Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

[steveorino 7]

English is not your first language is it? You said, "do you suport the killing of the war in iraq?"

Did you mean "support the killing in the war in Irag?" Totally different question.

steveOrino

[hairyjuan 0]

isaid, From "seven years that change the world" by Wing Anderson, an Essene, "If SUN 'Jesus' was about peace, love and brotherhood, any 'christian', clapping his hands for war is a hypocrite.

you avoided my other question, are you afraid of the truth

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[billvon 3,036]

I support killing the war in Iraq too! End it and use our troops for what they were intended for - defending the US.

[steveorino 7]

I don't think he understands his sentence structure, Bill. I'm for killing the war!

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

>So why can't I use logic to study the bible? I define what my
> standards are, do the comparison and get my answer. What is
> wrong with that? Why is the bible exempt from scrutiny in this way?

Nothing at all. You can define your own terms and use them to examine the bible. And, just as in the Pollack example, you get an answer that is right for YOU. That does not mean that it's the same answer for everyone else, or that your answer works for everyone else.

Except I don't need to define my own terms. I can use the ones already defined in a standard reference book that contains words alphabetically arranged along with information about their form, pronunciation, functions, etymologies and meanings.

Quote

The important part of the bible is what it teaches you, not whether or not the earth was really created in 144 hours.

Part of what it teaches you is that the world was created in 144 hours. It also teaches you that snakes and donkeys talk, the earth is flat, bats are birds and a whole host of other gibberish. Granted there is some good stuff about other cheeks and motes in peoples eyes but my point is that you have to apply a major BS filter to the bible to turn it into a suitable learning tool. What tools do I use to sift out the crap from the useful stuff if I can't use logic as one of them?

From what you say, it's absolutely fine to take away from the bible whatever you want, or in your words, "whatever works for you". Even if it is that stoning adulterers and gays to death is acceptable behaviour, that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that your great mission is to get others to believe the same crap you do. I disagree.

[billvon 3,036]

> I can use the ones already defined in a standard reference book
> that contains words alphabetically arranged along with information
> about their form, pronunciation, functions, etymologies and meanings.

Nope. You can't use such a book to evaluate Pollack's paintings, and you can't use it to evaluate the bible.

>Part of what it teaches you is that the world was created in 144 hours.

Sure, in the same way a physics text teaches you that you should kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people with nuclear weapons. (After all, they tell you how nuclear weapons work, and most even have pictures of the weapons used to do that.)

But it would be silly to use a physics text to learn one's morals, wouldn't it?

>What tools do I use to sift out the crap from the useful stuff if I
>can't use logic as one of them?

Common sense.

Imagine your friend tells you a story of how he was addicted to cocaine, and a friend of his who was also an addiction counselor helped him turn his life around and become free of the addiction. (And indeed he does seem to have turned his life around.) During his story he mentions that the counselor had a blue car.

Years later you find out he had a red car. What would your conclusion be?

a) The story is completely false. There is no value in addiction counseling, addicts don't need help to quit, and you have no idea what happened to your friend - but it certainly didn't involve this provably-fake counselor.

b) He got the details wrong but the basic story is probably right.

If you cannot separate the lessons from the translation errors, errors in being passed down and misquotes that the bible is full of, then by all means, don't read it. A great many people, though, DO understand the message behind all the oft-translated and oft-misunderstood language.

[hairyjuan 0]

144,000 'elect' is in there somewhere also. the rest are screwed no matter what? the jw's are real adamant that their religion is the only true christianity. the truth of the matter is that, religion is JUST one more source of division among the people on the planet.



www.truthbeknown. com is avery thoroughly researched book on where 'christ comes from.

www.jordanmaxwell.com proves that it is truly astro-theology. a good example is the 'flood myth', factaully based on the annual flood of the nile river delta. Smith's bible dictionary proves that the ark of the covenant was egyptian in its origin. job swallowed by the whale and 'regurgitated' after three days, is the same story as jesus 'resurected' after three days, which is based on winter solstice when the sun is at its lowest point (death-rebirth) for three days dec. 21-24 being reborn on the 25th.

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[hairyjuan 0]

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

The Dead Sea Scrolls, newly liberated from the frightened grip of Christian researchers, have shown the Essenes to have been the direct forerunners of the Christian communities.
The Essenes were the prototype Christians. We find many well-known expressions in the Dead sea Scrolls such as...pierced...crucified Messiah, etc...
Christianity as "progressive revelation" turns out to be a hoax. The so-called "prophecies" referring to Jesus were mistranslated, with some verses or words omitted or added. The majority of the "prophecies" were statements after the facts. The Essenes or Zealots were never mentioned, because they were the Christians, or their close associates.

by Joseph Margulies, honorary presidentof the Jerusalem Institute of Biblical Polemics, Jerusalem, Israel. Published in theBiblical Polemics magazine, Issue No. 48, April 1992.

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[billvon 3,036]

>144,000 'elect' is in there somewhere also. the rest are screwed no matter what?

No, the 144,000 are the "sealed" - virgins who avoid all the unpleasantness at the end of Revelation. Everyone else gets judged by their works, after some hassling by various entities (like the scorpion-locusts.)

[JackC 0]

Quote

Nope. You can't use such a book to evaluate Pollack's paintings, and you can't use it to evaluate the bible.

If I can't use a dictionary, how do I know what the words mean? Do I just guess? Make it up as I go along?

Take the word "good" (having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified). Is Jackson Pollock a "good" artist? I need to know what specified thing "good" relates to. The question is incomplete and the only way I can answer it is to guess at by what sense you mean "good".

Quote

Sure, in the same way a physics text teaches you that you should kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people with nuclear weapons. (After all, they tell you how nuclear weapons work, and most even have pictures of the weapons used to do that.)

Bullshit. The bible clearly states that the universe was created in 6 days which is a (falsifiable) claim about the origins of the universe. Physics books do not tell you to kill hundreds of thousands of people. They do not advise you to do anything, they merely describe the laws of nature.

Quote

>What tools do I use to sift out the crap from the useful stuff if I
>can't use logic as one of them?

Common sense.

What? You mean the 1776 anti-monarchical treatise written by Thomas Paine encouraging revolution and colonial independence?

or do you mean

beliefs or propositions that seem, to most people, to be prudent and of sound judgment, without dependence upon esoteric knowledge. These beliefs and propositions are sometimes developed after having studied, or conducted, empirical research.

Wouldn't part of this common sense include logic? Apparently, not in Billvon's common sense.

Quote

If you cannot separate the lessons from the translation errors, errors in being passed down and misquotes that the bible is full of, then by all means, don't read it.

I can separate the lessons from the crap but I think that the crap is not due to "translation errors" or "misquotes" but simply because it's crap.

Quote

A great many people, though, DO understand the message behind all the oft-translated and oft-misunderstood language.

Perhaps this often misunderstood, mis-quoted and (questionably) translated text is so difficult to understand because it's badly written garbage? For an omnipotent being, his writing-to-his-audience skills are rubbish. I would submit that the bible is so badly written and incoherent that nobody could possibly understand it in it's entirety.

And now I must appologise since I used both logic and a dictionary to forulate this response, rendering it null and void.

[Erroll 80]

Quote

And now I must appologise since I used both logic and a dictionary, but no spell checker, to forulate this response, rendering it null and void.

[JackC 0]

C'est la vie.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

And now I must appologise since I used both logic and a dictionary, but no spell checker, to forulate this response, rendering it null and void.

Bwaahaaaahaaaa

steveOrino

[billvon 3,036]

>The question is incomplete and the only way I can answer it is to
>guess at by what sense you mean "good".

Once again - exactly. So the question means different things to different people. And to make this point for about the tenth time - if the question means something different to someone else, and he gets a different answer than you, that does not neccessarily mean he is wrong.

>The bible clearly states that the universe was created in 6 days
>which is a (falsifiable) claim about the origins of the universe.

Right. And if the Bible was a physics book, then it would be wrong. It's not.

>Physics books do not tell you to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

I have an old high school textbook that describes how they work, shows a picture of one, shows a nuclear test, and described how US military pilot Paul Tibbets dropped one on Hiroshima to end a war.

The only logical conclusion is that nuclear weapons are good things that end war and cause peace - if you use a physics book for your source of morality, which would be dumb.

>I can separate the lessons from the crap but I think that the crap is
> not due to "translation errors" or "misquotes" but simply because
> it's crap.

That's fine. Use some other book, or none at all.

>Perhaps this often misunderstood, mis-quoted and (questionably)
> translated text is so difficult to understand because it's badly written
> garbage?

Or it is seen as garbage because of the filters that some choose to read it through. The Iliad contains many factual (and translation) errors; someone who therefore decides that it's poorly written garbage is missing the point (IMO.)

[hairyjuan 0]

as said before-all you can do is deny the truth




www.jesusneverexisted.com

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[steveorino 7]

Calling all atheists. How many of you guys believe Hairy's plethora of attachments? Just curious.

steveOrino

[Nightingale 0]

I'm not an athiest, more of an agnostic, but I don't even read his attachments or his posts anymore. it's always the same stuff, over and over and over and over and over.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Right. And if the Bible was a physics book, then it would be wrong. It's not.

If Genesis isn't the story of the creation of the universe, then what is it?

I don't understand your point of view at all.

[steveorino 7]

Many theologians believe it is an allogory about the origins of man, never meant to be taken literally.

steveOrino

[kallend 2,076]

Quote

Many theologians believe it is an allogory about the origins of man, never meant to be taken literally.

This thread is about FUNDAMENTALIST Christians.

...

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

[JackC 0]

Quote

Many theologians believe it is an allogory about the origins of man, never meant to be taken literally.

So if the literal angle is out, what does this allegory teach you? How do you know which bits of the Bible are allegory and which aren't? It all seems a bit ad hoc to me.

[steveorino 7]

That man (hebrew word is adam) is a creation of God. It shows him his position in the world -- he is to take care of it (something we have failed to do)

A good course in theology from a school that isn't a fundamental Christian college would help.

steveOrino

[jakee 1,537]

Quote

Calling all atheists. How many of you guys believe Hairy's plethora of attachments? Just curious.

I looked at one once, I couldn't even work out what the fuck it was saying, let alone believe it

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[hairyjuan 0]

you believe, i know. you are in denial, i am not

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[hairyjuan 0]

you book of myths, says "in him I can do all things", If you believe, you have the power to move mountains." that suggests that your myth is not the solution, we are. to clarify, Stevo, I AM NOT AN ATHEIST, i know more about the bible than any school of theology could ever admit is true.

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish