Why Doesn't God Communicate With Us Anymore?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
401

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
How long have your been under the New Testament?[/quote]

Since Christ’s crucifixion. [/quote]

Which is disputed, hence the ever lasting doubt as to the doctrine of Jesus. Had he indeed been crucified and resurrected and a reputable record of that occurred, I hardly think such doubt would exist.

I can’t think of one modern event that actually occurred where my entire State of NJ would deny it in fact happened. But I can think of plenty of false claims that make Star Magazine and such.

How do you explain the Jews denial of your savior - and they were alleged witnesses to his “miracles” and such?[/quote]

Jesus met all the OT prophecies of the coming Messiah. However, The Jews rejected Jesus because He failed, in their eyes, to do what they expected their Messiah to doâ??destroy evil and all their enemies and establish an eternal kingdom with Israel as the preeminent nation in the world. The prophecies in Isaiah and Psalm 22 described a suffering Messiah who would be persecuted and killed, but they chose to focus instead on those prophecies that discussed His glorious victories, not His crucifixion.

The commentaries in the Talmud, written before the onset of Christianity, clearly discuss the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and puzzle over how these would be fulfilled with the glorious setting up of the Kingdom of the Messiah. After the Church used these prophecies to prove the claims of Christ, the Jews took the position that the prophecies did not refer to the Messiah, but to Israel or some other person.

The Jews believed that the Messiah, the prophet which Moses spoke about, would come and deliver them from Roman bondage and set up a kingdom where they would be the rulers. Two of the disciples, James and John, even asked to sit at Jesus’ right and left in His Kingdom when He came into His glory. The people of Jerusalem also thought He would deliver them. They shouted praises to God for the mighty works they had seen Jesus do, and called out “Hosanna, save us” when he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21:9). They treated Him like a conquering king. Then when He allowed Himself to be arrested, tried and crucified on a cursed cross, the people stopped believing that He was the promised prophet. They rejected their Messiah (Matthew 27:22).

Note that Paul tells the Church that the spiritual blindness of Israel is a “mystery” that had not previously been revealed (Romans chapters 9-11). For thousands of years Israel had been the one nation that looked to God while the Gentile nations generally rejected the light and chose to live in spiritual darkness. Israel and her inspired prophets revealed monotheismâ??one God who was personally interested in mankind’s destiny of heaven or hell, the path to salvation, the written Word with the Ten Commandments. Yet Israel rejected her prophesied Messiah, and the promises of the kingdom of heaven were postponed. A veil of spiritual blindness fell upon the eyes of the Jews who previously were the most spiritually discerning people. As Paul explained, this hardening in part of Israel led to the blessing of the Gentiles who would believe in Jesus and accept Him as Lord and Savior.

How are the Scriptures not a reputable record since we have over 24’000 manuscripts with a 98% purity? No other historical document has that and yet we accept them. WHy not the Bible? Especially when the NT was written from eye witness accounts?

402

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
WOW! You do realize that many of science’s “theories” are also unprovable? We can provide PROOF. But that proof will not PROVE anything. There will always be loopholes and “what ifs”.[/quote]

You do realize that all of science’s “theories” are based on existing evidence, right?[/quote]

Evidence is subjective.

For something to be a theory, or beyond, it must be observable and testable. If not, it will always remain a guess based on one’s presuppositions. [/quote]

Are the claims of Christianity observable and testable?[/quote]

No.

But why are you willing to accept other historical events with less evidence and less certainty, while also accepting scientific theories that are also uncertain and based on subjective evaluation?

403

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
How long have your been under the New Testament?[/quote]

Since Christ’s crucifixion. [/quote]

Which is disputed, hence the ever lasting doubt as to the doctrine of Jesus. Had he indeed been crucified and resurrected and a reputable record of that occurred, I hardly think such doubt would exist.

I can’t think of one modern event that actually occurred where my entire State of NJ would deny it in fact happened. But I can think of plenty of false claims that make Star Magazine and such.

How do you explain the Jews denial of your savior - and they were alleged witnesses to his “miracles” and such?[/quote]

Jesus met all the OT prophecies of the coming Messiah. However, The Jews rejected Jesus because He failed, in their eyes, to do what they expected their Messiah to doâ??destroy evil and all their enemies and establish an eternal kingdom with Israel as the preeminent nation in the world. The prophecies in Isaiah and Psalm 22 described a suffering Messiah who would be persecuted and killed, but they chose to focus instead on those prophecies that discussed His glorious victories, not His crucifixion.

The commentaries in the Talmud, written before the onset of Christianity, clearly discuss the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and puzzle over how these would be fulfilled with the glorious setting up of the Kingdom of the Messiah. After the Church used these prophecies to prove the claims of Christ, the Jews took the position that the prophecies did not refer to the Messiah, but to Israel or some other person.

The Jews believed that the Messiah, the prophet which Moses spoke about, would come and deliver them from Roman bondage and set up a kingdom where they would be the rulers. Two of the disciples, James and John, even asked to sit at Jesus’ right and left in His Kingdom when He came into His glory. The people of Jerusalem also thought He would deliver them. They shouted praises to God for the mighty works they had seen Jesus do, and called out “Hosanna, save us” when he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21:9). They treated Him like a conquering king. Then when He allowed Himself to be arrested, tried and crucified on a cursed cross, the people stopped believing that He was the promised prophet. They rejected their Messiah (Matthew 27:22).

Note that Paul tells the Church that the spiritual blindness of Israel is a “mystery” that had not previously been revealed (Romans chapters 9-11). For thousands of years Israel had been the one nation that looked to God while the Gentile nations generally rejected the light and chose to live in spiritual darkness. Israel and her inspired prophets revealed monotheismâ??one God who was personally interested in mankind’s destiny of heaven or hell, the path to salvation, the written Word with the Ten Commandments. Yet Israel rejected her prophesied Messiah, and the promises of the kingdom of heaven were postponed. A veil of spiritual blindness fell upon the eyes of the Jews who previously were the most spiritually discerning people. As Paul explained, this hardening in part of Israel led to the blessing of the Gentiles who would believe in Jesus and accept Him as Lord and Savior.

How are the Scriptures not a reputable record since we have over 24’000 manuscripts with a 98% purity? No other historical document has that and yet we accept them. WHy not the Bible? Especially when the NT was written from eye witness accounts?[/quote]

With Constantine utilizing Christianity to solidify his kingdom into one religious sect 300 plus years after the alleged incident and the revision of one of many versions of the Bible by King James, I repectfully disagree on eye witness accounts being the foundation of scripture.
Another disturbing aspect of biblical lore, is the notion that there were eye witness accounts of profound miracles and the person(s) mentioned failed to “buy into” the idea of Christianity and I am expected to lend my mind to something without evidence and against all sense of reason and logic.

404

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
You guys can blow ALL the smoke and bend the mirrors any way you want, but it STILL doesn’t change the SELF ADMITTED FACT that MAN is the source of ALL of the content of your religion.
[/quote]

Yes, Jesus was a man, but he was also G-d.

But, perhaps I can say for sure.

No, they are not “proof” in the sense you want. But, they are proof nonetheless.

I am not sure who called you swine, but I don’t believe you’re swine. Anyway, I don’t see how it is brainwash, there is several things in the world on both sides of the Church door that we have to accept on faith, that is why it is called faith and not reason. However, reason itself is based on faith it just matters what you stand on to which determines the soundness of your reason and logic.

We all have the freedom to think for ourselves. To just label someone as brainwashed because they disagree with someone is…a little bit of an intellectual slothfulness. I presume your using of Hail Mary’s and Our Fathers is directed towards Catholics (I didn’t read your whole message, so I didn’t pick this up until I read it as I am replying, so do not think I am picking on you). You would be surprised on the penance which was originally given for sins (I’ll tell you that originally it was much worse, from suspension of Mass for four years to corporal punishment. Also Catholics do not believe that forgiveness does not come from the Hail Mary’s and the Our Fathers, it comes undeserved through the form of absolution in confession. It’s undeserved, any mortal sin is worthy of punishment of Hell. Any Catholic (or Christian in general) that denies this is in need of picking up the Bible and Catechism. Mortal sins (ten commandments basically) half of which is against our fellow man are a serious manner. Any person (including those outside the faith, but ESPECIALLY those with the faith) who breaks one of the Ten Commandments (and to the Christians and Jews, remember it’s still the Ten Commandments, not the ten suggestions) deserves serious punishment, both temporal and limited (with in time and space of this life now) and eternal punishment. I say especially for a reason, I as well as the rest of the faithful expect those that know better to act better. Those that use religion for greedy purposes, those that are part of the Abrahamic religions that do evil against their fellow man are to be subject of the worst punishment as they know better.

We are not to deal harshly with our brothers that are not baptized believers. Those that are believers, that is different, but those that do not have the faith, absolutely not. Now, definition of “harsh” is subject to argument, I suppose, but calling someone swine is not one of them. However, it is no point of arguing that even though you may not be part of the “brainwashed,” you benefit from the, some what intact, morals of the “brainwashed” that those that ruled and rule this country have established and attempt to conserve.

I understand that generally societies and governments have had some kind of morals that they went by that could be described by the “brainwashed” as partially good (no killing, no stealing, &c.). However, that is not a given. We can see that from Russia to Latin America.

Our faith will never meet your burden of proof. I won’t apologize for that, it is a matter of fact, both the Faith and that it won’t meet your burden of proof. There is an ability to reason the Catholic Faith, but one has to stand on an assumption, just as one has to stand on an assumption to use their own burden of proof (namely that you’re burden of proof is the right burden of proof). I will say this, that it is never a good idea to test G-d. You either hear it and believe it or you don’t. I don’t suspect any further will be needed, now if you ask me why I believe something, I will gladly answer you, but it’s not up for to debate (not saying you can’t ask further follow up questions). However, it is what it is, you either believe it or you don’t, there is reason why things happened, but arguing if it happened or not is pointless. As I said, either you believe it or you don’t. However, just because you may not initially believe it is not my point of contention, and neither should it be someone else’s. So, no one! no one should be calling you swine, if they have I formally apologize. I know my word my not have much weight, but I hope you can truly take my apology at least on my behalf to know that I do not see you as swine (although who doesn’t like to roll in the mud once and awhile – not in the means of sin, but in actual mud). Plus, swine is a little pretentious for a Christian to be calling someone, as if they are a Christian they should be very aware of their own swine-like qualities, as I am. This is evident from last Wednesday, which was Ash Wednesday which we are told that we are to “Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

[quote]
I am successful, meet my obligations with my family and children and have my life together more than MOST people… But I’m SWINE… Because I don’t believe what YOU believe (any you can’t prove that you’re beliefs are real). Gotcha. I’ll leave you judgmental assholes to continue on with your miserable little lives then.[/quote]

Although your success it to be looked at as a great accomplishment and an element of providence is on your side, Christians are to remember (as well we’re to remind the rest of the world) that we do not have a natural end, but a supernatural end (that maybe why someone called you swine, but is not sufficient to call you swine). I commend you on your accomplishments that you fulfill and over flow your obligations to your family (as we should all, and some Christians fail to do that for their own family) as well have your life together.

I have no reason to suspect that you would believe what I believe, that would be ridiculous in itself. It would be great if you did believe as I did, but I hold no expectations that you do believe what I believe. Would a voodoo man expect you to believe as he does? No, neither do I, do I believe you should? Yes, but expectations to? No. No reason to call you swine, brother.[/quote]

Oh good grief. The “pearls before swine” comment was mine. It was clearly intended directly for The Bodyguard, in response to a post of his to forbes, and he didn’t have any trouble understanding it for what it meant. After AC’s initial outburst, it was followed up by more than one explanation as to the meaning and origin of the phrase. Almost anyone with even the most perfunctory knowledge of the phrase, one of the most famous in the English language, understands that it is not a form of name-calling, nor does it suggest in any way the intended recipient’s porcine qualities. If AC had bothered to follow the explanatory links that were kindly provided for him by other posters, he could have saved all of the self-righteous petulance and caps lock pressing.

I truly could not care less what you believe. However, the fact that you took my one little throwaway comment and made this much hay of its meaning and intent should maybe, possibly be an alert that you need to step back, calm down, and deeply examine your core assumptions, your biases, your hatred.

405

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
You guys can blow ALL the smoke and bend the mirrors any way you want, but it STILL doesn’t change the SELF ADMITTED FACT that MAN is the source of ALL of the content of your religion.

You CANNOT say for certainty WHAT inspired a person two thousand years ago. Greed or divine inspiration (or delusion…) You cannot say for sure. No matter HOW much you twist it!

While you BELIEVE they were “divinely inspired”, you cannot PROVE it! Scriptures written by MEN are not PROOF!
[/quote]

A couple of years ago I watched a documentary called “End of the World Cult”. The cult leader is a creepy old man who claims to be the Messiah. Amazingly, it seems to be gods will for the Messiah to have sex with the female members of the group (including his sons wife & a number of very young girls).

To any outside person, it’s painfully obvious that the guy is full of shit. His believers on the other hand have absolute faith that he is the mesiah.

I can say with absolute certainty that if his followers compiled a text on his prophecy, it would include eye witness accounts of miracles. They would not need to deliberately tell lies either. They would just need to describe what they have “witnessed”. His followers didn’t appear to be of particularly low intelligence either.

I guess my point here is that the human brain is very susceptible to being tricked (and it doesn’t necessarily have to be deliberate manipulation) & for this reason I find it a strange concept to have “faith” based on words written by men. Even with the incredible access we currently have to information, people are still very gullible & easily manipulated. I can’t even imagine how ridiculously gullible people were 2000 years ago.

[/quote]

What you can’t manipulate are prophecies of the Bible dealing with Jesus written hundreds of years before he was born. The accounts of his trial and crucifixation are prophesied. It would have taken a lot of cohorting with a Roman Empire and Jewish leaders that would have zero to gain from it to plan out Jesus’ death exactly as it was prophesied. [/quote]

Then why do not the Jews accept him as having fulfilled the prophecy? The prophesies you speak of are OT based and as such, decidedly Jewish. Don’t you find it odd that the Jews do not consider the prophecies fulfilled? Don’t you find it odd that those in the best position then to decide have squarely rejected the claim?

406

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
WOW! You do realize that many of science’s “theories” are also unprovable? We can provide PROOF. But that proof will not PROVE anything. There will always be loopholes and “what ifs”.[/quote]

You do realize that all of science’s “theories” are based on existing evidence, right?[/quote]

Evidence is subjective.

For something to be a theory, or beyond, it must be observable and testable. If not, it will always remain a guess based on one’s presuppositions. [/quote]

Are the claims of Christianity observable and testable?[/quote]

No.

But why are you willing to accept other historical events with less evidence and less certainty, while also accepting scientific theories that are also uncertain and based on subjective evaluation?[/quote]

What other historical events? You mean ones that DON’T involve breaking all the laws of the known universe? Ones that dont involve the use of magic? Or require existing belief in magical beings?

Please, point out a “historical event” people believe in the rivials, in ridiculousness, a four faced angel. Please.

407

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
How long have your been under the New Testament?[/quote]

Since Christ’s crucifixion. [/quote]

Which is disputed, hence the ever lasting doubt as to the doctrine of Jesus. Had he indeed been crucified and resurrected and a reputable record of that occurred, I hardly think such doubt would exist.

I can’t think of one modern event that actually occurred where my entire State of NJ would deny it in fact happened. But I can think of plenty of false claims that make Star Magazine and such.

How do you explain the Jews denial of your savior - and they were alleged witnesses to his “miracles” and such?[/quote]

Jesus met all the OT prophecies of the coming Messiah. However, The Jews rejected Jesus because He failed, in their eyes, to do what they expected their Messiah to doâ??destroy evil and all their enemies and establish an eternal kingdom with Israel as the preeminent nation in the world. The prophecies in Isaiah and Psalm 22 described a suffering Messiah who would be persecuted and killed, but they chose to focus instead on those prophecies that discussed His glorious victories, not His crucifixion.

The commentaries in the Talmud, written before the onset of Christianity, clearly discuss the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and puzzle over how these would be fulfilled with the glorious setting up of the Kingdom of the Messiah. After the Church used these prophecies to prove the claims of Christ, the Jews took the position that the prophecies did not refer to the Messiah, but to Israel or some other person.

