Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 83
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.Page 4 of 12    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
Paul:

an·ar·chy
ˈanərkē/
noun
noun: anarchy
• a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
"he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"
synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil More
antonyms: government, order
absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Now, that second definition (bolded) is the one we are looking for Paul. Anarchy as a political philosophy simply means without government.

Do some reading then come back and talk to me.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 84
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/3/2014 12:20:52 PM
^^^ No, it's not. No more than it is cherry picking to say that I have a "right" hand and that I am also "right" quite often.
 Bentheredunthat
Joined: 1/9/2014
Msg: 85
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/3/2014 2:41:38 PM

Then in an attempt to show that hypocrisy, you quoted the following that someone wrote:
"My god is an awesome god....and it's just coincidence that he happens to hate the same people I do."

Please show me where I wrote that.............


Never even implied that you wrote that. It should be clear to any reader that it was a simple example of a generic theist world view. Stop being so sensitive. It's really not all about you....
 Coma_White
Joined: 9/15/2013
Msg: 86
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/3/2014 5:03:37 PM

At least you termed it 'would seem to' since you know fully well what was happening in this situation was not rape. The historical account of what happened in those days doesn't mean that which did happen is condoned and has God's blessing on it. Furthermore, even if you or I determine something is unacceptable doesn't mean it is. How many villages did God slay all the women and children? It's hard to understand the reasoning but God had his reason for doing so and what we think of it matters not.


That's true that one person saying something is unacceptable doesn't mean it is. However, through a consensus of reason and rational discussion, we can come to an agreement about what is acceptable and what isn't. Morality comes from people living together in a society and using reason to protect individual freedoms and human rights. It doesn't come from religion. No matter what the reason, genocide is wrong. We no longer believe it's acceptable because we've grown out of believing in silly thing. Also, there is no evidence that any God or supernatural being slayed anyone.
 april1963
Joined: 5/28/2014
Msg: 87
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/3/2014 6:35:07 PM

Bentheredunthat wrote:........My god is an awesome god.


Yes Sr. I Agree 101%..... HE IS AWESOME!!......NO shame on saying that.

http://youtu.be/oRqt8V6A_UI.......
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 88
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/3/2014 8:08:14 PM
msg 102



"And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; If they pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." (Mark 16:17-18 RSV)
**************************************************************************************************
(excerpt)
It is easy to read this as though Jesus means these signs will accompany everyone who believes and preaches the gospel. Unfortunately, the text makes it appear this way, and this is how this passage has been understood by many. As you go about preaching the gospel, these signs will immediately confirm that the faith of those who believe is genuine. But the amazing fact is that for twenty centuries millions of people have been converted and have believed the gospel, and none of these signs have appeared.

There have been claims that these signs have been manifested in certain instances, but if this is what these words meant, then these signs would be everywhere. Every time a person became a Christian, some of these signs would be manifested. Therefore, they ought to be the most frequent occurrence in all Christendom. But the truth is, they are very rarely, if ever, seen.

Now what does this mean? Well, it means, of course, that we have misunderstood this passage if we read it that way. It does not square with what God actually does.

I think there is a rather simple solution to the problem. If we put the passage back in its context, in terms of the climate of unbelief which prevailed among these disciples as the word about the resurrection was brought to them, then we see that Jesus is addressing these words not to those who believe the gospel, but to these disciples who believed or disbelieved in his resurrection. When he says to them, "These signs will accompany those who believe," he is speaking about the disciples. I think we can even insert these words, "those among you who believe," without doing violence to the text. Jesus is saying to these disciples, "Now go and preach in all creation. And to encourage you, in the face of the hostility you will encounter, certain signs that only God could do will accompany you." They would be given power to deliver from demons, power to set free from demonic influence. They would be given power to praise God in a new language.



This is what Jesus says ANY believer can do.


Ummm, no he doesn't; the above passage which you have (in your attempted deceit) taken out of context, is not directed to ANY current believer. I've pasted an excerpt ^ for you (if you care to read it) that puts it in proper context. If you wish to read further, then go on the link below. Put simply, JC was presumably pissed at his apostles for their disbelief in his supposed resurrection. He rebuked their disloyalty & disbelief and set upon them the various directives as outlined in the passage. Thus, when he used the 2nd person singular or the 3rd person plural, he was NOT referring to all the followers, but to the titular heads of his following (his apostles who he hand picked as his successors, who were devoid of the faith that he expected them to have). This is borne out in the scriptures if you cross reference it to other passages such as in Acts where Peter is the main protagonist of such actions (having been bitten by a snake while stranded on Malta; the passage where he heals the crippled beggar) therefore these imperatives were directed at his apostles. It could not have been directed at any other later generation converts (though some were believed to have those abilities) because then it would have been brought to light.

http://www.raystedman.org/new-testament/mark/those-signs-following


Why is it that NO so-called christian has ever healed the sick?


This is another Atheist deception
There are many reports of pple claiming to have had "so-called" miraculous recoveries from fatal diseases. Even the medical establishment have acknowledged this and whom are at a loss (or cannot given a scientific explanation) of how it happens. The interesting thing is that this has NOT been unique to Christianity, as it has been reported by Hindus, Buddhists, and even in Hebrew lore.


Which is it? Will you step up and drink poison? Of course you won't.


If you wanna a first hand account of those who handle snakes and drink poison then go to the snake handler churches in the Appalachians; they actually perform those things. Somehow, I think you'll find a way to disbelieve even if you witness it.


Your belief is a sham,


Where did I post that this was my personal belief?


What kind of person would refuse to cure a childs cancer?


This is an anthropocentricity often held by Atheists
If every fatal disease was meant to be cured through divine intercession, then it would not exist to begin with.
What would be the point of it? In essence, no one would ever end up dying of anything!
What you are failing to understand is that these so-called healings don't happen (and are not carried out) for their own sake, or just for the sake of simply saving someone from dying.


2000 children die of cancer every day. What kind of person prefers to watch them suffer? I guess your god is like Michael Jackson and needs millions of little kids to play with in heaven? What kind of morality is it that refuses to stop a childs suffering? I guess it's the morality of christianity.


^ typical anthropocentrical Atheist hubris. See previous response.
 Coma_White
Joined: 9/15/2013
Msg: 89
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/3/2014 11:26:14 PM

This is another Atheist deception
There are many reports of pple claiming to have had "so-called" miraculous recoveries from fatal diseases. Even the medical establishment have acknowledged this and whom are at a loss (or cannot given a scientific explanation) of how it happens. The interesting thing is that this has NOT been unique to Christianity, as it has been reported by Hindus, Buddhists, and even in Hebrew lore.


I don't buy this. If faith healing worked, there would be faith healers in hospitals. There have been reports of people recovering from diseases and there have been reports of Bigfoot too. What does any of this prove without evidence to support it?
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 90
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/4/2014 4:12:17 AM

If you wanna a first hand account of those who handle snakes and drink poison then go to the snake handler churches in the Appalachians; they actually perform those things. Somehow, I think you'll find a way to disbelieve even if you witness it.


There's no reason to 'disbelieve' in stupidity. There's plenty of evidence supporting the idea that it exists.



In West Virginia, snake handling is still considered a sign of faith
November 2011

Mark Wolford, 43,
travels the hills to revive the Pentecostal ritual of snake handling. He combs the local woods for just the right rattlers, water moccasins and copperheads to add to his stash of eight snakes, which he stores in a spare bedroom and feeds rats and mice from the pet store.

This evening, he has driven 100 miles from his home near Bluefield, W.Va., to Jolo, one of the state’s most isolated communities. - and site of the 'Church of the Lord Jesus'.

Each Labor Day weekend, the church has hosted a well-documented “homecoming” for snake handlers, who believe that Mark 16:17-18 mandates that true Christians “take up serpents and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover.”

Wolford’s mission in life is to make sure that this custom, which he learned from his parents, survives for another generation.

“Anybody can do it that believes it,” he says. “Jesus said, ‘These signs shall follow them which believe.’ This is a sign to show people that God has the power.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/in-wva-snake-handling-is-still-considered-a-sign-of-faith/2011/10/18/gIQAmiqL9M_story.html



'Serpent-Handling' West Virginia Pentecostal Pastor Mark Wolford, 44, Dies From Snake Bite
May 30, 2012


A "serpent-handling" West Virginia pastor died after his rattlesnake bit him during a church ritual, just as the man had apparently watched a snake kill his father years before.

Snake-handlers point to scripture as evidence that God calls them to engage in such a practice to show their faith in him. Mark 16: 17-18 reads, "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Wolford told the Washington Post magazine in 2011 that he is carrying on the tradition of his ancestors by engaging in snake handling.

"Anybody can do it that believes it," Wolford said. "Jesus said, 'These signs shall follow them which believe.' This is a sign to show people that God has the power."

Wolford watched his own father die at the age of 39 after a rattlesnake bit him (in 1983) during a similar service.

"He lived 10 1/2 hours," Wolford told the Washington Post Magazine. "When he got bit, he said he wanted to die in the church. Three hours after he was bitten, his kidneys shut down. After a while, your heart stops. I hated to see him go, but he died for what he believed in.

"I know it's real; it is the power of God," Wolford told the Washington Post Magazine last year. "If I didn't do it, if I'd never gotten back involved, it'd be the same as denying the power and saying it was not real."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/serpent-handling-west-virginia-pastor-dies-snake-bite/story?id=16459455



Serious Darwin Award contenders. ^^^ In the 'Multi-Generational' category perhaps.


The Darwin Awards salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who accidentally remove themselves from it...
http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/


The Wolford family have competition though...



February 17, 2014
Kentucky Pastor Jamie Coots died from a snakebite Saturday night, according to officials and family members.

Middlesboro Police Chief Jeff Sharpe said officials discovered that Coots died in his home at about 10 p.m. Saturday after a snake reportedly bit his hand at the Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name.

Coots left the church and went home before emergency personnel arrived. Officials then went to Coots's house, but the pastor denied medical treatment, according to Chief Sharpe. About an hour later, officials said they returned to his home, but Coots had already passed away.
His son, Cody, said he has suffered eight snakebites before, so his family thought this recent one would be like the others.

"We're going to go home, he's going to lay on the couch, he's going to hurt, he's going to pray for a while and he's going to get better. That's what happened every other time, except this time was just so quick and it was crazy - it was really crazy," Cody Coots said.
Cody and members of the congregation carried his father to the car and took him home where Coots passed away later that night. Cody said his dad didn't believe in going to the doctor for a snakebite.

Coots isn't the first to die from a snake bite at his Middlesboro church. Melinda Brown passed away in 1995 from a snake bite.

http://www.wbir.com/story/news/local/2014/02/16/pastor-dies-after-snake-he-was-handling-bit-him/5529907/


Perhaps Coots senior won't be lonely in heaven for long?


Kentucky snake handler refuses treatment for snake bite months after dad’s death
May 28, 2014

Pastor Cody Coots of the Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name Church, who took over after his father Jamie Coots died from a rattlesnake bite in Feburary, was himself bitten by a rattlesnake Monday.


Cody Coots, son of the late Jamie Coots, is slowly recovering after he was bitten by a 6-foot-long rattlesnake early Monday. He has officially refused any sort of medical treatment.

"I told the Lord that I wouldn't go to the hospital," Coots told the Lexington-Herald Leader.

Ever since his dad succumbed to a snake bite in February, 21-year-old Coots has been acting as lead pastor at the Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name church in Middlesboro, Ky. The fourth-generation snake handler says he believes the Bible commands Christians to take up snakes in the Lord’s name with the faith that God will heal them.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/snake-handler-refuses-treatment-snake-bite-months-dad-death-article-1.1808395




Snake handling began in an east Tennessee church in 1909, and at one point boasted several thousand practitioners, mostly, although not exclusively, in the Appalachian states, says the Rev. Bill Leonard, a professor at Wake Forest University’s School of Divinity in Winston-Salem, N.C. As the practice grew, several states banned it, including Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee.

But not West Virginia, even after a death in Jolo.

The Jolo church was founded in 1956 by Bob and Barbara Elkins; he, a coal miner, and she, the mother of six children from a previous marriage.

Publicity turned sour when Columbia Chafin Hagerman, one of Barbara’s daughters, died of a snakebite in 1961 at age 23, one of about 80 to 100 deaths attributed to snake handling since its origins.

Snake handling “used to be passed down through large families, but families are smaller these days.” Leonard says.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/in-wva-snake-handling-is-still-considered-a-sign-of-faith/2011/10/18/gIQAmiqL9M_story.html



Well, yes. Yes they are. Families become smaller as members of them die from snake bites.



Pastor Harvey Payne took over after Bob Elkins died in 2007.
Payne, who stays in the background during the three days of the homecoming, seems dispirited about the future of the congregation, which he says has 10 members.

He hazards no guesses as to how long his church will stage its annual homecoming.

One of the handlers at the homecoming is a man in jeans who says he works for the government and will give only his first name as Clifton. “I’m a serpent hound, a sign-believing preacher,” he says, and he maintains that people must handle snakes, drink poison, practice healing and speak in tongues to be saved. Though he acknowledges that people such as himself are “a dying breed,” he thinks that may be a good thing: “Scripture says unless there’s a great falling away, the end won’t come.”

According to Leonard, the religion professor, nearly every snake handler has been bitten. “It is not uncommon for some of them to have lost digits — their fingers — because the nerves have gone dead,” Leonard says. “The venom attacks the nervous system. It’s vicious and gruesome when it hits.”

Yet Wolford risks this again and again, despite watching his father die at age 39 of a rattlesnake bite.

Except for his mother, Wolford’s family avoids the practice. None of his children and stepchildren even go to church. His second wife, Fran, the daughter of a snake handler, used to handle serpents. But she took up smoking, “got weak in the Lord,” Wolford says, and stopped.

And so he seeks out anyone, any church that wants to continue the tradition.
“I promised the Lord I’d do everything in my power to keep the faith going,” Wolford says.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/in-wva-snake-handling-is-still-considered-a-sign-of-faith/2011/10/18/gIQAmiqL9M_story.html



"Everything" in this context meaning gradually being bitten to death by snakes, just like his dad, and thereby disproving the idea that an imaginary God thing "has the power" and will save them. From themselves.

It's worth noting too that in natural disasters 'believers' die at exactly the rate one would expect from their proportion in the community. No matter how fervently they pray.


And this ^^^ cuts back to the OP's query.

Reality is a great teacher, one simply has to observe it and note the mechanisms.
Which means there is no place for unevidenced beliefs. It also means that one quickly apprehends the problem in using dogma derived from an ideology as a guide. For anything.


.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 91
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/4/2014 4:58:42 AM

"
That is fallacious reasoning on your part, and opens you up to the entirely factual counter example, that there are also lots of NON-theistic, autocratic, despotic governments in the world as well, and if you stay with your "rule," you are thereby proving that SECULARISM is inherently oppressive as well."


It doesn't work that way. If a fascist country like North Korea created their laws by looking to democratic ideals and secular moral philosophy as a guide, they wouldn't be oppressive. They would be accountable for protecting human rights and would be working with other organizations like the UN to create a transparent society that is congruent with democratic nations. The problem is, a country like North Korea isn't being oppressive because it's basing it's laws and conduct on atheism or secularism, they're following old models of fascism that have nothing to with theism or atheism.


Clearly, you don't talk about the same thing from one sentence to the next. No logical sequence, means no logical deduction.

Today's mistakes:

"It doesn't work that way."

Yes, logic works EXACTLY that way. If you declare something to be a principle, then it applies to everything, not just to what you want to complain about. You declared that the fact that you can name some governments which have strong religious components to them, commit what we consider to be atrocities against humanity, that therefore this proves that religious belief itself causes this result. Once you establish the idea that atrocities committed by a government prove that any labels or sources for their claim to power are the cause of their misbehavior, you have to apply that across the board, or you overturn your own claims. That IS the way that logic works.

"If a fascist country like North Korea created their laws by looking to democratic ideals and secular moral philosophy as a guide, they wouldn't be oppressive."

Okay, now you are implying ANOTHER idea: that democracies don't oppress. That's a laugh. And you continue to use the term "secular moral philosophy" as if it refers to a specific set of principles. It doesn't. Anyone who sets up a government that doesn't talk about a religion, is a secular government. We've had LOTS of those that attacked their neighbors, attempted genocide on subsets of their own peoples, and worse.

"They would be accountable for protecting human rights and would be working with other organizations like the UN to create a transparent society that is congruent with democratic nations. "

You mean like the United States does? We wont even approve foreign observers for our elections, much less work with the UN to make sure we are a transparent society.

North Korea is secular. Most Communist states have been secular. Not "nice" secular, but certainly secular.

Maybe you need to find a different word that actually has a specific meaning.

"Secular" is a lot like atheist, in that it means "not-something." It doesn't mean that what it is, is anything specific. Therefore an atheist can believe in freedom from oppression, or not. A secular government can believe in democracy or not.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 92
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/4/2014 6:25:06 AM
@coma


I don't buy this.


I didn't think pple like you would,(which is not at all surprising).


If faith healing worked, there would be faith healers in hospitals.


Got news for you; here in the US, most hospitals have clergy persons on staff (its called pastoral care, which encompasses more than just priests & reverends) just like you have a physiotherapy dept. There are quite a few patients who have been of faith and who request this service, and not just as a last rite. On occasion it happens where some seriously ill person is able to make a recovery. I don't know if every spontaneous recovery was made under a religious backdrop, but the ones I've heard of were. This is why I said that it is has been acknowledged by the Medical establishment.


There have been reports of people recovering from diseases and there have been reports of Bigfoot too.


The existence of Bigfoot hasn't been acknowledged by the scientific community
But, the spontaneous recovery from certain illness has!


What does any of this prove without evidence to support it?


Well, if you employed some simple logic,
you'd know that you are not gonna have any evidence for something that cannot be explained by empirical grounds or deduction, all you'll have is the end result!


If a fascist country like North Korea created their laws by looking to democratic ideals


Point of correction!
NK is not a fascist country, Fascism allows for ownership of property & business, and freedom of worship
NK is a totalitarian dictatorship headed by Marxist ideals which means that they are fully atheist
Anyone who attempts to practice any "faith" will be jailed or put to death.

secondly, such communist states call themselves "pple's democratic republic of _______(insert name of country)"
So they do look at democratic "ideals" but not by your standard.
Theirs are based on a whole different set of Marxist/atheistic axioms, upon which they build their moral codes.
**************************************************************************

@Lyingcheat


There's no reason to 'disbelieve' in stupidity. There's plenty of evidence supporting the idea that it exists.


I never implied that these pple were NOT stupid, nor that they were accurately following the precepts of their faith.
I brought it forth because the poster who I responded to claimed (erroneously) that being able to do this was somehow a prerequisite for being a christian.

Although you did highlight the reports of snake bite related deaths in these practitioners, I noticed that you did not mention how many (or what the proportion is) of those who were bitten that fully survived; since the inception of this practice.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 93
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/4/2014 7:23:52 AM

... nor that they were accurately following the precepts of their faith.

How is this, how CAN this be determined objectively? One person's adherence to faith is another believer's "misplaced priority" or "misinterpretation." I brought up this very issue with two Mormon missionaries, and the response I got was "Well, we're right and they're wrong."

Sounds "accurate."
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 94
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/4/2014 8:04:00 AM

How is this, how CAN this be determined objectively?


Even though I'm no Biblical scholar, I'd approach it like anything else you are trying to figure out.
you would do it by clearly reading the passage (in its proper translation)
Putting it in proper context (who is it being directed to, and for what purpose)
and try to cross-reference it with other elements in the scriptures where it applies.


the response I got was "Well, we're right and they're wrong."


If they can't explain to you why they are right and others are wrong, then they are disingenuous at the very least.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 95
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/4/2014 8:43:01 AM
^^^ Yes, that would certainly be the scholarly approach. The problem is that there is a VERY wide chasm between Biblical scholarship and Biblical adherence. For example, a Biblical scholar would say that the Bible is silent about whether Jesus ever married or not. In the context of the times and Jewish tradition, it would be highly unusual if he never married by age 33. Biblical adherents, on the other hand, believe quite fervently that he remained single. To imply otherwise would be heresy.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 96
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/4/2014 9:06:49 AM

There have been reports of people recovering from diseases and there have been reports of Bigfoot too.


The existence of Bigfoot hasn't been acknowledged by the scientific community
But, the spontaneous recovery from certain illness has!


Spontaneous recovery is spontaneous recovery. Are you suggesting alleged deities are involved?



What does any of this prove without evidence to support it?


Well, if you employed some simple logic,
you'd know that you are not gonna have any evidence for something that cannot be explained by empirical grounds or deduction, all you'll have is the end result!


So... all you have is "the end result" and no evidence.
I hope you aren't suggesting that an absence of empirical evidence might 'mean' Goddidit?

Because that implies the nonsensical position that either way, evidence or no evidence, it all leads to the same conclusion.

That's not logic. It's reaching a desired conclusion using unsupported beliefs.



There's no reason to 'disbelieve' in stupidity. There's plenty of evidence supporting the idea that it exists.


I never implied that these pple were NOT stupid, nor that they were accurately following the precepts of their faith.
I brought it forth because the poster who I responded to claimed (erroneously) that being able to do this was somehow a prerequisite for being a christian.


According to their opinion it is a prerequisite. Your opinion is different, but so what. There are hundreds of holy sacred texts and thousands of interpretations of each one.


Although you did highlight the reports of snake bite related deaths in these practitioners, I noticed that you did not mention how many (or what the proportion is) of those who were bitten that fully survived; since the inception of this practice.


Neither did you.




... nor that they were accurately following the precepts of their faith.


How is this, how CAN this be determined objectively?


Even though I'm no Biblical scholar, I'd approach it like anything else you are trying to figure out.
you would do it by clearly reading the passage (in its proper translation)
Putting it in proper context (who is it being directed to, and for what purpose)
and try to cross-reference it with other elements in the scriptures where it applies.



What a surprise, you would use post hoc rationalisation to interpret it in a way that suits you.
Just as the snake handlers do.


.
 Bentheredunthat
Joined: 1/9/2014
Msg: 97
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/4/2014 9:58:53 AM

It's hard to understand the reasoning but God had his reason for doing so and what we think of it matters not.


Hard to understand why a god would sanction the sexual slavery of women?? Not really. A simple answer is that this god was created by ignorant, savage men.

You are a victim of the Euthyphro Dilemma, and apparently are willing to accept that anything is just and good if your genocidal god did it. That's intellectually lazy sophistry, and paints you into the uncomfortable corner whereby you justify rape, murder, slavery, bashing infants heads in - all because... "well, if'n god says it were OK, it musta been". That's awesome. Islamic Jihadists agree with you....


This has been covered already, come up with something new.


Yes, it's been covered with the same lame apologetics that christians have been hiding behind for centuries.


The THEM in verse 20 is the THEY in 17 & 18.


And they are the only believers in existence at the time. You fail to comprehend that whether there were 2 believers, 12 believers, or 20 million believers, none of that saves you from the fact that Jesus says ALL believers will be able to heal the sick. Was Jesus lying or can believers heal the sick. If he wasn't lying and christians can heal the sick but choose not to, they are immoral.


“It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.”


Lol! And isn't that the most convenient cop-out available? "Yo man, I CAN do all these things but... ya know, don't be TESTIN' my ass cuz..... I'll send your ass to HELL if you don't believe my unevidenced claims."

Too funny. More funny is that in Mark, it's claimed that Jesus worked with his believers as he sent them out...to do what?.... to heal the sick for one... and 'confirmed the message with accompanying signs'. He sure didn't ask his believers to hide the fact that they could heal the sick. He didn't admonish anyone not to test his believers. He fully expected them to PROVE his claims.... by healing the sick. When are christians gonna stop their bloviating and tap-dancing and start actually doing what their Lord and Savior calls them to do?


You guess wrong. Remember that forbidden fruit? Mankind blew the opportunity to live in perfection. II Corinthians 4:4 states that Satan is god of this world. Mankind made the choice and now lives with the consequences.


Complete non sequitur. Jesus says his believers can heal the sick. He calls on them to do exactly that. Any rational person would question the ethics and morality of a deity or its followers who CAN heal a childs cancer, but REFUSES. Christian ethics are an abomination.....

What other excuses do you have?
 Bentheredunthat
Joined: 1/9/2014
Msg: 98
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/4/2014 10:06:00 AM

Yes Sr. I Agree 101%..... HE IS AWESOME!!......NO shame on saying that.


Yep, no shame in praising a god who bribes you with heaven if you kiss his ass and threatens you with eternal damnation if you don't. You should be quite proud of following the 'values' of a god that tells you that as a woman you are inferior, ignorant, and suitable only to pop out babies.

Now, go make me a sammich, the Men are talking......
;-)
 RedrockJen
Joined: 3/27/2014
Msg: 99
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/4/2014 10:24:47 AM

Yep, no shame in praising a god who bribes you with heaven if you kiss his ass and threatens you with eternal damnation if you don't. You should be quite proud of following the 'values' of a god that tells you that as a woman you are inferior, ignorant, and suitable only to pop out babies.

Now, go make me a sammich, the Men are talking......
;-)


Spot on!
 Bentheredunthat
Joined: 1/9/2014
Msg: 100
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/4/2014 10:27:43 AM

Ummm, no he doesn't; the above passage which you have (in your attempted deceit) taken out of context, is not directed to ANY current believer.


The lame apologetics you reference have been trounced a thousand times over. I get it. Jesus says plainly that believers can heal the sick. 'Believers' discover quite quickly that they CAN'T, and so the desperate backpedaling begins. "Ooh! Ooh! Context!! "Ooh! That's what he SAID, but that's not what he MEANT!" "Ooh! Even if that IS what he meant, you just haven't INTERPRETED it right - but we certainly have!"

Too funny.


This is another Atheist deception
There are many reports of pple claiming to have had "so-called" miraculous recoveries from fatal diseases. Even the medical establishment have acknowledged this and whom are at a loss (or cannot given a scientific explanation) of how it happens.


Sophistry. WTF does someone waking up and finding their shingles are gone have to do with the fact that Jesus states that believers will be able to lay their hands on a sick person and heal them? Nothing. Can you do better than presenting Strawmen?


If you wanna a first hand account of those who handle snakes and drink poison then go to the snake handler churches in the Appalachians; they actually perform those things. Somehow, I think you'll find a way to disbelieve even if you witness it.


Another dodge. Jesus says a believer can drink poison with no consequence. Can you point to ANY believers that have done this? Can you drink poison and live? Of course you can't. Your faith is based on a lie.


This is an anthropocentricity often held by Atheists
If every fatal disease was meant to be cured through divine intercession, then it would not exist to begin with.


So now you claim to know the mind of god? This is yet another dodge. Jesus says believers can heal the sick and calls on them to do so. If you can't heal the sick, you are not a believer. Pretending to have some authority superior to your Lord and Savior that allows you to claim you are NOT called to heal the sick doesn't save you. It's a COP-OUT. You know you have no such abilities. You know you cannot reconcile your lack of ability and competence with the words of your Savior - so you tapdance. Again, I get it.
 Coma_White
Joined: 9/15/2013
Msg: 101
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/4/2014 10:29:00 AM

Today's mistakes:

"It doesn't work that way."

Yes, logic works EXACTLY that way. If you declare something to be a principle, then it applies to everything, not just to what you want to complain about. You declared that the fact that you can name some governments which have strong religious components to them, commit what we consider to be atrocities against humanity, that therefore this proves that religious belief itself causes this result. Once you establish the idea that atrocities committed by a government prove that any labels or sources for their claim to power are the cause of their misbehavior, you have to apply that across the board, or you overturn your own claims. That IS the way that logic works.


No, that has nothing to do with what I said. Inquality, censorship, and violence are built into religion because they are contained in their holy books. If a theocratic state is based on a religion with built in inequality, of course their laws and conduct will reflect those values. I've never said that atrocities commited by a government prove that their ideology is the reason they did it. I was talking about things like blasphemy laws, or sentencing people to be executed for being gay.


Okay, now you are implying ANOTHER idea: that democracies don't oppress. That's a laugh. And you continue to use the term "secular moral philosophy" as if it refers to a specific set of principles. It doesn't. Anyone who sets up a government that doesn't talk about a religion, is a secular government. We've had LOTS of those that attacked their neighbors, attempted genocide on subsets of their own peoples, and worse.


I'm using the term "secular moral philosophy" to refer to non religious ideas such as humanism. You're still missing the main difference between theocratic and secular states. If a country like Saudi Arabia says women can't drive cars, it's because of the inequality built into the religion they base their laws from. If a secular country has a similar law, it's not because of atheism. It's also easier to challenge those laws in a secular country because no one can say you're disrespecting their religion if you challenge it.


The existence of Bigfoot hasn't been acknowledged by the scientific community
But, the spontaneous recovery from certain illness has!


This is very misleading. What part of the scientific community acknowledges spontaneous recovery? Even so, it has nothing to do with faith or supernatural healing.



Got news for you; here in the US, most hospitals have clergy persons on staff (its called pastoral care, which encompasses more than just priests & reverends) just like you have a physiotherapy dept. There are quite a few patients who have been of faith and who request this service, and not just as a last rite. On occasion it happens where some seriously ill person is able to make a recovery. I don't know if every spontaneous recovery was made under a religious backdrop, but the ones I've heard of were. This is why I said that it is has been acknowledged by the Medical
establishment.


A record that says "this person got better" isn't evidence of anything other than they got better.


Well, if you employed some simple logic,
you'd know that you are not gonna have any evidence for something that cannot be explained by empirical grounds or deduction, all you'll have is the end result!


If something "can't be explained", it's usually because people are looking into the wrong place for an explanation. It's like hearing a noise in your house and instead of looking for the real cause, you say it must be a ghost. If something creates an "end result" it can be measured by science.


secondly, such communist states call themselves "pple's democratic republic of _______(insert name of country)" So they do look at democratic "ideals" but not by your standard.
Theirs are based on a whole different set of Marxist/atheistic axioms, upon which they build their moral codes.


Putting "democratic" in the name of your country doesn't make it democratic. In North Koreas one party dictatorship, all members of society don't have equal access to power and all members of society don't enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberty.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 102
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/4/2014 3:45:26 PM
Anyone who's been in these forums for very long is familiar with my own devout militant anti-religion attitudes. I say that religion is evil, and does a lot of damage on many fronts.

Pay attention to how much participation takes place in this thread, and pay attention to exactly the nature of the disagreements, and how the arguments are executed.

Proof that things are so extremely out of whack, and why, in a way that religion is guilty of, is the very fact that this thread exhibits precisely what it does.
 Coma_White
Joined: 9/15/2013
Msg: 103
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/4/2014 6:08:52 PM

Just the way you present yourself, the way you address topics, the way you speak to others is all the proof I need as to how people can be when God is not only absent from their life, but has made God their enemy. You are proof, God is God.


I would have to disagree. I think he is speaking that way because he has not accepted that Bumba created the universe. After not feeling well for millions of years, Bumba vomited up the sun, the earth, and all of the other planets. After that, he vomited up the animals and humans.
 april1963
Joined: 5/28/2014
Msg: 104
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/4/2014 6:35:24 PM

Just the way you present yourself, the way you address topics, the way you speak to others is all the proof I need as to how people can be when God is not only absent from their life, but has made God their enemy. You are proof.


^^
SPOT ON!!

GOD IS LOVE!!!!!...NO GOD= NO LOVE.....just hate.

below is the proof.


Msg # 125.Yep, no shame in praising a god who bribes you with heaven if you..KISS HIS ASS ...and threatens you with eternal damnation if you don't. You should be quite proud of following the 'values' of a god that tells you that as a woman you are inferior, ignorant, and suitable only to pop out babies......Now, go make me a sammich, the Men are talking.



Msg #126 wrote.. Spot on!.... Then msg #71.. (another thread)'god' and dogs are deal breakers for me.



This is just unbelievable!!! I mean ...Really?..why? why so much hateful heart?
I will pray for you both tonight and for your defender, CW too.
Good night!

P.S
I will be glad to make you both a "Sammich". Will be a pleasure..No hate here,just being honest....I mean it!
 RedrockJen
Joined: 3/27/2014
Msg: 105
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/4/2014 6:54:47 PM

I will pray for you both tonight and for your defender, CW too.


You pray for us; we'll think for you.


I will be glad to make you both a "Sammich". Will be a pleasure..No hate here,just being honest....I mean it!


Make mine pastrami on rye, please.
 RedrockJen
Joined: 3/27/2014
Msg: 106
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/4/2014 7:47:38 PM
^^^ Utter tosh. Riddled with ad hominems; peppered with delusions; rendered meaningless.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 107
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 6/4/2014 7:50:48 PM
April1963:
Forumreaderisall:

Oh the indignity, whoa is you, whoa is you.

http://listverse.com/2010/02/23/10-people-who-give-christianity-a-bad-name/

Wake up! We're just trying to get you to open you eyes, that's all. Some time you have to shout.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >