Post by: rphilbeck on January 05, 2008, 05:33:18 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EjYv2YW6azE
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 05, 2008, 09:32:42 PM
Now as far as actual politics, there's some flip-flop. A transcript from "Meet The Press": The Topic is Immigration.
GOV. HUCKABEE: In all due respect, we’re a better country than to punish children for what their parents did. We’re a better country than that.
MR. RUSSERT: “We’re a better country than punishing children for what their”…
GOV. HUCKABEE: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: …”parents did.”
GOV. HUCKABEE: I still believe that, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: But a week later, after that comment, you came out with this: “The Secure America Plan.”
GOV. HUCKABEE: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: “Propose to provide all illegal immigrants a 120-day window to register with the Bureau of Citizenship” “Immigration Services and leave the country. Those who register” “return to their home country will face no penalty if they later apply,” “those who do not return home will be, when caught, barred from future re-entry for a period of 10 years.” Children born here are American citizens.
GOV. HUCKABEE: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: And you were saying that.
GOV. HUCKABEE: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: “Don’t punish those kids.” A week later, you said, “No, no, no, send the parents home,” and what happens to the kids?
GOV. HUCKABEE: They go with their parents. I mean, I can’t imagine a parent not taking their children…
MR. RUSSERT: But they’re American citizens. Why do they have to leave the country?
GOV. HUCKABEE: Because they’re–first, before they’re American citizens, they’re the children of their parents.
MR. RUSSERT: But aren’t we a “better country,” to quote someone, than that?
GOV. HUCKABEE: Let me be very clear. I stand beside my statement, but here’s what we have to do to fix the immigration problem. We’ve got to seal our border, something our government has been dysfunctional and failed to do. It’s also very clear the American people are not going to tolerate people who have gotten here illegally to get in the front of the line. The only way they can get into the back of the line is to go back to the point of origin, to get behind that line, and then modernize that line so it shouldn’t take eight years to process a piece of paper to get people the necessary paperwork to be able to do that.
MR. RUSSERT: But, Governor, this is, this is important, because this is what you said back in 2005. “Responding to a question about illegal aliens, Huckabee said `our economy would collapse’ without them.”
GOV. HUCKABEE: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that?
GOV. HUCKABEE: I think it would be very, very difficult to do construction and agriculture without them. That’s why we need a policy that puts everyone in this country in a legal position. And, Tim, let me, let me go further.
MR. RUSSERT: But, this, this is…
GOV. HUCKABEE: Let me explain why.
MR. RUSSERT: …important, because your plan says send them all home.
GOV. HUCKABEE: No, I did not send them home. They will go home within 120-day window, and then they have the process of starting to return.
MR. RUSSERT: But that’s 15 million people. You’re saying to do that would collapse the American economy, and now that’s exactly what you’re proposing.
GOV. HUCKABEE: No, I don’t think it would collapse the American economy if people went back and did their process of becoming legal. And all of them aren’t going to go back on the same day. There’s going to be a window of time. How long it’s going to take for them to come back, I don’t know. But part of the process, the first process, if you read my entire plan, is seal the border. Seal the border. If you don’t do that, then you don’t have any control of who’s here, why they’re here and what they’re doing. This process has to be modernized. It’s our government that’s been dysfunctional.
Tim, I stand by many of the state–all of the statements I’ve made, and one of them has been, let’s thank God we live in a country people are trying to break into, not one they’re trying to break out of. But let’s have a rule of law. Let’s make everyone live by it. And let me tell you why I believe my plan is not only a plan that respects the rule of law, but I think it’s the most humane plan. Because nobody living in this country ought to live with his head down, ought to live in the shadows, ought to live in fear, ought to live every day looking if there’s a police car or a border patrol, running and hiding. I want people to live in this country with their heads up. I want them to be able to, if they’re going to work here, to work legally. I want them to be able to pay the same taxes, live under the same laws, and also to be able to have the kind of sense of liberty that this country is bound by. That’s what we’re trying to achieve. Let’s not forget that our federal government has made a mess of this. As a governor, I had to deal with their mess, and I believe, as president, one of the highest priorities is to fix the problem.
Of course how Mr. Huckabee would move 15 million people (all within 4 months) and allow them to return is not known. And it's a handy way to get all the little Latino U.S. citizens out of the country...
Post by: rphilbeck on January 06, 2008, 09:17:45 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 05 January 2008 21:32 |
Of course how Mr. Huckabee would move 15 million people... |
I understand that's only about two trips in a Volkswagen.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 06, 2008, 10:44:26 AM
LOL!
Post by: PRobb on January 06, 2008, 12:15:08 PM
Post by: studiojimi on January 06, 2008, 12:43:04 PM
| PRobb wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 09:15 |
It's hard to see Huckabee's support going much deeper than evangelicals. |
i have a buddy who is an evangelical texas billionaire and i know he has sunk a bundle into this guy and i'll be he's not the only one.
Post by: compasspnt on January 06, 2008, 12:58:06 PM
Post by: PookyNMR on January 06, 2008, 05:42:47 PM
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/watch2.html
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 06, 2008, 05:51:12 PM
Post by: PRobb on January 06, 2008, 06:34:02 PM
Post by: John Ivan on January 06, 2008, 06:53:45 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 17:51 |
Huckabee's got major campaign problems. It's my guess his campaign is not long for this world. His fellow Republican candidates are gunning for him and he doesn't come anywhere near Democrats in the polls... Money isn't everything is this deal (and it also can't buy me love). |
I'm not sure.. He could put it together still.. While I strongly disagree with many of his positions on the issues, I at least get the impression that he's a decent man.. I couldn't vote for him, but I don't dislike him as a person and that is refreshing for me..
This Mitt clown however, is someone I've had my fill of.. Talk about a two faced hack.. Hopefully he'll have the common decency to go home after New Hampshire.
It could be an interesting year.
Ivan....................
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 07, 2008, 02:08:49 AM
I agree with your assessment of Huckabee. I think he's sincere and decent. I just can't vote for him.
Post by: PRobb on January 07, 2008, 09:06:30 AM
| studiojimi wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 12:43 | ||
i have a buddy who is an evangelical texas billionaire and i know he has sunk a bundle into this guy and i'll be he's not the only one. |
Right. It's hard to see Huckabee's support going much deeper than evangelicals.
Post by: studiojimi on January 07, 2008, 11:27:26 AM
My problem with evangelicals is their judgment of others who don't believe as they do ...then again they are also on the receiving end of a lot of that.
Huckabee could be a good man to do a job.
Not sure i'll vote for him but I will keep an open mind.
The other night I watched the DVD of September Dawn....now that scared me to death on Romney whose Dad was my Gov. in Michigan when i grew up there.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 07, 2008, 11:42:04 AM
And Republicans still use terror as their "call" to voters. People have wised up in the last few years. They are sick and tired of eternal war and the thought of a terrorist behind every door. The Republicans just haven't figured that out. And indeed, it's all they have as a platform.
If you're for the common person, you are not a Republican and your fellow Republicans will let you know that. If you're for the common person, you're a Democrat. Now all you have to do is figure out how not to fuck up your chances of winning.
Post by: PRobb on January 07, 2008, 02:17:54 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 11:27 |
Huck may not be the best man for the job but there are certainly worse choices. My problem with evangelicals is there judgement of others who don't believe as they do ...then again they are also on the receiving end of a lot of that. Huckabee could be a good man to do a job. Not sure i'll vote for him but I will keep an open mind. The other night I watched the DVD of September Dawn....now that scared me to death on Romney whose Dad was my Gov. in Michigan when i grew up there. |
My problem with evangelicals in politics is when they don't see the line between their beliefs and the real world. A young earth creationist fails that test. A political leader has to live in the real world.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 07, 2008, 04:44:24 PM
I don't need to have creationism taught in school. I'm happy to teach it at home. I don't need religion to formally be part of pubic schooling. We can practice that at home. It's when a religion wants things their way or else it's evil that bugs the crap out of me. Let people be who they are (within reason -- you know murderers, pedophiles, things the majority can agree on as "bad"). Accept people, benefit from each other and move on.
EDIT: BTW, I'm not a "young earth" person. Personally I don't care how old or young it is. Whatever its age it needs to excercise more and lose about 20 pounds.
Post by: studiojimi on January 07, 2008, 07:19:09 PM
| PRobb wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 11:17 | ||
My problem with evangelicals in politics is when they don't see the line between their beliefs and the real world. A young earth creationist fails that test. A political leader has to live in the real world. |
i have to awaken you
man does not define the real world
God does.
If the young creationist's God is as powerful as the man believes
any of that stuff could be possible
let's get off of that
bottom line
love one another.
period
let's think BIG
imagine the money to be made on "Don't FUCK with HUCK" merchandising
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 07, 2008, 08:54:29 PM
"Don't Fornicate with Huckabee."
or
"Do Not Have Illicit Sexual Congress with Mr. Michael Huckabee"
or
"Do Not Perform Political Adultery with Huck"
Post by: mgod on January 07, 2008, 10:47:07 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 16:19 |
i have to awaken you man does not define the real world let's think BIG |
Man fully defines the real world of politics, which is what I believe was the real world being referred to. Not necessarily the world of moss, or quasars, or love.
Render unto Caesar, y'alls.
DS
Post by: mgod on January 07, 2008, 10:58:14 PM
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: "Gravity — which is taught to our children as a law — is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
Post by: CCC on January 07, 2008, 11:33:41 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 16:44 |
I don't care if a candidate is a creationist. I am one myself. The difference is I don't try to force my religious beliefs on anyone else. That's where everyone has to draw the line. I don't want an atheist forcing me to live according to his/her beliefs. Running our lives and the country should be about fairness for all, help for all and the best quality of life possible. |
With respect, I don't believe atheists force their beliefs on people. Atheists don't go door to door selling their ideas (although I heard an anecdote about some atheists that did this for a lark recently). Atheists don't perpetuate junk science in the school system for the purposes of advancing an agenda rooted in mythology and the supernatural. Atheists don't hold vigils or pass legislation to preserve the earthly body of a brain-dead individual. Atheists don't take to the streets to protest innocuous cartoons, or threaten to kill people who publish that kind of material. Atheists don't issue fatwas when people criticize their views. Atheists don't care who gets married to who or what they do with each other when the lights are out, and don't care to legislate these kinds of matters. Atheists don't think constitutional amendments denying people equal access to the institution of marriage is a great idea. The people who flew planes into the WTC weren't atheists. It wasn't atheists taunting and threatening school children on Ardoyne Road. I don't imagine that many atheists have tried to influence others by blowing themselves and others to bits.
Can the "religious" claim to be equally disinterested in controlling or influencing the lives of others? With respect, they cannot.
Post by: mgod on January 07, 2008, 11:52:26 PM
There have been some fairly nasty governments that were avowedly atheist, and were pretty gung-ho in forcing that belief on people.
As far as I can tell, atheism is in itself a form of belief. Now, agnosticism, that's a different story. Or belief, or...
But on the whole, American atheists seem to be a rather benign sort. I was one myself until I realized that it involved a certainty I didn't have.
DS
Post by: CCC on January 08, 2008, 12:14:08 AM
| mgod wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 23:52 |
Wellll... There have been some fairly nasty governments that were avowedly atheist, and were pretty gung-ho on forcing that belief on people. As far as I can tell, atheism is in itself a form of belief. Now, agnosticism, that's a different story. Or belief, or... DS |
The examples I draw from are modern, and relate to matters that have been in issue since we entered the 21st century. Show me a country in the world today where atheists are persecuting the religious, or attempting to legislate religion out of existence. I can show you some where the religious are eradicating one another.
Western industrialized constitutional democracies, like the ones you and I live in, have guaranteed freedom of religion. Religion is in no danger whatsoever of being legislated out of existence, so in this day and age its silly for a person to be afraid of being governed by an "unbeliever." It is not so silly to be frightened of being governed by a "believer" since the most powerful nation on earth has been severely mismanaged by one for some time now - and since around the world today we are seeing precisely how well the religious manage their affairs and how terribly concerned they are for the rights and freedoms of others.
Atheism isn't a form of belief. In my humble view its a natural state of ignorance. I am ignorant of a great many things. I desire education. However, to date I am unaware of any compelling explanation of how the universe was created, or how life on earth originated. On the one hand, I see some people gathering evidence, analyzing evidence, and proposing theories and some conclusions. I see others who propose what may be described as supernatural explanations. Being neither a scientist nor a theologian I am not equipped to debate the absolute minutia of either perspective. But one approach seems somewhat reasonable, the other less so. To the extent that there is no reasonable basis for accepting bald supernatural assertions without a shred of credible evidence, I do not accept those assertions. This is a lack of belief, not belief.
Post by: studiojimi on January 08, 2008, 02:41:23 AM
HE hid himself in the best hiding place where no one can take Him from you
and everyone has a piece
as God is no respector of person
He is in your heart whether you choose to see and faithfully accept it or not
now THAT is love.
He loved you so much that He made you in His image likeness
SPIRIT
you are filled with His faculties (faith, love, strength, wisdom, purity, zeal, live, elimination, power, imagination etc) and fall under His laws
and if you break His laws...they will lovingly break you
hmmm maybe i should run for prez
Post by: bruno putzeys on January 08, 2008, 04:17:32 AM
Of course there are people who "believe there is no God" and who are utterly unable to explain their position, but such people are conversion fodder for the next couple of Jehova's Witnesses that come at the door.
Sure, so-called atheist regimes have done bad things (at least one, Stalinism, spectacularly so) but that was not in the name of atheism but in the name of another set of flawed beliefs that were "religiously" held. As soon as someone tries to enforce facts instead of trying to find them, we're in trouble. Whether those beliefs be divine or secular in nature. That Naziism be "atheist" has been quite firmly debunked on the basis of Mr. H's own remarks, and the special relationship his regime had with the Catholic Church.
I think any true believer will recognise that his position is, well belief for the exact reason that he cannot prove it. That equally means that he cannot call any decision made on the basis on those beliefs rational. No true believer should have issues with these simple observations. Such a believer would live his own life according to his beliefs, but take decisions affecting other people based on premises that he can prove and on logic that holds water.
I would have no problems at all with a president who goes to church, prays and reads the Bible. I have serious issues with any politician who makes political decisions based on beliefs that he cannot prove. Whether or not holding irrational beliefs is problematic is fundamentally related to what it's applied to. What I mean is this: someone who believes the heart is the seat of our emotions should not become a surgeon. Someone who believes the moon is made out of cheese should not be working for NASA. Someone who seriously thinks the penal code was (or should be) decreed by an invisible being should not be running a country.
Post by: maxdimario on January 08, 2008, 07:42:05 AM
| mgod wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 04:58 |
From another thread, but just as relevant here: "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University. Burdett added: "Gravity — which is taught to our children as a law — is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power." |
including the influences of gravity from the cosmos.
the whole concept of explanation is limited by nature itself
Post by: bruno putzeys on January 08, 2008, 07:58:25 AM
Post by: PRobb on January 08, 2008, 10:41:19 AM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 04:17 |
Sure, so-called atheist regimes have done bad things (at least one, Stalinism, spectacularly so) but that was not in the name of atheism but in the name of another set of flawed beliefs that were "religiously" held. |
I totally agree. People use Hitler and Stalin as examples of secular horrors. But if we're going to compare the religious v. ecumenical mindset, they count as religions. They had saints who had to be revered, bibles whose truths were illegal to question, and catechisms that had the force of law. The intellectual structure was a whole lot closer to theocracy than ecumenical secularism.
| Quote: |
I would have no problems at all with a president who goes to church, prays and reads the Bible. I have serious issues with any politician who makes political decisions based on beliefs that he cannot prove. |
Bingo. If you want to believe the earth is flat, you have the right. But I'm not going to hire you to plan intercontinental airline routes. If you want to make the decision that belief trumps hard evidence, you absolutely have that right. But the president has to work in hard reality and doesn't have that luxury. Bush is a "believer". He believed that Saddam had WMD and was involved in 9/11 and no amount of evidence was going to shake the belief of someone who puts belief before hard evidence.
Post by: mgod on January 08, 2008, 10:52:07 AM
| PRobb wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 07:41 |
Bush is a "believer". He believed that Saddam had WMD and was involved in 9/11 and no amount of evidence was going to shake the belief of someone who puts belief before hard evidence. |
He only "believed" that when it worked for his political goals to believe it. Kind of like a death bed conversion.
DS
Post by: studiojimi on January 08, 2008, 12:19:04 PM
| Quote: |
I think any true believer will recognise that his position is, well belief for the exact reason that he cannot prove it. That equally means that he cannot call any decision made on the basis on those beliefs rational. No true believer should have issues with these simple observations. Such a believer would live his own life according to his beliefs, but take decisions affecting other people based on premises that he can prove and on logic that holds water. |
hebrews always says it best
Hebrews 11
By Faith
1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.
part of the "true believer".....i'll use the term "truth believer"
is to spread the good word.....the "truth" that God loves you and so do I...His will is absolute for and all of His children.
i'm sure i don't want a non believer in the white house.
i'd love for a leader to feel free enough to proclaim his faith.
Post by: PRobb on January 08, 2008, 12:30:52 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 12:19 |
the "truth" that God loves you and so do I...His will is absolute for and all of His children. i'm sure i don't want a non believer in the white house. i'd love for a leader to feel free enough to proclaim his faith. |
2+2=4 is "the truth". I can prove it. Its truth doesn't depend on whether or not I believe it. If I do work based on that truth, I achieve results that function in the real world.
I want a moral person in the White House. It doesn't matter to me if that morality is based on God or not. There are moral and immoral believers. There are moral and immoral atheists. And looking at the world today, and at human history, I certainly don't see an immutable connection between belief and morality.
Post by: el duderino on January 08, 2008, 12:38:09 PM
I'm not saying they need to be an atheist, but believing in things that can't be proven makes me think they'd ignore MANY facts. particularly any fact the could even hint at them being wrong about what they believe.
someone already mentioned the bush/iraq example which is exactly what I'm afraid of happening again. well, not exactly afraid...
If you believe in god (whatever god youd like)and try to be a good person I think thats all that is necessary. the more devout the person gets the scarier things become.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on January 08, 2008, 01:24:04 PM
| el duderino wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 11:38 |
i'd love for a leader to feel free enough to proclaim his lack of faith. I'm not saying they need to be an atheist, but believing in things that can't be proven makes me think they'd ignore MANY facts. particularly any fact the could even hint at them being wrong about what they believe. someone already mentioned the bush/iraq example which is exactly what I'm afraid of happening again. well, not exactly afraid... If you believe in god (whatever god youd like)and try to be a good person I think thats all that is necessary. the more devout the person gets the scarier things become. |
Err.... I've got no problem with what you say, except for that last part. I think you are confusing "devout" with "fanatical". It is possible to be devout and be very humble, and a good servant of the Lord. Although this is very difficult, and probably impossible to achieve most of the time.
Problems come when Christians can't admit that they fall short. I heard someone once say, "The tricky thing about humility is that once you realize you have it, you no longer have it". So anyone who bills themself as some great bastion of the faith (Like GW did) is not practicing good spirituality, but is using spirituality as a tool to achieve an external objective.
For example, I understand Mother Teresa wrote a whole lot of letters to her superiors over many decades while she helped the poor in India, but asked that they be destroyed because she didn't want them to cause people to think more of her and less of Christ. That is faith that is not self-serving. It exists to serve others, and share God's love. Not to gain power or to force anyone to do anything.
Besides you can't make people believe in anything by force. That's why Christianity is an open invitation, and was never, ever meant to be a mandate.
Jessica
Post by: studiojimi on January 08, 2008, 01:58:12 PM
use it
you can't lose it.
you can abuse it.
cuz it's yours.
it's free!
use it.
don't lose sight of the truth that you don't define God
God defines you.
and you ought to praise Him for it.... a lot and often.
Post by: mgod on January 08, 2008, 02:34:40 PM
| Jessica A. Engle wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 10:24 |
I heard someone once say, "The tricky thing about humility is that once you realize you have it, you no longer have it". Jessica |
Now that is brilliant, perceptive and dead-on. Thanks for passing it on.
| Jessica A. Engle wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 10:24 |
Besides you can't make people believe in anything by force. That's why Christianity is an open invitation, and was never, ever meant to be a mandate. Jessica |
With respect ma'am, there are many many domestic believers who would argue with that position.
Personally I get a little tired of all this "He" stuff. Psychologists call that projection.
DS
Post by: el duderino on January 08, 2008, 02:55:09 PM
| Jessica A. Engle wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 13:24 |
Err.... I've got no problem with what you say, except for that last part. I think you are confusing "devout" with "fanatical". It is possible to be devout and be very humble, and a good servant of the Lord. Although this is very difficult, and probably impossible to achieve most of the time. |
gotcha. wrong word choice.
| Jessica A. Engle wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 13:24 |
Besides you can't make people believe in anything by force. That's why Christianity is an open invitation, and was never, ever meant to be a mandate. |
I understand what you're saying but people have and i'm sure will continue to try to force it on others. and while it would seem to not work, one example that comes to mind where it did work (sort of) is Latin America.
Post by: studiojimi on January 08, 2008, 04:25:43 PM
| mgod wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 11:34 |
Personally I get a little tired of all this "He" stuff. Psychologists call that projection. DS |
this whole thread is tired
Mother/Father/Spirit God is sexless
Father...the head honcho
He....is just merely a pro noun most of us accept but not to define as gender
ALLness
the Omnipotent
the Omnipresent
the Omniscient.
were talkin Supreme Intelligence
errorless perfect being
which lives in you and dwells there and is available for the consciousness awareness raising experience.
i highly recommend it
but don't insist on it.
Post by: CCC on January 08, 2008, 07:23:36 PM
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 08, 2008, 08:48:26 PM
Post by: studiojimi on January 09, 2008, 12:24:00 AM
| JS wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 16:23 |
Personally I can't figure out if certain posters on this thread are trying to be persuasive, comically ironic, or if someone here has been possessed of the spirit of George Michael. Either way, this discussion is one of the great and troubling discussions of modern times. To the extent that we can discuss rationally without mindlessly reciting doctrine the better we all will be. |
you really think we can agree on what is rational?
Post by: PRobb on January 09, 2008, 12:31:36 AM
| studiojimi wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 00:24 |
you really think we can agree on what is rational? |
The definition of rational is sort of at the core of the discussion, isn't it?
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 09, 2008, 12:55:27 AM
Oh. Too many World War II movies.
Post by: bruno putzeys on January 09, 2008, 04:30:23 AM
| studiojimi wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 06:24 |
you really think we can agree on what is rational? |
How about...
1) using sound logic (i.e. without fallacies of any kind) to build an argument that is internally consistent.
2) using same sound logic to insure relevance to the discussion
3) readiness to act upon the conclusions reached and not to act against them.
There's actually also:
4) readiness to verify the premises (implicit and explicit)
but I wouldn't want to cause people who are squeamish about item 4 to throw out the other three as well (as they usually do).
The point is that anyone in their right mind will accept that drawing the wrong conclusion from the right premises potentially causes evil. So does not following correctly drawn conclusions. For instance:
God exists -> (fallacious reasoning) -> I must take an airplane and fly it into a tower block.
Suppose for a while that the premise is true. It is then logically impossible to get from the premise to the conclusion using correct logic. This should convince believers that it is morally imperative to use solid logic. Clearly, flying an airplane into a building after having first concluded that it is not a correct thing to do would be, apart from immoral, also quite silly.
A secular example would be:
Patient has bacterial infection -> (fallacious reasoning) -> I must treat with distilled water.
Rational behaviour would have been to prescribe antibiotics. Irrational behaviour is morally wrong here because the patient dies while correct reasoning (and subsequent action) would have saved his life. Logic holds equally in a universe with or without God. Anyone endowed with a sense of morality, believer or not, will see that sound logic is morally imperative, with belief only relating to what premises one considers true*.
Given that item 4 relates only to whether one accepts revelation as a source of knowledge or not, I can't imagine how there could be disagreement with the first three items. That should already be enough common ground as far as a definition of "rational" is concerned.
_________________
*note to fellow skeptics: unclosed gap in reasoning left in intentionally
Post by: danickstr on January 09, 2008, 06:41:24 AM
Believe, minions. Do not question.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 09, 2008, 11:23:35 AM
While your "argument" is logical, you've left no room for emotion. People who are fanatics, people who have been whipped into a frenzy, people who act in the heat of the moment, people who have been emotionally abused and have their sense of reality impaired - are not going to follow any of those rules. They might not even possess (either permanently or temporarily) the ability to reason clearly.
Further, the rational conclusion can often go against conventional wisdom. Depending upon the person, that person may either abandon what is real and true for the sake of conforming or may have the strength and will to proceed alone. But the last is a rare place to be.
Nick,
Anyone who truly follows a belief system should always check in from time to time to see if it still makes sense to them. Even Mother Theresa, who undeniably did so much to help India's poor, wrote letters questioning her faith.
I guess it's your point that enough people don't do that and follow blindly. I would hate to think you're proposing that all people of any faith never question its validity and worth.
Post by: J-Texas on January 09, 2008, 11:32:26 AM
| studiojimi wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 15:25 | ||
this whole thread is tired Mother/Father/Spirit God is sexless Father...the head honcho He....is just merely a pro noun most of us accept but not to define as gender ALLness the Omnipotent the Omnipresent the Omniscient. were talkin Supreme Intelligence errorless perfect being which lives in you and dwells there and is available for the consciousness awareness raising experience. i highly recommend it but don't insist on it. |
Jimi,
I browsed through the posts, but stopped on your. I appreciate people who stand up for Christianity. Nobody really has a problem letting people in on their belief system except for Christians. It's like you're fanatical or on a soapbox for claiming Christ. It just struck me. Very cool.
I go to a "Mega" church in Dallas. Huckabee came a spoke to our congregation. The next week, yup... you guessed it... shoe polished car windows everywhere!
I know we are not to gossip or judge, but I'm a sinner and I know it... so here goes.
I think that the Christians are being duped by Huckabee the way that Bush did. He's hitting the evangelicals hard. We have a lot of money coming through our doors and I wonder what kind of contribution we payed for? I also wonder how many people are on the bandwagon just because our pastor supports him. There are a lot of people who want to be told what to do and how to think. Or they just want to be accepted or have something to believe in. What's happening?
Post by: studiojimi on January 09, 2008, 12:39:26 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 01:30 | ||
How about... 1) using sound logic (i.e. without fallacies of any kind) to build an argument that is internally consistent. 2) using same sound logic to insure relevance to the discussion 3) readiness to act upon the conclusions reached and not to act against them. There's actually also: 4) readiness to verify the premises (implicit and explicit) but I wouldn't want to cause people who are squeamish about item 4 to throw out the other three as well (as they usually do). The point is that anyone in their right mind will accept that drawing the wrong conclusion from the right premises potentially causes evil. So does not following correctly drawn conclusions. For instance: God exists -> (fallacious reasoning) -> I must take an airplane and fly it into a tower block. Suppose for a while that the premise is true. It is then logically impossible to get from the premise to the conclusion using correct logic. This should convince believers that it is morally imperative to use solid logic. Clearly, flying an airplane into a building after having first concluded that it is not a correct thing to do would be, apart from immoral, also quite silly. A secular example would be: Patient has bacterial infection -> (fallacious reasoning) -> I must treat with distilled water. Rational behaviour would have been to prescribe antibiotics. Irrational behaviour is morally wrong here because the patient dies while correct reasoning (and subsequent action) would have saved his life. Logic holds equally in a universe with or without God. Anyone endowed with a sense of morality, believer or not, will see that sound logic is morally imperative, with belief only relating to what premises one considers true*. Given that item 4 relates only to whether one accepts revelation as a source of knowledge or not, I can't imagine how there could be disagreement with the first three items. That should already be enough common ground as far as a definition of "rational" is concerned. _________________ *note to fellow skeptics: unclosed gap in reasoning left in intentionally |
bruno don't be putzie....
you are reknowned and considered "intelligent"
but you are missing out any spiritual element in your cogno faithless rant
don't you understand that a faith based life is logical to many?
your logic don't pay my bills pal--
but God's blessings
do.
i put God up in consciousness.
i choose to thank and praise him for it daily in private and in public.
and another thing
nowhere in my Bible does it say
Bruno saves.
B.I.B.L.E.
basic instruction before leaving earth
or
basic instruction bringing life eternal
pick whichever applies
the only other choice is hell in a handbasket
and i'm not talking bout a here after
i'm talkin' 'bout
hell on earth.
i which you a most pleasant now today and always.
Post by: bruno putzeys on January 09, 2008, 01:16:37 PM
Don't get me wrong, I can be pretty spiritual. Just recently I was driving on a Dutch motorway when I was suddenly surprised by the sight of the sea, which I hadn't quite expected. A few seconds later the motorway ducked behind one of those famous dikes. I imagined this vast body of water on the other side of it while on my side there were sheep grazing, and wind power generators on top of it. It must've been the perfect kind of weather, just the right amount of perfectly fluffy clouds as I was completely overwhelmed by the whole vista. That was when I thought "this is a bloody special planet, this" and felt profoundly happy to be there and see it.
I can't begin to describe the fullness of intensity of the feeling.
Point is, I knew perfectly well that the dike was built there by engineers who knew exactly how to make it strong enough. I knew they were growing grass on it to keep it from eroding. I knew they were keeping sheep on it to maintain the grass. I knew the wind generators were there to power the homes of about 30000 families. I knew the sky was blue because of rayleigh scattering. I even knew whereabouts my brain the nerve centre was that got the kind of seisure that causes a loss of self-awareness that is the mechanism behind the religious experience I was having.
None of this knowledge did even the slightest to reduce the sense of wonder. Quite the opposite, it made it stronger. Just to imagine the natural processes that started at the big bang, led us through evolution up to and including sufficient computational power to actually understand how it came about, well, that's HUUGE, man. I like being bowled over like that.
A line in the Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy reads "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"*. That pretty much nails it I think. I am no less spiritual than a Zen buddhist monk, except that I know why and I can assure that doesn't spoil the fun.
OK I've done my bit and shown you my spiritual side. Now your turn to show your intellectual side and answer my previous post.
Post by: J-Texas on January 09, 2008, 01:45:08 PM
Live as though God exists: You gain Heaven. If He doesn't... well, you've lost nothing.
Live as though He does not: You get to burn in hell. If He doesn't... again, you've lost nothing.
Which would you rather wager? I believe that it takes a much larger leap of faith to trust evolution than creationism. Just my opinion.
To tie it back in... Huckabee is targeting one of the largest voting groups... the Christians.
Post by: bruno putzeys on January 09, 2008, 01:51:36 PM
Of course Pascal's wager is also wrong on a more fundamental level. You can't choose to believe if you don't. You can decide to go to church and say prayers and all that, but believe you either do or do not. So Pascal's wager is the kind of cynical hypocrisy that guarantees a one-way ticket to hell, if there is one. BTW am I to first to notice a correlation between line spacing and content?
Post by: J-Texas on January 09, 2008, 02:14:45 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 12:51 |
, but believe you either do or do not. |
This line makes me smile when I imagine Yoda saying it.
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 12:51 |
BTW am I to first to notice a correlation between line spacing and content? |
Now THAT is hilarious man. I guess we believers HAVE to be heard or we'll spank you with the Bible belt!
Bruno, it's a hard one to wrap your heart around. I struggle with trusting God. I know, though, how He has led me and even carried me numerous times. I don't believe that I have been extremely lucky, I believe that I've been blessed. Why are humans wired to look UP? Whatever your religion or spirituality, Mother Nature... MOST, not all, people believe in something bigger than themselves. Why is it human nature to think that way? Whether you go to Heaven, outer space, come back as a llama in your second life... we're not programmed to think of death as "the end". It would make our existence pretty meaningless if that were true.
... and Huckabee is trying to dupe the American Christian conservative.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 09, 2008, 02:25:13 PM
You are without a doubt, logical, clear-thinking, rationale and insightful. It is a blessing to be able to enjoy the beauty one finds along the way in life.
I'll just quickly reply to the Hitchhiker:
Isn't it something to see a beautiful garden and enjoy it, knowing that someone took time to create it and maintain it? A beautiful guitar does not play itself.
Post by: bruno putzeys on January 09, 2008, 02:28:35 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 20:25 |
Isn't it something to see a beautiful garden and enjoy it, knowing that someone took time to create it and maintain it? A beautiful guitar does not play itself. |
Oh but I do realise the qualitative difference between a natural landscape and a Japanese garden. What gardening does is push all the emotional buttons that were evolutionarily formed to reflect the kind of landscape that our ancestors have learned to recognise as signs of a healthy environment (the Savannah). Art is all about triggering (for our enjoyment) the innate emotional responses that were all too necessary for survival in the past. A good garden is intelligently condensed natural beauty.
| J-Texas wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 20:14 |
This line makes me smile when I imagine Yoda saying it. |
Now imagine Yoda speaking with a fake Oxford accent.
| J-Texas wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 20:14 |
Why is it human nature to think that way? |
A well argued explanation based on evolution is given in "Religion Explained" by Pascal Boyer. Highly recommended.
| J-Texas wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 20:14 |
It would make our existence pretty meaningless if that were true. |
| J-Texas wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 20:14 |
... and Huckabee is trying to dupe the American Christian conservative. |
Yeah you're right. We might consider getting back to the topic.
Post by: Larrchild on January 09, 2008, 02:33:51 PM
It is when you begin to try to prove which belief system is the right one that the fur usually flies in this world. If we apply some Bruno-style logic to that, a loving God would not have us all bickering across the planet about who's God is better.
So I refuse to believe that anyone's beliefs are better or worse than my silly little human view of mine.
It is when a large block of one belief system attach themselves to the political process in order to gain leverage on things that affect my life, that I get intolerant..
And that's only right.
Golden Rule, folks.
That seems to be the unifying common ground for all ya's.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 09, 2008, 02:34:40 PM
What Huckabee conveniently ignores of course is that the SOLE mission of The Church is NOT to create a Christian country, nor is it to convert the unbelieving, it is simply to TELL THE GOOD NEWS OF SALVATION and let God take care of the rest.
EDIT: Larry, if one believes in democratic form of government (and ours is a special type of that: a Republic and not a democracy), then one must accept people are allowed to organize a "block" of anything they like -- religion, union, club, etc. to push their agenda. We may not like that agenda (as I don't for the Christian right) but we are allowed to form our own block to overcome theirs. That's voting in action. Don't decry the political efforts of others, promote your own agenda and gain supporters who will change what you don't like.
Post by: bruno putzeys on January 09, 2008, 02:39:40 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 20:34 |
(...) the SOLE mission of The Church is NOT to create a Christian country, nor is it to convert the unbelieving, it is simply to TELL THE GOOD NEWS OF SALVATION and let God take care of the rest. |
AMEN
Post by: Larrchild on January 09, 2008, 03:03:33 PM
| Quote: |
EDIT: Larry, if one believes in democratic form of government (and ours is a special type of that: a Republic and not a democracy), then one must accept people are allowed to organize a "block" of anything they like -- religion, union, club, etc. to push their agenda. We may not like that agenda (as I don't for the Christian right) but we are allowed to form our own block to overcome theirs. That's voting in action. Don't decry the political efforts of others, promote your own agenda and gain supporters who will change what you don't like. |
Those very points are being decided by the upcoming election if you look at the 2 parties. The block that wants separation of church and state and the one that doesn't.
Both parties kept these things to their selves before Falwell and successors began to court the GOP. Billy Graham was before him, but he didn't have this targeted agenda and I love the man.
To get back on topic, I find it is fragmenting the GOP and it is dividing our nation into secular and non-secular.
So if you think these "blocks" attaining the influence of government is a good thing, I respectfully disagree.
I think it is more harmful than useful.
Pat Robertson basically said, divorced, mobbed-up, moderate or not, that Giuliani promised him a constructionist Supreme Court to fight Roe v Wade.
Now thats a preacher dealing with the devil.
And way off his home field.
This is what bugs me.
"I've got a bunch of people who will do what I tell them on Sunday if you do this".
From Reagan's speech writer, Peggy Noonan:
http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010988
Post by: PookyNMR on January 09, 2008, 03:45:55 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 11:51 |
By that reasoning the religion with the most vindictive of gods will win. Of course Pascal's wager is also wrong on a more fundamental level. You can't choose to believe if you don't. You can decide to go to church and say prayers and all that, but believe you either do or do not. So Pascal's wager is the kind of cynical hypocrisy that guarantees a one-way ticket to hell, if there is one. BTW am I to first to notice a correlation between line spacing and content? |
You misunderstand Pascal and the nature of faith and grace.
First of all, Pascal's assertion has to do with many things not being able to be 'proven' in either direction.
Belief comes by experience and evidence. And it is by participation that faith becomes alive. For someone to actually believe and have faith, they need to step into the experience and then faith can come alive. You don't believe XYZ and then step into experience. Pascal's point is that it doesn't work that way. You need to be willing to risk.
Theologically speaking, grace works by accepting an invitation and walking out the experience. We get the grace as we walk it out, never before. Faith works the same way. It's not cynical hypocrisy, it's choosing to accept God's invitation and seeing him empower your choice.
Post by: bruno putzeys on January 09, 2008, 03:54:01 PM
Post by: PookyNMR on January 09, 2008, 04:11:56 PM
Regardless of Pascal, the point about the nature of faith and grace still stands.
Post by: bruno putzeys on January 09, 2008, 04:25:47 PM
The unbeliever thinks that faith is a meager substitute for knowledge. The believer thinks that knowledge is rather limited in scope.
I know that my half of the statement (the first) reflects my view. I was wondering if believers can find themselves in the second part. I used to be a (very) firm believer in my younger days and I do recall that that was where I stood, but I'm wondering if that goes for other believers too.
Post by: Larrchild on January 09, 2008, 04:26:46 PM
Hell, I'd vote for a Seventh Day Adventist, half-Asian, half-Black, half Hispanic trisexual, if (they) had the steely-eyed resolve to get the world back on our side and get some manufacturing back here at this point.
Nothing matters but saving the USA.
I'm color/faith/gender blind.
But not phoney-blind.
I hope.
Post by: J-Texas on January 09, 2008, 04:32:08 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 13:33 |
It is when a large block of one belief system attach themselves to the political process in order to gain leverage on things that affect my life, that I get intolerant... |
Are you referring to Mike Huckabee's camp?
| Larrchild wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 13:33 |
Golden Rule, folks. |
Is there any correlation to this and the 'Golden Ratio'?
Post by: Larrchild on January 09, 2008, 04:34:28 PM
| Quote: |
Larrchild wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 13:33 Golden Rule, folks. Is there any correlation to this and the 'Golden Ratio'? Rolling Eyes |
Why yes.
If you do good stuff.
You get 1.61803399 more back.
I've proven it!
Post by: bruno putzeys on January 09, 2008, 04:34:39 PM
| J-Texas wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 22:32 |
Is there any correlation to this and the 'Golden Ratio'? |
"do nothing more than 1.618 times as bad as you would have others do to you"
(edit: damn. Larry just beat me to it)
Post by: Larrchild on January 09, 2008, 04:35:41 PM
Post by: J-Texas on January 09, 2008, 04:42:12 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 13:34 |
I don't know that Huckabee is trying to "dupe" the Christian right. He is a Baptist minister so at least on some level he is a part of that group. |
I'm Baptist and he ain't a part of my group.
| Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 13:34 |
He is pandering to the Christian right to be political and to vote for him. |
I like it when people aren't afraid to proclaim their beliefs. And it is important to me as a Christian voter to know where that candidate stands spiritually and morally. It is not okay for one to judge and take the high ground in God's name to get the voters to jump on the bandwagon. We need a president and not a pope.
| Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 13:34 |
... the SOLE mission of The Church is NOT to create a Christian country, nor is it to convert the unbelieving, it is simply to TELL THE GOOD NEWS OF SALVATION and let God take care of the rest. |
I'm with that 100%.
Post by: Larrchild on January 09, 2008, 04:48:15 PM
| Quote: |
We need a president and not a pope. |
Again, amen.
| Quote: |
I'm Baptist and he ain't a part of my group. |
Ah Peoples Front of Judea.
You must be the Judean People's Front.
Splitter!
Post by: J-Texas on January 09, 2008, 04:53:27 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 15:25 |
The unbeliever thinks that faith is a meager substitute for knowledge. The believer thinks that knowledge is rather limited in scope. |
That's a very interesting statement. I do find myself more closely aligned with the latter part of it. I believe that there are concepts about God and His power that we don't understand. We don't have the knowledge, vocabulary, intelligence, etc. to fathom what we can't explain in a mathematical way. I think there are secrets to the universe that the human brain doesn't have the capacity to even dream. Stuff that would blow Stephen Hawking's mind! I can't wait to find out.
"... by the power of Greyskull... I have the poowwerrr [with lots of heavy reverb]
Post by: J-Texas on January 09, 2008, 04:55:40 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 15:26 |
if (they) had the steely-eyed resolve... |
What if they just had a Steely Dan record? Vinyl.
Post by: Larrchild on January 09, 2008, 05:18:20 PM
| Quote: |
The unbeliever thinks that faith is a meager substitute for knowledge. The believer thinks that knowledge is rather limited in scope. |
It's very difficult to look at a snowflake structure magnified and not conclude that something smart designed it. And that it might not be a random event.
Sometimes, in the course of looking for knowledge, we find belief.=)
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." (Albert Einstein)
Post by: CCC on January 09, 2008, 05:23:51 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 17:18 |
It's very difficult to look at a snowflake structure magnified and not conclude that something smart designed it. And that it might not be a random event. |
Why?
Post by: Larrchild on January 09, 2008, 05:31:26 PM
Makes us feel less like know-it-alls.
Post by: fiasco ( P.M.DuMont ) on January 09, 2008, 06:15:00 PM
...or insanity.
Pleasant and interesting.
Post by: CCC on January 09, 2008, 06:32:54 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 17:31 |
Math-based structures that occur in nature that approach "perfection" in their engineering foundation impress silly earthlings, sometimes. Makes us feel less like know-it-alls. |
With respect, is the creation of a snowflake something that cannot be explained without introducing supernatural intervention? And if snowflakes and their allegedly special geometry can be explained without resorting to divinity then why not just be impressed by the wonders of nature and leave it at that? Why does the experience have to be used to bootstrap one's own wishful thinking?
Post by: Larrchild on January 09, 2008, 06:38:21 PM
Just a higher intelligence.
Could come from Zoltar for all I know.
Something to look up to for their smarts.
Or it's random.
Everyone reacts differently.
Here's the scientific explanation, anyway:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/dendrites/de ndrite.htm
Brilliant engineering, whomever did it.
Post by: Andy Peters on January 09, 2008, 07:02:39 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 10:39 |
your logic don't pay my bills pal-- but God's blessings do. |
That worries me greatly.
| Quote: |
nowhere in my Bible does it say Bruno saves. |
My Bible says, "Jesus saves sinners and redeems them for valuable prizes."
In the Gospel of P. Smith, Horses 1:1, we read: "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine."
| Quote: |
B.I.B.L.E. basic instruction before leaving earth or basic instruction bringing life eternal pick whichever applies |
Of course you completely discount the agendas of the humans who wrote that book. (Yeah, yeah, the usual explanation: divine guidance, or some such.)
| Quote: |
the only other choice is hell in a handbasket |
Fortunately for me, there IS no Hell.
And I used to live in New Jersey.
-a
Post by: Larrchild on January 09, 2008, 07:14:20 PM
Post by: studiojimi on January 09, 2008, 07:18:03 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 12:54 |
What does is trying to figure out how to make people understand the scientific method, its scope and its implications. |
Putzski
you really CAN have it all.
one can have as far as he can see.
you are not looking hard enough in the right places to have the whole enchilada.
then Peters says:
| Quote: |
That worries me greatly. |
you gettin lines on ya fohead over me?
come on man.
mocking me to make your point...that's pretty low
guess this shows just how far a rational brother can rash
Post by: Larrchild on January 09, 2008, 08:07:15 PM
When you say:
| Quote: |
Putzski |
followed by:
| Quote: |
mocking me to make your point...that's pretty low |
It makes me mock your mocking.
Golden Rule redux.
Post by: studiojimi on January 09, 2008, 09:30:53 PM
hunski
cazski
studski
have at it
Larrski come on man.
Post by: Larrchild on January 09, 2008, 09:33:10 PM
Post by: studiojimi on January 09, 2008, 09:42:21 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 18:33 |
Don't make me give you a fat Lipinski. |
i already have one.
but fortunately
God is a healer and restorer in my life and all my affairs.
Post by: mgod on January 09, 2008, 09:45:53 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 13:25 |
On a different tack. Since I'm not planning to convert you and I hope you're not trying to convert me, I was wondering if this would make a reasonable rundown of the divide: The unbeliever thinks that faith is a meager substitute for knowledge. The believer thinks that knowledge is rather limited in scope. I know that my half of the statement (the first) reflects my view. I was wondering if believers can find themselves in the second part. I used to be a (very) firm believer in my younger days and I do recall that that was where I stood, but I'm wondering if that goes for other believers too. |
Well this is all pretty fun - my kinda lunch talk. Overall, I'm with Joseph Campbell who said, and I probably paraphrase, "I don't need faith - I have experience."
Now I think that Bruno and some others could well reduce any experience to a scientific theory about where these experiences arise in the brain. For that matter, so could anyone who's done a couple good psychedelics.
But, the thing is, its theory. So as to your question Bruno, for me the answer would be that the 2nd half of your idea is waaaayyyy off. Knowledge itself is anything but limited. However, something I've observed in my occasional debates in PSW is that those who consider themselves to be the spokesmodels for the scientific approach argue as if science is finished - that we know what there is to be known or can be known. I'm sure that this is not your position. But it certainly then leaves room for the attainment of knowledge that in fact confirms the reality of the existence of higher power, whatever one might mean by that expression. 500 years ago what is now everyday household physics would have been acts of god or something to be burned for.
Science ain't done, and knowledge is not complete. And how much fun is the discovery?
Now I suggest we all retire to read a little Philip K. Dick.
DS
Post by: PookyNMR on January 09, 2008, 11:06:57 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 14:25 |
On a different tack. Since I'm not planning to convert you and I hope you're not trying to convert me, I was wondering if this would make a reasonable rundown of the divide: The unbeliever thinks that faith is a meager substitute for knowledge. The believer thinks that knowledge is rather limited in scope. I know that my half of the statement (the first) reflects my view. I was wondering if believers can find themselves in the second part. I used to be a (very) firm believer in my younger days and I do recall that that was where I stood, but I'm wondering if that goes for other believers too. |
I quite agree with your second statement. I also think the whole notion of "proof" is often greatly overstated and over-assumed. We're always learning more and our conclusions are continually changing.
Your first statement I don't agree with. Faith is not a substitute for knowledge. They are quite different. Furthermore, there are often a number of common presuppositions with the terms "faith" and "knowledge" that are either incorrect or inapplicable so it can even be hard to have a conversation about the statement without defining the terms.
The term knowledge sometimes has the connotation of completeness and proof. Here let us define the term knowledge as a synonym for information, data, evidence. Given that definition, my agreement with your second point arises.
Faith is the motivating force for all action. Beliefs come from evidence. When those beliefs are put to some form of action, they become faith. Faith can be completely non-religious.
Most folks tend to believe that faith is a belief in something that can't be proven or is superstitious. I'm challenging that notion in the sense that our current pop culture understanding of faith does not correlate with a historical or contextual (thinking of religious / philosophical) understanding of the concept. Faith is tied to belief, but goes beyond belief as it gives birth to action.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 09, 2008, 11:50:14 PM
This refers to your post several pages ago!! I just found it in re-reading the postings. Sorry!
I agree with you. I hate a right-wing agenda of any kind, especially a Christian right-wing (reminding you I am a Christian). We are on the same team!
I was just explaining the process. They've got to try to win and we've got to try to stop them. Whoever gets more votes gets to have their way. We can all say how much we despise them, their ideals and tactics, but they get to organize and so do we.
So let's get organized and elect a president who will help put an end to this Christian right-wing bullshit!
And referring to another, much earlier post:
Zoltan wants his snowflake back -- and you damn well better have it for him!
Post by: J-Texas on January 09, 2008, 11:51:06 PM
What if Jimi were to mock your mocking of his mocking and divide that by 1.6180339887... would that be fair? And then could we say that Huckabee is the devil?
Golden Ratio/ Huckabee redux!
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 09, 2008, 11:52:43 PM
I'm rubber
You're glue
So go fuck yourself.
Post by: studiojimi on January 10, 2008, 12:11:49 AM
Post by: CCC on January 10, 2008, 12:16:05 AM
| studiojimi wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 00:11 |
I forgive those of you who don't know any better than what you are thinking and saying. |
Backatcha, sparky.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 10, 2008, 12:47:20 AM
What if I don't know what I'm saying or thinking?
Or, the Yoko Ono Method:
You imagine what I'm thinking and I imagine you're forgiving me...
Barry
Post by: Larrchild on January 10, 2008, 12:53:18 AM
Barry, I got that you were a professed Christian who was not down with making church and state interleaved by your disclaimer.
I think J-Texas' view is crystal clear also, lol.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 10, 2008, 01:02:59 AM
"With about 10-11% reporting…Hillary has more than twice as many votes as McCain…Obama has far more than twice what Romney has…Edwards is nearing three times Huckabee’s numbers…Giuliani’s with a handful more than Richardson…Paul has twice Kucinich…[and] Grampa Fred [Thompson] is beating Duncan Hunter by more than 2 to 1!
However… write-in’s are beating Fred."
Kucinich's continued poor showing hurts me personally... I'll have to reflect on this.
Post by: Larrchild on January 10, 2008, 01:39:11 AM
Abe would have never made it.
Post by: Andy Peters on January 10, 2008, 01:47:10 AM
| studiojimi wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 17:18 | ||||
Putzski you really CAN have it all. one can have as far as he can see. you are not looking hard enough in the right places to have the whole enchilada. then Peters says:
you gettin lines on ya fohead over me? come on man. mocking me to make your point...that's pretty low guess this shows just how far a rational brother can rash |
You called Bruno "Putzski." I assume you know some Yiddish, and that you understand that your misspelling was intentional.
Clearly, you're mocking Bruno to make you point, there. Pot, meet kettle.
-a
Post by: bruno putzeys on January 10, 2008, 01:48:45 AM
| studiojimi wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 18:39 |
your logic don't pay my bills pal-- but God's blessings do. |
To compensate for someone else's ironic reply I'll reply literally. My logic does not pay your bills. It pays mine. I would be unable to design the stuff that I do if I allowed myself to be sidelined by unfalsifiable propositions.
As for your bills, I presume you do a fair amount of gospel music. I haven't gone out to check, but since I have a good deal of gospel in my music collection there's a fat chance that I have paid a very small part of your bills.
| mgod wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 03:45 |
So as to your question Bruno, for me the answer would be that the 2nd half of your idea is waaaayyyy off. |
Post by: danickstr on January 10, 2008, 09:46:26 AM
You lost the ability to think for yourself and not according to a book.
I am not saying that Christianity is bad, just that the assumption that thinking the way someone else wants me to for my whole life is "losing nothing|".
To me, it is losing everything.
Post by: mgod on January 10, 2008, 10:34:56 AM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 22:48 | ||
|
Yes, I understood that that 2nd half wasn't your view, that it was something you were putting out as a possibility for believers with question mark attached to it. My response was that for at least some believers, its not a proposition that holds up. Einstein may have been a life-long believer or ended up that way, but believer he was. For him, one might think that his belief was based on the evidence of his understanding, knowledge, and experience.
I agree that science is not limited in scope - but I'm grateful that there is still so much more to learn. I think its inevitable that given enough time, science and faith will arrive at the same point, both having evolved quite a bit. It seems certain that the facts of the material world will never meet what we currently are taught that the Bible says, but I expect that before too long the bible itself will be read in very different ways than it is now, and these silly arguments about 6000 vs. 20 billion years will be laughed at.
Most tribal cultures have some kind of creation myth. The current crop of "Christian" literalists misunderstanding the Jewish creation myth won't last forever. Its almost like some folks read a tract somewhere called "Misunderstanding the Torah for Fun and Profit."
DS
Post by: bruno putzeys on January 10, 2008, 11:08:44 AM
| mgod wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 16:34 |
Einstein may have been a life-long believer or ended up that way, but believer he was. |
http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Einstein- on-a-Personal-God.htm
I think we may safely say that Einstein was a believer in exactly the same way that I am: happy to be utterly impressed by the grandness of the universe, and yet certain that there are no principal limitations to science's ability to understand it all.
| mgod wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 16:34 |
but I'm grateful that there is still so much more to learn. |
Post by: PRobb on January 10, 2008, 11:15:16 AM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 01:48 |
The reason why science is not limited in scope is precisely because it is a method, not a body of knowledge. That would indeed be extremely limiting (although not nearly as much as people believe: current scientific knowledge can already explain why snowflakes look the way they do. Doesn't make them any less beautiful). |
I think that bears repeating with emphasis.
Post by: CCC on January 10, 2008, 11:28:18 AM
| mgod wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 10:34 |
Einstein may have been a life-long believer or ended up that way, but believer he was. For him, one might think that his belief was based on the evidence of his understanding, knowledge, and experience. |
This is a misconception.
Post by: J-Texas on January 10, 2008, 11:39:10 AM
| danickstr wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 08:46 |
to say that living with a belief in god according to Pascal's wager is losing nothing if you are wrong is silly. You lost the ability to think for yourself and not according to a book. I am not saying that Christianity is bad, just that the assumption that thinking the way someone else wants me to for my whole life is "losing nothing|". To me, it is losing everything. |
We have free will. There are really just the basics according to Christ. Things that any non-believer would just consider "moral". Love your neighbor, don't commit adultery, don't murder, don't falsely accuse, treat people how you want to be treated.
I don't see that as "giving up" anything. Hey man, even Christians struggle with sin, addictions, questioning/not trusting God. We are born as sinners, but somewhere along the way you try to become more and more "good", "pure", "Christ-like", whatever. Does that mean you don't slip? Does that mean you're going to hell if you smoke a joint? or cheat on your girlfriend? or eat the yellow snow?
That's not what MY God says.
check it out: 1 Corinthians 12 - "Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything.
Surrendering yourself to a higher power [God, for me] is not losing anything, but gaining EVERYTHING!
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 00:48 |
The reason why science is not limited in scope is precisely because it is a method, not a body of knowledge. That would indeed be extremely limiting |
The irony of it is that humans don't have the capacity to gain the knowledge in order to devise, much less, comprehend the method.
Example: Red Shift. We know that the universe is expanding. Ok, what's holding it back. And if you find out what that is, then what's on the other side of that?
We say "alpha" and "omega" because we have to have words to understand NO beginning and NO end. That's hard to swallow. So, it's already limiting. We say infinity. That usually translates to a long, long time [in a galaxy far, far away]. But it NEVER ends.
Good dinner conversation over some brown acid. Just don't be alarmed when the turkey chimes in on the conversation.
I wonder what Huckabee would say about all of this if he were president?
Post by: bruno putzeys on January 10, 2008, 11:47:01 AM
| J-Texas wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 17:39 |
Example: Red Shift. We know that the universe is expanding. Ok, what's holding it back. And if you find out what that is, then what's on the other side of that? |
(at least I hope you're joking)| J-Texas wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 17:39 |
I wonder what Huckabee would say about all of this if he were president? |
I think he'd try to repeal several laws of physics.
Post by: studiojimi on January 10, 2008, 12:12:08 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 22:48 | ||
To compensate for someone else's ironic reply I'll reply literally. My logic does not pay your bills. It pays mine. I would be unable to design the stuff that I do if I allowed myself to be sidelined by unfalsifiable propositions. As for your bills, I presume you do a fair amount of gospel music. I haven't gone out to check, but since I have a good deal of gospel in my music collection there's a fat chance that I have paid a very small part of your bills. |
putz . . .please
count the I's in any of your rants.
do you give credit to anyone or anything besides your self?
are you worthy to be praised?
not from this camp.
by the way...when the elevator cable breaks and you are on your way down to a horrible bump..you will hollah HIS HOLY NAME for both mercy and grace, you will kneel & bow and you will realize (with your real eyes--your spiritual eyes) just who yo spiritual daddy is. and He just loves you just the way you are as you are having your learning experience. and much of it will not come from a book.
my friend you have a date with destiny "mr. large and in charge".
God's will of absolute good will always prevail and I can't understand why a guy with your brain power can't feel that all around you.
THY WILL BE DONE.
Take a moment
to review where you are
at this point in your life.
Are you pleased
with the progress
you have made
since last year?
Have you been goal-oriented
with a structured action plan?
Have you allowed yourself
to dream the impossible dream
with incredible faith?
Most importantly,
did you consult
with the Master
regarding His mission
for your life?
At times,
we become so preoccupied
with the pursuit,
we forget
to remain on purpose.
When we are clear,
God moves in,
through and around us
to align us with our vision.
All that we need,
when we need it,
is accessible and available,
"on demand."
"I thank You, Lord
for reminding me
that my life has meaning
and
that I am on a divine assignment.
Every moment
brings me closer
to all that is possible
when I simply let go
and
allow Thy perfect will
to be done in my life,
world and affairs."
"According to the eternal purpose
which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Ephesians 3:11
Post by: mgod on January 10, 2008, 12:28:55 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 08:08 | ||
|
I think the uncovering of how the world works, and just what the hell is going on in the world, is the territory of science, so in the department of what, no, I don't think there's anything beyond the purview of science - including the nature of how we perceive or experience what we call god, and perhaps even what god itself is. Give us a few hundred, or maybe a few thousand years, and I think much of what we now call philosophy or religion or spirituality will be understood through our expansion of the territory of science, and equally importantly, our expansion of the definition of what science can lead us to understand. I do think there are real things that we now call the supernatural, but in the not necessarily distant future we will see as natural.
The why is another matter of course, and at least equally interesting.
DS
Post by: mgod on January 10, 2008, 12:30:54 PM
| JS wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 08:28 | ||
This is a misconception. |
Then elucidate.
Simultaneous edit: Bruno's link doesn't refute what I wrote, it supports it. And Bruno has revealed himself as a believer - not in the same way as Jimi, or as Barry, but...
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
DS
Post by: bruno putzeys on January 10, 2008, 12:33:59 PM
| mgod wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 18:30 |
Then elucidate. |
See the link I posted.
Post by: Jay Kadis on January 10, 2008, 12:45:32 PM
| mgod wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 09:30 |
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." DS |
Obviously my religious training didn't take.
Post by: bruno putzeys on January 10, 2008, 12:48:58 PM
| mgod wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 18:30 |
And Bruno has revealed himself as a believer - not in the same way as Jimi, or as Barry, but... |
For a Christian to call me a believer is an act of superhuman broadmindedness. No pastor would call me a believer unless he were playing at semantics.
I do not believe in anything supernatural.
I do not believe in a creator. The universe looks exactly what it would look like if it wasn't created.
I do not believe we are here for someone's purpose. The universe looks exactly like it would look if it just happened to exist for no purpose.
I do not believe in original sin.
I do not believe in salvation.
I do not believe in resurrection.
I do not believe in life after death.
I do not believe that consciousness is anything beyond a very complicated computational process, evolutionarily honed, running in wetware.
And none of this causes unhappiness or despair in me.
I jokingly called myself "believer" to indicate that I share the sense of amazement about the universe that others would link to a God, but one that I link to mere computation by brain cells. Don't forget that science isn't only physics. Phychology is a science too, and a hugely interesting one. It is capable, for instance, of explaining why humans have a propensity for believing in the supernatural.
The reason why I keep going on about this feeling of wonder is because I want to explain that science only makes it bigger and more beautiful. By barring any line of inquiry from science (the "why" question is one of causation and therefore absolutely open to inquiry) is limiting your access to the utter grandeur of the universe.
Post by: mgod on January 10, 2008, 12:59:37 PM
| Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 09:45 |
Obviously my religious training didn't take. |
Nor mine.
| Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 09:45 | ||
|
True - and an omniscient omnipotent god isn't necessarily NOT one of them neither.
| Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 09:45 |
The question of why may just be an artifact of human perception and not a truly meaningful question. |
Sure is interesting to think about though.
DS
Post by: mgod on January 10, 2008, 01:04:24 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 09:48 | ||
For a Christian to call me a believer is an act of superhuman broadmindedness. No pastor would call me a believer unless he were playing at semantics. |
If you're referring to me, I'm not a Christian. Neither was Jesus for that matter, but he and I are of the same people. And among us, its known that there are as many forms of "the faith" (which it isn't) as there are people to experience it. Einstein's was pretty groovy.
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 09:48 |
Don't forget that science isn't only physics. Phychology is a science too, and a hugely interesting one. It is capable, for instance, of explaining why humans have a propensity for believing in the supernatural. |
Indeed it is, but so far, its not capable of proving it. Its still a theory among many others. It might be a wrong theory.
It might just be, as another theory and as I wrote before, that the "supernatural" is really just natural, and our minds are getting it right. And the science will eventually catch up.
DS
Post by: studiojimi on January 10, 2008, 01:51:08 PM
| mgod wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 10:04 |
It might just be, as another theory and as I wrote before, that the "supernatural" is really just natural, and our minds are getting it right. And the science will eventually catch up. DS |
that's a big AMEN
hey i've got an equation for ya
AMEN=touching and agreeing.
bruno and a few others have a date with their own consciousness awareness raising experience....all in Divine Order
hurry up and catch up boys...we have much more fish to fry and i really don't have a dog in this fight anyway other that put the name of God up first and formost. the rest just falls into place from there on out.
Post by: J-Texas on January 10, 2008, 02:19:18 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 10:47 |
| (at least I hope you're joking) |
I'm sorry, but I'm not. Is it open, closed, what? If it's closed we'll implode and big bang on to the negative. Maybe in the next universe everyone will wear their guts on the outside... like backwards day. What's on the outside that would make it implode? If it's open, then that is more than amazing. Space just... IS? Wow, sounds like God... the I AM, always was, always will be. Now that's cool.
Mike Huckabee's bullshit is infinite.
Post by: el duderino on January 10, 2008, 03:19:49 PM
What do you guys think of this Huckabee/Colbert thing? could he really be serious?
For those of you who do not know, Huckabee last year was on the colbert report 3 times and each time he said he wanted colbert as his running-mate. He was on last night again and colbert even said he could take it back no problem, huckabee said "Stephen, please, be my running mate,".
I'm not sure what I think about this.
Post by: PookyNMR on January 10, 2008, 03:27:31 PM
| el duderino wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 13:19 |
sorry to interrupt the religious debate but.... What do you guys think of this Huckabee/Colbert thing? could he really be serious? For those of you who do not know, Huckabee last year was on the colbert report 3 times and each time he said he wanted colbert as his running-mate. He was on last night again and colbert even said he could take it back no problem, huckabee said "Stephen, please, be my running mate,". I'm not sure what I think about this. |
It's either pure foolishness or pure genius.
Post by: danickstr on January 10, 2008, 03:55:42 PM
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 10, 2008, 04:19:25 PM
Colbert: While not proven, there does seem to be some evidence of the "Colbert Bump" -- an increase in popularity by appearing on the Colbert Report. Huckabee wants as much of the bump as possible. He's been on three times (I'm told) and wants Colbert as a running mate. How much bump can you get from that?
In other news today:
1. Another Republican Congressman is going to resign due to corruption investigation (As someone commented "how long before we get to refer to the Republican Party as 'Organized Crime'?"
2. Katrina -- one guy is suing the Army Corps of Engineers (who built the failed levy system) for 4 quadrillion dollars (no kidding). Another is suing for 6 trillion.
3. The Pentagon has suspended its investigation of Jamie Leigh Jones' gang-rape (from members of her employer's mercenaries). You know why don't you -- the company would be exposed for what it is and people would be against both the company and the Pentagon (and maybe even the war!).
4. FBI phone taps have been suspended because the government didn't pay the bills.
Did I mention Huckabee is running for president?
Post by: Andy Peters on January 10, 2008, 05:03:42 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 10:48 |
I do not believe in anything supernatural. I do not believe in a creator. The universe looks exactly what it would look like if it wasn't created. I do not believe we are here for someone's purpose. The universe looks exactly like it would look if it just happened to exist for no purpose. I do not believe in original sin. I do not believe in salvation. I do not believe in resurrection. I do not believe in life after death. I do not believe that consciousness is anything beyond a very complicated computational process, evolutionarily honed, running in wetware. And none of this causes unhappiness or despair in me. |
Another Andy, one who's possibly one of our generation's greatest songwriters, once summed it up for me:
| "Dear God," XTC |
I wont believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, No devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you drown. Those lost at sea and never found, And it's the same the whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound, That the father, son and holy ghost, Is just somebody's unholy hoax, And if you're up there you'll perceive, That my heart's here upon my sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in... It's you, Dear god. |
Post by: Andy Peters on January 10, 2008, 05:05:34 PM
| J-Texas wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 09:39 |
We are born as sinners |
You believe that.
I know it to be utterly ridiculous.
-a
Post by: Andy Peters on January 10, 2008, 05:07:23 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 10:12 |
putz . . .please |
Ooops, you did it again.
Your God clearly doesn't mind that his followers insult those who would argue with them.
-a
Post by: Andy Peters on January 10, 2008, 05:08:25 PM
| danickstr wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 13:55 |
he has a helluva sense of humor for a creationist. |
Methinks the Huckster is not in on the joke.
-a
Post by: J-Texas on January 10, 2008, 05:42:33 PM
| Andy Peters wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 16:05 |
You believe that. |
Come on man. Given my obviously outspoken view of Christianity... did you have to ask that?
Obviously you disagree. Ok. What's next on the docket?
What would happen if we cut off Huckabee's right wing? Could his bullshit fly at that point?
Post by: studiojimi on January 10, 2008, 06:01:36 PM
| Andy Peters wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 14:07 | ||
Ooops, you did it again. Your God clearly doesn't mind that his followers insult those who would argue with them. -a |
ahhhhh shadddup
Post by: don kerce on January 10, 2008, 06:31:17 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 17:01 | ||||
ahhhhh shadddup |
And once again studiojimi enlightens us with his insight and Christian tolerance.
Post by: mgod on January 10, 2008, 06:55:12 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 15:01 | ||||
ahhhhh shadddup |
OK - lets try it this way.
Jimi, are you not aware that by addressing Bruno as putz you're insulting him?
DS
Post by: mgod on January 10, 2008, 07:22:40 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 10:51 |
bruno and a few others have a date with their own consciousness awareness raising experience....all in Divine Order hurry up and catch up boys...we have much more fish to fry and i really don't have a dog in this fight anyway other that put the name of God up first and formost. the rest just falls into place from there on out. |
Sorry Jimi - I can't really agree with this - I think anyone thinking that they know who has to catch up to whom is missing the boat and the point. None of us really know where anyone else is at on their path, and its seriously lacking in humility to think that any one of us is "Ahead" of any other. But maybe that's what religious conviction is about. A certainty of where you are, and where other people stand in relation to oneself. Alls I know is the injunction to love Bruno as thyself.
I've had experience in my life that is, to me, indisputably and profoundly in the category of what the average scientist of today will call supernatural. I know what this experience is - I think I know where it comes from. But I leave room in my thinking about these events to entertain the idea that it all "just" comes from my mind. Either way its pretty profound. If it all comes from my mind I'm a helluva lot smarter than I think I am and am intensely grateful to and for whatever the intelligence is that's teaching me. But then of course we get to the inevitable dialogue about what we mean by "I", and just what "I" is doing the teaching and what "I" is doing the listening. But having read enough Phil Dick, maybe I'm just more deluded. The Kabbalistic take on it would be a discussion about Aleph and Bet, the worlds of one and two.
For me, Bruno's description of his spiritual take on a rational reality is as beautiful as anything I might find in so-called scripture. And further, before anyone gets too hung up on the English translations of old books, I think a reading of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" might be useful.
I like Einstein's reference to Spinoza's God. I think the view that whatever God is it suffuses all of reality is pretty cool. Some people call it the vibration of all matter that in our poor ability to speak, we describe as pure love. Works for me. If people want to personalize that, well, why not? Certainly there are enough folks who have that personal experience of the great love that exists beyond themselves (and their resistance to it) that something is afoot. Maybe its all right there - resistance, surface tension, tensile strength, love. Maybe, since "God" cannot be approached by conventional perceptual faculties, maybe the only way to approach this underlying and overarching universal unlimitedness is through the filter of persona.
Is that turkey talking to me yet?
DS
Post by: studiojimi on January 10, 2008, 08:34:08 PM
| Andy Peters wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 14:07 | ||
Ooops, you did it again. Your God clearly doesn't mind that his followers insult those who would argue with them. -a |
HE is our God and He doesn't mind.
He is in charge of all you say, do think, as well
And if you don't work with His laws. . . .
lessons will be learned.
but HE doesn't mind
In fact HE enjoys the stir....
He looooooooves you.
i'm not coming on in any hatefulness
HE wants putz' love and yours too A. Peter
you oughta try a little praise,it may help you to see a little more clearly
So you are Bruno's keeper?
Post by: don kerce on January 10, 2008, 08:45:40 PM
And that's saying something!
"HE" is in charge of all you say, do and think?
What happened to free will to choose to believe and follow or not to?
I've known quite a few pastors and preachers and I doubt any of them would go that far.
You have no say in who you are?
Now it's an absolute, "HE" determines who and what you are?
And mocking one who disagrees with you is about as Un-Christian as it gets!
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 10, 2008, 08:46:50 PM
I'm a little worried. We aren't discussing a topic anymore. We're kinda kicking the shit out each other. Let's not turn into the typical forum where people create long-term enemies and just bash each other at every opportunity.
Let's take a breath, cut each some some slack and back off -- maybe from this entire thread.
OK you sonsabitches?
Post by: don kerce on January 10, 2008, 09:00:56 PM
So I hear this guy Huckabee is running for President........
Post by: Larrchild on January 10, 2008, 09:15:02 PM
Two things come to mind though.
It takes balls for anyone here to speak openly about belief and it's counterparts, and I respect it with great regard.
And I leave with the same good will towards ya'll as before, which is to say, it should never jeopardize friendships.
Secondly, I'm seeing that perhaps our interest in these things reflects our day jobs in some ways that made me grin.
Bruno would not be as able to deal as well in the science of audio if he allowed for non-scientific elements to be considered at work.
I'm in the "Euphonic" portion of the industry with tube audio, and it's accompanying mystique and perhaps I am more receptive to "other possibilities" beyond pure science in audio.
Well, I know it's all science, actually, just undiscovered science.
But I have great "Faith" in what we can't always document with meters, lol.
Anyway, everyone, look past the monkey-business here.
When you toss a hand grenade like this thread out there, you are gonna have incoming.=)
Post by: don kerce on January 10, 2008, 09:27:46 PM
I'm mostly a session musician which means I'm in a room playing with 6 or 7 other musicians and we all have free reign with what we play and how we interpret the song, while all working for the greater good, which is the song.
Post by: mgod on January 10, 2008, 10:51:50 PM
| don kerce wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 18:27 |
Bass should be as a bear dancing. |
Or a panther stalking.
DS
Post by: don kerce on January 10, 2008, 10:57:07 PM
I'm actually paraphrasing Steve Swallow.
He said in an interview that a bass solo should sound like a bear dancing.
I got to thinking about the parts I usually come up with.
If I can't picture a bear dancing to them, I'm playing too many notes.
Works for me.
d
Post by: J-Texas on January 10, 2008, 11:04:04 PM
First thing I thought of when I saw that:
Baloo the bear from the Jungle Book. I LOVE that some-bitch!
I wonder if Mike Huckabee enjoys animated movies too?
Post by: Larrchild on January 10, 2008, 11:05:33 PM
The bear just happens to be crocked to the gills too, if done correctly.
Post by: don kerce on January 10, 2008, 11:26:28 PM
Baloo is a close second though.
He does a heck of a mambo.
Post by: bblackwood on January 10, 2008, 11:38:55 PM
Post by: CCC on January 10, 2008, 11:40:54 PM
Religion A and reproduction: no birth control, no abortion, no masturbation, sex is for procreation rather than recreation, no gays (possible exception for clergy if not allowed to marry). Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great - if a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate.
Religion B and reproduction: birth control and abortion are ok, sex is ok, gay friendly.
Which religion will have more adherents in the long term? Religion A, of course, since there are more new births into the religion.
Religion A and marriage and child-rearing: marry within the faith, and raise the children within the faith.
Religion B and marriage and child-rearing: do what you like, we don't impose any restrictions on who you marry and your kids can chose or reject this religion.
Which religion will have more adherents? Religion A, of course.
Religion A and leaving the faith: you are told you will be punished for eternity, or in extreme cases you are dubbed an apostate and threatened with death.
Religion B and leaving the faith: well, if you don't like this religion, that's ok with us.
Which religion has more adherents? Religion A, of course.
Religion A and freedom of thought: do not question authority, have faith, shut up and don't ask too many hard questions. Don't be a "doubting Thomas".
Religion B and freedom of thought: feel free to question, we don't have all the answers.
Which religion keeps more adherents? Probably Religion A, although arguably too much indoctrination turns people off. Certain present company excluded.
Religion A and recruitment: convert the unbelievers.
Religion B and recruitment: hey, going door to door bums people out, so keep it to yourself.
Which religion has more adherents? Religion A?
Religion A and infidels: kill the infidels.
Religion B and infidels: what are "infidels"?
Which religion has more adherents? I would say that if Religion A knows how to fight, then Religion A. Hard to say.
In summary, if survival and growth are measures of success, then the most successful religion (or religion-organism) is the one that promotes the birth of more adherents, promotes the indoctrination of more adherents, prevents the departure of adherents, and that recruits more new-believers and/or kills more unbelievers.
The major religions of the world exhibit these characteristics. The major religions exist not because their messages are so great or unimpeachable, but because they are hardy organisms that are efficient at spreading their genetic doctrines to as many people as possible, by their very nature. Stated another way, the successful religion has the urge to survive and grow by spreading its materials. Thus, religion is an example of Darwinism at work.
Post by: don kerce on January 10, 2008, 11:51:52 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 22:38 |
To be fair, I think it's necessary to make the point that not all Christians are as antagonistic as others. I hope that the Christians on this forum will stop and examine their posts and think about how they come across... |
That is sort of the point I was trying to get to.
I'm not a Christian.
Spiritual, yes.
Christian, no.
And my dad is a Methodist minister.
Tolerance, understanding, love.
We don't have to all think the same thing and believe the same thing.
Do unto others makes sense to me.
Can we get back to the dancing bears now?
Wasn't that the point of this thread?
Oh, sorry, there was that Huckabee guy......
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 11, 2008, 12:02:48 AM
I know why we changed.
I don't know why it's dancing bears.
Post by: J-Texas on January 11, 2008, 12:03:19 AM
| don kerce wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 22:26 |
THAT'S more the bear I'm thinking of! Baloo is a close second though. He does a heck of a mambo. |
And with the coconuts on his face he looks just like a monkey!
"Goodnight, you princes of Maine, you kings of New England."
Post by: Larrchild on January 11, 2008, 12:05:33 AM
Reincarnation to learn more lessons each time is my bag.
Til you get it. Of course, at that point, you don't really care much about blogging, so I'm sure I have many more miles and much work to do, if this is any indication, lol.
But Brad, no Christians were antagonistic and I hope non-Christians were not either.
Jimi got disrespectful, imo and got heavy handed with the selling there. I was expecting snakes and tounges next.
But he probably means well.
Poorly received, however.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 11, 2008, 12:07:17 AM
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 11, 2008, 12:08:27 AM
Yes, she actually does that herself.
Post by: mgod on January 11, 2008, 12:13:45 AM
| J-Texas wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 21:03 |
"Goodnight, you princes of Maine, you kings of New England." |
I don't know why you brought that up, but those moments in that movie always take my breath away and leave me in tears. And I don't know why.
DS
Post by: don kerce on January 11, 2008, 12:21:58 AM
Just in case anyone needs a Baloo fix.
And the first time I saw that woman do that on TV, I almost sh*t myself. Scared the hell out of me.
You've been warned.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HX_5zIXxKEU&feature=related
d
Post by: J-Texas on January 11, 2008, 01:19:01 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 23:08 |
Latisha Samuels shortly after learning that Mike Huckabee allegedly chose Steve Colbert as his running mate.
Post by: John Ivan on January 11, 2008, 07:48:16 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 20:46 |
Guys, I'm a little worried. We aren't discussing a topic anymore. We're kinda kicking the shit out each other. Let's not turn into the typical forum where people create long-term enemies and just bash each other at every opportunity. Let's take a breath, cut each some some slack and back off -- maybe from this entire thread. OK you sonsabitches? |
Well, I see your point here but I would like to clear some things up. This thing about "WE" in relation to kicking the shit out of each other bugs me.. It's the same old thing.. Certain "super Christians" come on very strong and either imply or come right out and say that those of us who do not believe what they believe are less valued by "Them" than those who DO believe what they believe.. It's the same old bull shit we've been hearing for years now..
" I know God.. I am right in knowing my God.. You don't know it yet, {because your a BAD person} but God is in you too. And if you ignore HIM, you will burn in hell.. See, the reason I can make insulting remarks about you and call you names is because I tower over you with my God.. Get used to it, you little sinner. Prepare for the fires of hell.""
There it is.. These people are quite simply, a bunch of ass wipes.. I think they are mentally ill and I don't think there is a "WE" kicking the shit.. I think it's them..They can defend any behavior they want because they know this Dog,, um,, I mean God.. The rest of us are bad people.. They really do believe this.. Even if they claim they do not.. They are not being truthful.. They believe that they will receive a wonderful after life and that the rest of us will not.. They are Better..
Well, I do what I can to avoid them..
Talk about your nasty human beings..
Yes, lets do cut each other some slack.. How about we start with asking the most brutal, the mean spirited among us to set the example.. After all, they have the big guy...
WOW!!! Who's the "Putz", there Jimi??
Ivan......................
Post by: studiojimi on January 11, 2008, 10:09:01 AM
| bblackwood wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 20:38 |
To be fair, I think it's necessary to make the point that not all Christians are as antagonistic as others. I hope that the Christians on this forum will stop and examine their posts and think about how they come across... |
why are only the Christians to be held accountable for their posts?
Post by: studiojimi on January 11, 2008, 10:20:10 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 20:46 |
Yes, lets do cut each other some slack.. How about we start with asking the most brutal, the mean spirited among us to set the example.. After all, they have the big guy... WOW!!! Who's the "Putz", there Jimi?? Ivan...................... |
Truth:
the putz in you sees the putz in me.
that Truth can set you free.
Personally, I'm gonna stay with this as my contribution
No personal harm or truly hurtful intention has come from me.
Only my own creative twist on being provocative to make you think.
I maintain...HE is worthy.
I WILL PRAISE YOU.
Lord,
I will praise You
throughout the day,
for You
have been good.
Each morning,
You breathe upon me
and
awaken me to the dawn
of a brand new day.
You help me
and
step into golden opportunities
and
infinite possibilities.
In the afternoon,
You seen me a wave of energy
so that I can remain focused
and
on point.
You encourage me
to the fullest.
As the sun sets
and
another glorious day
comes to an end,
you whisper softly
in my ear,
"count it all joy."
It is then that I realize
that Your blessings
never cease
and
You are truly good,
all the time!
So, I will continue
to honor and adore You.
In all things,
I will give You
the honor and glory.
I vow
to forever lift my heart
in eternal praise,
as a witness
to your awesome power
that reigns supreme in my life,
now and forever more.
"Enter into His gates with thanksgiving,
and
into His courts with praise."
Psalm 100:4
Post by: bblackwood on January 11, 2008, 10:22:59 AM
| studiojimi wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 09:09 | ||
why are only the Christians to be held accountable for their posts? |
Who said only Christians were held accountable? I'm simply apologizing to those in this thread for some people's behavior in this thread. I don't find it very Christ-like...
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on January 11, 2008, 10:25:39 AM
| bblackwood wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 09:22 | ||||
Who said only Christians were held accountable? I'm simply apologizing to those in this thread for some people's behavior in this thread. I don't find it very Christ-like... |
I've been trying to be quiet here, because I think I'm about the most inept God-spokesperson there may be. But I'll try to be as careful as I can be and please take what I say as a generality, not aimed at a specific person (expect perhaps myself).
Everyone should be accountable for what they say to others, assuming they value their reputation and the reputation of whoever they represent (if anyone).
I always try to be careful of how I "come across", because I wouldn't want someone to think ill of the Lord because one of his servants made him look bad.
People who may not be Christians are usually most adept at spotting our hipocracy, because they see from outside and can be more objective than us. Maybe at times Christians feel they are special, it's true. But I was just reading last night where the bible says (paraphrasing) that the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself. A house does not build itself, so what right does it have to be proud?
The Christians are the "house", not "the builder". As someone who is kind of a control freak, I find it very hard to not attempt to take the wheel from God's hands. Because when I try to drive, I usually land us in a ditch somewhere.
I don't know how much this has to do with that Huckabee fellow. Probably nothing. But this discussion is still important, and so far I've been pretty pleased with the decorum of us all. It is hard for Christians to be Christ-like, and I'll bless anyone who calls me out when I make a mistake. I think it is a beautiful thing that we are having this discussion, and I'll continue to watch... from the wings.
Jessica
Post by: PRobb on January 11, 2008, 10:36:12 AM
| John Ivan wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 07:48 |
[ " I know God.. I am right in knowing my God.. You don't know it yet, {because your a BAD person} but God is in you too. And if you ignore HIM, you will burn in hell.. See, the reason I can make insulting remarks about you and call you names is because I tower over you with my God.. Get used to it, you little sinner. Prepare for the fires of hell."" |
That's the attitude that bugs me. It's not all Christians, of course, but I hear that enough so that it sounds awfully familiar.
And since this began as discussion of role of religion in politics, let me offer this. I am a non believing secularist. In my ideal vision of America the right of the most conservative, born again, evangelical fundamentalists to hold,live by and promote their views would be unquestioned. I don't think their ideal vision of America would extend the same freedoms to me.
Post by: J-Texas on January 11, 2008, 10:47:02 AM
I mean that most sincerely. I didn't see one thing in your post that I didn't agree with whole-heartedly. I think your attitude is most representative of my views as a Christian.
Thank you for reminding me.
I would hope that everyone could see that I am passionate about my beliefs. I'm not trying impose my views on anyone here, but if I didn't try and spread the good word thm I'm being a hypocrite!
Typing on an iPhone sucks.
Do you think that if Huckabee. Becomes president... he'll get an iPhone?
Post by: CCC on January 11, 2008, 11:42:24 AM
| PRobb wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 10:36 |
In my ideal vision of America the right of the most conservative, born again, evangelical fundamentalists to hold,live by and promote their views would be unquestioned. I don't think their ideal vision of America would extend the same freedoms to me. |
In my humble and respectful opinion this is quite right.
Freedom of religion is not in jeopardy in western industrialized nations. It just isn't.
Freedom fromreligion, however, is another story. And this is what the debate is about.
No one says you can't believe in God. Certain of us this such belief is ill-founded, but hey, knock yourselves out, God-guys. What is of concern is the political influence of religion, in particular, the influence of right-wing Christians.
Post by: PookyNMR on January 11, 2008, 11:47:45 AM
| studiojimi wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 08:09 |
why are only the Christians to be held accountable for their posts? |
Forget the moderators, the scripture itself holds you accountable for what you say. Speaking abusively is being disobedient to the word of scripture. So, never-mind everyone else, for the sake of your own faith... James 3:10
Post by: studiojimi on January 11, 2008, 12:47:55 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 08:47 | ||
Forget the moderators, the scripture itself holds you accountable for what you say. Speaking abusively is being disobedient to the word of scripture. So, never-mind everyone else, for the sake of your own faith... James 3:10 |
speaking abusively according to who?
another man's righteous judgment?
i will work within God's laws and pay the price everytime for my disobedience. what i won't do is back away from my belief system and dishonor it by not owning it in public and private.
i'm not pointing out anyones sins here in any of my posts
my consistent point is every one of God's kids has a date with a consciousness raising experience.
Let me break it down for you.
and ALL of you should really ponder this from deep within your soul
God is all there is.
God is all there.
God is all.
God is.
now breathe in the breath of life
and
realize with your real eyes--your spiritual eyes.
God.
Take Him or leave Him. He'll never leave nor forsake you.
He loves each and everyone of you
and because of that I can love you too.
(apparently some will have to be loved from a distance)
Post by: mgod on January 11, 2008, 01:02:25 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 09:47 |
speaking abusively according to who? another man's righteous judgment? |
Dude...this isn't tough. You kept calling someone else a putz. That's rude, plain and simple. And not particularly loving of thy neighbor.
But you know, you live according to the way you think god wants you to, and we'll do the same.
DS
Post by: studiojimi on January 11, 2008, 01:17:47 PM
| mgod wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 10:02 | ||
Dude...this isn't tough. You kept calling someone else a putz. That's rude, plain and simple. And not particularly loving of thy neighbor. But you know, you live according to the way you think god wants you to, and we'll do the same. DS |
i'll be brief.
which to you is more is respectful
using the name Putzski
or you by using caps in your entire punctuated text but NOT captalizing the holy name of God?
calling you mgodski...is not out of line anymore than that
chill out man.
and as i have said..call me jimiski studski...whatever
i'm not one to use spelling and/or capitalization to make golden points in forums...it just doesn't matter normally...it's a bottom feeding retort but since you are using puctuation . . .
which is more disrespectful to you?
without any judgment from me.. .just an observation
i ask you which is more disrespectful.
are we gonna put Bruno Putzsky up higher than God?
if we are...you don't have to ban me or censor me or anything
i'll leave on my own accord
Post by: PookyNMR on January 11, 2008, 02:08:23 PM
| mgod wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 11:02 | ||
Dude...this isn't tough. You kept calling someone else a putz. That's rude, plain and simple. And not particularly loving of thy neighbor. |
I'd agree with Dan.
As far as 'according to who' - I'd also point this out as well:
Eph 4:29 - 5:5
Col 3:1-17
1 Cor 16:1 -> 1 Cor 13:4-7
Post by: Andy Peters on January 11, 2008, 02:53:23 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 11:17 | ||||
i'll be brief. which to you is more is respectful using the name Putzski or you by using caps in your entire punctuated text but NOT captalizing the holy name of God? |
I'll be briefer.
"Putz" is Yiddish for "penis."
Now connect the dots.
-a
Post by: studiojimi on January 11, 2008, 03:45:07 PM
| mgod wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 10:02 |
You kept calling someone else a putz. |
you saw what you wanted to see, not what was written.
and you are angry because someone remind you of the relationship you have put off having with your maker for whatever reasons you have chosen.
i'm just a messenger
there will be many for you
keep the antennae up unless you think people will laugh at you thinking you look like my favorite martian or something
back off pup
i'm accountable for my own thoughts, words, actions, reactions
and most certainly do not fall under your umbrella of judgment
in fact ....truth be known...just for clarity...
i don't care what you think
Post by: mgod on January 11, 2008, 03:45:56 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 10:17 |
i'm not one to use spelling and/or capitalization to make golden points in forums...it just doesn't matter normally...it's a bottom feeding retort but since you are using puctuation . . . which is more disrespectful to you? |
In MY faith, such as it is, we don't capitalize god, we don't spell it, or pronounce it, or genderize it, or even make any attempt at being so arrogant as to think we can encapsulate it in any form that can be written or spoken. Making an issue of capitalization of the word is reducing it to a name like any other. Which, by all means, feel free to do. Its just one more form of a graven image.
But despite the laws handed to Moses, the church has always been big on graven images, so whaddaya gonna do? Its a problem from the ground up. If Jesus is just a prophet, well by all means, grave away. But if he's a part of god, then crucifixes are forbidden, especially with him on them.
I specifically and deliberately don't capitalize it, doing which in my view would make it normal speech and so more than disrespectful, but deluded. One thing we can be pretty sure of, and that's that the "Holy Name of God" isn't "God".
| studiojimi wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 12:45 |
in fact ....truth be known...just for clarity... i don't care what you think |
Dude, that's fine. And I'm sure GOD forgives you.
But in polite society we usually apologize for calling other people names. I'm sorry you find this so hard to grasp. None of us here are angry, at you or our maker. We're just trying to help you with your manners.
| studiojimi wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 12:45 |
back off pup |
I can't tell you how much I appreciate that at my age.
DS
Post by: mgod on January 11, 2008, 04:04:37 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 15:01 | ||||
ahhhhh shadddup |
| studiojimi wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 12:45 |
you saw what you wanted to see, not what was written. |
????????????????
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 11, 2008, 04:21:01 PM
http://www.bubbygram.com/yiddishglossary.htm
If you scroll down the page you'll find a wonderful dictionary.
Post by: danickstr on January 11, 2008, 05:10:52 PM
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 11, 2008, 05:25:23 PM
For all of the misguided talk about Mike Huckabee being a “populist,” his enthusiastic support for a regressive national sales tax should effectively end the discussion.
In case there’s any lingering confusion about just how ridiculous this policy is, Jon Chait sets the record straight http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/10/ someone-tries-to-defend-the-fairtax-bad-idea.aspx
Basically, trying to explain why the Fairtax is a bad idea is like trying to explain why having trained elephants perform open-heart surgery on every first-grader in America is a bad idea. The whole idea is one bit of lunacy stacked upon another, so when you focus on any one element of it, you let the other side suck you into into arguments about details — Maybe there could be benefits to preemptively fixing the hearts of six year olds! Perhaps elephants do have the potential intelligence to one day perform this task!! — that inadvertently make the plan sound semi-credible.
Post by: Larrchild on January 11, 2008, 06:45:21 PM
| Quote: |
It is hard for Christians to be Christ-like, and I'll bless anyone who calls me out when I make a mistake. I think it is a beautiful thing that we are having this discussion, and I'll continue to watch... from the wings. |
Larry:
| Quote: |
It takes balls for anyone here to speak openly about belief and it's counterparts, and I respect it with great regard. |
I totally stand corrected!
Nice post, Jessica.
When you take the J out of Janus, you get, well....anyway, I'm perhaps sensitive to when folk play word games with the name, and I started this by responding to Jimi.
But I see he was trying to speak casually and ended up sounding flippant. And if that's the case, we love ya jimi, please don't go, etc.
As stated, no anger, but a desire to convey manners.
All good.
By the way, I'm Polish-Catholic in ancestry, so you were offending me there too with the ski's. If you want to offend mgod, use sky instead.
Post by: danickstr on January 11, 2008, 07:39:16 PM
Post by: J-Texas on January 11, 2008, 09:12:05 PM
f[c hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
... and he even had a full diaper, but I know he's not full of shit.
REALLY THOUGH... THIS STINKS. LATER!
Post by: studiojimi on January 11, 2008, 09:20:03 PM
| J-Texas wrote on Fri, 11 January 2008 18:12 |
My son wants to say a few words: f[c hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... and he even had a full diaper, but I know he's not full of shit. REALLY THOUGH... THIS STINKS. LATER! |
you have the unmitigated gaul to come in this thread with a full diaper
get that kid more relaxative
now I AM offended
God help me!
Please return my abilities to have fun and enjoy myself with the brothahood.
yours truly,
Jimi Putz
in an attempt to make a living amends for my offensivity
i will send over my computer screen cleaning service to wipe up the mess
if you'd prefer for me to drop over and wash your feet..just let me know
MY ATTEMPT TO MAKE THINGS RIGHT CLICK HERE
Post by: bruno putzeys on January 12, 2008, 06:15:54 AM
The most disturbing bit is that they'll suddenly drop their standards of logical rigour to a point that they themselves would find utterly unacceptable in any other aspect of their lives. When that happens, the discussion is over. I can stand the abuse of my person (including extremely predictable puns on my name), but an abuse of logic signals an irremediable failure of communication.
In short: I am not going to be offended, and accept that no offense was meant to begin with. I just think that I'll be more careful about what I'll talk about with whom.
Post by: studiojimi on January 12, 2008, 10:53:16 AM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Sat, 12 January 2008 03:15 |
In short: I am not going to be offended, and accept that no offense was meant to begin with. I just think that I'll be more careful about what I'll talk about with whom. |
What a brilliant wake up call!
A Divine Realzation and put into action....love it!!!
Five Stars.
and this is not sent in sarcasm.
Now.....I see God working through you, to you, expressing Himself as you. See it there? And regardless of whether that magnificent "logic" gift He gave you is given to Him credit for it or not by you. It's beautiful thing to give Him the glory for. Try it sometime. I salute Him and you for those peaceful words.
I think the tax tables have thoroughly been shaken as the miracle has come forth.
Bruno...have a magnificent day today. I see in you a new creature.
Post by: PP on January 12, 2008, 11:16:04 AM
Post by: don kerce on January 12, 2008, 11:27:37 AM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 12:51 |
BTW am I to first to notice a correlation between line spacing and content? |
The greater the spaces, the less the relevanace of content?
Wow, I'd agree after that last post!
Now about this fair tax thingie.
If I understand correctly, we'd pay a federal sales tax PLUS state sales tax? In Nashville, since we don't have a state income tax, that's 9.25%. That would suck most aggregiously. The figure I'd heard was 23% federal tax. Is that correct? That would mean a 32.25% sales tax here and that is the most insane thing I've ever heard.
Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 12, 2008, 11:52:41 AM
| don kerce wrote on Sat, 12 January 2008 16:27 |
Now about this fair tax thingie. If I understand correctly, we'd pay a federal sales tax PLUS state sales tax? In Nashville, since we don't have a state income tax, that's 9.25%. That would suck most aggregiously. The figure I'd heard was 23% federal tax. Is that correct? That would mean a 32.25% sales tax here and that is the most insane thing I've ever heard. |
Well actually it's 30% when viewed as a sales tax. They say 23% because that is the equivalent as an income tax. BUT, the point is that it is supposed to replace all federal income and payroll taxes. The idea is to tax people on what they spend instead of on what they earn, not aswell as.
I've only looked at this briefly after seeing the mention of it on this forum, but here's where I found some info
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
Post by: studiojimi on January 12, 2008, 11:52:50 AM
| don kerce wrote on Sat, 12 January 2008 08:27 | ||
The greater the spaces, the less the relevanace of content? Wow, I'd agree after that last post! Now about this fair tax thingie. If I understand correctly, we'd pay a federal sales tax PLUS state sales tax? In Nashville, since we don't have a state income tax, that's 9.25%. That would suck most aggregiously. The figure I'd heard was 23% federal tax. Is that correct? That would mean a 32.25% sales tax here and that is the most insane thing I've ever heard. |
I sure hope you enter this contemplation challenge with prayer.
A littlel double spaced meditation wouldn't hurt either.
God can.
Post by: don kerce on January 12, 2008, 11:57:09 AM
I think you've made yourself pretty irrelevent at this point.
Anyways, back to this tax.
I'm off to a session, but I'll read up on it when I get back.
Thanks for the link, Jon.
Post by: CCC on January 12, 2008, 12:13:06 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Sat, 12 January 2008 11:52 |
I sure hope you enter this contemplation challenge with prayer. A littlel double spaced meditation wouldn't hurt either. God can. |
I have seen the way and the light. He is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by his divine noodly appendage. Reform, believe, and ye shall be saved, infidel.
http://www.venganza.org/
Post by: mgod on January 12, 2008, 12:21:46 PM
On the other hand, such a specific religious conviction - while immensely useful applied to the interior landscape - has the unfortunate aspect, when projected outwards, of shoving many others into the "does not qualify" category, creating alienation between people, and much more unfortunately, the arguments in and of themselves have a tendency to both create and expose the hypocrisy inherent in the exclusionary view of those thinking that they bask in Christ's love, and that there are others who don't. And therein, we have judgment being propagated on both "sides." If indeed a believer lives in the love of Christ, if that is truth, then all do, unbelievers as well, or its a poor quality of love. And that's the end of the story. Its not for "the believer" to have an opinion about anyone or anything else. That's not the job - the job is only to love. And certainly not to tell anyone else whether or not god loves them. To me, that suggests a very uncertain certainty. If the story, the "good news" as the church would have it - is real, then we are also to rest assured that all come to Christ in the right time. But the church has, for many people, often been the bearer of the bad news.
Which brings us right back to a "Christian" candidate.
DS
Post by: studiojimi on January 12, 2008, 12:37:23 PM
| JS wrote on Sat, 12 January 2008 09:13 | ||
I have seen the way and the light. He is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by his divine noodly appendage. Reform, believe, and ye shall be saved, infidel. http://www.venganza.org/ |
Mock and Spit all you need to brother
It wasn't the nails that held Him to the cross.
He could have hopped down and danced a jig for you\
but instead . . . he so loved you.
_______________________
who draws the lines that get crossed?
Post by: CCC on January 12, 2008, 12:43:56 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Sat, 12 January 2008 12:37 | ||||
Mock and Spit all you need to brother It wasn't the nails that held Him to the cross. He could have hopped down and danced a jig for you\ but instead . . . he so loved you. _______________________ who draws the lines that get crossed? |
Why is my devout belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster so inferior to your beliefs? Why must you characterize my views as mockery, and over the "line"? Explain.
May you be enlightened by the touch of his divine noodly appendage.
Post by: PookyNMR on January 12, 2008, 01:25:03 PM
| PP wrote on Sat, 12 January 2008 09:16 |
(Read PP's whole post) |
Peter,
Thank you for your message. It was beautiful and moving.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 12, 2008, 01:54:16 PM
We believe that when you die your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down.
(with apologies to Jim Stafford)
Post by: Barkley McKay on January 12, 2008, 02:35:41 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 12 January 2008 18:54 |
Although a Christian, I am part of one of the more unusual denominations -- Frisbeetyrian. We believe that when you die your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down. (with apologies to Jim Stafford) |
mine usually get stuck in a tree...
Post by: PP on January 12, 2008, 03:57:51 PM
Post by: CCC on January 12, 2008, 07:41:01 PM
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Scientists throughout history professed religious beliefs. Consider the treatment of those who questioned religious doctrine throughout history, however. Consider Galileo and his treatment at the hands of the Inquisition. If you were a scientist in the age of Galileo would you openly espouse a theory that challenged the established order, under penalty of torture, imprisonment or death? Likely not. Therefore, we can disregard any professions of faith by great scientists throughout history, since they could have easily been uttered to avoid the lethal wrath of the faithful.
As a sidebar, I understand that the church accepted Galileo's theories in 1983, which I think we all find refreshing.
Post by: Larrchild on January 12, 2008, 07:50:05 PM
| Quote: |
If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. |
I visit that church often.
Science may actually help us find our true origins, and perhaps answer some spiritual questions.
If ET's visited and mated with our earth apes, and produced us, that could be a little unsettling to several organized groups.
But it's as good an explanation as any I've seen here.
And as they flew off back to Remulac, it would seem pretty God-Like.
I'm definitely gonna keep an open mind til all the data is in.
Clearly, if that is true, the ET's are having a bellylaugh at our ape/et inner conflicts!
"Look.. Another War"..."Fools!"
Post by: don kerce on January 12, 2008, 08:41:03 PM
I want the kaboom, the earth-shattering kaboom!
Post by: J-Texas on January 12, 2008, 08:46:16 PM
EDIT: Damn. I should have hit refresh first.
Post by: don kerce on January 12, 2008, 08:48:13 PM
Post by: Larrchild on January 12, 2008, 08:52:14 PM
Post by: don kerce on January 12, 2008, 08:55:15 PM
Post by: Larrchild on January 12, 2008, 08:57:29 PM
No doubt why it hasn't vibrated apart in mid-flight.=)
Post by: J-Texas on January 12, 2008, 08:58:56 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Sat, 12 January 2008 19:57 |
I dunno, despite varying levels of belief, when you wave an IQ meter around this thread, you definitely get some clicking sounds! |
I thought that meant it needed new batteries.
Post by: don kerce on January 12, 2008, 09:04:06 PM
Or clocking off the wrong scource.....
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 12, 2008, 10:49:10 PM
C'mon. You can't get a guy to look at an unattractive woman let alone have ET's with advanced technology traveling the stars hoping to hump an ape...
Post by: studiojimi on January 12, 2008, 11:01:37 PM
can you imagine some of the posters in this thread's sex life?
Post by: Larrchild on January 12, 2008, 11:11:04 PM
The ET side of us can figure out how to split atoms and the ape side wants to vaporize the ape colony with it.
Like giving a 10 yr old a power saw.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 12, 2008, 11:19:56 PM
Grunt means Grunt
"C'mon Baby. Let's do it Earth-style" -- Sure it was a one nano-second stand, but you could be creating a whole new race. Act responsibly and don't be responsible for death, war, famine, violence, and other things we wiped out a long time ago -- like television.
Wait a second, S009LDLEKJEMNDLESKANNEWOE0Q234354S! Do you know where that Earth creature's sex parts have been? Be Safe. Be Smart. Don't catch Eartharhea!
It's NOT a Choice. It's an unborn sub-human creature.
Earth Girls Are Easy (sorry, Jeff Goldblum movie)
"But your Honor, her butt was large and red. She was 'asking for it!'"
"Trust me. Our child looks much more like you than me."
"And some day when you grow up, you'll be a two-legged, erect hetero-sapien! No child of mine is going to be a homo-sapien."
"I'm sorry Grok. He may have had a great lookin' space ship but you'll never get child support out of that guy."
"He said he was going to teach me something new. I think he called it 'Earth-lingus'."
Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 13, 2008, 06:02:04 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 03:49 |
"If ET's visited and mated with our earth apes, and produced us, that could be a little unsettling to several organized groups." C'mon. You can't get a guy to look at an unattractive woman let alone have ET's with advanced technology traveling the stars hoping to hump an ape... |
You must have pretty weak beer round your way.
A few pints of beltegeun bitter and those ape girls probably started looking pretty good to the young ETs. I've seen guys go for worse.
Post by: Tomas Danko on January 13, 2008, 08:02:49 AM
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 13, 2008, 11:37:41 AM
It's true. I shouldn't have underestimated the power of alcohol... But taking the opposite view, even an ape-creature might want to be drunk over the prospect coming toward her.
The dog: Always fun to see what Photoshop can accomplish.
Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 13, 2008, 11:43:28 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 16:37 |
Jon, It's true. I shouldn't have underestimated the power of alcohol... But taking the opposite view, even an ape-creature might want to be drunk over the prospect coming toward her. |
Sounds like you've met some of my friends out on the town!
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 13, 2008, 11:45:29 AM
Post by: studiojimi on January 13, 2008, 12:23:31 PM
(the biblical Star Wars bar)
We all have them from time to time.
The most excellent post from member PP
(who i don't know) was most inspirational and soothing to my frustration. It made me re-group my faculties of faith, love, strength, wisdom/judgment, power, imagination, understanding, will, purity/divine order, zeal, elimination, life.
Much growing and learning as been experienced by me in this thread this week.
My faith remains everlasting and unchanging as that faith "seed" of God realized by me is my strength, shield and vector.
My armor is not to offend but to protect.
My need to both issue and receive information for better understanding will always be my most paramount focus and as I keep my eye on that....it grows--just like the ever expanding Universe. I'm anchored and continually ready to shine like a beacon.
As the "intelligent" ideas are exchanged in this threadski, my Truth Lessons and my yearn to be a seeker continue to give me abundance, joy filled days and creativity and better relationship with God in my life, world and affairs. I will take this day to usher my thoughts and words away from lack, limitation, hopelessness, dis-ease, dispair--even anatagonism-- and any other of the headless horsemen of negativity.
God bless you all.
Much love, Studiojimi
Jesus loves me this I know.
THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO.
The Bible
can be viewed as our reference book
for daily living.
It is God's instructional manual
for any area of concern.
The Bible is a
"how to" guide for living
in peace, love, and joy.
The book of Thessalonians I,
urges us to take
these necessary actions:
• "Be at peace among yourselves" --
I will engage
in harmonious interactions
with those who share my world.
• "Be patient with all" --
I will give others space
to grow at their chosen pace.
• "Pursue what is good both for yourselves and for all" --
I will take actions
that are in the best interests
of all concerned.
•"Rejoice always" --
I will continually and consistently
give God the praise and glory.
• "In everything give thanks"
When circumstances appear
to be challenging,
I will give thanks
for the opportunity
to become stronger in faith.
• "Hold fast to what is good" --
I will chose to magnify the good
in whatever appears in my world.
I will not allow anything
to prevent me
from believing
in God being Absolute Good.
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ
be with you.
Amen."
I Thessalonians 5:28
have a magificent productive and enthusiatic week cats.
Post by: CCC on January 13, 2008, 04:44:26 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 12:23 |
The Bible can be viewed as our reference book for daily living. It is God's instructional manual for any area of concern. The Bible is a "how to" guide for living in peace, love, and joy. |
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. Deuteronomy 17:12
If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. Leviticus 20:13
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. Leviticus 20:27
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. Exodus 21:15
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. Leviticus 20:10
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. 2 Chronicles 15:12-13
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. Leviticus 21:9
There are other good quotes in Deuteronomy about killing a women who are not virgins on their wedding nights, about killing people of other faiths, killing false prophets and so on.
I believe that the crime of working on the Sabbath also carries with it the death penalty.
Three cheers for God and his instruction manual for all areas of concern. Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition.
Jimi, the Flying Spaghetti Monster forgives you. May you be touched by his divine noodly appendage.
Post by: mgod on January 13, 2008, 04:53:19 PM
DS
Post by: CCC on January 13, 2008, 05:18:29 PM
| mgod wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 16:53 |
Oh give the man a break. |
Ok.
| mgod wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 16:53 |
Studying physics while lacking a strong internal guide hasn't worked out so great either. Just ask the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki |
This is opening another hornets nest really, but here goes. Although I mean no disrespect to those people who met their tragic end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the following can be argued:
Japan was the instigated the Pacific war, committed genocide in China, and showed no signs of relenting, notwithstanding the heavy conventional bombing campaign by the Allies against Japanese targets. Were the Japanese wise, and if they cared at all about their own civilian population they would have capitulated much, much earlier. For example, after the fire-bombing of Tokyo, or after the first atomic bomb was dropped. Concluding the war in the Pacific would have involved a land invasion as it did in Europe, a consequence of which would have been the loss of 1/4 million Allied troops as well as the lives of countless civilians and Japanese troops. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki therefore was less costly in terms of loss of human lives than invasion. I don't understand that dialog or appeasement was an option, but I could be wrong. Not that this is much comfort to anyone, least of all those who were killed. This terrible use of force, however, is not a clear cut case of people who lacked an internal moral guide doing terrible things. I don't think anyone got up out of bed one day and said "hey, this book about nuclear fission has erased my moral code, lets go kill civilians."
And, in any case, I don't think anyone here said that physics sets out a moral code exactly. To the contrary, some one here said that an ancient text that sets out rules about killing people for just about any bad reason is an excellent moral compass. That was the point.
Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 13, 2008, 05:43:41 PM
| JS wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 22:18 | ||||
Ok.
This is opening another hornets nest really, but here goes. Although I mean no disrespect to those people who met their tragic end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the following can be argued: Japan was the instigated the Pacific war, committed genocide in China, and showed no signs of relenting, notwithstanding the heavy conventional bombing campaign by the Allies against Japanese targets. Were the Japanese wise, and if they cared at all about their own civilian population they would have capitulated much, much earlier. For example, after the fire-bombing of Tokyo, or after the first atomic bomb was dropped. Concluding the war in the Pacific would have involved a land invasion as it did in Europe, a consequence of which would have been the loss of 1/4 million Allied troops as well as the lives of countless civilians and Japanese troops. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki therefore was less costly in terms of loss of human lives than invasion. I don't understand that dialog or appeasement was an option, but I could be wrong. Not that this is much comfort to anyone, least of all those who were killed. This terrible use of force, however, is not a clear cut case of people who lacked an internal moral guide doing terrible things. I don't think anyone got up out of bed one day and said "hey, this book about nuclear fission has erased my moral code, lets go kill civilians." And, in any case, I don't think anyone here said that physics sets out a moral code exactly. To the contrary, some one here said that an ancient text that sets out rules about killing people for just about any bad reason is an excellent moral compass. That was the point. |
The bombing of Hiroshima was morally questionable, the bombing of Nagasaki was inexcusable.
There were only three days between the two, the fact that it took six days after Nagasaki for Japan to announce its surrender illustrates that there is NO WAY they would have announced their surrender in the time between Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The United States would have known this. I mean, it's going to take at least a day to even begin to understand what's happened, then you have to get everyone together, then argue about whether you should surrender, how you should surrender... and so on.
In my opinion two bombs were dropped because they had two different designs to try out.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 13, 2008, 05:54:04 PM
The U.S. said a million man loss in invading Japan because they had an atomic weapon they wanted to use. The actual figures for losses were about 20,000 to 30,000.
The Atomic Bomb that was dropped would never have been used on Germany because by and large this country is of European and not Asian ancestry. BTW, we locked up all our Japanese citizens and didn't do that with European citizens. If we did there'd be no one to fight the war.
The Atomic Bomb was used in the first place to show the Russians what we could do. Even then we were worried about the spread of Communism. Japan offered immediately to surrender and the President said no. We then dropped a second Atomic Bomb to show the Russians the first was not a fluke or a one-time thing.
Post by: PRobb on January 13, 2008, 06:17:45 PM
I can agree that the timing of Nagasaki was questionable, but Hiroshima saved at least tens of thousands of American and perhaps a million Japanese lives.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 13, 2008, 06:19:48 PM
Hmmmmm.... people focus on the Old Testament and need to take the book in its entirety. Otherwise you missed the end of the story.
A Quick Progression Through The Bible: And I'm not asking for rebuttals or "errors in logic". I'm just synopsizing.
1. Adam and Eve. Two people living in a paradise. God issues only one rule -- don't eat the fruit of this one tree. Evil is in the world just as God is. That evil (we find out later) is Satan -- a fallen angel. This indicates there is much more that has been going on than the Bible is telling.
Adam and Eve are tempted. They sin by breaking the one simple rule. The sin was eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve wanted to be God, just as Satan wants to be God. This means that an angel and people want to declare themselves the supreme beings instead of recognizing that person is God. The result, Adam, Eve and all their offspring must now work for their livelihood.
God has shown Mankind as a race can't keep from sinning. Given free will, Mankind often chooses evil which seems at the moment to be quite attractive.
2. Evil continues outside the paradise. God shows Cain (a crop grower) and Abel (a cattle herder) that only a blood sacrifice can cover sin. Cain offers vegetables instead of the animal sacrifice he was told to. Abel does the correct thing. Pissed off, Cain kills Abel and is cursed to wander the earth. Seth is born to carry on the lineage. After a while so many people are around and sinning that God sees the world is out of control so he decides to kill everyone in a flood. The only people to be saved are Noah and his family -- and two animals (male and female)of every "unclean" (to eat or sacrifice) type and four of every "clean" type. God is showing that water can not wipe out sin as evil will be common place again.
The ark comes to rest and the human population begins to flourish. At this point God institutes human government. Human government can't stop evil (evidence: anywhere today). So that sucks.
God goes for Theocracy but the people won't follow the rules no matter how awful they are. God shows that no matter what the penalty -- how harsh, how severe, how terrible, people are still going to sin. And they're sick of God so...
The Jews (Hebrews as they are now known) occupy the land God has given them (long story here avoided)and demand to be ruled by a king just as the other nations. So God allows a lineage of Kings to rule. The first is Saul, the second is David. Others come later and really screw things up which brings to to the Babylonian Captivity when the Jews are forced out of their land.
This shows that a monarchy won't save them.
Eventually they get to come back to their land and start up again. Jesus comes along and preaches the forgiveness of sins through his blood offered as a sacrifice. Why will this work? Because he is completely God and completely Man. As Man he represents all of us. As God he has a direct, sinless approach to the Father and the Holy Spirit. When Christ dies, his blood is spilled to cover Man's sins, past, present and future. To have the sinless relationship with God, all you have to do is say, yes Christ's blood has covered my sins and I am eternally forgiven for them. The proof of the success of this plan is that Christ is raised from the dead, showing us all that there is a life to be had with God.
The fact that it was the Saducees (spelling) and Pharisees (the religious leaders of the Jews)who had Christ crucified shows that religion won't save anyone. The fact that the Romans were involved shows that even a world government won't save anyone from their sins.
So Christians arise to spread this good news but the world persecutes them, just as it has (and does) God's "Chosen People -- The Jews (this takes more explaining than space allows).
Then the Christians go around and fuck things up too. This shows that even Christ's church can't save anyone.
The only person who can cover your sins and give you an eternal life with God is Christ.
And so that's the essence of the story.
Now... go to bed and have sweet dreams.
Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 13, 2008, 06:40:11 PM
| PRobb wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 23:17 |
If anybody here had been around in 1945, knowing only what you could have known in 1945, the decision would have been clear. The Purple Heart medals the soldiers in Iraq are getting are still from the stockpile that was made in anticipation of the invasion of Japan. I can agree that the timing of Nagasaki was questionable, but Hiroshima saved at least tens of thousands of American and perhaps a million Japanese lives. |
Well the number of purple hearts manufactured (half a million) does not neccessariy reflect the number of injuries that would have occured with alternate policy.
Japan had been moving towards surrender for weeks before the first bomb was dropped.
Post by: CCC on January 13, 2008, 07:13:40 PM
Anyone care to guess the religion of the person who authorized the use of nuclear weapons against the civilians of Japan? It wasn't "physicist."
Post by: danickstr on January 13, 2008, 08:20:00 PM
Jews only focus on the first 5 chapters.
Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 13, 2008, 08:22:08 PM
| JS wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 00:13 |
I admit I don't know enough about WWII to argue points of fact. So if its incorrect that the use of nuclear weapons was uncalled for and did not minimize loss of life then I guess I stand corrected. Which is besides the point that was being made by our learned friends, in any case. Anyone care to guess the religion of the person who authorized the use of nuclear weapons against the civilians of Japan? It wasn't "physicist." |
No it wasn't.. and incidentally Einstein regretted his part in convincing the president to start the project. He also stated that in his opinion had he been alive President Roosevelt would not have authorized the bombing of Hiroshima and that he believed it was probably carried out to finish the pacific war before Russia could get involved.
Anybody who thinks that religion is required for morality, or even that it strengthens it, is sadly deluded.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 13, 2008, 09:41:06 PM
Morality: In the sense we are all made in God's image (and thus have a sense of right and wrong -- remember Adam and Eve), then all of us have as much choice to do right as to do wrong. For those not believing in Christianity (or some other spiritual philosophy), you might call it species memory -- something innate in each person.
And now this!
Post by: PRobb on January 13, 2008, 10:26:39 PM
| Jon Hodgson wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 18:40 |
Well the number of purple hearts manufactured (half a million) does not neccessariy reflect the number of injuries that would have occured with alternate policy. |
It did represent the military's best estimate of the number of casualties expected.
| Quote: |
Japan had been moving towards surrender for weeks before the first bomb was dropped. |
I'm not sure about that. All our experience with fighting Japan was that Japanese units, when faced with hopeless situations, fought to the last man. And I think what we learned after the surrender was that the military high command was quite willing to commit national suicide rather than surrender.
And, yes, ending the war before Russian involvement kicked in territorial treaty obligations was a factor.
When the bomb dropped, my father was on a ship in San Diego harbor. They would have sailed in less than a week. Without the bomb, I might not be here.
Post by: pbradt on January 13, 2008, 11:15:04 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 17:34 |
HE is our God and He doesn't mind. He is in charge of all you say, do think, as well And if you don't work with His laws. . . . lessons will be learned. but HE doesn't mind In fact HE enjoys the stir.... He looooooooves you. i'm not coming on in any hatefulness HE wants putz' love and yours too A. Peter you oughta try a little praise,it may help you to see a little more clearly So you are Bruno's keeper? |
Guess what pal, he's YOUR god, NOT mine.
If he exists, he has visited the plagues of Job on me, many of them when I was a kid and actually DID believe. But when I see the current state of the earth, I cannot believe in your doG and if he DOES exist, he's a son of a bitch and I'd like to kick him square in the nuts. Loving god, my ass.
Post by: mgod on January 13, 2008, 11:37:59 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 15:19 |
The Bible: Hmmmmm.... people focus on the Old Testament and need to take the book in its entirety. Otherwise you missed the end of the story. |
Well, not necessarily - that's a belief. The Torah (the first 5 books, as has been mentioned) is where it all starts (in "the west"), but people have found a variety of ways to finish it - Rome just managed to take one of those, manipulate it a bit, blow it around the known world, and keep it going unto today, in the form of the Holy Roman Empire, which is still vastly influential, vastly wealthy and vastly powerful. That of course is another belief.
Sorry for opening up the physics thing - I just wanted to point out that one can find reasons to kill in pretty much any way of living, whether it be strict interpretation of misunderstood biblical translations or practical sciences. The New Testament has been used to kill for a very long time. So have the sciences.
As long as we're discussing the US and Japan lets remember that the US blockaded Japan's oil at sea, so the attack on Pearl Harbor was not just retaliation but also a move for survival.
And for more on the ongoing influence of Rome, have a look at James Carrol's "Constantine's Sword." Or just look at Huckabee's next ad - you'll see that sword over his shoulder (OT content!)
People like to laugh at other's religions, but its not too hard to reduce "the good news" to: "God is dead, and he was killed 2000 years ago because you're a sinner today." And thanks to
Constantine a huge part of the world fetishes an ancient instrument of torture. Nice! The symbol of Christ should be an open hand.
DS
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 13, 2008, 11:56:45 PM
Roosevelt wanted us out of the Great Depression and a war is a great way to do that. And frankly we couldn't lose our trading partners (in Europe) without our economy collapsing, never mind Hitler or morals.
We did a good job of boxing the Japanese into a corner. The right wing of their military came into power and they were kind enough to attack us. And a "sneak attack" is the best kind -- that gave us all kinds of "moral outrage" which the government used to draw support for the war.
"The New Testament has been used to kill for a very long time" -- I don't think it's heavy enough to be used as a blunt instrument. It's kind of all "papery"!
The Torah: Yes the Jews only accept the first 5 books, but that's because another character (Jesus) gets introduced later and he's simply not that popular with that audience -- if only because they've been persecuted endlessly by people ("Christians").
But it's important to remember, while the Jews have "only" the first 5 books, they too are waiting for the Messiah to return.
Your version of the Good News doesn't sound so "good". How about this: For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
That has a nice ring to it!
Post by: CCC on January 14, 2008, 12:22:17 AM
Post by: mgod on January 14, 2008, 12:34:19 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 20:56 |
"The New Testament has been used to kill for a very long time" -- I don't think it's heavy enough to be used as a blunt instrument. It's kind of all "papery"! |
Then try the complete Calvin and Hobbes. 20 lbs. of Certain Death.
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 20:56 |
Your version of the Good News doesn't sound so "good". |
No, it doesn't, does it? But its what I always think of when I hear people make fun of Scientology (and no, I'm not one). Any religion is pretty easy to make fun of.
And, some Jews are waiting for the messiah. Some are waiting for Godot, and some are just waiting for the man, $26 dollahs in my hand...
The real question is though, are we all just slouching towards Bethlehem?
Me, I'm pretty happy, messiah or not, with what Yeshua did on his re-arrival in Jerusalem in attempting to point out the fallacy of looking for god in the temple, in the holy of holies, when all the way back to Avram it was made clear that god was not to be found anywhere on earth but inside. I like that Yeshua made a point of reminding his people that the kingdom was within.
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 20:56 |
How about this: For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. That has a nice ring to it! |
Well, maybe it sounds pretty, but it is kinda exclusionary. What about those who don't believe? Is god that petty? You see where this leads.
| JS wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 21:22 |
Aren't the 10 Commandments in the Old Testament? |
They seem to have been altered somewhere along the way - the ones that get posted on courthouse lawns around here aren't the same ones that are in the Torah. Guess those were inconvenient for some folks.
DS
Post by: studiojimi on January 14, 2008, 11:41:59 AM
| Quote: |
Your version of the Good News doesn't sound so "good". How about this: For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. That has a nice ring to it! |
| mgod wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 20:37 |
[ People like to laugh at other's religions, but its not too hard to reduce "the good news" to: "God is dead, and he was killed 2000 years ago because you're a sinner today." |
God is quite alive and living in each and everyone of us.
Some are clearly expressing Him better than others.
and that's OK my me and HE.
the news is
YOU ARE a sinner and you need a saviour. Jesus is the best and only man for the job.
The hope and a prayer never ceases.
The lesson is wait on the Lord.
I SPEAK THE WORD.
I have learned
that there is power
in my spoken word.
When I speak
with dominion and authority,
my words will not return
void.
The statements
that I send forth into the universe
move to accomplish
what has been said.
As I speak words of power,
I can expect
awesome outcomes.
I use my words
to impact my experiences
and
expect immediate, positive results.
In faith,
I expect my verbal vibrations
to bring forth my highest good
in mind, body and affairs.
I speak life
and
I move in the energy
that propels all form
to actions.
I speak in love
and
l am one with
the pure essence of Being
that binds, joins and harmonizes.
I speak words of wisdom
and I experience
the voice of God within
as the Source
of my understanding.
I speak of substance
and
I form
that which I desire
according to
my faith and understanding.
Thank You,
Father for helping me
to remember
that my words have power
and
that I am responsible
for every message they convey.
May my words
always be acceptable and affirmative
to those who hear.
"A word fitly spoken
is like apples of gold in settings of silver."
Proverbs 25:11
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 14, 2008, 11:54:09 AM
You are certainly *not* harping.
Here's the (possibly "tricky") thing.
All people are bound by law, whether civil or spiritual.
Under the law, all are criminals -- I can't help but believe everyone has broken some law at some point no matter how small.
Under spiritual law, all people are sinners (acknowledged or not).
Christians, like everyone else, have broken the law. Christians are *not* superior (and certainly not perfect) people.
By God's grace (which is available to everyone) Christians have confessed their sins and recognize they fall short of the standard God wants for all people everywhere. Christians have their sins covered in the blood of Christ so these sins, past present and future, are forgiven.
Now, (and here's the tricky part) because a Christian's sins (past present future) are forgiven, spiritual law no longer applies to them. NOW! Before you say then they can act like bastards and do any damn thing and nothing is going to happen to them, let me continue.
Because their sins are forgiven they are no longer condemned by things such as the 10 Commandments (because that's all laws can do is show how someone failed to act or acted sinfully). Given that, they are to follow those Commandments even tho' they are not subject to any penalty. They are to live as Christ lived on earth, loving people and telling the Good News. Do we manage that? Hell no! Are we supposed to try? Hell yes!
I'm sorry to say, but have to out of truth, that there isn't a single Commandment I haven't violated either in practice or in thought. So I'd be royally screwed if it weren't for forgiveness through Christ. And I break the Commandments every day. Should I be proud of that? No. Am I forgiven for that? Yes. Should I try to break the Commandments or sin more because I can't be penalized? Absolutely No.
Does that answer your question in some manner? I hope so.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 14, 2008, 12:04:53 PM
You make good points. And I *love* Calvin and Hobbes -- Christopher Robbin and Winnie the Pooh gone berserk! I'd gladly smack anyone with that collection. It could only do them good.
Is Christianity exlusionary (For God so loved the world...)?
First, the verse begins, "For God so loved the world..." That is all inclusive. It means that God loves everyone in the world and all the good it contains that he was willing to send his Son, the person most precious to him, to die to save ALL people. Now dying is not just dying, there is a whole spiritual angle to that I don't want to dive into just now.
So God's intention is to save everyone! All anyone has to do to actually be saved is to accept:
1. They have sinned.
2. There is forgiveness of sin through Jesus Christ (only)
3. Jesus died for our sins and was raised again as proof of our forgiveness.
That's it! You don't have to do good deeds ('cause good deeds won't get you into heaven). You don't have to try to attain some higher consciousness. There is nothing you have to do, or can do, to be saved except believe in Christ. It's sort of like this. You are drowning in a lake. You'll never be able to swim to shore to save yourself. A guy (Christ) comes along with a boat and says "hop in and I'll take you to shore." All you gotta do is:
EDIT: I guess you have to believe you're drowning!
1. Believe the guy exists
2. Accept that he has a means to save you
3. Accept the ride
It's no more complicated than that. AND! You can relax knowing your future is secure no matter how bad things (or you) get. What can be more comforting than that?
Post by: studiojimi on January 14, 2008, 12:28:01 PM
OT
Old Testament=The DE-generation of man
NT
New Testament=The RE-generation of man
I can't spend too much time in here now.
Too much good living to be doing to spar in here.
Post by: mgod on January 14, 2008, 12:34:05 PM
And it further implies that no matter how heinous one's behavior during one's planetary life, that a deathbed conversion works just as well as a life lived in perfection. Mother Theresa and Adolph Eichmann, all the same. Yes, there is something beautiful about that. There is also something creepy about it. And yes, I would like to think that Eichmann saw the light before he hit the bottom of that rope, but in no way does that help the millions he killed.
DS
Post by: danickstr on January 14, 2008, 12:35:04 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 12:28 |
Too much good living to be doing to spar in here. |
That is something I can agree with
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 14, 2008, 01:45:21 PM
Any time someone is forced to believe that is either the Spanish Inquisition or politics. Do not confuse the personal relationship with God with the one people do in the name of God.
One path/exclusionary: Isn't the one path of anti-theism or atheism the same? It is one path to non-belief. Further Christianity is no more dogmatic than mathematics. No matter what I chose to answer my teacher insisted 2+2 = 4. There's no getting around that. So dogma shows up in a lot places.
Post by: Larrchild on January 14, 2008, 01:49:25 PM
Post by: mgod on January 14, 2008, 02:35:57 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 10:45 |
Any time someone is forced to believe that is either the Spanish Inquisition or politics. Do not confuse the personal relationship with God with the one people do in the name of God. One path/exclusionary: Isn't the one path of anti-theism or atheism the same? It is one path to non-belief. Further Christianity is no more dogmatic than mathematics. No matter what I chose to answer my teacher insisted 2+2 = 4. There's no getting around that. So dogma shows up in a lot places. |
So now we're comparing science to religion again. But in base 10 math 2 + 2 always equal 4. Change the base and you change the rule.
I have quite a few friends who identify themselves as Christian (some of my best friends!), and very few agree on what that means to them. A couple of them find their search inward for Christ makes them more Jewish everyday, which makes perfect sense, since if you take away what was created after his life, pretty much most of what Jesus had to say is prettily easily interpreted as already extant Jewish mysticism. Or had already been said by Hillel, 100 years earlier.
Further, there are many Jews who have an experience of Christ and that experience may in some cases resemble Christianity (Jews for Jesus f'rinstance) but mostly bears no similarity to it. The Christ consciousness appears to many, in a form that can be perceived by the individual. Hindus call it Krishna. Yogananda talked a lot about Christ, as a consciousness, and as a person in the form of Jesus. The catholic church in its early years tried to lay exclusive claim to it, by calling itself catholic (universal) and then by declaring all other experience to be heretical (including declaring irrelevant Miriam of Magdela's being the first person to witness the resurrection). But that didn't make them go away. It just meant that one group seized power, and become all-powerful with Constantine. But the consciousness as a path is not owned by one group, and that group does not get to set universal rules, although it may claim that it does.
So, which rules apply? In base Barry Christianity, you get to set the rules, as you have learned them or interpreted them. I'd guess that in base Bruno philosophy, it arises as activity within the brain.
I had a very interesting conversation last year at All Saints Church with Elaine Pagels (wife of the science writer Heinz Pagels), who was there discussing the Gospel of Judas and writes a lot of about early Christianity. I said that for me everything she was discussing was about Judaism. She lit up and said that was a big subject among her students, trying to figure out when it was legitimate to call it anything other than Judaism, because the word Christian doesn't show up for a few hundred years after his life. Obviously, the word Christ was not used around Yeshua in his time. But the relationship between Yeshua as a prophet and/or embodiment of Christ consciousness and "the Jews", as we are known, continues evolving from where it was 2000 years ago, regardless of what the self-declared Christian authorities, those who lay claim to apostolic succession, may or may not declare about it. Its really none of their business - they should worry about their own hides.
Post by: CCC on January 14, 2008, 02:56:39 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 13:45 |
One path/exclusionary: Isn't the one path of anti-theism or atheism the same? It is one path to non-belief. Further Christianity is no more dogmatic than mathematics. No matter what I chose to answer my teacher insisted 2+2 = 4. There's no getting around that. So dogma shows up in a lot places. |
DS' point is well taken. Operating in base 10 math means that 2 + 2 is 4. One, and another one is two. One and another one is two. Taken those twos together, (which is one and one and one and one), you get four. This is addition, not dogma. If you can establish that one and one and one and one is not four please go ahead.
Christianity: The Bible is the word of God (except for those parts we cut out a long time ago, which we call "apocryphal," those parts that were mistranslated, those parts that were rewritten, and those parts of the Old Testament that are really icky that we disavow), and you have to believe this (or fractional divisions thereof, as you see fit), dammit. To accept this dogma, please ignore that the Christ story has been told in pre-Christian cultures (see Isis & Horus, or Zoroaster). This is the kind of math in which one and one and one is seventy-five, or fifty-seven, seventeen hundred and fifty seven.
With respect, do you really think that addition and Christianity can be equated?
Post by: studiojimi on January 14, 2008, 03:16:55 PM
he's all tuned up and ready to jam.
Post by: mgod on January 14, 2008, 03:50:05 PM
Oh wait- that's a guitar.
DS
Post by: Andy Peters on January 14, 2008, 04:13:33 PM
| JS wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 22:22 |
Sorry to harp on it, but the Old Testament vs New Testament thing keeps coming up, and I'm still unclear. If the Bible is allegedly a complete code of conduct for the Christian, and if the Old Testament is part of the Bible, then aren't Christians bound by the books of the Old Testament? Aren't the 10 Commandments in the Old Testament? |
The usual excuse is that Jesus created a new covenant, and as such, only things that early Xtians felt were important were included.
-a
Post by: Andy Peters on January 14, 2008, 04:21:11 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 10:04 |
So God's intention is to save everyone! All anyone has to do to actually be saved is to accept: 1. They have sinned. 2. There is forgiveness of sin through Jesus Christ (only) 3. Jesus died for our sins and was raised again as proof of our forgiveness. That's it! You don't have to do good deeds ('cause good deeds won't get you into heaven). You don't have to try to attain some higher consciousness. There is nothing you have to do, or can do, to be saved except believe in Christ. |
So, one can be a right total bastard -- stealing, cheating, lying, murdering even -- and as long as you follow your Three Simple Steps above, voila! Heaven awaits!
Sounds ... wonderful.
-a
Post by: Andy Peters on January 14, 2008, 04:24:57 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 09:41 |
the news is YOU ARE a sinner and you need a saviour. Jesus is the best and only man for the job. |
I deny that I am a sinner. It's ok if YOU believe that YOU are a sinner in whatever way you define that, but I deny that I am.
And since I deny that I am a sinner according to your definition, I don't need a savior, ergo I don't need Jesus.
-a
Post by: Andy Peters on January 14, 2008, 04:27:42 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 19:41 |
Morality: In the sense we are all made in God's image (and thus have a sense of right and wrong -- remember Adam and Eve) |
As Frank Zappa once observed,
If we are made in God's image, then God must be dumb all over, and a little ugly on the side, as well.
-a
Post by: mgod on January 14, 2008, 04:36:45 PM
| Andy Peters wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 13:24 | ||
I deny that I am a sinner. It's ok if YOU believe that YOU are a sinner in whatever way you define that, but I deny that I am. And since I deny that I am a sinner according to your definition, I don't need a savior, ergo I don't need Jesus. -a |
But its OK with me if Jimi believes I'm a sinner, and thinks I need a savior. Doesn't affect me in any way. I'm not sure what it does for him, but if it helps him in some way, groovy.
DS
Post by: studiojimi on January 14, 2008, 05:02:15 PM
| Andy Peters wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 13:27 | ||
As Frank Zappa once observed, If we are made in God's image, then God must be dumb all over, and a little ugly on the side, as well. -a |
you are as dumb as you personally are willing to claim for youself
(quadruple spaced)
but not for the rest of the family
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 14, 2008, 07:43:44 PM
I have no problem with what you choose to believe. Your choices are fine by me.
Now if you think yourself to be as ugly and dumb as Frank Zappa says, you might want to work on your self-esteem.
Post by: mgod on January 14, 2008, 08:05:13 PM
DS
Post by: mgod on January 14, 2008, 09:22:57 PM
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA15Ak03.html
This was also on the front page of the WSJ on Saturday.
DS
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 14, 2008, 11:45:39 PM
Thanks for the link. Absolutely fascinating stuff. If one reads about Muhammed's life one clearly see (I believe anyway) that Islam is a combination of Christianity and Judaism. It is interesting to have scholars bring up that point.
When I was younger I thought seriously about being an archaeologist but was only interested in the Indiana Jones type (this would be the early 60s). Real scholarship is rarely this exciting, no matter what the subject. I'm always amazed by what is tucked away in private and public archives.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 14, 2008, 11:48:22 PM
"If I thought I was as dumb as Frank Zappa, I would definitely have to work on my self-esteem - I'd have way too much of it."
And... Frank Zappa is exactly *where* now?
Post by: mgod on January 15, 2008, 12:50:01 AM
His father worked at a chemical testing lab in MD when Frank was a kid, and brought home some deadly shit. If you're suggesting that Frank's death from cancer was in some way related to a lack of intelligence, you and I will have our first really serious disagreement. Zappa was one of the most intelligent people alive, when he was alive, and if cancer comes from intelligence, then medicine just got really complicated (although I accept the compliment). Zappa was a man of great conscience, and also very kind.
DS
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 15, 2008, 01:03:23 AM
I'm just asking no matter what he believed, is he any better off in the end for what he believed? I didn't know him so I can't say. It's just something to ponder.
No, I really don't want us to have a serious disagreement. That's neither my hope nor my goal.
Post by: mgod on January 15, 2008, 10:23:25 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 22:03 |
I'm just asking no matter what he believed, is he any better off in the end for what he believed? I didn't know him so I can't say. It's just something to ponder. |
Oh, I think Frank had a really good time while he was here, and contributed a lot to many people. What more can one ask for? And at least for me, if there is a heaven as described, I have no doubt he's running wild in it.
DS
Post by: studiojimi on January 15, 2008, 12:38:51 PM
| mgod wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 07:23 |
Oh, I think Frank had a really good time while he was here, and contributed a lot to many people. What more can one ask for? And at least for me, if there is a heaven as described, I have no doubt he's running wild in it. DS |
i hope they let him smoke
it's truly a shame his smoking did him in so early
i had all of frank's albums and when the opportunity came for me to play drums for flo and eddie (thru former roadies of mine) i jumped on it and could not believe that i was gonna play cats i had only fantasized about playing with. these are very fond memories of great musical times for me. 1977 heh...in the blink of an eye
Post by: mgod on January 15, 2008, 01:51:46 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 09:38 |
i hope they let him smoke it's truly a shame his smoking did him in so early |
Wasn't lung cancer - prostate cancer. He had little globules of mercury on his bedroom floor as a kid.
DS
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 15, 2008, 04:28:25 PM
Post by: Jay Kadis on January 15, 2008, 04:53:27 PM
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 15, 2008, 07:00:58 PM
Post by: CCC on January 15, 2008, 07:51:16 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 15 January 2008 19:00 |
I've got a head full of mercury fillings from the 1950s. I wonder ho......... let's go play outside! |
Here's a religious dude with a head full of something:
http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-sc ientology-tried-to-suppress
Enjoy!
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 18, 2008, 11:52:40 PM
Post by: maxdimario on January 19, 2008, 07:33:43 AM
the texts (which in our earthly experience are the only link to that time-period) began to spring up many years after.
some through word-of-mouth, others through heresay?
not many people knew how to write then. History was in the hands of the elite.
nevertheless the Christian following had enough of an influence that there were MANY different interpretations of the christian religion being preached in diverse locations all over the old-world.
The BIBLE which is the main Christian TEXTbook, was brought about by the roman emperor Constantine, in an effort to unify the forces of the widespread effects of Christianity with that of the ROMAN empire.
Constantine financed a meeting between all of the christian leaders of the time, which all had different, personalized interpretations of the message of Christ.
he paid for trip and lodging , and set about to go through all of the available texts, to create one universally accepted and recognised BIBLE.
it is obvious that he was trying to do his duty in EXPANDING the roman empire while keeping intact the christian religion as much as possible, to keep it's credibility.
So what we read as the bible is an EDITED text, under the finance and (we suppose) supervision of the Roman Emperor, hundreds of years after the death of christ.
to take any such text LITERALLY, to me would be straying from the divine and going towards the political.
but I am sure that all religions (being written) have been politically influenced.
man learned how to write, and then he believed what he wrote, someone said.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 19, 2008, 11:30:21 AM
First, there are more copies of the Bible manuscripts from history than there are the writings of Julius Caesar, so there are many good documents from which to gain accuracy.
Second, there was/is some consternation about what should and shouldn't be included in "The Bible". That's why the Catholic Bible is different from the Protestant. Catholics include what are called "The Apocrypha" -- manuscripts considered to be creations of man and not God. But yes, it apparently was difficult to choose what should be in The Bible.
Third, while there was one or a few versions of The Bible early on, there are now *so* many translations from the original texts that one can't say one version is definitive, although all are useful. Christians don't believe every word of a given translation is perfect or exact. That would seem to accept poor translations or printing errors. Instead, Christians believe the original text is the inspired (meaning "God breathed") perfect word of God.
Fourth, no matter which translation one uses (in any language), The Bible is read in combination with prayer and an open heart. And because the book is from God (who is everywhere), then it is like having the author sit and explain the book to you. It is sort of like learning surgery from a medical text. You might be able to figure some things out for yourself, but it helps when a surgeon explains it to you.
Thanks Max for a really great posting. I enjoyed reading it!
Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 19, 2008, 11:44:56 AM
I find myself pretty much in agreement with Max!!
Post by: PookyNMR on January 19, 2008, 06:35:44 PM
| maxdimario wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 05:33 |
Some interesting information on christianity could be that when Jesus died, there was no christian religion OR texts written by him. the texts (which in our earthly experience are the only link to that time-period) began to spring up many years after. some through word-of-mouth, others through heresay? |
While some common source material (which we no longer have) may date earlier, the New Testament writings started to be produced in the form that we see them now ~50 AD.
Particularly with the Gospels and Acts, great care was taken to compile truthful accounts. Of course, each of the Gospels had it's own theological emphasis, so you will see different views on each of the stories. And even chronologies are knowingly changed to present theological points. Chronology is/was not the main emphasis, the message of the Gospel of Christ is.
| maxdimario wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 05:33 |
not many people knew how to write then. History was in the hands of the elite. |
This is not completely accurate. While there weren't literacy rates as high as we have now, the general populace was not that stupid. Also, if Christian history / letters were in the hands of the elite, why were they written in the common Greek rather than the formal Greek?
| maxdimario wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 05:33 |
nevertheless the Christian following had enough of an influence that there were MANY different interpretations of the christian religion being preached in diverse locations all over the old-world. |
All of the Christian texts in the New Testament were written before the end of the first century, before the great dispersions.
Furthermore, the faith was still at that time reasonably homogenous with the exception of the threat of the Gnostic teachers. Within the first century teachings that were passed directly from the apostles and the idea of apostolic succession of teaching was still very much in force.
| maxdimario wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 05:33 |
The BIBLE which is the main Christian TEXTbook, was brought about by the roman emperor Constantine, in an effort to unify the forces of the widespread effects of Christianity with that of the ROMAN empire. |
This is way off the mark.
Constantine had very little to do with formation of the Bible. There were a couple hundred years worth of discussions among the early church fathers about this matter before Constantine was even a twinkle in his daddy's eye. (Polycarp, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Clement, Athanasius, etc)
Even before that however, there were about 200 different Christian texts in circulation in the second century. The canon of the New Testament that we have now was decided largely by usage and what the early church referred to as the 'witness of the Holy Spirit'. The other texts quickly fell out of popularity among the great majority of the church. The 'Gnostic' writings which appeared in the second and third centuries were quickly dismissed by most of the church as the origin could not be traced back to legitimate apostolic authority (despite pseudographical tricks) and the theology / teaching was radically different than that which was passed down from Christ and his apostles.
The first counsel, counsel of Nicea was where the canon was affirmed, not 'decided'. It was affirmed by usage, apostolic authority /origin, and the witness of the Holy Spirit among the gathered church fathers and the words those fathers that had gone before them in previous centuries.
The Old Testament portion of the Bible did include at the time some deuterocanonical books (the OT Apocrypha) which you will find in various Catholic and Protestant translations. While a long and complex story, a basic reason for eliminating canonical status from these books had to do with the lack of a Hebrew text, they were only in Greek.
Constantine was not the authoritative deciding voice when it came to the canon of the scriptures.
| maxdimario wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 05:33 |
Constantine financed a meeting between all of the christian leaders of the time, which all had different, personalized interpretations of the message of Christ. he paid for trip and lodging , and set about to go through all of the available texts, to create one universally accepted and recognised BIBLE. it is obvious that he was trying to do his duty in EXPANDING the roman empire while keeping intact the christian religion as much as possible, to keep it's credibility. |
No. The purpose of that first counsel was not to decide a canon. The main purpose of the counsel of Nicea was to defend against various heresies that arose in the early church such as Gnosticism and Arianism to name only a few. While Constantine may have offered help, he was not the driving force in these discussions which had been taking place for generations before he was born.
| maxdimario wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 05:33 |
So what we read as the bible is an EDITED text, under the finance and (we suppose) supervision of the Roman Emperor, hundreds of years after the death of christ. to take any such text LITERALLY, to me would be straying from the divine and going towards the political. |
This topic has been studied for 2 millenia by thousands and thousands of people. There are libraries full of research. To call the Bible an "edited text" - especially in the manner that you are implying - is to go against not only the witness of history but all the scholarship that has followed since.
There is plenty clear history on this subject. To claim that the Romans manipulated the text is ignorance.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 19, 2008, 07:10:19 PM
Thanks for a clear explanation and historical insight. I certainly learned a few things!
Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 19, 2008, 07:23:18 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 23:35 |
Particularly with the Gospels and Acts, great care was taken to compile truthful accounts. |
Well since the bible if pretty much the only reference we have, how can you make a judgement on how much effort was put into making them accurate?
| PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 23:35 |
Of course, each of the Gospels had it's own theological emphasis, so you will see different views on each of the stories. And even chronologies are knowingly changed to present theological points. Chronology is/was not the main emphasis, the message of the Gospel of Christ is. |
So when you said that great care was taken to compile truthfull accounts... you basically meant that great care was taken to compile accounts that said what the writers wanted them to say?
| PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 23:35 |
All of the Christian texts in the New Testament were written before the end of the first century, before the great dispersions. |
Well apparantly some scholars put John as being in the early second century. But anyway, do we have any first editions to be sure that the text was not edited since then?
| PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 23:35 |
No. The purpose of that first counsel was not to decide a canon. The main purpose of the counsel of Nicea was to defend against various heresies that arose in the early church such as Gnosticism and Arianism to name only a few. While Constantine may have offered help, he was not the driving force in these discussions which had been taking place for generations before he was born. |
You appear to be presenting this as the people with the correct view of Christianity got together and confirmed what the truth was and what counted as Heresy. But wouldn't it also be an accurate description to say that the Christian group with the greatest political and military might behind it became dominant?
| PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 23:35 |
There is plenty clear history on this subject. To claim that the Romans manipulated the text is ignorance. |
I haven't studied the subject in any way enough to judge either way. But I do remember an interesting documentary I saw once that presented a case for the idea that the bible suffered from Roman intervention.
I don't remember details but one point made was that the bible has Jesus actively discouraging any rebellion against Rome "render unto caesar the things which are caesar's" for example, and the Jews being the ones responsible for his execution... but crucifixion was a Roman form of execution.
anyway, I can't comment on the validity of their arguments, hell I can hardly remember them, but at the time they did appeat to present a plausible case.
Post by: PookyNMR on January 19, 2008, 07:26:15 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 09:30 |
First, there are more copies of the Bible manuscripts from history than there are the writings of Julius Caesar, so there are many good documents from which to gain accuracy |
Agreed.
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 09:30 |
Second, there was/is some consternation about what should and shouldn't be included in "The Bible". That's why the Catholic Bible is different from the Protestant. Catholics include what are called "The Apocrypha" -- manuscripts considered to be creations of man and not God. But yes, it apparently was difficult to choose what should be in The Bible. |
The arguments over what was to be included in the OT and the NT are quite separate arguments. The arguments over the OT canon were far less intense and comparatively stretched out over a long time. They saw the Apocrypha finally removed at the time of the reformation for Protestants. Even though Luther thought that the OT Apocrypha should be removed from canonical status, he still encouraged every believer to read it as he thought it was highly beneficial, but for various minute reasons thought that it lacked the full authority of the Hebrew canon.
The arguments of the NT 'Apocrypha' (a.k.a Gnostic gospels / epistles) was comparatively quick and decisive - decisions being made long before Constantine.
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 09:30 |
Third, while there was one or a few versions of The Bible early on, there are now *so* many translations from the original texts that one can't say one version is definitive, although all are useful. Christians don't believe every word of a given translation is perfect or exact. That would seem to accept poor translations or printing errors. Instead, Christians believe the original text is the inspired (meaning "God breathed") perfect word of God. |
I'm not sure what you would mean by different 'versions' - but the various 'versions' through centered around language (like the Latin Vulgate) or included books. Not about radical changes to the text / story / teaching.
There are different translations because translating between languages, particularly ancient languages, is a tricky business. Each of the translations also has a particular bent - whether to use more common vernacular and inclusive terms or whether to try and be more direct and literal translation.
As to the issue of infallibility, Martin Luther used to say that the text itself has some known challenges, but the purpose of the scripture, much like the hay in the manger, is to hold up Jesus. And in that sense, it is infallible in it's purpose - pointing to Christ.
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 09:30 |
Fourth, no matter which translation one uses (in any language), The Bible is read in combination with prayer and an open heart. And because the book is from God (who is everywhere), then it is like having the author sit and explain the book to you. It is sort of like learning surgery from a medical text. You might be able to figure some things out for yourself, but it helps when a surgeon explains it to you. |
I couldn't agree more, and theologically speaking, it's the activity of the Spirit which makes the written word come alive in a person's heart.
Post by: PookyNMR on January 19, 2008, 07:55:05 PM
| Jon Hodgson wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 17:23 | ||
An interesting post, however it does raise a couple of questions for me
Well since the bible if pretty much the only reference we have, how can you make a judgement on how much effort was put into making them accurate? |
It is not the only reference that we have.
| Jon Hodgson wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 17:23 | ||
So when you said that great care was taken to compile truthfull accounts... you basically meant that great care was taken to compile accounts that said what the writers wanted them to say? |
No. Great care was taken to relate the story and message of Christ. The fact that the message is presented to make a point in no way detracts from the historicity of it.
| Jon Hodgson wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 17:23 | ||
Well apparantly some scholars put John as being in the early second century. But anyway, do we have any first editions to be sure that the text was not edited since then? |
Biblical scholars will present every single idea in the realm of possibility/ plausibility. However - it is well accepted by a majority of scholars that John was most likely written ~90 AD.
| Jon Hodgson wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 17:23 | ||
You appear to be presenting this as the people with the correct view of Christianity got together and confirmed what the truth was and what counted as Heresy. But wouldn't it also be an accurate description to say that the Christian group with the greatest political and military might behind it became dominant? |
No. It would not be accurate. Quite the opposite.
Firstly, the Chirstians at that time were not a military force. Until Constantine, they were hiding for their lives because of some nasty persecution.
Particularly when it came to Athanasius vs. Arius, Athanasius was in a minority. But the strength of his arguments settled the issue in the counsel.
And most importantly, many of the arguments were very old and refuting primarily Gnosticism which clearly departed from the Teachings of Christ and the apostles.
As much as you'd like to twist it into some sort of a political maneuver, at this time the issue was very much about Theology, not about power. The church as this time had not become polluted by the quest for power. That happened quite a bit later.
| Jon Hodgson wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 17:23 | ||
An interesting post, however it does raise a couple of questions for me
I haven't studied the subject in any way enough to judge either way. But I do remember an interesting documentary I saw once that presented a case for the idea that the bible suffered from Roman intervention. I don't remember details but one point made was that the bible has Jesus actively discouraging any rebellion against Rome "render unto caesar the things which are caesar's" for example, and the Jews being the ones responsible for his execution... but crucifixion was a Roman form of execution. anyway, I can't comment on the validity of their arguments, hell I can hardly remember them, but at the time they did appeat to present a plausible case. |
Do you remember that argument that we had about climate change in which I presented a video with what I thought was interesting questions and you presented some decent evidence to prove otherwise?
Even though I have not seen the video you reference, I would hold it in a similar light. The arguments may tickle the ears, but it does not hold up to what has been already researched to death and re-researched again and again and again by multitudes of PhD's (believe it or not a good number of which are not even believers). Various scholarly processes have been able to show when and where any problematic areas have arisen either through the process of transmission or translation. What we have now as "the Bible" is amazing accurate given it's journey through time and languages.
The argument is silly (if you are remembering correctly), and clearly if one studies the NT in any depth you can see the over-tones of the plight with Rome.
While there may be points in history where folks have tried to mess with the text (knowingly or unknowingly), these things are quite easily spotted and a body of various manuscripts (both ancient and different locales) are referenced to show and original text.
Post by: Larrchild on January 19, 2008, 07:56:26 PM
Post by: PookyNMR on January 19, 2008, 08:02:49 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 17:56 |
What made people stop adding chapters? |
The biblical texts were not written in chapters and verses.
Jerome was the one who added the Chapter / Verse system in the Vulgate (his Latin translation) to make the referencing of various passages easier. It has stuck ever since.
Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 19, 2008, 08:04:38 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Sun, 20 January 2008 00:55 |
No. It would not be accurate. Quite the opposite. Firstly, the Chirstians at that time were not a military force. Until Constantine, they were hiding for their lives because of some nasty persecution. |
Well I was referring to the period after Constantine and the first Council of Nicea.
Anyway, thanks for your answers to my questions
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 19, 2008, 08:42:48 PM
When I said there were a few versions of the Bible, it was a very poor way of saying there were a variety of manuscripts one could draw from for the text. In no way did I mean to state or imply the meaning or message were varied or differed.
Post by: PookyNMR on January 20, 2008, 02:05:47 AM
Post by: Larrchild on January 20, 2008, 02:16:40 PM
That speaks Testaments about us.
Post by: J-Texas on January 21, 2008, 06:41:48 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Sun, 20 January 2008 13:16 |
I'm still in awe of 17 pages of relatively civil discourse on such a divergent (and divisive!)topic. A joy to read. That speaks Testaments about us. |
Larry... umm, I think you just made 18.
Post by: rphilbeck on January 21, 2008, 08:00:39 PM
Post by: CCC on January 21, 2008, 08:06:45 PM
| RPhilbeck wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 20:00 |
18 pages of ass kicking. Chuck does not have his work cut out for him. |
Highly persuasive, deeply insightful, with just a tantalizing hint of insouciance. I feel edified having been exposed to your wit. Thank you.
Post by: mgod on January 21, 2008, 08:44:54 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 19 January 2008 16:55 |
Various scholarly processes have been able to show when and where any problematic areas have arisen either through the process of transmission or translation. What we have now as "the Bible" is amazing accurate given it's journey through time and languages. The argument is silly (if you are remembering correctly), and clearly if one studies the NT in any depth you can see the over-tones of the plight with Rome. While there may be points in history where folks have tried to mess with the text (knowingly or unknowingly), these things are quite easily spotted and a body of various manuscripts (both ancient and different locales) are referenced to show and original text. |
Scholarship indeed:
http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/ dp/0060859512/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=12 00966196&sr=8-1
Nathan, meaning no disrespect to your position as a pastor, which is a position we might hope one holds with some conviction, I have to say that I find your fixed delineation of scholarship a bit self-serving, and this is only to be expected.
There are many disagreements in the world of this scholarship, and many scholars who wouldn't see things as quite so agreed upon as you present them. One's beliefs naturally lead one to conclude that history supports them, and to argue that the accepted scholarship supports those beliefs makes perfect sense. It doesn't make the argument true though.
I have quite a few beliefs myself. None of them are in agreement with your "accepted" view of the history of early Christianity, or as I call it, Jewish history, and quite a few books I've read and studied and conversations I've had with noted scholars of the subject support my beliefs.
This is why we call them beliefs.
DS
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 21, 2008, 09:35:06 PM
"Chapter 2 (“The Copyists of the Early Christian Writings”) deals with scribal changes to the text, both intentional and unintentional. Here Ehrman mixes standard text-critical information with his own interpretation, an interpretation that is by no means shared by all textual critics, nor even most of them. In essence, he paints a very bleak picture of scribal activity6, leaving the unwary reader to assume that we have no chance of recovering the original wording of the NT." (Emphasis is mine).
Continuing: The numbers 13-18 in the quote are footnotes.
"...Ehrman overplays the quality of the variants while underscoring their quantity. He says, “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”13 Elsewhere he states that the number of variants is as high as 400,000.14 That is true enough, but by itself is misleading. Anyone who teaches NT textual criticism knows that this fact is only part of the picture and that, if left dangling in front of the reader without explanation, is a distorted view. Once it is revealed that the great majority of these variants are inconsequential—involving spelling differences that cannot even be translated, articles with proper nouns, word order changes, and the like—and that only a very small minority of the variants alter the meaning of the text, the whole picture begins to come into focus. Indeed, only about 1% of the textual variants are both meaningful and viable.15 The impression Ehrman sometimes gives throughout the book—and repeats in interviews16—is that of wholesale uncertainty about the original wording,17 a view that is far more radical than he actually embraces.18"
And finally the conclusion:
"I grieve for what has happened to an acquaintance of mine, a man I have known and admired—and continue to admire—for over a quarter of a century. It gives me no joy to put forth this review. But from where I sit, it seems that Bart’s black and white mentality as a fundamentalist has hardly been affected as he slogged through the years and trials of life and learning, even when he came out on the other side of the theological spectrum. He still sees things without sufficient nuancing, he overstates his case, and he is entrenched in the security that his own views are right. Bart Ehrman is one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics I’ve ever known, and yet his biases are so strong that, at times, he cannot even acknowledge them."
All comments are by Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.
You can read the entire (and quite lengthy) review here:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000
Post by: mgod on January 21, 2008, 09:52:08 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 18:35 |
Excerpts from a scholarly review of Mr. Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus": "Chapter 2 (“The Copyists of the Early Christian Writings”) deals with scribal changes to the text, both intentional and unintentional. Here Ehrman mixes standard text-critical information with his own interpretation, an interpretation that is by no means shared by all textual critics, nor even most of them. In essence, he paints a very bleak picture of scribal activity6, leaving the unwary reader to assume that we have no chance of recovering the original wording of the NT." (Emphasis is mine). |
And your emphasis points out quite clearly that there are others who do agree with him. Thanks for that.
I could, of course, find reviews with the opposite conclusion. Reading the book itself, or a little bit more about the man being grieved over, would be illuminating for those who don't refuse to know.
Again, we are talking about faith - not fact. I know my facts. But they aren't the same as yours. Jesus was jewish, first and last. That's a fact. I was in a catholic church in Watts yesterday, marveling at all these people praising this jewish boy and his mother. Its a delight to me.
So now what?
Barry - you seem to think I'm anti-religion - I'm not. I'm pretty damn religious, in a way that doesn't resemble yours, externally. My facts are not Christian facts. Only dogma would suggest that makes them wrong. Dogma tain't truth. And a book that has prove-able errors, whether or not one regards them as consequential, may have many more.
DS
Post by: rphilbeck on January 21, 2008, 10:05:43 PM
| JS wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 20:06 | ||
Highly persuasive, deeply insightful, with just a tantalizing hint of insouciance. I feel edified having been exposed to your wit. Thank you. |
And I feel grateful for having a sense of humor.
Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 21, 2008, 10:07:56 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 02:35 |
Excerpts from a scholarly review of Mr. Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus": "Chapter 2 (“The Copyists of the Early Christian Writings”) deals with scribal changes to the text, both intentional and unintentional. Here Ehrman mixes standard text-critical information with his own interpretation, an interpretation that is by no means shared by all textual critics, nor even most of them. In essence, he paints a very bleak picture of scribal activity6, leaving the unwary reader to assume that we have no chance of recovering the original wording of the NT." (Emphasis is mine). Continuing: The numbers 13-18 in the quote are footnotes. "...Ehrman overplays the quality of the variants while underscoring their quantity. He says, “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”13 Elsewhere he states that the number of variants is as high as 400,000.14 That is true enough, but by itself is misleading. Anyone who teaches NT textual criticism knows that this fact is only part of the picture and that, if left dangling in front of the reader without explanation, is a distorted view. Once it is revealed that the great majority of these variants are inconsequential—involving spelling differences that cannot even be translated, articles with proper nouns, word order changes, and the like—and that only a very small minority of the variants alter the meaning of the text, the whole picture begins to come into focus. Indeed, only about 1% of the textual variants are both meaningful and viable.15 The impression Ehrman sometimes gives throughout the book—and repeats in interviews16—is that of wholesale uncertainty about the original wording,17 a view that is far more radical than he actually embraces.18" And finally the conclusion: "I grieve for what has happened to an acquaintance of mine, a man I have known and admired—and continue to admire—for over a quarter of a century. It gives me no joy to put forth this review. But from where I sit, it seems that Bart’s black and white mentality as a fundamentalist has hardly been affected as he slogged through the years and trials of life and learning, even when he came out on the other side of the theological spectrum. He still sees things without sufficient nuancing, he overstates his case, and he is entrenched in the security that his own views are right. Bart Ehrman is one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics I’ve ever known, and yet his biases are so strong that, at times, he cannot even acknowledge them." All comments are by Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. You can read the entire (and quite lengthy) review here: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000 |
That review is extensive and quite fascinating, though I haven't had time to do much more than skim it, and I need to sleep.
However a couple of things did strike me in my skimming of it...
Firstly the critic does not question the author's knowledge and abilility, in fact he praises it (as in your quote above), instead he seems to be criticising the conclusions extrapolated from the analysis of the text, and the emphasis.
Secondly the bit that says
| Quote: |
Three of these passages have been considered inauthentic by most NT scholars—including most evangelical NT scholars—for well over a century (Mark 16.9–20; John 7.53–8.11; and 1 John 5.7–8).31 |
this being written by someone who it would appear from his other comments is a committed Christian, seems to confirm that the general concensus is that there has been SOME editing of the bible, whether this editing affects the message or the interpretation is a different question of course.
Finally the critic's bias is also made plain, the line
| Quote: |
First is my plea to all biblical scholars to take seriously their responsibility in caring for God’s people. Scholars bear a sacred duty not to alarm lay readers on issues that they have little understanding of. Indeed, even agnostic teachers bear this responsibility |
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that. It is the resposibility of scholars to seek out the truth and present it as best they can, and if that upsets some people then so be it. Now whether what the author has presented is the truth or not is a seperate question, but it would be dishonest for him to misrepresent his conclusions (the truth as he sees it) because of some "sacred duty not to alarm".
Just for the record, that doesn't mean I think he needs to be intentionally alarmist however.
Post by: PRobb on January 21, 2008, 10:09:50 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Sun, 20 January 2008 14:16 |
I'm still in awe of 17 pages of relatively civil discourse on such a divergent (and divisive!)topic. A joy to read. That speaks Testaments about us. |
New or old testament?
I agree. The more we can talk to rather than yell at each other the better off we are.
Post by: J-Texas on January 21, 2008, 10:13:48 PM
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 21, 2008, 10:21:33 PM
Sorry to misunderstand you. Sincere thanks for giving me a better peek at your beliefs.
My emphasis doesn't point out that some scholars disagree with Mr. Ehrman. It says plainly *most* don't agree with him.
My failure to read the book is not that "I don't want to know". It is that it would take me forever to read it all the way through. Then I would have to read other books to refute what is in Ehrman's. That would take me months. And who better to refute the Ehrman than someone whose expertise is greatly respected, certainly much more so than mine. And in case the point was glossed over, someone who knows him personally.
It is clear then that you could dismiss my comments as "opinions" but one must refute the reviewer's statements point by point with true scholarship.
And I'm sure you could find reviewers to support Ehrman but are they of the same (or better) credentials as (than) this one?
I'm not preaching "dogma". A highly simplified example: If one reads a medical book, understands the concepts and uses the techniques to save lives that is not dogma. That is correctly reading the book. If one reads The Bible, understands what is being said and tells the Good News in the hope the reader (and/or others) develops a personal relationship with God, that too is not dogma. The Bible is the sole (pun intended) "Save Your Life For Eternity" book.
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 21, 2008, 10:31:26 PM
The rest of that paragraph goes on to say:
"... even agnostic teachers bear this responsibility. Unfortunately, the average layperson will leave Misquoting Jesus with far greater doubts about the wording and teachings of the NT than any textual critic would ever entertain. A good teacher doesn’t hold back on telling his students what’s what, but he also knows how to package the material so they don’t let emotion get in the way of reason."
That seems fair enough. I'm very pleased you took time to look it over. It really is a fascinating review.
Post by: mgod on January 21, 2008, 11:13:47 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 19:21 |
My emphasis doesn't point out that some scholars disagree with Mr. Ehrman. It says plainly *most* don't agree with him. |
Which means that some do - if the number in total is large it could mean that many do. Not much of an argument from your esteemed critic.
| Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 19:21 |
It is clear then that you could dismiss my comments as "opinions" but one must refute the reviewer's statements point by point with true scholarship. |
I suppose so, if you say so, but I don't have to. The man's journey is pretty profound and means a lot to me.
| Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 19:21 |
And I'm sure you could find reviewers to support Ehrman but are they of the same (or better) credentials as (than) this one? |
I'm sure that none I could find would be good enough for you. A believer losing his belief means a lot to me, and I want to know how that happened. I think the man is sincere and has a lot to teach.But a believer defending his belief means a lot to you. I like Elaine Pagels, I read her and sometimes correspond with her. She's interested in discerning historical fact, not the mystery behind the history.
| Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 19:21 |
I'm not preaching "dogma". A highly simplified example: If one reads a medical book, understands the concepts and uses the techniques to save lives that is not dogma. That is correctly reading the book. If one reads The Bible, understands what is being said and tells the Good News in the hope the reader (and/or others) develops a personal relationship with God, that too is not dogma. The Bible is the sole (pun intended) "Save Your Life For Eternity" book. |
Oh Jesus!
And I say that regarding you as a friend, but friend, that's pure dogma. I accept it fully as your belief. Thank god there are billions who believe differently. There are soooo many ways to read the Bible, including the original one, the Torah. That your description works out good for you is fine with me, but your good news tain't my good news, friend. The idea that there is only one version is dogmatic, to say the least. In other parts of the world, it would be insulting. But as someone who grew up in a heavily Christianized (and I think largely deluded) environment, I've seen as many interpretations as interpreters. Which in my mind, make youse all jews. Israel = those who struggle with god; anyone who attempts to confront the relationship between self and something larger is, according to the ancient teachings of the Hebrews (and which Yeshua helped to restore in his time) an Israelite. After his time, its politics, infighting, power centralization, the demonization of women, and Crusade. In the name of Love. A brawl among jewish factions which gets exploited by local authorities and those who would rule over others. In judaism, only you and God, no priests, no apostolic succession, no central power. "The Kingdom is Within". And the apostles were Jews, much as Americans would like to ignore that. Paul, nee Saul made claims that I could make the opposite of today. The only thing that gave his any authority was their being anointed by self-proclaimed "catholic" bishops like Origen and passed through centralized power. And then comes Constantine's sword. So much hostility in Yeshua's name. And how absurd is it that at the end of the 2nd century you get a few guys claiming that they, and only they ("catholic" as in "universal") represent the only legitimate truth? Thank god we're outgrowing this memeonlyme stuff.
One love. Jah. Oh wait - that's probably not a correct reading of it.
Never mind.
DS
Edit: PS - While I'd never argue with your own beliefs, I think posting something that exclusionary in a public forum, that what you believe is the only legitimate truth is a little bit , I don't know, ...I don't have the right word for it. But since you've laid it out there, I'll do the same: The belief that Jesus is the only path is pure nonsense. I have it on the best possible authority that there can be in this world that he is one path of many. There, now we're both out there. And both just as excluding of the other - the inevitable result of proclaiming dogma.
Post by: Berolzheimer on January 21, 2008, 11:36:39 PM
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/74386/
Post by: maxim on January 21, 2008, 11:53:26 PM
dontcha mean "testicules"?...
Post by: danickstr on January 22, 2008, 11:40:20 AM
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 22, 2008, 11:46:04 AM
I would be grateful if you would list your core beliefs. I keep telling mine but would like a better handle on your system. I need a fuller picture.
Thanks!
Barry
Post by: PookyNMR on January 22, 2008, 12:04:19 PM
| mgod wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 18:44 |
There are many disagreements in the world of this scholarship, and many scholars who wouldn't see things as quite so agreed upon as you present them. One's beliefs naturally lead one to conclude that history supports them, and to argue that the accepted scholarship supports those beliefs makes perfect sense. It doesn't make the argument true though. |
Of course there are many divergent arguments among scholars. As I said earlier, any argument within the realm of possibility or plausibility that can be made will be made - whether or not the scholar believes that position to be true. In fact, the scholars that I respect most always lay out the arguments of 2 or 3 oppositional views, state the merits and drawbacks, then state the evidence why their position is more likely. It's much akin to peer review. An outside party is always more likely to see your short-sightedness.
So yes, while there's always divergent views of alternate possibilities to various pieces of evidence that open up questions about possibilities, the majority of peer reviewed work by a wide range of individuals (believers and unbelievers) holds the NT in the similar regard to what I have stated.
I don't present my view of scholarship to be 'self-serving' - rather I'm trying to present to the best of my research what I have seen in the academic community as the prevailing popular view. Believe it or not, I actually enjoy reading challenging materials by anyone who seems to have put honest effort into their studies.
Post by: PookyNMR on January 22, 2008, 12:10:05 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 09:46 |
DS, I would be grateful if you would list your core beliefs. I keep telling mine but would like a better handle on your system. I need a fuller picture. Thanks! Barry |
If I'm not mistaken, he stated that he adheres to some form of Kabbalah - which some would define as a mystical / pseudo-gnostic branch of Judaism. (And I give that definition not to be in any way derogatory, but only as a point of reference using some more well understood terms.) Kabbalah has a few different flavors, but in general you will see belief in the Torah and the Zohar. IIRC, some Kabbalists will read the rest of the OT as well.
Am I correct, Dan?
Post by: PookyNMR on January 22, 2008, 01:03:50 PM
| Jon Hodgson wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 20:07 | ||
this being written by someone who it would appear from his other comments is a committed Christian, seems to confirm that the general concensus is that there has been SOME editing of the bible, whether this editing affects the message or the interpretation is a different question of course. |
This is correct re: Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11 (7:53 incl). There are questions about these passages. There are a few facts around these questions that are helpful to know which will help guide the questions as to "what happened."
First, the variations in Mark can be tracked to early second century. So arguments that 'Romans' or even 'Catholics' later edited these sections can be seen as without historical basis.
There are several theories as to what happened with the ending of Mark, but it seems that the early scribes finished the Gospel using material that appears in the other synoptic Gospels and is believed to likely have originated with the "Q" (source) material that was common to Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
All that said - most every bible printed makes special note of this occurrence.
With John 8:1-11, this can be tracked all the way back to Jerome's Vulgate (Latin translation). The earlier manuscripts do not include this section. It is believed to have been a mistake made while copying and translating. The origin of the piece is believed to be authentic and suspected to have been part of Luke's source material.
Again, most every bible printed also makes special note of this occurrence.
All that said, neither of these passages present any theological challenges or any new teachings / material that would have any change in orthodox Christian theology.
So, like I said, there are some difficulties with what we have in the text, but they are known, accounted for, and taken into consideration by scholars.
| Jon Hodgson wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 20:07 | ||
Finally the critic's bias is also made plain, the line
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that. It is the resposibility of scholars to seek out the truth and present it as best they can, and if that upsets some people then so be it. Now whether what the author has presented is the truth or not is a seperate question, but it would be dishonest for him to misrepresent his conclusions (the truth as he sees it) because of some "sacred duty not to alarm". Just for the record, that doesn't mean I think he needs to be intentionally alarmist however. |
I'd have to agree with both the critic and you, Jon.
First, I think that there are some ideas of minute that would do damage because they would be misunderstood without the proper background and context.
But I thoroughly agree with you that scholars must work as hard as possible to uncover all that they can and present their evidence no matter what it may suggest.
I do see there being a difference between arguments in the academic community where they can be properly understood by educated opposing peers and spewing evidence to a group of people who don't have the grid to understand what it means and are likely to come up with a poor conclusion.
I think we can find examples of this even within audio technology. How much mythology has been perpetrated by people who were given 'evidence' but did not have the grid to understand what the evidence means?
Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 22, 2008, 01:26:06 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 18:03 |
I think we can find examples of this even within audio technology. How much mythology has been perpetrated by people who were given 'evidence' but did not have the grid to understand what the evidence means? |
Considering how much time I've put into dealing with this particular issue, I would be hard pressed to disagree with you!!
And thanks for the other stuff, very interesting. I find history fascinating.
Post by: maxdimario on January 22, 2008, 01:52:36 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Sun, 20 January 2008 00:35 | ||||
As someone who has studied this stuff, I'd have to say that there's some mis-information here. ... Constantine was not the authoritative deciding voice when it came to the canon of the scriptures.
No. The purpose of that first counsel was not to decide a canon. The main purpose of the counsel of Nicea was to defend against various heresies that arose in the early church such as Gnosticism and Arianism to name only a few. While Constantine may have offered help, he was not the driving force in these discussions which had been taking place for generations before he was born.
This topic has been studied for 2 millenia by thousands and thousands of people. There are libraries full of research. To call the Bible an "edited text" - especially in the manner that you are implying - is to go against not only the witness of history but all the scholarship that has followed since. There is plenty clear history on this subject. To claim that the Romans manipulated the text is ignorance. |
interesting stuff. You've evidently read up on this.
my understanding of constantine is that he took the 'typical' Roman philosophy towards spreading the power of the empire, and assimilated something foreign without changing it's nature too much.
as much as I can see the sense in your description of the events, I can imagine in POLITICAL terms what might have happened.
you say that they were DEFENDING the holy scriptures and traditions against alien heresies such as you quoted above..
it is my experience that when any political movement wants things to move in one direction they need to point out an agressor which wants to wrongfully move things in the opposite direction.
you are saying that the council put a stamp on the 'good' christian stuff and organized the various texts in a universal bible, avoiding the bad and corrupted texts of the arians etc..
this well may be..
looking at the history of the Roman Empire, I have the feeling that they were simply trying to get a working text which would unify believers and glorify and strengthen Rome in the process.
out of the many texts, ONE collection of edited texts has been approved for public consumption.. the Bible
this, in it's purest ideal form, means they only cut bits and pieces here and there to get the REAL message across.. which is what we all want in the end anyway: a pure message of the divine.
from Constantine's view -- who was baptised on his deathbed, to give further emphasis to the great power of the christian message -- this was a great opportunity to exploit the unifying power of Christian teachings.
Constantine, in the midst of battle, was said to have had a vision of a christ-like figure which expressed support for his cause, of which he spoke to his soldiers..
the soldiers identified Christ in Constantine's dream and inspired, won a battle which was against the odds.
Constantine in this sense was a supporter of the Christian movement but in a typically Roman POLITICAL stance.
I am not saying he took the good out of it, only that once anything passes through the hands of human beings it loses it's divinity in part..
nothing is as pure as the god within.
Post by: studiojimi on January 22, 2008, 02:26:33 PM
| maxdimario wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 10:52 |
I am not saying he took the good out of it, only that once anything passes through the hands of human beings it loses it's divinity in part.. nothing is as pure as the god within. |
that read a little silly to me.
God doesn't need hand
he uses the hand of all of his children
Post by: PookyNMR on January 22, 2008, 02:39:31 PM
| maxdimario wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 11:52 |
as much as I can see the sense in your description of the events, I can imagine in POLITICAL terms what might have happened. |
I respect that you're thinking about it. However, while we can 'imagine' many possible scenarios, we need to stick with what historical documentation provides us for information.
| maxdimario wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 11:52 |
you say that they were DEFENDING the holy scriptures and traditions against alien heresies such as you quoted above.. it is my experience that when any political movement wants things to move in one direction they need to point out an agressor which wants to wrongfully move things in the opposite direction. you are saying that the council put a stamp on the 'good' christian stuff and organized the various texts in a universal bible, avoiding the bad and corrupted texts of the arians etc.. |
Yes and no.
I am saying that they were defending the teachings of Jesus and the apostles against a number of popular heresies, like Gnosticism, Arianism.
Again, the counsel did not decide the canon. They affirmed it. There is an important difference. The canon came into being by popular usage of texts that were recognized by the early believers as both having the authority of the apostles (personal witnesses to the risen Christ) and the witness of the Holy Spirit.
The primary texts that were rejected were texts that did not have a clear and definite link to the apostles and the teachings of Christ. Most of these texts were later written by the Gnostics, trying to present teachings that countered the teachings of Christ and his apostles.
So to best simplify, the main issue at that time was to keep the faith centered around Christ and the apostles teaching and avoiding imported heresies that were brought in from other influences that tried to attach their ideas / philosophies to the person of Christ.
| maxdimario wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 11:52 |
this well may be.. looking at the history of the Roman Empire, I have the feeling that they were simply trying to get a working text which would unify believers and glorify and strengthen Rome in the process. out of the many texts, ONE collection of edited texts has been approved for public consumption.. the Bible this, in it's purest ideal form, means they only cut bits and pieces here and there to get the REAL message across.. which is what we all want in the end anyway: a pure message of the divine. |
I can see how one could imagine that if the choice is made to suspect that everything happened purely for a political reason.
However, the Romans had nothing to do with getting a unified text. Most of the discussions about which texts carried authority happened while the Romans still thought of the Christians as 'vile atheists' that needed to be extinguished to preserve the empire. In fact rather than gather texts, the Romans actively sought to destroy the texts that they found.
What we have now are the collection of the most popular writings that were known to have apostolic origin.
Post by: mgod on January 22, 2008, 04:37:47 PM
OK - what do I believe? I won't post a lot of it, but:
I believe Nathan wasn't at the Council of Nicea, therefor what he states as truth are gleanings of historians who are not all in agreement.
I believe that I would like to read Barry being less dogmatic about things that inevitably lead to a conclusion that condemns more than half the population of the world to be infidels - therein lies only conflict.
I believe that there are a few aspects of judaism that get things right, and that the Kabbalah, the mystical teaching which is older than the teachings of Abraham, sets it out in the right path, but people will always form a religion and mess things up for themselves and each other. However, I like that Jews are taught to not concern themselves with the beliefs of others, and that the children of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, could take a clue from that. But at their heart, which is the Torah, I think we have seen what we in "the west" call the 3 great religions, which is in itself an expression that is the height of arrogance, all spring from what was intended not as religion but as a description of reality. One-ness, and then two-ness, self and other, experiencing duality, but striving to remember that the underlying reality is the one.
I believe Jesus, Yeshua, lived.
I believe he was the last (that we know of) and the greatest of the Hebrew prophets and was most important in that he walked at a time when the prophetic age was thought to have ended.
I believe he did not come to start a religion. He saw his job while here as restoring to the Hebrews of his time the essential meaning at the center of their teaching - that god does not dwell in a building and that there is no earthly authority between them and god, a teaching which had gone by the way side with the building of the temple.
I believe waiting for his 2nd coming and indeed waiting for any messiah, is a distraction, and that in fact he never left.
I believe that god, whatever that is, is not personal, but that the energy which makes up the whole of everything can be stepped down through levels of consciousness so that we can and do experience what we call for the moment divinity, and that christ is one form of that, which many do experience (including some of my best friends and selves), but that it is still up to the person what they do with that, and what they do with it reflects who they are and how they might and do change from the experience.
I believe Max is right - its the god within that counts. I also believe that Bruno's description, many pages back, is as true and poetic as anything that religion offers.
As to why I believe these things, I'll quote Joseph Campbell again "I don't need faith; I have experience." And I think the quote from Einstein at the bottom of this post sums it all pretty well.
Finally, I believe I'm a terrible typist, but am finally finished.
DS
EDIT: PS - I also believe that the prophetic age is returning in our lifetime. I see it all around me - but people still don't know what it is or what to do with it, so there's much misunderstanding. But I think it possible that Yogananda's teacher Yukteswar got it right about the cycles of time.
Post by: PP on January 22, 2008, 04:44:29 PM
Post by: PookyNMR on January 22, 2008, 04:51:56 PM
| mgod wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 14:37 |
I believe Nathan wasn't at the Council of Nicea, therefor what he states as truth are th gleanings of historians who are not all in agreement. |
You are correct. I was not there. Would have been fun to watch, however.
But, I do have a collection of the 'meeting minutes' (to use a modern term), I do own a comprehensive collection of early church writings both before and after Nicea, and I also do own a number of well respected texts on the subject of that early history.
Post by: mgod on January 22, 2008, 04:56:54 PM
| PP wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 13:44 |
It’s interesting, is it not, that although the great Empires of men wane. Today, in Rome, Christianity is more powerful than any politician. P |
The Roman Empire never ended, and Constantine's Sword still reigns over half the world.
DS
Post by: PP on January 22, 2008, 05:00:08 PM
Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 22, 2008, 05:16:28 PM
| PP wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 22:00 |
Nothing exists throughout the entire annuls of ancient literature that has anywhere near as much original manuscript evidence as The Holy Bible. The fact is that disciplines of science can overwhelmingly validate the truth of The Holy Bible. Ancient History, Geology, Geography, Cultural Anthropology, and a great many other disciplines use the Bible as a soundly reliable lode star for research. |
Ouch!!
No they don't.
Well some with a strong sense of faith, and thus in the bible, may... but the majority will not. It simply isn't possible to establish the accuracy of the bible to the point where it can be considered a "soundly reliable lode star", treating it as such would be scientific misconduct.
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html
Post by: PP on January 22, 2008, 05:23:40 PM
Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 22, 2008, 05:42:11 PM
That's what most of the "evidence" you have just cited is.
That is only evidence that the stories that make up the bible were very popular, and if they match with the modern version, that those parts of the bible have remained unchanged.
What it is NOT proof of, is the historical accuracy of the bible. It's like me saying that the Terry Pratchett paperback that came out in 2006 is an accurate book because it matches the hardback that came out in 2005.
You can't prove the factual accuracy of a text by comparing it with other versions of the same text. Yuo can only deduce whether it has been changed in any way.
Post by: mgod on January 22, 2008, 05:50:44 PM
On Sunday during a catholic service a song was sung called "I Believe" and it contained the line "I believe that living a holy life separates me from the rest."
Right there is THE problem. Jesus reserves his ire for those perverting the essence of the Jewish faith, otherwise he emphasizes unity. Paul however is of two minds, speaking of love but very clearly drawing a line between his new team and the other team(s). I think its directly contrary to the intent of the teacher he never met. Paul is indeed the father of Christianity, but he changed Jesus intent to suit his own temperament.
I believe living the holy life unites us with the rest. What the rest do is up to them. Bruno's beautiful description of looking out to sea sounds like unity to me. Declaring one book to be the sole path sounds like separation.
DS
PS - Jon, you're using reasonable logic to discuss faith. Faith can't be discussed logically and get anywhere. Things that aren't supported by logic are assumed to be fact because the one assuming has faith that they are facts.
Biblical inerrancy falls apart like tissue in wind if logic is applied. It only has any meaning in the context of an inner experience that gives it some conviction. Of course, that may not help. I have plenty of inner experience and it all leads me directly away from biblical inerrancy, but to what I regard as a much deeper understanding of Torah than as mere historical "fact". This is because the experience arises from within (or the god within), and is subject to what we do with it.
Post by: PP on January 22, 2008, 05:57:58 PM
Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 22, 2008, 06:01:51 PM
| PP wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 22:57 |
But... In a Court of Law. The witness of a great many thousands, that all said the same thing, would be completely accepted. |
But that is not what you have presented, what you have presented is thousands of copies of the same witnesses testimony, which hold no more evidential weight than a single copy.
Post by: PP on January 22, 2008, 06:04:38 PM
Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 22, 2008, 06:06:43 PM
| PP wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 22:57 |
So your proof of the accuracy of one copy of a part of the bible is that it matches up with the accuracy of another copy? No... Perhaps you didn't actually read my post. There is a great deal of additional validating evidence. But... In a Court of Law. The witness of a great many thousands, that all said the same thing, would be completely accepted. As I’ve indicated... There is much less evidence for other works like Homers Iliad. Allow me to ask you. Do you dispute the validity of that writing? |
Do I dispute the validity of the Illiad?
Which validity is that?
Noone claims it is an accurate portrail of events, they're not even sure who wrote it. It is generally considered to have had some basis in truth, as in there was a troy, they did have wars, that's about it really.
| PP wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 22:57 |
And in comparison, quite overwhelming evidence, from all over the Mediterranean Region and The Holy Land that supports The Biblical Account. It must be difficult to accept, but accept it you must, or appear a mere contrarian. But then to be fair you have admitted that this is a subject you know nothing about. None the less, thank you for affording me the opportunity to emphasise a point. |
The bible I know little about, however logical deduction and analytical thinking is something I know a hell of a lot about... you're not presenting a good case.
Post by: PP on January 22, 2008, 06:11:34 PM
Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 22, 2008, 06:14:59 PM
| PP wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 23:04 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"you have admitted that this is a subject you know nothing about." Thank you for the validating confirmation. Many of these priceless manuscripts are stored in the Bodleian Library in Oxford. I have a pal who for 40-50 years has spent his mornings work poring over documents like these. http://image.ox.ac.uk/list?collection=bodleian Then he has some lunch, and goes and spends an hour or two talking about ancient manuscripts, to a large of people that are indisputably, among the brainiest students in the world. They have to be, to get here. For some reason they seem to think he can teach them something. Here’s an image of Latin Gospels with beast-headed evangelist portraits made at Land Post by: PP on January 22, 2008, 06:15:37 PM Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 22, 2008, 06:20:17 PM
Have you been drinking, or is English not your first language? Because there is absolutely no logical flow in that post. I'm not presenting a good case for WHAT? For the accuracy of the Illiad? I wasn't trying to, in fact it's pretty obvious from what I said that I don't consider it to be historically accurate. Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 22, 2008, 06:31:50 PM
I'll just take the one I know most about for now, the full quote is "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." Albert Einstein was not a Christian and had no belief in the accuracy of the bible, he was not even religious in the normal sense of the word, to him "God" was in effect the beauty of the universe, not some intelligent deity behind it. As for the others, most of them were from times when the bible was far less questioned than it is today, but even today there are very many scientists who are devout believers in God who would never consider using the bible as any kind of reference other than for their own spiritual path. Post by: PP on January 22, 2008, 06:44:32 PM Post by: PookyNMR on January 22, 2008, 06:49:19 PM The recent topic was the accuracy of the transmission I believe that Peter's point is that the transmission is in fact accurate and there are thousands of manuscripts with which to reference to prove that it's transmission has been well preserved. Jon has switched the subject as to whether the events that the Bible records are accurate. With respect to this subject, there are many pieces of historical / archeological evidence to point to the conclusion that yes, the events described within are indeed accurate. The recent science of archeology has done the bible / historians / scholars / theologians many favors. Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 22, 2008, 06:56:32 PM
I wasn't the one who switched the subject as to whether the events that the Bible records are accurate. PP did that by claiming that scientists of various disciplines use the bible as a "soundly reliable lode star". This would require them to believe wholeheartedly in the factual accuracy of the events in the bible. Although a certain degree of correlation between history and the bible has been found, there has not been nearly enough for any competent scientist to use it as a definitive reference. Post by: PP on January 22, 2008, 07:06:33 PM Post by: mgod on January 22, 2008, 07:13:19 PM The long post of scientists who believe in god is really interesting, especially since of many of them don't believe in the same kind of god you claim they do (I think), but its all pretty cool to read. Your earlier post about Einstein didn't hold up because you selectively chose what you liked. DS Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 22, 2008, 07:16:48 PM
No I haven't. I have said that I do not know a great deal about the history of the bible, in fact I have to thank Nathan for teaching me some interesting things about it on this thread. However this discussion is about the use of the bible as a definitive scientific and historical reference... and that's bollocks. Used as a historical reference? Yes As a definitive one? No
You can interpret my points however you like, I think that most people on this forum, atheist and believer, know that whilst I may be an awkward cuss who will often play devil's advocate when I feel that a case is presebted one sided, I am neither an idiot, ignorant, nor dishonesr. Post by: Barry Hufker on January 22, 2008, 07:21:55 PM Whether one believes in The Bible's historical accuracy or inerrancy, Christ is the message and salvation through him. A person doesn't have to read The Bible to be saved. Salvation is through Jesus Christ who is revealed by the Holy Spirit to be God and Man. That is the foundation of Christianity and its most important doctrine. Anything else is a peripheral belief, such as The Bible's inerrancy, which in this case is leading us away from the all important topic of salvation through Jesus Christ. Dan, I don't know how I missed the part when you mentioned you follow the Kabbalah. My apologies to you. And now that I know that (d'uh)I see why you insist (in a friendly way) the Old Testament (the Torah) can be read in different ways. I admit I don't accept your reading but now I understand it better. To read the Old Testament differently yet: If a person were to search the Old Testament, one would find hundreds of prophecies proclaiming Christ as the Messiah and his (then) imminent arrival on earth as a baby born in Bethlehem. One place to look for Christ is the Psalms. Almost every one of David's psalms is an experience in death and resurrection. When you say Jesus is a Jew, you are of course correct. But he has to be a Christian (a "Christ-one) because he *is* Christ and created the teachings Christians are supposed to follow. Post by: PookyNMR on January 22, 2008, 07:37:33 PM
I'm not sure exactly what Peter is referring to, but I do concur that as far as a historical record goes, the bible is often referenced as it is seen to contain some valuable historical data. I may be mis-interpreting Peter, but the fact that the Bible is considered a reliable historical set of documents that are considered reliably transmitted may be the reason that they are referenced. Post by: PP on January 22, 2008, 07:41:22 PM Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 22, 2008, 07:50:23 PM
Reliable to what degree? You yourself have said that chronologies have been intentionally manipulated. Peter's use of the term "soundly reliable lode star" implies that the bible is viewed as inerrent, apparantly by historians, geologists, cultural anthropologists and I can't remember who else. I maintain that it is NOT viewed as inerrent by the vast majority of scientists and academics. That is not to say that it is not viewed as being a useful reference by many. Post by: PP on January 22, 2008, 07:53:45 PM Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 22, 2008, 07:59:02 PM
That's right (though I hope I haven't mispelled definitive anywhere), you used the term "soundly reliable lode star", which I think can be reasonably be interpreted as meaning that it's contents are trusted to be accurate in detail, and can be taken at face value without doubt or additional correlation. The interpretation of your meaning was mine, if that isn't what you meant then please explain what you did actually mean. If it is what you meant then I think that the term definitive is a reasonable alternate description. Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 22, 2008, 08:07:23 PM
Blimey, do I have to spell out the simplest thing? Am I speaking Greek? IN THIS CASE I HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT THE SITUATION AS REASONABLY INTERPRETED FROM YOUR ORIGINAL POST DOES NOT EXIST. Clear enough for you? No contrairianism, just simple, honest disagreement. If you want to get personal then don't half quote me or claim I have said things that I have not. Post by: PP on January 22, 2008, 08:17:00 PM Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 22, 2008, 08:24:57 PM Now if I mistakenly over estimated the degree to which you were claiming it was used as a reference then I apologize. But please explain what you meant. Did you mean that it is viewed as a work that is accurate in detail.. so that when it says X did Y with Z on a particular day, then it is correct.. or did you mean perhaps in broader brush strokes, so that if it says that there was a king of mesopotamia called Fred then there probably was one? Post by: PP on January 22, 2008, 08:56:18 PM Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 22, 2008, 09:06:55 PM I said I will often play devil's advocate, I did not say I was playing devil's advocate in this case. In addition I later EXPRESSLY stated that my disagreement with you was exactly that, a simple honest disagreement. Now it may be that I misunderstood your original meaning, in which case I have already apologized once for making incorrect assumptions and I do so again. Though despite my asking you politely to clarify AND QUANTIFY what you actually meant you simply throw dictionary definitions. But since I have already expressly stated that I was mot arguing merely to be contrarian in this case (and in fact I never argue just for the argument, if I do play devil's advocate it is because I genuinely believe that there are factors that need to be considered) you are effectively calling me a liar. In addition your responses to me have all been vague and generally illogical, filled with non sequiteurs and misrepresentations of what I have said. I am not a liar, but tonight sir, you are being a prick. Post by: CCC on January 22, 2008, 09:14:40 PM I recommend to the god guys a book by a Christian theologian and former man of the cloth, Tom Harpur - a book called the Pagan Christ. Forgive me if I've mentioned this book before, but Harpur postulates that the Christ stories have been told in other cultures before Christ supposedly lived. This doesn't seem to shake his faith. It didn't shake mine, since I have none. I did think it interesting that Harpur, a Christian, indicates that the Christ story may in fact be a gross exaggeration. Post by: PP on January 22, 2008, 09:34:05 PM Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 22, 2008, 09:39:53 PM
Sorry, which one of us was supposed to be being contrarian? Post by: Barry Hufker on January 22, 2008, 09:42:43 PM DS's was a good one too. Just too much to read for this thread but certainly a worthwhile one as I'm sure your's is too. As you say, it is not likely to shake my faith. But If one's faith is not tested or questioned, then how can one know what one truly believes. Post by: Andy Peters on January 22, 2008, 10:06:19 PM
Speaking of speaking Greek: I hope that in a thousand years or so, our descendants will consider the Christ story to be a myth, in the same way that we view the tales of the Greek and Roman gods as myths. -a Post by: mgod on January 22, 2008, 10:17:01 PM
There are many such Christians who can see the error in the transmission of the story but who's experience of Christianity is profound and unshakable. I admire those people, for both their ability to allow new information and change into themselves, and their solidity in their own inner humanity. Of course, they're often excommunicated - witness Matthew Fox, who teaches a gospel of Love. I wish everyone debating this could watch what I've been watching today, a talk given at All-Saints Church in Pasadena by James Carroll. Its all about exactly what we've been debating. At some point I'll try to write down some quotes.
Barry my brother, I do not follow Kabbalah - its ancient and I learn it. But I don't follow it. However I have discerned that its the original basis for the teachings of Judaism, so I take the better writing about it quite seriously. This is btw, not what comes out of the Kabbalah Center™ - that I don't take seriously. I take Sri Yukteswar equally seriously. I take tall the important teachings equally seriously, Buddah, and the Gita, and John Lennon who in our lifetimes gave voice to the most perfect mass communication of the intent of the Christ. For me, the most important teacher is Yeshua, the Jew, and my experience of that profound spirit, because in the teaching I receive, unity, love and oneness, are foremost. "Hear, you who struggle with god, the lord is One." You could say that so far this teaching is consistent with the essential description of reality that Kabbalah teaches, but it is not Kabbalistic. It is not arcane in any way. It is about walking in the world. Kabbalah is not a religion, but one thing it makes clear is that the origins of Judaism lie in a way of being in the world, a way consistent with never forgetting the One. I no longer view authentic Judaism as a religion either, but a description of the world. For you, Christ may have created the teachings Christians are to follow. For me, he took the core of Judaism as he learned it, and made it deeper while attempting to restore the primacy of the inner spirit (the Kingdom) over the external ritual, which had become distorted with time, with the creation of texts that were worshiped, when it was the meaning of the pre-textual oral teaching which was important. If it works for you to make him a Christian, have at it. There are those who make him a hindu too. Why the hell not? You and I only differ in your enthusiasm to have it only be one way, your way. By all means, for you, have it that way. But I'd hate to see you draw such clear lines of separation between you and those who experience the One in other ways. I think some of the best modern writing on the Christ comes from Parmahansa Yoganada, Yukestwar's student. Christ is not the unique possession of "Christianity" despite the insistence through the centuries of the Church of Constantine. Reading the inner meaning of the Torah is not Kabbalistic, its jewish. There are multiple meaning for all the important words and ideas. I only know a few, but those few are total liberation from literalness, and a hurtle into real daily usefulness. What is more useful - that Moses freed some people from victim-hood thousands of years ago, or that Moses is within, freeing one from one's own narrowness? I suggest a book called "The Man Who Wrestled With God", by John Sanford - a Christian author. (It might be out of print but I found it a couple years ago) Oh happy day, when Jesus walked. But he walked not as a Christian - there was no Christianity for a long time afterwards, not until people like the author of John came along to try to create separation. May we heal that separation in our lifetimes. And then we'll all be jews again, because its what we were, as his people were, and its what we are - the people who struggle with god, which is the meaning of Israel. At some point, most of us come to struggle with the thing greater than us, and this is Israel. As Elaine Pagels has told me, it was several hundred years before there is evidence of the use of the world Christian. I trust her scholarship and her credentials. DS PS - Barry, you may argue about multiple meanings in the torah but its pretty hard to argue with multiple meanings in the Hebrew language. Miztrayim means both Egypt and the narrow realm. The story can most certainly be read in at least two ways. This allows the students to learn what they will permit themselves to learn. Its up to the student. Post by: Barry Hufker on January 22, 2008, 11:50:21 PM I'm sorry I said "following" the Kabbalah. Even when I was writing that I figured there was something wrong with that but I didn't know how else to relate someone with the Kabbalah. As I write this sentence, it pops into my head that you're a good guy. I know I said that first, but it bears repeating. Barry EDIT: I don't know if you consider this to be the right forum but I'd like to hear how NAMM was for you. Post by: mgod on January 23, 2008, 12:14:54 AM I go to NAMM to see friends, and I did. If I didn't go I'd probably never see them - its a gathering in from all over the country (world). Its great that way. This was my 31st. Holy crap. For many years of my life bass, and the cutting edge of bass and amplifier making, was of the greatest interest to me, so in my 20's I became friends with many of the great innovative bass makers, and some of the amp makers. This is a yearly walking reunion. Some of these guys are truly great people and were incredibly kind to me in years of struggle, simply because I was enthusiastic and interested in their work - everybody likes having a fan, but some of them became friends. And - Huckabee plays a Tobias, so OT content! DS Post by: PookyNMR on January 23, 2008, 12:21:45 AM
I read some of Harpur's material. Some of his evidence is good. He is able to demonstrate that there are elements of story that is common to many religions. However the ideas and evidence that he presents are much older than he is. He's re-iterating old arguments. And of course with old arguments there's old rebuttals as well. How he interprets the evidence to support his conclusions that deny much of the historicity of Christ I highly doubt will withstand peer review in the scholarly community, however. Interesting reading for the evidence, none the less. Post by: PookyNMR on January 23, 2008, 12:24:01 AM
That's what people said 2 millennia ago. And 1 millennia ago. Yet this thing keeps growing. Sorry my friend, but I wouldn't count on it. Post by: mgod on January 23, 2008, 12:33:09 AM
Hey, that's exactly the argument I was making with you earlier! There's always rebuttals, and majorities of scholarly opinion can quickly become minorities. The Nag Hammadi texts caused mass revision of opinion, but not for everyone. Some just couldn't deal with a new but original revelation, free of Church interference, strangely timed to the founding of the state of Israel. So of course we get the history of the Gnostics being re-written to suit biblical inerrancy. DS Post by: PookyNMR on January 23, 2008, 01:07:28 AM
What gives you the idea that John created this "separation?" If you study John, you'll find the complete opposite the case. John clearly displays the Jewishness of Jesus. He shows how Jesus is in fact the fulfillment of Jewish expectation as the Jewish messiah. He shows how Jesus is the perfect picture and personal revelation of all that YHWY God is by notating the moments when Jesus reveals himself amidst the Jewish symbols and festivals as the very YHWY God that they've always known. Only this time YHWY has come in the flesh for them to touch, hear, and see. If you read John you will further realize that he does not show Jesus separating Jew and Gentile, but rather his ultimate intent is to bring all people into the covenant family of God (John 10 - particularly v. 16). Under Jesus, nationalism (Jew or Gentile) no longer maters. We belong to the covenant family of God not because of flesh (being Jewish), but because of faith (like Abraham, the covenant father, had). Faith is the only thing that matters and the thing that pleases God. If John does have any 'separatist' point it is that Christ is who he said he is. That Christ is the only way to know YHWY. And it is by faith in Christ alone that we able to truly and fully know God - no longer through incomplete symbols and shadows of a deeper reality, but to know him fully in the person of Christ. The only deeper meaning of YHWY that can be found is Christ. Being a 'Christian' is about faith in Christ and following him toward the becoming like him and restoring the Imago Dei, the divine image that we were given. Some chose not to have faith and chose separation from Christ. Separation isn't an invention of the Christians, it's a choice of those who are confronted with Christ and by their faith chose to walk another direction.
I wouldn't because she's incorrect on that point. The term Christian or "little Christs" was a derogatory term coined in Antioch middle of the first century. It's clearly documented in Acts 11:26, and you can see further uses of the term both in Acts and 1 Peter, both of which were written well within the first century. Reading the writings of the early church fathers from the first and second centuries you'll also see the term. Post by: PookyNMR on January 23, 2008, 01:28:35 AM
His arguments will stay in a minority because they can be shown to be flawed. It's much like people saying that because audio has a higher sample rate that it has better 'resolution'. The evidence is that there are more samples per second. But the conclusion drawn based on the evidence is erroneous because it does not take into account some of the understandings of digital audio. While it seems logical, more samples does not equal more resolution. Just because there are commonalities among religions does not mean that the validity and historicity of Christ is negated. With regards to Nag Hammadi texts, that was a great discovery, as were the dead sea scrolls, an other great finds. However, they're not the only existing Gnostic Gospels. And copies of such texts were available before this discovery. This discovery just happened to be a very complete and well preserved set. They were wonderful in verifying the existence of what was already known. Anyone can read the writings of the early chruch fathers from Irenaeus to Origen to Athanasius to see the controversy with the Gnostics. These texts were not new information, they were confirmation of very old information. If you do some research on these particular texts and other similar texts, you will see that they are mostly dated 3rd and even 4th century - way beyond a period of any possible apostolic authority as far as witnessing the risen Christ is concerned. Bottom line, the Gnostic gospels change nothing for Christianity. They merely display and good historical record of the texts written by these folks to incorporate the Christ figure into their belief system. Post by: CCC on January 23, 2008, 07:22:44 AM
With respect, I think you are really, really whitewashing over the significance of Harpur's scholarship. Firstly, he does more than demonstrate common elements. He sets out very close parallels between the Christ-story and stories that predate Christ. Horus and his mother Isis, the Egyptian myth, is startlingly close to the Christ story. Secondly, its totally irrelevant how old he is and how old the ideas and evidence are. Thirdly, its a cop-out to say that "there are rebuttals" without citing them. Finally, it is an extreme cop-out to just say that his work wouldn't withstand peer-review. How do you know, and what basis do you have for saying so? With respect, if you have a point to make, you should make it. If not, then you haven't really impugned the points that were made. Post by: mgod on January 23, 2008, 10:45:37 AM Anyone can write anything they like in a place like this, so I'm not going to get into an argument with you over your approach to what historical fact is. I will say simply, that because the history has been written by the victor, the Church of Constantine, for nearly two millennia, it can't be trusted. That's how it is for me. That church is purely self-serving, self-preserving and has shown many many times in its long, bloody, scandal-ridden anti-progressive history it can only be trusted to work for the greater good of itself. It will go. History is not on your side. And most certainly, with indisputable 100% accuracy, no one can reliably trust its own version of its own history. Which doesn't mean that people can't choose to. But there has been no single more effectively anti-"Christ" force in history than the Church. Nice buildings though. Good acoustics. And I have some very close friends who, knowing all this, and setting it aside, find great comfort with their local church. This is still and always has been possible. History doesn't define the moment inside an individual. DS Post by: PookyNMR on January 23, 2008, 11:46:24 AM
Yes and there are even more parallels than that within other religions. The parallels are quite strong as well. I'm not denying that.
It's not irrelevant that Harpur's scholarship is building on old arguments. It demonstrates that he belongs to a particular camp of thinkers. Nothing wrong with belonging to a 'camp' - we all do. But it's relevant to identify that there is a camp and also that his research is nothing 'new' or startling. He has a theological / philosophical agenda that he supports.
Actually, I did give a very generalized rebuttal. Frankly, I don't have the time to go through a detailed rebuttal of one of the countless things I've read years ago. But the generalized rebuttal is that the conclusions that he draws from his evidence are needing to break some rules of philosophy and logic to come to the conclusions. I'd also add that the evidence(s) for the historicity of Christ are many, substantial, and can't be ignored or glossed over to try and support the other seemingly clever and interesting idea.
I have seen rebuttals of other works from his 'camp' of thinking. Other scholars can quickly spot the holes in the argument - particularly the philosophical arguments that take him from the data / evidence to his conclusions.
And with all kindness, I have made my point. The evidence is interesting. But his conclusions on the historicity and authenticity of Christ are drawn in a way that stretch the lines of logic and philosophy. Post by: PookyNMR on January 23, 2008, 12:42:56 PM
Actually, I serve as a music pastor and also do professional audio. But as someone who does such things, I'm not afraid to question anything and seek answers.
Yes, if you have quoted her correctly, Pagel is incorrect on that point. I even handed you the proof. The term Christian was indeed in use in the first century. It was not something that appeared several hundred years later. Maybe you misquoted her. (?) And I'm sorry, but with all due respect, to call her scholarship "true and neutral" is silly. She very clearly belongs to a couple of camps. And like everyone else, she has many other scholars with equal or better credentials that provide strong arguments against her conclusions.
Once again your view of history seems to be resting on the presupposition that it is manipulated by the evil church to try and further their purpose. Having studied history and the historical process a little, I'd challenge this on several levels. Firstly, there's a very wide body of historians and scholars who are not Christians that still verify historical events with varying levels of relation to Christianity. There is a lot of continual study both within and outside of the Christian community towards gaining pure historical fact as best as possibly using a large number of accepted scholarly techniques. For example, included in those techniques are hostile authentication. Basically meaning that if your opponents report the same thing as you, then it is much more likely to be true. Next, there's a lot of historical evidence available that has nothing to do with the church that is also used as a tool. Certainly your not advocating that the church manipulated all that too? No one is for one moment claiming that church history is perfect. Quite the opposite. All of the history books that I have read by Christian scholars on Christian history have done an excellent job at displaying the sheer ugliness that has been through the history of the church. No one is trying to hide it. We're all trying to learn from it. All that said, I think it's all a diversionary argument to try and focus on the big bad church. The church is full of sinful humans that are still fully capable of pure selfishness and evil - as is every other type of community of people where more than zero people are gathered. With respect to Christianity, Jesus is the only legitimate stumbling block. Don't look at the frequent foolishness of some of his claimed followers - look at Jesus, because it's all about him. He's the really the only one you have to concern yourself with. Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 23, 2008, 01:10:32 PM
Is there not however a certain danger of over extrapolating from limited information? For example finding out that there is some degree of correlation of biblical history and other recorded histories (and archaeology) tells us that the people writing it knew that history, it does not necessarily tell us that the details are true. I can show you any number of fictional works which correlate well with actual established history. If anyone investigates in 2000 years they will find that Chuck Norris was a real person, but when they read that he did not do pushups, but in fact pushed the world down... will we have a new religion? Also one should, I think, be careful about the weight one applies to the established bible and the earlier manuscripts that lead to it when trying to establish their accuracy of transmission. Because these texts have been considered so important by so many people for so long they will have been preserved disproportionately to those that disagree with them. Not just through intentional manipulation or destruction, but simply through basic human nature, what people care about gets preserved, what they do not gets forgotten. Post by: mgod on January 23, 2008, 01:38:27 PM
What remains of him in Christianity is all I'm concerned with personally, but as I've written earlier for me it has nothing whatever to do with Christianity. However, this is not what you've been arguing for in this discussion. You apparently find a way to discount in your own mind anything that doesn't support what you like - that's fine, its pretty normal politics, but politics it is. Elaine Pagels is neutral because she's not pushing for any position whatsoever spiritually, she's interested in discerning what facts can be found within the remnants of history. Your discounting that by insisting that she comes from a camp, indicates as clear a day that you yourself are in a camp that doesn't like scholarly neutrality, a camp which wants things to be a certain way, an old way. Using the bible of all things to prove that the word Christian was used earlier, when the bible is the very document being debated here, is ridiculous. How can I prove the bible is accurate? Because it says so! Jesus loves me yes him do, for the bible tells I so. If there is anything from that time which one might look at as neutral, as not pushing a religious point, it might be Josephus. You have, until recent times, very little to support your points that the Church has not had in a stranglehold. Your whole view of history is shaped by what the Church could control until the last couple hundred years. Is it all about the big bad old Church? How can it not be? The Church has controlled the story since Constantine, killing off whoever it deemed not sufficiently Christian as it defined them, as well as anyone else it couldn't convert. Evil, but more importantly untruthful. And John sought quite deliberately to make trouble for and among the jewish people by inciting against them in his belated and skewed version of the story, a version which the Church has both pushed and used for millennia to justify killing. DS Post by: PookyNMR on January 23, 2008, 02:04:54 PM
Absolutely agreed with you, Jon! It's a very big danger and usually the source of a number of discussions and rebuttals.
A lot of work goes into verifying details. And the reliable scholars will admit when things are sketchy and only verify the details they know. There are methods to discern whether or not, for example, a person actually lived or was fictitious. And if there is any grey area, it is stated and reasons are given for why it is possible and why it many not be possible. There are somethings that are not known and are given the 'best guess' of the scholars based on all the contextual information. The more respectable scholars will be very forthright about that and do their best to explain how and why they came to their conclusions and even discuss some oppositional view points.
Accuracy of transmission is something that can be measured by a number of scholarly processes. Wherever there are questions, they are stated, further researched and discussed at length. What gets preserved and what gets forgotten are a different issue (with a few sub-issues). Even that can be tracked to a reasonable degree. There are a number texts that have been disagreed with that still exist. But there are indeed a number of other texts that are truly gone - even ones that would have been completely agreeable. Then there is the idea that whether agreeable or not, there were some texts that were acknowledged by so many (adherents and even non-adherents and adversaries) to carry weight and authority of some sort. I'm thinking of the Torah and even other parts of the OT as an example. There's a lot of evidence that many other cultures / nations / religions were quite aware of and familiar with these writings. In the end, if God is indeed real, then theologically speaking, it would not be out of the realm of possibility that his providence would ensure that even though we may not have a complete and perfect record of everything, that we would have plenty of surviving material to give us all that we need to get a sufficient view of his self-revelation. Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 23, 2008, 02:32:26 PM
Yes, that is a reasonable hypothesis if god exists. But then I am an atheist, who does not believe in miracles or ressurections, so by my understanding of the universe the overwhelming weight of probabilities is that the bible is at best a worthy work of historical fiction. Post by: PookyNMR on January 23, 2008, 02:55:41 PM
I don't blame you. Personally, I'm seeking Christ sans BS (whether religious or otherwise) as best as I can as well.
As do you, my friend. We've both done some homework, and we've both come to conclusions. Is that unnatural to defend what one has learned?
Everybody comes from a 'camp' - even if they're not aware of it. I come from a camp that I find presents the best evidence based on the work of generations and generations of scholars (many not believers) who have worked hard to find some facts. I have no problems with new discoveries or new materials. But the facts are, there are a number of things that have been well established and accepted by a wide academic community of various colors and beliefs. To go against that, one must have extremely strong evidence not only for their case, but to show how all the previous work was flawed. Most everyone tries to be neutral with their historical studies. But no one ever is. That's why peer review is so important. I think it's very silly to think that Pagels does not have her own biases and ideas that she is looking to put forth. Having only browsed some of her material, I cannot agree that she is neutral. She very clearly is trying to re-assert the old idea that Gnosticism somehow has a legitimate part in Christianity. That argument has been going on since the dawn of the church. Have you ever read a dissenting opinion on her conclusions re: the Gnosticism/Christianity? Give N.T. Wright a try. Many consider him one of the best living historian/theologians today. He presents a lot of historical evidence to shoot holes in the assertions of people in her camp. He does so, not because he's trying to preserve the 'old way' but because he has good evidence to the contrary - as do many others. All that said, no one disputes the tension between Christianity and Gnosticism. That's well historically documented. But the conclusions drawn will be heavily challenged based on a lot evidence to the contrary.
It's not ridiculous as the date of the book of Acts has been widely verified within the academic community (believing and non-believing) as being first century. Based on the pronouncement of academia that it is indeed first century, the texts within it qualify as proof that the term was used in that time period. The same applies to the book of 1 Peter.
Josephus is one, but there are a number of others.
That argument is starting to sound a little ad hominem. My view of history is based on the very best of what all scholarship can provide. You seem to be missing the point that generations of a number of the scholars were not believers and had no need to push an formal agenda. Did the church of the past try to control things. Sure they did. Does that mean that what we have now is invalid? No. A lot of process has taken place to get the evidence and facts as best anyone knows how.
Same diversionary argument we've already been through. It's about Jesus, not the church. If you keep your eyes on the wrong spot, you'll never find what you're looking for.
Have you studied or even read John's gospel? His epistles? With all due respect, this is absurd. It's the second time you've stated this without evidence. Chapter and verse, lay out your argument. John himself was a Jew. He was a leader in the predominantly Jewish portion of the church in Jerusalem. The flavor of his gospel is quite Jewish, highlight many stories that would appeal directly to Jews. How people may have interpreted him later in history is irrelevant to what he was actually trying to communicate. Post by: PookyNMR on January 23, 2008, 02:59:13 PM
That's fine. I would say though that there are pieces of historical and archeological evidence to show that there are many events that are not fiction. You may not believe the historicity all of them, but there are events that do have evidence. Would you believe in resurrection if you saw one? Post by: Jon Hodgson on January 23, 2008, 03:12:12 PM
Well that's why I used the term historical fiction, which may not be the correct one. I meant a work that intertwines fiction with actual history.
That's a toughy, because there are many ways to fool people into thinking they've seen something they haven't, and one might also find a non miraculous explanation for something that appeared to be a resurrection. Let's say that I leave the possibility open, but I presently estimate the probability of being convinced as low. Post by: PRobb on January 23, 2008, 03:45:43 PM
Google "Jefferson Bible". As an atheist whose education on things theological is not very deep, I am really enjoying this thread. Thanks all for some interesting reading. Post by: PookyNMR on January 23, 2008, 04:11:33 PM
Yes, I've seen that. Unfortunately, if you try and strip it down to nothing but incidental history and moral teachings, you'll completely miss the actual message that Jesus was trying to convey. The miracles were physical demonstrations of the message to make the message clear. Eliminating all of these things from the text destroys the essence of Jesus teaching. So you no longer have the teachings of Christ proclaiming the Kingdom of God, you have what Jefferson is comfortable with Christ being - a moral teacher at best. Post by: PRobb on January 23, 2008, 04:47:07 PM
I don't mean to divert this thread, but I think Jefferson's whole point was to take the moral and ethical teachings without the supernatural elements. Post by: maxdimario on January 23, 2008, 04:51:25 PM this is of course would illustrate the kind of intervention which was involved during the making of the bible. the texts I am referring to are the ones written in the immediate period after Christ's death, as I believe that, especially in those times, the communications system was highly prone to the intervention of individuals. Also, what do the ancient scriptures say about killing animals for food? we know Romans would eat all kinds of exotic animal flesh dragged in from the corners of the empire, but did christians approve? also if you could comment on the astrological and pagan background behind some of the rites and practices which the romans adapted to the Christian movement. Post by: PookyNMR on January 23, 2008, 05:00:52 PM
Yes. That was his point. My point is that in doing so - in trying to sanitize the Gospels - you end up losing the very message that Christ was trying to communicate. So at best you're getting a few of his moral teachings outside of the greater context of his message. To paraphrase a modern axiom, the medium was the message. Post by: PRobb on January 23, 2008, 05:26:31 PM
So I guess you and old Tommy Jeff will have to agree to disagree. Post by: CCC on January 23, 2008, 07:37:36 PM
How does living in the city of Oxford make anyone an expert on the Bible? Post by: studiojimi on January 23, 2008, 07:49:22 PM seem pretty clear that rocks are having a field day in this Huckabee thread now what is the lesson in the phrasiology "the Father and I are one." it would seem to me that if we spent more time affirming our collective oneness...there would be more touching and aggreeing and peace would prevail Post by: PRobb on January 23, 2008, 08:22:47 PM
That's the stuff that makes me want to run for the hills as soon as anyone starts talking about God. The thread up to now has been fascinating. Post by: Barry Hufker on January 23, 2008, 08:37:04 PM Let me say again that Christ is the focus no matter what any person chooses to dwell on. There will always be millions of reasons not to believe. Choose one, or many, and you'll live just fine. The question of course is what happens in the life after this life -- or as I prefer to see it, the life after this death we are living on earth. Post by: danickstr on January 23, 2008, 08:40:51 PM
That sounds so sad. Post by: Barry Hufker on January 23, 2008, 09:32:56 PM When I read how some people want to "kick God in the balls" for how things are on earth; when I think about the number of people dying of AIDs, poverty, hunger, etc. When I think about the corruption, greed, envy, etc. I can't help but think there is an awful lot of evil in the world. Most people think this is "life" and at the end of this is "death". I see it the reverse. This is death we are all suffering through and the life that comes at the end of this journey is a joyous eternity. How can I call my current experience life in comparison to the one to come? But calling this life on earth death doesn't mean I've given up or that I am without some joy and some fulfillment. They come from helping to make this world as bearable as it can be for as many people as can be. Trust me. I'm doing well. I am only eager (and a bit impatient) for what is next. When people say all there is this life, I'm a bit saddened by that. Why? Because all people deserve better than this mess. But Christ is the only way to the life and because of him we will receive something much better. Post by: studiojimi on January 23, 2008, 09:37:30 PM "the Father and I are one."
ya really know how to make a cat feel welcome God bless Mr Probb Post by: maxim on January 23, 2008, 09:57:05 PM Post by: mgod on January 23, 2008, 10:03:00 PM
OK - accepted. So what we've accomplished is that there are different camps, and you like yours and I like mine, which leads us to neither being truly authoritative but rather both being earnest and speculative. Pagels' "camp" is also quite large.
Please supply an accurate (to the time) translation to confirm that. For me, it came as a bit of a shock when I undertook to read Genesis about 10 years ago with a close Christian friend, in the NIV version, and immediately found footnotes telling me who Satan was. Now as we all know, Satan in judaism appears only in Job and is hardly the devil or a fallen angel, or the source of evil. The re-interpretation of original intent in the Christian "Old Testament" causes me to be very suspicious of most published bibles in my own time. And then of course came the discovery that there's much heated argument about what constitutes a valid bible.
Then I'll be more careful.
My point apparently insufficiently made is that no one can be certain - given the power of the Church over teaching, eventually printing, literally all transmission of the information, except possibly those recently found in the middle east and Africa - that the information being studied is not altered, tainted, changed. We know enough about the last 2000 years to know that whoever the authorities were at the moment, they did their level best to eradicate all competition and all record of competition. As James Carroll puts it, the Christian Roman rulers killed more Christians than the Pagan empires did. How many Christianities were killed in order to preserve the Holy Roman Empire? How many people? How many pages? It appears that you trust that contemporary scholarship has some mysterious way to be complete. I don't. I don't specifically mean you, as in only you - I mean that all the study is shaped by what survived. Anyone's view of history is shaped by what remains, and what remains is, for me, suspect. With good cause I think. I have considerably more faith in accuracy of the torah in Hebrew, but not complete faith in it.
I've found what I'm looking for and it astounds me. But that's a separate discussion. I thought you were defending the accuracy of the bible. If we're talking about two different subjects, I'll go watch Simpsons reruns.
Oh my goodness, how many books are there on this? I know you won't read Carroll's "Constantine's Sword" (subtitled "The Church and the Jews"), but wow, that conversation is all over the place, and has been for my whole life. Its a very old discussion. I don't accept that you've never encountered it before. Yes, I've read John. Nice moments. But.... John, as translated down to us, puts the blame on "the jews" without being very clear who he is talking about when he uses those words. This is not mystery. I was driving in the south a few years ago with a road manager who was quite insistent that "you" (meaning me or my people) killed Jesus. Thanks John. http://www.kimel.net/john.html Here's a defender of John, who believes he knows John's intent: http://www.fathom.com/feature/122099/index.html DS Post by: mgod on January 23, 2008, 10:05:49 PM
Barry! You're a Gnostic! Who knew? DS Post by: Barry Hufker on January 23, 2008, 10:28:08 PM "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him." To my mind God enjoys a view in opposition to one "the world" holds. I like that too. What we think things are in actuality often prove to be the opposite. Post by: PRobb on January 23, 2008, 11:31:34 PM
You tell me I'm making the rocks cry and then your surprised that I'm not welcoming? 
Post by: PookyNMR on January 24, 2008, 12:18:23 AM
It can be looked up in the original greek using texts that have been through many scholarly processes and have been held consistent with the oldest of manuscripts. Copies of such manuscripts can be found in any respectable library in most of the world.
The problem with this reasoning and where we can track changes comes in with the fact that the church spread quite rapidly into other parts of the world. Different centers (like Alexandria and Antioch) had different bents, different problems to address, etc. It's silly to assume that the church was homogenous, because it was not. They had infrequent ecumenical counsels (like Nicea) to affirm core doctrines but had different flavors in the various different centers. If there were textual changes to be made, it would be tremendously difficult to have them go by unnoticed because of this. In fact, this is one way in which scholars do track possible errors. They look at different manuscripts from different periods from different places. When they all agree, we're doing well. If there's disagreement, then the work begins to find out when, where, why, how, etc.
I'd be happy to read Carroll's book. I have no problem reading any author. I am aware of the controversy. It basically stems out of one thing. John uses the technical term "the Jews" as a collective reference to the Jewish religious authorities (Sadducees and Pharisees (the councilors and the lawyers)). If read plainly, it can appear to imply 'all Jews.' However, if one choses to study the gospel, examine the internal evidence and even exegise it, it can be clearly shown that John was anything but anti-Semitic. He was a Jew and had Jews in mind as part of his intended audience of readers. Just because people have ignorantly read the passages does not mean that John's intent was anti-Semitic. And my point there is that while there has been misuse of John's usage of the technical term "the Jews" - and there is history to support that - there is a plethora of solid exegetical evidence to provide a good understanding of the message that John was trying to convey. And that message was not anti-Semitic. Post by: mgod on January 24, 2008, 01:20:17 AM I think we're done. I am. DS Post by: Barry Hufker on January 24, 2008, 09:58:44 AM OK, I'm done too. Post by: studiojimi on January 24, 2008, 12:38:07 PM "fear not" Post by: John Ivan on January 24, 2008, 01:50:57 PM
It Really is not my intention to be a drag, or drive an otherwise great discussion off the cliff but this story is interesting and timely..And it's not the first time it's happened to me. Over the last week, I was in Detroit at a friends Home editing and mixing some tunes for him..His wife is a SUPER DUPER CHRISTIAN .. At one point, she asked me if I had been saved.. I literally said, "From what?" And she proceeded to explain to me how, "You're going to hell little brother!!".. Now, I could not really leave. Oh I wanted to, But I sort of have to work on this stuff, at least for a while.. I ended up talking with her husband about it and he felt bad for me but has the spine of child... All this God like super knowledge, and the PEOPLE it represents are disgusting. Jimi, you might claim to mean well, and you might. I have no way of knowing.. But what I take from your posts is that you are a judgmental, mean spirited person who insists on insulting other people with your supposed understanding of God... I really wish people like you would realize that after a while, people like me are personally insulted by your constant insistence that you understand the path to some "heaven" and the rest of us are Hell Bound Loooooosssers.. I think something is wrong with you.. Ivan........ Post by: studiojimi on January 24, 2008, 02:36:16 PM
oh well . . . . ivan ivan ivan are you absolutely sure that it's me that is the one being judgmental here? can you show me where i mentioned this beulahland "heaven" you seem to think i was mentioning that you said i said. and this firey down below "hell"....where was mention of that? you appear to be quite assuming...dear ivan is it fear based? what's driving you my man? no one can claim to be a loser for you but you. the mere misunderstanding and misquoting of my short posts . . well....it doesn't make much of a case for your insults. they are simply imagined and puffed up by you and your fears and completely unfounded. when i say and quote Jesus as saying "the Father and I are one" in red print i'm saying that the Wayshower Master-metaphysician Jesus is teaching us who and whose we are. That's what the "LIGHT OF THE WORLD" does....the light sheds light. I AM, like Jesus, also a metaphysician I Am a Truth Student of the Master He wants us to own the spiritual truth of our being and say I AM one with God, I AM one with all men, I AM on with all life, I AM one with the ONE. We should and ought say it loudly from the mountaintop (our highest spiritual consciousness) and in public and in private... and fearlessly as we are not created in a spirit of fear. simply He's teaching us that we are all designed by God and are one in spirit with Him. sorry you can't grasp that TRUTH without deciding i'm some pentacostal pervert. it's funny too because i never ask people "are you saved?" being asked that question never sits right with me either you see we have more in common then you are yet willing to believe . . . ha ha ha i do my best to promote and repeat what Brother Jesus tells you: i tell you how wonderful you are and how well designed you are and made by God in His image likeness--SPIRIT. and if your relationship and faith faculty is right (by acknowledging it and using it) you too can perform miracles in your daily life even greater than the ones documented in the NT by the Son of God who came to tell you that you too are a Son of God. "of whom HE is well pleased! that is the best news i have for you. if you don't want to realize that TRUTH with your "real eyes" your spiritual eyes i have no personal problem with you.... yet you state that you have a problem with me. you say directly to me with your thoughts and type them out in print
so . . . who has problems? who has something "wrong" with them? forget about a hereafter..the only time is NOW to me... my interpretation of what He has said is that this LIFE is about ONLY NOW... and your "heaven and hell" is the bed you make with your thoughts. others may not agree with me... that's ok... perhaps that is not for them... right now it is mine. and if you choose to live in a hell in a handbasket NOW. negativity and hatred and judgment and limited understanding buddy boy . . . crawl in that mud like a pig . . . pigs are happy in mud they are stupid beasts too. the only problem i'm having with you is your misquoting me (no one likes that) and then getting all sprung out and then lashing it at me before thinking it through before putting it in in print needlessly and with no legit foundation... words are powerful...they will not come back to you void. do you need someone to hate today? you seem to be doing a nice job of hate today. keep on planting those hate seeds my brother and see what grows if watermelon seeds grow into watermelons and sunflower seeds grow into sunflowers. . . etc etc then please tell me... what are your hate seeds harvesting? hell of a crop you have there! Post by: Jessica A. Engle on January 24, 2008, 02:38:25 PM I can't say how sorry I am that someone approached you that way. Whether it was meant as a personal insult or not, you don't deserve to be told that you're going to hell. That's kind of like telling a child, "You are bad". Which I always remember disliking greatly; because how can anyone else know what you are inside, regardless of what you do or say? They don't. And the truth is, most wouldn't care to find out what you were inside anyway. They just enjoy the chance to criticize. The point is, maybe she thought she was just presenting you with something to think about. But what actually happened was that it pushed you further away. This is a shame, and I can't apologize enough for this, because I've done it to others too. It should be about finding out what you are inside, not telling you how you fall short, or are lacking. Christian or not, people must learn from their mistakes. People who don't... well, they just make the same mistakes over and over. They may not even realize they do it. Anyone who comes to Christianity thinking that it will be a cakewalk is SORELY mistaken. It is a hard line (Christian jargon = "path") to walk, and it means being torn down and rebuilt many, many times in order for God to make you the best You you can be. I'm sure most people don't care for this. I know I DON'T. But I do it because God wants to use me for something good (not sure what yet), and NOT to tell other people, "You are bad". If that is what God wanted me to do, I might be so very bold as to say "No Thank You". I'm really grateful that isn't what He wants from me. The point is, what you really should be told is that you are good, and John, I mean you specifically. So good in fact that God wants you to know how much he loves you, and wants to be with you. It hurts the Lord so much to be without you, that he'll do pretty much anything to get you back. The way I reckon a father should be. Now I ask you, how can anyone be taken seriously if they say "You are good" and don't even take the chance to let you have your say? I think that is what is going on here in this thread (350 posts or so, as of right now!). Everyone has gotten to have their say, and I think that is so wonderful. Noone has to hide their beliefs, and everyone's feelings on the matter are valid. This is the only way to spread any kind of news, even the "Good" news of the Gospel. I'm not making excuses for myself or anyone. Just trying to maybe explain why someone would say that to you, or to anyone. Some Christians think that's the right way to go about it. I wouldn't know. I have just observed that it tends to villify people who are different, and that isn't something I relish about Christianity, or myself. I know we're all getting tired, and it seems like we're "fighting" pretty hard at times. But noone has killed anyone else yet, and I'll take that as a good sign. Jess Post by: PRobb on January 24, 2008, 02:41:06 PM Now could the interesting people resume their conversation so I can go back to standing quietly in the corner and listening? I was rather enjoying it. Post by: mgod on January 24, 2008, 02:54:03 PM Post by: mgod on January 24, 2008, 03:07:48 PM I'll try this once. We're all very happy for you. But - while everyone is free to contribute here, within reason, some of the posts lead to conversation. With many of your posts you put yourself out here as the spokesmodel for the way. Glad it works for you to feel so empowered to transmit that message. By now, you might have discerned that those who were going to get it got it and those who aren't won't. I'll never get into a discussion with you about the way - that's your world and your business. I just learned from my debate with Nathan that there are certain things that can't be debated in certain ways. But politeness goes a long way. Presenting yourself as THE authority or as THE spokesmodel for the authority, is not polite and friendly conversation - its one-sided. So with all respect, I think "the problem" certainly isn't Mr. Ivan's. Its that your declarations read like advertising in a discussion forum. They read, well, not sober. Drunk with the lord is fine but it doesn't lead to collegial talk, except perhaps with one's fellow drunks. Jessica, your post is so obviously well-intended, but its my view that you misread Mr. Ivan's intent completely. I don't think he really needs punishment explained to him.
Speaking only for myself, I think we all in this conversation would be a lot better off if people would speak for themselves, and refrain from making blanket statements about who wants what for someone that is not them. DS Post by: John Ivan on January 24, 2008, 03:59:02 PM Jimi, you may not believe me when I tell you that I really AM happy you have found a path for your life that fills your heart and gives you strength.. I have no problem with this and in many ways, I can see it's made you a better person..Also, lets be clear about me quoting you.. I did not misquote you and I'm sorry if I gave that impression.. With that said, it's clear to me and others that taken to it's logical conclusion, what you have to say ends in the same place every time. As with all very serious Christians, you believe that I will land in Hell if I don't except what you believe.. As far as I can tell, one can not BE a "Christian" with out believing this. It is with this in mind that I say the following: If God has really made these rules. If I don't suddenly "Buy" what is in this Book and except all this and I'm going to hell, than God and I are going to have a little talk when I die.. If he's there when I arrive and is disappointed in me for not believing in what can only be described as a very scary "handed down" and questionable set of text, then he has some explaining to do.. If we are made in his image, this all makes more sense because we are flawed and have free will. If what you claim about Gods' rule is true, he screwed up.. It's not fair. It's mean. "OK, everyone. Here is some stuff to read. Believe it! Live it! Or off to hell you go." No thanks!! I'm not at all convinced that we are alone. There are moments in my life that overwhelm me.. Music is an amazingly powerful thing and so is my love for my family and friends. While I've had some serious sadness over the state of the world, I can still say I'm very happy for the most part and I admit that I can't always explain why and this could lead to believing in a high and wonderful living power beyond us. But for other humans to insist they know and fight wars and justify hate and all else that can be found in the history of Christianity, is sad and mean in my opinion. Jimi, I'm sorry that I insulted you by saying that something is wrong with you.. Allow to re-phrase this.. I really do belive that there is something wrong with the way you and many other Christians present your point of view.. You come on as if your teaching me something.. I would rather you simply present all this as your point of view.. YOUR truth.. You can believe that it's everyone else's truth if you want to, but you would be wrong about this.. Best to all.. Ivan.............................. Post by: studiojimi on January 24, 2008, 04:00:23 PM
sober . . . more judgment from your very narrow corner now. you make me wanna do a completely new twist on the term "turn the other cheek" if you get my drift. pucker up wouldn't the world be a better place if we all just did and said what you think is appropriate. take what you want and leave the rest. i will NOT be censored nor disturbed by your neediness you think this thread has 11 thousand hits cuz of you and probb's "interestingness" carry on -- you self proclaimed "interesting" people DANGER Post by: Jessica A. Engle on January 24, 2008, 04:01:38 PM I think the game of trying to guess the intentions of others is sticky, as you say. I admit I could be totally wrong, but John was being pretty clear when he said that he was personally insulted by the attempt of someone to peg him as hell-bound. And I don't personally know John, but I have always enjoyed reading what he writes on the forum. And, by proxy, I felt kind of insulted too, that someone would use that as an impetus to try and make him believe something. Perhaps I should have PMed him instead. I'm not clear on what you mean by explaining punishment. I was trying to say that to put emphasis on a punishment detracts from progress. If I was not being clear, then I appreciate the chance to try again. If you would like something more specific than a "blanket statement", I believe that can be found in several posts already written here, some more "obviously well-intended" than others it seems. I'm not here to badger you with what has already been said. Those words stand for themselves, and they don't need my help. Nor is it my intention to pick a fight. If you view my words as not bringing something new to the table, that is fine and I understand. Jessica Post by: studiojimi on January 24, 2008, 04:18:05 PM
you clearly did not read/comprehend my post to you i don't care whether you hear me rant about God loving you so much that he set up an amazing system of Universal Law than when worked with yield magnificent experience and interataction I'll call that HEAVEN. (on earth) and when His kids do not learn, understand, maintian those LAWs I'll call that HELL in a handbasket. (on earth.) and forget about "when i die"... if you are spiritually dead... you're already dead as far as i'm concerned. cuz without spirit there is no life worthy of mention nuff said you guys can go back to being so "interesting" to each other Post by: PRobb on January 24, 2008, 04:32:46 PM You and I see the world very differently. If your way works for you, that's great. I'm happy for you. My way works for me. Can you be happy for me? Post by: John Ivan on January 24, 2008, 04:33:26 PM
But see, Jimi, how do you know whether or not I'm spiritually dead or alive? What does this even mean? I'm spiritually Dead? Wow!.. I LOVE Music. I play it for a living. It's hard to show up sometimes because the drive is pain in the ass and the Money is pretty good but it's never enough. Last night, My Local band {that plays 4 nights per week around town}, had a room with about 110 people in it.. 5 or 6 times, we had to pause for them to stop going nuts so we could start the next tune.. These tunes were mid tempo Blues/Soul arrangements with fine melody and thoughtful soloing and a GREAT rhythm section.. The room was FILLED TO THE TOP with joy, freedom, kindness, love, music and a sense of well being. I get to do this almost every day of my life!! Sometimes, {around 30 or 40 dates per year}, I get to do it in front of huge crowds.. I get to do it in the studio on three different instruments, and I get to sing!! a lot! Singing is the most personal and wonderful thing in the world to me.. I have a ten year old boy who is growing up WAY to fast.. Sometimes I cry, just because he is here and I'm so lucky.. Again, you can imply that those who don't believe what you do are spiritually dead. But please trust me when I say that this is not true. Sometimes I feel so connected to life that it almost scares me, and I can FEEL something we can't really explain. I'm alive. Ivan................... Post by: studiojimi on January 24, 2008, 04:52:05 PM
i'm happiest for you and everyone else including me when all view are inclusive and no one is singled out and excluded. most of us are this way surely we ought to be this way God would want it this way. would you agree? and ivan said:
you took that in a way i did not expect...way too personally but that's ok your sensitivity makes you a great musician i'll bet...i couldn't see what i don't have myself. "you" in the context was synonymous with "one" also i'm talking way more to me and my experience that at you in this sense praising and affirming truth can be mistaken as admonishment when in fact i'm only reminding myself what i wish to keep and hold dear demonstratively please man...don't be offended by my wonderful zealous charm I AM full of love. by the way it sounds like God has really blessed you i'm a detroit guy (a fairly well known drummer from the 70s there) ....i'm not sure you are there but were working there i know they are having a rough time these days economy wise. expect a perfect outworking of God's will to kiss Detroit on the "fohead" when we least expect it from an unexpected way Post by: PRobb on January 24, 2008, 05:00:50 PM
As an atheist, how do expect me to answer that question? And the answer to my question seems to be no. Post by: studiojimi on January 24, 2008, 05:09:52 PM
then you definitely should NOT post in this thread anymore because i don't find your answer "interesting" kidding now but see what it is like to exclude another of God's kids from the clubhouse. just live and let live man let one another be entitled to his or her free speech. you're and attorney...certainly you would want that protected for all by the way when you get sworn in for stuff do you use the Bible? Post by: PRobb on January 24, 2008, 05:18:53 PM
OK- I give up. Live and let live was kinda my point. BTW- The Constitution says "swear or affirm". Post by: MDM, on January 24, 2008, 05:34:07 PM I feel much younger now, and the browser looks much better. an interesting thing is that by repeating the same thing in different texts and in different lands at the same time, there is an element of apparent truth which comes into play. a practical example is commonplace advertising. the key is to repeat the message in as many ways possible, until it is accepted as a possible reality by the true majority. this can be a god-inspired process or NOT, of course. ..anyhow, there is talk of SIMILARITIES between older pagan sun-religions and the christian messages. a good, strong message seems to need consistency. we can achieve consistency by adhering to a fixed set of stories and values. only changing the dress and the language. but the more it becomes part of a process, the more it dies, perhaps. Post by: PRobb on January 24, 2008, 05:47:06 PM
In a direct response to one of John's posts you said
Are you really incapable of hearing what that sounds like? How did you expect him to respond? Post by: studiojimi on January 24, 2008, 06:16:54 PM i meant every word i said the same applies to if you go outside with no hat in the winter when after taking a shower you'll catch cold the you in this context and in the one you quoted me are the same whatever happened to live and let live you want to spar? fine. put em up mofo.... but it is such a waste of time man stop the bullshit Post by: MDM, on January 24, 2008, 06:44:48 PM you will be chosen one way or the other. you either are climbing the stairway to heaven or you are goin down there ain't no way of standing still. if you don't live your life spiritually you are dead.. it's true. god does not seem to pity in this sense.. but it's nothing personal, I'm sure. Post by: mgod on January 24, 2008, 07:07:09 PM
My goodness, I'm so sorry I stepped in this pile of shit again. There is more than one meaning to the word sober. If your mind only allows in the one you don't like, then pot, meet kettle. Surely by now you must have noticed that every time you witness the grandeur of the lord in this forum you insult people and start a fight. Somehow, our friend Barry manages to declare his quite specific faith without doing that, ever. Hmmmm.... It would appear, that despite this happening repeatedly, you remain convinced the problem is always with the other person(s). As I said, I think we all would be better off - including you. From your silly response I take it you prefer the fights you consistently get. Otherwise this is classic addict behavior, doing the same thing over and over thinking you'll get a different response eventually. Since there's not much evidence that you're an addict, it must be a choice to fight. Praise the lord. DS Post by: John Ivan on January 24, 2008, 07:07:45 PM T.C has a nice little scene here with some very fine players.. We are fortunate.. Ivan.................... Post by: maxim on January 24, 2008, 07:25:40 PM that it is ALL that our minds are capable of everyone you (think you) know is just a character in your own play (or caricature, depending on your skill as a playwright) god/s included personally, i think the moment we stopped worshipping trees, we were lost in the proverbial woods... Post by: studiojimi on January 24, 2008, 07:37:17 PM
one of your homies david collini has recorded with me many times here at my studio as far as this addict shit. . . hardly i have not imbibed in any external substance/spirit for almost 20 years i'm a clean as a whistle and don't claim nor own any disease in my life you won't get a rattle out of me on that topic mgod you can have any opinion you want but as i maintain none of my spiritual business.... but if you meddle in anyone's personal life in here i think you are asking for real trouble so i suggest you back off of the antagonism Post by: mgod on January 24, 2008, 07:47:50 PM Again speaking only for myself, if someone I'm talking with adopts for themselves the role of spokesperson for god (such as telling John the lord loves him), they should I think be pretty clear, and I hope not just repeating dogma that we've all been hearing for centuries. I don't doubt that there are spokespeople for god, not at all. And I'm pleased that you believe god loves you and John. Better that than the reverse. There's enough of that going around. But if its true, mightn't it really be better for John to find out on his own? Proselytizing has such an ugly history. Maybe a PM would be better at that - its a very intimate thing to say, whether its received as aggression or kindness. Edit - I think that might be what bothers me about public declarations like that. It strikes me a something to be communicated by one's more intimate (spiritually speaking) friends, somone who has walked a few miles with you. My guess is that a genuine spokesperson for god wouldn't be defensive or insulting. Maybe I'm wrong about that - but if defensiveness and insult are part of the package than I suggest that we are all spokespeople for god, and no one's say has any more closeness to god's intent than any others. So we would all be well advised to speak for ourselves, our experience, and not presume to know each other's. YMMV of course. Your friend, DS PS - Jimi, you're an aggressive loose canon who behaves like an out of control addict in this forum. I've tried to nudge you to learn how to play well with others, and failed. I apologize for that failure. You, and your obnoxious ads for "the lord", are blocked. (Which is a bit of shame since we live near each other and I use studios.) Post by: maxim on January 24, 2008, 07:54:30 PM that would depend on the god some gods can be quite defensive and many are very insulting... Post by: mgod on January 24, 2008, 07:54:57 PM DS Post by: John Ivan on January 25, 2008, 12:57:13 AM
WOW!! David and I have done many many dates together.. He's a fine friend. One of my favorite people.. We did a batch of tunes together about 5 years ago that I sang and played Guitar on.. He would write the tunes for the most part and I would help develop the sing, and we would mix together.. How cool that we have David in common.. Ivan.......................... Post by: studiojimi on January 25, 2008, 10:02:44 AM
there is only one God God the good Omniscient. and DS mgod goes and says
oh please! I can't get a day off now to save my soul. Addict!? pishaw! INTERROBANG YEAH I AM and "addict" all right...I AM ADDICTED TO GOD The Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent Positive force of the UNIVERSE and governed by her/its/His laws. !? (from Dr. Susan Corso, author of God's Dictionary)
You got a hundred percent?! How much of a raise?! Your EMT training saved him?! The president did what?! What would you like to add an interrobang to from this week of your life? Go for it. There are lots of them around. NO! Denials are statements that we speak to erase false beliefs, conditions and feelings from our consciousness. Denials clear the channels of receptivity so that barriers cease to exist and we remain open to the constant flow of good. As I examine the event of my life, I take note of whether there is anything I need to say, "no" to. If there is seeming pain in my body, I can repeat! "God is my health. I can't be sick!" When lack tries to appear. I clear the way by saying, "I deny false appearances of lack and limitations, now." I can know that all that is unlike God must, get behind me. Denials cancel out the circumstances that we choose not to have appear. As I deny what I do not want, I become clear on what I desire to express. Once the blockages are removed, I am immediately available to receive God's goodness. I step out of darkness and into the Light, ready and willing to say, "yes" to God, and constantly affirm my highest good. "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed." John 8:36 Post by: studiojimi on January 25, 2008, 10:14:24 AM
cool man. Dave is a great player on both drums and keys and his uncle Al and I go way back to the early 70s playing all over Detroit in the seediest of environments as we honed our B3/Drums duo skills. Have you ever seen Al kick pedals? poetry in motion make some great Dago Red homemade wine as well one glass can put you on your behind give my regards to dave brother ivan. and thanks for allowing me to vent and express my sentiments. Post by: PRobb on January 25, 2008, 10:55:20 AM God's Song -Randy Newman Cain slew Abel Seth knew not why For if the children of Israel were to multiply Why must any of the children die? So he asked the Lord And the Lord said: "Man means nothing he means less to me than the lowiliest cactus flower or the humblest yucca tree he chases round this desert cause he thinks that's where i'll be that's why i love mankind I recoil in horror from the foulness of thee from the squalor and the filth and the misery How we laugh up here in heaven at the prayers you offer me That's why i love mankind" The Christians and the Jews were having a jamboree The Buddhists and the Hindus joined on satellite TV They picked their four greatest priests And they began to speak They said "Lord the plague is on the world Lord no man is free The temples that we built to you Have tumbled into the sea Lord, if you won't take care of us Won't you please please let us be?" And the Lord said And the Lord said "I burn down your cities--how blind you must be I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we You must all be crazy to put your faith in me That's why i love mankind You really need me That's why i love mankind" Post by: studiojimi on January 25, 2008, 12:26:26 PM
i only remind you that PRobb the Bible tells you that. the rocks are crying out in this thread a rock is metaphysically your Faith faculty. i'm sure the reason you are so uptight is that your faith is calling you and it makes you squirm and squeel like that little pig in the mud. i did not tell John he's dead... i said if one (you] don't do "XYZ" then you are spiritually dead man you want to fight i just wanna praise and love you with the Truth of God and I'm gonna keep on keepin on. then you send Randy Newman Saying with impudence that God loves mankind and with sarcasm "i love l.a." he's just that kinda guy is he focusing on the stuff he wants bigger in his life or trying to make another brother think? i'll take the later and i don't care if you get touchy. i do not care. so this Huckabee thread will be turning holocaust focused next....right? Post by: Larrchild on January 25, 2008, 01:12:04 PM Zoltar told me so, in his writings. So I know. Post by: danickstr on January 25, 2008, 01:13:30 PM Post by: PRobb on January 25, 2008, 02:45:09 PM
I'm not so sure the first part part applies to most believers. But for those it does apply to, the second part is pretty much on the money. And I think Jimi might have missed the point of the Randy Newman lyric.
Post by: danickstr on January 25, 2008, 03:50:21 PM but I'd really like to go there NOT Arizona not California what does it matter Post by: studiojimi on January 25, 2008, 04:37:58 PM
so what! don't roll your eyes at me sailor! i suppose if i saw your point i'd be more "interesting" of a poster to you that's soooooo friggin' important to me....just can't reiterate that enough
Post by: Larrchild on January 26, 2008, 12:33:35 AM
Nick, the ladies are insane there. And they sure know how to use it. Post by: studiojimi on January 26, 2008, 12:36:03 AM Post by: CCC on January 26, 2008, 12:48:00 AM Post by: Larrchild on January 26, 2008, 01:55:34 AM Post by: studiojimi on January 26, 2008, 10:37:42 AM I can promise you . . . ZOLTAR loves you. so do I. ACCESS ZOLTAR HERE. WHAT DO YOU WANT? Now that you have become more aware of what you do not want in your life, what do you want? Before you answer, realize that God wants you to have the good desires of your heart. He loves you and never wants to see you hiding in shadows of doubt. You have dynamic attracting power bestowed upon you by you rich father. So what do you want? Think about your goals and dreams. Write down what you would like to achieve for this New Year. The possibilities are endless when you trust in the Higher Power. Where would you like to go from here? What will you need to arrive at your destination? God has special way of arranging people, places and events to bring the manifestation forth. So, what do you want? Are you wanting to receive more money; loving relationships; peace of mind; a calm spirit; and new direction? Have you decided that what you've had is no longer good enough? Then, it is time to step out on faith and know that your good is searching for you and it's time for you to meet. Now, what do you want? "To him more will be given, and he will have abundance . . ." Matthew 13:12 Post by: PRobb on January 26, 2008, 10:52:32 AM
Are you a heritic reform Zoltarian? Only true believing Snardorpian Zoltarians possess the gift of narfoisma. Of course you know, THIS MEANS WAR!
Post by: Larrchild on January 26, 2008, 12:08:01 PM We're the Zoltarian People's Front, you Splitter! War, it is! Post by: PRobb on January 26, 2008, 12:29:53 PM
Gosh, why does it not surprise me that you're a Python fan
Post by: studiojimi on January 27, 2008, 01:45:12 AM Post by: Barry Hufker on January 27, 2008, 11:55:34 AM Post by: studiojimi on January 27, 2008, 12:22:32 PM
that would be me! Post by: mgod on January 27, 2008, 11:34:46 PM Love Life, Love Life, Love Life, Love Life. Make up your mind (Love Life) in your own time (Love Life) To live is to live (Love Life) To love is sublime (Love Life) Where there's a will, there's a way. Love is the meaning of life. Life is the meaning of love. Love Life, Love Life, Love Life, Love Life. People give thanks (Love Life) People rejoice (Love Life) Given the chance (Love Life) Given the choice (Love Life) Where there's a will, there's a way. Love is the meaning of life. Life is the meaning of love. Love Life, Love Life, Love Life, Love Life. ... Where there's a will, there's a way. Love is the meaning of life. Life is the meaning of love. Ev'rybody ... All together now ... (Love is the meaning of life. Life is the meaning of love) ... Hold my hand, yea yea Post by: Barry Hufker on January 28, 2008, 12:07:58 AM It's been so long I don't remember... Post by: studiojimi on January 28, 2008, 12:12:25 AM
right right I AM IN DIVINE ORDER. Divine order calls for a sequencing of events to occur in perfect timing according to a higher flow. Order produces specific outcomes, prescribed by exact details, outlining a particular course of action. The universe was created in order. Divine order rejects the illusion of chaos. Random chance yields to expected results. I choose to live in order. My timing is always accurate and my movement is precise. When decisions need to be made, answers appear. Harmony melts any remnants of disorganization. Turmoil cannot remain when I am grounded in divine order. Synchronicity helps me to maintain the balance created from my desire to be one with all Life. Balance helps em to take care of myself and prioritize my daily tasks. I envision my world reflecting order each day. I see others finding their center of control that will cause positive approaches and team building. I affirm often: "Let there be order in my world, right now and forever more." And so it is. "Let all things be done decently and in order." I Corinthians 14:40 God is good. Post by: studiojimi on January 29, 2008, 02:12:19 PM now THAT's the ticket Post by: Larrchild on January 29, 2008, 08:57:24 PM
Post by: PRobb on January 29, 2008, 10:28:54 PM
Absolutely. Huckabee gets the evangelicals and not much else. The interesting question is where the evangelicals go if McCain is the nominee. Apparently there was a campaign among evangelicals in Florida to vote for Romney because a vote for Huckabee was a vote for McCain. Post by: danickstr on January 29, 2008, 11:03:02 PM I wish the invisible man would tell me that I am going to the hidden cloud world. 
Post by: Barry Hufker on January 29, 2008, 11:50:04 PM "I wish the invisible man would tell me that I am going to the hidden cloud world." Well that isn't going to happen so play nice. 
Post by: rnicklaus on January 30, 2008, 12:06:50 AM Post by: PRobb on January 30, 2008, 12:13:54 AM
The "straight shooter" can pander to the far right with the best of them. Post by: studiojimi on January 30, 2008, 12:24:01 AM from the leaky faucet
Post by: PookyNMR on January 30, 2008, 01:00:13 AM
That's the best news I've heard all day!!! Post by: Larrchild on January 30, 2008, 04:55:08 AM
As I said, if he's a Baptist Minister, and he has foreign policy and economics down, Mazel-Tov, he's got my vote. But that ain't the case. Post by: mgod on January 30, 2008, 11:47:25 AM
That is sooo funny! Which Steven Roberts, Nick? DS Post by: maxim on January 30, 2008, 05:51:45 PM just for that, my son, you are going straight to heck to spend the rest of your days in eternal darnation.... Post by: danickstr on January 31, 2008, 10:48:19 AM
Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971) (i had misspelled his first name, which may have added to the confusion  )I do not know him, but here is a link to his other quips: http://thinkexist.com/quotation/i_contend_that_we_are_both_a theists-i_just/219252.html He also has the gall to dabble in economics and politics. Post by: studiojimi on January 31, 2008, 06:12:49 PM Post by: danickstr on January 31, 2008, 08:25:07 PM
Post by: studiojimi on February 01, 2008, 01:26:32 AM Post by: mgod on February 01, 2008, 10:49:46 AM
Sewing socks that smell? DS Post by: studiojimi on February 01, 2008, 01:26:06 PM Post by: studiojimi on February 01, 2008, 09:07:29 PM Post by: maxim on February 01, 2008, 11:42:25 PM i don't know much about the 7 layers of heck, but i'm pretty sure that's one of them (maybe it's reserved for presidential spouses...) we need a modern day dante alighieri to shed some light... Post by: studiojimi on February 02, 2008, 01:17:06 PM Post by: Barry Hufker on February 02, 2008, 05:13:54 PM Post by: studiojimi on February 03, 2008, 11:52:47 AM Post by: studiojimi on February 06, 2008, 01:44:24 AM
or perhaps i should have said WHO WILL IT BEE? Post by: Barry Hufker on February 07, 2008, 12:19:33 AM So here's one in return: Post by: Barry Hufker on February 07, 2008, 12:21:06 AM Post by: Larrchild on February 07, 2008, 01:47:44 AM Gives new meaning to the term "Never have to leave the house". Post by: studiojimi on February 07, 2008, 02:22:42 PM really dancing with diablo in the pale moon light stick with homeboy... he has the spiritual solution Post by: Barry Hufker on February 07, 2008, 06:16:40 PM Post by: PRobb on February 07, 2008, 06:42:06 PM
What goes clip clop BANG, clip clop BANG? An Amish drive by shooting. Post by: studiojimi on February 07, 2008, 07:11:27 PM but with the huckster suffer the little ones..bring them unto me Post by: Barry Hufker on February 07, 2008, 09:19:51 PM An Amish drive by shooting." I haven't laughed so hard in a long time! Post by: studiojimi on February 07, 2008, 09:53:56 PM this has all been done bro AMISH DRIVE BY Post by: Barry Hufker on February 08, 2008, 12:19:36 AM Post by: PRobb on February 08, 2008, 12:43:54 AM
Thank you. I'll be here all week, and don't forget to tip your waitress. Post by: maxim on February 08, 2008, 04:47:10 AM Post by: Tomas Danko on February 08, 2008, 05:42:19 AM
Vote for Jackson! 
Post by: PRobb on February 08, 2008, 11:25:45 AM Post by: mgod on February 08, 2008, 11:39:10 AM Post by: maxim on February 08, 2008, 06:30:33 PM aaaaah, that makes much more sense... imo, "heaven" is just an updated version of reincarnation... Post by: studiojimi on February 08, 2008, 08:46:23 PM SCIENTIFIC PROOF HUCKABEE IS CORRECT ON CREATION in FACTUALITY Post by: danickstr on February 09, 2008, 07:30:46 AM where did they find a laser in the 1700's? Post by: Jon Hodgson on February 09, 2008, 07:45:10 AM
He's also basing the whole thing on something published more than a quarter century ago that apparantly even most of the creationists have since given up in embarassment. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html Post by: PRobb on February 09, 2008, 01:09:03 PM Post by: PRobb on February 11, 2008, 03:20:25 PM
I hope that's a joke. Let me rephrase because it is a joke. I guess what I meant is I hope you know it's a joke. Post by: studiojimi on February 11, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
if one is coming from a faithless perspective the timing for getting anything out of it is useless AND REGARDLESS why should you or would you care about what i perceive or believe? trust me....i don't care what you believe or perceive more than to write this post back in response and just let it go. Post by: PRobb on February 11, 2008, 04:23:26 PM
That's exactly what I meant. Post by: John Ivan on February 11, 2008, 04:37:31 PM Being a man of faith though, don't you think that the idea of "creation Science" is silly? I mean, you use the physical world every day of your life and believe it's a gift from God.Don't you think that we as Humans will never figure out certain things about this fine gift? And as we discover new data through science, instead of people trying to make a case for "creation Science", shouldn't they just admit that maybe God's intentions are to enormous for us to grasp? In other words, the on going set of discoveries that we call science don't "go against" God because we might not know what God had in mind.. Why do people have to come up with new "Science" to try and justify their faith? {I'm not saying YOU do this but it seems many do.}I think it's much more believable for them to simply say "we will never understand his intentions while we are here on earth. This is no reason to ignore Human discoveries, just because we can't find them in the Bible".. I don't know if I'm communicating my question/idea well enough.. Ivan..................... Post by: PRobb on February 11, 2008, 05:05:03 PM Post by: studiojimi on February 11, 2008, 05:39:43 PM i actually don't care about adam and eve as real events as much as the lesson of the story the same exists for the entire bible ...... for me Jesus' real walk is not as important to my spiritual comfort zone as the lessons of the Master metaphysician put into action and demonstration. it is also not important for me that you see my demonstration as much as for God to see it. i know HE does. HE has a sense of humor too. my biggest issues are when i get trolled and told what i believe by those who assume and i can't for the life of me figure out why any of you really should care in the first place. i don't care about any of your belief systems one iota i have never said mine is right and your is wrong more i've said mine is mine and i hope God speaks to your soul for just the ergonomic way you need for Him to speak to for your own personal needs....which can include NONE. what i will not have is for you to tell me not to publically profess my beliefs as i choose to in my freedom of speech without a counter to your statements have i made my self clear? and if mr huckabee gets to be president will this thread still be collecting hits? Post by: Barry Hufker on February 11, 2008, 06:34:26 PM That will get some hits. I'll recycle other posts and just change the name from Bush to Huckabee. May be a bit reactionary but why wait? Post by: John Ivan on February 11, 2008, 06:47:19 PM You've made your self clear.. For the record, I don't want to keep you from expressing your point of view or your beliefs.. I just wonder what your take on "SOME" people who claim Christianity is, in regard to them trying to make a path of learning and discovery called "Creation Science".. I'm not accusing you of being one of these people and don't automatically think you have special knowledge about these people either.. I just wonder what you think about this idea of a new and special system of "Science" that exists to somehow prove God.. Thats all. Ivan.............. Post by: studiojimi on February 11, 2008, 08:23:25 PM i believe it is not anyones job to prove God i believe it is God's job to prove, reveal, express himself. and he does a mighty fine and perfect job of HIS job. my job is to do HIS will of absolute good to promote loving one another as HE loves us as is Jesus' new commandment. and to me personally. . .. .it really doesn't matter IF a being called Jesus really lived and breathed as you and I do...what matters is that His word is understood as fulfillment of God's law which is why HE came (into our consciousness) you don't hear the word consciousness much in fundamental Christianity. and conversely in NT you don't hear words like sin (we use mistakes), hell(we use negativity), savior (although i like saviour, i hear more Wayshower, Master Teacher--wording like that), all that much in NEW THOUGHT. we look out for each other also HIS/HER/IT is not an issue with NTs the term Mother/Father God is often heard among them as God has both maternal and executive paternal qualities and is not a respecter of gender. Fundamentalists by the book bible heads can wrap theirs minds around this concept which i hold dear. affirmation and denials are strong tools used to stay plugged in by keep the subconciousness bathed and maintained. NEW THOUGHT has an almost cultish attitude about the words we speak. This gets me in hot water in here because i hold you all accountable for your words as much as i do on my choice of words and you react to it and i defend when you challenge my words. in New Thought, you will see a NT catching himself if he says things like "this is killing me" or "i have a cold" we use our correcting power and steer back on the right word reality of spirit. if you are not interested in uplifting these these things into your life, it will seem crazy to you but to the NT it is the source of our affirmed connection with God is everything....all there is Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresent. there is really nothing more to say on this subject those who do not choose to allow conscious awareness of HIS dwelling in the heart of each of us are not prepared to have a discussion of my belief system with me that will serve anything good and if it's not good..it ain't God. PEACE to all have i challenged the Conservative Christians and the Atheist/Agnotics now? Post by: Mark Pixley on February 12, 2008, 09:19:25 AM I was allowed to see a pre-release version of "Expelled" and got to question Ben Stien about the movie, the movie primarily deals with the "anti-God" meme at universities. Many Prof's have lost their jobs for simply suggesting that there is intelligent design in creation. frankly Ben Stien hands Richard Dawkins his ass, Dawkins makes the dumbest argument for evolution ever heard. The bais is not against intelligent design, by the way, there have been great strides made in many fields due to scientist dropping the evolution mantra and actually researching, biological evolution as presented by Darwin is unprovable and everyone knows it, the bias is primarily against God. Dawkins admits on camera that he believes that intelligent design probably played a huge role in our planets "seeding" just as long as we admit that the higher intelligence that seeded life on our planet had to evolve, it could not have possibly been God. This is the current mantra in professional science, there is a HUGE bias against God and 90% of all atheist in academia admit that evolution was the primary source that drove them to atheism. There is also a HUGE connection between atheism and eugenics. I will say this much, if the atheistic evolutionist are right, then evolution is playing a cruel joke on them, currently the "evolving" birthrate for them versus the birthrate for God-believers is almost zero to a million... In other words evolution if it is real is systematically eliminating atheist...survival of the fittest mandates that in a 100 years there will be almost no atheist due to evolution. And by rights if you believe in that evolutionary model then frankly a belief in God is apparently only for the stronger of the species. Post by: J-Texas on February 12, 2008, 09:39:23 AM
There is absolutely no way to prove this (besides time)... but I like it! Back to Huckabee for president. Man, there is no way that I would be a suicide voter and go straight Republican ticket if McCain is the guy. I would rather (this very hard to swallow) have Clinton in there than McCain. I would, however vote for Huckabee over McCain if I thought he had a shot. I hope that other conservatives do the same. I would rather take away from McCain votes and give it to a Democrat than see this guy further wreck the country. I would be ok with Huckabee at this point. The more I research (foot slowly coming out of the mouth now) the more I see he may be in line with some of my viewpoints. I think McCain would be worse than Bush for our country right now. Post by: Larrchild on February 12, 2008, 09:50:34 AM
This would have more merit, if not for the continuous desire to kill in the name of one's God. You have to make sure some other "believers" don't kill you off in the process of enlightening us all. Not very God-like, but nonetheless, a worldwide problem. Post by: Mark Pixley on February 12, 2008, 09:57:12 AM
Maybe God is evolving? Ya know survival of the fittest God? The cool thing is that the Christian God claims to have already defeated death, so He's one up on the other gods who actually enjoy death. As far as the elections go...its kinda none of the above. Interesting enough the word "idiot" actually used to mean someone who didn't vote... Post by: Larrchild on February 12, 2008, 10:02:12 AM In Darwinian terms, they want you dead so they can evolve in your place. Post by: mgod on February 12, 2008, 10:22:37 AM Election wise - I think we have an embarrassment of riches. On the one side whoever gets the nod will signify a revolution in how we think about governance and on the other we have the last remaining decent republican, the sole remaining representative of the party of Goldwater and Ford, a man despised by the pentagon and the military contractors for holding them responsible for their rapacious profiteering, and as we've seen here a man despised by the republican rank and file, which can only be good. In defense of NT (new thought), I spend a bit of time hanging out with the head of an NT church, and he presents a somewhat kinder, and significantly gentler view of his faith than our friend Jimi is prone to. But then my friend is in the pulpit every day and has learned how to speak about these things. Creationism is fine as a belief or philosophy I think - we don't really understand time anyway. But deliberately confusing it with science because one is afraid of the present sort of voids one from being allowed to express an opinion about how far the US is falling behind every place else in generating engineers and scientists. DS Post by: Mark Pixley on February 12, 2008, 10:30:20 AM
Ummm...some FACTS to back up this claim might be appropriate. I think you are confusing christianity with atheistic communism and other atheistic governments...and given that confusion your numbers are incredibly LOW.... Post by: Larrchild on February 12, 2008, 10:41:49 AM Post by: Jay Kadis on February 12, 2008, 10:42:05 AM
Post by: mgod on February 12, 2008, 10:56:40 AM
Reported in Time magazine in the months after 911. No confusion - the church and its missionaries and inquisitions have been the single largest source of non-bacteriological mass death until the 20th century, and shares a good portion of that one too. But hey, believe whatever you like that'll let you sleep at night. Now how's about some FACTS from you? DS Post by: Mark Pixley on February 12, 2008, 11:11:08 AM
Nice assumptions Jay, you ASSUME I have little understanding. Micro evolution is easily identifiable, biological evolution such as presented by Darwin has yet to be proven, it is at best a hypothesis, the underlying concept of dialectical materialism suggest that the strongest survive while the weaker are eliminated, I simply applied that concept to current birth rates among believers in god and atheist. Granted it is a theory I have put forward, your assumption that belief in religion has nothing to do with biological system development has no facts to back it up, where do you get the idea that belief has nothing to do with development? I suggest you have no supporting data for your conclusion. Post by: Mark Pixley on February 12, 2008, 11:14:56 AM
Time magazine? A news mag as a source of facts? Why didn't you quote teenybopper mag or "people"? Last I checked Time magazine is not a credible scientific journal. Should I be allowed to quote the Catholic Review? Oh wait, I remember since they printed it it must be true. Facts. Different than printed opinion magazine. Please tell me you don't consider time a relevant source of information? Post by: Larrchild on February 12, 2008, 11:24:54 AM Post by: Mark Pixley on February 12, 2008, 11:26:03 AM Christianity as laid out in the Bible is the most liberating movement to ever appear upon the planet. I know that flies in the face of generally everyones experience with it, but if you look closely at what the New Testament teaches that Christianity is SUPPOSED to be, it is a movement of incredible personal liberty. I will suggest that what passes as Christianity in the West (and a lot of other places) is the left-over dogma of legalism from a retired Jewish model, the fact that we even have a "New Testament" (meaning new covenant) says that the old version of man DOING and KEEPING a set of laws has been replaced with liberty and freedom as presented by the person of Jesus Christ. It was upon this foundation that many of the founding fathers developed the concepts of our bill of rights, many of them actually came to establish the freedom that Christianity espouses but has been remiss in defending. I don't expect any sympathy from modern liberals since the western church has had a habit of denying freedom for most people, but to be clear where the modern church has denied liberty to people it has strayed from the message of its namesake. Post by: Larrchild on February 12, 2008, 11:34:57 AM
It always does, eventually, Mark. Humans get power and act human. Post by: el duderino on February 12, 2008, 11:41:06 AM
liberating? um ok dude. whatever you say. san fran during the summer of love looked liberating. Post by: Larrchild on February 12, 2008, 11:44:38 AM So, at what point does He whisper in your ear,: "Now Kill those other people over there"? I never got that. Post by: Mark Pixley on February 12, 2008, 11:48:08 AM
Sure dude all that drug ADDICTION is a form of liberty right? Ask a heroin addict how free he is. Ask a crack whore if she has liberty to walk away from her addictions. Freedom means not simply being free of laws, it means being free to be truly human, I have yet to see a drug addict that looked human, let alone free. Jimi Hendrix is no longer free to create, tell me I'm wrong, if he had been free of his addictions he might still be creating amazing music...as it were his bondage took him to a different prison, whether you believe in an afterlife or not you have to admit that the bondage to substance abuse does not make men free...Christianity claims to have an answer to that, I personally know many people who have experienced freedom from those kinds of slaveries. Define freedom. Post by: Jay Kadis on February 12, 2008, 12:03:27 PM
If you wish to put forward your theories, you need to back them up with evidence. Simply turning it around isn't evidence. It isn't even proper debating. Post by: PookyNMR on February 12, 2008, 12:18:47 PM Post by: Jay Kadis on February 12, 2008, 12:23:34 PM
Post by: PookyNMR on February 12, 2008, 12:25:53 PM Post by: studiojimi on February 12, 2008, 12:33:52 PM
for a cat who says he's put me on ignore you spend a lot of energy throwing stones at me i'm not in competition with your hang out buddy hopefully some NT will permeate your consciousness. as far as being kinder gentler God expresses Himself in a host of different colors and vibrations too bad you can't just take what you want and leave the rest without slinging arrows all the time. but you'll reap what you sow i'm happy at least to have held your attention but perplexed as to why you'd even give energy as to how you think i should behave for your comfort zone....got issues? now back to politics i sure hope no negative faction chooses to assassinate Obama as we near election time before the security gets even tighter on him as it could spawn race riots and force our wonderful President to flex all of his newly acquired marshall law powers to hold suspicious people and arrest people for no recognizable reason, shoot people, call out the national guard and overide local police forces. i'm not exagerating the potential here. brace yourself for some pre-election mega drama to get the attention of voters through present executive branch government terrorism you don't have to see what's happened in the last 8 years to see that this is a real potential high possibility huh. Post by: PRobb on February 12, 2008, 12:35:13 PM Science is the scientific method. That's the definition of science. Google it. While you're at it, google the word "theory" as used in that context. (hint: it doesn't mean guess). And remember the computers we're typing on are based on a long list of "theories". The small changes nobody can deny because they're right in front of us are tiny changes occurring over tiny time periods. But they are clear examples of evolution by natural selection. Darwin's theory is as proved as anything is going to get. It as survived 150 years of testing by the scientific method. When it is applied to the real world, it provides real world results. If you doubt this, stop using modern medicine. The"debate" is over. It's been over for a long time. Post by: PookyNMR on February 12, 2008, 12:39:46 PM
No, it's not. Did you see the link I posted? Scientists are throwing out many of Darwin's theories because research and evidence is pointing in another direction. Holding on to Darwin with such a closed view is not scientific, it's religious. Post by: Jay Kadis on February 12, 2008, 01:02:37 PM Post by: studiojimi on February 12, 2008, 01:35:38 PM
yeah it's over Probb and YOU lost. i know that's hard for ya to accept. but as i said pages and pages back if you don't have a good relationship with God in consciousness than you are a BIG FAT foeyed LOSER. God created science. enjoy his butterfiles, the puma, the ocelot, the elephant, the Frencn Poodle (coifed or not) your immune system ad infinitum all the many things that go with having the breath of life and a brain to perceive the creations of the creator and give thanks and praise. amen. Post by: PRobb on February 12, 2008, 01:37:33 PM
Before Copernicus, people thought the sun orbited around the earth. Copernicus said no, the earth orbits the sun in circles. But the earth doesn't orbit the sun in a circle. It orbits the sun in a parabola. So was Copernicus right or wrong? Post by: Mark Pixley on February 12, 2008, 01:43:25 PM
Not true even slightly. If you get a chance you should see "expelled" when it comes out the religious bias is definately on the side of evolution, they are religious in the persecution of anyone who does not hold the party line, even if that person is an agnostic scientist who says evolution is busted. Darwins general theory of evolution as expressed in biological evolutionary theory has hit a hard wall in the genome projects. In fact current data suggest darwins biological theory is impossible. Post by: Jon Hodgson on February 12, 2008, 02:13:06 PM
I'm afraid you've been grossly misinformed. Evolution is in little doubt, and natural selection (that's the bit that Darwin came up with) is the best theory for how the outcome is "controlled". Post by: mgod on February 12, 2008, 02:19:33 PM
After Time presented this, a Christian official wrote in objecting and insisting that history couldn't be shown to demonstrate that, the genocide of European Jews aside, Christianity had killed any more than 17,000,000. That's a Christian official, setting aside the 6,000,000 dead non-Christians in Europe in the 20th century, saying that the Christian murder toll was a mere 17,000,000. The church doesn't seem to have a problem with that figure so argue with them. They're a little more squeamish about taking responsibility for Christian implication in creating the conditions for mass murder of Jesus' own tribe though. Guess you identify with the mass murderers - by your own words. See ya. DS Post by: mgod on February 12, 2008, 02:23:44 PM
So do I - they're usually called Buddhists. DS Post by: mgod on February 12, 2008, 02:31:27 PM
It has nothing to do with me Jimmy - I do have you on ignore but you get quoted. I looked at this one because I anticipated, rightly, both your response and the predictable tenor of it. I think NT bears looking into and as usual your highly amped and defensive presentation of reality as you enjoy it may alienate some nice folk who might otherwise be open to looking into it. Some of my very favorite people are thoughful, considered and deeply contemtplative NT folk. Enjoy it as you will - I don't think anyone has a problem with how you live your life. Playing nicely with others is not a necessary life skill. DS Post by: studiojimi on February 12, 2008, 03:14:32 PM
no one quoted this you are a liar what kind of life skill is that pal and have lost any credibilty with me you just go back to your very very small limited consciousness and enjoy it. Post by: el duderino on February 12, 2008, 03:37:38 PM
drug addiction? heroin addicts? crack whores? i was talking about people doing what they WANT to and LIVING HOW THEY WANT TO. they didn't hurt anyone or cause problems for anyone who could accept them as they WANTED to be. to ME, thats freedom. jimi hendrix is pretty lousy example to pick. its widely beleived he took waay too many sleeping pills after drinking wine with his girlfriend. some say it was suicide based on a poem found at the flat. there's really no definitive answer. you may know people who found freedom through christianity and thats great. i know people who found freedom after abandoning organized religion and doing what they want to which, imo, is also great. Post by: el duderino on February 12, 2008, 03:44:54 PM
this is something i was discussing with friends the other day. if obama is elected, how are people such as the kkk (for example) going to react to being led by a black man? i'm afraid it'll be with their usual rationale. Post by: PRobb on February 12, 2008, 03:55:42 PM
First of all let's get a few definitions straight. In a scientific context, the word "theory" (and that might have been a bad word choice) means an explanation that fits all the facts. And for something to qualify as a theory, it has to meet a very rigorous set of tests (again, Google "scientific method") A theory isn't something that grows up to be a fact. When there are enough facts, they are gathered together to form a theory. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is the theory that explains it. And since the theory of natural selection has been passing the tests for over 150 and is supported by a massive mountain of evidence, disproving it is going to be very difficult. But not impossible. It's just going to take more than one study. I can't find the rebuttal editorials to the video. I would like to know if they were questioning the researcher's result or his methodology. Post by: John Ivan on February 12, 2008, 05:34:38 PM
Right on.. As far as I can tell, he doesn't whisper this in anyones ear. People whisper things like this to them selves and then point to God as a way out of their Guilt.. If he does exist, he's probably not going to like this one little bit.. Ivan.................... Post by: Larrchild on February 12, 2008, 05:49:58 PM Abe said man you must be puttin me on God said no, Abe said what God said you can do what you want Abe but Next time you see me coming you better run Well, Abe said where you want this killin done God said out on highway 61 *slide whistle* Post by: mgod on February 12, 2008, 06:57:01 PM
I just did.
And here we are again - and as I said, playing nice with others is not a requirement. Just a way of progressing in one's own faith. Especially in NT, taking responsibility for one's own experience of the world is essential. So just who is it you're accusing of lying? Who is that has lost credibility with you - its all you. The world is the way you see it because of what is in you. This will sink in eventually. Its not my job nor my reality to have any concern what does or doesn't have credibility with you - that's yours. You make your world. Have a nice reality. DS Post by: PookyNMR on February 12, 2008, 08:50:29 PM
Watch it again - towards the end, a lot of the scientific community at first balked at the idea and called it 'heresy', then years after it was published it gained wide acceptance as a great new revolutionary theory. I have no problem with some forms of Evolution. But Darwinism is being proven through scientific evidence to be shown to be an incorrect model. Ignoring research and holding on to Darwinism because it was the theory for 150 years is religion, not science. Newtonian physics was seen at one time as the 'end all' for hundreds of years, that is until quantum mechanics came along... Post by: Jon Hodgson on February 12, 2008, 09:20:09 PM
Except that in the twenty years since Cairns published his paper, a great deal of research has gone on, and it's showing that what may initially look like directed mutation isn't actually so, http://genetics.hannam.ac.kr/note/evolution.htm Natural selection is not dead. Post by: PRobb on February 12, 2008, 09:58:20 PM
Like I said, science is the scientific method. It's a process. And it's a process that guarantees the evidence wins. Post by: studiojimi on February 12, 2008, 10:03:50 PM
God will have the last laugh but He won't make a fool out of you cuz he loves you so much....He is just giggling at you right now. Entertained by his petulant child....YOU learning to be perfect. Post by: studiojimi on February 14, 2008, 01:23:11 AM
not only are you a liar...you are stoooooopid bock bah bock bah Post by: MDM, on February 14, 2008, 07:25:56 AM anyone who says they can explain god to you in detail is being unholy, as far as I am concerned. no one on earth except maybe for a few prophets has even a slight right to tell you what God is.. people are blind to God, hence the need for faith. Post by: studiojimi on February 14, 2008, 09:44:25 AM
those who have the eyes for God see those who have the ears for God hear Let It Be. Stop LOOK Listen. Faith opens your eyes, ears and being. Happy Valentine's Day one and ALL. Smart and Stupid Deaf Dumb or Blind and all inbetween all cloaked by everlasting arms. by an All inclusive Mother/Father GOD who looooooooves YOU. haha and that can make ya feel sooooooo good IF ya let it. here's a good way to love Him back with your consciousness: (there are many ways) but try this one. Say it with your soul. I CELEBRATE LOVE. I begin this day in awe at how pleasurably delightful You are. You are my joy, my peace my life. You are always predictable and dependable, the same "yesterday, today and forever." You promised to never leave me nor forsake me, and You are always present and instantly available. When I give You my undivided attention, I find you "closer to me than breathing and nearer to me than hands and feet." Your passion and desire for me continually bid me to come "live, move, and have my being" in Your secret place, where I am hidden and protected in the secrecy of our oneness. In the silence the still small voice imparts divine revelations and wisdom for which my soul hungers. My soul listens and my heart obeys the whispering of a voice so soft and so indescribably sweet. In this moment of eternal bliss I know that I am loved with an everlasting love. I am the beloved and I celebrate as I release the imprisoned splendor of the Divine Presence within me. This is a day of celebration! I celebrate Love! "I am my beloved's. . . and my beloved is mine." Song of Solomon 6:3 He's worthy to be praised. Post by: studiojimi on February 18, 2008, 12:58:52 PM http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=60b32ca0ef09c4dad1876c 27eb8f2f06c14297f8 Post by: Barry Hufker on February 18, 2008, 07:21:37 PM Post by: studiojimi on February 20, 2008, 01:52:11 AM
with friends like this getting elected should be a piece of cake Post by: Larrchild on February 20, 2008, 02:02:10 AM He gives Republican voters who can't get behind McCain a voice, but beyond that, what's his strategy for staying in so gallantly with dim numbers? A VP gig? It probably flummoxes the party leaders who need a rally for McCain soon amongst the triad of conservative factions to have a run at Obama. Post by: Barry Hufker on February 20, 2008, 12:33:55 PM You know, Laura is still kind of a babe. Of course she married an idiot, raised two party girls and has a megabitch for a mother-in-law so that says something about her choices and ambitions. Post by: PRobb on February 20, 2008, 12:50:36 PM
According to him, it's because he believes in miracles. Remember who we're talking about here. Post by: studiojimi on February 20, 2008, 01:40:31 PM
and just in case you forget for one minute hey...I'm here to remindja Post by: maxim on February 20, 2008, 06:21:56 PM it's the colbert hump... Post by: Barry Hufker on February 21, 2008, 12:12:25 AM See the thread I've started: http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/317431/5149/#ms g_317431 Post by: studiojimi on February 21, 2008, 11:53:45 AM Post by: Jessica A. Engle on February 21, 2008, 12:17:07 PM Post by: Barry Hufker on February 21, 2008, 12:21:26 PM Post by: studiojimi on February 21, 2008, 12:22:15 PM What's a little pussy between friends??? ARE YOU AWARE OF THE HUCKABEE LOVE AFFAIR ??? Post by: Barry Hufker on February 21, 2008, 12:24:15 PM (Wretch) Post by: John Ivan on February 21, 2008, 06:10:12 PM
Ya know, it really is.. I mean I'm no angel but we are in Mixed company and all.. My Mom made it very clear as did my Dad that this kind of thing isn't cool in mixed company.. Sorry Jess, some of us can't help but think with the Wrong head some sometimes.. Ivan................. Post by: studiojimi on February 21, 2008, 06:52:28 PM this is the saloon for Christ sake. and the funniest thing is i edited all of that stuff in after barry's last post cuz he got his in before i could hit send and i did it to make it funnier Post by: Barry Hufker on February 21, 2008, 06:53:38 PM I don't have that much class and dignity. I was responding to Jessica posting a cat picture. Jimi just managed to squeeze in a reply before me. Therefore, please view my response as wretching to another cute cat picture. I haven't seen Jimi's response until this moment. I don't see the difference however between men only, women only or mixed company. If we are willing to say it, we should be willing to say it to anyone. Let's not become reverse sexists just because there's a woman here. Jimi, it depends upon how many friends. More than one and it's icky. EDIT: And Jimi beat me again to an answer! Post by: Barry Hufker on February 21, 2008, 06:56:37 PM Post by: studiojimi on February 21, 2008, 06:59:00 PM oh. . . nevermind. get your mind out of the gutter cat sucker this is what happens when threads get hi jacked the cock crows three times and everyone denies a part in it Post by: John Ivan on February 21, 2008, 07:39:11 PM Well fuck,, I'm gonna go to the motherfucking bar and play some some God Damn Rock and Roll.. The place will be CRAWLIN' with Pussy!! I mean,, umm, they've had this Cat problem there for a while ya know..  {sorry} Ivan..................
Post by: Barry Hufker on February 21, 2008, 08:16:45 PM Please watch your language! You should have said it like this: Well intercourse,, I am traveling to an establishment with alcoholic beverages, that has sexual congress with it's female parent, to play a certain amount of a rebellious form of rhythm and blues music which has been abandoned to eternal destruction by the Almighty. This certain establishment will be heavily occupied by women of easy virtue. EDIT: Jimi, if you're going to "crow your cock", please keep such information to yourself. Post by: studiojimi on February 21, 2008, 08:16:48 PM i don't think anybody here is evil in spirit and all should be capable of governing.... besides we have a moderator much love and propahz your friend jimbo Post by: studiojimi on February 22, 2008, 12:10:46 AM oooooops! sorry wrong thread . . . . Post by: PRobb on February 22, 2008, 12:05:43 PM
This thread has definitely followed a very convoluted path. Let's see. We started with separation of church and state. Then it got silly. Then it went back to politics. Then there was an absolutely fascinating theological discussion. Then it got silly again. Post by: studiojimi on February 22, 2008, 12:45:40 PM
how astute can ya hang in there for the long haul big dog? "convoluted" look at the bush administration here...even bush has hung out with miss iseman Post by: Jessica A. Engle on February 22, 2008, 01:47:26 PM Oh, man. I have no idea what to say for myself. I'm not here to spoil anybody's "fun". Jessica
Post by: Barry Hufker on February 22, 2008, 02:34:35 PM Post by: Jessica A. Engle on February 22, 2008, 02:47:47 PM And just because I'm not like you guys doesn't mean that I don't like you. I don't expect you to act differently because I'm here. That's stupid. So I'm not the slutty girl who joins in when the fellas start talking about pussies. Big deal. I'm sure there's lots of girls who are happy to do that in my place. And I'm sure you *could* stuff a woman into a sack. Maybe you're just not trying hard enough. Jessica Post by: Jay Kadis on February 22, 2008, 03:02:00 PM Post by: maxim on February 22, 2008, 07:37:58 PM as you well know, men are pigs even when they pretend to be pious (especially then, in fact) forgive them for they know not what they do (you need brains for that....) Post by: studiojimi on February 22, 2008, 07:55:06 PM
ozzie how can i say nicely . . . . Post by: Barry Hufker on February 22, 2008, 09:23:51 PM Post by: Berolzheimer on February 22, 2008, 11:46:58 PM
The dog is also the only one in that picture with a realistic world view. Post by: maxim on February 22, 2008, 11:48:02 PM Post by: studiojimi on February 23, 2008, 12:06:43 AM
stop trolling me maxi pad or we'll have to spend a couple of days picking the peanuts out of your teeth Post by: John Ivan on February 23, 2008, 12:16:30 AM
I was just trying to be a gentleman and they laughed at me!! Can you believe that?? I really don't talk like that around Girls.. {Unless they ask me too, but we can just leave THAT alone!} Ivan............ Post by: mgod on February 23, 2008, 11:50:43 AM
That would be a very expensive act of petulance. DS Post by: studiojimi on February 23, 2008, 12:40:35 PM
they are having a sale on petulance this week 2 for one Post by: Barry Hufker on February 23, 2008, 02:34:54 PM Ivan............" What?? Girls over 18 don't get to be called Women? It's just MEN and girls? Sexist.
Post by: rankus on February 23, 2008, 02:36:23 PM
Reminds me of a bad joke: Why is it that only women get mad cow disease? Because all men are pigs.... Insults both sexes equally. Post by: studiojimi on February 23, 2008, 02:59:50 PM
this thread is getting me confused this just in ...and please don't spread this photo all over the internet...remember you heard about it here from me, studiojimi hillary rodham clinton finally takes a stand for something she REALLY believes in. i knew it..i just knew it.... Post by: Barry Hufker on February 23, 2008, 04:38:04 PM Post by: John Ivan on February 23, 2008, 06:54:09 PM
HEY, I got a note from a "woman" yesterday and she identified her self as a "Girl".. You can call me a Boy though, Berry.. If ya want. { A naughty, BAD boy.. a VERY naughty bad boy.} ..I suddenly don't feel so good.. I'm really sorry.. Ivan............. Post by: mgod on February 23, 2008, 07:39:05 PM DS Post by: Barry Hufker on February 23, 2008, 07:42:27 PM By the way -- Mike Huckabee sucks! And so does John McCain with all his lobbyist staff and campaign financing double-dip. And so does Mitt Romney - just because. Post by: studiojimi on February 24, 2008, 11:25:18 AM
OMG OMG.... oh our God. i actually agree with Dan on this one. THE HUCKTOILET info link Post by: maxim on February 24, 2008, 09:08:40 PM Post by: Barry Hufker on February 25, 2008, 12:52:59 AM Post by: studiojimi on February 25, 2008, 12:08:12 PM we'll be hearing from him for a long time coming expect shakeups Post by: studiojimi on February 27, 2008, 01:02:02 PM Post by: studiojimi on February 28, 2008, 02:54:55 PM i thought this was the bumpersticker thread Post by: Barry Hufker on February 29, 2008, 02:27:31 AM Post by: PRobb on February 29, 2008, 11:16:32 AM
Wow. That is brilliant! I hope you don't mind if I send that around. Post by: Barry Hufker on February 29, 2008, 11:29:52 AM Post by: studiojimi on February 29, 2008, 12:57:19 PM Post by: Jessica A. Engle on February 29, 2008, 02:04:04 PM
Are you kidding? That is EXACTLY what this thread needed ! I can't believe a thread went this long without Hitler showing up. When are we going to start talking about the Beatles?? Jessica Post by: PRobb on February 29, 2008, 02:55:18 PM
Your wish is my command. Post by: Berolzheimer on February 29, 2008, 02:56:47 PM
Well let's see....The Beatles used u-47's, and we know that Neumann made microphones for Hitler, so there! Like how I tied that all together? Post by: mgod on February 29, 2008, 04:45:08 PM Huckabee, Hitler, Beatles, ...omfg... DS Post by: maxim on February 29, 2008, 11:02:59 PM Post by: studiojimi on March 01, 2008, 11:57:41 AM
this has been confirmed by snopes as inaccurate but i do have a camera that renders pics that were taken from the future and these don't look like ice skates he's wearing ferragamos Post by: Barry Hufker on March 01, 2008, 12:13:38 PM Post by: John Ivan on March 02, 2008, 07:25:20 AM
Ya know, Jessica. You might be the funniest person here.. Every once in a while I read a post of yours and roll on the floor.. Thanks for that!! Ivan..................... Post by: studiojimi on March 02, 2008, 11:49:10 AM
Ivan you big ol' married man flirt. The fact is there nobody left to fight with. Post by: John Ivan on March 02, 2008, 12:52:08 PM I should mention here that I AM quite happily Married.. I'm a lucky guy.. SHE could run the country!! Hey, thats it.. We should vote for my wife.. Kelly for Prez!! Make the bumper stickers!! Post by: studiojimi on March 02, 2008, 01:09:05 PM
huh did i misrepresent do you understand engrish? Post by: fiasco ( P.M.DuMont ) on March 02, 2008, 01:09:51 PM
Excellent, then at least there will be an actual woman in the race. Post by: John Ivan on March 02, 2008, 01:29:43 PM
Oh Ouch!!$%^&*() You're just MEAN!! For some reason, Hillary doesn't bother me.. I tend to think she's a decent human being. Ivan................ Post by: Barry Hufker on March 02, 2008, 02:47:47 PM Post by: John Ivan on March 02, 2008, 07:14:32 PM You kill me!! That is Hi-frickin' larious!! You rock Barry..!!
Post by: studiojimi on March 02, 2008, 11:57:50 PM Post by: studiojimi on March 03, 2008, 01:05:14 PM Post by: studiojimi on March 04, 2008, 01:32:37 AM Post by: PRobb on March 04, 2008, 09:49:19 AM
Post by: studiojimi on March 04, 2008, 01:13:14 PM
it' ok probe i have a saviour i can depend on to get me out of whatever i get myself into. not that i'll go doing something evil because i have that info God has a sense of humor look in the mirror for Christ sake! Post by: PRobb on March 04, 2008, 04:19:09 PM Post by: C.O. Jones on March 04, 2008, 09:12:27 PM
Holy Shit! Is that one of Jimi's tunes? Jones Post by: PRobb on March 04, 2008, 09:34:31 PM
Yup. It was on his classic "Sacrilege: Bold As Love" album.
Post by: rnicklaus on March 04, 2008, 11:45:53 PM Post by: Barry Hufker on March 05, 2008, 12:04:18 AM http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/huckabee Huckabee quits the race. Post by: maxim on March 05, 2008, 12:53:13 AM and while we're there, moses was just having a bad trip: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/high-on-mount-sinai/2008/03 /05/1204402497518.html Post by: studiojimi on March 05, 2008, 02:21:20 AM is not whether moses smoked a bong of something or whether jesus was tortured and slain like an animal can the message and teachings help you to have a happier more effective spiritual life on planet earth while you're here. the message can NEVER be discounted in Spirit and in Truth. Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 05, 2008, 10:19:40 AM
Fixed that for you, Jimi. Jessica Post by: studiojimi on March 05, 2008, 12:44:12 PM
i'm really not sure what you meant by that "BUT IF" you mean Jesus fixed it for me...i agree....and affirm that he is an equal opportunity healer, restorer and "fixer" there are blessings where you don't even ask for the fixing but it's never too late to start asking for your fix. (this includes john belushi) Post by: Tomas Danko on March 06, 2008, 10:48:53 AM
It's also an audio thing! 
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 06, 2008, 10:58:12 AM Post by: studiojimi on March 07, 2008, 03:37:27 PM Post by: Barry Hufker on March 08, 2008, 02:03:11 AM Post by: studiojimi on March 08, 2008, 10:56:16 AM Post by: studiojimi on March 08, 2008, 12:10:33 PM yet another similarity Post by: studiojimi on March 10, 2008, 03:09:36 PM Post by: studiojimi on March 11, 2008, 05:26:55 PM Post by: Barry Hufker on March 11, 2008, 05:32:16 PM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGSoqfHfcL0&eurl=http://w ritechic.wordpress.com/page/2/ It's a rant worthy of Chris Crocker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc&feature=relat ed Post by: Barry Hufker on March 11, 2008, 05:49:09 PM Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 11, 2008, 06:09:04 PM every time I try and think about something to write in this thread about Huckabee, I can't stop thinking about this episode of Freakazoid! where Freakazoid just started saying "Hugbees" for no aparent reason. Just because it's fun to say. Too obscure? Hugbees for President? C'mon, you know you want to say it. Hugbees! Jessica Post by: studiojimi on March 12, 2008, 12:10:31 AM Post by: studiojimi on March 12, 2008, 01:34:28 PM Post by: Barry Hufker on March 12, 2008, 02:05:56 PM Post by: studiojimi on March 12, 2008, 02:16:03 PM
ya think? could this photo have some meta to it? Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 12, 2008, 02:39:20 PM Jess PS Hugbees!
Post by: studiojimi on March 13, 2008, 01:51:18 PM the truth that there is NOTHING like an Aquavela man! Post by: studiojimi on March 14, 2008, 03:36:54 PM Post by: Barry Hufker on March 14, 2008, 06:04:40 PM Post by: studiojimi on March 15, 2008, 12:54:53 PM
fear not this could just be head phone fatigue Post by: studiojimi on March 16, 2008, 05:55:38 PM Post by: Jesse Allain on March 17, 2008, 12:30:48 AM Post by: Barry Hufker on March 17, 2008, 12:36:38 AM Post by: studiojimi on March 17, 2008, 02:45:20 PM mike huckabee is mixerman. Post by: studiojimi on March 18, 2008, 12:36:14 PM You HAD choices. too late now. we done broke back de camel! Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 18, 2008, 12:54:52 PM Jess Post by: Larrchild on March 18, 2008, 07:47:30 PM Don't go to bed, with no price on your head No, no, don't do it. Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time, Yeah, don't do it. And keep your eye on the sparrow. When the going gets narrow. Don't do it, don't do it. Where can I go where the cold winds don't blow, Now. Well, well, well. Post by: J-Texas on March 19, 2008, 12:04:53 AM
 HUCK SHREDS! Post by: Barry Hufker on March 19, 2008, 01:24:22 AM Which brand is his bass - and is it made in America? Post by: studiojimi on March 19, 2008, 12:24:22 PM this kinda settles it. Post by: Larrchild on March 19, 2008, 12:49:32 PM Drove him right out of the passband. Post by: studiojimi on March 19, 2008, 01:07:59 PM that's OK God has a seat for him waiting. and he has more time to wait than bruno has brain cells. Post by: Larrchild on March 19, 2008, 01:20:39 PM Because your hard-sell is very un-Christian, as has been outlined. It scares people that might otherwise listen. Post by: studiojimi on March 19, 2008, 02:42:56 PM
perhaps that is your interpretation of what is "un-Christian" it is not mine. i have no burden on me. and i'm hardly a preacher --- more of a praiser and thanksgiver. and that's always a pleasure please be nice larr my posts are not meant to be perceived as hostile (usually) and bruno does have a beeper at least metaphysically speaking. we all do. some of the beepers go off more than others. Post by: ssltech on March 19, 2008, 02:51:02 PM Post by: studiojimi on March 19, 2008, 04:17:42 PM happy EASTER week everyone! TRUTH, UNVEILED. Everything that is hidden will eventually be revealed. The Truth which has been hidden from us, through misunderstandings, ignorance, distortions, and false beliefs, must be unveiled in and through every individual. No one can unveil your true Self, but you. As long as we are uncertain of our true identity, we will live in ignorance of our true estate, and divine nature. Until the Christ within is revealed, we will continue to live as paupers and beggars in the house of our Father, the creator of all that is and ever will be. As we walk with Jesus, let us begin to realize the commonality in our relationship, the same Father, is within each of us. Like Jesus, the Christ within you must be unveiled by the Christ of you. Just as Jesus demonstrated his oneness with God, we must do the same. Jesus practiced love and forgiveness, and we must do the same. Affirm: "As I abide in the Presence do the same." Affirm: "As I abide in the Presence of God, like Jesus, I cease to worry about coming events. I trust God in all things." "And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror . . . " II Corinthians 3:18 Post by: Larrchild on March 19, 2008, 04:31:41 PM We get it, brother. Post by: ssltech on March 19, 2008, 05:13:17 PM Don't go losing your intrinsic Jimmy-ness, now, though! Peace, Keith Post by: studiojimi on March 19, 2008, 05:57:05 PM
but then i'd be like you haven't we got enough like you? praising is not reassurace to me or others it's glorifying and acknowledging something creative force bigger than me that a piece of it lives in me because it created me in it's likeness...."spirit" i wouldn't wanna breathe if i had to stop doing that Post by: ssltech on March 19, 2008, 06:09:38 PM ...-Notice anything? Not a single alcoholic beverage in sight. -Pretty unusual for a bass player, I reckon... -Maybe he doesn't drink? ..In which case, had he been elected president, would he have had a sign made for the desk in the oval office: "the Huck stops Beer" -I'm jus' sayin'... Post by: Larrchild on March 19, 2008, 06:10:15 PM I'm here on an audio site to learn and share knowledge. You're here to get self-righteous about your personal beliefs. So look at a year of my contribution and look at a year of your bluster and tell me what we need more of here, Jimi. If you were to get involved in educating some folks on good recording, I'd be inclined to give a pass on all this keyboard evangelism. So pay up if this is gonna be your life's mission here. Or pay forward, I mean. Post by: studiojimi on March 19, 2008, 06:14:38 PM
did you ever think of getting off your righteous poster trip and think that maybe ...just maybe i'm here to help you build on a few things you might need to "try to understand" i'm in the "saloon" this is not the "boxing ring" i'm not coming from a better then or holier than thou place if that is what you see... i can't help you see better than this is our saloon where are you? i'd be nothing like the success i am without my faith and spiritual skills...the biz will test your last nerve that why sharing spiritual faculty awareness is a valuable tool to be passed for those who will use them perhaps they are not for you ....okay? i'm good with that....what i'm not good with is that your are trying to modify my thoughts, words, actions..... and freedoms of choice stop it. now would be good. Post by: Larrchild on March 19, 2008, 06:24:59 PM Then we will see you in other forums in the future teaching good technique. And I'll leave this alone. Share your ebullient joy with us here, but for some balance, help some cats out with their preamp choices on the higher numbered floors here. Now Thats a Good Samaritan, lol.
Post by: studiojimi on March 19, 2008, 06:41:26 PM
"i'll leave this alone" FY cool it larry who the heck do you think you are? i've posted more in the whatever works in the past 2 weeks than ever i though of you as a friend...we've talked on the phone back when loudist passed away and i thought we were buds...but please man. who are you to be telling me what or even suggesting what i should do? please man i don't wanna box with you (on any level) but if i did you'd get your ass kicked by rock royalty. and so since you won't be getting yours kissed back off a bit with the posturing por favor. don't make me go here...it just is not cool is it me or are you having a bad day? Post by: Larrchild on March 19, 2008, 06:54:31 PM You would be serving God better by sharing your gifts in music and recording than by posting pictures of Jesus riding a dinosaur or dozens of scriptural passages. Why heck, some Christians did their best work in a very Low Key way, lol. But you are right, of course, that this is merely my opinion. Post by: studiojimi on March 19, 2008, 07:03:08 PM
some come by day, some come by night. thanks for the "help" i'm convinced now Post by: Larrchild on March 19, 2008, 09:11:08 PM A clue to me, perhaps. Post by: studiojimi on March 19, 2008, 09:15:01 PM
and another idiot-cratic post comes in from L child of God and the topic of this thread is what? Post by: Larrchild on March 19, 2008, 09:23:44 PM But you are right, again. So let the pictures of Huck the musician and Huck the Christ-Child continue. That's much cooler than what we were talking about 20 pages back. Post by: studiojimi on March 19, 2008, 09:33:32 PM
grasp this! Post by: Barry Hufker on March 20, 2008, 12:55:48 AM "the Huck stops Beer" Oh man Keith... that is one of the worst puns ever. It's clever but sooooo painful. I love you any way (you know in a straight, manly kind of way and not a gay kind of way - not that there's anything wrong with that!) I love that Seinfeld episode (you know, in a straight manly kind of way...) Post by: PRobb on March 20, 2008, 01:41:25 AM
That part was one of the most interesting things I've seen down here. I really enjoyed reading it. But this thread died about ten pages ago. It's rotting corpse is now hooked up to life support deep in Terry Schiavo land. I think it's long past time to pull the plug. Post by: PRobb on March 20, 2008, 01:44:54 AM Post by: studiojimi on March 20, 2008, 02:43:08 AM
as we quote the masses:
if you call them they will come Post by: J-Texas on March 20, 2008, 12:28:11 PM  LET'S GET READY TO RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMBLEEEEEE! Post by: studiojimi on March 20, 2008, 12:52:51 PM Post by: studiojimi on March 20, 2008, 06:55:08 PM Post by: Barry Hufker on March 20, 2008, 07:27:16 PM Post by: Larrchild on March 20, 2008, 07:27:39 PM I'm not sure putting clothing on dogs is the big first step towards that greatness, but you guys have a different slant on all this. I'd stop some of this govt spending myself as a start. Let the dogs dress themselves. (they won't) Post by: studiojimi on March 20, 2008, 08:59:57 PM like the police use on there german sheps? i'm sure he prays with his dog Post by: maxim on March 20, 2008, 10:05:24 PM i'm sure his dog knows BETTER... Post by: Larrchild on March 20, 2008, 10:57:08 PM This, somehow, made more sense. Post by: Barry Hufker on March 20, 2008, 11:03:00 PM Post by: PRobb on March 21, 2008, 10:30:41 AM
Support the right to arm bears! Post by: ssltech on March 21, 2008, 11:27:32 AM
By the way... Did anyone ever point out that it's actually spelled "you're an idiot"...? Post by: Barry Hufker on March 21, 2008, 11:51:09 AM Post by: studiojimi on March 21, 2008, 12:16:45 PM
that was the whole point of the joke you didn't get.... that's ok Post by: mgod on March 21, 2008, 12:41:03 PM
I think, Larry, we can all agree to declare studiojimi the winner of this thread. He's succeeded in chasing off all comers, and remains the sole evangelist standing. Huckabee would be envious of the man's tenacity. All it took was perceiving everyone but himself as hopelessly lost and flinging insults freely. Congrats studiojimi! Another trophy in your string of self-proclaimed successes! Surely, another blessing from the lord who loves you so, and would never ask that you look at your public display on his behalf. The end justifies the means, and love can be so many things. We thank you for your tough version. DS Post by: John Ivan on March 21, 2008, 01:08:56 PM I will say though, that this might be good reason to look into Jimis' pass port info!!Who knows what he's been up to. Is he traveling out of the country with the Huck' himself to meet with Jesus himself?? Are they trying to take over the world!! Ivan........................... Post by: rankus on March 21, 2008, 01:19:57 PM
Sweet job! I thought the dog looked equally intelligent anyway... what a beautiful lab. Post by: studiojimi on March 21, 2008, 02:23:49 PM Post by: ssltech on March 21, 2008, 04:38:52 PM
...-or "dog culler"... Keif Post by: Larrchild on March 21, 2008, 04:51:04 PM We've only scratched the surface. It was getting good when everyone began to flea. Post by: Barry Hufker on March 21, 2008, 05:30:39 PM EDIT: I'm surprised you didn't fit "dogma" in there somewhere. Post by: studiojimi on March 21, 2008, 05:38:55 PM
larr you are barking up the wrong tree. alpha dogs be and just because you see me as seeing myself as the alpha dog does not make it my truth. what you see, think or feel about me is none of my spiritual buisiness including this thing about how i need to change for any of you to be comfortable..that is bullshit and i ssy this kindly now as i do believe me, you and mgod and a few of the other can be friends....but not on your terms. Post by: studiojimi on March 21, 2008, 05:50:01 PM let's kick off here! Post by: Barry Hufker on March 21, 2008, 06:22:29 PM Fashion: have you ever thought about the history of fashion and why we wear what we do? Take the tie for instance. As you can see from the image above, the tie is nothing more than a colorful arrow pointing towards the genitals. Think about it. If/when you wear a tie, isn't it pointed at the bottom? Do you wear a tie with a horizontal bottom? If so, have you been castrated? Moving further, what do you think of men who wear bow-ties? Aren't they always perceived as odd or peculiar? Finally, no one puts up with a person who wears a bolo tie. If you do, don't. Thank you. Next time, hats, shoes and whether socks should match the shirt or the pants. Post by: studiojimi on March 21, 2008, 06:33:55 PM http://rattube.com/blog1/2007/12/15/huckabee-son-hangs-dog-f ather-fires-cop/ Post by: PRobb on March 21, 2008, 07:29:53 PM
My karma ran over my dogma. Post by: Larrchild on March 21, 2008, 07:44:17 PM Obey your master, just don't be a heel about it. This "My Dog's Better Than Your Dog" stuff is condescending to others. mgod's response was whelp put, indeed. You win. You are Best in Show in the Jesus department. We love you. God loves you. But he would not want you treating other's beliefs like a fire hydrant. Now would he? Post by: danickstr on March 21, 2008, 08:35:57 PM I got a dog, and let me tell you a bit about him. He is without a doubt the best dog in the world. Definitely better than all of your dogs, probably put together. Post by: mgod on March 21, 2008, 09:42:30 PM DS Post by: J-Texas on March 21, 2008, 10:44:53 PM Post by: maxim on March 21, 2008, 10:45:06 PM Post by: Barry Hufker on March 21, 2008, 11:40:31 PM
Now you're telling me sleeping dogs lie? What are they - under oath? They lie in their sleep? My sleeping dog doesn't lie. She tells half-truths. Post by: studiojimi on March 22, 2008, 01:25:33 AM
would you believe me if i told you that he did that at my request? ask him.... (by the way....the LORD can handle all of your inappropriate mocking. He's used to it.....and He has risen above all that nonsense to a level of spiritual love that surpasses all human understanding.) Post by: danickstr on March 22, 2008, 11:59:14 AM
Post by: CCC on March 22, 2008, 12:07:47 PM
If you say so. What you say does, however, stretch the bounds of credulity, since your postings are the reason this thread has continued to expand and are the reason why most of us wish the thread would die. In any case, thank you for making the case for atheism better than any of the rest of us ever did. Post by: Barry Hufker on March 22, 2008, 12:17:24 PM Post by: studiojimi on March 22, 2008, 12:29:28 PM
i have a solution for those people don't open the thread. are you insane? you deserve some huck! huck you. Post by: PRobb on March 22, 2008, 03:43:58 PM
Q. What does a dyslexic agnostic with insomnia do? A. He stays awake all night wondering if there really is a dog.
Post by: CCC on March 22, 2008, 03:45:47 PM
Thank you. I enjoyed the joke you edited in later in the day to make your initial post seem less obnoxious. In any case, JP22, I apologize for butting into what has become your thread. Please do continue posting inane cartoons (showing Mike Huckabee and the baby Jesus riding dinosaurs and whatnot) into what was once an interesting and respectful exchange between thinking people. Post by: PRobb on March 22, 2008, 03:46:00 PM
My imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend.
Post by: studiojimi on March 22, 2008, 04:06:36 PM
did you ever think that i might not have wanted to bump my post just to add some more of my awesome artwork ? where exactly is it that you do all of this superior thinking you "Think" you do? hmmmm looks like someone put lid on it 
Post by: Larrchild on March 22, 2008, 06:54:33 PM Move over, rover and let Jimi take over. Hounding us about salvation. Let's cut to the quick, mutual respect is a sign of mature thinking. You muzzle other's ideas when you impose yours too strongly. We are not just people with a herd-mentality out to mark our territory, we are people of different ideas who believe them as loyally as you do, Jimi. It gives paws to your consideration of that, sometimes. Sorry, I just had to bitch. Post by: Barry Hufker on March 22, 2008, 07:24:24 PM Exactly how long and how hard did you work on that response? Are you using a dog thesaurus? Holy Cow! You're milking this dog thing for all it's worth. One would have thought you'd have moove'd along to something else by now. I may not be from Jersey and my name isn't Holstein but I know when someone is butchering puns. Post by: PookyNMR on March 22, 2008, 07:26:06 PM For the love of everything good. Ok. 1... 2... 3... Stop posting. Post by: Barry Hufker on March 22, 2008, 07:27:34 PM Post by: MDM, on March 22, 2008, 07:54:39 PM
Post by: ssltech on March 22, 2008, 08:03:26 PM That's been the POINT of the last two pages...
Post by: MDM, on March 22, 2008, 08:10:35 PM you didn't think of that one did you, huh? good spelled backards is doog..
Post by: maxim on March 22, 2008, 08:21:11 PM Post by: MDM, on March 22, 2008, 08:36:59 PM we have achieved immortality.. amen Post by: studiojimi on March 22, 2008, 09:35:56 PM
Brad Brad....they are getting personal Larry just called me a bitch! Post by: J-Texas on March 22, 2008, 09:49:42 PM I'll bet the surface hasn't even been scratched. Did he ask for it, or did it fall into his lap? You think he's going to just roll over and take it? I'm begging here... can we just call it off? I can't sit here and and listen to all of the barking. It's rabid insanity. I wish I could stay on this but my stomach is growling. Post by: John Ivan on March 23, 2008, 05:42:51 AM Post by: studiojimi on March 23, 2008, 10:28:40 AM
how ironic my screen draw says 36 pages Post by: mgod on March 23, 2008, 10:59:34 AM Re: Huckabee for President (The Sister studiojimi Explains It All For You Thread) DS Post by: danickstr on March 23, 2008, 11:41:52 AM Post by: studiojimi on March 23, 2008, 11:43:56 AM
you are forgiven for that offensive slanderous and insulting statement pitiful. Post by: CCC on March 23, 2008, 01:15:10 PM
An Easter haiku: Self-righteous tough guy Surprisingly thin skinned Makes me giggle Post by: mgod on March 23, 2008, 01:20:07 PM Post by: studiojimi on March 23, 2008, 05:48:54 PM Post by: Barry Hufker on March 24, 2008, 11:14:53 AM Post by: studiojimi on March 24, 2008, 03:41:56 PM IT'S TOURING TIME! Post by: studiojimi on March 25, 2008, 01:47:04 PM Post by: studiojimi on March 26, 2008, 08:09:32 PM Post by: studiojimi on March 27, 2008, 08:37:15 PM Post by: PRobb on March 27, 2008, 08:44:27 PM
Well, if you consider that the dollar is currently in the toilet, I guess I could agree with that. Post by: J-Texas on March 28, 2008, 10:15:25 AM
Ser-prise, Ser-prise, Ser-prise. The Huck looks a lot like Golmer Pyle here. Post by: studiojimi on March 28, 2008, 04:22:33 PM
haven't you been following this thread...we already visited that but yes i agree at times he does shazam shazam Post by: Larrchild on March 28, 2008, 04:24:12 PM Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 28, 2008, 04:27:12 PM
Post by: J-Texas on March 28, 2008, 04:39:56 PM Keep your shorts on dude. Post by: PRobb on March 28, 2008, 05:17:18 PM
You're a sick man, Larry. A very sick man.
Post by: studiojimi on March 28, 2008, 06:16:39 PM
birds of a feather fock together Post by: studiojimi on March 28, 2008, 09:50:43 PM Post by: Larrchild on March 28, 2008, 10:26:38 PM
and it's playing a broken record as it does. Post by: J-Texas on March 28, 2008, 11:11:16 PM
With Jim Nabor's pipes and the Huck on bass... man, they would have one heck of a gospel rock group. Post by: Barry Hufker on March 29, 2008, 02:33:46 AM If you believe in a Rock N Roll Heaven, they must have a hell of a band. Post by: studiojimi on March 29, 2008, 10:43:47 AM
it's OK it's just a hobby. Post by: J-Texas on March 29, 2008, 10:49:35 AM
They could jam about tolerance! Gays, politicians... All they need is a lawyer on drums and they're on their way! Post by: Barry Hufker on March 29, 2008, 02:53:49 PM What do you call 1000 lawyers buried up to their necks in sand? Not enough sand. Post by: J-Texas on March 29, 2008, 08:47:53 PM "Are you a lawyer?" Chris Rock (The Mosquito) "I was already a blood-sucking parasite... all I needed was the briefcase!" Gets me EVERY time. Post by: studiojimi on March 29, 2008, 10:12:18 PM Post by: Larrchild on March 30, 2008, 02:06:50 AM Post by: studiojimi on March 30, 2008, 08:53:44 PM Post by: studiojimi on March 31, 2008, 07:31:28 PM Post by: studiojimi on April 02, 2008, 02:03:40 PM Post by: Barry Hufker on April 03, 2008, 12:17:49 AM Post by: studiojimi on April 03, 2008, 10:56:44 PM check this shit out! Post by: studiojimi on April 04, 2008, 04:23:33 PM Post by: studiojimi on April 05, 2008, 08:42:26 PM show some love . . . . Post by: Barry Hufker on April 05, 2008, 08:58:50 PM Post by: studiojimi on April 05, 2008, 09:24:09 PM
yeah but what team is he on? stripes are not slimming Post by: studiojimi on April 06, 2008, 09:42:26 PM Post by: studiojimi on April 07, 2008, 03:46:31 PM Post by: Barry Hufker on April 07, 2008, 06:31:41 PM Post by: studiojimi on April 07, 2008, 06:34:17 PM
why sonnybuck we are gonna take him out early so he can continue to have it HIS way! Post by: Barry Hufker on April 07, 2008, 07:30:56 PM Just download, copy and paste. Post by: studiojimi on April 09, 2008, 03:47:19 PM Post by: studiojimi on April 09, 2008, 11:46:44 PM Post by: studiojimi on April 10, 2008, 05:59:57 PM Post by: studiojimi on April 13, 2008, 12:36:17 AM Post by: studiojimi on April 14, 2008, 07:51:11 PM would one suspect inbreeding? Post by: Barry Hufker on April 14, 2008, 11:50:19 PM Post by: studiojimi on April 15, 2008, 03:34:32 PM Post by: studiojimi on April 17, 2008, 04:04:47 PM Post by: studiojimi on April 20, 2008, 11:56:23 PM Post by: studiojimi on April 23, 2008, 06:48:22 PM he'll bring back wife roping as THE Great American pastime you know you want this. . . . Post by: studiojimi on April 25, 2008, 09:05:39 PM enough? Post by: studiojimi on April 27, 2008, 11:56:22 AM anybody got a shovel? Post by: studiojimi on June 04, 2008, 08:41:57 PM he seriously needs a pop filter here MIKESPACE Post by: studiojimi on June 05, 2008, 05:50:50 PM Post by: studiojimi on June 06, 2008, 02:39:48 PM Post by: studiojimi on June 06, 2008, 09:23:42 PM Post by: Larrchild on June 06, 2008, 10:19:38 PM Post by: bigaudioblowhard on June 07, 2008, 03:57:06 AM
Gosh Larry, you have been ON FIRE lately. If you weren't building such a cool box, I'd say "quit your day job and do standup", but the world needs the box more than the yuks. bab Post by: Larrchild on June 07, 2008, 05:11:48 AM Dude, I don't want to rag on Rev Cleophus here, but there used to be more variety in the posts. I think it's painfully past the Huckabee point in our consciousness within the grand hierarchy of things in this world. Audio Professionals are supposed to cast a better. more mature image. Post by: studiojimi on June 07, 2008, 08:16:40 PM Post by: compasspnt on August 06, 2008, 12:10:30 AM Post by: maxim on August 06, 2008, 12:42:22 AM (no thanks to you) Post by: Barry Hufker on August 06, 2008, 12:48:35 AM Post by: Jessica A. Engle on August 06, 2008, 10:38:06 AM Post by: Jay Kadis on August 06, 2008, 11:09:40 AM Post by: Barry Hufker on August 06, 2008, 02:42:48 PM |