Total posts: 1,044
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You do understand that India and Sri Lanka were colonies of Britain (Sri Lanka previously was one of both Portugal and The Netherlands).India back then included what is now Pakistan and India. So, when you say that Christianity appeared in Asia and wasn't a result of Colonialism, observe where in Asia it appeared and study the history. Mother Teresa didn't magically bring Christianity to India, it was already there from before as the British Colonists had begun to build churches and were about to enforce Christianity as the national religion before needing to pull out due to depleted resoruces post-WWII, which Gandhi's activities even more pressured them to leave for.
Yes. I'm not arguing that there was no colonialism in Asia, or that churches like the Catholic church were not established in Asia. But colonialism is not what brought Christianity into Asia.
Like I had mentioned, the Gospel was carried into Asia around the same time it was carried into Europe. Thomas is believed to have been a part of that. So Christianity was not a product of colonization in Asia anymore than Europe was a product of Israelite colonization. It was brought in without domination.
This is partially evidenced by various Christian enclaves found throughout the Asian continent who's history precedes European colonization.
China who for years has a continual growth of Christianity began in underground house churches. Villages where the majority were Christians were not part of denominations. They were just Christians who had to remain underground because of persecution. A village may have had only one Bible, and had to pass the pages around the village for each household to make handwritten copies.
Created:
I'd say the likelihood of the US becoming a totalitarian state (defined as a government where the head of state has sole ruling power) is near impossible, considering that the people there have had strong anti-dictatorial sentiments ever since the founding of the nation.
I don't really think you can predict what will happen 100 years from now. And even in a shorter period of time, military takeovers have often changed a nation's ideological decor. Do you think the rich bourgeois Russians in the early 1900s anticipated an anti-wealth society?
I think most atheists are, too.
I think most atheists most definitely are too.
It's the militant activists that don't.
I haven't heard anyone say this before. Calling terrorism "Islamic" is probably a much more prevalent issue in the US, considering that only a very tiny fraction of Muslims believe in committing such acts.
You may not have ever heard it because fortunately most people don't do that. It's the atheist activists that tend to do this. An example would be Richard Dawkins who associated all Abrahamic religion with the 9/11 attacks.
I haven't heard this argument, either. The only two Christian theocracies that I can think of off the top of my head are the Papal States and the Vatican (basically a reincarnation of the Papal States).
Yes, and that's what some atheists equate Christianity with. We have a gentleman posting on this very thread who equates religion (or Abrahamic religion) to the Spanish Inquisition. Although it's tough to tell how serious he is, as sometimes users will say certain things to get reaction. But off hand it appears he believes because I'm a Christian who reads the Bible, I may one day commit an act of terrorism, or persecute Muslim Americans. He may even say I'm basically a nice guy, but religion will make me do it.
Religion is not declining in North America. The claim is that Christian church membership is declining. If anything, religion is growing in North America.
Church decline is not going to be physically noticeable anytime soon. And shifting trends would probably reverse low church membership anyway. It's just like statistics claiming that traffic has declined during commute hours on a given freeway. It may sound encouraging to the
frustrated commuter, but it still takes him 2 hours to get home from work.
Plus, declining church membership is not necessarily a bad thing. Not everyone who belongs to a church is even a believer. And it's always been common for young adults to leave the church when they go off to college, or were simply never believers to begin with. What polls taken don't reveal are those who left and returned to the faith, and recent converts. Conversions are what cause Christianity to continue to grow. And to complicate matters, probably most converts were cultural Christians.
Christianity is growing in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The west has always been intrigued with Asian spirituality. Should this trend
continue, Chinese Christians will probably influence many westerners into converting to Christianity, as they are non-materialistic, just as many westerners have embraced Buddhism for much the same reason.
So it was a public ski resort, right?
Yes. The statue of Jesus on that ski resort in Montana is public. Just like the Japanese tea garden in San Francisco that displays a Buddhist statue on it's grounds.
Doesn't the constitution say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?
Yes, it most certainly does. It's the second part of that declaration that is being ignored.
Are you aware that the founding fathers held church services every Sunday morning on government grounds?
What do you think the declaration has to do with the statue on the ski resort's grounds, or high school cheerleaders putting scriptures on signs?
If they're actively trying to censor Christian iconography just because they're Christian, then they're probably a fringe group.
Well I don't know. Do you consider The Freedom From Religion Foundation a fringe group? Because that's who we're talking about here.
Most atheists don't want an 'atheist nation' either. Most atheists tolerate people practicing their religions; they just disagree with it on philosophical terms.
Again I would have to agree with you. Most atheists don't want an atheist nation.
It's the militant activists that convey such desire.
I don't think it is.
Really? With respect, I don't get the impression you're from the U.S.
This link is not directly from American atheists who make this claim (I could certainly google for them), but this article referes to what's going on.
That is fine by atheists, most of whom believe in freedom of religion.
Yes. And again, most......
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Do you not recognize scale? One quote from someone attributing some act of terror (that they committed) to atheism does not equal the Crusades, 9/11, plane hijacking, Irish sectarian violence for decades. But have at it, we'll discuss the specifics.
Communist atheist atrocity equals (and probably surpasses) 9/11 and TSI. And in a much shorter period of time.
The problem is simple. Every charge atheists make towards the religious and theists, they have their own equivalent.
I'm not sure what you think I'm implying. I've xplicitly said that the Crusades were mandated using holy orders from the Papacy, whatever the real reasons were, that's what farmers who were conscripted to those wars were told: you have to go because Jesus says he needs your help to kill the non-believer. If you clarify what you think I'm implying, I can address.
The argument you seem to be making involves what people say. Thus the "were told" statement.
So, I want to see quotes that proves your point (whatever that is). Not what you imagine was being told, or some fantasy paraphrasing.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Even if that's the case, I've still never met someone who wanted a completely atheistic society that forbids religion. There may be some on the extreme fringes, but the vast majority just disagree with some aspects of various religions (such as Christianity) and don't want it completely removed.
We live in a pluralistic society, which represents (in principle) tolerance. Particularly racial and religious tolerance. So it's unlikely any group will advocate any kind of forceful removal of religion.
But we also have limited control of the future. There's no natural law that would prevent Americans and westerners in the future from creating a totalitarian state. That's why I'm a strong advocate of careful analysis of religion (and ethnic, racial, sexual identity) issues as opposed to loose cannon phrases relating Christianity to Islamic terrorism, early European theocracies, etc.
From what I got, those individuals and organizations are for strictly enforcing the separation of church and state. I don't think any of them advocate for the elimination of religionentirely.
The Pathos organization seems to believe that religion will end naturally. They seem to have it planned out to where they may have to step in and protect theist's rights as a minority group.
The FFRF go to the extreme in demanding that a statue of Jesus, for the most part hidden from public view, be removed from a ski resort in Montana. That's just one example.
The statue was placed there to honor WWII vets as a sentimental remembrance of a similar statue on a hill in Italy.
The idea is that since it's on public land, and promotes a specific religion, it should be removed. (They lost that particular case). So alongside promoting our American pluralistic values, we all need to honor and value our constitution. So groups like TFFRF are not going step out of bounds by trying to have the Creation museum, the Christian theme park in Florida, and churches in general removed. But realistically, anyone complaining about a statue very few people see probably abhors the sight of churches. A street corner church with a marquee inviting people to join them on Sunday is going to probably have a greater impact than a statue at a ski resort. So, statues on ski resorts, cheerleader signs with scriptures, and nativity scenes on public property is what they go after.
Just like how you said Atheists in America, in general, are going to vary, Christians in America are going to vary as well. There are certain organizations, such as the Chalcedonian Foundation and the American Foundation which support Christian Reconstructionism, a movement that seeks to implement theonomy and codify certain biblical laws into the Federal Code.
Yes, and these would be an example of fringe groups you referred to.
Most Christians don't want a theocracy. For one, it would mean control by a dominant denomination. And, it's understood by most Christians that Christianity cannot, and should not be forced.
The suggestion that Christians want a theocracy I think is a bit more broad. And this may be partly due to polls that are taken where someone says they favor (for lack of a
better term) a spiritual theocracy where everyone seeks guidance from God independently, and by their own decision . Which is kind of what the founding fathers were suggesting anyway.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I don't know who you're talking about. No atheist I've ever conversed with wants a "utopian atheist nation", whatever that means.
The term "utopian" is just hyperbole. The song "Imagine" by John Lennon would be an example of imagining an ideal society (utopia).
Also, authoritarian states like China, USSR, and North Korea persecuted religion because they wanted more centralized power for the state authority. I don't see where any "atheist activist" wants to do the same.
Those are different nations with different dynamics. Atheists in America in general are going to vary. From atheists who like Christians to those that hate Christians. As far as atheist activists, I would say the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Patheos would be some of the closest organized atheists who would like to see religion removed from society. As far as individuals, Richard Dawkins and Aron Ra among others come to mind.
By the way, there are various claims that evangelicals in America want a theocracy. Do you think that's a valid claim?
Created:
Absolutely not!
Well, there actually wouldn't be any "Utopia" at all.
Some people seem to get upset when atheists (of the western humanist variety) are associated or equated with communist atheists (in response to equating 9/11 and the Spanish inquisition to Christianity).
American atheist activists are pro-atheism. Communist atheists, like in China are anti-religion. So there's really no difference other than a reshuffling on emphasis. And that's exactly what an atheist society in America would become. A totalitarian society that would be forced to use communist tactics to control religion.
There's this idea that because church attendance may decline at times, Christians will faze out eventually through lack of Christian reproduction. Christianity is not a racial/ethnic group, and the thorn-in-the-flesh for atheists would always be conversions. At best, cultural Christianity might become extinct, but what's to stop recurring conversions that constantly have frustrated communist States like China?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Well, and also pointing out many examples of each one of these faiths leveraging the holy mandate that certain followers felt they'd had bestowed on them from on high, to actually do pretty terrible things (mainly Islam and Christianity). Can you give me the "communist style atheist terrorism" that's analogous to say the Islam-inspired 9/11 attacks? Or the atheist version of honor killings? What would the communist atheist version of the Spanish Inquisition have been? Do yourself a favor and disassociate communism from atheism. They're not inherently linked any more than capitalism and Christianity are. Stick to atheism vs theism, it's cleaner. What's the act of terror done specifically in the name of atheism, the last one you remember?
I'm actually going to start another thread on this subject.
If I found a quote from just one person who proclaims an act of terrorism in the name of atheism, would that render atheism equivalent to Abrahamic religion in terms of war and terrorism?
Do you have any quotes from Christians you can give me to explain what you're implying?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
So you think anyone who's read any part of the bible definitely understands it, and they all agree on it after having read it?
No. What gave you that idea?
Didn't you tell me that I don't have a background in ancient Hebrew as translated to Greek, so I can't possible understand what the bible really says or meant?
No.
I did mention that I didn't think you were a biblical scholar, but I think I pretty much pointed out that I'm not either. It's not about credentials or who's more intelligent. If you're drawing definite conclusions based on mere first hand observation without considering the complexity of historical context and ancient language, then how can you claim any knowledge authority on the text's actually meaning?
Who's the source of your quote, by the way? Is it you? Is there a verse in the bible that says "Slaves obey your masters," is there instructions in the bible on how to buy slaves from foreign lands, and is there a quote from anyone in the bible that says "All previous laws about slavery are void, definitely don't ever do that" or something clearly to that effect? Does god send Hebrews to murder Amalekites?
What quote are you talking about?
My point is this stuff is IN THE BIBLE, but Christians seem to ignore them because they're so ridiculous or uncomfortable. I don't really bother much with engaging on these any more because the arguments are basically "No it isn't in the bible / that's not what it means," but the fact remains the words are in the bible. Christians like yourself just say they're not there, so what's the point of arguing over it?
Am I the exception to your rule about engaging on these anymore?
When/where did I claim they weren't there? I've conversed with you on many occasions about specific verses, quoting them verbatim.
I fully acknowledge any reference in a British publication using the word "solicitor". What I won't acknowledge is that they're referring to a sales person. Yes, it flat out says "solicitor" in the publication. No denial of that. But....I would suggest that they're referring to an attorney.
If you think scripture is stupid, why talk about it at all? Some people think silent and black and white movies are stupid. Therefore, all they'll watch is newer movies to satisfy their need to see high tech special effect explosions, modern innuendo humor, and to feel contemporary. Maybe you should stick to reading what feeds your interest?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And theism is not biased?
Theism is not a personality, so no, it cannot be biased. Are there theists that are biased? Sure! Everyone has a bias, right?
And there is no sound argument for theism either....Both arguments are rendered equally unsound by the nature of the argument...Though the theist does need to provide unequivocal evidence, whereas the atheist just needs to rest on their laurels until such times, when the theist can provide unequivocal evidence....As the atheist hasn't developed a mythological and supernatural hypothesis that requires substantiation....Hence a bit of scepticism is justifiably pertinent.
Whenever evidence is provided, unless it's door to door delivery, there's almost always a required action needed by the receiver. It can be something as simple as clicking on to a link. If you offer evidence to something (anything) to me and provide a link, it won't do any good unless I click on to that link. And as long as I refuse the link, I can hold onto
whatever claim I make.
Even if proof knocks on your door, you still have to get off the couch and answer the door.
It's the same issue with demanding proof specifically concerning the God of the Bible. If one doesn't follow what the bible says to do in order to obtain unequivocal proof, they're not much different than the one refusing a website link.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
There are many reasons atheism is still a fringe belief, and one of those reasons is due to how atheist activists behave in public.
Even agnostics apparently don't trust them. And the atheists can't blame Christians for that one.....lol.
Created:
Posted in:
Christianity is not a product of colonialism. About the same time the Gospel spread into Europe, it also moved in the opposite direction into Asia. We just don't have much recorded history on this. It is believed that Thomas was part of the missionary movement into Asia (India). There have been various Christian enclaves throughout Asia (Southeast Asia, China, Korea), like the Miao ethnic group in China.
The interesting part of this is that there have never really existed Christian religious States in Asia. The Christian movements in Asia were generally in opposition to government, whether it's a communist (atheist) State, or a government with an established non-Christian religion. And Christians in Asia generally stay out of politics. Different national and ethnic dynamics.
Europe is a relatively tiny continent that had expansionist visionaries. Peoples who lived in larger continents felt less of a need to expand, at least globally. China would be a good example of a powerful Asian empire that sought expansion, but mostly within the Asian continent. The Native Americans occupied the large continents within the Americas, and there was really no physical need to expand beyond.
So the question is, were the seafarers of Europe motivated to expand beyond their shores by Christianity? Or would they have done so anyway had they remained pagan? If it's the former, then we at least have Christianity to thank for where many of us are now. If the latter, then the idea of Christianity's growth being a product of colonialism is shot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Discernment is the atheists best quality....The ability to see the wood for the trees or sort the grain from the chaff, as it were.
Discernment is not a quality owned by atheists in any monopolizing sense. There are no doubt atheists that are objectively skeptical, but they seem to be the exception. Most atheists that claim to be skeptical appear very biased, as they're only skeptical in regards to the Bible. The real atheist skeptics are the ones who include claims from atheist sources.
One of the major evidences of this is skepticism towards Christian apologetics. There's nothing wrong with skepticism, but no one ever gives a sound argument against it. They seem to demand non-acceptance by some sort of default without any refutation.
Another would be the Christian/ancient mythology comparisons. Many so-called atheist skeptics fell for the Jesus/Horus comparison scam. A chart was made comparing Jesus and Horus supposedly found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. This was a complete hoax. Why weren't the atheists who fell for it skeptical against the claim?
Another trick of the comparison trade is to create a chart lining comparisons up with Jesus, taking portions throughout a mythology that appear similar to accounts credited to Jesus, and line them up in a chart giving the appearance that certain bible scriptures are carbon copies of myths with minor changes.
And then of course they completely break the rules by implying that any similarities are a product of copying. Aside from that compromising
violation we all understand that coincidences are inevitable, even if they appear uncannily similar like the novel about the Titan ship, and the Factual Titanic. And Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Rod, you will find that they cannot answer you. They cannot tell you on what their claim is based. Some will simply switch to another claim, ("most Christians don't realize what's in the bible?") but will still not be anywhere near able to tell you on what fact the claim is based.They are telling you how they feel, and for most of them, how they feel is indistinguishable from fact.
Yes, and the amazing thing is that what you're saying doesn't only apply to casual forum members, but includes atheists who maintain a profound media presence. Richard Dawkins actually believes that if the bible were more public, like in public libraries, people would turn away from the bible after reading it. What does he think believers do after conversion? I guess he thinks they continue to read Harry Potter books.
I've seen the claim many times, including from relatively prominent people. And I don't think any of them know what they're talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
A lot of atheists are atheists because they read your bible.
I think you might be a bit too quick to give atheists too much credit. More than likely most atheists who follow the atheist biblical doctrine came to their conclusion by reading someone else's biblical diatribe. In an atheist comic book, yes, the story line would probably involve atheists (and former Christians) reading the Bible on their own and determining on their own that the book is wicked in nature. The reality is that the internet has developed on line sermons that spoon feed allegations of corrupt axioms to it's flock.
There's a wall of separation that looks something like this.
College kid grows up in church, then leaves for college. In college he meets an atheist who tells him that the bible condones slavery, and shows him the verses. The kid says "wow'' in absolute amazement. He says "I've never seen this before. I've only read verses about God's love. I wonder if Billy Graham knew about this? I think I'll go on line and tell the world!"
That kid hit a wall. He can get over the wall by reading the verses the atheist showed him, and then study the actual meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Couldn't this also be phrased as "most Christians don't realize what's in the bible?" Stuff like how women should be subservient, slavery's cool, the genocides, etc. Most Christians seem to get the lion's share of their biblical knowledge from the pulpit, not from the book.
This is the quote you would probably want to address.
"It's the Christians who have read, and study the Bible continuously that find out that no, the Bible does not condone slavery, Yahweh does not kill little children for mocking the
appearance of a prophet, does not support genocide, etc."
And your suggestion doesn't make sense in that it may be rewording the way I originally put it, but not saying anything different. If Christians don't realize what's in the Bible, then they couldn't have read it. So you're stuck with the same problem in trying to suggest Christians don't read the Bible. And that somehow atheists are the only people who actually read the Bible, and are being gracious by enlightening all of us Christians about verses they don't think we've ever read.
We read the Bible, and see the same exact things that you or any atheist see. Yes, we read the account of Elisha and the bears, and it looks like from a rather shallow contemporary viewpoint that Elisha was upset because some little kids insulted him and called out a couple of bears out on them for vengeance. To actually assume that's what the verses are implying without considering every form of content is beyond absurd. If this account, or any others in the bible were found recorded in a Sumerian cuneiform, and a linguist/historian studying it's context, determined they mean something other than how it appears to read at first modern glance, there would be no issue. It would be considered confirmed. But (and I'm sorry) these dopey atheist activist websites feel they can make an exception with the bible. If it was a Sumerian text, which has no direct influence on our society, then everyone would understand historical context, difficulty in ancient language translation, etc.
If atheists are unwilling to acknowledge such a very simple, and extremely obvious factor, then the arguments just get relegated to attempting crafty comebacks, stinging quips, etc. At that point logic and reason gets tossed out for arguments based on a silly rivalry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that the statement is probably a fact rather than a cliché.Of course it might depend upon how you choose to define a Christian.Are you referring to every Tom, Dick or Harriet that has been subjected to the water splashing ritual?...Or just to all the devoutish ones that do read their bible from time to time..
This is actually part of why I'm posing the question. Since you stated that it is probably a fact, what are you basing this on? Are you including every Tom, Dick, and Harry?
If you go by anyone who steps into a church, which includes nominal Christians, agnostics, and even atheists, then maybe one can make this argument. If you're talking about professed believers who purposely live a Christian lifestyle, then absolutely not.
I think the statement generally implies that either most Christians only casually read the bible, focusing on the Gospels, possibly Paul's letters, maybe Revelation after watching a doomsday movie, and maybe Genesis on a very rainy day.
The idea is that if Christians knew what was being stated in the Bible, we wouldn't want to be Christians. And they may proceed to give scriptures to support their claim. And they seem to give it as if we've never seen the verses before. Which is really strange.
There are most certainly some young people who grew up in a church, never read much of the bible, left for college, someone tells them the bible supports slavery, shows them the verses, and the young person responds "Wow! I-didn't-know-this. By all means, please-tell-me-more!".
It's the Christians who have read, and study the Bible continuously that find out that no, the Bible does not condone slavery, Yahweh does not kill little children for mocking the
appearance of a prophet, does not support genocide, etc.
So do you have every page of your bible recorded to memory?...Because unless you have, then what was the actual purpose of reading it...Other than as a transitory entertainment experience.Without looking, what does it say on page 87?
The bible is not a fiction novel to be read once for entertainment, and wait for the movie to come out. Nor is it an instruction manual to read over once, and then toss once understood.
That being said, memorization is an ongoing process. I myself don't pay much attention to the page numbers. And they're going to vary anyway depending on the size, and version of the Bible. Do you know the page numbers for every book you have read and claim knowledge on?
So again, per your statement, who are these Christians who probably don't read the bible?
Created:
Posted in:
Or, most Christians don't read their Bible.
I see this statement from time to time, including in this forum, and would be interested to see what might lead someone to conclude this. I know why some high profile atheists like Richard Dawkins say it. But with most of them it seems more hyperbole based on political rivalry. So I think the statement has become a cliche.
I suppose if we considered every church member and attender the idea might be conceivable. But even there, it's an iffy assumption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Everyone has experienced intuition. And everyone's intuition has turned out to be both right and wrong. If the source of intuition is all knowing, intuition would never be wrong. And if someone told you the story of Abraham and Isaac in modern context, you'd think they should be in a mental institution.
By definition, wrong intuition would be a contradiction no matter the source (if any). So the question might arise, was the wrong decision a result of wrong intuition, or succumbing to bias, prejudice, subjective preference, etc.?
As far as the Abrahamic reference, I certainly don't have a problem with it in historic context. Do you feel I should?
What do you think the source of intuition is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Of course not. That sort of derangement seems to be reserved for atheists. But though that may have been Dee Dee's original intent, it's obvious that he got lost somewhere in the mime and it has now developed into a personality disorder. Funny thing is, the shtick has trapped him and he can no longer be a normal person.Remember Andy Kaufman from "Taxi"? Same thing happened to him. But your " weird thought" is telling. How an atheist could be this invested in what he says is an imaginary story is indicative of the emptiness of atheism.Good thread.
Thanks Ethan.
Yeah, his schtick doesn't allow for much valuable conversation since it's only relying on entertainment value. Once that's completely gone,
then there's nothing left. At least a militant atheist can state their claim without having to rely on statements meant solely for humor. Unfortunately most militant atheists are closed minded. But at least they don't have to pretend to be a follower of someone they also claim to be a serial killer.
As far as Andy Kaufman, I don't know much about him, other than his infamous encounter with Jerry "The King" Lawler. From your description of him, I wonder if the same thing happened to Paul Reubens (Pee Wee Herman)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
How do you distinguish the standard intuition from communication from god then?
I don't necessarily know for sure that common intuition is even independent of God (particularly since he's all knowing per scripture). But that may depend on what is meant by independent.
What I probably should have mentioned in the OP, the thread is aimed at a fairly common allegation that Christians hear voices in their head as would a mental patient. That possibly may mean audible voices in the mind. At least in some cases. So the intuition I referred to was meant to differentiate from the idea of mental disease, and to give a relatable reference. Intuition as a reference itself may only really be skimming the surface though.
Have you ever experienced intuition?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Welcome back Ethan.
I just had a weird thought. I wonder if they're any Christians devious enough to pose as a pseudo Freedom From Religion Foundation type atheist activist group, with the intention of making American atheist activists look like a Pol Pot regime?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
@BrotherDThomas
First off K_Michael, thanks for the link you provided in your initial post. I'll have time to read it, and respond shortly. And to others who've commented, for what it's worth, I'll get back to you as I'm running out of time this evening.
And BDT, I can't blame him. People have to draw the line somewhere if they want to remain anonymous. You've confided you're from California, and you may even be willing to say what town (I'm not asking for that btw). But at some point you'd have to stop giving info (where you went to school, what street you live on etc.).
Awhile back there was a member here and/or DDO who let everyone know what town he lives in. I live very close to that town, and I realized how likely it might be to actually find out who he is (which I'm not interested in) based on additional information he had given. He was probably someone who hung out at Starbuck's all day. If K_Michael confessed to having the new 2021 Hummer EV at any point in this forum, that's not even out on the market yet, then it might not be a good idea for him to say what State near Utah he lives in.
Get it, got it, good?
Created:
Posted in:
The answer is no. That is, hearing God's voice, being lead by the spirit is not hearing voices in our head.
To hopefully give an idea what a Christian may experience when we believe God communicated with us, I'll pose a question:
Have you ever had an intuition? You somehow knew you shouldn't go into that house, drive down that road, eat that food, etc.?
If you have, I'm not saying this was God. And whether or not you found out your intuition was correct is not significant to the question (although it could certainly be significant as far as a possible connection with God).
If you answered yes to having an intuition, did you hear a voice in your head? Assuming no, then this should shed some light on the subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
This is an excellent follow up.
I think some people might get hung up on the idea that God could be used in the same conversation with......
What if prayer, spiritual practices and or meditation was a form of adjusting one's channel of receiving various ranges of frequencies
Many people seem to have this idea that there's a huge dichotomy between modern knowledge of transmission, and ancient description of divine communication. The language you use in your post was not the language of yesteryear. The Hebrew language was limited, and human knowledge was subject to time/progression.
God of course was aware of our current modern terminology from Day One. But was courteous enough to communicate with ancient peoples within their language/knowledge time-frame.
So yes, your analogy brings up an interesting question.
The majority consensus on the other thread seems to be that an unsurpassable wall in space would not be considered evidence of a higher power. However, what would the consensus be if we add your independent from earth frequencies into the picture?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOU SPEAK! Uh, of which you do not speak regarding my biblical axioms that easily bury every one of your posts within your threads and outside of them. Nonetheless, of course I can roll my "r's" and silent my "j's" because I live in California, get it? Huh? Here is another "hint," I LOVE Mexican food, now do you get it?
You love Mexican food?
Are you sure that's biblical?
I love Mexican food too btw.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I suppose it COULD, but you would only have to add that possibility to a pile of other guesses as to what it was. Without any other information, the only conclusion you can make is "we have not been able to send a spacecraft past a certain point."
So whether or not the wall is evidence of a higher power depends on how much information we have?
What kind of additional information would render consideration for evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
TRUE Christians like myself
and myself as the only TRUE Christian within this forum
But can you roll your R's?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You have entirely mis-read Roderick. His "Star Trek" adventure, as you erroneously refer to his proposition, is unmanned. How is that Star Trek, an entirely manned mission? Therefore, your biblical limitations have not been violated, nobody is speaking to, about, or because of Jesus, and your pounding fist can go back into its pocket. Just calm down, sit down, and read properly.
Amen fauxlaw!
BDT is probably a trekkie, which would be why he's referencing the show in the first place. He may even go to Star Trek Conventions dressed as a Romulan.
So, when watching his favorite TV show, he's got the awkward position of having to make sure he doesn't see any biblical analogies, parallel's, similarities, etc. This has to be really tough because biblical references and themes are quite common in sci-fi tv shows and movies.
I think he needs to stop watching the show because his true, untainted form of Christianity is at risk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
No. If your premise is an assumption/hypothetical and the conclusion you draw from extending those premises is an assumption/hypothetical, then what exactly would you have ascertained evidence of?
When posting the OP, I was actually thinking of a human produced ant farm. They're in a created environment. A small world created by a higher intelligence (although some might argue against that).
When an ant's antennae bumps up against the glass, are they bumping up against evidence of there being a higher power that created their environment? Or, does evidence of a higher power depend on whether or not they are mentally capable of pondering the origin of their environment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I think if we're in a simulated flat Earth and outer space is an illusion then yes, that is definitely evidence of a designer of this simulated environment and such. Is that what you're referring to?
It actually could be an example of what I mean.
If you came to a conclusion that we inhabit a simulated flat earth, outer space being an illusion, then the wall would be evidence from your standpoint. Even overwhelming evidence.
For a neutral or natural world person, an atheist or agnostic, they can always come up with alternative theories.
It really begs the question, what would really be considered evidence outside of a direct encounter with a creator/designer for those who are neutral?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Why would an invisible barrier of unknown composition imply a higher intelligence? All it's evidence of is that two spacecraft couldn't go past a certain point as you have described it. Saying "there must be some higher intelligence behind this" when you literally know nothing at all about why the craft stopped. Maybe you can describe how you concluded it's a wall, and not something like what's called a langrangian point: the point where the pull of gravity on one side of an object is equal to the pull on the other side.
They definitely couldn't go past a certain point, so no evidence is needed there.
As far as the description of a wall, it's just that. A description. Like the Wall of Separation.
I'm not making any claims that it would necessarily imply a higher intelligence. I'm just asking if it would, or could be considered evidence. Yes, it could be a langrian point, but
we can add to the story line multiple tests, sending space craft in every conceivable direction, possibly rendering many theories unlikely.
If I change the question to could it be evidence of a higher intelligence, would that make a difference?
Created:
Posted in:
Imagine we just sent an unmanned spacecraft further than we've ever sent any craft before. Everything seems to be going smoothly, until the craft hits an invisible wall. We're able to see what happened from camera footage, but not able to identify what caused the prevention of the craft from going further.
We send another unmanned craft the same distance in same approximate location, but equipping the craft to become stationary if/when hitting the invisible wall, and possibly study it's content.
The second craft comes in contact with the wall, but is not able to make out it's content. It's just a seemingly transparent solid wall like a thick window.
Would you consider this evidence of a higher intelligence (God, a god/deity, extraterrestrials)?
If so why? If not why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Therefore aiding Third World Nations naturally becomes a secondary and unimportant issue, and let's be honest, your average Joe probably never considers the issue at all, as they are too preoccupied with the day to day necessities and requirements of their own survival.We think that we are more civilised, and we might try to be more civilised, but at the end of the day when our own success or failure becomes an issue, do we not become the same instinct driven organisms that we ever were?What do you think?
Personally, since charity doesn't seem to be instinctive, it's something beyond us. Of course charity, like religion, can become corrupted by money and pride. Some might do charity now for financial benefit. Some might do it to noticed (or elected). But some might out of compassion.
Like you indicated, I may be steering off topic. I might just create a thread on this subject.
Created:
Posted in:
Romans 10:14-15 New International Version (NIV)
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[a]
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[a]
Sometimes these verses are used to suggest that there are and have been remote peoples who never heard of Jesus and the Bible, and thus had no chance of being saved. This idea would definitely be contrary to this verse:
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
And doesn't sit well with this verse
After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.
For one, the original verses do not directly ask how will they be saved, but even if it did, as the implication may be there, I don't see a problem.
If I ask you how will your uncle get to the hospital to get his meds if you don't drive him, I'm not suggesting your uncle will never get to the hospital. I'm probably suggesting that if you don't drive him, no one will. So, he may have to take a bus, hitch hike, or spend money on a cab or personal vehicle service. In other words, the comfort and
convenience of getting a ride from an acquaintance would be denied him.
In the Bible, messages are given by man, and also angels (both being messengers). Some missionaries have found that in some parts of the world removed from modern society, or far removed from western influence, a number of historical references to divine messages that are remarkably similar to the Gospel message have been identified. Ironically, many, most, or all may date well before the Bible was written, but there's no way to accuse the writers of the bible to have stolen from these historic accounts. So if no preacher reaches a remote corner of the world where there's no knowledge of the bible whatsoever, then they would need to from another source other than a preacher of the Gospel message (an angel, messenger of an angel, personal conviction of a righteous creator, etc.).
Here's a link.
Sorry for the mistake in the thread title.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Just be tolerant and respectful of others....There we are, that's my advice....No god required.
Do you feel that first world countries are obligated to give aid to 3rd world nations?
In other words, if the U.S. and Great Britain decided to withdraw humanitarian aid to less fortunate nations, would we be just in doing so? We'd still be tolerant of these nations. We'd still respect these nations. But we just wouldn't give them aid anymore. Would that be acceptable?
Created:
-->
@janesix
It's certainly a strong argument in favor being created. So what's puzzling is why it would be so easily dismissed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I'm not going to go back to other threads to collect examples of what I consider uncivilized comments. I can tell you though that it started out with your very first comment to me on someone else's thread. This was our very first interaction. I would be willing to track that one down if you like. I even asked you before if you'd like me to do that. I'm not claiming you're distracted by your comments by the way. It's probably more the other party that gets distracted. I didn't start this thread with the intention of posting and then backing out. But if the responses are out of line, I'm not going to respond to them. I feel no obligation whatsoever to allow myself to be a sounding board for someone's anger.
I'm willing to attempt a fresh start, and just see where it goes from there.
When I say misuse of the word religion, I don't necessarily mean misinterpretation (although it can be that). An example of what I mean would be where someone might address a specific negative belief or action of a specific religion, denomination, faction, group, or individual; and then refer to religion as a whole being the problem. In other words, claiming that religion itself is responsible for Muslim terrorist attacks, Westboro Baptist Church bigotry, etc.
Someone gives accurate detail on what happened on 9/11, but then adds something like this is what religion does to people. This would be an example of what I mean. Very similar to giving a report about a crime committed by members of a specific racial group, and then adding to the report that the actions were due to a common trait possessed by that racial group. If someone did that in the media, they'd be fired immediately.
I used the example of Dawkins' reference to Abrahamic religion in conjunction with the 9/11 attack. Again, not at all an issue of interpretation.
Dawkins knows exactly what Abrahamic religion means. The misuse is really the idea of relating it to the attacks at all. The promises made to Islamic soldiers committing suicide is not a religious issue. It's an Islamic issue, or an issue promoted by specific Muslims. It's got nothing to do with Judaism or Christianity.
Is Richard Dawkins brain dead? No. Obviously he's an intelligent individual. Is everyone who listens to Richard Dawkins intelligent? Or to take it a step further, is every atheist (including those who listen to Richard Dawkins) intelligent? No. And that's a big problem. People do stupid
things when they're not able to analyze what's being projected properly.
An example. If we analyze properly the messages extended by Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Sojourner Truth, etc., we can get a proper perspective on dealing with racism. If we don't, we could experience destructive forms of protest. Instead of peaceful protests, we get chaos where innocent people suffer (businesses burning down, bystanders getting injured or killed). And in recent protests, the threat of the spread
of Covid-19 has increased. Now we're literally seeing a self-imposed form of pandemic spread when we're supposed to be uniting against it.
We don't have control of the thought of others, including the newer generations. Not everyone is going to properly scrutinize/analyze what RD or any atheist or humanist activist has to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
If you're genuinely interested in the topic, I would suggest just follow along the conversation with Ludo and I. He made valid points, and you actually did as well. However, I have other points to make, and if Ludo and I continue the conversation, I may be able to bring them up.
Ludo seems to have made similar points you have made. The difference is he can make them in a civilized fashion. It's a shame that you don't seem to be able to that. It really makes a huge difference.
The problem with the constant accusations, and the whole "You Christians this, and you Christians that" really doesn't do you any good. It's just a defense mechanism. It distracts from the topic at hand, and simply moves into the arena of drama.
I'm not going to block you, but since I'm not much into drama, I'm just not going to respond to your posts. At least not at this point.
But you might want to ask yourself why people at times have blocked you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
he is a younger fellow but studies philospipy in university
That figures!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
His point was that Christianity and Islam both have mandates in their holy texts to convert non-believers and that certain sects of both religions can take these interpretations to their extremes (I come not to bring peace but the sword is something Jesus said, and Islam prescribes death for apostasy, to use a couple of examples) to the great detriment of society. You can disagree with the interpretations those people use to undergird their violence and see it, as I do, as simply an excuse for violent reprehensible people to do violent, reprehensible things and feel like they're in the right, but cannot deny that all religions have used their religions to sanctify violence.Misuse of the word religion would be like "atheism is a religion!" or "science is also a religion." Just because you don't like the way a word is being used doesn't mean it's incorrect usage. I'm not for lumping all of any group into any one category, but me saying "Some police officers are racists" is not a misuse of either the word racists or cops because you don't like what I'm saying.
The problem is that if you take the definition of religion in it's broadest description
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
This could include any group theme including atheism. And we can't overlook atheist/humanist chaplains in the military, and various religious rights laws protecting atheists as avenues of association with religion. Another would be Cosmic Humanism.
Dawkins was merely speculating a potential danger regarding other Abrahamic faiths conducting the same acts of terrorism. While it's possible (in that anything is possible), it's just as possible for communist style atheist terrorism to jump on the scene.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I think BrotherDThomas may have been reprimanded by his Landowner Association cohorts for getting too soft on us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
ive grown to hate dawkins and appreciate smart atheists like cosmicskeptic over the years
I'd like to find a youtube video where an atheist basically blitch saps an atheist talk show host. I'm not sure who the atheist is. I'll have to google search this cosmicskeptic person. Sounds familiar.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Again, you are on your way of being a TRUE Christian in positing that Jesus drowned innocent zygotes, fetus' and babies in His Great Flood scenario as their mothers watched in horror as their little ones took their last gasp of air and went under to the depths of the ocean. Barring this enlightenment of yours, I will strip for Jesus anytime His spirit comes upon me, and it matters not of Jesus being a serial killer as explicitly shown throughout the Bible. This is because Jesus offers a heaven without any women present! Seriously, if this isn't enough to follow ALL of Jesus' words, then I don't know what is! Agreed? Sure you do, because you have too.
I have to admit that I was once delusional and very ignorant of the Judeo-Christian bible, then a funny thing happened one day where I actually sat down and started reading the bible myself instead of having it spoon-fed to me at church on Sunday mornings like 99.99% of fake Christians do at their expense. Then I realized that our TRUE Christian faith, and our Jewish leader Jesus the Christ as Yahweh God incarnate, are not all loving and forgiving as we were told for centuries. Nonetheless, we must accept our bible's somewhat disturbing bible axioms and narratives at times, and just move on the best way we can in the name of Jesus, praise!
What's not completely clear is whether or not you view this apparent enlightenment as having to accept a defect, or an acknowledgment of unrecognizable perfection to the human eye.
Of course I do, and I know that I am preaching to the choir because I have to be saved to be able to inhabit our 1400 square mile heaven with its 60 foot walls (that should keep the JW's out) AND the fact that there will be no women in this glorious heaven, praise! I am sure you will agree that we had to put up with the 2nd class women while on earth, therefore Jesus knew this and will keep them out of our heaven so we will have peace for a change, praise Jesus!
You mean some random person like Miss Ogynist (who's rumored to possibly have married someone name Phil) will in no way make it to heaven?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Well you asked if I thought you stole something from me, and I basically answered your question by saying no. As far as you stealing from the other party, I have no idea. I never read those posts you linked to.
The whole time I was making light of your many accusations of the Bible stealing from ancient myths. And how ironic it was that you were in a position to have to defend yourself against a similar claim.
What is rather odd though is how you obviously edited your post so that I would see it well after you requested the thread be locked. And even weirder how you just linked right back to it again. Are you aware that it's been thus locked?
And....do really think anyone else cares about any of this?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
If the Spirit of the Lord came upon me, sure, why not.
I'm a bit puzzled though. Why would you be willing to strip for a God that, as you had stated a number of times, drowned babies?
And I may as well just come out and ask, do you love God with all your heart, mind soul, and body?
Created:
Posted in:
Example I used from a post I made in an earlier thread.
After the 9/11 attack Richard Dawkins made a public statement chastening the general public for not condemning Abrahamic religion. Although he was specific in terms of what group he felt responsible, it was inappropriate to lump all Abrahamic religions into one terrorist group involving an attack made by terrorists from a specific Islamic sect. I would go as far to say that it would have been inappropriate to lump all Muslims in a terrorist category. This is obvious because most Muslims, at least certainly in the western world were appalled.
Often times the word religion is used when identifying a negative situation involving a specific religion.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
"us" ! ?Hahahhahahhahahhahahahhahhahahhahahhahhaha . Why don't you start an "interesting " thread of your own?
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
I'm asking the OP what exactly members here (us) are to discuss/debate in reference to the story line given in the OP. Like maybe whether or not the Bible condones public nudity?
But I think the OP is better equipped (no pun intended) to answer my question than yourself.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Small independent churches are obviously not big business, though perhaps they do dream of making it into the big time.
That's just speculation of course. From my experience, most small churches (not sure what you mean by independent) want to avoid what I think you mean by the big time. The problem is that the mega-churches, which represent a small minority are the one's that make the news. The small churches that provide charity for urban areas for instance go unnoticed for the most part.
The discussion though was focussing on one of the bigger players, and I think that it's fair to say that business and faith are very much separate elements of the global religious conglomerates. How wealth and benefits filter down through the organisation, from the big players and their Vatican luxury, to the average Catholic Joe scavenging one a rubbish dump in Manilla for example, is pretty typical of how all social systems work.
I understand. You're focusing on the Catholic church. The problem, although it may seem small, is the usage of the term religion when describing a particular church faction, organization, or any non-Christian religion. The problem is that it's used as a broad term to describe a particular organization and their negative aspects, which lumps together all religions, Abrahamic religions, Christian religions or factions like Catholicism, and protestant organizations. In other words, you were initially describing the Catholic church, but at the same time you're broadening the horizons to allow evangelicals, and/or Abrahamic religions, and/or all other religions.
Richard Dawkins, after 9/11 decided that not only all Muslims should be held responsible for the attack (as opposed to the specific faction responsible), but all Abrahamic religions should be held responsible. But....his subjective opinion did not include eastern religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
What would you have us debate?
Created: