the right religion

[Heathen Hammer]

As Ecclesiastes says there is a time for everything. There is a time to learn responsibiity and there is a time to relinquish responsibiliy to fulfill righteousness. However to take up responsibility, I also have to accept the fact that I will fail and as a rsult that I will die. For that I will need to take up my cross. However perhaps it is enough to endure the evil of others.

Um, you're going to die no matter what. Failure, success, neither of these things prevents you from dieing. Your religion gives you comforting mantras to chant about everlasting life, but these are just falsehoods, because you apparently cannot handle the fact that you're going to die. You need to feel the balm that repetition eventually provides to the lulled mind.
What happens after death, well that's all up in the air. but you're gonna die, bro.

Everybody does.

But you also have to add in that ol'd watchword righteousness. You don't have any righteousness. You're an addict. Switching drugs doesn't make you righteous.

And Im the farthest thing from evil: I a truth, The truth that you are still an addict, with a martyr complex. You're claiming virtues while doing no work to achieve them.

I don't think deletion is necessary. You can spout inanities but there isn't any chance that I believe them.

Of course not. You're blinded by the opportunity for acclaim you never actually earned. Which you place upon yourself, for free.

 

[1robin]

Um, you're going to die no matter what. Failure, success, neither of these things prevents you from dieing. Your religion gives you comforting mantras to chant about everlasting life, but these are just falsehoods, because you apparently cannot handle the fact that you're going to die. You need to feel the balm that repetition eventually provides to the lulled mind.
What happens after death, well that's all up in the air. but you're gonna die, bro.

Everybody does.

But you also have to add in that ol'd watchword righteousness. You don't have any righteousness. You're an addict. Switching drugs doesn't make you righteous.

And Im the farthest thing from evil: I a truth, The truth that you are still an addict, with a martyr complex. You're claiming virtues while doing no work to achieve them.


Of course not. You're blinded by the opportunity for acclaim you never actually earned. Which you place upon yourself, for free.

Well this is quite a bunch of speculative, judgemental, pointless, unprovable assertions used to point out other equally but admittidly objectively unproveable points. I resent your judgment of an experience that you have no access to with which to evaluate it. I was an addict but was born again through faith in christ without a thought of impending death in my mind and am now addiction free but ashamed by the unfounded biased argumentation I used to make similar to the above before I became a christian. A non Christian can have no understanding of what is claimed by truly born again Christians (I know I have been both) and no concept of the power or implications of grace and thereby would be better served by not making obsurd claims in reference to them.

1st Cor
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Kind of sums up the above statements with almost supernatural clarity doesn't it.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Well this is quite a bunch of speculative, judgemental, pointless, unprovable assertions used to point out other equally but admittidly objectively unproveable points. I resent your judgment of an experience that you have no access to with which to evaluate it. I was an addict but was born again through faith in christ without a thought of impending death in my mind and am now addiction free but ashamed by the unfounded biased argumentation I used to make similar to the above before I became a christian. A non Christian can have no understanding of what is claimed by truly born again Christians (I know I have been both) and no concept of the power or implications of grace and thereby would be better served by not making obsurd claims in reference to them.

Again, this is just a balm you need. As a former Christian I am fully capable of understanding what you wrote. I have a total understanding of the situation, and all the bogus solutions; you were not granted any magical powers of discernment simply for speaking some magical phrase in a church. It's rather a typical one, repeated many, many times.

And a side note: the fact that you are going to die is, in fact, provable. Just wait a few decades, first, hopefully.

I am judgmental because I am capable of assessing this behavior. And there is nothing particularly virtuous about it; it's an etheric accomplishment you can now crow about to cover essentially poor judgment earlier. The study of human behavior and the excuses one makes for ones' self is something I have observed and amassed information on for decades.

You hide behind the idea that these points are 'unprovable', but they are. Ask a psychologist. This is a textbook case, and not uncommon by any means.

Kind of sums up the above statements with almost supernatural clarity doesn't it.

Random meaningless quotes from the writings of goat herders from 2 millennia ago can be taken by us moderns to mean anything we want; thus, they are useless in conversation to prove some point; they are placeholders to cover a lack of individual argumentation.

 

[1robin]

Again, this is just a balm you need. As a former Christian I am fully capable of understanding what you wrote. I have a total understanding of the situation, and all the bogus solutions; you were not granted any magical powers of discernment simply for speaking some magical phrase in a church. It's rather a typical one, repeated many, many times.

And a side note: the fact that you are going to die is, in fact, provable. Just wait a few decades, first, hopefully.

I am judgmental because I am capable of assessing this behavior. And there is nothing particularly virtuous about it; it's an etheric accomplishment you can now crow about to cover essentially poor judgment earlier. The study of human behavior and the excuses one makes for ones' self is something I have observed and amassed information on for decades.

You hide behind the idea that these points are 'unprovable', but they are. Ask a psychologist. This is a textbook case, and not uncommon by any means.


Random meaningless quotes from the writings of goat herders from 2 millennia ago can be taken by us moderns to mean anything we want; thus, they are useless in conversation to prove some point; they are placeholders to cover a lack of individual argumentation.

Let me say it again, I was not considering death at any level whatsoever when I was saved. Quit using this line of argument it doesn't apply to me and many others and being a Christian doesn't stop natural death anyway so your point is pointless.

If you claim to be a former Christian then one of two things must be true either you only had an intellectual consent to a philosophy (Christian) which I imagine was the case or you had an actual born again experience in which you felt God's holy spirit forgive and heal you. If the former then your pattern of argumentation makes sense even though it is ultimately incorrect. If the later then to say you no longer believe is an incoherent line of reasoning which is why I suggest the first choice is correct. Do not make the mistake of trying to put my experience into some box that would support your conclusions. My experience was somewhat atypical and was not the result of any human institution or person. My experience was of a nature that completely rules out a mistaken emotional response. I have noticed that the most committed and virulant Atheists are people who had an intellectual experience of God (which is merely philosophy) but then something happened and those extremely shallow roots of faith gave way. Examples (Stalin, Darwin, Hitler....)

How do you account for unmistakably changed lives like the night and day transformation in people like George Foreman, Johnny Cash, the apostles at the upper room. All examples of radical transformation of an ungodly man into a Godly one. For you to suggest the explanation is anything other than what the people themselves claim it to be and what the bible describes it to be is Ludacris.
I wouldn't use the argument about the Jews being ignorant herders. It backfires on you because even though God gave the message to illiterate goat herders it was so powerful that it changed the world more than any other force except sin. If you think you can prove whether a person is born again I would like you to tell me how. The event is supernatural thereby eliminating the possibility of detection through devices designed to detect natural phenomena. Why are you so obsessed with pointing out the fact that we are going to die? Do you think there is any adult unaware of this? However the Christian can say "O death where is thy sting" The atheist can only say well here it comes, hope I was right. I have read many famous Atheists quotes made on their death bed who realized they were wrong but indicated it was too late and they were headed for something unimaginably bad. George foreman is one of these who fortunately survived and was ably to make the correct choice.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Let me say it again, I was not considering death at any level whatsoever when I was saved. Quit using this line of argument it doesn't apply to me and many others and being a Christian doesn't stop natural death anyway so your point is pointless.

if you understand this fact then why bother repeating your mantra over and over again [as you did] as if it has any meaning?

If you claim to be a former Christian then one of two things must be true either you only had an intellectual consent to a philosophy (Christian) which I imagine was the case or you had an actual born again experience in which you felt God's holy spirit forgive and heal you.

You can presume the former, since I have already admitted to never being an addict; however, this is a false dichotomy in any case.

If the former then your pattern of argumentation makes sense even though it is ultimately incorrect.

Except it's not incorrect.

If the later then to say you no longer believe is an incoherent line of reasoning which is why I suggest the first choice is correct. Do not make the mistake of trying to put my experience into some box that would support your conclusions. My experience was somewhat atypical and was not the result of any human institution or person. My experience was of a nature that completely rules out a mistaken emotional response.

Incorrect. Nothing that happened to you is unusual; that is once again, your desperate need to be a unique snowflake and to be God's favorite. this is a totally typical pathology.

I have noticed that the most committed and virulant Atheists

I'm not an atheist, so you are once again completely incorrect

are people who had an intellectual experience of God (which is merely philosophy) but then something happened and those extremely shallow roots of faith gave way. Examples (Stalin, Darwin, Hitler....)

lol, what a bad effort. Darwin as we all actually know [who know anything] was a very religious man and struggled for a long time while facing the truth. Hitler believed he was a Christian doing God's work, and i don't know enough about Stalin to comment. And yet, any number of Christians doing deeds, either good or bad, are all in the ground, despite the fact. An irrelevant point.

How do you account for unmistakably changed lives like the night and day transformation in people like George Foreman, Johnny Cash, the apostles at the upper room.

The apostles were ignorant, and much of what is said about them is untrue. Cash? Cash was a hardcore addict. Dunno about George.

All examples of radical transformation of an ungodly man into a Godly one. For you to suggest the explanation is anything other than what the people themselves claim it to be and what the bible describes it to be is Ludacris.

Yah um, and totally explainable via typical addict psych.

I wouldn't use the argument about the Jews being ignorant herders. It backfires on you because even though God gave the message to illiterate goat herders it was so powerful that it changed the world more than any other force except sin.

Or it's just a myth written to appear so.

If you think you can prove whether a person is born again I would like you to tell me how. The event is supernatural thereby eliminating the possibility of detection through devices designed to detect natural phenomena.

Thus not really real, just hysteria

Why are you so obsessed with pointing out the fact that we are going to die? Do you think there is any adult unaware of this?

Ask yourself.

However the Christian can say "O death where is thy sting" The atheist can only say well here it comes, hope I was right. I have read many famous Atheists quotes made on their death bed who realized they were wrong but indicated it was too late and they were headed for something unimaginably bad. George foreman is one of these who fortunately survived and was ably to make the correct choice.

No, atheists don't deathbed convert. But whether they do or not is irrelevant to me, since I am not one of those, either.

 

[1robin]

if you understand this fact then why bother repeating your mantra over and over again [as you did] as if it has any meaning? You can presume the former, since I have already admitted to never being an addict; however, this is a false dichotomy in any case. Except it's not incorrect. Incorrect. Nothing that happened to you is unusual; that is once again, your desperate need to be a unique snowflake and to be God's favorite. this is a totally typical pathology. I'm not an atheist, so you are once again completely incorrect lol, what a bad effort. Darwin as we all actually know [who know anything] was a very religious man and struggled for a long time while facing the truth. Hitler believed he was a Christian doing God's work, and i don't know enough about Stalin to comment. And yet, any number of Christians doing deeds, either good or bad, are all in the ground, despite the fact. An irrelevant point. The apostles were ignorant, and much of what is said about them is untrue. Cash? Cash was a hardcore addict. Dunno about George. Yah um, and totally explainable via typical addict psych. Or it's just a myth written to appear so. Thus not really real, just hysteria Ask yourself.

No, atheists don't deathbed convert. But whether they do or not is irrelevant to me, since I am not one of those, either.

I have responded several times concerning your death motivation guesswork, because you keep asserting a point that is made irrelevant by my statements. Your argumentation reveals compulsive behavior centered on this death issue that is ridiculous. Since you have very little access to the motives why Christians believe what they believe then your asserting you do reveals an intellectual dishonesty.
Since you confirmed my belief that you were at best a Christian without a personal relationship with Christ then once again you have no access to that which you argue against. See above.
Prove that you are correct I have read nothing but assertions based on nothing whatsoever except personal animosity toward Christianity. I have read few posts that reveal such bitterness.
Your implying that you know what happened to me when in actuality you cannot possibly have any idea reveals an irrational bias not based on sound reason.
If you will read my posts completely you will understand that I did not call you an atheist. It is you are incorrect as usual. I was speaking of the damage caused by people who have a superficial faith only and that applies to all three men I mentioned, and you religious status regarding them is incorrect anyway.
You have no way of knowing what you assert about the apostles, see above. Cash was an addict until he was saved, by the end of his life he was a virtual evangelical,
Foreman was a street thug when he was saved and now is genial and benevolent as a Teddy bear. Why don't you find him and tell him his faith is based on nothing. One of the most committed atheists was sent to write about a Christian Dr. Livingston. The atheist writer told him not to bother trying to convert him it was impossible. After seeing the faith the Doctor had he became a Christian 4 months later. These stories are inexhaustible and you have absolutely no legitimate way to prove them to be anything but what the people themselves claim they were.
Your addict psychology comment is so irrational, incoherent, and unproveable I won't bother commenting on it.
Over 2 billion people would disagree with your myth theory, thousands of them scholars. Scholars have pointed out that there is more documented evidence for Jesus than for any other character of ancient literature. Other scholars have pointed out that it is conceivable to ignore the New Testament for ideological reasons but not for a lack of evidence.
Your hysteria comment being an unsupportable opinion is not worth addressing.
Once again you might want to read slower. I never said Atheist convert on their deathbed (even though I know they have and there is no actual reason they couldn't) my point was many atheists have reached the in had a peak on the other side and realized they were screwed. This was not presented as proof of anything I even forgot what it was in response to, but as poor as it is at proving something it is preferable to the bitter unproveable assumptions you have offered.
I don’t think I ever asserted that you were an atheist but it doesn’t matter. If you are not a born again Christian you have nothing to offer in the way of debate about a Christian’s personal experience and the fact that even though you don’t you claim otherwise is shameful.
Why do the words death and addict appear continuously in every argument you make?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I have responded several times concerning your death motivation guesswork, because you keep asserting a point that is made irrelevant by my statements. Your argumentation reveals compulsive behavior centered on this death issue that is ridiculous.

There's nothing compulsive about it, I am simply responding to your statements about death and everlasting life, earlier. I've already said this, so why you are still droning on about it is a bit of a mystery.

Since you have very little access to the motives why Christians believe what they believe then your asserting you do reveals an intellectual dishonesty.

Oh, but this is so precious, the No True Scotsman fallacy. What we have here is a very weak effort on your part at creating a false reason to discount anything I said, even though it is correct. You fail, however. You have zero grasp of my personal history in this regard and your false dichotomy does not mean anything since each person is different and anyone declaring they are Christian, is so. You possess no authority whatsoever to divine who is or isn't. This is simply another flailing about for any way to discredit your detractor. Doesn't work, sorry.

Since you confirmed my belief that you were at best a Christian without a personal relationship with Christ then once again you have no access to that which you argue against. See above.

See above.

Prove that you are correct I have read nothing but assertions based on nothing whatsoever except personal animosity toward Christianity. I have read few posts that reveal such bitterness.

You are not Christianity.
What part do I need to prove further, be specific.

Your implying that you know what happened to me when in actuality you cannot possibly have any idea reveals an irrational bias not based on sound reason.

An hysterical point given what you said above about me; the difference is that you claim supernatural events. These do not occur.

If you will read my posts completely you will understand that I did not call you an atheist. It is you are incorrect as usual. I was speaking of the damage caused by people who have a superficial faith only and that applies to all three men I mentioned, and you religious status regarding them is incorrect anyway.

You did call me an atheist by bringing them up as a contrast.

You have no way of knowing what you assert about the apostles, see above. Cash was an addict until he was saved, by the end of his life he was a virtual evangelical,
Foreman was a street thug when he was saved and now is genial and benevolent as a Teddy bear. Why don't you find him and tell him his faith is based on nothing.

The apostles are mythological figures and most of what's written about them is likely fiction. You have no way of knowing what was written is true, by your own logic. But thank you for at least confirming what I said about Cash. Good for George, but he still had the negative compulsive behavior that is equivalent to that of the addict so it's all the same. And if he were on this forum I'd tell him the same. Going to find him to do so is a bit creepy.

One of the most committed atheists was sent to write about a Christian Dr. Livingston. The atheist writer told him not to bother trying to convert him it was impossible. After seeing the faith the Doctor had he became a Christian 4 months later. These stories are inexhaustible and you have absolutely no legitimate way to prove them to be anything but what the people themselves claim they were.

Your anecdote is non sequitur; there are inexhaustible stories about addicts too, this proves nothing.

Your addict psychology comment is so irrational, incoherent, and unproveable I won't bother commenting on it.

It's wholly supportable.

Over 2 billion people would disagree with your myth theory, thousands of them scholars.

Appeal to numbers fallacy; they are all wrong

Scholars have pointed out that there is more documented evidence for Jesus than for any other character of ancient literature.

That's blatantly false, Im afraid. And appeal to authority.

Other scholars have pointed out that it is conceivable to ignore the New Testament for ideological reasons but not for a lack of evidence.
Your hysteria comment being an unsupportable opinion is not worth addressing.

Wholly supportable.

Once again you might want to read slower. I never said Atheist convert on their deathbed (even though I know they have and there is no actual reason they couldn't)

That was precisely what you said

my point was many atheists have reached the in had a peak on the other side and realized they were screwed. This was not presented as proof of anything I even forgot what it was in response to, but as poor as it is at proving something it is preferable to the bitter unproveable assumptions you have offered.

I know that is what you implied, which is oddly also what you just denied doing a sentence ago.

I don’t think I ever asserted that you were an atheist but it doesn’t matter. If you are not a born again Christian you have nothing to offer in the way of debate about a Christian’s personal experience and the fact that even though you don’t you claim otherwise is shameful.

Being born again is not special at all. It's a child's hyperbole at best. There's nothing different about you, you've simply moved on to a different drug.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

A few sources:
https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/a294ad009635fe1f852575ec00320cc4?OpenDocument
relevant part:

Safe, Repetitive, Predictable
As a person becomes progressively more involved with a drug, he becomes more dependent on the reassurance it offers. He becomes less able to deal with the problems and uncertainties that made the drug desirable in the first place. Eventually, that person reaches a point where he cannot be deprived of this source of reassurance without considerable trauma. This is addiction. What has happened has little to do with physical dependence. By now, the addict not only feels more helpless facing the world at large, he also feels helpless facing the drug he needs. He believes that he can neither live without it nor free himself from its grasp.
If addiction is something that happens inside a person's consciousness, if it is largely a matter of how someone responds to and organizes his experience, then it is natural that potential addictive objects are not limited to drugs alone. Anything that is safe, repetitive, predictable, and sufficiently consuming will do. It may be a job (as in Wayne Oates's Confessions of a Workaholic) or a socially or institutionally defined role.
The Jesus freak movement provides a striking contemporary example of the way religion can serve as the opiate of the people. Young people who join religious communes get an integrating concept for their lives. They abide by a set of rules and rituals, and in return bypass the chaotic flow of direct personal experience. They resolve any uncertainty by a cure-all faith in a higher power. Fundamentalist religion is a common form of addiction today, but not the most common. The most prevalent form, which to some degree probably touches all our lives, is interpersonal addiction, or addiction to someone we think we love.

+++

Healing Spiritual Abuse & Religious Addiction - Matthew Linn, Sheila Fabricant Linn, Dennis Linn - Google Books

Digitized image unfortunately but one is able to read without a subscription
+++

SYMPTOMS OF RELIGIOUS ADDICTION

• Inability to think, doubt, or question religious information and/or authority
• Black-and-white, good/bad, either/or simplistic thinking: one way or the other
• Shame-based belief that you aren't good enough or you aren't doing it right
• Magical thinking that God will fix you/ do it all, without serious work on your part
• Scrupulosity: rigid obsessive adherence to rules, codes of ethics, or guidelines
• Uncompromising judgmental attitudes: readiness to find fault or evil out there
• Compulsive or obsessive praying, going to church or crusades, quoting scripture
• Unrealistic financial contributions
• Believing that sex is dirty; believing our bodies or physical pleasures are evil
• Compulsive overeating and/or excessive fasting
• Conflict and argumentation with science, medicine, and education
• Progressive detachment from the real work, isolation and breakdown of relationships
• Psychosomatic illness: back pains, sleeplessness, headaches, hypertension
• Manipulating scripture or texts, feeling specially chosen, claiming to receive special messages from God
• Maintaining a religious "high", trance-like state, keeping a happy face (or the belief that one should...)
• Attitude of righteousness or superiority: "we versus the world," including the denial of one's human-ness.
• Confusion, great doubts, mental, physical or emotional breakdown, cries for help

The ultimate temptation of the believer is to assume that his or her way to God is the best or only way for others. The particular Way to God becomes what is adored, not the ineffable and incomprehensible Mystery to which we give the name of God.
+++

The Fairness Project - Dr. Minor

Religion doesn’t have to be this way; it can be healing. But what we see in the dominant religious/political right-wing fundamentalism that’s driving the debate on most conservative issues (political, social, economic, international) is anything but healthy. It’s what addiction specialists call a process addiction, like sex or romance addiction, or workaholism. In an addictive society, such addictions are encouraged.
Like substance addictions, it takes over, dominates life, pushes other issues to the background, tells them how and what to feel to prevent them from facing their real feelings about themselves and life, creates a mythology about the world, protects its “stash,” and supports their denial that they have a problem. Addiction specialist Anne Wilson Schaef would say, like all addictions, religious addiction is progressive and fatal.
If you’re outside the addiction, you’ve probably wondered about what’s going on, what’s the dynamic that’s driving the right-wing religious agenda that looks so hateful and destructive. Why is it so hard to crack? Why won’t evidence or logic work?
If you’re an enabler or the addict yourself, the above must sound over the top. You’d prefer to deny or soften the reality of the addiction.

+++

It's not like I made this up.

 

[Muffled]

A few sources:
https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/a294ad009635fe1f852575ec00320cc4?OpenDocument
relevant part:

It's not like I made this up.

Your source is relevant. More gibberish and nonsense comes out of psychology than any othe science although it is difficult to think of Psychology as science since it borders on the mystical.

This particular opinion seems to be based on case studies. The first case study that I read had a definite a priori reasoning to it.

At least we can get a definition of addiction which may or may not reflect the truth but at least gives us something to work with from teh source you listed: "By addiction, we mean the classic, quasi-physiological syndrome identified by tolerance and by withdrawal. When a person requires larger and larger doses of a substance in order to obtain the desired effect, he has built up a tolerance to it. Withdrawal is the body's traumatic readjustment to a drugless state."


By this definition eating is an addiction because withdrawal from eating can be painful. I find that to be an exceptionally bad definition because eating is necessary to stay alive. Also tolerance is not the right word for needing more of something; greed would fit. However a lack of tolerance for a normal state would fit also. By normal, I mean the ordinary things that people do to stay alive and enjoy life.

Let us use heroin as an example. My understanding is that it entails a sense of euphoria and improves a feeling of physical well being. The person addicted develops a greedy desire for more of what the drug can give and less tolerance for normal life.

My religious belief does improve all aspects of my well being but not necessarily beyond the normal. Normal life can be interupted by physical illness and therefore people will seek a drug to return a person to normal life. This is not an addiction since normal life is the desired objective. (Ask any psychologist and I am sure he would agree) However a sick person does not need to take the drug after he gets well.

My religious belief helps me get well physically but I don't have to keep attacking a phycical problem after it has ceased to be a problem. So the answer is that normal life may require a doctor or in my case religious belief.

So yes one would not need to constantly go to the doctor if one is not ill and I don't need to pray for healing if I am not ill. If a person did either it would be a sign of addiction. However going to a doctor when ill is a normal practice and praying for healing is a normal practice for Christians. BTW if you are wondering about the efficacy of this, I had arthritis. A doctor can prescribe a drug that has to be taken repeatedly for relief but he can't cure it but by prayer my arthritis is gone and I am completely healed.

 

[1robin]

Oh, but this is so precious, the No True Scotsman fallacy. What we have here is a very weak effort on your part at creating a false reason to discount anything I said, even though it is correct. You fail, however. You have zero grasp of my personal history in this regard and your false dichotomy does not mean anything since each person is different and anyone declaring they are Christian is so. You possess no authority whatsoever to divine who is or isn't. This is simply another flailing about for any way to discredit your detractor. Doesn't work, sorry..

Between you and I, I am the only one who apparently is honest enough to admit I don't know your past. That is why I went to the trouble of laying out the biblical criteria for a true Christian and a name only type Christian. As you can see from below you are the one who selected which one you were. You on the other hand don't know anything whatsoever about my past or experiences but unlike me you don't bother to find out before you make statements concerning things it is absolutely impossible for you to know. You have zero access to my experience and therefore have no input. That would stop any rational person but not one with an extremely high regard for their own omniscience. Unlike you I don't believe I am an all knowing
sage of wisdom and I do not have the hubris to judge your status with God. My point was that God not me has said that anyone not born of the spirit cannot understand spiritual things so if that’s you then your argument is false. If on the other hand you are born again then your argument is incoherent and false. Either way (and I don't presume or care which, your argument is a waste of time). You can see from the past discussion below that you are the one that chose your status not me. I don't claim omniscience and don't use argumentative semantics to dismiss questions.

Quote:
If you claim to be a former Christian then one of two things must be true either you only had an intellectual consent to a philosophy (Christian) which I imagine was the case or you had an actual born again experience in which you felt God's holy spirit forgive and heal you.
You can presume the former, since I have already admitted to never being an addict; however, this is a false dichotomy in any case.

Once again I did not attempt to decide your status with God I simply pointed out the inherent fallacies of your argumentation regardless of that status.

 

[1robin]

You are not Christianity.
What part do I need to prove further, be specific?

What?

An hysterical point given what you said above about me; the difference is that you claim supernatural events. These do not occur.

Since you cannot know whether they exist or not then your godlike declaration is meaningless and dishonest.

You did call me an atheist by bringing them up as a contrast.

Once again you don't seem to be able to comprehend simple concepts. I produced the names of the three men I made this comment about. Since your name is not one of the three then your point is patently false. You have the most bizarre and intelligent but blatantly false arguments I have ever run across. You are obviously intelligent but it is like you have no rational discipline and an emotion or animosity is driving your intellect. It's very odd, but at least it's not boring yet.

The apostles are mythological figures and most of what's written about them is likely fiction. You have no way of knowing what was written is true, by your own logic. But thank you for at least confirming what I said about Cash. Good for George, but he still had the negative compulsive behavior that is equivalent to that of the addict so it's all the same. And if he were on this forum I'd tell him the same. Going to find him to do so is a bit creepy.

Since once again you have NO WAY WHATSOEVER of proving your myth theory and it disagrees with most scholarship then I won't bother. I wish you would either say it's what you believe and provide your reasons or quit saying things you can't know like you know. It makes me doubt your ability to reason and lessens my interest in a discussion. Your statements about Cash and George don't make any sense. Are you somehow trying to say that if you ever had an addiction then for some reason you will be convinced that your saved even though its false. I hope not. Of course I was kidding about George but your stating that you would tell him what you know to be the truth about his experience again shows a pathological (you know all) complex and a intellectual dishonesty.

Your anecdote is non sequitur; there are inexhaustible stories about addicts too, this proves nothing.

What is it with you and this addict’s word? It seems involuntary. If you are referring to some obscure and bizarre theory concerning addicts why don't you say that upfront and explain it.

It's wholly supportable.

I think I saw where you had dredged up this addict theory nonsense in the post after this one. You would think that if you’re going to compulsively reply "addict" to unrelated points that you should mention it upfront so everyone is familiar with whatever the latest psychobabble you are referring is.

Appeal to numbers fallacy; they are all wrong

Wrong your argumentation procedure deflection tactic is not applicable here. I was implying that people had found believable something you said they would not. I was not saying that therefore it is true. You making absolute claims that anyone knows you can't possibly know is becoming unsettling and I would encourage you to state only what you can know.

That's blatantly false, I’m afraid. And appeal to authority.

By comparing the manuscript support for the Bible with manuscript support for other ancient documents and books, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that no other ancient piece of literature can stand up to the Bible. Manuscript support for the Bible is unparalleled!
There are more [New Testament] manuscripts copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity.
Rene Pache adds, "The historical books of antiquity have documentation infinitely less solid."
Dr. Benjamin Warfield concludes, "If we compare the present state of the text of the New Testament with that of no matter what other ancient work, we must...declare it marvelously exact."
Norman Geisler makes several key observations for our consideration:
No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies. The average secular work from antiquity survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands.
The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books.
The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph [original manuscript], most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion.
The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for other books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible.
From this documentary evidence, then, it is clear that the New Testament writings are superior to comparable ancient writings. "The records for the New Testament are vastly more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their text."
For actual data: search CARM Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability
Moving on!!!!

Wholly supportable.

By wishful thinking and pseudo psychology.

That was precisely what you said.

You are batting a thousand on being wrong. My actual quote:
"I have read many famous Atheists quotes made on their death bed who realized they were wrong but indicated it was too late and they were headed for something unimaginably bad. George foreman is one of these who fortunately survived and was able to make the correct choice." I never mentioned any deathbed conversions; I even stated the complete opposite, that they realized it was too late preventing that which you claim I was saying happened.

I know that is what you implied, which is oddly also what you just denied doing a sentence ago.

I can't even begin to figure out what this means.

Being born again is not special at all. It's a child's hyperbole at best. There's nothing different about you, you've simply moved on to a different drug.

Once again this pattern of suggesting you know what to you is unknowable is getting old. In this case I have access to that experience and you have none whatsoever and to suggest that you know what happened to me I can guarantee is completely false and not even a good counter theory. If you would only be honest and say that you disagree and have other ideas that may or may not be true then this would be a worthwhile discussion (possibly)

 

[Vultar]

After reading all the previous rants, points and counter-points...
I think I would give up on trying to find the "right" one
and just go for the "left' one

 

[Najara]

i have read some posts here. most notably from the OP and jacobezra. however, i have a big question for jacobezra regarding his title claiming he is a jew yet he believes in yoshke . my question is to why as a jew you believe in another jew? not only you believe in him you believe in the trinity. this is pure avodah zora according to yiddishkeit. can you show me or prove to me why i as a jew should believe in him just like you do. i dont know if i broke any rules for i didn't read them i am new here, however please bare with me on this one. thanks and kol tuv.

-dovid yaakov

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Between you and I, I am the only one who apparently is honest enough to admit I don't know your past. That is why I went to the trouble of laying out the biblical criteria for a true Christian and a name only type Christian. As you can see from below you are the one who selected which one you were. You on the other hand don't know anything whatsoever about my past or experiences but unlike me you don't bother to find out before you make statements concerning things it is absolutely impossible for you to know. You have zero access to my experience and therefore have no input. That would stop any rational person but not one with an extremely high regard for their own omniscience. Unlike you I don't believe I am an all knowing sage of wisdom and I do not have the hubris to judge your status with God.

.. except of course that you did, by laying out a premise as to there being a 'correct' way of being Christian, which was very very vague, then pegging me as fitting your specious criteria for disqualification. Then dismissing my statements based on your spurious requirements. Since there are a thousand variants of Christianity and they all claim to be the true one, your opinion is without merit.

Also perfection fallacy somewhere up there.

My point was that God not me has said that anyone not born of the spirit cannot understand spiritual things so if that’s you then your argument is false.

Except it is you saying it; God isn't in this conversation. Some random statement in a book does not prove your point when dealing in modern specifics.

Either way (and I don't presume or care which, your argument is a waste of time). You can see from the past discussion below that you are the one that chose your status not me. I don't claim omniscience and don't use argumentative semantics to dismiss questions.
Once again I did not attempt to decide your status with God I simply pointed out the inherent fallacies of your argumentation regardless of that status.

And you failed on both counts

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

There is one right path. Everyone has it. It is within us all. The catch is: we are all individuals, so our paths will each be different. You have your path, I have mine. Yours is right for you, and mine for me.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Since you cannot know whether they exist or not then your godlike declaration is meaningless and dishonest.

Since they require irrational premises they can be dismissed without any worry; provide positive evidence or we can ignore the idea. that's how it actually works, in real life.

Once again you don't seem to be able to comprehend simple concepts. I produced the names of the three men I made this comment about. Since your name is not one of the three then your point is patently false. You have the most bizarre and intelligent but blatantly false arguments I have ever run across. You are obviously intelligent but it is like you have no rational discipline and an emotion or animosity is driving your intellect. It's very odd, but at least it's not boring yet.

Well, you brought up the names of atheists [or claimed atheists] in response to me, specifically; there was no contextual reason to bring them up at the time, except to associate me with them directly.
Your quote:
I have noticed that the most committed and virulant Atheists are people who had an intellectual experience of God (which is merely philosophy) but then something happened and those extremely shallow roots of faith gave way. Examples (Stalin, Darwin, Hitler....)
Why would you bring up the subject of 'committed and virulent atheists' for any reason whatsoever, except to compare me with them?

is it possible that you forget why you say things?

Your statements about Cash and George don't make any sense.

of course they do; you yourself agreed Cash was a substance abuser. And you stated Forman was a thug with a bad past.

Are you somehow trying to say that if you ever had an addiction then for some reason you will be convinced that your saved even though its false. I hope not. Of course I was kidding about George but your stating that you would tell him what you know to be the truth about his experience again shows a pathological (you know all) complex and a intellectual dishonesty.

So, my following your odd, random lines of reasoning and answering your points somehow makes me confusing?
Interesting diversion tactic.

What is it with you and this addict’s word? It seems involuntary. If you are referring to some obscure and bizarre theory concerning addicts why don't you say that upfront and explain it.

I guess you haven't been reading. Did you note the references I placed for you, about addiction and religion?

Hm, at this point it doesn't appear that you did.

I think I saw where you had dredged up this addict theory nonsense in the post after this one. You would think that if you’re going to compulsively reply "addict" to unrelated points that you should mention it upfront so everyone is familiar with whatever the latest psychobabble you are referring is.

Yes, statements and papers by experts is all just psychobabble.
I notice you did not even attempt to actually address a single point cited, from the works of actual psychologists/psychiatrists about this addiction phenomenon; you avoided it entirely. I wonder why?

Wrong your argumentation procedure deflection tactic is not applicable here.

lol, aw look at you trying to use more jargon now.

I was implying that people had found believable something you said they would not. I was not saying that therefore it is true. You making absolute claims that anyone knows you can't possibly know is becoming unsettling and I would encourage you to state only what you can know.

My claims remain un-refuted; bandying around the term 'absolute' is merely your own dissembly. Again, we can make certain claims about the supernatural by dint of the fact that there is no evidence to support them. Making up nonsense about make-=believe things does not have any place in rational discussion, and since you have no evidence, your claims can be dismissed out of hand. That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Until contrary evidence appears, definitive statements are acceptable. some folks don't feel comfortable with the strength of my negations, but that makes no nevermind to me because, in truth, they cannot be countered without providing practical evidence to the contrary. So far there is no reason to doubt the preciseness of my negative statements.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

By comparing the manuscript support for the Bible with manuscript support for other ancient documents and books, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that no other ancient piece of literature can stand up to the Bible. Manuscript support for the Bible is unparalleled!

A false but often repeated statement.

There are more [New Testament] manuscripts copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity.

Another repetition. Simply because you have many copies of the same thing, does not increase the accuracy of any original. Plus the usual Biblical fanatic's hyperbole thrown in there.

Rene Pache adds, "The historical books of antiquity have documentation infinitely less solid."
Dr. Benjamin Warfield concludes, "If we compare the present state of the text of the New Testament with that of no matter what other ancient work, we must...declare it marvelously exact."
Norman Geisler makes several key observations for our consideration:

Don't care, I could produce contrary quotes as well.

No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies. The average secular work from antiquity survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands.

But none original. Without the original there isn't an accurate way to assess how accurate the copies are. they are all simply copies of copies; your statements of accuracy can only be applied to how accurately they are between each other. You have zero knowledge of how accurate they are, compared to the originals. You are extrapolating without any actual basis, you see. . Even scholars know the authors are spuriously named, and not from eyewitnesses. the bible is not as reliable as you believe, Im afraid.

The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books.

What other books? You are simply making up big numbers, at this point.

The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph [original manuscript], most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion.

But no originals. Same problem. that 100 years is actually a large issue.
But this thread isn't about the inaccuracy of the bible.

The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for other books that can be compared.

False, again

Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible.
From this documentary evidence, then, it is clear that the New Testament writings are superior to comparable ancient writings. "The records for the New Testament are vastly more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their text."
For actual data: search CARM Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability
Moving on!!!!

Thank the Gods, at last.

By wishful thinking and pseudo psychology.

Sourced actual psychology

You are batting a thousand on being wrong. My actual quote:
"I have read many famous Atheists quotes made on their death bed who realized they were wrong but indicated it was too late and they were headed for something unimaginably bad. George foreman is one of these who fortunately survived and was able to make the correct choice." I never mentioned any deathbed conversions; I even stated the complete opposite, that they realized it was too late preventing that which you claim I was saying happened.

I couldnt wait to get to this one.

Here is you mentioning deathbed conversions:
"I have read many famous Atheists quotes made on their death bed who realized they were wrong but indicated it was too late and they were headed for something unimaginably bad.

Here is you denying you mentioned deathbed conversions:
I never mentioned any deathbed conversions;

Or are you playing to the idea that because they didn't receive immediate priestly attendance in full regimental vestments, that that doesn't count as a 'full approved and official conversion'? lol!
You are grasping at some dry straws, indeed.

Also let us note: these anecdotal deathbed conversions don't really happen that often. And the more famous ones are all known falsehoods.

And I just want to point out that this is the 2nd time now you have clearly distanced yourself from your own implications after the fact. First insinuating incorrectly that I am an atheist, then, here mentioning deathbed conversions.

Once again this pattern of suggesting you know what to you is unknowable is getting old. In this case I have access to that experience and you have none whatsoever and to suggest that you know what happened to me I can guarantee

Im afraid you cannot guarantee by any means. As an addict your testimony is not as reliable as mine In addition since by definition your experience may simply be an hallucination [depending on what we are talking about] your certainty is suspect.

is completely false and not even a good counter theory. If you would only be honest and say that you disagree and have other ideas that may or may not be true then this would be a worthwhile discussion (possibly)

All right: i disagree entirely with anything you said. Everything you said is incorrect.



Rage against the dieing light, Im on vacation.

 

[1robin]

..

except of course that you did, by laying out a premise as to there being a 'correct' way of being Christian, which was very very vague, then pegging me as fitting your specious criteria for disqualification. Then dismissing my statements based on your spurious requirements. Since there are a thousand variants of Christianity and they all claim to be the true one, your opinion is without merit.

Wrong, since obviously there is a right way to be a Christian whatever that may be there is one. I simply gave the criteria found in the bible not in a denomination. You are the one who selected which group you belong in not me. I didn't care because either way you argument becomes unsustainable only for different reasons based on which group you belong to. I didn't need or want to know which group that was as indicated by the fact I listed the problems each caused your argument which if I had put you into a category I would have only mention the problems that that one caused. The different beliefs held by denominations for one have no bearing on what God actually said and two are mostly about how to live as a Christian not what makes one a Christian. John 3:1-7 is an example of God not a denomination making this point in a few simple statements. I know my motivations and actions far better than you do and I have never had a need or desire to know what your position is. But since you claim to be a former Christian that limits you to one of two states, that is all I was interested in stating the rest you made up.

Also perfection fallacy somewhere up there.

I find that people obsessed with argumentative procedural semantics are more interested in winning a word fight than learning anything or haveing a discussion.

Except it is you saying it; God isn't in this conversation. Some random statement in a book does not prove your point when dealing in modern specifics.

Wrong again, I don't recall writing 1st Corinthians. I have already listed this scripture to support my point so you’re wrong as well as intellectually dishonest.
1 Cor 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The bibles texts are refered to as Theopneustos in greek which means "God breathed" so God is apparently in the conversation and whether or not you believe that is irrelevant.

And you failed on both counts

Wrong again 3 for 3. If you are born again then you seek to deny that which you profess, if not by God's decree you cannot possibly understand or have access to that which you argue against. Nothing could be simpler or more obvious.

 

[1robin]

Well, you brought up the names of atheists [or claimed atheists] in response to me, specifically; there was no contextual reason to bring them up at the time, except to associate me with them directly.
Your quote:
I have noticed that the most committed and virulent Atheists are people who had an intellectual experience of God (which is merely philosophy) but then something happened and those extremely shallow roots of faith gave way. Examples (Stalin, Darwin, Hitler....)
Why would you bring up the subject of 'committed and virulent atheists' for any reason whatsoever, except to compare me with them?

Wrong again, the reason I brought this up and I have far better access to my motivation than you, was in response to a point you made concerning some people who had done much damage who also happened to believe in God. I was attempting to explain that for whatever reason people throughout history who never have more than a superficial agreement with a religious philosophy (and are therefore atheists in my opinion) have committed some of the most vile acts in history. How you get a reference to you from an explanation of a point you made is bizarre (almost paranoid). The only point you could make is my labeling them atheists was wrong but that would be your opinion and has nothing to do with me referencing you.

is it possible that you forget why you say things?

It's possible but in these cases it's certain that you can't understand my simple statements no matter how clear and distort them into some (maybe paranoid) fantasy.

of course they do; you yourself agreed Cash was a substance abuser. And you stated Forman was a thug with a bad past.

All this means is they were sinful and needed saving. So What? It isn't complicated.

I guess you haven't been reading. Did you note the references I placed for you, about addiction and religion?

Yes I finally figured out what all the addict obsession stems from. Of all the lame attempts to explain Christianity away as something other than what it obviously is this one ranks as one of the most pathetic. There are many counter arguments to Christianity that I find intriguing and respectable evn though I don't agree with them but yours isn't one of them. Most Christians are not former addicts what is your explanation for that. What explains that men who had displayed a despicable character one day and then a completely different character the next after they claimed to be saved. How can you explain my being someone who cursed often and didn’t see anything wrong with it being saved and the next day not being able to bear hearing cursing as well as people continually asking me if I had a new haircut or was working out commenting that I looked happier and more content than the day before. I can't wait for this response.

Yes, statements and papers by experts is all just psychobabble.
I notice you did not even attempt to actually address a single point cited, from the works of actual psychologists/psychiatrists about this addiction phenomenon; you avoided it entirely. I wonder why?

Yes psychologists are well known for their rational theories and couldn't possibly come up with something ridiculous like everything Sigmund Freud ever said.

lol, aw look at you trying to use more jargon now.
My claims remain un-refuted; bandying around the term 'absolute' is merely your own dissembly. Again, we can make certain claims about the supernatural by dint of the fact that there is no evidence to support them. Making up nonsense about make-=believe things does not have any place in rational discussion, and since you have no evidence, your claims can be dismissed out of hand. That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Until contrary evidence appears, definitive statements are acceptable. some folks don't feel comfortable with the strength of my negations, but that makes no never mind to me because, in truth, they cannot be countered without providing practical evidence to the contrary. So far there is no reason to doubt the preciseness of my negative statements.

I am bored and have another whole section of yours to refute so I will leave your opinion above unanswered I just don't have the time to waste.

 

[1robin]

A false but often repeated statement.

Another repetition. Simply because you have many copies of the same thing, does not increase the accuracy of any original. Plus the usual Biblical fanatic's hyperbole thrown in there.


Don't care, I could produce contrary quotes as well.


But none original. Without the original there isn't an accurate way to assess how accurate the copies are. they are all simply copies of copies; your statements of accuracy can only be applied to how accurately they are between each other. You have zero knowledge of how accurate they are, compared to the originals. You are extrapolating without any actual basis, you see. . Even scholars know the authors are spuriously named, and not from eyewitnesses. the bible is not as reliable as you believe, Im afraid.

What other books? You are simply making up big numbers, at this point.

But no originals. Same problem. that 100 years is actually a large issue.
But this thread isn't about the inaccuracy of the bible.

False, again

Thank the Gods, at last.

Sourced actual psychology

I couldnt wait to get to this one.

Here is you mentioning deathbed conversions:
"I have read many famous Atheists quotes made on their death bed who realized they were wrong but indicated it was too late and they were headed for something unimaginably bad.

Here is you denying you mentioned deathbed conversions:
I never mentioned any deathbed conversions;

Or are you playing to the idea that because they didn't receive immediate priestly attendance in full regimental vestments, that that doesn't count as a 'full approved and official conversion'? lol!
You are grasping at some dry straws, indeed.

Also let us note: these anecdotal deathbed conversions don't really happen that often. And the more famous ones are all known falsehoods.

And I just want to point out that this is the 2nd time now you have clearly distanced yourself from your own implications after the fact. First insinuating incorrectly that I am an atheist, then, here mentioning deathbed conversions.



Im afraid you cannot guarantee by any means. As an addict your testimony is not as reliable as mine In addition since by definition your experience may simply be an hallucination [depending on what we are talking about] your certainty is suspect.

All right: i disagree entirely with anything you said. Everything you said is incorrect.



Rage against the dieing light, Im on vacation.

Originally Posted by 1robin
If you knew anything about textual criticism which apparently you don't then you would know that the greatest asset for establishing an original text is multiple attestation in copies that were not derived from one another, and since many of the early texts we have are so far removed from each other geographically then it makes the original almost a certainty. Plus the writing of the early church fathers which we have many original copies contains 95% of the new testament within a few dozen years or even earlier of the resurrection.
The writings of the Church Fathers.
They contain over 3600 quotations from the New Testament.
If we had to we could reconstruct the entire New Testament text from this external source.
Your understanding of biblical textual research is lacking. See above. There are dozens of eyewitness accounts recorded in the bible. There were people who were very aware of things that happened during this time that recorded in non-biblical texts details perfectly consistent with the Gospels. There are even people that were hostile to Christ and his movement that corroborate many details of this period in extra biblical texts.

　
Author Written Copy Span of Copies
Caesar 00-44 B.C. A.D. 900 1,000 years 10
Tacitus A.D. 00 A.D. 1100 1,000 years 20
Suetonius A.D. 75-160 A.D. 950 800 years 8
Herodotus 480-425 B.C. A.D. 900 1,300 years 8
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. A.D. 1100 1,400 years 49
New Testament A.D. 45-100 24,000
A.D. 125; 25 years;
full copies: full copies:
Third and 200-300
Fourth centuries years
Apparently you are wrong again This list is from another scholar that you will dismiss (of course) but I obviously didn't make up anything the list above is a very abridged one. All of books from antiquity have far less textual certainty than the bible.
If you will either read my comments above carefully or research a legitimate new testament scholar you will understand that the writings of the church fathers are much less than 100yrs and contain virtually the whole new testament. And fragments of the huge parts of the actual New Testament found within much less than 100yrs. Even Bart Ehrman one of the most outspoken critics of biblical texts admits that by far the vast percentage of the errors that can be found in the textual tradition of the bible are of no significant importance and no error has been found in an error that affects doctrine. To sum it all up the scholarly consensus is the bible is 90%-98% true to the original and with two exceptions the errors are irrelevant.
I believe that your claim of false is false. See above.
Quote:
Thank the Gods, at last.

Are beginning to crack?
Ok please read very carefully. Is the word conversion in that quote of mine above? Is a synonym of conversion in that quote. However notice that "it was too late" was in that quote. Too late for what? Converting. To convert a person has to select a new position and then adopt that new position hence "conversion" There is no indication of that transaction taking place to realize that your current position is flawed does not necessarily imply adopting a new one and in this case I even said "IT WAS TOO LATE"
Whatever you want to dream up as an alternative to the actual biblical definition of conversion can't possibly allow for a conversion in a statement that states EMPHATICALLY "IT IS TOO LATE"
You could take just the ones that have been witnessed by several other people and it would still suffice for the purpose it was intended. Even one attested account would be meaningful.
I am not sure you have the ability to realize why I am making a statement. You make false assertions if you can't see that as plain as day from these posts I give up.

I deny the accuracy of a premise that is inaccessible to you and is accessible too me as well as the integrity of the one who makes it.


This presumes that there was any light in the first place.