Doomstead Diner Menu => Spirituality & Mysticism => Topic started by: azozeo on August 25, 2014, 04:28:08 PM

Title: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on August 25, 2014, 04:28:08 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEQl2LvqWjk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEQl2LvqWjk)
enjoy
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: agelbert on August 25, 2014, 04:43:02 PM
Az,
I'm going to show you how to post videos here so people can see them in the post.

Hit the quote button and see how I modified the code. Then do that for any videos you post. It looks better and gives the viewers a picture of the video as well.  :emthup:

http://www.youtube.com/v/IEQl2LvqWjk#&fs=1


Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: knarf on August 25, 2014, 04:58:46 PM
SHARPEN YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS!!!!!!!! Great video.....thanx!   :emthup: :emthup: I can tune a guitar........ :)
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: MKing on August 25, 2014, 05:23:54 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEQl2LvqWjk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEQl2LvqWjk)
enjoy

An interesting semantic exercise but not much else. The guy doing the narration is just as much living the lie as everyone he bashes. I mean really, spiritual law? The guy seems to spin through all the belief systems, while pushing his own. He advocates thinking for oneself but certainly makes it seem as though everyone doing what they want, be it tattooing or using fuels, well, you must be quarantined. Just another megalomaniac thinking he has the answer. And if you disagree with him, well, you are a part of that OTHER herd. And they have been sold  delusion, versus what this guy wants to sell.

It nearly borders on Matrix stuff. Please, like Hollywood hasn't already done this far better.

http://www.warnerbros.com/movies/home-entertainment/the-matrix/37313ac7-9229-474d-a423-44b7a6bc1a54.html (http://www.warnerbros.com/movies/home-entertainment/the-matrix/37313ac7-9229-474d-a423-44b7a6bc1a54.html)

Although his point that a sucker is born every minute is quite accurate. He doesn't note that he selling the same thing, but that would defeat the purpose of HIS sell, right?
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: knarf on August 25, 2014, 06:08:54 PM
Mking says " He doesn't note that he selling the same thing, but that would defeat the purpose of HIS sell, right?"

Here is Michael Tsarion's web page......

http://www.michaeltsarion.com/ (http://www.michaeltsarion.com/)

He is not selling anything, if you want to you can donate some money, but he is NOT selling.  Why is it that you feel like your left out of the big picture?
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on August 25, 2014, 06:30:34 PM
I'm giddy as a sophomore school girl to see the reply's after watching this in depth
lecture by Michael Tsarion (that guy doing the narrative) as MKing calls him
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX_hR6ljXow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX_hR6ljXow)
sorry I didn't embed it. Still learning.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 25, 2014, 06:37:27 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/LeIVz9lCZqQ&fs=1

Outlaw News

December 16, 2007


New Age guru Michael Tsarion, who has recently been publicly exposed as a Freemason and generational occultist, has threatened physical violence against one of the people who assisted this exposure – Chris White, of the ‘Nowhere to Run’ internet radio show, who recently did a show on Tsarion’s occult connections, noting among other things that he is an admitted member of the Rosicrucian Order.

This show was brought up on Tsarion’s forum, and rather than respond to any of the facts brought up by Chris, Tsarion simply called him “trash who has emerged from his fucking toilet” and then stated that “the only debate i’ll give this pathetic specimen is with my fist” (entire response posted below).

Though this comment was somewhat offhand, and not something one would really take to court as a threat of assault, it shows Tsarion’s mindset. By degrading Chris with Ad Hominem attacks, Tsarion claims that he has no obligation to respond to any of the facts he brought up.
When I tried to go on his forum and bring up some of the facts mentioned on the show, my comment was denied approval by one of the Admins. This doesn’t surprise me. If you go on his forum, you will see that people are talking about the show, but none of them have said one word about the actual content of it. This is because any mention of the facts brought up in the show is disallowed from Michael Tsarion’s forum. I encourage anyone who doubts this to go and try to post something negative about “Mtsar” on his forum.

His forum is filled with people who follow him with religious fervor, and on my own forum, I have found that his followers will viciously attack anyone who mentions anything negative about their great spiritual leader. This is no different from the behavior of the members of any other cult.

All of this is simply further proof of what those of us in the know were already well aware of: Michael Tsarion is a fake and a shill, put out by the powers that be to mix fact with fiction and create mass confusion among our movement. He promotes the belief in aliens as well as a mass of other occult garbage including tarot cards and astrology. He also promotes the Rothschild funded philosophy of Theosophy, and is an apologist for the very high Freemason and founder of the OTO, Aliester Crowley, who it is recently declassified was a paid agent of MI-6.

Alan Watt, though apparently hesitant to say all he knows about this situation, has several times indicated that Michael Tsarion, David Icke, Jordan Maxwell, and the rest of that little club are all disinformation agents, put out there to mix the truth with the sci-fi/fantasy world of the New Age religion. Here is a recent interview where Alan discusses this.

It is also worth noting that Tsarion’s forum is hosted by Red Ice Creations, the Admin of which, Henrik Palmgren, does a radio show where Michael Tsarion is a regular guest. Alan Watt used to appear on this show every month, but recently he has stopped being invited, claiming on his own show which airs on RBN that this was due to the fact that he refused to go along with the “alien agenda” propaganda which most of the Red Ice guests promote. I like the guy, and we regularly like to each others sites, but apparently, Henrik has become a member of the club.

Chris White is a friend of mine, and after the threats and hateful statements which Tsarion has made against him, this issue is pretty close to home; I also feel that the people doing what he is doing, sabotaging our movement from within, are actually more damaging that the attacks from without. I am going to continue to do everything I can to make sure this man is fully exposed, so as he is no longer able to harm people with his psychologically and spiritually destructive propaganda.
-Andre
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: knarf on August 25, 2014, 06:52:16 PM
Ashvin.... you seem to be speaking for a very narrow crowd. It all rotates around your conversion to Christianity. As it says on Chris's web site.....

http://nowheretorun.podomatic.com/ (http://nowheretorun.podomatic.com/)

Please read the podcast summary on the right side of the page.

He is a quack!  :)
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Karpatok on August 25, 2014, 07:03:39 PM
  Well Ashvin is famous here for having banned me on The Automatic Earth for asking if his bosses, Illargi and stoneleigh, were fundamentalists like himself and approved of his turning the Automatic Earth into a platform for his preaching. We all know what goes around comes around but I guess Ashvin is a very special case of intolerance and fanaticism, being like he is so "logical" and all. Of course he and his employers parted company soon after that and so he departed to come over here and drive everybody crazy.  Karpatok
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: MKing on August 25, 2014, 07:22:49 PM
Mking says " He doesn't note that he selling the same thing, but that would defeat the purpose of HIS sell, right?"

Here is Michael Tsarion's web page......

http://www.michaeltsarion.com/ (http://www.michaeltsarion.com/)

He is not selling anything, if you want to you can donate some money, but he is NOT selling.  Why is it that you feel like your left out of the big picture?

So he isn't selling those books on alien visitation on Kindle? They are all free?

Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 25, 2014, 07:28:01 PM
Ashvin.... you seem to be speaking for a very narrow crowd. It all rotates around your conversion to Christianity. As it says on Chris's web site.....

http://nowheretorun.podomatic.com/ (http://nowheretorun.podomatic.com/)

Please read the podcast summary on the right side of the page.

He is a quack!  :)

It's really sad that you are using ad hom against Chris EXACTLY like your pal Tsarion did, without even watching his video or explaining why he is wrong about "Mtsar".

I don't agree with Chris on many of his theories, especially his theological dispensationalism, but at least he is intellectually HONEST and attempts to make rational arguments and rebuttals. That fact gives him much more INTEGRITY than any of the New Age "gurus" who are most definitely SELLING themselves to their followers, as all cult leaders do.

The reason I mostly link to Christian websites when criticizing the New Age spiritual movement is because they are generally the only people who care enough to put any time, money and effort into debunking it. Oh, and please do read Chris' podcast summary... it doesn't get any more quacky than that...  :icon_scratch:

Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on August 25, 2014, 11:05:27 PM
Quote
so he departed to come over here and drive everybody crazy.  Karpatok

Ashvin never drove me crazy, and it was a fortunate day for the Diner when he joined in my opinion.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Karpatok on August 25, 2014, 11:43:37 PM
Quote
so he departed to come over here and drive everybody crazy.  Karpatok

Ashvin never drove me crazy, and it was a fortunate day for the Diner when he joined in my opinion.
   Well Bully for you GO. His endless discussions of the Bible and prosylitizing make me nauseous. If he would only occasionally go back to political analysis that might be very helpful in my view. If you love his arguments so much and his preachiness, and you were taught by the Jesuits, how come you never have much to add to that discussion?  Is it because Ashvin hates Catholics while he defends the good book with so much fervor? How tolerant, loving and non racist of him.   Karpatok
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on August 26, 2014, 12:06:56 AM
Quote
so he departed to come over here and drive everybody crazy.  Karpatok

Ashvin never drove me crazy, and it was a fortunate day for the Diner when he joined in my opinion.
   Well Bully for you GO. His endless discussions of the Bible and prosylitizing make me nauseous. If he would only occasionally go back to political analysis that might be very helpful in my view. If you love his arguments so much and his preachiness, and you were taught by the Jesuits, how come you never have much to add to that discussion?  Is it because Ashvin hates Catholics while he defends the good book with so much fervor? How tolerant, loving and non racist of him.   Karpatok

It's about his goals, his methods, his intellect, and unbelievable amount of study and scholarship. Ashvin is a good, and remarkable person.

My infrequent remarks are on account of the topic being too much for me to understand or comprehend. The more I was taught about religion the more I became confused and the never ending questions they bring to my mind.

To be honest about it, many of the questions RE brings up in the discussions were things that popped up in my mind over the years as well.

Ashvin's knowledge and dedication to explaining a lot of these mysteries has been helpful to me, and I feel that my place with him is in learning from him, listening mostly as it were. I do ask him a occasional question.

Your annoyance with him is no problem for me, we are all very different people K. I was merely pointing out that he does not annoy me, when you seemed to have spoken as if we were all annoyed.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Karpatok on August 26, 2014, 12:30:45 AM
  Sorry Go, I should not have expressed it as I did. I'm sure that there are differing  views and appreciations here. I hate to see good brains be wasted, I've already expressed that I don't find it important what other peoples religious views may be, and I find it quite annoying and rude when they never let up trying to jam their views down people's throats. But  then I also find bragging inexcusable and it also goes on day and night here. I'm just not sure what the objective is in that kind of continuing discussion year in and year out while the world falls apart. Is it just a diversion until we all commit sepuku and the fat lady sings because our hands are tied behind our backs and this here and NOW is only a warm up for the real thing? That is also too defeatist and apathetic in my view. And simply lets people off the hook. No feeling of responsibility as they go on jawboning ad infinitum. Your friend in agony, Karpatok
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: knarf on August 26, 2014, 05:16:11 AM
Mking says "So he isn't selling those books on alien visitation on Kindle? They are all free?"   Nope you are right, i just looked on amazon, he is selling his stuff.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: knarf on August 26, 2014, 05:23:42 AM
Ashvin.... you seem to be speaking for a very narrow crowd. It all rotates around your conversion to Christianity. As it says on Chris's web site.....

http://nowheretorun.podomatic.com/ (http://nowheretorun.podomatic.com/)

Please read the podcast summary on the right side of the page.

He is a quack!  :)

It's really sad that you are using ad hom against Chris EXACTLY like your pal Tsarion did, without even watching his video or explaining why he is wrong about "Mtsar".

I don't agree with Chris on many of his theories, especially his theological dispensationalism, but at least he is intellectually HONEST and attempts to make rational arguments and rebuttals. That fact gives him much more INTEGRITY than any of the New Age "gurus" who are most definitely SELLING themselves to their followers, as all cult leaders do.

The reason I mostly link to Christian websites when criticizing the New Age spiritual movement is because they are generally the only people who care enough to put any time, money and effort into debunking it. Oh, and please do read Chris' podcast summary... it doesn't get any more quacky than that...  :icon_scratch:

I did read it, and still it comes from the evangelical christian perspective, which in my mind you all spend 7/8's of your time defending and debunking other ideas and people and 1/8 of the time living as Jesus did. That is my problem with that approach. Can't you just walk away, turn the other cheek and in your actions live as Jesus did, every now and then yelling at the scribes and pharisees. :)
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: RE on August 26, 2014, 05:41:49 AM
I did read it, and still it comes from the evangelical christian perspective, which in my mind you all spend 7/8's of your time defending and debunking other ideas and people and 1/8 of the time living as Jesus did. That is my problem with that approach. Can't you just walk away, turn the other cheek and in your actions live as Jesus did, every now and then yelling at the scribes and pharisees. :)

That would be difficult.  Jesus was not a Lawyer.  LOL.

RE
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 26, 2014, 05:42:20 AM
I did read it, and still it comes from the evangelical christian perspective, which in my mind you all spend 7/8's of your time defending and debunking other ideas and people and 1/8 of the time living as Jesus did. That is my problem with that approach. Can't you just walk away, turn the other cheek and in your actions live as Jesus did, every now and then yelling at the scribes and pharisees. :)

And you and az spend a good chunk of time promoting New Age spirituality on this forum, posting their videos and their articles. What makes it OK for you to do that and not for me to promote evangelical Christianity?

A big chunk of the Gospels recount Jesus "debunking" the prevalent spiritual beliefs in his culture, ever since he was a young boy in Nazareth. I imagine, if he was born into this time, he would be right on these forums debunking New Age spiritual perversions of Christianity as well.

"10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” -Mt. 5

As for the evangelicals also taking more "concrete actions" in their lives, what makes you think they don't? That's your assumption and it's a bad one. What I find the most disturbing is that you guys (az especially) are unwilling to admit when you have backed the wrong horse and provided faulty information on this forum (for ex, az's claims about Plato, Josephus and Nazareth). You may not be a Christian, but you can still speak out against anti-Christian LIES.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: MKing on August 26, 2014, 06:21:57 AM
Outlaw News

December 16, 2007


New Age guru Michael Tsarion, who has recently been publicly exposed as a Freemason and generational occultist, has threatened physical violence against one of the people who assisted this exposure – Chris White, of the ‘Nowhere to Run’ internet radio show, who recently did a show on Tsarion’s occult connections, noting among other things that he is an admitted member of the Rosicrucian Order.
-Andre

So this guy is just the same as some born again bible thumper selling their bad ideas to the gullible. Why is it belief systems seem to NEED to do this?
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: MKing on August 26, 2014, 06:27:42 AM
Mking says "So he isn't selling those books on alien visitation on Kindle? They are all free?"   Nope you are right, i just looked on amazon, he is selling his stuff.

I knew it. At least when local thought police in the form of the Born Again/Moonies/Jehovah Witnesses/Anti-Frackers stop at the door, they aren't instantly hooking you up to buy their Praise Jesus/God/Allah ap on the iTunes store to tell you what to think, what direction to genuflect in, what dogma to recite endlessly in the hope of replacing independent thought with the mantra.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Surly1 on August 26, 2014, 08:14:48 AM
A big chunk of the Gospels recount Jesus "debunking" the prevalent spiritual beliefs in his culture, ever since he was a young boy in Nazareth. I imagine, if he was born into this time, he would be right on these forums debunking New Age spiritual perversions of Christianity as well.

"10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” -Mt. 5

I imagine, if Jesus was born into this time, he would a) have better things to do that waste His precious time in such debates, and b) not be able to secure reliable electricity or bandwidth from his home in Gaza.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: knarf on August 26, 2014, 09:11:32 AM
@ Ashvin  If I have a knee jerk response to the new age ,Aquarian age, Egar Cayce, Rosicrucian, Star People, ufo's, and basically occult phenomena, I come by it honestly. Form 16 to 20 years old and then form 29 to 34 years old, i was a new ager, no doubt about it. From 19 to 27 years old I was a born again Christian, married a really Christian woman and had/have two beautiful children ( well they are 36 and 38 years old now). I was on fire for Jesus, I even spoke in tongues and was baptized in a Church of Christ in the Shasta mountains ,nude, in a freezing Baptistry. I preached in malls, and ski resorts and started a church while serving my time as a C.O.. I was in the Church of Christ mostly until we moved to Central Missouri where we went to a house church. I play guitar and used to give Christian concerts all the time with a couple different Christian bands. I brought with me to the monastery 5 different Bibles, a concordance and  a "Greek   to English Lexicon." But I never fit into the typical Christian mold. I was always questioning why people kept their wealth. Why they didn't build communities to have all things in common.  I saw Jesus as a revolutionary to his time. He didn't aquire wealth and lived poorly, he talked about love god with all your heart mind and soul, as being the greatest of all commandments, not the petty stuff that was being constantly made up with the church goers. So I know where you are coming from for sure. I admit a weak spot for anything new age and off the beaten path like azozeo has presented, just to find out how he came to his "beliefs', and to listen with an open mind to learn a different perspective.
  In 1985 I met the older monk in this monastery, and began a friendship with him. In 1986 I entered the monastery and have not left since.  Our ways are very simple, and one mantra describes our practice fairly well "Mind empty, heart open, body dancing." that 's been 29 years with a vow of poverty, and living surround by forest, raising lots of animals and planting our gardens. I love it.
  I all the years I was a Christian only one person I knew pretty good became a Christian because of my preaching. I am afraid the odds of you converted or even debunking what you believe is anti-christian or even ides that have Satanic influence is really a hopeless job. There are  thousands of different beliefs other than Evangelical Christianity. Your not even going to make a dent, but I guess you feel that if even one soul that turns from these lies by non-believers then it is all worth it. So I really do understand. Just thought you might find it interesting that at one time you would have been one of my closest Christian pals with all your zeal. One of my zealous friends called me one night and asked if wanted to join him in town to go to the bars and "Kick the gates of hell wide open!" I declined, that was just a little to radical.  :)
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 26, 2014, 11:10:27 AM
I all the years I was a Christian only one person I knew pretty good became a Christian because of my preaching. I am afraid the odds of you converted or even debunking what you believe is anti-christian or even ides that have Satanic influence is really a hopeless job. There are  thousands of different beliefs other than Evangelical Christianity. Your not even going to make a dent, but I guess you feel that if even one soul that turns from these lies by non-believers then it is all worth it. So I really do understand. Just thought you might find it interesting that at one time you would have been one of my closest Christian pals with all your zeal. One of my zealous friends called me one night and asked if wanted to join him in town to go to the bars and "Kick the gates of hell wide open!" I declined, that was just a little to radical.  :)

Speaking what I believe to be truth is an end in itself, not a means to an end. My belief in a God who is real and sovereign dictates that I leave the results in His hands.

What is most confusing to me is how easily some people take offense to criticism of their views. Someone posts a video promoting Mtsar, and no one has a problem. Then I post a video and comment criticizing him, and a few people feel like I am being "intolerant". It makes no sense for people to feel that way, especially on a Doomer forum where critical thinking and discussion/debate is supposed to be the norm.

That's why I always enjoy when Ka gets involved, because I know he will consider my arguments and respond with counter-arguments if he feels that I have erred. He never resorts to ad hom, armchair psychoanalysis or anything of that sort. Anyway, getting back to Tsarion, I have no idea whether he is a Satanic disinfo agent as some Christian critics suggest. It's an interesting possibility to consider, but it's also besides the point.

I'm mostly interested in whether he and other New Agers are being intellectually honest in their analysis of scripture and Christian theology, and I have found that 99% of the time they are not. Their distortions are not inconsequential either, IMO. So I will criticize people like Mtsar and the New Agers as much as I will Dawkins and the New Atheists. I'm not trying to squash the voices of anyone who believes in those guys. In fact, I am most interested in hearing how they respond and defend their beliefs.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on August 26, 2014, 11:11:12 AM
Appreciate the nice christian approach to slandering the hell out of me there Ashvin.
I allow you to walk your sleepy comic book approach to the cosmos. I can't understand
why your in the back of the bible when you haven't even got the 1st few pages correct.
It's all about the creation of the cosmos. Any book in the first few pages, whether it's a
romance novel, math book, science book or whatever gives you a distinct outline of the
cast of characters that book is going to discuss. i.e. genesis talks about the Pleiades
& Orion & other cosmological locations. The bible is a science book. I've pointed this out
to you several times already. It's chock full of biochemistry, psychology, & astrophysics.
It's not about comic book heroes coming in to save the day when the bad guys take over.
It's about saving yourself from within. I suggest starting over at page 1 & trying to understand
the authors scientific approach rather than some jackwagon from theological colleges approach
that stands up in front of the congregation to finger point for 15 minutes about how bad we
humans are & then of all things puts his hand out for money so he can make his new Chrysler
or Lincoln payment. It's a setup, a ponzi scheme of "biblical" proportions. Your hero, J.C. says so.
"They have eyes to see & ears to hear, but they don't use them". (I paraphrase) You've done zero
research on this subject & it's clearly evident. But you go to those "services" (you're being sold a
service) & bob your head up & down & persecute all that refuses to believe your Pisces era doctrine's.
I truly feel sorry for you & anyone who has to tolerate your hatred. I hope you wake up some day. 
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on August 26, 2014, 11:17:40 AM
Here's a great in depth 3 hour lecture by Michael Tsarion.
It discusses the psychosis we've all been put under.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX_hR6ljXow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX_hR6ljXow)
A real eye opener. Enjoy
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on August 26, 2014, 11:22:18 AM
Ashvin, just so you know. The Masons donate over $1,000,000.00 A DAY to children
who have had critical medical issues, such as critical life threatening burns.
Before speaking, look at all aspects of a subject, like your BFF Ka.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: agelbert on August 26, 2014, 11:53:56 AM
Ashvin said,
Quote
And you and az spend a good chunk of time promoting New Age spirituality on this forum, posting their videos and their articles. What makes it OK for you to do that and not for me to promote evangelical Christianity?
:emthup:BINGO!

Knarf,
As a Christian, I don't give a rodent's rear about the odds. Hebrews Chapter 11 makes it quite clear that a Christian can go through his entire life and see ZERO positive results from being a Christian, die in poverty or/and an object of disdain by everyone around him.

So, as Hans Solo said, don't tell me the odds.  :icon_mrgreen: And Ad hominem has no place in this debate. I know you feel strongly about your path and have been there and done that. You have seen rank hypocrisy in nominal Christians while you DO walk the talk they claim they walk. Don't feel like the lone ranger. I've been thrown out of at least two churches for telling it like it is.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif) :icon_mrgreen:

At any rate, if you resort to ridicule when discussing deeply held beliefs, there is no debate, period.  :emthdown:

You have not touched with a ten foot pole, for example, my personal experiences with a personal God. Do you think I'm lying to you and the others here? Raised as a Catholic, I called BULLSHIT on Catholicism and became an atheist and laughed at the "weak minded" people that sought Christianity as a crutch!   

I, like you, am telling the truth of my life experience. You have a belief system which, while absolutely ethical, avoids the central issue of where we get ethics from. Ashvin and I are convinced we get them from God. Are you convinced we get them from a basic energy transfer concept where entropy is "evil" and conservation of energy is "good"? No, that's not Az's thing. Az knows there is a lot wrong out there but refuses to see human nature (including his own) as the central cause.

I believe Ashvin, Surly and myself see any attempt at parading our superiority to the other sheep out there as Az does is unfounded arrogance based on self worship.

Sure, Christians can be as arrogant and insufferable as the most narcissistic windbag out there. SO WHAT? When that happens, let's just argue the merits and avoid the windbaggery. Otherwise, all the readers of this vibrant topic get turned off. None of us want that, do we.  ;D

Surly,
The word of God always bears good fruit. Whether Ashvin, you or I ever see it is irrelevant. And I DO think that J.C. frequents sites like this. The vibrant interest in all aspects of the human condition voiced here shows that we have people that CARE about finding the RIGHT way to be, act and believe about reality.

J.C. goes wherever there are people who genuinely seek answers. The Doomstead Diner is one of those places.

Yeah, I know... RE is about to bombard us with jpgs and gifs about doing God's work!  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/Banane21.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/4fvfcja.gif)
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on August 26, 2014, 12:15:27 PM
Human nature my arse.........
We've (our species) has been screwed with. Our DNA is altered from the original blueprint.
The creators of our species would have had to have been frickin' morons to build such an idiotic
creature. It's been discussed in the book of genesis. The fallen ones found earth girls pleasurable.
They made babies & wha-la here we are. Watch Tsarions lecture that I just posted. If you don't have
a lot of time, watch the last hour. It's jaw dropping. 
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on August 26, 2014, 12:22:06 PM
Sorry Agelbert, but I can't bring myself to believing in some skydaddy with a chalkboard
keeping score of everyone.
It's not unfounded arrogance, there's a fine line between confidence & arrogance.
It's OK to have the utmost respect & belief in ones self. I'm a happy camper & plan
on staying that way, no matter what comes down the pipe. Just watch my latest
video I posted & maybe some of this knowledge may rub off on you, & even possibly Ashvin.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: knarf on August 26, 2014, 12:25:54 PM
agelbert says " You have a belief system which, while absolutely ethical, avoids the central issue of where we get ethics from"  No, no, no, no, I do not avoid this issue. On the contrary it is one of my most responded issues. I think they ( ethics ) are conditioned, and for the most part completely un-examined. I also see that those un-examined ethics towards religion especially are a huge reason the world is in the collapse state it is in.  After about a year of meditation ( stilling the mind ), these ethics and belief systems became quite clear to me that they where hidden in closets in my mind, and i didn't even realize it. I do not expect anyone to do a year of silent meditation, but I have a knee jerk response to statements that seem to be the truth , like quotations from the bible that people just take for granted that because they came from the great holy book the Bible, which in my opinion, all the holy books are just humans telling there story about what they think the "other" world is, and how to behave in this life so they can get there. We have a saying here "there are some things worth dying for." Well that is one of mine. Blind belief. Faith in fairy tales. Swallowing lies hook line and sinker. So I have to hold back about half the time someone on this forum justifies their essays with smatterings of Biblical versus. It makes absolutely no sense to me, sorry....but that is what happens when the mind stays empty, and does not conjure a lot of nonsense to fill in the gaps.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on August 26, 2014, 12:56:33 PM
agelbert says " You have a belief system which, while absolutely ethical, avoids the central issue of where we get ethics from"  No, no, no, no, I do not avoid this issue. On the contrary it is one of my most responded issues. I think they ( ethics ) are conditioned, and for the most part completely un-examined. I also see that those un-examined ethics towards religion especially are a huge reason the world is in the collapse state it is in.  After about a year of meditation ( stilling the mind ), these ethics and belief systems became quite clear to me that they where hidden in closets in my mind, and i didn't even realize it. I do not expect anyone to do a year of silent meditation, but I have a knee jerk response to statements that seem to be the truth , like quotations from the bible that people just take for granted that because they came from the great holy book the Bible, which in my opinion, all the holy books are just humans telling there story about what they think the "other" world is, and how to behave in this life so they can get there. We have a saying here "there are some things worth dying for." Well that is one of mine. Blind belief. Faith in fairy tales. Swallowing lies hook line and sinker. So I have to hold back about half the time someone on this forum justifies their essays with smatterings of Biblical versus. It makes absolutely no sense to me, sorry....but that is what happens when the mind stays empty, and does not conjure a lot of nonsense to fill in the gaps.

Poppycock Sir, What you are saying is you get pissed off when people don't agree with you and manage to control yourself , "half the time."

Why should you care if another person has been conned by fairy tales, as you call them. You should smile and accept it after your year of emptying your mind of such nonsense.

Especially when you claim the person has absolutely no chance of winning or convincing anyone, such as your experience which you alluded too?

You have your own religion, and don't want to listen or acknowledge another person's explanation of his because you decided to discard it after being an adherent to it. Discard what he has to say, like you have your former rejected religion, and leave him in peace to practice his.

You are not trying to help Ashvin, you are ridiculing and insulting someone you have the impression has not smartened up yet like you.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: knarf on August 26, 2014, 01:04:33 PM
GO, as a detective of personal motives you stink. You can "BELIEVE" what you have to, but i told the truth...and anyone who knows me knows that I react to non-examined belief-systems. I have no religion....but you will keep on insisting that i do, because EVERYONE has to. You can not be further from the truth. Your efforts at analyzing me will not work until you have done what i have done. I will stay with my reactions to antiquated fairy tales, such as the Bible,Koran, and the Vedas. They are just paper with language printed on them. All the rest is mind generated. Defend, defend, defend.......and be sure you know the truth, because you have that great capacity.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Karpatok on August 26, 2014, 01:27:24 PM
   But Go, Knarf has had the courage of relatively full disclosure. He has given us a pretty clear description of his life's path. You and Ashvin on the other hand declare one thing and hide the other. How do you and Ashvin live in accordance with your so adamant beliefs? Does Ashvin ever do anything besides study law, gamble on the internet and preach? And exactly how does  pursuing riches and the life of an investor or gambler fit in with being a Christian? Doesn't being a true Christian involve being in the actual world with others or is it just interacting through the internet, and texting and emailing, what our lives have been reduced to?  And somebody please tell me how one is a good parent when one abandons one's children to the world and runs away to seclusion and lets  someone else bear the responsibility for the fruits of sexuality. How does one have the luxury of meditation when one is supplying the needs of others?  None of this makes any sense to me. Karpatok
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on August 26, 2014, 01:37:11 PM
GO, as a detective of personal motives you stink. You can "BELIEVE" what you have to, but i told the truth...and anyone who knows me knows that I react to non-examined belief-systems. I have no religion....but you will keep on insisting that i do, because EVERYONE has to. You can not be further from the truth. Your efforts at analyzing me will not work until you have done what i have done. I will stay with my reactions to antiquated fairy tales, such as the Bible,Koran, and the Vedas. They are just paper with language printed on them. All the rest is mind generated. Defend, defend, defend.......and be sure you know the truth, because you have that great capacity.

Thanks for your reply Knarf, my opinion remains unaltered.                         Peace, GO

 
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: knarf on August 26, 2014, 01:39:32 PM
K says " And somebody please tell me how one is a good parent when one abandons one's children to the world and runs away to seclusion and lets  someone else bear the responsibility for the fruits of sexuality. How does one have the luxury of meditation when one is supplying the needs of others?" If this applying to me, maybe not but sounds like it. After the divorce my wife found a a guy within 6 months married him and moved 400 miles from where we lived. I was allowed to pay child support by agreement with the monks here, and traveled about every 4 weeks 800 miles to visit my children.
  Meditation takes about 45 minutes twice a day, it is just usually to hard to stop one's thought process to break through to one's original mind. We have had so many GO's and Ashvins visit here and leave in a big huff because we do not support their belief systems....this is nothing new. :)
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: knarf on August 26, 2014, 01:42:59 PM
GO says "Thanks for your reply Knarf, my opinion remains unaltered.                         Peace, GO"  Well you know the old saying about opinions.....Everyone has got one, just like an ( body part that should not be expressed here).     
 
 Goodbye
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Karpatok on August 26, 2014, 01:50:06 PM
K says " And somebody please tell me how one is a good parent when one abandons one's children to the world and runs away to seclusion and lets  someone else bear the responsibility for the fruits of sexuality. How does one have the luxury of meditation when one is supplying the needs of others?" If this applying to me, maybe not but sounds like it. After the divorce my wife found a a guy within 6 months married him and moved 400 miles from where we lived. I was allowed to pay child support by agreement with the monks here, and traveled about every 4 weeks 800 miles to visit my children.
  Meditation takes about 45 minutes twice a day, it is just usually to hard to stop one's thought process to break through to one's original mind. We have had somy GO's and Ashvins visit here and leave in a big huff because we do not support their belief systems....this is nothing new. :)
    I have so appreciated your honesty and forthrightness Knarf. Usually in these cases there is a lot of suffering all around. I didn't mean to pick on you. You have added a great deal to this forum. Thanks. Karpatok
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: knarf on August 26, 2014, 01:53:20 PM
K --Thank You.....   YOU Too!!  :)
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Surly1 on August 26, 2014, 02:15:50 PM

What is most confusing to me is how easily some people take offense to criticism of their views. Someone posts a video promoting Mtsar, and no one has a problem. Then I post a video and comment criticizing him, and a few people feel like I am being "intolerant". It makes no sense for people to feel that way, especially on a Doomer forum where critical thinking and discussion/debate is supposed to be the norm.

That's why I always enjoy when Ka gets involved, because I know he will consider my arguments and respond with counter-arguments if he feels that I have erred. He never resorts to ad hom, armchair psychoanalysis or anything of that sort. Anyway, getting back to Tsarion, I have no idea whether he is a Satanic disinfo agent as some Christian critics suggest. It's an interesting possibility to consider, but it's also besides the point.

I'm mostly interested in whether he and other New Agers are being intellectually honest in their analysis of scripture and Christian theology, and I have found that 99% of the time they are not. Their distortions are not inconsequential either, IMO. So I will criticize people like Mtsar and the New Agers as much as I will Dawkins and the New Atheists. I'm not trying to squash the voices of anyone who believes in those guys. In fact, I am most interested in hearing how they respond and defend their beliefs.

I post again on this thread in trepidation, but I urge everyone to read Ashvin's response carefully and take it to heart.

Ashvin will tell you, if asked, that I carry no brief for fundamentalist Christianity, yet what he is saying is true. If we are going to post up thoughts, videos and links, let's treat them all with the understanding that this is how this person makes sense of their world, a matter of individual experience and discernment. A matter of taste. And the Latin phrase, De gustibus non est disputandum means"In matters of taste, there can be no disputes." These are subjective opinions that cannot be "right" or "wrong," by any reasonable standard, or one upon which we could possibly agree.

No one is likely to be convinced or argued off their position by anything another posts-- but they might be invited to learn more about a specific point of view when offered. When Ka and Ashvin tune up it is like a philosophical seminar...

In short, argue the point and not the man (or woman), and remember that everyone you meet is walking a road as hard as the one you are walking.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: knarf on August 26, 2014, 02:35:59 PM
Surly you are mostly correct in my view. But for one thing, i do not post articles or videos that i agree with. They are just posted so others make see different points of view...neither good nor bad...positive or negative....promotional.. or not promotional. I rarely speak out personally because I have no desire to. When prodded and poked i tend to respond, just to get the poker off my back , kinda like when gardening and a horse fly keeps trying to land on my sweaty back....i have learned to use a cap, and still go weeding while i swat at the annoying horse fly. This all feels the same way. I do not hate the horse fly. I understand that it is conditioned to do what it is doing. I do not hate anyone on this forum, but if poked sometimes my hat comes off and swing to get rid of the nasty pest. LOL  :)
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Karpatok on August 26, 2014, 02:45:53 PM

What is most confusing to me is how easily some people take offense to criticism of their views. Someone posts a video promoting Mtsar, and no one has a problem. Then I post a video and comment criticizing him, and a few people feel like I am being "intolerant". It makes no sense for people to feel that way, especially on a Doomer forum where critical thinking and discussion/debate is supposed to be the norm.

That's why I always enjoy when Ka gets involved, because I know he will consider my arguments and respond with counter-arguments if he feels that I have erred. He never resorts to ad hom, armchair psychoanalysis or anything of that sort. Anyway, getting back to Tsarion, I have no idea whether he is a Satanic disinfo agent as some Christian critics suggest. It's an interesting possibility to consider, but it's also besides the point.

I'm mostly interested in whether he and other New Agers are being intellectually honest in their analysis of scripture and Christian theology, and I have found that 99% of the time they are not. Their distortions are not inconsequential either, IMO. So I will criticize people like Mtsar and the New Agers as much as I will Dawkins and the New Atheists. I'm not trying to squash the voices of anyone who believes in those guys. In fact, I am most interested in hearing how they respond and defend their beliefs.

I post again on this thread in trepidation, but I urge everyone to read Ashvin's response carefully and take it to heart.

Ashvin will tell you, if asked, that I carry no brief for fundamentalist Christianity, yet what he is saying is true. If we are going to post up thoughts, videos and links, let's treat them all with the understanding that this is how this person makes sense of their world, a matter of individual experience and discernment. A matter of taste. And the Latin phrase, De gustibus non est disputandum means"In matters of taste, there can be no disputes." These are subjective opinions that cannot be "right" or "wrong," by any reasonable standard, or one upon which we could possibly agree.

No one is likely to be convinced or argued off their position by anything another posts-- but they might be invited to learn more about a specific point of view when offered. When Ka and Ashvin tune up it is like a philosophical seminar...

In short, argue the point and not the man (or woman), and remember that everyone you meet is walking a road as hard as the one you are walking.
    There is no human being who has not or does not "walk a hard road". Does professing and flinging " Christianity" have nothing to do with how one "LIVES" one's life? Is one a so called Christian only because one bleats or do ACTIONS speak louder than WORDS?  Karpatok
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Karpatok on August 26, 2014, 02:52:36 PM
  Surly, you have demonstrated with Occupy. You have helped to feed the hungry in the streets.  You have taught by showing the lies and hypocrisy of the American state and way of life. You have walked the talk and paid plenty of dues. I admire that. Thank you. Karpatok
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on August 26, 2014, 02:58:21 PM
   But Go, Knarf has had the courage of relatively full disclosure. He has given us a pretty clear description of his life's path. You and Ashvin on the other hand declare one thing and hide the other. How do you and Ashvin live in accordance with your so adamant beliefs? Does Ashvin ever do anything besides study law, gamble on the internet and preach? And exactly how does  pursuing riches and the life of an investor or gambler fit in with being a Christian? Doesn't being a true Christian involve being in the actual world with others or is it just interacting through the internet, and texting and emailing, what our lives have been reduced to?  And somebody please tell me how one is a good parent when one abandons one's children to the world and runs away to seclusion and lets  someone else bear the responsibility for the fruits of sexuality. How does one have the luxury of meditation when one is supplying the needs of others?  None of this makes any sense to me. Karpatok

I have no recollection of either Ashvin or myself claiming to be Jesus, only Christians.

As for my pursuit of wealth, to care for myself, put bread on the table, and care for my family that bothers you so much after your dismal failure at such endeavors.

Why not just surmise that I do it for the same reason Agelbert vigorously went after his inheritance. Perhaps I have a wife, two daughters and five grandchildren who would be in dire financial straights if I were deceased without providing for them.

Of course I'm GO so my fucking money is evil money, not good money like yours and your favored cronies.

As to this bull shit of full disclosure flag of courage and bravery you are waving, I joined here for discussion with folks of a mind that we face some serious problems and what to do about them.  If I had wished to write an autobiography about myself instead, I would have.

Besides Karpatok, I must have revealed enough about myself already. I'm a no good fucking gold grubbing evil pigman, ruthless prick with a Jesuit education, that invests in the stock market, likes Jimmy Carter, hates Hillary, lives in Bean Town, loves Maine, drinks suffering bastards, collects coins and stamps, loves to look at art, is currently a Libertarian, was in the Army, and usually posts images, news items that interest him and personal opinions, as well as his favorite poems, music, art works and quotations,  on a daily basis at the DDiner. You can't really claim I'm a silent lurker K.

Isn't that enough for you Nosey. I don't wish to reveal any more, you would treat it as you do all personal revelations about one's flaws or habits, as a means of ridicule, tormenting taunts, hate speeches, vile nasty hurtful comments.

Just look at what your trying to do with Ashvin's revelations that he plays poker, HOW FUCKING HORRIBLE, SOME CHRISTIAN HE BE.

AND THAT SCUZZ BALL GO AND HIS STOCKS, JESUS NEVER OWNED STOCKS!  There are countless other examples.

Got the picture K, that is just a small glimmer of what happens when people open up a bit about themselves to people like you.

Your courage and bravery in coming forward meant nothing to me, I didn't learn a thing from it, and believed little of it. Just another Judge Judy episode. Your postings about your opinions on TPTB and their dastardly deeds and plans are what interests me. Top Notch material                                                              Regards,   Satan Himself, GO

                                                     
GO



Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Surly1 on August 26, 2014, 03:07:03 PM
  Surly, you have demonstrated with Occupy. You have helped to feed the hungry in the streets.  You have taught by showing the lies and hypocrisy of the American state and way of life. You have walked the talk and paid plenty of dues. I admire that. Thank you. Karpatok

Thanks for your kind words. What my faith means to me is that I have to walk it like I talk it, and for whatever little I have done, I still talk it far too much. And there are plenty of people I have meet, like those in the catholic Worker movement, who leave me breathless in admiration.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Surly1 on August 26, 2014, 03:11:15 PM
Surly you are mostly correct in my view. But for one thing, i do not post articles or videos that i agree with. They are just posted so others make see different points of view...neither good nor bad...positive or negative....promotional.. or not promotional. I rarely speak out personally because I have no desire to. When prodded and poked i tend to respond, just to get the poker off my back , kinda like when gardening and a horse fly keeps trying to land on my sweaty back....i have learned to use a cap, and still go weeding while i swat at the annoying horse fly. This all feels the same way. I do not hate the horse fly. I understand that it is conditioned to do what it is doing. I do not hate anyone on this forum, but if poked sometimes my hat comes off and swing to get rid of the nasty pest. LOL  :)

Understood.

Would just hope to avoid having people feel they are being attacked, and promote a little understanding for those points of view that are not openly sociopathic.

The fact is that most of us gathered here under this tent have more in common by the simple fact of posting here than we have differences. (With some notable exceptions.)
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: MKing on August 26, 2014, 03:52:18 PM
From 19 to 27 years old I was a born again Christian, married a really Christian woman and had/have two beautiful children ( well they are 36 and 38 years old now). I was on fire for Jesus, I even spoke in tongues and was baptized in a Church of Christ in the Shasta mountains ,nude, in a freezing Baptistry.te]

Ever do the snakes? Talking and handling the snakes, now THOSE are real Christians!
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Karpatok on August 26, 2014, 03:58:00 PM
   But Go, Knarf has had the courage of relatively full disclosure. He has given us a pretty clear description of his life's path. You and Ashvin on the other hand declare one thing and hide the other. How do you and Ashvin live in accordance with your so adamant beliefs? Does Ashvin ever do anything besides study law, gamble on the internet and preach? And exactly how does  pursuing riches and the life of an investor or gambler fit in with being a Christian? Doesn't being a true Christian involve being in the actual world with others or is it just interacting through the internet, and texting and emailing, what our lives have been reduced to?  And somebody please tell me how one is a good parent when one abandons one's children to the world and runs away to seclusion and lets  someone else bear the responsibility for the fruits of sexuality. How does one have the luxury of meditation when one is supplying the needs of others?  None of this makes any sense to me. Karpatok

I have no recollection of either Ashvin or myself claiming to be Jesus, only Christians.

As for my pursuit of wealth, to care for myself, put bread on the table, and care for my family that bothers you so much after your dismal failure at such endeavors.

Why not just surmise that I do it for the same reason Agelbert vigorously went after his inheritance. Perhaps I have a wife, two daughters and five grandchildren who would be in dire financial straights if I were deceased without providing for them.

Of course I'm GO so my fucking money is evil money, not good money like yours and your favored cronies.

As to this bull shit of full disclosure flag of courage and bravery you are waving, I joined here for discussion with folks of a mind that we face some serious problems and what to do about them.  If I had wished to write an autobiography about myself instead, I would have.

Besides Karpatok, I must have revealed enough about myself already. I'm a no good fucking gold grubbing evil pigman, ruthless prick with a Jesuit education, that invests in the stock market, likes Jimmy Carter, hates Hillary, lives in Bean Town, loves Maine, drinks suffering bastards, collects coins and stamps, loves to look at art, is currently a Libertarian, was in the Army, and usually posts images, news items that interest him and personal opinions, as well as his favorite poems, music, art works and quotations,  on a daily basis at the DDiner. You can't really claim I'm a silent lurker K.

Isn't that enough for you Nosey. I don't wish to reveal any more, you would treat it as you do all personal revelations about one's flaws or habits, as a means of ridicule, tormenting taunts, hate speeches, vile nasty hurtful comments.

Just look at what your trying to do with Ashvin's revelations that he plays poker, HOW FUCKING HORRIBLE, SOME CHRISTIAN HE BE.

AND THAT SCUZZ BALL GO AND HIS STOCKS, JESUS NEVER OWNED STOCKS!  There are countless other examples.

Got the picture K, that is just a small glimmer of what happens when people open up a bit about themselves to people like you.

Your courage and bravery in coming forward meant nothing to me, I didn't learn a thing from it, and believed little of it. Just another Judge Judy episode. Your postings about your opinions on TPTB and their dastardly deeds and plans are what interests me. Top Notch material                                                              Regards,   Satan Himself, GO

                                                     
GO
     Oh don't trouble yourself about any opinions of mine GO or any disclosures of a personal nature either which of course are all lies anyway and in the words of your best friends the fantasies of a babushka with a big hole. As a person with some ability of discernment I can certainly see that you and Ashvin are not to be confused with Jesus and it certainly does take a lot of hutzpa to recognize the activities of a Mamon worshiper as rationalizing the necessary support of forty year old children otherwise not on technical life support. Carry on with the veil and illusion of anonymity, it would be such a shame to have a stroke, get a margin call and have so many people completely financially dependent on you starve to death because your admired Libertarian politicians came to the ascendency. Calm your self if you can and return to your suffering bastards and whatever other bastards you need to keep juicing. No need to pay any heed to most of the complete garbage on this site as you have been so eager to do. After all, you still have your very own website where you and your best friend Mr. ahem Walter Johnson can exchange pleasant inanities without your suffering in the least. Oh, I am so sorry for the deep anguish you have been put through GO, I hope you can recover soon. I just know your deep input will be sorely missed, especially since your true identity was so distorted due to no fault of your own of course. Cheers, Karpatok
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: MKing on August 26, 2014, 03:58:24 PM
Here's a great in depth 3 hour lecture by Michael Tsarion.
It discusses the psychosis we've all been put under.


This guy hasn't sufficiently debunked himself already, that you figure he is just asking for MORE? Don't get me wrong, you can fall for all the alien abduction and psycho religious/belief babble all you'd like, it is a free country and following the crackpot/Prophet/religious dogma we wish is a time honored American tradition,  but he needs to look closer to home for psychosis issues prior to pretending its everyone else with the issue.

Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on August 26, 2014, 05:07:42 PM
 
Quote
Oh, I am so sorry for the deep anguish you have been put through GO, I hope you can recover soon. I just know your deep input will be sorely missed, especially since your true identity was so distorted due to no fault of your own of course. Cheers, Karpatok

Anguish? Where did you ever get that silly idea? It was boredom and disgust at your constant searching of ways to berate people, like myself, who do not measure up to your desired code of conduct.

I did not join the priest hood, a Christian organization,  nor have I ever presented myself as a model of Christian behavior.

My membership is in the Doomstead Diner. A place to discuss our serious problems relating to doom.

I have the serious problem of having to answer for my sins to someone K, and it is not you.

Please try and understand K, I came here for help in dealing with Doom and it's various problems. I like personal revelations and have formed friendships with some Diners. Have formed threads where we might get to know one another better and be more relaxed in expounding upon our beliefs and possible ideas or solutions. Love to share memories and reminiscences with others. Like having a place to go where we know each other and can talk freely. Like sharing music and such. The Diner is my hangout.

But I did not join here to subject myself to your views and judgements of me, requests for more info of what I am morally, or to have to reconcile and explain my behavior to what you consider proper moral or Christian ideals to you on a public forum.  Your off topic and out of line.                                                                     Regards, GO

Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: RE on August 26, 2014, 06:13:56 PM
Mking says "So he isn't selling those books on alien visitation on Kindle? They are all free?"   Nope you are right, i just looked on amazon, he is selling his stuff.

I knew it. At least when local thought police in the form of the Born Again/Moonies/Jehovah Witnesses/Anti-Frackers stop at the door, they aren't instantly hooking you up to buy their Praise Jesus/God/Allah ap on the iTunes store to tell you what to think, what direction to genuflect in, what dogma to recite endlessly in the hope of replacing independent thought with the mantra.

At least many of those folks are sincere, they aren't pro-fracking shills who are pathological liars and misanthropic sociopaths obsessed with posting on an internet forum where nobody buys the shit he is selling.

RE
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 26, 2014, 09:11:55 PM
Human nature my arse.........
We've (our species) has been screwed with. Our DNA is altered from the original blueprint.
The creators of our species would have had to have been frickin' morons to build such an idiotic
creature. It's been discussed in the book of genesis. The fallen ones found earth girls pleasurable.
They made babies & wha-la here we are. Watch Tsarions lecture that I just posted. If you don't have
a lot of time, watch the last hour. It's jaw dropping.

So... AG and Surly... and whoever else is interested, how about we take azozeo up on his offer and watch the Tsarion "lecture"? In my estimation, GO already dispatched Karpatok and all of her hateful ilk brilliantly, so there's no need to even bother with her. She has proven time and again over the last few years to be counter-productive to any reasonable and ethical discussion. I say, let's get back to what we are claiming is most important... the substantive arguments at issue.

I have already offered some thoughts via Chris White on why Tsarion is FULL OF IT. I will go ahead and offer some more tomorrow when I have the time. I hope you guys will also weigh in. Who knows, maybe AZ is right and we will all become RACISTS like Tsarion after watching a few of his Nazi propaganda films (apparently it's OK to be a Nazi as long as you justify it with Ancient Alien newspeak). I'm guessing, though, that it's more likely we will end up exposing the FASCIST RACISM which he promotes.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: MKing on August 26, 2014, 09:46:11 PM
I have already offered some thoughts via Chris White on why Tsarion is FULL OF IT.

Similarity between him and your religion stings a little does it? I understand, it is difficult to escape the groupthink but fear not! Persevere! Evolve to a higher level of understanding! You can do it, I have confidence! Any human is capable of shaking off the shackles of their groupthink and learning for themselves, free of what they have been spoon fed by whomever! You can do it!
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Karpatok on August 26, 2014, 10:58:37 PM
    No, what really stings Ashvin is having his own projected hostility and hate flung back at him. He tries so hard to cover it with that false cloak of LOOOVE, unil it breaks out uncontrollably when someone does not bow to his need for displaying his vanity. Wouldn't it be interesting to know what he intends doing with his pile from lawyering and gamboling?  Do you think it will pass with him through his eye of the needle? We'll see.  Karpatok
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Karpatok on August 26, 2014, 11:17:47 PM
  And the most substantive argument of all Ashvin is how do you walk the talk. In what meaning full way are you LIVING what you say you believe and not just hanging out on the internet. BTW. How many poor people denied justice have you defended in the courts?  Or is it that they just cannot pay your fee? Enquiring minds would like to know or isn't that kind of Christianity to your taste as Surly might say?  Karpatok
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 27, 2014, 03:14:55 AM
Archons, Assholes, And The Philosophy Of Laziness
Sunday, November 18, 2012 13:11

Over the last couple years I have received reader emails telling me that they believe much of what I write about deals with Archons and the fact that the physical domain is itself under control of very dark, violent, and sexually aggressive entities that either created humanity as a slave race or simply farm them for a resource necessary for their own existence.  In most of these emails, I am given links to the written works or audio interviews of two men in particular.  One is John Lash and the other is Jay Weidner.  Lash isn’t worth the effort, but Jay Weidner is a somewhat interesting case because he has spread his ideas for mass consumption on the History Channel and others. I strongly suspect that Weidner gets many of his ideas from John Lash whose writing I frankly can’t stomach.  Lash considers Christianity itself an “E.T. Deception” and like Weidner he uses the tired Sitchin annunaki conspiracy theory of a super alien race creating (or at least enslaving) human beings or some similar nonsense.

It soon becomes apparent to me in going over this material that there are major errors in interpretation taking place.  Having studied the Gnostic corpus for many years now and knowing their history fairly well, it becomes clear almost immediately that the interpretation these two men put out is really a “re-telling” through a more modern lens.  They present the Nag Hammadi library as if it were a cohesive teaching containing a set of harmonious spiritual ideas.  This is simply not true.  Both of these writers are clueless in regard to how these writings relate to the inner rather than outer world.  A cursory examination of the Nag Hammadi texts reveals that the very texts themselves contain conflicting ideas on creation and the nature of what is often seen as a ”cosmic error” that being the creation of the present physical domain.  For the record, however, I will state that the Gospel of Thomas does have an authoritative and valid feel to it.  But moving on.

Weidner consistently mucks things up by likening aliens from outer space with Archons.  Having listened to several of his interviews now it is very clear that he also takes many ideas from the fiction of Zecharia Sitchin, who time and again has been debunked (http://www.sitchiniswrong.com).  Weidner on several occassions quite proudly admits that some of his knowledge comes from Sitchin.  Having listened to an interview from 2011 Weidner falsely claims that science fiction writer Arthur Clarke wrote openly about being a pedophile in the London Times.  This is simply not true.  While I do find it suspect that a man thought to be a pedophile would move to Sri Lanka (a pedophiles paradise) the truth is that no such articles were ever written by Arthur Clarke as Weidner claims.  In fact Clarke denied the charges emphatically (as all pedophiles do) when they were brought against him in Sri Lanka shortly before his death.  The audio can be found on this page and was done May 2011 under “Truthquest”.  In this particular interview Weidner even states that human beings aren’t meant to work and that if we somehow change from “Monochronic time” to “Polychronic time” we can get out of the pain the physical world puts on humanity.  He then goes on to state that we should be living a more natural existence in free-love communities and speaks nothing about how a shift from Monochronic to Polychronic time can occur and what the metaphysical implications would be.  Weidner goes on to make a bigger fool of himself with Jeff Rense.

In an interview with Jeff Rense, Jay Weidner states:

“The Nag Hammadi texts are older than the New Testament by 400 years. The New Testament that we have today wasn’t concocted until about 350 AD. “

This is absolutely false.  The Nag Hammadi library dates to around 300-400AD, which means that particular library came into existence nearly 300 years after the death of Christ.  The earliest Christian writings in existence are the writings of the Apostle Paul, which exist in the present day New Testament. These can easily be dated to around 50AD twenty years or more before the destruction of Jerusalem and nearly 300 years before the Nag Hammadi library came to be.  This is even accepted by secular scholars and can no longer be debated.  One of the oldest fragments of the book of James (in the New Testament) can be dated to 120 AD, which is also older than any Gnostic text in existence today.  This is just poor scholarship on the part of Weidner and company.  The New Testament wasn’t “concocted” or written in the fourth century as he claims, it was during that time that the Christian bishops were compiling a canon of already existent texts that were deemed “authoritative”.  The Gnostic texts and teachings were rejected long before Nicea mainly because they negated the importance of the physical domain and promoted very strange ideas.   Before the Council of Nicea all the books of the present New Testament were being circulated throughout the various Christian communities from the time of the first century.  As early as Tatian  it was pretty well understood what books carried “authority” as they related to the original Christian tradition and Gnosticism had no part in that because it presented a completely foreign view of the physical world and the divine.  Even Plotinus, the greatest metaphysician to have ever lived rejected Gnosticism because it represented a degenerated spiritual current.

The reality is that these misconceptions tend to get picked up by those unwilling to check the facts for themselves.  Within time these lies become accepted as truth and those claiming to be Gnostics fall into an illusion themselves.  Even speaking of the Council of Nicea brings images of evil Bishops who were supressing the Gnostics.  Again, this is another misconception.  The Council of Nicea was more about putting together a coherent understanding of God, Christology, and how to standardize religious calendars.  More importantly, it was about Arianism, which had gained a wide following during those times.  What most people today don’t understand, particularly those that buy into the erroneous beliefs being put out en mass today is that most of the Bishops that attended Nicea were feeble.  Many of them had their fingers cut off, hands cut off, eyes plucked out, and worse, due to persecutions that were still taking place.  Again, these are little known facts that can easily be verified.

Dannion Brinkley continues to spread his lies to every gullibe new age dupe willing to believe whatever he says including myriads of failed prophecies that he continues to put out to this day.  I hardly need to mention his “honorable mention” in the book “Stolen Valor.”  where he lied about his military service even claiming to be an “assassin” with official CIA cover.  Brinkley responded to these accusations, like any snake oil salesman would, by not answering any of the facts brought against him, but telling everyone about all the good things he had done for others in his lifetime.

Now here is the reality: people are outrageously lazy and suffer from profound animosity toward traditional forms.  The erroneous “facts” spouted by the internet and media can never be trusted.  In fact, most new age systems of thought including the pseudo-scientific health and wellness con jobs being promoted, exist only because of the ignorance and laziness of the common man and woman.  The internet is not making people more free, it is making them stupid.  That is the fact.

To be honest, I can understand the need of people to seek out a utopia. I can understand why people feel cheated when they look out into the world to see only suffering.  As my mother was dying I remember seeing her suffer and asking why this type of suffering was necessary.  When I finally had time to contemplate the matter, like a lighting bolt in my mind came the words, “This is how people are created.”

Like many other people I have also experienced suffering.  Some of it has been very trying not to mention life-threatening.  But when I look back to what I was at 15 years old and 30 years old and even now, I realize that without these hardships I never would have come to any degree of maturity.  These trials, as ghastly as they are, forge us into greater beings. The catch is that we need to endure them gracefully without losing hope.  The life of every individual must in some way embrace suffering. We really have no choice. While that may sound barbaric to many people today, our limitations exist to form us and educate us, we are bound to them for however long we are allowed to stay in this world. As John Keats once wrote this world is the “vale of soul-making” thus we are truly “made” or “created” here not at conception, but throughout the duration of our lives.  But to deny the inevitable, which is exactly what suffering and death are, is to enter even further into the delusion of mass produced spiritual ideas which in the end make up the post mortem body.  I would much rather have a body made of clarity than one made up of lie after damnable lie created by the weavers of inner spiritual catastrophe.  This type of denial, fueled by complete fabrications as if I have shown, causes a person to misunderstand their own life in this world making their entrance into the next world far more painful than it has to be.

I remember long ago sitting to watch the movie “Time Machine” (1960) with my Dad.  I was very young then.  In the movie the time traveller George goes far into the future where he comes across a group of people called “the eloi”.  They are all young and indifferent.  The sight of a young woman drowning does nothing to motivate them, whether she lives or dies means nothing.  At one point George goes into a museum(?) only to find that their history books have turned to dust.  I distinctly remember even at that age sharing this internal feeling of rage with George who viewed their culture as both easy and degenerate. I view modern culture through this same lens.  We have in essence forgotten everything that was truly important and replaced it with with spiritual opium meant to make us feel good rather than to mature us or make us stronger.

As much as it may pain people like Michael Tsarion, John Lash, Jay Weidner, and Joseph Chiappalone all who claim to be “Gnostics”, we are here to be forged in the fires and trials of life so that when the time comes we are able and worthy to behold the face of eternity without turning away in shame.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Surly1 on August 27, 2014, 03:43:50 AM
Human nature my arse.........
We've (our species) has been screwed with. Our DNA is altered from the original blueprint.
The creators of our species would have had to have been frickin' morons to build such an idiotic
creature. It's been discussed in the book of genesis. The fallen ones found earth girls pleasurable.
They made babies & wha-la here we are. Watch Tsarions lecture that I just posted. If you don't have
a lot of time, watch the last hour. It's jaw dropping.

So... AG and Surly... and whoever else is interested, how about we take azozeo up on his offer and watch the Tsarion "lecture"? In my estimation, GO already dispatched Karpatok and all of her hateful ilk brilliantly, so there's no need to even bother with her. She has proven time and again over the last few years to be counter-productive to any reasonable and ethical discussion. I say, let's get back to what we are claiming is most important... the substantive arguments at issue.

I have already offered some thoughts via Chris White on why Tsarion is FULL OF IT. I will go ahead and offer some more tomorrow when I have the time. I hope you guys will also weigh in. Who knows, maybe AZ is right and we will all become RACISTS like Tsarion after watching a few of his Nazi propaganda films (apparently it's OK to be a Nazi as long as you justify it with Ancient Alien newspeak). I'm guessing, though, that it's more likely we will end up exposing the FASCIST RACISM which he promotes.

Hm. It's going to take me a few days to find the time to devote. As I recall the video was pretty long. And I must admit I hadn't even heard of Tsarion or the other names in this thread before, as my interests lie elsewhere.

I will confess that when the conversation turns to the "alien greys and reptilians who live among us" I start looking for the exits...
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 27, 2014, 03:52:08 AM
A guiding principle of New Age spirituality is to mix in bits of generalized truth about our dismal state of affairs and our self-destructive habits with loads of specific misinformation. The misinformation usually comes in the form of false science, false history and misrepresentations of historic philosophy/theology. This is something to always keep in mind when listening to these guys.

I have watched the Tsarion video posted here in full. There is not much in there about his specific metaphysical or historical theories. These can be found in his earlier videos, such as the one criticized by Chris White in the video I posted. Suffice to say, he borrows heavily from  Erich von Daniken (of "Chariots of the Gods" fame), Zechariah Sitchin and a host of more modern Ancient Alien / New Age "gurus".

A few quotes from Tsarion jumped out from the video and are emblematic of the New Age spiritual philosophy (and political agenda):

"No one has any right to tell other people what they should be doing or not doing"

"If we just focus on changing ourselves, unseen forces will come to our aid"

"Why would you feel motivated to accept that man is not his own savior?"

"If you don't accept that [man is his own savior], you are an UNsane person (not insane). You are toxic and you need to be quarantined or something. That's the long and short of it IMO... then I WANT TO GET THE CRUCIFIX OUT."


You can easily see where his train of logic is heading there, but he cleverly pulls back from saying any more about who exactly is "toxic" and needs to be quarantined and/or crucified (hint: who are the people most likely to claim man is NOT his own savior?).

The obvious emphasis here is on this idea that we are all our own saviors. We should NOT engage in any sort of outward economic, social, political activism or reform, because that is not proper spiritual behavior. Anyone who does engage in such activity is unenlightened and has been deceived or is actively trying to deceive others and destroy the human species (many "gurus" claim entire races of people are involved in the latter - this ties in with the idea that some really nasty and evil ETs seeded parts of the human species).

As discussed in the article posted above (which IMO is beyond excellent, PLEASE READ IT), this amounts to a "philosophy of laziness". I would take it a step further and call it a "philosophy of pure self-centered lifestyle". There should no reliance on or obedience towards a higher power, according to Tsarion and company, because we are our OWN masters and nothing we do in the "physical domain" really counts for anything in our spiritual state of affairs. It is easy to see how this philosophy easily leads to destructive ideology and behavior (or lack of).

Combine the spiritual philosophy with theories of ancient ETs, master races and the need for directed evolution of consciousness, and you get a very hypocritical recipe for totalitarianism. Suddenly the people who claim to be against any political reforms are the ones who are most invested in all-encompassing political agendas.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on August 27, 2014, 03:53:06 AM
By reading all of the comments here is in clear to me that we "ALL"
are conditioned to be compartmentalists .....
Put people in there boxes and label them.
OK, here's my box folks. Divine spiritual being, having a temporary human
experience in a meatsuit.
If you fold up a crucifix it forms a box. Splay a human across an open crucifix
& my point is confirmed. We've all been boxed & that's that.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on August 27, 2014, 03:55:36 AM
No wonder we're at each others throats.
Watch this short video.
How Fluoride Affects 'Consciousness' and the Will to Act! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r7atkjEbWE#ws)
Are you paying attention Ashvin. Have an open mind here.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on August 27, 2014, 03:59:26 AM
What was the point of posting that ashvin?

The author dismisses gnosticism and admits that the councils of nicea did CONCOCT the gospel we have by rejecting gnostic texts bcause they are "strange"... so what if fragments of pauls writing are contained. many people reject pauline doctrine, plenty of diners have done including haniel. Aleays presenting our own reasoning and logic not as you do by providing a very long reference of others work.

So what if one author seems to have arrived at or as claimed borrowed from another who they say has been debunked with no reasons given for the claim of debunking.

We can say the same about all christian works. The bible has been debunked, it claims all sorts of impossible things. It makes sense only as the best guesses of stone age man in explaining his world anthropomorphically. The god of the bible is petty and vengeful, who else demands sacrificing only sons for a joke and then does sacrifice his own only son? Clearly this is not an enlightened loving intelligence and so is not god but a fraud. The bible is also full of literal contradictions, as per the standard applied above.

It is as you say, intellectually dishonest to deny that the current gospel was concocted 200-400 years later after christ, to become a ridiculous story of that death saving the rest of us from our sins if only we can believe that is possible. Compare logically believing that to belief in archons or aliens. No matter how evil accept jesus on your death and have eternal heaven, no matter how good you are if u cant believe the forgiveness of sins due to a human sacrifice over the gnostic interpretation of Jesus which fits with all eastern religion but is "strange", you burn in eternal hell. Whatever archons are could not be more silly. Consider the amount of death and destruction done under the dogma of christ as savior to be spread to the world, what a blessing. The guy you cite would say this is NOT evidence of christianity being an archon conjob to create the human misery and suffering they feed on?

Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on August 27, 2014, 04:10:32 AM
A guiding principle of New Age spirituality is to mix in bits of generalized truth about our dismal state of affairs and our self-destructive habits with loads of specific misinformation. The misinformation usually comes in the form of false science, false history and misrepresentations of historic philosophy/theology. This is something to always keep in mind when listening to these guys.

I have watched the Tsarion video posted here in full. There is not much in there about his specific metaphysical or historical theories. These can be found in his earlier videos, such as the one criticized by Chris White in the video I posted. Suffice to say, he borrows heavily from  Erich von Daniken (of "Chariots of the Gods" fame), Zechariah Sitchin and a host of more modern Ancient Alien / New Age "gurus".

A few quotes from Tsarion jumped out from the video and are emblematic of the New Age spiritual philosophy (and political agenda):

"No one has any right to tell other people what they should be doing or not doing"

"If we just focus on changing ourselves, unseen forces will come to our aid"

"Why would you feel motivated to accept that man is not his own savior?"

"If you don't accept that [man is his own savior], you are an UNsane person (not insane). You are toxic and you need to be quarantined or something. That's the long and short of it IMO... then I WANT TO GET THE CRUCIFIX OUT."


You can easily see where his train of logic is heading there, but he cleverly pulls back from saying any more about who exactly is "toxic" and needs to be quarantined and/or crucified (hint: who are the people most likely to claim man is NOT his own savior?).

The obvious emphasis here is on this idea that we are all our own saviors. We should NOT engage in any sort of outward economic, social, political activism or reform, because that is not proper spiritual behavior. Anyone who does engage in such activity is unenlightened and has been deceived or is actively trying to deceive others and destroy the human species (many "gurus" claim entire races of people are involved in the latter - this ties in with the idea that some really nasty and evil ETs seeded parts of the human species).

As discussed in the article posted above (which IMO is beyond excellent, PLEASE READ IT), this amounts to a "philosophy of laziness". I would take it a step further and call it a "philosophy of pure self-centered lifestyle". There should no reliance on or obedience towards a higher power, according to Tsarion and company, because we are our OWN masters and nothing we do in the "physical domain" really counts for anything in our spiritual state of affairs. It is easy to see how this philosophy easily leads to destructive ideology and behavior (or lack of).

Combine the spiritual philosophy with theories of ancient ETs, master races and the need for directed evolution of consciousness, and you get a very hypocritical recipe for totalitarianism. Suddenly the people who claim to be against any political reforms are the ones who are most invested in all-encompassing political agendas.

For a start there is no unifying "new age" philosophy, secondly you are creating strawmen, when you say they stop short of this and that it is because they are clearly not advocating the sort of behavior christians have in reality engaged in, which is endless killing. What you reject as humans being their own saviors vs the need for jesus as your savior is easily seen by the decent acting people all around. Is rubbish to say this means they do not help anyone else. How many people have pointed this out to you? Clearly the christian is the one who is not interested in helping anyone except with a bizarre idea that lying about other belief systems is some sort of service.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: RE on August 27, 2014, 04:15:46 AM
By reading all of the comments here is in clear to me that we "ALL"
are conditioned to be compartmentalists .....
Put people in there boxes and label them.

I don't see it that way at all.

I think we all compartmentalize ourselves by choosing our belief structure.

I compartmentalize myself by being a CFS Fanatic.  Ka compartmentalizes himself by being a Barfieldian style philosopher.  Watson compartmentalizes himself by being a Fundy Christian. Professor Moriarty compartmentalizes himself by being a self-serving and self-important jerk.  You compartmentalize yourself by pitching a kind of New Age spin.

We do this to ourselves, others do not do it to us.  Others just observe how we spin things from their POV.

RE
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 27, 2014, 04:20:31 AM
UB,

I know you are thoroughly invested in the Ancient Alien New Age camp. You refuse to consider anything which contradicts those claims (such as the fact that all ancient structures can be explained by ancient human technology). You likewise refuse to consider any evidence which supports the reliability of the NT canon, such as it's temporal and geographical proximity to Jesus Christ.

The author of that article did not make any arguments about whether the Gnostics got it right. What he DID claim was that the modern New Age people who claim to be "Gnostics" do not even understand what the actual Gnostics claimed. This has been evidenced extensively by Michael Heiser, who is an expert on the Nag Hammadi library. Can you refute this claim?

In terms of what's a more reliable portrait of Christ's message and his life, the Gnostic texts or the NT canon, there is much to be said there. I have written many posts explaining exactly my reasons for claiming the NT is more reliable. For now, I will leave it with one simple question - what's more likely, texts from the 1st century borrowed from later texts and embellished on the sayings and life of Jesus, or texts from the 3rd century borrowed from earlier texts and embellished? Rhetorical of course, because the answer is obvious.

"Your own reasoning and logic" is clearly not serving you well here, so I suggest that you do rely on the works of others more competent in these areas. That's what I do and I have no shame in admitting it. I am not going to rehash the trite claims about a "petty and vengeful" OT God or the impossibility of Biblical miracles or the Bible being full of contradictions. These are all things I have addressed extensively on this forum, providing my reasons for why they are not true. Instead of countering any of these reasons, you simply restate the same claims over and over again. 
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on August 27, 2014, 05:19:56 AM
UB,

I know you are thoroughly invested in the Ancient Alien New Age camp.

No I am open to the idea, and it is not new age, there are many different and independent things which you lump together as new age.

You refuse to consider anything which contradicts those claims (such as the fact that all ancient structures can be explained by ancient human technology).

Wrong, they are to this day unable to reconstruct pyramids. The explanations for such things as as miles long dead straight lines carved into solid rock being done by hand by stone chipping chisels are not explanations at all. Allegoricals such as walking on water etc have human explanations though.

You likewise refuse to consider any evidence which supports the reliability of the NT canon, such as it's temporal and geographical proximity to Jesus Christ.

That does not mean anything, the gnostic texts were also temporal to JC but rejected. Paul came after. Fox and CNN sends reporters to events and you should swallow their spin as reliable becuase of their temporal and geographical proximity to the person they are reporting on. The eventual doctrine that lent itself to conquest and control came later and was concocted.

The author of that article did not make any arguments about whether the Gnostics got it right. What he DID claim was that the modern New Age people who claim to be "Gnostics" do not even understand what the actual Gnostics claimed. This has been evidenced extensively by Michael Heiser, who is an expert on the Nag Hammadi library. Can you refute this claim?

Are you seriously suggesting the author is not trying to discredit gnosticism as ureliable and unfit to include in the bible, regardless of who understood what it is? What of all the claims among christians that all other sects do not understand what christianity should be?



In terms of what's a more reliable portrait of Christ's message and his life, the Gnostic texts or the NT canon, there is much to be said there. I have written many posts explaining exactly my reasons for claiming the NT is more reliable. For now, I will leave it with one simple question - what's more likely, texts from the 1st century borrowed from later texts and embellished on the sayings and life of Jesus, or texts from the 3rd century borrowed from earlier texts and embellished? Rhetorical of course, because the answer is obvious.

It is not possible for texts from the first C to borrow from later texts. I can not right now plagiarise anything RE is going to write in a few hundred years. Again the fruits of the dogma speak for itself. Gnostics never murdered millions of people in jesus name and you seem to be relctant to try and defend the central message of salvation through christ.

"Your own reasoning and logic" is clearly not serving you well here, so I suggest that you do rely on the works of others more competent in these areas.

Trademark condescension, I note that earlier in this thread you again exhorted that we should all be more like ka the gold standard according to you. Pages and pages of theory removed from practice because religios beliefs are not about personal experience.

That's what I do and I have no shame in admitting it. I am not going to rehash the trite claims about a "petty and vengeful" OT God or the impossibility of Biblical miracles or the Bible being full of contradictions. These are all things I have addressed extensively on this forum, providing my reasons for why they are not true. Instead of countering any of these reasons, you simply restate the same claims over and over again.

During the great noah flood debate you declared us all unfit without ever explaining how the story of the ark has occurred. What you have done right here is the same thing as always, which is to say the bible is true because you are above going into it. As for my not countering anything, it was only yesterday you suggested i actually read the bible asuming I hadnt. You claimed the sins of the father was not in the bible and I pointed out how in exodus and numbers it is written sins are punished in children to the 3rd and 4th generation. That is vengeful, petty and unfair, contradictory also as it is written elsewhere he would not harm even a hair.



Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on August 27, 2014, 05:45:37 AM
Quote
I will confess that when the conversation turns to the "alien greys and reptilians who live among us" I start looking for the exits...

Hi Surly, It's the reptilians stuff that really gets me as well. Icke seems to real big on that stuff, it just amazes me how people go for it.

Perhaps it's just me, but it seems to be popping up all over the net again, incredible, to me anyway, the large number of people that take it seriously. :icon_scratch:

                                                      (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6QF0sljxQfc/Tx7ook0Y_yI/AAAAAAAABuA/vU7CowkENqM/s400/david-icke-children-of-the-matrix-reptilians.jpg)

              :WTF:   
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on August 27, 2014, 11:06:30 AM
Here's an in depth interview between Kevin Annett & Alexander Backman.
Kevin Annett has convicted Queen Elizabeth II & Pope Benedict XVI as well
as the archbishop of Canterbury of crimes against humanity in common law
court in Belgium. 
Kevin Annett is now going after other royal figures as discussed in the interview.
Sidenote : some very grim details are released, this is not for the faint of heart.
THE VATICAN ON TRIAL - Kevin Annet ITCCs Update July 17 2014 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHZSahML9ik#ws)
enjoy
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: agelbert on August 27, 2014, 11:58:20 AM
Ashvin said,
Quote
I distinctly remember even at that age sharing this internal feeling of rage with George who viewed their culture as both easy and degenerate. I view modern culture through this same lens.  We have in essence forgotten everything that was truly important and replaced it with with spiritual opium meant to make us feel good rather than to mature us or make us stronger.

As much as it may pain people like Michael Tsarion, John Lash, Jay Weidner, and Joseph Chiappalone all who claim to be “Gnostics”, we are here to be forged in the fires and trials of life so that when the time comes we are able and worthy to behold the face of eternity without turning away in shame.

Well said. I totally agree, not because of Az's fanciful idea that we are locked in groupthink, but because, nearing 70 years old, I HAVE tried out a lot of these belief systems seriously and found them wanting. And when I try something, I go for it 100%. I have the physical and mental scars to prove it.

I will add to what you said that a central issue here is the question of motive. Does a human seek comfort and bliss or Truth? New agers of all stripes claim that is one and the same. We know better. We know, from hard experience, that genuinely seeking the truth is PAINFUL. But that just gets us labeled as masochists by those who basically respond biologically, not spiritually, to spiritual truths.

That is, they AVOID PAIN like the plague and will go into every possible logical chain of unprovable, but nice sounding, premises they can come up with to justify comfort and bliss as EQUAL to Truth and any "groupthink" that does NOT put Homo SAP in the top dog position and advocates personal sacrifice in the service of a personal God is "ridiculous".

When the "ridiculous" label appears too transparently RIDICULOUS, then they go for the "you are being suckered by evil" meme in perfect Orwellian speak.  :evil4:
 
UB,
The adjective "ridiculous" is ad hominem baloney. f you disagree, argue the merits rather than cast aspersions on the narrative or the narrator.

Surly & GO,
Agreed. All this talk of aliens and reptiles are side issues that always come off as buck passing to me. The sin buck stops at Homo SAP. Many Homo SAPs just DO NOT WANT TO GO THERE. Submitting to a higher authority is just not their thing. And the very idea that said Higher Authority requires worship and obedience when that is "ridiculous" for a Supreme Being (all these new Agers of course know exactly how a Supreme Being should think because they are well on their way to Supreme Beingdom!  ;D ). And they are humble too...

Yes, they agree, the world is all fucked up, but that's not their fault or some sky God's fault either... All that evil stuff going on out there has nothing to do with human fallen nature of fairy stories about sin and guilt, etc. That's just ridiculous and so boring. (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6961.gif)(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/bc3.gif)

The common thread in ALL belief systems that reject the existence of a Supreme Being that we owe our existence to is that they do not DO guilt, remorse or acceptance of Homo SAP as a sinful fallen being. We are just nice chumps in a random universe and the bad "____fill in this blank with ANY entity as long as it ain't human___ ;)_____" are ruining our spiritual, happiness and bliss by various sneaky techniques that we must banish from our threatened Homo Sapiness so we can all live happily ever after.  (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg) And these folks have the brass to claim Christians believe in fanciful fairy tales!  ::)

And when they read what I just posted, they do the Orwellian two-step and claim that is exactly what Christian "groupthinking robots" do! (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif)

It's "perfectly logical" that we can be puppets of reptilians/ETs/groupthink herd following/fear of death escapism/cowardice/mother-in-law (just kidding!  ;D) and other dark evil forces "out there" in the twilight zone of the random multiplex of universes but it's "just silly" to believe that there is ONE God who has a plan for our salvation in a fallen world. ::)

Ashvin, I suggest you dwell on the subject of guilt. The responses (or lack of them) are quite revealing of the willingness of the debater to be objective about the human condition and the disposition (or lack of it) of the debater to seek the Truth.  8)

In summary, I wish to say that Christianity, as Homo Saps practice it, is far from perfect; but in belief systems, it's way ahead of whatever is in second place.  :icon_sunny:

Te conozco bacalao, aunque vengas disfrazado.


Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: agelbert on August 27, 2014, 12:04:14 PM
Originally posted in 2013
Letter to a Gaia Person

The Biosphere: A SACRED TRUST

August of 2013

WHD, a Gaia person, wrote to Agelbert the following:
Thank you, WHD. (http://dl5.glitter-graphics.net/pub/3328/3328805eipbi6o30e.gif)(http://dl6.glitter-graphics.net/pub/57/57396kkkx0l656b.gif)

There is much good in humanity. Ashvin (a fellow Christian) and I may not put a lot of emphasis on that  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)  but there is altogether way too much evidence that we, as a species, are seriously out of whack with the biosphere. We think it's original sin. I have no idea if the "Eve eating the fruit" thing was a metaphor, analogy, or whatever. I guess I'm not a fundy in that respect. I believe that the biosphere is a sacred trust. I believe it is a fallen biosphere and understand and respect the fact that you don't.

As far as Homo SAP is concerned, I zero in on selfishness and the behavioral science observation that human children are greedy by nature and must be trained to see the benefits of cooperation and altruism. This is not a religious or faith based view by behavioral sciences.

My explanation for this is a fallen nature of which selfishness is just one (though I do think it's the biggy) part of a larger picture.

This is offensive to you because you feel the answer to mankind's disharmony with the biosphere and his fellows is to respect the land as sacred.

But if there is no god and we are simply rogue elements of gaia's immune system giving gaia a form of AIDS by our planetary toxification, it is illogical to expect us to even grasp the meaning of the word "sacred", never mind enabling us to humbly accept that we are only truly functional as tiny symbiotic organisms on a planetary entity.

1. We are big trouble for each other and the biosphere.

2. We MUST revere the biosphere as a sacred trust if we are to function as we were designed to.

3. God designed us that way but somewhere along the way we gave God the finger which resulted in our fallen nature.

4. In our present state, we need God to keep us from extending that "finger" to our fellows and everything around us resulting in our extinction.(http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-015.gif)

5. You feel that requires submitting to a God figure that you don't owe a thing to and that is tied to patriarchal oppression of women, nonsensical ritual and this silly idea that you are doomed without God's intercession to lift you out of the rut of perpetual sin and disharmony from God's garden.

But can we agree that, beyond the obvious "Gaia feeds me so I must tend to what provides for me" stomach pleasing logic of a self aware, selfish being, pretending the land in particular or the biosphere in general is sacred is practically impossible?

If not, please analyze the concept of sacredness and you will see that it is a term associated with something or someone superior to you in every respect; something that requires that you humble yourself before it.

I believe God is sacred. His communication to us may be a bit distorted by our fallen nature but without Him, there is no chance that mankind (as a whole - regardless of the great work of permaculturists like yourself) can live in harmony with nature because of our fallen nature.

We can argue about original sin, the concept of "sin", how did it all begin, why doesn't God get off His fat ass and fix it if He really exists, why is there so much evil in religions if He is behind creating them, etc., but the problem of Homo SAP's violence towards his fellows and the biosphere continues unabated.

Behavioral science has, if anything, made things WORSE by claiming the "selfish gene" gives Homo SAP and "evolutionary advantage". BALONEY!

Science tells us we are fouling our nest and we are doing it because we are so SMART!!?

God tells us we are fouling our nest because we have a fallen nature.

IMHO, only by humbling ourselves before God, accepting we are sinners and doomed to trash the place (and each other) because of our fallen nature and seeking salvation can we learn to RESPECT the biosphere as a SACRED trust.

I just don't see how you can get people to consider the biosphere and this planet as SACRED (a necessary condition for us to be symbiotic with nature) any other way.

God has power over us. Gaia is in subjection to us. What has mankind ever done with something he has in subjection except treat it/they as a slave to ravage at his perverse, selfish, egocentric pleasure?  ???

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sacred (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sacred)

Self centered, egocentric, selfish beings will never consider anything SACRED but THEMSEVES.  :(
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: MKing on August 27, 2014, 12:33:46 PM
    No, what really stings Ashvin is having his own projected hostility and hate flung back at him.

Are you sure? See, I don't believe ideas are themselves good or bad. It is only when those believing these things band together, and decide that they need to punish everyone who doesn't suffer the same delusions they do that the problem, and connotations of good or bad become attached. The Church killing and torturing them who disagree with them, Born Agains banding together for force their delusions on the country at large through voting in their own to force change in a more secular way, believers in fascism or socialism or communism or unseen, invisible aliens or Illuminati maneuvering the world through their minions, starting wars to force compliance or some gain, it is all the same game. Ashvin's belief system is, at its core, varies not an inch from the self selling, rules and dogma, requirements for entry, as the Bloods and Crips. Gangs, cults, religions, all distinctions without a difference.

Obviously some disguise how they might force their beliefs off on you, me, or their REAL targets, the intellectually gullible, psychologically needy, slogan shouting dimwit shocktroops, whatever. That isn't hate, it more closely resembles the kind of fear you see in someones eyes, the horror they express when they can feel that security blanket of belief being peeled away.

So some lash out, some cry, some convert to another gang/cult/religion, become Occupy or Tea Partiers, some show anger at those who are daring to voice the idea that strips their belief system down to its shorts....

Quote from: karpatok
He tries so hard to cover it with that false cloak of LOOOVE, unil it breaks out uncontrollably when someone does not bow to his need for displaying his vanity.

As expected when someone hits too close to home at a core belief. Loss of control, fear, rage, name calling, vitriol, etc etc. Pretty common actually.

Quote from: ashvin
Wouldn't it be interesting to know what he intends doing with his pile from lawyering and gamboling?  Do you think it will pass with him through his eye of the needle? We'll see.  Karpatok

Well, obviously your and my "eye of the needle" scenario probably aren't the same. But as Eddy and I have discussed, certainly as long as BAU is happily trundling along, "pile" in the form of paper currency certainly, be it be from gainful employment, stock market gains (go S&P 500!), asset inflation (houses and whatnot), certainly might be useful in all sorts of "eye of the needle" scenarios.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on August 27, 2014, 02:02:24 PM
Originally posted in 2013
Letter to a Gaia Person

The Biosphere: A SACRED TRUST

August of 2013

WHD, a Gaia person, wrote to Agelbert the following:
Thank you, WHD. (http://dl5.glitter-graphics.net/pub/3328/3328805eipbi6o30e.gif)(http://dl6.glitter-graphics.net/pub/57/57396kkkx0l656b.gif)

There is much good in humanity. Ashvin (a fellow Christian) and I may not put a lot of emphasis on that  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)  but there is altogether way too much evidence that we, as a species, are seriously out of whack with the biosphere. We think it's original sin. I have no idea if the "Eve eating the fruit" thing was a metaphor, analogy, or whatever. I guess I'm not a fundy in that respect. I believe that the biosphere is a sacred trust. I believe it is a fallen biosphere and understand and respect the fact that you don't.

As far as Homo SAP is concerned, I zero in on selfishness and the behavioral science observation that human children are greedy by nature and must be trained to see the benefits of cooperation and altruism. This is not a religious or faith based view by behavioral sciences.

My explanation for this is a fallen nature of which selfishness is just one (though I do think it's the biggy) part of a larger picture.

This is offensive to you because you feel the answer to mankind's disharmony with the biosphere and his fellows is to respect the land as sacred.

But if there is no god and we are simply rogue elements of gaia's immune system giving gaia a form of AIDS by our planetary toxification, it is illogical to expect us to even grasp the meaning of the word "sacred", never mind enabling us to humbly accept that we are only truly functional as tiny symbiotic organisms on a planetary entity.

1. We are big trouble for each other and the biosphere.

2. We MUST revere the biosphere as a sacred trust if we are to function as we were designed to.

3. God designed us that way but somewhere along the way we gave God the finger which resulted in our fallen nature.

4. In our present state, we need God to keep us from extending that "finger" to our fellows and everything around us resulting in our extinction.(http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-015.gif)

5. You feel that requires submitting to a God figure that you don't owe a thing to and that is tied to patriarchal oppression of women, nonsensical ritual and this silly idea that you are doomed without God's intercession to lift you out of the rut of perpetual sin and disharmony from God's garden.

But can we agree that, beyond the obvious "Gaia feeds me so I must tend to what provides for me" stomach pleasing logic of a self aware, selfish being, pretending the land in particular or the biosphere in general is sacred is practically impossible?

If not, please analyze the concept of sacredness and you will see that it is a term associated with something or someone superior to you in every respect; something that requires that you humble yourself before it.

I believe God is sacred. His communication to us may be a bit distorted by our fallen nature but without Him, there is no chance that mankind (as a whole - regardless of the great work of permaculturists like yourself) can live in harmony with nature because of our fallen nature.

We can argue about original sin, the concept of "sin", how did it all begin, why doesn't God get off His fat ass and fix it if He really exists, why is there so much evil in religions if He is behind creating them, etc., but the problem of Homo SAP's violence towards his fellows and the biosphere continues unabated.

Behavioral science has, if anything, made things WORSE by claiming the "selfish gene" gives Homo SAP and "evolutionary advantage". BALONEY!

Science tells us we are fouling our nest and we are doing it because we are so SMART!!?

God tells us we are fouling our nest because we have a fallen nature.

IMHO, only by humbling ourselves before God, accepting we are sinners and doomed to trash the place (and each other) because of our fallen nature and seeking salvation can we learn to RESPECT the biosphere as a SACRED trust.

I just don't see how you can get people to consider the biosphere and this planet as SACRED (a necessary condition for us to be symbiotic with nature) any other way.

God has power over us. Gaia is in subjection to us. What has mankind ever done with something he has in subjection except treat it/they as a slave to ravage at his perverse, selfish, egocentric pleasure?  ???

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sacred (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sacred)

Self centered, egocentric, selfish beings will never consider anything SACRED but THEMSEVES.  :(

Im not sure what i claimed was ridiculous, but here is something ridiculous I did not cover. The criticism that Tsarion was not prepared to deal with the debunking material presented by Chris white, Ashvin then doing the same thing himself being unwilling to go into the debunking of christianity.

The material and arguments I presented are not ad hom. Ad hom is ashvins casting aspersions in place of arguments these begin with "you always" statements. You seem blind to any christian presenting these. Ad hom is attempted discreditation of "your logic and reasoning is not serving you well". Again you are blind to this in christians.

But your argument is that christianity is a difficult path and "New Age" an aegis that by analogy should throw Islam in with christianity is all about easy street and comfort.

Christianity claims the Holy Spirit, part of the trinity godhead is "The Comforter", the bible is full of stories of people being brought to their knees and crying out to God for comfort. On any given sunday you can see all the pumped up people showing their back teeth and greeting with fistpumping handshakes trying to force on that spiritual high. Evangelists promise Jesus will take all their pain away. The belief that you are going to heaven instead of hell just by reciting the lords prayer is the very definition of feelgood comfort without any sacrifice or work.

By contrast you need to point out the belief system and method you claim is all about feel good comfort. Lets be broad enough to say that "new age" aegis is NOT belief in Archons, (an attempt at discreditation by false association, Islam has far more in common with Christianity than the disparate and unrelated ideas Ashvin places in "New Age") but is the mass movement of western christias toward eastern religion based belief systems. This is a belief system that Karma can not be escaped and must be worked through, how the fuck do you suppose that is all feel good easy option out without any work or hardship or suffering?

BTW the bible also promises a New Age of Satan being thrown into the pit for 1000 years with a new heaven and new earth (as ozeozo has spoken of), right after we gather for war settling the final score in Megiddo. The bible usually refers to the heavens as the biosphere we breathe, since ours is in a state of 911 believing we can keep on polluting because we are getting a new one is coforting, and might be the reason I hear the Religious Right has the greatest reluctance to take climate action.

I dont like to argue christianity with you because you talk about practice and experiences and faith, which for me are all perfectly sane and logical. Its only when people deny christianity is a matter of faith and claim they can logically show its superiority to anything else I pile on the ridicule with reasons.

Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on August 27, 2014, 03:00:50 PM
Has anyone here studied the ancient Kaballah ? I have.
Has anyone here studied the book of Genesis in the ancient Kaballah language ? I have.
When you have read & somewhat understood the ancient meanings as I have. Maybe,
just maybe you'll have a different perspective on things. There seems to be a whole lot
of guesswork going on in all of the transcription lately. Good luck "evangelistas".....
I truly do wish you well in your paths & journeys. I hope you sleep soundly at night
with no questions rolling around in your heads to ponder as I do. I can't wait for the
day when you folks start feeling the effects of your pineal glands activating .....
It's a truly amazing journey that you will experience.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on August 27, 2014, 03:40:00 PM
Quote
It's "perfectly logical" that we can be puppets of reptilians/ETs/groupthink herd following/fear of death escapism/cowardice/mother-in-laws (just kidding!  ;D) and other dark evil forces "out there" in the twilight zone of the random multiplex of universes but it's "just silly" to believe that there is ONE God who has a plan for our salvation in a fallen world. ::)

Ashamed to say I never thought of this myself AG. What a logical, truthful retort, amazed at it's coherence and obvious correctness.

To be honest about it, I never took this group seriously for a second. Got an immediate sense they had a bit of famed P T Barnum in them and were just having some fun with the rubes, while acting and talking as seriously as they could without blurting out laughing.  :exp-laugh:  It's a great business, Freak shows are great draws and the masters of the art make a ton of easy dough.

He must have been one funny bastard, was drawing close to a half million rubes a year to his museum in it's heyday. What a guy to drink some suds with and listen to some stories from at the local pub me thinks.   :exp-grin: :exp-grin: :exp-laugh: :exp-laugh: :exp-laugh:

                                                    (http://authentichistory.com/1865-1897/3-gilded/5-harrison/18900000_PT_Barnum_Commercial_Image4.jpg)

                                                    (http://daleblanshan.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/PT-Barnum.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Charles_Sherwood_Stratton_-_dagurreotype_circa_1848.jpg/640px-Charles_Sherwood_Stratton_-_dagurreotype_circa_1848.jpg)      Barnum and General Tom Thumb  :icon_mrgreen:

                                               
                                                    (http://historyofjournalism.onmason.com/files/2011/09/12783908768271.jpg)

Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on August 27, 2014, 03:52:03 PM
So lets be clear here, this plan for our salvation is that no matter how evil u are if u recite the lords prayer u have eeverlasting bliss and no matter how saintly if u do no comprehend why god would need to send his son to a torturous death, let alone how he was born of a virgin, to save us u are condemned to eternal torment. Furthermore if u were not baptised into the belief system and born into other beliefs which makes it about a million times harder to believe you still get to go to hell.

 Meanwhile most of the people here who are evil and condemned to hell do not buy the human sarifice of son to apease wrath of our sins, are the ones complaining about the evil state of the world and the avowed christian saved politicians are the ones who are so fallen they are causing destruction of the earth.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: MKing on August 27, 2014, 04:11:54 PM
Has anyone here studied the ancient Kaballah ? I have.
Has anyone here studied the book of Genesis in the ancient Kaballah language ? I have.
When you have read & somewhat understood the ancient meanings as I have. Maybe,
just maybe you'll have a different perspective on things.

And maybe if you've read the technical journals, science, procedure manuals and textbooks that I have, you would have a different perspective on things.

Certainly I am the last to object that you can't have whatever belief system you wish. Alien intervention, God, whatever Allah told you personally one afternoon, Chariots of the Gods, whatever. But you don't get to pretend it has any more value, or is any more true, than those dreamed up, hallucinated, or concocted by every single other persons "perspective".

Knowing, justifying, being well read, being a smart fella, none of it matters in the least when designing a belief system. It only needs to matter to you. There is no minimum requirement of learning, intelligence or even coherence in a belief system. That is the beauty of them, feel free to manufacture whatever YOU want to believe.. Doesn't have to make sense, but if it makes you happy, good for you.

But the instant you pretend it is better, or more value, or more meaningful than ANYONE else's is the instant I call bullshit. It doesn't matter if you round up 100 gullible friends and sell them your belief system. Belief systems aren't popularity dependent any more than science is.

But if it makes you happy, knock yourself out. Everyone should be happy, even if they have to manufacture their own justification for why they decide to be that way.

Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: agelbert on August 27, 2014, 04:21:00 PM
UB,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.  :emthup:

AZ,
The Staement of Conversion (a disguised Argument from Authority) implying superior knowledge and experience is a tired debating technique.  :emthdown:

And that isn't the only fallacious argument you have used. Here is a list of a lot of them. See if you can pick out the ones I have used   ;) ;D. I try to avoid them but they slip through now and then. Mea Culpa! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/shame.gif)  But don't bother looking for yours. I know you are already quite familiar with the ones you use repetitively so ignore the ones in bold red.  ;D

•Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man)
•Affirming The Consequent
•Amazing Familiarity
•Ambiguous Assertion
•Appeal To Anonymous Authority
•Appeal To Authority
•Appeal To Coincidence
•Appeal To Complexity
•Appeal To False Authority
•Appeal To Force
•Appeal To Pity (Appeal to Sympathy, The Galileo Argument)
•Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal To Common Practice)
•Argument By Dismissal
•Argument By Emotive Language (Appeal To The People)
•Argument By Fast Talking
•Argument By Generalization
•Argument By Gibberish (Bafflement)
•Argument By Half Truth (Suppressed Evidence)
•Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion)
•Argument By Personal Charm
•Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness)
•Argument By Poetic Language
•Argument By Prestigious Jargon
•Argument By Question
•Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam)
•Argument by Rhetorical Question
•Argument By Scenario
•Argument By Selective Observation
•Argument By Selective Reading
•Argument By Slogan
•Argument By Vehemence
•Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics)
•Argument From Age (Wisdom of the Ancients)
•Argument From Authority
•Argument From False Authority
•Argument From Personal Astonishment
•Argument From Small Numbers
•Argument From Spurious Similarity
•Argument Of The Beard
•Argument To The Future
•Bad Analogy
•Begging The Question (Assuming The Answer, Tautology)
•Burden Of Proof
•Causal Reductionism (Complex Cause)
•Contrarian Argument
•Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis)
•Cliche Thinking
•Common Sense
•Complex Question (Tying)
•Confusing Correlation And Causation
•Disproof By Fallacy
•Equivocation
•Error Of Fact
•Euphemism
•Exception That Proves The Rule
•Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation)
•Extended Analogy
•Failure To State
•Fallacy Of Composition
•Fallacy Of Division
•Fallacy Of The General Rule
•Fallacy Of The Crucial Experiment
•False Cause
•False Compromise
•Genetic Fallacy (Fallacy of Origins, Fallacy of Virtue)
•Having Your Cake (Failure To Assert, or Diminished Claim)
•Hypothesis Contrary To Fact
•Inconsistency
•Inflation Of Conflict
•Internal Contradiction
•Least Plausible Hypothesis:

ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations. This makes the desired explanation into the only one. For example: "I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. Clearly, my yard was visited by fairies."

There is an old rule for deciding which explanation is the most plausible. It is most often called "Occam's Razor", and it basically says that the simplest is the best. The current phrase among scientists is that an explanation should be "the most parsimonious", meaning that it should not introduce new concepts (like fairies) when old concepts (like neighborhood cats) will do.

On ward rounds, medical students love to come up with the most obscure explanations for common problems. A traditional response is to tell them "If you hear hoof beats, don't automatically think of zebras".  ;D

•Lies
•Meaningless Questions
•Misunderstanding The Nature Of Statistics (Innumeracy)
•Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection)
•Needling
•Non Sequitur
•Not Invented Here
•Outdated Information
•Pious Fraud
•Poisoning The Wells:
discrediting the sources used by your opponent. This is a variation of Ad Hominem.

•Psychogenetic Fallacy
•Reductio Ad Absurdum
•Reductive Fallacy (Oversimplification)
•Reifying
•Short Term Versus Long Term
•Slippery Slope Fallacy (Camel's Nose)
•Special Pleading (Stacking The Deck)
Statement Of Conversion:
the speaker says "I used to believe in X".
This is simply a weak form of asserting expertise. The speaker is implying that he has learned about the subject, and now that he is better informed, he has rejected X. So perhaps he is now an authority, and this is an implied Argument From Authority.

•Stolen Concept
•Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension)
•Two Wrongs Make A Right (Tu Quoque, You Too)
•Weasel Wording

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html)

Te Conozco Bacalao, aunque vengas disfrazao
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on August 27, 2014, 04:28:11 PM
Remember Reanteben? He once gave me a video or two of a reptilian conspiracy theorist, and then I saw other videos of others exposing HIM as a probable reptilian because the video supposedly catches him shapeshifting and similar for a whole bunch of different celebrities, caught shapeshifting when the 'program cant keep up', and every time it was only normal digital pixellation when a signal isnt good, like you might see on a collapse cafe. Another great one is evidence of some female celebs like angela jolly being reptiles because they have gills, what they are showing is only the stretching skin under the chin from a face lift.

Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: knarf on August 27, 2014, 04:29:44 PM
So lets be clear here, this plan for our salvation is that no matter how evil u are if u recite the lords prayer u have eeverlasting bliss and no matter how saintly if u do no comprehend why god would need to send his son to a torturous death, let alone how he was born of a virgin, to save us u are condemned to eternal torment. Furthermore if u were not baptised into the belief system and born into other beliefs which makes it about a million times harder to believe you still get to go to hell.

 Meanwhile most of the people here who are evil and condemned to hell do not buy the human sarifice of son to apease wrath of our sins, are the ones complaining about the evil state of the world and the avowed christian saved politicians are the ones who are so fallen they are causing destruction of the earth.

 :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: :emthup:
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 27, 2014, 04:55:09 PM
Wrong, they are to this day unable to reconstruct pyramids. The explanations for such things as as miles long dead straight lines carved into solid rock being done by hand by stone chipping chisels are not explanations at all. Allegoricals such as walking on water etc have human explanations though.

Then how do you explain this?

http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2011/03/building-the-pyramids-its-not-a-mystery/ (http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2011/03/building-the-pyramids-its-not-a-mystery/)
"Well, it’s that time of year again. The Ancient Egypt class that I teach at the local university is set to begin on Wednesday.  I devote a full week to pyramids.  The articles below are part of the readings.  Two of these have appeared on this blog before, but the ones by Isler and Lally are new.  I have students read these because I don’t want anyone leaving my classroom thinking aliens were needed for pyramid construction. Absolute paleobabble.

Fitchen, “Building Cheops’ Pyramid” – Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Mar., 1978), pp. 3-12

Isler, “On Pyramid Building” (Part 1) – Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 22 (1985), pp. 129-142

Isler, “On Pyramid Building” (Part 2) – Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 24 (1987), pp. 95-112

Lally, “Engineering a Pyramid” – Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 26 (1989), pp. 207-218

Isler, “Egyptian Methods of Raising Weights” – Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 13 (1976), pp. 31-42

Isler, “An Ancient Method of Finding and Extending Direction” – Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 26 (1989), pp. 191-206


And when someone asks, “well, how come those guys on NOVA couldn’t build a small one – huh?” the answer is simple: “that’s because they were inept.” These articles are written by people who actually understand ancient engineering, not NOVA scientists who want to be on TV."


Quote
That does not mean anything, the gnostic texts were also temporal to JC but rejected. Paul came after.

No they weren't, and no he didn't... there are so many different resources that establish this beyond any reasonable doubt. I'll just provide a snippet of one:

http://www.equip.org/articles/the-gnostic-gospels-are-they-authentic/#christian-books-3 (http://www.equip.org/articles/the-gnostic-gospels-are-they-authentic/#christian-books-3)
"Veracity concerns the truthfulness of the author of the text. Was the author adequately in a position to relate what is reported, in terms of both chronological closeness to the events and observational savvy? Did he or she have sufficient credentials to relay historical truth? Some, in their enthusiasm over Nag Hammadi, have lassoed texts into the historical corral that date several hundred years after the life of Jesus. For instance, in a review of the movie The Last Temptation of Christ, Michael Grosso speaks of hints of Jesus’ sexual life “right at the start of the Christian tradition.” He then quotes from the Gospel of Philip to the effect that Jesus often kissed Mary Magdalene on the mouth.14 The problem is that the text is quite far from “the start of the Christian tradition,” being written, according to one scholar, “perhaps as late as the second half of the third century.”15Craig Blomberg states that “most of the Nag Hammadi documents, predominantly Gnostic in nature, make no pretense of overlapping with the gospel traditions of Jesus’ earthly life.”16 He observes that “a number claim to record conversations of the resurrected Jesus with various disciples, but this setting is usually little more than an artificial framework for imparting Gnostic doctrine.”17What, then, of the veracity of the documents? We do not know who wrote most of them and their historical veracity concerning Jesus seems slim. Yet some scholars advance a few candidates as providing historically reliable facts concerning Jesus. In the case of the Gospel of Truth, some scholars see Valentinus as the author, or at least as authoring an earlier version.18 Yet Valentinus dates into the second century (d. A.D. 175) and was thus not a contemporary of Jesus. Attridge and MacRae date the document between A.D. 140 and 180.19 Layton recognizes that “the work is a sermon and has nothing to do with the Christian genre properly called ‘gospel.’”20The text differs from many in Nag Hammadi because of its recurring references to New Testament passages. Beatley Layton notes that “it paraphrases, and so interprets, some thirty to sixty scriptural passages almost all from the New Testament books.”21 He goes on to note that Valentinus shaped these allusions to fit his own Gnostic theology.22 In discussing the use of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) in the Gospel of Truth, C. M. Tuckett concludes that “there is no evidence for the use of sources other than the canonical gospels for synoptic material.”23 This would mean that the Gospel of Truth gives no independent historical insight about Jesus, but rather reinterprets previous material. The Gospel of Philip is thick with Gnostic theology and contains several references to Jesus. However, it does not claim to be a revelation from Jesus: it is more of a Gnostic manual of theology.24 According to Tuckett’s analysis, all the references to Gospel material seem to stem from Matthew and not from any other canonical Gospel or other source independent of Matthew. Andrew Hembold has also pointed out that both the Gospel of Truth and the Gospel of Philip show signs of “mimicking” the New Testament; they both “know and recognize the greater part of the New Testament as authoritative.”25 This would make them derivative, not original, documents. Tuckett has also argued that the Gospel of Mary and the Book of Thomas the Contender are dependent on synoptic materials, and that “there is virtually no evidence for the use of pre-synoptic sources by these writers. These texts are all ‘post-synoptic,’ not only with regard to their dates, but also with regard to the form of the synoptic tradition they presuppose.”26 In other words, these writings are simply drawing on preexistent Gospel material and rearranging it to conform to their Gnostic world view. They do not contribute historically authentic, new material."

Quote
Are you seriously suggesting the author is not trying to discredit gnosticism as ureliable and unfit to include in the bible, regardless of who understood what it is? What of all the claims among christians that all other sects do not understand what christianity should be?

I'm not sure what the author thinks, except that he did say, "For the record, however, I will state that the Gospel of Thomas does have an authoritative and valid feel to it." I guess you missed that in your zeal to attack anyone who criticizes Ancient Alien theories.

Quote
It is not possible for texts from the first C to borrow from later texts. I can not right now plagiarise anything RE is going to write in a few hundred years.

EXACTLY...

Quote
During the great noah flood debate you declared us all unfit without ever explaining how the story of the ark has occurred. What you have done right here is the same thing as always, which is to say the bible is true because you are above going into it. As for my not countering anything, it was only yesterday you suggested i actually read the bible asuming I hadnt. You claimed the sins of the father was not in the bible and I pointed out how in exodus and numbers it is written sins are punished in children to the 3rd and 4th generation. That is vengeful, petty and unfair, contradictory also as it is written elsewhere he would not harm even a hair.

As everyone here knows, I am the only one here willing to go in-depth into the Bible and defend its narrative. I have done it with the Flood and I did it with those passages about "the iniquities being visited upon" subsequent generations. It is talking about the predictable consequences of parents' sins on their children, which is entirely different from saying "you will be punished for murder because your father murdered someone once".

THAT BEING SAID, I also recognize that people who ask others to defend every single passage in the Bible are simply looking for EXCUSES not to believe. It's their way of making sure they will NEVER be satisfied that it is revelation from God. As AG points out in his typical genius fashion, most of these isolated guerilla attacks on the OT are a way of avoiding the real question at hand - what does it mean for a human being to be fallen and in need of redemption through repentance (honest guilt/remorse) and faith?

Contrary to your misrepresentations, repentance and faith have nothing to do with "reciting the Lord's prayer and getting into Heaven". Just like marriage has nothing to do with reciting some vows and being legally recognized. At the core of it is obedience, loyalty and sacrifice, which in reality are all variations of Love.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: agelbert on August 27, 2014, 05:05:42 PM
UB said,
Quote
So lets be clear here, this plan for our salvation is that no matter how evil u are if u recite the lords prayer u have eeverlasting bliss and no matter how saintly if u do no comprehend why god would need to send his son to a torturous death, let alone how he was born of a virgin, to save us u are condemned to eternal torment. Furthermore if u were not baptised into the belief system and born into other beliefs which makes it about a million times harder to believe you still get to go to hell.

 Meanwhile most of the people here who are evil and condemned to hell do not buy the human sarifice of son to apease wrath of our sins, are the ones complaining about the evil state of the world and the avowed christian saved politicians are the ones who are so fallen they are causing destruction of the earth.

Nope. Humans are not evil per se; bad or good behavior is defined by morality which is defined by what God says is right and what is wrong which He HAS written in our being. We KNOW right from wrong. Evil behavior is defined as choosing to do wrong, period.

As to the grading after this life is done and who goes where and why, that's sort of like putting the cart before the horse. None of us have really been there so none of us really knows, regardless of our belief systems.

The main issue here is IF there is NO GOD, there are NO RULES. Buddhists state that there is NOTHING, because there IS NO THING. At that point in a belief system, it is virtually impossible to define right and wrong or even morality. So they do the next best thing and define pain as BAD so they avoid inflicting pain on themselves and other life forms. They refuse dualism in our nature. If God does NOT exist, Buddhism is the way to go.

But if God does exist, He, not Homo Sap, makes the rules. If you find fault with His rules, then you have a problem. I am not God. I just try to what He wants me to do. People become Christians for many reasons but assuming the existence of possible damnation as a no-go item for you to accept that belief system just means you eschew ANY system of belief that includes guilt, remorse and repentance when wrong behavior is in evidence.

So the PROBLEM for you is that you believe that, if God exists,  He doesn't demand jack shit from us. All the nitpicking on the Old Testament and all those other religions out there is just commentary. A just God does not punish people and send them to hell, RIGHT? That is what you believe, UB. As long as you believe that, Christianity is nuts.

But then you proceed to agree with the possibility that YOU may become a God and that mind over matter can achieve all sorts of healing from some spiritual conduit in the universe powered by HUMAN will power.  I think a Supreme being that runs the whole shootin' match with all sorts of life forms, both physical and spiritual, from all over the multi-galactic expanse is a more logical explanation.   But that's just me.  ;D

Even Plato, a non-Christian, perceived that the objects in the physical universe are crude, imperfect copies of the perfect "form" in the MAIN reality of the universe (whether he called it metaphysical or spiritual, I don't know. But it was not here.).

On ward rounds, medical students love to come up with the most obscure explanations for common problems. A traditional response is to tell them "If you hear hoof beats, don't automatically think of zebras".

GO,
Thanks. Yeah, that P.T. Barnum was something else; a model for con-artistry that has been taken to a fine art by Madison Avenue and Wall Street.  Nice pictures!  :emthup: :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: RE on August 27, 2014, 05:07:41 PM

And maybe if you've read the technical journals, science, procedure manuals and textbooks that I have, you would have a different perspective on things.

Another post, another BRAG about being a scientist.

Moriarty brags about that more often than Smokey bragged about the size of his Penis.  :icon_mrgreen:

RE
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: agelbert on August 27, 2014, 05:20:10 PM
Quote

Quote from: MKing on Today at 04:11:54 PM

And maybe if you've read the technical journals, science, procedure manuals and textbooks that I have, you would have a different perspective on things.

Another post, another BRAG about being a scientist.
RE

YEP! The old "Argument from FALSE Authority".  :emthdown:

S3 Mking has only a limited grab bag of fallacious arguments to go with his limited.., uh, well..., just about everything!   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif)
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 27, 2014, 05:21:56 PM
Ashvin, I suggest you dwell on the subject of guilt. The responses (or lack of them) are quite revealing of the willingness of the debater to be objective about the human condition and the disposition (or lack of it) of the debater to seek the Truth.  8)

Very good suggestion! Here is a great paper about that. The following are two snippets, the rest can be found at the link.

http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAF006.pdf (http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAF006.pdf)

CIVILIZATION AND ITS “MALCONTENT”:
SIGMUND FREUD AND THE PROBLEM OF GUILT

The Second in an Occasional Series on the West’s
Most Influential Thinkers
by C. Wayne Mayhall

SYNOPSIS

Sigmund Freud despised religion, theism, and the Bible, and, although his goal was to eradicate the problem of guilt, he is ultimately responsible for confusing it. His primary motivation for psychoanalysis was to transform guilt into neurosis and sin into sickness. Freud believed that guilt must be eliminated through self-analysis and that our struggle to transcend the stifling codes of culture is inescapable unless we are willing to break out of our moral prison. Freud viewed himself as a destroyer of conventions whose purpose was to dissociate guilt from sin, making it a problem for science rather than faith.

A careful study of Freudian thought reminds us that as long as people continue to believe in a view that relegates the problem of guilt to biological determinism and ignores individual responsibility, Freud is with us. Secular thinkers, for better or worse, consider him an architect of the modern mind, whereas Christian critics name him an unholy builder of said modern mind, in the line of Marx and Darwin.


...

GUILT AS MAN’S BASIC PROBLEM

In the summer of 1997, exactly one-hundred years beyond Freud’s first intense interaction with religious phenomena and the beginning of his own self-analysis in 1897, after two weeks visiting Nazi Labor and death camps in Germany and Poland, I came by Eurail to the foot of the Heumoz mountains in the Swiss Alps. There I boarded an incline for a ride up into the heart of Christian apologist Francis Schaeffer’s L’Abri Fellowship11 for a time of intense study and the opportunity, I hoped, to get my mind off the absurdity of Hitler’s “final solution.”

I arrived at the cozy retreat to discover it was between student summer sessions and virtually
abandoned. Alone in the Fellowship library, surrounded by hundreds of volumes of the thoughts of great thinkers, I came across a seventy-six-page book humbly titled Freud, 12 written by theologian Rousas J. Rushdoony.13 For the next few days, beginning very early in the morning and lasting long into the night, I explored his thesis that the central problem Freud confronted was the nature and character of guilt and the development of a method for its eradication.

As I write this article, a decade after that experience, I realize why I was so consumed by Rushdoony’s perspective. Five years prior to that trip to L’Abri, in 1992, I was an upstart professional freelance writer plying my trade for national magazines when I was commissioned by Harper’s magazine to do research on white supremacist groups in America. As I combed through stacks of their propaganda riddled with the rhetoric of hate and destruction, I was shocked when I came across a pamphlet blatantly denying that mass extermination of Jewish people had even occurred. I pledged right there and then to visit the sites of concentration camps myself one day, so that I could see it for myself.

At L’Abri, after fulfilling my pledge to wade through historical remnants of Nazi sewers of depravity, alone in that quiet place, my thoughts and experiences coalesced. I realized clearly the guilt of the white racist and the German fascist were cut from the same cloth, one denying the other fabricating a death machine responsible for the slaughter of millions of innocent men, women, boys, and girls. I saw in Rushdoony’s reasoning, how Freud’s desire to eradicate religion under the banner of illusion and eliminate guilt through the language of biological determinism let them both off the hook, with neither God to judge nor conscience to condemn them.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: knarf on August 27, 2014, 05:26:14 PM
agelbert says "The main issue here is IF there is NO GOD, there are NO RULES. Buddhists state that there is NOTHING, because there IS NO THING. At that point in a belief system, it is virtually impossible to define right and wrong or even morality. So they do the next best thing and define pain as BAD so they avoid inflicting pain on themselves and other life forms. They refuse dualism in our nature. If God does NOT exist, Buddhism is the way to go. "

Almost got there agelbert, but you are incorrect about " If God does NOT exist, Buddhism is the way to go." So the story goes...When the Buddha was asked if God existed, he just raised one finger, and said nothing. When the mind is free of continual thought forms the question of whether God exists, is not answerable, because there is no evidence. That does not mean that many Buddhist's deny God's existence, in fact many do believe in his/her existence. It is not a prerequisite to practicing Buddhism.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: agelbert on August 27, 2014, 05:35:58 PM
Ashvin,
Thank you. I reposted it on my forum. It's a keeper.  :emthup: :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: knarf on August 27, 2014, 05:56:27 PM
Religion and the Brain
A Debate

Two scientists suggest that religious experiences arise from brain networks that evolved for other purposes. A psychiatrist counters that the brain may be a medium for religious experience without necessarily generating it.

Does evolution explain why the human brain supports religious belief? Dimitrios Kapogiannis and Jordan Grafman, scientists at the National Institutes of Health, follow up on a recent scientific paper by stating that brain networks that evolved for other purposes have given rise to our capacity for religious belief and experience. Andrew Newberg, the radiologist and psychiatrist who wrote How God Changes Your Brain, takes a different approach. He argues that the brain may be an instrument of religious experience but is not necessarily the origin of that experience. Each side of the debate first wrote a position statement; the sides then exchanged statements and wrote rejoinders.
This story has four sections:  Dimitrios Kapogiannis and Jordan Grafman’s opening statement ;  Andrew Newberg’s opening statement ;  Kapogiannis and Grafman's response to Newberg ;  Newberg's response to Kapogiannis and Grafman .
 
How Our Brains Evolved to Accommodate Religious Belief
Dimitrios Kapogiannis and Jordan Grafman’s opening statement
Every school of philosophical thought has proposed its own account of how religious belief originated. Philosophers typically consider religion to be a cultural and historical phenomenon without a foundation in science. They neither attempt to bridge different approaches to religion—psychological, cognitive, behavioral, social, political and historical—nor distinguish among religion’s different aspects, such as belief, experience and ritual, in a way that enables people to test concrete hypotheses. However, recent progress in understanding the neurobiology of social cognition has opened the door to a neuroscientific perspective on religion.
Scientific explanations for complex biological phenomena are not reductionist. Rather, they require synthesis of the various components and their interactions at different levels. To explain religion in biological terms, therefore, we need to define both its characteristics in an individual and the variability of its expression among people and cultures.
Religions and their accompanying belief systems are cultural universals. Relying upon cultural evolution alone to explain this ubiquity requires acceptance that the innovation of religion transpired at the dawn of human history and all human societies have perpetuated it separately, which seems highly unlikely. Moreover, we now know that other evolutionary phenomena, such as symbolic language and morality, have solid bases in biology and information processing.
Many current theorists regard religion as either an evolutionary adaptation or a byproduct of certain adaptive changes, driven in either case by the development of larger social groups and more complex interactions among them. These theories link the emergence of religion in our ancestors with the development of cognitive processes: theory of mind, the ability to interpret the intentions and emotions of others; social cognition, or neural processes concerned with such social phenomena as morals and group identity; intuitive (prescientific) theories about natural phenomena; causal reasoning; and symbolic language. These cognitive processes have different evolutionary origins, and presumably they resulted from the expansion of specific brain regions. Indeed, our research involving functional brain imaging of the invoking of religious beliefs leads us to conclude that religion emerged as a combination of cognitive functions, the main evolutionary advantage of which was probably unrelated to religion.
In an individual, the term religiosity refers to a cluster of personality traits related to the adoption of religious beliefs and engagement in behaviors reflecting those beliefs. Due to both environmental and genetic factors, degrees of religiosity vary widely among modern humans. From an evolutionary standpoint, the variety stems from a lack of selection pressure—no single set of beliefs and associated behaviors conferred a survival advantage relative to others. As an evolutionary adaptation, religiosity resembles language, which humans adapted for social communication. The evolution of linguistic ability in the ancestors of modern homo sapiens clearly occurred at the biological level, and this evolution is a hallmark of modern humans. Fossil records reveal a gradual increase in the size of brain areas critical for language over tens of thousands of years. When groups of biologically nearly identical modern humans became geographically and socially separated, individual languages—like discrete religions— emerged and acquired their own cultural evolutionary histories (with a rate of change higher than Darwin’s theory of evolution would predict for biological traits). These distinct histories result from an accumulation of seemingly random changes, but also from the selection of features that conferred some advantage, such as languages’ differential prevalence of vowels and consonants based on climate.
Yet virtually all human beings have a comparable capacity for language, while the capacity for religion appears to be highly variable. Among our predecessor primate species—or groups within them—natural selection must have extinguished those with language deficiencies. In contrast, there are people with no supernatural beliefs—at least in the Western world, where alternative theories about how the world was created and how it evolved are widespread. It appears, therefore, that because natural selection did not eradicate populations that did not hold religious beliefs—or did not strongly adhere to them—there can be a high degree of variability in modern populations with regard to religion.
Brain Networks Involved in Religion
What, then, is the neurobiological basis of the highly variable human belief system? We found evidence that well-characterized brain networks are involved. Despite seemingly daunting differences, we organize religious belief around three principles, or dimensions, at the cognitive level—at least among members of Western societies—and both religious and non-religious people share these organizing principles. A secondary process, then, determines an individual’s specific expression of his or her beliefs. Researchers previously have implicated these neural circuits in understanding others’ actions, intents and emotions, as well as in processing abstract language and imagery.1 These basic cognitive and social skills are prerequisites for developing a sophisticated religious belief system.
In particular, the evolution of brain networks concerned with understanding the actions of others seems to have made possible concepts of a godlike entity’s involvement in human life. The crucial brain areas for this function are in the part of the frontal portion of the brain that also is involved in observing purposeful human action and detecting underlying intentions. These brain areas work with other regions to decode the emotional impact of the actions we observe.
A self-centered analysis of complex social interactions must have been crucial not only for the survival and status of an individual among larger social groups, but also for the evolutionary stability of these groups. An individual’s emotional life includes decoding others’ emotions and employing them in association with his own goals. Moreover, regulating emotions—through such skills such as deception, for example—optimizes social performance. Our research demonstrates that a person’s sense of love and anger from a godlike entity derives from these social functions.1 This sense is based in brain areas whose evolution enabled us to detect emotion from others’ facial expressions and tones of voice, as well as attribute personal relevance to social phenomena.
The previous two dimensions—understanding others’ actions and intents and decoding their emotional impact—encompass perceptions of the level of involvement and emotion of God or another supernatural entity in the construction of religious belief. The third dimension refers to the source of religious knowledge—what individuals have learned and experienced. This final dimension, we propose, influences how our brains code beliefs and connect them with other sources of knowledge. Together, the three dimensions we have identified help individuals construct religious belief systems that interact with other belief systems, social values and morals to help determine goals, control behaviors and balance emotions.
We should note that detecting another person’s intent is perhaps the earliest (pre-linguistic) form of causal reasoning;2 it allows us to predict future outcomes based on others’ current behaviors. Perhaps, in early, prescientific attempts to explain physical phenomena or historical coincidences, our ancestors needed to imagine supernatural intervention. Children arrive at such default explanations at specific times during their development and sometimes hold on to them as superstitions throughout adulthood.
Such supernatural explanations may be reinforced by evolutionarily ancient neural networks that code rewards and punishments, and the uncertainty regarding expected rewards and events we find threatening.3,4 In a danger-laden world, such as the one in which our ancestors evolved, the human brain may indeed have coded as a reward any explanation minimizing fear or the uncertainty of threats,3,4 and this coding might even have offered a survival advantage.5,6 A coherent world theory that assumed the existence of a supernatural being or beings may thus have had survival value at the individual level. Furthermore, adoption of such explanations by members of a group may have increased the predictability of their behavior, defined and signaled group membership and, therefore, promoted cooperation and had survival value at the group level.
The complexity of social interactions in these larger groups required abstract symbolic coding of ideas and mental states, and thus paved the way for symbolic language to evolve. This complexity also required people to mentally simulate possible social scenarios and outcomes, which supported the evolution of mental imagery (an ability that, in turn, promotes learning, even at the elementary level of motor imagery). These abilities, along with the associated brain areas, enabled humans to develop a wide variety of religious and other beliefs. Doctrine, which refers to beliefs that are transmitted culturally rather than grounded in personal experience, is a special type of abstract idea; it engages brain areas involved in the processing of abstract language.
Another piece of the puzzle is the key involvement of visceral emotions that occur in both social interactions and religious behavior. In the course of human evolution, basic emotions such as disgust and fear acquired new social equivalents such as moral outrage and guilt. Religious practice successfully engages these social emotions. We have shown that, when devout people disagree with certain religious beliefs, activity increases in the brain’s anterior insular cortices—areas involved in disgust, aversion, guilt and fear of loss.
More Than a Primitive Response
We conclude that there is nothing special about the source of religious knowledge or the brain networks involved. In the brain, religious knowledge relates to, and may be vulnerable to modification by, other sources of knowledge. These neural connections could account for the historical observation that religious ideas tend to cluster with certain political or social ideas more than we would expect simply from a random co-occurrence—an observation suggesting that religious ideas could be subordinate to a higher-order classification of concepts.
Critics might seize upon our findings as evidence that religion is a phenomenon of the primitive mind, and it might one day disappear as science “enlightens” humanity. Not so fast: Our need for religion might be embedded in our biology. Religious belief engages some of the most recently evolved brain areas, which perform uniquely human functions that define our species: the ability to comprehend the intentions and feelings of our fellow humans, symbolic language, reasoning. For better or worse, humans are not strictly logical creatures but social animals. We imagine, observe, interpret, love, and occasionally detest each other. Therefore, we cannot consider religion strictly an outdated response to the modern world.
Instead, we believe that religious belief emerged for the purpose of social structure. Social structure originally was based upon principles derived from small family, group and tribal social interactions and a need to explain natural phenomena that did not appear to have an obvious human or animal physical cause. Then, as societies grew larger, religious belief further developed through the establishment of greater religious infrastructure. This emergence and adaptation of religious belief depended on the sophisticated cognitive and neurobiological processes we have described. In addition, if human brain evolution gave us foresight as a weapon against stronger foes and natural phenomena, then religious beliefs that concerned an afterlife might have been an effort to extend the boundaries of life in a way that was consistent with this newly found ability.
Although we have rightly ceded explanations for natural phenomena to science, we still struggle to create optimal social relations within and among societies, and in this quest, religion continues to play a vital role.
Religion, Evolution and the Brain: What Caused What?
Andrew Newberg’s opening statement
Where did religious and spiritual beliefs come from? The answer to this question depends on your own belief system. The position of some people who are not religious echoes Sigmund Freud and, more recently, Richard Dawkins: Religion is primarily a pathological mistake made by the brain. Others with a less negative view consider religion to be a constructive creation of the brain. People holding the latter view might claim that evolutionary forces affected the human brain in such a way that it created religion as a means to better adapt to the world around us. Can evolution explain why the human brain supports religious beliefs? I argue that although explanations that focus on how brain structures and functions have evolved may provide important information regarding the raison d’être of religion, this “neuroevolutionary” approach can be limited.
One problem with this approach to religion is the difficulty in discerning the element or elements that are adaptive—that undergo change to enhance the probability of survival. For instance, different models have focused on the sense of control over the world that religion helps us to achieve, religion’s provision of social cohesiveness and moral foundations, its potential physical and mental health benefits or its utility in providing answers to questions that we cannot fathom. Still other theorists cite the importance of religious and spiritual experiences as primary evolutionary sources of religion.
A religious perspective challenges all of these neuroevolutionary approaches by reversing the causal arrow’s direction: Perhaps religious belief causes the brain to change rather than the other way around.
A religious individual looks outward for religion’s origin. Thus, the most common answer is straightforward: Religion comes from God. For a religious individual, it is no surprise that religion and spirituality are a part of the human brain—a God who provided human beings with no physiological way of having any kind of relationship with God would leave us with a fundamental theological problem. This explanation holds that religious beliefs originate with God, but thereafter, the human brain takes over to determine how we manifest those beliefs in our religious and spiritual practices. So, while an understanding of the brain may help us better comprehend how we become religious or spiritual, the brain only constrains or directs us toward those beliefs; it does not create them. This argument also helps explain why each religion has a different perspective on the meaning and nature of God, particularly God’s relationship to human beings.
We can question the validity of the religious explanation—which clearly argues against a neuroevolutionary cause of religion—because there are no scientifically derived empirical data to support it. How, then, do we know which explanation is correct? The fundamental problem is in evaluating how the brain perceives and understands reality. This dilemma forces us to re-evaluate what constitutes absolute fact and consider the potential need for an integrated epistemological approach to the question of how we know what is real.
The difficulty we face is how to evaluate the validity of different perspectives on the origins of religious and spiritual beliefs. Members of the emerging discipline of neurotheology—the study of how spiritual experiences and neural processes affect one another— are attempting to address this quandary by striving to combine neuroscience data with religious and theological ideas in order to better understand the intersection of religion and neuroscience. Neurotheology differs from other approaches to neuroscience in that it maintains a strong foothold in religious and spiritual beliefs. Thus, neurotheologians do not necessarily attempt to explain religion exclusively on the basis of neuroscience. Religious thinkers might have some things to say about neuroscience as well.
Ultimately, neurotheologians should both maintain and take into account religious and spiritual doctrines, practices and experiences while upholding appropriate scientific rigor. Trying to strike this balance raises fascinating and challenging methodological issues. So, while some of my arguments might sound more rational than others, depending on your belief system, it is important at least to reflect on each of the perspectives before reaching any conclusions about such a complex subject.
Scientific Approaches to Religion
When we evaluate evolution-based theories and other perspectives on religion, we must address several methodological concerns. Many scientific approaches explore religion; each can lead to a different conclusion about religion’s nature and origin. Therefore, even after we avoid the major temptation to explain away religion because of the lack of scientific evidence, methodological complications hinder our quest to make rigorously derived conclusions supporting an evolutionary basis for religion.
The Neurophysiology of Spiritual Practices
One scientific model for studying the origin of religion employs brain-imaging technologies to explore the physiological changes associated with a spiritual practice such as prayer or meditation. For example, using positron emission tomography (PET), single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI),7 researchers derive simultaneous measures of biological changes in the brain, including cerebral blood flow and metabolism, and electrical and electrochemical (neurotransmitter) activity. Investigators use subjective measures to assess each participant’s psychological and spiritual feelings or thoughts, and then they compare the biological and subjective measures. Researchers evaluate additional physiological measures such as blood pressure, body temperature, heart rate and galvanic skin response (a measure of autonomic nervous systems activity) because these are frequently associated with brain changes, and previous research has shown that religious and spiritual phenomena affect body physiology.
The ideal result of these procedures would be a detailed portrait of brain activity correlated with a particular religious or spiritual experience. Such research has indeed helped to delineate the physiological correlates of such experiences, but physiological correlates by themselves cannot explain origin and nature—in other words, we cannot conclude that the brain activity is the specific cause of religious experience. Most studies have shown that multiple brain areas are involved, which complicates the ability to identify one or two physiological mechanisms that explain religion.
Other problems are more fundamental. Most important, it is difficult to assess whether the brain generates or simply receives certain types of experiences, such as the feeling of being in God’s presence. A brain scan shows associated changes but does not demonstrate whether these changes caused the experience or were produced in response to an external stimulus.
Furthermore, researchers typically cannot obtain the psychological and spiritual data during such an experience, since that would require interrupting it. Even one tap on the shoulder to ask a research participant how he felt at that moment would destroy the occurrence we are trying to study. Thus, we can never be certain exactly when an intense religious experience actually occurred during an imaging session.
Finally, subjective measures typically are based on participants’ responses to questions about what they felt, thought or perceived during the experience, but these responses, reflecting cognitive processes, are not necessarily the basis of a true spiritual episode. An inherent scientific bias in such studies is that investigators are measuring nothing more than cognitive processes of thought, feeling and experience, rather than something inherently spiritual (whatever that means from a scientific perspective).
Creating or Altering Spiritual Experiences
A second scientific method for studying the origin of religion involves trying to alter a participant’s religious and spiritual experiences. This approach might employ the use of drugs to directly affect or stimulate a spiritual experience. Because certain hallucinogenic drugs and stimulants can induce spiritual experiences, careful research, perhaps utilizing modern imaging techniques, may help elucidate which neurobiological mechanisms are involved. Researchers already have investigated the use of such hallucinogenic agents, but more extensive study, particularly related to religious and spiritual episodes, is necessary to gain a better understanding of the range of their effects.8 From a scientific perspective, one of the limitations of such studies is that different hallucinogens affect different neurotransmitter systems, thus making it difficult to determine whether any one neurotransmitter system is responsible for the drug-induced religious experience. Moreover, if multiple neurotransmitters are involved, how can we conclude which neural pathway—and hence, which evolutionary element—resulted in religion?
In addition, the role of drugs in many shamanic and native cultures turns the neuroevolutionary theory of religion on its head. For thousands of years these groups have used psychotropic compounds to induce spiritual states. But rather than conceiving of such effects as biological or artificial, these cultures see the drugs as opening the mind up to the spiritual realm. For them, drug use is not unlike putting on a pair of glasses to see more clearly. The drugs merely take the brain to another level where it can perceive the world in a clearer or, perhaps, higher way. From this viewpoint, the brain enables spiritual and religious phenomena rather than causing them. To put it another way, such cultures would think brain evolution an effect of the spiritual realm rather than a cause of it.
Spiritual Experiences Related to Brain Injury or Disorders
A third neuroscientific method for exploring spiritual and religious phenomena is to study patients diagnosed with neurological or psychiatric conditions. For instance, studies have linked temporal lobe epileptic seizures, brain tumors, stroke and other brain injuries to spiritual experiences or alterations in religious beliefs. Temporal lobe epilepsy in particular has been associated with hyperreligiosity and religious conversions.9 Psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mania also have been associated with spiritual experiences and conversions. Delineating the type and location of the brain alterations involved in these conditions will help scientists explore the biological substrates associated with patients’ spiritual episodes. However, clinical researchers must take care to avoid referring to spiritual experience only in pathological terms or as associated with conditions of brain disease or injury. This approach sometimes leads people to classify religion as delusional or abnormal because they define it only as part of a disease state.
In contrast, most religious individuals do not exhibit signs of a neurological or psychological disorder, and researchers have demonstrated that religion can help people cope with stress and, in many cases, reduce anxiety and depression. Thus, while psychopathological approaches provide a unique perspective on religious phenomena, they suggest that religion is not at all adaptive. This conclusion contradicts theories proposing that religion is an evolutionary process.
A Specific Focus on Brain Evolution     
A more specific evolutionary approach to the study of religion typically focuses on two important aspects of human evolutionary development: social interactions and cognitive processes. Both appear central to religion.1 Socially, it seems that human beings need to seek out and develop personal relationships that eventually can lead to the formation of a society on a grander scale. Cognitively, the human brain appears to continuously categorize and analyze the world to develop meaning and, perhaps more important, to determine appropriate social behaviors that will have survival benefits. Therefore, even though social behavior and religion appear to involve the same brain structures, we cannot assume that social behavior, rather than cognitive understanding and control, was the primary adaptive advantage that led to expansion of religion throughout the human world. Rather, any evolutionary advantage of religion could be multifactorial; it could include beneficial adaptations to social, cognitive, health, ethical and environmental factors.
The abilities to perceive and evaluate environmental dangers, to respond appropriately to situations and to weigh alternatives are critical to evolutionary adaptation. Our brains differentiate self from other, order things in space and time, perceive interrelationships among objects in the world and use symbols and language to express ideas. Religion may help to engage these cognitive processes, which we use to try to understand and control our world.
At issue is how each of us understands reality. Our individual perceptions of reality ultimately lead each of us to conclude whether religion is nothing more than a product of the brain (adaptive or not) or a necessary result of a spiritual realm that our brain may occasionally access. This fundamental epistemological problem challenges all aspects of human thought—scientific, philosophical and theological.
How Do We Know What’s Real?
This epistemological problem may prove to be the ultimate challenge to a purely scientific understanding of religion. How do we know whether anything we perceive is real or not? Put another way, how do we know if the reality of the external world corresponds, at least partially, to our mental representation of it? Humans have posed the question of realness since the dawn of philosophy, science and religion, and the question has generated various answers.
This reality question lies at the very heart of neuroscience. If our understanding of the world comes from the brain, it is subject to a variety of misinterpretations, misperceptions and misunderstandings. How, then, are we to know whether the reality we perceive—scientific, religious or otherwise—is the true representation of the world? Ultimately, after much philosophical, theological and scientific exploration, we may be forced to arrive at the rather uncomfortable circular statement that what we take to be real is dependent only on how real it feels to us. From the neuroscientific perspective, this is consistent with a wide array of research showing how our brains construct our senses of reality.
We return at last to neurotheology as an approach to understanding the nature of all types of experiences of reality. Both science and religion provide potentially important information about the world that our brains perceive. We may ultimately find that religion is nothing more than a manifestation of the brain’s function set in place by millions of years of evolution. We might find that perceived spiritual dimensions help us to get in touch with the more fundamental nature of reality. Either way, we should tread carefully and strive to understand reality—on all levels.
Response to Andrew Newberg
Dimitrios Kapogiannis and Jordan Grafman
We read Newberg’s essay with an eye toward common ground. We wholeheartedly agree with Newberg that religion can help people cope with stress by lowering anxiety and also may provide an ethical basis for interacting with the world.
Our quarrel with Newberg’s perspective is that he shies away from the scientific method’s commonly accepted grounding in natural causes and effects, reproducible experience and logical reasoning. Our essay is a purely scientific dialogue: We did not seek to criticize the usefulness of experimental design, but instead explored whether religious beliefs are special compared with other belief systems by discovering the brain systems and cognitive/social processes involved.
Newberg raises a number of points that we think deviate from a rigorous examination of religion. For example, he argues that religious belief may “cause the brain to change rather than the other way around.” But research demonstrates that almost all behaviors cause the brain to change via practice and adaptation. Religious belief is not unique in that regard.
Furthermore, Newberg implies that exercise of brain functions over time wouldn’t significantly influence the development of new knowledge or ways of being. Yet it is absurd to suggest that brain functions don’t influence the development of belief systems. At the level of the individual, exercise of a brain function (say logical reasoning or imagination) can have a profound influence over the range of beliefs she accepts. Similarly, at the level of society, promotion of the use of brain functions (say abstract language or empathy) can also change the prevailing pattern of beliefs.
It is also reasonable to speculate that, in an evolutionary time scale, gradual evolution of a range of brain functions enabled the emergence and adoption of myriad religious beliefs. Even modern biblical scholars and many religious practitioners would admit that there is little objective evidence that God has completely scripted the requirements of religious belief. The hypothesis to challenge here should be that religious belief emerged out of the cognitive and social capabilities of humans and that those abilities depended upon the structure and function of the human brain.
Even if we could persuade Newberg that the above argument is valid, he still might argue that we need a special branch of cognitive neuroscience, including dedicated neurotheologians, to study religious belief, and he may be on solid ground here. Nonetheless, psychology has always had a theoretical and an applied component. We and others on the theoretical side work to determine the underlying principles of human behavior and neural functions, while those in the applied school assess how those basic principles relate to specific circumstances. The key to understanding both theoretical and applied findings is to maintain the link between the two and to identify analogies to results in other disciplines.
At times we found Newberg’s statement confusing. For example, he wrote that it is difficult to assess whether the brain generates or receives (our italics) certain types of experiences, such as the feeling of God’s presence. Let us be clear: It is simply a supernatural declaration to say that God has issued a stimulus to alert us to his presence without our having the ability to detect it with modern instrumentation. For better or worse, no scientific instrument ever designed by humans can detect God, and our findings suggest that we don’t have a dedicated sensory organ or neural area dedicated to Him. On the other hand, many cognitive functions, such as imagination, do not have any obvious external causes and instead are generated internally. Scientifically, we can approach those functions only by correlating subjective experiences with objective measurements of neuronal activity. Here again, there is nothing special about the study of religion in the brain. It seems that Newberg only plays devil’s advocate in raising the issue of the legitimacy of the neuroscientific methods for studying religion, since he bases his research on the same scientific principles as we do.
Newberg does not seem to observe the distinction between the evolutionary origins of religion as an almost universal human trait, which fits the timescale of biological evolution, and the origins of specific religions, which are better explained by cultural evolution. Moreover, he seems to wonder how it is possible for religion to have evolved for adaptive reasons, since much of the evidence for its neural correlates has emerged from the study of pathological states, such as epilepsy or schizophrenia. Again, there is nothing unique to religion, since our knowledge of physiology in general largely stems from studies of disease states. The deregulation of a mental or physiological function often provides the clues that lead to the understanding of its normal function. Lastly, Newberg refers to cultures that use drugs and shamans to explore religious belief and to reach ecstatic states. These are social phenomena worthy of documentation and study for their cultural effects and their impact on a person’s experience and life view. Study of these agents or rituals likely will lead to the detection of brain regions important for these activities but not unique to them.
Science and religion may never reach common ground. Newberg seems to advocate a balance between incompatible reasoning systems. We have quite a different view of neurotheology, which we consider a branch of neuroscience that seeks to categorize and explain cultural phenomena based on tried and true neuroscience methods. Shamanistic cultures may offer different explanations for the origin of the world than does modern science; what we do not see is why this is relevant to the scientific study of religion.
In our view, religion constitutes a legitimate domain for scientific study, since the relevant phenomena are real and of great importance. We should determine the merit of any approach in terms of generalizeable knowledge. To quote Einstein, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Response to Dimitrios Kapogiannis and Jordan Grafman
Andrew Newberg
Kapogiannis and Grafman’s research has provided another excellent piece to the puzzle of the nature of religiosity and religious belief. Their work also provides an impetus for further study to uncover the biological correlates of religion. This has great importance for advancing and strengthening research in the field linking neuroscience and religion, which I refer to as neurotheology. Their scientific investigation helps clarify the brain regions associated with specific components of religious belief.
In much of my own work, I have suggested that a large neural network appears to be involved in religious phenomena, including experiences and a vast array of beliefs. This model includes many of the regions Kapogiannis and Grafman have identified, but their new research provides even more detail. Given the richness and diversity of religious phenomena, which Kapogiannis and Grafman appropriately point out, the brain network that “gets into the act” is probably relatively large.
However, although experimentally defining cognitive and emotional aspects of religion in the context of research is necessary for adequate study, it also raises important concerns, as I have noted. In particular, by pre-defining how religion makes us feel and think, we may end up simply showing how the brain helps us feel and think in general rather than discovering something that is truly unique to religion. In other words, we might miss the part of ourselves that is inherently religious or spiritual if all that we attempt to study is the cognitive neuroscience of religion.
In terms of neuroscience, much of the research to date, including that of Kapogiannis and Grafman, measures general physiological correlates of religious phenomena. It also will be crucial to identify specific neurotransmitter systems that are involved in religious experience. This will likely be the next step in evaluating the neurophysiology of religious phenomena. And because many brain regions are implicated, researchers should focus their attention on more than one neurotransmitter system.
Kapogiannis and Grafman’s findings are consistent with previous models of religious phenomena, which implicate parts of the frontal, temporal and parietal lobes. As Kapogiannis and Grafman note, these areas are involved in higher cognitive processes, social behaviors and emotions. Such processes also play a critical role in religious phenomena. It is reasonable for any neuroevolutionary analysis of religion to lead to the conclusion that religion is built upon existing brain structures and their functions rather than on the development of a separate circuitry whose sole function would be supporting religious experience. Consistent with the findings of Kapogiannis and Grafman, there is no “God spot” in the brain. Rather, religion makes use of existing brain structures and their functions, and it appears that religious beliefs match up exceedingly well with those functions.
However, it is difficult to determine which of the functions related to religion ultimately provided the adaptive advantage that led religion to thrive throughout human history. Simply finding a relationship does not necessarily imply causality, and whether these findings ultimately imply that religion is nothing more than a brain-based phenomenon is another matter. The findings we are discussing link religion and the brain, but the brain may be receptive to religious experiences rather than creating them. Whether the brain generates religious belief or serves as a conduit for it remains a complicated question.

found at: http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/2009/Religion_and_the_Brain__A_Debate/ (http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/2009/Religion_and_the_Brain__A_Debate/)
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on August 27, 2014, 05:59:40 PM
Quote

Quote from: MKing on Today at 04:11:54 PM

And maybe if you've read the technical journals, science, procedure manuals and textbooks that I have, you would have a different perspective on things.

Another post, another BRAG about being a scientist.
RE

YEP! The old "Argument from FALSE Authority".  :emthdown:

S3 Mking has only a limited grab bag of fallacious arguments to go with his limited.., uh, well..., just about everything!   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif)

True Gentlemen, However if I read correctly Azozeo did just about the same thing in his remark.

         Quote from: azozeo on Today at 03:00:50 PM

    Has anyone here studied the ancient Kaballah ? I have.
    Has anyone here studied the book of Genesis in the ancient Kaballah language ? I have.
    When you have read & somewhat understood the ancient meanings as I have. Maybe,
    just maybe you'll have a different perspective on things.

Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on August 27, 2014, 06:13:27 PM
Wrong, they are to this day unable to reconstruct pyramids. The explanations for such things as as miles long dead straight lines carved into solid rock being done by hand by stone chipping chisels are not explanations at all. Allegoricals such as walking on water etc have human explanations though.

Then how do you explain this?

http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2011/03/building-the-pyramids-its-not-a-mystery/ (http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2011/03/building-the-pyramids-its-not-a-mystery/)
"Well, it’s that time of year again. The Ancient Egypt class that I teach at the local university is set to begin on Wednesday.  I devote a full week to pyramids.  The articles below are part of the readings.  Two of these have appeared on this blog before, but the ones by Isler and Lally are new.  I have students read these because I don’t want anyone leaving my classroom thinking aliens were needed for pyramid construction. Absolute paleobabble.

Fitchen, “Building Cheops’ Pyramid” – Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Mar., 1978), pp. 3-12

Isler, “On Pyramid Building” (Part 1) – Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 22 (1985), pp. 129-142

Isler, “On Pyramid Building” (Part 2) – Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 24 (1987), pp. 95-112

Lally, “Engineering a Pyramid” – Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 26 (1989), pp. 207-218

Isler, “Egyptian Methods of Raising Weights” – Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 13 (1976), pp. 31-42

Isler, “An Ancient Method of Finding and Extending Direction” – Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 26 (1989), pp. 191-206


And when someone asks, “well, how come those guys on NOVA couldn’t build a small one – huh?” the answer is simple: “that’s because they were inept.” These articles are written by people who actually understand ancient engineering, not NOVA scientists who want to be on TV."


Quote
That does not mean anything, the gnostic texts were also temporal to JC but rejected. Paul came after.

No they weren't, and no he didn't... there are so many different resources that establish this beyond any reasonable doubt. I'll just provide a snippet of one:

http://www.equip.org/articles/the-gnostic-gospels-are-they-authentic/#christian-books-3 (http://www.equip.org/articles/the-gnostic-gospels-are-they-authentic/#christian-books-3)
"Veracity concerns the truthfulness of the author of the text. Was the author adequately in a position to relate what is reported, in terms of both chronological closeness to the events and observational savvy? Did he or she have sufficient credentials to relay historical truth? Some, in their enthusiasm over Nag Hammadi, have lassoed texts into the historical corral that date several hundred years after the life of Jesus. For instance, in a review of the movie The Last Temptation of Christ, Michael Grosso speaks of hints of Jesus’ sexual life “right at the start of the Christian tradition.” He then quotes from the Gospel of Philip to the effect that Jesus often kissed Mary Magdalene on the mouth.14 The problem is that the text is quite far from “the start of the Christian tradition,” being written, according to one scholar, “perhaps as late as the second half of the third century.”15Craig Blomberg states that “most of the Nag Hammadi documents, predominantly Gnostic in nature, make no pretense of overlapping with the gospel traditions of Jesus’ earthly life.”16 He observes that “a number claim to record conversations of the resurrected Jesus with various disciples, but this setting is usually little more than an artificial framework for imparting Gnostic doctrine.”17What, then, of the veracity of the documents? We do not know who wrote most of them and their historical veracity concerning Jesus seems slim. Yet some scholars advance a few candidates as providing historically reliable facts concerning Jesus. In the case of the Gospel of Truth, some scholars see Valentinus as the author, or at least as authoring an earlier version.18 Yet Valentinus dates into the second century (d. A.D. 175) and was thus not a contemporary of Jesus. Attridge and MacRae date the document between A.D. 140 and 180.19 Layton recognizes that “the work is a sermon and has nothing to do with the Christian genre properly called ‘gospel.’”20The text differs from many in Nag Hammadi because of its recurring references to New Testament passages. Beatley Layton notes that “it paraphrases, and so interprets, some thirty to sixty scriptural passages almost all from the New Testament books.”21 He goes on to note that Valentinus shaped these allusions to fit his own Gnostic theology.22 In discussing the use of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) in the Gospel of Truth, C. M. Tuckett concludes that “there is no evidence for the use of sources other than the canonical gospels for synoptic material.”23 This would mean that the Gospel of Truth gives no independent historical insight about Jesus, but rather reinterprets previous material. The Gospel of Philip is thick with Gnostic theology and contains several references to Jesus. However, it does not claim to be a revelation from Jesus: it is more of a Gnostic manual of theology.24 According to Tuckett’s analysis, all the references to Gospel material seem to stem from Matthew and not from any other canonical Gospel or other source independent of Matthew. Andrew Hembold has also pointed out that both the Gospel of Truth and the Gospel of Philip show signs of “mimicking” the New Testament; they both “know and recognize the greater part of the New Testament as authoritative.”25 This would make them derivative, not original, documents. Tuckett has also argued that the Gospel of Mary and the Book of Thomas the Contender are dependent on synoptic materials, and that “there is virtually no evidence for the use of pre-synoptic sources by these writers. These texts are all ‘post-synoptic,’ not only with regard to their dates, but also with regard to the form of the synoptic tradition they presuppose.”26 In other words, these writings are simply drawing on preexistent Gospel material and rearranging it to conform to their Gnostic world view. They do not contribute historically authentic, new material."

Quote
Are you seriously suggesting the author is not trying to discredit gnosticism as ureliable and unfit to include in the bible, regardless of who understood what it is? What of all the claims among christians that all other sects do not understand what christianity should be?

I'm not sure what the author thinks, except that he did say, "For the record, however, I will state that the Gospel of Thomas does have an authoritative and valid feel to it." I guess you missed that in your zeal to attack anyone who criticizes Ancient Alien theories.

Quote
It is not possible for texts from the first C to borrow from later texts. I can not right now plagiarise anything RE is going to write in a few hundred years.

EXACTLY...

Quote
During the great noah flood debate you declared us all unfit without ever explaining how the story of the ark has occurred. What you have done right here is the same thing as always, which is to say the bible is true because you are above going into it. As for my not countering anything, it was only yesterday you suggested i actually read the bible asuming I hadnt. You claimed the sins of the father was not in the bible and I pointed out how in exodus and numbers it is written sins are punished in children to the 3rd and 4th generation. That is vengeful, petty and unfair, contradictory also as it is written elsewhere he would not harm even a hair.

As everyone here knows, I am the only one here willing to go in-depth into the Bible and defend its narrative. I have done it with the Flood and I did it with those passages about "the iniquities being visited upon" subsequent generations. It is talking about the predictable consequences of parents' sins on their children, which is entirely different from saying "you will be punished for murder because your father murdered someone once".

THAT BEING SAID, I also recognize that people who ask others to defend every single passage in the Bible are simply looking for EXCUSES not to believe. It's their way of making sure they will NEVER be satisfied that it is revelation from God. As AG points out in his typical genius fashion, most of these isolated guerilla attacks on the OT are a way of avoiding the real question at hand - what does it mean for a human being to fallen and in need of redemption through repentance (honest guilt/remorse) and faith?

Contrary to your misrepresentations, repentance and faith have nothing to do with "reciting the Lord's prayer and getting into Heaven". Just like marriage has nothing to do with reciting some vows and being legally recognized. At the core of it is obedience, loyalty and sacrifice, which in reality are all variations of Love.

I see, engineers can do it in theory, but engineers who cannot do it in practice are just inept. But why did the egyptians have pictures of what look like aliens moving the giant blocks around with antigravity anyway?

If jesus wanted paul as a disciple he would have recruited him if he wa s in temporal proximity. The rest of appealing to a distinction of 'synoptic' for gnostic is inadequate.
A very tiny concession by the author that the gospel of thomas I believe u claim is fake, does have a genuine feel to it vs the rest of his attitude to gnosticism.

I have not ATTACKED anyone. For the record I have neither seen an alien or jesus, most christians talk about knowing jesus even if they havent seen him and those I am very happy for. I am just arguing the relative merits of christianity against your 'debunking' (attacking) of any dangerous alternate beliefs.

How have I misrepresented john 3.16, it is a misrepresentation to suggest that I am looking for you to defend every single verse or passage in the bible and again dodge by trying to attribute motive. "gueurilla attacks" on the bible? Please explain the difference between questioning the logic as I have done and your railing against anything you deem "new age"?


Obedience love and sacrifice of bhuddists, hindus, muslims or anyone ascribing to anything new age, count for nothing since they are mean to be converted to christianity right?

"as everyone here knows"?, lets ask Karpatok, Lucid Dreams, WHD, El G, Ray Jason, eveyone who is not already christian. Every single one has told you they have a long christian background and that you have turned them further away than ever from it. Similar story with the recent newcomers. And just as before, you tell them they are 'arrogant' etc rather than deal with what they ae saying logically.

You are certainly NOT the only one willing to go into detail about the bible, I certainly would not say that. you avoid the questions by saying our hearts and attitudes are not right and trite as again here. You do borrow vast walls of text that have not once convinced anyone of anything I can recall, that is not going into it yourself. Other people using their own reasoning certainly are genuine in my opinion. If they are looking for reasons not to believe, very insulting insinuation since they were once believers, why then are you not required to become NEW AGE or Muslim and not look for reasons not to believe?




Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: agelbert on August 27, 2014, 06:40:49 PM
Knarf,
I didn't know that. My main education on Buddhism has come from Ka and some scholarly and long videos posted here over a year ago of a former Buddhist turned Christian.

It's good to know that some forms of Buddhism accept the existence of God.  :emthup:

Ashvin,
I just read the Freud document. It confirmed some suspicions I had about his zeal in wanting to off religions in general and God in particular. One of my first posts here was on a document about Freud that Peter posted defending greed.

I argued vociferously against it and Surly agreed my argument had merit. So I started coming back now and then from TAE until RE recruited me into becoming a Renewable Energy NUT  author.  :icon_mrgreen:

The guy (Mowrer)  that rocked the psychoanalytic free-for-all that Freud started had it EXACTLY RIGHT about human nature:

Quote
He writes: “The basic irregularity is not emotional, but behavioral. [The patient] is not a victim of his conscience, but a violator of it. He must stop blaming others and accept responsibility for his own poor behavior. Problems may be solved, not by ventilation of feelings, but rather by confession of sin.”4

From his position of prominence within the Ivory Tower of the psychoanalytic culture, Mowrer realized that Freudian psychoanalysis turns out to be “an archeological expedition back into the past in which a search is made for others on whom to pin the blame for the patient’s behavior.”5

I'll go farther than that! UB and many here talk about the horrors Homo SAPs, many of them alleged Christians in leadership positions, are inflicting on the world. And all the other non-Christians, say YEAH! But Freud is THE guy that CONVINCED predatory capitalists in Wall Street (New York City is a MECCA for Freudian psychiatry!) that GUILT was WRONG and it DID NOT MATTER how much the USA promoted revolutions, slave labor, mafia tactics, wars for profit, fake religious "Christian Missionaries" backed by the CIA to keep the rubes humble and willing to work cheap.

OH NO! Feeling GUILT for that was neurotic and must be avoided in order to have a HEALTHY and HAPPY life of the APEX PREDATOR. THAT was PRECISELY what snowballed the asshole Capitalism and Wars PRE-Freud to the world class, no-holds barred demonic blood fest and Bling craze we are NOW SADDLED WITH!

It was REJECTION of Christianity and God that allowed GUILT to disappear from our leaders, not the LIP SERVICE espousal of it.

Sure, elite fucks have always been at that game. But NEVER was the rejection of common decency a guilt free exercise in business executives and government officials UNTIL Freud's bullshit became the "common wisdom". That "common wisdom" is that caring about other people or your employees is a WEAKNESS and NOT looking out for number one 24/7 is MASOCHISTIC. Only STUPID people do not put themselves above EVERYBODY else. What's wrong wid ya? Ya got an inferiority complex or sumptin'? Do unto others before they DO IT unto you! 

GAME THEORY came DIRECTLY from Darwin and Freud. Neither of those two paragons of prevaricating mindfork had ANY use whatsoever for God or Christianity.

MILLIONS of people have DIED and work in in slave conditions BECAUSE of Freud, Darwin and their bastard children, social Darwinism, Greed is Good, Guilt is Bullshit and Game Theory is how you WIN.  :evil4:

And then Christianity gets BLAMED for most of the 20th century EVILS  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gaah.gif) (that is THE century most people have been killed violently in numbers and as a percentage of the population as well!).

The ABSENCE of Christianity is the main CAUSE of those evils. Not that I expect non-Christians to admit it, but the reason they scapegoat Christianity so much is because THEY DO NOT WANT TO EXPERIENCE THE GUILT of looking in the mirror.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/nocomment.gif)(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gif)(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/290.gif) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)


Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: agelbert on August 27, 2014, 06:54:40 PM
GO said,
Quote

True Gentlemen, However if I read correctly Azozeo did just about the same thing in his remark.

         Quote from: azozeo on Today at 03:00:50 PM

    Has anyone here studied the ancient Kaballah ? I have.
    Has anyone here studied the book of Genesis in the ancient Kaballah language ? I have.
    When you have read & somewhat understood the ancient meanings as I have. Maybe,
    just maybe you'll have a different perspective on things.


Yep. There are variations of that fallacious argument technique:

Statement Of Conversion: the speaker says "I used to believe in X".
This is simply a weak form of asserting expertise. The speaker is implying that he has learned about the subject, and now that he is better informed, he has rejected X. So perhaps he is now an authority, and this is an implied Argument From Authority.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on August 27, 2014, 07:11:51 PM
Knarf,
I didn't know that. My main education on Buddhism has come from Ka and some scholarly and long videos posted here over a year ago of a former Buddhist turned Christian.

It's good to know that some forms of Buddhism accept the existence of God.  :emthup:

Ashvin,
I just read the Freud document. It confirmed some suspicions I had about his zeal in wanting to off religions in general and God in particular. One of my first posts here was on a document about Freud that Peter posted defending greed.

I argued vociferously against it and Surly agreed my argument had merit. So I started coming back now and then from TAE until RE recruited me into becoming a Renewable Energy NUT  author.  :icon_mrgreen:

The guy (Mowrer)  that rocked the psychoanalytic free-for-all that Freud started had it EXACTLY RIGHT about human nature:

Quote
He writes: “The basic irregularity is not emotional, but behavioral. [The patient] is not a victim of his conscience, but a violator of it. He must stop blaming others and accept responsibility for his own poor behavior. Problems may be solved, not by ventilation of feelings, but rather by confession of sin.”4

From his position of prominence within the Ivory Tower of the psychoanalytic culture, Mowrer realized that Freudian psychoanalysis turns out to be “an archeological expedition back into the past in which a search is made for others on whom to pin the blame for the patient’s behavior.”5

I'll go farther than that! UB and many here talk about the horrors Homo SAPs, many of them alleged Christians in leadership positions, are inflicting on the world. And all the other non-Christians, say YEAH! But Freud is THE guy that CONVINCED predatory capitalists in Wall Street (New York City is a MECCA for Freudian psychiatry!) that GUILT was WRONG and it DID NOT MATTER how much the USA promoted revolutions, slave labor, mafia tactics, wars for profit, fake religious "Christian Missionaries" backed by the CIA to keep the rubes humble and willing to work cheap.

OH NO! Feeling GUILT for that was neurotic and must be avoided in order to have a HEALTHY and HAPPY life of the APEX PREDATOR. THAT was PRECISELY what snowballed the asshole Capitalism and Wars PRE-Freud to the world class, no-holds barred demonic blood fest and Bling craze we are NOW SADDLED WITH!

It was REJECTION of Christianity and God that allowed GUILT to disappear from our leaders, not the LIP SERVICE espousal of it.

Sure, elite fucks have always been at that game. But NEVER was the rejection of common decency a guilt free exercise in business executives and government officials UNTIL Freud's bullshit became the "common wisdom". That "common wisdom" is that caring about other people or your employees is a WEAKNESS and NOT looking out for number one 24/7 is MASOCHISTIC. Only STUPID people do not put themselves above EVERYBODY else. What's wrong wid ya? Ya got an inferiority complex or sumptin'? Do unto others before they DO IT unto you! 

GAME THEORY came DIRECTLY from Darwin and Freud. Neither of those two paragons of prevaricating mindfork had ANY use whatsoever for God or Christianity.

MILLIONS of people have DIED and work in in slave conditions BECAUSE of Freud, Darwin and their bastard children, social Darwinism, Greed is Good, Guilt is Bullshit and Game Theory is how you WIN.  :evil4:

And then Christianity gets BLAMED for most of the 20th century EVILS  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gaah.gif) (that is THE century most people have been killed violently in numbers and as a percentage of the population as well!).

The ABSENCE of Christianity is the main CAUSE of those evils. Not that I expect non-Christians to admit it, but the reason they scapegoat Christianity so much is because THEY DO NOT WANT TO EXPERIENCE THE GUILT of looking in the mirror.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/nocomment.gif)
(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gif)(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/290.gif) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)

I tend to agree with the broad outline of this reasoning.

The intense prevalent all encompassing Evil I feel about us now, and have mentioned often is no doubt explained partially by this posting.

My only real problem is with the following statement.

From his position of prominence within the Ivory Tower of the psychoanalytic culture, Mowrer realized that Freudian psychoanalysis turns out to be “an archeological expedition back into the past in which a search is made for others on whom to pin the blame for the patient’s behavior.”5

While my feeling is this is essentially true, this sad desire to escape responsibility for ones actions and blame others, a lack of accountability.  There are many legitimate exceptions to this in my view.

Fact is, there are a great number of folks terribly abused in all sorts of ways when youngsters, who eventually end up on the analyst's couch, where this sort of approach has some validity. Those with such baggage from their youth, as well as the battered women we often hear and read about, are exceptions to this valid condemning of those who do not have these mental and physical scars IMO.



Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on August 27, 2014, 07:30:50 PM
AGB,
I believe mans inhumanity to man has been in evidence since homo sap killed off neanderthal, Self serving did not emerge from freud and darwin. 

Most people believe in god and guilt, I am guided by conscience and certainly need to believe everyone who sowed strife gets repaid in equal measure for the suffering they caused. I have no problem both paying it forward and repaying like with like. If you want to argue christian conception of God as superior and correct remember that is described with Him walking and talking on earth, and sitting enthroned in the clouds with the earth as his footstool, but no longer thundering audibly out of heaven. Ill meet you at that being divinely inspired anthropomorphism. And btw, I might be putting christianity through its paces now but I have a big bat to take to bhuddism and hinduisms butts too LOL
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on August 27, 2014, 07:43:14 PM
AGB,
I believe mans inhumanity to man has been in evidence since homo sap killed off neanderthal, Self serving did not emerge from freud and darwin. 

Most people believe in god and guilt, I am guided by conscience and certainly need to believe everyone who sowed strife gets repaid in equal measure for the suffering they caused. I have no problem both paying it forward and repaying like with like. If you want to argue christian conception of God as superior and correct remember that is described with Him walking and talking on earth, and sitting enthroned in the clouds with the earth as his footstool, but no longer thundering audibly out of heaven. Ill meet you at that being divinely inspired anthropomorphism. And btw, I might be putting christianity through its paces now but I have a big bat to take to bhuddism and hinduisms butts too LOL

Hi Uncle, I must say you are putting on one heck of a show. Remarkable tenacity, superb writing, and quite a display of knowledge on topic as well.

Good luck my friend, you are in the ring with one tough hombre when it comes to this topic.  :laugh: ;D :emthup:
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on August 27, 2014, 08:28:58 PM


Hi Uncle, I must say you are putting on one heck of a show. Remarkable tenacity, superb writing, and quite a display of knowledge on topic as well.

Good luck my friend, you are in the ring with one tough hombre when it comes to this topic.  :laugh: ;D :emthup:

Thanks GO, im never sure if im making sense. And I really should be doing work instead of diner debating. My beef with bhuddism and hinduism compared with salvation through jesus forgiveness is several things;

The people who are able to self realize are about one in a million at best the rest wallow in suffering for countless cycles of rebirth. They do this in ignorance not having any recollection of how or why they arrived at the circumstances they came into. This is at least as unfair and even moreso than anything you can say about the vengeful god of the bible. If on the one hand someone is born into low strata serfdom say in an indian caste system, what hope do they have of mentally ever getting ahead and bettering their circumstances in the next life or this when constantly struggling to survive and being ground down. Its next to nil how can they concieve something they have never known. On the other hand if someone is born where there is material opportunity to do better for themself, then they are needing first the focus and ambition to be on the material successes in the first place, which is in itself a mind-trap leading to not spiritually progressing by being materialistic.

We have to reproduce, we have our sex organs and urges. To fully master yourself this has to be transcended, not just channeled morally within marriage. That is next to impossible for most people, although i cant speak for women who have their own set of instincts. Then there are the relationship difficulties lotteries people draw which impact their ability to focus on inner transformation. Almost impossible to have the tranquility necessary if home relations are not harmonious, and how many people lucky enough to have that luxury. The bhudda himself walked out on his wife and kids to attain enlightenment.

It seems totally random who is a natural at understanding mastering the world around them and attaining what they want. Some people succeed in some areas of life and not in others. Others have it all and have it all good. One guy is a promising rising star footballer and injures himself in his first season, so works at a sports store wondering why him and what he missed out on. Another one plays 20 star seasons then has a sweet deal sitting around commentating, eventually dies peacefully in his sleep. Born with a silver spoon from the start it seems , but really just a natural at materializing from the mind. The way this untapped ability is distributed is very unfair.



Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on August 28, 2014, 03:53:35 AM
Quote
The way this untapped ability is distributed is very unfair.

Believe me Uncle, I get your drift. The unfairness of life in particular always puzzled me.

I remember the Nuns in school constantly telling us how lucky we were.

"Pray To Jesus and Thank Him You are Not a Poor Chinese Child, That Will Never Have a Toy and Just Get A Little Cup of Rice to Eat Every Day", that was  a favorite of theirs.

I knew way back then something wasn't right, but just said to myself, "I'm glad I'm not a kid in China."

I know nothing Unc, just mainly listen on this topic. The whole scene is just one big Ball of Confusion to me.

Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 28, 2014, 04:41:54 AM
I see, engineers can do it in theory, but engineers who cannot do it in practice are just inept. But why did the egyptians have pictures of what look like aliens moving the giant blocks around with antigravity anyway?

If they can do it in theory (using ancient technology), then your AA "it was impossible with human technology" argument falls apart. I would hope no one would waste the time and resources and labor to actually do it again in practice, although I imagine the Keynesians would say it's a great way to stimulate the economy.

As far as the pictures go, that is a classic case of modern humans importing their own sci-fi ideas about "aliens" and "antigravity" back onto ancient depictions which contain identifiable motifs. I can provide you the evidence for that as well.

Quote
If jesus wanted paul as a disciple he would have recruited him if he wa s in temporal proximity.

No serious NT historian doubts Paul's conversion, ministry and writing of epistles within years of Jesus' death. This includes secular historians who doubt the Bible's reliability even more than you do.

Quote
The rest of appealing to a distinction of 'synoptic' for gnostic is inadequate.
A very tiny concession by the author that the gospel of thomas I believe u claim is fake, does have a genuine feel to it vs the rest of his attitude to gnosticism.

I believe it is a) cannot be traced back to Thomas the apostle (certainly not written by him) and b) is unreliable as a record of what Jesus said (apart from the parts which simply copy sayings from the synoptics).

http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbbible.aspx?pageid=8589952748 (http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbbible.aspx?pageid=8589952748)
"Most of the Nag Hammadi texts that are called Gospels are little more than extensive dialogues supposedly between Jesus and various followers, primarily in secret settings after the resurrection, with language and concepts that bear little resemblance to the New Testament. Most of these documents do not predate the third century A.D. But Thomas is different. It is made up of 114 consecutive sayings of Jesus, more than half of them introduced with nothing more than, "Jesus said..." Although the rest of the sayings come with brief indications of a setting, topic or dialogue partner, only periodically do even two or three few consecutive passages clearly belong together. Most of the document resembles what one finds, in part, in other Jewish or Greco-Roman sources—epitomes of the "best" of the teachings of a famous rabbi or philosopher as recalled by one or more of his followers.

The existing Coptic Thomas is fourth or fifth century in origin, but fragments of a Greek document discovered in the late 1800s at another Egyptian location called Oxyrhynchus and dating to the second century have turned out to represent portions of an older edition of Thomas. Thomas is therefore the oldest known non-canonical "Gospel" that has survived in any ancient language except perhaps for a few tiny fragments of one or two other documents.

Thomas differs from the other non-canonical Gospels also in that almost half of his sayings find at least a partial parallel somewhere in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Thomas 34, for example, declares, "Jesus said, 'If a blind man leads a blind man, they will both fall into a pit'" (cf. Matt. 15:14).2 Saying 44 reads, "whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the Son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven" (cf. Mark 3:28-29). And Thomas 48 announces, "If you make peace with each other in this one house, they will say to the mountain, 'Move away,' and it will move away" (cf. Mark 11:23).
...
The only ones they were particularly impressed with were paralleled texts, particularly parables, which appear shorter and less allegorical in Thomas. If length and detail are signs of developing tradition, then the Synoptic accounts must come later than Thomas, which may thus be dated to the mid-first century. But in fact the continuing oral tradition of Jesus' teachings abbreviated and eliminated allegorical elements more often than it added them, so at best these criteria prove inconclusive. Nicholas Perrin, moreover, has made a compelling case for the view that Thomas originated in Syriac, in dependence on the earliest known harmonization of the four canonical Gospels, Tatian's Diatessaron (ca. A.D. 180). By translating the existing Coptic into Syriac, Perrin was able to demonstrate that the reason for Thomas's seemingly random sequence of sayings was that each was linked to the next often only by one or more "catchwords"—a pattern that is observable only about half of the time in the Coptic and Greek versions of this Gospel.3

Thomas, or Gnosticism more generally, can at first glance appear more "enlightened" from a modern (or postmodern) perspective than parts of the New Testament. But if one is going to accept a Gnostic world view, one has to take all of it. And the final saying of this enigmatic Gospel has Peter telling Jesus and the other disciples, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus replies, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Modern appropriations of Thomas seldom incorporate this perspective! Indeed, Thomas can appear superior to the canonical Gospels only by highly selective usage of its teachings. Despite what some may claim, it does not open any significant window into first-century Christian history and origins, only into its later corruption."


Quote
How have I misrepresented john 3.16, it is a misrepresentation to suggest that I am looking for you to defend every single verse or passage in the bible and again dodge by trying to attribute motive. "gueurilla attacks" on the bible? Please explain the difference between questioning the logic as I have done and your railing against anything you deem "new age"?

There is a very clear difference. You and RE explicitly asked me to explain every single verse that knarf listed in his post about "violence in the Bible". I, OTOH, have been criticizing the general philosophy and theology of New Age teachers.

You guys have an established routine of starting off with general criticisms, i.e. "why would God need to sacrifice his son for our sins", and then after I start addressing that, you veer off into asking for explanations of Genesis 6 (Flood) or other passages in the OT you feel are "ridiculous".

Quote
Obedience love and sacrifice of bhuddists, hindus, muslims or anyone ascribing to anything new age, count for nothing since they are mean to be converted to christianity right?

The problem is when an entire philosophy (New Age) claims obedience, loyalty or sacrifice for a higher power is not a virtue but an out-dated crutch.

Quote
"as everyone here knows"?, lets ask Karpatok, Lucid Dreams, WHD, El G, Ray Jason, eveyone who is not already christian. Every single one has told you they have a long christian background and that you have turned them further away than ever from it. Similar story with the recent newcomers. And just as before, you tell them they are 'arrogant' etc rather than deal with what they ae saying logically.

I have noticed people with "long Christian backgrounds" since abandoned are the ones who are most vehemently opposed to considering it again. And, as AG pointed out, they frequently employ the "argument from conversion".

Quote
Other people using their own reasoning certainly are genuine in my opinion. If they are looking for reasons not to believe, very insulting insinuation since they were once believers, why then are you not required to become NEW AGE or Muslim and not look for reasons not to believe?

I was into the New Age spiritual message for about a year or so. Christianity gave me a very good reason not to believe it anymore. You are completely confusing my reliance on the knowledge and arguments of others for "not using my own reasoning". Clearly I must read over their arguments and reason out whether they are credible before I start referencing them.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: agelbert on August 28, 2014, 11:44:21 AM
UB,
I understand your genuine concern for how unfair life is and the gamut of human talent, intelligence and societal opportunities or the lack of them that dictates fortune or misfortune in our lives.

But in essence, you are just rephrasing a quote from Freud:
Quote
“I stand in no awe whatever of the Almighty. If we were ever to meet I should have more reproaches to make to Him than He could make to me. I would ask Him why He hadn’t endowed me with better intellectual equipment, and He couldn’t complain that I have failed to make the best use of my so-called freedom.”33
(http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg) 


Quote
Freud was a scientist not a theologian, more concerned with the psychology of religion than the nature of faith. “There was no reason why Freud should have been so engaged by the problem of religion—at least no obvious, psychoanalyzable reason. He had never gone through a phase of faith; no family pieties had stifled him so that he had to speak out,” writes Freudian scholar Philip Reiff. “His free-thinking father  :evil4:…raised his children in a secular atmosphere. After a childhood devoid of religious impulse and schooling, Freud was easily converted to the Darwinian gospel...”22 It was only natural, for Freud to address religious belief through  anthropology, “instead of dealing with guilt in terms of God, creation, and man’s fall.”23

http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAF006.pdf (http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAF006.pdf)

Looky here, a Mking "free-thinker"  :evil4: raised Freud!  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183543.bmp) So now you know what these "FREE-THINKERS" (otherwise known as evolution true believers  ;)) visit upon humanity...   (http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb050.gif)

As to all the disparate opportunities Homo Saps have that makes a one shot deal at Salvation look irrational, thereby "justifying" a belief system that incorporates Karma math and reincarnation, I disagree. If God exists, He certainly has the faculty to judge fairly. He understands humanity rather well since He is the designer and creator of our physical and spiritual machinery so He is in an excellent (and logically superior to any human) position to judge human behavior.

Occam's razor dictates that a JUST God taking care of business is far more logical than a complex Karma dance through multiple lives.

GO,
I understand much abuse goes on in childhood that causes inappropriate guilt. But the discovery, through psychoanalysis, that you were freaked out by seeing mommy making it with the milkman or as a child beaten, sold in slavery, prostitution, made to wear dresses if a male or not allowed to wear them if female, forced to have sex with parents or an older sibling, deprived of a normal IQ through undernourishment, born with Down's syndrome, the wrong color, etc. does NOT justify you perpetuating any anti-social behavior by claiming it's what you GOTTA DO to feel right after all the SHIT you went through. The VICTIM must NOT be blamed, of course. But the VICTIM has a tendency to BECOME THE VICTIMIZER if morality is a NON-ISSUE, Capisco?

This "He's just DOING WHAT he does" attitude given by Freudian shrinks to the immoral bastards that set up corporate charters of "limited" (institutionalized acceptance of immoral avoidance of responsibility) liability (LIMITED=ZERO LIABILITY=GUILT) is the misanthropic religion (Orwellianly claimed to free humanity from guilt)  that legitimized all the Wall Street War profiteering, soul destroying practices as "business as usual" (i.e. cognitive dissonance on steroids). It's world class mindfuck. It's insanity labeled sanity and Game OVER Theory for Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself, PERIOD.

We are all born with different opportunities. For those who say, well, if ya didn't accept Christ, you are doomed to hell, I say that if I didn't accept Christ, I would be doomed to hell. God is the final arbiter of who goes where. The bible says all things are possible for God. "All things" in the context of scripture does not mean He does reincarnation as a salvation mechanism IMHO. It means that He is the BOSS and He decides who goes where after the valley of tears.

It's far simpler for Him, for example, to compress 3 seconds of your last breath as a Hitler to years of instruction and revelation in order to get you to accept Christ than to rig up a complex Karma network of reincarnation. I don't KNOW if Freud went to hell or not! I am happy to get into it with fellow Christians about who gets the heavenly brass ring and who doesn't. I am far more liberal about that than many fundys because I HONESTLY believe that suicides DO NOT EVER go to hell. But that's just me.  ;D

The God I believe in is a JUST God. Regardless of the limitations of humanity to understand WTF God wants us to do (most humans don't have the literacy, brains or willingness to read ANYTHING, let alone religious documents like the Bible!), I'm certain the "math" is done by God to UB's satisfaction (and mine).


Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on August 28, 2014, 12:23:09 PM
Quote
GO,
I understand much abuse goes on in childhood that causes inappropriate guilt. But the discovery, through psychoanalysis, that you were freaked out by seeing mommy making it with the milkman or as a child beaten, sold in slavery, prostitution, made to wear dresses if a male or not allowed to wear them if female, forced to have sex with parents or an older sibling, deprived of a normal IQ through undernourishment, born with Down's syndrome, the wrong color, etc. does NOT justify you perpetuating any anti-social behavior by claiming it's what you GOTTA DO to feel right after all the SHIT you went through. The VICTIM must NOT be blamed, of course. But the VICTIM has a tendency to BECOME THE VICTIMIZER if morality is a NON-ISSUE, Capisco?

Of course AG and I never suggested such.

My statement clearly implied there are people who are real victims of abuse from others and this sort of therapy might be of help to them.

If you read my statement carefully you will find I agree with the ideas expressed, but merely stated there are some exceptions.

I never said that this could be used as an excuse for a life of such behavior, but using a technique to help show a person why he has these problems might be helpful to them.

Let me assure you that there are people who were helped by therapy. This is my view from things I have read over the years, and personal acquaintance with a few folks who sought professional help. I can hardly prove my ideas on this scientifically or in any way professionally, perhaps UB will weigh in with a professionals view. 
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ka on August 28, 2014, 02:44:46 PM

Occam's razor dictates that a JUST God taking care of business is far more logical than a complex Karma dance through multiple lives.

....

It's far simpler for Him, for example, to compress 3 seconds of your last breath as a Hitler to years of instruction and revelation in order to get you to accept Christ than to rig up a complex Karma network of reincarnation.

You're being circular here. There are various ways to conceive of God (and humanity and nature), and whether "one life only" or "many lives" is simpler or more logical will depend on that conception, and on what counts as data that is to be explained. Occam's Razor only applies to two or more hypotheses, all of which explain that which needs explaining. So if I accept the evidence that some people remember other lives, then the one-life-only explanation requires additional stuff to explain away that evidence. On the other hand, the many-lives explanation needs additional stuff to explain why there is a major revelation (the Bible) that indicates only one life.

Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: agelbert on August 28, 2014, 02:45:59 PM
GO,
I agree that some people have been helped by this therapy. My point is that overall, Freudian Psychotherapy has harmed humanity, not helped it. A kind, patient Christian approach to a person's past of pain and abuse is far more efficacious in healing those hurts than Freudian Psychotherapy. Freud threw the baby out with the bath water, GO. We need to shit can any and all respect for Freudian Psychotherapy. It is wrong and morally abhorrent. But you are, of course, right in recognizing that there are people that have been helped by it.

I suggest you consider the possibility that you are confusing the God given human mechanism of compassion in listening and learning about someone's past that any human can have or pretend to have (as shrinks do for money) with Freudian Psychotherapy.

Freud hijacked compassion and fellowship for the healing of hurts where people console each other and seek God's guidance and twisted it into Psychotherapy. So they used tools that have been used in the confessional or among friends for centuries and charged for them by setting themselves up as the authority in place of God.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp)

You think that those who were helped to deal with their pain by Psychotherapy makes it worthwhile. I don't. I think compassion and caring helped them, NOT Psychotherapy. I think Psychotherapy legitimizes a Godless approach to healing abuse so it is wrong as well as being ultimately socially destructive. So we will have to agree to disagree.  ;D

 
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: agelbert on August 28, 2014, 03:09:47 PM
Ka,
Agreed. My world view (i.e. bias) makes the most parsimonious explanation of how a just God would deal with the different opportunities and talents of humans to be time compression rather than multiple lives. That is the reason I referred to Occam's razor. I consider reincarnation the least plausible hypothesis.
Quote
Least Plausible Hypothesis:

ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations. This makes the desired explanation into the only one. For example: "I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. Clearly, my yard was visited by fairies."

There is an old rule for deciding which explanation is the most plausible. It is most often called "Occam's Razor", and it basically says that the simplest is the best. The current phrase among scientists is that an explanation should be "the most parsimonious", meaning that it should not introduce new concepts (like fairies) when old concepts (like neighborhood cats) will do.

On ward rounds, medical students love to come up with the most obscure explanations for common problems. A traditional response is to tell them "If you hear hoof beats, don't automatically think of zebras".
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#question (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#question)


Reincarnation of souls to achieve whatever we are supposed to achieve is like the possibility of the cause being "zebras" when I "hear he sound of hoof beats". It's Plausible BUT I consider it the Least Plausible Hypothesis.  :icon_mrgreen:
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: jdwheeler42 on August 28, 2014, 05:48:34 PM
Certainly I am the last to object that you can't have whatever belief system you wish. Alien intervention, God, whatever Allah told you personally one afternoon, Chariots of the Gods, whatever. But you don't get to pretend it has any more value, or is any more true, than those dreamed up, hallucinated, or concocted by every single other persons "perspective".

Knowing, justifying, being well read, being a smart fella, none of it matters in the least when designing a belief system. It only needs to matter to you. There is no minimum requirement of learning, intelligence or even coherence in a belief system. That is the beauty of them, feel free to manufacture whatever YOU want to believe.. Doesn't have to make sense, but if it makes you happy, good for you.

But the instant you pretend it is better, or more value, or more meaningful than ANYONE else's is the instant I call bullshit. It doesn't matter if you round up 100 gullible friends and sell them your belief system. Belief systems aren't popularity dependent any more than science is.

But if it makes you happy, knock yourself out. Everyone should be happy, even if they have to manufacture their own justification for why they decide to be that way.
I appreciate this sentiment.  Personally I go a step further, I value a diversity of belief systems, but that comes out of my belief system, which I can summarize in three words as "God amuses ourself".
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on August 28, 2014, 06:08:10 PM
I see, engineers can do it in theory, but engineers who cannot do it in practice are just inept. But why did the egyptians have pictures of what look like aliens moving the giant blocks around with antigravity anyway?

If they can do it in theory (using ancient technology), then your AA "it was impossible with human technology" argument falls apart. I would hope no one would waste the time and resources and labor to actually do it again in practice, although I imagine the Keynesians would say it's a great way to stimulate the economy.

No, if they can not put the theory into practice when they try even on a small scale the their theory is worthless and you must look for another explanation. If only the building of pyramids by jehovah or jesus were in the bible we could accept it as yet another acceptable superhuman feat which can not be replicated today . Keynesians are not required when people pile rocks or logs on the beach in as large a clear area as they can find in the shape of  SOS that can be made out from the air, similarly the ancients drawing far larger pictures and miles long straight lines that could only be made sense of from the air did not do it just for the hell of it which is the theory you propose.

As far as the pictures go, that is a classic case of modern humans importing their own sci-fi ideas about "aliens" and "antigravity" back onto ancient depictions which contain identifiable motifs. I can provide you the evidence for that as well.

Ok so tell me what the being with a reptile head holding remote controls and a building block moving through the air really represented to the people at the time who carved them. Or any thousands year old carving in 2D or 3D of modern scific looking aliens which I have held in my hand really repreented.

Quote
If jesus wanted paul as a disciple he would have recruited him if he wa s in temporal proximity.

No serious NT historian doubts Paul's conversion, ministry and writing of epistles within years of Jesus' death. This includes secular historians who doubt the Bible's reliability even more than you do.

 Serious historians dont accept that people are blinded without cause and hear voices booming out of the sky. We know that is not possible so Paul is a liar, he would also then be lying about knowing the mind of Jesus. Fact is Jesus could have recruited paul but he did  not, he spoke of people coming after him in his name. Paul was already well known for persecution, his message of the need for salvation through conversion became the basis for persecution being practised among christians and visited on the rest of the non christian world.

Quote
The rest of appealing to a distinction of 'synoptic' for gnostic is inadequate.
A very tiny concession by the author that the gospel of thomas I believe u claim is fake, does have a genuine feel to it vs the rest of his attitude to gnosticism.

I believe it is a) cannot be traced back to Thomas the apostle (certainly not written by him) and b) is unreliable as a record of what Jesus said (apart from the parts which simply copy sayings from the synoptics).

http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbbible.aspx?pageid=8589952748 (http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbbible.aspx?pageid=8589952748)
"Most of the Nag Hammadi texts that are called Gospels are little more than extensive dialogues supposedly between Jesus and various followers, primarily in secret settings after the resurrection, with language and concepts that bear little resemblance to the New Testament. Most of these documents do not predate the third century A.D. But Thomas is different. It is made up of 114 consecutive sayings of Jesus, more than half of them introduced with nothing more than, "Jesus said..." Although the rest of the sayings come with brief indications of a setting, topic or dialogue partner, only periodically do even two or three few consecutive passages clearly belong together. Most of the document resembles what one finds, in part, in other Jewish or Greco-Roman sources—epitomes of the "best" of the teachings of a famous rabbi or philosopher as recalled by one or more of his followers.

The existing Coptic Thomas is fourth or fifth century in origin, but fragments of a Greek document discovered in the late 1800s at another Egyptian location called Oxyrhynchus and dating to the second century have turned out to represent portions of an older edition of Thomas. Thomas is therefore the oldest known non-canonical "Gospel" that has survived in any ancient language except perhaps for a few tiny fragments of one or two other documents.

Thomas differs from the other non-canonical Gospels also in that almost half of his sayings find at least a partial parallel somewhere in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Thomas 34, for example, declares, "Jesus said, 'If a blind man leads a blind man, they will both fall into a pit'" (cf. Matt. 15:14).2 Saying 44 reads, "whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the Son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven" (cf. Mark 3:28-29). And Thomas 48 announces, "If you make peace with each other in this one house, they will say to the mountain, 'Move away,' and it will move away" (cf. Mark 11:23).
...
The only ones they were particularly impressed with were paralleled texts, particularly parables, which appear shorter and less allegorical in Thomas. If length and detail are signs of developing tradition, then the Synoptic accounts must come later than Thomas, which may thus be dated to the mid-first century. But in fact the continuing oral tradition of Jesus' teachings abbreviated and eliminated allegorical elements more often than it added them, so at best these criteria prove inconclusive. Nicholas Perrin, moreover, has made a compelling case for the view that Thomas originated in Syriac, in dependence on the earliest known harmonization of the four canonical Gospels, Tatian's Diatessaron (ca. A.D. 180). By translating the existing Coptic into Syriac, Perrin was able to demonstrate that the reason for Thomas's seemingly random sequence of sayings was that each was linked to the next often only by one or more "catchwords"—a pattern that is observable only about half of the time in the Coptic and Greek versions of this Gospel.3

Thomas, or Gnosticism more generally, can at first glance appear more "enlightened" from a modern (or postmodern) perspective than parts of the New Testament. But if one is going to accept a Gnostic world view, one has to take all of it. And the final saying of this enigmatic Gospel has Peter telling Jesus and the other disciples, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus replies, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Modern appropriations of Thomas seldom incorporate this perspective! Indeed, Thomas can appear superior to the canonical Gospels only by highly selective usage of its teachings. Despite what some may claim, it does not open any significant window into first-century Christian history and origins, only into its later corruption."


You should not have defended the author u posted by citing his support for the gospel of thomas seeming authentic if u hold the opposite belief.

All of that is only acceptible argument if you first reject that jesus survived and had followers after his crucifixion. If he lived another 60 years it is perfectly sensible and the texts SHOULD come out of the mid first C. That gnostics lived in total peace suggests that they are the true followers, pauline doctrine leading to what we have seen suggesting it is counter to jesus life and message.

I see nothing wrong with Thomas having written "Jesus said" that is not an acceptible criticism or basis for rejection.

While above in this thread you have taken license to interpret the underlying message and water down into a new age acceptable interpretation, you are asking to take literally "making her male" as a reason for rejecting the gospel of thomas. Perhaps as the single female in the group she made an impassioned emotional plea for followers to practice the tenets of the religion, and a pharisee said she has nothing worthwhile to contribute and her hateful ilk should be dispatched. Jesus saying he will lead her to make her male RESEMBLING a male in spirit might simply mean tempering the emotion. If we allow that he could tell his followers to drink his blood and eat his flesh etc etc etc.


Quote
How have I misrepresented john 3.16, it is a misrepresentation to suggest that I am looking for you to defend every single verse or passage in the bible and again dodge by trying to attribute motive. "gueurilla attacks" on the bible? Please explain the difference between questioning the logic as I have done and your railing against anything you deem "new age"?

There is a very clear difference. You and RE explicitly asked me to explain every single verse that knarf listed in his post about "violence in the Bible". I, OTOH, have been criticizing the general philosophy and theology of New Age teachers.

Please put what I said in context, exactly what I said, which has nothing to do with the current thread of thought anyway. There is no general philosophy and thelogy of New Age, you are throwing together belief in Archons with disparate and unrelated things such as J Krishnamurti.

You guys have an established routine of starting off with general criticisms, i.e. "why would God need to sacrifice his son for our sins", and then after I start addressing that, you veer off into asking for explanations of Genesis 6 (Flood) or other passages in the OT you feel are "ridiculous".

No I have not done that, too easy. However as i pointed out in my last post your only explanation for miracles is always "you guys always..." What I do have in common with RE and LD etc is we have no problem with anyone believing the bible based on faith. We hammer the shit out of someone suggesting it is all supported by science and history wheras other belief systems can be debunked or discredited.

Quote
Obedience love and sacrifice of bhuddists, hindus, muslims or anyone ascribing to anything new age, count for nothing since they are mean to be converted to christianity right?

The problem is when an entire philosophy (New Age) claims obedience, loyalty or sacrifice for a higher power is not a virtue but an out-dated crutch.

As I have said there is no entire new age philosophy please point out the text such as the bible or koran or vedas that represent the NEW AGE and the claim you make about obedience, loyalty or sacrifice. Even find me anything by anyone that makes that claim and not by drawing long bows of extrapolated interpertation.

Quote
"as everyone here knows"?, lets ask Karpatok, Lucid Dreams, WHD, El G, Ray Jason, eveyone who is not already christian. Every single one has told you they have a long christian background and that you have turned them further away than ever from it. Similar story with the recent newcomers. And just as before, you tell them they are 'arrogant' etc rather than deal with what they ae saying logically.

I have noticed people with "long Christian backgrounds" since abandoned are the ones who are most vehemently opposed to considering it again. And, as AG pointed out, they frequently employ the "argument from conversion".

If they were opposed to considering it again they would not be engaging with you. I dont know what you men by argument from conversion, i believe you have become a convert and are arguing, that to me suggests argument from conversion. Have you noticed how many people all say that it is the argumentativeness rather than discussion of practice and experience that turns them further away. I guess different people have differnt callings to christ and attending churches and inviting other people to them is only the path for some. Still, while I am trying to retain  an open mind to this method of presenting a legal defense of christian belief and prosecution of other beliefs in a court of your construction, i dont see it convincing anyone as yet. But it might yet.

Quote
Other people using their own reasoning certainly are genuine in my opinion. If they are looking for reasons not to believe, very insulting insinuation since they were once believers, why then are you not required to become NEW AGE or Muslim and not look for reasons not to believe?

I was into the New Age spiritual message for about a year or so. Christianity gave me a very good reason not to believe it anymore. You are completely confusing my reliance on the knowledge and arguments of others for "not using my own reasoning". Clearly I must read over their arguments and reason out whether they are credible before I start referencing them.

Thats fine, but why are you so vehemently opposed to considering it again LOL.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: knarf on August 28, 2014, 06:09:55 PM
JD says "I appreciate this sentiment.  Personally I go a step further, I value a diversity of belief systems, but that comes out of my belief system, which I can summarize in three words as "God amuses ourself"."

Not me. The thousands of beliefs in God cause enormous conflict, not amusement. Just on this forum we could not build a functional community because of the fundamental beliefs certain people have of the WAY GOD exists. That spells trouble. It also diminishes the conversations and explorations we need to be engaged in at this enormously critical time of earths reaction to our selfish belief systems. It is like routing for the football team that is closest to where you live. We are acting like adolescents that need our egos ( belief systems ) validated. We had better wake up before mother earth just kicks us off the planet.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on August 28, 2014, 06:40:08 PM
JD says "I appreciate this sentiment.  Personally I go a step further, I value a diversity of belief systems, but that comes out of my belief system, which I can summarize in three words as "God amuses ourself"."

Not me. The thousands of beliefs in God cause enormous conflict, not amusement. Just on this forum we could not build a functional community because of the fundamental beliefs certain people have of the WAY GOD exists. That spells trouble. It also diminishes the conversations and explorations we need to be engaged in at this enormously critical time of earths reaction to our selfish belief systems. It is like routing for the football team that is closest to where you live. We are acting like adolescents that need our egos ( belief systems ) validated. We had better wake up before mother earth just kicks us off the planet.

What if no one on earth had any belief in a God, don't you feel that might create another set of severe problems for us?

I doubt if there are many believers of God at Goldman Sachs or the IMF, but of course I'm just guessing.

