Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sojourner553 · 03-29-2002, 05:16 PM

__________________________________________________ _____
Per Amos:
I see your point and agree that "to do good" for rewards in eternity removes the goodness of the act and transforms it into selfserving idealism. This is shown in the bible with Mt.10:40 and many more places. But don't call all 'Christians' bad because many will do good for the sake of goodness itself. You are nitpicking because there is far greater evil they serve which is calling themselves "Christians" first and then 'haul ass' to live up to it.
__________________________________________________ _________

** I would never call �all� Christians bad.**

Neither would I call all non-Catholics who believe in Jesus bad.

I think you agree that non-Catholics can be �good� people. But then you see no conflict that a �good� God could send a good non-Catholic person to hell, since only Catholics go to heaven. Do bad Catholics also go to heaven?
You are motivated by good works, as opposed to good deeds. The evil of non-Catholic Christians is their belief system. You don�t apply my question for yourself � ie would you be a Catholic if you found you were serving a devil instead of a God. You point out how Protestants abuse it.

It seems it is your beliefs � only � that will get you to heaven.
You have already agreed that most Catholics and non-Catholics follow the religion of their parents. If God wished it, people would �see� which religion was true immediately. This was no doubt the meaning of Shelley�s words when he wrote:

�If God has spoken, why is the universe not convinced.

___________________________________________
Per Amos: Find me a passage where God repented or created evil and we'll talk again.
______________________________________________
In Exodus 32:11, (Revised Standard Edition)
� But Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, �Oh Lord, why does thy wrath burn hot against thy people� [Moses then has to remind God that the Egyptians will claim he was an evil God for leading the hebrews out of Egypt only to slay them in the mountains; he also has to remind God of his covenant with Abraham]. Then you have the lines
�And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people.�

_______________________________________________
Ackerley and Mark Twain knew very well what they were talking about.

Here are some quotes from Twain:

*When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn't know.

*If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to ask for any man's compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better sort of man in these regards.
He would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not buy these things. He would not sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of the joys of eternity for the product called worship. I would have Him as dignified as the better sort of man in this regard.
He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man's heart for a wrong done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for forgiveness be required or desired or expected of that man.
In His Bible there would be no Unforgiveable Sin. He would recognize in Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner.
He would not be a jealous God -- a trait so small that even men despise it in each other.
He would not boast.
He would keep private His admirations of Himself; He would regard self-praise as unbecoming the dignity of his position.
He would not have the spirit of vengeance in His heart. Then it would not issue from His lips.
There would not be any hell -- except the one we live in from the cradle to the grave.
There would not be any heaven -- the kind described in the world's Bibles.
He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy.

*Against a diseased imagination demonstration goes for nothing

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Sojourner

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

03-29-2002, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
Amos, I've said it before and I'll say it again. You're a whack-job, but I love ya'!

Just when I think you couldn't possibly come up with another "amosism," BAM! There it is.

There is no end to protestant parody. It is sad, really.

03-29-2002, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553:
__________________________________________ _____________
Per Amos:
Neither would I call all non-Catholics who believe in Jesus bad.

I think you agree that non-Catholics can be �good� people. But then you see no conflict that a �good� God could send a good non-Catholic person to hell, since only Catholics go to heaven. Do bad Catholics also go to heaven?
You are motivated by good works, as opposed to good deeds. The evil of non-Catholic Christians is their belief system. You don�t apply my question for yourself � ie would you be a Catholic if you found you were serving a devil instead of a God. You point out how Protestants abuse it.

Don't be offended because I have nothing against protestants except their belief system (they are ALL wrong or heaven could not be for Catholics only). The concept bad is difficult in this respect but yes, bad Catholics go to heaven and good ones do to. The explanation of this is simple. At least in theory, "bad" Catholics are sinners and just as Jesus was counted among the wicked so must we be called by name and convicted by God as sinner. The "banquet parable" deals with this and so does the "Rich man and Lazarus parable." The "good" Catholics will never be born again and will remain cold (ask a fundy) and since cold is OK they will be OK. The Catholics that do not go to heaven will be those that have been made lukewarm by the wolf in sheeps clothing. The wolf in sheeps clothing is a wolf indeed and of the same frock wherefore he works withing the flock. In other words he wants to save Catholics that are down and will "zap" them when they are at a vulnerable state in life ("where the carcass lies the vultures will gather)."

I/we Catholics do not serve anybody but are allowed to live life and can be forgiven for our sins so we will never have a guilt complex. This is done to ensure that slavery to righteousness is avoided. We will never feel obligated to perform and God owes us nothing just as we do not owe God anything.

It seems it is your beliefs � only � that will get you to heaven.
You have already agreed that most Catholics and non-Catholics follow the religion of their parents. If God wished it, people would �see� which religion was true immediately. This was no doubt the meaning of Shelley�s words when he wrote:

�If God has spoken, why is the universe not convinced.

Salvation is a mystery and there is no way that you can rationally figure out which religion is best for you. In fact, as soon as you look and think you are wrong already because your conscious mind is the enemy and must itself be crucified. Hence the mystery of salvation.

___________________________________________
Per Amos: Find me a passage where God repented or created evil and we'll talk again.
______________________________________________
In Exodus 32:11, (Revised Standard Edition)
� But Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, �Oh Lord, why does thy wrath burn hot against thy people� [Moses then has to remind God that the Egyptians will claim he was an evil God for leading the hebrews out of Egypt only to slay them in the mountains; he also has to remind God of his covenant with Abraham]. Then you have the lines
�And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people.�

Don't be so hard on yourself because Moses reminded God that the Egyptians "will [wrongly] claim" that God is evil because they died nonetheless. There is, true enough, the wrath of God but that is just a matter of us doing it to ourselves. We can either be invited to the wedding in Cana and drink of the better wine during the second half of our life (the wine that Jesus made), or we can drink of the wine of Gods wrath poured full stenght into the cup of his anger (Rev.14:10). From the first wine we will enjoy eternal life on earth and from the second wine we will endure the wrath of Gods anger for eternity while on earth (and the smoke of torment is the evidence all around us).

You must understand that to "part the sea" and so enter the promised land is the wrong thing to do because that is equal to forcing our way into the promised land and there is no way that marauders will ever enter into the kingdom of God and live. Instead, we must learn to walk on the celestial sea if ever we enter the promised land and live. The difference between heaven and hell now becomes our intimacy with God while in the promised land. 
_______________________________________________
Ackerley and Mark Twain knew very well what they were talking about.

Here are some quotes from Twain:

[snip]

In His Bible there would be no Unforgiveable Sin. 

If that was all from Twain he was an idiot. The Unforgivavble sin is the sin I described above and amounts to a fornicated rebirth from carnal desire as opposed to a rebirth that was incipient from God (Jn.1:13). A fornicated rebirth is either premature ("from his mothers womb untimely ripped"), or provoked from carnal desire (eg. age of accountability, preacher, girlfriend, parents, fear of hell, etc.). God wants the courageous and confession is a good courage builders for the wicked.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

spin · 03-29-2002, 08:16 PM

Sojourner,

I don't think we can go any further. It is arbitrary to me to cut out the bits one doesn't like and keep the rest. You think there is just cause. I think you are arguing with logic that doesn't reflect on the writers. You think you can validly argue as you do, claiming that possible interpolators would not use positive terms toward procurators. Strange things happen: look at the way the nasty Bacchides is described in 1 Macc 7:8, "a man of high standing in the empire and loyal to the king." I always have trouble with people who make assumptions about what ancient writers should or would say, when they have no way of ever knowing.

Where do we go from here?

spin · 03-29-2002, 08:32 PM

Sojourner:
-----------
“If God has spoken, why is the universe not convinced.
-----------

Amos:
-----------
Salvation is a mystery and there is no way that you can rationally figure out which religion is best for you. In fact, as soon as you look and think you are wrong already because your conscious mind is the enemy and must itself be crucified. Hence the mystery of salvation.
-----------

This is the usual massive obfuscation tactic. Amos, I understand that you cannot defend the idea and I understand why you hide behind the "mystery of salvation", but why can't you understand it?

Crucifixion is tying someone to a stick or two and leaving them up until the weight of their bodies cause them to suffocate. This means that you are using the term "crucified" in a non-standard manner. This reminds me of many obfuscating points of view, including the $cientologists.

-------------

Calling a person like Mark Twain an idiot (yes, there was an "if", but it doesn't change anything), because you don't agree with his printed viewpoint as you have done, only reflects badly upon you.

Sojourner553 · 03-30-2002, 06:59 AM

______________________________________________

Per Amos:
Salvation is a mystery and there is no way that you can rationally figure out which religion is best for you. In fact, as soon as you look and think you are wrong already because your conscious mind is the enemy and must itself be crucified. Hence the mystery of salvation.
________________________________________________

If the Catholic Church did not have such an abominable history of human rights abuses and regressing science by almost a thousand years during the Dark Ages -- maybe your statement would not sound so ridiculous. (And this doesn't count the latest controversy on priest abuse of children, lawsuites, church authority complicity)

It was with the emergence of Protestantism that the Enlightenment -- and therefore sciences and democracy/human rights took off to the advanced level we see today in modern society.

You seem not to care that your beliefs are steeped in the deepest superstition. (Such as when you say "There is no way that you can rationally figure out which religion is best for you".) As John Locke said:

"if strength of persuasion be the light which must guide us; I ask
how shall any one distinguish between the delusions of Satan, and
the inspirations of the Holy Ghost?"

I tried to argue once with a woman that space aliens did not build the Egyptican pyramids. At least she was honest and admitted she really just wanted to "believe" this was true; that it would be "nice" if it were true.

Using this approach of believing what one desires--without using rational inquiry to CHECK their beliefs-- one can invent whatever they want: the Muslims who flew there airplanes into the WTC really ARE are going to heaven... from their warped persepective and that of many pious Muslims.

Just another example of the divine mystery!

I think Mark Twain had it right!

Sojourner

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

Sojourner553 · 03-30-2002, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
Sojourner,

I don't think we can go any further. It is arbitrary to me to cut out the bits one doesn't like and keep the rest. You think there is just cause. I think you are arguing with logic that doesn't reflect on the writers. You think you can validly argue as you do, claiming that possible interpolators would not use positive terms toward procurators. Strange things happen: look at the way the nasty Bacchides is described in 1 Macc 7:8, "a man of high standing in the empire and loyal to the king." I always have trouble with people who make assumptions about what ancient writers should or would say, when they have no way of ever knowing.

Where do we go from here?

I do not think stating your persecutor/enemy is "a person of high standing/loyal to the king" compares with calling him "good". For example, I could see Christians stating Saul (later to become Paul) was a "person of high standing/loyal to [a] king/person in authority" during the period he was persecuting Christians. But they would never describe Saul as "good" during this time.

We'll just agree to disagree on this one!

Sojourner

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

03-30-2002, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553:
__________________________________________ ____

Per Amos:
Salvation is a mystery and there is no way that you can rationally figure out which religion is best for you. In fact, as soon as you look and think you are wrong already because your conscious mind is the enemy and must itself be crucified. Hence the mystery of salvation.
________________________________________________

If the Catholic Church did not have such an abominable history of human rights abuses and regressing science by almost a thousand years during the Dark Ages -- maybe your statement would not sound so ridiculous. (And this doesn't count the latest controversy on priest abuse of children, lawsuites, church authority complicity)

It was with the emergence of Protestantism that the Enlightenment -- and therefore sciences and democracy/human rights took off to the advanced level we see today in modern society.

You seem not to care that your beliefs are steeped in the deepest superstition. (Such as when you say "There is no way that you can rationally figure out which religion is best for you".) As John Locke said:

"if strength of persuasion be the light which must guide us; I ask
how shall any one distinguish between the delusions of Satan, and
the inspirations of the Holy Ghost?" 

There you go again, you cling to your Tabula Rasa which is the enemy. You nor Locke can separate between Satan and the HS and if that is true how can you say that Locke is right? This means that you can never judge beyond your own limited world view and must step aside for those minds that are superior to yours.

The abomiable history of the Catholic Church exists only in the minds of protestants because they have always been the cause of it. The proof of this is that today they can claim Apostolic succession on the anathema side of the Church from where they have always been the antagonist. Nothing has changed and is why we are at war now, both abroad and within the Church.

The Age of Enlightenment also killed the height of renaissance and with it the evolutionay period of our civilization and we've been going downhill ever since (which was predictable and worth the effort to prevent it). 

I tried to argue once with a woman that space aliens did not build the Egyptican pyramids. At least she was honest and admitted she really just wanted to "believe" this was true; that it would be "nice" if it were true.

perhaps, but it would also be nice if we could ever figure out how they did it! Our limited age of Enlightement seems to be short an apostle or two to figure that one out.

Using this approach of believing what one desires--without using rational inquiry to CHECK their beliefs-- one can invent whatever they want: the Muslims who flew there airplanes into the WTC really ARE are going to heaven... from their warped persepective and that of many pious Muslims.
Just another example of the divine mystery!

I think Mark Twain had it right!

Since, as of late, females have joint their effort must your rational faith not now conclude that there are male virgins waiting in heaven to please them?

Maybe Mark Twain was wrong after all.

03-30-2002, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
Sojourner:
-----------
“If God has spoken, why is the universe not convinced.
-----------

Amos:
-----------
Salvation is a mystery and there is no way that you can rationally figure out which religion is best for you. In fact, as soon as you look and think you are wrong already because your conscious mind is the enemy and must itself be crucified. Hence the mystery of salvation.
-----------

This is the usual massive obfuscation tactic. Amos, I understand that you cannot defend the idea and I understand why you hide behind the "mystery of salvation", but why can't you understand it?

But you're so wrong here. I gan give you the most intricate details of it and use volumes to defend my position. This includes why and how protestants go wrong of which the goriest details are described in Titus Andronicus.

Crucifixion is tying someone to a stick or two and leaving them up until the weight of their bodies cause them to suffocate. This means that you are using the term "crucified" in a non-standard manner. This reminds me of many obfuscating points of view, including the $cientologists.

I hold that my position is the standard and that the stick view is the crucifixion image is used to present the annihilation of our sense perception. 
-------------

Calling a person like Mark Twain an idiot (yes, there was an "if", but it doesn't change anything), because you don't agree with his printed viewpoint as you have done, only reflects badly upon you.

I have not trouble calling Mark Twain (and a hundred like him) an idiot because it is OK to say that you don't know and write your satire from there. However, to first write that you don't know and later try to prove that you do know but are wrong in what you claim to know proves that you are an idiot.

Marduk · 03-31-2002, 04:19 PM

"I tried to argue once with a woman that space aliens did not build the Egyptican pyramids."

Aliens designed the pyramids, humans built them. We all know how much aliens hate manual labor.
<a href="http://www.piney.com/Atrahasis.html" target="_blank">http://www.piney.com/Atrahasis.html</a>

03-29-2002, 05:16 PM	#41
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	__________________________________________________ _____ Per Amos: I see your point and agree that "to do good" for rewards in eternity removes the goodness of the act and transforms it into selfserving idealism. This is shown in the bible with Mt.10:40 and many more places. But don't call all 'Christians' bad because many will do good for the sake of goodness itself. You are nitpicking because there is far greater evil they serve which is calling themselves "Christians" first and then 'haul ass' to live up to it. __________________________________________________ _________ I would never call �all� Christians bad. Neither would I call all non-Catholics who believe in Jesus bad. I think you agree that non-Catholics can be �good� people. But then you see no conflict that a �good� God could send a good non-Catholic person to hell, since only Catholics go to heaven. Do bad Catholics also go to heaven? You are motivated by good works, as opposed to good deeds. The evil of non-Catholic Christians is their belief system. You don�t apply my question for yourself � ie would you be a Catholic if you found you were serving a devil instead of a God. You point out how Protestants abuse it. It seems it is your beliefs � only � that will get you to heaven. You have already agreed that most Catholics and non-Catholics follow the religion of their parents. If God wished it, people would �see� which religion was true immediately. This was no doubt the meaning of Shelley�s words when he wrote: �If God has spoken, why is the universe not convinced. ___________________________________________ Per Amos: Find me a passage where God repented or created evil and we'll talk again. ______________________________________________ In Exodus 32:11, (Revised Standard Edition) � But Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, �Oh Lord, why does thy wrath burn hot against thy people� [Moses then has to remind God that the Egyptians will claim he was an evil God for leading the hebrews out of Egypt only to slay them in the mountains; he also has to remind God of his covenant with Abraham]. Then you have the lines �And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people.� _______________________________________________ Ackerley and Mark Twain knew very well what they were talking about. Here are some quotes from Twain: When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn't know. If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to ask for any man's compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better sort of man in these regards. He would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not buy these things. He would not sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of the joys of eternity for the product called worship. I would have Him as dignified as the better sort of man in this regard. He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man's heart for a wrong done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for forgiveness be required or desired or expected of that man. In His Bible there would be no Unforgiveable Sin. He would recognize in Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner. He would not be a jealous God -- a trait so small that even men despise it in each other. He would not boast. He would keep private His admirations of Himself; He would regard self-praise as unbecoming the dignity of his position. He would not have the spirit of vengeance in His heart. Then it would not issue from His lips. There would not be any hell -- except the one we live in from the cradle to the grave. There would not be any heaven -- the kind described in the world's Bibles. He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy. *Against a diseased imagination demonstration goes for nothing <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Sojourner [ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

03-30-2002, 06:59 AM	#46
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	______________________________________________ Per Amos: Salvation is a mystery and there is no way that you can rationally figure out which religion is best for you. In fact, as soon as you look and think you are wrong already because your conscious mind is the enemy and must itself be crucified. Hence the mystery of salvation. ________________________________________________ If the Catholic Church did not have such an abominable history of human rights abuses and regressing science by almost a thousand years during the Dark Ages -- maybe your statement would not sound so ridiculous. (And this doesn't count the latest controversy on priest abuse of children, lawsuites, church authority complicity) It was with the emergence of Protestantism that the Enlightenment -- and therefore sciences and democracy/human rights took off to the advanced level we see today in modern society. You seem not to care that your beliefs are steeped in the deepest superstition. (Such as when you say "There is no way that you can rationally figure out which religion is best for you".) As John Locke said: "if strength of persuasion be the light which must guide us; I ask how shall any one distinguish between the delusions of Satan, and the inspirations of the Holy Ghost?" I tried to argue once with a woman that space aliens did not build the Egyptican pyramids. At least she was honest and admitted she really just wanted to "believe" this was true; that it would be "nice" if it were true. Using this approach of believing what one desires--without using rational inquiry to CHECK their beliefs-- one can invent whatever they want: the Muslims who flew there airplanes into the WTC really ARE are going to heaven... from their warped persepective and that of many pious Muslims. Just another example of the divine mystery! I think Mark Twain had it right! Sojourner [ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-29-2002, 08:16 PM	#44
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Sojourner, I don't think we can go any further. It is arbitrary to me to cut out the bits one doesn't like and keep the rest. You think there is just cause. I think you are arguing with logic that doesn't reflect on the writers. You think you can validly argue as you do, claiming that possible interpolators would not use positive terms toward procurators. Strange things happen: look at the way the nasty Bacchides is described in 1 Macc 7:8, "a man of high standing in the empire and loyal to the king." I always have trouble with people who make assumptions about what ancient writers should or would say, when they have no way of ever knowing. Where do we go from here?

03-29-2002, 08:32 PM	#45
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Sojourner: ----------- “If God has spoken, why is the universe not convinced. ----------- Amos: ----------- Salvation is a mystery and there is no way that you can rationally figure out which religion is best for you. In fact, as soon as you look and think you are wrong already because your conscious mind is the enemy and must itself be crucified. Hence the mystery of salvation. ----------- This is the usual massive obfuscation tactic. Amos, I understand that you cannot defend the idea and I understand why you hide behind the "mystery of salvation", but why can't you understand it? Crucifixion is tying someone to a stick or two and leaving them up until the weight of their bodies cause them to suffocate. This means that you are using the term "crucified" in a non-standard manner. This reminds me of many obfuscating points of view, including the $cientologists. ------------- Calling a person like Mark Twain an idiot (yes, there was an "if", but it doesn't change anything), because you don't agree with his printed viewpoint as you have done, only reflects badly upon you.

03-31-2002, 04:19 PM	#50
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	"I tried to argue once with a woman that space aliens did not build the Egyptican pyramids." Aliens designed the pyramids, humans built them. We all know how much aliens hate manual labor. <a href="http://www.piney.com/Atrahasis.html" target="_blank">http://www.piney.com/Atrahasis.html</a>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.