Sharia

[Marc O'Brien]

Hello people :)

You've probably long forgotten me, but I am a member here and I sometimes share ideas in this ARP section.

Just a quick one, thought I'd pop in and share also some of the latest developments, in case the regulars have missed some of the current events.

Here is a new video by Pat Condell on America possibly going Islamic already...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjSjpNe1-Vc

Here is a comment by Lou Dobbs on the matter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQbPYxTL9D4

Mean while, back at the college, I have challenged my second year degree students to find for me any one person who has existed, since Socrates, who offered anything more on human morals and spirituality, than Socrates. They have almost given up - and of course this is predictable.

I also offered to students and friends that if they could find for me one tiny shred of evidence for Jesus having ever existed that warrants the claims made in the Bible then I offer to, within an hour, jump from the tallest college building. Lol, they have utterly failed. But are also becoming wise to the world as it really is :) If you would like to see a video of me jumping to the street below from a 7 storey building then give me the evidence and I shall pass it onto to them. As you can imagine, I am delighting in the absolute security, provided me, of total absence of evidence for Jesus having ever existed :)

And the other guy, flew on a donkey to heaven, my ass :)

Oh yes, other thing, Gert Wilders is explicitly not a culteral relativist. He is right by default, why, well... It was once believed the sun orbited the earth. A cultural relativist would say that since this is what they believed then that is what really happened. Cultural relativism is absurd. The Muslim culture is, as a matter of fact, primitive and savage. This is not a matter of opinion or a matter of taste or value or prejudice. It is a matter of actual fact. Gert Wilders is correct.

For America to be getting into bed with Islam - damn, this is very sad. I am however, frustratedly, not surprised, because America anyway is a faith based country, this makes it easy for America to convert to Islam. But for me it is becoming more and more evident why Socrates insisted that Faith is the greatest evil possible by man.

What on earth would I want to contribute more to this planet if America replaces their Constitution with Sharia. I will refuse to contribute anything more, they'll have to feed and house me on the dole or prematurely expire me.

Roll on 2012.

Then end :)

[coolwhip]

Just watched Pats video earlier and even shot the man an email with best regards from the US.

Brilliant guy!

[sline-dawg]

There is talk around here that you chaps already have a taste of this Sharia law..... How's that working out..?? Are the Muslim believers taking charge and changing life as it used to be..?? First hand knowledge would help..;)

[fixacr]

There is no evidence of Socrates existence, yet you believe in him.

[bootlen]

Heck, I haven't even seen any evidence of Marc's existence.

[Marc O'Brien]

There is no evidence of Socrates existence, yet you believe in him.

Which evidence of Socrates do you discount?

And anyway, in the study of philosophy, when one refers to Socrates one means the works attributed to Socrates. Indeed, it might turn out that Plato should take all the credit. None the less, even if Socrates never existed, which some have tried to prove but so far failed, the arguments attributed to him, such as why one should turn the other cheek or never break a social contract, are all still found intact with the process by which they were derived also still intact. Whether these arguments and morals came from Socrates a real person or Socrates a fictional person created by Plato, it matters not, no man has since improved on his contributions to ethics.

But which evidence for Socrates do you discount? He was written about by Thucydides, Aristophanes, Callias, Eupolis, Telecleides, and Xenophon, as well as by Plato. All of these were his contemporaries, they did not live say 20 or 120 years after Socrates. They were his actual contemporaries who also tell different stories not just different version of the same stories. Nothing like this at all exists for Jesus or for Mohammad flying on a donkey.

[bootlen]

Yeah, none of those guys existed either.

[fixacr]

So his existence is proven because some people wrote about him . . .(?)

[fixacr]

What do you say we forget the impending discussion of theology and philosophy? You're not going to change my mind and I'm fairly sure I'm not going to change yours.

Since the media in the U.S. is sometimes hard to rely on for a straight story, I'm more interested in your take on the Muslim situation in your country. Any comments?

[Marc O'Brien]

So his existence is proven because some people wrote about him . . .(?)

I just stated for you, very very clearly, his existence is most probable because multiple contemporaries wrote of him in very clear unambiguous ways. Those contemporaries are renowned writers already for their many other works.

When you compare this to the writings about Jesus you are forced to conclude that Jesus existence is improbable. Why? Because those who wrote of him were not renowned or known to have been prominent writers about many other things from the same time of the claimed existence. What other books of intellectual interest, say on philosophy, mathematics or politics, did Mathew, Mark, Luke or John write from the same days Jesus was supposed to have existed? And if they did what other countries used to print and distribute these other books?

[coolwhip]

Plato is not the only source of knowledge of Socrates, the "philosopher, soldier" Xenophane gave accounts of Socrates as did the play write Aristophanes.

Plato, Xenophane and Aristophanes each had different views on what type of person Socrates was, it is doubt full that Socrates was an imaginary figure.

back to the topic!

[Some Dude]

I worship the muffin man, he lives on drury lane. Ever thought of getting help Marc?
If i can prove it , will you jump onto concrete or onto a air cushion. I dont want to be responsible for your death, just a dose of humility.

[jmac00]

I all ready started a thread on the Islamic take over:

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=404252

you can dismiss this if you choose, but soon (within 2 generations) Muslims will simply vote themselves into power

[printer2]

Actually I look at Jesus being alive at one time as more probable than not. Why would a bunch of guys go about promoting someone that was dead? There must be easier ways of making a living.

At the time there were a number of prophets and messiahs running around spreading tales of the end of the world. If events went another way we might have been celebrating the birth of Brian rather than Jesus.

The actual events in his life might be more in dispute but I can accept him being around.

[ga-hvac-tech]

The OP should get a copy of the writings of a historian named Josephus. He was/is seen as the most authoritative Jewish historian of the times. Josephus wrote that a man who called himself Jesus did indeed live, and that he did indeed do the things mentioned in the Bible. He also wrote that the local religious authorities plotted (deceitfully, like any good politician would) to get rid of this Jesus guy because he was messing up their empire.

And BTW: Josephus was not a follower of Jesus, he was Jewish by blood and remained true to the traditional Jewish faith.

Now the ball is in your court... you will need to get a copy of the complete writings of Josephus and read it.

However, I already know what the supposedly learned gentleman's answer will be: He will say that Josephus is not accurate; like all supposedly learned folks do... they pick and choose what they want to believe.

I have news for that crowd: Selective listening is living in denial... and I do not mean a river in Egypt.

[sline-dawg]

Did I just hear a pot calling a kettle black...?????:toetap:

[Marc O'Brien]

Josephus, a Jew who despite apparently knowing of a Jesus in the end anyway shunned his teachings and remained a Jew. An educated man who had sufficient wisdom to appreciate someone like Jesus if he existed as the Son of a God and yet wrote nothing on him and acted none on his teachings. If he ignored the Jesus thing and he was a brilliant mind and contemporary to Jesus then why don't you? Why did all the Jews remain Jews? The New Testament is mostly Socratic, a plagiarism of Socrates, that's why Christianity flashed up in Rome and those parts of Europe and not amongst the Jews themselves.

When the little Josephus apparently wrote on Jesus is removed from the book then the original story flows more naturally. The bits about Jesus is an interpolation added later by Christians knowing that since there was no contemporaneous evidence for their make believe story they had to fraudulently add nonsense to a well known and respected historians works - after he had died. Despicable!!

If anything, there would have been two ordinary Jews, not sons of Gods, James and Jesus, who followed Cynical teachings based on Socratic Philosophisings, as was being spread around that area by Greek traveling philosophers who thought the Torah was a primitive guide to philosophies of social structures and tried to share the more intellectually advanced thinkings of Socrates which is from where the new testament gets all the love your enemy, turn the other cheek, do unto others etc etc.

From Wikipedia...


Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93 AD. In these works, Jesus is mentioned twice. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum.

In the first passage, called the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:


About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[48]

Concerns have been raised about the authenticity of the passage, and it is widely held by scholars that at least part of the passage has been altered by a later scribe. The Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion and controversy of interpolation. Louis H. Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part."[49] Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt.[50] However, there has been no consensus on which portions have been altered, or to what degree.

In the second, very brief mention, Josephus calls James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."[51] The great majority of scholars consider this shorter reference to Jesus to be substantially authentic,[52] although a minority has raised doubts.[53]

[The Doctor]

Hello people :)

For America to be getting into bed with Islam - damn, this is very sad. I am however, frustratedly, not surprised, because America anyway is a faith based country, this makes it easy for America to convert to Islam. But for me it is becoming more and more evident why Socrates insisted that Faith is the greatest evil possible by man.America is faith-based? America can no more convert to religion B than it can be somehow a "religion A" nation. Either proposition seems equally absurd.


What on earth would I want to contribute more to this planet if America replaces their Constitution with Sharia. I will refuse to contribute anything more, they'll have to feed and house me on the dole or prematurely expire me.
Isn't that much like the response of the Prime Movers in the novel entitled "Atlas Shrugged", to withdraw? From the charting of the stars and the subsequent ability to navigate on the high seas to the modern day MRI, people of faith have made contributions that are reasonable, so to speak. But the day that someone suggests abandoning the U.S. Constitution will be the day they will have a fight on their hands.


Roll on 2012.

Then end :) :bump:

[Marc O'Brien]

Isn't that much like the response of the Prime Movers in the novel entitled "Atlas Shrugged", to withdraw?

They will have the police whip all of us all the way to the Mosques five times a day for Prayer. Another new Mosque is being built nearby already and many more passing through planning permission. Do you think I could defeat them on my own? Can't do. Easier to make sure I produce nothing for the economy that finances their religious impositions :)

[bootlen]

Wikipedia?!! Marc's resource is Wiki?!

Bwaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!

[Marc O'Brien]

Wikipedia?!! Marc's resource is Wiki?!

Bwaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!

Lol :)

My source for easy C&P to the thread is Wiki.

My original source is Acharya Sannings books - I've posted a photo before of the books.

So, is Wiki short on the truth?

[coolwhip]

Dont worry Marc, Boots looks for little things like that and then tries to dig. Your doing great!, keep on proclaiming!!

[Some Dude]

Josephus, a Jew who despite apparently knowing of a Jesus in the end anyway shunned his teachings and remained a Jew. An educated man who had sufficient wisdom to appreciate someone like Jesus if he existed as the Son of a God and yet wrote nothing on him and acted none on his teachings. If he ignored the Jesus thing and he was a brilliant mind and contemporary to Jesus then why don't you? Why did all the Jews remain Jews? The New Testament is mostly Socratic, a plagiarism of Socrates, that's why Christianity flashed up in Rome and those parts of Europe and not amongst the Jews themselves.

When the little Josephus apparently wrote on Jesus is removed from the book then the original story flows more naturally. The bits about Jesus is an interpolation added later by Christians knowing that since there was no contemporaneous evidence for their make believe story they had to fraudulently add nonsense to a well known and respected historians works - after he had died. Despicable!!

If anything, there would have been two ordinary Jews, not sons of Gods, James and Jesus, who followed Cynical teachings based on Socratic Philosophisings, as was being spread around that area by Greek traveling philosophers who thought the Torah was a primitive guide to philosophies of social structures and tried to share the more intellectually advanced thinkings of Socrates which is from where the new testament gets all the love your enemy, turn the other cheek, do unto others etc etc.

From Wikipedia...

So your going to completely ignore the fact that he proved you wrong, why am i not surprised you ARE NOT a man of your word.

[Some Dude]

Lol :)

My source for easy C&P to the thread is Wiki.

My original source is Acharya Sannings books - I've posted a photo before of the books.

So, is Wiki short on the truth?

Wiki lets anybody write, even you.

[bootlen]

Wiki lets anybody write, even you.

I guess that fact totally escapes coolwhip.

[bootlen]

My original source is Acharya Sannings books.

Never heard of him. Must be another fictional character. When did he supposedly live? In the first century?

GADS! Here I am dialoging with a fictional poster!

[Marc O'Brien]

So your going to completely ignore the fact that he proved you wrong, why am i not surprised you ARE NOT a man of your word.

It is impossible to ignore a fact. By defintion a fact cannot be ignored.

Josephus say nothing of historical value regarding a Jesus and even what is written is known to either all or part be fraudulent.

Next piece of evidence please :)

[bootlen]

It is impossible to ignore a fact. By defintion a fact cannot be ignored.

Josephus say nothing of historical value regarding a Jesus and even what is written is known to either all or part be fraudulent.

Next piece of evidence please :)

How's 'bout ^ this?! A made up poster making things up.

[coolwhip]

I guess that fact totally escapes coolwhip.

Nothing gets by Coolwhip, not even religious zealots Boots. You choose to quote bronze age myths....me thinks wiki might just be a step up from that.

[fixacr]

I'm starting to understand now. Marc gets to determine what is or is not valid evidence.

[ga-hvac-tech]

It is impossible to ignore a fact. By definition a fact cannot be ignored.

Josephus say nothing of historical value regarding a Jesus and even what is written is known to either all or part be fraudulent.

Next piece of evidence please :)

OK, here is the way I see this:

Fact: In post #1, Mr O'brian states:
I also offered to students and friends that if they could find for me one tiny shred of evidence for Jesus having ever existed that warrants the claims made in the Bible then I offer to, within an hour, jump from the tallest college building. Lol, they have utterly failed. But are also becoming wise to the world as it really is :) If you would like to see a video of me jumping to the street below from a 7 storey building then give me the evidence and I shall pass it onto to them. As you can imagine, I am delighting in the absolute security, provided me, of total absence of evidence for Jesus having ever existed :)

Fact: In post #15, the evidence was noted by a person that was not a follower of Jesus, confirming the existance of Jesus:
The OP should get a copy of the writings of a historian named Josephus. He was/is seen as the most authoritative Jewish historian of the times. Josephus wrote that a man who called himself Jesus did indeed live, and that he did indeed do the things mentioned in the Bible. He also wrote that the local religious authorities plotted (deceitfully, like any good politician would) to get rid of this Jesus guy because he was messing up their empire.

Fact #3: In post #17, the same Mr O'brian who said he would jump off a building (I hope he does not) posts from the writings of Josehpus:
Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93 AD. In these works, Jesus is mentioned twice. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum.

In the first passage, called the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:

Quote:
About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[48]
Concerns have been raised about the authenticity of the passage, and it is widely held by scholars that at least part of the passage has been altered by a later scribe. The Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion and controversy of interpolation. Louis H. Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part."[49] Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt.[50] However, there has been no consensus on which portions have been altered, or to what degree.

In the second, very brief mention, Josephus calls James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."[51] The great majority of scholars consider this shorter reference to Jesus to be substantially authentic,[52] although a minority has raised doubts.[53]
(end)

From the eyes of someone that sees simple logic, it is clear that the existance of Jesus has been proven (I hope Mr O'brian does not jump off a building, regardless of his misguided beliefs he is still a person). I would also suggest that it would be impossible to conclude anything other than this Mr O'brian is speaking out of both sides of his mouth... and practicing the classical art of political spin. This same spin art that is in 'vogue' these days due to the current president of the USA. I would also note that this same president has pole ratings which are going down due to another fact: Folks are not as dumb as they look... they have learned about Mr Obama, as we are learning about Mr O'brian... I would also note that Mr O'brian does not seem to understand the folly of believing that political spin is a worthy road in life, based on reading the rest of the thread.

A word to Mr Obrian: We in this fine country have a tendency to become rather hostile towards someone from outside the country that thinks they will come in and tell us what to do... as they would think they can run our country better than we can.

Now to continue Mr O'brian: Your country has enough issues, you need to tend to your country and we will tend to ours. A sign of a sick person is one that is a failure at tending their own house, yet thinks they are sooo smart they should be fixing another's.

But to be fair, I will suggest some more reading for Mr O'brian: A gentleman named Josh McDowell was as much of an un-believer as our English protagonist, and looked for proof. He was proven to be wrong and wrote two books to express that proof: Evidence that demands a Verdict, and More Evidence that demands a verdict. If you still are not convinced let us know, we will pray for you that your eyes will be opened.

Now a word from myself to you: You are acting as an attention hound, so I will rob you of what you crave; attention. I will not respond to your posts again... I suggest no-one else responds to him either.

[bootlen]

Nothing gets by Coolwhip, not even religious zealots Boots. You choose to quote bronze age myths....me thinks wiki might just be a step up from that.

Thanks for confirming my post.:couch:

[Hugh B]

There is more substantial evidence for the existence of this man named Jesus than there is for the existence of Socrates.

[Marc O'Brien]

There is more substantial evidence for the existence of this man named Jesus than there is for the existence of Socrates.

Cool, let's have it then :)

[Hugh B]

Cool, let's have it then :)



There is such a volume of evidence that it fills several books. See what was suggested by Boots. I own both books and have read them. Read for yourself.

I will suggest some more reading for Mr O'brian: A gentleman named Josh McDowell was as much of an un-believer as our English protagonist, and looked for proof. He was proven to be wrong and wrote two books to express that proof: Evidence that demands a Verdict, and More Evidence that demands a verdict.

[Marc O'Brien]

Read for me the proof. There has to be a fact. For instance point me to Jesus's contemporary writers who independently state they saw hundreds of bodies rise out of their graves and walk the streets the day Jesus was crucified.

I do not need to read a book or two to discover that Leonardo DaVinci actually existed. There are many single paintings, for instance, each one an artifact of factual proof.

What single artifact or collaborative evidence is there for Jesus as portrayed in the Bible?

[Hugh B]

Read for me the proof. There has to be a fact. For instance point me to Jesus's contemporary writers who independently state they saw hundreds of bodies rise out of their graves and walk the streets the day Jesus was crucified.

I do not need to read a book or two to discover that Leonardo DaVinci actually existed. There are many single paintings, for instance, each one an artifact of factual proof.

What single artifact or collaborative evidence is there for Jesus as portrayed in the Bible?



The same kind of evidence that exists for the existence of Socrates except much, much more. Be careful with this one Marc. You see if refuse to accept the "kind" of evidence that exists for a real man Jesus then you will also be forced to deny the existence of Socrates himself.

Also, do not confuse evidence for the existence of the man Jesus with asking for evidence of the resurrection, his own or of others. Those are totally different issues.

[Marc O'Brien]

The same kind of evidence that exists for the existence of Socrates except much, much more. Be careful with this one Marc. You see if refuse to accept the "kind" of evidence that exists for a real man Jesus then you will also be forced to deny the existence of Socrates himself.

Also, do not confuse evidence for the existence of the man Jesus with asking for evidence of the resurrection, his own or of others. Those are totally different issues.

There are at least two contemporary and respected writers of Socrates detailing immensely his conversations. Find me two equivalent for Jesus :)

Nothing, you have nothing to offer, nothing at all. No evidence whatsoever! Not a single shred! Nothing.

Now regards Soctrates, even if it turns out he never actually existed, well, the dialogues and philosophies themselves are the single most profound influence on western civilisation. Who cares if they were in fact the philosophisings of Plato or Thucydides, Aristophanes, Callias, Eupolis, Telecleides, and Xenophon. It doesn't matter. No one philosopher has ever claimed that Socrates was a man God. Nothing Jesus apparently said was not already either said by Socrates or discovered by argument by Socrates. Even if instead it was Socrates they claimed was the man god or Son of God I still would not be sifficiently impressed to believe the claim.

Give me one tiny piece of evidence for the claims made by the bible of the existence of the son of a god? Just one, one tiny little piece of evidence.

[bootlen]

Marc is a man drowning in a fresh water lake and claiming to be thirsty.

[Marc O'Brien]

Marc is a man drowning in a fresh water lake and claiming to be thirsty.

Here I am over here, Bootlen, look this way into the sun, my shadow reaches out to you. I'm going to throw a rope, keep a hold of it and I am going to pull you to dry land :)

Anyway Gents, if anyone does come up with a piece of evidence, please private message me or something. Must get back to work.

[Hugh B]

There are at least two contemporary and respected writers of Socrates detailing immensely his conversations. Find me two equivalent for Jesus :)

Nothing, you have nothing to offer, nothing at all. No evidence whatsoever! Not a single shred! Nothing.

Now regards Soctrates, even if it turns out he never actually existed, well, the dialogues and philosophies themselves are the single most profound influence on western civilisation. Who cares if they were in fact the philosophisings of Plato or Thucydides, Aristophanes, Callias, Eupolis, Telecleides, and Xenophon. It doesn't matter. No one philosopher has ever claimed that Socrates was a man God. Nothing Jesus apparently said was not already either said by Socrates or discovered by argument by Socrates. Even if instead it was Socrates they claimed was the man god or Son of God I still would not be sifficiently impressed to believe the claim.

Give me one tiny piece of evidence for the claims made by the bible of the existence of the son of a god? Just one, one tiny little piece of evidence.

And the sayings of one Jesus Christ has not had an influence on society? Where have you been man?

The New Testament is the most popular book ever published, it outsells every other book year after year so much so that they don't bother placing it on the best sellers list.

Jesus is far, far more influential and universally known than Socrates.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Well well well, while I will not respond to Mr O'brian again (and give him attention he is sooo hungry for), I am still reading this quite entertaining thread... and I see a statement in the Bible (book of Proverbs I believe) is about to me manifest in Mr O'brian's behavior: "...Pride goes before a fall..."

The gentleman from England is about to dig himself a hole even a man of his stature cannot crawl out of... This is as much fun as a good action/adventure movie.

Time for these two things: :couch: :pop: and then soon we will see this one :nopity:along with this one :rules: (in the last icon, I am referring to reading the Bible).

[coolwhip]

Marc, even if unquestionable evidence were presented to these people, they would still go on believing in the greatest lie perpetrated on mankind.

My advice is to not waste your time, especially with people that would keep sticking their hand in a fire and complain that it burns.

[Marc O'Brien]

And the sayings of one Jesus Christ has not had an influence on society? Where have you been man?

The New Testament is the most popular book ever published, it outsells every other book year after year so much so that they don't bother placing it on the best sellers list.

Jesus is far, far more influential and universally known than Socrates.

Come on Hugh, I'm very busy right now. I'm interested to see a single piece of evidence.

Show me one concept in the New Testament not already covered by Socrates or expanded upon already by the epicureans, the stoics or the cynics. Show me one principle of ethics from the new testament that did not have Socrates' involvement.

Show me one moral or ethical principle offered by the fictional character Jesus that cannot be shown to have passed through "fictional" character Socrates?

Einstein added relativity to Newtonian Mechanics and Newton added to Epicurus' and Pythagoeus' works.

Show me what this Jesus added to Socrates works that wasn't added by the Epicurean'sn the Stoics or the Cynics.

Okay, must go, have a dinner date 2 hours away in London... Later...

[Marc O'Brien]

Marc, even if unquestionable evidence were presented to these people, they would still go on believing in the greatest lie perpetrated on mankind.

My advice is to not waste your time, especially with people that would keep sticking their hand in a fire and complain that it burns.

It's our democratic duty to test, criticise and try help them, Coolwhip :)

[Hugh B]

Marc, even if unquestionable evidence were presented to these people, they would still go on believing in the greatest lie perpetrated on mankind.

My advice is to not waste your time, especially with people that would keep sticking their hand in a fire and complain that it burns.

Coolwhip, even if unquestionable evidence were presented to you and Marc you would still go on rejecting Jesus because you cannot tolerate the implications that follow.

Nor will either of you take the time to inquire of the evidence by reading Josh McDowell to see what evidence there may be.

[skizot]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

[scrogdog]

McDowell is a shoddy researcher resoundingly debunked by many others. He has refused to acknowledge any of his critics. Just like Hugh, himself.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/charade.html


Josh McDowell is one of the most popular writers that fundamentalist Christianity has. He is also one of the least trustworthy. Almost nothing he says in his books (e.g., Evidence That Demands a Verdict) has been researched at more than the most superficial of levels. Perhaps it is that very sloppiness that makes his books popular with lazy students who don't want to be confused with a lot of facts. They want simple answers, even when there aren't any.

McDowell has produced a leaflet called A Skeptic's Quest , which ought to alarm all real skeptics. In it, he tells how he became a Christian. His story may be typical of how a person becomes a fundamentalist Christian. Especially interesting is how little real scholarship or investigation is required. If his conversion is typical, then we can learn a lot from it.

It seems that McDowell was a self-proclaimed "skeptic" during his undergraduate days. He became impressed with a small group of students whose lives seemed to have purpose. Those students were, of course, fundamentalist Christians. Obviously, what the purpose of their lives was that McDowell didn't have in his life, didn't seem to matter much to him. Any purpose seemingly would do. He interacted with the students and was given the challenge "to examine intellectually who Jesus Christ was" Of course, if he had tried honestly to do this, he would have come up dry, because outside of the New Testament itself, nothing is known of Jesus Christ.

The way in which McDowell came up with exactly the opposite conclusion, namely that belief in Jesus was intellectually correct, is interesting. It shows how faulty reasoning can easily lead one astray. McDowell decided that to disprove the intellectual validity of Jesus be had to 1) demonstrate that the New Testament was not historically reliable, and 2) since every-thing in Christianity was based upon Jesus' resurrection, all he had to do was prove that the resurrection never took place. Of course, the fact that it is logically impossible to prove that an event never took place didn't bother McDowell. He came to the incredible conclusion (on the basis of a faulty examination of the faulty evidence) that "the resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the best established events in history, according to the laws of legal evidence" The fact that none of the "evidence" could have been admitted into a current American court under any of the ordinary rules of evidence seems not to bother McDowell.

To establish the first point above (upon which the second point depends), McDowell says he relied upon three basic tests: 1) the bibliographic test (he says this evaluates how many manuscripts you have, but this is really only one part of that test), 2) the internal evidence test, and 3) the external evidence test. Let us take each of these in turn.

The bibliographic test for a manuscript in reality is 1) can we trace the manuscript back to the original in an unbroken chain?, 2) how many copies of the manuscript are there?, 3) how closely do the copies agree?, and 4) do we have any (or all) of the manuscript in the handwriting of the purported author? In reality, the New Testament flunks badly tests number 1) and 4). We have a 300+ year gap between the first entire Gospel manuscript and the time at which it was supposed to have been written. In addition, we have no manuscript in the handwriting of the purported author. In fact, we don't even know who the authors of the Gospels were. Remember, it's the Gospel accordng to Mark, Luke, Matthew, or John. This means that it's only an attribution, but not an established fact that anyone named that actually wrote a word of any Gospel.

McDowell seems incapable of reasoning. He claims that there are 14,000 or 26,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. So what? What we need is not thousands of manuscripts from the Middle Ages (which is when most of these were written), but two or three from the exact time that Jesus supposedly lived and died. We have none until at least 40-60 years later (that is none was written down until then, but things remained in an oral tradition form), and we have no copies of any Gospel until the Codex Sianaticus of 350 A.D., more than 300 years later.

Next, we must realize that because of both the unknown authors, the 40-60 year gap, and the 300 year gap to a complete Gospel text, we do not have reliable eyewitness testimony in the Gospels. Once you realize this, any attempt to document the life of Jesus or his purported resurrection (the Gospel accounts, in addition, conflict with each other), as reliable history becomes impossible. McDowell has committed an intellectual travesty by claiming the evidence is overwhelming (it is overwhelmingly negative for the resurrection of Jesus. Worse, McDowell has passed off this travesty upon unsuspecting college students, who don't know enough to see through his inadequacies as a scholar. When a group is as intellectually bankrupt as the fundamentalists seem to be (which of them has denounced McDowell for his inadequacies?), then we know that what they are pushing as their beliefs are unjustified.

Here is a much more detailed work by a slew of collaborative authors.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

It is also intersting to note that the ghost writer who wrote the evolution section of McDowell's book, one Mr. Glenn R. Morton is now a theistic evolutionist on the basis of the scientific evidence for evolution. But don't take my word for it; look it up.

Personally, I see this topic as much ado about nothing as my case against God has nothing to do with whether or not he exists or Jesus existed. Still, no evidence presented in McDowell's book would be admissible in court.

[coolwhip]

Ahh yes, thank you dog!

[Hugh B]

If one accepts the critical analysis of the methods and conclusions used by Josh McDowell as valid then one has a huge problem with nearly all ancient literature.

If the works of Plato are subjected to the same requirements then one could make the claim that there is no valid evidence that the works of Plato are his own or that Plato ever existed as a real person. Since Plato is the primary source of information about Socrates that leaves Socrates in doubt as well.

McDowell applied the very research methods to the scriptures as secular historians apply to other ancient works and works of history to determine their authorship, trustworthiness, etc...

McDowell was not the orginator of the methods he used. He applied the standard techniques developed over years of university research. Nor was McDowell the first or the last to apply these techniques to the scriptures. Other books and papers have been published, thus we have peer review.

Those who object to McDowells conclusions go about attacking his methods not realizing they are also discarding much of what textual critics have used to authenticate all ancient works that don't doubt as authentic. So if you believe these critics regarding McDowell's research you must reject the trustworthiness of all ancient works including Plato.

[JRINJAX]

The OP should get a copy of the writings of a historian named Josephus. He was/is seen as the most authoritative Jewish historian of the times. Josephus wrote that a man who called himself Jesus did indeed live, and that he did indeed do the things mentioned in the Bible. He also wrote that the local religious authorities plotted (deceitfully, like any good politician would) to get rid of this Jesus guy because he was messing up their empire.

And BTW: Josephus was not a follower of Jesus, he was Jewish by blood and remained true to the traditional Jewish faith.

Now the ball is in your court... you will need to get a copy of the complete writings of Josephus and read it.

However, I already know what the supposedly learned gentleman's answer will be: He will say that Josephus is not accurate; like all supposedly learned folks do... they pick and choose what they want to believe.

I have news for that crowd: Selective listening is living in denial... and I do not mean a river in Egypt.

I have read the writings of Joshepus, they are super interesting and a great wealth of data on Roman times and the life of Christ.

[scrogdog]

Those who object to McDowells conclusions go about attacking his methods not realizing they are also discarding much of what textual critics have used to authenticate all ancient works that don't doubt as authentic. So if you believe these critics regarding McDowell's research you must reject the trustworthiness of all ancient works including Plato.

Complete BS.

Obviously you didn't even read the presented material.

Par for the course, I'd say.

[JRINJAX]

McDowell is a shoddy researcher resoundingly debunked by many others. He has refused to acknowledge any of his critics. Just like Hugh, himself.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/charade.html



Here is a much more detailed work by a slew of collaborative authors.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

It is also intersting to note that the ghost writer who wrote the evolution section of McDowell's book, one Mr. Glenn R. Morton is now a theistic evolutionist on the basis of the scientific evidence for evolution. But don't take my word for it; look it up.

Personally, I see this topic as much ado about nothing as my case against God has nothing to do with whether or not he exists or Jesus existed. Still, no evidence presented in McDowell's book would be admissible in court.
Dog,
Why is it, just like the Liberals, that any thing that lines up with your Atheistic/Agnostic beliefs is labeled by you as a fact. When good sources are used as qualified a proof to support God/Christ it is dismissed as garbage.
Isn't this just a little dishonest?
You claim not to be a Liberal, maybe it is time to recalibrate your thinking?

[Hugh B]

Complete BS.

Obviously you didn't even read the presented material.

Par for the course, I'd say.

Wow, what a great comeback. That reply just stops me solid.


I not only read it here, I have read the same elsewhere in the past. You see when I was reading McDowell's books I was also searching the internet to see what those who oppose McDowell's viewpoint had to say.

I suggest you actually read and consider McDowell's books for yourself. I read the works of those who oppose my point of view in an effort to gain a more balanced view. You should do the same.

I read Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who represent views opposed to my own. Perhaps you should in this case actually read McDowells books for yourself.

[Hugh B]

Dog,
Why is it, just like the Liberals, that any thing that lines up with your Atheistic/Agnostic beliefs is labeled by you as a fact. When good sources are used as qualified a proof to support God/Christ it is dismissed as garbage.
Isn't this just a little dishonest?
You claim not to be a Liberal, maybe it is time to recalibrate your thinking?

In the case of both Dog and Marc they insist we provide 'credable" sources. However, a credable source to them is a source that agrees with their point of view.

So they effectively define any credable source we provide out of existence. This is a typical liberal tactic. In my opinion Dog is a closet liberal as well as a skeptic.

[JRINJAX]

Wow, what a great comeback. That reply just stops me solid.


I not only read it here, I have read the same elsewhere in the past. You see when I was reading McDowell's books I was also searching the internet to see what those who oppose McDowell's viewpoint had to say.

I suggest you actually read and consider McDowell's books for yourself. I read the works of those who oppose my point of view in an effort to gain a more balanced view. You should do the same.

I read Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who represent views opposed to my own. Perhaps you should in this case actually read McDowells books for yourself.You mean the Richard Dawkins who said during an interview that I watched, " If there was a Designer it was an Alien, not God". When asked, "who designed the Alien?" His answer was "we don't know, but we know it wasn't "God"".
Such brilliance is just blinding.

[skizot]

In the case of both Dog and Marc they insist we provide 'credable" sources. However, a credable source to them is a source that agrees with their point of view.

So they effectively define any credable source we provide out of existence. This is a typical liberal tactic. In my opinion Dog is a closet liberal as well as a skeptic.
I agree with what you're saying, but I find it funny you cite Marc's methodology as a liberal tactic. I see conservatives do the exact same thing. The reality is that it is a tactic used by both sides of the fence.

[Hugh B]

I agree with what you're saying, but I find it funny you cite Marc's methodology as a liberal tactic. I see conservatives do the exact same thing. The reality is that it is a tactic used by both sides of the fence.

I agree with you skizot. There are inconsistent conservatives just as there are inconsistent liberals and skeptics. That does not affect truth. Truth stands by itself and needs no assistance from mere persons.

[Hugh B]

You mean the Richard Dawkins who said during an interview that I watched, " If there was a Designer it was an Alien, not God". When asked, "who designed the Alien?" His answer was "we don't know, but we know it wasn't "God"".
Such brilliance is just blinding.


The evolutionist-atheist astronomer Carl Sagan did the same thing. It is called the 'seeding theory". Sagan realized that he had no way of accounting for life having developed on Earth so he assumed (without evidence) that life was seeded from elsewhere in the universe.

All that did was move the problem farther in the universe but it did not remotely answer the question.

[scrogdog]

Dog,
Why is it, just like the Liberals, that any thing that lines up with your Atheistic/Agnostic beliefs is labeled by you as a fact. When good sources are used as qualified a proof to support God/Christ it is dismissed as garbage.
Isn't this just a little dishonest?
You claim not to be a Liberal, maybe it is time to recalibrate your thinking?

With all due respect my judgement depends on two things. The rules of logic and scientific testing. It's not about "facts" - science does not establish facts. It's about what can be demonstrated.

Let's take order from chaos. There are about a bazillion experiments that demonstrate it.

Try googling "the game of life by John Horton Conway".

That is one of many.

Now, should I consider that, or Hugh's completely unsupported claim that order cannot arise from chaos DESPITE this very thing being ubiquitous in nature? Not to mention well demonstrated.

Part of the reason I enjoy science so much is because of its strict methodology meant to limit the natural bias of all men (even me). All I showed in my refutation here is that the methodology was shoddy.

Again, I really don't care whether Jesus lived or did not. It does nothing for any of my arguments. But as one who knows what proper methodology is, I know bad when I see it.

Like this.

I've tried explaining the basic reason why creation science is an oxymoron. I'm sorry that you can't see it. But IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for creation science to BE scientific. Creation scientists write books for captive audiences. Please show me ANY test that so-called creation science has performed and had peer reviewed. I do not believe you will find one, because "creation science" IS NOT SCIENCE. So then, it's really not too surprising that it is always wrong from a scientific standpoint. Right?

Besides, I have not a SINGLE time ever said that there was no God, only that ID and God are NOT SCIENTIFIC inquiries since niether can be tested (falsified).

Let's take that other guy, what's his name who used to be an athiest. See, I don't necessarily disagree with him and many others that point out the problems with the THEORY of evolution. That person's mistake was something along the lines of a court witness being led. Just because we don't know exactly how DNA is formed DOES NOT (scientifically I mean) make any sort of case for God.

If you wish to think that it does, more power to you. But it is not scientifically reasonable to make that extrapolation PARTICULARLY because that is yet another thing that can't be tested.

If you want me to believe something, then you need to "show me the money", not just simply state that something is so, or not, and leave it at that, like Hugh does about 100% of the time.

[Hugh B]

Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker begins his book with "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

That is an amazing statement from a man of science. First of all that is his definition of biology.

But, even Dawkins freely admits here that creation has the appearance of (there is evidence for) design and that that design seems to indicate that there is purpose behind it.

This is what the ID movement is all about. Dawkins then spends most of the rest of his book attempting to show that this is not true. It just appears to be true. He has a difficult time coming up with an answer.

Simply because the most reasonable answer is it looks like it was designed because it was probably DESIGNED! But, Dawkins even goes to on to state if it is true that it was designed then it is reasonable to think that there is purpose behind design. He knows the truth. He knows it was designed and that it has purpose. He simply can't accept the end result of this reasoning so he makes a feeble attempt to disprove ID. Much of what he writes is simply scoffing. Hitchens is the better scoffer which is what Hitchens does best.

Dawkins never, never answers the question as to what mechanisim is behind chaos which can result in structure and organization as even he admits appears to be real.

But better yet, even Dawkins realizes that if there is design there must be purpose. We all know that design requires a designer and purpose comes from a mind and a will. Only intelligent beings have the ability to purpose something.

[scrogdog]

Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker begins his book with "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

That is an amazing statement from a man of science. First of all that is his definition of biology.

But, even Dawkins freely admits here that creation has the appearance of (there is evidence for) design and that that design seems to indicate that there is purpose behind it.

This is what the ID movement is all about. Dawkins then spends most of the rest of his book attempting to show that this is not true. It just appears to be true. He has a difficult time coming up with an answer.

Simply because the most reasonable answer is it looks like it was designed because it was probably DESIGNED! But, Dawkins even goes to on to state if it is true that it was designed then it is reasonable to think that there is purpose behind design. He knows the truth. He knows it was designed and that it has purpose. He simply can't accept the end result of this reasoning so he makes a feeble attempt to disprove ID. Much of what he writes is simply scoffing. Hitchens is the better scoffer which is what Hitchens does best.

Dawkins never, never answers the question as to what mechanisim is behind chaos which can result in structure and organization as even he admits appears to be real.

But better yet, even Dawkins realizes that if there is design there must be purpose. We all know that design requires a designer and purpose comes from a mind and a will. Only intelligent beings have the ability to purpose something.

Sigh.

Fine. BUT IT STILL CAN'T BE DEMONSTRATED.

I'm not sure I can be any more clear.

[Hugh B]

With all due respect my judgement depends on two things. The rules of logic and scientific testing. It's not about "facts" - science does not establish facts. It's about what can be demonstrated.

Let's take order from chaos. There are about a bazillion experiments that demonstrate it.

Try googling "the game of life by John Horton Conway".

That is one of many.

Now, should I consider that, or Hugh's completely unsupported claim that order cannot arise from chaos DESPITE this very thing being ubiquitous in nature? Not to mention well demonstrated.

Part of the reason I enjoy science so much is because of its strict methodology meant to limit the natural bias of all men (even me). All I showed in my refutation here is that the methodology was shoddy.

Again, I really don't care whether Jesus lived or did not. It does nothing for any of my arguments. But as one who knows what proper methodology is, I know bad when I see it.

Like this.

I've tried explaining the basic reason why creation science is an oxymoron. I'm sorry that you can't see it. But IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for creation science to BE scientific. Creation scientists write books for captive audiences. Please show me ANY test that so-called creation science has performed and had peer reviewed. I do not believe you will find one, because "creation science" IS NOT SCIENCE. So then, it's really not too surprising that it is always wrong from a scientific standpoint. Right?

Besides, I have not a SINGLE time ever said that there was no God, only that ID and God are NOT SCIENTIFIC inquiries since niether can be tested (falsified).

Let's take that other guy, what's his name who used to be an athiest. See, I don't necessarily disagree with him and many others that point out the problems with the THEORY of evolution. That person's mistake was something along the lines of a court witness being led. Just because we don't know exactly how DNA is formed DOES NOT (scientifically I mean) make any sort of case for God.

If you wish to think that it does, more power to you. But it is not scientifically reasonable to make that extrapolation PARTICULARLY because that is yet another thing that can't be tested.

If you want me to believe something, then you need to "show me the money", not just simply state that something is so, or not, and leave it at that, like Hugh does about 100% of the time.


If there are so many examples of order resulting from chaos then you should be able to provide at least one. Oh yes, you did, the snowflake. But you cannot explain what the mechanisim is within chaos that resulted in the snowflake's highly organized structure. How did chaos accomplish such structure and organization? What is it exactly about chaos that caused the organization?

This question cannot be answered. You are only assuming, and that is not science, that chaos can cause organization. There is not a single example of chaos causing structured order. Any example given will require one to explain what about chaos has the ability to bring order. What is the mechanism and the process.

Richard Dawkins goes one step further and says that the structured order also shows purpose. So, we also need to know what it is about chaos that it can determine a purpose.

[Hugh B]

Sigh.

Fine. BUT IT STILL CAN'T BE DEMONSTRATED.

I'm not sure I can be any more clear.

I am sure that you can't be any more clear. Neither can Richard Dawkins.

[scrogdog]

What you talkin' about, Willis?

You said order cannot come from chaos. Yes it can.

Again, a snowflake suddenly arises from a bunch of RANDOMLY circulating water molecules. That is, order... a crystalline structure, has arisen from something random (chaos)... randomly moving water molecules.

What does mechanism matter? You said something couldn't happen but it clearly does.

[scrogdog]

I am sure that you can't be any more clear. Neither can Richard Dawkins.

Um... ok.

So, you beleive that ID and God CAN be demonstrated? Bring it on.

This should be good. :rolleyes:

[Hugh B]

What you talkin' about, Willis?

You said order cannot come from chaos. Yes it can.

Again, a snowflake suddenly arises from a bunch of RANDOMLY circulating water molecules. That is, order... a crystalline structure, has arisen from something random (chaos)... randomly moving water molecules.

What does mechanism matter? You said something couldn't happen but it clearly does.

That is like saying "I exist therefore evolution is true". Such absurdity. That is not scientific that is a philosophical predisposition.

Real science looks for causes. So, how do you know that chaos itself created the snowflake? You are assuming that such must be true because the snowflake exists. A philosophic presupposition on your part.

So, mechanism does matter. It matters so much that scientist continue to investigate the innards of the atom at still deeper levels. And do the same for the structure of cells. As they uncover each level deeper they find still more structure and even more complexity. They search for answers as to its makeup, structure and the forces involved. And, they ask why? What makes it work? What makes it work the way it does?

So a real scientist does not just assume chaos is behind the snowflake's structure as you do. You have to show the mechanism of chaos somehow has the ability to cause structure and organization. You are assuming. That is a philosophical presupposition on your part.

Since structure and organization seem to indicate design and design points in the direction of a designer and according to Dawkins this points to purpose then it is reasonable to accept ID.

You see, what we have are a lot of scientists who are predisposed to reject any logical, rational reasoning of the facts if they seem to lead to anything but a materialistic, atheistic conclusion. In other words their definition of science excludes any possibility of the supernatural regardless of the line of evidence. They refuse to follow the evidence to where ever it leads. They know this. Some actually admit it.

The reason ID and what you call "creation scientists" (they are not the same) do not get peer review is because they are not allowed publication. They people like you use the fact that they are not published in the journals as evidence that they are not actually scientists practicing real science.

[Hugh B]

Um... ok.

So, you beleive that ID and God CAN be demonstrated? Bring it on.

This should be good. :rolleyes:



There ya go again putting words in my mouth, saying something I never claimed. I never said anything about being able to "demonstrate", whatever you may actually mean by that.

A demonstration is not the same as evidence in favor of or a valid argument in favor of. I have been posting a series of arguements for ID right along. Arguments that favor ID and disfavor order and structure from chaos.

[scrogdog]

That is like saying "I exist therefore evolution is true". Such absurdity. That is not scientific that is a philosophical predisposition.

Real science looks for causes. So, how do you know that chaos itself created the snowflake? You are assuming that such must be true because the snowflake exists. A philosophic presupposition on your part.

So, mechanism does matter. It matters so much that scientist continue to investigate the innards of the atom at still deeper levels. And do the same for the structure of cells. As they uncover each level deeper they find still more structure and even more complexity. They search for answers as to its makeup, structure and the forces involved. And, they ask why? What makes it work? What makes it work the way it does?

So a real scientist does not just assume chaos is behind the snowflake's structure as you do. You have to show the mechanism of chaos somehow has the ability to cause structure and organization. You are assuming. That is a philosophical presupposition on your part.

Since structure and organization seem to indicate design and design points in the direction of a designer and according to Dawkins this points to purpose then it is reasonable to accept ID.

You see, what we have are a lot of scientists who are predisposed to reject any logical, rational reasoning of the facts if they seem to lead to anything but a materialistic, atheistic conclusion. In other words their definition of science excludes any possibility of the supernatural regardless of the line of evidence. They refuse to follow the evidence to where ever it leads. They know this. Some actually admit it.

The reason ID and what you call "creation scientists" (they are not the same) do not get peer review is because they are not allowed publication. They people like you use the fact that they are not published in the journals as evidence that they are not actually scientists practicing real science.

Your entire post is invalid because I never said that chaos CREATED order. I said that order AROSE from chaos.

I dunno, I suppose that the mechanism was absence of heat. What do you say? :rolleyes:

Order and chaos are STATES.

Try again.

So, what you are basically saying is that all of science worldwide is in a conspiracy against Christianity?

Bwahahahaha! OMG that is priceless.

So, name the test. What test exactly have the journals not shown us?

[glennac]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, this post has gone from the dangers of the Islamic invasion to a debate over God vs. no God. That in my opinion belongs on a separate thread. Cain't we get back on track. Thank you very much.

[Hugh B]

Your entire post is invalid because I never said that chaos CREATED order. I said that order AROSE from chaos.

I dunno, I suppose that the mechanism was absence of heat. What do you say? :rolleyes:

Order and chaos are STATES.

Try again.

So, what you are basically saying is that all of science worldwide is in a conspiracy against Christianity?

Bwahahahaha! OMG that is priceless.

So, name the test. What test exactly have the journals not shown us?

Ok, replace the word "created" with the term caused or brought about. My argument is now valid according to your definitions.

How does chaos go about causing order and structure. Order and structure that is complex.

How about if I can provide quotes from three well known evolutionist scientists including a winner of the Nobel Prize in physiology/medicine who admit that science is predisposed to only consider materialistic causes regardless of the evidence?

[scrogdog]

There ya go again putting words in my mouth, saying something I never claimed. I never said anything about being able to "demonstrate", whatever you may actually mean by that.

A demonstration is not the same as evidence in favor of or a valid argument in favor of. I have been posting a series of arguements for ID right along. Arguments that favor ID and disfavor order and structure from chaos.

Scientifically speaking that is incorrect.

Unless you can demonstrate something by experiment, you have NO science. PERIOD.

Here I go needing to teach you the basics yet again. The scientific method. READ IT.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000

You might have philosophy though; depends on whether your arguments are sound and valid on that basis.

Again, ID is NOT SCIENCE, that is why it is not taught as such.

[scrogdog]

Ok, replace the word "created" with the term caused or brought about. My argument is now valid according to your definitions.

How does chaos go about causing order and structure. Order and structure that is complex.

How about if I can provide quotes from three well known evolutionist scientists including a winner of the Nobel Prize in physiology/medicine who admit that science is predisposed to only consider materialistic causes regardless of the evidence?

I didn't replace a thing. Quote me where I said created.

You don't need to provide the quotes because even I agree with that. Science is not about non-material things because it cannot be silly boy. The hallmark of science is TESTING, can you get that through your head? Things that are not physical cannot be tested, and therefore cannot be scientifically validated.

I'm not sure what your point is really. Everyone knows the nature of science lies in the physical realm. That's why you have no evidence for supernatural beings. Um... you can't. No one can.

As I explained, chaos does not cause things. IT IS A STATE. Do you know what a state is for bejeesus sakes?

[fixacr]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, this post has gone from the dangers of the Islamic invasion to a debate over God vs. no God. That in my opinion belongs on a separate thread. Cain't we get back on track. Thank you very much.

He started it!!!:angel:

[scrogdog]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, this post has gone from the dangers of the Islamic invasion to a debate over God vs. no God. That in my opinion belongs on a separate thread. Cain't we get back on track. Thank you very much.

No.

Thank you very much.

[Hugh B]

Scientifically speaking that is incorrect.

Unless you can demonstrate something by experiment, you have NO science. PERIOD.

Here I go needing to teach you the basics yet again. The scientific method. READ IT.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000

You might have philosophy though; depends on whether your arguments are sound and valid on that basis.

Again, ID is NOT SCIENCE, that is why it is not taught as such.

So reasoning logically is unscientific? I am simply applying logic to the existence of the highly structured organization of the snowflake (your own example) to see what can be deduced from what we observe. I believe that qualifies as being scientific. All science is the application of observation and logic. Not all of what we classify as objective science can be subjected to an experiment although experimentation plays a central role.

For example, geology uses reason and logic to deduce what even you will agree qualifies as science to determine things about how the Earth was formed. Yet we cannot perform an experiment which reforms the Earth. Historical geology is a science but scientists cannot duplicate history in a lab. All they can do is look at the available evidence and then try to logically reason out what they think must have happened. Then they write geology textbooks and claim these are science texts and use them to teach science to our children.

Once animal species has never been observed turning into another. Yet, this is claimed to be science. No lab experiment has ever been made where one species has been developed from another. Yet, this evolutionary biology is called science.

So, applying logic and reasoning to the material world and coming up with answers is science. Not all of what we classify as science can be subjected to the scientific method. I wish it were so.

[Hugh B]

I didn't replace a thing. Quote me where I said created.

You don't need to provide the quotes because even I agree with that. Science is not about non-material things because it cannot be silly boy. The hallmark of science is TESTING, can you get that through your head? Things that are not physical cannot be tested, and therefore cannot be scientifically validated.

I'm not sure what your point is really. Everyone knows the nature of science lies in the physical realm. That's why you have no evidence for supernatural beings. Um... you can't. No one can.

As I explained, chaos does not cause things. IT IS A STATE. Do you know what a state is for bejeesus sakes?

So you have decided that you will not follow the evidence wherever it leads regardless of where the physical evidence leads. You see the physical evidence could and does lead us to philosophical conclusions. This happens all the time. All scientists that I have read know this and admit to it. In fact, in many cases they don't like the direction their scientific knowledge seems to lead them philosophically.

Philosophy lies at the bedrock of science.

[Hugh B]

If you can't explain how chaos brings forth organization and structure then you cannot make a valid claim that such is true. You have no evidence that such is the case.

That means you hold to that view philosophically not scientifically.

[scrogdog]

So reasoning logically is unscientific? I am simply applying logic to the existence of the highly structured organization of the snowflake (your own example) to see what can be deduced from what we observe. I believe that qualifies as being scientific. All science is the application of observation and logic. Not all of what we classify as objective science can be subjected to an experiment although experimentation plays a central role.

For example, geology uses reason and logic to deduce what even you will agree qualifies as science to determine things about how the Earth was formed. Yet we cannot perform an experiment which reforms the Earth. Historical geology is a science but scientists cannot duplicate history in a lab. All they can do is look at the available evidence and then try to logically reason out what they think must have happened. Then they write geology textbooks and claim these are science texts and use them to teach science to our children.

There are some what we call theoretical sciences, yes. And those scientists are well aware of the problems because sometimes experiments DEFY logic.

I'll quote another of my favorite scientists on this topic, Richard Feynman


Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is-and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that physicists have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment.


Once animal species has never been observed turning into another. Yet, this is claimed to be science. No lab experiment has ever been made where one species has been developed from another. Yet, this evolutionary biology is called science.

Once again I just can't get you to seperate FACT from THEORY. As a matter of fact, we don't know a lot of things about evolution; even the best scientist will admit that. However, I already gave you the opportunity to offer a different view on the OBSERVATION that evolution occurred and you ignored it. *shrug* Not much I can do under those circumstances.


So, applying logic and reasoning to the material world and coming up with answers is science. Not all of what we classify as science can be subjected to the scientific method. I wish it were so.

As Feynman clearly explained, no... it is not hard science. Sorry.

[Hugh B]

James Watson 1962 winner of the Nobel Prize for physiology


"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical, coherent evidence, but because the only alternative is special creation and that is clearly incredible."

So here we have a credible scientist with great credentials admitting several things in one sentence.

1) That what is in this case considered science cannot be subjected to the scientific method. I guess they are using pure reason. But, it is accepted by most scientists as science. Hmm, interesting.

2) Watson also admits that regardless of where the evidence may lead science is predisposed to rejecting any line of reasoning (no matter how logical) which may lead to a supernatural conclusion.

Sure looks like scientific bias to me.

[Hugh B]

There are some what we call theoretical sciences, yes. And those scientists are well aware of the problems because sometimes experiments DEFY logic.

I'll quote another of my favorite scientists on this topic, Richard Feynman





Once again I just can't get you to seperate FACT from THEORY. As a matter of fact, we don't know a lot of things about evolution; even the best scientist will admit that. However, I already gave you the opportunity to offer a different view on the OBSERVATION that evolution occurred and you ignored it. *shrug* Not much I can do under those circumstances.



As Feynman clearly explained, no... it is not hard science. Sorry.


We actually share something in common. Richard Feynman perhaps (IMO) the most brilliant physist to this day.

I do not have a problem understanding the difference between facts and theory. You seem to use that false claim in an attempt to derail my posts.

BTW, I have read all of Feynman's works several times and have listened to his freshman lecture series in physics twice. I know of no other physics professor who compares. He has a most amazing ability to make the complex easier to follow.

[scrogdog]

James Watson 1962 winner of the Nobel Prize for physiology


"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical, coherent evidence, but because the only alternative is special creation and that is clearly incredible."

So here we have a credible scientist with great credentials admitting several things in one sentence.

1) That what is in this case considered science cannot be subjected to the scientific method. I guess they are using pure reason. But, it is accepted by most scientists as science. Hmm, interesting.

2) Watson also admits that regardless of where the evidence may lead science is predisposed to rejecting any line of reasoning (no matter how logical) which may lead to a supernatural conclusion.

Sure looks like scientific bias to me.

Except for one thing.

There is a MOUNTAIN of tested evidence for evolution.

[Hugh B]

Except for one thing.

There is a MOUNTAIN of tested evidence for evolution.


That is what you said earlier about chaos bringing forth structure and organization. Lots of examples. But, you failed to provide any except the snowflake which you have not been able to explain.

So, where is all the evidence for chaos resulting in highly structured order? Giving examples without providing a mechanism is not science, it's a philosophic presupposition. Same goes for evolution from one species to another. Another theory based on a philosophic presupposition.

[scrogdog]

That is what you said earlier about chaos bringing forth structure and organization. Lots of examples. But, you failed to provide any except the snowflake which you have not been able to explain.

I didn't say bringing forth, I said arose from. Again chaos IS A STATE. Do you know what that is?

What's to explain? Cold air turned randomly moving water molecules in to a crystalline structure. So what? The point is that chaos turned in to order without any thought or pre-design.


So, where is all the evidence for chaos resulting in highly structured order? Giving examples without providing a mechanism is not science, it's a philosophic presupposition. Same goes for evolution from one species to another. Another theory based on a philosophic presupposition.

No it's based on precedent and inference.

For example, we did not observationally discover the planet Neptune. We inferred its existence by its observed effect on other bodies.

Further, we did not observationally "discover" that the Earth was round until the early 60s. Do you think we knew it was round before then? Could we demonstrate it?

We still have not directly observed the Earth orbiting the sun.

[scrogdog]

We actually share something in common. Richard Feynman perhaps (IMO) the most brilliant physist to this day.

I do not have a problem understanding the difference between facts and theory. You seem to use that false claim in an attempt to derail my posts.

BTW, I have read all of Feynman's works several times and have listened to his freshman lecture series in physics twice. I know of no other physics professor who compares. He has a most amazing ability to make the complex easier to follow.

Absolutely agree.

Gould on the other hand could be a tough read.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Just for fun:

Go to this site:

http://www.rzim.org/

The gentleman that runs this ministry is a brilliant person in Apologetics (debating the validity of Christianity).

If someone is truly open-minded, take a look around the site... you might find something that challenges your thought process.:oops:

[Hugh B]

I didn't say bringing forth, I said arose from. Again chaos IS A STATE. Do you know what that is?

What's to explain? Cold air turned randomly moving water molecules in to a crystalline structure. So what? The point is that chaos turned in to order without any thought or pre-design.



No it's based on precedent and inference.

For example, we did not observationally discover the planet Neptune. We inferred its existence by its observed effect on other bodies.

Further, we did not observationally "discover" that the Earth was round until the early 60s. Do you think we knew it was round before then? Could we demonstrate it?

We still have not directly observed the Earth orbiting the sun.


What is there to explain? Plenty. If you can't provide the mechanism within chaos that brings forth structure and organization you cannot just assume that chaos alone has the ability to do so. That is a philosophical position and again is not science.

You don't seem to understand.

[scrogdog]

What is there to explain? Plenty. If you can't provide the mechanism within chaos that brings forth structure and organization you cannot just assume that chaos alone has the ability to do so. That is a philosophical position and again is not science.

You don't seem to understand.

The mechanism is cold air. The result is random.

It is considered "organized" because the particles are at rest, rather than moving. That is all.

That's why cold air has less entropy than warm air. There are less places for the molecules to go. However "cold" is a state of air. It has no mechanism to affect air. Instead, the absence of heat puts the air in a cold state.

[printer2]

I figured it out. Socrates was actually God and Jesus, being his son got a lot of his concepts from good old dad. There, end of argument. Wait a minute, what happened to that argument? It seems this topic has evolved.


This brief interlude has been brought to you by science and all its many flavours, real, and unreal.

[scrogdog]

Just for fun:

Go to this site:

http://www.rzim.org/

The gentleman that runs this ministry is a brilliant person in Apologetics (debating the validity of Christianity).

If someone is truly open-minded, take a look around the site... you might find something that challenges your thought process.:oops:

Tell you what GA, you select something for me to read. All I get are links that want to sell me stuff or when I clicked "can we still trust the bible" I get directed to a page about some conference in Birmingham. :)

[Hugh B]

The mechanism is cold air. The result is random.

It is considered "organized" because the particles are at rest, rather than moving. That is all.

That's why cold air has less entropy than warm air. There are less places for the molecules to go. However "cold" is a state of air. It has no mechanism to affect air. Instead, the absence of heat puts the air in a cold state.

This is not an answer to the actual question. The question is why the result is such a highly ordered structure with all the evidence of design and pattern. What made the result so highly ordered? Chaos would be expected to cause the result to be disordered such as a blob or something.

Instead we get this highly ordered pattern of order and design including beauty that always follows a specific set of features that every snowflake shares. Why so? What mechanism exists in chaos that causes such order. This order, this structure contains information, specific information that always causes each flake to share the same sort of order yet be individual. Chaos does no such thing nor would we expect chaos to do such a thing.

This is repeated in each atom, each living cell and so on. Chaos cannot explain this unless one can explain what it is within chaos that causes such highly structured organization.

Therefore, it is reasonable to believe something exists which causes all this order in flakes, atoms and cells. Randomness or chaos does not produce order it produces disorder.

[Hugh B]

Yes, chaos is a state, a state of disorder. What mechanism is there that directs the state of disorder to become highly organized and structured?

This is the entire problem behind the so called theory of evolution.

[scrogdog]

This is not an answer to the actual question. The question is why the result is such a highly ordered structure with all the evidence of design and pattern. What made the result so highly ordered? Chaos would be expected to cause the result to be disordered such as a blob or something.

Instead we get this highly ordered pattern of order and design including beauty that always follows a specific set of features that every snowflake shares. Why so? What mechanism exists in chaos that causes such order. This order, this structure contains information, specific information that always causes each flake to share the same sort of order yet be individual. Chaos does no such thing nor would we expect chaos to do such a thing.

This is repeated in each atom, each living cell and so on. Chaos cannot explain this unless one can explain what it is within chaos that causes such highly structured organization.

Therefore, it is reasonable to believe something exists which causes all this order in flakes, atoms and cells. Randomness or chaos does not produce order it produces disorder.

That's because your question is not valid.

Chaos doesn't DO anything... for the last time IT IS A STATE. It is the RESULT of a thing, not the CAUSE of a thing.

[scrogdog]

Yes, chaos is a state, a state of disorder. What mechanism is there that directs the state of disorder to become highly organized and structured?

This is the entire problem behind the so called theory of evolution.

The mechanism. COLD AIR.

Ok, let's take a different tack.

Let's say that I'm holding a bunch of colored sand. It is in my hand, in a STATE of rest.

Can anything affect the state of that sand being in my hand except an outside force? No. That's because a STATE has no inherent mechanisms.

Ok, now I throw the sand in to the air. As a result of my action, not because of inherent properties or the non-existent "mechanisms" of being at rest, the sand is now chaotic and randomly moving EVEN WHILE obeying the natural laws of physics.

Now, the chaotic state also encounters forces of resistence and gravity so it eventually lands. In a pretty design. Well, ok, you might not like it but some you will.

It's a random pattern but it is no longer chaotic because it is at rest.

States do not have "mechanisims".

[Hugh B]

The mechanism. COLD AIR.

Ok, let's take a different tack.

Let's say that I'm holding a bunch of colored sand. It is in my hand, in a STATE of rest.

Can anything affect the state of that sand being in my hand except an outside force? No. That's because a STATE has no inherent mechanisms.

Ok, now I throw the sand in to the air. As a result of my action, not because of inherent properties or the non-existent "mechanisms" of being at rest, the sand is now chaotic and randomly moving EVEN WHILE obeying the natural laws of physics.

Now, the chaotic state also encounters forces of resistence and gravity so it eventually lands. In a pretty design. Well, ok, you might not like it but some you will.

It's a random pattern but it is no longer chaotic because it is at rest.

States do not have "mechanisims".

The problem with your example is that you need to show how the sand ended up as a wonderful little sandcastle complete with doors, windows and fixtures.

You are absolutely correct that states do not have mechanisims. That is why chaos cannot produce the highly structured organization that actually occurs in say the snowflake. So the highly ordered design seems to have been directed and even planned. So once again what caused the order and structure in the flake?

The same question applies to the atom and the cell. They are highly structured and according to Dawkins "have the appearance of design". No kidding, perhaps the cause is actually that they were designed. We now know that chaos did not do it. You have finally admitted so.

[scrogdog]

The problem with your example is that you need to show how the sand ended up as a wonderful little sandcastle complete with doors, windows and fixtures.

You are absolutely correct that states do not have mechanisims. That is why chaos cannot produce the highly structured organization that actually occurs in say the snowflake. So the highly ordered design seems to have been directed and even planned. So once again what caused the order and structure in the flake?

The same question applies to the atom and the cell. They are highly structured and according to Dawkins "have the appearance of design". No kidding, perhaps the cause is actually that they were designed. We now know that chaos did not do it. You have finally admitted so.

The result is RANDOM. Randomness can even be beautiful. Why can it not?

[Hugh B]

The result is RANDOM. Randomness can even be beautiful. Why can it not?

That's right chaos produces random disorganized results not structured organization.

That is why your snowflake example which you earlier provided as an illustration of how order comes from chaos, fails.


There is no rational explanation for the order in the physical world other than ID. Highly structured order which bespeaks of purpose is very, very strong evidence for design. Design is strong evidence for a designer. Even Dawkins sees this. Heck, this bothers him so much he wrote The Blind Watchmaker in a feeble attempt to get out from under this problem.

No ordering mechanism for the order we see in nature has been found without coming back to an intelligent designer. This is the only reasonable, logical and philosophically sound line of reasoning given what we observe.

[scrogdog]

So the designer designs each snowflake, but not the result of each handful of sand thrown in to the air?

[Hugh B]

The result is RANDOM. Randomness can even be beautiful. Why can it not?

Sure randomness can be beautiful. But randomness is not organization and structure. This is one of my points.

What is the mechanism that produces highly complex structures such as flakes, atoms and cells out of randomness?

[Hugh B]

So the designer designs each snowflake, but not the result of each handful of sand thrown in to the air?

I have no idea what can be concluded from such a statement. Some things contain a great deal of highly structured organization (which seems to be directed) while other things do not have such high level organization.

The fact that some things are actually far less organized or even seem to be very unstructured fails to account for the highly complex structure we do see.

[scrogdog]

Sure randomness can be beautiful. But randomness is not organization and structure. This is one of my points.

What is the mechanism that produces highly complex structures such as flakes, atoms and cells out of randomness?

You are confusing the vernacular with science definition.

Structured simply means at rest, The sand has a structure, it IS organized (at rest). It is random and you may not like it, but it HAS a structure.

[Hugh B]

You are confusing the vernacular with science definition.

Structured simply means at rest, The sand has a structure, it IS organized (at rest). It is random and you may not like it, but it HAS a structure.


Yes it does have structure and a degree of order. Again that is not the point at all. The sand on the ground may even have a pattern to some degree. But it is not so highly structured and organized as to form a beautful sand castle. You would not expect throwing the sand in the air to form that complex of a structure either now would you?

But that is very kind of highly ordered structure we can find in nature such as the highly ordered and organized structure in atoms and cells. And, that structure is so complex it defies any natural cause such as chaos or randomness having produced it. In fact, it is so highly ordered it seems to have been made in a structure that has purpose. A cell is full of purpose.

Purpose always seems to come from intelligence. Back again to ID.

[Hugh B]

We can even go beyond the randomness of the sand on the ground in a not so organized pattern and take a single grain of sand and go deeper into that single grain to the atomic level of a single atom in the grain and once again find the complex and highly ordered structure within that atom.

Once again we find such a highly ordered structure in that atom that is appears (using Dawkins term) to have been designed. Again we are faced with what appears to be the signature of a designer who placed purpose in its structure.

What purpose? The ability of that atom to join up with other atoms and form a molecule. The molecule then takes on new features which prove to be very useful.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Tell you what GA, you select something for me to read. All I get are links that want to sell me stuff or when I clicked "can we still trust the bible" I get directed to a page about some conference in Birmingham. :)
As I said:

If someone is truly open-minded, take a look around the site... you might find something that challenges your thought process.:oops:

[scrogdog]

Well, in my opinion Hugh, your position doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's just my opinion.

So, all we are left with, I suppose, is that fact that your contention is unscientific.

You don't have a demonstration. You don't have established precedent.

What you DO have, however, is a violation of a fairly standard scientific axiom; Occam's razor. You have added a quite unnecessary element of complexity to the equation. All we need to make a snowflake is water molecules and cold air.

As for you GA, I use the 3-click rule on ALL websites. Life's is too short and me too impatient to waste time looking for things that are likely better organized elsewhere.

If that makes me close-minded, so be it. Have a ball.

I suppose that using the same logical basis that allows you to suggest that I might be close-minded also allows me to suggest that you might be irrational.

Good day, sir.

[Marc O'Brien]

Since Plato is the primary source of information about Socrates that leaves Socrates in doubt as well.

While there were three sure contemporaries who wrote considerably on Socrates, Aristophanes, Xenophon and Plato, I'm fully aware of the chances that Socrates was all along a fictional character - the James Bond or Sherlock Holmes of Philosophy.

The trouble is, there is much much less evidence for the exitence of Jesus and none whatsoever that he was also God. I am happy to decide that perhaps Socrates never existed. Are you willing to do the same about Jesus? Soctratic Reasoning and the Dialogues stand on their own a more powerfull collection of works than anything the new testament can offer - those works do not change in value either way whether Socrates actually existend or not.

James Bond, Sherlock Holmes or especially Socrates would make for much better God's than Jesus. If I were told I had to choose someone to be my man God I would have to choose Socrates - he is the one man more superior than all other men who have ever lived on reasoning and ethics (my own core interests).

[Marc O'Brien]

What you talkin' about, Willis?

You said order cannot come from chaos. Yes it can.

Again, a snowflake suddenly arises from a bunch of RANDOMLY circulating water molecules. That is, order... a crystalline structure, has arisen from something random (chaos)... randomly moving water molecules.

What does mechanism matter? You said something couldn't happen but it clearly does.

Planetry or Solar systems form out of Chaos but importantly remain chaotic, the goings on in a human body rely too on chaos. We have free will because of chaos occuring on a level at the physics of conscience.

When a heart surgeon detects a highly predictable heart rythm he will be concerned. He is more at ease when chaos is detected.

Without biological chaos we could not exist.

Cloning so far does not give good results because it removes much of the necessary chaos.

Remove the chaos from space dust and planetary systems or galaxies could not form.

[kls-ccc]

I just have a simple thought from a simple man for all you that need proof that there is a God. If you were given away at birth and never new your birth mother, would you go through life believeing that she never existed? You would know that you had a mother somewhere, and may even go so far as to believe that she was watching sometimes. The fact that everyone else on the planet has a mother is all the proof you need. So why is it so hard for you to believe that you have a heavenly father that adopted you to your birth parents and is still watching over you?

[geerair]

And the sayings of one Jesus Christ has not had an influence on society? Where have you been man?

The New Testament is the most popular book ever published, it outsells every other book year after year so much so that they don't bother placing it on the best sellers list.

Jesus is far, far more influential and universally known than Socrates.Argument from popularity, a logical fallacy.

For one who claims to have training in philosophy, you certainly commit logical fallacies on a regular basis.

[geerair]

OK, here is the way I see this:

Fact: In post #1, Mr O'brian states:
I also offered to students and friends that if they could find for me one tiny shred of evidence for Jesus having ever existed that warrants the claims made in the Bible then I offer to, within an hour, jump from the tallest college building. Lol, they have utterly failed. But are also becoming wise to the world as it really is :) If you would like to see a video of me jumping to the street below from a 7 storey building then give me the evidence and I shall pass it onto to them. As you can imagine, I am delighting in the absolute security, provided me, of total absence of evidence for Jesus having ever existed :)

Fact: In post #15, the evidence was noted by a person that was not a follower of Jesus, confirming the existance of Jesus:
The OP should get a copy of the writings of a historian named Josephus. He was/is seen as the most authoritative Jewish historian of the times. Josephus wrote that a man who called himself Jesus did indeed live, and that he did indeed do the things mentioned in the Bible. He also wrote that the local religious authorities plotted (deceitfully, like any good politician would) to get rid of this Jesus guy because he was messing up their empire.

Fact #3: In post #17, the same Mr O'brian who said he would jump off a building (I hope he does not) posts from the writings of Josehpus:
Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93 AD. In these works, Jesus is mentioned twice. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum.

In the first passage, called the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:

Quote:
About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[48]
Concerns have been raised about the authenticity of the passage, and it is widely held by scholars that at least part of the passage has been altered by a later scribe. The Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion and controversy of interpolation. Louis H. Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part."[49] Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt.[50] However, there has been no consensus on which portions have been altered, or to what degree.

In the second, very brief mention, Josephus calls James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."[51] The great majority of scholars consider this shorter reference to Jesus to be substantially authentic,[52] although a minority has raised doubts.[53]
(end)

From the eyes of someone that sees simple logic, it is clear that the existance of Jesus has been proven (I hope Mr O'brian does not jump off a building, regardless of his misguided beliefs he is still a person). I would also suggest that it would be impossible to conclude anything other than this Mr O'brian is speaking out of both sides of his mouth... and practicing the classical art of political spin. This same spin art that is in 'vogue' these days due to the current president of the USA. I would also note that this same president has pole ratings which are going down due to another fact: Folks are not as dumb as they look... they have learned about Mr Obama, as we are learning about Mr O'brian... I would also note that Mr O'brian does not seem to understand the folly of believing that political spin is a worthy road in life, based on reading the rest of the thread.

A word to Mr Obrian: We in this fine country have a tendency to become rather hostile towards someone from outside the country that thinks they will come in and tell us what to do... as they would think they can run our country better than we can.

Now to continue Mr O'brian: Your country has enough issues, you need to tend to your country and we will tend to ours. A sign of a sick person is one that is a failure at tending their own house, yet thinks they are sooo smart they should be fixing another's.

But to be fair, I will suggest some more reading for Mr O'brian: A gentleman named Josh McDowell was as much of an un-believer as our English protagonist, and looked for proof. He was proven to be wrong and wrote two books to express that proof: Evidence that demands a Verdict, and More Evidence that demands a verdict. If you still are not convinced let us know, we will pray for you that your eyes will be opened.

Now a word from myself to you: You are acting as an attention hound, so I will rob you of what you crave; attention. I will not respond to your posts again... I suggest no-one else responds to him either.As Marc has already pointed out, Josephus' writings of Jesus in the TF are considered by Near East and biblical scholars to be interpolations by later Christians looking to provide a witness for the life of Jesus. As such, serious biblical scholarship rejects Josepus as a witness to the life of Jesus.

[geerair]

There is such a volume of evidence that it fills several books. See what was suggested by Boots. I own both books and have read them. Read for yourself.

I will suggest some more reading for Mr O'brian: A gentleman named Josh McDowell was as much of an un-believer as our English protagonist, and looked for proof. He was proven to be wrong and wrote two books to express that proof: Evidence that demands a Verdict, and More Evidence that demands a verdict.McDowell's books are laughable. there is not even a pretense of biblical scholarship in either book. McDowell is the Erich von Daniken of biblical studies. No scholarship, no historical validity, wild claims, no credibility.

Pap for the gullible, intellectually incurious, fundy.

[geerair]

If one accepts the critical analysis of the methods and conclusions used by Josh McDowell as valid then one has a huge problem with nearly all ancient literature.

If the works of Plato are subjected to the same requirements then one could make the claim that there is no valid evidence that the works of Plato are his own or that Plato ever existed as a real person. Since Plato is the primary source of information about Socrates that leaves Socrates in doubt as well.

McDowell applied the very research methods to the scriptures as secular historians apply to other ancient works and works of history to determine their authorship, trustworthiness, etc...

McDowell was not the orginator of the methods he used. He applied the standard techniques developed over years of university research. Nor was McDowell the first or the last to apply these techniques to the scriptures. Other books and papers have been published, thus we have peer review.

Those who object to McDowells conclusions go about attacking his methods not realizing they are also discarding much of what textual critics have used to authenticate all ancient works that don't doubt as authentic. So if you believe these critics regarding McDowell's research you must reject the trustworthiness of all ancient works including Plato.Nonsense.

As has already been pointed out, McDowell's scholarship is particulary sloppy. A quick glance at McDowell sources reveal that he is not interested in an objective search for historical accuracy or even the use of valid historical methodology but rather is attempting to use selected and cherry-picked sources and evidence to support his already decided conclusion.

[geerair]

In the case of both Dog and Marc they insist we provide 'credable" sources. However, a credable source to them is a source that agrees with their point of view.

So they effectively define any credable source we provide out of existence. This is a typical liberal tactic. In my opinion Dog is a closet liberal as well as a skeptic.Credible would mean supported by evidence.

This would disqualify any scribblings of Josh McDowell.

[ga-hvac-tech]

As Marc has already pointed out, Josephus' writings of Jesus in the TF are considered by Near East and biblical scholars to be interpolations by later Christians looking to provide a witness for the life of Jesus. As such, serious biblical scholarship rejects Josepus as a witness to the life of Jesus.

Yes, there are 'some' folks in the Christian community (IMO those that worship their minds rather than God), who dis-credit Josephus.

My studies would suggest they are a small minority with an over-active marketing machine. Kinda like a politician??? Say whatever promotes themselves with no regard for anything beyond usery of others for personal gain?

[geerair]

The evolutionist-atheist astronomer Carl Sagan did the same thing. It is called the 'seeding theory". Sagan realized that he had no way of accounting for life having developed on Earth so he assumed (without evidence) that life was seeded from elsewhere in the universe.

All that did was move the problem farther in the universe but it did not remotely answer the question.Couple of things; Sagan considered himself an agnostic not an atheist.

Seeding was one, not the only possibility Sagan considered as providing the building blocks necessary for the genesis of life.

[geerair]

Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker begins his book with "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

That is an amazing statement from a man of science. First of all that is his definition of biology.Rather it is a rhetorical device meant to set up the thesis of his book. Obviously it is not what Dawkins considers a complete defintion of biology.


But, even Dawkins freely admits here that creation has the appearance of (there is evidence for) design and that that design seems to indicate that there is purpose behind it.Nonsense.

Dawkins refers to design in nature as an illusion.

What he posits is that there is design and it has purpose but it is entirely of human manufacture.

Dawkins in no way believes or states that there is design or directed purpose in mature.




This is what the ID movement is all about. Dawkins then spends most of the rest of his book attempting to show that this is not true. It just appears to be true. He has a difficult time coming up with an answer.Not at all, his answer, amply supported and evidence is natural selection.






Simply because the most reasonable answer is it looks like it was designed because it was probably DESIGNED! But, Dawkins even goes to on to state if it is true that it was designed then it is reasonable to think that there is purpose behind design. He knows the truth. He knows it was designed and that it has purpose. He simply can't accept the end result of this reasoning so he makes a feeble attempt to disprove ID. Much of what he writes is simply scoffing. Hitchens is the better scoffer which is what Hitchens does best.I really doubt you read this book and if you did you totally misunderstood Dawkin's thesis.






Dawkins never, never answers the question as to what mechanisim is behind chaos which can result in structure and organization as even he admits appears to be real.Certainly he does, it is his thesis......natural selection is the mechanism.

Only those who have not read Dawkins book or are too ignorant to understand plain English could fail to realize this.






But better yet, even Dawkins realizes that if there is design there must be purpose. We all know that design requires a designer and purpose comes from a mind and a will. Only intelligent beings have the ability to purpose something.Design as in human designed objects, not nature.


No wonder Hugh resorts to logical fallicies, he can't even understand a basic, scientifically oriented, popular book.

[geerair]

Richard Dawkins goes one step further and says that the structured order also shows purpose. So, we also need to know what it is about chaos that it can determine a purpose.Poor old Hugh, claims to have read The Blind Watchmaker but cannot even grasp the basic premise of the book.

When Dawkins refers to design and purpose, he is talking about human caused design and purpose, not nature.

[geerair]

Since structure and organization seem to indicate design and design points in the direction of a designer and according to Dawkins this points to purpose then it is reasonable to accept ID.Nonsense. Dawkins refers to human caused design and purpose, not nature.




You see, what we have are a lot of scientists who are predisposed to reject any logical, rational reasoning of the facts if they seem to lead to anything but a materialistic, atheistic conclusion. In other words their definition of science excludes any possibility of the supernatural regardless of the line of evidence. They refuse to follow the evidence to where ever it leads. They know this. Some actually admit it.You are confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism; a mistake that would contradict your incessant claims of training in philosophy.






The reason ID and what you call "creation scientists" (they are not the same) do not get peer review is because they are not allowed publication. They people like you use the fact that they are not published in the journals as evidence that they are not actually scientists practicing real science.Nonsense. Proponents of ID well know that their shoddy scholarship and complete lack of evidence would be shredded by the peer-review process.

ID proponents prefer to publish in popular books and on websites because they know these are the only venues where they will get a gullible, scientifically illiterate audience which will accept their pseudo-science without an ounce of critical thinking.


ID not only fails in the legitimate scientific world, but also in the courts of law.

Read Kitzmiller v. Dover. Guaranteed to provide humor as pro-ID witnesses flail about comically and a thorough debunking of ID as science.

[geerair]

Once animal species has never been observed turning into another. Probably because no one in biology ever said this.


No lab experiment has ever been made where one species has been developed from another. Nonsense. See fruit fly experiments.

[geerair]

James Watson 1962 winner of the Nobel Prize for physiology


"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical, coherent evidence, but because the only alternative is special creation and that is clearly incredible."

So here we have a credible scientist with great credentials admitting several things in one sentence.

1) That what is in this case considered science cannot be subjected to the scientific method. I guess they are using pure reason. But, it is accepted by most scientists as science. Hmm, interesting.

2) Watson also admits that regardless of where the evidence may lead science is predisposed to rejecting any line of reasoning (no matter how logical) which may lead to a supernatural conclusion.

Sure looks like scientific bias to me.First off James Watson did not say this.

The quote is from D.M.S. Watson, a zoologist and comparative anatomist.

The quote is also a quotemine.

The unedited and correct quote without Hugh's inserted words.

"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because it fits the facts of taxonomy, paleontology, and of geographical distribution, and because no alternative explanation is credible.

Whilst the fact of evolution is accepted by every biologist, the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism by which it has been brought about are still disputable."

Makes a difference when quoted accurately.

Watson produced this quote in 1929, 80 bleeding years ago, a geological timespan in science, at a time when genetics were poorly understood and molecular biology was unknown as a science.

Since Watson's time, genetics and molecular biology have provided a much better understanding of the mode and mechanisms involved in evolution, not to mention the addition of a vast number of fossils.

To sum up: Hugh not only identified the wrong scientist but used an ancient quote which he then edited and inserted his own words.

Sorry Hugh, your attempt to support your silly ideas through the use of ancient, edited and wrongly cited quotes speaks volumes of your lack of intellectual honesty, lack of credibilty and the intellectual and evidentiary emptiness of your position.

[geerair]

Sure randomness can be beautiful. But randomness is not organization and structure. This is one of my points.

What is the mechanism that produces highly complex structures such as flakes, atoms and cells out of randomness?The laws of physics and chemistry.

[skizot]

A link to liven up this thread :D:

Carl Sagan - 'A Glorious Dawn' ft Stephen Hawking (Cosmos Remixed) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc)

[Pneuma]

What happens in the name of Socrates? What charity work, relief work, what homeless shelter, where do alcoholics get cured by philosophy? Setting aside proof, why would I stop following Jesus and follow Socrates? How would it make my life better? How would the teaching of socrates help me deal with the trials of being married and raising kids? How would my family have gotten through my wife's cancer better had I gone to the church of socrates, where is that BTW, rather than a United Methodists church? Which followers of socrates would have brought me meals and watched my kids? Which mission trip would I take in the summer if not the appalacian service project, where do people repair houses in the name of Socrates?

I predict you will say being a Christian is just being a Socrates copycat, like Mother Theresa was not a Christian but a... I forget what you call her. Well so what if she is that and we just label it Christian.

What does being right about there being no Jesus actually get you? Would you be happy to see Churches shut down? What ultimately is your goal? To br crowned the smart one among us, who didn't get hornswaggled?

How Socratic is your message that Jesus is a flea and his followers stupid? Who are you saving from what, and is saving them really worth it?

[ga-hvac-tech]

What happens in the name of Socrates? What charity work, relief work, what homeless shelter, where do alcoholics get cured by philosophy? Setting aside proof, why would I stop following Jesus and follow Socrates? How would it make my life better? How would the teaching of socrates help me deal with the trials of being married and raising kids? How would my family have gotten through my wife's cancer better had I gone to the church of socrates, where is that BTW, rather than a United Methodists church? Which followers of socrates would have brought me meals and watched my kids? Which mission trip would I take in the summer if not the appalacian service project, where do people repair houses in the name of Socrates?

I predict you will say being a Christian is just being a Socrates copycat, like Mother Theresa was not a Christian but a... I forget what you call her. Well so what if she is that and we just label it Christian.

What does being right about there being no Jesus actually get you? Would you be happy to see Churches shut down? What ultimately is your goal? To br crowned the smart one among us, who didn't get hornswaggled?

How Socratic is your message that Jesus is a flea and his followers stupid? Who are you saving from what, and is saving them really worth it?

Good post; I agree!

[scrogdog]

A link to liven up this thread :D:

Carl Sagan - 'A Glorious Dawn' ft Stephen Hawking (Cosmos Remixed) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc)

Thank you. I enjoyed that!

[scrogdog]

What does being right about there being no Jesus actually get you? Would you be happy to see Churches shut down? What ultimately is your goal? To br crowned the smart one among us, who didn't get hornswaggled?

I presume this is directed towards the OP, but I'll still take a shot at it in a general sense.

In matters of general theology, I admit that it does irk me a bit when believers attempt to use pseudo-science and/or invalid logic to make a case for God. To me, this is as great an offense towards science as putting ID stickers on the science text books of kids. And it is not good for our children in general in my opinion.

That's not to say that religion itself is damaging to young or old. I happen to agree with Voltaire who said; "if God did not exist then it would be necessary for man to create him". In other words, it fills a human need for many, whether real or not.

If we allow anything other than strict methodolgy to define what science is, well, that's when you get in to the realm of people accepting "consensus science" rather than tested theorums. There is no such thing as consensus science except during peer review. All science needs is one person who happens to be right and can demonstrate it.

It is also when you get in to the realm of organizations like the EPA who use openly fraudulent science in support of molding social policy. This is extremely dangerous.

Why is it that there must be evidence for God? By definition, faith should be able to survive even in the face of evidence to the contrary. But it is not the case. As we see almost daily in these very forums, and in any bookstore or religious website that you care to name.

Stop the BS. That's my mantra. For the good of science, our children, and indeed, all of human kind.

[Marc O'Brien]

What happens in the name of Socrates?

All the ethical and moral philosophies of the new testament are Socratic. The New testament has ethical or moral principles we agree with - thanks to Socrates.


where do alcoholics get cured by philosophy?

CBT is Socratic and the most successfull form of therapy known to society to date.


Setting aside proof, why would I stop following Jesus and follow Socrates?

Because you might want to perfect your morals and ethics.


How would it make my life better?

You would be wiser. You would become a more proficient thinker. You would be less cerebrally unhygienic.


How would the teaching of socrates help me deal with the trials of being married and raising kids?

Absolutely, nothing beats philosophising. If you are impressed with the watered down Socratic philosophies of the New Testament then wait till you study the real thing.



How would my family have gotten through my wife's cancer better had I gone to the church of socrates, where is that BTW, rather than a United Methodists church?

This is flawed thinking - the hedonistic asymmetry.


Which followers of socrates would have brought me meals and watched my kids? Which mission trip would I take in the summer if not the appalacian service project, where do people repair houses in the name of Socrates?


The Stoics, the Epicureans and the Cynics were Socratic. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle started the idea of symposiums where people met to philosophise. Once the Romans decided that all there was to philosophise about was already written about then there was no longer a need for Symposiums but rather the masses could be gathered to attend fast food style presentations of philosophy (church).


I predict you will say being a Christian is just being a Socrates copycat

Oh yes, that is because I am being consistent with the evidence. Like I predict you will be expecting the sun to rise tomorrow - and it would be perverse if I tried to hold such a state of mind against you in spite of all the overwhelming evidence in support of your expectation.


What does being right about there being no Jesus actually get you? Would you be happy to see Churches shut down? What ultimately is your goal? To br crowned the smart one among us, who didn't get hornswaggled?

How Socratic is your message that Jesus is a flea and his followers stupid? Who are you saving from what, and is saving them really worth it?

Belief in Gods is a primitive practise perverting mankind's intellect, ethics and morals.

Philosophy cannot work if it is presented to people. It has to actually be practised. Philosophising is the activity of training or exercising the mind in the acquisition of self varifiedly true knowledge.

Religion is evil. Theism is not evil - only religion is evil. All religions are evil. Philosophy is the only virtue and faith the only evil.

[ga-hvac-tech]

I really cannot figure out whether this clown is just pulling folks legs for entertainment (like some other posters at ARP over the years), or

If he is really moronic enough to believe he is smarter than God. One thing for sure: If the latter is true, I feel sorry for him... he will learn... pity is all I feel for him.

Imagine... actually thinking Socrates was more moral than Jesus??? By whose yardstick?

The difference between a God fearing Christian and this guy is that the former worships God... the latter worships their mind... kinda narscistic (sp) IMO.

[Marc O'Brien]

I really cannot figure out whether this clown is just pulling folks legs for entertainment (like some other posters at ARP over the years), or

If he is really moronic enough to believe he is smarter than God. One thing for sure: If the latter is true, I feel sorry for him... he will learn... pity is all I feel for him.

Because you have absolutely no evidence of God, not a single tiny shred of evidence, you are worshiping only idols. Figments of your imagination. Like often children do of immaginary friends.

However, yes, philosophy is very entertaining, especially if you are the kind who likes to strive to be good at thinking.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Because you have absolutely no evidence of God, not a single tiny shred of evidence, you are worshiping only idols. Figments of your imagination. Like often children do of immaginary friends.

However, yes, philosophy is very entertaining, especially if you are the kind who likes to strive to be good at thinking.

God ONLY reveals Himself to those that seek Him with an open heart... so as long as you do not have an open heart, He will not reveal Himself to you... thus you will (incorrectly) believe He does not exist.

There will be a time when you change your mind, not my place to push it... it is God's job. I will just watch.

[Marc O'Brien]

God ONLY reveals Himself to those that seek Him with an open heart... so as long as you do not have an open heart, He will not reveal Himself to you... thus you will (incorrectly) believe He does not exist.

There will be a time when you change your mind, not my place to push it... it is God's job. I will just watch.

I have an open mind, and despite your very strangely motivated assumptions, I have an open heart too - it's just not open to fairy tales any more as it once was to the idea of the tooth fairy and father christmas.

But we are not discussing our hearts here, we are discussing whether or not any God exists.

As far as I can see your heart is closed to the idea that Allah is your one and only true God and Mohamed the last of the prophets superseding all previous prophets such as Jesus. But maybe as America becomes Islamified you will one day open your heart to Allah when Allah decides it's time. Of course, your God is Allah since Allah was Moses' God which the Jews used to call El pronounced Aela. But you have not yet modernised or upgraded your holy book from the Bible to the book that superseded it the Koran.

So, do you think that because I once opened my heart to the idea of the tooth fairy and even felt or experienced the Joy of receiving money from the tooth fairy that therefore the tooth fairy existed - that such joy is also hard evidence - that would be admissible in court even?

[ga-hvac-tech]

I am not saying that all Christians have experiences with the God of the Bible, but I have seen and experienced more things that can only be explained as 'miraculous' than I can remember.

If you have not experienced these things, then you do not see/have not seen what I have seen.

This leaves me to wonder how I would explain to someone that does not hear the music, what dancing is???

Probably better to just say: To each his own.

[Pneuma]

Philosophy cannot work if it is presented to people. It has to actually be practised. Philosophising is the activity of training or exercising the mind in the acquisition of self varifiedly true knowledge.

You know when the homless people come to my Church during our hypothermia week in the winter, I'm pretty sure they are glad I'm serving them a hot meal and not sitting at home trying to perfect my true knowledge.

So Marc what do you do with your knowledge that gives you any joy? Besides throwing stones at Christains... :angel:

[scrogdog]

God ONLY reveals Himself to those that seek Him with an open heart

Why?

I'm sorry GA, but this flies directly in the face of my vision of what a god should be. It's like my mom hiding from me and then saying that if I can find her she will be my mom.

Philosophically silly.

Don't you think it would be a lot more helpful if Jesus appeared before me and answered questions? We know he can do it, he did it before.

The way you are putting it means this; only those willing to suspend disbelief will be favored.

Shouldn't God be for all men with all our varied patterns of thought?

This is exactly why I call God an Orwellian uptopian. The bible expects us all to be lemmings with the same patterns of thought and the same mental capabilities.

Do you truly think that is how man is?

God expects me to conform; however there are are some quite simple actions he could take to assure just that. But he doesn't do that, does he?

So... he is only a God if you think a certain way.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for mankind to be like that. Yet that is what the bible expects.

That totally silly idea could only be wrought by man himself, not a God who knows his creation.

Thus my contention that the bible was 100% written and inspired by man. No "perfect" God is coming up with that.

[Marc O'Brien]

You know when the homless people come to my Church during our hypothermia week in the winter, I'm pretty sure they are glad I'm serving them a hot meal and not sitting at home trying to perfect my true knowledge.

You're committing a few logical fallacies here. Something you wouldn't be doing if you studied the real philosophies. For instance the fallacy of the false dichotomy. You implicitly invoke the fallacious assertion that it is a choice of either having true knowledge or providing shelter for the less fortunate. In fact it is easier and more meaningful for a philosopher to also be a philanthropist. In fact Jesus practised Socratic values and philanthropy because of those Socratic values. Except Socrates was secular.

Indeed, there is also the utilitarian value of christianity. The pragmatist, like yourself would argue so - and I would tend to agree. But this does not prove that god exists. A long piece of stick might trip you up if you don't see it on the floor but it also has various values speaking utility - it can be used to leverage something apart or up, for example, but that a stick has values of utility too does not allow us to conclude that therefore God exists. This is a non sequitor - a logical fallacy - faulty reasoning.


So Marc what do you do with your knowledge that gives you any joy? Besides throwing stones at Christains... :angel:

It allows me to do everything you can do and likely even more but all without the crutch. I do not throw stones at Christians, I invite them to test their belief. Remember, Socrates and especially Epicurus demonstrated how happiness is only assured by continuously testing our and others beliefs. Happiness comes from continuously analysing beliefs in order that eventually we are left with only true beliefs. If you can persuade people to not continuously test their beliefs you can enslave them and then use them as you wish. If you do not wish to be used then you need to be mentally equipped for intellectual independence.

[coolwhip]

Well said Marc!...I think you need your own radio talk show.

[Pneuma]

Happiness comes from continuously analysing beliefs in order that eventually we are left with only true beliefs.

Really? You know there are a lot of great movies, some with sad endings some with happy endings. What film best demostrates someone finding happiness when they finally sussed out true beliefs?

Would it work then that if what you believe makes you happy, that you have found a true belief? Many Christians are happy. Or is there such a thing as false happiness, built on untrue or half true beliefs?

[ga-hvac-tech]

Why?

I'm sorry GA, but this flies directly in the face of my vision of what a god should be. It's like my mom hiding from me and then saying that if I can find her she will be my mom.



I read your entire post, and what I think I see over and over is that you think your world revolves around you... And you want the King of the universe and his Son (both royalty beyond anything this world knows mind you) to come to you on your terms???

Really now...

Do you expect BHO to come to you on your terms?
Do you expect the Queen of England to come to you on your terms?
Do you expect the royal family of Saudi Arabia to come to you on your terms?

Really now...

If you want God in your life, you need to seek Him. If not, well...

Yes, God is a loving God, He chose to sacrifice His only Son to redeem you (would you sacrifice your only son for the sins of the world?). However; He is also a Righteous God. And He will not compromise that righteousness. SOOO, either you initially approach Him on His terms, or there will not be a relationship. Your choice.

Now if you choose to seek Him with a humble heart of appreciation for what He has and will do for you (He does the doing and you do the receiving), there is a wonderful life in relationship with Him. OR;

You can continue to wing it on your own as you are now...

Your choice...

[Pneuma]

Indeed, there is also the utilitarian value of christianity. The pragmatist, like yourself would argue so - and I would tend to agree. But this does not prove that god exists.

Well here is where you overlook something. God exists within each of us, the spirit has been breathed into us, we are of the spirit. When I serve to feed the homeless without judging how he got there, uncoditional love, of offering shelter and food with no strings, God is there. A prayer is answered. God is not something somewhere else, a person who is hiding.

Many people struggle with understanding God because they believe he is somewhere in the clouds and has passed out a rule book and will send you to hell if you don't comply.

I think hell happens on earth and it can happen to someone alive. Someone who searches for happiness in finding truth, instead of say, taking his child trick or treating, may in fact be in hell! And someone who is in tune with God may actually save them by pointing this out to them. hint hint

People want proof that God exists with some miracle, shown on CNN. Perhaps levitation of a building. But the proof that God exists is in all of our hearts. Each of us has potential to bring heavan on this earth, to be the the answer to a prayer. Now you want to talk about what brings true happiness, be the answer to someone's prayer!

[Marc O'Brien]

Epicurus on Happiness

Epicurus on Happiness by British Philosopher Alain de Botton (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3535764476733084568&ei=SjPsSp7YG9mC-AbmxZz5Dg#)

[scrogdog]

I read your entire post, and what I think I see over and over is that you think your world revolves around you... And you want the King of the universe and his Son (both royalty beyond anything this world knows mind you) to come to you on your terms???

Really now...

Do you expect BHO to come to you on your terms?
Do you expect the Queen of England to come to you on your terms?
Do you expect the royal family of Saudi Arabia to come to you on your terms?

Really now...

If you want God in your life, you need to seek Him. If not, well...

Yes, God is a loving God, He chose to sacrifice His only Son to redeem you (would you sacrifice your only son for the sins of the world?). However; He is also a Righteous God. And He will not compromise that righteousness. SOOO, either you initially approach Him on His terms, or there will not be a relationship. Your choice.

Now if you choose to seek Him with a humble heart of appreciation for what He has and will do for you (He does the doing and you do the receiving), there is a wonderful life in relationship with Him. OR;

You can continue to wing it on your own as you are now...

Your choice...

You didn't answer any philosophical point I made.

Fair enough. If deflection arguments are the only thing ya got.

I doubt Stalin would have come to me on "my terms" either. Still, I like to believe that I would resist tyranny from men or gods.

Maybe I wouldn't have joined the French resistence. I like to believe that I would have, regardless of who is "in charge". BS is BS regardless of who wields the power. Yes?

[Marc O'Brien]

I read your entire post, and what I think I see over and over is that you think your world revolves around you...

Our worlds are interdependent. We need each other and too we need to all hold true beliefs. Provided we all share ethical and moral values that bring us to the same position of happiness at the expense of no other one of us then does it matter where we believe these values come from.

But because the world doesn't revolve around just any one of us we must all do our bit to ensure each other hold either the same values but especially only true beliefs. Belief in God is a false and meaningless belief from the position of logical positivism.


Yes, God is a loving God, He chose to sacrifice His only Son to redeem you (would you sacrifice your only son for the sins of the world?)

Your God insults me and I absolutely reject his barbaric savage gesture that he would kill his son or his other self to save me from something I anyway have no idea of what he means. Too I reject gods that breed suicide bombers also giving their lives for other silly causes.

I have more respect for the British and American families who have lost their Sons in battles against those that wish to harm our superior culture. And Socrates death was far more noble anyway, he was also secular.

[Marc O'Brien]

Well here is where you overlook something. God exists within each of us, the spirit has been breathed into us, we are of the spirit.

You are equivocating now, you have changed the definition of God. Now you are trying to pass the spirit which man has evolved to posses as evidence of Gods. The Human spirit has utility but utility is no proof of any god. Too, you are committing the fallacy of begging the question - presuming to be true precisely the point in question - whether any god exists. And as so far you have absolutely no evidence of any gods you are committing idolatry.

[Some Dude]

Ok heres how this works, you guys make a solid verifiable point.
Then Marc copies and pastes something in rebuttal he finds on the internet.

Then you guys make a solid well thought out post.

Then Marc copies and pastes something else from the internet that is close to an answer but really just changes the subject.

Then you guys make a solid well thought out post...........and Marc falls deeper in love with himself, no anti glare on his monitor screen.

[Pneuma]

Ok heres how this works, you guys make a solid verifiable point.
Then Marc copies and pastes something in rebuttal he finds on the internet.

Then you guys make a solid well thought out post.

Then Marc copies and pastes something else from the internet that is close to an answer but really just changes the subject.

Then you guys make a solid well thought out post...........and Marc falls deeper in love with himself, no anti glare on his monitor screen.

Your last line is just too funny! It seems Marc will never be convinced of anything, but for anyone reading the thread I am happy to share my point of view them, which is why I don't get too frustrated convercing with him.

But you know what, a lot of people walk away from God and never give it another thought, truly they are lost souls. But I think Marc is so haunted by the Spirit, he just can't escape it, as evidenced by his continuing need to assure himself there is no God. One day he may just surrender to God, it would not surprise me in the least.

[Pneuma]

You are equivocating now, you have changed the definition of God. Now you are trying to pass the spirit which man has evolved to posses as evidence of Gods. The Human spirit has utility but utility is no proof of any god. Too, you are committing the fallacy of begging the question - presuming to be true precisely the point in question - whether any god exists. And as so far you have absolutely no evidence of any gods you are committing idolatry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJnoBbueEc0 here's a very timely video regarding God, happy halloween!

[Marc O'Brien]

Your last line is just too funny! It seems Marc will never be convinced of anything.

I am convinced by philosophy for one. By the logic of maths and geometry too - hell, are you sure you can't think of anything I am convinced of? Does it not occur to you that I am convinced that your belief in gods or a god imply's that you are delusional.


But you know what, a lot of people walk away from God and never give it another thought, truly they are lost souls. But I think Marc is so haunted by the Spirit, he just can't escape it, as evidenced by his continuing need to assure himself there is no God. One day he may just surrender to God, it would not surprise me in the least.

The implied premises' drawn to support your argument unfortunately do not square universally. The implicitly invoked generalisation seems to be that what someone is haunted by, like cancer, a deadly virus, religion, Nazis, others believing in savage gods etc, is in fact a phenomena occurring on account of ones soul being lost, in addition to assuming that there is even a soul, and that then one day that person will surrender to Nazi's, cancers, deadly virus's, religion and savage cultures etc.

Unless the premises implicitly invoked can be squared universally then it does not follow that the conclusion drawn is necessarily so. In fact, in this very case I can assure you that the conclusion you draw is indeed false.

[Special Ed]

Marc, why is it that any argument for a god existing is fallacious in your view? I haven't read an argument from you that isn't fallacious concerning atheism. But that's because I'm not an atheist. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's not a good argument.

Funny thing, though.... The more intelligent you sound the more confused you also sound.

[JRINJAX]

I really cannot figure out whether this clown is just pulling folks legs for entertainment (like some other posters at ARP over the years), or

If he is really moronic enough to believe he is smarter than God. One thing for sure: If the latter is true, I feel sorry for him... he will learn... pity is all I feel for him.

Imagine... actually thinking Socrates was more moral than Jesus??? By whose yardstick?

The difference between a God fearing Christian and this guy is that the former worships God... the latter worships their mind... kinda narscistic (sp) IMO.
I keep him and several others on my "Ignore List" and out of the hundreds of their posts I have missed, I am sure that not one contained a "coherent thought".
It really makes the ARP board much more enjoyable to read.

[Marc O'Brien]

Marc, why is it that any argument for a god existing is fallacious in your view? I haven't read an argument from you that isn't fallacious concerning atheism. But that's because I'm not an atheist. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's not a good argument.

Funny thing, though.... The more intelligent you sound the more confused you also sound.

Quote the arguments and name the fallacies.

Here's an example of a fallacy...

If I am walking then I am moving.
I am indeed moving therefore I must be walking.

The above is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It is also a subtle version of begging the question.

Now, show me one fallacy I have noted to have been committed by others that was in fact not a fallacy. Otherwise simply quote for me just one of the fallacies you say I have committed and explain why it is a fallacy.

[Marc O'Brien]

Special Ed, here is some more help on understanding what it takes to make a valid argument. Read through these simple and quick examples of what makes a good argument.
http://socialscience.cypresscollege.edu/~wheusser/100_Online/slides/100_argum3_sound_files/frame.htm

[Marc O'Brien]

Duplicate post - internet is very very slow tonight. Worse than the old V90 dial up's.

[Marc O'Brien]

The scientific method made easy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

[ga-hvac-tech]

You know, everything I read in a Marc O'brien post is about Marc O'brien... I wonder if this dude thinks his brain (and his thought process) is the center of the universe???

[sline-dawg]

Hundreds of pages and no proof that God exists.


Anyone care to step up to the plate..???:anyone:

[ga-hvac-tech]

Ahh, but there is also no proof He does not exist... Remember; this is not a scientific thing, this is a Spirit thing... how does one prove or disprove spiritual things???

But even if someone did prove it beyond any shadow of doubt, you would only argue based on spinning words to meet your side... kinda like a politician. :oops:

You see: a strong mind can be one's best ally, or their worst enemy... depending on the circumstances... :nopity:

[MKnyc]

http://www.lvrj.com/news/oath-keepers-pledges-to-prevent-dictatorship-in-united-states-64690232.html
Just because you don't wear the uniform anymore, doesn't mean you forgot the oath you took to protect this nation from threats from within nor threats from without.

[Some Dude]

You guys honestly want proof God exists?
Turn it into science all you wish, mankind cannot create anything without using absolute laws and patterns set by whom?
Just because man can use science to create something does not mean they actually created anything. The patterns and physical laws were already irrefutably there.
So the earth rotates precisely around the sun and spins on its axis all by its self? Without ever changing for a second? a millisecond?

Imo anyone who does not believe in a creator is either so deluded or hurt by something they are incapable of rational thought.
Call it whatever you wish, but there is a creator.
To even question it is sad.Rather to question the science of it is sad.
The emotional , moral side is different, there i can understand someone having issues with it.
Its called fear.

[MKnyc]

between science and faith Pascal once postulated that if you didn't believe in God and there is one you're screwed, if you did and God didn't exist you wouldn't know, if you didn't and God didn't exist you wouldn't know, but if you did and God did exist that would be special. So science has no problems concieving there could be greater things than ourselves. Hence Einstein's later religious epiphanies.

[scrogdog]

Ahh, but there is also no proof He does not exist...

Of course not. One cannot prove a negative. So what?

By your line of reasoning, fairies and goblins cannot be proved false. So, let's worship them too.

And you neatly ignored my earlier post. You getting a little Hugh in you?

I'm curious GA... how exactly would YOU define a being who attempts to acheive utopia/paradise by eliminating undesirable elements?

Have we ever, in all of human history, seen this mindset before? And if so, how did we collectively judge those men? How do YOU judge them, and why?

[scrogdog]

between science and faith Pascal once postulated that if you didn't believe in God and there is one you're screwed, if you did and God didn't exist you wouldn't know, if you didn't and God didn't exist you wouldn't know, but if you did and God did exist that would be special. So science has no problems concieving there could be greater things than ourselves. Hence Einstein's later religious epiphanies.

Ahh, but Pascal fails to consider what happens if you have faith in the wrong god.

For example, please tell me, in your opinion, what happens to Muslims under your God's rule?

They are "believers" yet they wasted thier time.

So, what happens to the wager then?

You have Einstien all wrong. He was a diest, more in line with Spinoza's god.

[Slatts]

between science and faith Pascal once postulated that if you didn't believe in God and there is one you're screwed, if you did and God didn't exist you wouldn't know, if you didn't and God didn't exist you wouldn't know, but if you did and God did exist that would be special. So science has no problems concieving there could be greater things than ourselves. Hence Einstein's later religious epiphanies.
Sounds good MK.
So do I hedge my bets and start worshipping ever-ones deity?
I mean there's only so many hours in a day.
I wouldn't want to miss a God and find out later that he was the one truey.
I'd end up like that little Egyptian bloke in "The Mummy"
And imagine how I'd feel if it turned out to be one that everyone had forgotten about?

That would be a major bummer.

[Marc O'Brien]

between science and faith Pascal once postulated that if you didn't believe in God and there is one you're screwed, if you did and God didn't exist you wouldn't know, if you didn't and God didn't exist you wouldn't know, but if you did and God did exist that would be special. So science has no problems concieving there could be greater things than ourselves. Hence Einstein's later religious epiphanies.

As Scrog says, Pascals wager does not help choose which of the thousands of Gods past and future to worship. Choose any one and you still only have perhaps a 1/100,000 chance of being correct.

But the idea of putting up with religion as a small inconvenience in order that in return you might be given a happy afterlife is probably the saddest argument put forward by any religious person in history. It assumed that religion is a drag and inconvenience.

Eternal damnation then detracts from the benefits of freewill. A logical anomaly. More, we can't decide to believe anything. That is not how belief works. Try believe that pigs can fly or that a prophet flew to heaven on a magic donkey. You cannot choose to believe this stuff, fairies, dragons, unicorns or all of the many gods - you cannot choose to believe. If I do not believe any of this and I was made by a god then I was made not to believe in any of this. So Pascals wager is a logical fallacy in that it begs the question, it presumes to be true that everyone can believe in gods, fairies, devils, unicorns etc.

Pascals wager is insincere and entirely motivated by self interest. Anyone considering the wager should be ashamed of themselves.

With regard to miracles, as already mentioned by others in this thread, only on the basis of regularity does the sense of design and purpose appear. But, the literal meaning of a miracle violates that regularity. It cannot be had both ways. Either God is seen to exists because the world is a wonderful, ordered place, or his hand is seen in individual events because the world is chaotic and unpredictable.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Of course not. One cannot prove a negative. So what?

By your line of reasoning, fairies and goblins cannot be proved false. So, let's worship them too.

And you neatly ignored my earlier post. You getting a little Hugh in you?

I'm curious GA... how exactly would YOU define a being who attempts to acheive utopia/paradise by eliminating undesirable elements?

Have we ever, in all of human history, seen this mindset before? And if so, how did we collectively judge those men? How do YOU judge them, and why?

First my friend, you have not answered my question: How do you prove or disprove a Spirit being? Science and "black & white" reasoning does not work here... sorry...

Maybe the tooth fairy does exist, how can you prove that he/she does not??? :couch:
And do your seriously discount every miracle noted in the Scriptures? :rules: Be careful there, you may bump up against your hallowed (hollow) science.

As to your earlier post; you do not answer my questions, why should I answer your questions... :oops:

Who said God is trying to achieve that utopian society on this earth? And if God is indeed trying to do so, by what program/rules is this effort being approached? Is this what you read in the Bible? If so, please give me a Scriptural reference (or 2,3,4,5).

And last: Do you believe mankind judging is the final authority? If so, then do I assume that you do not believe there is any being or force in the universe that is smarter than mankind and man's ability to think/reason?

Careful here, you are about to back yourself into a trap... :eek2:

[ga-hvac-tech]

As Scrog says, Pascals wager does not help choose which of the thousands of Gods past and future to worship. Choose any one and you still only have perhaps a 1/100,000 chance of being correct.

But the idea of putting up with religion as a small inconvenience in order that in return you might be given a happy afterlife is probably the saddest argument put forward by any religious person in history. It assumed that religion is a drag and inconvenience.

Eternal damnation then detracts from the benefits of freewill. A logical anomaly. More, we can't decide to believe anything. That is not how belief works. Try believe that pigs can fly or that a prophet flew to heaven on a magic donkey. You cannot choose to believe this stuff, fairies, dragons, unicorns or all of the many gods - you cannot choose to believe. If I do not believe any of this and I was made by a god then I was made not to believe in any of this. So Pascals wager is a logical fallacy in that it begs the question, it presumes to be true that everyone can believe in gods, fairies, devils, unicorns etc.

Pascals wager is insincere and entirely motivated by self interest. Anyone considering the wager should be ashamed of themselves.

With regard to miracles, as already mentioned by others in this thread, only on the basis of regularity does the sense of design and purpose appear. But, the literal meaning of a miracle violates that regularity. It cannot be had both ways. Either God is seen to exists because the world is a wonderful, ordered place, or his hand is seen in individual events because the world is chaotic and unpredictable.

It is about time for me to head down to my Church for Sunday worship, there is not time to address your thoughts...

When there is time, I will address your post...

[scrogdog]

First my friend, you have not answered my question: How do you prove or disprove a Spirit being? Science and "black & white" reasoning does not work here... sorry...

Um...I did answer your question. One cannot disprove a negative.

Science is only about the physical realm. Especially since that is the only realm we know to exist. :)


Maybe the tooth fairy does exist, how can you prove that he/she does not??? :couch:
And do your seriously discount every miracle noted in the Scriptures? :rules: Be careful there, you may bump up against your hallowed (hollow) science.

Yes. Seriously. Why should I not?


As to your earlier post; you do not answer my questions, why should I answer your questions... :oops:

As stated, I did answer your question. I am not the one ignoring entire posts.


Who said God is trying to achieve that utopian society on this earth? And if God is indeed trying to do so, by what program/rules is this effort being approached? Is this what you read in the Bible? If so, please give me a Scriptural reference (or 2,3,4,5).

When did I say "on this Earth"? Putting words in my mouth now?

God's paradise is heaven. Only conformists make it. Now, are you going to answer my question about history?


And last: Do you believe mankind judging is the final authority? If so, then do I assume that you do not believe there is any being or force in the universe that is smarter than mankind and man's ability to think/reason?

Careful here, you are about to back yourself into a trap... :eek2:

I don't know if there is a smarter being or not. At this time there is zero evidence for one. That doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. However, we can only live our lives based on what we currently know to be true.

[Pneuma]

The bible does not prove that God exists, it does not try to. It explains who God is and how we relate to God.

Christians don't spend all day figuring ways to prove God exists.

Folks who want to be sure they are not screwing up and missing out on God, keep looking to see that no proof has come out.

So it is unblievers who deny what they feel in theri heart that run around looking for proof.

[Marc O'Brien]

The bible does not prove that God exists, it does not try to. It explains who God is and how we relate to God.

The bible commits the fallacy of begging the question, it does not try to prove that any God exists, it arrogantly leaps over the question and simply goes on to presume that one exists. By this act it commits idolatry.


Christians don't spend all day figuring ways to prove God exists.

We know, this is why they are unable to break free of the spell cast on them in their youth.


Folks who want to be sure they are not screwing up and missing out on God, keep looking to see that no proof has come out.

Nope, most atheists like my father just don't care. He doesn't care to read my copy of "The God Delusion" - he says why should he - he says we both know, him and I, that there is no personal God, what new information could Dawkins possibly offer he asks. The common denominator between Geer, Scrog and I is that we all love philosophy and discussing such matters is enjoyable like fishing is to some people or like walking in the country is to others including me.


So it is unblievers who deny what they feel in theri heart that run around looking for proof.

Nope, unbelievers simply do not believe - simple as that. They simply lack belief or the care to question their lack of belief. Exactly how I feel about unicorns - I just lack belief in them and don't care to consider my lack of belief in any way critical.

It's believers who worry what others believe. Like the American Christians, including priests, who wanted Einstein to leave the country because he repeated till his dying day that he did not believe in a personal god and thought the idea ridiculous.

[Pneuma]

The bible commits the fallacy of begging the question, it does not try to prove that any God exists, it arrogantly leaps over the question and simply goes on to presume that one exists. By this act it commits idolatry.



We know, this is why they are unable to break free of the spell cast on them in their youth.



Nope, most atheists like my father just don't care. He doesn't care to read my copy of "The God Delusion" - he says why should he - he says we both know, him and I, that there is no personal God, what new information could Dawkins possibly offer he asks. The common denominator between Geer, Scrog and I is that we all love philosophy and discussing such matters is enjoyable like fishing is to some people or like walking in the country is to others including me.



Nope, unbelievers simply do not believe - simple as that. They simply lack belief or the care to question their lack of belief. Exactly how I feel about unicorns - I just lack belief in them and don't care to consider my lack of belief in any way critical.

It's believers who worry what others believe. Like the American Christians, including priests, who wanted Einstein to leave the country because he repeated till his dying day that he did not believe in a personal god and thought the idea ridiculous.

Spell cast on them in thier youth? I didn't go to church until I was an adult.

The bible arrogantly skips over proving God exists? It is in complete harmony with the Bible that it is not a proof book. What proof do any of us have of what tomorrow brings? I may wake up and find out I have cancer. I may come home without a job. The Bible teaches how we deal with what happens when the future is not so clear. The bible teaches how we are all connected to one another and to God.

How do you know your not railing against Christian teachings that are flawed by their human component? You agree that the bible does not prove God exists and then challenge me, a mere mortal to do it. How do you expect me to do that? I can't, there is no way.

I can demonstrate that following the tecahings of the bible is rewarding and spiritual. You have admited that it has utilitarian value.

Perhaps your stuck arguing the wrong thing, or perhaps you just argue the thing that you are sure to know the outcome.

As I said, people who feel something in their hearts and wish to deny it take comfort in knowing nobody can prove God is real. The proof argument is a security blanket. If you are truly honest in your challenge of Christianity then you have to abondon the proof argument in light of the fact that the religion never sets out to prove God exists. Instead argue wether following Christ has merit. There I think the personal stories are going to over run you, but if your afraid of getting out of your comfort zone then keep asking for proof, that's a nice safe place for your ego, not too great for your soul. :eek2:

[ga-hvac-tech]

As Scrog says, Pascals wager does not help choose which of the thousands of Gods past and future to worship. Choose any one and you still only have perhaps a 1/100,000 chance of being correct.

But the idea of putting up with religion as a small inconvenience in order that in return you might be given a happy afterlife is probably the saddest argument put forward by any religious person in history. It assumed that religion is a drag and inconvenience.

Eternal damnation then detracts from the benefits of freewill. A logical anomaly. More, we can't decide to believe anything. That is not how belief works. Try believe that pigs can fly or that a prophet flew to heaven on a magic donkey. You cannot choose to believe this stuff, fairies, dragons, unicorns or all of the many gods - you cannot choose to believe. If I do not believe any of this and I was made by a god then I was made not to believe in any of this. So Pascals wager is a logical fallacy in that it begs the question, it presumes to be true that everyone can believe in gods, fairies, devils, unicorns etc.

Pascals wager is insincere and entirely motivated by self interest. Anyone considering the wager should be ashamed of themselves.

With regard to miracles, as already mentioned by others in this thread, only on the basis of regularity does the sense of design and purpose appear. But, the literal meaning of a miracle violates that regularity. It cannot be had both ways. Either God is seen to exists because the world is a wonderful, ordered place, or his hand is seen in individual events because the world is chaotic and unpredictable.

Lessee how this goes:

I have free will in the area of drinking alcoholic beverage. I can not drink at all, I can drink in moderation, I can drink up to a point I think I am at the edge of loosing control, or I can drink myself into oblivion and wake up the next day with a gap in my memory and a headache.

I have a choice here. However, the choice I make WILL have effects on my future. If I choose to drink in moderation and then drive home, I probably will not cause any damage to property or people, nor get into any trouble with the legal system. However if I choose to drink myself "3 sheets to the wind", and then drive home, I may well cause damage to personal property and/or harm or kill someone. And if the legal system gets ahold of me, then I really have no defense because I made a choice (unless I want to hire a crooked atty and lie about it).

It is not really any different with God. We have free will to do as we please... however the rules of eternity will not change because I do or do not like them. They are simple: I can bend the knee of my pride to God and guarantee a good after life... or I can be stubborn and proud... and guarantee a messy afterlife. My choice.

Or I can say I do not accept the system and hope like H*LL that I am right... If I am, then I win... but if I am wrong... I loose BIG time.

Personally for me, I chose to not take that chance... But I found something more: I found that as I studied the Bible with an open heart (being humble and teachable rather than being a know-it-all), I found lots if interesting things... As my life went on, I saw many miracles (yes, right in front of my eyes). I would pray for something and it would happen... yes, this has happened in my life may times.

I learned that the God of the Bible (and Jesus Father) is indeed the King of the Universe, and all powerful. Now I know that if I had not looked for God with an open heart, I would not have found Him... so it is by personal experience that I say what I say.

I cannot make anyone else see God, they have to choose to look. And only God will choose to whom He will reveal Himself.

Remember guys and gals: God is a Spirit being... Science cannot prove or disprove anything spiritual. Just the way it is... kinda like scripture says: One must have faith. That is the only way... faith.

Side note: In the Gospels, Jesus repeatedly scoffed the folks that demanded a 'sign' (miracle). I do not see why things are any different today.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Um...I did answer your question. One cannot disprove a negative.
Who says the existence of a Spiritual being is a negative???


Science is only about the physical realm. Especially since that is the only realm we know to exist. :)

It appears to be the only realm you will allow your mind to accept. That does not mean it does not exist, it only means you choose to not accept it.


Yes. Seriously. Why should I not?

There are lots of books out there that have exhaustive proof that lots of stories in the Bible about miracles DID happen. It is not my job to prove it to you, I am convinced more of God than I am convinced the sun will shine in the morning... that is because of my experience with God.


As stated, I did answer your question. I am not the one ignoring entire posts.

Actually, I have. You just do not see it because it does not fit the small box you have your brain stuffed into... :oops:


When did I say "on this Earth"? Putting words in my mouth now?
God's paradise is heaven. Only conformists make it. Now, are you going to answer my question about history?

Scripture says God will destroy this earth and create a new heaven and earth... So one can say either is true; That God will cause a perfect society on earth, and one can say God will cause a perfect society in Heaven. Just depends on how one sees things...

Remember; He is GOD... He makes the rules, and He can change the rules (including physics, chemistry, etc) as He chooses. Sorry, that is why He is called God.


I don't know if there is a smarter being or not. At this time there is zero evidence for one. That doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. However, we can only live our lives based on what we currently know to be true.

OK Scrog; I will give you the benefit of the doubt: How would you recognize a smarter being than mankind? You have freedom to decide without any boundaries here... tell me how a mortal man would recognize a being with superior intelligence and power than the man? (Hint: Is truth limited to what I can perceive?)

[sline-dawg]

I haven't seen that much flip - flopping since I threw that carp on the bank...


I wish you much luck with that Ga.

Your God doesn't impress me with the way he guides people to the promised land...

[ga-hvac-tech]

I haven't seen that much flip - flopping since I threw that carp on the bank...

I wish you much luck with that Ga.

Your God doesn't impress me with the way he guides people to the promised land...

But my friend, God is not concerned if He impresses you... you need Him waaay more than He needs you.

[scrogdog]

Who says the existence of a Spiritual being is a negative???

It appears to be the only realm you will allow your mind to accept. That does not mean it does not exist, it only means you choose to not accept it.

I choose not to accept it because in my world there are standards with regards to what is factual. What a scary world of superstition you must live in if everything that cannot be proven or disproven is somehow true.


There are lots of books out there that have exhaustive proof that lots of stories in the Bible about miracles DID happen. It is not my job to prove it to you, I am convinced more of God than I am convinced the sun will shine in the morning... that is because of my experience with God.

BS. However, it would be interesting to show us this "proof" only so we can once again acknowledge your shoddy standard of truth.


Scripture says God will destroy this earth and create a new heaven and earth... So one can say either is true; That God will cause a perfect society on earth, and one can say God will cause a perfect society in Heaven. Just depends on how one sees things...

Remember; He is GOD... He makes the rules, and He can change the rules (including physics, chemistry, etc) as He chooses. Sorry, that is why He is called God.

Sounds like your garden variety despot to me. And those like your god that we have seen in human history are empowered by those such as you.

Let's assume for the moment that you are right and I am wrong. Here is what I hope happens. With the declining numbers of Christianity, God becomes a realist and sees that experiment has failed and just drops a proverbial bomb on it. Give me death over despotism. Give me hell before I will bow before such a sadistic creature.

Not a sadist you say? Please review for us exactly HOW god might create a paradise on Earth. I gaurentee you it involves murder. What's worse is that he would have foreknowledge that he would need to do just that, you know, being prefect and all. :rolleyes:

This is similar to how heaven becomes paradise. God's garden requires significant "weeding". I can't even say that I'm happy for you that you can accept that. It's just plain scary stuff.

I guess the meek really shall inherit the Earth.


OK Scrog; I will give you the benefit of the doubt: How would you recognize a smarter being than mankind? You have freedom to decide without any boundaries here... tell me how a mortal man would recognize a being with superior intelligence and power than the man? (Hint: Is truth limited to what I can perceive?)

Good question. I suppose we'd know it when we see it. :)

Yes. Truth is limited to what we percieve. Have you an example where this is not so? Here's a hint for *you* this time: no you don't as such a thing would be impossible. Perception is the ONLY window to the universe that we have. Period.

I'm not a know it all. I'm a person with standards and ethics.

If I read other posts in other topics correctly, you stand against the utopian idea of socialism, but stand behind God's utopianism. Quite interesting from this fallible human's standpoint.

[JRINJAX]

I choose not to accept it because in my world there are standards .
Dog,
What happens if it is not "Your World"?

That would be a huge mistake wouldn't it.

[coolwhip]

I must commend Marc and Scrog in this thread. Both of you are brilliant human beings and must have done well in debate class. Kudos to you both and keep up the good work!

[ga-hvac-tech]

Well Scorg, this is turning out differently than I thought...
When I first posted at this thread, I wanted to pick at (well really harrass in a playful way) Mr Obrien, as I thought he had kinda placed himself on a pedestal... love to watch them fall off... :cool:

However you and I have had this God and no god debate before. As I remember it, we came to the conclusion that we would simply need to agree to disagree... as I was not going to lower my faith to proof, and you were not going to let proof go for faith.

I will carry on the debate, however I may not get back to you for extended periods as I currently have lots on my plate of life.



I choose not to accept it because in my world there are standards with regards to what is factual. What a scary world of superstition you must live in if everything that cannot be proven or disproven is somehow true.

So it would appear to me that your 'standards' are your God? If there were a supreme being, then perhaps your less than supreme standards have limited you from seeing this being? Just a thought, not meant in any way to diss you personally. Rather just thinking 'outside the box' so to say.


BS. However, it would be interesting to show us this "proof" only so we can once again acknowledge your shoddy standard of truth.

Again, I do not have to show you anything. You see, I do not get anything from winning the discussion/debate (it is not an agruement for me). And I do not loose anything from not winning... I already KNOW my faith, and nobody (and nothing) will shake it from me. Here is a Scripture on this:
Romans 8:38-39: For I am convined that neither life nor death, nor angels, nor principalities, not things present, nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any created thing; will separate me from the Love of God which is in Christ Jesus.

Note the 'any created thing'... that only leaves out God... because even satan is a created being... :oops:

Sounds like your garden variety despot to me. And those like your god that we have seen in human history are empowered by those such as you.

I would suggest to you that yes there are a few (a small fraction of less than 1 % (one percent) of folks that call themselves Christians that walk that wierd cultish behavior I think you are referring to... but htey are not God fearing Christians in the same faith as me.


Let's assume for the moment that you are right and I am wrong. Here is what I hope happens. With the declining numbers of Christianity, God becomes a realist and sees that experiment has failed and just drops a proverbial bomb on it. Give me death over despotism. Give me hell before I will bow before such a sadistic creature.

Why would a loving God want to destroy the ones He loves? Does a parent deatroy their children... rather the parent guides the children in the ways the parent knows are better... the parent is smarter than the child... as God is smarter than us humans... :oops:


Not a sadist you say? Please review for us exactly HOW god might create a paradise on Earth. I gaurentee you it involves murder. What's worse is that he would have foreknowledge that he would need to do just that, you know, being prefect and all. :rolleyes:

How God will (I say WILL because I believe it will happen) create a perfect society? STudy your Bible and pray, If you have an open heart, God will reveal things to you. If not, well...


This is similar to how heaven becomes paradise. God's garden requires significant "weeding". I can't even say that I'm happy for you that you can accept that. It's just plain scary stuff.

Sorry to be kinda blunt here however; The weeding is to remove those tha tdo not believe... no faith.


I guess the meek really shall inherit the Earth.

And there is something wrong with that? Remnember; meek is in no way the same as weak. There are lots of meek folks that are quite strong, both in body and soul. The problem is that meekness is not a flashy personality trait...


Good question. I suppose we'd know it when we see it. :)

My case rests... :rules: (Icon means READ your Bible).


Yes. Truth is limited to what we percieve. Have you an example where this is not so? Here's a hint for *you* this time: no you don't as such a thing would be impossible. Perception is the ONLY window to the universe that we have. Period.

Hmmm, So if I do not 'see' that driving drunk is not a wise idea, does that mean the truth no longer exists... That attitude makes my mind the god of the universe... and we have countless examples in human history of folks minds that went astray... sorry.


I'm not a know it all. I'm a person with standards and ethics.

Again, are those standards and ethics your god? Scriputre suggests that if we place anything before God, we will worship it rather than God.


If I read other posts in other topics correctly, you stand against the utopian idea of socialism, but stand behind God's utopianism. Quite interesting from this fallible human's standpoint.

Yes, I think you do read correctly in the first sentence. The difference is that socialism is man driven, while Christianity is God driven. The differenc is in who is in control: mankind or God... simple, isn't it...

[scrogdog]

Dog,
What happens if it is not "Your World"?

That would be a huge mistake wouldn't it.

I suppose it would be, yes. Try to seperate the two lines of reasoning that Marc and I are bringing. Marc is showing that a belief that God exists cannot be logically or philosophically supported. On the other hand, I'm trying to show that even if he did exist, his philosphies are unsupportable by me. In other words, if you COULD demonstrate the undemonstratable, then the only reason that I would accept his ways would be through fear of punishment. Not exactly the most noble way to arrive, would you say?

I'd like to believe that humanity is a bit more than a collective plaything. I could be wrong, but if I am, I will STILL never climb aboard that bandwagon.

I like to also believe that I do not abandon my principles in the face of men or gods. I'm not trying to be some hero like Mel Gibson screaming "freedom" even while being disembowled. On the other hand, morals and principles have to be more than just what is convenient at the time to have any sort of meaning.

I don't have it in me to believe in every little concept that the human mind can imagine just because. That's the epitome of silly... in my world. :)

Let's say, JR, that today I discover that we all live in "the matrix" (as in the movie).

What good would that knowledge be without a demonstration?

I could KNOW it to be a fact. But unless I can demonstrate it to be so, no one would believe me. I'd just be earning a trip to the looney bin with such an unsupported contention.

Christians have the luxury of being in the same situation, yet it is accepted just because it has become a social norm of sorts. Other than that, there is nothing that seperates the two concepts.

So... do you think I should waste time worrying about whether or not we live in the matrix? Why not? You can't prove me wrong!

:)

[JRINJAX]

I suppose it would be, yes. But again, try to seperate the two lines of reasoning that Marc and I are bringing. Marc is showing that a belief that God exists cannot be logically or philosophically supported. On the other hand, I'm trying to show that even if he did exist, his philosphies are unsupportable by me. In other words, if you COULD demonstrate the undemonstratable, then the only reason that I would accept his ways would be through fear of punishment. Not exactly the most noble way to arrive, would you say?

I'd like to believe that humanity is a bit more than a collective plaything. I could be wrong, but if I am, I will STILL never climb aboard that bandwagon.

I like to also believe that I do not abandon my principles in the face of men or gods. I'm not trying to be some hero like Mel Gibson screaming "freedom" even while being disembowled. On the other hand, morals and principles have to be more than just what is convenient at the time to have any sort of meaning. My Wife says She hopes they are being paid overtime.

I don't have it in me to believe in every little concept that the human mind can imagine just because. That's the epitome of silly... in my world. :)

Let's say, JR, that today I discover that we all live in "the matrix" (as in the movie).

What good would that knowledge be without a demonstration?

I could KNOW it to be a fact. But unless I can demonstrate it to be so, no one would believe me. I'd just be earning a trip to the looney bin with such an unsupported contention.

Christians have the luxury of being in the same situation, yet it is accepted just because it has become a social norm of sorts. Other than that, there is nothing that seperates the two concepts.

So... do you think I should waste time worrying about whether or not we live in the matrix? Why not? You can't prove me wrong!

:)
I am not here to try and prove you wrong. Since I am a Christian, following the "Great Commission" is more like a Farmer planting seeds and hoping they will grow.
It is not being left up to us [Christians] to seperate the Godly from the Ungodly, since we would not have a clue as to who's who and would make some mistakes.
I can tell you that being a Christian has been the most fun I have ever had, especially knowing God's angels watching over my me during all of my "risky" [but fun] hobbies.

[scrogdog]

I am not here to try and prove you wrong. Since I am a Christian, following the "Great Commission" is more like a Farmer planting seeds and hoping they will grow.
It is not being left up to us [Christians] to seperate the Godly from the Ungodly, since we would not have a clue as to who's who and would make some mistakes.
I can tell you that being a Christian has been the most fun I have ever had, especially knowing God's angels watching over my me during all of my "risky" [but fun] hobbies.

I'm not saying that you are trying to prove me wrong. But how many times have I heard that from believers? So, my point was, if that is your standard of belief, then why not open the door to a million other things?

As I pointed out earlier, to use science improperly, as a "consensus" that leads us along a certain desired social path is very dangerous. So it is with "loose logic" or other varying standards. If we have no other standard that to say that one can't be proven wrong (so what I believe is therefore right) then we are led down another very dangerous and manipulative path.

[scrogdog]

I must commend Marc and Scrog in this thread. Both of you are brilliant human beings and must have done well in debate class. Kudos to you both and keep up the good work!

Thanks CW. I wish I could tell you that I feel brilliant as a result of these discussions, but really... anything but.

I've learned a lot about humans in my time here. That's for sure.

But the bottom line is that we are ALL utopians to some extent. I don't want to be, but I am. Human nature.

Facing up to human failing hardly makes one feel brilliant.

[ga-hvac-tech]

As I pointed out earlier, to use science improperly, as a "consensus" that leads us along a certain desired social path is very dangerous.

I realize I am kinda hi-jacking the thread, but your statement sounds similar to saying we have global warming (when the temperatures are falling), then say we have climate change when it is proven there are decade and multi-decade cycles in the climate... and create a huge fear campaign to enact a HUGE tax increase...

Not sure if I have ever seen a more clear usage of science for questionable reasons in my life... And guess what... Christianity and God had nothing to do with it. :oops:

I will say this: Those that find Christianity in it true form do not end up in the world I think Scrog is concerned about.

[scrogdog]

I realize I am kinda hi-jacking the thread, but your statement sounds similar to saying we have global warming (when the temperatures are falling), then say we have climate change when it is proven there are decade and multi-decade cycles in the climate... and create a huge fear campaign to enact a HUGE tax increase...

Not sure if I have ever seen a more clear usage of science for questionable reasons in my life... And guess what... Christianity and God had nothing to do with it. :oops:

I will say this: Those that find Christianity in it true form do not end up in the world I think Scrog is concerned about.

True. That's why there needs to be standards in science which we seem to be moving away from. Consensus science is now "ok".

Let's be clear though, the standard only comes in to play when trying to explain a thing. Which is what science does.

Science first starts with a fact. Then we try to explain it.

Is the world warming? Yes. Fact.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-174088.html

Are humans causing it? Maybe. Theory.

We cannot say that the alarmists are exactly wrong, only that it is not properly supported at this time. What we have is consensus. Which is not science.

I've spoken out against the alarmists on that basis.

Oh yeah, you Christians are just as guilty by impeding our childrens science education through indoctrination and BS stickers placed on science textbooks.

Funny that you should bring that up too, because a good science education, which you collectively impede, is our only defense against charlatans.

[ga-hvac-tech]

True. That's why there needs to be standards in science which we seem to be moving away from. Consensus science is now "ok".

Let's be clear though, the standard only comes in to play when trying to explain a thing. Which is what science does.

Science first starts with a fact. Then we try to explain it.

Is the world warming? Yes. Fact.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-174088.html

Are humans causing it? Maybe. Theory.

We cannot say that the alarmists are exactly wrong, only that it is not properly supported at this time. What we have is consensus. Which is not science.

I've spoken out against the alarmists on that basis.

Oh yeah, you Christians are just as guilty by impeding our childrens science education through indoctrination and BS stickers placed on science textbooks.

Funny that you should bring that up too, because a good science education, which you collectively impede, is our only defense against charlatans.

First and foremost: I am not one of 'those Christians' you refer to above. I am not an activist that wants to ram my faith down your throat. I would rather you see your need for God, but that is something God will direct folks to, not me. The reason I would even bother to debate is because I would like to share what I have found in God.

OK on to the other issue here: While one could produce 'facts' to say the world is warming, another could produce facts to say it is not. And these two sets of facts could have come from the same time period... :oops:

I have read stories of the following:
1) That folks will not get grant $$$ from the government to study global climate unless they come up with a specific conclusion that is wanted... really scientific there. (professional grant $$$ takers that really do not care about science, only living off your tax $$$).
2) Stories of data that was conveniently ignored or even removed from fact-finding surveys.
3) Temp sensors that were placed close to light-bulbs (for convenience of reading them mind you) and of course the sensors read a few D higher than ambient air...
4) And my favourite: In Russia the Sept data was entered in the logs in the month of October... ahhh, yeah, that would make it appear the world was warmer...
So in this case science was used as a tool to literally lie to the public. Kinda give science a bad name there.

And as Billy Mays used to say on TV: But wait, there is more!!!

Above I said I agree that one can show evidence that the world is warming in specific areas at specific times. But if one studies larger segments of the climate over larger time periods, one will find longer trends of warming followed by cooling.

And lets not forget that warming and cooling seem to be connected to sunspot activity... even a magazine as liberal as National Geographic will admit this.

SOOO, in my uneducated mind the only rational conclusion I can come to is that science can be used to prove anything the fact collector and assembler wants it to... :oops:

I guess while science is a wonderful thing, it can be used in ways that are not so wonderful...

This is the reason I take 'facts' with a grain of salt... sure the facts can be irrefutably accurate... BUT; how they are reported and how they are assembled, and what was the agenda of the person doing the assembly and reporting? Kinda leaves me in a place of having to 'read between the lines' so to say each time I read something that is supposed to be important, and is supported by 'science'.

[scrogdog]

First and foremost: I am not one of 'those Christians' you refer to above. I am not an activist that wants to ram my faith down your throat. I would rather you see your need for God, but that is something God will direct folks to, not me. The reason I would even bother to debate is because I would like to share what I have found in God.

That's why I said "collectively".


OK on to the other issue here: While one could produce 'facts' to say the world is warming, another could produce facts to say it is not. And these two sets of facts could have come from the same time period... :oops:

Woefully incorrect. I'll get back to this.


I have read stories of the following:
1) That folks will not get grant $$$ from the government to study global climate unless they come up with a specific conclusion that is wanted... really scientific there. (professional grant $$$ takers that really do not care about science, only living off your tax $$$).
2) Stories of data that was conveniently ignored or even removed from fact-finding surveys.
3) Temp sensors that were placed close to light-bulbs (for convenience of reading them mind you) and of course the sensors read a few D higher than ambient air...
4) And my favourite: In Russia the Sept data was entered in the logs in the month of October... ahhh, yeah, that would make it appear the world was warmer...
So in this case science was used as a tool to literally lie to the public. Kinda give science a bad name there.

There are MILLIONS of instruments that collect this data. Ok, so if some are found to be flawed and we throw them out, we are undeniably still left with warming!

This is about as ridiculous as Hugh's implication that science, world-wide, is participating in a conspiracy against creationists and thier so-called science. Give me a break.


And as Billy Mays used to say on TV: But wait, there is more!!!

Above I said I agree that one can show evidence that the world is warming in specific areas at specific times. But if one studies larger segments of the climate over larger time periods, one will find longer trends of warming followed by cooling.

And lets not forget that warming and cooling seem to be connected to sunspot activity... even a magazine as liberal as National Geographic will admit this.

Segments of the climate? Lol - you are confusing weather with climate. :rolleyes: May I again point out what a lack of a good science education brings us?

And... again, there is no "seems to" in science. Again, standards. Again, and again, and again. Standards.


SOOO, in my uneducated mind the only rational conclusion I can come to is that science can be used to prove anything the fact collector and assembler wants it to... :oops:

You're the one who said uneducated, not me.


I guess while science is a wonderful thing, it can be used in ways that are not so wonderful...

This is the reason I take 'facts' with a grain of salt... sure the facts can be irrefutably accurate... BUT; how they are reported and how they are assembled, and what was the agenda of the person doing the assembly and reporting? Kinda leaves me in a place of having to 'read between the lines' so to say each time I read something that is supposed to be important, and is supported by 'science'.

Look, there are 59 scientists at the UN that began this whole debacle. In a letter from the world community comprising over 700 scientists they were advised to say the truth, instead of stating that "the debate is over".

The debate is FAR from over. For either side.

To my knowledge, NONE of the 700 disputed the facts, they simply reprimanded the UN for improperly using what science said for political gain.

Again, it is quite funny that you complain about the science when if Christians had there way there would be little defense against "junk science". From objective observation, a good number of Christians wouldn't know a fact if it smacked them in the head.

Not to mention any specific names, of course. :)

I like Steve Gould's definition; "in science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional consent'. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the idea does not merit any time in physics class".

[ga-hvac-tech]

That's why I said "collectively".



Woefully incorrect. I'll get back to this.



There are MILLIONS of instruments that collect this data. Ok, so if some are found to be flawed and we throw them out, we are undeniably still left with warming!

This is about a ridiculous as Hugh's implication that science, world-wide, is participating in a conspiracy against creationists and thier so-called science. Give me a break.



Segments of the climate? Lol - you are confusing weather with climate. :rolleyes: May I again point out what a lack of a good science education brings us?

And... again, there is no "seems to" in science. Again, standards. Again, and again, and again. Standards.



You're the one who said uneducated, not me.



Look, there are 59 scientists at the UN that began this whole debacle. In a letter from the world community comprising over 700 scientists they were told to say the truth, instead of stating that "the debate is over".

The debate is FAR from over. For either side.

To my knowledge, NONE of the 700 disputed the facts, they simply reprimanded the UN for improperly using what science said for political gain.

Again, it is quite funny that you complain about the science when if Christians had there way there would be little defense against "junk science". From objective observation, a good number of Christians wouldn't know a fact if it smacked them in the head.

Not to mention any specific names, of course. :)

I like Steve Gould's definition; "in science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional consent'. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the idea does not merit any time in physics class".

You prove my point Scrog: You have made a god of science and thinking... even thought there is overwhelming evidence that these 'facts' can be manipulated to say whatever the person assembling and reporting the facts wants them to say...

Sure there are facts... but what use are they if they have to be exhaustively checked to be believed.

Is the world warming... in S Texas it appeared so last summer... but here in GA, we had a mild summer and the fall is coming sooner than normal... one could call that cooling if they wanted to. So which 'facts' do I believe and which facts do I not believe?

BTW: My Dad spent most of the summer and into early Oct in the hospital in Houston, I went down there many times... Had dinner with Wrangler and Classical. I remember all to well how HOT it was. Thankfully Dad is better now.

Facts are only that... and to make a god of facts is IMO to set oneself up to end up with egg on their nose... :oops:

[scrogdog]

You prove my point Scrog: You have made a god of science and thinking... even thought there is overwhelming evidence that these 'facts' can be manipulated to say whatever the person assembling and reporting the facts wants them to say...

Again, that is demonstrably incorrect. Repeating it does not make it correct.


Sure there are facts... but what use are they if they have to be exhaustively checked to be believed.

I presume you've exhaustively checked out the fact that the Earth revolves about the sun then. Please... do tell.


Is the world warming... in S Texas it appeared so last summer... but here in GA, we had a mild summer and the fall is coming sooner than normal... one could call that cooling if they wanted to. So which 'facts' do I believe and which facts do I not believe?

Again, you confuse weather with climate. I think we can close the book on this.


BTW: My Dad spent most of the summer and into early Oct in the hospital in Houston, I went down there many times... Had dinner with Wrangler and Classical. I remember all to well how HOT it was. Thankfully Dad is better now.

Facts are only that... and to make a god of facts is IMO to set oneself up to end up with egg on their nose... :oops:

Ok, GA... whatever. I can see you are just a mantra-repeater uninterested in anything other than that.

[Marc O'Brien]

Gawd, wot 'n load ov fallacious nonsense! I will be back to reply when I get some time - and trust me I will make time !! :)

At least Scrog has stepped out for the rational minds to be heard! Where's Geer?

[skizot]

Sorry, but what a stupid thread. None of you are going to convince the others of your views, so it's all just a giant waste of time. It's like arguing the topic of abortion.

In this thread there will only be this :argue:, and none of this :cheers:

[bootlen]

Sorry, but what a stupid thread. None of you are going to convince the others of your views, so it's all just a giant waste of time. It's like arguing the topic of abortion.

In this thread there will only be this :argue:, and none of this :cheers:

Who's forcing you?

[ga-hvac-tech]

Gawd, wot 'n load ov fallacious nonsense! I will be back to reply when I get some time - and trust me I will make time !! :)

At least Scrog has stepped out for the rational minds to be heard! Where's Geer?

When each of our bodies dies, as all human bodies do at some time; our spirits will face God on His terms.

I know what the outcome for me will be, and where I will spend eternity...

Do you?

PS--Not interested in your rationalization of what you think comes after physical death. I want to know if you know where you will spend eternity. Just answer the question, nothing else.

[Slatts]

umm... dead ga.

I think if I had to sit around for eternity praising some bloke I'd go mad.

[scrogdog]

Sorry, but what a stupid thread. None of you are going to convince the others of your views, so it's all just a giant waste of time. It's like arguing the topic of abortion.

In this thread there will only be this :argue:, and none of this :cheers:

All well and good, but that has never been the goal of debate.

Do you ever expect that a political candidate at the end of the debate to say "you know what? He's right!"

The participants seek to sway the undecided.

We never know who is watching in ARP.

Plus, mental excercise is healthy. Use it or lose it. Especially at a certain age. :)

[scrogdog]

I know what the outcome for me will be, and where I will spend eternity...

Simply... no you don't.

You have a belief, not knowledge.

If one could KNOW, then there would be little to debate. Yes?

[skizot]

Who's forcing you?
Forcing me to what? I didn't state a question. I expressed an opinion, which is what every other person does in this forum.


All well and good, but that has never been the goal of debate.

Do you ever expect that a political candidate at the end of the debate to say "you know what? He's right!"

The participants seek to sway the undecided.

We never know who is watching in ARP.

Plus, mental excercise is healthy. Use it or lose it. Especially at a certain age. :)

Agreed.

[JRINJAX]

Plus, mental excercise is healthy. Use it or lose it. Especially at a certain age. :)

Dog,
Not only have I lost it, I would not have a clue where to look for it anymore.:)

[scrogdog]

Dog,
Not only have I lost it, I would not have a clue where to look for it anymore.:)

Lol- 'tis the eventual fate of most of us. :)

There are some- exceptions. Like Emma. My next store neighbor (from childhood) lived until she was 97, rode her bike and wisely conversed until the very end. What a gal.

[dannyp19]

Marc,

What is religion? Its a belief in a MYTH. Mysticism is a curse of mankind that will never end. It has through the years been the cause of numerous wars and genocide. When a person doesnt use REASON in his thought processes, he is easily guided into mysticism.

The philsophy of the Christian religions is one of ALTRUISM. Altruism states that self sacrifice for your fellow man is his highest calling. The political form of altruism is COLLECTIVISIM! Now it is the State, Tribe, Village, etc. that determines who gets what and who the sacrifical lamb will be. A lot of talk these days is SERVICE, but there is a fine line between service and servitude.

The chink in the United States armor is this paradox of freedom and altruism. The two are imcompatable, they dont mix. We now hear our leaders villifying greed, to which sounds bad but also can be taken to mean anyone who is ambitious, self-serving, driven, etc. to be greedy.

A man is a means to his own ends, not a means to the ends of others.

The only system where freedom can work is CAPITALISM. Not this ad hoc system of mixed economy's we have now but pure capitalism. In a perfect system of capitalism I would trade to you services that meet our mutual benefit. I would not force, or decieve you into this agreement. The only purpose of government would be to protect our mutually agreed upon contracts, keep us safe from thieves and forigen invaders.

The problem with our country today is that our public educational system does not teach or encourage rational THINKING. Without using the tools our mind has to reason and question we become sheep and hence are prone to the dangers of mysticism, altruism, and collectivism.

I perfer reason, ambition, and capitalism.

Flame away! :argue:

[JRINJAX]

Marc,

What is religion? Its a belief in a MYTH. Mysticism is a curse of mankind that will never end. It has through the years been the cause of numerous wars and genocide. When a person doesnt use REASON in his thought processes, he is easily guided into mysticism.

The philsophy of the Christian religions is one of ALTRUISM. Altruism states that self sacrifice for your fellow man is his highest calling. The political form of altruism is COLLECTIVISIM! Now it is the State, Tribe, Village, etc. that determines who gets what and who the sacrifical lamb will be. A lot of talk these days is SERVICE, but there is a fine line between service and servitude.

The chink in the United States armor is this paradox of freedom and altruism. The two are imcompatable, they dont mix. We now hear our leaders villifying greed, to which sounds bad but also can be taken to mean anyone who is ambitious, self-serving, driven, etc. to be greedy.

A man is a means to his own ends, not a means to the ends of others.

The only system where freedom can work is CAPITALISM. Not this ad hoc system of mixed economy's we have now but pure capitalism. In a perfect system of capitalism I would trade to you services that meet our mutual benefit. I would not force, or decieve you into this agreement. The only purpose of government would be to protect our mutually agreed upon contracts, keep us safe from thieves and forigen invaders.

The problem with our country today is that our public educational system does not teach or encourage rational THINKING. Without using the tools our mind has to reason and question we become sheep and hence are prone to the dangers of mysticism, altruism, and collectivism.

I perfer reason, ambition, and capitalism.

Flame away! :argue:
Why would we want to flame away on someone who has ALL the secrets to the Universe?

I am sure that you really are a "LEGEND IN YOUR OWN MIND".

How could us mere mortals [suffering from from Mysticism] ever argue with such a "supreme intellect".

Matter of fact, I am going to go back to my room and cry......

[hvacbear]

Hello people :)

You've probably long forgotten me, but I am a member here and I sometimes share ideas in this ARP section.

Just a quick one, thought I'd pop in and share also some of the latest developments, in case the regulars have missed some of the current events.

Here is a new video by Pat Condell on America possibly going Islamic already...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjSjpNe1-Vc

Here is a comment by Lou Dobbs on the matter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQbPYxTL9D4

Mean while, back at the college, I have challenged my second year degree students to find for me any one person who has existed, since Socrates, who offered anything more on human morals and spirituality, than Socrates. They have almost given up - and of course this is predictable.

I also offered to students and friends that if they could find for me one tiny shred of evidence for Jesus having ever existed that warrants the claims made in the Bible then I offer to, within an hour, jump from the tallest college building. Lol, they have utterly failed. But are also becoming wise to the world as it really is :) If you would like to see a video of me jumping to the street below from a 7 storey building then give me the evidence and I shall pass it onto to them. As you can imagine, I am delighting in the absolute security, provided me, of total absence of evidence for Jesus having ever existed :)

And the other guy, flew on a donkey to heaven, my ass :)

Oh yes, other thing, Gert Wilders is explicitly not a culteral relativist. He is right by default, why, well... It was once believed the sun orbited the earth. A cultural relativist would say that since this is what they believed then that is what really happened. Cultural relativism is absurd. The Muslim culture is, as a matter of fact, primitive and savage. This is not a matter of opinion or a matter of taste or value or prejudice. It is a matter of actual fact. Gert Wilders is correct.

For America to be getting into bed with Islam - damn, this is very sad. I am however, frustratedly, not surprised, because America anyway is a faith based country, this makes it easy for America to convert to Islam. But for me it is becoming more and more evident why Socrates insisted that Faith is the greatest evil possible by man.

What on earth would I want to contribute more to this planet if America replaces their Constitution with Sharia. I will refuse to contribute anything more, they'll have to feed and house me on the dole or prematurely expire me.

Roll on 2012.

Then end :)

Marc,

I respect your right to your opinion. I think you are the type who looks into things objectively. So consider this: there was no evidence that the Hittites existed for many years, but their existence was recorded in the Bible. Later archeologists found evidence of the Hittite empire, after proclaiming for years that it never existed. Remind me what evidence do you have that Socrates existed that is so much better than the evidence that Jesus existed?

As a disclaimer I am the son of a preacher, but I do not swallow everything that is coated in a religious seasoning blindly. I understand your point that one faith can easily be replaced by another through incrementalism.

[Marc O'Brien]

Marc,

I respect your right to your opinion. I think you are the type who looks into things objectively. So consider this: there was no evidence that the Hittites existed for many years, but their existence was recorded in the Bible. Later archeologists found evidence of the Hittite empire, after proclaiming for years that it never existed. Remind me what evidence do you have that Socrates existed that is so much better than the evidence that Jesus existed?

As a disclaimer I am the son of a preacher, but I do not swallow everything that is coated in a religious seasoning blindly. I understand your point that one faith can easily be replaced by another through incrementalism.

The Bible, especially the old testament, does have some value as a history book. Just no evidence whatsoever of the existence of any god.

Consider the fact that there is more archeological evidence for goings on from the old testament being true than for the more recent new testament. Makes one realise the new is likely a load of BS.

[ga-hvac-tech]

The Bible, especially the old testament, does have some value as a history book. Just no evidence whatsoever of the existence of any god.

Consider the fact that there is more archeological evidence for goings on from the old testament being true than for the more recent new testament. Makes one realise the new is likely a load of BS.



OK Marc, here is a question for you to ponder: Is there knowledge and logic that we have yet to see? If not, then at any point one knows and understands all... yet if this is true, then one could not learn more tomorrow, as that would break the logic. But we all know that we continue to learn, so the logic must not be totally logical... kinda a loop here that does not follow a finite understanding.

I read that you teach HVAC and Refer at a college. Do the students know all there is to know the first day of class? If so, why do they need to be there... If not, then there is more knowledge to learn. And if there is more knowledge to learn, then perhaps their thinking will change (I think they call this growing). And it would go to reason that as one amasses more knowledge, and one's patterns of thinking change... perhaps their perception of logic will change also???

SOOO, we have logically proven that as we grow in knowledge our thinking and logic changes.

Now lets apply this to Marc and the Bible: Would it be possible that there is a reason the Old and New Testament are assembled in the same cover, and Marc has yet to understand... We have already proven that we continue to learn and that the learning experience changes our thinking and as such can change our logic.. So perhaps there are things that Marc does not know yet...

I suggest that Marc's views are representative of the place in life he is currently living (not geographical, rather the level of life experience Marc has lived through and the level of wisdom and maturity Marc has grown to as a result of the life experiences Marc has lived through). I also suggest Marc will walk beyond this place as the years pile on; and I suspect his views will change. What will they change to??? 'God only knows' and I say that in all honesty... :couch:

[Some Dude]

OK Marc, here is a question for you to ponder: Is there knowledge and logic that we have yet to see? If not, then at any point one knows and understands all... yet if this is true, then one could not learn more tomorrow, as that would break the logic. But we all know that we continue to learn, so the logic must not be totally logical... kinda a loop here that does not follow a finite understanding.

I read that you teach HVAC and Refer at a college. Do the students know all there is to know the first day of class? If so, why do they need to be there... If not, then there is more knowledge to learn. And if there is more knowledge to learn, then perhaps their thinking will change (I think they call this growing). And it would go to reason that as one amasses more knowledge, and one's patterns of thinking change... perhaps their perception of logic will change also???

SOOO, we have logically proven that as we grow in knowledge our thinking and logic changes.

Now lets apply this to Marc and the Bible: Would it be possible that there is a reason the Old and New Testament are assembled in the same cover, and Marc has yet to understand... We have already proven that we continue to learn and that the learning experience changes our thinking and as such can change our logic.. So perhaps there are things that Marc does not know yet...

I suggest that Marc's views are representative of the place in life he is currently living (not geographical, rather the level of life experience Marc has lived through and the level of wisdom and maturity Marc has grown to as a result of the life experiences Marc has lived through). I also suggest Marc will walk beyond this place as the years pile on; and I suspect his views will change. What will they change to??? 'God only knows' and I say that in all honesty... :couch:

HAHAHAHA come on marc are you really going to let someone from Norcross, GA hand your butt to you like that?
He doesnt even have any initials after his name.
You have more patience than i do GA, I gave up on many here seeing anything , since many dont think, they just think of a response.

[Pneuma]

The Bible, especially the old testament, does have some value as a history book. Just no evidence whatsoever of the existence of any god.

Consider the fact that there is more archeological evidence for goings on from the old testament being true than for the more recent new testament. Makes one realise the new is likely a load of BS.

You know Marc there was the crusades and we all know Christians have done bad things. History has shwon this over and over. But we're still using the same bible and now when people read it, they don't go on crusades. There's folks who speak in tongues, folks who handle snakes. People misread the bible all the time.

It could be what you find so offensive about the bible, the stuff about brainwashing and people who blindly just quote scripture and warn people that they are going to hell uinless they say the right words, in the rigth way. God also finds offensive. It could be you're really a blessing and calling out modern day crusades.

The only thing missing in your message is your coming from aposition of pride, as in I've figured it out, you people are just stupid, rather than a position of humility as in you people just don;t get it, but it's ok, I'll help you figure it out, because we're all in our own ways broken and lost. It's too bad you can;t see this because there is so much good in Christianity that goes with so much misunderstanding and misinformation.

You should be teaching people how to be socratic Christians because you obviously are in touch with that and you've often admited so is the Christian message. Check out this video, i think you will agree with the guy!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-825273137571541112#

[Marc O'Brien]

You know Marc there was the crusades and we all know Christians have done bad things. History has shwon this over and over. But we're still using the same bible and now when people read it, they don't go on crusades. There's folks who speak in tongues, folks who handle snakes. People misread the bible all the time.

It could be what you find so offensive about the bible, the stuff about brainwashing and people who blindly just quote scripture and warn people that they are going to hell uinless they say the right words, in the rigth way. God also finds offensive. It could be you're really a blessing and calling out modern day crusades.

The only thing missing in your message is your coming from aposition of pride, as in I've figured it out, you people are just stupid, rather than a position of humility as in you people just don;t get it, but it's ok, I'll help you figure it out, because we're all in our own ways broken and lost. It's too bad you can;t see this because there is so much good in Christianity that goes with so much misunderstanding and misinformation.

You should be teaching people how to be socratic Christians because you obviously are in touch with that and you've often admited so is the Christian message. Check out this video, i think you will agree with the guy!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-825273137571541112#

You're a natural philosopher, Pneuma :)

I'm not coming from a position of Pride though. A friend last night was telling me about how she finds writing her book about her life helps focus her mind. I explained that probably the most famous of such a practise are the "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius, the only Roman Emperor who was also a philosopher AD 121 - 180. He never intended his 12 books of personal thoughts to be published.

I handed it to her to read while I prepared food and wine. She came down to the Kitchen to say "This is the difference between me and her, and she read from the book to me... 'Men seek retreats for themselves, houses in the country, at the seashore, and in the mountains; and you tend to desire such things very much. But this is a characteristic of the most common sort of men, for it is in your power whenever you will to choose to retreat into yourself. For nowhere either with more quiet or more freedom from trouble does a man retreat than into his own soul, particularly when he has within him such thoughts that by looking into them he is immediately perfectly tranquil; and I affirm that tranquillity is nothing other than the proper ordering of the mind.' ... then she said the difference between us is that she knows I could be told tomorrow is my last day and I will accept it calmly but she could not - she feels she still has so much to discover about herself and to remedy from the past. I told her it is because every human needs philosophy. Most only get small weak doses from religion as Christians get watered down doses of Socrates. But the more philosophisings of others you study and the more philosophising you do yourself the more calm and tranquil you become. This is especially true of me especially in this last year since I have had time to practise so much philosophising.

The starting position is instead one of knowing that no man or thing can provide a single shred of evidence for the existence of any God. And there you go, that is where it should remain.

Marcus Aurelius, who was not a Christian but an Emperor tolerant of Christians was Socratic too for example he wrote "The sinner sins against himself: the wrongdoer wrongs himself, by making himself morally bad. There can often be wrongs of omission as well as commission" Book 9 Verses 4 and 5.

These are psychological facts, to do good and even, as Socrates said, love your enemies, is to do good for yourself and your health too. These are the wisdoms of men, of philosophers of ancient times.

That religions adopt these tenets for themselves and that some even hijack these tenets claiming to be the original source of these tenets does nothing in the way of providing evidence for the existence of Gods, it rather tells a sad story of religions and their nature.

The pride, arrogance, anger and hate comes from those with faith. They believe their nonsense to be superior, to be above the humble scientific method of the rational man. Then in their biased programmed minds they mistake the humble honest mind for the angry aggressive mind. They fail to see the humble enquiring mind is actually merely maintaining, without arrogance, the original position where everyone starts at - that there is no evidence of any Gods. The one without faith is in fact merely still stood at first base calling those of faith back asking "Hang on, where are you off too, what evidence do you have that that is the direction we should go in. There are 360° at least to choose from, why do you choose 180° and only 180°? Reason surely says 0° is the direction on this matter!"

The Guy in the video is effectively talking about getting back to Socratic dialectics, back to a world where God does not get in the way. Remove god from the equation and there will be a whole lot more room for love. The concept of God poisons the whole human spirit thing. The guy in the video is heading nearer to 0° but he still only at about 45° - he now needs to drop the god and Jesus stuff and his message will become even more genuinely about human spirit and love - it'll get back closer to Socratic Philosophies.

[Pneuma]

You're a natural philosopher, Pneuma :)

Just trying to follow Jesus! (who breathed spirit into the philosophers)



'Men seek retreats for themselves, houses in the country, at the seashore, and in the mountains; and you tend to desire such things very much. But this is a characteristic of the most common sort of men, for it is in your power whenever you will to choose to retreat into yourself. For nowhere either with more quiet or more freedom from trouble does a man retreat than into his own soul, particularly when he has within him such thoughts that by looking into them he is immediately perfectly tranquil; and I affirm that tranquillity is nothing other than the proper ordering of the mind.'

retreat? Oh I have retreated, as have many men. Luckily I didn't get permanently stuck in the bottle. The way of Jesus is not to retreat into one's soul in search of tranquility. Jesus was a man of controversey a mavric. He was a famous Rabi insulter who defended common whores and challenged the Roman Empire. This is what I don't understand about your description of philosophy. You retreat into tranqulity, perfect true knowledge and for what? I much prefer death. Being a Christian means dying many times and in faith being reborn. Surrender and sacrafice, faith that allows leaping off the cliff. A year ago I found out my wife had brain cancer. Our insurance coverage had a cap that could easily be overrun with such a disease. I have two young kids. I was facing uncertain times, my life as I knew it had just died. So what did I do? having been a consultant for a couple of years and sort of just making ends meet, I went and sold two 3.5 ton split systems and I did not even have a truck and barely any tools. I prayed to God that he get me through it. To me prayer is not sitting at the edge of the bed hands folded. It's fighting and clawing and trusting and surrendering to what you cannot change and never giving up becaue you have faith. I had zero proof that God would help me to help myself, but all I had to do was believe it would all be ok, and I did believe. Believing not as in hoping but believing in a way that you will it to be true. It is powerful to will something. Have you ever done it? It is harnessing the spirit within and God waits for all of us, to cry out in our death and with faith in Him charge bravely into the unknown, that's when He smiles, picks you up and says "let's roll!" So it has all turned out well, things are very good.

You have shown me nothing about Socrates that expalins how philosophy helps us when our happy lives are in effect killed and we have to regroup, or be reborn.


The starting position is instead one of knowing that no man or thing can provide a single shred of evidence for the existence of any God. And there you go, that is where it should remain.

I had no shred of evidence my children would have a mother or we would live in the same house. I had nothing but faith and it was all I needed. If we listed the achievements of man that required a leap of faith in place of proof it would be most impressive. You see that no man can prove God and mistake it as there being a fact that no proof exists. Guess what? My 5 year old girl can't braze pipe, she can sawzall though, but that doesn't prove pipe can't be brazed. If you asked her she couldn't even tell you what brazing is.



The Guy in the video is effectively talking about getting back to Socratic dialectics, back to a world where God does not get in the way. Remove god from the equation and there will be a whole lot more room for love. The concept of God poisons the whole human spirit thing. The guy in the video is heading nearer to 0° but he still only at about 45° - he now needs to drop the god and Jesus stuff and his message will become even more genuinely about human spirit and love - it'll get back closer to Socratic Philosophies.

God is human spirit. God breathed the spirit into us and it dwells within us. It is the point of reference from which we measure love and we are all born with the same "electrical bond" if you will, that allows us to recognize without ever having been taught what love is, this connects us and makes us all one body of Christ.

[ga-hvac-tech]

God is human spirit. God breathed the spirit into us and it dwells within us. It is the point of reference from which we measure love and we are all born with the same "electrical bond" if you will, that allows us to recognize without ever having been taught what love is, this connects us and makes us all one body of Christ. Hey bro, Does the terms 'Exchanged Life' or 'GraceWalk' ring a bell with you?

[Pneuma]

Hey bro, Does the terms 'Exchanged Life' or 'GraceWalk' ring a bell with you?

At the risk of embarrassing myself, nope never heard the terms. Time to get on the google!

[ga-hvac-tech]

At the risk of embarrassing myself, nope never heard the terms. Time to get on the google!

Find a copy of the book; GraceWalk by Steve McVey A totally new way to see the Christian life! By reading some of your posts, I thought you might have read of it.

[Marc O'Brien]

God is human spirit.

So then God is virtuosness, kinship, empathy and all other such things Socratic?


God breathed the spirit into us and it dwells within us.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean? You have evidence that god breathes? What does it breath - oxygen? I have no idea what this means. You know nothing of any God, let alone what they might breath.

Philosophy equips you for every facet of life - every possible aspect - everything life throws at you. It is in fact a part of the definition of philosophy. Ask your Jesus about it - it would be what kept him tranquil through his experiences and all his actions - except when he demonstrated his idiocy - like when he caused a fig tree to wither just because he was in anger - not very virtuous!

[Pneuma]

So then God is virtuosness, kinship, empathy and all other such things Socratic?

God breathed the spirit into us and it dwells within us.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean? You have evidence that god breathes? What does it breath - oxygen? I have no idea what this means. You know nothing of any God, let alone what they might breath.

Philosophy equips you for every facet of life - every possible aspect - everything life throws at you. It is in fact a part of the definition of philosophy. Ask your Jesus about it - it would be what kept him tranquil through his experiences and all his actions - except when he demonstrated his idiocy - like when he caused a fig tree to wither just because he was in anger - not very virtuous![/QUOTE]
I don't have evidence of God breathing, it's a parable in the bible. That God gathered up the dust and breatehd life into it, and Adam was born. We come from the dust and we return from the dust, in between we are filled with the breathe of the spirit, the "pneuma" if you will. It's poetic more that literal. You seem to sometimes find it convenient to play a dumb guy, it's not what I expect from a learned philospher, but perhaps you have no alternative.

and BTW are you saying people who get angry have no virtue? Child molesters make me angry, am I lacking in virtue? I honestly don't know the fig story, I'll have to look that up.

[Marc O'Brien]

...and BTW are you saying people who get angry have no virtue? Child molesters make me angry, am I lacking in virtue? I honestly don't know the fig story, I'll have to look that up.

Look at the nature of those who come from cultures where public violence is inflicted upon such criminals. Do they have the "human spirit" you cherish? It does your own spirit only harm to get angry - take a measured response - lock them up for life - but spend your time thinking of how to help the victims not of how to harm the perpetrators - doing so invites evil into yourself - that is how these primitive cultures manage to remain so demonstrably evil.

[Slatts]

Look at the nature of those who come from cultures where public violence is inflicted upon such criminals. Do they have the "human spirit" you cherish? It does your own spirit only harm to get angry - take a measured response - lock them up for life - but spend your time thinking of how to help the victims not of how to harm the perpetrators - doing so invites evil into yourself - that is how these primitive cultures manage to remain so demonstrably evil.

Gee Marc, I wouldn't have picked you for a spiritualist. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl4VD8uvgec)

By all means help the victims but remove the perpetrators from the gene pool. They pollute it.

[Some Dude]

Gee Marc, I wouldn't have picked you for a spiritualist. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl4VD8uvgec)

By all means help the victims but remove the perpetrators from the gene pool. They pollute it.

That would be old testament punishment. And it worked.

[Slatts]

That would be old testament punishment. And it worked.
Some times the old ways are still the best.

[scrogdog]

That would be old testament punishment. And it worked.

Ah yes. Mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery and child abuse.

When your god orders these things its defended. But should some OTHER religion's god order murder... WHOA!

God even gives you strict rules to follow should you wish to sell your daughter as a sex-slave.


When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)

Yes, I bow before the aweseome goodness. :rolleyes:

Must be a bad translation or sumpin.

[Slatts]

Struth dog!
I bet that doesn't get taught to the kiddies in Sunday school.

[JRINJAX]

Ah yes. Mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery and child abuse.

When your god orders these things its defended. But should some OTHER religion's god order murder... WHOA!

God even gives you strict rules to follow should you wish to sell your daughter as a sex-slave.



Yes, I bow before the aweseome goodness. :rolleyes:

Must be a bad translation or sumpin.Dog,
Whether you like it or not, this was part of a welfare system for the Jews that God set up. Only a very poor and destitute family would consider selling their child. This was preferential to letting them [her] starve to death. I am sure that God will ask your approval from now on before He sets up any more rules for the Jews.

[scrogdog]

Dog,
Whether you like it or not, this was part of a welfare system for the Jews that God set up. Only a very poor and destitute family would consider selling their child. This was preferential to letting them [her] starve to death. I am sure that God will ask your approval from now on before He sets up any more rules for the Jews.

I would rather my daughter be dead than be a slave. I would rather die than become one myself.

Give me liberty or give me death!

An interesting perspective, my friend. Under certain conditions, then, slavery is OK?

[JRINJAX]

I would rather my daughter be dead than be a slave. I would rather die than become one myself.

Give me liberty or give me death!

An interesting perspective, my friend. Under certain conditions, then, slavery is OK?
God set very specific rules for treatment of slaves, who either sold themselves/sold by their families to ward off starvation. Just remember these were brutal times. There was no Government support then and slavery was still better than being a beggar.
As little as I understand, I think that the form of slavery mentioned, was sort of like being a concubine or a indentured apprentice [with brutal punishments for being lazy/disobedient]. Just remember too that disobedient children where also instantly removed from the gene pool too and they did not have today's 13 year olds raping elderly women.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times".

[skizot]

I think that the form of slavery mentioned, was sort of like being a concubine or a indentured apprentice [with brutal punishments for being lazy/disobedient]. Just remember too that disobedient children where also instantly removed from the gene pool too and they did not have today's 13 year olds raping elderly women.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times".
How would you have any idea what being a slave was like then, or even in recent history? Answer; you don't.

I find it very interesting that a Christian is saying that [any kind of] slavery is, or ever was, acceptable. But, if it was God's will, then I guess it was OK.:nopity:

[ga-hvac-tech]

How would you have any idea what being a slave was like then, or even in recent history? Answer; you don't.

I find it very interesting that a Christian is saying that [any kind of] slavery is, or ever was, acceptable. But, if it was God's will, then I guess it was OK.:nopity:

To judge that any form of one's pet issue (in this case slavery), is good or bad... regardless of the conditions of life at that point in time (conditions do change you know); is really a blind statement. Kinda like saying governments always were and always will be there to bail out the lazy... do some research in history my friend... you might learn something.

To Scrog: The 'rules' (they are not really rules, rather guidelines) are different in the Old Testament and the New Testament. This is one of the basic things a Christian (who wants to learn) realizes. Can you tell me about the differences between the Old and New Testament?

[ga-hvac-tech]

I would rather my daughter be dead than be a slave. I would rather die than become one myself.

Give me liberty or give me death!

An interesting perspective, my friend. Under certain conditions, then, slavery is OK?

Is slavery a situation where one is beaten. starved, and worked until they are burned out... or would slavery be a situation where one is a member of the family (similar to an adopted child) with a status of, maybe, 90% equality to the blood children?

Be careful of a 'word' triggering an assumption... that may or may not be true.

Oh, and Patrick Henry, when he made that famous quote was referring to tyranny, not slavery. There is a difference.

[skizot]

To judge that any form of one's pet issue (in this case slavery), is good or bad... regardless of the conditions of life at that point in time (conditions do change you know); is really a blind statement. Kinda like saying governments always were and always will be there to bail out the lazy... do some research in history my friend... you might learn something.
Research on what? Just because slavery was once acceptable, it must remain that way until eternity? Sorry, but civilizations advance, and begin to move away from the barbaric ideologies of the past.

[scrogdog]

To Scrog: The 'rules' (they are not really rules, rather guidelines) are different in the Old Testament and the New Testament. This is one of the basic things a Christian (who wants to learn) realizes. Can you tell me about the differences between the Old and New Testament?

The rules are different?

You mean your perfect God changed his mind from the old way to the new?

Admittedly, the New Testament is much less violent.

That does not stop a believer from defending God's actions in the Old Testament.

[scrogdog]

Is slavery a situation where one is beaten. starved, and worked until they are burned out... or would slavery be a situation where one is a member of the family (similar to an adopted child) with a status of, maybe, 90% equality to the blood children?

Be careful of a 'word' triggering an assumption... that may or may not be true.

Oh, and Patrick Henry, when he made that famous quote was referring to tyranny, not slavery. There is a difference.

Only one thing to do here. Let's seek scripture!

Here are God's high-minded words on slavery;


However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

90% equal to blood children, huh?


If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6)

We've got some real family values happening here. Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave.


When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.(Exodus 21:20-21)

This is the way you treat blood, GA? Or *anyone* for that matter?


Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)

Oh yes, I use this one on my family all the time! :rolleyes: Obey out of fear! Which of course leads one to respect!!!!

Interesting how serving Christ is compared to a slave serving his or her master.

Er... Ephesians is NT, incidentally.

Let's have a look at the very words of Jesus now, shall we?


The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.

Yeah, GA. Just like family. Just like family.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Research on what? Just because slavery was once acceptable, it must remain that way until eternity? Sorry, but civilizations advance, and begin to move away from the barbaric ideologies of the past.

You are doing what I asked Scrog to not do: Getting excited about your personal image/interpretation of a word; that image/interpretation which probably does not apply to the circumstances at the time.

The research would be to learn the circumstances of the time. Folks that shoot from their hip w/out understanding and wisdom of the details... generally make fools of themselves.

On the other hand, if one understands the details, they can make a wise and educated statement.

The former is what we call a troll... the latter is one that would be worth listening to.

Generally, after someone proves they are CHOOSING to behave like a troll, we ignore them until they go away.

Which one will you choose?

[ga-hvac-tech]

The rules are different?

You mean your perfect God changed his mind from the old way to the new?

Admittedly, the New Testament is much less violent.

That does not stop a believer from defending God's actions in the Old Testament.

Well, I think the term God refers to a supreme, allknowing, allpowerful, and almighty being... so I guess they can change the 'rules' (guidelines) as they choose... :oops:

Now tell me; What do you see different in the New Testament than the Old Testament?

[ga-hvac-tech]

Only one thing to do here. Let's seek scripture!

Here are God's high-minded words on slavery;



90% equal to blood children, huh?



We've got some real family values happening here. Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave.



This is the way you treat blood, GA? Or *anyone* for that matter?



Oh yes, I use this one on my family all the time! :rolleyes: Obey out of fear! Which of course leads one to respect!!!!

Interesting how serving Christ is compared to a slave serving his or her master.

Er... Ephesians is NT, incidentally.

Let's have a look at the very words of Jesus now, shall we?



Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.

Yeah, GA. Just like family. Just like family.

I sense a lot of anger in your post Scrog, what are you angry about? Surely not the implied injustice of thousands of years ago??? How could that effect you?

[scrogdog]

Well, I think the term God refers to a supreme, allknowing, allpowerful, and almighty being... so I guess they can change the 'rules' (guidelines) as they choose... :oops:

Now tell me; What do you see different in the New Testament than the Old Testament?

So then he is not perfect. Else his INITIAL plan would not need to be changed.

I'll answer the rest after you own up to slavery. BTW, I *have* studied the history of the time. So let's try to do a little better than a cop-out post claiming troll presence, eh? Slavery is slavery. They were beaten and abused just like any other slaves and scripture confirms it.

[scrogdog]

I sense a lot of anger in your post Scrog, what are you angry about? Surely not the implied injustice of thousands of years ago??? How could that effect you?

Nice diversion.

You going to answer to the ugliness or not?

[ga-hvac-tech]

So then he is not perfect. Else his INITIAL plan would not need to be changed.

I'll answer the rest after you own up to slavery. BTW, I *have* studied the history of the time. So let's try to do a little better than a cop-out post claiming troll presence, eh? Slavery is slavery. They were beaten and abused just like any other slaves and scripture confirms it.

Au contrair... perfect is not a standard that never changes. That is IMO a total mis-conception about life. However I can understand that it would be difficult to trust a God that did change... kinda like; How do I know what to expect from God, or what is expected of me... There is an answer to this one, but we have to work through the old and new testament thingy first.

And on the slavery thing: Are we totally free today? Go up to Mr Obama and tell him he is a N___ you know, the N word... that he is not a legal citizen, that he is a phoney, that he should go back to the farm and pick cotton, and you think he s*ucks (fill in the blank)... and tell me what will happen to you... I guarantee there will be 'laws' interpreted 'certain ways' to label you 'something' that is 'illegal' (most of it just political spin):rules:... and you will not see the light of day for a LONG time. So actually we are not free today.

So what is the big deal about slavery? Beyond the feeling the word stirs within our thoughts... :oops:

[scrogdog]

So what is the big deal about slavery?

Wow. Just wow.

I don't think we have a whole lot more to talk about GA.

Mind-boggling apologetics.

[Some Dude]

The old testament and the Mosaic law were written as a tutor leading up top the Christ.
The Bible does not condone violence,even to the point of saying God hates those loving violence.
However there were several instances where God did command his servants to remove wicked and or pagan societies. If you think that is wrong maybe you should consider many of these were beyond barbaric in their treatment of their own societies including their own family. Including burning babies and children alive, sound like something else you would defend?

[scrogdog]

Au contrair... perfect is not a standard that never changes.

Absolutely WRONG!

You cannot change a state of perfection and have it remain perfection.

You got a dictionary handy? Sheesh.

Now we see believers using thier own personal definitions of words to massage thier agendas. There is just NO PLACE that a believer won't go, nothing that they will not do, to perserve thier little agenda.

Intellectual dishonesty will not take you far in ARP.

[Some Dude]

Also most slaves were willfully enslaved for wages, every seven years there was a Jubilee when the indentured slaves could chose to become free, find another master or buy their own land if they had saved.
Considering most of us are industrial slaves to this day, i would say it was a much better system.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Wow. Just wow.

I don't think we have a whole lot more to talk about GA.

Mind-boggling apologetics.Classic example of taking something out of context and making an issue out of what it 'feels' like...

You may be right Scorg... if the best intellectualism you can come up with is to get excited about your interpretation of a word, then I doubt we could carry on a debate anyhow.

There are lots of examples where owners treated their slaves as good as their kids... SOO here is the deal: Live in the jungles of Africa with nothing and 'think' you are free... or live in a situation where you are almost free and have a lot better life...

Now if we can get beyond the emotional stigma of a word, which way would the African person be better off?

PS--Do you think a politician has ever used (or for that matter manipulated folks) with the emotional stigma of a word... Amazes me how folks are like little children led into a candy store when a smooth talking politician says ONLY the right words...

Learn to think 'outside the box' Scrog... you would be amazed what is out here... :oops:

[ga-hvac-tech]

Absolutely WRONG!

You cannot change a state of perfection and have it remain perfection.

You got a dictionary handy? Sheesh.

Now we see believers using thier own personal definitions of words to massage thier agendas. There is just NO PLACE that a believer won't go, nothing that they will not do, to perserve thier little agenda.

Intellectual dishonesty will not take you far in ARP.

Only science thinks perfection has to remain the same...

Perfection can GROW into something even more desirable than it was earlier, even thought it was perfect back then.

Again; think outside the box... there is a whole life out here... you would like it.

I will be away from the screen for a while... catch up later.

[geerair]

Wow. Just wow.

I don't think we have a whole lot more to talk about GA.

Mind-boggling apologetics.Well, GA and the rest of the thumpers suffer from a religious mania so intense that they happily defend the institution of slavery.

Of course, the mania also leads them into a situation where they defend wholesale slaughter of men, women, children and babies, and also the destruction of all life on the planet.


Petty, jealous, hot tempered, bloodthirsty, vengeful, dishonest, not exactly qualities that you want in a supreme being, yet millions are deluded by an ancient tribal myth to the point they merrily accept qualities in a god they would vociferously condemn in their neighbor.

[scrogdog]

The old testament and the Mosaic law were written as a tutor leading up top the Christ.
The Bible does not condone violence,even to the point of saying God hates those loving violence.
However there were several instances where God did command his servants to remove wicked and or pagan societies. If you think that is wrong maybe you should consider many of these were beyond barbaric in their treatment of their own societies including their own family. Including burning babies and children alive, sound like something else you would defend?

"Those who fight monsters should take care that they don't become monsters themselves. For if you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss also stares back into you." ~ Frederich Nietsche

Darned if we aren't seeing that right here in this very topic.

Besides, you compact God's killing in to a single reason. Now I have to ask you, have YOU actually read the bible?

I guess your definition of "wicked" is anyone who doesn't believe in God.

God orders the death of non-believers;


Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)

God orders the death of fortunetellers, you know, being the clear threat to Christianity that they are; :rolleyes:


A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27)

God will put you to death if you strike or curse at your parents;


Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15)


1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20)

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9)

Believe in the wrong god? You're dead.


Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)


Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Not a virgin on your wedding night? Dead!


But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)

Worked on the Sabbath? Dead.


The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15)

Your dad was a criminal? Dead.


Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21)


If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22)

I'm not even counting in some stuff, like where God says it's ok to hide in the vineyard and grab women passing by and force them to marry you.

This is the stuff you defend?

[geerair]

The old testament and the Mosaic law were written as a tutor leading up top the Christ.
The Bible does not condone violence,even to the point of saying God hates those loving violence.
However there were several instances where God did command his servants to remove wicked and or pagan societies. If you think that is wrong maybe you should consider many of these were beyond barbaric in their treatment of their own societies including their own family. Including burning babies and children alive, sound like something else you would defend?I rest my case.

[geerair]

Classic example of taking something out of context and making an issue out of what it 'feels' like...

You may be right Scorg... if the best intellectualism you can come up with is to get excited about your interpretation of a word, then I doubt we could carry on a debate anyhow.

There are lots of examples where owners treated their slaves as good as their kids... SOO here is the deal: Live in the jungles of Africa with nothing and 'think' you are free... or live in a situation where you are almost free and have a lot better life...

Now if we can get beyond the emotional stigma of a word, which way would the African person be better off?

PS--Do you think a politician has ever used (or for that matter manipulated folks) with the emotional stigma of a word... Amazes me how folks are like little children led into a candy store when a smooth talking politician says ONLY the right words...

Learn to think 'outside the box' Scrog... you would be amazed what is out here... :oops:Damn, I've heard some rather ridiculous rationalizations of slavery but this might just take the cake.

The tortured logic and lack of reality is breathtaking.

[scrogdog]

Damn, I've heard some rather ridiculous rationalizations of slavery but this might just take the cake.

The tortured logic and lack of reality is breathtaking.

I have to agree.

What a tap dance! Scripture describes how it's ok to beat a slave within an inch of his life but as long as he doesn't die, you're fine.

To that, GA responds with how nice everything was. Obviously forgetting that I directly told him that I have studied the period in question and slavery was no cake walk. Because absolute power corrupts. Absolutely.

And also the fact that it was the case that slaves in this country were well-treated in some cases. To GA and believers, this is thier out. Slavery is ok, then.

I say that the Christians that they wish they were should probably have risen the poor up as equals. That's helping. That might make for a more palatable God as well.

[JRINJAX]

Dog,
I am more than willing to admit that the times and also the terms were much different back then. I also pointed out that stuff we would not consider today like executing one of our rebellious children was ordered by God. I would not be here.
Just another insight into the times; When God told one of his Kings that he would soon die, he lamented that a slave born into his house would be his heir, which does not sound much like good/obedient slaves/workers/servants where seen as expendable trash.
Just remember too that Jesus told the Jews that God never intended for there to be Divorce. God allowed Moses to institute it due to the "hardness of their hearts". Many historians contend that the Husbands and Wives were killing each other so Moses let them divorce instead.

Dog,
Before you become too critical of God's rules, just image someone who knows your whole minute by minute life story pointing out every perceived flaw and contradiction in your life like some are choosing to do here. Would they have anything to criticize if they WANTED to?

[scrogdog]

Dog,
I am more than willing to admit that the times and also the terms were much different back then. I also pointed out that stuff we would not consider today like executing one of our rebellious children was ordered by God.
Just another insight into the times; When God told one of his Kings that he would soon die, he lamented that a slave born into his house would be his heir, which does not sound much like good/obedient slaves/workers/servants where seen as expendable trash.

Just remember too that Jesus told the Jews that God never intended for there to be Divorce. God allowed Moses to institute it due to the "hardness of their hearts". Many historians contend that the Husbands and Wives were killing each other so Moses let them divorce instead.

There is anecdotal evidence, as I've said, that slaves in America were also well-treated in SOME cases. That does not absolve one of the crime.

The way GA is talking, those poor folks from Africa were far better off. With that mindset, why don't we go over to Africa today and help those poor folks again by making them slaves? Africa is one of the most disadvantaged continents on the planet.


Dog,
Before you become too critical of God's rules, just image someone who knows your whole minute by minute life story point out every perceived flaw and contradiction in your life like some are choosing to do here. Would they have anything to criticize if they WANTED to?

Of course, and quite a lot, too. :) Humans are supremely flawed, whether by nature or God's hand. However, I'm not the one claiming to be perfect nor am I creating laws and directives for others to follow.

Is it wrong to say that a compassionate God would call on his children to raise the poor up from poverty as equals? Doesn't that sound more along the lines of what Christianity should be?

Even if slavery was the norm, God is perfectly capable of showing you a better way. And, in fact, that is exactly what he should have done, in my opinion. There is no valid reason to support slavery.

[JRINJAX]

Dog,
As brutal as some of the Jewish laws seem, they were a shinning light to all of the nations around them where there were no laws or justice and citizens were lifetime indentured to haul up rocks to build Pharaoh's tomb.

The neighbors were burning their children as sacrifices to gods carved out of part of the same log that was used in their fireplaces. They also enslaved many of their neighbors with no rules on how to treat them.
One of the Jew's problems was that the neighbors flocked into Israel to live with them [so it must have been a great place to live] which resulted in the Jews picking up/emulating their Pagan habits.

Israel, back then, certainly wasn't "Kansas".

[printer2]

Dog,
As brutal as some of the Jewish laws seem, they were a shinning light to all of the nations around them where there were no laws or justice and citizens were lifetime indentured to haul up rocks to build Pharaoh's tomb.

The neighbors were burning their children as sacrifices to gods carved out of part of the same log that was used in their fireplaces. They also enslaved many of their neighbors with no rules on how to treat them.
One of the Jew's problems was that the neighbors flocked into Israel to live with them [so it must have been a great place to live] which resulted in the Jews picking up/emulating their Pagan habits.

Israel, back then, certainly wasn't "Kansas".

Generally as man got farther along religions changed to reflect society's capacity for higher thought. Religion is a way of unifying the elements in society and leading it on to better things. Many religions were not above co-opting others rituals as a means of converting them to their own.

The major religions that we have now have grown to where they are because they gave people more than what they had before. I wonder if we will only remain with the ones we have or if a new one will come around.

Now if Elvis ever came back...

[Some Dude]

Generally as man got farther along religions changed to reflect society's capacity for higher thought. Religion is a way of unifying the elements in society and leading it on to better things. Many religions were not above co-opting others rituals as a means of converting them to their own.

The major religions that we have now have grown to where they are because they gave people more than what they had before. I wonder if we will only remain with the ones we have or if a new one will come around.

Now if Elvis ever came back...

I wouldnt worry about that printer, the current administration will either eliminate religion OR provide us a Government sponsored religion, just like good old mother Russia.

[Some Dude]

Dog,
I am more than willing to admit that the times and also the terms were much different back then. I also pointed out that stuff we would not consider today like executing one of our rebellious children was ordered by God. I would not be here.
Just another insight into the times; When God told one of his Kings that he would soon die, he lamented that a slave born into his house would be his heir, which does not sound much like good/obedient slaves/workers/servants where seen as expendable trash.
Just remember too that Jesus told the Jews that God never intended for there to be Divorce. God allowed Moses to institute it due to the "hardness of their hearts". Many historians contend that the Husbands and Wives were killing each other so Moses let them divorce instead.

Dog,
Before you become too critical of God's rules, just image someone who knows your whole minute by minute life story pointing out every perceived flaw and contradiction in your life like some are choosing to do here. Would they have anything to criticize if they WANTED to?

Agreed also, the bible was written warts and all so we could learn from it.

Regarding divorce Jesus set the Mosaic law straight when he said divorce only on the count of adultery. It is written God hates a divorcing.

The light keeps getting brighter, we just keep getting more imperfect.