 |
| Hello, Rosa_McGee [ logout ] profile | register | faq | search | forum home (Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ) << next newest topic | next oldest topic >> Marilyn Manson BBS > Marilyn Manson > To all the openminded I say welcome. The great theology thread has returned! Author Message Rosa_McGee Member 841 Posts Member since: 08-16-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ hi... the show was pretty good, though i didn't see too much... it's such a bother being only 1.65 m, everyone always seems to be taller than me... i'm looking forward to placebo and muse now... this stretch is annoying, too... i tried to argue, plead, i'll start screaming soon.... but that won't much help either... i suppose of course i could still print everything out, but i don't really want to do that ... would starting a new thread help ? or your could you try to persuade him to edit his posts ? - the most annoying thing about life is living, usually (marilyn manson) - [This message was edited by Rosa_McGee on 02-22-2001 at 04:46 PM.] posted 02-22-200104:38 PM Rictus Member 3203 Posts Member since: 06-05-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ @Rosa: I'm glad you enjoyed the show, and I hear you about being short, it's a pain. About the streach: I think I have a simple soloution. When typing in your responce, just hit return at the end of every second line of text in the reply window. If we all do this, it doesn't matter if the thread get's streached, because our messages will stay on one screen. Call me old fashioned, but I don't respond well to bullying. Me. V. Random Quote club 2001 - member No. 1 "All the drugs in this world Won't save her from herself..." *^*Co-founder and proud member of the blackjack appreciation society. She's tiny but she rules.*^* "Kill The Cheese!!!" - Eliza (who I love) "No one is a nigger" - Order in an Artificial Chaos posted 02-22-200104:48 PM Tu Es Petra Member 796 Posts Member since: 02-16-2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AND YOU NEVER ADMIT BEING WRONG EITHER!! LOL. I KNEW YOU WOULD TRY TO BACK OUT OF YOUR STATEMENT OR POUR ON THICK PSYCHO BABBLE. THAT'S TWICE I'VE CAUGHT YOU BUT ....... A PUNK IS NEVER WRONG. I'M NOT DOING ANYTHING YOU HAVEN'T DONE IN OTHER THREADS AGAINST ME...ASSHOLE. SO, I GUESS YOU ARE A BULLY TOO. A VENGEFUL ONE . I MIGHT ADD THAT I TRIED FOR A TRUCE... SO TO SPEAK. YOU NEVER AKNOWLEDGED IT. SO WHO IS BEING STUBBORN HERE???? ONLY THE BABY SHEEP FOLLOW ME TO HARASS posted 02-22-200105:18 PM Prairie Nigger Member 1359 Posts Member since: 11-01-2000 Freegrace ------------------------------------------------------------------------ While I appreciate your efforts to educate me, it must be noted that using a contested text as proof of its own validity is an exercise in sheer futility. I'm going to do my best to keep this brief - itemizing the key points, focusing only on the most salient bits. 1. John must have lived to be over a hundred, in a time when average life expectancy was about 27, for his account to have been first-hand. Jesus is agreed to have died around roughly 2 B.C., which means that any manuscripts from 125 A.D. are secondary or tertiary. 2. If one has no basis for accepting authorship or date of execution, what possible validity is there in pointing to the contested text as proof? 3. The "manuscripts" in question are not primary source materials as there is no proof of an original document penned by John. Accordingly, using secondary source materials to authenticate same is specious. Proof of authorship cannot be determined by the existence of secondary source materials or manuscripts, however many. 4. The assertion that there are 5366 COPIES of manuscripts with at least a 97% accuracy rate proves only that there was a scribe with an excellent work ethic. You surely aren't tracing all 5366 copies to Johanine authorship? Did he speak over 120 languages fluently as well? And there's fact that it's odd that there are allegedly 5366 copies of this maniscript dating to within a few years of John's life when few people could read, and even fewer of those were Christian or Hebrew, the majority being Roman and utterly disinterested in the teachings of Christ and his disciples. 5. The bible's reliability is based on commonly accepted principles offered by an institution that depends on the perception of authenticity and reliability for its existence. Accordingly, quoting that institution (the church) does not make for a sound arguement. One of the more specious examples was citing the book of Revelations as a historical document when Revelations is held to be an account of a dream or vision...are acts of the subconscious or divinations considered substantive proof? 6. Using the survival of these manuscripts in spite of Roman persecution of Christian texts as proof of their validity is absurd. Given that all the Greek and Roman texts you cited are still in existence in spite of the destruction of the library at Alexandria doesn't offer authentication of authorship for Plato, Pliny or Herodotus. I would certainly considered the existence of 'The Histories' every bit as miraculous as that of The Bible. 7. Ancient practices of authorship and text production differ significantly from those of today. In biblical culture writers did not sign their works, though some clay tablets do record the name of the scribe. Later, in the historical period of Christ, manuscripts were written on codexes (closer to our understanding of books) and stored in armaria. Determinations of authorship of manuscripts or their part, can only be made inferentially from clues in the texts themselves. There are no respected, secular scholars who can substantiate claims of authorship, Johanine or otherwise. Inferred data is not the same as proof. 8. Only one of the four Gospels (John) gives any information about the author. Even in that case, the only information we are given is that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is the witness whose testimony is being reported. It is not at all clear from John 21:20-25 whether "the disciple whom Jesus loved" actually wrote the Gospel (or part of the Gospel) or whether the Evangelist is telling the reader, "I got my stories from this man." Even if this disciple actually wrote the Gospel, his name is not given AT ANY POINT. We can therefore safely say that none of the Gospels gives us the name of its author. Just because biblical books have the name of a purported author doesn't mean that that individual wrote the entire book or any of it, for that matter. Ancient authors used scribes for their work. Historians alledge that Tertius wrote Romans (Rom 16:22) and Silas (or Silvanus) probably wrote 1 Peter (1 Pet 5:12); Jeremiah's scribe was Baruch. In some cases these scribes appear to have been given a lot of independent authority. That may account for stylistic changes among letters (for example, whoever wrote the Greek of 1 Peter did not create the much worse Greek of 2 Peter). Authorship also does not mean that a work remained untouched for all time, or that it resembles, closely or otherwise, the original text. Presumably someone other than Moses added the account of his death to the end of Deuteronomy. Take for example, the second and third epistles of John which were written by "the elder." There is no identification of who "the elder" is. How can you protest Johanine authorship when the text itself makes reference to numerous authors. Further, there is no evidence that all parts of John were written concurrently. Think of Psalms as an example of numerous authors and non-concurrent writings. Are you also alleging that that Solomon wrote the Song of Songs? It is labeled "of Solomon" in English bibles, but there is no indication that he wrote it. Rather, it is in the tradition of Solomon who was entirely too busy to be writing ditties, biblical or otherwise. Best wishes, Prairie Nigger "Yeah, hes like an STD." - Order in an Artificial Chaos [This message was edited by Prairie Nigger on 02-22-2001 at 05:35 PM.] [This message was edited by Prairie Nigger on 02-22-2001 at 05:42 PM.] posted 02-22-200105:29 PM rebelRage Junior Member 15 Posts Member since: 02-21-2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I just wanna say that... I believe in the possibiltiy and impossibility of everything, anyhting, and nothing. posted 02-22-200105:40 PM Rictus Member 3203 Posts Member since: 06-05-2000 OK, I couldn't resist this... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'M NOT DOING ANYTHING YOU HAVEN'T DONE IN OTHER THREADS AGAINST ME...ASSHOLE. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Post a link to one thread of yours that I have streached and I'll appologise unconditionaly. Otherwise, admit you are in the wrong, and modify your behaviour accordingly. Me. Random Quote club 2001 - member No. 1 "All the drugs in this world Won't save her from herself..." *^*Co-founder and proud member of the blackjack appreciation society. She's tiny but she rules.*^* "Kill The Cheese!!!" - Eliza (who I love) "No one is a nigger" - Order in an Artificial Chaos posted 02-22-200106:12 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Thanks for the clarification Rictus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I saw a book named Valley of the Dolls the other day but I didn't realize there was a movie as well. I actually enjoy studying his music. I just like to go to the pros for some of the interpretation. I did not see as much of the outer application but I could see and sense from the song that it was a criticism of the urge to conform to Christianity. I guess the sense that I got was it's easy to be born again and different, but it is hard to be an individual. Of course, I disagree. I think that if someone is truly born again it is difficult. I did not realize your main point was jealousy (although young children do seem to argue over who got the bigger piece of pie or who got to go first in line which I would call a form of jealousy). I thought your point was back to our original discussion that evil is a learned trait and man is naturally neutral. That is where I thought selfishness played a part. Thanks again for the clarification...freegrace 2 Thes 2:16 "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, 17 comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word." "The reason true atheists (not your average "I-don't-like- what-mommy-and-daddy-say-so-I-hate-God" rebellious teen) are depressed is because atheism offers no hope, only proof. Proof of no hope." Mike Sorrow posted 02-22-200106:21 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Hello Prarie, Adolph and Rosa ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Prarie...It is good to see you. Maybe I was wrong about you and you were "waiting for a response." If you apply your standards for authorship to any ancient text, it appears that no author can be validated. I don't think many anthropologists would do so. However, it is a double standard that often persists. As for the secondary texts, to expect for the original text to be preserved is a bit much. Do we have to only read the original text of Coleridge or Keats' writings to be sure they wrote it? What about Common Sense or Hobbes' Leviathan? I daresay we don't even have many original texts of Stephen King either. I guess they all should be discounted as "secondary texts." The best we have is their word that they wrote it and what others have attested about them. Nevertheless, it is not important to me whether John or Solomon wrote them, what is critical is living by the truth contained in them. However, I'll leave you to your opinion, but I am as unconvinced by your points as you are mine. Rosa, I understand about the height issue. I am only 5 foot 8 inches tall myself (I don't know what that is in meters) but I had a dream of playing basketball as a kid. With the exception of Mugsy Bogues and a few other stars (Spud Webb)who can jump a lot higher than me, my chances of success in that endeavor were unlikely. Adolph...I echo Rosa's please that you wouldn't stretch the board. It does diminish the experience. Please don't punish me for whatever anger you have against Rictus. I really enjoy my time on this thread and it makes it more difficult for me to read what others are saying. I don't understand the rule that no one can enter a thread you are participating in. It seems as though some of your discussion topics are inviting controversy. As you know I love you but I would appreciate your understanding in this matter. Sincerely, Freegrace 2 Thes 2:16 "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, 17 comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word." "The reason true atheists (not your average "I-don't-like- what-mommy-and-daddy-say-so-I-hate-God" rebellious teen) are depressed is because atheism offers no hope, only proof. Proof of no hope." Mike Sorrow posted 02-22-200106:45 PM Prairie Nigger Member 1359 Posts Member since: 11-01-2000 Freegrace ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ah, so it is purely a matter of faith for you after all. Why then, if you have faith, do you bring up the authentication and substantiation of authorship in the first place? Faith is independent of proof is it not? You've basically stated that authorship is irrelevant. So, if it's irrelevant, why take the contents as anything more than random prattling? Unless it's a matter of faith, of course... I also feel compelled to point out that many of the works of Keats and Coleridge have been preserved among others. Nor do we regard The Rime of the Ancient Mariner as the word of God. I'm not even going to touch Stephen King. best, Prairie Nigglet "Yeah, hes like an STD." - Order in an Artificial Chaos posted 02-22-200106:59 PM FUCK YOU ASSHOLES Junior Member 60 Posts Member since: 02-22-2001 RICTUS YOU FUCKING PUSSY ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I WANT THE OPPURTUNITY TO KICK YOUR ASS. YOU FUCKING WHIMP ASS COCKSUCKING FAGGOT. FRIED SHRIMP,RAW SHRIMP,SHRIMP SCAMPI,POPCORN SHRIMP,JUMBO SHRIMP... posted 02-22-200107:40 PM Grump Member 1967 Posts Member since: 01-11-2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ a-g, why are you so into the idea that rictus is "gay"? how do you (think you) know that? he doesn't give a shit enough to deny or confirm your suppositions... but since i know him better than you do, i'm just wondering what you think you know. this probably doesn't belong on this thread, but since all this invective is here... ## officially sick of sig files of all kinds##1 posted 02-22-200108:36 PM Fred Nietzsche Member 493 Posts Member since: 10-10-2000 deism ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DEISM VS. REVEALED RELIGION Revelation, or revealed religion, is defined in Webster's New World Dictionary as: "God's disclosure to man of Himself." This should read, "God's alleged disclosure to man of himself." For unless God reveals to each of us individually that a particular religion is truly His disclosure to us of Himself, then, by believing that religion, we are not taking His word for it, but we are instead putting our belief in the person or institution telling us it is so. This is what we are doing when we believe in any revealed religion, and that's all Christianity is. It's a revealed religion like many others such as Islam and Judaism. Revealed religion gets dangerous however, when it crosses over the line into politics. This is the admitted goal of the Christian Coalition. God allegedly revealed to Pat Robertson and his Coalition, that He wants them to take over America and eventually the world with "His Word," so the laws of the nations will mirror the laws in the Bible, which, if you know what's in the Bible, is terrifying. This, too, is what the Ayatollah's goal was, only his "revealed word of God" was the Koran, an other revelation. Are we to believe Pat when he says the Bible is revelation of God's Word? As THINK! has already offered several examples in the above article, YANKING THE TEETH FROM THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT, taken directly from the Bible itself to prove itself false and NOT the Word of God, reason alone will now be used to demonstrate Christianity is NOT revelation from God. Thomas Paine, the man who elucidated Deism for the masses and who is the primary personal impetus for THINK! and the World Union of Deists, wrote: "The Calvinist, who damns children of a span long to hell to burn forever for the glory of God (and this is called Christianity), and the Universalist who preaches that all shall be saved and none shall be damned (and this also is called Christianity), boasts alike of their holy [reveled] religion and their Christian faith. "Something more therefore is necessary than mere cry and wholesale assertion, and that something is TRUTH; and as inquiry is the road to truth, he that is opposed to inquiry is not a friend to truth. "The God of truth is not the God of fable; when, therefore, any book is introduced into the world as the Word of God, and made a groundwork for religion, it ought to be scrutinized more than other books to see if it bear evidence of being what it is called. Our reverence to God demands that we do this, lest we ascribe to God what is not His, and our duty to ourselves demands it lest we take fable for fact, and rest our hope of salvation on a false foundation. "It is not our calling a book holy that makes it so, any more than our calling a religion holy that entitles it to the name. Inquiry therefore is necessary in order to arrive at truth. But inquiry must have some principle to proceed on, some standard to judge by, superior to human authority. "When we survey the works of creation, the revolutions of the planetary system, and the whole economy of what is called nature, which is no other than the laws the Creator has prescribed to matter, we see unerring order and universal harmony reigning throughout the whole. No one part contradicts another. The sun does not run against the moon, nor the moon against the sun, nor the planets against each other. Everything keeps its appointed time and place. "This harmony in the works of God is so obvious, that the farmer of the field, though he cannot calculate eclipses, is as sensible of it as the philosophical astronomer. He sees the God of order in every part of the visible universe." "Here, then, is the standard to which everything must be brought that pretends to be the work or Word of God, and by this standard it must be judged, independently of anything and everything that man can say or do. His opinion is like a feather in the scale compared with the standard that God Himself has set up." Since we know we did not create the creation or ourselves, yet we and the creation do exist, it is logical to believe that God, or an Eternal Cause or Creator created us. This belief has absolutely nothing to do with revealed religion. In fact, all the absurdities of revealed religion are responsible for many sincere thinking people to reject and close their minds to natural religion/Deism. The priests, ministers, and rabbis need to suppress, or at least complicate, the pure and simple belief and realization of Deism for their own job security. And the power elites have no use for Deism because they can't use Deism to "inspire" mankind to wage war against itself for the elitists' own selfish purposes. In fact, Deism, by focusing on the first creed of all religions, belief in God, could frustrate the war/money machine permanently. The following quote from Thomas Jefferson points us in a direction free of the confusion of priest-craft and revealed religion: "I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the universe, in its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces; the structure of the Earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere; animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles; insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe, that there is in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a Fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their Preserver and Regulator, while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power, to maintain the universe in its course and order." Because Deism is based on nature, the laws of nature, and the creation, it is a natural religion as opposed to revealed or man-made artificial religion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEISM VS. ATHEISM In George H. Smith's book ATHEISM - THE CASE AGAINST GOD, it is stated that rationality will not lead to God. That instead, God can only be brought about by rationalization. The book describes rationality as first finding evidence, then arriving at the idea, like Newton seeing the apple fall to the ground and then discovering the law of gravity. It then describes rationalization as first accepting an idea and then searching for evidence to support it, like someone inventing the idea of God and then saying God created the universe. Deism says it is rationality and reason that leads to God. To the Deist, the evidence is the creation and the idea of what brought about the evidence is the Creator. There is absolutely nothing known to man that created itself. For example, if someone shows us a computer, and tells us that all the individual parts that make up the computer just came about by chance, that they somehow just formed into a perfectly working computer system all by themselves, we would be foolish to believe that person. Reason, if we use it, won't let us believe a statement like that. Likewise, if someone tells us the ever growing creation and its perfect order "happened" by pure chance, we are under no obligation to believe them. From our own experience we know everything created has a creator. Why then should the creation itself be different? There is, however, one quality the creation has that makes leaving its existence to chance even more remote. That quality is motion. Turning again to Thomas Paine we find the following pertinent observation he made regarding atheism in a speech to the Society of Theophilanthropists in Paris, France, shortly after the French Revolution: "In the first place, admitting matter to have properties, as we see it has, the question still remains, how came matter by those properties? To this they will answer, that matter possessed those properties eternally. This is not solution, but assertion; and to deny it is as impossible of proof as to assert it. "It is then necessary to go further; and therefore I say - if there exist a circumstance that is not a property of matter, and without which the universe, or to speak in a limited degree, the solar system composed of planets and a sun, could not exist a moment, all the arguments of atheism, drawn from properties of matter, and applied to account for the universe, will be overthrown, and the existence of a superior cause, or that which man calls God, becomes discoverable, as is before said, by natural philosophy. "I go now to show that such a circumstance exists, and what it is. "The universe is composed of matter, and, as a system, is sustained by motion. Motion is not a property of matter, and without this motion, the solar system could not exist. Were motion a property of matter, that undiscovered and undiscoverable thing called perpetual motion would establish itself. "It is because motion is not a property of matter, that perpetual motion is an impossibility in the hand of every being but that of the Creator of motion. When the pretenders to atheism can produce perpetual motion, and not till then, they may expect to be credited. "The natural state of matter, as to place, is a state of rest. Motion, or change of place, is the effect of an external cause acting upon matter. As to that faculty of matter that is called gravitation, it is the influence which two or more bodies have reciprocally on each other to unite and be at rest. Everything which has hitherto been discovered, with respect to the motion of the planets in the system, relates only to the laws by which motion acts, and not to the cause of motion. "Gravitation, so far from being the cause of motion to the planets that compose the solar system, would be the destruction of the solar system, were revolutionary motion to cease; for as the action of spinning upholds a top, the revolutionary motion upholds the planets in their orbits, and prevents them from gravitating and forming one mass with the sun. In one sense of the word, philosophy knows, and atheism says, that matter is in perpetual motion. "But the motion here meant refers to the state of matter, and that only on the surface of the Earth. It is either decomposition, which is continually destroying the form of bodies of matter, or recomposition, which renews that matter in the same or another form, as the decomposition of animal or vegetable substances enters into the composition of other bodies. "But the motion that upholds the solar system, is of an entirely different kind, and is not a property of matter. It operates also to an entirely different effect. It operates to perpetual preservation, and to prevent any change in the state of the system. "Giving then to matter all the properties which philosophy knows it has, or all that atheism ascribes to it, and can prove, and even supposing matter to be eternal, it will not account for the system of the universe, or of the solar system, because it will not account for motion, and it is motion that preserves it. "When, therefore, we discover a circumstance of such immense importance, that without it the universe could not exist, and for which neither matter, nor any nor all the properties can account, we are by necessity forced into the rational conformable belief of the existence of a cause superior to matter, and that cause man calls GOD. "As to that which is called nature, it is no other than the laws by which motion and action of every kind, with respect to unintelligible matter, are regulated. And when we speak of looking through nature up to nature's God, we speak philosophically the same rational language as when we speak of looking through human laws up to the power that ordained them. "God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon." In addition to motion acting as a perpetual preserver, it also acts as a continual source for the universe's constant expansion. Every second the universe is expanding at the speed of light (186,282 miles per second). According to Astronomy Magazine, 2/14/92, page 49, "Astronomers presently believe there isn't enough mass in the universe, even with dark matter, to stop its expansion." This exciting realization should fill everyone with unlimited appreciation when we realize we are a part of this amazing and spectacular universe! The Creator is immeasurably generous! In ATHEISM - THE CASE AGAINST GOD, the author writes, " . . .when I claim not to believe in a god, I mean that I do not believe in anything "above" or "beyond" the natural, knowable universe." Deism teaches that the Creator is knowable and discoverable through the creation itself. It is very understandable how people could be turned off by man-made religions and superstitions with their bombings and financial beg-a-thons, and confuse artificial or revealed religion with God. However, the atheist attitude of accepting things simply as not knowable is dangerous to the progress of humanity. Many things were not knowable in the past that are knowable today. At one time Europeans believed it was impossible to know what was on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean: but they were wrong. As we learn more about the sciences, we are learning more about the Power that put those principles in place. An eternal Being, as Thomas Paine said, "whose power is equal to His will." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEISM AND DEATH Revealed religions all teach different opinions on death. Even the different denominations of the same umbrella religion preach different dogmas. A good example is Christianity. Some of the Christian denominations say an essential qualification to get into heaven (of course they all agree dying is a key requirement) is that you have to be baptized "by submersion," while others say just a "sprinkling" is fine. Which is it? Sprinkling or submersion?? The fear of death is a big motivator for many people to support a particular religion. We all know, without the possibility of doubt, that a day will come for absolutely all of us when we will die. This realization brings fear to many people. It also brings money to religious charlatans who aren't ashamed to prey on this fear. In fact, it can be truthfully said that the revealed religions of the world all use the fear of death to put cash in their own pockets. Contrary to this self-serving attitude of the revealed religions, Deism teaches that no one knows for certain what happens after death, if anything at all. It teaches that, based on the creation we are all a part of, we shouldn't worry about it. That instead, we should be concerned for the present and future of planet Earth and humanity. That we should work hard to improve life and also enjoy it here and now. Why should we worry about death when we have so much to do in life? And do we think so little of Nature's God that we don't trust Him with our future? Ethan Allen, a Deist from America's Revolutionary War era, wrote, "Ungrateful and foolish it must be for rational beings in the possession of existence, and surrounded with a kind and almighty Providence, to distrust the author thereof concerning their futurity, because they cannot comprehend the mode or manner of their succeeding and progressive existence." Another Deist that had interesting thoughts on death was Benjamin Franklin. One quote of Franklin's was, "Take courage mortal, death cannot banish you from the universe." Ben Franklin's epitaph on himself provides a look at his belief that our life on earth is not the beginning and end of a personality. He, like Ethan Allen above, seems to have believed that the state of our spirits or souls is of an evolutionary nature. Franklin's epitaph reads, "The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out and stripped of its lettering and gilding, lies here, food for worms. But the work shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more elegant edition, revised and corrected by the Author." In Thomas Paine's the AGE OF REASON, we read on pages 177 and 178 the following: "But all other arguments apart, the consciousness of existence is the only conceivable idea we have of another life, and the continuance of that consciousness is immortality. The consciousness of existence, of the knowing that we exist, is not necessarily confined to the same form, nor to the same matter, even in this life. "We have not in all cases the same form, nor in any case the same matter that composed our bodies twenty or thirty years ago; and yet we are conscious of being the same persons. . . "That the consciousness of existence is not dependent on the same form or the same matter is demonstrated to our senses in the works of the creation, as far as our senses are capable of receiving that demonstration. A very numerous part of the animal creation preaches to us, far better than Paul, the belief of a life hereafter. Their little life resembles an Earth and a heaven - a present and a future state, and comprises, if it may be so expressed, immortality in miniature. "The most beautiful parts of the creation to our eye are the winged insects, and they are not so originally. They acquire that form and that inimitable brilliancy by progressive changes. The slow and creeping caterpillar-worm of today passes in a few days to a torpid figure and a state resembling death; and in the next change comes forth in all the miniature magnificence of life, a splendid butterfly." posted 02-22-200108:42 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Prarie ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Prarie...Ah, now we return to the issue of faith. Since when has faith been a bad word? First, because acroma brought this up, I will state it now. I believe that theology is in the area of the supernatural. There are many aspects of our lives that cannot be explained by natural means. Most people have witnessed or believe in the possibility of miracles that modern science cannot explain. The natural is best explained by science whereas the supernatural often cannot be explained by science. I did not say that authorship was irrelevant. What I said was that the author is not nearly as important as the meaning of what is written. Rosa is the archaeologist in the group but I am sure that she would agree that a manuscript that is written within 25 years of the proported date of the original is not something to sneeze at. However, you dismiss it as if it was nothing. I would highly encourage you to read the entire article I submitted to you by link. There are very few original manuscripts of anything from the biblical times. Prior to the finding of P52, most sceptics like yourself were dating the gospel of John in AD 170. I guess, as usual, archaeology proved you wrong. Keep in mind that Coleridge and Keats were much later than the bible. My point is that you are applying modern standards of authenticity to ancient texts. Tell me how many original autographa of anything that was written during the same time period. I'd be interested to see what you find. You would be willing to throw away a great deal of ancient works to prove a point. Nevertheless, I believe I have answered your question to the best of my ability. IF that does not satisfy you, then I'm sorry. We'll have to agree to disagree. Freegrace 2 Thes 2:16 "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, 17 comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word." "The reason true atheists (not your average "I-don't-like- what-mommy-and-daddy-say-so-I-hate-God" rebellious teen) are depressed is because atheism offers no hope, only proof. Proof of no hope." Mike Sorrow posted 02-22-200108:43 PM Prairie Nigger Member 1359 Posts Member since: 11-01-2000 Freegrace ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'd like to reiterate that faith is independent of proof. I'm sorry that you percieve that to mean that faith has a negative connotation. Your reaction is odd and inappropriate given that Christians are certainly in the majority in this country, and that you are entitled to your faith independent of proof. Proof will neither weaken or strenghten your faith, if you truly have it. However, if you want to proselytize, than you are obligated to offer more than faith as proof. If you are talking to people who don't necessarily share your faith, and you want to convince them of the validity of the Bible and the teachings therein, you should expect to be able to offer proof beyond faith, and proof that means fairly rigorous standards of authentication. Not everyone is capable of making that leap of faith (emphasis: leap) and you can't expect them to. Changing the ascribed date of the executed text doesn't compromise the work of archeologists. Thanks to technological advances they are able to more accurately date the texts...texts which in this case are dated more than 100 ytears after the events took place. The difference between the Bible and the Greek and Roman texts to which you referred, is that writings of Herodotus and Plato are regarded as literature, The Bible is regarded as the word of God. A system requiring rigoruous dedication to execute. Why should one take that lifestyle seriously if it's no more authenticate than a work of literature. Why should I regard the Revelations as any more relevant than Thucydidies' History of the Pelopennesian War when both are without primary authorship? Why should I not take Aesop's Fables to be equally important as a guideline for living when it echoes many of the same principles of moral behavior. Ultimately, what we're talking about is a group of texts that perscribe moral behavior and are purportedly the word of God. But unless one has faith, this notion that they are the word of God is absurd since there is no proof for it. In order to convince someone that the Bible is the divine word of God you must equate it to something other than literature. Not just as a collection of stories written by historical figures. And there is no more substantive proof of the authenticity of these texts than there is of any other work of literature from that time. The question becomes why follow the teachings of this book over any other when without proof of authorship it's no different from any other work of literature. When considering that many of those stories were likely passed through oral tradition long before they ever saw paper, and that embelishment was a staple of the oral tradition, the data within is prone to embelishment, modification, mutation, etc. "Yeah, hes like an STD." - Order in an Artificial Chaos posted 02-23-200101:19 AM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Prarie and Fred ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thanks for your contributions. My time is short and so I will be brief. Prarie, I don't know if you have followed this thread or others. I have said that my primary purpose is to demonstrate the love of Christ. My second purpose is not necessarily to prove Christianity but to demonstrate that it is not inherently illogical to be a Christian. The stereotype on this bbs is that Christians are illogical self-righteous people who could care less about others. I have already said that Christianity requires faith and belief in the Bible requires faith. However, faith is not inherently an absence of proof. As I demonstrated before, there are external testimonies of people who knew John who said he wrote the book. I believe there are also internal testimonies within the book itself. Furthermore, the moral qualifications of Christianity do have proof. I have demonstrated on the previous thread why I believe man is inherently evil. I have done so by using psychological studies and historical evidence. I think that our world is awakening to the day when it can see the consequences of some of the other sins that Christianity speaks of. We can see an entire generation of youth who were brought up in single parent homes because their parents did not ascribe to the notion of one marriage partner for life. We are seeing many pregnant teenagers because they were taught that pre-marital sex was OK. Rictus blames AIDS on the Catholic church. I blame it on a society that does not teach that we should be monogomous and only have sex within the context of marriage. That could settle the issue of AIDS once and for all. Not to mention the anthropological evidence that has gone to demonstrate that many of the skeptics arguments against God have been disproven. Still, I feel you place a standard on the Bible that you do not to others. It appears that you readily admit that the Roman texts do not have the authenticity of autographa you are requiring for the Bible but you dismiss that because the purpose of each book is different. That's up to you but I think that is a poor argument for having a double standard. Nevertheless, if you want proof I would recommend that you read this thread as well as the previous one and then get back to me on why you think I have not offered enough proof. If you haven't read them both, then I think you should not counsel me on how to operate on this thread when you have no "proof" that I haven't already done what you are asking me to do...freegrace 2 Thes 2:16 "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, 17 comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word." "The reason true atheists (not your average "I-don't-like- what-mommy-and-daddy-say-so-I-hate-God" rebellious teen) are depressed is because atheism offers no hope, only proof. Proof of no hope." Mike Sorrow [This message was edited by freegrace on 02-23-2001 at 11:13 AM.] posted 02-23-200108:45 AM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 In addition Prarie ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I believe there is more proof that John did write the book than he did not. I have sited other people who claim that he did, internal evidences within the book and others. What PROOF do you have that he didn't write it? If the best you can do is offer a manuscript date, then I have already demonstrated that this data is insufficient to disprove Johanine authorship. Since you are so adamant about proof, I would say that more proof exists that he did write it than he did not. Therefore, you should believe that he did unless you can prove otherwise. If not you are acting without proof which you call faith. Secondly, since you griped at me about this, you have not answered my questions. I wanted to know everyones including your interpretation of "Born Again." I also want to know the subjective reasons why you believe as you do. What has that belief given you in life and made your life and others better? Finally, I would like to know what your belief is about God, origin, man, sin, salvation and etc. What proof do you have for those beliefs? (Some of these questions I added here but I did previously ask you about Born Again and subjective reasons for your beliefs). Also Prarie, since your life is built around proof, what proof did you have when you posted that Order in Artificial Chaos was 13? As you have said, this is a very intelligent group and I would highly doubt that simply saying you have "credible sources" without naming them would be sufficient evidence to make such an accusation. Do you have their writings in the original autographa and would you be willing to share those with us? Thank you in advance for taking the time to respond to my questions. I am waiting anxiously for your response. Sincerely, Freegrace 2 Thes 2:16 "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, 17 comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word." "The reason true atheists (not your average "I-don't-like- what-mommy-and-daddy-say-so-I-hate-God" rebellious teen) are depressed is because atheism offers no hope, only proof. Proof of no hope." Mike Sorrow [This message was edited by freegrace on 02-23-2001 at 01:29 PM.] posted 02-23-200109:03 AM Tu Es Petra Member 796 Posts Member since: 02-16-2001 THEY COME INTO MY THREADS STRICTLY OUT OF HATE AND DESPISE ------------------------------------------------------------------------ THATS WHY FREEGRACE. RICTUS RECTUM: I NEVER SAID YOU STRETCHED MY THREADS. ANOTHER FALSE STATEMENT BY YOU ASSHOLE.READ ABOVE. YOU'RE A VENGEFUL FUCKWAD THAT CAN NEVER ADMIT MISTAKE. LOOK AT HOW YOU TWISTED AND MADE UP ADDITIONAL BULLSHIT GARBAGE WHEN FREEGRACE TRIED TO POLITELY CONFRONT YOU WITH "THE WESTERNER EVIL THING" YOU'RE A EGOTISTICAL ASSHOLE. ONLY THE BABY SHEEP FOLLOW ME TO HARASS posted 02-23-200112:21 PM Tu Es Petra Member 796 Posts Member since: 02-16-2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SO MUCH SHIT SPEWS FROM YOUR MOUTH YOU CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID. I BET YOU WENT BACK AND STUDIED YOUR EARLIER MORONIC STATEMENT JUST SO YOU COULD TRY TO BEND IT AND MAKE IT LOOK LESS IGNORANT. WHAT ABOUT THE POPE QUOTE ?????? LMAO. I KNOW I KNOW IT WAS MEANT AS SARCASM . YOU WERE JUST USING AN EXAMPLE TO SHOW ME. YOU'RE AN EGOTISTICAL ASSHOLE. ONLY THE BABY SHEEP FOLLOW ME TO HARASS posted 02-23-200112:27 PM Rictus Member 3203 Posts Member since: 06-05-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ You said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'M NOT DOING ANYTHING YOU HAVEN'T DONE IN OTHER THREADS AGAINST ME...ASSHOLE. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yet you have repeatedly streached this thread (to the inconvinience of all it's participents). I say again: show me one example of my doing this to you, and I will appologise unconditionally. Otherwise, admit that I have NEVER streached any of your posts, and you're doing it to me cannot be justified as retaliation. Me. Random Quote club 2001 - member No. 1 "All the drugs in this world Won't save her from herself..." *^*Co-founder and proud member of the blackjack appreciation society. She's tiny but she rules.*^* "Kill The Cheese!!!" - Eliza (who I love) "No one is a nigger" - Order in an Artificial Chaos posted 02-23-200112:41 PM Tu Es Petra Member 796 Posts Member since: 02-16-2001 FREEGRACE ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I HOPE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAID EARLIER. LET ME DEFINE.....JUST SO ASSHOLE WON'T TRY TO TWIST MY WORDS AROUND UNTIL IT PLEASES HIM OR CHANGES THE MEANING. EGO ASSHOLE COMES INTO MY THREADS WITH ONE THING ON HIS MIND. TO DISS ME. THIS IS HATEFUL. THIS IS VENGEFUL. THIS IS CHILDISH. THIS IS WHAT HE DOES. HE LIKES TO USE HIS LARGE VOCABULARY TO IMPRESS PEOPLE INTO BELIEVING HE IS ALWAYS CORRECT. SOME IGNORANT YOUNG PEOPLE FALL FOR THIS! I HAVE SEEN THEM REPLY " RICTUS IS SMARTER THAN YOU SO HE MUST BE RIGHT " LMAO. FUCKING SAD. I ASK YOU............ HAVE YOU EVER SEEN HIM OR A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THIS SITE SAY..............I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG.......OR....I WAS WRONG. ????????????????????????????????? HAVE YOU????? NO. IT'S ALWAYS........ THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT. YOU MISUNDERSTOOD. I THINK WE DISAGREE. OR A BUNCH OF ADDITIONAL BULLSHIT TO CHANGE THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF WHAT HE SAID. NEVER!!!!!!! I WAS WRONG OR MAY HAVE. I WILL NOT CONDONE AN ASSHOLE THAT COMES TO MY THREADS FOR JUST HATE PURPOSES. I WILL NOT RESPECT A VENGEFUL ASSHOLE. SOMETIMES JUST A LITTLE VIOLENCE HELPS PEOPLE GET PERSPECTIVE OR RESPECT OF A FELLOW HUMAN BEING BACK!!! I HOPE EGO ASSHOLE RICTUS TALKS CONDESCENDINGLY TO THE WRONG PERSON IN REAL LIFE ONE DAY AND THEY SMACK THE COCKSUCKER.I KNOW I WOULD LOVE THE CHANCE TO DO SO. I AM WRONG IN STRETCHING THIS THREAD. BUT SINCE I DON'T TYPE WELL AND ONLY HAVE A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION IT SERVES ITS PURPOSE. IT'S HATEFUL. IT'S VENGEFUL. IT'S CHILDISH. IT'S WHAT I DO!!!! I THINK THAT LAST STATEMENT SOUNDS FAMILIAR! ONLY THE BABY SHEEP FOLLOW ME TO HARASS posted 02-23-200112:54 PM All times are PST . << next newest topic | next oldest topic >> | Page:Next Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 |