Page 21 of 22 [ 344 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next

kladky
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 56
Location: Midwest U.S.

14 May 2011, 2:46 am

Vigilans wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Ventriloquism???? First of all, that's not in the Bible


:lmao:

Well, I mean... seriously, like we're making up this convoluted story just because the scripture makes little sense. So... I mean, seriously, it's just kind of silly.


I wish there was ventriloquism in the Bible. I'm sure it would be much more lively! The Ventriloquism Apocalypse doesn't sound so ominous, and the Ventriloquism Rapture brings to mind all the Christians 'Rapture' involving transporting them to some kind of crazy nether world where they are all ventriloquist puppets, fully conscious and being animated by the extraterrestrial reptilian shapeshifter masters who had been lying to us all, all along


Oh, my. I'm sad to see that an idea of mine has stumbled some of you. I'm surprised at some of you, not being open to a very simple idea. Very well. Let's see what I can do.

Webster's defines ventriloquism as "utterance which makes hearers believe that the sound comes from a source other than the actual speaker." Note that dummies or puppets are not mentioned in the definition. It simply means that the ventriloquist makes it look like his voice is coming from somewhere else. It is a skill and art and doesn't require puppets. If humans can do this with puppets, than surely a hypothetical spirit can do this with a snake. Perhaps, as I alluded to, you took me too literally in what I said.

I don't demand this explanation. It could very well be that Satan was in his angelic form and is simply called the Serpent as a metaphor. (Revelation 12:9) Or it could be (less likely to my mind) that he actually transformed into a snake. The point is it wasn't just a talking snake.

1. Snakes don't talk.
2. A snake talked to Eve, therefore...
3. The voice was not really a snake's.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

14 May 2011, 3:01 am

kladky wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Ventriloquism???? First of all, that's not in the Bible


:lmao:

Well, I mean... seriously, like we're making up this convoluted story just because the scripture makes little sense. So... I mean, seriously, it's just kind of silly.


I wish there was ventriloquism in the Bible. I'm sure it would be much more lively! The Ventriloquism Apocalypse doesn't sound so ominous, and the Ventriloquism Rapture brings to mind all the Christians 'Rapture' involving transporting them to some kind of crazy nether world where they are all ventriloquist puppets, fully conscious and being animated by the extraterrestrial reptilian shapeshifter masters who had been lying to us all, all along


Oh, my. I'm sad to see that an idea of mine has stumbled some of you. I'm surprised at some of you, not being open to a very simple idea. Very well. Let's see what I can do.

Webster's defines ventriloquism as "utterance which makes hearers believe that the sound comes from a source other than the actual speaker." Note that dummies or puppets are not mentioned in the definition. It simply means that the ventriloquist makes it look like his voice is coming from somewhere else. It is a skill and art and doesn't require puppets. If humans can do this with puppets, than surely a hypothetical spirit can do this with a snake. Perhaps, as I alluded to, you took me too literally in what I said.

I don't demand this explanation. It could very well be that Satan was in his angelic form and is simply called the Serpent as a metaphor. (Revelation 12:9) Or it could be (less likely to my mind) that he actually transformed into a snake. The point is it wasn't just a talking snake.

1. Snakes don't talk.
2. A snake talked to Eve, therefore...
3. The voice was not really a snake's.


Sorry to disappoint, but "the snake was actually Satan" interpretation came later.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

14 May 2011, 5:35 am

Andre_br wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
kladky wrote:
... Why, you ask, does God not stop suffering if He has the power to do it. Why does He not cure the blind, deaf, cancerous, or regenerate missing limbs? Well ...

One thing to keep in mind here in PPR is the fact many/most people asking those kinds of questions are not seeking answers for any reason other than to then just tear into them ...
Quote:
You often hear from Christians, "Jesus died for our sins." ... But ... where many Christians get it wrong is in thinking humanity's salvation was the most important thing for Jesus. It was important, but THE MOST important thing Jesus was here for was ... to prove that a perfect, sinless human follower of God could stand all the tests of evil and remain unblemished. In doing this, he proved God's way is the best ...

Yes, and then we have this ...

"Pure religion and vndefiled before God and the Father, is this, to visit the fatherlesse and widowes in their affliction, and to keepe himselfe vnspotted from the world." (KJV, 1611)

So simple, and yet so costly, eh?! :wink:

Most times people make "existential questions" they are not really asking anything. They already have firm believes and just want to prove to themselves or for their peers they are right by testing their "arguments" against others, much like in a friendly spar. So, most times when someone asks me something like "Do you believe in god?" out of the blue I just take it like they are meant just as an interjection that happen to present itself in a similar fashion than a question.

Yes, and I think it is a good thing when people can do that.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

14 May 2011, 6:52 am

BurntOutMom wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
BurntOutMom wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
If I understand correctly, "Messiah" and/or "Christ" can simply mean "Anointed One", and that means there are many "Messiahs" mentioned in Scripture even if not literally mentioned in that specific way. And then, of course, and as you might already know, there are "types and shadows" throughout ... and that leaves someone like Moses fittingly called a "Messiah". But then within Christianity, of course, the word "Christ" seems quite-often mis-perceived as actually being some kind of holy (set apart) surname to be exclusively attached to "Jesus" ... and there is another reason I typically "refuse", as such, to use that word.

The OT specifically prophecies The Messiah that will come and make atonement for our sins. I have never heard anyone refer to Moses as a messiah. I would call him a prophet, but I don't know if that title is attributed to him in the texts either... My point is just that though messiah might translate to "anointed one"... when people speak of The Messiah, there is no mistake about whom they are talking about. We can molest intended definitions all night long, but that doesn't truly alter the original intent.

Again, we are mincing words and straying from points.

I had thought we were progressing along, but you can make the call there. :oops:

Personally, I also tend to hold the word "Messiah" in reserve for whoever is either coming or returning, and so yes, and especially among Christians, it is not all that common to think of Moses as (even a type of) a messiah. Overall, however, I thought your "logic" (as I saw things) showing why Christianity's "Jesus" could not be only half-man was brilliant!

Awe-shucks. And, I wasn't trying to shut you down, just redirect.. I hate it when the debate is reduced to throwing definitions back and forth.

Such is life with an Aspie, eh?! But really, here is a place where I get into a bit of a personal quandary ...

I definitely want to continue the conversation, but I only know two ways for that to happen:

1) You take the lead;
2) I take over! 8)


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 May 2011, 7:22 am

kladky wrote:
1. Snakes don't talk.
2. A snake talked to Eve, therefore...
3. The voice was not really a snake's.

HA HA HA HA!! ! Sorry, it is just funny. The Bible has a *LOT* of areas where you have to suspend disbelief, and talking snakes is where you draw the line.

That being said, the reasoning does violate proper interpretation of scripture. Balaam's donkey also talks, and the talker is explicitly the donkey(he asks why he is being beaten), but your reasoning would disprove this.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

14 May 2011, 12:36 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
kladky wrote:
1. Snakes don't talk.
2. A snake talked to Eve, therefore...
3. The voice was not really a snake's.

HA HA HA HA!! ! Sorry, it is just funny. The Bible has a *LOT* of areas where you have to suspend disbelief, and talking snakes is where you draw the line.

That being said, the reasoning does violate proper interpretation of scripture. Balaam's donkey also talks, and the talker is explicitly the donkey(he asks why he is being beaten), but your reasoning would disprove this.


It would appear that people's treatment of animals in the Bible was very much a love-hate relationship-
the former being exemplified here, in Ezekial 23:20:

For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh [is as] the flesh of asses, and whose issue [is like] the issue of horses.
That's the KJV.

I like the New Living Translation best:
She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey's and emissions like those of a horse.


Kinky.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 May 2011, 2:03 pm

Bethie wrote:
It would appear that people's treatment of animals in the Bible was very much a love-hate relationship-
the former being exemplified here, in Ezekial 23:20:

For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh [is as] the flesh of asses, and whose issue [is like] the issue of horses.
That's the KJV.

I like the New Living Translation best:
She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey's and emissions like those of a horse.

Kinky.

That is such a good passage! I've heard of it before, and the KJV translation is not as good/fun



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

14 May 2011, 2:08 pm

kladky wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Ventriloquism???? First of all, that's not in the Bible


:lmao:

Well, I mean... seriously, like we're making up this convoluted story just because the scripture makes little sense. So... I mean, seriously, it's just kind of silly.


I wish there was ventriloquism in the Bible. I'm sure it would be much more lively! The Ventriloquism Apocalypse doesn't sound so ominous, and the Ventriloquism Rapture brings to mind all the Christians 'Rapture' involving transporting them to some kind of crazy nether world where they are all ventriloquist puppets, fully conscious and being animated by the extraterrestrial reptilian shapeshifter masters who had been lying to us all, all along


Oh, my. I'm sad to see that an idea of mine has stumbled some of you. I'm surprised at some of you, not being open to a very simple idea. Very well. Let's see what I can do.

Webster's defines ventriloquism as "utterance which makes hearers believe that the sound comes from a source other than the actual speaker." Note that dummies or puppets are not mentioned in the definition. It simply means that the ventriloquist makes it look like his voice is coming from somewhere else. It is a skill and art and doesn't require puppets. If humans can do this with puppets, than surely a hypothetical spirit can do this with a snake. Perhaps, as I alluded to, you took me too literally in what I said.

I don't demand this explanation. It could very well be that Satan was in his angelic form and is simply called the Serpent as a metaphor. (Revelation 12:9) Or it could be (less likely to my mind) that he actually transformed into a snake. The point is it wasn't just a talking snake.

1. Snakes don't talk.
2. A snake talked to Eve, therefore...
3. The voice was not really a snake's.


Okay, so it wasn't just a talking snake. It was a metaphysical evil spirit being talking through a snake. Very important distinction...


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


aspi-rant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,448
Location: denmark

30 May 2011, 2:19 am

just saw this one:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBvlDQFuZYQ[/youtube]



kladky
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 56
Location: Midwest U.S.

15 Jul 2011, 4:48 pm

aspi-rant wrote:
just saw this one:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBvlDQFuZYQ[/youtube]


I appreciate this. Let me be clear. I do not believe atheists are "the enemy." I wished to have a intellectual conversation based on my firmly held beliefs. I wanted to hear the firmly held beliefs of atheists. I also do not wish to "agree to disagree." The man in the video is correct when he says this would be the end of the conversation.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Jul 2011, 4:58 pm

kladky wrote:
I appreciate this. Let me be clear. I do not believe atheists are "the enemy." I wished to have a intellectual conversation based on my firmly held beliefs. I wanted to hear the firmly held beliefs of atheists. I also do not wish to "agree to disagree." The man in the video is correct when he says this would be the end of the conversation.


An atheist is more like to share his non-beliefs than his beliefs. Atheism is essentially a negative position.

ruveyn



Last edited by ruveyn on 18 Jul 2011, 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

DiabloDave363
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 May 2008
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 544
Location: New England

16 Jul 2011, 11:44 pm

Im what you call a "Naturalist". And I'd love to have a nice convo with you. I always prefer discussions rather than arguments because frankly, in a world with 7 billion different people with 7 billion different minds thinking in 7 billion different ways, it would be foolish to be overly concerned with having someone think the exact same way as you. I like that people have different opinions and world views since I can learn and think more from discussing with them.

But to answer your question, non-religious people are among the least-trusted and most hated in the world. So they (and even I in the past) get defensive because of the intolerance. But I don't care to "deconvert" someone because frankly, knowing that one less person believes in god isnt going to make me sleep better at night.



wcoltd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 756
Location: The internet

17 Jul 2011, 12:18 am

I don't like to ridicule religion, because I find it's usually unproductive. But there is a desire.

Try and understand our perspective. The universe is rougly 14 billion years old this is the only planet in the known universe with life, and we humans are the most intelligent specie in the known universe. A specie so advanced we've developed science which has allowed us to explore and shape the world around us.

Our lives are incredibly rare and precious and so many of these precious lives are wasted pursuing pointless repetitious behavior.

Religion has lead to many atrocities. People kill eachother in the name of religion.

On your point about disproving the existence of god;

With science the onus is never to prove a negative. Suppose the many fictious characters I could devise which could not be disproven. I want you to prove that an invisible hippo isn't floating somewhere in the sky. In order to disprove the existence of god you have to give us some criteria for which to undertake some kind of test. For instance take the most holy figure - say the pope - and throw him out of an airplane without a parachute. Surely if god did exist he wouldn't let his followers be disgraced. Unfortunately many christian followers (including the pope himself) don't have enough faith in god to agree to perform this kind of experiment.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

17 Jul 2011, 2:13 pm

wcoltd wrote:
I don't like to ridicule religion, because I find it's usually unproductive. But there is a desire.

Try and understand our perspective. The universe is rougly 14 billion years old this is the only planet in the known universe with life, and we humans are the most intelligent specie in the known universe. A specie so advanced we've developed science which has allowed us to explore and shape the world around us.

Our lives are incredibly rare and precious and so many of these precious lives are wasted pursuing pointless repetitious behavior.

Religion has lead to many atrocities. People kill eachother in the name of religion.

On your point about disproving the existence of god;

With science the onus is never to prove a negative. Suppose the many fictious characters I could devise which could not be disproven. I want you to prove that an invisible hippo isn't floating somewhere in the sky. In order to disprove the existence of god you have to give us some criteria for which to undertake some kind of test. For instance take the most holy figure - say the pope - and throw him out of an airplane without a parachute. Surely if god did exist he wouldn't let his followers be disgraced. Unfortunately many christian followers (including the pope himself) don't have enough faith in god to agree to perform this kind of experiment.


I am a christian we also believe in free will a gift that we believe was given to us by God so the experiment would be irrelevant to perform also many many many non believers have killed Jews Muslims and Christians for their belief in God so it goes both ways for the ones who believe and the ones who do not believe God either way people will always die in the name of religion just as I am willing to give up my life in the name of God and Jesus Christ thats how I see myself dieing



wcoltd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 756
Location: The internet

17 Jul 2011, 2:20 pm

The fact that other religions kill in the name of god as well doesn't validate the behavior. Athiests redicule all religions. Not just Christianity.



JohnOldman
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 448
Location: Midwest USA (Switzerland is Where the Heart Is)

17 Jul 2011, 5:28 pm

wcoltd wrote:
Religion has lead to many atrocities. People kill eachother in the name of religion.


Which is true of many forms of ideology, theistic or atheistic.

As an atheist and former devout Christian I'm not wont to ridicule religion. It actually makes me a little sad that people impose such beliefs on themselves in order to find meaning.