Religion based intolerance...

[Nightingale 0]

it's limited, but it does exist.

the problem with your logic is this:

Q: how do you know the bible is the word of god?
A: Because the bible says its the word of god.

now, try this...

Q: how do you know that John Lennon is god?
A: because John Lennon says he is.

Q: how do you know David Koresh is God?
A: because his followers say so.


none of these arguments work, because they are based on flawed logic. For something to be declared scientifically accurate, there must be INDEPENDENT verification.


The Bible is very much a document of Faith, and nobody's debating that. The question is, is it also a document of History? And historical sources, like scientific sources, must be verified independently. A source cannot verify itself.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

it's limited, but it does exist.

the problem with your logic is this:

Q: how do you know the bible is the word of god?
A: Because the bible says its the word of god.

Those are not my words and there’s nothing wrong with my logic. You’re greatly oversimplifying the issue. You admit in your first statement that evidence exists. The problem will always be that it will never be enough evidence for some people to believe. I agree that you would come to a conclusion of illogic if you were to argue as in your Q & A but you have to put it into context. Your “A” infers that there is but one verifying source. There are, in fact, many.

Quote

now, try this...

Q: how do you know that John Lennon is god?
A: because John Lennon says he is.

Q: how do you know David Koresh is God?
A: because his followers say so.

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and DEMONSTRATED this through his life, teachings, miracles, prophesy, torture, crucifixion, death, and resurrection witnessed by hundreds of people. Almost all of the disciples (witnesses to the events) died gruesome martyr’s deaths after Jesus was gone because of their continued testimony to the truth and their refusal to stop.

1. Peter – crucified
2. Andrew – crucified
3. Matthew – the sword
4. John – natural
5. James, son of Alphaeus – crucified
6. Philip – crucified
7. Simon – crucified
8. Thaddaeus – killed by arrows
9. James, brother of Jesus – stoned
10. Thomas – spear thrust
11. Bartholomew – crucified
12. James, son of Zebedee – the sword

Would anyone die for what they knew to be false? Would a group of people want to spread their new religion so badly that they would risk and accept that kind of fate (extended torture and death) if they knew it wasn’t really true? That’s very different from the followers of David Koresh who died beside him in the fire. There was no proof ever given of divinity other than what he claimed. His followers that died believed his word on its face and died with him. You’re right. I would NOT believe someone if they told me that they were God unless they could demonstrate it and it would have to be a very convincing demonstration. I’m a very skeptical person.

Quote

none of these arguments work, because they are based on flawed logic. For something to be declared scientifically accurate, there must be INDEPENDENT verification.

I agree that the logic that you presented is illogical.
You don’t prove the authenticity of a literary work by means of science as in your statement. Also, there is independent verification. You just don’t accept the sources.

Quote

The Bible is very much a document of Faith, and nobody's debating that. The question is, is it also a document of History? And historical sources, like scientific sources, must be verified independently. A source cannot verify itself.

There is faith involved but the Bible, as demonstrated already, is NOT just a document of faith. There is also much verifiable historical evidence to support the Bible. It is used as a reference by many historians and archaeologists. Verified independently. You are correct in that ‘ONE’ source cannot verify itself. I completely agree with that statement!!!

[Nightingale 0]

it is used as a reference, along with many other historical documents. no reputable historian would use the bible as his or her sole reference.

[rehmwa 2]

Lots of talk about proof and 2nd sources.....

The definition of 'faith' is that you believe something that can't be proved.

I get a kick out of religious types that say they "know" they are right. It's counterintuitive to the definition of faith. (But a strong belief can be honorable if it drives people to honorable actions).

But it is still faith, not fact. That it is "faith in absense of fact" is the only substantial requirement for getting into Christian heaven. So if you have real proof, then you MUST BE disqualified.

I also get a kick out of anti-religious types that say "Prove it". It's almost as much fun as those that then try to respond.

I'd much more respect the religious type that says, "by definition it can't be proved, but this is my belief/faith anyway and I'm a better person because of it"

Still, pretty convenient for those political organizations called religion to have, as a basis for their organization, a way to get out of proving what they teach.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Those are not my words and there’s nothing wrong with my logic. You’re greatly oversimplifying the issue. You admit in your first statement that evidence exists. The problem will always be that it will never be enough evidence for some people to believe. I agree that you would come to a conclusion of illogic if you were to argue as in

Simplification is not a bad thing. And yes it is OK to be skeptical about the evidence that exists, especially, as in your case, you are going to decide to use that to run your entire life plan. If I want to run my life by a creed, code and morals values, I want to know for a FACT that is it true, not some flimsy heresay that is 2000 years old.

Quote

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and DEMONSTRATED this through his life, teachings, miracles, prophesy, torture, crucifixion, death, and resurrection witnessed by hundreds of people. Almost all of the disciples (witnesses to the events) died gruesome martyr’s deaths after Jesus was gone because of their continued testimony to the truth and their refusal to stop.

David Keresh demonstrated the same as far as his followeers were concerned, an so did the folks who drank the purple koolaid.

Quote

Would anyone die for what they knew to be false? Would a group of people want to spread their new religion so badly that they would risk and accept that kind of fate (extended torture and death) if they knew it wasn’t really true? That’s very different from the followers of David Koresh who died beside him in the fire. There was no proof ever given of divinity other than what he claimed. His followers that died believed his word on its face and died with him. You’re right. I would NOT believe someone if they told me that they were God unless they could demonstrate it and it would have to be a very convincing demonstration. I’m a very skeptical person.

Palestinian suic ide bombers KNOW that they are right too, and they do NOT feel that their beliefs are false - they still die for it and they are still wrong by most reasonable persons accounts.

Quote

The Bible is very much a document of Faith, and nobody's debating that. The question is, is it also a document of History? And historical sources, like scientific sources, must be verified independently. A source cannot verify itself.

EXACTLY - a book of faith, which i do not mind, but I do oppose when the faith enters the government and they way that i run my life (or the way anyone runs their life)

Quote

There is faith involved but the Bible, as demonstrated already, is NOT just a document of faith. There is also much verifiable historical evidence to support the Bible. It is used as a reference by many historians and archaeologists. Verified independently. You are correct in that ‘ONE’ source cannot verify itself. I completely agree with that statement!!!

and white supremeists use lots of historical data to support their cause, as do the Nazis, as do the Turkish Armenians, as do the gypsies. Every gets to judge for themselves.

the person(s) have asked for historical facts and there are some - a few, Ok ,even a lot. Most of it from stories that have been told again and again for 2000 years, making them hardly factual, but mostly heresay.

To base your life and everything you believe in on that alone is not for me.

TK

[Nightingale 0]

I'm not asking him to prove things that should be taken on faith (the ressurection, miracles, etc...) simply things that should be a matter of historical record, such as the crucifiction, the census, Pilate's decrees, etc...

[Deuce 1]

People, this is religious intolerance!

Quote

Drunken Priest Shoots Mayor Dead

Thu May 13, 8:54 AM ET

Add Oddly Enough - Reuters to My Yahoo!

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - A Catholic priest shot to death the mayor of a town in western Mexico early on Wednesday after the pair got drunk and began punching each other during a religious festival, state officials said.



After exchanging blows, the priest whipped out a 9mm pistol and fired four bullets into Lorenzo Ruiz, mayor of Chalpatlahuac, an indigenous town nestled in mountains 138 miles west of the Guerrero state capital of Chilpancingo, authorities said.

"It seems they were arguing, these two men. They were at a get-together, they had words and the priest shot the mayor. They were apparently both in a state of drunkenness," said Guerrero state spokesman Jesus Nava.

Local newspapers said the priest, whom they identified as Lorenzo Cuellar, was arrested after he also shot the mayor's son, injuring him.

The priest was in Chalpatlahuac to celebrate a local religious festival which started on Tuesday evening and lasted into Wednesday morning.

Guerrero is one of the poorest and most violent states in Mexico.

Better or worse than another sex scandal? Hmmmm.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I'm not asking him to prove things that should be taken on faith (the ressurection, miracles, etc...) simply things that should be a matter of historical record, such as the crucifiction, the census, Pilate's decrees, etc...

This doesn't answer all but it looks like an interesting site concerning archaeology.

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

[Nightingale 0]

it's a start.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Lots of talk about proof and 2nd sources.....

The definition of 'faith' is that you believe something that can't be proved.

I get a kick out of religious types that say they "know" they are right. It's counterintuitive to the definition of faith. (But a strong belief can be honorable if it drives people to honorable actions).

But it is still faith, not fact. That it is "faith in absense of fact" is the only substantial requirement for getting into Christian heaven. So if you have real proof, then you MUST BE disqualified.

I also get a kick out of anti-religious types that say "Prove it". It's almost as much fun as those that then try to respond.

I'd much more respect the religious type that says, "by definition it can't be proved, but this is my belief/faith anyway and I'm a better person because of it"

Still, pretty convenient for those political organizations called religion to have, as a basis for their organization, a way to get out of proving what they teach.

You're describing what many here have referred to as "blind faith." That is simply not the case as there is much evidence to consider. That's what I've been trying to get across. Yes, there are elements of Christianity that must be taken on faith, however, one does not have to enter into the decision blindly.

[Nightingale 0]

LOL! That's exactly what I've been trying to get across! There are some things that must be taken on faith (the whole son of god thing, for starters), and others, such as historical events, that can be documented in other ways.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Simplification is not a bad thing. And yes it is OK to be skeptical about the evidence that exists, especially, as in your case, you are going to decide to use that to run your entire life plan. If I want to run my life by a creed, code and morals values, I want to know for a FACT that is it true, not some flimsy heresay that is 2000 years old.

Simple is great but this is not a simple issue. You’re not being intellectually honest with yourself. You’re living by a creed, code, and morality. You’re living by your own creed, code, and morality. You don’t know for a FACT if it is right or not. You are in fact living according to your own whimsical selfish desires.

Quote

David Keresh demonstrated the same as far as his followeers were concerned, an so did the folks who drank the purple koolaid.

David Koresh did not perform live a sinless life, perform miracles (as witnessed by thousands), predict the future, endure torture, get put to death by one of the most horrific methods imaginable, get resurrected from the dead, preach more to his followers, and ascend into heaven. I don’t know about you but, if I was a follower and had lived through that experience with David Koresh, it would have become very apparent to me that he was not who he said that he was. I certainly would not witness for him after it was all over to the point of being crucified in order to keep the movement going. My point is they wouldn’t die for a lie if they knew it was a lie. The disciples knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus was who he said he was after it was all over. The all bet their lives on it and died horrific deaths themselves final testimony. It is very illogical to me to believe someone claiming to be God without extremely good evidence. By the way, what an easy way to go by drinking the “purple Koolaid.” Just doesn’t quite compare.

Quote

Palestinian suic ide bombers KNOW that they are right too, and they do NOT feel that their beliefs are false - they still die for it and they are still wrong by most reasonable persons accounts.

My response is the same as it was for David Koresh. I wonder what those suicide bombers are thinking now. You know…the ones who have already gone off to meet their virgins. Kind of like that dude who decided that he and his followers were going to meet the aliens on the comet when it flew by.

The quote below is not my quote by the way. You responded to it following my responses. I don’t want to be responsible for what anyone says but myself.

Quote

The Bible is very much a document of Faith, and nobody's debating that. The question is, is it also a document of History? And historical sources, like scientific sources, must be verified independently. A source cannot verify itself.

Quote

EXACTLY - a book of faith, which i do not mind, but I do oppose when the faith enters the government and they way that i run my life (or the way anyone runs their life)

In reference to?...

Quote

and white supremeists use lots of historical data to support their cause, as do the Nazis, as do the Turkish Armenians, as do the gypsies. Every gets to judge for themselves.

People are selfish by nature and there will always be some who misuse “whatever” for their purposes (even the Bible and Christianity). Some will hide behind religion, take things out of context, and use it for evil purposes. That does not make it right and it does not in any way take away from Christianity or God’s purpose for us.

Quote

the person(s) have asked for historical facts and there are some - a few, Ok ,even a lot. Most of it from stories that have been told again and again for 2000 years, making them hardly factual, but mostly heresay.

***To base your life and everything you believe in on that alone is not for me.

I respect your position. I just believe differently.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

LOL! That's exactly what I've been trying to get across! There are some things that must be taken on faith (the whole son of god thing, for starters), and others, such as historical events, that can be documented in other ways.

I never...EVER...disagreed with that. But it is definitely not "blind faith." That's verbiage that a non-believer uses to make believers seem ignorant, gullible, less intellectual, and foolish for believing what they do. I'm saying that the preponderance of the evidence is with its validity and not with its discredit.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

People, this is religious intolerance!

Quote

Drunken Priest Shoots Mayor Dead
Thu May 13, 8:54 AM ET
Add Oddly Enough - Reuters to My Yahoo!
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - A Catholic priest shot to death the mayor of a town in western Mexico early on Wednesday after the pair got drunk and began punching each other during a religious festival, state officials said. After exchanging blows, the priest whipped out a 9mm pistol and fired four bullets into Lorenzo Ruiz, mayor of Chalpatlahuac, an indigenous town nestled in mountains 138 miles west of the Guerrero state capital of Chilpancingo, authorities said. "It seems they were arguing, these two men. They were at a get-together, they had words and the priest shot the mayor. They were apparently both in a state of drunkenness," said Guerrero state spokesman Jesus Nava. Local newspapers said the priest, whom they identified as Lorenzo Cuellar, was arrested after he also shot the mayor's son, injuring him. The priest was in Chalpatlahuac to celebrate a local religious festival which started on Tuesday evening and lasted into Wednesday morning. Guerrero is one of the poorest and most violent states in Mexico.

Better or worse than another sex scandal? Hmmmm.

You're actually blaming religion or God for this? Do you think he was truly acting on behalf of God or do you think he might have been acting completely from his own selfish and sinful nature? A Catholic priest is no better than any of the rest of us.

[Deuce 1]

Quote

Do you think he was truly acting on behalf of God or do you think he might have been acting completely from his own selfish and sinful nature?

Are your seriously trying to drag me into this? Ferget it. I gave up on the political threads years ago.

Like all politics is local, all religion is local, to me. In my freakish and wierd sense of humor, I actually thought it was funny. Still do. I'd simply crap my pants if my priest were to pull out a gat while we were drinking beers.

Religion for me is the attached. Plain and simple. Anybody is welcome to attend, and they give out a little snack at the end.

[pajarito 0]

No problem with that.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Simple is great but this is not a simple issue. You’re not being intellectually honest with yourself. You’re living by a creed, code, and morality. You’re living by your own creed, code, and morality. You don’t know for a FACT if it is right or not. You are in fact living according to your own whimsical selfish desires.

By definition, a code of conduct is not "right." It's the set of rules by which one chooses to live. Your last statement is an attempt to pretend that there is a correct set, one given by your beliefs. And that is a bit self centered, no?

What distinguishes the Bible (any given English translation) from the Book of Mormon? Joseph Smith died promoting his beliefs, as did many of the early followers. Mormons have to accept on faith the notion that God directed him to gold sheets that he alone saw and translated. You have to believe that these English translations are remotely accurate, esp when you quote from the Bible to try to prove your points.

There is very limited evidence withstanding from that time that isn't tainted by the Church. They were the main game in town in Italy for much of the past 2000 years. And you can only guess what was lost during the dark ages. You too are still forced to accept most of it on faith alone.

[jakee 1,497]

Quote

It is very illogical to me to believe someone claiming to be God without extremely good evidence.

I think that what you are assuming is that the disciples were rational people who needed solid evidence in order to follow Christ.
What other people are assuming is that the disciples were very impressionable people, exactly like the koolaid drinkers. Who knows what the discliples states of mind were?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,497]

Quote

But it is still faith, not fact. That it is "faith in absense of fact" is the only substantial requirement for getting into Christian heaven. So if you have real proof, then you MUST BE disqualified.

Ah, I see you've been reading Oolon Colluphids latest blockbuster "Well That About Wraps it up For God"
Following on from his phenomenally succesfull trilogy
"Where God Went Wrong"
"Some More of Gods Greatest Mistakes"
And of course "Who is This God Person Anyway"

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

I think my point is that if I can see through to the flaws in this supposed god's supposed plan, then how divine and perfect could it possibly be?!

You don’t understand, so it must be flawed…

Uh, thanks, but I said I SEE THE FLAWS, not that I don't understand. Don't put words in my mouth or change the ones you can see that I wrote. I said that if the flaws are obvious to me, that pokes a mighty big hole in the claim that some all-knowing deity made up the system.

I guess you're saying that the reason I see them as flaws is that I don't understand the whole plan. That's like someone saying my plan to drive to New York from West Palm Beach is flawed because I get on I-95 and start driving south, and then I claim, "Err, no it's not a flaw, I meant to do that. Y-you just don't understand the scope of my whole plan."

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

I'm not too sure about the 1 in 10 thing. Here is another very interesting perspective.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html

Paul Cameron and the FRI are considered to be (even by moderates) extreme right-wing and Paul Cameron himself has been discredited by many as "the least credible, of the various psychologists, medical doctors, and associated professionals which actively collaborate with the Religious Right.."

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/cameron.html

If he were generally accepted by even his own profession, then there might be some value in his data. But he seems to be standing there alone in his scientific findings. But that does not mean he has not convinced some of the masses (including you perhaps) of what he believes in.

Even if the Gay numbers are 1 in 20 or even 1 in 100, that would still make them a LARGE sizable group, worthy of the governments attention and worthy of some respect for their cause. 1 in 100 would actually outnumber the American Indian Population and 1 in 20 would be close to the Black population of this country.

We have gone out of our way already to grant special things to these people, albeit for different reasons and we have a long way to go.

The point of my arguement is that the gay population is large - probably much larger than we think, fo many of the socio reasons discussed here.

Once again, I ask, - what harm, if any, will come to society by the recognition of gay marriage? Once again I state - 'this is a free country and if it don't hurt you, then I outta be allowed to do it'

TK

[Zenister 0]

Quote

***

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and DEMONSTRATED this through his life, teachings, miracles, prophesy, torture, crucifixion, death, and resurrection witnessed by hundreds of people. Almost all of the disciples (witnesses to the events) died gruesome martyr’s deaths after Jesus was gone because of their continued testimony to the truth and their refusal to stop.

1. Peter – crucified
2. Andrew – crucified
3. Matthew – the sword
4. John – natural
5. James, son of Alphaeus – crucified
6. Philip – crucified
7. Simon – crucified
8. Thaddaeus – killed by arrows
9. James, brother of Jesus – stoned
10. Thomas – spear thrust
11. Bartholomew – crucified
12. James, son of Zebedee – the sword

Would anyone die for what they knew to be false? Would a group of people want to spread their new religion so badly that they would risk and accept that kind of fate (extended torture and death) if they knew it wasn’t really true? That’s very different from the followers of David Koresh who died beside him in the fire. There was no proof ever given of divinity other than what he claimed. His followers that died believed his word on its face and died with him. You’re right. I would NOT believe someone if they told me that they were God unless they could demonstrate it and it would have to be a very convincing demonstration.

lots of Muslims are 'proving' the 'truth' of their faith every day in suicide bombings.

you are still using a literary source as 'evidence'. What you have are stories, myths and legends, (and yes, in many cases myths, legends and stories plagiarized from older religions.) A fabulous way to lend credibility to a young, developing religion, but nothing that qualifies as evidence of the believers claims.

Quote

Bishop Fallows, Mistakes of Ingersoll and His Answers, .

hardly what one would call an 'unbiased' source, his account (and opinions of it) are hearsay not evidence.

any documented as written, rewritten, translated and edited as often as the bible is likely to have a lot of 'internal consistency'.

The gospels cannot validate each other, they are all the same 'source' ie Christian works written by believers, after the fact, long after. They cannot in any way be considered 'eye witness' accounts, as there is little to no evidence to back Christian claims of the original authors ascribed to each book, much less originals to compare to current editions to show revisions by translators, scribes and committees since.

do you actually believe the [color=red] words in red[/color] are recorded 'as spoken'?

You accept on faith that they are factually accurate accounts, but there is no evidence to support that claim, its simply a belief.

perhaps you should examine the definition of evidence more closely.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.