I would like to enquire as to peoples interpretation of the one of the worlds longest running debates.

Did Jesus Christ exist, and if so was he the son of God or just a well educated man and that over the centuries chinese whispers have portrayed him to be the son of God.

My own personal belief is that religion, including Christianity brings happiness to millions, but at the same time religious beliefs are the main factors in warfare. I personally do not believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God, but I do believe in Heavon. Mixed up eh!

It would be interesting to here your views.

I figure that since the Americans don't follow his teachings it must be fiction. That's good enough for me

I figure that since the Americans don't follow his teachings it must be fiction. That's good enough for me


Rich,

There is an awful lot of Anti Americanism in you. Which I can understand a lot of people feel that way especially with the GWB and TB connection.

But what are your views on the subject of JC?

Rich,

There is an awful lot of Anti Americanism in you.
I'm anti hypocrisy not anti any specific nation. As for the bible and jesus christ, my views on this fictitious book are well known here. I'd rather read Beatrix Potter or subscribe to Buddhism

As for the bible and jesus christ, my views on this fictitious book are well known here.


Rich,

As I am relatively new to this forum I would be interested to hear these views, quite a lot of the time you talk sense and I value your opinion.

I think it's a book written and popularised by man's fear of the unknown. It does prey on that fact. It was written thousands of years ago to try and control the masses. It's the same ploy the government today is using over terrorism and it's attempts at getting its draconian anti-terrorism bill through parliament.
Fill man’s hearts with fear and enough of them will follow to make it seem legitimate.

I think it's a book written and popularised by man's fear of the unknown. It does prey on that fact. It was written thousands of years ago to try and control the masses. It's the same ploy the government today is using over terrorism and it's attempts at getting its draconian anti-terrorism bill through parliament.
Fill man’s hearts with fear and enough of them will follow to make it seem legitimate.


Rich,

This is a very interesting theory, one that I am tending to agree with, although I would question that with the onset of modern science and space exploration why this has never been proven as a fictitous tale? Perhaps that is the power of the Vatican and Christianity, as we would effectively have to rewrite history!

It's also interesting your views on the modern day threat of terrorism, I get the impression from your wording, be it right or wrong, that you believe that the global terrorism threat is not as threatening as we are led to believe, am I correct in my assumption?

It's also interesting your views on the modern day threat of terrorism, I get the impression from your wording, be it right or wrong, that you believe that the global terrorism threat is not as threatening as we are led to believe, am I correct in my assumption?
Yes, global terrorism has existed for millennia; it's not new. We made ourselves targets by sucking up to Bush and his desire for revenge over the world trade centre attack.
Don't you find it strange that the secret services here issued a scaremongering report on the day the government tried for the second time to get its draconian act through parliament? That's the same service that provided the evidence for the need to invade Iraq. Americans may fall for this crap, fortunately for us there are still enough here who don't .

Did Jesus Christ exist, and if so was he the son of God or just a well educated man and that over the centuries chinese whispers have portrayed him to be the son of God.

I wouldn't argue whether he did or did not exist, as there's no physical evidence either way. You can't say the Gospels are proof because they are just written accounts from about 60CE to 150CE and based on hearsay and invention but their very existence weighs in favour of their being someone of this name.

As for his position as Son of God, I find that notion ridiculous, given that I don't believe in God and find religion to be a waste of time. What he was, most likely, was a deluded individual. No more different than your modern loon who thinks they are on a mission for God, whether it be David Berkowitz or Peter Sutcliffe. Not to say that Jesus killed, it was against his supposed nature, so perhaps more of a Jim Jones or David Koresh style character, infecting the minds of those around him with his own delusions.

There's not much of his life in the Bible. He gets born, disappears for a number of years, and returns spouting inanities and supposedly performing miracles. Holger Kersten, in Jesus Lived In India, makes the claim that in these interim years Jesus, er, lived in India. His philosophies, for example, are more in line with those of Hindu teaching (and were indeed taught by Hindus hundreds of years before) than the eye-for-an-eye Jewish lessons. Kersten goes on to make the claim that Jesus, after surviving the crucifixion, departed again for India with his mother.

Jesus crops up in Islam as the prophet Issa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_%28prophet_in_Islam%29), the precursor to Mohammad. Certain Islamic factions believe that after surviving the crucifixion he changed his name to Yuz Asaf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuz_Asaf). In Srinigar, Kashmir there's the tomb of Yuz Asaf shared with another minor messenger. The interesting things to note here are that while the minor messenger is buried north to south in the Muslim fashion, Yuz Asaf is buried east-west as per Jewish tradition. There's also a stone with feet carved into it, a pair of dots highlighting the wounds of possible crucifixion. Who's to say? The remains in that tomb may just be the proof of the historical Jesus.

I wouldn't tend to believe the Gospels at their word as they are the slanted views of infected minds told and retold across a series of languages. The supposed wisdom of Jesus can be elaborated by them spouting their opinion or interpretation on his oblique phrasings. Sometimes these additions can undermind or twist the connotation of what Jesus may have said or meant. The apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, for example, is a basis collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. There's no storytelling within. The interesting thing is that a number of these sayings tie in with the main Gospels although they aren't elaborated and interpreted in the way Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did. They stand more like a list of sayings. The fact that many are ambigious about what they mean is probably why the text is apocryphal.

why this has never been proven as a fictitous tale? Perhaps that is the power of the Vatican and Christianity, as we would effectively have to rewrite history!

We wouldn't have to rewrite history. It's never been proven as a factual account either. The attrocities done in its name and those still being done (whether it be wars in Iraq or Catholic missionaries in Africa) have no need to be rewritten either, because they actually happened.

We made ourselves targets by sucking up to Bush and his desire for revenge over the world trade centre attack.


So you believe that this was an act of terrorism and are not a subscriber to the conspiracy theorists?

Don't get me wrong I too believe that the invasion of Iraq to dispose of Saddam was unjustified under the name of Global Terrorism.

But I also believe that Global Terrorism affects us all, this world would be a anarchic mess if everybody used violence just because they did not agree with something.

I do believe that religion is the main cause of Global Terrorism, with the Isreali's I believe causing the boiling pot to overflow.

What do you think?

We wouldn't have to rewrite history. It's never been proven as a factual account either.


I agree that this has never been proven, although to millions of people around the world they do not need facts to prove that he existed their so called faith gives them that.

But if it was proven that this did not happen would that not cuase terror to strike at the hearts of these millions of people. Might we just be making things a million times worse.

What do you think?

I get the impression from your wording, be it right or wrong, that you believe that the global terrorism threat is not as threatening as we are led to believe

I certainly don't believe that global terrorism is much of a threat, let alone a major one. We've had relatively few cases on a global scale (New York, London, Madrid, Bali, and a tiny suicide bombing in Istanbul) on a global scale and the casualty rate therein (approaching 3,000?) is far outweighed by the deaths from African civil wars, the Israel/Palestine conflict, the Russia/Chechnya conflict, and the much documented war in Iraq in which an occupation has led to civil war.

Let the intelligence organisations do their job and if they can't foil a plot, so be it. But don't let government leaders and the national media lead you to believe there's a threat. One needs to sell his policies and the other needs to sell papers.

I agree that this has never been proven, although to millions of people around the world they do not need facts to prove that he existed their so called faith gives them that.

They are daft. If faith is their argument, there's no point talking to them.

But if it was proven that this did not happen would that not cuase terror to strike at the hearts of these millions of people.
No. They can't look at the scientific evidence that evolution is the most likely method of life on Earth and subscribe to the completely illogical notion of a Creator. What makes you think they would accept Jesus didn't exist on presentation of proof? The stupid seed gets planted by religious parents and the child growing up in such an environment that fears to question (perhaps embarrassed they believe something that is so utterly stupid?) will perpetuate such nonsense with their own children.

They can't look at the scientific evidence that evolution is the most likely method of life on Earth and subscribe to the completely illogical notion of a Creator.


You say most likely method of life on Earth, is there another?

Do you believe that when we die our bodies just crumble to dust and that is the end, apart from memories of loved ones keeping us alive?

Do you believe that when we die our bodies just crumble to dust and that is the end, apart from memories of loved ones keeping us alive?
Yes, why should we be any different from plants animals etc. etc., the nearest we get to afterlife or re-incarnation is our genes being passed on to our children.

You say most likely method of life on Earth, is there another?
There's no better theory as yet proposed. Therefore we must take evolution as the most likely explanation for our existence.

Do you believe that when we die our bodies just crumble to dust and that is the end, apart from memories of loved ones keeping us alive?
Yes, I do. To be fair, so do Christians. They can spout all they want about how they will be with God in Heaven but they know that's just rubbish. When a Christian gets cancer or develops a tumour then we (and they) should be elated because they are going to be with God sooner than expected. It's what He wants. Why are they so sad then? Why is it seen as a tragedy? If you're going to die, you're going to God. What is there to be sad about?

Did Jesus Christ exist, and if so was he the son of God or just a well educated man and that over the centuries chinese whispers have portrayed him to be the son of God.
My own personal belief is that religion, including Christianity brings happiness to millions. . . . . . . .

You're talking 2 different things here. A geezer called Jesus and religion -neither of which have any bearing on the other.

It was proven on TV recently that the "miracles" are no more than illusions performed by a very clever magician. Therefore, this magician spun the idea he had a "power" - got people to give money etc etc then it got all screwed up over the centuries with this god shite.
Originally, it may have been just a street hustler able to fool everyone and make a few quid, pull a few birds etc.

Then you get this rubbish where people actually believe it all without a shred of proof that any of it actually existed.

Obviously, if you're an easily brainwashed American, and most are - especially those in the bible belt, then of course you believe it all blindly without question - then carry on the hypocritical life when its not sunday.

Col

Colin,

I noticed on your profile you are from Essex, same as me, where abouts in Essex?

Colin,

I noticed on your profile you are from Essex, same as me, where abouts in Essex?
Colchester

Col

Colin,

I'm from Benfleet, nice to talk to a fellow Essex boy.

Colin,

I'm from Benfleet, nice to talk to a fellow Essex boy.
Actually, I've only been in Essex 16 years so I'm still an outsider;)

Hope you enjoy the forums.

Col

why should we be any different from plants animals etc. etc., the nearest we get to afterlife or re-incarnation is our genes being passed on to our children.


Rich,

I would tend to agree with you if only for one thing, our brain!

We only use a third of our brain power that is proven, I would question what the other 2/3rds are for. Why would we have evolved with a brian the size we have if we were never intended to use it all.

Could it be said that the other 2/3rds of our brain starts to work at a sub consciuous perhaps omnipresent level after our physical being has died?

Hope you enjoy the forums.

Col

Col,

It is good to have debates of this nature rather than working the capitalists dream 24/7, which most of us do at present.

I believe there was a person that the writings of the bible are based on. I think he was just a man who had some good ideas and whatnot. treat people how you want to be treated, dont kill etc. good rules to live by

Could it be said that the other 2/3rds of our brain starts to work at a sub consciuous perhaps omnipresent level after our physical being has died?

That's as ridiculous as nipples on men. Do you have a source on the two thirds unused statement? While you question what it's for, you may also reverse the question and ask what it was far. Natural selection can leave legacies which, in time, it will forget. Since our life is pretty much based upon electricity within the body, that extra two thirds could be nothing more than a battery. ;)

Do you have a source on the two thirds unused statement?

I thought that was common knowledge.

Since our life is pretty much based upon electricity within the body, that extra two thirds could be nothing more than a battery.


This is an interesting thoery that the unsued part is merely a power regulator.

While you question what it's for, you may also reverse the question and ask what it was far. Natural selection can leave legacies which, in time, it will forget.


What do you suggest it was used for then?

Do you have a source on the two thirds unused statement?
I thought that was common knowledge.


Christians seem to believe that God is common knowledge, without a shred of evidence. Saying we only use one third of our brain without a source is about as useless as the witticism that 90% of all statistics are made up.

What do you suggest it was used for then?

I don't know. I'm in no way an evolutionary scientist. I don't know much about the brain at all.

I don't know. I'm in no way an evolutionary scientist. I don't know much about the brain at all.


You do pose some interesting theories, but when questioned you tend to divert. Pity.

Even you if hypothesised it would be better than just outright diversion.

There are some theorists who believe that the parts of the brain not used are there to engage us to a higher plain, now be this a heavenly plain or perhaps something alien.

First, the folks who think global terrorism is a minor thing should remember that terrorism is an attention getter performed by people whose ideology is so weak, forlorn, or discredited. By its very nature, though, it will ESCALATE until the terrorists get attention. Whether they finally get what they want or what they deserive is another question. But the only way to prevent terrorisism from escalating is to keep it from growing by capturing (or if necessary, killing) the terrorists BEFORE they have the chance to escalate. THAT, my friend, is in history books and has been proven too many times to be seriously disputed.

Second, did Jesus exist? There are non-religious writings that suggest he did. The Romans noted his existence in several writings that have survived to this century. However, was he divine? There, I have more serious doubts. Enough people reported him that his existence must have been of SOME note, but the details... lost except in the Bible.

It is of considerable interest, however, that many "creation" myths contain similar themes including creation from chaos, various catastrophes visited on cities, and a great flood that washed away much of humanity. It is not uncommon for folks to write of events distant in location or memory as some great upheaval. The Greeks and Romans had started to stray to a more naturalistic explanation for observed phenomena, but the Dark Ages shut down critical thinking for a long time. So many of the writers - and thinkers - of that period were superstitious, unable to find any rational explanation for things they didn't understand and unwilling to leave it along. Hence, "divine intervention." If Jesus existed and enough strange things occurred around him, he might well have been the subject of that assumption of divinity.

We must remember that most of the writers of the Holy Bible (and many other holy works in other cultures) were literate but not terribly well educated in scientific issues. (Had to wait for Sir Francis Bacon and the scientific method, don't you know...?) So as historians, they might have been OK (not great), but when it came to investigating claims of divinity, they were just ordinary people.

As to how much of our brains we use, the catch is not that we do or DON'T use our entire brain. It is that we don't know the purpose of many parts of the the brain. The numbers I have seen range from 2/3 to 90% unused. Given some of the logic Rich sometimes uses when he's on a tear, I'm inclined to believe he uses even less than the 10% figure. When he starts talking rationally again, his usage rises accordingly.

Finally, Rich, somewhere in passing you made comments about the USA not being very religious. I've seen estimates that Europe isn't any better or worse than the USA, maybe a few percent at most, in differences in church attendance and claims of religious fervor. Surely not a situation where you could claim we are an irreligious people. That statement of yours was very likely made on MINIMUM brain power. (Don't THINK it can go negative, but you offer a tempting example sometimes...)

.
Finally, Rich, somewhere in passing you made comments about the USA not being very religious.

Do point out where and then define religious.

But the only way to prevent terrorisism from escalating is to keep it from growing by capturing (or if necessary, killing) the terrorists BEFORE they have the chance to escalate.

I see, so the burden of proof required by your own legal system is thrown out of the window when it comes to funny looking Muslims?
America's methods are no better than the terrorists you claim to be ridding the world of.
I see you're only using 5% of the brain in your response, any chance for another 5?
Oh and by the way only 3% of the population now attend church here

I see, so the burden of proof required by your own legal system is thrown out of the window

Who give's a crap, we're going to win.

End of story.

Who give's a crap, we're going to win.

End of story.
yet another intelligent post from Americas finest:rolleyes:

First, the "fact" that we only use -insert arbitrary percentage here- of our brains is mostly a myth. While it may be true most people do not utilize their brains to its fullest potential, the vast majority of their brains are active and functioning. Saying we only use a portion of our brains is like saying we only use half our car's motor when the pedal is half way down.

Second, it struck me as fairly odd to casually toss out "after surviving the crucifixion" in regards to Jesus. While it's possible to survive after being let down, generally they didn't let people down until they were dead. So what's the explanation there?

Third, my personal belief is that Jesus existed and that he was no different than anyone else. I believe that, much like Buddha, Jesus was an ordinary man who realized his potential as a human being. Of course, this is simply my personal belief. I don't claim to have proof or certainty, it just fits my view on things.

Third, my personal belief is that Jesus existed and that he was no different than anyone else. I believe that, much like Buddha, Jesus was an ordinary man who realized his potential as a human being. Of course, this is simply my personal belief. I don't claim to have proof or certainty, it just fits my view on things.
Christ I think we're in agreement on a topic:eek:

Sorry to jump in here...

I think differently - Jesus is the son of God and Christianiaty and Bible are true. There is life after death. Do you believe that we have souls? Our mortal body may crumble and die but our soul would live for ever -

In answer to the original post, I think Christ existed and was a remarkable individual, but I think he'd be pretty disgusted with what humans have done with what he was trying to say. As much as anything he was in the right place at the right time to participate in a social and metaphysical revolution without which modern societies could not function.

That Christ was at the center of a revolution is difficult to dispute. The nature and/or causes of that revolution are harder to establish. My supposition has been for some time that in the minds of the people, Christ provided as never before an ordered, and orderly, universe.

Before Christ the mythologies of the day provided many Gods who fought and argued and harrassed humanity for sport. Before Christ the universe was chaotic, arbitrary, devoid of compassion, and provided no acknowledgement of the value of the individual. Societies built on these pre-Christian realities were harsh.

Christ provides a structured religious reality that eliminates inter-deistic rivalries and proposes a God who cares about people. What could not be extremely appealing about this shift in philosophy? Furthermore, the Pax Romana is in full swing at the time, and people never had it so good. The world might have seemed calm, generous, ordered, structured, and providing value to the individual for the first time in history. So the new religion is a sort of technology on which future advances can be predicated.

I see a sort of chicken/egg paradox with Rome and Christ, since they are the cause and the effect of each other. Ordered societies can only arise when the fundamentatal nature of reality is ordered and reality can only look ordered when you live in an ordered society.

I suspect that Islam had a similar cause/effect relationship with social/political/economic advances in that part of the world. I don't know that history so well. Comments? It's monotheism, and solves the same essential social problems that Christianity does. Ordered universe, God who cares.

In terms of some significant historical function, the current tension between religions seems small to me. 9/11 was a theatrical coup that understandably grabbed a lot of attention, but weak leadership has now perpatrated a greater terror. There's nothing new about terrorism or its big brother, aggressive war. Side show really.

The next new or significant social revolution has to be environmentalism. That or the story pauses for a new dark ages.

I see, so the burden of proof required by your own legal system is thrown out of the window
Who give's a crap, we're going to win.

End of story.
So, you support the (so-called) Patriot Act?
People being locked up indefinitely, and tortured, on just the suspicion of terrorism?

terrorism is an attention getter
And it is getting attention. Look at all the paranoia about it. Look at the way laws are being changed and security tightened to the detriment of the innocent citizen. The current governments of the world (but particularly USA) are in effect giving the terrorists what they want. Terror.

It is of considerable interest, however, that many "creation" myths contain similar themes including creation from chaos, various catastrophes visited on cities, and a great flood that washed away much of humanity.
Similar themes in creation stories could be explained by contact between the cultures involved, or a common cultural ancestor.

There is evidence of a localised flood that roughly fits the Noah story. It is supported by historical documents. But global? Don't think so.

There is evidence of a localised flood that roughly fits the Noah story. It is supported by historical documents. But global? Don't think so.

I'd go with the retelling of Sumerian myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utnapishtim), believed as literal fact.

I would like to enquire as to peoples interpretation of the one of the worlds longest running debates.

Did Jesus Christ exist, and if so was he the son of God or just a well educated man and that over the centuries chinese whispers have portrayed him to be the son of God..

My opinion is as follows:

Considering the harsh Roman oppression of Judea between 100 BC and 100 AD, many people claiming to be the Old Testament Messiah came and went. Many of these guys had fair-size followings. When you have a guy with a following, the legends start.

The Gospels (the only source of the existence of Jesus) are simply a compilation of many legends that developed about many Messiah claimants. Remember, the four Gospels that are part of today's Bibles are just four out of hundreds. These guys lived during the period I mentioned above, and perhaps SOME of them were named Yeshu (Iasou or Iasous in Greek, Jesus in Latin) Remember, Yeshu was one of the most common names at the time.

The cult of his followers would have died down like the other cults of the time if not for Constantine, (a pagan) and his extreme brutality followed by his successor, the Roman Church and their extreme brutality for most of the history of Christianity.

As far as the Gospels' description of Jesus being a nice guy, that's a matter of opinion. If you feel that "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. " (Matthew 10:34) or "If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " (Luke 14:26) is a nice, fun-loving guy, then by all means. My opinion is otherwise.

Just reading the Gospels, I would say that the guy depicted is someone who wants to divert worship of God as he had been worshiped for 1000 years to worship of a man. Jesus' idea of who's a "good guy" or "bad guy" was no longer whether the person obeyed God's laws as set out in the Old Testament, but whether they joined his following or not by worshiping him.

Just my opinion because you asked :)

I'd go with the retelling of Sumerian myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utnapishtim), believed as literal fact.
Ah... following one of the links from there got me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth which links to the Sumerian King List (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_king_list), which was one of the sources I was quoted for historical evidence of a basis for Noah's flood. However, reading the list, it is obvious that it isn't an entirely historical document. They have kings listed as ruling for hundreds or even thousands of years, and some ascending to heaven... :rolleyes:

So, ignoring documented evidence, I believe there is geographical evidence of a flood in the region

So, you support the (so-called) Patriot Act?
People being locked up indefinitely, and tortured, on just the suspicion of terrorism?

No, But I believe the way to end terrorism in not a war. As I have said on many occasions.

The only answer is beer and TV, long term the only answer to the world's woes, are to make it where the guys (young men) are so busy trying to make ends meet they have no time for making bull shit gorilla missions. That wont end until the people running the oil rich Middle East stop taking it all for themselves and develop an economy based on the worth of production.

In the mean time, our only hope is to kill as many of the leaders, of terrorism, as necessary to send the message that the only way to peace is to quit.

American bantering aside, this is all happening because the fundamentalist want us to go away so they can take the Muslim world back about 800 years.

A Saudi saying goes something like this, “My Grandfather rode camels, my Father had a Roles Royce, I own a 747, my Grand Sons will ride camels”.

There is no force on earth that will stop the implosion of the Middle East. We can only hope to miss the tsunami.

Ok... I'd actually given the whole thing a thought the other day before this question was even posed. (btw, didn't read everyone's posts... so so so sorry... but had to jump in on this)

I thought about all the scriptures in the old testament that I could throw out there. as an example... ones that concerned stoning your son if he was rebellious and stuff like that. And of course I thought, "well, when I went to church, I was told that it was the OLD testament... and Jesus is all about forgiveness."

But then I got to thinking the other night....
Has GOD evolved? In the years B.C., he required animal sacrifices, and fanatically harsh sentences upon us that we, as an enlightened species would find revolting! Else we'd be giving a pass to any parent that decided to lynch their own spawn. I mean, seriously... if you heard of someone bringing their child to the town square to be killed by the community... would ANY ONE of us say, "yeah... that's okay!" Of course not! We've evolved! But... that was supposedly God's rule back then.

Ok... so bring in the fact (Christian fact albeit) that God is without beginning and without end. He is the Alpha and the Omega. Yeah... so why did he change his mind? Did something just COINCEDENTALLY happen to this almighty god that brought him to the realization that human slaughter and animal sacrifices were unacceptable and rather barbaric? (the last sacrifice was supposedly Jesus, to wash our sins... how convenient!)
So... do the Jews, who don't recognise Jesus as that sacrificial lamb, and do not believe in the New Testament, continue with the animal sacrifices of old? Do they still stone their sons on the street?
Uh... NO! It seems to me that "god" has "evolved" right in step... maybe a step or two ahead... of the rest of humankind.

Are we following an "older brother" type figure, who is just a grade or two ahead of us?
No.... sorry... I can only come to the conclusion that we made him up in the first place.
"His" evolution and ours seem to be too remarkably alike. I think we made god in our own image. Not vice-versa.

Oh damn... here come the barbs and arrows.

Well, then I may as well tell you that I am the incarnation of the Goddess Aphrodite and I'll be mad as hell if you cross me or attempt to wound me.
You don't want to anger a goddess, do you? I happen to know Jesus... personal friend of mine... he'd be pissed too.

Well, then I may as well tell you that I am the incarnation of the Goddess Aphrodite and I'll be mad as hell if you cross me or attempt to wound me.
You don't want to anger a goddess, do you? I happen to know Jesus... personal friend of mine... he'd be pissed too.
Nice to hear from you Aphrodite! Loved your work in "Xena"! ;)

No, But I believe the way to end terrorism in not a war. As I have said on many occasions.

The only answer is beer and TV, long term the only answer to the world's woes, are to make it where the guys (young men) are so busy trying to make ends meet they have no time for making bull shit gorilla missions. That wont end until the people running the oil rich Middle East stop taking it all for themselves and develop an economy based on the worth of production.

In the mean time, our only hope is to kill as many of the leaders, of terrorism, as necessary to send the message that the only way to peace is to quit.

American bantering aside, this is all happening because the fundamentalist want us to go away so they can take the Muslim world back about 800 years.

A Saudi saying goes something like this, “My Grandfather rode camels, my Father had a Roles Royce, I own a 747, my Grand Sons will ride camels”.

There is no force on earth that will stop the implosion of the Middle East. We can only hope to miss the tsunami.

You really do hate Muslims and the fact that they have oil don't you:rolleyes:

That wont end until the people running the oil rich Middle East stop taking it all for themselves and develop an economy based on the worth of production.

In the mean time, our only hope is to kill as many of the leaders, of terrorism, as necessary to send the message that the only way to peace is to quit.

Then I seriously suggest you start by looking in the White House - the world is a much more dangerous place since your current dictator got in. His one goal was to cause mayhem, and "secure" oil for the good ol' USA and sod everyone else.

Also, if you go round removing the leaders who control their countries [like Saddam] - see what happens when they're gone, people like Saddam maybe nasty pieces of work, but at least they keep things under control. Unlike the USA who have no idea or thoughts about consequences of their actions.

And why shouldn't North Korea or Iran have nuclear weapons? we have them. As I've said before, it'll be the USA that destroys the planet, not North Korea or Iran or whatever.

Just because the USA had one terrorist attack the whole world is now more dangerous and suffering because of a knee-jerk response by Bush

Col

And why shouldn't North Korea or Iran have nuclear weapons? Col
I think their argument would be that the leaders of those countries are unstable, oops, I've just thought of Bush and Bliar, scrub that argument

I think their argument would be that the leaders of those countries are unstable, oops, I've just thought of Bush and Bliar, scrub that argument
what country in their right mind would even consider dropping a nuclear weapon on another country?

Col

what country in their right mind would even consider dropping a nuclear weapon on another country?

Col

None if that other country could hit back, but the key was in their right mind , and we are back to Bush and Blair.:mad:

Brian

On whether Jesus existed - probably. I would imagine he was a charismatic man with his heart in the right place, even if his followers' heads weren't.

On whether religion is a good/bad thing - there is a theory to which I like to subscribe which reckons that without monotheistic religion, we wouldn't have the basis for modern scientific thinking. Religion contained the seeds of it's own undoing.

On why Christians are sad when they realise they're going to die - personally, I will be sad (I'm not religious, so joining God or not will remain a surprise to me until it happens) because of the love that I will be losing out on giving to my family and close friends. I will mourn the loss of that opportunity. I believe that, at some level, Christians probably feel the same. They may feel the love of God, but the tangible love from friends and family will be why they are sad.

On whether we use 2/3 of our brains - we may just be in the middle of an evolutionary change. We all have an appendix, but we don't use it. To prove what % of our brains are used for conscious thought, or unconscious thought, ask a me again in 10,000 years.

and we are back to Bush and Blair.:mad:


I was referring to any country that has or will have a nuclear weapon, I did not refer to the UK or USA specifically.

I remember the "Yes Prime Minister" programme where Jim Hacker wanted to upgrade Trident (topical now) and was asked "when do you press the button?"
and was given several scenarios but couldn't justify it in any of them.

Its the same today some 20 years later. Even the so called "rogue" dictators are not stupid.

So I'll ask the question - "when do you press the button?"

Col

No Col you didn't refer to Bush and Blair, I did, as they appear as unhinged as the other dictators we are supposed to be afraid of.

Brian

what country in their right mind would even consider dropping a nuclear weapon on another country?

Col


Wasn't that the point of the Cold War, MAD and all the rest?

As to when you press the button - for the greater good of the planet, only when under attack from Martians.

The only answer is beer and TV

Or, indeed, bread and circuses?
Hasn't that been tried, without success? Distractions are no long term solution.

People busy trying 'to make ends meet' don't necessarily so so quietly. If someone can see that somebody else is better off - and there's always someone better off - resentment is inevitable. Look at countries with a long history, like the UK, France, etc. They've pretty much all experienced internal conflicts directly as a result of people 'trying to make ends meet'.

The only long term solution would be to somehow ensure that no-one has to struggle to get by and everyone has enough. Unrealistic, I know (communism didn't take into account human nature and failed, after all) but I don't see any other way.

The only long term solution would be to somehow ensure that no-one has to struggle to get by and everyone has enough. Unrealistic, I know (communism didn't take into account human nature and failed, after all) but I don't see any other way.


What a lovely vision, didn't John Lennon have the same dream:)

I think we are some way off of this, while we have a monetary fund and everything has a price there will always be envy and resentment.

Maybe we should all become Amish :)

There is a school of thought that without some form of struggle, mankind will advance no further. Necessity being the mother of invention and all that. To triumph in the face of adversity has always been a staple of admiration in human nature.

And sadly, everything will always have a price - monetary or emotional.

Unfortunately, further still, short of doping the entire human race, there will always be envy and resentment. When I have PMT I'm envious of those who are happy, and resentful towards those who seem to go out of their way to antagonise me - albeit for real, or just in my chemically imbalanced brain.

Well, then I may as well tell you that I am the incarnation of the Goddess Aphrodite and I'll be mad as hell if you cross me or attempt to wound me.
You don't want to anger a goddess, do you? I happen to know Jesus... personal friend of mine... he'd be pissed too.

Wow a Goddess, ya mind if I come and visit and stuff? your husband Hermes wont mind will he? hehe I love Mythology

Maybe we should all become Amish :)
Then we will have the $4m in the bank earning huge interest per month. That sounds cool to me

Col

Christ I think we're in agreement on a topic :eek:
*shudder* And it's not exactly a commonly held view, is it?

Actually, our positions on a topic are often in agreement. It's usually the reasoning behind it we disagree on.

"His" evolution and ours seem to be too remarkably alike. I think we made god in our own image. Not vice-versa.
Quite a remarkable observation, if I may say so. I personally don't think that God is a complete fabrication, but I do agree that the vast majority of what people say/think/believe about God is completely made up exactly in the way and for the reasons you describe.

Wow a Goddess, ya mind if I come and visit and stuff? your husband Hermes wont mind will he? hehe I love Mythology

LOL.... kinda wrapped up in Adonis at the moment.
Oh, and sorry about that whole Helen of Troy / Trojan War fiasco.
I was a real bitch then. LMAO

[QUOTE=Kraj

Quite a remarkable observation, if I may say so. I personally don't think that God is a complete fabrication, but I do agree that the vast majority of what people say/think/believe about God is completely made up exactly in the way and for the reasons you describe.[/QUOTE]

That's because we can't even grasp the concept of an expanding universe or that fact that it's larger than it's life time multiplied by the speed of light allows it to be, but it is.

LOL.... kinda wrapped up in Adonis at the moment.
Oh, and sorry about that whole Helen of Troy / Trojan War fiasco.
I was a real bitch then. LMAO

Eh no worries, Helen wasn't that hawt. come on really "the face that launched a 1000 ships?" hell no they were lucky to have 1000 ships in the entire fleet. and besides she looked kinda like a horse. That could be how they got the idea for the trojan horse. hummmmmssss :p :D ;)

They are daft. If faith is their argument, there's no point talking to them.


No. They can't look at the scientific evidence that evolution is the most likely method of life on Earth and subscribe to the completely illogical notion of a Creator. What makes you think they would accept Jesus didn't exist on presentation of proof? The stupid seed gets planted by religious parents and the child growing up in such an environment that fears to question (perhaps embarrassed they believe something that is so utterly stupid?) will perpetuate such nonsense with their own children.

"illogical notion"? I find it impossible to believe that enough components of anything over any amount of time, could finally come together and make a pocket watch much less a human or any kind of animal life. It seems to me that it takes more faith to believe something that illogical! or else it's just any explaination except creation.

The same folks that you accuse of planting "stupid seed" would more than likely have the same opinion about someone who can't see the logic of what they believe. Hopefully, the difference being they would not resort to trying to make them selves look so intelligent while standing on the back of the one they are trying to bring down. Just because someone doesn't argee with your point of view doesn't make them stupid. Just means they don't agree with you. They would also more than likely shake their heads at what your teaching your children and not understand how a parent could do something like that to their child.

What is it about God, Jesus and the Bible that gets under your skin so bad that you resort to belittling anyone who does believe in it?

"illogical notion"? I find it impossible to believe that enough components of anything over any amount of time, could finally come together and make a pocket watch much less a human or any kind of animal life. It seems to me that it takes more faith to believe something that illogical! or else it's just any explaination except creation.

The same folks that you accuse of planting "stupid seed" would more than likely have the same opinion about someone who can't see the logic of what they believe. Hopefully, the difference being they would not resort to trying to make them selves look so intelligent while standing on the back of the one they are trying to bring down. Just because someone doesn't argee with your point of view doesn't make them stupid. Just means they don't agree with you. They would also more than likely shake their heads at what your teaching your children and not understand how a parent could do something like that to their child.

What is it about God, Jesus and the Bible that gets under your skin so bad that you resort to belittling anyone who does believe in it?

He's an atheist fanatic. Just like I said before.

They would also more than likely shake their heads at what your teaching your children and not understand how a parent could do something like that to their child.

Depends how you define the word teach

What is it about God, Jesus and the Bible that gets under your skin so bad that you resort to belittling anyone who does believe in it?

It's very simple actually; It's a kneejerk reaction, like most things are, to:
a) something not understood - do you understand all the tiny little details of Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, what it's really like to be a woman with PMT? That final item in the list is a prime example - male comedians have been mercilessly taking the mickey out of this chemical imbalance because it's something they can never understand
b) a form of self-defense. To be on the receiving end of "believe in our religion or we'll kill you" over the millenia, down to "invite Jesus into your life" in the middle of suppertime. From my own (very limited) observations, Christianity seems to be the one religion that goes off on the deep-end with converting the heretic. Muslims simply want to kill the non-believer (over-generalisation), which is quick and far more painless than the preaching and the nagging.

My business is my business, my life is my life. You have yours, I have mine. I won't inflict me on you, I don't expect you do inflict you on me.

what it's really like to be a woman with PMT?
Thats twice in 2 days you've mentioned this phenomenon;) is it something you have an interest in?

Col

Thats twice in 2 days you've mentioned this phenomenon;) is it something you have an interest in?

Col


A suffering of, Col. I have the equivalent of a dammit doll which is getting quite a lot of abuse at the moment

A suffering of, Col. I have the equivalent of a dammit doll which is getting quite a lot of abuse at the moment
say no more.

man says innocently to wife. . . . . . ."are you ok dear?"

wife slowly looks round to him. . . . . . WHAT??????

man says. . . . . "dinner ready yet?"

wife's eyes dilate jet black. . . . . .WHAT DID YOU SAY????

man. . . . .exit stage right to pub, rather sharpish

Col

Depends how you define the word teach

I was just following what SJ McAbney had written but changed the word to teach. I think he was referring to an influence of what the child was raised around so I guess I was referring to the same thing.

They would also more than likely shake their heads at what your teaching your children and not understand how a parent could do something like that to their child.

I used to have a similar opinion of religion as Messrs. McAbney, et al. until someone described it to me in a different way: If you saw someone drowning and you had a life-vest, wouldn't you feel obligated to throw it to them, even if they didn't realise they were in trouble? The same could be applied to religion - just because someone doesn't realise it, doesn't mean that the religious person doesn't wholeheartedly believe that they would benefit from it.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a believer myself but it's harder to get annoyed with someone who wants to talk about God, Buddha, or whomever, when taken in that context.

[QUOTE=Matt Greatorex]I used to have a similar opinion of religion as Messrs. McAbney, et al. until someone described it to me in a different way: If you saw someone drowning and you had a life-vest, wouldn't you feel obligated to throw it to them, even if they didn't realise they were in trouble? The same could be applied to religion - just because someone doesn't realise it, doesn't mean that the religious person doesn't wholeheartedly believe that they would benefit from it.[QUOTE]

As a devout First Aider I can agree with that philosophy up to a point. The counter-argument is, what if they were committing suicide? You'd be pretty ticked off if someone saved you when you know very well what you are doing and what you want the outcome to be. In other words, keep the lifejacket for yourself and MYOBB
(Not a personal attack I hasten to add - just you in the over-generalised sense)

... If you saw someone drowning and you had a life-vest, wouldn't you feel obligated to throw it to them, even if they didn't realise they were in trouble? The same could be applied to religion - just because someone doesn't realise it, doesn't mean that the religious person doesn't wholeheartedly believe that they would benefit from it...

Matt:

This analogy is taken slightly out of context but is based on CS Lewis' Mere Christianity.

You raise a great point. Christians who evangelize feel that they are doing good and that it's their job. I don't think that Nikky or others ever would question that or blame them.

However, that doesn't make it any less annoying for people like you or me when we are pestered, nagged, bombarded or even have these people ring our doorbells to bring us their "Good News". As well-meaning as they may be, the reaction of "leave me alone" is going to be the same.

SHADOW

Agreed - and put so much more eloquently than I could :)

Agreed - and put so much more eloquently than I could :)

Is this directed to my post...?

SHADOW

Matt:

This analogy is taken slightly out of context but is based on CS Lewis' Mere Christianity.

You raise a great point. Christians who evangelize feel that they are doing good and that it's their job. I don't think that Nikky or others ever would question that or blame them.

However, that doesn't make it any less annoying for people like you or me when we are pestered, nagged, bombarded or even have these people ring our doorbells to bring us their "Good News". As well-meaning as they may be, the reaction of "leave me alone" is going to be the same.

SHADOW

Personally, it makes it a lot less annoying for me. I get far more irritated by people cold-calling and trying to sell something. Especially those who call every night (as if I'm going to suddenly need their services).

However, it's the 'blame' bit that comes across particularly strongly in these forums. The fact that some posters say things in a desperate attempt to be 'controversial' notwithstanding, there have been some downright insulting and pig-ignorant comments thrown towards the more religious members of the community and their beliefs.

All I was trying to do was remind the less tolerant that there is another side to the argument and it's not particularly constructive to immediately resort to name-calling and slinging around derogatory phrases.

If you were to back and count how many postings in this thread included at least one insult, I bet the number would be depressingly high. :(

Hi Shadow - yes it was.

I agree that I don't blame evangelists for doing their job, and I doubly agree about the "leave me alone" attitude. And I commend your eloquence and balanced view. It's nice to see.

...All I was trying to do was remind the less tolerant that there is another side to the argument and it's not particularly constructive to immediately resort to name-calling and slinging around derogatory phrases.

...If you were to back and count how many postings in this thread included at least one insult, I bet the number would be depressingly high. :(

Fair enough. I try to stick to the policy of "let's discuss the issues, not the people". There's no reason we can't have a difference of opinion without taking it and making it personal.

Unfortunately, it seems that many or most people don't know how to be told something that controverts what they happen to believe without making it a personal issue.

SHADOW

I agree that I don't blame evangelists for doing their job, and I doubly agree about the "leave me alone" attitude. And I commend your eloquence and balanced view. It's nice to see.

Thank you for your kind words :)

SHADOW

However, it's the 'blame' bit that comes across particularly strongly in these forums. The fact that some posters say things in a desperate attempt to be 'controversial' notwithstanding, there have been some downright insulting and pig-ignorant comments thrown towards the more religious members of the community and their beliefs.
The more religious members of the forum ie. god fearing christians, hold the record for slinging personal insults on this forum. I don't follow your argument:confused:

The more religious members of the forum ie. god fearing christians, hold the record for slinging personal insults on this forum. I don't follow your argument:confused:
At the risk of getting into the same old argument....

If I know that someone is from a given place and/or has certain beliefs, then saying that everyone of that nationality is an idiot or anyone who believes those things is too stupid to bother with is an insult to them. i don't have the time or patience to count the number of all personal vs 'non-personal' (if we're still going to play the semantics game) insults, but I'd be willing to bet the number of times a certain country's residents get called names is way higher than the number of specific attackes on anybody.

This particular thread has had many insults posted that were directed at religious people before one of them even got involved. By my reckoning, things were more or less civilized until post #14, when the anti-religious insults and inflammatory statements began. By #18 the anti-US remarks had begun. It wasn't until #34 that someone on the 'defending' side chipped in with anything at all. And it wasn't until the high 60s that anything approaching an insult was aimed in the other direction.

Do you see what I'm saying, now?

but I'd be willing to bet the number of times a certain country's residents get called names is way higher than the number of specific attackes on anybody.

No the country gets attacked, however for some reason they take it personally. I think it's insecurity or something

No the country gets attacked, however for some reason they take it personally. I think it's insecurity or something

No you don't ;)

No you don't ;)
Yes I do ;)

The more religious members of the forum ie. god fearing christians, hold the record for slinging personal insults on this forum. I don't follow your argument:confused:

Please say you don’t really believe that.

Your, thinly veiled, insults and personal attacks; fool no one, even your own countrymen seem to shutter when you make statements like that.

I can feel them, they're shuttering right now.

Please say you don’t really believe that.

Your thinly veiled insults and personal attacks; fool no one, even your own countrymen seem to shutter when you make statements like that.

I can feel them, they're shuttering right now.
Time for sleep :rolleyes:

Time for sleep :rolleyes:
Sleep well, of course you will, knowing we gotch your back.

Sleep well, of course you will, knowing we gotch your back.
You've got nothing of mine except for contempt, now try and stay on topic

At the risk of getting into the same old argument....

If I know that someone is from a given place and/or has certain beliefs, then saying that everyone of that nationality is an idiot or anyone who believes those things is too stupid to bother with is an insult to them. i don't have the time or patience to count the number of all personal vs 'non-personal' (if we're still going to play the semantics game) insults, but I'd be willing to bet the number of times a certain country's residents get called names is way higher than the number of specific attackes on anybody.

This particular thread has had many insults posted that were directed at religious people before one of them even got involved. By my reckoning, things were more or less civilized until post #14, when the anti-religious insults and inflammatory statements began. By #18 the anti-US remarks had begun. It wasn't until #34 that someone on the 'defending' side chipped in with anything at all. And it wasn't until the high 60s that anything approaching an insult was aimed in the other direction.

Do you see what I'm saying, now?

Matt, I appreciate your remarks and level headness. If it was my post that you were referring to that was in the high 60's and was "anything approaching an insult", then I apologize cause I really did not mean to come across insulting. I was just trying to post something that would show if the shoe was on the other foot, how would it sound. Once again, my apologizes to anyone that my remarks insulted.

I used to have a similar opinion of religion as Messrs. McAbney, et al. until someone described it to me in a different way: If you saw someone drowning and you had a life-vest, wouldn't you feel obligated to throw it to them, even if they didn't realise they were in trouble? The same could be applied to religion - just because someone doesn't realise it, doesn't mean that the religious person doesn't wholeheartedly believe that they would benefit from it.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a believer myself but it's harder to get annoyed with someone who wants to talk about God, Buddha, or whomever, when taken in that context.

Well said Matt and as a professing Christian then I would say that is how I feel. I don't think it is my job to convert anyone and therefor I do not choke a conversation down anyone's throat, that is about God. On the other hand, I do believe in what the Bible teaches and have a very real concern and heartfelt burden for anyone that does not. I don't want to be a pest about it and always hope that I don't come across that way.

You've got nothing of mine except for contempt, now try and stay on topic

I don’t care to engage in theological discussions,

Don’t you get it?

I only have one religious obsession, that’s to cure you of your infernal megalomaniac neurosis.

I don’t care to engage in theological discussions,

Don’t you get it?

I only have one religious obsession, that’s to cure you of your infernal megalomaniac neurosis.
You're getting me confused with your leader

I only have one religious obsession, that’s to cure you of your infernal megalomaniac neurosis.
Just ship him Haldol and be done with it, then. :rolleyes:

Just ship him Haldol and be done with it, then. :rolleyes:


Perfect solution there Kraj.

I infer from that you suspect him of being psychotic not merely neurotic.

I infer from that you suspect him of being psychotic not merely neurotic.
"Bingo" is apparently too short a message and disallowed by the forums. Therfore, my more wordy response is: "Your inferrance is astute."

Just ship him Haldol and be done with it, then. :rolleyes:
nah thanks I've seen how well it's worked on your president, in any case coming from America it'll have string attached

in any case coming from America it'll have string attached
...so you can pull it back out of your stomache? :confused:

...so you can pull it back out of your stomache? :confused:
what's a stomache:confused:

what's a stomache:confused:
where a potatoe goes when you eat it :p

what's a stomache:confused:
A stomach with an ache. ;)

where a potatoe goes when you eat it :p

Liked this one :D

You've got nothing of mine except for contempt, now try and stay on topic

ROFL
I am typing this through tears of laughter, need I comment more?

Brian

A stomach with an ache. ;)

The funniest part is that I’m so bad at spelling I don’t even notice the errors and you guys start making jokes about, well my friends, the jokes on me.

the jokes on me.
What's new?:confused:

What's new?:confused:


Well that's true, but at least I admit it, and laugh at myself.

Well that's true, but at least I admit it, and laugh at myself.
Well it's a step in the right direction

and have a very real concern and heartfelt burden for anyone that does not.
That's odd, I have the same feelings for those of your ilk

That's odd, I have the same feelings for those of your ilk

I can see how you would say nasty things to me. But why would you spill your muck on respectable people?

I can see how you would say nasty things to me. But why would you spill your muck on respectable people?
You mean me saying that's odd, I have the same feelings for those of your ilk is muck but this isn't "and have a very real concern and heartfelt burden for anyone that does not."
Still nothing new for you is it?

You mean me saying that's odd, I have the same feelings for those of your ilk is muck but this isn't "and have a very real concern and heartfelt burden for anyone that does not."
Still nothing new for you is it?

If you took it as muck, then I must have said it wrong because I didn't mean it as muck. I thought I was following what Matt had written and was being sincere with what I said. I believe what I believe. You don't have to share that belief, but because I do, then I do have a heartfelt burden for those that don't. How is that muck? I would rather it show that I care.

If you took it as muck, then I must have said it wrong because I didn't mean it as muck. I thought I was following what Matt had written and was being sincere with what I said. I believe what I believe. You don't have to share that belief, but because I do, then I do have a heartfelt burden for those that don't. How is that muck? I would rather it show that I care.
Where did I say I took it as muck?

Where did I say I took it as muck?

I guess I thought this made it sound like what you were saying:


You mean me saying that's odd, I have the same feelings for those of your ilk is muck but this isn't "and have a very real concern and heartfelt burden for anyone that does not."

but never mind it really doesn't matter much.

I guess I thought this made it sound like what you were saying:




but never mind it really doesn't matter much.
Saunders introduced the work muck into the thread, not me

I would rather it show that I care.Perhaps, from your point of view, Shane.

On the other hand, since one's faith, spirituality, or lack thereof, is a completely personal experience, your "concern" over that facet of someone's psyche could be perceived as more than slightly pompous. We're not talking about being born with a disability, we're talking about a conscious decision that is, IMHO, the pinnacle of self awareness, definition, and perception. It is by these choices, not the blind following in the teachings of our forefathers, that we define ourselves. In essence, you attack that part of the self that was created on purpose, not by a quirk of biology or genetics.

Perhaps, from your point of view, Shane.

On the other hand, since one's faith, spirituality, or lack thereof, is a completely personal experience, your "concern" over that facet of someone's psyche could be perceived as more than slightly pompous. We're not talking about being born with a disability, we're talking about a conscious decision that is, IMHO, the pinnacle of self awareness, definition, and perception. It is by these choices, not the blind following in the teachings of our forefathers, that we define ourselves. In essence, you attack that part of the self that was created on purpose, not by a quirk of biology or genetics.

I don't disagree with you which is why I don't go around "sharing my faith." However, in this particular case, Matt brought up a way of thinking and I was at least being honest enough to say, I think along those lines. If you and I worked together and I knew you, even as much as I know over the internet, then you would be someone that I would talk to about sports or whatever subject you wanted to but if God, Jesus and the Bible would ever be discussed then it would only be because you brought it up. My beliefs are such that I would have a heart felt concern for you and probably, unknowingly to you, I would even pray for you:eek: , but I would not use that as a license to "bring up THE conversation" with you. If that makes me "perceived as more than slightly pompous", then I guess I would have to live with that. To me it's caring enough about Bodi and my fellow man have a place in my heart for them. At the same time I do understand that everything in life is a personal choice and I am not the belief police and can not go around trying to get people to "see it my way." I think this thread lends it's self for me to go beyond how I would normally talk and act and give my 2 cents worth.

To me it's caring enough about Bodi and my fellow man have a place in my heart for them.
Why doesn't the rest of America share this feeling then?:confused:

Why doesn't the rest of America share this feeling then?:confused:

Don't know. You will need to ask them. I haven't had the opportunity to meet all of them.:D

Why doesn't the rest of America share this feeling then?:confused:

What does the "rest" of America think Rich?

What does the "rest" of America think Rich?
Well I don't have time for a definitive list at the minute but basically f*** you we're American

Shane, I didn't say I perceived you as pompous...;)

Since this can be a touchy subject, I'll try again. For me, my decisions in spirituality steer as far from structured religion as possible and I avoid, or at least attempt to, the labels of christianity, etc. because of my own personal experiences. I do not feel that I am wrong, nor do I feel you are wrong...we have just made choices in our lives and about ourselves based upon our own perception of self. I don't consider myself more enlightened than a muslim, jew, or your average southern baptist (well maybe a southern baptist:eek: ) I just consider the path that I am on to be a personal one. For that reason, I don't understand why you would feel the need to pray for me or feel concerned for me simply because my personal decisions are different from yours. And don't take that as combative as it isn't meant to be.

Rich, the question was:What does the "rest" of America think Rich?not What does the "rest" of America think of Rich?

Rich, the question was:not
What does the "rest" of America think of Rich?
He knows too much ?

Shane, I didn't say I perceived you as pompous...;)

Since this can be a touchy subject, I'll try again. For me, my decisions in spirituality steer as far from structured religion as possible and I avoid, or at least attempt to, the labels of christianity, etc. because of my own personal experiences. I do not feel that I am wrong, nor do I feel you are wrong...we have just made choices in our lives and about ourselves based upon our own perception of self. I don't consider myself more enlightened than a muslim, jew, or your average southern baptist (well maybe a southern baptist:eek: ) I just consider the path that I am on to be a personal one. For that reason, I don't understand why you would feel the need to pray for me or feel concerned for me simply because my personal decisions are different from yours. And don't take that as combative as it isn't meant to be.

Hey Bodi, I know you didn't say you perceived me as pompous nor did I take it that way. Didn't mean to give you the perception that I took it that way. I figured you were telling me of how people can take folks like me, even if that is not how I intended to come across.

"need to pray for you" First, I did not take anything combative. Feel the need to pray? I'm afraid to answer because it will just cause everything to be put under a mircoscope. If you allow some slack to be cut to me, then I would say it like this. You are right in saying you believe what you do and I believe what I do. Because of what I believe then I also I believe I'm right.:D I would think that would make sense to anyone, cause otherwise I wouldn't believe it. You believe what you do and you believe your right. The difference between the beliefs is that I believe the Bible and the Bible tells me of choices made and the consequences of those choices. Therefor, if someone is choosing against the things taught in the Bible, because of my beliefs, then I would want to pray for them, cause if the Bible is right, the ending places are either real good or real bad.:) I'm trying to not dive too deep into this cause I know there is a chance of pulling it apart, but I am trying to get the point across that I am sincere in what I believe to the point of not wanting anyone to end up in the real bad place. (Assuming the Bible is right.) Now with that being said. I am not wanting to be combative either. I would have to admit that if a Jew was to meet me and believed I was way off for believing in this Jesus as the Messiah thing and chose to pray for me because I do believe it. It wouldn't make me think anything one way or the other. If it did then maybe it would tell me that at least I meant enough to them for them to take the time and pray for me.

For that reason, I don't understand why you would feel the need to pray for me or feel concerned for me simply because my personal decisions are different from yours.

I'd like to take this point up if I may.

Belief is not the same as truth. It can't be. For if it was the notion of Jesus as the Messiah would both be proven and disproven as truth by the Christian and Jewish faiths respectively.

So how is this problem dealt with. The only way it can be, that any faith that conflicts with one's own MUST be wrong. This conclusion leaves the road wide open for any scenario of one's faith to be interpretated as reality. Nothing can conflict with this because any conflicting concept has already been dismissed as incorrect.

Hell, then, for some IS a reality. To say it is not is to say that a conflict to one's faith is acceptable as truth and that of course cannot be done without accepting that one's own faith could be wrong.

Thus hell is perceived as real and certain individuals are perceived as heading there. Some may think that this perception is ill-conceived but this makes no difference to the perception. You could decide to attempt to alter this perception but until you are successful, this perception is as real as the sky is blue (for the perceiver)

Having said all this I would say that an attempt to prevent another's future suffering, though this suffering is yet to be proven, is still a benevolent act. :)

...any faith that conflicts with one's own MUST be wrong. The quintessential genesis of every major conflict since the beginning of time :D
Having said all this I would say that an attempt to prevent another's future suffering, though this suffering is yet to be proven, is still a benevolent act. :) Some of us (read that as "I") perceive it as exactly that. Although my faith tells me that it's a complete waste of time, the act itself has meaning to the actor, therefore it is in that context by which it must be evaluated. The problems arise with those who will not, either as a direct result of a personal decision or a cultural one, ever accept it as anything close to benevolence. It's all about perception.

You can probably guess from my location tag that I have alot of contact with people who have very strong beliefs.

One thing is clear to me. There are some who genuinely believe in damnation and genuinely pray for the 'lost' because they want non-believers to avoid hell. There are others who I think don't believe it at all but use the concept as a tool to elevate themselves above others. The first group can be so passionate about their belief that they can easily get confused with the second. But I am certain that both groups do exist.

The quintessential genesis of every major conflict since the beginning of time :D
.


Throughout history and certainly much further back then that, I think major conflict, is born of plumage.

Throughout history and certainly much further back then that, I think major conflict, is born of plumage.
Feathers on a bird cause wars?:confused: :confused:

Hell, then, for some IS a reality.
You mean like Baghdad?:confused:

You mean like Baghdad?:confused:

Yes. Baghdad, for some is a reality.

Yes. Baghdad, for some is a reality.
So hell does actually exist?

So hell does actually exist?

Don't you know?

Don't you know?
You're tempting me:eek:

Yes. Baghdad, for some is a reality.
Go preach your religious nonsense somewhere else! :mad: ;) :p

You're tempting me:eek:

:eek: :eek:

What with :confused:

Go preach your religious nonsense somewhere else! :mad: ;) :p

I'd probably get more converts if I did preach elsewhere. Like Baghdad for example :p

Shouldn't we all be at church or something :p

So how is this problem dealt with. The only way it can be, that any faith that conflicts with one's own MUST be wrong. This conclusion leaves the road wide open for any scenario of one's faith to be interpretated as reality. Nothing can conflict with this because any conflicting concept has already been dismissed as incorrect.
Which is why "young earth" creationists will never accept evolution, no matter how logically it is presented to them.

In the beginning, large reptiles, called dinosaurs, dominated the Earth. As evolution continued, some of these dinosaurs developed a modified bone structure, along with feathers, and took to the air. The rest of the dinosaurs looked upon this bird-flu pandemic with horror as the face of the planet began to change before their very eyes:eek: It was decided during their Sunday morning services that all "birds" should be destroyed to prevent the spread of this "bird-flu" and restore order to the universe. Those who did not heed the call would damn themselves to hell...a nightmarish place in Mesopotamia near the present city of Baghdad.

As evolution continued, some of these dinosaurs developed a modified bone structure, along with feathers, and took to the air.

They became collectively known as...

THE X-O-SAURS!!

They became collectively known as...

THE X-O-SAURS!!Positively aghast with the creation of the third chromosome and the scandalous departure from the XX, XY mainstream, the remaining dinosaurs mercilessly persecuted these gender-challenged, trans-reptilian troublemakers. Finally, these scallywags were trapped in a volcano by the Intergalactic Empirical Dictator XENU!..:eek: :eek:

Positively aghast with the creation of the third chromosome and the scandalous departure from the XX, XY mainstream, the remaining dinosaurs mercilessly persecuted these gender-challenged, trans-reptilian troublemakers. Finally, these scallywags were trapped in a volcano by the Intergalactic Empirical Dictator XENU!..:eek: :eek:

...and this is where I disembark from the space-ship bound for planet Bod :p

...and this is where I disembark from the space-ship bound for planet Bod :pWhat can I say...it's been one of those days. Iwill try to contain myself.:D

What can I say...it's been one of those days. Iwill try to contain myself.:D

It's my fault really, I should have realised that I was on the wrong bus when the fuel tanks got jettisoned. :D