Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#700 Mar 24, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The only claims I make are in His Word. I don't claim to know 'anything' outside that.
You claim to know what "He" said, what “He” likes or doesn’t like, that “He” sometimes feels angry, or jealous, that “He” can feel offended and the need for retribution, not to mention the basis for all of “His” judgments. Some people don’t that much about their next door neighbors.
Job wrote:
But again, didn't Paine himself maintain that if God reveals Himself to someone, there's no need for that individual to question His existence?
Thomas Paine maintained that “God” revealed himself to everyone equally by means of the universe “He” created and the laws by which it operates not just a few special chosen people.
Job wrote:
2. I think true humility from an agnostic would be one who maintains that they does not know if God exists, including the God of the Bible.
I don’t claim to know if a “God” exists or the nature of that “God” if “It” does exist. I do tend to rule out the possibility of a “God” like Thor or Zeus or your “medieval tyrant god” because they seem to be such obvious caricatures of human beings. Give me an incomprehensible “God” like Thomas Paine’s; that makes a lot more sense to me.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#701 Mar 24, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. And that would be my suggestion as far as the various Biblical evidences (as opposed to just the critics).
“Biblical evidences” are the same as “Koran evidences” or “Bhagavad Gita evidences”. They are nothing more than myths, legends, allegories and parables. They are not scientific, empirical evidence. You are asking me for faith in your holy book. Nobody is asking you for faith in Darwin’s “Origin of the Species”. Just look at the accumulated scientific, empirical evidence from just about every branch of science.
Job wrote:
2. As I stated earlier, this is what I used to believe as well.
It’s pretty much just as true today as it ever was except for the fact that we now have more societies that allow free thought.
Job wrote:
Basically what Ingersoll's statement translates into, is the idea that each culture is prone to submitting to whatever religion is predominant in that society. Except of course for those like himself who are 'above' the common man who needs a religious crutch. It's a self-flattering idea, and one I entertained as well.
99% of the people in Iran consider themselves Muslim. 88% of Italians consider themselves Catholics. 80.5% of the people in India consider themselves Hindu. There are always people in every society that realize how much their beliefs are influenced by accident of where they were born, but generally people stick with whatever they grew up with. It’s easier that way. You don’t have think about things.
Job wrote:
People like Richard Dawkins and the various critics 'need' religion as a means of self promotion. They're not much different than religious opportunists who use religion for self promotion, except they come at it from a different angle. If Christianity/religion didn't exist, there would be no "God Delusion". There wouldn't be thesis papers to write on religious philosophy, leading into books with religious theories, leading into "- quotes" (which are kind of the equivalent of footprints on Hollywood Blvd.).
People like Richard Dawkins do not need religion as a means of self-promotion any more than Galileo needed Cardinal Ballarmine as a means of promoting Heliocentrism.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#702 Mar 24, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
I used to believe the same thing. But again, unless you've forgotten what I've said a number times, by Ingersoll's rules, "I" should be either a Buddhist, Russian Orthodox, or Roman Catholic. And all those Christians in China and South Korea should be Buddhists.
I was brought up far removed from Christianity. Even the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic influence weren't really there except on various occasions involving relatives. I never went to a church service until I was an adult, and it wasn't with family members.
But in Ingersoll's, and apparently your world, I have to change my whole past history to fit his/your theory.
Were you raised in the US? Did you live absolutely cut off from the culture and its memes?

If not, you were not raised far removed from Xtianity, you might not have been going to church, or having it talked much about at home - but you did not grow-up in the US "far removed" from its influences in the cultural mind-set, mythology and collective attitudes. Its like saying you're not at all influenced by the Cowboy mythology that so pervades our culture.

The chances that youd become a Xtian were way higher than that of a Buddhist, Muslim, or even that of an Animist if we consider the native American influences that are in the mix as well.

By the sheer volume of the number of US Xtian Churches, and Xtians you would likely know (and drag you to a Church) makes it an easy bet you'd become a Xtian. The same as its likely that by the sheer number of McDonalds or Burger King's around you, as well as frequenters among the people you know you'd wander into one of those establishments...and eat a burger. Not so much that you'd "end up" in a Mosque, and/or stumble upon a food truck serving traditional Hindu Kush food!

Come on man, come to grips with the facts that the probability of any American, born and raised here for the last 30 plus years, "becoming" a Xtian is way high compared to other faiths. In fact, there's as good a chance that they might already be a Xtian (by official processing alone) that they are not going that far off the reservation when they maybe flip to a different sect/church than of their family, etc.

Come on man, you're really being belligerent and disingenuous if you think otherwise.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#703 Mar 24, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
You're saying that Lincoln and Truman were justified by being under pressure. And obviously they did not ultimately wish the death of civilians. However, you're suggesting God is a tyrant for the protection he gave to the Israelites. These various nations that were destroyed were given many of years of warning. These various nations were bent of the destruction of Israel.
Protection? That was always hanging by the merest of threads that this God was always poking at to make it break.

Your God made the enemies of the Jews, and then let them fall to them when the Jews didn't keep that thread intact...or let the Jews attack and win when they'd managed to please him enough...

How are these other nations to get this Gods message/warnings when he was ONLY talking to the JEWS...? Why is there no mention of this God showing up the public squares, or royal courts of the Jewish enemies, offering them warning and guidance?

No, he only shows up out in the weeds someplace, and its only some Jew he ever talks to...and its only some Jew offering the warnings up.

As to the pressure of Truman and Lincoln, they're humans, prone to the stresses of being human and their respective jobs.

Your God is not supposed to succumb to base human stress...and certainly not act like a petulant 13yo human male when/if he is...

Your God is all Human in thought and reaction...not Divine, not omnipotent, nor omniscient...or Super in any way...
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#704 Mar 24, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
.
“It is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify.”- Galileo Galilei
.
Great quote, but I wonder about the first sentence. I wonder IF Galileo would say the same thing today..? As the words - "It is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth..." - are about as good as one can get to seeing a man cover his as$ to ward off the real threats of the Xtian Church and its power over all matters of Human activity.

Of course it was prudent to affirm the Bible in GG's day! He was already skating on thin ice...and for him to come out and say anything else would have likely gotten him killed. As it is he survived by sheer luck and that of his benefactors and contacts.

Would he be this prudent today? I would tend to think not so much. And thats what really drives Xtianity crazy these days. There really is no more need to bow to the Churches, and be politically prudent about the Bible.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#705 Mar 24, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>Great quote, but I wonder about the first sentence. I wonder IF Galileo would say the same thing today..? As the words - "It is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth..." - are about as good as one can get to seeing a man cover his as$ to ward off the real threats of the Xtian Church and its power over all matters of Human activity.
Of course it was prudent to affirm the Bible in GG's day! He was already skating on thin ice...and for him to come out and say anything else would have likely gotten him killed. As it is he survived by sheer luck and that of his benefactors and contacts.
Would he be this prudent today? I would tend to think not so much. And thats what really drives Xtianity crazy these days. There really is no more need to bow to the Churches, and be politically prudent about the Bible.
What do you think about this?--http://collegeinsurrect ion.com/2013/03/student-suspen ded-for-complaining-about-stom p-on-jesus-prof/

Was it right for a student to get suspended? Do you think all beliefs should be handled this way?
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#706 Mar 24, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite simple really. These men lived in a period not far removed from European theocracy. The people that came from Europe were Christians who fled European religious control. They wanted to live in a society where they could be free to worship God as they chose.
Among these various men were deists, who often would use historic European theocracy as a warning device against any religious group (denomination) taking control. Bible believing Christians 'also' used European theocracy for the same reason. Some of the most prominent critiques of the Christian world were/are Christians, even today. The church I had been attending recently has a pastor that is as Christian as one could get. One service he used the phrase "religion stinks". If the tape of that sermon gets into the hands of a "splicer", they can it make appear as if the pastor is a deist, or maybe even an atheist.
Today, these phrases are twisted to suggest these men thought "Biblical Christianity" is evil. Which is quite ridiculous. They were against "religious control". These men held church services Sunday morning in the Capitol. They had ministers from different denominations preach on Sunday which was represented their opposition to denominational rule.
Are you saying the "warnings" of these men are still not legitimate ones?

They, the FF's, knew Religion would and/or could rise-up its Control Head during their lives, or those of their descendants? They knew the threat was always going to be there, and had to be directly and wisely dealt with in no uncertain terms in the Constitution they were drawing up. That Religion would always be a threat to a true Democracy, and the Xtian one would likely be the one to threaten theirs and their descendants...!

And Yes, they did mingle with men of other faiths, etc...of course Xtian for the most part and all male, but the demographics of this Nation changed, and continue to change. So the FF's - being men more of Reason and Intellect than Religious zealots - would be if here now - mingling with a far more diverse group, and acknowledging their place at the table of ideas and solutions for and about this Nation they founded.

The threat of religious zealotry never goes away. Its all over this nation right now and always has been. Influenced by Judeo-Xtian ideas and ethics we, this Nation might be - but we are also FOREWARNED and FOREARMED by the FF's and the Constitution they so smartly drew-up for us to follow.

The warning about Religious Zealotry was written INTO our Constitution...it meant that much to the FF's, as it should still be to us today!
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#707 Mar 24, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think about this?--

http://collegeinsurrection.com/2013/03/studen...

Was it right for a student to get suspended? Do you think all beliefs should be handled this way?
http://collegeinsurrection.com/2013/03/studen...
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#709 Mar 24, 2013
Punisher wrote:
What do you think would have happened to the prof if he had the class do this for homosexuality? Islam?
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#710 Mar 24, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think about this?--http://collegeinsurrect ion.com/2013/03/student-suspen ded-for-complaining-about-stom p-on-jesus-prof/
Was it right for a student to get suspended? Do you think all beliefs should be handled this way?
Well for one, I think framing the discussion to attack Obama was wrong as well. The Rights knee-jerk attempts to bring Obama into every F'n discussion shows how dumb most of them are. There was no need to drag Obama into the discussion. Anymore than any other public figure. That's just stupid debate tactics.

Second, I do not agree with the schools decision - if and ONLY if this article is telling the whole story, which I doubt it is. But for now I'm only reading this one.(What we need to know is, what was the point the professor was trying to make? And second exactly HOW did the student react and how did he go about filing his complaint?, etc, etc...

But on a first and limited look, I don not agree with suspending the student. He has the right to refuse a stupid lesson plan, or any that makes him uncomfortable.

But I would be interested to know what the Prof's point was.

And why should a word on a piece of paper really make any Xtian uncomfortable...its a word, on paper that this student just miraculously turned into an icon worthy of respect.(Jesus could be the name of the cliched campus head landscaper...yes?)

Is there a Doctrine about such things...? Some scriptural reference about such things being verboten..? "Don't write my name on paper and most definitely don't stomp on it!"

If the Prof told the students to write a parents name, it would be as silly an exercise, but I would not be offended by it as its a silly way to make a point...whatever that was...which is suspiciously lacking in the report.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#711 Mar 24, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think would have happened to the prof if he had the class do this for homosexuality? Islam?
Again since we dont know the point thr Prof was making...we're not going to be able to have a honest discussion on the matetr.

No, I do not think the student should be suspended, based on the limited info provided. If the teacher makes the class take a "7th inning stretch" after a long lecture, no student has to do it - they only have to do the work that is directly related to their earning an honest grade. If the Prof could show good cause such an exercise (the name on paper stomp) was integral to a lesson, which I doubt he could, than there's room to debate.

I do not condone stupid, illogical, irrational, unethical and likely illegal punishments like this one. The college official should be "suspended" for being stupid in a College setting.

As for "Islam", I think we know how stupid some of they'd be about this one too, and I don't condone their stupidity either.

A word is a word on a piece of paper to me - its nothing. There is nothing special or magical there for me...but some people see, and more often seek insult in the stupidest of things. Its definitely a problem of the Religious, one that seriously needs addressing.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#712 Mar 24, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>Again since we dont know the point thr Prof was making...we're not going to be able to have a honest discussion on the matetr.
No, I do not think the student should be suspended, based on the limited info provided. If the teacher makes the class take a "7th inning stretch" after a long lecture, no student has to do it - they only have to do the work that is directly related to their earning an honest grade. If the Prof could show good cause such an exercise (the name on paper stomp) was integral to a lesson, which I doubt he could, than there's room to debate.
I do not condone stupid, illogical, irrational, unethical and likely illegal punishments like this one. The college official should be "suspended" for being stupid in a College setting.
As for "Islam", I think we know how stupid some of they'd be about this one too, and I don't condone their stupidity either.
A word is a word on a piece of paper to me - its nothing. There is nothing special or magical there for me...but some people see, and more often seek insult in the stupidest of things. Its definitely a problem of the Religious, one that seriously needs addressing.
I suspect that if this prof had done this assignment on homosexuality he would have been fired and it would have been considered hate speech. Agreed?
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#713 Mar 26, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I suspect that if this prof had done this assignment on homosexuality he would have been fired and it would have been considered hate speech. Agreed?
Can't say. Whats seriously missing here is CONTEXT. I think any thing like this is all about context.

Whats also missing from the story, is what was the Profs initial reaction? I read further (the link in the article) and its sounds like not everyone stomp'd the paper...as it appeared that the "lesson" was about the hesitation, and the reasons "why?".

Dont you think the article (you posted) was being a tad dishonest by not detailing more of the story, but pick'n the juicy parts that its audience would most react to...?
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#714 Mar 26, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>Can't say. Whats seriously missing here is CONTEXT. I think any thing like this is all about context.
Whats also missing from the story, is what was the Profs initial reaction? I read further (the link in the article) and its sounds like not everyone stomp'd the paper...as it appeared that the "lesson" was about the hesitation, and the reasons "why?".
Dont you think the article (you posted) was being a tad dishonest by not detailing more of the story, but pick'n the juicy parts that its audience would most react to...?
Not at all. This story demonstrates the double standard. People can mock Christianity and not suffer any consequences. Do this with homosexuality as this prof did and he would have been shown the door.
Thinking

Mirfield, UK

#715 Mar 26, 2013
According to your bible mocking christianity is very serious, whereas owning slaves is acceptable.
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. This story demonstrates the double standard. People can mock Christianity and not suffer any consequences. Do this with homosexuality as this prof did and he would have been shown the door.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#716 Mar 29, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. This story demonstrates the double standard. People can mock Christianity and not suffer any consequences. Do this with homosexuality as this prof did and he would have been shown the door.
Hey, Xtianity and Xtians have been mocking and vilifying, and attacking many people and groups for centuries...and now they get a little of their own medicine, a minute dose compared to the historical record of Xtiandom's mocking - and you're all up in arms. Its just so sad and disingenuous.

Homosexuals on the other hand have been a long-time target and remain a target of way too much Xtian hatred...and the rest of us, straight and whatever, are sick of it.

First time I ever heard, as a child, anything vile about homosexuals was from the mouths of devout Xtian men. At a Church fair, a group of them taunted, and threw things at and eventually chased away a man they accused of being gay. It was a sight I will never forget, as it was as close to a lynching I had seen in the flesh...and thankfully my Father had the true Faith and cajones to pull me away from the scene, after he told those arse-holes off for being nothing but scum and certainly not Xtian..!

IMO, Xtians first need to actually act/live like they demand everyone else to do and do it for a looooong time - like a few centuries of time - and then come back to talk to the rest of us.

Xtianity put itself on the chopping block - no one else. No group they hated, none of the people they marginalized and sought/seek to eradicate did it! Xtianity and Xtians are the only guilty parties. And now you all cry like the bully who got exposed for being an actual wimp.

Grow up and grow up in your faith.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#717 Mar 29, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. This story demonstrates the double standard. People can mock Christianity and not suffer any consequences. Do this with homosexuality as this prof did and he would have been shown the door.
But you still have not addressed the fact that the story, the first one you posted, was nothing but an edited version of the original. Lacking the extra details. Which was clearly done to incite Xtians.

Why cant Xtians be honest and tell the whole story? Why must the Xtian "press", and/or media always edit the hell out of every story to the point where all that is left is a story aimed at inciting their readers/watchers...?

And then you all scream about the Liberal media, and leftist agenda..!

Come on man, you're Xtians, you're supposed to be honest at all times, no matter if the truth hurts or points back at you all...the truth will set you free. But only if "you" actually aim to tell it! Propaganda is never the truth - for any side - but Xtians are supposed to be, are commanded to be above the rest of us heathens. But the historical record is an abysmal one for Xtianity when it comes to telling the truth. Unless of course by truth you mean hate-speak in every form.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#718 Mar 29, 2013
And when I refer to the Xtian media/press - I mean the Protestant kind. I have never seen so much hate and venom spewed at various groups and individuals as I have when I read various Protestant media outlets. Wow!

I say this because I grew up reading and exposed to a lot of Catholic media/press, etc (and till the folks passed a few years ago, I still read some of it) and it was light years ahead of the Proty cr/p, in that the Catholic media actually respects their audience enough to not edit and spew 100% propaganda - like the Protys do.

They would present an issue and actually discuss it, actually interview the opposing sides, and while they would argue for their POV, they'd do it properly, fairly and honestly...like Professionals.

Not so with the Proty's. They start out marginalizing and go straight to vilify without a breath of air, logic or fairness - and certainly not honesty.

American Protestant media spews hatred like no other group - except maybe the crazier Muslims.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#719 May 3, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think your beliefs would be if you had you been born in Iran? The odds are you would be a fundamentalist Muslim.
<quoted text>
You were brought up in a predominantly Christian culture. It would have been a safe bet that if you became religious the religion would be some form of Christianity.
A bit of an absence here on my part. An issue of time being a factor.

From what I remember from our conversation, I addressed the problem of pigeonholing to prove a point. I addressed the flaw in this common theory that everyone will choose the the religion of their nation's culture.

Even though this theory allows for some leeway, as is necessary when considering conversions to religions that are 'not' a part of one's culture, or even in opposition.

I went into a fair amount of detail of my background, to confront your assumption that I was influenced to become a Christian via American culture. I even addressed the fact that you have been attempting to force my situation into a mold to continue your point.

Now it appears that you are suggesting that you may know about myself (life experiences, background, etc.) than I do?

If I had been brought up in Iran, and lived in the U.S., chances are I may be a practicing Muslim....or I might be using freedom to diss Islam. If I lived in Iran, I don't know what my beliefs would be, but chances are they would conform to Iranian laws as far as voicing opinion. I may, or may not, truly believe in Islam.

The environment I grew up in, and still reside in, as anti-Christian. The stronger influence is anti-Christianity. I don't know how to make that any plainer. Unless you wish to try to force a tractor-trailer into a small woodshed, you absolutely no case here whatsoever.

Or do you still wish to contend that you know more about me than I do?
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#720 May 3, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
A bit of an absence here on my part. An issue of time being a factor.
From what I remember from our conversation, I addressed the problem of pigeonholing to prove a point. I addressed the flaw in this common theory that everyone will choose the the religion of their nation's culture.
Even though this theory allows for some leeway, as is necessary when considering conversions to religions that are 'not' a part of one's culture, or even in opposition.
I went into a fair amount of detail of my background, to confront your assumption that I was influenced to become a Christian via American culture. I even addressed the fact that you have been attempting to force my situation into a mold to continue your point.
Now it appears that you are suggesting that you may know about myself (life experiences, background, etc.) than I do?
If I had been brought up in Iran, and lived in the U.S., chances are I may be a practicing Muslim....or I might be using freedom to diss Islam. If I lived in Iran, I don't know what my beliefs would be, but chances are they would conform to Iranian laws as far as voicing opinion. I may, or may not, truly believe in Islam.
The environment I grew up in, and still reside in, as anti-Christian. The stronger influence is anti-Christianity. I don't know how to make that any plainer. Unless you wish to try to force a tractor-trailer into a small woodshed, you absolutely no case here whatsoever.
Or do you still wish to contend that you know more about me than I do?
I won’t be able to respond for a few days myself but I can tell you this…

What religion or belief system a person has is predominantly dictated by the culture in which a person was raised. 88% of the people in Italy profess to be Catholic because of the culture not because it is required by law or because they all gave careful consideration to all of the possibilities before choosing Catholicism. Of course the depth of belief varies throughout all religious denominations and belief systems.

Although you claim that you were raised in an “anti-Christian environment” you were raised in a country where there is a Christian Church on every other street corner and Mosques are few and far between. What do you think the odds were that when you finally did choose to accept a belief system it would be Christian; pretty high I think.

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
I say to Christians - just acknowledge your pas... 14 min dkskd001 62
Question for Preachers of the Law 21 min no-one-special 44
Would Jesus have attended a Gay Wedding? 28 min flame of truth 529
The Heathen's Home Page (Jun '13) 42 min purplelady1040 5,416
Nearly all Christians are Frauds 1 hr flame of truth 71
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 2 hr Cookie_Parker 19,837
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 3 hr RiccardoFire 3,628
Before The Big Bang 4 hr Why 3,934
More from around the web