Kirk Cameron's 'Origin Of Species' Plan: Ex-Actor To Distribute 50,000 Altered Darwin

[BroncoInferno]

Did not see this posted anywhere. Make sure to watch the vids:

Kirk Cameron, best known for his role in the 1980s sitcom Growing Pains, now spends much of his time advocating for far-right Christian evangelical causes.

In a video posted recently to YouTube, Cameron lays out a plan to subvert 'Darwin Day' on November 22, 2009 -- a date marking the 150th anniversary of the publishing of Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species." Cameron says that he and like-minded activists plan to deliver 50,000 copies of an altered version of Darwin's book to students at dozens of U.S. universities.

Cameron explains that this "very special" edition of the "Origin of Species" will include an introduction explaining "Adolf Hitler's undeniable connection" to the theory of evolution, and highlighting "Darwin's racism" and "his disdain for women." Cameron's edition also exposes the "many hoaxes" of evolutionary theory, while presenting a "balanced view of Creationism." (There's a pdf of this introduction here.)

You can watch Cameron's full video below:

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oM0oBuhTLRI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oM0oBuhTLRI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

This tongue-in-cheek response video, posted by YouTube user "ZOMGitsCriss" and noted by ScienceBlogs.com, picks apart Cameron's video piece-by-piece:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fmHN3JtyUXg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fmHN3JtyUXg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/kirk-camerons-origin-of-s_n_294349.html

[BroncoInferno]

I think in response someone should produce a 50 page introduction to the Bible detailing its connection to racism, genocide, hatred of women, and countless atrocities (i.e. the Crusades, witch burnings etc). There is far more evidence of those things in the Bible than in the Origin of Species.

[atomicbloke]

I guess the world needs idiots too.

[atomicbloke]

I think in response someone should produce a 50 page introduction to the Bible detailing its connection to racism, genocide, hatred of women, and countless atrocities (i.e. the Crusades, witch burnings etc). There is far more evidence of those things in the Bible than in the Origin of Species.

How can you say such vile things, you godless sh!t.... you will be punished on judgment day.

[atomicbloke]

I want to start a flat earth movement too. The masses need to be educated on how they have been deceived for so many centuries.

How do I go about it?

[Hotrod]

What if he is right? Are you all willing to bet your souls on it?

Be careful be very very careful here folks.

[Smiling Assassin27]

I think in response someone should produce a 50 page introduction to the Bible detailing its connection to racism, genocide, hatred of women, and countless atrocities (i.e. the Crusades, witch burnings etc). There is far more evidence of those things in the Bible than in the Origin of Species.

Look around, there's plenty of those already in existence.

[Smiling Assassin27]

If you've watched any of his evangelical tv shows, you already know that Kirk and his Aussie buddy aren't altogether honest in their assessment of Scripture and the like, and their logic gene often seems to go missing.

Break a leg, Mike Seaver...

[BroncoInferno]

What if he is right? Are you all willing to bet your souls on it?

Be careful be very very careful here folks.

He is not right. Watch the second video for only a few of the countless falsehoods in Cameron's presentation.

[Rohirrim]

I'm always amazed when people turn to TV actors for their political insights. You think because he was on your TV that he knows something?

[Hotrod]

I dont understand the lack of understanding of you people. What has this guy done to hurt anyone........besides take donations from the weak minded of course :)

[BroncoInferno]

If you've watched any of his evangelical tv shows, you already know that Kirk and his Aussie buddy aren't altogether honest in their assessment of Scripture and the like, and their logic gene often seems to go missing.

Break a leg, Mike Seaver...

Yeah, their approach is pretty dishonest. Like saying kids can't pray in public, which is laughably untrue. Kids can of course pray anywhere they choose, including schools. You simply can't mandate that others participate in those prayers in gov't funded organizations like public schools (i.e. a principal leading a prayer over the intercom). Do you think they are intentionally lying or are they just pulling the wool over their eyes?

[gyldenlove]

What if he is right? Are you all willing to bet your souls on it?

Be careful be very very careful here folks.

I will bet my soul.

I bet my life when I believed in science and stepped onboard a 757 to fly overseas and I won that one, I think I will stick with science again.

If an angel came to your house and people gathered outside and wanted to "know" that angel, would you offer up your virgin daughters instead?

If you don't, then god won't save you, it is almost like Jesus said: "Remember Lot".

[Hotrod]

I will bet my soul.

I bet my life when I believed in science and stepped onboard a 757 to fly overseas and I won that one, I think I will stick with science again.

If an angel came to your house and people gathered outside and wanted to "know" that angel, would you offer up your virgin daughters instead?

If you don't, then god won't save you, it is almost like Jesus said: "Remember Lot".

Wait what was that all about

[Smiling Assassin27]

I will bet my soul.

I bet my life when I believed in science and stepped onboard a 757 to fly overseas and I won that one, I think I will stick with science again.

If an angel came to your house and people gathered outside and wanted to "know" that angel, would you offer up your virgin daughters instead?

If you don't, then god won't save you, it is almost like Jesus said: "Remember Lot".

No offense, but you don't seem to understand what Genesis 19 is about and seem to draw some questionable conclusions about it. You've constructed a false dichotomy with this.

[Rohirrim]

I will bet my soul.

I bet my life when I believed in science and stepped onboard a 757 to fly overseas and I won that one, I think I will stick with science again.

If an angel came to your house and people gathered outside and wanted to "know" that angel, would you offer up your virgin daughters instead?

If you don't, then god won't save you, it is almost like Jesus said: "Remember Lot".

wtf?

[Smiling Assassin27]

Yeah, their approach is pretty dishonest. Like saying kids can't pray in public, which is laughably untrue. Kids can of course pray anywhere they choose, including schools. You simply can't mandate that others participate in those prayers in gov't funded organizations like public schools (i.e. a principal leading a prayer over the intercom). Do you think they are intentionally lying or are they just pulling the wool over their eyes?

I think they are SO zealous that they lose sight of the way things really are. They may actually believe that a kid can't pray in public because they think he'll be castigated, beaten up, or arrested. While that kid just may be castigated, or beaten up, or arrested, it likely won't be simply because he's praying in public. It's possible that Kirk's seen people in front of abortion clinics arrested, and interprets their demonstration as nothing but simply praying in public, ignoring the fact that they're physically blocking someone from freely entering. Important pieces of reality/truth seem to escape those who top off their tanks with zeal.

[BroncoInferno]

I think they are SO zealous that they lose sight of the way things really are. They may actually believe that a kid can't pray in public because they think he'll be castigated, beaten up, or arrested. While that kid just may be castigated, or beaten up, or arrested, it likely won't be simply because he's praying in public. It's possible that Kirk's seen people in front of abortion clinics arrested, and interprets their demonstration as nothing but simply praying in public, ignoring the fact that they're physically blocking someone from freely entering. Important pieces of reality/truth seem to escape those who top off their tanks with zeal.

Very true. The whole thing is bizarre. Of the things Cameron listed in the intro that were disallowed, the only one that was accurate was that Gideons can't pass their Bibles out at schools. Of course, it completely escapes Cameron that there is a very good reason for this: if you let the Gideon's pass out their Bibles, then you have to let the Muslims pass out the Koran, the Mormons pass out the Book of Mormon, the Scientologists pass out Dianetics, and so on. I am sure Kirk would be cool with that Uhh

[Fedaykin]

What if he is right?

What dumb ass would accept a bet for a non-existent thing in the first place?

[Hotrod]

What dumb ass would accept a bet for a non-existent thing in the first place?

People are betting on the Faiders this weekend does that answer your question :)

[Rohirrim]

Whenever I have a deep question I need an answer to, I turn to an out-of-work TV actor.
:thumbs:

[Irish Stout]

I feel really bad about the human race sometimes....

I'm going to start following the ways of Cheesus.

[Hotrod]

Whenever I have a deep question I need an answer to, I turn to an out-of-work TV actor.
:thumbs:

Seems perfectly logical to me :~ohyah!:

On a serious note I honestly dont understand why Religion and Evolution cant co-exist.

[BroncoInferno]

Seems perfectly logical to me :~ohyah!:

On a serious note I honestly dont understand why Religion and Evolution cant co-exist.

There is no reason why they can't, since religion deals with cosmology and evolution only explains what happened to life once it already existed. This is another ridiculous accusation made by Cameron in his presentation...that evolution claims that "something came from nothing." Evolution makes no claim of the kind. It does not even deal with that sphere of science. That's cosmology and the Big Bang, which have nothing to do with Darwin or the Origin of Species.

That said, evolution does call into question why an intelligent designer would engage in so much tinkering rather than getting it right the first time. 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. Did those species merely represent failed experiments on God's part?

[Fedaykin]

Just remember kids, Cameron and what's his name are the geniuses who argued that:

* Bananas are the ultimate disproof of evolution, because they are obviously designed specifically for human consumption (easy to handle, pre "wrapped", etc.). Never mind that the bananas you are used to eating are the sterile (seedless), triploid product of selective breeding, and that normal non-sterile bananas are not at all like what you get at the supermarket as they are not readily edible).

* That evolution is impossible because in order to work you have to have both a male and a female of a new species evolve at the same time independently. For example, the first "dog" that came from a "non-dog" had to have a male and female both "become" dogs at the same time.. This, of course, is only an argument for how absurdly ignorant they are of basic biology.

I wouldn't mind a copy of this "special edition"; it would be a sort of macabre and fascinating artifact of idiocy.

[Fedaykin]

Seems perfectly logical to me :~ohyah!:

On a serious note I honestly dont understand why Religion and Evolution cant co-exist.

They can as long as your accept that one is mythological fable with both good and bad "lessons" to teach, and the other is an the explanation of the diversity of life that best explains the existing evidence.

[Smiling Assassin27]

They can as long as your accept that one is mythological fable with both good and bad "lessons" to teach, and the other is an the explanation of the diversity of life that best explains the existing evidence.


This statement tells me that you have no idea what the words 'science', 'religion', and 'evidence' mean. Jury's still out on your understanding of 'mythological' and 'fable'. :rofl:

[Smiling Assassin27]

I'm always amazed when people turn to TV actors for their political insights. You think because he was on your TV that he knows something?

Yeah, cuz turning to news media and/or politicians is a MUCH better idea. Ha!

You mean to tell me that Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, and Susan Sarandon are full of crap? You lie! :afro:

[Fedaykin]

wtf?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot_%28Bible%29

[Smiling Assassin27]

Very true. The whole thing is bizarre. Of the things Cameron listed in the intro that were disallowed, the only one that was accurate was that Gideons can't pass their Bibles out at schools. Of course, it completely escapes Cameron that there is a very good reason for this: if you let the Gideon's pass out their Bibles, then you have to let the Muslims pass out the Koran, the Mormons pass out the Book of Mormon, the Scientologists pass out Dianetics, and so on. I am sure Kirk would be cool with that Uhh


Meh, the Gideons have the seedy motel market cornered. Isn't that enough for Kirk?

[Fedaykin]

This statement tells me that you have no idea what the words 'science', 'religion', and 'evidence' mean. Jury's still out on your understanding of 'mythological' and 'fable'. :rofl:

Your posturing is pathetic. Care to "explain" these words to me?

This ought to be a riot.

[W*GS]

Too bad his wife is another evangeloonie.

I'd hit it.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Your posturing is pathetic. Care to "explain" these words to me?

This aught to be a riot.

PM me if you'd like and we can kick around the idea of religion and science co-existing, which you seem to claim is not possible. As every other thread in this WRP room suggests, in depth discussions get hijacked, machine gunned, or worse.

What I'll say is this:

With Truth being the ultimate goal of both properly guided religion and properly guided science, both are complementary to the other when both disciplines recognize and abide by their respective limitations regarding Truth. If they do, then discord between them can't happen.

[NUB]

Someone who says only God can cause them to be a good human being has unwittingly revealed quite a bit about themselves.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Someone who says only God can cause them to be a good human being has unwittingly revealed quite a bit about themselves.


I guess that would depend on exactly what he means by that statement. Many who claim this naturally fall into the 'The Devil made me do it' mindset as well, and THAT tells you TONS more about them...

[BroncoInferno]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/r5J0cSnYnFg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r5J0cSnYnFg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[El Guapo]

Sad that the world goes with Darwin, especially since some of his last words he tried to ask God for forgiveness for what he had done.

[gyldenlove]

PM me if you'd like and we can kick around the idea of religion and science co-existing, which you seem to claim is not possible. As every other thread in this WRP room suggests, in depth discussions get hijacked, machine gunned, or worse.

What I'll say is this:

With Truth being the ultimate goal of both properly guided religion and properly guided science, both are complementary to the other when both disciplines recognize and abide by their respective limitations regarding Truth. If they do, then discord between them can't happen.

That really depends on so many things.

Religion in the most absolutist interpretation that some people preach can not co-exist with any other world view.

Science can co-exist with anything in its pure form since science only seeks to explain nature through nature itself. However, when science becomes a philosophy it becomes exclusive and can not co-exist with any other explanatory world views.

For most people science and religion mix just fine, since most people have come to accept that if science and religion disagree on an issue you take some sort of average and call that the truth and on everything else you go with whichever one seems to work for you. For instance most people accept that science is right on airplanes, while most people accept whatever religion they belong to's view on what happens after death.

Today, both religion and science have become dogmatic and both are supported by small but loud groups of extremists who try to corner the market on world views. Essentially the goal appears to be Orwellian, "Who controls the present, controls the past.", so if any of the factions should succeed in taking control they could erase the other world views from existence.

[gyldenlove]

Sad that the world goes with Darwin, especially since some of his last words he tried to ask God for forgiveness for what he had done.

Probably because he was a religious man, I am sure the pope will ask forgiveness on his death bed as well - it is tradition.

[Bronx33]

I'm always amazed when people turn to TV actors for their political insights. You think because he was on your TV that he knows something?

Sadly it works that's why obama/politicians allow it soft headed stupid national enquirer folks are potential votes.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stars+supporting+obama&search_type=&aq=f

[Rohirrim]

Sad that the world goes with Darwin, especially since some of his last words he tried to ask God for forgiveness for what he had done.

That's a highly disputed claim, but even if he did, so what? Einstein got religious in his old age too, but guess what? The atom bomb still goes "Boom."
In other words, the science doesn't change.

[Rohirrim]

Yeah, cuz turning to news media and/or politicians is a MUCH better idea. Ha!

You mean to tell me that Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, and Susan Sarandon are full of crap? You lie! :afro:

I find their zeal inspiring, plus you have to hand it to them, they put their own asses on the line for what they believe in. I was especially impressed with Sean Penn going down to New Orleans and pitching in even before Bush did his flyover. And Martin Sheen has been arrested numerous times for standing up for what he believes in. But I tend to develop my own views based on my own moral compass, my own reading of history, and my own research into what's going on in the world.

[Bronx33]

I find their zeal inspiring, plus you have to hand it to them, they put their own asses on the line for what they believe in. I was especially impressed with Sean Penn going down to New Orleans and pitching in even before Bush did his flyover. And Martin Sheen has been arrested numerous times for standing up for what he believes in. But I tend to develop my own views based on my own moral compass, my own reading of history, and my own research into what's going on in the world.

Hmmmmmm I wonder if they would put their asses on the line if they were just starting out in their acting careers meaning ( not rich ) but with the potential to be rich.

[Rohirrim]

Hmmmmmm I wonder if they would put their asses on the line if they were just starting out in their acting careers meaning ( not rich ) but with the potential to be rich.

So now you're opposed to people profiting from their hard work?

[sisterhellfyre]

I feel really bad about the human race sometimes....

I'm going to start following the ways of Cheesus.

"And lo there came unto them a prophet, a leopard clad in sneakers and sunglasses, and the prophet spake unto them.

"For the Lord thy God has bade me, said the prophet, to take up the name Chester, and speak of the second coming of the Lord, whose name is Cheesus."

"But the people heard not the words of Chester, but continued in their wicked ways of idolatry, worshipping the false gods of Ruffles, Doritos and Fritos.

"And Chester despaired of their salvation, and walked away from the town, brushing the dust of their false grains from his sneakers. "The way is straight and the path is narrow," saith the prophet, "but it's not easy being cheesy. You have been judged, and on the day of the big game, at the hour of sudden death, your snack bowls will be found wanting."

(Can somebody say "Amen"?)

[Bronx33]

So now you're opposed to people profiting from their hard work?


Nope not at all iam simply pointing out that those actors you listed wouldn't be as supportive or open about their politcal affiliations if their potetial money wad/acting career was at risk. They have already made it and are rich as hell thy have nothing to lose so it's much easier to pick and support a side it doesn't hurt them at all.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Religion in the most absolutist interpretation that some people preach can not co-exist with any other world view.


Hold up. Remember that the bottom line goal of religion AND science is Truth. Your attempt to limit 'absolutist interpretation' to religion alone is just wrong. Science--or more specifically, those who practice it--are every bit as absolutist in their declarations that they base on scientific findings. Surely, you can admit that there is Truth that we can know that exists outside the bounds of a laboratory, no? This is what I am getting at. Discovering something that is scientifically verifiable is fine. Humanity is better for knowing how nature works. The problems begin when scientists make absolute declarations about things science alone cannot answer--like abortion, like population control, like cultivating embryos for spare organs,etc. Science can only take you so far in these discussions, but it hasn't stopped scientists to proclaim absolutely that abortion is intrinsically good. Refer back to my statement--properly guided science and properly guided religion don't conflict if they remain within their boundaries. The sticky part is drawing those boundaries properly, for most of us.

Science can co-exist with anything in its pure form since science only seeks to explain nature through nature itself. However, when science becomes a philosophy it becomes exclusive and can not co-exist with any other explanatory world views.


Science ceases to be science at that point and becomes pseudo-science.

For most people science and religion mix just fine, since most people have come to accept that if science and religion disagree on an issue you take some sort of average and call that the truth and on everything else you go with whichever one seems to work for you. For instance most people accept that science is right on airplanes, while most people accept whatever religion they belong to's view on what happens after death.


The Law of Averages, when it comes to this, doesn't cut it if TRUTH is the object of both religion and science. The question first has to be 'am I right that science and religion are in conflict on this issue?'. It's wholly possible that a lack of information--be it scientific or religious--has made the APPEARANCE that they are in conflict.

Today, both religion and science have become dogmatic and both are supported by small but loud groups of extremists who try to corner the market on world views. Essentially the goal appears to be Orwellian, "Who controls the present, controls the past.", so if any of the factions should succeed in taking control they could erase the other world views from existence.

Dogmatism isn't invalid simply because it's dogmatic. There is dogma that is valid. 2+2=4 and that's dogma, etc. I do concur that many on both sides have forsaken Truth for control and/or influence. They've used the Truths derived from these disciplines and shoe-horned them into a paradigm that results in them getting rich, powerful, etc. Being Catholic, I only need look as far as the Priest Abuse Scandal to see doctrine and dogma being twisted into repulsive actions.

[W*GS]

Remember that the bottom line goal of religion AND science is Truth.

Nope.

Religion isn't about truth - it's about faith, which is belief without evidence. As such, it cannot be considered true or false.

[Rohirrim]

Nope not at all iam simply pointing out that those actors you listed wouldn't be as supportive or open about their politcal affiliations if their potetial money wad/acting career was at risk. They have already made it and are rich as hell thy have nothing to lose so it's much easier to pick and support a side it doesn't hurt them at all.

Pure opinion without support.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

Read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. It will destroy the foolishness that is Kirk Cameron. I suppose next, Kirk will try to tell us that the sun and the rest of the universe revolves around the earth.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

What if he is right? Are you all willing to bet your souls on it?

Be careful be very very careful here folks.

What is this? Pascal's wager? Let me completely refute this argument for you. I assume you are talking about the God of Christianity, Jesus, etc. Now let us suppose that this is the case and Christians go to heaven, everyone else goes to hell as you believe. Why would an all loving God punish innocent people who profess honest skepticism with eternal torment? If you have a child who does not worship you every day, talk to you every day, and believe that you are the greatest thing in existence for their entire lives, are you going to torture that child? Also, this "bet" assumes that you are betting on the right god. What if the Muslim God is actually the "true" God? You're in the same boat with the godless atheists. What if it's Zeus? Then pretty much everyone on earth is screwed.

Essentially this is another religious scare tactic saying "if you don't believe what we believe you are going to suffer forever." Yeah. That's a wonderful religion.

[Fedaykin]

PM me if you'd like and we can kick around the idea of religion and science co-existing, which you seem to claim is not possible. As every other thread in this WRP room suggests, in depth discussions get hijacked, machine gunned, or worse.

What I'll say is this:

With Truth being the ultimate goal of both properly guided religion and properly guided science, both are complementary to the other when both disciplines recognize and abide by their respective limitations regarding Truth. If they do, then discord between them can't happen.

Your anaylsis is completely wrong. Religion's goal is not to seek the truth, but to defend dogma. Religion is fatally flawed as a way of determining truth because it starts with a conclusion (God Did It) and will not waver from that conclusion irregardless of any evidence to the contrary. This is a logically bankrupt approach to determining truth.

On the other hand, science takes a logically sound approach by examining the evidence at hand, and drawing conclusions that fit that evidence.

The former is absolutely useless (and worse, counter-productive) at helping us to learn about our world, while the latter has proven itself time and time again to produce quality information. Yes, the application of the scientific method is sometimes flawed, but imperfect is better than utterly useless and counter-productive.

[Rohirrim]

Here's a good example of the difference between science and religion. Senator Inhofe is going to Copenhagen to be a one man "voice of truth" at the global climate change summit. Why?

INHOFE: I think he’s right. I think what he’s saying is God’s still up there. We’re going through these cycles. … I really believe that a lot of people are in denial who want to hang their hat on the fact, that they believe is a fact, that man-made gases, anthropogenic gases, are causing global warming. The science really isn’t there.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/25/inhofe-god-cycles/

I guess he's going to argue that there is no such thing as global warming because God is somewhere up there in the sky watching over us. Maybe that's the explanation for global warming. God was getting a chill. After all, he is pretty old.

[NUB]

Sad that the world goes with Darwin, especially since some of his last words he tried to ask God for forgiveness for what he had done.

False.

[Bronx33]

Sorry science has the edge i don't care what anybody says...

[SPfloppy]

Whoever posted the Chester Cheatah parable is a great and learned man. Long may he interpret the word of the lord

[Hotrod]

What is this? Pascal's wager? Let me completely refute this argument for you. I assume you are talking about the God of Christianity, Jesus, etc. Now let us suppose that this is the case and Christians go to heaven, everyone else goes to hell as you believe. Why would an all loving God punish innocent people who profess honest skepticism with eternal torment? If you have a child who does not worship you every day, talk to you every day, and believe that you are the greatest thing in existence for their entire lives, are you going to torture that child? Also, this "bet" assumes that you are betting on the right god. What if the Muslim God is actually the "true" God? You're in the same boat with the godless atheists. What if it's Zeus? Then pretty much everyone on earth is screwed.

Essentially this is another religious scare tactic saying "if you don't believe what we believe you are going to suffer forever." Yeah. That's a wonderful religion.

Your odds go up somewhat if you pick a team. Staying on the sidelines your chances are somewhere between 0 and 0. Atleast flip a coin and pick a team geez

[orangeatheist]

Your odds go up somewhat if you pick a team. Staying on the sidelines your chances are somewhere between 0 and 0. Atleast flip a coin and pick a team geez

I win every time I keep the change in my pocket instead of dropping into the one-armed bandits at Central City or Blackhawk. I use my coins for rational purchases, not for an edge to scratch off gray flakes on another losing lotto ticket.

[Hotrod]

I win every time I keep the change in my pocket instead of dropping into the one-armed bandits at Central City or Blackhawk. I use my coins for rational purchases, not for an edge to scratch off gray flakes on another losing lotto ticket.

You cant win it if ya aint in it. :D

[alkemical]

What is this? Pascal's wager? Let me completely refute this argument for you. I assume you are talking about the God of Christianity, Jesus, etc. Now let us suppose that this is the case and Christians go to heaven, everyone else goes to hell as you believe. Why would an all loving God punish innocent people who profess honest skepticism with eternal torment? If you have a child who does not worship you every day, talk to you every day, and believe that you are the greatest thing in existence for their entire lives, are you going to torture that child? Also, this "bet" assumes that you are betting on the right god. What if the Muslim God is actually the "true" God? You're in the same boat with the godless atheists. What if it's Zeus? Then pretty much everyone on earth is screwed.

Essentially this is another religious scare tactic saying "if you don't believe what we believe you are going to suffer forever." Yeah. That's a wonderful religion.



I've always felt that religion based on fear tactics was a failed motto - and that's why i am not a fan of most "traditional" forms of religion.

It's why i believe in "everything" and "nothing".

[Hotrod]

I've always felt that religion based on fear tactics was a failed motto - and that's why i am not a fan of most "traditional" forms of religion.

It's why i believe in "everything" and "nothing".

Talk about hedging your bets :spit:

[alkemical]

Talk about hedging your bets :spit:

Look man - I do what i do.

I do have a certain set of core things i choose to believe in. It's just that as a whole, it's a whole lot "bigger" than just what's outlined in the the bible, koran, torah, etc.

Man's influence has f'd a good chunk of religion up, and i'm never going to deny that.

my way isn't the "true way" - and i'm never going to tell anyone to do what i do.

It's hard to explain how to believe in everything and nothing - but if you can understand the I ching and quantum mechanics - you'll get it.

[Hotrod]

Look man - I do what i do.

I do have a certain set of core things i choose to believe in. It's just that as a whole, it's a whole lot "bigger" than just what's outlined in the the bible, koran, torah, etc.

Man's influence has f'd a good chunk of religion up, and i'm never going to deny that.

my way isn't the "true way" - and i'm never going to tell anyone to do what i do.

It's hard to explain how to believe in everything and nothing - but if you can understand the I ching and quantum mechanics - you'll get it.

Whoa dont shoot its me Dortoh :)

Just poking fun at you. As far as understanding Ching & quantum mechanics I had that **** down in 3rd grade :)

[alkemical]

Whoa dont shoot its me Dortoh :)

Just poking fun at you. As far as understanding Ching & quantum mechanics I had that **** down in 3rd grade :)

lol :)

[epicSocialism4tw]

I dont think anyone takes Kirk Cameron or his personal philosophy seriously.

[alkemical]

He wasn't as cool as zach morris anyway.

[epicSocialism4tw]

What is this? Pascal's wager? Let me completely refute this argument for you. I assume you are talking about the God of Christianity, Jesus, etc. Now let us suppose that this is the case and Christians go to heaven, everyone else goes to hell as you believe. Why would an all loving God punish innocent people who profess honest skepticism with eternal torment? If you have a child who does not worship you every day, talk to you every day, and believe that you are the greatest thing in existence for their entire lives, are you going to torture that child? Also, this "bet" assumes that you are betting on the right god. What if the Muslim God is actually the "true" God? You're in the same boat with the godless atheists. What if it's Zeus? Then pretty much everyone on earth is screwed.

Essentially this is another religious scare tactic saying "if you don't believe what we believe you are going to suffer forever." Yeah. That's a wonderful religion.

Take a look at the world around you. Our little corner of the universe. Full of beauty. Full of glory. In a bonegrinder.

Tell me where you see mercy.

Tell me where in nature exists "true love".

Tell me why every gene in your body spits you into existence daily to fight against the collaborative forces of entropy...all the while knowing that one day what was once you will be nothing but lifeless carbon compounds passed around in the food chain.

Tell me that nature is a nurturer and not a destroyer.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

Your odds go up somewhat if you pick a team. Staying on the sidelines your chances are somewhere between 0 and 0. Atleast flip a coin and pick a team geez

Who said God wouldn't reward honest skeptics? It would be ironic if we die and go wherever to find that the skeptics are the ones who are rewarded. Of course I cannot prove that any more than you can prove Christians would be. And neither of us can prove that we go anywhere. That's the whole point.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Who said God wouldn't reward honest skeptics? It would be ironic if we die and go wherever to find that the skeptics are the ones who are rewarded. Of course I cannot prove that any more than you can prove Christians would be. And neither of us can prove that we go anywhere. That's the whole point.

The difference between you and a Christian is that the Christian has this guy named Jesus to look to as someone who has answered some of those questions.

Jesus is an interesting case. He is a man who claimed to be God and had the mind and behavior to back it up.

Jesus existed, and was documented extraordinarily well for a layperson of his time.

He's not something that you can just ignore if you are serious about metaphysical philosophy.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

Take a look at the world around you. Our little corner of the universe. Full of beauty. Full of glory. In a bonegrinder.

The United States capitol building is full of beauty and glory. Doesn't mean it was created by God.

Tell me where you see mercy.

Only where people choose to show it. I've never seen a lion catch a wilda beast and let it go saying, "I'm in a merciful mood today." People don't show much mercy either. We still have the death penalty, we don't want people to have health care, and we love to drop bombs on people, many of whom are innocent and have done no wrong to us. This is not the best of all possible worlds by any means. It's also ironic that Christians believe humanity is fallen, worthless, and corrupt yet we inhabit the best of all possible worlds.

Tell me where in nature exists "true love".

Love is not a force. You wouldn't say, "where in nature exists true sorrow." Love is something we feel, or think we feel (you can debate the physiological roots of "love"). In either case, love in the typically defined sense is not some magical force that comes over two people or a group of people. It is the result of choices made by two people and their willingness to continue making the choices that allow for the continuation of the feeling.

Also, again, in nature their is no "true love." Dogs do not have "soul mates" (another misleading term). They will get it on with any other dog of any other species. Other species of animals have evolved in a way that it is beneficial for a more committed relationship, but that is an evolutionary process, not some "gift" from a creator.

Tell me why every gene in your body spits you into existence daily to fight against the collaborative forces of entropy...all the while knowing that one day what was once you will be nothing but lifeless carbon compounds passed around in the food chain.

Tell me that nature is a nurturer and not a destroyer.

The minute you are born, you begin to die. That is a biological fact of life. The reason we live only 60-80 years on average is because once we have reached that point, we have fulfilled our natural purpose of maturing and passing our genes on to another generation and providing for it until it is old enough to do the same. That's why other animals live longer than we do. Why would a God that created the universe make sea turtles with lifespans triple that of the average human? Are they more important than us?

Nature is both nurturer and destroyer. It is the fact that surviving in the natural world is not easy that has allowed organisms to evolve to the extent that they have today. It's a process in which the rewards are the result of the struggle. Look at almost any species of mammals and the mother will know how to care for the younglings by nature. Tigers don't need to read a pregnancy or childcare book to know how to take care of tiger cubs. They simply do it. Naturally. When they are successful, the cubs grow into a beautiful creature. When they are not, the cubs die and the process must begin again. I don't understand the Christian belief that evolution is not beautiful, because it means that we are linked with all life on earth, the process of millions of years of struggle and work by all types of animals, and that we are the result of a long, successful process.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

The difference between you and a Christian is that the Christian has this guy named Jesus to look to as someone who has answered some of those questions.

Jesus is an interesting case. He is a man who claimed to be God and had the mind and behavior to back it up.

Jesus existed, and was documented extraordinarily well for a layperson of his time.

He's not something that you can just ignore if you are serious about metaphysical philosophy.

Really? So why do none of the Roman historians mention him until years and years after his death and the spread of Christianity? You would think if there was darkness, an earthquake, and dead people rising from the grave, some of these famous historians would have picked it up. Or someone somewhere would have written about it.

Why did Jesus/God tell slaves to obey their masters instead of telling masters to free their slaves? For that matter, why was slavery not outlawed in the Ten Commandments? Is not using God's name in vain more important than treating a human being like property?

It is likely that Jesus did exist. But it is extremely unlikely that any of the metaphysical claims about him that the Bible makes are true. After all, Matthew and Luke (if they were the real authors) could not even agree on the geneology of Jesus. They don't even have him having the same grandfather. Seems fishy to me.

[sisterhellfyre]

Take a look at the world around you. Our little corner of the universe. Full of beauty. Full of glory. In a bonegrinder.

Tell me where you see mercy.

Tell me where in nature exists "true love".

Tell me why every gene in your body spits you into existence daily to fight against the collaborative forces of entropy...all the while knowing that one day what was once you will be nothing but lifeless carbon compounds passed around in the food chain.

