Open Forums for ExChristian.Net [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Debating with Christians > Rolling Stone refuses to run ad for Bible

Posted by: Reality Amplifier Jan 20 2005, 11:21 AM

Rolling Stone refuse to run ad for Bible

QUOTE

Rolling Stone refuses to run ad for Bible
Thursday, January 20, 2005 Posted: 8:03 AM EST (1303 GMT)

GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan (AP) -- -- Rolling Stone magazine declined to run an advertisement for a new translation of the Bible aimed at young people, the nation's largest Bible publisher said Wednesday.

Zondervan, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, bought space in the magazine months ago as part of an ad campaign for Today's New International Version, said Doug Lockhart, Zondervan's executive vice president of marketing.

"Last week, we were surprised and certainly disappointed that Rolling Stone had changed their mind and rejected our ad," he said.

A telephone message seeking comment was left Wednesday at the New York headquarters of Wenner Media LLC, publisher of Rolling Stone.

Lockhart said Zondervan, based in Grand Rapids, paid Wenner Media last July to run the ad in February, when the Bible is due on bookshelves.

On Tuesday, USA Today quoted Kent Brownridge, general manager of Wenner Media, as saying his staff first saw the ad copy last week, and "we are not in the business of publishing advertising for religious messages."

Lockhart said the ad features the face of a contemplative-looking young man and includes this copy:

"In a world of almost endless media noise and political spin, you wonder where you can find real truth. Well, now there's a source that's accurate, clear and reliable. It's the TNIV -- Today's New International Version of the Bible. It's written in today's language, for today's times -- and it makes more sense than ever."

Media outlets that agreed to carry the ad include Modern Bride, The Onion, MTV.com and AOL, Lockhart said. AOL, like CNN.com, is a unit of Time Warner.

Good for Rolling Stone.

I wonder if it ever occurs to Christian's that if the Bible really was the "Word of God", then you would think it would contain self-evident truths that would have never had needed updates or translations.

Having to update the Word of God for it to make sense, doesn't make sense.

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 20 2005, 11:42 AM

QUOTE (Reality Amplifier @ Jan 20 2005, 11:21 AM)

...

I wonder if it ever occurs to Christian's that if the Bible really was the "Word of God", then you would think it would contain self-evident truths that would have never had needed updates or translations.

Having to update the Word of God for it to make sense, doesn't make sense.

RA,

I can certainly understand why this could be said by someone who was once a fundamentalist type of Christian, and then become an 'exchristian' without first experiencing some of the other types of Christian Bible interpretation ways of looking at things. (I don't remember what I read in your specific anti-testimony).

Given the perspective from which I am currently viewing things at this point in my life : "self-evident truths" can still be present even in a Bible which does need "updates or translations" as the popular use of the language (into which the Bible has been translated) undergoes changes.

-Dennis

P.S. - I think if I were to accept the idea that the original words were ALL EXACTLY as GOD intended them to be - then I would wonder why God didn't write (with His own finger, Himself) the entire Bible - (rather than only one of the versions of the 10 Commandments).

Posted by: Reality Amplifier Jan 20 2005, 02:22 PM

As an Ex-Christian, I believe I have some understanding of your views on this.

For me today, I find it very doubtful that if there was such a thing as the "Word of God” that that Word would exist in written or spoken language.

Language is mutable - it evolves overtime. The meaning and specific context communicated in one language functionally applies to that language. Nuances, inferences, and inflection are literally lost in translation from one language to another, not to mention when the spoken word is just written. Shakespeare, while still quite good today, doesn’t have the same impact on us as it did to those who spoke that language on an everyday basis.

Christian fundamentalists claim that God speaks to us clearly, unambiguously and inerrantly through the Scriptures, through the plain and literal words of the text. They also say their God is supposed to erase confusion and doubt and give our lives clear purpose and direction. The problem is, only they see it that way...it plainly isn't clear to anyone else. That should tell us something.

To say that God deliberately choose written language as the vehicle for his Word, and that through time, multiple languages and translations that those Scriptures become vague, confusing, ambiguous and contradictory sounds unlikely. Is it reasonable to assume that God inspired all the copyists and translators out there, so that every copy and iteration of the bible has the same meaning today to people as it did over a thousand years ago? Standing outside of Christianity now, it's difficult to see anything especially inspired about the scriptures, or the various versions of the bible. To me the bible doesn’t appear to be anything more than a collection of myths, legends, semi-historical accounts, genealogies, allegories, apocalypses, moral homilies, legal and social codes, poems, prayers, etc that was only written by men, and not inspired by God.

Posted by: skankboy Jan 20 2005, 02:36 PM

I don't know, but I'd love to see how all those "begats" are transferred into "modern language"...

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 20 2005, 02:59 PM

QUOTE (Reality Amplifier @ Jan 20 2005, 02:22 PM)

...
For me today, I find it very doubtful that if there was such a thing as the "Word of God” that that Word would exist EXCLUSIVELY in written or spoken language.

Language is mutable - it evolves overtime. The meaning and specific context communicated in one language functionally applies to that language. Nuances, inferences, and inflection are literally lost in translation from one language to another, not to mention when the spoken word is just written. ...

(I ADDED the capitalized and Bold word: 'EXCLUSIVELY' in an attempt to change the overall meaning of the original sentence - in order to make it more along the lines which I like to view the subject).

I think I see basically where you are coming from RA.

I agree that it seems logical for God to use more than just "written" language in communicating to His people. That is why I value such concepts as "the word was made flesh and dwelt among us" - and the Holy Spirit (who can overcome some of the intrinsic problems associated, if various written languages - alone - were to be the sole expression of the "Word of God").

-Dennis

Posted by: SmallStone Jan 20 2005, 03:17 PM

Kudos to Rolling Stone. Their refusal to run this ad in a time when we, as a country, are becoming more and more like our fundamentalist 'enemies' is admirable. I plan to email them and let them know. I hope some of you do the same.

Posted by: AggieNostic Jan 20 2005, 05:55 PM

"In a world of almost endless media noise and political spin, you wonder where you can find real truth. Well, now there's a source that's accurate, clear and reliable. It's the TNIV -- Today's New International Version of the Bible. It's written in today's language, for today's times -- and it makes more sense than ever."

Is it going to cut in half the Christian denominations created by differences in doctrine from this "clear and reliable" book?

Posted by: kemeticpoet Jan 20 2005, 07:19 PM

QUOTE

P.S. - I think if I were to accept the idea that the original words were ALL EXACTLY as GOD intended them to be - then I would wonder why God didn't write (with His own finger, Himself) the entire Bible - (rather than only one of the versions of the 10 Commandments).

Good question. Why didn't/doesn't God, who is all powerful, all knowing, and perfect, write, in perfectly understandable language, all of his rules and make sure that all people see and understand them?

Surely, for a God who is all-powerful, such a feat would be simple. Moreover, for a God that knows everything, surely he knew people would misunderstand the words written in the Bible. There is no reason that God should not appear to all people, once every 5-100 years or so, and make a huge announcement reminding everyone of what they should do and cannot do, in perfectly understandable language which would vary depending on the person. This would make a lot more sense than expecting everyone to believe a book that is so riddled with flaws and contradictions that not only are there countless nonbelievers and "exchristians," but also so many denominations and variations of belief.

Back in the old days, God had time for dumbass shit like wrestling with humans(and letting the humans win). Now he can't even show up and say "Here are my rules. Just a reminder."

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 21 2005, 10:09 AM

QUOTE (kemeticpoet @ Jan 20 2005, 07:19 PM)

QUOTE

I'm telling y'all, if god would do this before we were born, we would need nothing else and everyone would have the exact same understanding. Why is that so hard for god to do?

Posted by: Reach Jan 21 2005, 11:21 AM

QUOTE (SmallStone @ Jan 20 2005, 03:17 PM)

Good for Rolling Stone!

I'll be happy to send them a gracious, "Thank you!"

Honest journalism is rare these days.

Posted by: MrSpooky Jan 21 2005, 11:43 AM

Did you guys know that Platonic philosophy is nearly impossible to translate into Chinese?

Language as a vehicle for abstract philosophical ideas wouldn't be used by a perfect being, unless he likes to see us struggle in confusion.

Posted by: Ex-COG Jan 21 2005, 12:53 PM

QUOTE (MrSpooky @ Jan 21 2005, 02:43 PM)

Did you guys know that Platonic philosophy is nearly impossible to translate into Chinese?

Why is that?

Posted by: Yoshi Jan 21 2005, 05:20 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 20 2005, 11:42 AM)

QUOTE (Reality Amplifier @ Jan 20 2005, 11:21 AM)

Ditto what you said. How many people in here (with the exception of me, lol) like learning Biblical Hebrew? I think the total might add up to 1. Maybe. The fact is, that no one likes learning 3000 year old languages. Then, if you're a Christian, you'd also have to learn Koine Greek, or Aramaic, depending on which language you think the NT was written in.

Then you've got the problem of vocabulary levels - whom is your target audience? If you're going to be making a translation for scholars, you can use the most precise words avaliable to the english language, and even get away with not translating certain words. However, the average child or teenager isn't going to understand why you don't translate "Elohim" because it doesn't have a direct translation, and they aren't going to want to read a 10-page lecture about the nuances of the word. So you'll use words that are less precise. You'll use Leviathan instead of leaving Re'eh alone, even though Re'eh doesn't mean Leviathan. You'll use "God" or "Judge" for Elohim, even though they don't directly translate to either term.

I totally support Rolling Stone's decision not to do the ad - though it think it was a stupid decision. However, the real harm is going to be in how far fundies - both Christian and Atheist - use this incident.

Posted by: Yoshi Jan 21 2005, 05:25 PM

QUOTE (kemeticpoet @ Jan 20 2005, 07:19 PM)

QUOTE

Continuing this line of reasoning, why doesn't god make it so that you don't have to use your brain, you don't have to work, and you can just sit on your fat arse and be lazy all day?

Posted by: Khan Noonien Singh Jan 22 2005, 01:28 PM

QUOTE (Yoshi @ Jan 21 2005, 05:25 PM)

Continuing this line of reasoning, why doesn't god make it so that you don't have to use your brain, you don't have to work, and you can just sit on your fat arse and be lazy all day?

If I had mod points, I would mod this as Flamebait!

Posted by: ChefRanden Jan 22 2005, 02:53 PM

QUOTE (Yoshi @ Jan 21 2005, 07:25 PM)

Continuing this line of reasoning, why doesn't god make it so that you don't have to use your brain, you don't have to work, and you can just sit on your fat arse and be lazy all day?

Good question. Why doesn't God do this? I give these perks to my dog, just to see those gorgious eyes look at me in love. I understand, in God's eyes, we are less then Dogs. We are worms -- no not even that -- worm poop. That's us.

So if he wants to be adored by worm poop, why doesn't he give us the same perks so we all

him?

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 22 2005, 03:44 PM

QUOTE (ChefRanden @ Jan 22 2005, 04:53 PM)

...
... I understand, in God's eyes, we are less then Dogs. We are worms -- no not even that -- worm poop. That's us. ...
...

I think C.S Lewis' understanding of what is taught by both the Bible and Christianity is more accurate:

(copied from http://www.comnett.net/~rex/cslewis.htm) :

QUOTE

"'You come of the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve,' said Aslan. 'And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor in earth.'"

--Prince Caspian

-Dennis

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 22 2005, 03:51 PM

QUOTE (ChefRanden @ Jan 22 2005, 04:53 PM)

...
... I understand, in God's eyes, we are less then Dogs. We are worms -- no not even that -- worm poop. That's us. ...
...

Psalm 8:3-9 (ESV) :

QUOTE

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
[4] what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?
[5] Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
[6] You have given him dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under his feet,
[7] all sheep and oxen,
and also the beasts of the field,
[8] the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea,
whatever passes along the paths of the seas.
[9] O Lord, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!

Posted by: The Great White Jan 22 2005, 04:01 PM

QUOTE

Y"'You come of the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve,' said Aslan. 'And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor in earth.'"

So, according to this one story, we come of errorprone humans, with less than perfect siblings. According to a book, neither Adam nor Eve had any skills other than fucking and its natural consequences. Where's the special honour?

Posted by: ChefRanden Jan 22 2005, 04:18 PM

QUOTE

Isaiah64:6 6 All of us have become like one who is unclean,

and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;

we all shrivel up like a leaf,

and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

QUOTE (your buddy Jonathan Edwards; SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD)

...The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours...

QUOTE

Romans9:20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

QUOTE

Job:25: 4How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? 5Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. 6How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?

Thus endeth the battle of the quotes.

Posted by: Yoshi Jan 22 2005, 08:53 PM

QUOTE (Khan Noonien Singh @ Jan 22 2005, 01:28 PM)

QUOTE (Yoshi @ Jan 21 2005, 05:25 PM)

Continuing this line of reasoning, why doesn't god make it so that you don't have to use your brain, you don't have to work, and you can just sit on your fat arse and be lazy all day?

If I had mod points, I would mod this as Flamebait!

Well that's because - by my own admission - it kinda was. I was abso-fucking-lutely bored when I wrote that.

Posted by: Yoshi Jan 22 2005, 08:55 PM

QUOTE (ChefRanden @ Jan 22 2005, 02:53 PM)

QUOTE (Yoshi @ Jan 21 2005, 07:25 PM)

Continuing this line of reasoning, why doesn't god make it so that you don't have to use your brain, you don't have to work, and you can just sit on your fat arse and be lazy all day?

So if he wants to be adored by worm poop, why doesn't he give us the same perks so we all

him?

Curious - do you have a source for that "less than dogs" thingy?

Posted by: Yoshi Jan 22 2005, 08:59 PM

QUOTE (ChefRanden @ Jan 22 2005, 04:18 PM)

QUOTE

Isaiah64:6 6 All of us have become like one who is unclean,

and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;

we all shrivel up like a leaf,

and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

QUOTE (your buddy Jonathan Edwards; SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD)

QUOTE

Thus endeth the battle of the quotes.

Isaiah 64 is talking about Israel at the time, the NT passage doesn't have any bearing on me, and I'll have to look up the Job passage because I don't recall it. However, Job was neither a prophet or a leader, but the book simply records his arguments while he was undergoing horrible things.

Posted by: Fweethawt Jan 22 2005, 09:04 PM

QUOTE (Yoshi @ Jan 22 2005, 11:55 PM)

QUOTE (ChefRanden @ Jan 22 2005, 02:53 PM)

QUOTE (Yoshi @ Jan 21 2005, 07:25 PM)

Continuing this line of reasoning, why doesn't god make it so that you don't have to use your brain, you don't have to work, and you can just sit on your fat arse and be lazy all day?

So if he wants to be adored by worm poop, why doesn't he give us the same perks so we all

him?

Curious - do you have a source for that "less than dogs" thingy?

Well, it does compare us to just being clay in the event that we question, doesn't it?

I would think that dogs are quite a bit more valuable than clay, or worm poop.

<<just my buck'an a half>>

Posted by: Fweethawt Jan 22 2005, 09:20 PM

QUOTE (The Great White @ Jan 22 2005, 07:01 PM)

QUOTE

You must be talking about the pre-fruit stages, huh?

I always thought it was sort of funny that directly after
eating the fruit, they immediately learned how to sow
clothing out of leaves.

Of course, they also needed thread and a needle...

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 23 2005, 05:36 AM

I'm not sure why anyone would claim that Rolling Stone Magazine's refusal to run an ad for the Bible is some sort of victory for truth. Perhaps everyone should calm down a little bit and consider the other ads in a magazine that glorifies the materialistic, narcissistic, and completely inane life style of rock and roll.

I ask you this, are any of the other ads in Rolling Stone Magazine honest?

Do the perfumes, clothing, watches, and automobiles adverstised therein make a person young, sexy, and free? In your opinion does the occasional think piece on evironmental consciousness neatly packed in between full color ads for Tommy Hilfilger fragrances and Calvin Klien undies speak more of honesty or blatent hypocrisy? (I wonder if I buy those underwear if my abs will look like that?)

In my honest opinion, if the Bible is a lie then an ad for the same could find no better home than Rolling Stone. Put a couple of half naked sun baked beauties caressing each other with a copy of the Bible -- covered in sweat -- pinned between their silicone injected breasts. The text on the page should read, "Lesbians - does the Bible really condemn girl and girl fun?" Get a copy today!

Frankly the people over at Rolling Stone are geniuses. By turning down an ad for the Bible they not only increased their status with their subscribers and generated some free publicity -- they have also actually managed to lend credibility to the stupid, materialistic, vaccuous drivel otherwise advertised.

If you look for it you can see a subtle lie in every single ad -- and yet the editors have no problem with it whatsoever. I ask you this, freethinkers, did the editors over there get honest or did you just get played?

Posted by: Madame M Jan 23 2005, 08:39 AM

QUOTE

I had a weird thought. Why dont' Christians think that Adam and Eve are frying in hell? I mean, they caused more people to sin than any people on the face of the earth and Jesus wasn't around to forgive them. Without the atoning blood of Jesus, they could have no pardon for their sins.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 23 2005, 08:42 AM

QUOTE (Madame M @ Jan 23 2005, 04:39 PM)

QUOTE

You know better than this, Madame. =)
You must be feeling mischevious today.

Posted by: Reach Jan 23 2005, 08:45 AM

QUOTE (Madame M @ Jan 23 2005, 08:39 AM)

Why dont' Christians think that Adam and Eve are frying in hell? I mean, they caused more people to sin than any people on the face of the earth and Jesus wasn't around to forgive them. Without the atoning blood of Jesus, they could have no pardon for their sins.

According to the Bible, God made the sacrifice for them himself when he performed the blood sacrifice of an animal or two to make them their clothes, when they found themselves naked. Their sin was atoned for, or "covered," by that act.

Posted by: Madame M Jan 23 2005, 08:51 AM

Good thoughts on the subject, MG. I actually look at the subject a bit differently. I think Zondervan is doing a disservice to Christianity. I know exactly which Bibles they are advertising. Probably the teen geared Revolve (for Girls) and Refuel (for Boys). I like to call them Revolting and Regurgitation. Revolve is done up like a Cosmo magazine with advice on dating, makeup, hair..etc. Refuel is done like an extreme sports magazine. I think it makes the Bible and Christianity out to be cheapened and joke-like. Of course, that follows right along with the churches that are into being trendy and hip to the new gen. I don't see any other religion doing this kind of thing to their holy writings. I don't see the Hindus running around with a copy of the Vedas done up like GQ or Vogue. If RS had run the ad, I think it would have just added to the cheapness.

Posted by: Reach Jan 23 2005, 08:55 AM

Madame M, check out who owns Zondervan and then perhaps it will make more sense to you.

Zondervan is about as Christian as Ford Motor Company.

Posted by: Madame M Jan 23 2005, 09:00 AM

QUOTE

You know better than this, Madame. =)
You must be feeling mischevious today.

No, I'm really curious. If there were other methods of forgiveness and covering of sins, they why was it necessary for God to sacrifice Himself? I've been taught two contradictory things. Christianity teaches that Jesus HAD to be sacrificed because unless we come before God under the blood, then He can not even stand to be in our presence. We know that the law does not justify. But somehow the Bible story main characters seem to all get into Heaven. Actually, if I come from it from the viewpoint that Christian teachings are true and everyone who is not a Christian goes to hell for eternity; then I think Adam and Eve should be there too. Not because I am mean, but because they started this whole mess. Why should they be exempted while billions of their subsequent generations are consigned there? In the OT, the Israelites got a "free ride" while they murdered off whole groups of people they apparentlyl sent straight to hell. If biting the apple was bad enough to doom the whole human race then it must have been super bad and bad enought to send them to the fire lake.

QUOTE

But I am sure they sinned again. In fact one of their first kids grew up to murder one of their other first kids, so they must have been fairly disfunctional. And we know that disfunction is a result of sin.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 23 2005, 09:15 AM

Madame:

I obviously have a poor understanding of your upbringing.

If you read the passage in Genesis that covers the fall you'll see that Adam and Eve are given the future hope of One that will crush the head of the serpent. They and all the saints of the OT were looking forward to the Messiah. (Observe the story of Cain and Able -- G_d was communicating with these people on what was required, they weren't living in complete ignorance) Obviously they could not be Christians since the Christ wasn't born yet. However, such a distinction is in name only since they embraced the same hope that we embrace.

Another interesting passage is Abraham and his encounter with the King of Salem. The King of Salem wasn't Jewish and he certianly wasn't a Christian but he was a Priest/King of the one true G_d -- and Abraham paid tithes to the King of Salem as a sign that the King of Salem was superior to Abraham. This was before the Aaronic Priesthood, before the Temple, before Christianity.

Was Noah a Christian?
Was Noah a Jew?

No.

Instead, those that are Christ's are those called to him through the ages -- some looking forward to his sacrifice and some looking back on that sacrifice but all having the same Lord. Noah, Abraham, Peter, Origin, and myself are all calling on the same Lord -- the title we wear is inmaterial.

Posted by: ChefRanden Jan 23 2005, 01:38 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 23 2005, 07:36 AM)

I'm not sure why anyone would claim that ...

Ya, I agree.

Get this and your life will be better and happier. It has been bullshit since Paul thought it up. Paul was the father of Christianity and Madison Avenue.

Posted by: Fweethawt Jan 23 2005, 06:36 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 23 2005, 08:36 AM)

I ask you this, are any of the other ads in Rolling Stone Magazine honest?

Do the perfumes, clothing, watches, and automobiles adverstised therein make a person young, sexy, and free? In your opinion does the occasional think piece on evironmental consciousness neatly packed in between full color ads for Tommy Hilfilger fragrances and Calvin Klien undies speak more of honesty or blatent hypocrisy? (I wonder if I buy those underwear if my abs will look like that?)

In my honest opinion, if the Bible is a lie then an ad for the same could find no better home than Rolling Stone. Put a couple of half naked sun baked beauties caressing each other with a copy of the Bible -- covered in sweat -- pinned between their silicone injected breasts. The text on the page should read, "Lesbians - does the Bible really condemn girl and girl fun?" Get a copy today!

It's funny that you made this comparison, MG.

After all, all of it is just propaganda.

The only difference is, is that one side only wants money.

Posted by: SmallStone Jan 24 2005, 05:10 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 23 2005, 08:36 AM)

I ask you this, freethinkers, did the editors over there get honest or did you just get played?

Could I get some fries with that false dichotomy?

Welcome back MG.

Posted by: Reach Jan 24 2005, 05:15 AM

QUOTE (Fweethawt @ Jan 23 2005, 06:36 PM)

It's funny that you made this comparison, MG.

After all, all of it is just propaganda.

The only difference is, is that one side only wants money.

The Bible promotes and sells us a positional "need" for salvation in the same way that advertisers sell us most everything else. One difference I've noted between the two is that the Bible tells me I don't deserve what it promotes and sells.

Just a worm...

Posted by: Reach Jan 24 2005, 05:39 AM

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 23 2005, 08:55 AM)

Madame M, check out who owns Zondervan and then perhaps it will make more sense to you.

Zondervan is about as Christian as Ford Motor Company.

I did the homework for you.

The world's largest Bible publisher, Zondervan holds exclusive North American publish rights to the New International Version of the Bible with over 150 million copies distributed worldwide.

Founded in 1931, in 1988, Zondervan became a division of HarperCollins Publishers, one of the largest publishers in the world.

Who owns HarperCollins, one of the top five trade book publishers in the USA?

News Corporation. Who are they? The owners of...

Fox Broadcasting Company

Fox Television Stations

* WNYW - New York City
* WWOR - New York City
* KTTV - Los Angeles
* KCOP - Los Angeles
* WFLD - Chicago
* WPWR - Chicago
* KMSP - Minneapolis
* WFTC - Minneapolis
* WTXF - Philadelphia
* WFXT - Boston
* WTTG - Washington D.C.
* KDFW - Dallas
* KDFI - Dallas
* WJBK - Detroit
* KUTP - Phoenix
* KSAZ - Phoenix
* WUTB - Baltimore
* WRBW - Orlando
* WOFL - Orlando
* WOGX - Ocala
* WAGA - Atlanta
* KRIV - Houston
* KTXH - Houston
* WJW - Cleveland
* WTVT - Tampa
* KDVR - Denver
* KTVI - St. Louis
* WITI - Milwaukee
* WDAF - Kansas City
* KSTU - Salt Lake City
* WHBQ - Memphis
* WGHP - Greensboro
* WBRC - Birmingham
* KTBC - Austin

BSkyB

* FOXTEL
* SKYPerfecTV
* STAR
* Stream
* Fox News Channel
* Fox Movie Channel
* FX
* National Geographic Channel
* SPEED Channel
* Fox Sports Net
* Fox Sports South
* Fox Sports Pittsburgh
* Fox Sports Southeast
* Fox Sports Midwest
* Fox Sports Rocky Mountain
* Fox Sports Arizona
* Fox Sports Northwest
* Fox Sports West
* Fox Sports West#2
* Fox Sports Detroit
* Fox Sports Bay Area (with Rainbow Media Holdings)
* Fox Sports Chicago (with Rainbow Media Holdings)
* Fox Sports New England (with Rainbow Media)
* Fox Sports New York (with Rainbow Media)
* Fox Sports Ohio (with Rainbow Media)
* Fox Sports Intermountain West
* Fox Sports Southwest
* Sunshine Network
* Madison Square Garden Network

Film

* 20th Century Fox
* Fox Searchlight Pictures
* Fox Television Studios

Newspapers

United States
* New York Post

United Kingdom
* News International
* News of the World
* The Sun
* The Sunday Times
* The Times

Australia
* Daily Telegraph
* Fiji Times
* Gold Coast Bulletin
* Herald Sun
* Newsphotos
* Newspix
* Newstext
* NT News
* Post-Courier
* Sunday Herald Sun
* Sunday Mail
* Sunday Tasmanian
* Sunday Territorian
* Sunday Times
* The Advertiser
* The Australian
* The Courier-Mail
* The Mercury
* The Sunday Telegraph
* Weekly Times

Magazines

* InsideOut
* donna hay
* SmartSource
* The Weekly Standard
* TV Guide (partial)

Books

HarperMorrow Publishers
HarperMorrow

* General Books Group
o Access
o Amistad
o Caedmon
o Avon
o Ecco
o Eos
o Fourth Estate
o HarperAudio
o HarperBusiness
o HarperCollins
o Harper Design International
o HarperEntertainment
o HarperLargePrint
o HarperResource
o HarperSanFrancisco
o HarperTorch
o Perennial
o PerfectBound
o Quill
o Rayo
o ReganBooks
o William Morrow
o William Morrow Cookbooks

* Children's Books Group
o Avon
o Greenwillow Books
o Joanna Cotler Books
o Eos
o Laura Geringer Books
o HarperAudio
o HarperCollins Children's Books
o HarperFestival
o HarperTempest
o Katherine Tegen Books
o Trophy
o Zondervan

* HarperCollins UK
* HarperCollins Canada
* HarperCollins Australia

Other

* New York Rangers & New York Knicks (20% - Through partnership with Cablevision)
* Los Angeles Kings (NHL, 40% option)
* Los Angeles Lakers (NBA, 9.8% option)
* Staples Center (40% owned by Fox/Liberty)
* News America New Media
* Fox Sports Radio Network
* Broadsystem
* Festival Records
* Fox Interactive
* Mushroom Records
* National Rugby League
* NDS
* News Interactive
* News Outdoor
* Nursery World

last updated 7/30/04

Source: http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/newscorp.asp

And so it continues. Now, whose Bible is it and who is making money off of it?

Posted by: Madame M Jan 24 2005, 07:52 AM

QUOTE

Fox Broadcasting Company

Fox Television Stations

Ah, figures. Fox news. Preferred newscast of just about every Christian I know. LOL!

Thanks for doing the homework.

Posted by: skankboy Jan 24 2005, 09:37 AM

QUOTE

Ah, figures. Fox news. Preferred newscast of just about every Christian I know. LOL!

Personally, I love Fox news. I just listen to their "fair and balanced" opinions and then take the opposite stance...

"fair and balanced"

Posted by: AggieNostic Jan 24 2005, 09:51 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 23 2005, 09:36 AM)

Perhaps everyone should calm down a little bit and consider the other ads in a magazine that glorifies the materialistic, narcissistic, and completely inane life style of rock and roll. I ask you this, are any of the other ads in Rolling Stone Magazine honest? If you look for it you can see a subtle lie in every single ad -- and yet the editors have no problem with it whatsoever. I ask you this, freethinkers, did the editors over there get honest or did you just get played?

I don't doubt that some of the other ads likely contribute negatively to the quality of life; although I doubt you could prove that any of them are lies ... at least not in a court of law since most ads are checked by lawyers before they are made available for publication. I wonder if those promoting the Bible as "clear" and "accurate" feel any need to submit their claims to a legal department. I doubt it. After all, Western civilization has given the Bible the honor of being a "good book" and that permeates our culture. Maybe Rolling Stone decided it was time to challenge that cultural assumption?

Posted by: fortunehooks Jan 24 2005, 12:53 PM

good for rolling stone magazine not advertising the new trash book.

the writing for the advertisement is offensive to me.

Posted by: fortunehooks Jan 24 2005, 12:58 PM

QUOTE (skankboy @ Jan 24 2005, 12:37 PM)

QUOTE

Ah, figures. Fox news. Preferred newscast of just about every Christian I know. LOL!

Personally, I love Fox news. I just listen to their "fair and balanced" opinions and then take the opposite stance...

"fair and balanced"

i like the train of thought with that. watching fox news gives me the feeling of having two gross canker sores and no medicine to help them heal.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 24 2005, 05:25 PM

QUOTE (AggieNostic @ Jan 24 2005, 05:51 PM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 23 2005, 09:36 AM)

You'll have to forgive me, but I don't recall Joe Camel ever saying "Kids, come have a smoke!". The fact is, an image is worth a thousand words and advertisers know what they are doing when they plaster Marky Mark all over 5th Avenue in nothing but his underwear.

I'm tired of the implication that I'm not sexy, smart, successful or worthy of attention unless I blow $150.00 on a pair of the right sunglasses.

And since when has running anything past lawyers become the standard for anything on this board? My stars Aggie, have they gotten to you as well old boy? Hello? Lawyers run Congress for crying out loud!

Now come on, just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I'm an hysterical lunatic when I start ranting about materialism. It is a real problem in my own life and I take care every once and a while to have my daughters analyze the implied lies in billboards we see because I don't want them to grow up to be bubble headed Britney Spears clones.

I think if you take the average ad and really think about it they are at their core extremely offensive by what they imply.

Posted by: Cerise Jan 24 2005, 05:29 PM

Gerbil, are you trying to use the "everyone else is doing it" argument? Does it matter if other advertisments lie? Is it an endorsement for an advertisment for the bible if you say that other ads lie as well? I just don't see where you are going with this.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 24 2005, 05:42 PM

QUOTE (Cerise @ Jan 25 2005, 01:29 AM)

I only find the attitude that "Wow, Rolling Stone is so honest and noble to be rather humorous in light of their other ads. If you want to believe those other ads, be my guest.

That being said, I've a tendency to side with Madame on this issue, that there is a definite cheaping on some important things going on in our culture -- all for the sake of making them acceptable. Either that or I'm just getting old.

Posted by: Cerise Jan 24 2005, 05:46 PM

QUOTE

That being said, I've a tendency to side with Madame on this issue, that there is a definite cheaping on some important things going on in our culture -- all for the sake of making them acceptable. Either that or I'm just getting old.

We all know you're senile Gerbil. Now don't forget your teeth...

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 24 2005, 06:31 PM

QUOTE (Cerise @ Jan 25 2005, 01:46 AM)

QUOTE

We all know you're senile Gerbil. Now don't forget your teeth...

*whacks Cerise with his walking cane*

Take that, whippersnapper!

Posted by: Fweethawt Jan 24 2005, 06:54 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 24 2005, 08:25 PM)

I think if you take the average ad and really think about it they are at their core extremely offensive by what they imply.

Wow! You did it again!

Posted by: ChefRanden Jan 24 2005, 07:02 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 24 2005, 07:42 PM)

QUOTE (Cerise @ Jan 25 2005, 01:29 AM)

I'm sorry for my flip remark above. I pretty much agree with you on the ad stuff, except that Christianity is just another good or service to me.

You might be interested in this http://www.adbusters.org/home/.

Posted by: Reality Amplifier Jan 24 2005, 10:09 PM

MG, I wonder how you'd feel about it if the ad that Rolling Stone refused to run had been for the Quran?

Posted by: Reach Jan 25 2005, 08:42 AM

QUOTE (AggieNostic @ Jan 24 2005, 09:51 AM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 23 2005, 09:36 AM)

Since when, MG, did advertising turn into an honest business? Did I miss something?

Following your train of thought, Aggie, perhaps Rolling Stone simply made an executive decision to not be part of promoting a product with a notorious credibility failure rate.

Posted by: Reach Jan 25 2005, 08:52 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 24 2005, 05:42 PM)

I only find the attitude that "Wow, Rolling Stone is so honest and noble to be rather humorous in light of their other ads. If you want to believe those other ads, be my guest.

I don't recall anyone saying such a thing. Rolling Stone is known for its excellence (and that includes integrity) in journalism, not honesty in advertising. No one here has been praising their ads and as already implied, their ads seem to be on a par with the industry.

I repeat, MG, Rolling Stone is respected for its excellence in journalism, and has won awards for the same.

Posted by: Reach Jan 25 2005, 08:52 AM

QUOTE (Reality Amplifier @ Jan 24 2005, 10:09 PM)

MG, I wonder how you'd feel about it if the ad that Rolling Stone refused to run had been for the Quran?

Exactly!

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 25 2005, 10:10 AM

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 25 2005, 04:52 PM)

QUOTE (Reality Amplifier @ Jan 24 2005, 10:09 PM)

MG, I wonder how you'd feel about it if the ad that Rolling Stone refused to run had been for the Quran?

Exactly!

What your missing is that Rolling Stone runs ads for world views every single day.

I don't care what they run ads for, frankly, since it has always been my opinion that privately held companies should be able to make those sorts of choices. Again, I only find humor in the claim they've somehow struck a blow for truth by not running an ad for the Bible while continuing to promote narcissism.

You may not find that funny.
That's okay.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 25 2005, 10:36 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 25 2005, 10:10 AM)

I don't care what they run ads for, frankly, since it has always been my opinion that privately held companies should be able to make those sorts of choices. Again, I only find humor in the claim they've somehow struck a blow for truth by not running an ad for the Bible while continuing to promote narcissism.

You may not find that funny.
That's okay.

I really don't see where it can be interpreted as striking a blow for the truth.

I think when they said this,

QUOTE

"we are not in the business of publishing advertising for religious messages."

that it pretty much sums it up. Whether this version is the truth or not doesn't appear to affect their decision. They could believe in this version 100% and still have the decency to not promote religious messages, or they could believe another version 100% and choose not to promote based on bias. Who knows?

Maybe I missed something?

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 25 2005, 10:47 AM

QUOTE (Fweethawt @ Jan 23 2005, 06:36 PM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 23 2005, 08:36 AM)

It's funny that you made this comparison, MG.

After all, all of it is just propaganda.

The only difference is, is that one side only wants money.

I thought that also.

Do you think he recognizes the truth when he speaks it?

Posted by: sexkitten Jan 25 2005, 10:52 AM

QUOTE (Yoshi @ Jan 21 2005, 05:20 PM)

How many people in here (with the exception of me, lol) like learning Biblical Hebrew? I think the total might add up to 1. Maybe. The fact is, that no one likes learning 3000 year old languages.

Make that 2.

Granted, I've really only learned the alphabet and a few words and basic grammar, and its been a few years so I forgot most of it, but I do enjoy learning (or trying to, anyway) ancient dead/dying/nearly dead/recently revived languages. I've also studied Greek in a formal setting, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, and (natch) Klingon. Just don't ask me to produce an intelligible sentence in any of them right now, as its been years and I've forgotten most of it.

But studying and learning them was great fun.

(I'm a linguaphile though. I feel cheated that I grew up in an era where Latin was neither mandatory nor *available* in high school)

Posted by: Reach Jan 25 2005, 11:01 AM

QUOTE (sexkitten @ Jan 25 2005, 10:52 AM)

(I'm a linguaphile though. I feel cheated that I grew up in an era where Latin was neither mandatory nor *available* in high school)

Had you gone to Hayward High School, you could have taken Latin... but you might not have learned anything else.

Posted by: sexkitten Jan 25 2005, 11:32 AM

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 25 2005, 11:01 AM)

QUOTE (sexkitten @ Jan 25 2005, 10:52 AM)

(I'm a linguaphile though. I feel cheated that I grew up in an era where Latin was neither mandatory nor *available* in high school)

Had you gone to Hayward High School, you could have taken Latin... but you might not have learned anything else.

I'm not entirely sure I would have survived Hayward High School.

Posted by: Lokmer Jan 25 2005, 12:10 PM

QUOTE (sexkitten @ Jan 25 2005, 11:32 AM)

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 25 2005, 11:01 AM)

QUOTE (sexkitten @ Jan 25 2005, 10:52 AM)

(I'm a linguaphile though. I feel cheated that I grew up in an era where Latin was neither mandatory nor *available* in high school)

Had you gone to Hayward High School, you could have taken Latin... but you might not have learned anything else.

I'm not entirely sure I would have survived Hayward High School.

Oh, you would have survived...

You would probably have come out of there as the mother of a small country though

-Lokmer

Posted by: sexkitten Jan 25 2005, 12:47 PM

QUOTE (Lokmer @ Jan 25 2005, 12:10 PM)

QUOTE (sexkitten @ Jan 25 2005, 11:32 AM)

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 25 2005, 11:01 AM)

QUOTE (sexkitten @ Jan 25 2005, 10:52 AM)

(I'm a linguaphile though. I feel cheated that I grew up in an era where Latin was neither mandatory nor *available* in high school)

Had you gone to Hayward High School, you could have taken Latin... but you might not have learned anything else.

I'm not entirely sure I would have survived Hayward High School.

Oh, you would have survived...

You would probably have come out of there as the mother of a small country though

-Lokmer

Posted by: Reach Jan 25 2005, 01:11 PM

Topic Update:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050125/ap_en_ot/rolling_stone_bible_ad_2

"Rolling Stone gave no explanation for its change of heart."

Thanks to Andreas for the update!

Posted by: Reality Amplifier Jan 25 2005, 01:26 PM

Yikes!

Posted by: Bill Johnson Jan 25 2005, 02:01 PM

"In working towards these goals, the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form." - NIV preface, 6th paragraph

"From the beginning, the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form." - TNIV preview edition preface, 2nd paragraph

One can download the TNIV New Testament http://www.tniv.info/bible/index.php

Posted by: Reality Amplifier Jan 25 2005, 02:56 PM

I felt inclined to write them a quick note after reading the link Reach posted -

QUOTE

Dear Rolling Stone (letters@rollingstone.com):

I saw in the news a few days ago that a decision had been made not to run and advertisement for a new version of the bible.

I thought that was just terrific. It was refreshing to hear that Rolling Stone politely announced they were not in the business of promoting religious ads. I had a sudden and unexpected respect for Rolling Stone in drawing such a fair-minded secular/religious delineation in your well-reasoned refusal the ad.

There are probably others out there like me who wonder why on earth would a religion ever need to advertise if they were really in possession of the Truth? That’s one compelling reason I find such religious ads offensive and distasteful.

To my surprise and dismay, I saw that Rolling Stone waffled on their earlier announcement with an inexplicable reversal today.

How disappointing.

One can but wonder at what political machinations and pressures must have been brought to bear behind the scenes to effect your flip-flop on the earlier decision .

I wonder if you will now also be accepting ads for the Quran, The Book of Mormon, etc? You’ve set your own precedent after all…

Posted by: ChefRanden Jan 25 2005, 04:34 PM

QUOTE (sexkitten @ Jan 25 2005, 12:52 PM)

QUOTE (Yoshi @ Jan 21 2005, 05:20 PM)

How many people in here (with the exception of me, lol) like learning Biblical Hebrew? I think the total might add up to 1. Maybe. The fact is, that no one likes learning 3000 year old languages.

(I'm a linguaphile though. I feel cheated that I grew up in an era where Latin was neither mandatory nor *available* in high school)

Make it 3. I majored in it at college.

Posted by: Fweethawt Jan 25 2005, 08:37 PM

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 25 2005, 04:11 PM)

So MG, how do you feel now?

Is it joy, or regret?

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 26 2005, 04:28 AM

QUOTE (Fweethawt @ Jan 26 2005, 04:37 AM)

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 25 2005, 04:11 PM)

So MG, how do you feel now?

Is it joy, or regret?

I honestly don't care if Rolling Stone runs the ad or not since they are a private company and are free to choose. The mere running of an ad doesn't signify any new rights or victory as far as I'm concerned.

I just thought it was funny that they'd be hailed as landing a blow for truth by rejecting one ad while continuing to run a magazine full of ads that promote narcisism, poor-self esteem, the cheapening of women, and the destruction of the planet.

As a magazine, Rolling Stone means nothing to me.
I suspect all this on/off again response to the ad is probably a ploy to boost subscription numbers.

Posted by: Yoshi Jan 26 2005, 08:57 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 23 2005, 09:15 AM)

If you read the passage in Genesis that covers the fall you'll see that Adam and Eve are given the future hope of One that will crush the head of the serpent.

Actually, the text in that passage is very plural... "and between your descendants and her descendants"

Posted by: Yoshi Jan 26 2005, 09:04 AM

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 23 2005, 08:45 AM)

QUOTE (Madame M @ Jan 23 2005, 08:39 AM)

I don't recall that being listed as a "sacrifice"... just making clothes. Do you know of a scripture that calls it a "sacrifice", or is that a Christian interperetation?

Posted by: Yoshi Jan 26 2005, 09:13 AM

QUOTE (skankboy @ Jan 24 2005, 09:37 AM)

QUOTE

Ah, figures. Fox news. Preferred newscast of just about every Christian I know. LOL!

Personally, I love Fox news. I just listen to their "fair and balanced" opinions and then take the opposite stance...

"fair and balanced"

Actually,

I prefer a balance. A little Fox News, a little Ha'aretz, a little BBC, and a little ABC. If you only watch Fox News, you're only going to get things from a "Right-wing" POV. If you watch BBC, you'll only get it from a "Left-wing" POV. Neither is going to give you the truth.

For example, when I hear Fox News trying to say that there were WMD's in Iraq, I get a good chuckle at their absolute stupidity. On the opposite side, I could hardly stomach when quite a few "Left-Wing" News sources were describing Sheik Yassin as a "peaceful spiritual leader"....

Of course, I also listen to a few new sources that are considered entirely cooky, but they have a habit of reporting some things years before the mainstream media does...

Posted by: Yoshi Jan 26 2005, 09:19 AM

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 25 2005, 01:11 PM)

As I said before... this is turning into a Christianity vs. Theism war that should never have happened. Rolling Stone should be able to make their decisions without the public even knowing about it... like any other magazine

Posted by: Reach Jan 26 2005, 11:51 AM

QUOTE (Yoshi @ Jan 26 2005, 09:04 AM)

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 23 2005, 08:45 AM)

QUOTE (Madame M @ Jan 23 2005, 08:39 AM)

I don't recall that being listed as a "sacrifice"... just making clothes. Do you know of a scripture that calls it a "sacrifice", or is that a Christian interperetation?

It doesn't take much mental deduction to come up with the word "sacrifice" since the theme plays out throughout the Old and New Testaments. Christian interpretation? Of course! Undeniably.

Genesis 3:21, King James Bible
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

"Coats of skins" sounds like the fur of animals to me. I would think that the writer of the story wants us to understand that an animal (or animals) was "sacrificed" to clothe them. Blood shed on their behalf.

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 26 2005, 12:55 PM

QUOTE (ChefRanden @ Jan 22 2005, 04:53 PM)

QUOTE (Yoshi @ Jan 21 2005, 07:25 PM)

Continuing this line of reasoning, why doesn't god make it so that you don't have to use your brain, you don't have to work, and you can just sit on your fat arse and be lazy all day?

So if he wants to be adored by worm poop, why doesn't he give us the same perks so we all

him?

QUOTE (Luke 12:48b (ESV))

But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

(I added the Bold emphasis)

Chef,

Again, I don't think God views (and acts toward) people the same way you view (and act toward) your dog.

QUOTE (The Great White @ Jan 22 2005, 06:01 PM)

QUOTE

I think the "special honour" is present in such things as the ability to speak and understand an advanced language (e.g. even involving abstract concepts about our own existence, etc..) and (more importantly) the ability to act in a loving and self-sacrificing way toward others even when we don't see any likelihood of personal benefit.
(We can love like God loves).

Chef,

When my children were very young, I didn't expect them to do any work, I provided for all of their needs - but as they have received the gifts which allow them to be able to provide for themselves, and (more importantly) to provide for ]others - I think the loving thing for me to do is to show them that they can use the gifts they have received from God (and me) and 'pass along the giving' by standing on their own two feet, (so to speak) and making their own living so they can give some of the the extra to others. In short, sometimes the best thing for me to do for them is to 'make them work themselves' for what they receive, and what they chose to give.

I don't know if this general way of thinking may have been some of what Yoshi may have been referring to?

Yes, currently the Bible is something that requires an immense amount of work to understand intellectually (for some) - but interestingly enough, it seems that even folks like me who perhaps have not "been given" so much in the way of just pure brainpower, even I can still find help in the Bible (when I work at it) - and in ways that I can't really put into words, however ways that I can definitely experience.

...
Back to the issue of how I act toward my children, I suppose - when I tell them it is time for them to do some work for themselves - one might say that I don't value them as much as you do your dog. But I guess the way I see it, is that they will feel a lot better about themselves if they give some of what they have personally worked for to help others.

I don't want my kids to feel like I treat them as if they were dogs. They are better than that, and that is why I expect them to do their own work and to help others with what comes of it.

Perhaps by God not providing everything for people, He is forcing us to see that we could be helping each other - it looks like in many, many instances others will not be helped unless we (who are more than "worm poop") get off our "arse" and do some work so that we (who have "been given") can now in-turn give to others.

-Dennis

P.S. I italicized the word 'others' several times - I think that is somehow related to discussions about how sometimes in preparation for war, soldiers are taught to see the enemy as an 'other' (where 'other' in this case, refers to something less than human) - I detest this way of looking at another human being. I guess I somehow want to look at each of us humans as being a part of some type of a unity - (like one body with different members/parts).

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 26 2005, 01:13 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 26 2005, 12:55 PM)

I just wanted to post this little bit on Altruism:

Altruism

Altruism is a code of ethics which hold the welfare of others as the standard of "good", and self-sacrifice as the only moral action. The unstated premise of the doctrine of altruism is that all relationships among men involve sacrifice. This leaves one with the false choice between maliciously exploiting the other person (forcing them to be sacrificed) or being "moral" and offering oneself up as the sacrificial victim. Why is the second considered good? Apparently because Jesus said so.

But the dichotomy of sacrifice or exploit is false. Between rational people, there should never be any sacrifice involved nor conflict of interest. The true moral interaction between two people should be an interaction as traders - trading value for value in a mutually agreed on and beneficial manner.

This is not to say that benevolence and good will are immoral. It is only sacrifice that is immoral, and being generally benevolent is not a sacrifice but a benefit and a virtue. The difference is that to be "good" according to Altruism, one must hand out blank checks to all who claim a need; while according to Egoism, ones own life is one's ultimate standard of value against which all acts must be analyzed.

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 26 2005, 01:56 PM

NotBlind,

First off, I disagree with the logic (actually I don't see much, if any logic in what was in italics) ...

for instance:

"This leaves one with the false choice between maliciously exploiting the other person (forcing them to be sacrificed) or being "moral" and offering oneself up as the sacrificial victim."

I don't see the connection between choosing to offer sacrificial love and being a "victim" - If I do the choosing, then I am not (by definition) a "victim". Also, I think everyone knows there is room for other ways of interacting with people - besides exploiting them or sacrificing for them. I don't see how 'Altruism' is saying otherwise - what "false choice"?

...

"... to be "good" according to Altruism, one must hand out blank checks to all who claim a need, ..."

Who said anything about "blank checks"?

I see value in giving (kind of like, I have been given to).

However, I only have so much in my 'bank account' - so even if I were to offer "blank checks" I don't think they would do much good for folks. <he says as he sadly laughs out load>

-Dennis

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 26 2005, 02:06 PM

RA,

I'm sorry about how I have probably posted too much 'off topic'.

Actually - to get back to the main thrust of this thread - I don't have all that big of a problem if Rolling Stone magazine decides not to carry an advertisement for a new translation of the Bible. Good grief! what would this country be coming to if a privately owned magazine (I assume that is what RS is?) were to be forced (by whatever type of arm-twisting) to carry the advertisement of anyone who could simply pay the going price?

I would probably have more issues - if Rolling Stone were instead some magazine paid for by tax dollars and I felt it carried advertisements for other "world-views", while excluding an overtly Christian one.

-Dennis

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 26 2005, 02:12 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 26 2005, 10:06 PM)

NO, NO, NO SOIL!

You are supposed to be frothing at the mouth over your persecution at the hands of the evil satanistic atheist anti-christs running Rolling Stone.

As for me, I'm doing the socially responsible thing by boycotting Rolling Stone because they've insulted my faith system. I've not ever purchased one of their magazines and I'll continue this trend for at least the rest of this year.

Yeah.

That will show them.

*waves fist at corporate offices of RS mag.*

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 26 2005, 02:20 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 26 2005, 01:56 PM)

I see value in giving (kind of like, I have been given to).

Stop laughing and pay attention.

You answered your own objection Dennis with what I have qouted from you above. You are gaining something by giving. What have you gained by loving your children?

QUOTE

I don't see the connection between choosing to offer sacrificial love and being a "victim" - If I do the choosing, then I am not (by definition) a "victim". Also, I think everyone knows there is room for other ways of interacting with people - besides exploiting them or sacrificing for them. I don't see how 'Altruism' is saying otherwise - what "false choice"?

Indeed there is another way of interacting with people and that is to trade value for value...what you just said. Altruism does not state that. When you sacrifice everything for nothing, you are the victim of the one receiving.

I don't mean to piss you off Dennis, but I will post some more:

"According to altruism, it doesn't matter what you do, as long as it does not further your life it is considered good. The more consistently a person is altruistic, the closer their actions are to suicide. The consistent altruist will give up every bit of food he owns to other people because that is what he considers good, and die because of it."

Can you tell me why it is seen as moral when one sacrifices their own life for someone else?

Why are firefighters trained that if they are in danger, they are to leave regardless of who is in the fire? I understand that we do get all emotional and claim the firefighter that does risk his life is a hero. I just want to know why.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 26 2005, 02:35 PM

I just wanted to post what Brother Jeff posted in another thread. I hope he doesn't mind.

QUOTE (Brother Jeff)

Brother Dick Sutphen (popular New Age author/speaker) has this to say about selfless service in one of his seminar dialogues ( http://www.dicksutphen.com/html/webcol149.html )

“How can you put down selfless service?” said Janie, a woman of about 50 with long graying hair. She wore several bold pieces of Native American jewelry.

“It doesn’t exist.”

“Oh really? Well, I’ve devoted the last five years of my life to taking care of my dying father. I would much rather have enjoyed myself, dated, taken some vacations.”

“What would you think of a daughter who left her father to die with uncaring strangers, Janie?”

“Someone utterly lacking in compassion, who is also creating negative karma.”

“You see yourself as being a loving, compassionate daughter?”

“Yes.”

“And you would have felt terribly guilty if you had refused to care for your father?”

“He doesn’t have anyone else.”

“And you certainly don’t want to create negative karma?”

She shook her head.

“So you did it for yourself, Janie. Just like everyone else on the planet, you lived up to your self-image of being a good daughter, and you avoided painful guilt. Your father was served, but you did it for yourself.”

No response.

“I’m certainly not saying to stop assisting others, just to stop fooling yourself about doing why you do what you do.”

No response.

“Stop waiting for a gold star.”

According to Brother Sutphen, everything we do, we actually do for ourselves although it may appear otherwise, and we ought to be honest about it. If Brother Sutphen is right, then Christians are just as incapable of doing selfless works as non-Christians are, regardless of the Magic Sky Spook that allegedly motivates them.

Okay...sorry for the hijack RA. Carry on...

Posted by: ChefRanden Jan 26 2005, 03:05 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 26 2005, 02:55 PM)

QUOTE (Luke 12:48b (ESV))

(I added the Bold emphasis)
```````````````````````````````````````````````````
Chef,

Again, I don't think God views (and acts toward) people the same way you view (and act toward) your dog.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````
(We can love like God loves).[/b]

Chef,

When my children were very young, I didn't expect them to do any work, I provided for all of their needs - but as they have received the gifts which allow them to be able to provide for themselves, and (more importantly) to provide for ]others - I think the loving thing for me to do is to show them that they can use the gifts they have received from God (and me) and 'pass along the giving' by standing on their own two feet, (so to speak) and making their own living so they can give some of the the extra to others. In short, sometimes the best thing for me to do for them is to 'make them work themselves' for what they receive, and what they chose to give.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
...
Back to the issue of how I act toward my children, I suppose - when I tell them it is time for them to do some work for themselves - one might say that I don't value them as much as you do your dog. But I guess the way I see it, is that they will feel a lot better about themselves if they give some of what they have personally worked for to help others.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````
I don't want my kids to feel like I treat them as if they were dogs. They are better than that, and that is why I expect them to do their own work and to help others with what comes of it.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````
Perhaps by God not providing everything for people, He is forcing us to see that we could be helping each other - it looks like in many, many instances others will not be helped unless we (who are more than "worm poop") get off our "arse" and do some work so that we (who have "been given") can now in-turn give to others.

-Dennis

P.S. I italicized the word 'others' several times - I think that is somehow related to discussions about how sometimes in preparation for war, soldiers are taught to see the enemy as an 'other' (where 'other' in this case, refers to something less than human) - I detest this way of looking at another human being. I guess I somehow want to look at each of us humans as being a part of some type of a unity - (like one body with different members/parts).

Tell that to George Bush.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Yes I know. That was my point. I treat my dog better than God treats his kids.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Let's hope that we will love better than God loves. To many people love like God loved the Amelakites.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Well that is very wise of you, since there is no god to take of them.

This brings up the question. Why is God training you to be self sufficient? Are you going to grow up to be God? Will you have your own universe and have to work for a living?
(I hope so; I rather have you for a god then the one you say we have.) I always thought that Heaven was about no more tears and toil, but maybe God needs some slaves to keep the throne and the golden streets polished. I think that Mr. Calvin would say that your toil and travail are your punishment for being born human rather than training for something else.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
My dog feels better when he has work to do too. He's happy to bring me the paper, and bark at the Postwoman. However, I don't make his living based on that. He gets what ever he needs, based on my ability to provide it, not on his to earn it. I don't make him work under horrible conditions for barely enough rice to stay alive, like God does to many of his kids. But as far as God is concerned we are not dogs. We are clay pots. One made to hold gold. Another made to hold shit.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Of course they are. But, as the old saying goes, better to be Herod's pig then Herod's child.

My point was, we treat dogs better than God treats people. I have every confidence that you are a great dad. ChristianGod is more like DrunkDaddy.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Perhaps God just doesn't exist. That would be the best explanation of his lack of decent behavior.

Will you let one of your children starve, to give the rest the idea that they ought to help? Why don't you take these conjectures about god to their logical ends?

Posted by: Amethyst_Moonstar Jan 26 2005, 03:27 PM

I think I saw somewhere that Rolling Stone changed their mind.

Posted by: JimmyDtD Jan 26 2005, 07:46 PM

This proves without at doubt that the Rolling Stone folks are King James readers, as they should be!

Posted by: Reach Jan 27 2005, 03:51 AM

QUOTE (Amethyst_Moonstar @ Jan 26 2005, 03:27 PM)

I think I saw somewhere that Rolling Stone changed their mind.

Amethyst Moonstar, this was from the previous page.

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 25 2005, 01:11 PM)

QUOTE (JimmyDtD @ Jan 26 2005, 07:46 PM)

This proves without at doubt that the Rolling Stone folks are King James readers, as they should be!

Jimmy, please clarify. The waffling?

Posted by: JimmyDtD Jan 27 2005, 05:15 AM

Obviously, I did a drive-by post for fun, without reading the prior posts!

Posted by: Reach Jan 27 2005, 05:16 AM

QUOTE (JimmyDtD @ Jan 27 2005, 05:15 AM)

Obviously, I did a drive-by post for fun, without reading the prior posts!

I was thinking that might be the case. Good to hear from you, Jimmy.

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 27 2005, 07:49 AM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 26 2005, 04:35 PM)

I just wanted to post what Brother Jeff posted in another thread. I hope he doesn't mind.

QUOTE (Brother Jeff)

...
“And you would have felt terribly guilty if you had refused to care for your father?”

“He doesn’t have anyone else.”

“And you certainly don’t want to create negative karma?”

She shook her head.

“So you did it for yourself, Janie. Just like everyone else on the planet, you lived up to your self-image of being a good daughter, and you avoided painful guilt. Your father was served, but you did it for yourself.”

No response.

“I’m certainly not saying to stop assisting others, just to stop fooling yourself about doing why you do what you do.”

No response.

“Stop waiting for a gold star.”

According to Brother Sutphen, everything we do, we actually do for ourselves although it may appear otherwise, and we ought to be honest about it. If Brother Sutphen is right, then Christians are just as incapable of doing selfless works as non-Christians are, regardless of the Magic Sky Spook that allegedly motivates them.

Okay...sorry for the hijack RA. Carry on...

NotBlind,

I think I will respond to some of what "Brother Jeff" had posted - before I respond to the content in your preceeding post.

(Below excerpted text, I copied from http://www.desiringgod.org/library/what_we_believe/christian_hedonism.html)

QUOTE

...
"All men seek happiness," says Blaise Pascal. "This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves." We believe Pascal is right. And, with Pascal, we believe God purposefully designed us to pursue happiness.

Does seeking your own happiness sound self-centered?Aren't Christians supposed to seek God, not their own pleasure? To answer this question we need to understand a crucial truth about pleasure-seeking (hedonism): we value most what we delight in most. Pleasure is not God's competitor, idols are. Pleasure is simply a gauge that measures how valuable someone or something is to us. Pleasure is the measure of our treasure.

We know this intuitively. If a friend says to you, "I really enjoy being with you," you wouldn't accuse him of being self-centered. Why? Because your friend's delight in you is the evidence that you have great value in his heart. In fact, you'd be dishonored if he didn't experience any pleasure in your friendship. The same is true of God. If God is the source of our greatest delight then God is our most precious treasure; which makes us radically God-centered and not self-centered. And if we treasure God most, we glorify Him most.

Does the Bible teach this? Yes. Nowhere in the Bible does God condemn people for longing to be happy. People are condemned for forsaking God and seeking their happiness elsewhere (Jeremiah 2:13). This is the essence of sin. The Bible actually commands us to delight in the Lord (Psalm 37:4). Jesus teaches us to love God more than money because our heart is where our treasure is (Matt. 6:21). Paul wants us to believe that gaining Christ is worth the loss of everything else (Phil 3:8) and the author of Hebrews exhorts us to endure suffering, like Jesus, for the joy set before us (Heb. 12: 1-2). Examine the Scriptures and you'll see this over and over again.

Christian Hedonism is not a contradiction after all. It is desiring the vast, ocean-deep pleasures of God more than the mud-puddle pleasures of wealth, power or lust. We're Christian Hedonists because we believe Psalm 16:11, "You show me the path of life; in Your presence there is fullness of joy, in Your right hand are pleasures for evermore."

Join us in this pursuit of satisfaction in God, because God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.
...
©Desiring God. Website: www.desiringGod.org. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 888.346.4700.

(I added the Bold emphasis)

( RA - just let me know if you want me to stop responding to these types of posts in this thread - I guess I am thinking the Rolling Stone thing has been milked pretty dry by now - but if you say so - I can "take it elsewhere"! )

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 27 2005, 08:10 AM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 26 2005, 04:20 PM)

...
Can you tell me why it is seen as moral when one sacrifices their own life for someone else?.

NotBlind, I don't remember if you said whether you are a mother. If so, then I probably don't need to tell you that children don't seem to need to be taught to be selfish, that seems to just come naturally. The difficult thing for people to learn to do is to find their own pleasure in the good of others. Consider for example teaching a child to be happy that their play-partner is able to enjoy playing with 'their' toy (which will mean they don't get to play with it at that time). Perhaps one aspect of 'morality' is that we should value God more than ourselves - and God has created each human in His own image - so when we consider ourselves to be of more value than others - we are not delighting in what God has done, and who He is?

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 26 2005, 04:20 PM)

...Why are firefighters trained that if they are in danger, they are to leave regardless of who is in the fire? I understand that we do get all emotional and claim the firefighter that does risk his life is a hero. I just want to know why.

I don't know why firefighters are trained that way.

Maybe we believe the self-risking firefighter to be a hero, because we each wish that we personally were able to take our pleasure in considering someone else's safety even above our own?

-Dennis

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 27 2005, 08:22 AM

QUOTE (ChefRanden @ Jan 26 2005, 05:05 PM)

...
Will you let one of your children starve, to give the rest the idea that they ought to help? Why don't you take these conjectures about god to their logical ends?

I don't control eternity - for me (as far as the extent of my own personal powers) if I were to let one of my children starve (in this physical life) - that would be the end of that child. God may do other things regarding his children (the ones He may chose to "let ... starve") after their physical death in this life. I don't know.

I (unlike many here) don't think I can judge God by the same standards that apply to me (since I have much less options for accomplishing justice 'in the end' - after - all is said and done (on earth in this life).

-Dennis

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 27 2005, 08:24 AM

QUOTE (ChefRanden @ Jan 26 2005, 05:05 PM)

...
Will you let one of your children starve, to give the rest the idea that they ought to help? Why don't you take these conjectures about god to their logical ends?

I don't control eternity - for me (as far as the extent of my own personal powers) if I were to let one of my children starve (in this physical life) - that would be the end of that child. God may do other things regarding his children (the ones He may choose to "let ... starve") after their physical death in this life. I don't know.

I (unlike many here) don't think I can judge God by the same standards that apply to me (since I have much less options for accomplishing justice 'in the end' ( - after - all is said and done on earth, in this life).

-Dennis

Posted by: ChefRanden Jan 27 2005, 08:32 AM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 27 2005, 10:10 AM)

I think that a little knowledge of child development would dispel this notion for you. A human baby has the longest childhood of any of the mammals, because they must be born with heads small enough to accommodate the human pelvis which has a primary function of allowing us to walk upright. Consequently the young child doesn't have the brain capacity to have adult functions. Until about the age of 4 it seems to the child that what ever is going on in her head is also going on in yours. If you have ever played hide and seek with a young one, you may have noticed that all they have to hide is cover their eyes. If they can't see you, you can't see them. By the age of 4 they have the brain capacity through growth to start to develope a theory of mind that begins to see what is in my head may not be what is in yours.

What you see as a primary flaw is just a phenomemon of brain development. It is no more a flaw then the initial inability to walk or talk.

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 27 2005, 08:57 AM

QUOTE (ChefRanden @ Jan 27 2005, 10:32 AM)

...
I think that a little knowledge of child development would dispel this notion for you. A human baby has the longest childhood of any of the mammals, because they must be born with heads small enough to accommodate the human pelvis which has a primary function of allowing us to walk upright. Consequently the young child doesn't have the brain capacity to have adult functions. ...

What you see as a primary flaw is just a phenomemon of brain development. It is no more a flaw then the initial inability to walk or talk.

(I added the Bold emphasis)

Chef,

Well I am older than four now, (and some folks say I have a really 'big head' <lol>) - but it still requires what I consider to be the help of God, for me to consistantly find my pleasure in the good of someone other than myself.

-Dennis

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 27 2005, 10:40 AM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 27 2005, 07:49 AM)

QUOTE

This:

QUOTE

If God is the source of our greatest delight then God is our most precious treasure; which makes us radically God-centered and not self-centered. And if we treasure God most, we glorify Him most.

God-centered and not self-centered? This is where the confusion is I feel. It is one in the same...you feel the value...you are the one that makes decisions to give based on those feelings/rewards you receive in turn.

Can you tell me if god feels any pleasure/value in your friendship?

QUOTE

People are condemned for forsaking God and seeking their happiness elsewhere (Jeremiah 2:13). This is the essence of sin. The Bible actually commands us to delight in the Lord (Psalm 37:4).

Can't you see what this does?

I'm sorry Dennis, we just have to agree to disagree because whereas you read this material with delight, I read it with horror. I'm sure you can say the same about my material.

Posted by: BimmuDorgir Jan 27 2005, 12:19 PM

If you ask me...who cares that RS rejected the bible ad? I somehow (mysteriously, I guess), got subscribed to RS, and I get a copy of it in my mailbox almost every day (obviously exaggerated).

And, I have to say: RS sucks. The only cool thing about RS are the occasional hot girls in/on it.

Other than that...RS = Magazine info-mercial. All of it is advertisement. OK, maybe there are a few articles in it...but they come jammed between, in, and around the ads. Do you like web-pages with tons of ads on them? No. Same goes for magazines.

Rolling Stone sucks.

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 27 2005, 12:24 PM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 27 2005, 12:40 PM)

...
This:

QUOTE

If God is the source of our greatest delight then God is our most precious treasure; which makes us radically God-centered and not self-centered. And if we treasure God most, we glorify Him most.

NotBlind,

I'll respond to your statement (in part) by restating it and inserting the two words: 'will eventually':

...you are the one that makes decisions to give based on those feelings/rewards you will eventually receive in turn.

I agree with you when you say "It is one in the same" I think God-centered" is the way that God designed us to be able to finally get in touch with the center of our self - (the self which God originally intended for his human creation - the ones who He has made in His own self-image). He wants us to be His bride - and what did Jesus say about a groom and his bride? - they are one flesh. As Paul says, therein lies a great mystery - the http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses/02a_symbolism-sexual.mp3 ( http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm) found in the Bible is very interesting stuff (IMHO), but of course heading down that road would take us even farther from 'Rolling Stone' (or would it?).

...

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 27 2005, 12:40 PM)

Can you tell me if god feels any pleasure/value in your friendship?

Yes - I think so ... sometimes I feel like Eric Liddle ...

(Consider this excerpt from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/HL489.cfm)

QUOTE

...One of my favorite lines in one of my favorite movies, Chariots of Fire, is when they ask the great British runner Eric Liddle, "Why do you run?" He said, "Because when I run I feel God's pleasure." This man was a wonderful runner. You remember the story of the two runners. One runs, and he has to work to run and he runs to justify his existence. It's work, it's exercise. But the other, Eric Liddle, is a natural runner. When he runs, he feels God's pleasure. And we should feel God's pleasure, too. ...

(I added the Bold emphasis) - (I haven't read that full article (at the link) I just used a bit of it after finding it when via a google search when I was looking for how to spell Eric Liddle's name - I guess I provide the link just for context and in case someone wants to use it in a different thread - one more related to politics).

More to the point though, I think that God is pleased with Jesus and when I identify with Jesus (and become His friend), I suspect the pleasure that God feels toward Jesus is also directed toward me (and remember, when I participate at the Lord's table, and identify with Him, in one sense I become Jesus' body/bride here on earth).

QUOTE ( Matthew 17:5 ESV )

He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."

(Bold emphasis added)

...

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 27 2005, 12:40 PM)

QUOTE

People are condemned for forsaking God and seeking their happiness elsewhere (Jeremiah 2:13). This is the essence of sin. The Bible actually commands us to delight in the Lord (Psalm 37:4).

Can't you see what this does?

I see that when people seek "their happiness" in things or personalities that are not eternal and/or not inherently and completely good - we end up seriously disappointed (condemned?) ... I think it is only when we find our ultimate "delight in the Lord" that we are able to find the happiness (pleasure and satisfaction) that we were designed to experience through knowing and desiring God and delighting in His glory.

...

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 27 2005, 12:40 PM)

I'm sorry Dennis, we just have to agree to disagree because whereas you read this material with delight, I read it with horror. I'm sure you can say the same about my material.

Well, as far as agreeing to disagree - yes I suppose we have done that already.

Yes, some of 'your material' I do sometimes read "with horror" - but certainly not all (and maybe not even most of it).

-Dennis

Posted by: Yoshi Jan 27 2005, 02:02 PM

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 26 2005, 11:51 AM)

Yes,

But other than what you "think" this writer might be trying to convey, do you have any actual evidence of it being a "sacrifice"?

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 27 2005, 02:16 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 27 2005, 04:57 PM)

Chef,

Well I am older than four now, (and some folks say I have a really 'big head' <lol>) - but it still requires what I consider to be the help of God, for me to consistantly find my pleasure in the good of someone other than myself.

-Dennis

I'd like to add an 'amen' to this statement.

I think part of what I find most challenging in my current wanderings is the almost audible whisper I hear from G_d calling me to a life of servanthood. Somehow, I'm compelled by the notion that I was created to serve and my greatest joy will be realized in embracing that truth.

I cannot really elaborate on this much because I'm such a wanton narcissist (which is why I ranted about Rolling Stone). I feel a call to look beyond myself and the only power I see to take this path comes from G_d.

I'm really looking forward to the exploration of this idea and the outworking of the servanthood in my life. It is gonna be great.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 27 2005, 02:35 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 27 2005, 12:24 PM)

QUOTE

ppsssttt....that feeling is caused by endorphins.

QUOTE

Where does that leave humans? This is one of the biggest problems I have with Christianity. It's not that I don't understand what you are saying because people do have a tendency to let each other down. And this is what created the need for a being that doesn't let one down...hence god. I just worry that this thinking leads to not trusting people more (although I cannot say that I have personally seen this occur).

It may not be so much that a believer trusts less, but they have something/one to fall back on in times of rejection. Although that never helped me much.

I understand the need and I understand the desire, I just wish that we did not need to create an entity that we could rely on. I wish we could rely on each other...where and when it matters most.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 27 2005, 02:45 PM

Okay...I had a momentary lapse of reason.

I can think of instances where someone had given up hope and was comforted by their belief in god. This is okay, but it also causes that person, in some instances, to become complacent and not to try to work things out. I'm not saying that this happens all the time, but when one gives up hope and relies on faith, then there is no hope left...here and now.

And Dennis says.......God helps those that help themselves.

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 27 2005, 03:05 PM

QUOTE (Yoshi @ Jan 27 2005, 04:02 PM)

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 26 2005, 11:51 AM)

Yes,

But other than what you "think" this writer might be trying to convey, do you have any actual evidence of it being a "sacrifice"?

Yoshi,

Sorry, but I am not getting any 'quick hits' (in my quickly failing mental database) concerning any specific references linking the fact that God made garments out of skin <-> with a God invoked "sacrifice".

However, I have heard of the basic concept that Reach mentioned - (maybe some seminary student - like Chef for instance - could let us know if that is/was-recently widely taught?).

Actually I have heard more in relation to these interesting verses:

QUOTE (Genesis 3:14-15 (ESV) )

The Lord God said to the serpent,

"Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
[15] I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."

(Bold emphasis mine)

It is interesting (to me anyway) that many Christians see these words (which were spoken to the serpent) - to be foretelling that an offspring of the woman will deliver (to the serpent) a fatal blow. Now of course we Christians see the passion of Jesus on the cross to be the ultimate sacrifice - and I suppose in one way that event could be seen as the serpent bruising Jesus' heel (since His subsequent resurrection showed the blow was not ultimately fatal) and also it can be seen as Jesus bruising the serpent's head (since His sacrifice is what ultimately provides the power to take away the "sting of death", which is what has given the serpent the greatest power that he has wielded. Like the resurrection of Jesus came after the cross, so the ultimate death of the serpent doesn't completely come to fruition until later in time -- (i.e. as we see time anyway).

I think some may consider that God is the one who offered the sacrifice (His own son - like what Abraham almost did) - and the serpent was just being used by God in the process.

This too, is a deep mystery (not completely unlike the http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses/02a_symbolism-sexual.mp3 that I mentioned in a recent post to Notblind).

These are just some of my thoughts - I shouldn't (and don't claim to) speak for others.

-Dennis

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 27 2005, 03:56 PM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 27 2005, 10:45 PM)

Okay...I had a momentary lapse of reason.

*holds his breath and counts to 10*

Posted by: ChefRanden Jan 27 2005, 04:01 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 27 2005, 10:57 AM)

Dennis,

That's too bad. I'm able to do the same with out the help of any god.

chef

Posted by: ChefRanden Jan 27 2005, 04:18 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 27 2005, 10:22 AM)

I don't control eternity - for me (as far as the extent of my own personal powers) if I were to let one of my children starve (in this physical life) - that would be the end of that child.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````
God may do other things regarding his children (the ones He may chose to "let ... starve") after their physical death in this life. I don't know.

I (unlike many here) don't think I can judge God by the same standards that apply to me (since I have much less options for accomplishing justice 'in the end' - after - all is said and done (on earth in this life).

-Dennis

It wouldn't be the end of that child according to your belief, would it? Why then do you in practice act as if it would be the end of that child? Could it be that at least on a practical level you know that "eternity" is nonsense?
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
You have no evidence out side of your hope that this is the case. Which is why you raise your children as if there is no God to take care of them, and they will have to fend for themselves.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
You do judge God though. You judge God is Good against all evidence. Perhaps you are frightened to return a guilty verdict. But I think instead that you would make a very good Job. I quess that is ok, though sad. Ok that is as long as you don't force the same on others by any means, including fatherhood.

chef

Posted by: Madame M Jan 27 2005, 06:11 PM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 27 2005, 05:35 PM)

And this is what created the need for a being that doesn't let one down...hence god.

My problem isn't that reliance on God makes people rely on other people less. I've not seen that happen, or happen to a degree that is harmful.

What my problem is, is what happens when the entity (ie: God) that is supposed to not let you down, lets you down? This is where the harm starts. Because since God (whether real or a construct of the mind) is an entity incapable of letting one down by definition (ie: perfect) then the tendency is to put blame back on the person. The blame for the "failing" (if it can be called that) of God are a huge psychological burden for the person to bear.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 27 2005, 06:33 PM

QUOTE (Madame M @ Jan 28 2005, 02:11 AM)

Because since God (whether real or a construct of the mind) is an entity incapable of letting one down by definition (ie: perfect) then the tendency is to put blame back on the person.

Let's look at that statement for a moment.

There are two components to being 'let down'. One component is the ability of the entity of which something is expected to perform the expected and the other component is the actual expectation.

Hence a 'let down' can be the result of a failing in 1 of 2 places:
1: G_d failed to meet the expectation, and is imperfect.
2: The expectation as held by the expectant was wrong.

For example, if your children each expected to get their own pony for Christmas and you didn't deliver is it because you are a bad parent or are your kids getting to be a little bit over expectant? Their failed expectations in this case are no reflection upon you, imho -- they were in need of correction.

As for blame being put on the person, I think this is where the difference between a religion and a relationship enter the picture. When we fail G_d is there to aid us and to help us get a fuller understanding of truth. I don't have a great deal of patience with blame or guilt -- sitting around feeling bad doesn't accomplish anything. Instead it should be veiwed as an opportunity to learn and grow -- a challenge to be faced.

I'll never be perfect in my lifetime.
I'll always have a sin problem of some sort.

I can be down about that and get wrapped up in the blame thingy or I can embrace it as an opportunity to learn and grow. G_d already knows I'm a dork -- it isn't like when I fail he gets disappointed or anything.

Posted by: Fweethawt Jan 27 2005, 06:52 PM

QUOTE (Madame M @ Jan 27 2005, 09:11 PM)

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 27 2005, 05:35 PM)

And this is what created the need for a being that doesn't let one down...hence god.

I've wrote about this a couple of times before, but now I think it is most applicable in this particular topic. (I.e. deterioration of trust in people due to belief in god)

On the way to work one evening, I was listening to a radio program called The Open Forum. This program is hosted by none other the The Great Harold Camping.

A woman called in and you could tell by the sound of her voice that she was in tears. She explained to Mr. Camping that her husband physically and verbally abuses her, and that even though she has prayed to God to help her through it, her husband has continued to abuse her.

Mr. Camping immediately jumped into his bible and explained that a woman is to be obedient to her husband, and that she is supposed to humble herself before him. Then he went on to advise her to fervently pray to God so that He may show her husband the error of his ways. Of course, he finished up his 'counseling' session with a strong word against divorce. "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder!", or something really close to that.

Before he was finished 'counseling' her, she was already crying hysterically. It was evident that she feared for her life. It doesn't take a genius, let alone a God, to know that she continued to be abused after she sought out God's solution to the problem.

Had she put her faith in people, like family members, the law, or a professional counselor, there would have been a much better chance that she might have seen some happiness after getting out of that dangerous situation.

So yes, trusting in something that isn't even there can be quite dangerous and, how should I say this... corrosive to society on a moral level.

Posted by: Madame M Jan 27 2005, 07:22 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 27 2005, 09:33 PM)

Hence a 'let down' can be the result of a failing in 1 of 2 places:
1: G_d failed to meet the expectation, and is imperfect.
2: The expectation as held by the expectant was wrong.

OK, I can accept that. The problem with this forum, is the same problem in mixed denom Christian forums, everyone comes from a different- whether slight or drastic- set of teachings and beliefs within Christianity. I tend to think more along the lines of the times I have seen people "stand on the promises" in the Bible and nothing happens. For instance, healing. I can accept that "no" will be an answer. It just seems in regards to healing by faith- ie: healing directly from God, the answer is "no" way more often then "yes". As modern medicine finds more cures and better cures, it appears that the answer is "yes" more often now then in say, the middle ages, as long as medicine and medical technology are employed. Therefore, if one were to trust in God to heal them and they do not recieve the healing, the first line of defense is usually to blame the person not healed somehow. They either didn't have enough faith, or had sin, or God is chastising them or if they were "good" enough, He is testing them like Job. I'm not talking about ponies and candy, I'm talking about coherent promises from the Bible like, "You shall lay hands on the sick and they shall be healed."

By the way, glad to see the Gerbil shroud back. LOL! Have you carbon dated it yet? You better get moving if you want Gerbilanity to out convert Rameusism.

Posted by: Cerise Jan 27 2005, 07:52 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 27 2005, 06:33 PM)

Let's look at our expectations for God (and yes, don't lie, you do have certain expectations for God):

1. that he exists
2. that he listens
3. that he answers (in whatever "yes" or "no" capacity, although not all questions can be answered with yes or no)
4. that he is "good" or "right" in his answers

Many numerous ways God can let a person down besides the two you mentioned gerbil.

By the way, my parents, not being gods, are incapable of giving me ponies for christmas. That shouldn't be a problem for an actual deity though, so I don't know why you christians keep insisting on making your god so incapable of actually being godlike all the time.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Jan 28 2005, 04:19 AM

QUOTE (Madame M @ Jan 28 2005, 03:22 AM)

By the way, glad to see the Gerbil shroud back. LOL! Have you carbon dated it yet? You better get moving if you want Gerbilanity to out convert Rameusism.

Carbon dated it?
No way.

Why would I?

It has a little tag on the back that says: "Manufactured Proudly in Palestine in 33 AD". The tag also says, "Removal of this tag will result in many bad punishments at the hands of the infidel occupiers of our lands."

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 28 2005, 07:20 AM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 27 2005, 04:45 PM)

...
And Dennis says.......God helps those that help themselves.

No, actually Dennis says ...... God helps those who recognize they can't help themselves, those who gladly accept His help (which can only be received into empty outstretched undeserving hands).

-Dennis

QUOTE (Matthew 11:25-30 (ESV) )

At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; [26] yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. [27] All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. [28] Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. [29] Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. [30] For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

QUOTE (John 9:39-41 (ESV) )

Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind." [40] Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, "Are we also blind?" [41] Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, 'We see,' your guilt remains.

QUOTE (Matthew 9:10-13 (ESV) )

And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. [11] And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" [12] But when he heard it, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. [13] Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 28 2005, 07:22 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 27 2005, 03:56 PM)

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 27 2005, 10:45 PM)

Okay...I had a momentary lapse of reason.

*holds his breath and counts to 10*

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 28 2005, 07:37 AM

QUOTE (Madame M @ Jan 27 2005, 06:11 PM)

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 27 2005, 05:35 PM)

And this is what created the need for a being that doesn't let one down...hence god.

I agree with you Madame that the harm does start when one feels let down, but the harm continues with further faith.

I thought, in a previous post, that I had not seen anyone that trusted people less. That is true in the strict sense but, I have seen someone that would cry every night and contemplate suicide even after they had given their troubles over to god.

Like you said, it's when no help comes that the harm begins. I just don't think that the person realizes that no help is forthcoming. They tend to think that god has a better plan for them, so they continue to suffer. This tends to lead to complacency in the person while wondering what to do and then they do nothing (like Fwee's example).

I think it is a combination of the two; the rejection and continued belief.

I can also understand that some things are out of our control, but that should not lead us to being complacent, it should inspire us to pick an alternate route (if possible).

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 28 2005, 07:56 AM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 07:20 AM)

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 27 2005, 04:45 PM)

...
And Dennis says.......God helps those that help themselves.

No, actually Dennis says ...... God helps those who recognize they can't help themselves, those who gladly accept His help (which can only be received into empty outstretched hands).

-Dennis

Oh Dennis...that is exactly what everyone, recently, has been talking about here.

I have seen people with outstretched hands, on their knees, crying to God to help them. No help came.

How many poor mothers pray to god, in the manner I just mentioned, for food to feed their children, while at the same time, are watching their children starve before their eyes?

How many mothers are grateful that a human being has came to them and offered them food to feed their children? Now, you may say (putting words in your mouth again) that their prayers were answered because god works through people. Is it only the christian god that inspires someone/anyone to feed the poor? What about the mother who is still watching her kids starve to death? Not enough faith? Her hands were not underserving enough? (I see you added undeserving hands to your post.)

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 28 2005, 08:26 AM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 27 2005, 03:05 PM)

Actually I have heard more in relation to these interesting verses:

QUOTE (Genesis 3:14-15 (ESV) )

Pastor Arnold Murray from Shepherd's Chapel is adamant about that verse meaning the serpent mated with Eve...literally.

Let's look at that verse and see how he can arrive at that conclusion:

QUOTE

[15] I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring;

What would it mean to put enmity (positive, active, and typically mutual hatred or ill will) between the serpent's offspring and Eve's?

Eve bore two sons; one was evil and one was good. Let's looks at a synonym for enmity...ANTAGONISM suggesting a clash of temperaments leading readily to hostility <a natural antipathy for self-seekers> <antagonism between the brothers.

QUOTE

he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.

He also states that the children of Satan/Cain were the ones to bruise Jesus' heel.

Here he talks more of the subject:

QUOTE

What about teaching Serpent Seed? I make no apology for teaching the Word of God. In Matthew 13, our Lord and Saviour explains the Parable of the Sower directly to His disciples. He is very explicit about exactly who the sower of the bad seed really is. Matthew 13:37-39 states, "He (Jesus) answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels."

Let no one tell you Christ was speaking in a parable here for He was carefully explaining to His disciples the real meaning of the parable He had previously spoken to the multitude. He talked with them in private, and He used language that a child could understand. Christ's teaching of the seed of the devil (or serpent) was nothing new, it was taught from the beginning of Scripture - Genesis.

In Genesis 3:15 God is speaking to the serpent, "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel." The bruising of the heel took place when Christ was nailed to the Cross. And finally, for those who still want further proof as to who the serpent really is; we read in Revelation 12:9, "and the great Dragon was cast out, that old Serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world." Now can anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear have any doubt or confusion about Satan's own seed? Pastor Arnold Murray

Is his interpretation wrong? If you think so, why? It makes sense don't you think?

Damn...I really should stop watching him every morning!

Posted by: Reach Jan 28 2005, 09:29 AM

QUOTE (Yoshi @ Jan 27 2005, 02:02 PM)

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 26 2005, 11:51 AM)

Yes,

But other than what you "think" this writer might be trying to convey, do you have any actual evidence of it being a "sacrifice"?

It's not what I "think." It's one of the teachings that Christianity promotes. I already mentioned it was a Christian interpretation. Of course, I don't have any "evidence" for calling the Genesis 3:21 story "a sacrifice." I'm an atheist and I couldn't care less. I'm not obligated to provide evidence for the story, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, either.

I have not had any run-ins with you, Yoshi, so what's your reason for being intentionally obtuse? Are you an apologist for Judaism, now? I'm not your enemy. Why don't you go find a worthy target if you are bored?

Posted by: Reach Jan 28 2005, 09:34 AM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 28 2005, 08:26 AM)

Pastor Arnold Murray from Shepherd's Chapel...

Damn...I really should stop watching him every morning!

NBBTB, Arnold Murray is absolutely sick!!! I thought so as a Christian. How can you possibly watch that stuff?

Take your own good advice?

Posted by: Diogenes Jan 28 2005, 09:52 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 28 2005, 02:33 AM)

G_d already knows I'm a dork -- it isn't like when I fail he gets disappointed or anything.

M_G:
Are you kidding? This little 'missing the mark' issue condemns billions to eternal torment.

BTW, how was your cruise?

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 28 2005, 10:03 AM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 28 2005, 10:26 AM)

...

Is his interpretation wrong? If you think so, why? It makes sense don't you think?

Damn...I really should stop watching him every morning!

NBBTB,

I guess I will take a quick stab at replying to this post (Your immediately preceeding post is much harder for me to respond to - but I hope to eventually try).

Well, I have never even heard of the guy you were referring to, and prior to reading your post, I also had never heard of anyone speculating about any sexual union between the serpent and Eve.

However, as far as the idea of some people having the devil as their father - then we do see that taught (metaphorically?).

-Dennis

QUOTE (John 8:38-44 (ESV) )

I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father."
[39] They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did, [40] but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. [41] You are doing what your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God." [42] Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. [43] Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. [44] You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

(Bold emphasis mine)

Posted by: Reach Jan 28 2005, 10:32 AM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 10:03 AM)

Well, I have never even heard of the guy you were referring to, and prior to reading your post, I also had never heard of anyone speculating about any sexual union between the serpent and Eve.

Dennis, Arnold Murray is so fond of this particular teaching (on the Serpent mating with Eve to produce Cain) that he usually makes a point to mention it at least once a week, during his program which airs five days a week. Those of us who don't believe that, "have never studied the Bible and are Biblically illiterate," his favorite catch-phrase.

You're fortunate to not have heard of him. He's a prideful, bitter sort and he tends to cause his listeners to become the same way.

Reach

Posted by: Madame M Jan 28 2005, 10:34 AM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 28 2005, 10:37 AM)

I thought, in a previous post, that I had not seen anyone that trusted people less. That is true in the strict sense but, I have seen someone that would cry every night and contemplate suicide even after they had given their troubles over to god.

Yes, I had a friend who committed suicide and everyone thought she was the most devoted among us. Which is true, she was. Which is why when she felt that God had let her down, her disappointment was greater than average.

I do see your point though, in retrospect, because if she had relied on people more instead of waiting for a miracle cure to her depression (or whatever the problem was, we think it was clinical depression), she probably would be around today.

Posted by: SmallStone Jan 28 2005, 10:35 AM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 27 2005, 11:57 AM)

Well I am older than four now, (and some folks say I have a really 'big head' <lol>) - but it still requires what I consider to be the help of God, for me to consistantly find my pleasure in the good of someone other than myself.

I don't buy it.

SOIL, you seem like a really nice, thoughtful person to me. Your concern for others is obvious and it strikes me as being motivated by a genuine desire to help (as opposed to a desire to parade your good works).

I think you're selling yourself short. Way short.

Edited for spelling.

Posted by: Reach Jan 28 2005, 10:37 AM

QUOTE (Madame M @ Jan 28 2005, 10:34 AM)

...if she had relied on people more instead of waiting for a miracle cure to her depression... <snip> ...she probably would be around today.

Typical.

That's a tragic shame, Madame M. I'm sorry about your friend and the unnecessary loss of her to those who knew her.

Christianity can be fatal to one's health.

Posted by: Madame M Jan 28 2005, 10:59 AM

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 28 2005, 01:37 PM)

QUOTE (Madame M @ Jan 28 2005, 10:34 AM)

...if she had relied on people more instead of waiting for a miracle cure to her depression... <snip> ...she probably would be around today.

Typical.

That's a tragic shame, Madame M. I'm sorry about your friend and the unnecessary loss of her to those who knew her.

Christianity can be fatal to one's health.

Thanks Reach. She was my best friend. We were like sisters and I am not like a little sister to her older sister. We kind of adopted each other over the years. **fans face, sniffs, composes self**

I don't think my friend realized that she was depressed. I mean, that her depression had a chemical, natural cause. I think she believed it was "spiritual oppression" and a "demonic attack". It also happened at the time, that the Toronto Movement, Brownsville stuff was big. You know, drunk in the spirit stuff. So she thought that God was going to "manifest" this "supernatural joy" in her, but no matter how hard she tried, it wasn't happening. There was other stuff going on with her being engaged to one of the associate pastors. But what I do know is that she went and sat on the beach and prayed for 2 hours for God to give her some kind of sign that He loves her and it didn't happen. I don't know what kind of sign she wanted, but I think what she was seeking was a supernatural joy to replace the depression.

Posted by: ChefRanden Jan 28 2005, 11:01 AM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Jan 27 2005, 08:33 PM)

Hence a 'let down' can be the result of a failing in 1 of 2 places:
1: G_d failed to meet the expectation, and is imperfect.
2: The expectation as held by the expectant was wrong.

Hmm, God promises to give you what you ask for, then denies what you ask for because it is "X". Remember, that Madame asked for the life of her child. Please explain how that is like asking for a pony. Then explain why asking for a pony is an illegitimate request?

QUOTE

Matthew6:9Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

It is you that adds the caveat that what is asked for must be in gods will. According to Jesus, if you, being a Christian, ask for it, it is in Gods will. The caveats must be added because God doesn't do what he says he will do and you must, as Madame said, but the blame on your self so that God will not be a liar.

QUOTE

Matthew18:19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Explain please why you bother to ask for anything. You being a mere human cannot know the will of God except by chance. And if it is God's will then God must do it anyway.

This smiley face is for my grandson that wants me to click on one.

Posted by: Reach Jan 28 2005, 11:18 AM

QUOTE (Madame M @ Jan 28 2005, 10:59 AM)

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 28 2005, 01:37 PM)

That's a tragic shame, Madame M. I'm sorry about your friend and the unnecessary loss of her to those who knew her.

Christianity can be fatal to one's health.

That's even more tragic than I anticipated, Madame M. At the same time all that was going on (Brownesville and Toronto), there was a "Laughing Revival" with "manifestations of joy," which included the participants barking as dogs, laughing like hyenas, roaring like lions, rolling on the floor in hysterical jubilation, etc... All of this activity was part and parcel to the same "movements" of the Holy Spirit as witnessed by those who visited or attended the Brownesville church or the Toronto Vineyard. The Vineyard Association was so appalled by the behavior of this "offshoot" of theirs that the church was forced to leave the Vineyard fold and is now known as the Toronto Airport Church.

I cannot imagine the grief of your friend and her sense of being abandoned or unloved by the very God she pursued. Well, yes, on second thought, I can imagine that. I experienced something of the same but it didn't hit me when I was in a depressed state.

Again, I'm sorry for the loss of your sister/friend. Like I said, Christianity can be fatal to one's health.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 28 2005, 11:27 AM

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 28 2005, 09:34 AM)

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 28 2005, 08:26 AM)

Pastor Arnold Murray from Shepherd's Chapel...

Damn...I really should stop watching him every morning!

NBBTB, Arnold Murray is absolutely sick!!! I thought so as a Christian. How can you possibly watch that stuff?

Take your own good advice?

I think I do it for shits and giggles!

Really, it just fascinates me being on the other side now and watching 'true' believers preach! There is something very weird and attracting...like a freak show! (Sorry...that was bad. Freak shows make me literally sick.)

I've been wanting to tell ya'll (okie) about my weird feeling at a basketball game last Saturday. I went to OCU and now my great-nephew is a ball-boy for the men's basketball team. They are a private methodist university so prayer is allowed. As they were saying the prayer, I looked around at everyone and got the strangest feeling. It was like I was an observer from another planet...I kid you not. It was like...hell, I can't really describe it and I can't think of a good metaphor for it. It was as if I was viewing people talking to their feet for pete's sake.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 28 2005, 11:36 AM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 10:03 AM)

QUOTE (John 8:38-44 (ESV) )

(Bold emphasis mine)

Oh man Dennis...stop proving the good Pastor right will ya!

QUOTE

Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did, [40] but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did...[44] You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires.

If he is not from Abraham's line, then which line is he from? Cain's? The Kenites?

QUOTE

What about the use of the word Kenites? It is a Hebrew word that has only one meaning, "sons of Cain." It does not mean Judah. The word Kenite cannot be translated Judah and is never used of Judah. Pastor Arnold Murray

I am only doing this in order to show just how much can be read into/out of the bible. What Arnie says makes perfect sense to me (literature wise).

Posted by: image ownership problem Jan 28 2005, 11:38 AM

QUOTE

I plan to email them and let them know. I hope some of you do the same.

I plan to order a subscription for my son, actually. He deconverted in 2001 after some extremely nasty business at our ex-church and it is difficult to find appropriate reading matter for a teenaged atheist with unhealed wounds in this day and age.

I had a Rolling Stone subscription when I was his age and it was an excellent magazine back then. There was a lot more to it than reviews of the latest records.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 28 2005, 11:39 AM

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 28 2005, 10:32 AM)

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 10:03 AM)

Well, I have never even heard of the guy you were referring to, and prior to reading your post, I also had never heard of anyone speculating about any sexual union between the serpent and Eve.

You noticed that too Reach? He gets so angry when questioned that he almost shakes. You can see him clench his teeth like he wants to stike the person (that wrote the letter) dead.

But really, I can understand why he would reach this conclusion on the sons of Cain. It is written...

Posted by: Reach Jan 28 2005, 11:41 AM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 28 2005, 11:27 AM)

As they were saying the prayer, I looked around at everyone and got the strangest feeling. It was like I was an observer from another planet...I kid you not. It was like...hell, I can't really describe it and I can't think of a good metaphor for it. It was as if I was viewing people talking to their feet for pete's sake.

I know exactly what you mean. The same thing happened to me at Christmas time. My presence was requested at a Unitarian church function because a dying family pet was going to perform for the very last time. I swear to you, when the generic prayers were offered up, I felt as though I was on another planet. Indescribably weird.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 28 2005, 11:41 AM

QUOTE (Madame M @ Jan 28 2005, 10:59 AM)

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 28 2005, 01:37 PM)

QUOTE (Madame M @ Jan 28 2005, 10:34 AM)

...if she had relied on people more instead of waiting for a miracle cure to her depression... <snip> ...she probably would be around today.

Typical.

That's a tragic shame, Madame M. I'm sorry about your friend and the unnecessary loss of her to those who knew her.

Christianity can be fatal to one's health.

Those indeed are the true victims of christianity. That is why it is so evil. Sorry for the loss of your friend MM.

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 28 2005, 11:52 AM

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 28 2005, 12:37 PM)

QUOTE (Madame M @ Jan 28 2005, 10:34 AM)

...if she had relied on people more instead of waiting for a miracle cure to her depression... <snip> ...she probably would be around today.

Typical.

That's a tragic shame, Madame M. I'm sorry about your friend and the unnecessary loss of her to those who knew her.

Christianity can be fatal to one's health.

Certainly I agree that there are ways of practicing "Christianity" (or most any religion and/or worldview - for that matter - atheism as well) that can be "fatal to one's health".

Reach, my first thought after reading your final sentence was: "So can clinical depression".

I suspect there are people living in most every type of religion and/or worldview, who have the type of chemical imbalance associated with clinical depression.

I myself have been diagnosed as being depressed - and, as I have mentioned in previous posts, I have tried taking several different kinds of medications. (Starting about a week ago, I have been taking 37.5 mg of Effexor each day - since I recently learned that several close relatives to my mother - like her, also suffered with depression, and some of those similarly effected relatives - only those who eventually started taking Effexor - have found relief).

I can identify with the "waiting for a miracle cure to her depression" - I think that may have been one of the reasons my own mother suffered so - and eventually died prematurely. I too have suffered more than I should have - and I regret (even more) that I have caused undeserved suffering to immediate family members because I didn't seek medical help sooner.

However, even considering the above, I don't necessarily think that just because good people have used modern medicine techniques to learn that some of the chemicals here on earth can be of help in restoring a more optimal chemical balance inside one's head .... that fact should lead us to think that God is not involved in any resultant "healing". God put the chemicals here on earth, and God gave people the minds and talents to make the research possible. God said he works through people (even though many of us wish He would do a lot more without the use of people).

Certainly these things are very, very difficult - I suppose this subject is part of what is related to my own personal depression tendencies - I would like to understand everything in a crystal clear manner. Part of my problem is, I don't.

It does help me to know that at least someone does.

-Dennis

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 28 2005, 11:53 AM

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 28 2005, 11:41 AM)

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 28 2005, 11:27 AM)

ooooooohhhh....I know now! Have you ever seen the The Stepford Wives? It was like that. Everyone is going along with their normal lives and all of a sudden they all just stop and go insane (a little button is pushed or something). Then, after a short time, the normality resumes.

That's it! Weird indeed...

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 28 2005, 11:59 AM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 11:52 AM)

God said he works through people...

You said it...I knew you would.

1 out of 2 isn't bad is it?

QUOTE (NBBTB Jan 28 2005 @ 07:56 AM )

How many mothers are grateful that a human being has came to them and offered them food to feed their children? Now, you may say (putting words in your mouth again) that their prayers were answered because god works through people. Is it only the christian god that inspires someone/anyone to feed the poor? What about the mother who is still watching her kids starve to death? Not enough faith? Her hands were not underserving enough? (I see you added undeserving hands to your post.)

I am glad Dennis that you have found relief. I have been there myself.

But, your answers are showing us how you work out the details while, at the same time, negating the point.

You know I like ya Dennis...

Posted by: Reach Jan 28 2005, 12:07 PM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 28 2005, 11:53 AM)

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 28 2005, 11:41 AM)

... I felt as though I was on another planet. Indescribably weird.

Stepford Wives. Exactly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I feel for you, Dennis. Depression is one evil I'd love to see eradicated. {{{{{Dennis}}}}}

Posted by: Madame M Jan 28 2005, 12:27 PM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 28 2005, 02:27 PM)

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 28 2005, 09:34 AM)

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 28 2005, 08:26 AM)

Pastor Arnold Murray from Shepherd's Chapel...

Damn...I really should stop watching him every morning!

NBBTB, Arnold Murray is absolutely sick!!! I thought so as a Christian. How can you possibly watch that stuff?

Take your own good advice?

I think I do it for shits and giggles!

Some times I watch Jack VanImpe for the same reason. The show is done so cheesily, with Rexella trilling away over the headlines, and Jack punctuating every sentence with a bunch of bible references. I wonder if there are a bunch of people hurridly scribbling down his references for looking up later. And they always have some crazy product they are pushing. Some video tape, or last time I watched, a pocket computerized Bible that will "be with you until Jesus returns".

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 28 2005, 12:27 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 01:52 PM)

I was watching a special on PBS the other day about a world-champion prize fighter. I forget some of the key names - but he sought and eventually fought (and beat) a guy that was called "the great white hope".

At any rate, in that show there were several quotes from Jack London (I think I have the name right now?! - man, I wonder if the Effexor is effecting my memory? - I can't remember if I read anything about that in the side effects ! <snicker>)

OK - now you ask, where on earth is this going?

Oh, I don't remember ... now where was I? (<he snickers yet again>).

Now I remember!

I think I heard somewhere that Jack London was not a Christian - and that he suffered from depression (also some speculation about suicide).

I'm just trying to say that I don't think we should jump to thinking that everyone who is clinically depressed has been driven to that point by "Christianity".

-Dennis

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 28 2005, 12:29 PM

QUOTE (Madame M @ Jan 28 2005, 12:27 PM)

I wonder if there are a bunch of people hurridly scribbling down his references for looking up later.

Don't tell anyone MM, but I do that mentally. Not for the same reason I'm sure, but still...I scare myself sometimes.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 28 2005, 12:34 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 12:27 PM)

I'm just trying to say that I don't think we should jump to thinking that everyone who is clinically depressed has been driven to that point by "Christianity".

-Dennis

Oh no Dennis...that is not the point indeed.

The point is that people can get help...from other people but they turn to god instead. It is a biological problem that needs to be addressed by people. And, if god works through people, does that include people of any/all/no faiths? If not, how does an atheist helping people be shown to be the work of god? If so, why have faith?

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 28 2005, 01:04 PM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 28 2005, 02:34 PM)

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 12:27 PM)

I'm just trying to say that I don't think we should jump to thinking that everyone who is clinically depressed has been driven to that point by "Christianity".

-Dennis

NBBTB,

The point is that people can get help...from other people but they turn to god instead.

It is the word 'instead' that irks me.

I think when people are able to do good - it is because God is helping them to act that way.

Yes, I think God can work through people of "any/all/no faiths". I think that Jesus may find less interference in a do-gooding person - when that person readily admits that 'their' ability to do good is made possibly only by a gift from God.

When an atheist helps someone - s/he is demonstrating that a person who has been made in the image of a helping God - can and sometimes will HELP - (and I think this is basically the same thing that happens when a Christian helps someone).

I still have faith, because I think that (despite some of the evidence we see, limited as we are by our own mortality) - God is good and merciful overall - especially given how humans (myself most definitely included) so often proclaim (using the very language skills God has given us) that God is 'bad'. (Certainly strange, if the only absolute in the relative arena of 'good and bad' is the person of God Himself).

-Dennis

Posted by: Madame M Jan 28 2005, 01:04 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 03:27 PM)

I'm just trying to say that I don't think we should jump to thinking that everyone who is clinically depressed has been driven to that point by "Christianity".

No,no, I wasn't saying that. Though I do think that specific situations and beliefs in that specific church exacerbated her condition while preventing her from utilizing effective avenues of treatment.

The Bible says that two of the "fruits of the Spirit" are peace and joy. Peace and joy would be the opposites of depression, therefore to posess peace and joy one would effectively not be depressed any longer. Since these conditions are supposed to be natural occurances which are supposed to occur spontaneously as evidence that one has the Holy Spirit, then the logical conclusion for a Christian would be that having the Holy Spirit would be a cure or protection against depression. For example, if depression is darkness and the joy and peace of the Holy Spirit is light, then depression/darkness could not effectively exist spontaneously in light/joy and peace. And once again we are back round to my original point, that Christians feel let down and blame themselves, which results in emotional/psychological issues when they feel let down be God when the "promises" in the Bible do not pan out.

Posted by: Cerise Jan 28 2005, 01:14 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 01:04 PM)

I think when people are able to do good - it is because God is helping them to act that way.

Do you have any reason for thinking this other then because it is what you wish to think?

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 28 2005, 01:22 PM

QUOTE (Madame M @ Jan 28 2005, 03:04 PM)

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 03:27 PM)

I'm just trying to say that I don't think we should jump to thinking that everyone who is clinically depressed has been driven to that point by "Christianity".

Madame M,

Sorry if I gave the impression that I was aiming that post mainly in your direction.

I guess it was more prompted by the way I interpreted this type of sentence :

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 28 2005, 01:18 PM)

...Like I said, Christianity can be fatal to one's health.

Reach,

I see (now) that you qualified your statement by the words "can be" - but maybe I am just a bit paranoid - I know, nobody forces me to go swimming in these waters!

And I do appreciate the hugs, even when they come from one who some paranoid "christians" might refer to as a shark.

As perhaps I only recently started to understand better, we are all in this thing together, and it is not always a pretty sight. I agree with you, HOPE is something very much needed. I suppose different folks find their HOPE in differing places.

-Dennis

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 28 2005, 01:30 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 01:04 PM)

Yes, I think God can work through people of "any/all/no faiths". I think that Jesus may find less interference in a do-gooding person - when that person readily admits that 'their' ability to do good is made possibly only by a gift from God.

Are you saying that atheists and people of other faiths will fight against the will of Christian god when they do good? That's a pretty arrogant, although unintended, thing to say.

QUOTE

When an atheist helps someone - s/he is demonstrating that a person who has been made in the image of a helping God - can and sometimes will HELP - (and I think this is basically the same thing that happens when a Christian helps someone).

Again, why have faith?

QUOTE

I still have faith, because I think that (despite some of the evidence we see, limited as we are by our own mortality) - God is good and merciful overall - especially given how humans (myself most definitely included) so often proclaim (using the very language skills God has given us) that God is 'bad'. (Certainly strange, if the only absolute in the relative arena of 'good and bad' is the person of God Himself).

I really don't understand what you mean by god being the only absolute in the arena of good and bad. I tried to understand, but I just don't get what you mean. Darn-it, I really don't understand why this is a reason to have faith when god works through the good people anyway.

Posted by: sexkitten Jan 28 2005, 01:31 PM

QUOTE (Cerise @ Jan 28 2005, 01:14 PM)

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 01:04 PM)

I think when people are able to do good - it is because God is helping them to act that way.

Do you have any reason for thinking this other then because it is what you wish to think?

And, if it is true that God is helping people to be good, then why isn't he helping his chosen people to do good?

Why isn't he helping Catholic priests not their jollies off on little boys? Why isn't he helping the Christian couple who I rented from to not neglect their children? Why doesn't he help Baptist dads in the south not to beat the shit out of their kids? Why doesn't he help kids of Christian families to not be gay and why doesn't he help their parents to not toss them out on their asses? Why isn't he helping the Christian community to give help and comfort to AIDS victims?

If people do good because God helps them to do so, rather than because its something they chose (for whatever altruistic, humanist, self-interested reason...), then why is doing good so random? Wouldn't God help first those who believe in him? His *children*, his *chosen*?

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 28 2005, 01:37 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 01:22 PM)

As perhaps I only recently started to understand better, we are all in this thing together, and it is not always a pretty sight. I agree with you, HOPE is something very much needed. I suppose different folks find their HOPE in differing places.

That is true Dennis, but when one turns to faith, hope is relinquished. There are other circumstances of course when hope is relinquished, but I feel this is also one of those instances.

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 28 2005, 01:42 PM

QUOTE (Cerise @ Jan 28 2005, 03:14 PM)

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 01:04 PM)

I think when people are able to do good - it is because God is helping them to act that way.

Do you have any reason for thinking this other then because it is what you wish to think?

Cerise,

I probably should spend a bunch of time thinking (and maybe even praying wouldn't be a bad plan of action either) about your question before just typing out the first thing that comes into my mind ... but ... since when did I start doing only what I "probably should" do?

I guess I simply sense that good actions seem to be prompted by what I can only refer to as a 'Spirit'. (I use that word, maybe sort of the way I think Jesus was using it (in John 3) when he made a point (or was he asking a question?) about how people could hear the sound of the wind but they didn't know where it comes from or where it goes - in connection with the need to be 'born again' not this time in the flesh - but rather in the Spirit).

When the wind blows I see things being effected, but I don't actually see the thing that is effecting them - even though I have basically learned (over time and observation) to get better at predicting which events are caused by the wind/Spirit - and which are not.

When I see people doing good things - I guess I just get the feeling (there I said it! <snicker>) that the same Spirit of goodness is behind what I am seeing. In my personal experiences, I see these types of things much more often when the person doing the "good things" also feels a certain way (positive) toward God and Jesus.

To be honest with you though - I haven't hung around many people who claim to be atheists - that is, prior to the time I have recently spent frequenting this site.

-Dennis

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 28 2005, 01:53 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 01:42 PM)

QUOTE (Cerise @ Jan 28 2005, 03:14 PM)

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 01:04 PM)

I think when people are able to do good - it is because God is helping them to act that way.

Do you have any reason for thinking this other then because it is what you wish to think?

Shame on you for assuming that when anyone does something good, it comes from god. That makes us robots Dennis. Can I choose to do good without the HS? You have said, basically, no...that it is god that is working in us. Can we choose to do evil...or is that just satan working in us? Vague area here...

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 28 2005, 01:54 PM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 28 2005, 03:37 PM)

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 01:22 PM)

That is true Dennis, but when one turns to faith, hope is relinquished. There are other circumstances of course when hope is relinquished, but I feel this is also one of those instances.

NBBTB,

I really don't understand what you mean by "when one turns to faith, hope is relinquished". I tried to understand, but I just don't get what you mean.

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 28 2005, 03:30 PM)

...I really don't understand what you mean by god being the only absolute in the arena of good and bad. I tried to understand, but I just don't get what you mean. ...

We are both trying to communicate and both of us are having a hard time understanding each other's underlying definitional structures (perhaps?).

-Dennis

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 28 2005, 01:56 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 01:54 PM)

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 28 2005, 03:37 PM)

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 01:22 PM)

That is true Dennis, but when one turns to faith, hope is relinquished. There are other circumstances of course when hope is relinquished, but I feel this is also one of those instances.

NBBTB,

I really don't understand what you mean by "when one turns to faith, hope is relinquished". I tried to understand, but I just don't get what you mean.

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 28 2005, 03:30 PM)

...I really don't understand what you mean by god being the only absolute in the arena of good and bad. I tried to understand, but I just don't get what you mean. ...

We are both trying to communicate and both of us are having a hard time understanding each other's underlying definitional structures (perhaps?).

-Dennis

I guess I should have said, when one is down and beaten. Sorry!

I am going to edit this here and say that this is not necessarily the only time when this occurs.

Posted by: Cerise Jan 28 2005, 01:57 PM

Dennis,

do you think if you had grown up in a different culture, this god feeling that you get whenever you see goodness happening, do you think you would attribute it to perhaps the spirit of Vishnu or the spirit of Ganesh? Do you suppose, had you grown up in a home of Satanists you might even attribute this feeling to the spirit of Satan?

Also, what happens when people attribute the spirit of God or Jesus towards not so good things (such as rape and abuse)? Is this the spirit being faulty or those who sense the spirit misinterpreting things?

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 28 2005, 02:08 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 01:42 PM)

QUOTE (Cerise @ Jan 28 2005, 03:14 PM)

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 01:04 PM)

I think when people are able to do good - it is because God is helping them to act that way.

Do you have any reason for thinking this other then because it is what you wish to think?

By praying, aren't you giving up hope that you will reach the answers on your own? This takes away from the time that you could be thinking...reaching those answers that you will achieve anyway.

Now, if I were to see prayer as meditation, then I can understand why you would come to the answers by clearing your mind. But when you pray and expect that god will provide the answers is where the damage can be done.

Regardless...I feel it is you that will find the answers (whatever they may be) anyway. Just don't wait for god to provide them to you. Hmmmm....why do I get the feeling that you will thank god for providing you the answers anyway?

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 28 2005, 02:10 PM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 28 2005, 03:53 PM)

The ability to make some good choices is a gift from God. God does not take back His gifts.

I didn't say God is forcing each atheist (against his or her will) each time they make a choice to do something 'good' <insert robot picture here>.

Satan can 'work in us' but even if Satan succeeds in getting us to choose to do evil - he must employ a good gift from God in the process (that is, the ability to choose) <remove the robot picture>.

Now here is a weird one for you - I suppose Satan could even convince us to use the good gift from God (the ability to choose to do 'good') for a wrong reason (e.g. to try to show others that we are the ones who deserve to be praised - instead of God - when God is the one who has given us the very thing we are using to try to draw appreciative glances toward ourselves!).

-Dennis

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jan 28 2005, 02:15 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 02:10 PM)

Now here is a weird one for you - I suppose Satan could even convince us to use the good gift from God (the ability to choose to do 'good') for a wrong reason (e.g. to try to show others that we are the ones who deserve to be praised - instead of God - when God is the one who has given us the very thing we are using to try to draw appreciative glances toward ourselves!).

Oooohhhhh....like believe the bible is the word of god? Now, that's weird isn't it?

Really, what if all the good people are doing, based on their interpretation of the bible, is actually evil? I won't mention the crusad*** or anything.

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 28 2005, 02:56 PM

QUOTE (Cerise @ Jan 28 2005, 03:57 PM)

Cerise,

I'll just say something about the first part of your post now - (I might not have time for the second part at this time).

Maybe Socrates attributed "it" to the "unknown God"?
(I'm not to put myself on the level of Socrates - actually I don't remember reading anything he wrote - remember, I am not a college graduate).

In http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/07_suffering/05_questions.mp3 that I also referred you to (http://exchristian.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2482) (starting approximately 16 and a half minutes into it) :

Peter Kreeft says something like this:

QUOTE

...Yes, but my very conservative and traditional belief that Jesus is not just a human being but the logos, the eternal second person of the trinity justifies my rather liberal interpretation that a lot of non-christians will be in heaven.
...
Even though Jesus is the Universal Saviour, you don't have to know him in his 33 year long, 6 foot high, Jewish carpenter body - there are other ways to know him and maybe Socrates did. ...

(Sorry about my weak transcribing skills)

I suggest listening to the full context containing the above quotes - starting about 12 minutes or so into that specific Q&A clip - (there are several MP3 files in that http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/07_suffering.htm group - different than the ones about C.S. Lewis' books - but the same guy (Peter Kreeft) is the main one doing most of the talking/answering).

-Dennis

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Jan 28 2005, 03:16 PM

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 28 2005, 04:15 PM)

...
Really, what if all the good people are doing, based on their interpretation of the bible, is actually evil? I won't mention the crusad*** or anything.

Boy, I sure am glad you are not going to mention the crusades! ... (or "anything" even!)

Cause it's getting close to dinner time, and my family will be expecting me back home before long.

It's not always easy role playing as a token straw-man 'Tolerant Apologist' here at exchristian follies!

<wink>

-Dennis

Posted by: ChefRanden Jan 28 2005, 04:22 PM

QUOTE (image ownership problem @ Jan 28 2005, 01:38 PM)

QUOTE

I plan to email them and let them know. I hope some of you do the same.

This is a very good book for a young person. I read it when I was 21 and gave it to my boys when they reached 17.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394718534/qid=1106957833/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-6611009-7131103?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 by Alan Watts.

Posted by: Fweethawt Jan 28 2005, 08:16 PM

Okay! I just had to point this out.

QUOTE (ChefRanden @ Jan 28 2005, 02:01 PM)

This smiley face is for my grandson that wants me to click on one.

Did anyone else recognize this as being
just the cutest little freakin' comment in
this entire thread?

Posted by: Fweethawt Jan 28 2005, 08:27 PM

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 28 2005, 02:41 PM)

QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jan 28 2005, 11:27 AM)

Reach and NBBTB,

You can add another one to the list of the people that have experienced this very same thing. Yes, that would be me.

Within the past few months, I've gone to an award ceremony and an xmas party for the employees of where my wife works. Each event had a moment of prayer. When everyone else was asked to bow their heads, it didn't even occur to me to do so. My head was up, just like normal, and I did have this realy weird 'spaced out' type of feeling while the prayers were being said.

It felt like a dream. When I started to look around at everyone with their heads down, it was as if I was watching the entire room in slow motion. Then, when the prayer was over, I just snapped back and everything was normal.

Posted by: Fweethawt Jan 28 2005, 08:29 PM

QUOTE (SmallStone @ Jan 28 2005, 01:35 PM)

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 27 2005, 11:57 AM)

I don't buy it.

SOIL, you seem like a really nice, thoughtful person to me. You're concern for others is obvious and it strikes me as being motivated by a genuine desire to help (as opposed to a desire to parade your good works).

I think you're selling yourself short. Way short.

You see that too, huh?

Posted by: Fweethawt Jan 28 2005, 10:01 PM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 02:52 PM)

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 28 2005, 12:37 PM)

QUOTE (Madame M @ Jan 28 2005, 10:34 AM)

...if she had relied on people more instead of waiting for a miracle cure to her depression... <snip> ...she probably would be around today.

Typical.

That's a tragic shame, Madame M. I'm sorry about your friend and the unnecessary loss of her to those who knew her.

Christianity can be fatal to one's health.

Just don't forget, the people who found cures or semi-cures for this condition, didn't do so while suckin' the nipple of superstition.

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 02:52 PM)

I suspect there are people living in most every type of religion and/or worldview, who have the type of chemical imbalance associated with clinical depression.

I myself have been diagnosed as being depressed - and, as I have mentioned in previous posts, I have tried taking several different kinds of medications. (Starting about a week ago, I have been taking 37.5 mg of Effexor each day - since I recently learned that several close relatives to my mother - like her, also suffered with depression, and some of those similarly effected relatives - only those who eventually started taking Effexor - have found relief).

QUOTE (Bible Stuff)

James
5:14
Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
5:15
And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
5:16
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Now, keep in mind that last sentence in that verse I quoted above.

QUOTE (More Bible Stuff that makes the previous Bible Stuff MOOT)

1 Kg.8:46
"There is no man that sinneth not."
2 Chr.6:36
"There is no man which sinneth not."
Ps.14:3, 53:3, Rom.3:12
"There is none that doeth good, no not one."
Pr.20:9
"Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin."
Ec.7:20
"For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."
Is.41:26
"Who hath declared from the beginning, that we may know? and beforetime, that we may say, He is righteous? yea, there is none that sheweth, yea, there is none that declareth, yea, there is none that heareth your words."
Mk.10:18
"Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."
Rom.3:10
"There is none righteous, no, not one."
1 Jn.1:8
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."
1 Jn.1:10
"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."
Rom.3:23
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

Now, what I gather from all of that is, if you are sick, you are supposed to seek the help (prayers and oil) of the church elders. Not only are these prayers supposed to heal the person, but these prayers (by OTHER PEOPLE, not the SICK PERSON) remove sin also. Then it goes on to say that the prayers of the righteous man availeth much.

But nobody is righteous...

Now, if you really think that there is a heavenly being watching over you, you get sick, then go to the elders for prayer, and you DON'T get healed, the feelings that are generated by not having your prayers answered leads one to conclude that they are not 'righteous' and that is why the prayers go unanswered.

Rejection from anyone, especially for a non-existent condition (righteousness/unrighteousness) will leave one feeling and dwelling on depressive thoughts.

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 02:52 PM)

I can identify with the "waiting for a miracle cure to her depression" - I think that may have been one of the reasons my own mother suffered so - and eventually died prematurely. I too have suffered more than I should have - and I regret (even more) that I have caused undeserved suffering to immediate family members because I didn't seek medical help sooner.

Do you think there is a really good possibility that we would have had cures or semi-cures for depression decades, even hundreds of years ago, had it not been for the church standing in the way of medical and scientific progress?

I do... and if there is one bit of absolutely pure hatred within me, it is for the church, and this very reason.

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 02:52 PM)

However, even considering the above, I don't necessarily think that just because good people have used modern medicine techniques to learn that some of the chemicals here on earth can be of help in restoring a more optimal chemical balance inside one's head .... that fact should lead us to think that God is not involved in any resultant "healing". God put the chemicals here on earth, and God gave people the minds and talents to make the research possible. God said he works through people (even though many of us wish He would do a lot more without the use of people).

You know that there was a time that you would be burned alive for holding these ideas, don't you?

I don't recall reading any effectual cures for anything within the bible.

There is nothing in there for any genuine use of material things for the aid of others, and yet it is filled to the rim with garbage like this:

QUOTE

2nd kings 6:25
And there was a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass's head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove's dung for five pieces of silver.

Just think about that...

Thousands and thousands of years worth of indoctrinating people with something that most of them would never have considered to be important (and most of it isn't), then we wonder why so many things are so messed up.

It makes one wonder, just how many minds are being tied up with superstition, when they could very well have the next big cure/solution sitting right in their minds if they were free from such garbage.

Posted by: Amethyst_Moonstar Jan 29 2005, 07:30 AM

QUOTE

You know that there was a time that you would be burned alive for holding these ideas, don't you?

There was also a time when women were burned as "witches" simply for disagreeing with the church, or for *gasp* not staying home and making babies like they were supposed to, or even not getting married.

Do you suppose we might've had cures for things like breast cancer by now, if not for the historic oppression of women?

Posted by: ChefRanden Jan 29 2005, 11:07 AM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 03:04 PM)

I still have faith, because I think that (despite some of the evidence we see, limited as we are by our own mortality) - God is good and merciful overall -
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
especially given how humans (myself most definitely included) so often proclaim (using the very language skills God has given us) that God is 'bad'. (Certainly strange, if the only absolute in the relative arena of 'good and bad' is the person of God Himself).

-Dennis

It is impossible that you have faith because God is "good and merciful overall", because there is no evidence that God is "good and merciful overall".

I'm not saying you don't have faith. I'm just saying that this is an illogical reason to have it. Faith is unconditional belief in spite of evidence to the contrary. You have faith that God is "good and merciful overall". You don't have faith because god is "good an merciful overall"
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Since there is no evidence that God created or existed, God did not give you language skills.

God is not bad because God is not. God is not good because God is not.

You see how easily that clears up the problems?

"God, is he is or is he not?" is the question behind all this blathering we do here in debates.

So far, you have to admit "God is not." answers way more of the problems than "God is." does.

Posted by: Cerise Jan 29 2005, 12:52 PM

QUOTE (ChefRanden @ Jan 29 2005, 11:07 AM)

You have faith that God is "good and merciful overall". You don't have faith because god is "good an merciful overall".

thank you, thank you Chef! That's exactly it, and in better words then I could put it.

by the way, I notice you've been Ishmaelized.

Ever been http://www.ishmael.com/welcome.cfm?

Posted by: Yoshi Jan 29 2005, 05:17 PM

QUOTE (image ownership problem @ Jan 28 2005, 11:38 AM)

QUOTE

I plan to email them and let them know. I hope some of you do the same.

Difficult????

What sort of place do you live..? I mean, like how messed up is your town if you can't find something that isn't religous??

Posted by: Reach Jan 31 2005, 04:08 AM

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 01:22 PM)

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 28 2005, 01:18 PM)

...Like I said, Christianity can be fatal to one's health.

I'm not up on the gossip lately; thanks for the update.

Now, where did I put my little shark gif? Oh well, this one will work.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 1 2005, 05:12 PM

I think Rolling Stone should be forced to 'tithe' 10% of their advertising space to Christian churches.

*Mad_Gerbil checks to see if his skill in trolling is still top notch*

Posted by: ChefRanden Feb 1 2005, 05:32 PM

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Feb 1 2005, 07:12 PM)

I think Rolling Stone should be forced to 'tithe' 10% of their advertising space to Christian churches.

*Mad_Gerbil checks to see if his skill in trolling is still top notch*

I'll go along with that as long as I can advertise my porn site in your church bulletin.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 1 2005, 05:52 PM

QUOTE (ChefRanden @ Feb 2 2005, 01:32 AM)

QUOTE (Mad_Gerbil @ Feb 1 2005, 07:12 PM)

I think Rolling Stone should be forced to 'tithe' 10% of their advertising space to Christian churches.

*Mad_Gerbil checks to see if his skill in trolling is still top notch*

I'll go along with that as long as I can advertise my porn site in your church bulletin.

Well I thought I was really good at trolling but I think the master just gave me the slap down.

*crawls back into his hole to lick his bruises*

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Feb 4 2005, 06:46 AM

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 31 2005, 06:08 AM)

QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Jan 28 2005, 01:22 PM)

QUOTE (Reach @ Jan 28 2005, 01:18 PM)

...Like I said, Christianity can be fatal to one's health.

I'm not up on the gossip lately; thanks for the update.

Now, where did I put my little shark gif? Oh well, this one will work.

Well - I have just returned for a quick "clarification post" - after a week's vacation from this place.

I'm sorry about what I said in that post Reach, I think I may have given the wrong impression.

I have not heard any "gossip" from specific folks (who I referred to as "paranoid Christians") regarding you (or anyone here) specifically.

Actually, I don't know anyone personally who ever reads anything at this site (by that I mean people who I can look in the eye - face to face - and talk with). I have told a couple of friends that I spend some time here - and usually their response (based only on the name of the site) is that I am making a very big mistake (maybe that is why I used the word 'paranoid' - I'm not really sure why I was thinking along those lines - perhaps it takes one to suspect one?).

I guess maybe the concept of 'shark infested waters' was in my mind - because sometimes I get the impression that some people here may be looking for a Christian whom they can devour.

I don't usually get that impression from you Reach - but in that quote about Christianity being "fatal" maybe I did.

I suppose I shouldn't take comments like that personally, but now, in retrospect, I suppose I may have at that time. Hopefully I will 'mellow out' a bit.

Actually - One of the reasons I am taking this Effexor - is also because I think I may have inherited some amount of mental illness from my mother's side of the family. I still need to look into this particular aspect more - because in addition to clinical depression - I think she (and maybe myself also to a certain degree) at times tend to think too much of what is being said (or done) by other people is somehow 'about me'. When actually, reason (and any degree of common sense) should make it clear that "I" am not such a big deal that it would be likely that I should or would attract so much attention!

-Dennis

Posted by: Reach Feb 5 2005, 08:54 PM

Dennis,

No problem. Relax, ok? No hard feelings.

You taking some things personally does not mean that I do. My skin is pretty thick and I'm not easily offended. Besides, it's not everyday that I get such a compliment as being called a shark.

I wish you all the best with the challenges you mentioned.

Reach