paul, i think it was him at least said that god wished that everyone "be as i am", and dont christians see this as proof being as paul was a virgin, that god wanted everyone to be virgins. But, paul might have been talking about hair colour, god might have liked pauls hair. He could have been talking about race, gender, anything, if anyone knows what this passage does mean, and if i was wrong, plz tell me, without shouting
Bible Tampering
- Thread starter razz
- Start date
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
alain wrote..............
paul, i think it was him at least said that god wished that everyone "be as i am", and dont christians see this as proof being as paul was a virgin, that god wanted everyone to be virgins. But, paul might have been talking about hair colour, god might have liked pauls hair. He could have been talking about race, gender, anything, if anyone knows what this passage does mean, and if i was wrong, plz tell me, without shouting
Are you referring to the comments in the first epistle to the Corinthians wherein Paul wrote:
"Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.
But I say to the unmarried and to the widows that it is good for them to remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn."
I can think of no other passage that would be even close to what you are asking. Now, I will ask something. Why would you ask such a question in the first place, and why would ask it with so little information? Just wondered.
PMT
paul, i think it was him at least said that god wished that everyone "be as i am", and dont christians see this as proof being as paul was a virgin, that god wanted everyone to be virgins. But, paul might have been talking about hair colour, god might have liked pauls hair. He could have been talking about race, gender, anything, if anyone knows what this passage does mean, and if i was wrong, plz tell me, without shouting
Are you referring to the comments in the first epistle to the Corinthians wherein Paul wrote:
"Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.
But I say to the unmarried and to the widows that it is good for them to remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn."
I can think of no other passage that would be even close to what you are asking. Now, I will ask something. Why would you ask such a question in the first place, and why would ask it with so little information? Just wondered.
PMT
Aaron Rider
Registered Member
Paul's statements about marriage were stated as personal opinions, not God's plan.
--Aaron
Edited by Aaron Rider
Correction: some of Paul's statements about marriage were personal opinions.
--Aaron
Edited by Aaron Rider
Correction: some of Paul's statements about marriage were personal opinions.
Last edited:
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
Good Grief, Alian, Think! I Most Seriously Doubt That Saul Of Tarsus Was A Man With No Experience In Sexual Activities. He Was A Persecuter Of The Believers, A Well Educated And Wordly Figure, Who Wrought Havoc Before His Conversion.
As For Our Population Being In Jeopardy, Perhaps Fewer Offspring Would Be Most Advantageous, Particularly In Certain Areas. ........pmt
As For Our Population Being In Jeopardy, Perhaps Fewer Offspring Would Be Most Advantageous, Particularly In Certain Areas. ........pmt
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
Quoting MARKX:
There was a thread about Paul being homo sexual few months ago, P.M, I would like you to take a look and tell me what do you think of it.
Oh, you know what, very few men who are now deceased and were well known have not been thus accused. I do not undertand the reason for it. So, what do I think, I think some people need something to think about that might be beneficial to the world.
Not speaking of you, of course, and since you asked my opinion, I will give it.
I, like everyone else, know only what I read and hear and what my intuition and good common sense tells me. Paul wrote some scalding comments about homosexual behavior in his letter to the Romans. It is in the early part of the book of Romans if you care to read it. It has been my impression that he was speaking particularly of perversion, which to me is not always homosexuality, or is homosexuality always perversion. Considering that he wrote as he did, and the times in which he lived, I do not believe that he was a homosexual.
In spite of the so-called advances of our society, it is a bit worrisome that people go so far out of their way to prove such a thing about someone now deceased. I did not read the thread. When I have more time I will check it out, and let you know if I have further comment. Let me tell you this, more recently, I have heard Lord Byron and Spinoza called homosexual. Why one would take the time to publish such opinions is beyond me, unless they have an agenda of their own, which is my guess.
I responded to this only because I found no hint of malice in your question. Do you think the person that brought it up looks to Paul as a mentor? Or, is it an attempt to demean him, or take away from his words?
Cordially, PMT
There was a thread about Paul being homo sexual few months ago, P.M, I would like you to take a look and tell me what do you think of it.
Oh, you know what, very few men who are now deceased and were well known have not been thus accused. I do not undertand the reason for it. So, what do I think, I think some people need something to think about that might be beneficial to the world.
Not speaking of you, of course, and since you asked my opinion, I will give it.
I, like everyone else, know only what I read and hear and what my intuition and good common sense tells me. Paul wrote some scalding comments about homosexual behavior in his letter to the Romans. It is in the early part of the book of Romans if you care to read it. It has been my impression that he was speaking particularly of perversion, which to me is not always homosexuality, or is homosexuality always perversion. Considering that he wrote as he did, and the times in which he lived, I do not believe that he was a homosexual.
In spite of the so-called advances of our society, it is a bit worrisome that people go so far out of their way to prove such a thing about someone now deceased. I did not read the thread. When I have more time I will check it out, and let you know if I have further comment. Let me tell you this, more recently, I have heard Lord Byron and Spinoza called homosexual. Why one would take the time to publish such opinions is beyond me, unless they have an agenda of their own, which is my guess.
I responded to this only because I found no hint of malice in your question. Do you think the person that brought it up looks to Paul as a mentor? Or, is it an attempt to demean him, or take away from his words?
Cordially, PMT
It's an absolute must. Without actually being able to prove anything about anyone from times past, how can anyone make claims over what they were, how they acted, whether anything they wrote was true? At this moment in time, you can't even provide enough evidence to suggest jesus was a real person - and that is a bad position to be in. All you have to work on, (as you said), is a book with some text in it. You can't corroborate or prove any of that text, (along with the other countless religious texts in existence), and as such surely can't accept any specific one as utter truth? And yet for some reason, you accept every word the bible says, even after all the revising and distorting that it has suffered. Tell me PM, why don't you just accept the Nordic belief system, (eg)? It is no different than the bible, in the fact that you can't prove or disprove any of it. Here's an example:
This is completely worthless. Unless you were there at the time and knew him personally, you are in no position to be saying what he was like, or what he did. You can only make these assumptions because a book says so... Funny thing is, you can't even tell me for sure who wrote the book, whether they suffered from one of the millions of forms of mental illness, (including schizophrenia, multiple personality syndrome, a compulsive liar etc). As such, I can only state it's not really the right time to be claiming one of any of the religious beliefs as true over any of the others.
Quick question: Is there a valid reason why you believe one specific text over any other?
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
SnakeLord:
I am not into absolutes.
You have contradicted yourself, and made erronerous statements. I cannot be sure what upset you, but you will get nowhere with me by being so hateful. I speak with as much sincerity and accuracy as I possibly can. Why would you say such things?
I have never been unkind to you............PMT
I am not into absolutes.
You have contradicted yourself, and made erronerous statements. I cannot be sure what upset you, but you will get nowhere with me by being so hateful. I speak with as much sincerity and accuracy as I possibly can. Why would you say such things?
I have never been unkind to you............PMT
I'm sure you'll be gracious enough to point these specific parts out for me. Thanks.
I'm sorry, where was I "so hateful"? Again, I'm sure you'll be gracious enough to point it out to me.
Such things as what?
Anyway, all that aside... Will you at least answer my question now? Just incase you missed it amongst all that hatred I apparently showed, I shall restate it for you now:
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
FOR SNAKELORD ~
When I chose not to address your seemingly much practiced words, you call upon me to be gracious. I can take just about anything, but in the future; do not misquote me if you want me to be “gracious.” You may hate me, and what I stand for, but deal with me like an equal, or not at all. I am very serious about what I believe, and yet never try to cram it down anyone’s throat, not even yours. So, understand right now that I do not care what you believe about Paul, God, or the cost of rice in China, and understand that I am answering you only because you asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You want “specific parts” where you contradicted yourself. Okay... There are two that I noticed.
(1) You wrote: “And yet for some reason,
a/ you accept every word the Bible says, even after all the revising and distorting that it has suffered.” (Those are your exact words.) Then later you ask:
b/ “Is there a valid reason why you believe one specific text over the other.” (Those are also your exact words.)
(2) “After I made the statement that I found it a bit worrisome that people go so far out of their way to prove a person’s sexual preference, you wrote:
a/ “It’s an absolute must.” And, you continued,
b/“Without actually being able to prove anything about anyone from times past, how can anyone make claims over what they were, how they acted.” However, later, when talking about Paul, you so boldly informed me:
b/ “This is completely worthless. Unless you were there at the time and knew him personally, you are in no position to be saying what he was like, or what he did. You can only make these assumptions because a book says so.”
You want “specific parts” where you made erroneous statements. Let me borrow from a paragraph above: “you accept every word the Bible says”
Here this: I have never said such a thing, nor implied it.
You wrote: You can’t even provide enough evidence to suggest (J)esus was a real person-and that is a bad position to be in.
In the first part of the sentence, the word “suggest” kills your argument. History is full of “suggestions” that Jesus Christ lived on this earth. Aside from that, you have no idea what I can prove, not by any experience or written matter, you only assume to know.
You wrote: “All you have to work on, (as you said) is a book with some text in it.”
What a statement. That is not all I have, but yes, I did refer to the Book of Romans, a letter it was to some people at Rome. I quoted no text. I have yet to read anything to prove that Paul did not write that letter to the Romans.
You wrote: “You can’t corroborate or prove any of that text.”
What text? I said scalding comments; I did not quote from any text.
You wrote: Funny thing, you can’t even tell me for sure who wrote the book.
You seem to assume much. If the book of Romans is the “book” to which you refer, Paul is the author, that very same Paul, who was called Saul before his conversion, and he was a well-education man dedicated to the cause of ridding the area of Christians …(before his conversion). There is much history on Paul for anyone interested in learning about him. Spinoza acknowledged him, as did countless other biblical and historical writings.
As for my post to Alian, “I most seriously doubt,” is not an absolute.
Your last question was: “Is there a valid reason why you believe one specific text over any other?
Yes, there is.
_________________________
Let me quote you something:
Give me always the patience to listen, and a cheerful heart to embrace the life you have given me. Deliver me from undue pride or any other feelings that would be garbage in your sight. Correct that which is lacking in me, and enlighten my heart and mind that I may never add to the sorrow that grips this world.
I am attempting to quite my anger for the disrespect you have shown me, and thought I would share this. If you hate it, call it names.
Okay, now I will answer your last question, as I am reasonably sure that you wanted something besides “yes.” I thought I was being funny in a rather sarcastic way, but it is not a respectful way to answer your question. I trust that now I can open my heart and tell you what you want to know, because it is not so easy to answer such a question.
First, I agree with the statement that we do not learn anything that we do not already believe. When I first heard that, (I cannot recall where), I coughed and spurted a few seconds, before it began to sink in. Oh, so that is what it is, thought I. You know how someone says something, and you say, “yeah,” as though a light just went on in your mind, well that is because that knowledge already was, and a light did go on.
I am a bit of a cynic, and one of those people who probably too often says, “Well, not necessarily……….,” because I can usually see another side of something, or many other sides. I can guess why you were so hateful. You are probably sick and tired of the superstition and fear that guides so much of the religions of this world. It used to make me angry, but I never attacked people, no matter how ridiculous I thought their beliefs were, never, even when they attacked or worse yet implied that I was spiritually asleep or some such thing. I just swallowed it.
It takes little for some of them to get mighty brave. These do not do that anymore, at least not twice. When someone starts, I take a deep breath and listen; when they finish, I speak the truth. That is all. I do it very well, and you know why? I do it well because I no longer try to defend myself, nor will I defend my beliefs to you or to anyone else, nor am I going to try to prove that God is. If He is an illusion to you, then so will I be an illusion!
For some reason your email really frosted me. Here I was answering one of the oddest questions, with my best effort, including all the qualifying that anyone should ever need, and you yank me into some unbefitting argumentative whirlpool of accusations.
When I read any text from any book, I do my best to keep an open mind. When I read the Bible, I usually read a whole book, New Testament. I like the book of Acts, and love the poetry of the K.J. Version of the first chapter of Hebrews. It is a beautiful piece of work. I like reading what is termed The Pauline Epistles. There are thirteen of these. Romans and six others are considered by most to be Paul’s, and the others either dictated by him in part, or constructed by someone else on his behalf or in the confines of his ministry, so far as I know. If you know differently, then I have no quarrel with that either. I guess I do not care enough to worry about it. If I like what it says, I like it. If I can use it, I use it. I consider the times in which it was written. I have always liked Paul, and have studied his writings and his history extensively, but have not gotten into any debates about whether or not he wrote all 13 epistles. Okay?
That is about as close as I can come to telling you why I believe one text over another, because it is not so much that disbelieve but some are opinions, and some are not applicable to now, and most of those are identified. There are parables and allegories, and prophecies. I do not feel that anyone is trying to fool me. Let me say this: I take the Bible seriously, but not necessarily always literal in the Old Testament in particular, nor should I. Much of it is not meant to be literal. There are errors, yes, but not serious enough to get in an uproar about.
I do agree with Spinoza, (and I have said this many times, because I think it is a statement of tremendous faith): (paraphrased) if every bible were burned or otherwise destroyed, we would still have the Word of God,….. nothing and no one can take the Word of God from us. [He said it better.]
I wish you well.
PMT
When I chose not to address your seemingly much practiced words, you call upon me to be gracious. I can take just about anything, but in the future; do not misquote me if you want me to be “gracious.” You may hate me, and what I stand for, but deal with me like an equal, or not at all. I am very serious about what I believe, and yet never try to cram it down anyone’s throat, not even yours. So, understand right now that I do not care what you believe about Paul, God, or the cost of rice in China, and understand that I am answering you only because you asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You want “specific parts” where you contradicted yourself. Okay... There are two that I noticed.
(1) You wrote: “And yet for some reason,
a/ you accept every word the Bible says, even after all the revising and distorting that it has suffered.” (Those are your exact words.) Then later you ask:
b/ “Is there a valid reason why you believe one specific text over the other.” (Those are also your exact words.)
(2) “After I made the statement that I found it a bit worrisome that people go so far out of their way to prove a person’s sexual preference, you wrote:
a/ “It’s an absolute must.” And, you continued,
b/“Without actually being able to prove anything about anyone from times past, how can anyone make claims over what they were, how they acted.” However, later, when talking about Paul, you so boldly informed me:
b/ “This is completely worthless. Unless you were there at the time and knew him personally, you are in no position to be saying what he was like, or what he did. You can only make these assumptions because a book says so.”
You want “specific parts” where you made erroneous statements. Let me borrow from a paragraph above: “you accept every word the Bible says”
Here this: I have never said such a thing, nor implied it.
You wrote: You can’t even provide enough evidence to suggest (J)esus was a real person-and that is a bad position to be in.
In the first part of the sentence, the word “suggest” kills your argument. History is full of “suggestions” that Jesus Christ lived on this earth. Aside from that, you have no idea what I can prove, not by any experience or written matter, you only assume to know.
You wrote: “All you have to work on, (as you said) is a book with some text in it.”
What a statement. That is not all I have, but yes, I did refer to the Book of Romans, a letter it was to some people at Rome. I quoted no text. I have yet to read anything to prove that Paul did not write that letter to the Romans.
You wrote: “You can’t corroborate or prove any of that text.”
What text? I said scalding comments; I did not quote from any text.
You wrote: Funny thing, you can’t even tell me for sure who wrote the book.
You seem to assume much. If the book of Romans is the “book” to which you refer, Paul is the author, that very same Paul, who was called Saul before his conversion, and he was a well-education man dedicated to the cause of ridding the area of Christians …(before his conversion). There is much history on Paul for anyone interested in learning about him. Spinoza acknowledged him, as did countless other biblical and historical writings.
As for my post to Alian, “I most seriously doubt,” is not an absolute.
Your last question was: “Is there a valid reason why you believe one specific text over any other?
Yes, there is.
_________________________
Let me quote you something:
Give me always the patience to listen, and a cheerful heart to embrace the life you have given me. Deliver me from undue pride or any other feelings that would be garbage in your sight. Correct that which is lacking in me, and enlighten my heart and mind that I may never add to the sorrow that grips this world.
I am attempting to quite my anger for the disrespect you have shown me, and thought I would share this. If you hate it, call it names.
Okay, now I will answer your last question, as I am reasonably sure that you wanted something besides “yes.” I thought I was being funny in a rather sarcastic way, but it is not a respectful way to answer your question. I trust that now I can open my heart and tell you what you want to know, because it is not so easy to answer such a question.
First, I agree with the statement that we do not learn anything that we do not already believe. When I first heard that, (I cannot recall where), I coughed and spurted a few seconds, before it began to sink in. Oh, so that is what it is, thought I. You know how someone says something, and you say, “yeah,” as though a light just went on in your mind, well that is because that knowledge already was, and a light did go on.
I am a bit of a cynic, and one of those people who probably too often says, “Well, not necessarily……….,” because I can usually see another side of something, or many other sides. I can guess why you were so hateful. You are probably sick and tired of the superstition and fear that guides so much of the religions of this world. It used to make me angry, but I never attacked people, no matter how ridiculous I thought their beliefs were, never, even when they attacked or worse yet implied that I was spiritually asleep or some such thing. I just swallowed it.
It takes little for some of them to get mighty brave. These do not do that anymore, at least not twice. When someone starts, I take a deep breath and listen; when they finish, I speak the truth. That is all. I do it very well, and you know why? I do it well because I no longer try to defend myself, nor will I defend my beliefs to you or to anyone else, nor am I going to try to prove that God is. If He is an illusion to you, then so will I be an illusion!
For some reason your email really frosted me. Here I was answering one of the oddest questions, with my best effort, including all the qualifying that anyone should ever need, and you yank me into some unbefitting argumentative whirlpool of accusations.
When I read any text from any book, I do my best to keep an open mind. When I read the Bible, I usually read a whole book, New Testament. I like the book of Acts, and love the poetry of the K.J. Version of the first chapter of Hebrews. It is a beautiful piece of work. I like reading what is termed The Pauline Epistles. There are thirteen of these. Romans and six others are considered by most to be Paul’s, and the others either dictated by him in part, or constructed by someone else on his behalf or in the confines of his ministry, so far as I know. If you know differently, then I have no quarrel with that either. I guess I do not care enough to worry about it. If I like what it says, I like it. If I can use it, I use it. I consider the times in which it was written. I have always liked Paul, and have studied his writings and his history extensively, but have not gotten into any debates about whether or not he wrote all 13 epistles. Okay?
That is about as close as I can come to telling you why I believe one text over another, because it is not so much that disbelieve but some are opinions, and some are not applicable to now, and most of those are identified. There are parables and allegories, and prophecies. I do not feel that anyone is trying to fool me. Let me say this: I take the Bible seriously, but not necessarily always literal in the Old Testament in particular, nor should I. Much of it is not meant to be literal. There are errors, yes, but not serious enough to get in an uproar about.
I do agree with Spinoza, (and I have said this many times, because I think it is a statement of tremendous faith): (paraphrased) if every bible were burned or otherwise destroyed, we would still have the Word of God,….. nothing and no one can take the Word of God from us. [He said it better.]
I wish you well.
PMTP. M. Thorne said:
Thank you for your time. No malice was intended. I asked because you have answered my few question before and with more logic then any one else or I should say any other christian. I also would like to include Jenyar and few others. I believe in a simple rule of live and let live. You don't bash my religion and I will leave yours. Once again, thank you for taking time and responding to my question.
All due respect, but this is unfounded and highly misguided. I don't hate anyone, especially not someone I haven't met. As for what you 'stand for'.. what do you stand for? If you're talking about being christian, I really don't care either. While I will debate the issues on forums dedicated to that purpose, anyone is entitled to believe anything they want. I hate you and your beliefs no more than I would hate the ancient Polynesians and their beliefs.
I am unsure as to why you always assume you're under attack when anyone raises an issue with you, and not just me but others aswell, (such as Markx - accusing him of showing malice). What would it take for you to just understand people are discussing issues? Must we agree with everything you say?
If anything other was the case, I wouldn't be talking to you at all.
I fail to see the problem. If you believe what the bible says, (generally speaking or in entirety), I would ask if you have a valid reason to do so, while at the same time possibly denying other ancient texts, such as the Vedas, the Enuma Elish, and so on. It's like asking why you would believe in jesus, but not in gilgamesh, apollo etc. Do you have something of more substance with which to support a belief in biblical texts over other texts, or your gods over other gods? In the case of the bible, it differs with every new publication. I have several different copies here, and there are times when different information is gleaned from it, specifically down to the differences in used words. You might say it's the word of god regardless to changes, which is fair enough, but my question to you is: do you have a valid reason to understand the biblical texts as being the word of god while denying other such ancient written works that claim their own gods, which differ vastly from yours?
Ok so... If someone said Paul was a homo, (which someone did), would you just accept what he says as truth? Of course not, but why? Because without proof of such, it is nothing more than utter assumption. The same goes for you saying how educated and worldly a person Paul was. In this instance, people are just interpreting words in a book to try and show what a person was like. We can all do this for the rest of eternity, but it doesn't mean much unless people were lucky enough to be able to prove their statements about a certain deceased person. Neither of you are really in a position to be saying what Paul was like, homo or otherwise. Do you see the importance of proof? The need to get actual facts concerning these things? Now you know why I said, "It's an absolute must". While many are just happy to spend a life speculating about things, I find gathering actual facts as a much more worthy endeavour.
Oh?
Of course this isn't of relevance if you are to tell me the bible is in no way related to the word of god, but is actually just a story written by man. If it is just a story written by man, then it has altered the word of god, because so many millions of people believe every word in it as being the word of god. Is the bible the word of god? If so, and you say the word of god can't be altered, then you must believe every word.
So you can prove jesus existence? If so please do, the world is waiting. If not, looks like I made a 'lucky assumption'.
And you have yet to read anything to prove that I didn't write it.
You missed the context. If you can't actually prove any of the text in the bible, (the people/events etc), then how can you accept any of it as true? That leaves us in a sticky position for several reason. If someone comes along and claims Paul was a raging homo, you can't disprove that statement. If someone comes along and says god wears a barbie skirt you can't disprove that either. Without the burden of proof anyone can say anything they want, (including you), and it is ultimately worthless. To get to my question again, for the fourth time, is there any valid reason you believe the biblical texts as real as opposed to any other texts? Is there any valid reason you would acknowledge the existence of jesus/paul etc over say gilgamesh or hercules?
I was referring to the bible itself. Can you tell me who wrote it? Can you then prove who wrote it? If not, I guess it was just a lucky assumption.
Countless heh? Maybe my google isn't working properly, but I couldn't find much regarding the history of Paul, aside from a few church study sites. If you could provide sources, I would be indebted.
Disrespect? I engaged you in a discussion, but you seemingly like to take the role of a martyr, or victimized individual. I trust you are old enough to be engaging in debates, and as such I like to put both our brains to use. I didn't insult your intelligence, like you have done to others with
"Surely you can't be that ignorant", and "Anyone with a smidging of intelligence.."
I didn't call you names, or make insults towards you in any way whatsoever, and fail to see why you keep accusing me of being hateful etc. I'm a happy kinda guy who likes debates and discussions. If you don't, that is fine, but don't try and turn things upon me for asking you questions concerning your beliefs.
I read your ending text, and it has left one further question begging for attention. Originally I asked you if you had a valid reason to accept any specific text over other texts. You said "yes". Now I would ask you how many other texts you've read. Have you read the Enuma Elish, for example? If you answer no, surely you do not have a position to think the bible is more valid.
Because you agree with something someone says, doesn't make it credible. I was sitting in the pub having a nice cold beer one night. We got into a discussion about fox hunting. Someone made a remark and a 'light went off in my head'. It doesn't mean anything he said was right, just that I personally agreed with the idea. In this scenario, we could ask these other people the same question.. Have they read all the other texts?
How do you know a 'light' wouldn't go off in your head if you read any other texts, unless you've already read those texts. Have you?
Where does this come from? I don't hate anyone, I like to debate issues. Am I written off as 'hateful' because I disagree with people sometimes?
Actually I find it rather funny, and certainly good for debating purposes. Imagine a world with no-one to debate with - that would make me sick and tired.
And you say I'm sick and tired? Sounds like you're the one sick and tired of people questioning your beliefs. Might I enquire why you're on a religious forum where people do debate religious issues/beliefs?
Sorry but I think you've got me confused with someone else. I never sent you an email/pm or anything of that nature. Nor did I drag you into a whirlpool of accusations. I have posed some questions regarding your belief in god/jesus etc. If you don't feel like answering them, then don't.
You say you can 'see other sides', so surely you understand where I'm coming from? I'm asking why you would accept the existence and nature of jesus, but not gilgamesh, hercules, apollo, abellio, (Gallic god of apple trees), etc. I asked if you had any valid reason to give more credence to biblical texts over other texts. For you to answer yes, I must assume you've read all those other texts, but I do find that the whole 'light bulb' speech is a bit lacking. What I'm trying to achieve, is to see things from your side- but you make it no easier for me. Perhaps if you felt a little less victimized, we could get further, faster.
I am currently working on the A list of gods throughout history. As you can see, Here, I'm already on a few hundred gods, and only on A. It is an extremely difficult and time consuming task, I will give it that.
Now, imagine I'm a guy born in to the world with no god, no set of beliefs. I stumble upon this list. Can you help me choose which of these is real, if any? Does it simply come down to 'light bulbs', or is there more to it than that? Is there something credible and tangible to state jesus is the only real one/the correct one? I'm curious as to what that is.
Which god?
Regards.
Last edited:
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
MARKX: You are more than welcome. Anytime, and thank you. PMT
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
MarcAC
Well, thank you. I try. PMT
Well, thank you. I try. PMT
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
FOR SNAKELORD ~
YOU WROTE: All due respect, but this is unfounded and highly misguided. I don't hate anyone, especially not someone I haven't met. As for what you 'stand for'.. what do you stand for? If you're talking about being christian, I really don't care either.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, fella, I did not say you hated me.
YOU: …… I hate you and your beliefs no more than I would hate the ancient Polynesians and their beliefs.
How marvelously condescending.
YOU: ……I am unsure as to why you always assume you're under attack when anyone raises an issue with you, and not just me but others aswell, (such as Markx - accusing him of showing malice).
Is that right? HERE IS WHAT I SAID TO Markx:
“I responded to this only because I found no hint of malice in your question.”
You told an untruth, flat out! Why do you do this?
YOU: I fail to see the problem. If you believe what the bible says, (generally speaking or in entirety), I would ask if you have a valid reason to do so, while at the same time possibly denying other ancient texts, such as the Vedas, the Enuma Elish, and so on.
The way you wrote it, I thought you were referring to Bible texts, and was asking why I preferred some over others. To me, it still reads like that was what you were asking in your previous post. Do I have a valid reason? Hmm. In other words, do I have evidence or sound reasoning. Nice innuendo. As you include, “while at the same time possibly denying other ancient texts, I think I do not like the question.
It's like asking why you would believe in jesus, but not in gilgamesh, apollo etc.
Is it? I would not know, because I would not know how to answer such a question. And, why would you ask?
YOU WROTE: ****Do you have something of more substance with which to support a belief in biblical texts over other texts, or your gods over other gods?”
I have a question: Why did you decide to single me out, and commence with false accusations? You answer that, and than I will think about these questions for which you seem to have no good reason for asking.
YOU: I have several different copies here, and there are times when different information is gleaned from it, specifically down to the differences in used words.
I too have several translations, and see no major differences, other than the King James version, which uses old English, and did have some errors that needed to be corrected. But then, one must consider the times. ……I have no clue as to what you mean by: “specifically down to the differences in used words.”
YOU: You might say it's the word of god regardless to changes, which is fair enough, but my question to you is:**** do you have a valid reason to understand the biblical texts as being the word of god while denying other such ancient written works that claim their own gods, which differ vastly from yours?
Here you are assuming again. When did I say that the Bible was the Word of God? Anyway, I think I already replied to a question like this. (****see above)
………………………………
YOU: Ok so... If someone said Paul was a homo, (which someone did), would you just accept what he says as truth?
I think I would be inclined to ignore such an accusation. Someone saying so would not make it true, or false. I have better things to do than to chase after every moronic comment that passes my ears. I will have to take your word that someone said it.
YOU: The same goes for you saying how educated and worldly a person Paul was…….. Nonsense.
YOU: ………In this instance, people are just interpreting words in a book to try and show what a person was like.
Oh, you mean books like encyclopedias? How dare I?
YOU: Neither of you are really in a position to be saying what Paul was like, homo or otherwise. Do you see the importance of proof? The need to get actual facts concerning these things?
And neither of us said one way or the other. I simply answered a question that you or someone else posed. Had I been asked for absolutes, I would have responded differently; I was asked for my “opinion.” And, that is what I gave, and I am not going to say this again. You should have gotten it by now.
YOU: While many are just happy to spend a life speculating about things, I find gathering actual facts as a much more worthy endeavour.
Well, good for you. In math, however, that might be a far more excellent quest. I do not mean to be snide, but you speak of gathering facts as though they exist only when you want them to, regarding things in which you already believe. Am I wrong?
////////////////YOUR QUOTE FROM MY POSTING:
Quote:
You want “specific parts” where you made erroneous statements. Let me borrow from a paragraph above: “you accept every word the Bible says”Here this: I have never said such a thing, nor implied it.
YOU: Oh?
Mary had a little lamb;
its fleece was white as snow.
Sometimes when one has no response
this one will answer, “OH!”
………………………………..\
YOU WROTE: Of course this isn't of relevance if you are to tell me the bible is in no way related to the word of god, but is actually just a story written by man. If it is just a story written by man, then it has altered the word of god, because so many millions of people believe every word in it as being the word of god. Is the bible the word of god?
Your statements are void of sound logic. Following your argument, I will say this: If one declares that the book of Hezakiah, for example, is the Word of God, and translates it incorrectly they would be altering a copy of the Word of God. If you deface pictures of me, you are not defacing me, and God’s Word can not be confined to paper and ink. It is accessible to everyone, with or without a book. And yes, it can be spoken by many tongues in many places. This is one reason so much that was spoken by wise men of old have similar philosophies.
However, if the book of Hezakiah was not God’s Word, but millions thought it was, and one incorrectly translated its contents, it would be an altering only of what had been believed to be the Word of God. It could not be the Word of God that was altered, because it never was the Word of God.
HERE IS THE REST OF YOUR PARAGRAPH QUOTED ABOVE: If so, and you say the word of god can't be altered, then you must believe every word.
I see no sound logic here either. I can believe that something cannot be altered for a number of reasons, and believe none of it. This is a ridiculous discussion, because we have no agreed premise. What is the Word of God?
So you can prove jesus existence? If so please do, the world is waiting. If not, looks like I made a 'lucky assumption'.
Why is it lucky?
_______________________________\
YOU QUOTED FROM MY POST:
Quote:
I have yet to read anything to prove that Paul did not write that letter to the Romans.
YOU RESPONDED:
And you have yet to read anything to prove that I didn't write it.
MY RESPONSE: That is bull, plain and simple; you were not yet born when James and his boys put Paul’s writings in with all they decided we should read. Let’s be silly, shall we?
………………………………….
YOU: To get to my question again, for the fourth time,**** is there any valid reason you believe the biblical texts as real as opposed to any other texts?
Yes, there it is again, in the posting, that same question, and I have the same answer, see above.
YOU: I was referring to the bible itself. Can you tell me who wrote it? Can you then prove who wrote it? If not, I guess it was just a lucky assumption.
I guess so. This seems to be your lucky day.
YOU: Countless heh? Maybe my google isn't working properly, but I couldn't find much regarding the history of Paul, aside from a few church study sites. If you could provide sources, I would be indebted.
Baloney, you do not care about Paul, except to discredit and destroy him if you could. I will tell you what, you who call yourself SnakeLord, you tell me that you are truly and sincerely interested in the Apostle Paul, and tell me why. How’s that?
YOU WROTE: Disrespect? I engaged you in a discussion, but you seemingly like to take the role of a martyr, or victimized individual. I trust you are old enough to be engaging in debates, and as such I like to put both our brains to use.
Oh brother! Not to brag, but mine is already in use.
YOU WROTE: I didn't insult your intelligence, like you have done to others with "Surely you can't be that ignorant", and "Anyone with a smidging of intelligence.."
Well, my goodness, someone was goofing off and that first comment was tongue in cheek, and that person knew it, I think, anyway he did not complain. As for the other comment, I stand by it. Of course, you took it out of context. Care to quote the whole thing?
I didn't call you names, or make insults towards you in any way whatsoever, and fail to see why you keep accusing me of being hateful etc. I'm a happy kinda guy who likes debates and discussions. If you don't, that is fine, but don't try and turn things upon me for asking you questions concerning your beliefs.
Right, you are definitely from the Age of Innocence. You are not simply asking about my beliefs, you are challenging them in a rather unfriendly manner, and making assumption to tack onto whatever answer I give. I was not born yesterday.
YOU WROTE: I read your ending text, and it has left one further question begging for attention.
That is the first thing you have written that I have enjoyed, “one further question begging for attention.” Great phrase. I really like it.
HERE IS THE REST OF YOUR PARAGRAPH: Originally I asked you if you had a valid reason to accept any specific text over other texts. You said "yes". Now I would ask you how many other texts you've read. Have you read the Enuma Elish, for example?
No, I have not.
YOU: If you answer no, surely you do not have a position to think the bible is more valid.
Well, like I say, I have not read it yet, but when and if I should, you will not be the one to decide what position I have. Just thought I would clear that up.
YOU WROTE: Because you agree with something someone says, doesn't make it credible. ……………….. How do you know a 'light' wouldn't go off in your head if you read any other texts, unless you've already read those texts. Have you?
You totally missed my point. I mean you totally missed it! I will assume full responsibility. I knew I should not have tried that. As I have no intention of trying to explain it again, we will just let that be the end of it. Not your fault, okay?
YOU: Actually I find it rather funny, and certainly good for debating purposes. Imagine a world with no-one to debate with - that would make me sick and tired.
Now, that is rather cute. Why are you such a butt, when you have the apparent ability to write well when you want to, and to be humorous when you want to. I know I have had exchanges with you before, not many, but some. I do not recall your being such a bother. I need to look at some of your previous comments, maybe I just forgot. Suppose?
YOU: And you say I'm sick and tired? Sounds like you're the one sick and tired of people questioning your beliefs. Might I enquire why you're on a religious forum where people do debate religious issues/beliefs?
Do you have a father complex or something? And no, it was not their questioning my religious beliefs as such. Their telling me that I would go to hell, that God had nothing to do with the birth of my baby girl, or telling me that I was soiled because I divorced and could never be accepted in the same way as the rest of their congregation, but could come, but to not expect to be on the same level with those who had obeyed God. Or, then telling me that God allowed my son to be killed so that I would come back to church, and stuff like that. Why should such things bother me, they are only people. The problem was I was a people too, and it hurt. But, I got through that and then some, but it helped me understand why people become so hostile toward church in general. A victim, shoot I am no victim, just someone who got my butt kicked a few times before the sky fell in, but then I changed for the better, for good. The best I have is to be honest and fair, and you want me to explain it! You do not have the time. And, sorry about that, tough guy, hope I did not bore you.
.........
YOU: Sorry but I think you've got me confused with someone else. I never sent you an email/pm or anything of that nature.
Very funny!
YOU: I have posed some questions regarding your belief in god/jesus etc. If you don't feel like answering them, then don't.
Yes, you surely have and thank you I did not really answer them. I am so tired right now. The first time I went through this, I lost it. Shall I presume that it was just not to be, or shall I be irritated with my computer for attacking me? Or……maybe I goofed. What?
YOU: You say you can 'see other sides', so surely you understand where I'm coming from?
Well, yes! I think I understand where you are coming from, but not sure that I like it. I prefer nice friendly people who do not accuse me of things I did not do.
“I'm asking why you would accept the existence and nature of jesus, but not gilgamesh, hercules, apollo, abellio, (Gallic god of apple trees), etc” I asked if you had any valid reason to give more credence to biblical texts over other texts
No kidding. This only about the umpteenth time!
YOU: What I'm trying to achieve, is to see things from your side- but you make it no easier for me. Perhaps if you felt a little less victimized, we could get further, faster.
Oh, get off it. You could use a tune up yourself.
YOU: I am currently working on the A list of gods throughout history. As you can see, Here, I'm already on a few hundred gods, and only on A. It is an extremely difficult and time consuming task, I will give it that.
How could I possibly know that you are “already on a few hundred gods,” when you seem to be stuck on but a few. Moreover, if it is so difficult and time consuming, then why are asking me all these questions, especially considering that I am so paranoid and uninformed, and you are so wise and all-knowing. Try the Bible apologists; they enjoy this sort of thing. Preferring an edifying discussion, I do not.
YOU: Now, imagine I'm a guy born in to the world with no god, no set of beliefs. I stumble upon this list. Can you help me choose which of these is real, if any? Does it simply come down to 'light bulbs', or is there more to it than that? Is there something credible and tangible to state jesus is the only real one/the correct one? I'm curious as to what that is.
Too late to get chummy. If you had started out that way, you would have received a different response.
YOU: Which god?
And then, maybe not. ……………PMT
YOU WROTE: All due respect, but this is unfounded and highly misguided. I don't hate anyone, especially not someone I haven't met. As for what you 'stand for'.. what do you stand for? If you're talking about being christian, I really don't care either.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, fella, I did not say you hated me.
YOU: …… I hate you and your beliefs no more than I would hate the ancient Polynesians and their beliefs.
How marvelously condescending.
YOU: ……I am unsure as to why you always assume you're under attack when anyone raises an issue with you, and not just me but others aswell, (such as Markx - accusing him of showing malice).
Is that right? HERE IS WHAT I SAID TO Markx:
“I responded to this only because I found no hint of malice in your question.”
You told an untruth, flat out! Why do you do this?
YOU: I fail to see the problem. If you believe what the bible says, (generally speaking or in entirety), I would ask if you have a valid reason to do so, while at the same time possibly denying other ancient texts, such as the Vedas, the Enuma Elish, and so on.
The way you wrote it, I thought you were referring to Bible texts, and was asking why I preferred some over others. To me, it still reads like that was what you were asking in your previous post. Do I have a valid reason? Hmm. In other words, do I have evidence or sound reasoning. Nice innuendo. As you include, “while at the same time possibly denying other ancient texts, I think I do not like the question.
It's like asking why you would believe in jesus, but not in gilgamesh, apollo etc.
Is it? I would not know, because I would not know how to answer such a question. And, why would you ask?
YOU WROTE: ****Do you have something of more substance with which to support a belief in biblical texts over other texts, or your gods over other gods?”
I have a question: Why did you decide to single me out, and commence with false accusations? You answer that, and than I will think about these questions for which you seem to have no good reason for asking.
YOU: I have several different copies here, and there are times when different information is gleaned from it, specifically down to the differences in used words.
I too have several translations, and see no major differences, other than the King James version, which uses old English, and did have some errors that needed to be corrected. But then, one must consider the times. ……I have no clue as to what you mean by: “specifically down to the differences in used words.”
YOU: You might say it's the word of god regardless to changes, which is fair enough, but my question to you is:**** do you have a valid reason to understand the biblical texts as being the word of god while denying other such ancient written works that claim their own gods, which differ vastly from yours?
Here you are assuming again. When did I say that the Bible was the Word of God? Anyway, I think I already replied to a question like this. (****see above)
………………………………
YOU: Ok so... If someone said Paul was a homo, (which someone did), would you just accept what he says as truth?
I think I would be inclined to ignore such an accusation. Someone saying so would not make it true, or false. I have better things to do than to chase after every moronic comment that passes my ears. I will have to take your word that someone said it.
YOU: The same goes for you saying how educated and worldly a person Paul was……..
Nonsense.YOU: ………In this instance, people are just interpreting words in a book to try and show what a person was like.
Oh, you mean books like encyclopedias? How dare I?
YOU: Neither of you are really in a position to be saying what Paul was like, homo or otherwise. Do you see the importance of proof? The need to get actual facts concerning these things?
And neither of us said one way or the other. I simply answered a question that you or someone else posed. Had I been asked for absolutes, I would have responded differently; I was asked for my “opinion.” And, that is what I gave, and I am not going to say this again. You should have gotten it by now.
YOU: While many are just happy to spend a life speculating about things, I find gathering actual facts as a much more worthy endeavour.
Well, good for you. In math, however, that might be a far more excellent quest. I do not mean to be snide, but you speak of gathering facts as though they exist only when you want them to, regarding things in which you already believe. Am I wrong?
////////////////YOUR QUOTE FROM MY POSTING:
Quote:
You want “specific parts” where you made erroneous statements. Let me borrow from a paragraph above: “you accept every word the Bible says”Here this: I have never said such a thing, nor implied it.
YOU: Oh?
Mary had a little lamb;
its fleece was white as snow.
Sometimes when one has no response
this one will answer, “OH!”
………………………………..\
YOU WROTE: Of course this isn't of relevance if you are to tell me the bible is in no way related to the word of god, but is actually just a story written by man. If it is just a story written by man, then it has altered the word of god, because so many millions of people believe every word in it as being the word of god. Is the bible the word of god?
Your statements are void of sound logic. Following your argument, I will say this: If one declares that the book of Hezakiah, for example, is the Word of God, and translates it incorrectly they would be altering a copy of the Word of God. If you deface pictures of me, you are not defacing me, and God’s Word can not be confined to paper and ink. It is accessible to everyone, with or without a book. And yes, it can be spoken by many tongues in many places. This is one reason so much that was spoken by wise men of old have similar philosophies.
However, if the book of Hezakiah was not God’s Word, but millions thought it was, and one incorrectly translated its contents, it would be an altering only of what had been believed to be the Word of God. It could not be the Word of God that was altered, because it never was the Word of God.
HERE IS THE REST OF YOUR PARAGRAPH QUOTED ABOVE: If so, and you say the word of god can't be altered, then you must believe every word.
I see no sound logic here either. I can believe that something cannot be altered for a number of reasons, and believe none of it. This is a ridiculous discussion, because we have no agreed premise. What is the Word of God?
So you can prove jesus existence? If so please do, the world is waiting. If not, looks like I made a 'lucky assumption'.
Why is it lucky?
_______________________________\
YOU QUOTED FROM MY POST:
Quote:
I have yet to read anything to prove that Paul did not write that letter to the Romans.
YOU RESPONDED:
And you have yet to read anything to prove that I didn't write it.
MY RESPONSE: That is bull, plain and simple; you were not yet born when James and his boys put Paul’s writings in with all they decided we should read. Let’s be silly, shall we?
………………………………….
YOU: To get to my question again, for the fourth time,**** is there any valid reason you believe the biblical texts as real as opposed to any other texts?
Yes, there it is again, in the posting, that same question, and I have the same answer, see above.
YOU: I was referring to the bible itself. Can you tell me who wrote it? Can you then prove who wrote it? If not, I guess it was just a lucky assumption.
I guess so. This seems to be your lucky day.
YOU: Countless heh? Maybe my google isn't working properly, but I couldn't find much regarding the history of Paul, aside from a few church study sites. If you could provide sources, I would be indebted.
Baloney, you do not care about Paul, except to discredit and destroy him if you could. I will tell you what, you who call yourself SnakeLord, you tell me that you are truly and sincerely interested in the Apostle Paul, and tell me why. How’s that?
YOU WROTE: Disrespect? I engaged you in a discussion, but you seemingly like to take the role of a martyr, or victimized individual. I trust you are old enough to be engaging in debates, and as such I like to put both our brains to use.
Oh brother! Not to brag, but mine is already in use.
YOU WROTE: I didn't insult your intelligence, like you have done to others with "Surely you can't be that ignorant", and "Anyone with a smidging of intelligence.."
Well, my goodness, someone was goofing off and that first comment was tongue in cheek, and that person knew it, I think, anyway he did not complain. As for the other comment, I stand by it. Of course, you took it out of context. Care to quote the whole thing?
I didn't call you names, or make insults towards you in any way whatsoever, and fail to see why you keep accusing me of being hateful etc. I'm a happy kinda guy who likes debates and discussions. If you don't, that is fine, but don't try and turn things upon me for asking you questions concerning your beliefs.
Right, you are definitely from the Age of Innocence. You are not simply asking about my beliefs, you are challenging them in a rather unfriendly manner, and making assumption to tack onto whatever answer I give. I was not born yesterday.
YOU WROTE: I read your ending text, and it has left one further question begging for attention.
That is the first thing you have written that I have enjoyed, “one further question begging for attention.” Great phrase. I really like it.
HERE IS THE REST OF YOUR PARAGRAPH: Originally I asked you if you had a valid reason to accept any specific text over other texts. You said "yes". Now I would ask you how many other texts you've read. Have you read the Enuma Elish, for example?
No, I have not.
YOU: If you answer no, surely you do not have a position to think the bible is more valid.
Well, like I say, I have not read it yet, but when and if I should, you will not be the one to decide what position I have. Just thought I would clear that up.
YOU WROTE: Because you agree with something someone says, doesn't make it credible. ……………….. How do you know a 'light' wouldn't go off in your head if you read any other texts, unless you've already read those texts. Have you?
You totally missed my point. I mean you totally missed it! I will assume full responsibility. I knew I should not have tried that. As I have no intention of trying to explain it again, we will just let that be the end of it. Not your fault, okay?
YOU: Actually I find it rather funny, and certainly good for debating purposes. Imagine a world with no-one to debate with - that would make me sick and tired.
Now, that is rather cute. Why are you such a butt, when you have the apparent ability to write well when you want to, and to be humorous when you want to. I know I have had exchanges with you before, not many, but some. I do not recall your being such a bother. I need to look at some of your previous comments, maybe I just forgot. Suppose?
YOU: And you say I'm sick and tired? Sounds like you're the one sick and tired of people questioning your beliefs. Might I enquire why you're on a religious forum where people do debate religious issues/beliefs?
Do you have a father complex or something? And no, it was not their questioning my religious beliefs as such. Their telling me that I would go to hell, that God had nothing to do with the birth of my baby girl, or telling me that I was soiled because I divorced and could never be accepted in the same way as the rest of their congregation, but could come, but to not expect to be on the same level with those who had obeyed God. Or, then telling me that God allowed my son to be killed so that I would come back to church, and stuff like that. Why should such things bother me, they are only people. The problem was I was a people too, and it hurt. But, I got through that and then some, but it helped me understand why people become so hostile toward church in general. A victim, shoot I am no victim, just someone who got my butt kicked a few times before the sky fell in, but then I changed for the better, for good. The best I have is to be honest and fair, and you want me to explain it! You do not have the time. And, sorry about that, tough guy, hope I did not bore you.
.........
YOU: Sorry but I think you've got me confused with someone else. I never sent you an email/pm or anything of that nature.
Very funny!
YOU: I have posed some questions regarding your belief in god/jesus etc. If you don't feel like answering them, then don't.
Yes, you surely have and thank you I did not really answer them. I am so tired right now. The first time I went through this, I lost it. Shall I presume that it was just not to be, or shall I be irritated with my computer for attacking me? Or……maybe I goofed. What?
YOU: You say you can 'see other sides', so surely you understand where I'm coming from?
Well, yes! I think I understand where you are coming from, but not sure that I like it. I prefer nice friendly people who do not accuse me of things I did not do.
“I'm asking why you would accept the existence and nature of jesus, but not gilgamesh, hercules, apollo, abellio, (Gallic god of apple trees), etc” I asked if you had any valid reason to give more credence to biblical texts over other texts
No kidding. This only about the umpteenth time!
YOU: What I'm trying to achieve, is to see things from your side- but you make it no easier for me. Perhaps if you felt a little less victimized, we could get further, faster.
Oh, get off it. You could use a tune up yourself.
YOU: I am currently working on the A list of gods throughout history. As you can see, Here, I'm already on a few hundred gods, and only on A. It is an extremely difficult and time consuming task, I will give it that.
How could I possibly know that you are “already on a few hundred gods,” when you seem to be stuck on but a few. Moreover, if it is so difficult and time consuming, then why are asking me all these questions, especially considering that I am so paranoid and uninformed, and you are so wise and all-knowing. Try the Bible apologists; they enjoy this sort of thing. Preferring an edifying discussion, I do not.
YOU: Now, imagine I'm a guy born in to the world with no god, no set of beliefs. I stumble upon this list. Can you help me choose which of these is real, if any? Does it simply come down to 'light bulbs', or is there more to it than that? Is there something credible and tangible to state jesus is the only real one/the correct one? I'm curious as to what that is.
Too late to get chummy. If you had started out that way, you would have received a different response.
YOU: Which god?
And then, maybe not. ……………PMT
I never said you did. You said I may hate you- I simply pointed out that's misguided, and that I don't hate anyone.
Maybe so, but it's still true.
Because I'm just a mere human, and humans make mistakes. I apologise sincerely for not being at a high enough level of perfection in order to please you. I shall go and dunk my head in the lavatory now.
Why not? Can it cause harm to your beliefs? If it will make you feel better, I ask every religious person the very same question. I am interested to see things from the religious mans perspective, such as how they pick a god from the huge list of gods. How they can accept a book as total truth, without being able to show any real credibility for believing in it.
It all started with a quote of yours saying how you find it worrying that people try to prove things about dead people. In that instance it was about whether Paul was homosexual or not. My response is that nobody is really in a position to accept or deny such a proposition without having evidence and facts to back it up. By that same token, you couldn't really say Paul wasn't homosexual, or that he was a well educated worldly man. Can anybody even prove his existence? Without having facts, I wonder why anyone just accepts the bible as true, the people/beings in it as real, or if Paul was homosexual. As such, proof is paramount to anything, including history.
I don't understand why you see this as an attack, I'm just posing a question or two, and a point or two that surely can be respected by you - because if you think a person can make unproven statements about these ancient historical figures, then it leaves someone fully able to call Paul a homosexual, and you can't ever disprove such a claim.
As I hope you can now see, I was merely making an observation with regards to your "worry" about people trying to prove such things about dead people. Someone, somewhere interprets biblical text in his own way, and comes to the conclusion that Paul is a homo. You would be able to deny that quickly and efficiently if people had proof concerning Paul, or anyone else for that matter. Without it, people are free to say anything they want. That is why I told you of the importance of proof, and hoped it would alleviate your worry. I guess it failed.
Because I'm interested. Is that a crime? Without feeling singled out and victimized for just a moment, can you tell me why you believe in jesus but not in gilgamesh. Before you start getting upset and state you never said you didn't believe in gilgamesh, I am aware of that, he is just an example - feel free to replace him with any other god/demi-god being you so choose. If you actually believe in them all, then fair enough.
No, I am not accusing you, or victimizing you, or being rude to you. I am curious, and have posed an innocent enough question out of interest.
You don't have to answer it, In fact you've even said you don't know how to - (probably the best answer to give is that you feel jesus in your heart, but don't feel gilgamesh). What does concern me though, is why you feel victimized because of this question. It's not rude or accusatory - it's just a question.
A) I haven't singled you out at all. You left a post wondering why people went out of their way to find proof over such things as whether Paul was a homo. I responded to it. If someone else had have left the same post, saying they found it worrying that people would go out of their way to prove these things, I would have replied to them instead.
B) Ok, saying you can't prove jesus existence, might seem to be an assumption, however I still assert it's an accurate one. Feel free to prove me wrong.
C) saying you believe every word in the bible is most certainly a bit over the top, and I apologise, but can we come to an understanding that you believe some of it, even just a chapter or two? If so, my question still stands, and again I would ask why you believe in a certain text, or religion, when there isn't any proof to give it credibility.
D) I'm not "singling you out", or being rude.. I just 'assume' you're a worthy enough person to ask. While I apologise for my curiosity, it isn't meant in a harmful manner - but purely out of interest.
Well as the quickest example I could find: In one version of Genesis28:13, it says god was standing above him, while in another it says he was standing beside him. (NIV/NJV). While it might not seem important, (as I said it was just the first example I could find), it does show that particular people will translate things differently, and perhaps unintentionally aid in 'corrupting' what the bible actually says.
On another thread on this forum, a person stated that the Greek translation of jesus walking on water, has been shown by others to simply mean alongside the water. That would be a vast difference, and would entirely change the concept of the story.
So it's just a book written by man? Ok, now I understand you better. Can you please show me what this word of god is, and where I can get access to it - I'd also ask how you even know there is a word of god, whatever that might be.
The general understanding is that the bible is a book written by god, with the aid of a human with a pencil. Aside from that belief of the biblical texts, I don't see any other words of god. I'm sure you'll show me where the actual word of god is.
Ok, and then surely you'd be inclined to ignore such an accusation that said he was a nice guy, that he was worldly and well educated and any other claim that can't be corroborated. Would you also ignore any mention of Paul whatsoever, because he cannot be proven to have existed? Is it just the 'bad' claims you ignore, while accepting all the 'good' stuff?
Once again, I have hopefully portrayed the importance of proof in such situations - which was in my original response to your "worry" about people searching for proof.
And once again, with relevance to my first response to you, I was merely showing your worry was wrong, and that proof is of utmost importance.
I will uise one of your quotes here:
"Someone saying so would not make it true, or false". You'll probably just say "nonsense" again, but unless you can prove those claims, they are no different to the claims he was a poofter.
So the man who wrote that encyclopedia can prove anything about Paul? Ok, maybe he can apparently. Would you kindly cite a source so I can go see all the 'facts' concerning Paul. The Britannica Encyclopedia starts off with a lot of question marks concerning when he was actually alive. It then goes on to give information about him due to what's written about in the bible. Nowhere does it say he was a worldly, well educated guy, or that he was a homo, (it doesn't say he was straight either). So much for encyclopedias. I will leave you with my quote once again:
"In this instance, people are just interpreting words in a book to try and show what a person was like."
That includes the people who wrote encyclopedias.
Yeah I got that already... which is why I asked you how you can accept one thing over another, if there is no proof to confirm it. You said, in your earlier post to the other guy, that: "I believe Paul was not homosexual". I'm asking why you have such a belief, without proof to support it. The reason I responded was because you showed concern over people trying to prove such things- yet if it were proven one way or the other, you'd no longer have to have assumed beliefs or 'opinions', because the facts would be known. Further on from that, considering the lack of proof even concerning his existence, I would ask why you even have the opinion that he lived, except because a book says so. Further on from that, I asked why you would give the book any more credence than any other book - and if, let's say, you didn't believe a word of the Sumerian texts, or any characters therein, how the bible has any more credibility.
In this issue, it's certainly harder to gather facts. That is unless we could go back in time and witness it all first hand. In a thousand years time, someone might dig up a copy of Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein'. From that perspective, they could view it as truth, and would have no means of "testing" it's validity. They could not ask the author, they could not ask the characters in the book, and could in no way corroborate or deny any word within it.
We are in this position. We have an assemblage of texts that many deem to be factual, many deem to be god inspired or written, etc. What I asked you, (1000 times), is why you might give credence to those specific texts but not to other ancient texts that exist, without actually having any proof to distinguish between fact and fiction of any of them.
Many millions of people have made claims that they've seen or been abducted by alien beings. Is anyone in a position to just accept their claims, or indeed to just deny those claims? I spent years working with cases of paranormal phenomenon/the unexplained, and have found that denial or acceptance is a luxury you can't just ascribe to without the facts, without the proof.
Maybe some people are happy to just accept or deny, based upon their own personal feelings regarding the subject, but it comes down to more than that. Living on a line of maybe/maybe not, can certainly be stressful, which is why people endeavour to find truth, and separate it from the fiction.
In some instances, perhaps we're unlucky in that we have no way of gathering facts concerning the issue. While this is most certainly upsetting, we are still in a position where we can't just accept/deny these things.
I am merely asking why you would, or might.
Now now, no need to be silly, although I have to give you credit for a wonderful poem.
Ok, where can I find god's word? You state it's accessible to everyone, so where exactly is it?
You've heard old wise men talking? Or did you perhaps attain this information from the texts?
Furthermore, a different reason these stories are similar, is possibly due to the handing down of stories through the ages. As an example: The Sumerians, who were one the earliest writing cultures, lived in Southern Iraq. They made stories, (including the flood story, the creation story, the story of the tree (knowledge/eternal life), and so on. From them stemmed the Babylonians who kept, but ammended, many of the same stories. Then came the Akkadians who again, kept many of the same stories, but ammended them slightly. Then Mr. Abraham, (a Sumerian), made his way north, on a journey to Israel. As he went along he told others the stories he had grown up listening to. Over time these were ammended and changed to suit political/environmental trends of the time/area.
Without proof and facts, we'll never know the actual truth. Which is why it's of utmost importance to find proof and facts. I would challenge that believing anything as being the truth right now, is presumptuous and dangerous. For now, we can only look at the evidence that is present to aid as much as it can.
For now however, I'd like to hear you define exactly what god's word is.
You tell me, you're the one bought it up. You said, "My point was, surely anyone with a smidging of intelligence knows that man cannot altar the word of God."
Now, I would claim to at least have a smidging of intelligence, but I can't even see/hear a word of god, let alone know whether it can be altered or not. I guess you know lots about it, from your quote above, so it's upto you to explain what it is.
I will reply to the rest in a minute, I'm going to go see if the word of god is floating about outside my bedroom window.
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
REPLY TO SNAKELORD………
S.L. WROTE: Because I'm just a mere human, and humans make mistakes. I apologise sincerely for not being at a high enough level of perfection in order to please you. I shall go and dunk my head in the lavatory now.
Hmm. Just what is the difference between a human and a mere human. J No, you did not please me. I found no reason for you to misunderstand that. But, enough about that. I will give you credit for addressing it; I know many who would not have bothered. This gives me hope that our exchanges may not be useless. Not that I expect one of us to “give in,” or anything like that, but I should hope that we can use reason rather than personal attacks.
I did visit excerpts from some of your postings, and I was correct, I had supported you in a few matters, not that you asked me too, or even needed me to, but sensible statements impress me far more than intellect-garbled. Yet, also as I suspected, you seem to live to challenge believers, and come across more as an agitator than an investigator. If, for one minute, I could believe that you search to feed your studies, I could almost understand, were it not for the fact that you are using a rather strange method for obtaining why people believe.
It is difficult enough for one to be objective about something that grips their soul and fills their days, without being suddenly faced with a hostile challenge. That is much like having someone rush up to you and ask why you let the air out of their tires. It takes a while to employ reason. If your purpose and wish is to awaken those who tend not to be realistic, I know a far better way. At the same time, you might want to ask yourself why it is so important to you to destroy every thread of belief, faith, hope, etc. in any and everyone you come across. Could it be that you are desperately seeking ways to support your non-belief, lest you have a weak moment and embarrass yourself by buying into anything other than what you already believe?
That is not a question for which I need an answer, but it may one for which you could use an answer. In any event, forget about dunking your head. That would be messy.
SL: Why not? Can it cause harm to your beliefs?
No, that was not the reason. I thought I made the reason clear. I notice you left out the first part of the sentence. You quoted: “I think I do not like the question.” I said: As you include, ‘while at the same time possibly denying other ancient texts, I think I do not like the question.” Remember? Your questions seem to all have a tail dragging in something that I have never said, thus in this case, a phrase that could have been put into a direct question, yet it lies within a question -not necessarily connected- makes both the question and the hypothesis unattractive to me. I like to stay out of murky waters. Be clear, and I will be more inclined to answer.
S.L. If it will make you feel better, I ask every religious person the very same question.
I am so relieved, I thought it was something I had said!
SL: I am interested to see things from the religious man’s perspective, such as how they pick a god from the huge list of gods. How they can accept a book as total truth, without being able to show any real credibility for believing in it.
As I mentioned above, if you are truly interested, there are better ways of getting to the matter.
S.L. It all started with a quote of yours saying how you find it worrying that people try to prove things about dead people.
Here again you give this a slant as though I am uninterested in knowing anything about dead people, then lead with the following, as though this were one of many such instances.
S. L. In that instance it was about whether Paul was homosexual or not.
Paul, Lord Byron, or anyone else, and more specifically about their sexual preferences, and to nothing else! You say it is necessary to know, and then go on to intimate that there is no way to prove such a thing, and that without proof, statements are useless And then you intimate that books are good, ……except when they are talking about the Apostle Paul and Jesus Christ in particular. Did I get all that right?
S. L. I don't understand why you see this as an attack, I'm just posing a question or two, and a point or two that surely can be respected by you - because if you think a person can make unproven statements about these ancient historical figures, then it leaves someone fully able to call Paul a homosexual, and you can't ever disprove such a claim.
Well, if work on understanding it perhaps it will come to you. As for disproving a claim that Paul was a homosexual, did I ever imply that I would use my time for such a purpose? No. Say what you will. He does not need my help.
S. L. As I hope you can now see, I was merely making an observation with regards to your "worry" about people trying to prove such things about dead people.
I do find such obsessions worrisome. I now realize, however, that you are holding the word to mean worrying, which I did not mean in particular, but annoying; so, let us change the word, “worrisome,: to “annoying,” and perhaps this will give you a clearer picture of how such trifle affects me. I promise, I do not walk the floor nor suffer from any anxiety over the matter. If I had known that you would have been so interested in the word, I would have chosen something a bit more exacting.
S.L.: Someone, somewhere interprets biblical text in his own way, and comes to the conclusion that Paul is a homo.
I suppose that is possible, although I would be more inclined to think that it was not biblical text at all. The man was unmarried, and some people do not understand anyone who cares not to be married, especially a man. I suspect also, that some people will do anything to get Christians up in arms. Such is better called mischief, rather than a zeal to know the truth.
S. L.: You would be able to deny that quickly and efficiently if people had proof concerning Paul, or anyone else for that matter. Without it, people are free to say anything they want.
Denying unfounded accusations is not my pattern. Moreover, people are free to say what they want in any event.
S. L.: That is why I told you of the importance of proof, and hoped it would alleviate your worry. I guess it failed.
Do not try to stroke me. I was dealing such nonsense before you were a twinkle in your daddy’s eye.
S. L. Because I'm interested. Is that a crime? Without feeling singled out and victimized for just a moment, can you tell me why you believe in jesus but not in gilgamesh.
You will find out nothing with such innuendos. I have nothing to prove to you. The only reason I am responding is that there seems to be, from what you have said, about seventeen years of your life dedicated to what sounds like it might be authentic research; or did I get that confused with the number of snakes. In any event, taking into account that you have possibly made a sincere study of this sort of thing, of studying people and their beliefs, not sharpening your wits to be controversial. Was I wrong?
...............
S. L. Before you start getting upset and state you never said you didn't believe in gilgamesh, I am aware of that, he is just an example - feel free to replace him with any other god/demi-god being you so choose. If you actually believe in them all, then fair enough.
Before I start getting upset, huh? How do you know I believe in Jesus? In fact, what put you on this trail of assumptions in the first place. This time you are correct in your assumption. It is my heartfelt purpose to be a follower of Jesus Christ. I believe that endeavor in itself will not only keep me busy, but will make this world a better place, and definitely make me a better person. If you have something that you believe works better for you, so be it. Hope that answers your question.
S. L. No, I am not accusing you, or victimizing you, or being rude to you. I am curious, and have posed an innocent enough question out of interest.
Your words fight with your statements.
S. L.” You don't have to answer it, In fact you've even said you don't know how to - (probably the best answer to give is that you feel jesus in your heart, but don't feel gilgamesh). What does concern me though, is why you feel victimized because of this question. It's not rude or accusatory - it's just a question.
I am beginning to think this is a waste of time.
S. L.: [I skipped A, because it has been covered] B) Ok, saying you can't prove jesus existence, might seem to be an assumption, however I still assert it's an accurate one. Feel free to prove me wrong.
I have no desire to prove you wrong.
S. L. C) saying you believe every word in the bible is most certainly a bit over the top, and I apologise, but can we come to an understanding that you believe some of it, even just a chapter or two? If so, my question still stands, and again I would ask why you believe in a certain text, or religion, when there isn't any proof to give it credibility.
Why do you care? A chapter or two, huh? Hmm. I am a bit confused, because the Pauline Epistles were letters to churches of that day. What is to believe or not to believe? What is called the four gospels are comprised of accounts of Christ. In some instances they are not always entirely the same. However, this is common with separate accountings, and, therefore, sounds reasonable to me, no two people give exact accountings.
James, Peter and John also had much to say about God and Jesus Christ and other things. I have no reason to disbelieve them in the entirely. I have very little knowledge of Greek and none of Hebrew, so I would have to take the translator’s word, so to speak, just as I do when I read much of the philosophy available to us in English. The book of Revelation, and how the book came to be, is apparently disputable and scholars disagree so much whether it was one writing, two, or even three. Doctrines to do with the book are often at battle with what it means. Some say it has already come to pass and others await. The book of Acts is another accounting, this one of the apostles. The Old Testament contains much wisdom , and also a few things that boggles the mind, in my opinion. Did I cover everything…oh, Hebrews. I love that first chapter, in K. J. version. Psalms, Proverbs and Eccl. have many sayings similar to sayings from other sources.
Here is what I believe, if you take a moment to be still and hear me: I do not go about denying or trying to prove anything in the Bible, or any other book when it comes to its authenticity.
As I have said before I did not find God in a book or a church, nor did I find Him, he has always been here. Perhaps you have no proof of God; nonetheless, I do. I believe that it is indeed innate in man to believe in God, and am therefore convinced that it takes a lot of work to incorporate disbelief and keep it going. That is my opinion, and it is also my opinion that this is why you work so hard with your paranormal and so forth. Yet, I do not follow that sort of thing, so could not add much.
I have been writing for years, and know for a fact that it is oftentimes extremely difficult to explain things in writing that are so precious and that one feels so deeply. Sometimes there simply are no words.
S. L. Well as the quickest example I could find: In one version of Genesis28:13, it says god was standing above him, while in another it says he was standing beside him. (NIV/NJV). While it might not seem important, (as I said it was just the first example I could find), it does show that particular people will translate things differently, and perhaps unintentionally aid in 'corrupting' what the bible actually says.
Absolutely. You are correct. People cannot tell anything without getting some of themselves into it. Politicians cannot, historians cannot, scientists cannot, prophets cannot, apostles cannot, apologists cannot, nor can you or I.
Let me see, I might compare this example you gave with someone saying, after having had a narrow escape: “God was with me,”. A ridiculous comment in one way, because surely that person knows that God is omnipotent, that he has no boundaries according to their faith, yet they say it anyway. Well, we say the sun rises and the sun sets. So, will someone way into the future think that some of us were ignorant and that we did not know that the sun neither rises nor sets in any true sense of the world?
The old Testament has many errors, and I am most thankful for Spinoza’s insight into those errors. His being a Jew, and an excommunicated one at that, he had no reason to do other than to try to clarify, or purify the scriptures by not only pointing out the errors, but also calming any fears of the people who are truly concerned about ever admitting errors, for fear of losing their faith tool. I love his Preface in the first volume of his Chief Works, (Political Treatise. / Theologico-Political Treatise, translated by Elwes). If you have missed reading it, it is great. He rips into the superstition and fears of some of the religious of his day, namely Christians, who sound so much like some so of this day in which we live, and I find this a bit incredible.
In the first volume he explains much about the O. T. that made complete sense to me, but, of course, and sadly, those who believe in the Bible are mostly,(there are some I suppose, but mostly very much opposed to even consider much of what he says, leaving mostly people like you and me to care.
He finds fault with his own people for believing they are more special to God than others. He does make some effort toward the New Testament, admitting that he could not accept that Christ was resurrected, and that went over very badly with Christendom, which is understandable, but the man was honest. Give him some credit I say. He does mention Paul, more than once, but not a lot, and he does talk about Jesus, saying that he had the mind of God.
S. L. On another thread on this forum, a person stated that the Greek translation of jesus walking on water, has been shown by others to simply mean alongside the water. That would be a vast difference, and would entirely change the concept of the story.
I do not mean to harp on Spinoza, but admittedly he is a very important source in my life. He, (I can only try to say this accurately) seems to have thought that God created a perfect universe. I would be careful with that word perfect, lest little bugs come in and eat it up, but let us leave it at that, and use it. If then, the universe was designed perfectly, how can it be altered with miracles? God would be saying by so doing that his original work was not perfect. That is not exactly the way he said. It has been a while since I was there in his writings. But, I find it very hard to believe in miracles. I think I might find aliens easier. However, let it be clear, that I do believe that things can transpire that we do not understand.
We have, for so long, misjudged the capabilities of our bodies and minds. We have yet to use all that we have, so “miracle” is okay with me to describe those things, but some of this other stuff disappoints me. Why do we need proof if we already know that God is? We should not. There is something very wrong there, and it grieves me at times.
S. L.: So it's just a book written by man? Ok, now I understand you better. Can you please show me what this word of god is, and where I can get access to it - I'd also ask how you even know there is a word of god, whatever that might be.
I wish I could, but you know what? No one showed me! Again, not in a book, not in a church, not by man’s words, but by something within me. I was always very close to nature. I can only suggest that perhaps if you could get alone with nature for some time and just relax and let it speak to you. God is in nature, just as He is in us.
That awful ache that sometimes accompanies a tragedy, that is in the center, just beneath our ribs, that tells us something is ever so wrong, what do you think that is? Or, that wonderful feeling when you stand beside a waterfall; from whence does that come. That overwhelming love for one’s own baby, that connection that even animals feel. What started that? If you truly want to know you have something, it is good to empty yourself and not be fighting, but just listen.
Our world (ie, where we live) is too busy, with its noisy pictures and frantic search for fun and dedication to acquiring acquisitions. We as a society seem to easily lose that precious attachment to the innocence of nature.
...........................
S. L.: The general understanding is that the bible is a book written by god, with the aid of a human with a pencil. Aside from that belief of the biblical texts, I don't see any other words of god. I'm sure you'll show me where the actual word of god is.
Not to be smart, but it was probably a pen, and not a pencil. J Well, my opinion differs from most Christians, in a rather strange way. And I say this, because it really does not and yet it does. Let me try to explain. You say you have read the Bible several times. Why do I doubt this? I know! Because, I have no proof. That must be it. The gospel of John commences with:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, the same was in the beginning with God.”
Christians, as you doubtless know say that Word was logos, and that this means Christ. Judging from what I know, I have to agree. I believe that Christ had the mind of God and expressed it. Where we disagree, (some Christians and I) is that I believe the Word of God is communication from God (as Christ was/is). They say so as well, but then they say the Bible is the Word of God, but I do not believe God’s Word is confined to the Bible, or that all the Bible is the Word of God, but rather men expressing their experiences, their faith, and there is wisdom to be had. However, I have yet to discuss it with any of adamant ones, as I am sure it would lead only to a headache. We are all in a process and each must find his own way.
S. L.: So the man who wrote that encyclopedia can prove anything about Paul? Ok, maybe he can apparently. Would you kindly cite a source so I can go see all the 'facts' concerning Paul. The Britannica Encyclopedia starts off with a lot of question marks concerning when he was actually alive. It then goes on to give information about him due to what's written about in the bible. Nowhere does it say he was a worldly, well educated guy, or that he was a homo, (it doesn't say he was straight either). So much for encyclopedias. I will leave you with my quote once again:
S. L.:"In this instance, people are just interpreting words in a book to try and show what a person was like."
S. L. “ That includes the people who wrote encyclopedias.
RESPONSE: Why would an encyclopedia researcher not consult the Biblical writings. We use man’s writing to “prove” other things. I find that very prejudiced and narrow minded on your part.
.........
S. L.: The reason I responded was because you showed concern over people trying to prove such things- yet if it were proven one way or the other, you'd no longer have to have assumed beliefs or 'opinions', because the facts would be known. Further on from that, considering the lack of proof even concerning his existence, I would ask why you even have the opinion that he lived, except because a book says so.
I do not care. (Please write that down!)
S. L.: I would ask why you even have the opinion that he lived, except because a book says so. Further on from that, I asked why you would give the book any more credence than any other book - and if, let's say, you didn't believe a word of the Sumerian texts, or any characters therein, how the bible has any more credibility.
You are consumed with curiosity, it would seem, as to why people believe things. Have you ever asked yourself why? Why are threatened by what others think, and if you are not threatened, why do you care so much about destroying beliefs? It is unlikely that one would work so hard to destroy a thing he does not fear. Who said I gave the Bible more credence, and if I do it should not concern you. I did not go on the Internet and refute the contents of the “Sumerian texts.” I think you like to disclose what you know, which seems very academic to me.
..........
S. L. Maybe some people are happy to just accept or deny, based upon their own personal feelings regarding the subject, but it comes down to more than that. Living on a line of maybe/maybe not, can certainly be stressful, which is why people endeavour to find truth, and separate it from the fiction.
S. L. You've heard old wise men talking? Or did you perhaps attain this information from the texts?
Here you go being a smarty again. You ask the same questions over and over in the same posting. Perhaps this is why you think you have to ask so many times.
That’s enough. School’s out. PMT
S.L. WROTE: Because I'm just a mere human, and humans make mistakes. I apologise sincerely for not being at a high enough level of perfection in order to please you. I shall go and dunk my head in the lavatory now.
Hmm. Just what is the difference between a human and a mere human. J No, you did not please me. I found no reason for you to misunderstand that. But, enough about that. I will give you credit for addressing it; I know many who would not have bothered. This gives me hope that our exchanges may not be useless. Not that I expect one of us to “give in,” or anything like that, but I should hope that we can use reason rather than personal attacks.
I did visit excerpts from some of your postings, and I was correct, I had supported you in a few matters, not that you asked me too, or even needed me to, but sensible statements impress me far more than intellect-garbled. Yet, also as I suspected, you seem to live to challenge believers, and come across more as an agitator than an investigator. If, for one minute, I could believe that you search to feed your studies, I could almost understand, were it not for the fact that you are using a rather strange method for obtaining why people believe.
It is difficult enough for one to be objective about something that grips their soul and fills their days, without being suddenly faced with a hostile challenge. That is much like having someone rush up to you and ask why you let the air out of their tires. It takes a while to employ reason. If your purpose and wish is to awaken those who tend not to be realistic, I know a far better way. At the same time, you might want to ask yourself why it is so important to you to destroy every thread of belief, faith, hope, etc. in any and everyone you come across. Could it be that you are desperately seeking ways to support your non-belief, lest you have a weak moment and embarrass yourself by buying into anything other than what you already believe?
That is not a question for which I need an answer, but it may one for which you could use an answer. In any event, forget about dunking your head. That would be messy.
SL: Why not? Can it cause harm to your beliefs?
No, that was not the reason. I thought I made the reason clear. I notice you left out the first part of the sentence. You quoted: “I think I do not like the question.” I said: As you include, ‘while at the same time possibly denying other ancient texts, I think I do not like the question.” Remember? Your questions seem to all have a tail dragging in something that I have never said, thus in this case, a phrase that could have been put into a direct question, yet it lies within a question -not necessarily connected- makes both the question and the hypothesis unattractive to me. I like to stay out of murky waters. Be clear, and I will be more inclined to answer.
S.L. If it will make you feel better, I ask every religious person the very same question.
I am so relieved, I thought it was something I had said!
SL: I am interested to see things from the religious man’s perspective, such as how they pick a god from the huge list of gods. How they can accept a book as total truth, without being able to show any real credibility for believing in it.
As I mentioned above, if you are truly interested, there are better ways of getting to the matter.
S.L. It all started with a quote of yours saying how you find it worrying that people try to prove things about dead people.
Here again you give this a slant as though I am uninterested in knowing anything about dead people, then lead with the following, as though this were one of many such instances.
S. L. In that instance it was about whether Paul was homosexual or not.
Paul, Lord Byron, or anyone else, and more specifically about their sexual preferences, and to nothing else! You say it is necessary to know, and then go on to intimate that there is no way to prove such a thing, and that without proof, statements are useless And then you intimate that books are good, ……except when they are talking about the Apostle Paul and Jesus Christ in particular. Did I get all that right?
S. L. I don't understand why you see this as an attack, I'm just posing a question or two, and a point or two that surely can be respected by you - because if you think a person can make unproven statements about these ancient historical figures, then it leaves someone fully able to call Paul a homosexual, and you can't ever disprove such a claim.
Well, if work on understanding it perhaps it will come to you. As for disproving a claim that Paul was a homosexual, did I ever imply that I would use my time for such a purpose? No. Say what you will. He does not need my help.
S. L. As I hope you can now see, I was merely making an observation with regards to your "worry" about people trying to prove such things about dead people.
I do find such obsessions worrisome. I now realize, however, that you are holding the word to mean worrying, which I did not mean in particular, but annoying; so, let us change the word, “worrisome,: to “annoying,” and perhaps this will give you a clearer picture of how such trifle affects me. I promise, I do not walk the floor nor suffer from any anxiety over the matter. If I had known that you would have been so interested in the word, I would have chosen something a bit more exacting.
S.L.: Someone, somewhere interprets biblical text in his own way, and comes to the conclusion that Paul is a homo.
I suppose that is possible, although I would be more inclined to think that it was not biblical text at all. The man was unmarried, and some people do not understand anyone who cares not to be married, especially a man. I suspect also, that some people will do anything to get Christians up in arms. Such is better called mischief, rather than a zeal to know the truth.
S. L.: You would be able to deny that quickly and efficiently if people had proof concerning Paul, or anyone else for that matter. Without it, people are free to say anything they want.
Denying unfounded accusations is not my pattern. Moreover, people are free to say what they want in any event.
S. L.: That is why I told you of the importance of proof, and hoped it would alleviate your worry. I guess it failed.
Do not try to stroke me. I was dealing such nonsense before you were a twinkle in your daddy’s eye.
S. L. Because I'm interested. Is that a crime? Without feeling singled out and victimized for just a moment, can you tell me why you believe in jesus but not in gilgamesh.
You will find out nothing with such innuendos. I have nothing to prove to you. The only reason I am responding is that there seems to be, from what you have said, about seventeen years of your life dedicated to what sounds like it might be authentic research; or did I get that confused with the number of snakes. In any event, taking into account that you have possibly made a sincere study of this sort of thing, of studying people and their beliefs, not sharpening your wits to be controversial. Was I wrong?
...............
S. L. Before you start getting upset and state you never said you didn't believe in gilgamesh, I am aware of that, he is just an example - feel free to replace him with any other god/demi-god being you so choose. If you actually believe in them all, then fair enough.
Before I start getting upset, huh? How do you know I believe in Jesus? In fact, what put you on this trail of assumptions in the first place. This time you are correct in your assumption. It is my heartfelt purpose to be a follower of Jesus Christ. I believe that endeavor in itself will not only keep me busy, but will make this world a better place, and definitely make me a better person. If you have something that you believe works better for you, so be it. Hope that answers your question.
S. L. No, I am not accusing you, or victimizing you, or being rude to you. I am curious, and have posed an innocent enough question out of interest.
Your words fight with your statements.
S. L.” You don't have to answer it, In fact you've even said you don't know how to - (probably the best answer to give is that you feel jesus in your heart, but don't feel gilgamesh). What does concern me though, is why you feel victimized because of this question. It's not rude or accusatory - it's just a question.
I am beginning to think this is a waste of time.
S. L.: [I skipped A, because it has been covered] B) Ok, saying you can't prove jesus existence, might seem to be an assumption, however I still assert it's an accurate one. Feel free to prove me wrong.
I have no desire to prove you wrong.
S. L. C) saying you believe every word in the bible is most certainly a bit over the top, and I apologise, but can we come to an understanding that you believe some of it, even just a chapter or two? If so, my question still stands, and again I would ask why you believe in a certain text, or religion, when there isn't any proof to give it credibility.
Why do you care? A chapter or two, huh? Hmm. I am a bit confused, because the Pauline Epistles were letters to churches of that day. What is to believe or not to believe? What is called the four gospels are comprised of accounts of Christ. In some instances they are not always entirely the same. However, this is common with separate accountings, and, therefore, sounds reasonable to me, no two people give exact accountings.
James, Peter and John also had much to say about God and Jesus Christ and other things. I have no reason to disbelieve them in the entirely. I have very little knowledge of Greek and none of Hebrew, so I would have to take the translator’s word, so to speak, just as I do when I read much of the philosophy available to us in English. The book of Revelation, and how the book came to be, is apparently disputable and scholars disagree so much whether it was one writing, two, or even three. Doctrines to do with the book are often at battle with what it means. Some say it has already come to pass and others await. The book of Acts is another accounting, this one of the apostles. The Old Testament contains much wisdom , and also a few things that boggles the mind, in my opinion. Did I cover everything…oh, Hebrews. I love that first chapter, in K. J. version. Psalms, Proverbs and Eccl. have many sayings similar to sayings from other sources.
Here is what I believe, if you take a moment to be still and hear me: I do not go about denying or trying to prove anything in the Bible, or any other book when it comes to its authenticity.
As I have said before I did not find God in a book or a church, nor did I find Him, he has always been here. Perhaps you have no proof of God; nonetheless, I do. I believe that it is indeed innate in man to believe in God, and am therefore convinced that it takes a lot of work to incorporate disbelief and keep it going. That is my opinion, and it is also my opinion that this is why you work so hard with your paranormal and so forth. Yet, I do not follow that sort of thing, so could not add much.
I have been writing for years, and know for a fact that it is oftentimes extremely difficult to explain things in writing that are so precious and that one feels so deeply. Sometimes there simply are no words.
S. L. Well as the quickest example I could find: In one version of Genesis28:13, it says god was standing above him, while in another it says he was standing beside him. (NIV/NJV). While it might not seem important, (as I said it was just the first example I could find), it does show that particular people will translate things differently, and perhaps unintentionally aid in 'corrupting' what the bible actually says.
Absolutely. You are correct. People cannot tell anything without getting some of themselves into it. Politicians cannot, historians cannot, scientists cannot, prophets cannot, apostles cannot, apologists cannot, nor can you or I.
Let me see, I might compare this example you gave with someone saying, after having had a narrow escape: “God was with me,”. A ridiculous comment in one way, because surely that person knows that God is omnipotent, that he has no boundaries according to their faith, yet they say it anyway. Well, we say the sun rises and the sun sets. So, will someone way into the future think that some of us were ignorant and that we did not know that the sun neither rises nor sets in any true sense of the world?
The old Testament has many errors, and I am most thankful for Spinoza’s insight into those errors. His being a Jew, and an excommunicated one at that, he had no reason to do other than to try to clarify, or purify the scriptures by not only pointing out the errors, but also calming any fears of the people who are truly concerned about ever admitting errors, for fear of losing their faith tool. I love his Preface in the first volume of his Chief Works, (Political Treatise. / Theologico-Political Treatise, translated by Elwes). If you have missed reading it, it is great. He rips into the superstition and fears of some of the religious of his day, namely Christians, who sound so much like some so of this day in which we live, and I find this a bit incredible.
In the first volume he explains much about the O. T. that made complete sense to me, but, of course, and sadly, those who believe in the Bible are mostly,(there are some I suppose, but mostly very much opposed to even consider much of what he says, leaving mostly people like you and me to care.
He finds fault with his own people for believing they are more special to God than others. He does make some effort toward the New Testament, admitting that he could not accept that Christ was resurrected, and that went over very badly with Christendom, which is understandable, but the man was honest. Give him some credit I say. He does mention Paul, more than once, but not a lot, and he does talk about Jesus, saying that he had the mind of God.
S. L. On another thread on this forum, a person stated that the Greek translation of jesus walking on water, has been shown by others to simply mean alongside the water. That would be a vast difference, and would entirely change the concept of the story.
I do not mean to harp on Spinoza, but admittedly he is a very important source in my life. He, (I can only try to say this accurately) seems to have thought that God created a perfect universe. I would be careful with that word perfect, lest little bugs come in and eat it up, but let us leave it at that, and use it. If then, the universe was designed perfectly, how can it be altered with miracles? God would be saying by so doing that his original work was not perfect. That is not exactly the way he said. It has been a while since I was there in his writings. But, I find it very hard to believe in miracles. I think I might find aliens easier. However, let it be clear, that I do believe that things can transpire that we do not understand.
We have, for so long, misjudged the capabilities of our bodies and minds. We have yet to use all that we have, so “miracle” is okay with me to describe those things, but some of this other stuff disappoints me. Why do we need proof if we already know that God is? We should not. There is something very wrong there, and it grieves me at times.
S. L.: So it's just a book written by man? Ok, now I understand you better. Can you please show me what this word of god is, and where I can get access to it - I'd also ask how you even know there is a word of god, whatever that might be.
I wish I could, but you know what? No one showed me! Again, not in a book, not in a church, not by man’s words, but by something within me. I was always very close to nature. I can only suggest that perhaps if you could get alone with nature for some time and just relax and let it speak to you. God is in nature, just as He is in us.
That awful ache that sometimes accompanies a tragedy, that is in the center, just beneath our ribs, that tells us something is ever so wrong, what do you think that is? Or, that wonderful feeling when you stand beside a waterfall; from whence does that come. That overwhelming love for one’s own baby, that connection that even animals feel. What started that? If you truly want to know you have something, it is good to empty yourself and not be fighting, but just listen.
Our world (ie, where we live) is too busy, with its noisy pictures and frantic search for fun and dedication to acquiring acquisitions. We as a society seem to easily lose that precious attachment to the innocence of nature.
...........................
S. L.: The general understanding is that the bible is a book written by god, with the aid of a human with a pencil. Aside from that belief of the biblical texts, I don't see any other words of god. I'm sure you'll show me where the actual word of god is.
Not to be smart, but it was probably a pen, and not a pencil. J Well, my opinion differs from most Christians, in a rather strange way. And I say this, because it really does not and yet it does. Let me try to explain. You say you have read the Bible several times. Why do I doubt this? I know! Because, I have no proof. That must be it. The gospel of John commences with:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, the same was in the beginning with God.”
Christians, as you doubtless know say that Word was logos, and that this means Christ. Judging from what I know, I have to agree. I believe that Christ had the mind of God and expressed it. Where we disagree, (some Christians and I) is that I believe the Word of God is communication from God (as Christ was/is). They say so as well, but then they say the Bible is the Word of God, but I do not believe God’s Word is confined to the Bible, or that all the Bible is the Word of God, but rather men expressing their experiences, their faith, and there is wisdom to be had. However, I have yet to discuss it with any of adamant ones, as I am sure it would lead only to a headache. We are all in a process and each must find his own way.
S. L.: So the man who wrote that encyclopedia can prove anything about Paul? Ok, maybe he can apparently. Would you kindly cite a source so I can go see all the 'facts' concerning Paul. The Britannica Encyclopedia starts off with a lot of question marks concerning when he was actually alive. It then goes on to give information about him due to what's written about in the bible. Nowhere does it say he was a worldly, well educated guy, or that he was a homo, (it doesn't say he was straight either). So much for encyclopedias. I will leave you with my quote once again:
S. L.:"In this instance, people are just interpreting words in a book to try and show what a person was like."
S. L. “ That includes the people who wrote encyclopedias.
RESPONSE: Why would an encyclopedia researcher not consult the Biblical writings. We use man’s writing to “prove” other things. I find that very prejudiced and narrow minded on your part.
.........
S. L.: The reason I responded was because you showed concern over people trying to prove such things- yet if it were proven one way or the other, you'd no longer have to have assumed beliefs or 'opinions', because the facts would be known. Further on from that, considering the lack of proof even concerning his existence, I would ask why you even have the opinion that he lived, except because a book says so.
I do not care. (Please write that down!)
S. L.: I would ask why you even have the opinion that he lived, except because a book says so. Further on from that, I asked why you would give the book any more credence than any other book - and if, let's say, you didn't believe a word of the Sumerian texts, or any characters therein, how the bible has any more credibility.
You are consumed with curiosity, it would seem, as to why people believe things. Have you ever asked yourself why? Why are threatened by what others think, and if you are not threatened, why do you care so much about destroying beliefs? It is unlikely that one would work so hard to destroy a thing he does not fear. Who said I gave the Bible more credence, and if I do it should not concern you. I did not go on the Internet and refute the contents of the “Sumerian texts.” I think you like to disclose what you know, which seems very academic to me.
..........
S. L. Maybe some people are happy to just accept or deny, based upon their own personal feelings regarding the subject, but it comes down to more than that. Living on a line of maybe/maybe not, can certainly be stressful, which is why people endeavour to find truth, and separate it from the fiction.
S. L. You've heard old wise men talking? Or did you perhaps attain this information from the texts?
Here you go being a smarty again. You ask the same questions over and over in the same posting. Perhaps this is why you think you have to ask so many times.
That’s enough. School’s out. PMT
It would be a lot easier if you didn't regard everything as a personal attack.
I'm sorry, isn't this a forum where people debate religious issues? If you'd like, we can just talk about the weather instead. You cannot sum up the whole reason I live based on your observations on a religious debate forum. What am I supposed to do here, ask for cookie recipies?
I am what you'd class as an atheist. You are what I would class as a religious person. When the two of them meet on a religious forum, the chances are a debate will start. You say something, the other responds and so on, yet for some reason you seem to just expect everyone to agree with you in entirety. If they don't, you start making accusations that they're making attacks, when questioning a persons beliefs is a normal everyday event, and rarely does harm unless that person is doubtful of his own beliefs. You must have a strange thought if you really believe a person will not question your beliefs on a forum such as this.You'd probably be much more at home on a christian's only forum.
Again this comes down to how you take everything as a personal attack. This is the first time I've had someone making such accusations, whereas the other people I talk to are more than willing and able to defend and support their beliefs, (be they religious individuals, alien abductees or those who believe in the loch ness monster). How do you define investigator here? Surely someone who is investigating something must ask questions, (questions that many people don't want to hear), as part of his investigation? Simply put, you can answer them or walk away from them, but there's little point trying to give me a lowdown on who or what I am in defence of anything asked to you. I asked you the exact same questions many times before a response was forthcoming. That response about 'light bulbs' wasn't really what I was after, but I'm sure it suffices enough for you. I wonder why you feel so 'attacked' by someone questioning your beliefs - surely if they are rock solid you have nothing to fear or feel threatened by.
If you consider asking questions, and questioning people's motives as a strange method, then fair enough - but it is what any investigator and person interested in a subject will do.
Let's say you've just written a novel. There are those type of people that will read it and say "That's a great story", and there are those type of people that will point out things, question things, and even make criticism of certain things.
While you're obviously looking for a world full of the former people, the latter are of greater worth.
As a person who 'studies' religion and mythology throughout history, covering every aspect as opposed to just one, I am in a position where questions are ever important. You see, in your own mind you probably have the 'truth'. You've probably met jesus, found god, and whatever else along those lines. All everyone else asks is that you show something valid to corroborate any claim you would make - which is an absolute must. You can't expect everyone to just take your word for it and done with it. Thus, people will question things you say and claim. You don't want to be questioned, that's fine. There are many similar people around the world. I would then just suggest that you go to a forum that doesn't involve debates and discussions between believers and non-believers.
You only regard it as a hostile challenge because it "grips your soul and fills your heart".
I'm truly please for you. But my purpose wasn't that, my purpose was simply to ask you why you would give validity to a certain text while denying other such texts, even predating the biblical texts, that give a different account. What you must understand is I do not have jesus in my heart, lungs, kidneys or liver, and as such can only question you because you apparently do.
Destroy? That would make me right. I'm questioning your beliefs, if they get destroyed that's on your own part, not mine. I have no reason whatsoever to ask myself why I question your beliefs, I already know the answer. What I don't know the answer to, is why you would accept the existence of the christian god and Jesus, but deny Abellio, (Gallic god of apple trees), or Aegaeon, the son of Poseidon, and dismiss them as mere myth. From my perspective none of them has any more validity than any of the others. I would question a believer in Abellio as much as I would question a believer in Jesus.
No.
A) Desperately is a pointless word here. My "non-belief" has been supported since my birth, and nobody has even come close to showing otherwise - in fact all that a religious person has accomplished thus far is to make me even more of a "non-believer".
B) I didn't go so far as to say "there is no god," I simply asked why you feel your specific god has any more credibility than any other god. Sure, there might be some big invisible guy, woman, cloud, rhino or hedgehog being sitting in space, who created everything - but what would make you think a bunch of 2000 year old people would know it any better than anyone else? What would make you think the biblical writers got god 'down to a T', instead of the Sumerians, the Hindu's, the Greeks?
Embarrass? No. If I was to "buy" into something other than what I already believe, then it would undoubtedly have a lot of supporting evidence, (maybe only to me), and thus would be a worthwhile move. I would still however, expect people to question what and why I believe what I do. If it's that credible, every question would be answerable.
Yes I remember, and you didn't answer the question. Instead you ended by saying you didn't like the question. What's your point?
It wasn't "murky", it's a simple question:
"If you believe what the bible says, (generally speaking or in entirety), I would ask if you have a valid reason to do so, while at the same time possibly denying other ancient texts, such as the Vedas, the Enuma Elish, and so on."
What I think you need to understand is this...
On my desk are 10 books of ancient texts. I look at book 1, then book 2 and so on until book 10. What is it that would give credence to the biblical texts over any of the others?
You can make any answer you want, it doesn't really matter. I am just curious for an answer is all.
Perhaps so, but if I did things differently to how I do things, then I would no longer be me.
Of course, I've never had a problem in the past - oh except for that religious couple years ago, who stopped me in the street and then called me devil possessed when I told them I believed in a different "religion". Oh and that religious person who told me to join his church service on a sunday- upon which I told him of my belief in Santa Claus, to which he said "Surely you're too old to believe in fictional beings", to which I replied "Surely you're too old to believe in fictional beings". Oh and except for that guy who told me I should love the Lord, and when I informed him I was actually the Lord in human form, he told me to prove it by standing up after being run over by some cars. I then went and stood in the middle of the road, and laughed as every car stopped and beeped their horns. I walked back over and said "Silly man, thinking I, god, would be run over".
Those took the direct approach, but I usually do prefer giving people an opportunity to answer questions, which is surely the better method?
I didn't slant anything. You said you found it worrying that people go to such lengths to prove such things about dead people, I responded to that. I didn't once say you were uninterested.
Eh? I've read the majority of other ancient texts, and they have no more and no less credence than the bible does. I can hardly question you about them though, because you haven't read them. I can only question you on what you have read - in this instance the bible.
No. You'd probably just state it's worrying or annoying to think people go to such lengths. I would respond saying it's essential that people do. It helps them gain an understanding of the characters portrayed, might help to show that they even existed in the first place, and is important when people claim how wonderful, educated, queer and god loving Paul was when they don't even fucking know him.
And that's why people need to "go out of their way" to find out the truth concerning these things. As such, I suggest you don't let it worry or anger you when people do.
No, neither is it some other people's 'pattern', which is why they go out of their way to prove/disprove such things. Again I can only state, you shouldn't let it worry or annoy you.
Dealing with such nonsense as "the importance of proof"? It's somewhat shocking to think you consider that nonsense, but is understandable in light of your character.
Once again, the minute a question is asked you rush to the defensive.
I never said you did.
Im psychic. Or it could possibly be because you've quite clearly supported that view during your time on this forum. Well, either one will suffice.
Although it's not really an answer to the question, it will suffice.
Now see, that's a vast misunderstanding. It takes no work whatsoever to not believe in something that has nothing to show it exists. Let me ask you, would you find it hard work not believing in the giant fruit pastille eating iguana from planet thwobble plop? Of course not... But when someone says they do believe in said iguana, you could either A) ignore them, B) laugh at them or C) find some reason for their belief.
I do not ignore people, I find it rude. I do not generally laugh at people, instead I like to question people in order to find out what they believe and why. The main problem is in understanding why someone would instantly accept some "supernatural" belief while denying others. I don't see how a guy who believes in god could deny leprechauns, unicorns, sasquatch or aliens as abruptly as they usually do.
You say perhaps I have no proof of god.. It's more than that - I don't have one solitary bit of evidence to claim there is such a being. Some say this being can't be seen, which, if that was the case, would turn any ancient texts into mere fairy tale. Sure, there are vast amounts of ancient written works making mention of many strange and unseen beings - which is why I always ask what makes one more credible. How does a person just say "well this god is the real one"? Some texts claim there is only, and has only ever been one god, whereas other texts claim there's hundreds or thousands of god beings. The sky could quite literally be packed to the brim with gods, or completely devoid of them.
Humans haven't even managed to figure the brain out completely yet, what would make anyone think anyone has god figured out, let alone people several thousand years ago?
Of course, these people several thousand years ago, had nothing but a belief in god. They didn't really understand the world, and taught their kids their belief. Those kids did the same and so on and so forth. Some branched away and tried to find actual answers to these things, but the majority just kept teaching the same belief. Over time the beliefs would adapt to suit environmental/culture trends, but they would continue to teach their kids nonetheless. A few thousand years of this, and it's only right to say a belief of some sort would be generally inherent in a person. Nowadays there are two distinct paths- those where truth comes from within, (religion), and those where truth comes from the outside, (science). One looks at everything around them and finds answers, while the other looks within themselves and finds answers. Science produces for everyone, religion produces for the individual.
Nah, I just find it all interesting. At night I stare up at space with a big telescope. With everything else I do, I don't consider it work, but fascination. Of course though, I must question things. I could just accept something that's said, or something that I read - but that just makes everything ultimately worthless. Someone says "I saw a ghost," I say "Wow, ghosts exist". You see, there's no worth in that. Without the absolute fact, nothing has any real value in issues such as these. It doesn't stop people making the claims however, which is exactly why I question it.
Sure, anyone can have credit for their opinions and understandings, but the last line is what gives me gas... Maybe I'm mistaken, but Spinoza was around in the 1600's was he not? As such, what could he really have to say about jesus that is founded upon anything of true substance- from whether he was ressurrected to whether he had the mind of god or not. Did Spinoza know the mind of god, that he could make comparisons to it?
I'd have to agree with you that using "perfect" should be said with care, but even extend that in to saying it shouldn't be said at all.
Again I agree. Unfortunately many people assign an instant answer to that which we do not understand. The very principle of not understanding something, is that you don't give it an instant answer that you accept outright. I'm not speaking of you personally, but this most certainly is the norm.
But that's just a personal relation. Billions of people have no incling, understanding, or sign of gods existence, so proof remains essential does it not? I cannot be expected to just take your word for it, the preachers word for it, or some 2000 year old shepherds word for it.
[/quote]I can only suggest that perhaps if you could get alone with nature for some time and just relax and let it speak to you. God is in nature, just as He is in us.[/quote]
I live in the country.. I love nothing quite as much as trees, kingfishers, squirrels scampering around the woodland, the moon at night glistening upon a quiet planet, and leaves sway gently in the breeze. I love the smell of grass in the morning, the chattering of finches, the rippling of the lake as it winds it's way through the countryside. I smile at the field overrun by amazingly colourful flowers, and love listening to the woodpecker make his nest. More than that, I love to see the resident kestrel glide overhead.
The kestrel and I have a very interesting history. He played so much of a part in my upbringing it is insane. (Of course we're now talking about the kestrels grandkid).
In all of this beauty, and even in all of the pain and suffering that also goes on in this world, nothing points to a god being. For some, I have no doubt it does, but for me, it doesn't.
It's like asking why a man would grimace when he needs to do a poo, or say "ouch" when he get's punched in the face, or why he goes unconcious when he's punched in the face a bit more. In either event, I see no cause for belief in a god entity. The answer can more likely be found a little closer to home, (the brain and the genes).
But what am I really destroying? I didn't ask you to change or ignore your beliefs, I am simply questioning them. When I was a kid and I got a toy car, I didn't wheel it along the floor, I opened it and looked inside. That is who/what I am. I am truly comfortable with being who I am. It in turn led to me starting several degrees.. and continually wanting to do more - (and I thank the internet for making that all the more available). The only thing I really have no interest in is sport like football, rugby and other such sports. I don't mind a good game of chess or darts though
I am a thinking man more than anything else. I wouldn't get up and make a nuclear bomb, but I'd certainly want to know how one worked.
Last edited: