| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David Hartung
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:18 am Post subject: Re: Sarah Palin is a dangerous Christian fanatic |
 |
|
WBYeats@Ireland.com wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:27:21 -0600, David Hartung <david@lemagroup.us
wrote:
WBYeats@Ireland.com wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:16:36 -0600, David Hartung <david@lemagroup.us
wrote:
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim wrote:
either way, the bible is a COMPLETE AND TOTAL CROCK OF SHIT
You are welcome to your uninformed opinion.
There are many people in this world who understand that you are mistaken.
....give us a few historically documented facts out of the New
Testament. You might begin by proving the historical existence of
Xtianity's fearless leader.
Why?
Because stating that someone has an uninformed opinion (in this case)
means that you have an informed opinion. So where is your factual
information?
|
As you so succinctly pointed out in another post, belief in God, is a
belief, and not something which can be proven to one who is a
nonbeliever. If you will not accept the truth of the scriptures, then
there is little I can do to convince you otherwise.
If this sounds as if I am ducking the issue, I apologize. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Joe Irvin
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:24 am Post subject: Re: Sarah Palin is a dangerous Christian fanatic |
|
|
<WBYeats@Ireland.com> wrote in message
news:d104i4daq5furh2qkg4dc1gkr2iqhfhmh3@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:30:55 -0500, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net
wrote:
WBYeats@Ireland.com> wrote in message
news:0rg3i4t097pcv6nh4betjg8u2vhghebu40@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:36:58 -0500, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net
wrote:
WBYeats@Ireland.com> wrote in message
news:m623i4tvh03ll521nd9sic116j7r87r7rb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:16:36 -0600, David Hartung <david@lemagroup.us
wrote:
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim wrote:
either way, the bible is a COMPLETE AND TOTAL CROCK OF SHIT
You are welcome to your uninformed opinion.
There are many people in this world who understand that you are
mistaken.
....give us a few historically documented facts out of the New
Testament. You might begin by proving the historical existence of
Xtianity's fearless leader.
"Textual criticism attempts to recover the originals, as much as humanly
possible. Have textual critics succeeded? By any reckoning, we have 95%
of
the inspired words, and some scholars place the number as high as 99%
for
us
nonspecialists. Scholars constantly quibble over the minutia, but
important
variants are noted in modern translations (see Part Three Question 1).
Those percentages are a remarkable achievement for any text coming out
of
the Greco-Roman world. Web readers need to know this, so they can be
reassured about their Bible when they hear its critics misleading the
public
about the complete trustworthiness of Scripture.
When we hold in our hands the New Testament, we hold the Word of God, an
accurate, reliable, and faithful record of the words and ideas of the
original authors, as inspired by God."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/the_manuscripts_tell_the_story.html
In other words you have nothing. The words in the Iliad were inspired
and we have historical proof that Troy existed. This does NOT mean
that all the Gods and Goddesses existed. You have no proof that Christ
even existed except for an anecdotal "historical" reference that means
nothing.
All the "Gospels" were written decades if not centuries after
the supposed messiah existed.
Matthew an eye witness of Jesus, written probably AD 60-65 about 30 yrs
after the fact. Mark, not an eye witness probably written AD 55-65.
Luke,
a Gentile doctor and friend of Paul also wrote Acts. "This is the most
comprehensive Gospel. The general vocabulary and diction show that the
author was educated" John, probably written AD85-90. So it wasn't
centuries after the fact. Do we believe Herodotus, his writtings were
written 488-428BC and we only have 8 copies of his writtings with the
earliest copy 900AD ... How about Thucydides wrote 460-400BC and we only
have 8 copies of his writtings with the earliest copy found about AD900
...
Livy's Roman History and we have 20 copies written 59BC-17AD. The time
lapse between Herodotus writtings and the earliest copies is 1,300 years.
Do we believe him? Thucydides time lapse is the same 1,300 years. Livy's
Roman History time lapse is 900 years. Do we believe them? The New
Testament written between 40-100AD, the earliest manuscripts being found
130
AD and full manuscripts 350AD. The number of copies 5,000 Greek, 10,000
Latin and 9,300 others. And how about Socrates, one of the founders of
western philosophy, there is nothing we know of that he has written ... we
only know him thru others accounts mainly Plato.
We believe the Greek historians (for the most part) because there is
factual archaeological and anthropological evidence to back it up.
|
As also with the New Testament. In fact 5,000+ Greek copies alone. This
doesn't count the 10,000 Latin copies. Why doesn't that count. Why can you
accept Socretes when he wrote nothing ... he could have been a fiction of
Plato/others and he is recognized as a founder of western philosophy. You
seem selective in your choice of evidence. I'n not trying to force you to
believe in God, just recognize like evidence.
We
| Quote: | know there was a Socrates because there was a Plato, and later an
Aristotle.
|
So why can we believe Plato and not say Luke, both smart men? After all
Luke wrote in about 60AD while people that witnessed Jesus were still alive
and could be interviewed. Very selective you are.
The Greeks were great about writing things down (as were
| Quote: | the Romans). There is no archaeological or anthropological evidence to
back up either the disciples, the messiah, or the existence of God.
|
Only if you chose not to believe the evidence. You have not problem
accepting similar evidence by Herodotus, Thucydides and Livy. There is far
less written evidence of these exploits than they are of the New Testament,
and they time span is a lot greater.
We
| Quote: | can believe the historians and NOT accept the existence of Gods which
played with man's destiny.
|
Sure we can believe anything we choose to believe. And the world is better
because of Christianity, IMO.
| Quote: |
My point being that we have a lot more copies of the New Testament written
at a time closer to the actual events than we do the histories of
Herodotus
( , Thucydides ( and Livy's (20) and they were all at least 900 years
after the fact. And Socrates we only have what others have written about
him. Do you hold them to the same standard? Can we believe Herodotus,
Thucydides, Livy, and Socrates?
See above.
Nice try but you will have to do better
than referencing some cite that presupposes the existence of both God
and the Messiah. This is belief NOT fact. Don't confuse the two.
So you do not believe the 'self-evident' truths of the Framers of the US
Constitution ... "that all men are created equal, that they ae endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ..."
What is our government based on then?
What I believe and don't believe is not up for discussion.
|
Sure it is ... if one doesn't believe in a Creator as you seem not to then
the Framers of the Constitution have no basis for unalienable rights ... no
basis for a Dec of Ind and Constitution. I'm not saying you have to
believe in a Creator, but Christian principles are the basis for our
Constitution even though we have a secular government and the freedom to
believe anything we chose.
It's what
| Quote: | is fact and what is belief. Someone could ask if I THOUGHT there was a
God and I could say no - no proof. Someone could ask if I BELIEVE in
God and I could answer yes. Belief and rational thought do sometimes
contradict each other. The rights of man are not God given - they are
(maybe "should be" is a better choice) innate to his existence.
|
You can say they are innate to His existence, but they are still the basis
of our government. Take the Creator out of the mix and you have our govt
based on man. You know the history of man without God ... Stalin, Mao, Pol
Pot etc.
| Quote: | please don't confuse religion with spirituality. One is dogma; the
other transcends all religion(s).
I don't think I am confusing religion with spirituality. Probably one of
the most profound statements every made was by Jesus when Pilat ask Him if
he was a King. "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this
reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the
truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." John 18:37. The
'truth' is what its all about, but Paul knew mans weakness: "They
exchanged
the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things...."
Romans 1:25
I didn't say there were not some wonderful passages in the New
Testament, and some wonderful words by which to live. But they're
myth, not fact.
|
It would be kind of childish to live by a myth wouldn't it?
Religion is a belief in a supreme being and the
| Quote: | teachings of that being - ergo, dogma (not necessarily a bad word).
|
If there is no God how do you explain our existence? I'm not questioning
you belief of no God.
| Quote: | Spirituality in man is the ability to think past the concrete world.
|
What is there to think of if there is no Creator? Doesn't that leave one
with only the concrete world?
| Quote: | That does NOT presuppose a divine being or creator.
|
What does it 'presuppose' then?
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:08 pm Post subject: Re: Sarah Palin is a dangerous Christian fanatic |
|
|
"David Hartung" <david@lemagroup.us> wrote in message
news:HdOdnagSTKwu87zUnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim wrote:
either way, the bible is a COMPLETE AND TOTAL CROCK OF SHIT
You are welcome to your uninformed opinion.
There are many people in this world who understand that you are mistaken.
|
the bible is nothing more than the HORSESHIT RAMBLINGS of a superstitious
sand people |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:11 pm Post subject: Re: Sarah Palin is a dangerous Christian fanatic |
|
|
| Quote: | As you so succinctly pointed out in another post, belief in God, is a
belief, and not something which can be proven to one who is a nonbeliever.
If you will not accept the truth of the scriptures, then there is little I
can do to convince you otherwise.
If this sounds as if I am ducking the issue, I apologize.
|
christians are good at weaving and dodging and NEVER providing any PROOF
for the existence of their horseshit sky pixie
where was the COLD-HEARTED BASTARD christian god on 9/11/01? was he busy
taking a dump that day?
why did the COLD-HEARTED BASTARD christian god MURDER 200,000 people with
the tsunami he created?
why does the JACKASS BASTARD christian god sit on his FAT, LAZY ASS,
LAUGHING HIS SICK, SADISTIC ASS OFF as he watches children being raped and
murdered?
where is this ALL-POWERFUL JACKASS sky pixie of yours?
the bible is nothing more than the HORSESHIT RAMBLINGS of superstitious cave
dwellers and goat fuckers |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
David Hartung
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:27 pm Post subject: Re: Sarah Palin is a dangerous Christian fanatic |
|
|
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim wrote:
| Quote: | "David Hartung" <david@lemagroup.us> wrote in message
news:HdOdnagSTKwu87zUnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@giganews.com...
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim wrote:
either way, the bible is a COMPLETE AND TOTAL CROCK OF SHIT
You are welcome to your uninformed opinion.
There are many people in this world who understand that you are mistaken.
the bible is nothing more than the HORSESHIT RAMBLINGS of a superstitious
sand people
|
As I said, you are welcome to your opinion.
There will come a day when you will acknowledge God as Lord and King,
whether or not you want to. That day is generally referred to as
Judgment Day.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=MATT+25:31-46
You, and others who believe as you, remain in my prayers. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:01 pm Post subject: Re: Sarah Palin is a dangerous Christian fanatic |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:24:41 -0500, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
WBYeats@Ireland.com> wrote in message
news:d104i4daq5furh2qkg4dc1gkr2iqhfhmh3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:30:55 -0500, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net
wrote:
WBYeats@Ireland.com> wrote in message
news:0rg3i4t097pcv6nh4betjg8u2vhghebu40@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:36:58 -0500, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net
wrote:
WBYeats@Ireland.com> wrote in message
news:m623i4tvh03ll521nd9sic116j7r87r7rb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:16:36 -0600, David Hartung <david@lemagroup.us
wrote:
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim wrote:
either way, the bible is a COMPLETE AND TOTAL CROCK OF SHIT
You are welcome to your uninformed opinion.
There are many people in this world who understand that you are
mistaken.
....give us a few historically documented facts out of the New
Testament. You might begin by proving the historical existence of
Xtianity's fearless leader.
"Textual criticism attempts to recover the originals, as much as humanly
possible. Have textual critics succeeded? By any reckoning, we have 95%
of
the inspired words, and some scholars place the number as high as 99%
for
us
nonspecialists. Scholars constantly quibble over the minutia, but
important
variants are noted in modern translations (see Part Three Question 1).
Those percentages are a remarkable achievement for any text coming out
of
the Greco-Roman world. Web readers need to know this, so they can be
reassured about their Bible when they hear its critics misleading the
public
about the complete trustworthiness of Scripture.
When we hold in our hands the New Testament, we hold the Word of God, an
accurate, reliable, and faithful record of the words and ideas of the
original authors, as inspired by God."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/the_manuscripts_tell_the_story.html
In other words you have nothing. The words in the Iliad were inspired
and we have historical proof that Troy existed. This does NOT mean
that all the Gods and Goddesses existed. You have no proof that Christ
even existed except for an anecdotal "historical" reference that means
nothing.
All the "Gospels" were written decades if not centuries after
the supposed messiah existed.
Matthew an eye witness of Jesus, written probably AD 60-65 about 30 yrs
after the fact. Mark, not an eye witness probably written AD 55-65.
Luke,
a Gentile doctor and friend of Paul also wrote Acts. "This is the most
comprehensive Gospel. The general vocabulary and diction show that the
author was educated" John, probably written AD85-90. So it wasn't
centuries after the fact. Do we believe Herodotus, his writtings were
written 488-428BC and we only have 8 copies of his writtings with the
earliest copy 900AD ... How about Thucydides wrote 460-400BC and we only
have 8 copies of his writtings with the earliest copy found about AD900
...
Livy's Roman History and we have 20 copies written 59BC-17AD. The time
lapse between Herodotus writtings and the earliest copies is 1,300 years.
Do we believe him? Thucydides time lapse is the same 1,300 years. Livy's
Roman History time lapse is 900 years. Do we believe them? The New
Testament written between 40-100AD, the earliest manuscripts being found
130
AD and full manuscripts 350AD. The number of copies 5,000 Greek, 10,000
Latin and 9,300 others. And how about Socrates, one of the founders of
western philosophy, there is nothing we know of that he has written ... we
only know him thru others accounts mainly Plato.
We believe the Greek historians (for the most part) because there is
factual archaeological and anthropological evidence to back it up.
As also with the New Testament. In fact 5,000+ Greek copies alone. This
doesn't count the 10,000 Latin copies. Why doesn't that count. Why can you
accept Socretes when he wrote nothing ... he could have been a fiction of
Plato/others and he is recognized as a founder of western philosophy. You
seem selective in your choice of evidence. I'n not trying to force you to
believe in God, just recognize like evidence.
|
So what? That is not evidence. If I go out and copy 40,000 books of
Greek myths, that doesn't make them any more than a ......myth.
| Quote: | We know there was a Socrates because there was a Plato, and later an
Aristotle.
So why can we believe Plato and not say Luke, both smart men? After all
Luke wrote in about 60AD while people that witnessed Jesus were still alive
and could be interviewed. Very selective you are.
The Greeks were great about writing things down (as were
the Romans). There is no archaeological or anthropological evidence to
back up either the disciples, the messiah, or the existence of God.
Only if you chose not to believe the evidence. You have not problem
accepting similar evidence by Herodotus, Thucydides and Livy. There is far
less written evidence of these exploits than they are of the New Testament,
and they time span is a lot greater.
|
These men are historical figures with historical evidence of their
existence, and historical proof that the events they noted took place.
There is no historical evidence in any record EXCEPT the New Testament
that most of the events noted occurred. In order to prove anything to
a certainty, one needs at least 3 reliable and factual sources. You
have none.
| Quote: | We
can believe the historians and NOT accept the existence of Gods which
played with man's destiny.
Sure we can believe anything we choose to believe. And the world is better
because of Christianity, IMO.
|
In your opinion.
| Quote: | My point being that we have a lot more copies of the New Testament written
at a time closer to the actual events than we do the histories of
Herodotus
(, Thucydides ( and Livy's (20) and they were all at least 900 years
after the fact. And Socrates we only have what others have written about
him. Do you hold them to the same standard? Can we believe Herodotus,
Thucydides, Livy, and Socrates?
See above.
Nice try but you will have to do better
than referencing some cite that presupposes the existence of both God
and the Messiah. This is belief NOT fact. Don't confuse the two.
So you do not believe the 'self-evident' truths of the Framers of the US
Constitution ... "that all men are created equal, that they ae endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ..."
What is our government based on then?
What I believe and don't believe is not up for discussion.
Sure it is ... if one doesn't believe in a Creator as you seem not to then
the Framers of the Constitution have no basis for unalienable rights ... no
basis for a Dec of Ind and Constitution. I'm not saying you have to
believe in a Creator, but Christian principles are the basis for our
Constitution even though we have a secular government and the freedom to
believe anything we chose.
|
So I have to believe in a "creator" in order to be a good American.
We're done here. Keep your religious patriotism to yourself. That's
not only stupid and inane - it's just downright false. Man invented
the creator. Man invented human rights. Most of the founders were
deists and not theists. We had a fairly rational discussion going here
until this.
| Quote: | It's what
is fact and what is belief. Someone could ask if I THOUGHT there was a
God and I could say no - no proof. Someone could ask if I BELIEVE in
God and I could answer yes. Belief and rational thought do sometimes
contradict each other. The rights of man are not God given - they are
(maybe "should be" is a better choice) innate to his existence.
You can say they are innate to His existence, but they are still the basis
of our government. Take the Creator out of the mix and you have our govt
based on man. You know the history of man without God ... Stalin, Mao, Pol
Pot etc.
|
Or with God - Auschwitz, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the murder of
millions of American aboriginals, etc; And that's just Christianity.
Include Islam, Chinese religion, Hinduism and add millions more dead
in the name of religion.
| Quote: | please don't confuse religion with spirituality. One is dogma; the
other transcends all religion(s).
I don't think I am confusing religion with spirituality. Probably one of
the most profound statements every made was by Jesus when Pilat ask Him if
he was a King. "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this
reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the
truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." John 18:37. The
'truth' is what its all about, but Paul knew mans weakness: "They
exchanged
the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things...."
Romans 1:25
I didn't say there were not some wonderful passages in the New
Testament, and some wonderful words by which to live. But they're
myth, not fact.
It would be kind of childish to live by a myth wouldn't it?
|
Civilizations lived by myth for millennia. The Greeks, Romans,
Egyptians did this - and are far greater civilizations than our own.
We may have computers, cars, and great buildings. They had greater
buildings, original thoughts, and the basics for what we are today. My
respect for them is matched by my disrespect for much of our current
"civilization" and religious bigotry.
| Quote: | Religion is a belief in a supreme being and the
teachings of that being - ergo, dogma (not necessarily a bad word).
If there is no God how do you explain our existence? I'm not questioning
you belief of no God.
|
The Big Bang, evolution, a million other reasons for life on earth
sans God.
| Quote: | Spirituality in man is the ability to think past the concrete world.
What is there to think of if there is no Creator? Doesn't that leave one
with only the concrete world?
|
There you go again - confusing a belief in God with human
spirituality. I can imagine a perfect world, the perfect painting,
etc; which are all impossibilities in reality. I can even imagine a
God. But that doesn't mean there is one.
| Quote: | That does NOT presuppose a divine being or creator.
What does it 'presuppose' then?
|
It doesn't have to presuppose anything. All you seem to be doing is
repeating the same thing over and over. That does not prove anything
except obstinacy. There is no way you can prove the existence of God
or Jesus as anything except a belief. Belief is a powerful thing -
just don't confuse it with reality. Like I said above, we're done.
WB Yeats |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:07 pm Post subject: Re: Sarah Palin is a dangerous Christian fanatic |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:11:40 -0500, "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim"
<killgod@killgod.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
As you so succinctly pointed out in another post, belief in God, is a
belief, and not something which can be proven to one who is a nonbeliever.
If you will not accept the truth of the scriptures, then there is little I
can do to convince you otherwise.
If this sounds as if I am ducking the issue, I apologize.
|
No - that's about right except for one thing. You cannot prove their
existence to anyone - believers or nonbelevers. Great philosophers and
failed miserably.
| Quote: | christians are good at weaving and dodging and NEVER providing any PROOF
for the existence of their horseshit sky pixie
where was the COLD-HEARTED BASTARD christian god on 9/11/01? was he busy
taking a dump that day?
why did the COLD-HEARTED BASTARD christian god MURDER 200,000 people with
the tsunami he created?
why does the JACKASS BASTARD christian god sit on his FAT, LAZY ASS,
LAUGHING HIS SICK, SADISTIC ASS OFF as he watches children being raped and
murdered?
where is this ALL-POWERFUL JACKASS sky pixie of yours?
the bible is nothing more than the HORSESHIT RAMBLINGS of superstitious cave
dwellers and goat fuckers
|
I don't know what's worse. Religious zealotry or your response. They
are equally hateful and wrong. But we'll excuse you like we excuse
insane people and their "ramblings," or children and their tantrums.
WB Yeats |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Shevek
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject: Re: Sarah Palin is a dangerous Christian fanatic |
|
|
Joe Irvin escribió:
| Quote: | WBYeats@Ireland.com> wrote in message
news:d104i4daq5furh2qkg4dc1gkr2iqhfhmh3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:30:55 -0500, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net
wrote:
WBYeats@Ireland.com> wrote in message
news:0rg3i4t097pcv6nh4betjg8u2vhghebu40@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:36:58 -0500, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net
wrote:
WBYeats@Ireland.com> wrote in message
news:m623i4tvh03ll521nd9sic116j7r87r7rb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:16:36 -0600, David Hartung <david@lemagroup.us
wrote:
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim wrote:
either way, the bible is a COMPLETE AND TOTAL CROCK OF SHIT
You are welcome to your uninformed opinion.
There are many people in this world who understand that you are
mistaken.
....give us a few historically documented facts out of the New
Testament. You might begin by proving the historical existence of
Xtianity's fearless leader.
"Textual criticism attempts to recover the originals, as much as humanly
possible. Have textual critics succeeded? By any reckoning, we have 95%
of
the inspired words, and some scholars place the number as high as 99%
for
us
nonspecialists. Scholars constantly quibble over the minutia, but
important
variants are noted in modern translations (see Part Three Question 1).
Those percentages are a remarkable achievement for any text coming out
of
the Greco-Roman world. Web readers need to know this, so they can be
reassured about their Bible when they hear its critics misleading the
public
about the complete trustworthiness of Scripture.
When we hold in our hands the New Testament, we hold the Word of God, an
accurate, reliable, and faithful record of the words and ideas of the
original authors, as inspired by God."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/the_manuscripts_tell_the_story.html
In other words you have nothing. The words in the Iliad were inspired
and we have historical proof that Troy existed. This does NOT mean
that all the Gods and Goddesses existed. You have no proof that Christ
even existed except for an anecdotal "historical" reference that means
nothing.
All the "Gospels" were written decades if not centuries after
the supposed messiah existed.
Matthew an eye witness of Jesus, written probably AD 60-65 about 30 yrs
after the fact. Mark, not an eye witness probably written AD 55-65.
Luke,
a Gentile doctor and friend of Paul also wrote Acts. "This is the most
comprehensive Gospel. The general vocabulary and diction show that the
author was educated" John, probably written AD85-90. So it wasn't
centuries after the fact. Do we believe Herodotus, his writtings were
written 488-428BC and we only have 8 copies of his writtings with the
earliest copy 900AD ... How about Thucydides wrote 460-400BC and we only
have 8 copies of his writtings with the earliest copy found about AD900
...
Livy's Roman History and we have 20 copies written 59BC-17AD. The time
lapse between Herodotus writtings and the earliest copies is 1,300 years.
Do we believe him? Thucydides time lapse is the same 1,300 years. Livy's
Roman History time lapse is 900 years. Do we believe them? The New
Testament written between 40-100AD, the earliest manuscripts being found
130
AD and full manuscripts 350AD. The number of copies 5,000 Greek, 10,000
Latin and 9,300 others. And how about Socrates, one of the founders of
western philosophy, there is nothing we know of that he has written ... we
only know him thru others accounts mainly Plato.
We believe the Greek historians (for the most part) because there is
factual archaeological and anthropological evidence to back it up.
As also with the New Testament. In fact 5,000+ Greek copies alone. This
doesn't count the 10,000 Latin copies. Why doesn't that count. Why can you
accept Socretes when he wrote nothing ... he could have been a fiction of
Plato/others and he is recognized as a founder of western philosophy. You
seem selective in your choice of evidence. I'n not trying to force you to
believe in God, just recognize like evidence.
|
That's not evidence of God's existence. At most, it's evidence of the
existence of Jesus, the man.
The Illiad speak about historical facts and we know that there was a
Troy. Does that mean that the Homerical Gods exist?
--
Shevek |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Joe Irvin
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:10 am Post subject: Re: Sarah Palin is a dangerous Christian fanatic |
|
|
<WBYeats@Ireland.com> wrote in message
news:kik5i4hfaetbn8b6nq388137hmugt1gpci@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:24:41 -0500, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net
wrote:
WBYeats@Ireland.com> wrote in message
news:d104i4daq5furh2qkg4dc1gkr2iqhfhmh3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:30:55 -0500, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net
wrote:
WBYeats@Ireland.com> wrote in message
news:0rg3i4t097pcv6nh4betjg8u2vhghebu40@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:36:58 -0500, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net
wrote:
WBYeats@Ireland.com> wrote in message
news:m623i4tvh03ll521nd9sic116j7r87r7rb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:16:36 -0600, David Hartung
david@lemagroup.us
wrote:
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim wrote:
either way, the bible is a COMPLETE AND TOTAL CROCK OF SHIT
You are welcome to your uninformed opinion.
There are many people in this world who understand that you are
mistaken.
....give us a few historically documented facts out of the New
Testament. You might begin by proving the historical existence of
Xtianity's fearless leader.
"Textual criticism attempts to recover the originals, as much as
humanly
possible. Have textual critics succeeded? By any reckoning, we have
95%
of
the inspired words, and some scholars place the number as high as 99%
for
us
nonspecialists. Scholars constantly quibble over the minutia, but
important
variants are noted in modern translations (see Part Three Question
1).
Those percentages are a remarkable achievement for any text coming out
of
the Greco-Roman world. Web readers need to know this, so they can be
reassured about their Bible when they hear its critics misleading the
public
about the complete trustworthiness of Scripture.
When we hold in our hands the New Testament, we hold the Word of God,
an
accurate, reliable, and faithful record of the words and ideas of the
original authors, as inspired by God."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/the_manuscripts_tell_the_story.html
In other words you have nothing. The words in the Iliad were inspired
and we have historical proof that Troy existed. This does NOT mean
that all the Gods and Goddesses existed. You have no proof that Christ
even existed except for an anecdotal "historical" reference that means
nothing.
All the "Gospels" were written decades if not centuries after
the supposed messiah existed.
Matthew an eye witness of Jesus, written probably AD 60-65 about 30 yrs
after the fact. Mark, not an eye witness probably written AD 55-65.
Luke,
a Gentile doctor and friend of Paul also wrote Acts. "This is the most
comprehensive Gospel. The general vocabulary and diction show that the
author was educated" John, probably written AD85-90. So it wasn't
centuries after the fact. Do we believe Herodotus, his writtings were
written 488-428BC and we only have 8 copies of his writtings with the
earliest copy 900AD ... How about Thucydides wrote 460-400BC and we only
have 8 copies of his writtings with the earliest copy found about AD900
...
Livy's Roman History and we have 20 copies written 59BC-17AD. The time
lapse between Herodotus writtings and the earliest copies is 1,300
years.
Do we believe him? Thucydides time lapse is the same 1,300 years.
Livy's
Roman History time lapse is 900 years. Do we believe them? The New
Testament written between 40-100AD, the earliest manuscripts being found
130
AD and full manuscripts 350AD. The number of copies 5,000 Greek, 10,000
Latin and 9,300 others. And how about Socrates, one of the founders of
western philosophy, there is nothing we know of that he has written ...
we
only know him thru others accounts mainly Plato.
We believe the Greek historians (for the most part) because there is
factual archaeological and anthropological evidence to back it up.
As also with the New Testament. In fact 5,000+ Greek copies alone. This
doesn't count the 10,000 Latin copies. Why doesn't that count. Why can
you
accept Socretes when he wrote nothing ... he could have been a fiction of
Plato/others and he is recognized as a founder of western philosophy. You
seem selective in your choice of evidence. I'n not trying to force you to
believe in God, just recognize like evidence.
So what? That is not evidence. If I go out and copy 40,000 books of
Greek myths, that doesn't make them any more than a ......myth.
|
I'm not saying the number of books make it evidence. I'm saying that the NT
was written by people who were present at the events ... who talked to
people that were also at these events. It was written in Greek, Latin and
other languages. You will take as evidence of a man named Socretes who
other wrote about ... he even is recognized as a founder of western
philosophy. You will take as evidence the histories of Herodotus,
Thucydides, Tacitus, and Livy with the time lapse between the earliest copys
and when actual written of Herodotus 1,300yrs, Thucydides 1,300yrs, Tacitus
1,000yrs and Livy 900 yrs, and there were not nearly the number of copies.
To me that seems like either willful blindness or an attempt to revise
history. I can understand someone not believing in God and not accepting
evidence that meet/surpasses the standards set by earlier books though.
| Quote: | We know there was a Socrates because there was a Plato, and later an
Aristotle.
So why can we believe Plato and not say Luke, both smart men? After all
Luke wrote in about 60AD while people that witnessed Jesus were still
alive
and could be interviewed. Very selective you are.
The Greeks were great about writing things down (as were
the Romans). There is no archaeological or anthropological evidence to
back up either the disciples, the messiah, or the existence of God.
Only if you chose not to believe the evidence. You have not problem
accepting similar evidence by Herodotus, Thucydides and Livy. There is
far
less written evidence of these exploits than they are of the New
Testament,
and they time span is a lot greater.
These men are historical figures with historical evidence of their
existence, and historical proof that the events they noted took place.
|
Just like the New Testament.
| Quote: | There is no historical evidence in any record EXCEPT the New Testament
that most of the events noted occurred.
|
There were eye witnesses to the NT ... it was written in Greek, Latin and
other languages. They are Bible scholars, one that I cited earlier in this
thread stating the validity of the textural accuracy of the NT.
In order to prove anything to
| Quote: | a certainty, one needs at least 3 reliable and factual sources. You
have none.
|
But your definition of reliable and fctual sources are used differently when
you examine the NT. Matthew and John were eye witness ... Luke a doctor,
someone who was trained in observation writes a history in his book and
Acts. This history being at a time when people that observed the events
were still alive. Can you say that of the others above I wrote about?
| Quote: |
We
can believe the historians and NOT accept the existence of Gods which
played with man's destiny.
Sure we can believe anything we choose to believe. And the world is
better
because of Christianity, IMO.
In your opinion.
|
Do you think the world would be better off without Christianity?
| Quote: | My point being that we have a lot more copies of the New Testament
written
at a time closer to the actual events than we do the histories of
Herodotus
(, Thucydides ( and Livy's (20) and they were all at least 900 years
after the fact. And Socrates we only have what others have written
about
him. Do you hold them to the same standard? Can we believe Herodotus,
Thucydides, Livy, and Socrates?
See above.
Nice try but you will have to do better
than referencing some cite that presupposes the existence of both God
and the Messiah. This is belief NOT fact. Don't confuse the two.
So you do not believe the 'self-evident' truths of the Framers of the US
Constitution ... "that all men are created equal, that they ae endowed
by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ..."
What is our government based on then?
What I believe and don't believe is not up for discussion.
Sure it is ... if one doesn't believe in a Creator as you seem not to then
the Framers of the Constitution have no basis for unalienable rights ...
no
basis for a Dec of Ind and Constitution. I'm not saying you have to
believe in a Creator, but Christian principles are the basis for our
Constitution even though we have a secular government and the freedom to
believe anything we chose.
So I have to believe in a "creator" in order to be a good American.
|
I didn't say that or impliy that ... there are good Americans that are not
Christians. It is not necessary to have a particular religious belief or
any belief to be a good American. I'm saying that our government is based
on Christian principals period. It is a secular govt though.
| Quote: | We're done here. Keep your religious patriotism to yourself.
|
Why, don't we have religious freedom?
That's
| Quote: | not only stupid and inane - it's just downright false. Man invented
the creator. Man invented human rights. Most of the founders were
deists and not theists.
|
Men who were influnced by the the Christian religion who knew our
inalienable rights came from our Creator. And most of the founders/framers
of the US Constitution were not Deists. Church affiliation of the
Constitutional Convention (55 people) 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7
Congregationalists, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Lutherans, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman
Catholics, 1 unknown, 3 Deists.
We had a fairly rational discussion going here
Sorry if you thought me irrational, I don't try to be.
| Quote: | It's what
is fact and what is belief. Someone could ask if I THOUGHT there was a
God and I could say no - no proof. Someone could ask if I BELIEVE in
God and I could answer yes. Belief and rational thought do sometimes
contradict each other. The rights of man are not God given - they are
(maybe "should be" is a better choice) innate to his existence.
You can say they are innate to His existence, but they are still the basis
of our government. Take the Creator out of the mix and you have our govt
based on man. You know the history of man without God ... Stalin, Mao,
Pol
Pot etc.
Or with God - Auschwitz, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the murder of
millions of American aboriginals, etc; And that's just Christianity.
Include Islam, Chinese religion, Hinduism and add millions more dead
in the name of religion.
|
There have been times when Christianity has gone astray, but
"religion-inspired killing simply cannot compete with the murders
perpetrated by atheist regimes." BTW Hitler was no Catholic, he saw
religion as weakness. "From an early age, historian Allan Bullock writes,
Hitler had no time at all for Catholic teaching, regarding it as a religion
fit only for slaves and detesting its ethics." Lets look at the atheists:
"Taken together, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the witch burnings
killed approximately 200,000 people. Adjusting for the increase in
population, that's the equivalent of one million deaths today. Even so,
these deaths caused by Christian rulers over a five-hundred period amount to
only 1% of the deaths caused by Stalin, Hitler, and Mao in the space of a
few decades." Whats so Great about Christianity, Dinesh D'Souza.
| Quote: |
please don't confuse religion with spirituality. One is dogma; the
other transcends all religion(s).
I don't think I am confusing religion with spirituality. Probably one
of
the most profound statements every made was by Jesus when Pilat ask Him
if
he was a King. "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this
reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the
truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." John 18:37. The
'truth' is what its all about, but Paul knew mans weakness: "They
exchanged
the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things...."
Romans 1:25
I didn't say there were not some wonderful passages in the New
Testament, and some wonderful words by which to live. But they're
myth, not fact.
It would be kind of childish to live by a myth wouldn't it?
Civilizations lived by myth for millennia. The Greeks, Romans,
Egyptians did this - and are far greater civilizations than our own.
We may have computers, cars, and great buildings. They had greater
buildings, original thoughts, and the basics for what we are today. My
respect for them is matched by my disrespect for much of our current
"civilization" and religious bigotry.
|
Ok. Do you see any secular bigotry or is it all just religious bigotry?
| Quote: | Religion is a belief in a supreme being and the
teachings of that being - ergo, dogma (not necessarily a bad word).
If there is no God how do you explain our existence? I'm not
questioning
you belief of no God.
The Big Bang, evolution, a million other reasons for life on earth
sans God.
|
None which are proveable to your own standards. So that puts you in the
same boat as myself ... *faith* ... that these, 'BB, evolution, million
other reasons' happened.
| Quote: | Spirituality in man is the ability to think past the concrete world.
What is there to think of if there is no Creator? Doesn't that leave one
with only the concrete world?
There you go again - confusing a belief in God with human
spirituality.
|
You should be able to tell me what you are thinking of that is not in the
'concrete world' I would think.
I can imagine a perfect world, the perfect painting,
| Quote: | etc; which are all impossibilities in reality. I can even imagine a
God. But that doesn't mean there is one.
|
Its just me but I don't understand.
| Quote: | That does NOT presuppose a divine being or creator.
What does it 'presuppose' then?
It doesn't have to presuppose anything. All you seem to be doing is
repeating the same thing over and over.
|
No, I'm just asking a question.
That does not prove anything
| Quote: | except obstinacy. There is no way you can prove the existence of God
or Jesus as anything except a belief. Belief is a powerful thing -
just don't confuse it with reality. Like I said above, we're done.
|
Reality is truth. The entire cosmos is orderly which presupposes
intelligence. To me that inspires a faith in what I believe. To you the
cosmos seems to be some kind of random cosmic happening which you have faith
in. One of us is wrong.
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:32 am Post subject: Re: Sarah Palin is a dangerous Christian fanatic |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:10:38 -0500, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
WBYeats@Ireland.com> wrote in message
news:kik5i4hfaetbn8b6nq388137hmugt1gpci@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:24:41 -0500, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net
wrote:
WBYeats@Ireland.com> wrote in message
news:d104i4daq5furh2qkg4dc1gkr2iqhfhmh3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:30:55 -0500, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net
wrote:
WBYeats@Ireland.com> wrote in message
news:0rg3i4t097pcv6nh4betjg8u2vhghebu40@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:36:58 -0500, "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net
wrote:
WBYeats@Ireland.com> wrote in message
news:m623i4tvh03ll521nd9sic116j7r87r7rb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:16:36 -0600, David Hartung
david@lemagroup.us
wrote:
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim wrote:
either way, the bible is a COMPLETE AND TOTAL CROCK OF SHIT
You are welcome to your uninformed opinion.
There are many people in this world who understand that you are
mistaken.
....give us a few historically documented facts out of the New
Testament. You might begin by proving the historical existence of
Xtianity's fearless leader.
"Textual criticism attempts to recover the originals, as much as
humanly
possible. Have textual critics succeeded? By any reckoning, we have
95%
of
the inspired words, and some scholars place the number as high as 99%
for
us
nonspecialists. Scholars constantly quibble over the minutia, but
important
variants are noted in modern translations (see Part Three Question
1).
Those percentages are a remarkable achievement for any text coming out
of
the Greco-Roman world. Web readers need to know this, so they can be
reassured about their Bible when they hear its critics misleading the
public
about the complete trustworthiness of Scripture.
When we hold in our hands the New Testament, we hold the Word of God,
an
accurate, reliable, and faithful record of the words and ideas of the
original authors, as inspired by God."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/the_manuscripts_tell_the_story.html
In other words you have nothing. The words in the Iliad were inspired
and we have historical proof that Troy existed. This does NOT mean
that all the Gods and Goddesses existed. You have no proof that Christ
even existed except for an anecdotal "historical" reference that means
nothing.
All the "Gospels" were written decades if not centuries after
the supposed messiah existed.
Matthew an eye witness of Jesus, written probably AD 60-65 about 30 yrs
after the fact. Mark, not an eye witness probably written AD 55-65.
Luke,
a Gentile doctor and friend of Paul also wrote Acts. "This is the most
comprehensive Gospel. The general vocabulary and diction show that the
author was educated" John, probably written AD85-90. So it wasn't
centuries after the fact. Do we believe Herodotus, his writtings were
written 488-428BC and we only have 8 copies of his writtings with the
earliest copy 900AD ... How about Thucydides wrote 460-400BC and we only
have 8 copies of his writtings with the earliest copy found about AD900
...
Livy's Roman History and we have 20 copies written 59BC-17AD. The time
lapse between Herodotus writtings and the earliest copies is 1,300
years.
Do we believe him? Thucydides time lapse is the same 1,300 years.
Livy's
Roman History time lapse is 900 years. Do we believe them? The New
Testament written between 40-100AD, the earliest manuscripts being found
130
AD and full manuscripts 350AD. The number of copies 5,000 Greek, 10,000
Latin and 9,300 others. And how about Socrates, one of the founders of
western philosophy, there is nothing we know of that he has written ...
we
only know him thru others accounts mainly Plato.
We believe the Greek historians (for the most part) because there is
factual archaeological and anthropological evidence to back it up.
As also with the New Testament. In fact 5,000+ Greek copies alone. This
doesn't count the 10,000 Latin copies. Why doesn't that count. Why can
you
accept Socretes when he wrote nothing ... he could have been a fiction of
Plato/others and he is recognized as a founder of western philosophy. You
seem selective in your choice of evidence. I'n not trying to force you to
believe in God, just recognize like evidence.
So what? That is not evidence. If I go out and copy 40,000 books of
Greek myths, that doesn't make them any more than a ......myth.
I'm not saying the number of books make it evidence. I'm saying that the NT
was written by people who were present at the events ... who talked to
people that were also at these events. It was written in Greek, Latin and
other languages. You will take as evidence of a man named Socretes who
other wrote about ... he even is recognized as a founder of western
philosophy. You will take as evidence the histories of Herodotus,
Thucydides, Tacitus, and Livy with the time lapse between the earliest copys
and when actual written of Herodotus 1,300yrs, Thucydides 1,300yrs, Tacitus
1,000yrs and Livy 900 yrs, and there were not nearly the number of copies.
To me that seems like either willful blindness or an attempt to revise
history. I can understand someone not believing in God and not accepting
evidence that meet/surpasses the standards set by earlier books though.
|
The writers of the Gospels were NOT present at the events no matter
what you say - see below. The events the historians wrote about
occurred and are verifiable in Athenian, etc; records. I can write a
book about events that happened thousands of years back because they
are in the historical record. Jesus isn't. The philosophers existence
is proven by primarily by the writings of their chief students, and
their place in the history of Greece. I.e. - things like Aristotle
being the tutor of Alexander the Great who lived well before Jesus
supposedly did.
| Quote: | We know there was a Socrates because there was a Plato, and later an
Aristotle.
So why can we believe Plato and not say Luke, both smart men? After all
Luke wrote in about 60AD while people that witnessed Jesus were still
alive
and could be interviewed. Very selective you are.
The Greeks were great about writing things down (as were
the Romans). There is no archaeological or anthropological evidence to
back up either the disciples, the messiah, or the existence of God.
Only if you chose not to believe the evidence. You have not problem
accepting similar evidence by Herodotus, Thucydides and Livy. There is
far
less written evidence of these exploits than they are of the New
Testament,
and they time span is a lot greater.
These men are historical figures with historical evidence of their
existence, and historical proof that the events they noted took place.
Just like the New Testament.
|
Wrong - not first person accounts. And why are these events mentioned
by these four writers and nobody else. Not in the Roman record. Not in
the Jewish record. Not on any record and not verifiable by anything or
anyone. All of the pagans you menmtion are verifiable by the hisroric
and archaeological record.
| Quote: | There is no historical evidence in any record EXCEPT the New Testament
that most of the events noted occurred.
There were eye witnesses to the NT ... it was written in Greek, Latin and
other languages. They are Bible scholars, one that I cited earlier in this
thread stating the validity of the textural accuracy of the NT.
|
| Quote: | In order to prove anything to
a certainty, one needs at least 3 reliable and factual sources. You
have none.
But your definition of reliable and fctual sources are used differently when
you examine the NT. Matthew and John were eye witness ... Luke a doctor,
someone who was trained in observation writes a history in his book and
Acts. This history being at a time when people that observed the events
were still alive. Can you say that of the others above I wrote about?
|
Mark shows no knowledge of Palestine. Hell, the writer doesn't even
know about Jewish tradition. Matthew is also written in Greek and by
most accounts at least 50 years after the Crucifixion. Luke was also
written at least 50 years agter the Crucifixion. The author makes no
claim about knowing any of the apostles, Peter, or Christ. John writes
about an event that occurred about 80 CE as occurring during your
Jesus' lifetime. Gee whiz - I always thought he died at 33. None of
the Gospels were first person accounts.
| Quote: | We
can believe the historians and NOT accept the existence of Gods which
played with man's destiny.
Sure we can believe anything we choose to believe. And the world is
better
because of Christianity, IMO.
In your opinion.
Do you think the world would be better off without Christianity?
My point being that we have a lot more copies of the New Testament
written
at a time closer to the actual events than we do the histories of
Herodotus
(, Thucydides ( and Livy's (20) and they were all at least 900 years
after the fact. And Socrates we only have what others have written
about
him. Do you hold them to the same standard? Can we believe Herodotus,
Thucydides, Livy, and Socrates?
See above.
Nice try but you will have to do better
than referencing some cite that presupposes the existence of both God
and the Messiah. This is belief NOT fact. Don't confuse the two.
So you do not believe the 'self-evident' truths of the Framers of the US
Constitution ... "that all men are created equal, that they ae endowed
by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ..."
What is our government based on then?
What I believe and don't believe is not up for discussion.
Sure it is ... if one doesn't believe in a Creator as you seem not to then
the Framers of the Constitution have no basis for unalienable rights ...
no
basis for a Dec of Ind and Constitution. I'm not saying you have to
believe in a Creator, but Christian principles are the basis for our
Constitution even though we have a secular government and the freedom to
believe anything we chose.
So I have to believe in a "creator" in order to be a good American.
I didn't say that or impliy that ... there are good Americans that are not
Christians. It is not necessary to have a particular religious belief or
any belief to be a good American. I'm saying that our government is based
on Christian principals period. It is a secular govt though.
|
That's a myth. The founders based the government on the rights of man
as espoused by Locke et al. That they felt these rights came from a
creator was peripheral. The fact that God may be mentioned does not
reference the specific Xtian God - just God as an idea. Go read
Jefferson and Paine. But you'd probably enjoy Adams more.
| Quote: | We're done here. Keep your religious patriotism to yourself.
Why, don't we have religious freedom?
That's
not only stupid and inane - it's just downright false. Man invented
the creator. Man invented human rights. Most of the founders were
deists and not theists.
Men who were influnced by the the Christian religion who knew our
inalienable rights came from our Creator. And most of the founders/framers
of the US Constitution were not Deists. Church affiliation of the
Constitutional Convention (55 people) 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7
Congregationalists, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Lutherans, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman
Catholics, 1 unknown, 3 Deists.
We had a fairly rational discussion going here
until this.
Sorry if you thought me irrational, I don't try to be.
It's what
is fact and what is belief. Someone could ask if I THOUGHT there was a
God and I could say no - no proof. Someone could ask if I BELIEVE in
God and I could answer yes. Belief and rational thought do sometimes
contradict each other. The rights of man are not God given - they are
(maybe "should be" is a better choice) innate to his existence.
You can say they are innate to His existence, but they are still the basis
of our government. Take the Creator out of the mix and you have our govt
based on man. You know the history of man without God ... Stalin, Mao,
Pol
Pot etc.
Or with God - Auschwitz, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the murder of
millions of American aboriginals, etc; And that's just Christianity.
Include Islam, Chinese religion, Hinduism and add millions more dead
in the name of religion.
There have been times when Christianity has gone astray, but
"religion-inspired killing simply cannot compete with the murders
perpetrated by atheist regimes." BTW Hitler was no Catholic, he saw
religion as weakness. "From an early age, historian Allan Bullock writes,
Hitler had no time at all for Catholic teaching, regarding it as a religion
fit only for slaves and detesting its ethics." Lets look at the atheists:
"Taken together, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the witch burnings
killed approximately 200,000 people. Adjusting for the increase in
population, that's the equivalent of one million deaths today. Even so,
these deaths caused by Christian rulers over a five-hundred period amount to
only 1% of the deaths caused by Stalin, Hitler, and Mao in the space of a
few decades." Whats so Great about Christianity, Dinesh D'Souza.
|
Hitler came out of a combination of Bavarian Catholicism and the
Germanic Siegfried Wagnerian myth. Anti-semitism is implicit in both.
Hitler used both to his advantage. Bullock is wrong. As for
Christianity, you're forgetting about the millions and million who
died in Africa under explopitation from white European Christians. The
South Africans even thought that it was God's will that they rule the
blacks. Then there are the untold millions of aboriginal Americans
(North and South) who died at the hands of European Xtians. That does
not even begin to count the millions who perished at the hands of
other religions. It's not just Xtianity that we're talking about -
it's all religion.
| Quote: | please don't confuse religion with spirituality. One is dogma; the
other transcends all religion(s).
I don't think I am confusing religion with spirituality. Probably one
of
the most profound statements every made was by Jesus when Pilat ask Him
if
he was a King. "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this
reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the
truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." John 18:37. The
'truth' is what its all about, but Paul knew mans weakness: "They
exchanged
the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things...."
Romans 1:25
I didn't say there were not some wonderful passages in the New
Testament, and some wonderful words by which to live. But they're
myth, not fact.
It would be kind of childish to live by a myth wouldn't it?
Civilizations lived by myth for millennia. The Greeks, Romans,
Egyptians did this - and are far greater civilizations than our own.
We may have computers, cars, and great buildings. They had greater
buildings, original thoughts, and the basics for what we are today. My
respect for them is matched by my disrespect for much of our current
"civilization" and religious bigotry.
Ok. Do you see any secular bigotry or is it all just religious bigotry?
|
Secular bigotry - sure but not in this case. I don't care what anybody
believes - as long as they don't seek to convert others who aren't
interested. Or seek to put their values above others'. Just don't try
and make your beliefs fact - they aren't.
| Quote: | Religion is a belief in a supreme being and the
teachings of that being - ergo, dogma (not necessarily a bad word).
If there is no God how do you explain our existence? I'm not
questioning
you belief of no God.
The Big Bang, evolution, a million other reasons for life on earth
sans God.
None which are proveable to your own standards. So that puts you in the
same boat as myself ... *faith* ... that these, 'BB, evolution, million
other reasons' happened.
|
They are scientific theories based upon observation and physical
evidence. Evolution is now provable by the shared DNA of all species.
There is exactly no evidence of any God - any Jesus - or any Holy
Ghost whatever that is. We use reason and logic to arrive at a
conclusion. Not some belief in a being nobody can see, hear, or feel.
Unless, that is, you're John on the best drugs ever, sitting down to
write Revelations so that 2 centuries later Bob Dylan could use the
same imagery in his songs.
| Quote: | Spirituality in man is the ability to think past the concrete world.
What is there to think of if there is no Creator? Doesn't that leave one
with only the concrete world?
There you go again - confusing a belief in God with human
spirituality.
You should be able to tell me what you are thinking of that is not in the
'concrete world' I would think.
I can imagine a perfect world, the perfect painting,
etc; which are all impossibilities in reality. I can even imagine a
God. But that doesn't mean there is one.
Its just me but I don't understand.
|
It's self explanatory. Spirituality is the ability to imagine things
well beyond our knowledge or existence. Homo sapiens is the only
animal seemingly able to do this.
| Quote: | That does NOT presuppose a divine being or creator.
What does it 'presuppose' then?
It doesn't have to presuppose anything. All you seem to be doing is
repeating the same thing over and over.
No, I'm just asking a question.
|
You're presupposing and arriving at an erroneous conclusion. Either
prove the existence of your God and your Jesus - or just fess up that
it's a belief.
| Quote: | That does not prove anything
except obstinacy. There is no way you can prove the existence of God
or Jesus as anything except a belief. Belief is a powerful thing -
just don't confuse it with reality. Like I said above, we're done.
Reality is truth. The entire cosmos is orderly which presupposes
intelligence. To me that inspires a faith in what I believe. To you the
cosmos seems to be some kind of random cosmic happening which you have faith
in. One of us is wrong.
|
Stop with the creationism. The entire universe according to you
orderly theory could be some huge joke - and all humanity the butt of
the same. Continue to believe what you will but "it ain't necessarily
so" by any rational measure.
(fill in whatever you wish - it's getting very boring)
WB Yeats |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
