God Talk

[Badstench]

I started this thread because me and thingirl have begun a conversation that was interupting a different topic.

The phrase, "God Talk" is simply what it states; it is not meant in a derogatory or dismissive way.

Everyone is free to comment on the nature of the title, whether you are religeous, irreligeous, athiest, agnostic, christian, moslem, bhuddist, taoist, mormon, lutheran, hebrew, or Scottish (and that's the last time I joke about those scary people who may, or may not, be bonkers!)

[thingirl]

For now, I'm just going to point out that Lutheranism is a form of Christianity. And that you really should capitalize all proper nouns, including religions.

[zmflavius]

was this a PM conversation or a regular post conversation?

[Badstench]

Thingirl said:
I'm "non-denotational", meaning that there isn't any one person somewhere, like, say, in Rome, making the decision about what is preached and how the bible is interpreted.
I thoroughly approve of this.

I was baptised into the Christian pantheon of religions, notably the Baptist version. I haven't seen the inside of a church for a very long time least it was for a wedding.

When asked, "Do you believe in God", I always answer affirmatively. I believe and acknowledge the existence of a being who only exists through faith.

That last statement is fodder for examination and further discussion, because "faith" is an intangible term that denies the concept of proof.

Furthermore, "faith" exists for the majority of Humans, so if proof is a requisite of belief, then we can dismiss the majority of the world's population as being delusional.

I have started reading the bible on quite a few occassions (always get bogged down at Leviticus). This book needs a good revisionist to cut out all the unnecessary bits.

Ha! That should set the cat among the pigeons!

[thingirl]

Try starting at Matthew. Or one of the other Gospels. Despite what you may have been told, it's OK to skip the boring parts, like most of Leviticus and pretty much ALL of Numbers.

@ ZM: Yes, it was a public conversation. In the Concert Hall thread.

[Badstench]

Thingirl said:
Although, I guess I shouldn't have said anything about Rome.

why not? rome played a huge part in the development of christianity.

Which reminds me... (this is a joke)... why did the circus maximus have to close down?

Because the lions ate all the profits!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
prophets!

[zmflavius]

Thingirl said:

I thoroughly approve of this.

I was baptised into the Christian pantheon of religions, notably the Baptist version. I haven't seen the inside of a church for a very long time least it was for a wedding.

When asked, "Do you believe in God", I always answer affirmatively. I believe and acknowledge the existence of a being who only exists through faith.

That last statement is fodder for examination and further discussion, because "faith" is an intangible term that denies the concept of proof.

Furthermore, "faith" exists for the majority of Humans, so if proof is a requisite of belief, then we can dismiss the majority of the world's population as being delusional.

I have started reading the bible on quite a few occassions (always get bogged down at Leviticus). This book needs a good revisionist to cut out all the unnecessary bits.

Ha! That should set the cat among the pigeons!

Ok then...I'll start!

What I think Thingirl's trying to say is non-denominational. Non-denotational means...you don't take denotations.

Deuteronomy 4:1-2
2Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Revelation 18-19
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book

That will be all.

[thingirl]

Because that adoptive brother of mine (Elrond) seems to want to find the fault in EVERYTHING I say. What I typed was I'm "non-denotational", meaning that there isn't any one person somewhere, like, say, in Rome, making the decision about what is preached and how the bible is interpreted.

What he chose to read was "In like, say, Rome (Man, what were those stupid Catholics THINKING! Aww man, If I were Martin Luther I would have nailed much more than 99 thing wrong with the Catholic church)."

That is not what I intended, nor is it what I think. I have several good friends who are Catholics.

[zmflavius]

Because that adoptive brother of mine (Elrond) seems to want to find the fault in EVERYTHING I say. What I typed was

What he chose to read was "In like, say, Rome (Man, what were those stupid Catholics THINKING! Aww man, If I were Martin Luther I would have nailed much more than 99 thing wrong with the Catholic church)."

That is not what I intended, nor is it what I think. I have several good friends who are Catholics.

It was 95 things. And for most of the second millenium, the Roman Catholic
"Church" was one of the most questionable enterprises run by men.

[thingirl]

Well, that shows you how much I retainned from 5th grade.

[Elrond]

Because that adoptive brother of mine (Elrond) seems to want to find the fault in EVERYTHING I say. What I typed was

What he chose to read was "In like, say, Rome (Man, what were those stupid Catholics THINKING! Aww man, If I were Martin Luther I would have nailed much more than 99 thing wrong with the Catholic church)."

That is not what I intended, nor is it what I think. I have several good friends who are Catholics.

As I post, you have 2157 posts. I commented on less than 100 of them (way less). So I do not find fault in everything you say ;) .

[thingirl]

Must......resist.......fight.......Elrond......

[smv1973]

This is the only post I will make in this thread.

I am a pantheist. If anyone does not know what that is here is the definition.



1. belief that God is everything: the belief that God and the material world are one and the same thing and that God is present in everything


2. belief in all deities: the belief in and worship of all or many deities


Yes one could call me a Pagan.

[Badstench]

On Catholicism...

erm... I don't want my comments to start a war, but the thing that disturbs me about this approach to the teachings of Jesus is that it denies the precept of 'forgiveness'.

Catholics have a proclivity to concentrate on the punishments of God if He is gainsaid or said against. 'Eternal damnation', 'the fires of purgatory', 'confess and be cleansed'.

I once owned my own business, a video store (when owning video stores was lucrative). A young girl worked for me during the weekend. She was a lovely girl; gentle personality, bright, polite, someone to admire. She committed suicide after her first boyfriend dumped her. She was catholic.

I was the last person she spoke to before she walked out of the video store, down the road, and hung herself. I had said, "See you tomorrow".

I went to the service at the local church, armed with a speech to explain how highly I thought of her and how much her action had affected me.

The church was packed, because her family were highly regarded in Catholic circles. I was not permitted to share my thoughts. The service was ritualized with the waving of braziers and the lamenting of lost souls. It was impersonal.

I'm not sure if I cried because she killed herself or because the service ignored her as a once-living person.

but I did cry.

This may have been one example of how things work in Catholicism, and it may have been a oncer... but it impressed on me the need for 'my' God to have more compassion.

My God has a sense of humour and laughs a lot. My God doesn't condemn young girls to Hell because they despaired. My God was crying with me that day... i need to believe this, otherwise... I don't see the point of Him.

"I'll see you tomorrow"

[thingirl]

Warrning- This is a Christian song. Everyone needs Compassion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYqogpLpC5Q) by Larua Story.

EDIT: Another one- Jonny Diaz, More Beautiful You (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI_YG40uEDk).

[zmflavius]

On Catholicism...

erm... I don't want my comments to start a war, but the thing that disturbs me about this approach to the teachings of Jesus is that it denies the precept of 'forgiveness'.

Catholics have a proclivity to concentrate on the punishments of God if He is gainsaid or said against. 'Eternal damnation', 'the fires of purgatory', 'confess and be cleansed'.

I once owned my own business, a video store (when owning video stores was lucrative). A young girl worked for me during the weekend. She was a lovely girl; gentle personality, bright, polite, someone to admire. She committed suicide after her first boyfriend dumped her. She was catholic.

I was the last person she spoke to before she walked out of the video store, down the road, and hung herself. I had said, "See you tomorrow".

I went to the service at the local church, armed with a speech to explain how highly I thought of her and how much her action had affected me.

The church was packed, because her family were highly regarded in Catholic circles. I was not permitted to share my thoughts. The service was ritualized with the waving of braziers and the lamenting of lost souls. It was impersonal.

I'm not sure if I cried because she killed herself or because the service ignored her as a once-living person.

but I did cry.

This may have been one example of how things work in Catholicism, and it may have been a oncer... but it impressed on me the need for 'my' God to have more compassion.

My God has a sense of humour and laughs a lot. My God doesn't condemn young girls to Hell because they despaired. My God was crying with me that day... i need to believe this, otherwise... I don't see the point of Him.

"I'll see you tomorrow"

I prefer to think of God as being fair (this really isn't in context though).

[thingirl]

What I have learnned is that God forgives you throught the power of his Son, Jesus, but only if you ask. However, there is a point where God eventually refuses to forgive you.

[zmflavius]

However, there is a point where God eventually refuses to forgive you.

That's called "keeling over and getting dumped into a six-foot deep hole"

[thingirl]

No, he won't kill you right then, rather, when you DO die, you will be sent to Hell, even though you asked to be forgiven.

[zmflavius]

What I mean is that I believe God is willing to forgive you right up to the point when you die. Afterwards, tough luck. Of course, what makes you stone dead or not is a matter of debate nowadays...

[thingirl]

What I ment is that if you keep doing this pattern:

Sin, forgive, same sin, forgive, same sin, forgive, same sin, forgive...

Then eventually God will stop forgiving you.

[zmflavius]

I think that's because you aren't supposed to ask for forgiveness; you're supposed to repent!

They actually mean different things. To ask for forgiveness is to ask for forgiveness. To repent is to ask for forgiveness but to promise to turn away from sin. If you sin, get forgiveness, sin, then you haven't repented.

[thingirl]

Yes. And the Flood shows what happens when God gets angry.

[zmflavius]

Yes. And the Flood shows what happens when God gets angry.

He wasn't angry then, he was pissed.

[thingirl]

Good point. Extreme anger, "pissed" as you call it, is worse.

[wetheril]

I have started reading the bible on quite a few occassions (always get bogged down at Leviticus). This book needs a good revisionist to cut out all the unnecessary bits.

Ha! That should set the cat among the pigeons!

I agree with you on this. If I recall correctly, analysis of the bible text shows that it appears to be from 5 different sources. I had to read selections from the bible while in college, and it's a great piece of literature to analyze.

That said, I'm agnostic. The Greek root means ignorant--and I don't mind that nomenclature. I don't claim to know, because God (or gods) is one of those things you can't prove or disprove.

...I also do not believe in teaching Creationism in biology. Science is a tool; religion is a faith. Using religion as a tool has caused a lot of controversy and tragedy throughout history...

[Badstench]

And yet... if you look at Creationism, it's possible to mesh the ancient scrolls with Evolutionism.

Who decided that the Earth was 'created' in a definitive year?

A man did.

Who decided that the Word of God was irrefutable and unquestionable?

Men did.

Who decided that Jesus was the son of God, or that Mohammed was His major prophet?

Men did.

Who defined the rules of good and bad, as interpretted from the Bible, which was gleaned from scrolls?

Men did.

Moses dictated the Word Of God to his tablets. In the meantime, man has been busy interpreting those words.

To me, many of the tenets that different denominations practice are man-driven.

I think God just gave us the basics. The rest is up to us.

Personally, I know what is right and what is wrong. This knowledge is 'learned' through societal upbringing. In effect, we are what we do!

Hell is a creation of Man's invention... the people who do wrong are judged, not by God, but by their own conscience.

God might be the final arbiter, but the fact remains, we live and die and exist by the actions we make.

We make!

"Make" is another word for "Create".

In my mind, this was God's gift to us.... that we could make and create our own lives, our own choices, our own way of living within a group of people who had the same choices.

Psychology has a word for this. So does Religion.

All of the above is irrelevant! It's nonsense!

It's little piece of turd that slowly decomposes on a sidewalk because Mr Joe Blogs can't be bothered picking it up and depositing it in a trash can!

It's Crap!

Or, is it? That word... that one five-letter word which has sparked more and more vicious wars in the history of man... "FAITH".

You can't argue against it, you can't disregard it. Faith exists.

To not have faith is to imagine that you, me, him, her... have no meaning. You are without purpose. You are useless. You were born, and one day, you will die. The end. period. no commas, no semi-colons... you're just dead and disappeared and meaningless.

How bleak is that?

I'm going to close this post before i start on the next subject... which is science.

What impact has our 'Human' knowledge made to how we exist within a world gone crazy?

watch this space!

[Lightwielder]

Thank you, Badstench. I was wanting to making a religious talk thread sooner or later.

Or, is it? That word... that one five-letter word which has sparked more and more vicious wars in the history of man... "FAITH".

You can't argue against it, you can't disregard it. Faith exists.

I was once reading a debate that eventually turned into religious people(majority were Christians) and atheist/anti-theist. The atheist side made a claim that faith is the opposite of reason...which was when I made a profound discovery. I pondered that statement for a while, because I never considered the reality of the concept of faith; I had just accepted it. After much thought, I realized that faith IS NOT the opposite of reason, but its source.

Think about it. If you sit down on a chair, you are having the faith that it will not break and cause you to fall. Reason comes in afterwards and assures you of the chance that it will hold you. Obviously, a metal chair will be more likely to hold you than a wooden or plastic one. Regardless, when you boil it all down, you are taking a leap of faith that there is not something wrong with the chair that would cause it to break. There isn't a way to prove it won't break without testing it.

Too many people believe that faith refers to a belief in a higher power, or some force of creation, etc. They don't realize the literal definition of faith, and that it applies to even the most basic of forces, knowledge, and action.

Now, I won't go into my view of God. Not just yet. I simply want to remind you all about what "Faith" really means, and that it doesn't only apply to religion or religious people.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I do have a question for all of you, but I'm going to wait until Badstench posts his next part, because my question will probably spark a whole new debate. I have first-hand experience. I've asked it once before, and it, in fact, did open up into a debate.

[Badstench]

Nice response, lightwielder, but there is a flaw in your reasoning.

the word, "faith" in your reasoning lacks an important concept: the knowledge of tangible versus intangible.

by your own admission, the "chair" might break.

if I had true faith, I would sit where there is no chair. My faith would hold me up, because my faith would prove that God wouldn't let me fall.

This is completely ludicrous!

The point I am trying to make is that "Faith", when used in connection with a deity/ belief/ religion, can't be argued against.

Iv'e tried it, believe me, and the closest I got to an answer that didn't make me want to smash the guy, was a half consetion to the fact that our planet does indeed orbit the sun.

So... that's bordering on science. I may as well continue.

~~~~~~

Never confuse physical reality (science) with spiritual reality. You'll only turn puple in the process and probably become immortal, because everyone else will talk about you forever. They'll say, that was the idiot who tried to convince us that God doesn't exist!

Any further discussion on the topic would probably also help Einstein's Backward Velocity Principle, within which it is determined that the harder you strive to attain a goal, the slower your progress will be.

Erm... actually, that was Murphy's law ( I thought it was time to throw a joke in).

But the fact remains that scientists can be just as infuriating with their talk of "proof" and "physical evidence" and "hard facts", when a lot of what they spout is pure conjecture gleaned by mathematics and past experience.

I believe that I will win Lotto tonight, but past experience makes that unlikely. However, it's not impossible. A scientist will tell me that my chances are 4 to the power of 1+lots of zeros, multiplied by many more zeros (I have no idea what the actual chances are. I'm just spouting shite). What does this mean to me? Shite!

Someone at some time is going to strike the big lotto pay-out... if the scientist had told that person he didn't stand a snowball's chance in The Sahara desert, would he have invested money in a refigeration company in Libya?

Probably not.

Why?

Because it was a bad bet.

However, the same person would still buy a lotto ticket.

Why?

Because no-one wants to own a refrigeration company built in the middle of Libya! But they will accept godzillion dollars from thin air, and if that means spending 1, 2 or 50 dollar (or more) to achieve it, then who are we to deny them their "faith"!

Science! leave the doings of men to science. Leave the doing of God to priests.

There is no middle ground.

You have faith, or you require proof.

Pick your side of the fence and stand there... and shut the hell up!

[Badstench]

oh... I didn't mean for you to "shut the hell up"... just a figure of speech!

[Lightwielder]

the word, "faith" in your reasoning lacks an important concept: the knowledge of tangible versus intangible.

Actually, I intentionally used the tangible to prove a point. I will explain why when I ask my question, but I have to got off now, so I don't have the time to post it yet. But I will post it later, when I can get back on.

[wetheril]

I am very amused by your response, Badstench! (And I like the way you think. ;))

As you so aptly wrote previously--faith and science are independent of each other. I will use a very poor analogy to illustrate my point. Legs are for walking, and hands are for writing and drawing, and everything hands do. Why force yourself to use only your hands or use only your feet when both can be used simultaneously? I see no need for the existence of one to annilate that of the other. My point being that each have a function, and it's up to each of us to use either one where appropriate.

But the fact remains that scientists can be just as infuriating with their talk of "proof" and "physical evidence" and "hard facts", when a lot of what they spout is pure conjecture gleaned by mathematics and past experience.

As for my thoughts on science: True science is all about disproving something. Rule of thumb--provide a counterexample and you've effectively disproved a hypothesis. Continual evidence to see otherwise does not prove that it is true. It merely means that it has yet to be disproven.

[thingirl]

Actually, science IS faith. If you're a Creationist, you have faith that a Supreme Being ("God" for the purpose of this topic) created the world and everything in it. If you're an Evolutionist, then you have faith that everything happened as a result of random chance. Faith is an interesting little word.

[Zedalion]

Actually, science IS faith. If you're a Creationist, you have faith that a Supreme Being ("God" for the purpose of this topic) created the world and everything in it. If you're an Evolutionist, then you have faith that everything happened as a result of random chance. Faith is an interesting little word.

The difference (for me) is that evolution could be disproven, it's a falsifiable hypothesis. God cannot, by definition, be proven false.

[wetheril]

Actually, science IS faith. If you're a Creationist, you have faith that a Supreme Being ("God" for the purpose of this topic) created the world and everything in it. If you're an Evolutionist, then you have faith that everything happened as a result of random chance. Faith is an interesting little word.

Ah, but you're jumping to a premature conclusion. By using a statement like that, you are assuming all scientists are Evolutionists (which is not true).

One of the best biology instructors I've ever had in 9th grade is a firm believer in Creationism.

[thingirl]

No, I'm not assuming that all scientists are Evolutionists. In fact, the person who writes my Science books (Dr. J Wile, Apolpgia ministries) is a Creationist. In the 7th grade book (last year's) he spends a month on Creation's Vs. Evolution. This year, he's spending a month and a half. Heck, the entire series is called "Exploring Creation with ______" The ____ is the name of the course.

[wetheril]

Mind explaining what you meant by:
Actually, science IS faith.

Btw, I'm not trying to offend anybody. I just want to make you think critically. ;)

[Daffanka]

The belief that the universe is governed by certain rules isn't mutually exclusive with believing in a higher power. It was probably easier for God to make some rules and throw some matter into the universe than try to design all that stuff in Photoshop. ;) I'm probably what you call agnostic. I think there's something up there, but it sure ain't what's described in the Bible, Qur'an or the Tanakh, hell, it's probably not even a good god, given what kinda stuff goes on here. I'm probably a bit biased here because I didn't have much of an easy childhood.

I believe in evolution, I'm pro-choice, and I think most religions have a good message that gets muddled up by people trying to use it for their own means. The monotheistic religions would be the prevalent example here, Judaism excepted. Just take the bible as an example. A lot of the fundamentalist American Christians aren't much better than the Islamics who suicide bomb. They pick the parts of the bible they like, ignore the overall message, and try to scare people into following them. They're using religion as a tool to get their will through.

[thingirl]

I totally agree with the second paragraph. Taking the "good" parts of the Bible out of context and mutilating them beyond recognition is NOT Christianity. You need to take the Bible as a whole (or at least read the entire chapter), not just the stuff you like.

[zmflavius]

Ah, but you're jumping to a premature conclusion. By using a statement like that, you are assuming all scientists are Evolutionists (which is not true).

One of the best biology instructors I've ever had in 9th grade is a firm believer in Creationism.

This was when? Today, a biology instructor who believed in Creationism would never have a word of his taken seriously.

[Oldschool]

I recall a biology professor in college making the following statement in relation to a discussion about evolution v. creationism.

If we evolved from apes why are they still here?

I'm sure they are evolutionary arguments/theories as to why but I find it interesting since that's about the only thing that has stuck with me out of that class.

[wetheril]

I recall a biology professor in college making the following statement in relation to a discussion about evolution v. creationism.

If we evolved from apes why are they still here?

I'm sure they are evolutionary arguments/theories as to why but I find it interesting since that's about the only thing that has stuck with me out of that class.

He's right though. Humans cannot evolve from apes because apes and humans both exist today. What is commonly accepted in biology about "evolution" is that humans and apes shared a common ancestor at one point--you can think of them as "cousins" on a family tree. It's like you can't evolve from your sibling because you and your brother or sister are both here today, but you both have the same parents.

This was when? Today, a biology instructor who believed in Creationism would never have a word of his taken seriously.

My point being that you can believe in anything you like, but it doesn't mean you can't be a good scientist/instructor.

Evolution (in biology) is not to be confused with evolutionism (which in my opinion is in the realm of religion, and thus faith).

[thingirl]

Yes, THAT is what I was getting at. Evolutionism is a form of faith. Now, I think I had better go finish getting ready for Church.

[Lightwielder]

I was once reading a debate that eventually turned into religious people(majority were Christians) and atheist/anti-theist. The atheist side made a claim that faith is the opposite of reason...which was when I made a profound discovery. I pondered that statement for a while, because I never considered the reality of the concept of faith; I had just accepted it. After much thought, I realized that faith IS NOT the opposite of reason, but its source.

This next story happened during the same debate as mentioned above. The Atheist side claimed that George Bush shouldn't have been running the country, because he was deluded by his religion. They said that Atheists should run the country, because they have no faith, so they can see facts clearly. (In my mind, this statement was an absolute piece of crap.) I thought of a solution to this statement. Next time I heard an Atheist claim that they are better than religious people, because religious people were clouded and delusional, I wouldn't inform them that Atheism is ALSO a religion.

So many people fail to realize this. I believe that Atheism is a religion. I looked "Atheism" and "religion" up in the dictionary. Atheism would fall under that category. At the very least, Atheism being a religion is very debatable, so my point is, they shouldn't go around bashing other religions when they (are/cloud be) one, as well.

Here's my big question. What is your opinion? Would you believe that Atheism is a religion?

(Do me a favor, though. Don't comment on the whole "George Bush" issue mentioned above. It will drag the board off-topic, and I was only using that instance as an explanation. An example.)

[thingirl]

Yes. Atheism is a religion. "Religion" in most cases is a certain set of beliefs. "Atheism" is the belief that there is not god. So yes, Atheism is a religion.

(And let the flame war begin.)

[Zedalion]

So many people fail to realize this. I believe that Atheism is a religion. I looked "Atheism" and "religion" up in the dictionary. Atheism would fall under that category. At the very least, Atheism being a religion is very debatable, so my point is, they shouldn't go around bashing other religions when they (are/cloud be) one, as well.

Here's my big question. What is your opinion? Would you believe that Atheism is a religion?

I'm an atheist, so I suppose I can be the board's punching bag on this issue.

Let's see. Dictionary.com's definition of 'religion' (the top three definitions only):

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Here the answer is 'sort of'. Atheism is a set of beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, but most decidedly NOT as the creation of anything superhuman. Atheism in and of itself does not contain moral codes, though most atheists do. I do.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Here again, have to go with 'kinda'. Atheists agree on one fundamental belief, but no real practices.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

And once again, have to say, 'mostly, I suppose'. While there's no central body of atheists that I'm aware of, they are characterized by a shared belief.

I would like to agree with you quite whole-heartedly that no one should ever go around bashing anyone else's religion.

Just my opinion, as always.

[Daffanka]

Atheism is lack of faith. It's not believing in any theistic fundamental principles. A-theism, if you will.

For the record I think the only people worse than religious fundamentalists are the atheists who think people are idiots for believing, and will get all in your face about it. Most of them are cool though.

[thingirl]

For the record I think the only people worse than religious fundamentalists are the atheists who think people are idiots for believing, and will get all in your face about it. Most of them are cool though.

I think that you meant that as "I'm bashing Atheists, even though I hate people bashing other people because of their faith."

[Daffanka]

I think that you meant that as "I'm bashing Atheists, even though I hate people bashing other people because of their faith."

No, I meant that as I'm bashing people who get in my face about how they feel sorry for me because I do or do not have a religion. I don't really care about other people's belief because it almost certainly won't affect me in any way.

"hey I'm atheist."

Okay cool.

"hey I'm atheist you are such a dumbass for believing in a god don't you believe in science you jackass stupid peasant"

I've had the last part said to me almost word by word. I've gotten the same from Christians. Yeah. :/

[thingirl]

Those Christians were either major hyprcrits or had no idea of how to share the(ir) faith.

[Lightwielder]

Those Christians were either major hyprcrits or had no idea of how to share the(ir) faith.
Sad, but true. I heard about an Atheist who wrote a book, and in it he said something along these lines...(Not a direct quote, because I can't remember every word.)
"This "Jesus" sounds like a really great guy. In fact, I would probably follow him, too, if his followers would act like they followed him.
(It went something like that)

The sad truth, many people claim that they are Christian, but they show the opposite.

It's similar to how some religions(or denominations) have followers that would tell you that they are Christian, or saved; however, if you went in deeper, you would find that they don't believe in Jesus, or that He saved us from sin. (In my Bible, that would mean that you are not saved.)

I'm an atheist, so I suppose I can be the board's punching bag on this issue.
Don't worry, Zedalion. I still value Atheist opinions in matters like these. So long as they don't turn out to be like the ones mentioned in my last post.
(I used Dictionary.com, too.)

Yes. Atheism is a religion. "Religion" in most cases is a certain set of beliefs. "Atheism" is the belief that there is not god. So yes, Atheism is a religion.
I've had Atheists tell me that it's simply a "not belief in God."
I countered with the fact that it could just as easily be a "belief in not God." A large majority of Atheists that I've seen seem to have "belief in not God"
(If my wording confused you, feel free to ask me what I meant.)

[Daffanka]

Wasn't it "I think jesus is an awesome guy, I just don't like his fanclub"? Because that is an awesome quote.

[Lightwielder]

Wasn't it "I think jesus is an awesome guy, I just don't like his fanclub"? Because that is an awesome quote.

Maybe, but I think this is a different quote that I'm thinking of. Same concept, though.

[thingirl]

If everybody who says that they're a Christian acted like they were a Christian, then the world would probably be a better place.

[texlaw1992]

Thought you might find this story amusing:

I work with a number of United Nations-related organizations, so I routinely meet people of all different religions and cultures. I'm Jewish, which I mention because it's relevant to the story.

I work with a number of Indians. A few years ago, the husband of the then-president of one of our organizations passed away and the funeral was held at Christ Church cathedral. One of my Indian colleagues and I were sitting next to each other during the service. At one point, he turned to me and whispered, "What's going on?"

I thought to myself, this must be a first: a Hindu guy asking a Jewish guy what's going on at a Christian funeral!

[Oldschool]

Lol...... :) repped for the chuckles.

[scout1idf]

Lol...... :) repped for the chuckles.
Same here.....

[thingirl]

And you probably actually knew Psalm 23, 'cuz it's in Old Testament. Anyway, repped.

[Godofpride]

I have the solution to any and all debates here. I am God! (just joking)

But for me personally, I don't believe in anything. As long as somebody doesn't push their beliefs on me, I'm fine. And I love debating about religion, politics, psychology and philosophy.

...well, I looked at this page, and I see one point. I just want to say that atheism is not a religion anymore than saying theism is. Theism just means believe in a god/s, which in itself is not a faith. And neither is atheism, since it just means without the belief of god/s.

For example, a Buddist could not believe in a diety, and he or she is an athiest. The athiest part isn't the religion, Buddism is. And a Christian is a theist, but the theist part isn't the religion, it's Christianity. And an athiest who doesn't believe in any spirtuality whatsoever (like me) isn't of a religion at all. They are outside the definition of any religion.

It's like saying no chemicals at is still a chemical equation. Does that make sense?

[texlaw1992]

Some of the posts about atheism / agnosticism reminded me of an amusing story from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The story included a creature called the Babble Fish, which allowed anyone to understand any language by placing the fish in their ear. It also featured a conversation between man and God:

God: I cannot prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.

Man: But the babble fish is so useful that it could not have evolved on its own. This proves you exist, and therefore by your definition, you don't.

God: Oh, I never thought of that, and promptly vanishes.

There's another line about what happens to man after that, but I don't remember it.

[thingirl]

Probably he disappears too, because if God is real and created man, but God is not real because there is proof that he is, then man does not exist either, because God doesn't, and therefore God didn't create man. I hate paradoxes.

[Young Ned]

IIRC, in the story, Man is so puffed up over his success that he goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed at the next zebra crossing (a chiefly British sort of crosswalk that consists of alternating black and white stripes all the way across the intersection).

Yes, I'm a big fan of the rather inaccurately named "Hitchhiker's Guide Trilogy". ;)

[texlaw1992]

Thanks for finishing the story. Yes, I've read all 5 books of the inaccurately-named trilogy.

They got Douglas Adams (the author) to write an episode of Dr. Who many years ago (it was the second episode in the key to time series about the planet Califrax). That episode had more weird names for different types of technology than any other.

[ValothBranstrommer]

Finding these kinds of threads interesting, I read what was posted up to here and was amused, interested, sometimes a little depressed and in the end feeling like I should share something with those with the time to read it.

I was 20 years old when I went to a privately-owned religious university to get my degree in pastoral studies. I was very quickly saddened to find that despite a notable percentage of the students being non-Christian, all students were required to attend a religious chapel session 3 times weekly. After first arriving I thought nothing of this, but, when I realized that the friends I'd made that were not christian were being forced to either go to these chapel services or be kicked out of school with no refund.

This sat wrong with me and, despite my actual reason for eventually leaving there being that I didn't have the money to continue there, I was happy to leave for that and other similar reasons.

I have no problem with chapel sessions personally. They can be a source of inspiration and hope. But, in this case I thought and still think that they should not have been made mandatory for staying on in the school. A tool, such as a chapel session, still has to be used properly. Used incorrectly, it can even damage our testimonies as Christians.

All this said I guess what I've been trying to say is that, yes, there are a lot of Christians (or, in some cases, people who profit off of people THINKING they're christians) who do things that fly in the face of logic/common sense/etc., BUT the precepts behind Christianity still stand true. The church, an organization made of flawed peoples is just that: flawed. well-meaning...probably. true to the scripture...hopefully, but regardless it's still flawed.

Does the statement end there? Of course not. I still have a responsibility to be as Christ-like as possible for those around me. Will I mess up? You bet. Hopefully my screw ups won't turn anyone from the right path. That is one of my biggest prayers, but I can't stop trying just because of some televangelist royally making us all look like debaucherous money fiends. I can't stop because someone goes off the deep end in their zealousness and bombs an abortion clinic. If anything, I have to try harder just to cover the ground all these other people and occasionally myself lose.

All of these things don't close my ears. Jesus didn't close his ears or his eyes due to something he disagreed with. On the contrary, it wasn't the pious, the religious upper crust he spent the majority of his time with. It was the unsaved. It was the morally lacking. It was the socially unacceptable. The leper. The prostitute. And why? because he loved them. Some of them didn't even love him, but that didn't stop him. He had to do what he came to do, and, in like manner, so do we.

sorry to get a little long winded there

[zmflavius]

Finding these kinds of threads interesting, I read what was posted up to here and was amused, interested, sometimes a little depressed and in the end feeling like I should share something with those with the time to read it.

I was 20 years old when I went to a privately-owned religious university to get my degree in pastoral studies. I was very quickly saddened to find that despite a notable percentage of the students being non-Christian, all students were required to attend a religious chapel session 3 times weekly. After first arriving I thought nothing of this, but, when I realized that the friends I'd made that were not christian were being forced to either go to these chapel services or be kicked out of school with no refund.

This sat wrong with me and, despite my actual reason for eventually leaving there being that I didn't have the money to continue there, I was happy to leave for that and other similar reasons.

I have no problem with chapel sessions personally. They can be a source of inspiration and hope. But, in this case I thought and still think that they should not have been made mandatory for staying on in the school. A tool, such as a chapel session, still has to be used properly. Used incorrectly, it can even damage our testimonies as Christians.

All this said I guess what I've been trying to say is that, yes, there are a lot of Christians (or, in some cases, people who profit off of people THINKING they're christians) who do things that fly in the face of logic/common sense/etc., BUT the precepts behind Christianity still stand true. The church, an organization made of flawed peoples is just that: flawed. well-meaning...probably. true to the scripture...hopefully, but regardless it's still flawed.

Does the statement end there? Of course not. I still have a responsibility to be as Christ-like as possible for those around me. Will I mess up? You bet. Hopefully my screw ups won't turn anyone from the right path. That is one of my biggest prayers, but I can't stop trying just because of some televangelist royally making us all look like debaucherous money fiends. I can't stop because someone goes off the deep end in their zealousness and bombs an abortion clinic. If anything, I have to try harder just to cover the ground all these other people and occasionally myself lose.

All of these things don't close my ears. Jesus didn't close his ears or his eyes due to something he disagreed with. On the contrary, it wasn't the pious, the religious upper crust he spent the majority of his time with. It was the unsaved. It was the morally lacking. It was the socially unacceptable. The leper. The prostitute. And why? because he loved them. Some of them didn't even love him, but that didn't stop him. He had to do what he came to do, and, in like manner, so do we.

sorry to get a little long winded there

BTW...do you understand what it means to be a Christian?

[ValothBranstrommer]

Yes, the core concept of Christianity is quite simple.
1. Know you have a sin nature and are imperfect and thus, incapable of entering Heaven when you die
2. Come to a faith/knowledge that Christ is the way, the truth and the light and that NO one comes to the father but by him.
3. Repent of the sins that you have commited knowingly and unknowingly, through action or inaction.
4. Strive, with Christ's help to emulate him, and...
5. Spread the Gospel(the good news) with those we meet in accordance with The Great Commission.

All the rest of the Bible, while being essential in supporting these statements, is merely:
1. The setting up of the circumstances surrounding the necessity for Christ's coming to sacrifice himself for our sin and:
2. The further growth of understanding and maturity in our personal walk with Christ., or:
3. Various collections of scripture of a prophetic nature.

[thingirl]

I think I agree with most of what he said (I think, can't follow most of it) and I have this to add on to. I forget where it's from, but it's somewhere in Acts Repent and be baptized EVERY ONE of you...

BTW, I just got back from mid week church.

EDIT: And I don't agree with his statement of the Holy Bible, the inspired Word of God.

[ValothBranstrommer]

By saying what I did about the Bible, I was not claiming that the entirety of it is not God-breathed, Merely that it's point of focus was the salvation and growth of the human soul.

VB

[thingirl]

All Scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God can be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

You better not be saying it's not God-breathed. Also, most of the Old Testament is history. The book of Genesis is an early history of the world.

[ValothBranstrommer]

"Quick with the scrip" is a phrase me and some friends came up with for the talent of whipping scripture out like that. Duly repped. No, you're right about the old testament and Genesis. But if you'll allow me this, it also portrays mankind's fall and his inability to follow even the simplest of commandments due to his sin nature, thus showing quite vividly our need for Christ and his forgiveness.
VB

[zmflavius]

Yeah. Pretty much.

[thingirl]

What Zm said.

[Taleria]

I totally agree with the second paragraph. Taking the "good" parts of the Bible out of context and mutilating them beyond recognition is NOT Christianity. You need to take the Bible as a whole (or at least read the entire chapter), not just the stuff you like.
This from the one who said it was okay to skip Leviticus? I've read the Bible from front to back, though it was a very long time ago. My problem is that the Bible is so contradictory, it's difficult to take it seriously.

I was raised a Christian and believed that way until I entered college and began asking myself why it was I thought the way I did. What was my answer? "I don't know; it's what my parents chose." And then, I began to learn things about the Bible as literature - that the stories in it were by no means unique and in fact possibly plagiarized from stories of the region. And then, my indoctrination that the Bible was truth began to crumble.

And yet, I find I cannot be an atheist. This may be because of upbringing or, like Badstench, because I cannot abide the thought that my life is meaningless and so must have something to cling to. And yet, organized religions do not appeal to me. Perhaps I prefer the solitary path.

In short, I'm confused. I'm a theist, but whether mono or poly, I haven't decided. All I know is I don't care for the Biblical God. I think I want a god according to my own image.

I don't give religion much thought, and those who try to push me a certain way only earn my ire. I try to be diplomatic, fair, forthright, compassionate, and open-minded. In the end, I have to hope it was enough.

[Lightwielder]

From what I've heard, you are what's called an Agnostic.

Dictionary.com's definition of "Agnostic."

–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Atheist is also a synonym of Agnostic
The Gnostics believe that they have special knowledge about God and the universe.

Agnostics don't know one way or the other. They believe in the possibility of a God, but they don't really know.

[Young Ned]

Atheist is also a synonym of Agnostic

Uh, no. Atheists firmly deny any possibility that there is a god (or gods), whereas agnostics admit they don't know one way or the other. Not the same thing.

To me, atheism is just as much a faith-based belief as theism (believing in God). You can't prove God doesn't exist any more than you can prove God does exist. If you believe in something you can't prove, then your belief is based on faith. (Yes, I'm an agnostic...)

[scout1idf]

From what I've heard, you are what's called an Agnostic.

Dictionary.com's definition of "Agnostic."

–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Atheist is also a synonym of Agnostic
The Gnostics believe that they have special knowledge about God and the universe.

Agnostics don't know one way or the other. They believe in the possibility of a God, but they don't really know.

..........To me, atheism is just as much a faith-based belief as theism (believing in God). You can't prove God doesn't exist any more than you can prove God does exist. If you believe in something you can't prove, then your belief is based on faith. (Yes, I'm an agnostic...)

I guess that makes me Agnostic as well..... (I hope my Grandma is to busy in Heaven to read this.)

[Zedalion]

To me, atheism is just as much a faith-based belief as theism (believing in God). You can't prove God doesn't exist any more than you can prove God does exist. If you believe in something you can't prove, then your belief is based on faith. (Yes, I'm an agnostic...)

This is quite true, I can’t prove God doesn’t exist, but personally I find his or her existence quite unlikely.

Similarly, I also cannot disprove that there could be an invisible pink unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn) behind my desk, a flying spaghetti monster manipulating my every thought with his noodly appendage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster), or a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot). Speaking only for myself, I believe the burden of proof is on the proponents of these invisible entities, not their skeptics.

But, as always, that is only my opinion!

[thingirl]

I totally agree with the second paragraph. Taking the "good" parts of the Bible out of context and mutilating them beyond recognition is NOT Christianity. You need to take the Bible as a whole (or at least read the entire chapter), not just the stuff you like.This from the one who said it was okay to skip Leviticus?

I might be drawing a fine line here, but trying to get started and skipping the boring laws, some (most?) of which aren't as relevant to a modern-day Christian as they once were, is not the same thing as reading one verse that you like, then skipping the next few verses because they say stuff you don't like.

As for what Atheism and Agnostic are, I wont even go there.

[texlaw1992]

I probably have a bit of a different perspective since, being Jewish, I can read and write Hebrew and at least partially understand the original Hebrew bible without a Hebrew-English dictionary. My understanding of the bible is that it's primarily written in symbolism with the stories meant to be allegorical rather than literally true. Obviously there are a number of people who believe every word is literally true and others who do not, but I think a literal reading of every word is not the correct approach.

In any event, whether you're religious, atheist or agnostic, live your life as a good person and nobody has a right to complain.

[scout1idf]

..........In any event, whether you're religious, atheist or agnostic, live your life as a good person and nobody has a right to complain.


Cool, I like that.... Rep'd

[Lightwielder]

Uh, no. Atheists firmly deny any possibility that there is a god (or gods), whereas agnostics admit they don't know one way or the other. Not the same thing.

Actually, I'm not the one saying that they're synonyms, that's what Dictionary.com said. Besides, synonyms are words that have similar meanings, not exactly the same. Many synonyms have the same actual meanings or usage, but have different shades of meaning or different connotations.

Seems similar enough to me.

Cool, I like that.... Rep'd

Indeed. That is a VERY good idea.

[Taleria]

I probably have a bit of a different perspective since, being Jewish, I can read and write Hebrew and at least partially understand the original Hebrew bible without a Hebrew-English dictionary. My understanding of the bible is that it's primarily written in symbolism with the stories meant to be allegorical rather than literally true. Obviously there are a number of people who believe every word is literally true and others who do not, but I think a literal reading of every word is not the correct approach.

Ah. There you have me. You bring up an excellent point about things lost in translation, or the wrong meanings denoted by the words that were chosen. My religion teacher, who was a proud Greek Orthodox man, said if we wished to truly understand the Bible, we should learn Greek or Hebrew. A daunting task, to say the least. Thank you for reminding me that the Bible I read is likely more shallow than the original source language intended, and thus, I'm judging unfairly to some extent.

P.S. Add to that my lack of appreciation for allegory of any kind, as well as symbolism. Was never quick on the uptake there, let alone for religious texts.

[texlaw1992]

As an example, one of my high school English assignments was the Book of Job. For my own curiousity, I compared the English version we had in class to the original Hebrew. There were a lot of discrepancies, including whole paragraphs translated incorrectly.

I was just reminded of a quote from Miriam "Ma" Ferguson, a Texas governor in the 1930s. She was asked if English should be the official language of the US. Her response: "Any language that's good enough for Jesus Christ is good enough for me."

[thingirl]

As an example, one of my high school English assignments was the Book of Job. I compared the English version we had in class to the original Hebrew. There were a lot of discrepancies, including whole paragraphs translated incorrectly.

Were they translated incorrectly, or just paraphrased so the we would understand it? And what version were you using? Msg? NASB? NLT? NIV? NKJV?

EDIT: Mmm, mmm, alphabet soup. Msg= The Message, NASB= New American Standard Bible, NLT= New Living Translation, NIV= New International Version, and NKJV= New King James Version.

[texlaw1992]

Sorry TG, it was a long time ago and I do not remember where the English version originated. I would say that most of the discrepancies in the English version were paraphrasing and did not affect the story. There were some paragraphs that were totally wrong, but even those were minor parts of the story. I'm not saying that the English translations are wrong (I'd say most are pretty accurate), just that there are discrepancies.

One better biblical example (of which you're probably aware) is the commandment "You shall not kill." The better translation is "You shall not murder." That in fact coincides much better with biblical themes.

[thingirl]

Murder is killing in cold blood. Killing is putting someone to death. But, in most cases, they are similar enough. Oh, and in the Yakut (nomadic reindeer herders in northern Siberia) Bible, it says that Jesus is the reindeer of life, because they don't know what bread is.

[Taleria]

It's interesting to think about the terminology used when it comes to killing. Murder is generally referring to the death of humans, while killing applies to everything else. We don't say that we murdered a mosquito, but we did.

It starts getting cloudier if one tries to define murder in terms of whether or not someone is innocent. The argument could be put forth that we killed a mosquito because it tried to kill us by taking our blood and possibly infecting us with malaria or some other parasite. And yet, the mosquito's running on instinct - so are we actually killing something that's innocent?

I have to admit, I felt sorry for that stoneater in the Saarngard adventure where we meet the intelligent ogre. I wished I could have just subdued it instead of killing it. But I should stop thinking this way - killing jadefangs will be made rather difficult.

I take the word "murder" in the commandment to apply only to humans, since the Bible says people can do with other creatures as they will.

[thingirl]

Mostly because only humans have souls.

[zmflavius]

Mostly because only humans have souls.

Assuming your source is the Bible, where is it written?

[texlaw1992]

It's also interesting to compare how murder was handled legally in biblical times. Under traditional Jewish law, circumstantial evidence of murder was not allowed, only direct evidence. In other words, if you saw someone with a knife chasing another person into an alley, then you run to the alley and see the person with the knife standing over the other person with a dripping blade, absent an eyewitness to the actual killing, the person holding the knife would be acquitted of murder. Given the biblical "eye for an eye," etc., it's unusual that a rejection of circumstantial evidence became a legal standard.

[Badstench]

Peter hit the switch that moved the replay of history forward.

"Now, this era was punctuated by the two sets of believers having a go at each other. You can see that they weren't happy living in close quarters.

"The chap named Saladin was willing to parley, but the other fellow didn't want a bar of it.

"By the time he realised that he was on the losing end of the stick, Saladin laughed in his face."

"Hmmmm"

"Rewind a few centuries, and you can see that, even though we tried our best with Constantine, the Roman empire fractured. This left it open for the invasions of the barbarian hordes; the Vandals and Visigoths in the west, the Huns and the Tartars from the east. Even though we'd been successful in wiping out the pagan druids in Brittania, it merely opened the way for a new belief."

"Hmmmm"

"At about the same time, the endeavour we had nurtured in Asia minor backfired. We could blame this on Alexander's heavy handed attitude from a few hundred years previous... it made them suspicious of everyone from the west... but the truth is that they did a complete 180 degree turn from what we wanted".

"Hmmmm"

"The Eastern peoples started off with the right idea; Peace and harmony and wotnot. I kinda liked them. The same could be said of the Norsemen, but they took it to the extreme when they went doing missionary work behind a sword. Good people, but a little too keen for my liking."

"Hmmmm"

"Yeah"

....... "um"

"Hmmmm?"

"Well, I'm just wondering... your directive orders me to only let through the souls that are deserving of Heaven. I'm confused about the different religions and their views of Heaven and also their views of right and wrong.

"Christains and Moslems, Bhuddists and Hindus, Pagans and Agnostics.... and all the variances of all the religions who, quite frankly, worship you. By any other name, you are "God".

"Hmmmm?"

"Or Allah, or Yaweh or Krishna or Buddha... it's all the same thing. So... my point is..."

"Hmmmm?"

"Well... what I mean is, you'd think that the Jews would feel pretty silly after 2 milleniums of thinking they were the chosen ones. I've kinda gotta ask in a, like, you know, a sort of curious way... who's right?

And God said...

"Peter! Go thee forth to the land of New Zealand, which is the new Zeal... which is different from the old Zeal... and look thee upon the beauty and the honesty and the people who do not worship film stars, nor the rock stars, nor the rulers of other lands... like Mr Obama... or Lindsay Lohan... or Mickey Mouse.

"And I say unto thee, behold!"

Then God fell silent.

Peter, cowed as he was by the voice of God, nevertheless, looked a bit confused.

"My Lord? Erm... behold what, exactly?"

"Shit!" said God. "Don't you watch Youtube?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Explanantion: I'm agnostic. I believe in a higher being, and if that higher being goes by the name of God, then so be it... amen.

To speak so irreverently denies the belief, but I believe that God has a sense of humour. I also believe that Men know the difference between right and wrong, good and bad.

This is my religion... that I will treat you in as good a fashion as I can muster, and if you piss me off, I will hope I can forgive you.

There is no such thing as "evil". There are only decisions that take a person down antisocial paths to Hell.

This is important, so listen closely.

What you think doesn't matter. What you do matters. Thought and action work independently of each other... it's what makes us Human.

I am, therefore, I write poetry, and sing, and kill, and do good things and do bad things... if I choose.

****************

Why did I entitle this post Godswipe?

[thingirl]

Assuming your source is the Bible, where is it written?

It doesn't actually say "animals don't have souls". But: So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

And after the flood they were allowed to eat meat.

[zmflavius]

It doesn't actually say "animals don't have souls". But:

And after the flood they were allowed to eat meat.

Weren't they allowed to eat meat before the flood?

[thingirl]

I don't think so. If you can find a supporting verse for it, I'll believe you.

[zmflavius]

I don't think so. If you can find a supporting verse for it, I'll believe you.

Can you find a verse which says otherwise?

[thingirl]

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Yes.

1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them... 3 "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

[Badstench]

Thingirl is right... to a point. The quotes from Genesis are accurate, in so far as Man's interpretation of God's word is accurate.

Fast forward to Leviticus, and here you will find all the rules about what is, and isn't, food for His chosen people.

If you can wrap your head around the language, it actually makes common sense. He gave us guidelines... and I stress... guidelines... about health and nutrition.

Hebrews live and eat by this tenet. Kosher food.

I like a good breakfast of bacon and eggs.... mushrooms are yummy if done properly and with the right sauce... Crab meat and Lobster.

Of the foods mentioned above, ony one is deemed okay to eat, and only if that food is properly gathered.

[wetheril]

I like a good breakfast of bacon and eggs.... mushrooms are yummy if done properly and with the right sauce... Crab meat and Lobster.

Of the foods mentioned above, ony one is deemed okay to eat, and only if that food is properly gathered.

I'm going to guess it's either the bacon or the eggs. I am pretty sure that shell-fish was a no-no.

I'm no expert on the bible, and admittedly, I'm impressed with how quick Thingirl is at referencing it.

[zmflavius]

I'm going to guess it's either the bacon or the eggs. I am pretty sure that shell-fish was a no-no.

I'm no expert on the bible, and admittedly, I'm impressed with how quick Thingirl is at referencing it.

shellfish was indeed a no-no (I think). I'm also pretty sure it had to do with the desert environment.

[wetheril]

shellfish was indeed a no-no (I think). I'm also pretty sure it had to do with the desert environment.

Could be. Only reason that really stood out to me is because I once saw a no-smoking sign on a shrimp for a T-shirt, and that image just stuck. xD

I had to look this up just to confirm, but I'm pretty sure now that pork is also not allowed. There's no kosher pork, which means bacon is out of the question--that would leave eggs as the only one allowed on the list.

[zmflavius]

Could be. Only reason that really stood out to me is because I once saw a no-smoking sign on a shrimp for a T-shirt, and that image just stuck. xD

I had to look this up just to confirm, but I'm pretty sure now that pork is also not allowed. There's no kosher pork, which means bacon is out of the question--that would leave eggs as the only one allowed on the list.

What about mushrooms? And come to think of it, I don't recall the ancient Israelites as having eggs.

[texlaw1992]

Badstench's post is easy, although I don't keep kosher on a daily basis. You're correct that kosher laws were based on health concerns at the time (pork spoiled in the heat, etc). Still, if you lived in NYC, lots of people go out of their way to buy kosher meat even if they're not Jewish. Kosher meat has to be soaked in salt for 24 hours, so no matter how much you wash it, there will always be some salt left, and salt makes the meat taste better. However, no matter how they make it, milkless cheese still tastes like rubber.

There is no such thing as kosher pork sausage, but turkey sausage is ok if properly prepared. Now the obligatory kosher sausage joke - Ladies, if a Jewish man you're not dating asks you if you'd like some kosher sausage, say yes at your peril.

[zmflavius]

Badstench's post is easy, although I don't keep kosher on a daily basis. You're correct that kosher laws were based on health concerns at the time (pork spoiled in the heat, etc). Still, if you lived in NYC, lots of people go out of their way to buy kosher meat even if they're not Jewish. Kosher meat has to be soaked in salt for 24 hours, so no matter how much you wash it, there will always be some salt left, and salt makes the meat taste better. However, no matter how they make it, milkless cheese still tastes like rubber.

There is no such thing as kosher pork sausage, but turkey sausage is ok if properly prepared. Now the obligatory kosher sausage joke - Ladies, if a Jewish man you're not dating asks you if you'd like some kosher sausage, say yes at your peril.

If the sausage is wrapped, it's probably safe.

[Young Ned]

Still, if you lived in NYC, lots of people go out of their way to buy kosher meat even if they're not Jewish. Kosher meat has to be soaked in salt for 24 hours, so no matter how much you wash it, there will always be some salt left, and salt makes the meat taste better.

Kosher meat has a reputation for being higher quality, too. I only buy kosher hot dogs, for instance, after being turned on to them by a Jewish friend.

However, no matter how they make it, milkless cheese still tastes like rubber.

As I understand it, regular cheese is kosher as long as it's not on the same plate, or touched by any of the same utensils, as meat. So I suppose milkless cheese is made specifically so they can put it on pizza (or hamburgers, or lasagna, etc.) without violating the rule against mixing meat and dairy. It does sound unappetizing...

There is no such thing as kosher pork sausage, but turkey sausage is ok if properly prepared.

Beef sausage too, of course -- see the aforementioned kosher hot dogs.

Now the obligatory kosher sausage joke - Ladies, if a Jewish man you're not dating asks you if you'd like some kosher sausage, say yes at your peril.

If the sausage is wrapped, it's probably safe.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha! I love it. :D

[thingirl]

Ignoring you idiots. :p

[wetheril]

You're correct that kosher laws were based on health concerns at the time (pork spoiled in the heat, etc). Still, if you lived in NYC, lots of people go out of their way to buy kosher meat even if they're not Jewish. Kosher meat has to be soaked in salt for 24 hours, so no matter how much you wash it, there will always be some salt left, and salt makes the meat taste better.

Ah, that makes a lot of sense now, in terms of health practices. :) In the context of pre-refrigertion days, salt was the primary means of food preservation. And (iodized) salt keeps you from getting one of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goitre).

[texlaw1992]

Yes, my comments as to milkless cheese were directed to the prohibition against mixing milk and meat (stems from the biblical verse about how you shall not boil a calf in its mother's milk). I have never found a good milkless cheese. If you're interested, the usual rule is to wait one hour before drinking/eating a milk product before eating meat, and wait six hours the other way.

Kosher hot dogs are better too - try Hebrew National if you've never done so. If you're interested in trying Kosher items, look for a triangle k on the item confirming its kosher (a circular u usually indicates kosher for Passover, which is different since those who keep kosher can't eat yeast products during that time).

Funny story - I'm not usually a fan of matzah or unleavened bread. One Passover years ago I bought a box of matzah during Passover and it was wonderful. After the holiday ended, I looked at the box more closely and it said "not for Passover use." Leavened matzah - who ever heard of such a thing?

[Young Ned]

I thought that must be the reasoning behind milkless cheese; I had simply never heard of it before, so it took me a minute to figure out what it had to do with kosher food. :)

Oopsie on the leavened matzah! Did you have to do some sort of penance for using it during the holiday?

[texlaw1992]

It wasn't intentional, so I never worried about needing to do penance for divine forgiveness. I had a friend who kept kosher who ate a few shrimp puffs without knowing they were shrimp - he took the same approach.

Similarly, a few years back I went to a Brazilian restaurant with a Muslim friend and we were both eating what tasted like the most wonderful lamb. After eating several pieces, we inquired only to find out it was pork. While she was tempted to run to the bathroom, she ultimately decided that she would be forgiven since it wasn't intentional. Mistakes happen.

[Zen And Tonic]

When I was working as the microbiologist in a food manufacturing plant, I once walked out of my lab and right into 3 rabbis.

It took me a few seconds to figure out that they were there as part of a kosher certification program, but I had to make sure I wasn't just hallucinating out of overwork at first :P

[zmflavius]

When I was working as the microbiologist in a food manufacturing plant, I once walked out of my lab and right into 3 rabbis.

It took me a few seconds to figure out that they were there as part of a kosher certification program, but I had to make sure I wasn't just hallucinating out of overwork at first :P

Why would you be hallucinating?

[Zen And Tonic]

It was the hallucinogenic mushroom dust I was working with.

I was joking. :P (But I really did have to work with fungus).

[wetheril]

I was joking. :P (But I really did have to work with fungus).

And cow parts, and Noni juice, and many other things best not mentioned here. ;)

[Badstench]

I'm a believer... I also believe that God has a sense of humour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UbqZ_oN5do&feature=related

[Lightwielder]

If God didn't have a sense of humor, some of us(including me) would probably not exist.

[Young Ned]

I'm a believer... I also believe that God has a sense of humour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UbqZ_oN5do&feature=related

Hee-hee, nice one, Badstench.

One slight flaw in that routine... if "the Jews were right", then Hell wouldn't exist. (Judaism does not believe in either Heaven or Hell; those were Christian concepts.)
Other than that, absolutely hilarious. :D

[texlaw1992]

Jews do believe in heaven, but you're correct that hell is a Christian concept. If you mean that the Jewish concept of heaven versus the Christian concept of heaven are not the same, then I'll agree with you on both.

[Young Ned]

Ah, my bad; thanks for the correction. That'll teach me not to throw in an "IIRC" to cover myself. :D

[thingirl]

Adam and Eve? Or am I off the mark on this one?

It is unknown what fruit the tree of the knowledge of good and evil bore. Some people say apples, and others say pomegranates. The Bible only says 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. ...

Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. ...

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Personally, I think that both of the trees in the center of the Garden had unique fruits that were destroyed in the Flood and now are only available in Heaven, if at all.

[zmflavius]

It is unknown what fruit the tree of the knowledge of good and evil bore. Some people say apples, and others say pomegranates. The Bible only says

Personally, I think that both of the trees in the center of the Garden had unique fruits that were destroyed in the Flood and now are only available in Heaven, if at all.

Actually, the reason apples are a popular representation is because in Latin, the word apple is malo, and the word for evil is malus.

[thingirl]

Actually, the reason apples are a popular representation is because in Latin, the word apple is malo, and the word for evil is malus.

Hmm. That brings up the point of what language was spoken before Babel.

(oh, and does anybody else think this part of the discussion should be moved to the God Talk thread?)

[zmflavius]

Hmm. That brings up the point of what language was spoken before Babel.

(oh, and does anybody else think this part of the discussion should be moved to the God Talk thread?)

Not really, because the use of apples as forbidden fruit was decided by the Catholic Church somewhere in the 1st millenium AD.

[thingirl]

I don't follow. What does the Catholic Church dissing apples have to do with that? Did they use the Latin similarities to come to that conclusion? If so, then that still brings up the question of what language was spoken before Babel.

[scout1idf]

Apples aren't evil, they keep the doctor away don't they?;)

[thingirl]

Good point. Doctors cause pain. Pein (http://naruto.wikia.com/wiki/Pein) (and pain) are evil.

[Badstench]

that still brings up the question of what language was spoken before Babel.
Maori, probably... God knows they've claimed everything else (in New Zealand, at least). :eek:

[thingirl]

Maori, probably... God knows they've claimed everything else (in New Zealand, at least). :eek:

Well, in that case, it's English!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D:D:D

Actually, Hebrew is more likely, because the Israelites are God's chosen people. But we'll never know...

(BTW, thanks for moving this)

[zmflavius]

I don't follow. What does the Catholic Church dissing apples have to do with that? Did they use the Latin similarities to come to that conclusion? If so, then that still brings up the question of what language was spoken before Babel.

Yes, it was the Latin similarities. However, I don't see the connection between that and Babel.

Also, most of the books of Daniel and Ezra were written in Aramaic originally, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and most of the Talmud was written in Aramaic. Not Hebrew.

[thingirl]

The connection between Babel and the Catholic Church... I forgot where I was going with that.

As for Aramaic: Daniel was written in Aramaic because that's what he knew how to speak. And Jesus speaks all languages, it's just that when he was on Earth, Aramaic was the language spoken by the people he preached to. And according to Wikipedia, the Talmud was written after Christ.

The reason that Aramaic was spoken in Israel at the time of Daniel is because Darius had made it the official language of his empire, which included Bablon and the lands and people it had concurred, including Israel.

[zmflavius]

The connection between Babel and the Catholic Church... I forgot where I was going with that.

As for Aramaic: Daniel was written in Aramaic because that's what he knew how to speak. And Jesus speaks all languages, it's just that when he was on Earth, Aramaic was the language spoken by the people he preached to. And according to Wikipedia, the Talmud was written after Christ.

The reason that Aramaic was spoken in Israel at the time of Daniel is because Darius had made it the official language of his empire, which included Bablon and the lands and people it had concurred, including Israel.

It's "Babylon."

And if all the people Jesus preached in Aramaic to so many people, what does that say about the main language of the people he preached to?

The Romans all spoke Latin, the natives...Aramaic!

[thingirl]

Because that was the language of the Persians, who concurred the Babylonians (who concurred Judah), who concurred the Assyrians, who concurred Israel.

(I just remembered I haven't done Foreign Language in a week. :eek: Well, I know what I'm doing tomorrow...)

[zmflavius]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all just concur.

con·cur

  http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/C07/C0730700) /kənˈkɜr/ http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled[kuhhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngn-kur] http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA
–verb (used without object),-curred, -cur·ring. 1.to accord in opinion; agree: Do you concur with his statement?

2.to cooperate; work together; combine; be associated: Members of both parties concurred.

3.to coincide; occur at the same time: His graduation concurred with his birthday.

4.Obsolete. to run or come together; converge.

[thingirl]

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:I HATE SPELL CHECK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad: :mad::mad::mad::mad:

*thud* That was my head on my desk.

[texlaw1992]

Years ago at an interfaith discussion we were discussing Aramaic as the language spoken in Israel at the time. An elderly woman in the back angrily stood up and insisted: "No, Jesus spoke English! It's in the Bible!"

To her credit, while it took her a few minutes, she finally "got it" and calmed down (lol).

We actually still have a few prayers in Aramaic, but otherwise it's a dead language.

[scout1idf]

I'll stay out of the conversation other than to give you something to ponder...


What if Jesus didn't speak any of the languages you have listed, but the people he spoke/preached to only just heard him in their own language?

He was the son of God after all.......;)

Debate that for a while.

[texlaw1992]

However, the English language did not exist at that time, so even if he spoke it, nobody heard it or understood it.

[Young Ned]

Actually, the reason apples are a popular representation is because in Latin, the word apple is malo, and the word for evil is malus.

Interesting. I never knew that. And of course, God must have spoken Latin, since the medieval monks considered Latin a perfect language... ;)

[Badstench]

Not long ago, I read of a language invented for international speak. It was "esperanto".

Recently, I heard an updated term for "international speak" called "globish".

Apparently, the basis for this language is English, but a fluent speaker of English might not recognise it as such.

Now, I know that pilots are required to know English (it's the global language of flying... which is handy if you want to understand what a tower controller is telling you to do)

Has anyone else heard of this?

[thingirl]

Haven't heard of either of those before now. But apparently, I already speak fluent Globish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globish_%28Gogate%29), I spell it perfectly. :) (official site (http://www.globish.com/)) And actually, I might tell my mom about the Chinese version. My sister is learning Mandarin, and she gets very frustrated on trying to remember which characters "say" what.

And Esperanto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto) is real, too.

[spencer]

I have heard of Esperanto and I was proud when I got it on a Jeopardy question some not so few years ago.

[Young Ned]

Esperanto has been around for quite a while. I remember writing a report in school -- lo, these many years ago -- on what were then called "artificial languages" (although I see in Wikipedia that "constructed languages" is the preferred term now) like Esperanto, Interlingua, Loglan, and Volapük.

[zmflavius]

I have heard of Esperanto and I was proud when I got it on a Jeopardy question some not so few years ago.

You were on Jeopardy once?

[texlaw1992]

Don't forget Klingon.

[scout1idf]

Don't forget Klingon.
I bought the book and the cassette tape to learn Klingon. I didn't learn much.

Side note. Funny how Klingon is recognized by spell check as a word....

[Badstench]

And, under the new Scrabble rules, Klingon is allowable to play.

[Arik]

Don't forget Klingon.

Or Quenya and Sindarin.

[Oldschool]

Or another language all its own - cockney rhyming slang. ;)

[Lightwielder]

A song for believers everywhere...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU8MS6lGmE8

[thingirl]

I LOVE THAT SONG!!!! Repped when able.

Another one for when you're feeling down Only the World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwvwuspB5lo)

[Badstench]

Last post in this thread was May, 2010.

[Edit: When I sobered-up, the following rant saw me holding my head in self-deprecating chastisement... and I should delete this post, but I'll leave it as proof to the idiocy inherent of alcohol.... cosh itsh only fun when you make shensh]

So... here's Badstench with a completely new observation, which has no relevance to his belief or otherwise of the existence of a higher power.

Are you familiar with Steven Hawking? Apparently, he has such a high intelligence quotient that the rest of us mere mortals don't know shit from clay.

Some of us might be molded into hellenistic urns or fancy accoutrements to the modern equivalent of Michaelangelo on methamphetamine... ug ug.

But Steven Hawking is smart, yeah? If he says God doesn't exist, should we gainsay him? Lets face it, Steven Hawking has said a lot of things that have made us go, "Wow, man!"

Apparently, Steven Hawking knows more than the rest of us put together, crunched up in a ball and suffering a hangover.

Now, I'm not sure whether my argument is heading toward pro religion or anti religion, but what I am sure of is that Steven Hawking is paid far too much attention.

Stick me in a wheelchair and make me incoherent... I'll tell you a few truths!

Truth number one: You live, you die.

Truth number two: Happiness is a state of mind, and so is addiction.

Truth number three: Oxygen is the ying to a tree's yang. What I mean by this is... one cannot survive without the other, so to assume that the world is going to drown beneath a cloud of all-consuming carbon-dioxide.... has anyone thought to ask the trees if that's a bad thing?

Truth number four: I defy anyone to tell me they don't know the difference between right and wrong.

Truth number five: Led Zeppelin is the best rock group ever, man!

~~~~~~~~~

Okay, that's the joking side aside.

The fact remains that people can be polarised to "believers" and "non-believers"... those who believe in a higher power (God) or not (athieists).

Did you notice I capitalized God? This is a dead giveaway that I hold hope for an afterlife wherein my being will ascend to paradise. I'm a believer!

Actually, I'm not. I'm an agnostic, which means I'm hedging my bets.

But if you examine my train of thought, you will uncover a Human male, 45 years of age, living comfortably in a first world country with all his electronic goodies and lots of food.

I'm privileged.

And to be frank, I'm grateful... except I can only get two channels on my TV properly... and sometimes the public transport doesn't run to my itinerary... and the places I shop for clothes never have stuff that fits me exactly.

life is what you make of it, So to hear Steven Hawking preach about the future is akin to listening to The Pope preach about your eternal soul.

None of it matters. What matters is determined by what you do when you wake up and get out of bed.

You live, you die.

The moments in between are what define you.

[Lightwielder]

Last post in this thread was May, 2010

April, actually. :)