audible said: you are one of the worst culprits, and you have the audacity to stand there, and try to belittle M*W, give me a break. Woody says: You're butting in late in the game. Go ahead and make a fool of yourself. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Uh, no. That is very far from true, and you know it. Also, woody, if you think God is a man or a woman, or a bisexual man or woman, you are confused.
Cole Grey said: Also, woody, if you think God is a man or a woman, or a bisexual man or woman, you are confused. Woody says: Don't worry Cole, I understand the God of the bible. MW said the truth was in the Gnostic Gospels and they consistently denied Jesus is the Son of God and denied the virgin birth. I asked her which gnostic gospels. She said all I had to do was read. So I quoted a few summaries from the gnostic gospels. The gnostic gosples tell us God was a man, a woman, a bisexual, a good God turned bad, a bad god, or no god at all depending on which one you read. Is that confusion or what? Then she says "oh well" I didn't really believe any of it anyway. She came to a new conclusion when, last week? OK, I'll try to give her a break if she just isn't sure, but this isn't the first time it's happened. It's a run-around religion. What's the point of sending someone on a run around? I have my answer let's hear yours if you don't mind telling. ------------------------------------------------- Here are some famous quotes: Woody: So you think the true words of Jesus came from where, the Gnostic Gospels? Where is your source for the true words of Jesus ? M*W: The Gnostic Gospels. MW: "There's really no confusion in the GGs. They are very straight-forward and logical." MW: The fact of the matter is the GGs are a lot more truthful than the Bible. Woody: What kind of a lie detector do you use when you read a verse in the gnostic gospels? Why haven't we all been blessed with this omniscient ability like you have? M*W: The "lie detector" is found in one's ability for discernment. M*W: After 20 years of solid research trying to prove Jesus's existence, I spent thousands of dollars on reference materials only to come to the recent conclusion that the Judeo-Christian God was totally based on myth; therefore, Jesus, too, was a myth. However, I did say that the GGs were "more credible" than the bible stories. There's really no confusion in the GGs. They are very straight-forward and logical. M*W: I was starting to read the GGs when it became as clear as day to me that the whole God/Jesus thing was a myth. I will admit that I am quite disappointed that MM was also a myth. She was the only character in the GGs that kept my belief in the historic Jesus alive. Oh, well. ------------------------- Oh well Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Let's go back through that sequence again: The true words of Jesus are in the Gnostic Gospels but the GGs are a myth, and Jesus did not exist. Error error -- does not compute -- it is logical -- error error -- it is a myth -- it is more truthful -error error. My computer is going on the blink. Am I the only person that sees a logical fallacy here?
Well, I was just saying that the "it's all myth" statement is consistent with an understanding that preferences for particular accounts as observed by this ideology are completely subjective, so why argue about it? Answer? maybe? - The mental run-around humans do must be for exercise or something, it is pretty consistent within most (if not all) human systems of thought which are complex enough to encompass the vastness of human experience. My personal thought is that there is wisdom from all over the world and throughout history that is consistent with and perhaps even helps to explain biblical ideals, so the Gnostic Gospels probably have some valuable information (I have only skimmed around them and haven't studied them seriously, so I can't say what that valuable information is).
there is no error, an atheist has no believe in god/jesus or that such a thing exists, so to us they are myths. for the majority, it's after years of religious study that we become athiests, therefore the reason we discuss theology with the likes of you is to fathom why you cant see the religious fallacys, contradictions, Injustices, Absurditys, Cruelty and Violence, and the Intolerance. your little play on humour does not make you look clever, it makes you look stupid. which throws your credibility, right out the window.
Human ideologies are prone to fallacious (mis)representation by their human (human=self-defining and limiting term) proponents. Contradictions and "absurdities", are the delimiting lines of human understanding, which does not necessarily mean no other information exists besides that which is within our simple systems of understanding. Any system that is complex enough to explain what we know in a consistent manner has "leaps of faith", or places where assumptions are made. Injustice, cruelty, violence, and intolerance are anti-christian attributes, which will be cleansed from religion when humans are either purified or eliminated from the practice. If I have to see another person blame the excuse, religious misrepresentation, as the cause for human behavior, I will cry. "The dog ate my homework", is not the problem. The problem is not having finished the homework. Why can't people see that?
it does if there is no evidence forecoming, for that alternative information. yes, but this is only till we know better, Ie the big bang is just a theory as is relativity, until such time as it can be proved it must remain our best educated guess. if we exterminate humanity, there will definitely be no Injustice, cruelty, violence, and intolerance. there be nobody left. well you never saw it here, so hold back those tears, I was only stating facts, there was no blaming anybody here.
Stefan: there is no error. Woody: Welcome to the religion forum. So with you it is logical to say the true words of Jesus were spoken in the Gnostic Gospels but Jesus did not exist. How is this logically possible? How can a non-existent leprechaun have real words? Am I losing my credibility by asking? Stefan said: yes, but this is only till we know better, Ie the big bang is just a theory as is relativity, until such time as it can be proved it must remain our best educated guess. Woody says: I covered that one in a recent thread: check it out. It is your best guess, not mine. Cosmic Creation Thread
The value of the Gnostic Gospels isn't in their ability to verify the existence/non-existence of Jesus or any other character in early Christian literature. Their value is what they have to teach society. Just as this is the true value of all biblical liturature, literature from other religions, Fitzgerald, Melville, Twain, Steinbeck, Homer, etc. The beauty of good literature is that it can be read without believing that Ishmael actually witnessed Ahab's obsession; that Tom really witnessed a murder by an angry Native American; that George really killed a mouse that he loved; or that Odysseus outwitted a giant cyclops. These stories, while the reader is in full-knowledge that they are fiction, tell us much about the human condition, human strength, and human weakness. The Gospels -Gnostic, Cannon, or otherwise- do the same for the reader that is capable of critical reasoning. So one need not believe that Jesus actually walked the Earth and that the main character is based upon a real person in order for the stories to have value and teach. With regard to the early Christian literature, I take the stand that many agnostic-atheists such as myself take: there may or may not have been a person named Jesus. That person, if he existed or not, was legendary and has a following that is clearly present in antiquity. That following created various texts, some of which were decided by committe (a human, thus biased, committe) to become Cannonical and formed the basis of the current Christian bible. From the perspective of the agnostics and atheists who are participatng in discussion here, the validity of the Gnostic Gospels isn't based on whether or not the stories are factual in their entirety. It's based on an understanding or assumption that the early Christian priests and authority were clearly biased and did not want certain messages or perhaps certain people included. Beyond that, these gospels can be evaluated not only on their literary value, but on their philosophical value -as can all the early Christian writings. I think what really irritates you (and you clearly are irritated), is that the agnostics/atheists have the audacity to form opinions about religious texts of cults in which they do not have faith. Your non sequiter about "how can you say GG are valid when you don't believe in Christ" notwithstanding, I think your credibility in this forum is quite low. In another thread and at some point, several months back, you stated that your purpose here at sciforums was (and I paraphrase) to "witness" to all those you can. On a great many occasions, you cite "truth" and resort to begging the question in order to demonstrate that truth rather than use empiricism.
Skimwalker: I think your credibility in this forum is quite low. Woody: In other words the Bible is not factual, and neither is my faith in it. Why don't you just go ahead and say it straight? Because I cite it as truth, that reduces my credibility -- right Skinwalker? Isn't that the root cause here? Let's go to the BL -- Jesus is a bunch of made up hooey in your opinion. What more needs to be said? Why don't you take off the gloves and say what you really mean?
Audible says: only the religious are immoral, hypocritical, and delusional. so how they could possibly think anything they could say was credible is beyond me. Woody: I don't have to argue the point. By the way, you can not join our church if you are a praticing homosexual, adulterer, drug addict, fornicator, or child molester to name a few. Devil mask thingee, could you join? I know you wouldn't want to, but I'd just like to see you justify homosexuals for the record. You think they are moral right? Yeah, of couse you do. Admit it.
You're the one here making a claim that there is something seemingly wrong with their sexual preference. You justify it.
Didn't even Jesus eat with sinners? You must be better than sinners then. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ---- On a serious note, isn't it profoundly stupid to shut your doors to sinners and yet claim to be doing the work of Jesus?
Southstar: On a serious note, isn't it profoundly stupid to shut your doors to sinners and yet claim to be doing the work of Jesus? Woody: It's profoundly stupid to think sinners can't come to church. They will be ministered to just like everyone else. Do you know the difference between attending church and joining a church? I haven't met an atheist that can figure it out. Will you be the first?
You are either deliberately being daft or are just plain illiterate. You can not determine whether someone is 'saved' or not. Just because Person A says so doesn't mean it is so. There are, after all, a lot of people who call themselves Christians. I prefer the latter for you. I'm in a kindly mood.
S/L: You're the one here making a claim that there is something seemingly wrong with their sexual preference. You justify it. Woody: So do you think all sexual preferences are ok? Is pedophilia ok from a psychologist's point of view? Are you going to be a bigot by saying pedophilia is not ok, but homosexuality is ok? You're on a slippery slope that leads to the grotesque. If you are talking about homosexuals, just look at the dictionary meaning of sodomy: Main Entry: sod·omy Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11 1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal 2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex - sod·om·it·ic /"sä-d&-'mi-tik/ or sod·om·it·i·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective Main Entry: pro·cliv·i·ty Pronunciation: prO-'kli-v&-tE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties Etymology: Latin proclivitas, from proclivis sloping, prone, from pro- forward + clivus slope -- more at PRO-, DECLIVITY : an inclination or predisposition toward something; especially : a strong inherent inclination toward something objectionable synonym see LEANING Woody: So sodomy is described in the genesis account, and it is called a proclivity. And you ask me to justify it? It includes sex with animals. Do you think that is ok, S/L? How gross can you get?
Southstar I ask again: Do you know the difference between attending church and joining a church? I haven't met an atheist that can figure it out. Will you be the first? Come on be the first.
Whoa.. stop right there. You said homosexual. That is a far leap from paedophilia, and to even then try to lump this on me is simply rude. I asked you to justify how homosexuality is wrong. As I said earlier, you make the claim that homosexuality is wrong, you justify it. Don't try and turn it on me. I will make a response to the justification of your claims, but if this is the best you can manage, you have not earnt the right to speak. You mean, even though my post which was a direct response to yours talking about homosexuals, you couldn't figure it out? What are you, a halfwit? Yes, I did, (as seen in my previous post). And this is the best you can come up with? "It says so in the bible"? Fucking get real. Where did my or your post mention animal sex? We were talking about homosexuality, (the homo meaning 'self' - which does not imply a goat or a sheep, but another man). You have basically shown that you have made a statement that you can't backup. You then attempt any pathetic action with which to get out of it. You're not worth the effort.
OK Snakelord I'll ask again since you responded before my last edit. Are you going to be a bigot by saying pedophilia is not ok, but homosexuality is ok? You're on a slippery slope that leads to the grotesque. Are you being bigoted by picking and choosing what kind of sex is ok?Copulation with the same sex or with an animal is called sodomy. Where do you draw the line? Snakelord: And this is the best you can come up with? "It says so in the bible"? Woody says: My response came out of the English dictionary, that is what I came up with -- the definition in plain everyday English. I'm sorry you don't like the definition - but it is what it is. Go argue with the publishers of Webster's Dictionary. Tell them to dilute the meaning of the word "proclivity," so you won't be offended.
Obviously, you should know that sex with children is wrong because they don't want to have sex. That's rape, and rape is wrong.