Tell me that nature is a nurturer and not a destroyer.

It's both, actually. Hail Kali, the Dark Mother.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The United States capitol building is full of beauty and glory. Doesn't mean it was created by God.

It is inherently obvious in the differences between an environment on the planet that is arranged and driven by forces beyond the power of everything that humans can arrange in their greatest moments and the simple architecture that is contrived to exhibit the humans ability to use the resources around them.

Man does not have power over death or life, or sadness of loss. Man does not have the power to create love. Man can be party to all of them just as a surfer tries to balance on a wave. The fact remains that men are subjugated to playing a bit part in a play that is far beyond their understanding.

However, you did not address the point that I made in the post. The world that we live in is not what you want it to be. It is full of striving, strife, destruction, sadness, loss, innocence lost, and innocence destroyed. There is no utopia here. Where species thrives, it does so to the detriment of another. Entropy exists and does its work incessantly.



Only where people choose to show it. I've never seen a lion catch a wilda beast and let it go saying, "I'm in a merciful mood today." People don't show much mercy either. We still have the death penalty, we don't want people to have health care, and we love to drop bombs on people, many of whom are innocent and have done no wrong to us. This is not the best of all possible worlds by any means. It's also ironic that Christians believe humanity is fallen, worthless, and corrupt yet we inhabit the best of all possible worlds.

Your focus is too much on men, and not enough on the world that couches them.


The minute you are born, you begin to die

Technically, the machines of homeostasis kick in to stave off entropy once the sperm enters the egg. You are bent against entropy from that point until all of your cells die.


Nature is both nurturer and destroyer. It is the fact that surviving in the natural world is not easy that has allowed organisms to evolve to the extent that they have today.

You raised a question. You questioned why Christians have things such as war and strife in their religion. My answer to you is this...its because war and strife are part of nature. Part of our nature. Part of the nature of every species on earth. Even the heavens war against the firmament. Meteors crash down on moons every day...disrupting the relative peace and order on their surfaces. Rivers erode. Weather destroys.

Christianity, Judaism, etc, have the fundamental dichotomy of existence in their holy books.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Really? So why do none of the Roman historians mention him until years and years after his death and the spread of Christianity? You would think if there was darkness, an earthquake, and dead people rising from the grave, some of these famous historians would have picked it up. Or someone somewhere would have written about it.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the culture that Jesus existed in. Jesus was a layperson. The simple fact that any historical accounts of him at all exist is astounding. What is shows is that he caused more of a stir that what we really know.

Why did Jesus/God tell slaves to obey their masters instead of telling masters to free their slaves? For that matter, why was slavery not outlawed in the Ten Commandments? Is not using God's name in vain more important than treating a human being like property?

You have to understand that Jesus is teaching people how to exhibit behavior that is pleasing to God, and that slaves were common in those days. Its obvious that he is not endorsing slavery, and it would take quite an unreasonable assumption to conclude such a thing. Jesus is telling slaves to do their work in a way that pleases God. Jesus is also the guy who told Jews to pray for their enemies.

It is likely that Jesus did exist. But it is extremely unlikely that any of the metaphysical claims about him that the Bible makes are true. After all, Matthew and Luke (if they were the real authors) could not even agree on the geneology of Jesus. They don't even have him having the same grandfather. Seems fishy to me.

That's why there are 4 gospels of the new testament. They are included in the canon because they represent the most concise analysis of the events, and they agree with each other in many ways. They are also corroborated in Pauls letters, where he mentions Jesus quite a bit. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus.

I think that it would help you to take an honest look at Jesus instead of one drenched in cynicism, sarcasm, and unwavering doubt.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

It is inherently obvious in the differences between an environment on the planet that is arranged and driven by forces beyond the power of everything that humans can arrange in their greatest moments and the simple architecture that is contrived to exhibit the humans ability to use the resources around them.

Oh, so basically if we can understand it, it's just human, but if we don't have complete knowledge of it, God must have done it. Gotcha. I guess God made all of the apples fall before Newton. Just because the universe is complex doesn't mean a supreme being had to create it. It doesn't mean one did not either, but saying that the universe or the environment is too complex to exist without "intelligent design" is ludicrous.

Man does not have power over death or life, or sadness of loss. Man does not have the power to create love. Man can be party to all of them just as a surfer tries to balance on a wave. The fact remains that men are subjugated to playing a bit part in a play that is far beyond their understanding.

So heart surgery, the polio vaccine, organ transplants, etc. are meaningless? I'd say we have more control over life than you give us credit for. And we certainly have power over death. We could blow up the world several times over if we chose to, unfortunately. Again, just because we don't understand everything about life and death prooves nothing about the existence of a god, and certainly nothing about the validity of the Christian God.

However, you did not address the point that I made in the post. The world that we live in is not what you want it to be. It is full of striving, strife, destruction, sadness, loss, innocence lost, and innocence destroyed. There is no utopia here. Where species thrives, it does so to the detriment of another. Entropy exists and does its work incessantly.

Yup. Good job by our intelligent creator. Couldn't have done a better job. :thumbsdow And yet again, this proves absolutely nothing about the validity of the Bible.

You raised a question. You questioned why Christians have things such as war and strife in their religion. My answer to you is this...its because war and strife are part of nature. Part of our nature. Part of the nature of every species on earth. Even the heavens war against the firmament. Meteors crash down on moons every day...disrupting the relative peace and order on their surfaces. Rivers erode. Weather destroys.

Christianity, Judaism, etc, have the fundamental dichotomy of existence in their holy books.

Ok, so the holy books are good literature. So are Homer's epics. This proves what exactly?

[AbileneBroncoFan]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the culture that Jesus existed in. Jesus was a layperson. The simple fact that any historical accounts of him at all exist is astounding. What is shows is that he caused more of a stir that what we really know.

There is no historical account of him, other than what the people in his area spread with word of mouth and got around to writing 80 years after the fact. None of the great historians of the Roman Empire mention him at all. We know more about Cicero as a historical figure than Jesus.

You have to understand that Jesus is teaching people how to exhibit behavior that is pleasing to God, and that slaves were common in those days. Its obvious that he is not endorsing slavery, and it would take quite an unreasonable assumption to conclude such a thing. Jesus is telling slaves to do their work in a way that pleases God. Jesus is also the guy who told Jews to pray for their enemies.

That still does not explain why an all powerful God would permit slavery. None of the Old Testament laws outlaw racist slavery (you couldn't enslave a fellow Israelite, but everyone else was fair game), and Jesus says nothing to contradict this. No, I do not believe that he was endorsing it by any means, but you would think that it would not be difficult for God to say "thou shall not own slaves."

That's why there are 4 gospels of the new testament. They are included in the canon because they represent the most concise analysis of the events, and they agree with each other in many ways. They are also corroborated in Pauls letters, where he mentions Jesus quite a bit. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus.

I think that it would help you to take an honest look at Jesus instead of one drenched in cynicism, sarcasm, and unwavering doubt.

They are included in the canon because they were voted in at the Council of Nicea. Mark didn't even include a resurrection until it was inserted by scribes after the fact. For being the divine word of God, they are not very accurate in regard to one another. Paul never met nor saw Jesus.

I look at Jesus honestly. He is a great teacher of morals (for the most part, I don't agree with everything, just as I don't agree with everything any moral teacher says) and things such as "do unto others..." and "turn the other cheek" are something that everyone should abide by. For the record however, "do unto others" was taught by Confucius centuries before Jesus. I simply do not believe you have to say that Jesus is God and humanity is worthless sinners to accept that he was a good person and good teacher and that there is much to learn from his example, whether the events recorded in the Bible are 100% true or 100% false. That's not the point. The point is to study them, reflect on them, and learn from them, just as it is with any great literature and any great character. Life is too short to worry about what is going to happen after we die or which religion is true. I believe that we should each strive to love our fellow human beings and live our lives as best we can. If God is out there, he will understand and if not, he's not God and we have nothing to worry about.

[Fedaykin]

For the record however, "do unto others" was taught by Confucius centuries before Jesus.

"The Golden Rule" has been around just about as long as recorded history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity


The historical figure of Jesus didn't really have anything original to say. He just managed to get a lot more followers than most cult leaders.

[alkemical]

It's both, actually. Hail Kali, the Dark Mother.

& Isis

[Rohirrim]

It's both, actually. Hail Kali, the Dark Mother.

http://2012supplies.com/sitebuilder/images/kali-375x525.jpg

I'm getting tired of the Kali Yuga. I want a little Satya Yuga. ;D

[gyldenlove]

Your odds go up somewhat if you pick a team. Staying on the sidelines your chances are somewhere between 0 and 0. Atleast flip a coin and pick a team geez

They actually go down a lot.

What is the first commandment?

That is right, if you believe in the wrong god you are F'ed it is the first rule in the book. By picking sides you are certain to go straight on the fire and brimstone express if you get it wrong (and lets face it, there are so many religions that most people will have gotten it wrong), if you don't pick sides you might stew a bit, but you are a lot better off than the infidels.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Oh, so basically if we can understand it, it's just human, but if we don't have complete knowledge of it, God must have done it. Gotcha. I guess God made all of the apples fall before Newton. Just because the universe is complex doesn't mean a supreme being had to create it. It doesn't mean one did not either, but saying that the universe or the environment is too complex to exist without "intelligent design" is ludicrous.

You keep jumping from premise to premise as though slithering out of the topic is somehow a way to approach it intellectually. Diversion does not = intellectual discussion.

I made a simple poetic statement that described the harshness of existence. You proceeded to then to divert the issue to one of intelligent design...an issue full of political controversy and divisiveness. One certain to destroy conversation on a message board. Try to stick to the topic.

And we certainly have power over death

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen posted on this site, and thats saying alot.

Let me know when you come across a 4.5 billion year old guy.

We could blow up the world several times over if we chose to, unfortunately. Again, just because we don't understand everything about life and death prooves nothing about the existence of a god, and certainly nothing about the validity of the Christian God.

Nobody made that claim here...you descended down that path on your own.

All that we can surmise scientifically is that the universe is formed as it is by processes that we hardly understand and for reasons we do not know by agents that we only see the work of through things like background radiation and various aspects of the hard sciences that we know to be somewhat true.

It would be nice if you could stay on topic instead of trying to argue with people who believe things that are different than what you believe.

[epicSocialism4tw]

There is no historical account of him, other than what the people in his area spread with word of mouth and got around to writing 80 years after the fact. None of the great historians of the Roman Empire mention him at all. We know more about Cicero as a historical figure than Jesus

You are blind. Period. You choose to see only what you allow yourself to see. Until you have somewhat of an open mind at all, you will wallow around in your own bitterness toward people with different beliefs than your own dogmatic hang-ups.

You take regurgitated half-truths spit up by people with alterior motives and cling to them like a rat on a float of trash in a sewer.

Anyone with a serious, open minded inquiry into what Jesus is will come away with much more than the aversion that you have developed.



That still does not explain why an all powerful God would permit slavery. None of the Old Testament laws outlaw racist slavery (you couldn't enslave a fellow Israelite, but everyone else was fair game), and Jesus says nothing to contradict this. No, I do not believe that he was endorsing it by any means, but you would think that it would not be difficult for God to say "thou shall not own slaves."

God "permits" slavery?

Does God permit you to brush your teeth? Does God permit you to hug your mother? Does God permit you to chastise a theif? Does God permit you to work hard for an A at Baylor?

Men choose their paths. Men chose to enslave...NOT God.

Its ironic that you choose this subject to make a sort of second-grade attempt at accusing God of not being as morally advanced as you are. Why? The nation of Israel was a nation of slaves for hundreds of years. When they could not free themselves, God sent them Moses. Their faith was formed in a massive rescue from slavery. This is also similar to what Jesus did...he freed men from the slavery of sin. Slavery and rescue are major themes in God's relationship to man.


They are included in the canon because they were voted in at the Council of Nicea. Mark didn't even include a resurrection until it was inserted by scribes after the fact. For being the divine word of God, they are not very accurate in regard to one another. Paul never met nor saw Jesus.

Sure he did. The Damascus road account is quite famous.

Life is too short to worry about what is going to happen after we die or which religion is true. I believe that we should each strive to love our fellow human beings and live our lives as best we can. If God is out there, he will understand and if not, he's not God and we have nothing to worry about.

Jesus said that he came to give life. The kingdom of Heaven is here now. It doesnt begin when you die. The life that he gives lasts eternally.

The message is clear, and the alternatives are clear. God will judge you according to his own standards, not yours.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

You keep jumping from premise to premise as though slithering out of the topic is somehow a way to approach it intellectually. Diversion does not = intellectual discussion.

I made a simple poetic statement that described the harshness of existence. You proceeded to then to divert the issue to one of intelligent design...an issue full of political controversy and divisiveness. One certain to destroy conversation on a message board. Try to stick to the topic.

Ok, the natural world is a tough place to survive in and is full of many wonders...not sure where this is going.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen posted on this site, and thats saying alot.

Let me know when you come across a 4.5 billion year old guy.

Go tell that to the millions of children who died before the age of 10 prior to the 20th century of diseases that are considered minor today. Or the millions of adults who died of plague, cholera, polio, and smallpox before reaching their 30th birthday. The only reason we are even concerned with things like cancer as a major killer today is because we have conquered the diseases that kill people before they are old enough to actually get cancer, which is a genetic mutation that usually requires years of cell division to occur. Relative to our ancestors from as recently as the 18th century, we have conquered much of death. I never said we are immune from death, but we have certainly conquered many "agents" of death.

Nobody made that claim here...you descended down that path on your own.

All that we can surmise scientifically is that the universe is formed as it is by processes that we hardly understand and for reasons we do not know by agents that we only see the work of through things like background radiation and various aspects of the hard sciences that we know to be somewhat true.

It would be nice if you could stay on topic instead of trying to argue with people who believe things that are different than what you believe.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that this is a thread about someone who is insulting the Origin of Species and who is actively attempting to impose his flat-earth era beliefs on people. If we are in agreement that this man's "science" is, pardon my french, full of ****, then we have no real debate going on here and I apologize for the waste of cyberspace.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

You are blind. Period. You choose to see only what you allow yourself to see. Until you have somewhat of an open mind at all, you will wallow around in your own bitterness toward people with different beliefs than your own dogmatic hang-ups.

You take regurgitated half-truths spit up by people with alterior motives and cling to them like a rat on a float of trash in a sewer.

Anyone with a serious, open minded inquiry into what Jesus is will come away with much more than the aversion that you have developed.

Where is the proof? The earliest gospel was written around 70 AD. That's approximately 40 years after Jesus died, and given what life expectancy was back then, it's not very probable that any of his followers were still living at the time. It's even less probable that those that were were literate. It's funny when people with a dogmatic view of religion criticize free-thinkers for not being open minded. I assume that the Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. are also incorrect in their own spiritual views. I'm not the one who believes that the people of those faiths will burn in hell for eternity for their beliefs, as most Christians do. It is also ironic that the Christian God fits the bill of being "close minded" (actually a being that exists outside of the physical universe could not have a "mind" or any other physical property that we could remotely understand) in that he accepts only people who believe a certain doctrine, condemning the rest to eternal suffering. I'm sorry that my idea of God does not fit that definition.

God "permits" slavery?

Does God permit you to brush your teeth? Does God permit you to hug your mother? Does God permit you to chastise a theif? Does God permit you to work hard for an A at Baylor?

Men choose their paths. Men chose to enslave...NOT God.

Its ironic that you choose this subject to make a sort of second-grade attempt at accusing God of not being as morally advanced as you are. Why? The nation of Israel was a nation of slaves for hundreds of years. When they could not free themselves, God sent them Moses. Their faith was formed in a massive rescue from slavery. This is also similar to what Jesus did...he freed men from the slavery of sin. Slavery and rescue are major themes in God's relationship to man.

This is my point. We humans choose everything we do and believe. I don't blame God for the 9/11 attacks and I don't blame God for the European religious wars. By the same token, I don't blame God for charity and compassion. I blame people. We are what we do. In this regard we are in total agreement. I don't actually claim that God enslaved people. That's a man-made phenomenon 100%. A perfect God would not allow slavery, however. But as the argument of theodicy goes, slavery exists. How can this be? Again, it is highly unlikely that the account of the Exodus is accurate. If every first-born child in the kingdom of Egypt died on the same night, it would have certainly been recorded somewhere in heiroglyphics, as would many of the other plagues. It is certainly very possible that Moses was a real man who led people out of slavery. It is also very possible that Jesus existed and was an exemplary moral teacher. However, the supernatural claims about their actions are much less likely, and I would argue not nearly as relevant as what they did. If we could only convince all the people of the world to believe one thing, and one thing only, about Jesus, would it be better for them to believe he rose from the dead, or would it be better for them to believe the extreme importance of the teaching to "love thy neighbor?" Almost all of our problems would be solved if we choose the latter. We've witnessed groups of Christians who both believe in the resurrection massacre each other because of other aspects of their doctrines, forgetting what is the most important.

Sure he did. The Damascus road account is quite famous.

Well, if you literally believe the Bible, then Paul was blind at the time and didn't see who he was talking to. Of course no one could verify if this happened or not, so you either have to trust his account or not. It doesn't prove much. Interestingly, Paul's teachings are also very different in many regards to Jesus and the Apostles'.

Jesus said that he came to give life. The kingdom of Heaven is here now. It doesnt begin when you die. The life that he gives lasts eternally.

The message is clear, and the alternatives are clear. God will judge you according to his own standards, not yours.

But Christians, and Christians alone, know the standards, right? Even though they've changed over time. I find it amusing that many of my Christian friends believe that someone such as Ghandi is going to hell for eternity while someone else could be a mass murderer but be "saved" in prison and have a one way ticket to paradies. Explain to me how that makes God just? Or better yet, merciful? It is not possible to be infinitely just and merciful, because justice is the taking of appropriate action in response to a preceding action while mercy is taking a less extreme action or no action in response to a preceding action. Again, I would counter that what we do and how we live are more important than what we believe, and a god that does not recognize that is not God. That's a very human way of dealing with things, and God is far from human.

[NUB]

It has then been argued that slavery is not condemned (only supported, condoned and regulated) in the Bible because it is only a part of human nature.

Right it is.

And so is consuming pork. And shrimp. Are those things so intolerably worse than slavery as to bring the heat of God so as to make them unlawful outright?

[NUB]

Oh, by the way, the historians of Jesus' time do not mention him. The rebuttal to this was that "Jesus was a layperson" which I burst out laughing to as it contradicts the narrative completely. That aside, many historians of the time cite the actions of laypeople. The most, well, used to be the most, cited reference of Jesus is by Josephus (it is now known as a forgery). Josephus "wrote" a small bit about Jesus. Contrary to the argument given, Josephus also wrote of criminals, mystics and fortune tellers, local leaders, etc.

Paul is the only historical "relative" of Jesus inwhich case the entire religion is based on hearsay by definition. You're taking Paul's word for it regardless of the fact that his story is corroborated by no one.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Oh, by the way, the historians of Jesus' time do not mention him. The rebuttal to this was that "Jesus was a layperson" which I burst out laughing to as it contradicts the narrative completely. That aside, many historians of the time cite the actions of laypeople. The most, well, used to be the most, cited reference of Jesus is by Josephus (it is now known as a forgery). Josephus "wrote" a small bit about Jesus. Contrary to the argument given, Josephus also wrote of criminals, mystics and fortune tellers, local leaders, etc.

Paul is the only historical "relative" of Jesus inwhich case the entire religion is based on hearsay by definition. You're taking Paul's word for it regardless of the fact that his story is corroborated by no one.

Josephus' account is by no means proved a forgery. That's only rhetoric from the detractors of Jesus' historicity.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Ok, the natural world is a tough place to survive in and is full of many wonders...not sure where this is going.

...as is evidenced by your inability to grasp the subject. You intuitively changed topic from the duality of nature into a half-minded debate on deism.

]

[orangeatheist]

Oh, I'm so sorry I didn't realize McSilly was putting on a show in this little thread until just today! I've got some catching up to do!

Take a look at the world around you. Our little corner of the universe. Full of beauty. Full of glory. In a bonegrinder.

Tell me where you see mercy.

Tell me where in nature exists "true love".

Tell me why every gene in your body spits you into existence daily to fight against the collaborative forces of entropy...all the while knowing that one day what was once you will be nothing but lifeless carbon compounds passed around in the food chain.

Tell me that nature is a nurturer and not a destroyer.

First of all, what did any of that have to do with a reply to Pascal's Wager? Leave it to McSilly to make up his own post and reply!

I think, however, my favorite line from above is that "every gene in your body" knows "that one day" you will die. Really, McSilly? I didn't know our individual genes possessed consciousness, were aware of their own mortality, but pressed along anyway!


The difference between you and a Christian is that the Christian has this guy named Jesus to look to as someone who has answered some of those questions.

Sorry, McSilly, let me correct you there. The most you can say about a Christian is that they worship this guy named Jesus and believe he is "someone who has answered some of those questions." You're claiming far too much up there.


Jesus is an interesting case. He is a man who claimed to be God and had the mind and behavior to back it up.

Jury's out on whether or not Jesus claimed his own divinity.
Your scripture's miracle claims don't count as evidence that this man 1.) existed and 2.) did the things claimed on his behalf.

My prediction: McSilly will retort with a bunch of hand-waving but we'll never actually see him produce the evidence that Jesus was who the Bible claims him to have been. How can he? Better men than him have tried and failed over the last 2,000 years.


Jesus existed, and was documented extraordinarily well for a layperson of his time.

Define "documented extraordinarily well".


He's not something that you can just ignore if you are serious about metaphysical philosophy.

Good thing this thread is about science, then, huh? Which, of course, the Bible fails at miserably.


It is inherently obvious in the differences between an environment on the planet that is arranged and driven by forces beyond the power of everything that humans can arrange in their greatest moments and the simple architecture that is contrived to exhibit the humans ability to use the resources around them.

Evidence of McSilly's inability to answer direct points. He was told the "United States capitol building is full of beauty and glory. Doesn't mean it was created by God" and he came up with this retort. Not sure what his point was.


Man does not have power over death or life, or sadness of loss. Man does not have the power to create love. Man can be party to all of them just as a surfer tries to balance on a wave. So, human life and death, our perception of the sadness of loss, love, all exist --like an ocean wave-- independent of human existence? Really? Care to prove that, big boy?


The fact remains that men are subjugated to playing a bit part in a play that is far beyond their understanding.

Except to Christians who, like you said earlier, "have this guy named Jesus to look to as someone who has answered some of those questions." You're exempt from ignorance, aren't ya McSilly?


However, you did not address the point that I made in the post. The world that we live in is not what you want it to be. It is full of striving, strife, destruction, sadness, loss, innocence lost, and innocence destroyed. There is no utopia here. Where species thrives, it does so to the detriment of another. Entropy exists and does its work incessantly.

There is so much stupid here I had to step away from the forum for while before I typed up a reply. Sometimes you just need to hit YouTube for a little bit of Tom and Jerry after reading something like that for an increase in intellectual stimulation by comparison.

Ok...that's better. So, let's take this little sermon apart bit by bit, shall we?
1.) McSilly whined, "The world that we live in is not what you want it to be." Not sure who's world you're talking about McSilly but seeing as this is the only world there is, it would be rather silly to wish it away. I guess I can understand believers in fairies and friendly ghosts thinking you could wish for a better world but for those of us who live in reality we don't wish for things. We take them as they are.

2.) Next, McSilly complained, "It [the world] is full of striving, strife, destruction, sadness, loss, innocence lost, and innocence destroyed." Man, talk about padding your resume! What did you do, McSilly, take down your Roget's and go a bit overboard with it? Sure, the world has hardships, but there are good things to find also. Certainly one needn't look into the fantasy world of religion to find goodness in the world. I can find it every day.

3.) Then, McSilly goes deep and admits, "There is no utopia here." Yeah, no **** Sherlock. Utopia is as much a fantasy place as the Christian Kingdom in the hereafter. What's your point?

4.) He next blunders by stating, "Where species thrives [sic], it does so to the detriment of another." Really? I mean, REALLY, McSilly? Do you REALLY believe that? I suppose the species of honey bee thrive to the detriment of roses and daises, eh? And dogs thrive to the detriment of man? Species don't exist to the benefit of another, do they? Two species can't exist together without one having to usurp the other in your view of the world. And you claim to be a scientist involved with these things? You seriously need to consider another line of work.

5.) Of course, then McSilly lays his bombshell, "Entropy exists and does its work incessantly." Uh-huh. So what?



Your focus is too much on men, and not enough on the world that couches them.

I cannot believe you said that, Mr. Pot.


You raised a question. You questioned why Christians have things such as war and strife in their religion. My answer to you is this...its because war and strife are part of nature. Part of our nature. Part of the nature of every species on earth. Even the heavens war against the firmament.

HA HA HA HA!!! I love this! Do tell, McSilly, what is the "firmament" and what role does it play in nature? Bible-passages only, please. You won't see "firmament" mentioned in any of the scientific literature.


Meteors crash down on moons every day...disrupting the relative peace and order on their surfaces.

HA HA HA HA!! I didn't realize moons felt the "relative peace and order" of their surfaces were disrupted by meteors!


Rivers erode. Weather destroys.

Yes, rivers erode and can create amazing features for human enjoyment like the Grand Canyon. Weather "destroys" features like the ancestral Rockies and geological forces like plate tectonics build them up again. What the hell is your point??


Christianity, Judaism, etc, have the fundamental dichotomy of existence in their holy books.

And.....?


You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the culture that Jesus existed in. Jesus was a layperson. The simple fact that any historical accounts of him at all exist is astounding. What is shows is that he caused more of a stir that what we really know.

What historical accounts, outside the Bible, assert that he lived? All extra-biblical accounts of Jesus are in response to the movement which developed in his name. NONE of these writers knew him personally or could vouch for his historical existence. If any commented on his life, they did so the same way you do; by granting plausibility to his follower's stories. Doesn't prove he existed, however.


You have to understand that Jesus is teaching people how to exhibit behavior that is pleasing to God, and that slaves were common in those days. Its obvious that he is not endorsing slavery, and it would take quite an unreasonable assumption to conclude such a thing. Jesus is telling slaves to do their work in a way that pleases God. Jesus is also the guy who told Jews to pray for their enemies.

Let's see if this would work in the modern day Middle East in regards to "honor killings":

"You have to understand that Osama is teaching people how to exhibit behavior that is pleasing to God, and the honor killing of women is common in that region. Its obvious that he is not endorsing the killings, and it would take quite an unreasonable assumption to conclude such a thing. Osama is telling men to do what's expected in a way that pleases God."

Yep, sounds about right for that mindset.


That's why there are 4 gospels of the new testament. They are included in the canon because they represent the most concise analysis of the events, and they agree with each other in many ways.

Well, the synoptics agree with each other in many ways but not so much John. That's why they're known as the synoptics. And, they agree, not because they're objectively reporting eyewitness accounts, but because Luke and Matthew copied Mark and another common source. Where they agree, you find the copying. Where they disagree, you find their own unique material.


They are also corroborated in Pauls letters, where he mentions Jesus quite a bit. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus.

Who never met him as he was one "untimely born." Are you claiming Paul's letters are evidence of Jesus's historicity? Paul doesn't have a birth narrative, or a physical resurrection scene. He doesn't even mention Jesus's miracles or an empty tomb!


I think that it would help you to take an honest look at Jesus instead of one drenched in cynicism, sarcasm, and unwavering doubt.

Boy, you're really working that Roget, aren't ya?

[epicSocialism4tw]

I think, however, my favorite line from above is that "every gene in your body" knows "that one day" you will die. Really, McSilly? I didn't know our individual genes possessed consciousness, were aware of their own mortality, but pressed along anyway!

Leave it to you and your twisted, bitter intellect to misinterpret poetic allusion for the sake of intellectual dishonesty. Not that I am a poet, but that you are a fool with foul intentions...and it bleeds through your every post.


Jury's out on whether or not Jesus claimed his own divinity.
Your scripture's miracle claims don't count as evidence that this man 1.) existed and 2.) did the things claimed on his behalf.

This is patently untrue. Jesus claimed to have the ability to make the judgments of God several times in the New Testament, and this charge is the one that the Pharisees and Sadducees used to torture and execute him.

That's not to mention the numerous examples that are cited in the synoptics where Jesus claimed divinity by his own words. The gospel of John begins with a narrative that parallels the creation account in Genesis that inherently claims Jesus to be with God and to be God before the universe was created.



Good thing this thread is about science, then, huh? Which, of course, the Bible fails at miserably.

:spit:

To suggest that "the Bible" has or should have any sort of scientific lean to it at all is borderline insane. You might as well burn Plato's Republic and every other book that built Western Philosophy from the ground up as well.

Ridiculous.

Their is no merit at all to the suggestion that the Bible (a collection of books written nearly 2000 years ago before any of the hard sciences were developed into anything coherent at all) should or would have any scientific analysis in it at all. There is no reason to think such ignorant things.


So, human life and death, our perception of the sadness of loss, love, all exist --like an ocean wave-- independent of human existence? Really? Care to prove that, big boy?

Ah...you spend a moment extolling the infinite, trustworthy value of naturalistic materialism and then you come back arguing against materialsim with Descartes?

Make up your mind. Evidently you have not made up your mind as to what you yourself believe.

You like science when it suits you, and you like idealism when it suits you.

You are a woman of two minds, both at war with one another.

[sisterhellfyre]

You are a woman of two minds, both at war with one another.

Hey, that's my job!

Signed,
Legion

[epicSocialism4tw]

Hey, that's my job!

Signed,
Legion

I wasnt sure of the gender of the poster, but they seemed effeminate so I wanted to err on the side of gender equality. :P

[cutthemdown]

Pretty sure Jesus is documented in Roman archives of the time.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

This is patently untrue. Jesus claimed to have the ability to make the judgments of God several times in the New Testament, and this charge is the one that the Pharisees and Sadducees used to torture and execute him.

That's not to mention the numerous examples that are cited in the synoptics where Jesus claimed divinity by his own words. The gospel of John begins with a narrative that parallels the creation account in Genesis that inherently claims Jesus to be with God and to be God before the universe was created.

The point is just because the New Testament says it doesn't make it true. Just because Homer said that Achilles' mother was a nymph doesn't make it true. It doesn't even mean that Achilles ever existed.

John would not know if Jesus was with God before the creation of the universe or not. And again, none of these books can even get the geneology of Jesus congruent. They don't even say he has the same grandfather. But they apparently know all about him.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

Pretty sure Jesus is documented in Roman archives of the time.

Cite it.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The point is just because the New Testament says it doesn't make it true. Just because Homer said that Achilles' mother was a nymph doesn't make it true. It doesn't even mean that Achilles ever existed.

Again, you are changing the subject.

The poster I was responding to said that Jesus didnt claim divinity, when in reality it is the major theme of much of his narratives to the religious leaders.

John would not know if Jesus was with God before the creation of the universe or not. And again, none of these books can even get the geneology of Jesus congruent. They don't even say he has the same grandfather. But they apparently know all about him.

Do you know the grandfather of your favorite teacher at Baylor? You may not know that, but can you tell me some of the best things that they taught you in your class?

John was up close and personal with Jesus. We can discern alot about Jesus through his gospel.

[orangeatheist]

Leave it to you and your twisted, bitter intellect to misinterpret poetic allusion for the sake of intellectual dishonesty. Not that I am a poet, but that you are a fool with foul intentions...and it bleeds through your every post.

So, you admit that genes don't possess a consciousness that drives them them to exist, even though they will all eventually die. Good. That's a step in the right direction.

Now, poetic or not, why don't you tell us what your point was with that little exercise, eh? Remember, here is what you wrote:

"Tell me why every gene in your body spits you into existence daily to fight against the collaborative forces of entropy...all the while knowing that one day what was once you will be nothing but lifeless carbon compounds passed around in the food chain."

You say you were only being "poetic." So, Emerson, what did you REALLY mean to say to us foolish twisted, bitter intellectuals with foul intentions, eh?


This is patently untrue. Jesus claimed

Stop right there, Mr. Poet. How do you KNOW what Jesus did or did not claim? No special pleading, please.


to have the ability to make the judgments of God several times in the New Testament, and this charge is the one that the Pharisees and Sadducees used to torture and execute him.

