Discussion:
JESUS IS LORD!
(too old to reply)
Godof Glory
2012-07-09 16:53:30 UTC
Permalink
JESUS IS LORD, and believe in your heart that GOD raised HIM from the
dead, thou shalt be saved, and thy house.(cf. THE HOLY BIBLE: ROMANS
10:9 and ACTS 16:31b)

Have you received THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL’S MOST BELOVED and ONLY
BEGOTTEN SON, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, to be your personal Lord and
Savior?

If not, say this prayer: “LORD GOD, please forgive me of my sins.
Thank YOU for YOUR Faithfulness in always being with me and loving me
so much to send me YOUR MOST BELOVED and ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, THE LORD
JESUS CHRIST, to die on the cross for me. I receive HIM now into my
heart and life to be my Lord and Savior. I pray this in the name of
GOD, THE FATHER; GOD, THE SON; and GOD, THE HOLY SPIRIT. † Amen.”

“So let everyone in Israel know for certain that GOD has made this
JESUS, whom you crucified, to be both Lord and Messiah!” ACTS 2:36

"For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall
say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Matthew 23:39

Visit and share with family, friends, fans, and followers:
www.BIBLEstudycd.com/Lessons.html

May you be blessed abundantly! Hallelujah!

THE GOSPEL:
http://www.ebible.com/kjv/Matthew
http://www.ebible.com/kjv/Mark
http://www.ebible.com/kjv/Luke
http://www.ebible.com/kjv/John
Coder X
2012-07-09 21:00:38 UTC
Permalink
kook

"Godof Glory" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b8f6d3d6-cc96-47bb-ae4d-***@n32g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
JESUS IS LORD, and believe in your heart that GOD raised HIM from the
dead, thou shalt be saved, and thy house.(cf. THE HOLY BIBLE: ROMANS
10:9 and ACTS 16:31b)

Have you received THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL'S MOST BELOVED and ONLY
BEGOTTEN SON, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, to be your personal Lord and
Savior?

If not, say this prayer: "LORD GOD, please forgive me of my sins.
Thank YOU for YOUR Faithfulness in always being with me and loving me
so much to send me YOUR MOST BELOVED and ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, THE LORD
JESUS CHRIST, to die on the cross for me. I receive HIM now into my
heart and life to be my Lord and Savior. I pray this in the name of
GOD, THE FATHER; GOD, THE SON; and GOD, THE HOLY SPIRIT. ? Amen."

"So let everyone in Israel know for certain that GOD has made this
JESUS, whom you crucified, to be both Lord and Messiah!" ACTS 2:36

"For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall
say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Matthew 23:39

Visit and share with family, friends, fans, and followers:
www.BIBLEstudycd.com/Lessons.html

May you be blessed abundantly! Hallelujah!

THE GOSPEL:
http://www.ebible.com/kjv/Matthew
http://www.ebible.com/kjv/Mark
http://www.ebible.com/kjv/Luke
http://www.ebible.com/kjv/John
ReverendFuzzy
2012-07-09 21:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Godof Glory
JESUS IS LORD, and believe in your heart that GOD raised HIM from the
dead, thou shalt be saved, and thy house.(cf. THE HOLY BIBLE: ROMANS
10:9 and ACTS 16:31b)
I agree, but this is not an appropriate forum for this topic.
Perhaps if you pose your statement in the form of Visual Basic
code, it might be more accepted...IE:

Ask:
If JesusIsLordOfMyLife = True Then
Call PartyOn()
Goto Better
Else
Call PrayerToSalvation()
Goto Ask
Better:
End If
Deanna Earley
2012-07-10 14:27:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by ReverendFuzzy
Post by Godof Glory
JESUS IS LORD, and believe in your heart that GOD raised HIM from the
dead, thou shalt be saved, and thy house.(cf. THE HOLY BIBLE: ROMANS
10:9 and ACTS 16:31b)
I agree, but this is not an appropriate forum for this topic.
Perhaps if you pose your statement in the form of Visual Basic
If JesusIsLordOfMyLife = True Then
Call PartyOn()
Goto Better
Else
Call PrayerToSalvation()
Goto Ask
End If
Personally, I'd out the Better: label outside the If block.

Oh, and after the discussion last week, possibly using a Do While (or a
Do Loop Until if it needs an initial prayer) structure would be better?
--
Deanna Earley (***@icode.co.uk)
i-Catcher Development Team
http://www.icode.co.uk/icatcher/

iCode Systems

(Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the
group.)
Gordon Levi
2012-07-11 09:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by ReverendFuzzy
Post by Godof Glory
JESUS IS LORD, and believe in your heart that GOD raised HIM from the
dead, thou shalt be saved, and thy house.(cf. THE HOLY BIBLE: ROMANS
10:9 and ACTS 16:31b)
I agree, but this is not an appropriate forum for this topic.
Perhaps if you pose your statement in the form of Visual Basic
If JesusIsLordOfMyLife = True Then
Call PartyOn()
Goto Better
Else
Call PrayerToSalvation()
Goto Ask
End If
If you want to GOTO programmers heaven you must eliminate both those
unnecessary GOTO statements from your code.

<http://ce.sharif.edu/courses/90-91/1/ce364-1/resources/root/GoTo/Dijkstra.pdf>
Auric__
2012-07-09 23:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Godof Glory
JESUS IS LORD, and believe in your heart that GOD raised HIM from the
dead, thou shalt be saved, and thy house.(cf. THE HOLY BIBLE: ROMANS
10:9 and ACTS 16:31b)
Have you received THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL’S MOST BELOVED and ONLY
BEGOTTEN SON, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, to be your personal Lord and
Savior?
If not, say this prayer: “LORD GOD, please forgive me of my sins.
Thank YOU for YOUR Faithfulness in always being with me and loving me
so much to send me YOUR MOST BELOVED and ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, THE LORD
JESUS CHRIST, to die on the cross for me. I receive HIM now into my
heart and life to be my Lord and Savior. I pray this in the name of
GOD, THE FATHER; GOD, THE SON; and GOD, THE HOLY SPIRIT. † Amen.”
Dear God:

Please forgive me the horrible sin of not believing in you.
Since you're supposed to be all-loving and all-forgiving,
this should be no problem, right? Thanks.

Amen.
--
- Dear God.
- Yes, My child?
- I would like to file a bug report.
Deanna Earley
2012-07-10 08:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Godof Glory
JESUS IS LORD, and believe in your heart that GOD raised HIM from the
dead, thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Was this before or after Gandalf was around?
Post by Godof Glory
(cf. THE HOLY BIBLE: ROMANS 10:9 and ACTS 16:31b)
Ahh, it was earlier in the series of fictional books.
--
Deanna Earley (***@icode.co.uk)
i-Catcher Development Team
http://www.icode.co.uk/icatcher/

iCode Systems

(Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the
group.)
ReverendFuzzy
2012-07-10 12:31:18 UTC
Permalink
&gt; JESUS IS LORD, and believe in your heart that GOD raised HIM from the
&gt; dead, thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Was this before or after Gandalf was around?
&gt; (cf. THE HOLY BIBLE: ROMANS 10:9 and ACTS 16:31b)
Ahh, it was earlier in the series of fictional books.
Play nice ... just because you don't believe, doesn't mean it's fiction....
... it just means that you're out of the loop. :)
Deanna Earley
2012-07-10 13:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by ReverendFuzzy
&gt; JESUS IS LORD, and believe in your heart that GOD raised HIM from the
&gt; dead, thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Was this before or after Gandalf was around?
&gt; (cf. THE HOLY BIBLE: ROMANS 10:9 and ACTS 16:31b)
Ahh, it was earlier in the series of fictional books.
Play nice ... just because you don't believe, doesn't mean it's fiction....
Sorry, I should stand by my own "don't force your views on me".
Post by ReverendFuzzy
... it just means that you're out of the loop. :)
I'm already way out according to a few of the people I came across at
the weekend :p
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151065243041628&set=a.10151065240881628.481721.752611627&type=3&theater
--
Deanna Earley (***@icode.co.uk)
i-Catcher Development Team
http://www.icode.co.uk/icatcher/

iCode Systems

(Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the
group.)
Deanna Earley
2012-07-10 17:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deanna Earley
Post by ReverendFuzzy
&gt; JESUS IS LORD, and believe in your heart that GOD raised HIM from the
&gt; dead, thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Was this before or after Gandalf was around?
&gt; (cf. THE HOLY BIBLE: ROMANS 10:9 and ACTS 16:31b)
Ahh, it was earlier in the series of fictional books.
Play nice ... just because you don't believe, doesn't mean it's fiction....
Out of interest, do you believe it is all factual?
Post by Deanna Earley
Sorry, I should stand by my own "don't force your views on me".
I (and my "minority") are on the receiving end of a barrage of so called
"Christian" abuse for being "born this way", and I'm a tad jaded.

However, I know this is only a section of the group that (incorrectly)
call themselves Christians, and there are many more true Christians out
there, but they need to speak up more to drown out the bigots :)

I assume you're one of the latter in which case, I meant no offence, and
please accept my apologies.
--
Deanna Earley (***@earlsoft.co.uk)
Mayayana
2012-07-10 13:44:58 UTC
Permalink
| Play nice ... just because you don't believe, doesn't mean it's
fiction....
| ... it just means that you're out of the loop. :)
|

You want to establish edicate for OT posts that
ignore the OT OP, who is, in turn, clearly in their own
world? That's a new one on me. And what's the
edicate, exactly? Opportunistic mockery is fine
but strident disagreement is wrong? How very PC.
ReverendFuzzy
2012-07-10 14:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
You want to establish edicate for OT posts that
ignore the OT OP, who is, in turn, clearly in their own
world? That&#39;s a new one on me. And what&#39;s the
edicate, exactly? Opportunistic mockery is fine
but strident disagreement is wrong? How very PC.
You're WAY off base, here.
My note to Deanna was to promote "getting along", not
to establish etiquette for off-topic posts.

In the future, I suggest you find out the full meaning
of what's being said, and in what context, before you
make accusations. I could easily have used your method,
and construed your note to be an attempt at a flame war.
Or I could have poked fun at your spelling... but I didn't.
Coder X
2012-07-10 19:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by ReverendFuzzy
Play nice ... just because you don't believe, doesn't mean it's fiction....
... it just means that you're out of the loop. :)
No, it means you're a kook. Santa still putting presents under your tree?
Didn't think so.
ralph
2012-07-10 19:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Coder X
Post by ReverendFuzzy
Play nice ... just because you don't believe, doesn't mean it's fiction....
... it just means that you're out of the loop. :)
No, it means you're a kook. Santa still putting presents under your tree?
Didn't think so.
What? A Santa denier?

Somethings should not be suggested, even in jest.

-ralph
DaveO
2012-07-11 09:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by ralph
Post by Coder X
Post by ReverendFuzzy
Play nice ... just because you don't believe, doesn't mean it's fiction....
... it just means that you're out of the loop. :)
No, it means you're a kook. Santa still putting presents under your tree?
Didn't think so.
What? A Santa denier?
Somethings should not be suggested, even in jest.
-ralph
Quite right! After all the evidence for Santa is quite clear, presents
delivered, sherry drunk, he even answers entreaties, unlike the evidence for
any God which is illusionary at best, at the worst it's just fantasy or
wishful thinking.



What disturbs me most is the staggering arrogance of the Christian ethos,
they claim the entity that created the whole universe sent his only son here
to show us the error of our ways. Astonishing that out of the
200,000,000,000 stars in this galaxy which is one of 200,000,000,000
galaxies, only our planet and by extension humankind is important enough to
justify the personal attention of the all-creator.




