My argument is based off of two verses in the Bible.
<b>
<i>Matthew Chapter 19, Verse 26 </i>
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
</b>

In this bible verse, Jesus says that with god all things are possible.

<b>THIS IS WRONG.</b>
If everything is possible, it is impossible for an impossible situation or event to occur, and therefore, everything cannot be possible.

Heres an easier way to put it:

For the sake of argument, I will assume that everything is possible. Because everything is possible, there is nothing that <i>cannot</i> happen or occur. Something that is impossible cannot exist in a universe where everything is possible.

<b>I repeat, it <i>cannot</i> exist</b>.

So, the very nature of the "Everything is Possible" theory directly contradicts and disproves itself, because for everything to be possible, it must be impossible for an impossibility to occur/happen, which is impossible :)
<b>
So what? Jesus was wrong. What does that have to do with god?
</b>
<b>
<i>Revelation Chapter 21, Verse 5 </i>
And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. </b>

God says that the words of the bible are true, yet the words we discussed above <i>are not</i>!

That means that either god lied to make himself seem more trustworthy, or that with all of his infinite knowledge and wisdom he couldn't understand that the "Everything is Possible" theory is wrong.

Originally posted by tetra
So, the very nature of the "Everything is Possible" theory directly contradicts and disproves itself, because for everything to be possible, it must be impossible for an impossibility to occur/happen, which is impossible

That means that either god lied to make himself seem more trustworthy, or that with all of his infinite knowledge and wisdom he couldn't understand that the "Everything is Possible" theory is wrong.

OTOH, maybe God doesn't get lost in trying to track the state of possibility of an impossible impossibility the way you just did.

Apparently, you think that if it is impossible for an impossibility to occur, that must mean that something is impossible.

However, your two negatives cancel, thus making it possible for a possibility to occur, yet you claim this can't happen.

Rethink this.

try to keep a open mind about things. everything and anything is possible, evan the impossible, but what is impossible is always possible.

Okay Howie, uh, ATHEISTHATER, er, Jehovah - oh, whoever you are this week~

Apparently you're out to demonstrate that all religionists are insane by pretending to be one and then acting like some kind of nutcase to prove the point? Not very subtle, Howie. In fact, it's pretty transparent. Not to mention, annoying. If you have a case against religion, why not come out and state it in a forthright and honest manner? As it is, you're simply an irritation and an embarrassment to those in each camp, and you're contributing nothing of worth to the debate.

~Emerald

Tetra--

If everything is possible, it is impossible for an impossible situation or event to occur, and therefore, everything cannot be possible.

I believe Augustine covered this in City of God, whereby the only limitation placed upon God is the contradictory: one cannot ask God to create a stone too heavy to lift; one cannot ask the boundless to exceed its boundaries; one cannot, by nature of what the words mean, ask God to create a square circle.

However, I must also confess that, even if my citation of Augustine is not the correct one, the idea of the contradictory limit is one that is most often offered in defense of the existence and supremacy of the God of the Christian Bible. (If I'm wrong, though, there will be about four people to remind us both with the proper citation.)

But I think the whole of the creation and fall of mankind, as related by Genesis, demonstrates the same point you're illustrating--or, to be fair, my perception thereof. God, in the Genesis question, is either cruel or an idiot. And that accusation can even be blanched and tenderized to make it less unpalatable to the faithful: We might assert, then, that God's error came not in cruelty, but in a fundamental programming of human nature, by which humanity has elected a separate standard of propriety which suitably accomplishes certain progress yet still defies God in that the standard does not take His instruction by the letter.

Perhaps God's Kingdom could have come in earlier times with a little more force and conformity. But that could have did not, and the reality of today's world is that God's wisdom apparently seems to be a prescription for the salvation of the human race through attrition. Of course, myself believing in the Universe as opposed to God, per se, I tend to think that the God of the Christian Bible never did actually know or attempt to relate the reality of His boast. I equate this idea to a peculiar human trait--notably American--by which an individual looks at their lot in life and decides that yes, it is okay to trade certain "rights" of being human in exchange for the illusion of security. My own father, under the illusion that music causes crime, many times advised me that he was happy to forfeit part of his First Amendment right if it would stop the decline of society. I can't begin documenting the degree of assumption in such a notion. Yet the American culture is only now getting around to exploring the idea that the truth upon which its social policies are based might actually be subjective and arbitrary. When Gore called his music inquisition in the Senate in the '80s, how many politicians and pundits and advocates and preachers did we say, "I believe in free speech, but there has to be limits to what you can say"? God is, by this logic, shortsighted in the notion that He does not realize that we are not programmed to a specific standard that He believes us to be. That is the least cruel I can be to the question of what God was thinking in Genesis. Perhaps similar difficulties of foresight affect the Infallible One in the passages you've described. Perchance also it might be that the passages are not God's words, per se, but human words for human issues, and not intended to be Universal except that someone in need of quick credibility put God at one end of the idea.

Anyway, two cents or so on that, kind Tetra.

now then ...

Howard!

I would be wise to stand on Emerald's advice to you. But maybe it's my liberal dander, or a stoner's impatience, or nicotine withdrawal, but I'm just stupid enough today to undertake the chunk of nonsense you've vomited across this topic.

Again you and the other freaks here are assuming that a god, which you don't believe in, must abide by the writings of men who have been dead for 2000 + years!
But Howard, that's the way it must be. You see, the people who believe in this God insist that so much about God is already known and final that it is difficult to learn more about this God without transgressing a number of His prescribed boundaries. It's a vicious cycle perpetuated by His followers. After all, I agree with the part about the old men dead for millennia. However, without them, neither you nor I would be compelled to give thought to the subject, because that God would not be present in world cultures today, except as a relic faction in the Middle East, if even that.

Each here malign God!
I think it would be fair if mankind asserted that God started it. Eden was a bad joke, at best.

Just try to imagine how a bunch fuckheaded idiots might draw conclusions about "Tetra/Tiassa" in a thousand years, based on recorded sci-posts of the early 21st Century, given the scrutiny that you and the other fags have given Jehovah.Hey, Fair is Fair, you fairy!
Well, if they took Tetra/Tiassa as a religion, then your profane reference would pretty much cover their state of mind.

On the other hand, it seems that Tetra/Tiassa has not yet declared that Thou shall have no other gods before Me. To be honest, I doubt it will. What's up with IHVH?

What proof is there that an undescribed and all knowing Deity is either a liar or idiot?
It lies in the theology constructed around that deity. It has Perfect Knowledge and an Immutable Will. That God could will the present human condition hardly challenges the intellect. But things get strange when we apply the idea that God saves and punishes based on a set of standards that, as I explained in the above portion to Tetra, do not necessarily reflect what is applicably best for the greater human interest.

According to US laws, one is innocent until proven guilty.
An American woman sued God in the late '70s or early '80s after lightning caused a tree to fall on her house. The court ruled in her favor but noted that it had no precedent for enforcement, and left collection of debts to the plaintiff and her attorney.

Your trial, as fragmented as it seems, demonstrates exactly the point. When those writings are all we have enforcing that God's credibility, that God becomes, well, laughable. Thank you for making such a wonderful summary of it.

Who is to be judged?

FOR HE WHO IS WITHOUT GUILT MUST CAST THE FIRST STONE UPON THE GUITY.

HAVE A NICE DAY FAGGOTS ! ! !
Wow, a rhetorical question, and two cliches designed to terminate the issue. Emerald, are you catching this?

And Howard ... your fixation on homosexuality, combined with that deep-seeded, incoherent rage tells me that you probably need to spend some quiet and alone time with yourself and get to know that secret you that is almost killing to get out.

Tony1--

And there you go doing the same, but that's not the point. You're reading it diffrent from Tetra, and I'm probably reading it different from you both. But your response does little to settle the conundrum as I think Tetra has expressed it. What you're onto here ... if I ever think of a good way to put the question, we can burn whole topics on it. But I'm suddenly fatigued from trying to keep track of something even more difficult than God's impossibilities: Howard's faggot-demons.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

tiassa, your right.

I was being a little too broad, so I shouldve made the topic :

"If there is a god and everything in the bible is truley the word of god, then god is either an idiot or an asshole"

Tetra: I guess you didn't name yourself after the little fish, but after a tetrahedron? If, as Christians claim there is a God of the Universe, then you are deffently puttting yourself publicly in a no win situation. If, there is no God, then you statement is null & void, why call out to a non-existant being? But are you sure you need to rage against God? Or is your anger toward His human representatives?

Also, I think your impossible statement needs to be either Vend diagramed, disected or something to follow it.

But are you sure you need to rage against God? Or is your anger toward His human representatives?

I'm of the mind that under any circumstances represented nearly accurately by the Bible or its adherent tradition, rage against both is fair. Though it sounds flippant, this is the way God wants it. What happens in our world is the natural result of existence.

What I mean by that is well-represented in a couple of the places in the Bible. To look at it with a sense of allegory or metaphor, we might say that sin entered the moment Eve considered the Serpent's argument.
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Genesis 3.5-6)
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, she chose to defy God. At this moment, sin is possible, and does not await the picking. This independence might be what fuels God's anger in Genesis 3.22, when He fears that humans can become His equal. But the power to choose, as opposed to obey undermines God's authority in the simple fact that choice is a response to the internal while obedience is a response to the external.

But it seems the God Who Knows either A) Did not foresee this disobedience, or else B) Foresaw it, and chose that it was good. Thus, it would seem that when God sent His Only Son to save humanity, he was sending His Only Son to save humanity from His Blunder (A), or His Will (B). God was either unable or unwilling to prevent this breach of obedience. In the case of (A), and assuming that God hoped to keep harmony with humankind, it demonstrates that God can, indeed, make mistakes. In the case of (A) and God's indifference toward harmony with humankind, we then see that this fall from grace was God's will. In the case of (B), well, it was God's Will, period, and designed to go this comparatively poorly from the start. Even with this simple example, I think it's fair to wonder what the hell God was thinking, and perfectly acceptable to be upset at the fact that He has never particularly cared to answer.

As to God's people ... well, they dig their own damn grave. I'm sorry to put it that way, but it's a matter of appearances versus a matter of inner reality. There are, I know, at least a handful of Christians who are living damn near right who we never hear from because they know how to preach the Word. They realize that they are the living manifestation, and that only that living manifestation can communicate. They rarely evangelize as we might recognize from the culture at large because they know that such chatter only adds to the discord. They don't pay attention to the preacher when he tells them how to vote because God told them to trust in what is right, and not what people say is right. These sorts of things. However, if these people composed the majority, or even a visible segment of the Christian body social, the absurd notions that God gives a rat's behind about Marilyn Manson or King Diamond, or the gender of your sexual partner, or what kind of novels you read, or how much leg you show, or anything so petty when compared to the African famine would simply not trouble the rest of society. I'll paraphrase Bill Maher to say that I would certainly try to be a Christian, if only they would first.

Among Americans, I cannot say I've ever had to vote against a Muslim-derived repression, or a Wiccan-derived repression. But in my day Christianity has sounded off on virtually everything having to do with freedom: written word, music, television, theatre, intoxicants, dancing, attire, medicine, crime, and families. And they've been wrong, for reasons that sometimes escape me, every time!

* Music: Don't tell me I can't listen to this because the word Satan is on the album.
* Written word: How does it violate your right to free religion that this or that book is allowed publication, distribution, or a station in a public library? Yet I've heard this asserted several times in my life.
* Television: Why does the censor make it come out, "___-damn!" Or, "Jesus H Baldheaded ______!" Truly, why can I not show "Anal Aviators" on CBS at 8am on Saturday morning? (Specifically, why do laws exist preventing me from doing so?) And then there's Wildmon, Wildmon, Wildmon!
* Theatre: Run Hair or Rocky Horror Show or Lips Together, Teeth Apart in a town with a loud conservative voice. It's always fun to listen to the church-people whine about sin and degredation and homosexuality and nakedness and all that dumb stuff.
* Intoxicants: I live in the United States of America; such a point of argument should suffice, but that's not fair. I am born and raised beneath the spectre of prohibition; it worked so well as a Constitutional Amendment that they had to revoke it and carry it on in the name of Commerce. Why is it illegal in some states to be able to see into a tavern from the outside? Why should I not drink liquor on Sunday, though that rule seems to have slipped by the wayside on a cultural level at the wholesale level. Why is caffeine on the no-no list for so many faithful in this country? (Specifically, I don't see how the two go hand in hand: caffeine and faith in God.)
* Dancing: Quakers don't dance, they rhythm. This is the best explanation I've ever heard; I accept it wholeheartedly. On the other hand, some of the same prohibitions maintained against dancing today by some churches are the same prohibitions that invented the Charleston, because technically, it wasn't a dance. (A point of form ... hey, the slaves didn't make that rule.)
* Attire: Why the heck do we still have separate dress codes? Why is ... oh, her, right there! Why is her skirt "too short" for school or the workplace? Why does the law say that clothing is optional in Eugene, Oregon? (Specifically, why is it written in to begin with? For what reasons could this not be the natural assumption, that clothing is not required?)
* Medicine: I'll throw the slider at abortion: Specifically, why was a cancer-fighting drug illegal? Why did American minds have to travel abroad to work with this drug? Why was the fact that it goes in a cocktail that causes a miscarriage the reason it is illegal? I have to admit, it wasn't the atheists crying foul.
* Crime: I am not the person at this board; nor the nationally-syndicated, corpulent-windbag radio host; nor the California-based, nationally-syndicated columnist; nor one of the many, many people in this country who point out the rising crime rate as evidence of the necessity of prayer in public schools.
* Families: Again, I live in the United States of America. I don't know where to begin with what is wrong with religion and family. Especially American religion. It helped make "Family Values" a hot-button political issue. That and an idiot named Quayle.

Please, Randolfo, do not take me wrong: what I am attempting to summarize for you is the simple fact that over the course of my life, the Christian voice has consistently disagreed with me for reasons more directly related to an idyll than to what I've been able to discern from my own observation and experience. Consider these couple of ideas, please: It took the liberals to moderate me; it took the Clinton administration to turn me back into a liberal. In a like vein, I would apply the slightly-vicious tag: It took Christianity to make me a realist.

In the end, I think it's fair to hold some resentment toward the human representatives because they've made such a stinking mess of it, on the whole. Consider the sometimes ugly idea of The world would be better off without Christianity. Calls to mind some chilling ideas. When I feel that way, I know very well it is impatience, but it isn't particularly chilling because it is merely a notched-up version of the crux of the problem: I would, all things told, prefer to be indifferent to Christianity the way I'm indifferent to Hinduism. I also, all things told, would appreciate it very much if Christianity would allow that condition to exist. People have often told me, of Christianity: [i]Don't throw Baby Jesus out with the bathwater. I assure these persons, wherever they may be, that I have taken it to heart. Again, it's a little vicious, I admit, but it's worth noting that I have not fled these loving shores, despite the threat I perceive in Christianity. But I've hammered the point over and over at Exosci that something is wrong if the "proper" Christians aren't shushing the idiot-fringe of the evangelical wing. For instance, I dismissed two Kingdom Hall evangelists a couple of weekends back, as politely as I could, for they, too, were exceptionally polite and also sensitive to the reputation that preceded them. In the end, the five or so minutes we spent while I smoked on the porch was as much as I could give them, and a little more just for good measure. Why? They were exceedingly polite, and the German gentleman seemed quite amused at his companion's failure to get the hint that they were being rebuffed. I respect that gentleman's perspicacity. He operated on the principle that they have been kindly rejected, and it's best to leave now before the younger one put another dent in the reputation and therefore evangelical credibility. (And the younger one did, but it was generally cute, as parts of the conversation whizzed by him. I mean, how often do you get to swap Catholic jokes with a Jehovah's Witness? Really?)

But this sort of thing is needed on the cultural stage, too. And that the wiser voice does not restrain the misguided notion, that the appearance of apathy dwells on the excited brows of the gathered faithful (have you read my Jesus-Fair bit?), and that the reasons I've heard expressed justifying idiocy like censorship in values alleged to be Christian ... it is, I think, fair to be more than a little upset at the human representatives of God. I mean, it's just my opinion based on my own perspective, but perhaps that's part of the point. Maybe all the difference in the world would have been the presence of a single advocate of this religion who could present it without representing a snake-oil reality. At no time have my experiences with Christianity accomplished what it would seem any reasonable Christian would hope for. I would say it was a disappointing revelation, but, frankly, I was focused on other miseries--some self-invited. But I can think of at least one depressing song lyric off the top of my head--Reznor, I hurt myself today to see if I still feel. Hurting oneself is often part of the learning process, and I'm not necessarily talking about drugs or sex or ... well, okay ... sex and what the "normal" relationship can do to the brightest of minds (well, not bright enough, apparently). But on such occasions that I would hurt myself and drag others down with me, when I finally came around and realized how I was behaving ... there were no gods or devils; no burden of confession. There was me, and the people who love me. Obviously they do or else they wouldn't still be around. And suddenly I was hurting myself less and less, until now it's pretty much an elective thing. And I do feel that Christianity limits that sense in people; I did not ever feel it while I answered to the God of the Christians. I was too worried about God to make sure I wasn't hurting myself. And I see the same thing happening to a macrocosmic--as such--through the culture. I sometimes wonder if those people ever realize when they're hurting themselves, and how hard it is to stop hurting oneself. And when I look at the difference between how I felt then and how I feel now, I want nothing more than to rip those stale myths out of that poor soul's conscience and give them the chance to stand up to their own self for a change, instead of burying it back in God's shadow.

And, Randolfo, I wanted to explain again that this tantrum of mine is not directed at you specifically; I know little of you or your ideas at present. But I came across an inch-wide opening and truly needed to unload a mile or two. Or something like that.

Your question to Tetra was a springboard waiting for me to double-jackknife right into the yogurt, as the saying went. Thanx much for that.

And thank you ... and you ... and you ... and everyone who has to put up with me tonight .... ;)

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
... either A) ..., or else B) ... (A), or ... (B). ... (A), and ... (A) ... (B), ... Even with this simple example, I think it's fair to wonder what the hell God was thinking, and perfectly acceptable to be upset at the fact that He has never particularly cared to answer.
(C) A superior intelligence might actually know better, so why not consider learning from him.

As to God's people ...However, if these people composed the majority, or even a visible segment of the Christian body social, the absurd notions that God gives a rat's behind about Marilyn Manson or King Diamond, or the gender of your sexual partner, or what kind of novels you read, or how much leg you show, or anything so petty when compared to the African famine would simply not trouble the rest of society.
OTOH, God cares about it all.

... for reasons that sometimes escape me, every time!
It could be the THC.

In the end, I think it's fair to hold some resentment toward the human representatives because they've made such a stinking mess of it,
Based on what you've written in previous posts, you've chosen some religion at random, found that some call it Christianity, described what proponents of that religion have done and then proceed to denigrate it.

That is a lot like taking a counterfeit bill and denouncing the real currency because the fake is not legal tender.
Duh.
But on such occasions that I would hurt myself and drag others down with me, when I finally came around and realized how I was behaving ... there were no gods or devils; no burden of confession. There was me, and the people who love me. Obviously they do or else they wouldn't still be around.
Or they are enablers.
You appear to have traded eternal life and not hurting yourself for not hurting yourself.

I did not ever feel it while I answered to the God of the Christians. ...And when I look at the difference between how I felt then and how I feel now, I want nothing more than to rip those stale myths out of that poor soul's conscience and give them the chance to stand up to their own self for a change, instead of burying it back in God's shadow.
Sounds like that Catholic thing represented as Christianity.

(C) A superior intelligence might actually know better, so why not consider learning from him.
When I meet a superior intelligence, I do.

But your answer has nothing to do with the text you've quoted. Your answer, if I might make the assumption that you're implying the superior intelligence of the god you've chosen to believe in, is already covered in answer B) God's Will.
It could be the THC.
Hardly. But you're starting to sound like a litany.

* I was firmly aware of this pattern well before I ever smoked marijuana. In fact, and just for your benefit, I will mention that THC did eventually affect my perception of this pattern; eventually, I was able to spot certain processes at work in myself that I had criticized in, for instance, Christianity. This process much resembles the first time I realized that my best efforts to not be racist were causing me to be racist. Sure, I might have eventually stumbled onto this idea without marijuana, but the thought occurred to me A) after I had chosen to treat marijuana as a daily factor in my life, and B) shortly after smoking a bowl while listening to the Screaming Trees' Buzz Factory. The only reason I don't call this definitive proof of marijuana's beneficial influence is that it leaves much to assumption in a way that I learned to dislike because such assumptions were exactly what I found so inhospitable about Christianity; the human environment inspired by the perfect Word of God just reeked of them.
Based on what you've written in previous posts, you've chosen some religion at random, found that some call it Christianity, described what proponents of that religion have done and then proceed to denigrate it.
If a man tells me he is a Christian, who am I to call him a liar?

Or, to sum it up, there is a logic problem about two tribes, one which tells the truth, and one which lies. I've long lost the book I had that it was written in, but I can find it if you need. It creates a paradox that is equivalent to a friend of mine looking across the table and saying, "I'm a liar; I always lie; and I'm lying to you right now."

The people who do these things claim to worship Jesus Christ and adhere to the Bible. For instance, as someone who has spent his life learning the art of the written word, there are very few things that I know about writing or the written word. But there is one thing I can tell you now, definitively, if there is no connection 'twixt these people's worship of the Bible and their conduct: If there is no connection between the written word and the people who perceive it, there would be no bestseller lists, and no Christianity based upon the Bible.

Sure, you and I know that a great number of Christians have it wrong. But they were led here by The Book. They were led here by God. This imperfect result is no different from the Bolshevik failure to figure out the Manifesto. Or the accidental waer-loga whose ego compels them to black magick without knowing it.
That is a lot like taking a counterfeit bill and denouncing the real currency because the fake is not legal tender.
Duh.
The counterfeit dollar bill does not consciously choose to be counterfeit, or to be at all.

Duh. :rolleyes:
Or they are enablers.
You appear to have traded eternal life and not hurting yourself for not hurting yourself.
Thank you for demonstrating another result of Christianity which I cannot seem to escape: the need to find the worst in people.

I generally trust people to the best. It's their conduct that is the key. No interventionism, no cold apathy; largely a saga of people trying to figure out how to communicate around the obstacles they perceive until the terms of the situation are obvious.

What more can I ask of those people who would claim to love me than their utmost trust that I will figure it out, and their determination to not knock me onto a tangential course? I once came across a woman having a bad trip at a concert. She was screaming about ... well, many things. But it took about fifteen seconds to calm her down. Had she come across one of the uniforms or security shirts, there enters the likelihood of her being confined in a room and being forcibly injected with other drugs to bring her down.

This seems a dramatic juxtaposition, but essentially, it is that I can always trust these people you've accused. Period. If they feel the need to override my will, they will do so to protect me from someone less trustworthy doing the same. So far, it hasn't had to happen. Even after my most reckless collapses, regardless of the circumstances, the people closest to me have generally stated their opinion and then gotten the hell out of my way, if they bothered to lay it on me at all.

A great example is a story a coworker told me about why he doesn't drink. Apparently, shortly after his twenty-first birthday, he got pissing drunk and passed out somewhere in public, whereupon he was taken to a hospital, injected with some drug that had the random side effect of screwing his heart rate, and being defibbed ten minutes later. Understandably, I wouldn't want to drink again for a while after that. However, if the absolute idiots he was stumbling around with had just taken care of him instead of panicking (I still don't understand that part of it) and calling an ambulance .... It's a common experience. If your friend passed out after jogging for their health, would you at least check their pulse before calling an ambulance? Simple common sense could have saved my associate a bit of pain and difficulty, perhaps.
Sounds like that Catholic thing represented as Christianity.
Some of it was Catholic, but most of it was Lutheran. There's a few other churches and Christian ideas in there, too.

What fascinates me more is your apparent hatred of Catholics. Here's a link I think you'll enjoy: http://www.juicycerebellum.com/league.htm

--Tiassa :cool:

Thanks Tiassa, I'm glad that you are open, & I think that in your answer, that you tried to give us an understanding of why you believe what you do.

In this world we all will never see eye to eye, I'm sure from your answer that you are a thinking & sensitive person. I don't think we have to agree, as long as we can still talk, share, this is a big wide world, and I like cyberspace. This I think, is what was meant by the 'marketplace of ideas', or 'town hall meeting".

I think you have answered my question from the old exosci board that never got answered in the swap to sciforum, namely if Big Daddy Jay was the same as Mary Jane? I don't agree with drug use, namely because I come from a long line of alcoholics, & I've never seen any good come from that or drugs. Also, I work at a jail's medical unit & believe me, I unfortunetly see the sad ending, & the hard road to recovery, (which so many never take).

Originally posted by tiassa
Hardly. But you're starting to sound like a litany.
You appear to be claiming that THC has no effect on your thinking ability, yet you use it specifically because it does affect you.
You can't have it both ways.

If a man tells me he is a Christian, who am I to call him a liar?
I don't call Catholics who call themselves Christians liars, either.
OTOH, I don't just take their word for it.

Or, to sum it up, there is a logic problem about two tribes, one which tells the truth, and one which lies. I've long lost the book I had that it was written in, but I can find it if you need. It creates a paradox that is equivalent to a friend of mine looking across the table and saying, "I'm a liar; I always lie; and I'm lying to you right now."
Quite alright. I'm familiar with the paradox.
The people who do these things claim to worship Jesus Christ and adhere to the Bible. For instance, as someone who has spent his life learning the art of the written word, there are very few things that I know about writing or the written word.
You should have paid more attention.

Sure, you and I know that a great number of Christians have it wrong. But they were led here by The Book. They were led here by God. This imperfect result is no different from the Bolshevik failure to figure out the Manifesto. Or the accidental waer-loga whose ego compels them to black magick without knowing it.
Of course, I'm not referring to Christians who have misunderstood some things, or who haven't reached a particular stage of understanding.

And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
(Luke 21:8, KJV).
I'm talking about the thing mentioned in the verse above.
Some think that there is a single meaning for that verse, i.e. that many will come claiming to be the Christ.
However, there is another meaning, i.e. that many will come claiming that Jesus is the Christ.
When Jesus said, take heed, he wasn't talking to just Jews or just Christians, he was talking to everybody, incluidng you.

The counterfeit dollar bill does not consciously choose to be counterfeit, or to be at all.
I guess neither does the real one.

Thank you for demonstrating another result of Christianity which I cannot seem to escape: the need to find the worst in people.
Not hard to do...
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
(Romans 3:23, KJV).

What fascinates me more is your apparent hatred of Catholics.
Again, don't hate 'em.
They need to know Jesus the same as anyone else.

You should have paid more attention.
You have only demonstrated an assumption. You have, in essence, missed the point, and enacted it at the same time.
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
(Romans 3:23, KJV).
The appearance of this response to such a philosophical idea is demonstrative of a stereotype about how Christians think. It is this assumption of unworthiness that compels people to seek unworthiness in others, and to hold others accountable. It is a root of human fear of one another, of superstition, and has resulted in its various incarnations throughout history in racism, sexism, genocide, and sundry of society's goodies. It is the assumption of human unworthiness that drives most of what I object to in Christianity, and it is this necessity of self-loathing that makes it destructive.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
You have only demonstrated an assumption. You have, in essence, missed the point, and enacted it at the same time.
Man, you are really not paying attention.
Read your statement again...
there are very few things that I know about writing or the written word.
While I tend to agree with this, I thought I'd point it out in an off-handed manner.
But, no, it has to be turned into a philosophical thing.

The appearance of this response to such a philosophical idea is demonstrative of a stereotype about how Christians think. It is this assumption of unworthiness that compels people to seek unworthiness in others, and to hold others accountable. It is a root of human fear of one another, of superstition, and has resulted in its various incarnations throughout history in racism, sexism, genocide, and sundry of society's goodies. It is the assumption of human unworthiness that drives most of what I object to in Christianity, and it is this necessity of self-loathing that makes it destructive.

Aside from the unsubstantiated assertions, you're just bummed out because you're not perfect and everybody knows it.

Aside from the unsubstantiated assertions, you're just bummed out because you're not perfect and everybody knows it.
I know, if only the world was as simple as you want it to be. C'mon, Tony ... do better.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
I know, if only the world was as simple as you want it to be.

Where is the complexity?

Where is the complexity?
You must be joking. You're a human being on the planet Earth. There are six billion people on this planet; even if you could get everyone to agree on one idea, you'd still be facing six billion different ideas.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
You must be joking. You're a human being on the planet Earth. There are six billion people on this planet; even if you could get everyone to agree on one idea, you'd still be facing six billion different ideas.
Surely you're not confusing complexity with quantity, or are you?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tetra
[B]My argument is based off of two verses in the Bible.
<b>
<i>Matthew Chapter 19, Verse 26 </i>
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is imposble; but with God all things are possible.
</b>

In this bible verse, Jesus says that with god all things are possible.

<b>THIS IS WRONG.</b>
If everything is possible, it is impossible for an impossible situation or event to occur, and therefore, everything cannot be possible.

Heres an easier way to put it:

For the sake of argument, I will assume that everything is possible. Because everything is possible, there is nothing that <i>cannot</i> happen or occur. Something that is impossible cannot exist in a universe where everything is possible.

<b>I repeat, it <i>cannot</i> exist</b>.

could a man turn a lump of coal into gold?impossible eh?could god?probably..

I understand that the world seems rather simple when one demands that people adopt and maintain the same perspective. But some of us are aware that there are as many interpretations to an idea as there are minds to interpret. What is right for you may not be practical by definition for another. One might avoid the necessity of harming another person if they step back and play bystander while someone's being raped.

From this stark contrast, take something a little more subtle. It seems that Christians do not all share your idea of the reward of heaven versus the idea of hell. How many Christians are there? There's at least that many perspectives to consider. Is it important to be "right" in this perspective? Seems so, else you risk upsetting the Almighty over some stuff that seems pretty small in the modern world. Thus, it seems important to know that one is "right" in their perspective of faith. Whereas one can avoid this conundrum altogether by avoiding the deliberate adoption of such a faith, it seems the most expedient method of ensuring that one is right in their faith is to assume that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Baptists, Kingdom Hall, Catholics, Latter-Day Saints. Four churches composed of people who profess faith in a figurehead named Jesus Christ. Since you're the expert in knowing whose faith is or isn't correct, I'll let you begin the dissection of which of these, if any, is right.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
I understand that the world seems rather simple when one demands that people adopt and maintain the same perspective.
OTOH, it must seem oh so complex when there are oh so many different opinions out there.

Here is the situation.
The world is oh so very complex to you.
The world is quite simple to me.
Your interpretation of this is that I must not understand the situation, to quote an oh so deep bumper sticker.
My interpretation might differ a wee bit.
I think you're at your limits and I'm not.

From this stark contrast, take something a little more subtle. It seems that Christians do not all share your idea of the reward of heaven versus the idea of hell.
My response is simple.
Read the Bible, and more to the point, read the Bible to find out what it actually says.

How many Christians are there? There's at least that many perspectives to consider. Is it important to be "right" in this perspective?
OTOH, why consider the perspective that is wrong.
Not so much the one I think is wrong, but the one that is wrong, prima facie.

Thus, any perspective, in reference to final judgment of people, that includes the statement "burns forever" when the Bible says "burns up" and "to ashes" can be disregarded.

Similarly, the idea of a death which is actually a life somewhere else can be disregarded.

Seems so, else you risk upsetting the Almighty over some stuff that seems pretty small in the modern world.
Of course, that would be the bizarro world perspective.
The modern world is pretty small in comparison with God.
Thus, it seems important to know that one is "right" in their perspective of faith. Whereas one can avoid this conundrum altogether by avoiding the deliberate adoption of such a faith, it seems the most expedient method of ensuring that one is right in their faith is to assume that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
Here you reveal your RC bias.
Faith is what a person believes if it is true.
It is the collection of a priori assumptions of how the world actually works.
While Catholics can point to a list of statements and say that list constitutes their "faith" because they believe that the RCC believes it is true, real faith isn't like that.

"Rightness" in real faith is easily seen by the believer because the truth is seen as the truth, whereas "wrongness" in faith leads to seeing the truth as a lie.

Baptists, Kingdom Hall, Catholics, Latter-Day Saints. Four churches composed of people who profess faith in a figurehead named Jesus Christ. Since you're the expert in knowing whose faith is or isn't correct, I'll let you begin the dissection of which of these, if any, is right.
See post in other thread asking a very similar question.

My response is simple.
Read the Bible, and more to the point, read the Bible to find out what it actually says.
There's that. And then also enter the idea of people of faith. You know, Tony, other people proclaiming faith in Jesus? You seem to have forgotten about them. Furthermore, you don't seem to care.

Truth of the matter is, Tony, that two people receive information differently; that is, my brain processes according to its data, and yours according to its own. I recognize this possibility. Perhaps you do, too, but you only expresss that such differences mean that someone other than you is wrong, and you simply refuse to be caught examining your own faith with any serious consideration. You oughta try it; we learn much about ourselves, though somehow I understand that one need know nothing about their self when they have God to tell them what to think.

All you do is qualify and disqualify, with no semblance of reason or method. It seems that arrogance is your primary motivation. This behavior hardly qualifies as an imitation of Christ.
OTOH, why consider the perspective that is wrong.
Not so much the one I think is wrong, but the one that is wrong, prima facie.
Please establish 2 sets of facts:

* Facts in evidence
* Facts established prima facie based upon said facts in evidence.

You'll find, I think, that many of the "facts" in evidence are merely statements of faith.
Thus, any perspective, in reference to final judgment of people, that includes the statement "burns forever" when the Bible says "burns up" and "to ashes" can be disregarded.
Demonstrate facts in evidence that support such a statement.
Similarly, the idea of a death which is actually a life somewhere else can be disregarded.
Such as resurrection? Or eternal life in heaven?
Of course, that would be the bizarro world perspective.
The modern world is pretty small in comparison with God.
Please elaborate. Considerations of sin, and what degree God allowed for interpretation of the Word are vital here.
Here you reveal your RC bias.
I hardly think such behavior is limited to Roman Catholics.
Faith is what a person believes if it is true.
No, that's called fact. Facts can be observed, demonstrated, and otherwise supported as true and real. Faith, in the context of Christianity, is believing what one is told they are obliged to believe at the stake of being punished.
It is the collection of a priori assumptions of how the world actually works.
Yes, but assumed at the first ... does that leave no room to correct erroneous assumptions?
While Catholics can point to a list of statements and say that list constitutes their "faith" because they believe that the RCC believes it is true, real faith isn't like that.
Once again a negative identification. I won't risk asserting what faith is, then, since it would either be vicious and assumptive, or else correct and uncomplimentary. Either way, it's the same assertion.
"Rightness" in real faith is easily seen by the believer because the truth is seen as the truth, whereas "wrongness" in faith leads to seeing the truth as a lie.
I would assert that such a condition means that those words in which you have faith are not properly the Word of God. The Canon was expunged, and people of faith have been misbehaving ever since: Catholics, Lutherans, Seventh-Day Adventists, Baptists ... the whole lot.

It wasn't atheists or Muslims in this country who intentionally infected entire tribes with disease. It seems that God is, in the end, what His people make Him.
See post in other thread asking a very similar question.
True, true. But it's not like that post answers anything except, "Who else does Tony say isn't a Christian?"
The world is oh so very complex to you.
The world is quite simple to me.
And therein lies your problem. You assume much about people in order to maintain your simplicity.

--Tiassa :cool:

I'm very sorry but that was the single most idiotic argument I have ever heard. The verse is saying, very plainly I might add, that the things that are impossible for MAN, I repeat, MAN, is possible for God. That is saying man without God, there are many things that are impossible, but with the almighty God ALL things are possible.

Thank you,

"Fred"

It is, I suppose, a matter of context. On this issue, I side with the explanation you've given. You'll notice, though, that advocates of the Good Book have waited until you got around to the point. I suppose that what I offer here is that there is no concrete interpretation of anything here. We've disagreed about the nature of gravity before, so it seems anything is possible.

To the other, I support FA_Q2's argument and award it validity in the context of contextual vagaries on the grounds that the Book's advocates also seem to have difficulty keeping context. FA_Q2 has done nothing to that Bible passage that hasn't been done by others in advocacy of various points of faith. In fact, there was a discussion on context taking place in its own topic at the time of this topic. I would go so far as to assert that, as an American cultural phenomenon at least, FA_Q2 has represented that passage with no less propriety than much of the hot-button rhetoric being thrown around where faith is at odds with the social condition--e.g. homosexuality, public prayer, &c.

As for all things possible with God ... I would say that this is not exactly correct, despite the Bible. For something to be possible, it implies also the condition of something not being at all. If it is possible to be, it must also be possible to not be. When it's possible, it is not yet.

God is not extraneous. The Universe is not equipped with unnecessary whistles and flashing neon lights; that's just the downtown area. But those things that are, have been, and will be in the Universe were never so much possible as they were necessary, else they would not exist even in concept.

To say that something is possible implies that God has not yet decided to do this. Such an idea suggests a flexibility of will and imperfection of knowledge on God's part. By faith, I believe these aspects are impossible in the sense that should God possibly make a mistake, and tip the scales with lack or abundance .... God does not, unless I am mistaken, make mistakes.

Thus, with God, all things are necessary.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I believe that God has so much love for us that we can make desisions for our selves, that is why we mess up. So the reply you made is stating that God has descided all the things that has happened, it is not so, not that God can not do such a thing, but God loves us enough not to. Some times, if you love something, or someone, enough, you have to let them go. That is what He did.

thanks,

"Fred"

I believe that God has so much love for us that we can make desisions for our selves, that is why we mess up.
Respectfully--to love one enough to set them free is a necessity of circumstance. To what circumstance does God answer, aside from His will?

I would accept the above statement except, in addition to fixing what we mess up with our decisions, there is also the punishment from God that comes later for our sins, which seems enough of a consideration to screw up people's decision-making processes. History demonstrates this in various forms, whether the classic examples of Crusade and Inquisition, or prayer towns or encomienda; also we see society muddled trying to accommodate faith while hammering out more immediate concerns: HIV transmission and sex education, as well as condom use--I understand the faith point of wanting a "sinless" society, but these errors of conduct undertaken by people of faith in an effort to stamp out sin damage the credibility of God's word, and demonstrate a negative effect upon those people who adopt it.

It really does seem like the free will of obey or go to jail. Not much of a choice.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Let me try to respond to the following statements from Tiassa &n Tony1

Originally posted by tiassa

1)Once again a negative identification. I won't risk asserting what faith is, then, since it would either be vicious and assumptive, or else correct and uncomplimentary. Either way, it's the same assertion.

2)I would assert that such a condition means that those words in which you have faith are not properly the Word of God. The Canon was expunged, and people of faith have been misbehaving ever since: Catholics, Lutherans, Seventh-Day Adventists, Baptists ... the whole lot.

3)It wasn't atheists or Muslims in this country who intentionally infected entire tribes with disease. It seems that God is, in the end, what His people make Him.

4)True, true. But it's not like that post answers anything except, "Who else does Tony say isn't a Christian?"

5)And therein lies your problem. You assume much about people in order to maintain your simplicity.

--Tiassa :cool:

1) I think faith is believing something that can't be proven; and that can be a worldview that colors your hopes, a religion, or any system that helps you cope with this world and especially the culture that you grew up in. Whether God exists or not, most people 'know' that answer, which is what ever they believe. And I think we all take it on 'faith' that we're right in whatever answer we do believe in. I personally find it hard to believe that matter & this universe just exist 'ex nihilo', to me, there has to be a 'First Cause' and I believe that that 'Cause' is God. And yes, I take it on 'Faith' that I'm right. I can't prove it, but then no one can absolutly, beyond the shadow of doubt, no hedging bets, prove me wrong.

2) Tiassa, does 'expunged' mean 'taken out'? My understanding of the Early Church Fathers, is that they put in to the Bible, most everything that is in the Catholic Bible, while Protestants left out what they felt was not 'inspired' by God. And unless we are bible scholars, & all those Greek terms, we have to take it on faith that our view of the correctness or falsehood of the Bible, is true.

3) Your right, but what was their motivation? as Christians or as greedy, murderous, landgrabing liars? Did everyone that came over here to steal land, do it as a Christian? Or as people looking for opprtunities, riches, fame, etc.?

By the way, Native Americans had no immunity to Old World diseases, so those that say that Asian, African, or other non-Scandinavian people were here before Columbus, are 99% wrong. Otherwise it would not have killed so many, so quickly. That 1% were the Vikings, there's proof, they left remains, bones, huts, boats, burials, some metals. Any of the others would have brought dynasties, language, writing, art, customs, iron, steel & immunities to a stone-age peopled hemisphere. I think that the Inca knew how to electro-plate gold & had just developed tin when the Spanish came. Ohterwise they all only knew how to work gold & silver.

4) No one, neither Tony1, Tiassa, or Randolfo can tell who or what is a Christian, since God is the ultimate judge of that. And that's, if He exists at all. Again, I have 'faith' that there is a God.

5) I think we all assume we are right, we rationalize our worldview, because we are the center of our world. Those rules apply, which we think apply.

1) I think faith is believing something that can't be proven; and that can be a worldview that colors your hopes, a religion, or any system that helps you cope with this world or the culture that you grew up in.
I tend to agree with you on most counts. On all counts, yes, if we remember that some of coping with culture is factual in that it is empirical and can be validated testimonially, at least. It is not faith, for instance, which compels me to demand that my society treat all people equally. It is, in that twofold model, personal sentiment having experienced various inequities, and also an affirmation of what I know when I observe the social turmoil taking place all around me as a result of a world dedicated to inequity. But I suppose there are faith considerations involved when addressing the situation directly. Foremost is the silly consideration of what is good or bad for the greater idea of humanity. We are a species, and the first on this planet--and known to our scientific, historical, and cultural perception--capable of choosing to destroy ourselves. Thus I find the idea of population control through attrition reprehensible. But to challenge the validity of such considerations as faith would seem to push us into the arena of the laughably existential: Why bother existing? More directly, there is a degree of faith, as well as empirical fact validated variously, guiding how one addresses a "culture". Is a scathing letter to the editor of the local rag really the best way to make a valid point? (Note: I have exscinded here a long digression justifying first the King riots in LA, and then eventually the Seattle WTO riot for different reasons .... Can I just plead that the point is slightly abstract right now? The stories I tell to make this elusive point about addressing the culture become longer than the rest of this post should be.)
2) Tiassa, does 'expunged' mean 'taken out'? My understanding of the Early Church Fathers, is that they put in to the Bible, most everything that is in the Catholic Bible, while Protestants left out what they felt was not 'inspired' by God. And unless we are bible scholars, & all those Greek terms, we have to take it on faith that our view of the correctness or falsehood of the Bible, is true.
My religion teacher in high school even boasted of the trimming to the four. Catholics are generally quite proud of declaring a number of gospels heretical.
The four gospells collected in the New Testament were canonized around 200 CE, apparently by a consensus of churches ... they were chosen not necessarily because they were the earliest or the most accurate accounts of Jesus' life and teaching, but precisely because they could form the basis for church communities.

The canonical gospels were not by any means the only accounts of Jesus' life and teaching .... Some twenty years after Jesus' crucifixion, when Paul traveled to synagogues in Antioch, the capital of Syria, and in Greece and Rome to proclaim "the gospel of Jesus Christ," there were as yet no written gospels. According to Paul, "the gospel" consisted of what he preached, which he summarized as follows: "that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures; that he was buried; and that he was raised on the third day" (1 Cor. 15.3-4) .... (Pagels, The Origin of Satan

Two quotes taken from the Gospel of Thomas, cited by Pagels:
Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'Lord, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fishes will precede you." (NHC II.32.19-24)

"Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father." (NHC II.32.25-33.5)

"When will the new world come?" Jesus said to them, "What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it." (NHC II.42.10-12)
Note: NHC = Nag Hammadi C____(?) I cannot remember the name given to the scrolls discovered at Nag Hammadi. (Whoops)

Pagels notes, of Thomas:
Why was this gospel suppressed, along with many others that have remained virtually unknowns for nearly two thousand years? Originally part of the sacred library of the oldest monastery in Egypt, these books were buried, apparently, around 370 CE, after the archbishop of alexandria ordered Christians all over Egypt to ban such books as heresy and demanded their destruction. Two hundred years earlier, such works had already been attacked by another zealously orthodox bishop, Irenaeus of Lyons. Irenaeus was the first, so far as we know, to identify the four gospels of the New Testament as canonical, and to exclude all the rest. Distressed that dozens of gospels were circulating among Christians throughout the world, including his own Greek-speaking immigrant congregation living in Gaul, Irenaeus denounced as heretics those who "boast that they have more gospels than there really are ... but really, they have no gospels that are not full of blasphemy." Only the four gospels of the New Testament, Irenaeus insisted, are authentic. What was his reasoning? Irenaeus declared that just as there are only four principal winds, and four corners of the universe, and four pillars holding up the sky, so there can be only four gospels. Besides, he added, only the New Testament gospels were written by Jesus' own disciples (Matthew and John) or their followers (Mark, disciple of Peter, and Luke, disciple of Paul).

Few New Testament scholars today agree with Irenaeus .... (Pagels, 69)

* Gospel of Thomas
* Gospel of Mary
* Gospel of Mary Magdalene
* Teaching of Silvanus ....

You do have a point, though, about the Maccabees and other books in the Catholic Bible. Anecdotally, I feel the need to relate to you a friend's father, Seventh-Day Adventist who believes the Pope is the antichrist, actually taught his daughter that Jesus said of charity to let the money sweat in your palm until you know to whom you are giving. I find it amusing that he taught his daughter a Catholic tradition found, I believe, in the Didache. However, the more relevant point is that some gospels are heretical while some intentional corruptions of Jesus' sayings have lasted. This is a curious aspect.

But that's about what I mean by expunged.
3) Your right, but was their motivation as Christians or as greedy, murderous, landgrabing liars? Did everyone that came over here to steal land do it as a Christian? Or as people looking for opprtunities, riches, fame, etc.? By the way, Native Americans had no immunity to Old World diseases, so those that say that Asian, African, or other non-Scandinavian people were here are 99% wrong. Otherwise it would not have killed so many, so quickly. That 1% were the Vikings, there's proof. The others would have brought dynasties, language, customs, iron, steel & immunities to a stone-age peopled hemisphere.
It has been asserted by Christians at Exosci, on at least two occasions that I can recall, that the United States is a Christian nation by foundation and tradition. One poster even went so far as to suggest that we owed Christians privilege for all the hard work they did civilizing the rest of us. (Ask black slaves, native Americans, and Chinese railroad workers about Christian civilization .... ) Of the tribes, the knowledge of their susceptibility to disease resulted in a curious practice where, instead of burning smallpox blankets from epidemics, they were traded to the tribes in an effort to wipe them out. No matter how you cut it, the white Americans made a damn strong run at genocide. Furthermore, I just can't believe that Satanists, atheists, and Jews did all that damage on their own. Manifest Destiny, however derivative we can make it by the simple applicaton of Christianity, most definitely is not the fault of the Jews. It needed people to believe that God wanted them to conquer sea to shining sea. While this is hardly a new concept historically, it is also fair to note that most of these people doing the conquering answered to Jesus Christ. Regarding the importing of people to the continent, I think the physical evidence of Punic Ogham (Phonecian) shipping contracts, temples of Bel, and inscriptions on the rocks near the Rio Grande indicate someone made it here. To this end, I would recommend the book America B.C. by Dr. Barry Fell. (Pocket/Simon & Schuster, 1989) As I search for an issue of Scientific American buried somewhere on the bookshelf, I'm tempted to say that an article on mitochondrial DNA from last year implied that sometime in the last few-thousand years, something happened in a couple of regions of North America--new DNA. Inasmuch as anyone could tell, it's northern European. Incidentally, I'm off that idea for the moment (until I find the article) because the first website I came to on mtDNA ( http://www.chattanooga.net/cita/mtdna.html ) says something about Polynesian mtDNA. However, the point is that relatively recently, though less recently than the post-Columbian empires, it seems that someone arrived from somewhere. Perhaps that 1% Vikings. But that would also support Dr Fell's theory, which links alphabets and even languages across the ocean. I'm of the opinion that people arrived frequently. Not many people, mind you. Maybe a few every century. Not all of them were bad guests, either. ;)

I do not refute the lack of immunity to disease, however. I agree 100%. I still think it was ridiculous to exploit the situation, though. Biological warfare is a common idea today, and it was probably around during plague times, too. But it may have been just a little excessive on this continent.

Those stone-agers may well have had electricity ... there exist in the record some curious clay pots with paper-like configurations inside them that seem to have held acidic chemicals. (I have only read one brief article on this.)

4) No one, neither Tony1, Tiassa, or Randolfo can tell who or what is a Christian, since God is the ultimate judge of that.
You'll find no argument from me within what I believe your context to be. And I'll leave it at that for the sake of killing digressions.
5) I think we all assume wwe are right, we rationalize our worldview, because we are the center of our world. Those rules apply.
You have a point there, except that there is a merit to complexity. The more factors you recognize, the less factors you are ignorant of. It is simpler to think that nothing could come of an extinction of a given species. What happens if it's at the bottom of the food chain? Suddenly the issue becomes very complex. As individuals strive toward their goals, they must keep in mind that there are, indeed other people. Macrocosmically, we have seen leaders in some nations attempt to achieve harmony through attrition. More to scale, we might point to my complaints about religion and politics: it has nothing to do with disrespecting diversity, except that one of those diverse opinions seems to demand exclusivity. If we recognize the diversity (complexity) of society, then we are able to get along without stomping on people. If we recognize the complexity of history, we might avoid some of the nagging quirks that have slowed the progress of civilization.

thanx,
tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa



1) My religion teacher in high school even boasted of the trimming to the four. Catholics are generally quite proud of declaring a number of gospels heretical.




2) Two quotes taken from the Gospel of Thomas, cited by Pagels:

Note: NHC = Nag Hammadi C____(?) I cannot remember the name given to the scrolls discovered at Nag Hammadi. (Whoops)

Pagels notes, of Thomas:


* Gospel of Thomas
* Gospel of Mary
* Gospel of Mary Magdalene
* Teaching of Silvanus ....


3) Of the tribes, the knowledge of their susceptibility to disease resulted in a curious practice where, instead of burning smallpox blankets from epidemics, they were traded to the tribes in an effort to wipe them out. No matter how you cut it, the white Americans made a damn strong run at genocide. Furthermore, I just can't believe that Satanists, atheists, and Jews did all that damage on their own. Manifest Destiny, however derivative we can make it by the simple applicaton of Christianity, most definitely is not the fault of the Jews. It needed people to believe that God wanted them to conquer sea to shining sea. While this is hardly a new concept historically, it is also fair to note that most of these people doing the conquering answered to Jesus Christ. Regarding the importing of people to the continent, I think the physical evidence of Punic Ogham (Phonecian) shipping contracts, temples of Bel, and inscriptions on the rocks near the Rio Grande indicate someone made it here. To this end, I would recommend the book America B.C. by Dr. Barry Fell. (Pocket/Simon & Schuster, 1989) As I search for an issue of Scientific American buried somewhere on the bookshelf, I'm tempted to say that an article on mitochondrial DNA from last year implied that sometime in the last few-thousand years, something happened in a couple of regions of North America--new DNA. Inasmuch as anyone could tell, it's northern European. Incidentally, I'm off that idea for the moment (until I find the article) because the first website I came to on mtDNA ( http://www.chattanooga.net/cita/mtdna.html ) says something about Polynesian mtDNA. However, the point is that relatively recently, though less recently than the post-Columbian empires, it seems that someone arrived from somewhere. Perhaps that 1% Vikings. But that would also support Dr Fell's theory, which links alphabets and even languages across the ocean. I'm of the opinion that people arrived frequently. Not many people, mind you. Maybe a few every century. Not all of them were bad guests, either. ;)


thanx,
tiassa :cool:

1) Whatever branch of Christianity says or claims whatever Gospels are in error, they make their choices based on what they think is true. If the Bible is the Word of God, then it should hopefully stand out from error, and speak to those people it was originally given to, all the way to people of the present, and on to the future. If it is prophecy, history, teaching, it should stand the test of time. Because if it is the Word of the God of the Universe, it should speak to all ages, all peoples, all times. By the way, the early confrontation between Christians & Muslims also produced the "Gospel of Barnabas", which closely follows the Koranic narrative of Jesus' early life.

2) The one I saw was published under the name, "The Nag Hammadi Scrolls", I read the "Gospel of Thomas", and it did not seem biblical to me, one part stands out, were Jesus is kissing Mary Magdalene full on the mouth, I don't think so, maybe for Nikos Kasankegis(sic) (I read him too, but can't spell his name) & modern films with modern ideals.

3) Except for the Vikings, there's no real evidence that any other culture had an impact on any native American tribe. No stories, no place names, no family names, no words or languages, no foods, no writing, no art, no animals, no technology, no resistance to diseases, no genetics.

Any tribe exposed to advanced cultures, usually takes up aspects of it. Look at what happened in New Guinea and Polynesia. If you follow stories of the Jews, in southern Africa scientists were able to prove that the Lembi are Jewish descendents via priestly genes, they followed the Aaronic-line of males via the Y chromosome. And these genes matched Jews from Israel and the Disporia. Among Native Americans, no genetic matches yet. The Lembi also had stories, Kosher laws and customs. Yet they were as black as any African, in other words they looked native! So, if there was contact before Columbus, there should have been myths of the ancient homeland, there should have been customs, words, writing, technology. Look at how quickly Native Americans learned to ride horses, use guns, trade valuables.

Any one coming over with iron, steel or ship-building technology would have made a huge impact on stone age people. Except for precious metals and some tin, there's no evidence that any tribe was other that stone age. Anybody coming over with metal swords would have become kings under any warrior cultures, like the Mayans, Aztecs, Incas to name a few. Look into the arrival of the bow & arrow & how it shook the Mayan world, ( The Forest of the Kings" is good). There should be words in common, for those tribes that came in contact with these pre-columbian Europeans or Asians. When white, black or yellow people first showed up they should have been called mythological names that could be traced to their homelands. Like 'egyptl', 'chintl', japantl', irishtl' in Aztec Nahua. They should have had elephants, horses, etc. in their art. Why didn't they use the wheel? Why weren't the Spanish faced by an army of Muslims, or Buddhists, or Druids, or Jews, or whatever religion of these pre-columbian way-farers? They should have common writing, either Phoenician, Greek, Latin, Chinese; which except for the Mayan glyphs and Aztec picture drawing there is no evidence that that any Native American tribe used writing.

There has to be some tangible evidence. Look at the Mexican people, a mixture of Spanish & Indian. The Mexican Spanish dialect, has Aztec & other Indian words in it. Mexican food, has Spanish & native foods mixed together. Mexican art & architecture, a mix of European & Indian styles. Why? Because there was definite contact. Anyway, there is usually proof left, the Vikings left long houses, bones and stories. All the others didn't leave a thing. . Why? probably because it was wishful thinking or speculation. Notwithstanding your examples, which I want to look at later. Live long and prosper!!

Originally posted by tiassa
...other people proclaiming faith in Jesus?
They need to read the Bible, too.

...Perhaps you do, too, but you only expresss that such differences mean that someone other than you is wrong, and you simply refuse to be caught examining your own faith with any serious consideration. You oughta try it; we learn much about ourselves, though somehow I understand that one need know nothing about their self when they have God to tell them what to think.
What is the point of examining one's faith?
If it is a list of statements that one can assent to, examination probably won't help much.
OTOH, if it is belief in that which is true, why on earth would it require examination?
Do you examine your faith in sidewalks before you use them?

You'll find, I think, that many of the "facts" in evidence are merely statements of faith.
Except for the word "merely," absolutely true.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
(Hebrews 11:1, KJV).

Demonstrate facts in evidence that support such a statement.

For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
(Malachi 4:1, KJV).

The concept of people burning forever cannot be found in the Bible.

Such as resurrection? Or eternal life in heaven?
Neither of these is death.

Please elaborate. Considerations of sin, and what degree God allowed for interpretation of the Word are vital here.
The "bizarro world" comment was intended to highlight the contrast between reality and that which is "small in the modern world.:"

IOW, what the world considers very important, isn't and vice-versa.

No, that's called fact.
This would be the reason for 95% of the debate in this forum.
The "fact" is, that faith is belief in that which is true.
Belief in that which is false is unbelief, stupidity, senselessness, density, etc.
To get an appreciation for this, review other posts and observe how many claim Christianity is false AND that belief in it, is stupid.

Facts can be observed, demonstrated, and otherwise supported as true and real. Faith, in the context of Christianity, is believing what one is told they are obliged to believe at the stake of being punished.
Of course, this is antichristian Standard Myth #1.
Faith is believing that which is true in order to be rewarded.
Given my previous statement, it is stupidity which is punished.

Yes, but assumed at the first ... does that leave no room to correct erroneous assumptions?
Why would one need to correct what "actually" works?

Once again a negative identification. I won't risk asserting what faith is, then, since it would either be vicious and assumptive, or else correct and uncomplimentary.
Neg ID, yeah. You reject positive ID, also.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
(Hebrews 11:1, KJV).

You can argue with this to your heart's content.

I would assert that such a condition means that those words in which you have faith are not properly the Word of God.
Au contraire.
I believe the truth and I see the Bible as truth.
Others do not believe the truth and see the Bible as lies.

And therein lies your problem. You assume much about people in order to maintain your simplicity.


You are quite simple, and you assume that you are very complex. I simply disagree with your simple assumption.

Originally posted by tiassa
It really does seem like the free will of obey or go to jail. Not much of a choice.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
(Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).

It is actually the choice between life and death.


Originally posted by Randolfo
1) I think faith is believing something that can't be proven;.... I can't prove it, but then no one can absolutly, beyond the shadow of doubt, no hedging bets, prove me wrong.
Faith is a lot more solid than that...

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
(Hebrews 11:1, KJV).

Faith is the proof; it does not have to be proven.
OTOH, since it is the substance of things hoped for, it is worth finding out what you are hoping for.

4) No one, neither Tony1, Tiassa, or Randolfo can tell who or what is a Christian, since God is the ultimate judge of that. And that's, if He exists at all.
Sure we can tell.
If someone denies that Jesus is Lord, they are not Christian.
If they say that Jesus is Lord, but deny that he died or was raised up, again, they are not Christian.

5) I think we all assume we are right, we rationalize our worldview, because we are the center of our world. Those rules apply, which we think apply.
The Word of God applies.

Originally posted by tony1

The Word of God applies.


To those that believe in God, otherwise most humans go living their lives as if they are the masters (or slaves) of their lives. I think most people are so burdened by life & the cares of this world, that after work, a beer & TV is all they have the strenght to grasp.

I believe that the Word of God applies to the Universe & all His creation, but as free will beings, we control what applies to us, whether we are the masters or the slaves of our own lives, we still control our own thought lives (what goes on in our head) .

And that controls are destiny, if we believe God's Word, we have life; if we don't, we go to the everlasting fire. If God made the Universe, the rules, what can we do? We may be pawns in a universal battle between 'Good' & 'Evil', but what can we do? Even our own governments can force us into things we don't want to do, like wars, rationing, taxes, etc. You can rage against the government, but you still have to follow its rules. Otherwise you pay the price of resistance.

If you fall, do you curse gravity? If you can't fly, do you curse physics? If you are not beautiful, do you curse genetics? We may be pawns in something bigger than us, hopefully we are on the winningside. I have made my choice, & it is to follow God. And I'm not hedging bets!

Originally posted by Randolfo

If you fall, do you curse gravity?

No. And it won't stop people from finding the theoretical particle -- anti-graviton.


If you can't fly, do you curse physics?

No. I will board a plane if I really want to fly.


If you are not beautiful, do you curse genetics?
Well, it depends. Since genes are changeable. I reserved the rights to curse any defected genes.

Originally posted by daktaklakpak

1) finding the theoretical particle -- anti-graviton

2) Since genes are changeable. I reserved the rights to curse any defected genes.

1) if there is any, & if we find it before we blow ourselves up. Art Bell said that there were scientists that wanted to create a 'blackhole' in their lab, I hope they can control it, otherwise its just what we need to suck up our solar system.

2) That's still theoretical; they know how to splice, dice & replicate genes & proteins, but can they insert 'fixes' after the fact? Or does it have to be in utero?

Originally posted by Randolfo

1) if there is any, & if we find it before we blow ourselves up. Art Bell said that there were scientists that wanted to create a 'blackhole' in their lab, I hope they can control it, otherwise its just what we need to suck up our solar system.

Until they invent a quantum generator, I am not worry about someone creating a black hole.


2) That's still theoretical; they know how to splice, dice & replicate genes & proteins, but can they insert 'fixes' after the fact? Or does it have to be in utero?
Gene therapy already undergoes live testing using genetic engineered virus as the carriers. Although not very successful, it's sure a good beginning.

Originally posted by Randolfo
To those that believe in God, otherwise most humans go living their lives as if they are the masters (or slaves) of their lives....
I believe that the Word of God applies to the Universe & all His creation, but as free will beings, we control what applies to us, whether we are the masters or the slaves of our own lives, we still control our own thought lives (what goes on in our head) .
This sounds a little like you've bought the atheist fallacy.

The Word of God applies to everybody at all times, including those that do not believe.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. ...
(Psalms 14:1, KJV).

Just sincerely believing there is no God does not make it so.
Thus the "fool" thing.
At the last judgment, even atheists will understand what that verse means.

not only a god, but gods exist. The only thing the poster provided is not proof. His argumentation started here:

Matthew Chapter 19, Verse 26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Do you think God lies biblically speaking?

God can do anything according to his will. And what`s his will? Holy Will

Why I adjectivized "will" with "holy"? Because the God of gods is Holy and His Name is Holy.

yes it certainly has got holes, could not agree more.

If all things are possible with god, then why doesn't he/she do something about the state of the world ? I'm not talking about the evil which theists attribute to man's sinful nature but about earthquakes, famine ,floods and other natural disasters.
I believe it can be summed up as follows:

God doesn't know about the state of the world.
He knows about it but chooses to do nothing to improve things.
He knows about it but is unable to improve things.

So, as the saying goes, if you want a job done, do it yourself. Let us all be proactive and stop wasting time grovelling and seeking forgiveness for being human and, as some would have it, made in god's image and likeness.

So, as the saying goes, if you want a job done, do it yourself.

But as Twain accurately stated, the minute we do that job, god pops up just in time to get credit for it. "Thank god"... everyone forgets the firemen etc that actually did all the work:

Just so with diseases. If science exterminates a disease which has been working for God, it is God that gets the credit, and all the pulpits break into grateful advertising-raptures and call attention to how good he is! Yes, he has done it. Perhaps he has waited a thousand years before doing it. That is nothing; the pulpit says he was thinking about it all the time. When exasperated men rise up and sweep away an age-long tyranny and set a nation free, the first thing the delighted pulpit does is to advertise it as God's work, and invite the people to get down on their knees and pour out their thanks to him for it. And the pulpit says with admiring emotion, "Let tyrants understand that the Eye that never sleeps is upon them; and let them remember that the Lord our God will not always be patient, but will loose the whirlwinds of his wrath upon them in his appointed day."

They forget to mention that he is the slowest mover in the universe; that his Eye that never sleeps, might as well, since it takes it a century to see what any other eye would see in a week; that in all history there is not an instance where he thought of a noble deed first, but always thought of it just a little after somebody else had thought of it and done it. He arrives then, and annexes the dividend.

What if everything is a closed set ?

What if everything is a closed set ?

Fight it by keeping an "open" mind !

But as Twain accurately stated, the minute we do that job, god pops up just in time to get credit for it. "Thank god"... everyone forgets the firemen etc that actually did all the work:

I once asked a clergyman whether a Harvest Festival ( Thanksgiving ? ) had ever been shelved because of a bad harvest. He put me in my place by telling me that it was not for us to question god's ways.

My take on it is that if there is a bad harvest someone will say: "Thank
god it wasn't worse "

One hears that sort of rubbish after some disaster has resulted in many deaths. Survivors thank god for having spared them. They do not blame him for allowing others to die.

wow...this thread is from March 2001! How long has Sciforums been around?

It dates far back in the mists of time. 1999 I think. Sciforums

Well, I don't really think this so called "God" actually exists, though it is possible that he might exist on another plane of reality.

In order for the Universe to have been created, there must be a plane of reality on which it must be created, there must be materials with which to make it with, and there must be someone/something to create it, unless it can create itself.

By the way, here's a description of Christianity in a nutshell:

Christianity
The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...yeah, makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

My argument is based off of two verses in the Bible.
<b>
<i>Matthew Chapter 19, Verse 26 </i>But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
</b>

In this bible verse, Jesus says that with god all things are possible.

<b>THIS IS WRONG.</b>
If everything is possible, it is impossible for an impossible situation or event to occur, and therefore, everything cannot be possible.
Heres an easier way to put it:

For the sake of argument, I will assume that everything is possible. Because everything is possible, there is nothing that <i>cannot</i> happen or occur. Something that is impossible cannot exist in a universe where everything is possible.

<b>I repeat, it <i>cannot</i> exist</b>.

So, the very nature of the "Everything is Possible" theory directly contradicts and disproves itself, because for everything to be possible, it must be impossible for an impossibility to occur/happen, which is impossible :)
<b>
So what? Jesus was wrong. What does that have to do with god?
</b>
<b>
<i>Revelation Chapter 21, Verse 5 </i>
And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. </b>

God says that the words of the bible are true, yet the words we discussed above <i>are not</i>!

That means that either god lied to make himself seem more trustworthy, or that with all of his infinite knowledge and wisdom he couldn't understand that the "Everything is Possible" theory is wrong.

My argument is based off of two verses in the Bible.
<b>
<i>Matthew Chapter 19, Verse 26 </i>But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. </b>

In this bible verse, Jesus says that with god all things are possible.

<b>THIS IS WRONG.</b>
If everything is possible, it is impossible for an impossible situation or event to occur, and therefore, everything cannot be possible.
Heres an easier way to put it:
For the sake of argument, I will assume that everything is possible. Because everything is possible, there is nothing that <i>cannot</i> happen or occur. Something that is impossible cannot exist in a universe where everything is possible.

<b>I repeat, it <i>cannot</i> exist</b>.

So, the very nature of the "Everything is Possible" theory directly contradicts and disproves itself, because for everything to be possible, it must be impossible for an impossibility to occur/happen, which is impossible :)
<b>
So what? Jesus was wrong. What does that have to do with god?
</b>
<b>
<i>Revelation Chapter 21, Verse 5 </i>
And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. </b>

God says that the words of the bible are true, yet the words we discussed above <i>are not</i>!

That means that either god lied to make himself seem more trustworthy, or that with all of his infinite knowledge and wisdom he couldn't understand that the "Everything is Possible" theory is wrong.

[aBSOLUTELY RIGHT i THINK THEREFORE