[quote]Oleena wrote:
You know what’s disappointed me the most about you? When I took on the ironcross name for a while and cussed your ass out numerous times,
[/quote]
Holy crap, just a minute. I was right about that?!?!
I called that, I called it first. Was there,like, a coming out, or something, that I missed?
I want my danged cookie.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
No it’s not, why would you go to all that effort for people who are a drain as it is?[/quote]
Effort? Rounding people up and getting rid of them? That’d be a piece of cake. Just use cost-benefit analysis - would the costs of getting rid of society’s dependents cost more than the outlay for federal and state welfare, Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare?
Of course not. That’s easy math.
And all that money freed up to spend on worthwhile projects, like scientific research. Perfectly rational.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Ironic, as Hitler believed he was following the will of the Christian God. [/quote]
Incorrect.
Maybe Anti-biotic/anit-microbrial resistant STD’s will be a supreme source of morality in the not too distant future.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
You know what’s disappointed me the most about you? When I took on the ironcross name for a while and cussed your ass out numerous times,
[/quote]
Holy crap, just a minute. I was right about that?!?!
I called that, I called it first. Was there,like, a coming out, or something, that I missed?
I want my danged cookie. [/quote]
And here it is, very first place I searched:
I will give you credit, Oleena, you owned to it immediately. And I completely missed it.
Oh well, stale cookie is better than no cookie at all, no?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
You know what’s disappointed me the most about you? When I took on the ironcross name for a while and cussed your ass out numerous times,
[/quote]
Holy crap, just a minute. I was right about that?!?!
I called that, I called it first. Was there,like, a coming out, or something, that I missed?
I want my danged cookie. [/quote]
lol. I posted that you were right about it right after you called it! Did you disappear at that exact minute? What flavor do you want?
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
You know what’s disappointed me the most about you? When I took on the ironcross name for a while and cussed your ass out numerous times,
[/quote]
Holy crap, just a minute. I was right about that?!?!
I called that, I called it first. Was there,like, a coming out, or something, that I missed?
I want my danged cookie. [/quote]
lol. I posted that you were right about it right after you called it! Did you disappear at that exact minute? What flavor do you want?
[/quote]
Well, I guess I did just that.
As for my cookie flavor, do you happen to have BadAss? Because that’s what I feel like right now. Oooh yeah.
(^_^)b
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
You know what’s disappointed me the most about you? When I took on the ironcross name for a while and cussed your ass out numerous times,
[/quote]
Holy crap, just a minute. I was right about that?!?!
I called that, I called it first. Was there,like, a coming out, or something, that I missed?
I want my danged cookie. [/quote]
lol. I posted that you were right about it right after you called it! Did you disappear at that exact minute? What flavor do you want?
[/quote]
Well, I guess I did just that.
As for my cookie flavor, do you happen to have BadAss? Because that’s what I feel like right now. Oooh yeah.
(^_^)b
[/quote]
I do happen to have a bunch of extra badass sitting around. It’s too much for one person; feel free to take all you like.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Religions were around from the get go. The difference between us is you see them as extraordinary, I see them as perfectly natural. The reasons why the other religions failed is because they did not work, they had no teeth, they weren’t real. They were a “God of gaps” methodology. You do understand that this faith we believe actually “works” now, in real time, today. It’s not just a bunch of old stories but things that are relevant in the here and now. The Hebrew faith was vastly different from anything that was around back then and vastly different from anything that came before. It went beyond doing a dance and getting some rain, or burning a goat for out of respect. Yes, it had those elements, but it also talked about weird things like relationships, trust, respect for your fellow man. You had an advocate who stood up for the little guy and talked of forgiveness. [/quote]
If you see the Bible that way as a source of good and a guide live your life fine. But that doesn’t speak to how true the events it mentions are. I think I’m pretty well grounded morally even though I’ve only ever stepped into a Church for tourism (Notre Dame, some old Quebec churches) and for an inter-faith wedding (my cousin married a Catholic).
[/quote]
Well, if the guidance is verifiable legit and good then wouldn’t that lend itself also to the validity of some of the supernatural occurrences as well. Would it make sense that a book containing proper life lessons, moral and life guidance be surrounded by pure bullshit? Usually bullshit begets bullshit. I don’t see how this good life guide could also be a book of lies. That makes no sense. Sure you can get lucky sometimes, but it’s a little beyond luck on how much and how intricately sophisticated it is, when it comes to it’s guidance.
I am referring to the miraculous, not the explainable. I am speaking of that which science cannot explain. There is this myth among the atheistic community that if something miraculous happens it would be big news. It isn’t and it hasn’t really been for some time.
I agree. If you have had personal experiences then you can justify your faith. It would be impossible for me to justify it without having a “divine” experience.[/quote]
There is divine intervention of course, and then there is the matter of awakening. Seeing things differently then they appear. Realizing that everything is tied together and everything effect everything else. You know, like 'The Force".
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I am well aware of all these potential criticisms and pitfalls but the fact is, none of them serve to prove he did not write them. Which is the conclusion most scholarly types in the community of faith come to. Hell even Shakespeare’s works are under criticism for not being authentically his. Challenges to authorship is most certainly nothing new. But I do want to address this point on authorship since you harp on it so much.[/quote]
Yes you cannot prove 100% he did not write them. However This shows the probability that he did write them to be slim.
[/quote]
No, it only introduces the possibility he not author. It’s gone back and forth for centuries. People will harp on little nuances and say it’s a smoking gun, but nobody really knows and it’s not really that important. It’s what the gospel of John says that’s important.
[quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
Is an author great before he writes a book? Isn’t it the content of the book that gives the author validity? It’s the work that makes the author, not the other way around. Since the bible is such an old text and people really didn’t give much thought to the questions people ask today, but some of the scriptures have been around for thousands of years. It’s still the best selling book in the history of the world. The stories and words are still relevant and very much in play today. In in literature terms, those are glowing endorsements.[/quote]
Yeah I agree. The problem is people do not see this book a literary fiction. They see it as the word of god. In this case, when you’re saying god wrote this book or it’s divinely inspired authorship matters. If we found out tomorrow Shakespeare didn’t write Hamlet, what would that really change in our day to day life? Nothing.[/quote]
Nothing will change if the Gospel of John was not written by the apostle John or John the elder of one of John’s minions. Like I said that question has been going back and forth for centuries.
Technically speaking the bible isn’t the word of God, its the word of man that carries the word of God. It’s a vehicle for the word of God. God didn’t scribble it out on tablets and hand it to a publisher. A reading of the bible though, does give it the sense that it was written by the same ‘hand’. There is a strange sense of continuity that weaves in and out, up and down through out the books. That’s an odd thing to have with an assembly of 40 different authors over the course of 1500 years.
Imagine a work that was started in 600 AD and it was just finished today. That would be one strange collection.
And make no mistake, despite the Bible’s status as a Holy book, it is very much a piece of literature.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Why accept the Bible’s claims but not the Qu’ran for example?[/quote]
Or Hindu claims?
Or Mayan claims?
Or Ancient Greek claims?
Or Scientology claims?
Or Jain claims?
Or Buddhist claims?
Or Ancient Egyptian claims? (hey those guys liked cats almost as much as I do)
Or Mormon claims?
Accepting the claims people generally accept is an accident of birth compounded by lack of critical thought.[/quote]
If you do a little investigation, you’ll see among the monotheistics their themes over lap and and intersect. Yes I include hindu in that as well, because their “gods” are just manifestations of the same one God. It’s a translation issue that leads to the misconception.
As far as the Mayans and other polytheistic societies, their “gods” were an explanation for natural events, the “god of gaps” theory if you will and hence not real. As cosmology so eloquently posits, it’s impossible to have more than one Necessary Being.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
You know what’s disappointed me the most about you? When I took on the ironcross name for a while and cussed your ass out numerous times,
[/quote]
Holy crap, just a minute. I was right about that?!?!
I called that, I called it first. Was there,like, a coming out, or something, that I missed?
I want my danged cookie. [/quote]
lol. I posted that you were right about it right after you called it! Did you disappear at that exact minute? What flavor do you want?
[/quote]
Well, I guess I did just that.
As for my cookie flavor, do you happen to have BadAss? Because that’s what I feel like right now. Oooh yeah.
(^_^)b
[/quote]
I do happen to have a bunch of extra badass sitting around. It’s too much for one person; feel free to take all you like.[/quote]
Don’t underestimate me, now. 
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Why accept the Bible’s claims but not the Qu’ran for example?[/quote]
Or Hindu claims?
Or Mayan claims?
Or Ancient Greek claims?
Or Scientology claims?
Or Jain claims?
Or Buddhist claims?
Or Ancient Egyptian claims? (hey those guys liked cats almost as much as I do)
Or Mormon claims?
Accepting the claims people generally accept is an accident of birth compounded by lack of critical thought.[/quote]
Are you claiming anyone who believes your statement had an accident at birth or lacks critical thought?[/quote]
I wouldn’t say that. Some people are never presented with the facts and by the time they learn of them, they choose to dismiss them.
Just look at this thread. I presented the proof that gospels were written ~40 years after Jesus’s death by a non-eye witness and Pat flatly denied it even after I provided evidence.
[/quote]
Don’t blame me for your errors. You didn’t say ‘gospels’ you said ‘Bible’, that’s a HUGE difference. I know when the gospels, the epistles, the prophesy, etc. books were written. A proper study bible goes into detail on each and every book. Who it was thought to be written by, conflicting evidence if it exists and what the most likely scenario is. There are people who spend their living doing just that.
Give me a book, I can give you the study of the sources. It’s in the bible 
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Study up on Hitler, tig. Don’t let ignorance shackle you to where you’re marginalized on PWI.
In other words don’t grow up to be a Pitttbullll.[/quote]
“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.”
You can argue that Hitler was secretly an atheist or whatever, but the fact remains, he used the moral code set out in the bible to gain German support in the extermination of Jews. That’s the real problem with rigid moral codes - long after the teacher is dead it becomes far too easy to twist their words to mean whatever you want.
Just look at all the stupid fights over how to interpret the edicts set out in the bible. If morality is objective and naturally picked up by certain parts of our brain (as I think Pat said a few pages back), then there’s no need to make an effort into it. Whatever moral behaviour God wants should follow naturally. Life is dynamic, shouldn’t God be dynamic too? [/quote]
A lot of crazy people say crazy shit. Hitler was an occultist at best. Some crazy people think that they are Jesus. Hitler was not christian or religious in anyway. That’s an absolute fact.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Why accept the Bible’s claims but not the Qu’ran for example?[/quote]
Or Hindu claims?
Or Mayan claims?
Or Ancient Greek claims?
Or Scientology claims?
Or Jain claims?
Or Buddhist claims?
Or Ancient Egyptian claims? (hey those guys liked cats almost as much as I do)
Or Mormon claims?
Accepting the claims people generally accept is an accident of birth compounded by lack of critical thought.[/quote]
If you do a little investigation, you’ll see among the monotheistics their themes over lap and and intersect. Yes I include hindu in that as well, because their “gods” are just manifestations of the same one God. It’s a translation issue that leads to the misconception.
As far as the Mayans and other polytheistic societies, their “gods” were an explanation for natural events, the “god of gaps” theory if you will and hence not real. As cosmology so eloquently posits, it’s impossible to have more than one Necessary Being. [/quote]
Why do you put gods in quotes? Their gods are just as legit as your “God”. Your “God” could be a “God of Gaps” too, you know.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
You know what’s disappointed me the most about you? When I took on the ironcross name for a while and cussed your ass out numerous times,
[/quote]
Holy crap, just a minute. I was right about that?!?!
I called that, I called it first. Was there,like, a coming out, or something, that I missed?
I want my danged cookie. [/quote]
lol. I posted that you were right about it right after you called it! Did you disappear at that exact minute? What flavor do you want?
[/quote]
Well, I guess I did just that.
As for my cookie flavor, do you happen to have BadAss? Because that’s what I feel like right now. Oooh yeah.
(^_^)b
[/quote]
I do happen to have a bunch of extra badass sitting around. It’s too much for one person; feel free to take all you like.[/quote]
Don’t underestimate me, now.
[/quote]
No estimation needed. There’s plenty to go around regardless of the size of your bassass reserves.
[quote]pat wrote:
Well, if the guidance is verifiable legit and good then wouldn’t that lend itself also to the validity of some of the supernatural occurrences as well. Would it make sense that a book containing proper life lessons, moral and life guidance be surrounded by pure bullshit? Usually bullshit begets bullshit. I don’t see how this good life guide could also be a book of lies. That makes no sense. Sure you can get lucky sometimes, but it’s a little beyond luck on how much and how intricately sophisticated it is, when it comes to it’s guidance.[/quote]
No it doesn’t. It just shows the writer(s) were great philosophers for their time. There is bullshit in the Bible, it’s far from all being good. There are stories of incest, rape genocide in the Bible.
The only thing that would prove the supernatural occurrences would be evidence for them.
[quote]pat wrote:
I am referring to the miraculous, not the explainable. I am speaking of that which science cannot explain. There is this myth among the atheistic community that if something miraculous happens it would be big news. It isn’t and it hasn’t really been for some time.
[/quote]
Most atheists would not attribute something to god simply because a scientific explanation doesn’t exist as of today. One could exist in the future as we’ve seen many times before. The most common example which you’ve probably heard: lightening use to be attributed to Zeus. Plus for an atheist one must demonstrate that god is in fact responsible for the event.
[quote]pat wrote:
There is divine intervention of course, and then there is the matter of awakening. Seeing things differently then they appear. Realizing that everything is tied together and everything effect everything else. You know, like 'The Force".[/quote]
If I could see it I would be a believer.
[quote]pat wrote:
No, it only introduces the possibility he not author. It’s gone back and forth for centuries. People will harp on little nuances and say it’s a smoking gun, but nobody really knows and it’s not really that important. It’s what the gospel of John says that’s important.
[/quote]
It’s introduces that in all likelihood he was not the author. The importance of this fact is an individual thing.
[quote]pat wrote:
Nothing will change if the Gospel of John was not written by the apostle John or John the elder of one of John’s minions. Like I said that question has been going back and forth for centuries.
Technically speaking the bible isn’t the word of God, its the word of man that carries the word of God. It’s a vehicle for the word of God. God didn’t scribble it out on tablets and hand it to a publisher. A reading of the bible though, does give it the sense that it was written by the same ‘hand’. There is a strange sense of continuity that weaves in and out, up and down through out the books. That’s an odd thing to have with an assembly of 40 different authors over the course of 1500 years.
Imagine a work that was started in 600 AD and it was just finished today. That would be one strange collection.
And make no mistake, despite the Bible’s status as a Holy book, it is very much a piece of literature.[/quote]
Yes it is a piece of literature.
[quote]pat wrote:
Don’t blame me for your errors. You didn’t say ‘gospels’ you said ‘Bible’, that’s a HUGE difference. I know when the gospels, the epistles, the prophesy, etc. books were written. A proper study bible goes into detail on each and every book. Who it was thought to be written by, conflicting evidence if it exists and what the most likely scenario is. There are people who spend their living doing just that.
Give me a book, I can give you the study of the sources. It’s in the bible :)[/quote]
Okay so you’re not disagreeing with me, it’s just a misunderstanding.
For the moral relativists out there choke on this:
Now to be a moral relativist, you have to spin a scenario where what is happening to these people is not morally wrong.