| Who's Online | Stats | Memberlist | Top Posters | Search | Lost Password |
Please help to keep this board alive with a small donation (at the bottom of the forum) as it is NOW no longer free! |
| Welcome, Register :: Log In | Welcome to our newest member, enunmolni1981. | |
| Users active in this forum: | ||
| Users active in this thread: | ||
|
people online in the last 30 minutes - 0 members, 0 anon and 0 guests. (Most ever was 62 at 09:05:49 Sun May 18 2008) |
| Pages: [ 1 2 3 ] |
| [ Notify ] | [ Print ] | [ Send To Friend ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ > ] |
|
craigiedon 23:15:25 Sat Dec 17 2005 Offline 8 posts blasphemer  Reply |
Hi, im sorta new to these debates about the existence of god that take place on these boards, but i might as well take a shot at explaining my beliefs,
I sit comfortably on the line between atheist and theist because i believe god can both exist and not exist, it just varys from person to person. The reason for this is that no one can actually PROVE the existence of god or the non- existence of god. In fact, nobody really can actually prove that anything exists. Everything we see, hear, smell, touch and taste is simply messages sent to our brain. Think about it. if you are sitting at a computer screen right now, how can you prove it? the only way you could "prove" it is by saying to yourself that you can see, with your eyes , a computer screen. But you cant prove that what your eyes are showing you is true. Everything in life requires a little faith and belief What im getting at is that you cant say for sure that god is there, and you cant say he isnt there, nothing in life is really for certain, it just comes down to what you as a person belive. heck for all you know i could be god, and if you believe that, no one can really argue against it, its just a belief. P.S havent checked it theres probably some spelling errors and stuff |
|
Janus_Zeal 23:30:43 Sat Dec 17 2005 Offline 650 posts Black Pope [mod] Reply |
It's called Agnosticism, welcome to the club.
|
|
craigiedon 21:23:46 Sun Dec 18 2005 Offline 8 posts blasphemer Reply |
cool, i thought agnostisism was the belief that it is impossble to figure out the existence of god UNTIL you die.
Anyways, i always figured religion as a sort of impatience, i can wait until i get to nirbana or heaven or jump out of the reincarnation circle or whatever to hear what "god" really is. I dont wanna waste this life trying to figure out how the universere was or wasnt created. Also i put this to the christians that if you honestly think you have found the "how" you still dont know the "why" of why god created the universe. |
Tsukatu  04:35:00 Mon Dec 19 2005 Offline 177 posts inquisitor  Reply |
Gnosticism and Theism are mutually exclusive labels.
Gnostic = someone who believes it is possible to definitively prove/know that a supernatural being(s) or force(s) exist(s) Agnostic = someone who does NOT believe it is possible to definitively prove/know that a supernatural being(s) or force(s) exist(s) Theist = someone who believes that (a) supernatural being(s) or force(s) exist(s) Atheist = someone who doesn't believe that (a) supernatural being(s) or force(s) exist(s) Most retards I meet are Gnostic Christians (Theists), and then they try to prove to me that God exists. Slightly more intelligent are the Agnostic Theists, who don't know for sure that there is anything out there but have reason to believe that that is the case. Then we have Atheists. Gnostic Atheists (like me) believe that it is possible to know that a supernatural being does not exist, and that it is possible to prove this. Agnostic Atheists (Janus) don't believe that it is possible to prove the (non)-existence of a supernatural being.
|
|
Janus_Zeal 07:45:26 Mon Dec 19 2005 Offline 650 posts Black Pope [mod] Reply |
I thought it was simpler than that. From my knowledge, gnostic = knowing and "a" represents a negative so it's "not knowing".
But I could be wrong. If it's the way you describe it, then I guess I'm not agnostic. You seem to misunderstand me Tsukatu. I don't think it's impossible to prove the existance or non-existance of God, I just don't think anyone's been successful at it yet either.
|
|
TDbear 16:10:04 Wed Dec 21 2005 Offline 567 posts bishop  Reply |
you were right janus... tsukatu got it wrong... gnotisism has nothing to do with belief... a gnostic is someone who ACTUALLY HAS all knowledge of something(for example... the existence or lack there of of supernatural beings), and an a-gnostic is someone who doesn't.
and to tsukatu... simply going by your personal(and flawed) definitions, you and your 'gnostic-atheist' friends are just as retarded as the gnostic-theists' you blast |
|
Tsukatu 23:05:13 Fri Dec 30 2005 Offline 177 posts inquisitor Reply |
Janus_Zeal,
I thought it was simpler than that. From my knowledge, gnostic = knowing and "a" represents negative so it's "not knowing". Well yeah, that's the most basic form of it. I felt the need to get into detail so that our neighborhood idiot (TDBear) has much less of an excuse for failing to understand. On that subject, I love how TDBear can say I got it wrong and then proceed to restate exactly what I said as the correction. TDBear, Look at the post carefully. You say I was wrong in stating that gnosticism is mutually exclusive from belief, and is instead having knowledge of something. You corrected it by saying that "gnosticism has nothing to do with belief... a gnostic is someone who actually has... knowledge of something" ... simply going by your personal(and flawed) definitions, you and your 'gnostic-atheist' friends are just as retarded as the gnostic-theists' you blast No no no, you're just an idiot. The idea that God does not and cannot possibly exist is objective truth. Anyone who claims to know definitively something that is against the objective truth (a gnostic theist) is retarded, or at the very least deluded. However, someone who agrees that the objective truth is true (a gnostic atheist) is correct. I don't know whether to say the concept's simplicity or your lack of comprehension is more astounding. Idiot.
|
|
TDbear 11:28:02 Sat Dec 31 2005 Offline 567 posts bishop Reply |
sorry to burst your egotistical bubble tsukatu.. but saying
[/quote]The idea that God does not and cannot possibly exist is objective truth. Anyone who claims to know definitively something that is against the objective truth (a gnostic theist) is retarded, or at the very least deluded. However, someone who agrees that the objective truth is true (a gnostic atheist) is correct.[/quote] is literally the mirror of what fundamentalist christians/muslims say... you just turn it round. Until such time as scientists conclusively!! prove that the whole concept of God/gods and the supernatural are just bi-products of the (over imaginative) human mind... you cannot make such a claim without showing evidence. so until you have actually finished your 'book' and presented it to a large number of experts and they all agree its true... your opinion is just as valued and pointless as mine, janus's or even ryanconrads haha ok... i apologise for misunderstanding your first post. but still... gnostics dont just BELIEVE you can know and prove if god exists or not.... they DO know and CAN prove it... and i since there is still this age old debate about it then its pretty obvious that there are NO gnostics in existence.... including yourself |
|
Janus_Zeal 01:46:38 Mon Jan 16 2006 Offline 650 posts Black Pope [mod] Reply |
Damn, you two are just gonna be arch-enemies here, huh? I usually don't like taking sides in this shit, but Tsukatu, I think your inflated ego is getting in the way of your rational thinking.
Who decided that the idea that God does not exist is objective truth? I mean, where do you come up with this shit? By the way, constantly reffering to TD as "idiot" really isn't helping your point at all. There's a method to putting people down, and spouting the same shit over and over just gets stale. You had some interesting shit to say when you first got here, but now you're slipping. Let me break my shit down for you so you know where I stand on this. Fuck all the sophisticated textbook bullshit to hell, this is from my own mind. Many atheists like to say that religion and belief in the supernatural is just an excuse for the unexplained. This is probably true in alot of cases. As for me, if there's something that can't be explained, then it must be something beyond my understanding. Whether it's mundane or supernatural, I don't know. Considering I don't know whether or not the supernatural exists, I drag it into the realm of possibility. That doesn't mean that I believe it HAS to be supernatural, but I don't rule it out either. You should know I happen to agree with TD to an extent that you're much like the "gnostic-theists" you bash. I wouldn't go as far as to call you retarded for it, but you're definately as closed-minded as they are. If you two wanna go at each others throats, I'm fine with that. Looking at it from the outside, I can see that you're both intelligent. You shouldn't deny someone's intellect just because they piss you off, especially when you're both treading through muddy waters. If you disagree with someone's shit, then by all means, tear it the fuck down. At the same time though, you also have to maintain a certain level of respect for your opponent. Yeah, you can assume that you're more intelligent than your opponent, but don't make them out to be fucking idiots when it's obviously not the case.
|
|
Tsukatu 06:38:05 Mon Jan 16 2006 Offline 177 posts inquisitor Reply |
Janus_Zeal,
Who decided that the idea that God does not exist is objective truth? I mean, where do you come up with this shit? Should I include an "I believe that ..." in the future, for your benefit? By the way, constantly reffering to TD as "idiot" really isn't helping your point at all. There's a method to putting people down, and spouting the same shit over and over just gets stale. I could dig up the exact thread and post that convinced me that TDBear is an irredeemable idiot, but I'm too lazy. It'll have to suffice to say that I have proven to myself beyond a reasonable doubt that TDBear is an idiot. I have told him already that I will address him as such when I reply to him in the future, so now it's become more of a custom than refreshed rancor. Many atheists like to say that religion and belief in the supernatural is just an excuse for the unexplained. This is probably true in alot of cases. As for me, if there's something that can't be explained, then it must be something beyond my understanding. Whether it's mundane or supernatural, I don't know. Considering I don't know whether or not the supernatural exists, I drag it into the realm of possibility. That doesn't mean that I believe it HAS to be supernatural, but I don't rule it out either. It's a little different if you, like I, know that the supernatural can't exist. In that case, something unexplainable certainly has a "mundane" explanation, as you say, but one that doesn't involve anything as nonsensical as supernatural forces. For example, I don't know how the universe began, and I obviously don't have enough understanding or knowledge to say anything meaningful about it, but I do know that to say it was the result of a creator God is incorrect. You should know I happen to agree with TD to an extent that you're much like the "gnostic-theists" you bash. I wouldn't go as far as to call you retarded for it, but you're definately as closed-minded as they are. I've told you already, I come to this forum to troll. If you want to see me be insightful, open-minded, and even polite, you should come to my forum. Looking at it from the outside, I can see that you're both intelligent. You shouldn't deny someone's intellect just because they piss you off, especially when you're both treading through muddy waters. You are deluded. TDBear is not intelligent. He has demonstrated so on multiple occasions. I had really hoped you thought more of me than to assume I am calling TDBear an idiot simply because he disagrees with me (or, rather, that he thinks he does - most of the corrections he submits to my posts are merely paraphrasing). You have been on these forums longer than I have (though far more sparsely, and admittedly, the character you have portrayed makes me think you make it a habit to skim posts); it surprises me that you can't see how stupid he really is. ...maybe I was wrong about you. "Fuck all the sophisticated textbook bullshit to hell," eh? you also have to maintain a certain level of respect for your opponent. Why? So he will respect me in return? What possible benefit could I get from that? |
|
Janus_Zeal 11:22:01 Mon Jan 16 2006 Offline 650 posts Black Pope [mod] Reply |
Is that sarcasm or what?
I'm not gonna think he's an idiot just because, as you say, you've proven to yourself that he's an idiot. You certainly haven't proven it to me. I've gained some insight from conversations I've had with him, so I can't quite bring myself to see him as an idiot.
And how do you know that again? If you've already explained it somewhere and I overlooked it, I apologize. A link to the thread would suffice in that case.
I flipped through it recently. Yeah, you're still a smart-ass, but it looks like they got you dumbed down a little there. Didn't really see anything that blew me away, but maybe I didn't look hard enough.
I don't appreciate being called deluded. For one thing, I don't see all the idiocy you're claiming that comes from him. So you shot down some of his points here and there, that doesn't make him an idiot. At some time or other, someone's gonna be able to shoot down your points, but I don't think it would make you an idiot.
I do make a habbit of skimming posts lately, but I kind of doubt I've missed anything significant to your point. I used to be more actively involved in posting here. Not too long ago, someone was bitching about seeing so many posts by me here. I've lost interest in debating for the most part, it just gets tedious after awhile. So nowadays I just drop in to check on things once in awhile and drop a line wherever I feel necessary.
Wrong about me how? Still, it's amusing to see you admit that you may have been wrong about anything at all.
Perhaps a more insightful debate. I know that less progress is made when you're just hurling childish insults about. Have you ever been in a situation where you just had to say "okay, I'm wrong"? Or are you the very height of human perfection that you're making yourself out to be?
|
|
jenna27 13:42:38 Mon Jan 16 2006 Offline 18 posts blasphemer Mood Now:  Reply |
there are many scientific evidences in how things work and designs that point to God, but none of them proove he exists -but there is one thing that can.. answered prayer.. I don't know about you, but I don't believe that anyone can just simply will things to happen (i.e. pain relief)
New Testament is comprised of 26 books written by different men at different times (if want the number let me know and i'll get back to you on that) between 64 - 90 AD and none of them contradict each other... -if you can find something let me know, i've been looking for 2 years now and can't find a darn thing.
see answer 1
i thought so the same too but that isn't the truth - please read and understand this; everyone was born with a sinful nature, and it is not the sinner, but the sin that God hates
you are absolutely right in that no one will escape his judgement and it is true, all have sinned and fall short of Gods glory and yes he did provide a way & that's to trust Jesus... you believe this and yet deny christ? are you angry with God?
-again answered prayer.. but understand this, anyone can pray; people pray to a tree or a statue and think that they've been heard but never get their prays answered.. and anyone can pray to God, but unless you believe in Jesus Christ that he is Lord and that God raised him from the dead and have ask Him to forgive you of your sins and come into your heart, God will not listen to your prayers so you might as well go pray to the tree. |
|
jenna27 14:04:05 Mon Jan 16 2006 Offline 18 posts blasphemer Mood Now: Reply |
the only unpardonable sin is to reject christ your entire life and die before accepting Him... that's it. alot of people believe being angry with God and taking His name in vain is unpardonable.. this is not the case... even though it is a sin worthy of hell (like ALL sin), no born again (saved) person can sin more than what His blood can and has already covered for them. |
|
jenna27 14:20:21 Mon Jan 16 2006 Offline 18 posts blasphemer Mood Now: Reply |
could someone please explain to be how believing in Christ is being brainwashed? and Quakeless over there says we do it for 'social or financial gain'??? you have obviously never traveled over to the middle east have you? news flash, christians everyday are persecuted for their faith and in some countries put to death for it... -did i mention that this was predicted in the Word? can you proove that my God is false? |
|
Tsukatu 21:39:00 Mon Jan 16 2006 Offline 177 posts inquisitor Reply |
Janus_Zeal,
Is that sarcasm or what? The whole thing was a somewhat pointless battle between our perspectives. I assumed it was clear that I was saying that from my perspective, the perspective of someone who believes that the non-existence of God is the objective truth, my position is perfectly sane, while the position of a gnostic theist is the opposite. In other words, it wasn't meant to prove anything. It was just a reiteration that I consider myself a gnostic atheist. That's all. I'm not gonna think he's an idiot just because, as you say, you've proven to yourself that he's an idiot. Of course not! I would be very shocked if that's all it takes for you to believe something. I just thought you'd see it for yourself. If you read through, I dunno, the threads I've started in the Atheists section (especially the "I'm not an Atheist - I don't believe in ANYTHING" thread, if I remember correctly), I'm sure you'll find enough evidence to support my case. And how do you know that again? If you've already explained it somewhere and I overlooked it, I apologize. A link to the thread would suffice in that case. George H. Smith was very concise about it, and he still took an entire book to show it. I don't think I can beat him by showing you how I know this in a single thread. If you want to know why I'm so convinced, you'll have to read "Atheism: The Case Against God." That's what changed me from an agnostic pansy to a gnostic atheist. I flipped through it recently. Yeah, you're still a smart-ass, but it looks like they got you dumbed down a little there. Didn't really see anything that blew me away, but maybe I didn't look hard enough. Of course there won't be anything exciting - we encourage, and sometimes even enforce proper debate etiquette on that forum. Some threads end up being more of "chats" than debates, and the debates may seem uninteresting, but many are very comprehensive. ..what do you mean "they" have me dumbed down? I'm the admin! I don't appreciate being called deluded. An fat guy doesn't like to be called fat. Neither does an alcoholic like being called an alcoholic. I calls 'em as I sees 'em. You don't have to believe me or trust my judgment, but I offer it openly and with good intentions (to sound closed-minded and evangelical - to change your wicked ways in your disbelief of TDBear as an idiot). So you shot down some of his points here and there, that doesn't make him an idiot. You're still sticking with the "Tsukatu hates TDBear only because TDBear disagrees with Tsukatu" theory. I'll say it again - I think TDBear is an idiot because of what he says when he disagrees with me, not the simple fact that he does disagree with me. I judge him not by the stance he has chosen with regards to my philosophy, but by the content of his arguments against. Wrong about me how? Well, you managed to pull insight from TDBear's blithering. I don't know whether that's talent or schizophrenia. I'll suspend judgment until I see more of your posts. (Before you get into the "who are you to judge" bullshit, know that I'm judging for myself, not for a panel. Everyone judges; few admit it.) Tsukatu: Why [should I respect TDBear]? So he will respect me in return? What possible benefit could I get from that? Perhaps a more insightful debate. I know that less progress is made when you're just hurling childish insults about. I believe I have more to gain by throwing childish insults about. If I try to have a serious discussion with TDBear, there won't be any progress made (as that is the nature of any interaction with TDBear), and it will only lead to my depression and further disdain for mankind. On the other hand, if I can keep it in mind that TDBear is on the bottom rung of human intelligence (more realistically, buried somewhere beneath the ladder), then I can continue leading a happy, healthy life. Further, my insults give less motivation for TDBear to speak his mind, thereby sparing this same frustration and spread of insanity to innocents. Have you ever been in a situation where you just had to say "okay, I'm wrong"? Of course! I used to be Russian Orthodox, you know. Then I was Agnostic. At one point, I even found myself believing in some parts of the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?" (that was especially terrifying). I'm a very suspicious and skeptical person by nature. It takes a good deal of convincing and comprehensive evidence for me to believe something (or in the case of my gnostic atheism, dis-believe). This means that, by the time I do adopt some idea or philosophy as my own, I am convinced that it is ultimately correct. If you can show me that what I think now is incorrect, I will appologize profusely for making the ordeal so frustrating and fight for your side. Or are you the very height of human perfection that you're making yourself out to be? Knowledge of one fact (God cannot exist) hardly makes me a perfect being. Never have I intentionally said or implied that I am perfect and infallible, though I consider it a compliment that you get this impression. |
|
Tsukatu 22:21:02 Mon Jan 16 2006 Offline 177 posts inquisitor Reply |
jenna27,
New Testament is comprised of 26 books written by different men at different times (if want the number let me know and i'll get back to you on that) between 64 - 90 AD and none of them contradict each other... You are referring to the gospels? The gospels were allegedly written by four men, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. However, the titles "According to Matthew," etc., were not added until late in the second century. With the possible exception of John, the first three gospels bear no internal indication of who wrote them. Although Papias (140 CE) knows all the gospels but has only heard of Matthew and Mark, Justin Martyr (150 CE) knows of none of the four supposed authors. In fact, it is only in 180 CE, with Irenĉus of Lyons, that we learn who wrote the four "canonical" gospels and discover that there are exactly four of them because there are four quarters of the earth and four universal winds. So unless you believe Irenĉus in his choosing of the number 4, we come to the conclusion that the gospels are of unknown origin and authorship. It's obvious Matthew and Luke did not write their own, original content, because the blatantly plagiarize Mark (in the original Greek version, upwards of 90% of the content is a word-for-word copy from Mark), to which they add a handful of minor details (an especially important one is that Matthew and Luke disagree with the geneology of Jesus). Because eye-witnesses would have their own original stories to tell, but Matthew and Luke simply copycat off of Mark, we can dismiss them as unreliable narrators. The last "update" Mark gave to his telling was 90 CE, roughly 20 years after it was first introduced. Funnily enough, the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, while they didn't appear in the "final" version in 90 CE (rather, decades later), are included in most versions of the Bible to this day even though they are clearly inventing details to add to Mark's story (Mark couldn't possibly have written these details - no human, especially then, lived that long). Let's say that we still, for some reason, believe that Mark gave a historical account of Jesus. Mark shows no first-hand understanding of the social situation in Palestine. He is clearly a foreigner, removed both in space and time from the events he alleges. For example, in Mark 10:12, he has Jesus say that if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. This is meaningless to a Palestinian society, where only men could choose to divorce. Additionally, Mark displays a profound lack of familiarity with Palestinian geography. Want an example? Mark makes a grave error when he tells the tall tale about Jesus crossing over the Sea of Galilee and casting demons out of a man (two men in Matthew's revised version) and making them go into about 2,000 pigs which, as the King James version puts it, "ran violently down a steep place into the sea... and they were choked in the sea." Apart from the cruelty to animals displayed by the lovable, gentle Jesus, and his disregard for the property of others, what's wrong with this story? The King James says this marvel occurred in the land of the Gadarenes, whereas the oldest Greek manuscripts say this miracle took place in the land of the Gerasenes. Luke, who also knew no Palestinian geography, also passes on this bit of absurdity. But Matthew, who had some knowledge of Palestine, changed the name to Gadarene in his new, improved version; but this is further improved to Gergesenes in the King James version. Here's the kicker: Gerasa, the place mentioned in the oldest manuscripts of Mark, is located about 31 miles from the shore of the Sea of Galilee! Those poor pigs had to run a course five miles longer than a marathon in order to find a place to drown! Not even lemmings have to go that far. Moreover, if one considers a "steep" slope to be at least 10 degrees (a not-very-steep hill), that would make the elevation of Gerasa at least as high as Mt. Everest! When the author of Matthew read Mark's version, he saw the impossibility of Jesus and the gang disembarking at Gerasa (which, by the way, was also in a different country, the so-called Decapolis). Since the only town in the vicinity of the Sea of Galilee that he knew of that started with G was Gadara, he changed Gerasa to Gadara. But even Gadara was five miles from the shore - and in an ever farther removed country! Want another example? Jesus traveled from Tyre on the Mediterranean to the Sea of Galilee, 30 miles inland. According to Mark 7:31, Jesus and the boys went by way of Sidon, 20 miles north of Tyre on the Mediterranean coast! Since to Sidon and back would be 40 miles, this means that the wisest of all men walked 70 miles when he could have walked only 30. But do you know what's truly sickening about this story? The King James Version completely ignores a perfectly clear Greek text that says "departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the Sea of Galilee..." in order to fix this inconsistency. Apparently the translators of the King James version also knew their geography. At least they knew more than did the author of Mark! ...what kind of faith needs corrections to ultimately correct scripture to keep its followers? I wonder if you still consider your faith to be infallible, jenna27, now that you realize a large part of what you believe has been definitively evidenced to be invented in the Middle Ages. Wanna talk about John? I do! The gospel of John was compiled around the year 110 CE, about 10 years after it was actually written. If its author had been 10 years old at the time of Jesus' crucifiction in the year 30 CE, he would have been 80 years old at the time of writing. Not only is it improbable that he would have lived so long, it is dangerous to pay much attention to the colorful "memories" recounted by a man in his pre-pubescent childhood. I don't think I have to mention at this point that John copied word-for-word many of the alleged miracles of Jesus from Mark. To kick a dead horse, John says he's telling the truth in 21:20-24ish. Scholars have shown that the gospel originally ended at 20:31. Chapter 21 - in which verse 24 asserts that "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true" - is not the work of an eye-witness. Like so many other things in the Bible, it is a fraud. The testimony is an invention. I hope at this point your faith in the Bible is a little more shaky. You should really investigate these matters in depth before you believe something like it. This is getting too long. I was considering going into the epistles and revealing that to be a bag of lies as well, but I'll spare you (unless you really show me that you're brainwashed with this shit). none of them contradict each other... -if you can find something let me know, i've been looking for 2 years now and can't find a darn thing. That causes me no small amount of distress. A simple Google search will help. Here's my favorite list: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/bible-contradictions.html Look how long it is...
|
Quakeless1  05:40:38 Tue Jan 17 2006 Offline 10 posts blasphemer Reply |
Woah, ok, well, before i begin, might i say hello miss and how might you be this fine day? Alright, now that i've dispensed with the pleasantries, i shall continue. Hmmm, your right, maybe i should be a little more clear with my statement. Alright, hows this grab you, the CHURCH does what they do for personal gain? Dont beleive me? Alright, lets see here, ah, found it, alright, according to time, the mormon church has roughly 30 billion dollars, minimum, of financial assets, which means that they have a gross annual income of about 5.9 billion dollars. A little below Union Carbide and the Paine Webber Group but bigger than Nike and the Gap, i'd say thats a pretty nice financial institution wouldn't you? I mean, hell they dont even make a product, and they earn more than the gap. Dont like mormons, alright, let me dig somethin up here, alright. The average worldwide average income is around $2,400 per person each year. But because Christians are concentrated in the Western world, their average income is far higher at $4,500. Again, this is just an average of all the christian churches that put out financial statements. Still a pretty nice financial gain wouldn't you say? Sorry bout my rambling, it's late, and im tired, and had to write an english essay, so im in my ranty state of mind. Oh well, night all.
|
|
Janus_Zeal 05:42:03 Tue Jan 17 2006 Offline 650 posts Black Pope [mod] Reply |
You gotta be shitting me! So basically, all you've done was swap out one bible for another. Very well then, I'll check out this book of yours (at some point). Now I can't really say much about it 'til I've read the damn thing.
And in order to understand the logic behind this simple fact you state (let's just assume it's a fact for now), one would have to read an entire book of...how many pages?
Yes, you've made that quite clear.
That's rumblin' music where I come from. So you're calling me a fucking pansy? Let's get something straight here. I'm defiant by nature. I'm agnostic because I refuse to conform to anyone's bullshit. This, of course, includes atheists. I mean, look at yourself! You act like you achieved some fucking higher state of being by becoming atheist. If you wanna believe that shit, more power to ya. But don't try to shit on me just because I represent what you likely consider your weaker self. Then again, maybe you were just a pansy about it. Now that I think about it, I don't know if you were trying to hold others to that standard or if it was just an admittance on your part. Ah well, I'll leave the insults anyway because you're starting to piss me off.
I loathe censorship. It's amusing that you're the admin though. In that case, you dumbed yourself down.
I can't help but wonder where the fuck you're going with this. And I thought I spouted some nonsensical gibberish. Okay, first there's the "call 'em as I sees 'em" line. well my response to that is "fuck you, you don't know me". So with that last part, are you being sarcastic? Fuck, I've never had to ask this shit of someone so damn much before. This is fucking ridiculous! Can't you just be straightforward here? You know, it's difficult to pick up sarcasm in text.
Of course, I do in alot of cases as well. But you can only call someone an idiot so many times before people start to go "okay, we know you think he's an idiot, let's move on".
Can't really empathize with you there since my disdain of mankind has pretty much reached it's peak. I don't really think there's anything that can make me despise humanity more than I already do.
I could possibly accept that you thinking he's an idiot is based on observations rather than your hatred for him. However, this blatant exaggeration tells me otherwise.
Ooookaaaaayyyy......
Well you're not much different from me here. I was raised Catholic. Then I dabbled in other things, went to atheism and then to agnosticism and I've been there ever since. Something may have convinced you, but nothing's convinced me yet.
Are you just reffering to you're gnostic-atheist stance, or does it include all the bullshit you've been spouting recently? And you know full well that being an agnostic, I can't disprove atheism just as much as I can't disprove Christianity. What are you trying to set some fucking trap for me here!? Fuck, this really isn't much different from arguing with Christians.
That's acceptable, but it's far from a compliment. The question was rhetorical, and my impression was only that that's what you thought of yourself. Now I see I was wrong there. I admit, it is kind of fun picking you apart. You've actually managed to stall my disappearing act this time around. You can take that as a compliment.
|
|
jenna27 07:01:22 Tue Jan 17 2006 Offline 18 posts blasphemer Mood Now: Reply |
3 questions: 1- (this pertains to trying to discredit the authors) if mathew and mark truely believed that they have witnessed the promised deliverer (Christs' coming to earth) has come and believe that falsely recording the word would bring them a greater damnation in hell, why would they make up 2 other witness; luke and john? 2- one could say a guy named joe smith never heard of any of the four of them, how does that discredit the four apostles? 3- alright, this number 4 thing, you're stating that because a mortal man chose the number 4, that's why God chose only 4 authors? Since when is God limited to mens decisions?
an apostle is bound by his duty to serve the living God, all four of them witnessed what Jesus did, said, where he slept, etc.. why wouldn't they be the same? that gives me a pretty good reason as to why it would be 90%
what bible are you reading? you might want to check out king james version
the bible also states that no one is to add nor take away any part of the gospel.. -again the apostles are bound to their duty to serve the living God, why would they do this if they believed they would receive a greater damnation?
-that's great that you know that tidbit of info but it's not exactly a relevant arguement.. please understand that by saying that, i'm not trying to put your intelligence in check or anything.. Jesus stating that if 'a woman divorces her husband' He is not just refering to if she divorces him, but rather if a divorce itself takes place, for other reason than maritial unfaithfulness, if she remarries, then she commits adultry
1 - the pigs believe or not belong to God, they His to do with as he pleases.. (not to mention that they would have died anyway) and why did Jesus send the demons to dwell in the pigs and have the pigs run into the sea? To help the guy possed by them.. Tell me is it better to leave the man possed by demons who violently hurt him or to have them indwell in pigs that would ran into water so the demons would not hurt anyone else? perhaps i should present that question to askwhy.com 2- in luke 8:26 it states that took place "...in the country of the Gardarenes, which is over against Galilee." in Mathew 8:28 "...to the other side into the country of Gergesenes." as far as that contraversy goes, both are in the same region and to say either would be correct.. let me explain.. in ohio there is a town called geneva, the locals know the northern part of the same town is to be called geneva on the lake.. 3- note also that the demons ask to go into the pigs because even they did not want to go back to hell, and he suffered them... hell has to be a pretty bad place if demons don't even want to go back there..
1- Jesus Christ had a mission to preach the word to as many as could in His human form 2- in the next verse you see that a man who was deaf and had a speech impediment was brougt to him and in the verse to follow that man was healed. had they not gone to sidon, that man would not have received his hearing and ability to speak.. everything God does He has a reason for it and He does it for the good.
actually you might want to look at mark 7: in the king james version again as in verse 31 it states 'And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.'
the only kind of faith that needs correction is the kind that is placed in a made up religion and not in the truth.. as maybe you now see that wasn't a flaw
-the fact that there are word for word parts of many mircales should tell you something.. maybe they weren't lying..
-in doing this, John just reiterrated that it is truth.. again him believing that if anything were false in what he had wrote, to him that would mean that he would receive a greater damnation.. who in there right mind would do such a thing?
-actually i would like to thank you as you have caused me to research more for the answers, and maybe i'll be able to help someone down the road with these type of questions |
|
jenna27 18:48:30 Tue Jan 17 2006 Offline 18 posts blasphemer Mood Now: Reply |
thanky you.. i am doing just peachy.. & yourself? i agree with you that there are A LOT of churches out there for financial gain and everyone of them is corrupted. i'm sure you've seen tv shows with the 'pastors' on stage..... -they put on a show and say 'Jesus will heal you tonight if you give X amount of money' -they are corrupt in the manner that the bible clearly spells out that gift eternal salvation is free to anyone b/c it was paid for by Jesus and NO ONE should use the message to collect personal financial gain. Did you know that a person can give tithes/offerings to the Lord without ever giving a dime to the church? also did you can sum up everything God wants you to do, all his commandments in one simple 4 lettered word and that is Love. -anyone who preaches any different ought to try reading the word... oh yeah, and as far as mormons go.. i'm sorry but that religion is all jacked up, how are you going to believe that a guy named 'joe smith' found the true bible that was taken from earth by aliens, that you can become God --too many holes....just as wacky as jehovas witnessess who don't believe in hell, so according to them, when i die i'm going to spend eternity in heaven with Adolph Hitler (and i thought my day just couldn't get any better).. |
|
Quakeless1 20:10:05 Tue Jan 17 2006 Offline 10 posts blasphemer Reply |
Thats good, I'm feeling fine as well, a little tired, but still. Yes indeed, a lot of churches cash in on the faith of their followers, not just a lot, but most, and as for tithes, in theory this is a good idea, giving 10% of your income to the poor or whatever, but most people are to lazy to actually contribute this to charity, so they give it to the church to do it for them. Hence more money for the church, the sad part is that only about a third (im being generous) of the tithe money people give to the church is redistributed to the poor, sad no? Ha, at least we can agree on something, mormons are a crazy breed, but for the jehovah's witness, might i correct you on something? They dont beleive that everyone goes to heaven, they have a set number of people who go to heaven, 144,000 i beleive, and the rest dont go to hell per say, but to a place where they stay dormant, and must wait for the ressurection of christ. Oh, and only god witnesses go to heaven.
|
|
jenna27 20:52:13 Tue Jan 17 2006 Offline 18 posts blasphemer Mood Now: Reply |
you're right with 144000.. if i remember correctly, some of them had told me the rest of them inherrit the earth, i asked them why wouldn't they want to go to heaven.. they couldn't give me a good reason.
another thing (concerning tithing).. a lot of people don't know that the 10% tithing was done away with when christ died on the cross and is no required. when the jews tithed, it wasn't just money, it was everything; their time, their first fruits.. everything. But when Jesus died on the cross, his blood bought those who would accept Him as lord and savior and b/c of this, 100% was given to the Lord, so God advised to 'let each one give according to his heart'. |
|
jenna27 23:45:13 Tue Jan 17 2006 Offline 18 posts blasphemer Mood Now: Post Mood: Reply |
To proove that it's not a contradiction, i'll take you straight to scripture... Mathew 8:28 "And when he (Jesus) was come to the other side into the country of Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no man might pass by that way. 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? 30 And there was a good way off from them a herd of many swine feeding. 31 So the devils besought him (Jesus), saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine feeding. 33 And he said to them 'Go'. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently into the sea, and perished in the waters. 34 And the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts." *alright, so in Mathew you see 2 men possed by demons in the country of Gergesenes. they go up to jesus and the demons ask him to not to send them back to hell but rather to send them into the heard of swine and Jesus does it. all the swine ran straight into the water and drowned... now you see the people are mad at Jesus because they no longer have any swine to make money with so they told him to leave. now here is what is in Mark 5:1 "And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes. 2 And when he (Jesus) was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit." (skipping vs. 3-6 b/c they aren't really relevant to my point) Mark 5:7 "And (the demons) cried with a loud voice, and said What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. 8 For he (Jesus) said unto him 'Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit'. 9 And he asked him 'What is thy name?' And he (the demons) answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many." further down again you find in Mark 5:17 "And they began to pray him to depart their coasts." *In Mark you see that Jesus stops in what was called Gadarenes (it should be noted that this is the same name that Luke uses), were as in Mathew it's Gergesenes.. also Mark and Luke only make mention of one of the men that were possessed.. -2 questions here: why is town not called the same name by all three apostles? and why do Mark and Luke only make mention of one the two men? read a little further the next verse Mark 5:18 "And when he (Jesus) was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil prayed him (Jesus) that he might be with him. 19 Howbeit Jesus suffered him not but saith unto him ' Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord has done for thee, and had compassion on thee. 20 And he departed and began to publish in Decapolis, how great things Jesus had done for him; and all men did marvel. 21 And when Jeus was passed over again by ship unto the other side, much people gathered unto him: and he was nigh unto the sea. 22 And behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue Jairus by name and when he saw him he fell at his feet. - also look in Luke 8:40 "And it came to pass, that when Jesus was returned, the people gladly received him for they were all waiting for him" and here it is.. one of the two men followed Jesus after he had cast the demons out of him as you see that man tried to go with Jesus when he went into the boat. but Jesus said told him to go tell the town what he did for him, and so the former demon possessed man did tell the whole town and when Jesus came back he was no longer unwelcomed there. so you find the reason the mathew says that there were 2 men is to tell what happened, and you find the other two; mark and luke only mentioning one b/c that person is more prominent as he is mention again.. -don't believe this stuff happens? try this one.. on the day Martin Luther King jr. was assassinated there were 4 others standing on that balcony that were murdered as well.. off the top of your head can you tell me who they were? you remember Martin Luther King jr. b/c something he did was significant... and as far as the town being called two names.. that region was made of 3 different languages and the apostles used the differrent names to help the reads understand where they were |
|
Tsukatu 00:33:09 Wed Jan 18 2006 Offline 177 posts inquisitor Reply |
Janus_Zeal,
You gotta be shitting me! So basically, all you've done was swap out one bible for another. That's a very bad analogy. Not even a man as brilliant as George H. Smith couldn't come up with the filth that is the Holy Bible. The difference is that Atheism: The Case Against God is very reasonable and appeals to intelligence. Quite the opposite of the Bible in most every way. And in order to understand the logic behind this simple fact you state (let's just assume it's a fact for now), one would have to read an entire book of...how many pages? Technically, I'd think this stuff is intuitive, but I guess you could refer to the book if you can't make the logical leap for yourself. So you're calling me a fucking pansy? Um... yes. You are agnostic, right? Let's get something straight here. I'm defiant by nature. I'm agnostic because I refuse to conform to anyone's bullshit. This, of course, includes atheists. You suffer from the lack of knowledge of what an atheist is, and how that compares to agnosticism. Did You Know!? It is the atheist that is defiant, not the agnostic! It's true, kiddo. An agnostic takes the namby-pamby position "well, we can't really say anything to prove or disprove your god, so I'll just suspend my judgment so neither side hurts me." Atheists don't have one distinct "nature," as you put it. An atheist is someone who is anyone who is not a theist, and therefore an atheist can have any of a theoretically infinite philosophy on life, or "nature," as you call it. If you really deny something, if you're defiant, you are more likely an atheist, as that is just about the only thing in common with atheists. Agnostics are just unsure. I mean, look at yourself! You act like you achieved some fucking higher state of being by becoming atheist. I have. I am no longer religious. I consider that a higher state of being. As I don't believe in the supernatural, my interpretation of a "higher state of being" is NOT any kind of metaphysical, spiritual, or enlightened state. It simply means to me that I'm better than I was before. Ah well, I'll leave the insults anyway because you're starting to piss me off. Starting to? Does your gibbering increase in intensity along with your temper? I can already see it wavering, is why I ask. I loathe censorship. It's amusing that you're the admin though. In that case, you dumbed yourself down. Believe me, I also hate censorship. However, I find that that doesn't often get us anywhere in a forum. I have seen too many forums succumb to the hordes of spamming morons. I'm mostly libertarian/anarchist when it comes to freedoms and rights of the individual, but my elitist tendencies are more practical in these matters. So with that last part, are you being sarcastic? Fuck, I've never had to ask this shit of someone so damn much before. This is fucking ridiculous! Can't you just be straightforward here? You know, it's difficult to pick up sarcasm in text. I appologize. I'll dumb down my language for you. Here's a better translation: Me: You are deluded when you say that TDBear is not an idiot. You: I don't like being called deluded. Me: Of course you don't. No one likes being told they have a problem. ("I calls 'em as I sees 'em.") You: "Fuck you, you don't know me." Me: I'm only pointing it out with the same intentions that a friend would tell another friend he is getting fat - yes, it's a little insulting, but it's for the fat guy's own good, so he can understand that he has a recognizable problem that needs fixing. My previous post was not sarcastic. I am letting you know that (I believe, since you needed that included previously when I stated an opinion) you are wrong when you say that TDBear is not an idiot. The issue is self-evident. I'm letting you know that you're being closed-minded about his stupidity. Of course, I do in alot of cases as well. But you can only call someone an idiot so many times before people start to go "okay, we know you think he's an idiot, let's move on". You missed my point. It's not a refreshed insult each time. It's become a custom, like putting "sincerely" at the end of a letter. Consider it my sig when I'm talking to TDBear. Tsukatu: Further, my insults give less motivation for TDBear to speak his mind, thereby sparing this same frustration and spread of insanity to innocents. Ooookaaaaayyyy...... Sorry. I'll dumb it down, per your previous request: TDBear whores out his inconsistent filth, and by attempting to label him an idiot, I'm sparing other people the frustration of talking to him. I was raised Catholic. Then I dabbled in other things, went to atheism and then to agnosticism and I've been there ever since. Something may have convinced you, but nothing's convinced me yet. Read the book I've suggested. That's what did it for me. Are you just reffering to you're gnostic-atheist stance, or does it include all the bullshit you've been spouting recently? And you know full well that being an agnostic, I can't disprove atheism just as much as I can't disprove Christianity. What are you trying to set some fucking trap for me here!? Wow. Never before have I been so drastically overestimated. I'm not trying to be a sneaky son of a bitch, so you can forget that. I'm talking about my lack of faith, my security in my gnostic atheism. I'm also reasonably secure in what I've said in this thread, so feel free to try to pick me apart. Fuck, this really isn't much different from arguing with Christians. Only because you think I'm arguing with you. I don't know where you got this impression, but it certainly seems to be the case. The closest I come to that is pointing out to you that I think you're wrong in your faith in TDBear's intelligence. I'm also suggesting you append your agnosticism (agnosis + knowledge = gnosis... yay!) by suggesting a book to you. I admit, it is kind of fun picking you apart. Is that how you see it? I'm terribly confused. Maybe you could point out exacly where you're "picking me apart?" So far it only seems we're disagreeing about TDBear's intelligence and your admittance that you can't argue our agnosticism/atheism point any more because you haven't read the book I have suggested. |
|
Tsukatu 00:34:10 Wed Jan 18 2006 Offline 177 posts inquisitor Reply |
jenna27,
I don't have time for this. I'm going to be busy for the rest of the week, through a portion of the weekend. Keep bugging me about responding, and I will make time for you. I do appreciate your response, however. |
|
Janus_Zeal 00:56:00 Wed Jan 18 2006 Offline 650 posts Black Pope [mod] Reply |
I haven't got alot of time so I'm only gonna respond to a few things I feel are important. Maybe I'll come back to give a longer response later.
Perhaps in your case, but I've already explained my ways, and if you can't accept that, then go fuck yourself. And you probably don't want to admit it, but atheists bullshit almost as much (if not as much) as religos do. You misunderstand my stance here. I don't say "well, we can't really say anything to prove or disprove your god, so I'll just suspend my judgment so neither side hurts me" as you put it. I say "you're all full of it, so fuck you all!" Are you really that fucking stubborn that you can't see this simple point?
You are. It's not just TDBear's intellect either. Hell, we actually trailed off that subject for the most part. We're pretty much arguing over what defines agnostics.
Every response I get out of you tells me something more about you. The more I poke and prod, the more you respond, the more I know. Come on now, you should have known this. You seem to go about things in much the same way afterall. I'm not directly picking you apart, but everything I've said about you, you've either confirmed or denied, so I have a better understanding of how your mind works.
|
|
Janus_Zeal 00:58:25 Wed Jan 18 2006 Offline 650 posts Black Pope [mod] Reply |
Oh one more thing....
Only because you backed me into that position. Just like Christians with the bible. |
|
jenna27 05:01:47 Wed Jan 18 2006 Offline 18 posts blasphemer Mood Now: Post Mood: Reply |
okay.. |
|
Janus_Zeal 11:33:24 Wed Jan 18 2006 Offline 650 posts Black Pope [mod] Reply |
Okay, I've still got more shit to say to you now...shit, I can't even recall the last thing I said that was actually on-topic here.
Oh I know what you mean by it, and that was what I meant by it. It doesn't simply mean that you're better than you were before though. It also means that you think you're better than everyone who doesn't conform to your view. But now that I know what you really think of me, I can drop the civility.
Pfft!! Yeah, you got room to talk.
Oh you mean one's like yourself? You did state that you're just here to troll afterall.
Elitists disgust me....I've lost all respect for you.
So basically you're just an ass. You're starting to remind me of that x-muslim character who came here talking shit awhile back.
Reality check! You're the only one who gets frustrated talking to him. Really, you're the only person who actively posts here that's frustrating me. You're also the first person to get your panties in a bunch over TD. Yeah, I still think your reasons for calling him an idiot are petty.
Just making sure. You still cornered me with your atheist bible bullshit. I'm sure you have a smug little grin on your face knowing that I can't say shit on it 'til I read your stupid fucking book. Well, I'll have the damn thing in a week or so, and it will likely take me a month to read it depending on how interesting or lame it is. So don't hold your breath waiting for me to respond on that part. I've been through alot of books, and I have my doubts that this one will convince me of....anything at all.
Only until I grow bored with you.
|
|
TDbear 10:41:48 Thu Jan 19 2006 Offline 567 posts bishop Reply |
its so refreshing to come back after an absense to see that i have been well missed... tsukatu, as always, its a pleasure to read your non-sensitcal drivel.
Janus: you never cease to amaze me with your insight, you mustn't hate humanity THAT much if your care about an 'idiot' like me haha. jenna: why are you even bothering? Tsukatu: it has been interesting to say the least reading these 'responses' of yours... like janus, i've learned much about you, and i have nothing but the utmost contempt for you. its ironic that you persist in calling me an idiot in posts to others but you have only actually 'signed' a reply to me with it. dipshit. thank you ladies and gentlemen haha |
| Pages: [ 1 2 3 ] |
| [ Notify ] | [ Print ] | [ Send To Friend ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ > ] |
|
Total Members: 412 | Register :: Log In :: In Power The time is now 13:01:34 Sat Dec 2 2023 |