The KKK are right

RL - Come on. You know how many view you here. Be honest. You may disagree wth their assesment, but you must acknowledge the stigma you've created for yourself from the way you have expressed your views.

I will agree with you about the the inacuracy of aperson's GOOD person BAD person thing, but only because I don't believe in inherently good or bad people.

If I were to take the basic idea of what aperson wrote, I might chose to rephrase it more accurately as follows...

"It is not uncommon for religion to motivate a person or persons collectively to act out in negitive ways which are considerably out of character."

That statement would probably be equally as valid with the the word "religion" replaced with...

"drugs"
"war"
"violence"
etc.

However, I think it is interesting how interchangeable they are.

T
K
O

0 Replies

TKO,

You think non-believers don't group think when it comes to the Bible? I beg to differ. I have a saying "atheists need a new script". Why do I say that? Because it's the same verses, the same questions, the same arguments, etc. Trust me, they group think.

That's why I really cringe when I hear some call themselves "free thinkers". Perhaps some don't realize they sound just as much like parrots to a believer as a believer can sound to a non-believer?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
aperson wrote:
real life, with all due respect, I think people see me as an intelligent and thoughtful person, whereas people see you as a fundamentalist, ignorant and willfully blind person.

Really? Let me ask in regard to this line that you parroted from wherever....

RL - Come on. You know how many view you here. Be honest. You may disagree wth their assesment.....

My incredulity was expressed in regard to his self assessment as an 'intellligent' and 'thoughtful' person, when he obviously hadn't even thought through the quote he was about to parrot.

This should have been obvious from the fact that I addressed what he said, rather than to defend myself.

As for others' opinion of me, you ought to know I couldn't care less.

The most fascinating part of it is how much energy folks are willing to spend throwing ad homs at me, rather than to address the actual subject.

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

TKO,

You think non-believers don't group think when it comes to the Bible? I beg to differ. I have a saying "atheists need a new script". Why do I say that? Because it's the same verses, the same questions, the same arguments, etc. Trust me, they group think.

That's why I really cringe when I hear some call themselves "free thinkers". Perhaps some don't realize they sound just as much like parrots to a believer as a believer can sound to a non-believer?

I see that more as logical convergence. If the same arguements are being brought to you attention at a high frequency, there might be a reason to investigate.

T
K
O

0 Replies

The same could be said for our views? Ya think maybe?

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

The same could be said for our views? Ya think maybe?

I think that they have been pretty throughly investigated over several thousand years and the only differenc these days is that if you don't agree you

1) Probably won't be killed as a heretic.
2) Probably have equal access to media.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Real life asks and asks wrote:

What makes the personal experience of those who have written books about their NDE (and profited from writing about such) more credible than people who wrote books about their experience with God and gave their lives as the price for living out their belief?

They're not selling a religion. Christians do.

NDE are experiences, not a religion.

Giving one's life for a religious belief is not evidence that said religion is true. You think Christians have a monopoly on that? I suggest you look at Iraq and 9/11.

BTW most of the authors of the books I have read did not have a NDE. They are medical doctors or researchers who have dealt with NDE'ers, compiled their stories and published them. It's a phenomenon they're trying to understand.

As for experience with God-I suppose Sitting Bull's Sun Dance prior to the Little Big Horn would qualify as such. Another example of Christians thinking they have a lock and key on such stuff. That's not to mention NDE'ers have personal contact with The Light. The point is this "experience with God" in not something unique to the Christian religion. Nothing you stated in your question is.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:
People who have NDE are honest about what they experience.

And you KNOW that to be the case how?

Guess you'll have to read and find out for yourself. I know you won't do this because your so incredibally closed minded.

xingu wrote:
They're not selling a religious dogma.

They are selling books. If they weren't , you couldn't have read them.

Another typical piece of RL nonsense. I say theiy're not selling a religion and you say they're selling books.

xingu wrote:
Many Christians lie to promote their religious dogma.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a 'liar', right?

No but Christians who promote Creationism have shown themselves to be liars so Christians credibility means little to me.

T. rex eating coconuts? ? ? ? ?

Plants and trees being created BEFORE the entire universe, save earth? ? ? ?

xingu wrote:
One can easily see that at any Creationist website.

Same question as above.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Giving one's life for a religious belief is not evidence that said religion is true. You think Christians have a monopoly on that? I suggest you look at Iraq and 9/11.

Christian martyrs down thru history did not blown themselves up , taking their 'enemies' with them.

They were murdered for their faith. Many of them KNEW they faced death if they did not recant, and they held firm.

Do you understand the difference?

Somebody ELSE killed them. They did not kill themselves.

Hello?

0 Replies

Quote:

Why is it that everytime someone finds themselves in conflict with God, it's the person's fault/problem/issue?

I could predict your answer, but I'd be interested in your take on this problem. Further questions to follow.

TKo, the fault with people's conflict/rejection of God lies solely on them. He is who he is, he doesn't fit into boxes we created solely on our feelings. He gives everyone the opportunity to know him and if one doesn't its their responsibility, their fault.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

...The most fascinating part of it is how much energy folks are willing to spend throwing ad homs at me, rather than to address the actual subject.

Hey RL. Hope all is well.

You're right about the ad-homs when your answer does not serve another's purpose. Not sure if I'd classify this behavior as fascinating, but your point is well taken.

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

Quote:
Why is it that everytime someone finds themselves in conflict with God, it's the person's fault/problem/issue?

I could predict your answer, but I'd be interested in your take on this problem. Further questions to follow.

TKo, the fault with people's conflict/rejection of God lies solely on them. He is who he is, he doesn't fit into boxes we created solely on our feelings. He gives everyone the opportunity to know him and if one doesn't its their responsibility, their fault.

This is pretty close to what I predicted you would answer.

A quick observation before I continue. In your reply, you refer to God as "he" or "him," which in itself is a human created box to define god. I find this to be very ironic, and yet profoundly related to the question at hand.

The problem I have with your reply is that it is completely based on human resolutions on what god is and does, not logic.

In terms of the history of Christianity, the idea that God gives everyone a chance to know him, and thus everyone i at fault if they reject him is actually quite young. It is a man made thing.

It seems that even within the myths told in the bible there are some illogical conclusions about God and man in conflict. In short, the story of Lot getting basically tortured by god makes zero sense.

God makes all these events to test his (Lot's) faith that he (God) exists. The problem is that the tests given don't test Lot's faith in the existance of God, only of God's nature. If God wanted to test Lot's faith in God's existance, God would have been vacant and non-responcive. In short, he would have done nothing.

Lot would have had to deal with wondering if he was on his own/alone. I don't believe Jack Bauer is real, but if he was shooting me with a gun, I'd believe in him.

Ultimately, I see no reason why rejecting God or even acknowledgin God and disagreeing with him would automatically default to them being wrong without any logical reason. It seems that God would owe an explanation to them even if they were wrong.

All this for me relates back to the double standard issue with what the bible claims god does and what it claims God expects from us.

Question: Define "sin" for me; what is it in a biblical sense?

(It's not like I haven't had this described, but I would like your answer, so I can address you and not the Christian world at large.)

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

. . . A quick observation before I continue. In your reply, you refer to God as "he" or "him," which in itself is a human created box to define god. I find this to be very ironic, and yet profoundly related to the question at hand.

Perhaps more so than many would like to admit. The supreme issue of the universe relates to the issue of headship, not gender.

Diest TKO wrote:

Question: Define "sin" for me; what is it in a biblical sense?
. . .

Sin is falling short of God's standards. In the original Hebrew, chat·ta'th', and the Greek, ha·mar·ti'a, the word denotes missing a goal or mark.

(Forgot to use spell check) Embarrassed

0 Replies

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:
Giving one's life for a religious belief is not evidence that said religion is true. You think Christians have a monopoly on that? I suggest you look at Iraq and 9/11.

Christian martyrs down thru history did not blown themselves up , taking their 'enemies' with them.

They were murdered for their faith. Many of them KNEW they faced death if they did not recant, and they held firm.

Do you understand the difference?

Somebody ELSE killed them. They did not kill themselves.

Hello?

Hello?

Muslims both fight and die for their faith in more ways than one.

0 Replies

I have no fear of those who would die for their faith; it is those who murder for their faith who scare me.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
. . . A quick observation before I continue. In your reply, you refer to God as "he" or "him," which in itself is a human created box to define god. I find this to be very ironic, and yet profoundly related to the question at hand.
Perhaps more so than many would like to admit. The supreme issue of the universe relates to the issue of headship, not gender.
Diest TKO wrote:
Question: Define "sin" for me; what is it in a biblical sense?
. . .
Sin is falling short of God's standards. In the original Hebrew, chat·ta'th', and the Greek, ha·mar·ti'a, the word denotes missing a goal or mark.

(Forgot to use spell check)

Very well then; what are God's standards?

And who's God standards are we to obey? There are many different Gods in the Christian religion, not to mention the Gods of different religions of the world.

It gets back to the question of why are you a Christian and not a Muslim? Because of where you were born and the culture you grew up in. Do you really think Kate, Real and you would be good Christians if you were born in Saudi Arabia?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I have no fear of those who would die for their faith; it is those who murder for their faith who scare me.

Nice to know Christians have never done that.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Quote:

There are many different Gods in the Christian religion,

I am sure that Christians will be surprised to learn this. It's a good thing that you know so much about Christianity so that you can enlighten Christians who, up until now, knew of only one God in Christiandom.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

neologist wrote:
I have no fear of those who would die for their faith; it is those who murder for their faith who scare me.

Nice to know Christians have never done that.

Using the capital "C" would make you correct. However, many nominal christians have made a mockery of Jesus' message.

While we are at it, and speaking of moral bankruptcy, has there ever been another religious group that has resorted to the use of the mentally retarded to deliver their 'suicide' bombs?

Evil enough to have duped those of normal intelligence. . .

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
. . . A quick observation before I continue. In your reply, you refer to God as "he" or "him," which in itself is a human created box to define god. I find this to be very ironic, and yet profoundly related to the question at hand.
Perhaps more so than many would like to admit. The supreme issue of the universe relates to the issue of headship, not gender.
Diest TKO wrote:
Question: Define "sin" for me; what is it in a biblical sense?
. . .
Sin is falling short of God's standards. In the original Hebrew, chat·ta'th', and the Greek, ha·mar·ti'a, the word denotes missing a goal or mark.

(Forgot to use spell check)

Hi Neo,

Thanks for the etymology. It's actually quite interesting. I would have expected a much different origin. The meaning is very interesting.

Concidering the vast number of things concidered sins, I'm going to think and come back.

Thanks Neo.
K
O

0 Replies

The KKK are right

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know