Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Debating with Christians > Modern Thinker's Creed?


Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 15 2004, 01:07 PM
(http://vonsteuben.cps.k12.il.us/update/xpression/index.php?mode=view&id=123) :
QUOTE
Here is the creed for the modern thinker. We believe in Marx, Freud and Darwin. We believe everything is okay, as long as you don’t hurt anyone to the best of your definition of hurt and to your best definition of knowledge. We believe in sex before, during and after marriage. We believe in the therapy of sin. We believe that adultery is fun. We believe that sodomy is okay. We believe that taboos are taboo. We believe that everything is getting better despite evidence to the contrary. The evidence must be investigated and you can prove anything with evidence. We believe there is something in horoscopes, UFO’s, and bent spoons. Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammad and ourselves. He was a good moral teacher, although we think basically his good morals were really bad. We believe that all religions are the basically the same, at least the ones we read were. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God and salvation. We believe that after death comes nothing because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing. If death is not the end, and if the dead have lied, then it’s compulsively heaven for all except perhaps Hitler, Stalin and Chingis Khan. We believe in Masters and Johnson. What is selected is average, what’s average is normal, and what’s normal is good. We believe in total disarmament. We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Americans should beat their guns into tractors and the Russians would be sure to follow. We believe that man is essentially good-it’s only his behavior that lets him down. This is the fault of society; society’s the fault of condition; and conditions are the fault of society. We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him and reality will adapt accordingly; the universe will readjust and history will alter. We believe that there is no absolute truth, except the truth that there is no absolute truth. We believe in the rejection of creeds and the flowering of individual thought. 
 
If Chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is His rainbow in the sky. And when you hear: “State of Emergency,” “Sniper Kills Ten,” “Troops on Rampage,” “Youths go Looting,” “Bomb Blasts School,” it is but the sound man worshipping his maker. 

Sorry about the lack of formatting - but to be honest with you - I guess that is kind of how I see the "secular mindset' - suffering from what I consider to be a lack of formatting (among other things).

Unfortunately - my participation here has also caused me to be a skeptic regarding many of the Christian Ideas which I have been more 'certain about' throughout a good portion of my life. So (at this point anyway) - I seem to be a skeptic about skepticism as wel as a skeptic about 'faith'.

Thanks (but NO THANKS).

I think I will 'hit the apologetic arguments' for a while now - (maybe I will try to get a little more 'education' in that area - by spending similar amounts of time in that pursuit - comparable to the time I have 'hung out' here during the last year). Then I suspect I will be back again after some time away ( I seem to have come back here several times earlier after a month or two of 'away time' - maybe this time it will be a bit longer - I guess I will just wait and see .....)

I realize there are many posts (both on this "new" version of this site - and the older one) which I have not responded to. I apologize to those of you (like NonBeliever, Karl, AUB, etc...) who I have not honored, at least by simply responding with something like: "I don't having anything to say about that").

Like I say now "I'm Sorry".

Maybe I will put together a better "ta, ta, for now" type of post a little later ....

I'm not sure if I will come back to see the responses to the quote above - so don't write a response only for my benefit - but (I suspect anyway) that at least some of you might like to write responses more with directed toward each other (like minds).

Have Fun!

-Dennis

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 15 2004, 01:15 PM
I recognize Ravi Zarcharias....he quotes that on a CD I have of him.

Posted by: Libertus Nov 15 2004, 01:17 PM
Catch ya later Dennis.

Now, your quote. I believe that it is very over-generalized hogwash that in no way can possibly reflect in any real way what the "secular mindset", whatever that means, is. Some of the individual items I may agree with and others are utter garbage to be placed on a person just because they don't believe in xtian morality.

Garbage, garbage, garbage.

Libertus

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 15 2004, 01:36 PM
QUOTE (Libertus @ Nov 15 2004, 12:17 PM)
Catch ya later Dennis.

Now, your quote.  I believe that it is very over-generalized hogwash that in no way can possibly reflect in any real way what the "secular mindset", whatever that means, is.  Some of the individual items I may agree with and others are utter garbage to be placed on a person just because they don't believe in xtian morality.

Garbage, garbage, garbage.

Libertus

I agree.

There tends to be a need for a theist to group non-believers into some stereotype. It probably stems from the doctrine they follow. If you don't believe it, then there must be something else you believe.

It's hard for them to understand that we are no different than a person that doesn't believe in any other entity, be that what it may.

I do see similarities sometimes, but it is in the way logic and reason are applied...nothing else.

Dennis,

I realize doubting probably frightens you, but don't stick your fingers in your ears and return for more brainwashing.

Learn it and study it for yourself!

And, most important...enjoy life Dennis.

Posted by: Zach Nov 15 2004, 02:13 PM
A true skeptic is skeptical about everything, including skepticism.

Take it easy, Dennis.

Posted by: Ro-bear Nov 15 2004, 02:52 PM
I hope you will come up with a better swan song than this tripe. It is a gross mischaracterization of the secular humanist mindset. I suppose I could compose some bullshit expression of the Christian worldview that makes them look like mental midgets, but somehow I'm not tempted to do so. I prefer to let them characterize themselves with their own words. I'm tired of theists defining atheism and conservatives defining liberals; it's dishonest and self-serving.


This kind of crap fosters division and does nothing to promote mutual understanding. It belongs in the garbage can.

That said, I must note that you stand head and shoulders above most Christians who visit this site. On the whole, your tone has been repectful and your opinions rational. Farewell, Dennis.

Posted by: Rameus Nov 15 2004, 03:04 PM
Good luck Dennis, I hope that time away from this forum allows you to reaffirm the conclusion that you have always wanted to come to anyway.

Rameus

Posted by: ratbag Nov 15 2004, 05:49 PM
That "creed of the modern thinker" could be applied to a single secular person - in the same way that all religous belief could be smooshed together and said to apply to a christian person.

Not only that, but this "creed" likely applies to groups far outside the secular side.

Posted by: Karl Nov 15 2004, 06:32 PM
Dennis:

I'm going to present some comments on the "creed" and additionally, some personal thoughts.

QUOTE (Dennis)
I realize there are many posts (both on this "new" version of this site - and the older one) which I have not responded to. I apologize to those of you (like NonBeliever, Karl, AUB, etc...) who I have not honored, at least by simply responding with something like: "I don't having anything to say about that").

Like I say now "I'm Sorry".
Don't worry about it Dennis.

QUOTE (Modern Thinker's Creed. - my comments in bold)


We believe in Marx, Freud and Darwin.As with any books or documents, examine the texts, complete a rational analysis (hint) and draw your own conclusions.

We believe everything is okay, as long as you don’t hurt anyone to the best of your definition of hurt and to your best definition of knowledge.
QUOTE (The Pagan Rede:)
Do What Thou Wilt and Harm None.
QUOTE (Augustine - on 1 John 7/8)
Love and do what you will.
QUOTE (Aleister Crowley - Liber CCXX - 40 & 57)
40 Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. 57 Love is the Law, love under Will.
I personally add Light and Life at the begining of (57)

We believe in sex before, during and after marriage.....and plenty of it!

We believe in the therapy of sin.RightWendycrazy.gifWe've all seen what fundamentalist dogmatic guilt-mongering can do.(Deanna Laney, Mancini, etc.) My definition of sin/evil on a secular level is: the unjust deprivation of a person's life, liberty, persuit of happiness, property, reputation or covenant of trust. My guide on the personal level of conduct it is the Rede. As far as I'm concerned, you can trash the 613...

We believe that adultery is fun.If I'm in a committed relationship with a woman and I tell her to her face that I'm not going to go out on her, I should honor my word. If my word isn't worth shit, I'm not worth shit. If I have an "official" marriage license or not is irrelevant. It's also interesting to note that a "marriage license" is obtained from the state, and can be signed by a member of the church. (there's that old church/state thingy again!) My take is that I don't need either one to tell me that I'm married. If two people say they are married, that's what they are. Unfortunately, one needs an "official" document for legal benefits, etc. We all know what happened with some of that in the recent elections...

We believe that sodomy is okay.What somebody else does in their personal life is none of my business.

We believe that taboos are taboo.What somebody else does in their personal life is none of my business.

We believe that everything is getting better despite evidence to the contrary.Well, 59M+ neo-cons certainly believe this, despite the abyssmal Bush record. But what the hell is a $7.4 trillion dollar nationl debt, record budget and trade deficits, etc. to a neo-con?...we've got our tax cuts!...fuck, our grandkids can pay off the debt!..PLUS, we can move towards our theocracy!.(NOT!)

The evidence must be investigated and you can prove anything with evidence.This is supposed to be how criminal cases are conducted and presented in a courtroom...

We believe there is something in horoscopes, UFO’s, and bent spoons.Fringe Science/paranormal/occult are certainly interesting topics to study and research.

Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammad and ourselves. He was a good moral teacher, although we think basically his good morals were really bad.We have historical evidence as to the existence of Siddhartha Guatama (563BCE-483BCE) and Muhammad (c.569CE-632CE). We're still waiting on the fundies to demonstrate the historical existence of a god-man named "Jesus"..and necessarily, ALL of the persons in his alleged "genealogy".

We believe that all religions are the basically the same, at least the ones we read were.
Well, you haven't done much reading then.They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God and salvation.Ah, yes the dogmatic issues again...who's got the"only true" dogma? Spirituality is an Internal Process. Religion is an external framework, including tradition, observances, dogma, etc.. Unfortunately, to the fundie, the external is..... everything.

We believe that after death comes nothing because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing. If death is not the end, and if the dead have lied, then it’s compulsively heaven for all except perhaps Hitler, Stalin and Chingis Khan.NDE scientific research is providing evidence that there indeed may be existence out of the body and possibly life after death. Another interesting area is the Science of Neurotheology.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.It's OK to say S-E-X, Dennis...and to do scientific reaserch on the subject.

What is selected is average, what’s average is normal, and what’s normal is good. What kind of shit is this?

We believe in total disarmament. I don't. If you don't have a strong national defense, your ass is going to get conquered. I do not however, believe in unilateral "nationbuilding" and imperialism.We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.No shit? Americans should beat their guns into tractors and the Russians would be sure to follow.Uh huh...just like we got rid of "all" of the nukes...

We believe that man is essentially good-it’s only his behavior that lets him down. This is the fault of society; society’s the fault of condition; and conditions are the fault of society.
Ask yourself why the French, Russian and American revolutions, etc. happened...

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him and reality will adapt accordingly; the universe will readjust and history will alter. We believe that there is no absolute truth, except the truth that there is no absolute truth.The statement "the truth that there is no truth." is false as per itself, and thus is self-contradictory idiocy. 2+2=4 is truth. The Living Universe can be Fully Experienced by those who Open themselves to It.

We believe in the rejection of creeds Believe what you want, just don't force it on me or the rest of society, via law or mingling of church and state. and the flowering of individual thought.Unfortunately, fundamentalist dogma and control-mongering religionism don't offer a lot of latitude in this area, as exemplified by "the dark ages"....

If Chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is His rainbow in the sky. And when you hear: “State of Emergency,” “Sniper Kills Ten,” “Troops on Rampage,” “Youths go Looting,” “Bomb Blasts School,” it is but the sound man worshipping his maker.Do What Thou Wilt and Harm None.


QUOTE (Dennis)
I think I will 'hit the apologetic arguments' for a while now - (maybe I will try to get a little more 'education' in that area - by spending similar amounts of time in that pursuit - comparable to the time I have 'hung out' here during the last year). Then I suspect I will be back again after some time away..


The apologetic mountian you must climb is indeed a high one. I think you are beginning to realize that, Dennis.

I hope you will not be gone for long. It's a pleasure having you here.

Know that you are respected.
Know that you are loved.

Warm regards,

K

Posted by: Cerise Nov 15 2004, 07:44 PM
Here is the creed for the Modern Cerise. I believe that Marx, Freud and Darwin had great influence over the minds of the 20th century, but Freud's a weirdo and Marx was an idealist and Darwin, well the foundation for evolution was already pretty much laid down before he arrived on scene. I believe a lot of things aren't okay, but I also believe things aren't going to get better if everyone just waits around for the sky fairies to sort everything out. I believe people should have sex when they are ready and willing to have it. I believe that sin is a meaningless word. I believe that adultery is a reality that needs to be dealt with in other ways besides stonings. I believe that sodomy is between you and your sexual partner. I believe that taboo is a buzzword people use to avoid talking about problems, which might lead to (gasp) solving problems. I believe that things will get better if we get off our fat asses and try to make them better. I believe that not everything can be proved, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't try anyway. Laziness is no excuse for ignorance. I believe there is something in horoscopes, UFO’s, and bent spoons. Something that smells suspiciously like bullshit. Jesus was probably a fictional character, maybe a wanna-be prophet, certainly not the son of God. He supposedly had some trite moral lessons included in cryptic parables so that no one could understand a flippin word he said without major apologetic help. I believe that all religions are the basically the same, in that they are created with the same purpose in mind, and have the same effect on people; community and explanation of the unknown. I believe that when you are dead you are dead, so you'd better make the most of your life now. I believe I have no idea who Masters and Johnson are. There's no such thing a normality. We are all unique. "Good" and "evil" are poorly phrased concepts. I believe that if a person has arms, they are never disarmed. So unless we want to get the amputating table out...
I believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Duh. Of course people get killed in a war. That's what a war is. Sheesh, what moron wrote this thing anyway? I believe that man is essentially man, neither good, nor bad, but capable of actions of each. I believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him because you can't trust people who tell you they have the one right way for everyone. Whether or not there is absolute truth, it certainly doesn't seem to apply to sky daddies and dead jewish propehts.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 15 2004, 07:55 PM
Oh Cerise... you only think that you believe that stuff.


------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: That was a HUGE joke people. I hope Cerise reads this disclaimer before her head explodes all over the monitor.

Posted by: Cerise Nov 15 2004, 07:58 PM
BOOM

Sploosh!


















Too late Gerbil. This is why disclaimers go BEFORE the joke you mad mad rodent. PageofCupsNono.gif

Posted by: Fweethawt Nov 15 2004, 11:36 PM
QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Nov 15 2004, 04:07 PM)
Sorry about the lack of formatting - but to be honest with you - I guess that is kind of how I see the "secular mindset' - suffering from what I consider to be a lack of formatting (among other things). 
 
Unfortunately - my participation here has also caused me to be a skeptic regarding many of the Christian Ideas which I have been more 'certain about' throughout a good portion of my life.   So (at this point anyway) - I seem to be a skeptic about skepticism as wel as a skeptic about 'faith'.    
 
Thanks (but NO THANKS). 
 

The Way of the Master, or The Way of the Coward?

Tell me how my "interpretation" is any less screwed up than yours.... KatieHmm.gif

I spent ten minutes too long replying to this.




Here is the creed for the modern xtian theist. We believe in god the father, god the son, god the holy spirit, and that all three separate entities are one whole. We believe that nothing you do is okay. So much so, that if you do happen to do anything, you will still eternally burn in hell forever and ever regardless of what you might do, or how good you are while doing it. Oh yeah, it’s only okay to hurt someone if they don’t believe what we do. We don’t believe in sex before, during, or after marriage since, after all, a man becomes “defiled” once he touches a woman. We do not believe in any type of therapy. Prayer cures all! We don’t believe that adultery is fun, and we don’t believe that sodomy is okay. That is of course, when it takes place outside of our church walls…. We believe that taboos are taboo, and that we will tell you what is taboo and what is not. For instance, sex is taboo, but genocide because of opposing beliefs are okay. Get the picture? We believe that everything is going horribly wrong and yet everything is in god’s hands, and yet satan is the ruler of this world, and yet god is in control. Let us pray about that, shall we? Forget therapy. The evidence will be presented to you and you will not disprove it! We believe that there is nothing to be gained by reading horoscopes even though our bible tells us that god put the stars up there to tell us stuff. We do not believe in UFO’s even though Ezeikiel (sp?) seems to speak of them quite clearly. We do not believe in bent spoons, but that Moses’ staff turning into a snake is an eternal Truth! We believe that jesus IS the messiah for all mankind. Just don’t read to closely. Otherwise you will see that he was a quite the failure regardless of how much we like to “lift Him up”. We believe that all religions must be destroyed, along with the followers. This includes the religions that we’ve never even heard of also. All other religions believe in hate and badness while ours is one of love and tolerance. (you better believe that) The other religions only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, god and salvation while we, the one True religion have continuously harmonized our own ideas about such matters ever since the inception of gods holy word. We believe that after death comes an eternal award given to us for believing everything that the churches have told us no matter how contrary to reality most of it is. There is honor in belief, is there not? We believe that after death comes an eternal punishment for those who would not believe everything that the churches have told us because of how contrary to reality most of it is. There is no honor in disbelief, is there? We believe that there is something after death because when we ask the dead, they say nothing! If there wasn’t something for them to do, surely they would say something, no?


I'm sorry but, I just couldn't do anything else with the rest of this..... Wendyshrug.gif
QUOTE
If death is not the end, and if the dead have lied, then it’s compulsively heaven for all except perhaps Hitler, Stalin and Chingis Khan. We believe in Masters and Johnson. What is selected is average, what’s average is normal, and what’s normal is good. We believe in total disarmament. We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Americans should beat their guns into tractors and the Russians would be sure to follow. We believe that man is essentially good-it’s only his behavior that lets him down. This is the fault of society; society’s the fault of condition; and conditions are the fault of society. We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him and reality will adapt accordingly; the universe will readjust and history will alter. We believe that there is no absolute truth, except the truth that there is no absolute truth. We believe in the rejection of creeds and the flowering of individual thought.

If Chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is His rainbow in the sky. And when you hear: “State of Emergency,” “Sniper Kills Ten,” “Troops on Rampage,” “Youths go Looting,” “Bomb Blasts School,” it is but the sound man worshipping his maker.



QUOTE (Dennis)
Unfortunately - my participation here has also caused me to be a skeptic regarding many of the Christian Ideas which I have been more 'certain about' throughout a good portion of my life.  
If it wasn't for your use of the word 'unfortunately', I'd say that you were probably closer to a real "salvation" than you've ever been. Hopefully, your newfound skepticism will show you what those apologists are really saying.

Just stay good Dennis.
You can't go wrong there. Wendyshrug.gif

Happy Re-formatting..... Wendyshrug.gif

Posted by: LadyAttis Nov 16 2004, 12:47 AM
Here's meh creed.

Reason above all else because if you don't think you'll DIE! wicked.gif

-- Bridget

Posted by: Rameus Nov 16 2004, 08:20 AM
Dennis is losing faith in the bible, and that frightens him. I say it will set him free if he allows it to.

Rameus

Posted by: Reach Nov 16 2004, 08:40 AM
QUOTE (Rameus @ Nov 16 2004, 07:20 AM)
Dennis is losing faith in the bible, and that frightens him.  I say it will set him free if he allows it to.

Rameus

And Dennis has been honest enough to openly admit the same, or similar fears. I admire his honesty and wish him a journey that further explores and confronts the conundrums, other mysteries and incongruities that Christianity poses.

All the best, Dennis! Hope to see you soon!
Reach

Posted by: REBOOT Nov 16 2004, 09:22 AM
Dennis stepped on the road of evolving creatures and the sanctuary of conviction sure is a hard place to leave. The equation between evolution and open mindedness with decadence is sometimes valid when it results in any destruction. But then there are civil authorities that take care of these issues.

The other side of the coin offers all the solutions humans need, isn't it time for humans to take responsibility for their condition. I've always thought it was the worst cop out to blame everything on a God.

The framework of man is an evolutionary framework. A static framework will eventually crack... thus the reason for this ex-christian site. FrogsToadBigGrin.gif

Posted by: Rameus Nov 16 2004, 11:07 AM
(by Reach)
QUOTE
And Dennis has been honest enough to openly admit the same, or similar fears. I admire his honesty and wish him a journey that further explores and confronts the conundrums, other mysteries and incongruities that Christianity poses.


You know me Reach, blunt as a canoe and as emotionally sensitive as a coconut. That's what we have you for. I smash the malleus over their heads, and then you apply the band-aids and see to the counseling.

You’re the camp counselor that everyone admires and I’m the drunken, vacuum cleaner swinging lunatic that slurs just enough gibberish to scare people sensible.

What a team.

Rameus

Posted by: Reach Nov 16 2004, 11:21 AM
QUOTE (Rameus @ Nov 16 2004, 10:07 AM)
You know me Reach, blunt as a canoe and as emotionally sensitive as a coconut...
You’re the camp counselor that everyone admires and I’m the drunken, vacuum cleaner swinging lunatic that slurs just enough gibberish to scare people sensible. 

What a team.

Rameus

Yes, my friend. But first I like to... Dip the sword in honey and drive it deep!

And then there's triage. Teamwork. What a bloody team!

Reach

Posted by: Rameus Nov 16 2004, 11:26 AM
(by Reach)
QUOTE
Yes, my friend. But first I like to... Dip the sword in honey and drive it deep!

And then there's triage. Teamwork. What a bloody team!

Reach


What the world needs is five more of me, several million more of you, and several hundred thousand psychological deprogramming clinics staffed 24/7.

Rameus

Posted by: crazy-tiger Nov 16 2004, 11:36 AM
QUOTE (Rameus @ Nov 16 2004, 06:26 PM)
(by Reach)
QUOTE
Yes, my friend. But first I like to... Dip the sword in honey and drive it deep!

And then there's triage. Teamwork. What a bloody team!

Reach


What the world needs is five more of me, several million more of you, and several hundred thousand psychological deprogramming clinics staffed 24/7.

Rameus

No, no more of you, Rameus...

Just one of you is barely below the critical mass. Anymore, and we would have to kiss the universe goodbye.






It'd be a bloody good laugh though... lmao_99.gif

Posted by: fortunehooks Nov 16 2004, 02:48 PM
QUOTE (Zach @ Nov 15 2004, 04:13 PM)
A true skeptic is skeptical about everything, including skepticism.

Take it easy, Dennis.

that's all i need to say on the matter. it was firstly,put forth,by zach.

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 17 2004, 07:56 PM
Hi Folks!

I always find it interesting, reading my obituaries!

More seriously though, thanks! for everything that has been said.

(Do these things make sense?: 'all press is good press?' - or maybe something like: 'the hardest thing to take is simply being ignored!', or should I say: 'the sincerest form of flattery is recognition?')

It is true that my faith has been hit hard by many of the posts I have read on this site (but it's not over until it's over - and at least for my faith at this point, 'the fat lady has not yet sung'). There are a couple of things I still find to be good supports for some parts of my faith - (It will be interesting to see what you folks fire at these things in the future).

Also there are other ways of looking at Christianity that I feel springing up in my 'inner man' and I am anxious to investigate some of these things. You know ... I doubt that I would ever have been motivated to look into some of these new exciting areas if some of the things I have read here at this site didn't contribute to the death of certain superflous opaque visions which had always been 'blocking the view'.

I will probably continue to throw out for discussion various subject areas in the future - (though I suspect I will be posting less frequently here during at least the next couple of months - after that ... I plan to re-evaluate and decide how to proceed from the point I find myself in at that time). Looks like I may be taking some type of a 'leave of absence' from my work in order to free up the time for me to research some of these new ideas I want to investigate (money isn't everything - that is easy to say now, before a bunch gets cut from the ole budget - of course I may be singing different tune before too long!).

At any rate, here is one (sample) subject I haven't "heard" addressed much on this site (I certainly may have missed some pertinent threads though - as I read very, very agonizingly slowly - and I suspect, most likely I have read less than 10 or 15 percent of (even) what is in only this particular discussion forum).

The existence of the modern day State of Israel, and the process through which it has emerged and continues to survive amidst a very large number of folks who were not happy about a Jewish nation beginning, and who have been fervently desiring and threatening to 'push the Jews into the sea'.

Now, I am not saying that I believe the modern day state of Israel to be (of it's own comprehensive accord) as important as say .... the resurrection of Jesus (in hardcore actual non-merely-mythological space-time history) - regarding a validation for many of the modern day Christian claims -- however, I do think the existence of Israel today appears (to me anyway) to at least strongly suggest some 'super-natural' intervention (and most likely coming through a sustaining 'higher-power' who somehow simply 'likes the Jews' (reminiscent of how I like to say: 'I like Christ'?).

Does the modern-day State of Israel serve as historical space-time 'fuel for thought' regarding some Biblical prophecies?

(Just thought I would throw in another target for you folks to take aim at)

(It's been getting a bit dull recently)

-Dennis

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 17 2004, 07:58 PM
oops - experiencing 'technical difficulties' - please ignore this post (accidentally double posted)

...

Well as long as this post is 'taking up space', I guess I could also use it to say a couple of BTWs:

MG - yeah Ravi read that quote in one of his talks - I listened to it via downloading an MP3 file, I think it is in one of these two talks: (I forget which one)

http://home.christianity.com/local/60874.html

http://home.christianity.com/ministries/rzim/62268.html

...

I didn't really post that from the perspective that I consider each and every one of you folks to be properly characterized by that train of thought (perish the thought!) - and I would hope that you would understand and know that - sometimes I just like to give you some stuff to see how you respond.

I'm sorry if I insulted you - I didn't really mean to do that.

-Dennis

Posted by: Koal Nov 17 2004, 10:40 PM
QUOTE
Does the modern-day State of Israel serve as historical space-time 'fuel for thought' regarding some Biblical prophecies?


What i'm more interested in, is how much of these "prophecies" are merely the attempts of the beleiving populace who are simply striving fulfill these "prophecies".

Posted by: Ian Nov 17 2004, 11:41 PM
sure the modern state of Israel gives fuel to fundamentalists the fuel for their "end times " babble .

I don`t think there is no more supernatural intervention than say the rise of the Irish Free State (and the eventual republic) or the current struggle for the Kurds for their own homeland .

Over 700 years ago Edward the I of England captured what was known as the Stone of Scone (or the Stone of Destiny) from Scotland . The legend was that this stone was used as the pillow for Jacob . It was used to coronate the ancient celtic kings of Scotland.

A prophecy was that when this stone would be returned to Scotland, the nation would be independant once again.

The stone was returned to Scotland in 1996 just in time for the country to have home rule after 300 years since the kingdoms were politically united (1707) . I don`t think Scotland is "destined" for independence just like I don`t think the modern state of Israel is sign of the so-called prophecies

I don`t see either case being supernatural. It's nice to think that these events are "destined" . A lot of time , money and blood (and tons of political maneuvering) were spent to get a homeland built .

Posted by: Fweethawt Nov 18 2004, 02:33 AM
QUOTE (Koal @ Nov 18 2004, 01:40 AM)
QUOTE
Does the modern-day State of Israel serve as historical space-time 'fuel for thought' regarding some Biblical prophecies?


What i'm more interested in, is how much of these "prophecies" are merely the attempts of the beleiving populace who are simply striving fulfill these "prophecies".

Exactly! Self-fulfilled prophecies!

No "hand of God", no supernatural nothin'!

Just self-fulfillment!

Call me paranoid but, I firmly believe that
eventually, what we've come to know as
"biblical end-time prophecies" will happen
to some degree via this method.

Much innocent blood will be spilled all because
of so many people supporting these types of
beliefs. All because of ancient preists playing
mind games with people. Wendybanghead.gif

Shit, it happens already anyway, just to a lesser degree.


- Praise Him my ass.
Fwee

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 18 2004, 08:03 AM
Could someone here who is more knowledgeable than myself, concerning the formation of the State of Israel, at a time when they were very outnumbered by the massively more militarily powerful surrounding Arab nations (none of whom 'liked Israel very much') -- please!? take even a very few minutes, and help me explain (to the folks who have trouble seeing a need for any super-natural intervention), the 'strictly natural' odds for the current Nation State of Israel to re-emerge on the World scene, and continue to exist (in that area of the world) even if/when the mostly secular Jewish people (who played the primary roles in forming the nation) were trying to 'self-fulfil' Biblical prophesies (which most of them didn't think came from a 'God' in the first place), to say nothing about a Christian world population who, for the most part, either implicitly participated in Hitler's genocide by doing nothing- and/or would not even permit persecuted Jewish people (each of whom were basically wearing a death warrant around their necks) to enter various "christian" countries for protection?.

Zach, is it OK if I apply a dose of skepticism to the claim about how modern day Israel is simply a result of self-fullfuling prophecy?

-Dennis

P.S.
Sorry about the first agonizingly long sentence above: (for justification - I suppose you could refer to AUB's response to me, in another thread, where I was whining about his long sentences -- I understand that his response probably doesn't work for me, given that I don't claim to be as powerful as he, either in mind or overall presence ... but sadly, I just don't have the strength, mental acumen, or willpower - not just now anyway - to come up with a better alternative excuse!) (<wink/smile>)

P.P.S
Where are those excellent Jewish scholars when a fellow needs 'em?

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 18 2004, 08:40 AM
QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Nov 17 2004, 06:58 PM)
...
MG - yeah Ravi read that quote in one of his talks - I listened to it via downloading an MP3 file, I think it is in one of these two talks: (I forget which one)

http://home.christianity.com/local/60874.html

http://home.christianity.com/ministries/rzim/62268.html


I just now checked, and the quote that I included in the first post in this thread, (by Steve Turner, an English Journalist - I think that piece was first published in a secular paper) - was quoted by Ravi Zacharias (somewhere just after 20 minutes) in the second one of those links I provided:

http://home.christianity.com/ministries/rzim/62268.html


(Again, I am sorry that some of you feel insulted - to tell you the truth, I just found some of those things rather worthy of a chuckle - sometimes it is fun to laugh even at one's self - I wasn't trying to say that each anecdote in that piece, applies to each individual person who posts here frequently.)

Lighten up already! .... I'm trying to - and laughing at one's self (in his/her unguarded moments) can be rather fun actually!

-Dennis

Posted by: AUB Nov 18 2004, 08:54 AM
SOIL

First off, your opening post listed some of the lazy thoughts held by brits who haven't given religion any real thought (mainly cuz most of us just don't give a crap) , that is ignorance not a secular problem, education solves all such misconceptions.

But don't use Israel or Jews for propaganda for your faith, this is an old bullshit tactic that they find very offensive. They are the biggest clue that xtianity is a lie, they refuse your doctrine and always will, anything they achieve is a credit to them, and their faith, not yours, they have enough reason alone to destroy your cult, let alone anything the likes of me can produce.

http://www.outreachjudaism.org

A dare you to take on all his points. Judaism is the smoking gun, as long as it exists your cult is a failure.

Notice how xtians manage to convince gentials that jesus was the jewish messiah but not the actual jews. Should get you thinking, similar to how creationists manage to convince the lay public that creationism is a science but not the actual scientists, you fool the ignorant but not those who know what the truth is.

Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 18 2004, 09:10 AM
QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Nov 15 2004, 12:07 PM)
(http://vonsteuben.cps.k12.il.us/update/xpression/index.php?mode=view&id=123) :
QUOTE
Here is the creed for the modern thinker. We believe in Marx, Freud and Darwin. We believe everything is okay, as long as you don’t hurt anyone to the best of your definition of hurt and to your best definition of knowledge. We believe in sex before, during and after marriage. We believe in the therapy of sin. We believe that adultery is fun. We believe that sodomy is okay. We believe that taboos are taboo. We believe that everything is getting better despite evidence to the contrary. The evidence must be investigated and you can prove anything with evidence. We believe there is something in horoscopes, UFO’s, and bent spoons. Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammad and ourselves. He was a good moral teacher, although we think basically his good morals were really bad. We believe that all religions are the basically the same, at least the ones we read were. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God and salvation. We believe that after death comes nothing because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing. If death is not the end, and if the dead have lied, then it’s compulsively heaven for all except perhaps Hitler, Stalin and Chingis Khan. We believe in Masters and Johnson. What is selected is average, what’s average is normal, and what’s normal is good. We believe in total disarmament. We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Americans should beat their guns into tractors and the Russians would be sure to follow. We believe that man is essentially good-it’s only his behavior that lets him down. This is the fault of society; society’s the fault of condition; and conditions are the fault of society. We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him and reality will adapt accordingly; the universe will readjust and history will alter. We believe that there is no absolute truth, except the truth that there is no absolute truth. We believe in the rejection of creeds and the flowering of individual thought. 
 
If Chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is His rainbow in the sky. And when you hear: “State of Emergency,” “Sniper Kills Ten,” “Troops on Rampage,” “Youths go Looting,” “Bomb Blasts School,” it is but the sound man worshipping his maker. 

This is a parody isn't it? Of course a mind set like depicted above isn't desirable. That's not the purpose of a parody. There is not one modern thinker, in reality there are many different ways to observe and think about the world. There are so many stars that you can't count them, or easily would get lost if you travelled interstellar. But would that mean that this huge amount is devastating? Or is it just overwhelming, positively? This is the marvellous other side of the coin.

The side that you can see when observing other religions, in which you see probably the devil within now.

For example: "it's not about rituals or services, but about surrendering to god". Does that sound familiar? (http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=245)

Do you see others struggling with their particular branch of religion? Do you see others struggling for 'purity', for denying their own desires that are called evil in their particular religious system?
QUOTE
(http://al-islam.org/begin/newmuslims/mystory.html)Little by little over the almost 10 years I have been muslim, I have tried to implement the teachings of Islam into my life. It has not always been easy, as I am in a constant struggle with my nafs. It is truly the "jihad al-akbar", and one that I will struggle with the remainder of my life. We converts have to remember that Islam was revealed to the people over the space of 23 years. Not overnight. In our zeal to "get it right" we often want to do it all *now*. It is best if we take it slow, learning the significance of each act of worship as we go. Then, we are more likely to understand and less likely to turn back when things are difficult.

Do you see how much love springs from this woman religious experiences? That she thinks that it's the truth, and that everybody else should know it? Tell me, what is the difference between her and you.
QUOTE
I thank Allah daily that I have been shown Islam, true and unadulterated, and that I have been given this chance to serve my Lord in the best way possible. I pray that I can only live up to the great responsibility that Allah has given me, and that I will be among the first to be in support of Imam-e-Zamaan (AS) when he returns, inshaAllah (May Allah Hasten His Return).
I would love to talk with anyone who is interested in learning more about Islam, or who would like to share his or her own story. May Allah bless us all, ameen.

Enjoy life! If you regard life itself as superficial, purposeless, not alive, be warned that you don't lose the only thing you have. Life isn't superficial, it's the core. As our feelings of love, joy, hate, disgust, trust. What is your real creed?

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 18 2004, 10:01 AM
QUOTE (AUB @ Nov 18 2004, 07:54 AM)
...
But don't use Israel or Jews for propaganda for your faith, ...
...

AUB, maybe I was not clear enough when I said:
QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Nov 17 2004, 06:56 PM)
...
Now, I am not saying that I believe the modern day state of Israel to be (of it's own comprehensive accord) as important as say .... the resurrection of Jesus (in hardcore actual non-merely-mythological space-time history) - regarding a validation for many of the modern day Christian claims -- however, I do think the existence of Israel today appears (to me anyway) to at least strongly suggest some 'super-natural' intervention (and most likely coming through a sustaining 'higher-power' who somehow simply 'likes the Jews' (reminiscent of how I like to say: 'I like Christ'?). 
...
(Bold emphasis mine, along with the entire original un-bolded sentence/paragraph)

I think the issue of whether most Jewish people regard the so called 'Messianic prophecies' in the Old Testament as having been fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth (which is I think, more along the lines of the website at your link) - to be simply a different issue (admittedly, that is a very important issue) - however, that (good) point is just not germane to the subject I introduced (here, I speak more as a theist, rather than specifically as a 'Christian'). As I think you should be able to see (by the original paragraph which I quoted above) - I am not primarily trying to support any "Christian claims" (at this time, with this subject) -- rather, I have just said that it looks to me like the modern day Jewish Nation is still present today due to some "super-natural" circumstances. I personally would be hard pressed to explain how those few Jewish folks outlived the plans of the many surrounding Arab nations - simply via explanations based on exclusively 'naturalistic' rationales. (AUB, I haven't heard your explanation yet - but I am waiting - and I'm genuinely interested in hearing it).

Yet again, I will state here that I have noticed (on several occasions) instances where I have said one thing - and various folks here have 'used' my qualified comments as an opportunity to launch out against some 'pet peeve' they/you apparently have against christianity (as they/you see it), even when I feel I have sufficiently qualified my statements to demonstrate that I am not coming from the particular (highly controversial) perspective (which seems to 'set you off').

(Look I understand that I probably do the same thing to you quite a bit, I guess I just think it is 'fair' for me to point out when I see it happening to me-- and I hereby cordially extend an open invitation for any of you to point out when you see me acting in a similar (unfair) manner toward you.

-Dennis

Posted by: Reach Nov 18 2004, 10:17 AM
Dennis, I would sure like to see Reality Amplifier's take on this creed you've posted.

Any chance you'd send him an invite to respond? happydance.gif

Thanks,
Reach

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 18 2004, 10:22 AM
QUOTE (Reach @ Nov 18 2004, 09:17 AM)
Dennis, I would sure like to see Reality Amplifier's take on this creed you've posted.

Any chance you'd send him an invite to respond? happydance.gif

Thanks,
Reach

Hi Reach - (good to hear you say something directly to me! - again, I didn't understand that post about dipping the sword into honey?) ,

Sure, though I didn't know he (or anyone) needed me to send em "an invite to respond" - as I have always welcomed any response from anyone!

-Dennis

Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 18 2004, 10:28 AM
QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Nov 18 2004, 09:01 AM)
Yet again, I will state here that I have noticed (on several occasions, now) instances where I have said one thing - and various folks here have 'used' my qualified comments as an opportunity to launch out against some 'pet peeve' they/you apparently have against christianity (as they/you see it), even when I feel I have sufficiently qualified my statements to demonstrate that I am not coming from the particular (highly controversial) perspective (which seems to 'set you off').

Sorry SOIL. That wasn't my intention. I thought the topic of this thread was someones 'creed'. I don't know a thing about supernatural things that happened during the Jewish wars. And even less 'natural explanations' for these supernatural things.

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 18 2004, 10:58 AM
QUOTE (Saviourmachine @ Nov 18 2004, 09:28 AM)
Sorry SOIL. That wasn't my intention. I thought the topic of this thread was someones 'creed'. ...

Hi Saviourmachine,

I wasn't referring to your post. (Actually you are probably more correct about what the subject of this thread should be (given the incredibly poor manner in which I started it) than I am!

As I mentioned in the PM where I (just now) 'invited' Reality Amplifier, I wish I had not included that quote at all.

I was really suffering emotionally when I started this thread - and that very much seems to have impaired my 'common sense' not to mention decency and concern about other people's feelings (that is, if I still have any of those things left, to 'impair').

I personally got a few chuckles out of that quote (perhaps, in a deranged sort of way) - possibly because I was thinking it might have originally been penned in a sort of 'tongue-in-cheek' - manner as a way for the author to poke a little fun at himself (and maybe some of his buddies), at least just for a couple of minutes - in a good natured (and not really serious) sort of way.

Now however, I don't think it was probably a very good idea for Ravi Zacharias to quote it (in his talk), and likewise, I have come to the position that it was not in 'good taste' for me to use the quote as I have done in this thread. <he now hangs his head in shame>

But tisk, I suppose what has been written(/quoted) has been written.

I don't see how I can 'take it back' now, so I guess I just need to do the best thing I can .... and simply say :

I'm Sorry

-Dennis

Posted by: AUB Nov 18 2004, 12:12 PM
SOIL

I am well aware that you were making a theistic, not an xtian statement, the point is that if there really was a deity "protecting" them, it would be theirs, a completely different one to yours, and be proof against your position, theism may triumph, but I suspect at a cost you'd lament. They deny Jesus, the trinity, and the new Testament, (for good reason) it does not do your faith any good to use their morally controversial occupation of Israel, the successful repulse of the clearly inempt Arab nation armies, and subsequent diplomatic attempts for peace as "proof" of any deity. For a start, there are obviously natural explanations for all these events, as there is for all wars and nation's histories. This is old stuff. Throughout time all religions have attempted to interpret such events theologically, but such arguments are only convincing to those already in these religions. The Christians who believe that God guides their nation (when successful), be it America today or Britain during our empire or Spain and France during the crusades, the Muslim who see the spread of their faith and the conquering of many nations as the "will of Allah". and the Jews who believe the Babylonian exile, and the subsequent destruction of the second temple were due to their iniquities in God's eyes.

You cannot convince people who do not believe any of your crap that any event in history is divinely guided, it's just propaganda used to convince the believers, interpreted according to doctrine, we are not part of such mental conditioning and you need to learn that you can't use post-conversion tactics on pre-converts, (that's brainwashing 101). Apologetic reassurances only work on the theistic masses, the only way to make a person Christian is through psychological manipulation, and social pressure. All religous belief is due to demographics or psychology, the rationalisations such as this derivative use of Israel serves to further insult our intelligent, it confirms your beliefs, not convinces us of them, you might as well just write it to yourself. I don't have to offer a natural explanations for the continuation of Israel, the reasons for it are self evident to those not out to twist everything for their agenda, it is you have to backup your supernatural explanation, which defies common sense and the facts.

It is only remarkable due to a lack of knowledge of the circumstances, this is an argument from ignorance, you cannot "imagine" how such "miraculous" events could have taken place without some "higher" power. This is infantile reasoning, even in the Jews don't do that (very often). It simply annoys me that a religion that is the worst thing to ever happen to Judaism, uses their rare successes, and ignores all of their common suffering, (that for the most part xtianity is responsible for), in their desperate apologism. Like the apologists who use the fact that 10 million Jews could have died in the Holocaust instead of 6 million as proof a God exists, this is sick and abusive.

If the Arab nations have wiped them out you would be used it as proof that your doctrine was right all along, and god punishing them for not excepting Jesus, but because it does not specifically backup your doctrine you have to go to a theistic position instead. This relies on a false dichotomy, as even if there was a god your religion would be the least likely to be right, especially in the light of Jewish doctrine.

I address this to all xtians, stop using the Jews in your propaganda, Muslims do the same thing when using Israel to propagate anti-Semitic Zionist conspiracy shit, and between them who use Israel to inspire terrorism, and you who use Israel to inspire proselytisation, (not to mention Jews for Jesus), I and the Jewish people are fucking sick of it, just leave them alone, you have no right to use them for an ideology they appose. Their existence is simple proof of their own abilities, and their doctrine is proof that yours is false, and before you accuse me of using them as propaganda against your cult, I am working with them to undermine Christian theology, by simply educating people as to what the Tanach actually says, no spin, no fallacy, no theology, just the simple truth. I guarantee your faith would be destroyed if you could read through all Rabbi singer has written, but I bet you won't.

No matter what happens in history, theism always have a theological explanation for it, this is not sound reasoning, this is desperate post event rationalisations, based on a omni-pliable doctrine that can be retro-fitted for any conceivable circumstance, this is the cause of your religion's "success", the fact that no matter what happens you have an argument for it. This negates the legitimacy of any of your "rational" arguments, as you will not accept anything as proof your god does not exist, or that your religion is not "true". With no possibility of falsification, you cannot offer us proof in any legitimate scientific fashion. Not only is your "proof" subject to alternate explanations or interpretations, but you will not accept any proofs against, and you are asking us to the open minded concerning your religion, when you are close mining regarding any alternatives.

If a war is prevented it is God will, if the war begins thats God will, if genocide is committed, if the people triumph, if the people lose, when nations rise and nations fall, that is all part of the "plan", and when anything even remotely unlikely happens, that can only be explained by supernatural intervention, as nothing in your theistic universe ever happens that is even remotely improbable without a deity of some kind. This represents a gross missunderstanding of probability, and amounts to a form of special pleading. Everything is proof, but nothing is particularly convincing, as any alternative to any example or event would still be fodder for your arguments.

Posted by: LloydDobler Nov 18 2004, 12:41 PM
All I got to say is that whole opening creed is a straw man. It's akin to me saying "HAAHAH look at me I'm a christian and eat flesh and drink blood, the flesh and blood of my god! Aren't I stupid?"

It's literally that accurate. Except for one thing, I actually was a christian so I do have a little bit of credibility in speaking for them on their issues. Whereas I doubt this guy really knows what it's like to be the thinking man he describes so inaccurately.

Anyway, I wish you all the best SOIL, It sounds like the people here have planted seeds of doubt that will be amplified. I know that's how it worked for me, the more I studied apologists, the more I realized how much I had to suspend my actual rational thought to buy into what they say, and also how little the bible corroborated their statements. It's desperate grasping at straws to save their faith. You need that faith in the first place to believe what they say. However, if you have faith you don't need to listen to what they say. Faith is the opposite of rationality. If you approach religion rationally it falls apart. You have to actually reject rational thinking to take something on faith.

I also fully understand that the prospect of losing your faith is both scary and really really saddening. Accepting that Jesus is just a fairy tale broke my heart. I languished alone for quite a while too, until I found this community. You have it already, you lucky dog. Take heart, I actually feel better about everything in life as a non christian.

We'll see you around.

Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 18 2004, 01:09 PM
Soil,

The Zionist movement began in the late 19th century to get a homeland for Jewish people. The homeland didn't have to be in Palestine there was some talk in 1906 to make the homeland in Argentina. Remember Lawrence of Arabia? The British took Palestine from the Ottomans in 1917. They were granted the land as a protectorate under the League of Nations in 1920. It was their obligation under the protectorate to develope the people into a self-ruling nation. Even before they captured Palestine, the British government had issued the Balfour Declaration on in the form of a letter to a British Zionist leader from the foreign secretary Arthur J. Balfour promising him the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. Basically they developed the land to be the Jewish state though there were some bumps in the process. The British were still the world super power at the time the process began. They also set up other states in the region like Iraq and Kuwait.

very brief, and possibly error filled.

chef

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 18 2004, 01:22 PM
QUOTE (AUB @ Nov 18 2004, 11:12 AM)
...
... the successful repulse of the clearly inempt Arab nation armies, and subsequent diplomatic attempts for peace...

... For a start, there are obviously natural explanations for all these events, as there is for all wars and nation's histories. ...
...
(above are the only words which I have found in the post which seem to be directly germane)


AUB,

Sorry, but in order for me to be honest with you, I must simply say that I am (in a word): 'disappointed' - I was hoping you would perhaps explain some for instance concerning just how "clearly inempt" the "Arab nation armies" were (when those nations had been around for a very long time with existing armies - and the Jewish nation was only just re-beginning). Sorry to have asked you for your take on a "natural explanation" - perhpas you are simply more interested in seizing this opportunity (to speak about your pet peeve) - the opportunity which this site's 'token straw-man Christian-theist' has so kindly setup for you.

....

No need to thank me! ,

You're welcome! <wink/smile>

-Dennis

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 18 2004, 01:24 PM
Thanks Chef,

The info you provided was the kind of thing I was hoping to hear!

-Dennis

Posted by: AUB Nov 18 2004, 03:10 PM
SOIL, you really don't get it do you, I'm not the one with the ridiculous claim, this is a matter of military strategy, study the maps, the stats, the technology, enviromental and personnel data, everyone who knows about combat knows that numbers mean nothing, strategy, co-ordination and discipline not to mention phycology and even a little luck, win battles. Not prayer or the right religion, I'm no more obligated to give a common sense explanation for a natural event than i need to explain why the moon landings weren't the work of a magic genie.

Your position is based on ignorance alone, Think for yourself for once, don't just except the doctrine that the battle was miraculous, research it and you'll find the Arab armies were not the national forces, nor were the Israel army unprepared, they'd been building up for years, Agincort, Trafalga, Boudicia, history is full of dramatic victories, they cant all be the work of deity.

I could fill pages on why a small group of archers defeated armoured knights, as could any military historian, research the battle, you clearly haven't and lack any genuine interest in the truth, you just hope there's not a natural explanation, and want me to do all the leg work. You cant just offer this event as proof of anything when you know NOTHING about it. You be truth seeker for once, its like a creationist refusing to go into a natural history museum, or look up transitional fossils on the net, I don't have to spell it out for you, it'll take 5 mins to look it up for your self, there are loads of sites that dissect historical battles, there no mystery about them, all you need to do is take all the facts into consideration, you'll find there no room for any god.

Your rule should be, no reseach, no argument. At least you admit a general lack of experience at this, but show some healthy curiosity. make sure there isn't a natural explanation first, don't be lazy. Your sureness is due to faith, mine is due to the amount I've read and reasoned. When was the last time an xtian corrected my facts, and how may times have I or others here had to educate an ignorant theist who failed to do their homework? Can you blame me for not being bothered enough to bring you what you should have found before hand?

Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 18 2004, 03:25 PM
Don't be sorry Dennis. It's because you posted a parody that you got some parodies about the xian faith too. And that did hurt you of course. If you are hurt it's honest to show that. And I was glad that you did show your disapproval and disappointment. wicked.gif

What I did know was that "until the Nazi Holocaust, much of the Orthodoxy was antagonistic to the Zionist aspiration of establishing a national home for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel." (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/naturei_karta.html) This because god ought to do what now the Jewish people themselves did.
So probably you can find counter arguments from these 'faithful to their scriptures' about eventual supernatural causes to the arisal of the new Jewish country.

Keyword: Orthodox Anti-Zionism

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 18 2004, 03:32 PM
QUOTE (AUB @ Nov 18 2004, 02:10 PM)
... I'm no more obligated to give a common sense explanation for a natural event that i need to explain why the moon landings weren't the work of a magic genie.

Hi AUB,
Correct, nobody here is 'obligated' to say anything - I was just thinking you could probably help me to understand how the Jewish nation 'beat the odds' - and it is OK by me that you don't seem to think that is necessary.

Chef at least provided a bit of historical points that pointed (albeit only a little) towards some understanding as far as possible reasons (and I'm kind of stretching it here) - but I think he did a much better job that I think you have done. Hang on now, I realize you don't feel there is any need (or 'obligation') for you to tackle that - (as I am sure you folks feel like it is the party who is claiming some super-natural intervention who should bear any obligation to show just why they would use such a way of explaining something. I understand that. So there is no need for you to get huffy! <smile>

Sometimes I am reminded of the preacher's joke .... in the margin of his sermon outline, he has scribbled: "Weak point, raise voice and pound fist on pulpit!"

(just pulling your chain - AUB, sometimes stuffy folks like me need to let off a little steam!)

-Dennis

Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 18 2004, 03:33 PM
I did found on a google http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0210/reviews/bacevich.html:
QUOTE
The 1967 war is an oft-told tale of high drama and great achievement. But Oren’s purpose in Six Days of Warýis not simply to affirm the heroic narrative to which almost all Israelis and most Americans subscribe. Basing his findings on multi-archival research, enjoying access to recently declassified documents, having himself interviewed many key political and military figures, Oren offers readers an account of the Six Day War and its origins that is rich in detail, unfailingly readable, and surprisingly even-handed.

Arab disunity and military incompetence. There is truth to the image of the beleaguered Jewish state in 1967 (and still today) surrounded by a sea of Arabs yearning for its destruction. But there is little truth to the notion that the Arabs have ever managed to translate numerical and geographical advantage into anything remotely resembling political or military effectiveness. That there existed in 1967 an “Arab nation” united behind the leadership of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser was a complete fiction. The so-called United Arab Command created at Nasser’s behest in January 1964 to pave the way for the liberation of Palestine was an empty shell. Rather than commanding fraternal deference, Nasser clashed continuously with rivals jostling for primacy in the Arab world. The vile verbal onslaught routinely directed at Israel before (and after) June 1967 was as much an expression of this intramural struggle for power as of any intention to act. Proclaiming death to the Jews offered a seemingly cheap way of establishing one’s bona fides as an Arab nationalist. Indeed, as Oren makes clear, this inter-Arab maneuvering even more than anti-Zionism as such created the conditions that exploded in war on June 5.

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 18 2004, 03:37 PM
QUOTE (Saviourmachine @ Nov 18 2004, 02:25 PM)
...
What I did know was that "until the Nazi Holocaust, much of the Orthodoxy was antagonistic to the Zionist aspiration of establishing a national home for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel." (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/naturei_karta.html) This because god ought to do what now the Jewish people themselves did.
...

Thanks Saviourmachine,

There are some interesting insights at that link - I appreciate that kind of help - you often provide extra insight by suggesting various ways of looking at the subject at hand! I appreciate that!

-Dennis

Posted by: AUB Nov 18 2004, 03:37 PM
See? Writing must always be preceded by reading.

Your complaint that my rebuttal was without presented data missed the point, I was objecting to the fact that your initial argument lacked presented data. Hence the argument from ignorance, theists make this complaint a lot with me, I'm just trying to drum up some curiosity from you lot. Without this reluctance to study the facts, 99% of all theistic arguments would never be used.

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 18 2004, 03:44 PM
QUOTE (Saviourmachine @ Nov 18 2004, 02:33 PM)
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0210/reviews/bacevich.html

Yeah, now that is the kind of thing I was 'fishing for' !

Thanks yet again Saviormachine!

There are indeed Signs Of Intelligent Life in this thread - (maybe not consistently introduced by SOIL) but some are undeniably here!

-Dennis

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 18 2004, 03:51 PM
Let's just kick back and 'smile for awhile' shall we?

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 18 2004, 03:56 PM
Ancient History of Palestine:

http://www.palestinehistory.com/palst.htm

Posted by: Reality Amplifier Nov 28 2004, 10:07 PM
QUOTE
Here is the creed for the modern thinker.


What exactly constitutes a “modern thinker”? To me, “modern” denotes something that is contemporary and up-to-date. However, according to Webster’s, modern can also denote “modernism”.

Modernism: a tendency in theology to accommodate traditional religious teaching to contemporary thought and especially to devalue supernatural elements

If that’s the usage the author running with in his “Creed of Modernism”, then his position makes more sense to me as it sheds light on the author’s own worldview, which has many religious undertones.

My definition and interpretation of the phase “modern thinker” is completely different than the author’s, as he tacitly implies throughout his non-individualistic creed that his actions are colored through a theistic lens. I don’t feel I need actually need a creed as a “contemporary” thinker, but if I did subscribe to one it would not agree with his in many places. I’ll insert my own differing views below.

QUOTE
We believe in Marx, Freud and Darwin.


We? Who does he mean by “we”? Non-skeptical liberal theists perhaps? If he is listing influential historical figures of the last few centuries, they all qualify as persons of historical note, yes…

If I was going to list three historical figures that significantly propelled our thinking and altered our perception of our place in the world and the universe over the last 150 years, I would list those figures as Darwin, Einstein and Freud.

Darwin for leading us to question our origins, and where we came from.
Einstein for leading us to question our understanding of how the universe operates.
Freud for leading us to question how we think.

And an honorable mention would go to Douglas Adams for leading us to question “where we shall we have lunch”?

QUOTE
We believe everything is okay, as long as you don’t hurt anyone to the best of your definition of hurt and to your best definition of knowledge.


“We believe”, not “I” believe? Again, so much for individualistic thinking! One general observation I think is important - do not to dismiss the author’s seeming dogmatic claims of belief. Before staking your belief in something, the question must be asked is, how good is the evidence for that belief?

As far as the “everything is okay” claim, it seems to be just a general statement regarding human morality. I think the simplest definition for morality is: That which does not hurt/harm others. We all have an understanding of the things that can hurt us both. physically and emotionally. I think Reciprocal Altruism should be the basis of our understanding and definition of morality.

QUOTE
We believe in sex before, during and after marriage.


What does he believe? That it happens? I concur that it does happen. So what...??
As far as there being any issue with reciprocal altruism in this occurring…I see no problem here.

QUOTE
We believe in the therapy of sin.

I take issue with this blanket statement and also see this as a HUGE red flag that the writer subscribes to a worldview that incorporates some form of theism. He states his belief that not only does he believein sin, he also finds it therapeutic. His usage of the word “sin” gives a tacit and very obvious religious underpinning to his worldview. What religious “sins” does he find therapeutic? Murder? Rape? Here are more points where the author shows he is not the same type of “Modern Thinker” that I am. He admits of religion in his worldview. I do not.

QUOTE
We believe that adultery is fun.


Perhaps and perhaps not. My definition of morality is that which does not hurt others (reciprocal altruism). There may be certain married couples who take a liberal view on the issue of their marital infidelity and who probably have no problem with this. On the other hand, I also think that many people would find such a discovery emotionally hurtful. When somebody is hurt emotionally due to marital infidelity, then it cannot be moral. Reciprocal altruism you see…

QUOTE
We believe that sodomy is okay.

Again, reciprocal altruism…

QUOTE
We believe that taboos are taboo.

I’ll take this one on a case-by-case basis.

QUOTE
We believe that everything is getting better despite evidence to the contrary.

It sure sounds like he’s giving a definition for cognitive dissonance here. Belief should be predicated on evidence (unless you are religious of course, which as I stated it I suspect the author of this “creed” is). His statement here is counter-intuitive and nonsensical. You can believe the hole in the Titanic is just a minor leak all you want, that things will get better and that boat isn’t sinking…until you find yourself treading freezing water in the North Atlantic that is.

QUOTE
The evidence must be investigated and you can prove anything with evidence.

This may be true within reason. The thing to be careful of here is the evidence itself. How good is the evidence is the pivotal question? Have the results of the evidence been corroborated by those outside the belief circle? Is the evidence unbiased? Who is checking the evidence, and who is checking the checkers? Science has been wrong before, but fortunately science has built in error correcting mechanisms that will root out errors. Religions have no such built-in fail-safes, and are painfully prone to errors.

QUOTE
We believe there is something in horoscopes, UFO’s, and bent spoons.

I believe there is something in horoscopes, UFO’s and bent spoons, and it smells suspiciously like bullshit to me. James Randi has actually duplicated and demonstrated the simple trick to spoon bending. He has also shown there’s really nothing to horoscopes. In fact, there is a suspicious lack of evidence for all three of these. So much for the author being a “modern thinker”.

This is also another red flag that the author is really not all that much of a skeptic. Perhaps he meant that evidence must be investigated, unless it concerns horoscopes, UFO’s and bent spoons. Hooey.

QUOTE
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammad and ourselves. He was a good moral teacher, although we think basically his good morals were really bad.

Notice how didn’t say “we believe Jesus was a good man”. Bold statements do not necessarily make true claims. Provide compelling evidence Jesus existed first before asserting Jesus was a moral teacher. If you’re paying attention to the posts on this ex-Christian.net, there is a healthy and valid level of skepticism concerning the historical existence of the Jesus character written of in the bible.

QUOTE
We believe that all religions are the basically the same, at least the ones we read were. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God and salvation.


Based on my observations to-date, I’d say one thing religions have in common is that none of them have any compelling evidentiary basis for the supernatural foundations of their existence, and that they are all likely just based on hearsay. Consequently, they are all predicated on faith. With enough faith, any religion (or anything) can be believed, (even something that is not true).

QUOTE
We believe that after death comes nothing because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.

For a professed modern thinker, the author uses some astoundingly absurd reasoning here. [sarcasm]I see his logic. Brilliant!! [/sarcasm]

QUOTE
If death is not the end, and if the dead have lied, then it’s compulsively heaven for all except perhaps Hitler, Stalin and Chingis Khan.

This is not a valid or reasoned argument. And it is yet again, another theistic red flag. His tacit admission of the concept of heaven catches him with his hand in the theistic cookie-jar. So far it seems like we’re narrowing the author down to some branch of Christianity who seems to be attempting to caricature his idea of a modern day skeptic. He failed miserably.

QUOTE
What is selected is average, what’s average is normal, and what’s normal is good.

This just sounds like nonsensical rhetoric to me, and I don’t think his train of thought really has a caboose on this one…

QUOTE
We believe in total disarmament. We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.

Okay, now it’s sounds like the author and self-proclaimed “modern thinker” is not living in reality. While I’m a skeptic, I’m also a realist who’s cognizant of recorded human history.

I agree with Sun Tzu on this on the reality of warfare and bloodshed:

“The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected. In peace prepare for war, in war prepare for peace.”

However, I also concur with Clausewitz, in his view that war is typically just a continuation of failed diplomacy by direct physical means.

As Sun Tzu also said, “To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting”. Ideally, nobody hopes for war, put it’s foolish to believe in total disarmament, just as it’s foolish to believe in the reality of a communist state as envisioned by Marx. Those visions require an evolution in the nature of humanity that is not likely to occur anytime n the foreseeable future.

QUOTE
Americans should beat their guns into tractors and the Russians would be sure to follow.

Weapons do not make wars, nor do they make peace. People and nation-states make war. Typically wars have been based on religion reasons, political reasons, economic insecurity, unfounded nationalism, or a number of other reasons – not because weapons are available (see Sun Tzu comments above).

QUOTE
We believe that man is essentially good-it’s only his behavior that lets him down. This is the fault of society; society’s the fault of condition; and conditions are the fault of society.

With this level of circular reasoning, I’m really thinking this modern thinkers creed written by a non-conservative Christian. . [sarcasm] I see his logic. Brilliant!! [/sarcasm]

QUOTE
We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him and reality will adapt accordingly; the universe will readjust and history will alter.


History has shown us that “truth” has actually been false before. Unless one has let their passions override their reason, truth does not shape reality. Reality shapes truth. Despite the fervor with which Christians try to flip-flop this based on the fear and pain that would coincide with the revelation that their “truth” does not coincide with reality, reality isn’t going to change for them no matter how much they want to believe in the truth of the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or an alleged religious figure who supposedly raised from the dead along with a host of dead saints (that was only mentioned by one anonymous author in the NT).

QUOTE
We believe that there is no absolute truth, except the truth that there is no absolute truth.

Only the dogmatist claims 100% certitude.

QUOTE
We believe in the rejection of creeds and the flowering of individual thought.

I find it ironic that while I do in fact reject his rather absurd creed, that the author of the creed speaks of individual thought while using the plural “we” throughout most of his diatribe, um, I mean crud…er, creed.. I didn’t find the pervasive usage of the word “we” throughout his creed as being very individual at all. Finally, I can’t believe I took the time to comment on this in general…

Posted by: AUB Nov 29 2004, 02:52 AM
It does betray a theistic origin, agreed.

I mean who actually thinks like this? I confused post-theist lay person maybe, but most of it is a crude characuture of what theists think we are. They dare not take us on directly as they have a tendency to be demolished, so they just make straw men out of us, or are positions, and even scientific findings. Truly, reality is something they have lost all ability to cope with.

One point in particular annoyed me, the depiction belief in "modern thought"…

In this context there are 2 kinds of belief, that based on evidence and the type that continues despite evidence to the contrary. Religions used to be based on faith as there was a lack of evidence, but science has provided so much data now that it is entirely ignorance or spiteful dismissal (or cognitive dissonance) of the facts that religion depends on. To suggest non-theists have the same kind of faith as theists is the worst insult.

Theists also have trouble remembering that sin is a purely theological concept, and only exists in theistic doctrine. Also there is no such thing as "normal".

Posted by: Java Nov 29 2004, 08:09 AM
I read the "creed" and had to LOL.

From what I've read, while Soil is Christian, he ain't stoopid, and I had no belief that he actually thought that. Possibly once, and possibly some of the insults he felt hit a little close to home, but...

Going on, I'm amused. I don't think that Soil asking for info about the Israel/Arab wars is so demanding. I mean, he could probably google it - and so can we. But if we google it, we can look and see which ones will best support our case without fallacy. Googling compared to writing ten paragraphs about how lazy Soil is for asking for the info... definite time difference in the effort it takes. Now, if he was asking for, as was mentioned, every transitional fossil known, this would be a point to be huffy and rant about "zomg xtian laziness WTFBBQ?!" I just seriously fail to see how we can't, when he genuinely and humbly (>_> to Rameus, that humility made me laugh my ass off) asks for information, give it to him in a kind and polite manner like we would like to be treated and all.

o_o;; I wonder how many sacred cows of a forum I can slap on the ass before you all run me out.

In any case! I personally enjoyed reading Exodus. While it's not quite historically accurate, it shows the faith and determination of the Jews, and how I think they were able to be a massively fractured Arab army.

Posted by: Cerise Nov 29 2004, 04:28 PM
Wendytwitch.gif

Cerise counts number of posts calling SOIL lazy. Cerise looks at Java's post. Cerise recounts and wonders if her math skills are really so awful. Cerise is confused by Java's post.

Wendytwitch.gif

When SOIL is being genuine I always feel uneasy. As if I detect a hint of sarcasm and superiority directed my way. I would like to not feel this way, but it is hard when little things like "Thinker's Creeds" start popping up in posts. And then we are told to blame it on SOIL's bad mood and he's really very sorry but our unfavourable replies were uneccessary. PageofCupsNono.gif

So slap us on the ass all you like mama-cita but we do slap back. That goes for you too Dennis.

Posted by: Java Nov 30 2004, 08:06 AM
It wasn't as much the number of posts as the sheer number of words in one post.

Remember: whatever he says, it's only on the internet. Having practically lived on an imageboard where light trolling is the rule and coherency is highly irregular, I've gained a new appreciation for the pure silliness of being utterly serious on the Internet.

Just tell yourself:

"THRUST VECTORING OWNS THE SKIES! THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME MACROSS-ZERO STYLE!"

And hay, I never knew you were into that thing Sakura! begood.gif

Posted by: Reach Nov 30 2004, 08:34 AM
QUOTE (Reality Amplifier @ Nov 28 2004, 10:07 PM)
Finally, I can’t believe I took the time to comment on this in general…

Thank you, RA, for responding. I appreciate the time you gave this. I didn't expect such a long response from you but knowing you, I should have. Your own unique way of delivery, without the oftimes cumbersome emotionalism and vitriol, often allows you to be more easily "heard" by Christians who come here. Thanks for sharing your insights with those who have an eye to see and an ear to hear.

Reality Amplification...

Posted by: AUB Nov 30 2004, 10:23 AM
On soils laziness, its more the attitude as held by Theists in general I was complaining about, not just soil's. +Plus I'm trying to turn him into a truth-seeker, he'll never get there if we hand all the info to him, there are broader considerations. Most theism is held out of ignorance, because of the anti-empirical doctrine of xianity, if he could debunk his own arguments, it would save us a lot of time.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 30 2004, 10:49 AM
QUOTE (AUB @ Nov 30 2004, 10:23 AM)
On soils laziness, its more the attitude as held by Theists in general I was complaining about, not just soil's.  +Plus I'm trying to turn him into a truth-seeker, he'll never get there if we hand all the info to him, there are broader considerations.  Most theism is held out of ignorance, because of the anti-empirical doctrine of xianity, if he could debunk his own arguments, it would save us a lot of time.

Yes, I do agree with you. I think Soil is experiencing truth-seeker's suffering. I thought about this last night after I http://exchristian.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1537&view=findpost&p=28819 to Dennis in another thread.

There must be a name for this pain of discovery....oh, yes...the truth hurts.

Posted by: Cerise Nov 30 2004, 03:14 PM
QUOTE (Java @ Nov 30 2004, 08:06 AM)
And hay, I never knew you were into that thing Sakura! begood.gif

Nothing like a good spanking when you've been a naughty girl. FrogsToadBigGrin.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)