Old 4th February 2005, 08:23   #281
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Wow, that's embarassing.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2005, 08:29   #282
Chebyrator
Chev's Pet Ferret
(Senior Member)
 
Chebyrator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California, Sacramento
Posts: 283
Send a message via ICQ to Chebyrator
http://www.evilbible.com/

Ever noticed that people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved?
- Bill Hicks
Chebyrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2005, 08:35   #283
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
Interesting link, Chebyrator.

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2005, 08:37   #284
Chebyrator
Chev's Pet Ferret
(Senior Member)
 
Chebyrator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California, Sacramento
Posts: 283
Send a message via ICQ to Chebyrator
yes..

dude uses quotes from bible so it's not just bla blah blah. he proves his point

Ever noticed that people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved?
- Bill Hicks
Chebyrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2005, 08:39   #285
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
And before anyone says that that website "misinterprets" the bible, whose fault do you think that is? If the writers of the bible didn't want people to misinterpret it, they wouldn't have written it so damn vaguely. If god has all the answers, they could write the thing with pinpoint accuracy and still be right.

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2005, 10:43   #286
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
Really?
I didn't realize that this:

was an immature evaluation of Science.

I really think you've written me off too quickly Gaekwad.
And your reaction when your 'mathematic proof of ontologic knowledge' was proven wrong was what?

You of all people shouldn't call others immature.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2005, 12:52   #287
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
It wasn't proven wrong.
You just just can't parse an English sentence worth a damn.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2005, 14:04   #288
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
And zootm too?

You just keep throwing stuff around you don't even understand yourself and hope it'll impress someone.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2005, 20:11   #289
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
Quote:
If the writers of the bible didn't want people to misinterpret it, they wouldn't have written it so damn vaguely. If god has all the answers, they could write the thing with pinpoint accuracy and still be right.

Ah, yes. And I suppose those people would have been writing to a fully literate populace, who understood things the way we understand them? With intimate knowledge of future cultures and science? I doubt that even a theroetical God would be fully prescient. What do you think?


General Geoff, I do not fault you logically but I can only say that I have experienced things that prove to me beyond all doubt that there is in fact a higher order of existence or at least of order itself than our own. They are not internal; there are no voices in my head or any such thing. But things have happened to me, coincidences I don't care to calculate have occurred, and my faith has grown from that. I suppose I cannot fault you for your position. (I realize that might sound condescending, please don't interpret it that way.)
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2005, 03:25   #290
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
Well, until something like that happens to me, I'm not convinced. I never threw out the possibility of a higher existence than our own, but a higher existence does NOT mean "god." For all I know we're all just beings in a petri dish that was created by some alien civilization. That doesn't make the aliens god. That just makes them somewhat superiour to the human race (which isn't really saying much )

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2005, 02:21   #291
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
And zootm too?

You just keep throwing stuff around you don't even understand yourself and hope it'll impress someone.
I suppose I could say the same about you, but I've been making a conscience effort to be nicer around here. But, then you'd probably try to tell me that I can't be certian that I have a conscience.



Quote:
Originally posted by Chebyrator
http://www.evilbible.com/
Ok, I was originally gonna start out my response to this post with this response:
Quote:
Wow. You know what? I now know that there is no God, because of what that site says. Man, my whole life has been a waste of time! thanks Cheb!!!!
Um. LOL!
but after I cooled down a bit I decided that that was probably not the best response.
---------------
So after about 2 miniutes of checking out that link, I found this Beauty:
Quote:
Prophecies to Identify the Messiah, Which Jesus Does Not Fulfill:
1) Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.
And could pretty much tell that this guy treats the Bible with less scutiny than most Snake Handling, poison drinking Pentecostals.
I doubt he has ever even opened a commentary, or looked at all those words with funny letters in the back of a concordance.

There are three languages which were used in Jesus' time: Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.
Immanuel is the English transliteration of the Greek name meaning "God with us".
Joshua is the English transliteration of the Hebrew name meaning "God with us".
Jesus is the English transliteration of the Aramaic name meaning "God with us".

It really just goes to show that you really can't believe everything you find on the Internet, no matter how much you want it to be true.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2005, 11:57   #292
Chebyrator
Chev's Pet Ferret
(Senior Member)
 
Chebyrator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California, Sacramento
Posts: 283
Send a message via ICQ to Chebyrator
Quote:
no matter how much you want it to be true.
yeah... i really wanna die. I don't want to live in a nice place with flowers and shit...

Ever noticed that people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved?
- Bill Hicks
Chebyrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2005, 12:10   #293
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
I suppose I could say the same about you, but I've been making a conscience effort to be nicer around here.
Or you just realized what a cheap (and unfounded) retort that would be?
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2005, 16:33   #294
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
I think it would be foolish to dismiss that site because it has one inaccuracy on it. There is a _lot_ of content on it.

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2005, 17:41   #295
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
You all know that reading the bible is worse on your brain than:

ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2005, 17:48   #296
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
Though not worse than



(Here are some nice wallpapers, looks like their still extremely popular in Russia. *shudders*)
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2005, 17:58   #297
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by will
I think it would be foolish to dismiss that site because it has one inaccuracy on it. There is a _lot_ of content on it.
We both know it is rediculous for you to imply that I should respond to the whole site pont by point.

However, let's use a little induction.
If the guy who put this site together can't be bothered to check the language the Bible is written in, why should we assume that anything else he has to say is accurate.

There is good scholarly atheist biblical criticism (none of which isn't contended), but even those scholars would laugh at what this site says. It is really nothing more than Bible FUD.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2005, 19:25   #298
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
you know, the bible provides plenty of its own FUD. just that you decide to skip over those bits.

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2005, 19:59   #299
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
It's a two-way street, shakey. Using that logic, you could say "If the bible doesn't bother being concise, then why should we assume anything in it is true?"

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2005, 21:25   #300
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by General Geoff
It's a two-way street, shakey. Using that logic, you could say "If the bible doesn't bother being concise, then why should we assume anything in it is true?"
Why do you guys try to defend crap like that site?

I know that you might not have ever heard some sound Biblical critisism before, but if there is one thing I know it's that I'm not going to be able to prove it to you guys no matter how many points of that site I respond to, because you guys have the mind set that your gonna have to prove it to yourselves, which is fine, but here's the thing: I know after most of you read this, you're just going to shrug it off, call me a religious wacko, and go on with your lives.
But then, you're not really giving the Bible a fair shake.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2005, 21:37   #301
Chebyrator
Chev's Pet Ferret
(Senior Member)
 
Chebyrator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California, Sacramento
Posts: 283
Send a message via ICQ to Chebyrator
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
Though not worse than

[Image]

(Here are some nice wallpapers, looks like their still extremely popular in Russia. *shudders*)
unlikly, although i am from ukraine...
but i will ask some of my icq buddies

Ever noticed that people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved?
- Bill Hicks
Chebyrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2005, 21:40   #302
Chebyrator
Chev's Pet Ferret
(Senior Member)
 
Chebyrator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California, Sacramento
Posts: 283
Send a message via ICQ to Chebyrator
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
Why do you guys try to defend crap like that site?

I know that you might not have ever heard some sound Biblical critisism before, but if there is one thing I know it's that I'm not going to be able to prove it ot you guys, because you guys have the mind set that your gonna have to prove it to yourselves, which is fine, but here's the thing: I know after most of you read this, you're just going to shrug it off, call me a religious wacko, and go on with your lives.
But then, you're not really giving the Bible a fair shake.
i read some of the bible, particular new statment.
first several books tend to repeat themselfs. although each of them carry a detail about jesus' life, other miss or don't go in detail

Ever noticed that people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved?
- Bill Hicks
Chebyrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2005, 21:56   #303
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
I would imagine that's why they're all there.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2005, 03:30   #304
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
Why do you guys try to defend crap like that site?
Why do you try to defend crap like the bible?

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2005, 03:42   #305
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
I do not defend, I interpret. You imply it needs defending.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2005, 10:14   #306
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
i defend nothing, i believe in myself. I have nothing missing from my life that needs filling with information passed to me by a work of fiction.

That site may be factually incorrect and you may discredit it based on that reason.

All me and General Geoff are saying is that the exact same process can easily be applied to the bible which you hold so dear. Of course, we both realise that this will have no effect on you people whatsoever.

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2005, 14:33   #307
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by CraigF
That site may be factually incorrect and you may discredit it based on that reason.

All me and General Geoff are saying is that the exact same process can easily be applied to the bible which you hold so dear. Of course, we both realise that this will have no effect on you people whatsoever.
And all that Phyltre and I are saying is that if 1900 years of scholarship and study could definitively find the Bible to be factually incorrect we'd agree with you.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme

Last edited by shakey_snake; 7th February 2005 at 15:14.
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2005, 17:05   #308
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
Oh it's been done over and over again on an analytical basis, only to be rebuked as "incorrect interpretation."

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2005, 17:16   #309
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
The guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
-Douglas Adams again

The Bible is The Truth, same as God is Good, by definition.

If you think you've found something that proves it wrong it just shows your limited understanding.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2005, 17:24   #310
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
Hahahahaha!

Great twist on words, there. You are wrong, and god does not exist by definition.

That's what you sound like. And without proof to back your claims up, your statement is just as ignorant and worthless.



Oh, and how do you define anything without reality as a base? the bible is not divine mandate. It was written by flawed people, and even moreover it was a work of fables and morals, not a factual historic account of history of the world. So as far as I'm concerned, it's just as true as Moby Dick or Interview with the Vampire.

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2005, 17:37   #311
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
But that's how it works.

To a believer what he believes in is the base of reality. Everything else is only valid as long as it conforms to it.

(You did realize I was being sarcastic?)
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2005, 17:40   #312
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
No, I did not realize you were being sarcastic, because through my encounters with people of varying levels of faith, I've seen people actually believe tripe like that. Sorry for the misjudgment on my part.

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2005, 19:49   #313
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
The guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
-Douglas Adams again

The Bible is The Truth, same as God is Good, by definition.

If you think you've found something that proves it wrong it just shows your limited understanding.

Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
There is good scholarly atheist biblical criticism (none of which isn't contended)
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
And all that Phyltre and I are saying is that if 1900 years of scholarship and study could definitively find the Bible to be factually incorrect we'd agree with you.
The fact that you guys are just parroting crap that is not related to ideas that I'm actually saying shows your limited understanding of this thread.
*sakes head solemly*
atheist fundamentalism...atheist fundamentalism...


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2005, 20:01   #314
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
Definitively according to what definition?

You won't get definitive proof, demanding that is a sure sign of dogmatic thinking.

(And don't even think of putting up a 'relativism' straw-man again. Dogmatism and relativism are two sides of the same medal, they're both uncritical.)
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2005, 21:56   #315
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=definitively
2 and 3


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2005, 22:05   #316
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma


And not that I'd expect you to understand, but:
Quote:
from this article about the work of William W. Bartley

Relativism, Dogmatism and Critical Preference

In the light of Bartley's ideas we can discern a number of possible attitudes towards positions, notably those of relativism, dogmatism (called 'fideism' in the scholarly literature) and critical preference (or in Bartley's unfortunately clumsy language, 'pancritical rationalism'.) Relativists tend to be disappointed dogmatists who realise that positive confirmation cannot be achieved. From this correct premise they proceed to the false conclusion that all positions are pretty much the same and none can really claim to be better than any other. There is no such thing as the truth, no way to get nearer to the truth and there is no such thing as a rational position.

Fideists are people who believe that knowledge is based on an act of faith. Consequently they embrace whatever they want to regard as the truth. If they stop to think about it they may accept that there is no logical way to establish a positive justification for their beliefs or any others, so they insist that we make our choice regardless of reason: 'Here I stand!'. Most forms of rationalism up to date have, at rock bottom, shared this attitude with the irrationalists and other fundamentalists because they share the same 'true belief' structure of thought.

According to the stance of critical preference no position can be positively justified but it is quite likely that one, (or some) will turn out to be better than others are in the light of critical discussion and tests. This type of rationality holds all its positions and propositions open to criticism and a standard objection to this stance is that it is empty; just holding our positions open to criticism provides no guidance as to what position we should adopt in any particular situation. This criticism misses its mark for two reasons. First, the stance of critical preference is not a position, it is a metacontext and as such it is not directed at solving the kind of problems that are solved by adopting a position on some issue or other. It is concerned with the way that such positions are adopted, criticised, defended and relinquished. Second, Bartley does provide guidance on adopting positions; we may adopt the position that to this moment has stood up to criticism most effectively. Of course this is no help for dogmatists who seek stronger reasons for belief, but that is a problem for them, not for exponents of critical preference.
Edit: Hmm, and you don't seem to know what fundamentalism is either.

Last edited by gaekwad2; 7th February 2005 at 22:34.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2005, 10:26   #317
Avion
Major Dude
 
Avion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 870
"I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil."
-Albert Einstein


If someone does something bad and you punish him, he/she will never technically know that what he did was wrong. He'll just know that people will hurt him again if he does it. But he won't actually conceive the notion that it's actually bad and immoral to do.

If someone does something good and you reward them, he/she will never technically know that what he/she did was good. He'll just know that people will reward him again if he does it. But he won't actually conceive the notion that it's actually good and moral to do.

All the Bible has ever done from the old testament to the new is reward and punish, these are not morals they are a form of control.

But then again How would you make more people believe what you want them to believe if you didn't use punishment and fear?

Quote:
The difference between morals and ethics is essentially one of action. Ethics is defined as "the science of morals." It is so defined because morals have no science - i.e. morality cannot be proven to be "good" by either logic or evidence. The word "good" itself is problematical, since objective values do not actually exist. But, shelving that rather complex issue, a moral principle is something considered to be good in itself; the goodness of an ethical principle, on the other hand, depends on its effects."

- Copyright ©1998 Kevin Baldeosingh
Ethics are proven or statistically shown by science to be the most beneficial or logical moral that everyone has agreed on. Once a moral has been proven to be of fact or have credibility to the rest of the world that they do work statistically for the majority, they by default fall under ethics. Another reason why Church and state must always be separate.


A grade 6 student of today has a higher IQ and comprehension of the world then Jesus did. I refuse to put my life and the life of the people I love in the hands of someone who is significantly less intelligent then I am by historical fact.


When Religion ruled the world
They called it the dark ages
The Middle ages was a true image of what it's like when Christianity rules a government. People were slaves, killed and controlled, there was no logic, fairness, or diversity in personality or race and there was no peace or happiness. And this was after Jesus.
Christianity in the past has spawned Hitler, KKK, Holy Wars, and every single war every F'n battle any kingdom had in the middle ages. and most recently George Bush.
Every major war has been based on Religion or someone’s' individual Morals and nothing else.
I think the only true political war that can be justified by science will probably be by a bunch of machines lol

in a CNN presents it was stated by historical fact that the Bible was written 20yrs after Jesus was crucified, Jesus had a Prostitute for a wife/girlfriend(mary*not his mother*) and said he casted her 7 demons away so that it was alright that he was with her now, wtf!?!
And it was also mentioned that the Bible was actually written as a mere story to inspire those, who were in a great depression at the time, to keep working hard including slaves, for people to be able to carry on with their lives, and that there was no intention of it being a religion.

Read the Book the "The Chrysalids" by John Wyndham and you'll have a better understanding of how far the worlds misinterpretation of mere myths and legends and actual facts can get.

I'm saying all this to prove my point that religion especially Christianity is a bunch of crap. Quit trying to defend something that can't be defended.

The Bush thing was hilarious. *copies and pastes in MS Word*

But I'm not some pissed off prick lol
If I have made any clear errors, then I am open to debate. And yes, I use to be a Christian.

formely known as knightfairy > Theodis > DJ Theodis

Last edited by Avion; 9th February 2005 at 10:41.
Avion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2005, 16:21   #318
van der graaf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 130
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DJ Theodis
[B]"I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil."
-Albert Einstein


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

I fucking hate selective quoting. Also, you all are taking a historically Western defined view of Judeo-Christianity. Despite your ethnocentirc myopia, it is and will always be originally an Eastern Semitic thought system, not Indo-European. It is amazing you buy into a missapropriation and bastardization of the very tenets by quoting and listeneing to the arguments of people who have no idea or understanding of the complex differences in worldviews and ontological systems at work.
It is as if someone says I am going to hit you and kill in the name of Gandhi, and you then fault Gandhi and his teachings. Rip on Chrisitianity and Judaism all you want, but know what the fuck you are talking about. Same goes to the people defending it, there are IDEAS there that have an original meaning, not some open ended discussion. Love them or hate them, i don't give shiite, just be accurate historically, geographically, philosophically, linguistically, culturally, etc.

van der graaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2005, 21:07   #319
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma
You again are claiming, by that very definition, that I don't not think that any criticism of Bible holds water. That is not true, and I am now stating this for the third time.

What you are confused with, is that I refuse to use "evilbible.com" written by an annonymous author, using quotations from the "King Jimmy", as a credible source for Biblical critique.

Thare are scholarly ways to approach the Bible and other first century documents (in the case of the NT). I am attending an institute of higher learning studying the Bible and these techniques.

If you want to get serious about the Bible, get serious about your methods. If you want to blow this whole thing off as some form of an irrational, pick and choose, self-brainwashing that's been around for 2000 years, continue your current methods; just don't expect me to take you seriously.
My example about Immanuel is a good reason why I don't.

Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
Edit: Hmm, and you don't seem to know what fundamentalism is either. [/B]
This is an attempt at making our arguement credible, but the fact that freaking Wikipedia can't even decide what fundamentalism is, that doesn't help us out much, does it?

and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fu...fundamentalism
would be an example of what I was talking about.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2005, 21:59   #320
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
You said yourself that the only criticism you'd accept is one that would be definitive.

And strangely your definition of definitive is the same as Wikipedia's definition of Dogma, weird huh?

Quote:
and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fu...fundamentalism would be an example of what I was talking about.
This?
Quote:
I seem to be unable to retrace this discussion: What argument was given to support that fundamentalism is not necessarily a religious phenomenon?
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump