Feed on Posts or Comments 19 April 2014

Christianity Thomas on 22 Jun 2011 12:43 am

The definition of a “Cafeteria Christian”

In this forum thread, a “Cafeteria Christian” writes in to describe his beliefs:

All or nothing

The first response explains how his beliefs really work:

In short, you’re openly a cafeteria christian.

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

If you’re picking and choosing which parts of the bible to follow, you’re not actually following the bible. You’re following your own sense of morality, and using the bible to back up those beliefs.

The amazing thing about a “Cafeteria Christian” is the fact that he believes himself to be a Christian, simply by ignoring everything in Christianity that is distasteful, wrong, uncomfortable, evil or stupid.

165 Responses to “The definition of a “Cafeteria Christian””

  1. on 22 Jun 2011 at 4:00 pm 1.DPK said …

    At least this person is honest about it. Sounds like someone who is convinced the bill of goods sold by religions just doesn’t add up, but is just not emotionally ready to let go of all the baggage society piles on. So, you try and compromise. I believe in Jesus, and all the good things in the bible, just not all the “other stuff”.
    What they don’t seem to be ready to accept, is that atheists “also” believe in the “good things” the bible teaches about love and compassion and fairness… only we don’t need either the threat of eternal damnation OR the carrot on a stick of an eternal life of bliss to accept that you do the right things just because they are the right things.
    This person will either continue to pick and choose so that he or she can continue the social mask of being “religious”, or will eventually stop self deluding completely and realize the truth.
    Baby steps……

  2. on 23 Jun 2011 at 2:02 pm 2.Joshua said …

    I actually hate the term “Cafeteria Christian” because it gets used as a slogan that tends to ignore deeper issues (the same way I hate most bumper stickers). I am not saying that this is what is going on in the thread, quite the opposite from what I see, I just think the term reinforces the anti-intellectual tendencies among conservatives.

    I may not be into any religion myself, but I am sure that that the Christians that believe you can not take the Bible at face value would be annoyed at such a simple minded dismissal of their views. I am sure that some the persons dismissing parts of the Bible have reasons for what they do. It is a bit lazy and brainless to take an “all or nothing” attitude instead of engaging with another person’s argument. If the person following any of the Bible can’t back up the remaining claims, then you can dismiss after the argument was made.

    I don’t have a horse in that particular race, I just hate to see someone’s ideas belittled outright with a slogan-y label that has the same effect as “poisoning the well”.

  3. on 23 Jun 2011 at 5:03 pm 3.Mike said …

    “he believes himself to be a Christian, simply by ignoring everything in Christianity that is distasteful, wrong, uncomfortable, evil or stupid.”

    I agree. Cafeteria Christians are just picking and choosing what they want to believe. Make it up as they go along. God doesn’t play that game.

    Atheism has many parallels. They pick and choose what they want to believe as well. There really is no line of delineation between the two.

  4. on 23 Jun 2011 at 5:15 pm 4.Lou said …

    3.Mike said …

    “Atheism has many parallels.”

    For example?

    “They pick and choose what they want to believe as well. There really is no line of delineation between the two.”

    To some extent, all people “pick and choose what they want to believe,” but atheism isn’t a belief system per se. You analogy is faulty.

  5. on 23 Jun 2011 at 8:17 pm 5.Observer said …

    #3 Mike You are right! True xtians don’t pick and choose, they limit themselves to believing all the idiotic tripe in the Bible. Atheists have a larger domain to choose from, and most pick their beliefs from well reasoned, logical, and non-supernatural fact. Bronze-age gods, unicorns, faeries and angels have no place in atheists’ lives except as characters in fiction.

  6. on 23 Jun 2011 at 8:26 pm 6.DPK said …

    Mike, atheism is a “belief system” much in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    The other common name given atheists is “free thinkers” and you are right, they do not conform to any one dogma that they can be pigeon- holed into, other than to say that typically, they reject unfounded and unproven claims about supernatural beings and magic as an explanation of reality.

    Cafeteria Christians can best be described as those that want to have their cake and eat it too.

  7. on 23 Jun 2011 at 8:52 pm 7.Xenon said …

    “Mike, atheism is a “belief system” much in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.”

    Untrue and has been debunked numerous times on WWGHA.

    Mike

    You are absolutely correct. I watched two atheist go at it because one of the atheist believed in a “Life force”. The other atheist took exception. Then you have atheist who are into Buddhism, Samkhya and Mimamsa, Jain, Taoism, etc. This would put atheism in the same category as the cafeteria Christians.

    They all have their dogma. It just does not include a God.

  8. on 23 Jun 2011 at 9:27 pm 8.DPK said …

    Warning, just because Xenon claims something has been “debunked” doesn’t mean a thing. He frequently makes illogical claims without substance and claims them to be true. It’s just how he rolls, ya know.
    Poor guy, he can’t help it. He hangs with people who think Bangkok is in India and painters don’t require mothers.
    In any event, even christians that all claim the bible as the inerrant word of god can’t even agree on what is true and what is bullshit, so how do they expect anyone who doesn’t share their delusion to be convinced?
    http://www.godandscience.org/cults/index.html

  9. on 23 Jun 2011 at 10:31 pm 9.Horatiio said …

    X

    You left out a number of atheist religions. Many Unitarians are atheist as well as some practicing Jews as well then you have …get ready…

    Raelians

    Yes Raelians are atheists.

    So much for atheism being like not collecting stamps LOL!

    Have a great weekend. Even you Nose Buster.

  10. on 23 Jun 2011 at 11:09 pm 10.DPK said …

    So if I belong to a bowling league and don’t believe in Santa Claus, does that make not believing in Santa Claus a religion?
    Seriously, you guys are so insecure you can’t accept the fact that someone just doesn’t buy into dogmatic thinking? You can’t comprehend that everyone isn’t like you.
    Rather sad, that.

  11. on 23 Jun 2011 at 11:10 pm 11.Lou said …

    7.Xenon said …

    “Then you have atheist who are into Buddhism, Samkhya and Mimamsa, Jain, Taoism, etc. This would put atheism in the same category as the cafeteria Christians.”

    No, in no way does it. You are such a dumb-ass. “Buddhism, Samkhya and Mimamsa, Jain, Taoism, etc.” are beliefs, not atheism.

    “They all have their dogma. It just does not include a God.”

    Oh really? What is the atheist “dogma?”

  12. on 23 Jun 2011 at 11:14 pm 12.Lou said …

    9.Horatiio said …

    “You left out a number of atheist religions.”

    By definition, there’s no such thing as “atheist religions.”

    Theists must try to claim that atheism is a religion because they can only relate to reality in terms of religion. Their minds are stuck in that context.

  13. on 23 Jun 2011 at 11:28 pm 13.DPK said …

    Lou, you put into words what I was trying to say much better.
    Hor, I assume you don’t believe in Leprechauns? Then I guess we can say that you belong to a non-Leprechaunian religion?
    Are you an aleprechaunian, or do you prefer aleprechaunist?

  14. on 24 Jun 2011 at 3:03 am 14.Severin said …

    8 DPK
    “Warning, just because Xenon claims something has been “debunked” doesn’t mean a thing. He frequently makes illogical claims without substance and claims them to be true.”

    Plus, he frequently use lies to prove his claims correct.
    Shall I “dig”, Xenon?

  15. on 24 Jun 2011 at 3:21 am 15.Severin said …

    Horatio and Xenon are both stupid and dihonest.

    For 3rd option please see:
    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=1934#comment-29351
    (#244 Lou)

  16. on 24 Jun 2011 at 11:45 am 16.Biff said …

    “Atheism has many parallels. They pick and choose what they want to believe as well.”

    They do but they have many things in common too. Unfortunately all bad. Their arguments are composed of “No its not” (see posts 9-15). They all use the word delusion for Christians. That brings us to (3) which is their hero worship of Richard Dawkins. They believe in no God.

    Any scientist who does not believe like them is not qualified. They are hypocrites picking out theist comments but ignoring those by their own members. They have leaders calling for atheist evangelism. Lastly, they have atheist organizations that ordain atheists.

    Ever seen a non-stamp collecting organization ordain a non-stamp collector?

  17. on 24 Jun 2011 at 11:46 am 17.Biff said …

    “Yes Raelians are atheists.”

    I never thought of that. That is hilarious. Atheist may be redefining themselves soon and make and adding a new denomination.

  18. on 24 Jun 2011 at 12:44 pm 18.Lou said …

    16.Biff said …

    “Atheism has many parallels. They pick and choose what they want to believe as well.”

    “They do but they have many things in common too. Unfortunately all bad.”

    The “all bad” things are most likely common things in common with xtians.

    “They all use the word delusion for Christians.”

    Not sure that all atheists do, but the word is used for all theists, not only xtians.

    “That brings us to (3) which is their hero worship of Richard Dawkins.”

    You sir, are a liar.

    “Any scientist who does not believe like them is not qualified. They are hypocrites picking out theist comments but ignoring those by their own members.”

    That is nothing but nonsensical rambling.

    “They have leaders calling for atheist evangelism. Lastly, they have atheist organizations that ordain atheists.”

    Please elaborate. I’m an atheist, and I not a member of any such organization.

  19. on 24 Jun 2011 at 12:53 pm 19.Lou said …

    17.Biff said …

    “Yes Raelians are atheists.”

    “I never thought of that.”

    Apparently you never think.

    “That is hilarious.”

    Yes, it would be to someone who enjoys the juvenile “wit” of Horatio. But, like him, you can’t understand the simple concept that, by definition, there’s no such thing as an atheist religion.

    “Atheist may be redefining themselves soon and make and adding a new denomination.”

    Atheists will be doing no such thing. It’s you and and some of your fellow theists who continually redefine atheism in order to attack it, because atheism can’t be attacked otherwise – especially by someone who has the intellectual and emotional capacity of a two year old.

    Instead of venturing out into the public and embarrassing yourself by making asinine comments on websites, why don’t you simply stay in bible school where you’re safe and protected from any intelligent thought while being supported by your peers who share the same idiotic ideas?

  20. on 24 Jun 2011 at 2:19 pm 20.DPK said …

    :“Yes Raelians are atheists.”
    I never thought of that. That is hilarious.”

    Well, lets look at that premise. Raelians are atheists in that they reject YOUR god. They have their own crazy ass set of beliefs:

    The Raelian Movement teaches that life on Earth was scientifically created by a species of extraterrestrials, which they call the Elohim. Members of this species appeared human and when having personal contacts with the descendants of the humans they made, they were mistaken for angels, cherubim or gods. Raëlians believe messengers, or prophets, of the Elohim include Buddha, Jesus, and others[2][3][4] who informed humans of each era.[5] The founder of Raëlism, members claim, received the final message of the Elohim and that its purpose is to pacify and inform the world about Elohim and that if humans become peaceful enough, they wish to be welcomed by them.

    These are, from an evidence and logic point of view, every bit as valid as the claims of christianty, judaism, Islam, or any other “made up” religion.
    Muslims, by your definition, are atheists too… they don’t believe in your god. The Mormons believe that gods evolved from a race of humans… there is no shortage of wild ass crazy assertions available to pick and choose from. Just because part of their dogma may contain non-belief in a supernatural god, doesn’t mean that if you are atheist you buy into the rest of the bullshit as well. There are all kinds of loonies.

    Fred Phelps is a Christian. Indeed, he is a “purer” christian than you are (presumably) because he believe the bible is the literal and inerrant word of god and proscribes following it to the letter. Does that mean if you are a Chrisitian you then buy into Phelp’s hateful philosophy?

    “They do but they have many things in common too. Unfortunately all bad.”

    That’s a mindless blanket assertion, typical of your myopic reasoning. Can you give us a list of “all the bad” things we have in common, outside of “we don’t buy the bullshit you’re selling”?

    “Their arguments are composed of “No its not””
    Considering all the very specific, pointed challenges you have ignored or avoided here, that’s a pretty hypocritical statement. Of all the people here, your arguments consist of “because of my personal relationship with god, I just know it…..” Much like a Raelian “knows” Elohim is real.

    “They all use the word delusion for Christians.”
    Well, we also use the word “delusion” for muslims, hindu’s, Zeus worshipers (Zeusists??) volcano worshipers, sun worshipers, Raelians, scientologists, etc…. I take it you agree with us on all of THOSE assesments, but find it unfathomable that it applies to YOUR beliefs, right?

    “A delusion is a belief that is either mistaken or not substantiated and is held with very strong feelings or opinions and expressed forcefully”
    hahahaha

    “That brings us to (3) which is their hero worship of Richard Dawkins.”

    I don’t hero worship Richard Dawkins, so your statement is a lie. Maybe some people do, but, if they do hero worship him, at least yu can say they worship someone that has some good evidence of actually existing, that has never committed genocide, and doesn’t command us to kill people over their “sins” and does threaten us with eternal damnation if we don’t worship him. So, If I HAD to choose between Professor Dawkins and Yahweh, yeah, I’d pick Dawkins.

    “They believe in no God.”

    Again, not believing in fairies is not a “belief”. it is simply the rejection in the belief of those who contend that fairies are real.

    All of your ranting and raving and railing against people who simply do not buy into your delusion can be quickly and easily ended…. just produce some evidence that ANY of the claims you make about the reality of your god is actually true. Then explain why YOUR god is the right one, among the thousands we have to choose from. Show us why we should accept your system of beliefs over say, the Realians?

    This ought to be good…. but here is a prediction. Biff and Xenon and Horatio will change the subject. We will not see an answer to this challenge. Watch and learn. This is how they work. Make a claim, ignore the response. Maybe Hor will even grace us with his universal answer, “LOL”.

  21. on 24 Jun 2011 at 2:34 pm 21.Crux said …

    DPK, Lou & Severin

    What denomination of atheism are you a part?

  22. on 24 Jun 2011 at 2:55 pm 22.Lou said …

    21.Crux said …

    “What denomination of atheism are you a part?”

    None, because there is none.

  23. on 24 Jun 2011 at 2:58 pm 23.Observer said …

    A few points related to the lying and misrepresentation of the delightfully insipid Biff:

    Evangelism means the preaching and promulgation of the xtian gospels. It has come to be used colloquially as advocacy. IT is a stupid choice of words for atheistic advocacy.

    Buddhism, at least according to the HH Dalai Lama is an atheistic creed.

    I don’t know anything about Raelians. Elohim is an interesting word choice as it is a plural noun for gods and judges in Hebrew. But also is used to represent the Abrahamic god. It is used in Genesis, when referring to how the universe was created in its plural sense. That is an interesting point that English translations miss. As DPK pointed out, they don’t sound like atheists.

    #18-20 Lou and DPK, Well put. This Biff character is the uber-wanker. Is everyone familiar with the pop-xtian apologetic novel Biff? I have read it. It is funny on many levels- particularly that xtians are not burning it as it is heresy. It does fit in nicely with the tattooed-want-to-be-hip losers that keep the horrid xtian rock stations running.

  24. on 24 Jun 2011 at 3:05 pm 24.Observer said …

    One other point, I seem to recall a bunch of atheists trying to be ordained. Religion has a parasitic position in the tax-collection system of the United States in the clergy can sponge off society and churches and the like can run enterprises without paying taxes. The atheists were trying to make a point around this with hopes of showing in the courts that religion is in effect being subsidized by the state. Of course, only a simpleton would take this manoeuver as an attempt by atheists to create a religion in itself aside as a polemical action.

  25. on 24 Jun 2011 at 4:35 pm 25.DPK said …

    I’m glad this Raelian topic came up, because it serves as a glaring example of the hypocrisy and deluded reasoning of the theists here.
    They can look at the Raelian assertions as to the nature of reality and conclude, as any normal person would, that those people are delusional. There beliefs are simply not true. Why? Why do they jump to this conclusion? Why do they know with absolute certainty, that THEY have it right, and the Raelians have it wrong?
    IF you can answer than, then you will understand why atheists reject your claims. IF you cannot answer that, then you are no different from the Raelians or any other crack pot religion and you should expect us to treat your claims no differently than you treat theirs. I mean, even within just christianity, there are almost countless different sects and divisions all claiming different versions of reality and all claiming with certainty to know things that they do not know.
    Observer… you have struck a sore point with me. Want to help balance the budget? Tax the churches. They are businesses, just like any other. They take in billions, have billions in assets, and pay no taxes. They lobby our lawmakers to further their interests, they scoff our laws by aiding and protecting child molesters, they want a voice in constitutional law and public policy, but want it all tax free. Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit!

  26. on 24 Jun 2011 at 5:18 pm 26.DPK said …

    21.Crux said …

    DPK, Lou & Severin

    What denomination of atheism are you a part?

    I can’t speak for Lou and Severin, but I belong to the “Not buying your bullshit snake oil” denomination.

  27. on 24 Jun 2011 at 6:16 pm 27.Crux said …

    Observer & Severin

    What denomination are you a member?

    I checked on Horatio, Xenonn and Biff’s accusations. They are all true and readily backed by a simple google search. Frankly I was suprised by the ordinations. I would seem that curmudgeon Observer, Lou and DPK do not have a problem with them but with their fellow atheists.

    No sure of their denominations.

  28. on 24 Jun 2011 at 6:29 pm 28.DPK said …

    Really?
    What google search did you do that told you that:

    “They do but they have many things in common too. Unfortunately all bad. Their arguments are composed of “No its not” (see posts 9-15). They all use the word delusion for Christians. That brings us to (3) which is their hero worship of Richard Dawkins.”

    was “all true”. So if you find it on the internet, you assume it’s true.
    That speaks loudly to your rational abilities.

    Crux… are you a christian? What denomination are you?
    Do you get to wear a big funny hat or magic underpants? Do you adorn yourself with jewelery depicting ancient torture devices? Are you one of the ones that eats human flesh and blood? Or, are you one of the denominations that thinks having pseudo-rock music makes you relevant? Do you speak in tongues or heal cripples? Maybe you’re one of the “Thank god for dead soldiers” and “god hates fags” denominations? Perhaps you were one of the ones waiting for the rapture on May 21st?
    Which one are you???? Maybe none of them? Maybe, like me, YOU think those are all looney nut jobs? I mean, you do or you don’t, right?
    D

  29. on 24 Jun 2011 at 6:35 pm 29.DPK said …

    Hey Crux… I’ll expend my invitation to Horatiio and the others in post 20 to you as well.
    What do you say? Confident enough to answer the challenge?
    I noticed that, as predicted, so far Xenon (aka Dodger), Biff, Horatiio, et al have remained suspiciously silent.
    One you demonstrate god’s actual existence, then we can talk about his morality and behavior and then about why you willfully disobey so many of his direct instructions.

  30. on 24 Jun 2011 at 6:48 pm 30.Lou said …

    27.Crux said …

    “No sure of their denominations.”

    Try to understand this simple concept – atheism is disbelief of god. There cannot be denominations of disbelief of god. Simple.

    Once again, stop trying to change the definition of atheism in for you to attack it.

  31. on 24 Jun 2011 at 7:08 pm 31.Severin said …

    27 Crux
    I am a member of:
    2 Mountain claiming clubs (inactive for some time)
    2 libraries (still very active)
    1 professional assotiation of paint producers
    1 local assotiaiton of astronomists (as a non-professional)

    Is that what you asked?

  32. on 24 Jun 2011 at 7:09 pm 32.Severin said …

    Sorry: mountain climbing, not claiming!

  33. on 24 Jun 2011 at 7:12 pm 33.Severin said …

    Then again: association, instead of assotiation!

    I’ll try to check my wocabulary BEFORE I write something, sorry, thanks for understanding!

  34. on 24 Jun 2011 at 7:26 pm 34.Lou said …

    27.Crux said …

    “I checked on Horatio, Xenonn and Biff’s accusations. They are all true and readily backed by a simple google search. Frankly I was suprised by the ordinations.”

    Ordinations? Of an atheist? I don’t care what you googled, by definition an atheist cannot be ordained in the sense that a religious leader can be ordained. So, you might well drop this stupid, pointless idea.

    Atheism is not a religion, and there are no denominations or ordinations.

    or·dained, or·dain·ing, or·dains
    1.
    a. To invest with ministerial or priestly authority; confer holy orders on.
    b. To authorize as a rabbi.

  35. on 24 Jun 2011 at 7:42 pm 35.Crux said …

    You guys do have some serious issues with your other brothers. You guys are quick to attack those who you find threatening. You guys are really like the Protestants, Catholics and other groups out there. I know it is easier to attack the messenger but like it or not their claims are true. You guys are not any different.

    http://firstchurchofatheism.com/index.php/become-ordained/

    I am of no domination, no religion including atheism. I suppose the great thing about that is I can see things rationally because I have no dog in the fight.

    Don’t attempt to portray yourselves as neutral. Nobody buys the bill of goods.

  36. on 24 Jun 2011 at 8:16 pm 36.DPK said …

    You are a silly man, aren’t you?
    I don’t recall anyone here claiming to be neutral on any position, as you are. To the contrary, those here, on both sides of the issue, have strong opinions. The difference as far as I can see is that for the most part the atheists are willing to defend them and provide rational arguments as to why they feel the way they do. The theists, to a large extent, simply make unsubstantiated claims and dodge any meaningful discussion.
    Now, your claim that the fact that a large number of people happen to reject the notion of supernatural gods constitutes a religion holds as much merit as saying that non-believers in witchcraft constitute a religion. It would certainly not be surprising to find out that people that don’t believe in witchcraft hold some common beliefs, and you may even find some tongue in cheek ad-hoc groups formed devoted to debunking witchcraft. That is not the same as a religion.
    The fact you found an obscure humorous website offering to ordain you as an atheist minister is not proof of you assertion.
    I could make a website in about an hour offering to ordain you as a minister of non-cat owners. That doesn’t make people who don’t own cats a member of a religion.
    The theists want to insist that the rejection of someone else’s unfounded assertion amounts to a belief so that they can then demand “proof” that the non-belief is correct. As a neutral outsider, I am sure you can see the problem with that. By that logic we can demand proof that there are no invisible space monkeys, flying elephants, alien creator races, and celestial teacups.
    So, you can think what you want, obviously, but atheism is not a religion any more than not believing in the Easter Bunny is a religion.

  37. on 24 Jun 2011 at 8:36 pm 37.Crux said …

    “The fact you found an obscure humorous website offering to ordain you as an atheist minister is not proof of you assertion.”

    Actually it is proof since they will ordain you and hardly is it obscure. This is why you are not a serious subject. I bet you have your hands over your ears going lalalalalalalalala, Get over it and deal with facts like it or not.

    Let me know when any of you actually provide a serious position. I have been through this entire thread and all I see from you and the rest of your brothers is denial. Be a man and make a point with some facts then I’ll give you some serious consideration.

    All I have seen theist do is on this thread is make assertions concerning atheism that are true.

    I actually agree with the Christians that cafeteria Christianity is a cop-out. See, they actually acknowledge what the facts suggest even though it makes Christianity look bad.

    That is called being a grown up.

  38. on 25 Jun 2011 at 1:38 am 38.DPK said …

    “I bet you have your hands over your ears going lalalalalalalalala, Get over it and deal with facts like it or not.”
    I can’t believe you have the nerve to say that after making the prior completely unsubstantiated claim:
    “Actually it is proof since they will ordain you and hardly is it obscure.”
    Based on?? I never heard of it, therefore to me it is obscure. I’m not “ordained” and I don’t know ANY ordained atheist ministers.

    Look, you can become an ordained minister of the church of the spaghetti monster…. does that mean that is a “real” religion? It’s a tongue in cheek parody http://www.venganza.org/ordination/
    Maybe the other site is too, maybe it isn’t, doesn’t matter. It’s nonsense to me, so your point is moot.

  39. on 25 Jun 2011 at 1:38 am 39.DPK said …

    Now, here is a christian website. It is definitely NOT obscure. Does this mean that all christians subscribe to it’s belief system? According to your reasoning, it does: http://www.godhatesfags.com/schedule.html

    Now, once again according to your reasoning, this website should provide sufficient proof that people that don’t believe in Santa are a religion.
    http://www.gksoft.com/a/fun/santa.html
    I assume you don’t believe in Santa… you are part of that religion.

    Now, there is evidence to suggest that a great many people in Iceland actually believe in elves:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/international/europe/13elves.html
    What does that mean to you? Well, by your reasoning anyone who rejects the belief in elves must be aelfists, clearly a religion.

    Despite your unilateral and unsupported claims to the contrary, your argument simply does not hold up.

  40. on 25 Jun 2011 at 4:02 am 40.Severin said …

    35 Crux
    “I am of no domination, no religion including atheism.“

    This is a blog in which ones that believe in god discuss with others that don’t.
    So far I saw no “neutrals” debating here.

    So:
    Do you believe there is a god?
    Is that your private god, or you share it with some other people?
    (Sorry, I can not say „him“ or „her“, as I don’t know the nature of your god, if you have one. Maybe your god is some object).
    Do you pray to your god?
    Did your god create universe?
    Does your god punish „sins“?
    Etc.

    If you are „neutral“, whatever it means (for example „I do – don’t believe in god“ ???) why don’t you find a neutral blog to try to outgrow your frustrations?

  41. on 25 Jun 2011 at 4:05 am 41.Severin said …

    37 Crux
    “Actually it is proof since they will ordain you…”

    WHO will ordain whome?
    WHO is “they”?

  42. on 25 Jun 2011 at 1:47 pm 42.Crux said …

    “Based on?? I never heard of it, therefore to me it is obscure. I’m not “ordained” and I don’t know ANY ordained atheist ministers.”

    Oh yes, if you don’t know about it then its not real. Your arrogance is only superseded by pigheadedness.

    How did you ever learn anything? You call theist delusional?

    Neutral means I don’t know if there is a God. I think it is possible to know but the primitive state of man is not capable of exploring that possibility in great detail.

  43. on 25 Jun 2011 at 2:07 pm 43.DPK said …

    I winder if you are actually going to address any of the points made, or is you answer going to simply be “yes it is”.
    Your what needs a why. I have given you many whys, and heaqrd nothing from you except one goofball website that you site as “proof”.
    Perhaps it’s because your “primitive state of man is not capable of exploring that possibility in great detail.” In your case, that seems to fit.

    Now, here is a christian website. It is definitely NOT obscure. Does this mean that all christians subscribe to it’s belief system? According to your reasoning, it does: http://www.godhatesfags.com/schedule.html
    Now, once again according to your reasoning, this website should provide sufficient proof that people that don’t believe in Santa are a religion.
    http://www.gksoft.com/a/fun/santa.html
    I assume you don’t believe in Santa… you are part of that religion.
    Now, there is evidence to suggest that a great many people in Iceland actually believe in elves:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/international/europe/13elves.html
    What does that mean to you? Well, by your reasoning anyone who rejects the belief in elves must be aelfists, clearly a religion.
    Despite your unilateral and unsupported claims to the contrary, your argument simply does not hold up.

  44. on 25 Jun 2011 at 2:15 pm 44.Observer said …

    Crux- You are completely disingenuous; you are a fraud. You believe in the Abrahamic God, or some smoothed out 20C version of the same. Most likely you are a non-denominational Big-Box churchman. “All I have seen theist do is on this thread is make assertions concerning atheism that are true. ” Pray tell.

    You are using the same insipid semantic arguments xtians use. First, the websites I could find while doing a web search, including the one you cite, explicitly state that they are “churches” in the same vein as the ones I mentioned in my earlier post- people are trying to get in on the clergy/church tax-dodge parasitism. It is an intentional corruption of the word, and its meaning. This is a semantic argument.

    States typically require clergyman, sheriff, judge, etc. to perform weddings. As one of the sites in the search mentioned, a couple wanted someone to perform their marriage ceremony and chose a non-denominational clergyman. After expressing explicitly there was to be no god nonsense, the clergyman nevertheless included it in several places. That particular website was about providing people the option of no Mediterranean bronze-age stupidity.

    But anyway, why not define in explicit and unambiguous terms what a religion is, and what a church is. This was originally a thread about what frauds xtians are. Of course, the cretinous Biff, Xenon, and the beloved Hor turned it more into a schoolyard taunt of “Am not, you are!” But, let’s get on track. What is a religion? What is a church?

    For example, it does not really make sense to me to call several of the Buddhist belief systems religions, particularly Japanese Zen, and Korean Seon. And of that lot, Renzai, which seems more like the original Ch’an, is unrecognizable as religion. So, please be specific and unambiguous. I suspect that if you create a definition of religion broad enough to encompass the white-trash filth Southern Baptists and their allies, as well as a Renzai monk, you will have created a definition so non-specific and vague as to include New York Mets fans and Betty Crocker bake-off entrants.

    One final point, you mentioned the cool kids are quick to attack cretins like Biff as we see them as a threat. I realize this was an attempted taunt on your part. The reality is though that I see these morons and the filth filing in and out of Southern Baptist Churches, any evangelical sect, and all the Big Box church goers as the biggest threats to the United States since the traitorous idlers in the Old South took up arms with the intent of destroying the United States.

    One needs only look a the decline of the country since Reagan, the non-coincident rise of the right-wing xtians. Folks who blithely believe that a two-thousand year-old wish fulfilling Jewish Zombie, talking snakes, and other bullshit will also get sucked into trickle-down economics and the transfer of 25% of the national wealth to the already wealthiest 2%. Morons.

  45. on 25 Jun 2011 at 2:42 pm 45.DPK said …

    “I suspect that if you create a definition of religion broad enough to encompass the white-trash filth Southern Baptists and their allies, as well as a Renzai monk, you will have created a definition so non-specific and vague as to include New York Mets fans and Betty Crocker bake-off entrants.”

    Thanks for that!!

    For some reason, several of my recent posts have been blocked as “spam” or gone into the “awaiting moderation” list, but this was exactly the point I was trying to make. Just because some off the wall group makes a website offering to “ordain” atheists, doesn’t make atheism a “religion” any more than making a website saying “I don’t believe in Santa Claus” makes not believing in Santa a religion.

    This website should provide sufficient proof that people that don’t believe in Santa are a religion.
    http://www.gksoft.com/a/fun/santa.html
    If you don’t believe in Santa… you are part of that religion.

    Now, here is a christian website. It is definitely NOT obscure. Does this mean that all christians subscribe to it’s belief system? According to Crux’s reasoning, it does: http://www.godhatesfags.com/schedule.html

    Now, there is evidence to suggest that a great many people in Iceland actually believe in elves:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/international/europe/13elves.html

    What does that mean? Well, by Crux’s reasoning anyone who rejects the belief in elves must be aelfists, clearly a religion.
    Despite the unilateral and unsupported claims to the contrary, the argument simply does not hold up.

  46. on 25 Jun 2011 at 4:14 pm 46.Anonymous said …

    Here’s a definition of religion from Wikipedia. Seems pretty reasonable and balanced to me. Your milage may vary. Lets look at how a this definition compares to the atheism.

    Religion is a cultural system that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values.
    Nope.
    [1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe.
    Nope, with the possible exception of believing in the scientific process to explain the nature of reality rather than “sacred histories”.

    They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.
    Nope

    The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect. Most religions have organized behaviors, including clerical hierarchies, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, congregations of laity, regular meetings or services for the purposes of veneration of a deity or for prayer, holy places (either natural or architectural), and/or scriptures.
    For the most part, nope, with the possible exception of a few odd websites or groups.
    The practice of a religion may also include sermons, commemoration of the activities of a god or gods, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture.
    Nope, nope, and…… nope.

  47. on 25 Jun 2011 at 4:52 pm 47.Crux said …

    Observer,

    Cool kids? Would that be you? It seems you are in the midst of PMS. Midol may be available from where you are ranting. Your rants are broad from individuals to the proclamation of communism. Focus seems to be an issue. You are no different than the xitians you despise.

    Yeah, I know the definition of religion. I also no the definition of atheism and all the belief systems espoused by the xitians fit.

    So lets look at a definition from Merriam.

    4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

    So, which way would you like to go with the definitions? atheism or relgion?

    Keep in mind we are in the midst of a mass redefinition of marriage.

  48. on 25 Jun 2011 at 7:39 pm 48.Severin said …

    41 Crux
    “Neutral means I don’t know if there is a God.“

    I also don’t know it.
    Deep in my mind I think there is no god. Each cell of my brain refuses idea of god, but I am aware that I might be wrong.
    Chances that I am wrong are enormeously small, but there is no way I could prove his (hers, its?) unexistance. So I must admit: maybe, sometimes in future, we will discover that there is some sort of “god”.

    Key question is: so what?
    With exception of ONE very good reason, which is satisfying one’s intellectual curiosity, tell me one single reason why would I, or anyone, CARE about existance of god.

    I don’t!
    God might or might not exist, it is not my concern!

    But I am not neutral!
    As long as hundreds of relligions spread poisons of ignorance and hate among humans, I will try to fight them the best way I can, and in my case that is talking.
    Talking snakes, flying snakes with feathers, sun gods, volcano gods, earth gods, rain gods, flying horses, man made of dirt, woman made from man’s rib, angels and devils, virgin mothers… my ass!

    All those stories would sound ridiculous, if they weren’t paid with so much human blood.

  49. on 25 Jun 2011 at 8:56 pm 49.Anonymous said …

    Crux… You ARE disingenuous. Why would you pick # 4 from Mirriam’s, and ignore the first 3.
    a : the state of a religious
    b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
    2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
    3 archaic : scrupulous conformity :

    And for atheism:
    a disbelief in the existence of deity

    Here’s a more detailed definition of atheism:
    Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.., there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.

    Pretty simple to me, despite your rumblings. Religion is the service and worship of a supernatural god. Atheism is a disbelief in such an entity.
    Simple as that. Atheism is not a faith, creed, religion. It is simply a rejection of such ideas.
    Never heard an answer from you for the Santa / Easter Bunny question. Is not believing in Santa Claus a religion?

  50. on 25 Jun 2011 at 10:02 pm 50.Observer said …

    Crux-
    “Observer,

    Cool kids? Would that be you? It seems you are in the midst of PMS. Midol may be available from where you are ranting. Your rants are broad from individuals to the proclamation of communism. Focus seems to be an issue. You are no different than the xitians you despise.”

    THAT is what makes this website so rewarding. PMS, Midol? I know what they are, but whatever are you talking about? Case in point, “Your rants are broad from individuals to the proclamation of communism.” I can’t quite parse this. Communism? What are you talking a bout? You seem pretty unhinged.

    Anonymous above did a pretty good job of getting you sorted on the use of a dictionary; the further down the list you go, as in 4th entry, the definitions become more obscure, colloquial, or archaic. So you still want to call atheism a religion? I suppose you are entitled to as much given the trend toward dulling the precision of English language- Rappas an Gangstas been ‘doin it fo decades now. Muva fuggin Crux on it too! HMMMM!!

    So by using “xtian” you are distancing yourself from the variegated flock that is Christianity. Please tell us you are a Libertarian, but one with a secret fear there is a “God”; you could be a not-too-bright Muslim or Jew too.

    The “cool kids” comment was meant as a bit of levity. Sorry it brought back memories of exclusion and unhappiness.

  51. on 25 Jun 2011 at 10:21 pm 51.Xenon said …

    Crux

    Thank you for posting here. It is refreshing to see one who has the ability to think without their anal biases keep them from considering all the possibilities.

    The atheists, at least here, just cannot deal with the reality of their own belief system.

  52. on 25 Jun 2011 at 10:23 pm 52.Xenon said …

    Crux

    I loved the PMS/Midol observation. We all know the O is hopped up on some mind altering drug. Thats great!

  53. on 25 Jun 2011 at 11:14 pm 53.Anonymous said …

    Anonymous is 43 and 46 is me. For some reason everything I try to post as DPK is getting sent to moderation. Spam filter gone awry,

    I think it is amusing and telling that with all the potential for actual discussion, points to be made, or actual facts to discuss, Xenon is most impressed with the pre-adolescent PMS comment, which means in fact, nothing.
    What’s next, fart jokes? Or perhaps, “yo mamma’s so fat……….”

    Typical Xenon tactics. Can’t answer the debater with reason, call him a name and then tell each other how devilishly clever you are. Where is Hor with an LOL?

    DPK

  54. on 26 Jun 2011 at 2:05 am 54.Chris said …

    I believe black is a color even though it is the total absence of color? Therefore your definition does not fly. The Buddhism argument is also very good since it does not involve a god.

    Let me share why atheist fight the religion label although a Wisconsin court recently determined atheism is a religion.

    It is for political expediency to avoid separation of church and state. This was revealed too me by a local student atheist group. I understand but atheism is falling under the umbrella of religion more and more like it or not.

  55. on 26 Jun 2011 at 3:05 am 55.Anonymous said …

    “I believe black is a color even though it is the total absence of color? Therefore your definition does not fly.”

    And you’d be wrong. A red object appears red because it reflects red light and absorbs all other color.

    No, black is not a color; a black object absorbs all the colors of the visible spectrum and reflects none of them to the eyes. If it reflects no color it is therefore not a color.

    The court case in question revolved around a prison inmates request to form an atheist discussion group, which prison officials denied, even though inmates were allowed to have christian, muslim, and buddist discussion groups. The ruling merely said that for the purpose of forming a discussion group, atheists should not be treated differently than other “religious” groups… The court even used quotation marks around the word religion in it’s decision.

    And even if some appeals court somewhere said that, so what?
    Let me ask you, why does it bother you guys so much? Is it because you just can’t comprehend someone rejecting religion? Are you that insecure? Why does it eat you so that you insist on making such an issue of it?

    DPK

  56. on 26 Jun 2011 at 3:07 am 56.DPK said …

    Your initial analogy is exactly like saying that silence is a sound.

  57. on 26 Jun 2011 at 10:48 am 57.A said …

    “Let me ask you, why does it bother you guys so much?”

    Great question! Why do you guys care so much? I think Chris is exactly right. Religion is no more than a worldview. Taoism, Humanism (another court case)and Atheism are religions. Words evolve as mentioned above.

    If you don’t believe black is called a color check your crayon box.

  58. on 26 Jun 2011 at 1:46 pm 58.QW50aS1UaGVpc3Q= said …

    All that good explanation rebutted with, “If you don’t believe black is called a color check your crayon box;” what a simpleton. It’s really no wonder the flocks lack the cognation to grasp a definition as unencumbering as “Atheism.”

  59. on 26 Jun 2011 at 2:47 pm 59.DPK said …

    Whatever.

    Black is a color.

    Bald is a hairstyle.

    Not believing in Santa is a religion.

    Not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    Whatever makes you feel better and makes you feel your own delusions are somehow validated… have at it.

    Don’t really care.

  60. on 26 Jun 2011 at 6:35 pm 60.A said …

    So I guess Buddhism, Taoism and Jain are not religions either? Nobody believes that yet they fit the definition.

    a-theist = no god

    I like how they fancy themselves as freethinkers. That makes Jain and Taoism freethinkers too. I would much rather be a clearthinker since not much is going on here.

  61. on 26 Jun 2011 at 8:35 pm 61.Observer said …

    57- A said… That is the question: What constitutes a religion? Does being a New York Mets fan, or a Chicago Cubs fan for that matter, meet the definition of a religion. Neither require the necessity of the super-natural specifically, but there is a certain irrational faith. Of course, after John Henry bought the BoSox things turned around, and as some hedge fund guys are going to buy the Mets…

  62. on 26 Jun 2011 at 9:28 pm 62.Observer said …

    The real issue is that filth like Rick Perry can be elected to important office such as Governor of Texas in this country. This proto-monster is organizing a “prayer meeting” with the inoccuous sounding American Family Association.

    The AFA is a white-trash xtian organization in Mississippi, the poorest, fattest, least educated, and by action we can infer the dumbest state in the Union. These people make Jorg Haider look like a effete Northhampton professor. The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed the AFA a hate group. This is where the country is headed.

    Due to the stupidity of Americans allowing the descent into the insanity of xtian belief, the future is not bright for the USA. And to think it is all a big joke by the moneyed to allow the moneyed class/plutocracy to steal from the country. The parallels between the USA the 1930s Germany will continue and end with similar results. The worst of it is we will likely be replaced by the Chinese. That is not a good thing.

  63. on 27 Jun 2011 at 12:20 am 63.Horatiio said …

    “The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed the AFA a hate group.”

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!

    Nose Buster!!! This is you at your funniest and most idiotic!!! The SPLC??? I believe the AFA is on Farrakhan’s, Rev Al’s and Rev Jackson’s list of hate sites too!!!”The American Institute of Philanthropy gives the SPLC one of the worst ratings of any group it monitors.

    The Klan is at an all time low so time to make up new hate groups to keep the flow of dough on the go.

    These peddlers of lie and filth if honest would add the SPLC to their own list of hate groups. But like other politically motivated ideologues they will pass right on by the real hate.

    Hmm, while at it, add Nose Buster to the list.

    LOL!!

  64. on 27 Jun 2011 at 12:24 am 64.Horatiio said …

    Here is a article from one hate group pointing out the hate of the SPLC. Huffington Puffington Post gets it right for once.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-m-swain/mission-creep-and-the-sou_b_255029.html

  65. on 27 Jun 2011 at 2:47 pm 65.Observer said …

    Hor- The article cites the SPLC as calling the New Black Panther party a “racist hate group”. That sounds about right to me. Guess you think they are A-OK?

    The writer is a Lou Dobbs fan, and takes offense that he is getting called on his pandering BS.

    So what about the white-trash AFA? The Charity Navigator gives the SPLC 2-stars. It gives the AFA 4-stars. That tells you something about the reliability of these ratings services. The AIP does not have a functioning website as of this writing. The funniest thing is that the Charity Navigator compares the disgusting AFA with the respected and admirable ACLU. Unreal.

    SO what about the cracker Rick Perry?

  66. on 27 Jun 2011 at 2:52 pm 66.Lou said …

    60.Horatiio said …

    “The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed the AFA a hate group.”

    “ROTFL!!!!!!!!

    Nose Buster!!! This is you at your funniest and most idiotic!!!”

    Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, the SPLC did list the AFA as a hate group. Not to mention many other organizations that similarly list the AFA as such. But it really doesn’t matter. The point is that Perry is nut. Therefore, I assume that you probably identify with him and his actions?

    “Hmm, while at it, add Nose Buster to the list.”

    Yet another one of your childish, idiotic comments.

  67. on 27 Jun 2011 at 4:42 pm 67.Anonymous said …

    58.QW50aS1UaGVpc3Q= said …

    All that good explanation rebutted with, “If you don’t believe black is called a color check your crayon box;” what a simpleton. It’s really no wonder the flocks lack the cognation to grasp a definition as unencumbering as “Atheism.”

    First, before you call someone else a simpleton, it would behoove you to lean to spell cognition because well, it just makes you look silly.

    Secondly, as someone who works with color in the technical field on a day to day basis, I can tell you that by definition black is not a color. The color of an object is determined by the wavelength of light it reflects. An object defined as being the color “red” does so because it reflects red light and absorbs green and blue. An object is called blue when it reflects blue light, and absorbs red and green. If an object does not reflect any light, it is black… the absence of color. If it reflects all wavelengths equally, it is called white. White is a color, black most definitely is not. Anyone who works with color understands this. You may describe an object as being black, but black is the lack of color, not a color of itself.
    Now, some uneducated people may in fact call black a “color” as a matter of social convention, just like they may call atheism a “religion” as a matter of convention. This is simply a misnomer, and really just shows the ignorance of the person making the claim. A crayon may be labeled “black” but that doesn’t mean that black is a color, any more than, as has been pointed out, “silence” is a noise, or “suction” is a physical force.

  68. on 27 Jun 2011 at 11:36 pm 68.Anonymous said …

    You clearly missunderstood the post, read it again, they are agreeing with you

  69. on 28 Jun 2011 at 4:57 am 69.RightofRush said …

    Can you explain Demon Posession? Science? Good luck with your science. I will pick God everytime. We don’t pick and choose as true Christians. All Christians are hypocrits and sinners. Can you please admit you are a hipocrit? Look in the mirror…I am not going to judge you so don’t judge me. The Bible is 70% prophecy and the prophecies are coming true..example: Prophecy said before the End Times Israel would become a nation again. How many examples do you need? Look at the Middle East and tell me there are not wars and rumors of wars, etc…look in the mirror fellow hypocrit and sinner. Believe it or not, you do not have all the answers!

  70. on 28 Jun 2011 at 1:09 pm 70.Lou said …

    66.RightofRush said …

    “Can you explain Demon Posession?”

    Yes, extremely simple – it doesn’t happen.

    “Science?”

    Yes, anybody who can read and understand a dictionary or other textbook can explain the basics of science. Anybody who has at least a high school educate can explain science. But if you believe in “Demon Procession” and biblical prophesy, then it’s understandable that you don’t understand science.

    “Believe it or not, you do not have all the answers!”

    And you obviously have none of the answers except wrong answers. And therein lies the threat of delusional, religious thinking of a crackpot mind. No wonder the Middle East has the history that it does.

