Posting:

Due to the current troll infestation we will be requiring you to sign in to leave a comment. Also, please note that we will be very nice in the regular posts, but we will not be gentle in the Sunday Blaspheme posts. You will be expected to back up any ideas with facts.

I am always happy to answer any questions I can:)

New Rule! Staff reserves the right to cuss you out and post your correspondence if you send us annoying emails.

Best!

Brett

Sunday, June 12, 2011

This Sunday, Ice Giants and the TRUTH comes out!






Best!

Brett

45 comments:

steve said...

When the facts aren't on your side you've always got the option of going with humor. Made me laugh and I want to play what ever game that is with the robots. Is it Metal Gear 3?

You can see why it gets confusing when they try to create contradictions which don't exist between science and Christianity. I guess it works better if you just lump philosophy, religion, science, and personal opinion all together and heckle straw man belief systems. Not real sure why that is more popular than discussing the actual systems as they exist. Oh well.

Steve

Brett said...

When we willfully ignore all the facts you provide us, you've always got the option of going with humor, but we don't have a sense of humor so that also goes over our heads.

There I fixed it for you! Sloppy mistakes!

Umm, just be cause you ignore something does not make it go away. Science disproves you're religion from the very first page. And then there are all the historical and archeological inaccuracies. Of course all you're evidence is supernatural based and can therefore not be tested by science, so how can science be consistent with that?

I'm not lumping them together (philosophy, religion, science, and personal opinion), I'm lumping all religions together because all of them together have the same evidence, none. Philosophy is sort of a wast of time to me but others have a use for it, personal opinion is just that OPINION no facts, and Science deals with the natural world you know facts.

Brett

M.O.R said...

If Odin got rid of all Ice Giants then explain SnowMen?

That's right, science cannot.

(Sarcasm warning for the sarcastically impaired)

Anthony said...

I either just watched American Ninja 6 or the next Highlander movie. Def 1 of the 2, LOL!! ;-)

Brett said...

M.O.R.

Sorry I had some work to do!

I'm not sure Snowmen would count... as magic top hats are a new invention;) But it doesn't say all;)

Anthony, I hope the next highlander movie looked that good! That shark thing looked sooo cool!

Best!

Brett

illustratorx said...

Just to be clear, you are saying the millions of visitors to museums like the British Museum to see artifacts like this one:
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/cm/b/bronze_coin_of_caracalla_with.aspx
are all imagining the artifacts? There are hundreds of physically cataloged artifacts which support Chrisitanity.

To be clear, are you saying the artifacts are forgeries or they are supernatural apparitions?

I still don't understand the criteria you use and how you are able to use the same rules for all of history. It really does seem you are incapable of dealing with any actual physical evidence that supports Christianity. You constantly make the ignorant claim that no evidence exists. So do you want to go through them piece by piece or are you willing to admit there just may be some evidence that supports the Christian claims.

Fatboy73 said...

Uhh,no one is denying that Christianity exists or has existed for quite some time.A few scratches on a coin by a "Christian" of the time in no way shape or form proves that Christ ever really existed.There are tons of artifact depicting Gods and goddesses,does that prove they exist?.There's even artifacts that have been defaced and destroyed by people of other faiths,does that prove their god /gods exist? WhaT needs to be found is some sort of ACTUAL verified historical document(census,birth and familial lineage records,death record) anything FROM HIS LIFETIME that verifies the Jesus of the bible actually existed.
Come on,for some as infamous to the Romans as Jesus would have been,there would have been SOME record of his activities,but there is zilch,zero,Nada.You can come up with as many shroud of Turin's, pieces of the "true" cross and scratched coins you want but it's not PROOF.

Fatboy73 said...

Oh and if historians some how found proof of the biblical Jesus's existence,you would still have to prove that he wasn't just some crack pot on a bad ergot trip.

Brett said...

Basically I can only parrot Fatboy at this point. We've gone over and over this, NO ONE is denying there were never Christians 1925 years ago, that's a fact.

I'm now wondering if you know the difference between historical facts and mythology.

Egypt is a fact, the Exodus is a myth. We have statues and cities and tombs, that show Egypt was real, we have stories in a book that says the Exodus was. The Egyptians never mentioned it, there's no physical evidence, no pottery, no camps, no nothing in the desert.. that takes like a week to walk across... it's a story to show a terrible plight.

Best,

Brett

illustratorx said...

Okay, so your basic problem Fatboy and Brett is you don’t understand the difference between Mythology and Historical writings. Even if the Bible was all false you would have to categorize its writings as historical writings, they do not fit the criteria for mythological writings. Myths aren’t just the information contained, but the style. If the Bible is not true it is a bad History book, a false History, but it could not be said to be a collection of Myths, totally different writing style. It was written by people dated to within the same generation of the events recorded. They wrote using the style of people recording information not writing stories. You hopefully read things like Homer’s Odyssey or Greek mythologies or even modern day tribal lore. If that was your position, that it was a collection of myths, you would expect certain criteria to be met and certain details and facts to be omitted-doesn’t fit. So if you believe it not to be true, you have to say it is false history. Very important distinction.

Usually the people who try the myth argument only have the most superficial understanding of what is in the Bible. So take a section like Genesis 1 with its creation account, it is written in the form of a Poem or a song, it is poetic writing, and if all we had was this one account of God creating the world you could say it is a myth, but then you have Genesis 2 which starts by saying this is a factual account and retells the Creation story with a historical narrative style. So you have a lot of instances in the Bible of a historical event being recorded as a matter of record and also being sung about in an artistic form. The Bible constantly emphasizes truth and beauty, it is both educational and artistically pleasing. Then you have the problem of the interaction of Bible people and real world historical figures. So you don’t see Homer’s Cyclops being taken before Caesar and tried for his crimes, but you do see that happening to the Apostle Paul, and it is recorded in a document dated to the correct historical setting. So again, you have someone like Homer who mixed fact and fiction and presented it all as a story years after the events took place, you have the Biblical accounts stating this is all fact and the dates line up.

Brett your specific question on the Jews in Egypt has also been answered many times. I imagine the 2006 archeological find of a whole Jewish house in Avaris (Northern Egypt) has probably done a lot of damage to your position as well as many ongoing archelogical digs. There are multiple written accounts of the Jewish people’s enslavement, but none by the Egyptians (they do record having many slaves). The Egyptians would probably not record a whole lot about them as a specific culture, Egyptians were like Borgs-they assimilated whoever they conquered. The Egyptians did not record their failures, only their success. Egyptians weren’t attempting to record an accurate historical record, they only liked to brag, so they would not record a story about a group of slaves walking off the job and plundering their kingdom, that tends to make you look bad. You have thousands of written Jewish accounts of this happening, so you have to choose to call one group’s report inaccurate and one group’s report accurate; the one thing you can’t suggest is there is no account of Jewish slaves. Then you have to explain the problem of why the heck is Israel the nation right where the Bible said it would be?

Again, you need to account to why if the story is not true the Jewish people are exactly where the Bible says they would be. The surrounding cultures all have historical accounts of interactions with the Jewish people.

illustratorx said...

Oh there is so much more good archeological stuff, but I don’t think you have the ears to hear it. You aren’t interested in truth or doing any actual research. As soon as you find any evidence that contradicts your beliefs you immediately stop looking and desperately try to find an opinion which supports your own preconceived notions. The problem is it will always keep you at a very superficial level. It is why discussing this tends to get frustrating, as soon as I invite you out of the baby pool you scream and splash that in the baby pool you are able to hold onto all your views and don’t have to face the challenge of the intellectual deep waters.

So where does that leave us?

You have to admit there is historical and archeological evidence which supports the Biblical narrative. It doesn’t prove the Bible to be true, evidence is not proof. I have to admit there is evidence, not proof as well and that there will always be room for doubt of the Biblical record. Evidence leads to making a decision of faith, for or against.

You need to stop the foolish “no proof” argument, it is empty rhetoric. I know popular culture uses proof and evidence interchangeably, but it tends to confuse things.

But I fear in another week or so Brett will ignore and forget this discussion, he’ll be spouting the no historical, archeological evidence argument again. He’ll be splashing in the baby pool and laughing at those over by the diving boards for being so foolish for going deeper.

Here is my question for you guys. What is your explanation for the creation of Christianity? History records Jesus was real and crucified, that is as close to an absolute fact as any from recorded history. If you deny that fact you have to deny all other facts with less evidence if you are intellectually honest.

That doesn’t prove Jesus rose from the dead or did miracles, but yet eyewitnesses recorded he did and we have written records from within twenty to thirty years recording their testimonies. Why did Christianity experience explosive growth if it was false? Today, generations later, it can be argued that it was made up, or false, or tampered with. What is your reasoning for those who lived at this time, saw the events, and many are recorded as dying horrible deaths rather than deny it? Why did such an obvious “lie” create the most resilient fastest growing belief system the world ever saw?

It is like there is a gorilla in the room and I say it took a taxi to get here, and you say that is ridiculous, you don’t believe gorillas ride in taxis. But yet here is the room and here is the gorilla, regardless of the mode of conveyance you have to deal with the major issue (the Gorilla), not just take limp shots at the minor details.

And I really wouldn't be taking the time to discuss this if I didn't respect your abilities to understand. I don't think you are stupid, and I'm not trying to insult you. I tend to be tenacious and forceful in my arguments, but only with those I actually respect. If I thought you guys were dolts I wouldn't waste our time.

Steve

Brett said...

No Steve, YOU don't understand the difference. Historical writings are about history, not mythology. Just because your bible has a FEW historical references, doesn't make it any more a historical document than Spiderman when Obama got elected. Let's see Garden of Eden... myth, Flood... myth, Exodus... myth. Jericho toppled by some horns... myth. What is the history part? That David was real? That Egypt existed? That the Romans were there? The code of Hammurabi is a historical document the Constitution is a historical document. they are historical because they tell our history. Egypts book of the dead is not a historical document... for crying out loud your as bad as those aliens from Galaxy Quest...

Steve your entire argument is that all the evidence for your god is supernatural... That's not how evidence works.

Christianity was a splinter group of Jews, that thought the messiah had already come... It's not that BLOODY advanced Steve we have a new group of them today, It's basic EVOLUTION. We see splinter cells of religion form all the time.

History does NOT record Jesus was real it mentions someone named Jesus being crucified... But you guys screwed your hand when they found that Jesus family tomb, you immediatelly said Jesus was a common name, like 10 to 20% of the population had it. So that doesn't prove Jesus the son of god was crucified, it proves one Jesus of hundreds or thousands was crucified depending on population. If there were 300,000 people were he lived, then that makes 30,000 people named Jesus.... It's not convincing enough. Plus it doesn't say WHY he was killed.

I don't know Steve, why did the muslims grow so fast, and are still growing fast? And it wasn't 20 years (still a fucking long ass time back then, most of the original eyewitnesses most likely died before anything was really written down, and people LOVE to embellish and of course eye witness are always 100% accurate even today aren't they?) I guess by that logic bigfoot and the lock ness monster are real? Ufo's? must be real as well. You want it to be real so any scrap of anything is evidence for you.

Gorilla what the fuck kind of logic is that? We have gone to the root of your God, we ask for and want evidence of HIS existence, but the most you can come up with is your book. Anything else your holding back Steve, ANYTHING?

Your logic is so flawed by your belief I can't believe you actually wrote this down... it's not logic at all. How is any of this relevant to your god existence? It's just more hand waving, don't look behind the curtain, we have books and slides in the gift shop! I want evidence for hist existence, not your religions.

Best,

Brett

Fatboy73 said...

Steve,
Mythology,Bad history,false history,of course there are distinctions...but important in this conversation...not in the least.Your opening is argumentative,condescending and it's one of the tools in your repertoire to get away from the main issue and to backhandedly try and make everyone else who doesn't agree with you look stupid.You know you do it and it's not very nice.But to verify things here is an accepted definition of myth:
In its broadest academic sense, the word simply means a traditional story that may or may not be based in facts. However, many scholars restrict the term "myth" to sacred stories. Folklorists often go further, defining myths as "tales believed as true, usually sacred, set in the distant past or other worlds or parts of the world, and with extra-human, inhuman, or heroic characters".It is important to note that the boundary between myth and legend is often blurred and that the status of a story as myth or folklore can change depending on the society.

I'm going to focus on a few issue here.
How did Christianity get started if Jesus didn't exist.The simplest explanation is messianism has been a part of Jewish culture and faith for a long time.When a culture is as oppressed and downtrodden as the Jews were,these legends and myths become more prominent and take on a sense of realism because the longing was so great for the messiah to come and deliver the Jews from Roman domination.It's much easier to take from ideas that have already been established so a lot of the characteristics and stories of Jesus come from already existing myths and legends and were tailored to fit the ideals that were wanted.

How did Christianity become so wildly popular and tenacious? Well lets see...
-Constantine
-The Crusades
-The fact that the basic ideals of Christianity are very appealing to the masses because it's not an elitist religion.It accepts anyone who is willing to believe in and acknowledge that Jesus was God in the flesh and that only through him can you be saved from eternal damnation and live forever in happiness.
That was extremely appealing to the majority who's daily lives were nothing but toiling,drudgery,hardship and sacrifice and ultimately death. and still is today.
The basic message and idea of Christianity isn't bad,it's inevitable abuse of it from man for control and power that is what most people have a problem with.

M.O.R said...

No Sunday blasphemy, same old debate.

Can't we all just get along?

Fatboy73 said...

I think everyone gets along great and debate is fun.
But honestly how many times and different ways can you state your views.We're the ones saying there is no purple spotted invisible leprechaun because you can't detect him through any means and there's no tangible proof that one has,does now or ever will exist.
If the other side would just say you know what,your right there is no logical reason for me to believe in the purple spotted invisible leprechaun but I need to believe in something that will give me hope and this is what is popular and accepted right now,my parents believed it to be true and it's a better belief than most,so what the heck I'll believe in it.
it would end a lot of nasty debates

steve said...

Fatboy, some good responses, but they don’t line up with recorded history. The Jews rejected Jesus, he did not fit their messianic interpretation of scripture (for most Jews-He still don’t). Jesus was the exact opposite of what they wanted or expected. This is verifiable by Christian history, Jewish history, and world history. You are free to believe what you want, but your view is demonstratively wrong at just about every point. Again I’m not trying to put you down, you are free to check it out for yourself. The basic message of freedom in Christ in the Jewish and Roman culture it was birthed in caused preliminary hardships, struggles, alienation, and death; not really the happy picture you paint. If you want a better understanding look at how Christians today are treated in China, Iraq, Chad, New Guinea, Yemen, Saudi Arabi, Egypt, Iran, Qatar, Vietnam, India, Syria, etc., etc., etc., and the other hundreds of Countries currently hostile to the faith. If you are unaware of the current level of religious intolerance directed specifically at Christianity in the world and all you know is North American Christianity I can see how you may have such an erroneous understanding.

Again you are missing the gorilla and talking about the taxi. Christianity was not any different than about two dozen other Messianic uprisings up until Jesus was killed. Many other would be religious messiahs were killed or disappeared. Christianity grew after Jesus was killed, not before. This is the gorilla you have to explain, the first 30 years-not Constantine, not the Crusades, and not your incorrect characterization of its initial reception among the Jews. If you really want to make head way you are going to probably have to do a little research. I don’t think you are stupid, it is just your arguments are so demonstratively weak. I am not trying to be condescending, take a look around Brett’s blog and the type of material he regularly fires at Christians, he ain’t pulling punches and yet I’m not responding with the same brand of silly cartoons and videos which he uses that regularly characterize Christians as both stupid and evil. If you are a tolerant sort then you must be also absolutely livid with how Brett treats people of faith. I admit I love a good debate and I seldom back down but if you feel I’ve gone too far I apologize. Again you seem to have some intellectual fortitude, all I’m asking is you find out the real deal and discuss the facts rather than this silly imposter of Christianity.

I really don’t think you were using the term “myth” to mean a true ancient sacred story, it seemed like you were using it to mean fairy tale. Anyways it confused me from the context of how you were using it; it seemed like you were implying the Bible may not be factually true. The Bible is written as a historical record. You are given dates, kings, numbers, locations, real world data- it isn’t a tale which is written for you to figure out if it is possibly true.

Maybe the distinction is so obvious that I’m over complicating it. When Paul says he met Christ on the road to Damascus and was struck blind for three days, he is saying this is a fact, I am reporting what happened to me! He isn’t saying, “Hmmm… what would be a neat way to explain the power of God?” You can say he is wrong, but he is not writing down a story passed down through oral tradition, or like Homer who set out with a story idea and crafted and reworked it over several years, Paul is saying, “Today, right now, I’m telling you what happened to me, I’m not telling stories and I’m not talking about things I heard,and oh yes, you can kill me before I will deny it.” Myth writers do not get crucified, stoned, burned alive, boiled alive, and fed to lions to support their “stories.”

Steve

steve said...

Okay Brett, Obama in Spiderman- Zeb Wells wrote it right? Do you think he believed it was true? Do you think he would die painfully to defend it as true. I’m guessing no. I think he believes he wrote a story, he presented it as a story, he gave it to artist to draw as a made up story. At no point does the author pretend it is true, not even in a figurative manner. The Bible was written by folks who said this is what happened. It isn’t even a good story if you only take parts of it-in other words the set up and pay off are written by different authors on different continents. They reported what happened and didn’t rework it or dress it up (insert here your standard claim that the original texts were moneyed with if you want, then get your Hebrew and Greek dictionaries and let’s go look at the earliest copies of the manuscripts.)

Didn’t even take a day and you are back to your “There is no archaeological evidence argument.”

Again evidence is not proof. You must gather all evidence and come to the best conclusion based on the information at hand. So when you say you want to see supernatural proof, like I don’t know, let’s say an angel’s skeleton or some such nonsense, you have misunderstood both how to view evidence and the nature of the supernatural. The only evidence for supposed supernatural events which took place in antiquity is written reports of eye witnesses. Again this is not proof, it is evidence. You can’t insist on proof for historical facts in most cases, natural or supernatural.

Christianity is not a religion based on learning facts, at its core is faith in a personal being; because you have faith with people. You have relationships with people. I can have an understanding of Algebra not faith with algebra.

I hope this next example is not too explicit (demonpuppy readers under the age of 14 should probably asks their parents before continuing)…

Maybe a good way to look at it is imagine you are a virgin. Then read a biology book on reproduction. Learn the physiology and processes involved, then tell me you now understand sex completely because you can define it and you know some facts. Then later have sex with someone you love and tell me which of the two scenarios you prefer. For the rest of your life would you like to have a biology book in your bed or a lover? Christianity is a relationship with a living being, not a set of morals in a book, at some point facts, stories, and words fail. God does not want to be simply understood, he wants to be experienced and share life with you.

So to some extent Brett you are correct to point out you can’t prove God, but you can’t disprove Him either. You also will never be able to know him by simply looking at books. You could even know the Bible perfectly and never meet God. However if you actually try what the Bible says is true you will eventually run into God in the most pleasant and unexpected way.

steve said...

“If the other side would just say you know what, your right there is no logical reason for me to believe in the purple spotted invisible leprechaun but I need to believe in something that will give me hope and this is what is popular and accepted right now, my parents believed it to be true and it's a better belief than most,so what the heck I'll believe in it.”-Fatboy

Okay seriously dude, I’m the one being condescending? Seriously?

Fatboy73 said...

Yes the ruling class Jews,the priests and other officials rejected the idea of Jesus because he didn't fit in with their concept of what the messiah was to be.There were others who wholeheartedly accepted the radical new version of the messiah that was presented with Jesus,thus the splinter group that Brett was talking about.There's even evidence of a pre christian Jewish sect that worshiped a god figure named Jesus centuries before he was supposedly born and they were expecting a messiah named Jesus.
Christianity and messianic uprisings are NOT the same thing,Christians didn't exist or start naming themselves that till much later.And the ideas that were presented with Jesus were RADICALLY different than the rest of the messianic uprisings and because those views were overall positive is most likely why they caught on.
And the gorilla your talking about is Paul.Christianity grew after Christ's supposed death...about 20 some years after with the writings of Paul.
It was small group of like minded individuals spreading their version of an old Jewish legend that caught on because it gave people hope.mix it with some established mythological ideas for popularity and recognition and you have the start of a new religion.
And don't start with the people wouldn't die for something that wasn't real crap.People die for false ideals all the time and especially if there is some great reward at the end of it.like eternal life in bliss.That is a powerful motivator regardless of the relatively "short" amount of suffering you have to put up with in this life.
No myth writer don't die for their stories because they set out to write those myths as entertaining stories,not as any kind of ideal that your willing to die for.The bible wasn't written that way it,the writers very much believed what they were writing about,it just happens to fall into the myth category.
And lastly Brett as far as I can tell does not and never has said all Christians are stupid and evil.He is responding to and making fun of those extremists who are impinging on everyones freedoms and shoving religious views down our throats either violently or by using government and trying to make them law.
I probably overlooked some things,but I'm working as well and trying to not have this eat up all of my time. :)

Fatboy73 said...

“If the other side would just say you know what, your right there is no logical reason for me to believe in the purple spotted invisible leprechaun but I need to believe in something that will give me hope and this is what is popular and accepted right now, my parents believed it to be true and it's a better belief than most,so what the heck I'll believe in it.”-Fatboy

Okay seriously dude, I’m the one being condescending? Seriously?


Not being condescending at all Steve.I'm being spot on correct.

Whether you admit it or not deep down you and billions of others believe in a god because of
the hope of eternal reward in the afterlife and the fear of punishment,you can bring all the other hoo doo into it you want but that's the base of it.
and specifically Christianity because that's what your parents believed and indoctrinated you into
or because you are geographically located where Christianity is the most popular and widely accepted religion of the area.
If you were born in another place in another time where another religion was the accepted one you would have completely different views.

Brett said...

Steve, how does Jews living in Egypt, equal evidence for a the Exodus? No one is saying the Jews never lived there, what there is no evidence to support is them being slaves and leaving en mass to wonder aimlessly for 40 years. 40 years, with NO evidence. All the Egyptian documents make no mention of an exodus.

Lots of people died on the cross. It was a very common punishment. Why does Jesus doing it make him any more special than any of the others? I think maybe you've forgotten about some crazy Muslims blowing up some buildings recently. All done for their religion.

Steve your sex analogy is horrid! Way to make sex boring as hell! Just because you know how something works is not the same thing to anyone as doing it, pun intended. Your relation is not with a living being, he does not fit any of the qualification of being alive. Does he breath? Eat? Shit? Die? Every living being must do these things. And if all your information comes from a book, that is what you are having a relationship with, why else would the book be sacred?

Fatboy,

Excellent job, but I think Steve will never admit that their God isn't a real thing:( But great reading none the less!

M.O.R.,

Sorry, I didn't find anything good this week:( Just stuff we've already covered.

Best,

Brett

illustratorx said...

Fatboy you do have some interesting ideas. I would be interested in hearing more about this Jewish Jesus who fulfilled the Messianic requirements centuries before Jesus. You are saying he was not a false teacher? He met the requirements, or at least was reported, to be born from the line of David by a virgin in Bethlehem? He lived a sinless life and was crucifed or at least murdered for claiming to be God? It is true the name Jesus, Yeshua, means savior or saved and was somewhat common. Seriously I would love a link to some information on this incredible person who fulfilled the Messianic prophecies centuries before Jesus. I’ve only heard of failed individuals who claimed to be the Messiah and ended up kind of petering out or disqualifying themselves.

I do have to ask, do you actually really believe any of the stuff you post or are you just interested in getting me to debunk it? If you actually believe this stuff, and I show you more reputable sources and historical facts are you interested in the truth? Don’t take this the wrong way but your stories sound like the sort of stuff they play on the Discovery Channel, or Bill Mahr repeats, or that video saying Christianity was based on Mithras which went viral a few years ago. The stuff is just so silly it just gets tedious going through it all, the problem is both secular and Christian scholars reject most of this stuff. It only gets repeated by folks with an ax to grind against traditional faith. I mean if you are legitimately interested I will answer your questions. But if you are just repeating something you personally don’t believe or only read online in a chatroom please save us both the time. Again if you honestly think any of the stuff you posted is true, please defend it and provide some references. This pre-Jesus Jesus is intriguing.

The rest of your stuff I could spend pages debunking, and I actually typed out a much longer rebuttal, but let’s take this piece by piece.

Brett love ya man but you aren’t really saying anything new, is it okay if we explore some of what Fatboy is stating in a little more detail? Rather than tackeling it all at once I would love to dismantle it piece by piece, cool?

Fatboy73 said...

I will be the first on to admit Steve that all the so called easily refutable garbage I've been spewing is not my original ideas.These ideas have been around for a long time and were conceived by people a lot smarter than me.I do not claim to be the all knowing seat of knowledge upon which Atheism rests.If there is something I do not know enough about to discuss intelligently I have to read and study and search and then read some more to find valid ideas that make sense and parallel my own thoughts and ideas on the subject at hand.
What I do know is that religion and specifically Christianity and the bible are not only ridiculous because they take themselves so seriously but are so obviously a product of man's imagination and longing to know where we came from,how it all ties together and our place in the universe.It boggles the mind to think that after all the millenia and all the faiths and religions that have come and gone and are now considered mythology,that anyone could take it seriously.
anyway,I'm not going to write a novel explaining myself when there are people that parallel my views and do it so neatly and succinctly.
Oh and I just want to say that your statement "is it okay if we explore some of what Fatboy is stating in a little more detail? Rather than tackling it all at once I would love to dismantle it piece by piece, cool?" just goes to show that you have no plan to pay any attention to the facts,you automatically assume that with your vast irrefutable mental library of knowledge that you will easily be able dispute and squash any of the silly ridiculous "facts" or information I might come up with.
So now that we have that out of the way here are the links.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/historical_jesus.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mythology

steve said...

Fatboy, I really believe the Bible is true. A lot of it is incredible and stretches the limits of plausibility. It is absolutely impossible if the supernatural doesn’t exist. But if the supernatural is possible, the only way we would be able to know or confirm it is if the supernatural chose to reveal itself. At that point we would be playing catch up, we couldn’t control what we were allowed to know or the type of info the supernatural would reveal. It would be totally up to the supernatural, not our ability to detect or comprehend. By definition its characteristics and abilities would be beyond ours. It is sort of like every cheesy sci-fi movie showing first contact, we don’t call the shots when we are dealing with a higher intelligence, our chief goal is to try to understand and open a line of communication.

Imagine trying to run Windows 7 on a pocket calculator- the info would be beyond the calculator’s feeble processors to handle, so if Windows 7 was sentient and still wanted the calculator to understand something about itself it would have to over time reveal small bits of info as proof. The calculator would be totally dependant on Windows 7 to control every aspect of the relationship, the calculator couldn’t get upset and say Windows 7 showed it the wrong stuff or not enough info or Windows 7 isn’t the type of program the calculator likes or expected. God gets to control the tempo and nature of our relationship to Him if he is real, we are totally out of our league to dictate, control, or reject who He is based on our own criteria. Of course if He is real and he is loving, he would choose to relate to us in a loving way we would understand.

If you read my “biology book vs lover” post, I was trying to show relationship vs. information. God has chosen rather than basing a relationship with Him on obtaining information that he wants the foundation to be love. Christianity is never less than creedal (info, doctrinal, the Bible, moral laws) but it is so much more. God doesn’t want a religion where the more you know the more you control. He has designed Christianity so that those who would try to use it with self-centered motives will be frustrated and revealed as hypocrites. All the church scandals? Everyone is revealed to be a hypocrite because the nature of Christianity is to expel the immoral hypocrite. You can’t control God or use him for your purposes, you’ll end up like the Nazis at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. When you deal with God you have to be humble and submissive, this goes against our natural self centered hearts and keeps many from even considering God. And since Christianity is not based off of obtaining or even fully understanding information but is rather based off of LOVE it is a relationship available to all people, of all races, of all cultures, of all ages, and yes (Brett will get a kick out of this one) all intelligences- Christianity works for both the Genius and the Idiot because foundationally it is relational not informational.

If God is real you would have to admit, if He is fair and good, He would have to create a system open to all people and not just the educated or highly intelligent.

steve said...

The reason I debunk all of Brett’s posts is because I was on the outside looking in at one point. Unlike your generalization of why people are Christians, I was in the process of walking away from God. I was giving him the bird and trying to push Him further away. I don’t think I didn’t believe in some sort of deity, but I really wasn’t interested in serving Jesus. He was screwing up my life and not giving me what I wanted, if that is how he treated his “faithful” I wasn’t interested. I was open to exploring other faiths so I went on a long intense search to find out what was true and why or if I should believe Christianity. I said your exact words, “What if I only thought it was real because I was raised in it?” What if my parents were Hindus or Muslims? Wouldn’t I believe differently? What if it is only cultural?”

That is why I do what I do. I get it. I know what it is like to be confused, disappointed, upset, and even extremely pissed at God, or even angry at the very idea there is a God who I am supposed to some how serve.

So I’m not out to crush you with my intellect, I get what it is like to have honest questions. I just don’t have much patience for discussing religion with the person who has no real desire to know the truth and only has an anti-God ax to grind. Brett believes every post you put up without ever questioning your facts or sources. He rejects everything I post on faith without digging deeper. That seems somewhat inconsistent to me.

It may surprise you, but I am also pretty hard on “Christians” as well. So few actually have researched what their faith believes or why it has survived. They are happy to get a “get out of Hell free” card and then live a self centered life trying to chase the American dream, but they throw Jesus’ name in the mix for a little extra protection or to give them some sort of moral authority to look down on people. If you think I’m hard on Brett, you should see what I put a Pharisee through.

Brett said...

Steve,

Debunking means disproving it. You haven't done that. You simply say I'm wrong, give some halfassed answer that makes sense only to you. And proclaim yourself winner... That's not how this works.

If ANY supernatural anything could be proved, then you might have a leg to stand on. But you're saying you're proof is supernatural and since we can't test it, you automatically win. WTF? All supernatural 'evidence' has failed when tested. I'm still waiting for them ghosts. It's not like they haven't been looking for the last 6 years.

You were never in the process of giving up god, that you can't see this astounds me. You can't hate something that doesn't exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Damn man you need to lean some reasoning skills, because this is getting unbelievable. I accept most of Fatboys info, because we have read a lot of the same stuff. I reject yours because I've either read about it before, it makes no logical sense and can therefor be rejected, OR if I haven't heard of it I LOOK IT UP, and then reject it because it's wrong. I find it funny as hell that you accuse us of this but you are the one actually doing it!

And there you go again Steve, with your superiority, "Christians" you know the face ones, that don't believe the way I want them to... because my interpretation is the correct one.

Steve, you know I used to research all your 'arguments', but frankly, after you had the nerve to say that all human relatives, from Homo Erectus to Neanderthals were just really old modern humans, I can't honestly take much of what you say seriously. 'Lightning changes the dates of fossils', I'm still hitting my head against the wall over that one.

Best,

Brett

Fatboy73 said...

Steve,
you reply was very nice,polite and well put but...you believe the bible to be the absolute true word of god.you say that
your God is so far beyond our understanding that we can not possibly comprehend,control,dictate,reject who he is or put
him in any kind of box.Its up to him to define himself and how he chooses to reveal himself to us.

I do not need to put your God in a box because he has already done that to himself.Your absolute word of God describes very
well and very definitively,the nature of "God" and it isn't a pretty picture,I don't need to rehash details because you know already
that "God" as portrayed in the bible suffers from every single human downfall known to man.

The "God" you believe in is a very different one than portrayed in the bible and completely subject to your own personal ideals and morals.
And very much subject to the whims of whatever current society believes him to exist.
You have very clearly stated YOUR position on god and what he means to you but the discrepancies between your view of god and the supposed
accurate portrayal in the bible are so great that you wouldn't possibly let them slide in any other aspect of your life but "faith" and the
need to believe have blinded you to that fact.
If there were a god and he was so far advanced as to be beyond human comprehension then why would he have such human needs and wants?
His goals would be so far beyond the need to be worshiped by us or even be in the least bit concerned with us except as maybe as a curiosity.
We would be a microbe in a puddle to him,a blip on the radar screen,not the center of his universe.
He wouldn't have human limitation and need to rest between days of creation (you said the bible is absolutely true so it is or it isn't)
Concepts of human morals and wickedness would have no more meaning to him than they do to that ant crawling across the floor.
you consistently put god in a human box that you say he could not possibly fit into.
I could go on and these are not original Ideas and concepts Steve but they make so much common sense that the only way someone as intelligent as you
appear to be couldn't see that is the faith blinders you have on while figuratively sticking your fingers in your ears and going LA LA LA LA LA LA!

The reason you debunk all of Brett's post are because you think you can.I was just like you Steve and fully on your side of the table till I realized
it was all for naught.I am not some poor confused soul flitting in the wind,desperately searching for guidance and needing someone to save me.
I am as strong in my convictions as you are in yours and my mind can not and will not be changed except by the definitive proof that I require.

I don't have an axe to grind with God,get pissed at or angry with because he is a fictional creation of mankind's own making who so parallels man in
his thoughts and actions that he may as well be a man.
What I have a problem with is the CRAP that is perpetrated in the name of this fictional creation.What I have a problem with is otherwise intelligent people
who devalue their own self worth and place in society so much that they feel the need to succumb to the will of a supposed being that can only be defined through
what other humans in the same situation say he is supposed to be.
You don't have much patience for discussing religion with someone who has a desire for the truth but not truth the way you see it.I have all the patience in the world
if it means that one person comes to realization that they are worth beyond what a supposed God places on us.That life is more than worrying about what happens to you
after your dead and that simply YOU are responsible for your actions and accountable to those whom your actions affect.Strive to be happy but realize that you need to do so
within the rules of the society you chose to live in.

Brett said...

Fatboy,

I think I got a little tear of joy in the corner of my eye. Very, very well put! Far better than I could have done myself!

Best!

Brett

steve said...

This will be brief. We had a minor storm but in my little hobunk town that means the power was out for two hours which means my basement flooded. I have a few broken toes and maybe a fractured foot from a minor accident last week, so it was a slow arduous task to get the basement partially evacuated. Lost lots of comics, graphic novels, artwork, toys, most of my National Geographics, but I was able to save my computer.

So you guys will get off easy, I'm manning the pumps today.

It is curious to me Fatboy, that I have spent twenty years studying the Bible, reading commentaries and even learning a bit of Hebrew and Greek, and somehow you would believe yourself to have a better understanding. Apparently the more you know about the Bible actually the less you know? Also why is my understanding the mis characterization of God's character? For over 2000 years it has been the dominant scholarly interpretation, doesn't that count for something?

Anyways what are these petty character flaws you find evident in the Bible? God doesn't "need" us to worship Him. Remember the Bible teaches He was self sufficient and perfectly fine without us. He created us out of love and because he created us to function in a love relationship with Him, he wants what is best for us which is-Him. He uses the imagery of a parental relationship, parents want what is best for their kids, often at odds with what their kids want. Outside of Disney films, parents actually do know best and usually are right. Because parents love they even have to do what is best for their offspring when it causes friction in the relationship. Are your parents stupid and dysfunctional for wanting and expecting you to love, respect, and obey them? Do you believe kids do best with no parental discipline? Do you find the people who are most happy are the self-centered rebellious types? So if someone knows what is best for you, for instance say if they created you, maybe they do have a right to tell you why you are here.

And Brett your silly examples were things I said some scientists have said are possible solutions. I was not saying that is what I believe. I'm the guy who believes what is proven and says I will wait on the rest until their is solid evidence. I don't lock myself into an interpretation that is not yet demonstrable. You fill in the gaps with whatever evolutionists tell you "might have happened."

Fatboy73 said...

First off sorry to hear about your basement man,I just had mine flood about two months back.There was about an inch and a half of water covering my entire basement floor,
had to go buy a shop vac and a squeegee and was up till 4 in the morning.The I spent the rest of the next day drying everything up and dry locking the entire basement,
talk about fun!

I'll start out by saying that what is curious to me is that you somehow assume I know less than you about god and the bible.I spent 20 some odd years as a devout Christian
and my entire life was the church and god.60-70% of my time was spent in church,youth group,bible study,church camp and summer bible school etc...

And I definitely know enough to know that the characterization of god over the past 2000 years has most definitely NOT remained the same.He went from very specifically being
relatable to the Hebrew people of the time and being the one to hold them to their traditional customs by telling them how they need to live in all aspects of their life,
most of which would never fly in the 21st century.You would have PETA,The U.S. government and every women's rites group in existence pounding down your door.
He was a blood thirsty war like god to the ancient Israelites who needed him to be that to justify the wars,killing and acquisition of territory for their people.
He's been portrayed as vengeful and full of wrath,genocidal,jealous,petty,misogynistic,megalomaniacal an so on and so forth,all of which would never fly in today's society.
Fast forward to the modern day and you have a god that has now sent his "son"(another human invention) to die on the cross for our sins(another idea that has spanned time and
a lot of different religions) who seems to have forgotten a lot his silly antiquated rules about customs and traditions and takes on more of a curmudgeonly old father role while
Jesus becomes his press agent and the face of a modern religion.

Even between religions they can't agree who exactly he is.Some think God has one aspect and that is of the father,some think the father and the son exist and some believe in the trinity.
Christianity say's we're made in his image,Islam says he doesn't resemble us in any way shape or form.Some try to explain Gods bad behavior in the old testament by saying oh well that was
YHWH and he was an older evil deity not the god we know today(there goes the one God theory)Now there are even people who say God is an extraterrestrial.

You would think that the almighty creator of the universe and everything that is would at least be able get a consistent image out across the board.The only thing consistent is how people
physically portray God in artwork,powerful older man,silver hair and beard in a flowing robe...Who kinda looks like Odin...who kinda looks like Zeus... see a pattern here?

Again god is consistently put into a human box that you say he can not possibly fit into.Love,parental Father child relationships,punishment,anger,discipline.These are all human concepts,
not something that an omnipotent omniscient cosmos spanning entity would find the least bit useful.And we are the center of his existence,he created us,he created the sun and the planet
and all that surrounds us for us.The bible doesn't say anything about"and then God created life in the Andromeda Galaxy on the planet &^%&^$&%$".No the people who wrote the texts that
eventually became the bible didn't know anything about other galaxies and other planets so they wrote what they knew about which is us!

steve said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
steve said...

If you were in the church for twenty years then I’m sure you heard the parable of the prodigal sons. Basically it is a story Jesus used (in Luke 15) to show people one of the basic misconceptions about God. The young son runs away from his father and blows his inheritance on partying; the older son stays at home with God and is good. Eventually the younger son comes home when he is out of money and his dad forgives him. This really ticks off the older son because the older son feels he has been good and done all the right stuff. In this story both sons were guilty of not really loving the father; the youngest ran away and used the Father’s money to live a life of debauchery, the older son stayed in the father’s house, did all the right actions, but at the end of the story he is revealed to have never really loved the father-he did not understand his character, and like the younger son he was far from actually knowing his dad because he was only using the father. Older Brother lived a self centered life where he wanted to “earn” his acceptance. Jesus was saying you can be very far from actually knowing God by either running away (younger brother) or staying and being only religious (older brother.)

I was just like the older brother for the majority of my early life. Until I was 20 I was “religious” I didn’t realize there was any other way to be a Christian. Then when I joined the Army, left home, and started to see other cultures and religions I became curious about why I would be so egotistical to think I had the one right religion. Then my girl friend dumped me because “Jesus told her to.” At that point I walked away and became more like the younger brother. At Art College I was able to reinvent myself and be a totally different person, I made all new friends, and the only stipulation I had for my new friends is they could not be Christians. I wanted nothing to do with God or his people, he seemed like a big killjoy and his followers were no better.

So when I hear someone say they were devout and walked away from the church, I often wonder if perhaps they were like me; saying all the right stuff, praying, singing, going to church functions, and giving God lip service. But did they really love God or were they just using God so they could be in his house, using his stuff, appeasing their parents, and becoming a self-righteous upstanding moral person who appears good, but has a heart which doesn’t love God for who He is.

Anyways the mischaracterization statements you make about God are common for people who’ve never read the Bible or been to church. It surprises me that you spent twenty years in church and you would use these same statements. When you asked people at your church while you were there what did they say? Did anyone explain how the OT Judaism faith was necessary for us to ever get to a NT Church? Did they ever walk you through the chronology of the God’s plan for redemption? Why there were so many odd cultural laws in Leviticus? Are you saying it was explained to you and didn’t make sense or that your church never covered these topics?

Steve

steve said...

"You would think that the almighty creator of the universe and everything that is would at least be able get a consistent image out across the board.The only thing consistent is how people
physically portray God in artwork,powerful older man,silver hair and beard in a flowing robe...Who kinda looks like Odin...who kinda looks like Zeus... see a pattern here?"-Fatboy

Hmmm...It is almost like God is really smart, knew that would be a problem, and said...

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” Exodus 20:4-6

Broad and very comprehensive in its wording, the second commandment forbids the worship of the true God through icons, images, or other man-made symbolisms. Many of the heathen nations around Israel claimed that their images were mere figures or symbols by which the Deity was worshiped, but God has declared such worship to be sin. The attempt to represent the Eternal One by material objects would lower man's conception of God. The mind, turned away from the infinite perfection of Jehovah, would be attracted to the creature rather than to the Creator. And as his conceptions of God were lowered, man’s worship of God—his view of God—would be lowered as well.

Fatboy73 said...

I'm very familiar with the story of the prodigal son,in fact I just colored a 4 page mini on the story.I'm sorry but the story is about the supposed infinite grace and mercy God has for sinners
and that they will always be accepted back into the fold with great rejoicing no matter what they do.The story says nothing about misconceptions of God and nothing about the sons not loving
their father,it was for the pharisees criticizing Jesus for eating and hanging around with sinners.All the other crap was injected later by scholars who must have figured that the story wasn't
good enough on it's own and this is what it really must have meant.That's another problem I have,the bible is the absolute of god and what it says is what it means...except when it's convenient
for it to have another deeper hidden meaning.If it's subject to different interpretations of it's meaning then it's not the infallible word of a perfect God.How could a perfect being of higher
intelligence leave his message to his creations that he wants to have a loving relationship with up to interpretation?

That's like a parent who died before their child ever knew them leaving them a book that contains their thoughts,how much that parent loved the child and wishes they could be with them,and pretty
much everything the parent would have taught the child had they been there,also directions and a key to a hidden fortune so that child would never need for anything,
BUT...The book is written in a language conceived of and known only to the parents and can only be translated without a cipher that is locked in a safe along with the key to the safe.

You can not imagine someone genuinely loving God,being more than just a going through the motions Christian and finally coming to their senses and walking away because you never really came to your senses.
By your own admission deep down you still believed in God but you were pissed off at him and needed to do some soul searching.I have completely amputated the idea of God from my life after much contemplation
and finally coming to the knowledge that it was all bunk.

God is saying don't make an image of anything Steve,in heaven,on earth or in the water and don't bow down and worship anything but him.For he is a jealous God and will hold a grudge against you and your family,even up to 3 or 4 generations
in the future except to those who "love him and uphold his commandments,those he will show mercy to(there's those darned human emotions again)
And that kind of goes against the whole Jesus message of love those who hate you,turn the other cheek and all you have to do is accept me and you will experience Gods grace.

Material representations of god would lower our conception of him? Really,like his verbal descriptions in the bible aren't enough to do that.And come to think of it even writing about god is a graven image
and should technically be considered sin.
I think the portrayals of God in the bible were not only representative of the people of the time but that it didn't matter how badly or unjust god acted or the hell he put his "chosen" through
because they didn't have a choice,Fear ruled and they were told from their ability to comprehend that this is your God and this is how he is,don't question it just deal with it.

Brett said...

Steve,

Evolution, also make predictions, and so far those predictions have come true. It's not just guesses. And no Steve you were not just telling me things other scientist had said. You believed that and argued with me.

I find it funny that a book written for illiterate people thousands of years ago, with no scientific knowledge, can be interpreted correctly only by you and the others you approve of. You tell me you take the bible literally, then explain human ancestors. There shouldn't be any. Explain why the more primative animals live in the oldest rock formations. Explain if you god loves us so very much he feels the need to kill us... over a fruit.

Your really afraid of him and will do anything you can to appease him... that doesn't sound like love to me. Sounds like fear-mongering.

Best,

Brett

Sorry about the basement, but you really should stop storing things down there or maybe get some high shelves? I know it keeps flooding on you. And sorry about your foot, now I know why you've had so much posting time!

Brett said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
steve said...

Fatboy so much good stuff, I would love just to sit down and have a beer with you sometime and to over your problems with Christianity.

The prodigal sons story: You nailed the meaning of the first son. Could you please tell me what the purpose of the second son is?

Your story of the parent, kid, secret language book is a really good one. Remember the Bible will not make sense unless the Holy Spirit uses it. The translation key which you say is locked away so the child can't get to it is in away true. Non-Christians can read the Bible, memorize it, copy it, repeat it, tattoo it, draw it, color it, quote it, etc. The Bible is a physical book after all, the thing is, unless you are a Christian you will not understand it. The Holy Spirit's job is to reveal the spiritual truths. I know, it sounds hokey to modern ears. Sounds like magic or some such nonsense. All I know is I knew what was in the Bible because I went to church, it wasn't until I became a Christian did it actually speak to me.

Hmmm. your 2nd commandment interpretation is interesting. What are the physical appearances in the Bible you say are descriptive of what God looks like? I guess I'm missing your point. Are you saying rather than not worshiping images, God does want us to have idols?

Finally I can totally get walking away from God. When you say I never stopped believing in God, you are a bit off. First off I did not believe in an accurate view of God in the first place, I believed in some sort of deity, but it was very inaccurate to who Jesus is. So it isn't like I understood the faith and was walking away after faithful service. I guess maybe that is your story? Mine is more I went to church, I was religious, and I did what my parents and culture expected of me. It wasn't a genuine belief I chose or embraced. It was more of going through the motions, and to be honest avoiding church life as much as I could get away with. So I didn't have a genuine accurate understanding to begin with. It was just a religious cultural version of Christianity. God may have been a reality but he wasn't central to my life. Does that make sense?

steve said...

Brett, You do understand the Bible is not a science book. Right? Please stop attacking it as if that was what we are talking about.


The Bible is not going to explain evolution to you. It will not date the earth. It will not explain morphology.

Can we stop arguing about things that are not in the Bible and maybe discuss what is in it?

Do you argue that Shakespeare does not explain evolution or the Iliad doesn't understand Carbon dating?

They never were meant to.

Maybe this will help you out. Set evolution aside. There are theistic evolutionists. They believe the Bible and all of your science, not just the empirical stuff I accept-but what you belive; they also believe your applied theories.

Evolution does not disprove the Bible. The Bible does not disprove Evolution. Science and Religion when properly practiced complement each other. They have some overlap, but they by definition do not comment on the central principles of the other.

1.God used Creation, ID, Evolution, etc. Doesn't change the core of Christianity. God did it how ever he wants.

2.Nature creates itself out of nothing using the Poof theory, Intelligent Design by aliens, Evolution- nothing created something and something evolved upward.

Believe what you want. Your abiogenesis theory is not going to dent religious belief.

Now Christianity offers philosophical consequences if God created us, just as there are philosophical consequences if God did not create us.

You seem to always argue against a "them" this form of Christianity which isn't what I believe. Apparently I don't know what I believe and you do. Somehow you know my beliefs aren't actual Christianity, but every sill caricature which you find online is more accurate.

fine.

Imagine I am the only Christian on the face of the Earth. Talk to Me. Discuss MY beliefs with ME not those silly flat earth snake handlers who apparently are everywhere out there.

first step. You can be an evolutionist and believe in Jesus. You really can. So your major obstacle is out of the way. What is your next one?

Fatboy73 said...

The purpose of the second son or the the faithful one who stayed with his father was to basically tell the pharisees and anyone else who poo pooed him interacting with sinners to shut up.
That while being good,faithful,righteous and following the expectations of what you are supposed to do is great and you would be rewarded for it but it was more important that another soul
be saved and come back to a proper relationship with God.I would personally boil it down to great I already control you and you do what I say and you'll get what's coming to you,wonderful!
BUT...what's far more important are the people I don't have control over yet!THAT is my goal!But maybe that's just me.

The bible IS what it IS,nothing less nothing more.It has nothing to do with the "holy spirit" interpreting for us.I can say Mein Kampf is a nice little book on foreign policy
and how to "properly"and"kindly"deal with those slightly difficult Jewish folks all I want but that doesn't make me correct.Oh and did the holy spirit explain to you what the ENTIRE
bible was about,or just the accepted books that MAN put together to paint the most flattering godlike picture of Jesus it could?

God is saying don't make an image of anything Steve,in heaven,on earth or in the water and don't bow down and worship anything but him.For he is a jealous God and will hold a grudge
against you and your family,even up to 3 or 4 generations in the future except to those who "love him and uphold his commandments,those he will show mercy to(there's those darned human emotions again)
And that kind of goes against the whole Jesus message of love those who hate you,turn the other cheek and all you have to do is accept me and you will experience Gods grace.


That is what I said.Where in that entire quote did you possibly get something about a physical description of god being in the bible and that I was saying your god wanted you to worship Idols?

Finally I was trying to point out the difference between you and I and why you can't accept that I was a true God fearing/loving Christian and yet somehow walked away.Let's say we both believed in Santa Claus,
He was the Jolly Fat man in the red suit that put presents under the tree at Christmas time.I grew up and realized that there was no Jolly red fat man,that what he supposedly accomplished every
Christmas would take the work of a supernatural being and was physically impossible otherwise,the there was no proof of the supernatural and that it was in fact my mother who worked hard and bought all the
presents to give to me whilst giving credit to a fairytale man because that's what she was expected to do.
You grew up and thought well maybe their isn't a Santa Claus but someone has to put the presents under tree and mom and dad told me there's a Santa Claus and that bastard gave me coal one year...so I know someone
puts the presents there,I just don't know who.Eventually coming to the conclusion that Yep I know definitively that there is a Santa Claus.How you ask well for starters there's this story "Twas the night before Christmas "
And that gives a pretty accurate portrayal of Santa and how he goes about his business.It even talks about Sleighs and Reindeer and I know those exist so Santa must as well.On top of that,I met the guy!Well not really met
I couldn't actually see him,but I definitely felt his presence...so yep definitely Santa Claus.
Whole point being I walked away completely and you did not,you still believed there was some deity out there,you just weren't sure how to define him and finally,however it happened,you came back to your christian beliefs and the "one true god".

And if I'm ever in your neck of the woods we can definitely have a beer(I'm a killians guy myself) and discuss anything you want :D

steve said...

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/historical_jesus.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mythology

Hmmm…So I’ve read through the three sources you have given. I don’t know how to be charitable about the quality of the research those sites contained. Most of the citations are from anti-Christian authors, not intellectually unbiased historians. I guess if you weren’t looking for the truth and really just wanted to bolster your own argument you could do worse. I mean they do get some facts right, but this isn’t scholarly research. It is surprising that you have been in the church for twenty years and these arguments seem appealing to you. Most of these accounts are outdated, like no archeological evidence for Nazareth, but even aside from recent archeological discoveries, most of these critiques have been answered with far better documentation time and time again. There seems to be a prevailing school of thought that Christians are stupid simpletons with no intellectual discernment, and then we are treated to this type of cut and paste silliness. It is like trying to read a message written on a crumpled up piece of wet toilet paper, it disintegrates at the littlest attempt to examine. The arguments are half truths and plausible if you accept them at face value, and it is funny to see how much these three sources plagiarize each other-showing it isn’t original research just recopying someone else’s list, but I guess I’m really curious why these articles have explanatory power for you? Why are they compelling, say when put them next to a non-biased examination of history or a Christian view of history? Often what I find is someone has a problem with the morality of God or the idea of submitting and worshipping God, so they try to cobble together an intellectual argument to keep them from considering the hard truth that it matters little if you like or dislike the idea of God existing. Still maybe you are not convinced. Maybe you believe I am guilty of doing the exact same thing, reordering history to fit my particular bent. Maybe rather than taking these accounts at face value you have researched the actual historical facts and are aware of some evidence which I am not. Is there one particular piece of evidence which you found really compelling and worthy of scrutiny?

And thank you for continuing the discussion in a clear headed fashion. If you are ever actually interested in what the parable of prodigal sons is maybe you would listen to Tim Kellers' sermon on it?

I believe you listened to one of his previous sermons and found it not too disagreeable, here is the link:

http://sermons2.redeemer.com/sermons/prodigal-sons

Brett said...

"I don’t know how to be charitable about the quality of the research those sites contained. Most of the citations are from anti-Christian authors, not intellectually unbiased historians. I guess if you weren’t looking for the truth and really just wanted to bolster your own argument you could do worse."


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh that you miss the irony is delicious... almost as good as baby!

Best!

Brett

Fatboy73 said...

Frankly I'm a little tired and lacking in time for the constant paper chase Steve.You constantly shrug off and poo poo ANYTHING Brett and I show you as being not valid or laughable.You talk about unbiased info while dismissing my views on the Prodigal story and then can ask me to listen to a SERMON on it and say NO!this is what it REALLY means? How about YOU provide some of this concrete evidence for the existence of your Jesus and your God that you always claim exists.
Show me your "non-biased examination of history or a Christian view of history"
Come on Steve,here's your chance.Wow me,Show me something different that hasn't been done or thought of a million times over by a million different faiths.Show me anything of the sort and you have my word that I will read it over carefully and give it my utmost attention and I'm sure Brett would be interested as well.

ridenar said...

The way I see it human existence can be seen as a large partially read book, each page representing 1000 years. Religion reads the top 2-3 pages and is done, satisfied, decision made, mind closed... reads no further. Science is going to read the whole book top to bottom, bottom to top....
Ask a human from 5, 10 or 15 thousand years about god, and he'll point at the sun. For 99% of our existence we have been elemental worshipers. Things that affect us that we can’t control we make up an answer for because we need to understand. Religion is based on faith. Faith is believing what you want, and ignoring the absence of any proof. It’s an unfortunate trait that humans are susceptible to and one of our greatest weaknesses.
To explain death away as going to a ‘better place’ is arrogance of the highest order. We are so very important we cannot simply stop right? Wrong. In the scope of things we aren’t important at all. The most powerful force in the universe is a star, and even stars die.
I consider myself a realist. Atheist doesn’t cut it; I don’t believe anything about the universe is founded on supernatural elements. The very nature of it is chaos. If you look to the bible for answers about the nature of the universe you won’t find any of course, because the bible is limited to the knowledge of the men at the time it was written. They had no sense of the universe and cosmos as we now understand it.
Religious delusion is fine as long as it’s kept to one’s self. Once these ‘supernaturalists’ start waging war, forcing legislation it becomes their narrow opinion enforced with might.
Show me the atheist suicide bomber, atheist tyrant, atheist invader? Atheists (Realists) are the most peaceful people on earth.
Ask me for examples of ethnic (in reality Religious..) cleansing, religious war, religious hatred, discrimination, double standards, contradiction and I’ll ask how long have you got?

M.O.R said...

Ridenar, you were doing well until the 'atheist bomber, atheist tyrant' etc.

What about Slobodan Milosevic, or Kim Jung Il, or Mao Zedong, or Pol Pot?
All atheists, all tyrants.

What I am saying there is, give certain people power or a movement that attracts people, and they will abuse it to no ends. If they have some form of inferiority complex, then boy howdy, will they abuse the hell out of it.

There are butt munchers in every walk of life, not just religion.

Going outside of religion, look at all the jerks in sport, or music.

Brett said...

M.O.R.

Actually that's not the same thing. People have done horrible things in the name or Christianity, but just because some of those guys are atheists, doesn't mean what they did was done in the name of Atheism. It isn't a belief system. I hope that makes sense.

Communism is interesting, sort of like the Pharrohs of Egypt. The government takes the place of religion with the leader as the almost Godlike ruler.

And I do agree even Atheists can be 'butt munchers' as can anyone;)

Best,

Brett