PDA

View Full Version : affects of 2+2 on me


[censored]
07-18-2005, 09:24 PM
6 months ago I would have said I was 50/50 as to whether god existed or not, and would have said if anything I was a christian.

Now I think it is nearly impossible that there is a god (which makes me sad) that exists in anyway that is commonly described and out of all the religions I would say judism is probably has the best (albeit slim) chanve of being correct.

If I end up in hell, I will come looking for revenge (i'm looking at you D.S.)

drudman
07-18-2005, 09:57 PM
"Effects".

lehighguy
07-18-2005, 09:59 PM
Poker effects: good
Life effects: bad, i should be playing more poker and posting less in politics forum

Stuey
07-18-2005, 11:08 PM
50/50 is hard to believe, did you even think about it much? I mean if you thought there was a 50/50 chance there was a God out there I would hope it would become important to find out more as soon as possible.

I'm sure you always thought there was a 100% chance that if there was a God he didn't require you to worship him. Otherwise you are one big gambler.

If there is a God and he required me to worship him to receive perks I would be madder at him than I would be at D.S. if I ended up in hell.

[censored]
07-18-2005, 11:16 PM
by 50/50 I guess I meant somewhat likely

BluffTHIS!
07-18-2005, 11:19 PM
Saying you were 50% a Christian is the same as saying you are 50% a virgin. You never were a Christian actually because although individual Christians might have a certain level of doubt, especially regarding specific doctrines, 50% is so a high a level IMO as to not really possess faith. However, 50% is a great starting point from which to read God's word and to pray for greater faith. No one will ever intellectualize themselves into being a true believer. Only the experience of practicing that faith, albeit with doubts, and seeing life from the perspective of faith can enable God's grace to be effecacious. It not necessary that the level of doubt ever become 0, but an extremely high level of doubt will not allow one to respond to the promptings of grace. C.S. Lewis's book Mere Christianity, will show that reason can get you very far along the way, but that one still has to make a "leap of faith" to truly become a Christian.

Mason Malmuth
07-18-2005, 11:22 PM
Hi [censored]:

You should be able to find DS in the horse book. You know, the one where your horse always comes in one out of the money for your bet.

Best wishes,
Mason

Stuey
07-18-2005, 11:48 PM
I do agree with the feeling of sadness once you think there is little chance there is a God.

What I find amazing however is that those that are born again or find a stronger belief in God later on in their life seem to change the way they act in positive ways.

And people who decide there is little or no chance a God exists just feel sad. They never start behaving badly just because they feel they can get away with it now. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

So it is easier to act good than it is to become evil?

[censored]
07-19-2005, 12:09 AM
The three most compelling arguements that changed me were

1) Belief in god not being consistent through out history. ie the greeks and all there weird ass stuff (zeus, apollo)

2) the differences between religions

3) the "code of conduct" of god being ideal rules dor a society to thrive.

Also I had never really thought about the discrepancy between the old and new testiment.

Anyways I still have a very positive opinion of religion as a whole.

BluffTHIS!
07-19-2005, 12:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]

1) Belief in god not being consistent through out history. ie the greeks and all there weird ass stuff (zeus, apollo)

2) the differences between religions

[/ QUOTE ]

I am referring only to catholicism since you have that partial background. How is God being inconsistent just because some people believe things contrary to what He has revealed, whether weird or not? He is consistent, people aren't.

[ QUOTE ]
3) the "code of conduct" of god being ideal rules dor a society to thrive.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by this you mean that a religion's morality, even if true, shouldn't be imposed by a civil society, then I would agree in *most* cases that do not affect a person's life or property directly, that is, if a person's life or property is not being directly threatened by some action. Thus, I certainly would not agree that society should punish someone as in puritan new england for not attending services or for blasphemy. But surely you do not think that Christian moral prescriptions regarding not injuring another when not in self-defense, or not lawfully depriving another person of his property should not be part of civil law do you?

CallMeIshmael
07-19-2005, 12:33 AM
It seems these are more reasons to not follow an organized religion than to not believe in God.


Are you losing faith in God or just your religion?

PairTheBoard
07-19-2005, 12:58 AM
First there is a mountain
Then there is no mountain
then there is


PairTheBoard

Stuey
07-19-2005, 12:59 AM
It might seem that I am trying to get on your ignore list, but I am not. I don't want you ignoring me I'm not sure why as I am sure several people are ignoring me already. But I hope that is because I give bad poker advice. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

I don't like your reasons, you need better ones for something this important.

1) Belief in god not being consistent through out history. ie the greeks and all there weird ass stuff (zeus, apollo)
<font color="blue"> Almost all cultures had some type of belief. So the details were all different it does not mean the idea was wrong. It could be used to promote the likelyhood of a God. Plus what did the greeks ever get right? </font>

2) the differences between religions
<font color="blue">Same as 1 </font>

3) the "code of conduct" of god being ideal rules dor a society to thrive.
<font color="blue"> We would only know if everyone followed the code. </font>


I would give you my reasons why I have choosen to be agnostic, but I'm sure you have heard it all before. It is a common theme around here. Sorry if I sound like a jerk here, it is not my intention. I just think you need better reasons but I am not smart enough to explain it properly. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Anyway don't put God on the list till you are sure he is Dead.

[censored]
07-19-2005, 01:20 AM
basically my reasons add up to me concluding that it seems almost certain that the idea of god being the creation of man. It just kind of hit me all of a sudden as I realized I had no reason to believe in god, so then I thought about it for a while and when I came to the point I am now.

disagreeing with me never gets somebody ignored. I prefer it.

[censored]
07-19-2005, 01:35 AM
[ QUOTE ]
3) the "code of conduct" of god being ideal rules dor a society to thrive

[/ QUOTE ]

what I meant by that is the concepts of heaven and hell seem to be the perfect carrot and stick method of getting people to conform to behaviors that are ideal for society as a whole. It doesnt suprise me then that these beliefs would change over time or be different depending on the society.

This basically explained in my own mind where religion camer from and why it is the way it is.

BluffTHIS!
07-19-2005, 02:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
what I meant by that is the concepts of heaven and hell seem to be the perfect carrot and stick method of getting people to conform to behaviors that are ideal for society as a whole. It doesnt suprise me then that these beliefs would change over time or be different depending on the society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since Christianity spent its first 300 years in persecution and martyrdom facing oppression from the governing authority of Roman society, this would not seem to validate your view that religious morality is just a tool to induce conformance to society's rules.

[censored]
07-19-2005, 03:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what I meant by that is the concepts of heaven and hell seem to be the perfect carrot and stick method of getting people to conform to behaviors that are ideal for society as a whole. It doesnt suprise me then that these beliefs would change over time or be different depending on the society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since Christianity spent its first 300 years in persecution and martyrdom facing oppression from the governing authority of Roman society, this would not seem to validate your view that religious morality is just a tool to induce conformance to society's rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point.

Don't take anything I say as an attack on religion. I have no hostility towards faith and I certainly don't consider those who are to be less logical, objective ot whatever adjective has been used for smart. My father goes to church every sunday and he is the greatest man I know.

BluffTHIS!
07-19-2005, 03:12 AM
You sound like a great son to him too. And maybe the reason he is such a great man is due in no small part to his religious faith and its effects on his life. I don't mean to preach, but maybe if you started going to mass again on sundays, just sitting in the back pew and listening, and reading a few chapters of the gospel every day, you might find out what makes your father who he is, and that you have a heavenly Father who loves you just as much and wants you to be a son to Him as well.

David Sklansky
07-19-2005, 03:19 AM
"You sound like a great son to him too. And maybe the reason he is such a great man is due in no small part to his religious faith and its effects on his life. I don't mean to preach, but maybe if you started going to mass again on sundays, just sitting in the back pew and listening, and reading a few chapters of the gospel every day, you might find out what makes your father who he is, and that you have a heavenly Father who loves you just as much and wants you to be a son to Him as well."

Such a nice man. But Not Ready thinks you are probably going to hell. And Bossjj thinks you are probably going to heaven (as do Sklanskians). Even though your beliefs are far closer to his. Don't you find that unsettling?

BluffTHIS!
07-19-2005, 03:23 AM
I only care about what they think in that I care about the truth, which I don't think they fully have. They won't be the judge of my eternal fate, God will. So why should I be unsettled?

bossJJ
07-19-2005, 03:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I am referring only to catholicism since you have that partial background. How is God being inconsistent just because some people believe things contrary to what He has revealed, whether weird or not? He is consistent, people aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is, how can we know what has actually been revealed from God? Jews, Christians and Muslims all claim that God said different things. How can we know which, if any, alleged "holy" book really is from God?

According to Christian theology, God is not consistent at all. He supposedly gave a "new testament" that completely contradicts everything He had said in the "old testament."

For example, according to the Hebrew bible, sincere repentence alone atones for sins committed; God is one, He is not a man, and we are to worship Him alone; God is "near to all those who call upon Him" and no mediator is necessary; We Jews are to observe Torah law forever and to go to our own sages for questions of interpretation; We must not follow anybody like Jesus or the gt authors who tell us not to follow Torah Law; The messiah will usher in an age of world peace and universal knowledge of God - He won't atone for our sins because that's just not his role, as God forgives us our sins when we repent. Jesus' alleged death couldn't atone for sin.

However, God was either lying about all this, or just changed His mind and changed the rules completely. He supposedly gave a new "truth" that is the complete opposite of everything He had said before, and that Jews should now follow the type of person that He had commanded us not to follow, and that we know longer have to follow laws that He had said were eternal.

If God really does change His mind and change the rules; if He send "messiahs" or "prophets" to establish new religions and explain the new rules, then you have no way of knowing if Christianity is still the correct religion to follow. Maybe Mohammed and Joseph Smith really were a prophets from God, and therefore you are disobeying God by continuing to follow Jesus and remaining a Christian.

Many people have claimed to have received revelation from God. If God really does keep changing His mind, then we have no way of knowing what the current "truth" really is.

None of this is a problem for Jews. We believe that God doesn't lie or change His mind, so what He told us in the Hebrew bible is still true today.

OrianasDaad
07-19-2005, 03:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Such a nice man. But Not Ready thinks you are probably going to hell. And Bossjj thinks you are probably going to heaven (as do Sklanskians). Even though your beliefs are far closer to his. Don't you find that unsettling?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's even more unsettling that people actually value the opinions of others more than what they believe themselves, if they decide to think about it at all.

I believe that the universe was engineered, and the chance of all this happening randomly is less than the chance of God existing.

As far as religion, well... let's just say that anything made by man to represent the will of God is likely to screw something up seriously.

All other things being equal - I'm an athiest. I just happen to believe in God.

bossJJ
07-19-2005, 04:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Since Christianity spent its first 300 years in persecution and martyrdom facing oppression from the governing authority of Roman society, this would not seem to validate your view that religious morality is just a tool to induce conformance to society's rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

The amount of persecution that the early Christians faced is greatly exasgerated by Christians. The supposed martyrdom of some of the jesus' alleged disciples wasn't recorded until a few hundred years after they supposedly happened. They outright lie in claiming that Jews persecuted them, so there are probably some lies against the Romans as well. Sure there was some persecution by Romans, but many just practiced their religion quietly and weren't bothered.

Christianity became the dominant religion because it's what the emperor Constantine decided to convert to. Christianity was a good choice because it told it's followers to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" - to obey the government authorities and just accept their lot in life, because this life on earth isn't as important as the eternal life with God they were promised after death. So unlike the rebellious Jews, they didn't have to worry about Christians rebelling against them.

07-19-2005, 05:48 AM
In the beginning, Hesiod says, there was Chaos, vast and dark. Then appeared Gaea, "the deep-breasted earth" and finally Eros, "the love which softens hearts", whose influence would preside over the formation of beings...

In their effort to understand where life started from, the Greeks explained all things through the stories of Gods, who were personifications of forces of nature or different aspects of social life.
Those Gods had human frailties (anger, jealousy etc) as well as super human powers.

So you see among the centuries that people always had the need to believe in something (Greek Gods, God etc)as they couldn't explain the origin of their existence.

A Greek

PLOlover
07-19-2005, 07:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity was a good choice because it told it's followers to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" - to obey the government authorities and just accept their lot in life, because this life on earth isn't as important as the eternal life with God they were promised after death.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you don't realize that the meaning of this passage is that if you engage in the commerce and monetary system of the empire, then of course you should also participate in the tax part as well. And that, conversely, if you live on a farm and grow your own food, which comes from god, then you definitely don't owe caesar a thing.

bossJJ
07-19-2005, 08:11 AM
The meaning is subject to interpretation. The fact is that the Christians did not rebel against the Romans, and later European Christians believed in the "divine right of kings." The serfs just accepted it, knowing that they'd get rewarded in heaven. It wasn't so important to change anything here on earth. Christianity worked great for keeping the peasants in line.

PLOlover
07-19-2005, 08:28 AM
Yes it is commonly accepted that most people who consider themselves christians have no idea what christianity is.

NotReady
07-19-2005, 12:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]

basically my reasons add up to me concluding that it seems almost certain that the idea of god being the creation of man.


[/ QUOTE ]

Many ideas of god ARE the creation of man. The Bible says "Even Satan comes as an angel of light".

All effective lies are partial truths.

PairTheBoard
07-19-2005, 03:04 PM
bossJJ --
"The amount of persecution that the early Christians faced is greatly exasgerated by Christians. The supposed martyrdom of some of the jesus' alleged disciples wasn't recorded until a few hundred years after they supposedly happened. They outright lie in claiming that Jews persecuted them, so there are probably some lies against the Romans as well. Sure there was some persecution by Romans, but many just practiced their religion quietly and weren't bothered. "

This sounds a little to me like saying, the persecution of the Jews in Europe throughout the Middle Ages has been greatly exagerated by Jews. My hunch is that your statement would get a lot of criticism from Historical Scholars.

PairTheBoard

Prevaricator
07-19-2005, 05:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
However, 50% is a great starting point from which to read God's word and to pray for greater faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give it a rest.

BluffTHIS!
07-19-2005, 05:39 PM
HE told me not to.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

bossJJ
07-19-2005, 07:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The amount of persecution that the early Christians faced is greatly exaggerated by Christians. The supposed martyrdom of some of the jesus' alleged disciples wasn't recorded until a few hundred years after they supposedly happened. They outright lie in claiming that Jews persecuted them, so there are probably some lies against the Romans as well. Sure there was some persecution by Romans, but many just practiced their religion quietly and weren't bothered. "

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds a little to me like saying, the persecution of the Jews in Europe throughout the Middle Ages has been greatly exagerated by Jews. My hunch is that your statement would get a lot of criticism from Historical Scholars.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the same thing at all. Most "historical scholars" agree that the persecution of the Jews during the middle ages (e.g. - the inquisition, the massacre of entire Jewish communities during the crusades, laws which prohibited Jews from owning land or practing most professions, etc) really took place. We have non-Jewish as well as Jewish sources, including records of many of the various antisemitic laws and reports from varous priests and church leaders.

While there was some persecution of Christians by the Romans, the amount is greatly exaggerated. There is no record (outside of Christian sources written a few hundred years after the alleged events) that any of Jesus' alleged disciples were martyred. Outside of the Greek Testament (and other Christian writings written even later), there is no evidence that they (jesus' disciples) existed at all. And Christians didn't start claiming they were martyrs until about 200 years after that.

Contrary to evidence, Christians apparently like to believe that they are really a persecuted minority. They think that if Christianity survived under so much persecution, it strengthens their case that Christianity is a true religion from God. However, followers of many different religions have died for their beliefs. That argument would actually prove that Judaism is the true religion, because we are the ones that have actually suffered the most persecution throughout our history.

Even modern American Christians will sometimes claim prejudice against them when non-Christians fight back against Christians who are trying to shove their beliefs down everybody else's throats. They just like to claim that they are persecuted.

David Sklansky
07-19-2005, 07:36 PM
Who is right about this subject is irrelevant. Anybody who truly believes all the specifics of any religion is far less likely to cure cancer (even as they WISH more than others that cancer be cured) and thus deserves to have hardships.

BluffTHIS!
07-19-2005, 07:41 PM
What is relevant David, is that your most recent post here shows that you have a focus that is entirely on this present earthly life, whereas we believers of whatever stripe have one that is on the eternal life to come, compared to which any earthly hardships we suffer now deserved or not, are trivial compared to the infinite gain we hope to receive.

PairTheBoard
07-19-2005, 07:45 PM
bossJJ --
"While there was some persecution of Christians by the Romans, the amount is greatly exaggerated. There is no record (outside of Christian sources written a few hundred years after the alleged events) that any of Jesus' alleged disciples were martyred. Outside of the Greek Testament (and other Christian writings written even later), there is no evidence that they (jesus' disciples) existed at all. And Christians didn't start claiming they were martyrs until about 200 years after that. "

So you reiterate. I reiterate my hunch that your statements would meet with much criticism by historical scholars.

PairTheBoard

PairTheBoard
07-19-2005, 07:50 PM
DS --
[ QUOTE ]
Who is right about this subject is irrelevant. Anybody who truly believes all the specifics of any religion is far less likely to cure cancer (even as they WISH more than others that cancer be cured) and thus deserves to have hardships.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your saying that Jews like bossJJ are also not likely to be doing Math or Chemistry or Medical Research?

PairTheBoard

David Sklansky
07-19-2005, 07:52 PM
"What is relevant David, is that your most recent post here shows that you have a focus that is entirely on this present earthly life, whereas we believers of whatever stripe have one that is on the eternal life to come, compared to which any earthly hardships we suffer now deserved or not, are trivial compared to the infinite gain we hope to receive."

Another terribly wrong post. Because, as I said before I believe that if there is God, he will reward those who seek to find the intricacies of physics and chemistry that he created and will be disgusted by blind sychophants.

Peter666
07-19-2005, 07:54 PM
Hah

Judaism: The only religion equally loathed by all creeds, races and nations wherever practiced. From pagan Romans, to Medieval Catholics, from Spaniards to Russians, Protestants and Muslims, Arabs to Germans etc. etc. etc...

But the worst enemy being themselves. The most intelligent athiest scientists, mathematicians, politicians are Jews who reject their religion. The most blessed race (which we still see by the disproportionate talents of Jews) has been held back by their false religion.

bossJJ
07-19-2005, 07:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
So you reiterate. I reiterate my hunch that your statements would meet with much criticism by historical scholars.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

And I reiterate that you are wrong. How long do want to keep doing this? Why don't you just start providing some evidence for your beliefs? For example, what "evidence" do you have that any of Jesus' alleged disciples were martyred? And from what year is that "evidence"?

At least attempt to give rational responses as to why your beliefs are true, instead of just ignoring most of my posts.

David Sklansky
07-19-2005, 08:14 PM
"But the worst enemy being themselves. The most intelligent athiest scientists, mathematicians, politicians are Jews who reject their religion. The most blessed race (which we still see by the disproportionate talents of Jews) has been held back by their false religion."

I agree with your words completely (notice he included politicians, Pair The Board). In fact I already mentioned something similar in a previous post (the Jews Achilles heel). Very good.

Oh but there is one thing. Though you didn't say it, you seemed to have implied that if these same talented individuals had been brought up with a different religion, and then gone on to get the same education, they would have stayed believers. I think I just may differ with you on that.

BluffTHIS!
07-19-2005, 08:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Because, as I said before I believe that if there is God, he will reward those who seek to find the intricacies of physics and chemistry that he created and will be disgusted by blind sychophants.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I have made clear in my posts that I am very scientifically oriented and no blind sychophant. Furthermore, I would agree that God views favorably discovering the scientific truth about His creation, but not that He places more store in it than faith. Your belief is of course merely an axiom, no different that the axioms on which my beliefs are based, in that they are ultimately unprovable to 100% certainty in this earthly life.

PairTheBoard
07-19-2005, 08:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you reiterate. I reiterate my hunch that your statements would meet with much criticism by historical scholars.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

And I reiterate that you are wrong. How long do want to keep doing this? Why don't you just start providing some evidence for your beliefs? For example, what "evidence" do you have that any of Jesus' alleged disciples were martyred? And from what year is that "evidence"?

At least attempt to give rational responses as to why your beliefs are true, instead of just ignoring most of my posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said before, it's a hunch. I'm not an historical scholar but I've got another hunch that neither are you. If I had been ignoring your post I would not have bothered to respond at all. Maybe that's what you would prefer?

PairTheBoard

David Sklansky
07-19-2005, 08:29 PM
"Your belief is of course merely an axiom, no different that the axioms on which my beliefs are based, in that they are ultimately unprovable to 100% certainty in this earthly life."

That is true. But I still won my argument. Which was whether the fact that I think spending time and thought to cure cancer is more important than understanding specific religious beliefs, means I care less about an afterlife.

Secondly my "belief" (that God wants us to care more about science and less about the specifics of him) is of a different type than yours. Not only because this belief is was preceded with the words "if there is God" but also because I think that my belief is merely more LIKELY to be true than yours (so actually I was too kind to concede the original point above). You on the other hand won't make the same concession.

bossJJ
07-19-2005, 09:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Hah

Judaism: The only religion equally loathed by all creeds, races and nations wherever practiced. From pagan Romans, to Medieval Catholics, from Spaniards to Russians, Protestants and Muslims, Arabs to Germans etc. etc. etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is true that the Jews are/have been the most hated group in history. Antisemitism is the longest running and most universal hatred. A good book about this is, "Why the Jews? The Reasons for Antisemitism," by Dennis Prager and Rabbi Joseph Telushkin.

[ QUOTE ]
But the worst enemy being themselves. The most intelligent athiest scientists, mathematicians, politicians are Jews who reject their religion. The most blessed race (which we still see by the disproportionate talents of Jews) has been held back by their false religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

What evidence do you have that Judaism is a "false relgion"? If the Hebrew bible is true (as Christians claim), then it is Christianity that is a false religion. It believes in a "new testament" that completely contradicts and denies everything God told us in the Hebrew bible.

Jews have always valued education, believing that God commanded us to study His Torah. Throughout most of our history, Jews were not allowed to enter most professions, so they did not actually have the choice to study in universities and become scientists or mathematicians. It was not Judaism that held them back. Judaism values education. It is Christianity that has a long history of supressing science and knowledge, and keepings its followers illiterate. Most scientists from a Christian background don't practice Christianity either.

There are various degrees of observance among Jews, from very secular to very religious. Many fairly secular Jews don't actually reject the religion; and they still follow some things, for example by going to a synagogue on the holidays of Yom Kippur and Rosh HaShana, celebrating a Passover seder, and having their sons circumscised.

Jews who become less religious still retain many Jewish values, including believing in studying and educating themselves, giving charity and trying to make the world a better place. For example, many secular and Reform Jews, who know longer follow many of the ritual laws, were very active in the Civil Rights movement. It is because they retained the Jewish value of education and studying that non-religous Jews are so successful in school and in many professions. Of course, religious Jews are also successful in a variety of professions.

The book "Cracking the Bible Code" (about the Torah Codes, by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.) mentions some previously secular Jewish mathematicians who became religious after working on the Codes research or analyzing the results.

Religious Jews believe that prayer, and studying and observing Torah, are as valuable to society as becoming a scientist or doctor (although some study these and other occupations as well). In Israel, the prayers and Torah study of students in the yeshivot (Jewish seminaries) are as importance to Israel's defense as the military.

During the first Gulf War, Israel agreed not to retaliate against Iraq. So all they could do was pray. People were afraid of a gas attack via a scud missile, or that one might hit a very populated area, killing dozens of civilians. Many secular Israelis joined the religious in reciting Psalms and praying for safety. 39 scud missiles did hit targets in Israel, causing millions of dollars worth of damage to buildings, but not killing a single person. The one casualty was a man who survived an attack but died of a heart attack the next day.
Gulf War Miracles (http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/israeldiary/Gulf_War_Miracles.asp)

Peter666
07-19-2005, 10:21 PM
"you seemed to have implied that if these same talented individuals had been brought up with a different religion, and then gone on to get the same education, they would have stayed believers. I think I just may differ with you on that."

Actually, I doubt that, because of the indemonstrability of religion to those without the arbitrary grace of faith. People who purposely demand immediate and demonstrable proof before they will believe in anything cannot be swayed by religion.

I think many scientists or mathematicians etc. currently keep the external practice of their religion, but mostly for cultural and emotional reasons.

As I contend, the only ones who we know have the grace of Faith are practicing Catholics. Other religions are just natural practices without supernatural intervention (except for the sacraments of the Orthodox and Baptism by Protestants).

Peter666
07-19-2005, 10:31 PM
To put it simply, the interpretation of the Old Testament by modern day Jews is false.

Jesus Christ, the Incarnated Word of God, perfectly fulfilled the prophecies of the old Testament, created a New Covenant and proved it all by his Ressurection. Without the Ressurection, there would be no basis for belief.

David Sklansky
07-19-2005, 11:25 PM
"As I contend, the only ones who we know have the grace of Faith are practicing Catholics. Other religions are just natural practices without supernatural intervention (except for the sacraments of the Orthodox and Baptism by Protestants)"

Got that Not Ready?

Got that BluffTHIS? Er never mind. I forgot. You already knew that. I get confused sometimes.

PairTheBoard
07-20-2005, 12:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"As I contend, the only ones who we know have the grace of Faith are practicing Catholics. Other religions are just natural practices without supernatural intervention (except for the sacraments of the Orthodox and Baptism by Protestants)"

Got that Not Ready?

Got that BluffTHIS? Er never mind. I forgot. You already knew that. I get confused sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's see if I have this straight.

Peter666 thinks notready, bossJJ, and udontknowmicky are going to hell but Bluffthis is going to heaven. notready thinks bossJJ is going to hell, isn't too sure about Peter666 and Bluffthis, but is pretty sure udontknowmicky is ok in the afterlife department. bossJJ thinks the rest of them could go to heaven but they've got some serious repenting to do first. David Sklansky thinks none of them will ever cure cancer, and the whole lot of them think I need to get lucky on the river if my little set of deuces is going to beat the guy who just turned the nut flush.

PairTheBoard

BluffTHIS!
07-20-2005, 01:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"As I contend, the only ones who we know have the grace of Faith are practicing Catholics. Other religions are just natural practices without supernatural intervention (except for the sacraments of the Orthodox and Baptism by Protestants)"

Got that Not Ready?

Got that BluffTHIS? Er never mind. I forgot. You already knew that. I get confused sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I told you he was a catholic version of NotReady.

BluffTHIS!
07-20-2005, 01:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
That is true. But I still won my argument. Which was whether the fact that I think spending time and thought to cure cancer is more important than understanding specific religious beliefs, means I care less about an afterlife.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what cure are you working on at present? My job is not that of a cancer researcher, but that of a poker player. And having spent a good part of my life studying my religious beliefs, I now spend more time studying poker. Thus I am not a "practicing catholic" any longer because I now have it down pat.

bossJJ
07-20-2005, 02:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
To put it simply, the interpretation of the Old Testament by modern day Jews is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are such an arrogant little prick, telling us that we aren't interpreting our own bible correctly. We are the ones who received the bible and the Oral Law from God. The idea that Christians can interpret it better is ridiculous. You guys don't even know Hebrew. We just believe what the bible actually says, while you guys ridiculously conclude that the text means the exact opposite of what it actually says. I've discussed this in detail in other threads, and none of you have been able to refute me.

To give just one example, the bible says in many places that sincere repentence alone atones for sins, and there are several examples of those who had their sins forgiven without bringing a blood sacrifice. So Christians irrationally conclude that a blood sacrifice (or belief in Jesus) is necessary to atone for sin. Why? They get this belief from their false "new testament," which contradicts the bible on just about everything. Due to their false Christian beliefs, they are unable to interpret the bible objectively to see what is really says. Their false beliefs blind them to the truth.


[ QUOTE ]
Jesus Christ, the Incarnated Word of God, perfectly fulfilled the prophecies of the old Testament, created a New Covenant and proved it all by his Ressurection. Without the Ressurection, there would be no basis for belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, Jesus didn't fulfill any of the messianic prophecies. These include: world peace, universal knowledge of God, Temple rebuilt, all Jews back in Israel with the messiah ruling as king, etc. These prohecies are fulfilled only in the minds of delusional Christians, whose false beliefs blind them to the real truth as presented in the Hebrew bible.

There is no evidence that Jesus even existed, never mind that the resurrection ocurred. In any case, an alleged resurrection doesn't prove anything. God specifically commanded us not to follow people like jesus, even if they produce a miracle. But there is no evidence that it happened at all. Most religions have "holy" books that contain stories about all the miracles of their god(s) or prophet. The Koran says that Mohammed rode to heaven on a white horse. Why don't you accept that as proof that the Koran is true, and that Mohammed was a true prophet from God? And some angel appeared to Jospeh Smith. By your "logic," that should prove that Mormonism is the correct religion. If you disagree, then you are just interpreting the bible incorrectly.

David Sklansky
07-20-2005, 05:39 AM
"God specifically commanded us not to follow people like jesus, even if they produce a miracle."

That is the single biggest piece of information I have heard to make me disbelieve Judaism. There is NO WAY God could have said that. Unless God is a moron or a liar. What he said, if he said anything at all, is that you shouldn't follow someone who APPEARS to have produced a miracle.

If you believe Jesus was resurrected, you must believe in some form of Christianity (not necessarily Peter666's version though). I don't give a rat's ass if God said differently. Right BluffTHIS and Not Ready?

By the way, why don't you capitalize Jesus's name?

BluffTHIS!
07-20-2005, 06:04 AM
I think that for the most part, both NotReady and I are through with Boss and his logical circles, tautologies and convenient interpretations. Just regarding the blood sacrifice versus sincere repentance thing for example. Do a search on the old testament/hebrew bible for the word "atonement" and see how many times "sincere repentance" comes up, and I mean alone and without an injunction to subsequently have a priest make such a blood sacrifice. Then compare to how many times that word comes up in conjunction with blood sacrifices. But of course since the Jews don't actually have a temple or a levitical priesthood now they can't make a blood sacrifice, hence the necessity of denying the need for same. The fact of the matter is that the most orthodox judaism practiced today resembles very little the judaism practiced 2000 years ago, yet to BossJJ that means nothing.

Peter666
07-20-2005, 12:09 PM
"You are such an arrogant little prick, telling us that we aren't interpreting our own bible correctly. We are the ones who received the bible and the Oral Law from God. The idea that Christians can interpret it better is ridiculous."

I love it. You see, that is the same reaction that Jesus got when confronting the hypocritical Pharisees. And they had Him crucified (while letting go of a murderer).

Even if you don't believe Jesus was God, you can still see that his execution was unjust, as Pontius Pilate readily admitted.

The thing is, if I believe a man resurrects Himself, I believe Him to be God. Unless you can prove to me that He did not resurrect, you cannot sway me on my argument. Of course, that proof is impossible to find, and there is more proof that Jesus existed than Abraham. How do you like that for a Final Solution? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

bossJJ
07-20-2005, 01:40 PM
See Deuteronomy 13:1-5:

"If there should stand up in your midst a prophet or a dreamer of a dream, and he will produce to you a sign or wonder, and the sign or the wonder of which they spoke comes to pass, and they say, "Come let us follow other gods" (whom you have not known) "and let us serve them" - do not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul. The LORD your God you shall follow, him alone you shall fear, his commandments you shall keep, his voice you shall obey, him you shall serve, and to him you shall hold fast. But those prophets or those who divine by dreams shall be put to death for having spoken a perversion against the LORD your God--who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery--to turn you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst."

The problem is that many religions claim miracles. It would be impossible to investigate them all to see which, if any are, real miracles. God tells us simply to obey what He told us, to follow His Torah. That is the standard of what is true, not who produces the biggest miracle. Riding to heaven on a white horse is a pretty big miracle too, yet Christians don't become Muslims because of that. I doubt they've investigated any of the miracles of Hindus or Buddhists either. They just believe what they want to. In the bible, Elijah raised someone from the dead, but we don't worship him or assume he's the messiah. The real messiah will fulfill the messianic prophecies.

God told us to follow His Torah forever (e.g. - Dt 29:28, Ecc. 13:14, Is 40:8, Ps 111:7-8, Ex 31:16, Num 15:23), and not to change it (Deut 4:2). He also told us not to follow those like Jesus or the gt authors who say not to follow it, that we are always to follow God (Dt 6:12-15, Ps 81:8-9). The bible specifically says that even after the real messiah comes, we will still follow Torah law (Ezekiel 11:19-20, 37:24, 44:9, Zach 14:16).

God's laws are absolute and eternal. He spoke to the entire Jewish nation when He gave us His Torah. He commanded us to follow His Torah forever and not to change it. The bible also says God doesn't lie or change His mind (num 23:19). It doesn't make sense that he would then change His mind and give a new set of rules or a new religion every few hundred years or so. And that we're supposed to figure out who He really sent judging by the miracles they allegedly produce, that we should follow the type of person He specifically commanded us not to follow, and that we know longer need to follow laws that He said were eternal. Christianity is simply incompatible with what God tells us in the bible.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, why don't you capitalize Jesus's name?

[/ QUOTE ]

I usually do. It was just a typo.

bossJJ
07-20-2005, 02:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think that for the most part, both NotReady and I are through with Boss and his logical circles, tautologies and convenient interpretations. Just regarding the blood sacrifice versus sincere repentance thing for example. Do a search on the old testament/hebrew bible for the word "atonement" and see how many times "sincere repentance" comes up, and I mean alone and without an injunction to subsequently have a priest make such a blood sacrifice. Then compare to how many times that word comes up in conjunction with blood sacrifices. But of course since the Jews don't actually have a temple or a levitical priesthood now they can't make a blood sacrifice, hence the necessity of denying the need for same. The fact of the matter is that the most orthodox judaism practiced today resembles very little the judaism practiced 2000 years ago, yet to BossJJ that means nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact of the matter is there are several examples in the bible of those who received atonement without bringing a blood sacrifice, including King David. "Sacrifice and offering thou dost not desire; but thou hast given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering thou hast not required" (Ps 40:6, a psalm of David).

There are also several verses where God specifically says, "repent, and I will forgive you." Some verses specifically say that a sacrifice is not required. I gave tons of verses in the other thread. That shows that even before Jesus' alleged time a blood sacrifice wasn't required.

After predicting that the Temple will be destroyed, the prophets specifically say that it's the prayer of repentance that will replace the sacrifices (e.g. - Hosea 14:2-2). They don't say anything like, "believing in the death and resurection of the messiah will atone for your sins." The real messiah has a different role, and Jesus didn't fulfill any of the messianic prophecies.

You are also ignoring the fact that Jesus' alleged death wasn't a proper sacrifice. It had to be done in the Temple (Dt 12:10-14), the blood had to be sprinkled on the altar (Lev 17:11), he wasn't the proper type of animal, nor was he unblemished (according to the gt). Also, the blood sacrifices only atoned for unintentional sins (Num 15:27-31), and they didn't atone for the sins of anybody else (so each person had to bring his own sacrifice). For more info:

Could Jesus' Death Atone for Sin? (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/jesusdeath.html)

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/response.html

bossJJ
07-20-2005, 02:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"You are such an arrogant little prick, telling us that we aren't interpreting our own bible correctly. We are the ones who received the bible and the Oral Law from God. The idea that Christians can interpret it better is ridiculous."

[/ QUOTE ]

I love it. You see, that is the same reaction that Jesus got when confronting the hypocritical Pharisees. And they had Him crucified (while letting go of a murderer).

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand by my statement. You Christians are being arrogant in claiming that you can interpret our bible better than us. You "interpret" it to mean the exact opposite of what is says, and you follow a "messiah" who failed to fulfill a single messianic prophecy. The Christian idea of "messiah" is based on the pagan saviors like Mythra, not the bible.

As I discussed in the other thread, the Pharisees were actually humble, compassionate people who followed God. They weren't hypocritcal at all. The gt lies about them because it is full of antisemitism and is just looking to discredit Judaism. We know from the writings of Philo, Josephus and others, that it was Pilate who was extremely brutal, crucifying thousands of Jews.

How would you feel about a book that claimed that Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul II were evil pedophiles? And this book claims that the Pope and cardinals killed their god, who was resurrected from the dead. Would that prove to you that their god is God? Would that show that your "new covenant" is no longer in effect, and that you have beeen interpreting the bible incorrectly? What would it take for God to convince you that Christianity is no longer the correct religion to follow? Why aren't you investigating the claims of miracles of other religions? For example, Hindu gods have done some miraculous stuff.

Or do you think Christianity is true because it became very popular? However, Islam spread even faster, and it's the fasting growing religion in the world. Does that make it true? How can you be sure that Christianity is still the correct religion to follow?

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you don't believe Jesus was God, you can still see that his execution was unjust, as Pontius Pilate readily admitted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it was unjust. Assuming he even existed, there's no credible evidence that the Jews had anything to do with Jesus' death. The Jews putting someone to death was actually quite rare, happening less than once every 70 years.

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, if I believe a man resurrects Himself, I believe Him to be God. Unless you can prove to me that He did not resurrect, you cannot sway me on my argument. Of course, that proof is impossible to find, and there is more proof that Jesus existed than Abraham. How do you like that for a Final Solution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Knowing that God is not a man, a better assumption is that God resurrected the man, not that the man is God. There isn't any credible evidence that Jesus even existed. As I discussed in the other thread, there is nothing written about him from his alleged lifetime. There should be, if he really did all the miraculous things the gt claims. Somebody would have noticed.

As for a resurrection, that requires even more evidence. The burden of proof is on you to show it's true. But we have nothing at all. Most of the popular pagan gods of the time also had a resurrection of the dead, as well as a virgin birth. That's why the gt authors made the same claims for Jesus. By your logic, all those pagan gods are God also.

As for Abraham, that's irrelevant. I haven't made any claims about him. I believe He existed because the bible says he did. You Christians supposedly believe in the Hebrew bible as well, so this is a silly argument. If the Hebrew bible isn't true, then how can you claim that Jesus was the same God, or that he's the messiah predicted there? If you discredit the Hebrew bible, you prove that Christianity is wrong as well.

PairTheBoard
07-20-2005, 03:12 PM
My PostTracker Software is issuing warning signs that Semi-Automated Posting Bots are now In Use on this Thread.

PairTheBoard

Peter666
07-21-2005, 12:41 AM
Do you realize, that by trying to discredit Christians, you have ended up discrediting the Jews even more?

If the Pharisee's were so humble and nice, why did they demand the crucifiction of an innocent man as shown by eyewitness accounts, and why did thousands of Jews convert to Christianity shortly after the Resurrection? Your dumb ass argument of men not wanting to be circumcised in previous threads does not apply to men already circumcised.

I have no problems about anyone claiming JP II or Mother Teresa were pedophiles, so long as they have evidence to back it up.

Did you assert that the "miraculous" workings of Hindu deities are real????? I thought you were Jewish, not pagan.

True Christianity requires more personal sacrifice than any other religion, so it is remarkable that it spread so quickly, especially under persecution. Islam spread because of the political nature of the territory where it sprouted. The freeing of slaves who converted to Islam was a major factor, plus the relative ease of practice.

In regards to the historical life of Jesus, we have eyewitness accounts of men who knew Him personally written in the Bible, plus an unbroken lineage of Popes and Bishops from the Apostles themselves.

And it is funny how you tried to skip around my Abraham point by calling it irrelavent. You are trying to convince me that Jesus was not a real historical figure, and Christianity is a sham despite all the evidence, but the person whom God made the first Covenant with initiating your religion, Abraham, has far more historical proof of existence?!!! A person who existed thousands of years prior, in a nomadic like culture???

You are by far the stupidest Jew, sorry, I mean Pagan, I have ever had to debate. See you at the Yoga classes.

bossJJ
07-21-2005, 06:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Do you realize, that by trying to discredit Christians, you have ended up discrediting the Jews even more?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong yet again. It is not Jews who believe in the fictional gt and worship a mythical man instead of God. We Jews just believe what God tells us in the Hebrew bible, while Christians, Muslims and Mormons have invented false religions that contradict the Hebrew bible. The fairy tales about miracles in the gt are no more believable than those of any other allegely "holy" book, none of which are really from God at all.

[ QUOTE ]
If the Pharisee's were so humble and nice, why did they demand the crucifiction of an innocent man as shown by eyewitness accounts, and why did thousands of Jews convert to Christianity shortly after the Resurrection? Your dumb ass argument of men not wanting to be circumcised in previous threads does not apply to men already circumcised. I have no problems about anyone claiming JP II or Mother Teresa were pedophiles, so long as they have evidence to back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point, which is that the Pharisees did not do that at all. And you have no evidence at all to back it up. All of the gt's antisemitic lies just proves that it is fiction and that it wasn't written by Jews. You don't prove anything by quoting a work of fiction. It's like quoting the Koran to prove that Islam is true.

Nor is there any evidence of Jesus' alleged resurrection; Nor did thousands of Jews convert to Christianity after the alleged resurrection. No one from Jesus' alleged lifetime noticed him at all. The stories of his resurection were invented decades after they supposedly happened, and they were based on similar stories about pagan gods. Once the Jews heard of this story through Paul and pagan converts, they overwhlemingly rejected Jesus, because Jews are smart enough to realize that anyone who failed to fulfill the messianic prophecies obviously can't be the messiah.

So then this piece of fiction was spread to illiterate pagans who had know way of knowing what the real messiah was supposed to be and do. The pagans were not circumcised.

No one from Jesus' alleged lifetime noticed him at all. We have nothing from his alleged lifetime. Everything written about him came decades or hundred of years later.

bossJJ
07-21-2005, 06:22 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Did you assert that the "miraculous" workings of Hindu deities are real????? I thought you were Jewish, not pagan.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think this is what I meant, then this proves that you are a moron with a reading problem. The point is that all false religions have "holy" books which tell stories about the miracles of their prophet or god(s). The fairy tales of your "new testament" are just as silly and unbelievable as those in Hindu writings. You said you believe in Christianity because you believed the story about Jesus' alleged resurrection. If you really think that story proves anything -- because you believe that God will lie, change His mind and demand the complete opposite of everything He had told us before, and that He will notify us of this choice by sending someone to perform a miracle -- then you need to investigate the miraculous claims of other religions, because Christianity may longer be the correct religion to follow.

[ QUOTE ]
True Christianity requires more personal sacrifice than any other religion

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! No, Christianity only requires you to believe a bunch of silly stories in order to be "saved" and enjoy eternal life with your god. It is probably the easiest religion out there - The greatest reward for doing nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
"...so it is remarkable that it spread so quickly, especially under persecution. Islam spread because of the political nature of the territory where it sprouted. The freeing of slaves who converted to Islam was a major factor, plus the relative ease of practice.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not so remarkable at all. There was not as much persecution as Christians claim. It initially spread because of Paul, the true founder of Christianity. The religion (supposedly) gave pagans the best of both Judaism and paganism, except that there was nothing Jewish about it. The gt authors just try to claim the pagan beliefs were really Jewish by misquoting, distorting and outright lying about the Hebrew bible.

The illiterate pagans didn't understand what the real messiah is supposed to do, so that is why they could believe all the Christian fairy tales. They got eternal life just for believing in that crap. It was the same crap that other cults and "mystery religions" believed - some god does it with a human woman, producing a mangod/savior whose death and resurrection brings salvation to his followers. The difference was that many of those other cults were exclusive, primarily for the upper classes. Christianity, otoh, was open to anybody, and they very actively recruited converts. They took anybody who could believe that crap. And a person had to be quite ignorant in order to believe that nonsense. Or they just needed the great emotional crutch that Christainity provides; they didn't mind "checking their brains at the door" in order to receive the emotional comfort it provides.

However, by the time of Constantine, Christianity was only about 10% of the population. Constantine wisely chose Christianity to convert to, because it was open to anybody and they encouraged their followers to just accept their lot in life and not rebel, because the next life is more important. About 25% of the population believed in mythra, and Constantine brought many beliefs from Mythraism into Christianity. It was only after Christianity became the official religion that Christianity became very popular, primarily because the Christians persecuted all other religions. It spread primarily by the sword, much more so than Islam.
Victims of the Christian Faith (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5195/victims.html)

bossJJ
07-21-2005, 06:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
In regards to the historical life of Jesus, we have eyewitness accounts of men who knew Him personally written in the Bible, plus an unbroken lineage of Popes and Bishops from the Apostles themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have nothing from his alleged lifetime. No one knows who really wrote the gospels, and all the contradictions within them prove that they weren't eyewitnesses at all. For example, witnesses would at least agree on when something happened. They wouldn't contradict each other on virtually every detail of something as spectactular as a resurrection.
Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/resurrection.html)

It is quite debatable whether or not you have an "unbroken lineage of Popes and Bishops from the Apostles themselves." In any case, it doesn't prove anything.

[ QUOTE ]
And it is funny how you tried to skip around my Abraham point by calling it irrelavent. You are trying to convince me that Jesus was not a real historical figure, and Christianity is a sham despite all the evidence, but the person whom God made the first Covenant with initiating your religion, Abraham, has far more historical proof of existence?!!! A person who existed thousands of years prior, in a nomadic like culture???

[/ QUOTE ]

You again missed the point. I don't believe in the Hebrew bible because I believe Abraham existed. I believe in it for other reasons (which I discussed in the other thread - that it is impossible to fake a national revelation, prophecies which have come true regarding the Jews, our unique history and survival, etc). Because I believe in the bible, I believe that Abraham existed. I have good reasons for believing that the Torah is true that don't depend on Abraham existing. We Jews already existed when we received the Torah hundreds of years after Abraham's death. We had to come from somewhere, and I believe what the bible says about our origins. We descended from Abraham, and He knew God, but he wasn't the founder of Judaism. The religion of Judaism didn't start until we received the Torah.

Christianity, otoh, claims to be true based on the existence and resurrection of Jesus. So if he didn't exist, and there is no credible evidence that he did, it proves that Christianity is false.

You also missed the point that discrediting the Hebrew bible would indeed discredit Christianity as well. You claim that it's true, and that Jesus in the messiah and same God of the Hebrew bible. If the Hebrew bible isn't true, then you have to admit then Jesus can't be the same God, or even sent by Him. Nor can he be the Jewish messiah. So you are indeed being a moron by trying to discredit Judaism in this manner.

[ QUOTE ]
You are by far the stupidest Jew, sorry, I mean Pagan, I have ever had to debate. See you at the Yoga classes.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are stupid moron and brainwashed Christian. Your false beliefs have blinded you to the truth, and they prevent you from thinking rationally or logically at all. You demonstrate this in every post.

bossJJ
07-21-2005, 06:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I have no problems about anyone claiming JP II or Mother Teresa were pedophiles, so long as they have evidence to back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you accept as evidence a book full of lies written decades after their deaths by those who just want to discredit Catholicism? The same book claims that your "new covenant" is no longer in effect, and that God wants you to worship the authors' god Bobo, who is really God. The book proves it by saying that he rose from the dead. The book also says Catholics are spiritually blind and enemies of God, otherwise you would know that Bobo is God and follow him. However, no one noticed Bobo when he allegedly lived. Would you consider that book as evidence?

Peter666
07-21-2005, 11:51 AM
Ok, let's see. I am an English major and I read a passage like this:

"What would it take for God to convince you that Christianity is no longer the correct religion to follow? Why aren't you investigating the claims of miracles of other religions? For example, Hindu gods have done some miraculous stuff.

Or do you think Christianity is true because it became very popular?"

In fact, let me emphasize the key sentence:

"For example, Hindu gods have done some miraculous stuff."

And once again, in case you missed it the first two times:

"For example, Hindu gods have done some miraculous stuff."

You have plainly asserted that Hindu Gods have done some miraculous stuff. This is completely in context of what you wrote above. Now I am the moron? Please feel free to solicit the advice of other speakers of the English language, not that you will believe them.

Of course, everything else you say is just as stupid, but emotional pagans such as yourself are want to do that.

And no, I don't believe that Hindu gods have done miraculous stuff.

bossJJ
07-21-2005, 05:58 PM
You are such a moron. You are supposedly an English major, yet you are unable to recognize sarcasm, or read a sentence in context. You haven't yet learned that not everything is to be interpreted literally. Due to your poor reading skills, I should have spelled it out for you, for example by saying, "Hindus claim...." or "according to Hindu writings..." or "Hindu gods have allegedly ...." That was clearly the meaning of the sentence. Do you undertand now? Or do you need furthur explanation?

The point was that you just believe writing about an alleged miracle decades after it supposedly happened somehow makes it true. The gt claims that God lied, changed His mind, and ordered the complete opposite of everything He had previously said. We are now supposed to follow someone He had commanded us not to, and commit what He had previously defined as idolatry. We are supposed to believe that this is from God because of an alleged miracle in the book.

You just believe all that crap because it claims that Jesus rose from the dead. Since you do, you really should investigate miraculous claims in the "holy" books of other religions. If the standard of truth isn't the Hebrew bible, but rather whoever has the biggest miracle, regardless of how ridiculous the message, then Hinduism or some other religion may be the true religion.

bossJJ
07-21-2005, 06:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And no, I don't believe that Hindu gods have done miraculous stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Since you think God lets us know of His will by sending people to perform big miracles, you should at least seriously study their claims, as well as the miraculous claims made in other religions.

You are such a hypocrite; you believe the miraculous claims of the gt without any evidence, while just rejecting similar claims made for other religions. And no, the gt is not evidence. Quoting a book to prove its own truth is circular reasoning. It's like quoting the Koran to prove that Islam is true. You don't believe the gt because of any real evidence, as there is none, but rather you already believed in Christianity, so you just accept that the gt is true, despite all the lies and contradictions in it.

If you hadn't been brainwashed and blinded by your false beliefs, you would have been able to see that the gt contradicts the Hebrew bible. You would have been able to recognize it for the pagan nonsense that it really is. It's actually quite similar to other pagan religions that were practiced in the Roman Empire.

If God really does lie and change His mind completely, Christianity may not be the correct religion to follow. How do you know that Mohammed wasn't a true prophet?

BluffTHIS!
07-21-2005, 06:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If the standard of truth isn't the Hebrew bible, but rather whoever has the biggest miracle, regardless of how ridiculous the message, then Hinduism or some other religion may be the true religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since of course we Christians do believe in the hebrew bible, even though believing it to have been largely superseded, you effectively get a tautological free ride with us. This is not the case with those who don't believe in judeo-christianity at all, and you need to address them as well without resorting to an axiomatic assumption of the hebrew bible's truth.

As a suggestion, since these posts now bear no resemblence to the OP's post, why don't you two start a second "Why Jews Reject Jesus" thread. The original one is so long now it should be locked by the moderator.

David Sklansky
07-21-2005, 06:33 PM
"you effectively get a tautological free ride with us."

Cool

Peter666
07-21-2005, 07:14 PM
"You haven't yet learned that not everything is to be interpreted literally."

That applies to the Torah too then I take it. Wonderful. And of course I have investigated the "miracuolous" claims of other religions which are invariably false. I remember one about 39 scud missles....

bossJJ
07-21-2005, 07:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"You haven't yet learned that not everything is to be interpreted literally."

That applies to the Torah too then I take it. Wonderful. And of course I have investigated the "miracuolous" claims of other religions which are invariably false. I remember one about 39 scud missles....

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, whether or not something is true or miraculous is a separate issue from whether or not a written sentence should be interpreted literally or not. You really are confused, and you are just avoiding my questions because you are unable to answer them.

Regarding the scud missiles not causing any deaths in Israel, I don't believe that one can show one way or the other whether or not it was a miracle. That's the problem with looking at miracles to determine what is true. Virtually all religions claim miracles. We believe God answers prayers, but I don't think that can be proven scientifically, and that wasn't why I discussed the scuds at all.

For Jews, the standard of truth is the Hebrew bible, not who has the biggest miracles. We don't interpret everything in it literally. For example, "the arm of the Lord" refers to God's redeeming power; it doesn't mean that God literally Has arms. Likewise, Christians don't believe that jesus was literally a little furry white animal, even though the gt refers to him as "the lamb of God."

chunk
07-24-2005, 03:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) the "code of conduct" of god being ideal rules dor a society to thrive

[/ QUOTE ]

what I meant by that is the concepts of heaven and hell seem to be the perfect carrot and stick method of getting people to conform to behaviors that are ideal for society as a whole. It doesnt suprise me then that these beliefs would change over time or be different depending on the society.

This basically explained in my own mind where religion camer from and why it is the way it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

word

the lord of the flies

Zeno
07-24-2005, 04:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Since of course we Christians do believe in the hebrew bible, even though believing it to have been largely superseded, you effectively get a tautological free ride with us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell is Hell and Heaven is Heaven and Beer is Beer.

Thank God for that.

Beer Time!

-Zeno