Al Klein <rukbat@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:jejei3t16pmujgbq0bt7qutteak12phobr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 04:33:04 GMT, Will <someone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>>panamfloyd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote in
>>news:1193598248.860153.296430@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> This is perhaps the most difficult concept to get religious people
>>> to understand...to people who do not believe what you believe, IT IS
>>> NO DIFFERENT. Your mythology is not any different than any other
>>> concieved by the mind of man. It is not special, and deserves no
>>> special treatment simply because it is im****tant to you. This is
>>> what Mr. Lee was attempting to get people to understand earlier
>>> within this thread.
>
>>While I don't agree with it, I respect your belief.
>
> It's not belief, your religion ISN'T any different than any other
> religion to those outside both of them, and it DOESN'T deserve to be
> treated specially by those who don't hold it, so you're disagreeing
> with reality.
You call it what you want, bit it really is a belief. If it were a known
fact, than there would be do***ented evidence to show this as a known
fact.
>
>>> No explanation as to what your actions were trying to achieve? Why
>>> you began the discussion?
>
>>That's because I didn't. All I did was answer a question that I
>>believe one of you atheists posted.
>
> Yes, the "question" was a request to post objective evidence that God
> objectively exists. You haven't done so. You haven't even attempted
> to do so.
Than why didn't the OP word the question as such. I mean, if you want an
answer to the question, than ask the question in a way that it can be
understood and answered. Otherwise, you're likely to get the answer of
"42".
>
>>So, the real question is why did one of you
>>atheists post this question into the Christ NGs?
>
> They're posted in response to Christian claims posted to alt.atheism.
> Christian claims that the Christian god objectively exists.
Nonsense. I don't see how a Christian, or anyone for that matter, could
make such a claim and sup****t it with objective data, just as I don't see
how an atheist could make a claim that God doesn't exist, and sup****t it
with objective data. All we're left at in the end is beliefs.
>
>>>> Do you consider the non-existence of God (or gods) *im****tant*?
>
>>> No, I consider the erratic behavior of *people* who believe in gods
>>> im****tant.
>
>>Actually, I'd rather deal with people who believe in God than people
>>who don't, as most who don't would see death as an escape from
>>accountibility.
>
> Christians see "God's" forgiveness as an escape from accountability.
No, they see God's forgiveness as grace granted. But a Christian cannot
be in the act of sin with the thought in the back of his mind that he/she
will simply ask for forgiveness later. That's not how repentence and
grace works. Anyone who would tell you otherwise isn't a Christian,
despite what they may claim.
> Atheists see the need to be accountable - to PEOPLE - while we're
> alive.
So do Christians. How can we love our neighbor as ourself and at the
same time flake out on them all the time?
>
> Do you really think it makes any difference to the non-Christian
> you've wronged that you believe that your god forgave you for the
> transgression?
Not one bit?
>
>>That's why I often hear among atheists that if they knew the world
>>would end tomorrow, they'd do a certain act to anything that moves.
>
> That's usually what we hear from Christians in response to what they'd
> do if they had no belief in God, since nothing would prevent them from
> robbing, raping and killing.
Somehow I doubt that. If this is what you hear from them, then they
aren't Christians. They lack the belief in their heart, and are more
than likely going to church just in case He might exist. I call these
just-in-case believers, or Sunday Morning Christians.
>
> Atheists, on the other hand, know that such things are immoral -
Really? You speak for all Atheists now?
> whether Christians believe in any god or not,
If a Christian doesn't believe in God, than how can they believe in the
son of God? They're not Christian.
> makes no difference to
> what's morally correct and what's morally wrong. Christianity is for
> those who have to get your "morals" (like raping children) from a
> book, because you have none of your own.
IC. So you think all who call themselves Christians are the same, do
you?
>
>>That's why atheists (even those who just don't know and don't care if
>>God exists) would be quicker to lie, cheat, murder, steal, swear,
>>etc., as opposed to those who are in Christ would, or even those who
>>believe in some kind of higher power that will hold them accountable
>>would.
>
> Which is why atheists are MORE involved in charity, atheist doctors
> are MORE likely to serve the poor and atheists are LESS represented in
> prison than their theist counterparts?
>
> (You can claim to disagree with the facts, but they ARE facts. You
> can even 'interpret' the facts to make them look like what they
> aren't, but that's just Christian dishonesty.)
>
>>I think the danger in religion, however, comes when it begins to be
>>led by man, rather than God.
>
> Assuming your conclusion again. The Bible and the Koran were both
> written by man (and God was invented by man), so "religion led by God,
> not by man" is impossible.
>
>>If you examine the book of Revelation
>
> Written by either a lunatic or someone who had licked a LOT of toads.
>
>>the harlot that sits on top of the 7-headed 10-horned beast
>
> Which doesn't objectively exist. (Think I'm wrong? Post objective
> evidence.)
>
>> has a close resemblence to the Papacy of the Catholic
>>Church
>
> Since Protestantism (the only other choice if you're Christian)
Not so. I believe I mentioned before that you were confusing
Christianity with Catholocism and it's Protestant splinters. There's
also, in addition to the Protestant movement, Messianic Judaism, Seventh
Day Adventist (which you MIGHT classify as protestant, but they're closer
to Messianic Jews), Eastern Orthodox (these people went in schism before
the Protestant Reformation) and simply put, nondenominational. Really,
if you're a Christian, you're a Christian, and the rest are just
meaningless labels. Just follow Christ and you're a Christian (guess
which one of these meaningless labels I am).
> is
> modified Catholicism (in the late 4th century, that was the ONLY
> branch of Christianity, so ALL later sects came from it), you're
> condemning Christianity here.
See above.
>
> Learn the ACTUAL history of Christianity. The Nicene Council took the
> name of a JEWISH movement ("Christianity" meant "anointed ones" - the
No, Christianity came from the word Christian, which was originally a
derogatory term used to belittle Christ's followers, meaning "Little
Christ." In actuality, however, the original followers called themselves
Nazarenes (not to be confused with most Nazarene churches you see today,
as they would be under the Protestant umbrella), and they called
themselves Nazarenes because they were followers of Jesus of Nazarus.
> "chosen people" - JEWS) and used it to describe HELEN'S beliefs.
> That's your "canon", which means "what we believe", not "what god
> said". Christianity (as the Catholic Church) got so corrupt that
> Luther couldn't stand it, so he broke away and formed what became
> Protestantism - which has homo***ual preachers condemning
> homo***uality, making it just as corrupt as it's been - constantly
> without cease - since it was invented in 325 AD.
Actually, Martin Luthar's original purpose was to try to reform the
Catholic Church. That's why this is called the Protestant Reformation,
as it was a protest against the Catholic Church to reform. When this
failed, however, and the royal establishments had no longer wanted to be
entangled with the Catholic Church, they took over the reformation and
ceceded from the church, beginning in England with the formation of the
Church of England.
1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and
talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the
judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the
inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her
fornication...
9And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven
mountains, on which the woman sitteth...
12And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received
no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast..
13These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the
beast.
14These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them:
for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him
are called, and chosen, and faithful.
15And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore
sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate
the whore, and shall make her desolate and ****d, and shall eat her
flesh, and burn her with fire.
17For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and
give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be
fulfilled.
18And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth
over the kings of the earth.
Revelation 17:1-18, KJV
>
> THAT'S your "religion led by God". It's the god invented by man so
Actually, that's religion led by man. Nice straw-man, though.
> that the priests and preachers could live high off the hog without
> ever having to work, and you and a few billion other suckers bought it
> hook, line and arsenic.
>
> How can you believe that your preacher actually believes the nonsense
> he's spouting, when you have PROOF that preachers all over the place
> are violating what they tell you can't be violated?
Well, I can tell you that the pastoor at my congregation believes what he
preaches, though sometimes he doesn't get it right. Everyone, even
Christians, and even Atheists, are wrong from time to time. Even a
surgeon makes a mistake once in awhile on the operating table, where the
stakes you might say are even higher.
[snip]
>>and the prophecy itself has been fulfilled by the abominations that
>>the Catholic Church has done with the Kings of Europe (unfortunatly,
>>there's also a beast mentioned in this book that has a close
>>resemblence to the US).
>
> And Nostradamus' "predictions" come even closer to reality
> (Christianity god Jesus' name totally wrong - Nostradamus got Hitler's
> name almost perfectly correct), so why aren't you wor****pping him?
> (There's not ONE SINGLE UNAMBIGUOUS [and meaningful] prophesy in the
> Bible that has come true.)
>
>>Great. Than let's be on our way with our own beliefs than.
>
> Good - keep yours out of everyone else's business. Stop trying to
> teach your religion (Creationism) to kids in public schools. Stop
> trying to keep public schools from teaching reality (evolution, and
> that there's nothing wrong with homo***uality). Keep your religion
> out of medicine (evolution again, abortion, embryonic stem cell
> research, assisted suicide). Stop allowing the government to use
> non-believers' taxes to sup****t your beliefs ("faith based
> initiatives"). Etc., ad nauseam.
>
> And we'll stop forcing our lack of belief on others - we'll stop
> trying to force people to not believe. (Which is logical and actual
> nonsense, and it's never been tried, so we have nothing to stop.)
>
>>> "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for
>>> they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of
>>> the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you,
>>> They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy
>>> closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which
>>> is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee
>>> openly."
>>>
>>> -Matthew 6:5-6
>>
>>Great. You've just quoted about prayer and praise
>
[snip]
> Sorry - Salad Bar Christianity (picking and choosing the parts you'll
> obey) is both dishonesty and hypocrisy. Why won't you obey Matt
> 6:5-6? Because it's one of the passages you don't like?
That's why I read the whole scripture, not the bits and pieces that you
would take out of context.
>
>>What you seem to be advocating is that Christ followers put their
>>flame under a bushel where it cannot be seen.
>
> Which is what Christ told you to do - however much you don't want to
> accept it.
Here, let me repost the relevant scripture that you took out, as this is
what Christ is telling us to do with our faith (not our prayers, but our
faith).
12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven:
for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
13Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour,
wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to
be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
14Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be
hid.
15Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a
candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16Let your light so ****ne before men, that they may see your good works,
and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 5:12-16, KJV
> Why is it that atheists understand Christ better than "Christians" do?
HA! I hope they understand Christ better than you do.
>
>>> I don't mind you in the streets, I mind your brethren's dithering
>>> about in my government and destroying property & lives.
>
>>Well, if there are bretheren destroying property and lives, then they
>>aren't mine.
>
> They're Christians, acting according to their Christian God's rules.
> You're disavowing Christianity?
Call it what you want, but I call if following Christ.
>
>>If there are bretheren of mine, however, meddling in
>>government, than have they not every right that you would have to
>>meddle in government?
>
> The first amendment says that religion has NO right in government, and
> government has NO right in religion. Your Bible says the same thing -
> to not meddle in Caesar's government. (Never mind the reason early
> Christians put that in there - modern Christians don't accept
> reality.)
You're 1/2 right. Christ, when answering about taxes and tithes, said
"...Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto
God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21 KJV).
Now, the religious right of the first amendment is divided into two
parts, one that states that Congess has no right to establish religion,
and the other (which Atheists often forget) is that government also has
no right to pass legislation prohibitting the free practice of religion.
>
>>Don't they pay taxes the same as you?
>
> Paying taxes doesn't bestow the right to violate the law - which
> Christianizing government is - or the "right" to violate the Bible,
> which meddling in government is.
Last I checked, anyone who pays taxes is to be represented (including
Christians) in government. After all, that's part of the reason we broke
away from England in the first place, taxation without representation.
>
>>> Reel them in,
>>> rather than dismiss them as "not true christian/muslim/hindu/****nto,
>>> etc." and I will cease telling the truth about your mythology to all
>>> who will listen.
>
>>Good luck finding listeners amongst my bretheren.
>
> They have so much experience "listening" to Jesus, right? (That was
> sarcasm.)
>
>>>> Who said anything about religion? We're talking about God here,
>>>> not religion.
>
>>> Now that's much more ironic than anything you've accused me of
>>> saying!
>
>>But it's the truth.
>
> Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
> re·li·gion
> –noun
> 1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
> universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency
> or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and
> often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
>
> In short, belief in a god or gods.
A belief in God is one belief, not a set of beliefs. Nonetheless, going
by your definition, since the atheists who have a belief in the
nonexistence of God have their own theories on how the universe runs,
than we could call certain sects of atheism a religion, as they meet the
minimal criteria by dictionary.com for religion.
>
>>When Jesus came, He destroyed the temple.
>
> Again, mistaking your fairy tale and reality. "Jesus" was invented in
> the late second century. Before that, the name referred to an aspect
> of God, like "the Holy Ghost". It had nothing to do with anyone in
> the form of a man. (Feel free to produce non-Biblical sources that
> contradict this.)
>
> But, according to the story, he didn't destroy the Temple, he threw
> out those who would make the Temple a place of merchandise. (You
> REALLY need to study your Bible.)
Really?
50Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the
ghost.
51And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Matthew 27:50-51, KJV
>
>>He doesn't want man lording God over them for his/her own personal
>>gain.
>
> Romans 11:34 "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath
> been his counselor?" IOW, anyone saying "God wants" is making it up.
> Or do you know more than your Bible does?
>
>>>> In fact, if you look at all the things Jesus said and did,
>>>> they stood as a harsh criticism to the existing religious
>>>> structures of the time.
>
>>> Is *alleged* to have said and did. As I have previously
>>> demonstrated, evidence he existed at all is extremely tenuous.
>
>>Well, I believe
> You believe that Jesus was born on December 25th, while the flocks
> were in the pastures at night while, in reality, the flocks were NOT
> in the pastures at night during the winter.
Who said anything about Christmas? This holiday was adopted after the
rise of Catholicism, combining Christian beliefs with Winter Solstace
activities, particularly as it relates to the Nordic Yule tradition.
> You believe that people can *physically* "follow a star" despite the
> fact that we KNOW it's nonsense.
No it's not. Sailer's had been doing this for centuries, navigating by
the stars.
>
>> He said and did those things.
>
> He couldn't have, because "he" never existed.
Just like the Holocoust never existed too, right?
>
>>You can believe as you wish.
>
> We believe that reality is real - and have TONS of proof that it is.
> you believe that your god objectively exists, yet you constantly look
> for ways around requests for the objective evidence that's the ONLY
> way anything can objectively exist. (EVERYTHING that objectively
> exists leaves objective evidence. It has nothing to do with God's
> capabilities, but with the nature of objective reality.)
Well, the truth of it is, I believe what I believe. I don't owe you
anything for my beliefs. I hope that one day, however, you'll become a
little more tolerant of those who chose to believe differently than you.
Until than, I've said my piece.
>
>>>> OK. So I guess, according to you, that comming out of the closet
>>>> should be reserved only to gays, and Christians are to stay in the
>>>> closet, or behind closed doors. If you really want to know why
>>>> religious opinions are seemingly immune, it's for the same reason
>>>> that alternative lifestyles are seemingly immune.
>
>>> False comparison. Homo***uals actually can be proven to exist, and
>>> are a subset of humanity.
>
>>Great. I can prove to you that Christians exist.
>>I can prove to you that Muslims exist.
>>I can prove to you that Jews exist.
>>If requested, I can prove to you that these are even a subset of
>>humanity. So, I don't see how the comparison is false.
>
> Homo***uals coming out of the closet affect no one but the homo***ual
> coming out of the closet.
You sure about that? I remember back then that it was quite an uproar.
Of course, if people would simply learn to be more tolerant of one
another and whatever lifestyle they chose to follow, than your statement
about homo***uality could apply to Christians, as well.
> Christians "coming out of the closet"
> affects all of humanity. Or don't you consider over a million dead
> Iraqis - killed by CHRISTIAN BUSH'S war against MOSLEM "terrorists" -
> to be "human"?
Well, I consider it a mess in Iraq, but I'm not about so start pointing
the finger, as by the time I'm done, I'd be out of fingers to point.
Maybe you should study about the war in Iraq, as perhaps current events
will be easier for you to grasp than the Christian History.
>
>>IC. Well, in this case it would be different, however. As a
>>Scottsman is a Scottsman no matter his actions.
>
> And one who claims to be a Christian is a Christian, no matter his
> actions.
Then I guess there will be many Christians who don't make it to Heaven.
>
>>But it is the belief, and the actions
>>that are a consequence of a belief, that define a Christian. In
>>short, a Christian isn't a Christian just because he/she wants to be,
>>or claims to be
>
> Or because YOU define him to be. THAT'S the No True Scotsman fallacy
> - that YOU get to define what "Christian" means.
I don't, Christ does.
(1 John 3:2-3 NKJV) "Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not
yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed,
we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. {3} And everyone who
has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure." {7} "Little
children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is
righteous, just as He is righteous."
(1 John 4:17 NKJV) "Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may
have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this
world."
But perhaps the most im****tant:
Mat 22:37-40 NKJV) "Jesus said to him, " 'You shall love the LORD your
God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
{38} "This is the first and great commandment. {39} "And the second is
like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' {40} "On these two
commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.""
So, there you have it. This is a section of what, according to Christ,
constitutes a Christian. Therefore, no Christian could hate their
neighbor, or they're not Christian. No Christian could hate God, or they
are not Christian. No Christian would lie, cheat, steal, murder, bare
false witness, covet their neighbors property, etc., or they are not
Christian, for these acts go against the great commandment.
> You don't. Because
> if individuals did, YOU would be defined as non-Christian by MANY more
> people than those who would define you as Christian. (Like 100% of
> Catholics, Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, etc.)
But in the end, it's only one opinion that counts, that of Christ our
Lord.
>
>>In essence, no true gay man would shack up with a woman.
>
> Nonsense. Preference and action aren't always the same. MANY gay men
> have not only "shacked up with" women, but have married them and had
> children with them.
>
>>Otherwise, he's not gay, he's bi.
>
> YOU don't get to define "gay". Especially since your definition has
> absolutely nothing to do with the state of being gay - you're defining
> an action - having only gay ***.
No, I'm defining the predecessor to the action. Nonetheless, here's the
definition from dictionary.com
bi·***·u·al /ba??s?k?u?l/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[bahy-sek-shoo-uhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation
–adjective
1. Biology.
a. of both ***es.
b. combining male and female organs in one individual; hermaphroditic.
2. ***ually responsive to both ***es; ambi***ual.
–noun
3. Biology. an animal or plant that has the reproductive organs of both
***es.
4. a person ***ually responsive to both ***es; ambi***ual.
Last I checked, in order for a guy to shack up with a woman and partake
in some kind of intercourse, he'd either have to really concentrate and
focus on a mental image of a guy (which I suppose is possible, but not
likely), or he'd have to be ***ually responsive to the female gender
(probably the more likely scenario).
>
>>No true Christian would commit murder (as defined by
>>Jesus, which is to be angry at one's brother without cause)
>
> Nonsense, that's YOUR interpretation of a commandment you claim
> doesn't apply to you. (You DON'T obey the OT, do you? "New covenant"
> and all, right?)
Actually, no. Here's where you get Christianity mixed up with all the
other ungodly stuff. Christ said it himself:
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not
come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Matthew 5:17-18, KJV
Considering this, and considering that all the law and all the prophets
hang on the two great commandments, we are left with no alternative if we
go by scripture to follow God's law in the OT. All the new covenant did
was extend forgiveness, do away with sacrifices, extend grace that we not
condemn by the law, and allowed gentiles to serve God; it didn't replace
the OT, but added to it.
>
>>otherwise, how could they claim to be with Christ and yet strike
>>against Him.
|
