God and the blind Tailors

Well Phat I believe that we all just need to be honest decent people and you certainly are that. If there's a god that wants to condemn decent honest people then it doesn't deserve our devotion.

quote:

---

If there's a god that wants to condemn decent honest people then it doesn't deserve our devotion.

---

Perhaps we are being tested. Perhaps God actually wants us to reject and ignore Him and if we do so yet remain decent people, we get to win the race, claim the prize, and retire. (of course this scenario is never mentioned in the Bible)Perhaps we need a new Bible. Has anyone ever thought of writing one?
I would do so, but am horrible at writing things.One question for you,mate. If you believe that people would be better off without organized religion, why do you feel it was your calling to teach it? Is it so that we can understand the past and, hopefully, not repeat the same mistakes?By the way, RevCrossHugger, I have a question for you as well. If the Bible were rewritten today, reflecting our understanding of the way things are now, do you believe that God would approve or disapprove?Edited by Phat, : improved topic, allowing for continued on topic discussion.

I think there's a world of difference between teaching ABOUT religions than there is teaching religions. My stance is from a historical, sociological perspective, in the hope that this breeds tolerance and understanding into my students. At high school it is all very basic and we are given a curriculum to follow so it is straightforward. The most difficult thing for a teacher at high school is discipline, and I don't really get many discipline issues in my classes.It's not really organised religions I'm against, it's the forcing of these beliefs onto others that annoys me. It's the rampant arrogance of these 'saved' people who have to shout their salvation from the rooftops and verbally condemn all others who annoy me. I'm quite happy for people to have a faith but keep it to themselves, stop indoctrinating kids and spreading hate all the time.I've always maintained that the OT is an incredible collection of texts, but that is all it is, it is not a magical book written by God, and it is not to be taken literally. Literalists are insulting the Bible and it's authors, and are looking for a gimmick to support their weak faith.

The good Rev is participating in another thread, but I guess he wont participate here.You have to wonder about people that won't participate in the thread they started.I am sure he will claim he is being attacked here.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Well I ahev the feeling he thought we might be sponges like his flock and he is miffed at us for not swallowing everything he said without question.Oh well, he didn't really offer anything new I suppose. I'm sure another one will be along soon, we might even get a challenging one sometime.

The problem is that they have a specific mandate from God to save the world at the end of Matthew. The problem is that it doesn't come with an instruction guide on how to do it, and vastly worse, they do this unsolicited. And that's different from an obnoxious telemarketer, how? If one more Mormon with their stupid name tag and shows up on my doorstep at 8 PM, I'm going to get biblical on them.How silly are they not to realize the obvious? The most effective evangelism could only be accomplished by going back to the basics - treating people how you would want to be treated, helping people without any strings attached, showing people that God lives in you by your actions not your words. God ends up being a vessel for them, rather than them being a vessel for God.The end result is what Jesus warned about... Pharisees. The sect of Pharisees may be gone, but their style of preaching lives on today.I personally have strong affection for Jesus and what he tried to do. I don't know if he was the son of God, or if there is a God at all. All I know is that I find his life, whether it was fabricated or if it was real, agreeable. I find no fault in it, but I find tremendous fault in many of his professed followers.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

quote:

---

It's not really organised religions I'm against, it's the forcing of these beliefs onto others that annoys me. It's the rampant arrogance of these 'saved' people who have to shout their salvation from the rooftops and verbally condemn all others who annoy me. I'm quite happy for people to have a faith but keep it to themselves, stop indoctrinating kids and spreading hate all the time.

​

I've always maintained that the OT is an incredible collection of texts, but that is all it is, it is not a magical book written by God, and it is not to be taken literally. Literalists are insulting the Bible and it's authors, and are looking for a gimmick to support their weak faith.

---

Amen!

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

The forum is actually owned by a deist. We have several Christians on the board - some Biblical literalists, some not.This is a debate forum. Evidence and logic rule here. You'll find that, even among several of our Christians or other religious types, you won't be simply preaching to the choir.We have both sides of the Evolution vs. Creationism debate here - else the forum wouldn't serve much purpose. Expecting to make a post and not have it criticized is rather foolish considering the variety of perspectives represented here. You'd be surprised how open a mind can be if it's presented with actual evidence. You were asked for contemporary sources, and in response you gave several noncontemporary sources.If you can provide a contemporary source claiming that Jesus actually existed, I guarantee you I will accept that Jesus actually existed. I may not believe in the miracles or that the entire content of the Gospels is "Gospel truth," but I'd at least at that point accept that there was a historical Jesus that the Biblical accounts were based upon.It's your failure to provide the evidence requested, not "closed minds," that is your problem.Think of it this way: If I claimed that there was a historical Paul Bunyon, would you believe me? If you requested a contemporary source that provides evidence of his existence, and I instead provided a text written 50 years after his supposed death that simply mentions him, would you believe me then?I wouldn't. Without evidence, I have no reason to believe you. Non contemporary sources are simply evidence that the non contemporary source believed the claim - not evidence that the claim is actually true. Nobody expects you to reply to absolutely everyone in a thread. We all have real lives, and popular topics can make responding to everyone impossible. Don't sweat it. Just try to ensure that the replies you do make are of good quality - quality is much better than quantity around here. Not everyone involved in each debate here is going to be familiar with all of the historical sources. A link to your source (or a reference to a book, etc) goes a long way towards showhing people that you aren't simply making things up, as well as following the rules regarding plagiarism. It's just good practice to mention where you found your information. Not necessarily any academic or professional venue. Perhaps the theological venues...but as you can see, not all scholars that concern themselves with religious texts are beleivers in those religions. Personally, I try to make a habit of questioning everything. That's a shame. In teh Starlight thread, others have taken the time to defend accepted facts to you. If you're unwilling to defend your assertions, why are you posting on a debate forum? "Atheist apologetic sources?" Please cite one. Skepticism is not "atheist apologism." It's simply rational to require evidence before accepting a claim, and to question the claims of others. I believe he meant that many of the documents have been tampered with. I don't know about the documents of Josephus et al myself, but I do know that the actual Biblical texts have been heavily modified, with additions, changes, translation errors, etc over the centuries. I don't find it difficult to believe that some of the historical sources like Josephus may have been tampered with - though obviously I'd need to see evidence of that tampering before having any confidence in such a thing. Such a pity - we'd love to have more Christians around to debate with. But if you're not interested in debate, but rather only want to preach to the choir, you're in the wrong place. Here, everything is questioned and criticized - that's the entire point of a debate forum. If you choose not to participate in the debate in good faith, then I predict you'll find yourself unwelcome here - posting and then continually refusing to respond to anyone who doesn't share your view would quickly take the appearance of spam. You failed to provide any sources who would have even been alive in the same time period. 50 years later is not contemporary, no matter how you slice it - such a person will not have had direct knowledge of the events. All that's required would be government documents regarding Jesus (he was executed by Roman authorities, and was apparently much discussed by the Pharisees - someone should have kept a record of him at the time, not only long after his death), or a personal account. The Gospels would have counted had they not been written years after Jesus' death. An actual, contemporary source from the region at the correct time period that speaks of a man named Jesus and his followers is all you need to provide. Says the pot to the kettle.Your claims will always be challenged here. You aren't a preacher in this place. We aren't going to all nod and agree with whatever you say. We're going to ask why, we're going to demand evidence, and we aren't going to care how many degrees you have - if you can't support your positions with evidence, your "authority" is worthless. The same goes for the rest of us here.This forum has the full gamut of theological experts (both preachers like you and people like Theordoric), biologists (like Bluejay, who is also a Mormon), physicists (cavediver and Son Goku), and even comedians like onifre or IT administrators like myself. We participate here as a hobby, because debating these issues for us is a fun mental exercise, and it makes this forum a wonderful place to learn.I've learned from religious members here, just as I've learned from our scientific experts and our laypeople. I'd be more than happy to learn from you, as well. There are active traditional Christians here. Banning happens only when a person continually breaks the rules and fails to respond to moderator requests. You, for instance, have not been banned for your beliefs. My beliefs are very different from Percy's (the owner of the forum, who is a deist), and yet I have not been banned or even suspended on those occasions where I suggested that his beliefs are irrational.My advice? Calm down. Stop taking any statement that doesn't agree with you as "Christian hate speech." This isn't an atheist circle-jerk (I know of forums like that, as well as their Christian opposites, if you'd like one of them). If you'd like a place to debate and discuss freely with others who have a variety of different perspectives, then welcome to EvCforum.Now...would you like to return to your OP? I think it's a great topic that can (and already has) spawn some great discussion...even if I don't agree with the premise.After all, how boring would it be if we all agreed?

Meh. This is an old idea.I think the original is about Blind men and an elephant <--clicky this: The point of the anology is that you are just as blind as any of the other men so you cannot tell if you're particular religion is any better than anyone elses and that god is probably more than what you think he is from the little part of him that you have investigated.From the wiki article:

quote:

---

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa used this parable to discourage dogmatism

​

"A number of blind men came to an elephant. Somebody told them that it was an elephant. The blind men asked, ‘What is the elephant like?’ and they began to touch its body. One of them said: 'It is like a pillar.' This blind man had only touched its leg. Another man said, ‘The elephant is like a husking basket.’ This person had only touched its ears. Similarly, he who touched its trunk or its belly talked of it differently. In the same way, he who has seen the Lord in a particular way limits the Lord to that alone and thinks that He is nothing else."

---

bold added for emphasisDo you see how for you to go on to say that your suit is the best fit is what the analogy was trying to argue against?Huh? No?and by the way What is that supposed to be?

---

Now, I've seen from your other posts, especially in the science threads, that you are getting some heat from the other posters because of you errors and now you getting the persecuted complex.Imagine that someone comes to you to debate the Bible and they start a claim off with this:"When Abraham came down from Mt. Siani with the metal tablets from god that had the 8 commandments on them and gave them to the egyptians,... blah blah blah"How would you expect people to react to that? I mean, it contains so much error. That's what your posts in the science threads looked like. And you come off with such confidence and arrogance that people are definately going to jump on you.My advice is to calm down, and be hear to try to learn something, and don't act like you know what your talking about when you really don't.Welcome to EvC.

Thank you for the exchange rch.
Hope things are well with you ... No problems sir. The points were not meant to be pretty and, indeed, I am not often accused of such, so thank you for that my good man. I am aware that various styles, along with a number of presuppositions that are lent credence, often seem heterodox.Yet, the thing is, as far as difficult understandings go, there is the appearance of a trend, that you may perhaps be able to identify with, where many people who are taught to fear HaSaTaN and the fires o' Gehinom do not care a lick what the Good Book says, as much as they become concerned with them ever changing winds o' doctine, as well as those tasty servings of Ho Lee Wa Wa that, while never actually quenching one's thirst, are, apparently, bottled down by those seemingly endless bubblin' springs of dogmatism, all of which, after being manufactured and propagated by the Born Again Pharisees of the world, will supposedly 'save' the heathens from HaSaTaN and the fires o' Gehinom.That's not all folks - the winners will also receive a copy of our home game and a lifetime supply of Rice-A-Roni - the San Francisco Treat!!lol - it is all quite ambiguous, you must admit ... well, you mustn't, but ... you know what I mean. Maybe.It's just ... well - woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You cross land and sea to make one convert, and when you get one, you make him twice as much a child of Gehinom as yourselves!Ya know what I mean, jean? lol - that's one way of looking at things ... I like to think it does, but these things needn't be the fuel for fire. Are there not plenty of reasons to thrive continuously all around us, as we focus on those all around us in the moment?Are things not on the line already, even without the ghostly heaven/hell jazz attached to neo-secular Imperial christianity? Ultimately, do you really need a reward in order to behave like an adult?If Life has taught me anything, it is that you may not get one for that particular reason. It appears as though some things are simply expected of us ...If my behavior is any indication, some of us clearly outperform others within such an arena. (as Stile may say - eeep !)This is one of the reasons it becomes easy to suspect that you may not be an authentic Red Letter Anointed One. I am not trying to be rude, as this is not meant as an insult. It is simply my personal interpretation, based on various observations thus far, while simultaneously considering various Red Letters.Consider ...A study of Matthew 23 reveals a depiction of Yeshua discussing what titles are appropriate to bestow upon our fellow human beings if things are to go well. Everybody is told that they are not to be called 'Pastor' or ‘Rabbi,' for we have one Teacher and we are all brothers. Instead, the opposite is done.With this in mind, is it really a coincidence that things continue to go to shit worldwide when even such a simple request cannot be met and is, even more so, plainly ignored? I mean, is He really asking that much from people on this one? This is only the tip of the iceberg too, and you know it, as we all do.Now, please understand that I do not necessarily liken you as to a wolf that is wearing a suit which has been tailored for a sheep. However, when you allow yourself to be classified and referenced in such a way that ignores an Anointed request, it may trip a red flag for those who actually associate a certain value to Red Print. Granted, those who decide to have the Good Book read to them may not notice or care so much about the details, considering, if they looked in 'em, they may find exactly what it is they are afraid of ...So, exactly what am I, as an admirer of the Red Letters of Yeshua HaMashiach, and a heathen that will be measured a portion of mercy accordingly, supposed to think when a gentlemen wanders in claiming to be a Teacher of the Anointing, while attempting to tease all the lil' kids into disclosing their academic credentials on his behalf?Correct me where I am wrong, please, because it just seems a lil' odd, is all; almost like a test of sorts. Shall I think of you as a teacher, in the fashion of Yeshua, or would it be wiser to think of you as a heathen, like myself? I'm just sayin', you can lose points for not signing your name on the SAT's ...Additionally, while we are on the subject, we are told not to call any man 'father'. This, I conclude, is referring to being called father as a title of religious classification, a title that seemingly attempts to derive a certain superiority, considering such a title is depicted as the name and essence given to the Father, by the Father's dear Anointed One.Now, that title also happens to be the basis for a certain hierarchy attached to, at least, one Universal Church of God which has consistently been attempting to usurp authority from Yeshua for a good many years. So, it should reasonably follow that we must question whether such entities, as corporations, are indeed Anointed, or not.Do you disagree with my math, so far? Ok.Perhaps we should all keep in mind, as well, that the Father has chosen the lowly to shame the wise, considering, after all, Yeshua's disciples were not required to present any certificates, as far as I know, whether one could have been received from an apologetic seminary or otherwise.I didn't make that rule. Thank the Father. I didn't say that - lol.Although, it might not be too far off base to suggest I think you may be as confused as the rest of us at times. Yes. That is exactly how it works supposedly. I'd suggest there is no maybe about it ... One can hope. Now that's what I like to hear RevCrossHugger!! Your claims are likely ol' musty subjectively interpreted doctrines - aka. Neo-Secular Imperialist Dogma. Hopefully you can prove me wrong there. Regardless, whether they are backed by scripture still remains to be seen, as you have yet to put forth your merchandise ...That said, while I find your pursuit is certainly worthwhile, whether you claim to be Aboriginal, Kosher or Red Letter seems not to matter much in the end of it all. lol - whoaa, easy big fella ... I said congrats, didn't I?I'm certainly looking forward to addressing other areas of your response and furthering communications in general.Yet, first I shall wait and see if the Good lord may continue to grant you the patience and discipline required ...And a few extra minutes to engage in dialogue.Again, One can, and does, hope.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : grammar

quote:

---

The point of the anology is that you are just as blind as any of the other men so you cannot tell if you're particular religion is any better than anyone elses and that god is probably more than what you think he is from the little part of him that you have investigated.

---

That makes more sense. I'd forgotten about that parable.:{> I figured it was a face with a mustache and beard.
Possibly Jesus? Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

Thanks for the exchange.
Hope things are well ... I was thinkin' it looked a lil' like V ... for Vendetta.You're probably right though, all things considered ...One Love

Ugh! How crude! (assuming it is a Jesus smiley)Although, it would have been more apparent with a halo:0:{> Do you think RCH will understand just how bad he's butchered the lesson from it with his OP?

Thanks for the exchange Phat.
Hope things are well ... Some people have already taken the liberty of editing the one at our disposal - isn't that good 'nuf?lol - seriously though, it seems as a Shiny New Bible may face the same challenge as our musty one ...Subjective interpretation.This is one of the major issues at the heart of the matter, isn't it?One LoveEdited by Bailey, : title

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have condemned the innocent; why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

quote:

---

Do you think RCH will understand just how bad he's butchered the lesson from it with his OP?

---

No, I think he's too busy admiring their perfect suit.There are so many parables from other religions and cultures that also teach us lessons. I enjoy reading some of the Jewish references to Bible stories. They seem to have more life than the Christian versions. The Jews aren't as averse to referring to legends as the Christians.We can learn from so many different directions. I also find the Native American stories fascinating, although some have been tainted by Christianity, theirs' are the religions that developed in the US. A shame we've probably lost most, if not all, of the stories from the woodland tribes.Maybe Rev will still read this thread, gel, and regroup to try again.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz