 |
|
|
|
|
October 1st, 2013
09:52 AM ET
Study: American Jews losing their religionBy Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-editor [twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN'] (CNN) - The number of nonreligious Jews is rising in the United States, with more than one in five saying they are not affiliated with any faith, according to a new survey. While similar trends affect almost every American religion, Jewish leaders say the new survey spotlights several unique obstacles for the future of their faith. According to the survey, conducted by Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project, non-religious Jews are less likely to care deeply about Israel, donate to Jewish charities, marry Jewish spouses and join Jewish organizations. Pew says their study sought to explore the question, "What does being Jewish in America mean today?" The answer is quite complicated. Just 15% of American Jews say that being Jewish is mainly a religious matter, according to Pew's survey. By contrast, more than six in 10 say Jewishness is about culture, ancestry and identity. The most essential parts of being Jewish, according to American Jews, are remembering the Holocaust (73%), leading an ethical life (69%) and working for social justice and peace (56%). Almost as many American Jews say that having good sense of humor (42%) is as important to their Jewish identity as caring about Israel (43%). Even among religious Jews, most say it's not necessary to believe in God to be Jewish, and less than one in three say religion is very important to their lives. Nearly all American Jews - religious and secular - say they are proud to be Jewish. "The fact that many Jews tell us that religion is not particularly important to them doesn't mean that being Jewish is not important to them," said Greg Smith, director of religious surveys for the Pew Research Center. The most essential parts of being Jewish, according to the survey, are remembering the Holocaust (73%), leading an ethical life (69%) and working for social justice and peace (56%). Overall, the majority of Jews (78%) call themselves religious, but the survey showed much lower rates of religious affiliation among millennials, one of several trends that trouble Jewish leaders. Nearly a third of American Jews born after 2000 answered "none" when asked about their religious affiliation, suggesting that Jewish "nones" are not only a large group, they're growing, Smith said. The rise of Jewish "nones" tracks with wider trends in the American population, where about a third of millennials don't affiliate with organized religion.
The nonpartisan Pew Research Center says its survey is the most comprehensive since the National Jewish Population Survey in 2000-2001. Pew surveyed 3,475 Jews from across the country from February 20 to June 13, with a margin of error for the full sample of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The study declines to offer a definitive estimate of the size of the American Jewish population, a matter of heated debate in recent years. Instead, Pew offered several tallies of American Jews, depending on different definitions of Jewish identity. Approximately 4.2 million American adults - 1.8% of the overall population - identify as Jewish by religion. In the 1950s, the percentage of religious Jews in the United States was nearly twice as high, according to Pew. Meanwhile, about 1.2 million adult Americans now identify as secular or cultural Jews - they were raised Jewish, had a Jewish parent and still consider themselves Jewish, even though they don't practice the religion, according to Pew. Secular Jews are much more likely to marry outside the faith, according to Pew, a trend that has worried Jewish leaders in recent years. Nearly 60% of American Jews who have married since 2000 have a non-Jewish spouse, according to Pew. Intermarried Jews, like secular Jews, are much less likely to raise their children in the Jewish faith and have weaker ties to the Jewish community, says Pew's report. But, in a silver lining for Jewish leaders, intermarriage rates have leveled off, Smith said, holding steady at 60% since the mid-1990s. Jane Eisner, editor-in-chief of the Jewish Daily Forward, said she is not surprised that the study found relatively low interest in Jewish religious beliefs. "We are a people very much defined by what we do, rather than what we believe," she said. But Eisner said she is concerned that millennials are less likely to donate to Jewish charities, care strongly about Israel or belong to Jewish groups. "It's great that these non-religious Jews feel pride in being Jewish," Eisner said. "What worries me is their tenuous ties to the community."
Next entry »5 questions for NBA star Jeremy Lin
« Previous entryPopes John XXIII and John Paul II to be declared saints in April
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
I met a man today who survived not one, but two deadly cancers. He told me how he put all his faith in God and survived with the help of his excellent doctors. I am glad he survived, he is lucky, but why did God save him and not another? Is it God's plan? If it is God's plan, then why did this man need doctors?
This is what Pastor Rick said when he lost his son,
"I'd rather have all my questions unanswered and walk with God than not walk with God and have all my questions answered. But there is a struggle. And finally, I just have to surrender, so I'm not going to know. I'm not going to know all these answers."
Not that it answers your question, but people of faith that are in pain have found that God is real and is near to them even in their deepest pain.
Drew Parkins, imagining a God may comfort you, but it is not reality.
" imagining a God may comfort you, but it is not reality"
but isn't that what the man you met told you?(that he survived by the grace of God and help from doctors.)
Drew: Is it the faith, or is it the god?
People all over have faith.
The experiences are likely very similar
Yes, that is what he thinks. The delusion seems to help him.
How did you determine he was deluded and not reporting a genuine experience to you?
You think it is a delusion but for that man it is REAL. Many people have felt the healing hand of God and feel close to God, it is not a delusion, it is real.
Because there are no facts to support his claim Bill.
Drew, I disagree.
What about the facts that he did, in fact, place his faith in God and was subsequently healed of two cancers. Aren't those facts?
drew....those of other belief systems have had the same experience. are theirs real too?
You can never learn to swim, unless you are in the waters. Likewise, you will never know the love of God, till you learnt to trust and have faith in Him.
Bill, it is a fact that he put his faith in what he believes is a god, yes. It is not a fact that it had anything to do with the outcome of his illness.
"those of other belief systems have had the same experience. are theirs real too?"
-There is God and god, those experiences are probably real but they are not of God.
Placebo effect, thinking that the sugar pill that your doctor told you was good medicine can make someone feel better, a visit from a friend or loved one can lift ones mood, so why wouldn't some ones belief in an imaginary friend/helper not do the same. It is not the healing hand of a mythical god, just the human mind and immune system at work.
drew: who are you to make that call?
Here is a summary of what Drew has said that makes any sense:
Ah Drew, you're just spewing the ol' "ya gotta believe to believe" crap! You don't have a single bit of objective, factual, independent or verifiable evidence to support your insanity. Go ahead, prove me wrong, but be aware that no one has been successful yet.
Apple, you can't prove that his faith had no effect on his outcome. Are you aware that some cancers go into remission without any medical intervention at all and that some cancers are not responsive to any medical intervention. Are we to deduce then that medical intervention is not relevant to cancer survival? Of course not. Likewise, I think you are being very illogical when you believe that faith has nothing to do with something just because you don't want to believe it, despite the testimony of an otherwise honest witness. I just think if you're going to be a thinking person, you should at least not be blinded by your own presuppositions.
Bill, I disagree. There is no God, hence God did not help. That is not to say that biofeedback / placebo effect don't help sometimes.
"Who are you to make the call"
Neither you nor I get to make a call by debating.
God is who He is.(period)
"single bit of objective, factual, independent or verifiable evidence to support your insanity. "
-If you are looking for evidence as in a wave from the sky, then you have to seek that evidence directly from God. I will not be able to provide that kind of evidence to you.
Every Christian has evidence but it is not in the form of , here look, 'God and I' picture or video. It is their personal testimony.
Drew you are incorrect. Will you answer my original question from my original post?
I guess, Apple, Bill sees you as a positive (hard) atheist as opposed to a more mainstream agnostic atheist. Although I believe it's highly unlikely that there is an Abrahamic God and equally unlikely that people are cured via faith (at least by the object of their faith), I would not claim to have any proof of my position. (Although I do put the burden of proof on the believer to demonstrate evidence for their claims.) And maybe that's, in fact, your position.
Nonsense, Drew. You implied that yours was more real than others.
How do you determine that?
And another believer concedes that they have no real evidence to support their delusions. Yet they continue to delude themselves. . .
Are you talking about this?
"If it is God's plan, then why did this man need doctors?"
–We all know that with the best doctors and treatment , cancer is still deadly. The man you met clearly feels that it was God's grace along with medical help that cured him. You on the other hand are skeptical about that claim, but that in no way disproves the man's claim.
Drew, No experiments have shown a causal link between prayer and anything including an unexpectedly good prognosis. If god has that power why is it so selective? Why doesn't it regrow amputated limbs or better still avoid the amputation?
Drew. You implied that yours was more real than others.
How do you determine that?
Drew
So, "Ignorance is Bliss", is that what you're saying?
What evidence does this man or anyone else have for any god? None.
What evidence does this man or anyone else have to support that an unproven god had anything to do with his cure? None.
Given no evidence for a god or a god induced cure, it is likely the man is delusional, lying or both.
Well, no Christians even tried to answer the actual questions I posed. "... why did God save him and not another? Is it God's plan? If it is God's plan, then why did this man need doctors?"
If a person would give the answer "I don't know", would you accept it simply as that? Or would try to apply it to prove something else not discussed yet?
I assume from your question you are trying to avoid further discussion. What conversation or questions are you trying to avoid? Basic questions about the very existence of any god, perhaps?
"I don't know" is not only an acceptable answer but also the correct answer when it is the truth. For example, when someone asks how life or the universe came to be, or if any gods might exist that have not already been proved not to exist.
@HotAirAce- "I assume from your question you are trying to avoid further discussion. What conversation or questions are you trying to avoid? Basic questions about the very existence of any god, perhaps?"
Guess you missed the last part of my comment completely. See, you can't just accept an answer unless it's one that you can twist to serve your own goals. What are you..a Tea Partier?
I didn't miss a thing. I don't think you want to face the real questions about your delusions. You are in denial.
@HotAirAce- I have faced all "real" questions that are relevant to the topic at hand.
What am I in denail over? Are you guessing again?
The origins of your beliefs. . .
I am not in denail over the origins of any of my beliefs.
It's interesting that we can turn up consistent findings that point to volcanic events, impacts, even significant floods over large and small areas, dating back to periods between the present day and millions of years ago. We can't seem to find anything to show that Christianity took from Horus
Atleast you are ok dealing in time periods of millions of years. I'm fine with that
So?
If you don't like Horus, try Zarathustra or Hercules or Dionysus or Buddha or Krishna or Odysseus or Romulus or Glycon or Attis.......
Try any you like, still no proof that Christianity took from ANY of them.
Perhaps it is not proof, but the evidence would suggest it is the same old story being handed down again and again. I accept that as common sense.
Drawing conclusions based on your senses rather than empirical evidence Apple? Tsk Tsk, be careful, you're closer to a revelation than you might think.
Bill, when some better explanation comes along I will look at it.
Proof is hard to come by for many things.
But it's pretty obvious that many saw the similarities, otherwise why would the early apologists feel so compelled to try to dismiss them with such lame excuses such as "plagiarism by anticipation" (Justin Martyr and others). They claimed that the devil had written into history "false" stories to occur before the "real" gospels to confuse believers. Please.
Perhaps more importantly, let's see about these 500 – got any names? Did they write anything to add to Paul's claims?
Amazing! Apple turns out to be a believer after all! He is saying "I will believe the conclusions I have drawn without evidence until more evidence is known" Welcome to fundamentalism my boy!
@Apple Bush- "but the evidence would suggest"
That's just it...there is no support of the a s sertion that Christianity took from other religions. Beyond the fact there is nothing showing that early Christians took from any other religions, it goes against everything the Jewish person from that time period would do. To imply that a Jewish person would pruprosly take a pagan religion and infuse it into their religion makes no sense.
"when some better explanation comes along I will look at it."
Easy, they didn't take anything from any other religion. That's the better explanation.
@Doris- "Proof is hard to come by for many things."
True enough. That's why it's better to side on caution by not making positive claims.
"But it's pretty obvious that many saw the similarities,"
No, there are none that would say that one took from another.
"the early apologists"
I don't claim to know why they felt compelled to do what they did. I would guess they were quite ignorant about the religions outside of their own to make an educated guess on anything. What stands is that those who say Christianity took from Horus or others have NEVER been able to prove their positive claim.
I just wait for these people that put so much into similarities to say that Auks and Penguins were closely related and that the Aztecs took the idea for the pyramids from the Egyptians.
Lets all watch Billy spin and twist the words of others in an attempt to look clever.
What christianity might have stolen from other cults is not relevant given the basic fact that there is no evidence (none!) for any god or for a divine desert dweller known as jesus.
Bezalel
Yes, there is no direct proof; however, when one culture is intermingling and intermarrying and living beside and within and around another, and then fifty years later and one hundred years later, their religions show signs of evolving to be more similar to each other rather than less similar, it's not a huge leap to understand the logical inference.
Philosophies evolve. Just because some adherents of a particular religion wishes that the philosophy did not evolve nor adapt according to competing philosophies in that area and time period, does not mean that it does not happen. It does.
There is more evidence for the transfer of religious/philosophical beliefs between cultures and philosophies than there is for any proposed "god" type character.
HotAirAce- "divine desert dweller known as jesus."
Perhaps no evidence of the divine but most historians have absolutely no problem with considering Jesus a historical figure.
@Cpt. Obvious- "Yes, there is no direct proof;"
Thank you.
"when one culture is intermingling and intermarrying and living beside and within and around another,..."
That's a nice theory but by the very nature of the Jewish people, they rejected outside influence in nearly all forms. That's why they had so many revolts against the Greeks and Romans. They would not accept their influences.
"There is more evidence for the transfer of religious/philosophical beliefs between.."
Perhaps but it is not very evident from a Judeo-Christian cultural background.
Jesus was certainly a historical event comprised of about 200 or so weird, minor rabbis or jewish rabble rousers with names like "Yoshua," "Hosee/Hosea," "Yeshua," and others who went around claiming to have done miracles in the next town over last week and claiming to be the messiah or whatever.
@Cpt. Obvious- got any proof to back up that a s sertion? I bet you don't.
This is simple. We know that the other myths predate Jesus because there are records and other archaeological evidence. We know that the gentile world that produced the gospels had access to those myths. It's a far more plausible theory that they borrowed from the ancient myths than that Jesus's life just happened to mirror the older myths, as CS Lewis weakly argued.
Nope, I don't have any proof. I believe it based on the evidence I have reviewed.
@Ben- "This is simple."
Doubtful.
"We know that the other myths predate Jesus because there are records and other archaeological evidence."
Yes, just like their was many species of humans prior to ours but does that mean we are descended from all of them?
"We know that the gentile world that produced the gospels had access to those myths."
Did the gentile world produce the gospels? Gospels like Mark go out of their way to explain Jewish traditions. A Gentile writer wouldn't go to such lengths but a Jewish writer that is writing to non-Jews would. It is more likely that the beginnings of Christianity is firmly entrenched in the Jewish culture.
"It's a far more plausible theory that they borrowed from the ancient myths than that Jesus's life just happened to mirror the older myths, as CS Lewis weakly argued."
Then it should far more plausible to offer up some proof of this. No offense but who cares what Lewis thought.
So far NO ONE has offered up any proof. I had thought by now someone would have foolishly copy/paste something from the net as proof but they haven't. Kudos for all of you on that because you would have been shut down quite quickly.
@Cpt. Obvious- "I believe it based on the evidence I have reviewed."
Evidence that I am sure is lacking in facts.
And what about this part of my post, Bezalel:
"Perhaps more importantly, let's see about these 500 – got any names? Did they write anything to add to Paul's claims?"
where I prefaced it with "Perhaps more importantly,".
you know, the alleged "witnesses". ??
Doris- "Perhaps more importantly, let's see about these 500 – got any names? Did they write anything to add to Paul's claims?"
Since the background of the 500 were never given, one should assume they were of the common population. Under that thinking it is fully possible that no one could read or write out of that crowd. Even if a few could, private letters of commoners from the 1st century rarely exist...true?
Let me translate B's bullsh!t – "I don't have any verifiable facts so please just believe me, just like everyone else has done for centuries."
I'm curious. If someone is trying to represent the gospels as an inerrant transmission from 2000 years ago, shouldn't that person have to come up with the provenance of the gospels? You can't turn that on its head and say "prove to me that it is not as I say." If there are suspicious resemblances between the gospels and other myths, isn't it up to you to show that they've nothing to do with one another if you want to reject any implications of that?
HotAirAce seems to be a wee bit confused over facts and wanting to be correct in his thinking. It happens a lot to people with large egos and little knowledge. Let me educate him...
Fact: The 500 listed were not identified other than by the number of their group.
Fact: Common everyday people of the 1st century in the Near east could not read or write.
Fact: Personal letters written by the minority of commoners that could read or write do not survive 2,000 years.
Taking Occam's razor to the obvious facts, it is most likely that the crowd mentioned were made up of common people that could not read or write. If those that could read or write did write anything, the odds of any of their letters existing to the present day or even beyond their own lifetimes is highly unlikely.
Sorry all your hot air can't blow the facts away like you wish but that's reality for you.
Or the event never happened and there never were 500 witnesses. . .
@Tom, Tom, the Other One
I think we need to break this down a bit.
"If someone is trying to represent the gospels as an inerrant transmission.."
Not all christians are literalists though. Otherwise....yes, one could have an issue with it.
To me this gets to the core of the matter. Now who did Paul discuss the 500 with? I think one person might have been Jesus' brother James. But did James write about it?
No, because that would be falling under "proving a negative". How can someone prove that Christianity did not take from those myths? It falls on the people that made the positive claim, "Christianity took from other religions" to back up their position. Just like it's up to thos that say, "There is a God" to back up their position, while the atheist does not have to prove there is no God.
Well, there's certainly no need to discuss it if you're so sure. Cheers.
HotAirAce- "Or the event never happened and there never were 500 witnesses. . ."
Another possibility.
@Doris- "Now who did Paul discuss the 500 with?"
Unknown.
"I think one person might have been Jesus' brother James. But did James write about it?"
Not in the texts available.
I might agree with you, Bez, if the accusations were something only current. But what we see is the accusations all the way back to the beginnings of Christianity. As I said before we see even recorded from the early apologists these claims.
Good night everyone, thanks for an interesting evening. Perhaps I can pick this up tomorrow with you all again.
Bezalel is absolutely correct. There is no need for proof or reasoning if you, yourself, personally are convinced that you are correct.
And since atheism is mere disbelief in any gods, no, there is no need for an atheist to prove or demonstrate anything at all. The theist who is making a claim must provide whatever s/he may in order to convince the prospective proselyte. Obviously, there's no proof of the existence of any gods, or we would know god's will with similar certainly to math or chemistry which permit knowledge by proof of application. Since there is no proof of any gods, disbelief (atheism) is the only logical choice for an honest evaluator of the objectively provable data available on the topic.
Good night. And regarding James, I think Paul certainly met with James where one would have expected the subject to come up, but as you said we don't seem to have any output from that.
I believe the good Captain has nailed it!
Bezalel
"Yes, just like their was many species of humans prior to ours but does that mean we are descended from all of them?"
What does that have to do with this? These are stories that preexisted that we are talking about, not groups of people descending. However, we do know that we are descended from one group, so we can't say that our species just popped out of nowhere and isn't related to any prior species, can we? Various aspects of the Jesus story preexisted, or were at least common themes within the mythologies of peoples during Jesus's time. It's like copyright law. Would you accept some claim by a the lady who wrote the Twilight books that she "invented" vampires and werewolves completely out of here imagination, or do you just assume that she borrowed from the previous stories?
"We know that the gentile world that produced the gospels had access to those myths."
The gospel writers were living in a gentile world, the larger Roman Empire. They had contact with these other myths, and many of their audience would have known them as well as you know your bible stories.
Try Lord Raglan's The Hero, A Study in Tradition, Myth and Drama In it he outlined 22 common traits of god-heroes. They are:
1. The hero's mother is a royal virgin;
2. His father is a king, and
3. Often a near relative of his mother, but
4. The circu mstances of his conception are unusual, and
5. He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
6. At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grandfather, to kill him, but
7. He is spirited away, and
8. Reared by foster parents in a far country.
9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom.
11. After a victory over the king, and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,
12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor, and
13. Becomes king.
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully, and
15. Prescribes laws, but
16. Later loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and
17. Is driven from the throne and city, after which
18. He meets a mysterious death,
19. Often at the top of a hill.
20. His children, if any, do not succeed him.
21. His body is not buried, but nevertheless
22. He has one or more holy sepulchers.
He scored several heroes according to his profile, and he found:
Oedipus 21, Theseus 20, Romulus 18, Heracles 17, Perseus 18, Jason 15, Bellerophon 16, Pelops 13, Asclepius 12, Dionysus 19, Apollo 11, Zeus 15, Joseph 12, Moses 20, Elijah 9, Watu Gunung 18, Nyikang 14, Sigurd or Siegfried 11, Llew Llawgyffes 17, King Arthur 19, and Robin Hood 13.
Where would you score Jesus?
Proof of mythological text? There is archaeological proof of things like the similarity between Isis and the Virgin Mary, and the textual content of mythic systems like that of Mithras is actually preserved by the Church in it's extensive dialogue regarding this very problem. Why would the Church Fathers want to invent similarities between their system and pagan ones? If anything, one would be more inclined to suspect that these Fathers would have been more motivated to water down the similarities, in which case we might suspect that there was a stronger link at one time.
Bezalel,
"Fact: Common everyday people of the 1st century in the Near east could not read or write.
Fact: Personal letters written by the minority of commoners that could read or write do not survive 2,000 years.
Taking Occam's razor to the obvious facts, it is most likely that the crowd mentioned were made up of common people that could not read or write. If those that could read or write did write anything, the odds of any of their letters existing to the present day or even beyond their own lifetimes is highly unlikely."
Interesting, I cited those very facts recently in a discussion with a believer who alleged that because there were no writings countering what Paul claimed about the "500" and other claims of his (and the other early evangelists' claims) that this is proof that their claims were true.
Also, at the risk of sound like a conspiracy theorist, by the 4th or 5th century the Church was pretty much in control about which old writings that would have been preserved.
@Cpt. Obvious- "There is no need for proof or reasoning if you, yourself, personally are convinced that you are correct."
I do not believe I said that.
"And since atheism is mere disbelief in any gods, no, there is no need for an atheist to prove or demonstrate anything at all."
That would be incorrect. If an atheist is making a positive claim that Christianity took from other religions, it does fall on them to prove their position. They are to held accountable as any religion person claiming God exists.
"objectively provable data available on the topic."
There is no objective position on the topic of spirituality.
@Doris- Oh they probably did know one another and probably discussed many things. Doesn't mean that a specific topic would have ever made it into a letter.
A great deal of the NT was written around the time of the Temple (the very center of Judaism) was destroyed but that event never made it into any of the texts.
@Ben= "Various aspects of the Jesus story preexisted, or were at least common themes..."
Common themes does not equal plagiarism.
"Would you accept some claim by a the lady who wrote the Twilight books that she "invented" vampires and werewolves completely out of here imagination, or do you just assume that she borrowed from the previous stories?"
Irrelevant, she admitted to the existence of vampire stories before her and was therefor influenced by them. That's all I am asking for..proof that Christianty took from other religions. So far, no one has been able to prove it.
"The gospel writers were living in a gentile world, the larger Roman Empire. They had contact with these other myths, and many of their audience would have known them as well as you know your bible stories."
And as I have said before, the Jewish culture was very xenophobic. They rejected the Greek/Roman culture to the point that they revolted numerous times. It makes little sense that they would purposely inject other faiths into their own on purpose.
"Try Lord Raglan's The Hero, A Study in Tradition, Myth and Drama"
I've seen this copy/pasted many time on here and found it wanting every single time. The one factor that he and you seem to miss is that Jesus is considered an historical figure.
"There is archaeological proof of things like the similarity between Isis and the Virgin Mary"
Absolutely incorrect. There is no similarity. Isis was a Goddess, Mary was not. Mary was called a virgin in the text and Isis was not.
"Why would the Church Fathers want to invent similarities between their system and pagan ones?"
They didn't.
You are brilliant Bill.
Now that we've established that you are a believing creature, all we have to do is work on your orthodoxy.
We believe that you are a rectal orifice, there is a special room in the house for your relief, no dogma required.
Bill, I don't even believe with any real certainty that I exist. You have a lot of work to do with me slugger.
'I recommend to you simplicity, purity of intention, and practical examen on this virtue; mark well that, in order to labor for the glory of God, our soul must be free and detached from all things, with God alone in view.'
St. Paul of the Cross
Actually that level of humility will serve you. It is much easier for Christ to fill an empty broken vessel than one that is full of itself as Billy Games demonstrates.
Humans are not spiritual "vessels," so there's you problem.
Thanks Bill. Most people just think I am an asshole. Now I am going to unverify your existence.
'How many of you say: I should like to see His face, His garments, His shoes. You do see Him, you touch Him, you eat Him. He gives Himself to you, not only that you may see Him, but also to be your food and nourishment.'
St. John Chrysostom
He makes Himself present to you in the person of your wife who didn't leave you, in your children who accept you with love and forgiveness, in the voices encouraging you to remain sober and those who admire your talents. These loved ones, who love you are the real and present light of Christ. It is a courageous and honorable act to set yourself aside, set your self absorbed self image aside and go to them in love, asking forgiveness and offering forgiveness where it is needed. This is the work for which Christ commissioned us. To reach the lost, the lonely, the hurting and the abandoned and they are right in our own homes most of the time.
Oh yeah, and go get yourself baptized
Billy my boy, I just do what I do and try to do what's right. End of story. No god.
Bill, my oldest daughter is baptized, but not my youngest. I do that just to piss off my wife's catholic family. They are horrified lol.
Jesus was Jewish. I believe it is only a matter of time before Jews begin to identify with their Jewish Messiah. When this happens en mass, the world will be turned right side up (literally).
Do you know what literally means?
As opposed to figuratively?
Unlikely.
In and around Chrit's lifetime, there there were many claimaints to the Messiah role like Simon of Peraea, Athronges, Menahem ben Judah, Vespasian, Simon bar Kokhba, etc. ad nauseum.
Their followers all claimed that these people fulfilled the messanic prophecies.
"Jews for Jesus" will remain a small sect.
Jesus fulfilled all of the Old Testament prophecies dealing with the Messiah. It's only a matter of time before more Jews study up on the life of Christ and Old testament Messianic prophecies that the lights come on.
aallen333
Nope, he didn't. He did not
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world—on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
Also, if Christians claim that God himself was Jesus's father, then he fails the requirement that the Messiah be descended from David on his father's side. The Messiah would also lead Israel to full Torah observance, something that Jesus was pretty liberal about.
Most of the prophecies that Christians point to are also misinterpreted. There was no "Virgin birth" predicted, and Isaiah 53 refers to Israel as a single people, not an individual. All you have to do is read the previous chapter to see that clearly. Psalm 22:17 is also mistranslated, it should read more like "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet", which is nothing like "They pierced my hands and feet."
There's also that whole "Cursed is he who hangs upon a tree" thing. Paul tried to spin that, but it still disqualifies Jesus from being any kind of Jewish messiah. A Christian one, maybe, but not the Jewish one.
@Ben You are selectively picking Old Testament prophecies that Christ will fulfill when He returns in the second coming. I am referring to the prophecies He was supposed to fulfill in His first coming which you seem to have chosen to ignore.
There is no "second coming" for a Jewish messiah. The Jewish messiah is just an ordinary man, and he was always expected to fulfill all messianic expectations within his single lifetime. Point to me where it says in the OT that the messiah would be divine and need to finish his work in a second lifetime! Those are Christian inventions developed to make Jesus into some kind of messiah, nothing more.
@Ben "I will proclaim the Lord’s decree: He said to me, “You are my SON; today I have become your father. Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will break them with a rod of iron; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.” Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and celebrate his rule with trembling. Kiss HIS SON, or he will be angry and your way will lead to your destruction,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him. (Psalm 7-12)
Your THRONE, O GOD, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy. (Psalm 45:6-7)
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88GTUXvp-50&w=640&h=390]
In case anyone cares to read...
All forms of false worship began in Genesis 10:1-11:1-9 at the Tower of Babel… The city of Babylon was founded by Nimrod, the great-grandson of Noah: (NoahHamCushNimrod, Genesis 10:1-8). There, he established false worship in the form of polytheism that corrupted his subjects’ original faith in the God in Genesis.
Nimrod’s wife was named Semiramis, and because Nimrod founded all of these false religions, she was deified, and became the high priestess of them all. The Tower that they built there in Babel was the first idol ever formed, and it became the object of men's worship: the very point of their pride. From there spawned a complex system of weird, strange religions, many of which are still continually practiced in our world today. All of these false cults we now know collectively as the Babylonian Mystery Religions. (Revelation 17:5)
The deified Semiramis became known in Assyria and Nineveh as Ishtar. In Phoenicia she was called Ashteroth, in Egypt, Isis, in Greece, Aphrodite and in Rome she was called Venus. (The different names due to God separating the languages there at Babel) According to their beliefs, Semiramis was born of a fish-goddess and raised by doves; she was therefore given the status of virgin birth. Later, Nimrod was killed and she being pregnant with his child at the time, later gave birth to a son and named him Tammuz, but since her husband was dead, she said that he had no human father and that he was instead implanted by a sunbeam – this was an effort to fulfill the “seed” prophecy in Genesis. (Genesis 3:15) Thus, Tammuz was virgin born, and Semiramis was a perpetual virgin.
When Tammuz was grown, he was attacked and killed by a wild boar, and Semiramis went into deep mourning for 40 days; she prayed and wept and denied herself, and on the 40th day, Tammuz arose from the dead. This 40 day period of fasting and mourning for Tammuz later became known as Lent. (“Lent” comes from the Old English word “lencten,” and “lengten” which literally means to lengthen, referring to the spring season and the lengthening of the daylight hours) and was so named due to the season that the ritual mourning took place.
When God scattered all of the people from Babel by confusing all of their languages, (Genesis 11:1-9) they took this false worship with them, which is why versions of it can be found all over the world. It stayed in Rome until Christianity finally reached there and the two systems were mixed.
The form of religion there in Rome would eventually become a combination of pagan Babylonian cultism and the New Testament. In order to conciliate the pagans and to draw them into nominal Christianity, the Roman church amalgamated the festivals of Christianity with pagan festivals; and since the church celebrated the resurrection around April and May, and the pagan Lent was celebrated in May or June in Egypt, and in April in Britain, it fit well with the resurrection; and so they brought it together to marry the pagans with the church; and the Council of Orillia in 519 AD decreed that Lent should solemnly be attached to the resurrection and kept before its celebration.
Because Lent originates from the pagan practice of the 40 days of weeping and self-denial for the resurrection of Tammuz, it has absolutely no connection with Jesus Christ or the New Testament whatsoever. In Ezekiel 8:13-14, we see this practice where women are weeping for Tammuz, and it is called an abomination to the LORD.
In this story we have the basis of all false religions all over the world. Tammuz went by many names after all of the languages were introduced; in Samaria, he was known as Gilgamesh, in Phoenicia, his name was Baal, in Egypt, Osiris, in Greece, Eros, (also Adonis), in Rome, Cupid. It's all the same mother/child cult that's been going on through the systems of religion since Genesis 10. And, strangely enough, when God brought the reality of Mary and Jesus, the whole pagan system got tangled up in it and produced what we now know as Roman Catholicism.
And that is wy "nimrod" is an insult.
All religions are creations of the human mind.
more conjecture, larry
Larry, I assume you will be providing your definitive evidence for the existence of any god and the validity of The Babble. Please don't disappoint.
Looks like we're going to be disappointed. . .
Sorry to have to break it to you guys, but I have it on very good authority that Genesis 1 is true. The entire universe and all life created in six literal 24 hour days. Peace.
And plants can grow in pitch black darkness.
Go read it, God said let there be light.
Yes of course, but not sun light. The sun came later.
The only thing that makes sense about Genesis is that it doesn't make sense, because ignorant men wrote it.
Wait ... what day were plants created and what day was the sun created?
Third (I think?)
Then later he makes stars (our sun included)
Answer ... plants on Day 3, Sun on Day 4. So ... the plants won't have survived 24 hours? Silliness.
Topher are you really going to go with that answer? I will give you one more chance.....
Of course, dude.
Topher, haggling over which day something allegedly happened in The Babble is about the same as haggling over some arcane rule in Dungeons and Dragons. Unless you can provide definitive, objective, factual, verifiable and independent evidence for your god and the veracity of The Babble, you are just hacking over rules to the world's oldest fantasy role playing game, with heavy emphasis on fantasy and game. Given the passion you and many believers have for this unproven story, you must be mentally ill, a liar or both. I'm going with both, but am open to real evidence to the contrary.
Topher, read the Bible. The order of events is ridiculous.
Apple Bush
"Topher, read the Bible. The order of events is ridiculous."
I read it every day. I don't think they're ridiculous.
It's virtually impossible to get any logical answers from Topher.
What about those blind fish with eyes, Topher?
Topher How many people could have been at the tower of babel you left for a time and did not answer the question?
OKfine
"Topher How many people could have been at the tower of babel you left for a time and did not answer the question?"
I'd have to look in the Bible and see what it gives for a timeline and I don't have one in front of me at the moment.
Topher. You posted an answer from answersingenesis by some creationist expert with a formula indicating the growth in population. that worked out to 256 people at babel, are you now backing down for something you posted earlier?
Topher says he reads the bible every day. Now I'm beginning to understand his ignorance.
OKfine
"You posted an answer from answersingenesis by some creationist expert with a formula indicating the growth in population. that worked out to 256 people at babel, are you now backing down for something you posted earlier?"
No, I forgot about it talking about Babel. I'll go read it again.
OKfine
I'm looking at that article again and not seeing where it states a timetable for Babel. If you see it or know of a verse, let me know.
Interestingly, that same article goes on to explain what that same population growth would look like if the age of the earth was old ...
"Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure—a one followed by 100 zeros; that is
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000.
This figure is truly unimaginable, for it is billons of times greater than the number of atoms that are in the entire universe! Such a calculation makes nonsense of the claim that humans have been on earth for tens of thousands of years."
Godless Vagabond
The growth of a population is limited by the ability of the environment to support the population increase. There is no fixed, repeatable "doubling period." Growth rate may well be negative during hard times.
That's why the story also notes, " In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so." And why the numbers are generous.
@Topher,
That's silly. Using growth rate as a clock only works in an ideal environment with organisms that pretty much just eat and reproduce, like bacteria in a petri dish, neither which happen with humans on Earth.
ME II
Well, clearly we don't see that many people and the numbers work against an old earth. But with exponential growth we see clearly that it was possible to have enough people in the Biblical model.
@Topher,
"Well, clearly we don't see that many people and the numbers work against an old earth."
What a crock. "the numbers" work fine for an old earth, because it is not an ideal situation and people do not simply eat and reproduce, i.e. no exponential growth.
"But with exponential growth we see clearly that it was possible to have enough people in the Biblical model."
Incorrect. See above.
Yep, true. Because it says so in Genesis.
Amen
Well, now that is overstating the position, as we say, for you have failed to provide any evidence. But, like George Bush, you can always choose to believe whatever you like, you just can't expect to make believers of the rest of us ... without proof.
Just ask God, he'll give you all the proof you need.
Lot's of people ask God for this, and believe they receive it. Curiously(or not), they follow a completely different religion than you. Are they wrong?
Madtown,
Yep, they are wrong.
Robert, what objective tool do you utilize to measure the accuracy of people's claim to know the mind and will of god? What objective tool should we, your critics, utilize to measure the accuracy of your claims concerning god and his nature?
Capt.
I don't have an objective tool. I would encourage other believers to pray and ask God whether he created in six literal days or a longer period.
Seems pretty arrogant to call other people's beliefs wrong when you have no tool to measure the degree of accuracy of their claims or your own. But then again, you're a Christian.
No arrogance involved at all, just faith. I read, studied, and most importantly prayed. God revealed to me as he has to others that is was six days.
Claiming to have divine revelation without any supporting proof is arrogant. It'd be like me claiming to know the mind of santa.
I'm simply sharing my faith. I do believe strongly, but I don't intend it to seem arrogant.
robert: and those that pray will believe whatever they already believe. it is called confirmation bias. "open your heart to (fill in the blank) and he will reveal himself to you". what rubbish
robert: you may not want to come off as arrogant, but you certainly do. if you have strong faith, that is fine. if you expect telling others of YOUR faith is going to make them faithful, you are fooling yourself. you come off as just another preacher who will not consider the possibility that you MAY be wrong. you become like gopher. a preaching blowhard
Sam, I was really ok with it either way before I prayed about it. God created in six literal days or the days in genesis represented millions or billions of years.
Sam, I know with certainty that I can be wrong and I'm not a preacher, just a regular everyday Christian.
The biblical account is wonderfully elastic you must admit, Robert. If things get too uncomfortable for people proclaiming six literal days, they can ooze away by saying it's six periods of time, not necessarily of equal length. Trying to pin someone down over the Genesis accounts is like trying to tie up jello with twine.
RB, who are you to decide who is a sinner and who needs to join your unproven cult? You *are* one arrogant prick!
Tom, that's funny, true, and part of the reason for mine own interest in the subject. I've settled on 6 literal days. Even with that there still seems to be some discussion on time.
robert: so, you are open to the possibility that you may be wrong about the existence of god?
Robert Brown
Yep, they are wrong.
----
Predictable, just what I thought you'd say. Of course they're wrong, they don't think the same way as you! You stunningly arrogant fool.
No Sam, that isn't what meant.
How is it different from what you said?
I believe they are wrong Madtown, that doesn't make me arrogant, it makes me honest.
I have several reasons for my belief in God. I just can't think of anything that would overcome those reasons.
Robert, below you implied that reality, somehow, is affected by my perception of it, and that reality, magically affected by my ideas, denies god when it should not. Are you ever going to explain yourself?
See below.
Tom, I do believe God created everything, so in that sense he created reality. He can change his creation so he can change reality for us. I don't believe he will change himself.
Alvin Plantinga, I believe, says that God cannot do something that is logically impossible. Would you agree? That gets at God's dominion over reality, I would think.
that doesn't make me arrogant, it makes me honest.
----
It makes you exceptionally arrogant, because you think your religious preference is the "true" one, the one God himself approves of, even though your religion isn't even known by some people in this world. People who are no different than you, other than maybe not as self-righteous and arrogant. God didn't create your religion. If he had, he'd have given access to everyone, unless you're special for some reason? I certainly don't see it.
No, I disagree with Alvin. Well at least with what most some would think of as impossible. With God all things are possible.
Madtown,
I don't see myself as special either. God is available to everyone, For God so loved the world, sounds like everyone to me.
God is available to everyone
----
And, we come full-circle. You bet he is, and different people in different cultures seek God as diligently as you do. Yet, different religions do indeed exist, and people seeking God end up following a different religion than you, and some don't even know your religion exists. You're as bad as Topher, you think the only notion of God that is legitimate is the christian notion of God. That is not the case. Ignore this FACT if you so choose, christianity is not universally shared throughout the world. It is NOT the "correct" way of thinking of God, it's just the way you prefer. No better, no worse than any other way. To think otherwise is arrogant, which is why you think otherwise.
If your god is available to all why isn't it obvious to me? My parents were believers. I spent years in enforced Sunday school. Is there a secret handshake I'm not aware of? Oh, I forgot, if I merely suspend logical thinking and simply believe, all will be revealed! I must believe to believe.
so, you cannot be wrong about the existence of god?
are you sharing faith or preaching knowledge
come on, robbie, share that vast insight with us
and, you are preaching
robert: if you believe they are wrong, that is fine. state it as such. to outright say they are wrong implies knowledge. it appears that christians have a hard time discerning the difference between the two. this often makes them look like pompous jacka$$es, like gopher for example
robert: how can an omniscient god and free will co exist?
i have asked you this, as i have every christian pos(t)er.
all have either ignored the question completely or given some bullspit nonsensical answer
if god knows what i am going to do ahead of time, and god cannot be wrong, where is the free will?
if i apparentlyg have a choice between A and B, an god knows i am going to choose B, what are the odds i am going to choose A and prove god wrong.
before you scurry off for your calculator, the answer is ZERO
what say you?
"Sorry to have to break it to you"? Mr. Brown, It seems you developed a bit of a condescending att itude since I last frequented these boards. Don't let us mean non-believers, ruin your polite demeanor.
I'm sorry if it came across that way lunch and by the way it has been a long time since we've blogged. Good to see you again and I hope you are doing well.
I had stated on here before that I considered the billions of year's of evolution a possibility. I just had a change of heart and mind on the subject that is why I started with that statement. It wasn't meant to be insulting at all.
Of course, I jest Mr. Brown. I believe we both have our attmpts at humor missunderstood sometimes. I am quite well, thanks for asking.
If people don't understand your humor, it's probably because it isn't funny
Billy often thinks he has told a real knee slapper not understanding that people are laughing at him not with him.
"If people don't understand your humor, it's probably because it isn't funny"
have you heard the one about jesus on the cross?
it's a real knee slapper
Robert: Your delusions don't count as "very good authority"
They do to me sam my man.
As they did to my friend's meth head brother. It doesn't mean it is objectively real
So, God told your friends brother that he created everything in 6 days instead of billions of years?
no, robert, he felt his delusions (including using mirrors to visit the moon) with the same passion that you feel yours.
well, until he blew his head off in front of his girlfriend and their child
That is terrible Sam. I'm really sorry.
Lügner!
Actually you only have the word of Bronze Age Middle Eastern tribes. There is no evidence for creationism.
We have the word of God. What do you have that contradicts it?
LOL. No, you do not have "the word of god," you have a book of combined fairy tales that you seem to think is especially important.
Reality contradicts the bible, as does the bible itself. It'd be like attempting to use a math book that give you different answers to the same problem on opposing pages. LOL
What you term as reality is really, in my humble opinion, the denial of the authority and power of God.
RB, let's remove any doubt. The next time you think you are talking to your imaginary friend, pass on this message for me: "Fuck Off!". I'm betting no one's listening 'cause there's no one there.
You say that your opinion is humble, Robert, but you don't usually act as if it is. How does reality deny god's existence as you claim?
You have the word of man that you attribute to god
If this was actually THE WORD OF GOD, would it not have been clearer?
How many christian denominations are there?
I qualified the "reality" as you term it. If you would like to make the case for how your reality denies God feel free.
Sam, the word of God is alive. So, in some ways it is crystal clear. You are a sinner in need of a savior, for example. There are disagreement on the interpretation of some parts, but if the reader of the word follows one very simple rule, it leaves. Wry little room for major disagreements.
Robert, why are you so unwilling to explain what you said?
Capt.
You said reality contradicts the bible. I disagree, so I said what you term as reality, is actually your denial of the power and authority of God. Granted, this is my opinion.
We have to live with the best representations of reality we can come up with, Robert. I'm curious about your God's relationship to reality. Setting aside whether it is itself real, did it create reality? Can it change reality? Is there anything it can't change about reality?
Yes, I know that, Robert. Let's try this again.......very......slowly.
My reality is not different from yours; that's why it's reality. It's the same for both of us. It's real. For you. And me. And then for you again. And then back to me. It's real.
How the fvck can reality deny any god?
I promise you that this is going somewhere, but it's going to require some actual thought on your part. Think about what you're saying. Go over it a few times. Then imagine how to do what it is you are accusing me of doing. Then write down your ideas, and we'll see just exactly where your neurons are arcing past any sort of rationality or sense, and I'll do my best to help you.
We can do this.
Oops my reply to Tom is above.
Capt.
Ok, I follow you now. You are speaking absolutes. I believe what you think or perceive as reality is different from what I think or perceive as reality. In purely absolute terms one of us is wrong. Are you ok with that?
Alvin Plantinga, I believe, says that God cannot do something that is logically impossible. Would you agree? That gets at God's dominion over reality, I would think.
YOU have the word of god, but you don't want to come off as arrogant?
You have the edited, translated hearsay of iron age sheep molesters
Don't be so uppity
We are not denying the authority of god. We simply do not believe he exists. We are ridiculing the supposed authority of those who claim to follow god. And, you are anything but humble
@Robert Brown,
You may want to revise that estimate of "very good authority" because there are serious inconsistency with the evidence.
Peace to you as well.
Great OP!
Colin's post from this morning: " [
There are about 613 commandments sprinkled throughout the Old Testament. If you are a Jew or Christian, they contain rules from the creator of the Universe on how we human beings should live our lives.
They include rules for tending crops indigenous to the Greco-Roman Middle East; raising domesticated animals common in the Greco-Roman Middle East; sacrificing these animals; preparing and eating food that was consumed in the Greco-Roman Middle East; (not) having s.ex with virgins, slaves, non-Jews, animals and relatives; cross-dressing and prohibitions against eating maggots, non Kosher insects and worms that have fully left the fruit.
Interestingly, while these 613 laws laid down by the creator of the Universe go into painstaking detail on how Greco-Roman Jewish farm life should be lived, none of them address how the Apache or Sioux of North America should hunt bison, how the ancient Russians or Chinese should treat any Mongol slaves they take or how the Australian Aboriginals should hunt and prepare kangaroo.
The ancient Scandinavians, Celts and Sub-Saharan Africans were also left totally in the dark about whether it is acceptable to God for them to seethe a deer in its mother’s milk and the ancient Inuit had to take a stab in the dark as to whether any first born reindeer should be sacrificed to God.
This is perhaps why most Millenials are realizing BEYOND SANE DOUBT that the Jews invented God and not vice-versa. ] "
Indeed, I don't remember any Biblical warning about cassava (yuca) preparation (to remove naturally occurring cyanide). Cassava, 3rd largest food source for carbohydrate in the tropics (and gluten-free), is likely to have been domesticated for 10,000 years BP.
Hur
Colin...educate yourself a little. The mitzvot have nothing to do with the Greco-Roman world. You yourseld have said many many many times about the Torah being Bronze Age. Now think about that for a minute and you'll see that you are wrong about the Greco-Roman stuff.
"the Jews invented God and not vice-versa."
Any direct evidence to back this up?
Looking at the big picture, the Bible fails to explain it's own absence in the rest of the world.
Did the text ever say that God told Moses to give the 613 commandments to anyone other than the Hebrews?
If the answer is no, what's the problem?
So much for god being all-loving. That's just one of many holes the "Great Mystery."
IF only we were still going by the rules in the bible, we could purchase each others children and own slaves and kill people who made a BLT on Saturday afternoon.
So tube, you have no problem?
Regardless of what Biblical era you are considering, it's pretty obvious that the stories cater to ways of life in the part of the world from which they came – which I believe was the gist of Colin's post and certainly of my follow-up.
It would be nice if the pseudo-intellectuals would at least try to get the basic correct.
Please point out where you think they got it wrong.
"They include rules for tending crops indigenous to the Greco-Roman Middle East"
Knowing Colin's confusion on Bronze Age timelines helps with figuring this out.
Goodness. So where did they say in the Bible how to avoid poisoning yourself while preparing manioc? Why not the instructions from God for the rest of the world?
As the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed 70 a. D. by the Romans, and together with that an important part of the Jewish service finished, we are no longer aware of a significant part of the Jewish worship service.
What was that?
That was the constant offering of animals in the Temple on a very big altar where they were burned.
Ever the Jews could have asked what would be the meaning of that infinite offerings.
The answer we can find in the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible or Old Testament. Jessia says that once the Messiah of Israel would be slaughtered and offered for the sins of his People Israel. Thus, if the Jews had always offered the lambs being aware that once the Messiah would die for them like a such a lamb they had received forgiveness of their sins and redemption. Regretably, they desecrated that to mere, empty ritual meaning nothing. They lacked the essential faith.
It is crazy that at the very day when Jesus died, there was also the Jewish Passover, and therefore Passover and Easter is actually the same. Jesus was the real Passover Lamp which could take away sins.
Dear Jews, when finally will you realize your Messiah, and celebrate Easter together with the Christian Church?
http://confessingchurch.wordpress.com
Oh, Goody ... andere Christian Blödmann ...
Unfortunately, they misinterpreted Isaiah 53, and others that explained so vividly that the Messiah was to be a sacrifice for sins.
wow, the whole sin thing sure got you by the short hairs, doesn't it, larry?
Actually, it's pretty obvious Gullible's Travels, Part 2 was written to make it fit well with Gullible's Travels, Part 1. They should have had a smoother transition, though, between the new loving god and the old one, who was (and I'll use Lewis Black's words) a prick.
Doris,
Study lower criticism to better understand how the scriptures were written. You write as though someone (or a church council of some sort) sat in a room writing the New Covenant as if they were brainstorming for a sitcom.
It's not like there were ever councils of Christians leaders who picked and chose what to include in their Holy Book, right?
That little meeting in Nicea in 325 was just a big ol' Tea Party.
I mean everything that is in the Bible you read must be everything that was ever included in any Bible.
Did you know that at the time the gospels with which you are familiar were being mashed together into the NT, there was a another one called The Protoevangelium of James?
His overall agenda was to demonstrate the sacredness of Mary and illustrate that Joseph had children from a previous marriage.
There was also Thomas the Israelite' "The Infancy Story of Thomas" from around second century which illustrated Jesus as a boy, filling in the gap between the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke and Luke 2:39-52.
According to Thomas, Jesus was a divine child who was capable of performing otherworldly deeds. He had power over nature and was able to create living creatures out of clay and also had the ability to raise people from the dead and perform healings.
You're talking about gnosticism there...
The Old Testament was pulled together into the Canon that we have now by the scribe Ezra in the 400’s BC. (Nehemiah 8) By the time John completed the book of the Revelation in 94-96AD, the New Testament books were completed and had already been widely circulated as scripture. The New Testament was not compiled by any church council or by any decree of a ruler, rather, the apostles themselves dictated what the Scripture was (2 Peter 3:1-2, 15-16, Jude 17-18, Galatians 1:1-2, Acts 2:42).
It was only later, in the 100’s AD when the Gnostics began circulating their own texts and claiming apostolic authorship, that the church decided that it became necessary to weed out all heresies that desired to creep into the canon, so they developed a standard test to determine the canonicity of scripture. But all they did was to affirm the cannonicity that the Apostles had already established.
He said "cannonicity". huh huh huh huh huh
Shush, Butthead.
Now regarding this: "the cannonicity that the Apostles had already established." . . .
When and where and how do we know??
American Jews losing their religion.
Is this true?:
American religious losing their religion
Is America losing its religious?
@ME II : I was questioning Robert's statement, because he seemed to be implying that science was "improvable a.s.s.umption".
Well, the way I read it was different. My understanding is that his point is that the typical person has no ability to differentiate between the facts that support a conclusion and the assumptions that are thought to support those conclusions. And I would support him in that conclusion.
Plenty of fine print in those assumptions.
@lol?? : Plenty of fine print in those assumptions.
What's even better are the number of LAYERS of assumptions. A researcher takes a set of empirical evidence and makes some assumptions to verify a proposed theory. Next, another researcher takes that previously proposed theory as a FACT and adds a little more facts and some more assumptions – compounding the improbability of the new theory but never stating it. THEN yet another researcher takes that second proposed theory as a FACT and adds a little more facts and some more assumptions – leading to a new theory that has more holes in it that Swiss Cheese – but don't worry, people will assume this is a fact too. After all, didn't his/her research prove it to be a fact?
It is a kind of a monkey see monkey do considering how layered the truth of scripture is!!
Dein haar muss riechen schrecklich ... mit dem kopf in den arsch die ganze zeit ...
I'm booking you now for the largest scientific convention ever, with you as the speaker. I think it's your duty to humanity to explain to the 10's of thousands of PhD holding scientists in the world how flawed their methods are. No doubt they will cower to your superior knowledge and insight. You obviously have arguments they have never considered.
The concept that 1 and 1 are 2 is testable and provable.
We can use this precept as a basis for further mathematical calculations.
To say that you cannot prove the validity of complex algorithms without first revisiting and re-proving every prior step is ridiculous.
It is akin to saying that in order to make next year's model of car, you have to first re-conceive and re-prove the theories behind the working of the internal combustion engine.
Once again – we have no idea what is really being referred to, because you are once again cherry-picking part of an earlier conversation to make your tailored presumptions about another person's intent. I view this as a form of dishonesty.
Are you incapable of using your browser's FIND command? If I were to copy their entire post, and they did the same, then the forum would be overwhelmed very quickly.
I posit that it is you who is overwhelmed quickly, which is why your are always running to the next page.
find doesn't work across pages of Belief Blog... I didn't even know you had replied.
If you would reply where the conversation is, then – well, then that would prevent you from reshaping the conversation, wouldn't it now?
Except you didn't copy the entire post, did you, L4H? As usual, you call people too lazy to do what you yourself were too lazy to do, and so you started yet another thread.
L4h I see you moved on to a new thread. Answer this the pyramids of Egypt were built between 2700 BC to 1700BC, please explain how these feats were accomplished if there were only 8 people alive around 2500BC? I would ask Topher but when the questions get tough, Topher gets going elsewhere.
@OKfine : the pyramids of Egypt were built between 2700 BC to 1700BC, please explain how these feats were accomplished if there were only 8 people alive around 2500BC?
This is a perfect example of assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions, leaving a theory with more holes in it than Swiss Cheese.
Assumption #1 : The pyramids of Egypt were built between 2700 and 1700 BC.
Assumption #2 : The timeline given by Egyptian experts is accurate. Reality says otherwise.
Assumption #3 : Menetho's timeline used by Egyptian experts is accurate. It is well known that this was based upon lost evidence, with a lot of proven fabrication.
The fact is that any history prior to about 1200 BC is a guesimate based upon a padded timeline.
BTW – I've got to go. I'm out of time now. Bye.
L4H
Good riddance, amazing how you deniers just rewrite history to suit your delusion. I think I am with Sam saying that you are a liar and a coward and most of all a fool. Bye now.
if by "the typical person has no ability to differentiate between the facts that support a conclusion and the assumptions that are thought to support those conclusions" , you mean that the lay person does not fully understand the intricacies of the evidence nor the theories, then I would agree.
What I would disagree with is the claim that the above alone indicates that the conclusions are wrong. Just because not everyone understands does not mean that those who do are wrong.
@ME II : What I would disagree with is the claim that the above alone indicates that the conclusions are wrong. Just because not everyone understands does not mean that those who do are wrong.
Would you agree that people who have a vested interest would be willing to hide evidence to be able to validate their a-priori conclusions?
I would agree to that. Can you provide any evidence of that taking place?
Well, certainly wouldn't say all people would do that, only dishonest people. Eventually, dishonest people get called out.
L4H Ducking the questions again. BTW that is what you do all the time, deny evidence to be able to validate your a-priori opinions.
@Live4Him,
"Would you agree that people who have a vested interest would be willing to hide evidence to be able to validate their a-priori conclusions?"
Not categorically, no. But it would seem likely that they would be more likely to be fraudulent than an independent source, or a competing peer, which is one reason to have peer reviews and independent verification, i.e. science.
At the beginning of what we now call the Common Era, there were two popular itinerant teachers.
Both had groups of disciples, both were connected to myths of virgin births, exorcisms and miracles.
Both preached the importance of moderation, the virtues of celibacy and self control and that animal sacrifice was not necessary to appease God.
In fact, the Christian and Apollonian movements were neck and neck in popularity for some 4 centuries until finally, the followers of Apollonius of Tyana faded from history.
According to the only surviving biography of Apollonius, his mother was impregnated by the god Proteus, who told her that she would be giving birth to his human incarnation.
By the time he was 16, people far and wide were flocking to him so that he could miraculously heal their sicknesses.
He later went on a journey to learn from wise men throughout the world.
He even met with the Zoroastrian religious leaders, the Magi, in private and exchanged wisdom.
Eventually, this Greek wise man reached Rome and, his reputation preceding him, was arrested by Praetorian Guard for speaking out againt the Emperor Nero.
His death is shrouded in mystery.
By some accounts, he was executed by the Roman Emperor Domitian for being a wizard. Some "eye witness" accounts say that entered the Temple of Athena at Lindus and ascended bodily to the afterworld.
Perhaps the reason that the Cult of Appolonius failed to pass the test of time is that, unlike Christ, he was primarily concerned with spreading his message to the intellectual, upper classes of Cappadocia.
Another major difference was that Christ's early followers spread His message far and wide. By 50 C.E., Paul, wrote letters to Christian communities in Corinth, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Rome, encouraging them to remain loyal to the teachings of Jesus.
In other words, Appolonius was an elitist whereas Jesus was a populist.
Just a bit of historical food for thought.....
Certainly disparate groups of Christians had to be reconciled (or silenced) to get where Christianity is now. I wonder if some of the early groups of Christians were recent followers of Apollonius and, if so, how much they contributed to the current myth and dogma.
It would make for an interesting study!
Appolonius is mentioned by several early Christian apologists, like Origen, but they tend to label him a "wizard" and a heretic.
I suppose the moral of the story is elitist inbreeding is short sighted.
I never thought I'd agree with anything you say, but you actually nailed it here.
Elites come and go, but there will always be poor people.
@Doc Vestibule
No one ever claimed Apollonius of Tyana was born of a virgin till 200 years after his time.
I would also caution that no one wrote about him till 200CE. By that time, Christianity had it's books well established. It could be argued that writers of Apollonius could have been lifting from Christianity's books. You even agree that Christianity writings came first; "By 50 C.E., Paul, wrote letters to Christian communities in Corinth, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Rome, encouraging them to remain loyal to the teachings of Jesus."
Published on Feb 23, 2013
Professor Peter Millican of the University of Oxford responds to William Lane Craig's cosmological argument for God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35WVf6Uvk8U
The Kalām argument only gets started if you accept its premises. No reason to accept most of them.
Craig is a tool...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig
So, what he is saying is that science says: "What we know is that we don't know, and THAT disproves your argument."
This is saying to Craig and his sort that they don't have enough to even start an argument. They can be dismissed.
I have always heard the argument stated this way...
1)Every finite and contingent ent.ity has a cause.
2)An uncaused effect cannot exist.
3)A causal loop cannot exist.
4)A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
5)Therefore, a First Cause (something that is not an effect of something else) must exist
The argument is:
Since it is impossible for something to create itself out of nothing (out of nothing, nothing comes), every effect is determined by a cause. That cause is in its turn determined by another cause. But we cannot assume an infinite series of causes, because an infinite series of causes with no beginning is a contradiction, as a causal chain by definition must have a beginning. Hence there must be an uncaused cause, the ultimate cause of all the events that proceed from it.
How would a cause for time work? In the framework you are operating under causes are events that have to be proximate to the "caused" events and precede them.
I don't think either option is more sensible than the other. Why is an uncaused being any more logical than an infinite regress? There's not a definitive answer, so there's no reason to decide which is more likely. What are you going to use, anyway, to make the determination? Faith?
Besides, even accepting the Kalaam argument doesn't get you any sort of "god" who cares about the universe or anything in it. All it gets you is a necessary being/event, and there's no logical reason to accept even that much.
I believe in this video Millican also addresses the fine tuning issue that Nuts4Him used to go on about so much.
Study: American Jews are smarter than the average bear.
@ME II : Did the "Flood" supposedly gouge out the Grand Canyon or lay down the strata seen in the walls of the canyon?
Question for you- according to the 'non-flood' theory that you support, why is the South Rim of the Grand Canyon lower than the North Rim?
If "the flood" created the Grand Canyon, why doesn't the rest of the world's surface look like the Grand Canyon? Wasn't the entire world under the same stress from "the flood"?
@Well Duh : If "the flood" created the Grand Canyon, why doesn't the rest of the world's surface look like the Grand Canyon?
How does it look different? Are you not aware that there are strata layers around the world?
So you are saying only the strata is proof of "the flood", and not the carved out canyon? It's really hard to know who is claiming what.
@Well Duh : So you are saying only the strata is proof of "the flood", and not the carved out canyon? It's really hard to know who is claiming what.
No, My posit is that the strata layers around the world were formed by the flood (after all, most of them are sedimentary). Then, the stresses imposed upon the earth by the flood triggered what is now recognized as plate tectonics (i.e. talked about in Gen 25). This movement triggered the rift valley. Run-off did the final shaping of the canyon.
No strata existed before "the flood"?
now recognized as plate tectonics (i.e. talked about in Gen 25).
----–
LOL!! The bible describes the dynamics of plate techtonics?! This is just such good stuff. Someone should seriously draft a sitcom script based off these comments pages.
@Live4Him – I studied geology. You posit:
"No, My posit is that the strata layers around the world were formed by the flood (after all, most of them are sedimentary)."
Can you explain why igneous intrusions, e.g., dikes, sills, plutons, lava flows, ash falls, etc., that are mixed in and cut across the strata of the world, have geological ages that can exceed 6000 years?
@Live4Him – I studied geology. You posit:
"No, My posit is that the strata layers around the world were formed by the flood (after all, most of them are sedimentary)."
Can you explain why the fossils we find in the strata around the world consistently appear in strata of the same geological age around the world, and not in younger or older ones?
@Live4Him – I studied geology. You posit:
"No, My posit is that the strata layers around the world were formed by the flood (after all, most of them are sedimentary)."
Can you explain why carbon-14 dating of these strata fails to show the strata to be 6000 years old?
@Live4Him,
You posit a Rift Valley, but where is the rift for such a valley. What fault lines are consistent with a rift valley for the Grand Canyon?
I didn't see any here: http://geocommons.com/maps/28013
The big picture claim, by evangelicals (I can't say Christians because Catholics are Christians and the Catholic church supports evolution) is that the Bible is true – front to back, left to right, up to down. Ok, provide to me your scientific evidence that the earth is 6000 years old.
My understand is that the uplift that created the Colorado plateau was uneven. i.e. not all points uplifted the same amount. While I'm not a geologist, nature does seem to do things unevenly quite often.
Now, how about my question?
-> understanding
So the deluge of water was powerful enough that in the span of a little over a month, erosion that naturally takes millions and millions of years to happen carved out the Grand Canyon?
And yet this deluge, with more kinetic directed kinetic force than an atomic bomb, didn't sink the wooden Ark?
Weren't you the one that stated answering a question with a qiestion was intellectually dishonest, L4H? You just did it yourself.
1Ki 10:14 Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred threescore and six talents of gold,
What are the population estimates to get that much gold before giving the wurld the Star of Moloch and pinning the deed on Dad??
So, why are there so many haplogroups of Y chromosomes when there were only three sons of Noah?
don't use science and logic ... you'll only frighten them!
Oh, holy crap, what a fantastic question! Ha.
It's interesting that we can turn up consistent findings that point to volcanic events, impacts, even significant floods over large and small areas, dating back to periods between the present day and millions of years ago. We can't seem to find anything to show that Christianity took from Horus.
except that horus' story was very similar to jesus' story - but horus' came first.
Aztec pyramids are similar to Egyptian ones but does that mean they took from the Egyptians?
Correlation does not equal causation.
you're making a very simple connection - pyramid shaped building. not very big connection. but details about jesus and several other gods are much too detailed. christianity plagiarized other religoin/mythologies. accept the facts.
Bootyfunk- "you're making a very simple connection"
Seems to me that most atheists on here consider the connection between Christianity and these other religions to be simple. But the fact still stands, NONE have been able to prove it. It's time you accept that fact.
And the second part is...Horus is not similar to Jesus anyway.
Except in one important aspect, neither were divine.
@Blessed are the Cheesemakers- your opinion on what is or is not divine is irrelevant. The fact stands, no one has been able to show that Christianity took from any other religions.
denial is not just a river in Egypt ...
I know it's hard for you to accept it but there are no similarities and there is no proof that Christianity took from Horus.
Deny it all you want.
Whether who took from who, doesn't prove who or who is right.
Never said it did Cal. It just shows that those who say Christianity took from Horus are talking out their a s s.
Topher according to your expert post from answeringenesis, let me give you a small problem with a short time line.
You and your expert agree that the flood was dated at 2500BC and 8 people survived the flood. Now your expert says population doubles every 150 years, good so far. Well lets take the tower of babel story that occurred about 2000 BC. To make it easier lets say the population doubled every 100 years so that would be 5 times between the flood and the babel story. So 8 to16 to 32 to 64 to 128 to 256 being alive to build the tower and scatter across the earth, pretty ridiculous.
In the real world Topher the estimated population of the world at 2500 BC was between 20 to 30 million. There had to be at least that many to build and populate the cities of that era. Of course it does not matter because you would never believe anything other than the BS that creationist idiots write.
It's interesting that we can turn up consistent findings that point to volcanic events, impacts, even significant floods over large and small areas, dating back to periods between the present day and millions of years ago. We can't seem to find anything from The Flood.
I'm sure you won't be surprised, but I'd disagree with that. I think we see evidence of the flood all over the place. We all have the same evidence, but we all also have a presupposition. For instance, look at the Grand Canyon. You probably say a little bit of water over a long period of time. Creationists says a lot of water over a short period of time.
One would think massive gouging by a sudden event related to your Flood and fine erosion over a long period of time would look different. Perhaps an expert can weigh in....
Topher, the Grand Canyon would, itself have been under 29,000 ft (height of Mt. Everest) of water. The Bible is clear that every mountain was covered.
Where did all that water go?
Colin
"Topher, the Grand Canyon would, itself have been under 29,000 ft (height of Mt. Everest) of water. The Bible is clear that every mountain was covered."
Not necessarily. Mountains could have been drastically altered with such a catastrophic event. Everest might not have even existed yet or could have been much smaller.
"Where did all that water go?"
It's still right there.
The GC is a rift valley – the north rim is higher than the south rim. This is a well known fact- but rarely discussed by evolutionists.
So if we assume the Grand Canyon was one flat surface before the flood, meaning uniform in composition, how does covering 100% of the surface cause only a certain portion to errode away?
Regarding the Grand Canyon, creationists still haven't even remotely accounted for the perpendicular channels in the canyon, the significant meandering, the observation of animal tracks in between the layers, the Coconino sandstone, etc.
lunchbreaker
"So if we assume the Grand Canyon was one flat surface before the flood, meaning uniform in composition, how does covering 100% of the surface cause only a certain portion to errode away?"
Ever been around a dammed up creek or river? When the water rises high enough to spill over it doesn't take out the whole dam. It finds the weak point and destroys a small space very quickly.
I'm a bit confused. Did the "Flood" supposedly gouge out the Grand Canyon or lay down the strata seen in the walls of the canyon?
"Where did all that water go?"
It's still right there.
+++ right where? there is a finite amount of water on earth (more or less). so did god magic the extra water away?
ME II
You know that's a good question. I don't know what the Creationist position is on that. Could be both for all I know. I'll look into it, though.
There is no way to be sure how the Grand Canyon formed. Could have been an ice dam holding back water from a melting glacier. Could have happened in a very short period of time, maybe measured in months of cavitation. You'd have to ask the experts.
Piltdown man in the Scopes trial!!!!
BBBBbbbbbwwaaaaaaaahahahaha
Piltdown man! *snicker*
Jesus Christ *snicker*
How's that, gopher?
I believe the article said "in the real world" the population doubles every 40 years. They were using 150 to be exceedingly conservative with the numbers ... and they still have 2 billion more than needed in the given time span.
Topher
First do you agree using your experts figures that there would only be 256 people at the tower babel.
Second if you start doubling every 150 years starting in 2500BC, time of the flood, with 8 people using basic arithmetic you fall 3 billion short of the current population. Of course you would believe the most simplistic explanation when actually population grows in an upward curve the more the number of people that are alive.
Topher
First do you agree using your experts figures that there would only be 256 people at the tower of babel.
Second if you start doubling every 150 years starting in 2500BC, time of the flood, with 8 people using basic arithmetic you fall 3 billion short of the current population. Of course you would believe the most simplistic explanation when actually population grows in an upward curve the more the number of people that are alive.
What the hell do the experts know about population gwowth before the invention of tight fitting underwear?? People were healthier before all the teenage mutant ninja offspring started taking over.
@OKfine : In the real world Topher the estimated population of the world at 2500 BC was between 20 to 30 million
Where do you get this estimate from (i.e. what are your historical sources to yield this value)?
I guess you wouldn't question biblical claims of people living for hundreds of years, so why should we be surprised that you would swallow such a rapid rise in population? Maybe those bible characters were having litters of a dozen or so every year, right?
@Pete : I guess you wouldn't question biblical claims of people living for hundreds of years, so why should we be surprised that you would swallow such a rapid rise in population?
I guess you'd be surprised that I've taken the historical data, calculated the growth rate via a logistic model, and applied the two supposed limits (i.e. 4350 years ago with 8 people, vs 200000 years ago with 2 people). Only one of the models were realistic. And that it showed that mankind's history started less than 10,000 years ago, an COULD fit into the 4350 years posit by creationists.
BTW – There are no known census records prior to about 900 BC. Therefore, any so-called estimates prior to that point are just guess work.
Care to show your calculations?
Live4Him. I a$$ume you know how to do a google search, try history of the population of the earth, quite simple really.
L4H World population growth chart, Franklin University, 2000BC has 27 million people, there are more but finding out for yourself would be so clever of you!
@OKfine : World population growth chart, Franklin University, 2000BC has 27 million people, there are more but finding out for yourself would be so clever of you!
Yes, but this is based upon guess work – i.e. NOT historical evidence.
L4H
I don't know why anybody bother with it does not matter what facts or evidence from scientists, scholars, universities, etc., if it does not agree with your bias you reject it out of hand. I would throw in an ad hominem but I can see how that destroys what little self esteem you have left.
Also, why are there so many haplogroups of Y chromosomes when there were only three sons of Noah?
For Dorkis,
Jesus walked on water. Peter walked on water. God chose Paul. Peter considered Paul's writing scripture. This is standard Christian doctrine. So yer hate is well placed.
Those are stories in a work of fiction. You have no evidence that any of those things really happened.
Are you responding to someone?
Wow oh presumptive one. And how do you know any of that? Historians don't agree on the authorship of Peter or the un-authored works of alleged others that only come to us via Paul. As I said, Paul was the Joseph Smith of his day.
Here's a good place to look for important things to consider:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ
Educratists, sheesh. Like SAT writing scores it's Publish or Perish.
Peter, Paul and Mary had Puff the Magic Dragon but they didn't try to turn him into a religious scam, just saying.
@Robert Brown : What we have to do is teach them to recognize improvable a.s.s.umption like we read all the time.
@ME II : 1) You're making assumptions about my beliefs.
Not at all. My point is that you're attacking another beliefs for believing, while acting upon your own beliefs.
@ME II : 2) I simple don't buy what many religions are selling.
You're only going to buy into that which you already accept as true
@ME II : 3) I generally don't care about other people's beliefs until it interferes with other people's rights and lives.
So, why were you interfering here, trampling upon other right to free speech?
@ME II : Disputing bad science and bad logic,when it appears in a public forum, is a part of that .
By adding your ad homines? I don't think so. If one wants to dispute bad science/logic, they do so with facts. Your post was lacking almost any facts. Yes, you gave a definition – but without addressing Robert's point – thus it was a pointless personal attack.
Live4him
Trampling free speech? Nobody is saying that religion ought to be outlawed, not when it's obviously dying out naturally. People are only applauding the fact that people are finally coming to their senses, which is itself an expression of free speech.
I am not speaking for MEII, but I am familiar with L4H's methods, one of which is to only copy up a portion of a previous argument that he feels confident in addressing. So regarding these few things:
@ME II : 2) I simple don't buy what many religions are selling.
L4H: "You're only going to buy into that which you already accept as true"
That's seems awful presumptive. Can you repost a complete conversation that you had with MEII that supports your theory?
@ME II : 3) I generally don't care about other people's beliefs until it interferes with other people's rights and lives.
L4H: "So, why were you interfering here, trampling upon other right to free speech?"
How was MEII interfering with free speech? Can you repost a complete conversation that you had with MEII that supports your theory?
@ME II : Disputing bad science and bad logic,when it appears in a public forum, is a part of that .
L4H: "[ By adding your ad homines? I don't think so. If one wants to dispute bad science/logic, they do so with facts. Your post was lacking almost any facts. Yes, you gave a definition – but without addressing Robert's point – thus it was a pointless personal attack. ]"
Again, pretty much meaningless because you're not showing what MEII posted that may have had facts that you simply don't consider facts. You are cherry-picking parts of a previous conversation and you do this AD NAUSEAM.
@Live4Him,
I was questioning Robert's statement, because he seemed to be implying that science was "improvable a.s.s.umption".
My question of 'why do you care...' was intended, not as an attack on him as a person, but as a spotlight on what seemed to be a double standard and therefore illogical, however clumsy it was.
--
"My point is that you're attacking another beliefs for believing, while acting upon your own beliefs."
I suspect that you are equivocating on "belief":
"2. something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief)
versus
"3. conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief)
Technically, what I'm attacking is the presentation of "belief" (#2) in the supernatural as an evidence-based conclusion.
--
"So, why were you interfering here, trampling upon other right to free speech?"
The very next sentence answered that and I'm not trampling anyone's free speech. I have absolutely no way to accomplish that on this blog.
--
"Yes, you gave a definition – but without addressing Robert's point – thus it was a pointless personal attack."
What exactly was Robert's point? My, apparently clumsy, attempt was to question what Robert meant by "improvable a.s.s.umption", while at the same time indicating what appeared to be a double standard. I did not intend to attack him personally, just his logic.
Sarah Palin is the ultimate twit. And her little bevy of baggers are nothing but trailer trash.
But at least Congress is still getting paid for all of the hard work that they've been doing lately.