DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on April 23, 2016, 02:11:24 PM

Title: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 23, 2016, 02:11:24 PM
If its perfectly ok for folks like the Boss, and other entertainers not choose not to perform at a certain venue, based on some "principled position", how is that any different than a baker or florist choosing not to perform functions for a certain venue, based on a principled religious position?? 

Yet one is celebrated & the other condemned, .... by the same folks
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: kimba1 on April 23, 2016, 03:20:51 PM
it`s pretty much the same but both has differing social standing. in the past it was ok to refuse people of certain race and now it`s not. religion today simply needs to back up it`s refusal with not because it`s moral but for tangible reason. ex. gay are by nature thieves and doing business with them will cause loss of income. gays are unsanitary and will risk the shop to be condemned.

both those claims were the reason race was denied service and religion was used to. I got no problem for the boss to refuse as long as he doesn`t get paid. if his contract says he still gets a check he should not collect.

Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: hnumpah on April 23, 2016, 03:59:28 PM
Springsteen et al are not refusing to play concerts for crowds (or provide services or jobs) that are specifically conservative, anti-LGBT, or any one specific belief. So when they don't perform, it affects people of ALL beliefs, even those that support their own cause. If they screened fans and only allowed you in if you were personally LGBT or supported their cause, then the comparison to some so-called Christian who refused service only to those he disagreed with would be more appropriate.

Economic boycott such as this has long been used in the US.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 23, 2016, 04:19:04 PM
A boycott is a boycott is a boycott.  Rationalizing and giving a pass for one while condemning and prosecuting the other is largely hypocritical.  Both aren't seeking compensation, merely a choice NOT to provide a service based on nothing more than a supposed strong moral/spiritual conviction

Let it be on record, I don't have a problem with the Boss refusing to participate/perform....so long as he's not paid.  I feel bad for the fans, but that's his financial/moral decision, based on not supporting what the state is.  Same to the baker and flourist, who based on long held religious conviction, chose simply not to participate in specific functions that celebrate those acts they don't support.  But they don't get paid either

In other words, IMHO, another instance of how destructive Political Correctness is becoming to this nations' long standing position on freedoms & Constitutional protections
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: kimba1 on April 23, 2016, 04:36:09 PM
I`m against pc due to it`s momentum is so great it does even resemble it`s own cause. just saying pc is now offensive to some . It reminds me of a central american regime that eventually attacks it`s own allies out of paranoia. me saying that is non-pc and racist
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 23, 2016, 04:39:43 PM
The baker refusing to bake a cake is not boycotting the wedding couple with the intent of preventing the wedding.

Springsteen is refusing to play because of change in the status quo at the time of agreeing to perform and  scheduled the time of the performance. And he is clearly trying to change the state policy on bathrooms.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 23, 2016, 04:46:43 PM
The baker isn't trying to prevent anything.  He simply wishes to not participate in somethign his convictions tell him are wrong.  The "couple" can simply get another baker.  Nor is the baker trying to change state policy.  Springsteen however is "preventing" his own concert from occuring.  I suppose the venue could try to make some last minute calls and bring in Gallagher.  Point being, as Kimba rightly pointed out, both situations are pretty much the same.  Yet its ok for Bruce to do what the baker is trying to being prosecuted for??
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: kimba1 on April 23, 2016, 04:50:41 PM
i thought the bathroom is just a showcase sample of religiious right to refuse service. is it separate?  I`ve been backing it because it has to least egffect on people and the opposition used wrong rebuttals. if they just say the law is can be modified to allow protection for all attendence then if or when a incident happens the liberal get all the blame. you can even word liberal get all the blame in the proposal.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: kimba1 on April 23, 2016, 04:58:34 PM
strategicly the bakery situation is a bad move . they pretty much got martyr status note the support they get here and is one of the many.many reasons for the pushback this country is now experience.

this is not an issue of morality,right or wrong. those are just window dressing and hardly that
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: hnumpah on April 23, 2016, 05:46:02 PM
Springsteen et al are not refusing to do business with just those who are not LGBT or support their cause. They are boycotting an entire state for passing a law they see as discriminatory and wrong. This is much like boycotting South Africa over their policies of apartheid years ago. Where was your outrage then when the world 'hypocritically' boycotted SA for refusing equal treatment to blacks? Or the Soviet Union for their invasion of Afghanistan?  Or, well, I could go on, but you get the gist.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 23, 2016, 06:02:41 PM
Springsteen et al are not refusing to do business with just those who are not LGBT or support their cause.

It doesn't matter the rationalization H.  He's decided to not perform a function, based in his supposed moral conviction...he doesn't support what the state is supporting.  Fine.  NO different than what the baker or flourist is doing when deciding not to perform a function, based on their spiritual conviction.

If its ok for one, its sure as hell should be ok for the other.  And the kicker is neither the flourist nor the baker are trying to manipulate or extort state policy.  They could be claiming the same as what you infer Bruce feels...the notion grossly unfair discrimination, where their religion is being targeted & prosecuted.  Instead, they simply want to exercise the Constitutional freedom of religion....and yet they're the "bad guys" here??
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: kimba1 on April 23, 2016, 07:34:16 PM
I would presume tge bakery incident was one of the factors that brought this law about.as i said before pushback
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: kimba1 on April 23, 2016, 07:38:49 PM
Oops forgot

But religion itself is now in the spotlight here in the states. Before the church can say anything is not moral and never answer for it. Today eventually when someone will ask why? Strangely nobody has yet. Bothsides dont seem to want to go there
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 23, 2016, 07:54:38 PM
...And....the 1st amendment to the Constitution includes the Freedom of Religion.  That entails a few components:
- The Government is prevented from establishing some national Religion/Church that everyone is to follow
- The Citizenry is free to practice their religion without Government intervention (so long as it doesn't infringe the rights of someone else.  And no, no one has a right to a cake or flowers)
- The Citizenry is alo free to not follow any religion at all, if they so choose

These are foundations to this Country and the freedoms we hold dear.  Just because something is no longer politically correct doesn't make it hateful, bigoted, or discriminatroy, if it falls within the boundaries of the 1st amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Whatever not referenced in the Constitution, is indeed a component of the States.  This however is clearly a Federal issue....one of Constitutional authority
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: hnumpah on April 23, 2016, 08:37:42 PM
Question: "Did Jesus come only for the Jews and not the Gentiles?"

Answer: Jesus is the Messiah that the Jews had been anticipating for centuries (see Luke 2:25; 3:15). As such, He was born into a Jewish family and was reared according to Jewish law in a Jewish town (see Luke 2:27; Galatians 4:4). Jesus selected Jewish disciples, spoke in Jewish synagogues and the Jewish temple, and traveled mostly in Jewish areas. His mission, in fulfillment of the Jewish prophets, was to the Jewish people. However, none of this means that Jesus’ ministry was limited exclusively to the Jews.

In Matthew 15, there is an incident that, at first, seems to confirm the idea that Jesus came only for the Jews. Jesus was traveling through Tyre and Sidon, a Gentile region, and “a Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, ‘Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly’” (Matthew 15:22). This Gentile woman recognized Jesus as the Messiah (“Son of David”), but “Jesus did not answer a word” (verse 23). As the woman kept up her appeals, Jesus finally responded, but His words seemed to hold little hope: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (verse 24). However, the woman did not give up, and Jesus eventually granted her request, based on her “great faith” (verse 28).

The fact that Jesus helped the Canaanite woman, even though His mission was to the Jews, is a significant detail in the Gospel narrative. Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus gave other indications that His power and compassion reached to all people. He healed a Roman centurion’s servant (Luke 7:1–10). He traveled through the Gentile region of the Gerasenes (Mark 5:1). He ministered in a Samaritan city (John 4).

Jesus came to save everybody (1 John 2:2). Jesus Christ is God Himself (John 1:1). Jesus died on the cross as the payment for all our sins, and He rose from death in resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). Jesus said He was the Good Shepherd, and He predicted that His flock would be greatly expanded: “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd” (John 10:16).

It took a while for the early church to recognize that salvation was available to the Gentiles. The Jewish Christians who fled the persecution in Jerusalem went into the Gentile regions of Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, but they were “spreading the word only among Jews” (Acts 11:19). Peter was hesitant to bring the gospel to a Gentile household, but God made it plain that Cornelius was also one of the elect (Acts 10).

“Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too” (Romans 3:29). Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, but He had come to offer salvation to everybody. The Messiah was to be a “light for the Gentiles” (Isaiah 42:6). So call on Jesus, because “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21).

Recommended Resources: Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith by Marvin Wilson and Logos Bible Software.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Jews-only.html

What did Jesus have to say about homosexuality?
BY ANN NAFFZIGER DECEMBER 9, 2011

(CNS photo courtesy Catholic Communication Campaign)
If you were to read all four gospels thoroughly in search of Jesus’ teachings on homosexuality it would be a futile endeavor. Not only would you come to the end of the gospels without finding anything attributed to Jesus on the subject, you wouldn’t even find a single reference to the issue in any context.
In fact, there are only a handful of references to homosexuality in the entire Bible, but they are found in the Old Testament and Paul’s writings. (To put it in perspective, while there are only seven references to homosexuality, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of references to economic justice and the laws governing the accumulation and distribution of wealth.)

Jesus’ silence on the subject suggests that an issue which can be controversial and/or fraught with emotion these days was simply not a central issue in his lifetime 2,000 years ago in the land of Palestine. The fact that he didn’t address this issue leaves us all to ponder what he might say were he here today.

http://bustedhalo.com/ministry-resources/what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-homosexuality

Jesus himself did not refuse sinners

Luke 15:1-2 ESV

Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”

https://www.openbible.info/topics/sinners

So, who are the hypocrites here?
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on April 23, 2016, 08:58:28 PM
Oops forgot

But religion itself is now in the spotlight here in the states. Before the church can say anything is not moral and never answer for it. Today eventually when someone will ask why? Strangely nobody has yet. Bothsides dont seem to want to go there


Perhaps it should not matter.

   I don't agree with several tenants of Mormonism, but it should not be necessary for a Mormon to explain these to me so well that I start agreeing before he can hold the belief.

   It is going to be totally impossible for homosexuality to reconcile itself to Christianity  but some churches have made homosexual pastors , deacons etc. should they have to explain this to everyone's satisfaction first? or just those who are fellow members?

    There should not be a demand for a logical or scientific explanation for every religious belief, who would ever be qualified to make the determination?

    Until it picks your pocket or breaks your arm , it is not your business what someone else believes.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on April 23, 2016, 09:05:32 PM
The baker refusing to bake a cake is not boycotting the wedding couple with the intent of preventing the wedding.

Springsteen is refusing to play because of change in the status quo at the time of agreeing to perform and  scheduled the time of the performance. And he is clearly trying to change the state policy on bathrooms.

Right , the bakers are much less of consequence and much less coercive.
Also they disacomodate many fewer people.
How are they loosing their case?
Doesn't everyone who was planning to attend the concerts have the same case against Bruce as the wedding party had against the bakers? If not a stronger one, there are likely several bakers in town , but how many Bruce Springsteens are there?
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on April 23, 2016, 09:11:46 PM

Economic boycott such as this has long been used in the US.

Who should be forbidden to use this technique?
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 23, 2016, 09:17:54 PM
Question: "Did Jesus come only for the Jews and not the Gentiles?"

Answer: Jesus is the Messiah that the Jews had been anticipating for centuries (see Luke 2:25; 3:15). As such, He was born into a Jewish family and was reared according to Jewish law in a Jewish town (see Luke 2:27; Galatians 4:4). Jesus selected Jewish disciples, spoke in Jewish synagogues and the Jewish temple, and traveled mostly in Jewish areas. His mission, in fulfillment of the Jewish prophets, was to the Jewish people. However, none of this means that Jesus’ ministry was limited exclusively to the Jews.

In Matthew 15, there is an incident that, at first, seems to confirm the idea that Jesus came only for the Jews. Jesus was traveling through Tyre and Sidon, a Gentile region, and “a Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, ‘Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly’” (Matthew 15:22). This Gentile woman recognized Jesus as the Messiah (“Son of David”), but “Jesus did not answer a word” (verse 23). As the woman kept up her appeals, Jesus finally responded, but His words seemed to hold little hope: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (verse 24). However, the woman did not give up, and Jesus eventually granted her request, based on her “great faith” (verse 28).

The fact that Jesus helped the Canaanite woman, even though His mission was to the Jews, is a significant detail in the Gospel narrative. Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus gave other indications that His power and compassion reached to all people. He healed a Roman centurion’s servant (Luke 7:1–10). He traveled through the Gentile region of the Gerasenes (Mark 5:1). He ministered in a Samaritan city (John 4).

Jesus came to save everybody (1 John 2:2). Jesus Christ is God Himself (John 1:1). Jesus died on the cross as the payment for all our sins, and He rose from death in resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). Jesus said He was the Good Shepherd, and He predicted that His flock would be greatly expanded: “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd” (John 10:16).

It took a while for the early church to recognize that salvation was available to the Gentiles. The Jewish Christians who fled the persecution in Jerusalem went into the Gentile regions of Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, but they were “spreading the word only among Jews” (Acts 11:19). Peter was hesitant to bring the gospel to a Gentile household, but God made it plain that Cornelius was also one of the elect (Acts 10).

“Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too” (Romans 3:29). Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, but He had come to offer salvation to everybody. The Messiah was to be a “light for the Gentiles” (Isaiah 42:6). So call on Jesus, because “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21).

Recommended Resources: Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith by Marvin Wilson and Logos Bible Software.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Jews-only.html

What did Jesus have to say about homosexuality?
BY ANN NAFFZIGER DECEMBER 9, 2011

(CNS photo courtesy Catholic Communication Campaign)
If you were to read all four gospels thoroughly in search of Jesus’ teachings on homosexuality it would be a futile endeavor. Not only would you come to the end of the gospels without finding anything attributed to Jesus on the subject, you wouldn’t even find a single reference to the issue in any context.
In fact, there are only a handful of references to homosexuality in the entire Bible, but they are found in the Old Testament and Paul’s writings. (To put it in perspective, while there are only seven references to homosexuality, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of references to economic justice and the laws governing the accumulation and distribution of wealth.)

Jesus’ silence on the subject suggests that an issue which can be controversial and/or fraught with emotion these days was simply not a central issue in his lifetime 2,000 years ago in the land of Palestine. The fact that he didn’t address this issue leaves us all to ponder what he might say were he here today.

http://bustedhalo.com/ministry-resources/what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-homosexuality

Jesus himself did not refuse sinners

Luke 15:1-2 ESV

Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”

https://www.openbible.info/topics/sinners

So, who are the hypocrites here?

The ones giving Bruce a pass while condemning the Christian baker for doing the same thing, although effecting exponentially far fewer people
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on April 23, 2016, 09:42:52 PM
Question: "Did Jesus come only for the Jews and not the Gentiles?"


If Jesus didn't truly give the great commission to spread the word to everyone everywhere, then it is hard to explain the spreading and preaching the Apostles all got themselves killed with.

Jesus was loth even to condemn the Harlot caught in her crime or the Samaritan Woman of five husbands, so it is clear that Jesus did not consider sexual crimes unforgivable , but though he extended clemency he also said "Go and sin no more".

That is a little different than concluding that no sex act can be a sin.

Jesus was criticized in his time for spending time with publicans .drunks , tax collectors etc..
Didn't he reply that it is the sick that need a Physician ? 
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on April 23, 2016, 10:21:59 PM
Economic boycott such as this has long been used in the US.

Yes they have!

American Family Association Sees Quarter-Million-Person
Response to Call to Boycott Target Stores


(http://s31.postimg.org/htz8ckr2z/Target_ap_640x480.jpg)
AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File

by Dan Riehl

23 Apr 2016 

Director of Government Affairs for the American Family Association (AFA), Sandy Rios, joined Breitbart News Saturday host Matt Boyle to discuss the problem with Target's recent decision regarding its store's public restrooms.

Rios said, "The Target department store chain has jumped into the transgender bathroom debate by declaring that men who claim to be women may use whatever bathroom or changing room they choose."

According to Rios:

The problem with Target's policy is that they are now opening their bathrooms, really welcoming and inviting people of all sexual persuasions to go into bathrooms, and I have in my hand probably a dozen articles of cases where men who were dressed as women abused or raped or molested women or children in bathrooms.

She went on to say that within 24 hours, the American Family Association heard "from close to 250,000 people already" in support of an effort to boycott Target:

The American Family Association is calling for a boycott of Target after the retail giant said it would allow men to use the women's restrooms and dressing rooms in their stores.

On its website this week, Target announced, "We welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity. Everyone deserves to feel like they belong."

This means a man can simply say he "feels like a woman today" and enter the women's restroom, even if young girls or women are already in there.

Rios continued by discussing AFA's proposed solution of adding a "gender neutral bathroom." However, she does not believe that would be enough to satisfy the Left.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/23/afa-sees-large-response-to-call-to-boycott-target/
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: kimba1 on April 24, 2016, 01:31:13 AM
Actually what target is doing would embarrassed the gay community of sam francisco. They were thinking of protesting target but stopped due to economic reason . Gay by nature are fiscal conservatives so the protest never came to be and now this would definitely quash their past concern of the establishment.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 24, 2016, 06:36:12 AM
Jesus came to save everybody (1 John 2:2). Jesus Christ is God Himself (John 1:1). Jesus died on the cross as the payment for all our sins, and He rose from death in resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). Jesus said He was the Good Shepherd, and He predicted that His flock would be greatly expanded: “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd” (John 10:16).

===========================================================================================\
\
The Gospels were written AFTER Paul decided that the new religion he cobbled together would be composed mostly of Gentiles. Paul wrote Corinthians.

This desire to compare oneself to SHEEP is a metaphor for Paul's wanting the faithful to let the Holy Mother Church do all the thinking for the group. Sheep are not even as good at using their own minds as dogs and cats.  Why would any thinking human want to willingly be trapped in a sheep pen? Sheep are the most compliant of animals:they cannot exist without a shepherd, as all their reasoning facilities have been bred out of them.

They spend their lives waiting patiently to be shorn to clothe someone outside the flock or to be his dinner. I find the metaphor both accurate and disgusting.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: kimba1 on April 24, 2016, 12:04:16 PM
I meant an explanation of the action like loss of business and such . Ex. Dietary laws has valid reason to back it up. But interestingly people of faith tend to not like that thiers a practical reason behind it.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on April 24, 2016, 01:32:12 PM
I meant an explanation of the action like loss of business and such . Ex. Dietary laws has valid reason to back it up. But interestingly people of faith tend to not like that thiers a practical reason behind it.

I read a good explanation for this in the writing of J. Gould.

He said he told a Rabbi that the dietary law must have spared the people a lot of cases of trichinosis and other ills.

The Rabbi replied that this is missing the point. Obedience is the point and obedience doesn't depend on a known benefit.

God probably did know about the trichinosis, but didn't explain .

There might still be good reasons to do some of these things that we haven't found the explanation for yet, but however many good reasons other than obedience there are the real point would still be the obedience .

Obedience is the virtue it is, even, or especially when it costs some time, money or harm to be obedient.
The discovery of germ theory and other stuff that makes these look like good hygiene habits might be a distraction from the real point.

Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: kimba1 on April 24, 2016, 03:09:29 PM
Like the parental do as I say not what I do.

Only recently I learned from being with kids how important that expression is . It does seem wrong until you find some kids have not have the ability to make safe judgements and can mistakenly make unsafe actions. Example you walking across the street and jaywalking looks the same to young child.

But obedience among adults is another matter .
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 24, 2016, 04:39:38 PM
God probably did know about the trichinosis, but didn't explain .

I like the way you say God PROBABLY knew...

Much of China is subtropical and pigs are a favorite food.  Red tides in the Mediterranean can make shrimp dangerous. Of course, the Hebrews were herdsmen and preferred  easily herded animals, like goats, camels, cattle and sheep.

Every boss would like his workers to be unquestioning sheep. Shut up and do what I say, it is good for you!
Paul had a thing about women women, They were only good for reproduction, but Jesus was a-coming before any could give birth, so they were practically useless. Paul told them thdey7 were banned from talking in church. Imagine that: a church in which the church ladies were silenced by the rules.

The impossibly long list of commandments about food, dress and customs  caused the Jews to become experts at disobeying the  intent of the law without actually breaking it. The annotated Torah has dozens of words of explanation for  each word of text.  The Jews noticed that God does not give any feedback, so they became experts in what can be described as "tricky ways of getting away with shit".

A house can be defined as a wire around entire cities. An elevator can be set to go up and down automatically and no one is "lighting a fire on Shabbos". Women can cover   their heads with wigs that look exactly like their hair and not violate the commandments.

Their is a reason Freud had so many Jewish women patients in his practice. Neurosis is a rather Jewish ailment. Following silly rules in practice while violating the spirit of the law is a Jewish knack.

Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on April 24, 2016, 08:49:35 PM
God probably did know about the trichinosis, but didn't explain .

I like the way you say God PROBABLY knew...


   Sometimes it is cumbersome to be entirely correct , but you caught me in a shortcut I should have avoided.

     God definitely knew the truth, it is my supposition that deserves the weasel words.

    It might be the disease that the Jews were avoiding by being obedient , but since this is not scriptural ,it is a "probably" and an "I suppose". If it turns out the real reason was something even worse I shouldn't be surprised.

   God has an entire right to give orders without explanation, and supposing that the obedience was serving to prevent injury, the shirker that found a technicality for an obedience in word but not deed would find himself with a case of trichinosis without an explanation as well.

     The hypocrisy of the  Pharisee seems like one of the complaints Jesus made often, he didn't like that they made the embellishments and explanations of the law so that the law kept getting harder and harder to obey. The Pharisees were making the law a bigger load for the people to carry , but not themselves.

    So Jesus asked ..Was the law made for man , or was man made for the law?
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: kimba1 on April 25, 2016, 03:20:05 AM
Muslim financial practice is quite conservative and shown extremely safe. But people who practice it prefer to believe allah rewarded them then think it's just goid common sense for money.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 25, 2016, 06:14:59 AM
God (assuming he is omnipotent) presumably has the right to do as he chooses.  Or so we presume. That is what the Holy Fathers call the Doctrine of  Omnibenevolence: whatever God does is the proper thing and may not be questioned by the faithful. The shepherd cannot be judged by the sheep.

Hence the disgusting metaphor that we humans are sheep. How can a sheep have free will? Please!

An all-knowing being who knows the future was unjust to torture poor Job on a bet with Satan, because he knew the outcome.

That was unjust, no matter what the rights were. Jehovah was quite frequently a dick in the Old Testament.

When Jesus killed a fig tree for not producing figs out of season, that is an example of  Jesus being a dick as well.

Anyone who did these things would be a dick.

Being divine does not mean one cannot be a dick.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on April 25, 2016, 06:55:32 PM
  The trouble with the Omni benevolence idea is that God can do right and hurt you.

    Being nice to everyone all the time is not what he promised and frankly I can't see what it would accomplish if he did.


,

Being divine does not mean one cannot be a dick.

Keep this in mind when you get insulting in that direction.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 25, 2016, 10:10:11 PM
I make no claims to being divine.

We keep hearing of how "God is Love"and references to how God/Jesus loves us. But that is a direct conflict with the bit where human beings, condemned since birth because of something their 200th great grandparents ate, then get judges and tortured for all eternity.  The whole story sucks, EXCEPT as a way to scare people into supporting the priesthood.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on April 25, 2016, 10:57:35 PM
I make no claims to being divine.

We keep hearing of how "God is Love"and references to how God/Jesus loves us. But that is a direct conflict with the bit where human beings, condemned since birth because of something their 200th great grandparents ate, then get judges and tortured for all eternity.  The whole story sucks, EXCEPT as a way to scare people into supporting the priesthood.

This only puts you on the wrong side of Pascal's Conjecture.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

You suppose that if God is loving , he cannot be just.

So Heaven is not closed to anyone, Hell has no business?

To me this seems like a case of oversimplification.

A just God isn't packing heaven with troublemakers.

Hey I just remembered St. Brendan.

Lots of charming stories.
This one is about the difference between heaven and hell.

Saint Brendan was shown a room in hell where starving people were fastened to seats side by side, and had spoons a little longer than their arms fastened to their hands , with good food set before them they were helpless to convey it to their mouths , they screamed and beat each other with those spoons, frustrated and starving .

Saint Brendan was then lead to the corresponding room in Heaven, where the saints were fastened to the same sort of chair with the same sort of spoon fastened to their hands and they were given a table full of food in the same way. They quietly began feeding each other.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 26, 2016, 01:02:31 AM
Torturing an inferior being for an eternity cannot be made into a  just act, no matter what the motive. It just can't.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: kimba1 on April 26, 2016, 03:14:05 AM
I think it influence night gallery atouch

https://vimeo.com/123823735
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on April 26, 2016, 05:00:26 AM
Torturing an inferior being for an eternity cannot be made into a  just act, no matter what the motive. It just can't.

Can it be avoided?

If you simply segregated all of the people so that the more pleasant portion was together , the remainder will be miserable anywhere they wind up.

Think about Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler sharing a little bungalow in Hawaii forever.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: hnumpah on April 26, 2016, 08:14:16 AM
We keep hearing of how "God is Love"and references to how God/Jesus loves us. But that is a direct conflict with the bit where human beings, condemned since birth because of something their 200th great grandparents ate, then get judges and tortured for all eternity.  The whole story sucks, EXCEPT as a way to scare people into supporting the priesthood.


God, in the Old Testament, was not always depicted as loving, forgiving, etc. That God is a later development.

BTW, God was originally referred to as plural. It was later that God was referred to as a single entity.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 26, 2016, 10:36:52 AM
Depends on who you ask, and the religion involved.  IIRC, at no time has the Christian God ever been referred to in the plural.  That includes biblical scripture
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 26, 2016, 11:46:28 AM
at no time has the Christian God ever been referred to in the plural.  That includes biblical scripture

FLASH!

The word Elohim is PLURAL.

What does the    commandment say?

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Pay careful attention to the wording: it does NOT say, "worship no God but Me because I am the only God there is."

It instead suggests in the wording, that there are other, lesser gods that exist, and you must not treat them as splendidly as Me, the Great Kahuna of all Deities.

You may say prayers to the God of Household Pests to keep his minions out of the house.
You may pray to the Lightening God to not zap your kids, pets and livestock when it rains.
We know that there were household gods, as images of them are found regularly in archeological digs, even in Hebrew settlements.

Of course, Christianity does not proclaim, as does Islam that there is ONE GOD.  No. It alludes to THREE deities: the Father,  the Son and the Holy Ghost. How can three be one? How can one be three? It is a "Mystery of the Faith". At least that is what St Thomas Aquinas said.

The Christian First Commandment should be modified.
Thou shalt have no Gods before US: And we are three: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
The household deities suggested by the First Commandment were sort of forgotten and ignored by Christian theologians. They had enough to worry themselves about the Trinity to mess with the Deity of dust mites, or the  Lord of Fungi.


Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: hnumpah on April 26, 2016, 12:45:41 PM
Depends on who you ask, and the religion involved.  IIRC, at no time has the Christian God ever been referred to in the plural.  That includes biblical scripture

Check òut Genesis.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 26, 2016, 02:36:08 PM
I have.  You'll have to be more specific.   I'm referring to rhe Christians, who followed the one and only God, and that includes before Christ's birth.  Every prominent biblical person,  be ir Adam, Abraham, Moses,  Joseph, etc., all referred and followed a single God. 

Now, their could be references to ofher religious practices, by thise that didn't follow the Christian God,  but as I said initially, that'd be a different religion being practiced
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: hnumpah on April 26, 2016, 03:52:24 PM
Genesis 1::26 - Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.

Genesis 3:22 - And the Lord God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us.'

Elohim  (Greek Adonai) is one of the primary titles of God (used over 2,500 times in the Old Testament); both Elohim and Adonai are plural forms.
 
This contradicts other passages in the Old Testament where God is referred to as a singular god.

The Holy Trinity of Christian belief appears to be an attempt to reconcile this disparity.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 26, 2016, 04:13:23 PM
Genesis 1::26 - Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.

That'd be God, not Gods


Genesis 3:22 - And the Lord God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us.'

See above


The Holy Trinity of Christian belief appears to be an attempt to reconcile this disparity.

God is the trinity......yet still 1 God...as taught in the Christian faith
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on April 26, 2016, 06:50:37 PM
  This an example of the royal "we"?

   God definitely told Abraham and Moses that he was singular.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+6:4&version=NIV

Deuteronomy 6:4

4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

[][][][][][][]

The Trinity is another thing, I do not consider the Trinity to be as well supported in scripture as some other tenants.

The Trinity is offered by apologists to explain Jesus referring to the Father and the Holy Ghost as if they were different from himself, but this is not specifically what he says.

  Lets not exaggerate how sure we are of a triviality, it is entirely possible that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are as separate as my left, right and center which seems the best way to understand the Trinity.

    Or what Jesus was talking about , might be something we haven't puzzled out quite yet.

     What is the importance of it really?
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 26, 2016, 09:43:28 PM
Jesus referred to himself both as a son of man and a son of God, but then the Hebrews referred to God as their father.
What Jesus diod not say at amy moment that he was God the Father.  And no, the Messiah was not God's son at all, but a second King David.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 26, 2016, 10:21:55 PM
For someone not educated and practiced in the Christian religion perhaps.   Christians however acknowledge and recognize only 1 God.  And Jesus is the son God.  Simple as that
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 26, 2016, 10:42:41 PM
Islam is simple: there is but ONE GOD, Allah and Mohammad is his messenger. THAT is simple,

But

The Trinity is not a simple concept at all. Nor is the Holy Spirit, which is barely mentioned in the NT and not even once in the OT.  The Holy Mother Church recognizews this and hence calls is a "Mystery of the Faith", which is essentially the way that theologians say "Just BECAUSE that's why: now shut up about it."

I think I know more about Christianity than you do sirs.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 26, 2016, 10:49:00 PM
I can't vouch for Islam, nor do I have any intention to.  In the Christian religion, there is but 1 God.....no ifs ands or buts
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on April 26, 2016, 10:52:12 PM
Jesus referred to himself both as a son of man and a son of God, but then the Hebrews referred to God as their father.
What Jesus diod not say at amy moment that he was God the Father.  And no, the Messiah was not God's son at all, but a second King David.

Why did Jesus tell his disciples he had to go, making room for the comforter , the Holy Spirit?

People speak of their selves as compartmentalized all the time, does the concept of your having an Id and a superego make it impossible that you are one person?

One thing I note is that Jesus never says that God is plural , nor does he say anywhere that God has only three aspects.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on April 26, 2016, 10:54:17 PM
Islam is simple: there is but ONE GOD, Allah and Mohammad is his messenger. THAT is simple,


How many Names does God have ?

Ask an Imam.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 26, 2016, 11:00:23 PM
One thing I note is that Jesus never says that God is plural , nor does he say anywhere that God has only three aspects.

That is entirely true.  what does "making room for the Holt=y Spirit" mean, anyway? Is Heaven crowded? Is the Holy Spook obese? Does he carry a lot of baggage? Where was he before Jesus had to make room for him?

The Trinity was devised by the Holy Mother Church after Jesus died, came back and stayed gone for 100 years or so.
Christianity is a fusion of several other mystery religions: Gnosticism, Manicheanism, Mythraism. Even Pythagoranism. The triangle is sacred.

For a human religion to have TWO deities, the logical set would be a male and a female. Two dudes is not gonna be seen as holy.  But with three, they can have three males.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on April 26, 2016, 11:06:45 PM
For a human religion to have TWO deities, the logical set would be a male and a female.

Why?
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 27, 2016, 12:29:51 AM
One thing I note is that Jesus never says that God is plural , nor does he say anywhere that God has only three aspects.

He is not required to.  It's a given, based on clear text of the Bible.  God is God....not GodS, nor male vs female.  Nor is heaven a literal concept where height, weight, or anything"human" is involved     ::)
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on April 27, 2016, 05:08:19 AM

That is entirely true.  what does "making room for the Holt=y Spirit" mean, anyway? Is Heaven crowded? Is the Holy Spook obese? Does he carry a lot of baggage? Where was he before Jesus had to make room for him?



I probably cannot really answer this .

But I will think about it , and give it a try later.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 27, 2016, 01:08:53 PM
    For a human religion to have TWO deities, the logical set would be a male and a female.


Why?

DUH!

Name a couple.
Batman and Robin, Burt and Ernie, Thelma and Louise.

Humans come in two sexes. Hence one of each is logical, two of the same sex is illogical and makes up question their sexuality.
That makes two Gods worse than either one or three. Father & Son + some ethereal spirit is a better combination than just Batman and Robin, the Green Hornet and Karo, Cisco and Pancho, Laurel and Hardy,  Lucy and Ethel.

Anyone can see the sense in that.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 27, 2016, 01:21:49 PM
And again, that based on a human concept......one that God transcends.  God is not constrained by the intelligence or even "logic" of a human
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 27, 2016, 05:09:10 PM
OOOOOOOOOOOO!

Mysteries!


God does not obey the laws of physics!

God can make 2+2 = 45 if he so desires!


You like to believe nonsense.

Will God reward you for it?
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 27, 2016, 05:55:35 PM
OOOOOOOOOOOO!

Mysteries!


God does not obey the laws of physics!

You're finally catching on
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on April 27, 2016, 08:32:02 PM
OOOOOOOOOOOO!

Mysteries!


God does not obey the laws of physics!

God can make 2+2 = 45 if he so desires!


You like to believe nonsense.

Will God reward you for it?

On at least one occasion 0+0= amazingly huge amount of Mass and Energy.

The big Bang is pretty much unexplained , that is why one word for the event is "singularity".

There are other singularities , like the location within the event horizon of a black hole.

Places where the passage of time and the behavior of matter and energy do not follow the rules we are accustomed to.

According to some theories singularities are pretty common, on a submicroscopic level, with matter springing into being all the time.  If this is true we gotta quit calling them singularities.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 27, 2016, 08:50:33 PM
There may or may not be some sort of Creator. I find the idea that there is a moral spirit to be more dubious.
If there is a God, the Bible is not his word,.. It is obviously the work of some rather primitive priests and such and is far too silly  to be taken as the word of any omniscient being.

I found the concept of the Star Trek TNG Q Continuum to be interesting, and it made more sense than all that washed in the blood of the lamb stuff.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on April 27, 2016, 09:17:25 PM
    So Q takes an interest in Moses, tells him stuff and Moses writes down as much as he can .

  Moses has the best education the Earth had to offer at this time, the education of an Egyptian nobleman, but .....

    What would the result look like?
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 27, 2016, 11:02:25 PM
There may or may not be some sort of Creator. I find the idea that there is a moral spirit to be more dubious.

And that's fine.  You're not required to believe or agree or abide by or anything remotely supportive.  But you seem to find it necessary to demean, ridicule, and try to "explain" a concept, that has no human explanation.  The Bible IS his word...period.  And here's the kicker....I'm not required to prove it to you, nor are you required to believe me.

Best stick with Star Trek and the Q Continuum.  You're completely lost in the land of faith and religion
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 28, 2016, 09:22:54 AM
You are the one that is lost.

You are but a sheep, following a mute and invisible shepherd.  Baa Baa Baa Baah!
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 28, 2016, 11:56:33 AM
LOL....see what I mean?  Thanks again for making my point
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 28, 2016, 12:22:43 PM
Are God and Jesus visible?
Are God and Jesus mute?
Does the 23rd Psalm not involve the person  praying comparing himself to a domestic animal so docile and servile that it cannot survive in the wild by itself?
A sheep has two main activities other than biological functions:
()1) To wait to be shorn.
(2) To wait to be lunch.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 28, 2016, 12:31:42 PM
And once again, trying to explain God in human terms and limitations, that God completely transcends.  Again, I thank you for making my point
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 28, 2016, 09:18:22 PM
Let sirs prove that God is transcendent.

Proudly following the invisible and mute shepherd. Baaa Baaa Baaa!
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 28, 2016, 11:06:20 PM
You keep missing the part where I'm not obligated to prove anything, just as you're not obligated to believe    ::)   Why is that, I wonder
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 29, 2016, 12:32:22 PM
I am only mocking you, sirs.

A tough job, I'll admit, but someone has to do it.

Our silent audience deserves entertainment.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 29, 2016, 01:18:08 PM
If its entertainment, you think the saloon is looking to, your laundry list of rants, erroneous claims, and 3rd grade comedy, that makes Andrew Dice Clay look like Robin Willimams probably has them all asking for their money back

Then again, your inability to stick to substantive subject matter, leaves you little else.  So have at it
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 29, 2016, 01:52:49 PM
I will continue to excel at mocking you.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 29, 2016, 02:29:28 PM
lol.....and continue to utterly fail, while providing still more examples of your inability to debate matters

By all means, continue to dig
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 30, 2016, 05:29:33 AM
I do not think that claiming that God is too transcendent to be understood is much of a debating tactic.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 30, 2016, 10:43:55 AM
Because you refuse to acknowledge what it is....a philosophical debate, and instead on trying to make it a scientific one....one that completely ignores that God doesn't abide by your parameters of science & physics
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on April 30, 2016, 03:54:47 PM
 God doesn't abide by your parameters of science & physics

And you know that ... How?  Does God tell you that he doesn't respect the order that he created wit the universe?

You don't know dick about what God does or does not do.

But we can assume that he acts in some logical manner if he is a perfect being.


Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on April 30, 2016, 04:34:48 PM
LOL...continuing to make my point...continuIng to try and imply God, who doesn't exist in your mind, that if he did, has to abide by the laws science & human understanding    ::)

No, we can't assume ANYTHING, outside of the point that God created everything.....period.  That's it.

And you're not required to believe that, nor am I required to prove it.  You believe it or you don't.  Why you feel compelled to ridicule people of faith, when no one ever ridicules your lack of faith, says far more about your apparent insecurities, than anything else
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on April 30, 2016, 04:46:17 PM
I do not think that claiming that God is too transcendent to be understood is much of a debating tactic.

   I think he alternative idea, that if neither one of us understand a thing , that it must not be true, is logically unsupportable.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 01, 2016, 05:32:49 AM
We have all these believers who claim that  the Universe is so incredibly well ordered that its orderly nature is actually proof that God exists. What humans call science is the system of examining this order and making sense of it: we have determined that the Earth is composed of 190+ elements, with a description of each. we have determined the nature of gravity and how that works, we have determined from the nature of the order of the world how to make steam engines, how to make and use electricity and so forth.

But when it comes to the nature of God, well, then the believers say, hands off that, you cannot know that, it is far too complicated, your reasoning won't work there, and blah blah blah, we need to return to thinking of ourselves as being sheep.

The attitude that these believers take is exactly the attitude that kept us from discovering ANYTHING about the physical world. Jesus Christ technology is no technology at all. It has gotten us no where and is sure to never getting us anywhere. And THAT is what I am ridiculing: the idea that since it is too complicated and was not made in an easy way to comprehend, we must give up and stop trying.

This is the attitude of the medieval church, the monks, the Taliban and the Jews who have spent 3000 years annotating the Torah. And it is a path to nowhere and nothing. The path that causes people to give up the last 600 years of technology and say, "we will now return to being like sheep".
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 01, 2016, 01:43:21 PM
So....the reason you ridicule and denigrate Christians is because they're.....like the Taliban??  Care to cite some Christians that want to stone women who've committed adultery, throw gay people off the top of roofs, and denounce any and all scientific discovery??  We'll wait while you compile this apparently extensive list
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on May 01, 2016, 05:53:07 PM


But when it comes to the nature of God, well, then the believers say, hands off that, you cannot know that, it is far too complicated, your reasoning won't work there, and blah blah blah, we need to return to thinking of ourselves as being sheep.


   So a belief that nothing is beyond understanding is logical?
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 01, 2016, 06:23:55 PM
   So a belief that nothing is beyond understanding is logical?

It is simply giving up, and no one ever advances knowledge by just giving up.

The attitude of sirs and the Taliban is that they are right, they are following God's orders and
essentially concluding that illogical behavior is logical, because God wants it that way.

The results may be different, but the attitude is the same.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on May 01, 2016, 06:54:14 PM
   So a belief that nothing is beyond understanding is logical?

It is simply giving up, and no one ever advances knowledge by just giving up.


 It is not !

It is realistic and humble , but it is giving up nothing.

That the frontier of knowledge will ever expand is potentially true, but that everything there is to know will be known is unreasoned.

So that there is truth past human understanding seems to be the result of logic, even if every effort is bent on increasing understanding.

In no scripture I know of is there any prohibition on increasing knowledge or improving understanding.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 01, 2016, 08:01:45 PM
BINGO!!


(as we all still wait for this list of prominent Christians and Minsters advocating the denouncement of all scientific discovery and the stoning of women & gays.  I mean, if we're like the Taliban, there has to be actionable connections.  Otherwise, that's no different than claiming xo has the mindset of a fascist Satan worshiper)
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 02, 2016, 10:31:12 AM
In no scripture I know of is there any prohibition on increasing knowledge or improving understanding.


Bullshit!

Mark 10:5
Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
And then there is all that crap about how we should regard ourselves as a herd of sheep in the Lord's Prayer.

Sheep do not reason. They wait patiently to obey, then they get sheared and/or eaten.

The whole idea that the Earth should be a Kingdom ruled by  Jesus is against rational people leading themselves.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 02, 2016, 12:11:05 PM
So...in other words, you have nothing of any examples or specific peoples that supposedly embrace the mindset of the Taliban and disavowing of scientific discovery.  Just your taken out of context scripture, and applying your non-believing concepts to it.  Reminds me of a poster, way back when, named dobbrx (something like that), who claimed, as a hearty anti-Christian, that a Christian wasn't a Christian, unless they were killing gays....because....he took some scripture out of context, and applied his version of what believers must believe.  Same scenario here

Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: hnumpah on May 02, 2016, 12:25:26 PM
Well, you would probably have to go back to the Dark Ages and Inquisition for examples of Christians behaving like the Taliban openly. Galileo was persecuted for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun, in opposition to what the Church taught based on their strict interpretation of Scripture at the time. Jews, and others, were tortured to force conversions to Christianity, or killed. The Muslim colonies in Europe, which had become centers of science and learning while the rest of Europe struggled through the Dark Ages, were wiped out. Sound familiar? Yes, Christianity had it's turn in the barrel too.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 02, 2016, 12:37:58 PM
Oh, I completely agree, that at one time....A LOOOOOOONG TIME AGO (The Crusades come to mind), there was a Taliban like zealotry that people who were not Christian, should become so.  Which ironically, was a complete mutation of what Christ had taught us.  But that's for another topic)  Point being, xo gets off on doing precisely what Christians don't do to him, and his apparent justification is a completely barren list of examples he cites as his justification
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on May 02, 2016, 10:15:39 PM
In no scripture I know of is there any prohibition on increasing knowledge or improving understanding.


Bullshit!

Mark 10:5
Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
And then there is all that crap about how we should regard ourselves as a herd of sheep in the Lord's Prayer.

Sheep do not reason. They wait patiently to obey, then they get sheared and/or eaten.

The whole idea that the Earth should be a Kingdom ruled by  Jesus is against rational people leading themselves.

  Neither of these examples are encouragement to eschew learning.

     Even though a person may learn everything it is humanly possible to learn , and have as organized mind as well as any human can, and  understand the universe in the greatest detail that any human can, and be a humanist and a poet besides...Mark 10:5 would apply just as it would to an ordinary person, there is no intellectual cut off at the gate to heaven , neither high nor low.
    Thomas Aquinas and the stable boy that curried Thomas Aquinas's horse  have the same requirement to enter heaven.

    Read Mark 10:5 again and consider that the group he spoke that to included educated and illiterate men.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 02, 2016, 11:16:10 PM
Read Mark 10:5 again and consider that the group he spoke that to included educated and illiterate men.


It is not quite as stupid as "Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing", and "if thy eye offends you, pluck it out".

Who the hell knows what he was taking to: it means "stop thinking and believe whatever crap I lay upon you."

If Jesus was so damned smart, he would have written his own Gospel.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 02, 2016, 11:26:21 PM
See what I mean....a perfect example of what I had just referenced...a non-believer laying claim to how the scripture is to be read...in order to rationalize why people shouldn't believe

Here's a news flash xo...as a Christian and believer, the Bible SAYS NO SUCH THING, AS IT RELATES TO "STOP THINKING".  That's exactly why we have free will....to decide for ourselves what to do, how to do, how to grow, how to improve....ALL THE WHILE, we remain as vigilant to our faith, as humanly possible

A believer gets that.  A non-believer, obviously not
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 03, 2016, 02:51:56 AM
If you are "vigilant to your faith", then you will resist anything that seems to conflict it with it. In the past this involved believing that the Earth was the center of the Universe, bats were birds, the Earth had corners, the Sun rose every morning, There were but three continents, insanity was caused by demons, children should be punished for the sins of not just their parents, but their entire linage, all the stars would fall from the sky to the Earth at the end of the world, et cetera.

To scientifically study anything, you must start with nothing taken on faith.
This is what Socrates meant when he said "The only thing I know is that I know nothing'. Descartes began his inquiries with the statement 'I think, therefore I am'.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 03, 2016, 03:20:25 AM
You're not grasping the present reality....you, a non believer have no place, position, or authority to dictate to ANY person of faith, how they must conduct themselves based on your selective misrepresentation of scripture.  God did not teach us, thru the Bible, that the earth was flat, or was the center of the universe

One more time....GOD ISN'T A SCIENTIFIC ANYTHING, so the notion of faith is irrelevant to scientific research.  God did not command us not to think....quite the opposite

And you're not required to believe that either.  Yet there you are trying in vane, to convince people of faith how their God is a figment of their imagination, even going so far as to accuse them of Taliban mentality.  Like I said, demonstrates far more of your apparent insecurities, as it relates to God, than anything else.  I'll pray for you
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 03, 2016, 09:00:45 AM
Everything has a scientific explanation. Everything. You seem to like the idea of Mumbo Jumbo, but your Mumbo is less Jumbo by the day.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 03, 2016, 10:48:11 AM
NOT God.  How you can keep trying to apply something limited to humans, onto God is truly how desperate you're making yourself out to be.  As I said, I'll keep praying for you
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 03, 2016, 01:19:41 PM
There is a scientific explanation for God as well. If God were not mute, he would tell you this. Maybe all three of him would tell you this.
God is part of everything.

Every day, your mumbo jumbo is less jumbo.

SCIENCE is not "something limited", except for limited by time, though by human standards, time might as well be infinite. But still, it isn't.

The idea that God is not just everywhere but everywhen is simply bogus.
Time runs in only one direction.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 03, 2016, 01:50:35 PM
There is a scientific explanation for God as well.  

LOL...no there isn't.  That's the damn point
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 03, 2016, 08:39:30 PM
There is an scientific explanation for everything, period. To claim otherwise means that God himself is irrational. And one cannot be perfect and irrational at the same time.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 03, 2016, 08:48:00 PM
Not for God......he isn't a function of science.....period.  And there's nothing irrational about that.  Irrational is trying to perform scientific studies on something that's beyond anything science.    ::)

But hey, knock your socks off and waste all the time you want
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 03, 2016, 09:43:38 PM
NOTHING is beyond science.  There is simply a lot of things that are beyond what we know.
There is some sort of rational  explanation for everything.

Every day we learn more, but we probably will never know it all.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 03, 2016, 10:00:30 PM
God is......deal wifh it
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on May 03, 2016, 11:19:14 PM
Everything has a scientific explanation. Everything. You seem to like the idea of Mumbo Jumbo, but your Mumbo is less Jumbo by the day.

This is an error of fact.

But an outstanding example of blind faith.

In spite of your faith in them I can't imagine a serious scientist agreeing with you.

There is not a scientific explanation for the small fraction of a second before the big bang, and there won't be until we can duplicate those conditions (and survive to observe).

With every development in measurement , every discovery of the unknown, several new things spring up needing explanation, why can't this continue forever?

Humanity is finite , knowledge plus potential knowledge is infinite.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 04, 2016, 12:22:04 AM
There is a reason for everything, we just do not know what it is. Just like Jesus did not understand fig trees or insanity.

Reason is simply a description of the way the world is put together.

We cannot explain it, but there is an explanation.

There were tons and bushels of Mumbo Jumbo
and now Mumbo is far less Jumbo.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 04, 2016, 12:25:52 AM
What you call "God" is a construct of your mind. This is true even if he exists.
The description of God in the Bible is clearly a mix of nonsense and scare tactics to keep the shekels and those delicious burnt offerings coming in.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 04, 2016, 12:48:31 AM
Your human opinion hss been duly noted, weighed, measured, and summarily discarded
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on May 04, 2016, 04:56:48 AM
Your human opinion hss been duly noted, weighed, measured, and summarily discarded

Let me evaluate a bit before you discard.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on May 04, 2016, 04:58:10 AM
There is a reason for everything,.......

If ....

If there is a reason for everything , this defines God.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 04, 2016, 09:41:32 AM
No, it does not. That is a foolish statement.

The world is as chaotic as the laws of physics allow it to be without flying apart. That is not God.

The Universe is not a completely orderly system, and can never be, because constant and unpredictable change is a  part of the system.
That is why there can be no Paradise. Change is essential. Stagnation creates nonconformity, nonconformity explodes if change is not adequately orderly.

The Christian view of God is that humans are at the center of the purpose of all Creation.  No one is claiming that Jesus is on tour, getting himself crucified on one planet of humans after another to somehow absolve the most distant ancestors for the sin of making unwise culinary decisions based on temptations by a talking reptile.

It is obvious that we are NOT at the center of creation or its purpose. We are here to make decide own purpose and fulfill it as best we can with extremely limited powers.

Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 04, 2016, 01:22:07 PM
Your human opinion hss been duly noted, weighed, measured, and summarily discarded

Let me evaluate a bit before you discard.

Oh believe me Plane, this issue has been thoroughly evaluated.

Xo thinks he's being "smart" by trying so hard to make the case that God has scientific boundaries, limited by physics, that humans should be able to then understand.  But since God doesn't and can't be, then by design, God is a delusion, and must not exist, except in the supposed warped minds of those who believe

So, not only does he take scripture out of context to claim what believers must believe and support, the other avenue he wastes so much time on is the ongoing attempt to connect God with science, all the while ignoring the limitations of human intelligence.  In fact, while he proclaims that believers must have the mindset of both the Taliban, and the belief that man is the center of everything, its ironically xo who's implying that humans are the center of everything, based on science and our level of human intelligence.  Apparently we can think ourselves thru anything, and anything we can't must then be a delusion

That's why his latest opinion has been summarily discarded.....its just more of the same AMBE, dressed up as rational thought, all the while ignoring the limitations of the human mind
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 04, 2016, 02:45:11 PM
Do you think we are really the only sentient beings in the Universe?  I consider the odds quite against it.
I imagine that the sentient beings on some populated world, say Gamma Omicron 4, also believe that they were created by their own Deity.
I really doubt that the religions practiced by extra terrestrial beings would involve  the same mythologies as those of Earth.

Logic tells me that we are but a tiny fraction of sentient beings in the universe who we shall probably never meet or communicate with because of the huge distances involved.  The odds  that all of these beings believe in a Holy Trinity is sure to be minuscule.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 04, 2016, 03:20:49 PM
Do you think we are really the only sentient beings in the Universe?  

Of course not.  Nor is what they believe or not believe relevent to this discussion.  That's pure speculation.  The fact of the matter here is that God isn't constrained by your tiny little human brain of science & physics.  Nor am I required to prove that either, since God isn't a science project
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 04, 2016, 04:38:07 PM
It is entirely relevant, because  God must be the God of the entire Universe, while the Bible does not even acknowledge that the Universe as we know it to be even exists.
All thoughts along these lines are speculation,but better rational speculation than Mumbo-Jumbo speculation.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 04, 2016, 05:16:46 PM
Your non believing parameters of God and what must be, don't apply to me, OR ANYONE OF FAITH......get that yet??     ::)
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 04, 2016, 09:51:16 PM
They apply or they do not, and if they do, they apply to everyone, everywhere in the friggin universe.

You can continue to believe in original sin caused by talking snakes, of course.

Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on May 04, 2016, 10:11:17 PM
Your human opinion hss been duly noted, weighed, measured, and summarily discarded

Let me evaluate a bit before you discard.

Oh believe me Plane, this issue has been thoroughly evaluated.

Xo thinks he's being "smart" by trying so hard to make the case that God has scientific boundaries, .......

   Even science does not have scientific boundaries.

     But I don't think it out of bounds to discuss and speculate on the nature of God, as long as one keeps clear that speculation is much less authoritative than scripture or evidence.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on May 04, 2016, 10:18:05 PM


The world is as chaotic as the laws of physics allow it to be without flying apart. That is not God.


This is a very interesting statement to examine.
What sets a boundary at flying apart?
Why does any existence exist at all?

If Gravity were a tad weaker or electrostatic repulsion a bit stronger the universe might be entirely chaos, with no stable surface for life anywhere.

With very little other change all matter could be located in black holes, with no chaos of any sort for life to thrive in.

Stop thinking of chaos as an undesirable factor , chaos is a feature of creation which in the right amount helps life to thrive.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on May 04, 2016, 10:23:36 PM
.

The Christian view of God is that humans are at the center of the purpose of all Creation.  No one is claiming that Jesus is on tour, getting himself crucified on one planet of humans after another to somehow absolve the most distant ancestors for the sin of making unwise culinary decisions based on temptations by a talking reptile.


This "Christian" view is not supported by scripture, rather the opposite.

You may be thinking of Pythagoras or Plato, which is interesting stuff , but is not really Christian guidelines.
"Man is the measure of all things" is a Greek idea.
"What is man oh God that thou art mindful of him?" Is more like the old Hebrews.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 04, 2016, 10:58:44 PM
What I said about Christian guidelines has been supported by the RC Church  and pretty much the rest of Christianity.
The Mormons are the only major group that talks about other planets.

Man is the Measure of all Things is a Greek idea, but that is not Geocentrism, which states that Man is the greatest of all of God's creations and the Earth is the only world there us, and we are the Number One inhabitants of God's Terrarium,
The Sun circles the Earth and the Moon, planets and stars are more or less decorations.

You appear to be confusing Humanism (the classic Greco-Roman concept, which provoked the Renaissance) with Geocentrism (what Galileo was punished for denying).
Christianity is Geocentric. Humanism is after Copernicus and is not.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on May 04, 2016, 11:11:42 PM
   You are badly out of order.
Quote
Humanism (the classic Greco-Roman concept, which provoked the Renaissance)

   Isn't there a millennium in between "  Humanism the classic Greco-Roman concept" and,  the Renaissance?

    Seems as if the Renaissance thrived in an atmosphere of Roman Catholic sponsorship and then Protestant reform. 

    If the more ancient texts provoked the Renaissance, why not sooner?


   Seems like more enlightenment era people were reading the Gutenberg Bible than copies of Plato musings that you would rather blame the for the  Renaissance.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 05, 2016, 01:19:49 AM
The Renaissance was brought on by the defeat of the Byzantine Empire by the Ottoman Turks in 1453. The intellectuals of that area came to Italy as refugees. There were thinkers, teachers, artists, writers, sculptors and so forth. Venice was the first to receive them. Being as the Greek Church and the Roman church had a number of differences, there were discussions about philosophy and cosmology and the like. The priests in Venice did not have the power they had in Rome and other parts of Italy, and the doges that ruled it promoted discussion of what is art, what is literature and so forth.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 05, 2016, 07:36:55 PM
They apply or they do not, and if they do, they apply to everyone, everywhere in the friggin universe.

That's just it....THEY DO NOT.  YOUR limited application of perceived non-believing parameters of God do NOT apply, to me nor everyone else.....that includes the universe
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 05, 2016, 09:49:07 PM
That would be your opinion. Along with the talking snakes and the 100th generation being punished for listening to it.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 05, 2016, 11:15:18 PM
Actually no, its a fact that neither I or ANYONE else must adhere to your human-set parameters of God
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 05, 2016, 11:40:52 PM
You have, as I said, your opinion.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 05, 2016, 11:51:49 PM
Sorry to prove you wrong .......again, ......but its still a fact

Unless you can prove to the class that I and everyone else are bound by your OPINION of the parameters to God and what Christians are mandated to believe.   Good luck with that
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Plane on May 06, 2016, 12:09:53 AM
The Renaissance was brought on by the defeat of the Byzantine Empire by the Ottoman Turks in 1453. The intellectuals of that area came to Italy as refugees. There were thinkers, teachers, artists, writers, sculptors and so forth. Venice was the first to receive them. Being as the Greek Church and the Roman church had a number of differences, there were discussions about philosophy and cosmology and the like. The priests in Venice did not have the power they had in Rome and other parts of Italy, and the doges that ruled it promoted discussion of what is art, what is literature and so forth.

Hmm....

I seem to have need of review on that timeline.

But I don't see the Reformation , I don't see the enlightenment happening in a Christian environment and I don't see the liberation of Spain being important.

I think of these as rather complex and interrelated , I am not terribly shamed to misunderstand a bit of it here and there, but thanks for the pointers.


   Anyhow , what moots the complexity is that the Byzantines were Christians too. Certainly the ones that needed to leave Constantinople  were, so why were they disruptive with Greek Humanism?
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 06, 2016, 11:32:08 AM
Anyhow , what moots the complexity is that the Byzantines were Christians too. Certainly the ones that needed to leave Constantinople  were, so why were they disruptive with Greek Humanism?

First, the Byzantine intellectuals did not bow to papal authority. The leaders of the Greek Orthodox Church had less power over their subjects than did the Italian popes. Second, the people who caused the changes were not priests or monks, but secular intellectuals. Many were hired to educate and tutor the children of the doges and other aristocrats,and it was those who received their education from these Byzantines that made the big changes and actually challenged the authority of the Pope. There was a reaction to these challenges. This was particularly strong in the city of Firenze (Florence)  when Savanarola took charge and attempted to end the Renaissance as a corrupt movement.

Read a book on the Renaissance and on this guy as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girolamo_Savonarola

The Renaissance lasted for three centuries at least, and was different in different places.\

And when it was over, the Humanists ended up on top and the worst features of the Holy Office (Inquisition) were over. Action -> reaction -> synthesis
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 06, 2016, 01:46:46 PM
Sorry to prove you wrong .......again, ......but its still a fact

Unless you can prove to the class that I and everyone else are bound by your OPINION of the parameters to God and what Christians are mandated to believe.   Good luck with that

Didn't think so
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 06, 2016, 02:12:27 PM
The basic tenets of the Christian religion are summed up in the Nicean Creed:
Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

=============================================
Perhaps you could state what parts of this, if any, you do not consider  to be basic tenets?

Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 06, 2016, 02:47:19 PM
Basic tenents are simply guidelines.  They're in no way a mandate, in modern Christianity.  The ONLY mandate is that God is the only true God...that's it.  The commandments, tenets, etc, are all guidelines to try to live by, but since we are human, we still manage to sin....we're not perfect.  You do the best you can, but NO ONE is confined to YOUR interpretation of how a Christian is supposed to function, based on YOUR selected misapplication of scripture
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 06, 2016, 03:49:57 PM
I have no idea what you mean by all that sirs, and I doubt that you do, either.
\
I know what the Bible says, and I know that the Nicean Creed is a fundamental Christians belief,

Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
====================================

Are there any parts of this you disagree with? If so, what might they be?
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 06, 2016, 04:10:59 PM
I know precisely what I mean, as I'm confident you do to.  More importantly, I know what believers mean when they quote the bible vs what you do, when you take scripture out of context, then try to apply rigid boundaries to that and God, for believers who must then adhere to YOUR perceived boundaries.  Sorry, not going to fly
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 06, 2016, 06:27:26 PM
Discussing this with you is a total  and compete waste of time.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 06, 2016, 06:50:27 PM
That's because you don't discuss things.  You simply insult, demean, and demagogue anything that doesn't fit your template.  Case in point, this entire thread.  That idea that we Christians are going to adhere to YOUR interpretation of the Bible, including what Christians must believe, or they can't be a Christian, is ludicrous on every level. 

And the cherry on top of that is the notion that God would have to be bound by the laws of physics and science, or else simply can't exist.  The amount of time you waste on trying to push that..... really should be a paid attraction, given its entertainment value
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 07, 2016, 06:51:22 AM
yeah, sure.
You are a waste of time sirs.
Title: Re: Riddle me this
Post by: sirs on May 07, 2016, 11:23:03 AM
Proving my point yet again.  I thank you     8)