Misconceptions of Christianity

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
741

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

I have to jump in here. Large parts of the old testement are clearly just made up back story as an attempt to legitimise claims made by the Jewish people, others are borrowed folk stories.

Please tell me for instance in your research where you found evidence of the Jews being in bondage to the Egyptians.[/quote]

clicked a wrong button somewhere . . .

I was typing Professor Bietak’s work at Tell el-Daba

There is also Hoffmeier book, “Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition”

There was another archeologist group that found evidence of a mass burial site corresponding with the dates the last sign (death of the firstborn) at the site mentioned above . . .

not to mention the archeological evidence fonud in the jordan valley for the re-entry of the Jews back into Canaan at the time of the exodus . . .

Dr. Cohen’s work at Kadesh Barnea . . . and at Ein Hatzeva . . .

Sir Petrie’s excavationa at Fayyium . . .

The works of Dr’s Velikovsky and Courville . . . .

The archelogical work of Professor Wood at Kahun . . . .

as well as new evidence coming out of some the tomb excavations in the Saqqara region as well . . .

WHat was your question?

[/quote]

There are all sorts of Hebrew inscriptions from 1500BCE in Egypt. The period of slavery is not in dispute.

Where more serious critics go is attacking the Passover, but there is even the writings of the Egyptian Ipuwer from that period, who lamented “The river is blood. . . plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere.”

The hieroglyphic inscription at a shrine in el-Arish, states that ". . . the land was in great affliction. Evil fell on this earth . . … . hurricanes, darkness . . . there was a great upheaval in the residence [of the pharaoh] . . .nobody could leave the palace during nine days, and during these nine days of upheaval — neither men nor gods [the royal family] . . . and pharaoh who pursued fleeing slaves as far as Pi-ha-hirot, where he was plunged in a “whirlpool.”

In short, the Eqyptians recorded the events of Passover, as well.

742

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
On another note…Just how much of an evolutionary/biological dead end has atheism/secularism turned out to be? Children tend to hold onto the faith of their religious fathers, while the atheist doesn’t seem to be able to breed at replacement rates. Isn’t that something? Are we arguing with a Darwinian dead-end, as bizarre as that may sound? Demographically, the righteous really will inherit the earth. [/quote]

I may be wrong but I think that Christians are probably being outbred by Muslims. So we are all fucked![/quote]

Outbred is one thing. Less than replacement is another.

743

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
<<< Thank you for neatly summing up what I have written over the last 20 pages.[/quote]And thanks to both of you for continuing to misapprehend the doctrines of special and general revelation I have been explaining in various doses, though not by those names, through the entirety of this thread. God has not refused to reveal Himself to anybody. He HAS revealed Himself in every single fact of creation including you. Not even a hundred mile high parting of the pacific ocean live on Real Time with Bill Maher could be more convincing. Similar to, but not exactly the same as how people who have physically died are unable to participate in this world, the spiritually dead are unable to participate in God’s truth. The problem is not with God’s revelation, but with the bondage of unbelief in sinners.

744

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
<<< Organized religion (and I’m talking about all religions) relies on psychological manipulation that borders on emotional abuse. >>>[/quote]Out of curiosity, who do you figure is so manipulating and abusing me?
[/quote]

It’s internal. I PMed ephrem a link to a video series by a psychologist, who is an atheist, who has analogized religious doctrine to a computer virus. He notes that all of the world’s major religions (even Buddhism, he says) have very strict rules about sex. And he’s not talking about the rules that actually hurt someone, such as “don’t rape,” but rules about practices that hurt no one - a victimless crime. He uses masturbation as an example. This act hurts no other person. Yet every religion prohibits it. Why? Because everyone is going to do it at some point in their lives, and if we’re talking about teenage boys, we’re talking about a near-daily activity, sometimes more than once. Sexual tension builds up, the teenage boy (if he is very religious) may try his best not to think “dirty” thoughts, read his Bible, pray, whatever, but eventually something will give and he’ll go rub one out. In his mind he has violated “God’s law” and feels extremely guilty. To assuage his guilt, he goes to church (perhaps to confession if he is Catholic) and asks for forgiveness. He’ll generally get forgiveness, or some form of it, and off he goes. The cycle repeats itself. This guilt cycle, which has been implanted in the brain by priests, is what keeps most people from rejecting religion. It is emotionally abusive because it causes intense feelings of guilt, perhaps even feelings of depression, for no good reason other than to force people to remain with a particular religion.

This is just one method. There are also various hypnotic techniques that preachers use to get people to feel as if the spirit has descended upon them. [/quote]

Rofl.
[/quote]

So you think all the standing up, singing hyms, repeating in monotones, listening to a voice go on and on, insense etc are because that is what God likes?

745

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
<<< Organized religion (and I’m talking about all religions) relies on psychological manipulation that borders on emotional abuse. >>>[/quote]Out of curiosity, who do you figure is so manipulating and abusing me?
[/quote]

It’s internal. I PMed ephrem a link to a video series by a psychologist, who is an atheist, who has analogized religious doctrine to a computer virus. He notes that all of the world’s major religions (even Buddhism, he says) have very strict rules about sex. And he’s not talking about the rules that actually hurt someone, such as “don’t rape,” but rules about practices that hurt no one - a victimless crime. He uses masturbation as an example. This act hurts no other person. Yet every religion prohibits it. Why? Because everyone is going to do it at some point in their lives, and if we’re talking about teenage boys, we’re talking about a near-daily activity, sometimes more than once. Sexual tension builds up, the teenage boy (if he is very religious) may try his best not to think “dirty” thoughts, read his Bible, pray, whatever, but eventually something will give and he’ll go rub one out. In his mind he has violated “God’s law” and feels extremely guilty. To assuage his guilt, he goes to church (perhaps to confession if he is Catholic) and asks for forgiveness. He’ll generally get forgiveness, or some form of it, and off he goes. The cycle repeats itself. This guilt cycle, which has been implanted in the brain by priests, is what keeps most people from rejecting religion. It is emotionally abusive because it causes intense feelings of guilt, perhaps even feelings of depression, for no good reason other than to force people to remain with a particular religion.

This is just one method. There are also various hypnotic techniques that preachers use to get people to feel as if the spirit has descended upon them. [/quote]

I’m sorry but this is a crock of shit. So there is a conspiracy of preachers to get people to feel as if the spirit has descended upon them?

So we just came up with discernment, and understanding when the spirit is actually with you and when it is just feelings, because we are trying to trick people? Interesting.

And what is that purpose? So they can have more people sit in church on Sunday? So they can have more socials? So people will pray more decades, light more candles, or be more devout? Join an Order? Give more to Charity? Join a Fraternity?[/quote]

That is why the con is so powerful. Even the priests probably have no idea. They just follow the rules that were set down for them. The religion actually evolved over time to be more effective using natural selection. Isn’t that an irony?

746

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I gotta tell ya man. I wrote a post a long long time ago about escalating societal promiscuity, the breakdown of the family and the central role that has and is playing in the demise of this nation.[/quote]

It is the cornerstone, isn’t it? So much so that I can barely tolerate anti-nanny state talk, anymore. I just roll my eyes and sigh.

[quote] You were the only one that responded with simply “good post”. I don’t know if you remember. I’ll say again. Whatever else we may disagree on (which I’m thinking is quite a bit), my hat is off to you for your insight in this all important area. I’ve seen some of your posts lately and you are one of the very few people I have ever met who has the clear thinking view here that you do. I am being deadly serious.
[/quote]

Yeah, I didn’t have much to add at the time, because you hit it out of the park. As to where we disagree…now that you’ve said something, I’m not sure. I mean, I’m sure there are issues we’d part ways on, but I just can’t recall any such disagreements.

However, now I’m intrigued with your aside, “which I’m thinking is quite a bit.” Wondering what impressions, on what topics, has led you to believe so.[/quote]
We’ll leave our disagreements for later if you don’t mind and I’m somewhat gratified you remember that post. I put a lot of work into it actually. Consider these observations by de Tocqueville in the 1830’s as you know:

[i]<<< "Again, it may be said that in our morals we have reserved strange immunities to man, so that there is, as it were, one virtue for his use and another for the guidance of his partner, and that, according to the opinion of the public, the very same act may be punished alternately as a crime or only as a fault.

The Americans do not know this iniquitous division of duties and rights; among them the seducer is as much dishonored as his victim. <<<>>> their conduct to women always implies that they suppose them to be virtuous and refined; and such is the respect entertained for the moral freedom of the sex that in the presence of a woman the most guarded language is used lest her ear should be offended by an expression.

In America a young unmarried woman may alone and without fear undertake a long journey. <<<>>> the Americans can conceive nothing more precious than a woman’s honor<<< >>> As for myself, I do not hesitate to avow that although the women of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is in some respects one of extreme dependence,

I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked, now that I am drawing to the close of this work, in which I have spoken of so many important things done by the Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply: To the superiority of their women."[/i]

He was merely observing. THAT is the moral foundation this country was built on and it came from Christianity and laid the bedrock for everything else. It bred faithfulness, self sacrifice, self control and just plain moral decency into the very fabric of this nation. THAT is also what we surrendered in the 60’s and THAT is the disease of which all else is merely symptomatic.

Are you kidding me? Men assuming women are virtuous and refined and considering nothing more precious than her honor? Guarding their language lest they offend her? A long journey!!! HAR DEE HAR HAR!!! Today women AND CHILDREN can barely leave their house unarmed for fear some degenerate may brutalize them and throw them in a river somewhere.

How far we have fallen while we fund monstrously expensive and useless studies and programs trying to figure out where we went wrong. This country is now an unbridled whorehouse that de Tocqueville would not even recognize as that shining beacon in the world we once were due to the superiority of our women resulting from the towering virtuous respect with which they were treated.

We are rotting from the inside out and nothing but a revival of the grace of God on this nation will make a speck of difference.[/quote]

Minor detail but all violent crime as well as violent crime against women is at a far lower level in the US than it was when he wrote that. You should try looking at the facts not the flowery language (but I could say the same about your Bible knowledge) :wink:

747

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
<<< Organized religion (and I’m talking about all religions) relies on psychological manipulation that borders on emotional abuse. >>>[/quote]Out of curiosity, who do you figure is so manipulating and abusing me?
[/quote]

It’s internal. I PMed ephrem a link to a video series by a psychologist, who is an atheist, who has analogized religious doctrine to a computer virus. He notes that all of the world’s major religions (even Buddhism, he says) have very strict rules about sex. And he’s not talking about the rules that actually hurt someone, such as “don’t rape,” but rules about practices that hurt no one - a victimless crime. He uses masturbation as an example. This act hurts no other person. Yet every religion prohibits it. Why? Because everyone is going to do it at some point in their lives, and if we’re talking about teenage boys, we’re talking about a near-daily activity, sometimes more than once. Sexual tension builds up, the teenage boy (if he is very religious) may try his best not to think “dirty” thoughts, read his Bible, pray, whatever, but eventually something will give and he’ll go rub one out. In his mind he has violated “God’s law” and feels extremely guilty. To assuage his guilt, he goes to church (perhaps to confession if he is Catholic) and asks for forgiveness. He’ll generally get forgiveness, or some form of it, and off he goes. The cycle repeats itself. This guilt cycle, which has been implanted in the brain by priests, is what keeps most people from rejecting religion. It is emotionally abusive because it causes intense feelings of guilt, perhaps even feelings of depression, for no good reason other than to force people to remain with a particular religion.

This is just one method. There are also various hypnotic techniques that preachers use to get people to feel as if the spirit has descended upon them. [/quote]

Rofl.
[/quote]

So you think all the standing up, singing hyms, repeating in monotones, listening to a voice go on and on, insense etc are because that is what God likes?[/quote]

Why, you don’t? Oh, wait, you’re an atheist. But then, what’s it to you? Is this the part where the self-professed godless lets us know what God must like?

748

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
<<< And most atheists remember the time that they believed in God.[/quote]
No they can’t. Atheism is the ultimate self delusion. In Romans 1, which I’ve quoted already a couple times, Paul tells me:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things

There remains in sinful men (and women, in case that isn’t clear) as well as creation at large universal testimony to the God-hood of God. They are contemporaneously everywhere confronted with it and unable to embrace it and yes that is completely just of God. There is no such thing as an atheist and all their protestations to the contrary serve only as the latest in a very long train of testimony to God’s truth. It is non disprovable and therefor not science as I have never claimed it was. In fact it probably is tautological from the standpoint of unbelief.[/quote]

I know I am arguing like a 4 year old but…yes they do.[/quote]
LOL! Sorry man. Didn’t see this before. You will no doubt be unsurprised to learn that I do not concede your point =] [/quote]

I take it your argument is that if they really believed they never would have moved away from God and therefore they were never a true believer. Or have I missed the point?[/quote]The point is ALL human beings know God is there because they still bear, warped though it is through sin, His image. Whether they ever attain saving faith or not, enough of Him is revealed in and around them so as to render their claim of atheism a falsehood and their chuckling proclamations to the contrary merely highlight the point. Please reread the above you quoted from me in this light.
[/quote]

Turn it on its head, all Christians deep down know and fear that Christianity is bullshit, they just supress those feelings.

