Sarah, shut up.

[Sirc]

This is becoming ridiculous. McCain honestly doesn't look like he's going to survive for 4 more years, and Palin is bringing up the wrong issues at the wrong time. She is against abortion unless the pregnancy endangers the health of the mother. Even if the woman became pregnant because of rape or incest. That's a pretty radical view, especially among women. And she reinforced her position on this in Pennsylvania today. Way to rally the...um...Amish voters? And completely turn the US women against her.

The extent that the republican party has botched this election with both the running mates and the messages they are sending is just phenomenal. It almost seems like it's being done deliberately at this point.

[Sirc]

And another thing. :)

If she says the word "God" again then she should be smacked. When the Gulf wars started and we began hearing the radical Islamic leaders talking in the media, I was startled at how often they inserted "Allah be praised", "Allah willing", "Praise Allah" into their speeches. I thought, wow, CULT! MIND CONTROL! And total intolerance of free thinkers.

And now hearing the republican speeches in particular, and Sarah's speeches specifically, I'm hearing the same thing. Just replace the word "Allah" with the word "God". That makes me afraid.

[Nitro]

Speaking of mind control cults...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnNSe5XYp6E

[OUTLAWS WHOCARES]

And her voice is almost as bad as Hillary

[Mr Clean]

This is becoming ridiculous. McCain honestly doesn't look like he's going to survive for 4 more years, and Palin is bringing up the wrong issues at the wrong time. She is against abortion unless the pregnancy endangers the health of the mother. Even if the woman became pregnant because of rape or incest. That's a pretty radical view, especially among women. And she reinforced her position on this in Pennsylvania today. Way to rally the...um...Amish voters? And completely turn the US women against her.

The extent that the republican party has botched this election with both the running mates and the messages they are sending is just phenomenal. It almost seems like it's being done deliberately at this point.


You said in another thread that you are not a political expert. Do us a favor and follow your own advice...

[SASQUATCH]

Sarah is one step closer to becoming president scares the hell out of me if Mc Cain should so happen to win.

[OUTLAWS Tip]

Sarah is one step closer to becoming president scares the hell out of me if Mc Cain should so happen to win.

Why? Are you a Moose?
:P
:D

[Sirc]

You said in another thread that you are not a political expert. Do us a favor and follow your own advice...

It doesn't take a political expert to identify a Christian fundamentalist. :rolleyes:

[Sirc]

And her voice is almost as bad as Hillary

Agreed. She ain't hard on the eyes though. I could envision a romantic evening with her....scented candles, champagne, duct tape...

[Nitro]

Do you think she went to the creationism museum opening today?

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

[SASQUATCH]

Why? Are you a Moose?
:P
:D

:P;)

[SASQUATCH]

Agreed. She ain't hard on the eyes though. I could envision a romantic evening with her....scented candles, champagne, duct tape...

LMAO

[Mr Clean]

It doesn't take a political expert to identify a Christian fundamentalist. :rolleyes:

Apparently it doesn't take one to talk about it in regards to the "issues" either...

[Nitro]

I think her being a christian fundamentalist is very much an issue, since it would direct every action she takes when president and that can be very very horrifying of a thought. She blames everything on god. Iraq was a mission from god, the alaska pipeline is project directed by god, etc.

Unbelievable. You would think in the 21st century, these types of people would be on the fringes of society, just like the flat earthers (yes, there still are a few!) Not to get into a biblical debate but I can name a dozen or so places in the bible where the earth is described as flat, a snowglobe-type dome, on pillars, etc. Not to mention talk of flying fire breathing dragons, unicorns, cockatrices, satyrs, and other things as absolute fact.

Since Sarah is a fundamentalist, she believes in all of the above, no exceptions. If not, she is a hypocrite.

[Nick]

it completly boggles my mind how people can take 2000 year old fables for fact !!

does anyone on this site actually believe in creationism ???

[FUS1ON]

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[EXEcution]

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

How do you measure love and belief?

[Nitro]

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

It is not surprising to see that most atheists were raised in christian homes. You can not blame the poor souls, since they cannot fathom how on one hand, this supposed god is sending his son, who's really him but not really, to save all the people on this planet, but a few thousand years prior, telling parents to murder their children via stoning to death if they are disrespectful.

I do believe we would have much less atheists if the judeo-christian religion was not such a large mix of positive and negative stories. From a humanist point of view, these stories are understandable as being a reflection of human society. Their god is shown as having all the qualities of the human experience such as love, hate, anger, wrath, compassion, laughter, sadness, etc. If you wish, I can post the qualities of the god of the old testament, in the bible's own words, that I found after reading it a while back. No biases, I'll take you to the no spin zone! (not bill o reilly style)

[FUS1ON]

I believe, you don't? That's too bad ... for you.

[EXEcution]

I believe, you don't? That's too bad ... for you.

Ever heard of Pascal's Wager?

[JIMINATOR]

yep, god so loved the world that he is going to put your ass in hell forever if you screw up. (different religion brands define screw up in different ways). not 10 or 20 years, forever. Take a 1 and add a million zeroes behind it. That many years is just the start of forever. I guess that is where religious intolerance comes from, because they never forgive and they never forget.

[Death Engineer]

it completly boggles my mind how people can take 2000 year old fables for fact !!

does anyone on this site actually believe in creationism ???

Yes.

[Sirc]

Apparently it doesn't take one to talk about it in regards to the "issues" either...

Correct. :thumbs:

[Nitro]

This pertains directly to Sarah Palin, so I post it. No jew or christian here should get offended, as I am only writing the exact words of your sacred text.

Qualities of the Old Testament god:

Positive:
slow to anger (Nahum, Joel, Jonah, Psalms)
good (Nahum, Hosea, Jeremiah, Psalms, 1 Chronicles)
mercy (Exodus, Nehemiah, Joel, Micah, Zechariah, Deuteronomy, Genesis, Lamentations, Isaiah, Jonah, Hosea, Daniel, Jeremiah, Psalms, 2 Chronicles, 1 Chronicles, 2 Samuel,Numbers, Genesis)
grace (Exodus, Joel, Zechariah, Isaiah, Jonah, Psalms, 2 Chronicles, Numbers)
longsuffering (Exodus, Psalms, Numbers)
lovingkindness (Isaiah, Hosea, Jeremiah, Psalms)
forgiving (Exodus, Joel, Daniel, 2 Chronicles, Numbers)
joyful (Nehemiah, Zephaniah)
kind (Nehemiah, Joel, Jonah, 1 Samuel)
faithful (Deuteronomy, Psalms)
love (Deuteronomy, Malachi, Zephaniah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Psalms, 2 Chronicles, 1 Kings)
compassion (Deuteronomy, Lamentations, Psalms)
healer (Deuteronomy, Genesis, Isaiah, Hosea)
wisdom (Ezra, Job, Proverbs, Psalms)
helper (Psalms, 1 Chronicles)
comforter (Psalms)
blesser (Genesis, Proverbs, Psalms, Numbers)
repenting (Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Amos, Jonah, Jeremiah, 2 Samuel, 1 Samuel, Genesis)
doer of good (Jeremiah)
giver of peace (Numbers)
strong as a unicorn (Numbers 23:22, 24:8)


Negative:
jealousy (Exodus, Nahum, Joel, Zechariah, Joshua, Deuteronomy, Zephaniah, Ezekiel, Psalms)
fury (Nahum, Micah, Zechariah, Lamentations, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah)
vengeance (Nahum, Micah, Deuteronomy, Judges, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Psalms)
anger (Nahum, Nehemiah, Micah, Joshua, Deuteronomy, Judges, Malachi, Zephaniah, Lamentations, Isaiah, Hosea, Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Psalms, 2 Chronicles, 1 Chronicles, 2 Kings, 1 Kings, 2 Samuel, Numbers, Genesis)
wrath (Exodus, Job, Zechariah, Deuteronomy, Lamentations, Isaiah, Hosea, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Psalms, 2 Chronicles, 2 Kings, Numbers)
terrible (Nehemiah, Deuteronomy, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Psalms)
destroyer (Job, Zechariah, Deuteronomy, Amos, Zephaniah, Genesis, Lamentations, Isaiah, Obadiah, Hosea, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Psalms, 2 Chronicles, 1 Chronicles, Numbers, Genesis)
hate (Job, Zechariah, Deuteronomy, Malachi, Amos, Hosea, Proverbs, Psalms, 1 Samuel)
displeasure (Zechariah)
man of war (Exodus)
fighter (Joshua, Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, 2 Chronicles)
unforgiving (Joshua)
curser (Deuteronomy, Proverbs, 2 Samuel, Numbers, Genesis)
killer (Deuteronomy, Lamentations, 2 Kings, 1 Samuel)
wounder (Deuteronomy, Psalms)
warring (Judges, 1 Chronicles)
disrespect (2 Chronicles)
displeasure (Numbers)
punisher (Amos, Zephaniah, Isaiah, Hosea, Jeremiah)
slayer (Amos, Lamentations, Isaiah, Hosea, Jeremiah, Psalms, 2 Chronicles, 1 Chronicles)
smiter (Hosea, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Psalms, 1 Chronicles, 2 Kings, 1 Kings, 2 Samuel, 1 Samuel, Numbers)
breaker of bones (Numbers)
dreadful (Daniel)
rage (2 Chronicles)
uncompassionate (2 Chronicles)
mocker (Proverbs)
tempter (Genesis)
deceiver (Ezekiel, Jeremiah)
unrepenting (Ezekiel)
pitiless (Lamentations, Ezekiel, Jeremiah)
merciless (Isaiah, Hosea, Jeremiah)
enemy (Lamentations)
violent (Lamentations)
terrorist (Genesis, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, Jeremiah)
teacher of war (2 Samuel)
sender of an evil spirit (1 Samuel, Judges)
doer of evil (Ezekiel, Jeremiah)
speaker of evil (2 Chronicles, 1 Kings)
rewarder of evil (Psalms)
Sender of evil (Judges, 2 Kings)
creator of evil (Isa 45:7)
bringer of evil (Nehemiah, Job, Micah, Joshua, Daniel, Ezekiel, 2 Chronicles, 2 Kings, 1 Kings, 2 Samuel)

[Death Engineer]

Hmm. Your list looks pretty good, but I have to question some of them. For example, tempter (Genesis)? Can you give me a reference here? A search on biblegateway.com shows no tempter references in Genesis.

Typically when the Bible says tempter, it is referring to the serpant or satan himself. So I'm curious as to where it says that God is a tempter.

More along those same lines for the last 7 (mostly containing evil). Where in Psalms does it say that God rewards evil? Now there are Psalms where David is crying out to God that it seems like evil people are getting away with their evil deeds. But to say that means God is a doer/speaker/rewarder of evil is more than just a stretch.

You used the term exact wording....can you share which version you used? (NIV? NAS? etc)

[SASQUATCH]

it completly boggles my mind how people can take 2000 year old fables for fact !!

does anyone on this site actually believe in creationism ???

Book - Scientists Confront Creationism (Intelligent Design and Beyond)

Charles Darwin's epoch-making book On the Origin of Species, I believe it was publish in 1859 set-off a national debate that continues to divide American society. Not long ago it went through court which I will not get into because it is a very sensitive issue but you find this book very interesting trust me and I plan to read it again because I enjoyed this book very much not because of sensitive issues but how it explains it and the events that took place at the Supreme Court.

I do not believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design which to me are the same from what I remember reading.

[Nitro]

Hmm. Your list looks pretty good, but I have to question some of them. For example, tempter (Genesis)? Can you give me a reference here? A search on biblegateway.com shows no tempter references in Genesis.

Typically when the Bible says tempter, it is referring to the serpant or satan himself. So I'm curious as to where it says that God is a tempter.

More along those same lines for the last 7 (mostly containing evil). Where in Psalms does it say that God rewards evil? Now there are Psalms where David is crying out to God that it seems like evil people are getting away with their evil deeds. But to say that means God is a doer/speaker/rewarder of evil is more than just a stretch.

You used the term exact wording....can you share which version you used? (NIV? NAS? etc)

I used the KJV.

in Psa 54:5 he rewards evil

in Gen 22:1 he tempts Abraham

[Death Engineer]

As I suspected. This is way out of context:


(NIV) Psalm 54:5 Let evil recoil on those who slander me;
in your faithfulness destroy them.

This is David praying that God would repay evil people for their evil acts. This in no way says that God is evil.


(KJV) Genesis 22:1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.

The word here is tested, not tempt -- very different both in our language and in the original text.

[SASQUATCH]

Death Engineer I have one question that I will only ask.

Question: Genesis

(1:3-5, 14-19) "Let there be light"

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?

[Nitro]

of course, christians will always say "but you took that out of context!"

either way, the bible is a fallacy and so i will not spend any more time debating fallacies within a fallacy since once you disprove the source, there is no more reason to disprove anything within that source.

im just trying to exemplify what sarah palin believes in and since mccain will die any moment, she would hypothetically become prez and that type of person would be running (being a puppet, that is) the largest empire on the planet. should be a frightening thought

[Nitro]

As I suspected. This is way out of context:



This is David praying that God would repay evil people for their evil acts. This in no way says that God is evil.



The word here is tested, not tempt -- very different both in our language and in the original text.

your bible is wrong, it's tempted in kjv

[SASQUATCH]

of course, christians will always say "but you took that out of context!"

either way, the bible is a fallacy and so i will not spend any more time debating fallacies within a fallacy since once you disprove the source, there is no more reason to disprove anything within that source.

im just trying to exemplify what sarah palin believes in and since mccain will die any moment, she would hypothetically become prez and that type of person would be running (being a puppet, that is) the largest empire on the planet. should be a frightening thought

If it’s out of context that would mean it would need to be interpreted and when it needs to be interpret by man, it would only mean it isn’t perfect and so the bible isn’t perfect. I can go on to explain what I mean but I am sure you know exactly what I mean by this because the perfect example is the universe where our scientist tries to explain the unknown in the best with theories yet it can change over the course of years in research.


As for exemplifying what Sarah Palin believes, I grow tired of her and so I wanted to change the subject a bit. Sorry Nitro. . . ;)

[Nitro]

hey, by all means. i love the dynamics of a discussion to the point where it can end pu somewhere completley different, yet still bring about productive discussion :)

[Death Engineer]

your bible is wrong, it's tempted in kjv

Alas, you are correct. I thought I changed from NIV to KJV earlier, but maybe I selected NKJ or something. Nevertheless, you can go back to the original text to get the real meaning.

A quick google turns up this on the first hit:

According to the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, the word "test" (NASB), "tempt" (KJV) is nacah. It means "1) to test, try, 2) to attempt, assay, try, 3) to test, try, prove, tempt." This is why the KJV translated it as "tempt" and NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV, and RSV translate it as "test." Therefore, it was a test that God offered to Abraham, not a temptation to sin.

[Death Engineer]

of course, christians will always say "but you took that out of context!"

either way, the bible is a fallacy ...

I predicted this post about 8 hours ago. :) If you're going to bring the Bible to the table, then at least back up your data with facts and not a misleading list of God's characteristics "according to the Bible".

If you don't agree with the Bible, that's fine. It's not me that you're arguing with.

I guess if were using your rules, since I punched a hole in your list of God's attributes that I have "disproven the source" and should not debate you anymore... Does that sound as silly to you as it did when I read your post?

If you want to debate about the Bible, I'm willing. However, there's no sense in debating it if you don't believe it. At some level we all make a choice about whether to put faith in the Bible or something else.

[Death Engineer]

Death Engineer I have one question that I will only ask.

Question: Genesis

(1:3-5, 14-19) "Let there be light"

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?

Jonathan Sarfati says it better than I could:

How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn’t created until the fourth day?

We know today that all it takes to have a day-night cycle is a rotating Earth and light coming from one direction. The Bible tells us clearly that God created light on the first day, as well as the Earth. Thus we can deduce that the Earth was already rotating in space relative to this created light.

God can, of course, create light without a secondary source. We are told that in the new heavens and Earth there will be no need for sun or moon (Rev 21:23). In Genesis, God even defines a day and a night in terms of light or its absence.

‘Progressive creationists’ sometimes use the argument that the days are really long periods, although God could have used words for that if He had really meant that (see How long were the days of Genesis 1?). The creation of the sun after the Earth undermines progressive creationists’ attempts to harmonise the Bible with billions of years. So they must explain this teaching away. Some assert that what really happened on this fourth ‘day’ was that the sun and other heavenly bodies ‘appeared’ when a dense cloud layer dissipated after millions of years. This is not only fanciful science, but bad exegesis of Hebrew. The word ‘asah means ‘make’ throughout Genesis 1, and is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘create’ (bara’), e.g. in Genesis 1:26–27. It is pure desperation to apply a different meaning to the same word in the same grammatical construction in the same passage, just to fit in with atheistic evolutionary ideas like the ‘big bang’. If God had meant ‘appeared’, then He presumably would have used the Hebrew word for appear (ra’ah), as when the dry land ‘appeared’ as the waters gathered in one place on Day 3 (Genesis 1:9). We have checked over 20 major translations, and all clearly teach that the sun, moon and stars were made on the fourth day.

The evidence that ordinary days are being referred to is so overwhelming that even liberal Hebrew scholars admit that the author can have had no other intent—particularly when the words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ are used from the first day. (See The Answers Book Chapter 2, and Six Days? Honestly!)

On the fourth day the present system was instituted as the Earth’s temporary light-bearers were made, so the diffused light from the first day was no longer needed. [Interestingly, after writing this article, I found that Calvin had made the same point (see Calvin says: Genesis means what it says). This shows that once again, skeptics just repeat arguments long ago refuted by Bible believing scholars.]

From http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp

[SASQUATCH]

I am just curious to know what you had to say thank you DE


I decided the delete what I was going to ask because this topic is about politics.

[ME BIGGD01]

It is interesting to hear the comments about religion and those who do not believe in a God or accuse religion to being the biggest problem in the world. Having recently started religion classes with my daughter who will be 6 next month and thnking about the society we live in, I find it is nothing more of an excuse by those that speak against it. It amazes me how much some people will try to prove there is no God or knock religion thinking the world created itself. Being who I am, I take it as a cop out or an excuse for some of you to blame everyone else for the problems we are in rather than themself. As if there is no God unless he bails you out of life problems or makes you rich.

Now the last 3 years of my life have probably been the hardest on me and my family. WIth my wife suffering from Cancer and hospital bills, medicine bills draining me, I still don't worry due to faith. Although I understand tis ordeal, I do not expect God to make things better which many cases like this many will blame God for such an event. I don't an in fact understand the way things are. SOme will say God is testing me or some will say God only gives you so much that you can handle but I disagree. God gave us life and I believe it becomes what it is. Mnay people in my family or friends will say to me "I do not want to be in your shoes" but I quickly say it is what it is. THi sis not about testing me at all because my daughter is involved and so is everyone else who loves my wife. I tend to belive there is a reason for everything at the same time understand we have choices. I do not pray that God makes my wife better but that he takes care of her and prevents her from suffering. I understand this but many do not because they are not in the situation. Life goes on so must I along with my daughter and everyone else. I still think God gave us a gift and regardless of being guilty of taking things for granted as we all are, I would never sit back and blame God for the problems in my life. IF you take it up a level and put yourself as God to your children and raise them the best you can and they become a drug addict or killer, would it be ok to say it was your fault? I guess having a child you see things differently. I know myself I want my daughter to live a good life and that is only in my doing so much until the day she goes out and lives it herself and makes her own choices. As a father it is my responsibility to do the right things by her and teach her right from wrong and have morals. It's kind of what God has done for all of us regardless if you believe or not.

For those of you that do not believe I can just say this to you. YOu are most likely full of shit. Like may wwho live their life with no regard to anyone or anything, when it comes down to their judgement day, they are praying for nothing but mercy. Believe me when I tell you that when it comes down to that day, the first thing you are going to think is the way you lived your life and how God will judge you.

With that I will also say maybe some of you are also lost in todays society. Angered by the way the world is and looking for a quick thig to point your finger at. That's ok as we are only human. Sometimes you have to restructure yourself when you feel out of place. The thing about those who are part of a community in a church is that they are close together and help one another. Today was my second week in religion school with my daughter in which I also have to go in a different classroom. One thing the lady who is teaching said to me that caught my attention was when she was explaining her past and how things have changed. She pretty much hit the nail on the head regarding the percentages of how many people go to church compared to the 50's and 60's. I often think about how sick society has become today and it just felt right and there was a reason for me to hear what this lady was saying. She said the percentages were like 15% today to 95% in those years. Now I know and can understand there are a lot more people now but those percentages are a good explanation to the I want it now, I deserve it society we live in. This along with the many that denounce God society is the reaosn this country has become sick. The children today have too many selfish parents who do not take responsibility to teach right from wrong. Todays parents do things to make their life easier as to just give their children everything with explanation or reasoning. They teach therr children life is all about them and that's the reason this is the society we live in. It's a shame also because there is so much more to life than greed and selfishness. These are just words but if you don't believe me go and help some old perosn or a friend you have out of the blue where you really go out of your way for them. Do something that will really help them and see how you feel afterwards. That feeling is what I am talking about which can not be bought. It is something that those that believe in no God deny.

TO end this rambling, I will say the many who continue to not believe or blame all crisis on religion really need to just understand things a little bit different. Regardless of the difference in religions, most do have the same morals. SOme have differences which have caused wars also but if anyone takes the time to see which ones do not preach against the other may find there is something in common. I do suggest also that those that think they can get an understanding or justification from google and youtube about anything that has to do with life ought to just avoid some conversations and tell their parents they failed.

[ME BIGGD01]

it completly boggles my mind how people can take 2000 year old fables for fact !!

does anyone on this site actually believe in creationism ???

Nick I do not know what to make of this question or your comment. WIth the loss of your brother recently which I am sorry for, do you honestly ask this question out of anger or your brother just lies underground through eternity? Please understand this question as it is not an attack as much as your attack but my question is do you honetly believe that we are born than die and your soul dies also? Do you never talk to your brother when alone hoping he is listening? I am sorry for your loss and your family. I would be suprised if it was true there is not a time you remember your brother and talk to him even though he has passed. I guess my question really is why would you bother if you do not believe?

[SASQUATCH]

Bigg's I send you an email, please consider it.

[Nitro]

Danny, do NOT muddle the issue! The debate is not is there a god or not, since something does not come out of nothing so ther eis a source of manifested reality, this is quite obvious. The debate is whether we want a president that believes in bronze age fairy tales and everyone that uses reason and logic knows are not true. Remember that the issues the candidate talks about are not enough to make a judgement as to whether they should be president or not, but their background, who they are, their environment that their parents brought them up with, and anything else that may be a factor in molding their personality and mindset on aspects of life.

[SASQUATCH]

Sarah -

On social issues, she is pro-life, opposed to abortion in all circumstances, unless the mother's life is threatened. Member of the National Rifle Association, Sarah Palin welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court of USA ending the ban on carrying weapons in the country's capital.

Favorable the death penalty, it is also opposed to gay marriage and sex education classes in school, preferring to advocate sexual abstinence before marriage.

She also believes that creationism and the theory of evolution must similarly be taught in schools.

On economic issues, Sarah Palin considers herself fiscally conservative, not knowing better system that economic liberalism to ensure the best projects forward.

On the environment, it has repeatedly affirmed that global warming was perhaps not a problem created by man and as governor of Alaska, has complained to Washington to counter the government's decision George W. Bush to place polar bears on the list of endangered species.

On energy issues it is partisan of the construction of a pipeline to transport natural gas across Alaska and the opening to exploration of the nature reserve Arctic (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge).

Link on a interesting topic when asked.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,1440865.story

[FUS1ON]

Danny, do NOT muddle the issue! The debate is not is there a god or not, since something does not come out of nothing so ther eis a source of manifested reality, this is quite obvious. The debate is whether we want a president that believes in bronze age fairy tales and everyone that uses reason and logic knows are not true. Remember that the issues the candidate talks about are not enough to make a judgement as to whether they should be president or not, but their background, who they are, their environment that their parents brought them up with, and anything else that may be a factor in molding their personality and mindset on aspects of life.

Yes, the U.S. wants a President that believes in God. Trot your Atheist canidate out here and see how well they do if you don't believe me. I know you are lost, but God still loves you. ;)

[JIMINATOR]

since something does not come out of nothing so ther eis a source of manifested reality, this is quite obvious.
at some point, if you climb the ladder high enough, something was created from nothing. physics says that can happen too.

[Nitro]

Yes, the U.S. wants a President that believes in God. Trot your Atheist canidate out here and see how well they do if you don't believe me. I know you are lost, but God still loves you. ;)

im not an atheist you silly goose :P

@ jim, can you provide info on what you're talking about please since its interesting. if you're talking about the big bang however, new data just came out suggesting that the big bang was not the start of the universe, but a localized event in the universe that is inside the observable universe but does not limit the universe to being 13.7 billion light years, since we cant see past that big explosion of energy. the u niveres could be hundreds of billions of light years for all we know.

i allude, to the dark flow, of course. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html

[Death Engineer]

at some point, if you climb the ladder high enough, something was created from nothing. physics says that can happen too.

Where in physics does it say this? My recollection is that physics talks about the law of conservation of energy.

[JIMINATOR]

religion: who created the creator? repeat the question for each successive creator

physics: conservation still appies, I didn't state it correctly, the rule was that + & - matter could be created at the same time from energy. They then say that assuming that one of those particles was trapped by a black hole and the other escapes that could form a detectible emission from a black hole. I think that was one of hawkings theories. That doesn't really answer the question of where the original energy came from, or hell, even what energy is (if it is divorced from matter).

[Death Engineer]

I'm definitely biased here, but trying to be objective, I don't see it being any less reasonable that God created the world than it is that it happened by chance. In fact, I think it takes quite a bit more faith to believe that the world in general, but humans specifically came about by chance/evolution/etc. Here's a quote from Darwin himself...

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree," (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species).

[Nitro]

it's an existential question. where did the energy come from and for what purpose. if you believe in a source for creation such as a god, then what is a purpose of a god in the first place or better yet, what is the purpose of reality at all. what is the purpose of anything that is? and from that, sprung hundreds of thousands of religions trying to answer this impossible question that mystics have simply concluded that they cannot answer it, so reality just IS.

[JIMINATOR]

The issue there is how you define god, what created means, and so forth. Too many people are hung up on the "literal truth", the 7 day concept, like maybe days were longer in the past, god planted dinosaur bones, carbon decay rates were different in the past, and so forth. If you say let there be light, and by light mean energy, then ok, that makes sense. if you say god created man, and he took 13 billion years to do it, that is fine, that view is compatible also. Why does gods timeline have to be the same as mans timeline?

[Nitro]

The issue there is how you define god, what created means, and so forth. Too many people are hung up on the "literal truth", the 7 day concept, like maybe days were longer in the past, god planted dinosaur bones, carbon decay rates were different in the past, and so forth. If you say let there be light, and by light mean energy, then ok, that makes sense. if you say god created man, and he took 13 billion years to do it, that is fine, that view is compatible also. Why does gods timeline have to be the same as mans timeline?

the personification of this 'god' is distorting the issue as well, since that would create a very limited and weak god, as "he" has been shown to be very weak in his autobiography a la the bible when he couldnt even hold back one of the 'enemy' chariot armies at one time and he admitted this defeat. religions are the cause of the stigma held by atheists, i blieve, particularly the religions with an anthropomorphic deity. buddhism is outside this since there is no talk of such a god, per se but an existential aspect of a source aka god. im just giving one example tho, theres plenty more today in the 21st century. humanism, new thought, panentheism, pantheism, spirituality, unitarian universalism and others.

[Goober]

Why does gods timeline have to be the same as mans timeline?


It doesn't, according to 2nd Peter Chapter 3 verse 8

8 ¶ But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day

[OUTLAWS high ping camper]

I do suggest also that those that think they can get an understanding or justification from google and youtube about anything that has to do with life ought to just avoid some conversations and tell their parents they failed.

Neither of them will return my calls. :)

[Mr Clean]

I think her being a christian fundamentalist is very much an issue, since it would direct every action she takes when president and that can be very very horrifying of a thought. She blames everything on god. Iraq was a mission from god, the alaska pipeline is project directed by god, etc.

Unbelievable. You would think in the 21st century, these types of people would be on the fringes of society, just like the flat earthers (yes, there still are a few!) Not to get into a biblical debate but I can name a dozen or so places in the bible where the earth is described as flat, a snowglobe-type dome, on pillars, etc. Not to mention talk of flying fire breathing dragons, unicorns, cockatrices, satyrs, and other things as absolute fact.

Since Sarah is a fundamentalist, she believes in all of the above, no exceptions. If not, she is a hypocrite.

I assume you and Sirc also feel that way about Obama, right? You know, his attendance at a radical black church for 20 years with a pastor that hates America? His mentoring by William Ayers, a known terrorist? Are these "fringe" people he openly associated with and learned from also an issue? His stance that a baby slated for abortion that is still alive after birth should be killed (he calls it terminated, it's a prettier word for killed)? And he is running for President, not a VP tag-along...

[Mr Clean]

im not an atheist you silly goose :P

@ jim, can you provide info on what you're talking about please since its interesting. if you're talking about the big bang however, new data just came out suggesting that the big bang was not the start of the universe, but a localized event in the universe that is inside the observable universe but does not limit the universe to being 13.7 billion light years, since we cant see past that big explosion of energy. the u niveres could be hundreds of billions of light years for all we know.

i allude, to the dark flow, of course. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html

There is also a question of why there is more matter than antimatter in our universe (I say our because Nitro is correct that current string theory predicts that this universe was created when two branes, or sheets, or dimensions touched, sparking the big bang). Technically that shouldn't be. Also, why is gravity such a weak force? A magnet can pick up a paperclip against the entire gravitational force of the Earth. Gravity is the weakest force there is. The Higgs Boson is the only particle still missing from current theory (which is one reason why the LHC was built) but even that may not explain it.

But whoever said that there must be a reason for everything...why? Who says there must be a reason. At our current level of understanding some things just are for better or worse...

[Nitro]

I assume you and Sirc also feel that way about Obama, right? You know, his attendance at a radical black church for 20 years with a pastor that hates America? His mentoring by William Ayers, a known terrorist? Are these "fringe" people he openly associated with and learned from also an issue? His stance that a baby slated for abortion that is still alive after birth should be killed (he calls it terminated, it's a prettier word for killed)? And he is running for President, not a VP tag-along...

You're absolutely right. Obama is no better on this issue since he's been throwing around some of this rhetoric as well but he has not been as audacious as to say that he believes in a 6000 year old universe, iraq being a task from god, etc. I do not support Obama one bit and shudder at the thought of him being the puppet the true owners of the country picked this election cycle, but I give fairness where fairness is due and about that abortion thing, conservative websites such as worldnetdaily have grotesquely distorted that thing about obama wanting to kill babies and he had to mention this last night since thats what mcbush was trying to put on him. i dont remember what he said about it but he explained that there was a problem with the bill and of course he wouldnt support something like that since noone in their right mind could do such a thing. it defies all logic unless you're a sadistic person with no conscience.

[Nick]

Nick I do not know what to make of this question or your comment. WIth the loss of your brother recently which I am sorry for, do you honestly ask this question out of anger or your brother just lies underground through eternity? Please understand this question as it is not an attack as much as your attack but my question is do you honetly believe that we are born than die and your soul dies also? Do you never talk to your brother when alone hoping he is listening? I am sorry for your loss and your family. I would be suprised if it was true there is not a time you remember your brother and talk to him even though he has passed. I guess my question really is why would you bother if you do not believe?

OK! I did get off as a bit harsh :) sorry for that.

no, I do not talk to my brother and yes I beleive that our soul is extinguished at death... I remember and cherish his memory but, to me, we will never see each other again.

I already stated this in another thread but that was a long time ago so condensed my beleif is... god is the entire universe (whether the big bang is all the universe is interesting but irrelevent..I mean the whole multiverse ;)
where near the beginning of a bigbang event it was all matter (hydrogen)(I know...not immediately) it is predetermined by laws to progress to eventually create thought (formation of physicals laws and evolutionary laws) on many habitable worlds using many different biologies, then reach a point where a species can leave his physical body and survive death and ultimately commune to become 1 beign...and then what does an omnipotent beign do when all is known...bigcrunch and throw the pieces back in a big bang for another cycle....and so on...

then why go on now ?? if we are just a step in a greater plan ? doomed to rot in the earth ?? because it is our only shot !! and life IS wonderfull and we are testimony to the evolution of god!

organized religion I think is enivatable in any civilisation intent of setting limits on people at the onset of moving past family hunter gatherers to clans and tribes. There needs to be a fear of a greater power to not just kill your neighbor for his belongings...and to aleive the fear of death..but I think we should be past this...

I am not afraid of death, even if I know that it is the end... but I hope to enjoy as much of it as possible !

again I meant no disrespect !

peace

[Sirc]

I assume you and Sirc also feel that way about Obama, right? You know, his attendance at a radical black church for 20 years with a pastor that hates America? His mentoring by William Ayers, a known terrorist? Are these "fringe" people he openly associated with and learned from also an issue?

I did some really crazy things in my younger years. I admit to doing recreational drugs, and hanging out with some people who had some pretty radical and ill-conceived notions about how the world should be. It was quite a learning experience.

What I learned from that experience is what pot smells and looks like, what cocaine looks like, along with various pills and methods of administering LSD. I can recognized drug paraphernalia when I see it. I've watched friends ruin there lives, and even die because of this stupid shit.

My older brothers had a rather large 4-person water pipe on the shelf and what must have been at least a quarter pound of pot just sitting in their desk drawer. My parents didn't have a clue why they were always burning incense. They were whitebread Methodists who went to church every Sunday and chose to live in their own little peaceful and happy world.

Fast forward to the present - I'm a very aware parent and know what trouble signs to look for. I have always talked with my children very frankly and openly about drugs and alcohol. Having experienced it myself is an asset in my opinion. Know thine enemy.


And he is running for President, not a VP tag-along...

That radical fundamentalist Christian air-head VP tag-along, who's daughter got pregnant most likely because she was never properly taught sex education and about birth control, has a significant chance of being our President.

[Sirc]

They were whitebread Methodists who went to church every Sunday and chose to live in their own little peaceful and happy world.

Oh and wait. This reminds me of my Dad's "sex talk" with me. :funny:

I was like 13 (which was far too late IMHO), and he took me aside and sat me down and asked me if I knew about sex. Or, no, that's not correct. He asked me if I knew about the differences about men and women and how babies were born. I explained to him the I had gone through the junior high "hygiene" class and had learned about the basic fundamentals of human reproduction. Well actually I just said, "yeah", but I was probably too freaked out to say anything else.

So then he hands me this Methodist children's book that explained it all, and walked away telling me to let him know if I had any questions. Wow. I sat there reading through this and read about the mommy's special place and daddy's special place and how through a "special hug" mommy and daddy could make a baby that grew in mommy's belly until it was time to be born. It was all very enlightening. Especially after two years of looking at my older brothers' porn magazine collection. Honestly, if I would have gone into that religious crap cold I would have never hugged my mother again for fear of accidently giving her a "special hug". :eek:

[Nitro]

HAHAHA


when i was 8 (before the age of the internet), i used to think that you had sex through the butt and so i umm took one of my female friends and attempted to put the jigsaw puzzle pieces together but to no avail haha

innocence was funny

[JIMINATOR]

did it hurt?

[Nitro]

psh, i was probly about as hung as a chipmunk so i doubt it

[Mr Clean]

I did some really crazy things in my younger years. I admit to doing recreational drugs, and hanging out with some people who had some pretty radical and ill-conceived notions about how the world should be. It was quite a learning experience.

What I learned from that experience is what pot smells and looks like, what cocaine looks like, along with various pills and methods of administering LSD. I can recognized drug paraphernalia when I see it. I've watched friends ruin there lives, and even die because of this stupid shit.

My older brothers had a rather large 4-person water pipe on the shelf and what must have been at least a quarter pound of pot just sitting in their desk drawer. My parents didn't have a clue why they were always burning incense. They were whitebread Methodists who went to church every Sunday and chose to live in their own little peaceful and happy world.

Fast forward to the present - I'm a very aware parent and know what trouble signs to look for. I have always talked with my children very frankly and openly about drugs and alcohol. Having experienced it myself is an asset in my opinion. Know thine enemy.

You gonna go out and rape someone so you can understand a rapist too? That is the worst argument I have ever heard in support of Obama's long history with radical idealology. You did drugs, he had William the terrorist help write his book after all those years of being under his wing. There's a world of difference between your bad boy behavior and his conscious choice to hang out with those crowds for 20+ years...


Significant? As in "fairly large" chance according to the dictionary. That is statistical BS...

[Death Engineer]

it's an existential question. where did the energy come from and for what purpose. if you believe in a source for creation such as a god, then what is a purpose of a god in the first place or better yet, what is the purpose of reality at all. what is the purpose of anything that is? and from that, sprung hundreds of thousands of religions trying to answer this impossible question that mystics have simply concluded that they cannot answer it, so reality just IS.

Ahhh. Now we're getting to some real thought provokers. I don't believe we need to come up with a reason for God to exist. Frankly, I believe we exist to glorify Him. This is consistent with the Bible.

[Death Engineer]

The issue there is how you define god, what created means, and so forth. Too many people are hung up on the "literal truth", the 7 day concept, like maybe days were longer in the past, god planted dinosaur bones, carbon decay rates were different in the past, and so forth. If you say let there be light, and by light mean energy, then ok, that makes sense. if you say god created man, and he took 13 billion years to do it, that is fine, that view is compatible also. Why does gods timeline have to be the same as mans timeline?

Compatible with.... what? I, for one, believe that the 7 days were literal 24 hour periods. Based on the Biblical words used for day, this is the only interpretation that makes sense considering the number of times that same word is used for a literal day. There is another word that can be translated day that means "a stretch of time" that is used some in the old testament, but never in regards to a 24 hour period. I believe if that was the message, that would have been the word used.

Anyways... I agree that far too many folks get hung up on these particulars. The bottom line is where did life come from. I believe God created it. Some believe in a random chance happening (big bang, etc). Either way, you're believing (i.e. faith) in something.

[Death Engineer]

the personification of this 'god' is distorting the issue as well, since that would create a very limited and weak god, as "he" has been shown to be very weak in his autobiography a la the bible when he couldnt even hold back one of the 'enemy' chariot armies at one time and he admitted this defeat. religions are the cause of the stigma held by atheists, i blieve, particularly the religions with an anthropomorphic deity. buddhism is outside this since there is no talk of such a god, per se but an existential aspect of a source aka god. im just giving one example tho, theres plenty more today in the 21st century. humanism, new thought, panentheism, pantheism, spirituality, unitarian universalism and others.

Couldn't hold back one enemy chariot... Please enlighten me as I'm unfamiliar with that one. The message of the Bible is that God is omnipotent (all powerful), omnicient (all knowing), and omnipresent (outside of space/time). The whole story of Exodus is God (Yahweh) introducing Himself to the world.

Pharaoh said, "Who is this God that I should obey him?" Then he proceeded to find out. I don't consider a God that can bring hail, fire, locusts, disease, etc a weak one.

[Death Engineer]

OK! I did get off as a bit harsh :) sorry for that.

no, I do not talk to my brother and yes I beleive that our soul is extinguished at death... I remember and cherish his memory but, to me, we will never see each other again.

I already stated this in another thread but that was a long time ago so condensed my beleif is... god is the entire universe (whether the big bang is all the universe is interesting but irrelevent..I mean the whole multiverse ;)
where near the beginning of a bigbang event it was all matter (hydrogen)(I know...not immediately) it is predetermined by laws to progress to eventually create thought (formation of physicals laws and evolutionary laws) on many habitable worlds using many different biologies, then reach a point where a species can leave his physical body and survive death and ultimately commune to become 1 beign...and then what does an omnipotent beign do when all is known...bigcrunch and throw the pieces back in a big bang for another cycle....and so on...

then why go on now ?? if we are just a step in a greater plan ? doomed to rot in the earth ?? because it is our only shot !! and life IS wonderfull and we are testimony to the evolution of god!

organized religion I think is enivatable in any civilisation intent of setting limits on people at the onset of moving past family hunter gatherers to clans and tribes. There needs to be a fear of a greater power to not just kill your neighbor for his belongings...and to aleive the fear of death..but I think we should be past this...

I am not afraid of death, even if I know that it is the end... but I hope to enjoy as much of it as possible !

again I meant no disrespect !

peace

Wow. That is incredibly saddening. Don't get me wrong ... there are parts of life that are great. I love my family and enjoy being with them. But if this world is as good as it gets, someone is playing a cruel joke on all of us.

Instead, I believe that there is a "blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and father, Jesus Christ." (Titus 2:13) Having an eternity in heaven to look forward to is one of the few true hopes I have in this life.

[Nitro]

Couldn't hold back one enemy chariot... Please enlighten me as I'm unfamiliar with that one. The message of the Bible is that God is omnipotent (all powerful), omnicient (all knowing), and omnipresent (outside of space/time). The whole story of Exodus is God (Yahweh) introducing Himself to the world.

Pharaoh said, "Who is this God that I should obey him?" Then he proceeded to find out. I don't consider a God that can bring hail, fire, locusts, disease, etc a weak one.

Here you go mate:

"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

—Judges 1:19

Even though Judah's bodyguard was with him, it was too much for the guy and his big man to handle.

Now, I predict you will reply in one of three ways, since you would not agree with this above statement ever. You will either a.) say there is a mistranslation or b.) say that your god works in mysterious ways or c.) say that it was taken out of context

A contemporary example of this story would be this:

The Lord was with the United States. They were able to drive out the Shiites in the mountains but were not able to drive the Sunnis out of the valleys, because the Sunnis had tanks.

Either way, fair enough, everyone can believe what they want to believe, if that brings them solace :)

Oh, just for the sake of argument, as Exe mentioned Pascal's Wager before, prooftexting is what many do as well. This is the practice of using the bible to prove the bible. Let's say for example it say somewhere that "I am your god!" then they will say "see, it says that is my god, therefore it is" or "see, the bible says every word of it is true and therefore it is" etc etc. Cults use this moreso than mainstream religious groups...and I would know.

[FUS1ON]

When it comes to sex, lets stay with what Palin said or believes and not stray into your personal experiences.

[EXEcution]

Oh, just for the sake of argument, as Exe mentioned Pascal's Wager before, prooftexting is what many do as well. This is the practice of using the bible to prove the bible. Let's say for example it say somewhere that "I am your god!" then they will say "see, it says that is my god, therefore it is" or "see, the bible says every word of it is true and therefore it is" etc etc. Cults use this moreso than mainstream religious groups...and I would know.

While what you said is true, I was referring to the fact that people think it's safer to believe in God than not because they have more to gain if they do worship and believe e.g. they will be granted passage to heaven. This is largely false because you can't be 100% sure you're worshiping the right God. Thus Pascal's Wager doesn't account for the degree of uncertainty that arises from belief.

[Death Engineer]

Here you go mate:

"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

—Judges 1:19

Even though Judah's bodyguard was with him, it was too much for the guy and his big man to handle.

Now, I predict you will reply in one of three ways, since you would not agree with this above statement ever. You will either a.) say there is a mistranslation or b.) say that your god works in mysterious ways or c.) say that it was taken out of context

A contemporary example of this story would be this:

The Lord was with the United States. They were able to drive out the Shiites in the mountains but were not able to drive the Sunnis out of the valleys, because the Sunnis had tanks.

Hmm. I don't see that as a contemporary example at all. Now a contemporary example might look more like:

DE was with (for, in favor of, etc) DE Jr. and he (DE Jr.) accomplished much. But he (DE Jr. -- this is important) was not able to get into the NBA.

Be very careful with the pronouns here. The "him" is the men of Judah. It is they that were unable to drive the folks out. Also, keep in mind that the original text had no verse divisions as it does today. It is plausible that the statement that the Lord was with the men of Judah could be a statement concluding v18 where they took over some over lands.

Back to my example ... if that were the case, would I be any less loving of a father? How would that statement reflect on me at all? I don't buy this at all given the text.

If you read through the entire book of Judges, you'll see that it is a repetitious cycle of leaders who "did what was right in their own eyes." And God punished them accordingly. Without having studied this chapter too carefully, I take this particular section to mean that the writer is assuring the reader that in spite of Judah's failure in the valley, the Lord was still with them.


Either way, fair enough, everyone can believe what they want to believe, if that brings them solace :)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether the Bible is a reliable source of truth. I believe it is and live my life accordingly. There is strong outside evidence in archeology and literature that makes this reasonable enough for me. However, again, at some level it is a step of faith.

I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is true anymore than any of us can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt whether the water coming out of our faucets is clean and will not kill us. My point is that we all live by faith everyday. I'm choosing to put my faith in the Bible and more specifically my relationship in Jesus Christ.


Oh, just for the sake of argument, as Exe mentioned Pascal's Wager before, prooftexting is what many do as well. This is the practice of using the bible to prove the bible. Let's say for example it say somewhere that "I am your god!" then they will say "see, it says that is my god, therefore it is" or "see, the bible says every word of it is true and therefore it is" etc etc. Cults use this moreso than mainstream religious groups...and I would know.

Note that I agree with you that you can't just say the Bible is true because it says so. I could write a book with all kinds of crazy things in it that says the book is true, but it doesn't make it so. Outside evidence is critical here. The proof is in the pudding though. This is why archeologist continue to use the Bible to find historic finds.

[EXEcution]

I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is true anymore than any of us can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt whether the water coming out of our faucets is clean and will not kill us. My point is that we all live by faith everyday. I'm choosing to put my faith in the Bible and more specifically my relationship in Jesus Christ.

There's a big hole in your argument. The water coming out of our faucets is assumed to be clean because there is REASON to believe that it's clean. It can be tested (and is) to ensure that it doesn't contain poison. Also, if the water is indeed poisoned you can't just rely on faith and drink it even if your neighbor got sick from drinking the same water from his faucet.

The problem with the Bible is proof and using empiricism, or science. I am not saying that science is perfect and since you're an engineer you would probably agree. However, it is a rational means of obtaining contextual truth.

For instance, If I pray to God every night and decide to make praying into an experiment then I really wouldn't arrive at any logical conclusion. How does praying relate to anything that I do in the real world? I used to pray every night and later I began to question why. I began to doubt God's existence and later I didn't feel any inclination to pray.

Personally I do not believe in any "physical" form of God. I don't think that I can communicate with Him, reason with Him, or do His bidding. However, I do believe that humanity constantly strives to achieve some sort of ideal state through the use of clear thought and reason. My interpretation of God is simply that He is a psychological manifestation of perfection. This perfection can never be attained in the real world, but we can keep striving towards it.

That's just how I see it.

[SASQUATCH]

I like how you put it EXEcution. I don’t believe in GOD but I use too only because I was brought up in believe since I was a boy and school. It’s a good thing for those who feel it can change them and believe in something unknown with faith.

I can’t ever make a point with someone who has a great deal of faith and so I accept what he or she has to say. I at times would rather leave it alone because when I question it using what I have learn in science it has theories which can change over the years but with Religion it comes down to faith and that I can’t argue and so I leave it alone. I do however believe that we can change for the better once we practice exercising meditation and caring about things that we seem to ignore or take for granted.

Example: When I asked the question to DE about the Light on the first day he mention God did have light because he said it without a Sun. So I have to take his word for it because God can do anything and yet I still question it in how light became without the sun or star. That answer was not in no way for me to acknowledge and accept it because God said so but that was his answer and base on that answer is faith I would have to believe that God did so on the first day.

Monotheistic religion has been around for a long time and many of us has been exposed by this since we were kids and of course families before have been taught. Not many convert to monotheistic religion if they have not been exposed by it when they were growing up but some do but once heavy into science you begin to question it, which is natural.

I think religion is necessary for this society over the years but I also believe that as we become more aware of things it becomes natural to understand what is good and evil, which co-exist together.

[Nitro]

You mention archeology DE. I am sorry but the archeology done is extremely biased and in most of the evidence making the stories of the bible completely fictitious or showing evidence that they were extremely misrepresented, the Exodus as the best example to date, which is a nonevent in the way they Jews wrote it. They created very high and mighty-sounding stories in order to give a more positive and glorious portrayal of their race when in reality, those things did not happen and nobody even knows now who exactly these Jews/Hebrews/Israelites really were. I talked with rabbis and I got the lowdown on exactly what they acknowledge as allegorical myths and what they acknowledge as fact. I'll through down some things, since I cannot believe how different the views are of Christians vs Jews, Christians having the more fantasy-based perception of reality.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - Never physical persons but personifications of certain aspects, qualities and metaphors of various things (Don't remember which ones, since they get quite metaphysical)

Jewish exile of 70AD - No historical writings record this supposedly massive event at all. Romans did not exile people and most Jews who resided in Palestine were peasants who tended their lands.

Adam and Eve - allegorical and mystical representation of etheric realities that are not possible to comprehend to most people and able to be written in mere words. There was nothing physical concerning this story at all. Nothing is to be taken literal in any case concerning this (what I consider) and great allegory for the division of consciousness and ultimate reality of nonduality.

Exodus - 1500BC Santorini volcano explosion caused massive devastation and the 10 "plagues" recorded in the books of Moses, something that is verified from artifacts found in places such as Greece, Egypt, and other locations. Watch the documentary "Exodus Decoded" for the details. King Ahmose I expelled the hyksos people from the land, and this is an account that is documented by the Egyptians. No other exodus occurred besides this one.

Kingdoms of David and Solomon - Legends created by the Israelites, according to various evidence that I don't have in front of me at the moment but look into it.

Pharaohs of Egypt - The Pharaohs discussed in Moses's books are never mentioned by name, keeping them mysterious and for good reasons. Moses, and other figures never existed but were created as icons of Egyptian Pharaohs. Moses, just to give one example, was Ahmose I, who expelled the Hyksos people from Egypt. Kamose, was Aaron. Look into etymology and you will find many more things such as the following.

Here is a comphrehensive list I created of the real Ehyptian pharaohs and their biblical "nicknames"

Amen-Ra - Yahweh
Hyksos - Herbews
Jakubher - Jacob
Amenemhet - Abraham
Thutmose - Moses
Psusennes - David
Siamun - Solomon

Israel - Israel is the combination of three "pagan" religions, since this nomadic people had no religion of their own, they adopted a mixed bag opf the religions of the neighboring lands. You break up Israel into its three components and you get Is-Ra-El. Is = Isis, an Egyptian god, Ra = Amen-Ra or just simply Ra, an Egyptian god, and El = El, a Canaanite god.

You have to research who exactly the Jewish people are. Look up 'hyksos' to get started on this.

As to why Jews became scattered all over the continent of Eurasia, in the centuries immediately preceding and following the Christian era, Judaism was a proselytising religion, desperate for converts. This is mentioned in the Roman literature of the time. Jews travelled to other regions seeking converts, particularly in Yemen and among the Berber tribes of North Africa. Centuries later, the people of the Khazar kingdom in what is today south Russia, would convert en masse to Judaism, becoming the genesis of the Ashkenazi Jews of central and eastern Europe.

Now, as to the Jewish history, as represented in the bible as a myth, here is what I have to say on that matter. The exile was a myth promoted by early Christians to recruit Jews to the new faith. Christians wanted later generations of Jews to believe that their ancestors had been exiled as a punishment from God.

One final point I want to make is that the Jews, according to their tradition, cannot and are not supposed to go back to where the artificially-created state of Israel is right now until their messiah king comes back, which has not happened and will not happen, since he would be the successor to David and we already found out that David did not exist in the manner in which he is recorded as existing.

There is a book, written by Shlomo Sand that explains much of the above, that has been the number 1 bestseller in Israel for 19 weeks now, even though it goes against the greatest taboo in the Jewish community. No scholars in Israel are saying his claims are false, since they are backed up by proven facts and evidence. It will be published in English soon, unless the Zionist lobbyists give him a hard time, although I don't think they can, given that its a bestseller in Israel.

Talk to a rabbi and ask him what Jews believe about Satan and Im sure you'll be quite surprised ;)

Also, don't forget that psychedelics were used in order to achieve mystical experiences. Acacia bark, just one example of the native plants in that area, has a high concentration of DMT, the chemical in our pineal gland that gets released when we're born, die, dream, mystical experiences, and near death experiences. Explains the burning bush that wasn't really burning and all the other paranormal-sounding stories.

Also, for a bible with annotations you won't find in the bibles you buy in the christian bookstore check out: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

The bible stories, lego styles is good as well: http://www.thebricktestament.com/

It is utterly astounding that according to recent polls, more than half believe in the literal truth of a book they've never read -- the Bible,yet they say its their favorite book. It is no wonder why Palin has such support still. In England, she would probably get 15% approval, given that only 15% are christians. I do have hope that if even half these people read the book for a chance, they'd stop believing in this fallacy, such as when they see the god of this book created evil (Bible Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6; Quran 113:1-2) and is balmed (or perhaps praised?!) for other terrible acts such as burning people to death, burying people alive, force parents to eat their children and each other, force people to cut off their noses and rip off their breasts, kil newborn babies to punish its parents, cause birth defects and spread dung on peoples' faces (i shit you not), and other lovely things. There's a comprehensive list here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html or consider the absurdities: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/short.html or even the wrong science: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

Just a brief mention on Christ. Christ means anointed one and if you study, or become a member of, any of the various mystery schools and esoteric/secret societies, you will learn the true reality of the things you believe. One of these realities is that Christ is a manifestation that anyone can become once they shifted their consciousness to that enlightened state of "I" as in the essence of creation, taking a nonduality perception of awareness as opposed to a dualistic good/evil, us/them awareness. Christ is a charachter type, not a literal specific person. Christ is a word that is deeply connected with astrotheology and so are his 12 apostles, as in the 12 signs of the zodiac. I would have to go into far too much detail about astrotheology so I won't and will leave it up to you, if you wish to pursue that research path. I'll let you in on a little esoteric brotherhood secret you won't read up on since it's not supposed to be mentioned. The so-called "all seeing eye" on the dollar bill, which was put there in the mid 1800s is not a "satanic" symbol or any such thing. The grand master of an unmentionable esoteric order had it decided to put it on there to reflect this very Christ I am talking about. It was not a eye of some literal Christ that was the light of the world, but rather the eye of full consciousness (which has by different people been called Christ Consciousness, Krishna Consciousness, and Cosmic Consciousness) of the enlightened, or illuminated, ones that had become one with All that Is. It is a very respected symbol among the Brotherhood and it is an insult when someone calls it evil or any such thing. I suggest checking out http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

I know I put alot on your plate with this post and I apoligize, but would love to hear your viewpoint :)

[OUTLAWS high ping camper]

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/430913_8

[Death Engineer]

There's a big hole in your argument. The water coming out of our faucets is assumed to be clean because there is REASON to believe that it's clean. It can be tested (and is) to ensure that it doesn't contain poison. Also, if the water is indeed poisoned you can't just rely on faith and drink it even if your neighbor got sick from drinking the same water from his faucet.

The point wasn't to blindly follow the lemmings. The point was that you don't have any way of knowing for sure whether the air your breathe or the water you drink/food you eat will kill you. It is not a question of whether you are living by faith, but rather in what (or in whom) are you putting your faith.


The problem with the Bible is proof and using empiricism, or science. I am not saying that science is perfect and since you're an engineer you would probably agree. However, it is a rational means of obtaining contextual truth.

I don't see that as a problem. Again, it comes down to faith at some level. Either you believe the Bible and what it says, or you don't. I have some logical reasons to believe what I do, but cannot lay out a scientific mathematical exhaustive proof. I think that this would eliminate the faith part of the equation that is so key.


For instance, If I pray to God every night and decide to make praying into an experiment then I really wouldn't arrive at any logical conclusion. How does praying relate to anything that I do in the real world? I used to pray every night and later I began to question why. I began to doubt God's existence and later I didn't feel any inclination to pray.

I have seen prayer change lives. I have seen prayer work wonders in my life. It isn't like rubbing the Genie lamp though. I believe God is a compassionate loving God that hurts when we hurt and wants us to reach out to Him when we're in our most desperate times.


Personally I do not believe in any "physical" form of God. I don't think that I can communicate with Him, reason with Him, or do His bidding. However, I do believe that humanity constantly strives to achieve some sort of ideal state through the use of clear thought and reason. My interpretation of God is simply that He is a psychological manifestation of perfection. This perfection can never be attained in the real world, but we can keep striving towards it.

That's just how I see it.

I appreciate you sharing what you believe. Many people don't get to the point where they feel comfortable sharing what they believe and where they stand.

Clearly I disagree with you on most of these points. I believe God is personally involved in my life today here on earth. I believe he is many of the things you listed earlier in this thread (loving, forgiving, righteous, just, perfect, etc). I think the most important quality is that He doesn't will that any should perish (spiritual death). His desire is that each one of us know Him and find comfort in Him.

He doesn't promise that it will be easy or that we will reap rewards here in this life. But He does promise that we have someone who understands what we're going through (Hebrews). Someone who was tested in every way and was without sin. And yet he paid for all of our sins by dying on a cross for us all. One death of a perfect man for all our sins.

Without that sacrifice, I would be eternally separated from God as a result of my sins (Romans 3). Instead, I have confidence that I can talk directly to God and share my thoughts/feelings/emotions with him whenever I choose to. I believe He desires that and is transforming my heart and mind to be more like His. That I might love people the way He does.

PS. I'm out of lunch time here, but I'll try to address your longer post soon.

[SASQUATCH]

DE I respect what you have to say and I am sure no one can ever take it away from you.

I can debate with you with this all day and yet I know that we can go in circles with this and this is why I prefer not to debate and why I only asked one simple question and could have gone deeper.


If people are not willing to reason, then it’s unlikely that they can be reasoned out of it. This is why I prefer not to go into it deep because many will not consider and some have made up their minds already.

[Nick]

she named one of her daughters Piper ????

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/21/palin.travel.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

[EXEcution]

I don't want to alienate the rest of your post but you keep going back to the faith issue and it's difficult to make a solid argument against faith. Faith relies on some sort of assumption that might or might not be true. However, faith assumes that whatever you believe is true simply because you have faith... It's like an endless loop or circle argument. You simply can't win.


The point wasn't to blindly follow the lemmings. The point was that you don't have any way of knowing for sure whether the air your breathe or the water you drink/food you eat will kill you. It is not a question of whether you are living by faith, but rather in what (or in whom) are you putting your faith.

Yes I have faith in the air I breathe, but it's not the same faith that you have when you talk about God. You might see it that way but I do not.

EDIT: One more quick point. If you live in faith then you begin to lose your tendency to question things. One could say that event A happened because God wanted it to happen, end of story. If one lives in doubt -- but still has some ideals to live by -- then he has the ability to constantly refine his way of looking at the world and begin to ask "Why?" and stive to make the world a better place.

[Nitro]

I don't have time to put it in my words so I'll just repost a frightening article on Sarah Palin I found on another forum:

I've compiled snips from differnt articles that goes into detail of the church she is connected to. To me, this is very scary stuff and needs to be exposed.


Sarah Palin's churches are actively involved in a resurgent movement that was declared heretical by the Assemblies of God in 1949. This is the same 'Spiritual Warfare' movement that was featured in the award winning movie, "Jesus Camp," which showed young children being trained to do battle for the Lord. At least three of four of Palin's churches are involved with major organizations and leaders of this movement, which is referred to as The Third Wave of the Holy Spirit or the New Apostolic Reformation. The movement is training a young "Joel's Army" to take dominion over the United States and the world.

Quote:
Wagner's top leaders often conduct spiritual warfare campaigns against the demons that block the acceptance of their brand of Christian belief, such as 'Operation Ice Castle' in the Himalayas in 1997. Several of their top prophets and generals of intercession spent weeks in intensive prayer to "confront the Queen of Heaven." This queen is considered by them to be one of the most powerful demons over the earth and is the Great Harlot of Mystery Babylon in Revelation. (The "Great Harlot [or 'whore'] of Mystery Babylon" theme also figures prominently in the sermons of Texas megachurch pastor and Christians United For Israel founder John Hagee, former endorser of John McCain's 2008 presidential bid.) Wagner and his group also claim that the Queen of Heaven is Diana, the pagan god of the biblical book Ephesians and the god of Mary veneration in the Roman Catholic Church. Following the 'Operation Ice Castle' prayer excursion which included planting a flag for Jesus on Mt. Everest, one of the lead prayer intercessors from the excursion, Ana Mendez, reported that there had been dramatic results including, "millions have come to faith in Asia... and other things happened which I believe are also connected...an earthquake had destroyed the basilica of Assisi, where the Pope had called a meeting of all world religions; a hurricane destroyed the infamous temple 'Baal-Christ' in Acapulco, Mexico; the Princes Diana died... and Mother Theresa died in India, one of the most famous advocates of Mary as Co-Redeemer."

http://www.alternet.org/rights/9793 /weird_theology_in_wasilla%3A_a_look_inside_
sarah_palin%27s_pentecostal_church/?page=entire


Quote:
The New Apostolics have developed a unique set of evangelizing tools and terms based on the concept of spiritual mapping and the expulsion of demons. This is for the specific purpose of conquering cities that are resisting the gospel due to the presence of territorial demons and generational curses. These concepts have been marketed through media and videos including the Transformations videos, produced by George Otis, Jr. of the Sentinel Group, which were developed to document what the videos claimed were successful transformations of entire communities through "spiritual warfare" and other of Wagner's new evangelizing technologies. The videos have reinforced the ultimate in faith-based social policy arguments - that human improvement of society is not possible without the supernatural intervention of God and that this intervention can only happen when groups of "Spirit-filled" Christians unite to chase the demons out of their communities and to take authority away from those who are not "born again."



Quote:
The participants of this movement really do believe that their prayers are the cause of destruction of property and injury, or perhaps even the death, of others ike Mother Theresa and Princess Diana. And they do clearly profess to believe that others will be forced to accept their beliefs or be destroyed.l

As Mary Glazer told Peter Wagner and the other New Apostolic Reformation leaders at the June 12-14 "Opening the Gate of Heaven on Earth" conference:

There is a tipping point, at which, at which time, because of the sin of the land, the people then have to be displaced ... God is preparing a people to displace the ones whose sin is rising so that then they tip over and the church goes in - one is removed and the church moves in and takes the territory. Now, that does not mean that the people are removed, because God removes them from the Kingdom of Darkness into the Kingdom of Light. They are given an opportunity to change allegiances.



For more information on other links between Sarah Palin and the New Apostolic Reformation, see Palin and the Apostles at and the entire ongoing series of articles, Palin's Churches and the Third Wave.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/102140/is_palin_a_member_of_'spiritual_warfare'_prayer_gr oup/

Watch Bruce Wilson's video documentary detailing the extreme Religious Right connections to the Wasilla Assembly of God church, "Sarah Palin's Churches and the Third Wave":

For those of you who are religious, this basically is saying that Sarah Palin is performing black magic since wishing ill-will or harm upon another is the definition of black magic.

Also, check out a video of her church: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKkoRbtCqEY

[NightBreed]

Anyone see this interview with Katie Couric yet ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07kO9TtHYzQ


:thumbs:

[Nitro]

holy crap hahaha

that looked soo real

[OUTLAWS Tip]

I think Obama's previous church looks far more scary.

[Sirc]

I think Obama's previous church looks far more scary.

Because you cannot have a religious upbringing and still be able to think for yourself. I was born and bread Methodist. Baptized. Went to church camp for two years.

I think Lord of the Rings is better. I don't believe in either one, but yeah, LOTR was more entertaining.

The religious people here look at the non-religious and shake their heads wondering what in the world could cause them to think the way they do. The non-religious people are on the other side of the mirror shaking their heads and wondering the same thing.

Welcome to the great divide.

[Nick]

.....

[Nick]

Because you cannot have a religious upbringing and still be able to think for yourself. I was born and bread Methodist. Baptized. Went to church camp for two years.

I think Lord of the Rings is better. I don't believe in either one, but yeah, LOTR was more entertaining.

The religious people here look at the non-religious and shake their heads wondering what in the world could cause them to think the way they do. The non-religious people are on the other side of the mirror shaking their heads and wondering the same thing.

Welcome to the great divide.


and both sides ''know they are right'' :)

[Nitro]

If anyone claims they are right, they are wrong.

simple litmus test, since there are no absolutes. There is no good. There is no evil. Reality is nondual in nature but humans create artificial divisions and their own fabricated bubbles of false reality.

[Death Engineer]

Nitro:

I actually took you up on your offer. I took your entire post to the Dell Jewish Community Center and talked with a Rabbi there about it. He read through it carefully and asked me at least 3 times if you were serious. I can't type out everything that he said, but hands down, he completely disagrees with your suppositions.

His demeanor said it all. His body language said that even reading it disgusted him though his words were much more tame. He was very impressed that I would go that far to prove my point and asked me to share that he will pray for you.

OK. So having followed your advice, I wonder if you might do me the same honor. I would encourage you to go to a local church and ask to speak with the pastor and talk through some of these things such as that God created evil. This is nothing short of twisting the scriptures.

Even secular Bible scholars that do not believe it is true do not agree with you because this is not what the Bible says! I will be happy to talk through any of these points that you like, but if we're going to do that, I'd like to focus on one section at a time and really study it together and come up with a reasonable explanation (even if we don't agree on what that is -- at least something based on what it says).

So pick one scripture that you'd like to talk through and let's dig in. Let's make it a meaningful one. One that means something to you personally.

[Nitro]

Nitro:

I actually took you up on your offer. I took your entire post to the Dell Jewish Community Center and talked with a Rabbi there about it. He read through it carefully and asked me at least 3 times if you were serious. I can't type out everything that he said, but hands down, he completely disagrees with your suppositions.

His demeanor said it all. His body language said that even reading it disgusted him though his words were much more tame. He was very impressed that I would go that far to prove my point and asked me to share that he will pray for you.

OK. So having followed your advice, I wonder if you might do me the same honor. I would encourage you to go to a local church and ask to speak with the pastor and talk through some of these things such as that God created evil. This is nothing short of twisting the scriptures.

Even secular Bible scholars that do not believe it is true do not agree with you because this is not what the Bible says! I will be happy to talk through any of these points that you like, but if we're going to do that, I'd like to focus on one section at a time and really study it together and come up with a reasonable explanation (even if we don't agree on what that is -- at least something based on what it says).

So pick one scripture that you'd like to talk through and let's dig in. Let's make it a meaningful one. One that means something to you personally.
Hmm, that's quite interesting that he disagreed! May I ask which Jewish offshoot he belongs to? Hassidics differ from Orthodox who differ from Reformed who differ from Messianic, and so on. I love how you pull through like that, you amaze me :)

I'll try to take you up on that offer if I get a chance. In the mean time, perhaps the question to be asked then, since you believe that when in Isa 45:7 the OT god explicitly says he creates evil, who then created evil if he did not. I do not see how this can be twisting of a passage when it is speaking in the first person from his point of view that he in fact is the one that created evil. I'd like to hear how you interpret this quite straightforward passage into something else. If you say that a d-evil created evil then in that case, this devil was created by someone that allowed for this being to create evil. Again, I'm interested as to what school of thought your rabbi belongs to since the ones I conferred with say that this devil is an angel that is sort of like an employee of the employer which in this case is the G-d that they believe in. He runs errands that deal with testing the faith of people and if they pass the tests, they get blessed.

You might be interested as to how esoteric orders interpret satan, lucifer, and other allegorical anthropomorphic beings.

God - good
Devil -evil

Personifications of human qualities.

In case others are interested in esoteric brotherhoods, I'll divulge some of them in case you wish to pursue an understanding of the metaphysical and mystical side of the old religions which these days are mostly interpreted in literal in physical terms. Truth is, it was opposite of this, and logic and reason would simply show how those hard-to-believe stories are allegories.

http://www.servantsofthelight.org/
http://www.amorc.org/
http://www.omcesite.org/
http://www.rosicrucian.com/
http://www.sria.org/
http://www.oto-usa.org/index.html
http://moup.org/
http://www.soul.org/
http://www.hermeticgoldendawn.org/index.shtml
http://www.iss-ic-memphis-misraim.com/
http://www.golden-dawn.com/eu/index.aspx
http://www.ordoaa.org/
http://divineknights.org/knights_templar0.htm

There's a whole world of mysticism and esotericism connected to the same sacred text you believe DE to be the inspired words of the creator of all that is and it makes thigns much more fantastic than the current perception of awareness you have concerning that ancient religion.

I hope you realize that I have nothing against your belief in what you believe, as long as it is a belief in love, peace, compassion, grace, gratitude, joy, and similar positive levels of consciousness. I do have complete lack of respect for any bit of text that calls itself holy but is filled with hate, anger, rage, killing, rape, pillaging, and all the other negative aspects of human life. If a sacred text says that god is love, then it can not be hypocritical and show this same god being very un-loving in previous instances. The whole notion of an anthropomorphic deity goes against all logic and science such as quantum physics.

[Death Engineer]

Is God really the one who created evil? To answer the question we must first look at how the word for evil "rah" is used in the Bible, examine the context of the Isaiah 45:7 passage, and look at other passages on the same subject.
First of all, the Hebrew word for evil "rah" is used in many different ways in the Bible. In the KJV Bible, it occurs 663 times. 431 times it is translated as "evil." The other 232 times it is translated as "wicked", "bad", "hurt", "harm", "ill", "sorrow", "mischief", "displeased", "adversity", "affliction", "trouble", "calamity", "grievous", "misery", and "trouble." So we can see that the word does not require that it be translated as "evil." This is why different Bibles translate this verse differently. It is translated as "calamity" by the NASB and NKJV; "disaster" by the NIV; and "woe" by the RSV;
Second, the context of the verse is speaking of natural phenomena.

"I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; 6That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, 7The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these." (Isaiah 45:5-7).

Notice that the context of the verse is dealing with who God is, that it is God who speaks of natural phenomena (sun, light, dark), and it is God who is able to cause "well-being" as well as "calamity." Contextually, this verse is dealing with natural disasters, and human comfort issues. It is not speaking of moral evil; rather, it is dealing with calamity, distress, etc. This is consistent with other scriptures. For example,

* "And the Lord said to him, "Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?" (Exodus 4:11).
* "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6).

From the above two verses we can see that the Lord is involved in calamity and problems in the earthly realm. Exodus 4:11 is speaking of human frailty and Amos 3:6 is speaking of woes in a city. It is not a moral evil that God brings, but calamity and distress upon people.
Of course, this raises other questions of why God would do such a thing, which I won't cover here. But, we can trust that whatever God does is just and is used for teaching, guiding, and disciplining His people.
Third, there are other verses that clearly show that God is pure and that He cannot approve of evil.

* “The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He," (Deut. 32:4).
* "Thine eyes are too pure to approve evil, and Thou canst not look on wickedness with favor," (Hab. 1:13).

We can see that the Bible teaches that God is pure and does not approve of evil, that the word "rah" (evil) in Hebrew can mean many things, and that contextually, the verse is speaking calamity and distress. Therefore, God does not create evil in the moral sense, but in the sense of disaster, of calamity.

From http://www.carm.org/

[Death Engineer]

Hmm, that's quite interesting that he disagreed! May I ask which Jewish offshoot he belongs to? Hassidics differ from Orthodox who differ from Reformed who differ from Messianic, and so on. I love how you pull through like that, you amaze me :)

I honestly don't know for sure and didn't ask while I was there. I didn't get an answer when I called there just now to ask. My jewish friend that goes there says they are definitely now Hassidic and probably lean toward Orthodoxy for what that's worth.


I hope you realize that I have nothing against your belief in what you believe, as long as it is a belief in love, peace, compassion, grace, gratitude, joy, and similar positive levels of consciousness. I do have complete lack of respect for any bit of text that calls itself holy but is filled with hate, anger, rage, killing, rape, pillaging, and all the other negative aspects of human life. If a sacred text says that god is love, then it can not be hypocritical and show this same god being very un-loving in previous instances. The whole notion of an anthropomorphic deity goes against all logic and science such as quantum physics.

I definitely believe in the more positive sounding attributes, but I cannot separate those from things like justice. I have this same issue with my kids. I want them to enjoy life and have fun ... lots of positive things. However, if I don't draw the line (justice) and show them the difference between right and wrong (no, you cannot jump on your sister's head...), then things fall apart quickly. What you are calling negative, is really a positive thing despite how we may view it.

Another quick example ... when a person that drinks and drives gets into an accident and kills someone they are put in prison (hopefully). This is definitely perceived negatively by the drunk driver. However, it is a positive thing for him (and for the victims family, society, etc) whether he realizes it or not. He is learning that his actions have consequences. One phrase that I have heard is that "every decision has a price tag." Some of the prices are high ... drinking and driving would fall into that category.

Similarly, I don't see God punishing sinners as "negative." It is His way of refining us to become more like Him (love, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, self-control, slow to anger, etc).

We must draw a distinct line here though. I am *NOT* saying that in all cases if you are sick/have cancer/etc, that God is punishing you for sin. I believe it is a consequence of this world being broken (i.e. not the way it should be) that started way back with the first sin in the garden of Eden. I do believe that whatever the cause, enduring hardship can bring glory to God. Paul gives some excellent example of this in his writings.

[Nitro]

Malachi 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces


It's nice to know Sarah Palin has a god that does these sorts of things...

[Sirc]

Malachi 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces

I've seen that website. Gross!

[Nitro]

What humans call "God", a nonphysical energy at the source, isn't contained in a book. god is god. And God is love, which obviously means that Love is god, and love is a nonphysical energy. Anything inconsistent with unconditional love is not god. The excerpt I provided is an example of a god that is not Love, but either one of two things: an extraterrestrial on a powertrip or a human-manifested symbol by a primitive tribe in order to keep people in its society in line, in other words, that god is about as real as Xenu.

[EXEcution]

And God is love, which obviously means that Love is god, and love is a nonphysical energy. Anything inconsistent with unconditional love is not god.
Really? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJPhA9TGRls

[Death Engineer]

Did you bother to check the context there? Let me give another story from my life that I think is a nice parallel. Our daughter likes to eat. She likes to eat so much (especially cookies), that she will "steal" food (taking cookies when she shouldn't ... without permission, etc). We have a rule in our family that if you steal food, you miss the next meal -- you still get to sit with the family, you just don't get any food. And we've had to enforce that rule more than once.

In general, we try to make it so that the punishment relates to the infraction. I think this is similar to what is being described in Malachi 2. God has observed some really gross practices of the priests using substandard animals for sacrifices (among other things). He is warning them that if they continue to disgrace Him with these sacrifices, that he will punish them accordingly for their infractions. Also, he is saying that he will show their "trash" to everyone. Exposing their sin, if you will.

This is not aside from God's unconditional love, it IS God's unconditional love. God is love and God is just. Those are not in conflict with each other. In the same way, I love my daughter unconditionally AND I discipline her to encourage her to learn appropriate ways to relate to food (i.e. eat at meals, snacks with permission, etc). We express this by telling our children that we love them even when they are being naughty, breaking the rules, acting out, etc. They doesn't keep us from disciplining them though.

[JIMINATOR]

so at some point being a loving and just and merciful dad will you decide that she is incorrigible, and punish her not for a meal, but for........ever?

[Death Engineer]

If you're asking whether I believe tough love should ever be used, I think the answer is yes. I think the list of things that could cause that kind of thing (kicking a grown child out of the house, not welcoming them back until xyz..., etc) should be short and based on scripture though.

The example that popped into my head was if one of my kids were to become addicted to drugs and were living at home, yet old enough to be on their own. I have no doubt that I would lay down the law (i.e. no drugs, or you move out and find another place to live). That would be the best way I would know to love them at that time -- and I would tell them that.

[Nitro]

So let me get this straight..god smearing feces on a priest's face is his own unique way of expressing his unconditional love? Gee willikers (oh yes, I said it) I'm in the twilight zone...

[Sirc]

Wow, DE has a dark side. A downright mean side. Stealing?

There is so much to respond to here, but for the moment I'll stick with the withholding food thing.

I believe in spankings. Not beatings mind you, not belts or paddles, but just a quick, sharp smack on the butt, or maybe two if needed. It's quick, it get's the point across, it only hurts for a moment, and, it probably hurt me just as much because it tends to jar the hell out of your arm - particularly your elbow. Maybe I wasn't doing it right. I dunno.

Now before you reprimand me for striking a child, consider what DE does. He puts the cookie jar within reach knowing that the child will be tempted. And ultimately fail because the cookies are right there and that's really all that matters at the moment.

And when the child fails to demonstrate self-restraint, which is asking a lot while the sugary goodness is calling, he proceeds to punish the child through psychological torture. You will sit at the dinner table, you will watch us eat, but you will not be allowed to eat. Just sit. And watch. And then you will go to bed hungry.

A lesson is certainly being taught here either way. My physical lesson is quick and focused and I have their full attention when I explain things to the child. It's rather effective. DE's lesson is slow and extremely unpleasant, but more importantly leaves the child with the memory of the long, drawn out punishment she is suffering more so than what she was being punished for in the first place.

I'd go with the quick smack and immediate explanation, over depriving my child of dinner later on and having her suffer far beyond what the situation called for. But that's just me.

And in my home it's not possible for my family members to "steal" food. The very idea seems ridiculous to me.

[Sirc]

Wait, what? "Substandard animals"? How can that be? God makes substandard animals?

[Sirc]

Deuteronomy

13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

This is only a single example, but basically DE, you would kill your wife, your children, and your friends if they did something like tried to get you to believe in Scientology or some other god that is not the Christian God. You'd have to do this, it's quite clear here. And you have to do it slowly, by throwing stones at them until they were dead. And you would have to throw the first stone. You are a literalist so you would have no choice.

I on the other hand have complete freedom of choice. I would not do this.

[Nick]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/audio/play/1044661/

she got pranked by Quebecer radiohosts...

[Sepra]

Wow, DE has a dark side. A downright mean side. Stealing?

There is so much to respond to here, but for the moment I'll stick with the withholding food thing.

I believe in spankings. Not beatings mind you, not belts or paddles, but just a quick, sharp smack on the butt, or maybe two if needed. It's quick, it get's the point across, it only hurts for a moment, and, it probably hurt me just as much because it tends to jar the hell out of your arm - particularly your elbow. Maybe I wasn't doing it right. I dunno.

Now before you reprimand me for striking a child, consider what DE does. He puts the cookie jar within reach knowing that the child will be tempted. And ultimately fail because the cookies are right there and that's really all that matters at the moment.

And when the child fails to demonstrate self-restraint, which is asking a lot while the sugary goodness is calling, he proceeds to punish the child through psychological torture. You will sit at the dinner table, you will watch us eat, but you will not be allowed to eat. Just sit. And watch. And then you will go to bed hungry.

A lesson is certainly being taught here either way. My physical lesson is quick and focused and I have their full attention when I explain things to the child. It's rather effective. DE's lesson is slow and extremely unpleasant, but more importantly leaves the child with the memory of the long, drawn out punishment she is suffering more so than what she was being punished for in the first place.

I'd go with the quick smack and immediate explanation, over depriving my child of dinner later on and having her suffer far beyond what the situation called for. But that's just me.

And in my home it's not possible for my family members to "steal" food. The very idea seems ridiculous to me.

I think you're overreacting about the whole "steal". If he had said "sneak", would you have felt better? :) We all know the childhood game 'Who stole the cookie from the cookie jar?' Every kid has stolen/sneaked extra snacks at one point in thier life. You say it's never been possible in your family? I find it hard to believe you or your wife have never said no to a snack because it was too close to dinner. That would give your kids the perfect opportunity in YOUR house to "steal" one when you weren't looking.

As far as the cookies in reach....put chemicals and things of harm out of reach or behind child saftey locks, but cookies? Come on now. Every child should have to learn limitations and rules, whether it's in front of them or not. Two weeks ago my son found someone's lunch money in the hallway. My child DID show self-restraint when I'm sure it was tempting with the 'greenier green'ness of the money was calling', but he turned it in. It all comes down to what was taught. It may seem like a trivial lesson with cookies, but it's really not. Just because you see and may want, doesn't mean you should totally endulge.

Like DE's child, my 3 kids would consume all of the snacks in the course of one night if I let them. If they had free reign, the 3 of them would open a package of cookies and no doubt have the whole thing gone in 15 mins. My kids, like DE's need permission for sweets and they can have a cookie or two at a sitting. I also have a rule that they can choose two afterschool snacks and that's it until dinner. Yes, my kids have 'stolen' extra snacks here and there and there is a consequence in my family too. (mine's not as harsh as DE's though. Not sure if I could make my child miss a meal over it, let alone sit at the table and watch everyone eat :o ) Here, if they choose to take extra snacks they miss out on the next days after school snack. I suppose it's the same thing though...... The other two children would have their snack and the other have to miss out. Technically it's a the same thing in a round-a-bout way. The only difference is me not making them miss a 'meal' and I don't sit them down and make them watch the other two eat but both DE and I have the same type of method.

I too think his punishment is a little harsh, I personally think I take a softer route but I think you're overreacting and overplaying the situation a little. <shock! :P >

For DE now.....:D I understand where Sirc is coming from though. I felt bad when I heard that. Your daughter is still very young and that punishment is kind of much for her age. The developmental maturity isn't there yet to always make the best decisions. Ex. a child her age will run across the street to get their runaway ball. At that moment they're thinking 'ball' only. When she see's cookies, she's not thinking morals, reasoning or that she will 'sin' if she takes one. Due to the developmental stage, impluse is greater than reasoning so you can't fault her for that. Even using a softer approach your lessons will shine through as you child gets older and is able to make solid right and wrong decisions. As they get older and that 'impluse over reasoning' will disipate and your lessons seen more clearly. My son is 11 and I'm very happy too see he's applying acts of responsible citizenship that I had hoped to teach.

[Sirc]

Okay, I agree I may have overreacted. I still don't like the word "steal" though. Let's call it a ninja situation. :)

We actually didn't have a cookie jar on the counter, we kept the cookies up in a cupboard. Why? Because if we kept them on the counter they'd be ninjad. There are plenty of more important situations where a child needs to learn rules and restraint. Social interactions with other children, don't go past the sidewalk, don't flush toys ( :bawling: ), etc. The list is endless. Why add an unnecessary temptation to the mix? And no, we've never withheld food from our kids. But yes, of course we have said no to snacks if dinner was soon. That's not the same thing.

Young children have an attention span of about 45 seconds at best. Immediate punishment with an explaination has always seemed much more effective then punishing them later when they may not even remember what they did and why it was wrong. Cause and effect is best served warm.

And for the record, I do think that we had cookies ninjad a few times. I'm not positive, and frankly, if the kid had the intelligence to devise a plan to get all the way up to the cupboard, grab the cookie, and get back down without mom or dad knowing, then by God that kid deserved the cookie. :P


I think you're overreacting about the whole "steal". If he had said "sneak", would you have felt better? :) We all know the childhood game 'Who stole the cookie from the cookie jar?' Every kid has stolen/sneaked extra snacks at one point in thier life. You say it's never been possible in your family? I find it hard to believe you or your wife have never said no to a snack because it was too close to dinner. That would give your kids the perfect opportunity in YOUR house to "steal" one when you weren't looking.

As far as the cookies in reach....put chemicals and things of harm out of reach or behind child saftey locks, but cookies? Come on now. Every child should have to learn limitations and rules, whether it's in front of them or not. Two weeks ago my son found someone's lunch money in the hallway. My child DID show self-restraint when I'm sure it was tempting with the 'greenier green'ness of the money was calling', but he turned it in. It all comes down to what was taught. It may seem like a trivial lesson with cookies, but it's really not. Just because you see and may want, doesn't mean you should totally endulge.

Like DE's child, my 3 kids would consume all of the snacks in the course of one night if I let them. If they had free reign, the 3 of them would open a package of cookies and no doubt have the whole thing gone in 15 mins. My kids, like DE's need permission for sweets and they can have a cookie or two at a sitting. I also have a rule that they can choose two afterschool snacks and that's it until dinner. Yes, my kids have 'stolen' extra snacks here and there and there is a consequence in my family too. (mine's not as harsh as DE's though. Not sure if I could make my child miss a meal over it, let alone sit at the table and watch everyone eat :o ) Here, if they choose to take extra snacks they miss out on the next days after school snack. I suppose it's the same thing though...... The other two children would have their snack and the other have to miss out. Technically it's a the same thing in a round-a-bout way. The only difference is me not making them miss a 'meal' and I don't sit them down and make them watch the other two eat but both DE and I have the same type of method.

I too think his punishment is a little harsh, I personally think I take a softer route but I think you're overreacting and overplaying the situation a little. <shock! :P >

For DE now.....:D I understand where Sirc is coming from though. I felt bad when I heard that. Your daughter is still very young and that punishment is kind of much for her age. The developmental maturity isn't there yet to always make the best decisions. Ex. a child her age will run across the street to get their runaway ball. At that moment they're thinking 'ball' only. When she see's cookies, she's not thinking morals, reasoning or that she will 'sin' if she takes one. Due to the developmental stage, impluse is greater than reasoning so you can't fault her for that. Even using a softer approach your lessons will shine through as you child gets older and is able to make solid right and wrong decisions. As they get older and that 'impluse over reasoning' will disipate and your lessons seen more clearly. My son is 11 and I'm very happy too see he's applying acts of responsible citizenship that I had hoped to teach.

[Sepra]

Immediate punishment with an explaination has always seemed much more effective then punishing them later when they may not even remember what they did and why it was wrong. Cause and effect is best served warm.


I agree with you to a certain extent. I'm an advocate of spankings. All of my kids have been spanked for things they've done wrong but it's been ages since I have. Now that they're getting older, having something witheld (no Xbox for 2 days, having to miss out on their afterschool activity etc.)
or the forsaken 'extra chores' is more than torture for them. lol My kids are old enough to understand and remember a later date consequence so that's a non issue for me.

How old is your daughter now DE?

(wow this thread got OT)

[Sirc]

(wow this thread got OT)

Bleh, this thread is 11 pages long and the original topic is no longer an issue. Since I started the thread I give permission for it to go OT. :)

I don't think either of my kids where spanked more than 5 times total. It wasn't a common practice, but sometimes when they were out of control, as I have said, it certainly got their complete attention. And there was "the voice and the look". "The voice and the look" always accompanied a spanking, or the threat of a spanking. It didn't take long for my kids to recognize "the voice", and turn to see "the look", and then give me their full attention.

My kids are 19 and 17 now, and they still respond to it. On very rare occasions I do it just for kicks. :D

My children have grown into absolutely amazing young adults. I couldn't even describe how proud I am of them and the excellent human beings they have become.

[Goober]

Yo Sirc what is this? a pick on DE's religion thread. I also am a Christian, which to me means to be Christ like. Now I'll be the first to admit that I am not, nor will I ever be as perfect as Christ was, but.....I try.
Now, let me counter your Deuteronomy verse from the Old Testament with one out of the New Testament. More specifically St. John chapter 8

1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: Lev. 20.10 · Deut. 22.22-24 but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Which leads me to believe that the old punishments were not to be followed. DE?

[Sirc]

My post was aimed specifically at DE for a reason. He is a biblical literalist in that he believes everything in the bible (both Old and New Testaments) is absolute truth just as it is written without any room for interpretation. I'm not bashing Christians - I'm just curious how he deals with the contradictions.

In your example Jesus ignored the word of God as set forth in Deuteronomy. Of course he's Jesus, so maybe he can do that. It must have been pretty intimidating to the scribes and Pharisees for them to simply leave like that. And it must have left them pretty confused.

Everything they had been taught in Deuteronomy instantly became useless if the lesson being taught here was that only those without sin can carry out the will of God. And what man is without sin?


Yo Sirc what is this? a pick on DE's religion thread. I also am a Christian, which to me means to be Christ like. Now I'll be the first to admit that I am not, nor will I ever be as perfect as Christ was, but.....I try.
Now, let me counter your Deuteronomy verse from the Old Testament with one out of the New Testament. More specifically St. John chapter 8

1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: Lev. 20.10 · Deut. 22.22-24 but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Which leads me to believe that the old punishments were not to be followed. DE?

[Sirc]

To both Goober and DE....was Jesus a man or was he God incarnate?

[NightBreed]

Ehhhh..enough of the religious arguments.

I'm just hoping Sarah does a Playboy spread soon...:woohoo:

[Goober]

To both Goober and DE....was Jesus a man or was he God incarnate?
Yes.

Jesus came to earth in the form of man, but he is part of the trinity which is God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost (or spirit) Each one is seperate but the same.

In John ch10 verse 30 Jesus says I and my Father are one

In Philipeans Chapter 10 it speaks of Christ although being in the form of God took upon the form of servant and was made in the likeness of men.



.

Everything they had been taught in Deuteronomy instantly became useless if the lesson being taught here was that only those without sin can carry out the will of God. And what man is without sin?

I don't think that this was the point. The pharisees were trying to set Jesus up by getting him to say that the law was invalid, which would have been enough to hang him. Instead he put a burden on their hearts by showing them that she was not the only sinner in the room.
I'll get back to you on the laws set down in Deuteronomy. I'll have some studying to do. This one I quote below still holds.


Nitro was using a web site for some of his posts that said this verse from Deuteronomy was an absurdity.
and thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:
Wonder if those folks have ever been in the woods?

[Death Engineer]

was Jesus a man or was he God incarnate?

I believe that the Lord Jesus, the eternal Son of God, became man, without ceasing to be God, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary, in order that He might reveal God and redeem sinful man. I believe that He accomplished our redemption through His death on the cross as a substitutionary sacrifice. I believe that our redemption and salvation is guaranteed to us by His literal physical resurrection from the dead.

References: John 1:1, 14, 18; Luke 1:35; Romans 3:24-26, 4:25

[Death Engineer]

Wow. I go away for some busy days at work after giving a personal example and all this breaks out. ;)

First of all, let me further explain that our current extreme discipline (missing a meal) comes not just because we dreamed it up and thought it would be fun. We tried probably 4-5 other strategies that have never worked on our daughter. Note that our son doesn't seem to struggle with food the same way she does and it doesn't take the same exterme in this area to change his behavior.

We do spank in our house, but we found that spanking alone would not keep our daughter from taking food when she shouldn't (we use the word stealing in our house ... makes it easy to parallel other things they easily understand -- other kids stealing their toys, etc). I even put the word in quote Sirc...come on. ;)

I should also note that I think she has only missed 2 meals since we changed our strategy on this several months ago. That was after 4-5 incidents a week prior to that (she may really have a food issue). It works for us/her.

Anyways... I wanted to make sure that we're all on the same page here. The punishment is not getting food at the next meal. If that meal is dinner, she has to sit at the table with us as we eat dinner together as a family (such a rare thing these days in this world it seems). It is not vindictive and she is encouraged to participate in conversation and has a good time even though she doesn't get to eat. If she asks for food, we just remind her of the incident and that we love her and want her to learn from her mistake, so the answer is no (we call it vitamin N).

[Death Engineer]

I agree with you to a certain extent. I'm an advocate of spankings. All of my kids have been spanked for things they've done wrong but it's been ages since I have. Now that they're getting older, having something witheld (no Xbox for 2 days, having to miss out on their afterschool activity etc.)
or the forsaken 'extra chores' is more than torture for them. lol My kids are old enough to understand and remember a later date consequence so that's a non issue for me.

How old is your daughter now DE?

(wow this thread got OT)

She'll be 3 in Jan (scary, huh?). We, too, are spankers, and not ashamed of it. There are some things that we handle differently if consistent discipline like spanking doesn't seem to change behavior.

It is already readily apparent that our older 2 kids require different forms of discipline in order for it to be effective. We have found that using creative discipline and linking it as closely to the offense as possible helps.

I'll give another example (dare I?): If our son calls his sister a name or disrespects her, he may receive a spanking. Or he may be required to spend the next 15-30 min playing with her (looking through books, etc). Or we may require that he tell her 5 things that he likes about her (to build her up, vs. tearing her down). The point here is that we're teaching him that it is important to respect other people (especially family, women, etc).

Anyways...how did this turn into a discipline thread? Sorry that I took it so far off the rails. :P I'm surprised, but pleased to hear that others still spank and aren't afraid to talk about it. There is a movement even among church goers that says that children should never be spanked or disciplined much at all (i.e. don't tell them no or be 'negative' toward them). I am encouraged that this doesn't seem to be the norm with this crowd.:thumbs:

[Death Engineer]

This is only a single example, but basically DE, you would kill your wife, your children, and your friends if they did something like tried to get you to believe in Scientology or some other god that is not the Christian God. You'd have to do this, it's quite clear here. And you have to do it slowly, by throwing stones at them until they were dead. And you would have to throw the first stone. You are a literalist so you would have no choice.

I on the other hand have complete freedom of choice. I would not do this.

I think I misunderstood your original question about being a literalist. Since then I have done a bit of googling and I don't think I would say I am a literalist in terms of how I have seen it defined (both here and on most sites that defined it).

What I do believe: I believe the Bible is to be interpreted in a literal and normal way. This means to consider history, grammar, context, and harmony with other Scriptures as guidelines for interpretation. I don't think this differs from how I would "interpret" any other literary work. But you have to take the context into account ...

i.e. I would not stone my wife or friend/brother/etc if they tried to entice me to another religion. However, I can take away the idea that God cares very much about His chosen people (the Israelites) and their relationship with Him. He is a jealous God.

[Death Engineer]

Wait, what? "Substandard animals"? How can that be? God makes substandard animals?

Sure. He required that the priests sacrifice animals without blemish (i.e. more valuable animals). This kept people from just taking the least valuable sickly runt and claiming that was the sacrifice.

In the same way, Jesus had to be without sin in order for His death on the cross to mean anything. It is the same way with sacrifices. It's really more about the heart than anything else. By giving a valuable animal without blemish as a sacrifice, it was a recognition of the people's need for forgiveness from a holy and just God.

[Death Engineer]

For DE now..... I understand where Sirc is coming from though. I felt bad when I heard that. Your daughter is still very young and that punishment is kind of much for her age. The developmental maturity isn't there yet to always make the best decisions. Ex. a child her age will run across the street to get their runaway ball. At that moment they're thinking 'ball' only. When she see's cookies, she's not thinking morals, reasoning or that she will 'sin' if she takes one. Due to the developmental stage, impluse is greater than reasoning so you can't fault her for that. Even using a softer approach your lessons will shine through as you child gets older and is able to make solid right and wrong decisions. As they get older and that 'impluse over reasoning' will disipate and your lessons seen more clearly. My son is 11 and I'm very happy too see he's applying acts of responsible citizenship that I had hoped to teach.

I understand what you're saying. We definitely hold our children to a high standard at an early age. In fact, I would go as far as to say we err on that side of the line. Probably a result of our family history and upbringing.

All of that said, again this is not something that we did the first time she took food without asking. We would never use such an extreme punishment if there were not deliberate disobedience involved. And we sat down and explained the new rules after many incidents. So when something like this happens, it isn't a huge deal.

We ask our kids what the punishment for things should be given the infraction. And most of the time they hit the nail on the head. If they deserve a spanking, they know it. If they deserve 5 min. in their room to think about things, they say so. Our daughter will tell us (albeit very quietly) that she has to miss a meal if she has already taken food without permission.

This way it is a standard and it is her choice. The price tag is clearly set for her and she CAN comprehend what a meal is worth even at age 2.5. Even when there is a bag of cookies on the shelf in the pantry (not easily in reach, mind you).

You might think our daughter is terrible as I'm highlighting probably her worst attibute. However, on the contrary, our kids consistently rise to the high standards we set for them. People in public will offer unsolicited comments about their politeness, kindness, and respect to each and other people. Someday, I suspect they will thank us for that in much the same way that I thank my parents for taking the time to teach me right from wrong and to develop character in me.

[Sepra]

I'll give another example (dare I?): If our son calls his sister a name or disrespects her, he may receive a spanking. Or he may be required to spend the next 15-30 min playing with her (looking through books, etc). Or we may require that he tell her 5 things that he likes about her (to build her up, vs. tearing her down). The point here is that we're teaching him that it is important to respect other people (especially family, women, etc).



Wow, I really love this! I think I've found something new for our family :D

[Sepra]

IYou might think our daughter is terrible as I'm highlighting probably her worst attibute.

lol you haven't heard any of my stories yet. :P Out of my 3 kids, my daughter is my difficult one. Probably 90% of my behavior horror stories are from her. I swear she's been the hardest one to 'tame' (I say tame because she's my wild child) and using everything we know how to do as far as parenting, sometimes I feel like I'm not getting through. I was actually SCARED too send her off to kindergarten. Not because I didn't want to let go of her, but because I was so afraid she'd misbehave. I was pre-embarassed of what she might do or say. She's extremely strong willed, has a straightforward personality (she'll tell you what's on her mind and just like it is :confused: ) and tends to be very bossy. In the questionnaire that you had to fill in for kindergarten there was a section that asked if there were any behavior issues that we delt with at home. I let them know about her strong personality and how it can sometime interfere with a 'peacefull flow'. I volunteer in her class on Wed and always ask how she's been. Well, to my suprise the teacher says she's just great in school. She tells me how personable she is with great manners, always shares and is quick to volunteer to help where it's needed. Ya....my Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde child. rofl So all these worries I had and thinking my words don't get through to her and she really HAS been listening.

[JIMINATOR]

hrm, sounds like your daughter may have an addictive personality, the food issue is likely to be compulsive behavior. All addictions are a way to self-medicate, to fill a hole in their personality. When babies cry they are fed (or changed). Parents often make kids feel better with food. That builds an association of food to getting rid of pain. Now you can try to instill self-control, and maybe that will work, but if it does not then you are building an inferiority complex within her, ie: why am I so weak that I cannot listen... but they taste so good... anyway I don't think you can discipline the issue without understanding the root cause and what things contribute to it, and at her age it probably is not going to be possible to get to the root cause.

[Death Engineer]

We are increasingly concerned and have already spoken with the pediatrician about it. It's something we'll be keeping a close eye on. Beyond what I've already described, she will eat far more than healthy portions and still be asking for more. She's always been on the higher end of the weight percentile, but it's almost like she doesn't know when she's full (which is a real complex).

Anyways... we're keeping an eye on it. She definitely doesn't starve even when she goes without a meal. ;)

Here's some pictures/videos of a brownie incident...

http://picasaweb.google.com/KE5DTO/20080719TheCaseOfTheHalfEatenBrownie#

[Sepra]

omg I love it :rofl:

[Sirc]

Awww. Well then, you're no fun. And I'll drop that particular subject.

But, you raise another question. You believe the Israelites are God's chosen people? Above all others? Where does that leave you as a Christian?


I think I misunderstood your original question about being a literalist. Since then I have done a bit of googling and I don't think I would say I am a literalist in terms of how I have seen it defined (both here and on most sites that defined it).

What I do believe: I believe the Bible is to be interpreted in a literal and normal way. This means to consider history, grammar, context, and harmony with other Scriptures as guidelines for interpretation. I don't think this differs from how I would "interpret" any other literary work. But you have to take the context into account ...

i.e. I would not stone my wife or friend/brother/etc if they tried to entice me to another religion. However, I can take away the idea that God cares very much about His chosen people (the Israelites) and their relationship with Him. He is a jealous God.

[JIMINATOR]

yeah, being a christian does not give you a jewish heritige, no matter how much you want it. the whole chosen people thing is just racial egotism. If they had gotten wiped out like some of the other races from history then they would be the footnote, you would be worshipping something else, probably another group that was "chosen". The victors get to write the history.

[Death Engineer]

When did I say I had a jewish heritage? Does this mean if I try to take a british piece of literature in a british context that I want a british heritage? That's a silly statement.

You choose not to believe the Bible. I can respect that. I disagree, but I can respect your view. But you don't want to get into whether the Bible is accurate historically, do you? We take things that are much less reliable and tout it as a faultless source.

[Sirc]

When did I say I had a jewish heritage? Does this mean if I try to take a british piece of literature in a british context that I want a british heritage? That's a silly statement.

You choose not to believe the Bible. I can respect that. I disagree, but I can respect your view. But you don't want to get into whether the Bible is accurate historically, do you? We take things that are much less reliable and tout it as a faultless source.

I'm going to assume that was a response to Jim. I asked a simple question.

And I'm also not challenging your beliefs so much as asking questions. Or at least I've tried to keep things that way. You are the only person I have conversed with on any forum that will calmly state your opinions. I value that very highly, particularly when it comes to religious discussions.

[Nitro]

Seeing him call himself a jealous god shows how much of an ego problem he has and how prone to temper tantrums he is like little 5 year olds. Reminds me of the way the greek gods acted as well.

moses, a mere mortal had to calm good ol' god in order for him to not murder al lthe israelites for crying out loud. are you seriously still buying this book of folk literature as something divine?

[Sirc]

Seeing him call himself a jealous god shows how much of an ego problem he has and how prone to temper tantrums he is like little 5 year olds. Reminds me of the way the greek gods acted as well.

moses, a mere mortal had to calm good ol' god in order for him to not murder al lthe israelites for crying out loud. are you seriously still buying this book of folk literature as something divine?

That's not constructive. :rolleyes:

That's also why it's so difficult to have a discussion about religion. Anywhere. In any forum.

Got an honest question? Ask it. Otherwise stop with the crap. You should know better Nitro.

[JIMINATOR]

When did I say I had a jewish heritage? Does this mean if I try to take a british piece of literature in a british context that I want a british heritage? That's a silly statement.


sorry, your prior statement mentioned god's chosen people. You must have been talking about the israelies only and not the christians, which are not really a people. my bad.


i.e. I would not stone my wife or friend/brother/etc if they tried to entice me to another religion. However, I can take away the idea that God cares very much about His chosen people (the Israelites) and their relationship with Him. He is a jealous God.

[Death Engineer]

@Jiminator: I am neither jewish or an Israelite, nor do I desire to be anyone other than who I am (mostly German, by the way :P). I suspect you're getting at the same thing Sirc is...

@Sirc: Sorry ... I missed your post the first time around. You said

You believe the Israelites are God's chosen people? Above all others? Where does that leave you as a Christian?

Yes. Yes. And I'm part of the new covenant. The old covenant was primarily for the Israelites (though there were some others ... Ruth, a Moabite, presumably the woman who helped Joshua and other spies escape from Jericho, etc). The old covenant involved animal sacrifices and yearly rituals with the priests. This was necessary because sin demands a price be paid.

All of this changed when Jesus died on the cross. The curtain that divided the holy of holies in the temple (the place where the high priest went in once a year with a rope around leg so they could pull out his dead body if he didn't handle the holy nature appropriately) -- that curtain was ripped in two when Jesus died on the cross.

This is significant because in indicated that we no longer had to go through a priest. We now had direct access to God through Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

The issue of what to do with all of these gentiles (non-jews like myself) is covered in Paul's writing. For example, in Galatians 5:1-12, He strongly warns against the efforts of Judaizers in the church to reintroduce circumcision as a requirement for membership, salvation, or spiritual growth. He even calls the Judaizers “dogs” as an ironic use of the terminology they used to describe Gentiles.

He makes it clear that you don't have to be a jew to participate in Christianity. It is for everyone. Romans 1:16 says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone. First for the jew (old covenant), then for the gentile (new covenant)." -- my notes added.

Having said all of that, I still believe the Israel is God's chosen nation, though they aren't doing a whole lot of listening to Him right now. Revelation has quite a few things to say about what will happen in Israel in the last days. Very interesting stuff.

Does that help?

[Nitro]

That's not constructive. :rolleyes:

That's also why it's so difficult to have a discussion about religion. Anywhere. In any forum.

Got an honest question? Ask it. Otherwise stop with the crap. You should know better Nitro.

Statements I make such as that one come after watching or reading about christian fundamentlaists so I can't help it. I was reading bible cult stories today and it made me very upset...

[Sirc]

He makes it clear that you don't have to be a jew to participate in Christianity. It is for everyone. Romans 1:16 says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone. First for the jew (old covenant), then for the gentile (new covenant)." -- my notes added.

Having said all of that, I still believe the Israel is God's chosen nation, though they aren't doing a whole lot of listening to Him right now. Revelation has quite a few things to say about what will happen in Israel in the last days. Very interesting stuff.

Does that help?

Jew are not Christians. Christians are not Jewish. Christians have the New Testament, and Jews have the Torah. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. They do not believe he was God, nor that he had any supernatural powers. He was simply a man. Jews do not recognize the Holy Trinity. They believe God is one.

Saying that "you don't have to be a Jew to participate in Christianity" makes no sense whatsoever. Jews have no interest in participating in Christianity.

Your strange mix of religions confuses me.

[Nitro]

The Jews had the utmost hate for Jesus and most still do. How dare he call himself the son of god, they say.

[JIMINATOR]

what jewish people have you talked to that have expressed that opinion? are you jewish to speak with such certainty? its somewhat like saying all christians hate all muslims.

[Death Engineer]

Jew are not Christians. Christians are not Jewish. Christians have the New Testament, and Jews have the Torah. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. They do not believe he was God, nor that he had any supernatural powers. He was simply a man. Jews do not recognize the Holy Trinity. They believe God is one.

Saying that "you don't have to be a Jew to participate in Christianity" makes no sense whatsoever. Jews have no interest in participating in Christianity.

Your strange mix of religions confuses me.

I didn't come up with this. This isn't 'my' strange mix of religions. You asked where it left me because God's chosen people are Israelites. I answered you. I never said the jews and Christians were one and the same (quite the contrary as you described).

My point was that in the early church, it was wondered whether gentiles (non-jews) could fully participate -- or did they need to become jewish (i.e. circumcision, eating practices, etc). The answer as documented in the Bible is clear -- you don't have to be jewish to enjoy what we now call Christianity. That's where I'm at.

@Nitro: I'm with Jiminator. My jewish friends do not hate Jesus. They don't believe what is written about him in the new testament, but they don't hate him.

[Nitro]

what jewish people have you talked to that have expressed that opinion? are you jewish to speak with such certainty? its somewhat like saying all christians hate all muslims.

I live in the most Jewish-populated area in the country and interact with them on a daily basis. I used hate, but this is obviously a strong word to use. My apologies. The young generation of Jews could care less really. They are quite apathetic and just follow the Talmud traditions out of sake for the family. They don't have the great animosity towards the Jesus figure as they did in the gospel accounts where they called for his execution.

[Nitro]

Speaking of Sarah Palin for moment...Fox News has just reported that this lady, who could have possibly been the president of the United States if McCain were to die..did not know that Africa was a continent!

What...the...hell?



I don't even know how to respond to that.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2008/11/07/sarah-palin-didnt-know-africa-was-a-continent/

[OUTLAWS WHOCARES]

The Jews had the utmost hate for Jesus and most still do. How dare he call himself the son of god, they say.



Really Ihave a profound hate for Jesus. Dude you have no clue.

The young generation. Again you have no clude. My grandparents did not hate Jesus.

[ME BIGGD01]

You know what pisses me off? If I say I have a profound hate for blacks it's bannable but when someone attacks my Lord and Saviour regardless of their belief it's ok. This is the same double standard we have in America with many things. Now honestly, I don't judge people or care if people hate, believe or what ever but would it be ok if you did not care if I hated blacks?

[OUTLAWS WHOCARES]

You know what pisses me off? If I say I have a profound hate for blacks it's bannable but when someone attacks my Lord and Saviour regardless of their belief it's ok. This is the same double standard we have in America with many things. Now honestly, I don't judge people or care if people hate, believe or what ever but would it be ok if you did not care if I hated blacks?

In my eyes if you hate blacks go for it. Who the hell am I to tell you who you can and can not like.

[JIMINATOR]

religion is a concept that people choose. you can't choose how you were born. ok, for most people that also means they don't get to choose their religion.

[OUTLAWS Tip]

Speaking of Sarah Palin for moment...Fox News has just reported that this lady, who could have possibly been the president of the United States if McCain were to die..did not know that Africa was a continent!

What...the...hell?



I don't even know how to respond to that.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2008/11/07/sarah-palin-didnt-know-africa-was-a-continent/

Don't believe everything you see on the internet. Supposed that was from someone in the campaign who would not give their name.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20081108/D94AE2900.html

[Nitro]

It sounds way too unbelievable to be true. I would have ignored stuff like this if it was from any other news source but Fox News, of all people, reported on it. Why would they go against their own party? It isn't adding up. although Palin isn't the brightest colour in the crayon box, there's no way she doesn't know Africa's a continent. That's insanity.

[SASQUATCH]

You know what pisses me off? If I say I have a profound hate for blacks it's bannable but when someone attacks my Lord and Saviour regardless of their belief it's ok. This is the same double standard we have in America with many things. Now honestly, I don't judge people or care if people hate, believe or what ever but would it be ok if you did not care if I hated blacks?

If there is such a god that shows love and has these powers, he sure doesn’t need anyone to talk for him especially those who hate blacks or any one of that nature. If he does exist by what I have read and hear all the time by religious people then hate isn’t anywhere near this deity.

[EXEcution]

Now honestly, I don't judge people or care if people hate, believe or what ever

In the context of your argument this is a clear non sequitur. If you didn't judge people (which we all do on a daily basis anyway) based on any criteria, then you wouldn't feel the urge to speak your mind about any of these issues. The point is that you DO care.

Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with sharing your beliefs. However, if you wish to forcefully impose those beliefs upon me then you are taking away my right to choose. If you take away choice then you take away freedom.

[Sirc]

In my eyes if you hate blacks go for it. Who the hell am I to tell you who you can and can not like.

Saying so will probably get you banned here though. I think that was BIGG's point.

[OUTLAWS WHOCARES]

Saying so will probably get you banned here though. I think that was BIGG's point.


I would not be the one pushing the button.