The Bread Of Life.

[Arne Saknussemm]

:bravo: Way to go Mr. Pearse, you thrashed that bad aqueous id. I've been trying to tell him and his band of trollish atheists (atheistic trolls?) for weeks now that they can't just call religious (Christian) beliefs ridiculous while theirs are 'scientific and objective' just because they say so. I have shown that the Gospels have more authenticity backed by witnesses and the huge amount of surviving manuscripts, but they say the witnesses do not count because they believed in 'fairy stories' (i.e.They didn't believe what the atheists on these fora believe), and they cannot see that the humanities are not about science. Science does not even address the question 'why', which is what religion and philosophy are all about. They choose to ignore any information that contradicts their precious 'objectivity', which they don't even realize they have never been in possession of. You are more eloquent and well read than I. I hope you will continue to point out the error of their ways to them,and I will support you when I can, but it is a arduous battle because they are so dismissive and scornful. Aqueous, always maintains an even temper and tries to appear rational in his narrow way, but I have to wonder at his doggedness at knocking down religion. I have tried to ask him about this to no avail. Why does he continue to post on a topic that should hold no interest for him?

I loved this bit:

Aqueos: It's these facts I'm interested in exposing, nothing more. You won't hear me telling you how to live your lives. I'll tell you're seriously mistaken in treating legend as historical narrative, but I won't even be basing that on belief. Just evidence.

Pearse The Perceptive:This is a little disingenuous. When we attack the religion of others, we are indeed telling them how to live their lives: the silent inference is that our opinions are better than theirs, and so they had better live as we do: that is, by convenience

.

Pearse The Perceptive: You're a little prone to flatter yourself, you know, for qualities that you don't actually possess. You praise yourself for not lecturing people; but you ARE lecturing people. You praise yourself for "facts"; but you're not actually interested in facts. You talk about "science"; but you don't know what it is. This won't do, you know? I'm not accusing you of dishonesty: rather, I'm saying you've been duped. You're repeating stuff you've read and found convenient, written by people who (to be honest) were liars. You've got to be way more careful, and a great deal less self-flattering. When people flatter, you can be pretty certain that you intend to screw you in some way or other. Normally people don't flatter, unless they want something.

I hope you will search through Aqueous's other heavy handed downplayings of the religious experience, but be careful, he loves to reply with multiple quotes of everything you say and will tirelessly pick apart every statement for no other reason I can understand but to show how clever he and god-hating he is. It's actually rather sad.

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

:bravo: Way to go Mr. Pearse, you thrashed that bad aqueous id. I've been trying to tell him and his band of trollish atheists (atheistic trolls?) for weeks now that they can't just call religious (Christian) beliefs ridiculous while theirs are 'scientific and objective' just because they say so. I have shown that the Gospels have more authenticity backed by witnesses and the huge amount of surviving manuscripts, but they say the witnesses do not count because they believed in 'fairy stories' (i.e.They didn't believe what the atheists on these fora believe), and they cannot see that the humanities are not about science. Science does not even address the question 'why', which is what religion and philosophy are all about. They choose to ignore any information that contradicts their precious 'objectivity', which they don't even realize they have never been in possession of. You are more eloquent and well read than I. I hope you will continue to point out the error of their ways to them,and I will support you when I can, but it is a arduous battle because they are so dismissive and scornful. Aqueous, always maintains an even temper and tries to appear rational in his narrow way, but I have to wonder at his doggedness at knocking down religion. I have tried to ask him about this to no avail. Why does he continue to post on a topic that should hold no interest for him?

I loved this bit:

Aqueos: It's these facts I'm interested in exposing, nothing more. You won't hear me telling you how to live your lives. I'll tell you're seriously mistaken in treating legend as historical narrative, but I won't even be basing that on belief. Just evidence.

Pearse The Perceptive:This is a little disingenuous. When we attack the religion of others, we are indeed telling them how to live their lives: the silent inference is that our opinions are better than theirs, and so they had better live as we do: that is, by convenience

.

Pearse The Perceptive: You're a little prone to flatter yourself, you know, for qualities that you don't actually possess. You praise yourself for not lecturing people; but you ARE lecturing people. You praise yourself for "facts"; but you're not actually interested in facts. You talk about "science"; but you don't know what it is. This won't do, you know? I'm not accusing you of dishonesty: rather, I'm saying you've been duped. You're repeating stuff you've read and found convenient, written by people who (to be honest) were liars. You've got to be way more careful, and a great deal less self-flattering. When people flatter, you can be pretty certain that you intend to screw you in some way or other. Normally people don't flatter, unless they want something.

I hope you will search through Aqueous's other heavy handed downplayings of the religious experience, but be careful, he loves to reply with multiple quotes of everything you say and will tirelessly pick apart every statement for no other reason I can understand but to show how clever and god-hating he is. It's actually rather sad.

 

[Balerion]

:bravo: Way to go Mr. Pearse, you thrashed that bad aqueous id. I've been trying to tell him and his band of trollish atheists (atheistic trolls?) for weeks now that they can't just call religious (Christian) beliefs ridiculous while theirs are 'scientific and objective' just because they say so. I have shown that the Gospels have more authenticity backed by witnesses and the huge amount of surviving manuscripts, but they say the witnesses do not count because they believed in 'fairy stories' (i.e.They didn't believe what the atheists on these fora believe), and they cannot see that the humanities are not about science. Science does not even address the question 'why', which is what religion and philosophy are all about. They choose to ignore any information that contradicts their precious 'objectivity', which they don't even realize they have never been in possession of. You are more eloquent and well read than I. I hope you will continue to point out the error of their ways to them,and I will support you when I can, but it is a arduous battle because they are so dismissive and scornful. Aqueous, always maintains an even temper and tries to appear rational in his narrow way, but I have to wonder at his doggedness at knocking down religion. I have tried to ask him about this to no avail. Why does he continue to post on a topic that should hold no interest for him?

I loved this bit:


.


I hope you will search through Aqueous's other heavy handed downplayings of the religious experience, but be careful, he loves to reply with multiple quotes of everything you say and will tirelessly pick apart every statement for no other reason I can understand but to show how clever and god-hating he is. It's actually rather sad.

Lol. Trolling from the sidelines.

Post reported.

 

[Magical Realist]

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

See what I mean. Atheists say and do what they please, while we others are not allowed to contradict them. P.S. Balerion is a well known agitator and troll

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

LeeDa

Please be advised that Sciforums takes a very dim view of preaching and evangelising. If you wish to discuss religious writings or text, then please do so without infringing on this site's rules:

24. Preaching is giving a sermon, often but not always of a religious nature, stating how people should or should not act, as if the sermon itself were self-evidently true.

25. Proselytising is attempting to convert others to one’s own beliefs, often with threats of adverse consequences if one refuses to convert.

26. Evangelising is where the poster’s main aim is to spread the word about his or her beliefs, without being interested in real discussion or critical analysis.

27. The moderator team takes a dim view of propaganda, preaching, proselytising and evangelising. Engaging in these activities is not guaranteed to get you banned, but you do so at your own risk.

28. The quoting of religious texts as unquestionable authorities to support an argument will in general be regarded as preaching, particularly if the discussion is not about how a religious group interprets the text in question. Quotes of large sections of a religious text will be removed as a matter of course; such texts are available elsewhere online and can easily be linked if appropriate.

I would strongly suggest those who participate in this thread be mindful that this will be reviewed and atheistic preaching will also fall under the rules above.. So please refrain from preaching all round.



Arne Saknussemm

Sciforums also takes a very dim view of trolling and goading and baiting behaviour. If you have an issue with someone's post, then please hit the report button instead of insulting them for pointing out this site's rules, which you appear to not be too knowledgeable about.

---

I have issued two warnings in this thread and have requested it be closed for infringing against the rules of this site and of this sub-forum.

 

[roger_pearse]

:bravo: Way to go Mr. Pearse

Thank you for your kind words. I hope that my words were not taken as a personal attack, tho: I merely came across the post on Mithras, and was a little bemused by some of the rest. Most people who repeat the Mithras nonsense do so in perfect good faith. After all, how many of us can check such things? (I am one of the few online, to the best of my knowledge, with this particular hobby). It is the original authors of the twaddle who are a nuisance to all of us, whatever our religious position.

I hope you will search through Aqueous's other heavy handed downplayings of the religious experience, but be careful, he loves to reply with multiple quotes of everything you say and will tirelessly pick apart every statement for no other reason I can understand but to show how clever he and god-hating he is. It's actually rather sad.

Well, I'll look at one or two. But everyone is entitled to their opinion. I concern myself mainly with data. And we could all use better quality data online.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[spidergoat]

I think you need to familiarise yourself with the difference between the sciences and the humanities. We cannot apply science to "explain" religion (by which I presume you mean, "explain away the religion of others"). It doesn't deal with that subject!

It actually does. Some religions make certain claims about the physical universe and how it acts, and they make historical claims.

 

[Yazata]

Acts 2:17 "'In the last days

Jesus seemed to have thought that the first decades of the first century were the "last days". Now it's 2,000 years later, and apparently it's still the "last days". Are these "last days" permanent and never-ending? Is every moment the "last days" in some sense?

(I can see how there might be some religious value in living one's days as if they were, but I don't think that's what most fundies understand the phrase to mean. They take it literally.)

God says

God says? That's a pretty dramatic claim.

I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.

Presumably not everything that every street-corner visionary proclaims is actual prophecy. So how does one distinguish between prophecy (assuming that such a thing even exists) and over-active imagination, or even outright psychosis?

 

[Yazata]

Jesus is immortal as am I. Even though I die I live through resurrection. I believe I am immortal and this is how I confer immortality on Jesus and figure Jesus is immortal. I am so sure I am immortal. I'll be back. It could be I might not die before reaching fullness but should I die I will certainly be resurrected. I am eternal.

Leeda

You confer immortality on Jesus?

 

[Yazata]

I think you need to familiarise yourself with the difference between the sciences and the humanities. We cannot apply science to "explain" religion (by which I presume you mean, "explain away the religion of others"). It doesn't deal with that subject!

I agree that natural science is out of its depth when addressing the existence of hypothetical transcendental beings. But that doesn't mean that it can't propose naturalistic accounts for human religiosity, including why so many human beings have believed in transcendental beings. There's a whole genre of recent writing on that subject.

A few comments: The Roman cult of Mithras does not originate in the near east, nor does it originate in Persia, nor is Mithras the same as Mithra, nor even derived from him (as far as any man now living knows). The archaeology is clear: Mithras arose in Rome. The earliest archaeology fans out from there, in the late 1st or early 2nd century AD, and the first literary mention, ca. 80 AD, is Statius.

It first appears in Asia minor, as I recall. And there's a great deal of scholarly uncertainty about what the Mithraism of the Roman empire's precise relationship was to religious ideas further east in the Parthian empire.

You're a little prone to flatter yourself, you know, for qualities that you don't actually possess. You praise yourself for not lecturing people; but you ARE lecturing people. You praise yourself for "facts"; but you're not actually interested in facts. You talk about "science"; but you don't know what it is. This won't do, you know? I'm not accusing you of dishonesty: rather, I'm saying you've been duped. You're repeating stuff you've read and found convenient, written by people who (to be honest) were liars. You've got to be way more careful, and a great deal less self-flattering. When people flatter, you can be pretty certain that you intend to screw you in some way or other. Normally people don't flatter, unless they want something.

You might want to look in the mirror, Roger. You're posturing.

 

[spidergoat]

...It is an ancient text, and nobody in antiquity, to my knowledge, treats it as other than a recounting of events....

Then you aren't aware of the historical purpose of such ancient gospels. They were never intended as history, but rather meant to teach a lesson, and if they had to be creative about it, so be it, it was all for a good cause. This is the general scholarly opinion of such works. You hinted at it yourself when you said that it wasn't written like someone from the 1950's. That's because the idea of pure non-fictional history is a relatively modern one. The fact is no one knows if Jesus really had 12 disciples, and many of the stories found in the Bible were adapted from earlier myths, the flood myth, the virgin birth myth, the resurrection myth, and miracles.

 

[Syne]

Jesus seemed to have thought that the first decades of the first century were the "last days". Now it's 2,000 years later, and apparently it's still the "last days". Are these "last days" permanent and never-ending? Is every moment the "last days" in some sense?

The Bible does cover that:

3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:3-9​

Then you aren't aware of the historical purpose of such ancient gospels. They were never intended as history, but rather meant to teach a lesson, and if they had to be creative about it, so be it, it was all for a good cause. This is the general scholarly opinion of such works.

Perhaps you could cite references to this general scholarly opinion. For example, Biblical criticism which does find criteria for authenticating historical content.

 

[Balerion]

The Bible does cover that:

So does Jesus:

“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” - Matthew 24:34​

It's no surprise that the first chore of Christian apologetics was to talk their way out of this conundrum.

 

[Syne]

So does Jesus:

“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” - Matthew 24:34​

It's no surprise that the first chore of Christian apologetics was to talk their way out of this conundrum.

There is some argument over whether he was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Notice Matthew 24 does not reference the "last days".

 

[Balerion]

There is some argument over whether he was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Notice Matthew 24 does not reference the "last days".

Not any argument rooted in scripture. He doesn't actually say the words "last days," but his disciples ask him straight-up, "How will we know when you're coming?" His answer is what precedes "VErily I say unto you..."