How can you worship a book that was written by man. spreads lies, spreads hate and, separates man

the bible was written and you belived everything in it is a fictionous book written to tell a story but people worshipped it and belived everything it. It is just lies you cant belive what man writes. God is a lie there is no god above and when you die and you will not fly above and you will stay down then you will know that there is no god

And for those who say im a tool of satan or some b.s. like that shut the F up satan is not real so i am not the tool of satan i do not promote hate i promote the truth and it will hurt but it is truth and you are the ones that spread hate against the jews. natvie americans. aborigians of australia. muslims, buddhist. and everyone that is not you.

so burn the bible is just lies

THE BIBLE IS B.S.

the bible was written in a time when human sacrifice was very common,food laws not that higene,burial laws as well
and other sort of basic rules.

today it may suck and we might not need it but in those days humans had to have a basic moral code which we today see as trivial as to not kill steal and such not because we might angry this or that god and suffer his wrath but because we know it is wrong.

The Bible condemns idolatry. Christians don't worship a mere book. We revere and follow what we feel is an accurate rendition of God's special revelation to us. It is true that the Bible was written by men but we believe God supervised the process.

Peace,
Vinnie

Amen, 'Ilgwamh'; The Bible is the Holy Word of GOD! And we don't worship the book, but the loving GOD that sent it, written by men inspired by the Spirit of GOD ! And the Bible is a Spiritual, and a Supernatural book! The unsaved, unregenerate, the lost, the hateful, the despicable ignorant people could never really understand the true meanings of the Holy Word of GOD! No matter how educated they are, or think they are, the Word's meaning to them would be too obscure, they simply do not have the Spirit of GOD in them to have any understanding [true understanding] of what they read is true! They could even be afraid of the; AFRAID OF THE TRUTH OF GOD'S HOLY WORD! The words that gives life and that created them (all that is seen and unseen) in the first place!
The Bible, the word of GOD Himself, calls them "FOOLS"!

"For the FOOL has said in his heart, there is no God."
"They are corrupt, their deeds are evil [vile]; there is no one who does good." (Psalm 14:1-2)

They hate the truth, for a lie!
They hate the truth because of there many sins!
They love there sins, and hate the Truth of God's Holy Word!
They love them selves, but will lose all in the END!:mad:
That's there problem!:)

Who is the one that fears Hell?
Who is the one that worries about Sin?
Who is the one that hopes to be judged at the End?
Who is the one that claims thou shall not kill yet is kill thousands of life every second?

The bible was written by a man who descriminates against almost every natural instinct that a human has. He says that homosexuality is wrong! Who can help their feelings? No one chooses to be gay and it is hard enough without people who are supposedly good and 'christian like' preaching the word of a fake saying they will go to hell for being themselves.
As I have a lot of gay friends, I know it is not easy and the bible telling them they are wrong to be themselves definately doesn't help!
Also, why are people so gulliable as to believe something that was written so very long ago, is in the slightest bit true? All my life I have been brought up to be a Christian and to believe in God but the things I see everyday make me so much more disheartened.
I believe that there is something out there, but I'm sorry to say that it is not God. A man who is so supposedly great and holy surely should be able to stop all the suffering and pain there is in the world today.
If people believe in God to try and escape the horrors of the everyday world, then that is fine with me, but I refuse to have it thrown up in my face everytime I do something wrong!
I am human just like everyone else. The bible makes me feel like a really crappy person, like everything I do is wrong and I've had enough of it.
We have no real proof that Jesus/God, does or ever existed and I refuse to believe something I can't see. I believe in the motto - 'Seeing is believing', and as I never hace, I refuse to be drawn in.
People may think I am rebelling, or going through a stage, but that is really not the case.
Also, if Jesus was a Jew, why create a 'new' religion - Christianity? Why did he not just stick with Judaism?
I am sorry if I have offended anyone with what I have said and I am also sorry if what I have said does not make any sense. I just feel I needed to say this and get it off my chest.
Something that promotes such bad views as the bible does cannot be good for the human race and I say that again, people should not be so gullable as to believe everything they read.
I'm sure the papers tell more truth than the bible does.
Sorry again, just felt it needed to be said...

Neonsky:

People can escape from 'homosexuality' and by the Power of the Living GOD! By the Power of the Holy Spirit of GOD, one can be delivered and set totally free from that perverted lifestyle! I am a Living witness to the Power of prayer, to be set free from habits and addictions! sin can be conquered by the Mighty Hand of GOD to those who are Faithful! WITH GOD, NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE! This what I say is true and one only needs to come to Jesus in Faith for forgiveness of sins!

In me there is no more lust of women! That is I don't look at them the same way the modern world would (Holly Wood)have you to lust for the sake of lusting, and to that of vile affections! Some even unnatural!
That I like women and some times work with them!
And I still do have my natural affections, but they are in check and preserved unto Marriage!
I see life from God's prospective and not of the World's!
For it is the Spirit of Almighty GOD that gives me strength to accomplish what you and even some Christians deem impossible!
But it is not impossible with God! And my Faith in power of the Holy Spirit to preserve me and my sanity all these years! It's a miracle!:D

I am sorry to be a nonbeliever but - you talk a load of crap!
Tell you what, the day God saves me is the day I'll start believing and as I cant see that day coming anyday soon, I'll stick to not believing, unless of course you can convince me otherwise. I'd be interested to hear the miracles God Almighty has performed for you.
Until then my friend, I'll remain like Thomas - and doubt.

Originally posted by Sir. Loone
WITH GOD, NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE!


Please...

A supposed almighty being who can't even full fill a simple claim for over 2000 years is yelling "Nothing I can't do!" Is that a joke or what?

The day will come...He will be there....blah blah...

Try to delay your credit card payment for two years and say "my payment will be there" every day to your credit card company. Let's see what will happen.

Only the Holy Spirit can change a person, not me.:o Neonsky!
It is Him that can help you to understand the truth! Some day you may come to trust in Jesus and it is the Spirit that does the work, and that only by Faith in Jesus the Son of God!

I am free by the power of GOD, to have an normal life the way God intended.:)

Originally posted by daktaklakpak


Please...

A supposed almighty being who can't even full fill a simple claim for over 2000 years is yelling "Nothing I can't do!" Is that a joke or what?

The day will come...He will be there....blah blah...

Try to delay your credit card payment for two years and say "my payment will be there" every day to your credit card company. Let's see what will happen.

Your a joke Daktaklakpak!
:D

WITH GOD, NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE!

"Life is as a vapor, it is here for an instance, and then it is gone!"
God is the only one who will decide what time it is to reap the harvest!
You will meet Him soon! Jesus saves!

Nah, he ain't so clever.

You'd think with all his omnipotence he could have created the universe instantly, but he had to take 6 days. And then what, he was so tired out that he had to take a rest - ahh what a shame, he can't even work 7 days straight, like many of us, before getting puffed out. Definitely sounds like he has limitations. Like, why take 6 days, if nothing is impossible then why not do it a bit quicker. It wasn't as if anyone was watching or looking over his shoulder to see that he did it right.

So we see that even at the very beginning he is slow and short-winded.

Cris

Hey Chis! Have a chariot and thank the Almighty invisible one (GOD) that you are alive and reconstituting the ground! Jesus is alive and well! And will all have there knees bowled unto Him when He comes again!

REad tHe Bible, and rEad it more! Pray, for the day is fast approaching!:eek:

Loone,

Have a chariot and thank the Almighty invisible one (GOD) that you are alive and reconstituting the ground! Why would I need a chariot? My SUV works pretty well. And why would I reconstitute the ground? Do you want me to urinate on the floor? I assume you have just taken some drugs or are you simply drunk?

Jesus is alive and well! Of course he is. Now I suggest you lie down quietly and get some rest.

And will all have there knees bowled unto Him when He comes again! Bowling is part of the English game of cricket and they use stumps and bails, not people’s knees. And before someone comes AGAIN they must have come the first time, or are you talking about sex here?

Are you seeing that psychiatrist yet or would you like me to find one for you?

REad tHe Bible, and rEad it more! Pray, for the day is fast approaching! See that’s what happens when you take drugs, you hit the shift lock by mistake. Read it, done that, been there. Read it again and again. And finally the truth became clear and I did the only rational thing possible, I became an atheist. As for the day approaching: Well it’s not quite dark yet, so the day is quite a few hours away yet. And I’m not so mentally ill yet that I find it necessary to talk to empty space.

That reminds me of a joke. If a man walks into an empty forest and is entirely alone and then he talks to himself, is he still wrong? Only women will understand that.

Cris

There are many positions and circumstances in the bible that are outdated and no longer apply. However, one thing can certainly be said for the bible. The human emotions, trials, and day to day living don't change much. That in itself is timeless. Be it a novel or be it historic that part remains revelant. Cris's chariot may be an SUV, it still moves him but it is a question of degree and comfort. However, adultry, killing, stealing and the rest of the commandments are still valid today. The way to prepare food to prevent sickness was instruction. It will still work today as it did then. But much like the chariot (which is now outdated) is the food preparation and much else that was current at the times of authoring the books of the bible.

But one thing gets me. God laid the Jew to be his favorite, his chosen. Well, everyone can not be Jewish. We do not chose our ancestors. No more today than then. This makes me question the validity of current faith.

Originally posted by Cris
You'd think with all his omnipotence he could have created the universe instantly, but he had to take 6 days. And then what, he was so tired out that he had to take a rest - ahh what a shame, he can't even work 7 days straight, like many of us, before getting puffed out. Definitely sounds like he has limitations.
Nah.

He didn't have a deadline, either.

He was just showing us how to take it easy.

For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
(Matthew 11:30, KJV).

The Bible, whatever version you read, or don't read, is just a collection of tales, stories, legends whatever, handed down by word of mouth for eons. Then a literate got hold of a writing implement and wrote these tales down, but whilst doing so, amended and changed anything that did not agree with either his belief or the doctrine of the day. I recently watched an Anglican Minister on a documentary stating that the devil was an invention of the Church. Mother Nature and son were converted into Mary and Jesus. Pan was converted into the Devil as in his own words, "The Church could not reconcile its earlier tolerance of paganism anymore". Witches, instead of being Healers, which is what the word means, overnight became instruments of the devil, therefore evil, and were persecuted as a consequence. All religious beliefs are based upon the word of some religious zealot at sometime. Christian Festivals were overwritten on Pagan Festivals. Christ's birthday was moved from Springtime to Xmas. The virgin birth is a complete fallacy, unless of course, with hindsight, she was artifically impregnated! Here in my own country, a human being of regal stature decided that the Bible did not agree with his ideas so it was re-written. How many times has it been re-written in the past - possibly hundreds? The Bible, as we know it today, bears absolutely no semblance to whatever was doing the rounds 2000 years ago or more. No matter how many times you modernise it, it still comes out with one basic fact - it is a human concoction.

Was that Anglican Bishop, John Spong, or something like that. I have heard of him, he came here a while ago and our archbishop banned him from speaking, however, that was so people could pray for the next archbishop and the leaders of the nation. Instead of having him take away attention from praying.

But there are a lot of heresies that are trying to get into our church, but thankfully they are stopped before they manifest themselves.

But basically, to deny the virgin birth of Jesus would be the same as saying He is not the Messiah. This is because it was prophesied that our Saviour would be born of virgin birth.

Hi deadwood, thanks for the reply. I DO deny that Christ is the messiah. I do not doubt that there was someone around at the time who we now know as JC BUT - he was a left wing radical terrorist who stirred up the natives against roman oppression and the fact they occupied their land - the Messiah - No!

The Bible, as we know it today, bears absolutely no semblance to whatever was doing the rounds 2000 years ago or more.

Not according to Archaeology. Even disregarding the famously complete Dead Sea Scrolls that match our Bible almost perfectly (with the exception of, basically, a few small spelling errors) we have hundreds -- if not thousands -- of copies of manuscripts from within less than a century of Christ. I think many of them are from within a decade of Christ even. The point is, there were still eyewitnesses around who could verify the facts that these manuscripts contained. Furthermore, these manuscripts had, even by this early date, been translated into dozens of other languages, such as Syrian, Egyptian, Arabic, and Latin (remember, they were originally written in Greek). And the clincher? These documents still match our own with remarkable -- even miraculous -- acuraccy. I will grant that there are a few inconsistencies, but these are few, far between, and involve <i>no</i> critical doctrinal issues at all. As stated above, the majority of these are just spelling errors.

So the statement that the Bible is not the same as it was 2000+ yrs ago just does <i>not</i> hold water.

~Caleb

Thanks Caleb, I had not forgotten about the scrolls but still maintain that it is a question of translation. Not of the actual language, bearing in mind who wrote what, but in what people actually interpret with their human eyes. The old one about the shepherd who see's an astronaut landing does not see an astronaut etc etc. At the risk of going off on a tangent - Nostrodamus left all his scripts in verse, heavily disguising meanings - was it a con or did he not really want people to really understand him. A question of interpretation. I recall, sometime in the 70s, that a group of emminent something or others got together and each deciphered Nostrodamus, the end results were that each person had different meanings written down. I hope I am making myself understood. One of Nostrodamus' "predictions" was that, allegedly, in the year 1999; Paris would be destroyed by "birds from the east" - it obviously did not happen. This was as interpreted - and not possibly what he wrote................:cool:

After all, most of the manuscripts from that period were deemed heretical and forcibly removed from the culture.Even disregarding the famously complete Dead Sea Scrolls that match our Bible almost perfectly (with the exception of, basically, a few small spelling errors) we have hundreds -- if not thousands -- of copies of manuscripts from within less than a century of Christ. I think many of them are from within a decade of Christ even. Much of what was found at Nag Hammadi was quite telling. The War Scroll is unique, and there are a few apocalyptic documents predating Christ which demonstrate that the legend of such a christos already existed. There is evidence that the social concept of Satan (best outlined by Pagels, and I'll have to do some work to find the original article from the early 90's, but it largely forms an entire chapter--The Social History of Satan--in her book, The Origin of Satan) existed among certain sects of Judaism.

I would agree with the statement that the Bible looks much the same as it did 1700 years ago, from about the time of Nicaea, and possibly a century before that. And I definitely agree that archaeology has shed new light on the historical Bible. The veracity of the archaeological contribution to biblical studies only does value to understanding the true nature of the Bible. It also shows the fallacy of believing that the Bible is the only credible source of information regarding this God, His Son, and Their Spirit. (ca. Nicaea) In fact, I would say that the archaeological contribution to biblical studies, while it reinforces the social power of the Christ-myth, does much damage to the Bible itself, confirming much of of the history proposed to have created the Holy Book.

The archaeology is a great point, Caleb.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I don't think there is much arguement that the bible as we know it today is definitely not what was laid down all those years ago. Whether it be a factual itinarary of what happened or just someone's idea of what happened we will never know; I believe the latter, as stated earlier on. Nobody, translating bibles, is going to write something he or his peers do not believe; at that time. Pope I'm Right the 22nd does not agree with what Pope No I'm 13th so he changes something etc etc..... It has happened and will continue to happen. :rolleyes: Tony states about the 6 days of creation. How long is a day to an immortal, omnipotent god? As Tony says - such a god could have flicked his fingers and there we; the universe is!

red devil

I would like to ask, what makes you think that Jesus was a left wing terrorist?

According to the bible, Jesus was not like this at all. If anything, I think He was a pacifist. red devil, please read this passage and see if this is the same person you are talking about, the one whom I believe died for my sins.

36
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
37
It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
38
The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.
39
Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him.
40
On reaching the place, he said to them, "Pray that you will not fall into temptation."
41
He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed,
42
"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
43
An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.
44
And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.
45
When he rose from prayer and went back to the disciples, he found them asleep, exhausted from sorrow.
46
"Why are you sleeping?" he asked them. "Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation."
47
While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him,
48
but Jesus asked him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?"
49
When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?"
50
And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
51
But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.
52
Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs?
53
Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour--when darkness reigns."
54
Then seizing him, they led him away and took him into the house of the high priest. Peter followed at a distance.

Deadwood, I respect you and your beliefs and defend your right to them but, as stated in an earlier mail, why do people "quote" from the Bible? I do not believe that the Bible is what it says it is and therefore do not necessarily think that "quotes" from the Bible are accurately represented. Did a stenographer follow this Jesus character around making notes?

I don't have time for a full reply, but a qyuick thought (and this isn't meant sarcastically). Did a sternographer follow George Washington or Alexander the Great around making notes?

~Caleb

What the hell does it matter? Nobody requires you to believe in George Washington. If you would rather discount a much more reliable history just to continue believing in a stupid myth, that's your own damn problem. But you can't seriously think you have a point there while discounting the obvious: the blackmail of faith.

Get a better argumentative point, sir, that last one is much like the Bible in this topic's title.

Or did I offend your sensitivities there? :rolleyes:

George Washington is not alleged to have walked across the surface of the Potomac.

--Tiassa :cool:

I think we are drifting a bit here. Any similarity between George Washington and the bible is just that, as with the bible, history is also a question of who wrote it? There was recently a court case here in the UK whereas an author wrote a history of WW2 and "denied" the holocaust - he lost! I have several WW2 historical pages on my domain, enthusiatically received by the people concerned in one case, but - when you actually read these pages, on Colditz, Enigma, Bismarck, U Boats, US Subs in WW2, Brit Subs in WW2, HMS Kite, Walker RN - they are written by me - albeit with research, but still written by me. Do you believe it because I say it is right? History, unless witnessed by yourself, is only someone's opinion. I assume that my info, where placed, is accurate but it may not be................... :cool:

Do you believe it because I say it is right? History, unless witnessed by yourself, is only someone's opinion.


Strangely enough, the people represented in the Bible valued witnessing an event for themselves as well. The claims themselves are gutsy for documents written shortly after the actual events occurred. Either we have some fabulous liars and many extremely gullible people, or there is some truth to what they say.

John 4:42 - They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."

1 Corinthians 15:5-7 - He was seen by Peter and then by the twelve apostles. After that, he was seen by more than five hundred of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died by now. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles.

2 Peter 1:16,18 - For we were not making up clever stories when we told you about the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and his coming again. We have seen his majestic splendor with our own eyes.... We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

<i>"1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1 John 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
1 John 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1 John 1:4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."</i>

<i>"Acts 26:11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.
Acts 26:12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,
Acts 26:13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
Acts 26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Acts 26:15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
Acts 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
Acts 26:17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Acts 26:19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:"</i>

~Caleb

There you go again caleb - resorting to quotes from this book. I think I have exhausted this topic...........

Words in other languages cannot be correctly translated into another language. Unless you can read the bible in its original language then you cannot say you are reading a correct version of the bible. The bible is not the same as the ancient ones anyway, no matter how many times you say it is it will not become true. A great example of this is to simply read the KJV and the newer bible in tandem. Those versions don't even agree.

Pretty cocky for a junior member...

You should really be less abrasive when it comes to stating problems with organized religion. Saying "the Bible is Bullshit", is a bit to harsh don't you think.

Then again creating controversy is a good way for those without intellectual prowess to get attention.

I recall, of "offensive lyrical content", Dee Snider of Twisted Sister once made the point that nobody was paying attention to anything anyone said until they got offensive: "We got your attention, right?"

Anthrax pretty much put Tipper Gore in her place when they sang, "Shit, fuck, Satan, death, sex, drugs, rape--these seven words that they're trying to take." Of course, the chorus of the song, dedicated to Tipper began with the words, "You fucking whore."

The listeners understood it, and I think Tipper got it because we haven't heard much from her since, and she spent her wife-of-the-veep years doing other things.

It takes two to have a controversy, one to offend and one to be offended. Why does one object to the word "bullshit"? Would "horsepucky" be any less offensive?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

True it takes to tango to the music of contraversy, but I wasn't the other party, partily offended.

I'm just saying that such a vulgur, unbridaled lashing out against the bible, and religion is a completely unessecary way of expressing discontempt or even hatred for religion.

If you don't like something announce it with some manner of intelligents, instead of acting like a junior high student by swearing and making weak statements.

I'm just saying that such a vulgur, unbridaled lashing out against the bible, and religion is a completely unessecary way of expressing discontempt or even hatred for religion. It's your right to feel that way. I well understand the manner of frustration that leads people to call the Bible bullshit. It's part of the reason I used the 1980's hatred of art on the part of Christian values as an example. After all, have you ever been told that you can't listen to music because of Christian values? I have. And yes, it was utter and complete bullshit.

To the other, as far as the tango goes, why is "bullshit" any more offensive than "horsepucky"? They both, in this case, refer to the defecation of animals. I just tend to think that people choose to find certain words offensive. It's one's choice to find a word offensive, as Mr Belladonna and company pointed out when objecting to Ms Gore's organization's accomplishment of denying people the right of free choice based on a religious standard.

I'll even remove it from the context of the immediate debate for you: Why is a word with as many useless definitions as "fuck" considered offensive?

To return it back to context, there is a signature line currently being employed by one of our fellow posters which calls people fools for, essentially, disagreeing with him. If it read "dipshit" instead of "fool", it would still be offensive in the fact that such a condescending term is employed over a simple disagreement; the severity of the word means nothing to me, personally. It's the sentiment that counts. I mean, considering the source of the original "fool" declaration--allegedly the personage being disbelieved--it's merely a hot-air insult. And that's more insulting than any word in and of itself.

It's up to each one of us individually to find something or another offensive.

But, yes, it's your right to feel that way, and I'm not going to tell you it's wrong. I do, however, wonder about standards of profanity. They seem ridiculously arbitrary when considering the purpose of declaring a word obscene or profane, and then comparing that to the "civilized" insults people all across society sling at each other.

And that's pretty much what I'm after.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Would a higher moral standard have anything to do with it?

Originally posted by Red Devil
The Bible, whatever version you read, or don't read, is just a collection of tales, stories, legends whatever, handed down by word of mouth for eons. Then a literate got hold of a writing implement and wrote these tales down, but whilst doing so, amended and changed anything that did not agree with either his belief or the doctrine of the day.
No.

The Bible was written down, although not quite from day one, but very shortly thereafter.

Enoch, the grandson of Adam, was the first person to learn to write, although such was by his own admission in the Book of Enoch.
The Book of Enoch is quoted in the Bible, so it carries some weight.
I recently watched an Anglican Minister on a documentary stating that the devil was an invention of the Church. Mother Nature and son were converted into Mary and Jesus. Pan was converted into the Devil as in his own words, "The Church could not reconcile its earlier tolerance of paganism anymore".
Anglican ministers are as bad as Catholic priests in many cases, having no faith in the "faith" they represent.

Of course, that in itself is not all that bad.
After all, I don't have any faith in the "faith" they represent.

Witches, instead of being Healers, which is what the word means, overnight became instruments of the devil, therefore evil, and were persecuted as a consequence. All religious beliefs are based upon the word of some religious zealot at sometime. Christian Festivals were overwritten on Pagan Festivals. Christ's birthday was moved from Springtime to Xmas.
The Roman Catholic organization did do all that.
The RCC calling itself "the Church" is why "the Church" is rejected.

Here in my own country, a human being of regal stature decided that the Bible did not agree with his ideas so it was re-written.
Or re-translated.
How many times has it been re-written in the past - possibly hundreds?
Given the length of time it takes to hand-write the Bible, before the printing press, it is not likely that it was re-written very often.
After the printing press, each copy during a print run is the same as each other copy, so again, it wasn't re-written very often.

The Bible, as we know it today, bears absolutely no semblance to whatever was doing the rounds 2000 years ago or more.
True.
It was written in Hebrew and Greek, and you may have been looking at English versions.
No matter how many times you modernise it, it still comes out with one basic fact - it is a human concoction.
You're comment about "modernising" highlights the fact that in the last few decades, there have been, and are now, many people getting the idea that they will produce their own version of the Bible.
The feminist "translations" are the funniest, though.

Originally posted by tiassa
And I definitely agree that archaeology has shed new light on the historical Bible. The veracity of the archaeological contribution to biblical studies only does value to understanding the true nature of the Bible. It also shows the fallacy of believing that the Bible is the only credible source of information regarding this God, His Son, and Their Spirit. (ca. Nicaea) In fact, I would say that the archaeological contribution to biblical studies, while it reinforces the social power of the Christ-myth, does much damage to the Bible itself, confirming much of of the history proposed to have created the Holy Book.
Actually, it would be more accurate to say that antichristian archeologists are attempting to "damage" the Bible by formulating some pretty far-fetched "explanations" of the data, whereas the data actually support the Bible.

Originally posted by Red Devil
As Tony says - such a god could have flicked his fingers and there we; the universe is!
Actually, I think Cris was making a point something like that.

My point was that he was taking his time, so he took six days.

Originally posted by Red Devil
Deadwood, I respect you and your beliefs and defend your right to them but, as stated in an earlier mail, why do people "quote" from the Bible? I do not believe that the Bible is what it says it is and therefore do not necessarily think that "quotes" from the Bible are accurately represented.
While your comment is directed to Deadwood...

People quote the Bible because the Bible itself has the power to create the intended effect.

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
(Isaiah 55:11, KJV).

And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
(Acts 20:32, KJV).

You yourself quote Carl Sagan in your signature.
While the quote itself may be accurately represented, its content has a net value of zero, but nobody's complaining.

Originally posted by tiassa
If you would rather discount a much more reliable history just to continue believing in a stupid myth, that's your own damn problem. But you can't seriously think you have a point there while discounting the obvious: the blackmail of faith.
The stupid myths of Catholicism aren't particularly prominent on this site, other than when you're railing against them.

In any case, there is no point in diiscounting that George Washington crossed the Potomac, if he did.

BTW, you aren't being blackmailed.
No one will torture you forever if you choose to reject Jesus as Lord.

You will simply end up in the the Jerusalem garbage dump, the valley of Hinnom, otherwise known as gehenna.

Originally posted by FA_Q2
Words in other languages cannot be correctly translated into another language.
You are obviously unilingual.
No one who can speak two languages would say that.

Untranslatable words are translated using, pay attention now, phrases.
Amazing, isn't it?

A great example of this is to simply read the KJV and the newer bible in tandem. Those versions don't even agree.
Of course they don't.

Many newer versions are deliberate revisions of the Bible.
A large number of them are translated by non-christians who, naturally, have an antipathy toward, and a lack of understanding of, what is being described.

Compare the Satanic Bible and the KJV. Not even close.

Originally posted by thecurly1
I'm just saying that such a vulgur, unbridaled lashing out against the bible, and religion is a completely unessecary way of expressing discontempt or even hatred for religion.
You've got to expect that.
People living in darkness sometimes react badly to light.

It is somewhat similar to turning on a bright light suddenly after a period of total darkness.
Some people's eyes hurt.
The tendency is to blame the light, rather than the real problem, the darkness.

Originally posted by tiassa
To return it back to context, there is a signature line currently being employed by one of our fellow posters which calls people fools for, essentially, disagreeing with him.
It is actually a statement by God, recorded in the Bible.

But, yes, it's your right to feel that way, and I'm not going to tell you it's wrong. I do, however, wonder about standards of profanity. They seem ridiculously arbitrary when considering the purpose of declaring a word obscene or profane, and then comparing that to the "civilized" insults people all across society sling at each other.
It isn't arbitrary, at all.

And they shall spread them before the sun, and the moon, and all the host of heaven, whom they have loved, and whom they have served, and after whom they have walked, and whom they have sought, and whom they have worshipped: they shall not be gathered, nor be buried; they shall be for dung upon the face of the earth.
(Jeremiah 8:2, KJV).

The boldfaced word "dung" would ordinarily, in modern English, be translated "shit," to highlight the end result of non-believers.

The concept of obscenity, as applied to words, is intended to prevent the reading of the Bible.

As an example of this, look at swear words in Catholic countries.
In French and Italian, for example, the swear words are almost exclusively religious terms to the point where it is practically impossible to discuss religion without constantly "swearing."

Cool ... my little dude ...`e be sleepin`

but you guys ... G`day dear friends,

Quote Caleb
“Not according to Archaeology. Even disregarding the famously complete Dead Sea Scrolls that match our Bible almost perfectly (with the exception of, basically, a few small spelling errors) we have hundreds -- if not thousands -- of copies of manuscripts from within less than a century of Christ. I think many of them are from within a decade of Christ even. The point is, there were still eyewitnesses around who could verify the facts that these manuscripts contained.”

Gee whiz Caleb, where are your references, cross-references, and proof of the “of copies of manuscripts from within less than a century of Christ. And within a decade? “I think many of them are from within a decade of Christ even. “ ???. Please lead me to the tomes of the era? Were is this data??? Where can I get I get hold of it? After 20 years studying the data … how could I possibly miss your references?

Quote Caleb
“And the clincher? These documents still match our own with remarkable -- even miraculous -- accuracy. I will grant that there are a few inconsistencies, but these are few, far between, and involve no critical doctrinal issues at all. As stated above, the majority of these are just spelling errors.”

Gosh … `K … let there be light …. `k … doctrinal issues … the Jehovah Witnesses, `k the Mormons, kkk the Catholics, `k the Anglicans, `k the Baptists, ```k the 7th Day Adventists … `k … the freaking Rhema Church , `k the Roman Church, ~k the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Nederlandse Gereformeerde Kerk! Huh … What are you trying to say? … there is NO consistency!

Huh?

Originally posted by Red Devil
There you go again caleb - resorting to quotes from this book. I think I have exhausted this topic...........

We quote, so we do the right thing!:)
The Bible is the Holy Word of GOD! It has the wisdom that is above that of natural men and there limited cope of wisdom! Jesus words are life to the lifeless, food for the hungry, light in a dark places (like Sci-Forum) it is the Word of GOD that created the universe you know and do not know and refuse to know! You people are all surrounded by the ultimate truth! Even one's self is proof of GOD's Creation! The Word of GOD Almighty is powerful, sharper then a two edged sword! Creates life and can put and end to evil! GOD is too real and the Word of GOD is from GOD, so BEWARE! He knows all our thoughts, and He will judge! But Jesus Saves! Any that will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved! "The Heavens Declares the Glory of GOD!":)

Originally posted by Sir. Loone


We quote, so we do the right thing!:)
The Bible is the Holy Word of GOD! It has the wisdom that is above that of natural men and there limited cope of wisdom! Jesus words are life to the lifeless, food for the hungry, light in a dark places (like Sci-Forum) it is the Word of GOD that created the universe you know and do not know and refuse to know! You people are all surrounded by the ultimate truth! Even one's self is proof of GOD's Creation! The Word of GOD Almighty is powerful, sharper then a two edged sword! Creates life and can put and end to evil! GOD is too real and the Word of GOD is from GOD, so BEWARE! He knows all our thoughts, and He will judge! But Jesus Saves! Any that will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved! "The Heavens Declares the Glory of GOD!":)


Loone, I just happen to have a two edged sword, and I'd be willing to wager that I could do alot more damage with it than all the quotes on this site. COMBINED even.


No one can judge you but YOU, Loone.

I still wonder why God's mercy is manifest in the rhetorical through military metaphors. Swords of spirit, armies of faithful. This is the God of Armies, here, so all hail Yahweh Sabaoth.

How would it sound, though, in the modern sense? I'm firing a bullet for God? I'm putting a cap in your ass in the name of God's mercy?

History shows what happens when you target the most destitute, least-educated portion of society and empower them with military metaphors.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

You have all made good and bad points - however we shall continue to discuss this till the earth ceases to be and still not reach an agreement therefore - Amen! One point: A feminist version of the bible!! eeeeeeeeek!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Red Devil
One point: A feminist version of the bible!! eeeeeeeeek!
It is funnnyyy.

" You are obviously unilingual.
No one who can speak two languages would say that."

Yes they would. When you translate a work of literature you always lose meaning. No matter what you do or how good the translation is meaning is lost. If you were to take the best works of literature from other countries and read the original language while reading the English language version you can easily see it. ANYONE who is multilingual will tell you that. literature

" You have all made good and bad points - however we shall continue to discuss this till the earth ceases to be and still not reach an agreement "

What's New :)

Would a higher moral standard have anything to do with it?At the point of defining words to be profane, such morality is ridiculously subjective.

For instance: Okay, nobody can use the English word for azul; I find it profane and immoral to use that word. After all, look at all those singers who sing that kind of music: it's about sin and depressing stuff. :rolleyes:

Can anyone tell me why the word f*** is immoral?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa is stoned on something, drugs alcohol,etc., all the above!:rolleyes: GOD can still help you ! The wages of sin is Death, but the gift of GOD is eternal life! With meaning and purpose and true love! Tiassa and others, you have been lied to by the Spirit of the Anti-Christ! Your prosperity is only temporal!
This world will pass away and you will have to come to GOD for the forgiveness of sins or perish! Jesus Saves any that come unto Him in repentance!
:D Time is slowly but surely running out!!:o

Who told you that???
If you keep this paranoid non-sense up you'll get commited. Voices telling you about death etc...not a good sign Loone.

After all, such canned smeat such as that seems to be the paramount of your efforts: exactly as worthless as your last post and the one before ....

I keep expecting to hear an announcer's voice come over the computer: This Christian idiocy is brought to you by the sacrifice of the intellect.

I was sitting around just the other day, watching the overcast roll lazily by, discussing various matters with a friend of mine who left Christianity behind some time ago. Perhaps you can answer a question for me: Why is it that intellectual non-Christians can discuss the impact of Christianity on the world and achieve more in five minutes on a Saturday afternoon than you have achieved in the entire catalog of your posts? Even the assertions based on past experience among the Christian community had better depth than you, and the sense of human compassion is persistent among my non-Christian associates whereas your form of human compassion is a mere fiction of delusions of superiority? At least Tony1, for instance, can be condescending if he tries really, really hard (as far as we can tell, it's the best he can do). You, however, Loone, have display about as much of the Christly way as I would find in a can of Vienna sausages.

Why is that? Is your brand of Christian faith so frustrated that the world hasn't ended yet that you've just given up on the living experience? What is this pervasive sense of waiting for God that you simply ooze?

You see, when you sacrificed your intellect at the door, they didn't burn it as a holocaust; it's kind of like a coat check. If you ever desire to have it back, you simply turn around and walk back out the door. But that, I suppose, is not the desirable option for you: it requires the effort of getting off your lazy ass, which effort is apparently only superseded by the effort of stemming the flow of illusory grandeur that is the heart of what you spew.

Pick any question you've managed to malign here at Sciforums and read it aloud to yourself in front of the mirror; if you have compassion, you will be able to empathize at the very least with the nature of the question. Then read aloud your response, and ask yourself whether or not you even paid attention to the question. I think you'll find that you haven't, and perhaps then you will realize the pattern of cowardly evasion you have undertaken to distract you from the idiocy of looking forward to the end of the world.

:rolleyes:,
Tiassa :cool:

You know, tiassa, I think Sir Loone's posts actually make sense to him.

There is such a vast chasm between your paradigms that I don't know if I can begin to explain to either side the reason why they don't understand each other.

Sir Loone seems to come from a background of complete belief--or was saved by some epiphany that relates along the posts that he sends. The words he sends came to him as complete truth some time ago. I believe he thinks that if he repeats what he says enough times that someone here will "get it" somehow and he will have helped someone on to heaven.

The atheists here believe that any form of, "Jesus is the Lord", is dogma--completely meaningless or harmful in the view of popular history in America. I think if it wasn't for the atheists' ego here, they would not even bother to respond. However, the atheists need to feel like they are right--because it makes them feel better about themselves. I don't hold that against atheists, but I find it entertaining too when I see someone like Sir Loone or Tony1 spout something that is nearly complete Christian-lingo and have felix, tiassa, Red Devil, etc. respond to something that at best is misinterpreted.

I was an atheist for five years, so I know that spouting King James Bible verses is not going to help. So Sir Loone and Tony1, (and Caleb sometimes), speak about the unique positiveness of Christianity. Speak about the intelligence in Christian beliefs and how the Bible admires intelligence and asking the hard questions about human existance. Show how the Bible is a thoughtful book, that doesn't whitewash humanity as dumb believers, or slice them into utterly perfect and totally evil categories. If you find yourselves mired into some detail that really doesn't matter in the end, it's time to back up, and take a larger view of what you're trying to accomplish with what you post here.

Thank you

I think I understand where you are coming from, and you are probably spot on with your observations of the 2 sides of the argument...however (I'm not sure if I would call myself athiest...currently all I believe is that christianity has it VERY wrong), I don't think my objective is to make myself feel better...I guess in all honesty I'm trying to point out that christain beliefs are so obviously flawed...in the same vien as believing the earth is flat. Infact it amazes me to think that with this much information available to people they would still demonstrate such a dumb and blind faith. To make my point consider this: We are not born knowing we are flawed or sinfull that is something that has to be taught by the religion to its subjects...this doesn't seem like an idea that came from a loving God...more like a corrupt organisation. Further we can consider that a great deal of what is in the bible is actually a rip off of Pagan religions which christainity activley wiped out!!! for unholy beliefs...anyway I'm not going to regurgatate all the arguments already put forward...the bible makes all my arguments for me.

I am curious about you though Dan, I have to say you are the most rational christain I have spoken to on this forum...and I admire your aproach to discussions...I just don't understand how someone with your obvious intellect can still believe in such b-grade myths....sorry if that offends you...I don't write this with those intentions...I guess I just don't understand.

Originally posted by FA_Q2
Yes they would. When you translate a work of literature you always lose meaning. No matter what you do or how good the translation is meaning is lost. If you were to take the best works of literature from other countries and read the original language while reading the English language version you can easily see it. ANYONE who is multilingual will tell you that.
Since I'm multilingual, I'm basing it on actual experience.
I suspect you are theorizing.

That idea is accurate only on a word-by-word basis.
Phrases work where individual words sometimes fail.
The worst-case scenario is borrowing words, and as worst cases go, that's not that bad.

FA_Q2,

A different key word or letter can change the meaning completely. But subtleties in word usage do change the meaning and intention and these do often get lost in translations.

As a simple case I have had many difficulties over the years as a Brit living in the USA. There are numerous subtleties between American English and British English, and these are often the result of very different cultures. As a very simple example take the American pronunciation of the letter Z (Zee) and the British pronunciation of Zed. Have you ever seen signs that say EZ, meaning ‘easy’, but to a Brit they would say E Zed – meaningless?

And all of the above is current usage. Now consider the usage from 2000 years ago and before. We have very little hope of accurately capturing the true intentions and meanings of those early writers.

Cris

" I suspect you are theorizing."

You suspect incorrectly.

Lets take an example.
What up man.
Translate this simple statement that is used widely in America to any language and translate it back. See if the beginning has any thing to do with the end.

You know... sometimes I think I'm being drowned out here, although I think most discussions on this forum miss the point entirely.


Further we can consider that a great deal of what is in the bible is actually a rip off of Pagan religions

This is a chicken and egg problem. Who stole from who? And if the stuff that the Bible says happened actually did, then whose version is correct? I notice everytime I re-read a section of the Bible (after doing more research in other religions and philosophies) that there is a strong flavor of reality. The people don't act fake. They think things that you and I would. They make mistakes, and are still held as saints in spite of their actions. By contrast, even a well-written novel seems fake and one-dimensional.


I am curious about you though Dan, I have to say you are the most rational christain I have spoken to on this forum...and I admire your aproach to discussions...I just don't understand how someone with your obvious intellect can still believe in such b-grade myths

I am reminded of Joseph Campbell's "Power of Myth" when he tries to force every myth into some common mold. This is, of course, very old practice and similar efforts can be found in the past millenia. What Campbell chokes on the woman as a venue to the rebirth--he only found it in the Bible. Yet, I guess it seemed essential enough to put in his journey model. In everyone's efforts to say that religions are common myths, many parts of the Bible have to be discounted--yet no parts of other religions need to have the same done. The Bible just makes claims that are too big--too outlandish. Other religious texts are much more muted in comparison.

I believe because I came across too many realities in the Bible that were compelling--far more than what I could come up with (and I thought I could come up with every major religion's stories before I read the Bible, and read experts who wrestled with its complexities)

" This is a chicken and egg problem. Who stole from who? "

The one that was second stole from the other one.

I have read good novels that were much more realistic than the bible as well.

Originally posted by dan1123
This is a chicken and egg problem. Who stole from who? And if the stuff that the Bible says happened actually did, then whose version is correct? I notice everytime I re-read a section of the Bible (after doing more research in other religions and philosophies) that there is a strong flavor of reality. The people don't act fake. They think things that you and I would. They make mistakes, and are still held as saints in spite of their actions. By contrast, even a well-written novel seems fake and one-dimensional.

I believe because I came across too many realities in the Bible that were compelling--far more than what I could come up with (and I thought I could come up with every major religion's stories before I read the Bible, and read experts who wrestled with its complexities)

It's kind of funny. I've read so many good fiction books with people that seem real and multidimensional, and concepts that, to me, hold so much truth, that It's easy for me to discount the bible as a compilation of fictional stories, rather than an actual account of history. I believe the bible holds a lot of truth. But I don't think that truth necessarily needs to come from fact.

It's kind of funny. I've read so many good fiction books with people that seem real and multidimensional, and concepts that, to me, hold so much truth, that It's easy for me to discount the bible as a compilation of fictional stories, rather than an actual account of history. I believe the bible holds a lot of truth. But I don't think that truth necessarily needs to come from fact.


I have read good novels that were much more realistic than the bible as well.

Ah, everyone's a critic. Maybe "realistic" wasn't quite the word I was looking for... Let me explain:

It's really fascinating how one can trace the path of literature, from the ancient poets through novels comprised of letters written back and forth among fictitious people, to finally a modern novel. Through all of this, the Bible stands out as unique--an anachronism if you will. This makes it something to consider, at least in historical value.

Also there is particular note of the story of Job--of which there is no parallel in ancient texts. I would say that the reason for this is because of the strangeness of it: Some guy who hasn't done anything wrong gets his family taken away, possessions taken away, and health taken away in a short period of time. His friends naturally think that he did something to make God mad at him, and encourage him to curse God whom Job worshipped up to that point. Job doesn't curse God, yet he is given a lecture by God in the end. Why? Because Job's view of God was smaller and less holy than what the Bible represents God as being.

To the average reader, it looks like Job is getting the worst deal of the millennia, and God's excuse is that He is bigger than Job, so there! My point is that this story is unusual and unique to the Bible--setting it apart from your average over 5,000 year old myth.

My point is that this story is unusual and unique to the Bible--setting it apart from your average over 5,000 year old myth.Which only suggests that nobody before that time had the need to create such a psychology within religion. Before it was because the gods were angry; now it's just because God has a stick up his ass. But we must also remember, for other debates, that if the uniqueness of Job establishes any sense of credibility, it's that Satan is not expelled from Heaven forever.

Will the Devil be redeemed? (That, of course, is best left for other threads, but I thought it worth mentioning, at least.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

You know, tiassa, I think Sir Loone's posts actually make sense to him. On the one hand, yes, and that's what scares me about Christianity--when the faithful create that kind of reality for themselves.

To the other, such an answer is inadequate. I must eventually provide a better response.

In the meantime, at least know that your posts are a refreshing perspective compared to Loone and Tony1's claptrap. I am truly coming to wonder if I have more respect for the God of the Bible than they do.

But I shall give that post of yours deeper thought ....

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

that if the uniqueness of Job establishes any sense of credibility, it's that Satan is not expelled from Heaven forever.

The uniqueness of Job establishes the uniqueness of the Bible... and I think that satan isn't punished until the world ends and is remade in revelation--and then he is bound for a thousand years...

So if I write and record an album of pop covers, and merely invert an arpeggio here and there, have I established the uniqueness of my musicality?

What you're describing as the uniqueness of the Bible is, in this case, merely a Britney Spears album with with a slight twist: 9 run-of-the-mill tripe songs and one "unique" (to the tripe-pop genre) written by a Lee Mavers, or Thom Yorke, or Chris Cornell. It would merely mean that the one song is unique within its genre, as your claim of Job would make one book of the Bible within the genre of religious texts.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

You mean Sir Loone even knows what he is talking about? Hmmm, that's a first. I certainly can't understand a word. The "devil" does not exist. He is a creation of the church to explain away paganism and so called evil. Until the "church" came along paganism was going its own happy, contented way, with no problems, no rivals and no persecutive complexes. Along comes the church, declares that Pan is not a christian god therefore he has to be evil! Etc etc. This is the abridged version.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Incidently, in case anyone wonders, my choice of nickname is neither political (red) nor religious (devil) it is a sporting affiliation........ here in the UK.

It would merely mean that the one song is unique within its genre, as your claim of Job would make one book of the Bible within the genre of religious texts.

Okay, fine. Genesis is unique in establishing male and female as equal image bearers of God, and a covenantal system which puts the most responsibility on the most capable party (God Himself).

Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are unique in that God gives a clear law that His chosen people agree to openly. In fact, Joshua discourages people from accepting it because he knows the path will be harder than the Israelites understand. Anyway, both parties are given a chance to accept the terms.

The Psalms are unique for their lashing out against God when He seems to be ignoring the Psalmist.

Job is unique for reasons stated in my earlier post.

The Gospel and the message throughout the New Testament is unique because it puts forth the idea that everlasting life just means you have to accept a sacrifice that was already made--by the party that humanity is in trouble with.

There may be some cursory similarities between the stories of the Bible and pagan texts, but the underlying philosophies are in direct opposition.


Until the "church" came along paganism was going its own happy, contented way, with no problems, no rivals and no persecutive complexes.

Israel came and killed off most of the Canaanites who practiced temple prostitution and child sacrifice. The opposition to paganism has been around for much longer than the modern church. By the way, why would anyone want to submit to capricious and fickle gods often represented in paganism? Wouldn't the freedoms of Christianity be far more palatable than that?

There may be some cursory similarities between the stories of the Bible and pagan texts, but the underlying philosophies are in direct opposition. <I><B>ABSOLUTELY!!!</I></B>

~Caleb

"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and loss his own soul?"

And the knowledge that stands against the Holy Bible and it's truths is of foolish men who know not God, and stands on quicksand of falsehoods thought by haters of the Word, and will ultimately fail, the truth will stand all the test of time till the very end of the times of the Gentiles!

The Bible is as acurate as it was 2000 years ago, and Greek translations are right! We again, the Bible is the 'living Word of GOD'! And will be around and adored and 'quoted' from long afther we and our present civilisation long have passed into history, if JESUS tarries, The Bible will stand all asults! Those who are of Christ stands on the 'solid rock', those who reject Him and the Word of GOD is standing on thin-ice!:mad: :rolleyes: The truth stands!

Yeah, I want to know how people can support a religion that supports child sacrifice and prostitution?

Originally posted by Sir. Loone
"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and loss his own soul?"

And the knowledge that stands against the Holy Bible and it's truths is of foolish men who know not God, and stands on quicksand of falsehoods thought by haters of the Word, and will ultimately fail, the truth will stand all the test of time till the very end of the times of the Gentiles!

The Bible is as acurate as it was 2000 years ago, and Greek translations are right! We again, the Bible is the 'living Word of GOD'! And will be around and adored and 'quoted' from long afther we and our present civilisation long have passed into history, if JESUS tarries, The Bible will stand all asults! Those who are of Christ stands on the 'solid rock', those who reject Him and the Word of GOD is standing on thin-ice!:mad: :rolleyes: The truth stands!

Loone, how can the bible be infallable when it was written by men? Men are not infallable, and I've never heard ANYONE claim that the bible was actually physically written by god.

And so what if the greek translations ARE right? I can't read greek, so that doesn't help me one bit.

Sir Loon! Only as long as the (human) writer THINKS he is right!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Red Devil
Sir Loon! Only as long as the (human) writer THINKS he is right!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Hello Red Devil, and hello Felix.:D GOD's Word was written by men created in the image of GOD the Creator who supernaturally inspired them to write! It is in fact the very Words of GOD Himself, the prophesies, and inspired words are from GOD and at the time of writing it was mysterious even to the writers, but the Holy Spirit of GOD can reveal the mysteries of the Bible in ways no unregenerate scalar ever could. The Words of the Bible are called the Living Word of GOD, it's supernatural words are the words that all life in the cosmos have come! I herd an argument about how GOD could of made the world in an instance, but:) why rush a masterpiece? He's the Almighty GOD, the Living GOD! His ways are definitely, "not our ways"! He does have a real 'personality' of His own, plus He's the Supreme Being, that makes Him smarter than any collective minds anywhere, ET, Angels, Devils, or anything that anyone can ever imagine, when the Bible or any servant of the Living GOD says He is Supreme(GOD is), He is above all time matter -everything and is not within the grasp of reasoning! Is Spirit!

The Holy Spirit can bring all things learned in the Word of GOD to remembrance! So it is with me!:) My memory is bad, and if not for the Holy Spirit of GOD in me I would not be able to say this much, or quote scriptures with out reading out of the book (Bible) it self, some times I really get on fire and can hardly stop myself [afraid to quench the Holy Spirit of GOD] and some times can preach like if I was someone else that could speak better, 'the best way I could put it'! The Holy Spirit plus the knowledge of the Holy Word of GOD + my Faith= Power from above! It's from GOD Himself through the people that have the Word of GOD in them by the Spirit of GOD!......a little child could witness for GOD; IT is written in the Bible that children will prophesy, and old men would dream dreams [visions of the future] , and could be the spokesmen for the Most High GOD! It is by the power of the Holy Spirit of GOD that through people, His will be done, and people do His will out of LOVE and Reverence to there Heavenly Farther GOD! That's why we humans are said by the Bible [though fallen] to have been 'created in the image of GOD our Creator! And not of beast! That is greatly misunderstood about , Created in His image! Well I know this; JESUS Himself said: "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." He the Son of GOD, and is GOD with us!

Thus you are not just arguing with people of Faith, but with GOD Himself! The Bible is His Holy Word!

Hi sir loone. I am not sure of your nationality but your reply to my mail makes even less sense than ever. I do, however, understand the point you are attempting to put across about scholars etc. Even if I still think you are wrong - you see - you are still paraphrasing that which is already written, it matters not by whom. god or jesus, as you say, is seen "in his own image" or whatever you wrote. The "image" is in the eye of the beholder and in my eyes he was definitely a man but a god - nope! You may paraphrase as much as you like - you wont convince me - ever. Like you, I am firm in my beliefs but unfortunately I cannot "pray" for you as there is no such thing as prayer. If you want to indulge in three weeks of back lashing with a birch on my behalf - please feel free. It won't be my back thats sore.........:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Cris
As a simple case I have had many difficulties over the years as a Brit living in the USA. There are numerous subtleties between American English and British English, and these are often the result of very different cultures. As a very simple example take the American pronunciation of the letter Z (Zee) and the British pronunciation of Zed. Have you ever seen signs that say EZ, meaning ‘easy’, but to a Brit they would say E Zed – meaningless?
Did you notice how the use of phrases, and sentences, made that quite simple?
In fact, your translation of "EZ" actually added factual information which some Americans wouldn't even have been aware of.

Originally posted by FA_Q2
What up man.
Translate this simple statement that is used widely in America to any language and translate it back. See if the beginning has any thing to do with the end.
Of course, you're ignoring the "phrase" concept again.
See above.

Originally posted by dan1123
I think most discussions on this forum miss the point
Is this possible?
I mean, could people who believe in God and people who refuse to believe in God have any real differences?

Originally posted by tiassa
I am truly coming to wonder if I have more respect for the God of the Bible than they do.
Relax. You don't.

Originally posted by Red Devil
The "devil" does not exist.
...
Along comes the church, declares that Pan is not a christian god therefore he has to be evil!
Sorry, our mistake.
One of the devil's names is Pan.
But, you said he doesn't exist.

Besides, if paganism is so great, why can't it handle a little opposition?
Is it weak?

Originally posted by Sir. Loone
"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and loss his own soul?"
Amen

Originally posted by felix
Men are not infallable, and I've never heard ANYONE claim that the bible was actually physically written by god.
That's a dead-end argument.
That would mean that every other book is as useless as you seem to think the Bible is.

Besides, you're right, no one does claim that the Bible was physically written by God...

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(2 Timothy 3:16, KJV).

Originally posted by Red Devil
Even if I still think you are wrong - you see - you are still paraphrasing that which is already written, it matters not by whom.
Better that than paraphrasing that which is written that is wrong.
Have you ever heard of lies?
How do you tell the difference between the truth and all of the possible lies?

Better that than paraphrasing that which is written that is wrong.
Have you ever heard of lies?
How do you tell the difference between the truth and all of the possible lies?

Touche!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

" Of course, you're ignoring the "phrase" concept again.
See above. "

No I haven't. What I said cannot be translated in to many languages accurately. You loose something in translation, unless of course you expand my one sentence into a paragraph. It is the same with languages that have multiple levels of one thing while English only has one. The first example that comes to mind is Spanish. Often Spanish has more than one word to describe a trait. You could use the word very in English but it losses meaning in the process. Very few languages are cold like English. There is a feeling to languages that are all their own, something that cannot be translated.

The German language is the same; one word can mean a sentence in English! 5 different ways of saying "The" etc etc:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Red Devil
*How do you tell the difference between the truth and all of the possible lies?*

Touche!
Well, I'm waiting...

Originally posted by FA_Q2
No I haven't. What I said cannot be translated in to many languages accurately. ...There is a feeling to languages that are all their own, something that cannot be translated.
Yeah, but I speak, read and write three languages; I read another half a dozen fluently, another half dozen not quite so fluently, and I've read the same works in various different languages.

I repeat, let's not forget phrases and sentences.

Originally posted by Red Devil
one word can mean a sentence in English!
See? Red Devil gets it.

Tony1--Yeah, but I speak, read and write three languages; I read another half a dozen fluently, another half dozen not quite so fluently, and I've read the same works in various different languages. And it's too bad that you never learned to communicate in any of them.

:rolleyes:,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tony1

That's a dead-end argument.
That would mean that every other book is as useless as you seem to think the Bible is.

Besides, you're right, no one does claim that the Bible was physically written by God...

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(2 Timothy 3:16, KJV).


I never said the bible was useless. I'm just saying it can't be infallible.

Originally posted by tiassa
Tony1--And it's too bad that you never learned to communicate in any of them.

:rolleyes:,
Tiassa :cool:

Amen to that, brother.

Here beginneth the lesson: It is written that you cannot teach the ignorant: Here endeth the lesson. Tony1 is the ignorant as he cannot argue a single point without refering to an old musty book that may or may not have been written at sometime in the past by a person who may or may not have been literate who may or may not have got the words direct from a god that may or may not exist and who may or may not choose to talk to Tony. However if he (or she) did - then he or she would say "TONY - SHUT THE HELL UP, YOU MAKES MATTERS ONLY WORSE WHENEVER YOU OPEN YOU PARAPHRASING MOUTH" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

*How do you tell the difference between the truth and all of the possible lies?*

My reply: Touche!

Your Reply: Still waiting!

My reply: Touche - meaning you cannot answer your own question! You cannot PROVE a word!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Are you really surprised?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I think I agree wholeheartedly. I consider it among the evidence that God does not exist as described in the Bible. That God would have lost His Holy Temper by now with Tony1. Somewhere in that musty book is a bit about blasphemy against God in the name of God being the only unforgiveable sin. And he still thinks he's saved, despite how often he presumes to know more than God.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Get off of it Tiassa!!!! There's more to life than the bible!

Christ! You're definately in need of a Harley Davidson!!!! Get away from that damned computer & go on a road trip for a couple of decades man!

F*** the bible!

Hell Tiassa, life is just Too DAmned SHOrt ! ! ! ! Take a f***in vacation for cryin out loud!!!!!!!!!

<i>"Tomorrow you made be Dead OF THRoat CANCer"</i>!!!!!!

....later hs/hs//////:cool: :cool: :rolleyes:

O' yeah.... "praise the lord"

That may be the best advice you've ever offered. If I ever take it up, I'll look you up and we can drink to it.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

To hell with drinkin!!!!1

If I ever manage to locate into a marijuana legal state that doesn't look at me in the same light as they do serial kilers, then I probably will never touch another drop of alcohol ever again !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Free The Weed........

hs/hs..
:cool: :confused: :cool:


http://www.westcoastchoppers.com/

<img src="http://westcoastchoppers.com/images/home/intro.gif">

<img src="http://westcoastchoppers.com/images/bikes/bike01.gif">

" I repeat, let's not forget phrases and sentences. "

I repeat, FEELING THAT CANNOT BE TRANSLATED. If I translate 1 word into a paragraph, or even 1 sentence, then a lot of meaning has been lost.

Hello, all! I am the moderator of this forum and as such I have received a complaint about certain uses and abuses of the language herein. Things here are usually pretty liberal and the members are generally given free reign to voice their opinions, whether founded or unfounded, in pretty much whatever language(s) they have at their disposal. Although profanity is listed as a no-no, it's sort of one of those "if nobody complains or if it's not getting out of hand then there's no need to do anything about it".

A complaint has been filed.

The following members have had their posts altered slightly to comply with the sciforum rules:
JokeZ
HOWARDSTERN
Tiassa

All I did was to take the offending language and replace key letters with asterisks or else to replace a well-known phrase with it's equally well-known initials. No other part of the posts was altered.

I know that what is offensive to some is not necessarily offensive to all, but as moderator it is my job to respond to all communiques regarding this forum.

Take it easy. Okay? Thanks.

uh oh... Howard is going to flip ;)

Oxygen:

I can certainly appreciate the position stated in your censoring censure. However, I feel that you have demonstrated a certain point addressed in this very topic without giving it fair consideration--from my own censored post:Can anyone tell me why the word f*** is immoral? (8/6/2001)In light of your explanation, which I will not protest directly, there is an issue I would appreciate certain consideration on:I know that what is offensive to some is not necessarily offensive to all, but as moderator it is my job to respond to all communiques regarding this forum. (Oxygen, 8/14/2001)I feel that you have acted on the complaint rather than respond to all communiques. I believe that since your action is, in part, the essence of the question censored, I am entitled to at least ask for an answer to the question, either from you, the complaining party, or anyone who feels such a word as that which has been censored is offensive.

It's just that it's exactly why I asked the question in the first place, and yes, I knew inclusion of the word itself was a calculated risk. But that's part of the point.

(I would, in fact, like to read the complaint in its entirety and demand the answer to the censored question of the complaining party, but I'm well aware that this will not happen.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

(Edit after the fact--because I am dumb enough to keep it up): I am compelled to point out two of my own posts on 8/3 (page 3 for me); one of these contains, essentially, the same question in uncensored form, and the second recalls Anthrax lyrics from ten or so years ago. I was curious to see what you would had done about the blue streak in the Anthrax post, and was at first impressed that you had allowed it in its context; however, the presence of the uncensored version of the censored question addressed in the primary portion of this post advises me that both the complaint--and therefore by necessity the moderation--were post-specific, and that these equally ... uh ... offensive ... posts were lost amid the volume. Especially in this case, while I still respect the position of the Moderator, I must request a forthright explanation for this circumstance from the complaining party.

In defence of the removal of certain words - what is the need to use such language in the first place? Cannot people have a discussion without resorting to calling each other names OR using profane language to highlight a point or other. I have already had nearly 100 mails posted, in various threads, and never once have I had cause, even to some "venemous bible puncher", to resort to swearing. As is quite rightly pointed out - one man's meat is another man's poison. I once tuned into American radio on the net - never again!! What is the point of all that swearing on the air? Does it make the American male/female feel macho? Does it make them feel "street wise" or whatever? Here in the UK, apart from a few bozo's on the streets without the brains to pick their nasal passages, it is still "frowned upon" to use language of an offensive nature on air and indeed, in public. Although the latter is becoming more prevalent. To be able to discuss a point without resorting to offensive language is a sign of intelligence in my eyes and the other - a sign of uncultured drivel!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Thank you for your input, but it misses the mark on one specific point: I well understand the "reasons" for removing "profane" or "obscene" material.

What I would like to know is why certain words are considered profane or obscene.

Why were the words censored? Because they are profane. This we both understand.

Why are the censored words considered profane? This is the question, and I find the irony of the word being censored within the very question to be slightly ... dripping. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
And it's too bad that you never learned to communicate in any of them.
Well, you're still working on communicating in the one or two that you use.

Originally posted by felix
I'm just saying it can't be infallible.
Why not?

Originally posted by Red Devil
Here beginneth the lesson: It is written
...
Tony1 is the ignorant as he cannot argue a single point without refering to an old musty book
Looks like you've got the same problem.

Touche - meaning you cannot answer your own question!
Sure I can.

All of the lies disagree with the truth.
So, if I wanted to do it the hard way, I could look for the one thing that everything else disagrees with and that would be the truth.

Originally posted by tiassa
I consider it among the evidence that God does not exist as described in the Bible. That God would have lost His Holy Temper by now with Tony1. Somewhere in that musty book is a bit about blasphemy against God in the name of God being the only unforgiveable sin.
Your standard line...
There is no God.
But if there is, he didn't write the Bible.
But if he did, then somewhere in there, it would say that he's mad at whoever quotes it.
etc.

Originally posted by HOWARDSTERN
Cain't you figure out that I'm tryin to educate you!!!!?
Well, you've gotten tiassa pretty well educated, along with some others.

Originally posted by FA_Q2
I repeat, FEELING THAT CANNOT BE TRANSLATED. If I translate 1 word into a paragraph, or even 1 sentence, then a lot of meaning has been lost.
Well which is it, feeling or meaning?
You can't have it both ways.
Feelings are what you have, and meaning is what you're trying to transmit to the other person.

Originally posted by tiassa
What I would like to know is why certain words are considered profane or obscene.
Me, too.

Maybe FA_Q2 has something going with his "Feelings Theory of Linguistics."

Well, you're still working on communicating in the one or two that you use. I always figure it's best to communicate well. We've already established in another topic that you distrust everyone because that's how your faith instructs you. So I'm not too concerned about your assessment of my communication skills; you've already admitted that you're trained to assume the worst of people, so what does that say about the credibility of your observations thereof?

:rolleyes:,
Tiassa :cool:

Well Tony1, we appeared to have exhaused this thread. As usual you are right and everyone else is wrong. *Draws Curtain* Switches off light..........:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Your standard line...
There is no God.
But if there is, he didn't write the Bible.
But if he did, then somewhere in there, it would say that he's mad at whoever quotes it.
etc. Please demonstrate my standard line.

And then specifically consider the notion that just because I consider the diminutive version of God presented in the Bible to be an utter fallacy does not mean that I have claimed that there is no God.

Do you know how many of my statements you're going to have to cite out of context in order to establish in any context that I state unequivocally that there is no God? Let's see what you can sew together, boy.

Do better.

:rolleyes:,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tony1

Well, you're still working on communicating in the one or two that you use.

That's because tiassa hasn't decided he knows everything.


Why not?

because men are fallable and it was written by men.



All of the lies disagree with the truth.
So, if I wanted to do it the hard way, I could look for the one thing that everything else disagrees with and that would be the truth.

I'm beginning to see now. You just make sure that everyone disagrees with you and by default, you must be the truth. There IS method to your madness.


Well which is it, feeling or meaning?
You can't have it both ways.
Feelings are what you have, and meaning is what you're trying to transmit to the other person.

You really think everything is just a one way street don't you, tony. Who says you can't try to transmit feeling, or even have a successful transmition/reception?

Oh that's right, you say.

Originally posted by felix
because men are fallable and it was written by men.
The Bible is come directly from the Almighty GOD Himself! And when men of GOD wrote it, they where inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit of GOD Himself! And the Holy Bible is the Word of Almighty GOD and is infallible!! Praise be to the Almighty GOD, and JESUS the living Word 'personified'!

:D

You make me all warm & fuzzy or something like that. I thought it worth mentioning that all of that "every day is a learning experience" crap we hear as children might have worn off on me; I can't actually remember when I made the realization, but it seems I've held a certain principle for a long time:

* Anytime I say I know what I'm doing, someone's probably getting hurt. This might have been about when I was 17 and I thought I knew how to handle a suicidal.

* From that I eventually learned the following: Anytime I think I know everything, it's a bright-red, buzzy candy-light screaming at me that I'm about to crash into the mountain of my own ego. That ... was a slower process that required a certain degree of Pavlovian perversity before I'd finally punished myself enough to quit thinking silly things like knowing anything. This is what I assert the redemptives are never capable of figuring out amid their gnashing concern for salvation. One cannot know everything because one cannot know anything. The religious faith response to not being able to know anything is merely a psychological comfort as ingrained in our souls as fear itself. Religious faith, even in minute symbols like a polished rose-quartz, always pertains to the one thing that we fear, and that itself is the mystery.

We put faith in an imaginary concept because it helps us understand how to regard what we experience. The subjective is designed to perceive what is most relevant to us; the objective seems designed to execute the necessary tasks. One needs warmth. One recognizes the association between fire and warmth. One does not start a fire with a stick and a block of ice. The objective data we learned as our minds evolved, such as the idea that fire is hotter than water, which ice is essentially, and thus the ice will turn to water ... (ad nauseam) ... merely reinforces our comfort within the environment as relates to those factors most relevant to us. Think about the things you don't notice; I would guarantee that if the odds of what we don't notice killing us weren't so astronomically (read, comfortably) against randomly dying, we would notice a lot more. Demonstratively: gunshots can kill you, therefore you tend to notice them in your proximity. Mosquitos are merely annoying in my part of the world, so I only notice them when they're buzzing immediately around me; if I lived in a malarial zone, I'm sure mosquitos would be considerably more relevant, and that I would tend to notice them more. So much for objectivity, for now.

Subjectively, we chase certain sensations; we do not like to be afraid, so we have gathered into human societies--the unfortunate realization that we are now afraid of ourselves is new data as far as the human endeavor is concerned, as atomic warfare ushered in a new commitment to fear, is irrelevant for the present purpose. Certainly, we have always feared each other in society--sociology can demonstrate that fear causes wars. In fact, at some level, I hold that all warfare is couched in fear.

But, as to fear: We cannot truly know everything; it is merely confidence in history that allows us to expect the future-becoming-present. So there does exist a method of faith in all human beings. This is different than religious faith. Early theistic faith was most definitely based upon fear, but we see in history evidence of that faith being wielded as a tool against the sensation of fear--that is, wielded against feeling afraid. With the redemptive religions, we see a faith that assumes it knows everything in order to counteract the fear of not knowing anything. In the meantime, these religious faiths invoke an artificial fear, a shell or mask by which to hide the source of all fear. It is precisely the reason why the difference of high and low magick exists among those who believe in magick. The Low Magicks, like witchcraft and shamanism, are demonstrative and primal; the High Magicks, such as Barret's sorcery in The Magus, or Crowley's pursuits in OTO, are exceptionally ritualistic and symbolic--abstract in response to reality, in order to further remove the seeker from the source of all fear.

Thus a refined religion like Christianity, which affected both Barrett and Crowley seeds itself in a mask of fear: fear of God and the stake of salvation. The assumption of knowing everything assuages the primal effect of the source of all fear; the mask of fear distracts the soul from its true purpose, and provides a subjectively satisfactory sensation of comfort amid the underlying fear. Thus, as the adherents struggle to conquer their fears in the eyes of God, they are merely reacting to the mask of fear, and never approaching the source of all fear.

It is merely the fear of being afraid. One knows what that feels like, and wishes to prevent it. One becomes assured of the comfort against the mask of fear so that one does not fear being afraid, for with the comfort against the mask of fear there is no reason to be afraid. Except for the psychosis that comes when the mask of fear is challenged by those who recognize it as a mask.

Those who recognize the mask of fear are often aware that they have constructed their own death-mask to place over their own sense of fear; of those, most cannot conceive of what the mask they've made looks like.

Christianity's mask is so cruel that it makes Christians essentially suicidal; they all look forward in proper faith to their Judgement. Christian faith desires that the individual should hope for what the mask chatters comes after they cease to fear. Thus, one hopes inherently for the cessation of fear: death. Think about it in that term for just a moment ... the mask of fear is so cruel that the adherents hope for the day when humankind ends--that is, when God judges all. The flip-side of this is Heaven--the promise of eternal life without fear; the loss of this stake becomes the underlying fear from birth, what with having been born into sin and separation. This illusion, this mask of fear, can completely obscure the source of all fear from the range of the adherent's vision.

Perhaps it is that certain people truly cannot understand what is being told them. Perhaps Tony1's responses really do sound legitimate to him, and he wonders why people don't understand what is so perfectly clear since he cannot see anything else it must necessarily be all that there is to see because if he could see that there is more to see it would be because he looked away from the mask of his fear and if he does that he might lose sight of the prize forever and live in fear of the source of all fears again. And to see the true source of all fears is to not see the mask that covers it, and that becomes Hell. Hell may literally be the grave for Tony1 because he may fear it so greatly. You ain't alive if you don't die. They are part of the same process. That's why there has to be the "second death": He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. (Revelation 2.11, KJV)

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. (Revelation 20.14, KJV) [1]

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Revelation 21.8, KJV) * Note 1: Rev. 20.14--So if death was thrown into the lake of fire, how can death be Hell?

The need for the second death comes because Tony1 has expressed that Hell is the grave, and the separation from God thereof, and therefore the annihilation of the soul. This creates a psychological comfort that one need not fear their mortal death, for there is a second death which he will avoid by merit of his religious faith according to the mask of his fears. The fallacy of Christian faith is that it prevents the soul from learning about what it fears and deciding what to do about that fear because that mask hides the source of all fears. Its obsession with the image of the mask of fear becomes so refined that the fearful adherents do not recognize it, but take comfort in the mystery now because the mask of fear works in mysterious ways, and that is part of the way in which the mask of fear transmutes the effect of the source of all fear: One need not fear this mystery because fearing this mystery will allow the mystery they truly fear and have worked so hard to disbelieve.

Faith in the mask of fear is so obsessive that it inspires the fearful to focus solely on who's going to save their A--whoops, their, uh ... yeah. ;)

Hmm ... yeah. I think I should prob'ly hush now; I've made myself clear enough, because it's one of those things that I'm stuck with because I don't know where I started. Oh ... Felix ... whoops. Yeah. Um, thanx for the warm-fuzzy ....

:D,
Tiassa :cool:

On Edit: I have had to correct one sentence so far, as every once in awhile, I forget to finish them properly. If you missed it among that jumble, well enough.

My schedule now (since moving to Modesto) doesn't leave me enough time to peruse all of the posts on the forum. I usually just look for thread topics that look like they might interest me or that I can add something of value to, relying on other members to let me know when something is amiss (unless, of course, I spot it myself). My personal feelings are that if nobody has complained, then nobody is offended enough to require action.

The complaint itself pointed specifically to HOWARDSTERN's post, but I decided in a spirit of fairness to scan the whole thread (I am somewhat of a speed-reader). In order to protect the anonymity of the complainant (ooh! you can tell I've processed court documents!) I will not be posting the complaint itself. It should suffice to say that it was a brief request that I tend to the matter.

As for why "f***" is offensive, who can say? I have read that in ancient Rome an old swear phrase was fucu, which meant pretty much what it looks like. Why this is not found offensive for the sake of one letter, or why "f***", which popularly means only one word, is inoffensive, I don't know. Having grown up in ghettos and barrios has left me with a less-than-sensitive vocabulary. Of course, I'm not everybody and they're not me.

Still, the TOA for membership on this site prohibits such useage, although it isn't always enforced. (Remember Lori?) I probably missed some other offensive material, but this is not because I'm picking and choosing like a tin Hitler. It's more the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach.

FA_Q2
Yeah, I'll probably get a screenful from Howard.

(I am somewhat of a speed-reader)
If you get a chance to respond, I was wondering, out of curiousity, do you find it helps your speed much if the text is in a narrow column? :D

~Caleb

The portion of the TOA in question, as near as I can tell:By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.I noticed that harassing isn't on there, so it looks like Tony1 and Loone are free to continue being irrelevant to whatever topics they enter. To the other, it just hit me that we have an Ignore function in our Control Panels, so if Tony1 continues to be disrespectful and Loone continues to be irrelevant, I don't have to complain to anyone; I can actually find out if that button does what I think it does. ;) And then whine about it if the button doesn't do what I think it does.

So that leaves only two points, one a restatement:

1) I reiterate that I accept the Moderator's position, and thank Oxygen for the clarification.

2) I will immediately drop the matter. I have the answers that the Moderator and the TOA can offer, and will take the discussion of the establishment of profanity to a relevant forum.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

PS--O2 ... how could we ever forget Lori? :D

" Well which is it, feeling or meaning?
You can't have it both ways.
Feelings are what you have, and meaning is what you're trying to transmit to the other person."

Yes I can. The feeling is part of the meaning.

" Maybe FA_Q2 has something going with his "Feelings Theory of Linguistics.""

I hate to laugh at myself but what the heck :D (I'm afraid that if I use you know what word Ill be censored :o)
Ill think of a way to fit profanity in my theory.

and to tissia
I am afraid of what answer tony might have for that post of yours. Get ready for another mile long post of nothing.

Originally posted by FA_Q2
uh oh... Howard is going to flip ;)



Hey I left the (G) off of F***U**********k*************g ! ! !


:mad:

Besides this thread Has the word B***U****L***S***T in it!!

:D

You know........:rolleyes: ...... the word in question simply describes sex. But the word "sex" is completely permissible!

?????????????.................So I guess posting sex pics from Karas adult playground is out also???????

BUMMER!!!!

Originally posted by tiassa
...you've already admitted that you're trained to assume the worst of people, ...?
Actually, that was the best of people, on their own.

Originally posted by Red Devil
Switches off light....
Don't do that.
You know, the old saying, "Lights are on, but nobody's home?"
If you switch off the light, what will people say?

Originally posted by tiassa
Please demonstrate my standard line.
...
Do you know how many of my statements you're going to have to cite out of context in order to establish in any context that I state unequivocally that there is no God? Let's see what you can sew together, boy.
Sorry, tiassa.
Every now and again, I skip the middleman and address your goddess directly.

Originally posted by felix
I'm beginning to see now.
You're still missing the point.

Who says you can't try to transmit feeling, or even have a successful transmition/reception?
The word "evoke" covers that eventuality.

Originally posted by tiassa
one cannot know anything.
Ah, finally tiassa gets it.

For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
(1 Corinthians 4:4, KJV).

...fear...afraid...fear...fear...fear...fear...afr aid...fear of being afraid...fear...fear
Is fear a problem for you, tiassa?

Perhaps it is that certain people truly cannot understand what is being told them.
Perhaps they do understand and reject it, for example, the quote that follows...
Perhaps Tony1's responses really do sound legitimate to him, and he wonders why people don't understand what is so perfectly clear since he cannot see anything else it must necessarily be all that there is to see because if he could see that there is more to see it would be because he looked away from the mask of his fear and if he does that he might lose sight of the prize forever and live in fear of the source of all fears again.
Whew, that must be one of those run-on sentences.
But, naah, that isn't it.
I don't wonder why people don't understand.
I know why.

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
(2 Corinthians 4:4, KJV).

For "god of this world," you can read "goddess," tiassa.

The need for the second death comes...
The need for the second death comes from the fact that there is a first death, followed by a resurrection, followed by the judgment.

that is part of the way in which the mask of fear transmutes the effect of the source of all fear: One need not fear this mystery because fearing this mystery will allow the mystery they truly fear and have worked so hard to disbelieve.
Unusually powerful batch of hash you have gotten hold of there, tiassa.
It's amazing how wise one sounds to oneself when one is st