Comments on Another question bible thumpers can't answer

Go to Religion in the Modern World - Add a comment - Go to Another question bible thumpers can't answer

Hey Gome, it's been a while since my last visit...

posted by CunningLinguist on June 9, 2006 at 9:37 PM | link to this | reply

...oh, and for the record, I belive in God, but I do not judge others who

either don't or who worship other God's or symbols.  My faith is my own.  It's personal.  It's exclusive to only me. 

posted by Sturgis on June 8, 2006 at 3:01 PM | link to this | reply

Gomedome...I came back for a read of your comments sections. Hmmm...

lots of debate.  Excellent points on everyone's behalf.   Still impressed with your post and not swayed in the other direction.  What a healthy debate.

posted by Sturgis on June 8, 2006 at 3:00 PM | link to this | reply

FactorFiction - you are now a furry little blogger

posted by gomedome on June 8, 2006 at 1:44 PM | link to this | reply

Sunnybeach7 - you've hit on a point that no one seems able to answer

Why in fact did this omnipotent creator being, that so many believe is real, leave the interpretation and distribution of his word in the hands of mankind? It sure hasn't worked out that well.

posted by gomedome on June 8, 2006 at 1:12 PM | link to this | reply

Xeno-x - I can't disagree with that

The adherents to all of the world's established religions have dragged their ancient idols kicking and screaming into the modern world. As each hour goes by and as our collective knowledge base renders these stories ever more redundant, it seems that more and more effort is being put into reconciling these traditional beliefs with a reality that increasingly refuses to co-operate.

posted by gomedome on June 8, 2006 at 1:09 PM | link to this | reply

Justi - yes there is a limit to the ugly name calling

I've reached the limit of being on the receiving end.

What you are trying to suggest, in my closing line of this post, as being something that I have initiated, is only the turning of the tables on those who would like to make ignorant and rude remarks to others who do not believe as they do.  I have had this particular catch phrase dropped as a comment on my posts dozens of times. I would be happy to never have to make such a statement in rebuttal to being insulted again. All that would have to happen for me not to do this is for people such as yourself to understand that those who do not believe as you do are no less than you. Either in the real world or in the eyes of your fictitious God.  

posted by gomedome on June 8, 2006 at 1:03 PM | link to this | reply

FactorFiction - yeah - except for one little thing

Those who do not believe in God are no more fools that those who do, at least in the sense of how the term "fool' is generally understood and accepted. When using the term as it is described in Psalm 13 where it encompasses evil and vile into the term fool, we get more away from reality. In your elaboration of this, the source and the light being completely undefined allows for anyone who demonstrates any form of enlightenment, to not be considered a fool.  

posted by gomedome on June 8, 2006 at 12:55 PM | link to this | reply

Gome

I know I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  I am; however, smart enough to know this quote from your post is not about a believer calling a non-believer a fool as we are so often accused of doing. It is instead you calling believers fools. Is there no limit to the ugly name calling ?

Quote liffted from the last paragraph on the post on the other side of this comments page.

If you are insistent on using this catch phrase but cannot give a clear and concise answer to this question . . . you must be a damn fool.

posted by Justi on June 8, 2006 at 12:52 PM | link to this | reply

Since I don't believe in a great deal that's within the bible, and I don't really care if anyone thinks me a fool or not, it doesn't really matter to me

I'm not gonna deny the existance of such a God, but I would say that any other God/Goddess that anyone worships is just as viable.

I personally from reading the bible can't see why anyone, except a small few (that would definitely have to be grown men) would want to worship such a being.
Also, according to the bible, God created everything, so why didn't he just create a table and and write his own holy book, sign his name, and put it down there? Then there wouldn't be all this controversy as to who wrote it, blah, blah, blah.

Sunny

posted by Afzal_Sunny7 on June 8, 2006 at 12:52 PM | link to this | reply

i agree with you gomey

but we have to remember that humans seem to want to endow a god with intelligence, etc. similar to their own.

i just leave some of this alone, dealing with what I know.

whatever is there -- it is not like as been described -- Old Testament view of god is a concoction of different (at least four) belief systems -- that god is what those belief systems thought he should be, evolved from previous tribal beliefs.

Jesus, although using the Jewish god, evolved a different type of god -- keeping the one familiar to his audience, yet attempting to show people something beyond the OT idol -- trying to "familarize" this god by calling him a "father".

many 21st century Christians cannot see that evolution of god must be taken several steps farther.

and yet -- then we come back to the notion of the anthropomorphic male with attributes similar to human males -- and we have to break that mold --

realize that whatever is That Whole, we cannot really describe it adequately.

images and attributes should be thrown away -- the Theos -- the intellect and intent and such - we cannot attribute to whatever That Whole is.

we just need to deal with what we know -- the Now.

posted by Xeno-x on June 8, 2006 at 12:47 PM | link to this | reply

gomedome, you have personalized my statement when it was intended as a generalization.   Please note that I wrote "a person".   I did not say "you" or "gomedome".   And, I stand by my statement which I feel answers your original question and calls for no further debate.

posted by TAPS. on June 8, 2006 at 12:26 PM | link to this | reply

1. Don't put yourself out, but being a furry little blogger is fine with me...

2. Actually I like the explanation by TAPS. The fool's heart is enclosed in a dark box. If the box allows any light in at all, you do not qualify as 'fool.' Does not matter the size of the leak nor the source of the light. Sorry, I have greatly  re-interpreted TAPS...

posted by FactorFiction on June 8, 2006 at 12:20 PM | link to this | reply

TAPS- you don't know enough about my beliefs to say such a thing

I have only ever stated that I do not believe it is possible that a God as traditionally defined as a conscious entity exists. So go back to the original question as posed in this post. Where is the line drawn between determining those who are fools and those who are not?

posted by gomedome on June 8, 2006 at 12:11 PM | link to this | reply

SoloWriter - a belated welcome to Blogit

and thanx for stopping in.

posted by gomedome on June 8, 2006 at 12:05 PM | link to this | reply

Then let me put it for you this way:  a person who is searching for God, or who is worshipping even the gods that God rejects realizes that there is something greater than himself and is trying to find the way.   The person that says "No God" is shutting himself off from even the possibility of finding the way to God.   He is boxing himself in and that is foolish.

posted by TAPS. on June 8, 2006 at 12:04 PM | link to this | reply

Well, if you're a Garfield fan, the concept of God is simple to explain ...

GOD stands for "Gee, Odie, why can't dogs be more like cats?"

posted by Jenasis on June 8, 2006 at 12:03 PM | link to this | reply

FactorFiction -the "Little furry bloggers rising into heaven" is my attempt

at humour.

Instead of using a static Links list (which everyone seems to ignore), I added a Javascript that rotates the links of those who comment on this blog. The movement of the scripts rotation seems to catch people's eyes occasionally I update it every once in awhile, removing departed bloggers and those who are no longer speaking to me. I can add your name and link in the next update if you would like.

posted by gomedome on June 8, 2006 at 12:02 PM | link to this | reply

TAPS- - retreating into an all encompassing catch phrase is about what I

expected.

 

posted by gomedome on June 8, 2006 at 11:57 AM | link to this | reply

gomedome, only God can validate God.   I have validated nothing.   God needs no validation from me or from you or from any human.

posted by TAPS. on June 8, 2006 at 11:54 AM | link to this | reply

By the way...

what's with the furry little bloggers going to heaven there??

posted by FactorFiction on June 8, 2006 at 11:54 AM | link to this | reply

TAPS- is it really that easy for you to fall into a thinly disguised trap?

You have now just validated every version of diety that exists. From Awonwinlona to the Star Trek's Q.

too funny.

posted by gomedome on June 8, 2006 at 11:50 AM | link to this | reply

gomedome, What do you not understand about the word "no"?    No God means none, not any, zip, zilch, zed.   Why ask "which" when you are claiming nonexistence for any at all?   

posted by TAPS. on June 8, 2006 at 11:45 AM | link to this | reply

Sturgis - you are being too kind - thank you

posted by gomedome on June 8, 2006 at 11:21 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome...I love a great debate; however, this is so cleverly written

that I have nothing to debate about.  Excellent writing!

posted by Sturgis on June 8, 2006 at 11:20 AM | link to this | reply

SuccessWarrior - I had one fervent and extremely rabid believer

try to tell me that the "Exorcist" was based on a true story and that Satan can actually make people do all of those things. Projectile power barfing, head spinning, back breaking contortions and all, simply because he had read the overused notation of "based on a true story." . . . .  Good thing that the priests saved that poor girl. 

posted by gomedome on June 8, 2006 at 11:19 AM | link to this | reply

pkcricket - I have to agree with this statement

" . . . The ones that made it into the canonical Bible that we have today are the books that were in common use at the time and sworn by as "the Word of God" by the church leaders at that time." 

The key words being "by the church leaders at that time."  All men with the limitations of the collective knowledge base of the 3rd century. I wonder how many books would have survived this scrutiny if the council of Nicea was held today? . . but this is an aside.

Your expectations are realistic if you do not think that anything you say will change the minds of people that do not believe that the bible is the word of God. This is a good expectation. This way you will suffer much less disappointment in life, especially if and when the time comes that you set foot off of the North American continent.

The problem I have with discussions concerning the bible is that to me it is just one of a number of holy books. It happens to be the one that they tried to brainwash me with while growing up. Subsequently I have tried to purge the damage it has done from my brain but at the end of the day it is just another holy book being presented by religious adherents as the only correct holy book. This should give you some indication of how serious I take attempts to demonstrate it's validity as the one true holy book by using material found within it.  

 

posted by gomedome on June 8, 2006 at 11:13 AM | link to this | reply

I know that my using Scripture here will not cause any of you to believe the Bible more, but I want to say that, though the writings of the NT were written within 100 years of the events...they were written with authority.  2 Peter 1:16 says that Christians (the apostles specifically) were not following cunningly devised fables, but were actual eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ and the life He lived here.  Also, when the Council got together in the early 300AD...it wasn't to select certain books from a huge collection, it was to verify that the books being used and affirmed by the churches were really the ones being used and affirmed by the churches.  The ones that made it into the canonical Bible that we have today are the books that were in common use at the time and sworn by as "the Word of God" by the church leaders at that time. 

posted by pkcricket on June 8, 2006 at 10:44 AM | link to this | reply

Like movies that are "based on a true story"

Sometimes the only truth in them is the name of the lead character.  The rest is made up to make a better movie.

posted by SuccessWarrior on June 8, 2006 at 10:42 AM | link to this | reply

TVBlogger - I know myself that I do not need the observations of men

 

from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries to guide my life.

By today's standards, even the most accomplished scholar of that time would be about a grade 6 equivalency.  And yeah, no kidding, a book written decades and even centuries after the actual events and almost entirely in the third person, should have a disclaimer on it somewhere "based on some actual true events - opinions expressed within are not necessarily the opinions of this publisher" 

posted by gomedome on June 8, 2006 at 8:56 AM | link to this | reply

BTW

My comment was made concerning the interpretation posts... someone got inbetween. 

posted by TVBlogger on June 8, 2006 at 8:40 AM | link to this | reply

And that is why...

I think it's pointless to try to win an argument by quoting the bible.  Most of the texts were written 50-100 years after events, and this after having stories passed around orally.  There were also many different versions of these events.  The texts were translated many times over also leading to different interpretation.  Then 300 years after events happened, a bunch of old guys sat around in a room to decide which versions were true.  And thus we have the definitive Word of God?  There are many great truths in the bible and many I try to live by, but to see it as the literal word of God is a veeeeeery dangerous road to travel down.

posted by TVBlogger on June 8, 2006 at 8:37 AM | link to this | reply

FYI

According to Strong's Concordance...and I'll check with other resources as well, "fool" is defined as:

stupid; wicked (especially impious); fool(ish, -ish man, ish woman); vile person

gdome...I know that I am young, and that I am more or less a product of my culture, but I cannot deny the existence of what I believe, based on the Bible.  I try not to be hostile towards who do not share my views, sometimes it can't be help, but I think I do a pretty good job of allowing others to have their opinions.  What I say I am passionate about, the other says with the same passion, and it's doubtful that either of us will change each other's mind.  When I discuss religion, unless someone is specifically attacking me personally or wanting to take it deeper, I try to keep it on an educational level only.  I'm interested to know what others believe about what I believe, any misconceptions they may have, any valid points.  Granted, "religion" itself is a man-made thing.  Religion can be worshiped in itself, we see this evident all over the world, not just in Christianity.  My faith is a lifestyle, not a religion. 

The idols and man-made effigies related to Christianity are, I hope, not being worshiped.  Rather they point us to a remembrance of an act of God, and then through remembering it, we worship God all the more.  If a Christian is worshipping the image or symbol, then there is a problem, and I agree, an inconsistency within the faith.  Cricket ><>

posted by pkcricket on June 8, 2006 at 8:37 AM | link to this | reply

FactorFiction - that's an excellent question

The word "fool" could very well be an erroneous interpretation.

posted by gomedome on June 8, 2006 at 8:20 AM | link to this | reply

Personally, I'd be interested in what the word "fool" was

in the original ancient text. It might shed light on the way the writer wanted it interpreted. Certainly, the Bible was rewritten enough times in English that it's original flavor may be very different. Neverhteless, I have not cared enough to go learning the ancient tongues.

posted by FactorFiction on June 8, 2006 at 8:08 AM | link to this | reply

Xeno-x - I've only taken what you have said one small increment further

in saying that if their is a life force, or life propagating energy source, it is not conscious.

posted by gomedome on June 8, 2006 at 7:59 AM | link to this | reply

Trevor_Cunnington - Yeah, you would think that being omnipotent would be

enough for the guy!

posted by gomedome on June 8, 2006 at 7:57 AM | link to this | reply

redwood - I don't see what you see in that blog title

but have to agree that it is a seemingly unfair statement. Though it is a little hard to judge without reading the post itself.

posted by gomedome on June 8, 2006 at 7:56 AM | link to this | reply

pkcricket - now you have more or less suggested that you believe I am

a fool.

So I hope that you do not mind if I am also a bit candid. As you chronicle your beliefs, you also demonstrate for us all that is inconsistent within the religion of which you are an adherant. The graven images and idols that have been constructed by man around the dogma of the Christian religions are no different from any other man made religious beliefs. Many are even borrowed from other religions and non religions. They are all man made, yet all adherents to all religions will not acknowledge this possibility of their own faith. Looking at it from the outside and with a great deal more objectivity than those who do believe in God and those who adhere to a specific religious dogma, I see a trait common amongst all humans. They cannot see that their unwavering faith in a specific version of God is merely the product of their own specific brand of indoctrination. If you were born in Iran for example, you would be saying much the same things about those who do not believe as you do but with the Christian version of God replaced with the homegrown version.

As for Satan and demons, they are all products of the human mind. Those who do not believe in such things are never subjected to their manifestations. As for a jealous God. One more time we see the contradictions of the traditional definitions of God. How can a being that is supposedly the epitome of altruism and goodness be jealous?

You are a young person, it is likely that you will eventualy grow out of such a view of those who do not share your beliefs.

posted by gomedome on June 8, 2006 at 7:54 AM | link to this | reply

I have not used that "catch phrase" but I believe it entirely true.  I think the only true God is the God spoken of and honored in the Bible.  In regards to the catch phrase, I think they are referring to this God, but I will not go so far as to say that it is only referring to this God.  I think if someone rejects altogether the idea of a supernatural being who created and is in charge of this universe, then they are a fool.  The ones who worship some god or gods in some way are one step higher, because they acknowledge the existence of a supernatural realm.  But, I will not concede to say that it is just as good as acknowledging the God of the Bible.  If I did, I would be abandoning and contradicting the dogma of my faith, which is monotheistic and exclusive by nature.  I believe that the God of the Bible is the only true God, and the belief and surrender to His Son, Jesus, is the only way to ensure eternal security after physical death. 

Concerning the remark of Yahweh (the personal name of the God of the Bible) as being a jealous God, I hold that as true.  It is not an admission of polytheism, but rather a declaration of a human perspective.  The Bible was written in the language of people, and there are things of God which are not able to be understood as they are, but can be pictured in expressions and phraseology of humans.  According to the Bible, the "gods" of other religions are dead.  They are mute and deaf idols that the people created.  This is important.  As we see that it is made by the people, we can see how God would be jealous.  People, in their hearts are worshiping these idols as if they were gods.  Because they hold this in their hearts, they are taking away worship which is entirely due to Yahweh, their creator.  This is why He is jealous of the "other gods."  Needless to say, when you accept the existence of a spiritual world, you should be aware that there are demons who will try to empower these idols of men.  They copy the works of Yahweh and try to take worship away from Him as well. 

I will repost this in my own blog, for comments there, in case it takes up too much room, or you want to shout and holler at me there.  Thanks!  Cricket ><>

posted by pkcricket on June 8, 2006 at 7:32 AM | link to this | reply

I find it interesting that the god of the old testament is a "jealous god" who forbids his subjects worship the likeness of any other god or divinity, any "idol."  Who is he jealous of?

posted by Trevor_Cunnington on June 8, 2006 at 6:42 AM | link to this | reply

gomedome - Perhaps it is presumptuous to assume that someone is a fool

because of what they may or may not believe. A prime example of this is the title of a post I saw very recently; "Where do believers  come off using science to prove anything?"  Doesn't this title suggest that all believers are a bunch of fools?

posted by redwood on June 8, 2006 at 6:38 AM | link to this | reply

I haven't said there is no god

just not the classic one.

posted by Xeno-x on June 8, 2006 at 6:29 AM | link to this | reply