[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The Muslims who protested the 9/11 attacks did so because they abhorred the atrocity of the 9/11 attacks, because believe it or not, they are human. [/quote]
You sure about that? Look what the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think had these Muslim countries and groups had not done this the US would not have gone into those countries to get rid of those extremists. Maybe they were fearful of the most powerful military in the world.
[quote]pat wrote:
Crap, you guys are certainly exceeding my ability to keep up, stupid job. The speed at which this thread grows may set some kind of record.[/quote]
I was trying to catch up, then It grew 9 pages in one day. Since I have posted today it grew and entire page in 30 mins.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
He would, I think, go from being an agnostic theist to being a quite literally gnostic one. [/quote]
It’s funny that you mention this. I have been fascinated by Gnosticism ever since I read Blood Meridian a decade ago.[/quote]
The thing is- why would he become christian?
I think everybody would accept the existance of the slapper [see post]- but worship is another matter.
Why do religious people always assume hundreds of weird things from one supposed proof (which is more a leap of faith, to be honest) ?
The causal chain of a former muslim collegue of mine was: “my aunt/uncle (don’t remember anymore) heard god’s voice, therefore everything the Quran writes is true, therefore pork is bad”
Of course he didn’t put it like this, but his demented relative’S story was the best reason for him to limit his diet.
So why should anyone become christian if a higher being beats him up? [/quote]
To be clear, I meant SMH, having been slapped by the Hand of God, would become a gnostic (little g) theist, literally one who knows that God exists, not necessarily a Gnostic (big G) with all that Gnosticism entails.
Had your Muslim friend’s uncle been Jewish, he would have without question come to the same conclusion about pork, but by way of the Torah rather than the Qur’an. It’s all a matter of circumstance, not necessarily which “truth” is “truest”. [/quote]
Ah, didn’t catch the little “g.”
Yes, you’re exactly correct.
But I do kind of dig Gnosticism too.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Speaking of atheism and nihilism, does anyone know of any literature–or any novel at all–outside of The Brothers Karamazov, that deals with the subject specifically? I have always wondered why it was not a bigger deal. It seems like pretty fertile ground for good writing.[/quote]
Crime and Punishment deals with it. Perhaps not specifically enough for you, but it is very clearly embodied in the novel. Crime and Punishment also happens to be my favorite Russian classic ever. Fantastic book.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Crap, you guys are certainly exceeding my ability to keep up, stupid job. The speed at which this thread grows may set some kind of record.[/quote]
Yeah, I am going to have to block this site on my work laptop or something.[/quote]
It won’t matter…you know the password you set. All it takes is one tiny peek. Just one. You’ll be ok at your job, really!
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
I just first want to say I’m heavily enjoying this thread. I haven’t spoken very much since my understanding is more high level rather than the details you all have provided. So, reading through these posts has given me a lot to chew.
First thing I want to ask is regarding the idea of multiple gods throughout history.
Obviously, the Old Testament is predated by other religious texts which allude to a god or gods which may or may not be similar to the Christian God.
Would it be fair to say that from a Christian’s view point, these other gods and/or religions were the fanciful creation of imagination and/or methods of explaining the unexplainable? In other words, the individual(s) responsible for those religions were not prophets?
Before I continue on this thought, could someone confirm or correct my statement?
[/quote]
It would probably be the Christian’s view that they are more likely false religions, wherein their followers were deceived and actually worship an unclean spirit or demonic “something”. At least most of them.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The Muslims who protested the 9/11 attacks did so because they abhorred the atrocity of the 9/11 attacks, because believe it or not, they are human. [/quote]
You sure about that? Look what the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think had these Muslim countries and groups had not done this the US would not have gone into those countries to get rid of those extremists. Maybe they were fearful of the most powerful military in the world.
[/quote]
We didn’t go into Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Iran. I don’t think there were many, if any, anti 9/11 protests in those countries.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Yes, I have no problem with Muslims. I have a problem with extremist assholes. [/quote]
You are aware we have Christian extremist assholes ?
[/quote]
Please link to a story about a Christian “extremist” strapping a bomb to his daughter chest and detonating her in the middle of a market? Or sending a down syndrome sufferer to the same fate.[/quote]
What about those extremist assholes that murdered the “witches” in Salem?[/quote]
You have any proof that even happened?
[/quote]
Seriously dude?
[/quote]
I have been gone for a day and this thing has blown up. I am trying to get back to all this. My point was that I did not believe this happened. My reasoning for my post was how people will look at History and accept some of it as truth and some not truth. We were not in Salem when it happened, but people say it happened, but that Jesus never lived and the Bible is a Myth and it never happened. The same proof to prove Jesus lived and the Bible is truth is the same proof that is needed to prove the Salem Witch Trials happened. This was my train of thought. Am I wrong?
[/quote]
What is the standard of historical or journalistic evidence that you would accept to believe that any prior event that you were not alive for and personally able to witness is true?
How do we know that Washington actually crossed the Delaware? That Paul Revere made a Midnight Ride? That Colombus sailed the Ocean Blue?
Do we believe it because evidence suggest that it happened? Or do we take it all on faith?
Do you truly believe that the contemporary eyewitness accounts and corroborating archaeological evidence to support the proposition that the Salem Witch Trials actually occurred are fabricated and unreliable, whereas the evidence supporting the veracity of the events depicted in scripture is genuine beyond question?
[/quote]
You are acting as if I believe the Salem Witch Trials did not happen. I do believe the did happen. Just like I believe that Jesus lived, and was who he said he was.
To answer your questions…To me there have to be several eye witness accounts or evidence to the subject. Salem Witch Trials, Jesus, Washington, Revere, Columbus check. My issue is some people will believe that the Salem Witch Trials happened, but Jesus never existed. If people would say well Jesus lived, but he was not God, then I could accept that, but when people write off the Bible as a fairy tale, or myth, so Jesus never lived. And then state, well this newspaper wrote this article about the Salem Witch Trials so it happened I take issues with that.
There is always going to be issues with interpretation. I get that. Why else would there be so many denominations in the Christian faith? Another answer is because it gives one person power over another, and this I have a big issue with. Guys I take what the Bible says very seriously. I will put Christians’ feet to the fire that take things out of context. This might be the number 1 reason I am not a Deacon at my church. I am not a “Yes” man to what a Pastor wants. We are all human and make mistakes, and that to is directed at Church Leadership.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Yes, I have no problem with Muslims. I have a problem with extremist assholes. [/quote]
You are aware we have Christian extremist assholes ?
[/quote]
Please link to a story about a Christian “extremist” strapping a bomb to his daughter chest and detonating her in the middle of a market? Or sending a down syndrome sufferer to the same fate.[/quote]
What about those extremist assholes that murdered the “witches” in Salem?[/quote]
You have any proof that even happened?
[/quote]
it is called history [/quote]
And guess who else happened in history? Jesus…
[/quote]
but Jesus willed it to happen
[/quote]
good point.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The Muslims who protested the 9/11 attacks did so because they abhorred the atrocity of the 9/11 attacks, because believe it or not, they are human. [/quote]
You sure about that? Look what the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think had these Muslim countries and groups had not done this the US would not have gone into those countries to get rid of those extremists. Maybe they were fearful of the most powerful military in the world.
[/quote]
We didn’t go into Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Iran. I don’t think there were many, if any, anti 9/11 protests in those countries. [/quote]
And your point is?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Crap, you guys are certainly exceeding my ability to keep up, stupid job. The speed at which this thread grows may set some kind of record.[/quote]
I was trying to catch up, then It grew 9 pages in one day. Since I have posted today it grew and entire page in 30 mins.
[/quote]
It’s Aliiiiiiive!
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The Muslims who protested the 9/11 attacks did so because they abhorred the atrocity of the 9/11 attacks, because believe it or not, they are human. [/quote]
You sure about that? Look what the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think had these Muslim countries and groups had not done this the US would not have gone into those countries to get rid of those extremists. Maybe they were fearful of the most powerful military in the world.
[/quote]
We didn’t go into Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Iran. I don’t think there were many, if any, anti 9/11 protests in those countries. [/quote]
And your point is?
[/quote]
Correct me if I’m wrong but you seemed to be implying that we didn’t invade certain countries because they protested 9/11 to stay on our good side.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The Muslims who protested the 9/11 attacks did so because they abhorred the atrocity of the 9/11 attacks, because believe it or not, they are human. [/quote]
You sure about that? Look what the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think had these Muslim countries and groups had not done this the US would not have gone into those countries to get rid of those extremists. Maybe they were fearful of the most powerful military in the world.
[/quote]
We didn’t go into Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Iran. I don’t think there were many, if any, anti 9/11 protests in those countries. [/quote]
And your point is?
[/quote]
Correct me if I’m wrong but you seemed to be implying that we didn’t invade certain countries because they protested 9/11 to stay on our good side. [/quote]
Varq posted a link that showed all the Muslim countries and organizations that were against the 9/11 attacks. My point was about Muslims being allowed to Lie to the Infidels, so maybe that list of organizations were just lying. Varq, stated only if they were in fear of being killed could they lie. My point was with the World’s most powerful military it is possible that they did fear for their lives and that is why they lied.
My point had nothing to do with me implying that we did not invade any country because they were against. Only an argument.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Speaking of atheism and nihilism, does anyone know of any literature–or any novel at all–outside of The Brothers Karamazov, that deals with the subject specifically? I have always wondered why it was not a bigger deal. It seems like pretty fertile ground for good writing.[/quote]
Crime and Punishment deals with it. Perhaps not specifically enough for you, but it is very clearly embodied in the novel. Crime and Punishment also happens to be my favorite Russian classic ever. Fantastic book.[/quote]
Heart of Darkness.
The Fall.
Stuff from Kafka.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Crap, you guys are certainly exceeding my ability to keep up, stupid job. The speed at which this thread grows may set some kind of record.[/quote]
I was trying to catch up, then It grew 9 pages in one day. Since I have posted today it grew and entire page in 30 mins.
[/quote]
It’s Aliiiiiiive![/quote]
Feed me Seymour.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Speaking of atheism and nihilism, does anyone know of any literature–or any novel at all–outside of The Brothers Karamazov, that deals with the subject specifically? I have always wondered why it was not a bigger deal. It seems like pretty fertile ground for good writing.[/quote]
Crime and Punishment deals with it. Perhaps not specifically enough for you, but it is very clearly embodied in the novel. Crime and Punishment also happens to be my favorite Russian classic ever. Fantastic book.[/quote]
Heart of Darkness.
The Fall.
Stuff from Kafka.[/quote]
Thanks. I’ve read Conrad and a good deal of Kafka (of whom I am not a fan). Never heard of The Fall. Will look into it.
Well, Kafka is probably best read in German.
American Psycho is also good nihilist lecture.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Pat, you know as well as anyone that one cannot “prove” a negative.
All one can do is attempt to verify a claim of veracity with evidence supporting it, and failing that, conclude that the initial claim was false.
SMH can no more “prove” that the whole Bible is false than you could prove that elves and pixies and the gods of Asgard don’t exist. Absence of evidence of elves and pixies and Asgardian gods not equalling evidence of their absence, after all.
What SMH can do, and likely does, is view extraordinary claims such as those found in the Bible with no evidence supporting them, such as nine-hundred year old men, a planet stopping its entire rotation for several hours so that a battle on a dusty field may continue in sunlight, or five loaves of bread and two fish increasing parthenogenically so that they were able to feed a crowd of five thousand people, with a degree of skepticism and incredulity.
You’re not stupid, Pat. Not a caveman by any stretch, which probably adds to SMH’s amazement: that you find it so easy to believe the entirety of the implicit claims of the Bible without evidence, going so far as to say that they have been proven, by virtue of their being in the Bible, and that you find it just as amazing that anyone would not believe them.
No, one cannot “prove” the Bible is false, and it would serve no purpose to do so. A believer would still believe, because faith requires no proof. I actually envy people who are able to believe so completely in something without skepticism. It must be a wonderful feeling, one that I have missed out on all my life. [/quote]
Well said V. I agree even on the point of being somewhat envious. My skepticism won’t allow me to believe just like my skepticism won’t allow me to think the Holocaust didn’t happen or 9/11 was done by the government. Even being raised as a Methodist I reached a point where I said, I think this all sounds like a load of crap.
It’s not really something I feel like I could change even if I wanted to. [/quote]
Seconded, very well said, and an apt description of my view of things. And I, too, have experienced times–especially in the wake of loss–when I was envious of the devout.[/quote]
I doubt most believers haven’t had moments of skepticism about it all. The skepticism may be blamed on the devils work or brushed over by faith, but it’s still there. Personally, and of coarse I could be wrong, I feel that many deny their skepticism because they are so invested in their religion and in too deep to turn back. Imagine a 60 year old man who worked in the church for a number of years and raised 5 children to believe. It would be extremely difficult to change at that point no matter how skeptical. But once you do turn away, there is no going back. [/quote]
I believe from my experiences you would be wrong in this. There is no doubt that some fraction may do this. That is to say, I think that in any statistically wide spread of population pool claiming to be Christian–and by this I don’t mean “go to church on Christmas and Easter Christian”–that there is a fraction who abide by this. Just as there are those who have been proponents of just about any belief or political position that would do the same because of the time they spent trying to convince others or giving fundraising or whatever.
However in my experience you misunderstand the way they deal with it, as a whole. There are a lot of Christians going through crises of belief and there always have been. Even the illustrious C.S. Lewis, when his wife died, went through a period of years of this. They don’t bury it or gloss over it, whatever the outcome. They wrestle with it pretty intensely for a long period of time. Also, although I understand the sentiment you made with your last sentence I disagree with it. Pat (or maybe Sloth, I can’t remember?) made this point earlier in this thread about most of his family having turned away for years–quit going to church, quit believing, quit pretty much everything–and then coming back to it. So it is to say, there is going back for some people, even after choosing to disbelieve in God for years. You would probably be tempted to simply say “well they never left” or “they’re just returning to childhood indoctrination” but I do not think this is the case.[/quote]
I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you wrote. I was probably putting my own feelings into it as far as no turning back, which is easy to do! Now, I’m not saying they never turned away in the first place (but maybe kind of am?), but in the examples you have they seem to have turned away due to grief and maybe anger at God. I don’t know for sure and wasn’t there obviously. But how many people that have objectively looked at the evidence and made their own conclusion that it wasn’t true have turned back?
But my main point was that someone that believes without any skepticism at some point is extremely rare. Which is just my opinion of coarse.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The Muslims who protested the 9/11 attacks did so because they abhorred the atrocity of the 9/11 attacks, because believe it or not, they are human. [/quote]
You sure about that? Look what the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think had these Muslim countries and groups had not done this the US would not have gone into those countries to get rid of those extremists. Maybe they were fearful of the most powerful military in the world.
[/quote]
We didn’t go into Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Iran. I don’t think there were many, if any, anti 9/11 protests in those countries. [/quote]
And your point is?
[/quote]
Correct me if I’m wrong but you seemed to be implying that we didn’t invade certain countries because they protested 9/11 to stay on our good side. [/quote]
Varq posted a link that showed all the Muslim countries and organizations that were against the 9/11 attacks. My point was about Muslims being allowed to Lie to the Infidels, so maybe that list of organizations were just lying. Varq, stated only if they were in fear of being killed could they lie. My point was with the World’s most powerful military it is possible that they did fear for their lives and that is why they lied.
My point had nothing to do with me implying that we did not invade any country because they were against. Only an argument.
[/quote]
D, I think you’re taking a very narrow view.
I know that the majority of Catholics strongly condemned the more egregious actions of Sinn Fein during the Troubles, and assume that most Christians abhor the murders of abortion doctors and bombing of abortion clinics, or the wackery of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. I’m sure that they are not secretly sympathizing, and only pretending to abhor these things.
I have spoken to hundreds of Muslims: Saudi, Sudanese, Indonesian, Palestinian, Pakistani… Not one has condoned a single act of violence against innocent people, and all have spoken of the 9/11 attacks as shameful, cowardly, and above all sinful. I have no reason to suspect that these people were all lying to me for fear that I would shoot them or call in an air strike on their mosque unless they did so.
The Quran condemns acts of aggression against civilians, and the great majority of Muslims would never kill anyone, or wish to see any innocent person killed. Including the unborn, I might add.
I suspect that you have never had an honest, serious, face-to-face conversation with Muslims about what they do and don’t believe.
That may very well be, but there’s a flipside to that coin because
this is what the Religion of peace is doing over and over to the
Christians and innocent children in Africa alone…WHY??
