If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.

Religions > Bible > If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Post reply

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"V"
Date:	06 Jul 2007 06:54:24 AM
Object:	If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.

If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother
trying to include you in the discussion any longer. You have a history
of not responding to the threads and just let the atheists do the
talking. I like to hear all sides in a discussion, but will not
continue to waste my time sending you posts if you keep hiding in the
shadows.
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2
.

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	06 Jul 2007 09:28:07 AM

Hello V:
Christians vs atheists is the only kind of discussion that Christian
apologists are interested in, because since atheists do not believe
the bible, they don't bother to try to understand it, so Christian
apologists are under no pressure to make reasonable arguements from
scripture.
Also, Christian apologists will not continue in any discussion which
requires them to form logical arguements from an understanding of the
bible, rather than from selected single verses.
I will happily participate in any bible discussion, but I like to
discuss bible context, so Christian apologists tend to avoid
discussion with me.
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	06 Jul 2007 11:12:40 AM

"Provoker" <provoker42@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183732087.435415.23550@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

And let's keep this ***** out of alt.atheism, shall we, boys?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.

User: "Thandarr"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	06 Jul 2007 11:06:38 AM

On Jul 6, 9:28 am, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

Many atheists understand the Bible, to the extent it can be
understood.
Thandarr
.

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	06 Jul 2007 06:12:57 PM

On Jul 6, 12:06 pm, Thandarr <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 9:28 am, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

Many atheists understand the Bible, to the extent it can be
understood.

Thandarr

Hello Thandarr:
Christians vs atheists argue in black and white. Christians can't get
past the single verses they have memorized, and atheists can't get
past the contradictions and errors they have memorized. Christians
have no reason to understand the bible beyond what they have been
taught, so atheists have no reason to understand any more about the
bible than Christians do.
Neither a Christian, nor an atheist, is inclined to consider that he
might be wrong about the bible, because both are conveniently bound to
the old standard arguements which have been well known to both sides
for centuries.
.

User: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	06 Jul 2007 06:21:56 PM

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:12:57 -0700, Provoker <provoker42@gmail.com>
wrote:

The Bible is irrelevant outside Christianity.
No more relevant than eg the Koran or the Greek myths are to
Christians.

Neither a Christian, nor an atheist, is inclined to consider that he
might be wrong about the bible, because both are conveniently bound to
the old standard arguements which have been well known to both sides
for centuries.

Why do you lie about atheists?
We wouldn't give a flying ***** about the Bible if Christians had the
sense to keep it to themselves.
And what is there for an atheist to be wrong about?
.

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	07 Jul 2007 10:58:09 AM

On Jul 6, 7:21 pm, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:12:57 -0700, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The Bible is irrelevant outside Christianity.

Hello Chris:
I expect you are refering to post Nicean Christianity, which is simply
a combination of the pagan religions of the Roman empire, bearing the
"Christianity" name.

No more relevant than eg the Koran or the Greek myths are to
Christians.

Why do you lie about atheists?

I don't know your definition of a lie, but I simply offered an opinion
which I believe to be true:-)

We wouldn't give a flying ***** about the Bible if Christians had the
sense to keep it to themselves.

There is no reason for today's Christians to keep the bible to
themselves because the bible is nothing to them but a bunch of single
verses which which to prove the Constantinian(Nicean) creed.

And what is there for an atheist to be wrong about?

Well since I am reading and posting on alt.bible, I'm saying that
atheists are wrong about the bible...just as Christians are.
.

User: "aversiveness"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	09 Jul 2007 05:10:24 PM

On Jul 7, 11:58 am, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 7:21 pm, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:12:57 -0700, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The Bible is irrelevant outside Christianity.

Hello Chris:
I expect you are refering to post Nicean Christianity, which is simply
a combination of the pagan religions of the Roman empire, bearing the
"Christianity" name.

No more relevant than eg the Koran or the Greek myths are to
Christians.

Why do you lie about atheists?

I don't know your definition of a lie, but I simply offered an opinion
which I believe to be true:-)

We wouldn't give a flying ***** about the Bible if Christians had the
sense to keep it to themselves.

There is no reason for today's Christians to keep the bible to
themselves because the bible is nothing to them but a bunch of single
verses which which to prove the Constantinian(Nicean) creed.

And what is there for an atheist to be wrong about?

Well since I am reading and posting on alt.bible, I'm saying that
atheists are wrong about the bible...just as Christians are.

Your answer is vague and meaningless and unless clarified could be
taken as a slur. What _exactly_ are atheists wrong about, regarding
the bible? Please be specific.
.

User: "Neil Kelsey"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	08 Jul 2007 12:52:44 PM

On Jul 6, 4:12 pm, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 12:06 pm, Thandarr <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 9:28 am, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

Many atheists understand the Bible, to the extent it can be
understood.

Thandarr

Just because an argument is well known or memorized does not make it
any less valid.
Atheists have memorized contradictions, therefore they can be ignored.
That has to be the lamest reasoning I've heard since V last posted. Is
all Christian Apologetics equally fallacious? (That's a rhetorical
question)
.

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	08 Jul 2007 04:42:33 PM

On Jul 8, 1:52 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 4:12 pm, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 12:06 pm, Thandarr <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 9:28 am, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

Many atheists understand the Bible, to the extent it can be
understood.

Thandarr

Just because an argument is well known or memorized does not make it
any less valid.

Atheists have memorized contradictions, therefore they can be ignored.
That has to be the lamest reasoning I've heard since V last posted. Is
all Christian Apologetics equally fallacious? (That's a rhetorical
question)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hello Neil:
You obviously missed the point.
Making the same old *valid* arguements that have never changed
anyone's mind during the centuries they have been used, is more like a
role playing game than a debate.
Someone should assign numbers to all the standard arguements and the
standard rebuttals. Think of the bandwidth savings during a
debate...LOL
.

User: "Neil Kelsey"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	09 Jul 2007 09:17:15 AM

On Jul 8, 2:42 pm, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 8, 1:52 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 4:12 pm, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 12:06 pm, Thandarr <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 9:28 am, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

Many atheists understand the Bible, to the extent it can be
understood.

Thandarr

Just because an argument is well known or memorized does not make it
any less valid.

Atheists have memorized contradictions, therefore they can be ignored.
That has to be the lamest reasoning I've heard since V last posted. Is
all Christian Apologetics equally fallacious? (That's a rhetorical
question)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hello Neil:
You obviously missed the point.
Making the same old *valid* arguements that have never changed
anyone's mind during the centuries they have been used,

That's not true at all. I've seen people lose their faith after
encountering atheist arguments on plenty of occassions. Ask the people
on alt.atheism. I am SURE you will find some ex-theists (mostly ex-
Christians) who will tell you which argument it was that pushed them
all the way.

is more like a
role playing game than a debate.
Someone should assign numbers to all the standard arguements and the
standard rebuttals. Think of the bandwidth savings during a
debate...LOL-

LOL? That's more revealing than funny. I interpret your position as a
tactic to avoid addressing the arguments that atheists raise because
they're too difficult for you. The "standard rebuttals" have been
inadequate so far. Better to change the subject (like you're trying to
get us to do) to something you can manage.
.

User: "V"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	09 Jul 2007 08:42:30 AM

On Jul 8, 5:42?pm, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 8, 1:52 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 4:12 pm, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 12:06 pm, Thandarr <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 9:28 am, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

Many atheists understand the Bible, to the extent it can be
understood.

Thandarr

Just because an argument is well known or memorized does not make it
any less valid.

- Show quoted text -

Hey Neil and Provoker.
You both seem like nice guys or gals.
Why don't you come over to:
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/index.php
Lots of discussion there that may be of interest to you.
Even a religion section for you Neil to defend atheists.
V
.

User: "Neil Kelsey"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	09 Jul 2007 09:17:10 AM

On Jul 9, 6:42 am, V <v...@aol.com> wrote:

On Jul 8, 5:42?pm, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 8, 1:52 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 4:12 pm, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 12:06 pm, Thandarr <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 9:28 am, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

Many atheists understand the Bible, to the extent it can be
understood.

Thandarr

Just because an argument is well known or memorized does not make it
any less valid.

- Show quoted text -

Hey Neil and Provoker.

You both seem like nice guys or gals.

Why don't you come over to:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/index.php

Lots of discussion there that may be of interest to you.

Even a religion section for you Neil to defend atheists.

V-

Thanks V, but I'm happy here. This is unmoderated, and I don't like to
be censored, and I don't want you to be censored either. And, if you
haven't noticed, we spend a lot of time defending atheism.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going tobother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	10 Jul 2007 02:58:10 PM

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:42:30 +0000, V wrote:

Hey

HO!!! <WHACK>
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.

User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	06 Jul 2007 10:02:22 PM

On Jul 6, 4:12 pm, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 12:06 pm, Thandarr <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 9:28 am, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

Many atheists understand the Bible, to the extent it can be
understood.

Thandarr

Hello Thandarr:
Christians vs atheists argue in black and white.

That's true, except for the ones that don't.

Christians can't get
past the single verses they have memorized, and atheists can't get
past the contradictions and errors they have memorized. Christians
have no reason to understand the bible beyond what they have been
taught, so atheists have no reason to understand any more about the
bible than Christians do.
Neither a Christian, nor an atheist, is inclined to consider that he
might be wrong about the bible,

Being an atheist means you don't believe the God claims in the Bible.
You can't be wrong about that.

because both are conveniently bound to
the old standard arguements which have been well known to both sides
for centuries.

Can you familiarize me with a "standard arguement [sic]" for atheism?
I'm drawing a blank here.
.

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	07 Jul 2007 11:22:35 AM

On Jul 6, 11:02 pm, Santolina chamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com>
wrote:

On Jul 6, 4:12 pm, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 12:06 pm, Thandarr <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 9:28 am, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

Many atheists understand the Bible, to the extent it can be
understood.

Thandarr

Hello Thandarr:
Christians vs atheists argue in black and white.

That's true, except for the ones that don't.

Being an atheist means you don't believe the God claims in the Bible.
You can't be wrong about that.

Hello Santo:
The God claims in bible the are the result of religious authors
writing for a religious audience, and they simply represent the common
religious practice of giving God the glory for everything that
happens. Because Christians are hung up on insisting that the God
claims are true, and atheists are hung up on rejecting the God claims,
neither group has figured out what the bible actually tells a secular
story which is pertinent to Christian and atheist alike.

because both are conveniently bound to
the old standard arguements which have been well known to both sides
for centuries.

Can you familiarize me with a "standard arguement [sic]" for atheism?
I'm drawing a blank here.

Since I am reading and posting on alt.bible, the standard arguements I
am refering to are for and against the bible.
.

User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	08 Jul 2007 06:44:23 PM

On Jul 7, 9:22 am, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 11:02 pm,Santolinachamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com>
wrote:

On Jul 6, 4:12 pm, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 12:06 pm, Thandarr <thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 9:28 am, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

Many atheists understand the Bible, to the extent it can be
understood.

Thandarr

Hello Thandarr:
Christians vs atheists argue in black and white.

That's true, except for the ones that don't.

Being an atheist means you don't believe the God claims in the Bible.
You can't be wrong about that.

It's not a neurosis, it's a description of the state of mind of having
not been convinced of the truth of a particular claim.

neither group has figured out what the bible actually tells a secular
story which is pertinent to Christian and atheist alike.

The Bible is of course interesting from sociological and historical
perspectives, though I'm not sure what "secular story" you are
referring to.

because both are conveniently bound to
the old standard arguements which have been well known to both sides
for centuries.

Can you familiarize me with a "standard arguement [sic]" for atheism?
I'm drawing a blank here.

Since I am reading and posting on alt.bible, the standard arguements I
am refering to are for and against the bible.

Can you then familiarize me with the standard arguments "against the
Bible", other than the obvious one that objective claims of invisible
deities, God-men rising from the dead, and so on are not believable?
Because that is the only argument "against the Bible" that I am aware
of.
.

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	09 Jul 2007 08:11:14 AM

On Jul 8, 7:44 pm, Santolina chamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com>
wrote:

Hello Santo:
The standard arguements against the bible, have to do with the errors,
contradictions, and impossibilities it contains. The standard
arguements *for* the bible, are that with God nothing is impossible,
and having the right spirit is necessary to understand the apparent
errors and contradictions.
As far as I'm concerned, the debate should not be for and against the
bible, which is a piece of literature, but for and against the
religious interpretation of the bible.
In the story of the bible, the secular goal of scripture became lost
when the Jews turned it into a religion. Jesus attempted a revival of
the secular goal, but it became lost again when the Romans turned it
into a religion.
.

User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	09 Jul 2007 09:21:28 PM

On Jul 9, 6:11 am, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 8, 7:44 pm,Santolinachamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com>
wrote:

Hello Santo:
The standard arguements against the bible, have to do with the errors,
contradictions, and impossibilities it contains.

More or less what I said.

The standard
arguements *for* the bible, are that with God nothing is impossible,

Except perhaps composing a coherent and convincing religious text.

and having the right spirit is necessary to understand the apparent
errors and contradictions.

Can't argue with that.

As far as I'm concerned, the debate should not be for and against the
bible, which is a piece of literature, but for and against the
religious interpretation of the bible.

Of course.

In the story of the bible, the secular goal of scripture became lost
when the Jews turned it into a religion.

There is no "story of the bible" any more than there is a story of the
20th century.

Jesus attempted a revival of
the secular goal,

Well, you're right, except for all the numerous places in the gospels
where He states precisely the opposite. And since the various gospels
are the only evidence we have of this individual's views, there you
are.

but it became lost again when the Romans turned it
into a religion.

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	10 Jul 2007 07:14:57 PM

On Jul 9, 10:21 pm, Santolina chamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com<
wrote:
< There is no "story of the bible" any more than there is a story of
the
< 20th century.
Hello Santo:
I think you mean that you are **not aware** of any "story of the
bible". Methinks thou doest defend the Christian position, regarding
the bible, too much...LOL
<
< < Jesus attempted a revival of
< < the secular goal,
<
< Well, you're right, except for all the numerous places in the
gospels
< where He states precisely the opposite. And since the various
gospels
< are the only evidence we have of this individual's views, there you
< are.
I can see that you find it necessary to accept the Christian
interpretation of the bible, in order to reject the bible, and that is
precisely the situation which I have been arguing against. My point
is that if **you** honestly approached the bible simply as a piece of
literature, you might be able to form an **honest** opinion of your
own.
When atheists are as closed minded as Christians, discussion between
them is definitely more like role playing than debate.
.

User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	10 Jul 2007 11:01:05 PM

On Jul 10, 5:14 pm, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

And the converse is that you ARE aware of one. Good for you.

Methinks thou doest defend the Christian position, regarding
the bible, too much...LOL

I think I see where this is going.

<
< < Jesus attempted a revival of
< < the secular goal,
<
< Well, you're right, except for all the numerous places in the
gospels
< where He states precisely the opposite. And since the various
gospels
< are the only evidence we have of this individual's views, there you
< are.

I can see that you find it necessary to accept the Christian
interpretation of the bible, in order to reject the bible, and that is
precisely the situation which I have been arguing against.

Texts should be approached from the perspective of why they were
written, to whom they are addressed, and so on.

My point
is that if **you** honestly approached the bible simply as a piece of
literature,

Where did you get the idea I don't?

you might be able to form an **honest** opinion of your
own.

Hmm.

When atheists are as closed minded as Christians, discussion between
them is definitely more like role playing than debate.

Christian texts were written by Christians for Christians, and for
those who might be convinced to become Christians. That you have your
own peculiar interpretation of these texts is really neat for you, but
of no relevance to anybody outside the world of your own imagination.
.

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	11 Jul 2007 11:40:18 AM

On Jul 11, 12:01 am, Santolina chamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com<
wrote:
< On Jul 10, 5:14 pm, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com< wrote:
<
< < On Jul 9, 10:21 pm,Santolinachamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com<
< < wrote:
<
< < < There is no "story of the bible" any more than there is a story
of
< < the
< < < 20th century.
<
< < Hello Santo:
< < I think you mean that you are **not aware** of any "story of the
< < bible".
<
< And the converse is that you ARE aware of one. Good for you.
No, the converse is that you emphaticly **state** that there is no
"story of the bible"...LOL
<
< < Methinks thou doest defend the Christian position, regarding
< < the bible, too much...LOL
<
< I think I see where this is going.
<
Good...I was wondering when you would finally get my point, that
atheists will defend the orthodox interpretation of the bible, because
they need the othrodox interpretation, in order to reject the
bible...LOL
< < <
< < < < Jesus attempted a revival of
< < < < the secular goal,
< < <
< < < Well, you're right, except for all the numerous places in the
< < gospels
< < < where He states precisely the opposite. And since the various
< < gospels
< < < are the only evidence we have of this individual's views, there
you
< < < are.
<
< < I can see that you find it necessary to accept the Christian
< < interpretation of the bible, in order to reject the bible, and
that is
< < precisely the situation which I have been arguing against.
<
< Texts should be approached from the perspective of why they were
< written, to whom they are addressed, and so on.
Hello Santo:
Not to get too technical, but those perspectives are really opinions
which can only be honestly formed by reading the bible.
<
< < My point
< < is that if **you** honestly approached the bible simply as a piece
of
< < literature,
<
< Where did you get the idea I don't?

From the fact that orthodoxy appears to be your only arguement against

my position...LOL
<
< < you might be able to form an **honest** opinion of your
< < own.
<
< Hmm.
<
< < When atheists are as closed minded as Christians, discussion
between
< < them is definitely more like role playing than debate.
<
< Christian texts were written by Christians for Christians, and for
< those who might be convinced to become Christians.
Well, if nothing else, that is certainly the orthodox position...LOL
< That you have your
< own peculiar interpretation of these texts is really neat for you,
A free thinker might also find it neat...LOL
Let me clarify something. I dont have any specific interpretation for
any specific passage, or passages, in the bible. I simply recognize
that the very clearly stated goal of Genesis, which is confirmed by
Paul as the goal of first century Christianity, should be considered
as context within which all the text of the bible can be understood.
< but
< of no relevance to anybody outside the world of your own
imagination.
It should be relevant on alt.bible, where I am posting:-)
Apart from the fact that I am willing to present and defend a very
clear bible story, which is far more obvious, logical, and believable,
than orthodoxy, I guess it has no more relevance than the debate
between theists and atheists.
.

User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	11 Jul 2007 09:48:10 PM

On Jul 11, 9:40 am, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

No, it's your "story".

...LOL

You do this a lot. Do you live with anybody who is tired of it?

<
< < Methinks thou doest defend the Christian position, regarding
< < the bible, too much...LOL
<
< I think I see where this is going.
<

Good...I was wondering when you would finally get my point, that
atheists will defend the orthodox interpretation of the bible, because
they need the othrodox interpretation, in order to reject the
bible

No, I am "defending" the position that a text should be interpreted in
the context in which it was intended to be considered.

...LOL

By the way, I hope you aren't trying to swallow food at the same time
as typing this.

< < <
< < < < Jesus attempted a revival of
< < < < the secular goal,
< < <
< < < Well, you're right, except for all the numerous places in the
< < gospels
< < < where He states precisely the opposite. And since the various
< < gospels
< < < are the only evidence we have of this individual's views, there
you
< < < are.
<
< < I can see that you find it necessary to accept the Christian
< < interpretation of the bible, in order to reject the bible, and
that is
< < precisely the situation which I have been arguing against.
<
< Texts should be approached from the perspective of why they were
< written, to whom they are addressed, and so on.

Hello Santo:
Not to get too technical, but those perspectives are really opinions
which can only be honestly formed by reading the bible.

Er, yeah.

<
< < My point
< < is that if **you** honestly approached the bible simply as a piece
of
< < literature,
<
< Where did you get the idea I don't?

From the fact that orthodoxy appears to be your only arguement against

my position

No, my position is the common sense one, yours is your own.

...LOL

You could be a carnival ride.

<
< < you might be able to form an **honest** opinion of your
< < own.
<
< Hmm.
<
< < When atheists are as closed minded as Christians, discussion
between
< < them is definitely more like role playing than debate.
<
< Christian texts were written by Christians for Christians, and for
< those who might be convinced to become Christians.

Well, if nothing else, that is certainly the orthodox position

It's something akin to stating that the Harry Potter books should be
read as entertaining stories for children (and like-minded adults),
rather than as an interstellar flight manual for an observer from
Alpha Centauri. If that is "orthodox", so be it.

...LOL

Can't you just do that quietly to yourself?

< That you have your
< own peculiar interpretation of these texts is really neat for you,

A free thinker might also find it neat...LOL

Do people tell you to pipe down in movie theaters?

Let me clarify something. I dont have any specific interpretation for
any specific passage, or passages, in the bible. I simply recognize
that the very clearly stated goal of Genesis,

Hoo-boy.

which is confirmed by
Paul as the goal of first century Christianity, should be considered
as context within which all the text of the bible can be understood.

Sometimes a text that truly is written as a story clearly states its
"goal" at the beginning, "Pride and Prejudice" being the only example
that leaps from the top of my head. More often than not, though, a
story (much less a cobbled-together set of different religious texts,
which is what the Bible is) doesn't make it that easy. Since you
contend that you have mastered this arcane truth that seems to be
hidden from the rest of us the conclusion is that you are either
incredibly wise or a crank. I have my money on one, but I'm not
telling you which.

< but
< of no relevance to anybody outside the world of your own

imagination.

It should be relevant on alt.bible, where I am posting:-)
Apart from the fact that I am willing to present and defend a very
clear bible story, which is far more obvious, logical, and believable,

I read another post of yours where you seem to present the "story" as
you understand it. Basically, it's just a summary of what happens to
Israelis/Jews/Hebrews (with a healthy dollop of interpretation on your
part) in the various Biblical texts. starting with Abraham. If you
can make a little more sense out of this alleged narrative for me than
a simple recounting of quasi-historical events, feel free.

than orthodoxy, I guess it has no more relevance than the debate
between theists and atheists.

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	14 Jul 2007 06:54:48 PM

On Jul 11, 10:48 pm, Santolina chamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com>
wrote:

Hello Santo:
I do feel free...LOL
Let me try to make my position a little more black and white for you.
The bible was not written, it was assembled by priests who made their
scriptural selections according to doctrines which they wanted to
perpetuate. They established the doctrine that scripture could only
be
understood and explained by the priesthood, and the masses were
indoctrinated long before they began to question priestly
interpretation.
Since the priesthood established the authority of the scriptures in
the
first place, to disagree with the priesthood's interpretation would
tend
to dismiss the authority of scripture, so those who accept scriptural
authority, necessarily have to accept basic orthodoxy, and the
closest
they can come to honest bible study, is simply an attempt to refine
basic orthodoxy, which spawned thousands of doctrinally disagreeing
denominations which all accept basic orthodoxy.
I simply looked for a continuous bible theme which could be used as
context in scripture interpretation, and I found that the history
recorded in every book, when placed in logical chronological order,
show
a flow of history(story history) which is completely consistent with
God's everlasting promise to Abraham: A great sovereign nation, of
Abraham's children, on all the land between the Euphrates and the
river
of Egypt, will bless all nations.
The church is very vague regarding God's promise to Abraham, even
though
the apostle Paul makes it clear that the gospel that he preached is
the
very same gospel that God preached first to Abraham, making Abraham
the
father of all who believe the gospel.
When one considers that there is only one prophecy which is obviously
messianic; that a child will be born who will be given the (long
fallen)kingdom of his father David, and then considers that Jesus
came
preaching the good news that the kingdom is coming, it does not take
a
whole lot of deductive reasoning to see what is going on in the bible
story. Orthodox believers completely ignore this obvious evidence in
order to interpret the bible in the context of the Nicean creed,
which
was established by a democratic vote among opposing religious
factions,
during Constantine's establishment of a universal religion for the
Roman
empire.
When one reads the bible in the context of the "great nation/kingdom"
theme, virtually all of the mystery passages lose their mystery, and
a
very logical story emerges, which exposes the pagan doctrines of the
Nicean creed.
Everyone who has a dog in the fight; Christians, and atheists, agree
that all the chronological events to which I refer, are in the bible,
but won't admit that there is a pattern which would change the
orthodox
interpretation of the bible. It's as though everyone will agree that
there are four quarters in my hand, but they cannot immagine why I
would
suggest that they add up to one dollar, and rather than debate the
issue, they simply say "don't be so stupid".
Imagine fining that kind of attitude on a board which one would
expect
to be frequented by a bunch of free thinkers...LOL
.

User: "Thandarr"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	07 Jul 2007 09:05:25 PM

On Jul 6, 6:12 pm, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 12:06 pm,Thandarr<thand...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 6, 9:28 am, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

Many atheists understand the Bible, to the extent it can be
understood.

Thandarr

HelloThandarr:
Christians vs atheists argue in black and white. Christians can't get
past the single verses they have memorized, and atheists can't get
past the contradictions and errors they have memorized. Christians
have no reason to understand the bible beyond what they have been
taught, so atheists have no reason to understand any more about the
bible than Christians do.
Neither a Christian, nor an atheist, is inclined to consider that he
might be wrong about the bible, because both are conveniently bound to
the old standard arguements which have been well known to both sides
for centuries.

Well maybe I'll fit in here because I usually argue in a muddle. And
I don't know if I agree that neither a Christian nor an atheist is
willing to consider that s/he might be wrong. It's just that each
tradition demands a particular kind of proof that they will never
get. Atheists, to my understanding, would be perfectly willing to
change their minds in the face of solid scientific proof. That does
not include the pseudosciences such as Intelligent Design. It also
does not mean that just by proving that scientists are uncertain about
even major propositions, not to mention minor details, can one prove
that the "converse" is true. Atheists change their minds every day
about many things on the basis of new or better evidence. They just
haven't seen new or better evidence of the existence of a god.
What would it take for a Christian to change his/r mind? I suspect
that a feeling, from the heart, that is stronger or somehow more
definitive than the emotional pull that leads them to Christ in the
first place, might do it. I suspect, but cannot prove, that there is
an innate yearning for gods. It is a universal among human societies,
but obviously not among human beings. I suspect that many atheists
have felt it as well, but they allow reason and experience to overcome
this emotional pull.
As such, neither is ever going to get the kind of proof s/he wants.
That is, unless there is a god who decides to show himself or there is
a sudden impulse toward nontheism in the minds of individual
Christians.
Still, it is good for social and cultural reasons to know the Bible,
the Qu'ran, and other religious documents, even if one finds no
inspiration in them at all, and even at the risk that too much
familiarity with the scriptures might breed contempt.
Thandarr
.

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	08 Jul 2007 10:12:58 AM

On Jul 7, 10:05 pm, Thandarr <thand...@yahoo.com< wrote:
<
< Well maybe I'll fit in here because I usually argue in a muddle.
And
< I don't know if I agree that neither a Christian nor an atheist is
< willing to consider that s/he might be wrong. It's just that each
< tradition demands a particular kind of proof that they will never
< get. Atheists, to my understanding, would be perfectly willing to
< change their minds in the face of solid scientific proof. That does
< not include the pseudosciences such as Intelligent Design. It also
< does not mean that just by proving that scientists are uncertain
about
< even major propositions, not to mention minor details, can one prove
< that the "converse" is true. Atheists change their minds every day
< about many things on the basis of new or better evidence. They just
< haven't seen new or better evidence of the existence of a god.
Hello Thandarr:
I am not refering to being right or wrong about God, but being right
or wrong about the bible...
<
< What would it take for a Christian to change his/r mind? I suspect
< that a feeling, from the heart, that is stronger or somehow more
< definitive than the emotional pull that leads them to Christ in the
< first place, might do it. I suspect, but cannot prove, that there
is
< an innate yearning for gods. It is a universal among human
societies,
< but obviously not among human beings. I suspect that many atheists
< have felt it as well, but they allow reason and experience to
overcome
< this emotional pull.
<
< As such, neither is ever going to get the kind of proof s/he wants.
< That is, unless there is a god who decides to show himself or there
is
< a sudden impulse toward nontheism in the minds of individual
< Christians.
Overwhelming logic should the determining factor in mind change, but
when people shun logic in an effort to believe by faith, there is
little chance of a change of mind.
Biblical faith has nothing to do with believing things which are
illogical, it has to do with believing in the future fulfillment of a
completely reasonable, secular, event, which was predicted more than
three thousand years ago, and simply became the faith of scripture.
<
< Still, it is good for social and cultural reasons to know the Bible,
< the Qu'ran, and other religious documents, even if one finds no
< inspiration in them at all, and even at the risk that too much
< familiarity with the scriptures might breed contempt.
While the Christian is obliged to accept the bible from the social/
cultural/orthodox point of view, the atheist is free to analyse it
from a logical point of view, but because of his bias against the
bible, there is no incentive for an atheist to do that.
The bible tells a perfectly logical story which completely refutes
Christianity, does not require belief in God, and maintains continuity
throughout, and it is quite ironic that atheists, agnostics, and
Christians, are not aware of this story, because they have no
incentive to know the bible better than Christians are obliged to.
.

User: "Thandarr"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	08 Jul 2007 11:52:52 AM

On Jul 8, 10:12 am, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 7, 10:05 pm,Thandarr<thand...@yahoo.com< wrote:
<
< Well maybe I'll fit in here because I usually argue in a muddle.
And
< I don't know if I agree that neither a Christian nor an atheist is
< willing to consider that s/he might be wrong. It's just that each
< tradition demands a particular kind of proof that they will never
< get. Atheists, to my understanding, would be perfectly willing to
< change their minds in the face of solid scientific proof. That does
< not include the pseudosciences such as Intelligent Design. It also
< does not mean that just by proving that scientists are uncertain
about
< even major propositions, not to mention minor details, can one prove
< that the "converse" is true. Atheists change their minds every day
< about many things on the basis of new or better evidence. They just
< haven't seen new or better evidence of the existence of a god.

HelloThandarr:
I am not refering to being right or wrong about God, but being right
or wrong about the bible...

<
< What would it take for a Christian to change his/r mind? I suspect
< that a feeling, from the heart, that is stronger or somehow more
< definitive than the emotional pull that leads them to Christ in the
< first place, might do it. I suspect, but cannot prove, that there
is
< an innate yearning for gods. It is a universal among human
societies,
< but obviously not among human beings. I suspect that many atheists
< have felt it as well, but they allow reason and experience to
overcome
< this emotional pull.
<
< As such, neither is ever going to get the kind of proof s/he wants.
< That is, unless there is a god who decides to show himself or there
is
< a sudden impulse toward nontheism in the minds of individual
< Christians.

Overwhelming logic should the determining factor in mind change, but
when people shun logic in an effort to believe by faith, there is
little chance of a change of mind.
Biblical faith has nothing to do with believing things which are
illogical, it has to do with believing in the future fulfillment of a
completely reasonable, secular, event, which was predicted more than
three thousand years ago, and simply became the faith of scripture.

<
< Still, it is good for social and cultural reasons to know the Bible,
< the Qu'ran, and other religious documents, even if one finds no
< inspiration in them at all, and even at the risk that too much
< familiarity with the scriptures might breed contempt.

While the Christian is obliged to accept the bible from the social/
cultural/orthodox point of view, the atheist is free to analyse it
from a logical point of view, but because of his bias against the
bible, there is no incentive for an atheist to do that.

The bible tells a perfectly logical story which completely refutes
Christianity, does not require belief in God, and maintains continuity
throughout, and it is quite ironic that atheists, agnostics, and
Christians, are not aware of this story, because they have no
incentive to know the bible better than Christians are obliged to.

Provoker,
I guess from this that you have an interpretation of the Bible that
meets the description you've given. It seems inconsistent with my
experience of puzzling through the thing.
I've read huge swaths of the Bible. There were parts of it which,
quite honestly, I can't get through. In the parts of the Bible I've
read, there is no logical story. It's just a compilation of illogical
stories.
I know that the Old Testament can certainly be interpreted in a way
that "refutes" Christianity. I don't know how you do that with the
New Testament attached.
My tentative conclusion is that the Bible is a collection of various
stories and traditions, compiled with no particular interest in
consistency or logic, but preserved because each one of the writings
from which it was compiled spoke to someone or some group. That's
tentative only. I am not prepared to defend that version.
Still, how much should we focus on the Bible? Isn't basic cultural
literacy with a generalized understanding of the faith traditions
involved and how they have influenced history what we're looking for?
Obviously, if one believes it's the actual word of God, he's going to
take it more seriously than I do.
I guess I'd like to know what you're talking about.
Thandarr
.

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	08 Jul 2007 06:15:39 PM

On Jul 8, 12:52 pm, Thandarr <thand...@yahoo.com< wrote:
< Provoker,
<
< I guess from this that you have an interpretation of the Bible that
< meets the description you've given. It seems inconsistent with my
< experience of puzzling through the thing.
<
< I've read huge swaths of the Bible. There were parts of it which,
< quite honestly, I can't get through. In the parts of the Bible I've
< read, there is no logical story. It's just a compilation of
illogical
< stories.
<
< I know that the Old Testament can certainly be interpreted in a way
< that "refutes" Christianity. I don't know how you do that with the
< New Testament attached.
<
< My tentative conclusion is that the Bible is a collection of various
< stories and traditions, compiled with no particular interest in
< consistency or logic, but preserved because each one of the writings
< from which it was compiled spoke to someone or some group. That's
< tentative only. I am not prepared to defend that version.
<
< Still, how much should we focus on the Bible? Isn't basic cultural
< literacy with a generalized understanding of the faith traditions
< involved and how they have influenced history what we're looking
for?
<
< Obviously, if one believes it's the actual word of God, he's going
to
< take it more seriously than I do.
<
< I guess I'd like to know what you're talking about.
<
< Thandarr
Hello Thandarr:
Have you ever read a book which includes a lot of red herrings in
order to make you think pretty hard to follow the real story?
Scripture wasn't written that way, but since the books included in the
bible were doctrinally selected from the massive amount of scripture
available, and the bible has been doctrinally interpreted and
paraphrased a few times in due course over the centuries, one must
identify the red herrings by looking for a theme which maintains
continuity through the whole bible, and determining what details of
scripture fit into that theme, and what details of scripture
contradict that theme.
The apostle Paul, in the first century, said that Abraham was the
first to hear, and believe, the gospel, and it was counted unto him
for righteousness. Paul goes on to say that this makes Abraham the
father of all who believe the gospel.
Now regardless of whether or not Paul existed, or said those things,
it is enough of a clue to send one back 1000+ years before Paul, and
see what the gospel was that Abraham heard and believed.
Abraham believed that a great sovereign nation of his children, would
bless all the nations. How it is to bless all nations will become
quite clear when I get to first century scripture, but meanwhile, back
at the ranch...
Moses believed that the nomadic nation, called the children of Israel,
was chosen to be the great nation of Abraham's belief.
Israel became a great nation/kingdom, on the specific land of
Abraham's belief, but Israel fell into non-existence without ever
blessing all nations.
While the Jews were captive in Babylon, the faith of Abraham was
revived when they bagan to believe that they would resurrect the
Davidic kingdom of Israel, which would then carry on to bless all
nations.
Over the next 500 years the Jews lost interest in going to war to
resurrect the kingdom, and simply made kingdom resurrection part of
their religion, faithlessly claimng that God would resurrect the
kingdom when He felt like it.
Jesus came seeking out those backslidden Jews, convincing them that
the kingdom is coming, and recruiting a body of followers for the
expected son of David to lead to repossession of the land, and the
resurrection of the kingdom.
The Jewish leaders were afraid that Jesus might lead an unsuccessful
attack on Rome, so they had him killed to save all the Jews from death
at the hands of the Roman army.
Jesus' apostles continued preaching the good news of the kingdom,
enlarging the zealot movement, and history tells us that Rome
eventually marched on Jerusalem, leaving it in rubble, and the
apostolic zealot movement driven underground.
The blessing of all nations by the great nation of Abraham's faith, is
to be "peace on earth, good will to men", and it is to be achieved by
resurrected Israel, bringing all the national leaders under it's
control(one world government), and not allowing nation to rise up
against nation anymore. People will not learn war anymore, they will
beat their swords into plowshares, and all the nations will be blessed
with peace on earth.
Regardless of whether the bible is fact or fiction, that is what I see
as the real story that the bible tells, and the current "Christian"
beliefs are simply pagan relgous doctrines which formed the creed for
the universal religion which Constantine established at Nicea in
325AD, and continues to this day in all organizations which call
themselves Christian.
Christianity is based on the Nicean creed, and the bible is only used
to supply selected single verses which are used out of context to
"prove" the pagan Nicean creed.
Christians will not argue against this hypothesis, they simply will
not discuss it at all...LOL
.

User: "Thandarr"
Title: Re: If you agnostics and theists don't shape up, I'm not going to bother trying to include you in the discussion any longer.	09 Jul 2007 01:57:22 PM

On Jul 8, 6:15 pm, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 8, 12:52 pm,Thandarr<thand...@yahoo.com< wrote:

< Provoker,
<
< I guess from this that you have an interpretation of the Bible that
< meets the description you've given. It seems inconsistent with my
< experience of puzzling through the thing.
<
< I've read huge swaths of the Bible. There were parts of it which,
< quite honestly, I can't get through. In the parts of the Bible I've
< read, there is no logical story. It's just a compilation of
illogical
< stories.
<
< I know that the Old Testament can certainly be interpreted in a way
< that "refutes" Christianity. I don't know how you do that with the
< New Testament attached.
<
< My tentative conclusion is that the Bible is a collection of various
< stories and traditions, compiled with no particular interest in
< consistency or logic, but preserved because each one of the writings
< from which it was compiled spoke to someone or some group. That's
< tentative only. I am not prepared to defend that version.
<
< Still, how much should we focus on the Bible? Isn't basic cultural
< literacy with a generalized understanding of the faith traditions
< involved and how they have influenced history what we're looking
for?
<
< Obviously, if one believes it's the actual word of God, he's going
to
< take it more seriously than I do.
<
< I guess I'd like to know what you're talking about.
<
<Thandarr

HelloThandarr:
Have you ever read a book which includes a lot of red herrings in
order to make you think pretty hard to follow the real story?
Scripture wasn't written that way, but since the books included in the
bible were doctrinally selected from the massive amount of scripture
available, and the bible has been doctrinally interpreted and
paraphrased a few times in due course over the centuries, one must
identify the red herrings by looking for a theme which maintains
continuity through the whole bible, and determining what details of
scripture fit into that theme, and what details of scripture
contradict that theme.
The apostle Paul, in the first century, said that Abraham was the
first to hear, and believe, the gospel, and it was counted unto him
for righteousness. Paul goes on to say that this makes Abraham the
father of all who believe the gospel.
Now regardless of whether or not Paul existed, or said those things,
it is enough of a clue to send one back 1000+ years before Paul, and
see what the gospel was that Abraham heard and believed.
Abraham believed that a great sovereign nation of his children, would
bless all the nations. How it is to bless all nations will become
quite clear when I get to first century scripture, but meanwhile, back
at the ranch...
Moses believed that the nomadic nation, called the children of Israel,
was chosen to be the great nation of Abraham's belief.
Israel became a great nation/kingdom, on the specific land of
Abraham's belief, but Israel fell into non-existence without ever
blessing all nations.
While the Jews were captive in Babylon, the faith of Abraham was
revived when they bagan to believe that they would resurrect the
Davidic kingdom of Israel, which would then carry on to bless all
nations.
Over the next 500 years the Jews lost interest in going to war to
resurrect the kingdom, and simply made kingdom resurrection part of
their religion, faithlessly claimng that God would resurrect the
kingdom when He felt like it.
Jesus came seeking out those backslidden Jews, convincing them that
the kingdom is coming, and recruiting a body of followers for the
expected son of David to lead to repossession of the land, and the
resurrection of the kingdom.
The Jewish leaders were afraid that Jesus might lead an unsuccessful
attack on Rome, so they had him killed to save all the Jews from death
at the hands of the Roman army.
Jesus' apostles continued preaching the good news of the kingdom,
enlarging the zealot movement, and history tells us that Rome
eventually marched on Jerusalem, leaving it in rubble, and the
apostolic zealot movement driven underground.
The blessing of all nations by the great nation of Abraham's faith, is
to be "peace on earth, good will to men", and it is to be achieved by
resurrected Israel, bringing all the national leaders under it's
control(one world government), and not allowing nation to rise up
against nation anymore. People will not learn war anymore, they will
beat their swords into plowshares, and all the nations will be blessed
with peace on earth.

Regardless of whether the bible is fact or fiction, that is what I see
as the real story that the bible tells, and the current "Christian"
beliefs are simply pagan relgous doctrines which formed the creed for
the universal religion which Constantine e