Religion In what do you believe OFFTOPIC about SVF and sabro

[Tsuyoiko]

You are a lot like Grace.

 

[No-name]

I'll take that as a compliment.

 

[nurizeko]

Hate to eat my own words but i wanted to say something about the whole grace thing.

I remember telling sabro once "if there is maker it is he, and he alone who will judge me".

True, alot of christians can for whatever reason feel compelled to force you to convert, but the others who recognise it is god and god alone who will judge if he exists, and that trying to be a good person may carry sufficient merit ion his eyes is enough, are gems, honestly, ive yet to meet a christian who has been anything more then a slight annoyance in the conversion thing, so despite me not sharing the christian ideals, i find it hard to see all christians as somehow bad and wrong and dangerous, if that were the case, we would still be in the warrior god style crusader medieval christianity.

Ive always felt that the beauty of nature and stuff is made even greater by the less then heavenly awnsers given by science and stuff, i find life is made more beautiful by the fact that science reckons it has evolved and adapted to how it is now, but saying that, if there is a god on the "other side" i'll be sure to thank him for the Dee valley.

 

[No-name]

Nurieko- you seem wise for your years.

There is a doctrine Christians seem to love to cling to but rarely extend: the doctrine of grace. Part of the whole NT is that a person in his own abilities can do nothing to reach God. God has to reach the person. We often make it seem like it is our job to convert you, and that we can do that in some big sales pitch-- but I don't think it works this way. God will meet you if you look for him. He knows where to find you...and if your local scottish Christians need to say anything...well then they may not be living out the life.

 

[No-name]

1.6 billion people believe in fraud and superstition. (And actually about 90% of the world's population believe in some form of God.) We are all by nature decieved, ignorant, dishonest and intolerant. Don't believe us, because our God is mere fantasy, our book is obviously false and we await deliverence by our chessmaster and veggie master. We are all ponds-- except those of us who are puddles and others that are lakes. Do to us what you will.

Verbal Irony...

 

[kumo]

1.6 billion people believe in fraud and superstition. (And actually about 90% of the world's population believe in some form of God.)

This attempt at sarcasm is both an Appeal to Popularity fallacy and misleading (not to say probably untrue).

 

[strongvoicesforward]

SVF- it seems to me that the Bible is rather easy to understand unless you pick it up with your agenda in hand in read it with your particular slant.

If it is so easy, then why do churches have "Bible Study?" -- Just to indoctrinate more deeply so it's harder to wrestle yourself out of the mind snaring traps of fear?

If it is so easy to understand, then why hermeautics? Sabro, even sholars have a hard time understanding exactly what is being said and often disagree amongst each other. Look at all the different denominations.

Thomas Paine, Ingersoll, Jefferson, and many have rejected it based on the absurdities it contains. It is not that we do not understand it -- It is that we understand it all too clearly.

I usually hold the Bible in my hands when I read it at a 45 degree slant, and even then I still understand it quite well. I do however wonder, if Christians are reading it inverted so that they see don`t quite well see the things that are so blatantly telling them to not beLIEve it.

Are you trying to say that the context of the words and the context of the writing in history is unimportant?

When there is something to specifically qualify context and a different meaning than what is obvious, the room should be made to accept that. But, when things aren`t qualified to show that clearly, then Biblicists are taking to much for granted.

Example, Jesus asks for his 'fate' to pass from him in the form of a 'cup.' Of course "cup" does not mean "cup" here. It is quite clear.

When Jesus says he is a 'door' we know that he means he is a 'conduit.'

As for history, that must even be more qualified to accept that. I don`t care if slavery was acceptable 2000 years ago in history -- it is still morally repugnant and that cannot be reconciled with a God that is claimed to be omniscient and unchanging. You aren`t saying it is better to subvert morality in favor of historical practices and therefore a declaration on the repugnancy has no weight or validity, are you?

Obviously you have made mistakes with context before and you understand how important it is to read the entire context and judge the meaning according to authors intent.

Where have I "obviously" made mistakes with context? You have declared I have, but I am quite willing to let the jury of onlookers make up their own minds over who to believe on those points -- your explanation or mine. Yours requires the "that`s what it says but not what it means argument," where as mine asks that reason be employed.

Either way, almost no one would come up with the interpretations you proffered without first having your Christ hating agenda.

Sabro, I don`t hate Christ -- because he doesn`t exist. I hate lies. I hate deception. I hate dogma built on those and propelled on others as fraud.

I don`t hate Christians. I am however repulsed by subverting reason which is what Christianity does. How can I explain this so that you can understand and see clearly ??? hmmmm.... Ok, here:

Christians don`t hate homosexuals, do they? However, what they do say they hate is the act of homosexuality. Right? Kind of like people who also say, "We hate the war in Iraque and don`t support it, but we support our soldiers who are fighting it."

It is you who continually tries to read into scripture ideas that are not there.

Are you saying I am the ONLY one who has ever brought criticism against the Bible? Many have rejected it for the same reasons I have. I am not alone. I think the Bible says somewhere between its covers, "Nothing can be done without God," (paraphrased) -- well, that would mean He is assisting me in my prosecuting, right? What I am doing is "something," right? It is not "nothing."

I know, logic is bothersome when held up to superstions. It is kind of like chemotheropy to cancer. It is quite painful and debilitating. But, if you persist, you, too, will be cured of dogmatic thought and become a "Freethinker," that which we all are before indoctrination takes hold.

As far as I can see, God has done just that. This is the Bible we got, in the way He wanted. And I don't think for those who hate god, that it matters anyway.

Yes, your site is limited and seems to be myopic. Are you saying Bible God wanted things to be chaotic and disorderly -- his word put forth in a way that confuses people?

God may exist, and if he does, I don`t hate him. Bible God however, does not exist and I do hate the fraud it ensnares the feeble minded with. I feel sorry for them, just as most parents would feel for, if not scared and worried for, any child that becomes involved in a cult. So much, they would spend energy and recourses on trying to deprogram them. For a stranger to help another to become deprogramed is even a more selfless act.

Large neon signs, personal e-mails, even a phone call from on high would make no difference.

Yes, those, too, would not convince me because they could all be done by man impersonating or claiming to be something he is not.

Now, if on the back of every flea, there existed the text of the Bible in full in one understandable language regardless of who was looking at it, and it could be seen through an electron microscope, and fleas would once a year congregate at several points on the earth and arrange their trillions of bodies in letter form over large fields so that we could walk amongst them and read the Bible, then "hey! I WOULD BE A BELIEVER!"

It is undeniable to those who do not seek or choose to deny it. Unitelligible for those who refuse it.

I sought it on several occasions. I didn`t refuse it on several occassions. I accepted it on several occassions. It is however, in the end, rejected. Becuase it is so easy to understand is the reason for rejecting it. The falsehoods, contradictions, superstitions, lies and deceptions are all too clear. The only think unintellible related to it is the fact that so many are duped by it. I guess religion really is the opiate of the masses. It would be great if all could kick the habbit.

(Or if you are a Calvanist and don't believe in free will, to the elect who have been chosen to see it. Obviously you are not one of the elect...sorry.)

No need to apologise. It is not your fault. I`ve climbed out of the hole of deception myself. I would hate to give credit where it isn`t due. And besides, "it" as you see it, is only in your imagination.

 

[No-name]

It was definitely an appeal to popularity fallacy, but I don't think it was misleading:

The 90% figure comes from a poll maciamo found. It is back on one of the threads, and I would have to look for it, but the adherents.com site puts it (adherents of religions) at closer to 87%. It represents the approximate percentage of people that believe in some form of god, gods or supernatural power.

The 1.6 billion Christians is a conservative number: http://www.religioustolerance.org/growth_isl_chr.htm has numbers that range up to 4.4 billion (Which seems quite a bit high) http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html This site puts it at 2.1 billion.

Kumo, my only embarassment in hindsight is that it is not funny. I don't know why, but it came off rather lame-- almost angry. I guess I'm not myself today. I'll try again tomorrow.

The big question however is did we really need another thread on this forum on which to slam Christianity, or don't we have adequate space dedicated to the denigration of the Christ already? If there is nothing new or original to say about the risen savior of mankind, then perhaps we should move on to Muhammad. I hear the islamic sense of humor rocks.

 

[No-name]

Awww. I'm sorry SVF. Your post was concurrent with mine and I didn't get a chance to read yours before my last one went up. Again, we have already gone through all of that, and although I am happy for you and sorry for your childhood pain, it brings nothing new and proves nothing. When on a journey through a tunnel it is always good to reach the other end and often needless to cross back in forth in the middle.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Awww. I'm sorry SVF. Your post was concurrent with mine and I didn't get a chance to read yours before my last one went up. Again, we have already gone through all of that,...

Then why do you keep bringing up those points of "context" and "slanted agenda" over and over if you don`t want to keep going through it? Why don`t you do more explaining by tackling the verses and less gerneral hemming and hawing by putting forth the defense of "context, bigotry, bitterness, and hatred?"

...and although I am happy for you and sorry for your childhood pain, it brings nothing new and proves nothing.

Sure it does. You just fail to notice it. But, I do admit I often find myself repeating to you some things you can`t understand -- like why your cries for "context" and "multiple word meanings" are not trap doors for you to escape out of.

I had a normal childhood. Nothing traumatic. The normal ups and downs that all kids have. Did you read a biography of me somewhere or did I say I had a terrible childhood somewhere in the threads? Don't recall I did. Perhaps that is more "insertionism" that Biblicists are proud of to win their points at defense. You tell me.

When on a journey through a tunnel it is always good to reach the other end and often needless to cross back in forth in the middle.

lol. Agreed. Then why are things repeated in the Bible? Parts of the creation story are repeated; why the different revisiting and conflicting versions of Jesus' death? Isn`t one telling of the story enough?-- not if your goal is to confuse and contradict.

Perhaps you should say the same to Bible God so he can erase all the redundancy he seems so fond of.

 

[kumo]

It was definitely an appeal to popularity fallacy, but I don't think it was misleading:
The 90% figure comes from a poll maciamo found. It is back on one of the threads, and I would have to look for it, but the adherents.com site puts it (adherents of religions) at closer to 87%. It represents the approximate percentage of people that believe in some form of god, gods or supernatural power.
The 1.6 billion Christians is a conservative number: http://www.religioustolerance.org/growth_isl_chr.htm has numbers that range up to 4.4 billion (Which seems quite a bit high) http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html This site puts it at 2.1 billion.

Two things to take into consideration:
-Atheism is highly correlated with societal health (not the cause, but the consequence), this is quite obvious when comparing atheism rates and life quality between countries (with the only exceptions being Vietnam and Ireland). Since the world's most populated places (especially Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, India, the Middle East, and possibly China) are in most cases also the ones with the worst social indicators it's not surprising that they add a lot to theism rates. Therefore, theism rates are not good indicators of "human nature", but rather of how bad our world is.
-As for Christians, same reasons as above (and it still is an appeal to popularity fallacy).

The big question however is did we really need another thread on this forum on which to slam Christianity, or don't we have adequate space dedicated to the denigration of the Christ already?

Obviously our definitions of "slam" differ greatly.

If there is nothing new or original to say about the risen savior of mankind, then perhaps we should move on to Muhammad.

No problem. You're free to create your own Islam-bashing thread.

 

[No-name]

I do not wish to slam Islam. I just think the Christian slamming is getting stale.

Slam: To criticize harshly; censure forcefully. an aggressive remark directed at a person like a missile and intended to have a telling effect;

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Therefore, theism rates are not good indicators of "human nature", but rather of how bad our world is.

I agree. Our world was really bad with the "Inquisition" of Europe a few centuries ago. Terrible time to live then and not much intellectual or scientific freedom. The life of Galileo could attest to that. Let`s not forget the many forced conversions of the native populations of S. America and C. America.

Obviously our definitions of "slam" differ greatly.

I know. I keep trying to tell him that, but he just isn`t coming around.

You're free to create your own Islam-bashing thread.

I would prefer he think of it as in "Islam prosecuting and exposing thread."

"Prosecuting" and "exposing" entails the usage of "reason" and not "rage." If he were to start bashing them, he would start calling them "intolerant, bigots, bitter, and filled with hate," like has has been doing on these threads as part of his defense -- which is little more than a public display of a temper tantrum. He seems prone to that sort of name calling. Maybe that is his form of "wit."

 

[bossel]

I think, this has gone far enough now. Thread closed.