charles Darwin did show "Divine Reason" in the system of how species existed and adapted to their environment to live. That part holds true to this day. I do have more logic, knowledge, and reason than you will possess in this life. Hopefully you can take about material that matters. If your smart you should still be able to understand the emails.
The problem with most christians is that they don't know enough about their faith.
Examples:The Bible is not only against homosexuality, it also so says that homosexuals should be killed.
The Bible also says that you should kill all women of your enemies except the virigns so that you can rape them later.
The Bible also says that it's okay to sell your daughter as a sex-slave as long you get a certain amount of money.
This is from your holy source.This is christianity.
Your priest will tell you that you can't just pick out the stuff you like.
Ron: I'm sorry to hear about the "unwelcome opportunity" that took you from the realm of agnostic to "impassioned atheist."
Of course, I have no idea who you are (still), but my original invitation remains.
If you know me well then you know that I am not someone that would hold your words (although more than a little offensive towards me) against you.
Personally, I'd love to hear more about your own reasons for your passion. AND, that doesn't mean I'd try to convert you either ;)
Just for the record: I DO believe God has spoken to me (to my heart NOT my ears), I TRY to maintain a personal relationship with Jesus, and I never saw Mary in, on, or even eating a cheese sandwhich. In fact I rarely even eat a cheese sandwhich myself, unless it comes with turkey and all the extras!
OK, I was raised Catholic (figured out religion didn't make much sense around the age of 19)and I've read my share of the Bible, but I'll admit I am not as familiar with it as some of the more zealous followers.
But one thing I think I have correct is that Jesus NEVER claimed to be God. That was a title (role?) assigned by his followers.
He did make some vague statements about being the son of God, but he said that everyone was a child of God.
If these exists an unambiguous "Hell yes, I'm a God!" statement from him I've never seen it. In fact, a couple of dudes tried proselytizing me in college and I asked them the same question but they could not find a response. One of them quit proselytizing after that. Good for him.
It does make sense that his followers (the Catholic Church) would want him positioned as a God. It's better marketing & puts them in a much stronger position relative to controlling their flock.
That is the old law called Mosiac Law and is the Old Testament. Christ ushered in the new law and broke the 611 Mosiac laws created by the Jewish faith. The PEOPLE added onto to the Ten Commandents given to Moses. It became too religious and against God. That was a wicked and perverse generation. God still held hope that people would change and used different people to try to get back to His heart. This is an example of free will and people wanting power. It is a good example. Christianity was a new faith and occured through Christ in the New Testament. He broke the religious life to bring freedom and true knowledge of God. Make sure you read and understand the whole process instead of little pieces.
Matthew 5 and 6 is Christianity. That is what Christians believe and follow today. How many actually live that life and pour themselves into others. Jesus said the greatest commandment in to love God with everything and to take care of your neighbor.
truth behold wrote:
We therefore as a human cannot come from a chimps, monkeys, or whatever evolution matter devised throughout the years...
I do have more logic, knowledge, and reason than you will possess in this life...
If your smart you should still be able to understand the emails.
Wow. If only I were smart your message would make sense. You see, it must be ME, not your illiterate, illogical, nonsensical rant that is problematic. Now I get it. I bet you can the feel the hot breath of the Fulbright nominating committee on your neck right now!
Did you notice that even the people who agree with you are silent because they can see that you are doing more damage to them than good? You represent the uneducated, clueless, ranting person they are trying to distance themslves from in their attempt to give their position some rational, academic support.
In your next attempt, I challenge you to write a few paragraphs that are literate, logical and error free. You won't do this because you can't. You claim that it is the format but everyone can see that the problem is your lack of education.