religious discrimination

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

10 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 10/20/2016 at 10:07 PM, Songster said:

God has been "defined" in this forum many times. And you've repeatedly claimed the definition was lacking. Just because you don't accept the definition, doesn't mean that the object in question doesn't exist. It just means that God has not granted the proper words to one, or complete understanding to the other.

This is true.  We still have no common reference points.  A lot of it seems to be an inability to let go of the God word.  The God of Pantheism has nothing to do with the God of Monotheism.  Or the various philosophic efforts.

God is love.  Or the first cause.  or mystery.  A lot of this is dishonest.  Consider the American national motto.  "One nation under God."  Then plug in most of these meanings.  What do we have?

"One nation under the Unity behind existence."

"One nation under love."

"One nation under the first cause."

"One nation under mystery."

The default definition behind all of it -- if we are being honest -- is the God of Monotheism.  Even your statement --  "It just means that God has not granted the proper words to one, or complete understanding to the other." -- makes it clear that you are a Monotheist.  That is understandable, but hardly universal.

 

[cuchulain]

16 hours ago, Dan56 said:

True...  Its a belief, and the only documentation is the bible. Whether a person accepts it as being historically accurate is up to them. There is some archaeological evidence which suggest that the cities, people, and events were real, we also have the record (writings) of those who witnessed what happened. But we can't even prove whether Trump molested women or the validity of the Clinton WikiLeaks emails, so the authenticity of any past event can be questioned. And the only proof of who inspired the bible is the bible itself. For me, it validates itself through prophecy, and the inability of anyone to disprove the accuracy of stories recorded thousands of years ago, certainly lends credibility to what they wrote.   

You are redefining proof now.  The writings of those who witnessed it...I hope you aren't referring to Tacitus, the only contemporary writer outside the bible to be shown?  Because...those were acknowledged by the church to be fraudulent.  And if you are referencing the books included within the bible, as you said...the bible is proof of the bible, which is completely circular.  I am sure you are aware of that, and are taking it on faith.  I can acknowledge that, if you can acknowledge that I do not take it on faith.  However, other contemporary writings, that is...books that were NOT included in the bible, disagree with the books in the bible on several points.  Which becomes a problem for your argument.  

True, any past event can be questioned.  This is along the lines of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof.  A book claiming that it is a true account is not sufficient proof for me to believe that it actually is a true account.  After all, the National Enquirer claims the same, and I am sure you don't accept the claims presented within as true in all circumstances.  The claim against Trump about molestation against women, for instance.  There is circumstantial evidence, but no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, at least in lay terms.  Did you know that in the state of Illinois, proof beyond a reasonable doubt in such a case is legally defined as the jury believing the testimony?  Take a second and think that one through...there yet?  Any female on the street that walks by you could call the cops, claim you flashed her, and you could be convicted strictly on her testimony alone, and that qualifies as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  No, we don't know 100% for certain if Trump molested women or not, but he talks about it in a recording.  A person could reasonably argue either way.  In terms of the bible, this is supposed to be a book written or inspired at least, by God.  Perfect beings should be very much more capable in their writings(as Jonathan pointed out above).  The fact that the veracity of the bible is debatable becomes proof against the bible's infallibility.  And as Pete said, there are specifics in the bible which have indeed been found to be inaccurate.

But beyond all that...you still have burden of proof.  Prove up that the bible is infallible, with something other than the bible(since that is circular, it shouldn't be usable).  Or take the honorable path...the truth.  Admit that you accept the bible fully on faith, that it is NOT a work of history, simply one of faith.  There is nothing wrong with that for you, but I choose not to accept it in such a manner.  Then we simply disagree for different reasons.

[Dan56]

16 hours ago, Pete said:

Actually objective history/archaeology do not prove the bible to be true or always agree with it.. The trouble is there are many believers who try to do archaeology who try to find any thing to support their belief rather than questioning it with objective criticism and considering other view points. They also dismiss anything that opposes them. I belong to an archaeology society and such claims are frowned upon by the senior archaeologists who look at things with an open mind. 

No one can prove an old book to be true.. But what archeological evidence disproves the bible? I'd like to know some of those archeological claims that prove the bible is inaccurate, because I have found none. Name one city that Jesus or Paul claimed to visit that didn't actually exist?  Consider that any senior archaeologist that frowns upon ancient claims, may not have an open mind themselves?

14 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

If the Bible actually were from God; it would have been a lot easier to believe.

Not necessarily... Many people find it very easy to believe. Many just won't believe, perhaps that's the purpose; "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is" (Hebrews 11:6)

7 hours ago, cuchulain said:

 In terms of the bible, this is supposed to be a book written or inspired at least, by God.  Perfect beings should be very much more capable in their writings(as Jonathan pointed out above).  The fact that the veracity of the bible is debatable becomes proof against the bible's infallibility.  And as Pete said, there are specifics in the bible which have indeed been found to be inaccurate.

But beyond all that...you still have burden of proof.  Prove up that the bible is infallible, with something other than the bible(since that is circular, it shouldn't be usable).  Or take the honorable path...the truth.  Admit that you accept the bible fully on faith, that it is NOT a work of history, simply one of faith.

If God purposely inspired a book that required belief to accept, then a perfect being succeeded. I have no burden of proof because the bible is a book accepted by faith, and when a person accepts it by faith, they automatically accept it as an accurate work of history. Just as your satisfied that the Gettysburg Address is accurate, I'm satisfied with the bible. As I mentioned before, Jesus called us to come by faith, not proof. There's a reason he did that. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 10/27/2016 at 0:36 AM, Dan56 said:

True...  Its a belief, and the only documentation is the bible. Whether a person accepts it as being historically accurate is up to them. There is some archaeological evidence which suggest that the cities, people, and events were real, we also have the record (writings) of those who witnessed what happened. But we can't even prove whether Trump molested women or the validity of the Clinton WikiLeaks emails, so the authenticity of any past event can be questioned. And the only proof of who inspired the bible is the bible itself. For me, it validates itself through prophecy, and the inability of anyone to disprove the accuracy of stories recorded thousands of years ago, certainly lends credibility to what they wrote.   

I think about all the people who have perfect faith in the Koran -- and all the people who have perfect faith in the Bible.  Are both groups right?  Are both groups mistaken?  Is the faith of one group right and the faith of the other group mistaken?  Which is which if faith can make the wrong choice?   Is the same God, that supposedly inspired both holy books, a deranged fiend?  Maybe perfect faith in an old book is not enough.  The more so when there are holy books to choose from.   Maybe people should look for proof; and think for themselves.

 

[cuchulain]

17 hours ago, Dan56 said:

No one can prove an old book to be true.. But what archeological evidence disproves the bible? I'd like to know some of those archeological claims that prove the bible is inaccurate, because I have found none. Name one city that Jesus or Paul claimed to visit that didn't actually exist?  Consider that any senior archaeologist that frowns upon ancient claims, may not have an open mind themselves?

Not necessarily... Many people find it very easy to believe. Many just won't believe, perhaps that's the purpose; "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is" (Hebrews 11:6)

If God purposely inspired a book that required belief to accept, then a perfect being succeeded. I have no burden of proof because the bible is a book accepted by faith, and when a person accepts it by faith, they automatically accept it as an accurate work of history. Just as your satisfied that the Gettysburg Address is accurate, I'm satisfied with the bible. As I mentioned before, Jesus called us to come by faith, not proof. There's a reason he did that. 

If God inspired such a work, and you consider it a success...then he doesn't love us all equally.  He failed to equip those of us of the skeptical nature with the tools to accept a book which comes across(to me and other skeptics) as incomplete fiction.  You have a burden of proof to show that your book is accurate, which you claim.

[Pete]

On 28/10/2016 at 6:29 AM, Dan56 said:

No one can prove an old book to be true.. But what archeological evidence disproves the bible? I'd like to know some of those archeological claims that prove the bible is inaccurate, because I have found none. Name one city that Jesus or Paul claimed to visit that didn't actually exist?  Consider that any senior archaeologist that frowns upon ancient claims, may not have an open mind themselves?

Not necessarily... Many people find it very easy to believe. Many just won't believe, perhaps that's the purpose; "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is" (Hebrews 11:6)

 

I can name many cities in the USA but would that be proof I went there . It is difficult to say where Jesus went when it is difficult to prove he existed. The believer archaeologists are like unto someone who believes in Freddie Flintstone and find a stone axe and then say that is proof that Freddie Flintstone lived there. It is just rubbish

. 

[Dan56]

On 10/28/2016 at 0:17 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I think about all the people who have perfect faith in the Koran -- and all the people who have perfect faith in the Bible.  Are both groups right?  Are both groups mistaken?  Is the faith of one group right and the faith of the other group mistaken?  Which is which if faith can make the wrong choice?   Is the same God, that supposedly inspired both holy books, a deranged fiend?  Maybe perfect faith in an old book is not enough.  The more so when there are holy books to choose from.   Maybe people should look for proof; and think for themselves.

The books are different, Allah and God are different. Don't we all put our faith into something? You can put your faith in the bible, in the koran, or into what you think. Time will tell who's right.

On 10/28/2016 at 5:46 PM, cuchulain said:

If God inspired such a work, and you consider it a success...then he doesn't love us all equally.  He failed to equip those of us of the skeptical nature with the tools to accept a book which comes across(to me and other skeptics) as incomplete fiction.  You have a burden of proof to show that your book is accurate, which you claim.

The same book is available to all, so it can be dismissed or accepted equally by all.. A persons skepticism doesn't put them at a disadvantage, they just desire more evidence than a believer. Its sufficient for me, so I choose to believe.

On 10/29/2016 at 6:22 AM, Pete said:

I can name many cities in the USA but would that be proof I went there . It is difficult to say where Jesus went when it is difficult to prove he existed. The believer archaeologists are like unto someone who believes in Freddie Flintstone and find a stone axe and then say that is proof that Freddie Flintstone lived there. It is just rubbish. 

Then name anything that doesn't gist with biblical archaeology. Jesus taught in the temple in Jerusalem and prophesied that the temple would be torn down. The temple wall (foundation) still exist, but the same temple was destroyed in 70 AD.. That's a lot more descriptive than attributing a stone age tool as proof of Fred Flintstone.. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

The books are different, Allah and God are different. Don't we all put our faith into something? You can put your faith in the bible, in the koran, or into what you think. Time will tell who's right.

The same book is available to all, so it can be dismissed or accepted equally by all.. A persons skepticism doesn't put them at a disadvantage, they just desire more evidence than a believer. Its sufficient for me, so I choose to believe.

Then name anything that doesn't gist with biblical archaeology. Jesus taught in the temple in Jerusalem and prophesied that the temple would be torn down. The temple wall (foundation) still exist, but the same temple was destroyed in 70 AD.. That's a lot more descriptive than attributing a stone age tool as proof of Fred Flintstone.. 

Yes.  The books are different.  They are also similar.  They are also equally lacking in proof.  No.  We don't all put our "faith" into something.  That is not the Agnostic way.

Are Allah and Yahveh different?  How are they different?  This is of itself a faith statement.  To me, they look like the same nonexistent entity.

In the Gospels, the death of Jesus came with interesting phenomena.  The tombs opened and the dead walked among the living.  Just another day in Jerusalem?  Where is the archeological evidence?  None of the outside observers thought it was worth mentioning in their historical accounts.  The other tombs should be empty.  The Temple itself was not destroyed by magic.  We have the government of Rome to thank for that.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Pete]

Can archaeology prove an unproven figure walked into a build. of course not in the same way you cannot prove that Mohammed did not ascend to heaven from the temple mount.  saying Jesus predicted the temple being torn down is no great deal when you consider that the gospels were written after the event and altered by the many scribes. but then no original gospel exists in its original form.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Pete

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

14 hours ago, Pete said:

Can archaeology prove an unproven figure walked into a build. of course not in the same way you cannot prove that Mohammed did not ascend to heaven from the temple mount.  saying Jesus predicted the temple being torn down is no great deal when you consider that the gospels were written after the event and altered by the many scribes. but then no original gospel exists in its original form.

When so much of the Old Testament is a clear fabrication, why worry about the New Testament?  It is like building a house on sand; then discovering that the roof is weak.  It is too late to wonder if the Gospels are solid.  (No.  Of course not.).  Imo

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

14 hours ago, Pete said:

Can archaeology prove an unproven figure walked into a build. of course not in the same way you cannot prove that Mohammed did not ascend to heaven from the temple mount.  saying Jesus predicted the temple being torn down is no great deal when you consider that the gospels were written after the event and altered by the many scribes. but then no original gospel exists in its original form.

When so much of the Old Testament is a clear fabrication, why worry about the New Testament?  It is like building a house on sand; then discovering that the roof is weak.  It is too late to wonder if the Gospels are solid.  (No.  Of course not.).  Imo

[Dan56]

20 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Yes.  The books are different.  They are also similar.  They are also equally lacking in proof.  No.  We don't all put our "faith" into something.  That is not the Agnostic way.

Are Allah and Yahveh different?  How are they different?  This is of itself a faith statement.  To me, they look like the same nonexistent entity.

In the Gospels, the death of Jesus came with interesting phenomena.  The tombs opened and the dead walked among the living.  Just another day in Jerusalem?  Where is the archeological evidence?  None of the outside observers thought it was worth mentioning in their historical accounts.  The other tombs should be empty.  The Temple itself was not destroyed by magic.  We have the government of Rome to thank for that.

Allah ask his followers to exact vengeance, while the biblical God reserves vengeance for himself. Look at the lives of Mohammad and Jesus, they are completely different. I could go on, but suffice to say, there's a multitude of differences between what Christians and Muslims believe and follow. 

The tombs opening was fulfilled prophecy (Ezekiel 37;1-14), and Jesus foretold it; "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live" (John 5:25).. You want archeological evidence of people who rose from the grave and are gone? I guess its the same evidence that Christ did likewise - 'Empty tombs!' Jesus didn't say "magic" would destroy the temple, just that it would be torn down.

18 hours ago, Pete said:

Can archaeology prove an unproven figure walked into a build. of course not in the same way you cannot prove that Mohammed did not ascend to heaven from the temple mount.  saying Jesus predicted the temple being torn down is no great deal when you consider that the gospels were written after the event and altered by the many scribes. but then no original gospel exists in its original form.

I don't believe the Temple was destroyed after the gospels were written, otherwise they would have recorded the event as a proven prophecy. Nor do I believe the gospels were altered by scribes. Your arguing that there's no proof by presenting evidence that cannot be backed by facts. Even if the original gospels were preserved, I suspect you wouldn't believe them. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Allah ask his followers to exact vengeance, while the biblical God reserves vengeance for himself. Look at the lives of Mohammad and Jesus, they are completely different. I could go on, but suffice to say, there's a multitude of differences between what Christians and Muslims believe and follow. 

The tombs opening was fulfilled prophecy (Ezekiel 37;1-14), and Jesus foretold it; "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live" (John 5:25).. You want archeological evidence of people who rose from the grave and are gone? I guess its the same evidence that Christ did likewise - 'Empty tombs!' Jesus didn't say "magic" would destroy the temple, just that it would be torn down.

I don't believe the Temple was destroyed after the gospels were written, otherwise they would have recorded the event as a proven prophecy. Nor do I believe the gospels were altered by scribes. Your arguing that there's no proof by presenting evidence that cannot be backed by facts. Even if the original gospels were preserved, I suspect you wouldn't believe them. 

This is an odd behavior known as pious fraud.  The people who wrote the Gospels were not historians.  They were propagandists.

[Pete]

On 01/11/2016 at 1:34 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

This is an odd behavior known as pious fraud.  The people who wrote the Gospels were not historians.  They were propagandists.

Totally agree with that. The only reason it matters is that droves of people keep insisting it does matter but beyond that the claim (imo) is hollow. I would ignore that it except they are an irratant and keep voting for the likes of Trump and his vice candidate  because they think he is also Christian and therefore beyond question .  scarry in my opinion

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, Pete said:

Totally agree with that. The only reason it matters is that droves of people keep insisting it does matter but beyond that the claim (imo) is hollow. I would ignore that it except they are an irratant and keep voting for the likes of Trump and his vice candidate  because they think he is also Christian and therefore beyond question .  scarry in my opinion

Some Christian.  Quoting from "Two Corinthians". Even I know better than that.  P.T. Barnum was right.  There is a sucker born every minute.

•  

Edited November 2, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 11/2/2016 at 11:25 AM, Pete said:

Totally agree with that. The only reason it matters is that droves of people keep insisting it does matter but beyond that the claim (imo) is hollow. I would ignore that it except they are an irratant and keep voting for the likes of Trump and his vice candidate  because they think he is also Christian and therefore beyond question .  scarry in my opinion

I have other concerns:  The teaching of Creationism in science class; the persecution of gay people;  Evangelical military chaplains; etc.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 11/1/2016 at 2:07 AM, Dan56 said:

Allah ask his followers to exact vengeance, while the biblical God reserves vengeance for himself. Look at the lives of Mohammad and Jesus, they are completely different. I could go on, but suffice to say, there's a multitude of differences between what Christians and Muslims believe and follow. 

The tombs opening was fulfilled prophecy (Ezekiel 37;1-14), and Jesus foretold it; "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live" (John 5:25).. You want archeological evidence of people who rose from the grave and are gone? I guess its the same evidence that Christ did likewise - 'Empty tombs!' Jesus didn't say "magic" would destroy the temple, just that it would be torn down.

I don't believe the Temple was destroyed after the gospels were written, otherwise they would have recorded the event as a proven prophecy. Nor do I believe the gospels were altered by scribes. Your arguing that there's no proof by presenting evidence that cannot be backed by facts. Even if the original gospels were preserved, I suspect you wouldn't believe them. 

You cite the difference "between what Christians and Muslims believe and follow.". Really?  Must we go down the list of Christian atrocities?  We can start with the KKK.

Don't bother telling me that the Klan are not real Christians.  I'm equally bored with hearing that the Islamists are not real Muslims.

Of course they are.  In both cases. 

[Dan56]

9 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Don't bother telling me that the Klan are not real Christians.  I'm equally bored with hearing that the Islamists are not real Muslims.

You've quoted the words of Jesus yourself; "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16). He repeatedly warned against fake Christians; "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God" ( 1 John 4:1). And his response to hypocrites; "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matthew 7:23). You may not see any difference, but Catholics and Mormons don't believe the same thing, and most of what the Klan spews is not indicative of anything Christ taught. A real Christian simply follows the example of Christ.. Many stray and create religions, denominations, and radical sects that are born of man-made ideologies. Lumping all Christians or Muslims into one group is like saying that all women are identical.. It just ain't true.     

[Pete]

Ah! the age old game of Christians . Our group is always more right than the rest and we are better than rhem. 

Just look at the denominations and splits and fragmentations.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Pete