Highest Paying Job On IT?
-
>> Actually the Holy Spirit has been preached through the ages, it's just become >> more prevelant in the time of the 'latter rain'. If by 'more prevalent' you mean the 3.5million or so Pentecostal followers then you need to be careful, because there are 900 million of so Christians who disagree. Any defense you mount on the grounds of "the people never new the truth in the bad old days" (probably true in the sense that the Papcy has always been more a political position that a religions one) is also a little dated, since the general christian population has been able to read and interpret for themselves for at least the past 300 years - and yet the move to embrace the 'correct' bible teachings of the pentecostal church is hardly an overwhemling tidal wave of conversion and enlightenment. The Mormons believe that heaven lies just beyond the orbit of Pluto and ancient Egyptian tablets are a missing book of the bible that vaidates their beliefs. They've been very sucessful at selling their nutty ideas in the last 50 years or so. Does that make them more right than the Pentecostals ? Surely you must admit that either the Catholics, the Mormons or the Pentecostals (just to pick a few for discussion - apologies to the many other flavors of Christianity being sidelined in this discussion) are reading the Bible incorrectly, at least in certain key areas ? One of you is right, and the other two will have to eventually realise this and come to see that they have been either (a) mislead by their 'elders', would new the truth of the mis-interpretation but supressed it from followers, or (b) were genuinely unable to see that they were wrong. This leads to two obvious points : First, all 3 of you know you are right and the other two are wrong, and it's only a metter of time until your truth wins through! Good luck - let the better interpretation win (which still means 2 interpretations lose!) Second, why has god let 2000 years of followers stumble around in the dark trying to figure out exactly which bits are the important onee. Syrely a little 'plain speaking' right at the start would have resolved this ? Or could it be tht the bible has always been a work of men - created by men, interpreted by men, twisted and abused by men? >> All of this was foretold in the Bible, so where is the surprise ? Well, this is really the issue, isn't it! You read the Bible, interpret it as having a meaning, then find passages in the Bible that support your meaning, therefore concluding that your interprations mus
>> Actually the Holy Spirit has been preached through the ages, it's just become >> more prevelant in the time of the 'latter rain'. If by 'more prevalent' you mean the 3.5million or so Pentecostal followers then you need to be careful, because there are 900 million of so Christians who disagree. My intention was to refer to the fact that speaking in tongues was a thing not heard of and considered satanic by most 'mainstream' churches as little as 60 years ago. Nowadays it's more 'you can speak in tongues in the Catholic/ church, but keep it to yourself.' I have friends who became Christians and so left the Anglican church. Their priest came to see them and told them HE spoke in tongues but it was something private because it could create waves. I doubt 60 years ago an Anglican minister would admit such a thing. Any defense you mount on the grounds of "the people never new the truth in the bad old days" (probably true in the sense that the Papcy has always been more a political position that a religions one) is also a little dated, since the general christian population has been able to read and interpret for themselves for at least the past 300 years - and yet the move to embrace the 'correct' bible teachings of the pentecostal church is hardly an overwhemling tidal wave of conversion and enlightenment. And since the Bible was available it's been more a steady movement towards understanding, starting with salvation by grace through faith and moving towards an understanding of what we need to have faith in, and what the promises of the Bible are. Along the way people have stuck to the (partially correct ) teachings they grew up in, even as there are still Catholics. The Bible also says Christians will always be a minority, so I'm sorry if you misunderstood me to believe that there is a majority of Bible believing Christians out there, just that the message is open enough that most people are aware of it one way or the other, in the West at least. The Mormons believe that heaven lies just beyond the orbit of Pluto and ancient Egyptian tablets are a missing book of the bible that vaidates their beliefs. They've been very sucessful at selling their nutty ideas in the last 50 years or so. Does that make them more right than the Pentecostals ? See above - the message is more freely available and there are a lot more Christian's now than 100 years ago, but in the Bible, might makes wrong, only when Jesus returns will His message be accepted by a majori
-
I prefer Holy Grail overall, but some of Brian is probably amongst Pythons finest moments. My favourite is the guy on the hill who had a vow of silence. That kills me every time, and is on par with the killer rabbit of Holy Grail IMHO. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
-
>> Actually the Holy Spirit has been preached through the ages, it's just become >> more prevelant in the time of the 'latter rain'. If by 'more prevalent' you mean the 3.5million or so Pentecostal followers then you need to be careful, because there are 900 million of so Christians who disagree. Any defense you mount on the grounds of "the people never new the truth in the bad old days" (probably true in the sense that the Papcy has always been more a political position that a religions one) is also a little dated, since the general christian population has been able to read and interpret for themselves for at least the past 300 years - and yet the move to embrace the 'correct' bible teachings of the pentecostal church is hardly an overwhemling tidal wave of conversion and enlightenment. The Mormons believe that heaven lies just beyond the orbit of Pluto and ancient Egyptian tablets are a missing book of the bible that vaidates their beliefs. They've been very sucessful at selling their nutty ideas in the last 50 years or so. Does that make them more right than the Pentecostals ? Surely you must admit that either the Catholics, the Mormons or the Pentecostals (just to pick a few for discussion - apologies to the many other flavors of Christianity being sidelined in this discussion) are reading the Bible incorrectly, at least in certain key areas ? One of you is right, and the other two will have to eventually realise this and come to see that they have been either (a) mislead by their 'elders', would new the truth of the mis-interpretation but supressed it from followers, or (b) were genuinely unable to see that they were wrong. This leads to two obvious points : First, all 3 of you know you are right and the other two are wrong, and it's only a metter of time until your truth wins through! Good luck - let the better interpretation win (which still means 2 interpretations lose!) Second, why has god let 2000 years of followers stumble around in the dark trying to figure out exactly which bits are the important onee. Syrely a little 'plain speaking' right at the start would have resolved this ? Or could it be tht the bible has always been a work of men - created by men, interpreted by men, twisted and abused by men? >> All of this was foretold in the Bible, so where is the surprise ? Well, this is really the issue, isn't it! You read the Bible, interpret it as having a meaning, then find passages in the Bible that support your meaning, therefore concluding that your interprations mus
I respect your efforts, Mike. I have always been closer to an agnostic than a fundamentalist myself. However, if there is anything more ignorant than religion it is trying to refute religious sentiment with logic. Religion has nothing to do with logic, hence cannot be defeated by any application of logic. Religion has its own intellectual framework, generally described as faith. I have come to accept the religious notion of faith as simply another kind of human intellectual ability. I have also come to acknowledge reluctantly that faith is just as important as logic when it comes to understanding the universe around us. I think that if the human race ever achieves a complete understanding of how everything really works - it will be those who rely on logic who will be far more surprised by 'the truth' than those who rely on faith. "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.
-
If it was not your intention to link Islam and violence in at least 50 of the last 1000 or so of your posts, then I strongly suggest you need to watch your wording more closely. Perhaps you need to speak in a tongue understood by mere mortals, rather than supernatural beings ?? (cheap shot, couldn't resist!!) I made some comments on the Quran article that may be viewed in that light. The fact is the Quran DOES encourage killing the infidel, although I'm not suggesting it's followers take that literal interpretation and viewpoint as a whole. Since Sept. 11 I have chosen my words with much more care, because ( as I have said ) I have concerns about the vilification of Islamic people overall as the result of the actions of a few extremists. However, I sometimes see red, especially when people who advocate the killing of Israelis accuse anyone who says something they do not like of being racist. I am not good at holding my tongue ( which is probably the real reason I am #1 poster ) and not good at being politically correct, especially when I believe people are applying a double standard or hiding behind cries of racism as a way to avoid their statements being openly examined or discussed. I would be happy to suggest that people like Hassan, the guys on the Quran article thread and this 'call' dude are the ones who are extremely intolerant. While I may not express myself well, I am certainly on record as saying that while it is my right to consider Islam wrong, it is also the equal right of others to follow it, and that people should be free to make their own choice in this regard without being judged for it in other aspects of their life. I have never seriously advocated killing anyone on any thread here or anywhere else. I can see Islamic people feeling under pressure as a result of recent events, but if they take it out on me, I'll respond. Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem." I just ripped this movie to mpeg - I love it. I have it running while I work at home on my other monitor. Have you seen the scenes that didn't make the movie ? Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
'The fact is the Quran DOES encourage killing the infidel, although I'm not suggesting it's followers take that literal interpretation and viewpoint as a whole.' Please qualify this statement! Your either saying this out of sheer ignorance or purposly taking things out of context. I think these verses are self-explantory: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error; Whoever rejects Evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things "(Al-Baqarah:256) "..whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (AL-MAEDA:32) Even in war there are strict rules in Islam. ie No cutting down of trees that give fruit. No killing of the eldery, women, children, and Non-Combatants. No killing of people in worship even though they are worshipping a Pebble. In Islam been cruel to animals is forbidden. For example there are certain requirements for slaughtering a sheep. Like making sure the knife is sharp so it doesn't feel much pain, making sure other sheep in the flock don't see it as not to 'stress' them, and to give the sheep water before it is slaughtered. I also know from your previous posts you seem to equate Islam with intolerance. Lets look at the facts: Slaves in the region were freed under Islam over 1000 years ago with no wars or anythings like that. For us it took a civil war, which was the most costley to us in terms of dead. And today racisim is still wide spread, though less than the eighties or at least changing its faces. In Islam this problem is almost a non-issue(ie You see Chineese, Indoneasians, South-Africans, Columbians, and Califorians intermingle with no problems) I have one suggestion, find a Muslim(shouldn't be too hard), and stick with them for a while. For one thing you'll find out they probably don't bite, and for another it will be less likely that you will make an error like that.
-
I respect your efforts, Mike. I have always been closer to an agnostic than a fundamentalist myself. However, if there is anything more ignorant than religion it is trying to refute religious sentiment with logic. Religion has nothing to do with logic, hence cannot be defeated by any application of logic. Religion has its own intellectual framework, generally described as faith. I have come to accept the religious notion of faith as simply another kind of human intellectual ability. I have also come to acknowledge reluctantly that faith is just as important as logic when it comes to understanding the universe around us. I think that if the human race ever achieves a complete understanding of how everything really works - it will be those who rely on logic who will be far more surprised by 'the truth' than those who rely on faith. "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.
I can agree that the mission is doomed to failure - I have previously had a long discussion with Christian along the lines that 'faith' and 'logic' oppose each each other in fairly strong ways. I have no illusions about my ability to convince a strong 'believer' to change their minds - any more than I feel I can present a logical argument strong enough to convince someone with multiple personality disorder that they are, in fact just one person, not two (or more). From their perspective - a purely internal one, unsubstantiated in any way by objective measurement, they ARE multiple people. I just like to watch Christian fall back on his "inner beliefs", and force him to continually admit that his reality and 'evidence' is available to him only, and is purely subjective. That's enough of a 'victory' for me, and all I can reasonably hope to achieve. I will take your suggestion regardling the importance of 'faith' under advisement, and get back to you on that one. I think there are enough examples of the ability to live a good life without the need to involve faith - and a fairly bad life with 'faith' (did someonoe say "bin Laden" ??), and therefore it seems to me to be a largely optional activity at this time! >> will be those who rely on logic who will be far more surprised by 'the truth' >> than those who rely on faith I must say that the history of the last 1000 years appears to a continuous crumbling of faith in the face of logic - I see little evidence that this trend will reverse in the near future. ----------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
'The fact is the Quran DOES encourage killing the infidel, although I'm not suggesting it's followers take that literal interpretation and viewpoint as a whole.' Please qualify this statement! Your either saying this out of sheer ignorance or purposly taking things out of context. I think these verses are self-explantory: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error; Whoever rejects Evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things "(Al-Baqarah:256) "..whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (AL-MAEDA:32) Even in war there are strict rules in Islam. ie No cutting down of trees that give fruit. No killing of the eldery, women, children, and Non-Combatants. No killing of people in worship even though they are worshipping a Pebble. In Islam been cruel to animals is forbidden. For example there are certain requirements for slaughtering a sheep. Like making sure the knife is sharp so it doesn't feel much pain, making sure other sheep in the flock don't see it as not to 'stress' them, and to give the sheep water before it is slaughtered. I also know from your previous posts you seem to equate Islam with intolerance. Lets look at the facts: Slaves in the region were freed under Islam over 1000 years ago with no wars or anythings like that. For us it took a civil war, which was the most costley to us in terms of dead. And today racisim is still wide spread, though less than the eighties or at least changing its faces. In Islam this problem is almost a non-issue(ie You see Chineese, Indoneasians, South-Africans, Columbians, and Califorians intermingle with no problems) I have one suggestion, find a Muslim(shouldn't be too hard), and stick with them for a while. For one thing you'll find out they probably don't bite, and for another it will be less likely that you will make an error like that.
'The fact is the Quran DOES encourage killing the infidel, although I'm not suggesting it's followers take that literal interpretation and viewpoint as a whole.' Please qualify this statement! Your either saying this out of sheer ignorance or purposly taking things out of context. To be honest I am referring to my memory in having read part of the Koran and being shocked by it, and items I have seen quoted online as a result of conversations I have been having with a Muslim. snip. I'm not going to quote anything back at you because I'm not really interested in the argument. I don't want to be misunderstood as suggesting that all Islam is in support of recent events, regardless of what the Quran may say about killing unbelievers. I also know from your previous posts you seem to equate Islam with intolerance. I equate people telling me I'm racist as a shield for their beliefs as intolerant. I regard people subressing women as intolerant. Neither of those things is specific to Islam. Lets look at the facts: Slaves in the region were freed under Islam over 1000 years ago with no wars or anythings like that. For us it took a civil war, which was the most costley to us in terms of dead. And today racisim is still wide spread, though less than the eighties or at least changing its faces. In Islam this problem is almost a non-issue(ie You see Chineese, Indoneasians, South-Africans, Columbians, and Califorians intermingle with no problems) This again has little to do with Islam. No religion I know of preaches racism. I have one suggestion, find a Muslim(shouldn't be too hard), and stick with them for a while. For one thing you'll find out they probably don't bite, and for another it will be less likely that you will make an error like that. Been talking to one recently. Nice guy, I never suggested otherwise. You are taking the common ground of everyone in this discussion, assuming racism as a way to label me and add weight to your point of view. I am deliberatly refusing to debate the issue so I cannot be called racist, I am not. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
-
'The fact is the Quran DOES encourage killing the infidel, although I'm not suggesting it's followers take that literal interpretation and viewpoint as a whole.' Please qualify this statement! Your either saying this out of sheer ignorance or purposly taking things out of context. To be honest I am referring to my memory in having read part of the Koran and being shocked by it, and items I have seen quoted online as a result of conversations I have been having with a Muslim. snip. I'm not going to quote anything back at you because I'm not really interested in the argument. I don't want to be misunderstood as suggesting that all Islam is in support of recent events, regardless of what the Quran may say about killing unbelievers. I also know from your previous posts you seem to equate Islam with intolerance. I equate people telling me I'm racist as a shield for their beliefs as intolerant. I regard people subressing women as intolerant. Neither of those things is specific to Islam. Lets look at the facts: Slaves in the region were freed under Islam over 1000 years ago with no wars or anythings like that. For us it took a civil war, which was the most costley to us in terms of dead. And today racisim is still wide spread, though less than the eighties or at least changing its faces. In Islam this problem is almost a non-issue(ie You see Chineese, Indoneasians, South-Africans, Columbians, and Califorians intermingle with no problems) This again has little to do with Islam. No religion I know of preaches racism. I have one suggestion, find a Muslim(shouldn't be too hard), and stick with them for a while. For one thing you'll find out they probably don't bite, and for another it will be less likely that you will make an error like that. Been talking to one recently. Nice guy, I never suggested otherwise. You are taking the common ground of everyone in this discussion, assuming racism as a way to label me and add weight to your point of view. I am deliberatly refusing to debate the issue so I cannot be called racist, I am not. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
A.'I equate people telling me I'm racist...' That was never my intent, and am really sorry about it if that is the way it sounded. B.I brought the point of racisim not to suggest anyone here is rather of what Islam brought in terms of tolerance a lot earlier than we here even thought of it. C.'You are taking the common ground of everyone in this discussion, assuming racism as a way to label me and add weight to your point of view. I am deliberatly refusing to debate the issue so I cannot be called racist, I am not.' Sorry if it sounded like that but like A I am really sorry and was never my intent and dont think I what I said implied that. I guess its just a misunderstanding. I was never one to label, just to avoid the logic of an argument. One of my points was: make sure you know don't take things out of context.
-
A.'I equate people telling me I'm racist...' That was never my intent, and am really sorry about it if that is the way it sounded. B.I brought the point of racisim not to suggest anyone here is rather of what Islam brought in terms of tolerance a lot earlier than we here even thought of it. C.'You are taking the common ground of everyone in this discussion, assuming racism as a way to label me and add weight to your point of view. I am deliberatly refusing to debate the issue so I cannot be called racist, I am not.' Sorry if it sounded like that but like A I am really sorry and was never my intent and dont think I what I said implied that. I guess its just a misunderstanding. I was never one to label, just to avoid the logic of an argument. One of my points was: make sure you know don't take things out of context.
A.'I equate people telling me I'm racist...' That was never my intent, and am really sorry about it if that is the way it sounded. Fair enough - it's obvious we're all getting a little heated on this thread, so maybe the less said from here on in the better. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
-
'The fact is the Quran DOES encourage killing the infidel, although I'm not suggesting it's followers take that literal interpretation and viewpoint as a whole.' Please qualify this statement! Your either saying this out of sheer ignorance or purposly taking things out of context. To be honest I am referring to my memory in having read part of the Koran and being shocked by it, and items I have seen quoted online as a result of conversations I have been having with a Muslim. snip. I'm not going to quote anything back at you because I'm not really interested in the argument. I don't want to be misunderstood as suggesting that all Islam is in support of recent events, regardless of what the Quran may say about killing unbelievers. I also know from your previous posts you seem to equate Islam with intolerance. I equate people telling me I'm racist as a shield for their beliefs as intolerant. I regard people subressing women as intolerant. Neither of those things is specific to Islam. Lets look at the facts: Slaves in the region were freed under Islam over 1000 years ago with no wars or anythings like that. For us it took a civil war, which was the most costley to us in terms of dead. And today racisim is still wide spread, though less than the eighties or at least changing its faces. In Islam this problem is almost a non-issue(ie You see Chineese, Indoneasians, South-Africans, Columbians, and Califorians intermingle with no problems) This again has little to do with Islam. No religion I know of preaches racism. I have one suggestion, find a Muslim(shouldn't be too hard), and stick with them for a while. For one thing you'll find out they probably don't bite, and for another it will be less likely that you will make an error like that. Been talking to one recently. Nice guy, I never suggested otherwise. You are taking the common ground of everyone in this discussion, assuming racism as a way to label me and add weight to your point of view. I am deliberatly refusing to debate the issue so I cannot be called racist, I am not. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
Christian, >> I regard people subressing women as intolerant. I assume you mean 'supressing'. Since we have established, via your wisdom, that the Bible is a highly accurate source of the true meanings that god has for us, perhaps you could explain the following few verses, with particular reference to your support for the rights of women ?? Sounds a little like Mr. god may want his women kept quietly in the dark, with their only source of knowledeg being thir husbands. Kind of like the Taliban's view of women - except of cource this must be correct, since it comes directly from the bible, and that's not open for interpretation. "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Corinthians 14:34-35 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Timothy 2:11-12 Or perhaps you can offer the 'correct' interpretation of this, so that we can more easily see how we unenlightened readers of this most accurate book could have twisted these verses into assuming that they were suppressing women within the christian faith?? Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
Christian, >> I regard people subressing women as intolerant. I assume you mean 'supressing'. Since we have established, via your wisdom, that the Bible is a highly accurate source of the true meanings that god has for us, perhaps you could explain the following few verses, with particular reference to your support for the rights of women ?? Sounds a little like Mr. god may want his women kept quietly in the dark, with their only source of knowledeg being thir husbands. Kind of like the Taliban's view of women - except of cource this must be correct, since it comes directly from the bible, and that's not open for interpretation. "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Corinthians 14:34-35 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Timothy 2:11-12 Or perhaps you can offer the 'correct' interpretation of this, so that we can more easily see how we unenlightened readers of this most accurate book could have twisted these verses into assuming that they were suppressing women within the christian faith?? Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
Since we have established, via your wisdom, that the Bible is a highly accurate source of the true meanings that god has for us, perhaps you could explain the following few verses, with particular reference to your support for the rights of women ?? Sounds a little like Mr. god may want his women kept quietly in the dark, with their only source of knowledeg being thir husbands. Kind of like the Taliban's view of women - except of cource this must be correct, since it comes directly from the bible, and that's not open for interpretation. Who couldn't see this coming ? This is precisely why I have elected not to quote verses from the Quran, because I understand what people can do by wrenching a verse out of context, and I'd hate to be amongst their number, as a person well used to replying to posts such as this. "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Corinthians 14:34-35 In context this is at the tail end of three chapters on operation of spiritual gifts, including speaking in tongues, in church meetings. A good example of why the things I speak of are fundamental to the Bible and pretty crystal clear to people willing to read them. In any case, Paul is telling them how to operate these gifts in order, and this verse is almost an aside to another related issue. The reasons for women being the ones who spoke out during a meeting are cultural and specific to the time, but the message in context is one of order in the church, which includes ( in this case ) the person preaching not being interupted. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Timothy 2:11-12 The Bible clearly states here that women are not to be preachers, but in contrast I believe it is also Timothy that states a bishop must be married. The point is that women have a different role, not a lesser one or none at all. FWIW I am a houseleader in my church and I could not do it without my wife to assist me, I rely on her pretty heavily when it comes to a lot of things. Another example ( which I was expecting you to quote sometime today ) is in Ephesians ( from memory ) and says for women to obey their husbands. It goes on to say that men must love their wives as Christ l
-
Since we have established, via your wisdom, that the Bible is a highly accurate source of the true meanings that god has for us, perhaps you could explain the following few verses, with particular reference to your support for the rights of women ?? Sounds a little like Mr. god may want his women kept quietly in the dark, with their only source of knowledeg being thir husbands. Kind of like the Taliban's view of women - except of cource this must be correct, since it comes directly from the bible, and that's not open for interpretation. Who couldn't see this coming ? This is precisely why I have elected not to quote verses from the Quran, because I understand what people can do by wrenching a verse out of context, and I'd hate to be amongst their number, as a person well used to replying to posts such as this. "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Corinthians 14:34-35 In context this is at the tail end of three chapters on operation of spiritual gifts, including speaking in tongues, in church meetings. A good example of why the things I speak of are fundamental to the Bible and pretty crystal clear to people willing to read them. In any case, Paul is telling them how to operate these gifts in order, and this verse is almost an aside to another related issue. The reasons for women being the ones who spoke out during a meeting are cultural and specific to the time, but the message in context is one of order in the church, which includes ( in this case ) the person preaching not being interupted. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Timothy 2:11-12 The Bible clearly states here that women are not to be preachers, but in contrast I believe it is also Timothy that states a bishop must be married. The point is that women have a different role, not a lesser one or none at all. FWIW I am a houseleader in my church and I could not do it without my wife to assist me, I rely on her pretty heavily when it comes to a lot of things. Another example ( which I was expecting you to quote sometime today ) is in Ephesians ( from memory ) and says for women to obey their husbands. It goes on to say that men must love their wives as Christ l
>> A good example of why the things I speak of are fundamental to the Bible and >> pretty crystal clear to people willing to read them. 'pretty cystal clear', except that any number of millions have got it wrong over the 2000 years they've been pouring over this piece of nonsense. So we arrive at the place to which I was leading you - you choose to INTERPRET the bible according the ways in which YOU believe it should be done. If I choose to interpret these verses differently, you cannot prove to either myself or to any neutral observer that you are right and I am wrong. You can certainly prove top yourself you are right, but of what value is that to any one but yourself? The bible has no intrinsic, measurable, external, observable value - it is a work of interpretation, and can be used to justify almost any condition or social state. From your own mouth (er, keyboard), a few easy examples of the way in which the bible MUST take on a context before it has any meaning (and in doing so becomes justification for that context). >> The Bible says a lot about slaves as well, which some take to condone slavery, >> when in fact it seeks to teach both slaves and masters how to behave in the >> church, given that socially this situation was common regardless of how God >> might feel about it. So slavery is not actually forbidden or embraced - it is left up to the local cultural context to decide whether this is appropriate or not. "Which some take to condone slavery.." - that 'some' would be the entire population of the western world in the years 1600 - 1850, thereabouts. Nice of god to be so clear that so few people were able to misunderstand him! >> The Bible clearly states here that women are not to be preachers. Well, maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't!! How about : "I commend you to our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church." -- Romans 16:1,The Revised Standard Version Again, clarity and accuracy seem to live largely in the eye of the beholder. So, it seems to me you are arguing the bible's case in the following way : 1. Do not take verses or sentences out of order - you have to look at the big picture (the chapter, the book, or the entire bible as a whole) in order to correctly see what some verses are referring to. Failure to do this and you will be mislead by small 'snippets' that appear to be contradictory or incorrect 2. Don't be too literal - Parts of the bible (Noah and the flooding of the entire world, for example) are not meant to be strictly true - based
-
>> A good example of why the things I speak of are fundamental to the Bible and >> pretty crystal clear to people willing to read them. 'pretty cystal clear', except that any number of millions have got it wrong over the 2000 years they've been pouring over this piece of nonsense. So we arrive at the place to which I was leading you - you choose to INTERPRET the bible according the ways in which YOU believe it should be done. If I choose to interpret these verses differently, you cannot prove to either myself or to any neutral observer that you are right and I am wrong. You can certainly prove top yourself you are right, but of what value is that to any one but yourself? The bible has no intrinsic, measurable, external, observable value - it is a work of interpretation, and can be used to justify almost any condition or social state. From your own mouth (er, keyboard), a few easy examples of the way in which the bible MUST take on a context before it has any meaning (and in doing so becomes justification for that context). >> The Bible says a lot about slaves as well, which some take to condone slavery, >> when in fact it seeks to teach both slaves and masters how to behave in the >> church, given that socially this situation was common regardless of how God >> might feel about it. So slavery is not actually forbidden or embraced - it is left up to the local cultural context to decide whether this is appropriate or not. "Which some take to condone slavery.." - that 'some' would be the entire population of the western world in the years 1600 - 1850, thereabouts. Nice of god to be so clear that so few people were able to misunderstand him! >> The Bible clearly states here that women are not to be preachers. Well, maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't!! How about : "I commend you to our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church." -- Romans 16:1,The Revised Standard Version Again, clarity and accuracy seem to live largely in the eye of the beholder. So, it seems to me you are arguing the bible's case in the following way : 1. Do not take verses or sentences out of order - you have to look at the big picture (the chapter, the book, or the entire bible as a whole) in order to correctly see what some verses are referring to. Failure to do this and you will be mislead by small 'snippets' that appear to be contradictory or incorrect 2. Don't be too literal - Parts of the bible (Noah and the flooding of the entire world, for example) are not meant to be strictly true - based
>> A good example of why the things I speak of are fundamental to the Bible and >> pretty crystal clear to people willing to read them. 'pretty cystal clear', except that any number of millions have got it wrong over the 2000 years they've been pouring over this piece of nonsense. So we arrive at the place to which I was leading you - you choose to INTERPRET the bible according the ways in which YOU believe it should be done. If I choose to interpret these verses differently, you cannot prove to either myself or to any neutral observer that you are right and I am wrong. You can certainly prove top yourself you are right, but of what value is that to any one but yourself? The bible has no intrinsic, measurable, external, observable value - it is a work of interpretation, and can be used to justify almost any condition or social state. From your own mouth (er, keyboard), a few easy examples of the way in which the bible MUST take on a context before it has any meaning (and in doing so becomes justification for that context). Well, as I have often noted, my interpretation requires God to act, so unless I was hell bent on deluding myself deliberately, my interpretation is proven by the fact I believe God made a promise and I have personal proof that He kept it. >> The Bible says a lot about slaves as well, which some take to condone slavery, >> when in fact it seeks to teach both slaves and masters how to behave in the >> church, given that socially this situation was common regardless of how God >> might feel about it. So slavery is not actually forbidden or embraced - it is left up to the local cultural context to decide whether this is appropriate or not. "Which some take to condone slavery.." - that 'some' would be the entire population of the western world in the years 1600 - 1850, thereabouts. Nice of god to be so clear that so few people were able to misunderstand him! You're putting words in my mouth. The point is the Bible does NOT condone slavery, but it does provide instructions to deal with the fact. You're saying if the Bible didn't mention slavery it would not have occured in the time frame you give ? You're fooling yourself. >> The Bible clearly states here that women are not to be preachers. Well, maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't!! How about : "I commend you to our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church." -- Romans 16:1,The Revised Standard Version Again, clarity and accuracy seem to live largely in the eye of the beholder.
-
>> A good example of why the things I speak of are fundamental to the Bible and >> pretty crystal clear to people willing to read them. 'pretty cystal clear', except that any number of millions have got it wrong over the 2000 years they've been pouring over this piece of nonsense. So we arrive at the place to which I was leading you - you choose to INTERPRET the bible according the ways in which YOU believe it should be done. If I choose to interpret these verses differently, you cannot prove to either myself or to any neutral observer that you are right and I am wrong. You can certainly prove top yourself you are right, but of what value is that to any one but yourself? The bible has no intrinsic, measurable, external, observable value - it is a work of interpretation, and can be used to justify almost any condition or social state. From your own mouth (er, keyboard), a few easy examples of the way in which the bible MUST take on a context before it has any meaning (and in doing so becomes justification for that context). Well, as I have often noted, my interpretation requires God to act, so unless I was hell bent on deluding myself deliberately, my interpretation is proven by the fact I believe God made a promise and I have personal proof that He kept it. >> The Bible says a lot about slaves as well, which some take to condone slavery, >> when in fact it seeks to teach both slaves and masters how to behave in the >> church, given that socially this situation was common regardless of how God >> might feel about it. So slavery is not actually forbidden or embraced - it is left up to the local cultural context to decide whether this is appropriate or not. "Which some take to condone slavery.." - that 'some' would be the entire population of the western world in the years 1600 - 1850, thereabouts. Nice of god to be so clear that so few people were able to misunderstand him! You're putting words in my mouth. The point is the Bible does NOT condone slavery, but it does provide instructions to deal with the fact. You're saying if the Bible didn't mention slavery it would not have occured in the time frame you give ? You're fooling yourself. >> The Bible clearly states here that women are not to be preachers. Well, maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't!! How about : "I commend you to our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church." -- Romans 16:1,The Revised Standard Version Again, clarity and accuracy seem to live largely in the eye of the beholder.
We have reached an end again, I feel - my final words (feel free to offer your own closing remarks - how could anyone hope to stop you!!) - you appear to be accepting my main argument almost in totality! As you were forced to do, you have had to move into the world of INTERPRETATION (debationg the meaning and use of the word 'deaconess') in order to refute my quotes. This doesn't make you right, or me right - we may both be wrong. All I am demonstrating is that you CANNOT show objective proof of the bible's validity - your interpretation differs from mine, and probably from everyone elses' also. God must have been having a lot of trouble wiht the grammer checker when he wrote the bible. >> Well, as I have often noted, my interpretation requires God to act, so unless >> I was hell bent on deluding myself deliberately, my interpretation is proven >> by the fact I believe God made a promise and I have personal proof that He >> kept it You offer two simple choices for your own faith : (1) god exists, has given your specific promises via the bible, and delivered in the contract. (2) you are subject to some form of delusion. We will just have to disagree, I feel, as to which of these two outcomes is more likely!! (but I'd just like to add that being deluded is not that same as being unintelligent, so don't feel bad!) >> And still elude the majority today, as the Bible prophecied. Indeed Jesus >> asked of His return 'will I find faith on the Earth ?' >> ... >> Deliberate illiteracy and lack of faith are not God's fault. If the world was ' >> perfect under mens control there would be no point in Jesus coming back You must be very happy to be amongst the chosen few, who have been able to see through the confusion. Undoubtedly the rest of us poor fools will live to regret the way we snicker at those who know "the truth" that somehow eludes us. Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
We have reached an end again, I feel - my final words (feel free to offer your own closing remarks - how could anyone hope to stop you!!) - you appear to be accepting my main argument almost in totality! As you were forced to do, you have had to move into the world of INTERPRETATION (debationg the meaning and use of the word 'deaconess') in order to refute my quotes. This doesn't make you right, or me right - we may both be wrong. All I am demonstrating is that you CANNOT show objective proof of the bible's validity - your interpretation differs from mine, and probably from everyone elses' also. God must have been having a lot of trouble wiht the grammer checker when he wrote the bible. >> Well, as I have often noted, my interpretation requires God to act, so unless >> I was hell bent on deluding myself deliberately, my interpretation is proven >> by the fact I believe God made a promise and I have personal proof that He >> kept it You offer two simple choices for your own faith : (1) god exists, has given your specific promises via the bible, and delivered in the contract. (2) you are subject to some form of delusion. We will just have to disagree, I feel, as to which of these two outcomes is more likely!! (but I'd just like to add that being deluded is not that same as being unintelligent, so don't feel bad!) >> And still elude the majority today, as the Bible prophecied. Indeed Jesus >> asked of His return 'will I find faith on the Earth ?' >> ... >> Deliberate illiteracy and lack of faith are not God's fault. If the world was ' >> perfect under mens control there would be no point in Jesus coming back You must be very happy to be amongst the chosen few, who have been able to see through the confusion. Undoubtedly the rest of us poor fools will live to regret the way we snicker at those who know "the truth" that somehow eludes us. Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
We have reached an end again, I feel - my final words (feel free to offer your own closing remarks - how could anyone hope to stop you!!) ;P - you appear to be accepting my main argument almost in totality! As you were forced to do, you have had to move into the world of INTERPRETATION (debationg the meaning and use of the word 'deaconess') in order to refute my quotes. This doesn't make you right, or me right - we may both be wrong. All I am demonstrating is that you CANNOT show objective proof of the bible's validity - your interpretation differs from mine, and probably from everyone elses' also. God must have been having a lot of trouble wiht the grammer checker when he wrote the bible. The point is simply that in this case you're quoting an ENGLISH Bible, which I showed deviated from the original text. Yes, I find myself again arguing based on interpretation of this verse or that, because that is the realm you force me into by virtue of the fact you want to argue about the Bible rather than test it's veracity by looking to see if the promises it makes are kept. The very nature of the Bible is such that once it becomes an academic debate the odds of God being given a chance to act on His behalf are all but lost. The words are meant to inspire faith, which leads to God doing stuff. Arguing about commas in Habbukuk is unlikely to yield a similar result. >> Well, as I have often noted, my interpretation requires God to act, so unless >> I was hell bent on deluding myself deliberately, my interpretation is proven >> by the fact I believe God made a promise and I have personal proof that He >> kept it You offer two simple choices for your own faith : (1) god exists, has given your specific promises via the bible, and delivered in the contract. (2) you are subject to some form of delusion. We will just have to disagree, I feel, as to which of these two outcomes is more likely!! (but I'd just like to add that being deluded is not that same as being unintelligent, so don't feel bad!) Well, if being deluded causes miracles to occur in my life, causes my body to spontaneously heal itself for example, then what the hell - I'm all for it. >> And still elude the majority today, as the Bible prophecied. Indeed Jesus >> asked of His return 'will I find faith on the Earth ?' >> ... >> Deliberate illiteracy and lack of faith are not God's fault. If the world was ' >> perfect under mens control there would be no point in Jesus coming back You mus
-
We have reached an end again, I feel - my final words (feel free to offer your own closing remarks - how could anyone hope to stop you!!) ;P - you appear to be accepting my main argument almost in totality! As you were forced to do, you have had to move into the world of INTERPRETATION (debationg the meaning and use of the word 'deaconess') in order to refute my quotes. This doesn't make you right, or me right - we may both be wrong. All I am demonstrating is that you CANNOT show objective proof of the bible's validity - your interpretation differs from mine, and probably from everyone elses' also. God must have been having a lot of trouble wiht the grammer checker when he wrote the bible. The point is simply that in this case you're quoting an ENGLISH Bible, which I showed deviated from the original text. Yes, I find myself again arguing based on interpretation of this verse or that, because that is the realm you force me into by virtue of the fact you want to argue about the Bible rather than test it's veracity by looking to see if the promises it makes are kept. The very nature of the Bible is such that once it becomes an academic debate the odds of God being given a chance to act on His behalf are all but lost. The words are meant to inspire faith, which leads to God doing stuff. Arguing about commas in Habbukuk is unlikely to yield a similar result. >> Well, as I have often noted, my interpretation requires God to act, so unless >> I was hell bent on deluding myself deliberately, my interpretation is proven >> by the fact I believe God made a promise and I have personal proof that He >> kept it You offer two simple choices for your own faith : (1) god exists, has given your specific promises via the bible, and delivered in the contract. (2) you are subject to some form of delusion. We will just have to disagree, I feel, as to which of these two outcomes is more likely!! (but I'd just like to add that being deluded is not that same as being unintelligent, so don't feel bad!) Well, if being deluded causes miracles to occur in my life, causes my body to spontaneously heal itself for example, then what the hell - I'm all for it. >> And still elude the majority today, as the Bible prophecied. Indeed Jesus >> asked of His return 'will I find faith on the Earth ?' >> ... >> Deliberate illiteracy and lack of faith are not God's fault. If the world was ' >> perfect under mens control there would be no point in Jesus coming back You mus
Must ... stop .. answering ... Christians's ... posts ... Arrgghh, it's no use, I must have one more say! >> The words are meant to inspire faith, which leads to God doing stuff Very convient for god that his words are vague enough to beyond examination in an 'academic debate'. I find it strange that the Old Testament god had very little trouble making it clear to pharoah just what was expected, and what the pain might be - not much room to 'interpret' things there, no need for 'faith', and no fear of 'academice debates' muddying the content. "let me people go, or suffer the death of all first born children" - a fairly direct set of words, methinks! >> Well, if being deluded causes miracles to occur in my life, causes my body to >> spontaneously heal itself for example, then what the hell - I'm all for it. Well, have I got good news for you!! Just go to 'www.randi.org'. The James Randi Education Fund offers $1 million US to anyone would can demonstrate proof of 'supernatural' behaviour. This includes faith healing!! Just bring yourself, you sick leper cousin, or any number of blind people along and you can collect the prize. Of course, it seems strange to me that after 10 years of testing such claims no one has yet collected, but there you go - perhaps god doesn't want any documented, tested, proof of such claims!! >> To be honest it kind of depresses me that so many start from the >> presupposition that there is no God and thus ignore the fact He has offered to >> prove it. I would have thought that since over 95% of the world believes in some form of religion, it would be far more depressing to think that so many good, honest, faithful people are in fact missing the point of it all, because god chose to be so bloody obtuse in his use of words. And I really must go... ----------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
Must ... stop .. answering ... Christians's ... posts ... Arrgghh, it's no use, I must have one more say! >> The words are meant to inspire faith, which leads to God doing stuff Very convient for god that his words are vague enough to beyond examination in an 'academic debate'. I find it strange that the Old Testament god had very little trouble making it clear to pharoah just what was expected, and what the pain might be - not much room to 'interpret' things there, no need for 'faith', and no fear of 'academice debates' muddying the content. "let me people go, or suffer the death of all first born children" - a fairly direct set of words, methinks! >> Well, if being deluded causes miracles to occur in my life, causes my body to >> spontaneously heal itself for example, then what the hell - I'm all for it. Well, have I got good news for you!! Just go to 'www.randi.org'. The James Randi Education Fund offers $1 million US to anyone would can demonstrate proof of 'supernatural' behaviour. This includes faith healing!! Just bring yourself, you sick leper cousin, or any number of blind people along and you can collect the prize. Of course, it seems strange to me that after 10 years of testing such claims no one has yet collected, but there you go - perhaps god doesn't want any documented, tested, proof of such claims!! >> To be honest it kind of depresses me that so many start from the >> presupposition that there is no God and thus ignore the fact He has offered to >> prove it. I would have thought that since over 95% of the world believes in some form of religion, it would be far more depressing to think that so many good, honest, faithful people are in fact missing the point of it all, because god chose to be so bloody obtuse in his use of words. And I really must go... ----------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
Must ... stop .. answering ... Christians's ... posts ... Arrgghh, it's no use, I must have one more say! *grin* this is why I NEVER say 'this is my final post' anymore. >> The words are meant to inspire faith, which leads to God doing stuff Very convient for god that his words are vague enough to beyond examination in an 'academic debate'. I find it strange that the Old Testament god had very little trouble making it clear to pharoah just what was expected, and what the pain might be - not much room to 'interpret' things there, no need for 'faith', and no fear of 'academice debates' muddying the content. "let me people go, or suffer the death of all first born children" - a fairly direct set of words, methinks! You're playing word games again. I didn't say the Bible doesn't stand up to academic discussion, or I would not have bothered. I said academic discussion cuts off the possibility of God actually DOING something because He is not given the opportunity, which comes not when you grab an online concordance and try to find ways to prove God wrong, instead of giving Him a chance to prove He is right. >> Well, if being deluded causes miracles to occur in my life, causes my body to >> spontaneously heal itself for example, then what the hell - I'm all for it. Well, have I got good news for you!! Just go to 'www.randi.org'. The James Randi Education Fund offers $1 million US to anyone would can demonstrate proof of 'supernatural' behaviour. This includes faith healing!! Just bring yourself, you sick leper cousin, or any number of blind people along and you can collect the prize. Of course, it seems strange to me that after 10 years of testing such claims no one has yet collected, but there you go - perhaps god doesn't want any documented, tested, proof of such claims!! God is not a performing monkey. It amazes me how people can pull God down to the level of a circus geek. I know people who became Christians after being skeptics BECAUSE they were healed and could not deny it. How many such people need to exist to prove God CAN heal ? Does He need to heal every time I tell him to in order to prove He CAN heal ? >> To be honest it kind of depresses me that so many start from the >> presupposition that there is no God and thus ignore the fact He has offered to >> prove it. I would have thought that since over 95% of the world believes in some form of religion, it would be far more depressing to think that so many good, honest, faithful people
-
Must ... stop .. answering ... Christians's ... posts ... Arrgghh, it's no use, I must have one more say! *grin* this is why I NEVER say 'this is my final post' anymore. >> The words are meant to inspire faith, which leads to God doing stuff Very convient for god that his words are vague enough to beyond examination in an 'academic debate'. I find it strange that the Old Testament god had very little trouble making it clear to pharoah just what was expected, and what the pain might be - not much room to 'interpret' things there, no need for 'faith', and no fear of 'academice debates' muddying the content. "let me people go, or suffer the death of all first born children" - a fairly direct set of words, methinks! You're playing word games again. I didn't say the Bible doesn't stand up to academic discussion, or I would not have bothered. I said academic discussion cuts off the possibility of God actually DOING something because He is not given the opportunity, which comes not when you grab an online concordance and try to find ways to prove God wrong, instead of giving Him a chance to prove He is right. >> Well, if being deluded causes miracles to occur in my life, causes my body to >> spontaneously heal itself for example, then what the hell - I'm all for it. Well, have I got good news for you!! Just go to 'www.randi.org'. The James Randi Education Fund offers $1 million US to anyone would can demonstrate proof of 'supernatural' behaviour. This includes faith healing!! Just bring yourself, you sick leper cousin, or any number of blind people along and you can collect the prize. Of course, it seems strange to me that after 10 years of testing such claims no one has yet collected, but there you go - perhaps god doesn't want any documented, tested, proof of such claims!! God is not a performing monkey. It amazes me how people can pull God down to the level of a circus geek. I know people who became Christians after being skeptics BECAUSE they were healed and could not deny it. How many such people need to exist to prove God CAN heal ? Does He need to heal every time I tell him to in order to prove He CAN heal ? >> To be honest it kind of depresses me that so many start from the >> presupposition that there is no God and thus ignore the fact He has offered to >> prove it. I would have thought that since over 95% of the world believes in some form of religion, it would be far more depressing to think that so many good, honest, faithful people
Remind me to hijack someone's thread again sometime soon and we'll continue this ! >>God is not a performing monkey Actually, I kind of feel you're putting down highly trained monkeys with comparisons like this. >> How many such people need to exist to prove God CAN heal ? Just one - just ONE person who can verify, rather than testify, to the fact. Testimonials are the lifeblood of all charlatans and conmen - and vitally important to the modern god business too. Show me 1000 people who can testify they were healed 'by faith' and you prove either they are right and there is a god who heals, or they are wrong, and there is another explanation. - so it's really not much proof of anything. Show me one piece of verifiable evidence and you have your proof, beyond doubting. Show me one case of someone with an xray showing a broken leg, and 24 hours another xray showing no break whatsoever. Show me one case of someone a hole in the heart, and 24 hours later the hole is completely gone. Show me one case of a severe knife wound to the body where 24 hours later there is no physical trace of the wound. Don't show me speeches by blind people who can see again - there are documented medical explanations for spontaneous cures of various eye diseases. Don't show me speeches by cancer vitims that 3 months later appear to have no symptoms - spontaneous remission of cancer is a documented medical event - and is often followed at a later time by a resurgence of the disease (unfortunately). Studies show that the rate of cancer remissions amongst pilgrims to Lourdes is actually lower than in the general population. So either Lourdes is a Satanic trap, or god hates whinging pilgrims enough to punish them for asking!! Nice one, lord!! >> Nor is it His fault He is gracious enough to save people just because they ask I suppose the 7000 people killed in the WTC events were given a change to 'ask' before it all happened ?? Perhaps they were all misguided individuals who will never have the chance to ask? Or maybe they're just plain dead, and this whole god thing is just something the rest of us can waste our time on? Aloha... Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
Remind me to hijack someone's thread again sometime soon and we'll continue this ! >>God is not a performing monkey Actually, I kind of feel you're putting down highly trained monkeys with comparisons like this. >> How many such people need to exist to prove God CAN heal ? Just one - just ONE person who can verify, rather than testify, to the fact. Testimonials are the lifeblood of all charlatans and conmen - and vitally important to the modern god business too. Show me 1000 people who can testify they were healed 'by faith' and you prove either they are right and there is a god who heals, or they are wrong, and there is another explanation. - so it's really not much proof of anything. Show me one piece of verifiable evidence and you have your proof, beyond doubting. Show me one case of someone with an xray showing a broken leg, and 24 hours another xray showing no break whatsoever. Show me one case of someone a hole in the heart, and 24 hours later the hole is completely gone. Show me one case of a severe knife wound to the body where 24 hours later there is no physical trace of the wound. Don't show me speeches by blind people who can see again - there are documented medical explanations for spontaneous cures of various eye diseases. Don't show me speeches by cancer vitims that 3 months later appear to have no symptoms - spontaneous remission of cancer is a documented medical event - and is often followed at a later time by a resurgence of the disease (unfortunately). Studies show that the rate of cancer remissions amongst pilgrims to Lourdes is actually lower than in the general population. So either Lourdes is a Satanic trap, or god hates whinging pilgrims enough to punish them for asking!! Nice one, lord!! >> Nor is it His fault He is gracious enough to save people just because they ask I suppose the 7000 people killed in the WTC events were given a change to 'ask' before it all happened ?? Perhaps they were all misguided individuals who will never have the chance to ask? Or maybe they're just plain dead, and this whole god thing is just something the rest of us can waste our time on? Aloha... Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
Remind me to hijack someone's thread again sometime soon and we'll continue this ! Yeah, that's be fun *weary sigh* >>God is not a performing monkey Actually, I kind of feel you're putting down highly trained monkeys with comparisons like this. Very cute. I hope you don't think this offends or upsets me. It's just plain sad. >> How many such people need to exist to prove God CAN heal ? Just one - just ONE person who can verify, rather than testify, to the fact. The trouble with people like you is that no verification will be enough, when the fact is the only verification possible is within your grasp. The whole *point* is that no matter what happens outside of your body, you will be able to take whatever slant on it you like. That is why God offers proof to the individual, because not only does it require each individual to have enough faith to ask God Himself if He is there, it is also the only proof that is unassailable. >> Nor is it His fault He is gracious enough to save people just because they ask I suppose the 7000 people killed in the WTC events were given a change to 'ask' before it all happened ?? Perhaps they were all misguided individuals who will never have the chance to ask? Or maybe they're just plain dead, and this whole god thing is just something the rest of us can waste our time on? It's a low blow to use such an emotional issue to try and prove your point, but the fact is that all who died lived in a country where the Bible is freely available, regardless of the fact that religious charlatans also are in no short supply. So yes, all had a chance, if they took it or not. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
-
Remind me to hijack someone's thread again sometime soon and we'll continue this ! Yeah, that's be fun *weary sigh* >>God is not a performing monkey Actually, I kind of feel you're putting down highly trained monkeys with comparisons like this. Very cute. I hope you don't think this offends or upsets me. It's just plain sad. >> How many such people need to exist to prove God CAN heal ? Just one - just ONE person who can verify, rather than testify, to the fact. The trouble with people like you is that no verification will be enough, when the fact is the only verification possible is within your grasp. The whole *point* is that no matter what happens outside of your body, you will be able to take whatever slant on it you like. That is why God offers proof to the individual, because not only does it require each individual to have enough faith to ask God Himself if He is there, it is also the only proof that is unassailable. >> Nor is it His fault He is gracious enough to save people just because they ask I suppose the 7000 people killed in the WTC events were given a change to 'ask' before it all happened ?? Perhaps they were all misguided individuals who will never have the chance to ask? Or maybe they're just plain dead, and this whole god thing is just something the rest of us can waste our time on? It's a low blow to use such an emotional issue to try and prove your point, but the fact is that all who died lived in a country where the Bible is freely available, regardless of the fact that religious charlatans also are in no short supply. So yes, all had a chance, if they took it or not. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
"... and when god made man she was only joking..." ;) --- "every year we invent better idiot proof systems and every year they invent better idiots ... and the linux zealots still aren't being sterilized"
-
Remind me to hijack someone's thread again sometime soon and we'll continue this ! Yeah, that's be fun *weary sigh* >>God is not a performing monkey Actually, I kind of feel you're putting down highly trained monkeys with comparisons like this. Very cute. I hope you don't think this offends or upsets me. It's just plain sad. >> How many such people need to exist to prove God CAN heal ? Just one - just ONE person who can verify, rather than testify, to the fact. The trouble with people like you is that no verification will be enough, when the fact is the only verification possible is within your grasp. The whole *point* is that no matter what happens outside of your body, you will be able to take whatever slant on it you like. That is why God offers proof to the individual, because not only does it require each individual to have enough faith to ask God Himself if He is there, it is also the only proof that is unassailable. >> Nor is it His fault He is gracious enough to save people just because they ask I suppose the 7000 people killed in the WTC events were given a change to 'ask' before it all happened ?? Perhaps they were all misguided individuals who will never have the chance to ask? Or maybe they're just plain dead, and this whole god thing is just something the rest of us can waste our time on? It's a low blow to use such an emotional issue to try and prove your point, but the fact is that all who died lived in a country where the Bible is freely available, regardless of the fact that religious charlatans also are in no short supply. So yes, all had a chance, if they took it or not. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
>> Very cute. I hope you don't think this offends or upsets me. It's just plain sad Actually, its an attempt to lighten the tone slightly. Perhaps I need to add a few humor hints. >> The trouble with people like you is that no verification will be enough No, I believe I've made this very clear - just ONE is enough. I find it amazing in today's world that so many people make so many claims, yet NOT ONE can produce simple verifyable proof. Testimony is circumstantial. Believe it if you will, or if you must - but don't offer it as proof. >> it is also the only proof that is unassailable Thanks for adding that - a perfect description of what I am sure is Osama bin Laden's justification for his behaviour. Since he KNOWS he is right, and not amount of external proof can alter that, then his perceptins and choices can freely override anyone elses. he is, after all, right (because he knows he is)! >> It's a low blow to use such an emotional issue to try and prove your point I see my point has escaped you ... this is no 'low blow' - this is what angers me most about any religious nonsense. The WTC events are so full of complexity and tragedy that your simplistic 'them and us' routine is deplorable. Really, Christian, don't you ever ask yourself why god worked so hard in the Old testament to provide proof of his word ? Back then he didn't ask for believe without evidence. He talked through burning bushes, destroyed cities, flooded the world. He argued with pharaoh and Moses, and the mother of Moses, and was forced to use physical demonstrations of his presence and power to convince people of his abilities and desires. Then suddenly he stops this 'hands on' idea, and goes into 'stealth' mode, where the only proof is 'internal'. When Moses wanted proof, when the Hebrews doubted the word, they got the parting of the Red Sea. You get the ability to talk in a language that no one on earth, including yourself, can understand. Why is it that in an era when we can actually test, record and measure the acts of god, they become 'subtle', unable to be detected except 'within'. You don't have a problem with that slight inconsistency ? You must work very hard at ignoring the obvious! Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."