No holds barred?
 

Are we allowed even religion & politics here?

There have been many threads on religion and politics, and most of them were long-running.

Discussions on religion and politics are allowed in /General, so long as they're polite and constructive (though admittedly this seems to be the most difficult part about it :rolleyes:).

In that case, I present the first article of "A Layman's Reflections:"

Satan operates in two realms of the human soul—personally and confederately. He gets at the human soul by prescribing his demons to whisper in human ears, from which if we’re not careful to discern, we are deceived to thinking the things he whispers are our own thoughts.

I said that Satan operates in the realm of the individual and in the realm of godless government. The method he uses—Machiavellian principle—originates many centuries prior to Machiavelli himself.

Satan’s kingdom is summarized in this—man against man. It’s origin is in Abel’s brother Cain, in his heart, which is where Satan first set up his throne. Man against man becomes league against league of nations. Nation against nation equates with Satan’s divided kingdom. And we know Jesus said, “A kingdom divided against itself will not stand.”

You see, Machiavellian principle says if the end justifies the means, do it, even compromise your values if you have to, eternal principle if you must. Intellectuals converse here, with regard to politics, but Machiavellian principle spills over to us all, even godly men and women.

Politics, which are based primarily & fundamentally on Machiavellian principle, are practiced by everyone—rich and poor, mighty and meek. One would scurry for power and control, and would step all over many to protect his own. Another would cower under ruthless oppression to preserve a false peace.

You see, Satan whispers in human ears when nations convene, and he whispers to you and me: “Survival of the fittest; it’s a dog-eat-dog world; get what you can for yours, while you can; it’s all a part of evolution.” Yet the Spirit of Christ says, ‘Come,’ and then he says, ‘Go into all the world.’”

Well, I understand how you chose your username now.

Maybe partly. Besides Christ, I love jazz & blues too.

An interesting conjecture. Please present your evidence.

Do you not at once, see, and live and breathe? If you need more evidence than that, consult Genesis 1 through Revelation 22, co-written by God and unique men, from many cultures, across history, with perfect consistency. Challenge me again and I'll not answer according to your wisdom, but the foolishness of Christ crucified, without any argument but simple reason, with one answer. And though you rebut, one answer and none after.

Nope, sorry, but I really have no idea what you are ranting on about. Are you taking something? Maybe lower the dosage and try again?

You're asking me to argue.

That's not why I posted this. I've answered with evidence and offered to answer only once more if you rebut. And also, I've not treated you with disrespect, as you've treated me, with riducule--

That's disrespect, which is supposed to be frowned on here.

Confirmed.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/linux/rules.html

Should I thank you Dugan?

Interesting idea of 'consistency'.....

Come again?

I'm saying that the bible is not at all consistent, its got more than its share of contradictions.

I thought that was pretty obvious, really. ;)

Somewhat bold. Show me two passages that to you are inconsistent, and I'll find another that reconciles the two.

Luke 3:23- "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"
Matthew 1:16- "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Just one example of hundreds.

Not quite as bold.

Hundreds indeed, all of which can be reconciled from elsewhere in Scripture:

It was much more common then, for people to be called by more than one proper name, and usually people lived out the meaning of the names by which they were called:

Again:

And again:

I will answer just once more, unless you are ready to reason.

Order of creation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

*edit- thats another good one dugan. ;)

So, you've showed that in the bible some people have multipule names. Taken to extremes, that means that you cannot belive any names in there. You havent shown anywhere in the bible that Jacob is also called Heli.

I'll keep on answering, as long as the conversation isnt boring. :D

I'm not even sure what that is meant to mean....is it "I'll answer once more provided that you agree with me?" :scratch:

Cascade hasn't said anything to indicate that he's not ready to reason. Accusing people of not being "ready to reason" is not respectful. ;) Furthermore, in context, it looks like you meant exactly that: "provided that you agree with me."

To the OP,

I have to see evidence of satan operating. Individually or confederately.

Given the whisperings in human ears, why is it that some people give in immediately, some after some time and others not at all?

So whats your brand of politics?

OK

So we're talking religion now, here:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...t/atheist1-10/

I think he means lack of variation in the rendering/translation of earlier texts, NOT that one passage in the Bible is consistent with another.

But in his subsequent posts, he did argue that one passage in the Bible is consistent with another.

Verse 1 of Ch. 1 is the complete account of the first creation. At once the earth was created, replete with lush gardens, and no decay. "Was," in verse 2 is the same Hebrew for "became."

The earth became barren when Satan was cast down;

Here, "the nations" is probably the "sons of God," probably God's servants, the angels. These are likewise mentioned in Ch. 6. Note the distinction here, which is "sons of God," not begotten sons.

Verses 2 through 31 accounts for God's provisional re-creation, taking that which was made corrupt, and administring a plan of redemption, as he does with the creation, and with the human soul.

Day 1 begins following "became." Gen. 2:1-3 occurs on day 7. The rest of Ch. 2 reverts to 1:2, proceeding from "became." That is, day 1 in Ch. 1, proceeds, together with 2:4-25, as the account of God's recreation, actually 2 parallel accounts. An honest and careful review will betray your error.

I have discourse that takes precedence over argument, and business to tend to. I'm only one man. Yet, I will answer once each objecter, as I find time, and with God's help.

I've used Scripture to prove what is already obvious--people are addressed variously, by different names, a fact that reconciles the two passages.

I've answered you and am done arguing with you. If you have questions and an open mind, not challenges, I will continue with you. I haven't the strength to go on arguing. Besides, it's not constructive.

It is obviously possible to challenge you and still have an open mind.

If you actually believe that anyone who disagrees with you is not ready to reason and doesn't have an open mind, then you should consider what that says about yourself. If you don't, then you should choose your worlds more carefully.

Wait. This is a thread that you started, about religion, titled no holds barred. Am I correct?

Tacit to all of these very pointless arguments is the idea that "this collection of sixty-six books, in the form that I now hold them in my hand, is (whatever I say it is), because I (or somebody) say so." All of God in a box. Or, rather, in a book. Got a question? Any question at all? Open your Magic Book to page ...

Neat, huh?

You can't defeat such an argument. You can never fight it under its own terms. If you are convinced that you hold the innermost truths of the universe in that book of yours, just waiting to be prized out by quibbling over words and passages (in the English translation of your choice, no less ...), then you're certainly not going to be un-convinced.

But as for this now-old phart ... I turn to the latter chapters of the book of Job. No, I wasn't there either, "when the foundations of the earth were laid," and the only thing that I am certain that I 'know' about ... well, damn near anything ... is that I know nothing. And, that I never will know more.

I know not to "lean to my own understanding." When I read, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, My ways are not your ways ..." yeah, I read You loud and clear. This is not a peer-to-peer relationship. Got that. Understood.

The dozens of inconsistencies in the first two-dozen pages of the first book? Blobs of dirt on a windshield that's covered with mud anyway. Maybe. I dunno.

"Twenty bezillion years of hellfire and brimstone in exchange for, at most, seventy-odd years of screw-ups?" Believe as you like. (But I'm not bringing marshmallows to your party, or buying a ticket on anybody's guilt trip. My choice. My fate. If anybody's gonna burn for it, it's just me. So, have a wonderful afternoon. Somewhere else.)

Well... I do know how to give a hungry man a sandwich ... and I have a few extra coats, now that you mention ... that, I do know how to do. Ain't doin' it for no brownie-points either. If someday I find myself in the boiler rooms of a celestial city, well, "what little I did, mattered a lot to that guy..." And that, for me, is enough.

With all due respect Dugan, I've stated, "when you are ready to reason." That is, in my opinion you are BEING unreasonable in these instances. Not that he is an unreasonable person. This is not disrespect, nor certainly accusation. We all make mistakes and are (sic) at times unreasonable. Christ (sic) says, "Come now, let us reason," not, "Present your challenge, and we can debate." I answer from the point of view of a Christian, meaning "engage me, and we will have discourse, and I will share some good news." But without the opportunity, if you immediately oppose what you've yet to have heard (sic), how can I freely share?"

What I've said, more precisely is: "I will answer just once more, unless you are ready to reason." I do not have strength to go on arguing. If you want some good news, then let's converse. I can't go on like this. You don't have to agree with everything, but give credit where it's due.

And how was he being unreasonable?

Consider your answer carefully, because disagreeing with or "challenging" you is not by definition being unreasonable.

No-one would take that as anything but "present your challenge and we can debate."

While christianity has given laity many things ranging from hours-long thundering sermons, incorporated heathen traditions (Mithras), collaborators (Vatican City) and commercial opportunities (like christmas) to glam rock (Stryper?), promiscuous clergy and say Dante's works I do hope "A Layman's Reflections:" marks the first and last installment of that planned series of "articles" unless the OP dramatically improves requisite writing and debating skills. Constructively speaking there's no catchy title, no flow inside the "article" and no interesting pay-off, not to mention the fact that this method of trying to scare people towards the central deity in the book the OP mentioned by relying on the one referred to as Son of the Morning to me seems a decidedly weak move, reminiscent of the Middle ages or the time nobody actually expected a Spanish Inquisition.

As far as inconsistencies goes it is interesting to note that the books central deity, who must be viewed as omnipresent and omnipotent for things to work, was unable or unwilling to prevent and mitigate Lucifer's Fall. As an exponent of the "western" school of thought (I mean those schools of thought not centered on wholeness) and plot-wise Lucifer's role is crucial, as without him there is no schism, no inequity, no discrimination between unholy and holy. Those without true beliefs therefore must embrace and use Evil as they possess no compelling means to attract attention the right way...

Personally, I still can't decipher what it was trying to say.

If by that you mean, how do I compromise my own ethics, I'm often faced with situations where I should confront an issue, but I back down out of fear or being at a loss for words, especially face to face. The medium we're using now is my strength, even when up against more opposition (numerically).

Or if you mean "your brand of politics," in conventional terms of "do you vote," "are you republican or democrat?" I happen to be registered non-partisan and I vote when someone strikes me as a person with pure intent, on or off the ballot (so far I've not met with a credible personality on the ballot). Also I feel strongly you should not vote if you don't know your reason for voting the way you do. It's serious. You're effectively endorsing your candidate and are as much responsible for their choices when they're in office as they are--you're vote's as weighty as their votes.

Sometimes abstaining is the more effective vote--it can speak louder than endorsing "the lesser of two evils."

Giving in constantly is more --like-- "possession," or "being possessed." I would guess that the majority gives in now and then when it feels right, a little compromise here, more there, while a remnant will stick to Psalm 1, who even still don't qualify as you say, "not at all." If you've ever stretched the truth a little, you've lied. So what does that make you--and me?

See, now Anatha is doing his best to be open. He has his doubts, many in which he stands firm. That's all fair and reasonable.

Considering the vast intelligence even of the brains of folks who happen to be severely mentally disabled/retarded (pardon me if the latter construction here is taken offensively, but not everyone will understand my preference for the former term, without the latter included), how could there be so many instances appearing at the surface to be stupendously stupid, like mass murder, fleeing from the law, etc., by people who clearly have much better mental faculties than folks with defacto mental disabilities? It cannot be plain stupidity--noone's that stupid. If not stupidity, you tell me, what is it?

Are there possible explanations other than stupidity and Satan?

And in your opinion (I'm wondering this), is it possible for people to do "evil", have bad intentions, harm others, etc, without being influenced by Satan?

An astounding YES!!!

Yes! He is both able, and willing, yet he, and those who carry their own cross, travail with him, quite often without any understanding why (except the Father himself, who solely has total understanding). For if they always had their answer, they would have no testament to their character, nor of their standing through the scourge of evil, nor standing beside their God, whom they could not prove but by their perseverance, firm position, and unconditional hope for others and their love, all established on faith. Moreover, if they understood completely why they struggled through this miry world, they could boast. As for me, I stand by faith, and the wisdom that comes with it, which has served me very well. And that's why—I--call him God.

And "whence cometh evil?" A little pride taken by and angelic being waxes grand, as does human ambition, which follows.

I can never answer this question as well as Job, 42 short chapters. If you dare, study it honestly and carefully, if you haven't the time for Genesis through Revelation.

Not when predisposed to object, which can be taken from your tones, if inductively.

I will inject opinion and walk away slowly...

In my opinion there is no such thing as Satan! Why? I believe it is a scare tactic to put fear into people to do good deeds. The world is not black and white and one "thing" or "action" does not ever lead to a pre-meditated outcome. Judges do not treat every crime with the same punishment, society accepts things that are at times beyond me etc...

I live in the Bible belt and see first hand how people are in this area. They dress in their finest and attend church on Sunday and Wednesdays and in between the times either drink like fish or beat the wife and kids. Then they return to church and shed a few tears and tell the story on how the Devil made them sin through the week and start the whole routine all over again. And as a society we wonder why people have such a problem with accountability? Irresponsibility is engraved in our religious teachings!

Me, I am responsible for what I do and I have to live with the outcome! Some might say I believe in Karma, at any rate I am the controller of this ship and it is indeed only I that is solely responsible for my actions, the Devil never made me do it!

Then I try the Bible... Ok, So I should not sleep with my neighbors wife... Sounds good, this however is common sense and does not seem to be something any God would be interested in. Sex is a very human affair and seems to me to have very little to do with anything. Then, I should pay my taxes and obey the laws of the land, why? Why does the fact that I pay my taxes and obey the law of the land have any effect on what happens to me after death? Why does Good want me to feed greed which in itself is a sin? Why does our all mighty God care about something so petty?

In my opinion (this is just what it is here), the Bible teaches us nothing more then to be dependent! The Bible sounds very much like something written by a very smart scholar (government) in order to show us that we are not in control! We can not complain about anything we are dependent on and therefore can not complain on our own God (government) when we don't agree with the way they conduct business.

This is just my opinion!

My intent was in fact the conventional meaning--integrity between various passages.

If you've concluded that someone is "predisposed to object", then you've committed the ad hominem fallacy and you're the closed-minded one.

If people did not consider your points, then your complaints about closed mindedness might have merit. But that is not what happened, and you're not claiming it is.

Precisely. That was the hook, and is why I've had over 600 hits in two days--my biggest audience ever.

Yet Christ ranted, "You brood of vipers!" and for a high purpose, to share the good news, which I've not been granted opportunity to share.

Actually, that was John the Baptist, yet still it was Christ in him.

Have I reasoned or argued circularly? Show me where.

The fact that you equate disagreement with closed-mindedness is very circular. The fact that you equate "reason" with agreement is also circular.

Forbear, if by mistake I answer your objections more than once, as I stated I would, because, now, I'm somewhat obligated, and beside that, lost in such audience, and also, I don't know all your names!

That's acceptable, not reasonable, but acceptable.

You've not disrespected a person, but an opinion, which to me, is perfectly acceptable.

As to the several statements that I've presumed your closed-mindedness, I'll give you this:
I'll concede that I reacted somewhat rashly if you'll admit that most of you have been prejudiced, by being predisposed to object to what I say.