God spoke to me....

[Ed W]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Ed's God uses meatballs... And pirates...

Arrrrrrrrr....

I completely forgot about meatballs and pirates!

"And lo, God did bring upon them a rain of meatballs, which did consume them utterly, sparing neither the husband nor the wife, the son nor the daughter, the antipasto nor the gelato, until they were sorely vexed and did cry out, enough already!"

[RecycleMichael]

Your God is really opinionated about food, Ed.

Why is it that religions want to tell us what to eat or not eat?

Hinduism followers don't eat cow, Jewish people don't eat pork, Catholics are only want you to eat fish on Fridays...Baptists and alcohol...

My God says everything they sell at Quik Trip is OK, but the Kum and Go ain't kosher.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Your God is really opinionated about food, Ed.

Why is it that religions want to tell us what to eat or not eat?

Hinduism followers don't eat cow, Jewish people don't eat pork, Catholics are only want you to eat fish on Fridays...Baptists and alcohol...

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


PS.  why do religions still have God/Prophets speak in old English?  I knoweth not why that 'tis done.

It's because of the King James version of the Bible.  On the order of King James, the Bible was re-translated from Greek into the English language in the early 17th century.  In the past four hundred years, there have been several biblical scholars who have found errors in the translation.  However, many Christians, especially in the US, refer to their version of the Bible as the literal "word of God," and believe any new translation to be contradictory.  Most of those that still adhere to the King James version mix the cultural tradition of the Anglo-Saxons with the actual Christian religion itself, and therefore believe those commissioned by King James are the most qualified to translate ancient Greek in the past four hundred years.  More commonly, average church attendees do not study or consider the history of their own religion, or the possibilities of new ideas within their religion, such as new biblical translations.  But that's their belief, so as long as they don't interfere with mine, it's O.K.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


PS.  why do religions still have God/Prophets speak in old English?  I knoweth not why that 'tis done.

It's because of the King James version of the Bible.  On the order of King James, the Bible was re-translated from Greek into the English language in the early 17th century.  In the past four hundred years, there have been several biblical scholars who have found errors in the translation.  However, many Christians, especially in the US, refer to their version of the Bible as the literal "word of God," and believe any new translation to be contradictory.  Most of those that still adhere to the King James version mix the cultural tradition of the Anglo-Saxons with the actual Christian religion itself, and therefore believe those commissioned by King James are the most qualified to translate ancient Greek in the past four hundred years.  More commonly, average church attendees do not study or consider the history of their own religion, or the possibilities of new ideas within their religion, such as new biblical translations.  But that's their belief, so as long as they don't interfere with mine, it's O.K.

Tolstoy labeled it Churchianity.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Your God is really opinionated about food, Ed.

Why is it that religions want to tell us what to eat or not eat?

Hinduism followers don't eat cow, Jewish people don't eat pork, Catholics are only want you to eat fish on Fridays...Baptists and alcohol...

In the delicious for Chanukah tag....those are latkes, potato pancakes....not ham. The internet helps promotes lies as well as truths. Duh. God made the internet.....no, it was the Devil. One or the other one....does it matter anyway?

btw, some Jewish people eat pork and do not believe in following strict 5000 year old laws written prior to refrigeration.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD


In the delicious for Chanukah tag....those are latkes, potato pancakes....not ham. The internet helps promotes lies as well as truths. Duh. God made the internet.....no, it was the Devil. One or the other one....does it matter anyway?

btw, some Jewish people eat pork and do not believe in following strict 5000 year old laws written prior to refrigeration.

That was sign stock used for lots of tags in the store. Some stockperson wasn't smart enough to know not to put it on certain items.

The internet is full of porn, so it, like "the foosball," is of the devil.

[FOTD]

You don't know that....god could be into porn. He hatched Eve didn't he?

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

You don't know that....god could be into porn. He hatched Eve didn't he?

That was more of a "Waterboy" movie reference than a personal opinion..

I subscribe to the Ron White precept... Once you see one woman naked, you want to see them all naked...

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


PS.  why do religions still have God/Prophets speak in old English?  I knoweth not why that 'tis done.

It's because of the King James version of the Bible.  On the order of King James, the Bible was re-translated from Greek into the English language in the early 17th century.  In the past four hundred years, there have been several biblical scholars who have found errors in the translation.  However, many Christians, especially in the US, refer to their version of the Bible as the literal "word of God," and believe any new translation to be contradictory.  Most of those that still adhere to the King James version mix the cultural tradition of the Anglo-Saxons with the actual Christian religion itself, and therefore believe those commissioned by King James are the most qualified to translate ancient Greek in the past four hundred years.  More commonly, average church attendees do not study or consider the history of their own religion, or the possibilities of new ideas within their religion, such as new biblical translations.  But that's their belief, so as long as they don't interfere with mine, it's O.K.

It was kind of a rhetorical question as 18 years of catholic schools and an inert (yes inert) interest in religion has me well versed.  Nonetheless, thank you for the *very* well worded response.  Which is, incidentally, exactly what I was thinking.

What's in a translation anyway, nothing important. Kill, murder, what's the difference?  Jesus' has literal brothers in Aramaic and vague "brothers" as friends in English.  Not important!  Details.  Just little details lost in translation (Aramaic/Hebrew - Greek - Latin - Middle English - Modern + hand transcription and political editing by certain monarchs/deities). []
- - -

quote:In2neaon said
I wasn't aware of any scientific inaccuracies in the Bible ...

If one beleives [sic] that God is who he says he is, then the science of our realm (a speck compared to Him) shouldn't be too much for Him to alter at His will or override temporarily...
The law of gravity is not compromised in the least when the law of lift takes over and a massive jet plane that no man could lift flies seemingly effortlessly...

1. Airplanes operate within the laws of our realm utilizing the principle of lift.  Essentially a high pressure system created above the wings surface pulls the wing upward.  In short, a plane uses air pressure to fly (like you didn't know that).

I really do not see how this is applicable to rabbits being ungulates, mustard seeds being the smallest, whales being a fish, the Earth being flat or having corners, etc. etc. etc.   Unless God created a perfect world in which such was true and then decided to change his mind - which would be odd for an infallible being to change his mind.

or, that it was of paramount importance for a 5 sentence lecture to make hares chew their cud.  Makes more sense that either the speaker, translator, or scribe made an error.

2. Your argument is guilty of begging the question:

Whatever the bible says is truth because God says so.
The bible says God is all powerful.
There God is all powerful.

Under such an argument, the book "cannon_fodder is Never Wrong" should hold the same perfection that the bible has.  For cannon_fodder clearly states in it that he is always correct.  It also says his god can beat up your god.  Since both books are clearly always correct; what happens what an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?


/move to politics in 3, 2, ...

[tulsascoot]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


PS.  why do religions still have God/Prophets speak in old English?  I knoweth not why that 'tis done.

It's because of the King James version of the Bible.  On the order of King James, the Bible was re-translated from Greek into the English language in the early 17th century.  In the past four hundred years, there have been several biblical scholars who have found errors in the translation.  However, many Christians, especially in the US, refer to their version of the Bible as the literal "word of God," and believe any new translation to be contradictory.  Most of those that still adhere to the King James version mix the cultural tradition of the Anglo-Saxons with the actual Christian religion itself, and therefore believe those commissioned by King James are the most qualified to translate ancient Greek in the past four hundred years.  More commonly, average church attendees do not study or consider the history of their own religion, or the possibilities of new ideas within their religion, such as new biblical translations.  But that's their belief, so as long as they don't interfere with mine, it's O.K.

That's actually middle English. None of us would understand Old English. It is something like this: Cnut cyning gret his arcebiscopas and his leod-biscopas and Þurcyl eorl and ealle his eorlas and ealne his þeodscype, twelfhynde and twyhynde, gehadode and læwede, on Englalande freondlice

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

An friend brought a date with her out to dinner one night.  He was a research scientist for Pfizer and a baptist minister.  When the topic of what he did came up he said both things - and I asked him how they related to each other...

He told  me (essential, this was a few years back) science confirms that God is real because everything works out so perfectly.  And God proves that he is superior to science because everything we learn only extends the vastness of things that we do not.  Thus his scientific endeavors serve to both confirm his faith and respect for God.

I thought that was a very interesting and well thought out response, and neglected to raise the question of biblical scientific inaccuracy .[]

Steven Hawking takes that exact same position in his book "A Brief History of Time".  I'll see if I can find the passage, because it's very profound.

Sorry FOTD, we will never have your atheist president. . . but I do hope that you use this as your basis for choice.  []  Keeps me from having to worry abut your vote.

I find that atheists are typically very angry people, willing to take outlandish positions.  I see it as some form of arrested development that takes place during that time in their youth when the big question "who am I" cannot be satisfied adequately.

It's not that they don't believe in anything spiritual, but that they require their answers to come from direct existential exposure.  

For these people, "faith" in anything is ridiculous.  Reliance on science is comfortable, because science is a mechanism for change.  These folks love constant change though they cope with it very poorly when it is not in their favor.

The atheist mind tends to carry this position into every facet of their lives.  They offer poor friendships, weak marriages, and bad business decisions.  The very concept of "Love" is based on faith. Faith in another person, but faith none the less.

This is their choice, and the only way they feel that they can ground themselves.  For the atheist, it is very powerful to feel that their is nothing greater than the self.  (You can imagine the subconscious decision making that comes from that.)

If you spend enough time as a student of life, you begin to learn that your faculties are in no way capable of comprehending it.  What we know of time and space is meaningless and humbling.  It would be far to arrogant to dismiss the existence of an architect.

[cannon_fodder]

Tulsascoot:  thank you for the correction.  I always want to call Shakespeare olde English too, knowing full well it is not.  Old English = before the great vowel shift = no way I can understand it.  More like Celtic, is that accurate?   Anyway, I'm a poor linguist, so thanks.
- - -

Spoonbill:

My moral treatise in 2 minutes...

I would consider myself an agnostic (or possibly even an atheist as I do not rule out the non existence of gods).  Not that I do not believe in spirituality, but I have difficulty with the notion of any individual have the gods figured out - or their gods being better than yours.  

While i give credence where due to the teachings of Mosses, Jesus, the Buddha, Zoroaster, Mohamed,  Moroni, the Llamas and many other spiritual entities - I have confidence that none of them have it figured out (yes that means I do not think they were divine).  And even if THEY did, it is unlikely their followers have it pegged.  I come to this conclusions as an individual very well educated and immersed in religion.

However, for me at least, the conclusion is that no one has it figured out.  That includes me.  The self is certainly not the height of existence.  But I do feel obligated to justify by beliefs and moral code with logic, not faith.  I refuse to eat Kosher, wear tassels, or pray towards a certain city.  Logically, so long as my beliefs and actions harm no one else they are neutral.  If they aid someone else, the deeds are good.  Pretty simple, I don't behave to appears my gods but purely out of a feeling of self worth (if I do something I feel is bad I feel negative, and visa versa).

The notion that gods have sent messengers, prophets, or sons to Earth to appease our need to self righteousness is extremely egotistic.  God made everything for us, we are what is important, and s/he spends all her/is time worrying about what we are doing.  We are the end game, it stops with us.  Every cultures creation myth has that culture being the chosen one, their gods being supreme, and their way of life sanctioned.  Lucky for you us our culture hit the geographical jack pot and conquered most everyone else.

Thus, it is not my ego that dismisses a grand architect.  It is my inability to comprehend such a notion that leads me to dismiss my knowledge of it.  Therefor, I do not pretend to know that which is divine.

and incidentally, I agree with Sinclair Lewis when he said that "when fascism comes to the United States it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."   I tend to look at people who claim to have everything figured out with great skepticism.   And no... that doesn't mean Ron Paul gets my vote.

/rant should have been more structured.  Oh well, nothing ya'll haven't heard before.

[RecycleMichael]

I consider myself an orthodox evangelical heretic universalist singer.

I believe in strict interpretation of my faith expressed through potluck dinners, yet publically dissent from all those who need salvation from the choir.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Tulsascoot:  thank you for the correction.  I always want to call Shakespeare olde English too, knowing full well it is not.  Old English = before the great vowel shift = no way I can understand it.  More like Celtic, is that accurate?   Anyway, I'm a poor linguist, so thanks.
- - -

Spoonbill:

My moral treatise in 2 minutes...

I would consider myself an agnostic (or possibly even an atheist as I do not rule out the non existence of gods).  Not that I do not believe in spirituality, but I have difficulty with the notion of any individual have the gods figured out - or their gods being better than yours.  

While i give credence where due to the teachings of Mosses, Jesus, the Buddha, Zoroaster, Mohamed,  Moroni, the Llamas and many other spiritual entities - I have confidence that none of them have it figured out (yes that means I do not think they were divine).  And even if THEY did, it is unlikely their followers have it pegged.  I come to this conclusions as an individual very well educated and immersed in religion.

However, for me at least, the conclusion is that no one has it figured out.  That includes me.  The self is certainly not the height of existence.  But I do feel obligated to justify by beliefs and moral code with logic, not faith.  I refuse to eat Kosher, wear tassels, or pray towards a certain city.  Logically, so long as my beliefs and actions harm no one else they are neutral.  If they aid someone else, the deeds are good.  Pretty simple, I don't behave to appears my gods but purely out of a feeling of self worth (if I do something I feel is bad I feel negative, and visa versa).

The notion that gods have sent messengers, prophets, or sons to Earth to appease our need to self righteousness is extremely egotistic.  God made everything for us, we are what is important, and s/he spends all her/is time worrying about what we are doing.  We are the end game, it stops with us.  Every cultures creation myth has that culture being the chosen one, their gods being supreme, and their way of life sanctioned.  Lucky for you us our culture hit the geographical jack pot and conquered most everyone else.

Thus, it is not my ego that dismisses a grand architect.  It is my inability to comprehend such a notion that leads me to dismiss my knowledge of it.  Therefor, I do not pretend to know that which is divine.

and incidentally, I agree with Sinclair Lewis when he said that "when fascism comes to the United States it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."   I tend to look at people who claim to have everything figured out with great skepticism.   And no... that doesn't mean Ron Paul gets my vote.

/rant should have been more structured.  Oh well, nothing ya'll haven't heard before.

Well said.  I agree with your point that no one has it figured out.  

Organized religions simply offer a set of stories designed to guide individuals along whatever path they choose.  Oddly, at the heart of most religions is the same basic message and moral code.  That is what is transcendent and necessary for people, civilization and society to prosper.

When you subtract that foundation, society begins to collapse  as our definitions of right and wrong begin to grey.  In our society generally people understand the difference between right and wrong.  But don't mistake this "sociology" that guides your behavior as universal.  Wether you like it or not, CF, your decisions and behavior are guided by Judaism and/or Christian philosophy.  

You obey these Judeo-Christian moral laws.  

If you were raised in Saudi Arabia, China, Africa, or many other cultures, you may not feel any guilt killing a child that has disgraced you, or stealing from your neighbor.  You may still call yourself agnostic or atheist in these cultures, however you will still bear the mantle of the moral code passed through the accepted religious doctrine.

It is simply human nature.  We are genetically predisposed to adopting a form of spiritual morality.

FOTD can rail on religion all day, but until he makes it a personal quest to disobey the 10 commandments, he is subject to the moral code that his evil Christians have forced him to live by.