The Church of Scientology: a cult of the 20th Century. I find Scientology similar to Superman, and I wonder how so many people can believe in this hack religion. So, yet again, I have a blog relating to a religion that is wrong. I will give you information on this "religion" that should make any logical person throw the teachings out.
Let's start with the founding of this cult. L. Ron Hubbard, this "genius" of Scientology, was nothing more than a pulp science-fiction writer. He became friends with a Satanist who followed Aleister Crowley. These two worked together to bring about the antichrist. Later on Hubbard decided to create his own religion, in 1950. A religion that started in 1950? That right there should tell you it's pretty much a false religion. NO religion that could even be considered a truthful one starts so suddenly. And amazingly this cult has so many followers. Not only was he starting to act like a schizophrenic, but he took medications for psych related problems. The only ones we know of for sure, at this moment, are those he was given before he died. Still, one must wonder if those were the only ones he was on or not. It is also documented that Hubbard would continually claim to be a WWII Vet... the Navy later confronted him about this.
Now, aside from this amazingly credible founder, we have a religion that seems to mock Superman. Xenu, the mean overloard (well galactic ruler) of the universe and all the planets, was on a mission to reduce the population of the 76 planets he ruled... Somewhere a long the way I had heard of his brother Xandor, that he would come back to save all of us here on Earth... Sounds oddly like Superman to me. But this story of Xenu is only to be heard by those who reach the secret level of OT III (which takes years and lots of money). Once you reach this level you gain telepathic powers to communicate with the bodies of thetans, and shoo them away...
Anyone else feel like they're reading a sci/fi book? Other parts make it sound as if you are listening to a psychiatrist. Now, let me explain another aspect...
Space opera! Right, you're thinking an actual opera with people singing... so was I when I first heard of this. Actually, this term is used to describe ET civilizations and the interventions of ET's in past lives. Hubbard said that aliens have been invading earth since 6235 BC (of course this is the ONLY thing we know about happening during this time in history...), and yet this religion just now came around? He said these invasions were done by the Fifth Invader Force who were, "insect-like creatures..."
Dude, I'm getting a feeling of Stargate now!
The Earth, according to Scientology, started 70*1085 (or 70 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years ago...) IN AD 1150 the Espinol (looks and sounds an awful lot like Espanol...) abandoned our system. The Espino is a lesser alien civilization
Well, there is Scientology in a quick glance. It's amazing how ANY sane and logical human could follow this religion. Links are posted at the bottom.
So, what's your religion? Xenu, Superman, or Stargate?
Xenu.net
Bare-Face Messiah
Who is Xenu?
Slate.com
Space Opera
Xenu
Scientology
Overlord Xenu is gonna smite you...
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Because it's funny! You made me laugh!
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
NO! Never. I don't joke. I fully endorse the Flying Spaghetti Monster, however.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Flying Spaghetti Monster? Hmm, I'll have to look at that one. I endorse the Cookie Monster... does that count?
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Oh yes, there's proof of the FSM. He exists. May you be touched by his noodly appendage.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I happen to agree that Scientology is probably the only religion that I know about that I consider more ridiculous than any other religion. I exclude the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster because I know nothing of it. My reason is that it was a blatant attempt for L. Ron Hubbard to attempt to sell his exercize program.
However, I also think it is very ridiculous to think that a virgin gave birth to a man who was his own father and that this man died and then came back to life three days later.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
For more information about the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, please read the founding documents, found here.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Brilliant.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
RAmen.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
World renowned religious scholars and theologians each conducted in-depth studies of Scientology. These scholars included a Vatican advisor on non-Christian religions and the leader of Japan's oldest religion. Each concluded Scientology is a religion in every aspect.
Read what they wrote:
http://www.bonafidescientology.org/Append/07/index.htm
That some people have been brainwashed into thinking they only live one life time is a great way of controlling people. Believe what I say or .... Your body lives one life time, but you're not a body -- contrary to what the psychiatric industry promotes with its "all is chemical."
Scientology's core message (a person is immortal, the body is simply a vessel) was the core message of Jesus Christ and the Buddha.
Other religions are now utilizing Hubbard's breakthroughs in resolving deep-rooted societal problems.
Anyone can study these at home by going to
http://www.ScientologyHandbook.org
GOOD NEWS! Psychiatry on the run!
As part of the Church of Scientology's mission to clean up the psychiatric industry, CCHR (http://www.cchr.org)that was established by Scientology and a renowned psychiatrist have helped get 210 psychiatrists in jail and/or waiting for sentencing for everything from child molestation, massive insurance fraud and rape. This since January 2007.
The growing number of books (some even written by psychs -- many are good people working hard, in a corrupt organization) reporting the fraudulent nature of "chemical imbalance" and the dangers of psych drugs is at an all time high.
More than 29,000 legal suits have been filed against drug companies because of adverse affects from psych drugs.
The FDA is now regularly having Black Box Warning Labels on psych drug packages. This is because of Scientology, CCHR and (get this, kids) Tom Cruise's Today show appearance that got the average person talking about it and raising public awareness.
In fact, just in the past 12 months, 800,000 FEWER children are no longer taking Ritalin that is a Class 2 drug, the same as cocaine.
Scientology now has more than 7,000 groups, centers, missions and major churches. It just purchased a 15 story building for its Church of Philadelphia in addition to 14 major facilities totaling AN ADDITIONAL 1.6 million square feet from Harlem NYC, to Moscow, to South Africa, to Japan.
Growing at an incredible rate, contrary to the b.s. that bloggers and gossip mongers write.
We are now producing more than 30,000 CDs (A DAY!) in 15+ languages to try and meet the international demand for Hubbard's lectures. (His lectures total 3,274.)
Two new massive printing plants that are owned and operated by Scientology are hard pressed to keep up with demand for Hubbard's books. They can now print more than 11 million each year, in more than 58 languages.
Hubbard's Research & Development were detailed in more than 5,000 publications.
The reason that Scientology continues to expand is that it offers "how-to" easily learned solutions that help people resolve problems in their lives. And a person does not even have to be a Scientologist (and many aren't) to learn and use them.
In fact, Scientology's Volunteer Ministers' program is now the single largest private disaster relief organization in the world and partners with the UN, Red Cross and Hubbard's methods JUST IN THE LAST TWO YEARS have been taught to more than 190,000 individuals, from doctors, military, police, nurses, emergency care givers to the average person suffering such things as earthquakes, terrorist attacks and fire.
Check out:
http://www.TWTH.org
http://www.Youthfor HumanRights.org
If you have the cojones for some real investigatory reporting:
http://www.FreedomMag.org
Cheers!
and the Bible did not say we are immortals, exactly. Our BODIES are, yes, not our souls. Our souls live forever, either in Heaven in peace, or in Hell in horror. Also, they aren't similar, at all. Scientology basically makes a god of yourself. You control your life, blah blah blah. There really is no salvation in Scientology. Christianity isn't a crutch as people have called it. I think on my own. I take my own responsibility. I'm a sinner. But I'm saved. I'm not going to hell to suffer for my sins, even though I should. God saved me by sending Jesus... and I don't think I need to explain it all. But it isn't a crutch.
I condone drugs IF they are needed. ADD cannot be tested in young kids, you have to hit like 9th or 10th grade for ADD to be accurate. Why? Well, when you're young you're going to be hyper, ESPECIALLY boys. When you hit puberty right off the bat, your brain chemicals go all cooky so you act add if not schizophrenic.
I think Tom is full of nonsense, but that's me. I, personally, know what meds can do to you. I also know that if being off ones you need you can be far worse. So you must ask yourself... which problem do you want?
I know people who aren't on meds who need to be. I know people who are on meds who shouldn't be. But I don't think Scientology is the answer. It's just a cult.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Ignoring the first paragraph, clap clap clap clap. I hate that aspect of scientology. I probably wouldn't have gotten through high school in the position I am in without welbutron. And, to prove that this isn't some mental side-effect, for those who disagree with these drugs, placebos didn't work.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
There is a difference between Scientology theology (view of existence) and Whole Track Recall. The latter is a phrase that relates to the regained ability of a person (a spiritual being) to recall beyond one lifetime.
There is no belief in Scientology. From personal experience, one knows if something is valid or not.
The average person in the West have been brainwashed to think he is only a body and lives only one lifetime.
Certainly the body lives one life time. But a person is not a body.
When Dianetics (1950) was first released, people started recalling and removing the influence of past life trauma that were affecting how a person thought, acted and conducted his/her life this lifetime. Prior to Dianetics, the subject of past lives was hardly mentioned in the West. Now it's common.
Do you honestly expect in a society where 31 percent still feel that George W Shrub is a good president, that anything more than a simple view of existence would be tolerated?
Of course not!
Scientology is for the person capable of thinking for himself.
Those who can't or are afraid to look or have been brainwashed into thinking they are nothing more than 2.5 pounds of brain matter walking on two legs and sloshing about in a vat of chemicals -- well, that's what they believe.
...when one theist tells another theist that their theism is bogus. All religions are rediculous, and while scientology may be a bit more... colorful?... than some of the world's larger religious sects, it really has just as much proof supporting its supernatural claims as does every other religion on this planet (which is to say, it has none, of course).
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Then why are we here and why do we live? Wait, aren't you a pagan priest? Supernatural claims aren't said from every religion. You may see it as supernatural, but it's not. So tell me this: how can all religions be right? how can the all be wrong? if this is our only life, why be nice and live a "good" life? if this is it, how do we know what is good without a higher being telling us what it is?
Scientology was written by a pulp sci/fi author. I heard once that it was an experiment to show that people will pretty much believe anything. It talks of taxes and other things that didn't come around until Colonial era. There is NOTHING credible about Scientology. Hubbard was a lunatic who lied about a lot of things.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Percivale was a pagan priest. Now, he's an atheist.
"how can the all be wrong? if this is our only life, why be nice and live a "good" life? if this is it, how do we know what is good without a higher being telling us what it is?" How can they all be wrong? By not being right, a fact which is supported by the utter lack of evidence. We are social creatures. It makes sense that morality would exist to ensure that the group survives.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
to the argument from ignorance. The utter LACK of evidence CANNOT be used to PROVE or DISPROVE something. Just because WE don't have the evidence doesn't mean it's not out there, for either proving or disproving something. Do not use that argument with me, it's just a logical fallacy.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
There are two sides to the argument from ignorance fallacy. Let us refer back to your own, previously offered source describing this fallacy...
B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy occurs.
C. On the other hand, if one argues that God, telepathy, and so on do exist because their non-existence has not been proved, then one argues fallaciously as well.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html
None of the atheists that I am aware of on ProU are defending the position that "god" absolutely does not exist. I know that I am not. The existence of such a being is highly unlikely, and there is no actual evidence that would convince me that such a being is real, but there is always a possibility that cannot be answered definitively without the discovery of more evidence than is currently on the table. This is a perfectly logical belief, and is not an example of the fallacy you suggest.
You on the other hand DO attempt to defend the position that "God" (and in particular the specific "God" of the christian religion) absolutely does exist. And, whenever we confront you with the utter lack of evidence with the VERY FALLACY that you inaccurately apply to your opponents' arguments.
Unless you are willing to present actual, objective evidence that proves the existence of "god," or at least to admit that your faith is not factual in any way and may in fact be wrong, then YOU are the one engaging in fallacies.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I do not say, "the lack of evidence to deny him or prove him must mean he is there." No, I am not going to say that because it is ignorant. I did say the argument is used on both sides, I don't know where you're getting the thought that I didn't say it.
I never said MOST either. But the LACK of evidence cannot be why you don't believe or disagree. Neither can it be WHY you believe or agree. There is still SO MUCH we have yet to find, discover, and learn. What lies hidden, we don't know. So using the LACK of evidence for ANY argument is just benighted.
Yes, I say he is real, BECAUSE HE IS. But not because of the lack of evidence to prove/disprove him. He is real, simply because he is. Can I give you tangible evidence of his existence other than the Bible and faith? No. But science was created by God, so don't you think he would have used it to create and to bring the miracles?
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
That was possibly the most intellectually disingenuous series of mental back flips that I have ever read.
"Yes, I say he is real, BECAUSE HE IS."
Either you have actual evidence to support this claim, or you ARE engaging in fallacious reasoning.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
However, what I take in as evidence you would dismiss as evidence. Besides, if we found tangible evidence of God, not just creation and the miracles the Bible and all that, the there wouldn't be a need for faith.
Cosmological Argument in a nutshell. This page states the one weakness of this argument, which logically I agree with. If there had a be something to start everything, then there had to be something to start God, logically. HOWEVER, God just was. It's hard to explain, maybe even comprehend. But there was nothing but God until he created everything. Which, I understand that thought in itself is perplexing. There are days I sit and think about that and just get a headache. I won't know until I get into heaven.
Oh, and saying I believe just because isn't using the argument. I'm not saying he is for the lack of evidence. I'm just saying he is. Yes, maybe that is a logical fallacy, but it is not the argument from ignorance.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
The reason I dismiss the things that you incorrectly call "evidence" is it is not objectively verifiable. The "cosmological argument" isn't evidence...its an argument. There is nothing "real" for us to examine with it. And, it isn't even a very good argument in any case...even the page you link to points out the glaring flaw in the reasoning.
And yes, you are engaging in fallacious reasoning when you claim that "god" is real "just because." If you don't see that, well...I think you need to study the logical fallacies a little bit more. In addition to begging the question (the fundamental basis for ALL theological arguments) and the argument from ignorance (which occurs every time you demand for your opponents to dis-prove "god's" existence), you are engaging in the fallacy known as proof by assertion.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
You made no sense whatsoever. Did you even read my comment? Because I said it maybe me a logical fallacy but it is not the argument from ignorance. As for evidence, NOTHING is objectively verifiable. There is ALWAYS someone who will disagree. I said that the one big flaw of the cosmological argument was the flaw that something had to create God. AND YET the definition of God is uncaused, he just was and is and always will be. As for evidence, let's take a look at the universe, shall we? Everything is placed out so precisely. If we were moved off our orbit just one mm we would be screwed. Our galaxy is in such a position that we can see everything around us and throughout the rest of the universe. Everything of the universe, from placement to the planets that surround us, to the stars is just one huge coincidence, huh? Do you honestly think that one giant bang could have just coincidentally placed everything in the exact places that they need to be? If you do, then you are one superstitious person.
BTW, you never did answer me about what made you first realize you don't believe in any religion, and what it was that drew you away from the catholic church.
Oh, and as for science being able to prove nature and blah blah, do you not think that God used his own creation (science) to create?
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
> You made no sense whatsoever.
Oh, the irony...
> Did you even read my comment?
Yes, such as it was...
> Because I said it maybe me a logical
> fallacy but it is not the argument from
> ignorance.
The argument from ignorance is only ONE of the many fallacies to which you fall prey in the way that you structure your beliefs. Many of us have read a great many of your blogs and comments, and this fallacy is a common feature in your comments, though it is hardly the ONLY mistake that you make.
> As for evidence, NOTHING is objectively
> verifiable. There is ALWAYS someone
> who will disagree.
That is simply not true. In its simplest terms, objectivism is the study of objects that have an existence independent of the human mind. These objects exist whether or not we "believe" in them, and for the most part are ludicrously simple to prove. Someone can say that he doesn't believe in apples, but all I have to do to prove objectively that apples are real is walk to the nearest orchard, pick an apple, and bring it back and show it to the non-believer. He could still deny that apples exist, but at that point it would be obvious to those observing that he is either lying or derranged.
> I said that the one big flaw of the
> cosmological argument was the flaw
> that something had to create God.
If you admit that the argument is flawed (and frankly, this is a pretty BIG flaw), then why do you think that offering this argument for review will help your case?
> AND YET the definition of God is
> uncaused, he just was and is and
> always will be.
Definitions are notoriouly easy to manipulate, and it is very easy to make up a definition that happens conveniently to justify your unproved premise. This is in fact yet another example of petitio principii (i.e. "begging the question"). In order for your "definition" to make sense, we must already accept that the premise of your arugment is true, even though you still haven't produced any acutal evidence or presented any logically consistent argument that would lead us to that conclusion. Plus, we don't just get to arbitrarily define the properties of real objects. The proper way to define a real object is to observe its properties and then record them.
> As for evidence, let's take a look at
> the universe, shall we? Everything is
> placed out so precisely. If we were
> moved off our orbit just one mm we
> would be screwed. Our galaxy is in
> such a position that we can see
> everything around us and
> throughout the rest of the universe.
The ultimate failure of this argument is in the fact that it really isn't based in any serious study or understanding of the universe. The universe is a vast system, and there are billions and billions of stars, solar systems and planets within it. We've actually counted more than 20 million visible galaxies, and educated estimates predict that there are at least 50 billion galaxies that are visible to modern telescopes. If those galaxies are even remotely similar to the one we live in, that means that there are at least 10 million, billion (that's 10,000,000,000,000,000) planets out there. It is actually quite easy to generate the correct combination of seemingly improbable conditions that allow for life to arise when you consider them against the sheer magnitude of the probabilities involved.
It is also important to note that actually we can only see a very small portion of the theoretically infinite space which we thing the universe covers. The Milky Way sits on the edge of a local group of galaxies referred to as the Virgo Cluster. We aren't centrally located as you seem to imply, though it is pretty easy to see through the mostly transparent vaccuum of outer space. In any case, we certainly don't seem to be in any especially beneficial spot for seeing the rest of the universe.
> Everything of the universe, from
> placement to the planets that
> surround us, to the stars is just one
> huge coincidence, huh?
It might seem like a coincidence to an uneducated person who doesn't know very much about the relevant scientific Theories that concern the nature of the movement of stellar bodies, but we do in fact have a solid system of mathematics and a good working model of the physics which explains it all pretty neatly.
> Do you honestly think that one
> giant bang could have just coincidentally
> placed everything in the exact places
> that they need to be? If you do, then
> you are one superstitious person.
This is really one of the most ignorant things that you've said to date. The worst failure in your comment is in the implication that everything in the universe just sits in some imagined "exact place." In fact, the stellar morass is in constant motion, and our planet, solar system and even our galaxy hurtling through space at hundreds of kilometers per second. It is certainly no "coincidence" that we are at this precise point in space and time. In fact--at the risk of being overly simplistic--that more or less is what the whole Theory of the Big Bang is all about. We have observed that the universe is constantly expanding...moving away from a central point. Some force (The Bang) is propelling us--and everything else in the universe that we can see--away from that central point. There's nothing "coincidental" about it.
> BTW, you never did answer me
> about what made you first realize
> you don't believe in any religion,
Its a complicated questions. I initially left christianity because I could not reconcile the violence and intolerance of the underlying philosophy with my own concepts of "good" and "evil." But, even after I left the christian church, I was still a theist for many years, and simply converted to another religion (wicca) whose philosophy I found to be more consistent with what I thought it meant to be a "good" person. My eventual shift towards atheism came as the result of a personal realization that I was subconsciously applying a different set of "rules" in my mind when judging the validity of the various religious concepts in my life than the ones that I used in evaluating every other idea and concept that entered my sphere of consciousness. I found myself willing to ignore the tried and true pinions of logical and rational thought in exchange for the comfort that my (then) religion was offering to me. The more I examined that discrepancy, the more convinced I became that it was the comfort rather than any actual intellectually supportable reasoning that was informing my (then) beliefs. Once I realized that, well...the whole religion business just seemed like one big lie, and I valued my intellectually honesty more than I needed the illusion of comfort that the process of pretending to believe in supernatural hokum engendered.
> and what it was that drew you away
> from the catholic church.
I was never catholic. I was a methodist.
> Oh, and as for science being able to
> prove nature and blah blah, do you
> not think that God used his own
> creation (science) to create?
Anything it possible, but the one does not necessarily lead to the other. It is circular reasoning to simple presume that because the claims of science can be objectively proved, that "god" must have created science. Such a beleif is nothing more than the same old fallacies, trying to reconcile themselves with the incontrovertivle evidence that has disproved the previous generation's theistic drivel.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I have never said that I can prove that god does not exist. I only said that there are alternatives to believing in god. Alternatives which are better supported by evidence.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Good and evil are human constructs used to compare and contrast events relating to morality. Morality stems from a survival instinct. We "need" morality in order to ensure the survival of the group, as J pointed out.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
then there would be one race of pure breeds. Good and evil may be the words used to describe the wrong and okay, but they aren't from humans. Good is from God, he is pure good, pure everything. Evil is from satan, he is everything God is not. Morality, according to society today which I disagree on, is circumstantial and relative to the event. Meaning, if killing is bad for this person it isn't always bad for another. But that is a contradiction that cannot be. One thing cannot be another while still being the first. Take this example: fire cannot be hot while being cold (one fire as a log burning). Or, the log that is burning cannot be burning (hot) while at the same time cold (as it started). It is either one or the other.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
> Then why are we here and why do we live?
Who knows? Not all of life's questions have easy, convenient answers. It seems to me that life is what we make of it...nothing more and nothing less.
> Wait, aren't you a pagan priest?
I was the Guardian and later the High Priest of a prominent coven for almost two decades. I eventually came to my senses, however, and became an atheist. Before that, I was raised in a very devout christian family and educated in a private christian school. I have both experienced and studied the concept of religion from both sides of the theist vs. atheist coin.
> Supernatural claims aren't said from
> every religion.
Yes, they are. In fact, the term is central to the definition of "religion."
religion - 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
All religions, without exception make supernatural claims.
> You may see it as supernatural, but it's
> not.
I am sorry, but your opinion lies directly contrary to the actual meaning of the word, "supernatural."
supernatural - 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. 3. Of or relating to a deity. 4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. 5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
> So tell me this: how can all religions
> be right?
They can't be. Not all religions agree on all points, therefore at least some of them must be wrong.
> how can the all be wrong?
Easily. Let's say I asked ten people what is in a box, and they answered an apple, a cat, a banana, a pencil, a toy truck, a hamburger, a set of car keys, a piece of candy, a dollar bill, and Mr. Hanky the christmas poo. When I open the box, it is empty. Guess what, all ten of my respondents were wrong. The religions of the world are doing exactly this...making wild guesses and trying to figure out what is in an empty box. Theists see the empty box, and speculate about what they want the box to contain.
> if this is our only life, why be nice
> and live a "good" life? if this is it,
Well, I really doubt that you could provide us with an objective definition of the word "good," but for argument's sake there are some rather obvious benefits to living in an cooperative society. Some people have termed the phenomenon as "enlightened self-interest."
> how do we know what is good without
> a higher being telling us what it is?
The same way we known everything. We use our brains and noodle it out.
> Scientology was written by a pulp
> sci/fi author.
So? Matthew is believed to have been a tax-collector. Mark was supposedly a house-servant. Luke was probably a physician. John is referred to as a fisherman. The supposed "divine inspiration" of your "god" doesn't seem to be particularly choosy in the occupations of the men that write in "his" name. What makes Mr. Hubbard's claims any less credible than any other whack-job who claims to have "divinely inspired visions?"
> I heard once that it was an experiment
> to show that people will pretty much
> believe anything.
Where did you hear that? Of course, it is a fairly true statement. The bible itself is proof enough of that.
> It talks of taxes and other things that
> didn't come around until Colonial era.
It might interest you to know that the practice of taxation goes back at least to Ancient Egypt (approx. 3000 B.C.E.) And, lets not forget that there were tax collectors in the bible, too (like Matthew). Have you ever actually read the book? Or are you just making ignorant assumptions to justify your comments?
> There is NOTHING credible about
> Scientology. Hubbard was a lunatic
> who lied about a lot of things.
There's NOTHING credible about any religion. And, we certainly have ample evidence of lies and corruption in the christian church throughout all of its recorded history. So, what makes you think that the authors of your holy book are telling you the truth? The bible doesn't have any more evidence to support its veracity than scientology or any other religion. If you think that it does, well...let's see your evidence.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
you really hate religion (although I like the Mr. Hankey statement). We are not guessing, we are firmly proving it. Logically there has to be a creator. As for us using our brains, who do you think put everything on the earth for us to use? Do you honestly just think that all the materials, all the ideas, everything we survive off of just happened to come to be by mere coincidence? That's quite... stupid not to be offensive. Too many coincidences lead to a reason. There is A LOT credible about Christianity. And okay, so I did make a mistake on the tax part, but still.
The Bible has so much more evidence than Scientology. And don't use the lack of evidence to prove your point, I won't use the lack of evidence to prove mine either, it's a faulty argument and I'll say it again if I need to. I will also refer you to one of my favorite quotes about God/religion (granted it is from Futurama). God, or the entity, said, "If you do something right, they won't think you did anything at all."
Now what evidence are you looking for that you haven't found? Jesus rising from the dead? Josephus, but he wasn't an eyewitness. And people are ALWAYS questioning him, doesn't mean what he wrote was wrong. Looking for tangible proof of a God? Sorry, but you may not find it. That's what faith is for. Have you ever thought that God used science in his miracles? After all, he did create it. Wondering why people die? Uh, sin. God doesn't kill. He CAN'T let evil into heaven. It's like letting one single germ into a sterile room. He just CAN'T let evil into heaven, that's why we repent and accept that Jesus, a perfect human, God, and our salvation took all the sins for us to defeat Satan. God is Perfect, Jesus is Perfect, the HS is Perfect... NO HUMAN (other than Jesus) is perfect, NO HUMAN. So it's not that God really made the world, it's just he CANNOT allow evil to infect his pureness, contradiction.
I will admit there isn't enough evidence, tangible and unbiased that people will take, to say without a doubt our religion is right. Nor is there enough evidence to say that, without a doubt, our religion is wrong. We haven't found everything in the world yet, there is still so much to unearth. Do you think we've found all the fossils, all the species, all the elements in the world? If I remember correctly there are still spots on the periodic table left blank, spots that should (logically) be filled.
Can I ask you something? What made you turn away from the Catholic church? What was it that made you finally say, this isn't right? What was your question that you couldn't have answered, or answered the way you wanted? When did you start questioning?
Many who are forced to believe turn away. It becomes routine and bland, passion is gone.
So let me ask you this... WHAT IF God is real (though he is), where are you going on judgment day?
As for religion, there is no higher power in Scientology, just yourself. You make a god of yourself. Xenu didn't create us, just brought us here to kill us. In a definition, fine Scientology may be a religion. HOWEVER, there was another quote (at least I heard this once too) that Hubbard wrote Scientology as a self-help book. In that sense, it shouldn't be placed under a religion.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
> you really hate religion (although I
> like the Mr. Hankey statement).
I hate ignorance, not religion, though all too often the two seem to go hand-in-hand.
> We are not guessing, we are firmly
> proving it.
Then where is your "proof?" You do realize, I hope, that if you did have "proof" to support your belief, you would completely undermine any claim that you have for "faith." In the context of religious belief, the concepts of "proof" and "faith" are mutually exclusive.
> Logically there has to be a creator.
Really? Can you provide even ONE logically sound argument that supports this rediculous assertion?
> As for us using our brains, who
> do you think put everything on
> the earth for us to use?
Well, with that little bit of circular reasoning you have lost any claim to having "logic" behind your beliefs.
> Do you honestly just think that all
> the materials, all the ideas, everything
> we survive off of just happened to come
> to be by mere coincidence?
Please do not attempt to invent my position for me. I never said that it was all a "coincidence," and in fact quite the opposite is true. When you drop a feather and it floats gently to the earth, it is gravity, not "coincidence" that causes it to fall. We don't need a magical old dude living up in the clouds to explain where the materials of the universe came from. The process of stellar nucleosynthesis does that just fine, without any need for supernatural agencies.
> That's quite... stupid not to be offensive.
> Too many coincidences lead to a reason.
It only seems "stupid" to you because you lack the education to fully appreciate what Science acutally has to say about the universe. You have invented your own easy to dismiss version of science, and your arguments are certainly quite effective in dismissing these intellectual phantoms. I think that you will find dealing with the actual science a bit more difficult.
> There is A LOT credible about Christianity.
Like what?
> And okay, so I did make a mistake on the
> tax part, but still.
It just goes to show that a LOT of your beliefs are trumped up on the basis of incorrect assumptions. One of the reasons it is so much fun to poke fun at you, is that you make a great show of DEMANDING that the things that you say are unarguably true.
> The Bible has so much more evidence
> than Scientology. And don't use the
> lack of evidence to prove your point,
> I won't use the lack of evidence to prove
> mine either, it's a faulty argument and
> I'll say it again if I need to.
That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think. I mean you just said, "The Bible has so much more evidence than Scientology." If that statement is true, then it should be quite easy for you to provide us with at least SOME of that evidence. You keep claiming to have all this evidence that supports your beliefs, but every single time someone calls you on it, you can't seem to actually come up with any to show us. If you have actual, objective evidence to back up your claim, let's see it. If you don't, then stop lying about it.
> I will also refer you to one of my favorite
> quotes about God/religion (granted it is
> from Futurama). God, or the entity, said,
> "If you do something right, they won't
> think you did anything at all."
Well, not to be out done, I found a Futurama quote of my own...
High Priest: Great wall of prophecy, reveal to us God's will, that we may blindly obey!
Other Priests: Free us from thought and responsibility.
High Priest of Osiris IV: We shall read things off you!
Other Priests: Then do them.
High Priest of Osiris IV: Your words guide us!
Other priests: We're dumb.
> Now what evidence are you looking for
> that you haven't found?
Any at all would be nice for a start...
> Jesus rising from the dead? Josephus,
> but he wasn't an eyewitness. And people
> are ALWAYS questioning him, doesn't
> mean what he wrote was wrong.
Actually, some ACTUAL evidence that Jesus rose from the dead would be a nice start. As for Josephus, the reason he doesn't represent a good source of evidence for you is the fact that the portion of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews that references Jesus as "the Christ" has been proved to be a forgery. The oldest accounts of Josephus' writings make reference to Josephus' denial of the divinity of Jesus, and the later texts were obviously altered in order to invent a support for the alledged "miracle" of the ressurection.
> Looking for tangible proof of a God? Sorry,
> but you may not find it.
Well, until someone does find tangible evidence, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that you do in fact have actual evidence to support your claims.
> That's what faith is for.
If you are relying on faith, then you must not have the evidence you claim to possess. And if you did, you couldn't have faith, since there would not then be any unanswerable questions that would require your blind trust in the first place.
> Have you ever thought that God used
> science in his miracles?
In the context of the bible, a "miracle" is "an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause." If it can be scientifically explained, then its not a "miracle."
> After all, he did create it.
That is a speculative statement, and unless you can provide us with actual, objective evidence to prove you claim, then it is illogical to assert your speculations as if they were facts.
> Wondering why people die?
Not really. Illness, injury, old age...its a pretty simple answer, actually.
> Uh, sin. God doesn't kill.
I think it is quite obvious that everyone dies, regardless of whether or not they are "sinful." But, if you DO believe in the stories of the bible, you can't really argue the case that "God doesn't kill."
And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. (Genesis 38:7)
And it came to pass about ten days after, that the LORD smote Nabal, that he died. (1 Samuel 25:38)
Then the king sent unto him a captain of fifty with his fifty. And he went up to him: and, behold, he sat on the top of an hill. And he spake unto him, Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come down. And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty. Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty with his fifty. And he answered and said unto him, O man of God, thus hath the king said, Come down quickly. And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty. (2 Kings 1:9-12)
> He CAN'T let evil into heaven.
Then "he" isn't omnipotent.
> It's like letting one single germ into
> a sterile room. He just CAN'T let evil
> into heaven, that's why we repent and
> accept that Jesus, a perfect human,
> God, and our salvation took all the sins
> for us to defeat Satan. God is Perfect,
> Jesus is Perfect, the HS is Perfect... NO
> HUMAN (other than Jesus) is perfect,
> NO HUMAN. So it's not that God really
> made the world, it's just he CANNOT
> allow evil to infect his pureness,
> contradiction.
It sounds like you're saying that "evil" is more powerful than "god." Otherwise, why would "he" need to fear being contaminated by "evil." Frankly, I think it is fairly laughable to say that the character known as "god" in the bible isn't "evil." I certainly can't imagine a "good" being killing infant children of the Egytians as a punishment for the "sins" of their parents (you have read the story of the Exodus, right?).
> I will admit there isn't enough evidence,
> tangible and unbiased that people will
> take, to say without a doubt our religion
> is right.
That admission is a step in the right direction, but it still isn't quite there. The real truth is that there is no tangible or unbaiased evidence at all to support the supernatural claims of your (or anyone else's) religion.
> Nor is there enough evidence to say that,
> without a doubt, our religion is wrong.
There is the argument from ingorance, again. The burden of proof in a logical argument lies with the person making the claims, not with the skeptics who point out that you haven't provided the evience that you need to postively assert your conclusions.
> We haven't found everything in the world
> yet, there is still so much to unearth. Do
> you think we've found all the fossils, all
> the species, all the elements in the world?
No, I don't think that at all. But I do know that we have found some of the species and some of the elements, and based on the tangible, unbiased and objective facts of those discoveries, we do have a rational basis upon which to base further exploration. Some evidence is better than NO evidence, after all.
> If I remember correctly there are still spots
> on the periodic table left blank, spots that
> should (logically) be filled.
True enough. But the difference is that science requires that we leave the blank spots in the Periodic Table blank until after we have observed the substances that we think should go there.
> Can I ask you something? What
> made you turn away from the
> Catholic church?
Technically? Nothing. I was a methodist, not a catholic.
> What was it that made you finally say,
> this isn't right? What was your question
> that you couldn't have answered, or
> answered the way you wanted? When
> did you start questioning?
I have always been a questioner, for as long as I can remember. I don't like not knowing, and I can't stand intellectual contradictions. Its hard to put a finger on the exact moment when the weight of the evidence (or rather lack thereof) shifted over the mark from belief to non-belief, but I was first able to calmly and openly admit to being an atheist about five or sex years ago. More to the point of your question, however, I left the religion of christianity because I simply could not reconcile the theological principles of that religion with the concept of "good" that I had been taught (humorously enough) by my family church.
The "goodness" that they said we should embody was completely inconsistent with the actual theology taught by the religion. I have written about one of these irreconcileable points in this blog" Why I can't be a christain.
> Many who are forced to believe turn
> away. It becomes routine and bland,
> passion is gone.
And some people just realize that its stupid to believe in crap that doesn't exist.
> So let me ask you this... WHAT IF
> God is real (though he is), where are
> you going on judgment day?
IF the "god" that you describe is real, then I'll probably be up $#!% creek without a paddle. But, I could just as easily ask you, "WHAT IF bigfoot is hiding in your closet when you go to bed tonight?" Anyone can speculate about "WHAT IF's," but the real question is whether or not those speculations are rational and reasonable. I don't see any more reason to get worked up worrying about WHAT IF your "god" is real any more than I do worrying about WHAT IF bigfoot is hiding in my closet, or WHAT IF alien lizards are beaming mind control rays down at us from secret satellites. When you can reduce your WHAT IF down to the point that it becomes reasonable for me to really worry about, let me know. Of course, that would require at least a little bit of evidence, so I won't hold my breath waiting.
> As for religion, there is no higher power
> in Scientology, just yourself. You make
> a god of yourself. Xenu didn't create us,
> just brought us here to kill us.
Who cares? Scientology is stupid, too.
> In a definition, fine Scientology may be a
> religion.
It is, and it has just as much evidence in support of its supernatural claims as does christianity...which is to say, none.
> HOWEVER, there was another quote (at
> least I heard this once too) that Hubbard
> wrote Scientology as a self-help book. In
> that sense, it shouldn't be placed under
> a religion.
Why not? Isn't the bible just a big "self-help" bood designed to get you into some magical kingdom in the clounds? I think it is fairly safe to say that most religions look pretty rediculous to the adherents of most other religions. Franky, they all look pretty rediculous to me.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Is Scientology also for the pedophile, Mr. Lightfield? What happens when an adult believes a minor is his or her "whole track item" and they are destined to be together? You do realize that happens, don't you? But apparently your "church" doesn't consider that to be a problem, since it squashed a report about one of its auditors, who was having sex with a young teenaged boy because she thought he was her whole track item.
Q: Where have I heard about a religious organization systematically attempting to cover up for its leader's sexually abusive indiscretions?
A: Here.
percivale
P.S. I'm not a supporter of scientology. They are truly one of the "whackier" religions out there, and they do have an extremely questionable history of dishonest and often criminal actions and legal shennanigans. But, they're certainly not the ONLY or even the worst religion out there when it comes to these kinds of problems.
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
What does that mean? I'm not going to deny that Christians sin, none of us are perfect. But what does "your 'church'" mean? And what are you talking about?
As for the sex, that isn't a new thing. Remember the teacher and her student? They got married. I'm not saying it wasn't wrong, but I'm saying it happens.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
I would certainly never claim the CoS is the only or the worst religion when it comes to pedophilia. But the fact that other churches, like the Roman Catholic, have problems in that area doesn't absolve the CoS of responsibility. And when you have people claiming they are zillion-year-old thetans in human meat bodies, you have a built-in rationale for adults to use when they get hot for someone underage.
But, I think that the real cause behind the problem isn't the "built-in rationale" that you suggest. Rather, I think that that religions in general tend instruct their adherents to trust the trusted and often to obey their leaders essentially without question. That is really what opens the door for this kind of abuse, in my opinion.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
You may wish to consider the difference between philosophy and religion.
Philosophy (study of wisdom) is senior. From a core wisdom, can derive a religion it's belief system and it's aligned "thou shalt / shall nots.".
Jesus Christ , Buddha and other great spiritual leaders expounded philosophy, which were then taken as the core around which a religion and religious practice were constructed.
People are not so much upset with religion as they are with the fact that the practice of a religion did not provide the solutions / abilities / awareness being sought.
Enough failures in achieving what one hoped to achieve through a religion (from Satanism to Catholicism to Buddhism or any of the more than 2,400 religious practices) and appended to "religion" is the underlying consideration that "I'm just going to be betrayed again."
Therefore offers of help can be considered to be yet another attempt at "betrayal."
An informative summation of philosophy / religion is Hubbard's lecture "Hope of Man." I just checked Ebay. There's a cassette copy now sold by someone for $4.95. For the last several years, all lectures have been produced as CDs.
As regards "supernatural": To a person walking around thinking he's just a body and living one lifetime, most anything outside the 9-5 routine of existence is "supernatural." It's all "dangerous."
Why? Because it would upset the status quo and shake the foundation of those powerful interests that depend upon individuals being dumbed down and easily manipulated.
Its all about Jesus. There is no other - He was, is and will be. If you don't believe in Him, take a minute to think about what would happen when you die and there is no Jesus? Nothing - because there would be nothing. You would not even be happy that you right, because there would be nothing. And if you die and He is alive? Well, if you believed, you in the pound seats, but if you believe in nothing or even superman, boy, then you really in for a surprise. So - do you want to wait to find out? Because - that will be too late. Luckely you have a free choice. God Bless.
Answer with any thing other than the bible:
How do you know Jesus is real?
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
How can you NOT accept the Bible as evidence. Oh wait, because corrupt Christians wanting to fool the world wrote it, right? Wrong. There is no other evidence BUT the Bible, fact. And the Bible should be used as evidence, FACT.
What about Josephus, as I've said MANY times. Oh wait, because he's corrupt too... That's right EVERYTHING proving God is corrupt and cannot be trust. Bravo, that's logical.
I know he is real because of miracles he has done, and will do. I know he is real because I take hold of that truth he installed int me (and everyone for that matter). I know he is real because I've experienced it. I know he is real because, quite frankly, the large minute details that are on the Earth, let alone the universe, CANNOT be all coincidences or a matter of things colliding into a big bang. It's just not logical. I know he is real because we are the ONLY religion who claims to have a savior who does not require us to do anything but believe to be saved. I know he is real because unlike all the other religions, ours DOES NOT contradict. And don't try and prove me wrong I'll throw everything back that you give.
That's my stand. Believe it or not, but it's the truth. God is real, and honestly if you don't realize that until you see him, then what kind of faith is that? You may NEVER see him, until the judgment which then it is too late. You must know, deep down, that there is a god and a creator. You must have that feeling, otherwise you wouldn't even care to know why we believe. You would just say, "Life is life, I do what I want because this is it there is no after." And he's right, then you wouldn't care to prove others wrong or right, because they're living the way they want to. But you know deep down that there IS something more. Question is what. Answer is God. Christianity. I'm not going into the sects like Catholicism or Lutherans or Mennonites or whatever... I will say three that claim to be Christian but aren't: Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, and Judaism (those who say Jesus was just a man not God himself, not the Messianic Jews/Completed Jews). Want to get into it? Read my next blog when I have time to post it.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
The Bible is only true if what it calls true is true. Say that 10 times fast. But, seriously, you cannot, logically, use it to argue your point because it is only true if your conclusion is true. CIRCULAR LOGIC. Ahhhhh!
"If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences."
H. P. Lovecraft
We do not make our kids conform into an "artificial" standard. And we are always on the search for truth. TRUE Christians are! Second, IT IS TRUE! So yes I can use it. The Bible says to, and it is the only evidence we have for Christ and God. So, believe it or not, but it is true. That's why we have freedom of choice, as given to us by God. If there was MORE evidence for God besides the Bible, then what would we need faith for?
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
You are engaging (once again) in a classic case of logical fallacy.
You can rant and rave all you want, but your reasoning is still flawed and plainly so. You can demand that we accept the validity of your "evidence," but the simple fact is that things that you are offering in that regard simply do not meet the normative standards that define "evidence" at all.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Give me evidence of gravity. Can you see it? All we have as evidence is the effects of it. In that sense you MUST accept the Bible as evidence because of it's effects. Just because you cannot see God or there is no other evidence (yet) this must be seen at least as one piece of evidence for him. Otherwise you are being biased yourself. You want a NON CHRISTIAN to find evidence other than the Bible. But then wouldn't they be Christian because they have the evidence to prove him?
And again, for the LAST TIME I will say this. I NEVER DENIED THAT IT WAS A LOGICAL FALLACY. Stop saying I have denied it. Shit that's annoying.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
"Give me evidence of gravity. Can you see it? All we have as evidence is the effects of it. In that sense you MUST accept the Bible as evidence because of it's effects." Oh, please. That's just sad. The effects of gravity are measurable. We can determine the cause. We can experiment with it. What effects has the bible had? How do those effects show the validity of the idea that it is trying to support?
"Just because you cannot see God or there is no other evidence (yet) this must be seen at least as one piece of evidence for him." The bible is not evidence. If I accept your bible as valid evidence to support your god, I must do so for every single Holy Book ever written. All of them have the same ammount of evidence supporting them. None at all.
"Otherwise you are being biased yourself." How am I being biased? By demanding substantial evidence to support you claim?
"You want a NON CHRISTIAN to find evidence other than the Bible." I want anybody to provide me with a scrap of decent evidence pointing in the direction of god.
"But then wouldn't they be Christian because they have the evidence to prove him?" So, in other words, you must blindly accept the word of an unverifiable source as a basis of your beliefs?
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
> And what about eye witness
> accounts of Godly events they
> experience? Does that not count?
> No wait, they're just crazy right?
Some of them are crazy. Some of them are lying. Some of them are simply mistaken. Anecdotal evidence is always suspect, unless it can be objectively verified. The best example of this phenomenon to me can be seen in children, who are afraid at night. They cry out, "Mommy! Mommy! There's a monster under my bed!" How does a parent respond to something like that? Usually, they come into the room and say, "No, there's no monster under your bed. Here, let's turn on the lights, and look under the bed together. See? No monster. Now go to bed."
> True, but which one has
> no contradictions? The Bible.
If you think that the bible has no contradictions, you've obviously never really read it. There are literally hundreds of literal and thematic contradictions in the bible. My personally favorite contradiction can be found in Proverbs...
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." (Proverbs 26:4)
"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." (Proverbs 26:5)
Here we have two verses that completely contradict one another. The entertainingly absurdity of the fact that the verses are literally side by side is just the icing on the cake.
> Which one keeps to its story
> and its foundation? The Bible.
That's a little disingenuous in principle and not really true in a factual sense. It is disingenuous in principle, because it really isn't that amazing that people who are writing about the same myths are going to have similar stories. But, even more than that, the books that made the modern bible were hand-picked by the leaders of the early christian church from among literally hundreds of writings by early christians and their jewish predecessors. It is very easy to claim that the bible keeps to a story when you take all of the books that were written that contradicts your preferred version of events and try to have them destroyed or suppressed. The "consistency" argument is a lot like having a basket with 10 apples and 10 oranges, taking out the oranges and throwing them away and then saying "Look! I found a basket full of apples!"
> There is SO MUCH evidence
> supporting the Bible.
So you keep saying, but you STILL haven't shown us any.
> Look into the authors, do
> research on them deep research.
A number of us here have done just that, but from your writings I seriously doubt that you every have.
> Like I said several times. If there
> was more evidence written down
> other than the Bible there would
> be no reason for faith.
Well, you really can't have your cake and eat it too, dearie. Either your beliefs are based on evidence, or they are based on faith. In the context of this discussion, it really can't be both.
> There is evidence such as
> creation, but that can be
> disputed from science. But
> science is a creation of God.
This is just more circular reasoning (again, the logical fallacy of begging the question).
> Evidence in the universe on
> how EVERYTHING is where
> it should be.
We've already covered this fallacy before, so I won't rehash it here beyond just saying that your perception of the probabilities involved is flawed, and when you consider the mathematical immensity of the known universe, it really isn't all that improbable for these things to happen.
> No, we do not have blind faith.
Yes, you do...unless of course you can actually show us something real that would verify your beliefs.
percivale
"It's not just the Bible. Everything. And what about eye witness accounts of Godly events they experience? Does that not count? No wait, they're just crazy right? My favorite quote, and true to how people think not to the reality is this, "If you talk to God it's called praying. But if God talks to you, you're schizophrenic."" So, then, how do you know that god didn't talk to Joseph Smith? And, once again, when and what are these eyewitness accounts?
"True, but which one has no contradictions? The Bible. Which one keeps to its story and its foundation? The Bible. There is SO MUCH evidence supporting the Bible. Look into the authors, do research on them deep research." The bible has plenty of contradictions, even after centuries of working it out. There is not SO MUCH evidence. If there is, can you list it.
I would accept evidence no matter who it came from as long as it made sence.
In one damn big Universe, it is less likely that life would not occur than that it would, even if that chance is unlikely by itself. Things can happen in the cosmos that will not effect us in the slightest. Some things would. That proves nothing.
Logically, you can not use an illogical argument to support your conclusion. As long as you are happy with your life, I'm happy for you, but you must see the problem with using that argument in a logical way.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
Because God wouldn't send a savior again or someone to report his love just to ONE PERSON so that he can spread it. And Joseph was a drunk and known to lie. When? What? Wow, you don't talk to many who have had encounters with demon possessed people. Or people who have been stalked by the devil, so to speak, but protected by God. You don't talk to many who "see" Jesus and feels his presence. You should.
Give me the contradictions the Bible has.
Sense, not sence. We cannot comprehend God. Simple as that. So to the person who wants to understand FULLY there will be no sense in the evidence as to that.
What illogical argument am I using? The universe actually proves everything. But people are just told lies by the devil. He is the Father of Lies after all.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
> Give me the contradictions
> the Bible has.
It would take dozes of blogs to cover ALL of the literal and thematic contradictions in the bile, so I will just list a few of my favorites...
The typical protestant bible contains 66 books, while the catholic version has 73 and the Greek orthodox usually count 78. The Ethopian bible has the most, I think at 81. That's at least 15 whole books worth of contradition that can be found without even cracking a cover.
Here are a few of the literal contradictions found in the modern bible...
And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. (1 Kings 4:26)
And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. (2 Chronicles 9:25)
Only in bible-math does 40,000 = 4,000.
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Matthew 1:16)
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli (Luke 3:23)
I guess Joseph had two daddies...
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:25-26)
In this version of the creations story, "god" made the animals first, then man.
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. (Genesis 2:18-19)
But in this version, "god" makes man first, and then the animals.
For a book that is supposedly perfect, the bible says a lot of contradictory things. There are also a lot of factual errors in the bible. For example, Leviticus 6:11 says that rabbits chew their cud, which of course they don't. Leviticus 11:19 and Deuteronomy 14:18 refer to the bat as a kind of bird, and Genesis 3:14 says that snakes eat dust. It is easy to see why a primitive person might think that these things are true, but today we know that they are not.
There are also numerous thematic contradictions in the various biblical accounts. For example
The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. (Psalms 92:12)
The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come. (Isaiah 57:1)
Sometimes the themes of the bible seem almost schizophrenic.
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. (Genesis 22:1)
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: (James 1:13)
Either "god" tempts men, or "he" does not. If one of these verses is true, then the other is false.
And, I mentioned this one above, but its worth repeating...
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. (Proverbs 26:4)
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. (Proverbs 26:5)
The bottom line is simple. Anyone who says that "the bible" is infallible, perfect, or without any internal contradiction has obviously never actually read the bible, and certainly never actually studied the material in a serious fashion. It is a claim that is utterly without merit, and it speaks to the hypocrisy of modern christians that they tend (as you have) to pick and choose among the messages of the bible, and ignore the rest in the hopes that no one will notice your inconsistencies.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
You're getting into the documentary hypothesis and textual criticism. There were two reason why books were accepted into the canon: they either had to be written by a prophet or by an apostle (or dictated from one to a scribe). There were not agreements of their origins. That is NOT a contradiction. Most of those books were not written within the time that we see as credible.
As for the Solomon stalls -- Solomon had 4,000 STALLS that is correct. That is 10 horses per each stall. That is 40,000 HORSES as it also says. In the NIV it says 4,000 in both verses. It could mean that he had 4,000 stalls (2 Chronicles) and 40,000 horses (1 Kings). Also, do you know how are it is/was to translate from the original text and the original language? There were no vowels in the Hebrew Language back then. The word stall had two different meanings. In 1 Kings the word stall in Hebrew could have meant (most likely did) the number of horses ("stalls OF horses"). In 2 Chronicles the word meant the number of stalls ("stalls FOR horses"). Now, if you DO NOT LIKE or ACCEPT this explanation, then yes there could have been a MINOR translation glitch, again, because Hebrew back then had now vowels. However, this small glitch does not change the story of God's love and the Gospel. We do not deny that there are small glitches like this, but this does not CHANGE the Gospel. These verses were to show Solomon was rich.
Son was used, in the Hebrew language, to refer to son OR son in law (in Shakespeare's language cousin is referring to any relative other than a direct line meaning parents or siblings). In the Hebrew mind, they listed lineage to show legal and royal accuracy of a persons blood line. If you go back and look at the lineage of Joseph, you will find one or both names. Some say that Luke gave Jesus' descent through Mary (the physical line), and the Matthew gave the descent through Joseph (the legal line). In Jewish culture if a man died childless then the near relatives could carry on the name. Meaning, that if Heli and Jacob were near relatives, Joseph could carry on BOTH names. HOWEVER, the Talmud (Haggigah Book 77,4) implies that Heli was Mary's father, which Joseph still could have been considered Heli's heir.
Genesis verses you need to know the Hebrew words. The verb "formed" could also have meant "had formed" (for the Hebrew language is, again, hard to translate from back then since simple words like this could have had multiple means). This would null the "contradiction" which you claim it is. All though, Genesis chapter two is more likely understood as a topical telling of creation. It sets animals in contrast to the creation of the woman to show HER dignity as FULLY human.
NOW Leviticus 11:6, which I am assuming you meant, is different. SOME people think that this reference to cud isn't the same sense as the way we think of it with cows. They think it is referring to their eating of their own shit, to be frank. More likely is this reason. Cows and rabbits are similar in that they can send contents of their fermentation chamber back to the mouth and through digestive tract. It can be thought of that the Jews saw how a cow chews, saw that a rabbit chews in the same fashion, and assumed it is cud chewer. Even so, this verse does not destroy the validity of the Bible or the message of the Gospel. http://www.grisda.org/origins/04102.htm
A bat as a bird can be understandable. They didn't have the scientific technology we have to understand they they are in fact mammalian. Not only, but they were grouping animals by the way they lived; IE FLYING. THINK ON THEIR TERMS, not ours. Snakes eat dust, in Genesis, was further symbolizing the snake's humiliation for its crime, NOT THAT IT actually will eat the dust. Yes, TODAY we know they are not true, but still, you must think like them to understand what they were saying and why they grouped things the way they did.
The righteous FLOURISH spiritually, but yes they will be destroyed in THIS world. In THIS world, Jesus brings a sword, as says the Bible! That is NOT a contradiction, they are talking of TWO different things.
Do you know what tempt means? The same root in Greek and Hebrew means to test or to tempt. What the WORD, the original Hebrew/Greek, means is strictly related to the context. IF it has to do with God, he is TESTING, if it has to do with the Devil, it is temptation. Learn what the Hebrew/Greek words mean before you spout accusations.
Your last paragraph is simply not true. Many have studied the Bible in ALL languages and contexts. Anyone who is intellectually honest and who has INDEED studied knows the serious complexities of the Bible.
These "flaws" that you are claiming are not flaws of the Gospel, nor are the contradictions. If you READ the Bible in it's context and in it's original language, and THINK as the ones who wrote it thought, you would understand this. I do not claim that there aren't minor errors in the Bible, translation does get messed up. It's almost like playing telephone. However, the base story, the main idea and notion of the Bible stays strong and unflawed throughout the Bible.
Thank you for getting me into researching and studying again.
Goodnight!
*The Bible(s) I used for this are: The Apologetics Bible CSB; The Archaeological Study Bible NIV, and the Amplified Bible*
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
...so I will leave my response in a new thread, below.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
"Because God wouldn't send a savior again or someone to report his love just to ONE PERSON so that he can spread it." Why not? He had prophets in the past. One person, who spread the word of god.
"Joseph was a drunk and known to lie." Lucky for him that god intervened in his life and put him on the right pat then. Eh?
"When? What? Wow, you don't talk to many who have had encounters with demon possessed people. Or people who have been stalked by the devil, so to speak, but protected by God. You don't talk to many who "see" Jesus and feels his presence. You should." HO HA HE HUM!!! I laugh at this! Laugh! Show me a possesed person and I'll show you either a basket case or some one who wants to avoid getting in trouble for their actions. Show me someone who thinks the devil is stalking them and I'll show you a paranoid religious person.
"Give me the contradictions the Bible has." I think that percivale did a fine job of that.
"Sense, not sence." I'll spell it how I damn well please!!! :-) I hate that word...
"We cannot comprehend God. Simple as that. So to the person who wants to understand FULLY there will be no sense in the evidence as to that." I don't want to fully understand anything. I want a shred of evidence that provides substance to the argument for the argument that god exists.
"What illogical argument am I using? The universe actually proves everything. But people are just told lies by the devil. He is the Father of Lies after all." The bible, damn it, the bible! It is an illogical argument because it cannot be verified. That is the problem. The Universe does not prove everything. Because I don't see god as a necessity for its existence. I'm protected from Satan's lies by the fact that he doesn't exist. So ha ha ha ha!
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
From the outset, your challenge is flawed because "gravity" is not an object. It is a force that acts upon objects. Even so, it is still quite easy to demonstrate the existence of gravity both empirically and objectively. Simply pick up an object near to you, hold it out at arm's length, and let go. If you do the same thing, the same way and under the same conditions a hundred times, the object will fall from your hand in exactly the same direction and at exactly the same speed. These observations of empirically measurable, testable events are objective. No "belief" is required to empower them, and their effects are provably identical whether it is a faithful theist of a rational scientist that observes them.
Honestly, it really is sad the way that some people cling so desperately to their ignorance.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
that some cling so desperately to nothing.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
*rolls eyes*... Dearie, I would be ecstatic if your version of "the Truth" was real. If someone would just provide me with ONE SOLID PIECE OF ACTUAL EVIDENCE, I would joyously join you on a pew the very next Sunday. The main reason that religion is so attractive to people is that it is comforting. It provides people with an easy way to assuage a great many of life's fears.
Here is a famouse exchage that tood place in a discussion between Sheena McDonald and Richard Dawkins...
McDonald: "Now a lot of people find great comfort from religion. Not everybody is as you are---well-favored, handsome, wealthy, with a good job, happy family life. I mean, your life is good---not everybody's life is good, and religion brings them comfort."
Dawkins: "There are all sorts of things that would be comforting. I expect an injection of morphine would be comforting---it might be more comforting, for all I know. But to say that something is comforting is not to say that it's true."
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Wow, Religion isn't a comfort or a crutch as SO MANY atheists say it to be. It doesn't provide a way to get away from fears. Fuck. God saves us, doesn't take away our fears. Every Christian still has "what ifs" about God and the afterlife. Honestly, what if it isn't real? Well, then it wouldn't matter that we believe in nothing now would it, and people wouldn't care that we believe the way we do. But Hitler did. Ancient Rome did.
Besides, it takes a lot more faith and devotion to believe in NOTHING than it does God. So I admire you for you strong faith.
NO BODIES life is good. That first quote has no value for what you are saying.
Morphine isn't comforting, it's scary as fucking hell. I've had 5 procedures under morphine, first one was nothing, the last 4 were all within 3-4 years and cut me open. Trust me, MORPHINE ISN'T COMFORTING. So again that quote has no value.
My Oberon! what visions have I seen! / Methought I was enamoured of an ass. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act IV, Scene I, Line 77-78
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their
It's not my favorite quote. But, it's that time of year, so I may as well show my Lovecraft colors now. And, until I find a better quote, I'll use this one. That's not to say that I don't agree with it. I just think it's somewhat cumbersome.
"If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences."
H. P. Lovecraft
And I'm not saying that the authors were corrupt, in fact, I said nothing about the validity of the bible. I simply disregarded it as evidence because there is no source the lends credibility to the bible. If you can offer something that proves that the bible is right, I'll allow the use of the bible to prove Jesus' existence.
Also, eighteen years of Jesus' life are missing from the bible. Did he just suddenly become an adult?
So, like I said, without using the bible as proof, how do you know Jesus is real.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
People just really don't care about that part, he didn't do anything before that. There is more than 18. We know of his birth (age 0), his young adult (12) and his adult (30). Also, it says that he grew in stature, wisdom, and strength with God. In the eyes of the Jews who wrote down their accounts, that was good enough. It says he grew up. We don't need to know every little aspect.
And again I say, what would be the point of faith and wanting to search for the truth if there was more evidence than the bible?
And I gave you reasons, do you disclaim them as reasons?
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Yes, I chose to not believe your reasons because they're circular and there are better explainations.
Let us consider the size of the universe. For our purposes, the universe is infinate. In an infinate universe, there are infinate possibilites. That being said, everything that could happen, would happen, and did happen. The odds of life occuring were low, but they were there.
And then there's the old atheist standby, how'd God get there?
Now, I don't believe in God, but I figure he probably exists. Not to the extent that he cares about anything that happens here, but you know, infinate possibilities. But I don't care about him.
Also, if your God exists, shouldn't be be super amazing? I mean, look at this image and tell me your god exists:
All in all, I do not think that God doesn't exist, only that I don't believe in him.
Also, if the bible is meant to be definitive, why are those years so unimportant? Some of the worst stuff you do as a human being happens from years 13-21.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
You have an odd way of looking at things. First of all, there is Good, which is God, and Evil, satan. The bad happens because we sinned and because of satan. The bad is OUR fault. Second, that's the oddest thing I've heard. Our universe is not infinite. We are actually near the end of the universe at a point where we can see everything else in the universe. NOTHING is infinite except God and souls. Do you HONESTLY think that everything is just a coincidence? That's sad. And yes he DOES care about us. What's worse, though, is that YOU don't care about him. That's what he wants. He wants you to love him. Why? Well, wouldn't you want your son/daughter to love you? It's the same thing. God is awesome, but he's not going to prevent us from having free will. That's what makes us special. Even ANGELS don't have free will. They did, that's why there's Satan. Then God took that away from them. We have it.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Ok, so we punish the innocent to spite the wicked? I get it...
Also, I don't believe in good or evil. If there is no devil, there can be no god. As there is no devil, there is no god. I don't believe in morals. I don't believe in anything, quite frankly. But good try. Also, souls don't exist.
Do I want my son/daughter to love me? Yes, but I wouldn't have them burn in hell fire for hating me. How's that for an answer? Also, my children have the benefit of proof of my existance, unlike my nonexistant relationship with this nonexistant invisible man of yours.
In the end, there is no god, no angels, and no devil. There is simply chance and instance. We cannot see the end of the universe for it is constantly expanding, perpetually growing. It is infinate. Whomever told you that load of crap about us seeing the end is an idiot. The redshift effect proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
The only INNOCENT and pure is Jesus and God. That, however, with babies, is an age old question.
So you don't have morals but killing a baby, as your picture, was wrong? That's a double standard. Seriously. And if you don't, frankly, believe in anything, then why are you even asking? Why do you care?
As for the son/daughter thing: we are not being sent to hell for HATING God, we just cannot be allowed into Heaven if we have nut repented and accepted that Jesus took the punishment for our sins. Why? Well, just like you cannot let one single germ into a completely sterile room, it would infect it all. God is sterile, perfect, he CANNOT allow sin in heaven. He WANTS everyone there. He's not punishing us, we're just not willing to cleanse ourselves. And there is proof, its the Bible. Like I said, believing it or not is free will. But it is STILL proof. (Were not my experiences proof either?)
I didn't say we could see the end, I said we are near the end. Redshift effect is just a theory, no? Nothing can be proved 100% without a doubt. There will ALWAYS be doubt. In the end there IS GOD ANGELS AND DEVIL. Sorry to burst your bubble. But again I ask, if you don't care WHY ARE YOU SO INTERESTED AND ASKING?
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Mostly because I enjoy making people (like yourself) frustrated. Honestly, most people would have just given up already.
No, the baby in the photo was not dead, yet anyway. No, it is not a double standard. Wanna know why? Well, you're reading still, so I'll assume yes. Your bible claims that god is the ultimate good. From good, bad cannot arise. If god created this child, he intended for it to suffer through the little time it gets before dying a terrible death. In that, God would be evil, no? Well, you'd say, "No, it just served its purpose and the devil got inside." Fuck the devil. No, this child died because of a random mutation that had almost nothing to do with either of the parents. I see no benefit to this disease, but appearently God does. I hold god to the standards set forth by the bible. No one said I have to believe in god or the standards by which I hold him accountable.
Wow, you're such a happy person...you honestly believe in original sin? Didn't Jesus fix that problem when he spent 3 days in hell to atone for the sins of the world? God, what is wrong with the Jesus character that he cannot fix something as benign as that.
Also, I just masturbated. That's a sin, guess I'm not getting into heaven.
And, where does God get off being so egocentric? Why does everyone have to love and aknowledge his existance to get into heaven? What about people in the middle of Siberia that have never even HEARD of Jesus or God? Do they automatically go to hell? They have neither belief or nonbelief. They have ignorance. According to you they are "germs" and would "infect it all." Guess god isn't powerful enough to keep the people he lets into heaven in line.
All in all, there are too many problems with your God Theory, so I will choose to simply ignore it. I am also tired of this debate as it will solve nothing since neither of us are willing to change our views. You're getting points and I'm getting a headache.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Evil cannot exist if God does? That makes no sense. Evil is anti-god. I mean, what would make God good if there was no evil? God is the standard of perfection. Everything else if bad, awful, hideous.
GOD DID NOT intend the child to suffer. Mutations, death, pain, suffering... ALL THAT is a product of sin. Sin is our fault because we did it. We fell into Satan's lies. Why? Because we're human and have free will and our curiosity got the better of us. The child did not serve it's purpose. I don't believe that dying is a purpose.
Original sin, yes. We ALL are sinners and imperfect. YES Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. HOWEVER, we are still imperfect until we reach heaven. We cannot REACH heaven until we repent. Repent means to make a 180, turn back from what you do. To repent, one must make a clear thought to change their sin, even though we will always sin because we're only human.
Who said masturbation was a sin? It's a human urge, and we will give in to those. Even if it is a sin, it's not doing the sin that prevents you from going to Heaven. It's not wanting to change and stop the sin.
As for those who haven't heard of him, I have just the answer for you: The bible says that everyone is born with his name on their lips and his love in their hearts. Whether they know for sure that his name is God or the big shining thing in the sky, that's pretty irrelevant if they haven't been preached to. What matters is that you acknowledge him and find strength in what knowledge you were born with. Ignorance doesn't exist with God. As I said, we are all born with knowing him and his love. So you cannot use ignorance as a reason.
And no, there are no problems with it. And it's NOT a theory.
Also, I'm not irritated or frustrated. I'm intrigued at how you think, I find it fascinating, as well as very sad. I'm not trying to change your views. I'm trying to inform you of what is myth and truth. You obviously have had a very limited view of God and Christianity. That's sad. All that you are claiming as what God does and what a sin is is simply not true. Those are thoughts of extreme Christians who believe no matter what we are all going to Hell. Which, in all respect, isn't too far off the truth. We all DESERVE Hell. But we are loved enough that our creator sent his flesh and blood to suffer, be tortured, just so we could have a second chance. So, many will say it's not a second chance. But I say it is. Why? We were told not to eat from the tree of knowledge or life when in the garden of Eden. But we did. We disobeyed and sinned. So now we have a chance to repent and be in paradise again, even though we were cast out.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
That is a horrible reason to believe, "Because WHAT IF you would be in shit." That's just not cool. Yes, what if. But the fact is that God is the truth and he gives us truth. There is no WHAT IF with God, and that's a bad reason to try and coerce people into believing. Why, because they will say, "What if this," or, "What if that?" What ifs are stupid, but in the world. Don't use them to prove something.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Finally, a religious perso who agrees that Pascal's Wager is the dumbest argument in existence.
"If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences."
H. P. Lovecraft
The Church of Christianity: a cult of the 1st-21st Century. I find Christianity similar to Superman, and I wonder how so many people can believe in this hack religion. So, yet again, I have a blog relating to a religion that is wrong. I will give you information on this "religion" that should make any logical person throw the teachings out.
XD
*waits for people to call me a (insert noun here)*
...sorry I couldn't help myself, you've got some nerve claiming another religion is crap and then turning around and saying YOUR religion is real/right/you believe it/whatever. Yours might just be a crap too...but at least most of us on here respect the fact you believe in crap as long as you don't force your crap on us or act like your crap is the only right true one, and when people do act like their crap is the best/right/etc thats when the crap hits the fan. Yeah I say crap a lot :P
-----------------------------------------------------
"You're asking me to *read*?! I'm not even in class...and just to think I had to put on pants for this."
~npsm18
Best video evar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD8qubsp39M
Christianity like Superman? Hack? Haha, you are sorely misled my brother. And why the hell did you use what I said. Think on your own man.
It's not crap. But that's good to know you think of your creator as crap, which means your crap. Wait, did I just say that? :-X. And yes, CHRISTIANITY is true. It's the ONLY religion with no contradictions. Claim some and I'll tell you weather or not that a contradiction.
Thank you and goodnight.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
"Christianity like Superman? Hack? Haha, you are sorely misled my brother. And why the hell did you use what I said. Think on your own man."
I do think on my own, I just wanted to use that first part because I found it entertaining ^_^ and also I'm a girl by the way.
"And yes, CHRISTIANITY is true. It's the ONLY religion with no contradictions."
So if anyone else of any other religion said the same thing you just said you'd say they were wrong right? Also what does it matter to you what they believe as long as they don't bother you with it.
"But that's good to know you think of your creator as crap, which means your crap."
Well since I am not a Christian that does not apply to me now does it? Defensive much?
Typical, outright disreguarding others beliefs and holding your own as superior, that's what you're doing without realizing it, and get uptight when people call your religion out...hence the point of my previous reply, because I knew you were going to reply the way you did. ;)
-----------------------------------------------------
"You're asking me to *read*?! I'm not even in class...and just to think I had to put on pants for this."
~npsm18
Best video evar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD8qubsp39M
I call everyone man, it's just a saying. Brother, okay so it should change to sister.
Yes they're wrong. It matters because they're putting false ideas out there so that people don't know the truth and can't be saved. That matters because I want everyone saved, which won't happen.
Just because you're not Christian doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you. That's some bad thinking on your part. Just because your not a guy doesn't mean you can't have the color blind disease.
No, I do realize it. But fact is there can only be one right religion, and Christianity is it. Doesn't matter if the others don't think that, it's the truth.
I'm not all uptight. I thought you using what I said was bad. Call out my religion, tell me whats wrong with it. I will prove you wrong. But you won't believe me because anything the Bible says must be biased and corrupt, and it won't matter to you because you're not Christian... SO there really is not point BUT to share with you the TRUTH and hope and pray you will find your way to God.
Don't read so much into my response. Again, I was upset about you using my quote, not "calling out" my religion so to speak. Which you didn't do because Christianity has been around since before the 21st century. And there is nothing remotely close to Christianity and Superman. We don't have aliens thank you ;-)
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Well er, sorry for using your quote if I would have know you'd get so upset I wouldn't have done it I would have written something else.
...and yes I do know it was around before the 21st century (see my blogs on it) and like I said you're getting defensive, imagine how someone who was a Scientology felt if they came and read what you just wrote, THATS what I'm trying to say. Be a bit considerate, live and let live you know, if they aren't hurting you/society/ breaking the law what does it matter to you? Surely there are more important things to worry about. :)
"But you won't believe me because anything the Bible says must be biased and corrupt, and it won't matter to you because you're not Christian..."
Wow, THANK YOU for putting words in my mouth, don't you just love when people do that. ;)
-----------------------------------------------------
"You're asking me to *read*?! I'm not even in class...and just to think I had to put on pants for this."
~npsm18
Best video evar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD8qubsp39M
I don't know why you're saying that. I'm just disproving what you've said. That's not defensive, it's called apologetics. Whee!!!!!!
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Miss the point entirely, my point was simply be considerate , live and let live, if they aren't harming you/society/ braking the law then just let them worship whatever they want ^_^ but some people seem to not want to do that.
"I don't know why you're saying that."
Saying what?
"I'm just disproving what you've said."
I wasn't trying to disprove anything, I was making a point, once again putting words in my mouth, try reading my comments again, I was making a point that you obviously didn't get or didn't bother to read, please quote me next time you reply, it will be easier to follow.
-----------------------------------------------------
"You're asking me to *read*?! I'm not even in class...and just to think I had to put on pants for this."
~npsm18
Best video evar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD8qubsp39M
live and let live... doesn't work. Sorry. Besides, I'm not going out at yelling at them saying, "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL YOU PAGAN!!! YOU BLASPHEMER!" No, I'm just pointing out the wrongs of their religions and wondering why people believe it, and letting others know, for those who don't, what they believe in (the religions that is).
I never said you were trying to disprove, I just said try and I'll prove your "proof" wrong. I got the point, I chose to ignore it. See, FREE WILL!!! Gotta love it... :-D And seriously, if you haven't noticed by now, I'm enjoying having you misread what I've wrote haha.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
"I got the point, I chose to ignore it"
Ok, well as long as you got it ;)
"never said you were trying to disprove, I just said try and I'll prove your "proof" wrong."
What proof? When I wasn't trying to prove anything (religion wise)? Like I said quote me, which is something you refuse to do and it makes you sound quite frankly ignorant, and trying to cover it up but pretending it's no big deal. :)
"And seriously, if you haven't noticed by now, I'm enjoying having you misread what I've wrote haha."
I think that since you don't even bother to quote me and yet I get accused for misreading you, thats kinda funny actually. You said "live and let live just wont work for you", well all I have to say that I'm sorry you feel that way. Noted I could have wrote something very different but I'll be the bigger person and not get wrapped up in a debate with a person who obviously doesn't want to hear other sides, but you what they say "live and let live" :D at least you kept me entertained for a bit, haha. :)
-----------------------------------------------------
"You're asking me to *read*?! I'm not even in class...and just to think I had to put on pants for this."
~npsm18
Best video evar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD8qubsp39M
I refuse to quote because you're smart enough to go back and look at what you wrote yourself. It's redundant to post it again, and quite pointless.
Live and let live doesn't work for anyone. EVERYTHING effects everyone. No matter what it is or who you are. You can be continents away from someone who does something that you don't know who they are, and it will still effect you. Maybe not right then, but it does.
Also, despite what you may think, Christians, real Christians, do care. We want EVERYONE to know God and to find peace with him and have salvation. That's what God wants, and it is HONESTLY what we want. We care for our brothers and sisters, even if they don't believe.
I want to hear the other side. I don't know where you got that. I'm pointing out the facts that you were misled on. This isn't a debate, I'm just trying to correct your knowledge of Christianity.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
SO to prove me, place a monkey in front of a computer and when he fully types out a work of Shakespeare, one of his plays, with no errors THEN I will believe you.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
No one said that every occurance was happening here...but you know, there are humans that do that. And Shakespeare isn't that great...I can't stand his plays. So, yes, while there may, somewhere, be a monkey typing Shakespeare, there is also no such occurance within our finite region of space.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
> You're getting into the documentary
> hypothesis and textual criticism.
Indeed.
> There were two reason why books
> were accepted into the canon: they
> either had to be written by a prophet
> or by an apostle (or dictated from one
> to a scribe). There were not agreements
> of their origins. That is NOT a contradiction.
> Most of those books were not written
> within the time that we see as credible.
The first major flaw in this comment is that you seem to be implying that there is any such thing as "the cannon." Actually, there is a vast disagreement among the various major branches of judaeo-christianity as to which books are and are not cannonical.
For example, the following books are common to the cannons of most modern christian and jewish sects: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, the minor prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi...which in the Hebrew Bible are contained in a single book). The roman catholic cannon, however, contains a number of additional books, that the jewish and protestant sects reject, such as the books of Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ben Sira, Baruch, and significant additional sections in the books of Jeremiah, Daniel and Esther. The eastern orthodox church also includes the books of 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh and an additional Psalm. The Russian and Ethiopian orthodox branches include 2 Esdras in their common cannot, and the Ethiopian orthodox adds another Psalm, the book of Jubilees and Enoch, and 1-3 Meqabyan. The Peshitta cannon adds four more Psalms and the book of 2 Baruch, but rejects portions of John and all of 2 Peter, Jude, and the book of Revelation. The cannonization of the new testament is a little more consistent, but it is interesting to note that the new testament wasn't actually dogmatically cannonized until 16th-17th Centuries. The roman catholics issued their new testament cannon in 1546 (The Council of Trent), and the Anglicans, Calvinists and Eastern Orthodoxies followed suit in 1563 (The Thrity-Nine Articles), 1647 (The Westminster Confession of Faith) and 1672 (The Synod of Jerusalem), respectively.
It is also grossly incorrect to say that the books most commonly included in the cannons "had to be written by a prophet or by an apostle (or dictated from one to a scribe)." Aside from the fact that who is or is not a "prophet" is a completely arbitrary judgement (and again, the list of "prophets" recognized by the various major branches of judaeo-christianity are very different), there are a number of books in the common bible that simply don't fit that bill. For example, the book of Hebrews and the Epistles of John are actually anonymous. And, the book of 2 Peter plagarized heavily from the book of Jude, and the book of Jude lifts heavily from the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (a source that is NOT considered cannonical on its own). Even the book or Revelation (traditionally attributed to "John the Apostle") is know widely considered to have been written by a different "John" altogether (i.e. "John of Patmos"). Modern scholarship has also demonstrated that at least two of the gospels (i.e. the books of Matthew and Luke) are modified copies based on the book of Mark (and possible a second source document, referred to as "Q"), and do not represent the apsotolic dictation with which they were originally credited by the church(es).
Now, what all this (should be) demonstrating to you is the fact that cannonization was (and is) a rather arbitrary process, and there are a LOT of variations in the material that various groups consider as cannonical. There simply is no universal acceptace of the contents of "the cannon," even among the major sects of christianity.
> As for the Solomon stalls -- Solomon
> had 4,000 STALLS that is correct. That
> is 10 horses per each stall. That is 40,000
> HORSES as it also says. In the NIV it says
> 4,000 in both verses. It could mean that he
> had 4,000 stalls (2 Chronicles) and 40,000
> horses (1 Kings). Also, do you know how
> are it is/was to translate from the original
> text and the original language? There were
> no vowels in the Hebrew Language back
> then. The word stall had two different
> meanings. In 1 Kings the word stall in
> Hebrew could have meant (most likely
> did) the number of horses ("stalls OF
> horses"). In 2 Chronicles the word meant
> the number of stalls ("stalls FOR horses").
> Now, if you DO NOT LIKE or ACCEPT this
> explanation, then yes there could have been
> a MINOR translation glitch, again, because
> Hebrew back then had now vowels.
The problem with this explanation is that it is apologetic, and not based on the actual contents of the texts in their original language.
1 Kings 4:26
In translated Hebrew (English):
Sh@lomoh (Solomon) 'arba`iym (had forty) 'eleph (thousand) 'urvah (stalls) cuwc (of horses)
2 Chronicles 9:25
In translated Hebrew (English):
Sh@lomoh (Solomon) 'arba` (had four) 'eleph (thousand) 'urvah (stalls) cuwc (for horses)
Neither verse speaks directly to the number of horses, but rather both verses count the number of stalls in which the horses were contained. In order to arrive at the interpretation you suggest, you have to turn to sources that are outside of the cannonical material in order to reconcile the inconsistency. Now, if you want to say that non-cannonical sources are necessary when interpreting these texts, I'm okay with that, but that significantly undermines your contention that the bible in and of itself is consistent.
> However, this small glitch does not
> change the story of God's love and
> the Gospel. We do not deny that there
> are small glitches like this, but this
> does not CHANGE the Gospel. These
> verses were to show Solomon was rich.
Now you're backpedaling. The challenge you gave was very specific. You said, "Give me the contradictions the Bible has" The implied argument on your part was that the bible doesn't have any internal contradictions. These books and their subsequestion translations are supposedly "inspired by God," and they are either the perfect expression of the "word of 'god'" or they are not. If you admit to the exitence of "glitches" in the scripture, then you are also admiting by default that these books are NOT perfect and that they DO contain errors.
> Son was used, in the Hebrew language,
> to refer to son OR son in law (in
> Shakespeare's language cousin is
> referring to any relative other than a
> direct line meaning parents or siblings).
> In the Hebrew mind, they listed lineage
> to show legal and royal accuracy of a
> persons blood line. If you go back and
> look at the lineage of Joseph, you will
> find one or both names. Some say that
> Luke gave Jesus' descent through Mary
> (the physical line), and the Matthew
> gave the descent through Joseph (the
> legal line). In Jewish culture if a man
> died childless then the near relatives
> could carry on the name. Meaning,
> that if Heli and Jacob were near relatives,
> Joseph could carry on BOTH names.
> HOWEVER, the Talmud (Haggigah
> Book 77,4) implies that Heli was Mary's
> father, which Joseph still could have
> been considered Heli's heir.
That's a bit of a stretch, for several reasons. For one, it was not typical in Hebrew culture to record the lineage of the mother. And, we can see that this is not an accurate interpretation when we read the full lineages in these books, both of which are drawn in a direct line from David. Another interesing inconsistency is that Matthew lists twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus, while Luke lists forty-three. But, back to the point, we can see the error by noticing that the father for Jacob/Heli both refer to the grandfather of Joseph in the lineage of David,--i.e. Matthan (in Matthew) / Matthat (in Luke). Either way, the texts are obviously inconsistent.
> Genesis verses you need to know
> the Hebrew words. The verb "formed"
> could also have meant "had formed"
> (for the Hebrew language is, again,
> hard to translate from back then since
> simple words like this could have had
> multiple means). This would null the
> "contradiction" which you claim it is.
> All though, Genesis chapter two is
> more likely understood as a topical
> telling of creation. It sets animals in
> contrast to the creation of the woman
> to show HER dignity as FULLY human.
This explanation is a bit convoluted, and again you are dodging off into a bit of a straw man argument. Yes, words in Ancient Hebrew could sometimes have more than one meaning, but this is a question that is answerd by context, not definition. The order of the story is inconsistent. In Genesis 1, the order of creation states that "god" made the animals first, then he made man and gave him dominion over his creations. In Genesis 2, "god" made man first, then he made the animals (and woman) so that man would not be alone. These are very different accounts, and are clearly contradictory.
> NOW Leviticus 11:6, which I am
> assuming you meant, is different.
LOL...yes, thank you for catching the typo.
> SOME people think that this reference
> to cud isn't the same sense as the way
> we think of it with cows. They think it
> is referring to their eating of their own
> shit, to be frank. More likely is this reason.
> Cows and rabbits are similar in that they
> can send contents of their fermentation
> chamber back to the mouth and through
> digestive tract. It can be thought of that
> the Jews saw how a cow chews, saw that
> a rabbit chews in the same fashion, and
> assumed it is cud chewer. Even so, this
> verse does not destroy the validity of the
> Bible or the message of the Gospel.
> http://www.grisda.org/origins/04102.htm
That's an interesting article, but again...it's apologetic. The original Hebrew word translated into "cud" in this verse was
, or rather gerah. Stong's Concordance gives the defintion and etymology of the Hebrew and Arabic roots of the term, and in this context it does specifically refer to "rumination, the food which ruminating animals bring up to chew, the cud." Like most apologetic arguments, the interpretation of your source is attempting to imply a meaning that isn't really justifiable based on the original text, and in this case would require a knowledge or concepts that were far beyond the understanding of the original author.
> A bat as a bird can be understandable.
> They didn't have the scientific
> technology we have to understand they
> they are in fact mammalian. Not only,
> but they were grouping animals by the
> way they lived; IE FLYING. THINK ON
> THEIR TERMS, not ours.
Well, you have a good point on this one, since the root of the word is actually translates to "wing," though except for the one reference to the bat, the term `owph refers only to "fowl, birds" and "winged insects." if the bible was inspired by the being that you claim actually created both bats and birds, then "scientific technology" shouldn't have been an obstacle to the understanding of the original author. This goes a long way towards supporting my actual point, however. You are essentially saying that the bible groups these animals erroneously because the original authors of the text were ingorant of certain facts about the natural world. As understandable as the error might be, however, it is still an error that undermines any argument that would suggest that the contents of the bible are unquestionably correct. If the bible can get the biology wrong here, is really isn't a stretch to propose that perhaps there are other verses that are making equally unfounded assumptions about the natural world.
> Snakes eat dust, in Genesis, was further
> symbolizing the snake's humiliation for
> its crime, NOT THAT IT actually will
> eat the dust. Yes, TODAY we know they
> are not true, but still, you must think like
> them to understand what they were saying
> and why they grouped things the way they did.
Again, this is an apologetic explanation that is not very likely to have jived with the understanding of the original author. The curse of the snake to eat dust seems to have been a literal belief that we can see repeated elsewhere in the bible. Micah 7:17 gives us another view of the origin of this belief when it says, "They shall lick the dust like a serpent... Taken in context, both verses appear to be referenced to the fact that snakes flick out their tongues to "taste" the air and ground.
> The righteous FLOURISH spiritually,
> but yes they will be destroyed in THIS
> world. In THIS world, Jesus brings a
> sword, as says the Bible! That is NOT
> a contradiction, they are talking of
> TWO different things.
I've never really understood the ability of modern christians to reconcile "the story of God's love" and "Jesus brings a sword," but both of these Psalms appear to be referring to both physical and spiritual subjects.
> Do you know what tempt means? The
> same root in Greek and Hebrew means
> to test or to tempt. What the WORD,
> the original Hebrew/Greek, means is
> strictly related to the context. IF it has
> to do with God, he is TESTING, if it has
> to do with the Devil, it is temptation.
> Learn what the Hebrew/Greek words
> mean before you spout accusations.
Actually, I am at least marginally familiar with the original languages, and far moreso it appears than are you. But be that as it may, let's take a look at the original texts, and see what they acutally say.
Genesis 22:1 uses the Hebrew word
, or nacah which means (in the context of this verse) "to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test." James 1:13 uses the Khone word ![]()
http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/gs162.gif, or peirazo which means (in the context of this verse) "to try or test one's faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin." Now, I think you are splitting a hair based on the English meanings of of the words "temp" and "test" that are not liguistically and contexutually consitent in the original languages.
> Your last paragraph is simply not
> true. Many have studied the Bible
> in ALL languages and contexts.
> Anyone who is intellectually honest
> and who has INDEED studied knows
> the serious complexities of the Bible.
Let me revise the central statement of my final paragraph so that I may clarify my position...
The bottom line is simple. Anyone who says that "the bible" is infallible, perfect, or without any internal contradiction has obviously never actually read the bible, and certainly never actually studied the material in a serious fashion, or at the very least is intentionally ignorning what he or she has read.
There are indeed serious complexities in the books of the bible, but to suggest that there are NO contraditions and NO errors and NO inconsistencies in the themes and literal accounts is just about as inaccurate a statement as it is humanly possible to make.
> These "flaws" that you are claiming are
> not flaws of the Gospel, nor are the
> contradictions.
Sigh...yes, dear...they are. You are doing a find job of regurgitating the mental gymnastics that is the art of christian apologetics, but your beliefs in this manner are quite obviously derrived on a non-critical reading of the original texts which quite frankly it is equally obvious that you have never really read.
> If you READ the Bible in it's context
> and in it's original language, and
> THINK as the ones who wrote it
> thought, you would understand this.
I have read the bible in its original language and context, at least so far as my limited command of Khone Greek and the numerous dialects of Ancient Hebrew allow. And, I am quite certain that my knowledge of these languages far exceed your own.
> I do not claim that there aren't minor
> errors in the Bible,
Well, we obviously disagree on what constitutes a "minor error," and I think that your interpretations are not based on a well-rounded exposure to the vast wealth of textual criticism that exists regarding the bible and its contents.
> translation does get messed up. It's
> almost like playing telephone. However,
> the base story, the main idea and notion
> of the Bible stays strong and unflawed
> throughout the Bible.
I think you are being most irrational, here. It seems that no matter how many errors can be proved to exist, you seem determined to assert the clearly fraudlent proposition that the bible possesses some kind of underlying unity. I mean, how hard is it to comprhend that you can't spread a message of "love" with a "sword?"
> Thank you for getting me into researching
> and studying again.
You're welcome. It was my penchant for research that eventually showed me how utterly 'effed up the bible and the church really are. Keep it up and one day, I am confident that you will reach the same conclusion.
percivale
P.S. Drat! My .gifs didn't work. Oh, well...follow the links and you can see the orginal Greek and Hebew lettered texts.
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I fixed a couple of your .gifs (apperently I missed one) but you can fix it. You're using the wrong code, it's < img src="URL" and then you'd close the code. That's all there is to that one, no /img or anything.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Wow to your ignorance, wow to your pettiness, wow to your arrogance, and wow to your sheer stupidity.
THE BIBLE is to spread the word of GOD'S love and HIS promise, not to be so damned perfect that there are no minor errors as to 40000 or 4000 or a bat is a bird. Those are just details to help further explain the bigger point, not part of the point itself.
I am astonished, well I shouldn't say that because I actually expect it from you, at your arrogance. "Actually, I am at least marginally familiar with the original languages, and far moreso it appears than are you." (By the way, it's more so or more-so, not moreso). Well, your majesty, I bow down to your greatness oh mighty guru of all things... *starts to laugh*.
I HAVE read and researched, and still am. And the more I do the more my faith GROWS. You twist everything and bring it to an asinine assumption/conclusion that does not show that God's word is fallible. God's word IS NOT fallible. It is the same thing throughout the Bible. The story of his love, our salvation, you know the Gospel. None of that changes through the Bible.
AND AGAIN I will say this, because you APPARENTLY don't read what I write. THE WORD THEY USED for stalls had two different meanings in the context. If you look AT the text today you see the word "of" and "for". Each stall contained 10 horses. Therefore, the verse containing OF was referring to the number of horses, not the number of actual stalls. FOR was referring to the number of stalls. Let's see 4,000x10=? That's right, 40,000 horses! *Slaps head* DUH!
My Oberon! what visions have I seen! / Methought I was enamoured of an ass. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act IV, Scene I, Line 77-78
> Wow to your ignorance, wow to your
> pettiness, wow to your arrogance, and
> wow to your sheer stupidity.
He he he...I guess I struct a nerve. (:P)
> THE BIBLE is to spread the word of
> GOD'S love and HIS promise, not to
> be so damned perfect that there are
> no minor errors as to 40000 or 4000
> or a bat is a bird. Those are just details
> to help further explain the bigger point,
> not part of the point itself.
I think that "the bible" (if you can even ever decide which of the disparate collections of books actually qualifies for the title) also contains a lot of crap that has absolutely nothing to do with "love." Personally, I can't seem to reconcile the idea of killing all of the first born children of an entire nation with a message of "love."
> I am astonished, well I shouldn't
> say that because I actually expect
> it from you, at your arrogance.
Arrogance is a personal flaw that I can own. It doesn't change however the truth of what I have said.
> "Actually, I am at least marginally
> familiar with the original languages,
> and far moreso it appears than are you."
Let me remind you of the comment that pompted that response. You said, "Learn what the Hebrew/Greek words mean before you spout accusations." If you are bothered by people questioning your obviously lack of linguistic expertise, then you might want to consider saving your own hypocritical slings and arrows.
> (By the way, it's more so or more-so,
> not moreso).
Well, not to belabor the point, but the Oxford English Dictionary does in fact list "moreso" as a valid idiom in the useage of the United States. You will have to go to the Library to double-check this one (since the O.E.D. doesn't publish online), but as of the 2002 edition of this (the definitive repositorty of the English Language) includes under the definition and etymology of the word "more":
f. With ellipsis of the word or sentence modified. Now freq. with anaphoric so (see SO adv. 4a) in more so (also, chiefly U.S., moreso). (all) the more: the rather, the more so (as, because, etc.).
> Well, your majesty, I bow down to
> your greatness oh mighty guru of
> all things... *starts to laugh*.
Laugh all you want, but the facts of the matter remain unchallenged by your transparent ploy.
> I HAVE read and researched, and
> still am.
From what you have presented so far, it seems however that the sources to which you are turning for your research are remarkably subjective, and appear to be limited solely to the highly biased material of christian apologetics. If you want to be taken credibly in this regard, you need to expand your reading to include at least some objecitve criticism of the material at hand.
> And the more I do the more my
> faith GROWS. You twist everything
> and bring it to an asinine assumption/
> conclusion that does not show that
> God's word is fallible. God's word IS
> NOT fallible. It is the same thing
> throughout the Bible. The story of
> his love, our salvation, you know
> the Gospel. None of that changes
> through the Bible.
If you consider "the bible" to be equivalent to "God's word," then your claims of infallibility are quite absurd, especially since I have provided you with several examples that clearly demonstrate otherwise. You have already admitted that there are "minor errors" in the texts, and if there is any error at all, then the text cannot, by defintion be considered to be "infallible."
> AND AGAIN I will say this, because
> you APPARENTLY don't read what I
> write. THE WORD THEY USED for
> stalls had two different meanings in
> the context. If you look AT the text
> today you see the word "of" and "for".
> Each stall contained 10 horses. Therefore,
> the verse containing OF was referring
> to the number of horses, not the number
> of actual stalls. FOR was referring to the
> number of stalls. Let's see 4,000x10=?
> That's right, 40,000 horses! *Slaps
> head* DUH!
If you pound on your head long enough, perhaps you will knock some sense into it. I had hoped the error in this interpretation would have been obvious, considering the detail with which I addressed it above, but since you didn't catch the problem, I will dumb it down for you.
Both of the verses in question (1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chronicles 9:25) containe the same exact same pharse...'urvah cuwc. In the original language and context, 'urvah means "manger, crib, stall (for animals)." (LINK) There is NO ambiguity in the original language for this term. 1 Kings 4:26 translates cuwc to mean "of horses," while 2 Chronicles 9:25 translates the exact same word to mean "for horses." In context and meaning of the word cuwc in the original language of both verses, however, the word cuwc means, "1) swallow, swift 2) horse a) chariot horses." (LINK) Again, there is NO ambiguity in the original language for this term. The confused interpretation you offer is based on the inconsistent mistranslation of the term in the English version of the text. The original however is clearly contradictory.
The bottom line is that you asked for contradictions, and I gave them to you. And now that you challenge has been met, you're just pissed off that someone was able to successfully call your bluff.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I just love how Christians think that other religions are so out there, I mean come on! You have a guy who can walk on water, heal people by touching them, burning bushes that talk, a boat that held two of every single animal on the planet, talking snakes, unicorns, flying pigs, (i'm not making this stuff up), dragons, and the list goes on and on. Christianity is not the "truth". No religion is. Get over it. Don't you find it hard to believe that Christianity is the one and only way to salvation; when in fact it's less than two thousand years old? I don't think so! Try again.
Tabias-
I just wanted to add that if you were really strong in your faith, then you wouldn't have to worry about the rest of us. BTW, I'm Wiccan and we don't believe that any religion is the "truth". We just believe that as long as you don't harm yourself or others, then do what you want.
Also, Wikipedia defines a Cult as "a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception." This definition fits Christianity perfectly in it's genesis. So, who are you to call out any religion? Just because something doesn't work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work for others. So, get off your 2000 year old (baby religion) high-horse and practice a little tolerance. You're not the judge. Let God figure it out.
Tabias-