Since the Pledge of Allegiance and The Lord's Prayer

[Amnesiac]

Trump Card

Y'know, I have noticed that every single argument about God seems to continually declare repeatedly, if not focus entirely on is the seemingly immutable "fact" of God's beneficence: that God is always good.

The question I ask is how can we know that? I'm always being told how we cannot know God the way we know things on Earth, but if this is true, how can we be sure about whether he is good or not? That seems to be mixing and matching metaphysical qualities in order to obtain or retain a paragon.

And because God is good, we seem to let any old thing just slide right past us...that there are no REAl worries because God's in charge and he's taking care of everything, for the good of mankind.

Where do we get this from? Let's run over our sources.

1) The Bible
Written so long ago that the language is dead; revised countless times by countless people with personal/political agendas; translated into one tongue and then another, possibly obscuring true detail...and even THEN, think of the people who wrote it (or documented it, whichever): ancient people with no concept of technology, personal hygiene or physics; people who thought disease was caused by evil spirits or divine judgment. Not a reputable source.

2) Religious figures
People who devote their entire lives to endorsing the concept of God, God's rule and God's will. They've even given up basic human necessities at times in order to worship. Not to mention that many of them (in ALL religions) were fascists, racists, sexists, psychopaths, sadists and pedophiles over the centuries. I smell bias right there.

3) Word-of-Mouth
This is like a centuries-old game of telephone. Where one person says one thing and it keeps getting twisted or distorted wither by mistake or intention. Now play this game over a few thousand years in over half-a-dozen languages with players like parents and authority figures who have a knack for altering the truth for their own means...makes one suspicious. If all we had to go on for global influence was someone's word, you;d want some real proof before you bought into it.

AND EVEN THEN...

Even if all these things DIDN'T factor in, even if God WAS good, there still remains one major question:

SO WHAT?

I'd like to know. If God does exist and IS good and IS shaping our lives for the better, why? WHAT GIVES HIM THE RIGHT? Really, what gives him the right to do as he pleases with other people's lives?

We use terms like "God the Father" and "Divine Right", and I ask, where they came from?

If there is a divine right, God made it. Like everything else in existence, God made everything, including the laws. Which means that the only divine right (including rulership/ownership) that exists is what he made himself. Otherwise, that would mean there were laws before God made the world and he was bound to them rather than willing them into existence. So basically, every right or divine entitlement in existence would mean God made it and he made it for himself. And he did this because he COULD. Even if he wanted to, he COULD or COULD NOT by his will alone. In our country, we made certain that we were entitled to the PURSUIT of happiness, not necessarily the acquisition of it. It sems as if God deliberately doesn't have as altruistic a notion seeing as how his will issues forth orders or "suggestions" for no other reason than his own want. Maybe he WOULD have our best intentions in mind, but rarely if ever do these intentions exclude his WILL, his WANT.

And as far as fatherhood goes, let me say something here. I can be the father of a child, and that child owes me its life to my allowing it to be born. Does that mean I have the right to treat it as I please? To make it live its life according to my will, which I only have because I can think for myself and I feel I can impart because I created him/her? We condemn people who do that to children because it is disrespectful and demeans the individual person; so what the hell do you think we should consider of what God is asking for us to do? All children grow up at some point and have to live their lives independently of their parents...it doesn't mean you cut them off, but it does mean that you live your own life and make your own decisions and no longer obey your parents.

Religious people all over the world are told that their purpose is to "serve the will of God", but WHY? Why should we do that? Because he's God? Because he gave us the world? What excuse is that? What kind of a life is it to live with free will if his unrequested "generosity" is going to be dangled above our heads every step of the way, reminding us of what he "did" for us?

In this consideration, God seems to be an arrogant bastard who does what he wants simply because he can and we try to follow suit because he has more power than us.

If all of what he has done is true, I don't recall any Biblical passage where God actually asked humans if they wanted all this before he went ahead and did it; He never mentioned if we would be willing to determine for ourselves if the gift was worth the price. I know that by this rationale it ould mean he'd have to create us first to get our opinion if we want to be created, but the fact that he creates us anyway would show his disrespect for our integrity and our opinion.

So I say, "So What?" So what if God created the world and humans? Does that give him the right to do anything he wants because his will has power behind it? If that is so, then it is hardly a noble venture, even if he DID want to do something nice; good intentions can always backfire and make things worse.

P.S.: To 46and2, if God DID have confidence in us by giving us the world, why would he interfere so goddamn much and not let us make our own way without his rigid (and in some cases, obsolete) and rather simplistic morality codes? Maybe so that we'd never get far enough without him, which would be the sign of an insecure personality.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

bullsh*t i have to rebute!

if you want to believe in the whole jesus thing, that is fine!
but the jews of that time had nothing to do with the supposed execution of jesus! and any one who thinks otherwise is a complete moron! even the catholic church has backed away from that position.
that is anti-semitism at it's lowest! i would have thought in this day, that kind of bullshit retoric would onlt be found in a kkk meeting, or in an arab country!
steve

 

[Venus51099]

Re: bullsh*t i have to rebute!

if you want to believe in the whole jesus thing, that is fine!
but the jews of that time had nothing to do with the supposed execution of jesus! and any one who thinks otherwise is a complete moron! even the catholic church has backed away from that position.
that is anti-semitism at it's lowest! i would have thought in this day, that kind of bullshit retoric would onlt be found in a kkk meeting, or in an arab country!
steve

Well, being a school teacher we say Since the Pledge of Allegiance and The Lord's Prayer. I don't force my students to do this, and for those who don't wish to don't have to. But, they all want to pertisapate, especially since all the shootings started happening at schools. They were really scared, and were full of questions! My students want to support the American Flag! And they do so proudly!!!!
🙂

 

[46and2]

Re: bullsh*t i have to rebute!

if you want to believe in the whole jesus thing, that is fine!
but the jews of that time had nothing to do with the supposed execution of jesus! and any one who thinks otherwise is a complete moron! even the catholic church has backed away from that position.
that is anti-semitism at it's lowest! i would have thought in this day, that kind of bullshit retoric would onlt be found in a kkk meeting, or in an arab country!
steve

Nice to meet you Steve! Let me first assure you that I am not a nazi nor an anti-semitist (me being a complete moron might be arguable to some, if you feel that way I'm sorry.). It would be more accurate to say that a large number of Jewish priests helped execute Jesus (it is not "supposed" it is historical fact, you can feel that way about the ressurecction if you like, but Jesus was indeed executed.). The multitude of Jews in that area were actually listening to Jesus. Looking at what I said now I can see how you might have taken that the wrong way and I apologise. It was a case of being really tired, and not fully thinking about what I was saying which lead to a misscommunication. Simply: worded wrong. Although I'm still a little confused, how you would gather that I am a nazi that would frequent kkk meetings. I have said nothing at all against the Jewish race (I was under the impression we were disscussing religous doctrines....silly me.) Anyhoo allow me too back myself up with scripture, fact is always the best defense:

Luke chapter 22 verses 1-6:

Lu:22:1: Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.
Lu:22:2: And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.
Lu:22:3: Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
Lu:22:4: And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
Lu:22:5: And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.
Lu:22:6: And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude.

Now please correct me if I'm wrong but are not the "priests" and "scribes" mentioned here of the Jewish faith for this is taking place at the "Feast of Unleavened Bread". Not to mention historically speaking that's what the writing is reffering to.

Now allow me to jump ahead a little here, the following group of verses, when read from my "New King James" version, is headed with "Jesus Faces The Sanhedrin", the Sanhedrin being the Jewish court system of the time, this took place right after Jesus was mocked and beaten:
Lu:22:66: And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,
Lu:22:67: Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:
Lu:22:68: And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.
Lu:22:69: Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
Lu:22:70: Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
Lu:22:71: And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

I could look for other examples but I believe this proves my point, if you think I'm lying then by all means, check me out in the bible and research it. Prove me wrong and I will happily accept the title of "complete moron".
Have a nice day 🙂 .
-Phil

 

[46and2]

To Amnesiac_m(pc)

"The question I ask is how can we know that? I'm always being told how we cannot know God the way we know things on Earth, but if this is true, how can we be sure about whether he is good or not? That seems to be mixing and matching metaphysical qualities in order to obtain or retain a paragon."

Well if you establish a relationship with him, you get to know him alot better. I know you probably think it's in my head, but that's OK, like I said before I'm not trying to convert you. We know he's good through the character he's showed us in the bible.
Onto that:

"1)The Bible
Written so long ago that the language is dead; revised countless times by countless people with personal/political agendas; translated into one tongue and then another, possibly obscuring true detail...and even THEN, think of the people who wrote it (or documented it, whichever): ancient people with no concept of technology, personal hygiene or physics; people who thought disease was caused by evil spirits or divine judgment. Not a reputable source."

Well the dead sea scrolls found our most literal translation to be 98% accurate. Might I also remind you that the new testament is written in ancient Greek, which scholars have had a complete grasp of for quite some time. The people who wrote the bible actually were supposed to have good hygene according to the book of Leviticus which you pointed out earlier. It's also stated that cleanliness helped prevent leprousy. We've had literal honest translations but you are right about people with agendas mistranslating (in modern languages). Might I also add that we have found manuscripts from Rabbis back when the parts of the old testament were being written. This stated that they would write the text in one line with many witnesses and if there was a single mistake the entire thing would be thrown away. The hebrew, greek, and Chaldean have been unchanged and unaltered for 2000 years. Also it is an historical fact that each of the twelve apostles died for what they believed in. I don't believe the Jewish people or the apostles had an agenda of any kind, they glorify God utterly and completley, and not themselves in any way. Also a little bit of prophecy for you:
Psalms 22 was written long before the birth of Christ and crucifixions were not practiced at the time. It describes the way Jesus was executed:
"Psalms:22:16: For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
Psalms:22:17: I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
Psalms:22:18: They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture."

I wish I wasn't so new at this (studying the Bible in depth) then I could point out the other prophecies and history in the bible that I've heard about, perhaps I'll research them and get back to you on that. But these are some of the reasons I count the bible as being a reputable source.

"2) Religious figures
People who devote their entire lives to endorsing the concept of God, God's rule and God's will. They've even given up basic human necessities at times in order to worship. Not to mention that many of them (in ALL religions) were fascists, racists, sexists, psychopaths, sadists and pedophiles over the centuries. I smell bias right there."

Again we wholeheartedly agree on something. However, anyone down for any cause always seems to be biased, political, philosophical, religous, atheist, whatever, it's just human nature. There are plenty of positive religous figures as well, I'll even start with a non-christian one and leave Jesus out of it:
1)Ghandi
2)Mother Theresa
3)St. Augustus
4)Confucious
5)All twelve apostles
6)Pastor Arnold Murray (not well known, but if you want a brutally honest man of God, who teaches for little to no money, he's a good example of how all Christians should be.)
7)Buddha (A very humble and enlightened man whom I have great respect for.)
8)The Dahli Lama
9)Gary Amirault
10)Bob Marley (Ok, maybe a personal bias on my part, but the man did some great things and also was very down with his beliefs, and tried to help as many as he could along the way. He's definitley a positive spiritual figure if not a religous one.)

It just seems that people look at religous figures as if there not human and are supposed to be perfect. They are just as capable of evil as a doctor, lawyer, chemist, navy seal, or (insert respective proffession here). And there are just as many good as there are evil.

"3) Word-of-Mouth
This is like a centuries-old game of telephone. Where one person says one thing and it keeps getting twisted or distorted wither by mistake or intention. Now play this game over a few thousand years in over half-a-dozen languages with players like parents and authority figures who have a knack for altering the truth for their own means...makes one suspicious. If all we had to go on for global influence was someone's word, you;d want some real proof before you bought into it."

I think I've already inadvertantly adressed this issue in the first statment you made. I assume your not just talking about the Bible, but also other doctrines.

"SO WHAT?

I'd like to know. If God does exist and IS good and IS shaping our lives for the better, why? WHAT GIVES HIM THE RIGHT? Really, what gives him the right to do as he pleases with other people's lives?"

If you look at all the times that God has interfered in the affairs of men, it usually revovled around one reason: the protection of his children. If somebody harms your children it pisses you off. If you leave God alone and his children alone, he won't interefere in your life. He might reach out and help you once in awhile, or try to speak to you. The right to your life is yours alone if you so choose to claim it as yours alone. If you don't want him to be apart of it he won't.

"If there is a divine right, God made it. Like everything else in existence, God made everything, including the laws. Which means that the only divine right (including rulership/ownership) that exists is what he made himself. Otherwise, that would mean there were laws before God made the world and he was bound to them rather than willing them into existence. So basically, every right or divine entitlement in existence would mean God made it and he made it for himself. And he did this because he COULD. Even if he wanted to, he COULD or COULD NOT by his will alone. In our country, we made certain that we were entitled to the PURSUIT of happiness, not necessarily the acquisition of it. It sems as if God deliberately doesn't have as altruistic a notion seeing as how his will issues forth orders or "suggestions" for no other reason than his own want. Maybe he WOULD have our best intentions in mind, but rarely if ever do these intentions exclude his WILL, his WANT."

So? Does that make him selfish because he gets something out of the deal, that he gets to be the creator of something that brings him joy? Somehow I fail too see the problem with him creating the world, the laws of physics, and everything else because he could. If his laws were mereley for his want, why would following them benefit us? You don't even have to follow them it's your choice. And didn't we have such a beautiful gift in return before when he gave us the world to live in? If you think the world is unnacceptable keep in mind humanity brings the majority of it's suffering upon itsself. And who's to say he doesn't have some cosmic laws which he has to follow for some reason? I don't think he does personally but it's an argument that has some merit to it.

"And as far as fatherhood goes, let me say something here. I can be the father of a child, and that child owes me its life to my allowing it to be born. Does that mean I have the right to treat it as I please? To make it live its life according to my will, which I only have because I can think for myself and I feel I can impart because I created him/her? We condemn people who do that to children because it is disrespectful and demeans the individual person; so what the hell do you think we should consider of what God is asking for us to do? All children grow up at some point and have to live their lives independently of their parents...it doesn't mean you cut them off, but it does mean that you live your own life and make your own decisions and no longer obey your parents."

Again this is a choice your talking about, God wants us to be individuals and live our own lives. We can live for him if we choose to do so, but even then he does not want us to be mindless robots whom forsake their individuality. I don't see how anyone is being made to do anything when eternal torment's been thrown out the window. Spiritually speaking we "grow up" when we leave this phase of existance and go onto the next. And do you really throw the foundation of what your parents taught you out the window if it makes sense to you? No of course, you can't get grounded, spanked, and told to do your chores, but if your parents were good teachers you keep there best knowledge and guidelines with you the rest of your life. Because there rules are there to prepare you for a long, happy, and healthy life.

"Religious people all over the world are told that their purpose is to "serve the will of God", but WHY? Why should we do that? Because he's God? Because he gave us the world? What excuse is that? What kind of a life is it to live with free will if his unrequested "generosity" is going to be dangled above our heads every step of the way, reminding us of what he "did" for us?"

Let's answer this question: How does one serve the will of God?
Following his commandments, loving him, and "planting seeds", a spiritual reference, meaning sharing the word of God when the oppurtunity presents itsself, using the gift of the Holy Spirit, just giving people something to think about really. People whom are more hardcore do what they do as a labor of love. Is this a life of servitude and slavery? I guess it's a matter of opinion. Personally it brings me joy, where the rest of life has taught me that it's wrong to be an individual. Like it or not by nature human beings are a bit selfish (I don't think you need me to tell you that.). So the best answer I can give you is a selfish one......it brings me joy. As anyone whom has had a personal relationship with God can attest too. It makes life easier to get through the more trying times as well as just generally living happily. So it's a mutually beneficial relationship. I don't feel anything being dangled over my head, every step of the way. We have ONE, count it again, ONE holiday in appreciation of the ressurection. Meditating on God and reminding myself of his ressurection brings me happiness not a sense that I'm paying someone back for a debt. If that's all he was interested in then he wouldn't want us to be happy.

"In this consideration, God seems to be an arrogant bastard who does what he wants simply because he can and we try to follow suit because he has more power than us."

Maybe that's the reasoning some Christians have, but I don't. I don't follow him on the basis of his power, but on the basis of his love. He loves the human race above all. He does what he does for our benefit. Not just his. He created us out of lonliness, not arrogance. For we are a labor of love.

"If all of what he has done is true, I don't recall any Biblical passage where God actually asked humans if they wanted all this before he went ahead and did it; He never mentioned if we would be willing to determine for ourselves if the gift was worth the price. I know that by this rationale it would mean he'd have to create us first to get our opinion if we want to be created, but the fact that he creates us anyway would show his disrespect for our integrity and our opinion."

You know I had the funniest scenario in my head:
MAN: Huh, where am I what the.....
GOD: Iv'e brought you here so that you may choose whether to exist or not.
MAN: What do I have to benefit from existing?
GOD: You will exist and have the ability to make choices, you will be able to experiance both joy and pain.
MAN: What's the alternative.
GOD: Nothing, no awareness, no choices, and no pain. But no joy either. Imagine the most right wing republican version of stand up comedy.

( No real offense to any republicans who might be reading, just my own feeble attempt at humor.) Do you think God doesn't know the human race? If you want perpetual bliss in this life, instead of choices you can always take drugs (that was by no means a personal attack on you, I'm just making a point). How do you know we weren't given a choice, there are three earth ages mentioned in the Bible. We were spritual before we were flesh. How aware we were is not mentioned.

"P.S.: To 46and2, if God DID have confidence in us by giving us the world, why would he interfere so goddamn much and not let us make our own way without his rigid (and in some cases, obsolete) and rather simplistic morality codes? Maybe so that we'd never get far enough without him, which would be the sign of an insecure personality."

Again, you can make your own way all you want (that's exactly what the human race has been doing and look where it's gotten us, and just because people have used God and his word as an excuse, that isn't God's way.) BTW: I still fail to see how his codes are "rigid", "obsolete", and as far as simplistic is concerned, have you ever heard of "octum's razor", the one where usually the simplest answer is the correct one. And why should a handbook for daily life be complicated? And why would you need a college degree to know, understand, and love God?
Again don't feel as though I am attempting to convert you. I am mereley defending my position on what my faith is.
-Phil

 

[Strelnikov]

Rats! I was gonna direct you good folks to Scott's site and let you continue your discussion on HIS forum. Unfortunately, it's under construction. The Devil made me do it, but it looks like God saved him from us yet again.

BTW watch it, steve, or I'll call the lightning down on you!

Strelnikov

 

[Amnesiac]

A few new points (and skits)

46and2, I don't know what to do with you. Nothing seems to faze you...you should cut strips of your hide and sell them to the military for armor.

By the way, I'm not trying to destroy you, I just like testing out new arguments and its hard to find people with your kind of patience. Lotsa fun. Good thoughts.

Okay, to avoid beating around the bush, I think I've finally got to the meat of it ALL (could be wrong, but it wouldn't be the first time)

I guess overall it seems to defeat the purpose to create a lifeform that lacks the mental ability to do good things on its own. Its flawed logic. It would be little more than a celestial form of Munchausen Syndrome by-proxy so that you could get off by making sure that the "little 'uns" needed help all the time, especially if all the good things in life were done by you and not them.

GOD: You know that "love thy neighbor" saying?

MAN: Yes.

GOD: That was my idea.

MAN: ...Really? Just like that "thou shalt not kill" thing, right?

GOD: Yup.

MAN: Riiiiiiiight...is there anything good you DIDN'T do?

GOD: Not that i can think of.

MAN: IS there anything good that WE made up?

pause.

MAN: Well?

GOD: *pointing behind* LOOK! GODZILLA!

MAN: Where? I don't see- HEY! COME BACK HERE!


When I think about it, if having a personal relationship with God makes life better and more fulfilling...then life without a relationship with God must suck. And if that is true, and God created the world, he must have designed it that way. Since humans enjoy pleasure as a motivator, designing the universe so that the ultimate form of pleasure is to come to YOU for support seems like a pretty crooked way to get people to love you; we call it "profiteering" on Earth and we consider it illegal or unfair.

Even if your intentions are good and you created humans out of love, if they can't even figure out the basics of civility without ethereal coaching, what's the point? It means that everything is designed to be weak so that you can take the credit for all the good in the world.


ANGEL: Are you SURE you want to go with this design?

GOD: Of course, I'm very pleased with it. I think it'll work.

ANGEL: I dunno it seems pretty crude for release just yet.

GOD: Nah.

ANGEL: Are you sure you don't want to add some more sophistication to their intellect?

GOD: I told, you they;re fine the way they are.

ANGEL: Boss, they're beating each other up and cowering from shadows.

GOD: I know, aren't they cute?

ANGEL: ...They're RETARDED, man!

GOD: Shhh! They're "special people"

ANGEL: They couldn't even process the concepts of basic civility until you told them abotu it and it STILL doesn't stick too well. Shit, even the DOLPHINS figured that out on their own!

GOD: Well, these aren't dolphins are they?

ANGEL: They're completely incapable of being left unsupervised! They need some kind of guidance from the outside at all times! Without you they'd be helpless, what's the point of making them if they can't improve by themselves?

GOD: *pointing*...LOOK! GODZILLA!


What I'm saying is, don't you get sick of GOD being at the center of everything? Don't you get tired of the thought that God has to be the one to inspire us to do good? To me, it seems that if you always need guidance for all the major decisions in life, then you're little more than a co-dependent throwback who reeks of inferiority.

Do you think that humans can achieve the same enlightenment through self-discovery and accomplishment rather than faith and worship of God?

And as far as free will is concerned, how much of that is free will if your choices are fairly limited?

Free will FOR God = Afterlife package + benefits

Free will WITHOUT God = You don't wanna know

You remember that phrase Mr. White said in Reservoir Dogs? "Given a choice between doin' 10 years, and takin' out some stupid motherfucker it ain't no choice at all." Well, if using free will to choose for God gives you a pleasant afterlife but choosing to use it WITHOUT God doesn't, that's no choice either, so that's stacking the deck against individuality. I know that the favorite credo on the free will argument is "you can choose to use it FOR God or you can choose not to." Well, considering that according to the press kit God can choose to do as he pleases, he can choose NOT to judge for deliberate negligence of Divine Authority. After all, he's God and can do anything right? Or is he bound to his inflexible rules and can't break them?

MAN: Say that again?

GOD: Well, you used your free will to live your life without my guidance.

MAN: ...And?

GOD: Well, I'm afraid you can't get in Heaven then.

MAN: Why, because I used my gift for myself instead of giving it back to you?

GOD: I'm afraid so.

MAN: But I didn't do anything really dastardly on earth.

GOD: I know but still...

MAN: You just don't want anyone outside your followers in there do you?

GOD: Now that's a harsh way of putting it!

MAN: Well then, if I can;t get in, I'll just go back to Earth then, haunt some houses or something. Which way?

GOD: I;m afraid you can't go there either.

MAN: WHAT?! Then what was the point of keeping down there for so long?! I gather all this experience and now I can't use it?

GOD: Funny how that works isn't it?

MAN: You're certifiable, you know that? Not to mention sadistic.

GOD: Flattery will get you nowhere.

MAN: So what now? Where am I supposed to go?

pause.

MAN: ...This isn't gonna turn out good for me is it?

GOD: Y'know that saying "today is the first day of the rest of your life"?

MAN: Yeah.

GOD: Weeeeelllll....


By the way, if God created people out of lonliness, that means God can be lonely and therefore isn't perfect. he has weaknesses and flaws himself...not exactly the thing you want in a deity.

I think.

 

[omega]

From some TV movie about Noah that I saw a little of:

A Woman: "Do you believe in free will?"
One of Noah's sons: "Yes, of course, we have to."


Let's go the other way for a bit. Let's suppose there is no God. Without any God, do humans still really have free will?

Some thoughts for amnesiac:

God really is a gentleman. He gives us what we want. If we want to live life without him, he allows us to do that. If we want to have happiness without him, he allows us to do that. If we want to live in eternity without him, he lets us do that.

Deciding to go to God with our concerns and our decisions does not make us weak. Rather it is a confession that we are already weak. Plus it is humbling. We know that we don't have all the answers. If you are strong enough and smart enough that you don't need God then great for you.

Just remember: the proof is in the pudding.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

phil

i never said you are a nazi, kkk, yes, forgien national of af arab country yes, complete moron, yes. but you keep using a troubling term, "race". that is indeed a nazi trait. so given your own use of the word nazi to discribe your self, and using their philosophy, and you continued insistance that jew are responsible for the crusifiction of jesus, then ok you are what you are.
btw, the bible you quoted from is the new testament, which was writen to not only raise up a new religion, but to put down the old. it is just as predudist as mien kampf.
steve

 

[luv2bt&tickled]

Re: Re: bullsh*t i have to rebute!

Well, being a school teacher we say Since the Pledge of Allegiance and The Lord's Prayer. I don't force my students to do this, and for those who don't wish to don't have to. But, they all want to pertisapate, especially since all the shootings started happening at schools. They were really scared, and were full of questions! My students want to support the American Flag! And they do so proudly!!!!
🙂

Thanks Rose, I think it should be said and said with pride! I loved the letters you sent me, you have some great kids! Keep up the good work! 🙂

 

[Texas_Tickle]

Re: phil

i never said you are a nazi, kkk, yes, forgien national of af arab country yes, complete moron, yes. but you keep using a troubling term, "race". that is indeed a nazi trait. so given your own use of the word nazi to discribe your self, and using their philosophy, and you continued insistance that jew are responsible for the crusifiction of jesus, then ok you are what you are.
btw, the bible you quoted from is the new testament, which was writen to not only raise up a new religion, but to put down the old. it is just as predudist as mien kampf.
steve

Ok, I just need to throw in my 2 cents here. I hear people condemn the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus, but crucifixion was a Roman system, not a Jewish system. He was nailed to the cross by Pilate, who was a Roman Govoner, not by the Jews.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

thank you ticklemaster750

for steping forward and posting the truth.

on the more at hand topic, my kids say the "plegde" everyday at school, both in the high school, and the junior high level. it is also said in the elementary level. i applaud the local school boards for this.
my wife is special ed teacher. she teaches in an "alternative school" for behavior disorder students. fancy way of saying they are violent, and go to this school due to their proclivity to fighting. anyway ,she leads them in the pledge every morning, and every one says it w/o hesitation, or complaint. and yes, in all the cases, my own kids, and at my wifes school, the words "under god" are said.
it will be a sad day, when freedom of speach means all except any mention of religion, or god.
steve

 

[Texas_Tickle]

Re: thank you ticklemaster750

for steping forward and posting the truth.

on the more at hand topic, my kids say the "plegde" everyday at school, both in the high school, and the junior high level. it is also said in the elementary level. i applaud the local school boards for this.
my wife is special ed teacher. she teaches in an "alternative school" for behavior disorder students. fancy way of saying they are violent, and go to this school due to their proclivity to fighting. anyway ,she leads them in the pledge every morning, and every one says it w/o hesitation, or complaint. and yes, in all the cases, my own kids, and at my wifes school, the words "under god" are said.
it will be a sad day, when freedom of speach means all except any mention of religion, or god.
steve

Which is what it is coming to, I am afraid. We will be a society of no religion. We will become The Athiest States of America where any kind of religion or worship is frowned upon.

Look at China. You can get shot-on-site, simply for wearing a cross or a Star of David.

But the Christians will be Raptured long before that happens.

But I bet that where-ever she is, Athiest "crusader" Madaline OHare must be doing a dance of joy.

If you have ever seen the "Left Behind" movie, there is a line that Nicoli said..."There is no God. There is no Heaven or Hell. There is only us"

 

[bticklishfeet]

Re: Re: thank you ticklemaster750

Which is what it is coming to, I am afraid. We will be a society of no religion. We will become The Athiest States of America where any kind of religion or worship is frowned upon.

Look at China. You can get shot-on-site, simply for wearing a cross or a Star of David.

But the Christians will be Raptured long before that happens.

But I bet that where-ever she is, Athiest "crusader" Madaline OHare must be doing a dance of joy.

If you have ever seen the "Left Behind" movie, there is a line that Nicoli said..."There is no God. There is no Heaven or Hell. There is only us"

Not sure what you are saying here😕 TM

 

[bticklishfeet]

Re: Re: thank you ticklemaster750

Which is what it is coming to, I am afraid. We will be a society of no religion. We will become The Athiest States of America where any kind of religion or worship is frowned upon.

Look at China. You can get shot-on-site, simply for wearing a cross or a Star of David.

But the Christians will be Raptured long before that happens.

But I bet that where-ever she is, Athiest "crusader" Madaline OHare must be doing a dance of joy.

If you have ever seen the "Left Behind" movie, there is a line that Nicoli said..."There is no God. There is no Heaven or Hell. There is only us"

TM, Nicoli is the AntiChrist, as I stated in my other post I wasn't sure what you were trying to say here😕

 

[46and2]

Re: phil

i never said you are a nazi, kkk, yes, forgien national of af arab country yes, complete moron, yes. but you keep using a troubling term, "race". that is indeed a nazi trait. so given your own use of the word nazi to discribe your self, and using their philosophy, and you continued insistance that jew are responsible for the crusifiction of jesus, then ok you are what you are.
btw, the bible you quoted from is the new testament, which was writen to not only raise up a new religion, but to put down the old. it is just as predudist as mien kampf.
steve

Well Steve, you still haven't proven any of your pre-assumptions about my character or that any of what I am saying is incorrect. I still have not condemned any ethnic background, creed, religon or (dare I say it) race. If you don't believe that the Bible (the new testament) is a reputable source of information that's fine, we can agree to disagree. Even so I don't see how us disagreeing over something that happened two thousand years ago makes me any of the things you say that I am. In case you forgot I even retracted the first statement I made, because it wasn't what I meant to say. And let me remind you of the point I was makeing : "But the pot can't call the kettle black, any philosophy, religon, doctrine, or political view point can be corrupted beyond recognition when removed from it's purest form."- I still stand behind this statement, allow me to rephrase it so you can better understand:
We fucked up, you fucked up, let's stop pointing the finger and move on.
And I never said that the Jews as a people or as a religon of the time were completley responsible for the execution of Jesus. Were there Jews involved? Yes. Did they physically nail Jesus to the cross or invent the crucifixion? No. Did they give the money too Judas and help capture Jesus? Yes. I just showed you why I believe the things I do. If I'm wrong historically or Biblically I can except that if someone cares to prove that verses I quoted were mistranslated or they have an accurate source of info proving otherwise, if this is the case then I would be misinformed and again nothing that you say I am. The use of the word "race": well whether you accused me of being a nazi or not, you have accused me of being KKK(you just admmited that), which is a racist organization unless I'm mistaken, so the insult and attempted character assasination is just as big. I don't really like the idea of anyone hating me, or having a false concept of me, but It's not getting under my skin and I'm not losing sleep over it, the people I care about will still know who I am at the end of the day (I suppose this is where you make a comment about who those people are, I hope I'm wrong).
Unless I'm mistaken you've just compared Christianity to Hitler's teachings, so in essence you already thought I was a bigot to begin with without giving me the benefit of the doubt. You already have lumped me up with a group of people you dislike, and will probably continue to think of me the way you do. The psychoanalytical bullshit
about me being a nazi doesn't cover that up.
And if you firmly stand behind that last statement you made, and if you have the maturity to put aside whatever hatred you've manifested for me and speak rationally, then I humbly invite you to prove it.
Allow me to also point this out: I believe what I believe because it is written in the bible, not because of agenda, or because of a silly political movement. And definitley not because of hatred. If you can't get beyond your knee-jerk reaction and see that, then I bid you no ill-will, but I doubt we have anything constructive to say to each other.
BTW:I'm a quarter Native American and from southern CA, which (last time I checked) would disqualify me for being a member of the KKK (or any kind of white supremecy). As far as me being an Arab Nationalist there's no way for me disprove that to you, I know I'm not, you can believe what you want, you won't affect me.
I wish you well.
-Phil

 

[46and2]

To Amnesiac_m(pc)

Again thanks for the compliments, you are definitley a pleasure to spar with, you seem to know your facts very well.

"I guess overall it seems to defeat the purpose to create a lifeform that lacks the mental ability to do good things on its own. Its flawed logic. It would be little more than a celestial form of Munchausen Syndrome by-proxy so that you could get off by making sure that the "little 'uns" needed help all the time, especially if all the good things in life were done by you and not them."

Again I agree, like I said before I think God gave us the inert capacity to do what is right and wrong. We do have the ability to do good things on our own. If we couldn't why would he have created us with the ability to come to our own conclusions?

"When I think about it, if having a personal relationship with God makes life better and more fulfilling...then life without a relationship with God must suck. And if that is true, and God created the world, he must have designed it that way. Since humans enjoy pleasure as a motivator, designing the universe so that the ultimate form of pleasure is to come to YOU for support seems like a pretty crooked way to get people to love you; we call it "profiteering" on Earth and we consider it illegal or unfair."

Well if he created us, then it would seem only logical that the creator would know the best way to care for his creation. So whom else would you go to and why? Whether pleasure is a motivater or not:
there are plenty of things in this world that give us pleasure without the neccessity of faith, why would God allow that if his intentions ring true to what you say?

"Even if your intentions are good and you created humans out of love, if they can't even figure out the basics of civility without ethereal coaching, what's the point? It means that everything is designed to be weak so that you can take the credit for all the good in the world."

On the contrary I think the human spirit is a very strong force, everyone has the capacity to be strong and self-sufficient with the help of others, nobody learns completley on their own. Are we week in comparison to him? Yes. Why? If I were God I wouldn't find it rational to breath life into somthing that could destroy me, the ego factor would have nothing to do with it. Does that mean he shouldn't of given any life at all? I don't know about you, but even with all the hardships I enjoy being on planet earth. Ethereal coaching (makes for a snappy song title)? We were designed with the ability to learn, we can make it easier on ourselves or we can opt to learn on our own. He already created the angels whom had all the abilities we don't. But they also lack the ability to learn knew things, and experiance the joy of triumph over adversity, for God has showed them everything. What point would there be to life if there was nothing to gain?

"What I'm saying is, don't you get sick of GOD being at the center of everything? Don't you get tired of the thought that God has to be the one to inspire us to do good? To me, it seems that if you always need guidance for all the major decisions in life, then you're little more than a co-dependent throwback who reeks of inferiority."

As I said before: we have the ability to choose to do good, God doesn't have to inspire us, doesn't mean he can't or won't. People do good things on their own all the time. As an atheist I'm sure you have. I'm also sure Ben Franklin did alot of good things as well. God also gave us the ability to make the major desicions in our life. To use common sense in what we do. He doesn't want to wipe our ass and hold our hand. He wants us to grow as individuals, and use the brain he gave us. Does he want us to turn to him for help? Of course. He wants us to do that for the situations that are beyond our control, not the ones that are.

"You remember that phrase Mr. White said in Reservoir Dogs? "Given a choice between doin' 10 years, and takin' out some stupid motherfucker it ain't no choice at all." Well, if using free will to choose for God gives you a pleasant afterlife but choosing to use it WITHOUT God doesn't, that's no choice either, so that's stacking the deck against individuality. I know that the favorite credo on the free will argument is "you can choose to use it FOR God or you can choose not to." Well, considering that according to the press kit God can choose to do as he pleases, he can choose NOT to judge for deliberate negligence of Divine Authority. After all, he's God and can do anything right? Or is he bound to his inflexible rules and can't break them?"

First of all thanks for quoting one of my favorite movies!
Second as I've stated before eternal torment is not in the bible the way it was originally written. Eternal torment was a Babylonian concept and was only adopted by Christianity after the bible was written, and also used by men with agendas to keep people in line.
The following is from an article at tentmaker.org, I don't think you'll need to read the whole thing, to get what I'm saying, but it should answer any questions you have on this issue and they explain it much better then I do it's a little long but I tried to compress it without leaving out important points:

"FOUR WORDS TRANSLATED HELL
In the Bible four words are translated Hell: the Hebrew word Sheol, in the original Old testament; its equivalent, the Greek word Hadees, in the Septuagint; and in the New Testament, Hadees, Gehenna and Tartarus.

SHEOL AND HADEES
The Hebrew Old Testament, some three hundred years before the Christian era, was translated into Greek, but of the sixty-four instances where Sheol occurs in the Hebrew, it is rendered Hadees in the Greek sixty times, so that either word is the equivalent of the other. But neither of these words is ever used in the Bible to signify punishment after death, nor should the word Hell ever be used as the rendering of Sheol or Hadees for neither word denotes post-mortem torment. According to the Old Testament the words Sheol, Hadees primarily signify only the place, or state of the dead. The character of those who departed thither did not affect their situation in Sheol, for all went into the same state. The word cannot be translated by the term Hell, for that would make Jacob expect to go to a place of torment, and prove that the Savior of the world, David, Jonah, etc., were once sufferers in the prison-house of the damned. In every instance in the Old Testament, the word grave might be substituted for the term hell, either in a literal or figurative sense. The word being a proper name should always have been left untranslated. Had it been carried into the Greek Septuagint, and thence into the English, untranslated, Sheol, a world of misconception would have been avoided, for when it is rendered Hadees, all the materialism of the heathen mythology is suggested to the mind, and when rendered Hell, the medieval monstrosities of a Christianity corrupted by heathen adulterations is suggested. Had the word been permitted to travel untranslated, no one would give to it the meaning now so often applied to it. Sheol, primarily, literally, the grave, or death, secondarily and figuratively the political, social, moral or spiritual consequences of wickedness in the present world, is the precise force of the term, wherever found.

Sheol occurs exactly sixty-four times and is translated hell thirty-two times, pit three times, and grave twenty-nine times. Dr. George Campbell, a celebrated critic, says that "Sheol signifies the state of the dead in general, without regard to the goodness or badness of the persons, their happiness or misery."



MEANING OF HADEES
The Greek Septuagint, which our Lord used when he read or quoted from the Old Testament, gives Hadees as the exact equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol, and when the Savior, or his apostles, use the word, they must mean the same as it meant in the Old Testament. When Hadees is used in the New Testament, we must understand it just as we do (Sheol or Hadees) in the Old Testament.

OPINIONS OF SCHOLARS
Dr. Campbell well says: * * "In my judgment, it ought never in Scripture to be rendered Hell, at least, in the sense wherein that word is now universally understood by Christians.

In the Old Testament, the corresponding word is Sheol, which signifies the state of the dead in general without regard to the goodness or badness of the persons, their happiness or misery. In translating that word, the seventy have almost invariably used Hadees. * * It is very plain, that neither in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, nor in the New, does the word Hadees convey the meaning which the present English word Hell, in the Christian usage, always conveys to our minds."-Diss. Vi., pp. 180-1.

Donnegan defines it thus: "Invisible, not manifest, concealed, dark, uncertain."-Lex. p. 19.

Le Clere affirms that "neither Hadees nor Sheol ever signifies in the Sacred Scripture the abode of evil spirits, but only the sepulchre, or the state of the dead."

There you have it: hell is a human manipulation of the bible.
Also know that the translation which we've turned into "eternal torment" is translated as "age-during correction" in the Greek. Now that you've read more then you care to I'm sure know all you'd ever wanted to know about "hell".

"By the way, if God created people out of lonliness, that means God can be lonely and therefore isn't perfect. he has weaknesses and flaws himself...not exactly the thing you want in a deity."

Lonliness isn't a flaw, it's a condition. Were told not to be lonley because we aren't alone if we have a relationship in Christ. He doesn't have that benefit. So hence he creates people who can learn to understand him and learn to love him out of their own free will. God wanted beings whose love was true and earned, not the angels whom already have all the understanding they need thus no reason not to love him.
P.S-I thought the skits were hilarious.
Be well.
-Phil

 

[giggledude]

Back to the beginning...

the poem has been going around for some time. If memory serves, a friend sent it to me some months ago, mentioning that it wasn't the work of any child at all, but was being passed off as such for the effect. (It reminds me of several dozen campaign contributions received by Senator Lieberman in 1994 which, due to the legal restrictions on contributions from any one individual, took the form of checks for a thousand dollars each from elementary school students. Having only a 40-1 fundraising edge, he kept the money when the story came out.)

I don't think we have to worry about the atheists taking over the country just yet, but that's largely because of the impression that there are virtually no open atheists in elected office - does anyone know if this is so or not? It would be less surprising to me if atheism were eventually to be considered a form of child abuse and grounds for loss of custody.

But thinking of schoolchildren and religion has brought up a Blast from the Past. Whatever happened to Duffy Strode(or Stroud; I never saw the name spelled)? Some time ago, either before Jerry Springer was on the air or when he was still trying to be a Donahue clone and had weak ratings, young Master Strode gained notoriety as a junior evangelical given to standing on the sidewalk of his elementary school and yelling at his schoolmates that they were fornicators and such, or something to that effect. His parents went on Donahue, Oprah, Sally Jessy Raphael, and probably various other talk shows, strenuously upholding their freedom of religion and claiming that screaming the (supposed?) sins of his schoolmates in public was perfectly in accordance with the tenets of their faith, if not absolutely required. The boy himself (and perhaps his younger siblings?) also appeared. What struck me at the time, though this is all long ago, was that he was on the chubby side, not well-looking and had a naturally sullen expression. Asked to select an adjective to describe him, nine people in ten would have said UNPOPULAR. It seemed almost too obvious to suggest that therein lay at least a large chunk of motivation for his evangelism, but noone ever went anywhere near such an observation. Hosts, experts of various stripes and audience members all avoided any such hint, even on shows with the parents alone. I remembering wondering at the time whether the unwillingness to examine the possibility, even if it turned out not to be a major cause of his evangelism, might make it harder for him to turn out well in the end, and this discussion has somehow managed to remind me of him. Can anyone provide any sort of update?

 

[Amnesiac]

I'll make you a deal

Hey 46and2, I'll make you a deal.

Seeing as how youre the rare type of Christian who lets sleeping dogs lie and encourages people to live their own lives free of intimidation, I'm willing to be a sport and make you a deal.

If you and other Christians like you can take your research and compile it into an argument, tell the Christians of old to SHUT THE FUCK UP and basically destroy the Modern Christian Empire, and replace it with people like yourself...

...I and others like me will voluntarily strike a truce with you guys. If you don't try to restrict or condemn our pleasures, we'll let you have yours; if you allow your children to find their own way into faith with coaching by request, we won't interfere with your worship. Make the world safe for the pious and perverted (or both), and you got a friend in me.

I and people like me have been pulling our hair out trying to take out the oppressive elements and get nowhere because we are the antithesis of them. Maybe someone a little closer to home can make some headway.

I doubt that will ever happen, but if you can do it, I'll sign my name at the bottom of the treaty. Gladly.

 

[46and2]

Hey man I'm working on it(LOL)!
The traditions of men do alot of damage. It's real hard to shake people and make them look at things differently even with the facts presented, they get a little too comfortable with what they've known their entire life. Thank you for a thought provoking and fun disscussion.
Take care.
-Phil

 

[Deleted member 2452]

to phil (46&2)

i'll try one last time.
the hebrews of jesus's time were not involved, period!
he was ordered arested by the roman gov. for crimes against the roman empire, period. he was tried be a roman court, and executed by roman fassion! what about this don't you understand?!?!

i said in my original post that what you are saying smacks of the type of anti semitism found only in arab countries, and the kkk. i never said you were a nazi, you did. you also said that judism was a race. this is galling to any, and all jews. being of the hebrew faith, means a religion! smammy davis jr. was jewish, his race was black. i am a jew, but my race is caucasian.
to say jews are a seperate race, is highly offensive, and incorrect!
to believe otherwise is to be a complete moron.
i'll agree with amnesiac, it's the christians of old that i hate. they are responsible for more harm in the world, than 5 hitlers!
and lastly, yes i do hold the new testament to be a book thats devoted as much to putting down the hebrew faith, as to raising up the christian.
if we have nothing to discuss in the future, that is your decision.
steve

 

[omega]

Re: to phil (46&2)

i'll try one last time.
the hebrews of jesus's time were not involved, period!
he was ordered arested by the roman gov. for crimes against the roman empire, period. he was tried be a roman court, and executed by roman fassion! what about this don't you understand?!?!

yes i do hold the new testament to be a book thats devoted as much to putting down the hebrew faith, as to raising up the christian.
if we have nothing to discuss in the future, that is your decision.
steve

Phil has shown you from the New Testament how the Hebrews of the time were involved in the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. So far your only proof that this is not true is to say that the New Testament is anti semitic. OK. if it is true that absolutly no Hebrew had anything to do with the arrest, trial and execusion of Jesus then prove it. Quote to us from the original Roman documents that state specifically that no Hebrew was involved at all.

BTW I always thought that the New Testament was very pro Hebrew. The apostles, including Saul/Paul who called himself an apostle to the Gentiles, were all Hebrew and were all first and foremost concerned about the Hebrews and their relationship to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Also one of the first ethnic clashes in the New Testament church came because the Gentile Christians complained about their widows being overlooked by the Hebrew Christians. Seems that the Hebrews were basically anti-Gentile. OK now tell us that no Hebrew has ever been bigoted.

 

[Venus51099]

Re: Back to the beginning...

the poem has been going around for some time. If memory serves, a friend sent it to me some months ago, mentioning that it wasn't the work of any child at all, but was being passed off as such for the effect. (It reminds me of several dozen campaign contributions received by Senator Lieberman in 1994 which, due to the legal restrictions on contributions from any one individual, took the form of checks for a thousand dollars each from elementary school students. Having only a 40-1 fundraising edge, he kept the money when the story came out.)

I don't think we have to worry about the atheists taking over the country just yet, but that's largely because of the impression that there are virtually no open atheists in elected office - does anyone know if this is so or not? It would be less surprising to me if atheism were eventually to be considered a form of child abuse and grounds for loss of custody.

But thinking of schoolchildren and religion has brought up a Blast from the Past. Whatever happened to Duffy Strode(or Stroud; I never saw the name spelled)? Some time ago, either before Jerry Springer was on the air or when he was still trying to be a Donahue clone and had weak ratings, young Master Strode gained notoriety as a junior evangelical given to standing on the sidewalk of his elementary school and yelling at his schoolmates that they were fornicators and such, or something to that effect. His parents went on Donahue, Oprah, Sally Jessy Raphael, and probably various other talk shows, strenuously upholding their freedom of religion and claiming that screaming the (supposed?) sins of his schoolmates in public was perfectly in accordance with the tenets of their faith, if not absolutely required. The boy himself (and perhaps his younger siblings?) also appeared. What struck me at the time, though this is all long ago, was that he was on the chubby side, not well-looking and had a naturally sullen expression. Asked to select an adjective to describe him, nine people in ten would have said UNPOPULAR. It seemed almost too obvious to suggest that therein lay at least a large chunk of motivation for his evangelism, but noone ever went anywhere near such an observation. Hosts, experts of various stripes and audience members all avoided any such hint, even on shows with the parents alone. I remembering wondering at the time whether the unwillingness to examine the possibility, even if it turned out not to be a major cause of his evangelism, might make it harder for him to turn out well in the end, and this discussion has somehow managed to remind me of him. Can anyone provide any sort of update?

This is a rumor that I heard giggledude, the strode boy is no longer preaching, his parents divorced. If I remember right they were a strange bunch 🙁

 

[OBleedingMe]

This is a very simple problem with a very simple solution.
No matter what you do when it comes religion, you are going to offend someone, somewhere. It's how many people you offend that really counts.
When you take prayer completely out of schools, you offend a vast majority of the American people. To supress the beliefs of many for the sake of a few is a backwards logic, no matter how many ways you twist or turn it. Besides... if the public school system must accomodate Atheists, then it must accomodate people of all other beliefs as well. Take, for instance, the teachings of how the Christian Crusades were wrong. I'm sure there is someone out there who is offended by this... so we shouldn't mention this part of history anymore so they won't be offended. In fact, I'm sure there are some Jews out there that are against public schools teaching how they played a part in crucifying Jesus.. so maybe we shouldn't teach that part of history either. I'm sure there are some wack-a-doos out there against modern math, so maybe we shouldn't teach that either, so they TOO won't be offended. And if we have a Christmas holiday, we must accomodate the muslims in our schools by allowing them to pray five times day...
My point is, it gets out of hand. Everyone would be praying/not praying and no one would be learning because at some point nearly everything is offensive to one individual or another.
So here's what you do... every morning, the teacher devotes a minute or two to a Prayer/Reflection time. That's all. You think or pray... whatever you choose. Don't want to support the Pledge of Allegiance? (shugs) Okay. But anyone else who does, they have the right to choose to do so just as you have the right to choose not to. Then you move on and you teach the complete ciriculum. Everything that happened in the world, you teach... and if you're offended by this method, then you need therapy and a valium because you are overly sensitive. You do not need laws to "protect" you.
Oh, for the record, I'm Agnostic.

 

[46and2]

To Steve (Areenactor)

Again I believe what I believe because of what the new testament said. I don't recall where I said Judism is a race, where the hell did you get that from?! Is it because I wasn't politically correct enough to use the word Judaism instead of Jew? Or the word Hebrew?Please specifically point out to me where in my original post I incinuated such a thing, and you have my complete apology because that's not at all what I meant. Whether I thought you called me a nazi or not, did you not say I was racist, before I mentioned anything about race? I have a tendency to put all racists in the same category (nazi, kkk, whatever). The bottom line is you said I was fucking racist in your original post by comparing me to the KKK that's what your doing!

The Jewish religon was founded by Hebrews, right? Then perhaps I should of reffered to them as the Hebrew race. Well excuse the fuck out of me! You could of made me aware of this without taking total offense to what I said, and actually paying attention to what I meant which was pretty damn obvious (I assume your talking about my second post where I said I had nothing against the "Jewish" race, so I should of said Hebrew instead). Which was that I wasn't being biased or predjudice in any way. In my first post I was talking about religon and only religon. The scribes and priests mentioned earlier whether you like it or not were of the Jewish FAITH. Yes he was tried and executed by the Roman Government, but before ever getting to Pilate he stood before the Sanhedrin which was what again? A Jewish (Judaism) court system. As far as I know this is historically accurate unless you care to prove otherwise (which you have STILL not done). I personally don't give a shit what race the scribes and priests were they subcribed to the religon of Judaism or at least claimed to.

And still you haven't proven how the New Testament was meant to tear down Judaism and how it is as predjudice as "Mien Kampf"(or however the hell you spell it). Now this is something you said earlier:

"so given your own use of the word nazi to discribe your self, and using their philosophy, and you continued insistance that jew are responsible for the crusifiction of jesus, then ok you are what you are."

And in your last post you said this:
"you also said that judism was a race. this is galling to any, and all jews. being of the hebrew faith, means a religion! smammy davis jr. was jewish, his race was black. i am a jew, but my race is caucasian."

I'm confused, isn't Jewish not a race? It's Hebrew right?
In your first statement you say that I insisted that the Jews were responsible, I 'm using your words now, then I would be talking about a religon and not a race wish would be in no way consistant with nazi beliefs. So did you just reffer to the Jews as a race yourself?

As I said before Steve, I DON'T CARE WHAT RACE THEY WERE! You can twist my words all you want, but I never once mentioned a damn thing about race until you did. I have made no personal attacks against you or assumptions to your character, but you have definitley done so to me. I am more then willing to have a reasonable disscussion with you if that stops. And you have still failed to prove what your saying. Show me how the New Testament was written to tear down Judaism. Show me that there were none of the faith which you subscribe to involved. Show me some kind of evidence that backs up your point (the same courtesy I showed you). I am willing to have any civil disscussion with you about anything, as long as it remains civil. Now do you care to try one more time, or was that your last attempt?
-Phil