This is Christianity

[DreadGeekGrrl]

Someone, I believe it was Brock, made the statement that perhaps the
problem is that the people here have not adequately conveyed the
message of Christianity here. However, a very strong argument could
be made that, in point of fact, the theists here and on AvC have
conveyed what Christianity is altogether accurately. I cannot think
of a better example, particularly for those of us who left
Christianity in some form or another, than the postings of several of
the theists on this board.

To take one example, there's the whole argument about origins of the
universe, planets and the history of life on this planet. Have any of
you who have been on AvC or, for that matter, talk.origins or here or
anyplace else EVER read a post that would lead you to believe that
Creationists have any real idea about the Standard Model in cosmology
or the Modern Synthesis in evolutionary biology OTHER than that,
whatever they say, it's wrong because it disagrees with the Bible? I
cannot and I have been reading and debating this subject, online in
some form or another for over a decade now and not ONCE in that entire
time have I found an interlocutor who appeared to have any real idea
of what evolutionary biology *actually* states. There's a lot of
invocation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There's the talk
about how the mathematics don't work, the probability of going from
atoms to horses in a single jump even though no one, not a single
biologist, would suggest the theory predicts this in their most wild
drunken ramblings. There's the talk of 'I don't believe that people
just sprang from nothing' even though, again, that's not what
evolutionary biologists state.

Then there's the talk of morality. How many times, in various
environments, have theists stated that without belief in god there's
no reason to be moral. As I've said before, this says far *more*
about the moral compass of the Christians making this argument than it
says about the rest of humanity. They ignore the massive evidence
that is the daily lives of people living in nations which are NOT
predominantly Christian.

Yet, it goes even further than that. Ignoring the ludicrous myths at
the core of Christian beliefs, many theists have no problem condemning
the beliefs of Muslims, or laughing at the gods in the Hindu
pantheon. They look at Greek mythology as *myth* forgetting that this
was the *religion* of the Greeks and they right off every other
religious tradition that has EVER existed on the planet as not being
something sincerely believed at the time by those people.

This is Christianity as represented in this and other groups and it is
an accurate representation of what folks believe long after they have
logged off their computers.

Cheers
DGG

[Belly Bionic]

I believe the post you're referencing was by 4praise, but you are very
much correct. No matter how many times it's pointed out, they can
never quite seem to grasp the view of Christianity of mine that
4praise was referencing didn't come from Christians failing to
adequately convey the message of Christianity. It came directly from
the Bible. The non-theists I know all have the view they do of
Christianity from reading the Bible and living as Christians. The
difference seems to be that we read the whole Bible, not just the bits
that the pastor reads in his Sunday sermon, and we actually pay
attention to what we're reading instead of just waving away or making
up excuses for whichever parts don't fit into a desperate need for it
to be true.

[Dag Yo]

> Have any of
> you who have been on AvC or, for that matter, talk.origins or here or
> anyplace else EVER read a post that would lead you to believe that
> Creationists have any real idea about the Standard Model in cosmology
> or the Modern Synthesis in evolutionary biology OTHER than that,
> whatever they say, it's wrong because it disagrees with the Bible?

I can't say that I have, but I would like to add a related observation
of my own about creationists that I have made on several occasions;
they are willfully ignorant and are willing to liar in order to
promote what they believe. Like for example, i've seen some
creationists post something like "I don't see why you believe all
those evolutionists who say humans just appeared out of nothing." At
which point several people point out that "evolutionists", and neither
is anyone else, a bit of a discussion ensues, links are posted, books
are recommended, appeals to honesty and reason are made. And a week
later the same poster comes right back and says "I don't see why you
believe all those evolutionists who say humans just appeared out of
nothing."

Which is simply absolutely unthinkable to me. It really is. If
someone explained that I was absolutely mistaken on some idea of mine,
and suggested that in fact the opposite might be true, i'd go out and
try to learn about it before writing more drivel on the internet and
making a fool of myself.

---
Amazingly though I think I have seen one or two creationists with the
tiniest hint of curiosity who actually did seem interested in
learning, but I'm not left with the impression that they were all that
interested as they did just disappear after learning a bit rather than
continue to learn more and more.
---
-

On Jul 14, 7:51 pm, DreadGeekGrrl <dreadg...@gmail.com> wrote:

[4praise]

I have read the whole bible - the first time was when I was 26 (that
was 25 years ago). I admit that prior to that I only had knowledge of
Sunday School lessons and sermons and I agree with you that the whole
bible should be read - it is the only way to truly understand it. In
my case, the sermons didn't make a true believer out of me, it wasn't
until I read the whole bible that I really started to "get it".

Your characterization of my approach to the bible is inaccurate and
uninformed and you are making sweeping generalizations about all
Christians.

I could easily generalize as well and say that non-theists are getting
all of their knowledge about the bible from "sermons" (by Dawkins and
Hithens and Harris) - it is apparent when reading AvC that is the
often the case - but that would not be fair to someone such as
yourself that has read the bible - so I will refrain from such.

[Brock]

On Jul 15, 2:47 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> Your characterization of my approach to the bible is inaccurate and
> uninformed and you are making sweeping generalizations about all
> Christians.
>
> I could easily generalize as well and say that non-theists are getting
> all of their knowledge about the bible from "sermons" (by Dawkins and
> Hithens and Harris) - it is apparent when reading AvC that is the
> often the case - but that would not be fair to someone such as
> yourself that has read the bible - so I will refrain from such.

Your gentle rebuke of the position is well done, 4praise. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Belly Bionic]

I can't help noticing that you've completely ignored the 2nd part of
my observation. That non-theists read the entire Bible *and* don't
engage in the mental gymnastics required to maintain belief. You're
doing exactly that in another thread right here in this group, where
you're arguing that it should be obvious that the Bible says things
that it demonstrably does not say. In order to maintain your belief,
you have to come up with convoluted explanations of what God must have
really *meant* even though the Bible clearly states that it's not what
he said. From my perspective, my characterization of your approach is
quite accurate and informed.

[Dag Yo]

Wow. Thats exactly whats going on.

It's just like when you watch a convoluted movie that you're still
kind of interested in, and having to make up events that were never
showed just to make sense of whats happening.

[Medusa]

4praise wrote:

> I have read the whole bible - the first time was when I was 26 (that
> was 25 years ago). I admit that prior to that I only had knowledge of
> Sunday School lessons and sermons and I agree with you that the whole
> bible should be read - it is the only way to truly understand it. In
> my case, the sermons didn't make a true believer out of me, it wasn't
> until I read the whole bible that I really started to "get it".

I read pieces of the Bible, both as a Christian and an atheist; I have
been one since I was 12. When I was 21, I read the entire Bible.
This made me even more skeptical of religions. I got that my
impressions of it as a collection of myths were correct.

BTW, I did not hear about the "Four Horsemen" (Dennett, Dawkins,
Hitchens, and Harris) until last year.

Medusa

[4praise]

I'm not doing what you have supposed. You're not only making a
statement about what you think I am doing but you also claim to know
my motives. There is nothing else that I can say except that you're
wrong.

[4praise]

Interesting. My experience was sort of the opposite.

I was baptized and thought of myself as a Christian when I was 11, but
then became a skeptic at age 19. Then reading the entire bible when I
was 26 was one part of a sequence of events that fully convinced me of
the reality of God and Jesus.

suum cuique

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:54 PM, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:

Interesting.  My experience was sort of the opposite.

I was baptized and thought of myself as a Christian when I was 11, but
then became a skeptic at age 19.  Then reading the entire bible when I
was 26 was one part of a sequence of events that fully convinced me of
the reality of God and Jesus.

How did you manage to delude yourself, 4Praise? ;-)

I found it quite disturbing when I read from cover to cover when I was 17.

 

suum cuique

On Jul 15, 3:46 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 4praise wrote:
> > I have read the whole bible - the first time was when I was 26 (that
> > was 25 years ago).  I admit that prior to that I only had knowledge of
> > Sunday School lessons and sermons and I agree with you that the whole
> > bible should be read - it is the only way to truly understand it.  In
> > my case, the sermons didn't make a true believer out of me, it wasn't
> > until I read the whole bible that I really started to "get it".
>
> I read pieces of the Bible, both as a Christian and an atheist; I have
> been one since I was 12.  When I was 21, I read the entire Bible.
> This made me even more skeptical of religions.  I got that my
> impressions of it as a collection of myths were correct.
>
> BTW, I did not hear about the "Four Horsemen" (Dennett, Dawkins,
> Hitchens, and Harris) until last year.
>
> Medusa

--
------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Which God Do You Kill For? --Unknown

Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown

[Belly Bionic]

On Jul 15, 6:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:54 PM, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>
> > Interesting.  My experience was sort of the opposite.
>
> > I was baptized and thought of myself as a Christian when I was 11, but
> > then became a skeptic at age 19.  Then reading the entire bible when I
> > was 26 was one part of a sequence of events that fully convinced me of
> > the reality of God and Jesus.
>
> How did you manage to delude yourself, 4Praise? ;-)
>
> I found it quite disturbing when I read from cover to cover when I was 17.

Agreed. I tried it at age 11, and got about halfway through the OT
before my mom took it away from me. I was having nightmares about God
killing my whole family. I got all the way through on my second try
at age 16, and totally understood why my mom had decided I was not
allowed to read it five years earlier.

[rappoccio]

On Jul 15, 1:47 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> I have read the whole bible - the first time was when I was 26 (that
> was 25 years ago).

Interesting. I was a Christian for longer than you have been. Oddly
enough, the LAST time I read the Bible (and arguably the last time I
ever will) was when I was 24 or so. I had read it four or five times
previously to that, but all before I had even gotten to college.

> I admit that prior to that I only had knowledge of
> Sunday School lessons and sermons and I agree with you that the whole
> bible should be read - it is the only way to truly understand it.  In
> my case, the sermons didn't make a true believer out of me, it wasn't
> until I read the whole bible that I really started to "get it".

Me too! It was so easy to realize that it was a group of neolithic
fairy tales as soon as I had read the whole thing as an adult with a
little bit of historical context and after studying the time period in
question.

[rappoccio]

Great post, DGG, comments inline:

On Jul 14, 9:51 pm, DreadGeekGrrl <dreadg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Someone, I believe it was Brock, made the statement that perhaps the
> problem is that the people here have not adequately conveyed the
> message of Christianity here.  However, a very strong argument could
> be made that, in point of fact, the theists here and on AvC have
> conveyed what Christianity is altogether accurately.  I cannot think
> of a better example, particularly for those of us who left
> Christianity in some form or another, than the postings of several of
> the theists on this board.

Agreed. There are all types represented: from decent people to
outright lunatics, and I'd say in approximately the right proportion
too.

> To take one example, there's the whole argument about origins of the
> universe, planets and the history of life on this planet.  Have any of
> you who have been on AvC or, for that matter, talk.origins or here or
> anyplace else EVER read a post that would lead you to believe that
> Creationists have any real idea about the Standard Model in cosmology
> or the Modern Synthesis in evolutionary biology OTHER than that,
> whatever they say, it's wrong because it disagrees with the Bible?  I
> cannot and I have been reading and debating this subject, online in
> some form or another for over a decade now and not ONCE in that entire
> time have I found an interlocutor who appeared to have any real idea
> of what evolutionary biology *actually* states.  There's a lot of
> invocation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  There's the talk
> about how the mathematics don't work, the probability of going from
> atoms to horses in a single jump even though no one, not a single
> biologist, would suggest the theory predicts this in their most wild
> drunken ramblings.  There's the talk of 'I don't believe that people
> just sprang from nothing' even though, again, that's not what
> evolutionary biologists state.

I have yet to find someone who disregards evolution who understands it
at all. It's kind of depressing that someone like Michael Behe can
actually fool someone into thinking he's competent enough to be a
biologist without understanding a single thing about the overarching
structure of it.

>
> Then there's the talk of morality.  How many times, in various
> environments, have theists stated that without belief in god there's
> no reason to be moral.  As I've said before, this says far *more*
> about the moral compass of the Christians making this argument than it
> says about the rest of humanity.  They ignore the massive evidence
> that is the daily lives of people living in nations which are NOT
> predominantly Christian.
>
> Yet, it goes even further than that.  Ignoring the ludicrous myths at
> the core of Christian beliefs, many theists have no problem condemning
> the beliefs of Muslims, or laughing at the gods in the Hindu
> pantheon.  They look at Greek mythology as *myth* forgetting that this
> was the *religion* of the Greeks and they right off every other
> religious tradition that has EVER existed on the planet as not being
> something sincerely believed at the time by those people.

It always goes like this:

I believe that an invisible entity from another dimension created the
universe, then sacrificed itself to itself to spare its own creation
from its own wrath.

But thetans from another planet? That's just fucking nuts.

[rappoccio]

On Jul 15, 12:48 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Have any of
> > you who have been on AvC or, for that matter, talk.origins or here or
> > anyplace else EVER read a post that would lead you to believe that
> > Creationists have any real idea about the Standard Model in cosmology
> > or the Modern Synthesis in evolutionary biology OTHER than that,
> > whatever they say, it's wrong because it disagrees with the Bible?
>
> I can't say that I have, but I would like to add a related observation
> of my own about creationists that I have made on several occasions;
> they are willfully ignorant and are willing to liar in order to
> promote what they believe.  Like for example, i've seen some
> creationists post something like "I don't see why you believe all
> those evolutionists who say humans just appeared out of nothing."  At
> which point several people point out that "evolutionists", and neither
> is anyone else, a bit of a discussion ensues, links are posted, books
> are recommended, appeals to honesty and reason are made.  And a week
> later the same poster comes right back and says "I don't see why you
> believe all those evolutionists who say humans just appeared out of
> nothing."

This is why I've stopped trying with adults. Most of them are simply
too far gone down "Delusional Fantasy Boulevard" (sounds like a red-
light district, but it's just not).

[rappoccio]

On Jul 15, 12:05 pm, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't help noticing that you've completely ignored the 2nd part of
> my observation.  That non-theists read the entire Bible *and* don't
> engage in the mental gymnastics required to maintain belief.  You're
> doing exactly that in another thread right here in this group, where
> you're arguing that it should be obvious that the Bible says things
> that it demonstrably does not say.  In order to maintain your belief,
> you have to come up with convoluted explanations of what God must have
> really *meant* even though the Bible clearly states that it's not what
> he said.  From my perspective, my characterization of your approach is
> quite accurate and informed.
>

Agreed wholeheartedly.

[rappoccio]

My parents got my kids this little "Bible for toddlers" type deal. It
was kind of disturbing to see Noah loading animals on the ark in
preparation for the rest of society to be murdered.

The book is in the back of the closet and my kids will never look at
it. When they're old enough to learn about all the myths of the world,
we'll start with the more palatable pagan Egypto-Greco-Roman ones and
then maybe move to the Mesopotamian ones like Gilgamesh and the Old
Testament. Gotta do them in order, you know. It wouldn't really be
fair to old Osiris to let Jesus steal his thunder as a resurrected
deity. I mean, come ON... Osiris totally had dibs on that.

[4praise]

I too found it disturbing, but I guess in a good way. I wrote my
story a few months ago and posted it at avc -
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/my-story?hl=en

The bible reading isn't specifically mentioned in there but it was
taking place right about the same time as the other events described.

On Jul 15, 6:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Dag Yo]

It's unfortunate that you never developed enough intellectual
curiosity to go out and learn more about the world when you were 19.
You might have picked up some bits of knowledge like the fact that
your senses aren't 100% accurate, you can be tricked, and that
correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. And then perhaps you
would know that whatever reasons you have for believing in God now,
aren't actually logically valid at all.

[4praise]

I could make the same claim about atheists in reverse. I could say
that an atheist has one or more things in their life that are called
wrong in the bible so therefore in order to maintain disbelief in the
bible you pick it apart take things literally that weren't intended
that way. I could say that - but I don't because I would be guilty of
generalizing. I'm sure that there are some atheists that are
motivated that way but there are others that are not.

[4praise]

> It's unfortunate that you never developed enough intellectual
> curiosity to go out and learn more about the world when you were 19.

I've always had intellectual curiosity - why would belief in God be
mutually exclusive with that? Did you know that some of the greatest
scientific breakthroughs have come from Christians? (the big bang
theory, for example) Did Lamaitre fail to develop his intellectual
curiosity when he became a priest? How about Occam or Bayes or
Newton?

> You might have picked up some bits of knowledge like the fact that
> your senses aren't 100% accurate, you can be tricked

I am more aware of that now than I was at 19 thru 25 ( my skeptical
years). The fact that I can be tricked does not mean that I am always
being tricked.

> And then perhaps you
> would know that whatever reasons you have for believing in God now,
> aren't actually logically valid at all.

I see. So it doesn't really matter what my reasons are - you are
certain that they are not "logically valid at all"?

[Trance Gemini]

Exactly. There's seriously disturbing stuff in there.

Even the NT (I think) talks about cursing towns that don't welcome Jesus disciples, etc.

And Revelations just makes me think of what a really bad Acid trip must have been like for some people ;-).

 

[Trance Gemini]

I had an interesting conversation with my daughter recently 4Praise about AvC and the beliefs that people had associated to their god(s) etc.

I was joking about the different conversations that I've had and the characters and personalities on AvC.

One of the comments that I made to her was that I never understood how people Couldn't see that their book and the concepts of their god was a man-made invention.

I explained that the likelihood that there is other intelligent life in the Universe is far higher than the existence of a god or gods. (We had previously been discussing the Mars explorations).

She laughingly commented that if there was a god did that mean that aliens have copies of the christian bible as well?

Perhaps you can answer that question and I'll pass your response on. 

[random]

I learned the OT in school, from the second grade all the way to high
school.
Certainly not one of my favorite classes, but I don't remember anyone
getting nightmares over it.

Perhaps guidance from a teacher and going over it as a group made
things easier.

[Drafterman]

How, exactly, can you speak toward the intentions of people that lived
and died thousands of years ago? Layers and layers of convolution.

> > > > > > DGG- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:25 AM, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> I could make the same claim about atheists in reverse. I could say
> that an atheist has one or more things in their life that are called
> wrong in the bible so therefore in order to maintain disbelief in the
> bible you pick it apart take things literally that weren't intended
> that way. I could say that - but I don't because I would be guilty of
> generalizing. I'm sure that there are some atheists that are
> motivated that way but there are others that are not.

4praise,

You continue to impress. Nicely put. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Medusa]

4praise wrote:

> Interesting. My experience was sort of the opposite.
>
> I was baptized and thought of myself as a Christian when I was 11, but
> then became a skeptic at age 19. Then reading the entire bible when I
> was 26 was one part of a sequence of events that fully convinced me of
> the reality of God and Jesus.

Very interesting. How did you manage to lighten up all the violent
stories in the Bible?

Medusa

[Medusa]

Belly Bionic;

> > I found it quite disturbing when I read from cover to cover when I was 17.
>
> Agreed.  I tried it at age 11, and got about halfway through the OT
> before my mom took it away from me.  I was having nightmares about God
> killing my whole family.  I got all the way through on my second try
> at age 16, and totally understood why my mom had decided I was not
> allowed to read it five years earlier.

Ironic, isn't it? I got into trouble in Sunday school for reading
further on in the Bible than the class was supposed to read. It was
the story of Lot and his daughters. The sexual content made me
giggle, and then I alerted the rest of the class to the read of the
story.

Then I got yelled at for reading the Bible!

Medusa

[rappoccio]

On Jul 16, 2:25 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> I could make the same claim about atheists in reverse.  I could say
> that an atheist has one or more things in their life that are called
> wrong in the bible so therefore in order to maintain disbelief in the
> bible you pick it apart take things literally that weren't intended
> that way.
> I could say that - but I don't because I would be guilty of
> generalizing.  I'm sure that there are some atheists that are
> motivated that way but there are others that are not.

I have yet to meet a Christian who did not have to perform mental
gymnastics in order to twist the Bible into their (already decided
upon) humanistic concerns. Atheists are atheists, not because they
don't want to be "moral" as described in the Bible, but because they
don't actually feel like lying and saying they believe in something
that they don't. They also don't think someone needs a dog-leash-
holder with carrots and sticks to be moral.

[rappoccio]

HAHAHAHAHA!

Priceless! Absolutely priceless!

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:25 AM, rappoccio <rapp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2:25 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>> I could make the same claim about atheists in reverse. I could say
>> that an atheist has one or more things in their life that are called
>> wrong in the bible so therefore in order to maintain disbelief in the
>> bible you pick it apart take things literally that weren't intended
>> that way.
>> I could say that - but I don't because I would be guilty of
>> generalizing. I'm sure that there are some atheists that are
>> motivated that way but there are others that are not.
>
> I have yet to meet a Christian who did not have to perform mental
> gymnastics in order to twist the Bible into their (already decided
> upon) humanistic concerns.

I do not subscribe to, nor articulate positions based upon
existential/humanistic premises. :)

Regards,

Brock

[4praise]

> She laughingly commented that if there was a god did that mean that aliens
> have copies of the christian bible as well?
>

Yes, but it comes up on a really cool flat panel touch screen and you
can interact with it and the characters on the screen can see you as
well.

On Jul 16, 4:32 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I had an interesting conversation with my daughter recently 4Praise about
> AvC and the beliefs that people had associated to their god(s) etc.
> I was joking about the different conversations that I've had and the
> characters and personalities on AvC.
>
> One of the comments that I made to her was that I never understood how
> people Couldn't see that their book and the concepts of their god was a
> man-made invention.
>
> I explained that the likelihood that there is other intelligent life in the
> Universe is far higher than the existence of a god or gods. (We had
> previously been discussing the Mars explorations).
>
> She laughingly commented that if there was a god did that mean that aliens
> have copies of the christian bible as well?
>
> Perhaps you can answer that question and I'll pass your response on.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:39 AM, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>
> > I too found it disturbing, but I guess in a good way.   I wrote my
> > story a few months ago and posted it at avc -

> >http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/my-story?h...

[4praise]

Why lighten them up? There is violence in the world, why would a
description of events from the past be non violent?

[4praise]

Ha ha - we used to call Song of Solomon the "poor man's penthouse
forum"

[Drafterman]

On Jul 16, 1:59 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> Why lighten them up?  There is violence in the world, why would a
> description of events from the past be non violent?

Oh, several reasons.

First, much of the violence is orchestrated by God itself, which seems
odd given the omnibenevolence often associated with it.

Second, the Bible contains many elements (either references or
depictions of) that Christians often protest against in other books.
Such examples are: violence (wars, genocide), sexuality (references to
homosexuality, beastiality, depictions of incest), crimes against
humanity (slavery, racism).

>
> On Jul 16, 7:50 am, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 4praise wrote:
> > > Interesting.  My experience was sort of the opposite.
>
> > > I was baptized and thought of myself as a Christian when I was 11, but
> > > then became a skeptic at age 19.  Then reading the entire bible when I
> > > was 26 was one part of a sequence of events that fully convinced me of
> > > the reality of God and Jesus.
>
> > Very interesting.  How did you manage to lighten up all the violent
> > stories in the Bible?
>

> > Medusa- Hide quoted text -

[4praise]

Even if "gymnastics" were performed, isn't that good exercise? :-)

There are actually some Christians that questioned the bible and did
not come to faith in Christ until after their issues with the bible
were resolved (Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell to name a few).

As for me, my faith in Jesus in not dependent on the bible. If there
was something in the bible that was incorrect, that would not cause me
to lose my relationship with Jesus.

There a people making cases on both sides regarding what is true and
false in the bible and the "proofs" sometimes shift. For example,
references to the Hittites in the OT were once thought to be an
historical error but archeology has since affirmed the biblical
records. My position is one of "wait and see". I have heard very
compelling arguments from various viewpoints about some aspects of the
bible. Most of the arguments have little or no bearing in my everyday
life - so I am not anxious to make a judgment regarding some of these
things.

[4praise]

> First, much of the violence is orchestrated by God itself, which seems
> odd given the omnibenevolence often associated with it.

There are definitely some parts that are hard to understand. The same
is true of any great work.

> Second, the Bible contains many elements (either references or
> depictions of) that Christians often protest against in other books.
> Such examples are: violence (wars, genocide), sexuality (references to
> homosexuality, beastiality, depictions of incest), crimes against
> humanity (slavery, racism).

Yeah sometimes Christians are little nutty in that regard. For
example, in our church we once did a production of "The Lion the Witch
and the Wardrobe" and one lady told me that her kids were not going to
participate because she didn't want them to read something that had a
witch in it. So I asked her if she allowed her kids to read books
that mentioned demons and devils and she said "of course not" to which
I replied, "well there goes Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" :-)

After reading the OT and then seeing "The Godfather" I was convinced
that the Mafia got many of their ideas from the bible.

[BlueSci]

On Jul 15, 5:46 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> I'm not doing what you have supposed.  You're not only making a
> statement about what you think I am doing but you also claim to know
> my motives.  There is nothing else that I can say except that you're
> wrong.

I'd say BB is right on target. You've proved it with the mental
gymnastics you've displayed with the "spiritual death" of Adam & Eve.

>
> On Jul 15, 10:05 am, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I can't help noticing that you've completely ignored the 2nd part of
> > my observation.  That non-theists read the entire Bible *and* don't
> > engage in the mental gymnastics required to maintain belief.  You're
> > doing exactly that in another thread right here in this group, where
> > you're arguing that it should be obvious that the Bible says things
> > that it demonstrably does not say.  In order to maintain your belief,
> > you have to come up with convoluted explanations of what God must have
> > really *meant* even though the Bible clearly states that it's not what
> > he said.  From my perspective, my characterization of your approach is
> > quite accurate and informed.
>

> > > > > DGG- Hide quoted text -

[4praise]

You can make an assessment about what you think I am or am not doing
when I say "spiritual death" but neither you nor anyone else is really
qualified to know my motives.

The accusation that ALL Christians defend the bible using mental
gymnastics because they have prejudged it to be the truth is simply
unfounded. What you call "gymnastics", some people just call
"thinking". Christians have applied critical thinking to the bible
for centuries.

[Drafterman]

On Jul 16, 2:26 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > First, much of the violence is orchestrated by God itself, which seems
> > odd given the omnibenevolence often associated with it.
>
> There are definitely some parts that are hard to understand.  The same
> is true of any great work.

It is certainly not a requirement of a "great work" to be hard to
understand. But this is just assumption on your part.

What reason is there for me to believe that the violent acts depicted
in the Bible are indicative of it being "hard to understand" rather
than simple accepting it as a mythological story that depicts a
malicious and vengeful god?

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:08 PM, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>
> You can make an assessment about what you think I am or am not doing
> when I say "spiritual death" but neither you nor anyone else is really
> qualified to know my motives.
>
> The accusation that ALL Christians defend the bible using mental
> gymnastics because they have prejudged it to be the truth is simply
> unfounded. What you call "gymnastics", some people just call
> "thinking". Christians have applied critical thinking to the bible
> for centuries.

You are right to point out the double standard, 4praise. When
atheists make conclusions using "mental gymnastics", they credit
themselves and use terms like "critical thinking" and "reasoning". So
it appears that they articulate nothing more than a personal bias
against the gospel. As Thomas Nagel articulated:

"I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of
the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious
believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally,
hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I
don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like
that."[1]

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Last-Word-Thomas-Nagel/dp/0195108345

[Drafterman]

On Jul 16, 3:08 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> You can make an assessment about what you think I am or am not doing
> when I say "spiritual death" but neither you nor anyone else is really
> qualified to know my motives.
>
> The accusation that ALL Christians defend the bible using mental
> gymnastics because they have prejudged it to be the truth is simply
> unfounded.  What you call "gymnastics", some people just call
> "thinking".  Christians have applied critical thinking to the bible
> for centuries.

Yes, and those that have, became atheists.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[4praise]

> > Christians have applied critical thinking to the bible
> > for centuries.

> Yes, and those that have, became atheists.

That's simply not true. All that I have to do prove it's not true is
cite one person that examined the bible with what all agree is
"critical thought" and did not become an atheist. Do I have to cite
one? I think you probably already know of several.

[rappoccio]

On Jul 16, 1:18 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> Even if "gymnastics" were performed, isn't that good exercise? :-)

Only if you recognize that it's exercise and not real :)

>
> There are actually some Christians that questioned the bible and did
> not come to faith in Christ until after their issues with the bible
> were resolved (Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell to name a few).

I wouldn't say "resolved". More like "stopped asking questions".

> As for me, my faith in Jesus in not dependent on the bible.  If there
> was something in the bible that was incorrect, that would not cause me
> to lose my relationship with Jesus.

So how do you get this information from Jesus then?

> There a people making cases on both sides regarding what is true and
> false in the bible and the "proofs" sometimes shift.  For example,
> references to the Hittites in the OT were once thought to be an
> historical error but archeology has since affirmed the biblical
> records.  My position is one of "wait and see".  I have heard very
> compelling arguments from various viewpoints about some aspects of the
> bible.  Most of the arguments have little or no bearing in my everyday
> life - so I am not anxious to make a judgment regarding some of these
> things.

I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that the global flood did not
happen. Wait and see... well, wait no more. There is absolute evidence
that contradicts it happening. This isn't a case of "Well, maybe
evidence for the global flood will show up". No. This is "We have
evidence that it didn't actually happen".

The disassociation from reality that ensues is completely
reprehensible.

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:51 PM, rappoccio <rapp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that the global flood did not
> happen.

Of course, you've articulated a double standard and contradicted
yourself. As you noted earlier:

> Of course, you and I both know we know nothing with 100% certainty, [1]

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/432f0506ced23c1d
of course, his double standard didn't just stop there, as he said:
"Of course, you and I both know we know nothing with 100% certainty,
but that's only a problem with your position, not mine."

[4praise]

> So how do you get this information from Jesus then?

His spirit sends messages to my spirit and visa versa. It's kind of
like an 2400 baud modem at times, I am still waiting for my upgrade to
broadband.

> I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that the global flood did not
> happen.

There are quite a few Christians that don't think it was global - in
fact they claim that is what the bible said all along and that
"global" was mis-read. I really don't know. I have also heard claims
that it was global and of course other claims that it's a complete
fabrication. I tend to think that it was probably not global, but I
haven't totally ruled it out. That's one of those things that has
little or no bearing on my everyday life. Someday when I get my
upgrade to broadband I'll be able to download more data and perhaps
I'll get more detail on that event ;)

[rappoccio]

On Jul 16, 4:30 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > So how do you get this information from Jesus then?
>
> His spirit sends messages to my spirit and visa versa.  It's kind of
> like an 2400 baud modem at times, I am still waiting for my upgrade to
> broadband.

How do you know that these messages are from the "spirit"?

>
> > I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that the global flood did not
> > happen.
>
> There are quite a few Christians that don't think it was global

Then the Bible was mistaken and errant.

> - in
> fact they claim that is what the bible said all along and that
> "global" was mis-read.  I really don't know.  I have also heard claims
> that it was global and of course other claims that it's a complete
> fabrication.  I tend to think that it was probably not global, but I
> haven't totally ruled it out.  That's one of those things that has
> little or no bearing on my everyday life.  Someday when I get my
> upgrade to broadband I'll be able to download more data and perhaps
> I'll get more detail on that event ;)

So let's summarize:

1) You don't exclusively rely on the Bible for any information.
2) You don't even require it to be particularly accurate.
3) You accept some parts of it as true but not all.
4) You have direct communication with God when you need answers.

Is that accurate?

> ...
>
> read more »

[Dag Yo]

> She laughingly commented that if there was a god did that mean that aliens
> have copies of the christian bible as well?

Actually thats why I've decided to become a Scientologist, it's like
L. Ron Hubbard brought us a bible from space ;P

On Jul 16, 4:32 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I had an interesting conversation with my daughter recently 4Praise about
> AvC and the beliefs that people had associated to their god(s) etc.
> I was joking about the different conversations that I've had and the
> characters and personalities on AvC.
>
> One of the comments that I made to her was that I never understood how
> people Couldn't see that their book and the concepts of their god was a
> man-made invention.
>
> I explained that the likelihood that there is other intelligent life in the
> Universe is far higher than the existence of a god or gods. (We had
> previously been discussing the Mars explorations).
>
> She laughingly commented that if there was a god did that mean that aliens
> have copies of the christian bible as well?
>
> Perhaps you can answer that question and I'll pass your response on.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:39 AM, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>
> > I too found it disturbing, but I guess in a good way. I wrote my
> > story a few months ago and posted it at avc -

> >http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/my-story?h...

[Trance Gemini]

Love that story, Medusa! Lol.

 

Medusa

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:57 PM, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:

> She laughingly commented that if there was a god did that mean that aliens
> have copies of the christian bible as well?
>

Yes, but it comes up on a really cool flat panel touch screen and you
can interact with it and the characters on the screen can see you as
well.

LMAO! I'll pass that one on ;-)

However, on a more serious note, did ya get the point? :-)

[BlueSci]

On Jul 16, 12:08 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> You can make an assessment about what you think I am or am not doing
> when I say "spiritual death" but neither you nor anyone else is really
> qualified to know my motives.

When did I say anything about your motive? I've simply stated that
you're doing it, but never claimed to know why.

>
> The accusation that ALL Christians defend the bible using mental
> gymnastics because they have prejudged it to be the truth is simply
> unfounded.

I've yet to find one that didn't.  

> What you call "gymnastics", some people just call
> "thinking".  Christians have applied critical thinking to the bible
> for centuries.

That's exactly the point. No christian I've ever known or have heard
of accepts the bible *as written*. Even bliblical inerrantists have
to go through elaborate twists and jumps in their 'critical thinking'
so that the bible will mean what they want it to mean and not what it
actually says.

And how do you now that your 'critical thinking' is even correct?
What if god doesn't want you to reinterpret his words and wants you to
follow every word to the letter? Perhaps god really wants you to
stone adulterers and disobedient children. Perhaps working on the
sabbath or eating shellfish really is a mortal sin. What then? You
could find yourself in hell because you didn't ask forgiveness for
putting in overtime one sabbath or for that lobster you ate or because
your children talked back to you and you didn't kill them. But you
don't want to believe that's true (yes, *now* I'm talking about your
motives) because it offends your preconceived morality, so you apply
the 'new covenant' gymnastics. The funny thing is that it seems like
this 'interpretation' and 'critical thinking' are only done on the
parts of the bible that seem to be offensive, inconvenient or just
make you uncomfortable, but the parts you like--well those are clear
as a bell and taken verbatim. Why is that?

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Dag Yo <sir_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> She laughingly commented that if there was a god did that mean that aliens
> have copies of the christian bible as well?

Actually thats why I've decided to become a Scientologist, it's like
L. Ron Hubbard brought us a bible from space ;P

Lol. Do you believe you're a thetan too ;-)

[Dag Yo]

On Jul 16, 12:39 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > It's unfortunate that you never developed enough intellectual
> > curiosity to go out and learn more about the world when you were 19.
>
> I've always had intellectual curiosity - why would belief in God be
> mutually exclusive with that?
I suppose that depending on the degree of cognitive dissonance one
engages in, it is perfectly possible to continue to learn all that one
can about the world including ways in which the observed world
contradicts the picture of it described in the bible. Simply put
though, a belief in God NECESSARILY closes one of from other
possibilities -- possibilities for which a solidly qualitative
probability exists given that there is not one iota of evidence that
God exists.

And I wasn't lamenting the fact that you're not somewhat
intellectually curious but rather that you weren't intellectually
curious to learn the right things during those brief years in which
you apparently would have been open to ideas which upon becoming a
Christian again you simply must ignore.

> Did you know that some of the greatest
> scientific breakthroughs have come from Christians?
Yes. Though that fact demonstrates absolutely nothing in contrast to
my point.

> > You might have picked up some bits of knowledge like the fact that
> > your senses aren't 100% accurate, you can be tricked
>
> I am more aware of that now than I was at 19 thru 25 ( my skeptical
> years). The fact that I can be tricked does not mean that I am always
> being tricked.
I do hope you realize that even though you use the word skeptical just
like I do, it has quite a bit different meaning for me and other
people who would call themselves skeptics.

> > And then perhaps you
> > would know that whatever reasons you have for believing in God now,
> > aren't actually logically valid at all.
>
> I see. So it doesn't really matter what my reasons are - you are
> certain that they are not "logically valid at all"?
I suppose not. But I'd be quite surprised if you believed in God for
any logically valid reason, given that every single argument for the
existence of god (and God) i've heard of is not logically valid at
all, and people have been working at this problem for a few thousand
years now. But, as I do wish to know what is true, I invite you to
post all the reasons that you believe in God (that you also happen to
think are logically valid reasons), so if in fact you have a good
sound reason for believing in God then I will believe in God as well.

> On Jul 16, 12:16 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > It's unfortunate that you never developed enough intellectual
> > curiosity to go out and learn more about the world when you were 19.
> > You might have picked up some bits of knowledge like the fact that
> > your senses aren't 100% accurate, you can be tricked, and that
> > correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. And then perhaps you
> > would know that whatever reasons you have for believing in God now,
> > aren't actually logically valid at all.

>
> > On Jul 15, 5:54 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>
> > > Interesting. My experience was sort of the opposite.
>
> > > I was baptized and thought of myself as a Christian when I was 11, but
> > > then became a skeptic at age 19. Then reading the entire bible when I
> > > was 26 was one part of a sequence of events that fully convinced me of
> > > the reality of God and Jesus.
>

[4praise]

>
> 1) You don't exclusively rely on the Bible for any information.
> 2) You don't even require it to be particularly accurate.
> 3) You accept some parts of it as true but not all.
> 4) You have direct communication with God when you need answers.
>
> Is that accurate?
>

Pretty close.

1. Correct - not exclusive but VERY valuable.
2. I don't require that it be "inerrant" but I'm confident that it is
from God. Any errors came from man's involvement with it.
3. I don't accept or reject the parts that I can't can't confirm from
other sources as either true or false (ooh, that was like a Yurchenko
- and I think I stuck the landing)
4. Correct, but it's admittedly imperfect or as Paul put it 1 Cor 13
"We see through a glass darkly". I can just hear you now queuing up
the church lady from SNL - "Isn't that conveeenient" ;)

> ...
>
> read more »

[Belly Bionic]

You can say that I'm wrong all you like. The fact is, the evidence
that you're doing exactly that is right there, in black and white, for
anyone to see for themselves. Anyone who cares to can pick up a
Bible, read Genesis, and see that it does not say what you claim it
does.

On Jul 15, 5:46 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> I'm not doing what you have supposed.  You're not only making a
> statement about what you think I am doing but you also claim to know
> my motives.  There is nothing else that I can say except that you're
> wrong.
>

> On Jul 15, 10:05 am, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I can't help noticing that you've completely ignored the 2nd part of
> > my observation.  That non-theists read the entire Bible *and* don't
> > engage in the mental gymnastics required to maintain belief.  You're
> > doing exactly that in another thread right here in this group, where
> > you're arguing that it should be obvious that the Bible says things
> > that it demonstrably does not say.  In order to maintain your belief,
> > you have to come up with convoluted explanations of what God must have
> > really *meant* even though the Bible clearly states that it's not what
> > he said.  From my perspective, my characterization of your approach is
> > quite accurate and informed.
>

[Drafterman]

On Jul 16, 4:30 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:

> > > Christians have applied critical thinking to the bible
> > > for centuries.
> > Yes, and those that have, became atheists.
>
> That's simply not true. All that I have to do prove it's not true is
> cite one person that examined the bible with what all agree is
> "critical thought" and did not become an atheist. Do I have to cite
> one? I think you probably already know of several.

Ok, shoot.

[Drafterman]

On Jul 16, 3:08 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:

> You can make an assessment about what you think I am or am not doing
> when I say "spiritual death" but neither you nor anyone else is really
> qualified to know my motives.
>
> The accusation that ALL Christians defend the bible using mental
> gymnastics because they have prejudged it to be the truth is simply
> unfounded. What you call "gymnastics", some people just call
> "thinking". Christians have applied critical thinking to the bible
> for centuries.

It isn't unfounded, it's a necessary conclusion.

FACT: The Bible does not match reality (be there gaps or
contradictions)
FACT: In order to prejudge the Bible to be true, one must connect the
gaps between the Bible and reality, and resolve the contradictions
between the Bible and reality.
FACT: This requires the inclusion of extra-Biblical information, the
general assumption of things not made explicit ("spiritual" death) and
loose interpretations.
FACT: These activities are known, definitively, as "mental gymnastics"
because it requires one to stretch and contort one's thinking in order
to make those connections.

ERGO: In order to prejudge the Bible as true, one must perform mental
gymnastics.

>
> On Jul 16, 11:37 am, BlueSci <blue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 15, 5:46 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>
> > > I'm not doing what you have supposed. You're not only making a
> > > statement about what you think I am doing but you also claim to know
> > > my motives. There is nothing else that I can say except that you're
> > > wrong.
>
> > I'd say BB is right on target. You've proved it with the mental

> >gymnasticsyou've displayed with the "spiritual death" of Adam & Eve.

>
> > > On Jul 15, 10:05 am, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I can't help noticing that you've completely ignored the 2nd part of
> > > > my observation. That non-theists read the entire Bible *and* don't

> > > > engage in the mentalgymnasticsrequired to maintain belief. You're

[4praise]

How about this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard

[4praise]

> The funny thing is that it seems like
> this 'interpretation' and 'critical thinking' are only done on the
> parts of the bible that seem to be offensive, inconvenient or just
> make you uncomfortable, but the parts you like--well those are clear
> as a bell and taken verbatim. Why is that?

That's not true. There are parts of the bible that offend me and make
me uncomfortable.

This all got started because I said that Adam and Eve experienced a
spiritual death. I didn't say that because I don't like that part of
the bible or because it makes me uncomfortable. Drafterman asked a
question - "why didn't they drop dead the minute that they sank their
teeth into that forbidden fruit?" I gave my answer to that riddle -
that's all. There are perhaps other possible answers but I don't know
of any other answer that makes any sense.

[4praise]

> if in fact you have a good sound reason for believing
> in God then I will believe in God as well

A person that I trusted told me that God was real. Is it logical to
act on information from a trusted source?

But that was just the entry point, you want to know why I still
believe. It is because I found it to be true. It is perhaps
subjective and not objective, but nonetheless true.

I was just reading about this guy - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/#Reli
I think he was perhaps on to something.

Christianity doesn't stunt intellectual curiosity in the least - if
it's a relationship with God and not just a blind adherence to some
church dogmas or traditions. George Washington Carver claimed that
his inventions were a direct result of God revealing mysteries to
him. If it's true - if we really can have a relationship with the
creator of the universe, wouldn't that be pretty stimulating to the
intellect?

[4praise]

> You can say that I'm wrong all you like.

Ok. Your wrong, your wrong, your wrong, your wrong, your wrong, your
wrong, your wrong, your wrong, infinity * 2 ;

If it makes you feel any better, I was wrong once ;)

You asserted in your OP that I had not read the entire bible. I have
read it all and some of the apocryphal books as well. You also
inferred that I ( and all Christians ) "wave away or make up excuses
for whichever parts don't fit in a desperate need for it to be true".
Well, which is it? Do we not read it at all or do we read it and make
"excuses"?

As I pointed out in another post, I am not desperate for the bible to
be true. I was not, in this case, making an excuse. In the passage
in question Eve relates to the serpent that God told her that she
would surely die if she ate the fruit. She then ate it and did not
instantly drop dead. The question was asked - "why didn't they drop
dead?" and I offered my answer to that question. My answer is a
legitimate contender for answering that question. I'm open to hearing
other possible answers. I think I know the atheists answer - that
it's just an example of the ignorance of the writer of Genesis.
That's possible, but I think it's highly improbable that any writer
would produce such a glaring inconsistency in such close proximity.

BTW - all this aside, I just wanted to say thanks for starting the new
group. I was skeptical (imagine that) but I am really enjoying it. I
want to tell everyone on AvC, "All we are saaaaaying, is give peace a
chance" :-)

[Drafterman]

On Jul 17, 1:11 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> How about this guy?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard

What about him? It seems he was pretty critical of Christianity, but I
don't see anything to suggest he critically thought about the Bible
itself.

[DreadGeekGrrl]

4praise:

The churches I attended answered the question of why Eve didn't drop
dead on the spot like this:

God in his infinite mercy changed his mind which we were not in a
position to question. Just like a baker can take a cake and smash it
on the floor if she wishes, God as the creator of all life has an
unquestionable right to extinguish any life he wishes to, at any time
he wishes, for whatever reason he wishes. If God were to decide that
on Thursday everyone whose name begins with A should die, we humans
were in no position to question or complain and the appropriate
response was to give thanks and praise to god for killing every person
whose name begins with A. This idea that the Bible was talking about
'spiritual death' would have been laughed out Sunday school as
lukewarm Christianity and an attempt on the proponents part to make
the Bible acceptable to The World. But The World was of the adversary
so the Bible wasn't *supposed* to be acceptable to it. I don't know
what kind of church you go to but the churches I went to weren't
playing around. When I say we took our Christianity seriously, that's
what I mean...we took it *seriously*. There was one way and only one
way to get to heaven and *everyone* who didn't accept Jesus as lord
and savior was going to hell, full-stop. If you were born in a
country that didn't get Christianity until late, all the worse for
you. It was yet another reason to fall down and give praise to god
that you were born in a nation where you could hear the word.

It's interesting to watch the evangelical Christianity of a quarter
century ago morph into this kinder, gentler, Christianity which is
still harsh underneath the surface but tries to keep that on the down
low because, as my experience attests, it kind of turns people off.
And if anything, I'm downplaying the level of harshness of the
theology in the churches I attended.

Cheers
DGG

[thea]

Right on.  My brother and I are amazed as the Christian church has brought secular psychology into it, and now everything has to match secular psychology. 

The last 50 years, we have watch the church change it's stance, on what to us were key points of our faith.

Jesus is no longer held us in a lot of churches.  In fact, when talking about God, I like to point out to ministers, *which god are you talking about?*.  They don't know the God of the Lord Jesus Christ, so they just talk about stuff and nonsense.  And we are all to bow down to them.

Well, I searched until I found the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ to be true to the Bible, and now it all fits and makes *good sense*.

I am glad that politics is a no-no for a sermon, but it doesn't change the fact that at the church door, outside the door, someone is telling you how to vote.

thea

[DreadGeekGrrl]

Thea;

I know you THINK I'm saying something praise-worthy about that kind of
religion, but I'm not. Re-read what I said.

Cheers
DGG

On Jul 17, 7:37 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right on.  My brother and I are amazed as the Christian church has brought
> secular psychology into it, and now everything has to match secular
> psychology.
> The last 50 years, we have watch the church change it's stance, on what to
> us were key points of our faith.
> Jesus is no longer held us in a lot of churches.  In fact, when talking
> about God, I like to point out to ministers, *which god are you talking
> about?*.  They don't know the God of the Lord Jesus Christ, so they just
> talk about stuff and nonsense.  And we are all to bow down to them.
> Well, I searched until I found the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ
> to be true to the Bible, and now it all fits and makes *good sense*.
> I am glad that politics is a no-no for a sermon, but it doesn't change the
> fact that at the church door, outside the door, someone is telling you how
> to vote.
> thea
>

[thea]

I understood what you said, and please read again what I said.  I was giving you the point of view that we know exactly what is happening, but we are coming from a different perspective, because we are in the midst of it, not speaking from the outside of it.

I understand the *mean*, *hatemongering*, thoroughly dispictable theology that is causing the harm.  And I fight it every chance I get.  The Bible doesn't preach *hate*.  It preaches that all you have to do is *believe that Jesus died for you.*

Story:  I can remember coming home from college in the early 60's.  I had met some Pasadena playhouse folks, creative, oh my but they were a creative bunch of people.  Good people.  And my father preached one of his hell, fire and damnation sermons using for his text Sodom and Gomorrah.  That afternoon, as he was studying in his office, I went and had a talk with him, asking why he used that text, when there was no one in his congregation that was *one of them*.

That is the last time he used that.  But it wasn't until I started studying with a 75-year old pastor that I learned that homosexuality in the Bible actually stood for *great apostacy*, that I was totally set free from the damnation sermons I had heard all of my life.

I am working on pulling together the information I learned in order to explain this better.  And, then I will start a thread.

[Alan Wostenberg]

On Jul 16, 4:32 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I had an interesting conversation with my daughter recently 4Praise about
> AvC and the beliefs that people had associated to their god(s) etc.
> I was joking about the different conversations that I've had and the
> characters and personalities on AvC.
>
> One of the comments that I made to her was that I never understood how
> people Couldn't see that their book and the concepts of their god was a
> man-made invention.
>
> I explained that the likelihood that there is other intelligent life in the
> Universe is far higher than the existence of a god or gods. (We had
> previously been discussing the Mars explorations).

I think many atheists would agree.

But has anybody done the math on the probability of aliens, and of
God? There are equations for the probability of intelligent life. What
is the probability of Omnipotence?

If p(God) > 0, then we have a merely probable Omnipotent Being. But a
merely possible Omnipotence is a self-contradiction. If possible, God
is.

It seems those who believe aliens more probable than God set p(God) =
0.

[Alan Wostenberg]

You wonder “how many times, in various environments, have theists
stated that without belief in God there’s no reason to be moral”. And
offer up as the counter-example “the daily lives of people living in
nations which are NOT predominantly Christian”.

They are not amoral; therefore, they do believe in God as a practical
matter. They just don’t know God as a theoretical concept. They would
be even more moral if they knew God, and were graced with the
sacraments. Same is true of atheists.

Are there any here? I’ve met many who make evidence or reason their
god, to whom they are as submissive as we are to God. Their atheism is
limited to the premise "no Person is God". The whole dispute is over
the nature, not existence, of God.

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You wonder "how many times, in various environments, have theists
> stated that without belief in God there's no reason to be moral". And
> offer up as the counter-example "the daily lives of people living in
> nations which are NOT predominantly Christian".
>
> They are not amoral; therefore, they do believe in God as a practical
> matter. They just don't know God as a theoretical concept. They would
> be even more moral if they knew God, and were graced with the
> sacraments. Same is true of atheists.
>
> Are there any here? I've met many who make evidence or reason their
> god, to whom they are as submissive as we are to God. Their atheism is
> limited to the premise "no Person is God". The whole dispute is over
> the nature, not existence, of God.

So very well said, Alan. I like how Bob Dylan puts it:

"You may be an ambassador to England or France;
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance;
You may be the heavy-weight champion of the world;
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls;
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
Yes indeed you're gonna have to serve some body.
Well it may be the devil or it may be the Lord but you're gonna have
to serve somebody."[1]

Further, I like how the author of the page cited, Rev. Adrian Dieleman, puts it:

"I am sure you know your choice affects you for good or for evil for
eternity. Choosing for the LORD means happiness, joy, peace, healing,
and security – all for eternity. Choosing for the LORD means living
with God and fully enjoying Him and His wonderful, glorious presence
forever. Choosing for the LORD means He will wipe every tear from your
eyes. Choosing for the LORD means no more death or mourning or crying
or pain.

And, choosing for anything else means destruction, hell, fire, pain,
agony, and never ending death. Choosing for anything else means
eternity in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. Choosing anything else
means continual darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth."[1]

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://www.trinitycrc.org/sermons/joshua24v15b.html

[BlueSci]

On Jul 16, 10:25 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > The funny thing is that it seems like
> > this 'interpretation' and 'critical thinking' are only done on the
> > parts of the bible that seem to be offensive, inconvenient or just
> > make you uncomfortable, but the parts you like--well those are clear
> > as a bell and taken verbatim.  Why is that?
>
> That's not true.  There are parts of the bible that offend me and make
> me uncomfortable.

Reread my comments. I didn't say there weren't parts that offended
you, I said that christians only seem to apply interpretation (mental
gymnastics) to the bad parts but the good parts don't seem to require
any interpretation at all.

>
> This all got started because I said that Adam and Eve experienced a
> spiritual death.  I didn't say that because I don't like that part of
> the bible or because it makes me uncomfortable.  Drafterman asked a
> question - "why didn't they drop dead the minute that they sank their
> teeth into that forbidden fruit?"  I gave my answer to that riddle -
> that's all.  There are perhaps other possible answers but I don't know
> of any other answer that makes any sense.

That's exactly the point! You reject all other answers because if you
accept any of the other possible answers, it will call the veracity of
the bible into question. So you perform some mental gymnastics so
that you can keep believing that the bible makes sense. There's no
real justification for doing this, it just makes you uncomfortable,
but you can't accept that the bible might just be wrong. So you twist
words, add extra-biblical information, reinterpret passages--anything
that will keep you from questioning the truth of the bible. It's
mental gymnastics plain and simple.

But I noticed that you ignored the other part of my question which is;
how do you know that you're interpreting the bible correctly? Most
christians seem to dodge this question and I think they do because if
they are perfectly honest with themselves they'd have to admit that
they don't know if they're correct or not. It seems to me that they
simply choose the interpretation that makes them feel the best; the
one that best fits their preconcieved ideas and morals. If you use
some other method to determine which interpretation is correct, then
you ought to be able to explain it to me. You would be the first.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

No, I would disagree. 

Most would calculate the probability of p(god(s)) >0 but not by very much over 0. 

If you're referring to the probability of the Abrahamic God of the Bible then I would agree that would be p(GOD)=0.

One calculation for the probability of aliens is: Nfpnef1fifcfL (explained below)

"The Probability of Extraterrestrial Existence 

Frank Drake, an American astronomer made an equation to find the probability of finding aliens in our galaxy. The probability of humans finding extraterrestrial intelligence in our galaxy equals Nfpnef1fifcfL, where N equals the number of stars in the Milky Way, fp equals the fraction of those stars having planets, ne equals the number of those planets that can support life, f1 equals the number of those planets on which life arises, fi equals the fraction of those planets on which intelligent life evolves, fc equals the fraction of those planets where intelligent life developed into a technologically advanced civilization and fL equals the fraction of time a technical civilization lasts. Drake's equation is beautiful, meaningless mathematics. It does not come close to solving the question of the existence of extraterrestrials because it has so many variables that we cannot imagine what they stand for. "

Source: http://www.azete.com/preview/18930 

[4praise]

OK, if it makes you feel better I will (apparently) be the first
Christian to go on record and say that I do not know if my
understanding about "spiritual death" is correct or not.

The method that I use for understanding the bible is a combination of
logic and spiritual intuition. This approach is alluded to in Acts
15:28 ("It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...")

> ...
>
> read more »

[Dag Yo]

> > if in fact you have a good sound reason for believing
> > in God then I will believe in God as well
>
> A person that I trusted told me that God was real. Is it logical to
> act on information from a trusted source?

Yes, if that information makes sense in light of what your
epistemology already tells you about the world. Of course this works
just as well coming from untrusted sources. And while it is wrong to
believe information coming from a trusted source for which you have no
relative ability to understand, it is useful to the propagation of our
species that children easily do just that.

> But that was just the entry point, you want to know why I still
> believe. It is because I found it to be true. It is perhaps
> subjective and not objective, but nonetheless true.

If your beliefs are objectively valid I invite you to describe why
they are objectively valid. If you won't do that would you instead
concede that they are merely personal revelation?

> Christianity doesn't stunt intellectual curiosity in the least - if
> it's a relationship with God and not just a blind adherence to some
> church dogmas or traditions.

That is incorrect. If someone does not believe a possibility even
exists then they will not consider possibilities that may in fact be
correct.

> George Washington Carver claimed that
> his inventions were a direct result of God revealing mysteries to
> him.

There is no reason to think that he is correct. And you're completely
gullible if you think that anything someone says must be true.

> If it's true - if we really can have a relationship with the
> creator of the universe, wouldn't that be pretty stimulating to the
> intellect?

It could be, but unless you can demonstrate that anyone has a
relationship with the creator of the universe AND a mechanism by which
that would be stimulating to the intellect, we should not make the
unwarranted assumption that it is or would be stimulating.

On Jul 16, 10:46 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:

> > if in fact you have a good sound reason for believing
> > in God then I will believe in God as well
>
> A person that I trusted told me that God was real. Is it logical to
> act on information from a trusted source?
>
> But that was just the entry point, you want to know why I still
> believe. It is because I found it to be true. It is perhaps
> subjective and not objective, but nonetheless true.
>

> I was just reading about this guy -http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/#Reli

[rappoccio]

On Jul 16, 6:26 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > 1) You don't exclusively rely on the Bible for any information.
> > 2) You don't even require it to be particularly accurate.
> > 3) You accept some parts of it as true but not all.
> > 4) You have direct communication with God when you need answers.
>
> > Is that accurate?
>
> Pretty close.
>
> 1. Correct - not exclusive but VERY valuable.

Why? You've admitted it's possibly errant (through man's fault: 2),
it's not confirmed to be true or false (so you don't believe most of
it: 3) and you can't actually tell when God is or isn't talking to you
(from 4).

So why exactly is it valuable?

> ...
>
> read more »

[4praise]

You chickened out. I double dog dare ya to believe in God :-)

My beliefs are not entirely personal - I received the encouragement to
believe from someone else and I've encouraged others. And when
believers are together we share a common belief. We even share belief
with those we've never even met.

My belief does not prevent me from considering any possibilities - in
fact Jesus said "All things are possible to him who believes". It is
actually skepticism that deems things impossible until/unless proven
otherwise and is thus the more limiting world view.

[4praise]

I didn't say that "I didn't believe most of it". There is no part of
the bible that I do not "believe" but there are parts that I don't
understand.

Perhaps I can explain it this way. If you read the gospel of John I
think it provides the best description of why the Sanhedrin did not
accept Jesus as the Messiah. And guess what - it was because they
thought that they understood the OT scriptures and he didn't fit the
picture they had formed in their minds. I wish to avoid that. Many
evangelical and fundamentalists teachers have fallen in to this - they
hear about the spirit of God moving and doing something new in the
world but much like the Sanhedrin they fall back on what they believe
the scriptures teach and reject it.

> So why exactly is it valuable?

The bible contains records of God's revelations to people. It tells
the history (abridged) of the Jews leading up to and including the
life of the savior of mankind. It contains poetry, wisdom and
practical advice from our ancestors. What could be more valuable?

> ...
>
> read more »

[Dag Yo]

> You chickened out. I double dog dare ya to believe in God :-)

You ask the impossible, belief is not subject to one's will.

> My belief does not prevent me from considering any possibilities - in
> fact Jesus said "All things are possible to him who believes".

Even if Jesus really said that, it wouldn't necessarily be so and it
does not contradict the argument in my previous post. Which I would
think, that if you considered yourself a reputable person you would
either concede that point or come up with some reason why it is wrong
rather than quoting Jesus and change the topic as if you weren't
incorrect.

> It is
> actually skepticism that deems things impossible until/unless proven
> otherwise and is thus the more limiting world view.

If that is what you believe then you don't know what you're talking
about. Skepticism deems nothing impossible until proven, it merely
suggests that one ought to use their ability to consider knowledge,
and to do so in a way which is most demonstrably useful and which
leads to knowledge which is most likely correct. By employing a
skeptical approach to knowledge one could never limit themselves in
any way.

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:43 AM, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>
> I didn't say that "I didn't believe most of it". There is no part of
> the bible that I do not "believe" but there are parts that I don't
> understand.
>
> Perhaps I can explain it this way. If you read the gospel of John I
> think it provides the best description of why the Sanhedrin did not
> accept Jesus as the Messiah. And guess what - it was because they
> thought that they understood the OT scriptures and he didn't fit the
> picture they had formed in their minds. I wish to avoid that.

Well said, 4praise. :)

Regards,

Brock

[DreadGeekGrrl]

On Jul 17, 10:24 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:

.  It is
> actually skepticism that deems things impossible until/unless proven
> otherwise and is thus the more limiting world view.

4praise;

This isn't what skepticism is. Not even close. People *think*
skeptics are like this but that's not what it is. It's not what
*you're* like and I guarantee you that on most things you're a
skeptic. If, for instance, I said that it was the Boddhisattva
Shariputta who got me through statistics by giving me the answers you
would not accept that on face value. In fact, you would most likely
reject it out of hand (since to do otherwise would be to give a
credence to Buddhist mythology that you cannot, as a Christian, admit
to).

Skepticism is merely taking reality seriously, starting with what you
know and then educating yourself when presented with new information
always filtering it through what we know about the way the world works
*now*.

I'll give two examples:

In the run-up to the Iraq war the Bush administration did everything
they could to conflate Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda. If you go back
and read speeches and interviews given from the beginning of 2002
until well into 2005, you would hear 9/11 and then Saddam Hussein or
Iraq. At one point, 70%! of the American public believed that Iraq
had something to do with the 9/11 attacks. Except that they didn't.
A skeptic (like myself) would start by asking herself what she knows
about Al Qaeda and what she knows about Saddam Hussein. Al Qaeda is a
Wahhabi Sunni organization with a stated goal of creating a pan-
Islamic Caliphate. Saddam Hussein was a secular, socialist Baathist
and a pan-Arabist but had NO interest in creating a pan-Islamic
*anything*. In point of fact, Al Qaeda considered SH to be an
apostate as he was not sufficiently pious. So how likely is it
(taking both SH and OBL at their word that they mean what they say)
that a secular, pan-Arabist socialist is going to be in bed with and
cooperate with a Wahhabi organization that has made it perfectly
clearly that they want to take down his regime? About as likely that
Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell are the largest contributors to the
ACLU. Now, is that rejecting, out of hand, what the Bush
administration said (or implied) about Al Qaeda and Iraq? No, it's
not. Rather it is looking at the evidence in light of what is known
and knowable. Was I guaranteed to be correct? No. Was I correct?
Yes.

Another example is this idea floating around that the MMR (Measles,
Mumps, Rubella) vaccine causes autism because of mercury as a
preservative. IF this were the case, what we would expect to see is
that if mercury is the causative agent (as proponents of this idea say
it is) and it is removed the incidence of autism should decrease.
Well, five or six years ago mercury was removed from the MMR vaccine.
Did the incidence decrease? No, it hasn't it has stayed steady. Now a
skeptic, looking at the claim that vaccination causes autism would
also ask, along with the questions above, if there might be some
*other* explanations. Has the reporting of autism increased (not the
actual incidence, it could stay flat while reporting could increase so
the *rate* of autism diagnosis, as a proportion of the population,
stays flat while the number of cases grows)? Are there different
diagnostic tools which might account for it? As it turns out, the
diagnostic criteria of autism has changed AND the reporting criteria
has changed so this *alone* can account for the increased incidence of
autism and Asperger's.

Now, again, does that mean that I have dismissed, out of hand, the
idea that mercury in the MMR vaccine causes autism? No. You can see,
in broad outlines, my thought process for *why* I reject that idea and
you can, if you choose to do the legwork, follow my chain of evidence
and reach your own conclusion.

This is another thing that is a strength of skepticism. If you ask a
skeptic why they think X, they should be able to explain *why* and
give you the breadcrumbs you need to follow their thinking backward
and forward. In both instances, I've given you the information you
need to see how I came to my conclusion. And it does not involve
rejecting out of hand new information because I don't like it. It
merely requires assuming that reality works, that human behavior is
more or less comprehensible and that nature is, more or less, much of
the time, pretty consistent.

Now, of course, you will probably object 'well, how do you prove that
Belly loves you then'. My first response is that I don't *need* to
prove that. However, since you will probably put up some objection of
that nature (and if not you, someone else will) I'll answer. IF Belly
were to, say, stop talking to me, spend all her time away from home,
etc. then I would have reasons to doubt that she still loved me
*because* her behavior would have changed (again, you can see that I
am assuming---on good evidence---that her behavior is somewhat
indicative of her state of mind). So provided that she continues to
behave in, more or less, a fashion consistent with her behavior now
when I know she loves me I have no reason to doubt that she does.

Skepticism is not, at all, a limiting world view. In point of fact, I
would say that most world views that reject skepticism (hypocritically
as it turns out in most cases) is the MORE limiting world view. On
another message board I'm on, I got into a debate with someone a
couple of years ago about evidence-based medicine. This person is a
strong and vociferous proponent of CAM (complimentary and alternative
medicine) and has a big beef against science-based medicine. Her
knowledge of the science she hates is extremely limited and so her
view is extremely limited. To her, science (and all expertise except
that expertise which is spiritual) is nothing so much as this elitist
club that makes up rules to keep 'intuitive thinkers' out by demanding
evidence, etc. She just *knows* that, for instance, homeopathy works
and no chemists talking about molecules and parts-per-million is going
to dissuade her of that. She misses a lot of beauty and power that
can be found in contemplating the world as it really is. Creationists
provide another example. I really, genuinely feel sorry for
Creationists most of the time because when you stop trying to make the
world be a creation of an all-powerful deity it is an endlessly
fascinating place. I cannot look at a stand of trees or my cats or
the plants that Belly tends without seeing Darwinian survival machines
all doing fiendishly clever things. Things like the extremophile
bacteria almost bring me to tears, so awesome is their power and
beauty. But to see that beauty you have to take them on their own
terms.

I wish that Carl Sagan had not died so young because more than any
other writer he could communicate the joy and wonder of skepticism.
My poor writing skills are simply not up to the job but I hope I've
communicated some of what it means. It's not what you think it is.
Skeptics are, on the whole, the most open-minded people I come across
because of all the people I encounter, online and off, they are the
ones MOST consistently willing to say "Oh, that's interesting, I
didn't know that. I was wrong."

Cheers
DGG

[Dag Yo]

Excellent post DGG

> ...
>
> read more »

[BlueSci]

On Jul 17, 3:45 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> OK, if it makes you feel better I will (apparently) be the first
> Christian to go on record and say that I do not know if my
> understanding about "spiritual death" is correct or not.

I'm glad that I fnally got an honest answer from someone.

>
> The method that I use for understanding the bible is a combination of
> logic and spiritual intuition.   This approach is alluded to in Acts
> 15:28 ("It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...")

So how do you know it's the Holy Spirit and not just your own mind?

[rappoccio]

On Jul 18, 12:24 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> You chickened out. I double dog dare ya to believe in God :-)

There is no more possibility that Dag Yo can will himself to believe
in God than you can to believe in unicorns.

[rappoccio]

On Jul 18, 12:43 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> I didn't say that "I didn't believe most of it". There is no part of
> the bible that I do not "believe" but there are parts that I don't
> understand.
>
> Perhaps I can explain it this way. If you read the gospel of John I
> think it provides the best description of why the Sanhedrin did not
> accept Jesus as the Messiah. And guess what - it was because they
> thought that they understood the OT scriptures and he didn't fit the
> picture they had formed in their minds. I wish to avoid that. Many
> evangelical and fundamentalists teachers have fallen in to this - they
> hear about the spirit of God moving and doing something new in the
> world but much like the Sanhedrin they fall back on what they believe
> the scriptures teach and reject it.

So you believe that human beings descended from mudpies and ribcages,
and that a talking snake in a magic garden made a woman eat an apple
and then they died (spiritually) and their children had to commit
incest to populate the world, and then God killed everyone except 8
people because they were all naughty (leaving their descendants to
again populate the world with incest)?

Talk about disassociation.

> > So why exactly is it valuable?
>
> The bible contains records of God's revelations to people. It tells
> the history (abridged) of the Jews leading up to and including the
> life of the savior of mankind. It contains poetry, wisdom and
> practical advice from our ancestors. What could be more valuable?

Relevant practical knowledge that doesn't come from neolithic
goatherders?

> ...
>
> read more »

[rappoccio]

This was bloody brilliant :)

> ...
>
> read more »

[4praise]

> You ask the impossible, belief is not subject to one's will.

Why do you believe that it is impossible?

In my experience, beliefs are based on choices, usually a progression
of choices over time.

> ...
>
> read more »

[4praise]

In my post it may have sounded like I was confusing pessimism with
skepticism - my mistake. I do think that skepticism has value and
skeptics play crucial role in society. As I have said before, I thank
God for atheists :-)

But I have faith also and it is better than skepticism ( I think )
though it is possible that faith needs skepticism at times to prove
it.

> ...
>
> read more »

[4praise]

> So how do you know it's the Holy Spirit and not just your own mind?

Sometimes you don't. But sometimes you do and those times are
awesome!

So... how? How can I explain this.... It's sort of like this -
imagine that you met someone that spoke a different language that you
had never heard and on top that your blind. So this person says
things and you don't understand it and you can't even rely on some
hand signals or motions to communicate. But then one day they hand
you a potato and they say "Aardappel". Well, now you are pretty sure
that "Aardappel" means "Potato". And so on. As time goes on, you
pick up more but as you can imagine, sometimes you think you're
understanding and you aren't - heck that even happens when both people
speak the same language.

> ...
>
> read more »

[4praise]

> So you believe that human beings descended from mudpies and ribcages,

Created from the dust - we seem to have roughly the same chemical make
up.

> and that a talking snake in a magic garden made a woman eat an apple

He didn't "make" her do it - that was Flip Wilson's line (apologies to
those that never heard of him)

> and then they died (spiritually) and their children had to commit
> incest to populate the world,

Don't forget, it took a few hundred years before they got that
desperate - I'd call that restraint :-)

> and then God killed everyone except 8
> people because they were all naughty (leaving their descendants to
> again populate the world with incest)?
>

But this time it was first cousins and that's legal in some parts of
the south.

That was rather poetic - if you have been alive in 325 AD you could
have written the Nicene Creed


> Talk about disassociation.

When? Now?

[BlueSci]

On Jul 19, 12:23 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > So how do you know it's the Holy Spirit and not just your own mind?
>
> Sometimes you don't.  But sometimes you do and those times are
> awesome!
>
> So... how?   How can I explain this....  It's sort of like this -
> imagine that you met someone that spoke a different language that you
> had never heard and on top that your blind.  So this person says
> things and you don't understand it and you can't even rely on some
> hand signals or motions to communicate.  But then one day they hand
> you a potato and they say "Aardappel".  Well, now you are pretty sure
> that "Aardappel" means "Potato".  And so on.  As time goes on, you
> pick up more  but as you can imagine, sometimes you think you're
> understanding and you aren't - heck that even happens when both people
> speak the same language.

It sounds an awful lot like what happens when I finally understand
something in science or math. I've even had that feeling with
something similar to your language analogy. It happened when I
suddenly realized that I was thinking in Spanish and not translating
each word into English first (though it's been many, many years since
I've used my Spanish, so I've lost most of it). I doubt that the Holy
Spirit had anything to do with it though.

[BlueSci]

On Jul 18, 11:53 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > You ask the impossible, belief is not subject to one's will.
>
> Why do you believe that it is impossible?
>
> In my experience, beliefs are based on choices, usually a progression
> of choices over time.

Then I double dog dare you to believe in Santa Claus. Let us know
when you've accomplished that.

[rappoccio]

On Jul 19, 1:53 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > You ask the impossible, belief is not subject to one's will.
>
> Why do you believe that it is impossible?
>
> In my experience, beliefs are based on choices, usually a progression
> of choices over time.

If you can start believing in unicorns and the Flying Spaghetti
Monster, I'll do the same for Yahweh.

> ...
>
> read more »

[rappoccio]

On Jul 19, 2:23 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > So how do you know it's the Holy Spirit and not just your own mind?
>
> Sometimes you don't. But sometimes you do and those times are
> awesome!
>
> So... how? How can I explain this.... It's sort of like this -
> imagine that you met someone that spoke a different language that you
> had never heard and on top that your blind. So this person says
> things and you don't understand it and you can't even rely on some
> hand signals or motions to communicate. But then one day they hand
> you a potato and they say "Aardappel". Well, now you are pretty sure
> that "Aardappel" means "Potato". And so on. As time goes on, you
> pick up more but as you can imagine, sometimes you think you're
> understanding and you aren't - heck that even happens when both people
> speak the same language.
>

So can you translate an event for us? It sounds like it's just like
learning a second language for you. So how do you say "Can you please
stop all those hurricanes, they're causing a lot of damage."?

> ...
>
> read more »

[rappoccio]

On Jul 19, 2:40 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > So you believe that human beings descended from mudpies and ribcages,
>
> Created from the dust - we seem to have roughly the same chemical make
> up.

I hate to break it to you, but since we're all made of exploded stars
ultimately, everything on the planet is formed from the same chemical
makeup.

So how do you know we didn't evolve from a common ancestor with
chimpanzees?

>
> > and that a talking snake in a magic garden made a woman eat an apple
>
> He didn't "make" her do it - that was Flip Wilson's line (apologies to
> those that never heard of him)

Have you heard a snake talk lately?

>
> > and then they died (spiritually) and their children had to commit
> > incest to populate the world,
>
> Don't forget, it took a few hundred years before they got that
> desperate - I'd call that restraint :-)

I'd call it disgusting, and it was not a few hundred years because
humans do not (and have never been able to) live that long.

> > and then God killed everyone except 8
> > people because they were all naughty (leaving their descendants to
> > again populate the world with incest)?
>
> But this time it was first cousins and that's legal in some parts of
> the south.

Oh, that makes me feel SO much better.

> That was rather poetic - if you have been alive in 325 AD you could
> have written the Nicene Creed

I'd have been a vociferous opponent and then probably died because I
wasn't a cattle-minded sheep.

> > Talk about disassociation.
>
> When? Now?

The part where you ignore all observational evidence so that you can
continue to play make-believe and think fairy tales are true even
though you're a grown man.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Dag Yo]

And this was bloody brilliant.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Dag Yo]

> > You ask the impossible, belief is not subject to one's will.
>
> Why do you believe that it is impossible?
>
> In my experience, beliefs are based on choices, usually a progression
> of choices over time.

You know you're wrong, why even try to justify it further? Why not
just act like an adult and admit your mistake?

> ...
>
> read more »

[4praise]

> Then I double dog dare you to believe in Santa Claus. Let us know
> when you've accomplished that.

Do you mean this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas -
done

> ...
>
> read more »

[4praise]

> If you can start believing in unicorns and the Flying Spaghetti
> Monster, I'll do the same for Yahweh.

I could if I wanted to. I don't want to. I am not arguing that you
want to believe in Jesus, I am saying that it's possible for someone
that wants to.

If I wanted to believe in the FSM the first thing I would do is look
for other people that believed in him/her (does sFSM have gender? no
jokes about meatballs or italian sausage here) and I would ask them
how to become an FSMite. They would surely have some steps outlined
for initiates to follow.

> ...
>
> read more »

[4praise]

Poterla ferma per favore tutti gli uragani, causano molto danno

> ...
>
> read more »

[4praise]

There are more positions to take on the issue of creation other than
one of the polar opposites (young earth vs. no God). There are some
people that claim that evolution and Genesis are both correct - for
example http://www.trustbible.com/evolution.htm

I don't really know - I haven't decided. I have a relationship with
Jesus and he quoted from the OT so I accept it as true but as stated
before - I do not know whether I or anyone has ever understood the
mysteries of it completely. It doesn't matter to me - I don't think
that Jesus will stop people at heaven's gate and ask "young earth or
old earth?"

> ...
>
> read more »

[Trance Gemini]

How about the Tooth Fairy?

--
------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Which God Do You Kill For? --Unknown

Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown