Something I read in the bible today

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Aircooledboy, I appreciate your post and would point out that there is a vast difference between Christianity and organized religion. And I stand by my assertion that the left in this country has waged a systematic campaign over the last few decades to remove all traces of God from our society.

Its done a good job, then.

Im not sure you need neccessarily be "left" to wish to preserve the doctrine of seperation of church and state.

Was not the US founded on such ideals, afetr all?

[Jeff Higgins]

Stuart, you are making a lot of assumptions yourself. This little exchange started when you made a blatantly loaded, baiting statement about Paul. I surmised that you were either stupid or had an ulterior motive; the latter has proven to be true.

I do not think folks are dishonest simply because they do not believe what I believe. More power to them. If you read my previous posts in this thread, you will notice I've tried to make that clear. I believe that they are dishonest when they deliberately distort passages from the Bible, or quote them out of context, to suit their agenda. That is what you did, and I called you on it. That's all.

I believe some one else asked you to support your position on Paul. I have not seen you do that yet. That is a fairly predictable tactic I see over and over from guys like you - toss out a bomb like that (more like a weak little popper in this case) with no support whatsoever. When folks that know the subject matter as well or better than you do challenge you, you cut and run. Avoid the topic because you cannot support it. Distort the issue with peripheral nonsense. That whole approach is "dishonest"; dissagreement with me is not. Nice try, though.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
I surmised that you were either stupid or had an ulterior motive; the latter has proven to be true.

I believe that they are dishonest when they deliberately distort passages from the Bible, or quote them out of context, to suit their agenda.

What ulterior motive? You are a Xtian, Im aethist.

Its funny that when I quote the good book, its distorted and out of context. When you do, its to support a valid point. You say I havent provided you a thelogical discourse on Paul- IMHO the verse originally quoted supported the position. Your view is that this is a distortion. DJC, i think refuted it. Fair enough.

Wheres the cut and run? Your the one who beleives an unsupportable fairytale, old man. The very nature of faith, no? YOUR critism of MY critisism of the source (the Bible) - amounts to "its taken out of context". I am the unbeliever, after all. You should pray about this, perhaps.

The bible contains some breathtakingly beautiful prose, some timeless wisdoms, some deep philospohy, some historical insights and some wonderful stories. And a lot of old cobblers.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by kang
We see Christianity on our money, the pledge of allegiance, on government buildings, in the school room, on TV, on the news, during the holidays, etc. We get pressured to convert. Why should a non-christian get it shoved down their throats like this? Getting religion shoved down my throat is a form of religions persecution, is it not? And isn't that what it is all about? Freedom from religions persecution?

I made the assumption (perhaps incorrectly) that when you posted this your point was that things should be different in your eyes, i.e. that you shouldn't have to see Christianity on TV, the news, our money, our Pledge of Allegiance, or during the holidays. I'm not sure how Christianity has survived in the schoolroom in your view but that's beside the point. I'm also not sure how hearing "Away in a Manger" or "Silent Night" or driving by a church is pressuring you to convert. I spent all sorts of middle eastern money while over there (most of which has Islamic symbols on it) and didn't feel any pressure. I heard their calls to prayer and saw mosques on every street and didn't feel pressure. I will concede that four months isn't a lifetime, but it's really the best frame of reference that I have.

If you were just posting this as an observation with no inference that you would like to see it changed, then I apologize for making that assumption. If not, then my assertion is correct and I was not putting words in your mouth in saying that you would like the above things outlawed (really the only way it wouldn't be "shoved down your throat"). And outlawing people's ability to sing Christmas carols or pray in public or talk about their beliefs on TV IS censorship. Is this not the case?

Wonder if Playboy pressures homosexuals to be straight? Perhaps we should outlaw Playboy...

Oh, and I do really appreciate the civility and intelligent discussion on this thread, not something you see much when people are discussing religion and CERTAINLY not on PPOT!

[stuartj]

Originally posted by stuartj
What ulterior motive? You are a Xtian, Im aethist.

Once I couldnt spell atheist. Now I are one.

[aircooledboy]

I’m curious, though, what items have given you pause for thought? Thought which way (towards or against)? And why don’t they hold up to skeptical exam?

Sorry bud, no can do. I will not call anybody out on this topic. Let's just say most of the things said here, pro and con, are really just further examples of how often believers see strong reason to believe, and skeptics see strong reason to be skeptical, while they are both looking at the same thing.

[djmcmath]

Originally posted by stuartj
But you and I have been down this road before, no?

In fact we have -- that's why I quoted (mangled) the Stephen Roberts line. It seems that you quote him every time we have this conversation, so it seemed somehow appropriate. My apologies for butchering it so badly; I'll look it up and properly butcher it next time.

FWIW, I have a lot of respect for an atheist who not only defends his position but defends it with tact and valor and sound knowledge. At the same time, I wish that many would follow your lead and do some research. I don't mind an atheist; I'm a little offended by those who pigeon-hole all Christians into the same bin based on rumor, falsehood, anecdotal evidence that they heard some guy say once, or outright silliness.

But, since you've made this reply, I've been off at work, and dozens of other people have posted. I'm woefully out of date, and I'll probably just leave this thread where it lies, to the rejoicing of many, I'm sure.

[M.D. Holloway]

Christ was an atheist.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by djmcmath


FWIW, I have a lot of respect for an atheist who not only defends his position....

Thank you. And reciprocated.

[Victor]

OK great. Now can you all please strum your instruments and sing a couple of bars of "Kumbaya" together.

Thanks.

[stuartj]

Got a tab? To the VH version?

[Victor]

No. But here's the first couple of bars of "eruption".

e-----------------------------------------------------------------
b-----------------------------------.----------------------5------
g---/8--------2---------------.--.--5--7b(ph)-rp5-7b~~~~~~--------
d----x--------2---------------5--7--------------------------------
a---/9--------0---------7~~~~-------------------------------------
e-------10\-------------------------------------------------------

e-5---------0---------0---------0-----------5---------------------
b---8p5p0-----8p5p0-----8p5p0-----8p5p0---5---8p5----5------------
g---------8---------8---------8---------7---------7b---rbp5-------
d-----------------------------------------------------------------
a-----------------------------------------------------------------
e-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Par911]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
It actually stands as somewhat of a marvel that it has survived so intact for so long. Nothing much else has.

How about the Upanishads, Ramayana, and Bhagavad Gita? These came way before the bible and Christ's existence.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by Par911
How about the Upanishads, Ramayana, and Bhagavad Gita? These came way before the bible and Christ's existence.

I must admit to absolute ignorance o these. What are they? Where would I get copies to read?

[kang]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
I must admit to absolute ignorance o these. What are they? Where would I get copies to read?

Ancient Hindu and Buddisht texts. A quick Google search produced these:

http://www.hindunet.org/upanishads/

http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/special/ramayana/

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/

These were just the first results that came back from google. I haven’t even read them.

Any big bookstore or library will have them. They are quite interesting. I read a bunch of this stuff back in my college days. Highly recommended.

[kang]

Originally posted by aircooledboy
Sorry bud, no can do. I will not call anybody out on this topic. Let's just say most of the things said here, pro and con, are really just further examples of how often believers see strong reason to believe, and skeptics see strong reason to be skeptical, while they are both looking at the same thing.

Fair enough. I can respect that.

[Beethoven]

Eccl. 9, 8:

"Let your garments be always white; let not oil be lacking on your head."

[Nathans_Dad]

Wait...is that saying God wanted us to invade Iraq so we could all have oil on our heads?? DUUUUUDE....

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Wait...is that saying God wanted us to invade Iraq so we could all have oil on our heads?? DUUUUUDE....

As good a reason as any put up so far.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by Par911
How about the Upanishads, Ramayana, and Bhagavad Gita? These came way before the bible and Christ's existence.

I finally took a few minutes to do some brief on-line research. It looks like the oldest of these, although scholars really have no idea how old they are, appear to be the older Upanishads that date from the 16th-7th centuries B.C. The Bhagavad Gita has three dates suggested as possible for its origin; 3137, 1924, and about 1000 B.C. The Ramayana apparently dates form 400-200 B.C.

So you are right in that they have been around longer than Christ. More than half the books of the Bible were written long before His time as well. It looks like the Upanishads rival the oldest of the Old Testament books age-wise, but share a common trait of not really being certain in any way. The Bhagavad Gita, depending on which year it was actually written, either rivals some of the Old Testament books or is much newer than any of them. The Ramayana is much newer than any Old Testament books.

The Bible as we know it today was assembled as a collection of books long after any of them were written. It's kind of murky just when that happened, but we do know that it was long after Christ's death. So yes, technically, that does make all three of these older than the Bible or Christ. I find their very age to be interesting. I'll have to pick up copies of each and see what they have to say.