[c.dric]

i wouldn't think of bashing religious people, not because i want to be nice but because it's pointless. they believe what they want to believe and no amount of reasoning or bashing will persuade them.

but religions should be fair game ... they don't deserve more respect than any other idea or belief.

would i be censored if i would say that santa claus is a f[moderated]ing [moderated]. there sure are a lot of people emotionally attached to the belief of him being real.

[Jentsu]

Originally Posted by ButteBlues There's a huge difference between "If you are not Saved, then you will forever be in a Lake of Fire" and "LISTEN TO ME YOU ARE GOING TO BE ETERNALLY AND FOREVER PUNISHED IF YOU DON'T LISTEN TO EVERY WORD I SAY SO SHUT UP AND BELIEVE IN ME!!!"

So, how do you get "saved"?

I'll ignore why you would even need to be saved if he was such an all-loving god just for the sake of conversation.

[ButteBlues]

Originally Posted by JoshJ Dismissing a patently ridiculous claim that has no evidence presented against it is hardly ad lapidem- the claim must have some level of veracity or evidence.

But then you've just fallen back on argumentum ad ignorantium - a claim doesn't inherently need to have evidence in order to be considered true.

But that doesn't make it actually true.

Neither does it make it false. It tends to be true, however.

Well, yes, one can't expect the Hebrews that thought pi was exactly 3 to be able to use proper surveying techniques on mountains. Disregarding that, though, a local flood is hardly global- a flood that covers Israel wouldn't necessarily even touch Japan. Of course, this only casts further doubt on the veracity of the various "global flood" claims.

One not even need assume the flood was global - just far-reaching enough that when random travelers or vessels reached somewhere, that those on-board might make mention of the story of the Great Flood.

If you count the end of the Ice Age, sure. Pretty sure that doesn't match up chronologically with what the Hebrews were writing about.

As you and I both know, during that era, most people were awful at writing every thing down - let alone always correctly. Many things were passed merely by word of mouth and then notated at a later date.

It's hardly ad ignorantium- you very specifically observed that you were 'operating under' a specific belief because it was more pleasant. That is clearly wishful thinking.

You are dismissing an entire claim as false simply because it hasn't been proven as true. That's ad ignorantium by definition.

Who said I was? The best way to reduce the impact of extremists in a democratic society is to get the populace to realize that the ideas the extremists are basing their claims on aren't even true in the first place.

Right - well, it's not a Christian agenda to control the United States government and pass legislation founded on religious ideologies. That's the goal of extremists.

Uh, that's not what I was referring to with that sentence- I was referring to the claim that the world would end ("Kingdom of God" and all that) within the lifespan of his listeners. It clearly didn't. That casts further doubt on the veracity of the Biblical claims- the claim that the Bible is entirely true is clearly bullshit at this point.

I don't believe that Jesus ever said the world would end within the lifespan of his listeners.

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by ButteBlues I don't believe that Jesus ever said the world would end within the lifespan of his listeners.

Mark 9:1, as I linked in the post I said that in.

[Jentsu]

Originally Posted by c.dric they believe what they want to believe and no amount of reasoning or bashing will persuade them.

I'm an optimist, so I'm going to keep trying anyways.

[ButteBlues]

Originally Posted by Jentsu So, how do you get "saved"? I'll ignore why you would even need to be saved if he was such an all-loving god just for the sake of conversation.

By accepting Jesus Christ and his doctrine into your heart, and worshipping the Lord faithfully.

Furthermore, your obvious stipulation that simply because a religion states something that one who follows that faith should simply try to convert and force every other person on the planet to follow the same faith (quite unwillingly) is quite silly. Common sense says that trying to force someone to believe leads to compromised faith; one must choose by free will.

[panickedthumb]

I know that Jesus at least said he would be back within their lifetimes. I don't remember the exact verse or how it was worded, but I do distinctly remember that... lest I'm proven wrong.

[ButteBlues]

Originally Posted by JoshJ Mark 9:1, as I linked in the post I said that in.

Originally Posted by Mark 9:1 And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

That seems quite different from what you implied it to mean.

Jesus is most obviously referring to his own crucifixon for the sins of man, being the "coming of power" of the "kingdom of God". o_O

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by ButteBlues That seems quite different from what you implied it to mean. Jesus is most obviously referring to his own crucifixon for the sins of man, being the "coming of power" of the "kingdom of God". o_O

I was under the general impression that "kingdom of God" referred to Second Coming rather than the Crucifixion. See the Lord's Prayer- "Thy Kingdom come" and all that.

[ButteBlues]

Originally Posted by JoshJ I was under the general impression that "kingdom of God" referred to Second Coming rather than the Crucifixion. See the Lord's Prayer- "Thy Kingdom come" and all that.

It's a highly debated topic that's really yet to be resolved since grammatical interpretation of such texts varies greatly.

The belief that I think makes the most sense is the one that states:

So Mark 9:1 should not be interpreted as a prediction of any one specific event, but of the new situation of the powerful implementation of divine government which would in many ways become visible before "some of those standing here" faced the martyrdom to which their following of Jesus committed them.

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by c.dric would i be censored if i would say that santa claus is a f[moderated]ing [moderated]. there sure are a lot of people emotionally attached to the belief of him being real.

Self-censorship annoys me. You meant to say "fucking something" (Cunt? Dick? Asshole?) and everyone knows exactly what you meant to say with the first one and is left with a decent guess at the second one.

Why do this?

Originally Posted by ButteBlues It's a highly debated topic that's really yet to be resolved since grammatical interpretation of such texts varies greatly.

After doing a bit of googling it seems that Catholics as well as many Protestant denominations treat it as referencing the Second Coming, which clearly didn't happen in their lifetime. That's definitely the only interpretation I ever heard or got from the texts.

Regardless, "divine government" certainly didn't happen either.

[Senori]

Originally Posted by JoshJ After doing a bit of googling it seems that Catholics as well as many Protestant denominations treat it as referencing the Second Coming, which clearly didn't happen in their lifetime. That's definitely the only interpretation I ever heard or got from the texts.

No. By Catholic theology, the Kingdom of God began with Jesus' resurrection and is embodied in the Church. The Second Coming is the perfection of the Kingdom, not its beginning.

edit: For some more on Catholic eschatology, take a look at this.

[ButteBlues]

Originally Posted by JoshJ After doing a bit of googling it seems that Catholics as well as many Protestant denominations treat it as referencing the Second Coming, which clearly didn't happen in their lifetime. That's definitely the only interpretation I ever heard or got from the texts.

See what Senori said.

Regardless, "divine government" certainly didn't happen either.

"Government" is not to be treated literally here; the institution of a means by which Man could redeem itself in addition to the establishment of a formal organization(s) that would follow the teachings of Christ is probably a more apt way of putting it. I was simply quoting a particular article.

[Jentsu]

Originally Posted by ButteBlues "Government" is not to be treated literally here

Good call, Jesus.

(Sorry, it had to be said!)

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by panickedthumb I know that Jesus at least said he would be back within their lifetimes. I don't remember the exact verse or how it was worded, but I do distinctly remember that... lest I'm proven wrong.

Yes, that's correct. Remember, he supposedly came back to life (insert zombie jesus joke here) 3 days later.
He supposedly visited a couple of his disciples-they're named specifically but I can't remember them offhand.

[panickedthumb]

Originally Posted by JoshJ Yes, that's correct. Remember, he supposedly came back to life (insert zombie jesus joke here) 3 days later. He supposedly visited a couple of his disciples-they're named specifically but I can't remember them offhand.

Ah, I had assumed he was referring to his second coming, and not just his resurrection.

[Jentsu]

Originally Posted by JoshJ Yes, that's correct. Remember, he supposedly came back to life (insert zombie jesus joke here) 3 days later. He supposedly visited a couple of his disciples-they're named specifically but I can't remember them offhand.

I remember that James fingered his hole. (The one in his side, because he was skeptical. "You believe because you have seen, but blessed are those who believe who have not seen" etc)

[c.dric]

Originally Posted by JoshJ Self-censorship annoys me. You meant to say "fucking something" (Cunt? Dick? Asshole?) and everyone knows exactly what you meant to say with the first one and is left with a decent guess at the second one. Why do this?

i didn't meant to say anything except that [fill in whatever insults that comes to your mind, it doesn't matter, it's just an example]. it's not self-censorship, it's laziness at best. anyway it's getting late around here.

[Senori]

Originally Posted by JoshJ Yes, that's correct. Remember, he supposedly came back to life (insert zombie jesus joke here) 3 days later. He supposedly visited a couple of his disciples-they're named specifically but I can't remember them offhand.

And it was fulfilled, yes, in the Church or in any number of other possible interpretations. Your point?

[cilaes]

I believe this "rule" wouldn't have been frequently visited if a debate had not been started.