DaveO
Mayayana
2012-07-11 13:05:54 UTC
Permalink
| What disturbs me most is the staggering arrogance of the Christian ethos,
| they claim the entity that created the whole universe sent his only son
here
| to show us the error of our ways. Astonishing that out of the
| 200,000,000,000 stars in this galaxy which is one of 200,000,000,000
| galaxies, only our planet and by extension humankind is important enough
to
| justify the personal attention of the all-creator.
|
I think it sheds some light if you look at the background.
Jesus was a Jew, working with what was really a primitive,
tribalistic religion. In a sense he usurped his own religion as a
template for a new teaching. (For instance, the
idea of a jealous god makes sense in Judaism. It was a small
tribe living in an area where numerous gods were worshipped.
The Judaic god and Judaic law were all designed to enhance
coherence of and devotion to the tribe. A jealous Christian
god makes no sense. How can a god who created everything
be jealous?)
So the Bible is somewhat awkwardly combining what are
actually two entirely different religions, with the Old Testament
providing "credentials" for the New Testament. And the early
Christians are not Christians. They're Jews. With a Jewish
sensibility and cosmology.

But you don't have to throw out the baby with the bath
water. To descibe Christians as arrogant is as absurd in its
sweeping inclusiveness as it is for some evangelicals to
take the Bible in the most simplistic, literal terms. More
intriguing to me is why you're always so vehement on this
topic. It smacks of ... fanatical religiosity. :)
DaveO
2012-07-11 14:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
To descibe Christians as arrogant is as absurd in its
sweeping inclusiveness as it is for some evangelicals to
take the Bible in the most simplistic, literal terms.
So you think it is not arrogant to state that humans were created in the
image of the creator of the universe and that he favours this planet over
all others when there must be about 4 x10^22 stars in existence and if only
1 in a million billion had planets that harboured life that would still
leave 40 million inhabited planets which all must be lesser than the Earth.



If the assumption that humankind is special and favoured by a god is not
arrogant, please tell me what is. Strangely if the accounts are to be
believed Jesus preached humility which is not something I recognize in many
vocal Christians. Interesting that those who claim to be fervent followers
of Joshua ben Joseph (What JC would have been called if or when he was
alive) are the ones who are diametrically opposed to his actual teachings.
Ever seen a meek evangelist? No me neither but the Sermon on the Mount was
quite clear about the inheritance planned for the meek.



Geocentricity has been disproven, we are not the focus of the universe, get
over it!



The literal interpretation of the Bible is obviously wrong but once you
accept that it's not literally true you have to question everything else
about the books and once you start to look at them with a critical eye you
see what a load of admittedly well written but contradictory nonsense they
are. They are full of myths and stories that were useful to Iron age or
Bronze age cultures with little scientific knowledge, but now we know that
on the other side of the sky is just more sky, the ancient myths are no
longer relevant so why do so many people cling to them?



Religious people often say something along the lines of "if I can save one
person from eternal damnation then it's all worthwhile", well I think if I
can save one person from wasting their time in a shared delusion, sorry I
mean a religion, then it's time well spent.



And yes I've studied the scriptures, firstly when very young I had no
choice, and later on I guess there was defiantly some "know thy enemy". But
to debate against religion I have to know at least as much about it as my
co-disputant. This is why many atheists know more about religion than those
who claim to follow it.


DaveO
Eduardo
2012-07-11 16:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by DaveO
What disturbs me most is the staggering arrogance of the Christian ethos,
they claim the entity that created the whole universe sent his only son
here to show us the error of our ways. Astonishing that out of the
200,000,000,000 stars in this galaxy which is one of 200,000,000,000
galaxies, only our planet and by extension humankind is important enough
to justify the personal attention of the all-creator.
It's because the most of the Christians didn't have the possibility like you
to visit many of these galaxies and see how is the life there. They only
know the life on Earth and believe that it's important. That's why God sent
his son to here.
DaveO
2012-07-12 08:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
Post by DaveO
What disturbs me most is the staggering arrogance of the Christian ethos,
they claim the entity that created the whole universe sent his only son
here to show us the error of our ways. Astonishing that out of the
200,000,000,000 stars in this galaxy which is one of 200,000,000,000
galaxies, only our planet and by extension humankind is important enough
to justify the personal attention of the all-creator.
It's because the most of the Christians didn't have the possibility like
you to visit many of these galaxies and see how is the life there. They
only know the life on Earth and believe that it's important. That's why
God sent his son to here.
Wow, now that is the arrogance I refer to. Why here and only here? Do you
mean that any other entity on any other planet in this or any other galaxy
is denied salvation because that is what it sounds like. It seems that you
are saying there is no life anywhere except on the Earth when admittedly
there is little evidence either way (the prevalence of basic organic
building blocks in space is highly suggestive) but statistically the chance
of the Earth being the only island of life in a universe sized sea is so
slight it's not really worth considering.

Also why such obvious and childish facetiousness? Obliquely suggesting that
I am some kind of nutcase who thinks he can travel between galaxies and
visit other worlds, such a thinly veiled ad hominem attack does not enhance
your position by a single iota, much the opposite in fact.

DaveO
Eduardo
2012-07-12 17:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by DaveO
Post by Eduardo
Post by DaveO
What disturbs me most is the staggering arrogance of the Christian
ethos, they claim the entity that created the whole universe sent his
only son here to show us the error of our ways. Astonishing that out of
the 200,000,000,000 stars in this galaxy which is one of 200,000,000,000
galaxies, only our planet and by extension humankind is important enough
to justify the personal attention of the all-creator.
It's because the most of the Christians didn't have the possibility like
you to visit many of these galaxies and see how is the life there. They
only know the life on Earth and believe that it's important. That's why
God sent his son to here.
Wow, now that is the arrogance I refer to. Why here and only here? Do you
mean that any other entity on any other planet in this or any other galaxy
is denied salvation because that is what it sounds like. It seems that you
are saying there is no life anywhere except on the Earth when admittedly
there is little evidence either way (the prevalence of basic organic
building blocks in space is highly suggestive) but statistically the
chance of the Earth being the only island of life in a universe sized sea
is so slight it's not really worth considering.
Also why such obvious and childish facetiousness? Obliquely suggesting
that I am some kind of nutcase who thinks he can travel between galaxies
and visit other worlds, such a thinly veiled ad hominem attack does not
enhance your position by a single iota, much the opposite in fact.
OK, you believe in statistics, I trust in more secure information.

Did you discover already how new life can be formed from inorganic matter?
Because if you don't, then your statistics worth nothing.
Did you make any contact with some civilizations of these (that are a lot)
that you say there are?

Who's the one fantasizing?

Ok, don't believe the Bible, but at least that's more secure information, it
doesn't say it's unproven statistics or suppositions.
Coder X
2012-07-12 22:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
Ok, don't believe the Bible, but at least that's more secure information,
it doesn't say it's unproven statistics or suppositions.
Secure information? LOL!!! It's fiction that contradicts itself every
other page.

Green Eggs or Ham doesn't say it's unproven, but that doesn't make it
gospel, now does it?
DaveO
2012-07-17 08:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
Post by DaveO
Post by Eduardo
Post by DaveO
What disturbs me most is the staggering arrogance of the Christian
ethos, they claim the entity that created the whole universe sent his
only son here to show us the error of our ways. Astonishing that out of
the 200,000,000,000 stars in this galaxy which is one of
200,000,000,000 galaxies, only our planet and by extension humankind is
important enough to justify the personal attention of the all-creator.
It's because the most of the Christians didn't have the possibility like
you to visit many of these galaxies and see how is the life there. They
only know the life on Earth and believe that it's important. That's why
God sent his son to here.
Wow, now that is the arrogance I refer to. Why here and only here? Do you
mean that any other entity on any other planet in this or any other
galaxy is denied salvation because that is what it sounds like. It seems
that you are saying there is no life anywhere except on the Earth when
admittedly there is little evidence either way (the prevalence of basic
organic building blocks in space is highly suggestive) but statistically
the chance of the Earth being the only island of life in a universe sized
sea is so slight it's not really worth considering.
Also why such obvious and childish facetiousness? Obliquely suggesting
that I am some kind of nutcase who thinks he can travel between galaxies
and visit other worlds, such a thinly veiled ad hominem attack does not
enhance your position by a single iota, much the opposite in fact.
OK, you believe in statistics, I trust in more secure information.
Did you discover already how new life can be formed from inorganic matter?
Not me personally but the theory is quite sound and most experiments concur
with theory.
Post by Eduardo
Because if you don't, then your statistics worth nothing.
So without proof the theory is worthless, interesting because there is not a
scintilla of proof for anything in the Bible, so presumably by your own
standards you MUST discard the whole book as hearsay.
Post by Eduardo
Did you make any contact with some civilizations of these (that are a lot)
that you say there are?
Are you an infant? Any other civs will be so far away it would take
thousands or millions of years to exchange a message and due to the vastness
of space and the fact that until we encounter any alien life we can't know
how to communicate with them, a bit of a catch 22 but we are listening and
searching on what seem sto be the most logical wavelengths. The problem with
SETI is that if others cultures follow a similar path to ours then wide
radio emissions will only last for a couple of hundred years at most after
which it's all fibre and line of sight laser or microwave with minimal
leakage. All making us harder to detect.
Post by Eduardo
Who's the one fantasizing?
Let's see, I follow peer reviewed data that is open to anybody to question
and refute, such scepticism is encouraged as the way to make progress and
has given us such things as relativity and quantum mechanics. You follow a
scripture that is canon and as such is considered correct, any questioning
or doubt is frowned upon as heresy and at one time could have got a doubter
killed. Any faith that is so insecure it felt it had to murder opponents is
just not worth following.
Post by Eduardo
Ok, don't believe the Bible, but at least that's more secure information,
it doesn't say it's unproven statistics or suppositions.
ROTFLMAO, you should go on the stage, that is perhaps the funniest thing I
have ever read. "Secure" - Pure comedy gold!!

DaveO.
DaveO
2012-07-10 15:17:00 UTC
Permalink
"Godof Glory" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8f6d3d6-cc96-47bb-ae4d-
Post by Coder X
Have you received THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL'S MOST BELOVED and ONLY
BEGOTTEN SON, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, to be your personal Lord and
Savior?
Goto Hell
ReverendFuzzy
2012-07-10 15:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by DaveO
Goto Hell
Now THAT, is a classic example of initiating a flame war.
DaveO
2012-07-10 15:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by ReverendFuzzy
Post by DaveO
Goto Hell
Now THAT, is a classic example of initiating a flame war.
Rubbish, just trying to get some VB syntax in here, after all this is
comp.lang.basic.visual.misc and not alt.religion
ReverendFuzzy
2012-07-10 16:23:09 UTC
Permalink
&gt;&gt; Goto Hell
&gt;
&gt; Now THAT, is a classic example of initiating a flame war.
Rubbish, just trying to get some VB syntax in here, after all this is
comp.lang.basic.visual.misc and not alt.religion
Did anyone CLAIM it to be alt.religion ? I think not.
1. "Godof Glory" mentioned some scripture
2. I agreed with him, and presented a way it COULD have been on-topic.
3. "Coder X" insinuated that "Godof Glory" had a mental disorder.
4. "Auric_" attempted to de-fuse a possible conflict, with some humor.
5. Deanna insinuated that holy scripture was fiction, because she didn't believe
6. I corrected her, letting her know her belief is not the only one.
7. Mayayana insinuated that I was trying to force everyone to believe like me.
8. I corrected her, poiting out that I was attempting to foster peace.
9. You then blatantly chimed in with "go to hell"... an obvious attempt at conflict.
10. I called you on it.
11. You denied it, and insinuated that I was trying to turn it into another group.

So where did it happen, Dave?
Show me where someone said this was the "alt.religion" newsgroup?

..and by the way... to tell someone to go to Hell, constitutes belief that Hell exists... Hell is defined as where Lucifer, and his sympathizers were placed after trying to take over Heaven. Therefore, to tell someone to go to Hell constitutes a belief in God, and you just injected religion into a topic thread in the very same way that you were just complaining about.

It would be SO nice if the religion-bashers in this thread were to write me directly to say they disagree, instead of wasting my time and google's server space by making hateful remarks, that will only incite further disorder.

You don't believe, FINE... that's your belief.
Don't turn around, and say it's fiction, or its being forced on you!

Don't like something I say? EMAIL ME !!!!!
Coder X
2012-07-10 20:03:47 UTC
Permalink
Wrong, 'glorytogod' was spamming. 'Mentioning' implies he did so to some
other text on topic, to which there was none.

Did you actually read the bible? There is absolutely NO mention of
'lucifer' or fallen angels or the over taking of heaven. There are some
mentions of angels, like archangels, cherubim and seraphim. They all look
different, and very few actually have wings. Those who do, like the
seraphim, actually have six wings and need all of them to cover their body,
lest they blind or incinerate whoever is unlucky enough to bump into one.
Then there are the thrones, which are described in the bible as "wheels
within wheels," the rims of which are covered in eyes (something easily
believable and seen in real life several times, I'm sure). Now let's talk
about cherubim. As we all know, a cherub is a baby angel, usually with a
little bow and arrow and a leaf protecting his modesty. Except that Ezekiel
10:14
(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2010:14&version=NIV)
describes them as frightening four-headed monstrosities that included the
faces of a man, an eagle and a lion. Painters took liberties when
portraying angels
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angels_in_art#In_Christian_art), and just like
putting capes on superheroes, giving them wings was a visually interesting
way to identify who was the angel in a painting full of regular dudes (wings
were also used in the early church to denote that these creatures lived in
the sky). Archangels like michael and gabriel were given contemporary
military garb. Cherubs in particular didn't get their extreme makeover
until renaissance sculptors revived the ancient practice of putti, which
depicted cute babies dancing and playing around on infant tombs. The
rediscovery and reimplementation of these little cuties brought cupid-esque
cherubs into vogue, as demonstrated by Tomba di Ilaria del Carretto.
Lastly, the thing about the harps was actually invented by John Milton who
wrote about angels "plucking harps" in Paradise Lost, basically just because
it was the cutest thing he could pull out of his ass.

As for the devil, I've never seen one reference to him as satan, lucifer,
beezlebub in the bible, or that he is red with horns and a title. Why? It
isn't in there. He's never physically described except when he visits eve
as a snake, not that was satan anyway
(http://www.infidelguy.com/members/infidelguy/Is_The_Serpent_Satan.html).
Medieval artists who wanted to portray the devil visually had to take a bit
of artistic license, generally drawing whatever seemed evil at the time
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_teaching_about_the_Devil#Middle_Ages).
As for the devil's famous habit of gambling with people's souls, that's not
canonical either. Though his job is to tempt people to sin, he never grants
anybody miraculous powers. We have an old German legend to thank for that
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust). The legend of Faust, made popular
later when it was dramatized by Christopher Marlowe, tells the story of a
doctor who gets bored and decides to strike a deal with lucifer in return
for knowledge, converting the devil from the Prince of Darkness into a shady
snake-oil salesman. There is also no anti-christ as those who believe the
rapture perceive him. The anti-christ is mentioned only four times in the
Bible, and each time he's described the same way
(http://bible.cc/2_john/1-7.htm). "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge
jesus christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such
person is the deceiver and the Antichrist." The anti-christ is anyone who
doesn't believe in christ. The "anti" is basically being used the same way
it's used when we say someone is "anti-war." There are characters in the
book of revelation who will help usher in the end of days: for instance,
there is a 'false prophet', who looks like a lamb and talks like a dragon
(figuratively, we're assuming). And then we have "the beast" from revelation
13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_(Bible)), which is described as
"coming out of the sea" with 10 horns, seven heads, 10 crowns and other body
parts that do not even resemble a human body accidentally. Also a highly
believable thing. The beast is who is associated with the number 666
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_of_the_beast). It wasn't until the second
century that saint Irenaeus started calling it the anti-christ
(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103525.htm), borrowing the term from
another part of the bible that wasn't referring to it. But even that did
very little to change the fact that 'the beast' would have a hell of a time
getting elected to public office since it looked like an actual beast. It
wasn't until the middle ages that the anti-christ character was portrayed as
a guy rather than a huge multiheaded monster
(http://catholic-resources.org/Students/ApocalypticArt/Introduction.htm).
The anti-christ, as a figure in pop culture and cheap-shot accusation was
born. So to summarize, millions are awaiting what they believe is the
fulfillment of an ancient biblical prophecy that is in reality cobbled
together from at least three different characters from the Bible. THis
should effectively shoot down all that rapture silliness.

As for hell itself, the only part you'll find in the bible is the fact that
hell sucks and that there is fire
(http://bible.org/article/what-bible-says-about-hell) from passages like
Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be
wailing and gnashing of teeth."). That's as specific as it gets. The
version of hell you christians use to scare your kids with actually came
from artists and writers who took those vague descriptions and ran with
them. The understanding of hell as a fiery subterranean cavern full of lava
and demons shoving flutes up your ass for eternity owes its popularity
largely to the medieval double-team of Dante and Hieronymus Bosch. Dante's
Inferno popularized the idea of hell as a nine level of pain and torture. He
pioneered the concept of contrapasso, the idea that prisoners of hell are
subject to ironic tortures related to the sins that brought them there. Like
the "flatterers," who spent their lives bullshitting, and were forced in
hell to "wallow in shit" for eternity. Then that Dutch artist, Bosch, came
along and painted it. As for satan being the ruler of hell, that's a
misconception we can probably blame on John Milton. In Paradise Lost, Satan
famously bitched: "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven." But
there's a reason why your god cast satan and his minions into hell instead
of New Jersey: Hell sucks for everyone including imps and demons. According
to 2 Peter 2:4
(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%202:4&version=NIV):
"God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,
putting them into chains of darkness to be held for judgment." So there you
go, chains and prisons...for them. No iron fortresses, no fiery thrones, no
mention of satan ruling the cell block...all of that is from the Bible's
extended universe and fan fiction.

So you see, anyone who actually believes in all of this fiction upon fiction
upon fiction, is a kook. No better than Lord Xenu himself, Tom Cruise, and
the rest of his thetan pals.

Sucks when an atheist knows your material better than you, doesn't it?


"ReverendFuzzy" <***@msbministries.org> wrote in message news:66b6cf3e-9ac9-42e4-ab19-***@googlegroups.com...

Did anyone CLAIM it to be alt.religion ? I think not.
1. "Godof Glory" mentioned some scripture
2. I agreed with him, and presented a way it COULD have been on-topic.
3. "Coder X" insinuated that "Godof Glory" had a mental disorder.
4. "Auric_" attempted to de-fuse a possible conflict, with some humor.
5. Deanna insinuated that holy scripture was fiction, because she didn't
believe
6. I corrected her, letting her know her belief is not the only one.
7. Mayayana insinuated that I was trying to force everyone to believe like
me.
8. I corrected her, poiting out that I was attempting to foster peace.
9. You then blatantly chimed in with "go to hell"... an obvious attempt at
conflict.
10. I called you on it.
11. You denied it, and insinuated that I was trying to turn it into another
group.

So where did it happen, Dave?
Show me where someone said this was the "alt.religion" newsgroup?

..and by the way... to tell someone to go to Hell, constitutes belief that
Hell exists... Hell is defined as where Lucifer, and his sympathizers were
placed after trying to take over Heaven. Therefore, to tell someone to go
to Hell constitutes a belief in God, and you just injected religion into a
topic thread in the very same way that you were just complaining about.

It would be SO nice if the religion-bashers in this thread were to write me
directly to say they disagree, instead of wasting my time and google's
server space by making hateful remarks, that will only incite further
disorder.

You don't believe, FINE... that's your belief.
Don't turn around, and say it's fiction, or its being forced on you!

Don't like something I say? EMAIL ME !!!!!
DaveO
2012-07-11 08:47:10 UTC
Permalink
"Coder X" <***@x.com> wrote in message news:jti1r4$3fm$***@dont-email.me...

<<really big snip>>
Post by Coder X
Sucks when an atheist knows your material better than you, doesn't it?
Always the case, if one actually reads the scriptures (with an open mind)
it's pretty obvious that they are a self-contradictory muddle and virtually
none of the popular ideas are even mentioned. Why do you think the early
church and some contemporary ones discourage education?



"to tell someone to go to Hell, constitutes belief that Hell exists... "

Rubbish, it is a marker not a literal assertion, if you tell someone to "get
stuffed" do you literally mean you want them to go and eat themselves into a
stupor? No of course not, it's just shorthand for something like "go way and
stop bothering me with your rubbish"



Anyway you (ReverendFuzzy) are quite clearly devoid of anything resembling a
sense of humour or a sense of proportion, The GoTo Hell comment was clearly
using VB syntax and a sideways reference to the recent thread about the use
of GoTo in coding and when it's acceptable, On the subject of acceptable,
while there is some justification in continuing an off topic thread there is
no justification for starting one, the original message has no place in this
newsgroup and should not have been posted here, a religion thread would have
been suitable but pointless as the readership there already believe so why
preach. Programmers are generally of above average intelligence or at least
have analytical minds, the exact qualities to see religion for what it
really is, a great confidence trick designed to ensnare the gullible, so
posting it here was a clear provocation.



DaveO

High priest to the great god Osiris (no, not really)
Eduardo
2012-07-11 16:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Coder X
Sucks when an atheist knows your material better than you, doesn't it?
You should cite from where you copy pasted:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18757_5-things-you-wont-believe-arent-in-bible.html
DaveO
2012-07-12 08:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
Post by Coder X
Sucks when an atheist knows your material better than you, doesn't it?
http://www.cracked.com/article_18757_5-things-you-wont-believe-arent-in-bible.html
Er, he did cite references, his piece is littered with URLs.

I note you don't bother to argue any of the points raised. Attack the
messenger, is that the Christian method?

Come on, you know the Bible is true so lets see you refute everything he
wrote and give reasons why it's all wrong. If however you cannot refute the
arguments then perhaps you might accept that the Bible is not inerrant (as
it plainly is not). Once you accept there are any parts of the scripture
that are in error you have to look at the entire edifice, once you do that
faith collapses so I understand why you are reticent to address these issues
but please don't just brush them under the carpet. Sticking your fingers in
your ears and saying "la la la" will not make the truth go away.

DaveO
Eduardo
2012-07-12 17:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by DaveO
Post by Eduardo
Post by Coder X
Sucks when an atheist knows your material better than you, doesn't it?
http://www.cracked.com/article_18757_5-things-you-wont-believe-arent-in-bible.html
Er, he did cite references, his piece is littered with URLs.
LOL! It's just a copy paste.
Post by DaveO
I note you don't bother to argue any of the points raised. Attack the
messenger, is that the Christian method?
I don't bother to waste time with stupidity.
Post by DaveO
Come on, you know the Bible is true so lets see you refute everything he
wrote and give reasons why it's all wrong.
The Bible was writen for believers, not for god haters.
Why would I spend my time refuting that then?
Of course, if there were a benefit I could do it, I could spend two or three
hours refuting almost every point, but for what? If you don't want to
believe the Bible, and most probably you want readt it.
And I don't say I would refute all and every one of the points, because I
don't know everything, I always learn new things from the Bible.
Post by DaveO
If however you cannot refute the arguments then perhaps you might accept
that the Bible is not inerrant (as it plainly is not). Once you accept
there are any parts of the scripture
Of course the Bible in not inerrant, because it was copied many times, and
some were even memorized and then copied.
What is inerrant is the word of God. And that's what one can have studying
the Bible, that is what is important.
Post by DaveO
that are in error you have to look at the entire edifice, once you do that
faith collapses so I understand why you are reticent to address these
issues but please don't just brush them under the carpet. Sticking your
fingers in your ears and saying "la la la" will not make the truth go
away.
DaveO
Coder X
2012-07-12 22:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
I don't bother to waste time with stupidity.
But you believe the bible, which contradicts your statement. Still waiting
to float away naked into the clouds? Kook.
Mike Williams
2012-07-13 08:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
Of course the Bible in not inerrant, because it was copied
many times, and some were even memorized and then copied.
What is inerrant is the word of God. And that's what one can
have studying the Bible, that is what is important.
You've said some really stupid things Eduardo, but you have exceeded
yourself with that one! What a load of nonesense!

Mike
Eduardo
2012-07-13 10:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Williams
Post by Eduardo
Of course the Bible in not inerrant, because it was copied
many times, and some were even memorized and then copied.
What is inerrant is the word of God. And that's what one can
have studying the Bible, that is what is important.
You've said some really stupid things Eduardo, but you have exceeded
yourself with that one! What a load of nonesense!
If you don't want the information on the Bible, it's OK, but you guys should
go to a psychologist, because it's not normal to have so much hate to the
people that believes in it.

I see that more certain are the things that you hear, more crazy you drive.
Of course, you get crazy because you don't have anything rational to say
about my statement, there is no counterargument.
If you don't want God, forget about the Bible Mike, as I said, it's not for
God haters, but for believers, people who care about the truth and don't
want to be deceived or fooled by lies (that some appear to be convincing,
sure).

You don't want God and the Bible, I do. What's the problem?
Deanna Earley
2012-07-13 10:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
Post by Mike Williams
Post by Eduardo
Of course the Bible in not inerrant, because it was copied
many times, and some were even memorized and then copied.
What is inerrant is the word of God. And that's what one can
have studying the Bible, that is what is important.
You've said some really stupid things Eduardo, but you have exceeded
yourself with that one! What a load of nonesense!
If you don't want the information on the Bible, it's OK, but you guys should
go to a psychologist, because it's not normal to have so much hate to the
people that believes in it.
And what about all the "christian" hate towards gay people all in the
name of the bible?
--
Deanna Earley (***@icode.co.uk)
i-Catcher Development Team
http://www.icode.co.uk/icatcher/

iCode Systems

(Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the
group.)
Eduardo
2012-07-13 12:20:38 UTC
Permalink
And what about all the "christian" hate towards gay people all in the name
of the bible?
I don't really "hate" people, what I abominate(*) is what is evil.

(*) I didn't want to use hate because it seems to be more like an emotion,
and not something that you fully understand and rational. I could use abhor,
but I was not sure that it was the right word.
Deanna Earley
2012-07-13 12:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
And what about all the "christian" hate towards gay people all in the name
of the bible?
I don't really "hate" people, what I abominate(*) is what is evil.
Well, only hatred and the others deadly sins are evil, so that's all
fine then :)
--
Deanna Earley (***@icode.co.uk)
i-Catcher Development Team
http://www.icode.co.uk/icatcher/

iCode Systems

(Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the
group.)
Mike Williams
2012-07-13 15:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
Post by Deanna Earley
And what about all the "christian" hate towards gay people
all in the name of the bible?
I don't really "hate" people, what I abominate(*) is what is evil.
Well you definitely avoided a specific answer to that question, Eduardo.
Deanna clearly wanted to know what you personally think about the behaviour
towards gay people of those who believe in the bible and of those who
believe in what the bible purportedly teaches them, and you failed to
provide an answer. So, come on Eduardo, what are your views on that matter?
Post by Eduardo
what I abominate(*) is what is evil.
Was that an almost hidden part of your own answer regarding your views on
gay people, or were you just generalising? Are gay people part of something
evil? Is that what you think? Do you believe they are an abomination?

Mike
Eduardo
2012-07-14 08:55:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Williams
Post by Eduardo
Post by Deanna Earley
And what about all the "christian" hate towards gay people
all in the name of the bible?
I don't really "hate" people, what I abominate(*) is what is evil.
Well you definitely avoided a specific answer to that question, Eduardo.
Deanna clearly wanted to know what you personally think about the
behaviour towards gay people of those who believe in the bible and of
those who believe in what the bible purportedly teaches them, and you
failed to provide an answer. So, come on Eduardo, what are your views on
that matter?
Post by Eduardo
what I abominate(*) is what is evil.
Was that an almost hidden part of your own answer regarding your views on
gay people, or were you just generalising? Are gay people part of
something evil? Is that what you think? Do you believe they are an
abomination?
Yes, homosexuality carries evil.

As long as they don't any harm others it's just about their own lives.
Mike Williams
2012-07-14 11:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Yes, homosexuality carries evil. As long as they don't
any harm others it's just about their own lives.
There seems to be a bit of a contradiction there, Eduardo. You believe
homosexuality is evil, but you think that's okay as long as homosexuals keep
their evil to themselves. Is that your view regarding all forms of evil, or
just regarding evil homosexuals? Incidentally, who do you believe created
men and women? Presumably you believe it was your God who did that? Did he
not create man in his own image? Is that not what your bible teaches you? If
that is the case, and if homosexuals are evil, then perhaps your God did not
quite get the design right? Perhaps He is not quite as perfect as you
believe Him to be?

Mike
Eduardo
2012-07-14 13:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Williams
Yes, homosexuality carries evil. As long as they don't
any harm others it's just about their own lives.
There seems to be a bit of a contradiction there, Eduardo. You believe
homosexuality is evil, but you think that's okay as long as homosexuals
keep their evil to themselves.
Yes, and what's the contradiction that you see?
Post by Mike Williams
Is that your view regarding all forms of evil, or just regarding evil
homosexuals? Incidentally, who do you believe created men and women?
Presumably you believe it was your God who did that? Did he not create man
in his own image? Is that not what your bible teaches you? If that is the
case, and if homosexuals are evil, then perhaps your God did not quite get
the design right? Perhaps He is not quite as perfect as you believe Him to
be?
I don't see your point, God created the man and the woman right, the man to
be man and the woman to be woman.
Mike Williams
2012-07-14 14:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
I don't see your point, God created the man and the
woman right, the man to be man and the woman to
be woman.
Of course you don't see my point, because you don't want to. As far as you
are concerned there actually is a God and that God is perfect and you
totally refuse to believe that it could possibly be any other way. If your
God really does exist, which I very much doubt, and if he did create the two
sexes in such a way that every single individual was triggered to be either
totally a man or totally a woman, then he got the design slightly wrong.

Mike
Eduardo
2012-07-14 14:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Williams
Post by Eduardo
I don't see your point, God created the man and the
woman right, the man to be man and the woman to
be woman.
Of course you don't see my point, because you don't want to. As far as you
are concerned there actually is a God and that God is perfect and you
totally refuse to believe that it could possibly be any other way. If your
Since nobody is able to see God, you cannot make conclussions about him
based upon what you see.
The way I decided my belief is unknown to you, so you cannot criticize it.
Post by Mike Williams
God really does exist, which I very much doubt, and if he did create the
two sexes in such a way that every single individual was triggered to be
either totally a man or totally a woman, then he got the design slightly
wrong.
You can make a knife to cook, and someone can use it to kill. Is that your
fault?
DaveO
2012-07-17 08:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
Post by Mike Williams
Of course you don't see my point, because you don't want to. As far as
you are concerned there actually is a God and that God is perfect and you
totally refuse to believe that it could possibly be any other way. If your
Since nobody is able to see God, you cannot make conclussions about him
based upon what you see.
The way I decided my belief is unknown to you, so you cannot criticize it.
But it's fine for you to criticise others scepticism irrespective of how
they arrived at their opinions, you are a hypocrite of the worst kind
because you don't even realise how hypocritical you are. You seem to embody
the phrase "do as I say, not as I do".



I'm quite happy to discuss the reasons for my atheism and the reasoning I
went through to reach it. I never see followers of God put their faith
through similar analysis and critique, perhaps because faith does not and
cannot stand up to reason.



DaveO.
Eduardo
2012-07-18 18:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by DaveO
Post by Eduardo
Post by Mike Williams
Of course you don't see my point, because you don't want to. As far as
you are concerned there actually is a God and that God is perfect and
you totally refuse to believe that it could possibly be any other way.
If your
Since nobody is able to see God, you cannot make conclussions about him
based upon what you see.
The way I decided my belief is unknown to you, so you cannot criticize it.
But it's fine for you to criticise others scepticism irrespective of how
they arrived at their opinions,
And where am I critizicing others scepticism?
If someone wants to have "scepticism" it's not a problem for me. What could
be my problem about that?
Post by DaveO
you are a hypocrite of the worst kind because you don't even realise how
hypocritical you are. You seem to embody the phrase "do as I say, not as I
do".
No comments.
Post by DaveO
I'm quite happy to discuss the reasons for my atheism and the reasoning I
went through to reach it.
I'm happy to discuss the reasons of my belief when there are people
interested to know (but it doesn't seem to be the case so far).
Post by DaveO
I never see followers of God put their faith through similar analysis and
critique, perhaps because faith does not and cannot stand up to reason.
The problem are the prejudices. I start just with a first step of the
explanation, and I can't go ahead because everybody thinks that they already
know what I'm talking about (or may be that they don't understand what I
mean and assume something else instead of asking).
DaveO
2012-07-20 08:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
The problem are the prejudices. I start just with a first step of the
explanation, and I can't go ahead because everybody thinks that they
already know what I'm talking about (or may be that they don't understand
what I mean and assume something else instead of asking).
OK then, in 1,000 words or less, convince me. Take that second step and
confound our (supposed) preconceptions and show us (atheists) the errors of
our ways.



Give me one tiny piece of undeniable verifiable evidence, that's all that's
needed.



Perhaps a repeatable experiment or demonstration that gives a result
inexplicable except for divine interception. Maybe an historical event
witnessed by multiple independent witnesses that's well documented and can
only be divine in causation.



DaveO.
Eduardo
2012-07-20 09:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by DaveO
Give me one tiny piece of undeniable verifiable evidence, that's all
that's needed.
Perhaps a repeatable experiment or demonstration that gives a result
inexplicable except for divine interception. Maybe an historical event
witnessed by multiple independent witnesses that's well documented and can
only be divine in causation.
OK. First you need to doubt. Tell me something that you are sure.
DaveO
2012-07-20 09:32:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
Post by DaveO
Give me one tiny piece of undeniable verifiable evidence, that's all
that's needed.
Perhaps a repeatable experiment or demonstration that gives a result
inexplicable except for divine interception. Maybe an historical event
witnessed by multiple independent witnesses that's well documented and
can only be divine in causation.
OK. First you need to doubt. Tell me something that you are sure.
I'm sure that the concept of a God is no more than wishful thinking and that
religions are contrived more to control people than to help them.

I'm sure the scriptures were written by men many years after the alleged
events occurred and are more fiction than fact.

I'm sure the English translations of said scriptures are rubbish (I've read
the OT in Hebrew and there are a lot of differences between it and the King
James one, my Greek is almost non-existent so I can't say for sure about the
NT).



It seems to me that to believe you have to want to believe which is a bit
strange. An entity exists irrespective of opinion, if there is a God then it
should not only be apparent if one expects a deity but it should be
unambiguously apparent to all, but that is far from the situation. Anyway
I'm not sure I like the idea of a omnipotent entity that is so insecure it
demands the worship of lesser beings, anything that powerful should have the
intellectual maturity to get by without needing sycophantic adoration.



DaveO
Mike Williams
2012-07-20 13:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Anyway I'm not sure I like the idea of a omnipotent entity that
is so insecure it demands the worship of lesser beings . . .
Unless of course "He" is an interstellar or intergalactic meat trader who
just wants us to live by rules which are most likely to guarantee a large
and varied supply of protein for any passing starship. We might be just one
of millions of such farms. Such beings might live in a completely different
timescale than our own and might travel distances that we can only imagine,
and in their timescale we might have been "planted" the equivalent of only a
few decades ago. Since then we might have already been visited any number of
times, perhaps for some minor modifications or for the application of a
large dose of "religious fertilizer". Maybe we'll learn a bit more at the
"second coming" ;-)

Mike
Eduardo
2012-07-20 17:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by DaveO
Post by Eduardo
OK. First you need to doubt. Tell me something that you are sure.
I'm sure that the concept of a God is no more than wishful thinking and
that religions are contrived more to control people than to help them.
What I meant simpler things, something that you can prove.
Post by DaveO
I'm sure the English translations of said scriptures are rubbish (I've
read the OT in Hebrew and there are a lot of differences between it and
the King James one, my Greek is almost non-existent so I can't say for
sure about the NT).
OK, then you could help with the translation of a couple of verses?

Would you translate Genesis 1:1-2?

It's not possible to post Hebrew characters in the newsgroup, so I'll copy
them transliterated:

Hebrew text:

1 Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.

2 Veha'arets hayetah tohu vavohu vechoshech al-peney
tehom veruach Elohim merachefet al-peney hamayim.

The Hebrew can be found here: Loading Image...
Post by DaveO
It seems to me that to believe you have to want to believe which is a bit
strange.
It seems contradictory at the first sight. It seems biased.
But it's the wish of having the evidence to believe, not wishful thinking.
It's the wish of being convinced with evidence and reasoning.

Today we have the general thought that all that predates the scientific era,
was a lot inferior, it is of no value, they couldn't be wise people because
if they had been, they had had planes, trains, computers, satellites, etc.

In fact it's not true. The scientific development and the technology we have
now is a process of development that took a lot of work and thinking people
for many generations.
It was not possible to ancient people in a couple of hundreds of years to
develop that.

But they were not stupid, not at all. I'm talking about the people of the
bible, the ancient Hebrews. I'm not saying that every ancient people and
civilization was that wise.

The relation between the people and God is not a matter of technology and
scientific development, so they could have it without having developed much
technology.
Post by DaveO
Anyway
I'm not sure I like the idea of a omnipotent entity that is so insecure it
demands the worship of lesser beings, anything that powerful should have
the intellectual maturity to get by without needing sycophantic adoration.
God doesn't demand a single thing from anybody. All that God wants is for
the people to be fine.
People worship lot of things anyway, the insecure is the man, not God. They
worship things because they are insecure, and they are insecure because of
the very condition of having no power over many things, so they worship
money, science, a job, a boss, a politician, etc.

God only wishes to love and be loved. But it's not a demand, it could not be
and obligation or an imposition because in that case it would not be love.
But God doesn't expect that an atheist will love him because someone is
saying that God wishes to be loved. It's a process that at the end, when you
know him, you can decide to love (if you want).
Mike Williams
2012-07-20 19:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
What I meant simpler things, something that you can prove.
If we're talking about things you can prove, Eduardo, then over to you.
Prove that God exists.

Mike
Eduardo
2012-07-20 19:40:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Williams
Post by Eduardo
What I meant simpler things, something that you can prove.
If we're talking about things you can prove, Eduardo, then over to you.
Prove that God exists.
Tell me something that would constitute a proof to you that can't be
explained in some other way or interpretation.
Mike Williams
2012-07-20 20:06:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
Post by Mike Williams
If we're talking about things you can prove, Eduardo, then over to you.
Prove that God exists.
Tell me something that would constitute a proof to you that can't
be explained in some other way or interpretation.
No idea Eduardo. It is not my God and I do not believe that He exists. If
you want to prove His existence then go ahead. You cannot legitimately ask
some to prove that there is NO needle in a haystack, but if you believe that
there is such a needle then the task is very much easier. Over to you,
Eduardo.

Mike
Eduardo
2012-07-20 20:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Williams
Post by Eduardo
Post by Mike Williams
If we're talking about things you can prove, Eduardo, then over to you.
Prove that God exists.
Tell me something that would constitute a proof to you that can't
be explained in some other way or interpretation.
No idea Eduardo.
So you have no idea about what thing would constitute a proof, and you are
asking for it.

It's not "up to me", because it's you who is asking for a proof.

If because of talking about God, I first must prove that he exists, then if
you talk about Microsoft, you should first prove that it exists.
BTW, did you ever go to to Redmond? to their offices?

Still, if you did, it would be a proof for you, not for me.
Mike Williams
2012-07-20 21:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
Post by Mike Williams
No idea Eduardo.
So you have no idea about what thing would constitute
a proof, and you are asking for it.
Well that was rather judicicously snipped, Eduardo. You snipped it to just a
simple "No idea Eduardo" when what I actually said was:

"No idea Eduardo. It is not my God and I do not believe that He exists.
If you want to prove His existence then go ahead. You cannot
legitimately
ask someone to prove that there is NO needle in a haystack, but if you
believe that there is such a needle then the task is very much easier.
Over
to you, Eduardo".

Your response is typical of "believers in God" of course, because they
cannot prove that their God exists, mostly on the grounds that he actually
does NOT exist, and so they always ask "non believers" to prove that he does
not. We are back to the "needle in a haystack" thing, Eduardo.

I do not want you to prove that your God does not exist, Eduardo. Personally
I do not give a shit whether He exists or not, and even if He does exist
then it does not mean that I would like Him, or that I would lay myself down
in front of Him and give Him the adoration that you religious people believe
He wants.

I know in my own mind that He does not exist Eduardo. If you personally
believe that He exists then go ahead and provide some proof. I still would
not necessarily like Him of course, even if you did manage to prove that He
exists, but at least we would be on some sort of common ground if you
managed to succeed. Then we could discuss whether He actually deserves this
unadulterated adoration that you personally attempt to provide Him witf and
that, according to you, he demands from His followers.

Come on, Eduardo. Just admit that your God does not exist. If you think He
doesexist, then show me the proof. Otherwise, if you admit defeat, then just
let this thread go, and I will do the same.

Mike
Eduardo
2012-07-20 22:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Williams
I know in my own mind that He does not exist Eduardo. If you personally
believe that He exists then go ahead and provide some proof. I still would
not necessarily like Him of course, even if you did manage to prove that
He exists, but at least we would be on some sort of common ground if you
managed to succeed. Then we could discuss whether He actually deserves
this unadulterated adoration that you personally attempt to provide Him
witf and that, according to you, he demands from His followers.
If you are going to argue something, the least that I can ask is for you to
read what I said in previous messages.
Post by Mike Williams
"No idea Eduardo. It is not my God and I do not believe that He exists.
If you want to prove His existence then go ahead. You cannot
legitimately
ask someone to prove that there is NO needle in a haystack, but if you
believe that there is such a needle then the task is very much easier.
Over
to you, Eduardo".
You are so biased or dishonest that you always change the sense of what we
were talking.

I didn't ask you to prove that he doesn't exist, but to tell me what thing,
as you were the one asking me for a proof, would constitute a proof for you.
You couldn't answer that simple question.

You ask for "something" but you can't specify what, very sound!
Post by Mike Williams
Your response is typical of "believers in God" of course, because they
cannot prove that their God exists,
Can you prove that Microsoft exists? How?
Post by Mike Williams
mostly on the grounds that he actually does NOT exist,
Just a statement. Repeating something many times doesn't make it more true.
On the contrary, the people often need to repeat and repeat something
because it is not true (anyway it doesn't constitute a garantee that
something that was repeated too much must neccesarily be not true). But it's
suspicious, when someone repeats too much something, it's often an
indicative that he isn't quite sure about that.
It's in any case your problem, but it makes the chat difficult.

On the other hand, I don't like to repeat the things too much.

And the NOT with capitals, and the times that you repeat that, makes make
think that you are really emotionally motivated about it.
Why could be that you are so emotionally motivated to think that he doesn't
exists, is unknown to me. But in any case, it's your "problem".
Post by Mike Williams
and so they always ask "non believers" to prove that he does not. We are
back to the "needle in a haystack" thing, Eduardo.
Well, it's as valid, or even more valid than to prove that he exists.
If you assure that he doesn't exists, I suspect that you must have some kind
of proof.

The proof that I have that he exists, is valid for me.
Repeatable? Yes, if you do something like what I did.
Post by Mike Williams
I do not want you to prove that your God does not exist, Eduardo.
Fine. I don't ask that either.
Post by Mike Williams
Personally I do not give a shit whether He exists or not, and even if He
does exist then it does not mean that I would like Him, or that I would
lay myself down in front of Him and give Him the adoration that you
religious people believe He wants.
I have no problem, do whatever you want.

But you should not be wasting time reading these messages then.
And it's not just your time, it's also other ones time.
Post by Mike Williams
Come on, Eduardo. Just admit that your God does not exist.
I won't lie.
Post by Mike Williams
If you think He does exist, then show me the proof. Otherwise,
How can I do that if you don't follow what I say in one or two messages?

Anyway, why should I spend my time for something that you "do not give a
shit"?
I have a lot of things to do. I write these messages because I _do_ give a
shit. But if you don't, why should I still spend time on this?
Post by Mike Williams
if you admit defeat, then just let this thread go, and I will do the same.
You are insane! Do you think it is a game?
defeat... LOL!

Let's put the things clear:

I speak about these things mainly for two reasons:
1) To help someone.
2) Because I want to proclaim the true God, that is unknown to most of the
people.

Both are very related. The 2) can be explained as when someone buy a new
car, and he is comfortable with it, and talks to everyone about his new car
and its benefits. It's a sort of propaganda mouth to mouth, because you
experienced the benefits and wants other people to know about it.
1) It is when someone is looking for, seeking for responses. It's like the
VB newsgroup, someone has a difficulty, some puzzle, and wants someone with
more knowledge on the subject to help him to figure that puzzle or problem,
or to clarify doubts. To answer VB questions it's something that you do
freely, not because you are obligated, it's just to help the other.
But... the one answering questions wants that the one asking them to have
some interest in solving the "puzzle". Other cases are the trolls, that
could be putting a message that VB6 has some problem, just to annoy VB6
people and to promote .NET, not because they are looking for a solution or
an answer. Why someone should spend time explaining things to such people?
Mike Williams
2012-07-22 08:53:53 UTC
Permalink
[Mike] If you think He does exist, then show me the proof.
[Eduardo] How can I do that if you don't follow what I say in one or two
messages?
What things? Not that it matters what they are of course, because if you do
want to prove that He exists then all I need to do is listen. So, if you
feel you can prove it then go ahead, I'm listening. On the other hand, if
you do not want to prove that He exists then there is no need for you to do
anything other than stop waffling on about it and get on with something more
useful and more appropriate to the group. I'm not bothered either way.

Mike
Eduardo
2012-07-22 12:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Williams
I'm listening.
No, you are not.
Deanna Earley
2012-07-23 08:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
Post by Mike Williams
Your response is typical of "believers in God" of course, because they
cannot prove that their God exists,
Can you prove that Microsoft exists? How?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
(Wow, that's old!)

But seeing as "you said so" is not particular scientific or official,
here's a bit more:
* Look to the bottom left corner of the screen or hit the Windows key.
* http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/msft
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft (with verified and peer
reviewed references)
* http://goo.gl/maps/hNQH
*
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=microsoft&hl=en&prmd=imvnsu&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=AwkNUPK-NYXT0QWm0-GsCg&ved=0CGcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=922
A fairly uniform accepted view of Microsoft Corporation.
* Sadly Washington state's company registry is down so I can't pull out
their registration info either, but I hope the UK registration will do:
*
http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/8e161fae9ea4df7d587b761dd61ecb05/compdetails
(Company No. 01624297)
--
Deanna Earley
DaveO
2012-07-23 08:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
1 Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.
Sorry it's been over 40 years since I tried to learn Hebrew and as soon as I
decided to my own satisfaction that all religions were little more than a
confidence trick I stopped trying to learn a language that has little
relevance today.
Post by Eduardo
Post by DaveO
It seems to me that to believe you have to want to believe which is a bit
strange.
It seems contradictory at the first sight. It seems biased.
But it's the wish of having the evidence to believe, not wishful thinking.
It's the wish of being convinced with evidence and reasoning.
Rubbish, if you want a result and are not too worried about verification and
repeatability then you will always get the result you want. To prove
something like this you have to start with a sceptical mind so you can
discard false evidence based on opinion and hearsay.
Post by Eduardo
Today we have the general thought that all that predates the scientific
era, was a lot inferior, it is of no value, they couldn't be wise people
because if they had been, they had had planes, trains, computers,
satellites, etc.
<< Snipped a lot of crap>>
Post by Eduardo
The relation between the people and God is not a matter of technology and
scientific development, so they could have it without having developed
much technology.
The "scientific era" I wonder when that started? Eratosthenes measured the
circumference of the Earth in 230BC using definitely scientific methods. You
are confusing science with technology which are certainly not the same
things. Perhaps you have heard of the Antikythera mechanism which was made
around 100BC, a remarkably complex piece of clockwork for predicting the
positions of the moon and planets as well as eclipses. The level of
knowledge and skill needed for the construction is far greater than many
people think existed at that time. People 2000 years ago were every bit as
intelligent as people today, they did not know as much as we know today
because there was not as much to know back then however they were far from
ignorant savages. The shape of the Earth was well known, heliocentricity was
being seriously discussed even the idea that the stars were distant suns was
first raised around then. It was religion that put the pursuit of knowledge
back as much of the Greek and older knowledge was counter to scripture (Flat
Earth, geocentricity etc) so it *had* to be suppressed.
Post by Eduardo
Post by DaveO
Anyway
I'm not sure I like the idea of a omnipotent entity that is so insecure it
demands the worship of lesser beings, anything that powerful should have
the intellectual maturity to get by without needing sycophantic adoration.
God doesn't demand a single thing from anybody. All that God wants is for
the people to be fine.
Golly, have you even read the bible? You are meant to pray several times a
day, Muslims still do. Just because it is convenient to ignore demands does
not mean they are not there. Interesting however that this wholesale
dereliction of duty has not brought down divine retribution.
Post by Eduardo
God only wishes to love and be loved. But it's not a demand, it could not
be and obligation or an imposition because in that case it would not be
love.
So he tells people to kill their children, he smites, he destroys cities, he
floods the entire globe, he punishes us all for what Eve is said to have
done, he casts people into the pits of hell. Is this a good way to express
or encourage love? Not in anything other that a sado-masochistic and
possibly abusive relationship. Does god wear a wife-beater shirt because he
seems to behave like a stereotypical redneck!



DaveO
Jason Keats
2012-07-23 10:34:32 UTC
Permalink
<snipped>
Post by DaveO
Post by Eduardo
God only wishes to love and be loved. But it's not a demand, it could not
be and obligation or an imposition because in that case it would not be
love.
So he tells people to kill their children, he smites, he destroys cities, he
floods the entire globe, he punishes us all for what Eve is said to have
done, he casts people into the pits of hell. Is this a good way to express
or encourage love? Not in anything other that a sado-masochistic and
possibly abusive relationship. Does god wear a wife-beater shirt because he
seems to behave like a stereotypical redneck!
Why don't those of you interested in this question see if you can
contribute something new to this page:

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

Those who feel the need to talk to an imaginary friend in the sky need
our sympathy and understanding, not castigation. ;-)

Schmidt
2012-07-14 13:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
Post by Mike Williams
Post by Eduardo
what I abominate(*) is what is evil.
Was that an almost hidden part of your own answer regarding
your views on gay people, or were you just generalising?
Are gay people part of something evil? Is that what you think?
Do you believe they are an abomination?
Yes, homosexuality carries evil.
Gay people don't carry evil, they just carry a slightly
different gene-set than the "normative average".

As for that, everyones gene-set differs from the average -
and that's nothing anybody can influence by himself -
one is just born this way.

What is possible is, that one can learn to keep certain
"genetic predispositions" in check (e.g. when one is an
overly aggressive type, due to a higher than normal
testosteron-level). That's where family ("good upbringing")
or schools ("good education or tutors") come into play,
to learn to finally being able to fight (and win) over
"recalcitrant parts of our nature" with ratio and self-control,
to act in a way, which is considered "civilized" or just
"good natured, human behaviour".

We humans as "socially organized mammals" share (with
e.g. Elephants and Dolphins) one of the longest timespans
from birth to maturity - for a reason - nature *expects* us
to learn (and later on to teach), to survive in our group
later on (genetically imprinted instincts are not entirely
sufficient for social animals to act competitive).

So not each and everything is engraved in the gene-set
when one being is born into and belongs to a species,
which has been taught over thousands of years, how to
ensure "best behaviour" in a social context (for the
health of the group - and the single individuum as well).

Now one might ask, if a genetic predisposition, which
differs from the norm with regards to sexual preference,
is one (compared to e.g. "over-aggressiveness"), which
needs to be "taught to keep in check".

I don't think so.

We are socially at a level (or should be), that our
*society* as a whole should be able to tolerate these
genetic predispositions - in this case it shouldn't be
the individuum which is in need to control his or her
preferences, it's the society which needs to teach, that
these slight differences from the average gene-set do
not the slightest harm to the social group.

There were societies (e.g. in ancient Sparta/Greece-
Macedonia/Carthage/Rome), which already acted this way
(higher tolerance for sexual preferences) and worked
perfectly well.

Sorry, can't see the slightest hint, why a gay person
should be more evil than "the average guy".
E.g. for most gay males, the testosterone-level is below
"male average", meaning less predisposition to "hair-triggered
aggressiveness" usually.

I'm pretty sure, you can follow all of the above logically
(and perhaps share most of what I've just said) - nonetheless
you will perhaps never admit that here, because that would
clash with the opinions of your religious group - or the
opinion of the current religious leader of the Catholic Church
(the Pope).

That's e.g. something what frightens *me* - religious dogma,
(not to mention, religious *hierarchies*, in itself implying
"degrees of power") ... apparently capable even today, to
influence groups of otherwise perfectly normal (modern living
and intelligent) human beings, who usually don't (dare to)
criticize their teachings or their teachers, perhaps not to
"hurt" other members of their religious group (or themselves).

Such "unchanging, static teaching" isn't up to the task IMO.
The world is changing far too fast for that, as to be considered
healthy in the long run for the human society as a whole.

That's the main-problem IMO - personal belief is one thing,
indoctrinating religion (one cannot escape from as a child,
because everyone else around you is "practicing" it), is
a different one. This far too often leads to intolerance in
ones personal world-view later on.


Olaf
Eduardo
2012-07-14 15:41:49 UTC
Permalink
"Schmidt" <***@online.de> escribi� en el mensaje news:jtrs4g$rma$***@speranza.aioe.org...

Please Olaf, I want to ask you to make posts a bit shorter.

But yes, there is a part of genetic, another part of learned (influence of
the environment) and another part of self decision.

As in almost any other area of life.
Coder X
2012-07-15 15:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
Please Olaf, I want to ask you to make posts a bit shorter.
That wasn't very nice. I'd like you to make your posts less nonsensical.
Eduardo
2012-07-15 17:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Coder X
Post by Eduardo
Please Olaf, I want to ask you to make posts a bit shorter.
That wasn't very nice. I'd like you to make your posts less nonsensical.
And I'd like you to become a lurker.
Deanna Earley
2012-07-16 08:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
Please Olaf, I want to ask you to make posts a bit shorter.
But yes, there is a part of genetic
As I said, I was "born this way"
Post by Eduardo
another part of learned (influence of the environment)
I'm sorry, homosexuality is not contagious or catching.
Post by Eduardo
and another part of self decision.
Yes, I chose to be myself and love my girlfriend rather than trying to
make "christians" happy in their delusions of heteronormativity.
--
Deanna Earley (***@icode.co.uk)
i-Catcher Development Team
http://www.icode.co.uk/icatcher/

iCode Systems

(Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the
group.)
Deanna Earley
2012-07-16 07:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
Post by Mike Williams
Post by Eduardo
what I abominate(*) is what is evil.
Was that an almost hidden part of your own answer regarding your views on
gay people, or were you just generalising? Are gay people part of
something evil? Is that what you think? Do you believe they are an
abomination?
Yes, homosexuality carries evil.
Prove it.
The only evil thing here is hatred.
Post by Eduardo
As long as they don't any harm others it's just about their own lives.
I try and say exactly the same about "christians" but then people like
you go and prove me wrong.
--
Deanna Earley (***@earlsoft.co.uk)
Mayayana
2012-07-16 14:21:47 UTC
Permalink
| >> something evil? Is that what you think? Do you believe they are an
| >> abomination?
| >
| > Yes, homosexuality carries evil.
|
| Prove it.
| The only evil thing here is hatred.
|
| > As long as they don't any harm others it's just about their own lives.
|

I'm curious about the word "carries". It sounds to
me like Eduardo is not expressing hatred at all, but rather
a belief that homosexual activity is a "sin" which will
"anger" his "God" and thus block one from entering the
Heaven that he believes in. His beliefs may be absolutist
and simplistic, but they seem to be sincere. He hasn't
actually stated that he himself is not gay. He could
easily be gay and also evangelically anti-gay. There are
lots of such people. Or he might struggle with adultery,
another activity that "carries evil" according to his
beliefs. But I don't get the sense that Eduardo would
consider all adulterers to be inherently evil.

I only wish that evangelicals would focus on some of
the more important moral directives in the Bible, and
be a bit less titillated by the "naughty bits". Usury against
someone of one's own tribe is a sin for Jews. All usury is
a sin for Christians. Yet the US, predominantly Christian,
is in an economic depression due in part to not only legal
usury, but almost totally unregulated usury. It's perfectly
legal for large banks to operate not only as lenders but
as loansharking operations, charging interest in the range
of 20-40% for loans of money that the US gov't is licensing
them to print. I've never heard an evangelical complain about
that.

Personally, if I had to assess the "sin" of a notably generous,
smoking, drinking, gay adulterer in comparison to a teetotalling,
hetero, non-cheating, Bible-carrying loanshark, I'd guess the
former is far more likely to be pleasing God. Doesn't the former
clearly have a more virtuous heart?

On the other hand, what's evil? According to the Googlites
and a lot of semi-literate geeks, "evil" is a general use, vaguely
defined term for "bad". The opposite of the many glibly used
superlatives like "cool" or "amazing". Ex.: "Those cookies are
evil. They've been sitting out since yesterday." :)
Eduardo
2012-07-18 15:58:10 UTC
Permalink
"Mayayana" <***@invalid.nospam> escribi� en el mensaje news:ju17rl$uf8$***@dont-email.me...

Mayayana, I agree with Mike that you assume a lot of things about other
people but you don't have a clue about those things.
DaveO
2012-07-17 08:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deanna Earley
Post by Eduardo
Post by Mike Williams
Post by Eduardo
what I abominate(*) is what is evil.
Was that an almost hidden part of your own answer regarding your views on
gay people, or were you just generalising? Are gay people part of
something evil? Is that what you think? Do you believe they are an
abomination?
Yes, homosexuality carries evil.
Prove it.
The only evil thing here is hatred.
Post by Eduardo
As long as they don't any harm others it's just about their own lives.
I try and say exactly the same about "christians" but then people like you
go and prove me wrong.
Nicely put.
Cheers from the sideline - go girl go!!

Regards
DaveO.
Deanna Earley
2012-07-16 09:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
Post by Mike Williams
Post by Eduardo
what I abominate(*) is what is evil.
Was that an almost hidden part of your own answer regarding your views on
gay people, or were you just generalising? Are gay people part of
something evil? Is that what you think? Do you believe they are an
abomination?
Yes, homosexuality carries evil.
Oh, and you may want to pull the power cable out :p
Loading Image...
--
Deanna Earley
Coder X
2012-07-16 20:44:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deanna Earley
Oh, and you may want to pull the power cable out :p
http://baptistplanet.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/devils_machine-jpeg.jpg
LMAO!!! I'll bet she hasn't had consensual sex since the day she turned
kooky.
Mayayana
2012-07-13 13:53:07 UTC
Permalink
| You don't want God and the Bible, I do. What's the problem?
|
It's in conflict with his beliefs. It's striking that there's
so much talk here of belief and so little talk of faith or
exploration or reflection. Belief implies deciding that something
is true, regardless of experience or evidence. So there's a
very big difference between deliberate belief, as a device,
and dogmatic belief. (Believing vehemently while forgetting that
one actually chose, willy nilly, to do so.)

You believe in an all-powerful God. Mike believes in an
absolute scientific materialism; what might be termed
"radically naive concretism" -- the idea that what you see
is there and what you don't see, ain't. Period.

Each of you is imposing a filter on the possible reality
that you're willing to perceive. And your filters are
contradictory. Is it any surprise, then, that you can't
tolerate each other's stance?
Mike Williams
2012-07-13 15:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Belief implies deciding that something is true, regardless
of experience or evidence.
No it does not. In almost all cases belief implies deciding that something
is true, or at the very least is highly likely to be true, after having
taken account of the various bits of experience or evidence that are
available, even though those things do not in themselves provide absolute
proof.
You believe in an all-powerful God. Mike believes in
an absolute scientific materialism; what might be termed
"radically naive concretism" -- the idea that what you see
is there and what you don't see, ain't. Period.
You're making things up, Mayayana. That is not what I believe at all. The
fact that I cannot see something does NOT cause me to insist that it does
not exist! You should stop making things up about people and then spouting
them in an attempt to give your own views more credence than they actually
deserve.

Mike
Mayayana
2012-07-13 15:54:13 UTC
Permalink
| > Belief implies deciding that something is true, regardless
| > of experience or evidence.
|
| No it does not. In almost all cases belief implies deciding that something
| is true, or at the very least is highly likely to be true, after having
| taken account of the various bits of experience or evidence that are
| available, even though those things do not in themselves provide absolute
| proof.
|

Yes, but those bits of experience and evidence
can be rather whimsical. And once one makes the
decision, it's still just that: *deciding* that something
is true. That's an unnecessary absolutism which filters
subsequent perceptions. Your belief that God does not
exist is frivolous. You simply don't need to make that
decision in the context of your life and experience.

In fact, such a belief is a filter by definition, since there
is no reason whatsoever to ever *decide* that something
is true, period. Unfortunately, your religion of scientific
materialism precludes you from entertaining the possibility
that you might actually be pre-defining reality through
your beliefs. You assume (believe without question) that
reality, at any level, is an absolute object that you are
fully capable of comprehending as an absolute subject...
Radically naive concretism.

When you look at it that way your particular dogma
is rather irrational and far-fetched. I'd sooner believe
that the universe is run by an 80-foot-tall man with
a white beard, wearing a nightgown. :)
Mike Williams
2012-07-13 17:11:12 UTC
Permalink
[Mayayana said] Belief implies deciding that something
is true, regardless of experience or evidence.
[Mike said] No it does not. In almost all cases belief implies
deciding that something is true, or at the very least is highly
likely to be true, after having taken account of the various bits
of experience or evidence that are available, even though those
things do not in themselves provide absolute proof.
[Mayayana said] Yes, but those bits of experience and
evidence can be rather whimsical.
You have proposed that such things "can be" rather whimsical without also
proposing that they "can be" founded in something much more concrete than
whimsy. Attempting to belittle things in such a way when talking about
others whilst not doing so when talking about yourself is a cheap
physochological trick that does not wash with me, nor I suspect with anyone
else.
And once one makes the decision, it's still just that: *deciding*
that something is true. That's an unnecessary absolutism which
filters subsequent perceptions.
No it is not. It is not absolutism at all, or at least an absolutist
attitude is certainly not a prerequisite or an outcome of belief. You are
again making things up. Some people believe in the existence of a
supernatural God and some do not, and some express neutrality. Whether a
particular believer in God is being absolutist in his belief is up to him,
and it is not necessarily always the case. They may merely believe that the
existence of a supernatural God is, for them, the most likely case. For
myself, I believe that by far the most likely case is that a supernatural
God does not exist. It is definitelty not absolutism, and I would appreciate
it if you would kindly stop attempting to bolster your own ego by pretending
that it is.
You assume (believe without question) that reality, at
any level, is an absolute object that you are fully capable
of comprehending as an absolute subject...
Radically naive concretism.
You are wrong again. I do not believe without question at all, and neither
do I profess absolute certainty. It might suit you to think that I do, in
fact I'm sure it does suit you to entertain such thoughts, because it then
allows you to stand aloof in an attempt to give your own position, whatever
it is, more credence than it actually deserves.

Everything you say, and everything you do in your attempts to bolster your
own ego, is based on your own misconceptions of the views of others and it
therefore fails.

Mike
Mayayana
2012-07-13 19:07:23 UTC
Permalink
| >> [Mike said] No it does not. In almost all cases belief implies
| >> deciding that something is true, or at the very least is highly
| >> likely to be true, after having taken account of the various bits
| >> of experience or evidence that are available, even though those
| >> things do not in themselves provide absolute proof.
|
| > [Mayayana said] Yes, but those bits of experience and
| > evidence can be rather whimsical.
|
| You have proposed that such things "can be" rather whimsical without also
| proposing that they "can be" founded in something much more concrete than
| whimsy. Attempting to belittle things in such a way when talking about
| others whilst not doing so when talking about yourself is a cheap

I didn't mean to imply that my mind is any less sloppy.
Indeed, that's why I try not to take my beliefs too
seriously. I know how arbitrary and emotionally motivated
they can be.
Mike Williams
2012-07-13 19:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
I didn't mean to imply that my mind is any less sloppy.
Indeed, that's why I try not to take my beliefs too
seriously. I know how arbitrary and emotionally
motivated they can be.
Well they can be, yes, but it is not necessarily so and in fact is more
often not the case. Belief is just that. A belief that something is true in
the absence of concrete proof. Religious belief (as opposed to belief in
general) does of course often, but not always, carry emotional baggage with
it. I must admit that I sometimes myself get emotionally involved when I
hear of people who apparently have a genuine belief in the existence of
their God and when I see the terrible things that many of them do and have
done in the past in His name. Admittedly there are people who do terrible
things to others regardless of whether they believe in God or not, but it is
the arrogance of the "believers" who do such things that I find so hard to
swallow.

Mike
Eduardo
2012-07-13 16:08:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| You don't want God and the Bible, I do. What's the problem?
|
It's in conflict with his beliefs. It's striking that there's
so much talk here of belief and so little talk of faith or
exploration or reflection.
We can't talk about everything in a post message.
And for me, belief and faith are the same (in almost every case, and they
are in this one)

Exploration and reflection are related, of course.
Post by Mayayana
Belief implies deciding that something
is true, regardless of experience or evidence.
No. It's deciding that something is true but taking into account all
evidence (experience is just part of the evidence).
What you say is "blind faith", that's a fanatic attitud and that's not
belief really (or what I mean when I talk about belief).
Post by Mayayana
So there's a
very big difference between deliberate belief, as a device,
and dogmatic belief. (Believing vehemently while forgetting that
one actually chose, willy nilly, to do so.)
All the time and every person decides to believe and disbelieve things.
That's a process of the mind, everyone is doing this continuosly.
Post by Mayayana
You believe in an all-powerful God. Mike believes in an
absolute scientific materialism; what might be termed
"radically naive concretism" -- the idea that what you see
is there and what you don't see, ain't. Period.
Yes, period.
Post by Mayayana
Each of you is imposing a filter on the possible reality
No. I'm not imposing a filter to reality.
A filter is something that allows to pass some things and discard others.
I'm not doing this. I allow all the things, analyze them, then I come to
conclussions, and I discard lies (or things that I come to the conclussion
that are not true or wrong), I don't discard evidences (reality -in your
words-).

What I do is an interpretation of the evidence, and that's another thing.
In fact, we as humans have very little information from our perception, and
we need to learn how to interpret that information that is partial. That's
why there are so many beliefs, because we cannot perceive all the reality.
Post by Mayayana
that you're willing to perceive. And your filters are
contradictory. Is it any surprise, then, that you can't
tolerate each other's stance?
What do you say that I don't tolerate?
Mayayana
2012-07-13 16:30:04 UTC
Permalink
| And for me, belief and faith are the same (in almost every case, and they
| are in this one)....
| No. It's deciding that something is true but taking into account all
| evidence (experience is just part of the evidence).
| What you say is "blind faith", that's a fanatic attitud and that's not
| belief really (or what I mean when I talk about belief).

The words get confusing. I'm thinking of faith as
experience that doesn't need confirmation or belief,
while belief is simply that: deciding that something
is true. Faith doesn't need to decide. It knows. But
what it knows is not empirical/factual. Faith might
know God, but it doesn't need to believe in God.

Sometimes people try to create faith out of belief,
and then they end up needing to convince others, or
adopt a fanatical position themselves, because they
don't actually *know* for themselves.

Sometimes that kind of belief can lead to faith, but
not always. So I wasn't using belief and faith to mean
the same thing. Semantics.

| > that you're willing to perceive. And your filters are
| > contradictory. Is it any surprise, then, that you can't
| > tolerate each other's stance?
|
| What do you say that I don't tolerate?
|

Nothing I know of. I meant that you and Mike
are at unresolvable extremes.
Eduardo
2012-07-13 18:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
The words get confusing. I'm thinking of faith as
experience that doesn't need confirmation or belief,
while belief is simply that: deciding that something
is true. Faith doesn't need to decide. It knows. But
what it knows is not empirical/factual. Faith might
know God, but it doesn't need to believe in God.
Sometimes people try to create faith out of belief,
and then they end up needing to convince others, or
adopt a fanatical position themselves, because they
don't actually *know* for themselves.
Sometimes that kind of belief can lead to faith, but
not always. So I wasn't using belief and faith to mean
the same thing. Semantics.
I don't talk of belief in that sense. For me belief is something that you
accept having enough information, it's not a guess or something that you
think but you are not quite convinced.
When you believe something you are sure.

I know that in English (and also in Spanish) we use the word "believe", as
saying "I believe that..." when you are not quite sure, and it's just
something that you think that could be true but you have some doubts.

Well, when I talk about believing in these other contexts, it's not like
that.

It's basically "to accept something". You could not be totally sure or
convinced at the beginning, but once you are on that path (the path of
believing something) you can see more evidence that confirms your initial
acceptance or to deny it, and then you don't believe that any more.

Then I could say: to believe (in this context) is to be convinced about
something.

Of course you can understand the word in other meaning, but I explain how
I'm using it here.
Post by Mayayana
| > that you're willing to perceive. And your filters are
| > contradictory. Is it any surprise, then, that you can't
| > tolerate each other's stance?
|
| What do you say that I don't tolerate?
|
Nothing I know of. I meant that you and Mike
are at unresolvable extremes.
Why unresolvable? I have no problem with Mike. I appreciate him because of
his help and contributions to the VB group.

And about I'm at an "extreme"... may be, I don't want to be a mediocre
anyway
Mike Williams
2012-07-13 19:06:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
I don't talk of belief in that sense. For me belief is something that
you accept having enough information, it's not a guess or something
that you think but you are not quite convinced. When you believe
something you are sure.
Well that's fine. If that's what you personally mean when you talk about
your beliefs then feel free to continue to do so. As long as you tell us
what you personally mean by it then it isn't a problem.
Post by Eduardo
I know that in English (and also in Spanish) we use the word
"believe", as saying "I believe that..." when you are not quite
sure, and it's just something that you think that could be true
but you have some doubts.
Well I don't know whether I agree with your phrases "not quite sure" and
"have some doubts" because that implies such uncertainty and doubts are
foremost in a person's mind when he says the word "believe", which is not
usually the case. However, that definition (although not your own personal
definition as first stated) is reasonably close, and is way off the mark of
the definition suggested by Mayayana, which is clearly wrong. According to
the Oxford English Dictionary the word is defined as follows:

To accept that (something) is true, especially without proof

But arguing semantics is not really useful anyway. The act of amplifying
what we each individually mean when we say something in a specific context
should suffice in most cases, unless of course someone is in the business of
deliberately trading one person off against another in a futile attempt to
add credence to his own rarely expressed views, as has sometimes been the
case in this thread.

Mike
Eduardo
2012-07-13 19:47:42 UTC
Permalink
"Mike Williams" <***@WhiskyAndCoke.com> escribi� en el mensaje news:jtprjq$a18$***@dont-email.me...

Yes, also as I'm not a native English speaker I could sometimes misuse a
word. These subjects are hard to explain even in our own language.

In the every day talk I often hear (and I also use) expressions like "I
believe that this politician will end up doing something" or "I believe the
next week the prices will go down". I know that when someone says "I
believe" it implies that he is quite convinced, more than when he says "I
think" or "I guess", but there is still some room for doubt (that's how I
understand it, may be I'm wrong). When you are really sure you say "I know
that...".
Mike Williams
2012-07-13 14:56:00 UTC
Permalink
[Eduardo said] Of course the Bible is not inerrant, because it
was copied many times, and some were even memorized and
then copied. What is inerrant is the word of God. And that's
what one can have studying the Bible, that is what is important.
[Mike said] You've said some really stupid things Eduardo,
but you have exceeded yourself with that one! What a load
of nonesense!
[Eduardo retorted] If you don't want the information on the Bible,
it's OK, but you guys should go to a psychologist, because it's not
normal to have so much hate to the people that believes in it.
What I said, as quoted above, has nothing to do with hatred Eduardo, nor
with craziness. You need to get this business of hatred out of your heart.
What I said was merely intended draw your attention to the absurd and
entirely illogical statement you made yourself. There was no hatred in it at
all. Personally I think it is you who needs to see a psychologist, not me.
You don't want God and the Bible, I do. What's the problem?
No problem, Eduardo. If you want it to stop then stop trying to pump your
own views down other people's throats and stop making absurd and illogical
statements, such as the statement of yours quoted above to which I
responded. If you stop doing that then I shall naturally stop responding to
your stupidity.

Mike
Eduardo
2012-07-14 08:59:02 UTC
Permalink
[Eduardo said] Of course the Bible is not inerrant, because it
was copied many times, and some were even memorized and
then copied. What is inerrant is the word of God. And that's
what one can have studying the Bible, that is what is important.
and stop making absurd and illogical statements, such as the statement of
yours quoted above to which I responded.
What do you think was "illogical" in what I've said?
Mike Williams
2012-07-14 11:58:10 UTC
Permalink
[Eduardo said] Of course the Bible is not inerrant, because
it was copied many times, and some were even memorized
and then copied. What is inerrant is the word of God. And
that's what one can have studying the Bible, that is what is
important.
[Mike said] stop making absurd and illogical statements
[Eduardo said] What do you think was "illogical" in what I've said?
Well if you really cannot see why I think your statement is illogical then I
can only assume it is because you simply do not want to see it. Read your
statement again, Eduardo.

Mike
Eduardo
2012-07-14 13:55:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Williams
[Eduardo said] Of course the Bible is not inerrant, because
it was copied many times, and some were even memorized
and then copied. What is inerrant is the word of God. And
that's what one can have studying the Bible, that is what is
important.
[Mike said] stop making absurd and illogical statements
[Eduardo said] What do you think was "illogical" in what I've said?
Well if you really cannot see why I think your statement is illogical then
I can only assume it is because you simply do not want to see it. Read
your statement again, Eduardo.
OK, reading it one more time I see that I made some mistakes writing, the
additions are into brackets:

Of course the Bible in not inerrant, [there are some errors] because it was
copied many times, and
some [parts] were even memorized and then copied [back].
What is inerrant is the word of God. And that's what one can have studying
the Bible, that is what is important.
Mike Williams
2012-07-14 14:40:07 UTC
Permalink
[Mike said] Well if you really cannot see why I think your
statement is illogical then I can only assume it is because
you simply do not want to see it. Read your statement
again, Eduardo.
[Eduardo said] OK, reading it one more time I see that I
Of course the Bible in not inerrant, [there are some errors]
because it was copied many times, and some [parts] were
even memorized and then copied [back]. What is inerrant
is the word of God. And that's what one can have studying the Bible, that
is what is important.
It's still illogical, Eduardo. You've got to be kidding me when you say you
cannot see it? Read it one more time. The final sentence is simply NOT
something that can be logically deduced from the preceeding sentences. In
fact the opposite is true.

Mike
Eduardo
2012-07-14 15:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Williams
Post by Eduardo
Of course the Bible in not inerrant, [there are some errors]
because it was copied many times, and some [parts] were
even memorized and then copied [back]. What is inerrant
is the word of God. And that's what one can have studying the Bible, that
is what is important.
It's still illogical, Eduardo. You've got to be kidding me when you say
you cannot see it? Read it one more time. The final sentence is simply NOT
something that can be logically deduced from the preceeding sentences. In
fact the opposite is true.
May be because you lack the knowledge of some information.
I'll amplify the comment.

1) What God speaks is "the word of God".
2) God spoke to people that received "the word of God" in the past.
3) They wrote it when God told them to write it.
4) They copied it many times over the time when the papyruses were getting
old.
5) At some point it was completely lost or lost in part (because of the
destruction from enemies).
6) They copied it back again from their memories.
7) About the phrase "And that's what one can have studying the Bible, that
is what is important": it is necessary to study to get the "word of God",
not just to read the Bible.
The errors are just part of the problem. This information was given to a
people that had a way of thinking very different from ours. You need to
study their customs, how they lived, how the thought, idiomatic expressions,
many things, figures of speech that they used, etc.
You don't have the word of God just reading the Bible and don't
understanding a single thing.

I hope this time I was a bit more clear.
Mike Williams
2012-07-14 17:57:51 UTC
Permalink
[Mike said] It's still illogical, Eduardo. You've got to be kidding me
when you say you cannot see it? Read it one more time. The final
sentence is simply NOT something that can be logically deduced
from the preceeding sentences.
[Eduardo said] May be because you lack the knowledge of some
information. I'll amplify the comment.
1) What God speaks is "the word of God".
Well, I suppose that if you believe God actually exists and that he actually
said something then it would be logical for you to also say that what God
speaks is the word of God, in much the same way that you might say what The
Grim Reaper speaks is the word of the Grim Reaper. It doesn't prove that
either of those beings exist of course, nor that they said anything, but at
least the single specific conclusion of "What X speaks is the word of X" is
itself logical, provided of course that you are first willing to acccept
that X does exist and that X did say something. Personally I do not accept
that either God or The Grim Reaper exist. I think that in both cases it is
extremely unlikely to be true. However, if you wish to believe it yourself
then you are free to do so.
2) God spoke to people that received "the word of God" in the past.
3) They wrote it when God told them to write it.
Highly unlikely.
4) They copied it many times over the time when the papyruses
were getting old.
5) At some point it was completely lost or lost in part (because
of the destruction from enemies).
6) They copied it back again from their memories.
Well, even for someone who accepts the validity of 2 and 3 (which are both
highly unlikely) then that person must be feeling a bit lost after reading
4, 5 and 6 which would appear to cast serious doubt on the fidelity of the
recording. So far, after reading what you have said above, we seem to have a
being who is highly unlikely to exist saying something to an unspecified
group of people who wrote it down on some papyruses. Then, when the
papyruses were getting old either the same group of people, or more likely a
completely different group of people, copied the texts from the old worn
originals onto some new papyruses, and this happened many, many times over.
Then, some time later, either all of it or large chunks of it were lost or
destroyed by enemies, causing people to copy it back onto new papyruses from
their memories. You haven't said how long this entire process took, but
presumably the "copies from memory" were written onto new papyruses by a
different group of people than the original group who made the original
copy, so the memories were not actually memories at all but were the result
of stories that had been passed from one generation to another. This all
sounds a bit "fuzzy" to me.
7) About the phrase "And that's what one can have studying
the Bible, that is what is important": it is necessary to study
to get the "word of God", not just to read the Bible.
So even you admit that this bible of yours no longer contains the word of
God, even if it had done in the first place, which is itself highly
unlikely, and you admit that it is necessary to study some other unreliable
and even less tangible things in order to extract bits of this word of God
from the damaged and incomplete and half remembered snippets of folk lore
that are currently recorded. That doesn't sound like a very reliable process
to me. Are you sure that you believe in this God of yours?
I hope this time I was a bit more clear.
Erm . . . No!

Mike
Deanna Earley
2012-07-16 08:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Personally I do not accept that either God or The Grim Reaper
exist.
The Grim Reaper does and has a horse called Binky :p
--
Deanna Earley
DaveO
2012-07-17 09:44:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Williams
So even you admit that this bible of yours no longer contains the word of
God, even if it had done in the first place, which is itself highly
unlikely, and you admit that it is necessary to study some other
unreliable and even less tangible things in order to extract bits of this
word of God from the damaged and incomplete and half remembered snippets
of folk lore that are currently recorded. That doesn't sound like a very
reliable process to me. Are you sure that you believe in this God of
yours?
Even that process is largely wrong. There were a great many scriptures,
scrolls and legends around the 2nd to 3rd centuries. The nascent church held
a conference at which they decided which scriptures should be church
doctrine and which should be excluded and destroyed*. Here a lot of the
major conflicting stories were removed, considering the conflicts that
remain the ones removed but have been quite damaging to the position of the
clergy.

The bible is not "the word of god" but the result of a bunch of self-serving
clerics. Add to that the fact that the King James translation is littered
with translations errors which would now be hard to correct.

*When I say "destroyed" I mean exactly that, possession of the expunged
scripture was considered a heresy punishable by death, so it's not
surprising that very few of the early scriptures survive.



DaveO.
Coder X
2012-07-13 17:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
If you don't want the information on the Bible, it's OK, but you guys
should go to a psychologist, because it's not normal to have so much hate
to the people that believes in it.
Someone who believes in living among the clouds after death with an
egocentric entity who demands complete and utter devotion at the threat of
damnation and hellfire is telling me *I* need to see a psychiatrist? Wow!

FTR, I don't hate anyone who believes, to each their own. I just think
they're kooky, which does not equate to hate. Some people are born simple
minded, unable to grasp the concept of aloneness in the universe without
some unseen deity to fill that need. It's quite sad, actually.
Eduardo
2012-07-14 09:02:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Coder X
Someone who believes in living among the clouds after death with an
egocentric entity who demands complete and utter devotion at the threat of
damnation and hellfire is telling me *I* need to see a psychiatrist? Wow!
Yes you need to go to a psychiatrist because you don't know if I believe
that and even so you are saying I do.
DaveO
2012-07-17 09:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eduardo
You don't want God and the Bible, I do. What's the problem?
None whatsoever as long as you keep it to yourself.
However there is in America a large number of people who are trying to get
the fact of evolution removed from education and replaced with the fantasy
of creationism. An action that will be disastrous for the American economy
in the future.

Perhaps you have heard of Lysenko, he doubted genetics on ideological
grounds and put forward a theory that followed soviet teachings better and
managed to grease his way to the top of the biological sciences in the
Soviet Union. As a result no students for 2 generations learned any useful
biology and the second harvests promised by Lysenko never happened. So while
the Soviet Union had many excellent scientists in rocketry or mathematics
they had no useful biologists for about 40 years.

America will suffer exactly the same fate, the biological sciences in
America will wither and other nations will steal any lead America might have
if creationism is allowed a foothold. In the Soviet Union this attitude
caused the death by starvation of many people, I doubt that America would
face the same but if the lie of creationism is forced into schools then
famine is possible.



DaveO.
Loading...