 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't.
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Georgiansilver Date: 30 Jan 05 - 08:14 PM O.K so you really believe what you believe but you cannot disprove "Christianity"...You can re-route people if you wish....you can change the truth if you wish...but you cannot change the truth, however you try!. The truth is that "Jesus" lives today.....NOW...He is alive. If you follow Him you WILL find Eternal life....... You have the choice of where you go and what you do. As for those who dispute this....YOU are LOST sheep...You are lost beyond redemption unless you choose the right path. I don't care who disputes what I have said.......Jesus is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIGHT to your life as it says in the Bible....go for it! or pay the price. Some of you....dianavan included, have been misled by whatever means, by the devil....satan(without a capital letter...as he does not earn it) You are not beyond redemption as The Lord will accept all who choose the path He has planned for them, even you dianavan are accepted into His Kingdom, should you choose it without conditions. You feel that as long as you have your way then everything is alright...but NO it isn't!............God is in Control! and if you do not follow the path He set for you you are LOST! Tell me I am a freak!....Tell me I don't know what I am talking about! Tell me I am wrong!........But do you really believe that? Love and Compassion to all.... Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST Date: 30 Jan 05 - 08:18 PM Nurse !!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST Date: 30 Jan 05 - 08:29 PM why bother ? its sufficient to just ignore it and avoid contact with fervent rabid bible bashers |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: akenaton Date: 30 Jan 05 - 08:29 PM GS....I dont think you a freak!, but your post fills me with despair. It depresses me when I see someone write in the way you do. It looks like a big load of empty life to me. In real time were on this planet for a fraction of a second, we should enjoy the wonder and the beauty,not constrict ourselves by meaningless dogma. I dont know what more to say ...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: dianavan Date: 30 Jan 05 - 08:30 PM Hey Mike - What do want? I already told you I walked a path hand in hand with Jesus and that he was my friend. Do I really have to eat those little wafers and drink that grape juice? I have no desire to share the body and blood of Christ by eating him. Do you do that? Why? Maybe its one of those things that you have to have instilled in you from birth. Maybe I had a chance to think things through before it was pushed down my throat. Maybe I don't have to be just like you. I'll take my chances. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Rapparee Date: 30 Jan 05 - 08:41 PM Of course not. "Christianity" simply refers to the way of life that those who follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are supposed to follow. ("It was in Antioch that they were first called Christians.") |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,lost sheep Date: 30 Jan 05 - 08:44 PM Someone's been at the communion wine? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST Date: 30 Jan 05 - 08:44 PM yes I really do believe YOU are wrong ! there may be a 'God'; there may be an eternal life; there may well be a chosen path for each and all.. but one thing definitely for certain is that you today as an individual living breathing human being, YOU are definitely WRONG in the head and so out of control you could be potentially harmfull to other people.. unless of course this is all just a joke.. a wind up and irony amongst internet board sparring partners ???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: akenaton Date: 30 Jan 05 - 08:45 PM And another thing ...Where are all the bold Christians who posted to the Religious Left thread. GS is stating your case unequivocally, are you too embarrased to defend him.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Bobert Date: 30 Jan 05 - 08:48 PM Yo Mike, I'm glad that you have found Salvation and as a follower of Christ myself would offer one small bit of advice. Yellin' at folks ain't gonna convert anyone. Just be you. Live as you know Jesus would have you live. Let your words and deeds glorify Him and leave it at that. Testimonials are fine when preachin' to the choir but don't work too well outside the choir. Might of fact, they are often detrimental... Teach, don't preach. Yeah, I know I spend a lot of time on the soapbox but, inspite of some folks feelings that I preach too much, I'm stickin' with my story that I am trying to say the things that I think Jesus would say about the current state of affairs. But I love all my Christian brothers, fir sure... (Okay, as well as my non-Christian brothers Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST Date: 30 Jan 05 - 08:49 PM is it such a fragile boundary between absolute faith and insanity ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Doug Chadwick Date: 30 Jan 05 - 09:19 PM There's never a lion round when you need one! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Pogo Date: 30 Jan 05 - 09:22 PM Well you know....in many cultures they have 'holy fools' ;O) Uhm...if that's the way he feels...more power to him. Seems like it works for 'im *shrugs* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 30 Jan 05 - 09:26 PM Hey, Ake: Boldness has nothing to do with it. I am not Mike. Mike is doing what he feels is right to do. I won't criticize him for that. I am not trying to "save" anyone. I am trying to live my life, and not always doing the best job I could. I am not telling you, or anyone else what to do with theirs. I believe that you are doing your best to live your life in the way that you think is right. That's all we can do. I wish you well. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Nerd Date: 30 Jan 05 - 09:26 PM Um, I'm a Jew. Am I, like, going to Hell and stuff? Get real, GS... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Sorcha Date: 30 Jan 05 - 09:34 PM As a non Christian who as no desire to be converted and does not belive in prostelyzing, this whole thread bothers me a lot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Teresa Date: 30 Jan 05 - 09:36 PM In a way, I'm relieved that this isn't an endless discussion about proving and disproving the existence of God. To me it's like waiting for a cat to bark or a dog to meow. Mike, I respect you as a person, to the extent that I can through this forum. I believe you have true convictions. I am not a Christian myself, and I will never, ever tell others how they should believe. I appreciate what bobert has said and agree with him: "teach; don't preach." I've been there with various things, and it doesn't work to proselytize. The harder thing to do is to look for the depths in yours and others' souls or being, and to love all the things that are common in people. Isn't there a bible verse that goes: "Judge not, lest ye be judged."? (I don't know my bible verses well, but that one popped into my head. Teresa |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST Date: 30 Jan 05 - 09:38 PM is it just my concern that when devoutly religious individuals work themselves up into such an extreme fit of over-ecstatic 'hell and damnation' rightiousness as this, they are dangerously close to transforming their essential being into something quite evil ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Once Famous Date: 30 Jan 05 - 09:43 PM Georgiansilver, well as long as you asked: Yes, you are a freak, you don't know what you are talking about, and you are wrong. I really believe that. But you are a pretty good guy anyway and from what I can see, fairly harmless. Mazel Tov. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: dianavan Date: 30 Jan 05 - 10:05 PM Georgiansilver - I really don't know what I said to set you off that way. Calm down, please. I don't disprove Christianity. I know that when people believe in whatever it is the church fathers tell them to believe, it becomes true for them. I don't deny you your beliefs, please do not deny mine. I have said on previous threads that I have not been baptised. That was my parents choice. They did encourage me to study all religions and to visit churches of many denominations. I did just that. Religion doesn't scare me but you'd have to go a long way to convince me that God is male or that Jesus was the only son of God or that I have to partake of the blood and body of Christ. Come to think of it, I also do not believe that I was born a sinner or that I have anything to confess. I will also withold my tithes from any church that invests in war. I prefer to do my own good deeds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Once Famous Date: 30 Jan 05 - 10:15 PM Male bashing of God doesn't surprise me from that ranting feminist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: dianavan Date: 30 Jan 05 - 11:16 PM What the hell is male bashing of God? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Clinton Hammond Date: 30 Jan 05 - 11:19 PM The burden is not in providing DISproof... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof... I've yet to see ANY evidence, extraordinary or otherwise to support the existence of any 'supreme being' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: dianavan Date: 30 Jan 05 - 11:21 PM I don't think God has a sexual organ. Why would it be needed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Nerd Date: 30 Jan 05 - 11:52 PM To f*ck everyone who isn't Christian? Or maybe to screw with georgiansilver... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:24 AM
30-Jan-05 - 08:45 PM Thread Name: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. And another thing ...Where are all the bold Christians who posted to the Religious Left thread. GS is stating your case unequivocally, are you too embarrased to defend him.... Not all Christians feel it's appropriate to evangelize. Some do, and I can respect that. But it's not my approach. I've worked in may Catholic and other Christian social justice programs through the years - but I make sure I work only in the ones that don't preach. Mike is stating his case unequivocally, but it's not my approach to Christianity. Different strokes for different folks. Evangelical Christianity is very different from us progressives. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:31 AM Oh my goodness... :-) Calm down, GS, that's my advice. Be happy in your Truth and let others find theirs in the way that best suits them. How do you know that the Spirit of Christ is not living within all great religions? How do you know that the Spirit of Christ was not incarnated in certain other individuals, such as Buddha or Krisna, to name two obvious candidates? You don't. I'm telling you that it is a distinct possibility. The Spirit of Christ may be an eternal conscious principle that incarnates wherever and whenever it is needed...and not just on this little blue planet, 3rd from the sun...and the man "Jesus" whom you are familiar with from the Bible may have been speaking AS that indwelling Spirit of Christ which is within ALL living beings when he said "I am the WAY...etc..." If you were born a Hindu you would have found the words of the Christ Spirit issuing from the mouth of Krishna, and you would have found those words in their holy book, the Baghavad Gita. In other words, the living WAY speaks from the mouth of a god-filled man and says "I am the WAY". That doesn't mean the WAY is limited only to that man. It doesn't mean that man is the WAY, it means the WAY is speaking through that man. Buddha may also have been spoken through by that WAY. Krishna may also have been spoken through by that WAY. I think you are confusing the man with the power that illuminated the man, that's what I think. The WAY has always been and always shall be. In China, it was called the great Tao (The Way). The mouths through which it speaks command attention, and their words often result in the writing of holy books, and the launching of a new religion or philosophy (like Taoism). That is what happened around Jesus of Nazareth. The new religion built on his words by his followers who survived him (physically) was one more reiteration of a very ancient spiritual message. And it WON'T be the last... God is Love. Love does not secure itself through scare tactics. There are almost certainly many living souls right now on other planets. They are not going to go to hell, because they haven't heard of the Bible or of Jesus. The principle that is the Christ ("the anointed one") no doubt lives inside them too, and inside every atom, but it will not manifest to them AS the man, Jesus. It will manifest as someone else. It will still be the same Spirit, regardless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:37 AM Disproving another person's opinion is about as foolish an undertaking as inviting another to disprove one;s own. Opinions ain't facts and can't be facts under current orders of magnitude of ability -- the horse power isn't invested int hem by a long shot to make them that real -- they're opinions in the shallowest sense of the word. GS, why are you so desperate to wrassle others with your opinions? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:41 AM He's genuinely afraid they'll be doomed if he doesn't convince them, that's why, Amos. It must be quite a burden, the weight of such an assumption. I get the shivers just thinking about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: hilda fish Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:00 AM I often wish I could believe in all that Christianity stuff - it would make my life so much easier to have faith and trust in something outside ones own existence. In a way I'd never have to question or worry about anything. However I find, intellectually, that I just can't 'believe'. Once a very dear friend who was also into total conversion of others (he often called me a heathen) explained that his life had no meaning without his faith; in fact that the reason he took Jesus to his heart was because he was so desperate that the only other choice was suicide. That seemed pretty reasonable to me. Another dear friend is bound in the love of the Holy Trinity, father, son, and holy ghost. She lives her life with love, and I love her very much so that's also okay with me. I have Budhists, Wicca, Catholics, Taoists, Hindu's, Protestants, Communists, Anarchists, Åtheists, Ågnostics, Pagans, and total Cynics as friends and I respect all their beliefs. Don't affect me as I know who I am and how I live. I'm grounded and clear. My son, prior to his death, went to church with my foster son, his brother, who went to church to fight a terrible drug habit and bad life style. I had a great old time when they invited me to come along, singing Karoake hymns. I bawled the hymns out at the top of my voice. They never asked me again but for a little minute before my dear boy died, the faith that is involved in Çhristianity gave him some peace. So still I have no more faith in Jesus than I ever had, or ever will, but I am glad that people 'believe' in whatever it is they believe in because it probably makes them either better, or happier people. It upsets me when, through the faiths that people have, they say that I am less than them. I am not - if I can give respect and sensitivity, then I have a right to receive it as well. The Christian attitude that says that particularly Indigenous people are 'less than' attitude has also said that my people deserve death and that's a real problem for me. Fortunately there have been some stunning Christians as well as many other faiths in this world who love and respect, and are prepared to die for their fellow humans rights. So good luck to everyone and in the end, I'm sorry to say this, but who cares really? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: hilda fish Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:01 AM In short I'm saying faith of any sort is a lovely old thing and if it gets you through the night then good luck - but faith can't be proved - and why should it be? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:04 AM Indeed. Faith in friends and family is wonderful too. And faith in Life itself. Life is holy and beautiful. There's little point in trying to prove faith. One might as well try to prove Love... Better to just have it than prove it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:09 AM "The most ominous of all these trends is the ''millions of Christian fundamentalists,'' as Bill Moyers the journalist-philosopher recently remarked, who ''believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming apocalypse.'' America and the world do not deserve to be guided by such ignorance. Moyers reminds us this trend goes back to James Watt, President Reagan's first secretary of the Interior, who: ''Told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ.'' In public testimony he said, ''after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.'' These days, the belief resonates strongly, Moyers goes on, with ''nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent election - 231 legislators in total - more since the election - [who] are backed by the religious right.'' " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Peace Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:12 AM "Beware of stupid people in groups." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:12 AM Odd... it seems so plain to me that faith that requires that you MUST gain agreement from others is not faith at all, but a shoddy cardboard imitation of the genuine spiritual article. When a clarity and simplicity that actually has divine sensibility to it gives way to obsessive proselytization, a serious short circuit has occurred. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: dianavan Date: 31 Jan 05 - 02:56 AM Doug Chadwick - You are quick and witty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Georgiansilver Date: 31 Jan 05 - 03:47 AM Thank you for all your replies. I have enjoyed reading them, Best wishes, Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Paul Burke Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:26 AM "O.K so you really believe what you believe but you cannot disprove "Christianity"" What do you mean by "Christianity"? Is a person who believes that Jesus existed but was not God a Christian? Is an atheist who follows as many of his social teachings as Christians do a Christian? Is a Roman Catholic/ Happy Clappy (insert your own variant out of 10000) a Christian for that matter? And as for 'disproving' it? What is there to disprove? You make historical assertions, it's up to you to support them with evidence. Can you disprove that the Duke of Wellington or Jack the Ripper was the Son of God? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Gervase Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:59 AM 'Thanks for the replies, I have enjoyed reading them' Eh? But what was the point of the original post? Is it some form of Tourette's? Are you seeking endorsement from fellow Christians? Has someone recently challenged your 'faith' and made it necessary for you to make some sort of public statement? Are are you simply some benign happy-clappy experiencing som sort of rapture that you really felt you had to share? Whatever. I'm sure that Jesus - in between being in control of global warming, genocide and those pesky non-believers - will pause, smile and give you a nice gold star. Now get back to your crayons and draw us a nice picture of an angel, there's a good chap. As for being accepted into his 'kingdom' - if it's gibbering bores who post that sort of naive claptrap then I'll decline, ta very muchly. And anyway - I prefer republics. What's god's view on those? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Jim Tailor Date: 31 Jan 05 - 07:28 AM I don't think that the issue is so much whether or not one can "disprove" Christianity. I think that what seems to matter to most people is demonstrated by Clinton Hammond's astute observation -- Christianity cannot be empirically demonstrated. It doesn't mean Christianity, or God, is not an objective reality (string theory cannot be empirically demonstrated -- but doubt it at your scientific credibility's peril!). It just means that, at least right now, the supernatural elements upon which Christianity have much foundation (beyond philosophy) cannot be duplicated or demonstrated in a laboratory. They can be demonstrated in living -- but so can any philosophy. It has always been interesting to me that the foundational text from which Christianity draws its reason for existance is repleat with supernatural demonstration. "GILLIGANNNNNNNNN! Well, little buddy, look at the mess you've created now!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 31 Jan 05 - 07:55 AM While I give you the benefit of the doubt, Mike and accept that you meant well by this thread, I have serious problems with it. The whole question (or in your case, a challenge) of proving, or dissproving faith is an oxymoron. It is a specious, more destructive than helpful approach to anyone's belief. Intentional or not, it is insulting to my Muslims sons and my agnostic son. And to all my friends on here who do not believe in God. And there are many. It is wounding to people, not encouraging. It is even discouraging to me, and makes me question whether I should even mention my faith. I don't see my life as an example for anyone else, and I don't feel it is my responsibility to "Save" anyone else. My only responsibility is to live the most loving life that I can, be honest about my weaknesses, and give thanks for what I call my blessings. Others find that word discomforting, or too "loaded," and they will express it in a different way. For any Christian, the first call after loving God, is to love your neighbor as yourself. For me, that means encouraging and supporting others, praising them for their good works and respecting their beliefs. If I offend others in here, stating what I believe on occasion, it is not my intent and I am sorry for it. I do it, because my faith is part of who I am. If it is not part of who someone else is, I still respect and love them the best that I can. I also, by the way, find claims of being "saved," very troublesome. I occasionally meet up with a Christian who immediately asks me, "When were you saved?" First of all, the state of my soul is a private matter, that I wouldn't discuss with someone else. More importantly, I see some Christians who want to divide the world into the "Saved" and the "Not-Saved." No one knows another person's heart, or the reason for their actions, just as I don't know Mike's. There are people who do good deeds for selfish reasons, and people who do something that appears to be mean-spirited, with a good, if misguided heart. And some of the finest, most loving people I have known in my life are Atheists. Sad to say, maybe it's time to take a break from discussing Christianity for awhile. I hate to say that, because I know that there will continue to be more of the 100 Things I hate about Christians threads springing up. I just don't want to be a part of offending people. I wish you well, Mike. I believe that your heart is in the right place. I just can't walk beside you in this way. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Com Seangan Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:11 AM I ran through all the posts - and now I am just running. Good people are good people - whether they have a religion or not. I never saw a religious discussion of this kind to end amicably. Maybe people would be better without organised religions - all claiming to be right and the others wrong. The person who wrote the original post seems to be an upset person. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Mr Red not being silly today Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:30 AM reducto ad absurdum you begin with the opposite premise and by a series of logical arguements reach an absurd conclusion thus proving the original assumption was absurd. It only works on logic, religions are beliefs. Ergo - you can't prove Christianity. But if it works for you - don't let me spoil the party. I believe in human nature - but it would take too long to itemise good the bad and the ugly and just proving who they each are can be slow and painful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Mrr Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:53 AM Luckily, the sensible don't try to prove the normal; it is the ridiculous claim that requires proof. I don't have to "disprove" Christianity, it is too silly to consider rationally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 31 Jan 05 - 10:10 AM Depends on how you define "Christianity", doesn't it? I must have heard at least a thousand definitions of it by now. :-) Jesus was not a Christian! (in my opinion) A Christian is a self-proclaimed member of a group that he has indentified in his own mind, and then said to himself, "I am one of these people." Since the many groups of Christians differ enormously from one another, and even often disagree violently with one another, it becomes quite confusing deciding what the word "Christian" means, frankly. It appears to me perhaps to mean something in denial of something else...such as, "I'm a Christian, meaning...I'm NOT a Muslim, etc..." I don't worry about it. I'm a human being. I don't have to call myself a Christian or anything else in order to follow a spiritual path and seek God. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Once Famous Date: 31 Jan 05 - 10:21 AM dinavan, last time I check the Lord's Prayer started "Our Father, etc." that and why God is referred to as "Him" just about everywhere except in the most feminist of worlds leads me to believe God does not wear a bra and panties. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Laurie Date: 31 Jan 05 - 10:26 AM So, there's a big man up in the sky who started everything, controls everything and will give you pleasure for ever after you die. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Mrr Date: 31 Jan 05 - 11:23 AM Martin Gibson - had you ever worn a bra, you would know that even a female goddess wouldn't! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Once Famous Date: 31 Jan 05 - 11:32 AM Oh, C'mon, that's BS. If you have a nice large set you know that you will be wearing a bra out of necessity to prevent getting smacked in the face when running or to prevent a shoeshine if you are over 40. goddesses included. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 31 Jan 05 - 11:37 AM I can't "prove" Howdy Doody, either -- I believe there was a bond between Clarabelle and Chief Thunderthud, and that they were two people, not three. But there is no empirical proof to be had. Nor is there any disproof. The fictionality of the elements immediately places them beyond the pale of such exercises in logic. Now Doonesbury, on the other hand....that, I am sure of. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Mrs.Duck Date: 31 Jan 05 - 11:38 AM This is too weird. I am actually in full agreement with Clinton Hammond. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Don Firth Date: 31 Jan 05 - 11:55 AM Sorry, GS, but no sale. To say that because you cannot prove God does not exist means that He must exist is to frame the argument in a logical fallacy. Note the following: Clicky. And this is only one of dozens of web sites (not to mention philosophy textbooks and books written by theologians) that contain the same information. St. Thomas Aquinas, when he discovered the writings of Aristotle, particularly Aristotle's formal rules of logic, tried to put together logical proofs for the existence of God using Aristotle's almost mathematically precise rules of proof. That, incidentally, was one of the reasons the Church made him a saint. But it turned out that Aquinas's zeal to prove the existence of God and a certain lack of scientific objectivity tended to make his use of Aristotelian logic a bit less than rigorous. The arguments all sound good. In fact, the argument you are presenting is essentially identical to one of his. But none of the arguments he put forth hold up to close scrutiny. They all contain a fatal fallacy, and the fallacy that shoots down the argument you made is called argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance). Which is to say, "You are ignorant of any proof that God does not exist, therefore, He must exist." You can use the argument from ignorance to "prove" the existence of little green men walking the earth. "They can make themselves invisible, so no one sees them, but they're there!" "That's crazy," you say? "Well, you can't prove they're not there!" Sorry. Doesn't wash. Gotta do better than that. Note #1: Since it is impossible to prove the existence of God, ascribing characteristics to God such as what God wants or doesn't want, what God believes, who God chooses as good or bad, or, for that matter, God's gender, is an exercise in pure speculation. Note #2: Belief in God is a matter of faith. If it were possible to prove the existence of God, faith would be unnecessary. The opposite of faith is not doubt, the opposite of faith is certainty. Note #3: Do not assume that because I refute your assertion, this necessarily means that I do not (or, for that matter, do) believe in the existence of a higher power. That's a whole different issue. Respectfully submitted, Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:28 PM ever considered, and this could be even more a concern to moderate christians as any one else, that powerful and politicaly influential extremist evangelical right-wing absolutist christians may actually be misguided and unwitting pawns of the devil ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Don Firth Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:40 PM Well, yes, as a matter of fact. To use the millenialist jargon, it is said that no one will recognize the Anti-Christ when he comes; that the Anti-Christ will appear "in a pleasing shape" and deceive a good many people, including devout Christians. Kinda makes ya wonder, don't it? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Once Famous Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:41 PM Like the Pope himself, Guest? ever considered why people say they are going to take a shit, when in fact, they leave one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:44 PM The opposite of faith is certainty? How strange?I think this is a matter of definiton. From a human perspective, certainty is a condition of knowing unambiguously about some reality. Often this means using some formalized kind of logic to test and validate what one knows, such as a survey of agreements, or an instrumented device, or some mathematical series, or a two-valued set of logical steps such as Aristotle used. Empiricism, a sort of Newtonian claim to objective reality-testing, is often used. But the net effect is unambiguous knowing. Faith, depending on the kind used (there are several) can also produce a sense of unambiguous knowing, but without the rigor of any logical system, mathematical test or empirical validation. That is why faith often lures in those of weak mental capacities as a substitute for reason. But even the strong minded may find faith as a fine source of certainty when dealing with what seems to be unknowable, like the face of God or her nature. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Bill D Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:44 PM you mean, Pamela Anderson MIGHT be the anti-christ?....I always suspected it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:51 PM ok.. own up.. is anyone here the Antichrist ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:00 PM Ya...I didn't want to say anything, I qwas afraid you would disapprove.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Don Firth Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:08 PM True indeed, Amos. I was speaking there of scientific certainty. In a philosophy lecture I heard some centuries ago, the speaker (who was an atheist, but not a hard-charging one—he just said he couldn't see the sense in believing in something as "speculative" as the existence of a god, any god—discussed the various Aristotelian "proofs." When he came to the "Argument from First Cause" (Everything in the universe has a cause. But God was the First Cause), he pointed out that the supposed syllogism is self-contradictory. If everything has a cause, then God Him/Herself has to have a cause, otherwise the argument falls apart. If the premise is true, the conclusion can't be, and it is perfectly legitimate to ask, "Okay, what caused God?" If the conclusion is true, the premise can't be, and the laws of Cause and Effect must be abandoned. The ultimate result of this is epistemological chaos. What he zinged in on was that since humans so often give God the credit or the blame for the atrocious things that they do, if scientists actually discover beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists and begin to actually document God's nature and characteristics (included God's Will), these folks would then have to invent SUPER-God to justify their atrocities. Don Firth P. S. Pamela Anderson? What can I say but "Oink!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:18 PM Scientific certainty? Tests against time? Tests protected from contamination by shields of unknowing, known as double blind? SUrely you are aware that there is evidence accumulating that knowing is non-local? The kind of certainty that these constructs provide is pretty much just as unambiguous as the kind provided by faith, but has more pretensions, in that it makes certain assumptions and uses them to define procedures that will be considered reliable. That's a methodology that has a lot of consensus. But if knowing really is non-local, then those methods are only good for physics and part of biology, not all of science. It becomes an issue similar to what rules apply at a costume ball where everyone wears a masque. You get the feeling that the protocols are a bit different than they would be if everyone was being their true selves!:D The nature of the knower doesn't usually get included in the methods allowed for knowing. In that respect, scientific certainty is "unnatural" knowing. Curiouser and curiouser. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Nerd Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:42 PM Hey, Wasn't GS the guy who used to say "God Bless You" all the time, and people got mad, and he said "well, I just can't understand why you think I'm trying to evangelize! You are all attacking me for trying to force my beliefs on you, but I'm not!" Guess what? Now you are... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Peace Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:45 PM At the risk of causing a schism such as never been before (well, OK, a little thread drift), why is it that when religion threads arise someone always brings up the topic of logic? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,harpgirl Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:45 PM No Laurie, God is a Puerto Rican lesbian... who wears leotards but no bra. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Ebbie Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:49 PM To be an observant Jew and cite the New Testament's 'Lord's Prayer' as indicative of God's sex seems strange to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: just john Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:55 PM "Disproving" a religion sounds like taking the cholesterol count of a song. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Georgiansilver Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:59 PM It was "Be Blessed" that appeared at the end of my posts.... There was no intention to annoy or upset people when I started this thread, neither was there by putting Be Blessed at the end of those old postings of mine. However, it has sparked a lively discussion about peoples beliefs and caused some of you to think I've "lost it". I am not niaive enough to think that evangelising here would be in any way successful but this thread has sure attracted a lot of attention. I am also not so niaive as to think I could force an opinion or belief on anyone as most of you probably know by now. I do think I could have worded the post better but was a bit rushed and under pressure at the time. Please keep the posts coming and sorry if anyone was in any way offended. Best wishes, Mike. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Ebbie Date: 31 Jan 05 - 02:12 PM I just read your first post, Georgiansilver. I won't say you are wrong and I won't say you are a freak but I do think you are seriously misled. Elva Bontrager |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Nerd Date: 31 Jan 05 - 02:25 PM I think the following part of Mike's post is indicative of his frame of mind: "this thread has sure attracted a lot of attention." Mike just wanted attention, folks! This was a cry for help... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: wysiwyg Date: 31 Jan 05 - 02:27 PM Actually it's my fault. I forgot to tell Mike that you have to be a member here for at least three years before you're allowed to start a religion thread. :~) ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Once Famous Date: 31 Jan 05 - 02:46 PM Ebbie, you and others keep showing how little you know about Judiasm. Christians don't have an exclusive on The Lord's Prayer. He was our God first, remember? And there is a difference between an observant Jew and a religious Jew, Ebbie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Nerd Date: 31 Jan 05 - 03:11 PM Yeah, but isn't the "Lord's Prayer" from the Gospel according to Matthew? It's not a Jewish prayer in any case! We call him "Adonai Elohenu," ("the Lord our god,") not "our father," although we also conceptualize him as male. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Cats Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:27 PM My sister, who's a minister, and I, a Pagan, have spent hours discussing this same thing..ish. And even she can't prove to me JC ever existed, consequently, I don't have to disprove it either. If you want to beleive in your God and JC, then believe, but don't shout at people who don't believe in the same god as you. What would happen if people did not go out on May Day to bring up the sun? You can't tell me it's a scientific fact that it would rise as there are too many people all over the world who don't take that chance. I'm happy with my Old Gods and by the way, Happy Imbolc for tomorrow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Peace Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:36 PM Some of y'all might want to see where some stuff was decided. FYI. http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum01.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Once Famous Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:44 PM I think I might be thing of "The Lord is My shepard, etc." which is what I have seen/heard used in reform services. I stand corrected, however, my original issue was that the "Our Father" prayer did not go "Our Mother, etc" which disputes the whole God is a woman thing. God is not a woman, and Dolly Parton is not a man. Only demasculating feminists have trouble with the God is a man thing, I believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Morticia Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:57 PM Anyone watching this particular gentleman's "career" on the Mudcat could see quite easily that he constantly posts for attention or to start contentious arguments on subjects already done to death, such as the censorship thread. He can also be incredibly offensive and innapropriate and the fact that he then apologises, quite frankly, leaves me cold. I'm just sorry so many people reward him with the attention he clearly craves......it simply feeds his craving.But it was ever thus, I suppose and now I am as bad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:59 PM Must admit I find the 69's and bible bashing a bit creepy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: el_punkoid_nouveau Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:00 PM Martin - have you ever met Her (God, I mean)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: MBSLynne Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:04 PM God isn't a woman...but the Godess is |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:05 PM Question for Martin Gibson. Who circumcised God? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: lady penelope Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:10 PM Let's all remember - It's never to late to have a happy childhood. Just some of us need one more than others.................. Love and kisses Lady P. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:17 PM Man, Martin: Even your conversations about God are below the belt. (A hint... God doesn't wear a belt.) Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Once Famous Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:18 PM Morticia, why do they call you that? Are you a mortician or are you really Morticia Addams? GOD IS NOT A WOMAN! Question for Guest: What size tampons does god (dess) wear? You moron. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Once Famous Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:20 PM BTW, Morticia, anyone who considers their precense on Mudcat a "career" as you put it, is certainly lacking a life. I doubt that you have much of one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: EagleWing Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:26 PM Martin Gibson says "dinavan, last time I check the Lord's Prayer started "Our Father, etc." that and why God is referred to as "Him" just about everywhere except in the most feminist of worlds leads me to believe God does not wear a bra and panties." Actually a reasonable reading of the Bible would show that God has both male and female attributes. "God created man in his own image male and female he created them. So God's creation in his own image is both male and female! Isaiah refers to God "Can a mother desert her children" This may be a view of God that some Christians find difficult but you will find it there in the Bible. Jesus said of Jerusalem, "How often would I have gathered you under my wings but you would not." Even Jesus uses a female metaphor for himself. Like many others, I believe that GS' original post was not well thought out - faith is not for proving or disproving, it's for living. But if Martin is going to say things like the above he should at least check out the text-book. Frank L. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: el_punkoid_nouveau Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:28 PM Well said Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: MBSLynne Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:34 PM Oh dear..Martin must be losing ...he's getting personally offensive again. Btw Martin...don't make ageist assumptions..I'm waaay over 40 and have a 'good set' but they are nowhere near my shoes..in fact I've seen women twenty or more years younger than me with droopier boobs. Love Lynne xx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:35 PM Martin, the reason why God is normally referred to as "He" in all those old holy books from the Middle East is because men were running EVERYTHING back then in the Middle East. Men were like little gods in that society. They made the Big God in their own image. Women were little more than baby-makers, slaves, and beasts of burden. They didn't write the books. :-) And that's the only reason for it. It's nothing to be proud of. It's ridiculous to suppose that God is either male OR female, and even more ridiculous to speculate as to what kind of clothing God would wear! (As if God would need any clothing...!) But, hey, thanks for the laugh! :-) God is a Spirit. Spirit is not limited to one gender or the other. If God is only masculine, then where did femininity come from, Martin? (That oughta open a can of worms! Yowsa! I can't wait for the answer.) Beats me how in the world an independent thinker like you, Martin...a guy who doesn't let other people intimidate him...can let a bunch of bearded, illiterate, primitive, and rather bloodthirsty sheepherders from 3,000 years ago do his thinking for him now in 2005!!! I'd have figured you for a guy that makes up his own mind from actual experience, rather than relying on the most extraordinarily unlikely hearsay. Specially hearsay from 2,500 or more years ago. Martin, ol' pal, I am convinced that if you had been born in a Muslim family, you'd be a devout Muslim right now...you might even belong to Hamas or something like that. And if you'd been born in a Hindu family, you'd be consulting the Baghavad Gita for the answers... :-) In the Hindu traditions, God is seen as inclusive of both male and female qualities. That indicates that Hindus are just a wee bit more aware than Middle Easterners used to be 2,500 years ago. The fact that people are willing to automatically believe stuff that was written 2,500 years ago by someone they never met simply on the basis of faith proves that people are capable of believing anything...as long as it came from a source they regarded as "authoritative" in their particular family or culture. I think that you're an unconscious product of the culture you were born in, Martin...as are most people. To become free in heart and mind is to think beyond the limits of the culture you were born in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: EagleWing Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:36 PM "Only demasculating feminists have trouble with the God is a man thing, I believe." Wrong. I mistrust feminism (or at least the examples of it I have encountered) but I DO have problems with the "God is a man thing". God is neither male nor female but has elements of both. I still call God "Father" but I most certainly recognise the "mother" element. Frank L. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Once Famous Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:40 PM God created man in his image. He didn't create man in her image. She came next from his rib if I remember right. So cut the crap, please. I'm certainly not buying that shit. MBSLynne, I'm glad to hear about your over 40 perky boobs. As long as you want to talk about them, pink or brown? Little Hawk, I'm convinced that if you were born to a devout Moslem family, you would have been dead years ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:43 PM If a bunch of male rabbits wrote a book about God, then their God would most certainly be presented as a very powerful male rabbit. :-) It's that silly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Peace Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:47 PM "Perky boobs." I am envisioning that and considering starting a new religion. I'll get back to you all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Once Famous Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:49 PM Rabbits don't write books. But I once had a dream about a growling bunny. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:50 PM Not necessarily, Martin. I've met living Muslims who were free thinkers and still managed to live as long as me... :-) What IS the image of a Spirit, Martin? Is it a "man"? I don't think so. It's a Spirit. And Spirit is not limited by gender or by physical form. The "image" spoken of in the holy books is not a physical image, it's a spiritual image. It is consciousness itself, that's what it is. God is consciousness and self-awareness. So are we...men and women included. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:01 PM Yes, but if rabbits DID write books, they would portray God as an all-powerful rabbit...most likely male. Male rabbits are very macho and arrogant. I know. I used to take care of the little rascals. About 100 of them. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Once Famous Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:01 PM That's too Christian for me, LH. All of that Holy Spirit trinity stuff. But I do know that I carry God with me in my heart. Jesus though, I sent out for a newspaper and some doughnuts. But then again, their was "Spirit in the Sky" by Norman Greenbaum, but I heard he might have been one of those loony Jews for Jesus. Many of them still drive around in old Volkswagens, you know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Don Firth Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:02 PM No, no, no! You've got it all wrong! God made Eve first. He made her with three breasts. She looked down and said, "I don't know about this. I think two would be more than sufficient." So God removed one of the breasts and Eve was happy. God stood there in the garden and thought, "Now, what can I do with a useless boob?" Then God made man. Don (at least that's what some of my women friends tell me) Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:23 PM Heh! Okayyyyy, then.... So did Jesus come through on that newspaper and donut, Martin? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: *Laura* Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:32 PM "God knew what she meant when she invented men" - anonymous quote on a postcard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Rustic Rebel Date: 31 Jan 05 - 07:25 PM What is the deal with keeping women down back then (well for that matter, even today in many cultures)? Was it a fear of them? Some kind of inward loathing? Jealousy? I don't know but I posted something very similar today on a different thread about how women were supposed to be quiet. Men were not to be taught by women. I don't need to go over that again but I would like to say that all this bogus crap about women in the bible, I sure as hell hope that God wasn't a woman! That would be a disgrace to women, that's for sure. It seems to me I heard long time ago women did do some writing but those books ended up 'missing'. Peace, Rustic |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Leadfingers Date: 31 Jan 05 - 07:28 PM 100 !!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Leadfingers Date: 31 Jan 05 - 07:29 PM Well it would have been if Rustic hadnt been posting at the same time as me !! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 31 Jan 05 - 07:45 PM This thread is reee-dickle-dockle!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: beardedbruce Date: 31 Jan 05 - 07:57 PM GS, I am glad you have found what you have, but... Matthew 24:23- So if you need to tell us about it, are you not (possibly) deceived? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Jan 05 - 08:31 PM Hmmmm. We certainly have been heavy on religion the last several days. All I see is bigotry, in all directions. Is there a way we can find tolerance and respect in all this? Why not? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Once Famous Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:03 PM I would say without any humming whatsover, Joe No. Because.
Say it isn't so. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:43 PM Would it were so, Joe. Again, I go back to the opening post of the Religous Left thread. There was a time when people could march together, working for a common good. There are still people like that on here, Joe. They just get ridiculed or fouled out by the few. I don't know if intolerance is greater in Mudcat than in the real world today or not. But, I also remember a time when the folk community prided itself on being welcoming of all people without prejudice. It was one of the things that drew me, and many of us I'm sure to the folk community. Now, it seems like the folk community welcomes people who think like the folk community. It was probably always that way. I just didn't notice, I guess. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Boab Date: 31 Jan 05 - 10:12 PM Toungue in cheek, like Rabbie Burns---"He tried His 'prentice haund on man---and then He made the Lasses!" Ribaldry aside, if My God was ever known in the Old Testament, it was never mentioned in the writings there. I found some marvellous scripture in the O.T.---Proverbs, Song of Solomon are but two examples, ---but I also found some air-headed balderdash about the Earth being mass-produced in six days, Adam and his spare rib, Charlton Heston talking to a burning bush and reappearing with Ten Commandments all neatly sculpted from "tablets of Stone" [was that before or after the Red Sea suddenly dried up just exactly where Moses and his friends needed to keep their feet dry?], Noah and his ark, Lot's wife, and the poor guys who can't "enter the congregation of the Lord" because of some injury to their goolies. And a multitude of pointless "begats". Pointless, at least to anything other than Hebrew history, pure and simple. The True God got the first emphatic mention in the voice of the Baptist, who saw in Jesus of Nazareth the personification of pure Love. He proclaimed the identity of our God then and there. And both John and Jesus died in misery and degradation. I don't think either would approve of Mike's view of Christianity----"Be our kind of Christian, or you'll burn in Hell!" A faith that depends for its existence on direct threats or promise of material reward is no kind of faith at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Feb 05 - 01:04 AM To answer your questions, Joe... Yes. To all of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 01 Feb 05 - 01:51 AM I hear that a word for the creator in the Old Testament usually translated as "God" -- "Elohim," if I remember rightly -- is the feminine plural. Goddesses, Mr Gibson, GODDESSES!!! Can you dig it? clint No grammatical rationalizations, please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 01 Feb 05 - 01:54 AM And Christianity can't be disproved, proved, or even defined. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Georgiansilver Date: 01 Feb 05 - 03:39 AM Beardedbruce, I take your quote and do also know to expect false prophets but if you read Matthew 28 v's 19/20..you may understand where my beliefs take me. However, I do acknowledge that I started this thread under pressure and in frustration...because like everyone else...however hard I try to get it right..I fail often. I should not have allowed my feelings to rise in the way they did and I have gone some way towards apologising for that. Like every other thread on the "Cat" I try to learn something from it in keeping with my beliefs and opinions. As for someone suggesting that I have done it for the "attention" mentioned in one of my posts. The attention mentioned refers to the post, not to me personally. I have a lot of fun on Mudcat and put in a lot of one liners to try to give others a laugh...to lighten a thread where it gets too intense. Perhaps I should stick to doing just that although I do like to see lively debate. Best wishes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Nerd Date: 01 Feb 05 - 03:55 AM I don't think that's right, Clint. I don't think Elohim is specifically feminine plural. El or Eloh=root word for "god" or "deity" (same word as Arabic Allah) im=suffix denoting plural This is where we get "eloheynu" from also eloh+eynu (our). In some areas of the bible, "elohim" refers to various gods of the Hebrews' pagan neighbors, such as the Canaanites' Baal. In other places, it seems to be a "majestic plural" sort of like the "royal we." So if god is referred to as Elohim it does not necessarily mean plural OR female. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: robomatic Date: 01 Feb 05 - 07:17 AM Mike: I guess it depends on what you mean by 'prove.' If one starts out as a disinterested onlooker trying to figure out which is the 'correct' religion (and God hasn't told you already), you could: 1) Look at the one with most adherents 2) Look at the one which has changed the least over its history 3) Look at the one which is most recent 4) Look at the one which most coincided with your personal beliefs, desires, fears, or habits 5) Dispassionately compare all with a common yardstick based on the most objective standards you can find 6) Put all the distinct religious sects you can isolate on pieces of paper, put them in a barrel, and draw one out. As it stands, there are more expressions of belief out there than can possibly be true. My father's definition of religion is: "The Awe in which we hold our ignorance." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Jim Tailor Date: 01 Feb 05 - 07:55 AM "I also remember a time when the folk community prided itself on being welcoming of all people without prejudice. It was one of the things that drew me, and many of us I'm sure to the folk community. Now, it seems like the folk community welcomes people who think like the folk community." That may be true of your experience, Jerry, but looking at the last fifty years of what we call "Folk", it just doesn't seem objectively probable. One of the most significant, influential elements of "Folk" for those fifty years (and longer) has been "protest". If you include labor songs with protest songs you've just included the most significant body of folk in those fifty years. And the whole idea behind labor and protest music is to objectify and demonize the enemy as percieved (whether right or wrong in the characterization or not misses the point -- in fact, the harder you argue that "Folk" got it right with their characterization of that enemy, the more you reinforce my point). In short, no, "folk" is not inclusive or without prejudice. Its populist and popular strength is in that prejudice. It may, in part, explain much rancor that occurs here. When a conservative pops his head up in here (because he enjoys folk from the music angle, or its elements that are not protest oriented) he is intruding in, and threatening the comfort of a closed society that takes great comfort in their unity of belief. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:34 AM Interesting comments, Jim: I came into the folk community in the early 60's, just before Dylan and the surge of protest songs. Protest songs certainly became a larger part of the folk music repertoire for a few years, although there were plenty of Puff The Magic Dragon's, Michael Row The Boat Ashore, Tom Dooley, Cottonfields songs that were also enormously popular. I think, like everything else, each of us defines folk music by what we bring into it. I marched and sang in anti-war demonstrations and wrote some protest songs of my own, but as such, protest songs were never my primary interest in folk music. I loved the old ballads, fiddle tunes, southern mountain music and old gospel most. Given a choice of listening to the Carter Family or a song about Joe Hill, the choice was easy for me. Back in the late 50's and early 60's, I felt welcomed and very comfortable in the folk community. Felt right at home. Politics and religion were rarely talked about (this was in Greenwich Village,) although I know there were circles where politics WERE very important. There was a fair amount of experimenting with drugs, but I could move in the folk circle, being "straight," without a problem. (I think I'll start a thread on this, Jim... I'd appreciate your perspective on it...) Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Davetnova Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:53 AM Chistianity exists. It is a provable fact. There are many, many people who subscibe to it as a religion and who believe sincerely in it's tenets and derive much comfort and solace from it. What cannot be proved (or disproved) are the premises that it is built around. These are a matter of faith and faith needs no proof. Every man has his own and each man's faithis right in his own heart. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Jim Tailor Date: 01 Feb 05 - 09:02 AM "faith needs no proof." Maybe. And ultimately. But it is rarely, if ever, arrived at without evidence. And it is ever held in tension by understanding that not all can ever be known on the one hand, and constant re-examination of data on the other. Have a splendid day! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 01 Feb 05 - 09:24 AM The Awe in which we hold our ignorance What a perfectly splendid description of the mass silliness which passes for spiritual pursuits in many parts of this weary planet, Robo. The whole idea of proselytization, which began this thread, is paradoxical, since it is an organizational and material response to what is notionally a highly personal and revealed metaphysical event. I feel like Spock with that puzzled look on his face, saying "This is not LOGical!". :D Which makes the invitation to use a logical process on it even more absurd. If I were to assert my views with the same fervor as Mike has seen fit to offer to others in this thread, it would start some cats among the pigeons indeed, and no one would be the better for it, so I shall considerately bite my lip. A A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: The DeanMeister Date: 01 Feb 05 - 10:23 AM What a load of b*llocks. I love my life, I love my friends, I love my family. I don't feel the need to conform to mass brainwashing in order to belong. Face it, guys, we're here for a few years. Enjoy it, be nice to people, look after our world, and then die. Whatever "faith" I may have had died sometime ago. People kill themselves, and others, every day because of their particular "faith". It's rather overrated as a force for good, in my opinion. It's about time all that stopped, don't you think? When man finally stops inventing crap about a ficticious afterlife, he may start to make the one we live in a better place. Incidentally, I was an altar boy. Shalom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: EagleWing Date: 01 Feb 05 - 02:33 PM "God created man in his image. He didn't create man in her image. She came next from his rib if I remember right. So cut the crap, please. I'm certainly not buying that shit." Since you can't be bothered to do your own research, Gen: 1v27 reads "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." The verse numbering may be different in the Torah but you will find that passage there. The rib bit (if you want to take any of this literally) is about method, not priority. Frank L |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: EagleWing Date: 01 Feb 05 - 02:38 PM Rustic Rebel says "but I would like to say that all this bogus crap about women in the bible" Quote me some, Rustic. Then perhaps we can discuss it. Frank L. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: EagleWing Date: 01 Feb 05 - 02:41 PM Joe Offer says "Hmmmm. We certainly have been heavy on religion the last several days. All I see is bigotry, in all directions. Is there a way we can find tolerance and respect in all this? Is there a way for an atheist to look at an evangelical Christian who's a good person, and see that person's beliefs as an integral and valuable part of what that person is? Can an evangelical Christian look at an atheist and see the same? Can a progressive Christian look at an Evangelical and see goodness? Evangelicals, can you look at "liberals" and see goodness and intelligence and wisdom?" I am an evangelical Christian and the answer to all those questions is "Yes". But maybe it's different in the US? Frank L |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Ebbie Date: 01 Feb 05 - 02:42 PM This reminds me of a conversation I had years ago. I had remarked that if the story of Adam and Eve is true, those people did not have navels. The person said, Why not?? I said, Think about it- why do we have navels? If we had not been born, we would not have navels. He said, Well, God could give them one. I think they had one. End of conversation. As to a god being judged male or female in a male-dominated society, the answer isn't hard to guess. Kind of like some people's idea of heaven having streets of gold. Gold is sterile; nothing would grow. It is just aknowledging man's vision of wealth and well being. If there is a heaven, it is overwhelmingly green, the color of life. IMO |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 01 Feb 05 - 02:44 PM C'mon, Nerd, I specifically asked for no grammatical rationalizations. How about this: " …1 Samuel 28:13. The witch of Endor tells Saul that she sees 'gods' (elohim) coming up out of the earth; this seems to indicate that the term was indeed used simply to mean something like 'divine beings' in ancient Israel." The way I heard it "El" or "Eloh" or "Eloah" is grammatically feminine, although "-im" is a masculine suffix. I think there's no doubt that Elohim is plural, though. The "majestic plural" was doubtless devised by monotheistic revisionists. On the other hand, I don't know any Hebrew; it's all hearsay to me. Just wanted to needle Mr Gibson a little. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: EagleWing Date: 01 Feb 05 - 02:45 PM Clint said "I hear that a word for the creator in the Old Testament usually translated as "God" -- "Elohim," if I remember rightly -- is the feminine plural." and NERD disagreed. Actually I think it is "El Shaddai" that has feminine connotations - but if anyone with a better knowledge of Hebrew than mine disagrees, I'll back down on that. Frank L. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Nerd Date: 01 Feb 05 - 02:53 PM I learned Hebrew as a child and forgot most of it. But I do have the advantage of you on that! I don't think the majestic plural was made up any more than the royal we is made up. People do weird things with grammar when power relations are concerned. And as for the elohim meaning "deities," yes, that's exactly what I said: "'elohim' refers to various gods of the Hebrews' pagan neighbors, such as the Canaanites' Baal." There is actually a strong feminine aspect to god in mystical Judaism, and "el Shaddai" is part of it, I think. Oddly, Leonard Nimoy was involved in a book about this a few years ago...the second time Spock has come up on this thread! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Jim Tailor Date: 01 Feb 05 - 03:03 PM But maybe it's different in the US? Not in my experience. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: robomatic Date: 01 Feb 05 - 03:27 PM I have long had an immediate antagonistic reaction to the notion of proselytizing. BUT, I have also lived long enough to learn that a lot of my immediate reactions are misplaced or fear based. And I was once in the Bishop Museum in Honolulu where the Polynesian guide went on about the 'moral incursions' made by missionaries in her community. "But," she said, "they also brought us the written language and that was worth everything else!" Re: masculine or feminine God. Dennis Prager gave a talk on that that I attended. He's a conservative Jewish opiner who is not as intransigent as Rush but a lot smarter than Bill. He has a limited radio syndication and a website. His take on God was that obviously God encompassed male and female, but Prager favored continuing to use the male reference as is traditional because while you must love God you must also fear God. I'm concatenating his thought process but that's how I understood it. Reform Jewish prayer is tending to equalize male and female references within prayer readings, and using neutral references to God. I personally find it awkward. Reconstructionist Jewish prayer is more through in pursuing these ends than is Reform. I haven't been to a Conservative Jewish service lately so I don't know what they're doing. All branches of Jewish worship allow female rabbis except for the Orthodox. Rightly or wrongly I think the result is to emasculate God without feminizing God. I don't see the benefit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Rustic Rebel Date: 01 Feb 05 - 04:20 PM I see I'm getting pulled back into this conversation. (There is another thread that I posted to, as I mentioned, but just for you Frank (Posted previous)-Timothy 2:8-15 8-I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. 9-I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10-but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 11-A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12-I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13-For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14-And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15-But women will be saved through childbearing–if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. That's a start on what I mean by bogus- More- Proverbs 12:4 A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband; but she that maketh him ashamed is as rottenness in his bones. How about this one- Leviticus 20:18 If a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness, he hath discovered her fountain,and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from their people. How about - Leviticus 21:7 Thou shall not take a wife that is a whore or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto god. Okay really that's more than I want to say on this, I was actually trying to make things light on the subject but you asked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Frank Date: 01 Feb 05 - 06:01 PM Mike, your proselytizing has no teeth. It's robotic. It's jingoism, sloganism and not coming from a place of compassion because it rolls off your tongue like a recording. No one in their right mind wants to disprove Christianty. Many might question it's validity. You are not completely right just because you say you are by parroting phrases. A true conviction comes from humility and having lived life. You are consigning people to the devil which immediately invalidates your conviction. Who are you to do so? Jesus was, if nothing else, compassionate for those who suffered indecision and doubt. When you read what we know of his words, he didn't rant and rave at disbelievers the way you do. He did rail at injustice as any human being, religious, atheist, agnostic who has real compassion does. But if we have to quote the Bible, remember the part that says, "Those who sayeth Lord Lord may not always enter the Kingdom." In short, cool it. If you really believe it, it will show in your actions and not in your harrangues. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Mr Red Date: 01 Feb 05 - 06:45 PM I believe but I can't prove that belief is beyond proof. Not original but still wit and wisdom in one. Flesh is normal, provable. Spiritual is not - we believe it though. Well some do. Personally I absorb spirits. by Osmosis, and too much of that and you get to talk to god on the big white telephone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Joe Offer Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:04 PM Well, it's beyond proof, but it's reasonably reasonable... Those of us who believe have experienced what we believe in one way or another. I can't prove my wife loves me, either - but I certainly have experienced it, and it's a wonderful, joyful, mysterious thing. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:29 PM Good point, Joe... always gets back to love. Trying to witness for Christianity by talking about people who don't agree with going to Hell might be done out of love, I suppose, but it sure don't come off much that way. As they say, "the proof is in the pudding." If you want to show the value and integrity of the Christian message, just live it. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:30 PM All actual belief brings about the experience called for by the belief. This is not true of intellectual belief, but it is true of the deeper-seated core beliefs that make up the actual construction of world-views, by postulating structures of knowing in which to view and operate in the world. This also extends to a hypnotic belief in the materiality of all space-time. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:33 PM Yup. Always gets back to Love. If it's loving, it's of God. If it's not, it isn't. Clearly, I do not buy into the idea of a wrathful God, a vengeful God, a jealous God, a punishing God...or that one should "fear" God. Not one bit do I buy into any of that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:43 PM Amos - You are so right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 01 Feb 05 - 09:24 PM "A hypnotic belief in the materiality of all space-time?" Is that anything like the incongruent plurality of bimodal clandestiny? Speeka da English, Amos... :-) Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 01 Feb 05 - 09:33 PM "El Shaddai" might be what I was thinking of; as I said I don't know any Hebrew. I would suspect that originally the "gods" created the world, but after the Jews became monotheists "gods" became the Majestic Plural to reconcile present practice with past records. And the royal (& editorial) "we" must have been made up at some time. Language is a creation of humankind. But I'm not presenting any of this as scholarship. Just pokinig fun at a nonsensical premise of G. Silver's and some nonsensical assertions by Martin. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Once Famous Date: 01 Feb 05 - 10:06 PM Robo, I listen to Dennis Prager when I can. Overall, I believe he really has his act together. I also like the traditionalism he referred to and don't really appreciate it being it rewritten in order to be politically correct. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Feb 05 - 10:21 PM Jerry - In regard to what Amos said, I shall quote from Bob Dylan concerning Man: Man thinks 'cause he rules the earth he can do with it as he please And if things don't change soon, he will. Oh, man has invented his doom, First step was touching the moon. Now, there's a woman on my block, She just sit there as the night grows still. She say who gonna take away his license to kill? Now, they take him and they teach him and they groom him for life And they set him on a path where he's bound to get ill, Then they bury him with stars, Sell his body like they do used cars. Now, there's a woman on my block, She just sit there facin' the hill. She say who gonna take away his license to kill? Now, he's hell-bent for destruction, he's afraid and confused, And his brain has been mismanaged with great skill. All he believes are his eyes And his eyes, they just tell him lies. But there's a woman on my block, Sitting there in a cold chill. She say who gonna take away his license to kill? Ya may be a noisemaker, spirit maker, Heartbreaker, backbreaker, Leave no stone unturned. May be an actor in a plot, That might be all that you got 'Til your error you clearly learn. Now he worships at an altar of a stagnant pool And when he sees his reflection, he's fulfilled. Oh, man is opposed to fair play, He wants it all and he wants it his way. Now, there's a woman on my block, She just sit there as the night grows still. She say who gonna take away his license to kill? (In particular: note the lines in italics.) Other than that, I can direct you to at least 2 books that are great, and they explain exactly what Amos was alluding to. George |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 01 Feb 05 - 10:25 PM Maybe you can translate my friend Amos into English, LH? :-) Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Feb 05 - 10:32 PM He's a very heady guy with words, Jerry. :-) I'll PM you about the books. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 01 Feb 05 - 11:21 PM Jerry: Core beliefs, the kind that you build with your very being, are often transparent because you are so much one with them they appear as your point of view, not as something you see from your point of view. This includes the kind of "blind faith in scientific proof" that dictates to the believer that it doesn't matter what he believes, mechanism is what rules. Belief brings about experience. If the deep belief is that this is not the case, then that is what will be experienced. It happens that way because belief brings about experience. To change a belief of this sort you have to be able to exist at an energy level that is higher than the energy level you used to construct the belief. Sometimes this seems difficult, depending on the belief system you hold. Does this make any more sense? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Wolfgang Date: 02 Feb 05 - 09:07 AM Disproving another person's opinion is about as foolish an undertaking as inviting another to disprove one;s own. Opinions ain't facts and can't be facts (Amos) Very wise words. You have said what had bothered me most about GS's approach. Georgiansilver comes over for me like a man having no respect for people not sharing his opinions. I know you couldn't deal with too much praise, Amos, therefore: ...a hypnotic belief in the materiality of all space-time. (Amos) really can't be understood (third time today, BTW, in completely unrelated threads, that Little Hawk praises a post which I thought made no good sense). 'Hypnotic' means inducing hypnosis or sleep. Let me guess you meant 'hypnotized'. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Amos Date: 02 Feb 05 - 09:15 AM I think I meant hypnotic; once you agree that materiality is all-dominant and all-embracing (i.e., that spiritual existence is non-entitiy), then you are limited in your being to that of a view point in the material universe; the consequence of which is that you are sitting at the receipt of incoming signal all the time, light and sound and nervous impulses constantly coming in in orders of magnitude far beyond an individual ability to match. This tends to fixate the attention and have a hypnotic effect which induces a sort of dulled, half-witted, unimaginative state of mind. That's my take on it, anyway. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Wolfgang Date: 02 Feb 05 - 03:08 PM I know what you mean, Amos, and it doesn't really spirit. But, on the content side, why do you consider this belief of all possible hypnotic and not for instance the belief you have? Because your belief does not induce a sort of dulled, half-witted, unimaginative state of mind? Your tolerance level for other approaches to the world seems to approach GS's level. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Feb 05 - 01:59 AM Well, it's just an alternative viewpoint, that's all. And it's worth considering. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: dianavan Date: 03 Feb 05 - 02:49 AM Its well worth considering, Amos, when you see it everyday like I do. When people become fixated on material gain, their thoughts are so directed that they do not allow themselves to be swayed from their objective by spiritual affairs or imaginative endeavors. The balanced human being makes room for all that life has to offer and doesn't separate or try to establish a strict heirarchy of need. Not quite there myself but its certainly something to strive for and leaves plenty of room for respect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Nerd Date: 03 Feb 05 - 10:37 AM Nice try, Clint, with "all grammar is invented." But what I was actually disagreeing with was your statement that: "The 'majestic plural' was doubtless devised by monotheistic revisionists." In other words, invented after the fact to rationalize the appearance of the plural. I was saying that it is common where power relations are concerned for the plural to be used for singular entities, as with the "royal we." If in five thousand years someone tried to claim that England's monarchy REALLY consisted of a junta who remained behind closed doors, and used as evidence "we are not amused," they'd be making the same argument as you: The Hebrews REALLY believed in many gods, and here is this plural word to prove it. It's not a very convincing argument to anyone with a background in sociolinguistics. Having said that, early Judaism isn't really clear on the question of whether other gods even exist. Even in the ten commandments it says "no other gods BEFORE ME," suggesting that other gods might be okay, as long as they were subservient to God. And the bible does use "elohim" to refer to the many pagan gods that other peoples believed in. By now, I hope this is getting far to esoteric to be offensive! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST Date: 03 Feb 05 - 10:52 AM If you want to show the value and integrity of the Christian message, just live it. Yea sure - look at what has been done in the name of that "value and integrity" over the years. Ah! but we are different now. Yea, so is Christianity. It is not provable that Christians have value and integrity but we expect it of a Christian. All others are not all the same. There are plenty of Muslims, Buddists and Zoroastrians who live that integrity. And Atheists too. Plenty who don't. The problem with a declared set of ideals is those who use it as a smoke screen, play on our expectations. While we are giving them the benefit of the doubt they go and invade another country, in our name, on a lie. And they declare their Christians loudly. The link between Christianity and value and integrity is a statistical one, not a guarrantee. It is a movable feast, and infallible in some quarters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Carlisle101 Date: 03 Feb 05 - 02:50 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Carlisle101 Date: 03 Feb 05 - 02:53 PM I've realy got to stop doing that! I think I'm just paging down after entering my name and lo-and-behold i post nadda! Maybe its the work of the divine? or maybe I'm just a himbo? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 03 Feb 05 - 03:01 PM Wolfgang: Well, if I understand your question correctly, which I may not, the reason I believe that exclusive belief in materiality makes for dull-wittedness is this. If matter and space and energy are the whole of existence then your Being must be identical to the body's. The body is a receipt point for what looks like constant and continuous inflow of signal. Attention presented with an unending flow tends to get fixated and focused on that flow. Imagination, free-ranging ideation and communication contrary-wise, tend (in my experience) to break up fixed flow patterns, create the experience of new and different directions and dimensions, and in a way create different spaces. This is why two people who love each other are often in communication accurately and instantaneously over great distances. It is not a material flow as much as a live, instantaneous communication, IMHO. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Frank Date: 03 Feb 05 - 06:14 PM it could be just as logical to say that Man was made in God's image. That would have to include every one. Even the bad guys. And that man created God. There are arguments for each case. Who has access to this fount of religous wisdom that is being advocated here? Who claims "authority" in these religious pronouncements? There seems to be an awful lot of holy priests, gurus, and rabbis on Mudcat. :) I get it that to be really religious, you can't be a smart-ass know-it-all but have to have some semblance of humility. Doubt may be the real beginning of a religious experience. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Feb 05 - 06:43 PM Physical things are not made in God's image. God is Spirit. Spirit informs physicality, but is not presented as an image in the form OF physicality, okay? Man is made in God's image, not because Man is short, tall, brown, pink, yellow, or anything else physical...but because Man is in a state of conscious awareness and being. That state of conscious awareness and Being is the image of God...and it's not a visual image, it's a spiritual image. God is Conscious Being. So is Man. And so are animals. The only question is...how conscious? Man is generally far less conscious than the totality of God. Animals are generally less conscious than human beings. If you saw Man as he truly is, you would not see a body at all. The body is a temporary phenomenon based on physical sense perception. Spirit is not temporary, in fact it exists outside of time. So don't fret over your "ugly" brother being cast in the "image of God". He is, but it's not his body that is the image of God. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Bill D Date: 03 Feb 05 - 07:01 PM Amos...some of your comments seem to be saying that a more material concept is just not as interesting, therefore you won't accept it... "If matter and space and energy are the whole of existence then your Being must be identical to the body's." Perhaps that IS all there is, perhaps not, but we gotta be careful not to base conclusions on what is more fascinating or poetic. (and sometimes the truth is even more interesting than all our imaginings) OAnd sometimes you seem to say that certain things are a given and not in doubt: "This is why two people who love each other are often in communication accurately and instantaneously over great distances." They ARE? Or they seem to be...or they 'might' be....etc. (You know how I'd view it.) Contiguity in time & space do not always show causality, but it is SO easy to make assumptions based on serendipity |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 03 Feb 05 - 07:09 PM Jeeze, I was simply trying to explicate my opinion that having your attention riveted on an endless incoming flow of information, which won't listen to you try and talk back, can drive you into a semi-torpid state of mind. As for whether lovers at a distance sense each other, I don't doubt it. Too many of them have experienced and told me about it for me to get all huffy about proving it in material terms in spite of its being a non-material event. It would be similar to trying to prove the laws of thermodynamics using Euclid's axioms and theorems. Wrong body of information, if you see what I mean. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Bill D Date: 03 Feb 05 - 07:37 PM ok..*grin*.... once you show me what a "non-material event" might look like. I personally cannot imagine an event apart from some material change. Just naming something doesn't create reality. (yes, I use words like 'love' and 'soul' to express certain states of my consciousness, but it might be that the ultimate basis of them may be just physiochemical interactions....maybe down to the quark level.. I base these notions on more and more evidence that DNA and heredity can explain more & more of our human condition and actions....much as you pointed out that scientific evidence supports evolution over creation theory. It's never over when we're looking for these kind of of answers, but I'm not willing to make the 'leap of faith' you seem to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Feb 05 - 07:42 PM There are nonmaterial events occurring in your mind, Bill, even as you read Amos's last post, and as you typed your reply. And right now. Nonmaterial events. Zing! There went another one. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Feb 05 - 07:47 PM And to ask what such an event might "look like" is really, really silly. Come on, Bill! You can do better than that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 03 Feb 05 - 08:14 PM Sure, being beamed by a loved one from hundreds of miles away certainly has material consequences -- frissons or warmth or yearning and so on. But, unless you have discovered a medium previously unknown to science there's no material event yet identified -- the brain doesn't have the amperage to act as a transmitter very far. Yet somehow, this non-local transfer of attention or intention occurs. You tell me how. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST Date: 03 Feb 05 - 10:07 PM Comic relief. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,anyone want me for a sunbeam ? Date: 03 Feb 05 - 10:12 PM God.. this has been dragging on for days have'nt we disproved it yet !? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 03 Feb 05 - 10:15 PM I would like to add that the title of this thread is annoyingly belligerent. If the last 10 characters could be deleted it would make more sense. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Feb 05 - 10:28 PM And pointless too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Bill D Date: 04 Feb 05 - 12:00 AM *Bill sits, bemused by the assurance that his brain is full of non-material events.* ok, a non material event, by definition, can't 'look like' anything, without serious distortion of the language, but what could one be, then? A thought about Amos' posts? A set of wires attached to my head would record electrical activity as I 'thought', and electrical activity is a material event. Just saying that there is a non-material component doesn't explain why those electrons keep moving in patterns related to the intensity of my thoughts. ..."...unless you have discovered a medium previously unknown to science..."....ummm, yeah. I think that was my point. "Yet somehow, this non-local transfer of attention or intention occurs. You tell me how." ...nope...the burden of proof is on the assertor. You tell ME how any such thing could happen. I do not accept that any such 'transmission' occurs. (Note that doubt is not the same as 'denying' that it occurs)...I could describe various ways in which emotions and serendipity could cause lovers at a distance to think of one another in similar ways at specific times of the day and trade those experiences in wonder later....but we also know of the power of suggestion, and how some psychologists have led subjects to remember and believe stuff that never happened. Remember the pre-school child molestation case? They wanted a conviction so bad that those kids were 'suggested' into memories that never actually occurred. Remember "Bridey Murphy"? Remember a dozen other purported instances of distance 'seeing' that fell apart when enough scrutiny was brought to the details? I WILL believe that something is happening when some subject can REPEAT a 'seeing' or 'transmission' under controlled conditions without prompting and clues. I would LOVE to have something incontrovertible so we could begin to discover the mechanism....I will NOT believe the occasional good guess, startling though it may be.. Ya' know, even *I* have reached for the phone to call someone, only to have them call me at that moment.....but I have made thousands of phone calls... A very important paper in the history of Philosophy is Will James' The Will to Believe". The title alone suggests the direction, but it should be required reading for graduation from college. Which reminds me that I haven't read it in detail for many years....I think I'll bookmark it and remedy that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 04 Feb 05 - 12:42 AM "If in five thousand years someone tried to claim that England's monarchy REALLY consisted of a junta who remained behind closed doors, and used as evidence "we are not amused," they'd be making the same argument as you…" Not quite. As you say, "early Judaism isn't really clear on the question of whether other gods even exist. Even in the ten commandments it says "no other gods BEFORE ME," suggesting that other gods might be okay, as long as they were subservient to God. And the bible does use "elohim" to refer to the many pagan gods that other peoples believed in." But early English history isn't so ambiguous about the junta & the King. However, don't get the idea that I believe any of this stuff I'm saying. As I said 'I would _suspect_ that originally the "gods" created the world…' but I have no background in Hebrew, Judaism or sociolinguistics. I'm just sillying around (as my kids used to say) with ideas in a rather silly thread. Silly because, for one thing, the Pope, my Pentecostal grandmother and the late Richard Butler of the Aryan Nations are/were all Christians; they all accepted Christ as their savior and admit/admitted to following Him. Which one of them are we to prove or disprove? clint What does sociolinguistics say about the idea that a sentence should not end with a preposition? And all that grafting Latin of grammar on English. Speaking of revisionists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Peace Date: 04 Feb 05 - 12:46 AM Too right, clint. A preposition is a word one should never end a sentence with. (Thank you WC.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 04 Feb 05 - 07:27 AM During the late 70's and early 80's the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) did a series of DARPA-funded experiments exploring the limits and applicabilities of human psychic abilities, and one of their experiments consisted of a controller choosing a lat-long and a subject describing what was seen there, based on his effort to view it remotely while his body was ensconced in a dark room. On one such test the controller chose a spot in the middle of Lake Victoria, IIRC; the respondent described a rocky and sandy shore with water lapping on it. The controller reported it as a "miss", since he had chosen a spot well into the center of the lake, according tot he maps he was using. The respondent got distinctly upset with this particular challenge and demanded a finer-scale map with more detail. One was procured. On examination it turned out there is a long spit of land extending into that particular lake, and the controller had unknowingly selected the tip of that spit. But you don't need to go to such lengths, even though it has been done. Consciousness itself is a non-material event, I believe. If someone wants to explain to me how any mechnanism can produce understanding, I am open to suggestion; but anyone familiar with both will concur that understanding in the deeper sense is not just a stimulus response package. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,stands to reason, dunnit !? Date: 04 Feb 05 - 10:09 AM if you think about it, in a way it was lucky for the churches that Jesus was crucified. You look in any church building and they're full of crosses and crucifixes; but if instead Jesus had been hanged or beheaded or bow and arrowed, they'd have to have got rid of them all and replaced them with a different symbolic reperesentation of torture and capital punishment for people to pray to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,and another thing Date: 04 Feb 05 - 10:22 AM or what if the cruel and heartless mob at jesuses execution had put a bucket of donkey poo over his head to humiliate him instead of a crown of thorns ? the churches were really lucky they got such a winning streak of dramaticaly and photogenic symbolism of martyrdom to capitalise on |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Bill D Date: 04 Feb 05 - 11:03 AM so, Amos, did that subject then get 27 more 'hits' on other lat-long tries? Is he now working for the CIA, obviating the need for spy satellites? I can write scenarios for how one impressive event 'might' have happened, but I never see stories of some subject that "we just can't stump". Part of confidence is repeatability .... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Mudcat Book of Strange Facts Date: 04 Feb 05 - 11:22 AM the entire Jesus story was created 2000 years ago by an enterprising Jewish merchant who had a wharehouse full of unsold wooden crosses he'd had manufactured in the hope they would be the next big successful toy craze; but the toys had failed to capture public imagination [are you supposed to throw and catch them ?, hit things with them ?..] and nearly bankrupted him. in a moment of genius, he realised he could manipulate the finer details of his concocted story, and thus invent xmas day. In Modern times his decendents may have an involvement in the marketing phenomenon of the "Da' Vinci Code" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Feb 05 - 11:55 AM Yeah, right... Are you sure it wasn't a "wherehouse"? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 04 Feb 05 - 01:34 PM Bill D: I don't think "finding someone who cannot be stumped" is an evidentiary requirement worth a fart in a high wind. In fact the insistence on "repeatability in the face of intentional challenge" is the kind of test criteria drawn from working with material systems in material science. Life itself, whatever you choose to call it, and the consciousness it generates, does not actually work that way. As any teenager knows, its potentials can be ruined by invalidative remarks, if they are not proofed up against. If you create an anti-conscious environment in which to test consciousness, you are doing th equivalent of conducting basic physics tests in an antimatter room, or standing next to a black hole, or something similarly disruptive. This doesn't mean testing cannot occur but it does mean that the WAY of testing has to be thought through with an understandingthe fundamentals which are different from the fundamentals of matter in its blind replicability. Asking consciousness to exhibit obdurate, blind replicability is like fucking for virginity... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Bill D Date: 04 Feb 05 - 02:31 PM ok, fine...I'm willing to negotiate a way of testing that satisfies both sides, but so far the claims I read about seem to be of the "All Indians walk single file...I know, because I saw an Indian and HE was walking single file!" variety. I DO know that, despite pooh-poohing of repeatability, having some guy hit those 27 lat/long tests in a row, with similar detail to the one cited would go a LONG way towards convincing me that he had a 'special' talent. Or having two lovers find their way to each other over great distances, like some dogs seem to be able to find their way home. ah, Amos...if it were claims about religious raptures and sightings of the Virgin Mary involved, I suspect you would use some similar arguments to mine. (maybe that's too harsh...I'm just feeling cynical after spending too much time at Mudcat the last few days..*grin*) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 04 Feb 05 - 03:07 PM Bill- I used to be a good rifle shot (Expert, US Army) but I couldn't hit the bullseye every time. In musical terms, does the fact that a One-Hit Wonder is unable to repeat mean that he/she didn't get that one hit? What about a Three-Hit Wonder? What percentage of hits did Cole Porter get? Everything can't be judged by the standards of mathmatics & physics. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Feb 05 - 03:55 PM You can't test a nonphysical event with physical testing procedures, Bill. But you can experience it. I couldn't care less whether or not I can prove these things to anybody. I'm not a research scientist or a police detective, and I don't earn a salary for "proving" things. People just enjoy arguing about this stuff to enhance their own sense of identity, and so they can feel "right". I understand that. Everyone likes to feel right about stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 04 Feb 05 - 06:23 PM ROFL, Little Hawk...everyone certainly does. It's the core blind spot to end all blind spots!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Bill D Date: 04 Feb 05 - 06:24 PM I sure don't earn a salary doing this either...I made a grand total of $2000 being a gradusate teaching asst. in Philosophy....and yeah, LH, you probably have a good point there--we DO like to have answers that we are comfy with...for whatever reason. And we like to SEE our point of view out there..*grin* and, of course, I'd argue, as you know, that I have a suspicion that 'experience' is a combination of physical events...just as you 'feel' that they can be different. It may be incapable of proof either way... It is interesting though, that under my own rules, if I state a hypothesis, someone might show me, using the laws I recognize, that I am wrong, and have to re-think it----whereas, someone who claims there are non-physical events and entities that cannot be tested, can never BE disproven, and can just state 'interesting' theories about reality forever.....it ain't fair, I tell you! Oughta be a durn law...*hmmmpppff* well, we all get to air our ideas, hmmm? Not a bad deal, I guess... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,I am the Date: 04 Feb 05 - 08:41 PM what the feck are you anal obsesive retired accademics on.. or on about.. do yourselves.. and the rest of us .. a favour and please stop wasting so much time and energy trying to disprove this absolutist b*llocks within the terms of reference and intellectual conditions imposed by the fools believing such b*llocks we never needed to disprove in the first place.. Amen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Feb 05 - 10:53 PM So, tell me...why are you reading it? :-) Just can't help yourself, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Bill D Date: 05 Feb 05 - 01:01 AM and, please Mr. Guest I am...would you diagram that last sentence for us? we 'accedemics' are having a mite of trouble with it. We'll just go on with our hobby...thinking....(keeps us off the streets.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: John P Date: 05 Feb 05 - 12:00 PM You can't disprove the existence of green cats with pink polka-dots . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Feb 05 - 12:25 AM Or honest lawyers... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: dianavan Date: 06 Feb 05 - 02:49 PM I have resisted saying this but... Nobody can disprove Christianity. Christianity exists in the same way that political parties exist. Just because I don't agree with a religious institution, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because I don't agree with the Bush administration, doesn't mean I object to democracy. I can disagree with a group of commonly held beliefs without negating the existence of those beliefs. My big questions: How do vegetarians justify eating the body and blood of Christ (even symbolically) when it is symbolically cannibalism? Why do Christians think that God impregnated Mary through her ear? Doesn't that just mean that she was given an idea? What is the net worth of the Vatican? Why would anyone insist that a non-Christian woman give birth to an unwanted child? Why do Christians believe that they have the right to tell others how to live their lives and what to believe? Religious tolerance means that Christians are free to believe what they wish but that they have no right to impose their beliefs on others. Thats why its important to keep religion out of politics. If we don't, we end up with a theocracy much like Iran. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. So am I. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: wysiwyg Date: 06 Feb 05 - 02:51 PM Why do Christians think that God impregnated Mary through her ear? Whaaaat???????????????????? ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Bill D Date: 06 Feb 05 - 02:58 PM I'll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: dianavan Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:30 PM I think it was John of Damascus who said, "Mary conceived through the ear." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:33 PM I hope he meant it metaphorically. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Sttaw Legend Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:54 PM Be blessed 69 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: dianavan Date: 06 Feb 05 - 05:11 PM Little Hawk - I think most of what is written in the Bible is based on myth and should be taken metaphorically. I have trouble with those who insist the Bible is God's word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Feb 05 - 05:25 PM Oh, indeed. Right with you there, Dianavan. I think much of it is inspired writing, but it's certainly a mistake to take most of it literally...and it's a mistake to take it in toto as some sort of infallible source. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Once Famous Date: 06 Feb 05 - 09:51 PM Does dianavan have pubic hair around her ear? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: dianavan Date: 07 Feb 05 - 12:15 AM If it weren't for you, Martin, I would post a picture of myself. Its people like you who make me realize that its probably not very safe to put a portrait on the internet. ...and as I have mentioned before, I am a hairless wonder. I have lots of hair on my head but very little hair on my body: including my ears, which is a real advantage when you want to hear the word of God. ;>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: John P Date: 07 Feb 05 - 10:36 AM dianavan -- I agree with the questions you raise, but I took the original post in this thread to be saying that you can't disprove the existence of the Christian god, including his self/son Jesus, not that you can't disprove the existence of Christianity as an organized religion. I know that's not whay Georgiansilve acutally said, but when dealing with that kind of fuzzy logic and inadequate communication skills one has to read between the lines in order to discern the meaning. Of course, there is no reason to try to disprove Christianity as a religion -- it obviously exists. On the other hand, there is no reason to try to disprove the faith-based tenets of the religion -- why would anyone want to spend any time trying to disprove something for which there is no evidence? But some Christians tend to be pretty dumb that way. [rant] To answer the other questions you asked: How do vegetarians justify eating the body and blood of Christ (even symbolically) when it is symbolically cannibalism? How could meat eaters justify this, for that matter? Yuck!! Why do Christians think that God impregnated Mary through her ear? I confess I never heard this one either, but it makes as much or more sense as a virgin birth. Maybe god wanted a virgin birth and this was the best he could think of. Maybe whoever wrote the ear story knew the whole virgin birth thing would sound idiotic to anyone with a brain and was trying to come up with a plausible alternative. It sounds like God was fucking with Mary's head, though. Doesn't that just mean that she was given an idea? Whoa, I get ideas all the time. You're scaring me now . . . What is the net worth of the Vatican? Good question. Those hypocritical bastards are watching people starve to death while they play with all their gold. Why would anyone insist that a non-Christian woman give birth to an unwanted child? You know the answer. They want power over us. Over our thoughts, over our bodies, over our sexuality, over our money. Power, greed, greed, and power. Why do Christians believe that they have the right to tell others how to live their lives and what to believe? See above . . . [/rant] John Peekstok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Jim Tailor Date: 07 Feb 05 - 10:48 AM Why would anyone insist that a non-Christian woman give birth to an unwanted child? Well, I can try to answer this though I'm sure you won't like, of agree with the answers. 1. If it is a child, then it should be extended the right to life that we extend to all of our citizens. If you wish, in the future, to make your point less assailible, you might craft the wording more cleverly to not include the answer within the question -- avoid using the word "child". 2. Unwanted by whom? Society has not allowed as how any one person has the right to determine the degree of "wantedness" for another individual (except in the current allowance for abortion on demand). In all other cases in society, when we do determine the "wantedness" of an individual, and decide to the negative, it is through due process. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: robomatic Date: 07 Feb 05 - 11:01 AM Please forgive me if I don't go through every message in this thread and someone has already said it. I can't do a search on 'prove' without hitting every ms. You can't disprove Christianity because it hasn't been 'proved', along with a bunch of other stuff, like every religion except mine which I've already proven by my own immaculate conceptions. Thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Paco Rabanne Date: 07 Feb 05 - 11:14 AM 200! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Bill D Date: 07 Feb 05 - 11:41 AM did you ever notice that an anagram for 'flamenco ted' is 'mal defect on'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Wolfgang Date: 09 Feb 05 - 11:42 AM Mary heard the word ...and the word became flesh (maybe very wrong translation) that's how it goes; but anyone taking this not metaphorically can't expect to be taken seriously. You can't test a nonphysical event with physical testing procedures, Bill. (Little Hawk) Asking consciousness to exhibit obdurate, blind replicability is like fucking for virginity (Amos) Why did both of you not make these comments when Amos told about the SRI experiments? They relied in principle on counting procedures for hits and looked whether more hits could be found than can be expected by chance (even what you would term nonphysical events can be counted). I have no problem at all with this approach (though the results beyond anecdotes as told above about changing the goalposts after a miss are far from convincing) but I have problems with people who tell on the one hand about what they consider positive results in an experimental approach and on the other hand later denounce such an approach when others use or discuss it. It reminds me of (rare) Christians who cite studies showing that prayer helps people healing quicker and when someone else points out methodological deficiencies and points to better done studies with other results quickly retreat to the position that the effect of prayers cannot be counted at all (which is the better argument as I understand the Christian faith). Amos,(1) nobody asks for blind replicability, better than chance is the only request, (2) stimulus/response psychology is a bit outdated and so is the idea that a person cannot but attend to a flow of information from outside. The focus of attention can be an inner state like thoughts, dreams or information from the body like headache. Attention always looks for changes and a continuous flow is a very bad attention grabber. We do not just act upon oncoming stumuli all of us and always in the same manner: (a) past expericences have influenced the more permanent neural wiring, (b) local influences like hunger, dizziness after sleep, preoccupation with a problem have an impact upon the non-permanent state of the neural activity (c) chance events like spontaneous neuron discharges also may play a role in which firing pattern will gain local stability in the next seconds. We are extremely far from any real understanding but I consider such an approach anything but dull. Dull I consider approaches that have already the answers. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Amos Date: 09 Feb 05 - 12:29 PM While I do not have the SRI records, I believe I remember that they were uniformly dramatically higher than chance results over hundreds of test scenarios of different kinds. The story I told was not "moving the goal posts after a miss", Wolfgang, it was an example of a hit being called a miss because of a flaw in the mapping scale being consulted, which proves that there could not have been any leakage from the tester to the subject, since it turned out the subject saw more than the tester knew! I did not say that an individual could not pay attention to other than incoming information, I was describing what I see as a tendency: the more you believe you are the body, the more you fixate on sensory inputs and this tends to have a hypnotic effect. Conversely, the more you use creative and imaginative abilities, the more you tend to discover your non-material nature. I guess it is just an opinion, really. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: dianavan Date: 09 Feb 05 - 10:17 PM Jim Tailor - 1. If a woman gives birth, it is most likely a child. What would you call it? 2. Since it is the mother giving birth, she is the only one in a position to know if she wants it or not. Hopefully, the issue of whether or not a fetus is carried to term will rest with the pregnant woman. Who would have greater authority to determine the fate of the fetus? Why should the church or the government be given the authority to make decisions regarding the body of a woman who has committed no crime? Its her choice! ...or do you consider getting pregnant a crime that should carry a punishment of nine months and heavy labour? Maybe if you were a woman you would feel differently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Feb 05 - 02:02 AM Gee, maybe I shouldn't have looked at this thread. Sure seems to be full of bigotry. I suppose it a Christian who got it off to a bad start, daring others to disprove something that can't be proven. Still, look at this stuff:
Cannibalism doesn't come into discussion at all in the theology of eucharist/communion. The bread and wine look and taste like bread and wine, although I admit the bread is a bit pastey. You must be some sort of fundamentalist literalist if you see it as cannibalism. I look on it as experiencing the presence of Christ in a form that I can touch and taste. Why do Christians think that God impregnated Mary through her ear? I've been a Christian all my life and I have a degree in Theology, and I've never heard that. Doesn't that just mean that she was given an idea? If God is what believers believe God is, is it so incredible to think that God could become human simply by deciding to do so? If you don't believe in God, that's fine - but do you think maybe you could believe in tolerance, and allow people to believe what they believe? Has anybody ever really tried to force you to believe in virgin birth? For me, it has no meaning one way or another, but I don't disbelieve it. It just doesn't matter to me, since I'm not a literalist. What is the net worth of the Vatican? A lot of money. What do you suggest they do with their assets - sell Notre Dame as a movie set? Sell the art works to private collectors so the public can't see them? Sell hospitals and schools to for-profit corporations? Yes, the Vatican has a sizeable endowment that is invested, and the Vatican is able to operate off the income from that endowment. I don't have proof, but I think it's safe to say that the Catholic Church gives more non-military foreign aid than the U.S. Government. Local dioceses and parishes have their own budgets, separate from the Vatican. In the U.S., dioceses are having a hard time paying for inner-city churches that are no longer in use but are too beautiful to be torn down. Many dioceses have also been saddled with heavy payments for a child molestation suits, even though the number of priests who molested was relatively small - far fewer than five percent. Why would anyone insist that a non-Christian woman give birth to an unwanted child? Because they believe it's a life that's being lost in abortion, and they believe that every life is infinitely valuable, Christian or not. I don't believe in eliminating abortions by coercion because I don't think that would work - but I do think we need to continue to teach that abortion is wrong and that women need to explore alternatives to abortion more thoroughly. But ultimately, I think the choice has to be made by the woman. Many Christians and Catholic Christians believe that way - that there should a middle between the two extremes, with a goal of avoiding abortion whenever possible. Why do Christians believe that they have the right to tell others how to live their lives and what to believe? I guess it has something to do with believing in justice. When employers are unjust, people who believe in justice feel an obligation to speak out. When a President wages an unjust war or a governor executes record numbers of prisoners, people who believe in justice feel an obligation to oppose them. When the lives or potential lives of unborn children are being lost, people who believe in justice feel an obligation to at least propose alternatives.When there was segregation in the United States, thousands of Christians and other believers in justice worked for years to bring segregation to an end - and they've done the same for the rights of farmworkers and to oppose wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Is it wrong for believers to work for justice? Yes, I will admit that abortion is not as clear-cut as some of those other injustices, but I believe that if people think clearly, they generally will admit that abortion is never a good thing, never a cause for celebration. While it may be necessary at times, it's certainly not something to be chosen if there are alternatives. I suppose the irrational anti-abortion extremists have created an equally irrational pro-abortion opposition, and reason and balance went out of the equation long ago. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,? Date: 10 Feb 05 - 05:59 PM Given that the Christ Spirit is considered to be One with God, and indivisible from God, you could eat or drink anything whatsoever, and be partaking of that Spirit in a ritual way...because God, being infinite, is by definition not apart from anything. To call it cannibalism is ridiculous. How do you cannibalize an indwelling Spirit? How does one truly commune with the Christ Spirit? By sharing the awareness of that Spirit...meaning, by sharing its love, compassion, mercy, and understanding. Oddly enough, there seem to be 2 lots of literal-minded people out there...religious fundamentalists at one extreme and people who are against what they call "religion" on principle at the other extreme. Those 2 groups heartily detest each other, but that may be because they already have so much in common. They are both literalists, and seem to have great difficulty grasping symbol and metaphor. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: dianavan Date: 10 Feb 05 - 08:50 PM Guest - I can disagree without hating anyone. Joe and others - When I posted the questions above, it was because I wanted to see how such obvious metaphorical meanings would be interpreted by others. Too bad the Cathars didn't realize that communion was not ritualized cannibalism. Failure to partake in communion was one of the reasons they were called heretics and slaughtered. As far as the net worth of the Vatican, nobody has really answered that. Probably never will, either because thats why they have such a special and very secretive little nation of their own. I am not negating the good works of the Church or the goodness of common, everyday Christians. Its the blind adherence to an outdated hierarchy that baffles me. If I were among the faithful, it would all make sense I'm sure. I could simply believe and not have to wonder about the history of atrocities committed in the name of Christ. Having said that, as a doubter, I have every right to question. That doesn't make me hate Christians. ...but for those of you who think that Christianity is harmless and doesn't impose on anyone, I would like to invite you to any public school at Christmas and Easter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Feb 05 - 09:08 PM ...blind adherence to an outdated hierarchy that baffles me I suppose the same thing happens in world affairs. Europeans are sure that all Americans blindly adhere to the policies of George Bush. It's not true for Americans and Bush, and it's not true for Catholics and the Pope - no matter what it appears to outsiders. I thought I answered the question about the net worth of the Vatican fairly well, although I did not give specific numbers. And yes, there was a financial scandal a number of years ago that lost a lot of money for the Vatican and others, and it was due to the subterfuge of a priest or bishop and a number of other church officials. The trouble with these attacks on Christians is that it pushes people apart. Holy Communion is very sacred to Christians, the essence of faith for many denominations. If you call it cannibalism, it's an insult that makes it very hard for believers to interact with you in any way. Same with the remark about Mary getting pregnant through the ear, or the generalization about Christians forcing their religion on you. Maybe you don't believe what they believe, but I think that common courtesy demands that you treat their beliefs with at least some modicum of respect. Even though you don't believe what they believe, you should at least be able to find their beliefs and traditions interesting (or at least "quaint"), and you should be able to learn something from those among them who are wise. I suppose if some of you truly have the level of anti-Christian intolerance that you profess, it must be difficult for you. It must be hard on you every time somebody wishes you "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Easter." You must be unable to work in the peace movement or in poverty programs, because those movements are full of Christians. Even if they "turn the other cheek" and put up with your insults, you'd probably find them "patronizing" for doing so. I'm not asking anybody to convert. All I'm asking for is a little tolerance. I've been a liberal and a folkie all my life - partially because I thought liberals and folkies believed in tolerance and justice. I thought liberals and folkies valued a wide spectrum of tradition and intellectual inquiry, that they sought wisdom wherever it could be found. It used to be that I could have deep discussions with fellow liberals and know my opinion would be respected, even if we weren't in total agreement. That's not the case any more. Intolerance and injustice are becoming just as prevalent among the left as they are among the right. And that's a damn shame. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Rustic Rebel Date: 11 Feb 05 - 03:23 AM Joe, being a liberal and a christian doesn't give you all the rights to be throwing your judgements around either. I think you like to use the word bigot anytime you don't agree with something on this topic or thread. I would prefer to call it a thinking conversation that name calling isen't called for, and because others have another opinion does not mean they are a bigot. It just means they believe different than you. (pretty obvious) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 11 Feb 05 - 03:45 AM It's clear that Joe's end of this conversation is thoughtful indeed, and I am glad to hear dianvan's pointed but in some way necessary questions answered with his usual care. I am sure that Joe's experience contains plenty of instances of "liberal" bigotry, or at least prejudice, just as much as people embracing the category but not the role of CHristian have imposed plenty of their version on those who prefer a different brand of ideational clarity. Christianity has a burden that often makes it difficult, in that it offers a very complex series of metaphors as a way of offering hope to beings whose burdens are too great. The metaphorical nature of its teachings tends to confuse those who seek more literal answers, and in the hands of those who do not understand them well the metaphors of Christianity can become vehicles of intellectual, emotional and even physical abuse, instead of a way of finding peace and spiritual uplifting. I am not a scholar of Christianity, and I do not mean to offend anyone by talking about its metaphorical approach to what can also be vividly real at some level; every good metaphor maps to the world in some way. It;s just that the context of Christianity as lesson is riddled with terms I can only understand as metaphors, and cannot begin to absorb as literal statements, such as Son, Father, and Devil to name just three from among scores. But Joe is a kind and tolerant man whose real Christianity comes through in his practice, not in his language. I appreciate his dialogue. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Joe Offer Date: 11 Feb 05 - 05:04 AM C'mon, Rustic Rebel! "Cannibalism"? "Impregnated in the ear"? Is that any way to carry on a respectable conversation? That kind of talk is downright bigotry. I am well aware of the warts of Christianity, and those deficiencies make me seething mad at times - but they're part of every human community. Many Christians work very hard to correct those deficiencies. Certain Mudcatters regularly post scathing condemnations of Christianity, and rarely make any attempt to balance their statements or to show any sort of respect toward anyone who calls himself Christian. How can I carry on an intelligent and friendly discussion with somebody who calls me a cannibal? Now yes, I do know some Christians throw out the term "baby killer" and worse at women who have abortions - but you'll never hear that kind of talk from me (or from most Christians). The conduct of some Christians is appalling - but there's no call for sweeping generalizations that blame ALL Christians for that. There's certainly room for peaceful discussion of specific problems, presented with logic and evidence - but these shoot-from-the-hip generalizations are offensive. There's no question about it. It's bigotry, plain and simple. Somehow, some members of the left have raised ideological purity to an ideal, and they have forgotten about the ideal of tolerance. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Paul Burke Date: 11 Feb 05 - 07:59 AM Joe Offer wrote: "I am well aware of the warts of Christianity, and those deficiencies make me seething mad at times - but they're part of every human community. Many Christians work very hard to correct those deficiencies." Why call yourself a Christian then? You'll always be associated with the thugs, bigots, miracle-seekers, tonguebabblers, witchburners, and the rest. For every St Francis of Assisi there's a Torquemada, and to us outsiders, it seems that Christianity is simply useless as a description of how you see the world (or the next world for that matter). Think up a new name- you might find youself in the more congenial company of people who might not believe that Jesus was God, but who behave in exactly the same way as if they believed in Jesus in tyhe same way that you do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Jim Tailor Date: 11 Feb 05 - 08:35 AM Can't answer for Joe, but maybe it's because some of us feel that it is the "thugs, bigots, miracle-seekers, tonguebabblers, witchburners" who are the mis-named "Christians". For the sake of continuity and accuracy the "true" believers don't feel it's too much to ask to keep "our" name. It is probably too much to ask that others understand the difference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 11 Feb 05 - 10:13 AM Jim: I think that you and Joe Offer exemplify the difference, as do a few others I have been friends with here, and urge you to continue to do so. It is by doing so that you have a shot at healing the rifts and confusions the subject can cause in others. It's a case of owning the name you want in the best way you can, and let those who can see observe what you put there to be seen. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Joe Offer Date: 11 Feb 05 - 12:00 PM I suppose you're right, Burke. I should leave my faith to all those "thugs, bigots, miracle-seekers, tonguebabblers, witchburners, and the rest," and go start a new one. and then if somebody unacceptable to you should happen to turn up in my new church, then I should leave that one, too. I suppose African-Americans have the same problem. Some people associate them with Steppen Fetchit and blackface minstrel clowns and all those other stereotypes. And there are lots of African American people who commit crimes. By your logic, that gives people the right to discriminate against Blacks. And Blacks that don't like it should go paint their faces some other color. Is that what you think? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Jim Tailor Date: 11 Feb 05 - 01:46 PM Thanks, Amos. I'm sure I fail more than I succeed, but it's a gracious thing for you to say. Since I didn't answer you, dianavan (I actually thought the Joe covered it better than I could have), but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your direct question to me. If a woman decides to pick up a hitchhicker in her car, and then, rather than dropping the hitchhiker off where he wanted to go (or anywhere else for that matter), kills the hitchhiker with her Smith & Wesson, the question isn't about the right of the woman to do what she wishes with her own car. And... As I would hope it wouldn't matter what race I was to have opposed slavery in the 19th century, even if I was not a slave... And as I would hope it wouldn't matter what race I was to have opposed the slaughter of Jews in the 20th century, even if I was not the one being gassed... And as I would hope it wouldn't matter what race I was to have fought for or voted for civil rights for all, even if I was not the one discriminated against... I would hope I wouldn't have to be a woman or unborn to wish better for the rights of the unborn. cheers! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST Date: 11 Feb 05 - 02:00 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Shields Folk Date: 11 Feb 05 - 02:04 PM arguing about religion is like arguing who has the best imaginary friend |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Rustic Rebel Date: 11 Feb 05 - 10:57 PM Okay Joe, I hear what your saying about tolerance and non-tolerant associated bigotry, but I just can't grasp the notion that if Dianavan's idea of eating the holy communion is cannabalism, then to her perhaps it is, why you call it bigoted? I could turn it right back at you then for your statement; You must be unable to work in the peace movement or in poverty programs, because those movements are full of Christians. Even if they "turn the other cheek" and put up with your insults, you'd probably find them "patronizing" for doing so. You see, I think you just associated me, a professed non-christian with someone who would insult others for their beliefs and that I couldn't work with christians in a peace rally. The difference being, I would never consider you to be a bigot for saying this! I only consider it your opinion! Maybe I just don't understand the term bigot when used in a conversation that so many people have different views on. So I refer to my dictionary- a narrow-minded person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc. I see what you mean by wanting tolerance and understanding, but I just am trying to work this out. Am I narrow minded or anyone else when they believe stongly in anything they do? or who they are? With the difference being to be tolerante to another viewpoint. I'm starting to see what your saying as I sit here and contemplate! I still think people have the right to their beliefs without , oh hell....let me get back to you on this! P.S. I don't believe in the devil either! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Arkie Date: 11 Feb 05 - 11:43 PM The Jesus that I know from the pages of the New Testament and from experience, compels people to compassion, responsibility, and devotion and communion with the creative Life of the Universe. To follow his teaching means one strives to live to the best of their potential and the world becomes a better place because of them. One of the major complaints about Jesus by the holy people of his day was that he did not properly observe the laws and that he encouraged people to break religious taboos and restrictions. In fact he was opposed only to laws for the sake of laws and to the dehumanizing of the law. That people distort, misunderstand, or present Christianity in a militant and arrogant context does not invalidate the ultimate values. Capitalism, Democracy, Communism, Socialism, and practically every other political and economic system of order known to man has been distorted and abused. For those of us who attempt to follow Christ we have a tremendous task of finding ways to make this force a positive and redeeming one in this day and age. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: dianavan Date: 12 Feb 05 - 12:40 AM Joe - "Cannibalism"? "Impregnated in the ear"? I am not a bigot. It was John of Damascus who said Mary conceived through her ear. Cannibalism was what the Cathars (who were vegetarian) thought of communion. They were burned as heretics. I have no trouble working alongside Christians. Unless, of course, they are thinking that I am a friend of the devil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: dianavan Date: 12 Feb 05 - 12:43 AM Jim Tailor - "If a woman decides to pick up a hitchhicker in her car...: What if the woman didn't decide to pick up the hitchhiker. Maybe he jumped in at the truckstop and hijacked her car. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Jim Tailor Date: 12 Feb 05 - 08:21 AM I already covered that ground in my post of 07 Feb 05 - 10:48 AM. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Jim Tailor Date: 12 Feb 05 - 08:39 AM wrong post. I'll have to find the right one when I have more time. Off to a show! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Jim Tailor Date: 12 Feb 05 - 08:50 AM here it is: 08 Feb 05 - 07:04 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Feb 05 - 01:52 PM OK, let's get this away from religion, Rustic Rebel, and put it this way: Let's say you believe that my mother was a whore. I had many difficulties with my mother over the years, because she was often an unreasonable and angry woman. But still, I'm her son, and there were many good things about my relationship with her over the years - even though I acknowledge her faults and suffered quite a bit because of those faults. But still you think my mother was a whore, and you feel obliged to remind me of that as often as you can. Not only that - because I'm her son, you insist that I must be responsible for her being a whore. She had many faults, and I sympathize with anyone who suffered because of those faults - but I suffered those faults even more. She was not a whore, but I cannot defend her faults. But you insist that I must either defend or deny her, or else I am responsible for all her shortcomings. Might that not make it difficult for me to feel comfortable working with you? Dianavan, I haven't heard that the Cathari accused Christians of cannibalism. The Cathari lived seven hundred years ago, and their history is clouded by propaganda on both sides. The basic belief of the Cathari was dualism, that there are parallel natural and spiritual worlds, and that the natural world is bad and the spiritual world good. It's not my way of looking at the world, but it is a perspective that has some validity. I think it unlikely that it was a basic belief of the Cathari that Christians were cannibals because they celebrated Holy Communion. Most likely, it was an oversimplification of Cathari belief by an extremist - used to mobilize Christians against Cathari or to mobilize Cathari against Christians. Whatever the case, calling Holy Communion cannibalism is an insult. You're not likely to be burned at the stake for saying it nowadays, but it's still an insult. Insults are not effective ways to win friends and influence people. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 12 Feb 05 - 02:46 PM If I may interject, Joe, the analogy you have drawn is not only complex and long-drawn-out, but I think it falls short of paralleling the situation in real terms. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: dianavan Date: 12 Feb 05 - 03:16 PM Joe - It is true that Cathars were dualists in as much as they believed that if Jesus represented all that was good on earth, that there would also be a representative of evil on earth. The Cathars were Christians but were opposed to a centralized authority and a heirarchy that mirrored Rome. Dualism is the belief in both good and evil. The explanation for refusing communion was based on the fact that they were vegetarian and that it symbolized cannibalism. Its possible that there was another explanation for their refusal to partake but I do not know of any other reason; do you? I am no authority on Catharism but at least I have taken the time to investigate. The fact that they were Christians who took a vow of poverty, that they lived communally and were allowed to marry, intrigued me. I think there is a big difference between blind faith and religious inquiry. If my inquiry offends your faith, I am sorry for that but I won't be muzzled by your indignation. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I dislike you. I do not have a set of beliefs that are immune from criticism. What I believe is constantly changing. It seems the only thing that will satisfy you is if I become a Christian and accept your system of beliefs. That is bigotry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Feb 05 - 03:24 PM OK, Amos, let's take that analogy and fill in the blanks: Let's say you believe that my religious belief, Christianity, is fundamentalist. Certainly there are fundamentalists within Christianity - but I am a Christian and I am NOT a fundamentalist I had many difficulties with fundamentalist elements of Christianity over the years, because fundamentalists are often unreasonable and angry and intolerant. But still, I'm a Christian, and choose to accept those parts of Christianity that I see as good and reject those I see as evil. I acknowledge the faults of institutional churches and suffered quite a bit because of those faults. But still you think Christianity is fundamentalist and evil, and you feel obliged to remind me of that as often as you can. Not only that - because I'm a Christian, you insist that I must be responsible for the actions of fundamentalist Christians and those who use Christianity as a method of coercion. Christian churches have had many faults, and I sympathize with anyone who suffered because of those faults - but I suffered those faults, too. Christianity is not intrinsically fundamentalist or evil, but it does have faults that I cannot defend. But you insist that I must either defend or deny Christianity, or else I am responsible for all of Christianity's shortcomings. I guess that basically I believe that everyone and everything has faults. I think what we're supposed to do is deal with the faults, not exclude or condemn everyone and everything because they are flawed. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,heric Date: 12 Feb 05 - 03:24 PM I thought it was a brilliant, if intricate, analogy, allowing me to understand why Catholics can be so vocal in denying the infallibity of the Pope. I had never understood the matter in such clear terms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 12 Feb 05 - 04:09 PM It seems to me that each poster has a different definition of Christianity. Makes it hard to disprove or prove. I was taught that you should Define Your Terms. How's about it? As I said somewhere else, The Pope, Rev. Butler of the Aryan Nations, and my Pentecostal grandmother were --or are-- all Christians. What exactly is the "Christianity" that they have in common? (Incidentally, I was told in confirmation class that while other groups say that the wafers and wind represent Christ's body and blood, we believe that it _is_ Christ's body and blood. Makes it hard to refute the charge of cannibalism -- unless its theophagy.) clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 12 Feb 05 - 06:06 PM Joe: Thanks; I do see your point and I did see the vAalue of your analogy. Let me just add that in the very best sense, you ARE a fundamentalist. There is nothing more fundamental to Christianity than tolerance, honoring God wherever he may appear, seeking to apply the Golden Rule. These aren't "options" in Christianity, they're the basic model!! And you work hard to make them work. Three versus One, symbols versus actuality of flesh and blood, perfection of virginity -- these are window dressing, and as is so often the case, so folks decide they are the important stuff while ignoring the basics. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Amos Date: 12 Feb 05 - 06:57 PM Excerpt from a recent New York Times editorial by N. Kristof: God and Evolution In recent years evidence has mounted that there may be something to this, and the evidence is explored in "The God Gene," a fascinating book published recently by Dean Hamer, a prominent American geneticist. Dr. Hamer even identifies a particular gene, VMAT2, that he says may be involved. People with one variant of that gene tend to be more spiritual, he found, and those with another variant to be less so. There's still plenty of reason to be skeptical because Dr. Hamer's work hasn't been replicated, and much of his analysis is speculative. Moreover, any genetic predisposition isn't for becoming an evangelical, but for an openness to spirituality at a much broader level. In Alabama, it may express itself in Pentecostalism; in California, in astrology or pyramids. Still, it's striking how faith is almost irrepressible. While I was living in China in the early 1990's, after religion had been suppressed for decades, drivers suddenly began dangling pictures of Chairman Mao from their rear-view mirrors. The word had spread that Mao's spirit could protect them from car crashes or even bring them sons and wealth. It was a miracle: ordinary Chinese had transformed the great atheist into a god. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Rustic Rebel Date: 13 Feb 05 - 03:06 AM Hey joe, if you can dig it, all I'm saying is I believe each individual has a right to their own existance and with that follows their belief that is, without a doubt in my mind, -true to them. I would not go with the assumption that your mother is or was a whore unless you prove it. PS.- assumption-the ascent of the virgin Mary into heaven, -The church celebrating this-(Aug,15)-anything taken for granted,supposition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Feb 05 - 12:52 PM Theophagy....now, there's a term I can chew on... I like it. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: EagleWing Date: 14 Feb 05 - 11:15 AM "Dualism is the belief in both good and evil." Surely if that were true it would not have been challenged by the Catholic Church who also believe in good and evil. It may be more accurate to say that dualism is the belief that good and evil (or God and Satan) are equal in strength and continually oppose each other. Frank L. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: EagleWing Date: 14 Feb 05 - 11:29 AM "Let me just add that in the very best sense, you ARE a fundamentalist." That could be the start of another thread "What is fundamentalism?" When I was considerably younger, (Christian) Fundamentalists were people who accepted a set of "Fundamental" beliefs such as the Virgin Birth, the physical resurrection etc. Then the word was applied to Muslim terrorists and Ayatolahs etc., and, by association, to Christian extremists. Now, it seems, it means Christians who are tolerant like Joe. Perhaps we should scrap the word. Since it can mean whatever we want it to it's totally meaningless. (And yes - I agree that "There is nothing more fundamental to Christianity than tolerance, honoring God wherever he may appear, seeking to apply the Golden Rule." are truly fundamental to Christianity.) Frank L. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: dianavan Date: 14 Feb 05 - 12:47 PM Eagle Wing - From the Southern France Guide, "Duality The fight between two equals Good and Evil As set down in St.John':s Gospel Good being the kingdom of the good lord Evil being the material and time passing reality of the visible physical world. Evil had imprisoned good inside men's bodies Man enters the kingdom of God through his soul. To achieve this, he had to "ascèse" detaching from the material world The "ascèse" prepared him for baptism, Salvation was found through "consolament" The joining of soul and spirit The Cathars only sacrement. The holy book was the new testament The prayer was the lords prayer..." The biggest source of conflict between the two sects seemed to be the establishment of a Christian heirarchy, ie. Centralized authority in Rome. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Disprove 'Christianity'...You can't. From: EagleWing Date: 15 Feb 05 - 11:06 AM "Duality The fight between two equals Good and Evil" That's what I said, I thought. In contradistinction to your statement: "Dualism is the belief in both good and evil." Which is not quite the same thing. Catholicism agreed that there is good and evil but considered that good (or God) was ultimately stronger than evil (or the devil). On your other point that the centralised organisation of religion was the main bone of contention I concur entirely. Frank L. |
