| 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 Rictus Member 3203 Posts Member since: 06-05-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Take your time man. it's good to BE back! "All the drugs in this world Won't save her from herself..." "Kill The Cheese!!!" - Eliza (who I love) "No one is a nigger" - Order in an Artificial Chaos posted 01-19-200105:09 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Mike Sorrow ------------------------------------------------------------------------ One other point, rather than attacking the source of the article, I would like to see you attack the content of it. I think it does bring up some good points. Here are a few: 1. Is it true that there are fossils that indicate that man existed before he was supposed to on the evolutionary timeline? If so, how do you address that issue? 2. Is it true that there have been documented cases of scientists making conclusions of a group of fossils and then being shown that it could be just as easily proven that they were normative for humans (e.g. the example of the fossil that was declared to be erectus and then shown to be straight)? 3. Is it true that a model of a fossil may not be as accurate as the true one and thus could lead to disparities in interpretation? 4. I'd like for you to look at this article: http://www.origins.org/pjohnson/whatis.html I think it does a good job of discussing some of the underlying assumptions of the naturalistic framework. I agree with the author's argument that the theory of evolution is intending to answer this question, "How must creation have occurred if we assume that God had nothing to do with it?" 5. What proof would you require for the existence of God? What would it take to persuade you? Not that I intend to because as I mentioned faith is not necessarily based on proof that the five senses can see. However, the point I am making is that the absence of God is an underlying assumption in the naturalistic framework of science and thus, I am not sure how "impartial" science is to the issue of God. It amazes me that you can see such great patterns from chaotic evolution but cannot notice a hint of intelligent design. How many other creations occur by chaos that are as complex as the universe and the human body? God is crazy about you. If God had a refrigerator, your picture would be on it. If He had a wallet, your photo would be in it. He sends you flowers every spring. He sends you a sunrise every morning. Whenever you want to talk, He listens. He can live anywhere in the universe, yet He chooses your heart. Face it, friend-He is crazy about you! posted 01-19-200105:23 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Rictus and Mike Sorrow ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rictus...FYI...I actually edited the message that I previously posted on page 4 with a response. Hopefully it will show up. I can't see it right now but hopefully you can. Otherwise, I'll rewrite it. We can attribute it to the chaotic bbs. Mike Sorrow...One other thing, in terms of persuading others who might be questioning their opinions and the burden of proof. Keep in mind, my goal is not to debate but to answer questions. I'm not trying to persuade people against evolution but to state why I don't believe in it and state why I also believe that this system requires faith. Admittedly, science is not one of my major focuses in life as it is yours but I believe that I have arrived at a belief by looking at both sides. I have discussed this issue thoroughly with Christians and non-Christians alike and taken all their opinions into account. As I said, I am very surprised by some of the statements you are making because I have found very few scientists that have as much faith in the fossil record as you do. They seem to recognize that evolution has many holes but that it is the best explanation in their mind. Obviously I disagree, but I respect that conclusion. I will say that even prior to converting to Christianity I did question evolution. I have looked it objectively and subjectively. I just want to make sure you understand my frame of reference. One of the greatest problems with Christianity is that people are not willing to answer the question Why? I hope that I do even if my answers may not be convincing to everyone. God is crazy about you. If God had a refrigerator, your picture would be on it. If He had a wallet, your photo would be in it. He sends you flowers every spring. He sends you a sunrise every morning. Whenever you want to talk, He listens. He can live anywhere in the universe, yet He chooses your heart. Face it, friend-He is crazy about you! posted 01-19-200105:40 PM Rictus Member 3203 Posts Member since: 06-05-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Freegrace: I read the edit. I like the points you raised. I'll address them properly later but for now, I would ask: What do you think about my theory concerning inherrent morality? I'm talking about the postulate that servival of the species and one's children comes before personal servival, thus suggesting man is not inherently selfish on a personal level. Just curious. For me, it goes a long way to debunking origonal sin. Glad of the interaction friend. Talk to you soon. Rictus. "All the drugs in this world Won't save her from herself..." "Kill The Cheese!!!" - Eliza (who I love) "No one is a nigger" - Order in an Artificial Chaos posted 01-19-200105:49 PM Rosa_McGee Member 841 Posts Member since: 08-16-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ @ freegrace, two points (i'll keep it short because i start getting a bit emotional again.... sorry): (but sometimes i really think you chose to misinterpret us, or else i really cannot make myself understood in english) 1. what mike sorrow wrote, and what i have written in the older thread is not that jesus didn't exist: we both admit, i think, on the historical evidence given, the possibility, or probability of the existence of a historical person called jesus... but we doubt this person actually was the son of god... because here the only source is the new testament, a religious and not a historical scripture, written with the intention of advertising christianity & therefore far from impartial the burden of proof is on you in this case, i think.... 2. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE PUT IN A SOCIAL CONTEXT ... even though it has been done, this is a misapplication and distortion... it has, however NO IMPACT AT ALL on the validity (or lack thereof) of the theory itself... however, it applies to humans as a species... (if you consider, e.g., the coming of another ice age, a meteor impact, greenhouse effect.... ) @ rictus... i think we agree on the morality issue, how humans develop morality.... our ideas seem pretty close, i had something like that on page 1, or so... @ freegrace... laws don't drop from the heavens... humans make them, following their 'instincts' (primarily of preservation, as rictus and i seem to agree), however much the single individuum might resent a particular lawsometimes... *sigh*.. longer than i intended again.... posted 01-19-200105:54 PM devilmunchkin Member 3003 Posts Member since: 08-19-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ free grace: in looking at alot of your background info, you seem to have been looking at alot if internet info if i'm correct. I ask that you go to your biology department or library and read book sin there. That, And i still think you should talk to my prof: Dan_Wivagg@baylor.edu The man is brilliant and is the editor of a scientific magazine..just in case you're wondering as to how credible he is. He'll be very up front is saying that evolution is not a belief. It' s not...As for all your pointings out about how science is faulty..i say this: at least science is making an better attempt to explain the unexplainable that merely placing unfounded faith is something completely and utterly unproven. One cannot prove God's existence at all. SCience can make things tangible and such opposition to it i think is perhaps wishful thinking? I think it's good if you want to place such faith in a god, but, i also think ou should open up to science as well, perhaps let them coexist. But also, science isn't a study of god. It shouldn't have to deal with that realm. That's what theology is for. SCience is not there to discuss god let alone disprove him. It's there so that more sense can be made of the vagueness around us. If we left what we know in the hands of ancient texts, we'd never would have known what causes earthquakes, tornadoes, and other natural occurances that people created gods for to explain it. SCience merely gives a better understanding but in no way should be placed in a category with religion. Because, science is not. It's a way to discover, religion is already set. THROUGH ME YOU GO INTO PAIN THAT IS ETERNAL, THROUGH ME YOU GO AMONG PEOPLE LOST. JUSTICE MOVED MY EXALTED CREATOR: THE DIVINE POWER MADE ME, THE SUPREME WISDOM AND THE PRIMA LOVE. BEFORE ME ALL CREATED THINGS WERE ETERNAL, AND ETERNAL WILL LAST. ABANDON EVERY HOPE YOU WHO ENTER HERE. Dante's Inferno, Canto III posted 01-19-200106:56 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Rosa McGee, Mike Sorrow and Rictus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rosa_McGee...Please allow me to clarify any confusion that may have resulted from my reference to the Was Jesus a Myth? topic. In context, the quote from the post was addressing people who actually did claim that Jesus never existed (i.e. Illuminated). I never have believed that you actually argued against his existence. I am sorry if I misinterpret you. I have found on these threads that I often get a lot of questions thrown at me that require detailed answers. I will confess that much of the misinterpretation is because I don't read what you all are saying close enough. However, if I read it all as closely as I would like, I wouldn't have time to begin to respond to any of them. I am sorry for any frustation I might have caused on your part for my misinterpretations. My point to Mike Sorrow is that the Bible is not the only source of evidence for Jesus. In terms of the burden of proof, I believe that Jesus being the son of God has both objective and subjective validity. First, the fact that he bodily rose from the dead is in my opinion objective proof of His diety. The constant issue is whether the Biblical portrayal of that occurrence is accurate or inspired by devoted followers who were willing to lie to justify their view of God. Neither of us were there so we cannot say definitively. You err on the side that the resurrection account is not accurate. I err on the side that it is. It is a judgment call. I have not forgotten Prarie's request that I validate why I believe the Bible is authoritative. However, I am trying to handle one issue at a time (although I am willing to accommodate Rictus since he has been with me throughout this thread). Incidentally, that is why I have not addressed Plastic Jesus' points about the alleged bible contradictions yet either. It is also objective in that ultimately there is a correct answer. That is why I so vigorously espouse the law of non-contradiction. I believe that this will be objectively validated at the resurrection of the dead. Thus, the burden of proof does not lie in my hands but in Gods and I am confident that in due time it will be proven. Evolution and Big Bang Theory, in my opinion are assertions on what might have happened in the past but none of us can say with certainty (although I think that the 99.99% certainty Mike Sorrow claims to offer is somewhat inflated...You say you were surprised at how literally I take the Bible...I am surprised at how confident he is in the fossil record). He rests his belief on fossils and I on the Bible. Both of us exercise belief in what they teach. In many senses, both forms of thought are circular. Mike uses Evolutionary Biology to prove Evolution. I will attach a website that demonstrates this albeit it is written from a Christian point of view: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/09nsel06.htm Here is an example for those who do not have the time to read it: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NATURAL SELECTION IS CIRCULAR REASONING Nature selected and produced each species. The proof is that it did it. How do we know it did it? Because it did it. "Thus we have a question: `Why do some multiply while others remain suitable, dwindle, or die out?' to which is offered an answer: `Because some multiply while others remain stable, dwindle, or die out. "The two sides of the equation are the same. We have a tautology. The definition is meaningless."⤔*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 47. "I tend to agree with those who have viewed natural selection as a tautology rather than a true theory."⤔*Steven Stanley, Macroevolution (1979), p. 193. "It leads to the justifiable criticism that the concept of natural selection is scientifically superficial. T.H. Morgan, famous American geneticist, said that the idea of natural selection is a tautology, a case of circular reasoning. It goes something like this: If something cannot succeed, it will not succeed. Or, to put it another way, those things which have succeeded were able to succeed."⤔Lester J. McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1986), p. 49. "[George Gaylord Simpson says:] I . . define selection, a technical term in evolutionary studies, as anything tending to produce systematic, heritable change in population between one generation and the next." [G.C. Simpson, Major Features of Evolution (1953), p. 138]. But is such a broad definition of any use? We are trying to explain what produces change. Simpson's explanation is natural selection, which he defines as what produces change. Both sides of the equation are again the same; again we have a tautology . . If selection is anything tending to produce change, he is merely saying that change is caused by what causes change . . The net explanation is nil."⤔Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 49. "This is extremely misleading. `There is no harm in stating the same truth in two different ways,' if one shows what one is doing by connecting the two statements with a phrase, such as in other words. But if one connects them with because, which is the earmark of the tautology, one deceives either the reader or oneself or both; and there is ample harm in this. "The simplest case, where one is informed that a cat is black because it is black, may be harmless, though irritating and useless; but the actual cases [in statements of evolutionary theory] are always harder to detect than this, and may darken counsel for a long time."⤔Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 63. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ He will disagree with me on this, but I do not see science as being nearly as objective as thought. In a subjective sense, I believe Christ to be true because of what He has done in my life and the life of others. That is faith. All of us believe in the existence of the atom but none of us have ever seen an actual evidence of an atom but we know it exists because of patterns in our lives. I believe the same is true of God although they deny it because of the moral implications of being subject to God. On the issue of the social application, I never stated that you believe that evolution should be applied in a social context. You made that quite clear in our last discussion. However, not everyone believes that. Mike Sorrow, do you? Rosa...I was specifically responding to Mike's question about why I don't believe in evolution as applied to a social context but not in any way shape or form suggesting that all or most darwinians believe it should. Does this clear up my statements? I hope so because I don't like to frustrate you but I am trying to restrain myself from apologizing again (thanks for saying it nicely though). Rictus, I believe that there is a real biological connection between mother and child and that mothers instinctively often place their children's need ahead of their own (although Devilmunchkin will certainly have stories that demonstrate otherwise). However, beyond that I see little evidence that people naturally put others needs ahead of their own by instinct. It is a learned behavior. As proof, how many children have to be taught to share? Are children naturally considerate of what other people want or do they have to be taught that? If left untaught would most children grow up to share? I daresay you will probably not find many mothers who will say that children are naturally considerate of others. I also do not see evidence of it in nature. In that regard I do agree with Darwin that the goal of every creature is self-preservation and propogation of the species. However, I don't think that is a good thing, I call it sin. Mike Sorrow, why do you believe man is naturally evil? I provided a lot of comments from non-Christian sources on the other thread but very few people were willing to go along with me. I'd be curious to see what your thoughts are from a scientific and philosophical perspective. However, I don't want to turn this into a long debate like we did on the other thread. Thanks all and good night...freegrace God is crazy about you. If God had a refrigerator, your picture would be on it. If He had a wallet, your photo would be in it. He sends you flowers every spring. He sends you a sunrise every morning. Whenever you want to talk, He listens. He can live anywhere in the universe, yet He chooses your heart. Face it, friend-He is crazy about you! posted 01-19-200107:12 PM Mike Sorrow Member 2179 Posts Member since: 10-08-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *mouth gapes open and drops to the floor* Ok, I don't check back for 24 hours and there are like 7 or 8 responses! I did acknowledge the posts, but do not have the time to read them. I thank you all for posting and promise to reply later. - Mike Sorrow - posted 01-19-200109:08 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Mike...Now you know how I feel... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It's a lot to keep up with isn't it. Trying to keep up with my ongoing discussion with Rictus, Devilmunchkin, Rosa, Plastic Jesus and yourself is challenging, especially since we're talking about a lot of different issues. Take your time. Now it is my turn to be patient...freegrace Devilmunchkin...I didn't see your post earlier when I posted mine. I was having trouble at work getting around the filtering system. Please don't misinterpret this as a closed mind, but I feel very much at peace with my view on Evolution. I can't possibly know everything about everything and so I have to concentrate on those things of the greatest interest. I am studying several hours a day, going to school full time, working part time and pastoring a church (not to mention the time I am spending here). On the issue of science, as I mentioned in the past the best science can do is tell us what isn't right. That is not enough for me. I did not invent God, but God invented me. From my perspective, the worst that can happen if I am wrong on this matter is that I die and never knew I was wrong. However, if I am right on the matter of God, the consequences for those who did not believe are much more dire. I hate to sound glib, but if this is all there is for this world what is the point of killing myself to study a subject (science especially, not necessarily evolution) I have no interest in. The costs of being wrong on this matter are not worth the effort. You may say that knowing the truth is worth it. What's the point of knowing the truth if this is all there is to life? Shouldn't I just eat, drink and be merry and just have fun? As I said on a previous post, I don't mind Plastic Jesus going to a site to get information about the Bible that was more than likely against it. I don't require him to only get his information from "The Bible is truth" sites to converse with me. In the same regard, I hope that you all don't expect me to get all my information from sites that teach evolution. Much of what I quoted actually came from the lips of scientists themselves (Hoyle and Crick are certainly no theists). Keep in mind, that this issue came as a result of a question. The only time I actually talk about evolution is when somebody asks me about it. I have yet to preach on it or teach a class about it. Frankly, if God used evolution I would not mind at all. I'd be proud of him either way. My only objection is when people say that God was not part of the creative process and use evolution as evidence. That's all. I'm sure I have just lost all credibility with everyone but evolution is not that critical of an issue to me as it is to some of you. What is critical to me is God's role in creation and as you said Devilmunchkin, science isn't concerned with that. I'm not willing to go to the wall on my views on evolution but I have merely stated what I believe (although many of these sites bring up some good points in my view). In the grand scheme of thing, my acceptance or rejection of evolution has little impact on how I live my life. Blast me for my thoughts on this matter all you want, but that is what I think...freegrace God is crazy about you. If God had a refrigerator, your picture would be on it. If He had a wallet, your photo would be in it. He sends you flowers every spring. He sends you a sunrise every morning. Whenever you want to talk, He listens. He can live anywhere in the universe, yet He chooses your heart. Face it, friend-He is crazy about you! posted 01-19-200109:52 PM Mike Sorrow Member 2179 Posts Member since: 10-08-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Given that this thread is monopolizing much of my internet and BBS time, I am going to try to keep this short (even though that probably won't work). If you need further clarification, just ask. First off, allow me to explain the 99.99% comment. I was not stating that the fossils, evolution, or Big Bang have this probability. I was just explaining the "Science cannot prove anything, yet it can disprove everything" quote. Science can offer immense probabilities. I am not, however, saying that it currently offers a 99.99% probability for anything at the time. I was just making an example of the reason that science can't prove anything without a shadow of a doubt. On Crick and Hoyle, you said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On the issue of Crick and Hoyle, ask them why they "misapplied" these factors when they were devout evolutionists themselves. I still stand to reason that many of the factors you are stating were very likely taken into consideration by Nobel Prize winning scientists. Are there any other scientists that corroborate with your analysis of their works? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ They didn't misapply these factors. They intentionally didn't take them into account because that was not their experiment. Their work was not to determine the probability of a strand of DNA appearing on Earth. Instead, their work was to determine the probability a strand of DNA spontaneously appearing. They wanted to know the probability of spontaneous generation not spontaneous generation under the condition of Earth. As for scientists that agree with me, yes there are. If you need names, biologists, Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, and also author of 'At Home in the Universe: the Search for Laws of Self- Organization and Complexity', Stuart Kauffman. As for the websites, there is a difference between the one that you offered and the one that Plastic Jesus offered. The one that you offered is a religious website "whose mission is to reclaim the primacy of Christian thought". While the website Plastic Jesus went to is also a religious one, it merely offered quotes from the Bible. It did not offer new evidence. You surely cannot deny the validity of the quotes that he offered because they are from the Bible, itself. You said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I find it ironic that anything a Christian says is often considered to be based on biased sources while atheists can say almost anything without being accused of being impartial. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The difference is that I am not arguing for the unbias of atheists. I am arguing for the unbias of scientists. It is not science's job to prove or disprove religion. That is why science has no bias in the matter. It is a scientist's job to seek an explanation for the happenings around us. If that happens to disprove religion, that is a bi-product. It was not the original intention of the scientist. Creationists, on the other hand, their entire purpose is to prove their religious beliefs. As for evolution, I do not deny that it takes faith. I just say it takes less faith. This is because at least evolution offers some physical proof while religion offers only text. It does have some holes. That is why it requires faith, but that is also why it is a theory and not a theorum. Ok. Onto your five questions. 1. I haven't heard of any in my research. If there are fossils of humans before there time (which I don't concede to, pending more research), I would explain it that evolution in itself is caused by genetic mutation. If there were one or two bones found that determined a human species lived before its expected time, I would say that that would be an early evolution determined by a freak mutation. An example would be one human, or a few humans, evolved from a group of Neanderthals and died. Then, some time later humans began appearing less scarce. I would say that the earlier group would be caused by an evolution that was not ready for the world and was therefore weeded out by natural selection. 2. Yes, scientists have assumed incorrect things with A FEW fossils. The point is that there are still many, many more fossils that point towards evolution than against it. Possibly, these select few were caused by mutation, given that is the basis for evolutionary theory. 3. Yes, a model COULD be inaccurate. I bring upon the example of the Apatosaurus. This animal was once called the Brontosaurus, but had its name changed when a flaw in its skeletal model was discovered. However, saying that a model COULD be inaccurate is mere conjecture with no backing. Rictus COULD be an FBI agent, but again, it would be mere speculation. Given new methods of dating and other computer generated effects, the probability lies with the model being true to form. That is why evolution requires less faith, because probability rests on its side. 4. Evolutionary theory does not set to answer the question, "How must creation have occurred if we assume that God had nothing to do with it?" Instead, it tries to offer an explanation of our surroundings and creation. That is why I hold science to be unbias. Because science seeks answers regardless of the issue of God. There are indeed evolutionists that believe God created the first single-celled organism and evolution took it from there. Your evolutionary theory question is a straw man fallacy. It is unfair because you are building an argument for me and tearing it down when, in fact, that question is not my argument. 5. I haven't thought about what it would take to get me to believe in God. It'd probably have to be a whopper though. You said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ However, the point I am making is that the absence of God is an underlying assumption in the naturalistic framework of science and thus, I am not sure how "impartial" science is to the issue of God. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ That is where you are wrong. Science doesn't assume anything. It goes in with no assumptions and comes out with results of experiments and theories. Whether that proves or disproves religion is a separate issue. Science is not an institution with a self-serving ulterior. Religion is. If a scientific theory is proved wrong, it is science that proved it wrong. That is why science doesn't suffer. If a religious theory is proved wrong, it is science that proved it wrong. That is why religion suffers. As for burden of proof, the Bible is not authoritative. Authoritative sources do not contradict themselves. It is religious text. You said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ First, the fact that he bodily rose from the dead is in my opinion objective proof of His diety ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIRCULAR REASONING - Using the Bible as proof for what the Bible says. In case you missed this the first time, it is important so I will reiterate it. You said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ although I think that the 99.99% certainty Mike Sorrow claims to offer is somewhat inflated...You say you were surprised at how literally I take the Bible...I am surprised at how confident he is in the fossil record ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I am not 99.99% certain of the fossil record. I was using the 99.99% figure as a number that shows near-certainty, but not definitive proof. I used that merely as an example for the quote, "Science cannot prove anything...". I did not mean to imply that anything science has offered has 99.99% proof to it. You said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike uses Evolutionary Biology to prove Evolution. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Not really. I use biology to prove evolution. Biology is a secular, unbiased source. It only becomes "evolutionary biology" because of the proof it offers. Your article said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nature selected and produced each species. The proof is that it did it. How do we know it did it? Because it did it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ That is straw man fallacy again. You are stating my position and arguing against it. I never said, "because it did". The best way to understand what I am saying is think of an outline for a research paper or book. There is a main topic, and below that there are facts to support it. You cannot support the main topic without the facts below it. Natural selection is the main topic. And you attempt to discredit the arguments because they lie below it. The difference is that the supporting facts are separated from natural selection, itself. Your argument that the biblical account of Christ (namely, his resurrection) is proof of the Bible IS circular reasoning. This is because you are using a biblical account to prove the Bible. The supporting facts of natural selection can be viewed. Put 5 poodles and 5 bulldogs into a controlled area. See which species survives. I'll bet it will be the fittest. Why do I believe man is naturally evil? This is something I use no science to defend. I just use personal experiences. None of which I have the energy to go into. Is this all worth it? No, probably not. However, I do use evolution as an argument against God. Evolution contradicts the Bible. That is why you have so adamantly opposed it. And because this is not relevant, I respectively bow out of the conversation. I will still join the thread and ask trite questions, but this is my last two hour response. If you wish to respond to any of this, feel free. I'm still reading. I will still respond, but I am not, in the interest of time, going to be typing any more books on the subject. I thank you all for the intelligent discussion and will talk to you here in short replies and elsewhere on the BBS. One last thing to Freegrace, you said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Blast me for my thoughts on this matter all you want, but that is what I think ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No way, man. Have a good one. - Mike Sorrow - posted 01-19-200111:50 PM Rosa_McGee Member 841 Posts Member since: 08-16-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ @ mike sorrow thank you man... you're putting this so much better than i could... i hope your point will be taken... good luck to you @ freegrace quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ My point to Mike Sorrow is that the Bible is not the only source of evidence for Jesus. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ but it's the only source for his (alleged) divinity the proof for rictus' and my own theory on the origin of laws in instinct of preservation of human societies is, i think, the very fact of survival of those societies... animals might be guided primarily by their instincts of self-preserval, but even with animals living in larger groups the instinct includes the survival of the whole group... sure, e.g, male lions tend, if they take over the group, to kill the cubs, to make the females sooner ready bear their own... but usually, even while animals tend fight for rank, which mostly includes the right to the females of the group, mostly they don't kill each other in the process... probably not for any moral reason, pity, whatever, but simply because if they developed a pattern of behaviour that led to killing too many of it's own, the group / species would become extinct sooner or later... probably many did...... in a way you can apply this to human societies, too, but a major difference between humans and animals is that with humans much of this is a rational process as much as an instinctive one, though both these concepts certainly influence each other...... humans can reflect upon what they do, why they do it, and what they should do differently... they can, and do, form theories that concern the society they live in, those theories and the resulting actions include not only the aim of their own survival, but of their society (not so much of the human species in general... if we'd put that first, things probably would look a lot different, and better too... but thinking globally isn't something we've really learned yet....) the survival of their society, not only the single person's, has a large place in human thought, in the best as well as in the worst sense: in a totally distorted and fucked up way the whole concept of nationalism, finally resulting in the atrocities of the nazis is a concept of thought that is concerned with the survival of a society ... many societies in fact produce, even cultivate such ideas of subordinating your own needs to society's, equating the two ideas, even if this means sending 14 yr olds to fight before stalingrad ... another extreme example, that comes to my mind is the spartiate army fighting to death to the last man (not actually, the one that escaped killed himself afterwards because he couldn't bear the humilation) at the termoplyai... they knew there was not the least chance of success or even survival... but they acted acording to their society's & their own values... instinct of survival would have told them to surrender to the persians in the first place... nothing would have happened to them... another reason why you can't equate human and animal societies is that human societies at least today are much more complex, people are much more dependent on each other.... even within less complex societies, if you go about killing your neighbour because you want his possesions, his wife, or just becaue you dislike him it's likely, that, in a society that accepts such behaviour, someone sooner or later will do the same to you.. it's a society that wouldn't survive very long.. the members of complex societies discover that each has to put his / her need in relation to how it affects other people as well as themselves, and so develop laws that try to prevent such harmful actions in the first place, as well as take the jurisdiction away from the person harmed, in order to make it more objective, and every member of the society more willing to subject him/herself to it.... an animal instinct of survival still is existent, but it teaches us too, that under normal conditions we can't survive without society.... therfore we tend to accept the rules it makes, being at least partly the rules we make ourselves certainly those values are taught, but the point is, the society that teaches them is the same society that develops them, or adjusts them, when they don't fit any longer... they are not imposed on us against our will by an alien force a newborn child is a blank book... i don't think it has ANY instincts of good or evil, because those are concepts developed by humans societies... if it grows up with the wolves, jungle book fashion, it will know nothing else.... what man IS, or is not, on a mental / psychological level is as much a philosophical hypothesis as the question if god exists, at least with today's methods of science it cannot conclusivly be proven.... quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ However, if I am right on the matter of God, the consequences for those who did not believe are much more dire. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ and i still refuse to believe that.... you'll be saying i'm making up a god that suits my needs - should this be true then so be it, but i'm not making myself a slave (to use mansons words for once) to a god that is more revengeful, vain & narrowminded than the average human being... [This message was edited by Rosa_McGee on 01-20-2001 at 05:22 AM.] posted 01-20-200105:14 AM catholicgirl Junior Member 24 Posts Member since: 01-19-2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ and i still refuse to believe that.... you'll be saying i'm making up a god that suits my needs - should this be true then so be it, but i'm not making myself a slave (to use mansons words for once) to a god that is more revengeful, vain & narrowminded than the average human being... Why must God be ONLY vengeful, vain and narrowminded? What about merciful, loving, and just as well. Respectfully, Amanda catholicsinner@hotmail.com posted 01-20-200106:56 AM Shokan Member 6009 Posts Member since: 09-08-2000 yeah, i hit the wrong button and posted this as a new topic ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Hierophant's Proselytizer Questionnaire Read This questionnaire and fill it out! Email it to me @ energydrain@yahoo.com Presented to: ________________________ By: __________________________________ I come here to combat the fraud and illusion of your conventional, institutionalized religion. As with all such religions, your institution moves toward cowardice, it moves toward mediocrity, inertia, and self-satisfaction. -Frank Herbert, Children of Dune A friend and fellow "heretic" put some thoughts to paper, and came up with what I think to be the foremost list of questions, and consequently reasons, why Christianity should be abandoned. The questions follow unchanged from their original authoring. Under no circumstances will "The LORD works in mysterious ways" or other arguments in that vein be acceptable. If a question does not apply to your particular sect, explain why. Thank you! Lee Giffin (Shokan) 0. If necessary, use this space to explain any unique beliefs your sect has about the nature of your god, heaven, hell, the Bible, the Holy Spirit/Ghost, Satan, etc. 1. Explain why your god's only son had to die so we can go to heaven when we die. 2. Did everyone who died before Jesus died go to Hell? Justify your answer. 3. If a Catholic, justify the Inquisition and other persecutions of "heretics" throughout the centuries, concentrating on why the Pelagianists, the Priscillianists, and the Manichaeans were persecuted; if a Protestant, justify the witch trials and the way that Protestants constantly hunted down native Americans until there were so few that the government could simply take their land; if a member of an Eastern Orthodox church, justify the persecutions of the Old Believers after the reforms of the seventeenth century. 4. Explain why your sect (whether Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox) pursued, tortured, and killed people who were not Christian. 5. Explain why your sect (whether Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox) pursued, tortured, and killed people who were not members of your particular sect. 6. Explain why I should believe that your god is all-good when the only real information we have about him is the Bible, which clearly describes him as both good and evil. (See Isaiah 30:32, Luke 14:26, Numbers 31:17-18, Matthew 10:34, Amos 3:6, Deuteronomy 18:8, Deuteronomy 20:16, Exodus 20:5, Exodus 32:27, Isaiah 45:7, Psalms 52:5, Luke 22:36, and Jeremiah 18:11 for a small sample of Biblical passages which describe Jehovah as having an evil morality at times). 7. Explain why, when racism is clearly wrong, Jesus was clearly a racist (see Mark 7:25-29). NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe the idea that racism is morally acceptable. 8. Explain why, when discrimination against women is clearly wrong, the Bible clearly supports the oppression of women. Answering this question entails refuting 1 Cor 11 and 1 Tim 2:11-15. NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe that discrimination against women solely on the basis of sex is morally acceptable. 9. Explain why, when slavery is clearly wrong, the Bible clearly supports slavery. Answering this question entails refuting 1 Peter 2:18. NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe that slavery is an acceptable way to run a society. 10. Explain why children should submit to their parents' decisions even when those decisions are clearly evil. Answering this question entails refuting Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Proverbs 13:24, and Hebrews 12:7-8. 11. Explain why, if your god loves us all, more than half of us are going to Hell after we die. Specifically, refute or explain the following words of Christ, as presented in the New Testament: "Many are called but few are chosen," and "Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth unto salvation, and few there be that find it." If your god loves all of us, couldn't he find a better way? 12. Explain what type of offense could possibly justify eternal, unbearable torture in Hell; if your sect does not believe in Hell, then refute every passage in the Old and New Testaments which describes Hell (such as 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 and Revelation 20:15). Do not exceed 100 words. 13. Explain how your god can be both just and merciful, when these terms apparently contradict each other. 14. Explain why possession by demons and/or other evil spirits was common during the time of Jesus, but hardly mentioned in the Old Testament, and apparently has been explained completely away today by things such as epilepsy and schizophrenia. 15. Explain why, if the personality resides in the soul, things like drugs and brain damage can affect someone's personality. 16. If heaven is a place where everyone is perfectly happy, then explain how I could be happy in heaven if I had loved ones in Hell. 17. What is Heaven like? 18. What is Hell like? 19. Explain why original sin exists. Why should I be eternally tortured for something that a pair of humans did in a garden over six thousand years ago? If you believe that children are born stained because they were conceived sexually, explain why I would be punished for something my parents did by your merciful and just god. If this does not apply to your sect, explain why. 20. Explain why getting dunked in or sprinkled with water will prevent me from being eternally tortured for the actions of the naked fruit-munching simpletons mentioned in #19. 21. If your god did not want Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, why did he put the tree in the garden of Eden (and at the center, no less)? Was it for shade? If so, why use something so dangerous as a shade tree? If the purpose of the tree was to tempt Adam and Eve, explain why it's OK for your god to engage in a practice that our modern-day courts of law refer to as "entrapment." 22. Explain why sex, potentially one of the most wonderful, beautiful things in human nature, is considered "bad" by your particular sect. If your sect does not consider sex to be "bad," then refute Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 7 (particularly verses 1 and 9), Galatians 5:17, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, James 1:14-15, Matthew 24:38, Luke 17:27, and Revelation 14:4. 23. Explain why, if Jesus was perfect, he thought that the end of the world was coming soon, when it has clearly not come yet. See Matthew 16:27-28. 24. Explain why some people (James, Peter, Paul, Thomas, etc.) should get convincing physical proof of miracles, while the rest of us are supposed to take these happenings on faith. 25. Why are the stories of the resurrection inconsistent? 26. If you are a Protestant or a member of an Eastern Orthodox church, explain why you are still using the Catholic Bible, which was formalized by a vote among (supposedly divinely inspired) cardinals and bishops in the fourth century CE, when you disagree with the idea that the Pope, who is higher in the Catholic hierarchy, is divinely inspired; if a Catholic, explain why your church accepts the canonical Bible while rejecting the Apocrypha (do not use the "divinely inspired" argument: Because I am not religious, I will not be able to accept it). 27. If your god is kind and gentle, why do some animals have to eat meat? 28. If your god is kind and gentle, why did he create parasites? 29. If your god wants us to worship him through our own free will, why does he threaten us with Hell? If you have someone threatening you with a punishment, it isn't free will. 30. Why would your god deliberately cause sinners to sin (cf. Romans 9:15-23 and numerous parts of the book of Exodus where Jehovah says, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart."). Are these sinners still responsible for the sins which your god forces them, against their will, to commit? Justify your answer. 31. If Jesus did have to die, why did someone (specifically, Judas) have to be damned in order accomplish the death and resurrection of Jesus? Jesus was at least a volunteer for the cross; I doubt that your god asked Judas if he was willing to go to Hell so that the resurrection could be accomplished. 32. If Judas was willing to go to Hell for humanity (see #31), didn't he make more of a sacrifice than Jesus, who spent only three hours in pain? Shouldn't we then be worshipping Judas? 33. Why should we accept the words of the gospel writers as truth when they are known to be liars? (See Romans 3:7). 34. Do you believe that your god is anti-homosexual? If so, explain why he would create homosexuals in the first place. If not, refute or explain away Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27. 35. Explain why prayer is OK, but spell casting is not, when both amount to the same thing: requesting that a superior supernatural force to intercede in a way that would be impossible according to the normally accepted laws of physics. 36. According to the Gospels, from the Christian standpoint, Jesus was the most important person to ever live. From the Roman standpoint, Jesus was a huge pain in the ass because of his political activities. Explain why nothing was written about his life for over thirty years after his death, and nothing except the Gospels was written until the third century CE. 37. Explain why you believe a person whose life is so poorly documented (see #36) was even ever born. 38. Define the word "Christ," including references to the pagan origins and meaning of the word. 39. Explain why Jesus, who was anti-Gentile (see Mark 7:25-29) and anti-sex (see Luke 14:26 and Matthew 19:12), would want to be anointed with oil in a pagan sexual rite after his death (see your definition for #38). 40. In light of Matthew 10:34, explain why Jesus is called the Prince of Peace. 41. The name "Jesus" has been anglicized. What was the original (Hebrew) name of Jesus? Where did you get this information? This is a bonus question. 42. Why is it that the life of Jesus was so similar to the lives of pagan Christs, particularly Herakles, Dionysios, and Asklepios? 43. If your god requires that people believe in him and follow his orders through their own free will, why do Christians push their views on public policy? 44. Explain why being a good Christian requires you to push your beliefs on others. If you do not believe that you have to push your views on others (no matter how much this annoys them), explain why you do not believe this despite the fact that the New Testament seems to suggest that you must do this to get to Heaven (for instance, in Matthew 28:19-20). 45. Explain why spreading the "truth of Christ" requires you to spread lies about other religions, such as the idea that Wiccans (so-called "white witches") worship the Christian devil. (Incidentally, they don't, and this rumor has been persistently spread by Christians since the second century CE). 46. At no point in the four Gospels did Jesus claim to be the son of your god. (He said "son of man" quite frequently, and at one point referred to himself as "a son of god," but that was a common Hebrew expression at the time. Someone who was "a son of god" was a Jew. This reflected the Israelites' belief that they were the chosen people of your god. See Job 1:6). Why, then, do you believe that Jesus was divine? If you don't believe that Jesus was divine, then why do you call yourself a Christian? 47. Given the fact that Jesus did not say anything original (the Golden Rule and the "turn the other cheek" idea were stolen from Buddhism; and the Beatitudes were common in the Jewish devotional literature at the time), why do you see Jesus as such a great thinker/ philosopher/ ethicist? 48. When Jesus said, "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also," why do you suppose that most Christians fight for their rights? To put it another way, why don't we, as a country of 85% Christians, let the government abuse us? 49. Why are so many Christian holidays on the same day as Pagan holidays? Couldn't the early Church fathers have converted pagans only by appealing to their reason and/or faith if Christianity is the true religion? 50. Explain how your god can be "just and merciful" in light of Exodus 20:5. 51. Do you believe that the Old Testament should be accepted as part of Christian theology? If so, explain how you can worship such a cruel, sadistic god (see Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 20:16, Proverbs 20:30, Amos 3:6, Deuteronomy 13:8, Psalms 3:7, Psalms 52:5, etc.); if not, explain how you can believe that Jesus is the promised savior sent by your god without the messianic prophecies and the ruling rights of the line of David, both of which are in the Old Testament in books such as Isaiah, Zechariah, Daniel, Psalms, etc. (as opposed to, say, believing that Jesus was an irritating nut wandering around saying things that people didn't like much). 52. Explain why your "just and merciful" god sent bears to kill forty-two children who called his prophet Elisha "baldhead." (See 2 Kings 2:23-24). 53. If prostitution is wrong, why are there so many examples of it in Genesis? (For instance, Gen 19:8, where Lot offers his daughters to a mob so that his guests can avoid gang rape). 54. What is the sin that people committed that is so incredibly bad that your god had to become flesh and die to correct? 55. Are all members of other faiths bad? Are they all damned to Hell? Justify your answer with quotes from the Bible. 56. Are all atheists/agnostics/humanists bad? Are they all damned to Hell? Justify your answer with quotes from the Bible. 57. What was your motive in proselytizing to me? 58. Where is Heaven? 59. Where is Hell? 60. Why don't animals go to heaven or hell when they die? What makes us so special? 61. Why does Satan try to get peoples' souls? 62. Once Satan has someone's soul, what does he do with it? 63. Is your god perfect? Justify your answer. 64. Where does our soul stay while we are alive? 65. Explain how you can believe in Satan when your faith is directly descended from the Jewish faith, when the Jews did not even believe in Satan until they absorbed the Egyptian god Set while they were captives in Egypt. 66. Why do evil people often prosper? Justify your answer. 67. Why do good people so often fail to prosper? Justify your answer. 68. When the end of the world comes, will your god raise our actual bodies, or just our souls? Explain. 69. Explain why your god lets airplanes with sinless infants on board crash. 70. What is sin, exactly? 71. If Jesus is perfect, justify the parable of the fig tree (Matthew 21:17-19, Mark 11:14-20). 72. Explain why Christians have harassed Wiccans ("white witches") for almost two thousand years now, when the central rule of the Wiccan ethical system is "an it harm no one, do what thou wilt." 73. Explain why Christians (yes, that includes all branches of Christianity) have spread the lie that Jews put Jesus to death when, in actuality, it was the Romans who put Jesus to death. (For a good example of New Testament anti-semetism, see 1 Thessalonians 2:15). 74. Explain why your god created humans as imperfect, then set his standards so high that no one could possibly live up to them, then punishes us for not living up to his standards. Doesn't this also constitute "entrapment?" 75. If we are created in your god's image and likeness (Gen 1:27), how can we also be imperfect? 76. Why was it OK for the ancient Israelites to sacrifice animals to their god, while it is wrong for modern religions to sacrifice animals to their gods? Justify your answer. 77. Why would your god confuse people? (See 1 Sam 7:10 and Gen 11:9). Isn't life confusing enough already? 78. Why would your god cause blindness, deafness, and dumbness? (See Ex 4:11) 79. Why would your god want to damn people by making them believe false things? (See 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12). 80. Should the book of Revelation be taken literally? Explain your answer. 81. Would it be good for men to castrate themselves? Justify your answer, taking Matthew 19:12 into account. 82. What exactly is faith? 83. All of the various Christian sects ignore parts of the Bible, usually because those parts of the Bible are inconvenient. Explain which parts of the Bible your sect ignores, and explain why it is OK to ignore those parts of the Bible. 84. Why did your god allow Satan to do evil things to Job (Job 2:7 etc.)? Wouldn't your god better spend his time punishing unbelievers? 85. If Jesus and his father are one (John 10:30), then why does Jesus have to pray (i.e. Matthew 26:39)? 86. Explain your belief in heaven in light of Job 7:9 and Ecclesiastes 9:5. 87. Christ giving himself up on the cross was a great gesture, true, but wouldn't it have been more sensible for him to continue spreading his message until he died a natural death? Answer this question in light of your answer to question #1. 88. What is your interpretation of the temptation of Christ by Satan in the desert (Matthew 4:5-8, Luke 4:5-9)? 89. In view of Matthew 6:5-6, shouldn't prayer in public schools be discouraged? Support your answer with scripture quotes. 90. Do you feel that the last words of Christ were significant? If so, why do the four gospels attribute three different sentences to Christ as his last? (Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34: "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"; Luke 23:46: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"; John 19:30: "It is finished"). 91. Matthew and Mark say that the last words of Christ were, in Hebrew, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" This has traditionally been translated as, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" However, a more accurate translation would be, "My El, My El, why has thou forsaken me?" El is the name of a specific pagan god. Why would Jesus call out to a pagan god at the moment of his death? 92. A commonly recited litany in many forms of Christianity is "The LORD is my shepherd." (Psalm 23:1). Given the fact that the only reasons that people raise sheep are to rob them of their clothes and to kill them for meat, and the fact that sheep will often follow the shepherd to their destruction, do you think that this is any appropriate image for your god? Justify your answer. 93. Why is the theory of the big bang any more (or less) likely that the idea that your god created the universe? Justify your answer. NOTE: I admit that science has not explained where the original supercondensed particle came from, but no one has ever explained where your god came from, either. 94. If your god is everywhere at the same time, and hell is the absence of (or separation from) your god, how can he be omnipotent? 95. In the Genesis story, your god tells Adam and Eve that the day they eat from the tree of knowledge they will surely die (Gen 2:17). The devil tells them that they will not die, but that their eyes would be opened and they would know the difference between good and evil (Gen 3:5). Wasn't Satan telling the truth here? Is your god a liar? Justify your answer in light of Jeremiah 20:7 and Ezekiel 14:9. 96. If Lucifer is not as powerful as your god, then he cannot possibly be omnipresent. How could he possibly get as many followers as you seem to think he has? 97. The Bible constantly describes your god as male. In view of the fact that your god supposedly created everything, and creation is very much a female function, isn't this at least a little bit absurd? Justify your answer. 98. In light of the Trinity, angels, the Virgin Mary, etc., isn't Christianity polytheistic? If the Trinity is three who are one, why the three names? Justify your answer. 99. Have you read the entire Bible? If not, how can you be devoted enough to try and convert me to a religion that you don't know that much about? Isn't knowing as much as possible about something necessary to understanding it? Isn't understanding something necessary to being completely devoted to it? 100. Why is 2 Kings 19 exactly identical to Isaiah 37? 101. Is Jesus's three days in Hell really an ultimate sacrifice, when more than half of humanity going to spend eternity there (see question #11)? 102. If your sect considers the King James Bible to be the official and/or authoritative translation, justify this in light of the fact that when King James commissioned his translation to be poetic rather than accurate. How can you possibly use an inaccurate translation as your reference for what is/is not the word of your god? If your sect does not use the King James Bible, what translation do they use? Justify the use of that particular translation. 103. Assume that I do not believe that Jesus died for my sins, or that if he did, that necessarily means I will go to your heaven. Name one thing that Jesus ever did for me. 104. Before Mary became pregnant by the Holy Spirit/Ghost, she was never asked for her consent. (She was warned; see Luke 1:31). Mary was also asleep when your god knocked her up; this strongly suggests that he didn't want her to protest. Does this mean that Mary was raped by your god? Do you think rape is wrong? Explain. 105 According to Luke, Mary knew that she was pregnant with the Messiah. Living in the times she lived in, she must have known the scripture; therefore, she must have known that he would have to suffer horribly during his life. Was it moral for Mary to carry her baby to term, or would it have been more humane for her to have an abortion? Explain. 106. If it was foretold that Jesus was to be crucified, and if he knew this, and if he was the son of your god, why did he do everything he could to avoid being crucified? (See, for instance, Matthew 26:39). 107. If the Holy Spirit/Ghost is the father of Jesus (Luke 1:35), then why is the central figure of your trinity called God the Father? 108. Mary and Jehovah were never joined in wedlock. Does it bother you that Jesus is technically a bastard? 109. The original Hebrew word for the Holy Ghost/Spirit includes the idea that the Holy Spirit/Ghost is female in gender. Isn't this rather silly when you consider the fact that the Holy Ghost/Spirit is actually the father of Jesus (Luke 1:35)? 110. Matthew 28:11-15 contains an account of a conspiracy between the Jews and the Roman soldiers to spread the story that the disciples stole the body of Christ. How could Matthew have known about this, since no Jews or Romans would have admitted to it? If it was such a transparent conspiracy that an outsider could have seen it, why didn't the other three gospels mention it? Why didn't the Roman soldiers get into trouble? 111. Jews believe that people are basically good people and can work to overcome their sinful tendencies. Most Christian sects, following the teaching of Psalm 51:5, 1 Kings 8:46, Ezekiel 18:4, Isaiah 59:2, and Psalm 143:2, believe that people are completely debased and hopelessly lost in sin, and that only your god can lift us out of this state if he decides to bestow his gift of grace on us? Isn't this an incredibly negative view of people? Isn't Judaism a more mature faith just for this reason? 112. How do you, as an individual, feel about Psalm 51:5? 113. What does your sect teach about Psalm 51:5 (and 1 Kings 8:46, etc.), predestination, and similar matters? 114. Don't you think that the idea that no matter what we do, we can never be good and righteous without help from your god (Isaiah 64:6) fosters an unnatural and unhealthy dependency on him? 115. Revelation 22:16 says that Jesus is the "offspring of David." Mary was not descended from David, but Joseph was. Doesn't this mean that Jesus wasn't the son of your god at all, but the (mortal and not divine) son of Joseph? 116. What would the correct thing to do be if your god gave you a command that was harmful and/or destructive to you? A common argument, which comes from Paul, states that because clay pots don't complain about what the potter does with them, people shouldn't complain about what their maker (supposedly, your god) does with them, but this completely ignores the vitally important argument that clay pots have no sense of self-awareness and cannot think or feel love, pain, anger, etc. If you want to make this argument, you have to deal with this difference. 117. What (or who) does your sect believe the number 666 represents? Justify your answer. 118. If your god is "just and merciful," why would he take Solomon's kingdom away from Solomon's son while not punishing Solomon, when it was Solomon himself who committed the sin of idolatry? What did Solomon's son do to deserve punishment? (See 1 Kings 11:12). 119. Why is Solomon commonly considered to be the paragon of wisdom by many Christians, when he constantly sinned against your god (1 Kings 11:4-10, etc.)? Personally, if I had a god talking to me, I'd do what he said. 120. Don't you think that an anti-sex position (see question #22) is a rather silly position for your sect to take when the biblical book "Song of Solomon" is a piece of erotic poetry? (For instance, in Song of Solomon 8:2, the bridegroom proposes to "drink of spiced wine of the juice of the pomegranate." The pomegranate was a symbol of the female genitalia, and the "spiced wine" represented menstrual blood). 121. Does it bother you that the cross, supposedly a Christian symbol, was actually stolen from the Egyptians? Why or why not? (The Egyptian cross, the ankh, was a male-female symbol similar in concept to the yin-yang. When the Christians stole the ankh from the Egyptians, they removed the female symbol, or yoni, leaving only the masculine symbol-- a subtle way of reinforcing the idea that women are lesser beings). 122. How do you explain that Christians are twice as likely to have sadomasochistic tendencies as non-christians? 123. What is the incredibly important doctrinal difference that requires the fighting between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland? 124. Even if your god did create the universe, why does he want to be worshipped? Is your god an egomaniac? 125. What are your beliefs concerning Wicca? ("white witchcraft"). How much do you know about Wicca? 126. What do you think the word "Satanist" means? 127. How do you explain the fact that the word "blood" occurs over 400 times in the Bible? Isn't this a rather savage way to write a book that is supposed to be at the center of an ethical system? 128. Throughout the Bible, your god commands his followers to wage merciless war on unbelievers (Luke 22:36, Deuteronomy 13:8, Exodus 20:23-25, Deuteronomy 20:16, Matthew 10:34, Numbers 31:17-18, etc). If you are one of his followers, why aren't you out waging merciless war on unbelievers? 129. Numbers 23:21 says that your god "has not seen wickedness in Israel." If this is so, explain why your god burned Israelites for complaining (Num 11:1), sent a plague against them for eating the meat he had given them (Num 11:33), why he burned people for using incense (Num 16:35), why he sent a plague against the Israelites who accused Moses of wrongdoing (Num 16:44-49), and why he sent fiery snakes among the Israelites (Num 21:5). Is your god a liar, or was it just more convenient for him to lie at that particular place and time, or what? 130. What was it that was so bad about eating an apple that death had to result from that act? 131. What was it about humanity's torturing and killing of your god's only son that made your god so happy that he again promised eternal life to everyone who believed in him. 132. How do you explain that Matthew and Luke give different genealogies for Jesus? 133. Matthew says that the prophecy given in Matthew 27:9 was given by Jeremiah. How do you explain that this prophecy was not given by Jeremiah at all, but by Zechariah (in Zech 11:12)? 134. Matthew says (in Matt 2:21) that Jesus dealt in Nazareth so that he could fulfill a prophecy stating that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene. Where is this prophecy in the Old Testament? 135. Matthew says that on the triumphant entry into Jerusalem, Jesus was riding on an ass and a colt (Matt 21:7). How do you explain that the original prophecy (Zech 9:9) stated that Jesus would be riding on only one ass, and the other gospel writers place Jesus only on one ass (Mark 11:7, Luke 19:35, and John 12:15)? 136. In Matthew 1:23, Matthew has the angel say that Jesus would be born of a virgin. However, the prophecy that Matthew is referring to, Isaiah 7:14, uses the Hebrew word almah, which simply means a young woman. It has nothing to do with sexual purity; the Hebrew word for virgin is bethulah. How do you explain this? 137. Isaiah 7:16 seems to say that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Where is the fulfillment of this prophecy in the New Testament? 138. Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Why does no one (not even his parents) call him Immanuel at any point in the New Testament? 139. How many inconsistencies in the Bible, other than those mentioned in this paper, do you know of? Cite chapter and verse for as many as you have room for. 140. If even the contemplation of sinning is a sin (i.e. "sinning in your heart"; see, for example, Matthew 5:28) and if Jesus was tempted by Satan in the desert (Matthew 4:5-8, Luke 4:5-9), how can you say that Jesus was without sin? 141. Does your sect believe that the existence of your god can be established through a formal proof? Why or why not? 142. Pick a famous argument for the existence of your god, then criticize that argument. (Assume I mean for you to use the academic definition of criticize). 143. Pick an argument against the existence of your god. If it is not a famous argument, copy it down here. Criticize this argument. (Assume I mean for you to use the academic definition of the word criticize). 144. What does your sect think of the government? Read Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 13. Now what do you think of the government? If necessary, reconcile the two views. 145. What is your definition of the word Christian? 146. Why do you think it is that the ancient Greeks, who had a very liberal sexual morality, had many fewer sex crimes (compared to the population) than the United States, which is 85% Christian? 147. If someone accepts Jesus, and is "saved," but then turns away from Jesus, is that person still saved? 148. Where did your god come from? 149. What are the requirements for being saved? Some sects says that faith alone is enough; others say that faith without works is dead. The Bible supports both these viewpoints. What does your sect think? 150. If I decide I like the answers to the above questions, where can I get in touch with you? (Give name, address, phone and email if available). 151. What is the name of your sect? 152. How is your sect organized? 153. How can I get in touch with a priest (minister, etc.) of your sect? The priestly type... of man has a life interest in making mankind sick and in so twisting the concepts of good and evil, true and false, as to imperil life and slander the world. -Fredrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist You, bursting with holiness, And yet you never preach! Astonishing I call it... -Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven, Whiles, like a puffed and reckless libertine, Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads And recks not his own rede. -William Shakespeare, Hamlet There were people out there tonight telling you that [God and] they love you. If they love you so much, where have they been all your lives? Thank you for coming to our church tonight. -Marilyn Manson, concert in Salem, OR 1/19/97 Eternal damnation. What a cruel hoax your priests have inflicted on your people. Souls change. Only God is eternal-- and what kind of God would damn any created thing eternally? What sin could possibly be so great? -A. A. Attanasio, The Dragon and the Unicorn I'm going to rub your faces in things you try to avoid. I don't find it strange that all you want to believe in is only that which comforts you. How else do humans invent the traps which betray us into mediocrity? How else do we define cowardice? -Frank Herbert, Children of Dune After you finish filling out this form, send it to me @ energydrain@yahoo.com I try too hard. posted 01-20-200107:03 AM catholicgirl Junior Member 24 Posts Member since: 01-19-2001 153 good questions ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Would you like me to attempt to answer all 153 questions? Are you really interested in the answers or did you just post them to be inflammatory? I don't have all the "right" and "perfect" answers. I can try to honestly and throughly answer each question though if you're really interested. If we can both agree that we may learn something then I'll agree to your request. Respectfully, Amanda catholicsinner@hotmail.com posted 01-20-200109:34 AM Rosa_McGee Member 841 Posts Member since: 08-16-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ @ catholic girl sorry, but how much of the thread did you read ?! i've nothing whatsoever against a god that embodies love, understanding & such qualities in an ultimate sense (though that still doesn't mean i'd believe in him / her / it).. however, freegrace seems to say that when i'm not accepting god as described (or as he would put it, revealing himself) in the bible, i'm making up a only god to suit my wants & needs & if i refuse to believe in the god of the bible, who certainly has many unpleasant sides as described above (& emphasised by shokan's questionaire), esp. in the OT, i'll pay the price... @ shokan... lol, good point, many very valiant arguments... thanks for posting this, especially for pointing out that even christ is by no means all loving & forgiving but very hard and full of contradictions.. i wanted to post that sometime but really was too lazy to look up the quotes... so much for the 'alleged' contradicitons of the bible.... freegrace will have to write a monograph now.... because generations of often very intelligent theologists have seen those contradictions, & written whole libraries trying to resolve them.... i think if one wants to make any sense of christianity at all one would have to admit at least a symbolical reading of the bible, taking at least into account it's historical settings... posted 01-20-200110:12 AM catholicgirl Junior Member 24 Posts Member since: 01-19-2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rosa_McGee please accept my apology. I had misunderstood what you were saying. There are countless Xtians who feel the way you do about God. They (Cafeteria Xtians) say, "I'll believe a little of this, a little of that but none of that⤔it's too bizarre." I can't really blame you or them, it's much easier to live a life based on your own ethics and beliefs rather than those established by the church or in the Bible. If fact, the majority of Christians have a hard time with this. I know that I have. Respectfully, Amanda catholicsinner@hotmail.coms posted 01-20-200110:29 AM Rosa_McGee Member 841 Posts Member since: 08-16-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ apology accepted, not that it was necesary... it may be easier in some ways, but it can be harder too, i think, because all the responsability falls upon oneself... no confession & absolution, ho hope of a better next life, no real certainty in an absolute sense.... if you claim the freedom, you pay it's price too, the problems are just different ones... however, i think it's worth it, and it's a more mature attitude, if you persue it in a thoughtful way.... maybe christianity can be liberating and enlightening to some, but to many others i think it did, and still does much mental (or physical, if you remember the history of christianity) damage.... following the bible literarily seems to me more masochistic than necessary, besides obviously bringing you in conflict with almost any modern lawcode.... posted 01-20-200110:47 AM catholicgirl Junior Member 24 Posts Member since: 01-19-2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rosa_McGee, Excellent points. I'm one that feels absolutely liberated in what many think is a patristic and unenlightened church. Just because I'm happy and content doesn't mean that there were serious evils in the Catholic church⤔in fact, I think that the majority of Catholics would agree with Luther's 95 Theses today⤔and there are, of course, problems in today's Catholic church. How do you go about deciding what is right or wrong in your own life? I'm not trying to be condescending. I'd really like to know. Respectfully, Amanda catholicsinner@hotmail.com u posted 01-20-200110:58 AM Rosa_McGee Member 841 Posts Member since: 08-16-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ would you mind reading my posts on page 3 (the first one) and maybe the one one page 5 (the longer one, starting with the mesasage to mike). i don't want to stretch the thread too much by repeating myself... btw, welcome to this discussion & sorry for disbelieving you yesterday, but, you know, when someone's just signed on you can never be sure if they're serious or not..... [This message was edited by Rosa_McGee on 01-20-2001 at 11:51 AM.] posted 01-20-200111:13 AM Rictus Member 3203 Posts Member since: 06-05-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ @catholic girl: Welcome to this thread. I hope you find your time here enlightening. If you want to tackle that questionarre then feel free, though it's not something I would attempt to undertake (luckily for me, I don't have the baggage of the bible holding me down, so I wouldn't feel the need to answer much of it anyway.) I know the question was aimed at Rosa, but I'd like to answer it for myself if I may. "How do you go about deciding what is right or wrong in your own life?" Well, due to my upbringing, I am lucky to have a very strong sence of right and wrong, and a sence of justice. For me, the world needs to live by only two laws (as I've stated previously in this thread, feel free to read the whole thing if you get a chance, it may help your understanding of were we are at, and what we are all trying to achive here). Take no action that harms anouther. Never use initiary force. Beyond that, do as thou wilt. I find nothing immoral about homosexuality, or indeed any sexual practice between concenting adults. I believe people are born inocent, and it is societys job to help maintain that innocence, allowing people to be who they are, not who we wish them to be. Morality beyond that is dictated by circumstance. If I am starving, I will steal to eat, and I would not consider that 'bad'. If someone threatens my life, and in the course of defending myself they loose theirs, that is not, in my view, sinful, only regretable. I believe in the imortal soul, but in my view heaven and hell are both states of mind. To create heaven on earth, we need only all realise that we never left paradise. For hell on earth, we need only create it. that is how I decide what is right or wrong. "All the drugs in this world Won't save her from herself..." "Kill The Cheese!!!" - Eliza (who I love) "No one is a nigger" - Order in an Artificial Chaos posted 01-20-200105:51 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 |