[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oh wait -you were just being a petulant little brat . . . did you strain your brain with all of that heavy thinking?[/quote]
Cant address my metaphor so you’ve resorted to petty insults? That’s sad.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
I say you do have green scales. They exist on the same plane as your soul. I’ve even got a very old book that says so.
You show me your ancient manuscript identifying my green scales and I will show you your soul . . .[/quote]
You first. I’ll even show you that your nose is actually 32 feet long.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
simpletbrain wrote:
Remember children to play nice or you can be struck down dead by lightining. LOL
was that a threat - do you really have the power to control lightening? ooohh, you must be quite the amazing being . . . can you control the thunder as well? or are you just a big bright flash and then you disappear . . . do you have a special costume, besides that frilly little number you wore last night . . . .
oh wait - you were being sarcastic about some weird version of a deity - the least you could do is actually use an honest critic, but that would require more brain power than it seems you currently possess . . .
silly superstitious human . . . .[/quote]
The irony!!! It BURNS!!!
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Consciousness and the brain aren’t nearly as mysterious as you seem to think. Neuroscience is a pretty advanced field. That said there are still somethings that have not been explained at this time. That is not a good reason to assume those things are the activity of a soul. I say again, there is NO EVIDENCE (out of body experiences have already been explained) that a soul exists. If you want to claim that souls exist, the burden of proof is on you.
Wow, glad we have a bona-fide expert on consciousness and out-of-the-body experiences here . . . care to enlighten the rest of us with your explanations or are you just going to rely on some vague APPEAL TO AUTHORITY? LMAO - what a child . . .
You really don’t understand how that fallacy works do you? Ignoring my point won’t make it go away. The burden of proof is on you. Get some proof or admit you’ve lost.[/quote]
Will ignoring you make you go away?
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Oh wait -you were just being a petulant little brat . . . did you strain your brain with all of that heavy thinking?
Cant address my metaphor so you’ve resorted to petty insults? That’s sad.
[/quote]
. . . saying that you have a book that doesn’t exist is a metaphor? Really . . .
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
I say you do have green scales. They exist on the same plane as your soul. I’ve even got a very old book that says so.
You show me your ancient manuscript identifying my green scales and I will show you your soul . . .
You first. I’ll even show you that your nose is actually 32 feet long. [/quote]
Why would I bother with a liar - you’re entire point was predicated on proving that I have green scales because you have an old book that says I do - which is a lie because you do not have a book that says that - and you expect to be taken for a reasoning adult?
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
simpletbrain wrote:
Remember children to play nice or you can be struck down dead by lightining. LOL
was that a threat - do you really have the power to control lightening? ooohh, you must be quite the amazing being . . . can you control the thunder as well? or are you just a big bright flash and then you disappear . . . do you have a special costume, besides that frilly little number you wore last night . . . .
oh wait - you were being sarcastic about some weird version of a deity - the least you could do is actually use an honest critic, but that would require more brain power than it seems you currently possess . . .
silly superstitious human . . . .
The irony!!! It BURNS!!![/quote]
so that was his power . . .burning juvenile brains . . .interesting . . .
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Consciousness and the brain aren’t nearly as mysterious as you seem to think. Neuroscience is a pretty advanced field. That said there are still somethings that have not been explained at this time. That is not a good reason to assume those things are the activity of a soul. I say again, there is NO EVIDENCE (out of body experiences have already been explained) that a soul exists. If you want to claim that souls exist, the burden of proof is on you.
Wow, glad we have a bona-fide expert on consciousness and out-of-the-body experiences here . . . care to enlighten the rest of us with your explanations or are you just going to rely on some vague APPEAL TO AUTHORITY? LMAO - what a child . . .
You really don’t understand how that fallacy works do you? Ignoring my point won’t make it go away. The burden of proof is on you. Get some proof or admit you’ve lost.[/quote]
I have all the proof I require to accept the existence of a soul . . . if you need more proof to accept it for yourself - do your own homework . . . or not - I couldn’t care less what you choose with your free will . . . .
since you have exercised your free will in denying belief in God - guess that would prove my point . . . or are you simply denying him because of a chemical impulse in your brain that might change next week?
Faith is, at one and the same time, absolutely necessary and altogether impossible.
- Stanislaw Lem
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…it does, thank you. Is there, within you, sometimes conflict between what your conscience says, and what God wants you to do? Because honestly, i find it much easier to follow my conscience onto the narrow path than to adhere to religion. A lot less guilt too…
Interesting questions - conflict between my conscience (now inhabited by the Spirit of God) versus what RELIGIONS tell me to do - absolutely!! Conflict between my conscience and God? nope - not a one . . .[/quote]
…this is an AHA-moment for me Irish, you’ve shown me a layer of religious reasoning i failed to pick up on. Thanks…
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Oh wait -you were just being a petulant little brat . . . did you strain your brain with all of that heavy thinking?
Cant address my metaphor so you’ve resorted to petty insults? That’s sad.
. . . saying that you have a book that doesn’t exist is a metaphor? Really . . . [/quote]
You’ve got an old book that says you have a soul. I’ve got an old book that says you have green scales. Evidence wise, the green scales and the soul are on equal footing. You didn’t pick up on this… really? You’re dumber than I thought.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Well, you’re right that there have been some great scientists who were Christians (and other religions), but come on, you’ve got to admit that (in the past anyhow) there were definitely cases where the church vehemently opposed new scientific ideas/data and did their best to oppress these new ideas which threatened their authority.
You’re absolutely right.
And it worked so well for awhile that secularists/evolutionists now employ the same tactic with great flair and expertise.
[/quote]
Wait, so are you saying that secularists/evolutionists oppose new scientific ideas/data?
Also, notice I said “in the past anyhow”. The church (at least the Vatican) has actually become increasingly open to new scientific ideas since Pope John Paul 11 came into power. I was simply speaking from a historical standpoint, so don’t go getting all hot headed before it’s called for.
Where did I say anything about that? My point was about the corruptibility of human beings and the fact that the church persecuted and oppressed ideas that challenged their authority in the past due to this corruptibility, not that Christianity is inherently corrupt or there isn’t a lot of good to be found in it’s teachings.
There a whole books included/missing depending on what sect you are talking about, there is the Apocrypha, how about the Gnostic texts, what about the Mormon bible? And that’s just what is actually written. There are many conflicting beliefs/doctrines held by different sects as well about what is written.
I agree, but don’t overlook my point that the christian doctrine has changed over the centuries and what was considered “right” at one point in history might be looked upon with disgust and disbelief by others at another point in history.
Again, my point is about perspective and realizing that Christianity’s concept of “right” has changed over the years, and is likely continuing to change.
Did I say anything about my views on that subject? All I said was that killing people because you’re supposedly against killing people is a pretty stupid thing to do. You really need to work on not getting all worked up when someone hasn’t even disagreed with you, it makes you seem much less intelligent than I think you deserve.
ooooookkkkkkkk… so are you really suggesting that the bible hasn’t been rewritten and revised througout it’s history?
Your little insults and name calling don’t bother me, so save them for someone who might be affected by that kind of thing. Any intelligent rebuttals to my points I would be interested in hearing though.
You are correct, the bible doesn’t explicitly state that the earth is flat, but there are numerous references to the people who wrote it’s beliefs that the earth was flat. Which again was my point, the bible may have been inspired by God, but it was written by man, and the men who wrote it would have filtered that inspiration through their already existing beliefs/concepts of the world (and even possibly in some cases to serve their agendas).
My point is simply to take that into consideration and not get so hung up on the exact wording, or taking every single verse literally, or not realizing the cultural and/or metaphorical nature of many of the verses.
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Oh wait -you were just being a petulant little brat . . . did you strain your brain with all of that heavy thinking?
Cant address my metaphor so you’ve resorted to petty insults? That’s sad.
. . . saying that you have a book that doesn’t exist is a metaphor? Really . . .
You’ve got an old book that says you have a soul. I’ve got an old book that says you have green scales. Evidence wise, the green scales and the soul are on equal footing. You didn’t pick up on this… really? You’re dumber than I thought.
[/quote]
Um . … no, you’re just a bigger idiot than your ego can admit to . . . I actually do have an old book that says I have a soul and you don’t have a book that says I have spiritual green scales - so there can be no “equal footing” no matter how clever you thought your little semantic dance was - - it’s adolescent logic at its worst for you to try to form any type of metaphor on a falsehood . . . at least form a metaphor that has some rational basis to it . . . You are as dumb as I thought . . .
[quote]ephrem wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…it does, thank you. Is there, within you, sometimes conflict between what your conscience says, and what God wants you to do? Because honestly, i find it much easier to follow my conscience onto the narrow path than to adhere to religion. A lot less guilt too…
Interesting questions - conflict between my conscience (now inhabited by the Spirit of God) versus what RELIGIONS tell me to do - absolutely!! Conflict between my conscience and God? nope - not a one . . .
…this is an AHA-moment for me Irish, you’ve shown me a layer of religious reasoning i failed to pick up on. Thanks…
[/quote]
if so - it’s just “iron sharpening iron”, bro.
IrishSteel … its obvious you dont have a life. Shouldnt you be somewhere? Thats right, you are here playing with yourself. Well keep having fun, bro. 
By the way, I really enjoy your hostility. Its so outdated.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Well, you’re right that there have been some great scientists who were Christians (and other religions), but come on, you’ve got to admit that (in the past anyhow) there were definitely cases where the church vehemently opposed new scientific ideas/data and did their best to oppress these new ideas which threatened their authority.
For example Galileo was tried by the Roman Inquisition for heresy (a crime punishable by torturous death) for suggesting that the world was round and not the center of the universe. Luckily for him, he repented his ideas and got to live the rest of his life under house arrest (escaping torture). You’ve definitely gotta admit that there was some hardcore repressing of new scientific data going on there.
Like a lot of atrocities that have been committed throughout history it comes down to power and control. Church leaders are not immune to corruption and several times since Jesus’s death the leaders of the church have transformed it into one of the (if not THE) most evil institutions on the planet (the inquisition(s), the crusades, the witch hunts/trials in the states) in the name of power and control.
Now, whether you blame Christianity for this somewhat depends on your definition of Christianity, which is where things get a little tricky. Is Christianity the church (building) itself? No, I don’t think many would say that it is. Is it the people that make up the church? If so, then yes Christianity is to blame. Is it the bible itself? If yes, then which version of the bible (there are numerous sects and inconsistencies between them, which one is “right”), if no then why do people take the actual words written in it so seriously (there is a lot of wisdom, but like has been pointed out, a lot of what is written is culturally based or metaphorical IMO)?
During those times in history Christianity basically meant torturing people to death for following different belief systems. Their bible likely was written in such a way that supported these acts (or at least they placed a lot of emphasis on some of the more barbaric verses in the old testament) and it was considered being a good Christian to engage in such acts (it was mandatory to attend burnings at the stake and decapitations at points in Christian history).
These days I can’t think of a single Christian denomination that would support nor reproduce these horrible acts (though, the people who bomb abortion clinics because they’re against murder are pretty freakin stupid if you ask me).
But that’s kind of the point. Anyone who tells you that the bible (and Christianity) hasn’t been rewritten and revised to reflect the changing culture and beliefs of the time is just plain lying to you/themselves. So why people get so hung up on the exact wordings and phrases I just don’t understand.
The bible may have been inspired by God, but it’s been written through the filter of human hands, which have already proven to be capable of error (like saying that the world is flat) thus bringing the possibility of human fallibility to the rest of the words written therein as well.
wow - talk about your brain dumps . . .there are only a few hundred issues brought up in your post - lol, care to set some of the major ones in some type of order in which you would like them responded to?
BTW, thanks for joining the conversation - i’ve really enjoyed some of the perspectives you added to other threads.[/quote]
LOL. Sure,
-
While it may not still be the case, the church has certainly repressed scientific progress in the past in order to maintain it’s position as the sole authority on the nature of the universe. Though you are right, lots of great scientists have been Christians. In recent years we’ve seen a big movement to embrace science and welcome new ideas coming from the Church though, so definitely a renaissance of sorts in that regard.
-
How do you account for the numerous sects and the inconsistencies between them regarding beliefs and canons? In other words, if the “bible” (I put that in parenthesis because there are several different versions) is the word of God, but you have different versions of it and interpretations of it, how can that be? God would not contradict himself, so it must be a matter of human error, thus calling into question the rest of the fallibility of the remainder of the texts in the bible.
I’m not saying that God did or didn’t inspire the bible (I have my own beliefs on the subject but really am trying to keep them out of the conversation because I don’t want them to color the discussion), just that man actually wrote it and because men are not perfect, I have a hard time accepting that what is written in the bible has not been colored by the writers’ beliefs, cultural environment and (sadly) in some cases agendas.
- What Christianity has considered morally “right” has changed (and I believe continues to change) throughout history. There have been times when truly barbaric acts were thought of as morally acceptable (even doing “God’s work”) and times (like we are in now) when they are seen as morally atrocious and worthy of spending an eternity in hell for.
Rest assured, I’m not gonna take a strong “pro torture/persecution” stance here, but it does bring up the reality that the concept of morally “right” or even “sin” in Christianity isn’t a static entity and continues to change as the culture changes around it. So, when people site thousands of year old verses from a completely different cultural climate to try to justify hatred or accusations of “sin” while at the same time ignoring others they really need to stop and think about what they’re doing.
Those were the main ones, hope that was a little bit less scatter-brained. 
[quote]simpletbrain wrote:
IrishSteel … its obvious you dont have a life. Shouldnt you be somewhere? Thats right, you are here playing with yourself. Well keep having fun, bro.
By the way, I really enjoy your hostility. Its so outdated. [/quote]
No, as a matter of fact I have been able to post a lot today, because I had to cancel my plans to take care of my wife who is down with the flu today . . . I am exactly where I need to be, thanks. And why yes, I am having fun- thanks for your concern for my well-being, very magnanimous of you. . .
Hostility? If you review my posts you will find that I respond to people exactly as they respond to me. If we are having a civil conversation, you will find me very civil. If you want to act like an adolescent brat, I will treat you like an adolescent brat. It is a principle of mine to deal with people by the terms that they set.
So . . scurry back to your modern age and leave me to my auto-erotic asphyxiation and other forms of self-pleasure . . .
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
LOL. Sure,
-
While it may not still be the case, the church has certainly repressed scientific progress in the past in order to maintain it’s position as the sole authority on the nature of the universe. Though you are right, lots of great scientists have been Christians. In recent years we’ve seen a big movement to embrace science and welcome new ideas coming from the Church though, so definitely a renaissance of sorts in that regard.
-
How do you account for the numerous sects and the inconsistencies between them regarding beliefs and canons? In other words, if the “bible” (I put that in parenthesis because there are several different versions) is the word of God, but you have different versions of it and interpretations of it, how can that be? God would not contradict himself, so it must be a matter of human error, thus calling into question the rest of the fallibility of the remainder of the texts in the bible.
I’m not saying that God did or didn’t inspire the bible (I have my own beliefs on the subject but really am trying to keep them out of the conversation because I don’t want them to color the discussion), just that man actually wrote it and because men are not perfect, I have a hard time accepting that what is written in the bible has not been colored by the writers’ beliefs, cultural environment and (sadly) in some cases agendas.
- What Christianity has considered morally “right” has changed (and I believe continues to change) throughout history. There have been times when truly barbaric acts were thought of as morally acceptable (even doing “God’s work”) and times (like we are in now) when they are seen as morally atrocious and worthy of spending an eternity in hell for.
Rest assured, I’m not gonna take a strong “pro torture/persecution” stance here, but it does bring up the reality that the concept of morally “right” or even “sin” in Christianity isn’t a static entity and continues to change as the culture changes around it. So, when people site thousands of year old verses from a completely different cultural climate to try to justify hatred or accusations of “sin” while at the same time ignoring others they really need to stop and think about what they’re doing.
Those were the main ones, hope that was a little bit less scatter-brained. :)[/quote]
-
I will agree with you 100% that religious leaders (representing organized religions) have often acted in self-preservation of wealth and power rather than in the best interest of their members or mankind in general. But I also find that in all organized systems of belief/control - whether classified as religious or not . . .
-
I account for the many sect and divisions because I believe man acts in his own interests and for his own desires more than in the interests of truth and right. (similar to the rational in the first point) If we are speaking more of the text of the Bible itself, we can go there - the integrity of the original manuscripts is very certain except for about 40 words in question - none of which affect doctrine. The problem occurs in man’s interpretation and follows with man’s selfish desires . . .does that make sense?
-
Yes, people continually change what scripture teaches - for a perfect example look at Christians today trying to prove that the Bible does not classify homosexual acts as sin. But this and such acts as the inquisition, etc fall back into the same rationale expressed in points 1 and 2
for me the great comfort is that God will be the judge of what is right and wrong and of the choices we made here in this life and no capricious man with his selfish and evil heart . . .
Not sure if I answered your points - if not, let me know where and we can continue forward.
Thanks for taking the time to write out some excellent questions. You have very valid critiques of the way Christians have behaved.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
LOL. Sure,
-
While it may not still be the case, the church has certainly repressed scientific progress in the past in order to maintain it’s position as the sole authority on the nature of the universe. Though you are right, lots of great scientists have been Christians. In recent years we’ve seen a big movement to embrace science and welcome new ideas coming from the Church though, so definitely a renaissance of sorts in that regard.
-
How do you account for the numerous sects and the inconsistencies between them regarding beliefs and canons? In other words, if the “bible” (I put that in parenthesis because there are several different versions) is the word of God, but you have different versions of it and interpretations of it, how can that be? God would not contradict himself, so it must be a matter of human error, thus calling into question the rest of the fallibility of the remainder of the texts in the bible.
I’m not saying that God did or didn’t inspire the bible (I have my own beliefs on the subject but really am trying to keep them out of the conversation because I don’t want them to color the discussion), just that man actually wrote it and because men are not perfect, I have a hard time accepting that what is written in the bible has not been colored by the writers’ beliefs, cultural environment and (sadly) in some cases agendas.
- What Christianity has considered morally “right” has changed (and I believe continues to change) throughout history. There have been times when truly barbaric acts were thought of as morally acceptable (even doing “God’s work”) and times (like we are in now) when they are seen as morally atrocious and worthy of spending an eternity in hell for.
Rest assured, I’m not gonna take a strong “pro torture/persecution” stance here, but it does bring up the reality that the concept of morally “right” or even “sin” in Christianity isn’t a static entity and continues to change as the culture changes around it. So, when people site thousands of year old verses from a completely different cultural climate to try to justify hatred or accusations of “sin” while at the same time ignoring others they really need to stop and think about what they’re doing.
Those were the main ones, hope that was a little bit less scatter-brained.
- I will agree with you 100% that religious leaders (representing organized religions) have often acted in self-preservation of wealth and power rather than in the best interest of their members or mankind in general. But I also find that in all organized systems of belief/control - whether classified as religious or not . . .
[/quote]
Oh absolutely, I definitely wasn’t trying to make it out to seem like only religious leaders were capable of corruption, just that they aren’t immune to it (and that makes me a little weary of some of is written in the bible, because the leaders of the church had say over what was and was not put into the bible itself). In the end though we can’t ever really know for certain (well at least not until we die) what is and isn’t right or wrong (like you said).
Yes, though I’ve always been a little leery about believing that the texts have remained unaltered throughout their history. I’ve read “The Case for Christ” and, I don’t know, I don’t think Strobel makes all that strong of an argument for the certainty that the texts have not been edited/revised since their original transcription (if you know of more concrete evidence to support that claim please post it, I’d be interested in reading it). That and the fact that the first gospels weren’t actually written down until around 40 years after Jesus’s death. I guess there’s just a lot of room for human error in there IMO.
Homosexuality is a really delicate (no pun intended) subject which is at the core of a lot of animosity these days (from both sides of the issue). I’d rather not go there because like you said below, only God knows for certain whether it is a sin or not and all that I can do is to live my life how I believe is right. Trying to force my beliefs on others doesn’t really do either of us any good.
I will say this though, we all sin according to Jesus, so whether someone believes that homosexuality is a sin or not, one should never think of their sin as being less severe or deserving of more forgiveness that of homosexuality.
[quote]
for me the great comfort is that God will be the judge of what is right and wrong and of the choices we made here in this life and no capricious man with his selfish and evil heart . . .
Not sure if I answered your points - if not, let me know where and we can continue forward.
Thanks for taking the time to write out some excellent questions. You have very valid critiques of the way Christians have behaved.[/quote]
I think you answered my questions (at least the best you could seeing the uncertain nature of a couple of them). It’s just not a subject that is going to be easily resolved any time in the near future.