FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Living in the Old Testament.





Dementei
There are a lot of Christians and churches out there that are still hanging behind in the Old Testament, basically following the Moses law. I am going to ramble about why we shouldn't. Being a Christian of today we can still sometimes be a bit closed in by this box trapped inside by our guilt which is mainly produced by the condemnation provided by those surrounding the old ways before Jesus, if you know what I mean, except for the usual guilt of the sins you know you've committed. Condemning one another destroys lives and even any paths to Christ if there were any. Christians have destroyed their own name by the mass destruction caused by those with megaphones and those little pamphlets that do the destruction alone. Condemning others to hell should be taken more seriously, I am saying all this and referring to those that only know to live by the commandments because I want to show you that there is another way, and it is the way of life through Jesus Christ. You don't need a rule book to tell you the way to live, Christ has all the answers for you, he is all you will ever need I guarantee it. It is out of hate that we condemn others, even if you care for the person it shows how much you just really need to love them not condemn them of their sins, they know it was wrong to do if anything simply show them you are there for them and to help them out as a brother or sister. Jesus came so that we may be saved by grace, not by following a set of rules, even then if you tried to follow every commandment every single day of your life..it would end up in immediate failure. You see, those that live by rules in general, have created walls around themselves making them very limited in what they can do. If only we could just live by Jesus, and by Jesus alone, there would be no walls, no limits, endless possibilities to love. Take a moment and look at your life, the way you live every day, do you have that unconditional love or do you have the relentless hate? The reason I ask is because keeping tabs with the way we live is important. Anyhow, if you really want to know the true way of life with Jesus, I advise you to pull out your New Testament Bible and read the book of Galatians. It's about Paul, and it's a letter he wrote to the people in Galatia, basically in full rebuke in what they've become. Paul says it much better than I do, haha so have a go, and I'm open to any questions as well. Here is Chapter 5 of Galatians that really hits the spot of what I am trying to say.

If any of you have read through this ramble of mine, I'd like some feedback if you agree on my statement or if you disagree, my mind is as open as the sea. I've left out a lot of details on things, and I may be making it look worse than they seem..but in my case I've been through it all and I've seen the destruction too many times to count. So let me know what you think. Thanks and all glory to God.
Bikerman
Well, Galatians is Paul selling the religion after Jesus has departed. Jesus himself, according to the Gospels, was quite keen on the laws and rule-books.
Quote:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:17:20
In Galatians Paul is pushing through the new policy of opening the new religion up to Gentiles as well as Jews. This is not Jesus's policy - this is Paul. It is made abundantly clear in the Gospels that Jesus is a devout Jew - the passage above is just one example. It was Paul, with his eye for the main chance, that saw the benefits of opening the religion up. That way it could expand rapidly.

The downside was that much of what Jesus said must be honoured to the letter, Paul could not say the same for. Circumcision, the preparation of Kosher foods and many more items of Jewish law were not acceptable to the new gentile Christians. What we see in Galatians is Paul trying to concoct a fudge to keep the new church together.
He starts by praising and emphasising the Apostolic tradition. He then shifts to subtly undermining the law. After saying that anyone who disobeys is cursed, he switches to attack and tries to make the case that only through Jesus is salvation possible and the law is therefore secondary.
Note that this is directly contradicting what Jesus actually said....
Dementei
I'm gonna have to defend Paul here and say the following:

The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Everyone knows the commandments, it's all there in our hearts, we all know what is right and what is wrong. It's a choice and a lifestyle. What you are saying is going totally against Paul, then why even have the book of Galatians in the Bible? You make it seem irrelevant..

Anyhow, I am bashing on the Bible-thumpers, not the Law. Those who have just gone to the extreme. Those that seem like they hate life to be honest..and so they bring everyone down with them. The whole point of this ramble was to basically show there is another way of bringing those to Christ. There is the original way of condemning those to hell if you don't do this sorta way, then there's the way of becoming friends with the lost showing them the love of God through oneself and revealing them what power God has in our lives. Basically to be like Jesus. Jesus is what every Christians role model should be, no doubt. Either way can work, but which is most efficient?

So let's just face it, there are those that can live free and follow their hearts and have that amazingly strong relationship with God and there are those that need a certain religion that keep strict boundaries on lives and live a balanced life. Just saying, there is more than Sunday church. Everyday is church, we are the church, and it's time we brought these walls down and bring the church to the outside.

I think most of the older generation, ages above 50, are in the modern way of thinking, and those in my generation.. well we want more than just rules, we want life, we want the fullness of Jesus and I am pretty sure we can't find that in church. Church is awesome and is really refreshing to go worship God in praise. The churches I am bashing on as well, are the basically dead ones..ones that are just there for those just to come and say they go to church, you know what I mean? But God bless those lively churches, that sing to God, and the Holy Spirit just seems to be all around because you can simply feel it when you walk through the doors..

Do you understand where I am getting at? I've been growing up in churches all my life, I know what it's like, I've been through so much with Christ and he's always been there for me, always. Sunday church doesn't cut it, for me. And I know plenty others that feel the same way. I have always lived by the Law, many of us have, and we all still live by it because we know it in our hearts.

I hope you see what I mean, Galatians was only an example, and if you feel vulnerable as if I am attacking you or anyone, I am not. I am simply shining the light in a another direction, showing the way entirely through Christ.
Bikerman
I think you are missing the point. When Jesus talks about the Law he is not talking about the 10 commandments. They are only a tiny part of the Jewish law. The law includes instructions on washing, what to eat and not eat, circumcision for males - and a whole load of other stuff. THAT is what Jesus was talking about and what Paul was trying to argue away.
You haven't lived by the law at all, unless you are a Hasidic Jew.

Have you actually READ Galations? If so then how could you not understand this?

The idea that people have some inherent knowledge of the 10 commandments is a nonsense. Actually I regard several of the commandments to be immoral - certainly 1, 2 and 3 are the rantings of an insecure demagogue and 10 would be the end of modern society.
c'tair
Ah, I wanted to quote that passage, Bikerman Razz .

I always used it as an argument that there is no 'old god, new god' difference that goes along with the old testament god, who was one damn sonuvabiatch and the new testament god who seemed very much like a hippie (peace and love, bro's). And they always respond with a "BUT! but but but! it's not what jesus said" and then I tell them that it's exactly what Jesus said.

And I think a lot of this comes from people not really reading the bible or reading it when it supports their side of the story.

And Dementei, like Bikerman said before me, you haven't lived by the Law if you haven't been a very, very, very strict follower of Judaism. Just because you view yourself as having done so, doesn't mean you actually did.
Dementei
You both are getting off topic and totally ignored of what I am trying to say. I know the actual Law, I know what the Jews had to go through, and I am not wanting this to be an argument. I have said all I had to say above in my 2 posts, if you can't understand what I am saying then your mind may not be as open to be able to understand. Those in the older generation, I have noticed, there are many who are narrow-minded and will never want to change what they already know, simply because well.. it's hard to accept and they don't want to change the way they've been living their whole life. I understand this, so my aim with this thread is for the younger generation, teens and twenties, and if you are in that age group then you should understand and be able to compare with what I've said. If not, then it will be hard to see through to where I am coming from.
c'tair
^ Your original post lack paragraphs, which would make it much easier to read. Also, I don't like the ultimatum you gave - either unconditional love or relentless hate. I don't sit in either of those groups.

It just seems you want to propagate the 'newer' ways of worship like singing, dancing etc. and get away from the traditional methods of worship ie. revering god in silence as a god fearing man or woman. That's what you're getting at - that people don't need to be afraid of god like they were in the old testament (Job?), but rather they should sing and laugh and pray so that they update their firmware to that of the new testament?
spinout
hehe, there are texts of "stoning" in the old testament. Stoning, is when you throw rocks at someone until they die...
Bikerman
Dementei wrote:
You both are getting off topic and totally ignored of what I am trying to say. I know the actual Law, I know what the Jews had to go through, and I am not wanting this to be an argument. I have said all I had to say above in my 2 posts, if you can't understand what I am saying then your mind may not be as open to be able to understand. Those in the older generation, I have noticed, there are many who are narrow-minded and will never want to change what they already know, simply because well.. it's hard to accept and they don't want to change the way they've been living their whole life. I understand this, so my aim with this thread is for the younger generation, teens and twenties, and if you are in that age group then you should understand and be able to compare with what I've said. If not, then it will be hard to see through to where I am coming from.

No, I have not gone off-topic and I read very carefully what you had to say. I don't think you DO know the actual law - I don't know all of it and I do know quite a bit about the bible. (If you don't want a debate (argument) then you are in the wrong place).

Of course I can understand what you are saying - it just happens to be wrong in my opinion. 'Narrow minded' is a phrase often used by people to refer to others who are not gullible enough to take what they say at face value. What I see (regardless of my age) is someone trying to evangelise but not really knowing what he is talking about.

Obviiously you are happy in your faith and clearly you want others to share your experience. At the moment, though, all you are saying is Jesus is cool so just forget everything difficult and it'll be fine. To me that is more cultist than religion.
Dementei
I guess so far there is no one here who can relate, my apologies, and don't worry I am fearful of God, for we are all fearfully and wonderfully made.

And I am not talking about Judaism, I'm talking about us Americans and the way we do things. It's not right or wrong, some ways work better for others some do not. The ways that work best for the younger generation is to be friends and bring them to church and show them what it's all about.

The ways that don't work well are the ways through condemnation which I know will lead to guilt and eventually to God. It takes more work than it used to bring those to Christ, because many have been lead away from the cross by those "bible-thumpers" in a way.. they shouldn't take the blame though really.. I think this generation has begun to lose it's morality and are simply afraid of persecution and not "fitting in" with the world. Our seeds that we plant will have to take much more love and gardening.

But my friends and people I know, their reasons for not believing in God are all the same, and it leads back to all the wars and destruction and they always say too, "If there's a God why'd he let all of this happen?".. not all of them ask that fortunately. Then from there I explain freewill, and that they don't simply understand "how God works."

But anyhow, perhaps making this thread was a mistake..if there's at least some understanding gained then that's great. Sorry for any trouble and misunderstanding.
Bikerman
But the questions are valid. The question 'why does God allow suffering' is a basic question which people will always ask - and SHOULD ask. Simply saying 'free will' is not an answer and raises many other questions - such as how can freewill exist if God is omnipotent and omniscient?

The notion that people have lost their faith because they are afraid of persecution is odd. Just who do you think would persecute the religious in America? Last time I checked the US was one of the most religious countries in the western world.
LittleBlackKitten
Jesus' purpose was not to abolish OR uphold the old laws, but to give us CHOICE. We can CHOOSE to become a Child of God, or, we can ignore the gift, and keep on as we like. When he said nothing would change until His purpose had been fulfilled, (paraphrasing...) that means that the old law was still in effect until his death and resurrection. Upon that moment, the old testament became replaced with one law: "Love thy neighbor as thyself" or in modern language, "Do to everyone else what you'd have done to yourself". I believe whole heartedly that this is the ONLY real LAW governing Christianity, and everything else is a guildeline, a safety manual, if you will. Jesus' purpose was to change and save, and there's a great reason for it.


In those days, the atonement for sin was to sacrifice the best and the most perfect of whatever it was that you did, be you a farmer, a shepherd, a rich man (where tithing comes in to play), or a carpenter, whatever. The atonement was to take these things when you sin and BURN THEM. To completely destroy and offer up the best of what you have up to God as a sacrifice for your sin. If you did not do this, or did not offer up the best, God got angry with you and you felt His wrath. God HATED being like this, He did not want to remain an angry God. So, Jesus was sent to be the ultimate perfect sacrifice, doing away with the need to repent of OLD laws, and to follow the NEW law, with a few guidelines, and to become the true Children of God that He wants us to be; not terrified little peons that must sacrifice our best all the time.


The reason Christianty holds steadfast to the old law is because it is familliar. People for the most part do not like to accept radical changes in their faith, and furthermore, it gives them something to do, an excude to regulate themselves, where they feel they are not regulated enough. God trusts us to listen to the Holy Spirit to pay attention to His Will regarding different situations, and to do what we know is right, and to obey the one law above all - which isn't hard, if we get over ourselves enough to see that there are other people in this world besides us. Christians today need the old and new testament as law in order to feel devoted to something; that's why the majority of those beliving in God, as well as every other religion, cannot break away from the old law.


Jesus was a Rabbi. His gift to us was the same that God gives us every day. The opportunity to become an apostle of a rabbi.

In those days, apostles were chosen from the best jewish men of them all. From an early age, jewish men were (and still are) expected to MEMORIZE the first five books of the bible. Those who are the best of the best of that lot are chosen to apostle, where they must memorize the rest of the old testament in its entirety. The best of the best of those left are chosen then to learn to become a Rabbi if their own; disciples. Then, they must have the entire bible memorized from genisis to revelation perfectly, then they are allowed to become a Rabbi. Only the most perfect men are allowed to become a Rabbi; no blemish on flesh nor soul, no marring history, just as close to Holy Perfection as possible. Then and ONLY THEN can you be a Rabbi. Rabbi are teachers, dictators, and those whose disciples and apostles must be controlled and taught to be perfect. If at any time you mess up or fail or do not answer correctly, you are forbidden to become a Rabbi, thrown from the religion, and must follow your father's footsteps in his chosen career. Jesus said "no more" to this, and chose men that had already been labeled as unperfect, as failiures, He taught them, and made them into Rabbis after His own steps. He said you ARE good enough. You ARE going to follow me.

This made their LIVES. They had been told they were useless, no good, and to follow their father, fighting to exist with low pay and little chance to advance any further. People who were not good enough.

That's the thing. We're ALL. Good enough.
_________________
The Adviser
Dementei
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Jesus' purpose was not to abolish OR uphold the old laws, but to give us CHOICE. We can CHOOSE to become a Child of God, or, we can ignore the gift, and keep on as we like. When he said nothing would change until His purpose had been fulfilled, (paraphrasing...) that means that the old law was still in effect until his death and resurrection. Upon that moment, the old testament became replaced with one law: "Love thy neighbor as thyself" or in modern language, "Do to everyone else what you'd have done to yourself". I believe whole heartedly that this is the ONLY real LAW governing Christianity, and everything else is a guildeline, a safety manual, if you will. Jesus' purpose was to change and save, and there's a great reason for it.


In those days, the atonement for sin was to sacrifice the best and the most perfect of whatever it was that you did, be you a farmer, a shepherd, a rich man (where tithing comes in to play), or a carpenter, whatever. The atonement was to take these things when you sin and BURN THEM. To completely destroy and offer up the best of what you have up to God as a sacrifice for your sin. If you did not do this, or did not offer up the best, God got angry with you and you felt His wrath. God HATED being like this, He did not want to remain an angry God. So, Jesus was sent to be the ultimate perfect sacrifice, doing away with the need to repent of OLD laws, and to follow the NEW law, with a few guidelines, and to become the true Children of God that He wants us to be; not terrified little peons that must sacrifice our best all the time.


The reason Christianty holds steadfast to the old law is because it is familliar. People for the most part do not like to accept radical changes in their faith, and furthermore, it gives them something to do, an excude to regulate themselves, where they feel they are not regulated enough. God trusts us to listen to the Holy Spirit to pay attention to His Will regarding different situations, and to do what we know is right, and to obey the one law above all - which isn't hard, if we get over ourselves enough to see that there are other people in this world besides us. Christians today need the old and new testament as law in order to feel devoted to something; that's why the majority of those beliving in God, as well as every other religion, cannot break away from the old law.


Jesus was a Rabbi. His gift to us was the same that God gives us every day. The opportunity to become an apostle of a rabbi.

In those days, apostles were chosen from the best jewish men of them all. From an early age, jewish men were (and still are) expected to MEMORIZE the first five books of the bible. Those who are the best of the best of that lot are chosen to apostle, where they must memorize the rest of the old testament in its entirety. The best of the best of those left are chosen then to learn to become a Rabbi if their own; disciples. Then, they must have the entire bible memorized from genisis to revelation perfectly, then they are allowed to become a Rabbi. Only the most perfect men are allowed to become a Rabbi; no blemish on flesh nor soul, no marring history, just as close to Holy Perfection as possible. Then and ONLY THEN can you be a Rabbi. Rabbi are teachers, dictators, and those whose disciples and apostles must be controlled and taught to be perfect. If at any time you mess up or fail or do not answer correctly, you are forbidden to become a Rabbi, thrown from the religion, and must follow your father's footsteps in his chosen career. Jesus said "no more" to this, and chose men that had already been labeled as unperfect, as failiures, He taught them, and made them into Rabbis after His own steps. He said you ARE good enough. You ARE going to follow me.

This made their LIVES. They had been told they were useless, no good, and to follow their father, fighting to exist with low pay and little chance to advance any further. People who were not good enough.

That's the thing. We're ALL. Good enough.


Thank you for this.
Jesus really showed us how to be a radical servant, and I think that's what I've been really trying to say..and I whole-heartedly believe that if we use this one law summed up into: "Love thy neighbor as thyself" then we as Christians can really get back up on our feet in this country and around the world.

**Off-topic**
I want to bring up one of my favorite authors and pastors, his name is Rob Bell. He definitely deserves his own thread.. his NOOMA series is very inspirational and he brings the terms of the bible up to date making it more relevant to our lives. He does a fantastic job at it too.. definitely check it out. I've read his first book called Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith, a fresh take on Christianity that emphasizes inclusiveness, flexibility, love, and forgiveness. I think a lot of us really need to take a look at his work, he has made it in a way for all of us to understand to be a radical servant of Jesus.
Indi
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Jesus was a Rabbi.

(No, he wasn't. Neither were the disciples - at least most of them.)
Bikerman
littleblackkitten wrote:
Jesus' purpose was not to abolish OR uphold the old laws, but to give us CHOICE. We can CHOOSE to become a Child of God, or, we can ignore the gift, and keep on as we like. When he said nothing would change until His purpose had been fulfilled, (paraphrasing...) that means that the old law was still in effect until his death and resurrection. Upon that moment, the old testament became replaced with one law: "Love thy neighbor as thyself" or in modern language, "Do to everyone else what you'd have done to yourself". I believe whole heartedly that this is the ONLY real LAW governing Christianity, and everything else is a guildeline, a safety manual, if you will. Jesus' purpose was to change and save, and there's a great reason for it.
That isn't what Jesus said.
He said ' until heaven and earth disappear, not one letter or one stroke of a letter will disappear from the Law'.
The story about it applying only until his death and resurrection is a complete fabrication, and this was basically what Paul did - he re-wrote what happened in the Gospels to suit the new religion.
Quote:
In those days, the atonement for sin was to sacrifice the best and the most perfect of whatever it was that you did, be you a farmer, a shepherd, a rich man (where tithing comes in to play), or a carpenter, whatever. The atonement was to take these things when you sin and BURN THEM. To completely destroy and offer up the best of what you have up to God as a sacrifice for your sin. If you did not do this, or did not offer up the best, God got angry with you and you felt His wrath. God HATED being like this, He did not want to remain an angry God. So, Jesus was sent to be the ultimate perfect sacrifice, doing away with the need to repent of OLD laws, and to follow the NEW law, with a few guidelines, and to become the true Children of God that He wants us to be; not terrified little peons that must sacrifice our best all the time.
In which case you have to wonder why Jesus was crucified instead of burned. Again this is entirely the invention of the early Church leaders and is not bourne out by scripture. The whole notion of the 'second covenant' - which Christians take to mean this new arrangement with God - is fiction. It is a deliberate re-interpretation and twisting of the New Covenant of the Hebrew Bible - in which it refers to the new agreement between God and the House of Judah (Israel).

Quote:
The reason Christianty holds steadfast to the old law is because it is familliar. People for the most part do not like to accept radical changes in their faith, and furthermore, it gives them something to do, an excude to regulate themselves, where they feel they are not regulated enough. God trusts us to listen to the Holy Spirit to pay attention to His Will regarding different situations, and to do what we know is right, and to obey the one law above all - which isn't hard, if we get over ourselves enough to see that there are other people in this world besides us. Christians today need the old and new testament as law in order to feel devoted to something; that's why the majority of those beliving in God, as well as every other religion, cannot break away from the old law.
But as already explained, Christians DON'T hold fast to old law - few of them even know what it was. What I think you mean is that they hold on to traditions of hell and damnation and bible-bashing. But do they? The Catholic church is very quiet nowadays about the hell and damnation stuff and purgatory seems to have been quietly dropped some while back (another invention). The Church of England has never been much for talking about the heavy stuff. That accounts for about 2/3-3/4 of Christians....
Quote:
Jesus was a Rabbi. His gift to us was the same that God gives us every day. The opportunity to become an apostle of a rabbi.
No, he wasn't.
Quote:
In those days, apostles were chosen from the best jewish men of them all. From an early age, jewish men were (and still are) expected to MEMORIZE the first five books of the bible. Those who are the best of the best of that lot are chosen to apostle, where they must memorize the rest of the old testament in its entirety.
This is complete invention.
The word Apostle comes from the New Testament (ἀπόστολος or apostolos). There was no tradition of apostles before Jesus - the concept didn't exist. Apostolos means 'sent forth as messenger'.
There is no Jewish tradition of prostelytising the religion because it would be daft - the Jews didn't look for converts in those days - even today, although you CAN convert to Judaism it is relatively uncommon.
You are mixing up the word apostle with the word scholar or rabbi.
LittleBlackKitten
Please, Chris. Do not talk of which you know so little. Try talking to a Christian Theology Major in a university and learn a little before you try and tear apart yet another post of mine. I'm getting really tired of you tearing me to bits like this. Do not do it again.
Bikerman
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Please, Chris. Do not talk of which you know so little. Try talking to a Christian Theology Major in a university and learn a little before you try and tear apart yet another post of mine. I'm getting really tired of you tearing me to bits like this. Do not do it again.

If you can find any errors in what I wrote then point them out. References to theology majors don't particularly impress me - simply point out what error of fact I have made. You should have a bible and presumably you can read it...
And this 'do not do..' thing you have going is very irritating...I'll post when I decide, not when you do. Maybe you are getting carried away with the Old Testament, but insrtuctions to other posters about what they can and cannot post is not really the done thing in this century.

PS - I've talked to, and been taught by, many experts in Christian theology. Theology is the only 'discipline' I know of where you can say with certainty that most of it is wrong, without even checking. If Jewish theology is correct then by definition most of Christian theology is not...and so on...
Dementei
Bikerman it seems you are here for the sake of arguing.. I am gonna be raw with you here and say I'm sorry but who do you think you are? I didn't make this so we can have just another biblical war thread, there are millions of those already. Not sure why you are completely going against our faith, breaking us down like you are. You are making this a bit too logical too, finding fact for fact, denying anything you think is wrong..what's the point in even sharing opinions with you if you are just going to bash on anything we say? I am not anyone to judge, but your faith in Christ is questionable. If you do believe in God, then you may be classified as the bible-thumpers I was describing. I am wrong for even saying these kinds of things against you, for I don't even know you..

Beyond all of this hate, I hope we'll actually get somewhere with this thread.
truespeed
Bikerman
Dementei wrote:
Bikerman it seems you are here for the sake of arguing.. I am gonna be raw with you here and say I'm sorry but who do you think you are? I didn't make this so we can have just another biblical war thread, there are millions of those already.
Be as raw as you like.
a) I am just a poster
b) You were the one who raised 'the law' and Galations. If you are going to cite something then you must be prepared to defend it otherwise people can claim anything they like, which gets us nowhere.
Quote:
Not sure why you are completely going against our faith, breaking us down like you are.
For the same reason that I break-down any assertions in this forum. It isn't a forum where everyone sits around typing 'Praise Jesus' - there are plenty of forums like that on the net. In this forum claims/assertions are tested to see if they are true or not - that is the 'philosophy' bit.
Quote:
You are making this a bit too logical too, finding fact for fact, denying anything you think is wrong.
There is no such thing as 'too logical'. Something is either logical or not. It isn't logic I'm testing, it is simply truth.
Quote:
What's the point in even sharing opinions with you if you are just going to bash on anything we say?
What is the point in making statements and claims if you cannot defend them?
Quote:
I am not anyone to judge, but your faith in Christ is questionable.
No, it's non existent.
Quote:
If you do believe in God, then you may be classified as the bible-thumpers I was describing.
I know the bible, certainly. How can anyone claim to be Christian and not? The whole basis of your religion is the bible (if you are a Christian). You cannot simply abandon it or misrepresent it. The only evidence for Jesus comes from the bible, so without it you know nothing about him.
Quote:
I am wrong for even saying these kinds of things against you, for I don't even know you..
Don't feel bad....I don't. Smile
Quote:
Beyond all of this hate, I hope we'll actually get somewhere with this thread.
What hate? Where has anyone, including me, expressed any hatred - or even mild annoyance?
Dementei
Bikerman wrote:
Dementei wrote:

I am not anyone to judge, but your faith in Christ is questionable.
No, it's non existent.


Fail.
c'tair
Dementei wrote:
Bikerman it seems you are here for the sake of arguing.. I am gonna be raw with you here and say I'm sorry but who do you think you are?


Yeah Bikerman, who do you think you are? Going around and not nodding your head in unison? How can you be so cruel as to not agree with those good people of Christ?

Dementei, this is a public forum and as long as etiquette is upheld - every one can join in the discussion. This also means people who do not agree with you. Is that so bad? Is that so terrible? You make it sound that Bikerman, poiting out and questioning some aspects of your faith is a bad thing, that's he's attacking you? No man, he's questioning your faith and he wants some answers - if the Bible is true and Jesus said, what Bikerman quoted - that the Law was, is and will be the Law and he's not here to change it, then how can Christians abolish the Law and say "Oh, Jesus didn't want that"?

How do you know what Jesus wanted? Is it written in the Bible? Is the Bible infallible? Then how come Jesus said that the Law remains unchanged, yet Christians follow an altered Law? Did they just dismiss what Jesus said right there?

It seems you are creating an imaginary enemy for you to attack and then say "we christians are attacked on all sides by evil people" and you point at Bikerman. You even said that you see hatred in this thread? Are you all ok in the head? Because you got me shocked right there, there is no hatred, there hardly are any emotions - it's just Bikerman asking you questions quite politely and you trying to answer them and suddenly you pop with "hatred"?
LittleBlackKitten
Not agreeing is one thing; saying "you're wrong" and dancing on it and pulling stuff like he does is another, and is unacceptable. I too agree that Chris is here to argue. And furthermore, if you read, Chris, I did not tell you not to post. I told you that you will not treat me like that again. If you can't do this, then you will be expected to ignore my posts completely.
c'tair
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Not agreeing is one thing; saying "you're wrong" and dancing on it and pulling stuff like he does is another, and is unacceptable. I too agree that Chris is here to argue. And furthermore, if you read, Chris, I did not tell you not to post. I told you that you will not treat me like that again. If you can't do this, then you will be expected to ignore my posts completely.


Saying "you're wrong" is a part of discussing. Can you imagine a world where a person cannot say "you're wrong"? He's not "pulling stuff", he wants some pretty clear answers from you.
I've been on this forum for 4 years and Bikerman is a one of the few no-bullcrap people here and he's not even slightly aggressive, believe me, I post in other forums which are not so strict on the use of language.

You loathe him because he questions your faith and you immediately take it as a personal attack. That shows the maturity of a 12 year old. Your post is also completely off topic, it talks about Bikerman and him only - why not get back to the topic at hand and answer some of my or his questions instead?

Or do you want to tell us that discussing and questioning is evil and is to be forbidden? Laughing
Bikerman
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Not agreeing is one thing; saying "you're wrong" and dancing on it and pulling stuff like he does is another, and is unacceptable. I too agree that Chris is here to argue. And furthermore, if you read, Chris, I did not tell you not to post. I told you that you will not treat me like that again. If you can't do this, then you will be expected to ignore my posts completely.

Argue = debate. This is a forum for debate.
I will be expected...? By whom? The only person here who's expectations are relevant to me, is me, and I don't expect to ignore any postings.
Treat you like what? My comments were confined to your posting. The only comment I made that could even be regarded as slightly personal was to say that you had mixed-up the word Apostle with some other word. That was true and hardly counts as 'ripping you to shreds'. I demolished your argument, not you, and you still don't seem to get the difference. There is no personal comment in the posting at all, apart from the above - my posting dealt pointwise with your posting.

You said my comments were wrong and that I knew very little about the subject. I'm still waiting for you to say WHICH comments/statements were wrong - so far you have simply made (personal) comments without backing them up.
deanhills
c'tair wrote:
It seems you are creating an imaginary enemy for you to attack and then say "we christians are attacked on all sides by evil people" and you point at Bikerman. You even said that you see hatred in this thread? Are you all ok in the head? Because you got me shocked right there, there is no hatred, there hardly are any emotions - it's just Bikerman asking you questions quite politely and you trying to answer them and suddenly you pop with "hatred"?
I don't understand this point of view at all. If so many Christians feel attacked by Bikerman, isn't it evidence that they really are and you can't see it? Dementei is certainly not the last Christian to react in this way.

As for Bikerman's knowledge about theology. I don't know whether you have noticed that his "specialist knowledge" seems to be more confined to proof of falsehood than fact. As though his use of his knowledge is primarily as ammunition to shoot religion to smithereens. That does come across as an attack, and I'm sure with all of our complaints, surely he should know exactly what the effect of that is?

I'm glad you brought this up c'tair, as I'm beginning to wonder at the futility of posting in this Forum. I'm not learning anything anymore. I don't see constructive debate. Constructive debate would be something along the lines of: are you sure your position is correct? My experience is different. This is how I see it, and these are the facts to prove it. Maybe you could have a look at those facts too? Or do you have some other facts that you can bring to the discussion that I am unaware off?

Instead we are getting: you idiot, what are you talking about! Where did you get that fairy tale from? You're lying. You are fabricating facts. Prove it, and if you cannot prove it, you are a liar. Is that tone really necessary in debate?
LittleBlackKitten
Argue - to contend in oral disagreement; dispute; angry contention; The Senator argued with the President about the new tax bill.

Debate - a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints; gentle conversation of opposing sides: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.

BIG difference. You are arguing, not debating, and they're not synonymous. You have absolutely no respect for other people and their beliefs, and you won't stop to loook at your own behaviour long enough to go "Hey, she's right, I'm being nasty." I'm not saying not to DEBATE; debate is fine. ARGUING however is inflammitory, vicious, and angry.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
c'tair wrote:
It seems you are creating an imaginary enemy for you to attack and then say "we christians are attacked on all sides by evil people" and you point at Bikerman. You even said that you see hatred in this thread? Are you all ok in the head? Because you got me shocked right there, there is no hatred, there hardly are any emotions - it's just Bikerman asking you questions quite politely and you trying to answer them and suddenly you pop with "hatred"?
I don't understand this point of view at all. If so many Christians feel attacked by Bikerman, isn't it evidence that they really are and you can't see it? Dementei is certainly not the last Christian to react in this way.
That probably says more about the Christians concerned than me.
Quote:
As for Bikerman's knowledge about theology. I don't know whether you have noticed that his "specialist knowledge" seems to be more confined to proof of falsehood than fact. As though his use of his knowledge is primarily as ammunition to shoot religion to smithereens. That does come across as an attack, and I'm sure with all of our complaints, surely he should know exactly what the effect of that is?
Illogical. A very good way of establish fact is by trying to prove falsehood and failing. It is also untrue - I have made very many positive statements of fact on Christianity. The fact that they are not supportive of the religion is hardly surprising since I am not supportive of the religion.
As for 'all our complaints'. I make it 4 - you, Bluedoll, LittleBlackKitten and jmi256. As you know I don't really take much notice of your opinion. The other 3 have formalised their complaints and they have been considered by the other moderators - a process which I insisted on and upon which I made no comment. I'm not going into details, but I will say that none of the complaints were upheld - to put it kindly.
Quote:
I'm glad you brought this up c'tair, as I'm beginning to wonder at the futility of posting in this Forum. I'm not learning anything anymore. I don't see constructive debate. Constructive debate would be something along the lines of: are you sure your position is correct? My experience is different. This is how I see it, and these are the facts to prove it. Maybe you could have a look at those facts too? Or do you have some other facts that you can bring to the discussion that I am unaware off?
Ahh...so now you are the arbiter of constructivism as well as atheism? I must say that for someone who frequently fails to put a coherent argument together, you seem pretty confident in your opinions.
Constructive debate can also be:
Poster A. Statement X
Poster B. Statement X is incorrect because Y
Poster A. Opps, so it is, my mistake.

Much more concise and to the point. The thing is that it requires a level of precision and self-honesty which is not common in the theist postings we see here. There are examples of this type of posting though, if you look. Any guesses who from ?
What we often get from the theist is assertion followed by obfuscation when the assertion is shown to be wrong, and ultimately refusal to answer rather than actually admit to error.

You might like to look for examples of this, and the above, whilst you try to find the threads you claim were closed in anger. You will find a few examples....any guesses who from ?
Quote:
Instead we are getting: you idiot, what are you talking about! Where did you get that fairy tale from? You're lying. You are fabricating facts. Prove it, and if you cannot prove it, you are a liar. Is that tone really necessary in debate?
Well, when someone makes an assertion, which is challenged and shown to be wrong, and then not only fails to acknowledge their mistake, but ACTUALLY REPEATS the assertion, then liar is probably the only accurate word.
I'd be interested to see where I have accused someone of lying where they have NOT repeated an already discredited falsehood.
Bikerman
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Argue - to contend in oral disagreement; dispute; angry contention; The Senator argued with the President about the new tax bill.

Debate - a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints; gentle conversation of opposing sides: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.

BIG difference. You are arguing, not debating, and they're not synonymous. You have absolutely no respect for other people and their beliefs, and you won't stop to loook at your own behaviour long enough to go "Hey, she's right, I'm being nasty." I'm not saying not to DEBATE; debate is fine. ARGUING however is inflammitory, vicious, and angry.

Where did you find those definitions? They are highly selective so you must have either dug around for them or cherry picked them. No dictionary I have checked (Oxford Concise, On-Line Reference and Chambers International) gives those definitions. The Oxford gives something similar - as one of four possible definitions.

What I find is:
Argue: give evidence of; present reasons and arguments; To debate, disagree, or discuss opposing or differing viewpoints.

Debate : ague, discuss relative merits and weaknesses.

Argue actually has a formal meaning in philosophy : an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. ...

Yes, argue CAN mean a more querulous and bad tempered affair, but that is only one way of defining the word, and it is not the one normally used by scientists and philosophers. Since we are in a philosophy environment I prefer to stick to the more formal definition.
LittleBlackKitten
You even argue about arguing....You're impossible!
Bikerman
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
You even argue about arguing....You're impossible!

No, I dispute inaccurate, false and/or misleading statements and/or assertions.
The alternative is to let them stand, which is good for nobody, and is antithetical in philosophical discussion. Philosophy is about trying to get to the truth of an issue and that requires critical analysis.
LittleBlackKitten
Chris, someone must have really insulted your intelligence at a young age for you to be so vicious, hateful, spiteful, and unwilling to take an inward glance at yourself. Someone must have really hurt you.
Bikerman
See again we get the personal comments, when all I have posted is factual, personality-free, and evidenced....I think you need to turn the mirror on yourself.


No, nobody 'hurt' me as a child to the best of my recollection (above and beyond the normal scrapes of any child). Certainly the Salesian Monks are not a memory I look back to with any fondness, but I wasn't abused by them, unlike many.
As for introspection - I have spent a great deal of time 'looking inwards'. Once you remove the certainties of sky-fairies and magical beings then you are almost bound to take a good hard critical look at yourself and your position in the world - most athests I know have done so and it is rarely a pleasurable or easy journey.
LittleBlackKitten
Then you haven't looked close enough. Maybe it's time you ask yourself why you feel you must challenge everything and everyone around you which does not match your beliefs and why you feel you must make everyone else prove what you do not believe.
watersoul
I've read this whole topic a couple of times and I am still looking for the particular sentences that have been so insulting to Christians, can anyone help me out? Have some "offensive" posts been deleted somewhere along the line and I missed them?

Personally I have total respect for anyone to have a belief of any kind if it harms neither me or others - that would also include giant spaghetti monsters, or jedi's etc. But, if a post regarding any spiritual, unprovable belief of any kind is shared (in a public forum that is designed for open debate and "argument"), the posters must expect probing questions, and in a sense, cross-examination from anyone around the world.

If I stated my own faith as "truth" then I would expect to be shot down and rightly so, due to my inability to show convincing evidence of this truth. (any book written thousands of years ago and translated multiple times being pretty flimsy evidence at the end of the day)
If I used texts from an ancient book to back up my argument that X is "truth", then I equally wouldn't bleat like a lost lamb on the hillside if someone else used different verses from the same book to counter my points.

Sadly I see "non-believers" making reasoned points here, and then I see "believers" appearing to become more concerned with damaged ego's/feelings than making an effort to present a strong case and convince "open minded/undecided" users (such as myself) of the validity of their arguments.

As I said, I walk a tightrope of belief regarding spiritual/material things, and unfortunately to date I've never found an individual who can provide any tangiable evidence to convince me that "their" faith is the "truth" - again, old books translated multiple times don't cut it for me.
What I have found, in "real" life as well as this forum, is usually a very defensive attitude from "believers" whenever someone dares to question their faith. Remember that without reasoned, rational answers to the questions of "the undecided/non-believers", you will only serve to convince people that there is no reasoned answer to any of it - just defensive blind faith which pushes me and many others away...which is the exact opposite of what I imagine a "believer" would want while sharing their faith with others?
Bikerman
LOL...simple - because it is a debating forum. I don't ask for proof, but I do ask for evidence. That is how debate works.

I think YOU need to examine why you believe things you cannot justify and don't understand, and why you feel threatened and cry abuse when you are challenged.
LittleBlackKitten
Thing is, I don't have to explain anything to YOU, least of all my belief system, whether YOU think I should or not. The ONLY being my beliefs matter to is the God I believe in, and NO ONE ELSE. You however seem to stalk my posts and attack them, as well as other people like deanhills for example. I do not need to do anything you tell me to, because I really don't care what you think of my believe, however it seems you care what I believe and decide to challenge it. You can't just force random people into debate and I will contend that this forum is NOT solely for debate, but healthy discussion.

Chris, you'd make a GREAT politician...
Bikerman
LOL. For someone who doesn't care, you seem to spend a very large amount of time saying so....
shome mishtake shurely Moneypenny...
LittleBlackKitten
Why thank you, Shatner.
Dementei
Wow, this thread has gone over to the dark side. My intentions for this thread was not for a debate or argument, really. I guess I should have thought more about posting something like this that was MEANT for fellow Christians on a public forum. I didn't expect anyone that doesn't believe in God to be so interested..well have fun arguing over your non-existent faith in Christ. I'll take my faith elsewhere since it isn't exactly appreciated here. It was a mistake to post here.

And Bikerman as for you, leave my quote button alone.
Thanks.
watersoul
Dementei wrote:
If any of you have read through this ramble of mine, I'd like some feedback if you agree on my statement or if you disagree, my mind is as open as the sea.


From your OP, if you'll forgive me for the quote.
I think that shows your own words clearly invited the debate. Its just a pity to me, that the answers to other peoples questions here have not brought me any closer to this faith so strongly held, and for reasons I still don't understand.
Dementei
Well, watersoul what is it that makes you question your own faith? If you'd rather talk 1 one 1 for some real answers and not to troll around like a few others in here let me know, I'll PM you my screen names.
Bikerman
Dementei wrote:
And Bikerman as for you, leave my quote button alone.
Thanks.
Not sure what you mean. When replying to a posting it is normal practice to quote the part your reply is aimed at - that way there is no confusion over what was said and whether the reply addresses it -quoting protects both the poster and the person being quoted from any misunderstandings...
Dementei
Bikerman wrote:
Dementei wrote:
And Bikerman as for you, leave my quote button alone.
Thanks.
Not sure what you mean. When replying to a posting it is normal practice to quote the part your reply is aimed at - that way there is no confusion over what was said and whether the reply addresses it -quoting protects both the poster and the person being quoted from any misunderstandings...


Bikerman, I love you, let me know if you need anything.
Bikerman
Dementei wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Dementei wrote:
And Bikerman as for you, leave my quote button alone.
Thanks.
Not sure what you mean. When replying to a posting it is normal practice to quote the part your reply is aimed at - that way there is no confusion over what was said and whether the reply addresses it -quoting protects both the poster and the person being quoted from any misunderstandings...


Bikerman, I love you, let me know if you need anything.

Well, if you feel like praying, I'd really like to know if there are any odd perfect numbers. Just get yer man upstairs to have a dekko at this and give me a value for N....
LittleBlackKitten
3.
watersoul
Dementei wrote:
Well, watersoul what is it that makes you question your own faith? If you'd rather talk 1 one 1 for some real answers and not to troll around like a few others in here let me know, I'll PM you my screen names.


I appreciate the offer and will consider it, thank you.

Public discussions like this are more helpful to me though in some ways. When people who believe strongly in a particular faith are in open argument with people who strongly disbelieve, I can learn finer points of the debate that I may not have considered, and from many different people.
I struggle with blind faith, and when a non-believer is cross-examining someone publicly, I don't consider it trolling, I see someone strongly believing that they see nothing to convince them to believe.

If I ever see a point raised that can provide evidence of some kind that the "troll" is mistaken, it would equally influence my own lack of faith. As yet, on this forum, and on others, I'm still waiting for that epiphany. But as long as a faith seems to rely solely on "unquestioning blind faith", with mainly defensive responses to non believers who ask critical questions, I'm unable to walk any other path than one that is good to fellow man but unconvinced that there is anything "greater" than the life I'm aware of.

Thanks again for the offer, I assume it comes from a good place, but for now, you (and other people with strong faith) can help "undecided" folk like me (and yourselves) much more with good theological arguments when your beliefs are questioned in a public forum.
Bikerman
Not really.
3 is prime which rules it out.
1st perfect number is 6 because 6 divides by 3 2 and 1, and 1+2+3 = 6
Next is 28 which divides by 1,2,4 7 and 14, and 1+2+4+7+14 = 28
Bikerman
Quote:
Thanks again for the offer, I assume it comes from a good place, but for now, you (and other people with strong faith) can help "undecided" folk like me (and yourselves) much more with good theological arguments when your beliefs are questioned in a public forum.
After several years I've come to the conclusion that the only way to get such a debate is if one of the atheists decides to play Christian. I can't muster much enthusiasm myself - I already know all the best moves I could play, because I worked out the counter-moves some time ago and it always ends up checkmate in 9 (or 10 if I play the Deist trump card).....
Dementei
Okay so we all have our reasons to believe in what we believe in. What are we trying to do here exactly? What do you all want? I sense some intentions are to understand why some believe in God, such as myself. But I have a solid-rock faith with Jesus that can't be broken, all I ever want to do is serve you, I don't want to argue/debate our beliefs and doing so on a public forum online is in no way of achieving anything but to cause turmoil between each other. If you're here to find answers, you won't find any here. The answers lies in your hearts, it's for you to decide, not anyone else. That is all.
watersoul
Dementei wrote:
The answers lies in your hearts, it's for you to decide, not anyone else.


I guess I shall continue to see open minded agnosticism when I look in my heart for now then.
Absolute respect to your strong faith though Dementei, if it brings fulfillment to your life and harms no others that can surely only be a good thing.
Dementei
watersoul wrote:
Dementei wrote:
The answers lies in your hearts, it's for you to decide, not anyone else.


I guess I shall continue to see open minded agnosticism when I look in my heart for now then.
Absolute respect to your strong faith though Dementei, if it brings fulfillment to your life and harms no others that can surely only be a good thing.


Yes, brings as much fulfillment a man can only dream of achieving. I will see my life through to until the day I stand by his side, my God. Until then, I will be here radically serving anyone in need with much love and passion, and even sacrifice.
c'tair
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
3.

I find your posts to be very hate-filled and pretty abusive. You refuse to politely enjoy a good debate and instead you insult Bikerman by saying derogatory things to him, such as referring to his childhood, him must have been insulted or otherwise damaged by others.

Why all this hate?
LittleBlackKitten
It was mot hateful or derogatory. It was nothing of the like. Obviously you have never experienced a psychiatrist, or counselor, or, you hate them. Nothing I said was directed towards you, so, kindly step out of the conversation. You also didn't quote the right post, that one was a genuine attempt to respond to Chris' math post.
deanhills
Dementei wrote:
Wow, this thread has gone over to the dark side. My intentions for this thread was not for a debate or argument, really. I guess I should have thought more about posting something like this that was MEANT for fellow Christians on a public forum. I didn't expect anyone that doesn't believe in God to be so interested..well have fun arguing over your non-existent faith in Christ. I'll take my faith elsewhere since it isn't exactly appreciated here. It was a mistake to post here.
Good point Dementei. If we study through this Forum over the last almost three years I've been here, there are a number of people exactly like you who started a discussion, got stalked (to borrow the word from LittleBlackKitten), argued until exhausted, and then left, never to be seen again. I hope that you can stick around however. But am glad that you at least stand up for your standards. One thing that I really don't like is that the standards of debate in this Forum are almost always dictated by atheists. It has to be completely on their terms. We are always put in a defensive position of having to prove something to their satisfaction, however, can they prove there is no God?
c'tair
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
It was mot hateful or derogatory. It was nothing of the like. Obviously you have never experienced a psychiatrist, or counselor, or, you hate them. Nothing I said was directed towards you, so, kindly step out of the conversation. You also didn't quote the right post, that one was a genuine attempt to respond to Chris' math post.


I would have to quote a majority of your posts in this thread, that was just the last of them.
Yes, they were filled with hate because you stopped debating and in turn started to insult Bikerman in various ways.

Why are you so filled with hate towards him? Is it because he thinks differently than you? Honestly, it's been quite some time since I've last seen posts filled with so much hidden venom against another person on here.
Dementei
deanhills wrote:
Dementei wrote:
Wow, this thread has gone over to the dark side. My intentions for this thread was not for a debate or argument, really. I guess I should have thought more about posting something like this that was MEANT for fellow Christians on a public forum. I didn't expect anyone that doesn't believe in God to be so interested..well have fun arguing over your non-existent faith in Christ. I'll take my faith elsewhere since it isn't exactly appreciated here. It was a mistake to post here.
Good point Dementei. If we study through this Forum over the last almost three years I've been here, there are a number of people exactly like you who started a discussion, got stalked (to borrow the word from LittleBlackKitten), argued until exhausted, and then left, never to be seen again. I hope that you can stick around however. But am glad that you at least stand up for your standards. One thing that I really don't like is that the standards of debate in this Forum are almost always dictated by atheists. It has to be completely on their terms. We are always put in a defensive position of having to prove something to their satisfaction, however, can they prove there is no God?


Yea totally agree. And for those that argue against the Christian faith, I don't need to prove anything, God has done that already I can look outside of my window and just see there is a God. Especially the Universe itself, how marvelous can it get..

Anyhow, from the very first reply it was completely taken the wrong way, but no matter..I'll just be sure to stay out of this category and stick in the Games, haha. I'm not going anywhere, I love Frihost. Very Happy
LittleBlackKitten
Ctair, I'm not even going to grant that uninformed, assuming post a response. You're not even worth my time.

Well said, Dementei. Wink
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Good point Dementei. If we study through this Forum over the last almost three years I've been here, there are a number of people exactly like you who started a discussion, got stalked (to borrow the word from LittleBlackKitten), argued until exhausted, and then left, never to be seen again. I hope that you can stick around however. But am glad that you at least stand up for your standards. One thing that I really don't like is that the standards of debate in this Forum are almost always dictated by atheists. It has to be completely on their terms. We are always put in a defensive position of having to prove something to their satisfaction, however, can they prove there is no God?
The idea that anyone gets 'stalked' is ridiculous. I respond to postings in this forum, in the science forums, and occasionally in the general chat forum. If people post here then I respond quite often - that isn't 'stalking'.
If people get 'exhausted' then they must have very little stamina.
The observation that atheists often drive the debate is true. This is often because theists simply post an opinion and expect people to respond uncritically with 'Halleluja' or something equally trite. The atheists tend not to do that and, instead, generally want evidence for assertions. If you find that too exhausting then that is your problem. The idea that any posters can force anyone to do anything is an odd notion - people post what they wish to post and nobody can force them to do otherwise.
It has been said many times that neither theist not atheist can prove the existence/non-existence of God. Thus when a theist posts that they can, they are challenged. I'm not aware of any atheists saying they can disprove the existence of God so I don't see what point you are trying to make - you don't need to be able to disprove the existence of God to challenge specific postings containing specific assertions.
c'tair
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Ctair, I'm not even going to grant that uninformed, assuming post a response. You're not even worth my time.

Well said, Dementei. Wink


Let me quote you:
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Chris, someone must have really insulted your intelligence at a young age for you to be so vicious, hateful, spiteful, and unwilling to take an inward glance at yourself. Someone must have really hurt you.


If that isn't attacking Bikerman and being just plain rude then I just don't know what is. If you think honest critique isn't worth your time then you make me laugh, because it suddenly turns out that you're another hypocrite preaching love and peace while your insides burn with pride and hate.
tingkagol
Bikerman wrote:
After several years I've come to the conclusion that the only way to get such a debate is if one of the atheists decides to play Christian. I can't muster much enthusiasm myself - I already know all the best moves I could play, because I worked out the counter-moves some time ago and it always ends up checkmate in 9 (or 10 if I play the Deist trump card).....

That's interesting.

It would be interesting to see the sequence of events for this... like a flowchart or something. Smile
Bikerman
tingkagol wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
After several years I've come to the conclusion that the only way to get such a debate is if one of the atheists decides to play Christian. I can't muster much enthusiasm myself - I already know all the best moves I could play, because I worked out the counter-moves some time ago and it always ends up checkmate in 9 (or 10 if I play the Deist trump card).....

That's interesting.

It would be interesting to see the sequence of events for this... like a flowchart or something. Smile

I'll knock one up if I have time later (I must admit that the 9 was plucked out of the air and it might be a few either side...it's a while since I last went through it).
Bikerman
Here's a quick draft (but obviously this is not a complete version)
Dementei
tingkagol
I think we really should have a subforum.
Dementei
Hehehe Wink
LittleBlackKitten
A+, Dementei. Very Happy
Bikerman
'D/E' at best I'm afraid. My flowchart contains a series of logically consistent statements and arguments. Yours contains a series of unsupported assertions and errors.
Let's examine some of the more apparent problems with it:
a) 'Everything is done through faith'. Clearly this is not correct. Most of what is done is done through habit or necessity.
b) 'Isn't life a miracle'. Clearly not. Life is a biological process which is pretty well understood. Perceiving the natural as miraculous is a prescription for ignorance. It would make scientific enquiry redundant (why try to figure out the world when you believe it is a miracle?) and would mean that we lived in a world without most of the things you take for granted - including the machine you used to post your message.
c) 'Speaking in tongues'. Science has a really good grasp on this - it is nonsense. Samarin did a pretty comprehensive study of this phenomenon - also known as glossolalia - and concluded that it is
Quote:
..meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance, believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia
d) The notion of the bible as documentary is clearly in error since we know without doubt that much of it is inaccurate and some of it is self-contradictory.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
e) If you really intend to live the life intended by Jesus then you must first be a Jew. You must then
i) Leave your family, kids etc (Matthew 19:29)
ii) Gouge out your eyes and cut your hand off (Matthew 5:27)
iii) Kill any cheeky kids (Matthew 15:4)
iv) Kill everyone who isn't a Christian (Deuteronomy 13)
uzeed
The bible saya that For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that who so ever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. i belive that if we can hold on to the word of God things will surely work out for us.
Afaceinthematrix
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
A+, Dementei. :D


I think I'll have to fail Dementei.

"It cannot be proved that God(s) do not exist, therefore it is reasonable to prove that he/they do exist."

That line actually fails on two accounts. First, it does not give instruction as to which god to actually believe in. It just says that it's logical to believe one exists. So which should I worship? Yahweh or Zeus?

Furthermore, it is actually quite the opposite. You should not believe in something until evidence shows that it exists. That is trivial to prove and understand. The reasoning is that if you believed in everything that you "can't disprove" then you'd have to believe in every possible idea (even if they contradict) because it is impossible to disprove something in science. It is impossible to disprove that Santa Claus exists, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, etc. So if you follow that sentence then you need to believe in all of those along with fairies, pixies, Cupid, and everything else that we technically cannot "disprove." See the contradiction? You'd even have to believe in things that contradict each other.
Ankhanu
Dementei wrote:
My intentions for this thread was not for a debate or argument, really.


Then what you were looking for was a blog with comments disabled. This is a messageboard; a discussion forum.

deanhills wrote:
... If we study through this Forum over the last almost three years I've been here, there are a number of people exactly like you who started a discussion, got stalked (to borrow the word from LittleBlackKitten), argued until exhausted, and then left, never to be seen again.


Perhaps if these people argued the points raised, they wouldn't end up exhausted.
Instead the response to questions is along the lines of "I'm not looking for a debate", or "you shouldn't ask that"... or something of a similar ilk. These responses don't answer or address the questions asked. If one is going to post in a discussion forum, it is reasonable to expect that others are going to try to discuss the points you've made... this is where you really get to shine, as you get to bring forth your reasoning and understanding and, hopefully, enlighten the questioners.

This process of question and answer is delightfully fulfilling, especially if you can put forth a compelling case for your stance. It helps one to understand their own stance and helps other empathize with it as well. What more can we really hope for when communicating?
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
This process of question and answer is delightfully fulfilling, especially if you can put forth a compelling case for your stance. It helps one to understand their own stance and helps other empathize with it as well. What more can we really hope for when communicating?
Correct Ankhanu. But is it really necessary to discredit that person to the aggressive extent that has happened. Most of us joined Frihost because we wanted to have Website space, and were told to make ten postings and keep our points up. There were no qualifications set for posters other than the TOS Rules, and the general expectation that Bondings would like them to post. And when they did, they would be providing a service to Bondings. There are no warnings that when you post at Frihost that you should expect to be grilled. If this were a dedicated non-commercial Forum with set standards of posting, then great. But this is a social Forum that includes quite a large number of posters who are obviously not up to Bikerman and your standards. If Bikerman wants higher standards, would it not be more reasonable to expect for him to confine himself to Forums which are debating at his level? Rather than to go for Forums that are apparently below his standard of posting, and tackle debaters who are trying to post as best as they can? Maybe the aggressive posting would be OK on Forums that are dedicated to "robust debaters", but since this is a social Forum, perhaps some tact is necessary and conformance with the general expectations of Netiquette.
Bikerman
I confine myself to the science forums and this forum in the main. I stopped contributing to the politics forum a while ago and only contribute to the chat forum occasionally and in a pretty relaxed manner.
Don't presume to lecture me on netiquette - I was using the internet before you had a computer. This is a philosophy and religion forum. Philosophy is a pretty rigorous discipline requiring logical justification for assertions.
Not that any of this is your concern since I can post where and when I like, and the day you decide what is and is not acceptible is the day we see a label 'moderator' on your profile.

I am now getting tired of you derailing this thread and although I said I would not moderate threads I am active in I will certainly ask one of the other moderators to take a look if this continues. You have threads in the suggestions forum which deal with your grievances so you don't need to repeat them here.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
I confine myself to the science forums and this forum in the main. I stopped contributing to the politics forum a while ago and only contribute to the chat forum occasionally and in a pretty relaxed manner.
Don't presume to lecture me on netiquette - I was using the internet before you had a computer. This is a philosophy and religion forum. Philosophy is a pretty rigorous discipline requiring logical justification for assertions.
Not that any of this is your concern since I can post where and when I like, and the day you decide what is and is not acceptible is the day we see a label 'moderator' on your profile.
Perhaps your facts are not entirely correct Bikerman:

1. You tackled me heavily in the Chat Forum more than once over the summer period Bikerman, also in the World News and Politics Forums. So that is not really true. You do post in the General Chat and Politics forums as well and the two examples I mentioned took place in the Politics and World News Forums. And you did post very frequently in the General Chat forum over the summer. You did not post there before the summer, and I was surprised to see you there, hoping it would be a one-off, but before I knew it, not only were you a frequent poster in the General Chat Forum during the summer, but you even tackled me there as well, of ALL places in the forum.

2. Where did I lecture YOU on Netiquette? I was responding to Ankhanu. Again referring to me saying what is acceptable or not, is grossly misrepresenting what I said just to serve yourself. I never expected to be grilled in a Forum like I have been by you in some of these threads. Neither did any of the others who complained about your "grilling" behaviour. That is definitely not written in the fine print of registration with Frihost nor in the TOS rules. I also don't think any of us deserved it either.
Bikerman
My facts were accurate - I said a while ago and I meant just that.

I have now asked for another moderator to have a look at this thread since you seem determined to keep taking it off the point.
Dementei
Lol, anyone taking this in all seriousness needs to get out of the house, no doubt. I love God and that isn't going to change and for those who don't, I sincerely hope you will open your eyes and mind to see the reality of Jesus, only assuming they are closed..or not open enough to give God a chance and get a relationship with God a try. If you haven't tried to walk by Jesus, then okay, I just gotta say you are missing out on a lot..I love you all and I'll be here for support for you any day, that is all I gotta say.
Ghost Rider103
It's quite difficult for me to not close this thread. However it is a good and interesting topic, and it seems some users do wish to discuss it, so I'll refrain from closing it... for now.

@dean and bikerman: This surely isn't the place (or any other topic for that matter) for any argument that is off-topic and personal. If there is an issue between the two of you and you feel you need to argue, perhaps a PM would be the way to go about it and you can discuss it amongst yourselves.

I'm all for people arguing over each others statements/beliefs. But take the personal arguments elsewhere.

If anyone feels the need to respond to me, please feel free to do so in a PM.
Bikerman
Dementei wrote:
Lol, anyone taking this in all seriousness needs to get out of the house, no doubt. I love God and that isn't going to change and for those who don't, I sincerely hope you will open your eyes and mind to see the reality of Jesus, only assuming they are closed..or not open enough to give God a chance and get a relationship with God a try. If you haven't tried to walk by Jesus, then okay, I just gotta say you are missing out on a lot..I love you all and I'll be here for support for you any day, that is all I gotta say.

Obviously the reason you don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (bless her Ham and Pineapple pizza) is that you have a closed mind to her existence and have been taken in by a myth. If you would simply open your eyes and your mind to IPU then you would be able to enjoy the relationship she offers you, and avoid the evil path of the Purple Oyster (of Doom).

If you haven't shared a Ham and Pineapple Pizza with Her Holyness IPU then you are missing out on much. IPU loves you (may her holy hooves never be shod), since you are all Her children in Faith.

PS - Today is a Holy Day - the Festival of the Revelation of the Answer. Today we celebrate the answer to life the universe and everything, as was revealed by IPU, through her blessed disciple Douglas Adams.
The answer is, of course, 42, and today, being the 22nd of the 10th month of the 10th year is a Holy day on which we celebrate the life of the Prophet and the bounty of IPU (praise be to her Holy name).
Bluedoll
My viewpoint is that I find the pink unicorn offensive. My argument is this. This post “living in the old testament” is about the relationship between the old testament and the new testament. The post was created by Dementei to discuss how Jesus Christ changed so much about how we understand things.

My argument is that when I open the post for the first time I see a big diagram about assertion there is a God, and the pink unicorn. The pink unicorn is insulting and offensive as it goes on to mock God along with those that have the belief. The pink unicorn has very little to do with this post and is completely out of place with it, yet it continues to reside and be disruptive. My reasoning tells me that the pink unicorn is a big bully.

My argument is that the purple oyster (of Doom) is not really an oyster at all. It is really a big geek boy that hides in the lurks waiting to pounce while the horny old pink unicorn goes around sticking it into everyone’s business to be disruptive and abusive. This is my argument, it does have merit as sarcasm shows and is true in the fact that the topic is lead (skillfully) off course on purpose to discredit without regard or respect for others.

I further argue that without the protruding horn the creature is simply a fat old horse that wants attention. These are facts, those are arguments, long live the King of Engl. . . .


Some say the devils dead
Some say he married
Some say the devils dead
And buried in clan-are-knee

Other say he rose again
Others say he rose again
Other say he rose again
And joined the british army

Laughing
Bikerman
The posting was entirely appropriate - it responded to a statement of faith with another statement of faith.
IPU is no bully (bless her holy hooves). She is deeply spiritual - as proved by the fact that she is Pink and Invisible at the same time. She does not smite people or condemn them (unless they are agents of the Oyster, or they partake in the forbidden Mushroom and Pepperoni Pizza). Her message is one of love and Ham and Pineapple Pizzas for all.
IPU is not angry with you, since today is a special day, and she will continue to watch over you and protect you from any oysterish misfortunes.
Bluedoll
@watersoul
Quote:
with the old testament god, who was one damn sonuvabiatch

I read this too (admit to skipping over a little of this post) and found the in-quote personally offensive. When you feel close to someone and someone names calls that person are you not offended? This wouldn’t be true for someone that does not have a connection with the person. I think that should explain the offense question you asked watersoul. I do see your point clearly about the bible. It is old, written by men with very different backgrounds, translated, why I don’t think it is even all there? I can certainly understand why it would not cut it for you however like everything in this imperfect world the bible is something we have as an inheritance. That’s it, that’s all she wrote. Wink

I am not sure what you mean however by tangible evidence? Evidence to what? This might open a door for me if you could be so kind as to clarify.

Quote:
In my life I faced a situation of death worse than death and I was saved from this. For this I am grateful and I save now a kiss for Jesus. I am reminded in any gathering in the name of Jesus Christ prayers do not go unnoticed. In the face of adversity it is sometimes difficult to keep to being peaceable. This is human. A testament is what? Though something happened to me a long time ago to make it know to me just how much love Jesus and all those around God can display I am reminded too of the words in the bible expressing though I want to do good, good is not in me. I am after all an imperfect human and when tested sometime fault like some cement statue.
Bikerman
I suppose the mother of a mass murderer would feel offended if her son was called names, in a similar way. It doesn't make the allegations or name calling wrong though. Certainly Yaweh, as described in the OT, is a deeply nasty God. Judged by any human concept of morality (and what else have we?) then Yaweh is a vain, moody, sadistic, egotistical murderer.
Bluedoll
@bikerman
Logically, the only problem with that is that since God created man in his image, the reverse logic would apply, that would mean you just described yourself perhaps not in direct relationship to what you just said but in a general sense?

@anyone
I did not state that the name calling was wrong though it could be I suppose, I stated I was offended by it. If anyone else wants to have more discussion on Dementei's suggested topic I would love that.

@watersoul
Gathering evidence about something is not easy. I could choose to ignore and that would probably be best but I can never say I am Jesus Christ only little human me.
c'tair
You know guys, I am very offended by you talking about some weird old fairy tales.

The only true God worthy of talking about is His Noodliness. I find this whole mockery of him with mythical figures like Yehova or the Pink Unicorn quite preposterous.

If you reserve the right to call my God a mockery, than how can you forbid me to call Yehova and everything we know about his quite evil ways - by terms which perfectly describe him like "murderer". Did he not murder countless people during the flood? Did he not, on a whim, allow the murder of Jobs whole family just to prove his point?
Bluedoll
@ctair
I think I am getting your point finally. The only thing is his noodliness is completely fictional and God is not. I know, you need proof right? I do not forbid you – are you talking to me – that was not made clear – but I will assume you were – I am not forbidding you on the contraire’ I think the questions are thought provoking and make for a discussion, however your rudeness is just provoking.

You are talking about he, like you know him but before this you are calling it all a weird fairy tale, rather confusing, I must say old boy. Well I think we need to clear up this myth and set some things straight. Is God a monster? Is God a murder? No, to both questions is my response. However before discussing this, let us consider life for a moment but not a moment too long for too long would be fruitless. I would be talking to a dead man. You are going to die boy. We all are. How that happens is undetermined at this point but whether it be by flood, fire or any other device as sure as preposterous pumpernickel fly's out of your nose, its going to happen. You know it doesn’t bother me much, so can we just get on with it?

Oh my word, this post is going astray again is it not? I so wonder why? Ok, the topic we do know is not about whether God a monster or not but ot&nt. However, like in the days of old when there was so much confusion, turmoil and conflict it may not be the ideal place to have a serious discussion about biblical things? Question
Dementei
Ghost Rider103 wrote:
It's quite difficult for me to not close this thread.


Might as well, ever since the first reply it's gone the complete wrong direction. It wasn't supposed to be an argument about faith vs faith it wasn't even about that. I was talking about those who dwell too far deep in religion and keep the old laws, when Jesus came to fulfill the law people still don't live as free as they should be with Christ. It's just upsetting is all, and well I am sorta talking about Westboro Baptist Church types too.. that stuff just makes me sick and ruins the name of Christianity. I can tell you this right now, those guys are NOT Christians, it's a cult, not a church, ran by Satan himself.

And as for Bikerman as we can see dislikes the thought of Christianity and just thinks it's retarded so whatever, his loss.
Bikerman
Why is it that when the less appealing sides of Christianity are pointed out it is suddenly 'off topic' or 'going in the wrong direction' ?
Might I remind people that the OP sets the general topic but not where the discussion will ultimately arrive, and so any assertion that a 'wrong direction' has been taken is presumptuous. My posting was directly relevant to 'living in the Old Testament' and was absolutely on-topic.
c'tair
Bluedoll wrote:
@ctair
I think I am getting your point finally. The only thing is his noodliness is completely fictional and God is not. I know, you need proof right? I do not forbid you – are you talking to me – that was not made clear – but I will assume you were – I am not forbidding you on the contraire’ I think the questions are thought provoking and make for a discussion, however your rudeness is just provoking.

You are talking about he, like you know him but before this you are calling it all a weird fairy tale, rather confusing, I must say old boy. Well I think we need to clear up this myth and set some things straight. Is God a monster? Is God a murder? No, to both questions is my response. However before discussing this, let us consider life for a moment but not a moment too long for too long would be fruitless. I would be talking to a dead man. You are going to die boy. We all are. How that happens is undetermined at this point but whether it be by flood, fire or any other device as sure as preposterous pumpernickel fly's out of your nose, its going to happen. You know it doesn’t bother me much, so can we just get on with it?

Oh my word, this post is going astray again is it not? I so wonder why? Ok, the topic we do know is not about whether God a monster or not but ot&nt. However, like in the days of old when there was so much confusion, turmoil and conflict it may not be the ideal place to have a serious discussion about biblical things? Question


Uhm, how can you even say that His Noodliness is fictional and God is not? Don't you see the double standard in those words?

"My God is real, yours is most certainly not!". As historical records show - both religions were created by men. If pastafarianizm is too 'absurd' for you then consider Judaism and Christianity - you can't be both, you can be either this or that. Why don't you believe in Yahwe and instead embrace Jesus Christ? Oh, because Yahwe is fictional and Jesus is real? What about Odyn? Or Zeus? Or FSM?

All of these 'entities' have the same merit for existence, whether it's Odin or the Pink Unicorn or the Christian God - you're being hypocritical calling other deities 'fictional' while yours is 'real'. You can find both in 'scriptures' written hundreds or thousands of years ago, yet you insist to offend people and call them out that their god, their faith is fictional. YET you get very upset when someone does the same to you.
Isn't that at least a tiny bit weird?

Also, how can you call an entity that killed numerous people not a murderer? Sure, you may say he did it in good faith, that he killed the bad people, but that still doesn't suddenly mean he did not kill those people, that he's not a killer or murderer (which are synonyms btw). God kills people = killing is murder = God is a murderer. Just because it goes against your emotions, you can't deny facts presented in your own holy book.
Bluedoll
Bikerman wrote:
Why is it that when the less appealing sides of Christianity are pointed out it is suddenly 'off topic' or 'going in the wrong direction' ?
Might I remind people that the OP sets the general topic but not where the discussion will ultimately arrive, and so any assertion that a 'wrong direction' has been taken is presumptuous. My posting was directly relevant to 'living in the Old Testament' and was absolutely on-topic.
Must I remind people that Bikerman is wearing his little beanie hat and acting as a poster and not a moderator of the post when making that statement. It in no way reflects a decision that has been made regarding posting. Bikerman is simply offering an opinion. Is this correct?
Section 1-18c of the sub section 14-6 of the tos says once an OP creates a topic you can take the topic in any direct you like and ignore all future posting of the OP. The OP has no further input into the said topic an infraction of the subset topic previously set. - Now that is complete garbage!
I disagree with his opinion as I would think if the person that made the initial post jumps into the post to state the post is heading in another direction than what he/she intended is simply stating how they feel how the topic has gone off course as to what they intended and can state they are not satisfied with the results as obviously they wanted to talk about something more specific to the post or they wouldn’t have posted in the first place. They are expressing an opinion. Is this allowed on the board? Yes, I think so.
As for me I think it is not wrong to talk about less appealing sides of Christianity but I would rather talk about the more appealing sides than not and willing to express that too. If you want to talk about dog poop go ahead I just don’t see it as ‘on track’ so would rather go in another direction, step around or over it.


@c’tair
I can say it is fictional because you made it up c’tair. All other religions are not made up but people have established them. I do see your point however in the sense that religions were created by men and if you want to create one, go knock yourself out and start one for mr noodles ok. Razz

You are basically saying that God is a fictional (entity) and you are entitled to your opinion. You can believe what you want but I still feel your post(s) are offensive when the entire purpose is to discredit God. If you were putting forth a question or showing your point of view then it would be very different.

The bible is not a factual book it contains scripture - inspired by God. To kill is not the same as murder. A soldier or police officer might kill to protect the innocent from harm but it is not the same as murder. I am not saying I agree with every action taken but I do understand the difference between killing and murder. I am certain there is a legal precedence for it as well. This is actually a very good topic and you have grounds to bring God into the court so to speak and ask these questions. What I do not recommend though is to show God disrespect. Someday you might regret that. They are very good questions c’tair.
c'tair
[quote="Bluedoll"

@c’tair
I can say it is fictional because you made it up c’tair. All other religions are not made up but people have established them. I do see your point however in the sense that religions were created by men and if you want to create one, go knock yourself out and start one for mr noodles ok. Razz

You are basically saying that God is a fictional (entity) and you are entitled to your opinion. You can believe what you want but I still feel your post(s) are offensive when the entire purpose is to discredit God. If you were putting forth a question or showing your point of view then it would be very different.

The bible is not a factual book it contains scripture - inspired by God. To kill is not the same as murder. A soldier or police officer might kill to protect the innocent from harm but it is not the same as murder. I am not saying I agree with every action taken but I do understand the difference between killing and murder. I am certain there is a legal precedence for it as well. This is actually a very good topic and you have grounds to bring God into the court so to speak and ask these questions. What I do not recommend though is to show God disrespect. Someday you might regret that. They are very good questions c’tair.[/quote]

How can you know I made it up? If I believe in it, does it not have the same validity as your belief? And btw, I didn't make it up, it was "established" by a person within the last century. It is as valid as Czarnobog, YHWE or God or Krishna and it still seems quite fishy to me that you think he's "fictional", yet your deity somehow isn't. Can you please tell me the difference between the validity of God and Odin? I myself am quite a fan of the latter one. See, I am not discrediting your God anymore than you are discrediting my God, which it seems you are doing because you say he is fictional. I'm not even pursuing the existence or non-existence of certain deities, but it seems just absurd to me that someone can request respect and act offended whilst himself giving no respect and offending other's beliefs.

Also, how am I showing God disrespect? You said so yourself - you don't fully agree with some of his actions and well, I just take it one step further and say I find his actions almost atrocious. Just because he, supposedly, also did some good things doesn't magically erase the bad things he did, the same a you wouldn't let a murder case slide just because a convict gave some money to the charity? And you'll notice that soldiers and policemen usually only kill in defense, either themselves or innocents and I don't know how God could allow the whole of Job's family to be killed just to prove a point to the Devil. Of course, that could've just been an allegory, but then - if that was an allegory then how can you tell if much of the rest isn't also allegory?

What I'm aiming at in this whole discussion is about mutual respect. There are some hot-headed christians and there are some hot-headed atheists. What I define as hot-headed isn't asking the other questions like Bikerman does quite often, but an outright emotionally fueled attack on the other person ie. false accusations, name calling and personal attacks. I really like talking with Christians (as long as they hold themselves to the same standards they expect from other people) and many other religious people, right now I'm about to start reading the "bhagavad gita as it is" to learn more about that culture and ideas.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
Must I remind people that Bikerman is wearing his little beanie hat and acting as a poster and not a moderator of the post when making that statement. It in no way reflects a decision that has been made regarding posting. Bikerman is simply offering an opinion. Is this correct?

Of course. If I post as a moderator it is in red and will clearly say so. I don't know what the reference to 'little beanie hat' is supposed to mean.
Bluedoll
@Bikerman - http://ca.burton.com/mens-hats-beanies/mens-hats-beanies,default,sc.html
Sure, you stated once that you wear different hats. I was indicating that the hat you were wearing at the time was one of intelligent opinion but that I wasn’t agreeing with it for reasons I gave.


@c’tar
Alright, maybe we could take this discussion in two different directions, no three, no four but everything c’tar takes time.
I originally said that I found your post offensive “the old testament god, who was one damn sonuvabiatch” – c’tair That was not debate or discussion it is just plain name calling so personally I felt offended. The end.
You then start referring to the noodle man and an invisible unicorn trying to make a point . . .
“Can you please tell me the difference between the validity of God and Odin?” – a’tair

A similarity can be noticed between Oden and God in that both exist (they both can be read about). They both can be identified with and information about them gathered.
The mythical figure Oden had influence in Germanic Neopaganism which is not a myth but an earthly religious identity or cult like organization
Attitude and focus of adherents may vary considerably, from strictly historical polytheistic reconstructionism to syncretism, pragmatic psychologist, occult or mysticism approaches. Germanic Neopagan organizations cover a wide spectrum of belief with links to the neo - Nazi scene - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_Neopaganism
The big difference is that Oden is a dominant god in Norse mythology and God is real to life and not a myth.

God influences the universe through creation and continues to influence many things from a heavenly non-earthly position.
The questions however about why God would allow terrible things to take place and what role that God had in the many deaths in biblical times are excellent questions. I do not agree however with your viewpoint.
c'tair
Bluedoll wrote:
@Bikerman - http://ca.burton.com/mens-hats-beanies/mens-hats-beanies,default,sc.html
Sure, you stated once that you wear different hats. I was indicating that the hat you were wearing at the time was one of intelligent opinion but that I wasn’t agreeing with it for reasons I gave.


@c’tar
Alright, maybe we could take this discussion in two different directions, no three, no four but everything c’tar takes time.
I originally said that I found your post offensive “the old testament god, who was one damn sonuvabiatch” – c’tair That was not debate or discussion it is just plain name calling so personally I felt offended. The end.
You then start referring to the noodle man and an invisible unicorn trying to make a point . . .
“Can you please tell me the difference between the validity of God and Odin?” – a’tair

A similarity can be noticed between Oden and God in that both exist (they both can be read about). They both can be identified with and information about them gathered.
The mythical figure Oden had influence in Germanic Neopaganism which is not a myth but an earthly religious identity or cult like organization
Attitude and focus of adherents may vary considerably, from strictly historical polytheistic reconstructionism to syncretism, pragmatic psychologist, occult or mysticism approaches. Germanic Neopagan organizations cover a wide spectrum of belief with links to the neo - Nazi scene - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_Neopaganism
The big difference is that Oden is a dominant god in Norse mythology and God is real to life and not a myth.

God influences the universe through creation and continues to influence many things from a heavenly non-earthly position.
The questions however about why God would allow terrible things to take place and what role that God had in the many deaths in biblical times are excellent questions. I do not agree however with your viewpoint.


Well, I feel pretty offended by You calling Odin a 'myth', while you continue to say that God is as real as your or me. What you call "paganism" was the dominant religion for many peoples for thousands of years, so I think that given some more time and the current rate of secularization - in the future children will be taught the Christian mythology and Jesus will become a symbol just like Zeus or Hercules.

It's funny how you feel offended by me calling an entity that slaughtered countless people a murderer and you feel there's nothing wrong with saying "oh well, your God is just a myth". Question Are you saying that your beliefs are better than others?
Bluedoll
@c’tair
No, I am saying God is better than false gods. I can understand how this declaration of calling God a murder needs to be addressed (thanks this is a good topic for a future post). God is not a murder but these are really good questions. I will continue to say God is real and discuss these things more if possible.
Wiki is stating oden is a myth and the future is yet unwritten.
Bikerman
Murder: the killing of a human being with intent and premeditation.
Does God kill human beings with intent and premeditation? Yes. The flood alone kills 99.99....% of humanity - almost every human on the planet.

So can we except God from a charge of murder?

Well, we don't tend to class some killings as murder - specifically where human law says that killing is allowed. Examples would be 'just war', state executions and self-defence.

Can we apply any of these mitigations to God? Well, if we suppose that God was at war with humanity then possibly. Clearly self-defence cannot apply since an omnipotent being cannot be threatened by man. Clearly state execution cannot apply since God kills those who choose not to belong to his 'state' or following. So the only exception here would be if we assume God was at war with humankind. But would such a war be just? Certainly not by human standards.

Does this mean that God is a murderer?
Perhaps not. We could try the defence that only humans can commit murder. We don't consider a dog a murderer if it kills a human. This defence is a bit dodgy however. The reason we don't consider a dog capable of murder is that we recognise that a dog does not have a moral sense like humans and is therefore not capable of understanding that killing a human is wrong. We cannot reasonably apply that same excuse to God. Moreover we are told that we are made in God's image...

Conclusion - yep, God is a mass murderer.
c'tair
Bluedoll wrote:
@c’tair
No, I am saying God is better than false gods. I can understand how this declaration of calling God a murder needs to be addressed (thanks this is a good topic for a future post). God is not a murder but these are really good questions. I will continue to say God is real and discuss these things more if possible.
Wiki is stating oden is a myth and the future is yet unwritten.


Lol was ist das? Oh, so you're demanding respect for your beliefs, but you deny any respect to other beliefs?
uzeed
the bible says in Prov 10:1-3 The Proverbs of Solomon: A wise son makes a glad father,But a foolish son is the grief of his mother. 2 Treasures of wickedness profit nothing,But righteousness delivers from death. 3 The LORD will not allow the righteous soul to famish,But He casts away the desire of the wicked. so lets all try to be good sons.
uzeed
The spirit of God will always watch, care and provide for his people.
In Rom 3:19-20
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
If we want to enjoy the full protection of God we must :
1. Love God
2. Obey his word
3. Do good to people
4. Be spiritual
Our God is a faithful God and wont let us down...
Bikerman
uzeed wrote:
the bible says in Prov 10:1-3 The Proverbs of Solomon: A wise son makes a glad father,But a foolish son is the grief of his mother. 2 Treasures of wickedness profit nothing,But righteousness delivers from death. 3 The LORD will not allow the righteous soul to famish,But He casts away the desire of the wicked. so lets all try to be good sons.

But the bible says lots of things. Sticking to proverbs, we have
Don't get hungry
....And put a knife to your throat if you have a ravenous appetite. (Proverbs 23:2)
Don't forget to beat the kids
....Withhold not chastisement from a boy; if you beat him with a rod he will not die. Beat him with the rod, and you will save him from the nether world. (Proverbs 23:13-14)
....He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him takes care to chastise him" (Proverbs 13:24
Don't think
....Trust in the LORD with all your heart, on your own intelligence rely not.
Related topics
islam is...
science vs. religion
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
Why do you all hate God?
Reincarnation
Rastafari
Highway to Hell?
The Truth About Easter
The lies they tell you and you accept
Was Eve the first Woman?
The Da Vinci Code - The Questions (SPOILERS MAY ABOUND)
Qur'an attacks validity of Bible
Animals
Jesus in Old Testament
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.