Mircales Exposed!

angelica

dkst0426 wrote:

You're dwelling on the whole "grassy marsh" bit, which for starters is a Wiki entry, for crying out loud. When you have a bit of scholarly information as opposed to open-source information that anyone with an ax to grind about Biblical truth can post for the world to see, then maybe you'll have more credibility.

Secondly, the fact that you keep dwelling on the "grassy marsh" information is proof alone that even as you post these bits of "information" and decry those who display any disagreement, you aren't even willing to respond to differing points of view when citations are given. I posted a link about 4 pages back, and you have YET to address ANY of it.

Instead it seems that folks are far more interested in mocking other peoples' beliefs and taking shots at each other or pointing out the holes in the way people address issues rather than actually looking at the substance of what they have to say.

I'll post just the closing of that article, since it states far more eloquently what I've been trying to say:

I agree. I appreciate your efforts dkst0426 and your approach.

Hiding behind "facts" and "proof" and "science" does not obfuscate one's unresolved emotional issues towards the subject matter.

harmless_little_f***

I've waited for a while to come into this, but I will here. According to the study I have done (first degree was in theology), the stuff Ahnimus writes about the Red Sea/Sea of Reeds is widely believed to be correct by biblical scholars; indeed, my vicar believes the Red Sea is a mistranslation. Also, the stuff about the miracles having possible scientific explanations also has a fair bit of evidence to support it.

That said, to believe that any of that shakes or debunks the very foundations of Christian faith (as Ahnimus clearly does) is ridiculous, and misses the point entirely. Plently of people believe everything you have cited using Wikipedia, Ahnimus, and yet continue following God and believing in Christianity completely unhindered. Like me for example. The fact that science supports, and can explain, the possibility of the 10 plagues occuring one after another only strengthens my faith, actually.

CorporateWhore

I don't know about the Bible, but I did read that that most heralded of atheist values, environmentalism, is nothing but a sham! haha, global warming is indeed not true at all!

Read on and become enlightened atheists!

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

Collin

cornnifer wrote:

i'm more interested in why you called ME out?

Because you're THE Christian :cool:

Collin

CorporateWhore wrote:

I don't know about the Bible, but I did read that that most heralded of atheist values, environmentalism, is nothing but a sham! haha, global warming is indeed not true at all!

Read on and become enlightened atheists!

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

That's not what the article says at all. And don't pretend only atheists take the global warming threat seriously.

Ahnimus

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

I've waited for a while to come into this, but I will here. According to the study I have done (first degree was in theology), the stuff Ahnimus writes about the Red Sea/Sea of Reeds is widely believed to be correct by biblical scholars; indeed, my vicar believes the Red Sea is a mistranslation. Also, the stuff about the miracles having possible scientific explanations also has a fair bit of evidence to support it.

That said, to believe that any of that shakes or debunks the very foundations of Christian faith (as Ahnimus clearly does) is ridiculous, and misses the point entirely. Plently of people believe everything you have cited using Wikipedia, Ahnimus, and yet continue following God and believing in Christianity completely unhindered. Like me for example. The fact that science supports, and can explain, the possibility of the 10 plagues occuring one after another only strengthens my faith, actually.

Ok, so you acknowledge that their was a translational error. Such an error that the event is commonly described as "Moses raising his staff to part the sea, and god forces the water to separate into massive walls" as seen in these pictures. http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=parting%20of%20the%20red%20sea&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Now, consider that the Old Testament, the foundation of Judeo-Christian religon, was passed down verbally for hundreds of generations. Just imagine how fucked up the story got. In one single generation, the story went from "walking across a grassy marsh" to "parting a massive body of water". So maybe Abraham simply suggested their might be one god and all the idol smashing and stuff that followed was added as the story was mutated.

What you should be left with, is no fucking idea.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I agree. I appreciate your efforts dkst0426 and your approach.

Hiding behind "facts" and "proof" and "science" does not obfuscate one's unresolved emotional issues towards the subject matter.

Don't forget, emotion is the product of an engram in the brain. When one neuron in the engram fires, the engram fires and produces an emotional state, which is corroborated by a surge of peptides supportive of the emotional state. When you talk about emotion, you are talking about a logically structured process of reaction. Yet, it's only as logical as the structure that causes it.

Emotional states aren't constant experiences that everyone shares. I don't share your emotional state surrounding God. I'm not ignoring it, it's just simply not there. I deconstructed that engram ten years ago.

harmless_little_f***

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, so you acknowledge that their was a translational error. Such an error that the event is commonly described as "Moses raising his staff to part the sea, and god forces the water to separate into massive walls" as seen in these pictures.

Firstly, my faith does not have a few artistic renditions (found on Google, might I add) as its bedrock. Neither does the Jesus I know have bright blue eyes and blonde hair. So I've spared you the Google search on that one as well.

Ahnimus wrote:

Now, consider that the Old Testament, the foundation of Judeo-Christian religon, was passed down verbally for hundreds of generations. Just imagine how fucked up the story got. In one single generation, the story went from "walking across a grassy marsh" to "parting a massive body of water". So maybe Abraham simply suggested their might be one god and all the idol smashing and stuff that followed was added as the story was mutated.

What you should be left with, is no fucking idea.

Not strictly true. The Sea of Reeds example is simply one assertion of hundreds of thousands of biblical issues of scholarly debate of which, on this subject, many people have reached a conclusion. Once again, pats on the back for the Google search; the Sea of Reeds is just one issue which probably is not debatable or disprovable. Everything you've mentioned above, however, deserves its own vigorous study. If you're prepared to take it on, feel free to debuff the stories of Abraham and the growth of the Isrealite nation. All you've done here so far is speculation. 'So maybe...' 'simply suggested' 'idol smashing stuff' etc. Consider? Imagine? Oh please.

By the way, as far as the fact that most of the Bible came about through the oral tradition, yes, you are right. It did. As did our entire, global human heritage. Nothing in this world was written down at all until around the time of the Ancient Egyptians, and yet, before the ancient Egyptians, there were the roots of not only religion, but history, geography, mathematics, science, and all other forms of academic enquiry. So this, in itself, is no argument against anyone's right to informed religious faith.

Anhimus, even your own beloved Science was once an oral tradition.

Ahnimus

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

Firstly, my faith does not have a few artistic renditions (found on Google, might I add) as its bedrock. Neither does the Jesus I know have bright blue eyes and blonde hair. So I've spared you the Google search on that one as well.

Not strictly true. The Sea of Reeds example is simply one assertion of hundreds of thousands of biblical issues of scholarly debate of which, on this subject, many people have reached a conclusion. Once again, pats on the back for the Google search; the Sea of Reeds is just one issue which probably is not debatable or disprovable. Everything you've mentioned above, however, deserves its own vigorous study. If you're prepared to take it on, feel free to debuff the stories of Abraham and the growth of the Isrealite nation. All you've done here so far is speculation. 'So maybe...' 'simply suggested' 'idol smashing stuff' etc. Consider? Imagine? Oh please.

By the way, as far as the fact that most of the Bible came about through the oral tradition, yes, you are right. It did. As did our entire, global human heritage. Nothing in this world was written down at all until around the time of the Ancient Egyptians, and yet, before the ancient Egyptians, there were the roots of not only religion, but history, geography, mathematics, science, and all other forms of academic enquiry. So this, in itself, is no argument against anyone's right to informed religious faith.

Anhimus, even your own beloved Science was once an oral tradition.

Well, Science is provable, Mathematics are provable, today. We can look at each and every historical representation of Science or Mathematics and validate it or disprove it. Stories, we can't validate. The stories themselves are speculative.

Given that the stories have been mutated and we now know about several mental conditions leading to false beliefs, false memories and cognitive discrepencies leading to mass hallucination and pareidolia. I don't see how the Bible has a single shred of factual anything. It's a fairy tale.

I don't see how anyone can believe a word of what it says. However, as a gentleman suggested to me today; Under a given amount of psychological stress, people will believe anything that gives them an escape.

harmless_little_f***

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, Science is provable, Mathematics are provable, today. We can look at each and every historical representation of Science or Mathematics and validate it or disprove it. Stories, we can't validate. The stories themselves are speculative.

Given that the stories have been mutated and we now know about several mental conditions leading to false beliefs, false memories and cognitive discrepencies leading to mass hallucination and pareidolia. I don't see how the Bible has a single shred of factual anything. It's a fairy tale.

I don't see how anyone can believe a word of what it says. However, as a gentleman suggested to me today; Under a given amount of psychological stress, people will believe anything that gives them an escape.

Well as long as you don't see how anyone can, Ahnimus, it must not be possible. End of debate. I apologise for having a go, oh super debater.

Ahnimus

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

Well as long as you don't see how anyone can, Ahnimus, it must not be possible. End of debate. I apologise for having a go, oh super debater.

lol, I don't know if I'm right.

But, I certainly hope the Bible is wrong.

Eternal peace is non-existence. IMO.

The Bible portrays God as the ultimate control freak. Do as he/she/it says or be banished to hell for an eternity. Analogous to the kind of behavior we wouldn't condone in modern society. If you think rape, and abuse is bad, try banishing someone to hell for eternity because they doubted you.

The myth of God works only on fear. Without the fear of God there is no reason to believe in God and hence no reason to worship God or follow God's rules. If you think Hitler was bad, just wait for Armageddon. By contrast, Satan will accept anyone with open arms. Ironically, temptation is the devil's tool. Would then, the temptation of eternal life in heaven, not be the work of Satan. Perhaps Lucifer wrote the Bible. :cool:

harmless_little_f***

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't know if I'm right.

On the contrary, I reckon you think that you are right, and that everyone on this thread who doesn't agree with you is wrong. How did you put it? 'Analogous to the kind of behaviour I wouldn't condone in modern society.'

Ahnimus

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

On the contrary, I reckon you think that you are.

Yea, I think I am. I'm pretty sure I am. The Bible is a series of contradictions back-to-back.

Mat 6:13 (Phi) "Keep us clear of temptation, and save us from evil."

f thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, THOU SHALT BE SAVED. (Romans 10:9)

Is that not direct temptation? A contradiction .

harmless_little_f***

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, I think I am. I'm pretty sure I am. The Bible is a series of contradictions back-to-back.

Mat 6:13 (Phi) "Keep us clear of temptation, and save us from evil."

f thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, THOU SHALT BE SAVED. (Romans 10:9)

Is that not direct temptation? A contradiction .

That's not in the slightest bit contradictory, no. What website are you reading all this from? The first verse is referring to the temptation towards greed and evil.

Oh, I forgot, Ahnimus believes that belief in God is evil. Therefore it must be.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, I think I am. I'm pretty sure I am. The Bible is a series of contradictions back-to-back.

Mat 6:13 (Phi) "Keep us clear of temptation, and save us from evil."

f thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, THOU SHALT BE SAVED. (Romans 10:9)

Is that not direct temptation? A contradiction .

is being tempted a sin if one acknowledges it, but does not act upon it?

harmless_little_f***

catefrances wrote:

is being tempted a sin if one acknowledges it, but does not act upon it?

You've got a pretty good point, catefrances. Nowhere does the Bible say temptation is actually a sin; the actions which temptations lead us towards are sinful.

Ahnimus

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

That's not in the slightest bit contradictory, no. What website are you reading all this from? The first verse is referring to the temptation towards evil.

Oh, I forgot, Ahnimus believes that belief in God is evil. Therefore it must be.

So wait, there is temptation to good and evil? How the fuck do I know the difference? Is sex and chocolate good or evil? Where is the ruler, who draws the line? WTF?

God creates the universe, angels and man kind.

Man: "Whoa, where the fuck am I? Who the fuck am I?"

God: "I made you to worship me!"

Man: "Well that sounds like fun. NOT!"

God: "Worship me or I banish you to hell!"

Satan: "Do it man, all I did was suggest he should take it easy on you."

God: "Don't listen to him, he is Evil, he is trying to tempt you to do Evil deeds."

Satan: "No, do whatever you want. I don't care what you do."

A few thousand years passes...

Me: "Dude this sucks, God is a jerk."

God: "YOU! Banished to the black hole, to hell with you."

So I got to hell.

Me: "Hi Satan, wtf is wrong with that guy?"

Satan: "You know what they say, power corrupts..."

harmless_little_f***

Ahnimus wrote:

So wait, there is temptation to good and evil? How the fuck do I know the difference? Is sex and chocolate good or evil? Where is the ruler, who draws the line? WTF?

God creates the universe, angels and man kind.

Man: "Whoa, where the fuck am I? Who the fuck am I?"

God: "I made you to worship me!"

Man: "Well that sounds like fun. NOT!"

God: "Worship me or I banish you to hell!"

Satan: "Do it man, all I did was suggest he should take it easy on you."

God: "Don't listen to him, he is Evil, he is trying to tempt you to do Evil deeds."

Satan: "No, do whatever you want. I don't care what you do."

A few thousand years passes...

Me: "Dude this sucks, God is a jerk."

God: "YOU! Banished to the black hole, to hell with you."

So I got to hell.

Me: "Hi Satan, wtf is wrong with that guy?"

Satan: "You know what they say, power corrupts..."

That's a nice little folk tale you wrote. Forget the Bible, maybe your version is not bullshit.

catefrances

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

You've got a pretty good point, catefrances. Nowhere does the Bible say temptation is actually a sin; the actions which temptations lead us towards are sinful.

of course i do.
otherwise there'd be no way to separate the saint from the sinners.

Ahnimus

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

You've got a pretty good point, catefrances. Nowhere does the Bible say temptation is actually a sin; the actions which temptations lead us towards are sinful.

So, believing in God, because of the fear of death, is not a sin? But a good temptation?

"Suck my balls or I shoot you in the fucking head!"

"Yes master!"