Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 198

Thread: jesus was not the son of god, according to the bible

  1. #1 jesus was not the son of god, according to the bible 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    an interesting video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLp0hnh2t_Q
    jesus never claimed to be the son of god, but used the traditional jewish "god is our father we are his children" moniker.
    which is why he called god father.


    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    I cannot say that this point of view that Jesus was not God and did not claim to be God is not reasonable or not supportable. However there is an issue of honesty here which I do not believe that this video does a good job on. In the context of the religions of men claiming that Jesus is God sounds crazy and is frankly an embarassment, and so many want to deny that the Bible says any such thing. But frankly this just isn't honest. It is true that making a case that Jesus is God from the synoptic gospels alone is rather weak, for in these Jesus is the Son of Man and the Christ (and twice Matthew 16:13-17 and Mark 14:61-64 that Jesus is the Son of God), but do not make any clear statement that Jesus is God. However, I am afraid that it is abundantly clear that the writer of the gospel of John and the apostle Paul most definitely believed that Jesus was God and clearly said so in these writings. Thus to support this point of view that Jesus was not God you have to cut these writings out of the Bible or make some kind of argument why these should not be believed.

    For example, Hebrews 1:8 gives him the title of God and Colossians 1:19-20 explains that in Jesus all the fulness of God dwells so that in Jesus all things of Heaven and Earth are reconciled to God. Then of course there is the gospel of John chapter 1 where it says that the "Word" was God and in the beginning with God, that through the "Word" all things were made, and then in verse 14 that the "Word" became flesh (a man) and dwelt among us, and finally John the Baptist bore witness that Jesus was that man.

    In John 10:30-38, Jesus says "I and My Father are one", in John 12:45, He says, "And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me", and finally in John 14:7-10, He says, "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him. Phillip said to Him, 'Lord show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.' Jesus said to him, 'Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Phillip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you, I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.'"

    All the passages that this video quotes are fully and completely embraced by orthodox Christianity, but to interpret them in a manner that denies that Jesus is God requires rejection those parts of the gospel of John and the writings of Paul that say that Jesus is God.

    The attempt made in this video to show that the Bible says Jesus is not God or that Jesus denied this is very weak, weaker than the case that can be made that the synoptic gospels say that Jesus is God (which is weak). Lets take a look:

    Matt 21:11 is telling us what the crowds said, which proves nothing. John 13:16 can only claim that Jesus is not greater than the Father, which no Christian believes and so this does not support the case being made. On the issue of being tempted by the devil, what does James 1:13 mean? That the devil cannot try to tempt God, or that the devil cannot successfully tempt God? When you look at what does it means to tempt God and how the Bible warns us not to tempt God, interpreting James 1:13 to mean that Satan cannot try to tempt God does not make any sense. The devil has rebelled against God and so it makes no sense to say that he obeys any commandment not to tempt God, and so we must understand James 1:13 to mean that the devil cannot succeed, and he did not succeed with Jesus. So again this video fails to make its case. Luke 4:11 is not quoted correctly for it does not say what this video claims it does. Luke 9:20 is quoted correctly but it does not support the case they are trying to make, because the words there are "Christ of God".

    All that most of the other passages quoted in the video simply show is that Jesus and God the Father are not the same person, don't have the same authority or the same knowledge. Paul explain this in Phillipians 2:5-8 "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross,"

    The claim that Jesus denied being God anywhere in scripture is incorrect, we can only say that Jesus made it clear that he was in submission to the Father in every way. This we believe that Jesus did in order to be an example to us of a man in every way so that we could truly follow in His footsteps. No Jesus does not say that He is God and we know why, for this would be contrary to the purpose for which God became man which was not to be served but to serve.

    And this is why the doctrine of the Trinity and the creeds agreed upon by the eccumenical councils of the fourth century is the way in which Christianity embraces all of the scripture in the canon. Those who want to fix Christianity to make it more acceptible to themselves or others should be a little more honest and simply say they do not have to accept the opinions of the apostle Paul or the writer of the gospel of John on this matter, or should even take these books they find so embarassing out of their Bibles.



    Again I do not say that a good case cannot be made that Jesus was not God, but to do so honestly requires that some of the writings of the Bible be ignored, so the problem with this video is that it makes the bald face lie that the Bible does not say that Jesus is God. It should instead simply be honest and say that the gospel of John and the apostle Paul were either mistaken or heretical in claiming that Jesus was God, and these books shouldn't be in the Bible.

    Ah the end of the video reveals the source. This is a product of Islam. They don't take the writings of Paul or the gospel of John seriously because they have no reason to accept the Christian canon. They have their own scriptures which they follow and it is the Quran which believe is authoritative not the Bible.


    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    wall of text
    there you go off on a completely wrong tangent, completely misunderstanding everything again.

    what this video tries to prove is that Jesus in his own words didn't claim to be god, but was later elevated to divine proportions by paul.

    just listen to this prayer, and think for a bit:
    "father, thou who art in heaven"
    this is the same manner jesus adressed god, as father, in the manner that every other human is the sons and daughters of god.

    so the bible, in its own words says that jesus was just an ordinary son of god, like everyone else, and not a "special" son of god.

    i mean, where is the logic in "he would send his own son" when everyone is the sons of god?
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    wall of text
    I take this to mean that you did not bother to read what I wrote, as is quite evident in your comments as well. There is of course no need for you to read what I wrote. Whether you do so is entirely up to you. However you cannot expect to make intellegent comments on what I wrote without doings so.

    One must wonder why you bothered to make this thread if you had no interest in feedback on video you introduced. Perhaps you need to look for a different venue that is more appropriate to that which you intended.

    You didn't make the video yourself did you? If not, you did watch the video all the way to its end didn't you?



    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    what this video tries to prove is that Jesus in his own words didn't claim to be god, but was later elevated to divine proportions by paul.
    I said that a good case can be made for this. The video however says no such thing and that is where I accuse it of dishonesty. The writings of Paul and the gospel of John are a part of the Bible, therefore its claims about the Bible are incorrect. Of course, you could argue that the video is not dishonest so much as just plain stupid, which considering the source, is quite likely. The last place you would want to go for an intellegent opinion on what the Bible says is to muslims, not because muslims are not intellegent mind you, but because of religiously motivated bias.

    I would suggest that if you want to put forward the case that Paul altered Christianity from what Jesus said or intended then you can do a lot better than this video.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    I take this to mean that you did not bother to read what I wrote, as is quite evident in your comments as wel
    well it is quite an intimidating body of text, and very ambiguously written too, with a very muddled agenda.
    my mind starts to wander when i read a text like yours, which makes it hard to make a direct reply.
    so i decided instead to solidify my own opinion.

    One must wonder why you bothered to make this thread if you had no interest in feedback on video you introduced.
    i just like to rattle the christian cage once in a while, and see what pops out.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    The way I understand it:

    In Jesus' time prophets were not uncommon. Neither did Jesus seize a monopoly during his career. He could easily have been forgotten, upstaged by some other. However the braggadocio Romans got a little carried away and declared they'd silenced the king of the Jews. For modern parallel, see how a certain imperial power lionizes its enemies, puffs them up as masterminds controlling terrible brainless forces. So the Romans made a great martyr of Jesus, after the fact and mainly for their own satisfaction or even promotion. Big mistake! The local people were sorely wanting a new religion glorifying martyrdom. So Paul took this ripe sentiment and added his "kitchen religion" format, let dinner party philosophers fill in the rest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I think in order to use what Jesus said in the Bible, you need to know what it meant when he said it.

    In order to do that you must first understand the meaning of Messiah to the Jewish culture and you must also understand the culture and language of Jesus day.

    First of all, to the Jew, Messiah would be God Himself. Jews would in no way accept that God would send some emissary who was only human. Those people were called prophets, not messiahs. Jesus was a Jew and would fully understand the implication of claiming to be Messiah.

    And Jesus does do just that in his meeting with the Samarian woman at the well. In the course of their conversation, the woman says, “I know that Messias cometh, which is called Crhist: when he is come, he will tell us all things.”

    Jesus replied, “I that speak unto thee am he.” That’s the KJV. If you take the Living Bible paraphrase, Jesus says, “I am the Messiah!”

    So we definitely have one direct example of Jesus claiming to be Messiah. There are others which are a little less direct. But Jesus would have known only the son of God could be Messiah.

    To expand a little on one of Mitchell’s quotes (tho I disagree with a couple of his points), let’s look at the entire passage in John 5 (18 ff) where the Jews sought to kill Jesus “because he had broken the sabbath, [and] said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

    Jesus said to them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you. The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doest, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son , and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will show him greater works than these, that ye may marvel; For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son: that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father, He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father which hath sent him.” (KJV)

    Jesus here is obviously talking about himself and referring to himself as the Son.

    I am constantly amused at people who take a modern translations of the Bible, relate them to modern times and then try to explain what it says or doesn’t say without any regard for what it meant by the person who wrote it at the time they wrote it.”

    Another thing here, when Jesus opened a statement, “verily, verily” this is not what prophets had always said. They had always opened their statements with “The Lord sayeth. . .” So here again, Jesus is indirectly claiming to be imparting the truth, not to be relaying it.

    Many of the things Jesus says about himself are said in the third person. In that culture it was considered somewhat impolite to speak of yourself in the first person which is why the Samarian woman conversation literally says, “I that speaketh unto them am he,” whereas the paraphrase says, “I am the Messiah.”

    There are some places where people ask Jesus if he is this or that and Jesus replys, “Thou sayest.” This was a term of agreement such as if we said, “You got it there, buddy.”

    It is true that Jesus never said the exact Aramaic words which would equate to, “I am the son of God,” but there are so many places where he says that in so many other words several times and in several ways.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    First of all, to the Jew, Messiah would be God Himself. Jews would in no way accept that God would send some emissary who was only human. Those people were called prophets, not messiahs. Jesus was a Jew and would fully understand the implication of claiming to be Messiah.
    This is nonsense. I have met many Jews and not a single one thought any such thing. Furthermore, there is no indication of this in the gospels let alone in the Old Testament. In the gospels it is abundantly clear that what they expected in a Messiah was something like the Judges and kings of old who would save them from the oppression of their enemies. Messiah simply means annointed one and hearkens to the time when Samuel annointed first Saul, then David as kings of Israel, and when Zadock annointed Solomon. The stories make it clear that with this annointing came the blessing and guidance of God through them to all of Israel.

    Even in the gospel of John where the writer clearly thinks that Jesus is God, the author also makes it quite clear that the expectations of the Jews was like that of the zealots that the Messiah would be the one who could defeat the Romans and cleanse Israel of their pagan abominations. After feeding so many with the loaves and the fishes the decided that this was exactly the kind of person they wanted for a king and so they tried to make Jesus king by force. It is Jesus refusal and insistence upon a spiritual kingdom which they could not understand, causing them to turn away from Him.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    So we definitely have one direct example of Jesus claiming to be Messiah. There are others which are a little less direct. But Jesus would have known only the son of God could be Messiah.
    But this is where I think the video is completely accurate. The son of God is not an exclusive title. It was indeed used in the Old Testament in reference to David and to the Israelites in general. You know of course that the capitalization added in our English text is not in the original manuscipts, so there is absolutely nothing to distinguish its usage in reference to Jesus from these other uses of son of God in the Old Testament. I do not in fact think that son of God means anything more or less than annointed or chosen by God, for just as David was annointed king, so also the Israelites where annointed or chosen by God as well. But the best evidence of such an annointing was always considered to be success in overthrowing their enemies, do that and the Jews knew that God was with you and thus they would believe that you spoke for God.

    The strongest reference to support your view might come from Mark 14:61-64 where the priests equate Jesus claim to be the Christ (= son of God) with blasphemy but I think that this so thin as to vanish into smoke, for in my experience, even Christians will blow the slightest thing they disagree with all out of proportion and call it blasphemy, heresy and demonic, in order to villify other Christians (even in their own denomination) whom they disagree with.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I am constantly amused at people who take a modern translations of the Bible, relate them to modern times and then try to explain what it says or doesn’t say without any regard for what it meant by the person who wrote it at the time they wrote it.”
    But is it any less amusing to see you telling us what those authors believed when it seems obvious to us that this is not the case? Which just goes to show that interpreting the mind of some long dead author is hardly any easier or less subject to disagreement that the meaning of the text alone. You can say that trying to understand what author meant is part of your methodology but regardless of what methods you say that you use, your interpretation will NEVER be anything but your interpretation.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    It is true that Jesus never said the exact Aramaic words which would equate to, “I am the son of God,” but there are so many places where he says that in so many other words several times and in several ways.
    Matt 16:13-17 and Mark 14:61-62 is close enough, after all the testimony of others was considered more important anyway (Deut 17:6). The problem here is not the truth of the claim that the Jesus was the Son of God, the problem is whether this implies that Jesus was the creator of heaven and earth. The Apostle Paul and the writer of the gospel of John certainly thought so and so the question remains whether you agree with them or not. However much Paul might "turn over in his grave" upon hearing it, Orthodox Christianity is Pauline Christianity. Honesty becomes us.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Well, Mitchell, I hardly think obtaining the present opinon of a 21st Century non-messianic Jew is going to be very instructive on what a pre-first Century Jew may have thought. Perhaps such a person would have a perspective of pre-first Century Jewis thinking, but I doubt today's Jews believe exactly the same any more than 21st Century Christians believe exactly what 1st Century Christians believed.

    Mitchell seems to object to my statement that Jews were expecting Messiah to be God Himself. It would seem to me that it would be difficult for Messiah to be devine without being God -- at least in Jewish thinking. This is one of the reasons Judaism rejects Jesus as Messiah -- they do not accept His divinity.

    There were several requisites or proofs for Messiah. He had to fullfill several roles as well as several prophesies in order to qualify.

    One of the ways we know what these requisites were is by looking at what the New Testament goes about trying to emphasize. There is considerable effort to show that Jesus is the Son of God, as Mitchell himself has pointed out.

    There would be no reason to do this if this was not a necessary element of His messianic status. No place do we see any writer attempting to show that Jesus had blue eyes, or green eyes, or brown eyes -- it just was not a sign of messiahship.

    If Mitchell's physics 303 class has a prerequisite of having Physics 202 or the equivalent, I better be able to show I have that. I would not need to show that I have taken French 301 to get into that class.

    If Jews had not required Messiah to be the Son of God, there would have been no need for New Testament writers to be pointing it out.

    As to Old Testament references, we have Isaiah 9:6: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given . . ." There is also Zechariah 11:10 which says, in part, ". . .and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."

    Mitchell said:


    The problem here is not the truth of the claim that the Jesus was the Son of God, the problem is whether this implies that Jesus was the creator of heaven and earth.
    Well, you are correct and both John and Paul emphasize this aspect of Christ's work in John 1:3, 1Cor 8:6, Eph 3:9, Col 1:16 plus whoever wrote Hebrews 1:1,2.

    As we have discussed before the divinity of Jesus is an essential tenet of Christianity. If Jesus is not God, our faith is in vain, as Paul points out.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a point where Jesus was being driven out of a temple by the other Jews, and they explicitly say "We're pissed off because you committed blasphemy by claiming to be the son of god"? Although that isn't an explicit recorded statement by Jesus, it seems to indicate pretty strongly that he did indeed make such a claim. Especially since there's no mention of Jesus saying "Wait, hold on guys, you misunderstood me!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a point where Jesus was being driven out of a temple by the other Jews, and they explicitly say "We're pissed off because you committed blasphemy by claiming to be the son of god"?
    but at the same time, jesus said "you are all sons of god".
    which in his own words, makes him nothing special compared to any other human.
    how could someone be "more son of god" than others?
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    deja asked:

    how could someone be "more son of god" than others?
    Well, by being the "only begotten son," as in John 3:16. And by God saying, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased," as in Mathew 3:17 and a couple of other places. I think that would set Jesus apart from the rest of us who are children of God in a different capacity.

    I would agree with Scifor in that the Jewish leaders were well cognizant that Jesus was claiming to be Messiah, son of God and equal to God. I should think they understood what Jesus said meant to 1st Century Judaism better than we do.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a point where Jesus was being driven out of a temple by the other Jews, and they explicitly say "We're pissed off because you committed blasphemy by claiming to be the son of god"?
    but at the same time, jesus said "you are all sons of god".
    which in his own words, makes him nothing special compared to any other human.
    how could someone be "more son of god" than others?
    dejawolf seems to be conflating a few things so lets see what the Bible actually says. There is nowhere that I know that Jesus said any such thing "you are all sons of god". Paul does say this of Christians in Gal 3:26, "for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith." However Jesus says something a very interesting in John 10:30-38.

    "I and the Father are one. The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, 'I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?' The Jews answered him, 'We stone you for no good work but for blasphemy; because you, being a man make yourself God.' Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your law, I said, you are gods? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."

    Now in this Jesus does not say "you are all sons of God" nor does He say "you are all gods" but He does say that the scriptures imply that those to whom the word of God came are addressed as gods. But I think consistency with the rest of the Old Testament which certainly does call David and the Israelites the "sons of God", I think we can say with certainty that the sons of God are those annointed by the fact that the word of God has come to them. However the words of Jesus do not indicate that this title does not distinguish one from others, but quite the contrary indicates that all are NOT the same and He gives us the measure we should use: we are to ask if one is doing the works of the Father.

    I think Jesus quite often tries to dig beneath superficialities. For there are those who are something in name and then again there are those who are that thing in truth. Consider for example the name "chair". Now if a poor craftsman puts together something that looks like a chair but then the first time someone sits upon it the thing collapses, then no matter whether we have called it a chair, is it really a chair? Compare this to a rock which whether we call it a chair or not does the work of the chair as the other one did not. Thus we have the case where these hypocrites attacking Jesus had the name of being Israelites, chosen people and sons of god, but although they had the Word of God in the scriptures they did not do the work of God in their lives.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    To me (atheist) investigating the disappearance and apparent sightings of Jesus reads like a whodunit. The Islamic solution - that mortal Jesus colluded with some trusted friends to escape punishment by faking his own death - explains the conflicting accounts very well. Note the multiple deaths of Judas too. The whole collection is a set of intrigues pushed by conflicting motives, with this common strand: everybody gained something by agreeing Jesus was crucified, gone, and open to postmortem interpretation.

    Anyway, on a theological level, the Trinity thing (God mortalizes then anoints Himself, or gets anointed by men) is illogical. Perhaps a self-contradictory religion has certain advantages though. Human nature is self-contradictory. A society that upholds dogma is a strong society!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    that mortal Jesus colluded with some trusted friends to escape punishment by faking his own death
    Or maybe a group decided they had waited for the Messiah long enough and concocted a plan. The plan was put into motion when twins were born to Joseph and Mary. Jesus 1&2 went for brainwashing and training (similar to suicide bombers) during the missing years in the temple. Various employees were recruited during Jesus' travels to give witness to and participate in miracles (with the aid of some basic magic tricks). One of the twins were crucified and the other rose three days later.

    The point is, we really only have the original Bible and the omitted books as sources. Ambiguity abounds.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    but at the same time, jesus said "you are all sons of god".
    which in his own words, makes him nothing special compared to any other human.
    how could someone be "more son of god" than others?
    As was already pointed out, many Jewish texts refer to the Jews as "sons of god." Jesus simply saying that wouldn't have been shocking, and probably wouldn't have resulted in a stoning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Pong speculates:

    that mortal Jesus colluded with some trusted friends to escape punishment by faking his own death - explains the conflicting accounts very well. Note the multiple deaths of Judas too.
    This is a variation on what Christian apologists call the “swoon” theory – that Jesus was not dead and revived in the tomb and someone assisted his escape by rolling away the sealed stone that he could not have removed from inside the tomb.

    This theory has been debunked so many times and in so many ways, I am shocked that people, other than newbies to the fray, continue to raise it. One must bring in extraneous thinking on this matter to get to that idea. The Bible accounts are very clear that Jesus did, indeed, die on the cross. One can disagree that these things happened in the way the Bible says they happened, but if the Bible accounts are taken as true, there is little to argue. What I am saying here is that the Bible, itself, does not provide any evidence, whatsoever, that Jesus did not die on the cross. The only possible thing to support that idea is that Pilate was surprised that Jesus had died so quickly. However, most people who were crucified were not subjected to the pre-crucifixion ordeal that Jesus went through.

    And KALSTER also says:

    we really only have the original Bible and the omitted books as sources. Ambiguity abounds.
    Conflict and ambiguity arise when non-confirmed speculation or material rejected for inclusion in the Bible is interjected into the Biblical accounts. One can disbelieve the accounts in the Bible and that is one thing. Interjecting idle speculation is another thing. And giving more credence to rejected materials than to the accepted materials is yet another thing.

    I am unaware of any multiple deaths of Judas as being revealed in the Bible. I assume, along with others, that the writings rejected from the Canon were rejected for reasons that were far more obvious at the time of the Canon than may now be.

    No period literature from the 1st Century denies that Jesus died or even speculates that He or his followers conspired to fake his death and resurrection. These ideas have all come to the fore in the last couple or three hundred years, being formulated by people wanting to discredit and raise doubt about the Bible.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    the “swoon” theory – that Jesus was not dead and revived in the tomb and someone assisted his escape by rolling away the sealed stone that he could not have removed from inside the tomb.
    Rolled stones and broken seals are red herrings. The main point is that most parties either wished Jesus gone or wished him to appear gone. When all these motives agree it is not difficult to say, "Oh, yeah, he was crucified. Didn't you see it?" Police today understand very well that even impartial parties claim to witness events as they believe happened, and parties with a compelling motive to believe something are almost sure to recall - in earnest! - that which did not occur.

    The Islamic account:
    "That they said (in boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah';- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them [or it appeared so unto them], and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not"

    I propose that people then were just as prey to self-delusion and fabrication as we are today. We needn't get hung up on details, as no doubt they didn't either.

    Ask yourself honestly, Daytonturner, if you have a strong motive to believe and even vividly imagine Jesus crucified.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    the Bible, itself, does not provide any evidence, whatsoever, that Jesus did not die on the cross
    Except that the body disappeared, and the alleged victim was later sighted in good health after the crime.

    How does that look to a serious investigator?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Pong said:

    Rolled stones and broken seals are red herrings. The main point is that most parties either wished Jesus gone or wished him to appear gone. When all these motives agree it is not difficult to say, "Oh, yeah, he was crucified. Didn't you see it?"
    Well, I don’t think you are right here. Jesus followers did not want him gone. And there is no logical reason they would have wanted him to “appear” gone. They had absolutely nothing to gain in the death of Jesus. In fact, they scattered hither, tither and yon and went into hiding for fear that they would be next.

    The Bible accounts cannot be interpreted to suggest that Jesus did not die on the cross. The soldiers who were experts in crucifixion declared him dead. All those around believed he was dead. The Romans would have had no reason to release his body pre-death. If they had not believed him dead, he would have hung on the cross until Sunday morning. There is no one in the scenario who benefits from Jesus death other than the Romans and the Jewish hierarchy. And they would not benefit at all if Jesus, was alive. You can disagree with the accounts, but you cannot use these accounts to remotely suggest anything other than that Jesus died on the cross.

    If you consider all they did to him from Thursday evening until his crucifixion, survival would have been almost a greater miracle than the resurrection. He had not slept since Wednesday evening, meaning by Friday noonish, he had been kept awake for at least 36 hours. He was beaten with a whip called a flagellam which had pieces of metal and bone tied into the leather straps which tore away flesh wherever it struck him during the 40 lashes. Many people would have died at just that. He was then compelled to walk a long distance, carrying a heavy timber under which he finally fell due to fatigue and was unable to complete that task. He was on the cross for approximately six hours, plenty of time to kill a person in his condition. When the spear was thrust into his side and the gash emitted both water and blood, it was an indication that his lungs had filled with them which is the cause of death in crucifixion.

    These events were reported by eyewitnesses and recorded by the writers of the gospels. There are no writing from that period in which anyone says, “Hey, it didn’t happen that way at all. Here is what really happened,” followed by a different account. So what you have is unopposed eyewitness testimony which is very hard to overcome with a bare claim, “I don’t think it happened that way.” There is period literature which scoffs at these things, but does not offer anything other than the writer's personal disbelief, hardly evidence.

    Pong adds:

    Police today understand very well that even impartial parties claim to witness events as they believe happened, and parties with a compelling motive to believe something are almost sure to recall - in earnest! - that which did not occur.
    What you are suggesting is what is commonly called a mass hallucination. However, there are usually those who have conflicting accounts of the same event, making a mass hallucination, almost impossible. Prosecutors would much rather have one eyewitness than several for that very reason. Yet, in the case of Jusus' crucifixion, we have no recorded account from anyone at that time claiming Jesus was not dead. As stated above, I can think of no reason why the throng of Jesus followers would have a compelling motive to want Jesus dead, or to accept his death without being wholly convinced of it.

    As to him walking around and being seen after his death, let us not forget the account of his ascention in Acts 1. Here, an unnumbered group of people observed as Jesus was taken up and disappeared into the clouds. Again, as this story circulated, no one came forth to say, "It didn't happen that way at all; let me tell you what really happened."

    Pong also states:

    The Islamic account:
    "That they said (in boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah';- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them [or it appeared so unto them], and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not"
    I am not sure what the intent of this quote is. If it is intended to rebut my suggestion that the “swoon theory” is a relatively modern phenomenon, it certainly fails in that it is not attributed to any time frame. But it cannot be anything other than a johnny-come-lately claim. Mohammed was born ing 570 A.D. some 500 years after the events in question. Even if this were something he said, which I sincerely doubt, it would have to have been said close to 600 years after the events, hardly a good time frame in which to have made a personal observation.

    This is merely the (probably fairly recent) Islamic adaptation of the “swoon theory.”

    Pong suggested:

    Ask yourself honestly, Daytonturner, if you have a strong motive to believe and even vividly imagine Jesus crucified.
    You know, I just did that. I said to myself, I said, “Self, do you have a strong motive to believe in Jesus crucified?” And my answer was yes, indeed, I have the strongest of motives to believe in Jesus crucified.

    Jesus death on the cross is the ultimate atonement for sin, the only atonement which God will accept in the granting of forgiveness of sin. Without Jesus death on the cross, there is no atonement for sin; there is not hope of salvation; there is no hope at all. Our faith is in vain.

    With the world population now nearing seven trillion people, I would say I have more than one strong motive, I have nearly seven trillion strong motives. So what are your motives for hoping people will deny Christ and atoning death?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    ...

    I've been comparing accounts, from a disinterested non-believer's perspective, and may have cracked the case. It is a curious solution that does not say much for or against modern Christianity. But no Christian can believe it.

    Anyway I've had enough of the topic!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    You know, I just did that. I said to myself, I said, “Self, do you have a strong motive to believe in Jesus crucified?” And my answer was yes, indeed, I have the strongest of motives to believe in Jesus crucified.
    It is one thing to apply this test in literary criticism and quite another to apply it to life generally. We can ask someone in the Democratic party campain whether they have a strong motive to believe that Obama exists? Then we can ask someone in the Republican party campain whether they have a strong motive to believe that Obama exists? Whether they like Obama is really irrelevant and the question is meaningless. Obama does exist. Nobody questions that because it is just stupid. Whether Jesus died or not is not really that much different.

    This question is only reasonable at the point of first consideration, for obviously if one has already lived half ones life founded upon beliefs (whether these are in regards to some scientific theory or religious doctrine) then that life lived becomes a rather strong motive no matter what belief we are talking about. In that case you have to ask the convert whether he had any strong reason to believe that Jesus was crucified, but then it is like asking if they have a motive to believe that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole? What can you say except that this is the story as it is told.

    Applied to literary criticism, the question is whether the New Testament writers would be motivated to make up a story of Jesus' death, gives the answer of no, the death of Jesus doesn't make the least bit of sense in the context of making up a religion. They would have every motivation to do the opposite for all sorts of reasons including being able to attribute additional sayings to him. The only reason for saying someone was executed as a criminal is because that is what happened. If he did not die then they record additional things that he did. If he just disappeared then wouldn't they just say that ascended into heaven? The most skeptical view is simply that these followers had to construct a theology in which the execution of Jesus made sense. To suggest that it went the other way around is nuts.

    I think the situation is that people will believe what they want to believe for whatever motivation. But I see no difference between Pong's decision to believe this conspiracy theory of his and the decision of others to believe that Jesus never existed at all or that the holocaust never happened or that the earth is flat, etc...

    Frankly I think that the most objective non-believer judgement on the matter is simply that Jesus died as the gospels recount and then his followers inexplicably went crazy in a way that was contageous -- possibly because their "insanity" was a more effective or appealing way of living than the alternatives.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Pong's... conspiracy theory...
    Back up. You can't guess what I've found plausible. I've indicated that it is not very compelling or consequential, or fruitful to Christianity. There's actually a lot less conspiracy and wickedness in my take, than the traditional one. Frankly I've exhausted "the little grey cells" from analyzing different accounts, and would forget all about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore Schizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    164
    I am... Batman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Mitchell said:

    Frankly I think that the most objective non-believer judgement on the matter is simply that Jesus died as the gospels recount and then his followers inexplicably went crazy in a way that was contageous -- possibly because their "insanity" was a more effective or appealing way of living than the alternatives.
    I think that would come close to representing my pre-Christian thinking and does represent a possible attempt to explain what happened.

    However, you are still left with the dilemma of what did happen to the body? With guards at the tomb, it seems almost impossible that Jesus' followers could have sneaked in, rolled the stone away and made off with the body. (Particularly, in view of the fact that they were all in hiding.) Nor could Jesus, himself, rolled away the stone from inside the tomb. Certainly, neither the Romans nor the Jewish hierarchy would have taken the body and hidden it. And had they done so, as the news of his resurrection spread, they would surely have produced the body and said, "Ha, ha. Here's his bod. Jokes on you!"

    The Gospel accounts have some differences. They are not in agreement as to which women originally went to the tomb. One account says a gardener was there, one account says it was an angel, another account says it was two angels. However, the one thing they all agree on is what was not there -- Jesus' corpse.

    My point here is not that you cannot disagree with these accounts just on their face. There is probably lots of lore which we just plain do not believe or accept because we find it preposterous or incredulous within itself. However, there is just no tangible or written controverting period literature or evidence which one can use to refute these accounts. One can reject them only because one does not believe them, not because there is some external controverting evidence.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    To me (atheist) investigating the disappearance and apparent sightings of Jesus reads like a whodunit. The Islamic solution - that mortal Jesus colluded with some trusted friends to escape punishment by faking his own death - explains the conflicting accounts very well. Note the multiple deaths of Judas too. The whole collection is a set of intrigues pushed by conflicting motives, with this common strand: everybody gained something by agreeing Jesus was crucified, gone, and open to postmortem interpretation.
    I actually have to agree with daytonturner here. If you believe the Gospel accounts, Jesus was able to raise the dead and conjure things out of thin air. If you believe that, then him rising from the dead after crucifixion is consistent with his other powers and doesn't really require any more explanation. If you don't believe those gospel accounts about him performing miracles, then the simplest explanation is that Jesus' return from the dead after crucifixion was just one more outlandish story that the gospel writers made up. No "faked his own death" hypothesis is necessary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Ack. I can't bear to watch...

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    what did happen to the body?
    But that's the conjurer's old trick. There is no body.

    Facts and procedure then were not established in the manner they are today. People of the time were pathetically gullible and got their news (highly embellished) by word of mouth. The authorities couldn't even recognize Jesus by face (remember Judas is supposed to have betrayed Jesus by indicating him amongst the assembled, rather like a police lineup) so "laying low" should be easy enough. There was confusion between Jews and Romans about just who should deal with Jesus and on what grounds, insurrection or heresy, and they did not keep or audit accounts of executions. If rumor spreads that somebody was crucified, it's fact. Nobody's going to bother sorting out exactly whose account is genuine, especially when they're comfortable with the popular belief. More likely they will help it along. That's how information worked back then.

    A rumor started, and people simply went along with it:
    "When has Jesus crucified? Couldn't have been yesterday..."
    "Where? Outside the city walls, I guess over in that direction..."
    "Those Romans are wicked..."

    A premeditated conspiracy isn't necessary. See Paul is dead and The Emperor's New Clothes for examples of urban myth in action.

    I'm going to christen this the News of My Death hypothesis, after Mark Twain's famous complaint that his had been "greatly exaggerated."


    There.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I'm going to christen this the News of My Death hypothesis, after Mark Twain's famous complaint that his had been "greatly exaggerated."
    And again, I don't really see the point. I don't see why you're trying to come up with an explanation that assumes that Jesus wasn't really divine but does still assume that his body disappeared or that he came back. If you believe the gospels about Jesus' miracles, then the supernatural explanation of him actually dying and coming back to life makes sense. If you don't believe the gospels, then the most reasonable explanation is that he simply died and that was the end of it; the stories about him coming back or the body disappearing were simply made up, just like all the other implausible supernatural stuff. So whether you believe the gospel or not, your explanation seems like an inferior, needlessly complicated one (no offense). It's only useful for someone who doesn't want to accept that Jesus was magic, but does want to accept that his body disappeared/he came back to life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    I don't really see the point. I don't see why you're trying
    I'm not making the point you expect to see.

    You expect me to take a side: accept everything as truth, or dismiss everything as fantasy. You said "reasonable" explanation but I think you mean "convenient". Whichever suits my motives. But I'm not playing the game. The pea is not under one shell or the other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Well, the problem Pong is having here is that he is accepting the most difficult to believe aspect of the story which has Jesus being seen after his reported death and using that to reject the believable part of the story about his death.

    A more logical approach, if you just want to accept part of the story would be that Jesus did die, but that he was not really seen later.

    It is always a problem when you accept, as true, part of a story and then attempt to use that to undermine the credibility of the rest of the story.

    If one is going to accept only part of this story, the part about him dieing is the far more reasonable aspect of the story -- we all do, afterall, die. Crusifixion was a horrible death and I am not sure there any accounts of anyone actually surviving that form of execution. Certainly, survivorship of the ordeal would be rare, indeed.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    If one is going to accept only part of this story, the part about him dieing is the far more reasonable aspect of the story -- we all do, afterall, die. Crusifixion was a horrible death and I am not sure there any accounts of anyone actually surviving that form of execution. Certainly, survivorship of the ordeal would be rare, indeed.
    My hypothesis doesn't claim survival of crucifixion. It doesn't consider the arrangement of props and bodies.

    The basic hypothesis is that Jesus was not crucified. Rather, a rumor spread that he had been. Because this story agreed with expectations, people were quick to believe it, embellish and corroborate it. The news seemed "right". People of those times trusted word of mouth, and their own imaginations, for facts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    the main problem is that the bible cannot be taken as true, because there are conflicting accounts in it.
    in many cases the accounts are as conflicting as "thou shalt not kill" and "stone those who does not rest on the sabbath to death".
    and the the "bible is word of god" and "old testament is not the word of god according to christians"
    then again the OT contains the creation myths, which are taken seriously by some, which means they should also take stoning people to death on the sabbath seriously.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    The problem with Pong's hypothesis is that it has no basis in fact. The only stimulus for this hypothesis is disagreement with an at least partially documented account of a series of events.

    It is someone looking at an historical account and saying, "I don't think this account is accurate, so here 2,000 years later, I will make up my own undocumented speculative version of what happened and claim that it is really what happened." This is far less credible or believable than the uncontroverted claims in the eyewitness accounts of the people involved.

    Such speculation needs some basis other than its own speculation. Were there some period literature from 1st or 2nd Century writings which suggested this same thing, then there might be a basis for such an hypothesis. At least you would have a he said-she said situation. Without that, however, it is little more than unadulterated speculative BS
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    You expect me to take a side: accept everything as truth, or dismiss everything as fantasy. You said "reasonable" explanation but I think you mean "convenient".
    No, I meant "reasonable". If you have already established that the gospels are full of made-up fantasy stories, then assuming that Jesus simply didn't come back to life and that the stories of him coming back to life were one more example of the made-up fantastical bullshit is the simplest explanation. Your explanation makes sense too, but it's needlessly complicated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    deja says:

    the main problem is that the bible cannot be taken as true, because there are conflicting accounts in it. in many cases the accounts are as conflicting as "thou shalt not kill" and "stone those who does not rest on the sabbath to death".
    Do you understand the difference between laws in a legal code which prohibit homicide while including provisions for execution in the same legal code. Does this mean you do not have to believe the legal code? I mean it does prohibit killing and then turn around and provide for killing.

    I would agree that execution for violating the sabbath seems harsh, but as far as I know, every legal system ever developed proscribes homicide while carving out man caused deaths which are not considered homicide. And I suspect you would find current legal systems which have very harsh penalties for seemingly minor offenses. In some Muslim countries the penalties for driving under the influence are very severe.

    deja adds:


    and the the "bible is word of god" and "old testament is not the word of god according to christians" then again the OT contains the creation myths, which are taken seriously by some, which means they should also take stoning people to death on the sabbath seriously.
    Where are you getting this kind of crap? There are no Christians who would say the OT is not as much a part of the word of God as the NT. The NT, in effect, "repeals" some religious practices and laws of the OT, just like when we have new legislation which repeals and changes old laws. In so doing, we sometimes proscribe actions that previously were permissible and at other times we allow actions that were previously prohibited.

    Just think, there are places today which still have laws on the books which provide penalties for spitting on the street. They are not generally enforced. Does that mean we can ignore the entirety of the legal code that contains such a provision.

    Deja is just looking for excuses to disbelieve the Bible. If you don't want to believe the Bible, don't believe it. Your search for justifications for your disbelief only tends to show that, deep down, you realize you should believe.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    the stories of him coming back to life were one more example of the made-up fantastical bullshit is the simplest explanation
    So you're saying the hypothesis allows needless complication if we rate all information wild and inscrutable besides the claim that Jesus died by crucifixion. That's correct, in a hopeless kinda way.

    You would accept one thing as true, and ignore the rest. Doesn't go anywhere, but hey it doesn't risk being wrong either.

    You could just as well take news of my death and discount all else as BS, end of story. That's no better.

    My hypothesis does not depend on much. One needn't trust anybody's "made-up fantastical bullshit" to see that rumor of Jesus' crucifixion was likely to appear and establish, if Jesus disappeared a while from public view. And that a returning miracle-worker such as Jesus would be understandably tempted to milk the rumor. If news of my death seems like conspiracy theory or extrapolation from questionable Biblical evidence, I suggest one is reading ahead of it, or assuming it just another nitty-gritty re-staging of the popular scenes.

    I want to stress again I'm skeptical of every claim, and begin with just one assumption: that human nature in Biblical times was pretty much as it is today. So the way cults form and play out today, is how they did in Jesus' time. We know how experience can be distorted. We know people write for motives, conscious and unconscious. By understanding distortion & motive, we can get at the truth behind the Bible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    So you're saying the hypothesis allows needless complication if we rate all information wild and inscrutable besides the claim that Jesus died by crucifixion. That's correct, in a hopeless kinda way.
    no, its as simple as this:

    on the silly scale, the bible rates at 6/10, it mixes fact and fiction, and is a historic text.
    on the silly scale, your alternate explanation about why jesus rose from the dead is just... beyond silly.
    its tinfoil-hat conspiracy stupid.
    why in the fuck would a pair of twins do something like that, have one twin die, while the other guy pretended to be his resurrected twin brother?
    by comparison, having the guy raise from the dead pales by comparison.
    you could say frankenstein traveled back in time and jolted jesus to life.
    or how about space aliens injecting jesus with green goo to give him superhuman healing powers? rates about the same on the silly scale in my eyes.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Deja is just looking for excuses to disbelieve the Bible. If you don't want to believe the Bible, don't believe it. Your search for justifications for your disbelief only tends to show that, deep down, you realize you should believe.
    its so funny when they say that. never gets old.

    believe in what? santa clause? vishnu?
    allah? maybe i should pray to gaia.
    or maybe ask thor for his strength, since i'm after all a norwegian,
    after all norway did fine praying to him and the other gods, in the hope of fighting eternally in the great halls of valhalla.

    i don't care about my primitive instincts "deep down".
    deep down i realize i need to eat every day to stay alive. deep down i realize that pain is bad.
    deep down i realize my hearbeat is automated, along with the process of absorbing energy from the food i eat, and breaking it down into smaller pieces that my body is capable of absorbing. deep down i realize that eating my feces is a bad idea.
    but believing in superman in the sky?
    i have vocally prayed to the skyninja every day for the past 365 days, that he strike me down with lightning, to prove his existence. VOCALLY.
    as of yet, i have not been struck.

    its proof enough in abundance for me that there is no god.
    oh and btw, i have no soul, because there is no such thing as a soul.

    do you want to buy my soul for 100$?
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    as for the reason for this thread: i want to sort the chaff from the wheat when it comes to the bible. find out which parts are historical, and which ones are pure bullshit.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    why in the fuck would a pair of twins do something like that, have one twin die, while the other guy pretended to be his resurrected twin brother?
    That was me. It was intended to be satirical of all the theories surrounding Jesus. Calm down man. Are you having some kind of meltdown?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    yeah.. dunno.. something got to me.
    and what really riles me up is the fact that there's still people who still believe fervently in the big sky-daddy, and try to constantly convince people that their delusion is supposed to make them smarter than everyone else.

    i saw this stupid discussion on fox news where a fundie and a catholic were ragging down on eachother, which ended with them calling eachother bimbo and ugly old bitch. something about an anti-gay movement by the fundies.
    then there's all the fucking backwater redneck arguments like the crocoduck.
    thats just so... so... FUCKING ignorant. SO FUCKING ignorant. i hate fundies with a passion. i'd like to see this human trash scraped off the earth.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    deja asked:

    when it comes to the bible. find out which parts are historicali want to sort the chaff from the wheat when it comes to the bible. find out which parts are historical, and which ones are pure [BS].
    I don't think you can divide it up like that. For those who believe it is the word of God, it is 100 percent historically significant. For those who do not think it is the word of God, it is probably all BS.

    Perhaps you need to explain how you are differentiating historical from BS. I do not understand how it could be some of one and some of the other.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    deja stupidifies:
    [there are] still people who still believe fervently in the big sky-daddy
    There are still? STILL people who believe? big sky daddy? I assume this is deja's mocking term for God. deja sounds as though he is under the impression that belief in God is in major decline and that believers are few and far between. I hardly think so. Belief in God remains high all over the world, though more in the America (where 92 percent believe in a superior being) than other places.

    It continues to amaze me that there are still idiots like deja around who feel threatened by Christianity which is focused on what happens to people after they die. If one does not believe in God, why would one be upset that some people are trying to tell them they will end up with an unpleasant afterlife.

    While the Bible may be instructive on matters of living life, its real focus is on what comes after one has completed that life. Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism are far more focused on what you do in this life.

    Plus I continue to be uninstructed on what non-believers mean when they talk about fundamentalists. Can't one be fundamentally a non believer?

    deja said to KALSTER:

    That was me. It was intended to be satirical of all the theories surrounding Jesus. Calm down man. Are you having some kind of meltdown?
    Geeze, deja can't even see that non believers think his crap is stupid.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    i'd like to see this human trash scraped off the earth.
    I can sympathise with this, really. An idiot asshole is one of the most irritating and angering things in existence. Thank goodness for the ability to do objective analysis though! These people are as they are as a result of the surroundings they grew up in. That includes poor schooling, etc. It is almost a culture of ignorance and I find it really sad objectively, as opposed to off-pissing subjectively. Having been religious myself in the past (and I realise I often bring this up :wink: ), I can at least have some level of empathy for people like that. They simply don't know any better. And worse, they mostly are incapable of knowing any better! So for most of them no amount of explanation and refutation will ever find its mark. I am talking here about a general inability to tell the truth from conjecture, hype, propaganda and deliberate misinformation. They don't have it in their make-up to be able to really objectively scrutinize a piece of information, so in general they are completely oblivious to the scientific method or the sea of logical fallacies that make up the way they judge the validity of something.

    Mitchellmckain for one believes in the need for all kinds of people, not sure but maybe even those you speek of. I have to agree with him to some degree, although the levels of ignorance you are talking about can’t have many advantages and probably only disadvantages for human kind. Those people are the ones that gets most easily riled up by people playing to their emotions IMO. There is a real possibility that the US will have a Young Earth Creationist as president soon. How sad is that? I am not sure how bad things are getting over in Norway, but the same is happening over here in South Africa as well. Propaganda and playing to people’s emotions have had the effect that whole groups of people are having no problem with standing behind a person that has admitted to statutory rape and a gross misunderstandings regarding HIV/AIDS. He is currently being investigated for fraud and will probably get away with. His followers has openly in the media proclaimed their willingness not kill for his presidency!

    It is my belief that on a more subtle way many religious leaders and groups are guilty of the same kind of emotional blackmail and manipulation. That is why I say that proper education will eventually have the effect of practically eradicating religion. The fact still is though, that many people are incapable of formulating reasons for behaving morally without religion. If somehow we were able to conclusively prove that God does not exist in today’s world that we will have true anarchy on our hands. That is a sad fact indeed.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44 Jesus as the son of God? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    13
    I think religions like to push the 'son of God' moniker on jesus so that they can emphasize there is no possible way we can emulate him.
    So they take the power out of being religious by this clever ploy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    It becomes obvious, without naming names, there are some people posting here who are sicker than they try to paint Christians and even sicker than the radical Muslims they seem to no be concerned with. Here some you folks are saying how much you would like to rid the world of Christians, implying by whatever means available. SICKOs you are, approaching psychopathic thoughts. I sure hope this is not the kind of sentiment The Science Forum is hoping to encourage.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    If you are including me, you can say so. If you are please tell me so I can defend myself.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    It becomes obvious, without naming names, there are some people posting here who are sicker than they try to paint Christians and even sicker than the radical Muslims they seem to no be concerned with. Here some you folks are saying how much you would like to rid the world of Christians, implying by whatever means available. SICKOs you are, approaching psychopathic thoughts. I sure hope this is not the kind of sentiment The Science Forum is hoping to encourage.
    What "here"? You mean in this thread? Name names.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    It becomes obvious, without naming names, there are some people posting here who are sicker than they try to paint Christians and even sicker than the radical Muslims they seem to no be concerned with. Here some you folks are saying how much you would like to rid the world of Christians, implying by whatever means available. SICKOs you are, approaching psychopathic thoughts. I sure hope this is not the kind of sentiment The Science Forum is hoping to encourage.
    fundies are dangerous. they fly into buildings, commit ritual suicide, throws themselves at cars and explode, and generally take the bibles word literally, so are likely to push for the rules found in their holy books to be implemented into their country of origin (sharia law, the 10 commandments)
    removing them from earth, or at least somehow containing them would be beneficial to humanity.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf

    fundies are dangerous. they fly into buildings, commit ritual suicide, throws themselves at cars and explode, and generally take the bibles word literally, so are likely to push for the rules found in their holy books to be implemented into their country of origin (sharia law, the 10 commandments)
    removing them from earth, or at least somehow containing them would be beneficial to humanity.
    Before they are able to spread the disease of their minds to others

    Like their children
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    fundies are dangerous. they fly into buildings, commit ritual suicide, throws themselves at cars and explode, and generally take the bibles word literally, so are likely to push for the rules found in their holy books to be implemented into their country of origin (sharia law, the 10 commandments)
    removing them from earth, or at least somehow containing them would be beneficial to humanity.
    They are indeed. At least that is the case if by "fundies" you are refering to those with rigid ideas of the truth and goodness that they imagine that theirs is the measure of the worth of other human beings, giving them the right to decide who should be allowed to live. OOPS Since you said, "i'd like to see this human trash scraped off the earth", that seems to put you in that category. Seems like you need to start by scraping yourself off the earth.


    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Before they are able to spread the disease of their minds to others

    Like their children
    Looks like everyone had better start thinking of moving to countries where theirs is the dominant view point (if they will have you) because everyone is going to start calling the ideas of those who think differently than they do diseased and start eradicating them. This will at least preserve their worthless lives for a short time before these fundamentalist countries expand their final solution to an act of war against the other countries. But I really feel most sorry for the any left alive after this reaches its final conclusion. They will truly deserve the hell they have created.

    If humanity cannot gain the maturity of learning to accept the reality that others will ALWAYS see the world differently than they do, then humanity does not deserve to survive.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    If you are including me, you can say so. If you are please tell me so I can defend myself.
    I would include you in the same category as me with those that the "fundies" will wipe off the earth first because the complexity of our viewpoint is so far over their heads that they will just slaughter us in childish fustration.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain


    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Before they are able to spread the disease of their minds to others

    Like their children
    Looks like everyone had better start thinking of moving to countries where theirs is the dominant view point (if they will have you) because everyone is going to start calling the ideas of those who think differently than they do diseased and start eradicating them. This will at least preserve their worthless lives for a short time before these fundamentalist countries expand their final solution to an act of war against the other countries. But I really feel most sorry for the any left alive after this reaches its final conclusion. They will truly deserve the hell they have created.

    If humanity cannot gain the maturity of learning to accept the reality that others will ALWAYS see the world differently than they do, then humanity does not deserve to survive.

    A diseased mind is a mind which thinks without reason or intuition.

    Personally I am grateful people have different ideas, because it always gives a bigger scope and range for understanding.

    Diseased minds on the contrary shrink horizons and twist the terrain to suit their own ideas.
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    If humanity cannot gain the maturity of learning to accept the reality that others will ALWAYS see the world differently than they do, then humanity does not deserve to survive.
    So, regardless of what reality offers, we must continue to kowtow to those who refuse to accept those offerings? And in fact, you assert that will always be our lot in life and should be, lest we survive?

    While I agree we shouldn't 'wipe the earth of fundies' as it is not humans themselves who are the problem, but the ideology that provides the fundamentalism, which also happens to be the different way in which the world is seen.

    As humans, we should all be able to view the world as it is offered, and remove the ideologies that force us to view the world differently, hence the fundies wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    deja said:


    fundies are dangerous. they fly into buildings, commit ritual suicide, throws themselves at cars and explode, and generally take the bibles word literally, so are likely to push for the rules found in their holy books to be implemented into their country of origin (sharia law, the 10 commandments)
    removing them from earth, or at least somehow containing them would be beneficial to humanity.
    Well, you see, here is the problem. When most people say fundamentalists or some more pejorative term, I think they are talking about Christians who take a somewhat fundamental interpretation of the Bible.

    But here when you say they fly into buildings, commit ritual suicides and become suicide bombers, it is obvious that you are talking about radical Muslims. That would also go for pushing rules found in their holy books into their civil legal systems.

    I know of no place on earth where any organized Christian group is doing any of the things you mention above.

    Don't you think it is somewhat irrational to attribute the practices of one group to all groups which have some indirect similarities. It would be like me taking something unfavorable about the Finnish and suggesting that all Nordic people including the Norwegians and Swedes should be considered equally unfavorable.

    I would not even say what you are claiming about "fundies" is even attributable to all Muslims. There does seem to be a radical element of Islam which is able to use religious intimidation to exert both economic and political power and intimidation.

    I don't see how you can generalize this into a mass condemnation of all people with religious convictions. You seem to have singled out a portion of one religion and attributed their radical actions to many other people, most of whom do not endorse those kinds of actions or participate in such things themselves.

    I think you definitely need to explain who you mean by "fundies." I don't think you have any idea what that term connotes to other people.

    If you really mean radical Muslims, you should be saying radical Muslims rather than using some term that refers to a huge mass of people who are not involved in the activities to which you object.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    I know of no place on earth where any organized Christian group is doing any of the things you mention above.
    Perhaps, but you have no choice but to admit Christian fundamentalist groups do exist and they have an agenda of violence.

    I don't see how you can generalize this into a mass condemnation of all people with religious convictions. You seem to have singled out a portion of one religion and attributed their radical actions to many other people, most of whom do not endorse those kinds of actions or participate in such things themselves.
    That is the fault of the ideology itself, which holds the worshiping of gods as the highest priority in ones life, over and above everything else, and promotes faith as it's driver. This is a wide open invitation for fundamentalism and extremism, in ALL religions.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    A diseased mind is a mind which thinks without reason or intuition.
    Not only is your definition hog-malarky but it is completely worthless for people always accuse those they disagree with of thinking "without reason or intuition" or something like that.

    Defining mental illness is problematic.

    Often it is defined according to the norm, which may not be warranted.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dictionary
    Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma.
    Others define it in terms of being a danger to oneself or others. That is the legal definition but requires you to prove to court that the person is in fact a danger to himself or others.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thesaurus
    Serious mental illness or disorder impairing a person's capacity to function normally and safely
    Here is a typical medical approach that defines it according to class of diagnoses in regards to specific conditions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
    Any illness with a psychological origin, manifested either in symptoms of emotional distress or in abnormal behaviour. Most mental disorders can be broadly classified as either psychoses or neuroses (see neurosis; psychosis). Psychoses (e.g., schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) are major mental illnesses characterized by severe symptoms such as delusions, hallucinations, and an inability to evaluate reality in an objective manner. Neuroses are less severe and more treatable illnesses, including depression, anxiety, and paranoia as well as obsessive-compulsive disorders and post-traumatic stress disorders. Some mental disorders, such as Alzheimer disease, are clearly caused by organic disease of the brain, but the causes of most others are either unknown or not yet verified. Schizophrenia appears to be partly caused by inherited genetic factors. Some mood disorders, such as mania and depression, may be caused by imbalances of certain neurotransmitters in the brain; they are treatable by drugs that act to correct these imbalances (see psychopharmacology). Neuroses often appear to be caused by psychological factors such as emotional deprivation, frustration, or abuse during childhood, and they may be treated through psychotherapy. Certain neuroses, particularly the anxiety disorders known as phobias, may represent maladaptive responses built up into the human equivalent of conditioned reflexes.
    Here is another interesting definition.
    Quote Originally Posted by Philosophy Dictionary
    It is reasonably clear that there can be chronic mental malfunction, when people's capacities to respond to the world, to absorb and remember information, respond with appropriate emotions, and form coherent plans are impaired. What is not so clear is that the mind can be the self-contained locus of an illness, or whether mental mal-function should always be thought of as the by-product of physical or bodily illness or impairment. If the former, then the mind might be cured by mental means, such as conversation with a therapist. If the latter, the only effective responses would be medical or pharmacological. So the issue has practical as well as purely philosophical importance.


    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Personally I am grateful people have different ideas, because it always gives a bigger scope and range for understanding.
    Well I am glad for this at least.


    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Diseased minds on the contrary shrink horizons and twist the terrain to suit their own ideas.
    And here is where you show your ignorance. Mental illness presents itself in a variety of ways with no such correlation. This is what suggests that despite what you said above you really just want to use "diseased minds" to label those who think in a way you don't like.

    I don't like close mind people who I perceive to "shrink horizons and twist the terrain to suit their own ideas" although I am not sure that you can make this any kind of absolute distinction or that this really means any more than the fact that a person does not share my interests. Those who have experiences that another has not will expand their horizons in that direction and will think that those who haven't are narrow in their horizons. The fact is that we make choices in life with regards to which directions we want to expand our minds in, when we make such decisions it is inevitable that we "shrink our horizons" in those directions that we choose not to pursue. Therefore it seems likely to me that you will seem narrow to me in relation to those areas where I have chosen to explore and you have decided not to, just as I will seem narrow to you in relation to those areas that you have chosen to explore where I have decided not to.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    That is the fault of the ideology itself, which holds the worshiping of gods as the highest priority in ones life, over and above everything else, and promotes faith as it's driver. This is a wide open invitation for fundamentalism and extremism, in ALL religions.
    On the contrary those who make their own thinking the measure of everyone else, hold worshipping themselves to be the highest priority in life. Whether they say that they are worshiping God or not is irrelevent for people are always thinking up some justification or another for what they do. But the point is that those who worship themselves in this way without the God "gimick" are no different.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    On the contrary those who make their own thinking the measure of everyone else, hold worshipping themselves to be the highest priority in life. Whether they say that they are worshiping God or not is irrelevent for people are always thinking up some justification or another for what they do. But the point is that those who worship themselves in this way without the God "gimick" are no different.
    While I don't normally entertain the tired 'justification' argument, I'll do so for your sake, Mitch.

    When the highest order of priority is that of worshiping gods, whereupon the teachings demand absolute idealism, with the threat of eternal damnation, one is completely rational in their zeal to be 'righteous' when committing violent acts.

    We aren't talking about the mentally disturbed individual who actively seeks out justification to an atrocity, but instead the normal everyday individual who has been indoctrinated into their faith, and completely believes the violence they commit is for the common good of their faith and those who share it. Islamic suicide bombers have been found to fit these criteria, normal, everyday, run of the mill people, brainwashed for martyrdom by the very doctrines they firmly believe.

    So, when we discover the insane despot who seeks out justifications, we seek out the root cause and make changes so as to hinder such conduct.

    Should we not also then attempt to find the root cause and hinder "cult" driven violence, as well?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    So, when we discover the insane despot who seeks out justifications, we seek out the root cause and make changes so as to hinder such conduct.

    Should we not also then attempt to find the root cause and hinder "cult" driven violence, as well?
    The root cause is the very human habit by which people look for anything to blame but themselves, no matter whether they call it an "attempt to find the root cause" or whatever else. They see bad things like muslims flying planes into buildings and see this as an excuse to externalize the evil and blame it on "them" not realizing that by doing so they are immitating very thinking of those muslims when they did those things. Such is the neverending cycle which human beings never escape from.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Mitchell said:

    [We tend to] blame it on "them"
    As I have always said, there are only two groups in the world -- us and them. Some people would like to eradicate all the "thems" by whatever means possible. It is beginning to appear that many of the resident atheists here would enjoy eradication of the world's Christians, while proclaiming themselves to be the very people who could ensure world peace.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    It is beginning to appear that many of the resident atheists here would enjoy eradication of the world's Christians
    Again Dayton, i invite you to name these people so they can defend themselves. Dejawolf might have shown some frustration and pent-up anger at really severe and passionate ignoramuses that even you must be able to sympathize with. Do you really think that he would be involved in such a slaughter? Proper education and some resulting cultural changes (away from a culture of ignorance) would satisfy him and anyone (including you, be honest) who have been exasperated by people like that in the past.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    As you all proceed through this thread I'd like you to imagine that your words have the power to destroy and the power to build. I encourage you to use the latter. Tempers are rising to the point where some are in danger of saying something they don't mean. But thank you all for not having quite reached that point yet.
    Ophiolite
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Well, you see, here is the problem. When most people say fundamentalists or some more pejorative term, I think they are talking about Christians who take a somewhat fundamental interpretation of the Bible.
    ...

    Don't you think it is somewhat irrational to attribute the practices of one group to all groups which have some indirect similarities.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    It is beginning to appear that many of the resident atheists here would enjoy eradication of the world's Christians
    You're careful, but that last comment is practically the broad brush you've just spotlighted.

    So the topic could shift to discrimination now? Or should we say "profiling"? But let's be real. Unless we're living in a Margaret Atwood novel no polarizing regime is coming soon. The worst we can anticipate is some Rambo fad of nutters playing out their war on militant Christianity and war on intolerant atheism, with the greater population recoiling and learning from the experience. Is it really brewing in the US? From where I stand, I guess not. So need we even mark the extremists?

    It seems to me most responsible talk of extremism is to illuminate just how many people & groups are not, really.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    Further on diseased minds and 'shrunken horizons and twisted terrains'...


    A diseased mind is a mind which thinks without reason or intuition.

    Reason based on experience and understanding of the external world and intuition based on experience and understanding of the inner world.

    A diseased mind is that which fabricates for itself an inner or outer reality which is NOT based on reason or intuition of its inner or external experience and understanding and then proceeds to hold this fabrication up as ‘Truth’ and insists others must also live by it.

    A ‘fanatic’ is a person who is ‘frantic and excessively enthusiastic, orig on religious subjects’ although fanaticism is not exclusively religious.

    A ‘fanatic’ is someone who grasps a particular reality imagined or real and who then proceeds to ‘frantically and excessively enthusiastically’ attempt to persuade others to believe in and live within that particular reality.

    A ‘fanatic’ therefore is someone who focuses their attention on a particular point of reality, with the exclusion of many others.
    The opposite of a fanatic would be someone who expands their awareness of reality and is at an advantage to see that there are diverse ways of life and many beliefs and none of them proving them to be any better than any other.
    Therefore an ’expanded’ person becomes less of a fanatic through reason that not everyone lives the same way or believes in the same things and by intuition in realising that ’the personal beliefs I have are exclusive to me and are all that really matters’
    In that way then a fanatic ‘shrinks their horizons’ in order to focus on a miniscule aspect of reality and calls that ‘ultimate reality’ and ‘twists the terrain’ or the landscape of that reality to suit their beliefs.
    And the worst by-product of this form of a diseased mind is that they become ‘fanatics’ by attempting to persuade others to conform to this shrunken twisted reality they have fabricated.

    Religious zealots are obviously in this criteria, as well as overly enthusiastic atheists and I might also add so too are those that cite numerous extracts from various dictionaries to prove their point.

    I would have thought Mckain that you would know therefore that even Dictionaries are proved unreliable sources, especially in the context of a worldview, where many terms are based on Christian values ingrained within the West.

    As for your comments on shrinking and expanding horizons.

    Of course we all do this as a necessity when we need to focus on something in particular, like a macro-biologist needs to peer down a microscope in order to understand cell structure, or a mathematician analysing a problem or when a philosopher needs to inquire about a particular aspect of the human condition. Or even a mystic enquiring after God.

    But it is a terrible mistake to remain locked within a cloistered viewpoint and exclude all others as irrelevant.
    Ideally the range should be a narrow focus to examine and then it should always be placed in the context of the bigger reality.
    In fact it is impossible for a macro-biologist, or a philosopher or a mathematician or even a mystic to understand anything about their subject without also placing it in the bigger picture.

    Unfortunately this is not always the case. And many people exist and might as well live in a box!

    Then we have another disease of the mind that manifests itself, otherwise known as the ‘right-persons’ syndrome. Where such fanatics with narrow horizons and warped terrains will start wars to prove that their point of view is right and everyone else is wrong.
    In that way they fail to understand that the whole point of life and existence is through growth and expansion, physically, mentally and spiritually.

    Point of view is exactly that. Just a point in an ever-expanding circle. Just a mere speck amongst many others. Specks that mysteriously re-appear and then disappear and reappear again.

    Physics is only just beginning to understand this fundamental law at a Quantum level, but this law applies to human thought as well.
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Absum,

    The rather odd applications of physics aside, there is not much in your post that I would disagree with. However....


    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Religious zealots are obviously in this criteria, as well as overly enthusiastic atheists and I might also add so too are those that cite numerous extracts from various dictionaries to prove their point.
    And so too are those who blow up anything that happens to irritate them into a criterion that distinguishes those who mentally diseased.


    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    I would have thought Mckain that you would know therefore that even Dictionaries are proved unreliable sources, especially in the context of a worldview, where many terms are based on Christian values ingrained within the West.
    BS. Language is dictated by consensus for that is how communication works. Communication does not have to be limited to the consensus represented by dictionary definitions, but it must be the starting point. However what I was really after was a definition by clinical psychiatrists since I don't put much faith in armchair psychologists who make themselves the measure of mental health - in fact, contempt would be a better description of what I think of such. However there is no need to see this as an accusation, for although your previous posts may have suggested such an attitude to me, your last post suggests that you may be as able as I am to avoid such bad habits.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Absum,

    The rather odd applications of physics aside, there is not much in your post that I would disagree with.
    Quantum physics is rather odd isn't it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Religious zealots are obviously in this criteria, as well as overly enthusiastic atheists and I might also add so too are those that cite numerous extracts from various dictionaries to prove their point.
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    And so too are those who blow up anything that happens to irritate them into a criterion that distinguishes those who mentally diseased.
    Yes i agree. As I said, it is not just the religious who are mentally diseased. But i do believe anyone who insists that their beliefs are right and anything else is wrong, to the point of making other peoples lives a misery are mentally diseased! They are diseased because they lack the capacity to see the bigger picture. If they left others alone then there wouldn't be a problem, but they don't!


    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    I would have thought Mckain that you would know therefore that even Dictionaries are proved unreliable sources, especially in the context of a worldview, where many terms are based on Christian values ingrained within the West.
    BS. Language is dictated by consensus for that is how communication works. Communication does not have to be limited to the consensus represented by dictionary definitions, but it must be the starting point. However what I was really after was a definition by clinical psychiatrists since I don't put much faith in armchair psychologists who make themselves the measure of mental health - in fact, contempt would be a better description of what I think of such. However there is no need to see this as an accusation, for although your previous posts may have suggested such an attitude to me, your last post suggests that you may be as able as I am to avoid such bad habits.
    I am pointing out to you the flaw in western dictionaries which is apparent to all scholars when we are attempting to look at 'the bigger picture' or a world view, or even universal view.

    Perhaps a definitive manual on psychology might be the best place to look.

    Ah but the range of so called disorders is vast!
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    The root cause is the very human habit by which people look for anything to blame but themselves, no matter whether they call it an "attempt to find the root cause" or whatever else. They see bad things like muslims flying planes into buildings and see this as an excuse to externalize the evil and blame it on "them" not realizing that by doing so they are immitating very thinking of those muslims when they did those things. Such is the neverending cycle which human beings never escape from.
    Christianity would tell us that we are evil, as humans, which is complete nonsense, but that is what you've been taught to believe. It isn't humans that are the fault, it is the religion ideology itself and the indoctrination into it, Mitchell. I know we'll never agree on this, but that is a fact.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    yes, i got a bit excited on the eradication part.

    i'd be happy with fundamental christianity be seen as a mental ilness, or at least a poisoning of the mind, and allow either mental, or psychological help.

    after all, there's a lot of atheists, that used to be holier-than-thou bible-thumping fundamentalists, who through logic and reasoning was able to see the discrepancies and logical fallacies in the bible, and who are actually great people.

    actually, in many cases "religious" experiences has a link to actual physical illness.
    seizures, caused by brain hemmorhage, or tumors, are seen as "god experiences".
    while in reality these nothing more than experiences that can be induced by drugs.
    and then there's the group mentality.
    an angry mob is the worst enemy to reason.
    group mentality causes an euphoria, which often can and is mistaken for the love of god. it roots to the fact that we are a pack animal, so it makes sense that evolution
    fitted us with tools that would help us act in a group.
    so our body is designed to manipulate us into certain behaviours.

    anyways, group ritual suicides has been performed by fundamental christian sects.
    particularly around year 2000 there was a bunch of those guys who thought jesus was coming back, and the rapture was at hand.

    then there's was the general idea that black people are not of "gods chosen people"
    perpetuated by the ku-klux klan.

    even hitler had a catholic background, although he sought to create his own christian branch, as he didn't agree with the tenets of catholiscism.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    deja said:

    I'd be happy with fundamental christianity be seen as a mental ilness, or at least a poisoning of the mind, and allow either mental, or psychological help.
    The problem here, deja, is that the things you charged "fundies"with are not things fundamental Christians have done -- ever. Never has a fundamental Christian group flown airplanes into tall buildings, killing more than 3,000 people. Never has a fundamental Christian strapped a bomb around his or her body and walked into a crowded place and detonated the bomb. Never has a Christian taken a bomb aboard an airplane and detonated it, causing bodies to rain down from the sky as over Lockerbee, Scotland. Never has a Christian group boarded trains and planted bombs which detonated at rush hour, killing innocent, as in Spain. This is what is so frustrating about Muslim terrorists, they target innocent civilians.

    I have been trying to think of some non-Muslim terrorist organizations that have some religious affiliation. And I just can't think of any. Perhaps white supremacists claim some authority from the Bible which does not in anyway mean they have approval of Christianity. If some Norwegian group crossed the boarder and took out some Swedes, I hardly think Norwegians, in general, would approve of such actions.

    Have there been some out of bounds Christian groups? Well, yes. Jonestown was out of bounds, but mostly they just killed themselves. David Koresh was a kook, but, again, they basically killed themselves. Polygamist Mormons are out of line, but they are not out killing people. Mostly, cult groups which develop from Christian error usually isolate themselves and attempt not to mix with the public in general at all.

    From my perspective, I would suggest that the sign of a sick mind and one which is need of mental and psychological alteration is one which cannot cope with those who disagree with him.

    To the best of my knowledge, the only weapons Christianity is employing in their "attack" on the world is the word of God. And the world feels threatened by words? The world is threatened only because some of us attempt to tell people of the availability of God's mercy. You should really shudder at such a threat. Unless, of course, one is familiar with Matthew 10:28 -- "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to to destroy both the soul and body in hell." Then, I think, such words may be threatening if you believe them.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    The problem here, deja, is that the things you charged "fundies"with are not things fundamental Christians have done -- ever. Never has a fundamental Christian group flown airplanes into tall buildings, killing more than 3,000 people. Never has a fundamental Christian strapped a bomb around his or her body and walked into a crowded place and detonated the bomb. Never has a Christian taken a bomb aboard an airplane and detonated it, causing bodies to rain down from the sky as over Lockerbee, Scotland. Never has a Christian group boarded trains and planted bombs which detonated at rush hour, killing innocent, as in Spain. This is what is so frustrating about Muslim terrorists, they target innocent civilians.
    So,if we ran a search, we wouldn't come up with anything that might demonstrate you're being dishonest?

    http://jdallen.org/news/christian-te...mbing-in-iowa/

    I have been trying to think of some non-Muslim terrorist organizations that have some religious affiliation. And I just can't think of any. Perhaps white supremacists claim some authority from the Bible which does not in anyway mean they have approval of Christianity. If some Norwegian group crossed the boarder and took out some Swedes, I hardly think Norwegians, in general, would approve of such actions.
    Look harder:

    # 1 Christian terrorist organizations

    * 1.1 Anti-abortion terrorists
    * 1.2 Transnational groups
    o 1.2.1 Christian Identity
    o 1.2.2 Identity doctrine
    * 1.3 Groups in the United States
    o 1.3.1 Army of God
    o 1.3.2 Aryan Nations
    o 1.3.3 Christian Patriots
    o 1.3.4 Ku Klux Klan
    + 1.3.4.1 The noose and burning cross
    o 1.3.5 Lambs of Christ
    * 1.4 Groups in Indonesia
    * 1.5 Groups in India
    o 1.5.1 National Liberation Front of Tripura
    o 1.5.2 Nagaland Rebels
    * 1.6 Groups in Lebanon
    o 1.6.1 Guardians of the Cedars
    o 1.6.2 Lebanese Forces
    * 1.7 Groups in Northern Ireland
    o 1.7.1 Religion as a factor
    o 1.7.2 Groups
    * 1.8 Groups in Russia
    o 1.8.1 Russian National Unity
    o 1.8.2 Russian National Socialists
    * 1.9 Groups in the former Yugoslavia
    o 1.9.1 Tsar Lazar Guard
    o 1.9.2 White Eagles
    * 1.10 Other national groups
    o 1.10.1 God's Army, Burma
    o 1.10.2 Sons of Freedom, Canada
    o 1.10.3 The Lord's Resistance Army, Uganda

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

    Have there been some out of bounds Christian groups? Well, yes. Jonestown was out of bounds, but mostly they just killed themselves. David Koresh was a kook, but, again, they basically killed themselves. Polygamist Mormons are out of line, but they are not out killing people. Mostly, cult groups which develop from Christian error usually isolate themselves and attempt not to mix with the public in general at all.
    Gee Dayton, maybe you could explain how a clandestine terrorist operation would operate in public?

    Christian error? No Dayton, Christian indoctrination.

    From my perspective, I would suggest that the sign of a sick mind and one which is need of mental and psychological alteration is one which cannot cope with those who disagree with him.
    A fallacious perspective, nonetheless.

    To the best of my knowledge, the only weapons Christianity is employing in their "attack" on the world is the word of God. And the world feels threatened by words?
    No, by violence, Dayton, the kind of violence you dishonestly deny that your cult perpetrates.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)

    No, by violence, Dayton, the kind of violence you dishonestly deny that your cult perpetrates.
    That's quite a list!

    To be honest I think anyone who holds any belief and then attempts to convert others to it whether it be a religious belief or not, is susceptible to using violence when another refuses this belief.

    It is human nature to want to be right in our convictions. When someone challenges our beliefs there's a temptation to become defensive instead of listening to the other persons point of view and reasons and maybe learn something by it.

    Those who hold their beliefs dear to their heart don't want to listen or consider another option because they don't think they have anything to learn.

    Their biggest fear is being confronted with another solution which might be more viable and make more sense, therefore they narrow their point of view and focus solely on their vision to the exclusion of any alternative.

    And they are liable to attempt to convert others to this vision to 'prove their point' and enhance the sense of 'rightness' and if anyone opposes that they take it deeply personal and react with anger aggression and violence.

    Of course we all have to have beliefs to gain meaning and purpose in life, but i think it is a relatively wise few that understand that beliefs should be held but never owned.
    In that way beliefs are easier to get rid of when they no longer work for us or mean anything.
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!

    It is human nature to want to be right in our convictions. When someone challenges our beliefs there's a temptation to become defensive instead of listening to the other persons point of view and reasons and maybe learn something by it.
    While I agree with your post, I'm compelled to argue the point of 'human nature' as the cause. Human's are compassionate, understanding, will listen to reason and capitulate when error is demonstrated.

    Societies of the world have been under the influence of the religious mindset for centuries. This is the mindset in which religious doctrine is placed in the highest order of priorities in ones life and are accepted on faith, uncritically.

    It is this brainwashed mindset that challenges and defends those beliefs with undying conviction.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!

    It is human nature to want to be right in our convictions. When someone challenges our beliefs there's a temptation to become defensive instead of listening to the other persons point of view and reasons and maybe learn something by it.
    While I agree with your post, I'm compelled to argue the point of 'human nature' as the cause. Human's are compassionate, understanding, will listen to reason and capitulate when error is demonstrated.

    Societies of the world have been under the influence of the religious mindset for centuries. This is the mindset in which religious doctrine is placed in the highest order of priorities in ones life and are accepted on faith, uncritically.

    It is this brainwashed mindset that challenges and defends those beliefs with undying conviction.
    I agree absolutely.

    With some this outlook is too ingrained to be any different.

    Its with great delight i see now that more and more schools are putting Critical Thinking on their curriculum's.

    I truly think that is the only way forward to get people away from this practice of uncritical faith and blindly being led by any form of propaganda and brain-washing.

    Once you've learned the skill of critical thinking it can be applied to anything and everything.

    But alas, change won't happen overnight!
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!

    With some this outlook is too ingrained to be any different.
    Generations of indoctrination. One could theorize, from an evolutionary standpoint, the forced "evolution" of the mind within the criteria of uncritical acceptance of doctrine, rationale and reasoning replaced with unwavering belief in the supernatural, the mysterious and the magical, stretching out it's tentacles to all facets of society.

    Do we not give religion our highest respect, society as a whole?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    absum said:

    And they are liable to attempt to convert others to this vision to 'prove their point' and enhance the sense of 'rightness' and if anyone opposes that they take it deeply personal and react with anger aggression and violence.
    Absum and (Q) fall prey to the same syndrome of using nutcases and exceptions as examples of the norm.

    I would not say Christian attempt to tell others of God's mercy in an attempt to validate their own beliefs. Your beliefs, or lack thereof, have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I believe what I believe. What I may believe is in no way enhanced by your belief in the same thing. Nor is it demeaned by your lack of the same belief.

    Normal people do not react with aggression and violence toward others who do not share their religious, political or philosophical beliefs. And this is especially true in Western Civilization which has been vastly influenced by Christianity.

    Nor do normal people place the entirety of the blame for world problems on the back of one ideology. It is not difficult to see, politically and economically, that Communism does not work. Yet, Communism is not, in and of itself, the cause of the problems we see in Communist nations. It is the people in charge in those countries who are able to use that system to effectively employ their despotic practices.

    (Q) continues to rail against religion when he lives in the best civilization on earth -- the one which was vastly influenced by Christianity, not by Communism, not by Islam, not by Hinduism, not by Budhism. And my bet is that (Q) would not give the slightest consideration to moving to any of the countries which have developed or currently operate under any of those religions or political influences.

    I would agree with Absum that we all have beliefs. But it is too bad that there is a body of belief out there which thinks it is more important to tear down the framework of civilization rather than working to enhance it.

    (Q) seems to think that all the world's problems could be solved by eradicating Christianity without ever considering what the world influenced by non-Christian ideologies are like.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    Absum and (Q) fall prey to the same syndrome of using nutcases and exceptions as examples of the norm.
    In the face of overwhelming evidence, it's just nice to see you admit there are nutcases in your cult, despite your previous fabrications.

    Your beliefs, or lack thereof, have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I believe what I believe.
    Indoctrination being the definitive difference.

    Normal people do not react with aggression and violence toward others who do not share their religious, political or philosophical beliefs. And this is especially true in Western Civilization which has been vastly influenced by Christianity.
    More fabrications in light of the evidence, Dayton? Will you ever learn?

    Yes, it IS the religion that offers open invitations to zealotry, fundamentalism and violence, when unquestionable faith turns normal people in combatants.

    Nor do normal people place the entirety of the blame for world problems on the back of one ideology.
    When an ideology claims absolutism through faith and places these ideals above all other priorities in life, we can drill down many a problem to this root cause. Should we just turn a blind eye or deal with the root cause?

    (Q) continues to rail against religion when he lives in the best civilization on earth -- the one which was vastly influenced by Christianity...

    And my bet is that (Q) would not give the slightest consideration to moving to any of the countries which have developed or currently operate under any of those religions or political influences.
    Strawmen arguments fired in reckless desperation.

    I would agree with Absum that we all have beliefs. But it is too bad that there is a body of belief out there which thinks it is more important to tear down the framework of civilization rather than working to enhance it.
    Considering that Christianity is antithetical to a civilized society, it's eradication would seem to automatically enhance civilization.

    How does civilization grow when science and knowledge are oppressed by cult doctrines and faith in the invisible and undetectable?

    (Q) seems to think that all the world's problems could be solved by eradicating Christianity without ever considering what the world influenced by non-Christian ideologies are like.
    Don't flatter yourself, Dayton. Any cult or ideology that propagates through indoctrination is dangerous.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    (Q), you are a perfect example of the fact that nut cases exist beyond the realm of religion. And that is the reason you know so much about them -- it takes one to know one.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    (Q), you are a perfect example of the fact that nut cases exist beyond the realm of religion. And that is the reason you know so much about them -- it takes one to know one.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Any cult or ideology that propagates through indoctrination is dangerous.
    Especially the atheistic ones!
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    absum said:

    And they are liable to attempt to convert others to this vision to 'prove their point' and enhance the sense of 'rightness' and if anyone opposes that they take it deeply personal and react with anger aggression and violence.
    Absum and (Q) fall prey to the same syndrome of using nutcases and exceptions as examples of the norm.
    We are describing anyone who attempts to push their ideas and beliefs onto others aggressively either mentally, emotionally or even spiritually and not just physically. There are varying degrees of this where people use some or all of these methods.

    It is not JUST the religious who do this!

    Not sure what 'syndrome' you are talking about here, can you elaborate?
    I wouldn't use examples of nutcases or exceptions as the norm as for starter 'exceptions' are not normally used to describe the idea of normal.
    And I would say that a large proportion of people accept the idea that people should be able to follow their beliefs without being forced or forcing others to believe the same.

    But as i said there are varying degrees of force right from the subliminal and emotional which is harder to define to the more fundamental and possibly violent.

    Atheists can prove just as fundamental as Christians or other religious believers. I think anyone that uses any method to coerce or force another into their belief system using psychological or physical warfare to whatever degree are quite frankly unbalanced individuals to the degree with which they display their enthusiasm or fanaticism.

    There is a huge difference to enthusiastically describing a belief system to another person and presenting an argument in order to persuade them, but then leaving them to make their own minds up about it and accepting it if they decide not to adopt those beliefs to actually manipulating a person either covertly or overtly and not accepting their decision and freedom not to convert and especially becoming violent over it.

    When you look at the bigger picture and see the overwhelming spectrum of beliefs that a diversity of people and cultures hold, it becomes apparent that it is utterly ridiculous to force others into sharing your particular belief!

    If humans stopped looking at their own two feet and regarded themselves amongst everyone and everything else, they would hopefully realise that the beauty and joy of this universe is diversity. Nature strives to propagate itself and multiply into diversity and complexity. It's perfectly natural for people to have diverse and complex beliefs as much as we all have diverse and complex experiences that are unique to us.

    So why should anyone need or want to change that and attempt to make us all be the same. Isn't that going against the natural grain of things?

    There's a delight to be had from meeting another person who has had different experiences and different beliefs and learning about them and having the freedom to take on board some of their beliefs if I think they might be helpful to me.
    Why would I want to change anything about them and make them believe what I believe or saying that somehow their beliefs are wrong?

    The religious embrace diversity and complexity and say that everything is an expression of God. So why can some of them not apply that understanding and belief to people.

    Atheists insist they have the freedom to choose from the diversity and complexity life has to offer. So why can some of them not apply that philosophy to everyone else?

    The issue here is what is normal and what is not.

    Is normal based on our understanding of how a majority behave or is normal an ideal of how the majority 'should' behave.

    Do a majority of people try to force their beliefs onto others or do the majority practice the ethic of 'live and let live'?

    Historically we have certainly had periods were particular beliefs reigned and overruled and violence has certainly been used as force.

    How much of that is now applicable today?

    Is it still happening?

    And have we learned much from the past?

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I would agree with Absum that we all have beliefs. But it is too bad that there is a body of belief out there which thinks it is more important to tear down the framework of civilization rather than working to enhance it.
    I agree that the wests infrastructure has been built on Christian ideals and many Christian beliefs are ingrained into our societies.
    But we are not trying to tear down the framework of civilization.

    You cannot change history and there are many things from the past which have brought great benefits.

    But today is different from yesterday and there is much that is different from a mere 100 years ago. Civilizations are not static phenomena they consist of living people, generations of people who are born and die and they are constantly moving and changing.

    Just a glimpse into history demonstrates that it is peoples beliefs and ideas that change civilizations and impact history.

    Do we enforce our beliefs onto civilizations or are our beliefs formed by the civilizations and societies in which we find ourselves?
    Beliefs are what give us meaning and purpose and they should assist us.

    In this modern world in the West we have multi cultures living side by side with a complex diversity of beliefs and traditions.
    Surely our beliefs should accommodate this fact if they are to assist us.
    Perhaps and I am hoping that the advantage will be that more and more people will realise the importance of this diversity and appreciate it.

    We worry about the jaguar or the tiger becoming extinct, but we seem to care less for our cultures and traditions and our beliefs.

    I think it would be a terrible shame if we lose the beliefs of cultures and traditions in a big thick bland soup that tastes and smells the same however you try it!
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Any cult or ideology that propagates through indoctrination is dangerous.
    Especially the atheistic ones!
    Come now Mitch, I thought you not to be so puerile. Can you provide any such cults or ideologies that indoctrinate people into non-sky-daddy-belief?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Absum (in an attempt to smooth things over) says:

    And I would say that a large proportion of people accept the idea that people should be able to follow their beliefs without being forced or forcing others to believe the same.
    It is difficult to tell just who you are talking about here. I am not aware of any Christian group today which is trying to "force" its beliefs on others by any means other than through verbal pursuasion.

    The worst things people seem to be able to say about Christians is -- "The crusades, the crusades! Spanish Inquisition!" And these are people who would hardly hold WWII against the German people even though WWII happened less than 100 years ago and the so-called Christian atrocities occurred well over 500 years ago. Now that seems to me to be an inconsistency based on anti-religious bias rather than a factual look at the degree of inhumanity and atrocites perpetrated.



    Absum urges:


    Do a majority of people try to force their beliefs onto others or do the majority practice the ethic of 'live and let live'?
    Actually, we just don't do that, especially wherein we are more convinced of our convictions -- whether we are speaking of religion or philosophy or politics or law. We see the same issues coming up in politics and law over and over and over again, being decided one way and then the other and maybe back again as one side or the other more effectively lobbies its viewpoint to impact those who have decision making authority.

    If we readily recognized the wisest and most useful approach 100 percent of the time, perhaps we would not even need a "live and let live" attitude.

    When we come to the religio-philosophic realms, we discuss our beliefs, sometimes in a quite sprited manner. No matter what the ism, it will have its advocates and its advocates will continually be in the process of attempting to convince others of the truth or value of that ism.

    I find it unfortunate that atheists just do not seem to recognize that they also subscribe to an ism for which they vociferously advocate. And it is disgusting when they present the sentiments that those who advocate for a different ism should be quenched or squelched or even eradicated. And this is usually based on the idea that religion is bad for the world while atheism is wonderful for the world. All of this comes in the face of historical fact which show that the worst atrocities in the history of man have been perpetrated by non religious despots and regimes.

    Any ism provides a platform for advocacy and the opportunity for an unscrupulous person or group to emotionally charge the followers of that ism and convert others to that ism. But I do think there is a tremendous difference between radical Islam apparently receiving tacit approval from the rest of Islam as opposed to Christian explicit and expressed sentiment against tactics such as abortion clinic attacks.

    I suppose, since the British were among the major crusaders, we could condemn Great Britain and suggest the Brits should be held accountable today for their participation and, maybe, be barred from participation on a forum such as this.
    This might unfairly discriminate against the Scottish and Welsh who may not have joined the English in these endeavors, but who cares? We could also include all the Irish because some of them are Brits, too. We could solve a lot of the controversy here just by eliminating the Brits.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    It is difficult to tell just who you are talking about here. I am not aware of any Christian group today which is trying to "force" its beliefs on others by any means other than through verbal pursuasion.
    It's interesting to note that each and every time Dayton's memory lapses, he is suddenly reminded with overwhelming evidence and must constantly back-peddle. Don't worry though, he'll soon display his faulting memory once again.

    The worst things people seem to be able to say about Christians is -- "The crusades, the crusades! Spanish Inquisition!"
    Come now, Dayton, we can think of plenty more. Of course, there is the problem of your convenient forgetfulness.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Any cult or ideology that propagates through indoctrination is dangerous.
    Especially the atheistic ones!
    Come now Mitch, I thought you not to be so puerile. Can you provide any such cults or ideologies that indoctrinate people into non-sky-daddy-belief?
    Sure. EASY. Marxist-Leninism. It took over half the world and killed hundreds of millions of people until the simple pragmatic truth was realized that it simple was incapable of improving the lives of people. Here was a textbook case of changing the education system and information systems into one big tool of indoctrination. And yet even with a system of indoctrination with incredible control over the distribution of information it still could not work for the simple fact that this atheist cult/ideology was a fundamental failure in understanding the nature of a human being and what makes a society work well. Of course this ideology was always stupid and irrational but as you have amply demonstrated time and again, just because a belief is stupid or irrational doesn't mean that people will not believe it.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    The issue here is what is normal and what is not.

    Is normal based on our understanding of how a majority behave or is normal an ideal of how the majority 'should' behave.
    I believe much disagreement is over the roots of things. We may all be "right" but for "the wrong reasons". For example I know for certain these Christians do right, by universal standards, regardless of their beliefs. I reckon religion is just their mystification of deep and inscrutable causes.

    It is important we get the roots clear. For example pedophiles have perfectly good core impulses - they love children and they love sex - but something along the way gets crossed. So we are always probing each other for tangles, and we want to clear them up. It's a healthy activity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    Sure. EASY. Marxist-Leninism. ...this atheist cult/ideology was a fundamental failure in understanding the nature of a human being and what makes a society work well.
    Well done!



    Communism isn't an atheist ideology, Mitch. Communism not only sees religion as a threat to it's success, but other things as well, including the economy, for example. Communism seeks to replace that which threatens it with socialism, and that includes religion. In other words, they seek to have the people worship the ideology of socialism over all others.

    Of course, theists try to flatter themselves by thinking they're speshul.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    For example I know for certain these Christians do right, by universal standards, regardless of their beliefs. I reckon religion is just their mystification of deep and inscrutable causes.
    I agree. My boss, for example, is a hypocritical, pretentious, disrespecting egomaniac, but he is a church goer and tries to seem like a good guy in general by doing public stuff for people in need sometimes. His motives are totally screwed up, BUT those people who gets helped still gets helped and they sure don't give two craps about what his motives are.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Communism isn't an atheist ideology, Mitch.
    Marxist-Lenismism isn't atheism but it most definitely is an atheist ideology. But for someone like you who edits reality to fit your own atheist ideology as much as any Marxist-Leninist ever did, I don't expect you to see it. You are so blinded by your fundamentalist ideology that if the color of the sky contradicted what your cultish ideology tells you then you would see the color your religion tells you to see rather than the color that is there.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Communism not only sees religion as a threat to it's success, but other things as well, including the economy, for example. Communism seeks to replace that which threatens it with socialism, and that includes religion. In other words, they seek to have the people worship the ideology of socialism over all others.
    Hog-malarky! It was a part of their ideology that religion was a tool of the Capitalists, but more importantly they had the precisely the same ideology as many of today's atheists that removing religion is necessary for the improvement of mankind. Yes they saw religion as a threat to them. Every indoctrinating ideological system sees any opposing viewpoint as a threat to them. That is the whole point. Atheism does not have to be an ideology as you make it or to use indoctrination to promote it as you would, but I doubt you can see the BS by which you define indoctrination as teaching anything which you disagree with. You are such a bizzare gift to any theist arguing against atheism, for you make any strawman (of atheism) that a theist could construct a reality in your own person.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Of course, theists try to flatter themselves by thinking they're speshul.
    You are such a joke, pretending that your opinions are scientific and refusing to see that your opinions are just opinions no different than the opinions of everyone else. Do you imagine that you could teach the opinions of Q in a science class. How else can you pretend that telling children that believing differently than you makes them brainwashed zombies. You are the one who flatters yourself without reservation imagining yourself "speshul".
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    all animals are atheists too. are you putting the socialism burden on them as well?
    is it your dogs ideology's fault that stalin murdered millions?

    as for the muslim suicide bombers. only a tiny fraction of the muslim world does that stuff. there's liberal muslims, just as there are liberal christians, who doesn't take their belief too seriously, just as there are fundie christians and fundie muslims.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    You are so blinded by your fundamentalist ideology that if the color of the sky contradicted what your cultish ideology tells you then you would see the color your religion tells you to see rather than the color that is there.
    Q religious? Now you're getting vicious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Marxist-Lenismism isn't atheism but it most definitely is an atheist ideology.

    Every indoctrinating ideological system sees any opposing viewpoint as a threat to them. That is the whole point. Atheism does not have to be an ideology as you make it or to use indoctrination to promote it as you would, but I doubt you can see the BS by which you define indoctrination as teaching anything which you disagree with.

    Do you imagine that you could teach the opinions of Q in a science class.
    I haven't dared to define indoctrination, Mitch, nor have used it other than what occurs in the "teaching" of religious doctrine to children. And no Mitch, communism isn't an atheist ideology, that is unless you can demonstrate such. I've been through the Manifesto already, Mitch. Please feel free to peruse it yourself and point out exactly where it states an "atheist ideology."

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61/61.txt


    You're overzealous, emotional rant appears to be just that.

    Well done, again.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    as for the muslim suicide bombers. only a tiny fraction of the muslim world does that stuff. there's liberal muslims, just as there are liberal christians, who doesn't take their belief too seriously, just as there are fundie christians and fundie muslims.
    There are also Christians who take very seriously God's call and Jesus' example to serve and love the needy, following Jesus' explanation that our hunger for greatness can only find fulfillment in being humble like the servant or the child, for God said He will lift up the poor in spirit, the mornful, the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers and the unjustly percecuted. Thus the real leaders of Christianity are people like St. Francis if Assisi and Mother Teresa and not those who pretend to authority to speak for God.

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    I haven't dared to define indoctrination, Mitch, nor have used it other than what occurs in the "teaching" of religious doctrine to children.
    You have defined indoctrination many times before by your statements that indoctrination only consists in teaching children something you disagree with. Are you now retracting this, saying that you have finally learned otherwise? Why Q that would be a major step forward toward rationality.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    And no Mitch, communism isn't an atheist ideology, that is unless you can demonstrate such. I've been through the Manifesto already, Mitch. Please feel free to peruse it yourself and point out exactly where it states an "atheist ideology."
    Now Q is making a joke. LOL LOL Where in the whole Bible does say that Christianity is theistic?

    Oops I guess Q making us laugh does not mean he is making a joke, it could be that he is making us laugh because he is a joke.

    Something is theistic if it claims or assumes that God exists. Something is atheistic if it claims or assumes that God does not exist. Furthermore if something not only clams that God does not exist but that religion must be remove for the improvement of mankind like curing a disease then more than a passive atheistic sentiment this is an atheist ideology as a philosophy of action. Marxist-Leninism unambiguously falls into this category both by statement and by practice. There is one thing that adds a little confusion and it is that Lenin made deception a key element of Communist strategy so they would say anything that would get dupes to support their cause. Hitler and the Communists used propaganda to obscure their intentions and to win support of a deceived public. This is why Hitler supported Christianity in public statements while in private he made it clear what he really thought of Christianity as an extension of the contamination of the human race by Judaism.


    Here are some quotations that I am sure you will love and agree with because the sentiments of the founders of Communism on religion are the same as yours, only expressed with a better eloquence than you possess.

    "Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests." in Communist Manifesto

    "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. Religion is the opiate of the masses." Marx in Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right

    "...the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society." Lenin

    "Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man." Lenin

    But nothing says it like this statement of Lenin in The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion:

    "The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, which has fully taken over the historical traditions of eighteenth-century materialism in France and of Feuerbach (first half of the nineteenth century) in Germany—a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion."

    Later in the same paper, Lenin explains why the war against religion although essential to communism must be cloaked in deception:
    Marxism is materialism. As such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as was the materialism of the eighteenth-century Encyclopaedists or the materialism of Feuerbach. This is beyond doubt. But the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels goes further than the Encyclopaedists and Feuerbach, for it applies the materialist philosophy to the domain of history, to the domain of the social sciences. We must combat religion—that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way. The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion. Why does religion retain its hold on the backward sections of the town proletariat, on broad sections of the semi-proletariat, and on the mass of the peasantry? Because of the ignorance of the people, replies the bourgeois progressist, the radical or the bourgeois materialist. And so: “Down with religion and long live atheism; the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!” The Marxist says that this is not true, that it is a superficial view, the view of narrow bourgeois uplifters. It does not explain the roots of religion profoundly enough; it explains them, not in a materialist but in an idealist way. In modern capitalist countries these roots are mainly social. The deepest root of religion today is the socially downtrodden condition of the working masses and their apparently complete helplessness in face of the blind forces of capitalism, which every day and every hour inflicts upon ordinary working people the most horrible suffering and the most savage torment, a thousand times more severe than those inflicted by extra-ordinary events, such as wars, earthquakes, etc. “Fear made the gods.” Fear of the blind force of capital—blind because it cannot be foreseen by the masses of the people—a force which at every step in the life of the proletarian and small proprietor threatens to inflict, and does inflict “sudden”, “unexpected”, “accidental” ruin, destruction, pauperism, prostitution, death from starvation—such is the root of modern religion which the materialist must bear in mind first and foremost, if he does not want to remain an infant-school materialist. No educational book can eradicate religion from the minds of masses who are crushed by capitalist hard labour, and who are at the mercy of the blind destructive forces of capitalism, until those masses themselves learn to fight this root of religion, fight the rule of capital in all its forms, in a united, organised, planned and conscious way.

    ...

    This is one of those current objections to Marxism which testify to a complete misunderstanding of Marxian dialectics. The contradiction which perplexes these objectors is a real contradiction in real life, i. e., a dialectical contradiction, and not a verbal or invented one. To draw a hard-and-fast line between the theoretical propaganda of atheism, i. e., the destruction of religious beliefs among certain sections of the proletariat, and the success, the progress and the conditions of the class struggle of these sections, is to reason undialectically, to transform a shifting and relative boundary into an absolute boundary; it is forcibly to disconnect what is indissolubly connected in real life. Let us take an example. The proletariat in a particular region and in a particular industry is divided, let us assume, into an advanced section of fairly class-conscious Social-Democrats, who are of course atheists, and rather backward workers who are still connected with the countryside and with the peasantry, and who believe in God, go to church, or are even under the direct influence of the local priest—who, let us suppose, is organising a Christian labour union. Let us assume furthermore that the economic struggle in this locality has resulted in a strike. It is the duty of a Marxist to place the success of the strike movement above everything else, vigorously to counteract the division of the workers in this struggle into atheists and Christians, vigorously to oppose any such division. Atheist propaganda in such circumstances may be both unnecessary and harmful—not from the philistine fear of scaring away the backward sections, of losing a seat in the elections, and so on, but out of consideration for the real progress of the class struggle, which in the conditions of modern capitalist society will convert Christian workers to Social-Democracy and to atheism a hundred times better than bald atheist propaganda. To preach atheism at such a moment and in such circumstances would only be playing into the hands of the priest and the priests, who desire nothing better than that the division of the workers according to their participation in the strike movement should be replaced by their division according to their belief in God. An anarchist who preached war against God at all costs would in effect be helping the priests and the bourgeoisie (as the anarchists always do help the bourgeoisie in practice). A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    and in pakistan theres is a muslim man who is running a private hospital and medical service, because the state isn't doing anything. its not because he gets paid, but because he wants to help people.
    whats your point?

    the quran is also a book of "peace" just like the bible.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Thus the real leaders of Christianity are people like St. Francis if Assisi and Mother Teresa and not those who pretend to authority to speak for God.
    Would that be the same Mother Teresa who was sycophant to Jean-Claude and Michele as they stuffed the National Treasury of Haiti into their luggage and fled for the French Riviera?

    The same Mother Teresa who accepted $10,000 to partake in a fraudulent picture for the corrupt and fanatical MSIA?

    The same sanctimonious hypocrite that uttered these words upon accepting a Nobel Peace Prize, "The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion."

    You have defined indoctrination many times before by your statements that indoctrination only consists in teaching children something you disagree with.
    That is a lie. I didn't think you of all people, Mitch, would resort to lying.

    Here are some quotations that I am sure you will love and agree with because the sentiments of the founders of Communism on religion are the same as yours, only expressed with a better eloquence than you possess.
    Thank you for providing those quotes and confirming that communism is NOT an atheist ideology nor is entirely religiously motivated. Cheers!
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Would that be the same Mother Teresa who was sycophant to Jean-Claude and Michele as they stuffed the National Treasury of Haiti into their luggage and fled for the French Riviera?

    The same Mother Teresa who accepted $10,000 to partake in a fraudulent picture for the corrupt and fanatical MSIA?

    The same sanctimonious hypocrite that uttered these words upon accepting a Nobel Peace Prize, "The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion."
    The same Mother Teresa who was on the same planet as Hitler, Pol Pot, and Ted Bundy. Isn't it scandalous that she would live in such close proximity to people like these in such a large universe as this? What is more shocking is that she was a member of the same species as these monsters. LOL I know it is pretty difficult to imagine that one can say anything good about anyone with so much in common with Q let alone with all the other despicable people in human history, but some people do think that the love and service one does for the needy is an admirable thing.

    It is interesting that Q looks to these anti-caltholic relgious fanatics for information about Mother Teresa ( http://www.cephasministry.com/index_catholic_files.html ). Is this Cephas Ministries where Q got his fanatical anti-relgious attitudes?


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    You have defined indoctrination many times before by your statements that indoctrination only consists in teaching children something you disagree with.
    That is a lie.
    Not at all. I will try to dig up the thread but it is possible that you had that thread deleted. I suspect that you also edit memories out of your brain that disturb your ideological faith.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    I didn't think you of all people, Mitch, would resort to lying.
    Now that is a lie. You have actually accused me of lying before, about the most ridiculous things too, for no better reason than that these facts of my life contradict the dogmas of your fundamentalist ideology.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Thank you for providing those quotes and confirming that communism is NOT an atheist ideology nor is entirely religiously motivated. Cheers!
    I have never met a person so immune to evidence before. What color does your religion say that the sky is?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    @MM that digression into Marx's obscure dogma belongs in the history section. Today I'm a citizen of real working socialism and dammit I enjoy more freedoms than you, including freedom from religious discrimination and hate. That thrust you posted is as irrelevant today as if I described your conditions by the letters of 19th century coal barons.

    More current phenomenon: the kibbutz. Zionist kibbutzniks. WTF eh MM?

    I reject the statement that communism is an atheist ideology. Did you really mean to say that? Please don't go all obscure and intellectual in reply. Let's talk about driver's license photos and methadone programs, not frigging Das Kapital.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    @MM that digression into Marx's obscure dogma belongs in the history section. Today I'm a citizen of real working socialism and dammit I enjoy more freedoms than you, including freedom from religious discrimination and hate. That thrust you posted is as irrelevant today as if I described your conditions by the letters of 19th century coal barons.

    More current phenomenon: the kibbutz. Zionist kibbutzniks. WTF eh MM?

    I reject the statement that communism is an atheist ideology. Did you really mean to say that? Please don't go all obscure and intellectual in reply. Let's talk about driver's license photos and methadone programs, not frigging Das Kapital.
    I was more careful than that. You should be too before going off your rocker. What I said was Marxist-Leninism is an atheist ideology. So Pong WTF does that have to do with the kibbutz and who the hell said anything about socialism??? The post that is utterly irrelelvant is yours, utterly irrelevant to the posts you are supposedly responding to, which is an inevitable consequence of not actually reading the posts that you are mouthing off about.

    This diggression was in response to Q's challenge that I name an atheist ideology that used indoctrination. Are you joining him in his idiotic claim that there is no such thing? In any case, it was Q that kept changing my reference to Marxist-Leninism to the word "communism" by which I took it to mean that this was his prefered word for Marxist-Leninism. In any case I only used the term in a later post in contexts where it was absolutely clear that Marxist-Leninism is what I meant.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I think you're right then, for what it's worth... in religion forum <_<.

    Many atheist ideologies have used indoctrination, boldly and unapologetically.

    Personally I don't feel indoctrination is such a bad thing. It seems nazty if you resent parents & society in general.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I am not exactly sure I fully understand what this discussion is saying, perhaps because I do not understand the terminologies being employed.

    For example, I am not sure what happens to Marxism when you add Lennonism to it.

    It is a while since I perused Communist Manifesto and I don't remember much of what it advocated.

    My overall understanding is that communism is something of a governmental format which employs a one-party system. This is as opposed to the multiple party systems used in more republic type countries.

    In application, so far, this one-party system has historically had the general objective of squelching and eliminating opposition thought and ideology which is encouraged and discussed at length in the multi-party systems.

    I would, generally, agree Pong that there is no obvious intrinsically stated communistic opposition to religion, but in application, religion would be of a dissident nature to much of communistic authority. What we have on earth today is three basic approaches -- communism which makes the government supreme, religion dominated countries in which the religion is supreme and present Western cultures which see religion and government as different but equally important.

    Secondarily, communist countries have generally employed an economic system of socialism. This is as opposed to what we in the West call free enterprise. What we are seeing today is the basically communist nation of China allowing free enterprise and flourishing economically while the remaining socialist communistic regimes which remain in tact in say North Korea and Cuba continue to flounder and produce more poverty than prosperity.

    To me, history appears to show that the economic system employed in a society has as much or more to do with its successful development than the form of government used. What history also shows us is that governments which allow free exchange of ideas and thoughts are less likely to fall prey to the machinations of despotic leaderships.

    I can only suggest that the most successful peoples on earth have employed both a government form that encourages the free exchange of idea and a free enterprise system of economics.

    Getting it somewhat to the topic, any system which allows the free exchange of ideas would necessarily have to allow the inclusion of religious thought and run the risk of being influenced by that thought while not being dominated by that thinking.

    Thus, I repudiate those on this forum who think that the elimination of the thinking of any religion should be squelched or eliminated. I think the only way atheistic thinking has the remotest chance of success is when religious thinking is no allowed. Religious thinking abounds where people are free to be what they wish to be.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    "atheist ideologies"

    This still remains a meaningless term to me. Atheism does not come with a ready-made ideology. You could say an ideology that includes atheism, but not atheist ideology. You could however say "religious ideology", meaning that the ideology is dictated by the tenets/morals/ideology of a specific religion.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    This, KALSTER, is one of the huge problems with most atheists. They do not understand that atheism is an ideology which basically advocates the elimination of religious ideology. Atheists seem to think that denial of being an ideology is synonymous with not being an ideology. If I went somewhere else in the world and denied being an American, it would not make me something else. Even though you cannot see my citizenship on my face, it would probably not take long for you to figure out that my denial of American citizen was only a form of self delusion. Atheistic denial of being an ideology is a classic example of self delusion.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Sorry, but nonsense Dayton, really. I dont subscribe to any defined idiology and am an atheist, how is that possible? Atheism says that I don't believe in god, period. Naturally, I think my stance on the existence of god is true and that all the theists are wrong. That does not mean that I want to elliminate theism in today's world. That would cause large scale unrest, as I am of the opinion that people in general can't justify their existence without some kind of ultimate reward or grand purpose. I don't want that.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •