An exegesis of Jesus...will be representing this for a while.....
Michael Christ
If Jesus is truly Lord of your life, if He is your true master, if He is the
One you love with all your heart, soul and mind, if He is God of your life,
then how is it that you can sin, let alone be a sinner once you have truly
given your life to Him? Is He the Lord that leads you into and in sin?
John 8:34 (KJV):
Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth
sin is a servant of sin. (Two Masters? Is lukewarm the Way??)
Romans 6:22 (KJV):
But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your
fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. (Free from sin) (Servant
of God, not sin).
2 Corinthians 5:21 (KJV):
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him. (The righteousness of God)
1 John 3:8 (KJV):
He that committeth sin is of the devil;... (Including deliberate and/or
unintentional. Is a person of the devil and of the righteousness of God???).
1 John 5:18 (KJV):
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten
of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. (Whosoever is
born of God...sins not).
Romans 6:17-18 (KJV):
But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed
from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you? Being then
made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. (Made free
from...became, not becoming) (One Master).
1 Peter 4:1 (KJV):
Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves
likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath
ceased from sin; (Ceased)
1 John 3:6 (KJV):
Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him,
neither known him (To the point and very clear)
1 John 3:9 (KJV):
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him:
and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. (In Him is no darkness at
all).
There is beyond repenting...and repenting...and repenting...and repenting.
There is more.
You have to seek with all your heart. You will find if you do. Do not
accept what the Phariseeanity-ites spew from their mouths. They do not want
to let go of their old nature; they hold on to this world. They seek to bind
you to their lot by burying you in theology, snaring you in a 'forever
learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth' abyss.
My testimony is the victory of Jesus crucified and the power of His
resurrection...victory...that _you_ can have in Him. You can be free, and
free indeed despite what the faithless want you to believe.
You have to give your all though, or you will forever be stuck in that
religious bog hole of constant empty jargon Bible quoting that is divorced
of the actuality of fulfilling the Scriptures in your life. Sure, all have
sinned (except Jesus) but He did NOT die so that you could try and justify
yourself for being a sinner, but to deliver you, to free you from sin
(Romans 8:2). Or else, His death amounts to nothing in your life. There is
no magical fix at the moment of physical death; it is too late then. Now is
the accepted time, now is the day of your salvation, now (2 Corinthians
6:2). Find the Way. Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness
(Jesus). Ask, and it shall be given, seek and you will find, knock and it
will be opened unto you, or off you go and eat pizzas, drink bourbon, and
laugh like fools on the promenade deck of the Titanic.
Michael Christ
PS You need to find out the Lord's will in your daily life.
PPS Again, I say.
'If Jesus is Lord'?
If Jesus is truly Lord of your life, if He is your true master, if He is the
One you love with all your heart, soul and mind, if He is God of your life,
then how is it that you can sin, let alone be a sinner once you have truly
given your life to Him. Is He the Lord that leads you into and in sin?
Well, is He? The question then is, is He Lord in your life??
Randy ®
Michael Christ <Jesus...@Father.com> wrote:
> If Jesus is truly Lord of your life, if He is your true master, if He is
> the
> One you love with all your heart, soul and mind, if He is God of your life,
> then how is it that you can sin, let alone be a sinner once you have truly
> given your life to Him. Is He the Lord that leads you into and in sin?
When John said the righteous don't sin, he used the present
tense, showing they don't keep on sinning, not that they don't
have any sin at all, or never sin. Meanwhile:
1 John 1:8 NASB
(8) If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves
and the truth is not in us.
"have" is in the present tense.
Thus, the truth is not in Michael.
--
Have you heard Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him
from the dead? Did you know God saves you from hell and
gives you eternal life through faith in this finished work alone,
not your merits (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess.
1:8-9)? This is so man cannot boast, and God alone gets the
glory (Eph. 2:8-9).
______________________________________________
www.faithguard.org
www.twitter.com/faithguard
www.facebook.com/faithguard
______________________________________________
Thommadura
> 'If Jesus is Lord'?
>
>
Since YOU have made that proposal - yet provided NO Supporting PROOF of
the statement - we can assume that is YOUR personal fiction that YOU
cannot support.
Michael Christ
1Jn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare
unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we
lie, and do not the truth:
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have
fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth
us from all sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth
is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our
sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word
is not in us.
No matter how much you try there is nothing in these bible verses that
justifies Randy Young to remain a sinner.
You do not want Jesus to be Lord of your life.
Michael Christ
Thommadura
Snipped unproven bible belief presented without support
>
> No matter how much you try there is nothing in these bible verses that
> justifies Randy Young to remain a sinner.
SInce that is a BELIEF that YOU have not established as fact to begin
with - it is not true just because YOU say so
Since YOU have presented NOTHING to support your statements - they are
established only to be your personal ones - with no basis presented as
fact.
Andrew
> Michael Christ wrote:
> Snipped unproven bible belief presented without support
>
>
>>
>> No matter how much you try there is nothing in these bible verses that
>> justifies Randy Young to remain a sinner.
>
>
> SInce that is a BELIEF that YOU have not established as fact to begin
> with - it is not true just because YOU say so
No - that may well be a fact. It is something that is explicit or
implicit in the Bible verses, or it is not.
bob young
Andrew wrote:
> On 2009-10-29 22:23:01 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>
> > Michael Christ wrote:
> > Snipped unproven bible belief presented without support
> >
> >
> >>
> >> No matter how much you try there is nothing in these bible verses that
> >> justifies Randy Young to remain a sinner.
> >
> >
> > SInce that is a BELIEF that YOU have not established as fact to begin
> > with - it is not true just because YOU say so
>
> No - that may well be a fact. It is something that is explicit or
> implicit in the Bible verses, or it is not.
The Bible is a book written by religious men
therefore it has no bearing on the existence of any god,
or sin for that matter.
Sin was around millions of years before the first Bible ever appeared, after
this it was used to fool the peasants, among others.
Even the Lords of the day fell for it, mind you - they had the front row of
pews reserved for them and their family, with special prayers read out for
them to ensure that they all made it to heaven - for a suitable payment, of
course !
All rather silly, childish and disingenuous isn't it ?
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor)
Man creates his gods in his own image,
then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
R E L I G I O N - it is all in the mind,
an escape from life's realities and hardships,
sixty percent ritual, forty percent fantasy
bob young
Thommadura wrote:
I think that it would be perfectly correct to assume that
Jesus is, to the faithful,
what Mickey mouse was to Walt Disney . . .
. . . . . a means to an end
Grid Leak
"bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:4AEA6A38...@netvigator.com...
carpenter.
Thommadura
> On 2009-10-29 22:23:01 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>
>> Michael Christ wrote:
>> Snipped unproven bible belief presented without support
>>
>>
>>>
>>> No matter how much you try there is nothing in these bible verses
>>> that justifies Randy Young to remain a sinner.
>>
>>
>> SInce that is a BELIEF that YOU have not established as fact to begin
>> with - it is not true just because YOU say so
>
> No - that may well be a fact. It is something that is explicit or
> implicit in the Bible verses, or it is not.
Sorry - but the BIBLE itself is BELIEF - as is ALL so called scripture.
IT is NOT proven fact
And being IMPLICIT in the bible still makes it belief and NOT fact.
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>> On 2009-10-29 22:23:01 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>>
>>> Michael Christ wrote:
>>> Snipped unproven bible belief presented without support
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> No matter how much you try there is nothing in these bible verses that
>>>> justifies Randy Young to remain a sinner.
>>>
>>>
>>> SInce that is a BELIEF that YOU have not established as fact to begin
>>> with - it is not true just because YOU say so
>>
>> No - that may well be a fact. It is something that is explicit or
>> implicit in the Bible verses, or it is not.
>
>
> Sorry - but the BIBLE itself is BELIEF - as is ALL so called scripture.
> IT is NOT proven fact
You my be right or you may be wrong in that regard - I leave that to
YOUR belief (and yes, you have them.) But a statement such as "The
Bible says X" is susceptible to a factual analysis. If the Bible does,
in fact, say X, then the statement is factually true. If it does not
then it is factually false.
>
> And being IMPLICIT in the bible still makes it belief and NOT fact.
No. The statement "The Bible says X" can still be held to be factually
true even if the sense is implicit
bob young
Grid Leak wrote:
Aaaah the carpenter !
Moving on to relics, we've got shrouds from Turin; wine from the wedding at
Cana, splinters from the true Cross Ι..then of course, there's all the stuff
made by Jesus in his days in the carpentry shop. Pipe racks, coffee tables,
cake stands, bookends, crucifixes, nice cheeseboard, waterproof sandals, fruit
bowls. . . .
[dialogue,'The Archbishop', BlackAdder.]
bob young
Andrew wrote:
> On 2009-10-30 12:27:33 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> On 2009-10-29 22:23:01 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
> >>
> >>> Michael Christ wrote:
> >>> Snipped unproven bible belief presented without support
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No matter how much you try there is nothing in these bible verses that
> >>>> justifies Randy Young to remain a sinner.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> SInce that is a BELIEF that YOU have not established as fact to begin
> >>> with - it is not true just because YOU say so
> >>
> >> No - that may well be a fact. It is something that is explicit or
> >> implicit in the Bible verses, or it is not.
> >
> >
> > Sorry - but the BIBLE itself is BELIEF - as is ALL so called scripture.
> > IT is NOT proven fact
>
> You my be right or you may be wrong in that regard - I leave that to
> YOUR belief (and yes, you have them.) But a statement such as "The
> Bible says X" is susceptible to a factual analysis. If the Bible does,
> in fact, say X, then the statement is factually true. If it does not
> then it is factually false.
>
> >
> > And being IMPLICIT in the bible still makes it belief and NOT fact.
>
> No. The statement "The Bible says X" can still be held to be factually
> true even if the sense is implicit
Playing with words.
The Bible is full of controversy and contradictions
therefore the word 'true' does not enter the picture.
Exactly what one would expect
from a book of such doubtful origins.
Thommadura
> On 2009-10-30 12:27:33 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> On 2009-10-29 22:23:01 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>>>
>>>> Michael Christ wrote:
>>>> Snipped unproven bible belief presented without support
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No matter how much you try there is nothing in these bible verses
>>>>> that justifies Randy Young to remain a sinner.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> SInce that is a BELIEF that YOU have not established as fact to
>>>> begin with - it is not true just because YOU say so
>>>
>>> No - that may well be a fact. It is something that is explicit or
>>> implicit in the Bible verses, or it is not.
>>
>>
>> Sorry - but the BIBLE itself is BELIEF - as is ALL so called scripture.
>> IT is NOT proven fact
>
> You my be right or you may be wrong in that regard - I leave that to
> YOUR belief (and yes, you have them.) But a statement such as "The Bible
> says X" is susceptible to a factual analysis. If the Bible does, in
> fact, say X, then the statement is factually true. If it does not then
> it is factually false.
>
>
The bible says that one can CLIMB to a high place and see the four
corners of the earth
That is FACTUALLY false
However - since the christ cannot be established to have actually lived
- by mention in any documents dated during the time of his supposed life
- virtually all of the NT is beleif - based on that alone. (That there
was christian worship is NOT proof of life- as worshipping ANY GOD -
does not establish either)
That you BELIEVE the christ lived - makes anything about him to be belief.
And since I do not believe the christ lived - without further proof -
anything about him I consider to be in the same class as all the other
so called gods so far - ie - MYTH
WE are not that different - YOU have managed to dismiss over 28 million
gods as being false - even though I doubt you even actually considered
most of them at all. I simply use the same method - ie FACTUAL PROOF -
to dismiss one more than you.
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>> On 2009-10-30 12:27:33 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>>
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> On 2009-10-29 22:23:01 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>> Michael Christ wrote:
>>>>> Snipped unproven bible belief presented without support
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No matter how much you try there is nothing in these bible verses that
>>>>>> justifies Randy Young to remain a sinner.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> SInce that is a BELIEF that YOU have not established as fact to begin
>>>>> with - it is not true just because YOU say so
>>>>
>>>> No - that may well be a fact. It is something that is explicit or
>>>> implicit in the Bible verses, or it is not.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry - but the BIBLE itself is BELIEF - as is ALL so called scripture.
>>> IT is NOT proven fact
>>
>> You my be right or you may be wrong in that regard - I leave that to
>> YOUR belief (and yes, you have them.) But a statement such as "The
>> Bible says X" is susceptible to a factual analysis. If the Bible does,
>> in fact, say X, then the statement is factually true. If it does not
>> then it is factually false.
>>
>>
>
> The bible says that one can CLIMB to a high place and see the four
> corners of the earth
>
> That is FACTUALLY false
If you imagine the Bible is some kind of Gazeteer, I can understand
your confusion. In any case your statement here does not address mine.
>
> However - since the christ cannot be established to have actually lived
> - by mention in any documents dated during the time of his supposed
> life - virtually all of the NT is beleif - based on that alone. (That
> there was christian worship is NOT proof of life- as worshipping ANY
> GOD - does not establish either)
Well, since the gospels say that Jesus's ministry only lasted for the
last 3 years of his life, and since there were no birth certificates
etc during the period, and since Jesus came from the less well-off
strata of the population, I'd be absolutely astonished if there were
extant documents referring to him from his own lifetime. However, as we
know that he was talked about by large numbers of people and was
written about over the 20 years following his death, during a period
when there were plenty of people still alive who had lived during
Jesus's lifetime, accepting that he did in fact existence is entirely
reasonable. I would suggest that the onus is on you to give me one
iron-clad reason to question his existence
> That you BELIEVE the christ lived - makes anything about him to be belief.
That's simply a bizarre approach to the past. You are, I suspect,
confusing two rather different usages of the word "believe". I believe
that Julius Caesar existed. I believe that Attilla the Hun existed. Of
course, it could be all a hoax. To imply, though, that this involves
"belief" in the sense you imply is nonsense.
>
> And since I do not believe the christ lived -
Your irrational beliefs are your right and I respect them
> without further proof - anything about him I consider
> to be in the same class as all the other so called gods so far - ie - MYTH.
If you wish. But frankly such a position would seem to be simply a
product of your own religious beliefs.
>
> WE are not that different - You have managed to dismiss over 28 million
> being false
No. I haven't. I regard them as other attempts to describe the same
thing. I don't think my understanding of God is perfect. I just think
it's more accurate than, say, the pantheons of Egypt.
> even though I doubt you even actually considered most of them at all
> I simply use the same method - ie FACTUAL PROOF - to dismiss one more than you.
You really are self-deceiving aren't you? Read those two sentences
again. You claim to be interested in "factual proof", and yet you can
make an assertion like the one you make about my attitude to other
beliefs. Based on what? What "facts" support your assertion?
monkfish
Good to see a reasonable person here.
He is too full of hate to think for himself.
Anyhow, when you say "more accurate" in understanding God,
do you have any specific standard to rely on?
--
monkfish
Andrew
Other than "it feels right to me"? Probably not. But then, if we're
honest, that's the criterion most of use most us use most of the time
about most things.
bob young
Andrew wrote:
Another disingenuous remark
- your club generally refer the bible as the words of some god
and use the book in such a way.
If your book were the words of a god
nothing in it would be of a contradictory nature.
[Please note - I have a VERY long catalogue of biblical contradictions that those
early sheep herders and amateur desert scribes messed themselves up with. You seem
to be carrying on the reputation Andrew!]
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Man creates his gods in his own image,
then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
R E L I G I O N - it is all in the mind,
an escape from life's realities and hardships,
sixty percent ritual, forty percent fantasy
>
>
> >
bob young
Andrew wrote:
Does that include the designers of the Boeing 747
and similar technical marvels ?
Oooops Forgot brothers, we must steer well away from science and technology,
it has a nasty habit of tripping us up
- "HEY it's time to move the goals posts again"
Thommadura
As I note - when an supposed INERRANT bible is found to be false - it
therefore is not inerrant
As you note - then the individual statements stand on their PROOF for
their validity. Since we do not have PROOF that the christ actually
lived - that establishes the entire NT as belief.
Since we have no proof that gods exist - that establishes ALL god based
religions as belief - NOTHING MORE
>
>>
>> However - since the christ cannot be established to have actually
>> lived - by mention in any documents dated during the time of his
>> supposed life - virtually all of the NT is beleif - based on that
>> alone. (That there was christian worship is NOT proof of life- as
>> worshipping ANY GOD - does not establish either)
>
> Well, since the gospels say that Jesus's ministry only lasted for the
> last 3 years of his life, and since there were no birth certificates etc
> during the period, and since Jesus came from the less well-off strata of
> the population, I'd be absolutely astonished if there were extant
> documents referring to him from his own lifetime.
Interesting that Tutankhamen is proven to exist - and he lived far less
that the claims of the supposed christ. WE even have his tomb - and his
mummy - and those of his Father and grandfather - and a long line before
that too.
WE have no mummy for the christ (THe ascension is a belief - and simply
an excuse for not having a body that the christ apparently did not need
BEFORE the story started either. WHy rise with a body - when he is
supposed to be a spirit - according to the bible). WE have no tomb for
joseph - no tomb for mary - no existence of Bethlehem during that
supposed time - and no tombs for joseph's other kids as well.
Apparently some gods are capable - given even shorter lifetimes - of
providing the documentation of their lives - and some gods simply do not
have that power!
However, as we know
> that he was talked about by large numbers of people and was written
> about over the 20 years following his death,
Sorry - we have no such documents to prove that one either (Of course -
as a myth - his "death" is a belief as well.
That people wrote about a belief afterwards does not establish existence.
during a period when there
> were plenty of people still alive who had lived during Jesus's lifetime,
> accepting that he did in fact existence is entirely reasonable. I would
> suggest that the onus is on you to give me one iron-clad reason to
> question his existence
>
>
>> That you BELIEVE the christ lived - makes anything about him to be
>> belief.
>
> That's simply a bizarre approach to the past. You are, I suspect,
> confusing two rather different usages of the word "believe". I believe
> that Julius Caesar existed. I believe that Attilla the Hun existed. Of
> course, it could be all a hoax. To imply, though, that this involves
> "belief" in the sense you imply is nonsense.
Since we have actual proof from their times - that they existed - I
accept they lived - they are NOT belief
However - the christ is claimed to be a supernatural god - something
for which NO proof ever existed - and is still beleif - period
>>
>> And since I do not believe the christ lived -
>
> Your irrational beliefs are your right and I respect them
My rational statements - based on the complete lack of proof - are also
my right - in this case - about supernatural gods - that apparently are
claimed to do all sorts of things - but cannot be proven to exist.
>
>> without further proof - anything about him I consider
>> to be in the same class as all the other so called gods so far - ie -
>> MYTH.
>
> If you wish. But frankly such a position would seem to be simply a
> product of your own religious beliefs.
>
No - as an agnostic - I have no "religious" belief. As a huxley agnostic
- I accept what is PROVEN to be TRUE (WHich is NOT belief but fact) -
about gods and religions
And to date - there are millions of different beliefs - all tied
together with one piece of glue -= their complete lack of PROVEN truth
about them.
Andrew
Inerrant? Even Augustine back in the 4th Century held that the Bible
was not simply a book of facts to be evaluated simply in terms of their
accuracy.
>
> As you note - then the individual statements stand on their PROOF for
> their validity.
I noted no such thing. I merely stated that a statement of the form
"The Bible says X" is establishable as a fact simply to see whether the
Bible does or does not say X.
> Since we do not have PROOF that the christ actually lived - that
> establishes the entire NT as belief.
>
> Since we have no proof that gods exist - that establishes ALL god based
> religions as belief - NOTHING MORE
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> However - since the christ cannot be established to have actually lived
>>> - by mention in any documents dated during the time of his supposed
>>> life - virtually all of the NT is beleif - based on that alone. (That
>>> there was christian worship is NOT proof of life- as worshipping ANY
>>> GOD - does not establish either)
>>
>> Well, since the gospels say that Jesus's ministry only lasted for the
>> last 3 years of his life, and since there were no birth certificates
>> etc during the period, and since Jesus came from the less well-off
>> strata of the population, I'd be absolutely astonished if there were
>> extant documents referring to him from his own lifetime.
>
>
>
> Interesting that Tutankhamen is proven to exist -
> and he lived far less that the claims of the supposed christ. WE even
> have his tomb - and his mummy - and those of his Father and grandfather
> - and a long line before that too.
And you can PROVE that these are the tombs and mummies we believe them to be?
>
> WE have no mummy for the christ (THe ascension is a belief - and simply
> an excuse for not having a body that the christ apparently did not need
> BEFORE the story started either. WHy rise with a body - when he is
> supposed to be a spirit - according to the bible).
Oh dear me. Dearie dearie me. You really know nothing at all about the
faith-system you're critiquing do you? No. Thom. Christ was not "a
spirit" - not according to the Bible, nor mainstream Christian
teaching. Jesus was a man - a human being. That's the whole point of
the incarnation. If you don't understand that, you really don't
understand Christianity at all.
> WE have no tomb for joseph - no tomb for mary - no existence of
> Bethlehem during that supposed time - and no tombs for joseph's other
> kids as well.
So, you reckon they didn't exist either then?
>
> Apparently some gods are capable - given even shorter lifetimes - of
> providing the documentation of their lives - and some gods simply do
> not have that power!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> However, as we know
>> that he was talked about by large numbers of people and was written
>> about over the 20 years following his death,
>
>
> Sorry - we have no such documents to prove that one either (Of course -
> as a myth - his "death" is a belief as well.
I'm sorry. Yes we do. Paul's earliest letters were written less than 20
years after the Crucifixion. They were written to people who were
already Christians. There were Christian churches all over the Roman
Empire within 30 years.
>
> That people wrote about a belief afterwards does not establish existence.
>
>
>
>
> during a period when there
>> were plenty of people still alive who had lived during Jesus's
>> lifetime, accepting that he did in fact existence is entirely
>> reasonable. I would suggest that the onus is on you to give me one
>> iron-clad reason to question his existence
>>
>>
>>> That you BELIEVE the christ lived - makes anything about him to be belief.
>>
>> That's simply a bizarre approach to the past. You are, I suspect,
>> confusing two rather different usages of the word "believe". I believe
>> that Julius Caesar existed. I believe that Attilla the Hun existed. Of
>> course, it could be all a hoax. To imply, though, that this involves
>> "belief" in the sense you imply is nonsense.
>
>
> Since we have actual proof from their times - that they existed - I
> accept they lived - they are NOT belief
Do we have such proof? Do you have Attilla's birth certificate?
>
> However - the christ is claimed to be a supernatural god - something
> for which NO proof ever existed - and is still beleif - period
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> And since I do not believe the christ lived -
>>
>> Your irrational beliefs are your right and I respect them
>
>
> My rational statements - based on the complete lack of proof - are also
> my right - in this case - about supernatural gods - that apparently are
> claimed to do all sorts of things - but cannot be proven to exist.
I look forward to hearing some rational statements from you.
>
>
>>
>>> without further proof - anything about him I consider
>>> to be in the same class as all the other so called gods so far - ie - MYTH.
>>
>> If you wish. But frankly such a position would seem to be simply a
>> product of your own religious beliefs.
>>
>
>
> No - as an agnostic - I have no "religious" belief. As a huxley
> agnostic - I accept what is PROVEN to be TRUE (WHich is NOT belief but
> fact) - about gods and religions
>
> And to date - there are millions of different beliefs - all tied
> together with one piece of glue -= their complete lack of PROVEN truth
> about them.
Thom. In all gentleness and honesty I suggest you stop kidding
yourself. You are not an agnostic - not of the Huxley school or of any
other. You are an atheist. It may not suit your self-image to accept
that, but the way you filter facts to fit your religious preconceptions
clearly marks you out as someone who has made up his mind about the
existence of God.
Thommadura
Convince DUKE of that one - or Gabriel who beleives that the great flood
actually happened - or Gladys - who claims the bible to be PERFECT.
All you are doing is establishing what my father AND I have said all
along - that it is humans that create religions and gods - and decide
what to believe - noting that AUGUSTINE was a human.
>
>>
>> As you note - then the individual statements stand on their PROOF for
>> their validity.
>
> I noted no such thing. I merely stated that a statement of the form "The
> Bible says X" is establishable as a fact simply to see whether the Bible
> does or does not say X.
That is says something does not mean it is true -
ANd since there are things in the bible that we KNOW are not true - then
the individual statements are then subject to PROOF - of which there is none
>
>> Since we do not have PROOF that the christ actually lived - that
>> establishes the entire NT as belief.
>>
>> Since we have no proof that gods exist - that establishes ALL god
>> based religions as belief - NOTHING MORE
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> However - since the christ cannot be established to have actually
>>>> lived - by mention in any documents dated during the time of his
>>>> supposed life - virtually all of the NT is beleif - based on that
>>>> alone. (That there was christian worship is NOT proof of life- as
>>>> worshipping ANY GOD - does not establish either)
>>>
>>> Well, since the gospels say that Jesus's ministry only lasted for
>>> the last 3 years of his life, and since there were no birth
>>> certificates etc during the period, and since Jesus came from the
>>> less well-off strata of the population, I'd be absolutely astonished
>>> if there were extant documents referring to him from his own lifetime.
>>
>>
>>
>> Interesting that Tutankhamen is proven to exist -
>> and he lived far less that the claims of the supposed christ. WE even
>> have his tomb - and his mummy - and those of his Father and
>> grandfather - and a long line before that too.
>
> And you can PROVE that these are the tombs and mummies we believe them
> to be?
Actually - yes - a lot better than we can with YOUR gods!
>
>>
>> WE have no mummy for the christ (THe ascension is a belief - and
>> simply an excuse for not having a body that the christ apparently did
>> not need BEFORE the story started either. WHy rise with a body - when
>> he is supposed to be a spirit - according to the bible).
>
> Oh dear me. Dearie dearie me. You really know nothing at all about the
> faith-system you're critiquing do you? No. Thom. Christ was not "a
> spirit" - not according to the Bible, nor mainstream Christian teaching.
> Jesus was a man - a human being. That's the whole point of the
> incarnation. If you don't understand that, you really don't understand
> Christianity at all.
I understand quite well -dearie you. The christ is a MYTH -who never
actually existed - and is a creation of humans.
The whole story of the incarnation is a convoluted MESS that contradicts
itself all over the place.
If the christ was a god - then the whole story is meaningless since he
could not have actually died. IF the christ was totally human - then he
never rose a rotting corpse from the grave - since humans do not have
that power. I could go on - but then - we don;t have all day to laugh.
>
>> WE have no tomb for joseph - no tomb for mary - no existence of
>> Bethlehem during that supposed time - and no tombs for joseph's other
>> kids as well.
>
> So, you reckon they didn't exist either then?
THere is no proof they did
ANd we have no statements outside of your faith based documents that say
so. YOU reject the existence of the Greek Pantheon and the Roman
Pantheon of gods -- WHY?
>
>>
>> Apparently some gods are capable - given even shorter lifetimes - of
>> providing the documentation of their lives - and some gods simply do
>> not have that power!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> However, as we know
>>> that he was talked about by large numbers of people and was written
>>> about over the 20 years following his death,
>>
>>
>> Sorry - we have no such documents to prove that one either (Of course
>> - as a myth - his "death" is a belief as well.
>
> I'm sorry. Yes we do. Paul's earliest letters were written less than 20
> years after the Crucifixion.
Paul NEVER saw the christ - so he is NOT an eye witness - nor did LUKE.
That makes them NO MORE reliable a witness than YOU are - unless he
identifies his sources - which of course he never does.
That he obviously started a new religion is obvious - that there were
many who did no agree with him is just as obvious. That anything of it
is TRUE is simply nonsense.
They were written to people who were
> already Christians. There were Christian churches all over the Roman
> Empire within 30 years.
Within 30 years of WHAT - nothing that YOU can prove!!!!
WE do not argue that there were deluded people who believed something -
although at that time there is NO reason to believe that they accept
WHAT YOU now say either.
That still does not make it true.
>
>>
>> That people wrote about a belief afterwards does not establish existence.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> during a period when there
>>> were plenty of people still alive who had lived during Jesus's
>>> lifetime, accepting that he did in fact existence is entirely
>>> reasonable. I would suggest that the onus is on you to give me one
>>> iron-clad reason to question his existence
>>>
>>>
>>>> That you BELIEVE the christ lived - makes anything about him to be
>>>> belief.
>>>
>>> That's simply a bizarre approach to the past. You are, I suspect,
>>> confusing two rather different usages of the word "believe". I
>>> believe that Julius Caesar existed. I believe that Attilla the Hun
>>> existed. Of course, it could be all a hoax. To imply, though, that
>>> this involves "belief" in the sense you imply is nonsense.
>>
>>
>> Since we have actual proof from their times - that they existed - I
>> accept they lived - they are NOT belief
>
> Do we have such proof? Do you have Attilla's birth certificate?
Since I do not erect temples to Atilla - or pray to Atilla - or claim
Atilla created the world - or claim that he will judge anyone - or claim
that he was ALMIGHTY - ALL knowing - ALL seeing - ALL just - ALl good -
(ET al) - I do not see the analogy.
If Atilla was ALMIGHTY - we would still be controlled by the HUNS - and
he would still be here leading them.
>
>>
>> However - the christ is claimed to be a supernatural god - something
>> for which NO proof ever existed - and is still beleif - period
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> And since I do not believe the christ lived -
>>>
>>> Your irrational beliefs are your right and I respect them
>>
>>
>> My rational statements - based on the complete lack of proof - are
>> also my right - in this case - about supernatural gods - that
>> apparently are claimed to do all sorts of things - but cannot be
>> proven to exist.
>
> I look forward to hearing some rational statements from you.
AS I have posted - no god is proven to exist - that is TRUE.
NO god has PROVEN its own existence to ALL by appearing - establishing
what it did or can do - and establishing its own definition - that is
ALSO true
And no god has appeared and told all that what YOU say it true as well
- that is also a true statement. And that is the most telling - since no
supernatural god (Not a human based one like your christ) - has ever
verified a single thing about religion - none.
I have no such delusion of hearing any such thing about your religions
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> without further proof - anything about him I consider
>>>> to be in the same class as all the other so called gods so far - ie
>>>> - MYTH.
>>>
>>> If you wish. But frankly such a position would seem to be simply a
>>> product of your own religious beliefs.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No - as an agnostic - I have no "religious" belief. As a huxley
>> agnostic - I accept what is PROVEN to be TRUE (WHich is NOT belief but
>> fact) - about gods and religions
>>
>> And to date - there are millions of different beliefs - all tied
>> together with one piece of glue -= their complete lack of PROVEN truth
>> about them.
>
> Thom. In all gentleness and honesty I suggest you stop kidding yourself.
> You are not an agnostic - not of the Huxley school or of any other. You
> are an atheist.
Sorry - but an atheists says that there are no gods
I and my father have consistently said that no gods are proven to exist
- and no one knows anything about them that they can prove as well -
that IS the agnostic position.
Since YOU cannot attack our real position - which is the ONLY one based
on actual proven TRUTH - you want to re-categorize us - but that is
simply being dishonest.
WHEN a god appears and proves its existence in a testable and verifiable
way - we both will accept that as true. That it is TRUE to date that
NONE has done that - YOU have to accept as true.
monkfish
> honest, that's the criterion most of us use most of the time
> about most things.
Probably so.
I post to alt.christnet.theology.
What is your main newsgroup?
--
monkfish
Thommadura
>
> Thom. In all gentleness and honesty
It most certainly is NOT honesty - as I will show below
I suggest you stop kidding yourself.
> You are not an agnostic - not of the Huxley school or of any other. You
> are an atheist. It may not suit your self-image to accept that, but the
> way you filter facts to fit your religious preconceptions clearly marks
> you out as someone who has made up his mind about the existence of God.
No - I and my father have repeatedly asked for proof.
WHen he Asked YOU for proof - you provided a LONG WINDED tirade
supporting the likelyhood that intelligence was required for creation.
ANd - based on the unintelligent story of creation of the bible - that
is basically being dishonest. YOU provided NO connection to YOUR
particular god - or the story of your religion. There was no basis for
heaven - hell - purgatory - sin - souls - eternal life - angels -
devils- and the rest of the story of your religion. No reason for the
christ to come. MAYBE - you might have supported that Brahma created the
universe for Vishnu - since at least the HINDUs claim that happened more
than 4 1/2 billion years ago. We know it was NOT about 6000 years ago as
your bible timeline suggests.
An intelligent person would read the judeo-christion story of creation -
and immediately reject it as false - as well as having a complete lack
of intelligence.
WE KNOW that morning and evening on our earth is created by the rotation
of the earth on its axis as it orbits the sun. Therefore - morning and
evening - (Noting it is our language - and that means something other
than darkness and light) could not have happened before the sun was
created. WE also know that plants require sunlight - so their creation
prior to the sun is also suspect. Of course - we ALSO know that life
appeared over Billions of years on earth - not ALL at once (or within a
week) - and continues to evolve.
We know that the earth is NOT unmovable in the sky - it is NOT built on
pillars - and the sun and the rest of the UNIVERSE does not move over it
during the day - and then hurries back to the starting place at night.
ALl of that is IN the bible - and it is COMICAL - but hardly intelligent.
Even if there was an intelligent creator - the word "creator" and the
word "god" are two different things - and YOU have yet to establish the
rest of the powers of a god - all knowing - all seeing - all just - all
good. That my father is a professional musician does not imply that he
can design a car - or even play every instrument.
For example - you claim there was ONLY ONE CREATOR who is ALL
good.(Other religion claim more )== yet if there was only one creator -
an intelligent person would immediately understand that it had to create
everything - good and evil. THere is no statement in any scripture that
claims your god GAVE the power of creation to any other being.
So - while you zig and zag around the proof - WE do not want evidence of
intelligent design - we want proof of the god and story of your religion
- and that is where all religion reach a dead end - because NONE can
prove that one.
I am not saying that there is NO god - I am saying that all the ones so
far dreamed up by humans are not real. I am saying that basically - all
religions are frauds - because they make INCREDIBLE supernatural claims
- but provide NO truth they can prove.
monkfish
> Andrew wrote:>> about them.
>>
>> Thom. In all gentleness and honesty
>
> It most certainly is NOT honesty - as I will show below
>
> I suggest you stop kidding yourself.
>> You are not an agnostic - not of the Huxley school or of any other. You
>> are an atheist. It may not suit your self-image to accept that, but the
>> way you filter facts to fit your religious preconceptions clearly marks
>> you out as someone who has made up his mind about the existence of God.
>
>
> No - I and my father have repeatedly asked for proof.
God is everywhere.
If you cannot see that,
it's your problem.
--
monkfish
duke
T, the fool with a head of bricks.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Thommadura
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:20:29 -0500, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> T, the fool with a head of bricks.
>
Only a fool would waste his life following delusions that have no basis
in provable facts - you may as well keep looking for that pot-o-gold at
the end of the rainbow (Hint - that is a MYTH too)
Michael Christ
> T, the fool with a head of bricks.
Duke, its a waste of time talking to Thommadura, he could be naked and
swimming in the middle of the Pacific ocean and still deny he was wet.
He's made his decision to fight God to the bitter end, and he has taken his
son with him.
Michael Christ
Thommadura
> Duke wrote:
>> T, the fool with a head of bricks.
>
> Duke, its a waste of time talking to Thommadura, he could be naked and
> swimming in the middle of the Pacific ocean and still deny he was wet.
No - He would not do that one
That pacific ocean does actually exist - and is of water and is wet
WE can PROVE that one to everyone - and it is not a matter of belief.
Provide a list of all the things YOU can PROVE to EVERYONE about your
gods = and the proof that would convince the HIGHEST IMAN of Islam - of
your beliefs - that his are WRONG.
YOU still have yet to add a single thing to that list.
When you consider that your god has never appeared - proven his own
existence - his powers - and his actions - as claimed by you - and
verified YOUR story - you have to come to the conclusion that either a
god does not exist - or your story is wrong - either way - you are fried.
>
> He's made his decision to fight God to the bitter end, and he has taken
> his son with him.
THere is no god proven to exist - for me to fight - and AS his son - I
left religion LONG before MY father did.
Thommadura
The pope said this - in an encyclical - which is supposed to be inerrant
on the issue of faith - and the direct words of the christian god
Pope Pius IX in an encyclical in 1854 said this:
"It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the
apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only
ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the
flood."
So - if YOU are not a catholic - and HE is correct - which one might
assume since he leads the MAJORITY of christians - then you are just as
much a heretic and doomed as you think we are.
I really do not care if you are NOT a catholic and do not believe their
statements - since that is the point.
There are over39,000 different christian sects so far - and christians
themselves have determined that ALL of them are false.
IF you are a catholic - the others are all wrong then
IF you are not a catholic - then I assume you would say that they are wrong.
So - tell me - which of the 39,000 different sects of christianity is
the REAL one. Remember - your so called salvation is resting on a CRAP
SHOOT of picking one.
There is STILL no reason to believe that christianity is the right
choice either - there are still Hundreds of thousands of other religions
who all make the same claims YOU do about yours.
So - As an intelligent person - I would want PROOF of the statements -
if eternal life is at risk. I have no reason to believe your personal
opinions - which indicate that YOU are deciding what YOU want to
believe - what you do not believe - and are therefore creating YOUR OWN
religion - without any basis in actual fact.
IF you are not willing to put your so called eternal life into MY hands
- you are simply pointing out why I am not willing to do that with any
other human (Or YOU) as well. That is why I am an agnsotic - and NOT an
atheist.
I have little interest in what YOU say - let your god appear to EVERYONE
and settle the issue IN PERSON. Let it be PROVEN
And I note YOU will do nothing other than attack me and my father and
change the subject - because YOU do not have a proven answer either.
duke
The simple answer is the one that follows ALL the teachings of Jesus and does
not play cafeteria Christian choosing this one to follow and that one to reject.
>There is STILL no reason to believe that christianity is the right
>choice either - there are still Hundreds of thousands of other religions
>who all make the same claims YOU do about yours.
No other one has a risen Lord.
>So - As an intelligent person - I would want PROOF of the statements -
>if eternal life is at risk.
It's well revealed in the word of God. You have the same obvious answers that
the rest of us do. God gave you and I EVERYTHING we need to make our decision.
You may demand all you want, but all you're going to get is the same thing that
all the rest of us have. So choose well. It's your eternal future/damnation
at risk and laying totally in your hands.
> I have no reason to believe your personal
>opinions - which indicate that YOU are deciding what YOU want to
>believe - what you do not believe - and are therefore creating YOUR OWN
>religion - without any basis in actual fact.
>IF you are not willing to put your so called eternal life into MY hands
>- you are simply pointing out why I am not willing to do that with any
>other human (Or YOU) as well. That is why I am an agnsotic - and NOT an
>atheist.
>I have little interest in what YOU say - let your god appear to EVERYONE
>and settle the issue IN PERSON. Let it be PROVEN
>And I note YOU will do nothing other than attack me and my father and
>change the subject - because YOU do not have a proven answer either.
The Dukester, American-American
duke
Only a fool would demand something from God different than all the rest of us
have.
You already have what you're looking for. Study it fully. Choose wisely.
duke
wrote:
Yeah, spiritual suicide for himself, and murder of his son to boot.
Merlin
> No other one has a risen Lord.
the concept of placing someone in a tomb for three days as an
initiation ceremony
as the process transforms or kills the person is ancient.
it is part of the rituals of the book of the death.
as jesus grew up in egypt it is not surprising that jesus would
practice this ceremony as part of
the myth of the rising christ from the three days of entombment.
don't try this at home, it takes lots of practice with extensive
training in going without.
it may also be part of the inspiration for the myth of the vampires.
the only ceremony merlin does not like, is the eating and drinking of
jesus' symbolic flesh and blood.
and the concept of human sacrefice to appease god. both these appear
to be roman in nature and from
the original hebrew culture.
> >So - As an intelligent person - I would want PROOF of the statements -
> >if eternal life is at risk.
>
> It's well revealed in the word of God.
to you or someone else?
this can be important.
for god is not alive unless god is alive for each of us.
we often look for confirmation of our experiences with god in each
other.
yet each of us will have our own experiences.
we don't need to accept anyone else's claims to know god.
> You have the same obvious answers that
> the rest of us do.
we each can find out for ourselves, and yes god is the same tho
different for each of us.
to the romans jesus wore a toga, to the american indians jesus appears
in head dress.
to our african brothers, jesus may appear african.
to our european brothers and sisters, jesus is always drawn as a
european mail
with long blondish brown hair and beautiful european features.
> God gave you and I EVERYTHING
yup, god is everything.
> we need to make our decision.
what are your choices infront of you?
> You may demand all you want,
bossy religionists?
> but all you're going to get is the same thing that
> all the rest of us have. So choose well.
choose what? to know god or follow someone else that claims to know
god?
> It's your eternal future/damnation
> at risk and laying totally in your hands.
there is no damnation, we punish ourselves.
we put ourselves into the strangest pickles while here on earth.
my grand mere often said, heaven will be what we believe it is when we
were alive.
that makes the most sense, does it not? we get what we believe?
> > I have no reason to believe your personal
> >opinions -
yah don't have to, what are you beliefs from what you have
experienced?
> > which indicate that YOU are deciding what YOU want to
> >believe - what you do not believe - and are therefore creating YOUR OWN
> >religion - without any basis in actual fact.
there are no facts. there is only god.
and we don't have to use our senses to find god.
we use our senses to tell each other about our god.
> >IF you are not willing to put your so called eternal life into MY hands
why not take charge of our own lives, and learn to have a relationship
with god
as described by those that have come before us.
jesus is a good example of what it takes to find god and work with god
and living in god while in human form.
no not jesus death, jesus life is the example we might look at.
and love is at the core.
> >- you are simply pointing out why I am not willing to do that with any
> >other human (Or YOU) as well. That is why I am an agnsotic - and NOT an
> >atheist.
that doesn't disprove god. that helps some deal with the lives they
have now.
for many atheists and agnostics merlin has met have high ideals and
personal principles.
a sense of fairness and willingness to love.
all these are good traits. all these can work for people.
it isn't necessarily about joining any religion that matters.
worship is amazing, tho not always necessary.
love is important, and necessary for merlin and those merlin knows.
no matter the content of that love.
> >I have little interest in what YOU say -
always be curious, always be willing to share.
repeat things over and over again, in hopes we get it right.
god is a big topic, trillions of years older than earth.
trillions of years older when there is no longer a earth.
merlin knows we will be there too. as we were before.
as the phrase goes, let us make them in our image.
that is us making the human form...........
wouldn't you love to still have feet like hands tho?
like the recent 4.4 million year old woman they just found in africa?
ARDI! google and find a picture.
> let your god appear to EVERYONE
each at a time.......
we don't need to have a mass histerical experience.
we can find god each and our own.
and then share when we feel protected enough to share.
sometimes others make it so threatening to talk about god.
sometimes others make us feel less than human for talking about god.
that kinda environment does not help any conversation
> >and settle the issue IN PERSON.
too threatening.
> > Let it be PROVEN
nothing will prove anything to anyone else.
read wind in the willows, when the otter goes upstream to find god
and actually does find god, the otter forgets almost all of the
experience
on the way back, wow, how human can that be?
> >And I note YOU will do nothing other than attack me
flaming is a sport on here.
> and my father and
> >change the subject
don't put yourself up there, you can say you know the father.
you might not want to say that insulting you is insulting your father
mother god.
> - because YOU do not have a proven answer either.
no one can, we can give our dreams, our comings and goings.
we can prove anything to anyone else.
why it would be like taking a horse to water and making them drink.
in love with the living loving gay jesus,
merlin
try love, love so much it hurts and see what happens.
that is what jesus did, jesus loved so much it hurt and found the
father,
jesus found the father so profoundly that those around jesus believed
jesus.
love will do that.
alt.bible, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.christnet.christianlife,
alt.christnet.theology, alt.christnet
alt.religion.christianity, alt.christnet.bible, alt.christnet
Thommadura
Ah - but according to the person who leads the majority of christians -
that is NOT true
How many christians do you LEAD ?
>> There is STILL no reason to believe that christianity is the right
>> choice either - there are still Hundreds of thousands of other religions
>> who all make the same claims YOU do about yours.
>
> No other one has a risen Lord.
>
Really?
Again- a statement presented without PROOF
WE have other examples of gods returning from the dead on other religions
And we have NO reason YOU have presented that such a thing is even required.
> It's well revealed in the word of God. You have the same obvious answers that
> the rest of us do. God gave you and I EVERYTHING we need to make our decision.
> You may demand all you want, but all you're going to get is the same thing that
> all the rest of us have. So choose well. It's your eternal future/damnation
> at risk and laying totally in your hands.
What is the WORD of god?
WE have NO such thing for christianity - none of the bible is
represented to have been written by a god - none at all.
If the Bible was the word of a god - then it would have NO errors since
a god is perfect and cannot make a mistake. Since the bible has provable
errors - it cannot be from a god.
FOr instance - which of the four gospels is correct - ?
Sounds like a trick question but it is not
Just answer the following
WHat were the last words of the christ before his supposed death on the
cross/
Each of the four gospels has a different answer - but there can only be
ONE correct one.
So - three of the four gospels have to be wrong - which one is correct?
Thommadura
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:22:42 -0500, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:20:29 -0500, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> T, the fool with a head of bricks.
>
>> Describing YOURSELF I see - Duke
>
>> Only a fool would waste his life following delusions that have no basis
>> in provable facts - you may as well keep looking for that pot-o-gold at
>> the end of the rainbow (Hint - that is a MYTH too)
>
> Only a fool would demand something from God different than all the rest of us
> have.
Sorry - that YOU are willing to accept something without any proof is
worthless - since the majority of the people one earth - ie - the rest
of us - do not accept your belief.
Andrew
I'm not sure Duke actually thinks that - his views are a little more
sophisticated than that
>
> All you are doing is establishing what my father AND I have said all
> along - that it is humans that create religions and gods - and decide
> what to believe - noting that AUGUSTINE was a human.
Ah - so you inherited your religious beliefs from your father.
Interesting. I didn't. And 2 of your 3 statements are self-evidently
true. Religions are human attempts to describe the divine and are
therefore created by human. That people decide what to believe? Well,
clearly. That either or both of these implies that God is a creation of
human beings is a logical non-sequitur.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> As you note - then the individual statements stand on their PROOF for
>>> their validity.
>>
>> I noted no such thing. I merely stated that a statement of the form
>> "The Bible says X" is establishable as a fact simply to see whether the
>> Bible does or does not say X.
>
>
>
> That is says something does not mean it is true -
> ANd since there are things in the bible that we KNOW are not true -
> then the individual statements are then subject to PROOF - of which
> there is none
Yopu've obviously missed the point.
>
>
>
>>
>>> Since we do not have PROOF that the christ actually lived - that
>>> establishes the entire NT as belief.
>>>
>>> Since we have no proof that gods exist - that establishes ALL god based
>>> religions as belief - NOTHING MORE
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> However - since the christ cannot be established to have actually lived
>>>>> - by mention in any documents dated during the time of his supposed
>>>>> life - virtually all of the NT is beleif - based on that alone. (That
>>>>> there was christian worship is NOT proof of life- as worshipping ANY
>>>>> GOD - does not establish either)
>>>>
>>>> Well, since the gospels say that Jesus's ministry only lasted for the
>>>> last 3 years of his life, and since there were no birth certificates
>>>> etc during the period, and since Jesus came from the less well-off
>>>> strata of the population, I'd be absolutely astonished if there were
>>>> extant documents referring to him from his own lifetime.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting that Tutankhamen is proven to exist -
>>> and he lived far less that the claims of the supposed christ. WE even
>>> have his tomb - and his mummy - and those of his Father and grandfather
>>> - and a long line before that too.
>>
>> And you can PROVE that these are the tombs and mummies we believe them to be?
>
>
> Actually - yes - a lot better than we can with YOUR gods!
Lay on MacDuff! And your use of the word "better" implies you really
don't understand what "prove" means. A thing is either "proved" or it
is not. There are no gradations (except in regard of the criteria of
proof - what are yours, by the way?)
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> WE have no mummy for the christ (THe ascension is a belief - and simply
>>> an excuse for not having a body that the christ apparently did not need
>>> BEFORE the story started either. WHy rise with a body - when he is
>>> supposed to be a spirit - according to the bible).
>>
>> Oh dear me. Dearie dearie me. You really know nothing at all about the
>> faith-system you're critiquing do you? No. Thom. Christ was not "a
>> spirit" - not according to the Bible, nor mainstream Christian
>> teaching. Jesus was a man - a human being. That's the whole point of
>> the incarnation. If you don't understand that, you really don't
>> understand Christianity at all.
>
> I understand quite well -dearie you. The christ is a MYTH -who never
> actually existed - and is a creation of humans.
So he "never actually existed"? I look forward to your proof of that
assertion. Come on - "proof" seems to be such an essential part of your
approach to these things - stand by your standards.
>
> The whole story of the incarnation is a convoluted MESS that
> contradicts itself all over the place.
Go ahead.
>
> If the christ was a god - then the whole story is meaningless since he
> could not have actually died. IF the christ was totally human - then he
> never rose a rotting corpse from the grave - since humans do not have
> that power. I could go on - but then - we don;t have all day to laugh.
Your inability to engage with what people REALLY believe, rather than
the parody you've absorbed is interesting. The problem with your
argument here, though, is that it runs "If Christ was a gaod (and not
human) he could not have died. If he were totally human (and not
divine) he could not have risen. You have now to demonstrate that the
words in parantheses are necessarily true for your argument to be be
logically robust. So far you haven't done that
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> WE have no tomb for joseph - no tomb for mary - no existence of
>>> Bethlehem during that supposed time - and no tombs for joseph's other
>>> kids as well.
>>
>> So, you reckon they didn't exist either then?
>
>
> THere is no proof they did
So, by your standard of only accepting what is proven then we should
not accept that they did. No?
>
> ANd we have no statements outside of your faith based documents that
> say so. YOU reject the existence of the Greek Pantheon and the Roman
> Pantheon of gods -- WHY?
I haven't said that I do. I merely say that they are less accurate ways
of describing the divine.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Apparently some gods are capable - given even shorter lifetimes - of
>>> providing the documentation of their lives - and some gods simply do
>>> not have that power!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> However, as we know
>>>> that he was talked about by large numbers of people and was written
>>>> about over the 20 years following his death,
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry - we have no such documents to prove that one either (Of course -
>>> as a myth - his "death" is a belief as well.
>>
>> I'm sorry. Yes we do. Paul's earliest letters were written less than 20
>> years after the Crucifixion.
>
>
> Paul NEVER saw the christ
You know that do you? On what evidence? And your failure to engage with
the point is noticed - or do you accept that Jesus WAS talked about
and written about in the 20 years following his death?
> - so he is NOT an eye witness - nor did LUKE.
Again, how do you know that? WHat's your evidence. Show us your "proof"
> That makes them NO MORE reliable a witness than YOU are - unless he
> identifies his sources - which of course he never does.
Witness to what? All I said was that Jesus was talked about widely in
the 2 decades after his death. And why mention Luke? Marks's is the
oldest gospel (probably)
>
> That he obviously started a new religion is obvious - that there were
> many who did no agree with him is just as obvious. That anything of it
> is TRUE is simply nonsense.
WHO started this new religion?
>
> They were written to people who were
>> already Christians. There were Christian churches all over the Roman
>> Empire within 30 years.
>
> Within 30 years of WHAT - nothing that YOU can prove!!!!
>
>
>
> WE do not argue that there were deluded people who believed something -
> although at that time there is NO reason to believe that they accept
> WHAT YOU now say either.
>
> That still does not make it true.
No, it doesn't. But it makes your position untenable.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> That people wrote about a belief afterwards does not establish existence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> during a period when there
>>>> were plenty of people still alive who had lived during Jesus's
>>>> lifetime, accepting that he did in fact existence is entirely
>>>> reasonable. I would suggest that the onus is on you to give me one
>>>> iron-clad reason to question his existence
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That you BELIEVE the christ lived - makes anything about him to be belief.
>>>>
>>>> That's simply a bizarre approach to the past. You are, I suspect,
>>>> confusing two rather different usages of the word "believe". I believe
>>>> that Julius Caesar existed. I believe that Attilla the Hun existed. Of
>>>> course, it could be all a hoax. To imply, though, that this involves
>>>> "belief" in the sense you imply is nonsense.
>>>
>>>
>>> Since we have actual proof from their times - that they existed - I
>>> accept they lived - they are NOT belief
>>
>> Do we have such proof? Do you have Attilla's birth certificate?
>
>
> Since I do not erect temples to Atilla - or pray to Atilla - or claim
> Atilla created the world - or claim that he will judge anyone - or
> claim that he was ALMIGHTY - ALL knowing - ALL seeing - ALL just - ALl
> good - (ET al) - I do not see the analogy.
>
> If Atilla was ALMIGHTY - we would still be controlled by the HUNS - and
> he would still be here leading them.
You're evading the issue. Do you believe Attilla existed? If so, why?
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> However - the christ is claimed to be a supernatural god - something
>>> for which NO proof ever existed - and is still beleif - period
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And since I do not believe the christ lived -
>>>>
>>>> Your irrational beliefs are your right and I respect them
>>>
>>>
>>> My rational statements - based on the complete lack of proof - are also
>>> my right - in this case - about supernatural gods - that apparently are
>>> claimed to do all sorts of things - but cannot be proven to exist.
>>
>> I look forward to hearing some rational statements from you.
>
> AS I have posted - no god is proven to exist - that is TRUE.
OK - I'll run with that
But it's not actually the position you hold. You assess facts in the
light of your assumption that religious belief is false. Your inability
to entertain the fact the Jesus actually existed is telling in this
regard. There is NO logical, historical or factual basis for such a
view - and yet you hold it.
>
> Since YOU cannot attack our real position - which is the ONLY one based
> on actual proven TRUTH - you want to re-categorize us - but that is
> simply being dishonest.
I try never to be dishonest. I don't think you are either. I do think
you are kidding yourself about what your real beliefs are
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:>> about them.
>>
>> Thom. In all gentleness and honesty
>
> It most certainly is NOT honesty - as I will show below
>
> I suggest you stop kidding yourself.
>> You are not an agnostic - not of the Huxley school or of any other. You
>> are an atheist. It may not suit your self-image to accept that, but the
>> way you filter facts to fit your religious preconceptions clearly marks
>> you out as someone who has made up his mind about the existence of God.
>
>
> No - I and my father have repeatedly asked for proof.
>
> WHen he Asked YOU for proof - you provided a LONG WINDED tirade
> supporting the likelyhood that intelligence was required for creation.
I can't remember doing that, but it's not an unreasonable argument. How
did you answer it?
>
> ANd - based on the unintelligent story of creation of the bible - that
> is basically being dishonest.
Care to demonstrate that, rather than asserting it?
> YOU provided NO connection to YOUR particular god - or the story of
> your religion. There was no basis for heaven - hell - purgatory - sin -
> souls - eternal life - angels - devils- and the rest of the story of
> your religion.
Well, as I don't actually beileve in purgatory and am probably somewhat
heterodox on Hell, that's scarcely surprising. But what's the question
I was answering? Was I speaking about the existence of God or defending
the Christian faith?
> No reason for the christ to come. MAYBE - you might have supported
> that Brahma created the universe for Vishnu - since at least the HINDUs
> claim that happened more than 4 1/2 billion years ago. We know it was
> NOT about 6000 years ago as your bible timeline suggests.
Sure - that's possible. Incidentally, a universe that was created
purely for Vishnu would be very boring. In the Hindu faith the tension
between Vishnu and Shiva is essential
>
> An intelligent person would read the judeo-christion story of creation
> - and immediately reject it as false - as well as having a complete
> lack of intelligence.
So you say. But you haven't demonstrated it.
>
> WE KNOW that morning and evening on our earth is created by the
> rotation of the earth on its axis as it orbits the sun. Therefore -
> morning and evening - (Noting it is our language - and that means
> something other than darkness and light) could not have happened before
> the sun was created. WE also know that plants require sunlight - so
> their creation prior to the sun is also suspect. Of course - we ALSO
> know that life appeared over Billions of years on earth - not ALL at
> once (or within a week) - and continues to evolve.
Oh Geez. You're not so unintelligent as to take the poem that comes at
the start of the Bible and to try and turn it into a statement of
historical fact are you? Look - it's a POEM. Possibly a hymn.
>
> We know that the earth is NOT unmovable in the sky - it is NOT built on
> pillars - and the sun and the rest of the UNIVERSE does not move over
> it during the day - and then hurries back to the starting place at
> night. ALl of that is IN the bible - and it is COMICAL - but hardly
> intelligent.
Except, of course, that we still talk of "sunrise" and "sunset". Don't
we? Are we wrong to do so?
>
>
> Even if there was an intelligent creator - the word "creator" and the
> word "god" are two different things - and YOU have yet to establish the
> rest of the powers of a god - all knowing - all seeing - all just - all
> good. That my father is a professional musician does not imply that he
> can design a car - or even play every instrument.
So. Do you accept the possibilty of an intelligent creator? Where we go
from there depends uopn your answer
>
> For example - you claim there was ONLY ONE CREATOR who is ALL
> good.(Other religion claim more )== yet if there was only one creator -
> an intelligent person would immediately understand that it had to
> create everything - good and evil. THere is no statement in any
> scripture that claims your god GAVE the power of creation to any other
> being.
>
>
> So - while you zig and zag around the proof - WE do not want evidence
> of intelligent design - we want proof of the god and story of your
> religion - and that is where all religion reach a dead end - because
> NONE can prove that one.
>
> I am not saying that there is NO god - I am saying that all the ones so
> far dreamed up by humans are not real. I am saying that basically - all
> religions are frauds - because they make INCREDIBLE supernatural claims
> - but provide NO truth they can prove.
Ah now, that is a different thing entirely. If there is a God I'm
pretty damn sure my religious beliefs don't describe him adequately.
I'm pretty sure NO religion describes him adequately.
Our inability to do so, though, does not demonstrate his non-existence.
Andrew
> No - I and my father have repeatedly asked for proof.
Incidentally, are you Bill's son?
Fred Thomas
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mh70f5du7rm7j6kj4...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:22:42 -0500, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:20:29 -0500, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> T, the fool with a head of bricks.
>
>>Describing YOURSELF I see - Duke
>
>>Only a fool would waste his life following delusions that have no basis
>>in provable facts - you may as well keep looking for that pot-o-gold at
>>the end of the rainbow (Hint - that is a MYTH too)
>
> Only a fool would demand something from God different than all the rest of us
> have.
>
exists to step forward and present it's self; instead of hiding behind clouds,
using animals to talk, people to talk for it................
Thommadura
WHich only means that YOU - as HUMANS are deciding what to believe again
ANd that directly points to YOU creating your own religion and your own
defintition of a god
>
>>
>> All you are doing is establishing what my father AND I have said all
>> along - that it is humans that create religions and gods - and decide
>> what to believe - noting that AUGUSTINE was a human.
>
> Ah - so you inherited your religious beliefs from your father.
> Interesting. I didn't. And 2 of your 3 statements are self-evidently
> true. Religions are human attempts to describe the divine and are
> therefore created by human. That people decide what to believe? Well,
> clearly. That either or both of these implies that God is a creation of
> human beings is a logical non-sequitur.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As you note - then the individual statements stand on their PROOF
>>>> for their validity.
>>>
>>> I noted no such thing. I merely stated that a statement of the form
>>> "The Bible says X" is establishable as a fact simply to see whether
>>> the Bible does or does not say X.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is says something does not mean it is true -
>> ANd since there are things in the bible that we KNOW are not true -
>> then the individual statements are then subject to PROOF - of which
>> there is none
>
> Yopu've obviously missed the point.
What POINT - I can say that "Dumbledore is the head of Hogwarts" is a
true statement based on the FICTIONAL story. However - in the real world
- the statement is NONSENSE
ANd if that is YOUR point as well - who cares what the bible actually
says - if it is FICTIONAL in the real world?
SInce we have already determined that there are things in the bible that
are NOT true - then
1 - THE bible cannot be said to be inerrant - it has errors
2 - THerefore - it is NOT the inspired word of a perfect god who - by
being perfect - is incapable of making an error (OF course - if he
created everything - then there is ample proof that is not the case just
by defects in new born infants alone)
3- Since the individual books of the bible contradict themselves
(Example - the christ's last words on the cross - or - who was there
when they found the tomb empty) - we can also say that the books
themselves have problems that cannot be resolved. Noting that since
there is only one correct answer to each of those two questions (Reality
says that one) - then at least three of the books MUST be incorrect - if
the story is supposed to be real.
Of course - if the story is not actually real - then this is just
another example of four different people making up their own religion
and scripture. Very similar to what YOU and the rest of the people in
this group do. YOU CHOOSE what you believe - and what you do not -
making it a human created religion without DOUBT.
IF there was a real god - his definition would NOT be a choice - it
would be a solid FACT for all. AND no such thing exists
Thommadura
> On 2009-11-01 22:20:29 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>
>> Andrew wrote:>> about them.
>>>
>>> Thom. In all gentleness and honesty
>>
>> It most certainly is NOT honesty - as I will show below
>>
>> I suggest you stop kidding yourself.
>>> You are not an agnostic - not of the Huxley school or of any other.
>>> You are an atheist. It may not suit your self-image to accept that,
>>> but the way you filter facts to fit your religious preconceptions
>>> clearly marks you out as someone who has made up his mind about the
>>> existence of God.
>>
>>
>> No - I and my father have repeatedly asked for proof.
>>
>> WHen he Asked YOU for proof - you provided a LONG WINDED tirade
>> supporting the likelyhood that intelligence was required for creation.
>
> I can't remember doing that, but it's not an unreasonable argument. How
> did you answer it?
MY father answered it
He merely pointed out the lack of connection with any particular
religion or god.
AS noted - your argument could be used by a Hindu to support that Brahma
created the world for Vishnu.
However - I would also point out that for all of the things you say
require intelligence - there are just as many things that do not make
sense. Just look at all the infants of ALL ANIMALS of the world. ALL
have instances of abnormal births - no legs - no arms - mentally
deficient - diseased - etc. An intelligent - and ALL just creator would
give every infant EQUAL basis. It is not JUST to have people malformed
before their birth.
>>
>> ANd - based on the unintelligent story of creation of the bible -
>> that is basically being dishonest.
>
> Care to demonstrate that, rather than asserting it?
>
>> YOU provided NO connection to YOUR particular god - or the story of
>> your religion. There was no basis for heaven - hell - purgatory - sin
>> - souls - eternal life - angels - devils- and the rest of the story of
>> your religion.
>
> Well, as I don't actually beileve in purgatory and am probably somewhat
> heterodox on Hell, that's scarcely surprising.
Again - an example of YOU creating YOUR own religion -
Since YOU are not a god - your choices make it a human creation
But what's the question I
> was answering? Was I speaking about the existence of God or defending
> the Christian faith?
Since neither can be supported with proof - it makes little difference
>
>> No reason for the christ to come. MAYBE - you might have supported
>> that Brahma created the universe for Vishnu - since at least the
>> HINDUs claim that happened more than 4 1/2 billion years ago. We know
>> it was NOT about 6000 years ago as your bible timeline suggests.
>
> Sure - that's possible. Incidentally, a universe that was created purely
> for Vishnu would be very boring. In the Hindu faith the tension between
> Vishnu and Shiva is essential
Another reason why gods are not involved then
>
>>
>> An intelligent person would read the judeo-christion story of creation
>> - and immediately reject it as false - as well as having a complete
>> lack of intelligence.
>
> So you say. But you haven't demonstrated it.
Obviously posted before you read the rest
>
>>
>> WE KNOW that morning and evening on our earth is created by the
>> rotation of the earth on its axis as it orbits the sun. Therefore -
>> morning and evening - (Noting it is our language - and that means
>> something other than darkness and light) could not have happened
>> before the sun was created. WE also know that plants require sunlight
>> - so their creation prior to the sun is also suspect. Of course - we
>> ALSO know that life appeared over Billions of years on earth - not ALL
>> at once (or within a week) - and continues to evolve.
>
> Oh Geez. You're not so unintelligent
Gee - for centuries - therefore -religion was unintelligent enough to
say it was inerrant and real.
as to take the poem that comes at
> the start of the Bible and to try and turn it into a statement of
> historical fact are you? Look - it's a POEM. Possibly a hymn.
Really - where does it say that one in the bible?
Where does the BIBLE identify what is supposed to be real and accepted
as true - and what is therefore fairy tale?
What is "parable" and what is not. Based on your answer - the ENTIRE
story of the christ might as well be a POEM
FOr centuries - the church ENFORCED just that interpretation of the
creation of the world as true. Over the centuries - religion has had to
redefine itself as more and more of its original INERRANT dogma is found
to be false - and your statement proves that one.
That YOU now call it a MYTH is simply accepting what the WHOLE bible is.
>
>>
>> We know that the earth is NOT unmovable in the sky - it is NOT built
>> on pillars - and the sun and the rest of the UNIVERSE does not move
>> over it during the day - and then hurries back to the starting place
>> at night. ALl of that is IN the bible - and it is COMICAL - but hardly
>> intelligent.
>
> Except, of course, that we still talk of "sunrise" and "sunset". Don't
> we? Are we wrong to do so?
English words - with defined meanings - created before the truth was
known too.
However - your implication is that they mean what the words they are
comprised of say - which is NONSENSE
>
>>
>>
>> Even if there was an intelligent creator - the word "creator" and the
>> word "god" are two different things - and YOU have yet to establish
>> the rest of the powers of a god - all knowing - all seeing - all just
>> - all good. That my father is a professional musician does not imply
>> that he can design a car - or even play every instrument.
>
> So. Do you accept the possibilty of an intelligent creator? Where we go
> from there depends uopn your answer
That depends on what you consider a creator to be
A "higher power" that had the ability to spark the initial stages of
evolution - does not have to be INTELLIGENT in any other way - does not
have to have any other powers - and no longer needs to exist as well.
Therefore - creation does not point to the All-everything gods of
religion in any PROVABLE way.
>
>>
>> For example - you claim there was ONLY ONE CREATOR who is ALL
>> good.(Other religion claim more )== yet if there was only one creator
>> - an intelligent person would immediately understand that it had to
>> create everything - good and evil. THere is no statement in any
>> scripture that claims your god GAVE the power of creation to any other
>> being.
>>
>>
>> So - while you zig and zag around the proof - WE do not want evidence
>> of intelligent design - we want proof of the god and story of your
>> religion - and that is where all religion reach a dead end - because
>> NONE can prove that one.
>>
>> I am not saying that there is NO god - I am saying that all the ones
>> so far dreamed up by humans are not real. I am saying that basically -
>> all religions are frauds - because they make INCREDIBLE supernatural
>> claims - but provide NO truth they can prove.
>
> Ah now, that is a different thing entirely. If there is a God I'm pretty
> damn sure my religious beliefs don't describe him adequately. I'm pretty
> sure NO religion describes him adequately.
But you do assign traits - and words - and deeds - without actually
knowing anything. And that is the basic dishonesty of religion - it is
human created with no connection to provable reality
>
> Our inability to do so, though, does not demonstrate his non-existence.
But at the same time - that does not demonstrate existence either.
And since I and my father remain agnostics - we do not claim there are
no gods- we simply dismiss the ones so far named by humans as UNPROVEN -
and all of the "scripture" as being the words and desires of humans -
which is ALL it is PROVEN to be.
>
>
Thommadura
ROFL
duke
>On Nov 3, 7:11�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> No other one has a risen Lord.
>
>the concept of placing someone in a tomb for three days as an
>initiation ceremony
>as the process transforms or kills the person is ancient.
>it is part of the rituals of the book of the death.
Who would do something like that?
duke
Jesus leads ALL Christians, and many reject one or more of his teachings, but
not the RCC, which follows everything he said.
>How many christians do you LEAD ?
Me? None but myself.
>>> There is STILL no reason to believe that christianity is the right
>>> choice either - there are still Hundreds of thousands of other religions
>>> who all make the same claims YOU do about yours.
>>
>> No other one has a risen Lord.
>Really?
That's right. There is only one God and one risen Lord.
>Again- a statement presented without PROOF
>WE have other examples of gods returning from the dead on other religions
No, you don't.
>And we have NO reason YOU have presented that such a thing is even required.
>> It's well revealed in the word of God. You have the same obvious answers that
>> the rest of us do. God gave you and I EVERYTHING we need to make our decision.
>> You may demand all you want, but all you're going to get is the same thing that
>> all the rest of us have. So choose well. It's your eternal future/damnation
>> at risk and laying totally in your hands.
>What is the WORD of god?
The bible.
>WE have NO such thing for christianity - none of the bible is
>represented to have been written by a god - none at all.
God revealed, man put pencil to paper.
>If the Bible was the word of a god - then it would have NO errors since
>a god is perfect and cannot make a mistake. Since the bible has provable
>errors - it cannot be from a god.
God revelation is without error. Man words are written by man.
>FOr instance - which of the four gospels is correct - ?
The all are.
>Sounds like a trick question but it is not
>Just answer the following
>WHat were the last words of the christ before his supposed death on the
>cross/
Do you mean "what were his last words professed by the new Christians 30-60
years later" as reflected in each of the 4 gospels? There was no videotape of
his crucifixion.
>Each of the four gospels has a different answer - but there can only be
>ONE correct one.
Yep. It's like our own decision to die in God's grace or outside of his grace.
Even though God has known our final decision for some 13.7 billion years min, we
still have that final free decision to make ourselves.
>So - three of the four gospels have to be wrong - which one is correct?
See my answer above.
Thommadura
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 06:15:35 -0800 (PST), Merlin <merli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 3, 7:11 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> No other one has a risen Lord.
>> the concept of placing someone in a tomb for three days as an
>> initiation ceremony
>> as the process transforms or kills the person is ancient.
>> it is part of the rituals of the book of the death.
>
> Who would do something like that?
Who would celebrate something like that?
Thommadura
So - you will not be saved then
>
>>>> There is STILL no reason to believe that christianity is the right
>>>> choice either - there are still Hundreds of thousands of other religions
>>>> who all make the same claims YOU do about yours.
>>> No other one has a risen Lord.
>> Really?
>
> That's right. There is only one God and one risen Lord.
So - now he has yeast in him - so what?
>
>> Again- a statement presented without PROOF
>> WE have other examples of gods returning from the dead on other religions
>
> No, you don't.
Actually - you are correct
WE have NO PROVEN examples of gods returning from the dead from ANY
religion - not even yours
>
>> And we have NO reason YOU have presented that such a thing is even required.
>
>>> It's well revealed in the word of God. You have the same obvious answers that
>>> the rest of us do. God gave you and I EVERYTHING we need to make our decision.
>>> You may demand all you want, but all you're going to get is the same thing that
>>> all the rest of us have. So choose well. It's your eternal future/damnation
>>> at risk and laying totally in your hands.
>
>> What is the WORD of god?
>
> The bible.
So you believe that the earth is flat and that all the kingdomsof the
world can be seen from a high place
Since that is the word of your god - then you are deluded
>
>> WE have NO such thing for christianity - none of the bible is
>> represented to have been written by a god - none at all.
>
> God revealed, man put pencil to paper.
Not proven at all
>
>> If the Bible was the word of a god - then it would have NO errors since
>> a god is perfect and cannot make a mistake. Since the bible has provable
>> errors - it cannot be from a god.
>
> God revelation is without error. Man words are written by man.
And the entire bible was written by men - none of it was written by a god
>
>> FOr instance - which of the four gospels is correct - ?
>
> The all are.
Sorry - but they cannot be
>
>> Sounds like a trick question but it is not
>> Just answer the following
>
>> WHat were the last words of the christ before his supposed death on the
>> cross/
>
> Do you mean "what were his last words professed by the new Christians 30-60
> years later" as reflected in each of the 4 gospels? There was no videotape of
> his crucifixion.
>
>> Each of the four gospels has a different answer - but there can only be
>> ONE correct one.
>
> Yep. It's like our own decision to die in God's grace or outside of his grace.
> Even though God has known our final decision for some 13.7 billion years min, we
> still have that final free decision to make ourselves.
So - the bible is WRONG
And your statement is still logical nonsense
If a decision is was known before I was born - then I did not make the
decision.
If the decision is NOT KNOWN until I make it - I had choice - but then a
god would not know what I was going to do
>
>> So - three of the four gospels have to be wrong - which one is correct?
>
> See my answer above.
Sorry - but you babbled - but gave nothing provable again
Andrew
>>> That is says something does not mean it is true -
>>> ANd since there are things in the bible that we KNOW are not true -
>>> then the individual statements are then subject to PROOF - of which
>>> there is none
>>
>> Yopu've obviously missed the point.
>
>
> What POINT - I can say that "Dumbledore is the head of Hogwarts" is a
> true statement based on the FICTIONAL story. However - in the real
> world - the statement is NONSENSE
>
> ANd if that is YOUR point as well - who cares what the bible actually
> says - if it is FICTIONAL in the real world?
Yes - that was the point. And in the context it was a valid one
>
> SInce we have already determined that there are things in the bible
> that are NOT true - then
>
> 1 - THE bible cannot be said to be inerrant - it has errors
> 2 - THerefore - it is NOT the inspired word of a perfect god who - by
> being perfect - is incapable of making an error <snip>
But then that's the teaching of mainstream churches, and has been for
2000 years. The Bible is NOT literally "God's words" - they are words
by human writers inspired by God. The idea that God uses human beings
as dictaphones is not part of Christian teaching.
> 3- Since the individual books of the bible contradict themselves
> (Example - the christ's last words on the cross - or - who was there
> when they found the tomb empty) - we can also say that the books
> themselves have problems that cannot be resolved. Noting that since
> there is only one correct answer to each of those two questions
> (Reality says that one) - then at least three of the books MUST be
> incorrect - if the story is supposed to be real.
Possibly - but then these discrepancies are what one expects in reading
a number of accounts of the same event. You get the same phenomenon
when you read witness statements.
>
> Of course - if the story is not actually real - then this is just
> another example of four different people making up their own religion
> and scripture.
Exceedingly unlikely. The similarities are too great to admit of that.
> Very similar to what YOU and the rest of the people in this group do.
> YOU CHOOSE what you believe - and what you do not - making it a human
> created religion without DOUBT.
All of which applies equally and with every bit as much force to you
and to your religious beliefs.
>
> IF there was a real god - his definition would NOT be a choice - it
> would be a solid FACT for all. AND no such thing exists
For someone who doesn't believe in God, you seem very clear about what
He would be like. Can you prove any of that?
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>> On 2009-11-01 22:20:29 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>>
>>> Andrew wrote:>> about them.
>>>>
>>>> Thom. In all gentleness and honesty
>>>
>>> It most certainly is NOT honesty - as I will show below
>>>
>>> I suggest you stop kidding yourself.
>>>> You are not an agnostic - not of the Huxley school or of any other. You
>>>> are an atheist. It may not suit your self-image to accept that, but the
>>>> way you filter facts to fit your religious preconceptions clearly marks
>>>> you out as someone who has made up his mind about the existence of God.
>>>
>>>
>>> No - I and my father have repeatedly asked for proof.
>>>
>>> WHen he Asked YOU for proof - you provided a LONG WINDED tirade
>>> supporting the likelyhood that intelligence was required for creation.
>>
>> I can't remember doing that, but it's not an unreasonable argument. How
>> did you answer it?
>
>
> MY father answered it
>
> He merely pointed out the lack of connection with any particular
> religion or god.
But as the statement was "No evidence of any gods", that is entirely
beside the point.
>
> AS noted - your argument could be used by a Hindu to support that
> Brahma created the world for Vishnu.
>
> However - I would also point out that for all of the things you say
> require intelligence - there are just as many things that do not make
> sense. Just look at all the infants of ALL ANIMALS of the world. ALL
> have instances of abnormal births - no legs - no arms - mentally
> deficient - diseased - etc. An intelligent - and ALL just creator would
> give every infant EQUAL basis. It is not JUST to have people malformed
> before their birth.
Again, you seem awfully confident about what an all-just creator would
do. You say it's "not just". In a world where there is reason and logic
and where there is moral responsibility there has to be a possibility
of bad things happening. All you've done here is erect a straw god to
knock over.
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> ANd - based on the unintelligent story of creation of the bible - that
>>> is basically being dishonest.
>>
>> Care to demonstrate that, rather than asserting it?
>>
>>> YOU provided NO connection to YOUR particular god - or the story of
>>> your religion. There was no basis for heaven - hell - purgatory - sin -
>>> souls - eternal life - angels - devils- and the rest of the story of
>>> your religion.
>>
>> Well, as I don't actually beileve in purgatory and am probably somewhat
>> heterodox on Hell, that's scarcely surprising.
>
>
> Again - an example of YOU creating YOUR own religion -
>
> Since YOU are not a god - your choices make it a human creation
>
>
>
> But what's the question I
>> was answering? Was I speaking about the existence of God or defending
>> the Christian faith?
>
>
>
>
> Since neither can be supported with proof - it makes little difference
>
>
>
>>
>>> No reason for the christ to come. MAYBE - you might have supported
>>> that Brahma created the universe for Vishnu - since at least the HINDUs
>>> claim that happened more than 4 1/2 billion years ago. We know it was
>>> NOT about 6000 years ago as your bible timeline suggests.
>>
>> Sure - that's possible. Incidentally, a universe that was created
>> purely for Vishnu would be very boring. In the Hindu faith the tension
>> between Vishnu and Shiva is essential
>
>
> Another reason why gods are not involved then
No - merely a reference to one paticular god. And if you really
understood the Hinduism you've referred to you'd be aware that there IS
only one Godhead in Hinduism.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> An intelligent person would read the judeo-christion story of creation
>>> - and immediately reject it as false - as well as having a complete
>>> lack of intelligence.
>>
>> So you say. But you haven't demonstrated it.
>
> Obviously posted before you read the rest
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> WE KNOW that morning and evening on our earth is created by the
>>> rotation of the earth on its axis as it orbits the sun. Therefore -
>>> morning and evening - (Noting it is our language - and that means
>>> something other than darkness and light) could not have happened before
>>> the sun was created. WE also know that plants require sunlight - so
>>> their creation prior to the sun is also suspect. Of course - we ALSO
>>> know that life appeared over Billions of years on earth - not ALL at
>>> once (or within a week) - and continues to evolve.
>>
>> Oh Geez. You're not so unintelligent
>
> Gee - for centuries - therefore -religion was unintelligent enough to
> say it was inerrant and real.
I recommend you read the views of some of the early church fathers on this.
>
>
> as to take the poem that comes at
>> the start of the Bible and to try and turn it into a statement of
>> historical fact are you? Look - it's a POEM. Possibly a hymn.
>
>
> Really - where does it say that one in the bible?
Try reading it. Look at the parallelisms involved - characteristic
elements of Hebrew poetry. Look at its structure and its repeated
refrain. These too are characteristic of poetry.
> Where does the BIBLE identify what is supposed to be real and accepted
> as true - and what is therefore fairy tale?
> What is "parable" and what is not. Based on your answer - the ENTIRE
> story of the christ might as well be a POEM
Not at all. Different forms of literature have different
characteristics. When the characteristic qualities of poetry are
present in a text, it is reasonable to accept it as a parable. Similar
remarks can be made about parable etc
>
> FOr centuries - the church ENFORCED just that interpretation of the
> creation of the world as true.
Really? Which Papal encyclical did that? What means of "enforcement"
were applied? Can you prove this statement?
> Over the centuries - religion has had to redefine itself as more and
> more of its original INERRANT dogma is found to be false - and your
> statement proves that one.
Well of course it does. To do otherwise would be stupid. As we learn
more we make sense of our beliefs in different ways. That's what
intelligent, reflective, thinking people do.
>
> That YOU now call it a MYTH is simply accepting what the WHOLE bible is.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> We know that the earth is NOT unmovable in the sky - it is NOT built on
>>> pillars - and the sun and the rest of the UNIVERSE does not move over
>>> it during the day - and then hurries back to the starting place at
>>> night. ALl of that is IN the bible - and it is COMICAL - but hardly
>>> intelligent.
>>
>> Except, of course, that we still talk of "sunrise" and "sunset". Don't
>> we? Are we wrong to do so?
>
>
> English words - with defined meanings - created before the truth was known too.
>
> However - your implication is that they mean what the words they are
> comprised of say - which is NONSENSE
They describe what people actually see.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Even if there was an intelligent creator - the word "creator" and the
>>> word "god" are two different things - and YOU have yet to establish the
>>> rest of the powers of a god - all knowing - all seeing - all just - all
>>> good. That my father is a professional musician does not imply that he
>>> can design a car - or even play every instrument.
>>
>> So. Do you accept the possibilty of an intelligent creator? Where we go
>> from there depends uopn your answer
>
>
> That depends on what you consider a creator to be
>
> A "higher power" that had the ability to spark the initial stages of
> evolution - does not have to be INTELLIGENT in any other way - does
> not have to have any other powers - and no longer needs to exist as
> well.
>
> Therefore - creation does not point to the All-everything gods of
> religion in any PROVABLE way.
You didn't answer. Do you accept the possibility of an intelligent creator?
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> For example - you claim there was ONLY ONE CREATOR who is ALL
>>> good.(Other religion claim more )== yet if there was only one creator -
>>> an intelligent person would immediately understand that it had to
>>> create everything - good and evil. THere is no statement in any
>>> scripture that claims your god GAVE the power of creation to any other
>>> being.
>>>
>>>
>>> So - while you zig and zag around the proof - WE do not want evidence
>>> of intelligent design - we want proof of the god and story of your
>>> religion - and that is where all religion reach a dead end - because
>>> NONE can prove that one.
>>>
>>> I am not saying that there is NO god - I am saying that all the ones so
>>> far dreamed up by humans are not real. I am saying that basically - all
>>> religions are frauds - because they make INCREDIBLE supernatural claims
>>> - but provide NO truth they can prove.
>>
>> Ah now, that is a different thing entirely. If there is a God I'm
>> pretty damn sure my religious beliefs don't describe him adequately.
>> I'm pretty sure NO religion describes him adequately.
>
> But you do assign traits - and words - and deeds - without actually
> knowing anything. And that is the basic dishonesty of religion - it is
> human created with no connection to provable reality
Lots of things are like that, though. If I say that my wife loves me, I
cannot prove this; but it's neither nonsense not dishonest to make such
a statement.
>
>
>
>>
>> Our inability to do so, though, does not demonstrate his non-existence.
>
>
> But at the same time - that does not demonstrate existence either.
>
>
> And since I and my father remain agnostics - we do not claim there are
> no gods- we simply dismiss the ones so far named by humans as UNPROVEN
> - and all of the "scripture" as being the words and desires of humans -
> which is ALL it is PROVEN to be.
There's nothing "agnostic" about you. You're an atheist.
Andrew
Just a thought. You refer to my having conversed with your father. Who is he?
Thommadura
> On 2009-11-04 12:10:38 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>
>>>> That is says something does not mean it is true -
>>>> ANd since there are things in the bible that we KNOW are not true -
>>>> then the individual statements are then subject to PROOF - of which
>>>> there is none
>>>
>>> Yopu've obviously missed the point.
>>
>>
>> What POINT - I can say that "Dumbledore is the head of Hogwarts" is a
>> true statement based on the FICTIONAL story. However - in the real
>> world - the statement is NONSENSE
>>
>> ANd if that is YOUR point as well - who cares what the bible actually
>> says - if it is FICTIONAL in the real world?
>
> Yes - that was the point. And in the context it was a valid one
So - at least YOU admit that the bible is a piece of Fiction then.
>
>>
>> SInce we have already determined that there are things in the bible
>> that are NOT true - then
>>
>> 1 - THE bible cannot be said to be inerrant - it has errors
>> 2 - THerefore - it is NOT the inspired word of a perfect god who - by
>> being perfect - is incapable of making an error <snip>
>
> But then that's the teaching of mainstream churches, and has been for
> 2000 years.
Sorry - but THE mainstream christian church - the catholic church -
which is the ONLY way to be saved in christianity - disagreed for most
of the time of the bible - which BY THE WAY has not been around for 2000
years. It was canonized at the end of the 4th century - making it less
than 1700 years old. Gabriel even disagrees with you today
In 1615 - the Papal condemnation of Galileo said the following - PROVING
YOUR STATEMENT wrong.
"Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine,
aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office
for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is
the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also
with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same
doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of
Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters,
entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as
true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which
from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures
according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced
the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written
by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions
are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary
to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not
move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally
heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and
immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally
absurd and false "
The Bible is NOT literally "God's words" - they are words by
> human writers inspired by God. The idea that God uses human beings as
> dictaphones is not part of Christian teaching.
Sorry - but again - that is YOUR opinion - but not what other christians
say - or said.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
This is the FULL translation of the Galileo decision - which also
condemns Copernicus as well and clearly states that the Holy Scripture
is correct - and earth was the unmovable center of the UNIVERSE.
>
>> 3- Since the individual books of the bible contradict themselves
>> (Example - the christ's last words on the cross - or - who was there
>> when they found the tomb empty) - we can also say that the books
>> themselves have problems that cannot be resolved. Noting that since
>> there is only one correct answer to each of those two questions
>> (Reality says that one) - then at least three of the books MUST be
>> incorrect - if the story is supposed to be real.
>
> Possibly - but then these discrepancies are what one expects in reading
> a number of accounts of the same event. You get the same phenomenon when
> you read witness statements.
But the bible is NOT represented as the writings of humans - but the
inerrant words of a god.
>
>>
>> Of course - if the story is not actually real - then this is just
>> another example of four different people making up their own religion
>> and scripture.
>
> Exceedingly unlikely. The similarities are too great to admit of that.
Since they were making up a particular religion - that they were similar
would be expected - that they were NOT similar in places of faith would
NOT be expected.
Since the mythical death and resurrection of the christ is the basis of
the religion they created - you would expect THOSE details to completely
agree.
>
>> Very similar to what YOU and the rest of the people in this group do.
>> YOU CHOOSE what you believe - and what you do not - making it a human
>> created religion without DOUBT.
>
> All of which applies equally and with every bit as much force to you and
> to your religious beliefs.
Since I have no religious beliefs - your statement is worthless.
A huxley agnostic does not believe anything that is not PROVEN to be
true about gods and religions - and if ANYTHING were actually proven to
be true - it would not be just a belief.
>
>>
>> IF there was a real god - his definition would NOT be a choice - it
>> would be a solid FACT for all. AND no such thing exists
>
> For someone who doesn't believe in God, you seem very clear about what
> He would be like. Can you prove any of that?
No - I do not define what a god is. Read the statement again.
It is a god that should provide that definition - as TRUTH - not humans
- as belief.
To date - I am very clear about what a god is - because to date they are
UNPROVEN.
Thommadura
> On 2009-11-04 12:28:46 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> On 2009-11-01 22:20:29 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>>>
>>>> Andrew wrote:>> about them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thom. In all gentleness and honesty
>>>>
>>>> It most certainly is NOT honesty - as I will show below
>>>>
>>>> I suggest you stop kidding yourself.
>>>>> You are not an agnostic - not of the Huxley school or of any other.
>>>>> You are an atheist. It may not suit your self-image to accept that,
>>>>> but the way you filter facts to fit your religious preconceptions
>>>>> clearly marks you out as someone who has made up his mind about the
>>>>> existence of God.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No - I and my father have repeatedly asked for proof.
>>>>
>>>> WHen he Asked YOU for proof - you provided a LONG WINDED tirade
>>>> supporting the likelyhood that intelligence was required for creation.
>>>
>>> I can't remember doing that, but it's not an unreasonable argument.
>>> How did you answer it?
>>
>>
>> MY father answered it
>>
>> He merely pointed out the lack of connection with any particular
>> religion or god.
>
> But as the statement was "No evidence of any gods", that is entirely
> beside the point.
No - the statement was NO PROOF of any gods - which is NOT the same.
Evidence that a higher power might have been involved in creation -
which is opinion to begin with since we still have no proof a "creator"
with that power existed at the time - does NOT lead to any particular
belief.
>
>>
>> AS noted - your argument could be used by a Hindu to support that
>> Brahma created the world for Vishnu.
>>
>> However - I would also point out that for all of the things you say
>> require intelligence - there are just as many things that do not make
>> sense. Just look at all the infants of ALL ANIMALS of the world. ALL
>> have instances of abnormal births - no legs - no arms - mentally
>> deficient - diseased - etc. An intelligent - and ALL just creator
>> would give every infant EQUAL basis. It is not JUST to have people
>> malformed before their birth.
>
> Again, you seem awfully confident about what an all-just creator would
> do. You say it's "not just". In a world where there is reason and logic
> and where there is moral responsibility there has to be a possibility of
> bad things happening. All you've done here is erect a straw god to knock
> over.
Since it is OUR language - the word JUST based on the word JUSTICE is
defined by HUMANS - and used by humans in our definition of the word.
However - there is NO requirement that bad things must happen. IF an
almighty god wanted everyone to be good - one would assume ALMIGHTY
means that he had the power to do that one too.
AS far as ME creating a straw god - that is one of the Traits of the god
defined in the Baltimore Catechism - used by the Catholic church
religion teachings for over a century. Anyone with half a brain - in
just looking around - would realize that everyone is not born equally -
which is inherently unjust.
If you actually understood Hinduism - you would realize that there are -
like christianity - LOTS Of different beliefs that fall into the
category. Some of them actually have MILLIONS of gods.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> An intelligent person would read the judeo-christion story of
>>>> creation - and immediately reject it as false - as well as having a
>>>> complete lack of intelligence.
>>>
>>> So you say. But you haven't demonstrated it.
>>
>> Obviously posted before you read the rest
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> WE KNOW that morning and evening on our earth is created by the
>>>> rotation of the earth on its axis as it orbits the sun. Therefore -
>>>> morning and evening - (Noting it is our language - and that means
>>>> something other than darkness and light) could not have happened
>>>> before the sun was created. WE also know that plants require
>>>> sunlight - so their creation prior to the sun is also suspect. Of
>>>> course - we ALSO know that life appeared over Billions of years on
>>>> earth - not ALL at once (or within a week) - and continues to evolve.
>>>
>>> Oh Geez. You're not so unintelligent
>>
>> Gee - for centuries - therefore -religion was unintelligent enough to
>> say it was inerrant and real.
>
> I recommend you read the views of some of the early church fathers on this.
In the other post - I gave you a link to the Cathoic CHurch decision on
Galileo - which agrees with ME.
>
>>
>>
>> as to take the poem that comes at
>>> the start of the Bible and to try and turn it into a statement of
>>> historical fact are you? Look - it's a POEM. Possibly a hymn.
>>
>>
>> Really - where does it say that one in the bible?
>
> Try reading it. Look at the parallelisms involved - characteristic
> elements of Hebrew poetry. Look at its structure and its repeated
> refrain. These too are characteristic of poetry.
BUT it never says what is true and what is only IMAGINATION - does it?
>
>> Where does the BIBLE identify what is supposed to be real and accepted
>> as true - and what is therefore fairy tale?
>> What is "parable" and what is not. Based on your answer - the ENTIRE
>> story of the christ might as well be a POEM
>
> Not at all. Different forms of literature have different
> characteristics. When the characteristic qualities of poetry are present
> in a text, it is reasonable to accept it as a parable. Similar remarks
> can be made about parable etc
Sorry - again - parables are not written completely as poems.
>
>>
>> FOr centuries - the church ENFORCED just that interpretation of the
>> creation of the world as true.
>
> Really? Which Papal encyclical did that? What means of "enforcement"
> were applied? Can you prove this statement?
YES - I did - here is that link again
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
>
>> Over the centuries - religion has had to redefine itself as more and
>> more of its original INERRANT dogma is found to be false - and your
>> statement proves that one.
>
> Well of course it does. To do otherwise would be stupid. As we learn
> more we make sense of our beliefs in different ways. That's what
> intelligent, reflective, thinking people do.
Sure - when things are proven to be WRONG - about the religion - they
change the subject - typical theists.
>
>>
>> That YOU now call it a MYTH is simply accepting what the WHOLE bible is.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We know that the earth is NOT unmovable in the sky - it is NOT built
>>>> on pillars - and the sun and the rest of the UNIVERSE does not move
>>>> over it during the day - and then hurries back to the starting place
>>>> at night. ALl of that is IN the bible - and it is COMICAL - but
>>>> hardly intelligent.
>>>
>>> Except, of course, that we still talk of "sunrise" and "sunset".
>>> Don't we? Are we wrong to do so?
>>
>>
>> English words - with defined meanings - created before the truth was
>> known too.
>>
>> However - your implication is that they mean what the words they are
>> comprised of say - which is NONSENSE
>
> They describe what people actually see.
BUT they do not actually - do they?
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even if there was an intelligent creator - the word "creator" and
>>>> the word "god" are two different things - and YOU have yet to
>>>> establish the rest of the powers of a god - all knowing - all seeing
>>>> - all just - all good. That my father is a professional musician
>>>> does not imply that he can design a car - or even play every
>>>> instrument.
>>>
>>> So. Do you accept the possibilty of an intelligent creator? Where we
>>> go from there depends uopn your answer
>>
>>
>> That depends on what you consider a creator to be
>>
>> A "higher power" that had the ability to spark the initial stages of
>> evolution - does not have to be INTELLIGENT in any other way - does
>> not have to have any other powers - and no longer needs to exist as well.
>>
>> Therefore - creation does not point to the All-everything gods of
>> religion in any PROVABLE way.
>
> You didn't answer. Do you accept the possibility of an intelligent creator?
YOu did not define what you consider an intelligent creator to be - as I
said above
SInce there is no REAL PROVABLE definition - I can only reply to your
delusion = not reality.
Thommadura
Thom Madura
(There are five of us with the same name)
Fred Thomas
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 06:15:35 -0800 (PST), Merlin <merli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 3, 7:11 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> No other one has a risen Lord.
>>
>>the concept of placing someone in a tomb for three days as an
>>initiation ceremony
>>as the process transforms or kills the person is ancient.
>>it is part of the rituals of the book of the death.
>
> Who would do something like that?
>
Religionists.
Fred Thomas
>>How many christians do you LEAD ?
>
> Me? None but myself.
>
>>>> There is STILL no reason to believe that christianity is the right
>>>> choice either - there are still Hundreds of thousands of other religions
>>>> who all make the same claims YOU do about yours.
>>>
>>> No other one has a risen Lord.
>>Really?
>
> That's right. There is only one God and one risen Lord.
>
>>Again- a statement presented without PROOF
>>WE have other examples of gods returning from the dead on other religions
>
> No, you don't.
There are a number of examples.
>
>>And we have NO reason YOU have presented that such a thing is even required.
>
>>> It's well revealed in the word of God. You have the same obvious answers
>>> that
>>> the rest of us do. God gave you and I EVERYTHING we need to make our
>>> decision.
>>> You may demand all you want, but all you're going to get is the same thing
>>> that
>>> all the rest of us have. So choose well. It's your eternal
>>> future/damnation
>>> at risk and laying totally in your hands.
>
>>What is the WORD of god?
>
> The bible.
Only if you follow the christian myth.
>
>>WE have NO such thing for christianity - none of the bible is
>>represented to have been written by a god - none at all.
>
> God revealed, man put pencil to paper.
Man was bent on controlling population, so man put pencil to paper with
religious terror writings.
>
>>If the Bible was the word of a god - then it would have NO errors since
>>a god is perfect and cannot make a mistake. Since the bible has provable
>>errors - it cannot be from a god.
>
> God revelation is without error. Man words are written by man.
A perfect god would not allow an imperfect book about this perfect god.
>
>>FOr instance - which of the four gospels is correct - ?
>
> The all are.
>
Then why do they contradict them selves........"eye witness" that can not come
up with the same story and details are not very reliable.
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>> On 2009-11-04 12:10:38 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>>
>>>>> That is says something does not mean it is true -
>>>>> ANd since there are things in the bible that we KNOW are not true -
>>>>> then the individual statements are then subject to PROOF - of which
>>>>> there is none
>>>>
>>>> Yopu've obviously missed the point.
>>>
>>>
>>> What POINT - I can say that "Dumbledore is the head of Hogwarts" is a
>>> true statement based on the FICTIONAL story. However - in the real
>>> world - the statement is NONSENSE
>>>
>>> ANd if that is YOUR point as well - who cares what the bible actually
>>> says - if it is FICTIONAL in the real world?
>>
>> Yes - that was the point. And in the context it was a valid one
>
>
> So - at least YOU admit that the bible is a piece of Fiction then.
That you deduce that from what I wrote suggests that your relationship
with logic is at best arms-length. No - do try to keep up, there's a
good chap - the post to which you responded discussed what the Bible
says. Discussing the accuracy of the comments made in those terms can
be analyses in terms of what the Bible can be demonstrated to say.
Whatever form of literature it is, that remains true
>>>
>>> SInce we have already determined that there are things in the bible
>>> that are NOT true - then
>>>
>>> 1 - THE bible cannot be said to be inerrant - it has errors
>>> 2 - THerefore - it is NOT the inspired word of a perfect god who - by
>>> being perfect - is incapable of making an error <snip>
>>
>> But then that's the teaching of mainstream churches, and has been for
>> 2000 years.
>
>
> Sorry - but THE mainstream christian church - the catholic church -
> which is the ONLY way to be saved in christianity
Really? You seem awfully sure of that for someone who claims to be agnostic
> - disagreed for most of the time of the bible - which BY THE WAY has
> not been around for 2000 years. It was canonized at the end of the 4th
> century
Bibles aren't canonised. Potential saints are canonised. The phrase you
are looking for is "the canon of the Bible was finalised". And your
dating is tendentious. The Canon we have today is the OT canon agreed
after Jamnia in the 1st Century. The NT canon has been pretty much
consistent since the 2nd Century (see Muratorian Canon).
> - making it less than 1700 years old. Gabriel even disagrees with you today
>
> In 1615 - the Papal condemnation of Galileo said the following -
> PROVING YOUR STATEMENT wrong..
>
>
> "Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine,
> aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office
> for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is
> the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and
> also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the
> same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians
> of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters,
> entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as
> true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures,
> which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said
> Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was
> thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter,
> purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in
> this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of
> Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy
> Scripture.
>
> The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not
> move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally
> heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
> The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and
> immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally
> absurd and false "
So where does this say that Scipture is inerrant? Are you reading
something into this that isn't there? Incidentally, the only statement
here that is said to be contrary to Holy Scripture is untrue. Also, the
Galileo incident is misunderstood by most atheists - it has taken on
mythical status among atheists. The heliocentric model was widely and
openly discussed in the Vatican and supported by many within the Curia.
It was ultimately held to be incorrect because the best scientific
advice of the time (that's what the reference to 'philosophy' means).
> human beings as dictaphones is not part of Christian teaching.
>
>
> Sorry - but again - that is YOUR opinion - but not what other
> christians say - or said.
>
> http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
>
> This is the FULL translation of the Galileo decision - which also
> condemns Copernicus as well and clearly states that the Holy Scripture
> is correct - and earth was the unmovable center of the UNIVERSE.
See above. Again, no smoking gun. Does this link say that the
Scriptures are inerrant? Yes or no?
>>> 3- Since the individual books of the bible contradict themselves
>>> (Example - the christ's last words on the cross - or - who was there
>>> when they found the tomb empty) - we can also say that the books
>>> themselves have problems that cannot be resolved. Noting that since
>>> there is only one correct answer to each of those two questions
>>> (Reality says that one) - then at least three of the books MUST be
>>> incorrect - if the story is supposed to be real.
>>
>> Possibly - but then these discrepancies are what one expects in reading
>> a number of accounts of the same event. You get the same phenomenon
>> when you read witness statements.
>
> But the bible is NOT represented as the writings of humans - but the
> inerrant words of a god.
By whom? Where? Prove your statements to be true. You referred to the
Catholic Church. Where are the Papal encyclicals I asked for?
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Of course - if the story is not actually real - then this is just
>>> another example of four different people making up their own religion
>>> and scripture.
>>
>> Exceedingly unlikely. The similarities are too great to admit of that.
>
> Since they were making up a particular religion - that they were
> similar would be expected - that they were NOT similar in places of
> faith would NOT be expected.
So let's get this straight. Matthew Mark Luke and John are somehow
gathered together "making up" this religion that has already existed
for 30-60 years. They agree a whole bunch of stuff, but decide not to
'correct' discrepancies. Then they go off and write their gospels. I
really hope you never have to convince a jury of anything
> Since the mythical death and resurrection of the christ is the basis of
> the religion they created - you would expect THOSE details to
> completely agree.
But the gospels agree on far far more than those "essentials".
>
>
>
>>
>>> Very similar to what YOU and the rest of the people in this group do.
>>> YOU CHOOSE what you believe - and what you do not - making it a human
>>> created religion without DOUBT.
>>
>> All of which applies equally and with every bit as much "force to you
>> and to your religious beliefs.
>
>
> Since I have no religious beliefs - your statement is worthless.
Yeah. Right
> A huxley agnostic does not believe anything that is not PROVEN to be
> true about gods and religions - and if ANYTHING were actually proven to
> be true - it would not be just a belief.
But you're not a Huxley agnostic. It's a convenient label you've picked
for yourself that allows you to play poacher and gamekeeper. You are
lying to yourself if you honestly adopt it.
>
>
>>
>>> IF there was a real god - his definition would NOT be a choice - it
>>> would be a solid FACT for all. AND no such thing exists
>>
>> For someone who doesn't believe in God, you seem very clear about what
>> He would be like. Can you prove any of that?
>
>
>
>
>
> No - I do not define what a god is. Read the statement again.
>
> It is a god that should provide that definition - as TRUTH - not
> humans - as belief.
You're defining God as self-defining.
Andrew
Oh THAT discussion. He was much more sophisticated in his arguments than you
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>> On 2009-11-04 12:28:46 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>>
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> On 2009-11-01 22:20:29 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>> Andrew wrote:>> about them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thom. In all gentleness and honesty
>>>>>
>>>>> It most certainly is NOT honesty - as I will show below
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest you stop kidding yourself.
>>>>>> You are not an agnostic - not of the Huxley school or of any other. You
>>>>>> are an atheist. It may not suit your self-image to accept that, but the
>>>>>> way you filter facts to fit your religious preconceptions clearly marks
>>>>>> you out as someone who has made up his mind about the existence of God.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No - I and my father have repeatedly asked for proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> WHen he Asked YOU for proof - you provided a LONG WINDED tirade
>>>>> supporting the likelyhood that intelligence was required for creation.
>>>>
>>>> I can't remember doing that, but it's not an unreasonable argument. How
>>>> did you answer it?
>>>
>>>
>>> MY father answered it
>>>
>>> He merely pointed out the lack of connection with any particular
>>> religion or god.
>>
>> But as the statement was "No evidence of any gods", that is entirely
>> beside the point.
>
> No - the statement was NO PROOF of any gods - which is NOT the same.
Agreed. Your fig-leaf is safe. Doesn't affect the point though
>
>
> Evidence that a higher power might have been involved in creation -
> which is opinion to begin with since we still have no proof a "creator"
> with that power existed at the time - does NOT lead to any particular
> belief.
I don't think I ever claimed it did.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> AS noted - your argument could be used by a Hindu to support that
>>> Brahma created the world for Vishnu.
>>>
>>> However - I would also point out that for all of the things you say
>>> require intelligence - there are just as many things that do not make
>>> sense. Just look at all the infants of ALL ANIMALS of the world. ALL
>>> have instances of abnormal births - no legs - no arms - mentally
>>> deficient - diseased - etc. An intelligent - and ALL just creator would
>>> give every infant EQUAL basis. It is not JUST to have people malformed
>>> before their birth.
>>
>> Again, you seem awfully confident about what an all-just creator would
>> do. You say it's "not just". In a world where there is reason and logic
>> and where there is moral responsibility there has to be a possibility
>> of bad things happening. All you've done here is erect a straw god to
>> knock over.
>
>
>
> Since it is OUR language - the word JUST based on the word JUSTICE is
> defined by HUMANS - and used by humans in our definition of the word.
So you now have to PROVE (your choice of word, rather than evidence)
that human beings in their use of the word regard these things as
unjust in the sense that, assuming God exists, he has behaved unjustly
> However - there is NO requirement that bad things must happen. IF an
> almighty god wanted everyone to be good - one would assume ALMIGHTY
> means that he had the power to do that one too.
"Almighty" is a very dangerous term if you use it unthinkingly. You just did.
>
> AS far as ME creating a straw god - that is one of the Traits of the
> god defined in the Baltimore Catechism - used by the Catholic church
> religion teachings for over a century. Anyone with half a brain - in
> just looking around - would realize that everyone is not born equally -
> which is inherently unjust.
Baltimore Chatechism
Q. 128. In what respect are all men equal?
A. All men are equal in whatever is necessary for their nature and end.
Note - not "equally". What this says is that every human being is born
with common humanity and with equal access to the grace and love of
God. You are trying to apply it to something completely different. Can
you say "dishonest"?
But which are all regarded as aspects of the one divine Brahman.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> An intelligent person would read the judeo-christion story of creation
>>>>> - and immediately reject it as false - as well as having a complete
>>>>> lack of intelligence.
>>>>
>>>> So you say. But you haven't demonstrated it.
>>>
>>> Obviously posted before you read the rest
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WE KNOW that morning and evening on our earth is created by the
>>>>> rotation of the earth on its axis as it orbits the sun. Therefore -
>>>>> morning and evening - (Noting it is our language - and that means
>>>>> something other than darkness and light) could not have happened before
>>>>> the sun was created. WE also know that plants require sunlight - so
>>>>> their creation prior to the sun is also suspect. Of course - we ALSO
>>>>> know that life appeared over Billions of years on earth - not ALL at
>>>>> once (or within a week) - and continues to evolve.
>>>>
>>>> Oh Geez. You're not so unintelligent
>>>
>>> Gee - for centuries - therefore -religion was unintelligent enough to
>>> say it was inerrant and real.
>>
>> I recommend you read the views of some of the early church fathers on this.
>
>
>
> In the other post - I gave you a link to the Cathoic CHurch decision on
> Galileo - which agrees with ME.
No. It doesn't.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> as to take the poem that comes at
>>>> the start of the Bible and to try and turn it into a statement of
>>>> historical fact are you? Look - it's a POEM. Possibly a hymn.
>>>
>>>
>>> Really - where does it say that one in the bible?
>>
>> Try reading it. Look at the parallelisms involved - characteristic
>> elements of Hebrew poetry. Look at its structure and its repeated
>> refrain. These too are characteristic of poetry.
>
>
> BUT it never says what is true and what is only IMAGINATION - does it?
"Imagination"? Surely one of the things that makes us truly human.
There's nothing "only" about imagination. But no, you're right. The
Bible is written for intelligent people who can work it out.
Andrew
Look up the word "similar" in a dictionary
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> FOr centuries - the church ENFORCED just that interpretation of the
>>> creation of the world as true.
>>
>> Really? Which Papal encyclical did that? What means of "enforcement"
>> were applied? Can you prove this statement?
>
>
>
>
> YES - I did - here is that link again
> http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
Now highlight the statement in this text that refers to the creation of
the world. Or which refers to the inerrancy of scripture. Quotes would
be desirable
>
>>
>>> Over the centuries - religion has had to redefine itself as more and
>>> more of its original INERRANT dogma is found to be false - and your
>>> statement proves that one.
>>
>> Well of course it does. To do otherwise would be stupid. As we learn
>> more we make sense of our beliefs in different ways. That's what
>> intelligent, reflective, thinking people do.
>
>
> Sure - when things are proven to be WRONG - about the religion - they
> change the subject - typical theists.
Of course we do. Any other course of action would be stupid wouldn't
it? Or should we castigate biologists for the idea that maggots are the
product of rotten meat? Or chastise chemists for the notion of the
ether? You seem to think that theists MUST cleave to ideas that are out
of date. That would be another of your atheist myths
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> That YOU now call it a MYTH is simply accepting what the WHOLE bible is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We know that the earth is NOT unmovable in the sky - it is NOT built on
>>>>> pillars - and the sun and the rest of the UNIVERSE does not move over
>>>>> it during the day - and then hurries back to the starting place at
>>>>> night. ALl of that is IN the bible - and it is COMICAL - but hardly
>>>>> intelligent.
>>>>
>>>> Except, of course, that we still talk of "sunrise" and "sunset". Don't
>>>> we? Are we wrong to do so?
>>>
>>>
>>> English words - with defined meanings - created before the truth was known too.
>>>
>>> However - your implication is that they mean what the words they are
>>> comprised of say - which is NONSENSE
>>
>> They describe what people actually see.
>
>
> BUT they do not actually - do they?
So what? Language isn't analytical that way.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if there was an intelligent creator - the word "creator" and the
>>>>> word "god" are two different things - and YOU have yet to establish the
>>>>> rest of the powers of a god - all knowing - all seeing - all just - all
>>>>> good. That my father is a professional musician does not imply that he
>>>>> can design a car - or even play every instrument.
>>>>
>>>> So. Do you accept the possibilty of an intelligent creator? Where we go
>>>> from there depends uopn your answer
>>>
>>>
>>> That depends on what you consider a creator to be
>>>
>>> A "higher power" that had the ability to spark the initial stages of
>>> evolution - does not have to be INTELLIGENT in any other way - does
>>> not have to have any other powers - and no longer needs to exist as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> Therefore - creation does not point to the All-everything gods of
>>> religion in any PROVABLE way.
>>
>> You didn't answer. Do you accept the possibility of an intelligent creator?
>
>
> YOu did not define what you consider an intelligent creator to be - as
> I said above
"Creator" - being that created the universe
"Intelligent" - capable of rational thought
Happy? Now answer
Do you accept the possibility of an intelligent creator?
>
Michael Christ
>> And since I and my father remain agnostics - we do not claim there are no
>> gods- we simply dismiss the ones so far named by humans as UNPROVEN - and
>> all of the "scripture" as being the words and desires of humans - which
>> is ALL it is PROVEN to be.
Andrew wrote:
> There's nothing "agnostic" about you. You're an atheist.
I told him that months ago but he won't listen.
He is a child screaming there is no God in the midst of 'creation' with his
fingers stuck in his ears. The irony and the ignorance is astounding - here
he is in Christian newsgroups rather than atheist newsgroups, or even
agnostic newsgroups.
Michael Christ
duke
We Christians don't.
duke
Why not? We follow Jesus, our leader.
>>>>> There is STILL no reason to believe that christianity is the right
>>>>> choice either - there are still Hundreds of thousands of other religions
>>>>> who all make the same claims YOU do about yours.
>>>> No other one has a risen Lord.
>>> Really?
>>
>> That's right. There is only one God and one risen Lord.
>So - now he has yeast in him - so what?
Nope, no leaven.
>>> Again- a statement presented without PROOF
>>> WE have other examples of gods returning from the dead on other religions
>> No, you don't.
>Actually - you are correct
>WE have NO PROVEN examples of gods returning from the dead from ANY
>religion - not even yours
That's your problem, not mine.
>>> And we have NO reason YOU have presented that such a thing is even required.
>>>> It's well revealed in the word of God. You have the same obvious answers that
>>>> the rest of us do. God gave you and I EVERYTHING we need to make our decision.
>>>> You may demand all you want, but all you're going to get is the same thing that
>>>> all the rest of us have. So choose well. It's your eternal future/damnation
>>>> at risk and laying totally in your hands.
>>> What is the WORD of god?
>> The bible.
>So you believe that the earth is flat and that all the kingdomsof the
>world can be seen from a high place
The bible doesn't say that.
>Since that is the word of your god - then you are deluded
I know the difference.
>>> WE have NO such thing for christianity - none of the bible is
>>> represented to have been written by a god - none at all.
>> God revealed, man put pencil to paper.
>Not proven at all
That's your problem, not mine.
>>> If the Bible was the word of a god - then it would have NO errors since
>>> a god is perfect and cannot make a mistake. Since the bible has provable
>>> errors - it cannot be from a god.
>> God revelation is without error. Man words are written by man.
>And the entire bible was written by men - none of it was written by a god
But some parts are revealed by God.
>>> FOr instance - which of the four gospels is correct - ?
>> The all are.
>Sorry - but they cannot be
They are. The canon is established.
>>> Sounds like a trick question but it is not
>>> Just answer the following
>>> WHat were the last words of the christ before his supposed death on the
>>> cross/
>> Do you mean "what were his last words professed by the new Christians 30-60
>> years later" as reflected in each of the 4 gospels? There was no videotape of
>> his crucifixion.
GREAT no response.
>>> Each of the four gospels has a different answer - but there can only be
>>> ONE correct one.
>> Yep. It's like our own decision to die in God's grace or outside of his grace.
>> Even though God has known our final decision for some 13.7 billion years min, we
>> still have that final free decision to make ourselves.
>So - the bible is WRONG
No - that's EXACTLY in accordance with the bible.
>And your statement is still logical nonsense
>If a decision is was known before I was born - then I did not make the
>decision.
There was no decision made before you were born. You final decision is one you
make at the moment of your death.
>If the decision is NOT KNOWN until I make it - I had choice - but then a
>god would not know what I was going to do
God can do that.
>>> So - three of the four gospels have to be wrong - which one is correct?
>> See my answer above.
>Sorry - but you babbled - but gave nothing provable again
The tower of babble is a place people like you live.
duke
Manmade law. Why would God object to us eating pork? Especially when he said
the exact opposite in the NT.
>> That's right. There is only one God and one risen Lord.
>>>Again- a statement presented without PROOF
>>>WE have other examples of gods returning from the dead on other religions
>>
>> No, you don't.
>
>There are a number of examples.
Name -------- ONE!!
>>>What is the WORD of god?
>> The bible.
>Only if you follow the christian myth.
Why not the OT also?
>>>WE have NO such thing for christianity - none of the bible is
>>>represented to have been written by a god - none at all.
>> God revealed, man put pencil to paper.
>Man was bent on controlling population, so man put pencil to paper with
>religious terror writings.
Control is not revealed in the NT. In fact, free choice is the central theme in
the bible.
>>>If the Bible was the word of a god - then it would have NO errors since
>>>a god is perfect and cannot make a mistake. Since the bible has provable
>>>errors - it cannot be from a god.
>>
>> God revelation is without error. Man words are written by man.
>
>A perfect god would not allow an imperfect book about this perfect god.
We don't have a problem. What's yours?
>>>FOr instance - which of the four gospels is correct - ?
>> The all are.
>Then why do they contradict them selves........"eye witness" that can not come
>up with the same story and details are not very reliable.
They don't contradict themselves.
duke
>duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:22:42 -0500, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:20:29 -0500, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> T, the fool with a head of bricks.
>>
>>> Describing YOURSELF I see - Duke
>>
>>> Only a fool would waste his life following delusions that have no basis
>>> in provable facts - you may as well keep looking for that pot-o-gold at
>>> the end of the rainbow (Hint - that is a MYTH too)
>>
>> Only a fool would demand something from God different than all the rest of us
>> have.
>Sorry - that YOU are willing to accept something without any proof is
>worthless - since the majority of the people one earth - ie - the rest
>of us - do not accept your belief.
It's your funeral. Not mine.
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:mh70f5du7rm7j6kj4...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:22:42 -0500, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>duke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:20:29 -0500, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> T, the fool with a head of bricks.
>>
>>>Describing YOURSELF I see - Duke
>>
>>>Only a fool would waste his life following delusions that have no basis
>>>in provable facts - you may as well keep looking for that pot-o-gold at
>>>the end of the rainbow (Hint - that is a MYTH too)
>>
>> Only a fool would demand something from God different than all the rest of us
>> have.
>How is he being different from all the rest?
He's the only one.
Thommadura
Sorry - but that is ALSO not true
THe word canonized means its form was made established as official by
the church - and MY dating is indeed correct - while some of the
mythical stories of the bible predate its existence - and some
unofficial bibles existed before that - it was NOT until the pope - who
had the final authority at the time - canonized the form of the bible
that it because official.
Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the
Council of Rome in AD 382. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a
reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and
Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin
Vulgate Bible - the first official BIBLE
Snip Nonsense again
Since I am not an atheist- I have no problem seeing through your attempt
to rewrite history. However - I use the document of that decision not to
bring up galileo - but to bring up the OFFICIAL position of the church
- regarding the bible. IN this case - as noted in the document - the
official position of the church is stated to be that the earth is the
center of the universe as stated in the bible - and not the sun - which
is scientifically correct.
I again provide the statement
" The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not
move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally
heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and
immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is
equally absurd and false "
I really do not care about Galileo's involvement - only what the church
stated as true - which of course - turns out not to be true.
- it has taken on
> mythical status among atheists. The heliocentric model was widely and
> openly discussed in the Vatican and supported by many within the Curia.
Where is YOUR proof - where are THOSE encyclicals and documents -that
were accepted by a POPE -
I see nothing but talk here - talk that is also historically wrong
> It was ultimately held to be incorrect because the best scientific
> advice of the time (that's what the reference to 'philosophy' means).
Oh dear - another deluded theist who will NOW deny the history of his
own religion. I thought better of you at one time. Now - you create a
new reality - that denies that actual actions of the religion - which
are available in the historical record for everyone to see - and
includes not only the rejection of scientifically proven truth - but
also burning witches - and the Inquisition for heretics - those who
opposed the teachings of the church
For centuries - the catholic church - enforced its beliefs that tbe
bible was CORRECT and science could not contradict it - with torture and
death, That is a historical FACT - One needs only go to Europe and see
the actual torture chambers they used to enforce their rulings. In the
example of Galileo - WHat right did the church have to even bring him to
trial - and force him to deny the truth?
You can look it up on a number of sites - here are a few
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Inspiration.html
http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/inerranc.htm
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html
http://www.yhwh.com/Thoughts/inerrancy.htm
http://www.agncn.org/documents/inerrancy.pdf
THe protestant heretical movement of Martin Luther was based on the idea
that the bible was INERRANT and is the direct WORD OF GOD. That is the
Lutheran position.
THe inerrancy of the bible is also part of the official documentation of
the Assemblies of god churches, the Baptist sects - the Methodist sects
- and many Presbyterian sects as well
(Source
http://christianity.about.com/od/denominationscomparison/ss/comparebeliefs1_2.htm)
Now that you have proven that you are more deluded that even I expected
- there is no purpose in dealing with a person like you - who again
makes statements - that somehow I must PROVE my position -= but you can
LIE all you want = and even decide to rewrite history
I look forward to the supporting documntation that the catholic church
accepted heliocentricity - for 2000 years!
Thommadura
That supports MY argument
Telll me how a person born with mental incapacity is equal for nature
and end
\Yes - I can see your dishonesty - and that of the baltimore catechism too.
Again - only is SOME sects -
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An intelligent person would read the judeo-christion story of
>>>>>> creation - and immediately reject it as false - as well as having
>>>>>> a complete lack of intelligence.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you say. But you haven't demonstrated it.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously posted before you read the rest
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WE KNOW that morning and evening on our earth is created by the
>>>>>> rotation of the earth on its axis as it orbits the sun. Therefore
>>>>>> - morning and evening - (Noting it is our language - and that
>>>>>> means something other than darkness and light) could not have
>>>>>> happened before the sun was created. WE also know that plants
>>>>>> require sunlight - so their creation prior to the sun is also
>>>>>> suspect. Of course - we ALSO know that life appeared over Billions
>>>>>> of years on earth - not ALL at once (or within a week) - and
>>>>>> continues to evolve.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh Geez. You're not so unintelligent
>>>>
>>>> Gee - for centuries - therefore -religion was unintelligent enough
>>>> to say it was inerrant and real.
>>>
>>> I recommend you read the views of some of the early church fathers on
>>> this.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the other post - I gave you a link to the Cathoic CHurch decision
>> on Galileo - which agrees with ME.
>
> No. It doesn't.
Actually - it did
" The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not
move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally
heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and
immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is
equally absurd and false "
That CLEARY indicated that the official position of the church - the one
they used to make the decision - rejects the Heliocentiricity
Now - PROVIDE your PROOF that the early church leaders accepted the
heliocentricity of the solar system.
I will reject anything else until you do.
Thommadura
>
> "Creator" - being that created the universe
> "Intelligent" - capable of rational thought
>
> Happy? Now answer
> Do you accept the possibility of an intelligent creator?
>
In what manner are you saying that a being created the universe?
What POWERS are you giving that creator?
Thommadura
> Thommadura wrote:
>>> And since I and my father remain agnostics - we do not claim there
>>> are no gods- we simply dismiss the ones so far named by humans as
>>> UNPROVEN - and all of the "scripture" as being the words and desires
>>> of humans - which is ALL it is PROVEN to be.
>
> Andrew wrote:
>> There's nothing "agnostic" about you. You're an atheist.
>
> I told him that months ago but he won't listen.
I don't listen because YOU are wrong
My father and I have consistently asked for proof - the Agmsotic position.
An atheist denies the existence of gods
And agnostic only accepts what is PROVEN about them
THat is a MAJOR difference.
Theists and atheist BOTH cannot prove their positions with testable and
verifiable proof.
And agnostic - will ALWAYS have TRUTH on his side.
Thommadura
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:59:08 -0500, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 06:15:35 -0800 (PST), Merlin <merli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 3, 7:11 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No other one has a risen Lord.
>>>> the concept of placing someone in a tomb for three days as an
>>>> initiation ceremony
>>>> as the process transforms or kills the person is ancient.
>>>> it is part of the rituals of the book of the death.
>>> Who would do something like that?
>> Who would celebrate something like that?
>
> We Christians don't.
So EASTER is a not a celebration then
Fred Thomas
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:43:27 -0500, "Fred Thomas" <fr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:mh70f5du7rm7j6kj4...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:22:42 -0500, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>duke wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:20:29 -0500, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> T, the fool with a head of bricks.
>>>
>>>>Describing YOURSELF I see - Duke
>>>
>>>>Only a fool would waste his life following delusions that have no basis
>>>>in provable facts - you may as well keep looking for that pot-o-gold at
>>>>the end of the rainbow (Hint - that is a MYTH too)
>>>
>>> Only a fool would demand something from God different than all the rest of
>>> us
>>> have.
>
>>How is he being different from all the rest?
>
> He's the only one.
>
How is he being different from all the rest? He just wants this god, if it
exists to step forward and present it's self; instead of hiding behind clouds,
using animals to talk, people to talk for it................
Fred Thomas
change. B) There is nothing this Jesus taught that was opposite of what "his
father", you know god "commanded" his people.
>>> That's right. There is only one God and one risen Lord.
>
>>>>Again- a statement presented without PROOF
>>>>WE have other examples of gods returning from the dead on other religions
>>>
>>> No, you don't.
>>
>>There are a number of examples.
>
> Name -------- ONE!!
>
Osiris, Dionysus
>>>>What is the WORD of god?
>>> The bible.
>>Only if you follow the christian myth.
>
> Why not the OT also?
>
If your really "Christian" you would know that the "godly laws" you are to
follow are all in the OT, also the god this Jesus dude called "father", you know
the one you claimed made the earth and stuff, the creator dude? You know the
book Genesis, the main character????
>>>>WE have NO such thing for christianity - none of the bible is
>>>>represented to have been written by a god - none at all.
>
>>> God revealed, man put pencil to paper.
>
>>Man was bent on controlling population, so man put pencil to paper with
>>religious terror writings.
>
> Control is not revealed in the NT. In fact, free choice is the central theme
> in
> the bible.
>
Prove it.
>>>>If the Bible was the word of a god - then it would have NO errors since
>>>>a god is perfect and cannot make a mistake. Since the bible has provable
>>>>errors - it cannot be from a god.
>>>
>>> God revelation is without error. Man words are written by man.
>>
>>A perfect god would not allow an imperfect book about this perfect god.
>
> We don't have a problem. What's yours?
>
I don't have a problem, I am able to see the silliness of the myth.
>>>>FOr instance - which of the four gospels is correct - ?
>>> The all are.
>
>>Then why do they contradict them selves........"eye witness" that can not come
>>up with the same story and details are not very reliable.
>
> They don't contradict themselves.
You apparently have not read the bible then........oh that's right, your
Catholic, your trained not to read the book, just take what you are told as fact
in faith.
Andrew
You can quote a dictionary on this, then?
> - and MY dating is indeed correct - while some of the mythical stories
> of the bible predate its existence - and some unofficial bibles existed
> before that - it was NOT until the pope - who had the final authority
> at the time - canonized the form of the bible that it because official.
>
> Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the
> Council of Rome in AD 382. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a
> reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and
> Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin
> Vulgate Bible - the first official BIBLE
>
> Snip Nonsense again
Read "Snip stuff that undermines my somewhat jaundiced and prejudiced
take on religion" Sir - you are a humbug!
Since you are an atheist you rely on typical atheist myths that
surround this event.
> However - I use the document of that decision not to bring up galileo
ROFL!!
> - but to bring up the OFFICIAL position of the church - regarding the
> bible. IN this case - as noted in the document - the official position
> of the church is stated to be that the earth is the center of the
> universe as stated in the bible - and not the sun - which is
> scientifically correct.
But that wasn't the point at issue. You were arguing that the Church's
position was that the Bible is inerrant, NOT that the Earth is the
centre of the universe. What point are you trying to make here? Is it
that the Church thought the Bible to be inerrant or that the imagery in
the Bible is scientifically inaccurate?
>
> I again provide the statement
>
> " The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not
> move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally
> heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
> The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and
> immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is
> equally absurd and false "
And on the best scientific advice of the time they had reason to write
that last sentence. Your point is?
>
> I really do not care about Galileo's involvement - only what the church
> stated as true - which of course - turns out not to be true.
And?
>
>
>
>
> - it has taken on
>> mythical status among atheists. The heliocentric model was widely and
>> openly discussed in the Vatican and supported by many within the Curia.
>
> Where is YOUR proof - where are THOSE encyclicals and documents -that
> were accepted by a POPE -
You've rather missed the point, haven't you? Galileo was authorised, by
the Vatican, to write a balanced book that set out the arguments for
and against the heliocentric model.
>
> I see nothing but talk here - talk that is also historically wrong
>
>
>> It was ultimately held to be incorrect because the best scientific
>> advice of the time (that's what the reference to 'philosophy' means).
>
>
> Oh dear - another deluded theist who will NOW deny the history of his
> own religion. I thought better of you at one time. Now - you create a
> new reality - that denies that actual actions of the religion - which
> are available in the historical record for everyone to see - and
> includes not only the rejection of scientifically proven truth - but
> also burning witches - and the Inquisition for heretics - those who
> opposed the teachings of the church
Yep - we burned witches and heretic. Bad stuff. Won't deny it. It was
wrong. No arguments from me on that. None of that changes the fact that
you're wrong on Galileo
>
> For centuries - the catholic church - enforced its beliefs that tbe
> bible was CORRECT and science could not contradict it - with torture
> and death, That is a historical FACT - One needs only go to Europe and
> see the actual torture chambers they used to enforce their rulings. In
> the example of Galileo - WHat right did the church have to even bring
> him to trial - and force him to deny the truth?
>
> You can look it up on a number of sites - here are a few
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
I take it you haven't read this one.
> http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Inspiration.html
Which contains 2 tendentious refernces to scripture and does not
support your position
> http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/inerranc.htm
One man's website - scarcely support for arguing for inerrancy as the
view of mainstream Christianity
> http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html
A
>
20th/21st Century website that takes an irrentist view, but acceots
that its views are (quote) contentious.
> http://www.yhwh.com/Thoughts/inerrancy.htm
Qurote "The simple, undisputed, plain truth is that the "Original
Version of the Bible" does not exist.:
> http://www.agncn.org/documents/inerrancy.pdf
Quote "This statement on the inerrancy of Scripture was adopted by the
General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God in May of 1970"
Let me guess - you Googled 'inerrancy' and 'Bible' and you copied and
pasted the first few sites without actually reading them
>
>
> THe protestant heretical movement of Martin Luther was based on the
> idea that the bible was INERRANT and is the direct WORD OF GOD. That is
> the Lutheran position.
> THe inerrancy of the bible is also part of the official documentation
> of the Assemblies of god churches, the Baptist sects - the Methodist
> sects - and many Presbyterian sects as well
> (Source
> http://christianity.about.com/od/denominationscomparison/ss/comparebeliefs1_2.htm)
Thanks
>
for that - it cites the position of the Catholic Church (remember - the
one you started with?)
"God is the author of sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed
realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred
Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit ...we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly,
faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake
of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.""
i e inerrant ONLY in regard to what is necessary to salvation
> Now that you have proven that you are more deluded that even I expected
> - there is no purpose in dealing with a person like you - who again
> makes statements - that somehow I must PROVE my position -= but you can
> LIE all you want = and even decide to rewrite history
All you've proved is that you don't bother reading the sources you
cite. But then again, why should you? You have no doubts. You have no
questions. You are confident in your beliefs. There is no doubt in your
mind that anything that Google throws up when you type "innerancy" and
"Bible" will support your position.
Your faith is far more unquestioning than mine.
Andrew
You're avoiding the question.
I did what you asked me to do and I defined the words you asked me to define.
Now answer.
Andrew
>> Baltimore Chatechism
>> Q. 128. In what respect are all men equal?
>> A. All men are equal in whatever is necessary for their nature and end.
>> Note - not "equally". What this says is that every human being is born
>> with common humanity and with equal access to the grace and love of
>> God. You are trying to apply it to something completely different. Can
>> you say "dishonest"?
>
> That supports MY argument
>
> Telll me how a person born with mental incapacity is equal for nature and end
Because all human beings are equally loved by God, regardless of their
mental capacities. However incapacitated they may be they are still
human (nature) and are still welcome into the eternal presence of God
(end).
Sorry - I thought that was obvious
Nope - that's the mainstream consenus
But it DOESN'T say that the Bible is inerrant. You were seeking to
prove that this was the the position of the church. You're wrong
>
>
> Now - PROVIDE your PROOF that the early church leaders accepted the
> heliocentricity of the solar system.
Well of course they didn't! The "best" scientific advice of the time
rejected it - why should the church accept it? You seem not to be aware
that there were strong scientific argumants against heliocentrism.
>
> I will reject anything else until you do.
Of course you will. Anything to avoid thinking
duke
The resurrection of the Lord is the celebration, not Easter.
duke
>>>You eat pork, so you do not follow all he supposedly taught.
>>
>> Manmade law. Why would God object to us eating pork? Especially when he said
>> the exact opposite in the NT.
>>
>A) the food laws are from YOUR god, that if I may remind you claims to never
>change.
Levi man-made laws.
>B) There is nothing this Jesus taught that was opposite of what "his
>father", you know god "commanded" his people.
1 Corinthians 10:25-26 (New International Version)
25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience,
26for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."[a]
Gotcha.
>>>> That's right. There is only one God and one risen Lord.
>>
>>>>>Again- a statement presented without PROOF
>>>>>WE have other examples of gods returning from the dead on other religions
>>>>
>>>> No, you don't.
>>>
>>>There are a number of examples.
>>
>> Name -------- ONE!!
>>
>
>Osiris, Dionysus
Only found in the book of Mythology.
>>>>>What is the WORD of god?
>>>> The bible.
>>>Only if you follow the christian myth.
>> Why not the OT also?
>If your really "Christian" you would know that the "godly laws" you are to
>follow are all in the OT, also the god this Jesus dude called "father", you know
>the one you claimed made the earth and stuff, the creator dude? You know the
>book Genesis, the main character????
God became man in the person of Jesus Christ to show us the "new way".
>> Control is not revealed in the NT. In fact, free choice is the central theme
>> in the bible.
>Prove it.
If you knew what the bible is, you could answer that yourself.
>>>>>If the Bible was the word of a god - then it would have NO errors since
>>>>>a god is perfect and cannot make a mistake. Since the bible has provable
>>>>>errors - it cannot be from a god.
>>>>
>>>> God revelation is without error. Man words are written by man.
>>>
>>>A perfect god would not allow an imperfect book about this perfect god.
>> We don't have a problem. What's yours?
>I don't have a problem, I am able to see the silliness of the myth.
Then you have a problem.
>>>>>FOr instance - which of the four gospels is correct - ?
>>>> The all are.
>>>Then why do they contradict them selves........"eye witness" that can not come
>>>up with the same story and details are not very reliable.
>> They don't contradict themselves.
>You apparently have not read the bible then........oh that's right, your
>Catholic, your trained not to read the book, just take what you are told as fact
>in faith.
We do so at every Mass, 24/7.
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:66l5f5tlkdued8sjt...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:43:27 -0500, "Fred Thomas" <fr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:mh70f5du7rm7j6kj4...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:22:42 -0500, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>duke wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:20:29 -0500, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> T, the fool with a head of bricks.
>>>>
>>>>>Describing YOURSELF I see - Duke
>>>>
>>>>>Only a fool would waste his life following delusions that have no basis
>>>>>in provable facts - you may as well keep looking for that pot-o-gold at
>>>>>the end of the rainbow (Hint - that is a MYTH too)
>>>>
>>>> Only a fool would demand something from God different than all the rest of
>>>> us
>>>> have.
>>
>>>How is he being different from all the rest?
>> He's the only one.
>Lets put what you snipped out back in.............it appears you are dodging.
Nope.
>How is he being different from all the rest? He just wants this god, if it
>exists to step forward and present it's self; instead of hiding behind clouds,
>using animals to talk, people to talk for it................
God presented himself in person 2000 years ago.
duke
NOt a chance. An agnostic simply doesn't believe because he doesn't find the
evidence convincing. That doesn't make you anywhere near the truth. But just a
little confused boy.
Thommadura
Having been a catholic - and having posted the Encylical of the pope
saying often -- makes it easy.
Too bad YOU don' take the time to verify YOUR statements
"Pope Pius IX in an encyclical in 1854 said this:
"It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the
apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only
ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the
flood."
>>>
>>>> - disagreed for most of the time of the bible - which BY THE WAY has
>>>> not been around for 2000 years. It was canonized at the end of the
>>>> 4th century
>>>
>>> Bibles aren't canonised.
>>
>>
>> Sorry - but that is ALSO not true
>>
>> THe word canonized means its form was made established as official by
>> the church
>
> You can quote a dictionary on this, then?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/canon
can�on 1 (knn)
n.
1. An ecclesiastical law or code of laws established by a church council.
2. A secular law, rule, or code of law.
3.
a. An established principle: the canons of polite society.
b. A basis for judgment; a standard or criterion.
4. The books of the Bible officially accepted as Holy Scripture.
canon1
n
1. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) Christianity a Church decree
enacted to regulate morals or religious practices
2. (often plural) a general rule or standard, as of judgment, morals, etc.
3. (often plural) a principle or accepted criterion applied in a branch
of learning or art
4. (Christianity / Roman Catholic Church) RC Church the complete list of
the canonized saints
5. (Christianity / Roman Catholic Church) (RC Church) the prayer in the
Mass in which the Host is consecrated
6. (Literary & Literary Critical Terms) (Christianity / Ecclesiastical
Terms) a list of writings, esp sacred writings, officially recognized as
genuine
can�on�ize (kn-nz)
tr.v. can�on�ized, can�on�iz�ing, can�on�iz�es
1. To declare (a deceased person) to be a saint and entitled to be fully
honored as such.
*************2. To include in the biblical canon.
3. To include in a literary canon.
4. To approve as being within canon law.
5. To treat as sacred; glorify.
Done -
>
>> - and MY dating is indeed correct - while some of the mythical
>> stories of the bible predate its existence - and some unofficial
>> bibles existed before that - it was NOT until the pope - who had the
>> final authority at the time - canonized the form of the bible that it
>> because official.
>>
>> Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the
>> Council of Rome in AD 382. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a
>> reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and
>> Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin
>> Vulgate Bible - the first official BIBLE
>>
>> Snip Nonsense again
>
> Read "Snip stuff that undermines my somewhat jaundiced and prejudiced
> take on religion" Sir - you are a humbug!
Since a HUMBUG is also a fictional thing - you at least remain
consistent with your fictional claims!
Since I did know that the bible WAS canonized - and WHEN it was done by
the pope - I find no reason to reply to things that ignore the actual
facts as they are historical truth that - in this case - can be proven.
However - it also points to your LACK of knowledge on the subject as well.
Sorry - but I still request proof of your statements - makeing ME an
agnostic - and atheist simply would reject completely
Since the AGNOSTIC position is based on actual truth - acceptance of
what is PROVEN about gods and religions - it is the only one of the
positions that is. NEither an atheist nor a Theist can prove their
postions about gods. BUT it remains TRUTH that none of them are PROVEN
truth.
>
>> However - I use the document of that decision not to bring up galileo
>
> ROFL!!
YOu asked for a PAPAL document
THe Document I quoted was a PAPAL decree
>
>> - but to bring up the OFFICIAL position of the church - regarding the
>> bible. IN this case - as noted in the document - the official
>> position of the church is stated to be that the earth is the center of
>> the universe as stated in the bible - and not the sun - which is
>> scientifically correct.
>
> But that wasn't the point at issue. You were arguing that the Church's
> position was that the Bible is inerrant, NOT that the Earth is the
> centre of the universe. What point are you trying to make here? Is it
> that the Church thought the Bible to be inerrant or that the imagery in
> the Bible is scientifically inaccurate?
Change of subject NOTED. The actual statement YOU made was that the
church recognized the heliocentric makeup of the solar system for 2000
years.
I noted - and supported - that the OFFICIAL bible - which was not made
canon until 383 CE - was not 2000 years old to begin with - and then -
when asked to present a PAPAL decree supporting the actual statements of
the bible - I presented the Papal decree on Galileo.
The papal decree on Galileo - argues that the depiction of creation in
the bible was correct - and that the "idea" that the earth orbited the
sun was "Absurd and FALSE"
Since the imagery of the bible is NOT scientifically accurate - but they
were enforcing it as late as 1615 - your statement about the recognition
of heliocentricity is WRONG.
>
>>
>> I again provide the statement
>>
>> " The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not
>> move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally
>> heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
>> The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and
>> immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is
>> equally absurd and false "
>
> And on the best scientific advice of the time they had reason to write
> that last sentence. Your point is?
Still another change of subject noted.
I was addressing YOUR statement about the church recognition of our
heliocentric being 2000 years old - something that YOU have failed to
support - and something I have proven NOT to be true.
I still await YOUR proof of your statement about ANY church leaders
officially recognizing the heliocentric nature of the our solar system
Thommadura
Sorry - this is not a one way street where I must prove my side - and
you continue to ignore my questions.
The answer is - a "higher power" with the ability to start the process
of evolution from the existing matter and energy that has ALWAYS existed
need have only ONE power - to do that - and not need intelligence in
ANYTHING else as well - nor does it mean that it continues to exist.
While I am not saying that is HOW it started (No creators are proven
either - and as an agnostic I would need testable and verifiable PROOF
for that one) - the fact that Leprechauns MIGHT exist does not mean that
they do either. However - there is ALSO no evidence that connects that
initial process - with the MYTHOLOGY of religion and their all powerful
gods either.
Now - I asked for your documentation of YOUR claim that the church has
recognized heliocentricity for 2000 years. YOu are avoiding that question
NOW Answer>>>>>>>>>>
Thommadura
> On 2009-11-05 14:47:50 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>
>>> Baltimore Chatechism
>>> Q. 128. In what respect are all men equal?
>>> A. All men are equal in whatever is necessary for their nature and end.
>>> Note - not "equally". What this says is that every human being is
>>> born with common humanity and with equal access to the grace and love
>>> of God. You are trying to apply it to something completely different.
>>> Can you say "dishonest"?
>>
>> That supports MY argument
>>
>> Telll me how a person born with mental incapacity is equal for nature
>> and end
>
> Because all human beings are equally loved by God,
Sorry - that is belief - since you still have not proven a god exists to
do that one. Try again
regardless of their
> mental capacities. However incapacitated they may be they are still
> human (nature) and are still welcome into the eternal presence of God
> (end).
Dismissed because of lack of supporting proof
And YOUR proof of that one?
Change of subject noted again
THe subject was YOUR claim that the church accepted the heliocentric
nature of our solar system for 2000 years
YOu asked for a papal decree to PROVE you wrong
THe galileo decree was a papal decree.
YOU are wrong.
>>
>>
>> Now - PROVIDE your PROOF that the early church leaders accepted the
>> heliocentricity of the solar system.
>
> Well of course they didn't! The "best" scientific advice of the time
> rejected it - why should the church accept it? You seem not to be aware
> that there were strong scientific argumants against heliocentrism.
ANd since it was YOU who claimed that the story of the bible was a
"poem" - and was not actually accepted as true - your are therefore WRONG.
>
Thommadura
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:10:40 -0500, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:59:08 -0500, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 06:15:35 -0800 (PST), Merlin <merli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 3, 7:11 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No other one has a risen Lord.
>>>>>> the concept of placing someone in a tomb for three days as an
>>>>>> initiation ceremony
>>>>>> as the process transforms or kills the person is ancient.
>>>>>> it is part of the rituals of the book of the death.
>>>>> Who would do something like that?
>>>> Who would celebrate something like that?
>>> We Christians don't.
>> So EASTER is a not a celebration then
>
> The resurrection of the Lord is the celebration, not Easter.
>
AND when did that one happen?
Thommadura
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:07:46 -0500, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Michael Christ wrote:
>>> Thommadura wrote:
>>>>> And since I and my father remain agnostics - we do not claim there
>>>>> are no gods- we simply dismiss the ones so far named by humans as
>>>>> UNPROVEN - and all of the "scripture" as being the words and desires
>>>>> of humans - which is ALL it is PROVEN to be.
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> There's nothing "agnostic" about you. You're an atheist.
>>> I told him that months ago but he won't listen.
>>
>> I don't listen because YOU are wrong
>>
>> My father and I have consistently asked for proof - the Agmsotic position.
>
>> An atheist denies the existence of gods
>> And agnostic only accepts what is PROVEN about them
>> THat is a MAJOR difference.
>
>> Theists and atheist BOTH cannot prove their positions with testable and
>> verifiable proof.
>>
>> And agnostic - will ALWAYS have TRUTH on his side.
>
> NOt a chance. An agnostic simply doesn't believe because he doesn't find the
> evidence convincing.
No - he finds no PROOF -- we do not accept evidence that is NOT
testable and verifiable - and is therefore PROVEN
And since YOU never actually even mention the evidence - because YOU
know it cannot withstand testing and verification - it is NOT truth
SO - since the Agnostic only accepts what is PROVEN to be true - he will
ALWAYS have truth on his side
ThomM
Presbytery of the Assemblies of God in May of 1970"
>
> Let me guess - you Googled 'inerrancy' and 'Bible' and you copied and
> pasted the first few sites without actually reading them
>
Maybe you should actually read the statements of the churches involved
Here is one From the Cathoic Church
Pope Leo XIII (1893): His encyclical letter "Providentissimus
Deus" (124-125) said in part:
"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and
canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at
the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible
that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only
is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as
absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the
supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient
and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils
of Florence and Trent, and finally and more expressly formulated by
the [First] Council of the Vatican."
Again
THe bible was DICTATED by the Holy spirit.
Inspiration is incompatible with error -
"IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT GOD HIMSELF - THE SUPREME TRUTH - CAN UTTER
THAT WHICH IS NOT TRUE."
and THIS was in 1893 - and science had already firmly established the
sun centered solar system by then
Fred Thomas
existence of God been successfully refuted? If your God exists, are we being
unreasonable to suppose that there would be at least one irrefutable proof of
His existence? Can it be possible that believers, who have the advantage of an
indwelling Holy Spirit with an "infinite mind," can be stumped by "finite minds"
of unbelievers working within the confining limitations of reason? Why was Jesus
so similar to the other saviors of mythology? Do you believe in any of the other
virgin births, resurrection and savior myths recorded in other ancient
literature? How is it that so many Christian rituals and ceremonies, such as
baptism, eating the body and drinking the blood of their gods,etc. have been
adopted from older pagan religions? Why were the defining doctrines of
Christianity assimilated from pagan cults? Why is Christmas, Easter, Lent,
rogation days, and others, derived from pagan holidays. Didn't Christianity have
any legitimate calendar of commemorations of its own? Why can't the six accounts
of the resurrection be reconciled? Paul in Corinthians 15:14 says that without
the resurrection, the Christian faith is in vain. Why are the biblical accounts
contradictory and how could they possibly disagree on an event that is vitally
important to the Christian faith? Why doesn't prayer work, when the Bible
promises in John 14:14 for example, that it will? In fact, why pray at all? If
it changes God's mind then he is not sovereign. If it does not change God's mind
then it's superfluous and a waste of time.
Fred Thomas
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:49:06 -0500, "Fred Thomas" <fr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>>You eat pork, so you do not follow all he supposedly taught.
>>>
>>> Manmade law. Why would God object to us eating pork? Especially when he
>>> said
>>> the exact opposite in the NT.
>>>
>>A) the food laws are from YOUR god, that if I may remind you claims to never
>>change.
>
> Levi man-made laws.
>
Nope, passed on bu your "almighty" god.
>>B) There is nothing this Jesus taught that was opposite of what "his
>>father", you know god "commanded" his people.
>
> 1 Corinthians 10:25-26 (New International Version)
>
> 25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of
> conscience,
> 26for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."[a]
>
> Gotcha.
>
Nope, read the rest of it and in context. Paul was talking about buying food
from the market that may have been part of sacrifices to other gods. A very
common practice in those times. It had nothing to do with "clean" or "unclean"
foods. Hint read vs 28. Your ignorance is showing.
>>>>> That's right. There is only one God and one risen Lord.
>>>
>>>>>>Again- a statement presented without PROOF
>>>>>>WE have other examples of gods returning from the dead on other religions
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you don't.
>>>>
>>>>There are a number of examples.
>>>
>>> Name -------- ONE!!
>>>
>>
>>Osiris, Dionysus
>
> Only found in the book of Mythology.
>
Why was Jesus so similar to the other saviors of mythology? Do you believe in
any of the other virgin births, resurrection and savior myths recorded in other
ancient literature? How is it that so many Christian rituals and ceremonies,
such as baptism, eating the body and drinking the blood of their gods,etc. have
been adopted from older pagan religions?
Why were the defining doctrines of Christianity assimilated from pagan cults?
Why is Christmas, Easter, Lent, rogation days, and others, derived from pagan
holidays. Didn't Christianity have any legitimate calendar of commemorations of
its own? See, ytou bible is just another one of those "books of mythology".
>>>>>>What is the WORD of god?
>>>>> The bible.
>>>>Only if you follow the christian myth.
>>> Why not the OT also?
>
>>If your really "Christian" you would know that the "godly laws" you are to
>>follow are all in the OT, also the god this Jesus dude called "father", you
>>know
>>the one you claimed made the earth and stuff, the creator dude? You know the
>>book Genesis, the main character????
>
> God became man in the person of Jesus Christ to show us the "new way".
>
And yet you will not find any passage that says the "laws" "rules" and such of
the OT by YOUR GOD has been done away with, except one. Your god man supposedly
became that one item. If you have actually studied your story book you would
know that the customs of Easter and Christmas are an abomination. Your customs
would be very different.
>>> Control is not revealed in the NT. In fact, free choice is the central
>>> theme
>>> in the bible.
>
>>Prove it.
>
> If you knew what the bible is, you could answer that yourself.
>
Another dodge.
>>>>>>If the Bible was the word of a god - then it would have NO errors since
>>>>>>a god is perfect and cannot make a mistake. Since the bible has provable
>>>>>>errors - it cannot be from a god.
>>>>>
>>>>> God revelation is without error. Man words are written by man.
>>>>
>>>>A perfect god would not allow an imperfect book about this perfect god.
>>> We don't have a problem. What's yours?
>>I don't have a problem, I am able to see the silliness of the myth.
>
> Then you have a problem.
>
Why is it that when you view someone else's beliefs, for example the beliefs of
Hindus, Buddhists, Muslems, etc, you have no problem seeing the errors, but you
dismiss your own religion's errors as though they were inconsequential?
>>>>>>FOr instance - which of the four gospels is correct - ?
>>>>> The all are.
>
>>>>Then why do they contradict them selves........"eye witness" that can not
>>>>come
>>>>up with the same story and details are not very reliable.
>
>>> They don't contradict themselves.
>>You apparently have not read the bible then........oh that's right, your
>>Catholic, your trained not to read the book, just take what you are told as
>>fact
>>in faith.
>
> We do so at every Mass, 24/7.
Ah yes the brain washing ritual.
Fred Thomas
An agnostic does not believe or disbelieve, an agnostic does not know.
Andrew
You seem to have suffered a grammar collapse here. But you haven't
posted ANY encyclical to support your position.
> -- makes it easy.
> Too bad YOU don' take the time to verify YOUR statements
>
>
> "Pope Pius IX in an encyclical in 1854 said this:
>
> "It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the
> apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only
> ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the
> flood."
Yes - I know about this one. As a Presbyterian I disagree with it. As a
Presbyterian I also recognise that it has bugger all to to with 'Bible
inerrancy' which was, as I recall, your point. It's a sad day, surely,
when I, as a Presbyterian, know a bit more about Papal encyclicals that
someone who, apparently, used to be a Catholic. Clearly you weren't
listening very carefullly
Neat trick - but yoiu're confusing noun and verb here. Your next link is better
>
>
> can�on�ize (kn-nz)
> tr.v. can�on�ized, can�on�iz�ing, can�on�iz�es
> 1. To declare (a deceased person) to be a saint and entitled to be
> fully honored as such.
> *************2. To include in the biblical canon.
> 3. To include in a literary canon.
> 4. To approve as being within canon law.
> 5. To treat as sacred; glorify.
>
> Done -
This last link is a reasonable one because it deals with the verb you
used. Sadly it doesn't address the use you made of it. The Bible IS a
canon - it cannot be said to have been included in a canon. Sorry -
this is a bit anally-retentive on my part, but I do like accuracy.
>
>>
>>> - and MY dating is indeed correct - while some of the mythical stories
>>> of the bible predate its existence - and some unofficial bibles existed
>>> before that - it was NOT until the pope - who had the final authority
>>> at the time - canonized the form of the bible that it because official.
>>>
>>> Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the
>>> Council of Rome in AD 382. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a
>>> reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and
>>> Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin
>>> Vulgate Bible - the first official BIBLE
>>>
>>> Snip Nonsense again
>>
>> Read "Snip stuff that undermines my somewhat jaundiced and prejudiced
>> take on religion" Sir - you are a humbug!
>
>
> Since a HUMBUG is also a fictional thing - you at least remain
> consistent with your fictional claims!
Actually it's a sweet. Look it up.
>
> Since I did know that the bible WAS canonized - and WHEN it was done by
> the pope - I find no reason to reply to things that ignore the actual
> facts as they are historical truth that - in this case - can be
> proven. However - it also points to your LACK of knowledge on the
> subject as well.
You knpow bugger all. You THINK you know, but all you really have are
they myths that protect your beliefs from close analysis. Open your
mind and research the stuff you're posting on. Look up "Muratorian
Canon" It's not hard. You can do it.
Yes - but it doesn't actually say anything pertinent to what we're discussing
>
>
>>
>>> - but to bring up the OFFICIAL position of the church - regarding the
>>> bible. IN this case - as noted in the document - the official position
>>> of the church is stated to be that the earth is the center of the
>>> universe as stated in the bible - and not the sun - which is
>>> scientifically correct.
>>
>> But that wasn't the point at issue. You were arguing that the Church's
>> position was that the Bible is inerrant, NOT that the Earth is the
>> centre of the universe. What point are you trying to make here? Is it
>> that the Church thought the Bible to be inerrant or that the imagery in
>> the Bible is scientifically inaccurate?
>
>
>
> Change of subject NOTED. The actual statement YOU made was that the
> church recognized the heliocentric makeup of the solar system for 2000
> years.
No I didn't! If you can't read there's little point lurking on UseNet.
I said that the Church had not regarded the Bible as factually
inerrant. Go back on this thread - or any other if you like. Quote me
>
> I noted - and supported - that the OFFICIAL bible - which was not made
> canon until 383 CE
But you gave no evidence for that
> - was not 2000 years old to begin with
can you spell "Approximation"?
> - and then - when asked to present a PAPAL decree supporting the
> actual statements of the bible - I presented the Papal decree on
> Galileo.
Which didn't support your position
>
> The papal decree on Galileo - argues that the depiction of creation in
> the bible was correct - and that the "idea" that the earth orbited the
> sun was "Absurd and FALSE"
Anbd on the best scientific advice of the time they had a point.
>
> Since the imagery of the bible is NOT scientifically accurate - but
> they were enforcing it as late as 1615 - your statement about the
> recognition of heliocentricity is WRONG.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> I again provide the statement
>>>
>>> " The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not
>>> move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally
>>> heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
>>> The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and
>>> immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is
>>> equally absurd and false "
>>
>> And on the best scientific advice of the time they had reason to write
>> that last sentence. Your point is?
>
>
>
> Still another change of subject noted.
>
>
> I was addressing YOUR statement about the church recognition of our
> heliocentric being 2000 years old - something that YOU have failed to
> support - and something I have proven NOT to be true.
Something I never said, either.
>
>
> I still await YOUR proof of your statement about ANY church leaders
> officially recognizing the heliocentric nature of the our solar system
Wait a long time. I don't think that and I didn't say it. I said that
the heliocentric model was openly discussed in the Vatican. That's the
problem with you atheists - you read everybody else's views through the
filters of your own preconceptions - trouble is, you don't think you
HAVE preconceptions.
Andrew
This encyclical never mentions the heliocentric system.
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>> On 2009-11-05 14:47:50 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>>
>>>> Baltimore Chatechism
>>>> Q. 128. In what respect are all men equal?
>>>> A. All men are equal in whatever is necessary for their nature and end.
>>>> Note - not "equally". What this says is that every human being is born
>>>> with common humanity and with equal access to the grace and love of
>>>> God. You are trying to apply it to something completely different. Can
>>>> you say "dishonest"?
>>>
>>> That supports MY argument
>>>
>>> Telll me how a person born with mental incapacity is equal for nature and end
>>
>> Because all human beings are equally loved by God,
>
> Sorry - that is belief - since you still have not proven a god exists
> to do that one. Try again
Well of course it is - you asked me to explain a position of belief. Or
don't you understand what "catechism" means? NO - DON'T quote an
on-line dictionary - you're clearly that anally retentive.
Nope. I never said that. Yoiur inability to read is noted.
>
> YOu asked for a papal decree to PROVE you wrong
>
> THe galileo decree was a papal decree.
>
> YOU are wrong.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now - PROVIDE your PROOF that the early church leaders accepted the
>>> heliocentricity of the solar system.
>>
>> Well of course they didn't! The "best" scientific advice of the time
>> rejected it - why should the church accept it? You seem not to be aware
>> that there were strong scientific argumants against heliocentrism.
>
> ANd since it was YOU who claimed that the story of the bible was a
> "poem" - and was not actually accepted as true - your are therefore
> WRONG.
Oh Geez - you're one of those "either/or" folk who can't deal with
subtlety, aren't you? No. I didn't say "the story of the Bible is a
poem". I said Genesis 1 is a poem. I also said that the Bible contains
many type of literature. Please try to keep up
Andrew
OK - let's start with that. You accept the possibility that a "higher
power" (quoted to accept that you are limiting the concept in the way
you suggest" created the universe. Right?
Am I also right in thinking you're suggesting that you think
leprechauns might exist?
The Doctor
Basis of thread is a lie.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
For the latest World News go to http://www.cuttingedge.org/ - Lest we forget 2009 .
Fred Thomas
"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:hd2h5g$m8a$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
The Doctor
Thommadura
WHo cares if YOU disagree - if you cannot provide a PROVABLE reason why
it is WRONG.
It is sad to say - that you do not know much about christianity that a
person who is no longer one.
You have made claims about the bible and its acceptance and enforcement
that are clearly and historically wrong
Sorry - but I provide BOTH for a reason
>
>>
>>
>> can�on�ize (kn-nz)
>> tr.v. can�on�ized, can�on�iz�ing, can�on�iz�es
>> 1. To declare (a deceased person) to be a saint and entitled to be
>> fully honored as such.
>> *************2. To include in the biblical canon.
>> 3. To include in a literary canon.
>> 4. To approve as being within canon law.
>> 5. To treat as sacred; glorify.
>>
>> Done -
>
> This last link is a reasonable one because it deals with the verb you
> used. Sadly it doesn't address the use you made of it. The Bible IS a
> canon - it cannot be said to have been included in a canon. Sorry - this
> is a bit anally-retentive on my part, but I do like accuracy.
You are simply being inaccurate then.
THe bible was made canon after a POPE authorized its final version - in
effect - he officially recognized it - ie canonized it.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> - and MY dating is indeed correct - while some of the mythical
>>>> stories of the bible predate its existence - and some unofficial
>>>> bibles existed before that - it was NOT until the pope - who had the
>>>> final authority at the time - canonized the form of the bible that
>>>> it because official.
>>>>
>>>> Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the
>>>> Council of Rome in AD 382. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a
>>>> reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and
>>>> Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin
>>>> Vulgate Bible - the first official BIBLE
>>>>
>>>> Snip Nonsense again
>>>
>>> Read "Snip stuff that undermines my somewhat jaundiced and prejudiced
>>> take on religion" Sir - you are a humbug!
>>
>>
>> Since a HUMBUG is also a fictional thing - you at least remain
>> consistent with your fictional claims!
>
> Actually it's a sweet. Look it up.
Somehow I doubt that you meant it in that way.
>
>>
>> Since I did know that the bible WAS canonized - and WHEN it was done
>> by the pope - I find no reason to reply to things that ignore the
>> actual facts as they are historical truth that - in this case - can
>> be proven. However - it also points to your LACK of knowledge on the
>> subject as well.
>
> You knpow bugger all. You THINK you know, but all you really have are
> they myths that protect your beliefs from close analysis. Open your mind
> and research the stuff you're posting on. Look up "Muratorian Canon"
> It's not hard. You can do it.
Don't care about your little nonsense here - I was correct in my
statement about the bible
SINCE at that time the POPE was the ONLY person who could officially
recognize something as canon - your argument fails.
Sure it did
IT cleary established that the official postion of the church was NOT to
recognize heliocentricity - which WAS the subject YOU claimed
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> - but to bring up the OFFICIAL position of the church - regarding
>>>> the bible. IN this case - as noted in the document - the official
>>>> position of the church is stated to be that the earth is the center
>>>> of the universe as stated in the bible - and not the sun - which is
>>>> scientifically correct.
>>>
>>> But that wasn't the point at issue. You were arguing that the
>>> Church's position was that the Bible is inerrant, NOT that the Earth
>>> is the centre of the universe. What point are you trying to make
>>> here? Is it that the Church thought the Bible to be inerrant or that
>>> the imagery in the Bible is scientifically inaccurate?
>>
>>
>>
>> Change of subject NOTED. The actual statement YOU made was that the
>> church recognized the heliocentric makeup of the solar system for 2000
>> years.
>
> No I didn't! If you can't read there's little point lurking on UseNet. I
> said that the Church had not regarded the Bible as factually inerrant.
> Go back on this thread - or any other if you like. Quote me
>
>>
>> I noted - and supported - that the OFFICIAL bible - which was not made
>> canon until 383 CE
>
> But you gave no evidence for that
Sure I did - The statement about POPE Damasus and when the bible was
created is in this thread above
>
>> - was not 2000 years old to begin with
>
> can you spell "Approximation"?
400 years of difference is quite an Approximation
>
>> - and then - when asked to present a PAPAL decree supporting the
>> actual statements of the bible - I presented the Papal decree on Galileo.
>
> Which didn't support your position
IT actually proved MY position
>
>>
>> The papal decree on Galileo - argues that the depiction of creation in
>> the bible was correct - and that the "idea" that the earth orbited the
>> sun was "Absurd and FALSE"
>
> Anbd on the best scientific advice of the time they had a point.
Since the bible is NOT a scientific document - that was never the issue
First - the statement is still wrong
YOU claimed that creation in the bible was a "poem" and that the church
recognized heliocentricity 2000 years age.
THat statement is WRONG - AND the papal decree PROVES that one
Thommadura
> On 2009-11-06 18:55:54 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> On 2009-11-05 14:47:50 +0000, Thommadura <tomm...@optonline.net> said:
>>>
>>>>> Baltimore Chatechism
>>>>> Q. 128. In what respect are all men equal?
>>>>> A. All men are equal in whatever is necessary for their nature and
>>>>> end.
>>>>> Note - not "equally". What this says is that every human being is
>>>>> born with common humanity and with equal access to the grace and
>>>>> love of God. You are trying to apply it to something completely
>>>>> different. Can you say "dishonest"?
>>>>
>>>> That supports MY argument
>>>>
>>>> Telll me how a person born with mental incapacity is equal for
>>>> nature and end
>>>
>>> Because all human beings are equally loved by God,
>>
>> Sorry - that is belief - since you still have not proven a god exists
>> to do that one. Try again
>
> Well of course it is - you asked me to explain a position of belief. Or
> don't you understand what "catechism" means? NO - DON'T quote an on-line
> dictionary - you're clearly that anally retentive.
As My father and I have posted before
WHen asked for proof of their gods and their religious statements -
theists do one or more of three things
1 - Attack the Question -
2 - Attack the Questioner - as YOU did
3 - Change the subject - which you do all the time as well.
And that is simply because their statements have no truth that they can
PROVE
I do not need to quote an on-line dictionary - the word catechism simply
us a writing of religious belief - which still PROVES nothing at all.
Thommadura
Said without any supporting proof it is a lie
A huxley agnostic accepts only what is PROVEN about gods and religions
NOTHING is
IT is not that we do no know - there is NOTHING proven to know
Thommadura
ANother change of subject noted - you are still avoiding the question
THerefore - I can take that as an admission that your statement was a LIE?
Thommadura
>
> Am I also right in thinking you're suggesting that you think leprechauns
> might exist?
Sorry - but Leprechauns are MYTHS - just like gods - creators - and
religions. Change of subject NOTED
Now answer MY question - or admit you cannot