i'm NOT christian... and proud of it!!!

[hairyjuan 0]

neither can you prove that there is any truth in the bible, because it has no historical basis. the test you keep posting, over 100 times?, is a big joke. i took your test! After taking it,I SAY THIS: I am whole, perfect, loving, strong, harmonious and happy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mitakuye oyasin

MY brothers and sisters



www.tbknews.blogspot.com

is all the truth in the world about RELIGION

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Have you taken this test? Do you know what kind of sports car you are?

I'm a Chevrolet Corvette!
You're a classic - powerful, athletic, and competitive. You're all about winning the race and getting the job done. While you have a practical everyday side, you get wild when anyone pushes your pedal. You hate to lose, but you hardly ever do.

[peregrinerose 0]

I'm a mustang, an American classic -- fast, strong, and bold. You're not snobby or pretentious, but you have what it takes to give anyone a run for their money.

Which is so damn cool since my mid life crisis car will be a mustang convertable.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[rehmwa 2]

I'm a Mustang

...
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

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Which is so damn cool since my mid life crisis car will be a mustang convertable.

[pajarito 0]

Jakee said:

Quote

So speedracer seems to have figured out how to summon hairyjuan, the question is who can figure out how to make him go away?

Well......

Anyone?.....

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

My point is that even if I could prove that god is fictional so that no sane, rational, logical thinking person could ever doubt me,

You can't.

The point is not whether I can actually produce the evidence, the point is that no level of evidence will ever be good enough for you. You are so convinced by your book, that anything contrary to what it says has to be a misinterpretation of the text or a fraud or the work of the devil or some other ad-hoc justification you can concoct. Your list of excuses contains every concievable permutation except one - the simplest of all - that the bible could be incorrect. That one you wont even consider, ever, under any circumstances, absolutely not possible, period.

Quote

Added: Have you taken the test below? How'd you do? Where will you be going when you die?

Obviously I failed, but only the ones that don't matter. Of course I think your test is nothing more than superstitious gibberish anyway so I don't care either way. But dude, you really need to do better than number 17 if you want me to buy into your god spam.

[philh 0]

Just like a religious person to bow to authority by giving us Brown Driver Briggs definition rather than using their own mind.
I have already pointed out a passage that contradicts this defintion.The word ratsach was clearly used in the Torah to describe a killing which was justified. Instead of using reason to undermine my argument you simply bow to authority. So as always, the debate between the religious and the non religious is a debate between reason and deference to authority. The latter, lets not forget , is the founding principle of fascism. It unsuprising that someone that has no problems with genocide takes such an aproach.

Some modern translations use the phrase thou shalt not murder becuase they realise the bible is contradictory and so they change the translation to try and get rid of the contradictions. But a proper analysis of the Hebrew as I have provided shows this is not justified.,

"Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of you God. I am the Lord.
Leviticus 18:21
The Canaanites sacrificed infants to their gods as part of their religious rites. This practice was strictly forbidden by God."

Lets examine your evidence. Its from the bible written by the hebrews , a race that committed genocide against the Cannanties. So why should we trust them? Many armies tell stories of opposing armeis killing their own children. Its rarley true. But even if it were true, why would this justify the genocide of that entire people. Many cultures have had human sacrifice and it is of course a barbaric practice but I dont see in any way how wiping the entire race out is preferable. Lets also point out that Solomon started to worship Molech but god didnt decide to wipe out the Hebrews.

You say you are not justifying genocide and then the next setence you tell us that the Cannanties were guilty of breaking gods law. Why tell us this, if not to justify the genoicde? The facts are; such a genoicde is described as being carried out by Hebrew armies under the command of god. assuming these events did happened were they justified or not?
Let me also point out that gods laws was not given to the Cannanites, so how did they know theyw ere breaking them? Were the children who were murdered also breaking gods law, the little babies?

You say you dont agre with the holocaust and I dont expect you to do so. What I am saying is that the logic of your argument leads you there. Let me demonstrate;
1The Hebrews committed genoicde against many races, the Cannanties being one of them
2 You justify such action because these races (really tribes) were unrighteeous or didnt follow gods law, or however you want to phrase it.
3. Since NT times Jews have denied the divinty of Christ and the existence of the holy spirit. Lets not forget the the NT describes this as the one unforgivable sin. So they must be defying god and unrighteous in the eyes of Christians.
4. You state that the unrigtheous are deserved of genocide. The conlusion is the holocaust.

That is one of the reasons why I want nothing to do with religion. Its a reason why religious people are so often happy to kill those they see as unrighteous. We should have nothing to do with it.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Let me also point out that gods laws was not given to the Cannanites, so how did they know they
were breaking them? Were the children who were murdered also breaking gods law, the little babies?

According to the atheist/ agnostics on the site, the laws of righteousness are already in your very being, therefore they need no higher authority.
Assuming for a moment that were true, the Cannanites, or even the people of Sodom should have been walking the staight and narrow without someone else telling them what's right or wrong.
Assume that the god of the Bible is who it says he is, He then has the authority to use anything or anyone as his agent to clean up a mess.
In the case of the Cannanites he used the Jews. As for Sodom and Gomarrah, he used a misguided meteor shower.
The problem we humans have is trying to grasp the infinite God with a finite mind.
About like a pot on the wheel feeling good about being formed, not knowing it has a huge character flaw, and suddenly gets crushed and thrown aside.

This world has been on a downhill slide since its creation, and will continue until it's all over.
Our attempt at playing God is not going to change the outcome.
I rest completely in this. Basically, we, as mere humans, are pissing into the wind, thinking that we can do anything to change the final outcome.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Let me also point out that gods laws was not given to the Cannanites, so how did they know they
were breaking them? Were the children who were murdered also breaking gods law, the little babies?

According to the atheist/ agnostics on the site, the laws of righteousness are already in your very being, therefore they need no higher authority.
Assuming for a moment that were true, the Cannanites, or even the people of Sodom should have been walking the staight and narrow without someone else telling them what's right or wrong.
Assume that the god of the Bible is who it says he is, He then has the authority to use anything or anyone as his agent to clean up a mess.
In the case of the Cannanites he used the Jews. As for Sodom and Gomarrah, he used a misguided meteor shower.
The problem we humans have is trying to grasp the infinite God with a finite mind.
About like a pot on the wheel feeling good about being formed, not knowing it has a huge character flaw, and suddenly gets crushed and thrown aside.

This world has been on a downhill slide since its creation, and will continue until it's all over.
Our attempt at playing God is not going to change the outcome.
I rest completely in this. Basically, we, as mere humans, are pissing into the wind, thinking that we can do anything to change the final outcome.

Why would a triple-O potter make a flawed pot?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JackC 0]

Quote

You seem to be assuming that faith precludes any questioning or acceptance of an alternative, i.e. there is nothing to believe in.

Not quite sure what you're getting at but in my book, to have faith you don't need evidence or proof. Further, if you think there is a valid alternative to proposition X then you cannot have faith in the absolute truth of proposition X.

Quote

Am I right that you see faith and belief in a higher power as blind submission?

That depends on how you define faith and belief. I would say that to know requires proof, to believe requires evidence and to have faith requires neither. I could have faith that X exists and that would be blind in as much as you have no reason to believe but you still do but that would not necessarily imply submission. For example, I could beleive that the Bible really is the word of god and still not take jesus as my new best mate.

If I had evidence that X exists then I no longer need faith and that would not be blind (partially sighted perhaps but not blind) Again that does not necessarily imply submission.

So are you right about me?

Quote

When you have this kind of faith and belief, there is constant questioning because there is constant challenge, both from outside and inside (how I really know? Do I trust myself, do I trust that God really is there?)

If you have faith in X being true, then you don't think X could be false. If you question X and think it might be false, then you don't have faith in X being true. Seems fairly straight forward to me. The position you seem to call faith and beleif, I'd call not knowing even though you might err to one side or the other.

Quote

But for every one of those questions, if you look

1. Deep within your own heart and find confirmation because it "feels" right,
2. To your logic and reason to know this choice is right (for you and for the world, not mutually exclusive),
3. To your reference of choice for perspective and confirmation,

Then you have already questioned yourself and found you are doing what's right for you.

Internal thought and feelings alone are not enough. Without some external and objective conformation that whatever position you take is correct then "I don't know" is still an acceptable state to be in.

[philh 0]

well I cant speak for other atheists here.I dont agree with your comment
"the laws of righteousness are already in your very being, "
certainly there is evidence that all animals have to different degrees tendencies for co operative behaviour becase it is there mutual intersest. Humans are no exception. Morality comes to some extent from this. But theres nothing as specific as what your comment implies. Morality certainly changes over time. I would think that is obivous.
Cetainly it is true that morality varies from trib to tirbe and so there is no reason to believe they would all follow the same rules.
However the point is , in the bible god gives his laws specifcally to the hebrews, not to other tribes. Yet Chrisitians justify the slaughter of whole races on the grounds that they didnt follow a set of rules they were unaware of.
Your comment about the an infinite is entirely assertion with no evidence.
Your comment that the world is going down hhil since creation. where do you get this from? what evidence do you to suport this. For the majority of the life of this planet there were no animla life and certainly no human life, whats so good about that?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

The point is not whether I can actually produce the evidence; the point is that no level of evidence will ever be good enough for you.

Hypothetical gibberish. That's what I meant by the whole frog with wings not bumping his ass thing. You could "what if" just about anything. The point is that the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence in support the Bible should lead one to believe or at least consider rather than not, IMO

Quote

Your list of excuses contains every conceivable permutation except one - the simplest of all - that the bible could be incorrect.

Possibly, as with just about anything, but very unlikely. Quite enough for me to place my faith in it.

Quote

Obviously I failed, but only the ones that don't matter.

"Judge... I'm guilty of breaking some laws and deserve punishment but only the ones that I considered unimportant. I think you should let me go." Does that make sense?

Quote

Of course I think your test is nothing more than superstitious gibberish anyway so I don't care either way.

Whether you believe in it or not, you will still have to face God on Judgment Day. Will you be ready?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Just like a religious person to bow to authority by giving us Brown Driver Briggs definition rather than using their own mind.

Well man… I certainly don’t have the advantage of 8 years of Hebrew studies like you do. All I can do is use the dictionary in that matter.

Quote

I have already pointed out a passage that contradicts this defintion.The word ratsach was clearly used in the Torah to describe a killing which was justified.

Don’t know about that particular verse but here is that explanation again.

Quote

The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder" in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause." The Hebrew word used here is ratsach, which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause ***(unless indicated otherwise by context)***.

Quote

Some modern translations use the phrase thou shalt not murder becuase they realise the bible is contradictory and so they change the translation to try and get rid of the contradictions. But a proper analysis of the Hebrew as I have provided shows this is not justified.,

Pure unsupported speculation on your part.

Quote

Lets examine your evidence. Its from the bible written by the hebrews , a race that committed genocide against the Cannanties. So why should we trust them?

Racist comment.

Quote

Many armies tell stories of opposing armeis killing their own children. Its rarley true. But even if it were true, why would this justify the genocide of that entire people. Many cultures have had human sacrifice and it is of course a barbaric practice but I dont see in any way how wiping the entire race out is preferable.

Finite mind trying to comprehend that of an infinite God. A completely holy and just God who views lying, theft, and adultery as extreme violations of his standard of perfect righteousness. I think the barbarism of the Canaanites probably far exceeded that. Guilty as charged. Just like you and me.

Quote

Lets also point out that Solomon started to worship Molech but god didnt decide to wipe out the Hebrews.

God’s “chosen” people selected to bring about his ultimate plan (which is still ongoing). That’s his prerogative.

Quote

You say you are not justifying genocide and then the next setence you tell us that the Cannanties were guilty of breaking gods law. Why tell us this, if not to justify the genoicde? The facts are; such a genoicde is described as being carried out by Hebrew armies under the command of god. assuming these events did happened were they justified or not?

I don’t second guess God.

Quote

Let me also point out that gods laws was not given to the Cannanites, so how did they know theyw ere breaking them? Were the children who were murdered also breaking gods law, the little babies?

Quote

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Romans 2:12-16

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Why would a triple-O potter make a flawed pot?

Because a robot wouldn't make for a meaningful relationship. My love for someone would mean nothing unless I had the choice to not love.

[Skyrad 0]

Nicky Gumbel once said to me..'No-one was ever argued to faith'. Think about it, have you ever met a Christian who said...'You know, I used to be an Atheist, then I had a storming argument with a Christian and realised I was wrong and behold I found the Lord!'

By all means give your testament when appropriate but to try and argue someone to faith is counterproductive and just reinforces negative stereotypes of Christians.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[SpeedRacer 1]

good post, skyrad!

yep he's right. but it goes in the other direction to. there are some atheists who seem to believe that the Christians simply haven't challenged their own ideas, and if they'd just hear what the atheists have to say, they would of course agree, and immediately stop believing in God.
has it occurred to those types of atheists that perhaps the Christians HAVE heard & considered those ideas, but simply have come to a different conclusion?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Nicky Gumbel once said to me..'No-one was ever argued to faith'. Think about it, have you ever met a Christian who said...'You know, I used to be an Atheist, then I had a storming argument with a Christian and realised I was wrong and behold I found the Lord!'

I was an Atheist. My Brother-in-law and I used to go at it all the time. We had "storming arguments" all the time on the subject. He was "instrumental" in my coming to "knowledge" of the faith. You are correct, however, in that no one can force you into it. Only God calls a person into his fold (faith). By the way, Kirk Cameron (in the video below) and Josh McDowell were also both Atheists. Deep down, my knowledge of right and wrong was already in my conscience. I'd just fought against it my entire life. It was in my nature to do so.

Quote

By all means give your testament when appropriate but to try and argue someone to faith is counterproductive and just reinforces negative stereotypes of Christians.

I appreciate your suggestion but I think I'll continue to try and follow The Great Commission. I have to answer to the "Commissioner" one day.

[jakee 1,499]

Quote

yep he's right. but it goes in the other direction to. there are some atheists who seem to believe that the Christians simply haven't challenged their own ideas, and if they'd just hear what the atheists have to say, they would of course agree, and immediately stop believing in God.
[Crazy] has it occurred to those types of atheists that perhaps the Christians HAVE heard & considered those ideas, but simply have come to a different conclusion?

There are occasions where it is quite clear that religious folks are not in possession of all the information when coming to their conclusions about specific aspects of their faith. Take for example the debates on creationism that take place with people who's understanding of evolution is based on what Dr Dino has told them.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

yep he's right. but it goes in the other direction to. there are some atheists who seem to believe that the Christians simply haven't challenged their own ideas, and if they'd just hear what the atheists have to say, they would of course agree, and immediately stop believing in God.
[Crazy] has it occurred to those types of atheists that perhaps the Christians HAVE heard & considered those ideas, but simply have come to a different conclusion?

There is a big differnce between belonging to a religion and having a relationship with God. As a belife system in itself I'd argue that Atheism is a religion in itself.

There are occasions where it is quite clear that religious folks are not in possession of all the information when coming to their conclusions about specific aspects of their faith. Take for example the debates on creationism that take place with people who's understanding of evolution is based on what Dr Dino has told them.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[windcatcher 0]

I don't want to argue, but I wanted to make a comment about knowing the truth in the Bible.

The Holy Spirit helps with understanding God's word. Yes, I believe the Holy Spirit even helps us know which part of the Bible is literal, metaphorical,etc. Without the Holy Spirit, it is hard to understand the Bible.

Mother to the cutest little thing in the world...

[JackC 0]

Quote

Hypothetical gibberish. That's what I meant by the whole frog with wings not bumping his ass thing. You could "what if" just about anything. The point is that the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence in support the Bible should lead one to believe or at least consider rather than not, IMO

Erm...no. The premise itself is logically flawed and the book isn't even self-consistent. You have to get down really low and squint to make any of it even remotely feasible. The overwhelming mountain of evidence suggests that the bible is nothing more than the superstitions of a bunch of bronze age nomads.

Anyway, posing hypothetical questions can be quite informative. There are loads of things that could make me believe in god; none of them have ever happened but hypothetically there are things that could cause me to change my beliefs. Thought experiments are used frequently in loads of differnt disciplines, physics and philosophy in particular. You should try it sometime.

Quote

Quote

Your list of excuses contains every conceivable permutation except one - the simplest of all - that the bible could be incorrect.

Possibly, as with just about anything, but very unlikely. Quite enough for me to place my faith in it.

Fuck me. Is that an admission that you may not have all the answers? Call guinness!

Quote

"Judge... I'm guilty of breaking some laws and deserve punishment but only the ones that I considered unimportant. I think you should let me go." Does that make sense?

In the UK it is a legal requirement for every adult male to commit 2 hours of every sunday to archery practice. I ignore that law every week and so does the vast majority of the UK population. No one has ever been prosecuted under that law for hundreds of years and no one ever will. We ignore these stupid laws because they dont matter. Not worshiping fictional characters is a victimless crime. Blasphemy is a victimless crime. Worshiping idols of fictional characters is a victimless crime. They too don't matter.

Quote

Whether you believe in it or not, you will still have to face God on Judgment Day. Will you be ready?

Says who? You just admitted you could be wrong. When I die, the only place I expect to go to is the crematorium. If I'm proved wrong when I die, I'm more than ready to walk straight up to god and punch the sadistic fucker in the mouth.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

I don't want to argue, but I wanted to make a comment about knowing the truth in the Bible.

The Holy Spirit helps with understanding God's word. Yes, I believe the Holy Spirit even helps us know which part of the Bible is literal, metaphorical,etc. Without the Holy Spirit, it is hard to understand the Bible.

No argument there

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[philh 0]

"Don’t know about that particular verse but here is that explanation again. "
This is not an explaantion. You admit you dont know the verse or Hebrew. But yet you cling to the riduclous notion that rastach is only used for ""Do not put anyone to death without cause." Even though the bible/Torah uses the word for killings it itself describes as justified.
But let me give you another proof. lev 21:17 "and he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.
If you are right the word ratsach should be used here. but as I have said the wmany words for kill in hebrew are used interchangably in the bible. here the word nakah is used, not rastach. So your arguemnt falls apart yet again. You just dont want to admit the bible is contradictory when its clear as day that it is.

My point tabout the defintion of ratsach changin gto suit Chritstain needs is not unsurported, its based upon the semantic evidence I have provided. As further evidecne I sight the fact the older bibles that date back to periods before people dared mentioned contradictions in the bible translted the word as kill.
My comments are certainly not racist. First off Im Jewish by upbringing myself. Secondly all biblical scholars agree that OT was written by Jews, do you despute that? Furthermore the bible itself claims the Hebrew armies slaughtered all the Cannnanites, so its hardly racist of me to acuse them of a crime they themselves boast about. Nor do I restrict my distrust of conqquering armies propaganda to Hebrew armies; its common to most armies throuought history.

"Finite mind trying to comprehend that of an infinite God. A completely holy and just God who views lying, theft, and adultery as extreme violations of his standard of perfect righteousness. I think the barbarism of the Canaanites probably far exceeded that. "
This argument assumes that god exists and that god is perfect. What youa re basically saying is god is perfect so thereofre god is perfect. See the ciruclar argument here? furthermore by saying God is just and holy you are judging god in the same manner as I am. You are simply coming to a different conclusion.

But god is not of the character you say even within the bible.
Adultory an extreme violation? Why then do we have this passage in Hosea 1;2
"2The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms "
Or how about lying;
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

More importantly lets look at Isaiah 45;
7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Its right there in your own bible, god is the sourse of all evil. Doubt that and your doubting your own bible.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

First off Im Jewish by upbringing myself.

Maybe he's just Anti-Semantic!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca