Religious Ignorance

Jump to Last Post 1-34 of 34 discussions (375 posts)

0
Cranfordjsposted 12 years ago

Why do religious fundamentalist proclaim to know the unknowable?
reply report
1. 68
  AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  but how do you know it's unknowable?
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  exactly.
  
  In the same light math is unknowable if you choose not to know about it.
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Math may be unknowable to you but not to everyone else.
  
  Not to mention it is provable.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  you missed my point.
  If you choose not to know it, it is unknowable.
  
  God if you choose to know him in knowable.
  There are example after example in the book you choose not to know.
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You missed my point Eru doesn't love ignorance. He can't tell you the way.
  
  When Beren and Luthien took the Silmarils form Melkor they weren't think of you.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "There are example after example in the book you choose not to know."
  
  None of that is provable: you have to take it on faith. Anything that you say is "true" because "it says so in the Bible" is no more true than someone's claim that the universe was sneezed out of the nostrils of the Great Green Arkelsiezure (beware the coming of the Great White Handkerchief!).
  
  There's nothing wrong with believing in God (especially when you put into practice His rules for being nice to other people), but that's what it is: belief. And belief only. It's not knowledge or anything like it. It's an article of faith. There's a difference, and it's pretty big.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  and that is your opinion based on other stories and changing what the bible says.
  If that is what you believe then fine but if it is just an argument to be used as an excuse, that is not fine, in fact, its dishonest.
  
  Perhaps more research is needed into the bible because if the bible is a representation of God, which it is:
  
  Acts 5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nothing:
  Acts 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "If that is what you believe then fine"
  Belief is one thing. Knowledge is another. They are not the same.
  
  The use of the Bible as "evidence" of the existence of God is circular reasoning at best.
  
  God exists.
  How do you know?
  It says so in the Bible.
  How do you know that the Bible is true?
  It's the word of God.
  How do you know it's the word of God?
  It says so in the Bible.
  
  Sorry, but the Bible isn't proof of anything other than its own existence, and perhaps the persistence of the stories therein.
  
  Now, if you ask someone to read the stories and decide for themselves if they want to believe them, that's one thing. But to expect someone to accept the Bible as the Word of God because the Bible says that it's the Word of God is expecting people to turn off their brains and surrender their intelligence.
  
  There is no proof of God's existence. None whatsoever.
  
  If you believe in Him, you do so on faith alone, NOT because of "knowledge."
  
  Further, there's nothing wrong with this.
  
  The only wrong thing is that you seem to think faith=knowledge when in fact it doesn't.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  reply report
  60
  kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There is a faith grounded in ignorance and this faith perpetuate this world and make it what it is, using religion as its right hand.
  
  True faith is grounded in knowledge.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "True faith is grounded in knowledge."
  
  Please expand on this?
  
  To my mind, if you know something, you don't need to have faith in it. I don't have faith that 2+2=4, for example. I just know that it's true.
  
  I believe that God exists, but I don't know God exists in the same way that I know that 2+2=4.
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  People confuse faith or believing in something with actual knowledge.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed. But Kess strikes me as something of a philosopher. An earlier comment of his has something of a zen koan quality to it. I'm curious about his idea of true faith being grounded in knowledge. As a philosophical concept, you might say.
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There's a whole philosophical argument I have about mathematics as a self-proving man-made construct, and how "four" is an adjective with no real meaning... Another thread sometime...
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  3 is a magic number.
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LMAO, wiccan much? Actually 42 is the ultimate magic number.
  report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Schoolhouse rock.
  
  A man and a woman had a little baby.
  Yes, they did.
  They had three in the family.
  That's a magic number.
  report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I trumped your Schoolhouse rock reference with a Douglas Adams reference. I win. Now go away or I shall taunt you a third time.
  report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My improbability drive says 3 is the only magic number.
  report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, sure, if you want to boil everything down to nothing, that's what happens: you end up concluding that all words are subjective and ultimately meaningless, which is elegant, but ultimately useless.
  
  "The wind is pink; the grass is black."
  reply report
  60
  kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So many ways to respond....so..
  
  As men we are limited to words in a particular language to communicate...
  So in discussion to you I must use words that are familiar to both of us to present a concept that foreign to the way men normally think (Way of the world)...
  
  So therefore the word Faith takes on a different but similar meaning. But I really cannot do different except try to encourage you to think different so that you may understand.
  
  The mind can only conclude logically and by that it is able to decide...
  
  what is different to one mind and the next is what the mind sees....meaning what is being used as relevant in the process of deciding.
  
  EG, A mugger and a business man goes after cash in different ways but still they remain theives.. so what is foolish to the businessman isnt foolish to the mugger and when you throw in an honest man in the mix who looks at cash totally differently will appear foolish to both.
  
  So yes 2+2=4 this is one way of thinking and it is Truth to those who can conclude logically.
  
  But also 1+1=1 (or if we must use the 2, 2+2=2) is another way of thinking...
  This is a logical conclusion of the mind because of the way it thinks...and it is Truth.
  
  If there is no logical conclusion in your mind you would say it a statement of Faith(ignorance).
  
  But the one with the logical conclusion say Faith (Knowledge).
  
  My Explanation might appear confusing because it may appear as one thing among an infinite number of possibilities but actually it is the one thing that is within each and every possibility.
  
  Anyway simplicity is Knowing Truth is to know all things and that is determined by the WAY you think, which is do unto other as would like them to do unto you.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Circular reasoning is just a trap. Its a way of saying something that could have been said a different way.
  
  What you said:
  God exists.
  How do you know?
  It says so in the Bible.
  How do you know that the Bible is true?
  It's the word of God.
  How do you know it's the word of God?
  It says so in the Bible.
  
  The way the argument goes:
  The bible claims to be the word of God and the bible proves that it is the word of God.
  God, in the bible that proves to the be the word of God, exists.
  
  Anyone who believes in fallacies is really on the receiving end of a linguistic joke.
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That proves it. I still haven't done enough drugs to understand your posts. I mean I get all the words when taken separately... but when you put them all together like that...
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Circular reasoning is just a trap." Yes, exactly. And you seem to have fallen into it.
  
  By your argument, God exists in the same way that Frodo Baggins exists.
  
  We believe in god because of faith, not because His existence has been 'proven.'
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hobbits are real. Dont include them in your examples or you will rouse the Shire.
  reply report
  60
  Captain Redbeardposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If I may interject for a moment, if we consider, just for arguments sake so we are all on the same playing field, that the Bible stories are true then I think we should look at this. There are round about a hundred or two guys that are in the Bible who have experiences with God. Job, David, Moses, the prophets, and so on. If we think of the billions who have lived on this earth in propertion to those who have had physical encounters then it seems pretty reasonable to assume that God doesn't reviel himself to just anyone so that they may have the "cold hard evidence" doesn't it?
  
  Doesn't the Bible say that Christ even said, "Blessed are those who have not seen and believe?"
  
  What a man who has faith would use as evidence, the unbeliever scoffs at.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If the Bible stories are true? If we had evidence that they were true, no one would scoff. That's kind of the whole point.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
  
  Seems Jesus disagrees with you
  
  Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
  
  Seems Jesus backs up the Old Testament as being viable.
  
  but a little refute will quickly ease everyone's conscience.
  report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." Gandalf
  
  I can quote books too.
  
  Somehow mine seems better...
  report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As difficult as it is for you to understand this, the story of Jesus is a Bible story. So.......think about my previous statement.........the veracity of the Bible stories are what's in question.
  
  So, if you can understand that, can you understand how pointless your post in response was?
  report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  He can't come to terms with the possibility of that being true, it would shatter his world and what appears to be his sole purpose in life.
  report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "What a man who has faith would use as evidence, the unbeliever scoffs at."
  
  No, not at all. A man of faith can still understand the difference between hard evidence and hearsay.
  
  The Bible doesn't prove the existence of anything except itself (and perhaps its [human] authors, by inference).
  
  If we stipulate that the stories in the Bible are true, then there's no need for further discussion. It says in the Bible that God exists and has done all these things. If the Bible is stipulated to be true, then the existence of God is also stipulated.
  
  However, I'm not trying to claim that the Bible is false(!), merely pointing out that the Bible cannot logically be considered to be proof, or even evidence, of the existence of God.
  
  You're welcome to believe in it, and good luck to you, but where I take issue is when someone says that proof positive for the existence of God is right there in the Bible. It ain't. It's hearsay.
  
  Believe all you like (I believe as well!), but faith does not logically follow, nor is it supported by the data we have. If logic tells us anything, it allows for the possibility of God (or a god or gods).
  reply report
  60
  Captain Redbeardposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I wasn't referring to the bible as the proof that is scoffed at. The proof that is scoffed at is creation. The believer says, "Look at the grass, the trees, the intrigate workings of the solar system in harmony with the othr bodies around it. Look at the complex workings of the water cycle in how it keeps life sustained on the planet." The men who understand the workings of these things seem to think that just because they can understand how these things happen and work that it seems to negate the existance of a creator.
  
  I have found hope and wisdom in the books that currently make up the bible as we have it today. I think this is an excellent issue to have by the way.
  
  "The bible is hearsay"
  
  It totally is, the bible is nothing more than other people's accounts of having interaction with this God, his son and finally his spirit on the earth. Complete and total hearsay near two thousand years old. What I find interesting about it is that it chronicles the Jews from before they were anything more than some dusty nomads to a set nation under an oppressive rule of another nation. What I find more interesting is this savior picture that is painted in the old testament by them. Then comes Christ and the "was he, wasn't he" issue. The second part of the bible follows mostly a Jew named Saul, or Paul if you will, and how he claims this Christ as the Messiah the Jews had been waiting for. I am not spelling all this out in generic terms because I think your stupid or uneducated. I am spelling this out because I want to make the point that even if the bible is hearsay, the fact that about 40 different men over thousands of years having an encounter with this God makes it worth looking at in my opinion.
  
  Is it proof positive that there is a God? I guess that would depend of if you were so moved by the experiences of this unseen force enough to write about it.
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So, it never crossed your mind for a moment those 40 different men were lying/delusional/psychotic, etc.? How do you know it's a fact they did have encounters?
  report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And why only the 40 or so? Why not many, many more?
  
  Oh wait. There were many others who wrote about Jesus...But they didn't agree with what church leaders of the time wanted the "public" to know.
  report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I wasn't referring to the bible as the proof that is scoffed at. The proof that is scoffed at is creation. The believer says, "Look at the grass, the trees, the intrigate workings of the solar system in harmony with the othr bodies around it. Look at the complex workings of the water cycle in how it keeps life sustained on the planet." The men who understand the workings of these things seem to think that just because they can understand how these things happen and work that it seems to negate the existance of a creator.
  
  Well, no, they don't say "Since I can understand this stuff, there must be no God." It's more like, "Here's how the stuff works, given the evidence we have to work with." The religious folks say to the scientist, "Okay, smart guy, how did it all come into existence?" "Dunno," replies the scientist. The religious folks say, "Well, there you go, that proves there's a god!" "No, it doesn't," says the scientist. "It proves we don't know."
  
  It's very like the arguments made by people who believe that UFOs are visitors from another planet. "I saw something weird in the sky and I don't know what it was. Therefore, it must have been visitors from another planet!"
  
  Wrong. "I saw something weird in the sky, and I don't know what it was." That's where the guy should have stopped talking, because he has no evidence to support his conclusion.
  
  It's the same thing using creation as evidence that God must've created it. "Look at how awesome creation is. We don't know how it happened, therefore God must have done it." No. That's lovely, but it's not logical. "We don't know how it happened" is as far as you can go without new evidence.
  
  "The bible is hearsay"
  
  It totally is, the bible is nothing more than other people's accounts of having interaction with this God, his son and finally his spirit on the earth. Complete and total hearsay near two thousand years old.
  
  Yes, that's been my point exactly!
  
  What I find interesting about it is that it chronicles the Jews from before they were anything more than some dusty nomads to a set nation under an oppressive rule of another nation. What I find more interesting is this savior picture that is painted in the old testament by them. Then comes Christ and the "was he, wasn't he" issue. The second part of the bible follows mostly a Jew named Saul, or Paul if you will, and how he claims this Christ as the Messiah the Jews had been waiting for. I am not spelling all this out in generic terms because I think your stupid or uneducated. I am spelling this out because I want to make the point that even if the bible is hearsay, the fact that about 40 different men over thousands of years having an encounter with this God makes it worth looking at in my opinion.
  
  No, that's cool and the gang, and my point was never that the Bible and there stories therein were untrue or invalid in any way, merely that they can't be used as evidence of the existence of God. I mean, if we use old stories repeated by many as evidence, then we have evidence of the existence of Zeus and Apollo and all those Greek deities, too. More, even*, because we have the aftermath of the stories all around us, in Echoes, Arachnids, Hyacinths, Narcissuses, Euclidean geometry, etc.
  
  *Not really.
  
  But there have been alternative stories involving the God of Abraham that didn't make it into the Bible. You probably already know about the council that decided that if a book was going to get into the official Old Testament (it wasn't called that then) it needed to have been written in classical Hebrew, and in a certain area, and during a certain period of time. If it didn't meet those fairly arbitrary criteria, it was out. And then we have to ask, did all the books written in that language, area, and period get in? Why did one book get in and another not? Did the editorial committee have their own axes to grind? (Being human, they probably did.) If so, were they able to suppress their own motivations and consider only the authenticity of the texts in question? (Being human, probably some could and others couldn't.) And then we need to consider the Apocrypha (the word itself means "doubtful"). The books of the Apocrypha are accepted by the Catholic church, but not most Protestant ones. I have no idea where they fit in with Judaism or Islam. (Look out, my ignorance is showing!)
  
  And speaking of Islam, the stories in the Koran are about very similar folks and the same God, but with a different message about what the rules are. Conflicting evidence? Or just different stories?
  
  Is it proof positive that there is a God? I guess that would depend of if you were so moved by the experiences of this unseen force enough to write about it.
  
  I suppose that's the best way of putting it. It's not proof in the scientific sense, certainly, since it's not testable by experiment or observation. The best we can do is read the stories and think about them (or pray about them, if you prefer) and decide for ourselves if they have enough resonance to warrant belief. It's a very personal thing, faith. But it's a dangerous thing, too. 'Cos we might let ourselves fall into the trap of thinking that what's obvious to us ought to be equally obvious to everyone else, and if they can't see it then they're blinded by Satan or willfully evil or stupid or whatever.
  
  Most folks who fall into that trap don't take it to the same kind of extremes that, say, Torquemada did, but lots of folks do things like try to stop people from breaking their particular religion's rules, whether those folks are followers of the faith or not. (Marriage laws, for example.) Now, while I don't have a problem with Jews or Muslims, I would have a huge problem with them if they pushed through legislation banning the consumption of pork products and shellfish, because I love me some bacon-wrapped shrimp. It's a short jump from "God has been proven to exist," to "I know what God wants: it's obvious if you read scripture," to "If you're disagreeing with me, you're against God!" to "Die, heretic!"
  report
  60
  Captain Redbeardposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sure it did. But think of this, what would these people have to gain? The Jews have suffered horribly for their beliefs have they not? What is a liar but a coward, how many liars do you know that would allow themselves to be killed for a lie they have told?
  
  The second question I think is just baiting me to say, "The bible says they did, so that's how I know they did" But the answer to this isn't that, it's this. These people who are so steeped into tradition, even oral tradition say they did.
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Followers, of course.
  
  Ask any believer who would die for their beliefs.
  
  That doesn't matter in the least and is not a reason to believe them. So far, this is the only reason...
  
  "The bible says they did, so that's how I know they did"
  report
  60
  Captain Redbeardposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @Double Scorpion, no one is debating that there were books taken out of the bible or that there were books and gospels that never even made it in.
  
  If I wrote an essay on the history of the pistol in America does that mean it should be published in Guns & Ammo? Only if I know what I am talking about right? Why shouldn't the same principles apply to a book of faith?
  report
  60
  Captain Redbeardposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @Troubled, You are ignoring the fact that these people existed before the bible.
  
  No one dies for a lie, a liar admits his lies if his life is threatened. Besides people, especially "believers", will say anything. But put them in infront of a firey furnace and see which ones bow down and which ones will actually die. Anyways, It's been good discussing this with you but as always I have no desire to speak in circles around other
  
  Nothing but respect for sir!
  report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nobody dies for a lie? I dunno about that. I'd argue that nobody is willing to die to prove something that they know for sure to be true.
  
  A liar might admit his lie if his life is threatened, but a truth-teller might recant if threatened with death as well. Further, nobody threatens death on those who disagree with real facts.
  
  Look at what happened to Galileo: he proved that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, and that Jupiter had stuff going around it, just like the sun has. "Look in the telescope," he said, "you can see it for yourself." But the church threatened him with death if he wouldn't recant, and so, realizing that the planets would still keep orbiting the sun whether he said they did nor not, he recanted to save his own life.
  
  Given that, you might want to throw most of your suspicion not on the one who recants to save his life, but on the people threatening the heretic with death (or other nasty consequences). People don't get upset about others questioning something they know for certain. People only get upset about others questioning what they aren't really sure about.
  
  And that's why we have inquisitions, crusades, and emotional online flame wars* about religion.
  
  *Thankfully, this hasn't become one of those, and much respect to everyone involved!
  report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wait, Frodo doesn't exist?? Damn you JESUS!!!!!!!!!!!
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Scientist can actually prove hobbits existed at least.
  
  Sadly not Tolkiens hobbits though.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  but faith is the substance of things not seen
  having faith leads one into areas where proof is exposed
  
  Your idea of proof is different. You want some form of proof that i am unsure if you can even describe it. Maybe a heavenly visitation on the nightly news or a giant jesus floating around. Most people i find that want proof wouldn't realize it if it landed on their nose, in fact the demand for proof becomes a handy loophole because it just needs a little refute and back to square one again.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "the demand for proof becomes a handy loophole"
  
  Wait, what? No, sorry, you lose.
  
  Look, I'm not saying there's no God. I'm saying we can't (or at least, we haven't been able to) prove that God exists. Further, there's no need to prove God exists (and ever further, I'm not even asking for proof).
  
  What I don't get is the desperate need some people seem to have for everyone else to say "Oh, yeah, your faith is totally rational and makes perfect logical sense! I don't know why everyone hasn't signed up!"
  
  It's faith, and therefore by definition irrational. And that's okay.
  reply report
  60
  Captain Redbeardposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I would have to agree, faith is irrational and illogical*spelling??, for me to say that I believe in a God that I have never seen and believe that he sent his son whom have never seen to take my place in eternal death but yet he rose from the grave and ascended to a place on high that I have never seen and still, STILL, believe that story is ludicrious! Yet I believe and have found peace with it
  
  "It's faith, and therefore by definition irrational. And that's okay." I like that.
  report
  68
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, are you saying that is NOT circular reasoning?
  reply report
2. 58
  Alien invasionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why do you think they don't?
  reply report
3. 84
  graceomalleyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think qualify as a fundamentalist, but I am a person of faith. I would put it I 'experience' God rather than 'know' which i can see might come across as arrogant. I have my own experience, but i stay aware God deals with us as individuals. I'm not quick to say that God wouldn't do this or that just because I haven't experienced it.
  reply report
4. 60
  kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  To believe something is unknowable is to be the tool of doubt the hardest of all taskmasters....
  
  Nevertheless... that which which is unknown cannot be raised by a question,
  for the presence of the question itself gives that which is unknown validity thus it is Known.
  reply report
  76
  stclairjackposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  that was perfect.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "the presence of the question itself gives that which is unknown validity thus it is Known."
  
  Dang, that's pretty good. I'm going to have to think on that for a while.
  reply report
5. 60
  Dave Mathewsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Who says they don't know the answer? remember if you "Assume" you make an A$$ out of u and me.
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Doesn't man made religion assume 'everything'? You assume Jesus is the son of god from gossip and hear say. Wouldn't "assume" work well for religion?
  reply report
  68
  AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I've never met a Christian who assume Jesus is the son of god from gossip and hearsay....unless you mean the Bible. In that case, I don't think anyone just assumes the Bible is true unless they have a personal like experience (whatever that might be) to back it up. Unless of course they believe is just because they've always believed it and don't know why they believe it. And that's a pretty lousy reason to believe something....
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, if the scenario was different I would agree with you. For example, if a person in the middle east grew up to be a Christian, being that he didn't live in a Christian society, I would be more inclined to agree with personal experience as a major factor. Obviously, no religion has more credit than the other. If they did the worlds population wouldn't be divided up like it is currently. So I have to assume people are making assumptions using a book made up of stories passed down until it was put into written text. The bible was written 20 - 70 years after his death. I think hearsay is a fair statement in regards to the bible.
  reply report
  68
  AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That does happen alot of times...someone bbelieving in something, a religion, without being brought up in that society. that's why your statement confused me...
  People believe things sometimes simply because they’ve been brought up to believe them. That’s why I said, it’s a lousy reason for someone to believe something. In which case, they do kind of believe in hearsay—what their families and friends tell them. People mold their minds into believing it. As far as the Bible being a book of gossip and hearsay…that brings the argument full circle. Is the Bible true? What’s legit about it? A whole new argument. People are going to believe it only if it works for them or makes sense for them in some way. And if people DO believe the Bible, they believe in all of it, which was written both before and after Jesus’ death. They feel it prophecies and fulfills its prophecy. I might have completely missed what you were trying to say. Hope I understood you correctly. Anywho, that’s just my two cents, or half a cent, or whatever it’s worth lol
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Most of the time a person's religious foundation is through family and society. For me, that's when it loses credibility. How many devout Christians on here do you think have read the Koran? How do they know there isn't something that they would come across in the Koran that wouldn't resonate so well as to persuade them else where? I would assume anyone fascinated with religion would explore all angles of god possible. In example, fanatics of a certain religion.
  
  When you say "people are going to believe it only if it works for them". I am great with that idea, I respect their belief in that context, but I wish it stayed with them. But it doesn't, we can just look at our politics and see how their ideas and believes affect everyone.
  
  I do think you understand what I'm saying and vice versa. All in all, just my opinion too.
  reply report
  68
  AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree...most of the time, that's the case. And it's the reason That Christians who believe , while still being open-minded, have such a hard time getting respect. (reliigous foundation being through family and society.) And I agree that that's not a great place to be. I wish more people did explore other religions. The fact is, most people are closed-minded. They don't care about truth. They care about being right.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Unless you have personally proved everything you have ever been taught you also believe in hearsay. (school etc)
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So I have to assume people are making assumptions
  
  That would be a double assumption and certainly worth is weight in assumption land but not here. There is no credit to your assuming people are making assumptions.
  
  using a book made up of stories passed down until it was put into written text.
  If you want to add the 'telephone whisper game' into this scenario, you would come up with an answer that did not accurately reflect the culture of this people. 1) they would not whisper but speak out loud in front of others listening intently. 2) the listeners would serve as correctors if the orator strayed. 3) at the end of the 'game' the story would have been accurately preserved, everyone being happy with the account and agreeably so.
  People outside of a culture, who are dependent upon pens and hard drives do not comprehend the determined accuracy of a people who diligently regard genealogy as crucial and keep family trees to generations upon generations ago. We do not comprehend the memorization gimmicks that accompany said stories. We also are told that in Isaiahs time, his scribe Baruch was taking dictation and writing isaiahs words. We also need to remember that the Egyptians wrote on stone and had a language and that the first paper was made from their plants, suffice it to say, "The use of papyrus as a writing material goes back to extreme antiquity. The oldest written papyrus known to be in existence is, according to Kenyon (The Paleography of Greek Papyri, Oxford, 1899), an account-sheet belonging to the reign of the Egyptian king Assa, which is dated circa 2600 B.C.
  So as easy as it is for us to deny the accuracy of an oral culture we would be wrong to do so.
  
  The bible was written 20 - 70 years after his death. I think hearsay is a fair statement in regards to the bible.
  
  Those 20-70yrs are a news flash, like watching the evening news on tv, compared to writings of other famous individuals. Alexander the great, 500 yrs after his death, Buddha 1,000 yrs, Plato, 600 yrs, (yet we have no trouble believing in their authentication) so 20 yrs is a very short time, plus, this means that since the early church was in effect from the days after jesus resurrection, there are church creeds that stem from that day forward, so there really is no time of silence where nothing was being done. The first letters came out in 49ad, 16yrs later, and they purported what the early church was already teaching. So there is no room for legendary material, which, commonly and typically comes many hundreds of years later. We know this was not the case in the early church because Christ revealed himself in resurrected form to over 500...
  
  3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
  4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
  5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: etc.
  1 corinthians was written in 55ad. and Paul was from the beginning preaching the doctrine that was being taught in the early church.
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, I’ll bite.
  
  “they would not whisper but speak” Were you there? Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend your culture. Sounds like a contradiction to your “assumption” theory that you pieced together so elegantly for me. Didn’t other religions do the same for their bibles, what is the difference?
  
  In regards to “those 20-70 years” the authors didn’t proclaim to be the son of god. In example, Charles Mason did the same. (I guess he was ahead of his time.)
  
  I would have responded regardless, you don’t have to send follow up messages outside of this one that irritates me into replying. The initial comment is enough for a reply
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Its hebraic and jewish culture and that is the way it is. If it wasn't so you wouldn't have read it. I don't actually know what other cultures did i am only involved in one of them.
  
  Your second paragraph is responding to what exactly?
  
  Glad you are reading keep up the good work
  reply report
  60
  mom101posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So, Cranfordjs, IF i am reading you correctly, 20-70 years after His Death, is to imply not many, if any, would remember well enough to tell of His existence here?
  
  Do you see the holes?
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  To think that certain details weren't exaggerated or outright fabricated is completely ignorant.
  
  Examples. John Henry, Paul Bunyan, etc
  
  Do you see the truth?
  reply report
  60
  mom101posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Giants in their time? Yep.
  
  Now, its up to us, as we read, to define giants.
  Bunyan, after meeting him through lore, am told he was a giant. MY thinking is: normal sized man with big deeds.
  
  But glad you got my point.
  
  As with any written "knowledge" of things past, I agree, details can be stretched and or pulled in many directions.
  
  Outright fabricated? Yep. I've said many times there are those that in order to further their agenda will "build" many bridges in hopes of one crossing over.
  
  Religious ignorance? I believe everyone should study the very word christian. It dates way back, and it is very surprising what can be learned. Also, the same holds true to the very word religion. very interesting.
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually Paul Bunyan is a complete fabrication from the logging industry that worked too well.
  
  The fact that most Americans and you believe he was a real person on some level proves my point.
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, I don't.
  reply report
  60
  mom101posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Others do.
  
  What is it that you fail to see?
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @ mom- What about the holy books for Islam and Hinduism? Don't you think they would "remember" well enough to tell the truth about their Deities existence? But do you believe in them? Don't worry I'll wait for you response
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  others do.
  
  What is it that you fail to see
  reply report
  78
  pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That would depend on how one interprets 'son of god'.
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I guess God should have thought things through before leaving everything up to "interprets".
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  Actually Cranford, it doesn't depend on interpretation of "son of god". It depends on what one defines as "god".
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The context of every comment I have made unless specified is in regards to organized religion, where we know the definition of god.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, I know what you are talking about. However, there are some people who claim a belief in "G/god" without having a religion. They define "G/god" by something which isn't in any religious book or part of any religion.
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're talking about Deist, right? Those guys aren't bad. That is really the closest you can get to a rational god argument.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know what they are called. I just know they exist.
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm a deist. We are cool. I speak for us all. We had a vote.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, so you were elected to speak for the rest? And, it's interesting that you find yourself cool.
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That was also democratically voted on.
  report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I voted for you.
  report
  78
  pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Haha
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Jesus always had a capital S and was referred to as Son of God
  
  John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself EQUAL with God.
  
  And so it was with the relationship between a jewish father and his son. Males were important to jewish culture.
  1) they carried on the lineage - jesus spiritually had many followers unto this day.
  2) the were taught intensively by their fathers, whom expected certain things from his son.
  3) the son would, as he matured, grow up to accept responsibilities that would lead him into fathership.
  4) the son would inherit what his father has - as did christ for all power and authority were vested to him.
  
  The son would and was considered equal to his father and this was just common jewish expectation.
  
  Obviously it is a title and not a name.
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You don't know any of this. It is what you have read with out facts to support. If the proof was there, more than 30% of the population would believe in jeezzzzzus!
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Whenever I see bible quotes I now quote the Silmarillion.
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I do Monty Python and the Holy Grail... Emile did Alice in Wonderland... to each his own I guess.
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You still get +infinity for being a U.U.
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  *grins* That's a pretty novel sentiment, but thank you
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Cast off the shoe, follow the gourd!
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No! Let us gather shoes together!
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That was the subject of an american black slave underground railroad song
  
  http://www.osblackhistory.com/drinkinggourd.php
  reply report
  78
  pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What do mean by title and not name.
  
  "I and my father are one" tells me that God and Jesus were in and of one another meaning not separate as some have been led to believe.
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Question...Is it the goal of all Christians to be "one" with God, and the true and faithful Christian is in fact "one" with God?
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Spirit of God dwells in the Christian. Through the Spirit God teaches His children to grow into maturity. That which we did 3 yrs ago is not what we do today because we have grown and understand more, we develop from babes in christ to adults, over time.
  When God comes into the life, things change and the parts of the life God is able to lead bring the two, God and that person, closer together.
  It is this closeness that Jesus experienced because of obedience to the father, because his relationship to God was based on one to one.
  
  Christians can experience the same union because God will not hold anything back to those who seek Him and Love Him.
  
  When christians perceive a break in their relationship and feel like God is not around, they should check their obedience level because like in a normal relationship as in a family, good children tow the line; bad children get sent to their room for a time out.
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So Him in you and you in him. So one with God. (sounds simular to what Jesus said)
  
  A simple yes or no would have worked for me.
  I know your take on things already BRO.
  
  I am curious as to Penny's answer though.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  hehe... if it were only that simple double.
  
  had to cover all the bases if not for you but for others
  reply report
  78
  pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have no idea whether or not it is a Christian's goal?
  
  One does not have to be Christian, in my opinion, to be one with God. For me we all are one with God, even if we might not 'think' we are,
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  + 1
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nice answer.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's really not what the bible says on so many levels and throughout the entire book both OT and NT.
  
  You ignore mankind fell in adam, was kicked out of what God wanted for them and was forced to live in this reality because of their separation from God because of a propensity for sinful living.
  You ignore jesus died on the cross for everyones' sins. If man were okay with God, would the cross have been necessary? Obviously not.
  
  But you are entitled to your opinion.
  reply report
  78
  pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If that's not how you understand it I am interested to know how you do? What does 'I and my father are one' mean to you?
  
  I am not ignoring Adam. I interpret it differently to you. I am interested in hearing your interpretation of when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? What separation occurred, in your understanding, if Adam was already here?
  
  Jesus demonstrated well what man could rise above.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  thats right. The are one and the same.
  Son of God is not another name of jesus, its a title or label.
  Its what he is but not his actual name.
  John, son of zebedee.
  reply report
6. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We don't.
  God is knowable.
  And His word the Bible explains 'most everything.
  reply report
7. 59
  DeadChurchRisingposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'd agree with Brenda but also would point out that its not simply "fundamentalists" but all Christians...and one could argue that many other religions make the same claim.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  to say that other religions make the same claim is just a quick overview and not exactly precise.
  
  There are few religions that say their god takes care of them. Some religions say that God is uninterested in this world. Some say god is unknowable. Some religions have no god.
  
  The God of the bible is claimant to be responsible for his creation and his people. In an altruistic way he purports that we should love our enemies and continually trash nontheist remarks
  reply report
8. 74
  cheaptrickposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Religious Ignorance",a bit redundant no?
  Kinda like saying
  "that dummies dumb"
  .Is there such a thing as Religious Intelligence?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yep. It is through the second door on the right, directly across the hall from the Military Intelligence office.
  reply report
9. 61
  karobiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This is for you the poster and others who have also expressed their ignorant about the existence of God. there is no point debating an issue like this because, " there is no way the canal mind can understand spiritual things because they are two parallel lines that cannot meet at any point". Even with the analogy of some people in this thread shows that they don't even know whether they even exist or they exist for the sake of existing.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are arguing against yourself. Read your post again.
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years ago
Why do you?
reply report
1. 60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Atheists don't all claim to know the unknowable.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How do you get that from what I wrote?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  An Atheist stance is not one of disbelief. It's a total lack of belief to begin with.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We've been over this ground many times.
  
  A belief that there is no God is a belief. Atheists believe, actively, that no God exists.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's not a belief there is no god.
  
  I had a belief there was god. Then I dropped that belief. Now I hold NO belief that a god exists. Got it? And, I'm not an Atheist.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  and do you believe there is a god?
  No
  so you believe there is no god?
  No
  
  sign me up
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So you think there is a god?
  No
  so you think there is no god?
  No
  
  sign me up
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Don't start up. I wasn't addressing you to begin with. So go play with someone you can handle.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  circular reasoning
  reply report
  68
  AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @Mikel: I think that It’s not that an atheist believes that there’s no God. It’s that he doesn’t believe there is one. There is no activity required to not believe something. It’s a state of not doing anything. it may seem like the same thing, but I think the sentiment is a little different; and this idea (that atheism is an active belief) is what causes a lot of Christians to ask that an atheist provide proof for thinking God doesn’t exist…when in reality…that’s kind of a non-sensical request. How can one reasonably ask someone to prove the non-existence of something? That is to place the burden on the person who never believed anything to start with, when in reality the burden should fall more on the one who initiated an active belief in something, given the default position of not believing in something. (I.e. the believer)
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As you continue through your response you change the meaning of 'not believing' to one of actively believeing the negative, this is what Atheists do as well.
  
  Not believing something: I do not believe god exists.
  
  Believing something: I believe god does not exist.
  
  Both are beliefs, one expressed in the negative, one in the positive.
  
  as far as proving a negative, people prove negatives all the time. There are too many examples to the contrary to say it isn't possible. All that is required to prove a negative is... proof.
  
  The burden of proof is on the entity that is attempting to change the stance/belief of another entity. Be that the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.
  
  In the abscense of proof, the Default position should not be the negative. The default position should be the position best supported by the circumstantial, intuitive and subjective evidence... the best guess.
  
  *** having an opinion is the same thing as having a belief. The only way for Atheists to not have a belief is to not have an opinion. Atheists obviously have an opinion, and a belief. The people that do not have an opinion are the Agnostic not the Atheists.
  reply report
  68
  AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I do believe it’s possible to disprove negatives. We do prove negatives. I just don’t think one can logically proof the non-existence of something, not just a negative.
  As far as the burden of proof lying on the person who is attempting to change the “stance/belief of another entity.” The requirements for doing so in a “does exist/does not exist” scenario wouldn’t require that someone provide evidence that God exists.
  As for the definition of beliefs, I still disagree; you have your opinion, and I have mine. Fair enough
  As far as the concept of “believing in nothing” as the default position, I was meaning: people are born not knowing anything. The default position of all human beings is going to be to not believe something unless they experience it. I wasn’t referring to what their default position should be in their evaluation of life, etc. It isn’t really about should or shouldn’ts, in the context in which I was defining it. The default I was referring to was that which human beings will naturally do or not do,
  I’m going to try to give an example of how I feel about this scenario; might be right, might be wrong, but here is how I see it (and yes this example might not be the perfect analogy, but it’s the best one I can come up with..): I would not know that a creature, say a dog, exists unless I see it. If someone says otherwise, I would require them to prove that such a thing exists (to show me some evidence that it exists, or existed. Obviously, in this case, they could; but…for the sake of analogy, let’s assume that there is no clear evidence that a dog exists, and this topic is in controversy). If they don’t, I’m going to be doubtful that they ever experienced such a thing and that maybe they’re hallucinating or something. But for that person to put the burden on me to prove that that creature does not exist, would seem a bit impossible. In order for me to do so, I would have to evaluate all the reasons that that person believed in the existence of that creature, and disprove that those reasons logically led to the belief that that creature exists. Even if I were to do so and convince them of that, it still wouldn’t prove anything. It would just prove that that person’s reasons for believing in that entity, were not valid. There could possibly be other logical reasonings to prove that person’s belief. In other words, those reasons for believing in the existence of God are the only things that I can use to “dis-prove.” That’s not “proof” of anything. I might be able to convince that person, based on their own belief system, that there is no God; but I haven’t proved or not proved the existence of something absolutely; I’ve just disproved that being’s existence for that person. So what I’m saying is, I therefore feel you can’t “prove” that God doesn’t exist. When Christians ask that atheists prove that God doesn’t exist, what they are asking is, “show me how the reasoning that God exists, is illogical.” Which atheists attempt to do. The atheist provides what they feel is “logic” and apply is to those reasonings. The Christian does not agree with the logic. The Christian still believes, regardless, that their reasonings are legit, for whatever reason. The atheist does not. The debate hits a wall because there’s nothing more to argue except what that person feels, or that person’s experience. What it all boils down to is disproving the rational process itself. And even so, like I said…all that does Is disprove a particular reasoning which led to the believe in something, not the entity itself.
  “As you continue through your response you change the meaning of 'not believing' to one of actively believeing the negative, this is what Atheists do as well.” I don’t see how I did that.
  I have been superlong-winded…sorry… I know we’ll probably still disagree on this, and that’s ok. Thanks for the discussion, I'm trying to learn too and it's good to hear opinions from all sides. I believe in God, I just don't feel that certain ways of thinking about proving God's existence is true.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If one cannot prove the non-existence of something then I should not be able to prove that there are not more than 7 continents on Earth, but I can.
  
  I don't understand what you mean here.
  
  This statement supports my stance, you have your belief I have mine, if you had no belief you would have no opinion.
  
  I disagree, kids the world over prove you wrong at christmas time, when they lose a tooth, when they dream up a monster in the closet, with thier belief in the unseen. (Santa Claus does exist, just not in the form kids are made to believe.) So again I say the 'default' position is the best guess.
  
  You are correct, it isn't a very good analogy. Basically you have stated, "It is hard to do"
  
  I'm not sure what you're looking for here. I'm not a Christian, though my beliefs are similar to Christianity. It almost seems as though you're wanting me to help you dis-prove God's existence... The proof lead me to the opposite conclusion.
  
  Look closely and I'm sure you'll see it. You seem like a very intelligent person.
  
  Long winded? Naw ... I also like hearing new opinions and testing my beliefs. (testing the why I believe something)
  reply report
  68
  AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm confused. I feel like we aren't on the same page.Okay, here we go:
  I said you have your opinion, I have mine. (Not, you have your belief, I have mine.) And that was referring to the definition of “believing.” That was not referring to the issue at hand, which was whether or not God exists. You took my words out of context.
  About the default position, you again took my words out of context. I was referring to default position of all human beings is to not believe in something. In other words, using your scenario, Those kids would not have believed in santa claus unless someone taught it to them in the first place. The Santa Claus situation is unique in that it is purposefully taught with the knowledge it is a lie. It rearranges things.
  No, I have not stated, “it is hard to do.” That is your conclusion based on what you read, but no, that is not what I said or meant. My position was, it’s a rather illogical thing to ask and demand of someone who didn’t believe anything in the first place. If you can explain to me how my logic was irrational in that, then I might understand why you came to that conclusion. I explained the analogy and that not all details match, but I think it illustrated my point; and besides, whether or not the analogy is really good isn’t the point; it’s what I was trying to convey; as long as that was conveyed, then that’s all that matters. I made a point; if you disagree, it’s cool. But to simply say that all I’m saying is “it’s hard to do” is not even the sentiment of what I was saying; and gives me no idea of what you disagreed with in what I was explaining. Perhaps that is an error in my not being clear in my explanation. I don’t know.
  
  As far as my purpose, No I’m not wanting you to help me dis-prove God’s existence. I’m not trying to prove or not prove anything. I have no agenda. I was simply pointing out how it is rather illogical to try to make someone prove the non-existence of something.
  I hate forums…if I’m sounding snippy or short, I don’t mean to be... When I reread what I write, I’m always like “geez I sound like a jerk!” hope I don’t come across that way. I’m not a mean person …well at least I hope not lol it's just hard to communicate sentiment with written word sometimes.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  First off you didn't come across as a jerk.
  
  Second what you are trying to communicate and what you are truly communicating don't seem to be the same thing. What I take away from your words is what is actually communicated, not what you desire for me to take away from your words.
  
  Starting small, concentrating on a single item may help.
  
  You state you believe the default position of all human beings is to not believe in something.
  
  I disagree. The default position of all human beings is the best guess. The position best supported by intuition, the opinion of respected others (parents etc), and from personal emotional experiences. That best guess may be in the negative, or it may be in the positive.
  report
  68
  AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Glad I didn’t come off as a jerk.
  I felt I was communicating clearly. I have no idea what you took from a lot of my response, (particularly the part after the analogy) so I guess I don’t know how to apply your advice to focus on something small first or how to improve…I don’t know what you didn’t understand about it, so I don’t know what to clarify….
  We disagree on the default thing. S’all good. We can’t really go further in that argument lol.
  report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think occams razor is probably a better fit.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  the law of parsimony states the best guess is the stance one should take as default.
  
  So I agree.
  
  However what it does not state is dis-belief or dismissing something as nonsense is the simplest answer. In fact dis-missing or default disbelief isn't an answer at all, it is a defeatist, closed minded, there is no answer attitude.
  reply report
2. 0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @mikel- Why do I what? You're the one who claims to have scientifically answered one of the greatest questions known to the human race. Right science guy?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  proclaim to know the unknowable.
  
  Not the same thing. There are several examples in history of people scientifically answering great questions. ('Unknowable' would be the key-stone to this particular debate.)
  
  ??Name calling already??
  
  Why do religious fundamentalists proclaim to know the unknowable? (militant Atheists are religious fundamentalists and some are religious zealots as well)
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Semantics Mr. Mike, semanitcs......
  reply report
0
Emile Rposted 12 years ago
Ego. Huge ones.
reply report
1. 72
  lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And a few little ones! Cute aren't they?
  reply report
60
paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago
I submit that the below listed individuals are all fellow fine human beings in their own right.

Cranfordjs

LookingForWalden

Emile R

Mikel G Roberts

Paradigmsearch
reply report
1. 60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  reply report
2. 68
  AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
3. 0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Congratulations on the sneakiest bit of sarcasm i have ever witnessed
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Another stellar example of how to miss the mark by a mile when it comes to understanding the whole concept and idea of the message you want hubbers to consider you an expert on.
  
  I saw lonestar's response first. Scratched my head on it, to be quite frank. Then I read this. Believe me, I'm laughing. He's right, to a point. At moments they aren't cute but they do provide amusement.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I guess you are right, in your own right
  
  right?
  
  That holds no water here, so what is the value really. Its just another way of saying in their own opinion.
  
  did you miss that sneaky bit of sarcasm?
  I bet you scratch your head a lot
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lol. I bet you've never made someone scratch their heads here.
  
  Pretentious judgmental fundi Christians? Never saw one before...
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's all opinion. You haven't figured that out yet? No, you think God went to the dealership with you to buy a car. Of course you wouldn't be expected to understand reality.
  reply report
  60
  Dave Mathewsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Any time you think that God is not by your side teaching you helping you to understand with regards to any situation, you are wrong. Your problem is you have closed your ears,mind, and heart to God and His thinking and ideas.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Gosh Dave. You don't know me. You have no idea if I've closed my ears, have too much earwax in them, or they are wide open and listening.
  
  Your problem appears to be similar to that of many of the fundamentalists. You don't like something someone said and you immediately decide it is an attack on God and completely unspiritual. When all it is, is an opinion different from your own.
  
  You are not God. Repeat after me now...."I am not God." Say that about twenty times in the mirror every morning while you are shaving. Trust me, you'll reduce your ego by a mile every day you firmly believe that.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "you think God went to the dealership with you to buy a car. Of course you wouldn't be expected to understand reality."
  
  You have no idea
  
  Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.
  
  Genesis 39:2 And the LORD was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous man;
  
  Matthew 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
  
  Matthew 6:26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are ye not much better than they?
  
  Matthew 6:30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
  
  See, no idea. So what do I know of God now.. that he cares for me and wants to take care of my needs.
  
  Two birds with one stone... God is knowable and he helps his children buy clothes and cars and all their needs. That's both CHRISTIAN reality and Gods love.
  enjoy
  
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The silmarrilion teaches that The first section takes the form of a primary creation narrative. Eru ("The One"), also called Ilúvatar ("Father of All"), first created the Ainur, a group of eternal spirits or demiurges, called "the offspring of his thought". Ilúvatar brought the Ainur together and showed them a theme, from which he bade them make a great music. Melkor—whom Ilúvatar had given the "greatest power and knowledge" of all the Ainur—broke from the harmony of the music to develop his own song. Some Ainur joined him, while others continued to follow Ilúvatar, causing discord in the music. This happened thrice, with Eru Ilúvatar successfully overpowering his subordinate with a new theme each time. Ilúvatar then stopped the music and showed them a vision of Arda and its peoples. The vision disappeared after a while, and Ilúvatar offered the Ainur a chance to enter into Arda and govern over the new world.
  
  This is how the world was really made. I have proof.
  
  If you can't see this is real then you were not chosen by Eru because you are ignorant and incapable of comprehending such a thing.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm going to let you in on a little secret the world, at large, knows. So, I guess it's only a secret to you. No god exists that gives a rat's behind what car you drive. There is no god who checks Consumer reports so you can buy with peace of mind. If that is the best you've got, you ain't got nothing except the title of this thread.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Got Proof?
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  (I'm thinking Em might be starting to 'get' me.)
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  you have no idea
  
  Of course God cares about what car i drive. He cares where i live. He cares how i spend money. He cares what clothes i wear. He cares what clothes women wear - just thought i would throw that in.
  
  you have no idea and its from this vacuum of nothingness that you start a dialogue.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ok. Sitting in this vacuum, I'm wondering how such silliness can be resolved from a Christian perspective. Where, in the words of the gospels (don't be pulling OT out of your hat); and only the words written in red (no parables with crazy interpretations) just a clear and unambiguous statement (because if material wealth was important, I would think God Incarnate would touch on that point rather deeply); please tell me where it is said that superfluous material possessions are of any use in spiritual development. I'm all ears.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  first we need to know your understanding of superfluous material needs.
  Cars are certainly not considered superfluous in canada.
  
  So did God help me buy an kinder egg? Of course i could squeeze that one in by saying, well i had the extra funds to purchase that and God set me in a pretty decent job but i won't. The purchase of the kinder egg was my idea. I did not pray about it before i bought it.
  Now if i bought it for say, a child who was like, 'I want one of those mom' and mom said, "well i don't have enough for one of those". And i stepped up and purchased the egg and gave it to her to give to the child, then i could say that the gift-love of God intervened.
  
  But what you are saying to me is so preposterously ridiculous that i will mention now, this conversation is over. If you need to know exactly what God buys or has his people buy or what He thinks is actually superfluous, i am just gonna leave that question up to you.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's not a question. You told me, when I first came into the forums, that you consulted God on your car purchase. If you are now feeling foolish and can't substantiate your claim with Biblical evidence as to why you made it........well, let's just say I'm not in the least bit surprised.
  report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What a revealing comment to the fundamentalist way.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thankyou
  but you need a better understanding of the fundamentalist way.
  Keep reading and hang around.
  reply report
0
Cranfordjsposted 12 years ago
Have I ever said god doesn't exist? Have I ever said gog does exist? No and no because they are the unknowable. So back to my original question, why do religious fundamentalist proclaim to know the unknowable?
reply report
61
Smokes Angelposted 12 years ago
As a Christian, I must say, arguing about this is repulsive. For the atheist, or non-believer, you are setting a bad example throwing out insults and arguing. Praying for an individual is a much better route than this.
reply report
70
Cagsilposted 12 years ago
Hey Cranford,

I think you answered your own question just in your title alone.
reply report
61
Smokes Angelposted 12 years ago
Explain your question in more detail please. What do you mean by the unknowable?
reply report
1. 70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The unknowable is that which is unknown. Pretty self explanatory really.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  like when i look at an apple and i don't know the exact size of the apple
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Since you are one of the most outspoken fundamentalists on this site, and you've made a silly comment. I'll respond, because I do know where the OP is coming from.
  
  The size of the apple is in question as is the color, shape, type, stage of development; and if there was a tree it grew on.
  
  Many have no problem with thoughts of God. It's the arrogant stance that rankles. It's worse than having to deal with siblings scrambling and posturing to prove Dad loved them more before he disappeared when the whole clan were babies. Coloring pictures of what they imagine he might be like, but attempting to pass it off as intimate knowledge. Making up wild scenarios where they are going to be taken to the ice cream shop when he comes back and the other siblings will be left out in the cold, because Dad forgot he had more kids.
  
  It's more along the lines of few in a group in an orphanage claiming they are kids of famous people while the rest of us are bastard children. Their proof? They said so. So there.
  
  I wasn't entirely forthcoming when I laid the actions of the fundamentalist at the foot of ego. Many times ego is driven by a lack of a sense of self worth. The ego attempts to compensate by pretending. Making up stories. Believing that they can convince others they are special, more knowledgeable or more powerful when they don't believe in them selves. It's a tool many use to compensate for perceived shortcomings that they don't have the means by which to resolve or deal with.
  
  It's a train wreck that, on some levels, your heart goes out to. On others? It's irritating as sh*t.
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @ Emile - Nice post. I will always compromise with religion and acknowledge the possibility of a deity. But it has to work both ways, and they (Religious fundamentalist) need to grab a handful of reality so they can understand there are different angles which hold as much credibility as their current religious ideology.
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Um educated people use math for that.
  
  Your like the johnny Appleseed of misinformation.
  
  You spread it everywhere you go.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe one day the lightbulb will go on in your head
  
  but not until you drop that "i have all the answers" attitude.
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't have them all just a lot more than you
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I read your replies.
  Its seems these days you are down to one liners.
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sometimes I'm in class on my iPad when I respond so I can't focus all my attention to blind ignorance.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's not what we don't know that bites us in the butt: it's what we know for sure that ain't so.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yo Brotheryo, there's no rhyme or reason to know the size of an apple.
  reply report
  60
  Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh I don't know. Perhaps if I was in the apple transportation business I'd be very interested in the size of my apples.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  hahahaha
  
  of course it was a silly response
  
  so easy to suck you people in
  Thanks for the chuckles
  have a nice day
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Giving a terrible and revealing analogy then pawning it off as a joke is the fundamentalist way!
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  hehe
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Gotta have some fun
  and you are easily baited
  seemingly since i got your heckles up which is good because that is not passive.
  
  hits the books mr.
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lol you are easily exposed. You give too much information about yourself by the questions you avoid.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Been there, done that.
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's getting old for me already. It's hard to keep laughing at someone without feeling bad.
  
  Last night I really got to him I can tell regardless of what he says.
  
  He tells girls theyre yummy too which is kind of gross if you put everything into context.
  reply report
60
LookingForWaldenposted 12 years ago
Im thinking about buying this for the rapture

http://www.ebay.com/itm/United-LOTR-War … 683wt_1074

So that I can blend in.

Thoughts?

I'm JK btw.

I wouldn't actually wear it it's a collectors item.
reply report
60
paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago
reply report
60
LookingForWaldenposted 12 years ago
Nobody liked my helmet?
reply report
1. 0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It was a very fine helmet!
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you sir.
  
  You are a very kind heathen.
  reply report
2. 78
  pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Would look better in pink or lavender?
  reply report
51
MBChadwickposted 12 years ago
As a Taoist and Zen Buddhist I can say that i believe in consciousness. Because I am writing this I have proof of conscious existence. Therefore, if you were to say that there is a Universal Consciousness and that you consider this to be a supreme or godlike consciousness I could say that there is a God. If you were to say that there is some entity or spirit who resides over everything and that passes judgement on all I would say that it is time to grow up and graduate from kindergarten. Positive thought and positive verbalization's toward your fellow inhabitants (all things living, not just human kind) or prayer if you will is a good thing and will usually generate a more positive life experience.
reply report
1. 0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes positive thought and good verbalizations will generate a more positive life experience, and if that is all you want, This Life, then that is all you will get.
  
  "If you were to say that there is a universal consciousness"
  
  Obviously then this is a consciousness which is not very conscious. How can something that is attached to good be indifferent or show apathy?
  
  "If there is some entity or spirit who resides over everything and passes judgment"
  
  This is not apathy. And how do you or buddhism know that judgment is not a part of what HAS to be? Cannot this judgment be looked upon as 'results of inadequate compatibility with an entirely different afterlife which has entirely different requirements' and not as judgment, persay, but as a result of necessity.
  
  "grow up and graduate from kindergarten"
  
  To adopt a set of beliefs that is easy, doesn't really have definition and shows utter lack of concern for anyone else, is apathetic in nature and really just another form of self worship is really being a little bitty baby.
  reply report
60
LookingForWaldenposted 12 years ago
If energy can't be created or destroyed is it possible when we die to become part of everything?

Like in final fantasy 7 ?
reply report
1. 78
  pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Don't know what Final Fantasy is.
  
  But why not?
  
  Our bodies become food for worms and other inhabitants of the dirt realm which will eventually die and nourish the earths itself providing food for mother natures offsprings and the cycle continues. Our primal origin changeless and eternal blends back into that which cannot be described, consciousness some call it.
  reply report
2. 72
  lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ahh, but energy can be created or destroyed.
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  When did this happen?
  reply report
  60
  Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  At the birth of the universe where known physical laws break down would be a possible candidate. Other than then energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can be transformed into different forms of energy or matter and vise versa.
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's still speculative.
  He also said can not did.
  
  Maybe he has the power to create mass and is hiding it.
  
  Or
  
  He is spreading misinformation.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's wonderful when believers spout contradictory assertions about ideas and concepts they know nothing about. It keeps showing just how much damage religions can do to people, destroying their honesty and integrity, crushing any form of understanding and thinking they might have once held.
  
  No amount of argument or debate from non-believers is required to stand up and be reckoned with in comparison to such statements. Believers can do far more harm to their credibility with one such statement than pages of rational debate could ever accomplish.
  
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I like how you became smarter than Newton and Einstein and all of academia right there.
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years ago
The following was my response to a statement lookingforwalden posted, however after I posted the response he changed his original post so I deleted my response as well. But I think my response still bears on the thread even without the original statement, so here it is.

In my experience (on HubPages forums) Atheists often claim God's existence is unknowable. They use that arguement to support the stance that without proof the default stance is that of doubt/disbelief. So either Atheists claim to know the unknowable, or they have found proof that God's existence is knowable and the proof shows God does not exist.

So again my question is where is that evidence?

evidence of my statement ***Cranfordjs wrote:Have I ever said god doesn't exist? Have I ever said gog does exist? No and no because they are the unknowable. So back to my original question, why do religious fundamentalist proclaim to know the unknowable?
reply report
1. 95
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are saying that a stance of doubt equates to knowledge or proof?
  
  You obviously have a different definition of doubt than I do.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Um...No I'm not. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.
  
  ???
  reply report
2. 0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Because quit obviously
  
  GOD IS KNOWABLE
  
  How anyone can think GOD is unknowable is beyond me.
  Its absolutely absurd to think that GOD is hiding somewhere without any access to himself.
  
  What is he like sitting in a chair laughing at the foolish mortals who are trying to know him.
  
  Christianity explains everything so much better.
  Its just brilliance from front to back cover
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do YOU have access to God? Do you know him? Do you know someone, one single person, who does?
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh. You're going to regret opening that can of worms.
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hopefully it's taken as a rhetorical question lol. All in all it's still a fair question.
  
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Silly conclusions like that show lack of knowing him.
  reply report
  60
  Captain Redbeardposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  In order to consider this question you would have to consider the bible wholly and not just the parts you want to pick a choose, right? The question would be pointless after one days studying.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I've yet to hear any Christians here ever take the bible wholly but instead just pick and choose whatever they wanted to believe.
  reply report
  60
  Captain Redbeardposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No disrespect intended, how many have you actually talked to? Not engage in ridicule or belittling but talked to with a mindset of hearing what they say?
  
  I would have to agree 90% of the people of my faith give us a bad name. Adulterers, embezzlers, child molesters, murderers.......the list goes on yet the life style of these people shows they didn't live what they taught doesn’t it? Christ said you would know a Christian by their love, not their notoriety. So then, how many out there professing are actually practicing? I have not a clue
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Plenty, online and offline. None of them follow the bible wholly. They all pick and choose what they want to believe and what they don't want to believe.
  
  If you have a 90% failure rate for an ideology that is supposed to guide ones life, then the ideology has obviously failed and should be tossed in the bin.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Two thoughts. If everyone you've talked to picks and chooses what they follow from the Bible, I would think that was a strong argument against the assumption that the religious are brain washed.
  
  And, I've noticed we have quite a few medical procedures that are about 10% successful (chemo being one of them)but we still look to them for hope. We aren't in the habit of throwing something out the window simply because it isn't 100% effective.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  nice reply
  
  That's true. Look at science, how often has it had to revamp its conclusions or change apparatus?
  
  Somehow troubled still thinks that upon conversion the once carnal creature is 100% miraculously transformed into some extraordinary creature that knows the bible 100%, easily obeys all God wants and completely knows what God wants even before God reveals his plan to him.
  
  This is completely a wrong deduction.
  The Way of Christ is a growing procedure, where little bits are chipped away and different lights and new information is revealed little by little. What God does is kind and loving, nurturing and teaching.
  No more, you transgressed you die! - that is being under the law Now is grace and grace means no more law. There is time to grow and mature as a christian and these are relationship qualities, even if it takes a lifetime.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Look at science, how often has it had to revamp its conclusions or change apparatus?"
  Fairly often. This should not be taken as evidence that science doesn't work, but rather as evidence that it does. When a (good) scientist is given clear and compelling evidence that his theory is wrong, he will double- and triple-check the evidence, and if it passes peer review, he will admit that his theory is incorrect, and either modify it to account for the new data, or else abandon it for a new model that is supported by the data.
  
  Interestingly, even theories known to be flawed still get used to make predictions about the world, simply because they're "good enough" for our purposes. We still use Newtonian physics when sending rockets into space, because even though the theory is flawed, it still gives us results that work.
  
  That's why science is trustworthy: it reliably gives workable results. When people say "It worked like magic," they really mean, "It worked like science."
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  exactly
  While mans ways of looking at things and perceiving things have changed and are constantly open to revamping; Gods ways have stayed the same.
  He judged in the OT and he judges the world in the NT.
  Sin is still sin and there is punishment for offense.
  
  Although true the dispensation may have changed that was no surprise but efficiently prophesied before the event.
  report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  While mans ways of looking at things and perceiving things have changed and are constantly open to revamping; Gods ways have stayed the same.
  
  And you know this... how, exactly?
  
  He judged in the OT and he judges the world in the NT.
  
  And your evidence for this is...what, exactly?
  
  Sin is still sin and there is punishment for offense.
  
  And your proof for this is....what, exactly?
  
  Although true the dispensation may have changed that was no surprise but efficiently prophesied before the event.
  Yes, and many passages in the Silmarillion foreshadow events described in the Lord of the Rings. Therefore, the Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings must be literally true and accurate accounts of historical events, right?
  report
  60
  Captain Redbeardposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @Troubled, what is the failure rate of an ideology that teaches failure being a part of the ideology?
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yep got total access. Yep i know who he is, what he is about and that he spends incredible amounts of effort to be intimate in each persons life.
  
  Lots of people have access to God. Its so simple and easy. Ask him to find you and then do what he says.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "GOD IS KNOWABLE"
  
  Only if you take Him on faith.
  
  God may be "knowable," but He sure as heck ain't provable.
  
  "Lots of people have access to God. Its so simple and easy. Ask him to find you and then do what he says."
  
  And if I told you that God said to paint myself pink and dance the charleston on alternate Wednesdays, and that everyone should join me, would you believe me? 'Cos that what He told me the last time we talked. And I KNOW God exists. It says so in the Bible. Proof, right?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Um...actually God is provable. I dunnit already. (for the record I don't believe God is a he).
  
  ***I'm not saying I proved the Christian version of God.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you said that God told you to paint yourself pink and dance the charleston every wednesday night ... I would tell you God did not tell you that.
  
  Why? because the things of God are discerned by the spirit. Immediately my spirit says no and i can think, that logically, this is not a work that God is all about. Sure it sounds fun and some good can come out of it, but, I would put my money on it being an idea of yourself, unprompted by God.
  
  God is about different things. It makes no difference to the situation if you went as yourself unpinked and uninterested in dancing. God would more likely tell you to specifically go there if there were another who needed saving or a brother who needed encouragement or something more along the lines of grace and mercy, not just because you needed to blow off some steam.
  
  Through knowing what God is about, his nature, his desires, of course revealed in the bible, I can also say that God does not tell people to kill other people or themselves.
  
  God is knowable because he exists and he is provable because of experience. The bible is an excellent doorway to God if, one is open to the persuasive evidence contained inside.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "If you said that God told you to paint yourself pink and dance the charleston every wednesday night ... I would tell you God did not tell you that.
  
  Why? because [I think I know God better than you do, so there!]"
  
  Nothing you said contains a shred of evidence. You can't demonstrate a 'knowledge' of God to someone who isn't you. At best, you can demonstrate a knowledge of Biblical text, which is not evidence of the existence of anything except itself.
  
  There is no "persuasive evidence" contained in the Bible. None. There's great advice, sure. There's some good stories, too. But as 'evidence,' it's about as reliable as the writings of Herodotus.
  
  You have faith in God, and that's cool. Me, too. But we neither of us have "proof" or "knowledge" of God.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Often the stance of not knowing comes from an outsiders viewpoint.
  
  I cannot know about the intricacies of anything until i actually get into it, gain some experience, let my knowledge base expand, become familiar with it.
  
  and this is the stance that people who are not actively in The Way of the christian lifestyle. approach knowing God and the bible too. Kinda like that look a deer gets when he is caught in the headlights of an oncoming car.
  I can tell you about God because i know God. This is also the message of Jesus Christ. Father, son that whole family thing, yknow. Love God with all your heart, soul and mind - how do you love someone you do not know? simple huh.
  
  So for someone to tell me what i know is just digging your heels in and not wanting to recognize some higher truth. God is not hidden. If any idea is ridiculous, that is the one.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "and this is the stance that people who are not actively in The Way of the christian lifestyle."
  
  So, you're going with the "no real Scotsman" argument?
  
  I'm sure you feel very confident in your faith in God. You can tell me about your idea of God because you have faith in it. Good for you. But no matter how hard you believe in something, it just ain't proof.
  
  To ask someone to accept your belief as evidence is to ask them to stop thinking for themselves.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You may call it what fallacy you want, but, lol, hardly applicable to call it a moot point.
  We often look at the decisions that politicians make and think why on earth would he do that.. yet we do not know the reality that the politician lives in. He has certain people demanding, asking, giving their input and he certainly has a set of concerns that are different that we little tax paying folk as so he does what he does with the information he has on hand according to his reality.
  
  So what i am saying is: If you don't have all the information then don't point fingers. Clearly unsaved people don't have all the answers but they have many more than those not in The Way and clearly those christians who are not in The Way have less answers than those who are in The Way.
  
  no scotsman needed at all
  reply report
60
LookingForWaldenposted 12 years ago
Is the absence of evidence the evidence of absence?

Someone tell me or I'll have nightmares.
reply report
1. 0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The absence of absence is the evidence of evidence. lol
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There is always evidence in absence.
  
  Just because your parents are not in the room doesn't mean they do not exist.
  Just because you have heard of beyonce' but not seen her, doesn't mean she is some invented person.
  Just because jesus existed 2,000 yrs ago, doesn't mean he did not exist.
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are going from regular tangible life examples like "beyonce" to a character out of a 2,000 year old book of gossip and hear say. Knowing and believing are two different things, in regards to the world at this moment, not tomorrow or 1,000 years from now. I don't think it's healthy to mix the two up.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Its deeper than that
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  yeah, it's getting pretty deep, no argument there.
  
  Belief is not the same thing as knowledge. Accept that, and take comfort in your faith.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years ago
So what is a healthy stance to have when not having proof?

In the absense of proof, the best guess should be the default position.
reply report
1. 0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So what is a healthy stance to have when not having proof? A stance that can only be defended with the twisting of words around because one can't make a rational argument when the argument comes from a stance on a subject that is, in itself, irrational? (Don't answer my second question, on the account of it being rhetorical.)
  
  Semantics- "is commonly used to refer to a trivial point or distinction that revolves around mere words rather than significant issues: “To argue whether the medication killed the patient or contributed to her death is to argue over semantics.”
  reply report
60
recommend1posted 12 years ago
The Chinese were on top of this question a couple of thousand years ago. The schools of philosophy that centred on the unknown would travel sometimes huge distances to meetings where they would discuss what IS known about the unknown, such as:
1. It is unknown
2. It may be seen in some ways in its 'absence'

Then when they reached the limits of what is known or could be deduced about the unknown they would SHUT UP. and the rest of the meeting would continue in silence. Anyone speaking about anything after this point would only be demonstrating their own stupidity.

This is the position of the fundamentalists who speak after all that can be said has been reached.
reply report
1. 78
  pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They were quite wise. Kinda like the cup ceases to be useful when its full. Its in its emptiness there is usefulness.
  reply report
0
icountthetimesposted 12 years ago
I dislike ignorance from all, whether it's rooted in religion or not. Too many people use their beliefs as a battering ram, instead of trying to concentrate on positivity and improving their own and others lives.
reply report
1. 0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We should never call what others do not know - ignorance.
  Did we all graduate from school with A+'s. Is it really acceptable to think that people need to know everything to be believed?
  
  Just because you may know something or think you know something gives no indicators to label anyone as ignorant.
  
  In everything we know, there will always be something(s) we do not know.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "We should never call what others do not know - ignorance. "
  
  We should never call things what they are?
  
  Look, if there's something you don't know, you're ignorant of that fact. If there's something I don't know, I'm ignorant of that fact.
  
  For example, I am completely ignorant of the rules of grammar in Hindi. (Well, I know they exist, so, not completely ignorant, but...).
  
  A chemist would rightly consider me (relatively) ignorant of chemistry.
  
  If you don't know about it, you're ignorant of it.
  
  There might be a nicer way of putting it (you're unaware of it, you don't know about it, you hadn't heard about it, etc) but it all means pretty much the same thing.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  exactly
  a nicer way of putting it.
  reply report
60
LookingForWaldenposted 12 years ago
Does anyone else find it extremely easy to spot someone that was born again later in life?
reply report
1. 68
  AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  depends...
  reply report
60
LookingForWaldenposted 12 years ago
Right on que.
reply report
1. 0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  lmao, that was a loaded question. She is cool.
  reply report
  68
  AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ?
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  His question was a trap. whoever replied to it was going to be dubbed "born again".
  reply report
  68
  AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well if that was the point, it wouldn't make sense or apply. Anyone could respond to that question, in any way.
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe it was a serious question, I don't know, but when he goes "right on que" it comes off as a loaded question.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, it only means that your answer(response) was expected.
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's what I thought when I used the term "loaded".
  reply report
  68
  AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  dunno. lol.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  68
  AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ahem. are you laughing at me? you will be sorry.
  
  j/k
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  In the immortal words of Jim Carrey- "Alrighty then".
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years ago
kess: To believe something is unknowable is to be the tool of doubt the hardest of all taskmasters....

Nevertheless... that which which is unknown cannot be raised by a question,
for the presence of the question itself gives that which is unknown validity thus it is Known.

Jeff Berndt:"the presence of the question itself gives that which is unknown validity thus it is Known." Dang, that's pretty good. I'm going to have to think on that for a while.

Nice.
Kudos Kess.
reply report
1. 0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nevertheless.....that which is KNOWN cannot be raised by a question, for the presence of the question itself gives that which is KNOWN validity thus it is KNOWN.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  sure it can.
  
  which supports the first part of this statement.
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No it can't,
  
  Which supports my entire statement.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ahhh.... Thanks for playing.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @Cranford,
  
  See what I mean? Remember what I said on your hub?
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "thanks for playing" is a prime example of what happens when someones entire life argument is built around 'semantics'.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Being an anti-semantic... is just wrong...
  
  Lose the Hate Cranfordjs...
  
  ...us semantics lovers are people too!!!
  
  reply report
  68
  AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  lol..
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do you know the difference between semantic and Semitic?
  reply report
  68
  AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  yes. I do. I saw his comment not as a pun but as a dramatization Of the situation regarding the use of semantics...until I saw the following comments at the bottom of the page. I saw it as a way to break up tension by being dramatic. That’s why I smiled at it. I honestly didn't think he was making a pun until he said he was.
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I was being sarcastic. I took your comment out of context thinking I was getting doubled team lol. Anyways I understand what you mean now. Thanks
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Um..Yes actually.
  
  ...Semantics, Definition of:
  
  Semantics (from Greek sēmantiká, neuter plural of sēmantikós) is the study of meaning.
  
  But thanks for playing.
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Semantics - of, pertaining to, or arising from the different meanings of words or other symbols: semantic change; semantic confusion." Dictionary.com
  
  "Semitic - : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic" -Dictionary.com
  
  You may like to joke about Jewish discrimination, but I don't.
  HubPages would like an apology.
  
  Don't worry, we will wait (Thanks for playing)
  
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Semantics (from Greek sēmantiká, neuter plural of sēmantikós) is the study of meaning. (from Wiki)
  
  se·man·tics [si-man-tiks] Show IPA noun ( used with a singular verb )
  1.Linguistics. a.the study of meaning.
  b.the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.
  2.Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.
  3.the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.
  4.general semantics. (from Dictionary . com)
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Semantics (from Greek sēmantiká, neuter plural of sēmantikós) is the study of meaning. (from Wiki)
  
  se·man·tics [si-man-tiks] Show IPA noun ( used with a singular verb )
  1.Linguistics. a.the study of meaning.
  b.the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.
  2.Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.
  3.the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.
  4.general semantics. (from Dictionary . com)
  reply report
  60
  kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Who then poses questions to that which is already known ?
  
  This works of doubt who ask questions and receives no answers because they are all lost within himself and to him no thing is known for he is ignorance.
  reply report
60
L-Sargeposted 12 years ago
Each and every one of us comes to experience religion, faith, or the Greater-Powers-that-Be in many different ways; what we believe to be the forces behind everything that happens to us and those around us, we perceive as being something that is significant to us as an individual alone. Spiritual recognition can be "known", or it can be "unknown"; to have either outcome depends on what you constitute as religion and how you personally view the world. To change another's view, beyond simply speaking to them of your views, is wrong: express your views, yes; state your deeper beliefs, if you wish.
reply report
59
Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago
What exactly is Unknowable?
reply report
1. 0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  (I'm a Christian, and Jesus is the son of god) This statement is "unknowable" ,because he or she can't 'know' this. They can 'believe' it, and I respect that. But not when it's put on a peddle stool as fact, and with such fact, he or she tries to influence the world.
  reply report
0
Cranfordjsposted 12 years ago
Whatever!
reply report
61
Smokes Angelposted 12 years ago
Why do people consult psychics? That's a better question in my opinion?
reply report
1. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  For entertainment purposes?
  reply report
2. 0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  same reason they did in the OT.
  naive.
  desperate
  not grounded in the what the bible teaches about this subject.
  reply report
60
LookingForWaldenposted 12 years ago
I completely missed the 42 reference till you said that. Face palm. I loved those books too.
My memory is failing me.

Did you ever see the movie that came out a few years ago? It wasn't that great but I was hoping they would do the trilogy at least.
reply report
1. 59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Bah, the movie sucked. I only watched it because it had Zooey Deschanel in it... She's on my freebie list.
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lol. My wife loves her show.
  
  Yes the movie sucked. I still wanted the trilogy darn it.
  
  People need to finish things.
  
  Especially when I want them to.
  reply report
63
pisean282311posted 12 years ago
Religion is fictitious response to questions unanswered....
reply report
1. 60
  sportgamesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Everyone should think for himself and choose to believe or not to believe in religion, no matter what it is.
  
  We should all respect each other's believes, and not judge.
  reply report
60
ikechiawazieposted 12 years ago
To Cranfordjs. Your question is difficult to answer as it questions people's beleif on certain issues. I beleive everyone has a right to their opinion and trying to question that would not take you anywhere. If religious fundamentalist beleive that they know the unknowable, it's either you believe them or you dont.
reply report
1. 0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My question doesn't ask for one's belief. There is a difference between belief/ faith and 'knowing'. I don't hold a belief that the earth is round. I know it's round, I can prove it. I have faith that I'll be around for my 80th birthday, but I don't 'know' it.
  
  I respect a person's belief, but it's when their belief turns into the 'knowing' that causes a problem. Do you think Islamic suicide bombers would blow themselves up if they only believed in heaven? No they wouldn't. They blow themselves up because, they think they 'know' something, which in fact, can not be know, it's unknowable.
  
  This issue deserves the up most attention and criticism. I mean they actually have church funded creationism museums for children that depicts people riding on the backs of dinosaurs. When a group of people disregard such facts as fossils and carbon dating, society should take a healthy interest to help them.
  
  It's disgusting when I see religion used in politics to persuade people on that basis alone. I recently heard one politician state something along the lines of, god is running my campaign. Do you think a person who literally thinks god is above them pushing their campaign along is healthy?
  
  I recently read an article about president bush. When he was faced with problems regarding the country, he would go behind closed doors with his church and would get their opinion on what to do. He was also quoted in saying "god wanted me to be president". Also, here is another quote-
  
  “God told me to strike at AL Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.”-- George W Bush, according to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas.
  
  Having faith is fine. But one has to be careful that it doesn't negate reality. Thinking god literally told you to strike Al Qaeda deserves a psychiatric evaluation with a stent in the nearest psych unit. Instead, someone like this is elected as president in the 21st century. All in all, I can still take solitude in the fact that religion has been on the down slope for half a century now
  
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  
  We need to stop dismissing these lunatics and stop letting them get into office.
  
  At least we have the judicial branch to limit the garbage the spew to the children's minds.
  
  People should have dcf called on them for taking their children to the creation museum for poisoning their minds.
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  +2
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  George W Bush, according to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas.
  
  The Washington Monument is the world's most famous phallus symbol, also known in the occult as an obelisk
  
  Masonic symbols are represented in Government Center by the way in which the original street layout plans were created.
  
  The very date of Presidential Inauguration is planned every four years on January 20; every month, the 20th day is the beginning of the occult cycle of Astrology! Further, there are precisely 13 days between January 20 to the High Satanic day called Imbolg [Groundhog's Day]
  
  George W. Bush admitted his membership in the Satanic Skull & Bones! In a most telling interview with CNN, George admitted that he was a member, but said that this experience was part of who he was! ["George Bush: My heritage is part of who I am", interview with CNN.com, August 1, 2000, with managing editor Walter Isaacson].
  
  The Reflecting Pool is critically important to the entire scheme of Satanic symbols in this area of Government Center, because in the occult belief structure, the pool is the "transfer point" for demon spirits transferring from this dimension to the spiritual dimension!
  
  Which type of lunatic do we have in office? Masonic or barely orthodox?
  
  So again we have a person in power with a hidden agenda. Is bush a born again christian: "The King James Version is a standard Bible of Bush's faith, both as an Episcopalian in his youth and now as a United Methodist".
  "Methodists stress the need for works after faith, and thus tend to fall closer to Catholic doctrine than most Protestants" Perhaps this is why the 'work' of striking al queda happened.
  
  For a true christian in The Way of Christ as president, would be to have two paths tugging at you. One path to serve the needs of the world system and the other to serve God. Clearly if God were being served everything would have to start over from scratch.
  
  So seeing as God does not need any person to do His work for him as seems to the be an itinerary of GB we must chalk up yet another fanatical attempt to blame an innocent belief system in the ever declining accuracy in the race to erase and not the race to correct humankind's activities in a quickly deprecating society.
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  YES!!!! When America's religious right puts him into office. Yes, look around the world, majority of the Religious societies are "deprecating", and It's no surprise when you look a list of the most Religious countries!
  
  Middle east, Africa, and South America are the most religious places on t earth, and the poorest, highest crime rate, ect............
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  fanatical
  maybe less coffee would be a good idea
  
  So it seems what you are saying is that in the nations whom believe in the God of the bible and the ones that believe in Jesus Christ, have been blessed and those nations have prospered.
  Interesting.
  While the nations that have funky gods are struggling.
  
  Thanks for proving my point
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  This is not completely accurate. Imbolc is actually an Irish tradition in observance of Brigit or St. Brigit as she is now called. It means "In the belly" refering to the ewe's about to give birth. It is also known as Candlemas (celebration of lights). It was/is a celebration of the start of the return of the Spring.
  
  The Satanist Religion may observe this as well, but the original celebration and the majority of those who observe this holiday today is not satanic in any way.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  i was speaking about it in the satanic tense in which case what the original meaning was doesn't even matter.
  
  shall i always speak of christmas as christs mass?
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Just clarifying a statement to ensure that people don't get the wrong idea. As you like to do with some of my comments.
  
  And Christmas...Hmmm...Seems to me that it was originally called Feast of the Nativity by the church. :)But that is for another time I suppose.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How can they get the wrong idea about
  "to the High Satanic day called Imbolg [Groundhog's Day]"
  
  it is a high satanic day
  no need for clarification at all.
  For some reason other than that you felt the need to reply
  
  We can always call a day by its other names but need we start to do that just for clarity sake.
  
  just clarifying
  
  I hope i don't mention a week day and you end up giving me the roman equivalent.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "god is running my campaign. Do you think a person who literally thinks god is above them pushing their campaign along is healthy"?
  
  Depends, God may be running him to not campaign but he doesn't know it or ignores it. I am not that swayed by people who SAY things. When they are in positions of public exposure I let the information speak how much in The Way that godly candidate is. Even so, if someone were to say, the masons are running my campaign - odd we never hear that - I would still wonder as to the depth of masonic commitment.
  Even so i would caution everyone who hears, my mother is running my campaign...
  
  are any of those above healthy? What is health? Perhaps the real truth in who runs campaigns is better displayed by those who fund the campaigns.
  
  God has never been in favor of Democracy.
  Gods system in monarchy under God, picked by God.
  
  Often i find that critics of religion need a larger worldview to realize that religion is not the cause of the problem it is actually just a good cloaking device and if certain people want to erase religion because of that cloaking ability then they really should check their heads.
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Doesn't matter if you are swayed. You will be when radical ideologies become law and are enforced upon you.
  
  I don't care about free masons. Bush was a Religious right idiot, supported by the Religious right idiots of America.
  
  It's easy to understand I used 'healthy' in a psychiatric since of the term.
  
  Nor was the bible in favor of no slaves. If we played the favor game, we would be a third world country.
  
  Often I find that Religious right idiots need a larger view of Religion in general. Just because Christianity has tamed itself within the past 50 years doesn't negate the other 1950 years of its ignorance and suffering.
  
  " Such extracurricular studies will reveal that the history of Christianity is principally a story of mankind's misery and ignorance rather than of its requited love of God." -Sam Harris
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  yes you can blame all the branches of religion that came after catholicism and that split from catholicism and you can carry around a bleeding heart cross over the atrocities that catholicism did way back then and sluff off the real stats, but in no way is all of christendom forever and ever responsible for what happened then. I certainly would not play that game neither do i take any claim to having effected that in my life.
  You can choose to not care about Masonic influence, which is probably way stronger than the earlier church influence and be happy in your cozy chair, but again i would say you would be wrong to do so.
  You can mention slaves often if you want but without understanding that slaves were treated fairly and in accordance to Gods design (not always, i suppose as 100% is rarely accurate) but the intention was excellent toward them as God intended and slavery was not like the railroad and plantation slavery that existed in America but isn't whats going on today just a little more important than living in the past?
  
  “Man is manifestly not the measure of all things. This universe is shot through with mystery. The very fact of its being, and of our own, is a mystery absolute, and the only miracle worthy of the name.”
  ― Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So, slavery was God's design? That is asinine and ridiculous.
  
  I say, let's enslave the religious. We'll treat you fairly. Do you see a problem with that?
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Like i am actually going to try to explain to you all about how God handled the slavery to you.
  
  I will say that this thing you perceive as slavery is actually more like employment.
  Please do not confuse whatever ideaology you have about post-modern slavery with the system of employment to pay off debts that worked well back in pre-modern times.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  WOW! Stunning denial of reality and one of the worst possible defenses for religious barbarism and Bronze age thinking.
  
  Slavery = Employment. <--- a well earned coveted double laughie
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Slavery = Employment. <--- a well earned coveted double laughie"
  
  Hang on, he might have meant that what we modern people think of as a slave and what the original writers of scripture thought of as a slave are different things (and if that's what he meant, he'd be right).
  
  Though to equate biblical slavery with modern employment is a bit off the mark as well.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Its not really off the mark at all.
  What modern people think of slavery is completely different than what occurred then
  It goes like this:
  got no money
  owe back rent
  can't pay
  sell your service
  paid debt.
  
  This did not mean the servant (as is translated often instead of slave) could not see his family, it did not even mean that he couldn't go home at night, it did not mean that the servant was unfed and beaten, what it did mean among other good things is that the unemployed man with no hope of paying his bills now had employment and was paying his bills.
  
  Genesis 29:18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.
  
  People could also pay a dowry by servitude.
  
  Thanks Jeff
  You have always showed signs of thinking and you actually understand posts unlike those other two reactionaries.
  kudos to you
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  Slaves were people who were captured in battles and sold as "spoils of war" or fathers who would sell their children for need of money.
  
  If any, those were few and far between, bro. The vast majority of slaves were people who were bought and sold and their slavery was for life. Even the children of slave were automatically slaves.
  
  "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
  
  "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
  
  "The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think they did know what slaves were but they had an entirely different morality regarding the buying and selling of human beings, in other words, no morality at all.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I want an apology from you too
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lies do not become us, BO. Now, I'm going to assume you are simply ill informed at this moment. Even if we begin with the assumption that the Bible is the literal word of God, a quick read of the Mosaic laws refutes your statement.
  
  I will grant you that a goat herder would have every reason to be a better slave owner than, say, a guy who owned a salt mine. And, perhaps God, knowing that slaves were a necessary evil, went out of his way to tell them how to treat them; in hopes that they would give their slave some dignity. However, a slave and an indentured servant are not the same thing and attempting to pass one off as another is still wrong.
  
  Please do some research. Educate yourself on this topic, or refrain from commenting on it. Any future claim to the effect of your previous post will be ample reason to assume that truth on the subject of historical slavery matters little to you.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "However, a slave and an indentured servant are not the same thing and attempting to pass one off as another is still wrong."
  
  Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
  
  On the other hand, slaves bought for money, or born in the house, became members of his family and lived upon his bread; they were therefore allowed to eat of that which was sanctified along with him, since the slaves were, in fact, formally incorporated into the nation.
  
  Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
  
  Whether any of his own nation, who sometimes, when become poor, were obliged to sell themselves; or a stranger. Now these being his own purchase, and always to abide with him, became part of his family.
  
  want some ketchup with that crow?
  
  I am expecting an apology from you. Do you think your ego can handle it?
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Matthew Henry's Whole Bible Commentary:
  Here is an explanation of the law, showing who were to be looked upon as belonging to the priest's family, and who not. 1. Sojourners (a temporary resident) and hired servants(indentured servant) abode not in the house for ever; they were in the family, but not of it; and therefore they might not eat of the holy things (v. 10): but the servant that was born in the house or bought with money (slave), being a heirloom to the family(personal property), though a servant, yet might eat of the holy things
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Exodus Chapter 20. Verse 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
  
  The egg on your face has been obvious to everyone, but you, so far. Can you see it now? Maybe not. Beating people might be another Christian ideal to you.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you had any insight you might wonder in depth about this passage. Again you just shove it out like the solution to all.
  Did you ever think that maybe some slaves might be poor laborers? Or the thief who stole might not be the cherry filling in the pie? Are all slaves, just happy go lucky, what if he decides to lust after the daughter or plots against the householder? I am sure in your world, as with the robber who just walks out with your tv set, there is never any cause to whump someone, so of course you put this up and then say holla!
  but again you lack a greater world view full of possibilities. Jesus made a whip and used it - so there is some credence to doing what is necessary.
  you are so tiring.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I realize that continually attempting to support an unsupportable position does wear you down. I apologize if I'm contributing to your burden. But, if you would accept facts (as opposed to making false claims) I can assure you that your task would be easier.
  
  Please view Leviticus 25: 44-46 and explain that one away. Your two step shuffle around the truth is tedious, yet oh so entertaining.
  
  It would be nice if you would simply admit that slaves were slaves; and not indentured servants. It would also be nice to think someone who claims he knows God, knows enough to understand that beating people is not acceptable behavior.
  
  I also don't understand why you fail to accept that it was the religious who Jesus was frustrated with in your example. The obnoxious religious.
  reply report
  60
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oscar Wilde - "never argue with fools, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience."
  report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Good advice.
  report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @Brother- It's convenient that you quoted "The End of Faith" since it's literally within reach of me as I am reading your comment. With this said, you can probably figure out I'm am about to call you out on taking his quote out of context. Lets look at it in its original context, because it's a anti-religion comment.
  
  “Man is manifestly not the measure of all things. This universe is shot through with mystery. The very fact of its being, and of our own, is a mystery absolute, and the only miracle worthy of the name. The consciousness that animates us is itself central to this mystery and ground for any experience we may wish to call "spiritual." No myth needs to be embraced for us to commune with the profundity of our circumstance. No personal God need be worshiped for us to live in awe at the beauty and immensity of creation. No tribal fictions need be rehearsed for us to realize, one fine day, that we do, in fact, love our neighbors, that our happiness is inextricable from their own, and that our interdependence demands that people everywhere be given the opportunity to flourish. The days of our religious identities are clearly numbered. Whether the days of civilization itself are numbered would seem to depend, rather too much, on how soon we realize this.” -Sam Harris, The End of Faith, page 227.
  
  This quote isn't up for interpretations, it clearly states what it wants too. The bible is open for interpretations, not because it isn't clear in its message, but people want to make it suit them.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  thanks for that i did not have the whole thing.
  
  “Man is manifestly not the measure of all things".
  How true it is quite biblical
  
  This universe is shot through with mystery. The very fact of its being, and of our own, is a mystery absolute, and the only miracle worthy of the name.
  This is biblical too.
  
  The consciousness that animates us is itself central to this mystery and ground for any experience we may wish to call "spiritual."
  Another nice sentence. Consciousness does experience and indeed perceives what is around us. This is biblical.
  
  No myth needs to be embraced for us to commune with the profundity of our circumstance. No personal God need be worshiped for us to live in awe at the beauty and immensity of creation.
  No it doesn't BUT, if God created it, he ought to be given thanks As i have said, One does not need God to live This Life, one NEEDS God to live the Next Life. So this is true if one only wants half the pie.
  
  No tribal fictions need be rehearsed for us to realize, one fine day, that we do, in fact, love our neighbors, that our happiness is inextricable from their own, and that our interdependence demands that people everywhere be given the opportunity to flourish.
  I may note that few people, love their enemies - in fact - where would an idea like that come from? People naturally like or love people that are nice and good to them, but love your enemies... that is from the bible. I never recall being taught that in school or from my parents nor my friends - not even my enemies.
  
  The days of our religious identities are clearly numbered.
  Yet he spouts so many religious idealisms. Now where did that come from?
  
  Whether the days of civilization itself are numbered would seem to depend, rather too much, on how soon we realize this.”
  And there is the humanist conclusion to a paragraph full of biblical theologies. Sounds like contradiction to me. He is saying: "Since i know what the bible says and i apply those principles to mankind all our problems will be solved and we don't need a God".
  
  What God has said is "You can't keep my principles without me".
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Biblical theologies are not something that the bible can take credit for. I.E. I treat people the way i like to be treated NOT on the basis of the 'Bible'. I do it because I know that "our happiness is inextricable from their own"- (The End of Faith) pg.227
  
  When you compare the passage to God in general, that's fine. I have no problem with that. But you have to leave it at that. We can not proclaim to know which religion has the right God. If Christianity does it for you, I respect that. But understanding the limitations on man made religion is to give reality respect. When one doesn't respect reality, he or she can cause a problem for everyone else.
  
  I.E. Abortion: Christian's appose abortion because they believe at the moment of conception, God puts a soul in the zygote. Since it's not fact that this happens, a Christian's opinion is only relevant when it deals with his or her family.
  
  I think people should be responsible enough that they should never need the option to abort. With that said, life is more complicated than that.
  
  Man made religion can't dictate the reality of another person. If Christianity preached the soul was created after birth, no one would care about the issue.
  
  Nevertheless, the abortion example, is in regards, to the bigger picture of Man made religion needing to mind its own business.
  
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  bible does not teach that God puts a soul in a zygote. Why people protest abortion I do not know. What is good for christians doesn't apply to those who don't believe, i think, so why force it on them? I think this is a harsh branch of legalism and ought not to happen. And Christianity should leave aside trying to mold people.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Do you think Islamic suicide bombers would blow themselves up if they only believed in heaven? No they wouldn't. They blow themselves up because, they think they 'know' something, which in fact, can not be know, it's unknowable"
  
  Some branches of islam believe in reincarnation, some do not. To those that do, reincarnation would be a good option because after doing this great work for allah, and dying, the next life would be better.
  
  Sometimes a person is 'hired to suicide'. Life being tough over there and families being strongly united a man living in poverty can be hired to do almost anything, including short flight missions with minimum training and a guarantee that their families will be provided for.
  [time magazine]
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I UNDERSTAND THAT. DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THE ANALOGY AND CONTEXT OF THE COMMENT YOU QUOTED ME ON?
  
  All caps is annoying. Wrapping semantics tightly around my comments is annoying, also.
  
  I know the ends and outs of Islam from a basic view. Nothing you told me about their culture is new to me. But you do understand the analogy I was using to explain the harms of inter twining belief and knowledge together, right? Don't reiterate my comments with 'smoke and mirrors' when the context of them are to be understood rather easily
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  interesting the smoke and mirrors fallacy is again not applicable.
  
  i answered your question as to why they blow themselves up.
  that is all i was required to do.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I can still take solitude in the fact that religion has been on the down slope for half a century now
  
  Looking at our pie chart from relgioustolerance.org we see that a whopping 90% of the world has adopted some belief in some god. Which would say that this decline you speak of is vewy vewy vewy small
  
  Sorry fellahs i gotta give that post a
  -2
  partly for making bold assumptions that are unfounded
  partly for poor research
  partly for promoting ignorance
  
  make that a
  -5 instead
  
  oh
  and for not liking cute dinosaur rides
  
  -10
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  15% of the worlds population believes in god but not man made religion (Deism). Also, within that 15% is agnostic, secular, atheist, ect......
  
  Sure your side of the fence is 30 % and mine is 15%.
  
  50 years ago, Christianity in the USA was 95% now it's 80%. How much of the 80% are 'really' Christians? 80% of the country doesn't go to church right? So, they can't be that content in believing in Christ.
  
  It would be an insult to me and the "fellahs" if you gave my post a positive number.
  
  Don't be mad at my picture because we all know you have an identical "cute dinosaur ride" inside of your windowless van that has a free candy for children bumper sticker!!!! lmao
  
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lmao.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lets not forget how much the population itself has increased.
  208,219 daily.
  
  50 yrs ago 3.080 billion call that 4 billion
  today 6,979,600,000 call that 7 billion
  
  3 billion difference
  and only a 15% decline
  
  We need to look at the bible to see that Jesus had approx 5,000 people listening, he sent out 70, he had 12 disciples and 3 inner circle disciples.
  So i do not think God is doing so poorly at all.
  reply report
  61
  secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am in the middle of a series of hubs on the decline and fall of Christianity. The numbers certainly demonstrate that Christianity has significantly declined in the western world. Whether the measure is church attendance, regularity of prayer, authority given to religion, the importance of religion in people's lives--all are down. The trajectory is down. Has been for centuries.
  
  Over 70% of Americans call themselves "Christian." Over 90% have had premarital or extramarital sex. (cue embarrassing trumpet sound wah, wah, waaaahhhh....)
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  uncue embarrassing trumpet sound.....
  
  Jesus came to forgive sins of which premarital sex is one of them. So as it may be true that many have had PS it is not a reflection necessarily of having PS after conversion but rather prior to conversion.
  
  Start your wah, waaaahhhhs now
  
  I cant wait for the hub
  reply report
  61
  secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I see. So 90% of Americans were not born into a Christian community/ church/ tradition, but rather an agnostic or secular one. They then grow up, have sex outside of marriage, and THEN eventually convert to Christianity.
  
  So the average American, according to you, knows nothing about the Christian religion until, say, age 18 to 25 at the earliest.
  
  Give me a break.
  
  And come up with your own one-liners.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I did not say that at all.
  reply report
  61
  secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  OK
  reply report
60
ikechiawazieposted 12 years ago
Thanks for the clarification. I agree that some christian fundamentalist could go the extreme but it all has to do with balance. People must learn to know the truth for themselves and not hang on idols.
reply report
1. 0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No problem. Thanks for commenting on my forum!
  reply report
2. 0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  same with the non believers and the atheists
  
  there are fanatics on both sides of the fence.
  Shall we just erase them all?
  
  and again it doesnt matter what others do, what is important is what you do!
  Often the problem in society is that others look at that bad christian but they never think that they can be a better christian.
  Kudos
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you erase what you call non-believer and atheist fanatics, religious fanaticism will still exist and may even increase. But, if you erase religious fanaticism, there is no need for atheism and non-believers to be fanatical and that will disappear along with the religious fanatics.
  
  Simple solution.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds reasonable, the only problem is if you educate the fanaticism out of the religious who's going to help them buy their cars?
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Simple solution that erases the fact God exists.
  So since there is no way around it, your just gonna have to deal with it.
  
  enjoy your fanaticism along the way.
  
  I sold the miata. It was attracting the wrong type of crowd for the wrong reasons.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but that isn't a fact and anyone who claims it is a fact is obviously lying.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh yea...obviously (<<<dripping with sarcasm)
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  awww can't i have a fact unless you agree with it?
  Are all my facts dependent upon your nod of agreement?
  
  Are you saying that what is fact to me; has to, HAS to, HAS to, be fact with you? Do i really have to run all those things that i consider facts by you?
  reply report
  60
  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That is actually what a fact IS the agreement of your peers on one item IS what makes a thing a fact.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, see, a fact is something that's true and provable.
  
  The existence of God may be true, but it is not provable.
  
  You're entitled to your own beliefs, but nobody is entitled to their own facts.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Very succinct. I like that.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Things that are proven to me will be facts. Beliefs are in one category and facts in another.
  I don't believe that God has proven His existence, it is a fact that God exists.
  What are facts to me that don't fall into belief category will forever remain facts and this is just "christianese talk" which like its own reality, the reality of Gods world, is sufficient on its own.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not at all, they are entirely dependent on reality.
  
  *hint* not christian reality. *hint*
  
  Of course not, I can understand the facts of reality and don't need your help with them at all.
  
  There is no fact that any gods exist. That would be a bold faced lie and you know it.
  reply report
59
Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago
Anti-semantic? Is that supposed to be ANTI-SEMITIC? JEFF Are you saying that scotsmen don't exist? And, then there is INSPIRATION. CRAN that 15% does NOT include Agnostics. They sit on the fence, swaying one way, then the other. SECULAR includes aggies and atheists (Non-Religious Authorities) and ATHEISTS certainly are NOT in the 15%. By definition of your statement, the 15% DO believe in a God figure.
reply report
1. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "JEFF Are you saying that scotsmen don't exist?"
  , No, I was referring to the "No real Scotsman" logical fallacy.
  reply report
2. 0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @druid -The argue is against organized religion, in which agnostics are. At least I am ,and every Agnostic that I talk with. I use 15% for everyone not on the man made religion side of the fence.
  
  '15% of the worlds population believes in god, but not man made religion'
  
  My comment clearly states that. If you would slow down on trying to critique everyone, you would have got that.
  reply report
48
Graphicfuryposted 12 years ago
I'm sorry but those of you who deny the presence of god and his existence are just ignorant. How can you look at the beatuy in this world and claim that god not behind it? How can you explain the miracles that happen everyday? God is here, he is real. Not like Santa, or the Easter Bunny like we belived when we were younger. And for you religous one's on this post i'm see comments like. "there's no proof, you just have to believe." this is so wrong and you as well and ignorant. There is proof of god in our lives, and all around us; from the beauty of nature to the people who over-coem disease. There is only no proof of god if you chose to see it that way, if you accept god and trust and love him and accept his existence you will be able to see god in the aspects of life that you've been neglecting.
reply report
1. 61
  secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think you made a few errors there. Here, let me clean that up for you:
  
  I'm sorry but those of you who claim the presence of god and his existence are just ignorant. How can you look at the beauty in this world and claim that god is behind it? How can you claim that miracles happen everyday? God is not here, he is not real. Like Santa, or the Easter Bunny like we believed when we were younger.
  
  There is no proof of god in our lives, anywhere around us; from the beauty of nature to the people who overcome disease. There is only proof of god if you choose to see it that way, if you do not accept god nor trust and love him nor accept his existence you will be able to see lack of god in the aspects of life that you've been neglecting.
  
  There, much better
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Like Santa, or the Easter Bunny like we believed when we were younger
  
  Santa has christ like qualities of which i will not go into detail about. It seems this can be construed as "a teaching of God but at a childs level with no satan included". Its a very childish and absorbent way of showing christlike qualities. Isn't that kinda what non believers here have been begging for? A harmless indoctrination of children to prepare a way for their belief in God.
  
  Easter bunny, although the bunny part baffles me but this has easter reference, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Another soft soaped teaching about a resurrection.
  
  Albeit, both these are a deception they serve as a preparatory base for higher teachings when the child is old enough.
  So yes these are childish beliefs but as children what kind of beliefs do you want that purport goodness, giving, cheer and a host of other divine qualities.
  
  So complain about them if you want, but the core values of christianity are represented and that is dominantly where Good things are talked about.
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  The easter bunny comes from Pagan traditions. Ostara (Old English for Easter) is the name of a Germanic pagan goddess and she was symbolized with a Rabbit. It is a celebration of fertility and the Bunny or Rabbit and eggs were and still are, to some symbols of fertility.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  yah, neither are really christian beliefs no matter how hard they tried. So many pagan beliefs are fertility oriented.
  reply report
  61
  secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So yes these are childish beliefs but as children what kind of beliefs do you want that purport goodness, giving, cheer and a host of other divine qualities.
  
  This line reveals something important: The assumption that people need childish or imaginary motifs and concepts to uphold moral values. Obviously this is wrong, and is contradicted by the simple existence of nonreligious people (who were raised with no religion) who are nevertheless moral.
  
  But weren't these nonreligious people raised in a culture founded on those religious values? This is in turn contradicted by the existence of prosperous, safe and coherent societies today that have no religious or supernatural underpinnings, only secular and humanistic ones.
  
  Moreover, there is no rational, reliable way of determining which moral commands are really from the supernatural source and which aren't.
  
  There is nothing "divine" about goodness or giving. It is humans who choose to treat each other well or poorly in the real world.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  People don't NEED motifs and concepts to uphold moral values, obviously, there are many moral people without a god and that is fine.
  That doesn't speak for the people during OT times.
  That doesn't speak loudly that there is no God either.
  It just means that those who choose to live up to Gods standards, will in time surpass human moral standards and obtain what God has in the next life also.
  reply report
2. 0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @graph I would like to know if you are talking about god outside of man made religion or are you talking about Jesussss?
  reply report
78
DoubleScorpionposted 12 years ago
Smith's Bible Dictionary:

Slave
The institution of slavery was recognized, though not established, by the Mosaic law with a view to mitigate its hardship and to secure to every man his ordinary rights. I. Hebrew slaves. --

The circumstances under which a Hebrew might be reduced to servitude were-- (1) poverty; (2) the commission of theft; and (3) the exercise of paternal authority. In the first case, a man who had mortgaged his property, and was unable to support his family, might sell himself to another Hebrew, with a view both to obtain maintenance and perchance a surplus sufficient to redeem his property. (Leviticus 25:25,39) (2) The commission of theft rendered a person liable to servitude whenever restitution could not be made on the scale prescribed by the law. (Exodus 22:1,3) The thief was bound to work out the value of his restitution money in the service of him on whom the theft had been committed. (3) The exercise of paternal authority was limited to the sale of a daughter of tender age to be a maidservant, with the ulterior view of her becoming the concubine of the purchaser. (Exodus 21:7)
The servitude of a Hebrew might be terminated in three ways: (1) by the satisfaction or the remission of all claims against him; (2) by the recurrence of the year of jubilee, (Leviticus 25:40) and (3) the expiration of six years from the time that his servitude commenced. (Exodus 21:2; 15:12) (4) To the above modes of obtaining liberty the rabbinists added, as a fourth, the death of the master without leaving a son, there being no power of claiming the slave on the part of any heir except a son. If a servant did not desire to avail himself of the opportunity of leaving his service, he was to signify his intention in a formal manner before the judges (or more exactly at the place of judgment), and then the master was to take him to the door-post, and to bore his ear through with an awl, (Exodus 21:6) driving the awl into or "unto the door," as stated in (15:17) and thus fixing the servant to it. A servant who had submitted to this operation remained, according to the words of the law, a servant "forever." (Exodus 21:6) These words are however, interpreted by Josephus and by the rabbinsts as meaning until the year of jubilee.
The condition of a Hebrew servant was by no means intolerable. His master was admonished to treat him, not "as a bond-servant, but as an hired servant and as a sojourner," and, again, "not to rule over him with rigor." (Leviticus 25:39,40,43) At the termination of his servitude the master was enjoined not to "let him go away empty," but to remunerate him liberally out of his flock, his floor and his wine-press. (15:13,14) In the event of a Hebrew becoming the servant of a "stranger," meaning a non-Hebrew, the servitude could be terminated only in two ways, viz. by the arrival of the year of jubilee, or by the repayment to the master of the purchase money paid for the servant, after deducting a sum for the value of his services proportioned to the length of his servitude. (Leviticus 25:47-55) A Hebrew woman might enter into voluntary servitude on the score of poverty, and in this case she was entitled to her freedom after six years service, together with her usual gratuity at leaving, just as in the case of a man. (15:12,13) Thus far we have seen little that is objectionable in the condition of Hebrew servants. In respect to marriage there were some peculiarities which, to our ideas, would be regarded as hardships. A master might, for instance, give a wife to a Hebrew servant for the time of his servitude, the wife being in this case, it must be remarked, not only a slave but a non-Hebrew. Should he leave when his term had expired, his wife and children would remain the absolute property of the master. (Exodus 21:4,5) Again, a father might sell his young daughter to a Hebrew, with a view either of marrying her himself or of giving her to his son. (Exodus 21:7-9) It diminishes the apparent harshness of this proceeding if we look on the purchase money as in the light of a dowry given, as was not unusual, to the parents of the bride; still more, if we accept the rabbinical view that the consent of the maid was required before the marriage could take place. The position of a maiden thus sold by her father was subject to the following regulations: (1) She could not "go out as the men-servants do," i.e. she could not leave at the termination of six years, or in the year of jubilee, if her master was willing to fulfill the object for which he had purchased her. (2) Should he not wish to marry her, he should call upon her friends to procure her release by the repayment of the purchase money. (3) If he betrothed her to his son, he was bound to make such provision for her as he would for one of his own daughters. (4) If either he or his son, having married her, took a second wife, it should not be to the prejudice of the first. (5) If neither of the three first specified alternatives took place, the maid was entitled to immediate and gratuitous liberty. (Exodus 21:7-11) The custom of reducing Hebrews to servitude appears to have fallen into disuse subsequent to the Babylonish captivity. Vast numbers of Hebrews were reduced to slavery as war-captives at different periods by the Phoenicians, (Joel 3:6) the Philistines, (Joel 3:6; Amos 1:6), the Syrians, 1 Macc. 3:42; 2 Macc. 8:11, the Egyptians, Joseph Ant. xii. 2,3, and above all by the Romans. Joseph. B.C. vi. 9,3. II. Non-Hebrew slaves. --
The majority of non-Hebrew slaves were war-captives, either of the Canaanites who had survived the general extermination of their race under Joshua or such as were conquered from the other surrounding nations. (Numbers 31:26) ff. Besides these, many were obtained by purchase from foreign slave-dealers, (Leviticus 25:44,45) and others may have been resident foreigners who were reduced to this state by either poverty or crime. The children of slaves remained slaves, being the class described as "born in the house," (Genesis 14:14; 17:12; Ecclesiastes 2:7) and hence the number was likely to increase as time went on. The average value of a slave appears to have been thirty shekels. (Exodus 21:32)
That the slave might be manumitted appears from (Exodus 21:26,27; Leviticus 19:20)
The slave is described as the "possession" of his master, apparently with a special reference to the power which the latter had of disposing of him to his heirs, as he would any other article of personal property. (Leviticus 25:45,46) But, on the other hand, provision was made for the protection of his person. (Exodus 21:20; Leviticus 24:17,22) A minor personal injury, such as the loss of an eye or a tooth, was to be recompensed by giving the servant his liberty. (Exodus 21:26,27) The position of the slave in regard to religious privileges was favorable. He was to be circumcised, (Genesis 17:12) and hence was entitled to partake of the paschal sacrifice, (Exodus 12:44) as well as of the other religious festivals. (12:12,18; 16:11,14) The occupations of slaves were of a menial character, as implied in (Leviticus 25:39) consisting partly in the work of the house and partly in personal attendance on the master. It will be seen that the whole tendency of the Bible legislation was to mitigate slavery, making it little than hired service, and to abolish it, as indeed it was practically abolished among the Jews six hundred years before Christ.
reply report
1. 0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't see you response before I posted mine. Yours was oh so much better, but I fear some wil never admit the facts.
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I still have hope.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're a nice man.
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I try to be. Some test my patience and good nature at times.
  
  Edit: I wonder if anyone would be interested in applying for the PELL Grant to take a few College classes. Most people that make less than $50K a year qualify for at least some money.
  
  It might be useful avenue for someone looking to further their education or studies.
  reply report
2. 0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for the persuasive evidence of a kinder slavitude/servantude that what others had stubbornly thought.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  + 1
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How a Hebrew was supposed to treat a Hebrew was meant to be compassionate, but since Hebrews were not the only slaves in Israel I think you are grasping at straws with that response.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Did you even read it? Look here...
  
  "The majority of non-Hebrew slaves were war-captives ...many were obtained by purchase from foreign slave-dealers, (Leviticus 25:44,45)
  
  The children of slaves remained slaves...
  
  The slave is described as the "possession" of his master, apparently with a special reference to the power which the latter had of disposing of him to his heirs, as he would any other article of personal property. (Leviticus 25:45,46)"
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am curious of something...If God didn't support slavery, then why didn't he just add it to the laws instead of giving guidelines on how they should or should not be treated. How the Hebrew person of servitude was treated and how outsider slaves were treated is vastly different.
  
  It would be easy.
  Just like "Thou shall not Kill."
  God could have said "Thou shall not own slaves"
  
  I wonder if everyone knows the year of Jubilee was every 50th year. 7 cycles of the Sabbatical years(7 x 7 years=49years, Jubilee year is the 50th year). So even if this apply to the Outsider slave (Debated if it did or not) 50 years is a long time to be a slave. And for those Hebrews who decided to stay with their master after thier six years and have their ear pierced, 50 years is again a long time to work for someone (I hope they got raises, because the retirement pension wasn't the best).
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do Unto Others as you would have them Do Unto You.
  
  ...So if you being a slave is ok with you, then I guess having slaves would also be ok???
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So it would seem.
  
  I think that passage gets changed into..."Do unto others before they can do it to you"
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately, I think you're right...
  reply report
60
LookingForWaldenposted 12 years ago
Someone just got served... Again.
reply report
1. 70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's nothing new.
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's more enjoyable because he insults people when he thinks he is right. It makes him look exponentially foolish.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yet doesn't recognize it. That's even funnier.
  reply report
  60
  LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yup, totally oblivious. Lol.
  reply report
60
LookingForWaldenposted 12 years ago
I thought it was an intentional pun.
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It was... some people have no sense of humor at all. What can you do...
  
  ***at least Ashton got it.
  reply report
  0
  Cranfordjsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I was fighting sarcastic-ism with sarcastic-ism
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Religious Ignorance

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Religious Ignorance

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies