| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/22/2007 11:21:55 PM · #176 |
Carl,
I've answered your questions. However, you've managed to take over this thread.
How about taking you Anti-Mormon diatribe on to another thread and let the OP have this thread back? You're welcome to copy my posts and place them in your new thread. In fact, please name it "Anti-Mormon diatribe, Or A One Sided View of Historical Events." :-)
Imagine, all of this because I would dare indicate that there are those that believe that there is a living prophet in answer to a quote posted in this thread.
In all fairness to the OP, I won't answer any more of your questions in this thread.
Now, I'm curious. Does your venom ever stick in your throat?
Becky
|
|
|
|
05/22/2007 11:25:57 PM · #177 |
| Adding an r to your, and to clarify that I am really trying to understand the venom that comes through in your posts. No sarcasm meant. |
|
|
|
05/23/2007 01:22:20 AM · #178 |
Oh my...
Yet another "Who Cares" thread...
Here we go:
Who cares what others believe? Aren't we all entitled to our own beliefs? As long as it isn't a hazard, why can't we just let it be?
After all, wasn't North America founded because people wanted religious freedom? I realize that this country doesn't have all of its shoes in one basket; but if I wanted to practice paganism or even Buddhism, I could. THAT is what makes it great!! Diversity and FREEDOM.
I'll tell ya, if my neighbors were of a religion where they were required to run around naked under a full moon, that would be fine with me. If their religion required them to sacrifice a goat once a week, that would be fine with me too (provided they didn't use dynamite of course).
WHY does anyone CARE what someone else believes? LEAVE THEM ALONE AND WE WILL ALLLLLL BE HAPPIER FOR IT!!
OP, I loved that article. It really makes a person stop and think about which category they fall into......... |
|
|
|
05/23/2007 01:27:35 AM · #179 |
If the bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe it.
- William Jennings Bryan |
|
|
|
05/23/2007 01:34:41 AM · #180 |
Originally posted by Zeuss:
If the bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe it.
- William Jennings Bryan |
He lost his case though... |
|
|
|
05/23/2007 01:37:11 AM · #181 |
Originally posted by Zeuss:
If the bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe it.
- William Jennings Bryan |
The Pope before the current one said the same thing, and it was reflected well in his recent book. |
|
|
|
05/23/2007 01:41:35 AM · #182 |
Oxymorons:
- military intelligence
- religious school
- educated clergy
- smart pope |
|
|
|
05/23/2007 11:24:01 AM · #183 |
Originally posted by Zeuss:
Oxymorons:
- military intelligence
- religious school
- educated clergy
- smart pope |
Actually the current pope is a very educated man, a scholar. I would also be interested in why your arguments are largely based on personal bias and not facts. I understand it's difficult to separate your emotions from something you strongly believe in .... but isn't that the very thing you're arguing against?
Originally posted by TCGuru[/quote:
I realize that this country doesn't have all of its shoes in one basket |
I've never heard that version of this quote before! I like it! :-D |
|
|
|
05/23/2007 12:33:06 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by TCGuru:
Originally posted by Zeuss:
If the bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe it.
- William Jennings Bryan |
He lost his case though... |
Depends, how you look at it -- Mr. Scopes was actually convicted of breaking what came to be seen as a ridiculous law. |
|
|
|
05/23/2007 10:54:46 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by TCGuru:
Originally posted by Zeuss:
If the bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe it.
- William Jennings Bryan |
He lost his case though... |
Depends, how you look at it -- Mr. Scopes was actually convicted of breaking what came to be seen as a ridiculous law. |
This is the "big" history in my town :)
Actually, A year later, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Dayton court on a technicality--not the constitutional grounds as Darrow had hoped. According to the court, the fine should have been set by the jury, not Raulston (the Judge). Rather than send the case back for further action, however, the Tennessee Supreme Court dismissed the case. The court commented, "Nothing is to be gained by prolonging the life of this bizarre case."
The Scopes trial by no means ended the debate over the teaching of evolution, but it did represent a significant setback for the anti-evolution forces. Of the fifteen states with anti- evolution legislation pending in 1925, only two states (Arkansas and Mississippi) enacted laws restricting teaching of Darwin's theory.
Pictures:
Enjoy :)
|
|
|
|
05/24/2007 12:01:32 AM · #186 |
[quote=Louis] Actually the current pope is a very educated man, a scholar. I would also be interested in why your arguments are largely based on personal bias and not facts. I understand it's difficult to separate your emotions from something you strongly believe in .... but isn't that the very thing you're arguing against?
I have argued with facts. I've found them in books, and where Biblical quotes are involved, I've verified them. One of my sources is Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults. Read "The Hirim Key", it's fascinating. Read Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It'll bore you to death, but the facts there will change your faith.
Carl |
|
|
|
05/24/2007 06:19:53 AM · #187 |
Originally posted by Zeuss:
I have argued with facts. I've found them in books, and where Biblical quotes are involved, I've verified them. One of my sources is Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults. Read "The Hirim Key", it's fascinating. Read Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It'll bore you to death, but the facts there will change your faith.
Carl |
I find these kinds of books even more objectionable than religious texts.
In respect of religious texts, at least nost modern adherents usually acknowledge that a text has to be interpreted and selectively applied, and that it is an article of belief rather than factual accuracy. From a historical perspective, we can acknowledge that the text has been subject to rewriting, translation and has been adapted at various times to reflect historical political purposes.
Books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail mix together fact, fiction and wild supposition in a deliberately confusing miasma. The conspiratorial and fantastical nature of these texts is presented as having some academic or investigative accuracy. The reality is that they are subject to the personal politics of the authors and commerciality leading to sensationalism and they are wholly misleading.
I don't like and disagree with the promotion of semi-truth in holy texts, but at least the motive is comprehensible and sometimes well intended. I find the promotion of semi-truth in books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail wholly objectionable with no redeeming features (especially if, as you say, they are not even well enough written to make them entertaining).
|
|
|
|
05/24/2007 10:12:59 AM · #188 |
Originally posted by Zeuss:
I have argued with facts. I've found them in books, and where Biblical quotes are involved, I've verified them. One of my sources is Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults. Read "The Hirim Key", it's fascinating. Read Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It'll bore you to death, but the facts there will change your faith. |
As an atheist, I don't have any "faith", assuming you're speaking directly to me. Also, you've already proven, to me anyway, that you're somewhat loose with the facts, having submitted that oft-repeated and completely spurious "quote" from Leo X. As well, as Matthew points out, any text that mixes half-truths with unsubstantiated conjecture is completely useless as a reference. Lastly, it's difficult to believe you're not arguing with your gut and not your head when you accuse the entire established Catholic clergy, for example, of being uneducated nincompoops when nothing could be further from the truth (their ideology might be faulty, but their education is sound). Your views just sound so reactionary and personal that they're easy to dismiss. |
|
|
|
05/24/2007 02:59:09 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I find these kinds of books even more objectionable than religious texts.
In respect of religious texts, at least nost modern adherents usually acknowledge that a text has to be interpreted and selectively applied, and that it is an article of belief rather than factual accuracy. From a historical perspective, we can acknowledge that the text has been subject to rewriting, translation and has been adapted at various times to reflect historical political purposes. |
So you've read these books and came to this conclusion?
Originally posted by Matthew:
Books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail mix together fact, fiction and wild supposition in a deliberately confusing miasma. The conspiratorial and fantastical nature of these texts is presented as having some academic or investigative accuracy. The reality is that they are subject to the personal politics of the authors and commerciality leading to sensationalism and they are wholly misleading. |
Sounds like you're talking about the Bible. There is some fact in the Bible, but without studying it enough to become a Biblical Scholar myself, I can't tell where the fact ends and the fantasy begins. Of course, the talking donkees, floating hands that write on walls, the Earth turning backwards, burning bushes that speak, anyone bodily rising to a "heaven", or rising from the dead is just plain obvious fantasy. It's enough that I don't take any of it seriously.
Originally posted by Matthew:
I don't like and disagree with the promotion of semi-truth in holy texts, but at least the motive is comprehensible and sometimes well intended. I find the promotion of semi-truth in books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail wholly objectionable with no redeeming features (especially if, as you say, they are not even well enough written to make them entertaining). |
Again, did you read it? Read "The Hiram Key" and tell me if you don't think they were careful NOT to inject a conclusion before evidence points to it. |
|
|
|
05/24/2007 04:22:17 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by Zeuss:
So you've read these books and came to this conclusion? |
I could not get very far with Holy Blood - I started reading it a few years ago and quickly got irritated and stopped. I have not read the Hiram Key - religious history revisionism is, as an avowed atheist, more than an irrelevance. If it was done as part of a historical study to better understand our history, I would give it some time. It is not: it is usually done to prove one or other person's ideas about religion.
Wikipedia appears to support my initial skepticism on the Holy Blood and Hiram Key books.
Originally posted by Zeuss:
Sounds like you're talking about the Bible. There is some fact in the Bible, but without studying it enough to become a Biblical Scholar myself, I can't tell where the fact ends and the fantasy begins. Of course, the talking donkees, floating hands that write on walls, the Earth turning backwards, burning bushes that speak, anyone bodily rising to a "heaven", or rising from the dead is just plain obvious fantasy. It's enough that I don't take any of it seriously. |
Why then do you maintain any interest in revisionism and consipiracy theories on the origins of freemasonry or whether Jesus got married?
Originally posted by Zeuss:
Again, did you read it? Read "The Hiram Key" and tell me if you don't think they were careful NOT to inject a conclusion before evidence points to it. |
I can think of little less relevant things to study than freemasonry (and I speak as someone who considered it) or what religious fundamentalism inspired Jesus and the Jews of first century Palestine. Since I don't believe in the accuracy of Judaism, I don't believe in a messiah and therefore whether Jesus was a messiah or prophet or not are irrelevant questions. They may hold some marginal historical interest, but nothing relevant for modern life or views of modern religiosity.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2007 04:26:20 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Zeuss:
I have argued with facts. I've found them in books, and where Biblical quotes are involved, I've verified them. One of my sources is Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults. Read "The Hirim Key", it's fascinating. Read Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It'll bore you to death, but the facts there will change your faith. |
As an atheist, I don't have any "faith", assuming you're speaking directly to me. Also, you've already proven, to me anyway, that you're somewhat loose with the facts, having submitted that oft-repeated and completely spurious "quote" from Leo X. As well, as Matthew points out, any text that mixes half-truths with unsubstantiated conjecture is completely useless as a reference. Lastly, it's difficult to believe you're not arguing with your gut and not your head when you accuse the entire established Catholic clergy, for example, of being uneducated nincompoops when nothing could be further from the truth (their ideology might be faulty, but their education is sound). Your views just sound so reactionary and personal that they're easy to dismiss. |
First, I accept that the quote I mentioned could be an error, but I can't take your word for it. Until I know for sure, it'll sit on the shelf. As for the Catholic Clergy, they're just one group of many religionists (all of them in my opinion) that are nincompoops for substituting fact for faith. Faith does no good for the reputation of an educated person.
In the mean time, I'm gonna go take pictures! |
|
|
|
05/24/2007 04:36:14 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Zeuss:
So you've read these books and came to this conclusion? |
I could not get very far with Holy Blood - I started reading it a few years ago and quickly got irritated and stopped. I have not read the Hiram Key - religious history revisionism is, as an avowed atheist, more than an irrelevance. If it was done as part of a historical study to better understand our history, I would give it some time. It is not: it is usually done to prove one or other person's ideas about religion. |
You haven't read it, so you can't make that judgement. Now who's arguing with their gut, not their head?
Originally posted by Matthew:
Wikipedia appears to support my initial skepticism on the Holy Blood and Hiram Key books.
Originally posted by Zeuss:
Sounds like you're talking about the Bible. There is some fact in the Bible, but without studying it enough to become a Biblical Scholar myself, I can't tell where the fact ends and the fantasy begins. Of course, the talking donkees, floating hands that write on walls, the Earth turning backwards, burning bushes that speak, anyone bodily rising to a "heaven", or rising from the dead is just plain obvious fantasy. It's enough that I don't take any of it seriously. |
Why then do you maintain any interest in revisionism and consipiracy theories on the origins of freemasonry or whether Jesus got married? |
There's a label for this type of arguing, and I forgot its name. "Straw Man"? You've made an assumption, now you're expanding on it. In my search for history, I've read many books, but I'll admit that I read them for entertainment more than to memorize them. I don't have any interest for what you call "revisionism", unless what we're being told isn't true. As an atheist myself, I just don't trust information comming from a religious entity. They manipulate for control. They used to kill for it, and in many ways, still do.
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Zeuss:
Again, did you read it? Read "The Hiram Key" and tell me if you don't think they were careful NOT to inject a conclusion before evidence points to it. |
I can think of little less relevant things to study than freemasonry (and I speak as someone who considered it) or what religious fundamentalism inspired Jesus and the Jews of first century Palestine. Since I don't believe in the accuracy of Judaism, I don't believe in a messiah and therefore whether Jesus was a messiah or prophet or not are irrelevant questions. They may hold some marginal historical interest, but nothing relevant for modern life or views of modern religiosity. |
|
|
|
|
05/24/2007 04:40:24 PM · #193 |
Leave a group of argumentative people together and they will naturally start arguing among themselves. :)
I had turned rant off, but I came back after I had done some reflecting on a few essays by Stephen Jay Gould. I hadn't read his stuff in a while. But it was back on the subject of the good or evil the two "camps" (ie. religion and science) had done and that seems to have played itself.
Message edited by author 2007-05-24 16:40:50.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2007 05:22:04 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by Zeuss:
There's a label for this type of arguing, and I forgot its name. "Straw Man"? You've made an assumption, now you're expanding on it. In my search for history, I've read many books, but I'll admit that I read them for entertainment more than to memorize them. I don't have any interest for what you call "revisionism", unless what we're being told isn't true. As an atheist myself, I just don't trust information comming from a religious entity. They manipulate for control. They used to kill for it, and in many ways, still do. |
I suppose my problem is not what the books say, but that you are using books designed for entertainment as evidence against the validity of religious teaching: your evidence has little or no value and undermines logically and historically more accurate and very much more convincing lines of thought.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2007 05:23:32 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Leave a group of argumentative people together and they will naturally start arguing among themselves. :)
I had turned rant off, but I came back after I had done some reflecting on a few essays by Stephen Jay Gould. I hadn't read his stuff in a while. But it was back on the subject of the good or evil the two "camps" (ie. religion and science) had done and that seems to have played itself. |
Very true. I quite like a debate in the round - it would be very dull to keep to strict formulaic battle lines.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2007 08:02:11 AM · #196 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I suppose my problem is not what the books say, but that you are using books designed for entertainment as evidence against the validity of religious teaching: your evidence has little or no value and undermines logically and historically more accurate and very much more convincing lines of thought. |
OK, then tell me the real truth about history. Then tell me where you learned it. |
|
|
|
05/25/2007 09:24:50 AM · #197 |
Originally posted by Zeuss:
Originally posted by Matthew:
I suppose my problem is not what the books say, but that you are using books designed for entertainment as evidence against the validity of religious teaching: your evidence has little or no value and undermines logically and historically more accurate and very much more convincing lines of thought. |
OK, then tell me the real truth about history. Then tell me where you learned it. |
Hmmmm... to the untrained eye this almost sounds like "OK, I can't prove my point, so prove yours.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/25/2007 12:46:47 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Hmmmm... to the untrained eye this almost sounds like "OK, I can't prove my point, so prove yours.
Ray |
More like "He's wrong and won't listen, so prove your point".
You were close.
Carl |
|
|
|
05/28/2007 11:51:17 AM · #199 |
Originally posted by Zeuss:
Originally posted by Matthew:
I suppose my problem is not what the books say, but that you are using books designed for entertainment as evidence against the validity of religious teaching: your evidence has little or no value and undermines logically and historically more accurate and very much more convincing lines of thought. |
OK, then tell me the real truth about history. Then tell me where you learned it. |
Carl,
I don't claim to know the "real truth" about history. It is a subject for study and competing theories based on limited evidence. Some theories are better substantiated, better explained/argued/understood than others.
Books like Holy Blood look for a controversial interpretation - one that is not obvious, because it sells books to non-historians. My point is that as an "off the wall", radical text strongly criticised by respected historians and the authenticity of which has been largely retracted by its authors, it is not the best evidence to use in support of any argument against the validity of religious texts: it makes the religious texts look like comparatively reliable sources of information.
By using a book like Holy Blood in any argument against religion, your argument (no matter how good) will invariably be knocked down because your referenced source is so weak.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2007 01:22:51 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Zeuss:
Originally posted by Matthew:
I suppose my problem is not what the books say, but that you are using books designed for entertainment as evidence against the validity of religious teaching: your evidence has little or no value and undermines logically and historically more accurate and very much more convincing lines of thought. |
OK, then tell me the real truth about history. Then tell me where you learned it. |
Carl,
I don't claim to know the "real truth" about history. It is a subject for study and competing theories based on limited evidence. Some theories are better substantiated, better explained/argued/understood than others.
Books like Holy Blood look for a controversial interpretation - one that is not obvious, because it sells books to non-historians. My point is that as an "off the wall", radical text strongly criticised by respected historians and the authenticity of which has been largely retracted by its authors, it is not the best evidence to use in support of any argument against the validity of religious texts: it makes the religious texts look like comparatively reliable sources of information.
By using a book like Holy Blood in any argument against religion, your argument (no matter how good) will invariably be knocked down because your referenced source is so weak. |
All references are weak. But the Bible is fantasy.
You expect me to believe Jesus was born of a virgin impregnated by a ghost? Do you believe all the crazy tales of ancient religions? Julius Caesar was reportedly born of a virgin; Roman historian Seutonius said Augustus bodily rose to heaven when he died; and Buddha was supposedly born speaking. You don’t believe all that, do you? Why do you expect me to swallow the fables of Christianity?
I find it incredible that you ask me to believe:
- that the earth was created in six literal days;
- that woman came from man’s rib;
- that a snake, a donkey, and a burning bush spoke human language;
- that the entire world was flooded covering the mountains to drown evil;
- that all animal species, millions of them, rode on one boat;
- that language variations stem from the tower of Babel;
- that Moses had a magic wand;
- that the Nile turned to blood;
- that a stick turned into a snake;
- that witches, wizards, and sorcerers really exist;
- that food rained from the sky for forty years;
- that people were cured from the sight of a brass serpent;
- that the sun stood still to help Joshua win a battle, and it went backward for King Hezekiah;
- that men survived unaided in a fiery furnace;
- that a detached hand floated in the air and wrote on a wall;
- that men followed a star which directed them to a particular house;
- that Jesus walked on water unaided;
- that fish and bread magically multiplied to feed the hungry;
- that water instantly turned into wine;
- that mental illness is caused by demons;
- that a “devil” with wings exists who causes evil;
- that people were healed by stepping into a pool agitated by angels;
- that disembodied voices spoke from the sky;
- that Jesus vanished and later materialized from thin air;
- that people were healed by Peter’s shadow;
- that angels broke people out of jail;
- that a fiery lake of eternal torment awaits unbelievers under the earth â€Â¦ while there is life-after-death in a city which is 1500 miles cubed, with mansions and food, for Christians only.
Fantasy. But some people base their lives on it.
Carl |
|
