Religious Nuts

[cwes99_03]

Actually it says some to a resurrection of life, and some to a resurrection of judgement. The wages sin pays is death, so what would they have to be ashamed of, the sins they had paid for in their death? I could go on, but I don't have time this morning.

 

But wait, I'll try to be on tonight to sort through the many many many messages here since my last real thread following post. I encourage you all to take a moment and go back to read those early posts to remember what this thread was originally about. I'm sorry I didn't keep the post more on topic.

 

Thanks all, see you in about 12 hours.

[Pyrotex]

Pyro is my new favorite forum member, sorry Goku, but I think he might be as funny as you are! :naughty: :xx:

 

I appreciate that you think I am funny, but I will have you know that looks aren't everything! :xx:

[Pyrotex]

i think that knowledge of the Bible comes from God.

 

Knowledge of the Bible comes from the personal experience of reading the Bible. The more you read it, the more knowledge of it you have.

 

Or, if you prefer... :xx: ...

 

I think that knowledge of Physics comes from Xantrol radiation beamed into my head from the Galumphrikaans of Phybeta-7 in the Andromeda Galaxy.

 

Okay, Goku. Now you get to choose which of these statements you think is the most rational. :naughty:

[Pyrotex]

To the rest of you, this is what happens when you try to reconcile Christianity with the Bible.

 

Ahhh, a person of intellect and reason. Thank you.

And to the rest of you, South's statement was NOT sarcasm, nor was it a metaphor.

 

It thus follows that if you have NOT given up on Christianity, then <perhaps> you are NOT trying to reconcile it with the Bible.

[BEAKER]

Actually it says some to a resurrection of life, and some to a resurrection of judgement. The wages sin pays is death, so what would they have to be ashamed of, the sins they had paid for in their death? I could go on, but I don't have time this morning.

Actually, Daniel 12:2 says: "and many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to everlasting life; and some to shame and everlasting contempt".:naughty:

 

...I also believe that not everyone will be resurrected. Especially certain ones the Bible identifies, such as Adam, Eve, Cain, and Judas. If these ones will not be resurrected, then certainly others also will not be.

I'm still looking for your scriptural support of this statement.

[cwes99_03]

Actually, Daniel 12:2 says: "and many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to everlasting life; and some to shame and everlasting contempt".:confused:

 

I'm still looking for your scriptural support of this statement.

 

Sorry I thought you were referring to John 5:28,29.

 

2`And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life age-during, and some to reproaches -- to abhorrence age-during.

 

Definitions of reproach on the Web:

a mild rebuke or criticism; "words of reproach"

disgrace or shame; "he brought reproach upon his family"

express criticism towards; "The president reproached the general for his irresponsible behavior"

 

Pair the first definition of reproach with

28`Wonder not at this, because there doth come an hour in which all those in the tombs shall hear his voice, 29and they shall come forth; those who did the good things to a rising again of life, and those who practised the evil things to a rising again of judgment.

 

And then

23for the wages of the sin [is] death, and the gift of God [is] life age-during in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

Anyway, this is the type of discussion that people should have on a theology forum. Thanks.

 

As for Cain, Adam and Eve, read 1 John 3:10-12, Genesis 3:15, Matt. 23:33-36, Jude 11, Genesis 3:22,23, Genesis 2:17, and Romans 5:13.

 

As for Judas John 17:12, Matt. 23:33, Matt. 10:26,27.

 

This of course brings up the difference between Hades and Gehenna. Interesting point there too, but for another thread, as maybe I should have made this.

 

Anyway, on to the point of this thread.

[cwes99_03]

Lots to read here, but hopefully you've been reading it all along. If not, this should catch you up. Note not all the following is in the exact order it appeared on the thread, but I've done my best to place it in relevant and contextual order.

I don't know if I have called anyone a religious nut, but I do occasionally refer to "bible thumpers", but not as anyone who believes in God, but to people who run around thumping people over the head with their bible and expecting everyone to believe what they believe. I firmly believe in freedom of religion and tolerance to other people's beliefs, no matter who nutty they may seem to you. I think it's fine to tell other people your views and what you believe, but to try to convert them by trying to strike fear into them and not respecting their beliefs is just wrong in my opinion.

A religious nut, in my view, is someone who can't seem to see the other point of view, simply because the other view might be at odds with their personal belief. Regardless of the convictions of the other person presenting that view.

 

They are intolerant, and don't respect other conflicting beliefs. They also don't seem to be able to contribute anything to an objective debate. They are blinded by their subjective insights.

 

A few people falling slap-bang into this category are, amongs others, David Koresh, Osama Bin Laden, etc.

 

Religious nuts come from all possible religions. They are not exclusively Christian.

If the Bible was written by barbarian scribes from a semi-nomadic, post Bronze Age tribe of goat herders and fig pluckers, then you would expect to get something kinda like the Old Testament.

However, the purported God claims the OT as "his" word. So, to take it on face value, the evidence for God is his word, but his word is no more coherent, just or logical than one would expect of the tribe described above. One goes around in a circle, don't you see?

Either the Bible reflects the existence of a morally perfect god, or it reflects the morals of a tribe of humans who thought that slaughtering cities wholesale was a pretty neat idea.

And if the Bible was the best job of inspiration that God could do,... well... worship is really out of the question. And this comes from someone raised in the Church of Christ. We looked down on Baptists as liberal heathens.

Having read the entire Bible thoroughly, I can say with total conviction that "freedom" and "equality" are NOT biblical ideology. In fact, they are not mentioned at all. There are not even examples of these concepts discussed or put in practice. You'll have to start slinging verses at me if you want me to accept your notion.

Because you haven't given me enough evidence to judge you on. You may be just one of those run-of-the-mill devout BELIEVERS, who are totally committed to BELIEVING. As far as "your reasonings" go, I have no evidence that they are YOUR reasonings. I heard the same reasonings 46 years ago from (probably) a different church and even at the tender age of 12 I realized that I was listening to 5% scripture, 5% reasoning, 30% traditional interpretation, 50% wishful thinking and 10% make-believe.

 

And yet I worked up a powerful sweat trying to force myself into being one of those BELIEVERS. I just couldn't do it. The rational synapses just wouldn't go away.

That's the unfortunate thing about religious nuts, they tend to turn intelligent minded people away by insisting on strange things and dwelling on tiny details that make no sense. They tend to have the attitude that if they can't brainwash you into believe absolutely everything that they believe, then you are just a satan worshiper and that God hates you. I'm not calling anyone a religious nut here, it just sounds like Pyro's old "Church of Christ" is full of them.

Ok. Btw did I mention I was god? FEAR ME and uh... write a book based on my ideas and tell anyone who doesn't listen that they will experience large amounts of pain after they die. (Haha thats a good one, noone can disprove it because noone can know what happens after you die)

 

I think the first sentence in your post is merely self deception along with an unfounded attempt to discredit the arguer rather than the argument.

Yes, that is one of the unfortunate things about RNuts. Here is another: in a previous post by BMW, he outlines a modern and rather romantically construed history of the Hebrews, wherein they (and God) are given modern motivations and justifications for Bronze Age behavior. I heard this same monologue many many times before.

He calls it "reasoning".

 

Say again?!?!? That is "reasoning"? Well, perhaps to him it is. In which case he might be confused or offended to know that I do not consider it "reasoning" by any stretch of the imagination. And so it goes.

 

The Church of Christ is a veritable sanctuary and breeding ground for such folks as BMW, and I don't say that as a slur.

<What did the Hebrews want?> Well, that's a good question. Really stellar, no kidding, and my kerchief is off to you for asking it.

 

The problem is (as I see it) that you cannot answer that question as if it was YOU (or someone else from current time) who was a "Hebrew" under those ancient conditions, as YOU (today) understand them to have been, and tell me what it was that YOU would have wanted had YOU been there.

 

The trouble with Religious Nuts is [okay, okay, one of many troubles] they cannot think this way; they cannot appreciate that "what you want" is something we do like a choice -- we are choosing what we want from a Virtual Menu of KNOWN menu items. I know what "Freedom" is and I want that. Actually, I know what "Freedom" is in SEVERAL contexts, and I want all of them. But I am blessed with an intellect the size of a large mountain and a formidible education to boot.

 

Let me ask YOU a question. When those ancient Bronze Age Hebrew slaves looked at their cultural Virtual Menu, did "Political Freedom" or "Freedom of Speech" or "Women's Rights" appear on there for them to choose from? In other words, did the concept of "Freedom" (in any context) exist for them to want?

 

And <note that these people were doing practices that God hates>.

So? The Hebrews eventually did every practice that God (purportedly) hated as well, including mass murder, disemboweling innocent women and children, breaking promises, betraying trusts, impregnating their daughters (incest), slavery, you name it. It was a barbaric late Bronze Age culture after all. They only knew (and did) what they understood. Does any of this JUSTIFY doing more of the same to somebody else?

Yes, and for this God brought the Babylonians and later the Romans to destroy them, and eventually gave up and created a new covenant. Jesus called them a stiff necked people. He also called their religious leaders offspring of vipers for doing things their way instead of the way that God had shown them to do things. Why didn't he do this the very first time they stepped out of line? As you pointed out, he realized they were imperfect, just as he realizes we are imperfect today (again you have to excuse me for stating this as fact. I realize it seems as fact to me. Through my studies of the Bible I have come to believe these things, and you have pointed out that you have not.) However, how many times must the most powerful, perfect being forgive his chosen people? That would be for his perfectly just ways to determine. He did give them warning, and ample opportunity to stop doing these things, but every time he did, they would go back to doing what was wrong. He punished those who came out of Egypt by making them stay in the wilderness until the last one of that generation had died. He punished them again later by letting Nebuchadnezzar capture and destroy Jerusalem, but again he told them only for a time. He told the people that the Romans would come and then withdraw and that would be the sign for them to get out of Jerusalem or die when the armies came back. And come back they did, and some survived by leaving Jerusalem. Now some religious people are proclaiming that we again are in the last days, that these times have been foretold, and that if people do not heed the warning of the Bible they too may be destroyed. What about even back when Noah built the ark, were they not too warned by Noah that a flood was coming? They took no note.

 

I believe that you read the Bible and found it hard to believe that such a loving God could do all these things. Destroy so many people. Cause such desolation. But, may I ask, what has man done? Caused even worse. Destroyed even more, and never with absolutely just reasons (my beliefs here) on his side. Yet God has brought ruin to some of these nations, groups of people, and has promised to do so again, for a finality, by setting up a heavenly kingdom to rule over the earth.

Do my reasonings make me sound like a religious nut to you?

If you're clever, and have enough time and stamina, you can find justification for ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL these attitudes and beliefs somewhere somehow in the good ol' bible. And of course, anyone who disagrees is obviously an agent of Satan.

 

Do YOU disagree with me??? Hmmmm???

 

Bwah ha ha hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I trained to be a Christian minister. Then I studied comparative world religions. Now I am studying the secular history of the Jewish, Christian and Pagan scriptures. I am careful (IMHO) who I call a religious nut.

 

I'm sure they would teach your children well, have them blindly quoting off passages left and right!

Yea, I had some Jahovah's Witnesses get ahold of my coon hound, instead of chasing racoons, he would try to convert them!

Excuse me guys, for dodging a couple mudholes...

 

Freedom and equality are hardly seperable ideologies, but I will attempt it. Each of these can probably be taken to support either.

 

Political freedom:

“Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah; and they said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto Jehovah. And Jehovah said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not be king over them.” — 1 Samuel 8:4-7 asv

“And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received the half-shekel came to Peter, and said, Doth not your teacher pay the half-shekel? He saith, Yea. And when he came into the house, Jesus spake first to him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? the kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute? from their sons, or from strangers? And when he said, From strangers, Jesus said unto him, Therefore the sons are free.” — Matthew 17:24-26 asv

“Jesus therefore said to those Jews that had believed him, If ye abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered unto him, We are Abraham's seed, and have never yet been in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin. And the bondservant abideth not in the house for ever: the son abideth for ever. If therefore the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” — John 8:31-36 asv

Personal equality:

“For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according as a man hath, not according as he hath not. For I say not this that others may be eased and ye distressed; but by equality: your abundance being a supply at this present time for their want, that their abundance also may become a supply for your want; that there may be equality: as it is written, He that gathered much had nothing over; and he that gathered little had no lack.” — 2 Corinthians 8:12-15 asv

“Woe unto you Pharisees! for ye love the chief seats in the synagogues, and the salutations in the marketplaces. Woe unto you! for ye are as the tombs which appear not, and the men that walk over them know it not. And one of the lawyers answering saith unto him, Teacher, in saying this thou reproachest us also. And he said, Woe unto you lawyers also! for ye load men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.” — Luke 11:43-46 asv

“Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am Jehovah.” — Leviticus 19:18 asv

Pyro, I agree with most of your criticisms of contemporary Christian beliefs and practices. I think the 'one-mouth-fifty-ears' learning program is totally anti-productive. *cough*formal education*cough* People learn to follow blindly that way, rather than learning to think for themselves.

 

Denominations are just predetermined interpretations keeping people from learning new stuff. With that mentality, why go to church at all? For this reason I'm adamantly anti-denom, molding my beliefs on a subject-by-subject basis rather than the 'pre-packaged' option. The reasons I have for this personal philosophy are a direct result of numerous teachings that are inept of biblical or rational support.

 

I admit the bible does not always seem rational. But having said that, it is also plausible to say that just because the bible doesn't appear rational doesn't mean it's irrational. And Pyro, if you spent your time trying to clear up the confusion rather than adding to it, I believe you could make sense of scripture, too.

It was the beginning of summer and my class load was light. So, since I had started training for the ministry any way, I decided to read the entire Bible and take notes. I would solve the problems that had plagued that church. I had an IQ of 180 and total confidence. At eight to ten hours a day, I could read the OT/NT straight through in about one week. I read it five times in six weeks. And then I cried.

 

At that moment, I probably "knew" the Bible better than any preacher or teacher I had ever met. Before or since. I saw the whole thing inside and out and from every side. And I cried.

 

I saw all the illogic and contradictions and knew with a certainty that I could not put enough bandaids on that book to ever have any trust in it again. They don't make that many bandaids. I wiped my eyes and my nose and cradled my broken heart as best I could. It would take years for me to heal.

There is a kind of logic which I call "pulpit logic". It is a non-rigorous way of reasoning that says that if two sentences use the same word, they must be talking about the same thing. Or thereabouts. More or less.

 

Your quotes above all use the word 'free'. But READ them. They are not discussing modern political freedom or modern equality concepts. To the Hebrews, 'free' was just the opposite of being someone's slave. That is all. What I see you doing is using pulpit logic. I repeat: no where in the OT or NT is there any cogent discussion of modern political freedom, equality, or other modern sociological concepts we accept so naturally. What appears as 'free' in the OT is a translation of a translation into the nearest English word that 15th Century Europeans could manage.

 

And yes, freedom and equality are separable concepts.

so this means what? that things were different in the past?

Bwah ha ha ha hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I think you may have just had an insight, Goku. Like a tiny spark. Fan it gently and be patient, and you may get the fire of understanding.

In short, you gave it six weeks, correct?

In short, not correct. I just described the epiphany, that is all.

The scriptural debates went on from time to time for thirty years.

I have been active on numerous theology, philosophy, religion-recovery and science websites during that time.

I don't debate theology any more. I have left that far, far behind me in my quest for truth and a meaningful life. I now live in a natural Cosmos with real Natural Laws, and more than enough mysteries, delights and questions to make my existence meaningful.

 

Every rare now and then, I trudge down the Mountain of Reality into the Valley of Death to converse with a few troglodytes. I have a few conversations, attempt to inspire the spiritually abused. But I don't do theological debates. It's like playing Bridge with monkeys; they think they have won the game when they eat the cards.

Knowledge of the Bible comes from the personal experience of reading the Bible. The more you read it, the more knowledge of it you have.

 

Or, if you prefer... ...

 

I think that knowledge of Physics comes from Xantrol radiation beamed into my head from the Galumphrikaans of Phybeta-7 in the Andromeda Galaxy.

 

Okay, Goku. Now you get to choose which of these statements you think is the most rational.

[Southtown]

Ahhh, a person of intellect and reason. Thank you.

And to the rest of you, South's statement was NOT sarcasm, nor was it a metaphor.

 

It thus follows that if you have NOT given up on Christianity, then <perhaps> you are NOT trying to reconcile it with the Bible.

I am sorely discusted with the pop-Christian culture, almost as much as with its genocidal history. No matter, I am relieved as with a breath of fresh air at the thought that neither were borne out of my bible.

 

A more indepth thread forthcoming in the theology forum, time permitting.

[cwes99_03]

Anyway, I saw a lot of nutty type responses from those accusing the rest of being nuts for just believing in something that this person apparently knew for an absolute fact to be false. Some people can be reasoned with others can't.

As long as one finds reason to believe in something I don't think they should rightly be called nuts.

Just because they defer to their own beliefs which they have come upon after years of their own learning does not make them nuts.

Just because someone does not take your word for it simply because you say so does not make them nuts.

Citing examples from a 2000-3500 year old book that support your claims does not make you a "bible-thumper" nor nuts.

Having faith in what is unseen does not make you nuts, after all, none of us has ever seen the wind, a quark or lepton, anti-matter, magnetic field lines. Yet we know they exist, by the evident demonstration of their effects.

Shouting Bwuhahahahahahahahahaha, may cause you to resemble one who is nutty.

Believing that in 6 weeks, you can read a 2000 page book 5 times through and understand absolutely everything in it, may make you appear a bit nutty.

Knowing with a certainty that you could never put enough "bandaids" on a book to ever have any trust in it again seem a bit nutty.

Changing your challenge in the face of evidence to say that the evidence doesn't answer your original challenge, is called avoiding the truth. That is either nutty (refusal to admit one made a mistake) or just out and out uncouth.

[BEAKER]

As for Cain, Adam and Eve, read 1 John 3:10-12, Genesis 3:15, Matt. 23:33-36, Jude 11, Genesis 3:22,23, Genesis 2:17, and Romans 5:13.

 

As for Judas John 17:12, Matt. 23:33, Matt. 10:26,27.

There is nothing here to indicate that anyone will not be resurrected.

 

The question is, how will they be judged when..."The sea gave up the dead who were in it; and death and hades delivered up the dead who were in them - and they were judged, each according to his works". Revelation 20:13

[BEAKER]

by the way

:confused:

You've got to make you posts smaller dude.

[goku]

I am sorely discusted with the pop-Christian culture, almost as much as with its genocidal history. No matter, I am relieved as with a breath of fresh air at the thought that neither were borne out of my bible.

that's a big 10-4

[cwes99_03]

Congrats to both Goku and Southtown for realizing that many of the popular religions and their heinous acts are not scriptural. Thus the reason why I want to discuss these things in a scientific/theological forum with rational/thoughtful people.

 

Sorry Beaker, just wanted to bring this thread back to topic by reminding them of the on topic comments and relevant off topic comments that have been made. I too hate super long threads, but hopefully you can skim through that post and recall the things you've already read.

[goku]

i'm not sure if anyone here has called me a Rnut, but i have found that most of the time when someone gets mad at me, it's because they know that i'm right.

 

happens all the time with my wife :confused:

[Southtown]

happens all the time with my wife :confused:

Amen B)

[BEAKER]

happens all the time with my wife :confused:

I resemble that too. - Women.

You can't live with em', ...and ...I forget how the rest of that saying goes.B)

[Pyrotex]

WEBSTERS DICTIONARY (Paraphrase)

Religion: "A specific system of belief"; "A code of ethics"; "A philosophy of life".

Religious: "conscientiously exact"; "scrupulous"; "devout".

...Consequently, Evolution neatly fits the criterion as a religion.

 

It may "fit" but not "neatly" by a long shot. First you have to whittle off all the evidential edges, scrape the logic off the sides, round the corners off with a 20" chain saw, and then pound evolution into your definition of religion with a 16-pound sledge hammer.

 

Why would you want to do that, anyway? :) :) :)