Priceless. Instead of frightening small children with your nonsense, why not just jump out of the closet, yell "Boo!", and be done with it?

Looking back, I think I would have preferred the latter rather than the psychological baggage the former left me with.

You can't understand the Bible with certainty unless God reveals it's meaning to you.

See, I think that's the problem right there. If Person A feels that God has revealed the meaning of the Bible to him, and it's different from the meaning that Person B feels has been revealed to him, you get schisms and Inquisitions and all that sort of thing. And there's literally no chance of common ground because each side (somewhere between sentences, each Person got a bunch of followers and became a Side) believes that their interpretation is Ordained by God and is therefore not subject to analysis or argument.

And I'm keenly in favor of analysis and argument. I'm not religious, but I'm a huge fan of the Jesuits.

See, I think that's the problem right there. If Person A feels that God has revealed the meaning of the Bible to him, and it's different from the meaning that Person B feels has been revealed to him, you get schisms and Inquisitions and all that sort of thing. And there's literally no chance of common ground because each side (somewhere between sentences, each Person got a bunch of followers and became a Side) believes that their interpretation is Ordained by God and is therefore not subject to analysis or argument.

I think this is the main reason I got away from the organized Catholic Church. I still believe in a good deal of the basics, but who am I to say that my interpretation is better than anyone else's? If I disagree fundamentally with some recognized Church authority (I used to have some interesting conversations with my uncle, who is a priest), does that mean one of us is automatically wrong?

If Person A feels that God has revealed the meaning of the Bible to him, and it's different from the meaning that Person B feels has been revealed to him

Two men enter, one man leaves!

Meanwhile, we secular humanist deists can have a moment of peace and quiet.

you get schisms and Inquisitions and all that sort of thing.

and the anti-pope!

There is the third option--that God has answered you, but that for whatever reason you do not consciously recognize that has happened or is happening.


Others have said that before, but it seems very much like a copout. God, should he exist, knows what sort of answer would work for me, and what sort of answers would not work. I can't wrap my mind around the worth of a God that would be petty enough to provide only the type of answer he knows won't work, and then hold me accountable for not believing.

Of course, if God doesn't care whether I believe in him or not so long as I try my best to leave the world a better place for my existence, then it doesn't really matter for the state of my soul. I can't believe what I don't believe, but I can be decent to my fellow creatures and try to make each day better than the last.

I can buy into the idea of a God that appreciates that, even if I don't believe in him.

I'm with Sam Hutcheson, it would be almost impossible for aetheists to be the majority here. However- Non-religous is certainly a possibility, and likely probable. By my definition anyway. In the US more and more people identify as Christian with out really doing anything to practice the faith. They don't go to church, they don't join faith groups, don't really think about it. I'm not saying thats a bad thing either!

IMO, and only that, you can identify with any religion you want, but if you don't practice it, it would make you non-religous. And I'm well aware you don't have to go to church to be a Christian, but simply stating "I'm Christian" on a poll, saying its important, then never thinking about until some blow hard (me) comes and talks about it, well, you're still a Christian , but you're non-religous. I vastly prefer that kind of person over people who wish to convert me (Marty, who has the best of intentions) or denounce me (99% of any fundamentalist group).

Also, as usual, I second CrosbyBird.

repeat

Others have said that before, but it seems very much like a copout. God, should he exist, knows what sort of answer would work for me, and what sort of answers would not work. I can't wrap my mind around the worth of a God that would be petty enough to provide only the type of answer he knows won't work, and then hold me accountable for not believing.

I think it could force you to be critical and reflexive regarding your actions. I'm as atheist as anyone here, but I think it's fairly silly to try to evaluate faith by rational means.

The world is a highly complex and, when you think about it, pretty terrifying place. Everybody has their own way of interpreting it and dealing with it. Faith is one such model, and I don't find it any less reasonable than any other. No matter what your belief system about the world is, it undoubtedly relies on numerous leaps of faith on a moment to moment basis. As such, I'm genuinely glad for Christians for finding a way to find meaning in our crazy lives, and respect their effort in making it all work for themselves.

There is the third option--that God has answered you, but that for whatever reason you do not consciously recognize that has happened or is happening.

Others have said that before, but it seems very much like a copout. God, should he exist, knows what sort of answer would work for me, and what sort of answers would not work. I can't wrap my mind around the worth of a God that would be petty enough to provide only the type of answer he knows won't work, and then hold me accountable for not believing.

Someone on the other side of the fence might argue that this response is a copout, in that you have essentially decided that there are only specific types of evidence that you will accept based on certain specific characteristics you expect a deity to have. But what if your expectations are wrong?

This is not to say that logic and reason must be cast aside when trying to get answers to questions in this area. But all of us need to honestly look at how we approach the topic, try to understand our biases and limitations, and account for them as best we can.

And by "all or us", I specifically include God-believing people such as myself, who also struggle with assuming that God has to fit our expectations of what God must be like. Attempts to show that God must be as we define him/her/it/they to be are at the root of all that goes wrong in the name of religion.

Of course, if God doesn't care whether I believe in him or not so long as I try my best to leave the world a better place for my existence, then it doesn't really matter for the state of my soul. I can't believe what I don't believe, but I can be decent to my fellow creatures and try to make each day better than the last.

I can buy into the idea of a God that appreciates that, even if I don't believe in him.

My understanding is that God does appreciate that, and while He'd also appreciate the belief and some sort of relationship as well, that's something that you and He would have to work out between yourselves.

God, should he exist, knows what sort of answer would work for me, and what sort of answers would not work. I can't wrap my mind around the worth of a God that would be petty enough to provide only the type of answer he knows won't work, and then hold me accountable for not believing.

It is certainly a valid and thought provoking question, and one that couldn't be answered in a short post, but I can at least offer my personal opinion. God has already done an immeasurable amount to give us the message in a way we can understand with the Word and the Spirit, and in sending His Son. Consider the parables, the symbolism and the generally simple language of the Bible. Notice how Jesus tailors his message to his audience, as when he spoke to the fisherman James and John. "Follow me, and I will you fishers of men." I think of the passage from Isaiah chapter 5, which desribes Israel, but all to often applies to me and my sometimes unfruitful spiritual life:

2 And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.
4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

Of course, God can choose to do whatever he wants. But from the Christian perspective, He has chosen to love us, to send His Son to die for our sins, and has given His Word in a way we can understand. Maybe He asks, "What more could I do." I know this doesn't fully answer the question, but it is a thought I had.

You could even take your question a step further and ask, "Why would He grant man a free will, and then punish for the wrong decisions. Why not give us a mind that is forced to follow Him 100%. Or put Biblically, why put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden. This is one of the great theology questions, and how you answer that question probably reveals a lot of how you think of God.

but I can be decent to my fellow creatures and try to make each day better than the last.

Not a bad way to go. Two of my favorite verses in Scripture:

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27.

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Micah 6:8.

By my definition anyway. In the US more and more people identify as Christian with out really doing anything to practice the faith. They don't go to church, they don't join faith groups, don't really think about it. I'm not saying thats a bad thing either!

IMO, and only that, you can identify with any religion you want, but if you don't practice it, it would make you non-religous. And I'm well aware you don't have to go to church to be a Christian, but simply stating "I'm Christian" on a poll, saying its important, then never thinking about until some blow hard (me) comes and talks about it, well, you're still a Christian , but you're non-religous.

Thanks for that, Arva; I think that pretty much describes me to a T; Christian, but non-religious.

Only time I went to a faith group was when I had a crush on another member, but I'll assume God won't hold it against me (though I might be wrong; I haven't eaten any shellfish though, so maybe that will balance)

I think it could force you to be critical and reflexive regarding your actions.

I think I already do that, most of the time.

I'm as atheist as anyone here, but I think it's fairly silly to try to evaluate faith by rational means.

I do the best I can with the tools I have.

The world is a highly complex and, when you think about it, pretty terrifying place. Everybody has their own way of interpreting it and dealing with it. Faith is one such model, and I don't find it any less reasonable than any other.

I can't agree with you. Society's refusal to subject faith-based beliefs to the scrutiny of pretty much every other type of belief is dangerous. Religion divides people into factions that can't ever reach true resolution because there may never be common ground. Nothing can be tested and found wanting, and so there's no way to determine whether one side or the other is right, even when they directly contradict each other, and there's no way to provide evidence that one side should yield to the other.

Most of the people I know are theists, but not so extreme in their faith so as to generate a tremendous amount of conflict in their lives. If you and I have similar moral positions, it doesn't matter if you believe in God and I believe in a different God (or no god at all). It is when our moral beliefs come into conflict that one of us must yield, willingly or not. And when that conflict is over a limited and specific resource, like land or political power, it isn't so easy just to agree to disagree as it might be over the value of DIPS or VORP.

Jackass atheist here to say: our civilization is in big trouble, and organized religion is one reason why.

Jackass atheist here to say: our civilization is in big trouble, and organized religion is one reason why.

Spiritually minded theist here to agree wholeheartedly.

Best Regards

John

Someone on the other side of the fence might argue that this response is a copout, in that you have essentially decided that there are only specific types of evidence that you will accept based on certain specific characteristics you expect a deity to have. But what if your expectations are wrong?


I am not making the determination of what evidence is sufficient or insufficient for belief. That's hardwired, and I couldn't change it if I wanted to. I can observe the world, talk to people, reflect on my observations, and try my best to keep an open mind. I do that every day of my life. But I don't choose belief. It either happens or it doesn't.

God has already done an immeasurable amount to give us the message in a way we can understand with the Word and the Spirit, and in sending His Son.

If we're speaking of the Christian version of God, there are attributes that He supposedly possesses. He is all-knowing, so he can understand precisely what I would need to believe in His existence. He is all-powerful, so no obstacle exists for delivering the message. He is loving, so he would not allow me to suffer eternal torment for something that he could so easily fix.

God could deliver the same message with the same result without needing to allow his son to be tortured and murdered. Why would he choose to do it that way? Is he vindictive? He could provide the answers in a form that doesn't provoke wars, ideological and literal, because of the interpretation of words in a book. Why allow such a situation to exist and to fester in the minds of men?

It is this specific version of God that is completely incomprehensible to me. I hold my omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving beings to a higher standard than that.

Jackass atheist here to say: our civilization is in big trouble, and organized religion is one reason why.

Humanity in general or where are we marking off civilization?

Non-religious but Catholic-affliated mjs believes that a lot of people have been using religion to justify a lot of dubious plans, but that there are still a lot of positives behind organized religion. I'd say it could be a reason why civilization could be in trouble, but it's one of many.

I hope I'm not seeming too wishy-washy with my posting; I feel the need to defend my Catholic leanings (I mostly lurk, but I guess I get bothered by a lot of the religion (more specifically catholicism) bashing; maybe because up until 8th grade, I was leaning towards going to a seminary), but I see that there's a lot that the church has been doing that I find questionable and I understand that organized religion, in its current form and more specifically in the way it has allowed itself to be seen by others, does have some failings and is probably not right for everyone.

Nothing can be tested and found wanting, and so there's no way to determine whether one side or the other is right, even when they directly contradict each other, and there's no way to provide evidence that one side should yield to the other.

The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think there's a "right" way to live life. I'm addressing more the spiritual/personal rather than the political. None of us is ever going to "know" who is "right" about the origins of the universe or a lot of things in life, so I don't see it as a clash of civilizations or anything, just different ways of finding meaning in life.

Most of the people I know are theists, but not so extreme in their faith so as to generate a tremendous amount of conflict in their lives. If you and I have similar moral positions, it doesn't matter if you believe in God and I believe in a different God (or no god at all). It is when our moral beliefs come into conflict that one of us must yield, willingly or not. And when that conflict is over a limited and specific resource, like land or political power, it isn't so easy just to agree to disagree as it might be over the value of DIPS or VORP.

I don't get what you are saying here. I agree that morality can be evaluated independently of the belief system that generated it.

But if you disagree with someone re: abortion or same-sex marriage laws, I don't see any point in going "up the chain" so to speak and attacking the belief system like you're trying to roll up a terrorist cell. Just because I likely disagree with you about some things doesn't mean I'm going to pin it all on you being atheist or (insert your race) or whatever, and then conclude that I need to force your type to yield.

By shills and hucksters, who do you mean?

If I misread you as to referring to the Catholic Church as effectively a giant scam, I apologize. If I read you correctly in that, I just think it's classy to trash organized religion.

As a lapsed Catholic (I think that's the right term; I used to be a practicing member but decided it's not my thing), I understand that it's not for everyone. I don't see the need for pissing on a religion though.

Here was my post:

Oh, Marty. I'm so disappointed in you. My infant daughter is a sinner because her great great great.... great grandparents sinned? Right.

God's care/compassion/mercy is not in overlooking sin but in forgiving sin.

What a racket. So, we tell you, beginning with you infancy, that you're a sinner, likely doomed to hell, but that we have the cure! Priceless. Instead of frightening small children with your nonsense, why not just jump out of the closet, yell "Boo!", and be done with it?

Ah--I did mean much of organized Christianity, Islam, and so on. Anything with a Hell, really. You don't see the racket involved in creating the idea of sin, then selling the cure? And when you frighten children, and traumatize them, with the threat of eternal damnation, that's surely a form of child abuse.

In other words, I'm not pissing on religion, and on every aspect of religion, but rather making a clear objection to an abominable part of its practice.

edit:

(I mostly lurk, but I guess I get bothered by a lot of the religion (more specifically catholicism) bashing;

By all means, post more often. We may disagree, but you seem thoughtful.

C'bird: re 117--very much along the lines of thoughts I've had, and very well expressed.

If we're speaking of the Christian version of God, there are attributes that He supposedly possesses. He is all-knowing, so he can understand precisely what I would need to believe in His existence. He is all-powerful, so no obstacle exists for delivering the message. He is loving, so he would not allow me to suffer eternal torment for something that he could so easily fix.

God could deliver the same message with the same result without needing to allow his son to be tortured and murdered. Why would he choose to do it that way? Is he vindictive? He could provide the answers in a form that doesn't provoke wars, ideological and literal, because of the interpretation of words in a book. Why allow such a situation to exist and to fester in the minds of men?

It is this specific version of God that is completely incomprehensible to me. I hold my omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving beings to a higher standard than that.

Honestly, I think that this post kind of misses the point. I'm not Christian and even if I was I wouldn't try to speak for all Christians, but I don't think the idea is to start off with the a priori assumption that there is God, ergo, I should follow him.

I think it's easier to start with a small, concrete example to elucidate what I mean.

Yesterday, I rejected a job offer, the only one I currently have. This will obviously have significant consequences on my life, but it is difficult for me to know what they will be or even whether they will ultimately be positive or negative. Maybe in three years this startup will go YouTube and my 25,000 options would have made me a millionaire. Maybe I'll meet my future wife at the job I accept instead. Who knows.

Now let's look backwards and try to figure out why I rejected the job: on a high level, because of my parents and background, I've become relatively risk averse, preferring more certain compensation over options.

On a medium level, this startup deals with sports community building, and through an equally complex chain of events I'm already involved in a cool baseball venture, so don't feel the need to do more sports stuff.

On a micro level, I've been swamped by my as yet unfinished masters thesis, I just started dating someone and a friend of a friend is in town and I've had to show her around/drive her around, leading to me having less time to really think about what I want and whether a startup is a good fit for me, making it harder for me to say "yes" to them.

The point of this rambling story is that our lives are the sum of a vastly complex and basically incomprehensible series of events on even a prosaic level. That can be highly depressing on a number of levels that is beautifully explored (in my opinion) by Milan Kundera in The Unbearable Lightness of Being. He proscribes that we should each find the meaning in our lives by imposing some kind of narrative on it and then just going with it -- that works pretty well for me.

But it is not difficult for me to see the appeal and efficacy of imposing a model that is based on God and Faith; because of the high degree of uncertainty and complexity in our lives, we are basically operating on faith anyway, and for many people Faith at least provides a framework for thoughtfully thinking about that complexity.

You gotta love this guy.

There was an inadvertent truccation of this sentence. The original said:

"Compared to Hillenbrand, you gotta love this guy."

He proscribes that we should each find the meaning in our lives by imposing some kind of narrative on it and then just going with it -- that works pretty well for me.

Do you mean "prescribes" here? Otherwise I'm not really following you...

He proscribes that we should each find the meaning in our lives by imposing some kind of narrative on it and then just going with it

Todd's proscription: all faggots will burn in hell.

Todd's proscription: all faggots will burn in hell.

Did Jones ever actually say anything like that? If so, I missed it.

I mean, the man is on my #### list anyway, but I'm not going to hate him for something he never actually said (or did) to anyone.

Perhaps he believes that, but so do a lot of people. I don't let it bother me too much, since if people like that are even mostly correct about the Deity and the hereafter, there are a myriad of reasons I'm not making the cut at the pearly gates, many of which have not a thing to do with love or sex. And I'm not sure Heaven is where I belong if it's full of people like that anyway.

People often like to pat themselves on the pat for avoiding various temptations. The "temptation" to not engage in homosexuality is a pretty easy "temptation" for people who find the thought of homosexual activity repulsive, which is most people, to resist. A pastor who condemns gambling or alcohol abuse or premarital [heterosexual] sex with the same fervor is calling out a hell of a lot more people.

I do find "live and let live" to be the best policy with regards to these things most of the time. I mean, if someone gets in my face and tells me I'm going to burn in hell, I just might suggest he keep his garbage opinions to himself. And however obnxoious (and unhelpful) Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens might be, neither of them is agitating politicians to jail me for who ends up in my bed.

Here we sit, 125+ posts into a thread one of whose core concepts is homosexuality, and not a word from or about our friend Sam M. Okay, I'll take the bait. I'm a hetero divorced male, not much more or less hormonally different from most of the population here, I'm guessing (look the other way, Lisa).

For the record: I've never met Sam f2f, but I'd a hundred times rather go to a game with / trust my life to / lend money to him than any of the sanctimonious "Jesus loves me but I'm not so sure about you" ######## who just know that they've found the One True Way in their cheesy little science fiction book but they'll pray real hard on my behalf and maybe just maybe they'll save my pitiful neck from eternal damnation. You and your Invisible Friend in the Sky can go #### yourselves.

Meanwhile, I'll bet my chips on the people who show me basic human values.

</rant>

In case it's not known, ACE, I share a certain demographic trait with Sam M., who it turns out I have met face to face once. (And I am not referring to us both being attorneys, though we are both that as well.)

You're a Mets fan?

ACE1242, I'm a divorced, hetero male who would go to a ballgame with anyone from this site who isn't a jerk, idiot, #########, pinhead, etc. regardless of religious or political affiliation, sexual orientation, age or anything else.

Good people are good people. Jerks are jerks. The good people? I want and welcome their alternative POV. The jerks who share my values? ####'em.

Scotto, I think we're saying the same thing. Values = sharing your milk and cookies / volunteering for the majority of shared blame / doing things that would make you happy if other people did them for you.

Whether or not I'm a pinhead I can't objectively say.

The current (vague) plan involves the Staten Island Yankees. Details as they become available.

hello boys!!!

i am a female married to one of You People who got plenty of hormones too.

the difficulty with talking religion is that too many people just put ALL of us christians into the hysterical intolerant group.

and not all of us are, you know. and we would appreciate a little tolerance. ESPECIALLY from people who preach tolerance and diversity as their belief system thank you very much.

like i say to all the hysterical skreeeeemers - like jesus said - don't be castin stones unless you are without sin. which you ain't, seein as how i can count more than a few you got just from what you are saying.

as for being born homosexual, well, if He has got a problem with it, then WHY did he create them? the whole hysteria is just silly. homosexuals don't threaten nothing at all.

and as for seeing a ballgame with any other primate, just as long as they aren't drunk. or cub fans

except retro - because he has HOT LAIGS!!!!!
or meatwad - because he's HOT
or DTM - because he's HOT too

What about the one liner you wanted to sends?

Actually, they pose a huge threat to the equanimity of all those closeted gay-bashing GOPers who keep finding themselves in hot water for soliciting pages or young men in rest rooms.

Those are my favorite schadenfreude moments.

the difficulty with talking religion is that too many people just put ALL of us christians into the hysterical intolerant group.

chick, in addition to the crazies, I've met some lovely, generous, tolerant Christians, even among those who believed I was likely to wind up in Hell--so I don't think you're at all alike by any means. BUT, and while I don't agree with him on a lot of things, I'm with Chris Hitchens on this: by all means, believe what you want to believe, just leave me out of it.

Ah--I did mean much of organized Christianity, Islam, and so on. Anything with a Hell, really. You don't see the racket involved in creating the idea of sin, then selling the cure? And when you frighten children, and traumatize them, with the threat of eternal damnation, that's surely a form of child abuse.

In other words, I'm not pissing on religion, and on every aspect of religion, but rather making a clear objection to an abominable part of its practice.

edit:
(I mostly lurk, but I guess I get bothered by a lot of the religion (more specifically catholicism) bashing;


By all means, post more often. We may disagree, but you seem thoughtful.

C'bird: re 117--very much along the lines of thoughts I've had, and very well expressed.

Sorry for the long block, but at a friend's house.

Yeah, I'll be honest here. Read your reply at work and first thing I did was think of "can I do some gotcha! in here," but that would be asinine and disrespectful. I guess the more I thought about it, depending on how the upbringing is done, that could be a horrible experience. "Fear the Eternal Damnation!" was never really drilled into me, but I could imagine that for some people, trying to teach others about catholicism could be more fear the bad rather than do the good. I was generally told try to do the right thing and that confession could be done for the bad things (to an extent; you can want God to forgive you, but getting forgiveness from a wronged party was something I thought was just as important).

So I guess I might be a bad lapsed Catholic :)

Thinking about it, I don't see the issue of "creating the idea of sin" as long as it is stated as something you did that was wrong and should be strived against. Original sin... I thought baptism fixed that (and the death of Christ). I view sin as a kinda of karmic scale (please don't ask me how many hail mary's make up for a murder; that's not what I mean. It's tough to explain and I'm doing a poor job). In short, I kinda view religion as a way to generally enforce a normal (from my standards, which will be different for everyone) moral code. I see the community aspect (a weekly gathering of a neighborhood is rarely bad, especially when there's a free meal afterwards and just a chance for people to talk about) as a good thing. I see passing on traditions (some, not all) as generally a good thing, which is naturally often abused.

Like everything, I think a lot of people twist their religion to justify some of their actions, but I feel like a lot of people only see the negative aspects of religion and use it to slam on anyone who has "faith." I got kinda rankled and probably started off on a negative tone with you, and I apologize for that.

I guess I'm a little defensive about my faith because I'm not sure I wholly understand it myself (maybe that's part of my faith, that I'm willing to trust in something I don't really understand). #117 makes a lot of good points that I really don't have answers for. Would it be easier/better in the long run if God just laid out a document that showed what's right and wrong (I know, Ten Commandments, but I don't think a lot of people view that as definitive) or made everyone get along or showed everyone exactly what they need to believe? Definitely. Maybe part of the faith is that you need to find it.

Do I believe in God? I think so. Maybe it's just that I like to think that maybe there's something after life. Maybe I like to think that there's some cosmic reward for doing the right thing, and that in the long run, there's something such as karma and that there's some kind of justice in the afterlife. Maybe I'm just terrified of there being nothing after I die and that's what pushed me towards faith. Maybe it's a coping mechanism; I'm not sure, but for some reason, I do have faith, and I guess it bothers me when, just because I believe in some "invisibile man in the sky," I hate homosexuals (I don't) or I'm intolerant (I try not to be) or I abuse children (I find that thought abhorrent, as I was a volunteer basketball coach at my local grade school) or any other of the number of the insults Catholics receive. I know, a lot of "Catholics" do the same to atheists, but I don't think I've ever knowingly been disrespectful of an atheist here or their beliefs. I know I shouldn't take it personally, but occasionally, enough is enough :)

I will try to post here more often; even though the general tone of some threads could use improvement, there's a lot of smart people here with a lot of interesting viewpoints I haven't considered. I never really thought of how bad hammering the eternal damnation could be; I mean, I thought about it, but probably haven't completely considered it.

Night all,
Mike

My only problem with Christians is this:

They have their own Testament.

Why the hell can't they keep their hands off ours?

Who the hell are they to tell us -- WHO WROTE IT -- what it means?

The Five Books are OURS. The Old Testament is OURS.

Roll your own.

If Moises Alou could throw his bat down and have it turn into a snake, I'd believe. I tells ya, faith was much easier back in the Bronze Age.

Srul Itza Posted: May 01, 2008 at 10:17 PM (#2766067)

My only problem with Christians is this:

They have their own Testament.

Why the hell can't they keep their hands off ours?

Who the hell are they to tell us -- WHO WROTE IT -- what it means?

The Five Books are OURS. The Old Testament is OURS.

Roll your own.


- well srul, problem is that the First Christian was a jewish guy and so i guess this is why he didn't start from scratch.

bad choice of words there

hehhehheh

but as for The Ones Who Came After, ah well, everyone always gotta explain what somebody else meant so what it meant means what THEY want it to mean NOW

it is what we do to the constitution and that is only 200 years old. so all of us have had a long LONG time to fiddle with both testaments

but i should leave this to john because he says things so much bettern i do

Mike, that was one terrific post. Thanks for taking the time to spell out your thinking on a difficult and very personal matter.

I got back here late so I don't have much to say right now, but I'll try to post some kind of response tomorrow.

My only problem with Christians is this:

They have their own Testament.

Why the hell can't they keep their hands off ours?

Who the hell are they to tell us -- WHO WROTE IT -- what it means?

The Five Books are OURS. The Old Testament is OURS.

Roll your own.

Srul--the NT was written by Jews ... every last book penned by men who underwent circumcision with the bris-saber and no longer had the force-kin with them. When Paul did a “roll call” of examples of faith his list was entirely Jewish.

Didn’t Yawheh promise Abraham “I have made you a father of many nations” and that “and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me” (Genesis 17:5; 22:18). Jews and Christians are like Britain and America--one sprang from the other and one would not have existed were it not for the other. Both supposedly reach back to Abraham--one through genealogy the other through faith in the promise made to Abraham.

The difference is that Christians feel that a certain young Rabbi of the first century was the promised offspring of Abraham through whom “all nations on earth will be blessed.”

Regardless of that difference of opinion it doesn’t change the fact that Christians should view Abraham as their spiritual forefather. I know I do. Were Jesus not a son of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Judah (through "Shiloh" whom "he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his"--Genesis 49:10) and of the family stock of King David nobody would have paid him any mind--without a link to Father Abraham he would be just another Rabbi.

It's also why I loath anti-Semitism--to me it's like being adopted and abusing your new siblings.

Best Regards

John

If Moises Alou could throw his bat down and have it turn into a snake, I'd believe. I tells ya, faith was much easier back in the Bronze Age.

Meh ... for all of Jesus' miracles most preferred the status quo and didn't want to change their way of doing things. I doubt it would be any different today.

As to hell AG, I've alway struggled with the concept. "And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart." --Jeremiah 7:31

If God found this repugnant I can't see Him doing this to His own children. Whatever hell is, it is to be destroyed "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death" it's emptied of its dead (not tortured souls) and done away with--whatever hell is (if you go through various translations, the word "hell" "grave" and "Sheohl" are often used interchangeably save for references to a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem--where God condemned the practice of burning alive--that Jesus mentioned), it isn't permanent.

Besides, I couldn't love a God who views topping every atrocity committed by men (torture and keeping his victim alive so it never stops) as a form of justice. At least death provides an escape from monsters who torture their fellow man. I mean, c'mon--according to scripture we were made in the image of God. If we find temporary torture repugnant and eternal torture an example of sadism then chances are the Good Lord would as well.

Best Regards

John

I will try to post here more often; even though the general tone of some threads could use improvement,

RDF.

135. Srul Itza Posted: May 01, 2008 at 10:17 PM (#2766067)

The Five Books are OURS. The Old Testament is OURS.

Oh, so this is why you're so batshit, Srul. You take the Old Testament seriously.

and as for seeing a ballgame with any other primate, just as long as they aren't drunk. or cub fans

except retro - because he has HOT LAIGS!!!!!

**pumps fist, whispers "yesss!"**

Kevin,

is civility really that foreign of a concept? You don't think an improved tone to the site would improve discussion?

Mike, that was one terrific post. Thanks for taking the time to spell out your thinking on a difficult and very personal matter.

I got back here late so I don't have much to say right now, but I'll try to post some kind of response tomorrow.

Thanks.

Faith, to me, is strange. It's not really a rational thing in the long run; I don't know why I really have it, but I think I do.

is civility really that foreign of a concept? You don't think an improved tone to the site would improve discussion?

The "tone improvement" thing is a BTF inside joke you accidentally stepped on, mjs.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." -- Hebrews 11:1 (KJV translation -- good enough for St. Paul, good enough for me.)

If that's what you mean by "faith," fine, I'll go along with that. In fact, I don't really see how you could make it through the day otherwise. I have faith that when I blink, the world will still be there when I open my eyes again, although I'd be hard-pressed to prove rigorously that it will. I have faith that things will be better today than they've ever been before, or if not today, then pretty soon. I have faith that my boys in green and gold will prevail.

But if by "faith" you mean "the earth is six thousand years old" or "you better do what I want or my great big powerful friend's gonna shove you in a fiery stove for a million bajillion years" or "you poor ignorant wretched soul I'll pray that someday you get one tenth as wise as I am and maybe you too can fly up into the clouds" -- #### off. I'll stick with my beer volcano and stripper factory, thankyouverymuch.

I'll stick with my beer volcano and stripper factory

I'd like to hear more about the beer volcano and stripper factory.

Start here.

The "tone improvement" thing is a BTF inside joke you accidentally stepped on, mjs.

Thanks, Kevin; forgot all about that!

I stand by the larger point, but thanks for the reminder about that.