Notices
Results 1 to 58 of 58

Thread: Cherry-pick the Bible

  1. #1 Cherry-pick the Bible 
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,572
    What justification might there be for priests to avoid most of the Bible, while only concentrating on the bits they want to talk about? For instance, in Genesis, there are in fact 2 creation myths. But all we ever hear about is the first one, which may be literally true or just allegorical depending on the viewpoint. Why is no reference made to all the other virgin births in the Bible? Why have I yet to hear, in all my church attendance, any reference to that marvellous passage about the dead rising from their graves and walking around Jerusalem? Personally that's what I would really like to hear, or does this simply stretch the imagination too much? I guess you could argue that as there's little point in anything at all we might just as well pick out the half-believable bits and discard the doubtful ones.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Cherry-pick the Bible 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    What justification might there be for priests to avoid most of the Bible, while only concentrating on the bits they want to talk about? For instance, in Genesis, there are in fact 2 creation myths. But all we ever hear about is the first one, which may be literally true or just allegorical depending on the viewpoint. Why is no reference made to all the other virgin births in the Bible? Why have I yet to hear, in all my church attendance, any reference to that marvellous passage about the dead rising from their graves and walking around Jerusalem? Personally that's what I would really like to hear, or does this simply stretch the imagination too much? I guess you could argue that as there's little point in anything at all we might just as well pick out the half-believable bits and discard the doubtful ones.
    There are few if any Christians, or theists for that matter, that don't cherry-pick the bible or whatever scriptures they've been plagued with. If it wasn't for science and everything science had to offer over these past centuries, theists would still be running and hiding in their caves from thunder and lightning.


    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Cherry-pick the Bible 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    What justification might there be for priests to avoid most of the Bible, while only concentrating on the bits they want to talk about?

    funny isn't it....

    ie.... see this one and tell me what ya tink Matt 16:20 Then did he charge his disciples that they may say to no one that he is Jesus the Christ

    what does that say?


    For instance, in Genesis, there are in fact 2 creation myths.
    but then within then stories find what is said:

    gen 3: 22 And Jehovah God saith, `Lo, the man was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil; and now, lest he send forth his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life, and eaten, and lived to the age,' --

    kind of like, we all capable of comprehending life and creating by choice

    what did the first just do to christianity?

    and the second, to all religions?

    But all we ever hear about is the first one, which may be literally true or just allegorical depending on the viewpoint. Why is no reference made to all the other virgin births in the Bible?
    i guess, with all them virgins making babies; who would need a man..... (seriously; i don't know)


    Why have I yet to hear, in all my church attendance, any reference to that marvellous passage about the dead rising from their graves and walking around Jerusalem?
    that's and easy one. Heck even you can do that (raise the dead).

    ie... remember the adam and eve story? Adam gave a rib to make an eve, do you remember?

    Well in biology, all cells must divide (give a portion of itself for the next generation)

    kind of basic

    well then to know what the 'life' of mass is (Light)... then when a cell divides a portion of the life (light) from the previous continues within the next generation.

    then to evolve all the way to mankind, then the fact that for you to be here, then there was never a break in that chain of life (light) since the beginning of time.

    What that means, is alive within you, is a portion of the life (light) from every generation since the beginning of time within you 'alive and in the flesh'

    know that is what the OLD OLD OLD prophecies meant; that when the 'last' the 'revealing,' the knowledge of life, is upon the earth; then the 'fathers will be raised to the flesh'

    Personally that's what I would really like to hear,
    an now you have it, and basic common sense supports it

    then the 'last word' perfects it (the math, rendering the transition of mass, energy and time; the big ToE)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    131
    You question the cherry picking?

    Trying to answer the rationality of religious mythology is akin to naming Santa's reindeer....some folks include Rudolph and some don't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,572
    If Jesus is going to come again, could he make it soon?
    Christians are happy to ignore Buddhism. They would soon find that the virgin born Buddha (virgin Maya) will also come again. They might be distracted to learn that Buddha also had 12 disciples, performed many miracles and spoke in parables and sermons. Arguably the virgin bit comes from the sun at dawn on the 25th December rising out of Virgo (the virgin). Someone even calculated that Buddha was born on the same day, hence the virgin Maya. Krishna was also virgin born (Devaki).
    So it it not just a case of cherry picking their own scriptures but religions also avoid each others dogma, for fear of realising the truth that most religions have an astronomical basis. This is the reason why they look for God in the heavens.
    'Coming again' most probably relates to the fact that sun must sink again in the heavens (from 25th June). At this time Christians celebrate the birth of John the Baptist: 'He increases but I must decrease' John says of Jesus from John's gospel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    If Jesus is going to come again, could he make it soon?
    if you and i and see the pictures of the hubble and notice how far they can see, does anyone know where Jesus went too, so we can send a message?

    to me, sitting in the lounge chair in 100 degrees after getting out of the pool and a little breeze gives me the chills; i call that heaven.

    as well, i can chose to fart when i want; again 'heaven on earth' to me.

    Christians are happy to ignore Buddhism.
    normal for isolating type thinkers. ie... they tried to ignor darwin and he WON!

    They would soon find that the virgin born Buddha (virgin Maya) will also come again.
    the idea of reincarnation is not unique but try another idea; if during each generation a child was given the most current knowledge and then allowed to think, then rewrites what he learned over the course of HIS life, then dies and another child is chosen to pick up from that previous;

    would knowledge evolve?

    would over time, the truth unfold?

    They might be distracted to learn that Buddha also had 12 disciples, performed many miracles and spoke in parables and sermons. Arguably the virgin bit comes from the sun at dawn on the 25th December rising out of Virgo (the virgin). Someone even calculated that Buddha was born on the same day, hence the virgin Maya. Krishna was also virgin born (Devaki).
    my favorite immaculate conception is "Hercules"............ the son of zeus (you know the guy on the thrown with lightning bolts in his hand)

    So it it not just a case of cherry picking their own scriptures but religions also avoid each others dogma, for fear of realising the truth that most religions have an astronomical basis.
    perhaps that started with the sun falling into the "underworld" and luckily God brings it back on a boat..... (egytpian)

    kind of scary when the lights go out (perhaps)

    This is the reason why they look for God in the heavens.
    'Coming again' most probably relates to the fact that sun must sink again in the heavens (from 25th June). At this time Christians celebrate the birth of John the Baptist: 'He increases but I must decrease' John says of Jesus from John's gospel.
    many thought JB was the christ

    but that 'returning' is not someone coming back (to me) but someone 'to be born' that finishes the job of 'revealing' the truth (the apocalypse means "to reveal")

    then to see within most every religion (even buddhism) that an (adi; king of knowledge) unveils (lifting of the blinders) truth

    call em a christ, a messiah, a mess of a man, a kalki, pahanna, or even the 'great white brother'......... most all the religions say ONE day (end of days) that a man will walk with the 'name' upon his head

    Revelation 22:4 (Young's Literal Translation)

    4and they shall see His face, and His name [is] upon their foreheads
    ps.... that be the 'good guy' (per rev)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    "What justification might there be for priests to avoid most of the Bible, while only concentrating on the bits they want to talk about? "

    I don't have an answer, but I have a question that might shed some light on the subject.

    What justification do you have for avoiding most of the activities of priests, while only concentrating on the bits you want to talk about?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman

    What justification do you have for avoiding most of the activities of priests, while only concentrating on the bits you want to talk about?
    You mean, their activities with alter boys or nuns?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    Yes, because all priests are lecherous pedophiles, just like how all black people eat watermelon, chicken, and dance to dat der jungle beats while those hook nosed Jews count their filthy money next to the arabian man with the dynamite strapped to his chest. Are all Germans genocidal maniacs who care for nothing but the glory of the master race? Is that what you are saying Q? Are you trying to lump together an entire group and imply that they are all guilty of the crimes of a few? Or are you nothing but a bigot, pure and simple?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,572
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    What justification do you have for avoiding most of the activities of priests, while only concentrating on the bits you want to talk about?
    You mean, their activities with alter boys or nuns?
    This is nothing new. In the middle ages monks and nuns were sometimes intimate. No doubt juveniles entered into the the equation also. Remember the ancient Romans who actually preferred young boys to women. It was normal then. Priests today are subject to the same temptations as anybody else. The problem really arises when they join the priesthood specifically to get close to youngsters. I would imagine that homosexuality is sometimes found in monasteries. My understanding of monks is that they are no nearer to God than you or me, and I have stayed at monasteries. Nothing will prove that God does not exist, but it might be safe to say that in 4 dimensional spacetime alone he doesn't. Maybe he exists in a higher dimension which filters down to our 4D. That's the best I can do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    The unfounded generalizations are beyond my patience.

    So to elucidate my previous question that seems to have gone unanswered, Ox:

    The members of a church in Harlem have different intentions than the members of a church in Beverly Hills. People with different intentions pay attention to different things.

    Get the point?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    The members of a church in Harlem have different intentions than the members of a church in Beverly Hills.
    Their intentions are to spread their unshakable belief their god is the one and only god, to worship and obey.

    People with different intentions pay attention to different things.

    Get the point?
    People with different intentions pay attention to the same things, too. What's your point?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    The members of a church in Harlem have different intentions than the members of a church in Beverly Hills.
    Their intentions are to spread their unshakable belief their god is the one and only god, to worship and obey.

    if god is mother nature, then we all OBeY............. gotta eat, breath and procreate, just like the rest of the living species.....

    second item to remember is 'mankind created all words'

    so pay attention to MOM and debate what mankind wrote

    eventually the truth surfaces, over time
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    "People with different intentions pay attention to the same things, too. What's your point?"

    We, being products of evolution have developed various abilities to perceive different things, as well as different impulses to act in different ways based on different circumstances, to increase breeding success.

    There is no rational reason to think that religious folk are any exception, is there?

    Even if the church in Harlem has the same end goal as the church in Beverly Hills, assuming they have some rationality, based on the premise that the churches in Harlem are not all burnt to the ground, and the church in Beverly Hills has not been turned into condos, supporting the theory that they are appealing to local culture's that are very different from each other, and thus paying attention to different things.

    Their end goals may be the same, but I'm pretty sure their short term goals, and their history are a much more accurate measure of their intentions. We can only assume the long term goal of salvation is not a front.

    _____________________________________
    A slightly off topic rant on organization

    Many organizations can be considered as many parts, each with it's interdependent peculiarities; as well as a whole, with it's generalities: it is this very thing that separates an army from a mob; and separates an organized religion or philosophy that promotes a central core of principles, from an argumentative population of random prejudices. I'm not suggesting that a mob or that arguing is bad, but that organization is different than chaos. Take for example a polarized magnet and a homogenized ferrous material, the same material organized in a different way, produces different effects. Calling it chaos is a bit misleading, since it's really just a different type of organization.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,572
    The trouble with athesists is that they don't have a bible, unless maybe it's the complete works of Richard Dawkins. So, until there is a credible one, religion will continue to find its own space in the world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    Never occurred to you that Athiests don't need a bible???

    I'm not suprised.


    ___________________________

    Although I do agree with you about the other myth you like so much - I enjoy a good escapism game of "Left 4 Dead" and the dead rising in Jerusalem or anywhere else would make for one cool real life video game scenario! Shoot 'em all in the head! pop pop pop!!!!

    ahhhh - oh well. back to the real world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman

    We, being products of evolution have developed various abilities to perceive different things, as well as different impulses to act in different ways based on different circumstances, to increase breeding success.
    So, delusion and insanity increase breeding success? Pray tell?

    Even if the church in Harlem has the same end goal as the church in Beverly Hills, assuming they have some rationality, based on the premise that the churches in Harlem are not all burnt to the ground, and the church in Beverly Hills has not been turned into condos, supporting the theory that they are appealing to local culture's that are very different from each other, and thus paying attention to different things.
    Again, so what? Entirely irrelevant.

    Their end goals may be the same, but I'm pretty sure their short term goals, and their history are a much more accurate measure of their intentions. We can only assume the long term goal of salvation is not a front.
    It is a front, to indoctrination. Their goals are recruiting to their cult, same as any other cult.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    The trouble with athesists is that they don't have a bible, unless maybe it's the complete works of Richard Dawkins. So, until there is a credible one, religion will continue to find its own space in the world.
    Some atheists do have bibles, and some theists do not. What is the problem with not having a bible? There are resources online, such as sacred-texts.com, that share extensive collections of religious and philosophical literature.

    ox: What do you mean when you say "until there is a credible one"

    a credible what?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    Never occurred to you that Athiests don't need a bible???
    This goes without saying, but the implications are not true. For example if an athiest reads something quoted from the bible and wants to confirm that it's quoted accurately -- assuming the atheist has not memorized that part of the bible -- they will need, like anyone, to reference it.

    Some atheist biblical scholars and atheist biblical museum owners have bibles. They would probably go so far as to say that they are needed for their work. It has been said that if you don't understand your critic's arguments, you don't understand your own, so undoubtedly the best atheist biblical critics have bibles.

    Reason and necessity go hand in hand.

    For example, we need to eat(necessity) BECAUSE it sustains our cellular chemistry(reason).

    You might not need a bible to live without the bible, but you do need a bible if you want to learn about it. No matter what your mentors say: Q and C, it helps to learn about things before talking about them. :wink:

    Just kidding. I'm sure both of you understand your arguments quite well. I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your just bad at presenting them.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    So, delusion and insanity increase breeding success? Pray tell?
    Well, it seems that poverty and ignorance is working quite well to propagate the species.


    It is a front, to indoctrination. Their goals are recruiting to their cult, same as any other cult.
    I might believe this of some religious leaders and the odd random "believer", but the vast majority of religious people are religious because they feel it is the right and proper thing to do, to aspire towards goodness or towards what his adopted group feels is appropriate. Whatever the evolutionary benefits of this might be (people who have a reason to be good are good more often in ways loyal to his adopted group (not necessarily to humankind in general)) and so it serves to strengthen the group he is loyal to.

    It is built into us to at least a certain degree. We are built to learn a large portion of our behaviour from our parents and to teach those same things to own children. Certain things are expected of people when they grow up that qualifies them as good people: Must have a good job, take care of his family, be a good Christian, etc. Indoctrination might take place to some degree, but you can't expect people to simply give up teaching their children something that to them is of utmost importance. Nobody indoctrinates their children with evil little grins on their faces.
    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  
     

  22. #21  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Well, it seems that poverty and ignorance is working quite well to propagate the species.
    "Go forth and multiply"


    I might believe this of some religious leaders and the odd random "believer", but the vast majority of religious people are religious because they feel it is the right and proper thing to do, to aspire towards goodness or towards what his adopted group feels is appropriate. Whatever the evolutionary benefits of this might be (people who have a reason to be good are good more often in ways loyal to his adopted group (not necessarily to humankind in general)) and so it serves to strengthen the group he is loyal to.
    Recruitment is a primary driver, hence the reason these cults are evangelistic. And, of course, with indoctrination, the followers "believe" it is the right and proper thing to do, they "believe" they are aspiring to goodness, they "believe" it strengthens the group. In reality, they are alienating themselves and everyone else based on their cult. They have lost the ability to reason from having forced learned to accept the absurd and irrational as reality. They live in a fear of doing something against their narrow-minded tenets and the threat of spending an eternity in a lake of fire.

    Whatever so-called "good" religion appears to offer, it's a thinly-disguised veil of bigotry, hatred and racism.

    It is built into us to at least a certain degree. We are built to learn a large portion of our behaviour from our parents and to teach those same things to own children. Certain things are expected of people when they grow up that qualifies them as good people: Must have a good job, take care of his family, be a good Christian, etc. Indoctrination might take place to some degree, but you can't expect people to simply give up teaching their children something that to them is of utmost importance. Nobody indoctrinates their children with evil little grins on their faces.
    Again, these cults and their indoctrination practices have invaded our societies for centuries, it is what we've become and who we are. By simply sweeping the problem under the carpet because "certain things are expected of people when they grow up" is not a reason to propagate a mind-killing virus.

    The indoctrinated have vacuous, blissful, smiley faces, not evil grins.

    And yes, I do expect mankind to give up cults. It has been stated by the cult that it is the utmost importance, but isn't that entirely necessary in order to propagate the cult? How else could it be done?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman

    You might not need a bible to live without the bible, but you do need a bible if you want to learn about it. No matter what your mentors say: Q and C, it helps to learn about things before talking about them. :wink:

    Just kidding. I'm sure both of you understand your arguments quite well. I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your just bad at presenting them.
    I've found that Christians know little about their cults doctrines. Few have actually taken the time to read the bible. I've had to correct Dayton on several occasions, for example, who seems to pride himself on his biblical knowledge.

    If we're so bad at presenting them, why are you failing miserably on your end?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    "Recruitment is a primary driver, hence the reason these cults are evangelistic."

    Ummm... to evangelize is to recruit

    Not all cults are equally evangelistic, so this shows that to all cults, recruitment is not equally as important. There must be other drivers.

    Many cults have very strict initiation rites and social standards that you must live up to if you want to remain in the group. This shows that numbers are not as important as the particular qualities of those numbers, at least for some cults.

    "And, of course, with indoctrination, the followers "believe" it is the right and proper thing to do, they "believe" they are aspiring to goodness, they "believe" it strengthens the group. In reality, they are alienating themselves and everyone else based on their cult."

    This is a very good point made in a very bad way. You are also alienating them and yourself based on what you might call your non-cult. When was the last time you went into a church to spend some time with fellow humans?

    "They have lost the ability to reason from having forced learned to accept the absurd and irrational as reality."

    This sounds easy to test. Lets find some evidence to support it, eh?

    "They live in a fear of doing something against their narrow-minded tenets"

    Again, sounds easy to test, lets find some evidence, and then find someone who doesn't fit this descriptor.

    "and the threat of spending an eternity in a lake of fire."

    Not all religions are like this. Please provide some support that such a paradigm is bad. My understanding of fear is that it helps us focus, so depending on the specific circumstances, fear can be very valuable asset.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Ummm... to evangelize is to recruit

    Not all cults are equally evangelistic, so this shows that to all cults, recruitment is not equally as important. There must be other drivers.
    Such as...?

    Many cults have very strict initiation rites and social standards that you must live up to if you want to remain in the group. This shows that numbers are not as important as the particular qualities of those numbers, at least for some cults.
    Nonsense. One can simply state they are a Christian and *poof* it's done. Strict initiation rights? Bend over.

    This is a very good point made in a very bad way. You are also alienating them and yourself based on what you might call your non-cult. When was the last time you went into a church to spend some time with fellow humans?
    Alienating from a non-cult. Hilarious!

    Sorry, I didn't notice any "humans" at church, just robots.

    This sounds easy to test. Lets find some evidence to support it, eh?
    Uh, belief in the invisible and undetectable isn't evidence?

    Again, sounds easy to test, lets find some evidence, and then find someone who doesn't fit this descriptor.
    Good luck with that. The tenets of the cults demand it, so you won't find anyone who can honestly agree with you.

    Not all religions are like this.
    Most are. Enough to round out the majority of the earths population.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    When I said 'Atheists don't need a bible" I meant that we atheists don't need our own version of a bible - being Richard Dawkins or whoever, according to the limited view of ox. Ox (or mitch, for that matter) doesn't understand that science can't have unthinking following - otherwise it's NOT valid science!


    The other bible of christians has a value in giving some valid bits of history, although colored by hate for whatever nation conquered and enslaved them, and general hate for women's sexuality...as well as... well - the list is extensive.

    The extensive amount of demonstrably incorrect statements within it can be found easily with some google search. So I don't bother to keep the useless piece of drivel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    So I don't bother to keep the useless piece of drivel
    Not as useless as you think. If you read it with your understandings of women's rights, equality and such, skip over those parts and you will find some fine philosophy. The same goes for nearly any religious text. You might contest this, but had you been born in another time and place, you would not have known what you know now. You are lucky (to some extent) and those ancient texts give us an opportunity to learn. You can't assume that you have considered all the angles (by that I don't mean reasons to believe in a god).

    Recruitment is a primary driver, hence the reason these cults are evangelistic.
    Aren't you evangelising for atheism?

    they "believe" it strengthens the group.
    No, I am saying it actually has strengthened their groups to a degree. People need hope, a reason for living and a sense of purpose. If you don't have the faculties to figure those things out for yourself, then an authority you trust will do. I know we can potentially survive in a religion free world, but not yet. It will have to be a gradual change.

    Whatever so-called "good" religion appears to offer, it's a thinly-disguised veil of bigotry, hatred and racism.
    Since it was created by humans, that is unavoidable. But not every religious person subscribe to those things and you certainly don't need religion to subscribe to those things either.

    Again, these cults and their indoctrination practices have invaded our societies for centuries, it is what we've become and who we are. By simply sweeping the problem under the carpet because "certain things are expected of people when they grow up" is not a reason to propagate a mind-killing virus.
    That is just the way things are, not simply an excuse. We are slowly emerging out of darkness, but slowly is the only possible way to go.

    The indoctrinated have vacuous, blissful, smiley faces, not evil grins.
    Not true for most. Better to choose the lesser of two evils. People with something fake to live for and behave within bounds over is prefered to a society with nothing to live for. The tools needed to find purpose and worth in a godless world aren't easily learned when it has to replace that which have become a large part of your personal identity and the primary filter you use to interpret the world with. It must happen slowly.
    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  
     

  28. #27  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,572
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    ox: What do you mean when you say "until there is a credible one"
    My idea of a credible bible to explain life, where it has come from, and where it is going, would be:
    1. Replace the Old Testament with 'The Origin of Species' by Darwin.
    2. Replace the New Testament with 'The Selfish Gene' by Dawkins.
    Bring these together in one great book and teach it in schools. Call it 'The Truth'. Don't scrap the Bible or the Quran but use them as a comparison for what people used to believe.
    Should Christians and Muslims be afraid? I believe so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    ox: What do you mean when you say "until there is a credible one"
    My idea of a credible bible to explain life, where it has come from, and where it is going, would be:
    1. Replace the Old Testament with 'The Origin of Species' by Darwin.
    2. Replace the New Testament with 'The Selfish Gene' by Dawkins.
    Bring these together in one great book and teach it in schools. Call it 'The Truth'. Don't scrap the Bible or the Quran but use them as a comparison for what people used to believe.
    Should Christians and Muslims be afraid? I believe so.
    Ridiculous. :?
    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  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Ox: your ideal is grande, but in a world where traditional frameworks are the norm, and the majority of people are not capable of theoretical reasoning, chances are you can feed anyone anything, and not get the desired results: since they will make up their minds, not based on theoretical evidence, but subjective empiricism.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    My idea of a credible bible to explain life, where it has come from, and where it is going, would be:
    1. Replace the Old Testament with 'The Origin of Species' by Darwin.
    2. Replace the New Testament with 'The Selfish Gene' by Dawkins.
    A. Where, in these proposed testaments, will we find where life came from?
    B. Why would you offer up a vital, but unfinished work, then attempt to complete it with a warped misinterpretation of reality? Dawkins would barely make it into the Apocrypha.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,572
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    My idea of a credible bible to explain life, where it has come from, and where it is going, would be:
    1. Replace the Old Testament with 'The Origin of Species' by Darwin.
    2. Replace the New Testament with 'The Selfish Gene' by Dawkins.
    A. Where, in these proposed testaments, will we find where life came from?
    B. Why would you offer up a vital, but unfinished work, then attempt to complete it with a warped misinterpretation of reality? Dawkins would barely make it into the Apocrypha.
    The orthodox idiot answer to where life came from is found in the Bible. The reasoned answer is found in Darwin. The answer to why it continues is found in Dawkins. So which do you prefer? Teaching religion as factual to children is child abuse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    Ox has a good goal, but utterly wrong implementation.

    Teach kids science and science principles from the get-go; in grade school. Give science value and don't allow the 'cool' kids to deride it; make them achieve goals in learning it as well.

    You can't brainwash someone with what so happens to be the actual truth and still call it science. You are then turning it into the 'religion' Mitch claims any atheist who disagrees with him to be. You have to teach science principles of proof first, then present the material (again, by that stage), and let people make their own conclusions based on their science education. You can tell kids that it is proven and correct, and that they will understand why once they complete university, but don't brainwash them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    You are then turning it into the 'religion' Mitch claims any atheist who disagrees with him to be.
    I am an atheist and I am not sitting in that boat. I have no issues with the rest of your post though.

    FYI, Mitch seems to be gone, so let it go.
    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  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    the bible is not one book, it is a collection, acusing someone of cherry picking it, is like accusing someone of cherry picking a library for reading Das Kapital but not the wealth of Nations, there is some dependency but different works
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    The scale is way off, Ish - it's not a valid comparison.

    When you're talking about ONE text like the bible, cherry picking definitely applies. Especially in a case where the ignored passages are patently ludicrous.

    the Lord hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet" (Nahum 1:3)
    . WOW! I thought clouds were water vapor?!?

    "Hear attentively the noise of his voice, and the sound that goeth out of his mouth. He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth" (Job 37:2-3).
    And here I thought lightning was an atmospheric discharge of electricity!

    "Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger" (Isaiah 13:13). "Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth" (Psalms 18:7).
    Not Plate Tectonics! No! A supremely PISSED OFF gahd !!!

    And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom” (Job 28:28). “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalms 111:10; Proverbs 9:10).
    So you can happily forget about saving up for College and university! Having fear of the LORD is wisdom! Not yer fancy-schmansy degrees! Those are "just a piece of paper".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    1: "As air parcels cool due to expansion of the rising air mass, water vapor begins to condense on condensation nuclei such as dust, ice and salt."

    -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clouds


    2: The only thing it says about lightning is that it is "his,"IE, God's. It doesn't say anything contrary to it being electrical discharge.

    4: It specifically says, that fear of the lord is the BEGINNING to wisdom, not the end. Making it more definite of a statement than was implied, is a strawman tactic.

    It's like someone saying "This road will bring you to another road that will bring you to where you are going" and responding "This road won't bring me to where I'm going"

    indeed, that's not what was said
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    1. Nevertheless, clouds are far, FAR more water vapor by content than they are dust.
    The dust furthermore has never been observed to come from a god's feet.

    bible = WRONG science = RIGHT

    2. Well since the thunder is clearly stated to be 'the noise of his voice' and 'the sound that goeth out of his mouth' (both of which are WRONG; thunder is a sonic boom created by the lightning), it seems clear that the next part 'HIS' lightning is similarly a physical manifestation proof of your god; and his amazing lightning powers, (stolen from Zeus, no doubt) especially given that the Bronze-Age writers would have no clue as to the electrical nature of lightning.

    bible = WRONG (possibly twice) science = RIGHT (both times)

    4. It also specifically says : Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom” (Job 28:28 )

    bible = WRONG (as well as contradicting itself) science = RIGHT

    Ignoring the first part of the quote, that is a cherry picking tactic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    I didn't cherry pick, I misread, there is a difference. My apologies, I stand corrected.

    People's faith has nothing to do with a book, the book is an outlet/inlet for such faith. Your focus is a bit misplaced, but I can't blame you for picking the easier target when the other target: Faith, you know nothing about, so you wouldn't know where to begin your assault.

    You can burn all the bibles you want, and interpret everything in many different ways. But faith has nothing to do with words, or books.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    Holy Shit, so the the Bible isn't...a science textbook?!?!

    OMG, my life has been completely turned upside down!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA exactly, komrad!

    I know what faith is, marcus. It's an unfounded will to believe in anything at all, unsupported, -and indeed, often COUNTERED by proof- simply because you are either to weak and frightened to face the reality of your death, or else you have been brainwashed since a time when you didn't have critical thinking abilities.

    Of course, those faithful in here who dabble in some science will go on claiming that they have made a critical conclusion to be...uhhh...UNcritical.


    heh heh heh heh heh
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    According to your idea of faith and religion: Instead of waging wars on eachother, conflicting religions would believe eachother's equally unfounded beliefs. Needless to say: History contradicts your theory. There is much disagreement between faithful idealists equally lacking in support.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    When I say "anything at all" I should qualify it then with: "that is put into the believer's mind". Of course it is alot more likely to be your own cultural version of fantasy other than some other culture's. Depending upon how that culture is perceived. It was modeled and explained very well for the 'priest' unit in "Age of Empires".

    So THE definition of 'faith' that I simply reproduced is the correct one. Neither faith nor it's definition is "[my] idea".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    "Of course it is alot more likely to be your own cultural version of fantasy other than some other culture's"

    "Neither faith nor it's definition is "[my] idea""

    excuse me: your culture's idea...

    ""that is put into the believer's mind""

    You must have something put in your mind before you can think it, believe it, or know it; just as those in the seemingly arbitrary category you -- and/or your culture -- calls "believers."
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    No there's a difference between learning something - which can be verified independent of the teacher.

    vs

    having religion bullshit ground into your skull. Brainwashing is very hard to break. And religion certainly doesn't allow nor can stand up to critical independent verification.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    No, religion exists, are you having a hard time verifying it?

    of course you must be talking about various claims that specific religions have made being impossible to verify critically, no?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,572
    My nominations for the worst cherrypicks in the bible are:
    A Woman is born from the rib of man.
    (not even close if it were the other way around).
    B Samson and Delilah story.
    (classic solar myth this one, as Samson gets weaker when his hair is cut off, at the winter solstice, only for him to regain his strength after).
    C Sermon on the mount.
    (The meek will not inherit the earth - the middle classes do, and anyway this passage is also found in the earlier Mahabharata).
    D Jesus walks on water.
    (Oh dear, another solar myth, as this describes the evening sun over the Sea of Galilee. Jesus is the personification of the sun).
    E The dead rise from their graves and walk around Jerusalem.

    And the winner is (take a pause):

    E - Yes, from Biblical times to Michael Jackson, everyone loves a good ghost story. But, hold on a minute. Didn't Darwin reduce us to animals, and later Dawkins to robots? Some guy (Darkin?) could further reduce us to apparitions. At death, what happens to the wave function when the brain turns off its virtual reality generator?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    No. I'm not talking about specific claims. Those are easily disproven critically time and time again. Something "I [think] every intelligent person already knew...".

    I'm talking about the entire parcel that is religion. It doesn't matter what god you want to put, or even what belief system. It's belief; it runs on faith and is therefore unfounded and 99% of the time FALSE.

    Religion is ground into kids' heads and while many will never change the particular cultural flavor they get infected with, some do change around - yet it is still unfounded belief = religion.

    Children that are instead taught science from the get go are bound to see what malarkey religion really is, and become a good contributing member of humanity and intellectualism instead of a credulous bleating sheep that can't think for him/her self.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Oh, so your generalizing. See, if you were talking about particulars we could have a discussion involving scientific theories; but since your not, and I'm trying to break my ambiguity habit, I think I'll have to abstain from discussing empirical generalities.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    Well if you want to discuss the thing in particulars, fine. Make a list of what you'd like to discuss.

    Just don't 'cherry pick' when you do it.
    Maybe you should get out your bible and go through it verse by verse. Then we could have a nice list of just how much is verifiably true, how much is verifiably bullshit, and how much is unsupported claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Indeed, but you are cherry picking intentions. Your assuming it is meant to be read litteraly even though there are other possible intentions.

    Why do people write?

    To serve as a reference: which most critics(including yourself) and fundamentalists of the bible assume is the intention of the bible

    To share ideas through hypothetical and/or symbolic stories: which many less fundamentalist believers, and less critical non-believers, believe the bible is meant to do

    To entertain: which is why most things are written, and is definitely one of the possibilities the bible was written, and not one we should overlook
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,572
    As I understand, the only reference to Jesus in a history book is the one by Josephus in the Jewish Wars. I am also led to believe that the passage is interpolated, and is too brief to be of any real significance. I guess that interpolation is really the key to explain how similar stories, but not exactly, find their way into the gospel books.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    BULLSHIT marcus.

    Your bible was written with full intentions to control the population it was written for. Don't bullshit us in here. It was made to control a desert dwelling people. In the Bronze Age. It gives explanations that are demanded of the wisest men in any society. And the answers are indeed meant to be taken literally.

    It was science that made your second proposition absolutely necessary. There was no science in the middle ages, and the bible was taken quite literally, as literally as it was written - by pin-headed, non-science, ignorant leaders. Then [b]your[b] type of hypocrite, the somewhat educated, claim all of a sudden, the stories are allegories now - meant to be symbolic and not the literal truth!
    Give me a frikkin break, you lying hypocrite. You only say so because science proves your idiot text wrong again and again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Due to barely comprehensible mix of unfounded hostility and vague unsupported claims, I'm going to concede my argument under one condition: That anyone reading this keeps in mind that I am not a christian(which is what I assume he is implying by saying "your book" multiple times) Why censai assumes I am, is beyond me, but it surely does limit my ability to take him seriously in debate.

    It's funny how emotional self titled rationalists can get when they claim to be up against no competition at all.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    Firstly CSensei, Augustine of Hippo was one of the writers who said that if Biblical tales go against common sense, then they are most likely allegory. For example, were Christ's parables actual historical events or are they meant to teach us something about human nature and man's relationship with the Divine?

    Secondly, as already stated, Marcus is not a Christian, so why do you keep referring to the Bible as Marcus's Bible?

    Thirdly, say bullshit twice, once in ALLCAPS, while you accuse Marcus of being a dirty little hypocrite (oh dear). Now, my question for you CSensei, and this is based off of your previous posts as well, did you hit 14 years of age and while your body grew and matured, your mind stuck with the 14 year old mentality?

    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    Man - you guys gotta be kidding me. My goal in high school was to get sex from hot chix whenever possible.

    I was looking at pursuing Astronomy and later on Dinosaur Paleontology as a career, but the sex kept on interfering with dedication to studies. OH YA!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    I knew my disrespect was warranted... now I know why.
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    Surely you don't disrespect me because I'm straight?!? THAT would be immense hypocrisy!

    wait - you're religious, aren't you???
    Only a 14 year old, only a child, would think that the first post would be funny or clever, instead of irritating and juvenile. In the second quote, Marcus confirms his suspicions of you based on your crass post. You respond to Marcus in the third post and almost impossibly miss the beat. Not only do you think his comment is based on your sexual preference, but you dont even skip a beat and accuse him of homophobia, based on the fact that he is religious. Its like you dont even bother to think you may be at fault but immediately attack with unfounded accusations that are completely unrelated to whats being discussed before.

    So, in short, are you 14?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    Firstly Komrad Red, Augustine of Hippo was as full of bullshit as anyone else who makes the same statement. You're talking about an entirely uneducated desert people who have no idea of the conception of science, let alone the conclusions. You tell them

    the Lord hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet" (Nahum 1:3).
    and they believed it fully. The writers were not speaking allegorically. They were literal in their words. Do you not even recall your tower of Babel? A tower reaching into HEAVEN. You think ancients could have touched the tower in Dubai for height?!? For the uneducated people of the past (who I do NOT call idiots; they simply didn't have access to science!) heaven was a few hundred feet into the air! An ancient would fall on his knees to see the Dubai tower and claim it to be his bible one.

    Uneducated people are going to believe this bullcrap. Go check studies with primitive peoples whenever they were found, and see if they thought their beliefs were 'allegories'. You people would be really great at politics and law, turning the truth utterly around into a bullshit story merely to support your point: the truth doesn't matter one whit. = HYPOCRITE


    You also need clearer thinking. You're entirely muddled with the last quote. It would be heterophobia, not homophobia. Is it because those are new words for you? Must be because you're 14. And I was linking hypocrisy with religion, not hetero (or homo) phobia; although homophobia is clearly expressed in the bible and koran again and again.

    __________________________________________________ __________

    You mistake utter lack of patience for hostility. Hostility would be "I'll beat you stupid face in." What I post above is an utter lack of respect and patience for people who seem intelligent enough to know better, but insist on deliberately being blind, deaf and dumb.

    I don't see why people like that are even worth the extra effort it takes to be civil. People who advocate religion are a scourge to humanity; they deliberately block any scientific progress that is in conflict with their religion; they advocate dangerous republican plundering of the natural environment without regard for the damage they do; and would have us all be ignorant, stupid and partaking in their fantasy. I would very much prefer that they all drop dead.
    A much much better planet would result.

    It's not hostility; it's a sense of utter disregard for fools.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Let me ask you to clerify one point: I'm "deliberately blocking scientific progress?"

    In one sense, I am not sure deliberate is the correct word, because, for what my word is worth: I didn't know I had that power, nevermind ever thought to use it.

    as for whether or not anyone has this power, I'll have to say this in words that you understand

    WRONG


    Scientists who may or may not be religious: for example those studying the effects of meditation and spiritual practices on individuals and populations, are blocking scientific progress?

    What about scientists who study those who are critical(with or without reason) of the limitations of science... are they studying something that is blocking their own progress as scientists? Why haven't they(the experts on the subject that your speeking of) figured this out yet and simply eliminated their subjects, freeing themselves(as well as the rest of humanity) from such constraints?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,572
    Despite my scepticism, I have a confession to make. I'm a Catholic. Yes, its a bit like standing up in front of a sympathetic audience and announcing 'I'm an alcoholic'. But hold on, aren't we all cultural Christians (unless another faith)? I don't believe in things like transubstantiation, virgin births and miracles like Fatima (the sun dancing in the sky would have knocked the earth out of its orbit). I don't believe in the Creation so I refuse to say that bit in the Creed. In fact I don't believe in 90% of what is in the Bible. Yet, Christianity also allows some to be atheists. You would have to keep it quiet if you were a Muslim, now wouldn't you?
    So Christianity has given us a lot, and allows us to say what we like, and do our science. The Church is nice. I would rather go there than to any other event. Even if it only contains 1% truth, I would say open up your heart to it and you might be pleasantly surprised.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    I disagree with most of what you said. I agree completely!
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •