PDA

View Full Version : Islam - A religion of Peace? Part of Multiculturalism?



Michele
11-17-2014, 08:55 AM
Have to say guys I would have thought this would have dominated your forums ATM.

Some of you may remember me from a few years back. Just thought I poke my head in and talk about this issue
This you need to view. The Islamic calaphate of Syria and Iraq is the equivalent of the what happened with Nazi Germany. Tomorrow the world!

This needs to be checked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgsrnmzxEUY

Thoughts?

Measure Man
11-17-2014, 05:17 PM
Some of you may remember me from a few years back.

Nice to see you again :-)

Absinthe Anecdote
11-17-2014, 06:54 PM
Have to say guys I would have thought this would have dominated your forums ATM.

Some of you may remember me from a few years back. Just thought I poke my head in and talk about this issue
This you need to view. The Islamic calaphate of Syria and Iraq is the equivalent of the what happened with Nazi Germany. Tomorrow the world!

This needs to be checked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgsrnmzxEUY

Thoughts?

If you narrow your terminology from Islam to Islamic Fascism then I'm on board with you in saying that ISIS and like minded groups need to be countered.

Not only countered but defeated.

However, when you open your terms up to include the entirety of Islam, you are going to have a difficult time gaining traction.

Rusty Jones
11-17-2014, 07:08 PM
I say Christianity and Islam should go to war against each other. No matter what the result is, everyone else wins.

SomeRandomGuy
11-17-2014, 07:21 PM
Have to say guys I would have thought this would have dominated your forums ATM.

Some of you may remember me from a few years back. Just thought I poke my head in and talk about this issue
This you need to view. The Islamic calaphate of Syria and Iraq is the equivalent of the what happened with Nazi Germany. Tomorrow the world!

This needs to be checked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgsrnmzxEUY

Thoughts?

It seems that you are trying to draw a correlation between Post WWI Germany and the Modern Middle East. I have seen this argument made with various religions and ideoligies. It ultimately falls apart because Germany was a special case. If you study history you will learn that Germany was in some ways unfairly punished after WWI. They were given a massive amount of war debt and had no way to pay. They printed more money which created hyperinflation and sank their entire economy. The country was beat down and looking for someone to rally behind. They needed to regain national pride. Hitler was the perfect person for that. He was by all accounts very charismatic.

Here is where your comparison falls apart though. Hitler ran for president of Germany and won. He was the recognized leader of a previous national power. Groups like ISIS could never dream of that kind of power. In many ways their goal of Sharia Law is the biggest thing that will stop them from ever gaining enough support to be a major threat.

Iraq is like post WWI Germany in that the country has been ravished by war. The big difference is that sectarian tensions will never allow Iraq to unite behind one common leader.

I watched the 9:00 video you posted. I would have to do more research before I can confirm or debunk any of what it says. Basically, the author of the video is saying that what we are calling "radical islam" is actually the correct version of the religion. He is saying that the moderate muslims are the ones who have it wrong.

Honestly, I don't care whether the author of that YouTube video is right or wrong. The Quran is a book. I don't care how the people who read it take it. I could start my own group tommorow based on the book 1984. You could also start your own group who interprets the great prophet Orwell differently. In the end both of us would just be applying a literal approach to a fictional book. It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-17-2014, 07:36 PM
Great post @SRG

It doesn't matter which fictional belief system these guys are using.

I do see it as a form of fascism, although I agree that comparisons to Nazi Germany aren't accurate.

SomeRandomGuy
11-17-2014, 07:48 PM
Great post @SRG

It doesn't matter which fictional belief system these guys are using.

I do see it as a form of fascism, although I agree that comparisons to Nazi Germany aren't accurate.

I would agree it is Islamic Facism. I won't judge what any other country decides is best for itself. I live in a country that only 170 years ago was perfectly ok with slavery. Even 50 years ago people here in America were ok with separate facilities for people based on skin color.

I'm not going to judge Sharia Law because if you look at the American legal system from an outside point of view it looks pretty ridiculous. We have people doing life sentences for selling marijuana. I'm not going to support telling people halfway across the world what they can and can't do when we can't even get things right in the US.

Societies evolve over time but the one thing that holds true is that the majority will always rule. It simply isn't isn't possible to impose sharia law on a majority. If the majority of a country or caliphate wants to setup a legal system based on a fictional book that is fine with me if that is what the majority wants.

sandsjames
11-17-2014, 08:22 PM
If the majority of a country or caliphate wants to setup a legal system based on a fictional book that is fine with me if that is what the majority wants.It's not a fictional book. It's a real book, whether you believe what it says or not. A fictional book would be a book that doesn't exist.

SomeRandomGuy
11-17-2014, 08:30 PM
It's not a fictional book. It's a real book, whether you believe what it says or not. A fictional book would be a book that doesn't exist.

My bad. Poor choice of words there. I should have said a work of fiction. Honestly, that probably isn't correct either. The best term to describe the Quran might be a personal manifesto.

sandsjames
11-17-2014, 08:42 PM
My bad. Poor choice of words there. I should have said a work of fiction. Honestly, that probably isn't correct either. The best term to describe the Quran might be a personal manifesto.

Just messin'. Bored.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-18-2014, 11:50 AM
My bad. Poor choice of words there. I should have said a work of fiction. Honestly, that probably isn't correct either. The best term to describe the Quran might be a personal manifesto.

The bottom line is that Islam, Christainity, and Judaism all trace back to the same Bronze Age legends.

People are constantly making up their own versions of these stories and using them to justify all sorts of nonsense.

In Christainity, the nondenominational groups are the worst for cherry picking little passages and ignoring whole sections of the bible.

However, I'm kind of glad they do because they tend to ignore the brutal and warlike sections of the bible.

Sooner or later, the Nondenominational Christains will go back to a fundamental interpretation of the bible and start causing trouble. When they get angry, they are just as bad as followers of Islam.

It's all the same fairy tale.

MACHINE666
11-20-2014, 08:01 AM
Have to say guys I would have thought this would have dominated your forums ATM.

Some of you may remember me from a few years back. Just thought I poke my head in and talk about this issue
This you need to view. The Islamic calaphate of Syria and Iraq is the equivalent of the what happened with Nazi Germany. Tomorrow the world!

This needs to be checked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgsrnmzxEUY

Thoughts?

Islam was founded by a murderous illiterate pedophile.

Fact.

Rusty Jones
11-20-2014, 11:31 AM
Islam was founded by a murderous illiterate pedophile.

Fact.

So was Christianity. There are clues dropped all over the Gospels that Jesus had a homosexual relationship with St. John the Disciple - who, by the way, was only in his early teens at the time.

sandsjames
11-20-2014, 12:20 PM
So was Christianity. There are clues dropped all over the Gospels that Jesus had a homosexual relationship with St. John the Disciple - who, by the way, was only in his early teens at the time...........

Absinthe Anecdote
11-20-2014, 12:31 PM
So was Christianity. There are clues dropped all over the Gospels that Jesus had a homosexual relationship with St. John the Disciple - who, by the way, was only in his early teens at the time.

That's assuming that you are even looking at one of the New Testament books that was written by anyone who could have been wittiness to those events.

Most of them were written two hundred years after the events took place, the rest 70-80 years afterwards, and that is a very generous estimate.

Then there are an increasing number of biblical scholars that claim the New Testament books attributed to Jesus’ disciples could not have been written by them because they were illiterate.

Also, what about the name Jesus?

That isn't even an accurate name for someone from Judaea in that time period. You'd think the faithful would want to call the savior by the right name, but apparently not.

I think Yeshua is more accurate, but the Islamic name for Jesus, Esa, might even be better.

Most Christians have no idea how their own religion came into being, much less Islam.

TJMAC77SP
11-20-2014, 02:55 PM
That's assuming that you are even looking at one of the New Testament books that was written by anyone who could have been wittiness to those events.

Most of them were written two hundred years after the events took place, the rest 70-80 years afterwards, and that is a very generous estimate.

Then there are an increasing number of biblical scholars that claim the New Testament books attributed to Jesus’ disciples could not have been written by them because they were illiterate.

Also, what about the name Jesus?

That isn't even an accurate name for someone from Judaea in that time period. You'd think the faithful would want to call the savior by the right name, but apparently not.

I think Yeshua is more accurate, but the Islamic name for Jesus, Esa, might even be better.

Most Christians have no idea how their own religion came into being, much less Islam.

You do have a point about Christians knowing the actual history of their religion but I find that true of most people and history in general.

Your arguments here are a bit specious. Who is to say the books weren't dictated which was a very common practice even up to and including medieval times? The name confusion is simple issues originating with transliteration. As you yourself pointed out the books of the new testament were written years after the events they detail. Written in Greek or Aramaic (depending on who you believe). The name translation is easily explained in either language (more so from Greek).

There are a lot of arguments to be made to refute any religion but these are a bit weak.

At least you did exercise more brain cells than Rusty did with his tripe.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-20-2014, 03:37 PM
There are a lot of arguments to be made to refute any religion but these are a bit weak.



Listen Freddy,

Nothing I do is weak!

Seriously, what I said in that post is very strong evidence that runs counter to what most Christians are led to believe about their bible. The vast majority are led to believe that it is a divine book, holy and without flaw in every regard.

What I put in my post refutes that simplistic notion that is put into peoples minds when they are children.

Besides, my main intent was to counter the drivel about Islam being messed up, Christianity is just as bad.

Rusty Jones
11-20-2014, 03:40 PM
There are a lot of arguments to be made to refute any religion but these are a bit weak.

At least you did exercise more brain cells than Rusty did with his tripe.

Uh oh, looks TJ is a little offended that his Lord and Savior liked to play with some little boy peen!

TJMAC77SP
11-20-2014, 04:37 PM
Listen Freddy,

Nothing I do is weak!

Seriously, what I said in that post is very strong evidence that runs counter to what most Christians are led to believe about their bible. The vast majority are led to believe that it is a divine book, holy and without flaw in every regard.

What I put in my post refutes that simplistic notion that is put into peoples minds when they are children.

Besides, my main intent was to counter the drivel about Islam being messed up, Christianity is just as bad.

I got your point and actually agree that it is hypocrisy. I just think that pointing out the lack of literacy (and I haven't heard that before but then again, never considered it salient) and the issues of transliteration are not real on point in refuting the roots of Christianity.

TJMAC77SP
11-20-2014, 04:38 PM
Uh oh, looks TJ is a little offended that his Lord and Savior liked to play with some little boy peen!

No actually I am offended by tripe and said so.

You really should talk to a professional about your focus on homosexuality........or have you already?

Rusty Jones
11-20-2014, 04:50 PM
No actually I am offended by tripe and said so.

In this case, what you call "tripe" being the pederastic relationship that Jesus had with John. If you weren't Christian, you wouldn't have given two shits what I said. But you do.


You really should talk to a professional about your focus on homosexuality........or have you already?

Maybe I will, maybe I won't. But let's talk about your boy, Jesus. Jesus loved everyone, yet John is singled out as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." John was laying on Jesus' chest, when Jesus mentioned that Judas would betray him. During the crucifiction, Jesus established a mother/son relationship between Mary and John, as if they were in-laws. Hell, Jesus may have even had a pederastic relationship with another boy... the one that was following him around, and then ran away when they snatched Jesus.

Oh, and King James I of England was known to have used the relationship between Jesus and John to justify his pederastic relationship with George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham.

Like I said, there are "hints" dropped throughout the Gospels. Not saying that these confirm anything, but I'm inclined to believe that if these things were said of anyone else but Jesus... most people would consider that person to be gay.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-20-2014, 05:04 PM
I got your point and actually agree that it is hypocrisy. I just think that pointing out the lack of literacy (and I haven't heard that before but then again, never considered it salient) and the issues of transliteration are not real on point in refuting the roots of Christianity.

What do you think the roots of Christianity are?

I am talking about the development of the Christian bible and the early church.

I'm not refuting anything, but stating what knowledge we have about how the Christian church and bible came into being.

There is a lot of history there, none of it indicates that Jesus was really what he claimed, if anything it points the other way.

TJMAC77SP
11-20-2014, 05:09 PM
In this case, what you call "tripe" being the pederastic relationship that Jesus had with John. If you weren't Christian, you wouldn't have given two shits what I said. But you do.



Maybe I will, maybe I won't. But let's talk about your boy, Jesus. Jesus loved everyone, yet John is singled out as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." John was laying on Jesus' chest, when Jesus mentioned that Judas would betray him. During the crucifiction, Jesus established a mother/son relationship between Mary and John, as if they were in-laws. Hell, Jesus may have even had a pederastic relationship with another boy... the one that was following him around, and then ran away when they snatched Jesus.

Oh, and King James I of England was known to have used the relationship between Jesus and John to justify his pederastic relationship with George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham.

Like I said, there are "hints" dropped throughout the Gospels. Not saying that these confirm anything, but I'm inclined to believe that if these things were said of anyone else but Jesus... most people would consider that person to be gay.

Rusty, I realize that you think you are a smart guy and that's all fine because no one wants to go through life thinking they are lacking intellectually....however.............

What I actually care about is intellectual integrity (not to mention credibility). The issue of the disciple whom Jesus loved debate is as old as the new testament. Hell there is a theory that it refers to Mary Magellan since no text actually names it as John. You want to focus on the possible homosexual theories...ok, whatever floats your boat. Of course to have Jesus involved in an intimate relationship with Mary Magellan is equally offensive to devout Christians (which explains the outrage and reaction to Dan Brown's, DaVinci Code but for some reason you want to focus on the homosexual stories, again, ok.

BTW. Aside from writing again about homosexuality, what was your point again.

You continually default to think that anyone who disagrees with you must be a total supporter of whatever your 'target' of the day is. This is yet another failure of your intellect, such as it is.

sandsjames
11-20-2014, 05:11 PM
I heard that Abraham Lincoln didn't give a shit about ending slavery. He was really all for owning slaves and didn't see whites and blacks as equal at all. I have no evidence to prove it, but there are definitely hints in the texts that point to this. If he could have kept the south from seceding without ending slavery, he would have.

TJMAC77SP
11-20-2014, 05:12 PM
What do you think the roots of Christianity are?

I am talking about the development of the Christian bible and the early church.

I'm not refuting anything, but stating what knowledge we have about how the Christian church and bible came into being.

There is a lot of history there, none of it indicates that Jesus was really what he claimed, if anything it points the other way.

You chose two examples which don't refute anything or do anything to support your premise regarding Jesus. Simple.

BTW. You got my part where I agreed with your point right?

SomeRandomGuy
11-20-2014, 05:20 PM
I heard that Abraham Lincoln didn't give a shit about ending slavery. He was really all for owning slaves and didn't see whites and blacks as equal at all. I have no evidence to prove it, but there are definitely hints in the texts that point to this. If he could have kept the south from seceding without ending slavery, he would have.

Weird. I heard he was actually a vampire hunter

Rusty Jones
11-20-2014, 05:20 PM
Rusty, I realize that you think you are a smart guy and that's all fine because no one wants to go through life thinking they are lacking intellectually....however.............

What I actually care about is intellectual integrity (not to mention credibility). The issue of the disciple whom Jesus loved debate is as old as the new testament. Hell there is a theory that it refers to Mary Magellan since no text actually names it as John. You want to focus on the possible homosexual theories...ok, whatever floats your boat. Of course to have Jesus involved in an intimate relationship with Mary Magellan is equally offensive to devout Christians (which explains the outrage and reaction to Dan Brown's, DaVinci Code but for some reason you want to focus on the homosexual stories, again, ok.

BTW. Aside from writing again about homosexuality, what was your point again.

You continually default to think that anyone who disagrees with you must be a total supporter of whatever your 'target' of the day is. This is yet another failure of your intellect, such as it is.

Oh, and what's the point of YOUR argument again?

What I originally said was meant to counter what Machine666 was doing - pointing the finger at the founder of Islam, without mentioning anything about Jesus.

But you felt the need to step in. Why?

I also only stated that Gospels merely drop hints of that relationship. I didn't say that it was explicitly stated. If I did, you'd have something to argue with me about. But I didn't. The mere mention of the possibility was enough to make you say something.

Look, if you think I'm an idiot; fine, I could really give two shits. But, in your case? When I responded to Machine666, the focus was on the pedophilia aspect of it; since that's what he mentioned about Mohammed. It appears that YOU want to talk about homosexuality; since that's the only part that caught your attention.

I get that referring to someone as a pedophile is an insult, but as a homosexual? Nope. That's how you see it, though.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-20-2014, 05:24 PM
I heard that Abraham Lincoln didn't give a shit about ending slavery. He was really all for owning slaves and didn't see whites and blacks as equal at all. I have no evidence to prove it, but there are definitely hints in the texts that point to this. If he could have kept the south from seceding without ending slavery, he would have.

Why are you talking about Abe Lincoln? Is it because you don't know enough about the bible to join in?

Like I advised you several months ago, start by reading the bible, then study the history of western civilization, and follow it up with a study of the history of the Christian church.

That way, you'll be able to talk about this subject without using analogies about Abe Lincoln.

Just trying to help.

Hashtag: learn about your religion

Absinthe Anecdote
11-20-2014, 05:36 PM
You chose two examples which don't refute anything or do anything to support your premise regarding Jesus. Simple.

BTW. You got my part where I agreed with your point right?

Yes, I got that.

I asked what you thought the roots of Christianity were.

If you don't want to answer, just say so. I won't give you a hard time about bowing out.

I'll just go back to teasing you about how bad the Flintstones sucked.

Fred and Barney used to get drunk and bang each other. It's true! Plus, Wilma was really a Filipino transvestite that duped Fred. That's why Fred and Barney started doing that to each other.

Don't believe me? Just ask Rusty, he knows all about getting duped.

TJMAC77SP
11-20-2014, 05:40 PM
Oh, and what's the point of YOUR argument again?

What I originally said was meant to counter what Machine666 was doing - pointing the finger at the founder of Islam, without mentioning anything about Jesus.

But you felt the need to step in. Why?

I also only stated that Gospels merely drop hints of that relationship. I didn't say that it was explicitly stated. If I did, you'd have something to argue with me about. But I didn't. The mere mention of the possibility was enough to make you say something.

Look, if you think I'm an idiot; fine, I could really give two shits. But, in your case? When I responded to Machine666, the focus was on the pedophilia aspect of it; since that's what he mentioned about Mohammed. It appears that YOU want to talk about homosexuality; since that's the only part that caught your attention.

I get that referring to someone as a pedophile is an insult, but as a homosexual? Nope. That's how you see it, though.

So your rant was in response to Machine's post? How long have you been on the MTF? AA will have to counsel you on getting a sense of humor.

I don't think you are an idiot (and you do give more than two shits.......if that even makes sense). If I did think that I would most likely ignore you. I do think you are a small minded, bigotedman with a sluggish intellect and zero integrity or credibility who just neverlearns. Your references to 'hints' are intellectually and historically weak so as a counterpoint, flawed. I also don't believe it was your sole intent to simply offer a counterpoint. You are yet another self-declared atheist who thinks that in order to honorably wear the moniker you must denigrate your former religion. Again, intellectually weak.

Rusty Jones
11-20-2014, 05:42 PM
Why are you talking about Abe Lincoln? Is it because you don't know enough about the bible to join in?

Like I advised you several months ago, start by reading the bible, then study the history of western civilization, and follow it up with a study of the history of the Christian church.

That way, you'll be able to talk about this subject without using analogies about Abe Lincoln.

Just trying to help.

Hashtag: learn about your religion

I know what he's doing. He's trying to compare this to what I said about Jesus and John tthe Disciple.

It's a fair comparison. The difference? Many people - including those who actually admire Lincolon - actually BELIEVE this, or are at least open to the possibility, because they have the requisite open mind for it.

Totally different story when it comes to Jesus and John.

TJMAC77SP
11-20-2014, 05:44 PM
Yes, I got that.

I asked what you thought the roots of Christianity were.

If you don't want to answer, just say so. I won't give you a hard time about bowing out.

I'll just go back to teasing you about how bad the Flintstones sucked.

Fred and Barney used to get drunk and bang each other. It's true! Plus, Wilma was really a Filipino transvestite that duped Fred. That's why Fred and Barney started doing that to each other.

Don't believe me? Just ask Rusty, he knows all about getting duped.

Bowing out? Bowing out of what? Finding flaws in your two examples?

I really don't understand the question. How is my belief regarding the roots of Christianity (which would be the life and teachings of Jesus I suppose) related to YOUR original post regarding the hypocrisy of bashing one religion and not the other? That was your original point correct?

TJMAC77SP
11-20-2014, 05:44 PM
I know what he's doing. He's trying to compare this to what I said about Jesus and John tthe Disciple.

It's a fair comparison. The difference? Many people - including those who actually admire Lincolon - actually BELIEVE this, or are at least open to the possibility, because they have the requisite open mind for it.

Totally different story when it comes to Jesus and John.

Rusty, I don't really think AA is supporting you on this. I realize that seems a comfortable corner to run to but...............

Rusty Jones
11-20-2014, 05:46 PM
So your rant was in response to Machine's post? How long have you been on the MTF? AA will have to counsel you on getting a sense of humor.

Yeah, it was. So what? He said something, I said something. Big deal.

I don't think you are an idiot (and you do give more than two shits.......if that even makes sense). If I did think that I would most likely ignore you. I do think you are a small minded, bigotedman with a sluggish intellect and zero integrity or credibility who just neverlearns. Your references to 'hints' are intellectually and historically weak so as a counterpoint, flawed. I also don't believe it was your sole intent to simply offer a counterpoint. You are yet another self-declared atheist who thinks that in order to honorably wear the moniker you must denigrate your former religion. Again, intellectually weak.[/QUOTE]

You mad, bro? Tell me how you REALLY feel! Mention Jesus and John doing the nasty, and it all comes out!

Rusty Jones
11-20-2014, 05:48 PM
Rusty, I don't really think AA is supporting you on this. I realize that seems a comfortable corner to run to but...............

Looks to me like you're the one seeking AA's side by even posting this in the first place. I've "mavericked" this place many times; you seem to forget who you're talking to.

TJMAC77SP
11-20-2014, 06:11 PM
Looks to me like you're the one seeking AA's side by even posting this in the first place. I've "mavericked" this place many times; you seem to forget who you're talking to.

Yeah, 'cause AA and I see eye to eye on so many issue here on the MTF.

"Mavericked" ?!?! I would ask if that was meant as a joke but I know better.

Not mad either. Had you figured out a long time ago. Slightly more intelligent than Corny, slightly. Same credibility and integrity (albeit at least you paraphrase your google search results).

TJMAC77SP
11-20-2014, 06:13 PM
You mad, bro? Tell me how you REALLY feel! Mention Jesus and John doing the nasty, and it all comes out!

How about Jesus and Mary Magdalene 'doing the nasty'? Or, does that get you angry?

Rusty Jones
11-20-2014, 06:20 PM
Yeah, 'cause AA and I see eye to eye on so many issue here on the MTF.

That's irrelevant. Bottom line - you're the one talking about who is in AA's good graces, not me. Why? Because I really don't give a fuck. That's something that's important to you, not me.


"Mavericked" ?!?! I would ask if that was meant as a joke but I know better.

You mean I've never expressed an opinion, belief, or stance where I was the only one who held it, and didn't have any "support" from any MTF members? You're joking, right?


Not mad either. Had you figured out a long time ago. Slightly more intelligent than Corny, slightly. Same credibility and integrity (albeit at least you paraphrase your google search results).

Oh, you're telling me. You're not very complicated yourself. You throw out words like "credibility," "integrity," and things like that in order to discredit things that you don't like... without providing any arguments to dispute what's being said. So you don't believe that Jesus was gay. Okay, then what do you think those verses in the Bible really mean? Oh... that doesn't matter. I suppose I should just forget that those verses even exist, because you don't like them.

Rusty Jones
11-20-2014, 06:22 PM
How about Jesus and Mary Magdalene 'doing the nasty'? Or, does that get you angry?

Maybe they did. Hell, maybe Mary Magdalene took cocks from both of them at the same time. It doesn't make those verses and Jesus and John go away, though.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-20-2014, 06:25 PM
I know what he's doing. He's trying to compare this to what I said about Jesus and John tthe Disciple.

It's a fair comparison. The difference? Many people - including those who actually admire Lincolon - actually BELIEVE this, or are at least open to the possibility, because they have the requisite open mind for it.

Totally different story when it comes to Jesus and John.

Yeah, probably so.

Hey about the man-boy love hints, in reference to John. Even if those esoteric passages are talking about Jesus and John having that kind of relationship, it is just what some fruity monk wrote 70 to 300 years after the time it supposedly occurred.

There is plenty of reason to doubt the entire Jesus story.

The nature of the bible, and how it was cobbled together does not indicate any involvement from a supreme being. The manner in which it was constructed indicates it came from numerous human sources that did not agree on basic facts and details.

I see no evidence of a single Devine source in the bible's initial construction, and countless revisions and edits.

So, I wouldn't be surprised if some fruity love sick monk slipped a little obscure erotica in the text. The had shitty editing and quality control back then.

PS

This post is mostly for TJ, I think you know this.

Rusty Jones
11-20-2014, 06:37 PM
Well, here's the thing about that... Matthew, Mark, and John are known to not have been attributed to the men whose name they bear. Luke, however, IS correctly attributed. He wasn't there, obviously, but he likely got his information by doing what the authtors of the other three probably did - either by writing down a story that was passed through oral tradition, or gathering information through independant research.

Another Gospel that might... MIGHT be correctly attributed is one that's not part of mainstream Christianity's canon, and that's Thomas. If, indeed, it's correctly attributed, then you're looking at what's likely the most credible Gospel.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that Jesus never existed anyway. The only non-biblical reference to him was attributed to Josephus - in a letter that stated things that were contary to his well known devout Judaism.

That's doesn't mean that I'm not open to the possibility that he existed. If he did, great. I just don't anything outside of the Bible that really supports it.

TJMAC77SP
11-20-2014, 06:40 PM
Maybe they did. Hell, maybe Mary Magdalene took cocks from both of them at the same time. It doesn't make those verses and Jesus and John go away, though.

Which verse identifies John as the "disciple whom Jesus loved"? And where are the hints. I ask for two reasons. One, to make you Google it and two I don't know, I have never read the entire bible. It is far too ponderous.

See, I am a very lapsed Catholic. I realize that it fits your bassackward narrative to paint me as a Christian fundamentalist but the truth is far from that. I just like throwing darts at your tripe. Easy targets I admit but what the hell, when one is bored, one is bored.

Rusty Jones
11-20-2014, 06:55 PM
Right, because Rusty can't possibly know anything on his own.

I was once Catholic myself, having stopped practicing in 2001, questioning my religion in 2004, and having been atheist since 2005.

I was once that good Christian who read his Bible, and regularly spoke with the priests to gain some knowledge, the whole nine yards.


Which verse identifies John as the "disciple whom Jesus loved"? And where are the hints. I ask for two reasons. One, to make you Google it and two I don't know, I have never read the entire bible. It is far too ponderous.

No verse identifies him as the disciple whom Jesus loved; HOWEVER... through process of elimination - i.e., verses that clearly distinguish him from one disciple, and another later on - the example that immediately comes to mind is that this disciple was still there after Judas betrayed Jesus, so we know it's not Judas... the only one disciple is left standing is John.


See, I am a very lapsed Catholic. I realize that it fits your bassackward narrative to paint me as a Christian fundamentalist but the truth is far from that. I just like throwing darts at your tripe. Easy targets I admit but what the hell, when one is bored, one is bored.

Yep, you're fundamentalist enough to take exception to the possibility that Christ loved the cock. That's fundy enough for me.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-20-2014, 06:56 PM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciple_whom_Jesus_loved#/image/File:Sacro_Monte_di_Varallo_Fig4.JPG

Here they are getting all cozy at the last supper.

Now I ask you TJ, do you cuddle up to the dude next to you at the dinner table like that?

I can only imagine what his hands are doing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Sacro_Monte_di_Varallo_Fig4.JPG

Rusty Jones
11-20-2014, 07:02 PM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciple_whom_Jesus_loved#/image/File:Sacro_Monte_di_Varallo_Fig4.JPG

Here they are getting all cozy at the last supper.

Now I ask you TJ, do you cuddle up to the dude next to you at the dinner table like that?

I can only imagine what his hands are doing.

Even if it wasn't John, he was still a dude.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-20-2014, 07:11 PM
Even if it wasn't John, he was still a dude.

Look at their eyebrows! All plucked and sculpted like gay dudes.

As a metrosexual, I keep my eyebrows trimmed and neat, but I don't go that far.

sandsjames
11-20-2014, 07:46 PM
Even if it wasn't John, he was still a dude.He was duped.

Rusty Jones
11-20-2014, 07:51 PM
He was duped.

You know, I was... WAS going to throw that in there as an attempt at some self-depreciatory humor, but... Jesus is supposed to be omniscient. It just wouldn't have worked.

sandsjames
11-20-2014, 08:42 PM
Jesus is supposed to be omniscient. I think that, because of environmental laws, he's now fluorescent.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-20-2014, 08:43 PM
You know, I was... WAS going to throw that in there as an attempt at some self-depreciatory humor, but... Jesus is supposed to be omniscient. It just wouldn't have worked.

You know, why wouldn't Jesus be down with trannies?

Not the Old Testament god, he was a brutal psychopath.

And not the 20th century and earlier versions of Jesus either, he was still too old school.

But these new 21st versions of Jesus can be anyway the followers want him to be.

We have already seen ample evidence from Christians on this forum that what is in scripture doesn't matter.

They just ignore entire portions of the bible, and focus on only a handful of verses. Most don't even bother to read the bible, calling it too ponderous.

So why not just invent a Jesus that parties with trannies?

You could have him washing their feet, blessing their cock operations, making their boobs grow. Whatever you want.

Most modern Christian think that all you have to do is believe in him.

So never mind that stuff in the first part of the bible, just change it up.

Claim it wasn't codified or start some bullshit nondenominational church that thinks John 3:16 is all you need to know.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-20-2014, 08:48 PM
You know, I was... WAS going to throw that in there as an attempt at some self-depreciatory humor, but... Jesus is supposed to be omniscient. It just wouldn't have worked.

Did you just admit to being duped?

MitchellJD1969
11-20-2014, 09:50 PM
Dumb question here...but if Christ didnt exist isnt it a moot point whether he might have been gay or straight?

sandsjames
11-20-2014, 10:13 PM
Dumb question here...but if Christ didnt exist isnt it a moot point whether he might have been gay or straight?

Yes...and that's what makes this discussion funny. Some say he did exist but was just a man...I can deal with that, though I disagree. Others say he didn't exist, then come out with all these claims as a way to do nothing more than be confrontational.

Measure Man
11-20-2014, 10:55 PM
Dumb question here...but if Christ didnt exist isnt it a moot point whether he might have been gay or straight?


Yes...and that's what makes this discussion funny. Some say he did exist but was just a man...I can deal with that, though I disagree. Others say he didn't exist, then come out with all these claims as a way to do nothing more than be confrontational.

It's only moot if everyone agrees he did not exist.

If someone believes Captain Kirk was real and wants to live his life according to the edicts of Captain Kirk and how he lived his life...but then that same person is against extramarital sex...I think it would be fair for those of us who believe Kirk to be merely a fictional character to point out to the believer that the Kirk character often had sex with some creature he was not married to.

Likewise, someone who does not belief Jesus actually existed can point out traits, quotes and actions of the character depicted in the Jesus stories.

TJMAC77SP
11-20-2014, 11:19 PM
Right, because Rusty can't possibly know anything on his own.

I was once Catholic myself, having stopped practicing in 2001, questioning my religion in 2004, and having been atheist since 2005.

I was once that good Christian who read his Bible, and regularly spoke with the priests to gain some knowledge, the whole nine yards.



No verse identifies him as the disciple whom Jesus loved; HOWEVER... through process of elimination - i.e., verses that clearly distinguish him from one disciple, and another later on - the example that immediately comes to mind is that this disciple was still there after Judas betrayed Jesus, so we know it's not Judas... the only one disciple is left standing is John.



Yep, you're fundamentalist enough to take exception to the possibility that Christ loved the cock. That's fundy enough for me.

So, what about the train of thought that it was Mary Magdalene? No 'cock' in that story so no interest? Tell me do you possibly think that by repeatedly framing your comments with vulgarity you think my head will blow up? Or is there another reason?

Fundy enough for you? Fits your narrative so must be right?

TJMAC77SP
11-20-2014, 11:21 PM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciple_whom_Jesus_loved#/image/File:Sacro_Monte_di_Varallo_Fig4.JPG

Here they are getting all cozy at the last supper.

Now I ask you TJ, do you cuddle up to the dude next to you at the dinner table like that?

I can only imagine what his hands are doing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Sacro_Monte_di_Varallo_Fig4.JPG

Why is that a dude. Granted most of the guys in my HS graduating class had hair that long but why is that a dude?

Absinthe Anecdote
11-21-2014, 02:48 AM
Why is that a dude. Granted most of the guys in my HS graduating class had hair that long but why is that a dude?

Because it is a rather famous work of art titled:

Jesus and the Beloved Disciple at the Last Supper; Sacro Monte di Varallo, wooden statues, ca. 1500-05

So I take it you aren't that familiar with many stories from the bible either.

In biblical inspired art from the Middle Ages, John is often portrayed as a beardless youth, usually as one of the Twelve Apostles at the Last Supper or with Mary at the crucifixion.

Go read John chapter 13, but specifically 13:25 if you want to understand what Rusty was talking about.

For as much as you guys defend the faith, you sure as hell seem ignorant of so many aspects of it.

Frankly, I'm embarrassed for you.

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 03:22 AM
Because it is a work of art titled:

Jesus and the Beloved Disciple at the Last Supper; Sacro Monte di Varallo, wooden statues, ca. 1500-05

So I take it you aren't that familiar with many stories from the bible either.

In biblical inspired art from the Middle Ages, John is often portrayed as a beardless youth, usually as one of the Twelve Apostles at the Last Supper or with Mary at the crucifixion.

Go read John chapter 13, but specifically 13:25 if you want to understand what Rusty was talking about.

For as much as you guys defend the faith, you sure as hell seem ignorant of so many aspects of it.

Frankly, I'm embarrassed for you.

Oh come on. Seriously? Who is embarrassed for who at this point?

Why do you insist on lumping me in with anyone 'defending the faith"? It directly contradicts what I have clearly said. Rusty posted tripe, plain and simple. I pointed out the smell. Did you take Machine's post seriously?

As far as the substance (term used loosely) if you are going to give credence to one theory, in the absence of definitive historical facts (I think it was you who has repeatedly stated the lack of such historical facts in the bible) you have to give equal credence to the others. Seems intellectually fair doesn't it? From what I have read there is nothing definitive which proves Rusty's assertions. In fact I believe even he admitted that. Of course he says there are 'hints' all over the place. Then again, he is the one that still asserts a man can have sex (with penetration) with another man and think it's a woman so sorry if I am not ready to buy into his tripe. Truth is that Dan Brown makes a lot stronger case for his scenario in The DeVinci Code. Not a single homosexual act in that story. Unless you consider self-flagellation to be homoerotic.

I have already said I don't know the bible very well. I do know that Rusty simply wanted to stir the shit pot with an added bonus using homosexual references. Typical bullshit. There is no anger (other than at his usual bullshit) and I am certainly not defending any faith. I do and always will defend the right of people to hold and practice their faith and belief systems. I don't suffer the hubris of repeatedly denigrating either a religion of its adherents. I realize that his assertions fit with your own narrative as well but really?

BTW; How does "Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is it?" show that Jesus practiced homosexual acts?

Absinthe Anecdote
11-21-2014, 04:06 AM
BTW; How does "Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is it?" show that Jesus practiced homosexual acts?

It doesn't, it was one of the "hints" Rusty mentioned, and that you asked for earlier.

At the most it sounds a bit fruity, like they were snuggling.

I knew you would get huffy because I slammed you for asking a dumb question.

Why in the hell were you asking if that was a man?

At least I got you to read a little snippet of the bible. You should be thanking me.

PS

Read the bible, not the DaVinci Code.

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 04:37 AM
It doesn't, it was one of the "hints" Rusty mentioned, and that you asked for earlier.

At the most it sounds a bit fruity, like they were snuggling.

I knew you would get huffy because I slammed you for asking a dumb question.

Why in the hell were you asking if that was a man?

At least I got you to read a little snippet of the bible. You should be thanking me.

PS

Read the bible, not the DaVinci Code.

I 'got huffy' because you know my comment about it being a man or not was a joke and in reference to the theory that 'the disciple Jesus loved' being Mary Magdalene. A theory Dan Brown did not make up BTW. So that passage is a 'hint' that Jesus was homosexual?!?! Well, my suspicions were right...............tripe.

If the bible is a book of fiction and the DaVinci Code is as well, what difference does it make which one I read? For the record, Brown's book was much more entertaining.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-21-2014, 05:10 AM
I 'got huffy' because you know my comment about it being a man or not was a joke and in reference to the theory that 'the disciple Jesus loved' being Mary Magdalene. A theory Dan Brown did not make up BTW. So that passage is a 'hint' that Jesus was homosexual?!?! Well, my suspicions were right...............tripe.

If the bible is a book of fiction and the DaVinci Code is as well, what difference does it make which one I read? For the record, Brown's book was much more entertaining.

LOL

I really didn't know what you were getting at with that question.

So you think it was a girl pretending to be a boy?

If that is true, no wonder guys like Rusty erect homosexual images. I'm sure the prospect of a double reverse dupe really gets their little Roman soldiers standing at attention.

Rusty Jones
11-21-2014, 11:41 AM
You know, why wouldn't Jesus be down with trannies?

Maybe he was. However, Jesus did know that St. John the Disciple was a man. Maybe he messed around with trannies on the side, but whatever relationship he had with John... it was with the knowledge that he was a man.

Rusty Jones
11-21-2014, 11:44 AM
Dumb question here...but if Christ didnt exist isnt it a moot point whether he might have been gay or straight?

Good question. Remember that TV series, Xena: Warrior Princess? It was fictional, not based on real characters, but... they hinted at a lesbian relationship between Xena and Gabrielle throughout the series, and it was a subject of debate among the fans.

But why discuss it, if Xena and Gabrielle aren't real?

Rusty Jones
11-21-2014, 11:48 AM
So, what about the train of thought that it was Mary Magdalene? No 'cock' in that story so no interest? Tell me do you possibly think that by repeatedly framing your comments with vulgarity you think my head will blow up? Or is there another reason?

Yeah, AA is right... you don't know a goddamn thing about the Bible that you believe in so much. Look at the story of the crucifiction in John. Jesus introduces Mary and the disciple whom he loved to each other as mother and son. Sorry, bud... the cock is there, and the cock stays.


Fundy enough for you? Fits your narrative so must be right?

What's being discussed here doesn't fit your narrative, so it must be wrong? I know, you want to throw out words like "intellectual" and "credibility" to establish yourself as some kind of authority, but it doesn't work... not by a long shot.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 11:51 AM
Good question. Remember that TV series, Xena: Warrior Princess? It was fictional, not based on real characters, but... they hinted at a lesbian relationship between Xena and Gabrielle throughout the series, and it was a subject of debate among the fans.

But why discuss it, if Xena and Gabrielle aren't real?

The difference is that a large majority of "westerners" don't believe that Xena was a real person. Same goes for the Capt Kirk comparison. It's like arguing about which superhero has the best powers or arguing about climate change. The large majority of people agree that there is climate change/global warming but those who wish to deny it come up with statements like "We've got 2 feet of snow...so much for global warming".

Rusty Jones
11-21-2014, 12:47 PM
The difference is that a large majority of "westerners" don't believe that Xena was a real person. Same goes for the Capt Kirk comparison. It's like arguing about which superhero has the best powers or arguing about climate change. The large majority of people agree that there is climate change/global warming but those who wish to deny it come up with statements like "We've got 2 feet of snow...so much for global warming".


Uh, what? Mitchell argued that the discussion of Jesus' sexuality makes no sense if those discussing it don't believe he existed in the first place. I used the Xena example to show that that's not the case. How does what you said either support what Mitchell said, or dispute what I said?

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 01:00 PM
Uh, what? Mitchell argued that the discussion of Jesus' sexuality makes no sense if those discussing it don't believe he existed in the first place. I used the Xena example to show that that's not the case. How does what you said either support what Mitchell said, or dispute what I said?

Because your claim is that he's not real, so why try to convince a large number of people that he was gay rather than just trying to convince them that he never existed?

You don't need to attempt to convince people that Xena isn't real and never existed, so the discussions about the details of her as a fictional character (which everyone agrees she is) are a pretty fun thing to do.

Please tell me you see there is a difference.

Rusty Jones
11-21-2014, 01:15 PM
Because your claim is that he's not real, so why try to convince a large number of people that he was gay rather than just trying to convince them that he never existed?

You don't need to attempt to convince people that Xena isn't real and never existed, so the discussions about the details of her as a fictional character (which everyone agrees she is) are a pretty fun thing to do.

Please tell me you see there is a difference.

I never made an affirmative claim that Jesus never existed. I said that that's the direction that I lean toward, however, I'm open to the possibility that he existed.

Before we go off into a semantics debate, just look at it this way: either we're discussing Jesus as a fictional character, or we're discussing him as a real one. It really doesn't matter. We're just discussing him.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 02:10 PM
I never made an affirmative claim that Jesus never existed. I said that that's the direction that I lean toward, however, I'm open to the possibility that he existed.

Before we go off into a semantics debate, just look at it this way: either we're discussing Jesus as a fictional character, or we're discussing him as a real one. It really doesn't matter. We're just discussing him.

I think there's a huge difference. I mentioned Abraham Lincoln earlier...if we discuss him as the President with all of his accomplishments it's much different than if we discuss him as a vampire hunter, as portrayed in the movie.

Rusty Jones
11-21-2014, 02:17 PM
I think there's a huge difference. I mentioned Abraham Lincoln earlier...if we discuss him as the President with all of his accomplishments it's much different than if we discuss him as a vampire hunter, as portrayed in the movie.

We're discussing the Jesus as presented in the Bible, not outside of it. Does that work for you?

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 02:29 PM
Yeah, AA is right... you don't know a goddamn thing about the Bible that you believe in so much. Look at the story of the crucifiction in John. Jesus introduces Mary and the disciple whom he loved to each other as mother and son. Sorry, bud... the cock is there, and the cock stays.



What's being discussed here doesn't fit your narrative, so it must be wrong? I know, you want to throw out words like "intellectual" and "credibility" to establish yourself as some kind of authority, but it doesn't work... not by a long shot.

Rusty............how many Goddamned different ways do I have to tell you that I don't know the bible. I am not a very good Christian and I have absolutely no dog in the fight over the historical veracity of the story of Jesus? Where have I claimed to believe in anything (other than the truth)?

THIS is why I repeatedly state that you have zero credibility and integrity. They aren't just words I throw around. My only narrative is your lame use of inflammatory language knowing that it will get a reaction from those here who do have deeply held religious beliefs. You have ZERO interest in any discussion...........you are simply trolling.

You have proven nothing and quite frankly I don't think you have any interest in proving anything.

So far the passages you claim provide 'hints' to the claims you have made are a complete miss.

Keep using the word cock, I am sure there is some secondary pleasure there.

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 02:35 PM
So you think it was a girl pretending to be a boy?

If that is a serious question.............I have no idea. One theory is that Mary M. was "the disciple loved by Jesus" but that the male dominated early Catholic Church couldn't stand for that so they created this male persona as a substitute. It's as plausible as anything else. The funny thing is that this would be as big a blow, maybe even bigger, to the church than Rusty's homoerotic fantasy.


If that is true, no wonder guys like Rusty erect homosexual images. I'm sure the prospect of a double reverse dupe really gets their little Roman soldiers standing at attention.

I am sure there are all kinds of reasons for that.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 02:38 PM
We're discussing the Jesus as presented in the Bible, not outside of it. Does that work for you?

Sure, that works. So we can disregard any paintings and fictional works outside of the bible (whether one believes the bible is fictional or not).

I can find zero references in the bible to Jesus, or any of his disciples, having homosexual relations. Maybe it's a different mindset between us but, IMO, when you are discussing a man who is widely considered to be the most compassionate, caring person ever, the idea that he would hug another man doesn't seem that far fetched. Though for someone who feels that any contact between two men is somehow homosexual, it doesn't surprise me.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-21-2014, 03:01 PM
We're discussing the Jesus as presented in the Bible, not outside of it. Does that work for you?

I doubt it does, because what he really wants is for us to shut up and go away.

I've heard that one before, "if you don't believe, why do you care?"

I never asked to be exposed to religion, I was born into it. I was told that my relationship with god was the most important thing about my existence, that he was watching my every move.

So when my faith crumbled, it was a big deal. Why wouldn't I still be interested in a subject that turned my entire world view upside down?

Why wouldn't I still want to talk about Jesus, the bible, and the church? They have had an enormous impact on our entire culture.

SJ simply wants us to shut up. If we press with hard questions, we are just being mean and confrontational.

It is a weak attempt to take the discussion in a different direction. To switch the topic to the flaws of atheists, and lead us away from talking about the flaws of religion.

Sorry, too many people have been convinced that it is social taboo to question god in public. That needs to change.

It is one of the big reasons that belief in the spirits, ghosts, gods, and devils continues.

Questioning religion is healthy and natural in my opinion.

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 03:58 PM
I doubt it does, because what he really wants is for us to shut up and go away.

I've heard that one before, "if you don't believe, why do you care?"

I never asked to be exposed to religion, I was born into it. I was told that my relationship with god was the most important thing about my existence, that he was watching my every move.

So when my faith crumbled, it was a big deal. Why wouldn't I still be interested in a subject that turned my entire world view upside down?

Why wouldn't I still want to talk about Jesus, the bible, and the church? They have had an enormous impact on our entire culture.

SJ simply wants us to shut up. If we press with hard questions, we are just being mean and confrontational.

It is a weak attempt to take the discussion in a different direction. To switch the topic to the flaws of atheists, and lead us away from talking about the flaws of religion.

Sorry, too many people have been convinced that it is social taboo to question god in public. That needs to change.

It is one of the big reasons that belief in the spirits, ghosts, gods, and devils continues.

Questioning religion is healthy and natural in my opinion.

Discussing it is fine and absolutely right. When the discussion starts with an insulting reference to the other's belief system it a fail from the start though.

I have said this before (and yet somehow it gets ignored). I have serious questions about most religious doctrine (God's plan for us?) and I actually have disparaging thoughts about the dogma of some in their entirety but to belittle the followers of a particular religion with no reason other than the belittlement is as intolerant as the intolerance being cited by the anti-religious.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 04:06 PM
Let's assume the Big Bang happened according to evolutionary theory (or faith, if you will). There was a large explosion, with extreme heat from an extremely dense source that no form of life could possibly survive, if there was any there to begin with. So, the universe forms over billions of years, with no life source yet, incredibly, organisms spontaneously form, as science has proven isn't possible...the same science that states evolution as fact. Where does that life originate from?

Measure Man
11-21-2014, 04:32 PM
Let's assume the Big Bang happened according to evolutionary theory (or faith, if you will). There was a large explosion, with extreme heat from an extremely dense source that no form of life could possibly survive, if there was any there to begin with. So, the universe forms over billions of years, with no life source yet, incredibly, organisms spontaneously form, as science has proven isn't possible...the same science that states evolution as fact. Where does that life originate from?

There are certainly unanswered questions left to be explained. You won't find a scientist who says otherwise. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable scientific answer. Creationists don't seem to get that...and somehow seem to think that when a scientist doesn't know one thing, this is proof that the rest of science is wrong. Perhaps the difference is that when one claims the scripture is "the infallible word of God"...any flaw in it threatens the entire belief system.

You won't find scientists, I don't think, claiming any scientific work is "infallible" truth...I mean, something can become so well proven to be accepted as fact, sure...I don't think big bang is at that level.

I think your statement "organism spontaneously form, as science has proven isn't possible"...is a gross misapplication of differing concepts. That "spontaneous generation" does not happen, as we all learned in 3rd grade, is talking about something completely different...i.e. it was once believed that those little shit-fleas and tapeworms spontaneously generated when the right combination of nutrients were available...this has been disproven.

But, the idea that a living cell can "generate" under the right conditions..biogensis...has not been "proven to be not possible"...in fact, there is considerable research ongoing in it and scientists may be very close to doing it.

It's funny to me that creationist love to criticize the "nonsense" of "something coming out of nothing"...and scoff at the "faith" it takes to "believe" that...or how they say it is impossible for the universe's complex perfectionism to have been come about without a creator...that anything so complex that works, must have been intelligently designed.

You insist that science must have all the answers or it is illegitimate....but then...if something complex must have a creator...isn't the creator more complex than the creation? By that logic, there must have been an intelligent being that created god?

Why does it take "so much more faith" to believe in a Big Bang than it does to believe that there is this personal being...who just always existed...no beginning and no end, no creator, nothing greater than Him.

I guess we could say, both sides, have their own "I don't know" answers...but criticize the other side for having some.

Creationists usually end up with "..these things are beyond our understanding"...but Non-creationists might say, "we don't know...but we're going to keep trying to find out"-

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 04:35 PM
Let's assume the Big Bang happened according to evolutionary theory (or faith, if you will). There was a large explosion, with extreme heat from an extremely dense source that no form of life could possibly survive, if there was any there to begin with. So, the universe forms over billions of years, with no life source yet, incredibly, organisms spontaneously form, as science has proven isn't possible...the same science that states evolution as fact. Where does that life originate from?

When I first heard the term Intelligent Design I had a thought similar to what you are getting at here. In the absence of a more empirical scientific answer could not the hand of God be seen in the origins of the universe? Why does it have to be completely dismissed. If the essence of science is to study and test possibilities why not? Unfortunately, as I understand it the proponents (or at least some) of ID have hijacked that thought as a way to restate the old testament under the guise of science. They still deny evolution and other disproved tenants.

I should say up front here (before I get labeled again) that I haven't read very deeply into ID but merely have seen some reporting on the subject.

I welcome any information on the subject (presented in a reasonable fashion).

Absinthe Anecdote
11-21-2014, 04:43 PM
TJMAC77SP

I have a sincere question about what you said in post 71 to Rusty. You said that you don't consider yourself a good Christian and that you don't really know that much about the bible.

What is it that compels you to even identify with Christainity at all? What makes you continue to hold onto a belief in God?

You seem willing to acknowledge that the bible isn't inerrant. Why continue to follow and support religion in a halfhearted manner?

I ask this because many of the people in my early life, people that I love, weren't that different than you. The counted themselves as believers, but didn't care to study the bible that much.

Yet, they foisted their belief in god on me when I was a child. When I got older, and really into religion for a good chunk of my life, I was told by an uncle that studying the bible wasn't even needed, that I could just belief in Jesus and I would be ok.

I am truly bewildered by that line of thinking. Back then, I was appalled by the idea of a lukewarm Christian, for I viewed them unworthy.

Now, I dislike lukewarm Christians for another reason. It is that sort of thinking that perpetuates myths and legends being followed as the truth.

For there are many more lukewarm Christians than hot ones. In my eyes, the lukewarm believers do more to spread the myth of religion by passing it on to their children. I wish they would pick a side, and apparently, so does Jesus.

PS

You should have seen the look on my uncles face when I quoted Revelation 3:16 to him.

"So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth."

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 04:46 PM
I guess we could say, both sides, have their own "I don't know" answers...but criticize the other side for having some.Exactly my point. Evolution is a faith just as much as creation. There is no more proof for one then there is for the other. Either way, there was "magic" involved. If the universe originated from the Big Bang, and explosion of gases (because there couldn't have been anything other than gases if the Universe had not been formed) then that means that rocks formed from exploding gases. I know it was a big explosion, but I have yet to hear anyone explain how that works.

People who claim the science is factual are just as "nuts" as people who claim creation is. Sure, the bible was written by man millions of years after it happened, but Darwin's theory took place 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang.

Also, the majority of the studies were based off of Darwin's theories. If you give someone a theory as a basis, then their studies are going to be directed at finding possibilities in line with that theory.

Point being, there is no more proof for one side than there is the other. There is also no more disproof. So why must the sides constantly try to justify one faith based theory over another? Why does the inclusion, or exclusion, of a deity bother people so much?

Rusty Jones
11-21-2014, 04:49 PM
Rusty............how many Goddamned different ways do I have to tell you that I don't know the bible. I am not a very good Christian and I have absolutely no dog in the fight over the historical veracity of the story of Jesus? Where have I claimed to believe in anything (other than the truth)?

Not a very good Christian, but a Christian nonetheless... correct? The mother/son relationship that Jesus established between Mary and John is part of the overall story that anyone who has ever been exposed to Christianity should know, but that's all I've got to say on that... moving on; as far as what the "truth" is in the first place, that's up for debate. Hence, why we're here.


THIS is why I repeatedly state that you have zero credibility and integrity. They aren't just words I throw around. My only narrative is your lame use of inflammatory language knowing that it will get a reaction from those here who do have deeply held religious beliefs. You have ZERO interest in any discussion...........you are simply trolling.

I'm only getting a reaction from you. Look at SJ's post. Do you see him getting all offended and pissed?

If you think I'm trolling, then here's a suggestion - stop feeding the troll. Otherwise, if you're going to continue discussing this with me... then it really doesn't matter what my motives are. Either you're going to discuss this, or not.


You have proven nothing and quite frankly I don't think you have any interest in proving anything.

Agreed, and agreed. So what?


So far the passages you claim provide 'hints' to the claims you have made are a complete miss.

Are you saying that Jesus was definitely did not engage in any homosexual acts? Well now, you've just shouldered some burden of proof. I'm waiting.


Keep using the word cock, I am sure there is some secondary pleasure there.

Yeah, watching you get bent out of shape about it; even though you previously implied that whatever ulterior motive I had behind it was a fail.


If that is a serious question.............I have no idea. One theory is that Mary M. was "the disciple loved by Jesus" but that the male dominated early Catholic Church couldn't stand for that so they created this male persona as a substitute. It's as plausible as anything else. The funny thing is that this would be as big a blow, maybe even bigger, to the church than Rusty's homoerotic fantasy.

Yeah, but what keeps my homoerotic fantasy in tact is that Bible versions used by Protestants (i.e., KJ, NIV, etc) are NOT re-translations of versions used by the Catholic Church. Try again.


I am sure there are all kinds of reasons for that.

Another one that I like was the "Jesus Fucking Christ" meme that I posted a few months ago. It showed two Jesuses (or Jesi?) having sex. Covered, of course - so as to be appropriate for the thread, but the mods didn't agree. I'd love to repost right now, but the mods will just delete it again.


Sure, that works. So we can disregard any paintings and fictional works outside of the bible (whether one believes the bible is fictional or not).

Sure, okay. That painting is depicting what did happen in the Bible, but okay.


I can find zero references in the bible to Jesus, or any of his disciples, having homosexual relations.

That's okay, because I did the work for you! You're welcome.


Maybe it's a different mindset between us but, IMO, when you are discussing a man who is widely considered to be the most compassionate, caring person ever, the idea that he would hug another man doesn't seem that far fetched. Though for someone who feels that any contact between two men is somehow homosexual, it doesn't surprise me.

Would YOU let a teenaged boy lay on your chest at the dinner table?

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 04:55 PM
Sure, okay. That painting is depicting what did happen in the Bible, but okay. Through the interpretation of the artist.




Would YOU let a teenaged boy lay on your chest at the dinner table?As a disciple, I assume that it was like a father/son relationship. Would I let my son, or anyone close to me lay on my chest at the dinner table the night before I was supposed to be tortured and crucified? Absolutely.

Rusty Jones
11-21-2014, 05:03 PM
Through the interpretation of the artist.

Other than the aesthetic, what could any other artist have done differently?


As a disciple, I assume that it was like a father/son relationship. Would I let my son, or anyone close to me lay on my chest at the dinner table the night before I was supposed to be tortured and crucified? Absolutely.

If it was literally your son, I could see that. If it was a pre-pubescent boy who needed a certain amount of emotional support, okay.

But this? No. By the way, Peter was the oldest disciple, and was estimated to be around the age of 19 or 20 at the time. John was still singled out as the object of Jesus' special attention.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-21-2014, 05:08 PM
Exactly my point. Evolution is a faith just as much as creation. There is no more proof for one then there is for the other. Either way, there was "magic" involved. If the universe originated from the Big Bang, and explosion of gases (because there couldn't have been anything other than gases if the Universe had not been formed) then that means that rocks formed from exploding gases. I know it was a big explosion, but I have yet to hear anyone explain how that works.

People who claim the science is factual are just as "nuts" as people who claim creation is. Sure, the bible was written by man millions of years after it happened, but Darwin's theory took place 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang.

Also, the majority of the studies were based off of Darwin's theories. If you give someone a theory as a basis, then their studies are going to be directed at finding possibilities in line with that theory.

Point being, there is no more proof for one side than there is the other. There is also no more disproof. So why must the sides constantly try to justify one faith based theory over another? Why does the inclusion, or exclusion, of a deity bother people so much?

You need to go enroll in some classes at a local college. Even a high school chemistry class will teach you how the basic elements combine to form compounds.

There is plenty of proof of evolution in the fossil record too.

What do you have against knowledge? You seem unwilling to learn anything. You don't study the bible, history, chemistry, or biology.

No wonder you are frustrated with a guy like me.

Measure Man
11-21-2014, 05:19 PM
Exactly my point. Evolution is a faith just as much as creation.

No, no, a million times NO. It's not the same kind of faith...and it's not "just as much"


There is no more proof for one then there is for the other.

Not correct to say there is "no more proof"


Either way, there was "magic" involved.

The creationists just accept that it was magic...scientists to not accept that it was magic. They accept that they don't currently understand it, but that doesn't make it magic.


If the universe originated from the Big Bang, and explosion of gases (because there couldn't have been anything other than gases if the Universe had not been formed) then that means that rocks formed from exploding gases. I know it was a big explosion, but I have yet to hear anyone explain how that works.

You don't understand how gases can become a rock?

Heat (or lack thereof) and pressure.


People who claim the science is factual are just as "nuts" as people who claim creation is.

I would say, if they claim the Big Bang is an infallible factual account, then yes, they are nuts and probably not scientists.


Sure, the bible was written by man millions of years after it happened, but Darwin's theory took place 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang.

Funny.


Also, the majority of the studies were based off of Darwin's theories. If you give someone a theory as a basis, then their studies are going to be directed at finding possibilities in line with that theory.

Well, yes, in a way. That's how the scientific process works to some extent. You start with a hypothesis and then develop experiments that will test the hypothesis.

The goal is not necessarily "to prove it true", but to find out if it might be true. You are so badly conflating the scientific process by putting it on the same thought process behind accepting the inallibility of god's words, it's almost hard to explain.


Point being, there is no more proof for one side than there is the other.

This point is wrong. There is "some proof"...observations, deductions for a Big Bang event. Just because all the answers aren't there doesn't mean "there is no more proof"

Sort of like the reasonable doubt thing in a court case...many convictions are done without absolute proof that a person did the crime...they are only convicted based on there being no reasonable doubt. You are sort of arguing, since there is not absolute proof that a person committed a crime, there is no proof whatsoever. This is not true.


There is also no more disproof. So why must the sides constantly try to justify one faith based theory over another? Why does the inclusion, or exclusion, of a deity bother people so much?

There is a differnce between not having all the answers and the theory being "faith based"...it is not the same to inject some assumptions, or guesses about the unknown into known observations than it is to construct an entire story.

If a scientist and a creationist walk into a room and see a broken lamp on the floor, next to an end table. The creationist might say..."Interesting that God put that broken lamp there on the floor, but it's not ours to understand the ways of God." A scientist might say...hmmmm, I wonder how that broken lamp got on the floor. Well, we know that gravity makes things fall down...and the weight of the lamp and relative fragility would probably cause it to break if it had fallen from somewhere else. There is a table nearby, probably the lamp fell from the table. I would guess that it wsa unbroken on the table and something pushed it off."

AT this point, both "theories" you might say are "faith-based"...I would argue the scientific theory is more logical and observation-based, but of course could still be wrong. It's possible that a mover was brinign the lamp in on a cart and it fell of the cart. So, maybe the scientist might now develop some experiments...he might examine the table and note that there is a circle of no dust around which the table otherwise has dust. He might measure that circle and note that it is the same size as the base of the broken lamp. Hmmmm...that's pretty good. Still, he must admit that it is possible that a mover dropped a lamp off a cart that he was bringing to the next office...and since the next office is the Colonel's and he didn't want to piss off the Colonel, the then stole a good lamp off this table to deliver to the Colonel's office. So maybe he will develop another experiement to eliminate this possiblity.

Meanwhile, the creationist is saying...see, you don't know all the answers...why don't you just accept that God created a broken lamp on the floor here.

So, the scientist says, "because that just doesn't make sense to me...and there is nothing in the way of observation to suggest that"

Now you say..."Well, your theory has things you can't prove too, so they are the same."

Rusty Jones
11-21-2014, 05:32 PM
Funny. This thread is supposed to be about Islam. Someone says something about Mohammed, and I point out that Jesus probably wasn't much better... and look what happens! Everyone stops what they're doing, and jumps right in!

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 05:32 PM
@TJMAC77SP (http://forums.militarytimes.com/member.php?u=7898)

I have a sincere question about what you said in post 71 to Rusty. You said that you don't consider yourself a good Christian and that you don't really know that much about the bible.

What is it that compels you to even identify with Christainity at all? What makes you continue to hold onto a belief in God?

You seem willing to acknowledge that the bible isn't inerrant. Why continue to follow and support religion in a halfhearted manner?

I ask this because many of the people in my early life, people that I love, weren't that different than you. The counted themselves as believers, but didn't care to study the bible that much.

Yet, they foisted their belief in god on me when I was a child. When I got older, and really into religion for a good chunk of my life, I was told by an uncle that studying the bible wasn't even needed, that I could just belief in Jesus and I would be ok.

I am truly bewildered by that line of thinking. Back then, I was appalled by the idea of a lukewarm Christian, for I viewed them unworthy.

Now, I dislike lukewarm Christians for another reason. It is that sort of thinking that perpetuates myths and legends being followed as the truth.

For there are many more lukewarm Christians than hot ones. In my eyes, the lukewarm believers do more to spread the myth of religion by passing it on to their children. I wish they would pick a side, and apparently, so does Jesus.

PS

You should have seen the look on my uncles face when I quoted Revelation 3:16 to him.

"So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth."

As you have said before, we are born into our religion. Whether we change it or not is of course up to us. There is a complex answer to the simple question you have asked. I am not even sure I can answer it completely and quite frankly don't think you are actually interested in the answer.

I am simply undecided in what I believe. I see this universe and all it's glory (and evil) and complexity and simply am reluctant to dismiss it as pure chance. I suppose one day if the various theories regarding the creation of the universe are proved I will have all my answers and will be able to answer you more simply. Until then I will live my life. I foist a belief system (to include atheism) on no one. I can't remember the last time I was in a church outside of weddings and funerals.

I find your insistence that you have to pick a side to be no different then the various religious people who knock on my front door. Live your life according to your own beliefs or lack of the same and stop trying to dictate how others should think and live. My God do you not see the hypocrisy of that?

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 05:43 PM
No, no, a million times NO. It's not the same kind of faith...and it's not "just as much"



Not correct to say there is "no more proof" On this (and I'm sure it won't surprise you) I disagree.




The creationists just accept that it was magic...scientists to not accept that it was magic. They accept that they don't currently understand it, but that doesn't make it magic. No, we don't just accept it. We question it all the time. The difference is that we won't know until we know.




You don't understand how gases can become a rock?

Heat (or lack thereof) and pressure. I know how gases become a solid version of themselves. None of these processes allow for the formation of life.




I would say, if they claim the Big Bang is an infallible factual account, then yes, they are nuts and probably not scientists. Right, so it's a theory that is widely accepted because those who choose not to believe in a creator need another answer so, with a preferred result in mind, their studies lead them to the other possibility.

Even in "The Origins of Life", it doesn't talk much about the actual origins of life. It talks much more about the formation of the Universe. I am not smart enough to dismiss the possibility that the Big Bang started the formation of the universe. In fact, I'd say I'm about 99% sure (though there are many things about it that don't make sense). The difference comes in at the creation of the Big Bang and the creation of life afterwards.





Well, yes, in a way. That's how the scientific process works to some extent. You start with a hypothesis and then develop experiments that will test the hypothesis.

The goal is not necessarily "to prove it true", but to find out if it might be true. You are so badly conflating the scientific process by putting it on the same thought process behind accepting the inallibility of god's words, it's almost hard to explain. I have no issues with science and the scientific process. It's very important to maintaining our existence. I have a problem with it being referred to as the only possibility.




This point is wrong. There is "some proof"...observations, deductions for a Big Bang event. Just because all the answers aren't there doesn't mean "there is no more proof"

Sort of like the reasonable doubt thing in a court case...many convictions are done without absolute proof that a person did the crime...they are only convicted based on there being no reasonable doubt. You are sort of arguing, since there is not absolute proof that a person committed a crime, there is no proof whatsoever. This is not true.No, I'm arguing there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There is proof of an explosion. There is proof of life evolving/adapting. There is proof of the age of things based on carbon dating, using light to determine distances/ages, etc. There is no proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that we evolved from single cell organism spontaneously developing and replicating in an environment that would have been too harsh for that to be possible.




If a scientist and a creationist walk into a room and see a broken lamp on the floor, next to an end table. The creationist might say..."Interesting that God put that broken lamp there on the floor, but it's not ours to understand the ways of God." A scientist might say...hmmmm, I wonder how that broken lamp got on the floor. Well, we know that gravity makes things fall down...and the weight of the lamp and relative fragility would probably cause it to break if it had fallen from somewhere else. There is a table nearby, probably the lamp fell from the table. I would guess that it wsa unbroken on the table and something pushed it off."

AT this point, both "theories" you might say are "faith-based"...I would argue the scientific theory is more logical and observation-based, but of course could still be wrong. It's possible that a mover was brinign the lamp in on a cart and it fell of the cart. So, maybe the scientist might now develop some experiments...he might examine the table and note that there is a circle of no dust around which the table otherwise has dust. He might measure that circle and note that it is the same size as the base of the broken lamp. Hmmmm...that's pretty good. Still, he must admit that it is possible that a mover dropped a lamp off a cart that he was bringing to the next office...and since the next office is the Colonel's and he didn't want to piss off the Colonel, the then stole a good lamp off this table to deliver to the Colonel's office. So maybe he will develop another experiement to eliminate this possiblity.

Meanwhile, the creationist is saying...see, you don't know all the answers...why don't you just accept that God created a broken lamp on the floor here.No, in this case what the scientist is saying is that it's not possible that the lamp was broken by something they don't understand, or choose not to try.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 05:51 PM
Other than the aesthetic, what could any other artist have done differently? I have no idea. I'm not an artist. And I don't see how, even if that picture was taken from a polaroid, that it hints at anything sexual.




If it was literally your son, I could see that. If it was a pre-pubescent boy who needed a certain amount of emotional support, okay.

But this? No. By the way, Peter was the oldest disciple, and was estimated to be around the age of 19 or 20 at the time. John was still singled out as the object of Jesus' special attention.So you don't see how Jesus would have spent more time nurturing the youngest one in the crowd without it being sexual?

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 05:52 PM
Not a very good Christian,but a Christian nonetheless... correct? The mother/son relationship that Jesusestablished between Mary and John is part of the overall story that anyone whohas ever been exposed to Christianity should know, but that's all I've got tosay on that... moving on; as far as what the "truth" is in the firstplace, that's up for debate. Hence, why we're here.

“We’ are not here for anything even resembling a discussion or even argument.




I'm only getting a reaction from you. Look at SJ'spost. Do you see him getting all offended and pissed?

How does that relate to anything I said in the part you quoted? Damn at least try.

THIS is why I repeatedly state that youhave zero credibility and integrity. They aren't just words I throw around. Myonly narrative is your lame use of inflammatory language knowing that it willget a reaction from those here who do have deeply held religious beliefs. Youhave ZERO interest in any discussion...........you are simply trolling.



If you think I'm trolling, then here's a suggestion- stop feeding the troll. Otherwise, if you're going to continue discussingthis with me... then it really doesn't matter what my motives are. Eitheryou're going to discuss this, or not.

And this would answer the first part regarding why you are here.




Agreed, and agreed. So what?

So……….you are a troll.




Are you saying that Jesus was definitely did notengage in any homosexual acts? Well now, you've just shouldered some burden ofproof. I'm waiting.

You need to take a critical thinking class. Well,actually you need to take any class whatsoever.
When I state you haven’t proven your point is not to say that the exact opposite is proven true. It is simply saying you have failed.




Yeah, watching you get bent out of shape about it;even though you previously implied that whatever ulterior motive I had behindit was a fail.

Actually I sincerely believe there are a lot of reasons for your near-obsession with anything homosexual.




Yeah, but what keeps my homoerotic fantasy in tactis that Bible versions used by Protestants (i.e., KJ, NIV, etc) are NOTre-translations of versions used by the Catholic Church. Try again.

Try what again? To say you have failed, time and time again to prove anything? You have failed. But then again as I said you don’t really care to prove anything.




Another one that I like was the "Jesus FuckingChrist" meme that I posted a few months ago. It showed two Jesuses (orJesi?) having sex. Covered, of course - so as to be appropriate for the thread,but the mods didn't agree. I'd love to repost right now, but the mods will justdelete it again.

How old are you? Seriously.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-21-2014, 06:04 PM
As you have said before, we are born into our religion. Whether we change it or not is of course up to us. There is a complex answer to the simple question you have asked. I am not even sure I can answer it completely and quite frankly don't think you are actually interested in the answer.

I am simply undecided in what I believe. I see this universe and all it's glory (and evil) and complexity and simply am reluctant to dismiss it as pure chance. I suppose one day if the various theories regarding the creation of the universe are proved I will have all my answers and will be able to answer you more simply. Until then I will live my life. I foist a belief system (to include atheism) on no one. I can't remember the last time I was in a church outside of weddings and funerals.

I find your insistence that you have to pick a side to be no different then the various religious people who knock on my front door. Live your life according to your own beliefs or lack of the same and stop trying to dictate how others should think and live. My God do you not see the hypocrisy of that?

I think you should try reading my post again. It wasn't an attack on you, although it might have made you feel uncomfortable.

It sounds like religion, didn't fuck with your head as much as it did mine. Perhaps you are lucky.

I readily admit to having anger at religion. I was mentored by pastors who knew so little, that I quickly surpassed their level of knowledge.

Without fail, when my questions became too much for them, they would say stuff like, "Don't question, just pray."

The hypocrisy isn't lost on me, nor is the irony. Why do you think I used Rev 3:16 to help illustrate my story?

What I was merely pointing out is that according to scripture, a Christian in name only will be spewed out.

What I was asking, was why call yourself a Christian if you aren't really a Christian?

What is wrong with me suggesting that you pick a side?

Jesus wants you to pick a side too.

Measure Man
11-21-2014, 06:05 PM
On this (and I'm sure it won't surprise you) I disagree.

No, we don't just accept it. We question it all the time. The difference is that we won't know until we know.

I know how gases become a solid version of themselves. None of these processes allow for the formation of life.

Okay...I thought you were asking how gases became rock.

I will say, it is my understanding scientists are very close to the "formation of life"...maybe they have 90% or whatever...but not having the complete explanation is not "just as bad" as having no explanation. Though, I'm sure there was a time that we had no explanation, scientifically. It does not follow that this is therefore a reason to believe in God.


Right, so it's a theory that is widely accepted because those who choose not to believe in a creator need another answer so, with a preferred result in mind, their studies lead them to the other possibility.

Even in "The Origins of Life", it doesn't talk much about the actual origins of life. It talks much more about the formation of the Universe. I am not smart enough to dismiss the possibility that the Big Bang started the formation of the universe. In fact, I'd say I'm about 99% sure (though there are many things about it that don't make sense). The difference comes in at the creation of the Big Bang and the creation of life afterwards.

I have no issues with science and the scientific process. It's very important to maintaining our existence. I have a problem with it being referred to as the only possibility.

I guess I would have to see scientific theories, etc. that say "there is no possibility of God."...I'm not famiiliar with that. I've seen many that suggest a creator is not needed...or we don't suppose there is one...but have not seen anything that says there is no possibility of one.


No, I'm arguing there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Still not the same as no proof.


There is proof of an explosion. There is proof of life evolving/adapting. There is proof of the age of things based on carbon dating, using light to determine distances/ages, etc. There is no proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that we evolved from single cell organism spontaneously developing and replicating in an environment that would have been too harsh for that to be possible.

Okay...so there is some proof, but it does not rise ot the level of the story being "proven in a court of law"...I kind of like that, actually. Again, not the same as the theory being "faith based"...it is still based on observation. If new observations come about that do not fit the theory, scientists may come up with a new theory...this is not unusual. Newton made observaations about how things act and came up with theories on motion, gravity, etc. It was not a complete explanation...it explained a lot though, but it was not entirely correct.

Einstein came along and explained relativity...which in conjuction with Newtonian physics, explained many things that Newtonian physics could not explain. But, even Einstein knew he did not have it completely correct and spent the rest of his life searching for a "unifying theory" that would align realitivity with gravity, time, space...Einstein himself was baffled by some of the observations of the universe...and when someone else discovered the universe was actually expanding he called it "the greatest blunder of my life" for not realizing this.


No, in this case what the scientist is saying is that it's not possible that the lamp was broken by something they don't understand, or choose not to try.

Again...I'll have to see where scientists are saying "it is not possible"...if they are saying this, I think it is a personal opinion and not a scientific observation made through the scientific process.

You seem to be of the opinion that scientists are locked into what they believe as true and only try to reinforce it. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the progression of science is the disproving of previously held theories. A scientist that wants to make a name for himself disproves things believed to be true...then develops a new explanation which is then tested.

MitchellJD1969
11-21-2014, 06:11 PM
I doubt it does, because what he really wants is for us to shut up and go away.

I've heard that one before, "if you don't believe, why do you care?"

I never asked to be exposed to religion, I was born into it. I was told that my relationship with god was the most important thing about my existence, that he was watching my every move.

So when my faith crumbled, it was a big deal. Why wouldn't I still be interested in a subject that turned my entire world view upside down?

Why wouldn't I still want to talk about Jesus, the bible, and the church? They have had an enormous impact on our entire culture.

SJ simply wants us to shut up. If we press with hard questions, we are just being mean and confrontational.

It is a weak attempt to take the discussion in a different direction. To switch the topic to the flaws of atheists, and lead us away from talking about the flaws of religion.

Sorry, too many people have been convinced that it is social taboo to question god in public. That needs to change.

It is one of the big reasons that belief in the spirits, ghosts, gods, and devils continues.

Questioning religion is healthy and natural in my opinion.


Going with that thought...yeah its good to question things including whether a diety exists, its form, how its worshiped, and the conduct of its followers....but along with that a few other things need to be questioned critically also without being shouted down with whatever victim card that comes into play.

Just a few off the cuff:

Science
Sexuality
Feminism
the left
the right
anything done in the name of some victim group cause "we care"
politics, politicians, and policies

Pretty much everything under the sun should be questioned as far as Im concerned.

Anywho.....I didnt watch Xena that much...though I thought Lucy Lawless was kinda hot back then as well as her costar...but anyways lets forward a hundred years or so and Citizen Schmuckettelli finds a dvd player or vhs player and figures out how to watch Xena. As he progresses throught the episodes how would they interpet the relationship between the two stars? Would they interpet them as lesbian partners/lovers or what if they thought that the two had a strong sisterly or warrior bond? Being a hundred or so years removed can alter the perceptions of the watcher and alter the context of the original material. Yeah we know that the writers pretty much wanted a lesbian subcontext (im making an educated guess on that) but being removed from the actual "events" or in this discussions case...whether christ was straight, gay, married, or "sinless" was dependant upon those who wrote about it later in time and what they wanted to "get across" about christ. We also now want to interpet things how we want them to be now (this thread as an example)...but unless you were actually there to prove what happened or not happened...we are pretty much pissing in the wind.


Rambled on a little bit...got beer on the mind...

SomeRandomGuy
11-21-2014, 06:11 PM
Funny. This thread is supposed to be about Islam. Someone says something about Mohammed, and I point out that Jesus probably wasn't much better... and look what happens! Everyone stops what they're doing, and jumps right in!

There isn't anyone on these boards who has an interest in defending Islam. You can't have a discussion unless someone is willing to take the other side. Even teh original poster hasn't bothered to come back and join in on this thread. Honestly, the whole thread would have died had it not morphed into a discussion of christianity.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 06:12 PM
Okay...I thought you were asking how gases became rock.

I will say, it is my understanding scientists are very close to the "formation of life"...maybe they have 90% or whatever...but not having the complete explanation is not "just as bad" as having no explanation. Though, I'm sure there was a time that we had no explanation, scientifically. It does not follow that this is therefore a reason to believe in God.



I guess I would have to see scientific theories, etc. that say "there is no possibility of God."...I'm not famiiliar with that. I've seen many that suggest a creator is not needed...or we don't suppose there is one...but have not seen anything that says there is no possibility of one.



Still not the same as no proof.



Okay...so there is some proof, but it does not rise ot the level of the story being "proven in a court of law"...I kind of like that, actually. Again, not the same as the theory being "faith based"...it is still based on observation. If new observations come about that do not fit the theory, scientists may come up with a new theory...this is not unusual. Newton made observaations about how things act and came up with theories on motion, gravity, etc. It was not a complete explanation...it explained a lot though, but it was not entirely correct.

Einstein came along and explained relativity...which in conjuction with Newtonian physics, explained many things that Newtonian physics could not explain. But, even Einstein knew he did not have it completely correct and spent the rest of his life searching for a "unifying theory" that would align realitivity with gravity, time, space...Einstein himself was baffled by some of the observations of the universe...and when someone else discovered the universe was actually expanding he called it "the greatest blunder of my life" for not realizing this.



Again...I'll have to see where scientists are saying "it is not possible"...if they are saying this, I think it is a personal opinion and not a scientific observation made through the scientific process.

You seem to be of the opinion that scientists are locked into what they believe as true and only try to reinforce it. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the progression of science is the disproving of previously held theories. A scientist that wants to make a name for himself disproves things believed to be true...then develops a new explanation which is then tested.

Kind of off topic, but I'm really waiting for the discovery of a new universe, with different physical properties than what is currently known. Current science would say that's not possible because physics is physics. I'd say it's very possible, and probable. It reminds of a book (can't remember for the life of me what it was) where they talk about discovering a new color, and how it's impossible for us to even fathom that because we assume that the three primary colors we know through the spectrum we know are the only ones out there.

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 06:14 PM
I think you should try reading my post again. It wasn't an attack on you, although it might have made you feel uncomfortable.

It sounds like religion, didn't fuck with your head as much as it did mine. Perhaps you are lucky.

I readily admit to having anger at religion. I was mentored by pastors who knew so little, that I quickly surpassed their level of knowledge.

Without fail, when my questions became too much for them, they would say stuff like, "Don't question, just pray."

The hypocrisy isn't lost on me, nor is the irony. Why do you think I used Rev 3:16 to help illustrate my story?

What I was merely pointing out is that according to scripture, a Christian in name only will be spewed out.

What I was asking, was why call yourself a Christian if you aren't really a Christian?

What is wrong with me suggesting that you pick a side?

Jesus wants you to pick a side too.

There wasn't discomfort. I readily admit at not being able to articulate my beliefs as well as I would like.

I use the label because I haven't found another one the fits. I am not an atheist. Particularly if that means denigrating anyone who isn't. I certainly can't use another religion as a label. I tried agnostic but seem to remember a whole thread on the MTF explaining to me that wasn't a viable choice. Didn't you take part in that discussion.

The bottom line is that I don't really label myself. I will identify as Christian when pressed because it makes it simpler for me and for others.

I don't want to pick a side (other than for the rights of others) and if Jesus wants me to pick a side I will add that to the list of things about Christianity which I question.

SomeRandomGuy
11-21-2014, 06:38 PM
There wasn't discomfort. I readily admit at not being able to articulate my beliefs as well as I would like.

I use the label because I haven't found another one the fits. I am not an atheist. Particularly if that means denigrating anyone who isn't. I certainly can't use another religion as a label. I tried agnostic but seem to remember a whole thread on the MTF explaining to me that wasn't a viable choice. Didn't you take part in that discussion.

The bottom line is that I don't really label myself. I will identify as Christian when pressed because it makes it simpler for me and for others.

I don't want to pick a side (other than for the rights of others) and if Jesus wants me to pick a side I will add that to the list of things about Christianity which I question.

I think I am in the same boat as you. Like AA I was raised in church. My dad was a pastor and has a very interesting story. His dad was a travling evangelist. Every summer he would work his ass off to save up money and pay off bills. Then in the winter he would tarvel cross country and spend all that money basically leaving most of his families needs unmet because "my reward is in heaven". My dad grew up watching this cycle play out but based on pressure from his father my dad went to bible school and became a pastor anyways.

He followed the same cycle as his father for several years. Even though he is very intelligent he devoted his life to the lord's work leaving even some of his own basic needs unmet. Finally, at some point he had enough and he quit pastroing and got a real job. We still went to church for a while but then we just stopped one day and for about five years god wasn't even mentioned around the house.

Eventually things really turned around financially for my dad (he is a millionaire now) and he has since gone back to religion. He is highly educated and very familiar with the christian religion as well as others. It's very hard for me to have a debate with him because he has so much knowledge. He sought answers in religion and he has determined the christian faith is right for him. In a lot of ways my dad reminds me of AA. It is appararent that AA has sought out knowledge and religion and found the best path for himself.

I often struggle with finding my own belief. I want to believe in christianity but "christians" have perverted the religion so bad I can't be a part of it. I'm not ready to rule out christianity as an option but I'm also not ready to embrace it either.

In many ways I think that finding a religion is like finding a mate in life. Some people are part of arranged marriages, they never really had a choice. Others have been married several times but they still can't find what is right for them. Others are trying out alternate relationships (homesexual, asexual, polysexual, ect). If you ask anyone in a relationship what the key to happiness is you get a variety of answers. The one common theme though is that it is something you have to seek out on your own and "you just know". No one else can choose for you and in a lot of ways their attempts to push you in one direction will hinder the process.

In short I also identify myself as a christian soemtimes though I know I am not. I still see christianity as a viable choice at some point but I have so many questions I would need answered first and the modern church honestly isn't capable of providing them. I feel I would need to go on a search for knowledge before I truely had to make a permanent decision on what my religion or lack therof would be. For now I'm just happy living my life. I don't feel like searching for these answers would signifigantly change anything about my life. For now I'm a religious bachelor. I'm not saying I will never settle down with a religion, and I'm not ruling out all the choices but since I don't see the value any current options provide I'm happy to go it alone.

Measure Man
11-21-2014, 06:41 PM
Kind of off topic, but I'm really waiting for the discovery of a new universe, with different physical properties than what is currently known. Current science would say that's not possible because physics is physics. I'd say it's very possible, and probable.

I'm not sure what this means...but I would be surprised to learn that "current science says that's not possible"

It seems to me that you get your knowledge about what science and scientists believe from strawmen arguments made by creationists.

If you don't know what a strawman arguments...it comes from an analogy of armies who would set up a training opponent made up of strawmen that they could easily defeat.

A strawman argument is a tactic where a debater represents the opposing side argument weakly and then easily defeats it. I've found very common among creationists, but is not uncommon among many others. Many many Facebook memes do this as well...such as the one relayed earlier "why do liberals go nuts if a cell proves life on another planet, but then don't accept that a cell in the womb is a life"

This a strawman argument that supposes to show a hypocrisy in liberal thinking, but it doesn't...it artifically creates a weakened argument to defeat it. No credibile liberal thinks cells in a womb are not living cells.

So, most of what you seem to relay of what "scientists believe..." and what "modern science will tell you.." are out of context, weakened representations of what the real story is, so that they can be argued against.


It reminds of a book (can't remember for the life of me what it was) where they talk about discovering a new color, and how it's impossible for us to even fathom that because we assume that the three primary colors we know through the spectrum we know are the only ones out there.

Well, I'd say it's certainly not impossible to fathom it.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 06:42 PM
I think I am in the same boat as you. Like AA I was raised in church. My dad was a pastor and has a very interesting story. His dad was a travling evangelist. Every summer he would work his ass off to save up money and pay off bills. Then in the winter he would tarvel cross country and spend all that money basically leaving most of his families needs unmet because "my reward is in heaven". My dad grew up watching this cycle play out but based on pressure from his father my dad went to bible school and became a pastor anyways.

He followed the same cycle as his father for several years. Even though he is very intelligent he devoted his life to the lord's work leaving even some of his own basic needs unmet. Finally, at some point he had enough and he quit pastroing and got a real job. We still went to church for a while but then we just stopped one day and for about five years god wasn't even mentioned around the house.

Eventually things really turned around financially for my dad (he is a millionaire now) and he has since gone back to religion. He is highly educated and very familiar with the christian religion as well as others. It's very hard for me to have a debate with him because he has so much knowledge. He sought answers in religion and he has determined the christian faith is right for him. In a lot of ways my dad reminds me of AA. It is appararent that AA has sought out knowledge and religion and found the best path for himself.

I often struggle with finding my own belief. I want to believe in christianity but "christians" have perverted the religion so bad I can't be a part of it. I'm not ready to rule out christianity as an option but I'm also not ready to embrace it either.

In many ways I think that finding a religion is like finding a mate in life. Some people are part of arranged marriages, they never really had a choice. Others have been married several times but they still can't find what is right for them. Others are trying out alternate relationships (homesexual, asexual, polysexual, ect). If you ask anyone in a relationship what the key to happiness is you get a variety of answers. The one common theme though is that it is something you have to seek out on your own and "you just know". No one else can choose for you and in a lot of ways their attempts to push you in one direction will hinder the process.

In short I also identify myself as a christian soemtimes though I know I am not. I still see christianity as a viable choice at some point but I have so many questions I would need answered first and the modern church honestly isn't capable of providing them. I feel I would need to go on a search for knowledge before I truely had to make a permanent decision on what my religion or lack therof would be. For now I'm just happy living my life. I don't feel like searching for these answers would signifigantly change anything about my life. For now I'm a religious bachelor. I'm not saying I will never settle down with a religion, and I'm not ruling out all the choices but since I don't see the value any current options provide I'm happy to go it alone.

Don't forget that you don't have to be a "Christian" in order to believe in Christ. I think the stigma attached to the organized religion part of it is deterring a lot of people.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-21-2014, 06:43 PM
There isn't anyone on these boards who has an interest in defending Islam. You can't have a discussion unless someone is willing to take the other side. Even teh original poster hasn't bothered to come back and join in on this thread. Honestly, the whole thread would have died had it not morphed into a discussion of christianity.

The OP basically did a drive-by shooting at Islam that started a street brawl between Christians and their detractors.

I kind of wish we had an Islamic supporter to tangle with.

They both believe in the same god though, and since there isn't a Christian in here that knows that much about the bible, I'm going to assume that the majority of Islamists don't study their Q'uran.

Which is why people fight so much over religion.

I think most sensible people would flat out reject believing in war-like blood thirsty man in the sky if they read about it more.

OT god and Islamic god same dude.

NT Jesus is more mellow, but still wants to burn people in hell.

Fuck, why not just worship Santa, or trees?

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 06:53 PM
I'm not sure what this means...but I would be surprised to learn that "current science says that's not possible"

It seems to me that you get your knowledge about what science and scientists believe from strawmen arguments made by creationists.

If you don't know what a strawman arguments...it comes from an analogy of armies who would set up a training opponent made up of strawmen that they could easily defeat.

A strawman argument is a tactic where a debater represents the opposing side argument weakly and then easily defeats it. I've found very common among creationists, but is not uncommon among many others. Many many Facebook memes do this as well...such as the one relayed earlier "why do liberals go nuts if a cell proves life on another planet, but then don't accept that a cell in the womb is a life"

This a strawman argument that supposes to show a hypocrisy in liberal thinking, but it doesn't...it artifically creates a weakened argument to defeat it. No credibile liberal thinks cells in a womb are not living cells.

So, most of what you seem to relay of what "scientists believe..." and what "modern science will tell you.." are out of context, weakened representations of what the real story is, so that they can be argued against.



I really think you missed my point. I was hoping that wouldn't happen and that's why I started the post with "Kind of off topic". It was really a totally different thought from the discussion we've been having.

Thanks for explaining to me what a "strawman" argument is, as I'm not edumacated on to much things.

My statement about "not possible" is only relative to what is currently known. Maybe a bad choice of words. If we were to discover a universe where gravity wasn't gravity and the elements in our periodic table were completely different than what we currently know to make up everything, I'm sure it would raise some eyebrows and cause some rethinking of the current "facts".

This is not a strawman. This is a tangent. A sci-fi inspired subject.

Can you picture a 4th primary color? Again, fathom was a poor choice of wording. I'll have to start paying closer attention to my word usage if I'm gonna hang with all the intellectual elites. From this point on I will proof read everything several times while not assuming that people of such high intellect can't infer the point rather than use the wording to ignore the point.

Measure Man
11-21-2014, 06:54 PM
There wasn't discomfort. I readily admit at not being able to articulate my beliefs as well as I would like.

I use the label because I haven't found another one the fits. I am not an atheist. Particularly if that means denigrating anyone who isn't.

This is not what atheist means.


I certainly can't use another religion as a label. I tried agnostic but seem to remember a whole thread on the MTF explaining to me that wasn't a viable choice. Didn't you take part in that discussion.

I don't remember that one...why wasn't it a viable choice?


The bottom line is that I don't really label myself. I will identify as Christian when pressed because it makes it simpler for me and for others.

I don't want to pick a side (other than for the rights of others) and if Jesus wants me to pick a side I will add that to the list of things about Christianity which I question.

Measure Man
11-21-2014, 07:00 PM
I really think you missed my point. I was hoping that wouldn't happen and that's why I started the post with "Kind of off topic". It was really a totally different thought from the discussion we've been having.

Understood...but even your earlier comments about scientific theory being "faith based"...and many of your other comments about science appear to be based off of strawmen arguments you've read .


Thanks for explaining to me what a "strawman" argument is, as I'm not edumacated on to much things.

Okay...whatever. I didn't always know what was meant by a strawman argument...seen the term thrown around a lot...and realized that a lot of people don't know what it means...even the people using the term.


My statement about "not possible" is only relative to what is currently known. Maybe a bad choice of words. If we were to discover a universe where gravity wasn't gravity and the elements in our periodic table were completely different than what we currently know to make up everything, I'm sure it would raise some eyebrows and cause some rethinking of the current "facts".

This is not a strawman. This is a tangent. A sci-fi inspired subject.

Can you picture a 4th primary color? Again, fathom was a poor choice of wording. I'll have to start paying closer attention to my word usage if I'm gonna hang with all the intellectual elites. From this point on I will proof read everything several times while not assuming that people of such high intellect can't infer the point rather than use the wording to ignore the point.

Words mean things...go figure.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-21-2014, 07:05 PM
There wasn't discomfort. I readily admit at not being able to articulate my beliefs as well as I would like.

I use the label because I haven't found another one the fits. I am not an atheist. Particularly if that means denigrating anyone who isn't. I certainly can't use another religion as a label. I tried agnostic but seem to remember a whole thread on the MTF explaining to me that wasn't a viable choice. Didn't you take part in that discussion.

The bottom line is that I don't really label myself. I will identify as Christian when pressed because it makes it simpler for me and for others.

I don't want to pick a side (other than for the rights of others) and if Jesus wants me to pick a side I will add that to the list of things about Christianity which I question.

Consider calling yourself a Deist, or at least explore their system of belief.

Actually, you SRG, and SJ sound more like Deists than Christians to me.

From the dictionary...

Deism:

1.
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).

A Deism website: http://www.deism.com

Good old atheism works for me, so don't think I've got something to gain by converting you.

I'm just pointing out that you guys don't sound like Christians to me.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 07:10 PM
Okay...whatever. I didn't always know what was meant by a strawman argument...seen the term thrown around a lot...and realized that a lot of people don't know what it means...even the people using the term. Neither did I, until it became the buzzword on every social media site or news program whenever someone stated an opinion instead of turning in a research paper.




Words mean things...go figure.I will be more careful when expressing my thoughts/opinions. We all know how simple that is on an internet forum.

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 07:15 PM
This is not what atheistmeans.

I realize that isn't the definition of atheism. This was a bit of tongue-in-cheek. It was more of an editorial comment reflecting the long standing state of affairs on the MTFregarding discussions on religion. For example I find the following disparaging another’s belief and not conducive to a valid discussion. It is a mild example compared to some of the stuff posted here but an example nonetheless…..

“I think most sensible people would flat out reject believing in war-like blood thirsty man in the sky if they read about it more.

......Fuck, why not just worship Santa, or trees?"


No one of faith (or anyone who genuinely wants an actual discussion) is going to engage in any discussion that starts with that statement.
As I said I really am undecided on the thought of a supreme being so it would be disingenuous and inaccurate to adopt the title of atheist.


I don't remember that one...why wasn't it a viable choice?

Someone (and it might have been me) made reference to the old adage “there are no atheists in foxholes” and that started a whole diatribe about that statement and atheism which eventually led to agnosticism.While I don’t agree with the position that there is no such thing as an agnostic the truth is that when asked my religion I don’t claim to be an agnostic, I say Catholic to avoid long discussions with either side.They generally end with someone pissed off.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 07:17 PM
Actually, you SRG, and SJ sound more like Deists than Christians to me.



A Christian is one who believes in the teachings of Christ, which include him being the Son of God. Whether one has never read a single word from the bible or they have studied the bible their entire life, if they believe in his teachings then they are a Christian. There is no other requisite.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-21-2014, 07:19 PM
I think I am in the same boat as you. Like AA I was raised in church. My dad was a pastor and has a very interesting story. His dad was a travling evangelist. Every summer he would work his ass off to save up money and pay off bills. Then in the winter he would tarvel cross country and spend all that money basically leaving most of his families needs unmet because "my reward is in heaven". My dad grew up watching this cycle play out but based on pressure from his father my dad went to bible school and became a pastor anyways.

He followed the same cycle as his father for several years. Even though he is very intelligent he devoted his life to the lord's work leaving even some of his own basic needs unmet. Finally, at some point he had enough and he quit pastroing and got a real job. We still went to church for a while but then we just stopped one day and for about five years god wasn't even mentioned around the house.

Eventually things really turned around financially for my dad (he is a millionaire now) and he has since gone back to religion. He is highly educated and very familiar with the christian religion as well as others. It's very hard for me to have a debate with him because he has so much knowledge. He sought answers in religion and he has determined the christian faith is right for him. In a lot of ways my dad reminds me of AA. It is appararent that AA has sought out knowledge and religion and found the best path for himself.

I often struggle with finding my own belief. I want to believe in christianity but "christians" have perverted the religion so bad I can't be a part of it. I'm not ready to rule out christianity as an option but I'm also not ready to embrace it either.

In many ways I think that finding a religion is like finding a mate in life. Some people are part of arranged marriages, they never really had a choice. Others have been married several times but they still can't find what is right for them. Others are trying out alternate relationships (homesexual, asexual, polysexual, ect). If you ask anyone in a relationship what the key to happiness is you get a variety of answers. The one common theme though is that it is something you have to seek out on your own and "you just know". No one else can choose for you and in a lot of ways their attempts to push you in one direction will hinder the process.

In short I also identify myself as a christian soemtimes though I know I am not. I still see christianity as a viable choice at some point but I have so many questions I would need answered first and the modern church honestly isn't capable of providing them. I feel I would need to go on a search for knowledge before I truely had to make a permanent decision on what my religion or lack therof would be. For now I'm just happy living my life. I don't feel like searching for these answers would signifigantly change anything about my life. For now I'm a religious bachelor. I'm not saying I will never settle down with a religion, and I'm not ruling out all the choices but since I don't see the value any current options provide I'm happy to go it alone.

My Grandpop did the tent revival circuit back in the 1940s. From the stories I was told, he was a bit of a con man too. When Grandma died, we were cleaning out her house and found a scrap book with newspaper clippings when an angry mob burned his truck and tent in Tennessee.

My only memory of him is sitting on his lap and smelling his whiskey breath as he talked about the Man on the Moon.

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 07:22 PM
Consider calling yourself a Deist, or at least explore their system of belief.

Actually, you SRG, and SJ sound more like Deists than Christians to me.

From the dictionary...

Deism:

1.
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).

A Deism website: http://www.deism.com

Good old atheism works for me, so don't think I've got something to gain by converting you.

I'm just pointing out that you guys don't sound like Christians to me.

So............... If SJ and I (and others) had stated we were Deists this whole thread wouldn't have happened?

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 07:23 PM
My Grandpop did the tent revival circuit back in the 1940s. From the stories I was told, he was a bit of a con man too. When Grandma died, we were cleaning out her house and found a scrap book with newspaper clippings when an angry mob burned his truck and tent in Tennessee.

My only memory of him is sitting on his lap and smelling his whiskey breath as he talked about the Man on the Moon.

Neil Armstrong?

Absinthe Anecdote
11-21-2014, 07:24 PM
A Christian is one who believes in the teachings of Christ, which include him being the Son of God. Whether one has never read a single word from the bible or they have studied the bible their entire life, if they believe in his teachings then they are a Christian. There is no other requisite.

I know a great many pastors who would disagree with what you just said.

Plus, how does one believe and follow his teachings without ever reading them?

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 07:26 PM
So............... If SJ and I (and others) had stated we were Deists this whole thread wouldn't have happened?Sure it would, because we would be too uneducated about Deism to actually be Deist. There is a requirement, you know, to believe in something. Surprisingly, I've never once read a book about how fast my tires wear down at certain speeds, but I do know that after I've driven for awhile, they do wear down. I'm not sure if that means I actually know when to change them or not.

Though it may be easier to say we are Deists if it will appease the masses.

SomeRandomGuy
11-21-2014, 07:31 PM
Don't forget that you don't have to be a "Christian" in order to believe in Christ. I think the stigma attached to the organized religion part of it is deterring a lot of people.

Yes, but here is the problem. Often on these forums even christians have meant the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally. Without context certains verses sound kind of strange. That presents a problem for anyone who desires to become a christian. Which parts of the Bible should I believe? Let me give you an example:


John 3:16 New International Version (NIV)

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Cool, got it. Believe in Jesus have eternal life.


1 Corinthians 14:34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[g]

Say what? I get the feeling this verse might piss Joyce Meyer off a little bit.

EDIT: (adding more) None of us were around when the Bible was written. In fact the Bible wasn't even written as one book. It is a compilation of several books written by people over thousands of years. So here is my problem. A christian will quote the Bible to say homosexuality is wrong. Fair enough, it says so in the Bible. What happens if I turn right around and quote 1 Corinthians 14:34 back to them. I don't see a lot of Christians boycotting Joyce Meyer events (though theer are some fringe guys who would). Most likely the christian would point out that 1 Cor was written to a church by Paul (I think). He was writing the book to help solve some disagreements. He likely said women should remain silent in church because this was teh accepted law of the time.

So, if you can rationalize women being pastors because times used to be different how can you not rationalize that maybe gay marriage is ok because times are different.?

This becomes a really slippery slope though. If I want to become a christian but not believe in the entire Bible I am just picking and choosing what I want. At that point I am just making up my own religion. If I'm going to do that I don't feel like I really need religion at all. especially since a requirement often pointed out in church is that I need to give 10% of my pay to the church. I'm good with just saving the 10% and not believeing in any religion. I'm not ready to completely shut the door on believing that Jesus exists but man it followers really went off on the deep end and I'm not sure any of them are really following his wishes anymore.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-21-2014, 07:31 PM
Neil Armstrong?

I'm not sure, but I was just about 4 years old when the moon landings happened.

Maybe so!

I just remember he reeked and was talking about the moon. My pop filled in the part about the smell most likely being whiskey.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 07:37 PM
I know a great many pastors who would disagree with what you just said.The definition I listed is out of Webster's dictionary. We know that if it's in the dictionary then it doesn't matter how others feel about it.

Also, I wouldn't attend a Church led by those pastors.

Don't get confused. One can be a Christian, by definition, without being a good Christian. And, luckily, those pastors aren't the ones who will be deciding if I will be saved or not.






Plus, how does one believe and follow his teachings without ever reading them?I would imagine it's the same way that people followed teachings before everything was written down in books, or the same way Helen Keller learned to speak without ever hearing. I don't know any Christians who have never read the bible, but I'd be willing to guess that there are quite a few.

Some read it for inspiration, as I like to do. Others read it in order to study it so they can be educated when they pass it on to others. There as still others who read and study it in order to find ways to discredit it and try to catch someone in a mistake.

Did you ever read a book on how your steering column in your car works? If you haven't read it from cover to cover and studied it, I can't imagine how you possibly make it to work without driving straight through a curve.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 07:44 PM
Yes, but here is the problem. Often on these forums even christians have meant the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally. Without context certains verses sound kind of strange. That presents a problem for anyone who desires to become a christian. Which parts of the Bible should I believe? Let me give you an example:



Cool, got it. Believe in Jesus have eternal life.



Say what? I get the feeling this verse might piss Joyce Meyer off a little bit.And this is exactly why Christianity is becoming less "popular". It's also where a decision has to be made. There are many Churches and many people who still proceed that way. Was that verse intended to be forever or was it just a sign of the times? I don't know. Do I personally think a woman will not be allowed into heaven if they speak in the Church? No, especially from a religion based on forgiveness. I could be wrong, though.

It's a balancing act, one that we will all be judged from. Is it even possible to live strictly by the laws of the bible? I highly doubt it. The key, IMO, is to know you are a sinner and ask for forgiveness for those sins. I may be burning in Hell someday saying "Damn, I got that one wrong", but I hope not and, whether right or wrong, try to live my life based on what is, in my mind, the intent.

SomeRandomGuy
11-21-2014, 07:46 PM
And this is exactly why Christianity is becoming less "popular". It's also where a decision has to be made. There are many Churches and many people who still proceed that way. Was that verse intended to be forever or was it just a sign of the times? I don't know. Do I personally think a woman will not be allowed into heaven if they speak in the Church? No, especially from a religion based on forgiveness. I could be wrong, though.

It's a balancing act, one that we will all be judged from. Is it even possible to live strictly by the laws of the bible? I highly doubt it. The key, IMO, is to know you are a sinner and ask for forgiveness for those sins. I may be burning in Hell someday saying "Damn, I got that one wrong", but I hope not and, whether right or wrong, try to live my life based on what is, in my mind, the intent.

I added more to my post above because it was probably intellectually dishonest. When I was in church I studied 1 Corinthians and it was really a letter written by Paul to a specific church to fix some of their problems. It wasn't necesarily meant as advice for all christians. It seems liek you already knew most of that based on your reply. We are on the same page here.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 07:48 PM
EDIT: (adding more) None of us were around when the Bible was written. In fact the Bible wasn't even written as one book. It is a compilation of several books written by people over thousands of years. So here is my problem. A christian will quote the Bible to say homosexuality is wrong. Fair enough, it says so in the Bible. What happens if I turn right around and quote 1 Corinthians 14:34 back to them. I don't see a lot of Christians boycotting Joyce Meyer events (though theer are some fringe guys who would). Most likely the christian would point out that 1 Cor was written to a church by Paul (I think). He was writing the book to help solve some disagreements. He likely said women should remain silent in church because this was teh accepted law of the time.

So, if you can rationalize women being pastors because times used to be different how can you not rationalize that maybe gay marriage is ok because times are different.?

This becomes a really slippery slope though. If I want to become a christian but not believe in the entire Bible I am just picking and choosing what I want. At that point I am just making up my own religion. If I'm going to do that I don't feel like I really need religion at all. especially since a requirement often pointed out in church is that I need to give 10% of my pay to the church. I'm good with just saving the 10% and not believeing in any religion. I'm not ready to completely shut the door on believing that Jesus exists but man it followers really went off on the deep end and I'm not sure any of them are really following his wishes anymore.This is why I feel that John 3:16 (and the similar passages in the Gospel) is so important. Not MORE important than other stuff, just much more consistent between different books. My belief is that it's our hearts being judged. Did I do what I thought Jesus would have wanted me to do? Again, maybe I'm wrong. I'll find out some day. Or, I won't, and none of it will matter.

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 07:49 PM
I'm not sure, but I was just about 4 years old when the moon landings happened.

Maybe so!

I just remember he reeked and was talking about the moon. My pop filled in the part about the smell most likely being whiskey.

So you meant literally the US landings on the moon? I thought you were taking another shot at your grandfather's religion.

Measure Man
11-21-2014, 07:50 PM
I realize that isn't the definition of atheism. This was a bit of tongue-in-cheek. It was more of an editorial comment reflecting the long standing state of affairs on the MTF regarding discussions on religion.

Yeah...I get it.

Atheism a lot of times get characterized as arrogance. I see it the other way around.

Believers might say about atheims: "Oh, you are atheist because you are so arrogant that you can't believe there might be something greater than yourself"

Whereas an atheist might actually say: "I'm atheist because when I contemplate the vastness of the universe, and the expanse of time and space...I realize I'm no more significant in the grand scheme of things than that bacterium I just wiped out with sanitizer...I find it impossible to believe that a personal being could have created all of this and love or care about something as insignifant as me."

For me, it's quite the opposite of thinking grand of myself...it's realizing the insignificance of myself.

Although, I do see a lot of arrogant atheists out there...go on and on about empirical peer-reviewed scientific data, etc. when you know good and well the guy isn't any kind of scientist.

My lack of faith is not based on scientific data...it's more based on self-reflection and human nature.


For example I find the following disparaging another’s belief and not conducive to a valid discussion. It is a mild example compared to some of the stuff posted here but an example nonetheless…..

“I think most sensible people would flat out reject believing in war-like blood thirsty man in the sky if they read about it more.

......Fuck, why not just worship Santa, or trees?"


No one of faith (or anyone who genuinely wants an actual discussion) is going to engage in any discussion that starts with that statement.
As I said I really am undecided on the thought of a supreme being so it would be disingenuous and inaccurate to adopt the title of atheist.




I'll also see a lot of comments out there in social media world:
Atheists are ignorant
Atheists are evil
etc.

I like how Karl Rove put it once, "I'm just not fortunate enough to be a person of faith."

Which would somewhat align with what Christians are supposed to believe, "Saved by grace, not of my own doing" and "Many are called, but few are chosen"

...if one thinks he/she is saved by the grace of God, why would they be angry at those who were not chosen? How can you find fault in them if you also admit nothing you did got you saved?

The term "I don't have enough faith to be atheist" bugs me a bit..there is even a Christian TV show named that. The underlying attitude is that believing in God is the logical and intelligent decision...but if one believes it is "smart and logical" to believe in God, then you are saying your belief is because of your own intelligence, your own doing...not by grace

There is an arrogance there, too.


Someone (and it might have been me) made reference to the old adage “there are no atheists in foxholes” and that started a whole diatribe about that statement and atheism which eventually led to agnosticism.While I don’t agree with the position that there is no such thing as an agnostic the truth is that when asked my religion I don’t claim to be an agnostic, I say Catholic to avoid long discussions with either side.They generally end with someone pissed off.

Okay...that sounds somewhat familiar.

Maybe it's just how my brain works, but I find it difficult to reconcile "I am Christian, but not a very good one"...I mean if one believes in the Christian afterlife, I don't get how you can be casual about adhering to it's tenants. If we are to believe that the miniscule few relative moments we have here on earth will determine where we will spend an eternity...I can't see how we could take that so casual as to be "not that good of a Christian" I really don't get how someone could have that belief and do anything other than devote themselves to it.

When I was a Christian, I was a good one...at least in my adult life.

To me, to "be a Christian but not a good one"...it kind of comes across as, I admit to being a Christian, but only because I don't think about it too much"...not sure if that really makes you a Christian or just someone that is playing Pascal's wager or something. I guess toward the end of my Christian walk I was somewhat like that outwardly, though in my heart's heart that tine voice would whisper "you don't really believe this stuff"...and after a period of reflection and I was able to admit that outwardly, I found it very liberating.

I'm still don't think I would put myself in the camp of "God is impossible" or convinced there can be no intelligent design. So, maybe that makes me agnostic. I don't believe in a personal God that we pray to and he hears us and intervenes, etc. Is there some underlying force that unintelligently made order of things...maybe a small g god, that is held in the wonder of nature and the universe...I can get interested in that line of thought.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-21-2014, 07:51 PM
So............... If SJ and I (and others) had stated we were Deists this whole thread wouldn't have happened?

I don't know, maybe?

Maybe you wouldn't have had a meltdown and started screaming "tripe" at Rusty for saying that stuff about Jesus and John?

You've pretty much rejected the scripture already, you admit to not caring to read it because it is too ponderous. Why not go all the way and drop the label of Christian?

Also, if you spent a little time reading the OT stories on your own, you very well might agree with me that the OT god is blood thirsty and war-like.

If you haven't even given the book a good reading, how can you be so sure that my comment is ludicrous.

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 08:00 PM
Yeah...I get it.

Atheism a lot of times get characterized as arrogance. I see it the other way around.

Believers might say about atheims: "Oh, you are atheist because you are so arrogant that you can't believe there might be something greater than yourself"

Whereas an atheist might actually say: "I'm atheist because when I contemplate the vastness of the universe, and the expanse of time and space...I realize I'm no more significant in the grand scheme of things than that bacterium I just wiped out with sanitizer...I find it impossible to believe that a personal being could have created all of this and love or care about something as insignifant as me."

For me, it's quite the opposite of thinking grand of myself...it's realizing the insignificance of myself.

Although, I do see a lot of arrogant atheists out there...go on and on about empirical peer-reviewed scientific data, etc. when you know good and well the guy isn't any kind of scientist.

My lack of faith is not based on scientific data...it's more based on self-reflection and human nature.



I'll also see a lot of comments out there in social media world:
Atheists are ignorant
Atheists are evil
etc.

I like how Karl Rove put it once, "I'm just not fortunate enough to be a person of faith."

Which would somewhat align with what Christians are supposed to believe, "Saved by grace, not of my own doing" and "Many are called, but few are chosen"

...if one thinks he/she is saved by the grace of God, why would they be angry at those who were not chosen? How can you find fault in them if you also admit nothing you did got you saved?

The term "I don't have enough faith to be atheist" bugs me a bit..there is even a Christian TV show named that. The underlying attitude is that believing in God is the logical and intelligent decision...but if one believes it is "smart and logical" to believe in God, then you are saying your belief is because of your own intelligence, your own doing...not by grace

There is an arrogance there, too.



Okay...that sounds somewhat familiar.

Maybe it's just how my brain works, but I find it difficult to reconcile "I am Christian, but not a very good one"...I mean if one believes in the Christian afterlife, I don't get how you can be casual about adhering to it's tenants. If we are to believe that the miniscule few relative moments we have here on earth will determine where we will spend an eternity...I can't see how we could take that so casual as to be "not that good of a Christian" I really don't get how someone could have that belief and do anything other than devote themselves to it.

When I was a Christian, I was a good one...at least in my adult life.

To me, to "be a Christian but not a good one"...it kind of comes across as, I admit to being a Christian, but only because I don't think about it too much"...not sure if that really makes you a Christian or just someone that is playing Pascal's wager or something. I guess toward the end of my Christian walk I was somewhat like that outwardly, though in my heart's heart that tine voice would whisper "you don't really believe this stuff"...and after a period of reflection and I was able to admit that outwardly, I found it very liberating.

Well put. I haven't actually heard of some of the statements you have cited but am not surprised at all by any of it.

I agree 100% that there is a lot of arrogance to be found in all parties.

I suppose I admit to labeling myself only out of a sense of full disclosure. I don't consider myself an atheist because I still have unanswered questions (paradoxically for some of the same reasons you came to the opposite conclusion........out of the vastness of the universe, etc). The answer "I don't know" would only invite questions and perhaps attempts to force me into one camp or another.

I believe strongly that one's religion or belief system is a deeply personal thing. I take the concept of freedom of religion very seriously. I revile those that would attempt to paint it so that their religion is acceptable based on the Constitution (Christian right) and equally the opposite side that seems to think freedom of religion actually means freedom from religion.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-21-2014, 08:09 PM
So you meant literally the US landings on the moon? I thought you were taking another shot at your grandfather's religion.

He very well could have been talking about the moon landings, the time frame was right.

I just remember being frightened of him, that he smelled bad, and him pointing at the moon. I remember man on the moon, and much later just assumed that it was about the face some people see in the crater formations.

It was summer time because we where on the porch in a rocking chair.

So Neil Armstrong, might not be a bad guess as to what he was talking about.

That is the only clear memory I have of him, and just typed it into that post as an afterthought.

Pretty damn funny.

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 08:13 PM
I don't know, maybe?

Maybe you wouldn't have had a meltdown and started screaming "tripe" at Rusty for saying that stuff about Jesus and John?

You've pretty much rejected the scripture already, you admit to not caring to read it because it is too ponderous. Why not go all the way and drop the label of Christian?

Also, if you spent a little time reading the OT stories on your own, you very well might agree with me that the OT god is blood thirsty and war-like.

If you haven't even given the book a good reading, how can you be so sure that my comment is ludicrous.

I always endeavor to credit you with some honesty and credibility but then you post stuff like this.

Do you really think it was the target of RJ's tripe I balked at? "Meltdown", "screaming"? Hardly. I suppose frustration to the point of exasperation I would own up.

I actually have read more of the old testament than the new. I have always viewed the old as more of a historically tome (no I am not saying an accurate historical source. Figure I better head that one off to begin with.) More interesting for sure. If you were to use the nature of God in the old testament as part of a discussion I suppose that would be acceptable but ludicrous is when you use that description coupled with some humorous denigration (sky god....old man in the sky, etc). This is not an attempt at discussion or anything close to that. It is arrogant dismissal of anyone with a religious belief system. Why would anyone engage with you after that?

BTW: My personal belief is that this thread would have progressed pretty much as it has.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-21-2014, 08:31 PM
The definition I listed is out of Webster's dictionary. We know that if it's in the dictionary then it doesn't matter how others feel about it.

Also, I wouldn't attend a Church led by those pastors.

Don't get confused. One can be a Christian, by definition, without being a good Christian. And, luckily, those pastors aren't the ones who will be deciding if I will be saved or not.





I would imagine it's the same way that people followed teachings before everything was written down in books, or the same way Helen Keller learned to speak without ever hearing. I don't know any Christians who have never read the bible, but I'd be willing to guess that there are quite a few.

Some read it for inspiration, as I like to do. Others read it in order to study it so they can be educated when they pass it on to others. There as still others who read and study it in order to find ways to discredit it and try to catch someone in a mistake.

Did you ever read a book on how your steering column in your car works? If you haven't read it from cover to cover and studied it, I can't imagine how you possibly make it to work without driving straight through a curve.

You are better off reading the bible for yourself and making the decision on your own.

Do you really think it is safe to be passing along the teachings of Christ by word-of-mouth?

What if someone tells you that Jesus will give you a gold mansion and 72 virgins if you drive a car bomb into a building?

Luckily for you, you have only been told flowery good things, but since you've never read the bible, or claim that it is cool if you don't. You really don't know what you are following.

Every Christian church that I've been to encouraged bible study at least to some degree.

I can't believe you are saying that it is ok not to read the bible or at least be familiar with it.

Which is why I say that you really don't sound like the Christians I went to church with.

How many times have you been in a church? I seem to remember you saying you've only been inside an actual church a handful of times.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 08:38 PM
Maybe it's just how my brain works, but I find it difficult to reconcile "I am Christian, but not a very good one"...I mean if one believes in the Christian afterlife, I don't get how you can be casual about adhering to it's tenants. If we are to believe that the miniscule few relative moments we have here on earth will determine where we will spend an eternity...I can't see how we could take that so casual as to be "not that good of a Christian" I really don't get how someone could have that belief and do anything other than devote themselves to it.

When I was a Christian, I was a good one...at least in my adult life.

To me, to "be a Christian but not a good one"...it kind of comes across as, I admit to being a Christian, but only because I don't think about it too much"...not sure if that really makes you a Christian or just someone that is playing Pascal's wager or something. I guess toward the end of my Christian walk I was somewhat like that outwardly, though in my heart's heart that tine voice would whisper "you don't really believe this stuff"...and after a period of reflection and I was able to admit that outwardly, I found it very liberating.

I think what people mean when they say "I am not a good one" is a little of base. I think people expect and want to follow as close to the "letter of the law" as possible but, for whatever reason, they don't. But the basis of Christianity is exactly that. I'm not perfect. I'm flawed. I can never expect to be perfect. I will be tempted. But that doesn't mean there is no hope for me. Christianity isn't a religion of "You must do this, or else!!!" other than believing in Jesus as the Savior and Son of God. There are rules, there are expectations, and none of us will meet that. Luckily, Jesus knew that none of us would, or could, meet that.

So, in my eyes, "I'm not a good Christian" is usually the person simply saying "I recognize that I'm a sinner and that I could be a better person". And that's what I believe is the core of the religion.

Of course the other stuff that makes one "not a good Christian" usually some random comparison made by specific people within the Church. "He's not dress very nice. Doesn't he know he's in a house of God" or "I wonder why the Johnson's have missed the last 2 Sundays. They aren't very good Christians". So I don't believe that there is such a thing as a "bad Christian" because there is no such thing as a perfect Christian.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 08:48 PM
You are better off reading the bible for yourself and making the decision on your own. I do make decisions on my own, and I have read the bible, several times.


Do you really think it is safe to be passing along the teachings of Christ by word-of-mouth?

What if someone tells you that Jesus will give you a gold mansion and 72 virgins if you drive a car bomb into a building? Then that wouldn't be passing on the teachings of Christ, would it?


Luckily for you, you have only been told flowery good things, but since you've never read the bible, or claim that it is cool if you don't. You really don't know what you are following. Again, I can't figure out where you get this. The only time we ever even talked about me reading the bible you asked if I had read if front to back, like a novel. I said no. Now you assume I've never read it.


Every Christian church that I've been to encouraged bible study at least to some degree.Of course they do. They even have bible classes. it's crazy.


I can't believe you are saying that it is ok not to read the bible or at least be familiar with it. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that one can be a Christian without having ever read the bible.


Which is why I say that you really don't sound like the Christians I went to church with.That's probably a good thing, as those Christians you went to church with sound like they really messed you up.


How many times have you been in a church? I seem to remember you saying you've only been inside an actual church a handful of times.I was in church virtually every Sunday morning (to include the Sunday School before the "main" church sermon) and Wednesday night from the time I was 4 until I was about 16. So, by my math, that is approximately 1300 times. Plus 10 days of summer church camp each year between the ages of 8 and 16 (so add another 90 or so days). After that, some things came up that turned me away from organized religion and I've been to church maybe 4 or 5 times in the last 20+ years.

My grandfather was a pastor and my dad pursued that path for a few years, then turned to something else, though still held on to his religion. We were never forced to go to Church. My parents didn't attend Church with us. I can't actually remember them inside a church for anything other than a wedding or a funeral.

I was baptized at age 12, which was completely unnecessary.

So that's basically my religious background.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-21-2014, 08:52 PM
I always endeavor to credit you with some honesty and credibility but then you post stuff like this.

Do you really think it was the target of RJ's tripe I balked at? "Meltdown", "screaming"? Hardly. I suppose frustration to the point of exasperation I would own up.

I actually have read more of the old testament than the new. I have always viewed the old as more of a historically tome (no I am not saying an accurate historical source. Figure I better head that one off to begin with.) More interesting for sure. If you were to use the nature of God in the old testament as part of a discussion I suppose that would be acceptable but ludicrous is when you use that description coupled with some humorous denigration (sky god....old man in the sky, etc). This is not an attempt at discussion or anything close to that. It is arrogant dismissal of anyone with a religious belief system. Why would anyone engage with you after that?

BTW: My personal belief is that this thread would have progressed pretty much as it has.

Okay, I get it. You don't like trash talk and inflammatory remarks. Yes, I am certainly guilty of engaging in that.

On the other hand, my dear Freddy, when I reached the end of my decade long struggle with my belief in Christianity, I really did have a thought that I might as well worship Santa, or trees.

Why not?

My ancestors from Northern Europe used to worship trees, and a deity known as Odin that would whoosh around rooftops on the dark cold nights of winter,just like Santa.

Of course, that is before this new religion spread out of the Middle East like a plague, and killed all of the trees gods, and Odin.

Measure Man
11-21-2014, 09:00 PM
I think what people mean when they say "I am not a good one" is a little of base. I think people expect and want to follow as close to the "letter of the law" as possible but, for whatever reason, they don't. But the basis of Christianity is exactly that. I'm not perfect. I'm flawed. I can never expect to be perfect. I will be tempted. But that doesn't mean there is no hope for me. Christianity isn't a religion of "You must do this, or else!!!" other than believing in Jesus as the Savior and Son of God. There are rules, there are expectations, and none of us will meet that. Luckily, Jesus knew that none of us would, or could, meet that.

So, in my eyes, "I'm not a good Christian" is usually the person simply saying "I recognize that I'm a sinner and that I could be a better person". And that's what I believe is the core of the religion.

I could see how someone could say that and mean what you say here, and that is a sincere position that I can get with...but, that's not the meaning I get from TJ.

I get more of a "I am a Christian in that I was kind of born into membership of this group...but, I'm not really into religion." vibe


Of course the other stuff that makes one "not a good Christian" usually some random comparison made by specific people within the Church. "He's not dress very nice. Doesn't he know he's in a house of God" or "I wonder why the Johnson's have missed the last 2 Sundays. They aren't very good Christians". So I don't believe that there is such a thing as a "bad Christian" because there is no such thing as a perfect Christian.

yeah, there's a difference in others saying you're not a good Christian and saying it yourself...and it is also different to say you are not a good Christian because of the belief there is no such thing, but you do your best vs...as I interpret TJ's statement, admitting you don't really put any effort into it.

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 09:06 PM
I know we've talked about this before but Jesus, whether man or God, whether fact or fiction, taught nothing but good. He never asked for a dime, he never excluded anyone, he never turned anyone away based on their past. He did what he could to pass on the message that caring for each other is good and greed is bad. He passed on the hope that people could change, that no matter what they had done, it didn't have to continue that way. Take out all the religion. Take out all the "magic", and there is not one story about him mistreating someone. Take out him being the Son of God and I would still believe that his teachings are good and I would want to follow them. That makes me a Christian just as much as someone who believes in the teachings of Marx makes them a Marxist.

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 09:09 PM
I could see how someone could say that and mean what you say here, and that is a sincere position that I can get with...but, that's not the meaning I get from TJ.

I get more of a "I am a Christian in that I was kind of born into membership of this group...but, I'm not really into religion." vibe



yeah, there's a difference in others saying you're not a good Christian and saying it yourself...and it is also different to say you are not a good Christian because of the belief there is no such thing, but you do your best vs...as I interpret TJ's statement, admitting you don't really put any effort into it.

Why is that a bad thing? Why do I (or anyone) have to fit into a neat box and label which you (or anyone) has deemed as appropriate?

Mjölnir
11-21-2014, 09:10 PM
My ancestors from Northern Europe used to worship trees, and a deity known as Odin that would whoosh around rooftops on the dark cold nights of winter,just like Santa.

Of course, that is before this new religion spread out of the Middle East like a plague, and killed all of the trees gods, and Odin.

We may be related ;)

distant cousins or something

sandsjames
11-21-2014, 09:11 PM
We may be related ;)

distant cousins or something

Two white guys with distant relatives from Northern Europe???? Say it ain't so. What are the odds?

Mjölnir
11-21-2014, 09:15 PM
Two white guys with distant relatives from Northern Europe???? Say it ain't so. What are the odds?

I know right?

It does make me think how when I lived with my grandparents as a young kid, they were pretty strong Lutherans but bedtime & campfire stories were all about Norse mythology and the Poetic Edda.

Measure Man
11-21-2014, 09:20 PM
Why is that a bad thing? Why do I (or anyone) have to fit into a neat box and label which you (or anyone) has deemed as appropriate?

I'm not saying it's bad...I'm saying I have difficulty reconciling that position.

I like to think I'm a pretty empathetic type person...and a lot of times, even when I disagree with someone I can see where they are coming from, why they believe what they do and why they might act a certain way.

I'm not saying you're bad, but when I think about that position, it would seem, to me, hard to rest easily in that position without stronger self-reflection. But again, I'm a reflective kind of guy...which is why I lead off my first comment on this with "maybe just how my brain works"...because I know not everyone is like this.

So, to me, if one were to believe in eternal life...I just don't see how you could then take the path to it so casually.

It'd be like knowing the IG is coming next week...and knowing they are going to ask for your continuity book...and knowing you'll get fired if your continuity book isn't in alphabetical order...but then not bothering to check it, or worse yet, knowing it's not in alphabetical order, but not fixing it..

I guess as your boss I might say that is bad...but, I'm not your boss in life, I just think if the IG was coming to my office, I wouldn't be able to just let my continuity book lay there like that, and I have a difficult time empathizing with someone who would knowingly do that...it'd be a "what was he thinking?" moment

SomeRandomGuy
11-21-2014, 09:36 PM
I'm not saying it's bad...I'm saying I have difficulty reconciling that position.

I like to think I'm a pretty empathetic type person...and a lot of times, even when I disagree with someone I can see where they are coming from, why they believe what they do and why they might act a certain way.

I'm not saying you're bad, but when I think about that position, it would seem, to me, hard to rest easily in that position without stronger self-reflection. But again, I'm a reflective kind of guy...which is why I lead off my first comment on this with "maybe just how my brain works"...because I know not everyone is like this.

So, to me, if one were to believe in eternal life...I just don't see how you could then take the path to it so casually.

It'd be like knowing the IG is coming next week...and knowing they are going to ask for your continuity book...and knowing you'll get fired if your continuity book isn't in alphabetical order...but then not bothering to check it, or worse yet, knowing it's not in alphabetical order, but not fixing it..

I guess as your boss I might say that is bad...but, I'm not your boss in life, I just think if the IG was coming to my office, I wouldn't be able to just let my continuity book lay there like that.

Unless maybe Sandsjames is the type of person that believes the regulations weren't meant to be taken literally. Maybe he assumes that the alphabetical thing was just added in there by some guy because that's how he liked for things to be organized. Later on, someone added this guy's preference into the regulation but Sandsjames is of the beliefe that the IG doesn't care about this as they are the final authority and it wasn't their rule to begin with.

Does that amke sense? It kind of goes along with what I said above. Several books in the New testament are just letters from Paul settling minor differences for those churches. Things are mentioned in there like women shouldn't braid their hair or wear gold and these things are taken literally by some deonminations. My guess is Sandsjames worries about the pertinent content (as he deems it) and will just let IG judge him on his record. If that isn't good enough, well he tried and he is going to get fired.

Now with that being said. Based on my post above this is part of the reason I don't see myself as a good christian. There is so much of the Bible I have already thrown out on my own that it makes it not worth following since I already created my own religion. Will the great IG let that fly? I dunno. I sure have avoided a lot of headache though trying to follow stupid little rules I don't agree with.

Measure Man
11-21-2014, 09:48 PM
Unless maybe Sandsjames is the type of person that believes the regulations weren't meant to be taken literally. Maybe he assumes that the alphabetical thing was just added in there by some guy because that's how he liked for things to be organized. Later on, someone added this guy's preference into the regulation but Sandsjames is of the beliefe that the IG doesn't care about this as they are the final authority and it wasn't their rule to begin with.

Does that amke sense? It kind of goes along with what I said above. Several books in the New testament are just letters from Paul settling minor differences for those churches. Things are mentioned in there like women shouldn't braid their hair or wear gold and these things are taken literally by some deonminations. My guess is Sandsjames worries about the pertinent content (as he deems it) and will just let IG judge him on his record. If that isn't good enough, well he tried and he is going to get fired.

That could make some sense, but it comes about after thought and effort. That is more of a "I don't do this and that because it's not what I believe the IG wants or will be looking for." rather than..."I believe the IG wants this and will look for this, but I'm just not that motivated to do it."

It's the second one I think TJ is saying...or rather more like, "I believe the IG is coming next week, and I'll get fired if I fail, but I haven't really looked into what they want or what they'll be looking for."



Now with that being said. Based on my post above this is part of the reason I don't see myself as a good christian. There is so much of the Bible I have already thrown out on my own that it makes it not worth following since I already created my own religion. Will the great IG let that fly? I dunno. I sure have avoided a lot of headache though trying to follow stupid little rules I don't agree with.

yeah, I can live with that although my hunch is that there is some rationalization in it, it at least came about through thoughtful reflection.

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 09:50 PM
I'm not saying it's bad...I'm saying I have difficulty reconciling that position.

I like to think I'm a pretty empathetic type person...and a lot of times, even when I disagree with someone I can see where they are coming from, why they believe what they do and why they might act a certain way.

I'm not saying you're bad, but when I think about that position, it would seem, to me, hard to rest easily in that position without stronger self-reflection. But again, I'm a reflective kind of guy...which is why I lead off my first comment on this with "maybe just how my brain works"...because I know not everyone is like this.

So, to me, if one were to believe in eternal life...I just don't see how you could then take the path to it so casually.

It'd be like knowing the IG is coming next week...and knowing they are going to ask for your continuity book...and knowing you'll get fired if your continuity book isn't in alphabetical order...but then not bothering to check it, or worse yet, knowing it's not in alphabetical order, but not fixing it..

I guess as your boss I might say that is bad...but, I'm not your boss in life, I just think if the IG was coming to my office, I wouldn't be able to just let my continuity book lay there like that, and I have a difficult time empathizing with someone who would knowingly do that...it'd be a "what was he thinking?" moment

Afterlife? I don't remember talking about the afterlife. It seems that you think that religious beliefs are take-all or nothing. Hell, I am simply concentrating on the question of a supreme being in this universe. When did afterlife enter my discussion?

Why is it that that you believe that I haven't given this subject any thoughtful contemplation? Because I haven't reached the same conclusions as you or others? Because I am not comfortable with labels picked by others?

I don't understand your analogies at all. Read what I wrote. Not what others write or believe.

Measure Man
11-21-2014, 09:52 PM
Afterlife? I don't remember talking about the afterlife. It seems that you think that religious beliefs are take-all or nothing. Hell, I am simply concentrating on the question of a supreme being in this universe. When did afterlife enter my discussion.

Well, you stated you are a Christian...I believe that's a big part of being a Christian.

I don't know if it has to be "all or nothing"...but that's a rather large part of the faith, is it not?

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 09:54 PM
Well, you stated you are a Christian...I believe that's a big part of being a Christian.

I don't know if it has to be "all or nothing"...but that's a rather large part of the faith, is it not?

Exactly what label do YOU think I should pick? How many ways do I have to explain this? Are you seriously going to tell me that you don't know countless others who think like this?

Measure Man
11-21-2014, 10:01 PM
Exactly what label do YOU think I should pick? How many ways do I have to explain this? Are you seriously going to tell me that you don't know countless others who think like this?

I'm not putting any label on you.

Yes, I know countless others who think like you do...and I find the position difficult to reconcile with any degree of thoughtful reflection.

I guess what I'm really getting at when some says and means "I'm a Christian, but not a very good one" in this way...is I don't think you can be sincere about being a Christian and feel this way.

This doesn't mean you're lying...it doesn't mean you're bad. I think it could possibly mean you don't actually believe in the Christian god, but just don't have the impetus to admit it.

I think when Atheists talking about members of churches being "closeted Atheists" this is what they are talking about...people who say they are Christians, but don't have a sincere belief...they just haven't admitted it, and maybe haven't even admitted it to themselves.

It's not a super easy thing to do, necessarily, but liberating...so I think the "closeted" comparison might actually make some sense.

So, if you did want me to label you, I sense you might be a closeted atheist...a position I can empathize with.

But, if you say your belief is sincere...but you just don't put any effort into it...this is a position I have difficulty empathizing with...maybe you can help me understand it better.

TJMAC77SP
11-21-2014, 10:31 PM
I'm not putting any label on you.

Yes, I know countless others who think like you do...and I find the position difficult to reconcile with any degree of thoughtful reflection.

I guess what I'm really getting at when some says and means "I'm a Christian, but not a very good one" in this way...is I don't think you can be sincere about being a Christian and feel this way.

This doesn't mean you're lying...it doesn't mean you're bad. I think it could possibly mean you don't actually believe in the Christian god, but just don't have the impetus to admit it.

I think when Atheists talking about members of churches being "closeted Atheists" this is what they are talking about...people who say they are Christians, but don't have a sincere belief...they just haven't admitted it, and maybe haven't even admitted it to themselves.

It's not a super easy thing to do, necessarily, but liberating...so I think the "closeted" comparison might actually make some sense.

So, if you did want me to label you, I sense you might be a closeted atheist...a position I can empathize with.

But, if you say your belief is sincere...but you just don't put any effort into it...this is a position I have difficulty empathizing with...maybe you can help me understand it better.

Oh good God please don't tell Rusty I am a closeted anything. That will bring nothing but misery.

I don't think I can bring any understanding to you. If as you say you have met countless others who think like this and you aren't any closer to understanding nothing I can say will do so. Aside from the fact that I am still evolving with regard to what I believe myself.

Measure Man
11-21-2014, 10:33 PM
Oh good God please don't tell Rusty I am a closeted anything. That will bring nothing but misery.

LOL...that's funny.


I don't think I can bring any understanding to you. If as you say you have met countless others who think like this and you aren't any closer to understanding nothing I can say will do so. Aside from the fact that I am still evolving with regard to what I believe myself.

Understood...cheers!

Measure Man
11-21-2014, 11:44 PM
So, just for shits and giggles, here are a couple of other realizations that led to my declaration of atheism. I'm sure I've shared these before on here...but it's been awhile.

- One time, I attended one of the Faith Healer revival things at my church. You know the ones that have these big claims of blind people seeing and crippled people walking. Okay, from an outsider, it is pretty easy to scoff at those, I suppose. But, I attended one at my church..with a lot of people I knew and respected. I didn't see any real "miracle" miralces. Like things you were like "Holy shit that broken leg just fixed itself. There were some things, like the healer guy would claim the problem came from one leg being longer than the other and he would sit them down and do some weird motions and say that the leg was being grown out, but it really looked like some slight-of-hand trick as he always had a certain way of placing and moving his hands for this...or guys claiming their injured back was healed...but the crying true-to-life crippled kid that is always at these things waiting for his miracle is never healed. Okay, so that's not that bad, not sure what I was expected when I went there, but it was nothing miraculous going on...but, then something strange happened. In the next few weeks at Church, people I knew, friends of mine, honest people...shared witness to the miracles that happened at this revival. How they saw things...or that so and so was healed. Sometimes the miracle came afterward, back at home...anyway, I'm listeing to these people, and they aren't lying, they believed what they were saying...but, I'm thinking, "Wait, none of that happened like that." I think they had just sort of convinced themselves that they felt better because of this...or that what they saw in someone else was them being healed. I dunno. I just didn't see any of those miracles as described.

But, then I got to thinking...if these intelligent, educated, honest people could believe these miraculous healings happened...and then, when they tell the rest of the church who didn't attend about it...and those people believe them because, "hey, that's a good dude, and god is a good god"...how much more likely would think kind of thing have been believed 2000 years ago?

You know, ask anyone who believes in this faith healing stuff and they will probably tell you about seeing it...or knowing someone who saw it happen...but I'll bet you we can go to these for 100 years and never actually see any of these in a verifiable sort of way...and this is in the day and age of video recording, etc. and there are still a large number of people who believe these healings actually happen.

Please understand...it's not that this guy may have been scammer that threw me off...it was the good honest people who professed to what they saw that did it.

Then...once you realize that the gospels and the Bible was written decades after Jesus actually walked the earth...30-70 years at least...and think about how legends can grow over time.

Heck, even in this day of recorded history, mostly literate people, video camera...we still have larger than life legends of people like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Babe Ruth...many of the stories of their lives are accepted as truth, but never actually happened. I mean how many of us met the guy who was at the base where the ether bunny happened...or were in basic with the guy who flipped off the TI from the bus and was recycled back to day 1. etc. etc. There are many more, too...and we have pretty solid historical documentation from their days. But, then think 2000 years ago when things weren't photographed, recorded, historically documented...and people were uneducated, largerly illiterate, modern science didn't even exist, so people were definitely more prone to be all about the gods, miracles, etc....and how a story like the story of Jesus could have grown over the 30-70 years until it was written down by someone who wasn't even there. It's like a generational game of telephone.

..and then when you read about how many of the themes of the Jesus story existed in other Son of God stories before him, it gets kind of fishy...although, I can't lay claim to having done any of that academic research on my own and I do think some of it that I've read about it questionable.

Lastly, when you think about how the Bible was assembled from different letters, books existing...and learn that the books that were included vs. weren't included was as much of a political process as a divine one...

Then...almost anytime you get into a discussion with someone about what different passges mean or how one contradicts another...it gets into the whole "well, you have to understand, the original text uses the term "capeshiam" which really means...blah blach blah (and you know good and well this character does not speak Aramaic or whatever.......in other words, most of us have no idea what half that stuff is really talking about. As i recall, early Christians did not even think of Jesus as a God...it wasn't until like 300 years later later that some meeting of the Churchheads establlshed this...300 years, that's a long time...that's longer ago than George Washington.

Anyway, the whole idea of following this ancient guy who lived in a pretty unsophisticated time started seeming pretty sketchy, to me.

Though, I do think it is human nature to want to believe that we don't just end at death...I'm not sure why that is...but it's what we like to believe. But, when you consider all the people, animals, plants, organism that have lived at any point in time...I think I have to humbly admit I'm not that special.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-22-2014, 02:39 AM
I know we've talked about this before but Jesus, whether man or God, whether fact or fiction, taught nothing but good. He never asked for a dime, he never excluded anyone, he never turned anyone away based on their past. He did what he could to pass on the message that caring for each other is good and greed is bad. He passed on the hope that people could change, that no matter what they had done, it didn't have to continue that way. Take out all the religion. Take out all the "magic", and there is not one story about him mistreating someone. Take out him being the Son of God and I would still believe that his teachings are good and I would want to follow them. That makes me a Christian just as much as someone who believes in the teachings of Marx makes them a Marxist.

Can you give any biblical references to back up any of this? You should be able to come up with two, if you've read the bible. How about just one?

When you say stuff like this, I know for a fact that you have spent very little time reading the bible.

JESUS GAVE US COMMANDS THAT WE MUST FOLLOW!!! THEY ARE NOT OPTIONAL!!!

Unfortunately, many of them are so absurd that they are impossible to follow.

So absurd that that Christians don't even try, and that is the main reason Christianity fractured into so many different sects once bibles started being printed on a mass scale.

Let's look at a few of them:

Love your enemies is covered extensively in the books of John, Luke, and Matthew. I'll give you exact passages if you can't find them, but it was a command, not a request.

We all know how well that one is being followed, but Jesus must have been very serious about it because he talked about it a lot.

I know what you are going to say, we aren't perfect like Jesus was, he was so perfect we can never do that.

The why the hell did he command Christians to do it, not once but numerous times.

He wasn't joking about it, or any of the other things he commanded us to do.

Take a long hard look at 1 John 2: 3-4 because is shoots holes in most of what you have been saying in this thread.

Just saying you believe isn't good enough for Jesus, he wants more than that.


1 John 2:3-4New International Version (NIV)

3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person.

Not good enough for you? Take a look at Luke 12:47 he is very serious about following his commands to the letter.

Luke 12:47 New International Version (NIV)

47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.

Think about what that means, it is very important! Especially if you are acting as a minister or wittiness (as you have been doing in this thread) for The Lord.

Telling people that they can ignore what Jesus asks us to do and rely solely upon John 3:16 for salvation is horrible in the eyes of the Jesus. He isn't going to pat you on the head and say, "you tried your best."

Especially since you are now claiming that you have read the bible, because if you have, then you must know this.

He is going to take a stripe or two of your flesh! Where the hell are you getting that he is all goodness and nice all the time?

He wants a lot from you, he wants your complete and total dedication. When you say Jesus never asked for a dime, wow! How wrong you are!

When asked what one must do to enter heaven, he replied with this:

Luke 12:33New International Version (NIV)

33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor.

Jesus was extremely serious about this, and talked about it a lot. He didn't mean give a little bit of your paycheck to charity, or just tithe 10% to the church.

He meant abandon your personal wealth. He said it again and again.

Luke 14:33New International Version (NIV)

33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.


You said you wanted to follow Jesus, and he gives you very simple instructions on how you can be perfect.

Matthew 19:21New International Version (NIV)

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Plain and simple instructions. Give up everything!

Where are you getting he never asked for a dime?

SJ,

I know you think that I'm saying all this stuff just to be mean and spiteful. I am not, but I'll admit that I'm being very harsh with you.

Why?

Because you are saying stuff about the bible that just isn't true.

Jesus asks way more from us than John 3:16 and if you really want to follow him, you've got to give him more than platitudes.

Frankly, as an ex-Christian I am offended to hear you talking such nonsense.

Anyone who has tried to walk the path of a Christian knows that you only have a limited amount of knowledge of what is in the bible from the nature of your posts.

You say far too many things that are fundamentally wrong.

Stop trying to bullshit me. Also, shouldn't you be worried about what Jesus is thinking of your fibs?

However, you can fix it. Just grab your bible and go read it. :)


Take out him being the Son of God and I would still believe that his teachings are good and I would want to follow them.That makes me a Christian ...

If you really truly want to test this out, you can try what it says in the book of Mark.

Mark 16:17-18New International Version (NIV)

17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

Just kidding, I don't want you drinking poison or playing with rattlesnakes. Jesus might, but not me.

That is just another absurd passage in the bible, and another clue to how messed up that book is.

I know you haven't read it. You just listened to what others have said about Jesus.

I did too, and it set me on a path of great frustration and mental anguish.

I only escaped by reading the bible for myself, instead of letting someone else paint a rosy picture of religion for me.

I would just let you be, but if you insist on bearing wittiness, at least repeat accurate information.

I just scratched the surface with this post, he commands even more from us.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-22-2014, 03:27 AM
Measure Man

You are way nicer than me. I think those people knew they were lying.

I've been to many of those types of events, tent revivals, and churches where they speak in tongues and it is obvious that people are lying and even faking illnesses to be healed.

I was on a volunteer committee to help set up the tents and chairs and acted as an usher for a traveling healer that came through our area.

We helped him set up at a couple of locations in and near our town.

A total of four nights. I saw and same old lady show up every night in a variety of wigs and dresses. Had her hip cured once, lung ailments the next night, and hip again on the next.

There was a deaf mute girl that showed up twice. She wasn't cured, but the guy claimed he cured her. The poor girl was confused, and crying. All these people laying hands on her.

Total bullshit.

I was 15 when I saw that. That didn't break my faith, but it got me away from the charismatic churches. I tried more sedate churches where that nonsense wasn't practiced.

I was a member of a big Wesleyan Church for a while that was pretty cool. Still evangelical, but no hokey stuff like that at all.

TJMAC77SP
11-22-2014, 04:38 AM
@Measure Man (http://forums.militarytimes.com/member.php?u=7927)

You are way nicer than me. I think those people knew they were lying.

I've been to many of those types of events, tent revivals, and churches where they speak in tongues and it is obvious that people are lying and even faking illnesses to be healed.

I was on a volunteer committee to help set up the tents and chairs and acted as an usher for a traveling healer that came through our area.

We helped him set up at a couple of locations in and near our town.

A total of four nights. I saw and same old lady show up every night in a variety of wigs and dresses. Had her hip cured once, lung ailments the next night, and hip again on the next.

There was a deaf mute girl that showed up twice. She wasn't cured, but the guy claimed he cured her. The poor girl was confused, and crying. All these people laying hands on her.

Total bullshit.

I was 15 when I saw that. That didn't break my faith, but it got me away from the charismatic churches. I tried more sedate churches where that nonsense wasn't practiced.

I was a member of a big Wesleyan Church for a while that was pretty cool. Still evangelical, but no hokey stuff like that at all.

True story.....

I grew up in Boston where healers just aren't a fact of life.

Third duty station was Seymour Johnson. I came home late one Saturday night from the club and turned on the TV. Earnest Angley was on doing his healing act. This one was his typical deaf guy act where he puts his fingers in the guy's ears and q-tips them rigorously. Then he proceeds to stand behind him and repeat "BA-BY, BA-BY" over and over again until the guy 'miraculously' repeats it. With the bad knit suit and worse toupee my first thought was I was watching a delayed showing of Saturday Night Live. It wasn't until the next day I found out it was for real.

That tested my belief that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and I think he is actually still on the air somewhere.

Measure Man
11-22-2014, 05:38 AM
Measure Man

You are way nicer than me. I think those people knew they were lying.

I've been to many of those types of events, tent revivals, and churches where they speak in tongues and it is obvious that people are lying and even faking illnesses to be healed.

I was on a volunteer committee to help set up the tents and chairs and acted as an usher for a traveling healer that came through our area.

We helped him set up at a couple of locations in and near our town.

A total of four nights. I saw and same old lady show up every night in a variety of wigs and dresses. Had her hip cured once, lung ailments the next night, and hip again on the next.

There was a deaf mute girl that showed up twice. She wasn't cured, but the guy claimed he cured her. The poor girl was confused, and crying. All these people laying hands on her.

Total bullshit.

I was 15 when I saw that. That didn't break my faith, but it got me away from the charismatic churches. I tried more sedate churches where that nonsense wasn't practiced.

I was a member of a big Wesleyan Church for a while that was pretty cool. Still evangelical, but no hokey stuff like that at all.

Well...like I said or meant to say...it wasn't the guy or his maybe co-conspirators that turned me....it was my fellow church members. People I knew we'll and respected....people who were not a stranger that might have been In cahoots with the show. It was genuine friends of mine. They were not lying.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-22-2014, 08:41 AM
@MM

If you don't think they were lying, then what were they doing? Do you mean they were hoodwinked, or (wait for it...) duped?

Perhaps, but I have seen fellow church members put on extravagant displays of having the Holy Spirit in them, and I know it was pure bullshit.

From waving their arms around and hooting and hollering. My Grandma's church was Pentecostal and they spoke in tongues. A few who would do it, sounded a little convincing, like they were speaking some sort of language.

Most sounded like the were imitating gibberish from a Popeye cartoon.

I'll never forget one old man running around yelling, "Unga bunga wooga! Alibaba Wahba!" I was laughing so hard I could barely breathe, and Grandma was pinching my arm to make me stop laughing.

Oh! I'm laughing pretty hard right now just thinking about it.

The pastor eventually came up with a rule about speaking in tongues because of that man. Something about it needing to be highly ordered. In other words, only certain people could do it after that.

What a laugh riot!

@TJ

I remember Ernest Angley, he was Pentecostal and was very popular in North Carolina.

He has to be close to 100 years old by now! He was old when I was a kid.

sandsjames
11-22-2014, 11:24 AM
That could make some sense, but it comes about after thought and effort. That is more of a "I don't do this and that because it's not what I believe the IG wants or will be looking for." rather than..."I believe the IG wants this and will look for this, but I'm just not that motivated to do it."

It's the second one I think TJ is saying...or rather more like, "I believe the IG is coming next week, and I'll get fired if I fail, but I haven't really looked into what they want or what they'll be looking for."




yeah, I can live with that although my hunch is that there is some rationalization in it, it at least came about through thoughtful reflection.

On this analogy, the Air Force has changed it's inspections a little bit. The last 2 we had weren't so much about following everything to the letter. They were about the mission completion, not the regs themselves. The mission completion is far more important than following steps 1-12.

sandsjames
11-22-2014, 11:34 AM
Can you give any biblical references to back up any of this? You should be able to come up with two, if you've read the bible. How about just one?

When you say stuff like this, I know for a fact that you have spent very little time reading the bible.

JESUS GAVE US COMMANDS THAT WE MUST FOLLOW!!! THEY ARE NOT OPTIONAL!!!

Unfortunately, many of them are so absurd that they are impossible to follow.

So absurd that that Christians don't even try, and that is the main reason Christianity fractured into so many different sects once bibles started being printed on a mass scale.

Let's look at a few of them:

Love your enemies is covered extensively in the books of John, Luke, and Matthew. I'll give you exact passages if you can't find them, but it was a command, not a request.

We all know how well that one is being followed, but Jesus must have been very serious about it because he talked about it a lot.

I know what you are going to say, we aren't perfect like Jesus was, he was so perfect we can never do that.

The why the hell did he command Christians to do it, not once but numerous times.

He wasn't joking about it, or any of the other things he commanded us to do.

Take a long hard look at 1 John 2: 3-4 because is shoots holes in most of what you have been saying in this thread.

Just saying you believe isn't good enough for Jesus, he wants more than that.


1 John 2:3-4New International Version (NIV)

3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person.

Not good enough for you? Take a look at Luke 12:47 he is very serious about following his commands to the letter.

Luke 12:47 New International Version (NIV)

47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.

Think about what that means, it is very important! Especially if you are acting as a minister or wittiness (as you have been doing in this thread) for The Lord.

Telling people that they can ignore what Jesus asks us to do and rely solely upon John 3:16 for salvation is horrible in the eyes of the Jesus. He isn't going to pat you on the head and say, "you tried your best."

Especially since you are now claiming that you have read the bible, because if you have, then you must know this.

He is going to take a stripe or two of your flesh! Where the hell are you getting that he is all goodness and nice all the time?

He wants a lot from you, he wants your complete and total dedication. When you say Jesus never asked for a dime, wow! How wrong you are!

When asked what one must do to enter heaven, he replied with this:

Luke 12:33New International Version (NIV)

33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor.

Jesus was extremely serious about this, and talked about it a lot. He didn't mean give a little bit of your paycheck to charity, or just tithe 10% to the church.

He meant abandon your personal wealth. He said it again and again.

Luke 14:33New International Version (NIV)

33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.


You said you wanted to follow Jesus, and he gives you very simple instructions on how you can be perfect.

Matthew 19:21New International Version (NIV)

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Plain and simple instructions. Give up everything!

Where are you getting he never asked for a dime?

SJ,

I know you think that I'm saying all this stuff just to be mean and spiteful. I am not, but I'll admit that I'm being very harsh with you.

Why?

Because you are saying stuff about the bible that just isn't true.

Jesus asks way more from us than John 3:16 and if you really want to follow him, you've got to give him more than platitudes.

Frankly, as an ex-Christian I am offended to hear you talking such nonsense.

Anyone who has tried to walk the path of a Christian knows that you only have a limited amount of knowledge of what is in the bible from the nature of your posts.

You say far too many things that are fundamentally wrong.

Stop trying to bullshit me. Also, shouldn't you be worried about what Jesus is thinking of your fibs?

However, you can fix it. Just grab your bible and go read it. :)



If you really truly want to test this out, you can try what it says in the book of Mark.

Mark 16:17-18New International Version (NIV)

17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

Just kidding, I don't want you drinking poison or playing with rattlesnakes. Jesus might, but not me.

That is just another absurd passage in the bible, and another clue to how messed up that book is.

I know you haven't read it. You just listened to what others have said about Jesus.

I did too, and it set me on a path of great frustration and mental anguish.

I only escaped by reading the bible for myself, instead of letting someone else paint a rosy picture of religion for me.

I would just let you be, but if you insist on bearing wittiness, at least repeat accurate information.

I just scratched the surface with this post, he commands even more from us.

I am not disagreeing with anything you've posted. I'm not saying that we all shouldn't be making more of an attempt to follow his teachings exactly. What I'm saying is that we don't follow them, though we try hard.

I told my step-son, when he was still at home, what was expected of him as far as the rules of the house, how he was expected to perform in school, etc. Did he meet all of those expectations? Of course not. But it wasn't from a lack of effort. He did his best and I never loved him any less because he "fell short" of meeting all those rules all the time. Thankfully, Jesus has professed that he does the same for me.

sandsjames
11-22-2014, 11:40 AM
Can you give any biblical references to back up any of this? You should be able to come up with two, if you've read the bible. How about just one?

When you say stuff like this, I know for a fact that you have spent very little time reading the bible.

JESUS GAVE US COMMANDS THAT WE MUST FOLLOW!!! THEY ARE NOT OPTIONAL!!!

Unfortunately, many of them are so absurd that they are impossible to follow.

So absurd that that Christians don't even try, and that is the main reason Christianity fractured into so many different sects once bibles started being printed on a mass scale.

Let's look at a few of them:

Love your enemies is covered extensively in the books of John, Luke, and Matthew. I'll give you exact passages if you can't find them, but it was a command, not a request.

We all know how well that one is being followed, but Jesus must have been very serious about it because he talked about it a lot.

I know what you are going to say, we aren't perfect like Jesus was, he was so perfect we can never do that.

The why the hell did he command Christians to do it, not once but numerous times.

He wasn't joking about it, or any of the other things he commanded us to do.

Take a long hard look at 1 John 2: 3-4 because is shoots holes in most of what you have been saying in this thread.

Just saying you believe isn't good enough for Jesus, he wants more than that.


1 John 2:3-4New International Version (NIV)

3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person.

Not good enough for you? Take a look at Luke 12:47 he is very serious about following his commands to the letter.

Luke 12:47 New International Version (NIV)

47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.

Think about what that means, it is very important! Especially if you are acting as a minister or wittiness (as you have been doing in this thread) for The Lord.

Telling people that they can ignore what Jesus asks us to do and rely solely upon John 3:16 for salvation is horrible in the eyes of the Jesus. He isn't going to pat you on the head and say, "you tried your best."

Especially since you are now claiming that you have read the bible, because if you have, then you must know this.

He is going to take a stripe or two of your flesh! Where the hell are you getting that he is all goodness and nice all the time?

He wants a lot from you, he wants your complete and total dedication. When you say Jesus never asked for a dime, wow! How wrong you are!

When asked what one must do to enter heaven, he replied with this:

Luke 12:33New International Version (NIV)

33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor.

Jesus was extremely serious about this, and talked about it a lot. He didn't mean give a little bit of your paycheck to charity, or just tithe 10% to the church.

He meant abandon your personal wealth. He said it again and again.

Luke 14:33New International Version (NIV)

33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.


You said you wanted to follow Jesus, and he gives you very simple instructions on how you can be perfect.

Matthew 19:21New International Version (NIV)

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Plain and simple instructions. Give up everything!

Where are you getting he never asked for a dime?

SJ,

I know you think that I'm saying all this stuff just to be mean and spiteful. I am not, but I'll admit that I'm being very harsh with you.

Why?

Because you are saying stuff about the bible that just isn't true.

Jesus asks way more from us than John 3:16 and if you really want to follow him, you've got to give him more than platitudes.

Frankly, as an ex-Christian I am offended to hear you talking such nonsense.

Anyone who has tried to walk the path of a Christian knows that you only have a limited amount of knowledge of what is in the bible from the nature of your posts.

You say far too many things that are fundamentally wrong.

Stop trying to bullshit me. Also, shouldn't you be worried about what Jesus is thinking of your fibs?

However, you can fix it. Just grab your bible and go read it. :)



If you really truly want to test this out, you can try what it says in the book of Mark.

Mark 16:17-18New International Version (NIV)

17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

Just kidding, I don't want you drinking poison or playing with rattlesnakes. Jesus might, but not me.

That is just another absurd passage in the bible, and another clue to how messed up that book is.

I know you haven't read it. You just listened to what others have said about Jesus.

I did too, and it set me on a path of great frustration and mental anguish.

I only escaped by reading the bible for myself, instead of letting someone else paint a rosy picture of religion for me.

I would just let you be, but if you insist on bearing wittiness, at least repeat accurate information.

I just scratched the surface with this post, he commands even more from us.

I get in now. You gave up on your religion because you felt that you couldn't possibly meet all the expectations laid out in the bible and you feel that if you couldn't meet them then what was the point of attempting to follow them. That's a shame, because Jesus knows that you couldn't meet them and, because of this, he suffered so that you wouldn't have to.

You should spend as much time with the verses about hope and reward as you do with the verses about failure and destruction.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-22-2014, 01:34 PM
I am not disagreeing with anything you've posted. I'm not saying that we all shouldn't be making more of an attempt to follow his teachings exactly. What I'm saying is that we don't follow them, though we try hard.

I told my step-son, when he was still at home, what was expected of him as far as the rules of the house, how he was expected to perform in school, etc. Did he meet all of those expectations? Of course not. But it wasn't from a lack of effort.

Not talking about trying and falling short. I'm talking about not even trying.

The stuff about your stepson isn't relevant. Let's stay in the bible.


He did his best and I never loved him any less because he "fell short" of meeting all those rules all the time. Thankfully, Jesus has professed that he does the same for me.

Have you got a biblical reference for that? How did Jesus profess that to you?

sandsjames
11-22-2014, 02:00 PM
Not talking about trying and falling short. I'm talking about not even trying. Exactly. Type A personalities have problems with failure so if they come to the conclusion that they aren't able to succeed, they won't even try.


Have you got a biblical reference for that? How did Jesus profess that to you?How about dying on the cross? Being baptized, sins washed away, by the Holy Spirit? If you need a reference to that, then I will assume you have never read the bible.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-22-2014, 03:00 PM
Exactly. Type A personalities have problems with failure so if they come to the conclusion that they aren't able to succeed, they won't even try.

So is that why you haven't abandoned your personal wealth? Is that why you haven't sold everything and gave it to the poor?




How about dying on the cross? Being baptized, sins washed away, by the Holy Spirit? If you need a reference to that, then I will assume you have never read the bible.

You seem to think that Jesus dying on the cross is a get out of jail free card, and that nothing else is required of you.

Not true!

1 John 2:3-4 New International Version (NIV)

3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person.

You won't even attempt to talk about any of the scripture that I gave you to consider in post #145, will you?

I'm confused why you mentioned baptism just know as part of your redemption. Earlier in the thread you said it wasn't even needed. Which is it?

Got any biblical passages that you can cite, for or against?

You also said, "Jesus never asked for a dime." Where did you get that from?

I'm very curious about that. Please tell me.

sandsjames
11-22-2014, 03:41 PM
So is that why you haven't abandoned your personal wealth? Is that why you haven't sold everything and gave it to the poor? What does this have to do with the paragraph you quoted?




You seem to think that Jesus dying on the cross is a get out of jail free card, and that nothing else is required of you.

Not true!

1 John 2:3-4 New International Version (NIV)

3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. Not at all. Of course there is more than just that.


You won't even attempt to talk about any of the scripture that I gave you to consider in post #145, will you? Because it's pointless to argue the meanings of scripture as both of us already have interpretations that we aren't going to waver on.


I'm confused why you mentioned baptism just know as part of your redemption. Earlier in the thread you said it wasn't even needed. Which is it? Baptism by water, IMO, is not necessary. "John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized by the Holy Spirit." Baptism in water was an example of "washing" sins away. I don't have anything against being baptized in water, I just don't see it as necessary.


You also said, "Jesus never asked for a dime." Where did you get that from?

I'm very curious about that. Please tell me.I didn't get that from anywhere. I cannot site something that doesn't exist. He told people to give up what they had, but not to him. Simply to help others. But if you can find me something where Jesus used his teachings to get people to give him money then we will discuss it.

Measure Man
11-22-2014, 05:19 PM
@MM

If you don't think they were lying, then what were they doing? Do you mean they were hoodwinked, or (wait for it...) duped?

Maybe duped is the word...I believe that they believed what they were saying. Or maybe they wanted to so badly they talked themselves into or something.

This whole idea of faith is a pretty powerful thing...and then when they sort of put it on the people that miracles will or won't happen depending on whether or not they have enough faith...it can really do funny things to people.


Perhaps, but I have seen fellow church members put on extravagant displays of having the Holy Spirit in them, and I know it was pure bullshit.

From waving their arms around and hooting and hollering. My Grandma's church was Pentecostal and they spoke in tongues. A few who would do it, sounded a little convincing, like they were speaking some sort of language.

Most sounded like the were imitating gibberish from a Popeye cartoon.

Yes...I've seen all of this. Again, open your mouth and just start making sounds...anybody can do it...but add to it that someone believes they are now communicating with God in some secret language...

...it might be jibberish bullshit, but doesn't mean the person doing it thinks so...they may be sincerely believing in it. I've heard stories that someone spoke fluently in a known language that the person speaking it didn't know...for example, some Korean lady is in church in Nebraska and some ol' farm boy starts speaking in tongues and she recognizes that he is speaking fluent Hangul and spoke a message to the lady. Heard an AF SAC Wing commander relay that story.

I guess my point in all this was, if educated sophisticated people can be made to believe this stuff in this day and age...how much more likely is it that some of the miracles and legend of Jesus grew into larger than life stories over a few decades back in the day?



I'll never forget one old man running around yelling, "Unga bunga wooga! Alibaba Wahba!" I was laughing so hard I could barely breathe, and Grandma was pinching my arm to make me stop laughing.

Oh! I'm laughing pretty hard right now just thinking about it.

The pastor eventually came up with a rule about speaking in tongues because of that man. Something about it needing to be highly ordered. In other words, only certain people could do it after that.

What a laugh riot!

Yeah...it can get pretty crazy. Have you ever seen the laughing one? All the people start laughing at the devil or something...laughing in the spirit...whoa.


@TJ

I remember Ernest Angley, he was Pentecostal and was very popular in North Carolina.

He has to be close to 100 years old by now! He was old when I was a kid.

I remember he would sell some Holy Towels or something that you could put on your ailments for healing.

Measure Man
11-22-2014, 05:26 PM
On this analogy, the Air Force has changed it's inspections a little bit. The last 2 we had weren't so much about following everything to the letter. They were about the mission completion, not the regs themselves. The mission completion is far more important than following steps 1-12.

Good...I've got one coming in a few weeks :-)

TJMAC77SP
11-22-2014, 06:30 PM
Maybe duped is the word...I believe that they believed what they were saying. Or maybe they wanted to so badly they talked themselves into or something.

This whole idea of faith is a pretty powerful thing...and then when they sort of put it on the people that miracles will or won't happen depending on whether or not they have enough faith...it can really do funny things to people.



Yes...I've seen all of this. Again, open your mouth and just start making sounds...anybody can do it...but add to it that someone believes they are now communicating with God in some secret language...

...it might be jibberish bullshit, but doesn't mean the person doing it thinks so...they may be sincerely believing in it. I've heard stories that someone spoke fluently in a known language that the person speaking it didn't know...for example, some Korean lady is in church in Nebraska and some ol' farm boy starts speaking in tongues and she recognizes that he is speaking fluent Hangul and spoke a message to the lady. Heard an AF SAC Wing commander relay that story.

I guess my point in all this was, if educated sophisticated people can be made to believe this stuff in this day and age...how much more likely is it that some of the miracles and legend of Jesus grew into larger than life stories over a few decades back in the day?



Yeah...it can get pretty crazy. Have you ever seen the laughing one? All the people start laughing at the devil or something...laughing in the spirit...whoa.



I remember he would sell some Holy Towels or something that you could put on your ailments for healing.

Please folks...........no more duping !!

I just Goggled Angley. He is still active at 93. Given that he has worn a dark wig for decades it would be hard to guess his age otherwise. Turns out he is from NC but his church has been in Ohio since the 50's. He still has some weird beliefs and practices and has a bit of bad publicity recently as well.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/10/21/1021-Televangelist-Ernest-Angley-urged-vasectomies-abortion.html

Absinthe Anecdote
11-22-2014, 10:38 PM
Please folks...........no more duping !!

I just Goggled Angley. He is still active at 93. Given that he has worn a dark wig for decades it would be hard to guess his age otherwise. Turns out he is from NC but his church has been in Ohio since the 50's. He still has some weird beliefs and practices and has a bit of bad publicity recently as well.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/10/21/1021-Televangelist-Ernest-Angley-urged-vasectomies-abortion.html

Wow!

I never would have thought that his empire raked in that kind of money.

They operate their own 747!

He seems so comical and obviously phony; WTF?

I can't help but suspecting that his church is laundering money for some criminal enterprise.

Could a goofball like that really be convincing people to give that much money? No taxes on it either.

I just read a short article about the South African government asking them to leave the country because he was claiming to be able to cure people of AIDS.

Also, why would he need to inspect someone's cock after a vasectomy? What kind of person agrees to that?

TJMAC77SP
11-23-2014, 12:52 AM
Wow!

I never would have thought that his empire raked in that kind of money.

They operate their own 747!

He seems so comical and obviously phony; WTF?

I can't help but suspecting that his church is laundering money for some criminal enterprise.

Could a goofball like that really be convincing people to give that much money? No taxes on it either.

I just read a short article about the South African government asking them to leave the country because he was claiming to be able to cure people of AIDS.

Also, why would he need to inspect someone's cock after a vasectomy? What kind of person agrees to that?

Well, I was going to make a joke about being duped but...........

Seriously I have never been able to figure out how most of these Televanglists convince people to send them money. Seems a couple are legit but almost always something dark comes up.

As far as Angley, like I said the first time I saw him on TV I thought it was an SNL skit. I wasn't kidding about that. He is so far over the top as to be comical (as you said)

BTW: He got a great deal on that 747 if indeed he only paid 20 million bucks for it. I believe even a 1970s version would go for 100 million.

Michele
12-01-2014, 06:13 AM
Listen Freddy,

Nothing I do is weak!

Seriously, what I said in that post is very strong evidence that runs counter to what most Christians are led to believe about their bible. The vast majority are led to believe that it is a divine book, holy and without flaw in every regard.

What I put in my post refutes that simplistic notion that is put into peoples minds when they are children.

Besides, my main intent was to counter the drivel about Islam being messed up, Christianity is just as bad.

Well I don't disagree with any of that except the last paragraph.

Assuming you consider Islam a religion ( I dont) there is only one religion in today's world that is committing atrocities all over the world. Not 50, not 100, not 1000 years ago...today......now. Which one is that? No prizes for a correct answer.
Christians have the new testament……in other words they have recognized that they need to omit certain passages to move with the times…….Islam is steadfast in a no change policy

The Old Testament is a collection of religious writings by ancient Israelites
The Quran is a complete record of the exact words revealed by Allah through the Archangel Gabriel
This is why Islam will never move into the 21st Century, it can't.
Scholars have tried and failed.

Islam is not a religion its a totalitarian way of life.
It's a geo-political system that has governmental, financial, military and law with a religious component.
This is the very essence of Islam and its intent is to enforce it globally for the good of all humanity, by force if required.
They will lie to infidels ...... Telling us what we want to hear.....This is written in the Hadiths.
For the benefit of those who are unaware the Hadiths are the words and deeds of the Prophet Mohammed. The Quran are the words of Allah himself. There are 6 different narrations of the Hadiths but essentially they are all very similar. The Hadith has come to supplement the Quran as a source of the Islamic religious law and the majority of muslims accept one form of them as part of their essential source. To most muslims the Quran and one narration of the Hadith go hand in hand.

Something mulsim don't like us westerners to know about.

Shoutout to MM, TJ and Ring😄

Michele
12-01-2014, 07:00 AM
Oh and Machine666😃

giggawatt
12-02-2014, 07:33 PM
@MM

If you don't think they were lying, then what were they doing? Do you mean they were hoodwinked, or (wait for it...) duped?

Perhaps, but I have seen fellow church members put on extravagant displays of having the Holy Spirit in them, and I know it was pure bullshit.

From waving their arms around and hooting and hollering. My Grandma's church was Pentecostal and they spoke in tongues. A few who would do it, sounded a little convincing, like they were speaking some sort of language.

Most sounded like the were imitating gibberish from a Popeye cartoon.

I'll never forget one old man running around yelling, "Unga bunga wooga! Alibaba Wahba!" I was laughing so hard I could barely breathe, and Grandma was pinching my arm to make me stop laughing.

Oh! I'm laughing pretty hard right now just thinking about it.

The pastor eventually came up with a rule about speaking in tongues because of that man. Something about it needing to be highly ordered. In other words, only certain people could do it after that.

What a laugh riot!

@TJ

I remember Ernest Angley, he was Pentecostal and was very popular in North Carolina.

He has to be close to 100 years old by now! He was old when I was a kid.

If you think that's funny.

Watch this!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-JjaAh0NeU