Science a GoGo's Home Page
Posted By: RM Tongues - 03/16/06 05:31 PM
There's a special way to test if a language or code is authentic or a made-up decoy. I think it works on the principle of counting how many times a certain word appears and in which order the words appear in throughout a paragraph. I was just wondering if anyone ever thought to apply the test to tongues.

P.S. If anyone knows the name of this test could they please tell it to me.
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Re: Tongues - 03/16/06 10:39 PM
Glassolalia is the technical term for "speaking in tongues."

It has been studied - http://linguistlist.org/issues/6/6-385.html

I think it's just called "linguistic analysis" in general.

It's gibberish.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Tongues - 03/16/06 11:18 PM
Speaking in tongues is the work of the human mind when a decent dose of an antipsychotic would be appropriate.

Amazing how religions, since the beginning of time, have embraced the mentally ill, the psychotic, as representing the god(s).

And, of course, how appropriate too.
Posted By: Blacknad Re: Tongues - 03/16/06 11:31 PM
There is a clear difference between Biblical accounts of xenoglossia where people talked in languages they did not know and native speakers of that language understood them, and the modern charismatic nonsense called glossolalia.

Blacknad.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Tongues - 03/17/06 04:30 AM
True. In the biblical case we have no evidence that it ever happened.
Posted By: Blacknad Re: Tongues - 03/17/06 12:06 PM
I wouldn't say you're predictable Dan, but I actually saw that response coming laugh

Regards,

Blacknad
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Tongues - 03/17/06 07:03 PM
And the reason you saw it coming is that you knew, in your heart, it was just another story like Jonah and the whale for which the evidence is essentially non-existant.
Posted By: rlb60123 Re: Tongues - 03/17/06 09:17 PM
Dear DA,

You said...True. In the biblical case we have no evidence that it ever happened.

My answer...The Bible is the evidence, and whether you believe the Bible or not is purely Opinion.

Once again you show how you are right without proving that you are right. If you say I never prove myself right, my answer to that is...I don't have to, because your opinion is really none of my concern except where your opinions are about my opinions. Let us agree to disagree.

p.s. DA, have you studied your Bible lately? How about the Iliad? Or how about Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, by Newton? Who was one of those crazy God Believers that you hate so much.

Closeminded is as Closeminded does.

I think to much I think.
rlb60123
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Tongues - 03/18/06 07:27 AM
rlb wrote:
"The Bible is the evidence, and whether you believe the Bible or not is purely Opinion."

Lets examine your statement.

1. Who wrote the bible? Name please.
2. When precisely did this person write it?
3. In what language?
4. Who translated it into the language(s) you read?
5. What evidence do you have that the translations were 100% faithful and accurate?
6. Why is the version you read more authoritative than the Latin Volgate?
7. Why is the version you read more authoritative than the Torah of the Jews?
8. Why is the version you read more authoritative than the version of every other Chrisitian denomination whose version is different from your?

So what you have, as evidence, is an authorless book, with not a single known original text, written in a language you could never have read, mistranslated into other language you could never have read, mistranslated multiple times into English of which you accept only a single version.
Wouldn't get you out of a parking ticket now would it?

rlb wrote:
"Once again you show how you are right without proving that you are right."

I will presume this translates into something meaningful and respond accordingly. The burden is not upon me to prove that your authorless book is the true and perfect work of the deity that created the heavens and the earth. I'm not the one making that claim.

rlb wrote:
p.s. DA, have you studied your Bible lately?

Yes. But have you ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh from which it was plagiarized?

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/

Well it is about time you did.

Your Bible is as much of a work of fiction copied from a heathen mythology as Santa Claus is Christmas and the Easter Bunny is the resurrection.
Posted By: Wet Wombat Re: Tongues - 03/21/06 06:04 AM
1. "Who wrote the Bible? Name please."

About 40 authors total are credited with writing the 66 books of the Bible. The writers include people at all walks of life, from fishermen to physicians to royalty.

2. "When precisely did this person write it?"

The Bible was written over a span of approximately 1500 years.

3. "In what languages?"

Ancient Hebrew, Koine Greek, and (possibly) Aramaic.

4. "Who translated it into the language(s) you read?"

Many scholars of the Greek and Hebrew language.

5. "What evidence do you have that the translations were 100% faithful and accurate?"

Well we can still compare our translations to the ancient texts, but there are also manuscripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls that confirm that the books of the Bible have been accurately preserved.

6. "Why is the version you read more authoritative than the Vulgate?"

It's not necessarily "more authoritative," but considering the Latin language is no longer spoken, we prefer to read the Bible in our own vernacular.

7. "Why is the version you read more authoritative than the Torah of the Jews?"

It's not. lol

8. "Why is the version you read more authoritative than the version of every other Christian denomination whose version is different from yours?"

Each Christian denomination does not have its own version. The main reason multiple translations were developed is so modern readers could more easily understand the Bible.

"Yes. But have you ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh from which it was plagiarized?"

Actually, there are many versions of the Flood story from all over the world (It's quite an interesting study). Not all take place in Mesopotamia.

"Your Bible is as much of a work of fiction copied from a heathen mythology as Santa Claus is Christmas and the Easter Bunny is the resurrection."

Heh. You should learn something about the Bible before you declare the whole thing a "work of fiction." Take some time to hear what educated people with opposing viewpoints have to say (even if only to know your enemy). But don't make ridiculously ignorant statements like the ones above. Educate yourself in the Judeo-Christian faith, its history and its doctrine, if you plan on discrediting it.

That's all. smile
Posted By: Chaoslillith Re: Tongues - 03/21/06 05:17 PM
The point I know I can take issue with is the statement you made regarding differing versions. The Jehovah's Witnesses are still adding to and changing the Bible, King James of the King James Version fame had it reinterpreted, Mormons have their own bible, Catholics only read a set cycle that repeats every five years of certain stories in their mass ( I was Catholic so I know).

The Bible has been changed throughout the history of Chrisitanity so although there are some parts that may still be accurate to the original texs, but there are many parts that are not. By the way, the Catholic Church does not like the mention of the Dead Sea Scrolls as it speaks about Jesus in ways the hierarchy of the Church does not like.

Let's also speak of the Apochryphal texts as well, things that were removed from the Bibles because human authors did not like them

The Bible has always been a document that is easily interpreted, by the way are we talking New or Old testament as the rules to follow and punishments that are handed out for breaking those rules vary widely between the two. After all, anyone who eats fish on Fridays is going to hell right?

I don't try to discredit the Bible, I let it's followers do it for me. Every act of hypocrisy, violence, bigotry and evil that is carried out in God's name without God seeming to take obvious offense discredits the idea that there is an all knowing being who loves us.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Tongues - 03/21/06 05:59 PM
Web Wombat: Many is not an answer.

Wombat wrote:
"Well we can still compare our translations to the ancient texts"

Actually you can't because there are not ancient texts. There is not a single original copy of any fragment of the book: Not one. It is all make-believe.

Wombat wrote:
"The main reason multiple translations were developed is so modern readers could more easily understand the Bible."

And you think all of the different translations of the 10 Commandments, some with reordering, some with commandments missing is to help modern readers? Are you serious? Are modern readers incapable of handling 10 simple declarative sentences?

But what is most precious about your response is that you immediately jump to the conclusion that I disagree with you because I am not "educated." The word you are looking for is brain-washed and I am extremely knowledgeable about the writings of all of the major religions.

Which is why I find them so laughable and the victims so tragic.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Tongues - 03/21/06 06:01 PM
A challege for Wombat:

Post the 10 commandments used by your specific church.

Surely you can do that.

No Blacknad ... you are not allowed to giggle yet.
Posted By: Wet Wombat Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 01:08 AM
"The Jehovah's Witnesses are still adding to and changing the Bible."

The vast majority of Christians believe the Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult. Their New World Translation is not true to the original Scriptures, and the people that rendered it were not language scholars. In fact, many "real" scholars the Watchtower Society claims support the NWT have, in actuality, spoken out against it.

"King James of the King James Version fame had it reinterpreted."

I don't know about this. I haven't looked into it, but that's a another good reason to have many versions - so that no one can privately interpret the text. It's also handy to have a concordance.

"Mormons have their own bible."

Mormons (also believed by a majority of Christians to be a cult) have many texts, most of which were written by Joseph Smith. The LDS Church traditionally uses the King James Version Bible, though.

"Catholics only read a set cycle that repeats every five years of certain stories in their mass (I was Catholic so I know)."

I'm not too well versed in Roman Catholic orthopraxy (I am a Protestant). Could you please expound on that?

"The Bible has been changed throughout the history of Chrisitanity so although there are some parts that may still be accurate to the original texs, but there are many parts that are not."

Could you please list a few examples?

"By the way, the Catholic Church does not like the mention of the Dead Sea Scrolls as it speaks about Jesus in ways the hierarchy of the Church does not like."

As I said, I am a Protestant. One of the reasons for the Reformation was to escape what Renaissance Christians believed was a corrupt Church hierarchy.

"Let's also speak of the Apochryphal texts as well, things that were removed from the Bibles because human authors did not like them."

Catholicism and some Eastern denominations have their own deuterocanonical texts. Jews have never considered them authoritative and neither do Protestants. The "Apocryphal" books seem to conflict with the Bible on some issues, and although they may be fine for historical reference, we do not accept them as canon.

"The Bible has always been a document that is easily interpreted, by the way are we talking New or Old testament as the rules to follow and punishments that are handed out for breaking those rules vary widely between the two."

There are two forms of law in the Torah: moral law and ceremonial law. Christians believe that ceremonial law is no longer necessary because of Christ's ultimate sacrifice. Moral law, however, is how we believe God would like us to live - now and always. The reason the two Testaments appear to differ is because of their themes. The Old Testament's theme is justice. The New Testament's theme is mercy. And one thing we believers find wonderful about the Bible is that God is able to show His love and mercy without compromising His perfect justice. I hope this helps you understand.

"After all, anyone who eats fish on Fridays is going to hell right?"

Eh? lol No, no one is reprobate for eating fish. ~.^ I'm not familar with a passage that condemns people for doing so on the Sabbath. It was, however, forbidden to eat fish without scales (on account of the toxins).
Posted By: Wet Wombat Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 01:36 AM
"What is most precious about your response is that you immediately jump to the conclusion that I disagree with you because I am not 'educated.' The word you are looking for is brain-washed and I am extremely knowledgeable about the writings of all of the major religions."

YOU are educated in the writings of ALL major religions? Then why were you asking questions like "Who wrote the Bible? When did this person write it? In what language?" Either you were playing dumb or you honestly didn't know. I assumed you were actually looking for answers. Forgive me if you were only being facetious.

"Which is why I find them so laughable and the victims so tragic."

Good grief. Another bitter atheist (I assume you're not an agnostic... Not many agnostics are this "mean."). Look, I believe everyone is entitled to their own views. You apparently do not. I'd be happy to have a civilized, intelligent discussion with you, but I don't appreciate the offensive, patronizing blather. I didn't come here to argue or even debate, just to give my input and perhaps answer a few questions someone might have. If you want a flame war, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Posted By: Wet Wombat Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 02:33 AM
"A challenge for Wombat: Post the 10 commandments used by your specific church."

I don't have any "specific" to my church. Here are the Ten Commandments summarized, if this is what you're looking for:

1. Do not put any other gods before Me.
2. Do not make for yourself any graven image (idol) to worship.
3. Do not take the name of God in vain.
4. Remember to set aside a day of rest (Sabbath) and keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. Do not murder.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not bear false witness against someone (commit perjury).
10. Do not covet another person's possessions.

I know where you'd like to take this. Yes, there are "variants" of the Ten Commandments taken from those passages in the Book of Exodus. Jews and Protestants agree on how they're defined. The Catholic version varies slightly.


**And I apologize. This has really gotten off-topic.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 05:04 AM
And the actual commandments:

You wrote:
1. "Do not put any other gods before Me."

Actual:
ho-tsei-ti-kha a-sher 'e-lo-hey-kha Adonai 'a-no-khi 'a-va-dim mi-beit mitz-ra-yim ma-e-retz
"brought you out who your God Adonai I am from the house of bondage from the land of Egypt."

Not a good match.

You wrote:
2. "Do not make for yourself any graven image (idol) to worship."

Actual:
'al-pa-nai 'a-che-rim 'e-lo-him yih-yeh-le-kha lo'
"before me other gods you shall have Not."

Do you see anything about worshiping images in there? I don't.

Decent rendering of the other 8. I'm surprised you were this close. But the point really is that if even one is wrong ... then one must ask where the black line is between the word of god and the word of man.

No need to apologize. Nothing at SAGG is on of off topic, especially not in the Origins forum, as the moderators seemingly don't desire to put chlorine into the pool no matter how often they are urged to do so.
Posted By: Chaoslillith Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 05:10 AM
Maybe I can finally finish the comment I started 3 hours ago....

The short version this time. I kept getting moved at work.

In short, your entire rebuttal validates mine and DA's arguments as to the inablility of any religion to claim validity and that they hold the truth of God's words.

If the JWs and the Mormons are considered cultists by the rest of the Christian sects yet they believe they are correct, what right do we have to say they are incorrect?

You admit that there human agencies have edited the word of God as it contradicted what was already in the Bible. My question is what mortal, human agency has the right to decide what is contradictory? The Old and New Testament are completely different in tone - eye for an eye versus forgiveness, who are we to say that one is more correct then the other?

Let me ask you and Blacknad, if Jesus appeared today who would believe it was really him and not some insane person babbling to be the Son of God reborn? What would it take to prove to you who believe in Christ that it was Him? How do you decide who is and who is not a false prophet?

I firmly believe that if Christ reappeared on Earth he would be put in an insane asylum, given strong drugs and that would be the end of it. No one, not even the Christians would believe him.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 05:22 AM
Lillith wrote:
"The Old and New Testament are completely different in tone - eye for an eye versus forgiveness, who are we to say that one is more correct then the other?"

Well you see God used to sleep on the left side of the bed and it was kind of lumpy and uncomfortable and he woke up an awful vengeful grouch who liked to commit genocide and do horrible things to innocent children like drown them.

Then about 2,000 years ago he rolled onto the other side of the bed, found it all warm and snuggly and became a good guy who thought warm and loving thoughts like the best way to communicate with humans was a crucifixion and threatening them with armageddon.

The sad truth is that if Jesus appeared today he would likely be precisely what he was the first time: A Jew. He would go to synagogue and wonder who the hell these nut cases are that followed a corrupted biography of his life. One in which he never sought to create a new religion and one that has brought the worst bloodshed and torture to the planet in its history while congratulating itself on the pittance of its labours actually performing worthwhile deeds.
Posted By: Blacknad Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 05:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
And the actual commandments:

You wrote:
2. "Do not make for yourself any graven image (idol) to worship."

Actual:
'al-pa-nai 'a-che-rim 'e-lo-him yih-yeh-le-kha lo'
"before me other gods you shall have Not."

Do you see anything about worshiping images in there? I don't.
The cultures the Jews came into contact with created statues and images and prayed to and worshipped them as gods.

That was the context it was written in and makes perfect sense to translate it as such.

Blacknad.
Posted By: Chaoslillith Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 05:27 AM
True DA,

Then he would weep and figure he could try again in another 2000 years after humanity had pushed itself back into the Stone Age. Sort of the etch a sketch Armageddeon.
Posted By: Wet Wombat Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 06:52 AM
"And the actual commandments:"

I told you it was a only a summarization. But it is the historical interpretation of both Jews and Christians.

"No need to apologize. Nothing at SAGG is on of off topic, especially not in the Origins forum, as the moderators seemingly don't desire to put chlorine into the pool no matter how often they are urged to do so."

Gotcha. Thanks for letting me know. smile
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 08:12 AM
Blacknad wrote:
"That was the context it was written in and makes perfect sense to translate it as such."

So you, a falliable human being, are now the arbiter of what god intended when he gave Moses those tablets. You are so perfect in your thinking, your interpretation, and your understanding of what things were like in the desert 3500 years ago that you can make this statement?

Blacknad wrote:
"The cultures the Jews came into contact with created statues and images and prayed to and worshipped them as gods."

Pretty much the same as what one sees today when goes into a Roman Catholic church and watches people pray to a statue (image) of Jesus Christ.
Wow! What a relief to see that interpretation in action. Too bad that's not what God wrote. But then again I guess if you can ignore the commandment on murder and wage holy wars why should one of the other commandments be any more important.

Well I've got a really great idea. Since you know better than god how to write those first two commandments ... how about taking a whack at fixing the rest of Genesis: Just like King Henry XIII.

Seriously Blacknad? Doesn't this just reek of hypocrisy? A human claiming to know better than a god what the god should have written?
Posted By: Wet Wombat Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 08:27 AM
"If the JWs and the Mormons are considered cultists by the rest of the Christian sects yet they believe they are correct, what right do we have to say they are incorrect?"

The Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have been labeled cults because they reject central doctrines of the Christian faith. Of course there are other reasons. The claim that only they have God's Word and that all of Christendom has perverted the truth is pretty much a giveaway that a purportedly "Christian" group is illegitimate.

"You admit that there human agencies have edited the word of God as it contradicted what was already in the Bible."

The Apocryphal (which ironically means "fictitious") texts were not accepted as God-inspired before they were canonized by the Roman Catholic Church. No books were removed from the Bible, but in some denominations (e.g. Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy), books have been added to the canon. Jews and Protestant Christians believe these books to be superfluous and, in many cases, contrary to Biblical Scripture.

"My question is what mortal, human agency has the right to decide what is contradictory? The Old and New Testament are completely different in tone - eye for an eye versus forgiveness, who are we to say that one is more correct then the other?"

Christianity's New Testament was never intended to supplant Judaism's Old Testament, rather fulfill it. I'll try to illustrate what I mean: "God creates us for His pleasure, and we are granted the gift of free will. We abuse this gift, so we are fallen, fallible, in need of redemption. A loving God with perfect standards seeks to reestablish a relationship with His creation. He chooses a people from which He will send a Redeemer and gives them laws showing them what He expects. Of course, they can never live up to these standards, so God sends a Savior to His people, through which Man and God may be reconciled. But God seeks a relationship with ALL His creation, not only His chosen people. So God temporarily blinds them to the truth, so that others may come to know Him. However, God made it clear from the beginning: only blood atones for sin. He would not ask one of us to die on behalf of humanity, so God comes to us as one of us, feeling everything we feel, experiencing all that we experience. Having lived a flawlessly righteous life, He is undeserving of death, but out of love for His creation, He allows Himself to be slain in our stead. God Himself takes our punishment, so that justice is served and that we might know Him as never before. To symbolize our freedom from sin and separation, He raises Himself from the grave." It's not a replacement... It's only another chapter. The Bible is not just a book of laws and lessons... It's a love story. smile
Posted By: Blacknad Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 08:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
And the actual commandments:

You wrote:
1. "Do not put any other gods before Me."

Actual:
ho-tsei-ti-kha a-sher 'e-lo-hey-kha Adonai 'a-no-khi 'a-va-dim mi-beit mitz-ra-yim ma-e-retz
"brought you out who your God Adonai I am from the house of bondage from the land of Egypt."

Not a good match.
- This is not a commandment and is represented in all Bibles (or the eight Bibles I looked it up in) as nearly identically as:

Ex 20:2
I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
(from New International Version)

Pretty much what you have there.

Are you expecting a straight translation, because as you know, it doesn't work and is pretty much illegible?

Blacknad.
Posted By: Blacknad Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 08:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
And the actual commandments:

You wrote:
2. "Do not make for yourself any graven image (idol) to worship."

Actual:
'al-pa-nai 'a-che-rim 'e-lo-him yih-yeh-le-kha lo'
"before me other gods you shall have Not."

Do you see anything about worshiping images in there? I don't.

- You are confusing this with number one, which is not "brought you out who your God Adonai I am from the house of bondage from the land of Egypt." as you have said (which is actually the introduction), but is as you written for number two "before me other gods you shall have Not."

Actual one and two are as Wombat has written them:

1. Do not put any other gods before Me.
2. Do not make for yourself any graven image (idol) to worship.

Now I know you have some kind of case but I cannot work out what it is yet.

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted By: Chaoslillith Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 04:07 PM
Wombat,

Read your last paragraph and try for 5 minutes to forget your belief in God.

Let me try it this way.

Your "loving" deity creates us for "his pleasure". Your deity then gets upset when we excercise our free will that he gave us. Your deity then pulls this action

"Of course, they can never live up to these standards, so God sends a Savior to His people, through which Man and God may be reconciled. But God seeks a relationship with ALL His creation, not only His chosen people. So God temporarily blinds them to the truth, so that others may come to know Him. However, God made it clear from the beginning: only blood atones for sin."
and it is plainly stated that only a blood sacrifice will atone for sins, sounds a bit heathen don't you think, perhaps Satanic. Never minding the fact that God "blinded" people to the truth so he could have his play with Jesus.

So next in this comes: " Having lived a flawlessly righteous life, He is undeserving of death, but out of love for His creation, He allows Himself to be slain in our stead. God Himself takes our punishment, so that justice is served and that we might know Him as never before. To symbolize our freedom from sin and separation, He raises Himself from the grave."

Now you call this a love story. May I ask what all of God's suffering accomplished for him or humanity? How does his dying serve any justice at all since he knew going into it that he would raise from the grave and therefore the sacrifice is symbolic at most. He only reappeared to a small group of people, one would think that if he wanted to make a point he wold have reappeared before Pontius Pilate, the rabbis and all his enemies to prove to them once and for all that he was God and leave no doubt as to the truth. He did not.

Look, the Christian Bible is a rehash of all the old shaman and pagan myths of old. It has been readapted for a different culture and a different time but that is all.

Every religion that has ever existed has numerous death and resurrection myths, numerous miraculous healings, numerous raising of humans from the dead. At the time of the height of those religions the followers believed devoutly that their deities were the only correct ones. before you state that the Bible is the only written text look at Egyptian heiroglyphs and Roman writings. All their gods and goddesses are spoken off and written about.

Christianity and Christ are not special, they are just a new take on old thoughts. Sorry.

I believe that there is something in nature that holds everything together, do I believe it has a plan, no. Do I beleive it is sentient? In some form yes, but not as we understand it. The reason I believe that is because the myths are so similar and the religions are all the same inherently. Either that, or humantity has a predisposed fixation with death, resurrecction and megalomania.

By the way, you failed to really address any of the issues I raised. You restated that the JWs and the Mormons are incorrect because other sects think so but failed to address the point I raised as to how this helps validate any religions claim that it is correct.

Also the fact that the Catholics, who claim the Pope is a direct link to God's will, added books were as Protestants state the Catholics are incorrect in adding them once again shows me that none of them have any real idea about God. Neither do I, but I do not teach people that my way is the right way mainly because I have no way.
Posted By: Justine Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 04:49 PM
I was reading online the Gospel of Thomas.
I think I prefer it to the rest of the Bible.
I assume it was not cannonized because it would lead to disempowerment of the church.

http://www.gospelthomas.com/

Do average Christians really believe it is ficticious, in comparison to the rest of the Bible just because the church deemed it so?
Well, ficticious or not, it still seems to have some great spiritual truths in there. A preferable description, in my opinion of the Invisible Purple Rhino by his human son.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 05:35 PM
Justine:
Average Christians are the result of brainwashing. They equate the use of critical thinking and Boolean logic to blasphemy.

Lillith is absolutely correct. If the best the creator of the universe can do to communicate with the imperfect creatures he created is to do a symbolic death he needs Karl Rove.
Posted By: Chaoslillith Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 06:06 PM
In skimming through the links in the Thomas site I am not surprised tha the Catholics/other Christians did not like it. Christ speaks of equality for women, and "lies upon the bed" of Salome which hints at sexual relations. Heaven forbid Christ had sex. I never understood that, what exactly do they think he was doing from the ages of 12 to 30 something? I am sure they have the standard response of studying and fasting and such but I think he was living, like everyone else.

Justine, there are many things that have been written that different religious groups dislike, I feel if one part or story of Christ is true and it is all supposed to be the WORD OF GOD, then it is all true. At least that is what logic would dictate.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 07:38 PM
One thing for sure is he enjoyed the company of a hooker and there is not a single sentence indicating he did not enjoy her company. Gee I wonder why the other disciples were jealous?

Lillith ... you might want to reread your last paragraph. I suspect it is not what you intended. Perhaps ... if one part is "NOT" true .... then how can one rely on any of it.
Posted By: Chaoslillith Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 09:07 PM
I think either way the paragraph works. It is either all true or all false since all Christian religions state that their bible is the Word of God so either it is all true or all wrong.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 10:31 PM
Amen. ;-)

I find it amazing the cognitive impairment that must exist for someone to on one hand say:

"It is the word of god"

and on the other say:

"It requires interpretation and I have the unique ability to interpret it for you."

I can communicate quite well with my cat. Surely a deity could do a better job of communicating love than through a faked blood sacrifice or a book that inspires debate and warfare even among those that claim to believe in its authenticity.

These people need to get real. Lets see if I've got this right.

1. Create the universe and all life forms ... check
1. Flood entire planet in time of Noah ... check
2. Plagues on Egypt ... check
3. Armageddon ... check
3. Couple of Roman thugs with a hammer and nails ... sorry no can do

What a crock!
Posted By: Chaoslillith Re: Tongues - 03/22/06 11:51 PM
Well DA,

Cats are gods, they have not forgotten Egypt and will never let us forget either. Sad to say that a cat does better at controlling it's humans then all knowing God.

(I can see the torches now, "She's a witch may we burn her?" for all you Python buffs.)
Posted By: Wet Wombat Re: Tongues - 03/23/06 01:44 AM
"Your 'loving' deity creates us for "his pleasure". Your deity then gets upset when we excercise our free will that he gave us. Your deity then pulls this action."

God gave us free will because He wanted us to love and serve Him voluntarily, so we wouldn't be mindless automatons. However, God has rules. It's our choice whether we abide by them or not, but with free will comes responsibility. Actions trigger reactions. All decisions come with consequences. And God made it clear what the consequences of sin would be - spiritual death. Man abused (and continues to abuse) free will. It's not God's fault.

"And it is plainly stated that only a blood sacrifice will atone for sins, sounds a bit heathen don't you think, perhaps Satanic."

The essence of life is in the blood. The wages of sin is death. Therefore, blood is required for atonement. It would have been perfectly just to simply "let us die," but, out of His love for us, He provided a way out. It may sound heathen or even Satanic to you, but this is a fundamental spiritual truth. Here's the thing: God sacrificed Himself in our place so we wouldn't have to face judgment. Our penalty is paid in full. Justice is served, and we now have nothing to fear. Such is the Gospel message.

"Never minding the fact that God 'blinded' people to the truth so he could have his play with Jesus."

We Christians believe that God temporarily blinded the Jews with regards to the identification of the Messiah, so that Gentiles (non-Jews) would have the opportunity to into a relationship with Him. It's not deception. And using phrases like "have His play with Jesus," are not only demeaning and disrespectful, but ignorant. We see Jesus Christ as God the Son incarnate, both fully Man and fully God. We love the Lord and take very seriously His sacrifice... It's not some dumb puzzle. You are entitled to your opinions, but please try and be a bit more considerate.

"Now you call this a love story. May I ask what all of God's suffering accomplished for him or humanity? How does his dying serve any justice at all since he knew going into it that he would raise from the grave and therefore the sacrifice is symbolic at most."

The Bible explicitly states, "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing." I honestly don't expect you to understand (even Bible scholars are preplexed by its tacit meanings). One way to get a better understanding of the implications of Christ's sacrifice is by examining the feasts and festivals in the Torah (for example, the Passover supper). But I think I know what you're asking. We all die eventually, so what's so special about Jesus dying on the cross? The difference is, we are all stained from our own sin. Our deaths are deserving. Christ, on the other hand, was unblemished, perfectly righteous. His death was undeserving, therefore He was in a unique position. He was able to take on the sins of others. Spiritual "death" is separation from God, and Jesus suffered this. "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken Me?" The Father was separated from the Son, which (from an emotional standpoint), must have been torment (after spending an eternity as One). You're getting into pretty deep theology. lol

"He only reappeared to a small group of people, one would think that if he wanted to make a point he wold have reappeared before Pontius Pilate, the rabbis and all his enemies to prove to them once and for all that he was God and leave no doubt as to the truth. He did not."

Christ's closest friends saw Him resurrected (Even His disciples found it difficult to believe). A multitude saw Him ascend. The high priests knew something was up, otherwise they wouldn't have instructed the guards to keep silent about what they saw. Two thousand years later, over two billion people identify themselves as His followers. I'd say He proved His point. But like I said before, God doesn't just want us to have head knowledge. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but He also also wants us to have heart knowledge. When we have the courage to take that step of faith, He begins revealing Himself to us.

"Look, the Christian Bible is a rehash of all the old shaman and pagan myths of old. It has been readapted for a different culture and a different time but that is all."

Shaman myths? The Christian Gospel message is rooted in the practices and prophecies of ancient Judaism. The first Christians were observant Jews. And the Jews were the first group of people to recognize the idea of "One God" (monotheism). To put it plainly, pagans HATED Jews. Other nations welcomed the Romans because they brought order. Israel believed in One supreme Being (no room for Caesar). This is one thing to consider when investigating why the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. While those pagan religions are long gone, Judeo-Christianity (which has endured much terrible persecution) is still thriving.

"Every religion that has ever existed has numerous death and resurrection myths, numerous miraculous healings, numerous raising of humans from the dead."

First of all, not "every religion that has ever existed" tells of death and resurrection. I think you're exaggerating just a little bit (lol). Mithras, Osiris, Adonis, etc. Yes, I find it interesting that this has been a recurring theme throughout sacred history. I don't see the problem, though. Personally, I think it's fascinating.

"Christianity and Christ are not special, they are just a new take on old thoughts."

Whereas other religions have followers dying for their deities, Christianity holds that God died on OUR behalf. What Christianity offers is very unique: a personal relationship with our Creator. In Islam, for instance, Allah is said to be so transcendant that followers could never hope to know him personally. Other religions have ceremonies and rituals meant to "appease" their god(s). Christianity holds that anyone who simply accepts (by sincerely believing) what Christ did for us is justified and spiritually made pure. Heck, Muslims, no matter how many times a day they pray or attend mosque, don't even have the assurance they will be "good enough" to be accepted into Heaven. Also, my own personal experiences have convinced me of the healing and prophetic power of God. Nothing can convince me He's not not active in my life, in the lives of my family, and in the lives of fellow believers.

"Sorry."

I forgive you. wink

"The reason I believe that is because the myths are so similar and the religions are all the same inherently. Either that, or humantity has a predisposed fixation with death, resurrecction and megalomania."

Eh, that's not true. It's good at least that you recognize there's "something" out there. lol But I think it's fair to say yours the typical skeptical perspective: View all religions collectively. Many skeptics also often equate "belief in God" (theism) with organized religion. Judeo-Christianity may share ideas with world religions, but the messages are radically different.

"By the way, you failed to really address any of the issues I raised. You restated that the JWs and the Mormons are incorrect because other sects think so but failed to address the point I raised as to how this helps validate any religions claim that it is correct."

I'd prefer not to go too far into this. The polytheistic Mormon religion is a historical, doctrinal, and anthropological nightmare. And Jehovah's Witnesses think that Christ went to Brooklyn and started a magazine (lol). Both sects censure Christian symbols. I hope you see the difference. If it helps, trying looking up "cult" on Wikipedia for a more definitive answer.

"Also the fact that the Catholics, who claim the Pope is a direct link to God's will, added books were as Protestants state the Catholics are incorrect in adding them once again shows me that none of them have any real idea about God."

Just because two groups have disagreements, that certainly doesn't mean neither group knows what they're talking about. You won't be able to apply this reasoning anywhere outside religion.

"Neither do I, but I do not teach people that my way is the right way mainly because I have no way."

In that case, I guess you lose by default. Look, why don't you just ask? If you are honestly seeking an answer, sincerely and with an open heart, ask God to reveal Himself to you. I have every confidence that He will answer. You just have to be looking for it. There's no harm ..or shame.. in asking.
Posted By: Wet Wombat Re: Tongues - 03/23/06 01:58 AM
Oh, I probably won't be able to reply for a while. I'm kinda getting bogged down with work. I hope you'll understand. smile

~ Wet Wombat
Posted By: Chaoslillith Re: Tongues - 03/23/06 04:31 AM
Oh boy, you're giving me the choice of going link happy or just out and out pointing out the flaw in you're understanding of shaman and pagan beliefs.

I will be brief as I am at work and probably half the sites are blocked.

Let me run the premise of Winter Solstice and Beltane/May first by you. In winter the god died and in spring he was reborn. JUST ABOUT EVERY PAGAN BELIEF SYSTEM HAS A FORM OF THIS. The god died, the goddess took him back into her and he was reborn into the world so that the crops and such would prosper. If that is not sacrifice so that humanity my live I do not know what is.
How about the Greek/Roman myth of Prometheus who according to Wikipedia is "As the introducer of fire and inventor of sacrifice he is seen as the patron of human civilization. Uncertain sources claim he was worshipped in ancient Rome as well along with other gods." Who was punished in part for stealing fire to help his creations, humans, survive? He was forced to have his liver eaten for several thousand years. Click on the following link for the only page that was not blocked on my search. Goes into great detail as to other virgin births, resurrections, sacrifices and godmen. The second one takes you to an overview.

http://www.entheology.org/POCM/index.htm
http://www.entheology.org/POCM/borrowing_getting_started.html


I am pagan, I have spoken and interacted with my god and goddess far more intimately then I bet you have as I practice magic not prayer. I feel the energy in the world around me, not channeled through some priest who acts as a conduit.

Why does your God state that we are born with original sin because we used the very thing that he blessed us with? I have not done a single evil thing in my life, with the exception of some fornication. Why should I repent? Why should I feel guilty for being human?

Christianity is a religion based on guilt and the premise that we owe God something. I refuse to go through life feeling guilty for something I did not do, nor do I feel the need to go through life praising some deity who allows the most devout of his followers to suffer over and over again. I have seen many a good Christian put through trials and tribulations beyond reckoning. What is the reason for that?

I believe that the reason Christ constantly used the Samaritans who were the heathens of the time as examples of how to live is because they were following his path whereas the Rabbis and the Jews were not.

Furthermore, as far as applying the logic of one group religious group condemning the other and not applying that outside of religion. In most other realms people are willing to compromise, in religion most believers refuse to see any other path so there is no need to be always right or always wrong. If the Protestants are wrong and the Catholics are right does that mean the Protestants go to hell?

As far as Christ being the only man ever put to death that was undeserving, give me a break!! I am sure that since you feel that we all have sins that children who are killed in wars are deserving to die, that mothers who sacrifice themselves to save their children are deserving of their deaths.

If you believe that we are inherently sinners then you are the loser by default because you choose to live with a guilt that was never yours and never should have been yours.

If a human father acted the way the heavenly one does he would be locked up.

As far as the healing power of God, sweetheart, prayer is magic. It is your will that is healing and protecting not some remote deity. God and all deities are simply symbolic ways for us to channel our own energies to affect the world around us.

(DA, I have probably completely made you bats with these last statements but sorry).

I apologize for the segmented nature of this post but you hit every single button that infuriates me so much about religion.

"Rule in hell or serve in heaven, choose an altar or a throne." A line from a song I know. Personally hell is a lot more appealing, at lease I will have Mozart, Confucious, Socrates, Plato, all the good music and even Gandhi ( I believe he was not Christian therefore going to hell).

You will have Mother Theresa, not bad, Jesus and his followers and perhaps the few remaining priests who are not pedophiles.

Sorry for the bluntess of this post.
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Tongues - 03/23/06 04:55 AM
Wet Wombat wrote:
"God gave us free will because He wanted us to love and serve Him voluntarily,"

Would you please, if you can, step out of your brainwashed disciple of Christ mode and take a good look at what you wrote.

Thanks.

Now what are the characteristics of a father, a human father for example, who had children and wanted them to worship him? What words would come to mind when describing this person?

1. Conceited?
2. Egotistical?
3. Immature?
4. Childish?
5. ... go for it.

You get the point.

The problem with your deity, were it to exist, is that it has shown a remarkable willingness to murder its children when they don't do so.

Don't believe me? How many perished during 40 years wandering in the desert? Answer: All of them!

And then we can always get back to the creation of smallpox, malaria, leukemaia, AIDS, SARS, typhoid, and the other gifts given to mankind by your loving father.
© Science a GoGo's Discussion Forums