The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by rtmistler Someone claims there's no God, they are introduced as a fool just for starters. I submit that this same attitude claims that anyone who doesn't agree with EXACTLY the first arguer's agenda, is thus classified as "a fool", nice. It is my experience that this is exactly the attitude that it is promoting, intolerance.

You'll never understand it without first knowing God. If you are not open to that, then your thinking and interpretation of what you see will be foolish:

I Corinthians 2:14:
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.


Think about it: if you believe in lies, you ARE foolish. I don't care what the subject is - aliens, nature, spaghetti monsters, the lost city of Atlantis, whatever. It is not "intolerant" to call a fool a fool. Speaking truth has nothing to do with tolerance.

God said that anyone who looks at everything He created, everything that exists for their benefit, all the wonders and intricacies of design and concludes that it all just popped into being out of nothing, is a FOOL. I happen to agree.

Tolerance is not "live and let live". Tolerance is about honoring the person while arguing the viewpoint. Tolerance is not about letting someone do wrong even if it doesn't immediately affect you. Tolerance is the expression of concern to someone while at the same time not dishonoring them as a person. Tolerance is calling a spade a spade without adding personal degradation to the mix. The post-modern, liberal twist of the term "tolerance" has changed the meaning to its polar opposite. Clear wrongs are NEVER to be "tolerated".

If I saw my neighbor smoking a cigarette while attempting to light his gas grill, it would be "tolerant" of me to say nothing. After all, it's his life to do with as he wishes.

If I sprayed my garden hose on him in an attempt to save his life, it would be "intolerant" of me for interfering.


The virtue of tolerance is called, in today's society, intolerance.

Today's tolerance is the vice which used to be called indifference.

"You'll never understand it without first knowing" Buddha or how about brain washing (insert brain here.)

Tolerance in accepting truth as lies is foolish and kills and\or controls! Sorry if i'm a di#! but don't insult your own intelligent, you won't learn from all other gods because they disprove yours! Admit it to yourself......................... or possibly go to imaginary la la land.

Personally, OregonJim, I am (as a Christian! ) not prepared to accept the words of "a rather self-indulgent Roman who sometimes claimed to be a Pharisee and sometimes an Apostle" ... as (to borrow a phrase) "Gospel."

When this man was writing letters, and referring at various times to "scripture," (a) he really never said what he thought that word meant, and (b) it's fairly safe to say that he could have had no idea that his letter would become bound-up in a gilt-edged book called "The Holy Bible." Paul was writing letters to nascent Christian churches throughout the Mediterranean region.

And I am also fully aware that "texts get rewritten and redacted." Paul had no way to attach an error-correction code.

Therefore, I take comments like 1 Corinthians 2:14 with an enormous grain of salt, because it seems to me to be saying that certain people are "privileged to 'get it,'" while the entire rest of humanity is, so to speak, "damned because they don't."

The next sentence, to me, is even more arrogant and preposterous ... "Paul (or a pseudonymous author writing as Paul ... we'll never know) at his very worst:

The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

Now, when Job shot off his mouth one too many times, and God took him to task (out of a whirlwind, no less ...), Job backed-down real quick! Here, quite breathtakingly, Paul does the opposite: he brazenly asserts that 'we' (the presumably-privileged "we's," not the millions of unenlightened Fools ...) have(!!) (nothing less than) "the mind of the Lord!" He brazenly claims that certain humans possess knowledge and perspective equal to that of The Creator, Himself. A knowledge and perspective that, we must presume, "cannot be 'instructed'" by any other man, even though it is plainly held by ... a man.

Bzzzt!! My BOZO-bit just got flipped. I am never going to say that I possess "privileged knowledge" of any kind, least of all knowledge commensurate with that of "The Lord, Himself," even if it is supposed that He bequeathed it to me.

One thing that is quite obvious about "the writings of Paul" is that they certainly seem to have been "written by" several different Pauls, with several different attitudes. But, that's par for the course in probably-pseudoepigraphic writing, especially when the political / crowd-control stakes are so very high.

I respect your different opinion, recognize that they are sincere, and therefore want to make it explicitly clear that, while I respectfully disagree with (some of) what (I think that) you are saying here ... and, yes, with the writings of Paul ... I do not intend to say nor to suggest in any way that "you are wrong."

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Personally, OregonJim, I am (as a Christian! ) not prepared to accept the words of "a rather self-indulgent Roman who sometimes claimed to be a Pharisee and sometimes an Apostle" ... as (to borrow a phrase) "Gospel."

Well, whatever you call yourself, that (and the rest of your expositions) places you firmly OUTSIDE the Christian faith and community. Christians can disagree on a lot of things, but NOT the above, nor of the cavalier and self-serving view of the Scriptures. How did you come to such a liberal view of the Scriptures? Have you not studied what Jesus himself said of them (you *did* claim to be a Christian, right?) Have you not read what the early church fathers wrote of Paul? Have you not discovered the historical evidence that gives more validity and authenticity to those letters than any other literature ever written in past times?

Do yourself a favor. Pick up the book "Cosmic Codes" by Chuck Missler. This isn't like the DaVinci code nonsense. This is something that you can verify for YOURSELF. I'll bet you're not aware that the 66 books of the Bible are cryptographically signed, in the original languages, by a source that is proven by the signatures to transcend time (i.e. God). Not with just one method, but with countless methods that are still being discovered. Beyond even that, there are many evidences of deliberate design that transcend the text itself. That includes all the writings of Paul. By the way, did you ever consider that Paul used a scribe to write his letters, except when he was writing them from prison? That's why you detect a subtle difference in 'voice'.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs I respect your different opinion, recognize that they are sincere, and therefore want to make it explicitly clear that, while I respectfully disagree with (some of) what (I think that) you are saying here ... and, yes, with the writings of Paul ... I do not intend to say nor to suggest in any way that "you are wrong."

Likewise, I respect your opinions as well as your sincerity. But, on the other hand, I am not afraid to call you "wrong". I am willing to discuss and willing to be open to correction but, I do not accept the idea that we can both be "right" and merely hold different "opinions". That is the post-modern view of tolerance, which is, to any thinking man, Christian or otherwise, absurd in the highest degree. I grant you the right to hold whatever view you wish, but that does not mean I must agree with it or declare it "valid". Truth is truth. Some are right and some are wrong. The majority have lost the ability to tell one from the other, and society is paying the price for it.

At the end of the day, each goes his own way - but there is nothing wrong in challenging a view and, gasp, calling it "right" or "wrong".

OregonJim are you an atheist in disguise trying reverse psychology, like "obviously don't be this blind?"

Originally Posted by OregonJim @Enorbet, Your mind is closed as was demonstrated by you earlier. There is no point in further discussion. One observation that occurs to me: You claim no Faith and no Religion, and not even the slightest interest in either. Yet this thread is titled the "Faith & Religion mega Thread", and you show up in it regularly. That makes you one of two things: a troll or a hostile entity. No response is necessary. The facts speak for themselves.

How do you suppose a person with a closed mind manages to admit a mistake as I did, or even bother to research, since such a person is commonly referred to as "a know it all"? You OTOH have not researched anyone's data who doesn't "think" like you.

This thread as is obvious by the Poll and hundreds of other posts is open to agnostics and atheists. I have neither trolled nor been hostile. I simply disagree with you and anyone who believes on faith (no evidence) and state my case and provide credible sources in support of that case. You, OTOH, redefine terms, use sources without exception from one incredible source (a specific brand of creationists) and cherry pick what you even respond to. It may be a cliche but it applies that when you point a finger at someone else you have 3 more pointing back at you. i think it is you who has the closed mind since not once have you ever given an inch yet you pounce on others when they do. Objectivity does not exist in your world.

You. Sir, are the classic definition of a Bible Thumper. An actual conversation with you is impossible since you never even consider dissent, let alone falsification and any manner of concession, let alone retraction, as others here have, including me.

OMFSpaghettiMonster!!! OregonJim is so perfectly smug he even disagrees with other Christians and has the audacity to tell them "you're wrong!"... but then he apparently knows God's Mind and we are all just evil infidels and fools.

Originally Posted by enorbet You OTOH have not researched anyone's data who doesn't "think" like you.

Really? You don't remember me telling you that I was an atheist for nearly 40 years? (to be more precise, I leaned closer to agnosticism). Do you really think I lived in blissful ignorance all that time? Of course I researched. I was an engineer AND a scientist. I still keep up with what's going on, which is why I tried to point out some of the craziness that you are apparently blind to. On the other hand, what sort of research have YOU done that is OUTSIDE of your atheistic/materialist circle? If you are like I was, I'd guess zip. Zero. Nada.

Originally Posted by enorbet You. Sir, are the classic definition of a Bible Thumper. An actual conversation with you is impossible since you never even consider dissent, let alone falsification and any manner of concession, let alone retraction, as others here have, including me.

You have not retracted anything, save an admission that you got me confused with someone else. If there is anything to concede, I will gladly do it, and apologize at the same time. In fact, while we're on the subject, I will concede that my judgement about your motive for being in this thread was too presumptuous of me. I apologize for that.

You accuse me of cherry picking my responses while you do EXACTLY the same thing. I don't see the error here - there is only so much space and time to respond. Some things are frankly not worth the effort. You accuse me of using a single source which, incidentally, is not true. I have drawn upon not only creationist sources, but also philosophers, archaeology, atheists, the Bible, and others. You, on the other hand, are the one with the narrow and exclusive set of sources.

Go ahead and slander me, attach labels, appeal to your own projections of reality, whatever. I expect it. Few people like to come face to face with the truth. Get too close, and people attack the messenger as well as the message. That's life. Jesus was gentle with the humble and contrite, but He lambasted the proud and arrogant. It was the latter group who reacted exactly as you do.

Before you respond, I'd like you to consider something. You have nothing to offer me from atheism. I've already been there, done that. I have nothing to gain from introducing you to God. There are no "brownie points", despite the warped ideas some have of Christianity. The only one here with anything to gain is YOU.

Just FTR OregonJim, I know better than to even attempt to convince you even that the sky is blue. It's just that I'm not about to let you assert ridiculous claims backed by liars and charlatans, whom, btw, each one I did research before evaluating. I have no problem with people of Faith and you don't see me attacking them or their ideas, since they don't try to insist their Faith is based on Science, Reason, or Logic or somehow qualifies them for "Chosen People" with everybody else just "Mud People". They feel it and that is apparently enough for them and I say "More power to them".

Despite some atheists stating to the contrary, I don't even have a problem with "Spirituality". Mysteries do exist. I do have problems with Bible Thumpers who claim they understand and apply the scientific method as well as know God's Mind and that anyone and everyone who doesn't believe exactly as them are either evil or fools. That's called "Sanctimonious" and I will always fight that conceited arrogance because it so often leads to widespread castigation, repression, and even horrific violence. That sort of element is worthy of "Whack-a-Mole" however wacky the claims they make are. It took till the 20th Century, nearly 400 years, for the Catholic Church to finally apologize for their treatment of Galileo. The days of burning heretics are hopefully over forever but thinking people must remain vigilant and proactive lest it happen again. This is why Separation of Church and State is so important and precious, yet I imagine you'd be pleased if so-called "Creationism, Intelligent Design, Creation Science", or whatever tricky name you guys decide might be effective in the future, got to be the Official State Religion, because you seem full of a sense of Entitlement and legal exclusivity. You are a danger to Liberty and Justice for all.

OregonJim, "I won't even go there."

If I'm wrong, then when you turn on the light-switches in your Heavenly mansion, remember who's keeping up the steam-pressure downstairs.

As for books being "secretly, cryptographically signed," I just have to chuckle a little bit ... because (a) there was this little convention called the Council of Nicene (as well as several others), and (b) the earliest texts, of course, were oral traditions patiently taught from father to son. (There are still a few of those 'living books" alive today.)

We have manuscripts that contain different versions of some of the canonical books – even the Apocrypha has scenes that were omitted from the "canonical, Holy Bible" versions. We have a lot of apocalypses ... (The Revelation of Saint John is child's play by comparison to some of these ...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalyptic_literature


There are some books that the Council rejected as "heretical," but not all of them were burned. Some of those books are very strange, indeed. But, once again, "they are what they are." They, also, are books that call themselves "Gospels." (And other things, as well.) We have several books of proverbs, songs, and apparent liturgies, and in some cases we can't date them. "Yet, here they are."

What we don't have ... absolutely do not have ... is "a historical Jesus." There's not one single independent historical record of this most-remarkable man (that I am aware of), and all four of the canonical gospels are sometimes-seriously inconsistent with one another. We know that they're pseudo-epigraphical and written perhaps-centuries later. "They are what they are what they are."

That's why I simply say that: "it's a book." ("Deal with it.™") I don't think it prudent to expect a book to be anything more (or less) than what it is ... warts and all, inconsistencies and all. (And there are plenty of inconsistencies!) The entire text was written (and sometimes, rewritten and redacted ...) by people.

If you try to regard the thing as though it ought to start glowing in the dark, you're probably headed for disappointment. Likewise, if you extract single sentences or partial-sentences ("verses"), using the chapter/verse structure as something other than the reader's coordinate system that it was intended to be, you might be using your magnifying-glass too closely.

And, if you are looking for "ancient, secret, cryptographic signatures, writ by the Hand of God," you just might be headed for some serious disillusionment. It makes utterly no sense -- at least, not to me -- to place your faith (so to speak) on a literal sequence of (English) words. Just step back, readjust your magnifying glass, read the damned blessed thing, and consider it thoughtfully.

It is what it is what it is.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs As for books being "secretly, cryptographically signed," I just have to chuckle a little bit ... because (a) there was this little convention called the Council of Nicene (as well as several others), and (b) the earliest texts, of course, were oral traditions patiently taught from father to son. (There are still a few of those 'living books" alive today.)

You put words in my mouth here. I never claimed that anything was "secret". That's your own addition. Please don't put QUOTES around something I DIDN'T say. As for the Council of Nicene and Council of Chalcedon, all they did was validate what was already circulating as canonical. The whole purpose of these councils was to refute the heretical documents that were being introduced at the time. As far as the codes go, check it out for yourself. Dismissing them out of hand without actually looking into the claim is exactly what got you to where you are with all the rest of your beliefs.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs We have manuscripts that contain different versions of some of the canonical books – even the Apocrypha has scenes that were omitted from the "canonical, Holy Bible" versions. We have a lot of apocalypses ... (The Revelation of Saint John is child's play by comparison to some of these ...)

Why do you think we have such an abundance of manuscripts - orders of magnitude more than any other book in human history? If you were God, how would you prevent "hostile jamming"? How about increasing the bandwith and filling it with redundancy? Through textual criticism, we have recovered, to better than 98.5% accuracy, the ORIGINAL autographs. This has been verified by the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as other finds. If that were not true, we would not have found the cryptographic signatures (of course you just laugh at those rather than investigate them for yourself). Jesus said that he would preserve His word, right down to every jot and tittle, until the earth passes away. Apparently, you call yourself a Christian without believing what Christ said. How is that?

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs What we don't have ... absolutely do not have ... is "a historical Jesus." There's not one single independent historical record of this most-remarkable man (that I am aware of), and all four of the canonical gospels are sometimes-seriously inconsistent with one another. We know that they're pseudo-epigraphical and written perhaps-centuries later. "They are what they are what they are."

The gospels are dated to 42-60 AD - not "centuries later". That's within a single generation of the event. Go look at any recent scholarship using any source you wish to verify for yourself. Couple that with the total absence of any mention of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. Surely such a significant and catastrophic event would have been mentioned in the Gospels if they were written after 70 AD. As far as the historical Jesus, off the top of my head, there's Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian, and many other pagan sources who write about Him. There's also Josephus and Philo, among other historians contemporary with the times. We most definitely have a historical Jesus. Where have you been???
You claim to be a Christian, yet deny that Christ even existed - how is anyone to take what you say seriously???

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs If you try to regard the thing as though it ought to start glowing in the dark, you're probably headed for disappointment. Likewise, if you extract single sentences or partial-sentences ("verses"), using the chapter/verse structure as something other than the reader's coordinate system that it was intended to be, you might be using your magnifying-glass too closely. And, if you are looking for "ancient, secret, cryptographic signatures, writ by the Hand of God," you just might be headed for some serious disillusionment. It makes utterly no sense -- at least, not to me -- to place your faith (so to speak) on a literal sequence of (English) words. Just step back, readjust your magnifying glass, read the damned blessed thing, and consider it thoughtfully.

You failed to read what I said. It has nothing to do with the English language or letters. It also has nothing to do with the man-made, non-inspired chapter/verse separarations. These are signatures in the original languages that authenticate the text, not "secret messages" or "secret knowledge". There's no additional knowledge here, simply evidence of supernatural origin. There is definite design and architecture that unifies the entire body of text such that even an army of Jewish rabbis armed with computers could not have produced intentionally. One can easily make fun of something one hasn't investigated. I don't hold much respect for comments made in that context.

Here is a rather trivial example for reasons of space - there are far more complex and varied examples in the book:

An early progress report of the computer discoveries began to stir up interest when it was published in the eminent Journal of the Royal Statistical Society.191 Eight years later, Rips, Witztum, and Yoav Rosenberg, a young computer scientist, published their landmark article in the highly respected, and refereed, journal, Statistical Science.192 Included in their study, the researchers had selected the names of 34 of the most prominent rabbis and Jewish scholars who lived during the thousand years leading up to eighteenth century.193 They programmed the computer to search for their names, and dates of their birth and death (using Jewish reckoning, of course.) The computer located every one of them in the text of Genesis, paired with their birth or death. The odds of this occurring by random chance has been calculated as only one chance in 775 million. Understandably, the scholars refereeing for Statistical Science Journal were astonished. It was manifestly impossible for the ancient text to have included allusions to events that transpired thousands of years after the text had been written. The existence of such a record would shatter our notions of time itself. They demanded an additional run on the next 32 most prominent sages listed in their reference source. Again, the computer test revealed the same results for all 32; 66 famous rabbis had apparently been anticipated in the text of Genesis! After an extensive six-year review, they reluctantly accepted the report for publication. The article concluded with the following assessment: “We conclude that the proximity of the ELS’s (Equidistant Letter Sequences) with related meanings in the Book of Genesis is not due to chance.” If not chance, then how did these occur? Never before had there been such a rigorous scientific examination in the defense of metaphysical codes. (All of the refereeing scholars have subsequently become believers in the codes.) Further public awareness was then added with Dr. Jeffrey Satinover’s article in Bible Review in October 1995.194 Dr. Satinover is an expert in mathematics, physics, and clinical psychiatry; he is a former Williams James lecturer in Psychology and Religion at Harvard; has degrees from MIT, Harvard Graduate School of Education and the University of Texas. He reported that the mathematical probability of these 66 names of Jewish sages, with the dates of their birth or death, in an ancient text such as Genesis, was less than one chance in 2.5 billion. Attempts to find truly equivalent codes in other Hebrew texts, other than the Bible, have proven elusive. These attempts included the Samaritan Pentateuch (which is similar, but has subtle variants), Hebrew apocryphal books written during the four centuries before the birth of Christ, and even a Hebrew translation of Tolstoy’s famous War and Peace (chosen because it was the same length as the Book of Genesis).

Originally Posted by enorbet It took till the 20th Century, nearly 400 years, for the Catholic Church to finally apologize for their treatment of Galileo.

With this statement, I agree. The Roman Catholic church corrupted itself internally in the middle ages out of greed and political desires. It has been apostate ever since, and is not representative of Christianity. That was the whole reason for the Reformation in the 16th century. The Catholic church kept the Bible locked away from the common people, and punished by death those who attempted to translate it. Many men paid with their lives to get the Bible translated into common language - first German, then English. When the people were finally able to read what it said, the Catholic church was exposed for what it was.

But, like ALL atheists, you have changed the subject from the objective to the subjective - the existence of God has NOTHING TO DO with the practices of humans. I could just as easily argue that the Nazis of Germany disprove the validity of atheism/Marxism and the writings of Nitche. An irrational use of cause & effect, of course, but that is EXACTLY what you are doing, along with every other atheist I've ever heard.

Originally Posted by OregonJim ... Why do you think we have such an abundance of manuscripts - orders of magnitude more than any other book in human history? ...

Slavery!

https://action.groundswell-mvmt.org/...ime=1462992980

They're letting more and more women professionally✎©®™preach, sounds like evolution huu?

Originally Posted by OregonJim The Catholic church kept the Bible locked away from the common people, and punished by death those who attempted to translate it.

I just love it when, as a Pagan, I know more about Christianity than the Christians!

The Church banned unauthorised translations which were being used to promote heresy, but translations were available in the Middle Ages. In view of the cost of manuscript books, it was generally just the Gospels and Psalms that got translated.

Was it really a good idea for everyone to read the Old Testament? Whenever Christians have sought to defend the indefensible, from slavery to the persecution of homosexuals, it's always been with the aid of OT passages.