The Jews believed that the Messiah, the prophet which Moses spoke about, would come and deliver them from Roman bondage and set up a kingdom where they would be the rulers. Two of the disciples, James and John, even asked to sit at Jesus’ right and left in His Kingdom when He came into His glory. The people of Jerusalem also thought He would deliver them. They shouted praises to God for the mighty works they had seen Jesus do, and called out “Hosanna, save us” when he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21:9). They treated Him like a conquering king. Then when He allowed Himself to be arrested, tried and crucified on a cursed cross, the people stopped believing that He was the promised prophet. They rejected their Messiah (Matthew 27:22).

Note that Paul tells the Church that the spiritual blindness of Israel is a “mystery” that had not previously been revealed (Romans chapters 9-11). For thousands of years Israel had been the one nation that looked to God while the Gentile nations generally rejected the light and chose to live in spiritual darkness. Israel and her inspired prophets revealed monotheismâ??one God who was personally interested in mankind’s destiny of heaven or hell, the path to salvation, the written Word with the Ten Commandments. Yet Israel rejected her prophesied Messiah, and the promises of the kingdom of heaven were postponed. A veil of spiritual blindness fell upon the eyes of the Jews who previously were the most spiritually discerning people. As Paul explained, this hardening in part of Israel led to the blessing of the Gentiles who would believe in Jesus and accept Him as Lord and Savior.

How are the Scriptures not a reputable record since we have over 24’000 manuscripts with a 98% purity? No other historical document has that and yet we accept them. WHy not the Bible? Especially when the NT was written from eye witness accounts?[/quote]

I appreciate our sincerity but your reply is decidedly with a pro-Christian slant. I happen to find the following claims and arguments credible:

http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/messiah.htm

98% purity? The documents were copied. I’d expect some consistency with the copying of documents. If the case were so clear for the divinity of Jesus, the world would believe. His own family did not believe. The Jews do not believe (for reasons other than those you listed). The Romans certainly did not believe. Muslims did not believe.

There is a strong case that he did not fulfill prophecy. If the case for him fulfilling prophecy were strong and convincing, trust me when I tell you that I’d consider it. Although I’m not entirely comfortable classifying my beliefs with a label, it would be fair to call me somewhat Agnostic although I do not squarely fit within that label. I WANT to know and am open to proof and argument without any bias.

I just do not find the argument for Jesus divinity a compelling one, either based on scripture or practicality.

408

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
WOW! You do realize that many of science’s “theories” are also unprovable? We can provide PROOF. But that proof will not PROVE anything. There will always be loopholes and “what ifs”.[/quote]

You do realize that all of science’s “theories” are based on existing evidence, right?[/quote]

Evidence is subjective.

For something to be a theory, or beyond, it must be observable and testable. If not, it will always remain a guess based on one’s presuppositions. [/quote]

Are the claims of Christianity observable and testable?[/quote]

No.

But why are you willing to accept other historical events with less evidence and less certainty, while also accepting scientific theories that are also uncertain and based on subjective evaluation?[/quote]

Perhaps the better question is…

Why do you assume that I am “willing to accept other historical events with less evidence and less certainty, while also accepting scientific theories that are also uncertain and based on subjective evaluation?”

Have you specifically asked me?

409

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Oh good grief. The “pearls before swine” comment was mine. It was clearly intended directly for The Bodyguard, in response to a post of his to forbes, and he didn’t have any trouble understanding it for what it meant. After AC’s initial outburst, it was followed up by more than one explanation as to the meaning and origin of the phrase. Almost anyone with even the most perfunctory knowledge of the phrase, one of the most famous in the English language, understands that it is not a form of name-calling, nor does it suggest in any way the intended recipient’s porcine qualities. If AC had bothered to follow the explanatory links that were kindly provided for him by other posters, he could have saved all of the self-righteous petulance and caps lock pressing.

I truly could not care less what you believe. However, the fact that you took my one little throwaway comment and made this much hay of its meaning and intent should maybe, possibly be an alert that you need to step back, calm down, and deeply examine your core assumptions, your biases, your hatred.
[/quote]

Well, in fairness, it was an attack. We all know what it meant, including AC. And we all know you intended it for me. And we all know that such an insult, and especially those waged here by ZEB, are completely out of proportion to the tone of my discussion. Such attacks are indefensible in the context of this thread. The problem is not that I’ve been attacked, but that this attack posture is a common one when someone does not share the religious beliefs of another. The foregoing is where AC is coming from.

As far as I can tell, a few of us are having a respectful dialogue. And it’s pretty clear some or not, and we know who they are. Where do you stand in this thread? You offered a not-so-veiled biblical insult in my direction. I know it’s getting harder to support the increasingly bizarre behavior of ZEB and guess what? Maybe you should stop trying. And if you have something to add to a serious dialogue, maybe you should. Brother Chris has managed. Forbes is managing.

I ask again, if the claims of your beliefs are so strong, then why do some of you act so weak and petty when challenged?

410

7 out of 13 religious teachings here believe jesus was man:

http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/religious_views.htm

411

A lot of pretty bright people that study this for a living do not accept the divinity of Christ:

http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/historical_jesus.htm

Are some of us so wrong to question it? These people are Professors of Religious Studies and Religions. Is it so unfair to wonder why such a muddy, confused, disputed record from the divine?

412

John 8: 28-29

Jesus clearly differentiates himself from the father.

John 14: 10

No express claim to being the father, or God. In fact, can not I claim likewise that the “father is in me”? Do I not have a claim to be a son of God?

John 5:24

Again, Jesus clearly distinguishes between him and God.

John 14:24

Again, Jesus refers to God as he who sent me. No claim of divinity.

These are just a few, there are at least half a dozen other scriptural references that seemingly refute the divinity of Jesus by his own tongue.

Are there any undisputed scriptural passages wherein Jesus himself proclaims himself to be God?

413

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Oh good grief. The “pearls before swine” comment was mine. It was clearly intended directly for The Bodyguard, in response to a post of his to forbes, and he didn’t have any trouble understanding it for what it meant. After AC’s initial outburst, it was followed up by more than one explanation as to the meaning and origin of the phrase. Almost anyone with even the most perfunctory knowledge of the phrase, one of the most famous in the English language, understands that it is not a form of name-calling, nor does it suggest in any way the intended recipient’s porcine qualities. If AC had bothered to follow the explanatory links that were kindly provided for him by other posters, he could have saved all of the self-righteous petulance and caps lock pressing.

I truly could not care less what you believe. However, the fact that you took my one little throwaway comment and made this much hay of its meaning and intent should maybe, possibly be an alert that you need to step back, calm down, and deeply examine your core assumptions, your biases, your hatred.
[/quote]

Well, in fairness, it was an attack. We all know what it meant, including AC. And we all know you intended it for me. And we all know that such an insult, and especially those waged here by ZEB, are completely out of proportion to the tone of my discussion. Such attacks are indefensible in the context of this thread. The problem is not that I’ve been attacked, but that this attack posture is a common one when someone does not share the religious beliefs of another. The foregoing is where AC is coming from.

[/quote]
Boo-freakin-hoo. Why are some of you non-religious so damned sensitive?

[quote]

As far as I can tell, a few of us are having a respectful dialogue. And it’s pretty clear some or not, and we know who they are. Where do you stand in this thread? You offered a not-so-veiled biblical insult in my direction. I know it’s getting harder to support the increasingly bizarre behavior of ZEB and guess what? Maybe you should stop trying. And if you have something to add to a serious dialogue, maybe you should. Brother Chris has managed. Forbes is managing.

I ask again, if the claims of your beliefs are so strong, then why do some of you act so weak and petty when challenged? [/quote]

I’ll offer what I feel like offering. I’m not at your beck and call and I am not going to be bullied into “serious dialogue” by you or anyone else here. There are a plenty of threads in this forum where I racked up hundreds of posts at a time, because I felt there was something to be shared and learned, even from posters like ephrem or orion with whom I often hold diametrically opposing views. This thread doesn’t feel that way. My piggy post tells why.

For your part, I have noticed your change in tone, but the fact is you only recently adopted this new “respectful” demeanor, and even in this very thread I could pull out plenty of openly contemptuous posts by you. Believe it or not, I’m actually a pretty amicable guy, able to get along with people you’d never think I would. But I won’t tolerate badgering, disingenuousness, or unwarranted discourtesy. If you can “manage” to actually eliminate these elements from your posts, perhaps I can “manage” to add something you’ll appreciate.

414

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Better we meet them on their own terms, or just forget it all together.

[/quote]

The latter is probably the best choice. Aside from a little fun and entertainment, It really is fruitless to argue faith vs. proof when you have faith and the other doesn’t have proof.

Hence my disappearance from this once Capp ran his course with it.

Thing is, I still have faith. He exhausted the limits of his ability to prove.

One of the main fallacies of reason in this entire mismatch is the assumption that faith and proof are diametric ends of a continuum. They are not. They are wholly separate and unrelated.

Some people just can’t separate the two.

[/quote]

Very well said. How does one go about proving faith? Much less over an Internet message board. In fact, it’s comical. And I’m laughing at both sides here. Christians, That’s why it’s called “faith”. As it says in the Bible,

Hebrews:

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

If someone really wants to share my experiences in faith and what I have to say they’ll pm me. And the same goes for every other Christian on the board. If you think that you’re furthering God’s kingdom by fighting with atheists on T Nation think again (and I’m preaching to myself as well). While you may be sincere, you will be no more effective than the atheists are at pulling you away from God. Each side is only guaranteed a loss and there are no exceptions.

If an atheist is going to change it will not come from any of us spouting scripture, or other religious dogma on T Nation. It will come from their own journey, their own suffering and ultimately their own free will.

[/quote]

Aren’t you the conqueror of “logical fallacies”. Hmmm.[/quote]

That’s what I did for you, yes. And to date you have still not made much sense. But that’s what you do. You throw stones, you incite, but not much else.

When I mention atheists that’s exactly who I am talking about. Can’t follow that much? Or, is this part of your twisting and turning game? Yeah, most likely. So YOU now imply that I am lumping agnostics with atheists? Weak, but that’s what you are.

And I have seen your suffering all over this board. Cheating on your wife, alcoholism, porn addiction. You are in pain, yet you continue to run.[/quote]

You have real problems my friend. People may disagree with me, but do you think anyone, anyone at all is taking you seriously at this point?[/quote]

Says the man who set up an entire thread so that he could berate Christians. And is also the man with more personal problems than any 5 of us combined. What could possibly make you think that your opinion of anyone taking me seriously could possibly matter to me? You are the biggest joke on T nation and your past posts prove it.

And what is being in your late 40’s all about? Tell us. Is it about teaching people how to make better porno films? Well, you’ve really made something of your life huh? And if you think throwing out a few logical fallacies along with some cut and paste makes you look intelligent you are even more stupid than I originally thought.

No, nor did I miss the part about you confessing to having cheated on your wife several times. And that she left you. So, I guess she turned out to be smarter than you figured huh?

But you often lie.

Yes, I think that’s well known around here. Anyone who can give lessons on how to make better home made porn certainly is an expert at it. So…I guess you are good at something. That’s nice I’m sure the legacy that you leave your children will be rich with those types of accomplishments.

It looks like you’ve spent one more post not dealing with the subject but attacking me. It’s your sensitivity that allows you to notice when I attack you. But at the same time your stupidity that ignores the fact that you attack me first every time.

You can post all day long around here. You cut and paste from people who are in fact smart. You can post logical fallacy after logical fallacy. You can shout from the roof tops that you don’t believe in the Christian God. And you can attack me as well. But one thing will never change.

You’re still an idiot, and a fraud!

:)[/quote]

Seriously, you’re a fucking nut job.[/quote]

Says the man who is OCD and addicted to porn.

Maybe they don’t know you like I do. Then again maybe this is just their way of having fun. Either way I do understand your motives and they are not good.

No, but at least I have a wife and appreciate her enough to stay loyal. You?

415

[quote]Cortes wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:

I’ll offer what I feel like offering. I’m not at your beck and call and I am not going to be bullied into “serious dialogue” by you or anyone else here. There are a plenty of threads in this forum where I racked up hundreds of posts at a time, because I felt there was something to be shared and learned, even from posters like ephrem or orion with whom I often hold diametrically opposing views. This thread doesn’t feel that way. My piggy post tells why.

For your part, I have noticed your change in tone, but the fact is you only recently adopted this new “respectful” demeanor, and even in this very thread I could pull out plenty of openly contemptuous posts by you. Believe it or not, I’m actually a pretty amicable guy, able to get along with people you’d never think I would. But I won’t tolerate badgering, disingenuousness, or unwarranted discourtesy. If you can “manage” to actually eliminate these elements from your posts, perhaps I can “manage” to add something you’ll appreciate. [/quote]

I think Cortes about sums it up tough guy. One more poster on this thread that actually knows you. And don’t kid yourself with some of the others, they probably know you too but are being kind. Best stay on your good behavior if you want to continue to fool some with your fraudulent ways.

416

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Oh good grief. The “pearls before swine” comment was mine. It was clearly intended directly for The Bodyguard, in response to a post of his to forbes, and he didn’t have any trouble understanding it for what it meant. After AC’s initial outburst, it was followed up by more than one explanation as to the meaning and origin of the phrase. Almost anyone with even the most perfunctory knowledge of the phrase, one of the most famous in the English language, understands that it is not a form of name-calling, nor does it suggest in any way the intended recipient’s porcine qualities. If AC had bothered to follow the explanatory links that were kindly provided for him by other posters, he could have saved all of the self-righteous petulance and caps lock pressing.

I truly could not care less what you believe. However, the fact that you took my one little throwaway comment and made this much hay of its meaning and intent should maybe, possibly be an alert that you need to step back, calm down, and deeply examine your core assumptions, your biases, your hatred.
[/quote]

Well, in fairness, it was an attack. We all know what it meant, including AC. And we all know you intended it for me. And we all know that such an insult, and especially those waged here by ZEB, are completely out of proportion to the tone of my discussion. Such attacks are indefensible in the context of this thread. The problem is not that I’ve been attacked, but that this attack posture is a common one when someone does not share the religious beliefs of another. The foregoing is where AC is coming from.

[/quote]
Boo-freakin-hoo. Why are some of you non-religious so damned sensitive?

[quote]

As far as I can tell, a few of us are having a respectful dialogue. And it’s pretty clear some or not, and we know who they are. Where do you stand in this thread? You offered a not-so-veiled biblical insult in my direction. I know it’s getting harder to support the increasingly bizarre behavior of ZEB and guess what? Maybe you should stop trying. And if you have something to add to a serious dialogue, maybe you should. Brother Chris has managed. Forbes is managing.

I ask again, if the claims of your beliefs are so strong, then why do some of you act so weak and petty when challenged? [/quote]

I’ll offer what I feel like offering. I’m not at your beck and call and I am not going to be bullied into “serious dialogue” by you or anyone else here. There are a plenty of threads in this forum where I racked up hundreds of posts at a time, because I felt there was something to be shared and learned, even from posters like ephrem or orion with whom I often hold diametrically opposing views. This thread doesn’t feel that way. My piggy post tells why.

For your part, I have noticed your change in tone, but the fact is you only recently adopted this new “respectful” demeanor, and even in this very thread I could pull out plenty of openly contemptuous posts by you. Believe it or not, I’m actually a pretty amicable guy, able to get along with people you’d never think I would. But I won’t tolerate badgering, disingenuousness, or unwarranted discourtesy. If you can “manage” to actually eliminate these elements from your posts, perhaps I can “manage” to add something you’ll appreciate. [/quote]

whatever.

keep your pearls and go home.

417

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:

I’ll offer what I feel like offering. I’m not at your beck and call and I am not going to be bullied into “serious dialogue” by you or anyone else here. There are a plenty of threads in this forum where I racked up hundreds of posts at a time, because I felt there was something to be shared and learned, even from posters like ephrem or orion with whom I often hold diametrically opposing views. This thread doesn’t feel that way. My piggy post tells why.

For your part, I have noticed your change in tone, but the fact is you only recently adopted this new “respectful” demeanor, and even in this very thread I could pull out plenty of openly contemptuous posts by you. Believe it or not, I’m actually a pretty amicable guy, able to get along with people you’d never think I would. But I won’t tolerate badgering, disingenuousness, or unwarranted discourtesy. If you can “manage” to actually eliminate these elements from your posts, perhaps I can “manage” to add something you’ll appreciate. [/quote]

I think Cortes about sums it up tough guy. One more poster on this thread that actually knows you. And don’t kid yourself with some of the others, they probably know you too but are being kind. Best stay on your good behavior if you want to continue to fool them with your fraudulent ways.[/quote]

seek professional help ZEB. you’re obviously a very unhappy “man”.

418

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Better we meet them on their own terms, or just forget it all together.

[/quote]

The latter is probably the best choice. Aside from a little fun and entertainment, It really is fruitless to argue faith vs. proof when you have faith and the other doesn’t have proof.

Hence my disappearance from this once Capp ran his course with it.

Thing is, I still have faith. He exhausted the limits of his ability to prove.

One of the main fallacies of reason in this entire mismatch is the assumption that faith and proof are diametric ends of a continuum. They are not. They are wholly separate and unrelated.

Some people just can’t separate the two.

[/quote]

Very well said. How does one go about proving faith? Much less over an Internet message board. In fact, it’s comical. And I’m laughing at both sides here. Christians, That’s why it’s called “faith”. As it says in the Bible,

Hebrews:

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

If someone really wants to share my experiences in faith and what I have to say they’ll pm me. And the same goes for every other Christian on the board. If you think that you’re furthering God’s kingdom by fighting with atheists on T Nation think again (and I’m preaching to myself as well). While you may be sincere, you will be no more effective than the atheists are at pulling you away from God. Each side is only guaranteed a loss and there are no exceptions.

If an atheist is going to change it will not come from any of us spouting scripture, or other religious dogma on T Nation. It will come from their own journey, their own suffering and ultimately their own free will.

[/quote]

Aren’t you the conqueror of “logical fallacies”. Hmmm.[/quote]

That’s what I did for you, yes. And to date you have still not made much sense. But that’s what you do. You throw stones, you incite, but not much else.

When I mention atheists that’s exactly who I am talking about. Can’t follow that much? Or, is this part of your twisting and turning game? Yeah, most likely. So YOU now imply that I am lumping agnostics with atheists? Weak, but that’s what you are.

And I have seen your suffering all over this board. Cheating on your wife, alcoholism, porn addiction. You are in pain, yet you continue to run.[/quote]

You have real problems my friend. People may disagree with me, but do you think anyone, anyone at all is taking you seriously at this point?[/quote]

Says the man who set up an entire thread so that he could berate Christians. And is also the man with more personal problems than any 5 of us combined. What could possibly make you think that your opinion of anyone taking me seriously could possibly matter to me? You are the biggest joke on T nation and your past posts prove it.

And what is being in your late 40’s all about? Tell us. Is it about teaching people how to make better porno films? Well, you’ve really made something of your life huh? And if you think throwing out a few logical fallacies along with some cut and paste makes you look intelligent you are even more stupid than I originally thought.

No, nor did I miss the part about you confessing to having cheated on your wife several times. And that she left you. So, I guess she turned out to be smarter than you figured huh?

But you often lie.

Yes, I think that’s well known around here. Anyone who can give lessons on how to make better home made porn certainly is an expert at it. So…I guess you are good at something. That’s nice I’m sure the legacy that you leave your children will be rich with those types of accomplishments.

It looks like you’ve spent one more post not dealing with the subject but attacking me. It’s your sensitivity that allows you to notice when I attack you. But at the same time your stupidity that ignores the fact that you attack me first every time.

You can post all day long around here. You cut and paste from people who are in fact smart. You can post logical fallacy after logical fallacy. You can shout from the roof tops that you don’t believe in the Christian God. And you can attack me as well. But one thing will never change.

You’re still an idiot, and a fraud!

:)[/quote]

Seriously, you’re a fucking nut job.[/quote]

Says the man who is OCD and addicted to porn.

Maybe they don’t know you like I do. Then again maybe this is just their way of having fun. Either way I do understand your motives and they are not good.

No, but at least I have a wife and appreciate her enough to stay loyal. You?

[/quote]

Wow, this behavior by you is just…odd. I have OCD b/c I won’t let YOU have the final word? Because I mock you as you mock me? Emkay.

Addicted to porn? How did you arrive at that diagnosis. Last I checked, I spend most of my internet time arguing with you. The two days I didn’t, I was off with a woman enjoying myself.

Oh, now you know me? I’m up to no good? Exactly where are these posts in PWI wherein I’m up to no good? Are they hidden?

Did you happen to miss that I haven’t been married in over 20 years? Do you often find the facts in the way or your delusions?

You’re as transparent as saran wrap, and apparently have a character to match the plastic wrap’s pliability. You do nothing but pollute threads where someone doesn’t agree with you. Boo fucking hoo.

419

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:

I’ll offer what I feel like offering. I’m not at your beck and call and I am not going to be bullied into “serious dialogue” by you or anyone else here. There are a plenty of threads in this forum where I racked up hundreds of posts at a time, because I felt there was something to be shared and learned, even from posters like ephrem or orion with whom I often hold diametrically opposing views. This thread doesn’t feel that way. My piggy post tells why.

For your part, I have noticed your change in tone, but the fact is you only recently adopted this new “respectful” demeanor, and even in this very thread I could pull out plenty of openly contemptuous posts by you. Believe it or not, I’m actually a pretty amicable guy, able to get along with people you’d never think I would. But I won’t tolerate badgering, disingenuousness, or unwarranted discourtesy. If you can “manage” to actually eliminate these elements from your posts, perhaps I can “manage” to add something you’ll appreciate. [/quote]

I think Cortes about sums it up tough guy. One more poster on this thread that actually knows you. And don’t kid yourself with some of the others, they probably know you too but are being kind. Best stay on your good behavior if you want to continue to fool them with your fraudulent ways.[/quote]

seek professional help ZEB. you’re obviously a very unhappy “man”. [/quote]

Says the man who writes yet one more attack post and not a word to say on topic. Same old act, different thread.

420

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Oh good grief. The “pearls before swine” comment was mine. It was clearly intended directly for The Bodyguard, in response to a post of his to forbes, and he didn’t have any trouble understanding it for what it meant. After AC’s initial outburst, it was followed up by more than one explanation as to the meaning and origin of the phrase. Almost anyone with even the most perfunctory knowledge of the phrase, one of the most famous in the English language, understands that it is not a form of name-calling, nor does it suggest in any way the intended recipient’s porcine qualities. If AC had bothered to follow the explanatory links that were kindly provided for him by other posters, he could have saved all of the self-righteous petulance and caps lock pressing.

I truly could not care less what you believe. However, the fact that you took my one little throwaway comment and made this much hay of its meaning and intent should maybe, possibly be an alert that you need to step back, calm down, and deeply examine your core assumptions, your biases, your hatred.
[/quote]

Well, in fairness, it was an attack. We all know what it meant, including AC. And we all know you intended it for me. And we all know that such an insult, and especially those waged here by ZEB, are completely out of proportion to the tone of my discussion. Such attacks are indefensible in the context of this thread. The problem is not that I’ve been attacked, but that this attack posture is a common one when someone does not share the religious beliefs of another. The foregoing is where AC is coming from.

[/quote]
Boo-freakin-hoo. Why are some of you non-religious so damned sensitive?

[quote]

As far as I can tell, a few of us are having a respectful dialogue. And it’s pretty clear some or not, and we know who they are. Where do you stand in this thread? You offered a not-so-veiled biblical insult in my direction. I know it’s getting harder to support the increasingly bizarre behavior of ZEB and guess what? Maybe you should stop trying. And if you have something to add to a serious dialogue, maybe you should. Brother Chris has managed. Forbes is managing.

I ask again, if the claims of your beliefs are so strong, then why do some of you act so weak and petty when challenged? [/quote]

I’ll offer what I feel like offering. I’m not at your beck and call and I am not going to be bullied into “serious dialogue” by you or anyone else here. There are a plenty of threads in this forum where I racked up hundreds of posts at a time, because I felt there was something to be shared and learned, even from posters like ephrem or orion with whom I often hold diametrically opposing views. This thread doesn’t feel that way. My piggy post tells why.

For your part, I have noticed your change in tone, but the fact is you only recently adopted this new “respectful” demeanor, and even in this very thread I could pull out plenty of openly contemptuous posts by you. Believe it or not, I’m actually a pretty amicable guy, able to get along with people you’d never think I would. But I won’t tolerate badgering, disingenuousness, or unwarranted discourtesy. If you can “manage” to actually eliminate these elements from your posts, perhaps I can “manage” to add something you’ll appreciate. [/quote]

I actually read what you wrote this time, fully.

Who is trying to bully you? Isn’t that a bit dramatic. Sensitive even? You do what you please, I don’t much care. Attacks from another man on the internet are right up there with a mosquito buzzing about my ear. I’ll kill the lil fucker if I can reach him, but I’m not arising from my bed to go hunt him. Have your fun if that’s what get you off. Bzzzzz.

I didn’t ask you about your other threads. I didn’t ask about your internet resume.

Noticed a change in tone? LOL, don’t flatter yourself or this forum. I wasn’t disrespectful prior in PWI. Do me a favor because ZEB can’t quite do it - find the post where I disrespected someone in PWI. Find the post where I’m being disrespectful and not responding to disrespect. Go ahead, I’ll wait. But I won’t hold my breath. Let’s see who is “sensitive”.

You said “even in this thread” you could pull out openly contemptuous posts by me. Please do so. I’m waiting. Remember, my replies to ZEB’s attacks are hardly fair game. Lest you think I should sit here and adopt the doctrine of “turning the other cheek” when the master of that doctrine is not my master. Show me the posts please.

Someone badgered you? I didn’t know you were in the thread until the swine comment. Did you have an opinion you were badgered about? Did you express any opinion at all? It’s curious you find yourself badgered then. Badgering? Do you mean like ZEB is doing to me? Bizarrely I might add?

Disingenuousness (sic)? Where? Who is being disingenuous? Not accepting your beliefs and discussing it is now disingenuous? That’s curious. Very curious. You’ll have to explain that to me.

Unwarranted discourtesy? Oh, you mean like coming to this thread, not expressing any opinion whatsoever to the topic, but instead attacking me? That kind of discourtesy? What kind of discourtesy are you referring to? Can you give an actual example? I’ll wait.

Finally, I don’t care what you add or don’t add. When you can show me where I’ve been unnecessarily “discourteous”, “disingenuous” and /or engaged in “badgering”, I shall give your claims the full consideration they deserve.

Until then, some of us will continue with the discussion, and others will be disrespectful from the safety of their keyboard. Bzzzzzz.