Frank Apisa wrote:RexRed wrote:GOD IS LOVE... Now that is "truth" not religion.
Let's start there first.
Matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Comment:
Frank, you have not sought "first" the kingdom of God's "righteousness", you have sought instead the kingdom of God's perceptible unrighteousness.
And so these "things" (understandings) have been "subtracted" from you...
In other words, Rex...you are suggesting that because I am not willing to delude myself...something is being taken away from me?????
I am not saying that, the 2000 year old words of the Bible are saying that.
And you are deluding yourself with God's "unrighteousness" so what is the difference? You are just losing the best part of spiritual life and understanding of God, the truth... And that is why you don't "know" God.
RexRed wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:RexRed wrote:GOD IS LOVE... Now that is "truth" not religion.
Let's start there first.
Matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Comment:
Frank, you have not sought "first" the kingdom of God's "righteousness", you have sought instead the kingdom of God's perceptible unrighteousness.
And so these "things" (understandings) have been "subtracted" from you...
In other words, Rex...you are suggesting that because I am not willing to delude myself...something is being taken away from me?????
I am not saying that, the 2000 year old words of the Bible are saying that.
You are quoting those words...so you think the fairytale is something other than a fairytale.
Quote:And you are deluding yourself with God's "unrighteousness" so what is the difference?
The ONLY one deluding himself here, Rex...is you.
And the kind of tortured, twisted thingy you have to do to damn near the entire of the Bible in order to convince yourself that the barbaric, murderous, cartoon god is the loving god you want to think it to be....
...is very sad to watch.
Quote:
You are just losing the best part of spiritual life and understanding of God, the truth... And that is why you don't "know" God.
If Zeus actually exists...as you seem to think he does...he should be able to do a better job of making the story less silly.
Stick with your delusions, Rex. You obviously need them.
RexRed wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:In other words, Rex...you are suggesting that because I am not willing to delude myself...something is being taken away from me?????
And you are deluding yourself with God's "unrighteousness" so what is the difference?
So there you have it Frank. Rex is indeed suggesting that because you are unwilling to delude yourself, something is missing from you.
Rex perceives what you are missing as God's rightieousness. You perceive it as self delusion. And every shred of logic and rational thought in the world agrees with you.
Let's look at the best part of spiritual life; it's praying to an invisible god that has no redeeming quality based on human values of ethics, humanity, and fairness.
Most of human suffering results from believing in this god; the Inquisition, Crusades, Israel, Northern Ireland, and the Shia vs Sunni wars probably would not have taken place if not for man's "spiritual life" dictated by the bible.
Even the Muslim god is based on the Hebrew god, ergo, christian god, and we all know about Osama bin Ladin, al Qaida, and the Taliban - all based on their "spiritual life."
Man must save ourselves from this demon created from the imagination of some stupid religionsts over two thousand years ago; they've done enough damage on this planet.
rosborne979 wrote:RexRed wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:In other words, Rex...you are suggesting that because I am not willing to delude myself...something is being taken away from me?????
And you are deluding yourself with God's "unrighteousness" so what is the difference?
So there you have it Frank. Rex is indeed suggesting that because you are unwilling to delude yourself, something is missing from you.
Rex perceives what you are missing as God's rightieousness. You perceive it as self delusion. And every shred of logic and rational thought in the world agrees with you.
I did not say Frank was not deluding himself.
I said he has deluded himself with God's unrighteousness.
He has a handful of scriptures that he had deluded himself into thinking that this is totaly representative of the true God or that God (of the Bible) is somehow unrighteous.
So I have the "better" delusion (truth)...
cicerone imposter wrote:Let's look at the best part of spiritual life; it's praying to an invisible god that has no redeeming quality based on human values of ethics, humanity, and fairness.
Most of human suffering results from believing in this god; the Inquisition, Crusades, Israel, Northern Ireland, and the Shia vs Sunni wars probably would not have taken place if not for man's "spiritual life" dictated by the bible.
Even the Muslim god is based on the Hebrew god, ergo, christian god, and we all know about Osama bin Ladin, al Qaida, and the Taliban - all based on their "spiritual life."
Man must save ourselves from this demon created from the imagination of some stupid religionsts over two thousand years ago; they've done enough damage on this planet.
This suffering and persecution is due to the misinterpretation of the Bible of which you are a contributing factor...
Surely to create evil one must be evil already
Quote:I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Isaiah 45:7
RexRed wrote:I did not say Frank was not deluding himself.
I said he has deluded himself with God's unrighteousness.
The very existance of God (in whatever form) is highly questionable. So assuming righteousness or unrighteousness is premature at the very least.
You have made assumptions. Unfounded and unsupported assumptions. Frank has not. All things being equal, you're the one who's lost, not us.
RexRed wrote:rosborne979 wrote:RexRed wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:In other words, Rex...you are suggesting that because I am not willing to delude myself...something is being taken away from me?????
And you are deluding yourself with God's "unrighteousness" so what is the difference?
So there you have it Frank. Rex is indeed suggesting that because you are unwilling to delude yourself, something is missing from you.
Rex perceives what you are missing as God's rightieousness. You perceive it as self delusion. And every shred of logic and rational thought in the world agrees with you.
I did not say Frank was not deluding himself.
I said he has deluded himself with God's unrighteousness.
He has a handful of scriptures that he had deluded himself into thinking that this is totaly representative of the true God or that God (of the Bible) is somehow unrighteous.
It doesn't have to totally represent the god...all it has to do is to represent what the god is like at least in those passages.
The god...by the description given in the Bible...is disgusting!
Quote:So I have the "better" delusion (truth)...
You certainly have the delusion. But you are far from having the truth.
RexRed wrote:This suffering and persecution is due to the misinterpretation of the Bible of which you are a contributing factor...
Frank is not
misinterpreting the bible. He's
interpreting it. Just as you are, and just as everyone must. The bible is not a mathematical equation, it's subjective and extremely ambiguous.
I commend you for creating something attractive and meaningful (to you) out of something inherently meaningless, but it's you who are doing the creating here, not the bible and not god.
Just for laughs, Rex...
...let's you and I do an "interpretation" of a particular biblical passage...and let the others decide which of us sounds more like a "misinterpreter."
Here's the passage:
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives." Leviticus 20:13
Now I say that this passage tells us that the god of the Bible considers homosexual conduct to be such an abominable deed...that anyone who engages in it has voluntarily forfeited his life...and that "the faithful" should put him to death.
Now...you tell us how you interpret that passage.
Frank-
Do you know the expression "cut him dead" about somebody one doesn't invite to parties anymore.
NON MINERALIZED TISSUE IN T-rex FOSSIL
In 2005 a team of Museum of the Rockies paleontologists , Mary SChweitzer, et al. reported the discovery of a fossil T-rex with "soft tissues within a bone cavity" in a fleg cavity of the Trex
Everyone ran off and grabbed specimens to study, and reports of the chemistry of the soft tissue are still not in. However, the radioisotope dates from the rock immediately surrounding the fossil indicated a firm date of 66 Million years ago (+/- 200ky). The radioisotope date is quite defensible since its based upon the same knowledge that produced atomic weapons and, if we were wrong about that... (we'd be in the same research dead end that . Nazi Germany ws in with its own A-Bomb).
What this all means is that , te definition of fossil needs some major revision.
Joe Skulan of U. Wisconsin at MAdison wrote that the two key features of fossilization that we now know ,involve
1Petrification-here , usually the "hard parts' are transformed freom crystalline calcium phosphate structue to a calcium flouro phosphate crystal structure which then leaves the "petrified" bone to be replaced easily by silica or carbonate
2Mold and Cast-many fossils are produced like molds in "wet concrete". The body is rapidly buried and then a cast and or mold is infilled by the wet sediment.
There are, of course examples of preserved organic materials that are fatty acids, waxes, olefins, tars, and coal(oh yeah lets not forget petroleum) All these are non "fossilized" crystalline remains of living forms, and radioisotope dating of , sediments in these (eg coals) agree with the geologic record of all their deposits (cf Dalway Swaines "Trace Elements in Coal" 1990)
In a recent book (FAstovsky and Weishampel 2005), the authors state that since the calcium phosphaitc minerals (called hydroxyapatite for sticklers in the crowd) are environmnetally unstable and rapidly change by atom-by-atom substitutions , especially if rapidly buried. If sections of the bone are not saturated in fluids , or if they contain cavities that can isolate the natural materials, the "soft tissues" can be retained unchanged (or at least so in appearance) indefinately.
The chemical studies of these T-rex "kneecaps" were a closed cavity '(fossae) and that the soft tissues were able to be preserved in a new and remarkable manner that shall, no doubt, have future paleontology expeditions in the Hell Creek Basin , at least, be on the lookout for more of these structures.
Chemical analyses is destructive except for crystalline forms. Since these soft tissue were (at least we know this much) not crystalline, they will need to undergo some destructive testing, which no paleontologist wants to be tagged with.
"Yep, those soft tissues did show ancient DNA, too bad we trashed it all in the solution"
So, for the Creationists in the house, who are using this as a backass argument for "young earthism",the scientists in the group will have to admit present ignorance and we'll just have to wait until the data is in. Science will have to endure the naked self assured critiques from the Creationists because, in effect, because we have NO IDEA about what was responsible for the relative flexibility in these soft tissues, all we have are hypothesis, since we cannot benefit
by using a Creationist technique, which is to "jump to" conclusions sans data.
However, SChweitzer said that, upon cracking the T-rex fossa, there was an odor similar to formalin. We know that chemicals in this class(aldehydes) can be formed by mild oxidation of alcohols and alcohols can be formed by bacterial fermentation, its not unreasonable that the soft tissue was "self embalmbed" by naturally occuring chemicals.. But, as of this date , we know that the rocks around the fossil date to 66 my, so its diificult to see how the Trex could have been significantly younger than the "sauce" hes entombed in.
You can get back to debating pins and angels and Biblical poetry.
Frank Apisa wrote:Just for laughs, Rex...
...let's you and I do an "interpretation" of a particular biblical passage...and let the others decide which of us sounds more like a "misinterpreter."
Here's the passage:
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives." Leviticus 20:13
Now I say that this passage tells us that the god of the Bible considers homosexual conduct to be such an abominable deed...that anyone who engages in it has voluntarily forfeited his life...and that "the faithful" should put him to death.
Now...you tell us how you interpret that passage.
I interpret that passage as addressed TO SPECIFICALLY a Hebrew tribe in the desert by a fallible prophet of God, Moses. (God knew Moses was fallible) I do not consider that passage ADDRESSED to me. Different parts of the Bible are addressed to different people. As for the meaning of it, considering that since adultery was judged by the same punishment of death it was less the homosexuality and more the dangers of extramarital sex in a small tribe that brought about that rule.
There is a simple reason... even TODAY, an entire countries tribal people of "Africa" are dying, from "extramarital sex".
God had foreknowledge and if extramarital sex had been able to run rampant then it may have interrupted the Christ seed? Jesus may never have been born. Only God knows NOT YOU Frank. Regardless this is not TO US and the Hebrew people took the burden willingly upon themselves.
rosborne979 wrote:RexRed wrote:This suffering and persecution is due to the misinterpretation of the Bible of which you are a contributing factor...
Frank is not
misinterpreting the bible. He's
interpreting it. Just as you are, and just as everyone must. The bible is not a mathematical equation, it's subjective and extremely ambiguous.
I commend you for creating something attractive and meaningful (to you) out of something inherently meaningless, but it's you who are doing the creating here, not the bible and not god.
I am not interpreting the Bible I am letting the Bible interpret itself.
Someone can read a passage and just say, well, I think that means such and such... People think that they think that they think.
Or someone can study it and apply principles of logic and understanding to uncover the intended meaning. So that they know that they know that they know.
farmerman wrote:You can get back to debating pins and angels and Biblical poetry.
We're not debating anything. We're trying to see just how crazy Rex is. So far it's been quite a show.
