crocodile deathroll

There is one great fallacy with the conventional view of nature of time the fallacy that time itself flows time does not flow it is only the electrical impulses and neurotransmitters that flow that give the illusion that time is flowing. The sensation that time is flowing from the past to the future is just subjective time, it is not real time.
Real time is an asymmetrical fixed dimension in the universe's <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/bigquestions/s460740.htm" target="_blank"> timescape </a> and any event in the universe are all equally real it is just that our subjective realities are not switched on at those events.
So I am more sure that when you die the illusion of a single present moment for the whole world and the fallacy that time flows inexorably along when you are not aware will disappear. You are absorbed back into the universe's timescape where all its events are equally real, subjective time's false dichotomy of real time's past present and future dissolve and where there is no such entity as an "ex-person" just potential persons and "yous" in their own time frame of reference.

Heraclitus Nietzsche

Powerfull voices:
I will answer your points after each of your quotes below. Just so you know: In order to bold your type you just have to put a in front of the first bold character and behind the last. Everything in between and will appear in bold type.

The parts of the Bible that are historically reliable (people, places and "secular" events) I do not contest. But the historiosity of that content doesn't mean everything else(i.e. "religious") in the Bible is historical.
1) Satan meeting with Jesus & Jesus's silent prayers to his "father" - how did the writers, or their apostolic advisors, know what Jesus did alone? They never said Jesus told them that! And what if Jesus did tell them? Can you imagine- "Hey guys, guess what I told my father and guess what Satan said to me". ha ha
2) Jesus's "miracles"- sleight-of-hand magicians throughout the ages have fooled people into believing much more- if we can be fooled now by David Copperfield, imagine how the destitute people Jesus walked amongst who desperately wanted to believe in miracles to lift them out of their miserable lives must have viewed his "tricks"!
3) The whole religious dogma of Jesus's supernatural power to forgive our sins or else we get everlastingly tortured- it's a mere negative reinforcement preying on primal human fears of death in order to scare readers into believing everything that was written- I can't believe so many people are being suckered into that 2000 years later!

Look, the jews that wrote the Bible weren't there to observe Jesus's lifetime, yet they wrote the text with a "God-like" narration perspective as if they were writing it down as it happened. There's no doubt Jesus was a legendary person (at the time of the writing of the Bible and now). Depending on how the writers wanted to portray him his legend, out of necessity, naturally would be over-inflated. They wrote about him being a savior simply because they wanted a savior to be real. Imagine being a devoted student of Jesus, thinking he was God, then seeing him horribly murdered- all the followers' hopes were in danger of being killed right along with him. They simply couldn't allow their "will to believe" to end, so they resurrected him! The whole resurrection scene appears only in the Bible never to be mentioned for comparison purposes by any other historical text. Isn't the Jesus's resurrection the entire basis of Christianity (i.e. that he's alive now to help us)? Surely Jesus, during his post-mortum visits and knowing the future, would have made an appearance to Josephus (or anyone else) simply to add a comparative record in an unbiased historical text!

Okay, whatever. You probably don't know what an argumentum ad numerum fallacy really is, otherwise you would read your post again and agree with me. You also don't seem to know what a straw man is either.

I meant the Bible has been continually reinterpreted throughout the ages and those interpretations were written down as a guide for people to read in an effort to try to understand the incomprehensibleness of the original Biblical text.

Okay, the Bible says a lot more than just that Jesus was a diety and that our salvation rests on him. How do we seek to worship this diety so he'll favor us? How does our salvation take place? If I had a nickel for every differing opinion on how we should act towards Jesus, I'd be a rich man! Also, I know a few Jehovah's Witness's and Mormons who say they don't deny that Jesus was a diety ("Jehovah" is another name for Jesus and as many times as they've thrusted the Bible in my face at my doorstep telling me it's true, I don't care to elaborate!). Who am I gonna believe? Them or you who thinks your way of interpreting scripture is the correct way?

Since you brought it up, atheist texts are much more consistent. They all say the Bible's hogwash. No difference of opinion there. Bible-believers fight more amongst themselves than they do against atheists! Atheist texts perform a great service - they prevent unwary travellers from being suckered into Bible-belief and therefore hating their lives. Jesus himself was written as saying: "Only those who hate their lives can follow me." Does this mean God gave us life, our only true possession that is supposed to be a glory unto his name, and then tells us to "hate" it? Bullocks I say! A thousand times bullocks! According to the Bible, we're supposed to hate our lives so that we'll crave "heaven" and thus look forward to death ??!! I can't say it enough: BULLOCKS!

Just look at a time line of the cropping up of all the various Christian sects. Either each new sect thinks it's getting rid of the errors of the former beliefs (as Luther and the Protestants believed regarding Catholicism) or the new sects are adding new errors to Biblical interpretation. Either way, each of the Christian sects are different. "Jesus is God" has become nothing more than an empty phrase in light of Christian belief history. The mindless proclamation of "Jesus is God" is without meaning unless we discuss our human relationship with the God. It is mankind's relationship to God that is constantly changing because mankind is constantly changing. Have you ever thought why you were not among the "chosen" to walk with Jesus in the flesh 2000 years ago? I'll tell you why, because Jesus was a human who was incapable of existing in the flesh forever! Okay, so the Bible says he was killed and then raised from the dead only to walk around for another brief time then ascend up into the sky to be with his father for 2000 years. Doing what? The writers of the Bible were primitives in their knowledge of the physical universe. They thought "going up into the sky" meant up into heaven. We now know what is "up there" is a vast cold space of matter and energy (in the form of planets and stars). I cannot believe that educated humanity is stupid enough to believe Jesus's ascent into heaven and that he's up there presumably twiddling his thumbs! Maybe we still have the same ignorant mindset of those 2000 year old disciples- we want to believe it is true, so therefore it must be true!

Didn't you say in another post that you watched William Lane Craig's videotaped debates? Did you know he writes the same crap down in books?
Listen- If you go to church, what do you think the preacher is doing other than elaborating on the Bible- telling you what it means? Why not stay away from church, shut yourself in your closet and read the Bible itself if it truly stands alone? Who cares about the preachers opinion! It's not yours is it?...IS IT?
The last time I visited my local Christian bookstore I saw racks upon racks of books talking about the Bible and Jesus. Why are they being produced if the Bible "stands on its own"? Every single one of those books would contain not a single word other than Biblical text if they felt the Bible "stands on its own". Are you trying to tell me you own no books by Christian authors? I sure do, so I know you do. Your ownership of them proves you need to read something else other than the Bible itself. The Bible has never "stood alone"!

Just one more word about people like William Lane Craig and other "Christian apologists" (as they're called). Their work consists of giving you "arguments" that you can mindlessly cut-and-paste for use against non-believers. Don't let them take away your ability to think! The apologists will not only try to substitute their thinking for yours, but they will also take away your ability to reason correctly if you believe they reason correctly. You have a good mind of your own, don't let anyone take that away from you. Just because you and William Lane Craig both share a belief in Jesus, doesn't mean he is correct in his logical method and ability. Paul states himself in one of his letters about the Gospels being "illogical". Don't let any Christian apologist substitute your Biblical faith for logical "proofs". Trust me, if you go down the apologist route of relying on logical proofs to reinforce the Bible's truth, one day you might learn how to use logical reasoning correctly and then abandon your faith as the apologistic logical-proof foundation of it crumbles away.
Have you ever read Soren Kierkegaard? He's one of the only Christian Philosophers I respect. I'll end this post with a quote from him: "Any person who enters into the Christian Faith by logical reasoning will go out of it by the same way".
If you can think (reason) correctly, and you believe the Bible's foundation is one of logic, your discussions in the Infidels Forum might just avert you away from Christianity. That is, of course, if you can think correctly. Unlike a growing number of theists who seem to be letting the apologists do them a great injustice by robbing them of their ability to think.

crocodile deathroll

Yes I took exacly the same route, many years ago.
I am now an atheist, but I felt guilty about betraying the culture I was brought up with.

Keith Russell

Crocodile:

I never mentioned either a 'we', not did I say anything related to 'forgetting'.

You must have been talking to someone else...

Keith.

Beoran

Aaargh, why do people always fail to notice my irony?

Beoran

Interesrting. I had a Near Death experience, once. I got stabbed with spears and then I flew towards a great pure white light at the end of a grey-walled tunnel...

Spears, you ask? Well, it was all a dream after all, a very vivid dream, but still, a dream. So, if I can have an "NDE" even in my dreams, then surely it's got little to do with dying, and much more with the quirks of my brain. It's great fun, nevertheless, although I wouldn't say it's something "to die for". ^_~

Powerfull Voices

Thanks for showing me how to do that. It was still a little confusing until I quoted your reply. Think I got it now though.

The parts of the Bible that are historically reliable (people, places and "secular" events) I do not contest. But the historiosity of that content doesn't mean everything else(i.e. "religious") in the Bible is historical.
1) Satan meeting with Jesus & Jesus's silent prayers to his "father" - how did the writers, or their apostolic advisors, know what Jesus did alone? They never said Jesus told them that! And what if Jesus did tell them? Can you imagine- "Hey guys, guess what I told my father and guess what Satan said to me". ha ha

No but it provides external collaboration.

ha ha, Ya I can imagine Jesus telling them. He called them His friends didn't He and they spent an awfull lot of time together. That's a weak argument to try to prove something that's not there.
2) Jesus's "miracles"- sleight-of-hand magicians throughout the ages have fooled people into believing much more- if we can be fooled now by David Copperfield, imagine how the destitute people Jesus walked amongst who desperately wanted to believe in miracles to lift them out of their miserable lives must have viewed his "tricks"!

Was the Resurrection a trick?

They wrote about him being a savior simply because they wanted a savior to be real. Imagine being a devoted student of Jesus, thinking he was God, then seeing him horribly murdered- all the followers' hopes were in danger of being killed right along with him. They simply couldn't allow their "will to believe" to end, so they resurrected him!

So all but one of the deciples went to their deaths confessing Jesus' Resurrection because their hopes were in danger? How exactly did they Resurrect Him?

The whole resurrection scene appears only in the Bible never to be mentioned for comparison purposes by any other historical text. Isn't the Jesus's resurrection the entire basis of Christianity (i.e. that he's alive now to help us)? Surely Jesus, during his post-mortum visits and knowing the future, would have made an appearance to Josephus (or anyone else) simply to add a comparative record in an unbiased historical text!

I thought Josephus did write about Resurrection of Jesus and I do belive there were many others but I'll try to remember to look into that. I don't know why Jesus didn't appear to Josephus. You might say because he wasn't God. I would say God knows what He is doing but neither proves anything except that we believe what we believe.

Okay, whatever. You probably don't know what an argumentum ad numerum fallacy really is, otherwise you would read your post again and agree with me. You also don't seem to know what a straw man is either.

I don't have time to read my post again could you please show me my error so that I don't hurt anyone's feelings.

I meant the Bible has been continually reinterpreted throughout the ages and those interpretations were written down as a guide for people to read in an effort to try to understand the incomprehensibleness of the original Biblical text.

So the Bible was changed somehow? What is your proof?


Okay, the Bible says a lot more than just that Jesus was a diety and that our salvation rests on him. How do we seek to worship this diety so he'll favor us? How does our salvation take place? If I had a nickel for every differing opinion on how we should act towards Jesus, I'd be a rich man! Also, I know a few Jehovah's Witness's and Mormons who say they don't deny that Jesus was a diety ("Jehovah" is another name for Jesus and as many times as they've thrusted the Bible in my face at my doorstep telling me it's true, I don't care to elaborate!). Who am I gonna believe? Them or you who thinks your way of interpreting scripture is the correct way?

Ya that's a tough one but you have God's promise in Jeremiah 29:13 that,"you will seek me and find me when you search for me with all your heart". Are you searching with all your heart? Your searching a little anyhow aren't you.


{b]Since you brought it up, atheist texts are much more consistent. They all say the Bible's hogwash. No difference of opinion there. Bible-believers fight more amongst themselves than they do against atheists! Atheist texts perform a great service - they prevent unwary travellers from being suckered into Bible-belief and therefore hating their lives. Jesus himself was written as saying: "Only those who hate their lives can follow me." Does this mean God gave us life, our only true possession that is supposed to be a glory unto his name, and then tells us to "hate" it? Bullocks I say! A thousand times bullocks! According to the Bible, we're supposed to hate our lives so that we'll crave "heaven" and thus look forward to death ??!! I can't say it enough: BULLOCKS![/b]

Ya, atheism has a perfect track record dosen't it? Maybe I should become an atheist so that I can affirm there is no God but never really know. It is good to lay down your life it gives real joy the kind you can't get from material possesions or any of the pleasures of this world.

[b]Just look at a time line of the cropping up of all the various Christian sects. Either each new sect thinks it's getting rid of the errors of the former beliefs (as Luther and the Protestants believed regarding Catholicism) or the new sects are adding new errors to Biblical interpretation. Either way, each of the Christian sects are different. "Jesus is God" has become nothing more than an empty phrase in light of Christian belief history. The mindless proclamation of "Jesus is God" is without meaning unless we discuss our human relationship with the God. It is mankind's relationship to God that is constantly changing because mankind is constantly changing. Have you ever thought why you were not among the "chosen" to walk with Jesus in the flesh 2000 years ago? I'll tell you why, because Jesus was a human who was incapable of existing in the flesh forever! Okay, so the Bible says he was killed and then raised from the dead only to walk around for another brief time then ascend up into the sky to be with his father for 2000 years. Doing what? The writers of the Bible were primitives in their knowledge of the physical universe. They thought "going up into the sky" meant up into heaven. We now know what is "up there" is a vast cold space of matter and energy (in the form of planets and stars). I cannot believe that educated humanity is stupid enough to believe Jesus's ascent into heaven and that he's up there presumably twiddling his thumbs! Maybe we still have the same ignorant mindset of those 2000 year old disciples- we want to believe it is true, so therefore it must be true![b/]

I think you have to much time on your hands.

I have the Craig vs Atkins debate. I love it I bet I've watched it 10 times. None of my frinds seem to like it though. Ya I did know he wrote too I've got to much going on right now to read his books. You'll have to tell me which one to stay away from.

Listen- If you go to church, what do you think the preacher is doing other than elaborating on the Bible- telling you what it means? Why not stay away from church, shut yourself in your closet and read the Bible itself if it truly stands alone? Who cares about the preachers opinion! It's not yours is it?...IS IT?

I think it's important to do both that is go to church and study in solitude. But your right if I had to choose I'd choose studying in solitude. I love studying the Bible!

The last time I visited my local Christian bookstore I saw racks upon racks of books talking about the Bible and Jesus. Why are they being produced if the Bible "stands on its own"? Every single one of those books would contain not a single word other than Biblical text if they felt the Bible "stands on its own". Are you trying to tell me you own no books by Christian authors? I sure do, so I know you do. Your ownership of them proves you need to read something else other than the Bible itself. The Bible has never "stood alone"!

We're really blessed to live in the US aren't we. In some countries Christians count themselves very lucky to have a Bible or even a few dirty old pages for them the Bible does stand on it's own. I belive it does here as well but what can I say, we are incredably blessed.

Just one more word about people like William Lane Craig and other "Christian apologists" (as they're called). Their work consists of giving you "arguments" that you can mindlessly cut-and-paste for use against non-believers. Don't let them take away your ability to think! The apologists will not only try to substitute their thinking for yours, but they will also take away your ability to reason correctly if you believe they reason correctly. You have a good mind of your own, don't let anyone take that away from you. Just because you and William Lane Craig both share a belief in Jesus, doesn't mean he is correct in his logical method and ability. Paul states himself in one of his letters about the Gospels being "illogical". Don't let any Christian apologist substitute your Biblical faith for logical "proofs". Trust me, if you go down the apologist route of relying on logical proofs to reinforce the Bible's truth, one day you might learn how to use logical reasoning correctly and then abandon your faith as the apologistic logical-proof foundation of it crumbles away.

Thanks for the heads up. Thanks for the complement too. Maybe I do have a good mind of my own but I still need the knowledge of others right that's kind of a big part of the learning process. I do try to be objective though and I value your thoughts even if their wrong, I mean different

Don't let any Christian apologist substitute your Biblical faith for logical "proofs". Trust me, if you go down the apologist route of relying on logical proofs to reinforce the Bible's truth, one day you might learn how to use logical reasoning correctly and then abandon your faith as the apologistic logical-proof foundation of it crumbles away.

Could you please elaborate on this and give me an example?

Have you ever read Soren Kierkegaard? He's one of the only Christian Philosophers I respect. I'll end this post with a quote from him: "Any person who enters into the Christian Faith by logical reasoning will go out of it by the same way".

No I haven't I remember reading something about him but I can't remember what it was. I deny the absolute aspect of his statement but sure that's possible and I belive you could substitue any truth claim for the "Christian Faith" and the statement would stand but not as an absolute of course.

[b]If you can think (reason) correctly, and you believe the Bible's foundation is one of logic, your discussions in the Infidels Forum might just avert you away from Christianity. That is, of course, if you can think correctly. Unlike a growing number of theists who seem to be letting the apologists do them a great injustice by robbing them of their ability to think.[/QB][/QUOTE][b/]

Am I thinking "correctly" only if I come to a conclusion such as yours or are you thinking "correctly" only if you come to my conclusion? I do appreciate you concern for us poor brainwashed folks though. Thanks again for helping me out with the bold thing and thanks for all you comments.

crocodile deathroll

The bible is just another book in my opinion. I do not see the need why people should discuss it in such length

Starboy

Here is a possible natural explanation of OBEs.

<a href="http://www.nature.com/nsu/020916/020916-8.html" target="_blank">Electrodes cause an out of body experience.</a>

Starboy

John Page

</strong>

Most biblical scholars will be able to tell you about the genesis of the bible as they understand it. For example, Enoch Powell (a christian and classical scholar) in his book "Evolution of the Gospel" points to the galring similarity of many of the gospels and hints at the need of bishops to come up with (updated, invented, repeated etc.) disciple's stories that absolutely put the nail in the crucifix regarding the resurection myth.

From a review -
The author says that parts of today's bible (in matthew's book as an example) were inserted. He explains his argument by using some quotes from different bibles, and he tries to reach a conclusion that he is right. In his introduction p.xx, line 29, he says: "1)...passages about John the Babtist have been inserted. 2) A framework that did not fully fit the intdnded contents was created..." The author is a well respected English Politician, and I encourage every Christian to read that book.

The overwhelming evidence is that men made up the bible as they went along, spinmeisters as ever. This descredits, in my eyes, christian claims that there must be and is life after death because jesus showed us....

Who said religion is the opium of the masses....

Cheers, John