  71. on 28 Jun 2011 at 2:34 pm 71.Ben said …

    “The Charity Navigator gives the SPLC 2-stars. It gives the AFA 4-stars. That tells you something about the reliability of these ratings services.

    Yes, it tells me AFA is twice as reputable as the SPLC.

    The Huff is right on this point. The SPLC along with a host of other race baiting groups have out-lived their usefulness. Now they just look for ways to keep the cash coming.

    It is much like the labor unions. We have labor laws to protect workers and we no longer need unions soaking up massive amounts of cash for no definable end product.

  72. on 28 Jun 2011 at 4:42 pm 72.Lou said …

    68.Ben said …

    “Yes, it tells me AFA is twice as reputable as the SPLC.”

    Ben, why is it that you so often fail to “get it?”

  73. on 28 Jun 2011 at 7:40 pm 73.Observer said …

    #66 RightofRush Thank you for picking up the banner to lead the vanguard of Christian Soldiers! Your spirited elaboration of why we should all BELIEVE is certainly welcome. Please enumerate the conditions that were to be in place before Israel would be reborn as a nation. It might be informative for all. Also, please add anything you have on demons and demonic possession.

    #68 Ben Perfect. Your potential is realized. You can go to the grave knowing that everything you have accomplished in life, and ever hope to accomplish, has been purely a result of your talents and character.

    This thread, as so many before it, has taken several twists and turns, but let’s get back to cafeteria xtians and other sundry creeps, specifically Rick Perry and garbage like the AFA. Perhaps one of the brighter xtians on this site, like RightofRush, can tell us whether Rick Perry is a true xtian, and whether the AFA is doing the work of the Son of God. Of course, it seems to me Perry is a sick and cynical shyster pandering to cracker filth, the AFA is pure white-trash, and as for the wish-fulfilling-Jewish-Zombie…

  74. on 28 Jun 2011 at 9:15 pm 74.Horatiio said …

    “Yes, it tells me AFA is twice as reputable as the SPLC.

    Excellent Ben. You put together the clues of which Buster and Lou could not! We can’t expect NoBama and the SPLC to actually speak out on Black Panther racism and we could not expect Buster and Lou to acknowledge the excrement that flows from the SPLC.

    Psst….its because they support Liberals and the NoBama circus act.

    I do think Buster has a sexual obsession with Rick Perry. I can’t be sure but lets continue to gather the data.

  75. on 29 Jun 2011 at 3:04 am 75.Lou said …

    71.Horatiio said …

    “I do think Buster has a sexual obsession with Rick Perry. I can’t be sure but lets continue to gather the data.”

    Really?! Let’s examine how infatuated you are with “Nose Buster” as evidenced with your constant usage of the moniker. Yes, let’s examine the “data.” I challenge you to count the number of times you used “Nose Buster” as compared to his references of Perry. Not to mention the implication of your use of “Buster,” which implies an explicit sexual connotation that reveal YOUR “sexual obsession” with him. Go ahead, “gather the data.” But we all know that you won’t, because you know it will expose you for the fraud that you are.

  76. on 29 Jun 2011 at 3:33 am 76.Horatiio said …

    Oh Lou you are so silly. Nose Buster has zero sexual connotations but it does show us how your mind works

    Nose Buster is called Nose Buster because he referred to himself as nose buster in a much earlier thread.

    I have said it zero times but I have typed a number of times here. Yes, it is true. I think it is funny.

    Now go play.

  77. on 29 Jun 2011 at 1:34 pm 77.Lou said …

    73.Horatiio said …

    “…it does show us how your mind works”

    How MY mind works?! Let’s examine only two of your recent comments:

    71.Horatiio said …

    “I do think Buster has a sexual obsession with Rick Perry.”

    342.Horatiio said …

    “Nose Buster!

    I think you are due at the local internet cafe’ to clean the toilets immersed with the product of the local university student defecation.”

    Rest of your usual evasive reply deleted because you can’t “gather the data.”

  78. on 29 Jun 2011 at 1:35 pm 78.Lou said …

    71.Horatiio said …

    “Excellent Ben. You put together the clues of which Buster and Lou could not! We can’t expect NoBama and the SPLC to actually speak out on Black Panther racism and we could not expect Buster and Lou to acknowledge the excrement that flows from the SPLC.”

    You idiot, I never took a position on the SPLC.

  79. on 29 Jun 2011 at 1:52 pm 79.Lou said …

    73.Horatiio said …

    “Nose Buster is called Nose Buster because he referred to himself as nose buster in a much earlier thread.”

    Yet you are still obsessed with it.

  80. on 29 Jun 2011 at 2:00 pm 80.Observer said …

    Yes, the “nose buster” thing did come up earlier when someone, maybe Hor, was making comments implying I was fey and girlish or some other nonsense along the lines of “Idiocracy” because I was writing complete sentences without misspellings and correct grammar. In passing I said something about rugby and busting noses. For some reason this captivated Hor’s imagination.

    I do think that Hor has opened a door into his mentality with the Rick Perry comments. It was a mystery to me how interest in one of the most flagrantly pandering and cynical xtian politicians, and the buffoons who might support him, was equated by Hor to sexual interest. It then dawned on me that Hor being a primate was merely getting in touch with his true self as lower primates tend to see the world along the lines of “If I can’t eat it, I must fuck it.” Well, since I did not mention having Perry over for dinner, Hor drew the only conclusion available to him.

  81. on 29 Jun 2011 at 4:45 pm 81.Horatiio said …

    Nose Buster!

    Yes, I do remember you bragging about your great Rugby skills and your need to bust noses. LOL

    The f-bomb? Oh my, the lowest of all intellects resort to the F-bomb. You have lowered yourself into new levels of filth and trash.

    Since you are just itching to discuss Rick let me make one comment. I do not know a great deal about Mr Perry but he scares you and that alone intrigues me Buster. I do know that Texas has created 50% of all the new jobs in America under his leadership.

    Contrast that with the NoBama disaster of ideologues and and I see nothing but pluses.

    It doesn’t matter who is running against our current disaster of a POTUS given to us by the DNC. Geez, I might even vote for Lou over NoBama!

  82. on 30 Jun 2011 at 1:41 am 82.Observer said …

    Hor- Where are the stats on the jobs being created in TX? Where did they come from. I can’t find them. Secondly, did he start a jobs program ala FDR? If he did I am not aware of it, but would be thrilled if he did. What I have heard and seen in the non-taxable fixed income markets is that Texas has done all sorts of shenanigans to hide their dire fiscal situation. Ideology versus reality. You can get away with it for a while if it is not a situation constrained by physics, like state budgets.

    I am sorry the lessons you learned from your grammar school teacher with regards to the word “fuck” still linger. If you read you might encounter the word. You might be astonished where it pops up.

    Bragging about my rugby skills and the need to bust noses? Where do you come up with this nonsense? Next topic.

  83. on 30 Jun 2011 at 12:56 pm 83.Lou said …

    78.Horatiio said …

    “Yes, I do remember you bragging about your great Rugby skills and your need to bust noses.”

    Horatio caught lying again?

    Here’s the only mention of it I could find –

    On 27 April 2010 Observer wrote “Trying to portray myself as a scholar? More a nose-busting rugby player in my circles, but of course, you are looking up from a different reference point.”

    “I do know that Texas has created 50% of all the new jobs in America under his leadership.”

    Like most comments you make, this is also untrue. You don’t know any such thing. All you know is that you “heard” it somewhere. Anybody who lives in Texas, and I was born raised, and live in Texas, “knows” that simply isn’t true. Furthermore, there’s this:

    http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/jun/26/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-texas-accounted-48-percent-us-jobs/

  84. on 30 Jun 2011 at 2:41 pm 84.Biff said …

    “Fisher’s recently telling the Wall Street Journal that Texas accounted for 37 percent of post-recession net job gains nationally, by one calculation, or 45 percent by another.”

    Well either number is impressive and would be a huge improvement over the job killing policies of Obama. Lou you may be a bit mentally challenged but 45% is very close to 50%. Maybe you are just very anal?

    “a nose-busting rugby player in my circles”

    Your obsession goes even further here. Hor states Nose Buster came from Observers reference to his rugby. What don’t you get here buddy? I am actually amazed you took the time to search for this. What do you do for a living Lou?

  85. on 30 Jun 2011 at 2:45 pm 85.Biff said …

    Another estimate from Lou’s own link.

    “Cheryl Abbot, a Dallas-based economist at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, initially advised by email that by the bureau’s count, Texas had 265,300 more jobs in April 2011 than in June 2009. Using the Dallas Fed’s equation, this suggests Texas accounted for about 54 percent of the nation’s net job growth over the period.”

  86. on 30 Jun 2011 at 3:09 pm 86.Observer said …

    82. Biff Assuming you are not lying, then maybe the job story is true- even allowing that the Dallas Fed is as goofy as the Richmond Fed. It also coincides with the explosion of energy prices. What is more, while there are some simpletons in this country, mostly with poor elocution and living in the South, all states are a part of the United States, and as such operate under the same laws and monetary policy. The other thing thing you should not overlook is that in the previous energy boom in the late 70s into the early 80s Texas had a wiser and thoughtful government- they invested heavily in education, especially higher education. The timing is about right to get some returns. Notably, that bastion of secularism, UT, received effectively carte blanche to build-out departments and vigorously raided established universities.

  87. on 30 Jun 2011 at 9:35 pm 87.Lou said …

    81.Biff said …

    “Lou you may be a bit mentally challenged but 45% is very close to 50%. Maybe you are just very anal?”

    You obviously cherry picked the article. I’m not going back through this again because you have already arrived at your own conclusion. But the article’s conclusion was “Mark Perry’s statement Half True.” Just as the claims that Obama’s policies are “job killing” job killing, if true at all. The point is the How didn’t “know that Texas has created 50% of all the new jobs in America under his leadership.” He knew no such thing.

    “Hor states Nose Buster came from Observers reference to his rugby. What don’t you get here buddy?”

    What part don’t you get? Hor wrote “…bragging about your great Rugby skills and your need to bust noses.” He did neither, yet Hor is obsessed with it like some little kid calling the other kids invented names to compensate for his inadequacies. It’s part of his psychological deficiency.

    “I am actually amazed you took the time to search for this.”

    Are you kidding me? It must have taken all of 40 – 50 seconds. Perhaps it’s amazing to you that it required such little time.

  88. on 10 Jul 2011 at 12:15 am 88.truthseeker said …

    I read through all of these comments and was appalled at the lack of objectivity and true research represented here. There seems to be mostly bluster here and a prideful defense of your own beliefs or lack thereof. I would just like to encourage any of you to do some true “scientific” research on the Christian Bible, whether it be historical, archaelogical, prophetic, scientific, etc. There’s no book like the Bible or religion like Christianity and there never has been. Even atheists will admit that after doing some true research on the subject. Everyone is free to choose what to do with that evidence, but lets please not just refuse to acknowledge it. If that evidence is enough to cause a person to take that leap of faith to live their life by it’s “truths” then I believe they should do it with integrity, not picking and choosing which parts suit them. Picking and choosing, or rejecting it in its entirety are always options, but whether a person believes the world is flat or round doesn’t change the truth of it… only how much he gets to experience of it.

  89. on 10 Jul 2011 at 2:57 am 89.Anti-Theist said …

    Naive adolescence.

  90. on 10 Jul 2011 at 4:13 am 90.Observer said …

    #85 Truthseeker- If you live up to your moniker you will find that what you wrote is idiocy. I have done a great deal of study about the Jewish wish-fulfilling zombie cult you profess. If half of what was written about the bastard, mamzer in the priestly language, he had a whole lotta chutzpah. So what? As was pointed out here, it was a way to keep the Roman Empire together as they had more competition from within the empire. Constantine learned it was easier and vastly cheaper to manipulate the masses via a completely abstract religion than the old Roman or Greek gods, or the sword. If you want to actually study, you will find that Christendom didn’t really go away until WWI.

  91. on 10 Jul 2011 at 1:33 pm 91.truthseeker said …

    Have you done any real study on the Bible itself as a book? The Jewish religion is thousands of years old and the prophecies written (and fulfilled) about Jesus in them were written hundreds of years before the Roman Empire even existed. Christians were tortured and killed by the hundreds, even the thousands during the Roman times for a truth they experienced and lived first hand. Jesus wasn’t just an historical figure to them, they had eye-witness testimonies that were so believable that they were willing to pay with their lives to stand witness to it. Christ-followers continue to be tortured and killed for that faith today, 2000 years later. No promise of any greater reward for them than for those of us that follow Him in the lap of luxury here in the US. Begs the question – Why would they do this? How can a person actually attribute this kind of world-wide religious movement, lasting for thousands of years, to a ruler of one empire trying to manipulate the masses?

  92. on 10 Jul 2011 at 4:33 pm 92.DPK said …

    Now, if you are a student ancient religion, you also know that that most of Christianity’s “prophecies” and legends are borrowed from older gnostic religion.

    Where does the idea of the blood sacrifice of the Christ needed to atone for the sins of man come from? Does the idea of a supreme being requiring human sacrifice as atonement really fit with modern theology and the basic ideals of Christianity, including an all loving god? It’s just a carry over from older superstitions.

    The fact of widespread belief is compelling, but diminished when you realize that there were hundreds of older religions that were universally practiced with furor, pre-Christendom. World travel and communication, and world population were much less than today, so “widespread” is a relative term. But if you lived in pre-christian Rome, you believed and worshiped Roman gods, and in so far as the Roman empire is concerned, that would be considered universal.

    If longevity is a valid indication of truth, Hinduism has you beat by a mile, and is still practiced by 1/3rd the world’s population. Why aren’t you a Hindu?

    No one here is claiming that religion is a rational occurrence. Why do so many people claim a religion? Well, a look at the geographical distribution of religions of the world gives a likely answer. It’s a social phenomena. You practice a set of religious beliefs largely because your parents did, and told you it was true. Humans have a vested interest based in survival, to trust what their parents tell them. I think perhaps most people don’t give it much more thought than whether they wear a necktie or Nehru collar to work.

    The fact that Christians were persecuted and killed by the thousands for their beliefs really has no relationship to whether the things they claimed as beliefs are actually true or not. The Crusades and Inquisitions killed thousands for holding non-christian beliefs. Does that give non-christian beliefs validity.

    I understand your points, I just don’t find them compelling, and many of the same points you claim can be made about many other religions in many other times. Naturally, none of them can claim 2 billion followers, because world population wasn’t measured in the billions at the time. But history has proven again and again, that mass belief is absolutely no guarantee of truth. In fact, it has no relationship at all.

  93. on 10 Jul 2011 at 6:04 pm 93.Observer said …

    #88 “Truthseeker” As I pointed out, I have studied the silly book you refer to at length. First, there is no Jewish prophecy fulfilled by the Jesus. First, the Hebrew Bible says the mother of Moshiach would be a maiden, not a Virgin. The mamzer you refer to was the product of a supernatural tryst; this means he was not from the “House of David” by any means. What is more, if he was in fact the messiah, then ALL JEWS would have recognized him. That is part of the deal. There is more nonsense that was supposed to be fulfilled by the even greater nonsense of the Zombie. OF course, none of it came to pass. Also, many of the pogroms, expulsions etc. against Jews through the ages were a result of debates on this very topic where scholars destroyed the xtian arguments based on frivolous and ignorant interpretations of Hebrew and Aramaic texts.

    Have you read any history? Do you know who Constantine was? Sure, I will agree Nero and some of his successors had the right idea with respect to Christians. What is important to recognize is that the rule of the church over the Roman Empire came with the ascendancy of the merchant class over the old “aristocratic” landed classes who comprised the rulers of Rome. Aristocratic birth was not requisite for high position in the Church toward the end of the 5th C. when the Church had effectively overtaken the old Roman institutions. Mind you, Latin was not a spoken language by then either. Regardless, it was a way to maintain control of the unwashed masses.

    Why the primacy of Christianity? Well, as is usually the case, the habits and customs of conquering hoards tend to be taken up by the conquered, or at least influence them. That is why geographical areas tend to have a religious theme. Remember, the sun never sat on the British Empire at one time.

    Where are Christians being tortured and killed for their faith today? The only place I can think of is in Palestine where the Israelis have been torturing and killing Christians for decades now. Ironically, some of the more filthy white-trash Christian sects support Israel even though they are systematically doing an ethnic cleansing of the Christians in their homelands. There is non-systematic violence against Christians in some Muslim countries, but that is largely in response to United States aggression and or abetting suppression in predominantly Muslim countries.

    If you want to believe in Christianity, that is your choice. Please be honest enough to admit is is a watered-down, paganized, and highly corrupted version of Judaism to the extent that it is heretical nonsense from the perspective any Jew, including Jesus.

  94. on 10 Jul 2011 at 11:41 pm 94.truthseeker said …

    DPK, I appreciate your candid and well-spoken points. Your response is one of very few I’ve read that is written with some humility and intelligence that does not rely on demeaning remarks or immature defenses to make your point. I’m a learner and a seeker. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I have not come to my beliefs in ignorance nor in a delusional state.
    I do have a few questions about some of your points. To which older gnostic religions were you referring concerning the Bible’s prophecies and “legends”?
    Human sacrifice has never had any part in Judaism or Christianity. That’s not what Jesus was about. That was a spiritual transaction that happened at his death. It fits with an all-loving God, because He paid the price with His own Son.
    There is no other belief system that has ever existed in history that had no boundaries of culture, language, or government with the exception of Christianity. Only the Romans in pre-Christendom Rome worshipped Roman gods. The other peoples that were conquered by them, were allowed to keep their own religions provided that they paid their taxes to Rome. But because of the eye-witness testimonies of disciples of Jesus, people from every land began to give up their own worship of their gods to worship the God of the Jews. And it’s been going on like that all over the world for 2000 years. That is compelling. Jesus brought about a phenomenon that I have never heard explained away. There are converts to Christianity in every nation, tongue, and religion in the world. I have yet to hear of a Christian converting to Hindu or Islam. I can’t help but ask the obvious question, why?
    Thousands of people in Asia and the Middle East are risking their lives and giving their lives to follow a belief in a man that died 2000 years ago. They’re not hearing bedtime stories from their parents and believing through childish gullibility. They are leaving behind everything they were raised to believe, not for a religion that offers them a better life, but for a God that is compelling.
    Historians may be able to give arguments to try to explain away “Christianity” in the western world, but I have yet to hear or read anything that explains away the power of the Gospel of Jesus to turn a heart towards the One True God in the face of persecution or personal sacrifice.

    Observer – Call me dumb, but I’m having trouble wading through the hostility and rude comments to find the intelligent points you might have been trying to make. I have to ask, if “the habits and customs of conquering hoards tend to be taken up by the conquered”, why did Nero and his successors’ solution to the Christian problem not stop the wild-fire of conversion? By your reasoning, we should all be worshipping Roman gods now, not the God of the Jews.
    If you actually want to know the truth about persecution in the world, there are 52 countries in which it is illegal to convert to Christianity, to preach the Gospel, or to own or distribute Bibles… punishable by imprisonment and/or death. This is a well-known fact that has even been addressed at meetings of the UN. There are another 46 countries that offer religious freedom by law, but where the local governments look the other way while Christians are losing their homes and jobs, churches are burnt to the ground, Christian women are raped and men are beaten, and people are thrown into prison under false accusations. This has nothing to do with politics. These people are natives in their own countries. If you would like to do some research on this subject, you can try websites like persecution.com.
    I don’t believe in Christianity. I believe in a Creator God and a book written over a span of thousands of years by multiple authors that tell a compelling story of the reconciliation of humanity with that God. What kind of integrity would I have to say I believe in this, and in the next breath “admit it is a watered-down, paganized, and highly corrupted version of Judaism to the extent that it is heretical nonsense from the perspective any Jew, including Jesus”. I would die first.

  95. on 11 Jul 2011 at 12:50 am 95.DPK said …

    Truthseeker,
    You have probably see this before, but here is a video clip that outlines the pagan origins of christianity:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5je_LPmHvU
    You may accept it or not, but I think anyone would be struck by the similarities between ancient pagan religions and the christ legend.

    Much of what you argue seems to come from a personal experience. I can’t argue with that, except to point out that if christianity’s truth were in indeed so compelling, it would be self evident, and judging by not only the number of disagreeing religions in the world, but also by the number of disagreeing sects within christianity itself, it clearly is not. Please understand that had the chance of your birth placed you in India, you would likely feel the same about Hinduism, and had you been born in Saudia Arabia or Jordan, you would likely be extolling the truth of Allah and Mohammed.

    I was raised in a christian family, and I have read the bible. If the “truth” of the bible as god’s word is so compelling, I can’t help but wonder why it was lost on me. It wasn’t for lack of openness or opportunity. It has been suggested perhaps there is a “faith gene” that tends people to be more accepting of such mystical things. I guess I don’t have it.
    Every believer I have met has insisted that my lack of belief stems from somehow being angry at god, disappointed and turning away as a form of rebellion. I can assure you no such thing happened. I gave god a chance, and all I heard was emptiness.
    I do not doubt your sincerity, but do realize I have heard other people speak the same way about other religions, as well as describe deeply spiritual experiences from other non-supernatural based philosophies.
    While I don’t argue with the fact that humans have a propensity to behave somewhat irrationally in the name of religion, but I don’t see any evidence that suggest this is limited to christianity.
    The fact that people in some nations are suffering persecution in the name of christianity seems no more relevant than the fact that followers of Islam are willing to strap on an explosive vest and detonate themselves in a bloody massacre for the glory of Allah. It is intriguing, but doesn’t say anything to me about the truth of their beliefs.

  96. on 11 Jul 2011 at 1:00 am 96.DPK said …

    Sorry, I neglected to answer your question about human sacrifice.
    Perhaps my religious education was different from yours, or perhaps my indoctrination did not go as deep, but I was always taught that Jesus “had to” die on the cross as atonement for original sin. God the father required a blood sacrifice ( a simple “sorry” wouldn’t do) and that god the father, in his loving nature, made himself human and offered himself to himself. Thus the christian creed that salvation (forgiveness of sin) can only be achieved through acceptance of Jesus as the whipping boy. And his death on the cross was a requirement to appease the vindictive and jealous god of Abraham.
    Perhaps this is an oversimplification of your views, or perhaps your views are just an intellectual rationalization of a really simple idea. Don’t know. In either event the idea seems ridiculous to me, and not something one would expect from a supreme being. Rather is seems like the ancient superstitions of primitive people.

  97. on 11 Jul 2011 at 1:08 am 97.DPK said …

    Sorry… your post was long and addressed many point. I’m endeavoring to make sure I cover them all.
    You are not serious in your claim that you have never heard of a christian converting to another religion?
    I know of christians who have become atheist, converted to Islam, Judaism, sorted eastern religions, and at least a few who have embraced Native American spirituality.
    I think your claim that no christian has every converted to Hinduism or Islam is somewhat disingenuous… and doesn’t help your position. Care to retract that or follow it up with some facts?

  98. on 11 Jul 2011 at 1:57 am 98.Observer said …

    Truthseeker- No one converted from Christianity to Hinduism or Islam? There are many folks raised Christian who have converted to Hinduism. Go the Berkeley. Try most anywhere on the left coast. Ever heard of an ashram? Do not forget that Christianity predates Islam. What was the predominant religion in Turkey and the whole of the middle East when Islam swept through? Remember, Istanbul was Constantinople. You should get out more.

    As to Rome, the “wildfire of conversion” occurred primarily in the lowest classes. That is the insidious aspect of Christianity, the appeal to weakness and low station. (You should read Nietzsche. A classic in English is the Walter Kaufman reader. There is also a great volume written by two professors at UT called “What Nietzsche Really Said.”) Just because something feels good for you doesn’t mean it is good for you.

    For example, take McDonalds, Coca Cola, cocaine, tobacco, etc. this stuff when used “feel” good, but aren’t good for you. Christianity is the same thing except it operates in the realm of the psyche. Just as the rare person is not susceptible to tobacco or cocaine, so it is with religion. For the rest, work is required to resist the insidious allure.

    There are plenty of feel-good stories in the Bible, but it is nonsense. What is more, much of the New Testament is codification of breaking with Judaism. The dietary rules were not appealing. Adult male Greeks were also not too enthused about circumcision. Therefore, change the rules to make it appealing to a broader audience. The same goes on with the Big Box TV churches. Nothing new there.

  99. on 11 Jul 2011 at 11:05 am 99.Severin said …

    91 truthseeker
    “It fits with an all-loving God, because He paid the price with His own Son.“

    WHOM did god pay the price with his own son?

    Many thousands of gods that were worshiped for milleniums by human beings „required“ sacrifices, including sacrificing of human beings.
    They „wanted“ to be paid (bribed?) for what was supposed they used to „give“ to hteir congregation: good harvest, rain, good hunt….OR they wanted to be paid (bribed?) to forgive people their „sins“ against them.
    Relation was always absolutely clear: god „demands“, people give!

    NO god in human history, EVER, sacrificed himself (or his own son) to himself to pay himself for people’s „sins“.
    Aztec’s killings and pulling living hearts from human beings was an ugly story, but it was a LOGICAL story. An EXPECTED one!
    God „demands“, people give!

    Who asked christian god to kill his son? Whose idea was it?
    Did god tell yourself: people sinned and have to pay for it TO ME. I will sacrifice my son to myself, to please myself to forgive them their sins?

    That is the darkest and the ugliest, and most idiotic story that I ever heard. Absolutely absurd! Totally illogical!
    Was Christian god mentally retarded?

    In „payng the price“, at least TWO parties MUST be involved: a creditor, and a debtor. One party that requires payment, another one that pays (or refuses to pay).
    There was only ONE party present in that ridiculous case: god was both creditor and debtor, and he decided to pay …what?…why?…how?…whome?… idiocy!
    Any axplanation?

  100. on 11 Jul 2011 at 3:37 pm 100.Observer said …

    Severin- Bravo!

  101. on 11 Jul 2011 at 6:32 pm 101.Lou said …

    96.Severin said …

    “That is the darkest and the ugliest, and most idiotic story that I ever heard. Absolutely absurd! Totally illogical!
    Was Christian god mentally retarded?”

    No, but apparently the people who believe the story are.

    Even when I was a kid in church listening to that story I thought the same thing. It simply doesn’t make any sense. How could anyone fall for it?

    I thought the same thing about Intelligent Design. There’s nothing intelligent about the design. You would think that an omnipotent god could design something better than this. Yet the deluded xtians fall for this nonsense.

  102. on 12 Jul 2011 at 6:58 pm 102.DPK said …

    I’m guessing maybe Truthseeker found a bit more truth than he bargained for here and decided to look elsewhere?
    Or he didn’t like us douchebags.
    D

  103. on 13 Jul 2011 at 12:23 am 103.AR said …

    May God continue to bless you. At least you’re talking about Him. Which is an indication, He is worth talking about. Whether you love him or not, He still loves you. Whether you believe in him or not He still created you and he certainly believes in you. Blessed be the name of the Lord! Very often it’s people who persecute his existence the most who in the long run speak out for him the loudest. When you change and turn to him, great things will He do through you.

  104. on 13 Jul 2011 at 12:57 am 104.DPK said …

    103.AR said …
    May God continue to bless you.

    Which of the available gods are YOU referring to? And how do you know you even have the right one? Let me guess, you have a “personal relationship” with him too?

  105. on 13 Jul 2011 at 2:30 am 105.Lou said …

    100.AR said …

    “May God continue to bless you. At least you’re talking about Him. Which is an indication, He is worth talking about.”

    People talk a lot about Hitler, too.

    “Very often it’s people who persecute his existence the most who in the long run speak out for him the loudest.”

    Really? Very often? Examples?

    “When you change and turn to him, great things will He do through you.”

    Pure, unadulterated bull shit. Hitler did his “great things” in the name of God.

    What “great things” have you done?

  106. on 13 Jul 2011 at 3:11 am 106.Observer said …

    “When you change and turn to him, great things will He do through you.”

    AR- Why the bizarre sentence construction? Channeling one of the numerous radio charlatans? Channeling Yoda’s mentally handicapped nephew?

    Where is Truthseeker?

  107. on 13 Jul 2011 at 3:48 am 107.truthseeker said …

    You haven’t scared me away yet. Just got busy. So, wow!, where to start with that.
    DPK – I’m going to address you first because you seem to be the only one with any intent to have a polite conversation on this topic. I have seen the movie you referred me to. If I might counter suggest that you visit this website: http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/ And let me clarify my comment, “I have yet to hear of a Christian converting to Hindu or Islam.” I meant exactly what I said. It was a statement of personal experience. I’m definitely not saying it doesn’t happen. Maybe to say that it is a much less common occurrence world-wide than the reverse would have made my point better.
    As to the question of the atonement sacrifice of Jesus (and I will also address Severin in this piece, if he cares to hear a differing opinion), you have the general idea from your childhood experience with the Bible. Like so many things spiritual, it is a simple concept once you understand where to start. God is a spiritual being who must abide by spiritual laws much like we are bound by natural laws because we are natural beings. We can’t decide to defy gravity just because we want to. If we want to fly, we have to come up with a way to get around the fact that gravity holds us to the ground. Hence, airplanes, shuttles, etc. God has to be true to Himself. It would stand to reason that if by nature He is just, then He can not choose to do anything unjust. If He is also merciful, and desires to respond to a trespass against His justice with mercy, then He would have to come up with a way to “pay” for that crime Himself. Man’s rebellion against Him could not be overlooked because of His very nature. He can not choose to be anything but just. A crime demands restitution. So, in order to show mercy and still be true to His nature, He sent Himself in the mortal form of Jesus to atone for the capital offense of rebellion of a creation towards their creator. The payment of Himself to Himself satisfied both His justice and mercy. I hope I expressed that in a clear way. This is not the best forum for such deep theological and philosophical debate.

  108. on 13 Jul 2011 at 5:05 am 108.truthseeker said …

    Observer – Maybe I misunderstood something in my studies of history, but I think it’s pretty much common knowledge that Islam took the Middle East by force. And then made it a crime punishable by death to profess any other belief in the areas they controlled. The Crusades began as an answer to this threat. An abominable answer, I will confess. But I’m not sure you can call that conversion of Christians to the Muslim religion.
    I would definitely agree with you on one thing. Jesus appeals to the “poor in spirit”. He did so intentionally. He said that He would use the “foolish” to shame the “wise”, that He had come to save the lost, to set free the captive, to heal the hurt, to bring peace to the troubled, etc. When asked by the “wise” men of His day, why He socialized with “sinners”, He replied that He came for the sick, the healthy need no doctor. I know that it is a popular idea to use against the Christian belief system, that it only appeals to the poor and uneducated. It’s not a “thinking person’s” religion of choice. It is by divine intent that the Gospel appeal to the common man. The rich and highly educated tend to rely entirely on themselves for salvation and righteousness and feel no need for a either a God or a Saviour. But which is the wiser, a creation that recognizes the existence of it’s Creator and desires to know Him, or a creation that believes it has no need of Him? However, having said that, there are many highly educated men and women in every field of study all over the world and throughout history that believe in the God and Jesus of the Bible. I believe that it really amounts to one thing, is a person humble enough to go searching for truth without a predetermination to prove to themselves something they’ve already decided to believe. There’s only so far science can take you, or history, or philosophy. At some point every person looks at the information and evidences that are available to him and decides whether it’s enough to merit a step of faith or belief. Some of you sarcastically refer to “personal experience” or “personal relationship” in your comments, but the topic of religion is always based on personal experience… even for an atheist. That’s why, DPK, you rejected Christianity as a valid choice of religion. You found it to be an “empty” experience. For me, deciding there was an Intelligent Creator was a simple matter of looking at the amount of information in a strand of DNA and realizing that information comes from an intelligent source. It doesn’t happen by accident. And science has no explanation for the beginning of anything in creation, only how things became more complex out of a less complex environment. The evidences led me to an educated step of faith. Then I had to take a look at all the available belief systems out there and ask myself, if there is an intelligent Creator then I’m looking for an intelligent, cohesive religion. Christianity fit the bill. If I’m right, we’ll all know it someday. If I’m wrong, I’ve lived my life by a belief system that caused me to become a person of compassion and moral character, gave me purpose, provided me with a prevailing sense of worth and significance, strengthened me in times of hardship, encouraged me to never quit discovering and learning, and taught me that the two greatest commandments ever given were to love God and to love others. What do I have to lose?

  109. on 13 Jul 2011 at 6:22 am 109.Severin said …

    104 truthseeker
    „…if by nature He is just, then He can not choose to do anything unjust.“
    „If He is also merciful, …

    „If“ is conditional logical tool, following by „then“. „Then“ appears as true only when „if“ condition is fulfilled to be true.

    So, IF god’s nature is just, THEN…
    IF he is also merciful, THEN…

    Those conditions, in case of god, are not fulfilled (realized), so conclusions can not be true.
    If you call killing of millions in BF, including babies, „just“, then you have problems, and I suggest you to seek help.
    If you call god’s order to rip pregnant women and dash children „just“, something is very wrong with you.
    Also, Bible says that revenge is god’s business, and I can’t see how revenge could be anything „just“. Etc.

    I am NOT talking „right“!
    Hitler had RIGHT to kill jews! His deeds were based on legal documents given by german Parliament. It was LEGAL.
    Slave holders had RIGHT to hold, beat and kill slaves. It was LEGAL. They had RIGHT to do it.
    Was it JUST?

    Maybe your god had „right“ to massacre millions, including children and preganat women, I would not know anything about it.
    But JUST?

    In your shoes, I would be ashamed with myself to call god’s deeds „just“.
    I have very different feeling about „just“.

  110. on 13 Jul 2011 at 7:05 am 110.truthseeker said …

    “If” is also a polite way, in a debate of differing opinions, to acknowledge the opposing position’s right to disagree with a point that can not be proven. It’s just a way to set some premises for a foundation to build an idea from. I personally believe that God is a God of justice, as stated in the Bible. No “if” involved. Obviously, I must state my opinion based on the facts as I believe them to be. DPK and I were discussing a spiritual topic that is based on Biblical truth, and so I felt free to explain it from a spiritual point of view also based on information available from the same source. You can not talk about the topic of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus without setting some spiritual parameters I’m afraid. If the topic has now changed to debunking the existence of God as an entity or of a “just” and “merciful” God, then we’ve begun a different conversation.
    I’m not sure what you’re referring to with the killing of millions, babies, pregnant women, etc. reference. But vengeance is definitely included in the idea of justice. Justice is simply requiring obedience to a set of laws and being fair in the enforcement of said laws. In the Scriptures it is plain that sin or rebellion against God is punishable by death. Then it would stand to reason that the just thing would then be for each of us to die as penalty for our “sin”. But far be it from me to try to justify God’s reasoning for anything. I would be the first to admit that His decisions and plans are far outside my ability to comprehend. Honestly, that is not intimidating to me. It’s reassuring. I don’t care to know all the answers in this lifetime. I prefer a God that is so awesomely more than I am, that I can learn more of Him every day of my life and never wrap my mind around the thought of Him. I don’t know that I could trust my life into the hands of a God that is so small that a human mind could comprehend Him in His entirety. But that’s just me.

  111. on 13 Jul 2011 at 7:26 am 111.truthseeker said …

    I do find it interesting however, Severin, that you have decided that you know what is just. What exactly do you base that conclusion on? The only way to know if an action is just is to have some afore-established laws or guidelines to base it on. It sounds like you’ve passed judgement on God’s actions in a particular situation based entirely on compassion for the people involved. Which is admirable, but not conducive to the topic of justice. God’s justice can look harsh for sure, as seen in parts of the Old Testament. And His mercy can seem naive and gullible, as also seen in the Old and New Testament. Neither are as the appear. It’s a case of simple ignorance on our part. We simply don’t understand what we can not see… the much bigger picture. (It happens in science all the time. But we forgive the scientists as they bungle their way through masses of information and clues that they simply do not understand yet, because they’re lacking pieces of a much bigger picture.)

  112. on 13 Jul 2011 at 11:02 am 112.nony mouse said …

    Truthseeker@107 “But far be it from me to try to justify God’s reasoning for anything. I would be the first to admit that His decisions and plans are far outside my ability to comprehend. Honestly, that is not intimidating to me. It’s reassuring. I don’t care to know all the answers in this lifetime. I prefer a God that is so awesomely more than I am, that I can learn more of Him every day of my life and never wrap my mind around the thought of Him. I don’t know that I could trust my life into the hands of a God that is so small that a human mind could comprehend Him in His entirety. But that’s just me.”

    So what kind of truths can you possibly be seeking?

    This post, and your others, are full of contradiction. You’ve erected a series of thought-stopping arguments to protect you from ever thinking – logically – about what it is that you WANT to believe and how utterly, plainly, and clearly inconsistent those thoughts are.

    You claim your god to be just and so on, and when he isn’t, you simply throw out an excuse that says that you don’t understand, don’t want to understand, or are not worthy of understanding.

    You are not looking for truth, in actively avoiding thinking this through you’re looking to be mollycoddled.

    This is classic “heads I win, tails you lose” thinking. Logically, it’s called special pleading. More loosely, it’s called making up excuses.

    In the interpersonal-world, it’s called being the victim of an abusive relationship.

  113. on 13 Jul 2011 at 12:50 pm 113.Lou said …

    107.truthseeker said …

    “I’m not sure what you’re referring to with the killing of millions, babies, pregnant women, etc. reference.”

    Then you don’t know your bible.

  114. on 13 Jul 2011 at 1:09 pm 114.AR said …

    My dear brother, unlike many people I promise you I’m not here to prove God to you or debate his existence. But I know he loves you. Again, when you ask him into your heart, you will become just as vocal FOR him as you are in denying him. Keep talking him up, Blessed be the name of the Lord and still, may He continue to bless you.

  115. on 13 Jul 2011 at 2:05 pm 115.Observer said …

    Truthseeker- Going back to the moronic Duane Gish, there is always some pseudo-scientific hook being used to appeal to the gormless. It would seem the latest iteration of this never to converge sequence is the “information contained in DNA” as a strong implication of a designer.

    I have mentioned the humble salt crystal before. If you dissolve salt in water, you end up with as nearly a random distribution of Na and Cl ions as is possible. Yet, if you either lower the temperature of the solution, or allow it to evaporate, you get very highly symmetric arrangements of these ions in a free-energy minimizing crystal. Amazing. What is more, the crystals are always the same. In the sense there is information in DNA, there is information in the salt crystal. So what? Is there some arbitrary level of complexity and ignorance where there “must” be the need for a “Creator”?

    AGAIN- SOMEONE READ ILYA PRIGOGINE.

    If you are honest and reasonably intelligent, you should realize the need for a “Creator” is at best tenuous, as in the “god-of-the-gaps” and the need to inflict yourself a mental virus like religion is a crime against what is noble in human nature.

    Back on history, you do realize that Constantine put to the sword those who would not convert to Christianity. Christians continued to slaughter non-Christians throughout Europe until mercantilism won out at the end of the 18th Century. This was done by Catholics and Protestants. Hell, Christians killed other Christians for differing beliefs. Get a clue.

  116. on 13 Jul 2011 at 2:39 pm 116.sewa mobil said …

    Nice article, thanks for the information.

  117. on 13 Jul 2011 at 2:54 pm 117.truthseeker said …

    Nony mouse 109 – I’m seeking the truths that can be found. The fact that I haven’t found them all nor expect to find all of them concerning a spiritual being that is far outside our natural realm and so impossibly difficult to wrap our finite minds around, doesn’t nullify the truths that can be found. The same is true for science. To humbly admit that we don’t understand everything about the world around us, (which every scientist would readily admit)is not to say that the things we have learned are no longer true. It’s just a fact. And I was just acknowledging that in the area of God’s reasoning and motives for the things He does, no person can be so proud as to say he knows. I only wish atheists could be as honest, to admit that there simply isn’t enough proven fact one way or the other concerning the existence of God and so choose not to believe. To say God is not just because we don’t understand His actions, is presumptuous at best in my opinion.
    Abuse is defined “to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way”. Do you mind explaining where you find anything by this definition in anything I’ve said about my belief system? It seems to me that with unsubstantiated statements like that, you are using the same tactics that you accuse me of.

  118. on 13 Jul 2011 at 2:57 pm 118.Severin said …

    105 truthseeker
    “At some point every person looks at the information and evidences that are available to him and decides whether it’s enough to merit a step of faith or belief.“

    Bravo! Fine!
    So, please tell us what information and evidences you have to support idea of existance of a god.
    I do NOT claim there is no god, such an information simply does not fit my common sense, my knowledge, reality that surrounds me and logic I use (and I am educated and have pretty high IQ).
    If you claim there is one, please support your claim with some evidences, as YOU expect from others.
    I am not obligate to give evidences for my not believing in something, just as you are not obligate to offer any evidences if you say you don’t believe in Santa.
    If you say there is god, you are obligate to support your claim with arguments and evidences.

  119. on 13 Jul 2011 at 3:00 pm 119.truthseeker said …

    Lou – I’m very familiar with my Bible. I just didn’t want to presume upon what was being referenced in this case, whether it be the OT or some other more recent historical event. It wasn’t actually stated in his comment.

  120. on 13 Jul 2011 at 3:35 pm 120.Severin said …

    107 truthseeker
    „I’m not sure what you’re referring to with the killing of millions, babies, pregnant women, etc. reference.“
    I expected someone who refered to god’s word knew something about it.
    Please read your Bible, find many examples of cruelty and lunacy of your god, then come here to comment.
    It was YOU who tried to explain something with god’s „mercy“ and „just“, not me!
    I only said your god was NOT merciful and just, and conclusions pulled out from wrong premisses that he was, are not valid.
    IF god was merciful and just, fine, but he wasn’t.
    Not to go further, please see big flood! God killed millions, including babies and children who, by definition, couldn’t have been guilty for anything like „sins“ and „rebellion“.
    Only a sick lunatic would do such a thing, not a merciful and all loving god. ESPECIALLY not him!

    Maybe god exists, and, in that case he IS a monster, period (or, maybe there is no god).
    In any case, trying to justify such a lunacy is for me sign of , hm, well…lunacy.
    HOW can a normal individual say god was just if he killed innocent babies?
    I think such an individual can not be normal, sorry.

    As I said many times, if such a god appeared before me personally and said: yes, I am the one who ordered dashing of babies, ripping of pregnant women and it was me who drowned of millions of innocent babies, I would spit on him, and told him I had my own idea about what is just. That is what I expect a NORMAL individual to do.
    If you think I am obligate to exlpain this, please question your own ideas about just.
    I do not see why would I have to explain my tears for innocent babies, dashed children or ripped women, killed by a lunatic (Hitler, god, Pol Pot, a twisted sadist individual, whoever).
    Lunatics are lunatics, and if they are gods, it can’t be worse: higher power brings higher responsibility, and the higher the position of a lunatic who kills babies, the more power he had, the bigger are crimes he does.

  121. on 13 Jul 2011 at 3:47 pm 121.Severin said …

    Truthseeker,
    I admit that this is another issue, but the idea of killing millions of “guilty” people is most terrifying!

    Your god gave fine example to Hitler, who, in fact, told us he was doing his crimes in his name!

    Fine examples for children, too!
    It is O.K. to kill millions because they warship idols, commit adultery, work on sabbath, fuck sheep…
    It is quite O.K. to dash babes to stones, and to cut them with sabres, because their parents “rebelled” against god.
    It is very fine to rip pregnant women to punish …whom… for…WHAT?!

    Bible should be foobidden as a source of evil!
    It is the most evil book I ever read.

  122. on 13 Jul 2011 at 3:52 pm 122.truthseeker said …

    Observer – Interesting comparison. There is much in the world around us that is awesomely complex, such as the salt crystal. But that is not information. Information is defined as “the act or fact of informing”, which is exactly the function of the DNA strand found in living organisms. Their only purpose, as I understand it, is to inform the cells as to their purpose, structure, location, etc. in order to make a functioning organism. Information of that detail, magnitude, and organization seems to lead more logically to a source of intelligence than to a mere accident of nature of enormous proportions. Salt is a chemical compound that follows the laws of chemistry. What laws of science do billions of vastly differing DNA structures that make up the living world around us follow?
    I will find some time to take your suggestion to read ILYA PRIGOGINE.
    As far as Constantine and any other atrocity done in the name of God, I can not reason with you. Now we are trying to prove or disprove God by using fallible humankind as examples of His character. A truly illogical argument, in my opinion. I would liken it to someone saying that I am a cruel person because my dog bit a man. Whether it did it out of loyalty and protection of me or out of sheer cruelty, unless it can be shown that I intentionally trained the dog to bite, how can that incident be used to come to any conclusions about what kind of person I am? The facts actually would point to a very different conclusion. The Bible teaches the very opposite. Love your enemies, do good to those that spitefully treat you, speak the truth in love, do not be easily angered, do not sin in your anger, etc. I could go on and on in this vein. The truth is that the dog is doing what comes natural to a canine. We have to train that natural instinct out of the animal. And if you want to use His followers as examples with an open mind to all of history, not just the piece that serves the purpose of your position, Christians have made a very impactful, positive mark on the world as a whole in areas of humanitarian aid, protection for victims of all kinds, advocates for just causes, etc.

  123. on 13 Jul 2011 at 4:29 pm 123.truthseeker said …

    Severin – You brought up many different OT Scriptures. First, I would have to reiterate two different points. 1) God would be responding in justice to completely wipe out a creation that is so rebellious that “every inclination of every heart was evil all the time”. The flood was an act of justice. Not destroying all of mankind and creation was an act of mercy. “dashing of babies, ripping of pregnant women” Maybe I’m showing my ignorance here but could you give me a Scripture reference where God ordered this? 2) A person must be willing to reason from a basis of spiritual premises in order to argue a spiritual point. If you will indulge me a moment in this, I will try to explain why the killing of “innocents” is also justice in this case. When sin and rebellion entered the created world through Adam and Eve, it actually altered the creation as indicated in Genesis. Everything became corrupt. That corrupt nature of things appears in many different ways in creation, but one of the major consequences was that our very nature as humankind was now no longer in willful submission to our creator. We are born in a state of “rebellion” and now must freely choose to return to this previous state of submission recognizing our rebellious nature or remain in that state. This is a very simplified explanation of a very complex spiritual situation. The destruction of any kind of life is and should be abhorrent to us, because we are the created and what we destroy is no longer within our grasp to restore. With God this is not so. Death for Him is not the end game. Just because He takes “life” from an innocent here to accomplish His will for His creation, doesn’t mean He has not restored that life after death. As I said before, there is so much that we don’t know about life, death, afterlife, and God that justification or accusation of His actions is bordering on mind-boggling arrogance.
    As far as the Bible as a book is concerned, I would suggest you reading the NT as well. There’s a reason that there are two parts. It tells a complete story. If you stop at God’s justice shown in the Old, and ignore His mercy shown in the New, you are not being a very objective student of the subject.

  124. on 13 Jul 2011 at 5:08 pm 124.truthseeker said …

    Severin – I agree with you that the weight of proof for the existence of God lies with the believer. It simply can not be proven. It can only be reasonably inferred by the signs of His involvement in creation (intelligent design and the lack of theories on an “original source of matter, energy, etc.”), the inexpicable differences between man and the rest of creation, the also inexplicable determination found in man to believe in and relate to a higher being. (To name the first few that came to mind.) This is why I said that it is a step of faith, but it is not a blind step. I think it’s interesting that most, if not all, of science’s inexplicable things, are also the things that point to a master purpose behind creation. Coincidence? Maybe, but I choose to believe not.

  125. on 13 Jul 2011 at 5:21 pm 125.Lou said …

    119.truthseeker said …

    “Now we are trying to prove or disprove God by using fallible humankind as examples of His character.”

    I agree with you about that. However, that’s much the same as what is done when referring to the bible as evidence of god. And you keep going on and on about the bible as evidence of god. You are 100% wasting your time. Quoting and/or interpreting the bible for us is meaningless and evidence of nothing. It’s no better than simply saying that you believe in god.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-ZaZjJg-hk

    That being said, your argument that “Information of that detail, magnitude, and organization seems to lead more logically to a source of intelligence than to a mere accident of nature of enormous proportions” is not much different. You don’t have any actual evidence of an intelligent designer, only your reasoning or speculation.

    “Salt is a chemical compound that follows the laws of chemistry. What laws of science do billions of vastly differing DNA structures that make up the living world around us follow?”

    Just because those “laws” are presently not understood doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Furthermore, that we do understand many other natural “laws” that at one time were not understood is much greater evidence that DNA structure probably follows and is created by natural “laws” than is the explanation that god did it.

  126. on 13 Jul 2011 at 5:27 pm 126.Lou said …

    116.truthseeker said …

    “Lou – I’m very familiar with my Bible. I just didn’t want to presume upon what was being referenced in this case, whether it be the OT or some other more recent historical event. It wasn’t actually stated in his comment.”

    It doesn’t matter if he was referring to a specific biblical incident. If you are aware that such things happened (in the bible), then there’s no point in pretending you aren’t aware of them. To do so only demonstrates that you’re disingenuous.

    The god of the bible is a ruthless maniac. And to pretend that we can’t understand gods action is nonsense. According to the bible we are made in god’s image. So we must think alike.

  127. on 13 Jul 2011 at 5:37 pm 127.Severin said …

    120 trythseekr
    “Maybe I’m showing my ignorance here but could you give me a Scripture reference where God ordered this?”

    Exodus chapter 12 verse 28
    In Isaiah chapter 13
    Jeremiah chapter 49, verse 20
    Hosea chapter 13
    Numbers chapter 31
    Deuteronomy Chapter 3

  128. on 13 Jul 2011 at 5:47 pm 128.truthseeker said …

    Lou – “that’s much the same as what is done when referring to the bible as evidence of god. And you keep going on and on about the bible as evidence of god.” Where exactly did I use the Bible as evidence of God? I have only used the Bible in instances where the Bible was already being used as a source for understanding the actions or character of God. That seemed like fair parameters for the discussion.
    “You don’t have any actual evidence of an intelligent designer, only your reasoning or speculation” – Absolutely true. I believe I stated that rather clearly in my previous comments. But until science can come up with any actual evidence proving the creation of life in the absence of an intelligent designer, than we are all in the same boat. Just using our ability to reason and speculate.
    “Just because those “laws” are presently not understood doesn’t mean they don’t exist.” – Exactly my point. Just because there are things that are not presently understood, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Until they are discovered (or revealed depending on your viewpoint) and understood, they are a matter of faith. Either faith to believe that there exists a God that can not be explained or faith to believe that everything we see in our world and the universe came into existence on its own. Science can only explain what we have here based on things that already existed in space. How do you explain where it all started? You simply cannot make something out of nothing. Science will always only be able to take us so far into this question. At some point we just have to make a choice. I’m not pushing mine on anyone. I’m just explaining the best I can, why I made it.

  129. on 13 Jul 2011 at 6:01 pm 129.truthseeker said …

    Lou – “If you are aware that such things happened (in the bible), then there’s no point in pretending you aren’t aware of them. To do so only demonstrates that you’re disingenuous.” – I went on to address this point once I was clear what point I was addressing. It does matter to the discussion if the reference was to the Old Testament and what part of the Old Testament or to an historical event not documented in the Bible. Only the Bible gives us an indication of God’s motive or intent.
    “According to the bible we are made in god’s image. So we must think alike.” – Correction. Adam and Eve were made in God’s image. (And even then, they were not God.) But since you mentioned the Bible to make your point, I will also refer you to it to understand all that we lost in our likeness to Him when Adam rebelled, as I previously explained.

  130. on 13 Jul 2011 at 6:21 pm 130.Severin said …

    120 truthseeker
    “God would be responding in justice to completely wipe out a creation that is so rebellious that “every inclination of every heart was evil all the time”. The flood was an act of justice. Not destroying all of mankind and creation was an act of mercy.“

    Now, let’s see what we have here:
    God created human beings. NOT machines, or dolls, but creatures made of flash and blood, who had feelings AND were able to suffer both physically and mentally.
    Moreover, he created them „on his own image“ (I understand it as: to be as much as possible like himself, how else to understand it?).

    Then, he suddenly saw things are not going the way he wanted…oops! OOPS! OOOOOPS!
    He FAILED!
    An „allmighty“ and „all-knowing“ FAILED! His creation was NOT was as he expected it to be, what he wanted it to be, what he planned it to be!
    To somehow hush up his bullshit work, he decided to destroy his creation.
    As an allmighty, he certainly could spare babies and children from suffering, snapping his fingers and saying: you dissapear (without pains), I will try again.
    He did not do that!
    He decided to kill the whole population IN PAINS AND SUFFERINGS!

    What can we conclude?
    a) God was not allmighty and all knowing, because he failed to do what he really wanted
    b) God was a sick lunatic, who punished innocent babies and children by painful death, to hush up his own failure
    Or
    Maybe there was no god at all.

  131. on 13 Jul 2011 at 6:38 pm 131.Severin said …

    126 truuthseeker
    “It does matter to the discussion if the reference was to the Old Testament and what part of the Old Testament or to an historical event not documented in the Bible.”

    How does it matter?
    What are you trying to say?
    Is it, perhaps, that some parts of Bible are irrelevant?

  132. on 13 Jul 2011 at 7:20 pm 132.truthseeker said …

    Exodus chapter 12 verse 28 – this is saying that the Israelites did all that God instructed Moses and Aaron as pertaining to the context of the Passover. God told Moses, Moses told the people, and the people obeyed. Even if you take it completely out of context, as you have done, Moses and Aaron never ordered any dashing of children or ripping of pregnant women.
    In Isaiah chapter 13 – God did not tell the Medes to do the cruelty they did. They simply did what they always did when conquering a people. The man writing this was recalling a vision of what was to be. There was no direct spoken word from God that many times accompanies an OT prophecy. Which means this vision was up for interpretation. The only thing the writer accredited God with was mustering their armies, which basically means He prodded them to attack.
    Hosea chapter 13 – again this is not done by God’s hand or instruction. It is a prophecy of what invading enemies will do to the people. Because of their disobedience and rebellion He removes His hand of protection from them and allows them to be violently overrun.
    Numbers chapter 31 -You have to study the establishment of the Jewish nation in order to understand the reasoning behind this battle and the killing of the women. In short, God was very intentional with the Jews to create a people that were not open to other cultures or tainted by other belief systems of the people that surrounded them. This still remains to this day one of the defining differences of the Jewish religion. God had to do this in order to preserve the integrity of the basis of what would be the story of His purpose for mankind and its redemption. He could not allow them to dilute it or mix it with other religions. Unless you are willing to do some study in Jewish religion and history, you will have difficulty understanding the spiritual significance of most of the Old Testament. Again, you can’t take at face value a story in the Bible without taking into account the spiritual side of it.
    Deuteronomy Chapter 3 – This was a time of war that created a place for the Jews to establish themselves free of outside influence. The people could not be allowed to remain.
    Jeremiah chapter 49, verse 20 – This again was a time when God was teaching the people to respect His authority. He was a ruler that could only be seen through the actions of His people. Of course, there was much more to the history of His people and their interactions with the cultures around them than these few references you supplied here to make your point.

    These stories are hard to read and hard to understand from our point of view. No doubt about it. There are a lot of spiritual implications to all of it as well. I’m not a Jewish scholar or a theologian. I’m sure that this did not dissuade you from your very passionately held opinions on this subject. But as I said before, I would encourage you to keep reading. God never intended to show only His wrath, He has also shown His love. The story doesn’t end with violent retribution. It’s just the setting of the stage for the coming of an answer to it.

  133. on 13 Jul 2011 at 8:01 pm 133.Severin said …

    129 truthseeker
    “God had to do this in order to…”
    “He could not allow them to dilute it or mix it with other religions.”

    THAT is what I ment!
    An allmighty god had no other means to attain what he wanted, but extreme brutality, such a brutality that some of well known human sadists look like innocent babies compared to it!

    Or, he had other means, but LIKED (maybe even ENJOYED) torutring people.
    What about his snapping fingers and saying something? Hadn’t he choice?
    And YOU justify it!
    Sorry to say, but: shame on you!

    “I’m not a Jewish scholar or a theologian.”
    Why should you be?
    Isn’t the Bible a Christian “book of truth”, the “word of (christian) god?”

    Should we all become Jews to understand Bible?
    What an absurd!

    And other verses mentioned? Why are they there?
    What nice things can anyone learn from them?

    It seems that, finally, Bible is not a word of god, or WHAT?

  134. on 13 Jul 2011 at 8:04 pm 134.truthseeker said …

    Severin – Your entire argument is based on the assumption that you have knowledge of 1) what God’s original purpose for creating mankind was 2)what is meant by being created in the image of God 3)the motive of His actions. I will not argue these points with you on the basis of a lack of information. It simply can not be debated with any kind of integrity in the discussion. Too many unknowns. What we can conclude is exactly what the story says, God responded to the level of rebellion and evil He saw in His creation by destroying them, leaving only a handful of faithful ones to start over. What we were debating is whether this was the workings of a just God. By spiritual law as defined in the Bible, it most definitely was. Why He chose to do it the way He did I could only guess at.

  135. on 13 Jul 2011 at 8:09 pm 135.Severin said …

    truthseeker,
    Can you kindly tell us how do YOU imagine creation?
    You, and all other believers in god, say higher intelligence (god) stands behind creation of both universe and life, but none of you ever told us how it looked like.
    Sorry! Some of them did, some of them confirmed they believe it happened exactly as described in the Bible.

    Was that the way Bible describes it?
    If not, HOW did it happen?
    When?

  136. on 13 Jul 2011 at 8:20 pm 136.truthseeker said …

    Severin – I feel like we’re covering the same points over and over now. The only way for me to respond is to restate what I felt I clearly stated in previous comments. It’s okay for you to disagree with me on these points. I do believe it is very useful to understand the context of a material if you intend to comprehend it fully. The Bible is no different. It was written in a much different time in history, from a different cultural viewpoint, and in different languages. You don’t need to be a scholar to be a Christian but it definitely helps if you want to really understand all the implications of it’s stories.

  137. on 13 Jul 2011 at 8:47 pm 137.Lou said …

    133.truthseeker said …

    “Severin – I feel like we’re covering the same points over and over now.”

    Yes, you are. It’s the same old b.s. that theists offer in lieu of evidence for god.

  138. on 13 Jul 2011 at 8:52 pm 138.Severin said …

    #131
    “Why He chose to do it the way He did I could only guess at.”

    THAT is the essential difference between me and you!
    If I saw a deliberately dashed baby or a deliberately ripped pregnant woman (or heard about it), I would NEVER even try to guess the motivations or reasons for such a deed.
    Motivations and/or reasons for such deeds DO NOT EXIST, CAN NOT EXIST.
    Lunacy excluded!

    All I would be able to think and feel is: what damned maniac did it?
    I could only cry, and (helplessly) hate the executor.
    If biblical god existed, and was not a lunatic, he would deserve all my hate I would be able to collect in my heart.
    Of course, I can not hate something/someone I dont believe he/she/it exists, but I can, and I do feel sorry for the fact that some people are trying to explain WHY anyone, for whom they claim was not a lunatic, wants to rip pregnant women and to dash/drown innocent children.

    Very sad!
    And very, VERY sick!

    Oh, man, what religion can do to people!

  139. on 13 Jul 2011 at 8:58 pm 139.Lou said …

    126.truthseeker said …

    “Only the Bible gives us an indication of God’s motive or intent.”

    No, you and others only claim that it does. The bible was written by man. It’s no different than you writing and posting here whatever you think about god and religion.

    “According to the bible we are made in god’s image. So we must think alike.” – Correction. Adam and Eve were made in God’s image. (And even then, they were not God.)”

    Genesis 1:27 “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

    “But since you mentioned the Bible to make your point, I will also refer you to it to understand all that we lost in our likeness to Him when Adam rebelled, as I previously explained.”

    My use of the bible to “make a point” can only be accepted in a sarcastic way. The bible is nothing more than a collection of fairy tales and myths mixed in with a little ancient history. It would be similar to me “making a point” by analogy to something that happened in an episode of Star Trek. I would only mention the bible as a response to somebody who keeps beating me over the head with it.

  140. on 13 Jul 2011 at 9:02 pm 140.Severin said …

    #133

    In fact, as I can see, you DO say that Bible is not the word of god!?

    Why, then, is it relevant?
    Why should we care for it?

    What about creation?
    Will you tell us how do you imagine it?
    Genesis, or some other way?

  141. on 13 Jul 2011 at 9:08 pm 141.truthseeker said …

    Severin – Those are good questions! I’m looking forward to knowing the answers some day. However, you’re asking for answers that no self-respecting person would try to answer. If the genius scientists can’t explain it, how dare I presume to do so. What I do believe is that God “spoke” creation into being. It came directly from Him and He was intentional in doing so. As far as timing and such. I am not a traditionalist in this area. I do not believe that Genesis is a literal account of the act or timing of creation. I do however believe that it holds clues to the sequence of events. And I believe that the genome project will provide additional support to this idea some day. If it’s true that God created the earth and that this same God is the God of the Bible, then it is just a matter of time that science and the Bible will become clearer matches.

  142. on 13 Jul 2011 at 9:12 pm 142.Lou said …

    125.truthseeker said …

    “I have only used the Bible in instances where the Bible was already being used as a source for understanding the actions or character of God. That seemed like fair parameters for the discussion.”

    If you have in fact only used the bible as you described above, then I would agree that you haven’t used the bible as evidence for god. But do you not believe the bible is the word of god, and therefore evidence for him?

    “Until they are discovered (or revealed depending on your viewpoint) and understood, they are a matter of faith. Either faith to believe that there exists a God that can not be explained or faith to believe that everything we see in our world and the universe came into existence on its own.”

    Not true. There is a big difference between faith and scientific hypothesis. “Science” doesn’t simply invent an unfounded explanation such as god did it.

    “How do you explain where it all started? You simply cannot make something out of nothing.”

    Only according to our current understanding of nature.

    “Science will always only be able to take us so far into this question.”

    That may or may not be true. Even if true, it’s irrelevant. It doesn’t mean that god did it. In lieu of any actual evidence for god’s or nature’s creation of the universe, I’m satisfied with “I don’t know.” Knowing how the universe began is not at the top of my priorities. But not allowing ID and biblical explanation nonsense to be taught as truth is much more important.

    “At some point we just have to make a choice. I’m not pushing mine on anyone. I’m just explaining the best I can, why I made it.”

    Honestly? You don’t oppose teaching Big Bang and evolution in public schools without teaching ID and biblical creation (or faith, as you describe it)?

  143. on 13 Jul 2011 at 9:15 pm 143.Lou said …

    138.truthseeker said …

    “What I do believe is that God “spoke” creation into being. It came directly from Him and He was intentional in doing so.”

    Where did god come from?

    The only “logical” explanation is from the mind of man.

  144. on 13 Jul 2011 at 9:16 pm 144.truthseeker said …

    Severin 135 – the quote you were referring to was in response to the our discussion on the flood. I already showed that the brutalities you mention here were done by conquering, “heathen” armies such as the Medes. These atrocities were not ordered by God. You are grossly taking Scripture out of context to prove your point. And again, I feel like we’re talking in circles in this regard.

  145. on 13 Jul 2011 at 9:21 pm 145.truthseeker said …

    Severin 137 – Where did I say that? I’m starting to wonder if you are even bothering to actually read my comments.

  146. on 13 Jul 2011 at 9:29 pm 146.Lou said …

    133.truthseeker said …

    “The Bible is no different. It was written in a much different time in history, from a different cultural viewpoint, and in different languages. You don’t need to be a scholar to be a Christian but it definitely helps if you want to really understand all the implications of it’s stories.”

    One would think that an omnipotent god who uses scrolls and stone tablets to communicate with his creatures could at least publish a revision once every millennium or so.

  147. on 13 Jul 2011 at 9:47 pm 147.truthseeker said …

    Lou 139- “But do you not believe the bible is the word of god, and therefore evidence for him?” – Funny how you spin things. Actually, I’ve just talked about these kinds of topics enough to know that I can not use the Bible as evidence with someone who does not believe it is the inspired word of God. So, I try to refer only to what I consider to be evidences of Him in creation and science.
    “There is a big difference between faith and scientific hypothesis.” Would you care to expound? I was only comparing them in that they are both based on what we do know on the subject and then conjuncture after that.
    “Only according to our current understanding of nature.” Well, of course. What else can we base a discussion on. That’s like me expecting you guys to agree with my viewpoint by saying “Only according to our current understanding of God.”
    “In lieu of any actual evidence for god’s or nature’s creation of the universe, I’m satisfied with “I don’t know.” ” – That’s definitely a choice you have the freedom to make for yourself. That’s exactly my point. You can decide that “I don’t know.” is how you want to live your life and I can decide that I would rather live believing in a Creator God. Because it can not be proven to satisfaction either way.
    “But not allowing ID and biblical explanation nonsense to be taught as truth is much more important.” – I am totally in agreement with you here. I do not believe ID should be taught as truth unless it’s in a Christian classroom. Likewise, I don’t believe anything else that can not be proven should be presented as truth or the only option for discussion. However, I do believe that our young people should be presented with all the options to exercise their right to choose as you and I have done based on what has been scientifically discovered at that time.

  148. on 13 Jul 2011 at 9:57 pm 148.truthseeker said …

    Lou 143 – “One would think that an omnipotent god who uses scrolls and stone tablets to communicate with his creatures could at least publish a revision once every millennium or so.” – I hope this was said tongue-in-cheek, otherwise it sounds rather foolish. This statement doesn’t show much understanding of how scholars in the field view such things. If a “revision” to the Bible were to be published, it would not be accepted. The fact that the Bible was written by so many different authors over a span of 1500 years in three different languages and has held it’s cohesive historical and spiritual story line is one of the things that makes it unique amongst literary works and lends credibility to its content.

  149. on 13 Jul 2011 at 10:03 pm 149.truthseeker said …

    Lou 140 – good question. The fact that it can’t be answered does not logically imply that He doesn’t exist. Scientists can not answer where energy or the chemicals required to “create” life orginates from either, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

  150. on 13 Jul 2011 at 10:09 pm 150.Severin said …

    truthseeker
    “How do you explain where it all started?”

    I don’t.
    In the first place, I don’t exactly know, but I am not trying to replace my not knowing something with a creator (because I could not answer the question who/what created a creator, and why would everything BUT creator need a creator).

    Secondly, I, personally, don’t think anything “started”.
    Everything just existed, and there was no need to be created, or to “strat”.

    What is wrong with the idea?
    Find a week point of it.

  151. on 13 Jul 2011 at 10:13 pm 151.Severin said …

    # 141

    Context, again?

    Can you kindly show me that glorious context?
    No one evre pointed it, all of you are anly talking about it.

  152. on 13 Jul 2011 at 10:13 pm 152.truthseeker said …

    Well, fellow bloggers, I’m signing out. It’s been an interesting conversation, but I think we’ve run the gambit of all possible viewpoints we might be able to discuss on this topic. Maybe I’ll check in with the blog at a later date and see what I’ve missed.

  153. on 13 Jul 2011 at 10:17 pm 153.Severin said …

    # 142
    “Severin 137 – Where did I say that? I’m starting to wonder if you are even bothering to actually read my comments.”

    Here:
    #145
    “The fact that the Bible was written by so many different authors over a span of 1500 years in three different languages…”

    I doubt the authors had direct line to god. They wrote what THEY wanted.

  154. on 13 Jul 2011 at 10:21 pm 154.Severin said …

    #146
    “Scientists can not answer where energy or the chemicals required to “create” life orginates from either,…”

    It does not originate from anywhere. It EXISTS and changes its form according to natural laws that are “built in” it.
    An atom exactly “knows” how to react in some situation, and in same situation will react always the same way, no exceptions.

    Where god originates from?
    Why matter/energy needs a creator, and god does not?

  155. on 13 Jul 2011 at 10:44 pm 155.Lou said …

    144.truthseeker said …

    Lou 139- “But do you not believe the bible is the word of god, and therefore evidence for him?” – Funny how you spin things.

    I didn’t spin anything. I agreed with what you wrote and then asked another question.

    “There is a big difference between faith and scientific hypothesis.”

    “Would you care to expound?

    No, because this is becoming an exercise in futility with you.

    “I was only comparing them in that they are both based on what we do know on the subject and then conjuncture after that.”

    Regardless, faith and scientific hypothesis are not the same.

    “Only according to our current understanding of nature.”

    “Well, of course. What else can we base a discussion on. That’s like me expecting you guys to agree with my viewpoint by saying “Only according to our current understanding of God.”

    No, it isn’t’. God is an abstract concept. Nature is not.

    “You can decide that “I don’t know.” is how you want to live your life and I can decide that I would rather live believing in a Creator God. Because it can not be proven to satisfaction either way.”

    This has to one of the most nonsensical comments I’ve read here. “I don’t know” is not how I want live my life, but it’s the truth of the matter. I don’t know can be proven – it’s fact that we don’t know. God is a figment of your imagination. If YOU want to live YOUR life based upon a figment of your imagination, then go for it. Just keep it to yourself.

    “I do not believe ID should be taught as truth unless it’s in a Christian classroom.”

    Great, but you think it’s acceptable to teach something that’s not true just because it’s taught in an xtian classroom? REALLY?

    “However, I do believe that our young people should be presented with all the options to exercise their right to choose as you and I have done based on what has been scientifically discovered at that time.”

    Then you agree that ID and god did it should not be taught in public schools?

  156. on 13 Jul 2011 at 10:47 pm 156.Lou said …

    146.truthseeker said …

    “Lou 140 – good question. The fact that it can’t be answered does not logically imply that He doesn’t exist. Scientists can not answer where energy or the chemicals required to “create” life orginates from either, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.”

    You avoided the obvious implication – that god is imaginary. Scientists don’t answer unanswerable questions with b.s. explanations.

  157. on 13 Jul 2011 at 11:04 pm 157.Lou said …

    145.truthseeker said …

    “I hope this was said tongue-in-cheek, otherwise it sounds rather foolish.”

    As opposed to accepting the bible as the word of god?

    “This statement doesn’t show much understanding of how scholars in the field view such things. If a “revision” to the Bible were to be published, it would not be accepted.”

    How does one authenticate the original bible as opposed to a revision? The obvious answer is that it can’t be. The bible has no more credibility than would a revision “from god.” If any well known religious figure or authority announced that god spoke to him and told him to publish a new book of the bible, then he would be a laughing stock. Yet somehow it’s different that the same b.s. happened in “bible times.”

    “The fact that the Bible was written by so many different authors over a span of 1500 years in three different languages and has held it’s cohesive historical and spiritual story line is one of the things that makes it unique amongst literary works and lends credibility to its content.”

    No, rather it lends credence to the fact that most people have not advanced much since the 1,500 years that that collection of fairy tales and myths was written.

  158. on 14 Jul 2011 at 12:28 am 158.Biff said …

    “The fact that the Bible was written by so many different authors over a span of 1500 years in three different languages and has held it’s cohesive historical and spiritual story line is one of the things that makes it unique”

    Not only unique, but unparalleled in history. Let us not forgot the huge number of prophecies predicted and fulfilled by God’s Word. Absolutely incredible but so is the author.

  159. on 14 Jul 2011 at 4:45 am 159.Severin said …

    155 Biff
    “Let us not forgot the huge number of prophecies predicted and fulfilled by God’s Word. Absolutely incredible but so is the author.”

    Nostradamus gave much more predictions, and much more precisely than your god.
    Shall we start worshiping Nostradamus?

    Typical “prophecy”?
    Isaiah 7:14
    Therefore the Lord himself will give you[a] a sign: The virgin[b] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[c] will call him Immanuel.[d]

    Just imagine! It was well known to B.C mothers and fathers, as it was known to my mother, that a virgin young lady can easily get pregnant without distroying her hymen, if she plays forbidden games (petting).
    To “predict” pregnancy of a virgin was much more likely then, than today, because today young ladies know how to avoid danger. They know what makes them pregnant.
    Then, finally, some Immanuel was born!
    What with Jesus?

    Pure idiocy!

  160. on 14 Jul 2011 at 1:30 pm 160.Lou said …

    155.Biff said …

    “Let us not forgot the huge number of prophecies predicted and fulfilled by God’s Word. Absolutely incredible but so is the author.”

    Unparalleled, bonafide b.s. Absolutely absurd, but so is the author, Biff.

  161. on 14 Jul 2011 at 3:59 pm 161.Curmudgeon said …

    Biff

    Absolutely! A book that has 100% accuracy in prophecy, the greatest seller of all time not to mentioned the most hated has power that is unmatched over anything man could write.

  162. on 14 Jul 2011 at 5:19 pm 162.Lou said …

    158.Curmudgeon said …

    “Absolutely! A book that has 100% accuracy in prophecy…”

    http://www.freethinkersbooks.com/100fbp.htm

    http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/fprophet.html

    http://faithskeptic.50megs.com/prophecies.htm

    “…the greatest seller of all time…”

    Show us those sales figures, please. Don’t include the freebies.

    “…not to mentioned the most hated…”

    The Qur’an is probably the most hated, but for similar reasons.

    “…has power that is unmatched over anything man could write.”

    There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the bible was written by any alleged god(s). The only support for that claim is in the delusional minds of those who believe it – like you who come where with nothing more than your shouts of “holy-hosanna!”

  163. on 14 Jul 2011 at 11:16 pm 163.Hell Yeah said …

    “A book that has 100% accuracy in prophecy….”

    Really? Give examples of these prophecies. I am sure much of the prophecies that you think were fulfilled are interpreted to fit what you want it to be. For example, wasn’t Jesus supposed to come back in May? And the world is supposed to end in October? There are groups that point to the bible as prediciting those because they interpreted it a certain way. It’s all about having a belief and trying to fit things to make it look like it is true.

  164. on 19 Jul 2011 at 9:12 am 164.AR said …

    Dear Administrator, (sir/madam)
    I read something recently and thought of you.
    It references something from John Newton’s epitaph

    Appointed to preach the faith
    he had long labored to destroy

    Praise God that he pursues us more relentlessly, more devotedly, more lovingly.

    I’m so glad God loves you, I’m so glad you were born and I’m so glad I happened across your website. May God continue to bless you on this journey that is leading you into relationship with Christ. Blessed be the name of the Lord! Have a wonderful day my friend.

  165. on 03 Aug 2011 at 7:23 pm 165.European agnostic said …

    Dear atheists and agnostics,

    I admire your unending patience discussing religion with Christians. Not that you can ever make any headway with people who believe that a god – no, THE God – chose a compilation of very different historical texts that constantly contradict each other – as the basis of THE TRUTH and ideal human behaviour and actions. …but still. Thanks for trying.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply