Lindy: It's easy. God does GOOD things; the devil does BAD things. Can you find anything good in the outcome(s) from Gen. 4? I can't.
quote:can we confirm that mark as meaning he made him black? lol
What are you talking about? You think this was how God made black people, or does your use of the word 'black' mean spiritual darkness? Neither applies to my point.
Why I personally reject the Bible is simply because it's the easiest case to make.
Rather than spend endless hours trying to develop a plausible spin to explain why an all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent God did all the apparently evil things mentioned in the O.T., isn't it a whole bunch easier to swallow that the book is simple a collection of myths?
You don't have to explain the genocide and cruelty of the O.T. god. You don't have to come up with an explanation for why bad things happen to good (i.e. Christian) people today. Children born with horrible defects, untimely deaths, wars, famine, pestilence, and just sorrow in general, become quite easy to explain when the Bible is regarded as simply what it appears to be. A collection of stories of a primitive, ignorant, and superstitious people.
The trouble happens when somebody baptises the book "Holy" and then all the excuses (and arguments) start.
WOW! Now quoting someone else as saying the Bible is bull**** is bigotry.
Also, it was Penn & Teller, whose quotes are often used on subjects like global warming and such. :D-->
Personally, I wouldn't say that it's pure B.S., because there are clearly some historical records that have been captured there, as well as some morals that are good for people to follow. That doesn't mean that I think it's factual even 50% of the time, or that it came from holy ghosts or anything, but it's not all bad. I have a greater problem with people who try to use it to justify their own evil, which I'm sure everyone else here would agree.
Chuck, I find that highly offensive. You don't have to believe it, but I'll thank you to keep your bigotry to yourself.
If making the statement causes Zix to ask that the bigotry be kept to himself, the obvious inference is that he is calling the statement bigotted, although he has not technically done so.
That being said, I find the statement offensive and inflammatory as well.
Come on you are smarter than this. Do we have to start getting into sentence structure?
What Oak said is pretty much what happened. but technicallywe should all be able to see that Zix called Chuck a bigot based on that statement. I know the wieght that word carries in our society and I know what it actually means. The way in which Zix just used it not only implies the way he sees Chucks views but is also used as an insult.
And all this because little Zixy was offended. Enter the real world. Instead of telling people to go away and stop posting thier opinion, perhaps someone should go in their room, turn off all the lights, and curl up in the fetal position, if they are so easily offended.
And inflammatory?
Well isn't that just the worst thing that has ever happened around here. No wait, that happens quite a bit around here, now doesn't it.
Chuck, I find that highly offensive. You don't have to believe it, but I'll thank you to keep your bigotry to yourself.
If making the statement causes Zix to ask that the bigotry be kept to himself, the obvious inference is that he is calling the statement bigotted, although he has not _technically_ done so.
That being said, I find the statement offensive and inflammatory as well.
*thinks*
I'll have to disagree with you on that point, Oakspear.
The statement was that the post was "offensive."
The comment that followed concerned the poster's "bigotry".
Were the two connected? Yes.
Were the two identical? There, I'd have to disagree.
vpw was never caught actually making anti-Semitic statements that I know of.
(For the sake of this discussion, let's presume he was never caught at them and move
on.)
He DID, however, make some statements that demonstrated an anti-Semitic MENTALITY.
They statements THEMSELVES were not necessarily anti-Semitic. Related, but not
identical.
Of course, you may disagree with me, and think he's directly saying the statement was
bigoted. Me, I think he was saying the statement was a result of a bigoted
mentality, resulting in an offensive statement. Of course, I'm not the mog here-
[I disagree with you, and it's entirely because of twi? Of course, you didn't support this "claim", so it remains simply a "cheap shot". ]
Come on you are smarter than this. Do we have to start getting into sentence structure?
[You made a sloppy inference. I disagreed and explained why. I ask, then, do we have to ignore sloppy reasoning? ]
What Oak said is pretty much what happened.
[I disagree, and I already explained why in my last post a few minutes ago. Oakspear DID explain HIS reasons for saying why he came to his own conclusions, which is why I respect his post a lot more than yours-Oakspear respectfully disagreed with me, and I did the same with him.]
but _technically_we should all be able to see that Zix called Chuck a bigot based on that statement.
[That's actually a THIRD issue-whether he was called a "bigot" or not. We were talking about the actual contents of the posts. We can get into this, but I don't see a reason to-we're really off-track here...]
I know the wieght that word carries in our society and I know what it actually means. The way in which Zix just used it not only implies the way he sees Chucks views but is also used as an insult.
[ I think I can agree with you here. I keep in mind that he was responding to what HE saw as an insult, which lends some context to the statement. It's not quite the same as starting a discussion with "Chuck, you ignorant slut!" This MITIGATES it, to me, but does not negate it. (That's how I saw it when I first saw Zix's post, also. ]
And all this because little Zixy was offended.
[No, all this because someone posted something he KNEW to be an insult, and directed it at people he KNEW would be offended by it. ]
Enter the real world. Instead of telling people to go away and stop posting thier opinion, perhaps someone should go in their room, turn off all the lights, and curl up in the fetal position, if they are so easily offended.
[There's a huge difference betwee not posting your opinion, and not posting your opinion in an overtly-offensive way. If semi-intelligent discourse is intended here, and an exchange of ideas, and people with a wide variety of POV's are to see this site as a resource, then it should be expected that posters place some thought to the OTHER posters here, and the readers who lurk here. I've seen civil disagreements happen before, with emotionally-charged positions, and face-to-face disagreements. They were handled in accordance with parliamentary procedure (Robert's Rules), and so disagreements were not phrased as insults, nor were inflammatory. (The room broke into spontaneous applause when the rules were cited that required one person to yield the microphone, but that's hardly the same thing. Should we set such a low standard for our posts that insults and cheapshots are accepted and approved, then? I require better of myself, and I think YOU'RE better than that, too. ]
And _inflammatory_?
Well isn't that just the worst thing that has ever happened around here. No wait, that happens quite a bit around here, now doesn't it.
[sadly, yes, I agree with you there. Inflammatory statements DO happen around here. However, I do NOT agree that they SHOULD happen here. We are adults, and do NOT need to resort to insults and similar things when communicating. I think better of almost all the posters here than to think they can't communicate without insulting people they disagree with. There are new arrivals, lurkers, and old timers, trying to heal wounds dealt them by life and twi here. To expect so little of ourselves that we can't behave civilly does them and us a disservice. I owe myself better than that, and I prefer to give better than that, even to total strangers. Perhaps we see this differently than each other.]
Why I personally reject the Bible is simply because it's the easiest case to make.
G.A. This is simply your opinion and does not hold up to the facts.
Rather than spend endless hours trying to develop a plausible spin to explain why an all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent God did all the apparently evil things mentioned in the O.T., isn't it a whole bunch easier to swallow that the book is simple a collection of myths?
The one issue everyone seems to be forgetting is that we live in a fallen world. Sin is rampant. From the first one to the cross, it required blood to appease.
And Geo this isn't written to you, since your mind is made up. But science has found the Bible to be a good source of locating cities long thought to be myth, people who were long thought to be myth.
You don't have to explain the genocide and cruelty of the O.T. god. You don't have to come up with an explanation for why bad things happen to good (i.e. Christian) people today. Children born with horrible defects, untimely deaths, wars, famine, pestilence, and just sorrow in general, become quite easy to explain when the Bible is regarded as simply what it appears to be. A collection of stories of a primitive, ignorant, and superstitious people.
Geo, I am sorry, but this statement comes across as primitive and ignorant. You can be so full of it sometimes.
The trouble happens when somebody baptises the book "Holy" and then all the excuses (and arguments) start.
Why bother? I mean, REALLY...
OK, we've heard this line from you, your sounding like Mike. What do you base your life on, what's your Table of Challenge, your concrete standard?
Science? They can't agree on global warming, evolution, creation or why Johnny wets the bed.
No, not forgetting the "fallen world" tripe, just dismissing it out of hand. When has humanity ever acted differently? Yes, we have the CAPACITY to do greater harm today, due to technology, but the overall focus of people seems to have remained rather constant over the millenia, if historical records (yes, even the Bible) and the archaelogical evidence can be trusted.
And you do seem to want to jump ahead. Why should the Bible be regarded as anything special? I mean, over any other supposed "holy" writs? Why should we regard The Bible in a reverant, unquestioning attitude, while simultaneously disregarding The Koran, The Bhagivagita, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, the sayings of Buddha (a copy of which is in most hotel rooms of Japan ala the Gideon Bible in the U.S.), or The Book of Mormon?
And please, save me the comparisons to "Mike". Cheezus, I don't call you a raving nutcase because of your unchecked credulity, do I?
And, not that it's any of your business, but I tend towards a somewhat Confuscian outlook on life. The basic idea being quite similar to "The Golden Rule". A very simple idea that in order to get along in life, it makes the most sense to treat people in a decent and accomodating manner and work towards a common good. A concept that's not just given lip-service in Asia, but is put into practice. The general populace is trained from birth to think of the impact of their actions on the community at large. Hence, there's no litter problem to speak of, not much grafitti or vandalism, and crime in general is a fraction of what it is in the more "Christian" west.
So you tell me which philosophy works best? Think of all the wars that have been waged, all the people who've been tortured, all the unspeakable atrocities done in the name of a Christian god, and then tell me again about how moral I could act if only again I'd embrace the concept of a infallible Word of God.
And why is it that a person needs the threat of hellfire and damnation and the carrot of eternal rewards in order to keep from killing one another? Anybody that morally bankrupt would definitely not be on my list. But then, that's just me...
(oh, and BTW, it's "you're" for contraction of "you are" and "your" as a possessive pronoun. Sorry, a pet peeve of mine...)
I doubt that lack of religion would have reduced the amount of war and bloodshed, nor would everybody sharing a relgion. Look at how the medievel European states warred, and they were all Christian. Religion seems to be just another excuse that people use to dominate their neighbors.
But they have (or had) their own "religions" don't/didn't they?
Depends on your definition of "religion". I believe that a religion can be theistic or atheistic. Examples of an atheistic religion would be Taoism, which, as I understand it, has no divinities. Secular Humanism is considered a religion by many.
IMHO a religion is characterized by a belief system that is not objectively evident, and may just be the result of wishful thinking, or the originators view of the world or cosmos.
Just as a Christian cannot "prove" the rightness of Christianity, a Communist cannot objectively "prove" the tenets of his dogma. To be a Communist, one must suspend the use of one's objectivity and ignore the real world. In this sense, Communism is as much a religion as Islam, Christianity, or Buddhism.
What throws a lot of people off is the devout Communist's rejection of "tradional" religion as well as his rabid atheism.
Atheism means "without God", not without religion.
Look at how the medievel European states warred, and they were all Christian. Religion seems to be just another excuse that people use to dominate their neighbors.
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about... hmmm... I see where you're coming from. Okay, so maybe there'd be just as much war, but I still think there'd be less hate and bigotry.
quote:Oak said:
IMHO a religion is characterized by a belief system that is not objectively evident, and may just be the result of wishful thinking, or the originators view of the world or cosmos.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
35
37
34
22
Popular Days
Jul 1
77
Jun 29
67
Jun 30
65
Jul 2
31
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 35 posts
Raf 37 posts
Refiner 34 posts
lindyhopper 22 posts
Popular Days
Jul 1 2004
77 posts
Jun 29 2004
67 posts
Jun 30 2004
65 posts
Jul 2 2004
31 posts
Popular Posts
George Aar
Why I personally reject the Bible is simply because it's the easiest case to make. Rather than spend endless hours trying to develop a plausible spin to explain why an all-knowing, all-powerful, omni
Raf
The last post on this thread was eleven years ago. Suffice it to say, MY position has changed since then.
waysider
Not only have we changed in those 11 years, the internet, in general, has changed. Social media has changed. On-line behaviors have changed. And, best of all, TWI has changed. It's shriveled up and be
TheEvan
Oh, come on John, Paul wasn't praying in Eph 3:14ff either...he was just writing. Right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Evan: No. Eph is a prayer and 1 tim isn't. Also notice in Eph he bows to the Father of JC, not JC.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Lindy: It's easy. God does GOOD things; the devil does BAD things. Can you find anything good in the outcome(s) from Gen. 4? I can't.
quote:can we confirm that mark as meaning he made him black? lol
What are you talking about? You think this was how God made black people, or does your use of the word 'black' mean spiritual darkness? Neither applies to my point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Why I personally reject the Bible is simply because it's the easiest case to make.
Rather than spend endless hours trying to develop a plausible spin to explain why an all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent God did all the apparently evil things mentioned in the O.T., isn't it a whole bunch easier to swallow that the book is simple a collection of myths?
You don't have to explain the genocide and cruelty of the O.T. god. You don't have to come up with an explanation for why bad things happen to good (i.e. Christian) people today. Children born with horrible defects, untimely deaths, wars, famine, pestilence, and just sorrow in general, become quite easy to explain when the Bible is regarded as simply what it appears to be. A collection of stories of a primitive, ignorant, and superstitious people.
The trouble happens when somebody baptises the book "Holy" and then all the excuses (and arguments) start.
Why bother? I mean, REALLY...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Chuck, I find that highly offensive. You don't have to believe it, but I'll thank you to keep your bigotry to yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
people are finally taking a stand
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
WOW! Now quoting someone else as saying the Bible is bull**** is bigotry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Also, it was Penn & Teller, whose quotes are often used on subjects like global warming and such.
:D-->
Personally, I wouldn't say that it's pure B.S., because there are clearly some historical records that have been captured there, as well as some morals that are good for people to follow. That doesn't mean that I think it's factual even 50% of the time, or that it came from holy ghosts or anything, but it's not all bad. I have a greater problem with people who try to use it to justify their own evil, which I'm sure everyone else here would agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
He said it was "offensive."
I'll add that it's inflammatory.
Neither of us said the statement is bigotry. (The attitude BEHIND the statement
might be bigotry, but that's another issue.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
That being said, I find the statement offensive and inflammatory as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Nice, WW, twi has taught you well.
Come on you are smarter than this. Do we have to start getting into sentence structure?
What Oak said is pretty much what happened. but technicallywe should all be able to see that Zix called Chuck a bigot based on that statement. I know the wieght that word carries in our society and I know what it actually means. The way in which Zix just used it not only implies the way he sees Chucks views but is also used as an insult.
And all this because little Zixy was offended. Enter the real world. Instead of telling people to go away and stop posting thier opinion, perhaps someone should go in their room, turn off all the lights, and curl up in the fetal position, if they are so easily offended.
And inflammatory?
Well isn't that just the worst thing that has ever happened around here. No wait, that happens quite a bit around here, now doesn't it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
that's what i love about scholars
especially christian ones
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
*thinks*
I'll have to disagree with you on that point, Oakspear.
The statement was that the post was "offensive."
The comment that followed concerned the poster's "bigotry".
Were the two connected? Yes.
Were the two identical? There, I'd have to disagree.
vpw was never caught actually making anti-Semitic statements that I know of.
(For the sake of this discussion, let's presume he was never caught at them and move
on.)
He DID, however, make some statements that demonstrated an anti-Semitic MENTALITY.
They statements THEMSELVES were not necessarily anti-Semitic. Related, but not
identical.
Of course, you may disagree with me, and think he's directly saying the statement was
bigoted. Me, I think he was saying the statement was a result of a bigoted
mentality, resulting in an offensive statement. Of course, I'm not the mog here-
feel free to draw your own conclusions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[WordWolf in boldface.]
[sadly, yes, I agree with you there. Inflammatory statements DO happen around here. However, I do NOT agree that they SHOULD happen here. We are adults, and do NOT need to resort to insults and similar things when communicating. I think better of almost all the posters here than to think they can't communicate without insulting people they disagree with. There are new arrivals, lurkers, and old timers, trying to heal wounds dealt them by life and twi here. To expect so little of ourselves that we can't behave civilly does them and us a disservice. I owe myself better than that, and I prefer to give better than that, even to total strangers. Perhaps we see this differently than each other.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Wordwolf:
Well reasoned & well stated...I still disagree with you, but see why you came to a different conclusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
And Geo this isn't written to you, since your mind is made up. But science has found the Bible to be a good source of locating cities long thought to be myth, people who were long thought to be myth.
You don't have to explain the genocide and cruelty of the O.T. god. You don't have to come up with an explanation for why bad things happen to good (i.e. Christian) people today. Children born with horrible defects, untimely deaths, wars, famine, pestilence, and just sorrow in general, become quite easy to explain when the Bible is regarded as simply what it appears to be. A collection of stories of a primitive, ignorant, and superstitious people.
Geo, I am sorry, but this statement comes across as primitive and ignorant. You can be so full of it sometimes.
The trouble happens when somebody baptises the book "Holy" and then all the excuses (and arguments) start.
Why bother? I mean, REALLY...
OK, we've heard this line from you, your sounding like Mike. What do you base your life on, what's your Table of Challenge, your concrete standard?
Science? They can't agree on global warming, evolution, creation or why Johnny wets the bed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Def,
No, not forgetting the "fallen world" tripe, just dismissing it out of hand. When has humanity ever acted differently? Yes, we have the CAPACITY to do greater harm today, due to technology, but the overall focus of people seems to have remained rather constant over the millenia, if historical records (yes, even the Bible) and the archaelogical evidence can be trusted.
And you do seem to want to jump ahead. Why should the Bible be regarded as anything special? I mean, over any other supposed "holy" writs? Why should we regard The Bible in a reverant, unquestioning attitude, while simultaneously disregarding The Koran, The Bhagivagita, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, the sayings of Buddha (a copy of which is in most hotel rooms of Japan ala the Gideon Bible in the U.S.), or The Book of Mormon?
And please, save me the comparisons to "Mike". Cheezus, I don't call you a raving nutcase because of your unchecked credulity, do I?
And, not that it's any of your business, but I tend towards a somewhat Confuscian outlook on life. The basic idea being quite similar to "The Golden Rule". A very simple idea that in order to get along in life, it makes the most sense to treat people in a decent and accomodating manner and work towards a common good. A concept that's not just given lip-service in Asia, but is put into practice. The general populace is trained from birth to think of the impact of their actions on the community at large. Hence, there's no litter problem to speak of, not much grafitti or vandalism, and crime in general is a fraction of what it is in the more "Christian" west.
So you tell me which philosophy works best? Think of all the wars that have been waged, all the people who've been tortured, all the unspeakable atrocities done in the name of a Christian god, and then tell me again about how moral I could act if only again I'd embrace the concept of a infallible Word of God.
And why is it that a person needs the threat of hellfire and damnation and the carrot of eternal rewards in order to keep from killing one another? Anybody that morally bankrupt would definitely not be on my list. But then, that's just me...
(oh, and BTW, it's "you're" for contraction of "you are" and "your" as a possessive pronoun. Sorry, a pet peeve of mine...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
There would be far less hate, war and bigotry in the world if there were no religions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Ex - LOL!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
No Tom,
There would be the same amount, we would just have no one to call an infidel.
Atheistic regimes like USSR, Cuba and China were and aren't exactly peace and light.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
But they have (or had) their own "religions" don't/didn't they?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I doubt that lack of religion would have reduced the amount of war and bloodshed, nor would everybody sharing a relgion. Look at how the medievel European states warred, and they were all Christian. Religion seems to be just another excuse that people use to dominate their neighbors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
IMHO a religion is characterized by a belief system that is not objectively evident, and may just be the result of wishful thinking, or the originators view of the world or cosmos.
Just as a Christian cannot "prove" the rightness of Christianity, a Communist cannot objectively "prove" the tenets of his dogma. To be a Communist, one must suspend the use of one's objectivity and ignore the real world. In this sense, Communism is as much a religion as Islam, Christianity, or Buddhism.
What throws a lot of people off is the devout Communist's rejection of "tradional" religion as well as his rabid atheism.
Atheism means "without God", not without religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.