And how do you know the Pharisees and Sadducees tortured him? No special pleading, please. Also, according to your NT, the Pharisees and Sadducees did not execute him, even though they could. So, even if we take that part of your NT story as factual (that a man blaspheming to be God was taken in front of the Sanhedrin), why didn't the council kill him themselves? They are said to have had no problem executing some of his followers...like Stephen.


That's not to mention the numerous examples that are cited in the synoptics where Jesus claimed divinity by his own words.

Man, you've drunk straight from the Kool-Aid stoup, haven't you? Tell me, McSilly, how do you know the synopics are accurately reporting what Jesus said in "his own words"?


The gospel of John begins....

Blah, blah, blah..yeah, yeah, yeah. And the Upanishads begin...and the Koran beings...and Grimm's Fairy Tales begin...and Harry Potter begins...


...with a narrative that parallels the creation account in Genesis

Parallels? Really? Do tell!


...that inherently claims Jesus to be with God and to be God before the universe was created.

Guzzle, guzzle, guzzle.

Not impressed, McSilly. No impressed at all.


To suggest that "the Bible" has or should have any sort of scientific lean to it at all is borderline insane.

I never said the Bible "should have any sort of scientific lean", did I? I said, the Bible fails at science miserably; and by that I mean that when the Bible makes claims of a scientific nature (i.e. that there is a firmament) it falls flat on its face.


You might as well burn Plato's Republic and every other book that built Western Philosophy from the ground up as well.

Way to over-exaggerate there, McSilly!


Ridiculous.

Their is no merit at all to the suggestion that the Bible (a collection of books written nearly 2000 years ago before any of the hard sciences were developed into anything coherent at all) should or would have any scientific analysis in it at all. There is no reason to think such ignorant things.

So, do you admit that quite frequently, when the Bible makes claims of a scientific nature (creation, global flood, etc.) that it is in error? Yes or no?


Ah...you spend a moment extolling the infinite, trustworthy value of naturalistic materialism and then you come back arguing against materialsim with Descartes?

Make up your mind. Evidently you have not made up your mind as to what you yourself believe.

You like science when it suits you, and you like idealism when it suits you.

You are a woman of two minds, both at war with one another.

Everyone notice how McSilly avoided the question?

[orangeatheist]

John was up close and personal with Jesus. We can discern alot about Jesus through his gospel.

Prove, do not assert, that

1.) Jesus existed
2.) that he had disciples
3.) that he had a disciple named John
4.) that the disciple named John wrote anything
5.) that one of the things John wrote was a gospel
6.) that John's gospel is the one we have in the New Testament

Get to work. And remember, no special pleading.

Also, McSilly, ask yourself how you can criticize someone like Gaffe with his 9/11 tomfoolery while you think you can get off scott-free with these religious assertions. Think about it.

[BroncoInferno]

Ha! The DramaLlama made a fool of once again.

[Garcia Bronco]

God loves you even if you don't love him back. I will pray for you all.

[BroncoInferno]

God loves you even if you don't love him back. I will pray for you all.

Zeus loves you even if you don't love him back. I will pray for you all.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Prove, do not assert, that

1.) Jesus existed
2.) that he had disciples
3.) that he had a disciple named John
4.) that the disciple named John wrote anything
5.) that one of the things John wrote was a gospel
6.) that John's gospel is the one we have in the New Testament

Get to work. And remember, no special pleading.

Also, McSilly, ask yourself how you can criticize someone like Gaffe with his 9/11 tomfoolery while you think you can get off scott-free with these religious assertions. Think about it.

LOL

You are the Gaffney-esque loon with your ridiculous assertions that Jesus did not exist.

http://a4.vox.com/6a00c225278752549d011016cc17dc860d-500pi

[epicSocialism4tw]

http://www.jessicadunton.com/blog/TinfoilHat.jpg
http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/elections/14922d1203442021-obama-illegals-share-same-message-n522306244_197290_3718.jpg

[AbileneBroncoFan]

I will pray for you all.

I will think for you.

[BroncoInferno]

LOL

You are the Gaffney-esque loon with your ridiculous assertions that Jesus did not exist.

http://a4.vox.com/6a00c225278752549d011016cc17dc860d-500pi

Then it should be a relatively simple task to prove. Yet you refuse to provide that proof. Why? Perhaps there is a lurker who doubts the existence of Jesus; here is your opportunity to convince them and win over a soul for the Lord. Your refusal to do so will only further erode what little credibility you have on this board.

[Garcia Bronco]

I will think for you.

Thank you. You should however think for that Baylor Football squad. They could use it. :)

[epicSocialism4tw]

Then it should be a relatively simple task to prove. Yet you refuse to provide that proof. Why? Perhaps there is a lurker who doubts the existence of Jesus; here is your opportunity to convince them and win over a soul for the Lord. Your refusal to do so will only further erode what little credibility you have on this board.

Hilarious!

Thanks, dude. Its always nice to see a liberal loon like yourself who neglects to respect any morals or ethics try to construct some sort of arrogant judgmental attitude to make a point.

...and people like you wonder why nobody takes Obama seriously. Ha!

[BroncoInferno]

Hilarious!

Thanks, dude. Its always nice to see a liberal loon like yourself who neglects to respect any morals or ethics try to construct some sort of arrogant judgmental attitude to make a point.

...and people like you wonder why nobody takes Obama seriously. Ha!

Failure to provide historical evidence for the existence of Jesus noted.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In a video posted recently to YouTube, Cameron lays out a plan to subvert 'Darwin Day' on November 22, 2009 -- a date marking the 150th anniversary of the publishing of Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species." Cameron says that he and like-minded activists plan to deliver 50,000 copies of an altered version of Darwin's book to students at dozens of U.S. universities.

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

What does he plan to do for act II?

Refute the heliocentric model of the solar system?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Then it should be a relatively simple task to prove. Yet you refuse to provide that proof. Why? Perhaps there is a lurker who doubts the existence of Jesus; here is your opportunity to convince them and win over a soul for the Lord. Your refusal to do so will only further erode what little credibility you have on this board.

Angrydramaqueen doesn't need no stinking facts or evidence!

He comes from the "right because so-and-so says so" school.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Failure to provide historical evidence for the existence of Jesus noted.

I wouldnt waste my time on you. Sorry. Go do your own research.

At least the Baylor kid thinks a little...he's just behind. You however are just lazy and bitter.

[BroncoInferno]

I wouldnt waste my time on you. Sorry. Go do your own research.

At least the Baylor kid thinks a little...he's just behind. You however are just lazy and bitter.

Continued failure to provide any evidence for the historical Jesus duly noted.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Continued failure to provide any evidence for the historical Jesus duly noted.

Yeah...just keep telling yourself that.

http://www.laughinglarry.com/images/box/lazy_cat.jpg
Bronco Inferno excersizing his brain

[orangenblue2]

http://www.laughinglarry.com/images/box/lazy_cat.jpg
Bronco Inferno excersizing his brain

Hoo-boy! That is funny...Now let's get back to this "evidence" for the historical Jesus. Now is your big chance Llama. Come up with something...anything...please...

[BroncoInferno]

Hoo-boy! That is funny...Now let's get back to this "evidence" for the historical Jesus. Now is your big chance Llama. Come up with something...anything...please...

Yeah, he is being pretty silly and selfish by with holding his ironclad information. He could potentially save a soul or two but refuses to do so because of his inflated ego. Or maybe he just doesn't have the goods.

[Tombstone RJ]

Prove, do not assert, that

1.) Jesus existed
2.) that he had disciples
3.) that he had a disciple named John
4.) that the disciple named John wrote anything
5.) that one of the things John wrote was a gospel
6.) that John's gospel is the one we have in the New Testament

Get to work. And remember, no special pleading.

Also, McSilly, ask yourself how you can criticize someone like Gaffe with his 9/11 tomfoolery while you think you can get off scott-free with these religious assertions. Think about it.

It's written in the Bible. Now if your asking for proof that the Bible is valid, then that is your problem, not McSkillet's.

[Tombstone RJ]

Whether you believe in the Bible or not (and hence God, and hence Christ) is your choice. However, if you argue right and wrong is a matter of perspective, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Listen, you can make fun of me all you want, but I'm grounded. I have a foundation upon which to build up who I am, and what I believe. That foundation is the Bible and Christ.

Those of you who want to make fun of people like McSkillet and me, fine, go right ahead. But I can sleep at night. I know who I am. The question for the athiests and the secularists and the anti-christianists is, do you know who you are? If you do, fine, more power to you. If you don't, then perhaps you should quit raging against the Bible and start doing some self evaluation.

Peace.

[DBruleU]

Whether you believe in the Bible or not (and hence God, and hence Christ) is your choice. However, if you argue right and wrong is a matter of perspective, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Listen, you can make fun of me all you want, but I'm grounded. I have a foundation upon which to build up who I am, and what I believe. That foundation is the Bible and Christ.

Those of you who want to make fun of people like McSkillet and me, fine, go right ahead. But I can sleep at night. I know who I am. The question for the athiests and the secularists and the anti-christianists is, do you know who you are? If you do, fine, more power to you. If you don't, then perhaps you should quit raging against the Bible and start doing some self evaluation.

Peace.

Well said.

I've never understood why atheists and the like get so bent out of shape around here when there is a discussion about Jesus or the Bible.

Seems silly to me that people who claim Jesus never existed, and the Bible is false get so upset about it. I don't get upset over people who claim sasquatch exists. There's a more deep rooted issue here. I think we are all born with the understanding there is a God...it's just whether you choose to accept it. Also, I think for the people that hate God hate the fact they are held accountable to someone other than themselves.

I'd rather die and find out that my faith and relationship with God is everlasting, than die and find out that everything I fought against is true.

[alkemical]

who cares, none of you exist anyway really.

[gyldenlove]

Well said.

I've never understood why atheists and the like get so bent out of shape around here when there is a discussion about Jesus or the Bible.

Seems silly to me that people who claim Jesus never existed, and the Bible is false get so upset about it. I don't get upset over people who claim sasquatch exists. There's a more deep rooted issue here. I think we are all born with the understanding there is a God...it's just whether you choose to accept it. Also, I think for the people that hate God hate the fact they are held accountable to someone other than themselves.

I'd rather die and find out that my faith and relationship with God is everlasting, than die and find out that everything I fought against is true.

I never understood why christians get so bend out of shape every time someone questions their morals and beliefs. This innate need to try to convert others that so many religious people suffer from is frankly slightly scary, why do they need other people to agree?

I don't care if people agree with me or not, I know I am right, if people disagree then that is their problem. I find it odd that so many people who have such rigid dogmas do not feel the same way, shouldn't it stand to reason that the more absolute the dogma is the more confident its followers should be since there is so little room for error and doubt. I am fully aware that there are many things I don't know and can't explain and I am fine with that, but if you can explain so many things with your dogma, why do you need people to agree with you?

I don't think anyone is born with the understanding that there is a god, if that was the case then all people should believe in god and yet the majority of primitive tribes have much more naturalistic views than most westerners.

The one thing that people who do not believe in god hate is that they are told that they should believe in god. Just like people who believe in god hate being told that they shouldn't.

[gyldenlove]

who cares, none of you exist anyway really.

I exist, I have done all the standard existence tests and I am certainly real.

[Rohirrim]

I don't have any problem with Jesus. I have a problem with the gross misrepresentation of his message that modern christianity proffers. The first problem we have is what did he actually say as opposed to what is in the Bible? That riddle is beyond solution. But if we accept some of his saying as true, then why the obvious mixups? If he said "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you," then why do we think heaven is where you are trying to go after death? John supposedly wrote, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Then people try to say the Bible is the Word? WTF? Religion is a diversion from truth, as far as I can tell. It purports to quench thirst by showing pictures of water.

There are those who realize that the Word, the Holy Spirit and all these references are just the meager attempt to use words to describe the same, unspeakable experience. In this example by Kabir, it is described as "the Guest":

Friend, hope for the Guest while you are alive.
Jump into experience while you are alive!
Think... and think... while you are alive.
What you call "salvation" belongs to the time
before death.

If you don't break your ropes while you're alive,
do you think
ghosts will do it after?

The idea that the soul will rejoin with the ecstatic
just because the body is rotten--
that is all fantasy.
What is found now is found then.
If you find nothing now,
you will simply end up with an apartment in the
City of Death.

If you make love with the divine now, in the next
life you will have the face of satisfied desire.

So plunge into the truth, find out who the Teacher is,
Believe in the Great Sound!

Kabir says this: When the Guest is being searched for,
it is the intensity of the longing for the Guest that
does all the work.
Look at me, and you will see a slave of that intensity.

The message of Jesus was a message of life. Not death.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

Thank you. You should however think for that Baylor Football squad. They could use it. :)

We could use our QB. Such a shame because he's an even better guy than he is an athlete. Hopefully he'll be 100% next year in football and track. He has a real shot at the 2012 Olympics if he wants to go for it. At least Texas is still representing for us. I would love nothing more than to see them ruin Florida or whoever wins the SEC.

[SPfloppy]

^Baylor has OU this week too. May the grace of Allah the merciful be upon them

[AbileneBroncoFan]

Well said.

I've never understood why atheists and the like get so bent out of shape around here when there is a discussion about Jesus or the Bible.

Seems silly to me that people who claim Jesus never existed, and the Bible is false get so upset about it. I don't get upset over people who claim sasquatch exists. There's a more deep rooted issue here. I think we are all born with the understanding there is a God...it's just whether you choose to accept it. Also, I think for the people that hate God hate the fact they are held accountable to someone other than themselves.

I'd rather die and find out that my faith and relationship with God is everlasting, than die and find out that everything I fought against is true.

It's holding yourself accountable to the rest of humanity that matters. Not to God. If God is real, then he will commend someone who acts in that way. It's what you do that matters, not what you believe, what you read, or what you do on Sunday mornings.

If you die and find out God exists, then it will be good for all people, because a God who judges on what dogma someone believes isn't really a god. If a God does not exist, you will not know the difference. It's really that simple. A Christian (i.e. Pat Robertson) who spreads hate and intolerance in the world is not in any way better than an atheist who spreads love and compassion. Just like an atheist who spreads hate and death (i.e. Josef Stalin) is not better than a Christian who is loving and compassionate to all. Period. Any God who would say otherwise is not worth believing in.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

^Baylor has OU this week too. May the grace of Allah the merciful be upon them

Our offense minus Robert is still pretty good. Our defense, even with Pawelek, is atrocious. It's not going to be fun.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

Whether you believe in the Bible or not (and hence God, and hence Christ) is your choice. However, if you argue right and wrong is a matter of perspective, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Listen, you can make fun of me all you want, but I'm grounded. I have a foundation upon which to build up who I am, and what I believe. That foundation is the Bible and Christ.

Those of you who want to make fun of people like McSkillet and me, fine, go right ahead. But I can sleep at night. I know who I am. The question for the athiests and the secularists and the anti-christianists is, do you know who you are? If you do, fine, more power to you. If you don't, then perhaps you should quit raging against the Bible and start doing some self evaluation.

Peace.

Hitler could sleep at night too...

However, as I have said, belief is not remotely as important as action. If believing in Christianity drives you to love and respect others, then it is a good thing. But it is not good in the intolerance it has historically spread. Instead of "live and let live," it has become "live my way or burn." The belief in Christ is not as important as following his good example, whether it actually happened or not. Christians who kill doctors who perform abortions are murderers, plain and simple, and should not be viewed as anything else. I don't care what they believe, the way they acted is unacceptable. They are simply terrorists, and should be viewed no differently because they act "in the name of Christ" instead of Allah. At the end of they day, there is no such thing as acting in the name of the divine. You are only acting in the name of yourself and your fellow human beings. If God wants something to get done, let him do it. I would think if he is powerful enough to create the universe, he is powerful enough to come down from the sky and tell us all, clearly and distinctly, what we need to do. Until that happens, it is our own intuition and interconnectedness that will guide us.

[alkemical]

I exist, I have done all the standard existence tests and I am certainly real.

For not, for when i die...the world ends.

[orangenblue2]

Well said.

I've never understood why atheists and the like get so bent out of shape around here when there is a discussion about Jesus or the Bible.

I've never understood why Llama makes statements (masked as fact) and then refuses to provide any shred of evidence for them. I further have never understood why people like yourself equate requests to provide examples, documentation, proof, etc., with getting "so bent out of shape".

Ex. - Poster A makes a statement
Poster B asks Poster A for some documentation
Poster A vanishes (as usual)
Posters C & D reiterate need for said documentation
Poster A remains silent and hopes that everyone forgets the whole thing
Poster D makes accuses "atheists and the like" of getting "so bent out of shape"

Seems silly to me that people who claim Jesus never existed, and the Bible is false get so upset about it. I don't get upset over people who claim sasquatch exists.

Once again, methinks your are equating "backing up your words" with "getting so upset". By the way, how about you let us know when the "sasquatchers" try inserting their dogma, doctrine, and beliefs into government, education, and everyday life...ok?

There's a more deep rooted issue here. I think we are all born with the understanding there is a God...it's just whether you choose to accept it. Also, I think for the people that hate God hate the fact they are held accountable to someone other than themselves.

I'm at a loss..."born with the understanding"? My daughter, born just a week ago, "understands" when she's hungry, tired, wet, comforted, etc.. For you to say that she "understands there is a God" is patently absurd.

I'd rather die and find out that my faith and relationship with God is everlasting, than die and find out that everything I fought against is true.

Hey Pascal...oh, nevermind

[orangeatheist]

LOL

You are the Gaffney-esque loon with your ridiculous assertions that Jesus did not exist.



1. I never asserted Jesus didn't exist. You asserted he did. He who asserts must prove.

2. Your continuing inability to answer direct questions is noted.

[orangeatheist]

It's written in the Bible. Now if your asking for proof that the Bible is valid, then that is your problem, not McSkillet's.

Um...no, Tombstone. That's your job. If you're asserting that proof of Jesus's existence is that the Bible claims such proof, and that the Bible is worthy of being trusted, then the burden is yours to prove that assertion.

What is it with these people and their shifting the burden of proof? Hell, at least Gaffe makes stuff up!

[orangeatheist]

I've never understood why Llama makes statements (masked as fact) and then refuses to provide any shred of evidence for them.

Hammer. Nail. Head.

For you theists out there, THAT'S the point. Not that Jesus did or did not exist. It's McSilly's steadfast refusal to back up what he claims. What makes it worse is his hypocritical demand for evidence of baseless claims like those made by Gaffe regarding 9.11 but not recognizing he holds the same burden regarding his religious claims. He just turns into LABF and starts posting pics and cartoons. This guy's a real piece of work.

[orangenblue2]

Hammer. Nail. Head.

For you theists out there, THAT'S the point. Not that Jesus did or did not exist. It's McSilly's steadfast refusal to back up what he claims. What makes it worse is his hypocritical demand for evidence of baseless claims like those made by Gaffe regarding 9.11 but not recognizing he holds the same burden regarding his religious claims. He just turns into LABF and starts posting pics and cartoons. This guy's a real piece of work.

...and then some

[NUB]

Pascal's Wager should be insulting to anyone who is religious for it makes your faith an odds-game. "Yeah this may not be true, but at least I'm making some bets. Maybe I'll chance my way into the afterlife."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha! The DramaLlama made a fool of once again.

You can set your watch to it. :D

[BroncoInferno]

I've never understood why atheists and the like get so bent out of shape around here when there is a discussion about Jesus or the Bible.

How does it qualify as "getting bent out of shape" to ask a Christian to support their claims with evidence/facts? It is the Christians who get "bent out of shape" when they are asked to verify their claims. See McSilly in this thread. He was simply asked to provide evidence of the historical Jesus, and he responded with a hysterical tirade (complete with pictures). Folks like you take any questioning of your faith as folks getting bent out of shape. Seems pretty insecure to me.

Seems silly to me that people who claim Jesus never existed, and the Bible is false get so upset about it. I don't get upset over people who claim sasquatch exists.

Folks who believe in sasquatch don't try and enact/change laws that forces others to pay special respect to their beliefs.

There's a more deep rooted issue here. I think we are all born with the understanding there is a God...it's just whether you choose to accept it.

Nonsense. No one is born with an innate belief in dieties. That is something you have to be taught. Want proof? Simply look at the geography of faith. People born in India tend to be Hindu, born in Iran tend to be Muslim, born in North Carolina tend to be Christians, etc. If we were all born to believe in the same god, then why do so many others in different geographic locales choose different gods or none at all? It's simple: their culture/parents brainwash them from birth to believe the same myths they were brainwashed to believe.

Also, I think for the people that hate God hate the fact they are held accountable to someone other than themselves.

I am accountable to someone other than myself: other people. You say "I don't care what other people think, my dogma trumps humanity."

I'd rather die and find out that my faith and relationship with God is everlasting, than die and find out that everything I fought against is true.

Pascal's Wager. What if the Muslims are right?

[BroncoInferno]

My prediction: McSilly will retort with a bunch of hand-waving but we'll never actually see him produce the evidence that Jesus was who the Bible claims him to have been. How can he? Better men than him have tried and failed over the last 2,000 years.

Ha! Move over Miss Cleo! Of course, angry and his hand-waving is as predictable as the tides.

[orangeatheist]

Ha! Move over Miss Cleo! Of course, angry and his hand-waving is as predictable as the tides.

That's why I can make such a prediction without having to go out on a limb! :strong:

What I didn't anticipate, although I should have, was McSilly's complete abandonment of the thread!