Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#558 Mar 11, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Can you please elaborate? What message do you think the authors were trying to convey? Do you think that all words written in the Bible, even if presented as historic fact, were parables? What do you think that particular passage in Joshua was about if not literal?
“…there is historical romance which in a frame work of history interweaves an invented tale. Some of the apocryphal tales of the apostles are in this class… There is legend in which popular fancy working for generations has surrounded a real person and with such a mass of extraneous matter that the historical kernel is hardly discernible.”- Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar

It has always been common for writers trying to make a philosophical point to do it through simple story telling. I think there is much more meaning in many of the stories of the Bible than you can get from a naïve literal interpretation

"A myth is an image in terms of which we try to make sense of the world." - Alan Watts
Job wrote:
2. By "naturalism", I mean the assumption that our existence came about by some other means than intelligent design. There was no divine creator involved.
Does that mean you do not accept the Laws of Nature that science has discovered?
Job wrote:
3. What we 'do' know is more about the language of that time. And it wouldn't really matter since the passage does not suggest geocentricity.
Ridiculous!

If the Bible passage read,“Joshua commanded the Earth to stop rotating” nobody would have understood what it meant.
Job wrote:
4. What exactly do you mean by political? And, what would your explanation be for this historical event recorded on Sennacherib's Prism?
Wars between nations I consider political.

As Sir William Mitchell Ramsay pointed out “…there is historical romance which in a frame work of history interweaves an invented tale”.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#559 Mar 11, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Copernicus, and Galileo had balls (I would say). They had no problem confronting the controlling power. My opinion is that if they were alive today, they would confront the ruling power called the "National Academy of Scientists".
There is no doubt in my mind that they would both be esteemed members of NAS. After the treatment Galileo received at the hands of the "Bible experts" of his day it would be difficult imagine him advocating the Bible based views of the Creationists.

“I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations.”- Galileo Galilei
Job wrote:
And once again, the issue with the Earth revolving around the Sun is not the same thing as the orchestrated world-view controlled institution called 'evolution'.
The issue is exactly the same. Creationists refuse to accept the scientific evidence for evolution because it conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible, just as the Geocentrists refused to accept Galileo’s evidence for exactly the same reason.
Job wrote:
I'm convinced more than ever that evolution is controlled by anti-theistic bias. Unlike Galileo's presentations, alleged evolutionary facts are controlled by a naturalistic theme. I don't think Copernicus and Galileo were controlled by such a theme. For one, they weren't atheists or agnostics.
Scientists have no reason to promote the Theory of Evolution as a fact except for the overwhelming scientific evidence which supports it. Creationists are only worried about maintaining the literal veracity of the Bible which is the same exact bias that Luther and Bellarmine had.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#560 Mar 11, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
There's always the present problem that what God may reveal, man doesn't like. And if man doesn't like it, and is not forced to receive it, man can continually make claims that we know absolutely "nothing" about Him.
“Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication-- after that it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it can not be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to ME, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
Just because you believe you have a revelation from "God" doesn’t mean that everyone else has to believe it. You are just an ordinary human being like the rest of us and admittedly a sinner.
Job wrote:
The Bible does indicate that we know very little. Our knowledge of being like school children is absolutely correct. But school children receive knowledge based on what they can handle. They are not 'completely' void of knowledge. And neither are we. We are given enough knowledge necessary.
"But some, perhaps, will say: Are we to have no word of God — no revelation? I answer, Yes; there is a word of God; there is a revelation.THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD and it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." - Thomas Paine
Get your nose out of that book and look at reality once in a while.
Job wrote:
Man's need for redemption is a thorn-in-the flesh. It's not what we want to hear from God.
Man’s need for redemption is what puts money in the collection baskets.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#561 Mar 11, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Is this is in response to my question concerning Watson, or my question concerning the foundation for evolution?
2. Whether it's the flaws concerning the Big Bang (light years discrepancy), or fossil records (missing geologic time, etc.), it's generally Creation scientists that are able and willing to point out evolution's "flaws". Liberal theologians, which can be anything from a professed Christian to an atheist are more apt to give in to the pressures from a domineering institution, because they don't have the scientific knowledge to understand/address these flaws. Like I said, roughly 95% of biologists from the National Academy of Sciences are agnostics and atheists. What you address the most (historic European theocracy), we're seeing it's controlling counter-part today. To claim there's no religious bias among biologists is absurd.
http://www.discovery.org/a/10171
"Religion seems to have a way of making people abandon logic." ~Amanda Baxter
Job wrote:
3. And yet man is helpless in the face of what is obviously uncontrollable evil. Would you agree that there is, and always have been indescribable evil (genocide, torture, etc.)?
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg
Job wrote:
4. Fortunately, man is particularly sensitive to "Cancer". There's a lot of humanitarian effort to remove Cancer which is commendable. It's not quite the same with "mental illness". When a celebrity gets cancer, they get their rightful place of honor in the media (high profile magazines, etc.). When a celebrity is reported to suffer from mental illness, they are more likely to end up in a tabloid. Cancer patients (fortunately) are not locked up and forgotten (generally speaking).
Science has made great progress in the past few centuries increasing knowledge and decreasing superstition, but there some that refuse to let go of their superstitions.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#562 Mar 11, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
“…there is historical romance which in a frame work of history interweaves an invented tale. Some of the apocryphal tales of the apostles are in this class… There is legend in which popular fancy working for generations has surrounded a real person and with such a mass of extraneous matter that the historical kernel is hardly discernible.”- Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar
It has always been common for writers trying to make a philosophical point to do it through simple story telling. I think there is much more meaning in many of the stories of the Bible than you can get from a naïve literal interpretation
"A myth is an image in terms of which we try to make sense of the world." - Alan Watts
<quoted text>

2. Does that mean you do not accept the Laws of Nature that science has discovered?

3. <quoted text>
Ridiculous!
If the Bible passage read,“Joshua commanded the Earth to stop rotating” nobody would have understood what it meant.
<quoted text>

4.
Wars between nations I consider political.
As Sir William Mitchell Ramsay pointed out “…there is historical romance which in a frame work of history interweaves an invented tale”.
1. Alan Watts was a Buddhist. Why would you use a quote from a Buddhist? Provide proof of Ramsay's statement....please...

2. I accept the laws that science has discovered. I don't accept the worldview of atheists/agnostics.

3. So I take it you don't take anyone seriously, including evolutionists, who say they are going to watch the Sun 'rise', or the Sun 'set'?

4. Do you think we should have stayed out of World War II? Do you think we should have let Iraq occupy Kuwait? As far as I can recall, these wars involved politics.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#563 Mar 11, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
There is no doubt in my mind that they would both be esteemed members of NAS. After the treatment Galileo received at the hands of the "Bible experts" of his day it would be difficult imagine him advocating the Bible based views of the Creationists.

2.“I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations.”- Galileo Galilei
<quoted text>

3. The issue is exactly the same. Creationists refuse to accept the scientific evidence for evolution because it conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible, just as the Geocentrists refused to accept Galileo’s evidence for exactly the same reason.
<quoted text>

4. Scientists have no reason to promote the Theory of Evolution as a fact except for the overwhelming scientific evidence which supports it. Creationists are only worried about maintaining the literal veracity of the Bible which is the same exact bias that Luther and Bellarmine had.
1. I think he would welcome the views of Creation scientists. I don't think he was biased by world views.

2. There are Creation scientists who took the same view. They rejected evolution based on the flaws they observed.

3. This statement is inaccurate. In addition to what I pointed out, there are Creation scientists who 'embraced' evolution until they observed the flaws.

4. I disagree. The evolution vs. creationism has always been a religious issue. If it wasn't a religious issue, I'm sure evolutionists would be more honest. Rather than making claims of 'absolutism', they would use more proper terminology like "as far as we can detect". And yes, they do have reason to promote the theory of evolution. If man can conclude that the Universe came about through intelligent design, which is not absurd at all if one is honest, then this veers far too close to the possibility that man is held accountable to a Creator. This is something evolutionists will continue to fight. I don't think Galileo or Copernicus would allow themselves to be controlled by evolutionists.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#564 Mar 11, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
“Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication-- after that it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it can not be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to ME, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
Just because you believe you have a revelation from "God" doesn’t mean that everyone else has to believe it. You are just an ordinary human being like the rest of us and admittedly a sinner.

2. <quoted text>
"But some, perhaps, will say: Are we to have no word of God — no revelation? I answer, Yes; there is a word of God; there is a revelation.THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD and it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." - Thomas Paine

3. Get your nose out of that book and look at reality once in a while.
<quoted text>

Man’s need for redemption is what puts money in the collection baskets.
1. That's absolutely correct. The choice is yours.

2. Yes, God 'does' speak through His creation. Each man has the decision to consider whether or not they are accountable to this Creator. It would be wrong for Thomas Paine to demand that everyone abide by his view that God does not interact with man beyond communicating through His creation.

3. Interesting statement from one who recently proclaimed:

"Just because you believe you have a revelation from "God" doesn’t mean that everyone else has to believe it."

Surely you're not suggesting that I believe the way you do, do you?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#565 Mar 11, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Man’s need for redemption is what puts money in the collection baskets.
Many who proclaimed the Gospel message received not a penny.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#566 Mar 12, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
"Religion seems to have a way of making people abandon logic." ~Amanda Baxter
<quoted text>

2. "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg
<quoted text>

Science has made great progress in the past few centuries increasing knowledge and decreasing superstition, but there some that refuse to let go of their superstitions.
1. Amanda Baxter needs to live in China, Cambodia, or Vietnam for awhile. She seems to forget about the atrocities committed by anti-theists.

2. Steven Weinberg needs to live in China, Cambodia, or Vietnam for awhile. He seems to forget about the atrocities committed by anti-theists.

Where do 'you' personally draw the line on what/who is evil and what/who isn't? Show me one dictator responsible for multiple deaths who considered himself "evil". Show me one quote from a world leader we (Americans) in general consider evil, who said "I am an evil dictator!". "We are an evil nation/empire!"

Do abortion organizations consider themselves 'evil' for the mass slaughter, which has become acceptable, of countless unborn babies?

Show me the dividing line between evil and good.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#567 Mar 12, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Alan Watts was a Buddhist. Why would you use a quote from a Buddhist? Provide proof of Ramsay's statement....please...
Dismiss Alan Watts because he has a different belief system. Nobody with a different belief system could possibly say anything worth consideration, typical fundamentalist thinking.

“Works that profess to be historical are of various kinds and trustworthy in varying degrees (1) there is historical romance which in a frame work of history interweaves an invented tale. Some of the apocryphal tales of the apostles are in this class…(2) There is legend in which popular fancy working for generations has surrounded a real person and with such a mass of extraneous matter that the historical kernel is hardly discernible.”- Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, St. Paul: The Traveler and Roman Citizen, pg. 15:
Job wrote:
2. I accept the laws that science has discovered. I don't accept the worldview of atheists/agnostics.
The Laws of Nature have been discovered by scientific inquiry because of the “world view” that there are “natural” causes behind the phenomena we see in the real world and that we can find them if we look for them in the real world. If Copernicus had spent all of his time reading the Bible he never would have noticed that the motions of the visible planets indicated that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system.
Job wrote:
3. So I take it you don't take anyone seriously, including evolutionists, who say they are going to watch the Sun 'rise', or the Sun 'set'?
You are in denial.

All of the people in Copernicus’ and Galileo’s day were Geocentrists except a very few who were intelligent enough to accept the scientific observations presented by Copernicus and Galileo rather than the Bible verses presented by the Bible experts.
Job wrote:
4. Do you think we should have stayed out of World War II? Do you think we should have let Iraq occupy Kuwait? As far as I can recall, these wars involved politics.
Whether or not we should have entered WWII or allowed Iraq to occupy Kuwait has nothing to do with the fact that wars are political and that you believe the architect of the universe likes to play politics – more evidence of your “medieval tyrant” god concept.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#568 Mar 12, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Dismiss Alan Watts because he has a different belief system. Nobody with a different belief system could possibly say anything worth consideration, typical fundamentalist thinking.
“Works that profess to be historical are of various kinds and trustworthy in varying degrees (1) there is historical romance which in a frame work of history interweaves an invented tale. Some of the apocryphal tales of the apostles are in this class…(2) There is legend in which popular fancy working for generations has surrounded a real person and with such a mass of extraneous matter that the historical kernel is hardly discernible.”- Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, St. Paul: The Traveler and Roman Citizen, pg. 15:
<quoted text>

2. The Laws of Nature have been discovered by scientific inquiry because of the “world view” that there are “natural” causes behind the phenomena we see in the real world and that we can find them if we look for them in the real world. If Copernicus had spent all of his time reading the Bible he never would have noticed that the motions of the visible planets indicated that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system.

3. <quoted text>
You are in denial.
All of the people in Copernicus’ and Galileo’s day were Geocentrists except a very few who were intelligent enough to accept the scientific observations presented by Copernicus and Galileo rather than the Bible verses presented by the Bible experts.
<quoted text>

4. Whether or not we should have entered WWII or allowed Iraq to occupy Kuwait has nothing to do with the fact that wars are political and that you believe the architect of the universe likes to play politics – more evidence of your “medieval tyrant” god concept.
1. I don't discount him for having a different belief system. I'm wondering why you would quote someone who embraced 'another' religion? Do you know how many legends there are of the Buddha involving the supernatural? So yes, I wouldn't take Alan Watts seriously, not because he was a Buddhist, but because of the contradiction.

2. Copernicus understood Latin, so he probably was quite familiar with the Bible. Ironically though, the 'lack' of reading the Bible was the norm of that day. It was only those who could read Latin that were able to read the Bible. If the Bible was available like it is today, there probably would have been far more scholars, not tied to the Catholic church doctrines, who would have pointed out errors that were undetected at the that time.

3. On the contrary, it is you who seem to be avoiding a question at least 3 times now, that you've refused to acknowledge. You can't just insist that a passage means a certain 'thing' just because you 'want' it to.

You did finally confess (albeit to a small degree) that 'everyone' in that day, which extended beyond the Christian world, embraced geocentricism.

4. The Assyrians, like the nations in Exodus, were bent on the destruction of the Jews. These later, more stationary wars involved captivity as opposed to complete annihilation; but the principle was the same. There's more to be said on these particular passages, but I can't help but address your comment about politics. Yes it does matter what your view is on the wars I mentioned. I'll add, and use the Civil War as an example. The death toll was 'phenomenal'. I'm sure you agree that it would be preferable to not have had the war in the first place, but do you feel that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant? How can you claim that the God of the Bible is a tyrant, but not our U.S. military?
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#569 Mar 12, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I think he would welcome the views of Creation scientists. I don't think he was biased by world views.
He didn’t welcome the views of the “creationists” of his day. I agree Galileo was not biased by the prevailing “Biblical world view” he accepted the “real world” evidence from his telescope.

“Nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called into question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages.”- Galileo Galilei

He wasn't very happy with people that used bible passages for science.
Job wrote:
2. There are Creation scientists who took the same view. They rejected evolution based on the flaws they observed.
As I and Galileo pointed out earlier when you have no evidence to support your proposition all you can do is criticize the evidence presented by others.
Job wrote:
3. This statement is inaccurate. In addition to what I pointed out, there are Creation scientists who 'embraced' evolution until they observed the flaws.
Again, since Creationists present have no scientific evidence to support their propositions, other than the Bible, all they can do is invent imaginary flaws in the verifiable, reproducible evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution. The only thing Cardinal Bellarmine could do to support Geocentrism was spout Bible verses that apparently contradicted Galileo’s evidence.
Job wrote:
4. I disagree. The evolution vs. creationism has always been a religious issue.
Galileo would certainly disagree with you about that.

"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures..." - Galileo Galilei
Job wrote:
If it wasn't a religious issue, I'm sure evolutionists would be more honest. Rather than making claims of 'absolutism',

Scientists don’t just make claims they make logical conclusions based on evidence. Religious “absolutism” is the problem.

“…the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.”– National Academy of Sciences
Job wrote:
they would use more proper terminology like "as far as we can detect".
Would you have them say “as far as we can detect the Earth revolves around the Sun”?

"Scientists most often use the word 'fact' to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact.- The National Academy of Science
Job wrote:
And yes, they do have reason to promote the theory of evolution. If man can conclude that the Universe came about through intelligent design, which is not absurd at all if one is honest, then this veers far too close to the possibility that man is held accountable to a Creator. This is something evolutionists will continue to fight. I don't think Galileo or Copernicus would allow themselves to be controlled by evolutionists.
Galileo and Copernicus as well as the scientists of today are “controlled” by the weight of the scientific evidence and logic, not divine revelation. The whole purpose of science is to acquire new knowledge of the world. There is no benefit to scientists in having people believe in something not supported by the evidence. Scientists have no holy book to protect because if it is proved wrong they might not get to heaven.

“In science it often happens that scientists say,‘You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again.… I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”~ Carl Sagan
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#570 Mar 12, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Amanda Baxter needs to live in China, Cambodia, or Vietnam for awhile. She seems to forget about the atrocities committed by anti-theists.
2. Steven Weinberg needs to live in China, Cambodia, or Vietnam for awhile. He seems to forget about the atrocities committed by anti-theists.
Communists are only novices at ideological persecution. Christians perfected it for over 1,300 years.
Job wrote:
Where do 'you' personally draw the line on what/who is evil and what/who isn't? Show me one dictator responsible for multiple deaths who considered himself "evil". Show me one quote from a world leader we (Americans) in general consider evil, who said "I am an evil dictator!". "We are an evil nation/empire!"
Do abortion organizations consider themselves 'evil' for the mass slaughter, which has become acceptable, of countless unborn babies?
Show me the dividing line between evil and good.
That’s right, apparently evil is in the eye of the beholder. You don’t consider your “medieval tyrant God” evil when he murders thousands.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." ~ Pascal, Pensees, 1670
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#571 Mar 12, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. That's absolutely correct. The choice is yours.
You missed the point.

The point that Thomas Paine was trying to convey is that if “God” made a revelation to Paul it was only a revelation to Paul it was not a revelation to Thomas Paine. If Thomas Paine received the revelation directly from “God” he would have to believe it, but since it comes from Paul, not “God” he can decide whether to believe it or not.

“…for it was not a revelation made to ME…”– Thomas Paine

"Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference." - Bishop John S. Spong
Job wrote:
2. Yes, God 'does' speak through His creation. Each man has the decision to consider whether or not they are accountable to this Creator. It would be wrong for Thomas Paine to demand that everyone abide by his view that God does not interact with man beyond communicating through His creation.
Thomas Paine doesn’t demand that “everyone abide by his view that God”.

"I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine.”-- Thomas Paine

He doesn’t ask for faith he simply provides a reasoned argument.
Job wrote:
3. Interesting statement from one who recently proclaimed:
"Just because you believe you have a revelation from "God" doesn’t mean that everyone else has to believe it."
Surely you're not suggesting that I believe the way you do, do you?
I am merely suggesting that if you get your nose out of that book and look around you might find something more interesting than imagining what might happen after you die.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#572 Mar 12, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I don't discount him for having a different belief system. I'm wondering why you would quote someone who embraced 'another' religion? Do you know how many legends there are of the Buddha involving the supernatural? So yes, I wouldn't take Alan Watts seriously, not because he was a Buddhist, but because of the contradiction.
You obviously know as little about Buddhism as you do about science.

"If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism." - Albert Einstein

“…the attitude of faith is to let go, and become open to truth, whatever it might turn out to be.”- Alan Watts
Job wrote:
2. Copernicus understood Latin, so he probably was quite familiar with the Bible. Ironically though, the 'lack' of reading the Bible was the norm of that day. It was only those who could read Latin that were able to read the Bible. If the Bible was available like it is today, there probably would have been far more scholars, not tied to the Catholic church doctrines, who would have pointed out errors that were undetected at the that time.
Copernicus was a Catholic priest and it wasn’t the time he spent with his nose in the bible that caused him to understand that the Earth revolved around the Sun it was the time he spent observing the motions of the stars and planets that. Like I said get you nose out of the bible and look at the world around you.

“Those who know that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest… would, I reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves.”- Nicolaus Copernicus

“Among the authorities it is generally agreed that the Earth is at rest in the middle of the universe…”-- Nicolaus Copernicus
Job wrote:
3. On the contrary, it is you who seem to be avoiding a question at least 3 times now, that you've refused to acknowledge. You can't just insist that a passage means a certain 'thing' just because you 'want' it to.
I’ve answered that question several times and it’s not my problem if you don’t understand the answer but I’ll try again.

I don’t accept the bible passage which said Joshua stopped the Sun as being literally correct because I don’t interpret the bible literally. You don’t interpret that bible passage as being literally correct because you know that science has proved that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

For some reason you refuse to admit that virtually all of the people of Copernicus’ era (especially bible experts) believed that Bible passage to be literally correct; that Joshua stopped the actual movement of the Sun rather than Joshua stopped the rotation of the Earth.
Job wrote:
You did finally confess (albeit to a small degree) that 'everyone' in that day, which extended beyond the Christian world, embraced geocentricism.
I’ve never denied that that virtually all of the people in Galileo’s day were Geocentrists. As a matter of fact I’ve been trying to convince you of that fact. You can’t deny that the bible was of no help to Galileo in convincing people that his scientific evidence of Heliocentrism was correct.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#573 Mar 12, 2013
Job wrote:
4. The Assyrians, like the nations in Exodus, were bent on the destruction of the Jews. These later, more stationary wars involved captivity as opposed to complete annihilation; but the principle was the same. There's more to be said on these particular passages, but I can't help but address your comment about politics. Yes it does matter what your view is on the wars I mentioned. I'll add, and use the Civil War as an example. The death toll was 'phenomenal'. I'm sure you agree that it would be preferable to not have had the war in the first place, but do you feel that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant? How can you claim that the God of the Bible is a tyrant, but not our U.S. military?
There is no tyrant, king, dictator or political regime in history that even compares to your “God” in the area of human destruction and annihilation.“He”, in your belief system, is apparently the grand tyrant of all tyrants.

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most destructive to the peace of man since man began to exist.”- Thomas Paine
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#574 Mar 13, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1.<quoted text>
You obviously know as little about Buddhism as you do about science.
"If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism." - Albert Einstein

2.“…the attitude of faith is to let go, and become open to truth, whatever it might turn out to be.”- Alan Watts
I'm a bit pressed for time, so I will get to your other posts hopefully this evening. But I will go ahead and address this:

1. I recall on at least one occasion discussing Buddhism with you. I'm not an expert, but what I've seen so far, I would say I probably know quite a bit more than you. I could be wrong. But so far, this is the only thing you've had to say, that I can recall, on the subject of Buddhism. A quote by Albert Einstein.

I've asked you a number of questions that have fallen by the wayside. At some point I forget about them. On a number of occasions you have used the term "you obviously don't know much/anything about (fill in the blank)". I'm going to call you on your bluff this time. Because so far as it appears, your only knowledge, without you doing a google search, is this quote by Albert Einstein. It's as if this is all there is know. Einstien said "this", and this is the embodiment of knowledge of Buddhism...knowing what Einstien said.

Like I said, I'm not an expert, but I read a considerable amount of information on it from probably mostly a Buddhist, or neutral position. I don't have to run to google now to convey what I currently know. I also have also talked to Buddhists. I'm from the San Francisco Bay Area, and lived in Berkeley for a time, where Buddhism and Eastern religion is fairly popular, so I've met Buddhists. I've been all over Asia, and have been exposed to the different 'types' of Buddhist teaching. There a number of different types of Buddhist beliefs.

There is also a more Western type of Buddhism. In fact, there's a term used for it that is a catchy description for the western style or views coined: "McDharma Christians".

Einstein was not a Buddhist. His knowledge of Buddhism was probably more from a "Cosmic Humanism" perspective, although I don't think he was a "New Ager". I know I've brought this up to you already, but Cosmic Humanism, from what I've detected, possesses traits, or has roots in, the "Yellow Peril". Many Westerners have a good feeling about Buddhism, and other Eastern religions, due to the fact that they don't refer to accountability to a Creator. Some Westerners become authentic practitioners, even enough to become monks. Although this seems to be quite rare. I had seen 'one' Western Buddhist monk in Bangkok. But the majority seem to practice it because the idea of removing 'pain' is appealing. Some take a genuine interest, but not enough to give up their lifestyles and become a monk. Many I think have more of a casual interest because they have become Asiaphiles (liking all things Asian...or Japanese, Thai, etc.). And so by default they sort of identify themselves with Buddhism, Shintoism, etc.

As I said, there are many styles of Buddhism. There 'is' a 'spiritual' element to it. There are different degrees of belief within Buddhism, and some 'do' include deities. Buddhists in general don't deny the existence of deities or a Creator (if they don't directly believe in one/them). They may however say something like "If there is, the deities and/or Creator are of no real significance". This to me is highly illogical.

And again, I'm going to call you on your bluff. What are you basing this comment on?

"You obviously know as little about Buddhism as you do about science."

As I understand your purpose behind "quoting", and your use of quotes is often generally in relation to the topic, this just does not fly. Einstein was a brilliant man, but he probably didn't know a whole lot about Buddhism. He certainly wasn't a Buddhist.

2. I agree. Do you think this quote could also be pointing in your direction?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#575 Mar 13, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
You obviously know as little about Buddhism as you do about science.
"If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism." - Albert Einstein

2.“…the attitude of faith is to let go, and become open to truth, whatever it might turn out to be.”- Alan Watts
<quoted text>
I'm a bit pressed for time, so I will get to your other posts hopefully this evening. But I will go ahead and address this:

1. I recall on at least one occasion discussing Buddhism with you. I'm not an expert, but what I've seen so far, I would say I probably know quite a bit more than you. I could be wrong. But so far, this is the only thing you've had to say, that I can recall, on the subject of Buddhism. A quote by Albert Einstein.

I've asked you a number of questions that have fallen by the wayside. At some point I forget about them. On a number of occasions you have used the term "you obviously don't know much/anything about (fill in the blank)". I'm going to call you on your bluff this time. Because so far as it appears, your only knowledge, without you doing a google search, is this quote by Albert Einstein. It's as if this is all there is know. Einstien said "this", and this is the embodiment of knowledge of Buddhism...knowing what Einstien said.

Like I said, I'm not an expert, but I read a considerable amount of information on it from probably mostly a Buddhist, or neutral position. I don't have to run to google now to convey what I currently know. I also have also talked to Buddhists. I'm from the San Francisco Bay Area, and lived in Berkeley for a time, where Buddhism and Eastern religion is fairly popular, so I've met Buddhists. I've been all over Asia, and have been exposed to the different 'types' of Buddhist teaching. There a number of different types of Buddhist beliefs.

There is also a more Western type of Buddhism. In fact, there's a term used for it that is a catchy description for the western style or views coined: "McDharma Christians".

Einstein was not a Buddhist. His knowledge of Buddhism was probably more from a "Cosmic Humanism" perspective, although I don't think he was a "New Ager". I know I've brought this up to you already, but Cosmic Humanism, from what I've detected, possesses traits, or has roots in, the "Yellow Peril". Many Westerners have a good feeling about Buddhism, and other Eastern religions, due to the fact that they don't refer to accountability to a Creator. Some Westerners become authentic practitioners, even enough to become monks. Although this seems to be quite rare. I had seen 'one' Western Buddhist monk in Bangkok. But the majority seem to practice it because the idea of removing 'pain' is appealing. Some take a genuine interest, but not enough to give up their lifestyles and become a monk. Many I think have more of a casual interest because they have become Asiaphiles (liking all things Asian...or Japanese, Thai, etc.). And so by default they sort of identify themselves with Buddhism, Shintoism, etc.

As I said, there are many styles of Buddhism. There 'is' a 'spiritual' element to it. There are different degrees of belief within Buddhism, and some 'do' include deities. Buddhists in general don't deny the existence of deities or a Creator (if they don't directly believe in one/them). They may however say something like "If there is, the deities and/or Creator are of no real significance". This to me is highly illogical.

And again, I'm going to call you on your bluff. What are you basing this comment on?

"You obviously know as little about Buddhism as you do about science."

As I understand your purpose behind "quoting", and your use of quotes is often generally in relation to the topic, this just does not fly. Einstein was a brilliant man, but he probably didn't know a whole lot about Buddhism. He certainly wasn't a Buddhist.

2. I agree. Do you think this quote could also be pointing in your direction?
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#576 Mar 13, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>

Man's need for redemption is a thorn-in-the flesh.

It's not what we want to hear from God.
Sorry to jump on the boat mid-stream like this...

Its not that I don't want to hear it - its that there is no proof of the NEED, or rather no proof of the slight that demands redemption. Nothing has ever been provided by any Xtian (or any other system) that proves any Super-Being was actually insulted. Outside of course of a very old and shaky story told 'round campfires.

Take any relationship - if I'm the party who didn't actually do anything wrong, but there are only base claims of a wrong, I am not going to apologize or do any dances to please anyone. Prove the wrong. Prove the actual need for "redemption".

But Xtians can't...the entire system is based on an ancient claim of a singular insult towards a God, allegedly by the very first human couple to ever exist.
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#577 Mar 13, 2013
Why do sh!t things happen?

If you think it's less to do with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and more to do with an alleged Eve allegedly doing an allegedly bad thing, then you're a fundie.

I really don't see how the latter is comforting.
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry to jump on the boat mid-stream like this...
Its not that I don't want to hear it - its that there is no proof of the NEED, or rather no proof of the slight that demands redemption. Nothing has ever been provided by any Xtian (or any other system) that proves any Super-Being was actually insulted. Outside of course of a very old and shaky story told 'round campfires.
Take any relationship - if I'm the party who didn't actually do anything wrong, but there are only base claims of a wrong, I am not going to apologize or do any dances to please anyone. Prove the wrong. Prove the actual need for "redemption".
But Xtians can't...the entire system is based on an ancient claim of a singular insult towards a God, allegedly by the very first human couple to ever exist.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evoution Frauds 5 min Theoneandonly 1,542
Should Homosexuals be accepted in the church? (Sep '09) 17 min par five 988
Being Ready ? 28 min Truth 217
What's Dumber than a Catholic who doesn't ... 29 min Justice_League 195
The Bible Says....... 1 hr Faith-Healer 141
The Heathen's Home Page (Jun '13) 1 hr purplelady1040 3,123
I'm looking for my wife, the one god has for me? 1 hr Theoneandonly 19
Evangelicals to Gays: We Have Nothing For You |... (Mar '10) 8 hr Homey 18,833
More from around the web