Christian questions

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2002-12-04 11:57pm

I can see now how deception and time control was a hasty include, but otherwise, we have had rather different experiences then, Frank.

I have been to at least one Church where there was blatant information control - every single member of the congregation was absolutely forbidden to read Asimov's Annotated Guide to the Bible (the exact title is probably not that; but it was an asimov book on the bible) on the basis that Asimov was an atheist and thus lies snaked forth in every word. From what I gathered, none of the preachers had even read the book but felt fine condemning it all the same.

Just an example that information control does indeed happen.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2002-12-04 11:58pm

Frank_Scenario wrote:AdmiralKanos: where does the Bible advocate and mandate these things? This is a genuine question; I am interested to see what parts you see as supporting this behavior.

Deception: the Bible is factually inaccurate in so many ways it's simply not funny
Fear and Intimidation: Hell was not invented by Christian cults; it's right there in the Bible, both OT and NT.
False Love: God loves you, but if you don't believe in him, you'll suffer horribly forever. I'd call that false love.
Information Control: it's a sin to think, say, or believe the wrong things. See the Ten Commandments.
Loaded Language: freedom and independence are characterized as "sins". Wisdom is perverted to mean "blind acceptance of dogma".
Time Control: every seventh day, you must devote yourself to the Lord.
Relationship Control: "equally yoked". I had this thrown in my face personally by fucking bigots.
Identity Replacement: "I have no mother, no brothers; these disciples are my brothers now"- paraphrasing from Jesus in the NT. Throw away your old life and take the new one in our cult

Sorry, but the Bible fulfills every definition of a cult. Pecker's feeble attempt to claim that sheer numbers make it non-cult-like relies upon a particular demographic definition of "cult" which is widely espoused by those who don't want to admit that the term accurately applies to them.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-12-05 05:59pm

Where are our Bible-Thumpers?

HELLOO..HELLOoo...HELLOHELLO... hello....?

"...

..."

Is this a "concession through battlefield abandonment" situation? Usually when I say something like that they manifest again...

The Apologist · Post by **The Apologist** » 2002-12-05 10:19pm

Well, it seems my posting on this thread is not welcome, as I have received complaints of "nitpicking."

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-12-05 10:58pm

You're welcome to be here, but you're not providing a lot of substance to your arguments, just arguing minor details or word usages in a post and ignoring a lot of the real issues.

It's like the old, "...that depends on what 'is', is..."

Hmmmm....

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-05 11:02pm

The Apologist wrote:Well, it seems my posting on this thread is not welcome, as I have received complaints of "nitpicking."

Of course, since that's all you do. You refuse to state your position or make any kind of point, probably because you know that you would then be forced to take a stand. You can post all the

icons you like, but that won't change the fact that your behaviour is that of a coward, and people are completely justified in criticizing your behaviour.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-05 11:19pm

The Apologist wrote:And now, Durandal, please stand up and explain to everyone the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything, you fucking idiot? Explain how people dying for a belief lends logical credibility to that belief. If a billion people died in the name of terrorism, would that mean terrorism is logically defensible? NO! You're appealing to masses, specifically martyrs, and that's a well-documented logical fallacy.

Gricksigger · Post by **Gricksigger** » 2002-12-06 12:53am

Who appealed to the masses? As proof? No. As evidence, somewhat.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-12-06 01:08am

Gricksigger wrote:Who appealed to the masses? As proof? No. As evidence, somewhat.

Ah. Then I appeal to the masses of China as evidence that Christianity is a bunch of idiotic hogwash.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-12-06 01:11am

Gricksigger wrote:Who appealed to the masses? As proof? No. As evidence, somewhat.

Appeal. To. Popularity. Is. Never. Valid.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-06 01:11am

Gricksigger wrote:Who appealed to the masses? As proof? No. As evidence, somewhat.

You think popular opinion is evidence?

You know, the funny thing about people like this is that they don't even realize they're idiots.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-12-06 01:17am

Gricksigger wrote:Who appealed to the masses? As proof? No. As evidence, somewhat.

Congratulations, you're a lemming.

You realize that the "everyone else is doing it, it must be cool" is the same way to get kids smoking crack.

Gricksigger · Post by **Gricksigger** » 2002-12-06 10:05pm

Yeah, yeah.

If some people devote their lives to the propogation of what they claim to be the truth and die willingly for it as well, I think that constitutes some evidence, at least that those people were not deliberate deceievers.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-12-06 10:15pm

Gricksigger wrote:If some people devote their lives to the propogation of what they claim to be the truth and die willingly for it as well, I think that constitutes some evidence,

Good point, I guess the Muslims hold the ultimate truth since they're the ones ramming airplanes into buildings and blowing themselves up in cafes.

All bow down and hail the almighty Allah!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-06 10:42pm

Gricksigger wrote:Yeah, yeah.

If some people devote their lives to the propogation of what they claim to be the truth and die willingly for it as well, I think that constitutes some evidence, at least that those people were not deliberate deceievers.

I can't believe what a fucking moron this guy is. Fanatical devotion = proof that beliefs are valid? Give the man a prize for taking pride in idiocy.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-07 12:31am

Mike, I don't see a "Fundamentalist Moron" title on him, yet. You're slipping.

Gricksigger · Post by **Gricksigger** » 2002-12-07 12:07pm

Killing in the name of a belief and spending a lifetime spreading a belief are different, neh?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-12-07 12:16pm

Gricksigger wrote:Killing in the name of a belief and spending a lifetime spreading a belief are different, neh?

That's not the point, and you know it. To put it simple, you can pass your life deluded and sincerily trying to convert others to your delusions. That doesn't magically makes them come true.

There are plenty of sincere people who do believe in UFO invasions, meetings of Semi gods in Jupiter, in telepathy and beings of light.

Yet, they are still wrong.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-12-07 12:35pm

Durandal wrote:
The Apologist wrote:And now, Durandal, please stand up and explain to everyone the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything, you fucking idiot? Explain how people dying for a belief lends logical credibility to that belief. If a billion people died in the name of terrorism, would that mean terrorism is logically defensible? NO! You're appealing to masses, specifically martyrs, and that's a well-documented logical fallacy.

I think the problem here lies in that these people were executed because they refused to recant eyewitness testimony. This doesn't prove that they were right, rather just that the originators of the story believed in it so fully they were willing to die for it. The terrorism analogy falls through because the people dying in suicide attacks aren't the bin Ladens, but the cronies. Peter and Paul were both executed for being Christian. I agree that this is not evidence, but solely because I don't believe there is empirical evidence for or against religion. The "logical credibility" here is that it is logical and credible that the people who originated the stories in Christianity truly held those beliefs, and were not merely practical jokers, as has been suggested before.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-07 04:52pm

The Dark wrote:
Durandal wrote:
The Apologist wrote:And now, Durandal, please stand up and explain to everyone the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything, you fucking idiot? Explain how people dying for a belief lends logical credibility to that belief. If a billion people died in the name of terrorism, would that mean terrorism is logically defensible? NO! You're appealing to masses, specifically martyrs, and that's a well-documented logical fallacy.
I think the problem here lies in that these people were executed because they refused to recant eyewitness testimony. This doesn't prove that they were right, rather just that the originators of the story believed in it so fully they were willing to die for it. The terrorism analogy falls through because the people dying in suicide attacks aren't the bin Ladens, but the cronies. Peter and Paul were both executed for being Christian. I agree that this is not evidence, but solely because I don't believe there is empirical evidence for or against religion. The "logical credibility" here is that it is logical and credible that the people who originated the stories in Christianity truly held those beliefs, and were not merely practical jokers, as has been suggested before.

Red herring. The people that rammed the planes into the World Trade Center were religious fanatics, and they were willing to die for their faith. Peter and Paul were obviously both religious fanatics, and were willing to die for their faith. It doesn't matter why they believed what they did (mass hysteria, delusional, severe psychological problems, take your pick); it only matters whether or not its true. There's no evidence suggesting that it is, and there is plenty of evidence suggesting it's not. The Bible's numerous failed predictions are a testament to its falsehood. Jesus told the apostles he would return within their lifetimes, and he didn't. Jesus was clearly no different from any other cult leader. Dying for a belief still does not lend any sort of credibility to it.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-12-07 08:30pm

The Apologist wrote:Well, it seems my posting on this thread is not welcome, as I have received complaints of "nitpicking."

It's more than just your nitpicking, it's your ignorance in general. Well, it seems Gricksigger has took his place, and he doesn't fail to deliver the same ignorance and illogic.

If some people devote their lives to the propogation of what they claim to be the truth and die willingly for it as well, I think that constitutes some evidence, at least that those people were not deliberate deceievers.

You know, JWs predicted the Apocalypse many times, each one of the predictions wrong. Does that qualify as deceit? Even Jesus decieved, in the say he said he would return to Earth before his Apostles died in the Bible, but never did. Many religous fanatics decieve, becuse it's the only way they can convert others.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-12-07 08:33pm

Durandal wrote:<snip> Jesus told the apostles he would return within their lifetimes, and he didn't. <snip>

Quote please? I've not read this before.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-07 08:35pm

The Dark wrote:
Durandal wrote:<snip> Jesus told the apostles he would return within their lifetimes, and he didn't. <snip>
Quote please? I've not read this before.

With all due respect, this is a widely known quote, and you can look it up just as easily as he can. It's not as you lack access to the various on-line Bibles.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-07 09:36pm

It's from Matthew 10:23. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/10.html#23

Jesus says that he will return before his apostles "go over the city of Israel." Then, he contradicts himself by saying that he will come once the gospel has been preached to the world in 24:14. The gospel has long since been preached to the world (remember, in Jesus' time, "the world" was a comparatively small place).

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-12-07 09:45pm

Durandal wrote:It's from Matthew 10:23. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/10.html#23

Jesus says that he will return before his apostles "go over the city of Israel."

OK, I can see your interpretation of this. From the Christian viewpoint, the resurrection of Jesus was when he was proven to be the Messiah. This would be the first coming of the Son of Man, which did occur before the disciples passed through "all the towns of Israel." That's the only explanation I can think of off the top of my head, but I will ask either our Theology professor or New Testament specialist about that verse when I get a chance so I can find out (both for myself and the board) what the mainline Christian view on that verse is.

Then, he contradicts himself by saying that he will come once the gospel has been preached to the world in 24:14. The gospel has long since been preached to the world (remember, in Jesus' time, "the world" was a comparatively small place).

But no timeframe is given. "And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come." Could be half a second, could be half a billion years. It's sorta like watching a particular atom of a radioactive isotope for decay. It could be in the first portion to decay in the half-life; it could be the last atom left. It will decay eventually, we just don't know when.

I will try to find more information. However, it may take some time, as I have Finals next week and will be home (without a reliable connection) for almost a month after that. I should be back on or about the 6th of January.

[edit]Also, thank you for looking up the verse for me, I had been looking in the backs of the Gospels thinking that it was something said after the resurrection.[/edit]