749

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
<<< Organized religion (and I’m talking about all religions) relies on psychological manipulation that borders on emotional abuse. >>>[/quote]Out of curiosity, who do you figure is so manipulating and abusing me?
[/quote]

It’s internal. I PMed ephrem a link to a video series by a psychologist, who is an atheist, who has analogized religious doctrine to a computer virus. He notes that all of the world’s major religions (even Buddhism, he says) have very strict rules about sex. And he’s not talking about the rules that actually hurt someone, such as “don’t rape,” but rules about practices that hurt no one - a victimless crime. He uses masturbation as an example. This act hurts no other person. Yet every religion prohibits it. Why? Because everyone is going to do it at some point in their lives, and if we’re talking about teenage boys, we’re talking about a near-daily activity, sometimes more than once. Sexual tension builds up, the teenage boy (if he is very religious) may try his best not to think “dirty” thoughts, read his Bible, pray, whatever, but eventually something will give and he’ll go rub one out. In his mind he has violated “God’s law” and feels extremely guilty. To assuage his guilt, he goes to church (perhaps to confession if he is Catholic) and asks for forgiveness. He’ll generally get forgiveness, or some form of it, and off he goes. The cycle repeats itself. This guilt cycle, which has been implanted in the brain by priests, is what keeps most people from rejecting religion. It is emotionally abusive because it causes intense feelings of guilt, perhaps even feelings of depression, for no good reason other than to force people to remain with a particular religion.

This is just one method. There are also various hypnotic techniques that preachers use to get people to feel as if the spirit has descended upon them. [/quote]

Rofl.
[/quote]

So you think all the standing up, singing hymns, repeating in monotones, listening to a voice go on and on, incense etc are because that is what God likes?[/quote]

Why, you don’t? Oh, wait, you’re an atheist. But then, what’s it to you? Is this the part where the self-professed godless lets us know what God must like? [/quote]

Nope, not at all. In fact there is a really good Monty Python sketch where they parody Hymns that points out how totally ridiculous the words to hymns are. Does God really want that level of fawning and cringing?

It is a strange coincidence that most of the common practices in all religions are designed to put you in a trance like malleable state, no? And again, I am not claiming that people deliberately came up with these to control people. It happened by evolution.

750

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
<<< Organized religion (and I’m talking about all religions) relies on psychological manipulation that borders on emotional abuse. >>>[/quote]Out of curiosity, who do you figure is so manipulating and abusing me?
[/quote]

It’s internal. I PMed ephrem a link to a video series by a psychologist, who is an atheist, who has analogized religious doctrine to a computer virus. He notes that all of the world’s major religions (even Buddhism, he says) have very strict rules about sex. And he’s not talking about the rules that actually hurt someone, such as “don’t rape,” but rules about practices that hurt no one - a victimless crime. He uses masturbation as an example. This act hurts no other person. Yet every religion prohibits it. Why? Because everyone is going to do it at some point in their lives, and if we’re talking about teenage boys, we’re talking about a near-daily activity, sometimes more than once. Sexual tension builds up, the teenage boy (if he is very religious) may try his best not to think “dirty” thoughts, read his Bible, pray, whatever, but eventually something will give and he’ll go rub one out. In his mind he has violated “God’s law” and feels extremely guilty. To assuage his guilt, he goes to church (perhaps to confession if he is Catholic) and asks for forgiveness. He’ll generally get forgiveness, or some form of it, and off he goes. The cycle repeats itself. This guilt cycle, which has been implanted in the brain by priests, is what keeps most people from rejecting religion. It is emotionally abusive because it causes intense feelings of guilt, perhaps even feelings of depression, for no good reason other than to force people to remain with a particular religion.

This is just one method. There are also various hypnotic techniques that preachers use to get people to feel as if the spirit has descended upon them. [/quote]

Rofl.
[/quote]

So you think all the standing up, singing hymns, repeating in monotones, listening to a voice go on and on, incense etc are because that is what God likes?[/quote]

Why, you don’t? Oh, wait, you’re an atheist. But then, what’s it to you? Is this the part where the self-professed godless lets us know what God must like? [/quote]

Nope, not at all. In fact there is a really good Monty Python sketch where they parody Hymns that points out how totally ridiculous the words to hymns are. Does God really want that level of fawning and cringing?

It is a strange coincidence that most of the common practices in all religions are designed to put you in a trance like malleable state, no? And again, I am not claiming that people deliberately came up with these to control people. It happened by evolution.[/quote]

Cockney is right. One of the reasons I call myself an agnostic is that I am in a limbo state between thinking that there is no God or there might be a Deistic type entity that set the universe in motion. (I’ll say this again that the majority of atheists don’t say that they are 100% certain there is no God, only that there is no good evidence that supports a belief in one. There is a difference.) So yes, I have done some thinking about what this Deistic entity might be like. This entity would be pure logic and reason - it would have to be in order to create something like the universe. I don’t think such an entity would care about the lives of humans (or any other life in the universe, for that matter), but even if this entity did watch over the earth, it would not require prayer, or singing, or any of that other nonsense associate with religion. Religion is a human creation. Period.

What gives me the right to ponder the nature of a Deity? Same right that priests, bishops, Popes, rabbis, saints, the people who wrote the Bible, or any other religious figure either living or dead had at trying to explain the nature of God.

751

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
<<< Organized religion (and I’m talking about all religions) relies on psychological manipulation that borders on emotional abuse. >>>[/quote]Out of curiosity, who do you figure is so manipulating and abusing me?
[/quote]

It’s internal. I PMed ephrem a link to a video series by a psychologist, who is an atheist, who has analogized religious doctrine to a computer virus. He notes that all of the world’s major religions (even Buddhism, he says) have very strict rules about sex. And he’s not talking about the rules that actually hurt someone, such as “don’t rape,” but rules about practices that hurt no one - a victimless crime. He uses masturbation as an example. This act hurts no other person. Yet every religion prohibits it. Why? Because everyone is going to do it at some point in their lives, and if we’re talking about teenage boys, we’re talking about a near-daily activity, sometimes more than once. Sexual tension builds up, the teenage boy (if he is very religious) may try his best not to think “dirty” thoughts, read his Bible, pray, whatever, but eventually something will give and he’ll go rub one out. In his mind he has violated “God’s law” and feels extremely guilty. To assuage his guilt, he goes to church (perhaps to confession if he is Catholic) and asks for forgiveness. He’ll generally get forgiveness, or some form of it, and off he goes. The cycle repeats itself. This guilt cycle, which has been implanted in the brain by priests, is what keeps most people from rejecting religion. It is emotionally abusive because it causes intense feelings of guilt, perhaps even feelings of depression, for no good reason other than to force people to remain with a particular religion.

This is just one method. There are also various hypnotic techniques that preachers use to get people to feel as if the spirit has descended upon them. [/quote]

Rofl.
[/quote]

So you think all the standing up, singing hymns, repeating in monotones, listening to a voice go on and on, incense etc are because that is what God likes?[/quote]

Why, you don’t? Oh, wait, you’re an atheist. But then, what’s it to you? Is this the part where the self-professed godless lets us know what God must like? [/quote]

Nope, not at all. In fact there is a really good Monty Python sketch where they parody Hymns that points out how totally ridiculous the words to hymns are. Does God really want that level of fawning and cringing?

It is a strange coincidence that most of the common practices in all religions are designed to put you in a trance like malleable state, no? And again, I am not claiming that people deliberately came up with these to control people. It happened by evolution.[/quote]

Natural selection you say? Well, I guess we’re the best adapted for orderly propagation. You guys better get busy making babies. Oh, but just make sure to do it in intact homes. The social consequences and all, you know? You’re just not birthing enough native labor to prop up the social welfare system needed to satisfy the gray and barren citizen. Of course, those heavily secular nations you guys favor could just keep importing those fertile religious folk to replace themselves with. ;p

752

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…what does that mean, “seen”? Before you can start to “see” you need to believe, right?
[/quote]

Um, no. If you know that Jesus is Truth and you see Jesus’ works and you say it’s not Jesus.

Example, if I see a miracle, or I see grace working, and I say that it’s the Devil working or it is just chemicals or something like that when I know better. That is Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost.[/quote]

…just to get this clear: only a person like you, who is a devout catholic, could blaspheme against the holy ghost because you believe it’s all true and have seen Jesus’ works?
[/quote]

Nope, a self-proclaimed atheist can do it. Knowledge transcends establishments.

The Jewish Pharisees did it.

753

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
<<< Organized religion (and I’m talking about all religions) relies on psychological manipulation that borders on emotional abuse. >>>[/quote]Out of curiosity, who do you figure is so manipulating and abusing me?
[/quote]

It’s internal. I PMed ephrem a link to a video series by a psychologist, who is an atheist, who has analogized religious doctrine to a computer virus. He notes that all of the world’s major religions (even Buddhism, he says) have very strict rules about sex. And he’s not talking about the rules that actually hurt someone, such as “don’t rape,” but rules about practices that hurt no one - a victimless crime. He uses masturbation as an example. This act hurts no other person. Yet every religion prohibits it. Why? Because everyone is going to do it at some point in their lives, and if we’re talking about teenage boys, we’re talking about a near-daily activity, sometimes more than once. Sexual tension builds up, the teenage boy (if he is very religious) may try his best not to think “dirty” thoughts, read his Bible, pray, whatever, but eventually something will give and he’ll go rub one out. In his mind he has violated “God’s law” and feels extremely guilty. To assuage his guilt, he goes to church (perhaps to confession if he is Catholic) and asks for forgiveness. He’ll generally get forgiveness, or some form of it, and off he goes. The cycle repeats itself. This guilt cycle, which has been implanted in the brain by priests, is what keeps most people from rejecting religion. It is emotionally abusive because it causes intense feelings of guilt, perhaps even feelings of depression, for no good reason other than to force people to remain with a particular religion.

This is just one method. There are also various hypnotic techniques that preachers use to get people to feel as if the spirit has descended upon them. [/quote]

Rofl.
[/quote]

So you think all the standing up, singing hymns, repeating in monotones, listening to a voice go on and on, incense etc are because that is what God likes?[/quote]

Why, you don’t? Oh, wait, you’re an atheist. But then, what’s it to you? Is this the part where the self-professed godless lets us know what God must like? [/quote]

Nope, not at all. In fact there is a really good Monty Python sketch where they parody Hymns that points out how totally ridiculous the words to hymns are. Does God really want that level of fawning and cringing?

It is a strange coincidence that most of the common practices in all religions are designed to put you in a trance like malleable state, no? And again, I am not claiming that people deliberately came up with these to control people. It happened by evolution.[/quote]

Cockney is right. One of the reasons I call myself an agnostic is that I am in a limbo state between thinking that there is no God or there might be a Deistic type entity that set the universe in motion. (I’ll say this again that the majority of atheists don’t say that they are 100% certain there is no God, only that there is no good evidence that supports a belief in one. There is a difference.) So yes, I have done some thinking about what this Deistic entity might be like. This entity would be pure logic and reason - it would have to be in order to create something like the universe. I don’t think such an entity would care about the lives of humans (or any other life in the universe, for that matter), but even if this entity did watch over the earth, it would not require prayer, or singing, or any of that other nonsense associate with religion. Religion is a human creation. Period.

What gives me the right to ponder the nature of a Deity? Same right that priests, bishops, Popes, rabbis, saints, the people who wrote the Bible, or any other religious figure either living or dead had at trying to explain the nature of God.
[/quote]

Then you must damn your Deity more than mine.

754

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Why? All kinds of reasons, I am sure none that will be convincing to you.

  • Support, really.[/quote]

No disagreement here. As I mentioned, the legal system takes care of this to some extent. But I completely agree that if a guy knock a girl up he needs to man up and support the child of his own free will without the need for child support enforcement.
[/quote]

You have to understand that I live in area with high populations of Catholics, so I am mostly talking about inside the community of Catholics. If a girl known as someone who sleeps around with people before married, big no-no. It usually happens that if she does sleep with someone, her parents and his parents get together and in a few months they are married. Otherwise the girl goes to a monastery to become a nun. Yes, this is much different than most people are used to, but some places once you’ve had sex with a man other men won’t even think about marrying you.

Well, if they were married in the Catholic Church, hate to break it to your parents but they can never get divorced. Divorced is not an option, not just that it is an option but you can’t choose it, but not an option like it does not exist.

Yes, I understand but with children there are certain thing that need to happen and be seen, or things get screwy. I know, my parents never married in the first place. I seem level headed and intelligent even though my life wasn’t the best, and maybe I would be worse off if I was “normal” but I doubt it.

Yes, that is true but you can’t deny the mentality monkey see, monkey do. I see these things everyday, does not mean I do them.

Well, parenting is a complicated process. However, St. Benedictine in his Rule explained it pretty good. However, Job did a decent job as well.

This is mainly a Catholic thing. I don’t know of any other major religion that prohibits birth control. And I think even among Catholics something like 90% ignore the rule and use birth control, so this entree is not that popular at the Catholic cafeteria.
[/quote]

Yeah, I am not a cafeteria Catholic. And up until the 1930’s Protestants believed a lot of what the Church taught on birth control.

755

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Then you must damn your Deity more than mine. [/quote]

Why do you say that? My concept of a Deity that might possibly exist (and I’m saying one way or the other) doesn’t pretend to love humans yet makes all 6 billion of them live in some form of suffering because of something that two people did on the advice of a talking snake. Oh, I don’t damn your Deity - I just don’t believe your Deity exists.

756

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
<<< a long post >>>
[/quote]I (and others) have addressed all this already elsewhere in this thread. If you are interested in Christian views please peruse. If not then why are you here? Not that I’m sorry in the slightest that you are, but I’m curious. I have to say again that it’s been like a couple decades since I’ve heard a new argument against the Christian faith. They’re all the same argument in different packages anyway.
[/quote]

You’re right, I don’t get what a person in the modern world would still believe in any of the Abrahamic religions. I could see how a person could be a Deist. For a while I had somewhat of a Deistic belief based mainly on the cosmological argument that the universe required some sort of prime mover. But I never understood the Jesus story. If God wanted to forgive humans, why not just do so? Why the need for what was essentially a human sacrifice of his son no less? I could also see how the Abrahamic religions fulfilled a need to impose law, order, and a sense of morality during the Bronze Age and into the Middle Ages. But why these beliefs survive into the 21st century is a mystery.[/quote]

Because the Jesus story is a made up story taken from a collection of stories and was designed to ‘fulfill’ various conflicting prophesies.[/quote]

I’m sure you know how arguments go, you have to premises AND conclusions with evidence to back up your premises.

757

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I’ll say this again that the majority of atheists don’t say that they are 100% certain there is no God, only that there is no good evidence that supports a belief in one. There is a difference.
[/quote]

Then they are not atheists. Atheists are persons who deny the existence deities.

758

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Then you must damn your Deity more than mine. [/quote]

Why do you say that? My concept of a Deity that might possibly exist (and I’m saying one way or the other) doesn’t pretend to love humans yet makes all 6 billion of them live in some form of suffering because of something that two people did on the advice of a talking snake. Oh, I don’t damn your Deity - I just don’t believe your Deity exists.[/quote]

Because your concept of a Deity is completely indifferent to his creation. So while you might hate mine for asking for obedience to his law and what he judges right, in the end an offer of salvation is still present.

For your idea of a Deity, he doesn’t care. Rape could please your Deity no less or no more than loving thy neighbor. That’s fine if you hate mine (as a concept), but your concept is far worse.

759

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I gotta tell ya man. I wrote a post a long long time ago about escalating societal promiscuity, the breakdown of the family and the central role that has and is playing in the demise of this nation.[/quote]

It is the cornerstone, isn’t it? So much so that I can barely tolerate anti-nanny state talk, anymore. I just roll my eyes and sigh.

[quote] You were the only one that responded with simply “good post”. I don’t know if you remember. I’ll say again. Whatever else we may disagree on (which I’m thinking is quite a bit), my hat is off to you for your insight in this all important area. I’ve seen some of your posts lately and you are one of the very few people I have ever met who has the clear thinking view here that you do. I am being deadly serious.
[/quote]

Yeah, I didn’t have much to add at the time, because you hit it out of the park. As to where we disagree…now that you’ve said something, I’m not sure. I mean, I’m sure there are issues we’d part ways on, but I just can’t recall any such disagreements.

However, now I’m intrigued with your aside, “which I’m thinking is quite a bit.” Wondering what impressions, on what topics, has led you to believe so.[/quote]
We’ll leave our disagreements for later if you don’t mind and I’m somewhat gratified you remember that post. I put a lot of work into it actually. Consider these observations by de Tocqueville in the 1830’s as you know:

[i]<<< "Again, it may be said that in our morals we have reserved strange immunities to man, so that there is, as it were, one virtue for his use and another for the guidance of his partner, and that, according to the opinion of the public, the very same act may be punished alternately as a crime or only as a fault.

The Americans do not know this iniquitous division of duties and rights; among them the seducer is as much dishonored as his victim. <<<>>> their conduct to women always implies that they suppose them to be virtuous and refined; and such is the respect entertained for the moral freedom of the sex that in the presence of a woman the most guarded language is used lest her ear should be offended by an expression.

In America a young unmarried woman may alone and without fear undertake a long journey. <<<>>> the Americans can conceive nothing more precious than a woman’s honor<<< >>> As for myself, I do not hesitate to avow that although the women of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is in some respects one of extreme dependence,

I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked, now that I am drawing to the close of this work, in which I have spoken of so many important things done by the Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply: To the superiority of their women."[/i]

He was merely observing. THAT is the moral foundation this country was built on and it came from Christianity and laid the bedrock for everything else. It bred faithfulness, self sacrifice, self control and just plain moral decency into the very fabric of this nation. THAT is also what we surrendered in the 60’s and THAT is the disease of which all else is merely symptomatic.

Are you kidding me? Men assuming women are virtuous and refined and considering nothing more precious than her honor? Guarding their language lest they offend her? A long journey!!! HAR DEE HAR HAR!!! Today women AND CHILDREN can barely leave their house unarmed for fear some degenerate may brutalize them and throw them in a river somewhere.

How far we have fallen while we fund monstrously expensive and useless studies and programs trying to figure out where we went wrong. This country is now an unbridled whorehouse that de Tocqueville would not even recognize as that shining beacon in the world we once were due to the superiority of our women resulting from the towering virtuous respect with which they were treated.

We are rotting from the inside out and nothing but a revival of the grace of God on this nation will make a speck of difference.[/quote]Minor detail but all violent crime as well as violent crime against women is at a far lower level in the US than it was when he wrote that. You should try looking at the facts not the flowery language (but I could say the same about your Bible knowledge) ;-)[/quote]
I’ve come to expect nothing less from you than some sort of source for an assertion like this? Since there were no hard stats at that time and a man like De Tocqueville, who’s professional mission was observing just those types of things was in a position to have unusually reliable observations. Crime was only a relatively small part of my point anyway and you’ll forgive me if I’m not readily humbled by your estimation of my bible knowledge.

760

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

LMAO!!!

“The Firmament is the usual English translation of the Hebrew “raqiya`” (pronounced /raki’ja/ in English) meaning an extended solid surface or dome, considered to be a hemisphere above the ground[1] in many Near Eastern cosmologies.”

So wait, you’re suggesting that all the planets were originally just water? And the “firmament” is just the space between the planets? What about stars and stuff?[/quote]

really - that’s all you have? more weak english translation-based examples?

Once again, your “definition” is not based on Hebrew, but on English translations. The “usual” translation is not substantive proof of anything except that translators differ in their opinions of how the word is to be translated. The example you quote is merely that - the word “raqia” has one meaning expanse - which is usually applied to describe an extended visible surface - but the quality of being an extended visible surface is not demanded by the text - thus the rule is that the base definition applies since nothing contextually demands the use of an alternate descriptive. Thus, the expanse of the universe, not a dome.

“Expanse” can be used in two ways - the width (expanse as a visible surface - ie, the ocean surface) or the depth (expanse as totality - ie the whole ocean inclusive of depth). Neither one negates the properties of the other. Just because something has a visible surface, this does not negate the quality of depth or rank, and just because something has depth, this does not negate the quality of surface.

All you are accomplishing is demonstrating your own ignorance and inability to see beyond the tortured abuse of a text.

Water? really . . . that’s the best you have? Water, fluid, liquid - whatever version of liquid substance you would like to use - go ahead . . . The word is even used for semen - you know - creative liquid? Stars? Have you not read the chapter? Those are created as well . . . The point is that your demand - that the text read God made a dome and put water on one side and water on another side and hung the sun and moon on that dome - is not textually or doctrinally accurate.

You want it to read that specific way so that you have something to criticize. I have shown that a reading of the original does not support your tortured translation, thus removing the validity of your argument. Your argument rest entireley on a single choice of translation - one not supported by the text, not demanded by the text and even when used within the text does not demand the result you are trying to force upon it . . .

give it up and stop trying to use other people’s words to prove your point. As I said originally, you’re just a parrot . . . and you’re out of your league . . .[/quote]

LMAO!!

(Have you figured out yet that being an ass by starting posts with LMAO!! and making pompous statements like “you’re out of your league” just make you…well, and ass?)

(Shh. Its ironic when I do it.)

Anyway, ok, so why has this divide never been observed?

By the way, your interpretation of the scripture basically has it stating simple facts: there is space, in this space there are planets and stars. This still does not prove that the books explanation of the origin or intent of these things is true.

However, I will say that you have explained this in a way that it makes sense -as an observation of the universe- so I will take my hat off to you there. Good show, sir.

LMAO!!