galiel

Oi. Our education system is really in a sad, sad, state.

Before expending any more energy debating Metacrock, has anyone bothered to check out his/her amateur Apologetics website? The link is in his/her profile.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

NOGO

Metacrock,

You forgot one of my posts. Care to reply. Here it is again.

If this is true then it follows that nations who do not have a covenant relationship with God are secular.

How can this be?
In your view only Israel had a covenant relation with God and therefore a theocracy ruled by laws handed down by God himself and therefore immutable.
It follows that all other nations are/were secular and have the ability to change the laws that govern them.
Yet you say that Christians invented the concept of secularism.

You are in total contradiction, Meta.

Rome was a secular state.

Radorth

Yeah, Christianity, not Jesus, as so many famous and truy free thinkers have not failed to point out.

Well I noted that Nogo's question was insincere to begin with, and that he presumes to tell me what I believe. Quit whining, ask a sincere question like Aimee and Joedad have well done, and you will get a sincere answer. In fact I did answer sincerely, even though I suspected what has now been proven- that Nogo is simply out to "tile you into a corner."

But as usual "it's the Christians fault" even though some skeptics are way off topic as well. Sojourner was the first to take us off-topic, yakking about what Jefferson believed, who is winning the argument, the horrible things done by Christians, yadda, yadda. Go read the first page and stop whining.

Radorth

Radcliffe Emerson

The Jews do not and never have believed in a messiah who would be divine. In fact their belief requires TWO messiahs at the same time, both normal human beings, who will bring world peace the FIRST time they come. Clearly, that didn't happen with Jesus. In fact, some of the passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that community thought the TWO messiahs had arrived, yet they were exterminated by the Romans. Hmmm, no world peace yet, even today.
Jews also have never had any belief in eternal damnation.
I personally believe Christianity evolved as an attack on Semitic faith, nothing more.
I've read quotes from Rabbis who say the messianic traits given to Jesus are NOT of Jewish origin, therefore the only reason (to me) he was 'sent' to the Jews was to discredit their faith.
Of course the writings of his supposed arrival were written decades later, during the wars with Rome and the destruction of the temple. Another 'hmmm'.
I personally think there were more sinister anti-Semitic motives to Christianity when it was first invented.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]</p>

NOGO

Radorth

Well I noted that Nogo's question was insincere to begin with,

NOGO:
Why do you say that? My post was totally sincere.

Radorth:
and that he presumes to tell me what I believe.

NOGO:
I presumed nothing. The original sin and salvation from it is part of Christian teachings and is found in the Bible, Romans 5, I believe.

You may have different beliefs than most Christians but how does that make my question insincere?

NOGO

Ron Garrett,

Thanks, and I will eventually repost it.

NOGO

Meta =&gt;True and a good point, except for one thing; those men were devout, their committment to science was directly related to their faith, and in many cases the doing to science and secularziation were directly connected to chruch instituions (the doing of science in monestaries in middle ages--the need for a secular space to settle the religious wars ect ect).

NOGO:
Maybe, but you do not need faith to do science. In fact you would be better off without it as you pointed out below.

Meta =&gt; Science is not an ideology. It's a procedure. When you attach an ideology to it it's no longer science.

NOGO:
Yet you state "their committment to science was directly related to their faith"

Metacrock, you are totally confused.

NOGO:
In the middle ages everything people did had to be related to some church institution so it is ridiculous to claim credit. The only way that you can get an education was through the chruch. The church was an unnecessary partner and therefore the need for a secular state.

Meta =&gt;Why should I do that? I believe my faith represents the truth, and I already see history far clearer than most people (cause it's my profession).

As with your claim on science, when you attach an ideology to history it is no longer history.
Even you should be able to see that.

Meta
I don't think that's very logical or fair to equate abortion with rule of law. Just becasue one is against abortin doesn' make one a theocrat. I am agaisnt abortion, I think it's wrong, that doesn't mean I'm for legislating the 10 commandments or anything. We do have laws against murder you know. that's a secular concern itsn't it?

Very true but you failed to answer my point. I said that some Christians deny the state the right to legislate in this area. When a mother aborts her child it does not do any harm to anybody except perhaps herself. So what is the basis in a secular state to prohibit this. None! The basis is theocratic. Christians want to impose their view of God's law on everyone else. This should be obvious, Meta.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Ron Garrett

Oh. I'd forgotten that Holy Spirit power to discern another's motives and intent from a distance. Akin to the ability to discern invisible spirits the uninitiated cannot detect. No, wait. That's just psychosis. As for NOGO's question, it read like a straight and very academic variety question to me.

Naturally one would not wish to dignify insincere questions, particularly those possibly invalidating one's belief system from one's own sacred literature. NOGO clearly must adopt a supplicant posture when he consults the Oracle of Radorth, lest his sincerity come into question.

As to the sincerity of your answer, since I am lacking your special spiritual abilities, I have to judge from your posts so far on this thread, none of which have directly or even indirectly engaged the issues raised in NOGO's post regarding the mission of Jesus, the witness of scripture in that regard, apparent contradictions therein. If you have responded at all except to ignore the questions raised on grounds of "insincerity", I must have missed it.

I would say that if your position is subject to being tiled into a corner, it is because your position fails to withstand the merest scrutiny. If your position cannot be defended except with evasion based on your mind-reading of a questioner's motives, it cannot be defended at all and should be vacated until a system more manifestly based in reality and able to withstand inquiry presents itself. Of course it may simply not matter to you if your belief system is true or reflects realty in anyway.

Actually I was ignoring those guys since the topic of the thread was addressed to you as was NOGO's post, so I was looking for your response (and I did take a mild swipe at Meta for rabbit-holing, but that problem is almost too long standing to bother. I think most of us page past Meta's posts). I think a discussion of NOGO's points could be interesting and informative. I think continued extemporizing on the theological, social, cultural and most irrelevant of all, modern events of our day, have little to do with the issue of conflicting representations of Jesus' mission, which as I read the Synoptics, was about preaching the Kingdom of God, not about redemption through Jesus' blood, which I see as an ex post facto blend of Mithraism and other mystery cults with Judaism.

If you're not up to a discussion of the relevant literature there's no shame in that. Most aren't. Just decline. Maybe someone else is willing to attempt the apologetic.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Ron Garrett ]</p>

K

Radorth:

But in Rants, you keep insisting that Jesus was behind the actions of the Christians who contributed to humanity. It is amazing to me that you can not see the glaring disconnect here.

Ron Garrett

Be honest, K. You're not all that amazed after all this time.