|
|
|
|
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/4/2008 10:44:12 AM |
How cold does Russia get? Well, in the warmest places, it gets to -15C and in the coldest places it gets to -60C. How cold is that?
Well, at -15C, American cars don't run. Not just one or two. Most of them.
At -23C, your eyes freeze shut when you blink.
At -60C, Polar bears move South.
That's a Russian winter for you.
I don't know if the above was tongue in cheek or you actually believe it, but you're way wrong if you think it's true. It's -18C right now here on the Canadian Prairies. "Warmer" after yesterday's -35 with the Windchill. My "American car" wasn't plugged in (engine warmer) last night but I know it'll start. I'll let it run for a minute or two and then move off slowly at first, running it at full speed within fivew minutes. Of course, once it gets down to -60 that's a whole lot harder. The coldest I've started it without being plugged in overnight was -45. It started first time. Not bad for an eight years old with 150,00+ Km on the engine. -15C is a nothing to worry about even for a relaly old car. I had an 18 year old K car (American) that had 280,000+ Km on the engine and it could easily start at those temps. BTW, imports start at those temps as well.
As for eyes freezing at -23C, that was too funny. Eyes never freeze, even at -60C. However, from personal experience, eyelids can develops frost from condensing breath or watering eyes when it gets down to lower than -40C and you can have your eyes sort of glued shut if the two lines of frost on upper and lower eyelashes touch and freeze. But eyeballs? Nah. Doesn't happen. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/4/2008 12:29:52 PM |
RE msg 192 by HarveyLemmings: I could tackle everything you wrote, and prove it wrong.
But you didn't.
Furthermore, I don't care how the bible came to say what it says. In the here and now it is rife with immoral passages, and it is the here and now that matters.
If you cannot bring an example from the Bible, then why are you saying that you can bring many examples?
I can, and have, my dear. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/4/2008 11:45:03 PM | RE msg 201 by Nergal:
I think you missed the point about Creationism, the Creationists cant prove Creation, therefore their only defence is to poke holes in scientific theories. For the time Darwin was a radical thinker, thats why his theory caused so much of an uproar. When I was growing up and heard it my first thoughts were, how obvious. Since then its been refined but Darwins theory is the one everyone thinks of when the topic comes up. I've read some of the latest stuff being done on evolution and its heavy duty technical stuff about creating artificial life and watching it evolve. Most Creationists cant understand that so its easier to poke holes in Darwin because thats understandable. I don't know that that is true. When I was a kid, I just watched dinosaurs and took it for granted that evolution happened, because that was what the TV and scientists said, and many Jewish scientists explained how Creation worked fine with Evolution.
So when I was in my 20s, I started to talking about it. I met many people who claimed that Evolution proved that the Bible was wrong. So I explained what I had been told. But the people kept repeating what they had previously said, like they had been brainwashed. After 2 months on POF, I started going into the Science/Philosophy forum, and started going into the evolution threads. I started asking exactly how it worked. As I read, I started thinking more about evolution and started thinking of inconsistencies, so I asked about them too. I started reading that Darwin wasn't the only proponent of evolution, and asked what made Darwin's form so true as opposed to others. So far, all I got was stonewalling, ridicule and derision, for the most part. I've got quoted some names of some animals, but nothing that's really given me solid answers. The best thing I got was a concise and clear defintion of evolution (NOT natural selection) by Frog_O_Eyes. But I've come across posts by other evolutionists whose posts clearly disagreed with that as well. So for me, evolution is mud, mud, more mud, and lots of people saying anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is in denial, or delusional, and the same all say that Creationism is proved wrong by Evolution, and never, ever, ever, mention that Creationism can and is easily married to Evolution.
I know I'm repeating myself, but I don't think that you've yet understood, that I have no respect for any idea that claims to be scientific, but is not supported with people who act as many doctors, researchers, and scientists like the ones I grew up with, who would explain the answers.
It's really put me off the whole of Evolution, and I never had a problem with it, until I came on POF.
Its not really about scientists attacking the Church, I dont think a single scientist goes out their way to do that, its when someone comes up with a theory that undermines a religious principle. There is a list out there on the Net .. I found it once but I cant remember what I used to search for it. To be honest its got to the point where I dont believe the refuters any more. Its at the level of a conspiracy theory. If the Vatican published its records of the time then maybe but they dont, that would undermine the Authority of the Church. I grew up thinking the way you did too. Also, I've seen the list as mentioned in Wikipedia, because it came up in the thread I mentioned. But as I posted before, the more I read, the more I read that Galileo's work was on the same subject as Newton's, but Galileo's work was not scientific, and was full of all sorts of inaccuracies and falsities, and the more I read that Galileo was using science as a tool against the Church.
I then found that there is a subject called "Conflict Theory", which basically says that Science fundamentally disagrees with Religion. The basic premise is that if you accept the validity of Science, then you must think Religion is delusional. Coming from a Religion where I knew a ridiculous number of ultra-religious Jews with PhDs in Science, I cannot accept this notion.
The more I read, the more I am convinced that many people have been brainwashed into thinking that Science is anti-Religion and that Religion is anti-Science.
You made a valid point about Fred Phelps, the problem in the USA is the Constitution. It goes against Freedom of Speech and the Bible Belt contains a huge number of voters. Americans are wimps, in the extreme, American casualties in the Middle East are minimal compared to WWI and WWII and they bleat on about it for weeks. Standing up to the Bible Belt voters is way too difficult for them to even contemplate. Someone might lose his seat because of it. And thats where the untrained preachers are coming from, and with a lot of support from their congregations. TV evangelists make the kind of money you and I can only dream of, by exploiting religion and people who cant think for themselves. Well, I think it's because money drives politics, especially in the USA, but equally true in the UK. But if the non Bible Belt voters want change, all they have to do is vote, because only 64% of US citizens voted. That's 34% extra who could vote.
Apart from that I cant really see where you disagree with me .. I'm trying to find agreement, not disagreement. That way leads to intolerance on both sides, IMHO.
RE msg 202 by romanticoptimist:
I don't know if the above was tongue in cheek or you actually believe it, but you're way wrong if you think it's true. OK. The site I took it from was probably tongue in cheek. But I do know one thing. England hasn't had a mild winter for many years, but it's pretty much a standard that loads of old people die from hypothermia every winter, and not from old age, and that's an English winter, which is nothing compared to Canada or Russia. FYI, I've read and heard about the Russian winters. They are very hard.
RE msg 203 by HarveyLemmings:
RE msg 192 by HarveyLemmings: I could tackle everything you wrote, and prove it wrong. But you didn't.
Furthermore, I don't care how the bible came to say what it says. In the here and now it is rife with immoral passages, and it is the here and now that matters. Well, if you don't care about any aspect of truth, of course you are going to believe falsehood. No-one can convince someone who is fanatically fundamentalist in irrational beliefs.
If you cannot bring an example from the Bible, then why are you saying that you can bring many examples? I did. Read msg 193. When you can answer that with undeniable proof, then I will be happy to address another point. When you have answered that with undeniable proof, then I will be happy to address a further point, and to do the same with every thing you said. But I don't see a point in writing multiple pages, when you haven't even addressed my first point. It would be a waste of my time and would just annoy other people, because you haven't shown that you are listening. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/5/2008 12:44:39 AM |
RE msg 192 by HarveyLemmings: I could tackle everything you wrote, and prove it wrong. But you didn't. LEARN TO READ. Then read msg 193.
I do know how to read, and I certainly DIDN'T read any refutation of anything I said. Don't reply to my point-by-point response to your nonsense and expect any credit for 'I could refute all of that but I don't want to'. Yeah, and your dad could beat up my dad.
And re: message 193, it is amazing how you can simultaneously be so sure of your correctness and miss the point.
First I'd like to know how you're an expert on Hebrew.
Second, even assuming, for a moment, that you're a Hebrew expert (an error on my part, seeing as how you've been mistaken so many other times), the point is that bibles around the world contain the verse I posted. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/5/2008 2:38:16 AM | RE msg 205 by HarveyLemmings:
I do know how to read, and I certainly DIDN'T read any refutation of anything I said. When you POST a reply to msg 193, I'll address it then. But until then, all I read is that you have NOT posted a reply.
Don't reply to my point-by-point response to your nonsense and expect any credit for 'I could refute all of that but I don't want to'. I am not interested in giving you any credit for anything you write, if you cannot back it up. Reply to my msg 193 or don't. But if you don't, the only reason I can think of is that you cannot.
Yeah, and your dad could beat up my dad. No, he couldn't, because he's dead.
And re: message 193, it is amazing how you can simultaneously be so sure of your correctness and miss the point. You keep talking about missing a point. If you think I didn't understand your point, that is not my problem. That means you have an opinion that you have not made clear. Either you have never made your point in English, but only in your imagination, or you have made your point, but you haven't made it clear about EXACTLY which bit I misunderstood. Either way, you are making a claim and not backing it up.
Either reply to my post of msg 193, or it is clear that you cannot.
First I'd like to know how you're an expert on Hebrew. An EXPERT? Compared to who?
Compared to my father? No way. One of my teachers knows way more than me, and he read my dad's book, and told me that his uncle knows more than him, and my dad knew way more than his uncle. I met his uncle once. He was in the middle of translating one of the books of the Chida.
Compared to my high school Biblical Hebrew (which was called Classical Hebrew) teacher? No way. He had a PhD in the subject over 20 years ago. Most grammatical books state that there are 7 different possible conjugations of each verb. His thesis showed that he found 30 different conjugations that can be used for any verb.
Compared to you?
How many letters are in the root of a verb?
Name the seven different conjugations.
How many tenses are there?
How many genders?
How do you express males and females together?
These are really simple questions.
What's wrong? Why should you care that I know Biblical Hebrew? Come on. You're a smart lad. If you can prove your points, you ought to definitely be able to prove them better to someone with more knowledge than your friends.
Second, even assuming, for a moment, that you're a Hebrew expert (an error on my part, seeing as how you've been mistaken so many other times), the point is that bibles around the world contain the verse I posted. Books around the world say the Christopher Columbus discovered that the world was round. Books around the world say that Copernicus was the first person to claim the Earth went round the Sun. Does that make them right? How is this different?
Even with all this, you still haven't addressed msg 193. Until you address msg 193, you are being evasive. Why? What are you afraid of? | |
|
Nergal
|
Joined: 4/29/2007
Msg: 206 | |
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/5/2008 3:01:47 AM |
Even with all this, you still haven't addressed msg 193. Until you address msg 193, you are being evasive. Why? What are you afraid of? ...
I can easily say the same scorpio, you seem to be selectively ignoring points that you dont feel confident enough to address .. what about post 202.
As to 204 no the 2 out of the last 10 rule got me. To be honest if you have no respect for scientific proofs then I dont see the point in arguing a point, especially if you are going to ignore points anyway ... | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/5/2008 3:10:12 AM |
I can easily say the same scorpio, you seem to be selectively ignoring points that you dont feel confident enough to address .. what about post 202. Nergal, have you been selectively ignoring my own post of msg 204? | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/5/2008 6:08:43 AM | This tread is going entirely OFF TOPIC! (in my opinion )
The OP is: "Religion is the True EVIL in the world"
It's NOT about who's smarter or wittier or more educated or better read or who studied what and where OR who can write
the longest most OFF TOPIC posts;)
*Sigh*
On topic...
Reading this thread alone only serves to further confirms my "belief" that religions are just one more source of
conflict (evil) amongst us. One that we could do without in my opinion.
And again in my opinion, I truly believe that if only people would learn to listen, and I mean really *listen* to that little voice
that's inside their heart, there would be no need to listen to outside voices (religions).
But this is just my uneducated, uninformed and un-researched but honest and straight from the heart opinion only...to each
their own.
Love and peace to us ALL 
JMHO
| |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/5/2008 6:47:13 AM | Reading this thread alone only serves to further confirms my "belief" that religions are just one more source of conflict (evil) amongst us. One that we could do without in my opinion.
For me this thread confirms the belief that it isn't religion per se, but when an adherent of any religion, ideology or organization falls into dogmatism, that the potential for problems begins. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/5/2008 7:12:40 AM |
RE msg 202 by romanticoptimist:I don't know if the above was tongue in cheek or you actually believe it, but you're way wrong if you think it's true.
OK. The site I took it from was probably tongue in cheek. But I do know one thing. England hasn't had a mild winter for many years, but it's pretty much a standard that loads of old people die from hypothermia every winter, and not from old age, and that's an English winter, which is nothing compared to Canada or Russia. FYI, I've read and heard about the Russian winters. They are very hard.
I have no idea how any of the above relates, or how it relates to this thread, but I can explain why a specific level of cold would do more harm to an old person in UK than to an old person in Canada (I've lived in both countries). In Canada, our houses are built in anticipation of the cold, we dress in anticipation of the cold, we expect it. In the UK not (in my experience). | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/5/2008 7:35:36 AM |
For me this thread confirms the belief that it isn't religion per se, but when an adherent of any religion, ideology or organization falls into dogmatism, that the potential for problems begins.
Well said. And you might very well be right;)
 | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/5/2008 8:01:32 AM |
For me this thread confirms the belief that it isn't religion per se, but when an adherent of any religion, ideology or organization falls into dogmatism, that the potential for problems begins.
For me it's when people can't tell the difference between a contradiction and an inconsistency. I think it would be prudent to understand the difference, get the basics down before venturing further. | |
|
Nergal
|
Joined: 4/29/2007
Msg: 213 | |
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/5/2008 8:11:10 AM | | Isnt that the definition of dogma though, it cant be contradicted by its very nature. Thats when all sense goes out of the window. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/5/2008 9:29:10 AM | When you POST a reply to msg 193, I'll address it then.
Such short memory. I'm not talking about my reply to message 193, I'm talking about the point-by-point post I made earlier. You chastise me for (supposedly) not responding to one of your points while you continue to neglect many of mine.
Don't reply to my point-by-point response to your nonsense and expect any credit for 'I could refute all of that but I don't want to'. I am not interested in giving you any credit for anything you write
Go back and re-read what I typed about credit. Was I referring to myself or to you? If you said myself, you are incorrect.
Why should you care that I know Biblical Hebrew?
Because knowing what your opponent knows is important. If you know a lot about Hebrew then I will have to study some of it, particularly pertaining to the verse in question.
Books around the world say the Christopher Columbus discovered that the world was round. Books around the world say that Copernicus was the first person to claim the Earth went round the Sun. Does that make them right? How is this different?
How is it different? Because whether the person who discovered the shape of the earth is named Christopher Columbus is irrelevant. Claiming that a book is the infallible word of god is quite different indeed.
Even with all this, you still haven't addressed msg 193.
Indeed I have, and I'll continue to point out that you haven't addressed message 192.
Until you address msg 193, you are being evasive. Why? What are you afraid of?
I assure you I'm in here for the long haul. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/5/2008 9:32:33 AM |
Isnt that the definition of dogma though, it cant be contradicted by its very nature. Thats when all sense goes out of the window.
Sorry 'bout that Nergal, I was reading multiple threads at the same time and post the previous message in the wrong thread (this one, mea culpa). In regard to this thread, from what I've read of your posts, I have no arguments, well put and even the above is spot on. Kudos. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/5/2008 11:30:30 AM |
Isnt that the definition of dogma though, it cant be contradicted by its very nature. Thats when all sense goes out of the window.
I can't agree with that. As an example one could use the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility. That is a dogma that has killed many people over the centuries and yet it can be contradicted by the same book that the catholics used for its supposed truth. It was a prideful insistence on their part that the infallibility was legitimate in spite of evidence to the contrary. | |
|
Nergal
|
Joined: 4/29/2007
Msg: 217 | |
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/5/2008 11:36:58 AM | | Point missed ... the term dogma means something that is absolute truth, in the eyes of those preaching it. Therefore in their eyes its not open to contradiction. As you point out, the very book that proves its true also contradicts it, therefore sense has left the building ... | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/5/2008 12:02:50 PM | E. Kyro said:
I can't agree with that. As an example one could use the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility. That is a dogma that has killed many people over the centuries and yet it can be contradicted by the same book that the catholics used for its supposed truth. It was a prideful insistence on their part that the infallibility was legitimate in spite of evidence to the contrary.
As an Ultramontane (a believer in the dogma of papal infallibility) I challenge you to provide real examples of this "dogma that has killed many people over the centuries and yet it can be contradicted by the same book that the catholics used for its supposed truth". I'll remind you that papal infallibility has only been invoked twice in the Catholic Church's history: in 1854 to define the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and in 1950 to define the dogma of the Assumption; in addition, the canonizations of saints in Rome. I wasn't aware that anyone died because of any of those circumstances.... because other than that, the Pope does not and has not spoken "infallibly". The dogma of papal infallibility simply refers to the Pope's right to solemnly define Catholic dogma ex cathedra (from the chair of Peter) without having to call a general council or ecumenical council of bishops (such as the Council of Jerusalem, the Council of Nicaea, the Fourth Lateran Council, the Council of Trent, the First Vatican Council, etc.)
I should also ask where any of this supposedly contradicts our holy book (the Bible). It should furthermore be mentioned that Catholics and Orthodox do not rely solely on Scripture for our source of faith and doctrine. That is a Protestant teaching. Thanks. Oh, and long live Pope Benedict XVI! Man, that guy's such a bad@$$....  | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/5/2008 1:35:03 PM | Point missed ... the term dogma means something that is absolute truth, in the eyes of those preaching it. Therefore in their eyes its not open to contradiction. As you point out, the very book that proves its true also contradicts it, therefore sense has left the building ...
Point missed. My initial post stated "dogmatism" was where the potential for problems begins.
dogmatism n -Arrogant, stubborn assertion of opinion or belief.
Posted by Jacobus101
As an Ultramontane (a believer in the dogma of papal infallibility) I challenge you to provide real examples of this
Sorry, I should have said "Infalliblity of the Church". | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/5/2008 3:35:22 PM | RE msg 209 by oldsoul:
This tread is going entirely OFF TOPIC! (in my opinion )
The OP is: "Religion is the True EVIL in the world"
It's NOT about who's smarter or wittier or more educated or better read or who studied what and where OR who can write
the longest most OFF TOPIC posts;) Thank you. This is my opinion, too. I'm trying to avoid several-page posts like I have done before. I'm trying to keep it civil. But alas, it's very difficult with some.
Reading this thread alone only serves to further confirms my "belief" that religions are just one more source of
conflict (evil) amongst us. One that we could do without in my opinion. But if religion was the source of the conflict, then surely wouldn't this thread be about someone claiming that the LACK of Religion is the True Evil in the world?
And again in my opinion, I truly believe that if only people would learn to listen, and I mean really *listen* to that little voice
that's inside their heart, there would be no need to listen to outside voices (religions). From what I have seen, this is the opinion of most religions, including Judaism, and that religion only was taught because people have stopped listening to that "little voice", and to help them to get back to listening to it. This is the Jewish opinion of why the Bible was only given to Moses, and not to Adam. G-d gave us quite a while before he decided that we just couldn't do on our own.
Love and peace to us ALL I quite agree. 
RE msg 210 by E.Kyro:
For me this thread confirms the belief that it isn't religion per se, but when an adherent of any religion, ideology or organization falls into dogmatism, that the potential for problems begins. I have only one thing to say to this:
RE msg 211 by romanticoptimist:
I have no idea how any of the above relates, or how it relates to this thread, but I can explain why a specific level of cold would do more harm to an old person in UK than to an old person in Canada (I've lived in both countries). In Canada, our houses are built in anticipation of the cold, we dress in anticipation of the cold, we expect it. In the UK not (in my experience). It's nice to know that you've lived in both countries. However, in the UK, our houses are built in anticipation of the cold, we dress in anticipation of the cold, we expect it, from my experience. So it appears that your experience is different to mine. But that is not surprising. When I was a baby, there was snow so deep, our door was blocked from the snow. Some mornings, when I was a teen, it was so cold that the door handle to the car froze solid. A few times, I or my brother, whe we were about 15, blew on the handle, and it was so cold, that our lips froze to the handle, and we couldn't get free. But that was 20 years ago. Since then, the UK winters have been much milder, and the summers much hotter. So it could be that unless you were here in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s, you might not have seen how cold English winters used to get.
But if you ask me, this is getting a bit off-topic.
RE msg 214 by Nergal:
Isnt that the definition of dogma though, it cant be contradicted by its very nature. Thats when all sense goes out of the window. I looked up the definition of dogma. The word can apply to any opinion, some by reason of authority, some not, some by belief without proof, and some with extensive proof. So it appears that dogma can be contradicted, by its very nature. But when people use the word in a derogative fashion, it appears that it means believing something to the extent that one refuses to accept anything else. So I would agree that if someone insults religion, by saying that it has dogma, that the person means that all sense goes out of the window, but the person is not being truthful, but merely insulting. So that person's objective to to assume that religion cannot be true, and then to claim it is derogatively full of dogma, rather than to question if the tenets and opinions of that religion are true or false. In short, the person has an agenda in order to say this in the first place.
RE msg 215 by HarveyLemmings:
Such short memory. I'm not talking about my reply to message 193, I'm talking about the point-by-point post I made earlier. You chastise me for (supposedly) not responding to one of your points while you continue to neglect many of mine. I have an extremely good and long-standing memory. People have told me so on numerous occasions, so it's not just my opinion. I no interest in neglecting your points. However, it has been made clear to me by many posters, that there is little benefit in having extremely long posts, that confuse everyone. It also leads to threads going EXTREMELY OFF-TOPIC, which is against the forum rules. As an example, I quote OldSoul in msg 209:
This tread is going entirely OFF TOPIC! (in my opinion )
The OP is: "Religion is the True EVIL in the world"
It's NOT about who's smarter or wittier or more educated or better read or who studied what and where OR who can write
the longest most OFF TOPIC posts;) So I am sticking to one point at a time.
I am not interested in giving you any credit for anything you write That is my view. You have no interest in giving credit for anything I write, whether it is the truth or not. Therefore, you have no interest in acknowledging the truth. Why should I consider your view, if you are only interested in your opinion? How does that reveal the truth? How does that not increase intolerance?
Go back and re-read what I typed about credit. Was I referring to myself or to you? If you said myself, you are incorrect. I never thought you were saying you would give me any credit. But what validity does your post have, if you have no desire to validate the truth?
Because knowing what your opponent knows is important. I am not your opponent. We are having a discussion, with the purpose of revealing the truth. If you see me as some kind of opponent, then you are opposed to me, not just my POV, and not just the subject under discussion. That to me would suggest that it doesn't matter what I say. You would disagree with everything I say, because you see me as an opponent, even if it is something that you know to be the truth. That is why I still want you to discuss the point in msg 193. If you can do that, then we have a chance of both of us aiming for the truth, and the truth being clarified. Otherwise, I see no possibility of the truth being made clear, becaue you would refuse to acknowledge it and would still keep arguing.
If you know a lot about Hebrew then I will have to study some of it, particularly pertaining to the verse in question. That would make me very happy, because if you did that, then you would be better able to make a logical statement that has more truth in it, rather than a piece of sophistry.
Because whether the person who discovered the shape of the earth is named Christopher Columbus is irrelevant. Claiming that a book is the infallible word of god is quite different indeed. This is true. If these books claim that something that is false, then one has to question the validity of those books, but NOT that the Earth is round. If these books are translations, and in the translated book it says something which is false, but in the original, it doesn't say that at all, but something else, and the falsity is due to incorrect translation, then one has to question the validity of the translation. But not the validity of the original. That book's validity cannot be in question, because one is not analysing the book, but the translation. You are analysing the translation, but not the book. Every time, I give people the benefity of the doubt, and look it up in the original, so that I can better confirm what they wrote. However, I keep finding that the basis of many of these claims against the Bible is rooted in misunderstandings of the text, due to translation differences, too many to rely on the translation.
Indeed I have, and I'll continue to point out that you haven't addressed message 192. I have addressed ONE point out of msg 192. I see no point in trying to debate 50 points at once. It just makes it much harder to show the truth. Why would I want to reply to multiple points all at once, when it will just hide the truth, unless I wanted to hide the truth? Why would I want me to respond to ALL of your points at once, unless I wanted to hide the truth? I refer again to OldSoul's point in msg 209.
Also, can you please tell me where you have answered msg 193, because so far, all I have seen is you questioning my knowledge of Hebrew, and you trying to debate WHY I should move on to a different point, and have seen nothing so far discussing the verse that YOU quoted, and I responded to. Why not just explain the verse in greater detail, showing how the language of the verse supports your belief, and how nothing else in the Bible says anything about punishments for people who hurt widows and orphans?
Until you address msg 193, you are being evasive. Why? What are you afraid of? I assure you I'm in here for the long haul.
So now I ask, why are you again not answering these questions? What is it you fear?
However, seeing as you have posted that you are in it for the long haul, I feel I should warn you. I'm known for being unimaginably perseverant, when it comes to the truth. I discuss things for 4 hours as easily as you breathe. I've had discussions for 14 hours, and stopped only because the other person could not continue. When I've had the option to continue the conversation the next day, I've had discussions for over 45 hours over a single weekend. I've been told by people that they can keep arguing for ages, and I outlast them. I've even stayed working on a particularly thorny problem for over 10 years, until to got to the answers. As long as you can keep going, I'll keep going for twice that and then some. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/5/2008 7:12:08 PM |
Wars have been about greed and property since the dawn of man.
Thank you MerryLass! You hit it spot on. In other forums within this grouping, there is a HUGE amount of incorrect parahprasing by uninformed or intentionally out of context characterizing statments that reads like a script to Jerry Springer.
Thanks for a breath of fresh air. I would add that people have warred on others 'in the name of religion' and history is rife with folks who do wrong things and try to justify their selfish acts in the name of .
Much like experts in the Koran will relate, Jihad, etc. is missused by those folks to justify their actions in similar fassion. Same thing, different religion to blame. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/5/2008 8:29:49 PM | | I think that religion is the bad thing. Its whats telling you right from wrong, and I think Putting words into God's mouth. Believing there is a god isnt so bad, I mean it gives people hope in this world. For some people hope is all they have, I like the saying... "Stand for something, or you will fall for anything." | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/10/2008 3:15:29 AM |
Believing there is a god isnt so bad, I mean it gives people hope in this world.
How can you say that and not feel at least a little bit cheap? | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/10/2008 2:57:49 PM |
"Stand for something, or you will fall for anything."
I see this quote quite often, it is sometimes used by someone who isn't quite sure why they believe in something , can't explain why they believe what they believe, but feel it is important to believe what they believe rather than believe something other than what they presently believe.
The answer to the facile statement.....
"Stand for something, or you will fall for anything." is..........what if the something that you stand for is the anything you fell for.........an example of this is the unshakeable belief in the rightfullness of National Socialism in Germany in the 1920s-1940's.... Many people stood for that political belief....yet they fell for it too.....though oddly enough....post WWII there were few self professed Nazi party members still standing for the tenets of their party,.....at least openly. | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 3/10/2008 4:33:40 PM | Actually many Christian gnostic s believe there were two Gods present in the bible. The creator and the lord God. Two distinct entities. G-d the creator remained singlar, while the lord God propose such names as Jehovah, Yaveh, and so on, Gnostics believe these to be lesser gods such as angels but not of the creator G-d. A Demi God Satan. The material God. They believed this lesser diety was the Satan written about in Rev. And its that god that people worship. Separate to the person.
While the creator, the true G-d, is in you. Observing its opposite in you. You are an emissary and don't even know it.
Now that other god is the god worshiped, not experienced. Separate, not within. Follow the leader, not one with the leader. What do you think. Religion is a business. | |
|
|
| Page 9 of 33
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 |
|
Home
login 