Do you think a discussion of selfish belief systems would go over well on Wall Street, or at one of Loyd Blankfein's famed lobster and champagne filled swimming pool afternoon barbecues at his 40 million dollar home in the Hamptons?
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: knarf on August 28, 2014, 06:49:43 PM
GO says "What if no one on earth had any belief in a God, don't you feel that might create another set of severe problems for us?"

No I do not, because it is like trying to prove, with all of one's energy, that Santa Claus exists and lives at the north pole. Hold on to whatever belief system you want, and argue it until the earth kicks us off the planet.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: knarf on August 28, 2014, 06:57:33 PM
It is also interesting that you mention the belief systems of the people who don't give a shit about the environment, food scarcity, economic inequality, etc.....

   Shows where the mind reacts to severe decisions. Must be nice living in a well to do environment.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on August 28, 2014, 07:02:54 PM
GO says "What if no one on earth had any belief in a God, don't you feel that might create another set of severe problems for us?"

No I do not, because it is like trying to prove, with all of one's energy, that Santa Claus exists and lives at the north pole. Hold on to whatever belief system you want, and argue it until the earth kicks us off the planet.

You miss my point entirely Knarf.

In a world totally void of a belief in God, don't you see a problem in forming a large meaningful discussion group of preserving our earth from our selfishness, or selfish belief systems as you call them?

Don't you accept the idea that belief in God, his justice, causes many people to live a type of life that is friendlier to the earth and it's people than one where there are no believers.

Don't you see any benefits at all from the people who try and follow Christ's example, just bad from these folks?

Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 28, 2014, 07:04:04 PM
No, if they can not put the theory into practice when they try even on a small scale the their theory is worthless and you must look for another explanation. If only the building of pyramids by jehovah or jesus were in the bible we could accept it as yet another acceptable superhuman feat which can not be replicated today . Keynesians are not required when people pile rocks or logs on the beach in as large a clear area as they can find in the shape of  SOS that can be made out from the air, similarly the ancients drawing far larger pictures and miles long straight lines that could only be made sense of from the air did not do it just for the hell of it which is the theory you propose.

People have done it on small scales - http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/ (http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/)

The reason it was done in Ancient Egypt is pretty obvious, self-aggrandizement by the rulers. The same thing has been done by nearly every ruler of every ancient society (and also modern ones), but the Pharaohs took this to an extremely selfish and sadistic scale.

Quote
Ok so tell me what the being with a reptile head holding remote controls and a building block moving through the air really represented to the people at the time who carved them. Or any thousands year old carving in 2D or 3D of modern scific looking aliens which I have held in my hand really repreented.

http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/references-and-transcripts/pacals-rocket/ (http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/references-and-transcripts/pacals-rocket/)
"The sarcophagus lid of Pacal has been a centerpiece for the Ancient Astronaut theories since the beginning. Eric Von Daniken believes this to be one of his best pieces of evidence.

AA: “You see his upper hand – he is manipulating some controls. From the lower hand – he is turning something on. The heel of his left foot is on a kind of pedal and, outside the capsule, you see a linking flame. This is incredible. This is absolute proof of extraterrestrials.”

The theory rests on the idea that the Mayans were not depicting their usual symbols here but were trying to realistically depict a rocket with Pacal as its pilot. I think the best thing I can do for you here is to clearly explain what Mayanists and other scientists who specialize in Mayan culture and artwork believe this scene is depicting. As Ancient Aliens said, archeologists believe this scene is depicting the moment of Pascal’s death and his decent into the underworld. Let me show you why they believe that.

The most famous symbol in this picture is that of the “World Tree”[1] which, if you believe Ancient Aliens, would make up the entire hull of the rocket. It’s hard to over emphasize the importance of the World Tree in Mayan mythology. The idea was that the World Tree extended into the heavens with its branches, and its roots extended into the underworld. So it was a symbol of the bridge between the underworld, heaven and earth.[2] When it is depicted it almost always has the double headed “vision serpent” on its branches[3], just like it’s depicted on Pacal’s lid.

The vision serpent was believed to live at the center of the world, thus it is depicted just above the underworld and just below the heavens.[4] In its top branches is the celestial bird which is seen a little more clearly in other World Tree depictions like this one, but on Pacal’s lid you can see its clearly depicting the same bird. The celestial bird represented the heavens and thus was pictured on the top of the World Tree.[5] What Ancient Aliens says is the exhaust or fire from the rockets takeoff is the roots of the World Tree extending into the underworld. Which is not just typical for depictions of the World Tree, it’s pretty much a requirement.[6] In the underworld we see a picture of the Mayan sun monster which Pacal is riding into the underworld.[7] The idea was that every time the sun set it was actually travelling into the underworld where it would die, like everything else in the underworld. You can even see the bottom half of the suns face was a skeleton while the top half still had flesh and had not yet died. This too is a common theme showing the moment of transition.[8]

So Pacal is hitching a ride on the sun into the underworld. Even the so-called smoke is easily explained when you understand Mayan symbols. In Mayan art whenever you see a so-called “traveler”- which is a person in transition from one world to the next – there must be something that is making that travel possible.[9] Sometimes it is a twisted umbilical cord, but almost always it is a serpent, often a double headed serpent.[10] In other words being in the mouths of a double headed serpent was a symbol of transition from one world to the next. You can see that the so called smoke is actually the traditional serpent’s beard which appears in almost every depiction of a serpent in Mayan art."
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on August 28, 2014, 07:12:56 PM
It is also interesting that you mention the belief systems of the people who don't give a shit about the environment, food scarcity, economic inequality, etc.....

   Shows where the mind reacts to severe decisions. Must be nice living in a well to do environment.

I picked them because they are considered to be the Godless by many. You are making my point.

You seem to be doing alright for yourself my friend, plenty of time for computer and contemplation anyway.

I'm amazed silly words written on a piece of paper by me can elicit such a disparaging nasty remark from you. You said you had cleansed your mind of that sort of nonsense by your meditations. Perhaps you missed a corner or two in your brain?
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: knarf on August 28, 2014, 07:16:57 PM
Your not worth talking to....Blah , blah , blah,      Goodbye.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 28, 2014, 07:29:45 PM
Quote from: UB
Serious historians dont accept that people are blinded without cause and hear voices booming out of the sky. We know that is not possible so Paul is a liar, he would also then be lying about knowing the mind of Jesus. Fact is Jesus could have recruited paul but he did  not, he spoke of people coming after him in his name. Paul was already well known for persecution, his message of the need for salvation through conversion became the basis for persecution being practised among christians and visited on the rest of the non christian world.

Only historians who a priori reject the supernatural would say what happened to Paul was impossible. Apparently you become a naturalist whenever it suits you, i.e. when you want to attack the Bible.

The fact that Paul was well known for persecuting the Church makes his testimony MUCH MORE credible, since he did a complete 180 and was putting his esteemed position and his life at risk to advocate for a belief that he once detested.

Paul's theology on salvation through faith is not ONE IOTA different from what Jesus himself said.

Quote
All of that is only acceptible argument if you first reject that jesus survived and had followers after his crucifixion. If he lived another 60 years it is perfectly sensible and the texts SHOULD come out of the mid first C.


Yeah, and the evidence for Jesus' death by Roman crucifixion is so overwhelming that no historian disputes it, except for a few Muslims who believe a look-alike took his place on the Cross.

Also, the NT texts would have never have been accepted in Palestine if Jesus was actually alive and kicking when they all claimed he was dead.

Do you actually believe he lived to be 90+ or are you just coming up with "rebuttals" as you go along?

Quote
While above in this thread you have taken license to interpret the underlying message and water down into a new age acceptable interpretation, you are asking to take literally "making her male" as a reason for rejecting the gospel of thomas. Perhaps as the single female in the group she made an impassioned emotional plea for followers to practice the tenets of the religion, and a pharisee said she has nothing worthwhile to contribute and her hateful ilk should be dispatched. Jesus saying he will lead her to make her male RESEMBLING a male in spirit might simply mean tempering the emotion. If we allow that he could tell his followers to drink his blood and eat his flesh etc etc etc. [/color]

Maybe that's what the author of Thomas meant, but we will never know, because there is absolutely no context to judge its meaning by. In stark contrast to the Gospel narratives which provide extensive detail about the past, present and future circumstances when Jesus makes his symbolic remarks.


Quote
Please put what I said in context, exactly what I said, which has nothing to do with the current thread of thought anyway. There is no general philosophy and thelogy of New Age, you are throwing together belief in Archons with disparate and unrelated things such as J Krishnamurti.

So you disagree that most "New Age" philosophy emphasizes humanity as its own savior and no need for obedience or faith in God?

Quote
No I have not done that, too easy. However as i pointed out in my last post your only explanation for miracles is always "you guys always..." What I do have in common with RE and LD etc is we have no problem with anyone believing the bible based on faith. We hammer the shit out of someone suggesting it is all supported by science and history wheras other belief systems can be debunked or discredited.

All belief systems can be discredited one way or another. Christianity is the most susceptible to discreditation, because it stakes so much of its theology on its historical accuracy. It just so happens that no one has done it yet. (simply claiming miracles in the Bible are "ridiculous" is not enough...)

Quote
If they were opposed to considering it again they would not be engaging with you. I dont know what you men by argument from conversion, i believe you have become a convert and are arguing, that to me suggests argument from conversion. Have you noticed how many people all say that it is the argumentativeness rather than discussion of practice and experience that turns them further away. I guess different people have differnt callings to christ and attending churches and inviting other people to them is only the path for some. Still, while I am trying to retain  an open mind to this method of presenting a legal defense of christian belief and prosecution of other beliefs in a court of your construction, i dont see it convincing anyone as yet. But it might yet.

You say they are "engaging" with me, but then you say they don't like the "argumentativeness". How can you engage in critical discussion/debate with someone if you are automatically turned off by arguments?

The argument from conversion is, "I used to be X or study X, then I stopped being X or studying X, so I know all about X and X is wrong".

Quote
Thats fine, but why are you so vehemently opposed to considering it again LOL.[/color]

I'm not, which is why I listened to John Lash on Red Ice and watched Tsarion. It just so happens that their evidence, reasoning and conclusions were the exact the same evidence, reasoning and conclusions I decided to reject earlier.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on August 28, 2014, 07:39:28 PM
AGB

I think the current focus on freud is meant to be an argument against my material by some association. As I said, our fallen nature as you describe it was evident long before freud. In the same way we cant blame orville and wilbur wright for the herd of pigs that hurled themself off the cliff at jesus command. Blaming freud for influencing our current state of affairs is also like blaming the wright brothers for the disapearance or downing of malaysian airlines planes. I barely remember reading about him and from the start he was discredited as too preoccupied with sex. His views on religion or politics were never covered even in college. The concept of the freudian slip is a real thing if you know what you are listening for, but we dont need freud to tell us that, we would discover the same phenomenon on our own with enough experience.

As for looking at who raised him and what that would mean, he would be the best person to consult. I have to admit I am impressed by his ability to look at hitlers parenting and predict down to a T what his fetish would be, confirmed by his cousin who killed herself rather than continue to carry on with it. The oedipus complex is what he is best known for and it is to me complete bulshit. What I see instead is women who are used to getting their way through feminine charms having a hard time accepting that their sons are in fact repulsed by that behavior. Does a smoker or drinker have an oral fixation and just like putting things in their mouth because they were denied a dummy? Of course not, its the nicotine and alcohol they want in their bloodstream. Some incredibly intelligent austrian jews  born in the late 19th century have altered the course of history, youre giving sigmund too much credit if you rank him among them.



Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 28, 2014, 07:47:58 PM
Certainly I am the last to object that you can't have whatever belief system you wish. Alien intervention, God, whatever Allah told you personally one afternoon, Chariots of the Gods, whatever. But you don't get to pretend it has any more value, or is any more true, than those dreamed up, hallucinated, or concocted by every single other persons "perspective".

Knowing, justifying, being well read, being a smart fella, none of it matters in the least when designing a belief system. It only needs to matter to you. There is no minimum requirement of learning, intelligence or even coherence in a belief system. That is the beauty of them, feel free to manufacture whatever YOU want to believe.. Doesn't have to make sense, but if it makes you happy, good for you.

But the instant you pretend it is better, or more value, or more meaningful than ANYONE else's is the instant I call bullshit. It doesn't matter if you round up 100 gullible friends and sell them your belief system. Belief systems aren't popularity dependent any more than science is.

But if it makes you happy, knock yourself out. Everyone should be happy, even if they have to manufacture their own justification for why they decide to be that way.
I appreciate this sentiment.  Personally I go a step further, I value a diversity of belief systems, but that comes out of my belief system, which I can summarize in three words as "God amuses ourself".

This is a horrible sentiment...

The instant you claim no beliefs have any more value or truth than others, and all that matters is the belief makes you feel good and happy, you get rid of ANY and ALL foundations of morals and ethics.

The irony is that, if what MKing claims above is what he truly believes, then he has spent a good deal of his life living and earning as a hypocrite. What are scientific theories if not BELIEFS about how the natural world operates? I'm sure he has written quite a few papers explicitly claiming his scientific beliefs are superior to those of other people, as any good scientist should.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on August 28, 2014, 08:03:22 PM
No, if they can not put the theory into practice when they try even on a small scale the their theory is worthless and you must look for another explanation. If only the building of pyramids by jehovah or jesus were in the bible we could accept it as yet another acceptable superhuman feat which can not be replicated today . Keynesians are not required when people pile rocks or logs on the beach in as large a clear area as they can find in the shape of  SOS that can be made out from the air, similarly the ancients drawing far larger pictures and miles long straight lines that could only be made sense of from the air did not do it just for the hell of it which is the theory you propose.

People have done it on small scales - http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/ (http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/)

The reason it was done in Ancient Egypt is pretty obvious, self-aggrandizement by the rulers. The same thing has been done by nearly every ruler of every ancient society (and also modern ones), but the Pharaohs took this to an extremely selfish and sadistic scale.

Quote
Ok so tell me what the being with a reptile head holding remote controls and a building block moving through the air really represented to the people at the time who carved them. Or any thousands year old carving in 2D or 3D of modern scific looking aliens which I have held in my hand really repreented.

http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/references-and-transcripts/pacals-rocket/ (http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/references-and-transcripts/pacals-rocket/)
"The sarcophagus lid of Pacal has been a centerpiece for the Ancient Astronaut theories since the beginning. Eric Von Daniken believes this to be one of his best pieces of evidence.

AA: “You see his upper hand – he is manipulating some controls. From the lower hand – he is turning something on. The heel of his left foot is on a kind of pedal and, outside the capsule, you see a linking flame. This is incredible. This is absolute proof of extraterrestrials.”

The theory rests on the idea that the Mayans were not depicting their usual symbols here but were trying to realistically depict a rocket with Pacal as its pilot. I think the best thing I can do for you here is to clearly explain what Mayanists and other scientists who specialize in Mayan culture and artwork believe this scene is depicting. As Ancient Aliens said, archeologists believe this scene is depicting the moment of Pascal’s death and his decent into the underworld. Let me show you why they believe that.

The most famous symbol in this picture is that of the “World Tree”[1] which, if you believe Ancient Aliens, would make up the entire hull of the rocket. It’s hard to over emphasize the importance of the World Tree in Mayan mythology. The idea was that the World Tree extended into the heavens with its branches, and its roots extended into the underworld. So it was a symbol of the bridge between the underworld, heaven and earth.[2] When it is depicted it almost always has the double headed “vision serpent” on its branches[3], just like it’s depicted on Pacal’s lid.

The vision serpent was believed to live at the center of the world, thus it is depicted just above the underworld and just below the heavens.[4] In its top branches is the celestial bird which is seen a little more clearly in other World Tree depictions like this one, but on Pacal’s lid you can see its clearly depicting the same bird. The celestial bird represented the heavens and thus was pictured on the top of the World Tree.[5] What Ancient Aliens says is the exhaust or fire from the rockets takeoff is the roots of the World Tree extending into the underworld. Which is not just typical for depictions of the World Tree, it’s pretty much a requirement.[6] In the underworld we see a picture of the Mayan sun monster which Pacal is riding into the underworld.[7] The idea was that every time the sun set it was actually travelling into the underworld where it would die, like everything else in the underworld. You can even see the bottom half of the suns face was a skeleton while the top half still had flesh and had not yet died. This too is a common theme showing the moment of transition.[8]

So Pacal is hitching a ride on the sun into the underworld. Even the so-called smoke is easily explained when you understand Mayan symbols. In Mayan art whenever you see a so-called “traveler”- which is a person in transition from one world to the next – there must be something that is making that travel possible.[9] Sometimes it is a twisted umbilical cord, but almost always it is a serpent, often a double headed serpent.[10] In other words being in the mouths of a double headed serpent was a symbol of transition from one world to the next. You can see that the so called smoke is actually the traditional serpent’s beard which appears in almost every depiction of a serpent in Mayan art."


That guy did not build a pyramid or part of a pyramid on a small scale he is again saying he "could".

The text about trees and serpents has nothing to do with even the picture it claims it is dealing with or the ones I am talking about. It is basically this; In this foto ashvin is seen holding a steering wheel in one hand and a gearshift in the other, proponents of the belief in locomotive transport suggest he is driving a car. You need to understand his belief system is that you can go from this life to the gates of heaven, this is a common theme in christians artwork and writing, that is all that picture represents, his belief in transport to the next world.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 28, 2014, 08:27:03 PM
That guy did not build a pyramid or part of a pyramid on a small scale he is again saying he "could".

Did you watch the video? Think about what a few thousand people could do with that, let alone a few hundred thousand with a lot of time.

Quote
The text about trees and serpents has nothing to do with even the picture it claims it is dealing with or the ones I am talking about. It is basically this; In this foto ashvin is seen holding a steering wheel in one hand and a gearshift in the other, proponents of the belief in locomotive transport suggest he is driving a car. You need to understand his belief system is that you can go from this life to the gates of heaven, this is a common theme in christians artwork and writing, that is all that picture represents, his belief in transport to the next world.

If you were not referring to "Pascal's Rocket" in Mayan art, then what were you referring to?
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on August 28, 2014, 09:50:40 PM
Quote from: UB
Serious historians dont accept that people are blinded without cause and hear voices booming out of the sky. We know that is not possible so Paul is a liar, he would also then be lying about knowing the mind of Jesus. Fact is Jesus could have recruited paul but he did  not, he spoke of people coming after him in his name. Paul was already well known for persecution, his message of the need for salvation through conversion became the basis for persecution being practised among christians and visited on the rest of the non christian world.

Only historians who a priori reject the supernatural would say what happened to Paul was impossible. Apparently you become a naturalist whenever it suits you, i.e. when you want to attack the Bible.

Ok show me any history book where supernatural events are treated as facts. .  Again about "attacking" this thread started from u wanting to debunk (attack) new age and tsarion and the dangerous ideology of the new age. I have said again and again that I am only placing your own standards for 'debunking' on your own belief system you suggest should replace the debunked systems of thought. You try and debunk other belief systems by appealing to 'naturalism' and "only serious, any serious". I believe in miracles just fine love to discuss them with believers of any faith, but appeals to superiority through materialist sciences will be met with a mirror

The fact that Paul was well known for persecuting the Church makes his testimony MUCH MORE credible, since he did a complete 180 and was putting his esteemed position and his life at risk to advocate for a belief that he once detested.

Paul created the belief, did not advocate for an existing one, its known as Pauline Christianity. Does the testimony of all the people who were born and bred chrstians and disapoint their family and community by adopting other beliefs or arriving at their other beliefs characterised as New Age make them more credible? Especially when they dont claim to have been blinded and boomed at by god.



Paul's theology on salvation through faith is not ONE IOTA different from what Jesus himself said.

After you compose the bible of pauls writing and discard gnostic texts.

Quote
All of that is only acceptible argument if you first reject that jesus survived and had followers after his crucifixion. If he lived another 60 years it is perfectly sensible and the texts SHOULD come out of the mid first C.


Yeah, and the evidence for Jesus' death by Roman crucifixion is so overwhelming that no historian disputes it, except for a few Muslims who believe a look-alike took his place on the Cross.

That is irrelevant unless you are saying jesus did not dictate to the gnostics because he was crucified to death and did not resurrect himself.

Also, the NT texts would have never have been accepted in Palestine if Jesus was actually alive and kicking when they all claimed he was dead.

All the folklore of jesus life after the crucifixion is from the south of france with short boat trips north to britain and south to north africa, not palestine.

Do you actually believe he lived to be 90+ or are you just coming up with "rebuttals" as you go along?

It is perfectly plausible.



Quote
While above in this thread you have taken license to interpret the underlying message and water down into a new age acceptable interpretation, you are asking to take literally "making her male" as a reason for rejecting the gospel of thomas. Perhaps as the single female in the group she made an impassioned emotional plea for followers to practice the tenets of the religion, and a pharisee said she has nothing worthwhile to contribute and her hateful ilk should be dispatched. Jesus saying he will lead her to make her male RESEMBLING a male in spirit might simply mean tempering the emotion. If we allow that he could tell his followers to drink his blood and eat his flesh etc etc etc. [/color]

Maybe that's what the author of Thomas meant, but we will never know, because there is absolutely no context to judge its meaning by. In stark contrast to the Gospel narratives which provide extensive detail about the past, present and future circumstances when Jesus makes his symbolic remarks.

I just provided the context of Jesus often using metphor which you acknowledge as making symbolic remarks.


Quote
Please put what I said in context, exactly what I said, which has nothing to do with the current thread of thought anyway. There is no general philosophy and thelogy of New Age, you are throwing together belief in Archons with disparate and unrelated things such as J Krishnamurti.

So you disagree that most "New Age" philosophy emphasizes humanity as its own savior and no need for obedience or faith in God?

It emphasises the need for obedience and faith in God. Just not an anthropomorphic conception with the earth as a footstool.



Quote
No I have not done that, too easy. However as i pointed out in my last post your only explanation for miracles is always "you guys always..." What I do have in common with RE and LD etc is we have no problem with anyone believing the bible based on faith. We hammer the shit out of someone suggesting it is all supported by science and history wheras other belief systems can be debunked or discredited.

All belief systems can be discredited one way or another. Christianity is the most susceptible to discreditation, because it stakes so much of its theology on its historical accuracy. It just so happens that no one has done it yet. (simply claiming miracles in the Bible are "ridiculous" is not enough...)

Theology has nothing to do with historical accuracy. The ideas stand or fall on their merit. Confirming tsarions adress and date of birth does nothing to prove or disprove his ideas. If you accept miracles from the bible you must also accept anyone elses, cancer in remission from prayer and petition without a word about Jesus. The Koran relates much of the same history focussing on biblical prophets minus the miracles, Lot as one whose wife was not turned to salt but was simply down with the scene in sodom. I dont become a muslim because of believable history.


Quote
If they were opposed to considering it again they would not be engaging with you. I dont know what you men by argument from conversion, i believe you have become a convert and are arguing, that to me suggests argument from conversion. Have you noticed how many people all say that it is the argumentativeness rather than discussion of practice and experience that turns them further away. I guess different people have differnt callings to christ and attending churches and inviting other people to them is only the path for some. Still, while I am trying to retain  an open mind to this method of presenting a legal defense of christian belief and prosecution of other beliefs in a court of your construction, i dont see it convincing anyone as yet. But it might yet.

You say they are "engaging" with me, but then you say they don't like the "argumentativeness". How can you engage in critical discussion/debate with someone if you are automatically turned off by arguments?

It is not automatic, you are discussing spirtual matters and it is the spirit of argumentativeness which others have been just as guilty of as yourself. You cannot argue matters of faith without reinforcing the others beliefs if discussion turns argumentative.



The argument from conversion is, "I used to be X or study X, then I stopped being X or studying X, so I know all about X and X is wrong".

Usually they dont mention study but hypocrisy, which of course comes back to the spirit of practice.

 

Quote
Thats fine, but why are you so vehemently opposed to considering it again LOL.[/color]

I'm not, which is why I listened to John Lash on Red Ice and watched Tsarion. It just so happens that their evidence, reasoning and conclusions were the exact the same evidence, reasoning and conclusions I decided to reject earlier.

I didnt bother to blow my internet bill on it, I like azozeo but I dont see us as helpless victims of invisible reptiles keeping us miserable, but also about to let us evolve into loving lightbearers. I can show you books about Lightbody written around 1990 saying we are all just about to take a leap like we did from homo erectus or something, but its 2014 and nothing has happened.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 29, 2014, 04:03:24 AM
Ok show me any history book where supernatural events are treated as facts. .  Again about "attacking" this thread started from u wanting to debunk (attack) new age and tsarion and the dangerous ideology of the new age. I have said again and again that I am only placing your own standards for 'debunking' on your own belief system you suggest should replace the debunked systems of thought. You try and debunk other belief systems by appealing to 'naturalism' and "only serious, any serious". I believe in miracles just fine love to discuss them with believers of any faith, but appeals to superiority through materialist sciences will be met with a mirror

I never appealed to "naturalism" to criticize New Age spiritual beliefs. I appealed to the logical implications that its philosophy has for ethical values (as did AG).

The Ancient Alien theories of some New Age people are steeped in naturalism, as they seek to replace God's creation and the spiritual Fall of humanity with physical ETs who genetically engineered humanity and its destructive behavior. That's why they always point to our DNA or pineal glands or what not as a source of spirit.

Quote
Paul created the belief, did not advocate for an existing one, its known as Pauline Christianity.

You have no evidence of "Pauline Christianity". Only if you reject the earlier and more reliable Gospels in favor of the later and less reliable Gnostic texts, you can claim that Paul preached something other than what Jesus taught. Even then its questionable because the Gnostic texts borrowed so heavily from the Gospels, as evidenced earlier.

Quote
Does the testimony of all the people who were born and bred chrstians and disapoint their family and community by adopting other beliefs or arriving at their other beliefs characterised as New Age make them more credible? Especially when they dont claim to have been blinded and boomed at by god.[/color]

If a New Age person claims to have a transformational spiritual experience, I generally give them the benefit of the doubt, even without any external confirmation. If they give up their possessions and risk their lives to pursue that spiritual path after having such an experience (as opposed to idling in material comfort and selling books), I will 100% believe they are genuine in their claims. I would not call them LIARS as you have with Paul.


Quote
Quote
Paul's theology on salvation through faith is not ONE IOTA different from what Jesus himself said.
After you compose the bible of pauls writing and discard gnostic texts.

After I compose the Bible of the GOSPELS and discard gnostic texts.

Quote
Quote
Quote
All of that is only acceptible argument if you first reject that jesus survived and had followers after his crucifixion. If he lived another 60 years it is perfectly sensible and the texts SHOULD come out of the mid first C.


Yeah, and the evidence for Jesus' death by Roman crucifixion is so overwhelming that no historian disputes it, except for a few Muslims who believe a look-alike took his place on the Cross.

That is irrelevant unless you are saying jesus did not dictate to the gnostics because he was crucified to death and did not resurrect himself.

So now you're claiming he DID die (as opposed to "survived"), then he came back to life, then he idled around for 60-100 odd years, waiting for all of his original apostles to die, before going to instruct the Gnostics, who then wrote texts about what he told them, and for some odd reason claimed to be the original apostles (and Mary) when they weren't?

Quote
Quote
Also, the NT texts would have never have been accepted in Palestine if Jesus was actually alive and kicking when they all claimed he was dead.


All the folklore of jesus life after the crucifixion is from the south of france with short boat trips north to britain and south to north africa, not palestine.

Well at least you called it "folklore"...

Maybe if the Gnostics wrote historical narratives and provided some details of these post-crucifixion ventures from Palestine to Europe to NA, like the Gospels and Acts did, we could assess the credibility of their version. But they did no such thing!

Quote
Quote
Do you actually believe he lived to be 90+ or are you just coming up with "rebuttals" as you go along?

It is perfectly plausible.

It's also plausible we all live in the eye of a blue eyed giant named Macumba, but I doubt it's true.

Quote
Quote
Maybe that's what the author of Thomas meant, but we will never know, because there is absolutely no context to judge its meaning by. In stark contrast to the Gospel narratives which provide extensive detail about the past, present and future circumstances when Jesus makes his symbolic remarks.

I just provided the context of Jesus often using metphor which you acknowledge as making symbolic remarks.

The only reason we can distinguish between when Jesus is speaking literally or using metaphors, symbolism, parables, etc. in the Gospels is because they provide us with a continuous narrative with plenty of context (sometimes Jesus even tells his disciples that what he just said is not to be taken literally). The "Gospel" of Thomas does not.


Quote
It emphasises the need for obedience and faith in God. Just not an anthropomorphic conception with the earth as a footstool.

But since the human spirit is equivalent with God, it is actually emphasizing "obedience" and faith in ourselves.


Quote
Theology has nothing to do with historical accuracy. The ideas stand or fall on their merit. Confirming tsarions adress and date of birth does nothing to prove or disprove his ideas. If you accept miracles from the bible you must also accept anyone elses, cancer in remission from prayer and petition without a word about Jesus. The Koran relates much of the same history focussing on biblical prophets minus the miracles, Lot as one whose wife was not turned to salt but was simply down with the scene in sodom. I dont become a muslim because of believable history.

Christian theology has everything to do with historical accuracy. I agree that theosophy does not. As I have told Ka before, I believe it makes more sense to have faith in something which can be discredited, all else being equal.

I don't have to accept miracles from other texts if the authors have not proven themselves reliable. Time and again we continue to get confirmation that non-miraculous details of the Gospels and Acts were accurate. People who are dishonest and making up miracles generally are not honest and accurate about everything else.


Quote
It is not automatic, you are discussing spirtual matters and it is the spirit of argumentativeness which others have been just as guilty of as yourself. You cannot argue matters of faith without reinforcing the others beliefs if discussion turns argumentative.

You are not using "argumentative" in the way I understand it. People can be argumentative but also cordial and respectful. Attorneys, teachers, scientists, etc. do it all the time.

Quote
I didnt bother to blow my internet bill on it, I like azozeo but I dont see us as helpless victims of invisible reptiles keeping us miserable, but also about to let us evolve into loving lightbearers. I can show you books about Lightbody written around 1990 saying we are all just about to take a leap like we did from homo erectus or something, but its 2014 and nothing has happened.

OK, well we agree on that. And, for the record, I have also heavily criticized evangelicals who constantly predict the return of Christ every few years.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on August 29, 2014, 02:58:32 PM
Ok show me any history book where supernatural events are treated as facts. .  Again about "attacking" this thread started from u wanting to debunk (attack) new age and tsarion and the dangerous ideology of the new age. I have said again and again that I am only placing your own standards for 'debunking' on your own belief system you suggest should replace the debunked systems of thought. You try and debunk other belief systems by appealing to 'naturalism' and "only serious, any serious". I believe in miracles just fine love to discuss them with believers of any faith, but appeals to superiority through materialist sciences will be met with a mirror

I never appealed to "naturalism" to criticize New Age spiritual beliefs. I appealed to the logical implications that its philosophy has for ethical values (as did AG).

I dont accept those logical implications as they are drawing very long bows. As I keep pointing out the disparity of what you throw together as 'new age' includes things far more different than if i threw together all religions under simply 'religion' . The logic to imply that everything generally thought of as 'new age' or even tsarion wants to commit genocide, when they do not say they this and have never done so does not stand. Christians on the other hand have the bible instructing genocide and we have seen continued genocide all around the world ever since in the name of jesus.  Also when I point out the direct literal implications of the salvation meme you then reinterpret it to resemble new age palatable teaching.



The Ancient Alien theories of some New Age people are steeped in naturalism, as they seek to replace God's creation and the spiritual Fall of humanity with physical ETs who genetically engineered humanity and its destructive behavior. That's why they always point to our DNA or pineal glands or what not as a source of spirit.

Finally, SOME new age people . That is not replacing gods creation with naturalism, it is just explaining how gods creation came to be with a different story than literally using dust to make a man and a rib to make a woman. Demigods lke Jehovah are part of gods creation. The accounts of the genetic engineering are recorded in ancient civilizations that can use the history justification you do, so hardly NEW age.

Quote
Paul created the belief, did not advocate for an existing one, its known as Pauline Christianity.

You have no evidence of "Pauline Christianity". Only if you reject the earlier and more reliable Gospels in favor of the later and less reliable Gnostic texts, you can claim that Paul preached something other than what Jesus taught. Even then its questionable because the Gnostic texts borrowed so heavily from the Gospels, as evidenced earlier.

Your own references say that the gospel of thomas has been traced down to a document as early as the rest of the gospels. You do not get to arbitarily decide which texts are more reliable based only on your own bias. Gnostic texts do not borrow from the gospels the gospels record jesus message and so do the gnostics. If jesus set a homework assignment and Mary got the same answer as Luke does not mean she did not get the right answer by paying attention to the teaching. Paul wasnt in the class though. The mass movement of people away from christian churches is composed of people who love jesus and reject paul. I recognise the difference and so do so many others. It is obvious if jesus wanted paul around who was right outside the window at the time he would have recruited him. But he spoke instead of those coming after himself claiing things in his name and that is exactly what happened starting with Paul.

Quote
Does the testimony of all the people who were born and bred chrstians and disapoint their family and community by adopting other beliefs or arriving at their other beliefs characterised as New Age make them more credible? Especially when they dont claim to have been blinded and boomed at by god.[/color]

If a New Age person claims to have a transformational spiritual experience, I generally give them the benefit of the doubt, even without any external confirmation. If they give up their possessions and risk their lives to pursue that spiritual path after having such an experience (as opposed to idling in material comfort and selling books), I will 100% believe they are genuine in their claims. I would not call them LIARS as you have with Paul.

So miracles due to praying to allah or krishna or the universe or source within can happen and are not the work of demons, as christians often claim if the people do not belong to jesus.




Quote
Quote
Paul's theology on salvation through faith is not ONE IOTA different from what Jesus himself said.
After you compose the bible of pauls writing and discard gnostic texts.

After I compose the Bible of the GOSPELS and discard gnostic texts.

Its a matter of interpretation and new sect are forever springing up based on different interpretations of the bible. Its almost as if Jesus WANTED us to work it out for ourselves.

Quote
Quote
Quote
All of that is only acceptible argument if you first reject that jesus survived and had followers after his crucifixion. If he lived another 60 years it is perfectly sensible and the texts SHOULD come out of the mid first C.


Yeah, and the evidence for Jesus' death by Roman crucifixion is so overwhelming that no historian disputes it, except for a few Muslims who believe a look-alike took his place on the Cross.

That is irrelevant unless you are saying jesus did not dictate to the gnostics because he was crucified to death and did not resurrect himself.

So now you're claiming he DID die (as opposed to "survived"), then he came back to life, then he idled around for 60-100 odd years, waiting for all of his original apostles to die, before going to instruct the Gnostics, who then wrote texts about what he told them, and for some odd reason claimed to be the original apostles (and Mary) when they weren't?

Jesus promised to return very soon after being crucified, and he did. He had shown he could resurrect the clinically dead already and had mastered himself sufficiently to do the same with himself. I do not see any reason why many of the original apostles and others such as Joseph of Arimathea and Mary Magdalene would not continue to write of his teachings for the rest of their lives if he were still teaching them more advanced things at ahigher level in the masterclass than the public lecture for the layman. This practice is described in the gospels you accept where after the crowds had gone jesus taught the disciples higher knowledge but is not then set out, or more likely LEFT OUT.

Quote
Quote
Also, the NT texts would have never have been accepted in Palestine if Jesus was actually alive and kicking when they all claimed he was dead.


All the folklore of jesus life after the crucifixion is from the south of france with short boat trips north to britain and south to north africa, not palestine.

Well at least you called it "folklore"...

Maybe if the Gnostics wrote historical narratives and provided some details of these post-crucifixion ventures from Palestine to Europe to NA, like the Gospels and Acts did, we could assess the credibility of their version. But they did no such thing!

Quote
Quote
Do you actually believe he lived to be 90+ or are you just coming up with "rebuttals" as you go along?

It is perfectly plausible.

It's also plausible we all live in the eye of a blue eyed giant named Macumba, but I doubt it's true.

That sounds like something from the OLD testament, not the new testament LOL.

Quote
Quote
Maybe that's what the author of Thomas meant, but we will never know, because there is absolutely no context to judge its meaning by. In stark contrast to the Gospel narratives which provide extensive detail about the past, present and future circumstances when Jesus makes his symbolic remarks.

I just provided the context of Jesus often using metphor which you acknowledge as making symbolic remarks.

The only reason we can distinguish between when Jesus is speaking literally or using metaphors, symbolism, parables, etc. in the Gospels is because they provide us with a continuous narrative with plenty of context (sometimes Jesus even tells his disciples that what he just said is not to be taken literally). The "Gospel" of Thomas does not.


Quote
It emphasises the need for obedience and faith in God. Just not an anthropomorphic conception with the earth as a footstool.

But since the human spirit is equivalent with God, it is actually emphasizing "obedience" and faith in ourselves.

They would say that we all, no matter how evil are part of gods creation. God is not a manlike being with a big beard sitting on a cloud, but an ever present all pervading force, our true nature should then be divine and it is up to us to bring our beings and lives in line. The actual practice and what is required of you does not differ from the requirements for your behavior asked of you by Jesus.


Quote
Theology has nothing to do with historical accuracy. The ideas stand or fall on their merit. Confirming tsarions adress and date of birth does nothing to prove or disprove his ideas. If you accept miracles from the bible you must also accept anyone elses, cancer in remission from prayer and petition without a word about Jesus. The Koran relates much of the same history focussing on biblical prophets minus the miracles, Lot as one whose wife was not turned to salt but was simply down with the scene in sodom. I dont become a muslim because of believable history.

Christian theology has everything to do with historical accuracy. I agree that theosophy does not. As I have told Ka before, I believe it makes more sense to have faith in something which can be discredited, all else being equal.

I don't have to accept miracles from other texts if the authors have not proven themselves reliable. Time and again we continue to get confirmation that non-miraculous details of the Gospels and Acts were accurate. People who are dishonest and making up miracles generally are not honest and accurate about everything else.

You and I are both historically verifiable, it does not mean either one of is correct about our beliefs.  


Quote
It is not automatic, you are discussing spirtual matters and it is the spirit of argumentativeness which others have been just as guilty of as yourself. You cannot argue matters of faith without reinforcing the others beliefs if discussion turns argumentative.

You are not using "argumentative" in the way I understand it. People can be argumentative but also cordial and respectful. Attorneys, teachers, scientists, etc. do it all the time.

I submit my learned friend (as attorneys call the respondents representatives when cheerfully ruining their lives) is going to jail hell. Then the respondent will tell you to go to hell. Remember people have very strong feelings about their own beliefs or the bible, its not like a book club where you liked it or you didnt and it doesnt matter.

Quote
I didnt bother to blow my internet bill on it, I like azozeo but I dont see us as helpless victims of invisible reptiles keeping us miserable, but also about to let us evolve into loving lightbearers. I can show you books about Lightbody written around 1990 saying we are all just about to take a leap like we did from homo erectus or something, but its 2014 and nothing has happened.

OK, well we agree on that. And, for the record, I have also heavily criticized evangelicals who constantly predict the return of Christ every few years.

I try and keep an open mind to everything I have not experienced. I would be relieved to meet Jesus and scared out of my wits to see an alien, but Im 100% confident we are not like caterpillars in cocoons.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on August 29, 2014, 04:33:08 PM
By chance has anyone here ever read the Pistis Sophia ?
Here's the link..........
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ps/index.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ps/index.htm)
Enjoy
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: agelbert on August 29, 2014, 05:22:22 PM
UB does the fallacious argument(s):  :emthdown:
Quote
Blaming freud for influencing our current state of affairs is also like blaming the wright brothers for the disapearance or downing of malaysian airlines planes.

You ignored Darwin as the CHIEF influence on Freud. How fucking convenient of you. You ignored Freud's influence on Wall Street through his nephew Bernays. You DID THAT because you KNOW HOW influential and TOXIC they were. How fucking convenient of you.

And the incredibly disjointed and illogical comparison of the accomplishment of powered flight with the destruction of an aircraft is shamefully silly. You are using the "all cats die; Socrates died; SO Socrates was a cat" silliness to attempt to ridicule my historically accurate statement. And you are DOING IT because you DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS GUILT. And you completely avoided the illogic of you claiming to tap into super healing powers from a source that is CONTROLLED by the power of YOUR MIND (something LESS powerful than the powers you claim you obtain). How fucking convenient of you.

You don't want to talk about God.  :emthdown: You don't want to talk about guilt.  :emthdown: The issue was never whether Freud is the bad guy, but if pretending GUILT is the "bad guy" is wrong or right. I say it's wrong and from Darwin to Freud and on down the line, the godless butchery of the 20th century is the result of rejecting God and guilt from disobeying him. You claim it has ALWAYS been that way in human affairs.

Bullshit. You know better but are an evolution true believer so you won't even consider the possibility that your religion has boosted human evils. SO you claim all this is old hat and has not really changed anything,... Never mind the number of violent deaths in the 20th century and the LACK of belief in God beyond lip service of the leaders of those countries that were responsible for all that violence...

You accuse me of the fallacious argument called using a bad analogy. You are wrong.

Quote
Bad Analogy:

claiming that two situations are highly similar, when they aren't. For example, "The solar system reminds me of an atom, with planets orbiting the sun like electrons orbiting the nucleus. We know that electrons can jump from orbit to orbit; so we must look to ancient records for sightings of planets jumping from orbit to orbit also."

Or, "Minds, like rivers, can be broad. The broader the river, the shallower it is. Therefore, the broader the mind, the shallower it is."

Or, "We have pure food and drug laws; why can't we have laws to keep movie-makers from giving us filth ?"

This is what YOU are doing to avoid discussing the key issues.

Poisoning The Wells:
discrediting the sources used by your opponent. This is a variation of Ad Hominem.

Psychogenetic Fallacy:

if you learn the psychological reason why your opponent likes an argument, then he's biased, so his argument must be wrong. (Agelbert hates Freud so Agelbert must be wrong, thinks UB!)  ;D

Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis):

this is sometimes used to avoid having to defend a claim, or to avoid making good on a promise. In general, there is something you are not supposed to notice.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#analogy (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#analogy)

I'm done with this topic. It's clear that you are smart enough to know that you must avoid a topic you cannot counter on the merits. I don't do subject changes as to eschewing guilt by rejecting God as being the culprit in our "modern" dystopia. You do. Have a nice day.

GO,
Thanks for flipping Knarf's argument on its head. That was brilliant, excellent and logical. Knarf won't go there. Knarf has been NOTABLY silent EVERY TIME I brought up the fact that the new age movement, which convinced millions and millions of people that faith in God was bad, silly, stupid and caused all sorts of evils and wars by "neurotic" religious "straight jacketing" of humans, once SHIT CANNED, would usher in an age of peace and enlightenment.

The result was that every bad aspect of society and civilization, as a whole, got worse. But those who reject God are one-trick ponies and never tire of reminding all of us of all the "horrendous evils" of Religion and Faith in God. The 20th century, the Century of Self, is the first century in human history where religion DID NOT play any role in the wars and DID PLAY AN INSIGNIFICANT role in human affairs. The result is affirmative evidence that rejecting God and Guilt is a path to societal destruction.

They don't buy that and NOW they claim it's MOTHER EARTH that is going to "throw" us off the planet. God is an illusion but MOTHER EARTH, well, she is pissed, and has big arms to get rid of the human vermin. ::) Then they rush to say it is just a metaphor and we are being silly to talk about the metaphoric mother earth.

Pin them down and they will FINALLY tell you what they REALLLY believe.  ;) Ya wanna know what that is?  Just Google ANY scientific article about species origins and adaptation. ANY amazing and still unexplained mechanism in life forms is ALWAYs explained by "Evolution" provided this and "Evolution" did that and so on. We OWE this to the GENIUS of  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/d2.gif) Evolution!!!   :icon_sunny:

Thank EVOLUTION for small favors (and apex predators!)!

God = Mother Earth = Evolution
  Get it?


That's the RELIGIOUS "Evolution" of the FREE THINKING, GUILT REJECTING folks that get highly bent out of shape when you want to "devolve" them back to THEISM!  :icon_mrgreen:
 
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on August 29, 2014, 08:17:25 PM
UB does the fallacious argument(s):  :emthdown:
Quote
Blaming freud for influencing our current state of affairs is also like blaming the wright brothers for the disapearance or downing of malaysian airlines planes.

You ignored Darwin as the CHIEF influence on Freud. How fucking convenient of you. You ignored Freud's influence on Wall Street through his nephew Bernays. You DID THAT because you KNOW HOW influential and TOXIC they were. How fucking convenient of you.

I never heard of these things do you have any reference where freud says his chief influence is darwin? That seems at ods with his id, ego, superego concept (which again is nothing new).  I dont know anything about bernays, it sounds like a sauce, and wall st. So if u can show that their practices were all generous and good then changed with bernays I will believe it.

And the incredibly disjointed and illogical comparison of the accomplishment of powered flight with the destruction of an aircraft is shamefully silly. You are using the "all cats die; Socrates died; SO Socrates was a cat" silliness to attempt to ridicule my historically accurate statement. And you are DOING IT because you DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS GUILT.

Bhuddism is a religion it is probably the largest religion in the world, people pray at bhuddist temples. To say that bhuddists dont believe in god or guilt paid in karma is disjointed and illogical to me. I have already discussed guilt and would go and kill people who had it coming myself if i did not believe in "vengeance is mine sayeth the lord".

And you completely avoided the illogic of you claiming to tap into super healing powers from a source that is CONTROLLED by the power of YOUR MIND (something LESS powerful than the powers you claim you obtain). How fucking convenient of you.

You connect with source by stilling and shutting down the mind. chanting hail marys or hare krishnas works for some and it is perfectly logical in harmonic frequencies. Same as flight is not magic controlled by a mysterious god but well understood principles of propulsion and lift. Do you have an explanation for answered prayers of bhuddists?



You don't want to talk about God.  :emthdown: You don't want to talk about guilt.  :emthdown: The issue was never whether Freud is the bad guy, but if pretending GUILT is the "bad guy" is wrong or right. I say it's wrong and from Darwin to Freud and on down the line, the godless butchery of the 20th century is the result of rejecting God and guilt from disobeying him. You claim it has ALWAYS been that way in human affairs.

Bullshit. You know better but are an evolution true believer so you won't even consider the possibility that your religion has boosted human evils. SO you claim all this is old hat and has not really changed anything,... Never mind the number of violent deaths in the 20th century and the LACK of belief in God beyond lip service of the leaders of those countries that were responsible for all that violence...

I have been talking about god and guilt. Im wondering how population has exploded in the 20th C if the proportion of people dying has increased. 90% of aboriginal peoples were wiped out in your continent and mine, many tribes totally extincted and that was before freud or darwin. Christian Crusaders were eating muslim children over a thousand years ago and then south american natives in the inquisition again 500 years ago. Christian concepts of guilt never stopped them  pinning this on Darwin or Freud after the fact is as good as pinning it on the wright brothers to me. Christian concept of guilt was that all unbelievers were guilty and deserved what they got.

But I am not like that I am a REAL Christian, that is my religion and beliefs.

You accuse me of the fallacious argument called using a bad analogy. You are wrong.

Quote
Bad Analogy:

claiming that two situations are highly similar, when they aren't. For example, "The solar system reminds me of an atom, with planets orbiting the sun like electrons orbiting the nucleus. We know that electrons can jump from orbit to orbit; so we must look to ancient records for sightings of planets jumping from orbit to orbit also."

Or, "Minds, like rivers, can be broad. The broader the river, the shallower it is. Therefore, the broader the mind, the shallower it is."

Or, "We have pure food and drug laws; why can't we have laws to keep movie-makers from giving us filth ?"

This is what YOU are doing to avoid discussing the key issues.

Poisoning The Wells:
discrediting the sources used by your opponent. This is a variation of Ad Hominem.

Psychogenetic Fallacy:

if you learn the psychological reason why your opponent likes an argument, then he's biased, so his argument must be wrong. (Agelbert hates Freud so Agelbert must be wrong, thinks UB!)  ;D

Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis):

this is sometimes used to avoid having to defend a claim, or to avoid making good on a promise. In general, there is something you are not supposed to notice.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#analogy (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#analogy)

I'm done with this topic. It's clear that you are smart enough to know that you must avoid a topic you cannot counter on the merits. I don't do subject changes as to eschewing guilt by rejecting God as being the culprit in our "modern" dystopia. You do. Have a nice day.

I have gone into the detail of what I consider the merits of christian conceptions, bhuddist and hindu conceptions of guilt and redemption, and rejected only the invisible reptile opression and evolutionary leap conceptions of guilt and redemption based on the fact that they ignore personal effort or guilt. I have only rejected anthropomorphic conceptions of God, and accept these as possibly being demigods still subject to the same laws of a supreme omnipresent God. Maybe we did become fallen in the garden of eden and accepting that on faith is fine, but if I want to wonder and ponder about the how and why of how it all works, dont treat me as a heretic. Have a nice day too.



 
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 30, 2014, 03:36:25 AM
I dont accept those logical implications as they are drawing very long bows. As I keep pointing out the disparity of what you throw together as 'new age' includes things far more different than if i threw together all religions under simply 'religion' . The logic to imply that everything generally thought of as 'new age' or even tsarion wants to commit genocide, when they do not say they this and have never done so does not stand. Christians on the other hand have the bible instructing genocide and we have seen continued genocide all around the world ever since in the name of jesus.  Also when I point out the direct literal implications of the salvation meme you then reinterpret it to resemble new age palatable teaching. [/color]

Just like various theistic worldviews share an underlying philosophy of faith in a personal God, the various New Age worldviews share an underlying philosophy in faith in one's own "spirit" and capacity for "enlightenment". In that sense it is not much different from materialism and Darwinism, it just uses different terminology, and we have all seen the types of atrocities those philosophies have wrought.

People who throw around "genocide" loosely clearly don't understand what that word means. God never commands genocide in the OT. Neither the Crusades nor the Inquisition were examples of genocide, although they were obviously atrocities. The Holocaust OTOH was the epitome of genocide, clearly based on the philosophy of Darwinism, and arguably on a New Age philosophy rooted in Blavatsky and Bailey. People need to remember the "New Age" philosophy is not NEW, it has simply made a resurgence in Western culture.



Quote
Finally, SOME new age people . That is not replacing gods creation with naturalism, it is just explaining how gods creation came to be with a different story than literally using dust to make a man and a rib to make a woman. Demigods lke Jehovah are part of gods creation. The accounts of the genetic engineering are recorded in ancient civilizations that can use the history justification you do, so hardly NEW age.

I say tomayto, you say tomahto. Explaining away supernatural creation of the human spirit with ET panspermia is an appeal to naturalism for one of the most fundamental questions of our existence.

No accounts of genetic engineering are recorded in ancient civilizations, that's just another misconception spread by AA theorists who mistranslated ancient texts so they could land gigs on the History Channel.

Quote
Your own references say that the gospel of thomas has been traced down to a document as early as the rest of the gospels. You do not get to arbitarily decide which texts are more reliable based only on your own bias. Gnostic texts do not borrow from the gospels the gospels record jesus message and so do the gnostics. If jesus set a homework assignment and Mary got the same answer as Luke does not mean she did not get the right answer by paying attention to the teaching. Paul wasnt in the class though. The mass movement of people away from christian churches is composed of people who love jesus and reject paul. I recognise the difference and so do so many others. It is obvious if jesus wanted paul around who was right outside the window at the time he would have recruited him. But he spoke instead of those coming after himself claiing things in his name and that is exactly what happened starting with Paul.

No, the evidence shows that the author of "Thomas" was not Thomas the apostle and was someone else who simply took synoptic traditions and Gnosticized them in the 2nd century. These embellishments cannot be "traced back" to any credible sources. Same thing with the "gospel of Mary". It has nothing to do with the Mary Magdalene who actually followed Jesus.

Quote
So miracles due to praying to allah or krishna or the universe or source within can happen and are not the work of demons, as christians often claim if the people do not belong to jesus.

Maybe... give me a specific account with details and perhaps we can assess its credibility. Although we probably can't identify the source of this supernatural experience as "not being demons". The only reason I believe Jesus' Resurrection was not the work of the Devil is because of the vast surrounding historical and theological context in which it occurred.


Quote
Its a matter of interpretation and new sect are forever springing up based on different interpretations of the bible. Its almost as if Jesus WANTED us to work it out for ourselves.[/color]

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll."

Does that sound like someone who wanted us to "work it out for ourselves"? Of course you will probably claim this was not actually testimony from Jesus, along with many similar sentiments recorded in the Gospels, despite any evidence to the contrary. Such is the way of always avoiding the objective meanings of Jesus' revelation and making it whatever you want it to be.

Quote
Jesus promised to return very soon after being crucified, and he did. He had shown he could resurrect the clinically dead already and had mastered himself sufficiently to do the same with himself. I do not see any reason why many of the original apostles and others such as Joseph of Arimathea and Mary Magdalene would not continue to write of his teachings for the rest of their lives if he were still teaching them more advanced things at ahigher level in the masterclass than the public lecture for the layman. This practice is described in the gospels you accept where after the crowds had gone jesus taught the disciples higher knowledge but is not then set out, or more likely LEFT OUT.

Where does this teaching of "higher knowledge" to the disciples happen in the Gospels? Please show us. Most likely you are talking about passages where he simply explains to them more clearly the same thing he said to before.

The reason why he probably did not remain on Earth teaching is because the Gospels say that he ascribed this evangelical task to his disciples before he ascended, and no account, not even the Gnostic texts, claim that he did any such thing. If Joseph and Mary wrote anything about his teachings, we have not yet discovered those writings, unless you believe they lived to be a few hundred years old.

Quote
That sounds like something from the OLD testament, not the new testament LOL.

Game of Thrones, actually.

Quote
They would say that we all, no matter how evil are part of gods creation.

No, they say we ARE Gods constantly creating our reality as it happens. The only thing that needs to be sacrificed is our "deluded" belief that we are a part of God's creation and do NOT share his divine nature.


Quote
I submit my learned friend (as attorneys call the respondents representatives when cheerfully ruining their lives) is going to jail hell. Then the respondent will tell you to go to hell. Remember people have very strong feelings about their own beliefs or the bible, its not like a book club where you liked it or you didnt and it doesnt matter.

So we should abandon any reasoned logical arguments just because the subject matter involves spiritual beliefs instead of beliefs about whether someone committed a crime or whether bits of matter interact in a certain way?
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: RE on August 30, 2014, 04:06:38 AM

People who throw around "genocide" loosely clearly don't understand what that word means. God never commands genocide in the OT. Neither the Crusades nor the Inquisition were examples of genocide, although they were obviously atrocities.

Please justify that statement.  It certainly seems like Genocide to me, based on the Definition.

Quote
noun
1.
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

The Crusades and the Inquisition were Deliberate & Systematic Extermination.  Jews were Targeted, Infidels were Targeted, in fact anybody who did not Toe the Line of Christian Doctrine was Targeted based on their National, Racial, Political or Cultural Group.  Both events were positively the DEFINITION of Genocide.

RE
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Surly1 on August 30, 2014, 04:40:08 AM

People who throw around "genocide" loosely clearly don't understand what that word means. God never commands genocide in the OT. Neither the Crusades nor the Inquisition were examples of genocide, although they were obviously atrocities.

Please justify that statement.  It certainly seems like Genocide to me, based on the Definition.

Quote
noun
1.
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

The Crusades and the Inquisition were Deliberate & Systematic Extermination.  Jews were Targeted, Infidels were Targeted, in fact anybody who did not Toe the Line of Christian Doctrine was Targeted based on their National, Racial, Political or Cultural Group.  Both events were positively the DEFINITION of Genocide.

RE

What Wikipedia says about Beziers, one of corporo-Christianity's "finest moments:"

Massacre at Beziers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_B%C3%A9ziers)

After Pope Innocent III had declared a crusade to eliminate Catharism in the Languedoc, a crusader army consisting of knights mostly from northern France with their retinue, professional soldiers, mercenary bands (routiers), and pilgrims assembled and departed from Lyon in early July 1209.[1] Béziers, a stronghold of Catharism, was the first major town the crusaders encountered on the way to Carcassonne. It was well fortified, amply supplied, and in a position to withstand a long siege. Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse was able to switch sides in time and joined the crusaders at Valence. The attempt by Raymond Roger Trencavel, Viscount of Béziers, to peacefully submit was rejected at Montpellier. The Viscount departed from Montpellier in a hurry, ahead of the crusader army, to prepare his defenses. On the way to Carcassonne he stopped at Béziers, promising reinforcements, and taking along some Cathars and Jews.[1]

The sack of Béziers
Commanded by the Papal legate, the Abbot of Citeaux Arnaud Amalric,[2] the crusader army reached the outskirts of Béziers on July 21, 1209. As they started to pitch their camp, the Bishop of Béziers, Renaud de Montpeyroux, tried to avert bloodshed and to negotiate. He came back to Béziers with the message that the town would be spared provided it would hand over their heretics.[3] The bishop had drawn up a list of 222 individuals, mostly Cathars, some Waldensians, likely to be perfecti or leaders of their communities. But in a meeting at the Cathedral, it was determined that to hand over these people was not possible because they had too much support within the town. So the bishop asked the Catholics to leave the town to save themselves. This proposal was rejected, and the bishop left the town with just a few Catholics.[1]

On July 22, the crusaders were busy getting settled and still days away from starting the siege proper. A group of soldiers or perhaps just armed civilians from the town made a sortie exiting the gate overlooking the Orb River. As they started to harass routiers and pilgrims of the crusader army, a brawl ensued and soon the attackers from the town found themselves outnumbered and retreated in disarray. The routiers quickly took advantage of the chaos, stormed the walls that were not properly manned, and entered the gate, all without orders. The crusader knights, realizing that the defenses had been broken by the routiers, soon joined the battle overwhelming the garrison, and the city was doomed.[1]

The routiers rampaged through the streets, killing and plundering, while those citizens who could run sought refuge in the churches — the cathedral, the churches of St Mary Magdalene and of St Jude. Yet the churches did not provide safety against the raging mob of invaders. The doors of the churches were broken open, and all inside were slaughtered.

After the massacre it came to the distribution of the city's spoils. The crusader knights became enraged that the rabble of the army had already taken the plunder. They took control of the situation, chased them from the occupied houses and took their booty away. In turn, the angry and disappointed routiers responded by burning down the town. In the engulfing fire the plunder was lost, and the army left the city in a hurry.

"Kill them all, God will know His own"[edit]
Main article: Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius
Amalric's own version of the siege, described in his letter to Pope Innocent in August 1209 (col.139), states:

While discussions were still going on with the barons about the release of those in the city who were deemed to be Catholics, the servants and other persons of low rank and unarmed attacked the city without waiting for orders from their leaders. To our amazement, crying "to arms, to arms!", within the space of two or three hours they crossed the ditches and the walls and Béziers was taken. Our men spared no one, irrespective of rank, sex or age, and put to the sword almost 20,000 people. After this great slaughter the whole city was despoiled and burnt...[4]

About twenty years later Caesarius of Heisterbach relates this story about the massacre,

When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot “Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics.” The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be Catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius - Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His” (2 Tim. ii. 19) and so countless number in that town were slain.[5][6]

While there remains doubt that the abbot said these words - also paraphrased as "Kill them all, God will know His own", "Kill them all, God will sort his own", or "Kill them all,/and let God sort them out" — there is little if any doubt that these words captured the spirit of the assault.

***
Religion has always and ever been used to manipulate the passions of its practitioners. A wholly different matter from faith.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/images/bonaparte_napoleon.jpg)


Never forget the words of Napoleon:
“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on August 30, 2014, 09:10:11 AM
I dont accept those logical implications as they are drawing very long bows. As I keep pointing out the disparity of what you throw together as 'new age' includes things far more different than if i threw together all religions under simply 'religion' . The logic to imply that everything generally thought of as 'new age' or even tsarion wants to commit genocide, when they do not say they this and have never done so does not stand. Christians on the other hand have the bible instructing genocide and we have seen continued genocide all around the world ever since in the name of jesus.  Also when I point out the direct literal implications of the salvation meme you then reinterpret it to resemble new age palatable teaching. [/color]

Just like various theistic worldviews share an underlying philosophy of faith in a personal God, the various New Age worldviews share an underlying philosophy in faith in one's own "spirit" and capacity for "enlightenment". In that sense it is not much different from materialism and Darwinism, it just uses different terminology, and we have all seen the types of atrocities those philosophies have wrought.

"worldviews" is a poor choice of word when you are talking about things far greater than this material world, communist or capitalist apply but not the realm of universes and miracles. If you are going to put "spirit" and "enlightenment" in quotes you need to give the text you are quoting, same thing if you are paraphrasing. Ones own ETERNAL spirit if you mean the soul is referred to also in the bible. I have talked about god pervading every atom of your being, you therefore being a part of god. Many people christian or otherwise consider the soul to reside in the heart. Jesus "stands at the door of the heart and knocks....the kingdom of heaven is within. " Faith in ones own spirit as connected to God and enlightenment via gods good grace is just a mature understanding of the bible treated as having truth in common with other faith.

Materialism and Darwinism do not as far as I know acknowledge a spirit or aspire to spiritual enlightenment. Your arguments in support of your worldview are not about spiritual experience and enlightenment but materialist reasoning.

People who throw around "genocide" loosely clearly don't understand what that word means. God never commands genocide in the OT.

He orders even the livestock of rival tribes exterminated, and only virgin girls kept to be bred into israelite blood. Thus the extinction of the former tribe is nothing but genocide.

Neither the Crusades nor the Inquisition were examples of genocide, although they were obviously atrocities. The Holocaust OTOH was the epitome of genocide, clearly based on the philosophy of Darwinism, and arguably on a New Age philosophy rooted in Blavatsky and Bailey. People need to remember the "New Age" philosophy is not NEW, it has simply made a resurgence in Western culture.

That is only because it happened to God's chosen people the team you support, 6 million jews and over 20 million russians in ww2 both by the nazis. Darwin did not state Aryans were superior, he considered himself, an englishman at the pinnacle of human evolution. If you want to attribute Hitler borrowing from Darwin then you can also attribute Darwin borrowing from the Bible. Arguably is an understatement, you should set out your argument for why Blavatsky and Bailey have anything to do with it, because it is like blaming mother theresa and the dalai lama.

The age of aquarius associated with the new age is from the late 60's there was limited interest prior to that in the eastern philosophy in the early 20th C. Theosophical society had representatives of interfaith, you would call it new age. What you call a resurgence is only th emptying of churches as a sexual revolution and counter cultural revolution occurred. They burnt bras and bibles by letting them gather dust. What you never consider is why the mass  movement of christians toward eastern tradition which is the new age, occurred.



Quote
Finally, SOME new age people . That is not replacing gods creation with naturalism, it is just explaining how gods creation came to be with a different story than literally using dust to make a man and a rib to make a woman. Demigods lke Jehovah are part of gods creation. The accounts of the genetic engineering are recorded in ancient civilizations that can use the history justification you do, so hardly NEW age.

I say tomayto, you say tomahto. Explaining away supernatural creation of the human spirit with ET panspermia is an appeal to naturalism for one of the most fundamental questions of our existence.

I thought belief in a human "spirit" was new age naturalism according to you. Geneticists now can clone you from a cell taken from your rib. Frozen eggs and sperm artificially inseminated also become a human being, not soulless. The fundamental question has been explained (away).

No accounts of genetic engineering are recorded in ancient civilizations, that's just another misconception spread by AA theorists who mistranslated ancient texts so they could land gigs on the History Channel.

They are unambiguous, and could not be mistranslated. There are not a thousand of sects like calvinists/methodists/protestants etc based on various interpretations from it.

Quote
Your own references say that the gospel of thomas has been traced down to a document as early as the rest of the gospels. You do not get to arbitarily decide which texts are more reliable based only on your own bias. Gnostic texts do not borrow from the gospels the gospels record jesus message and so do the gnostics. If jesus set a homework assignment and Mary got the same answer as Luke does not mean she did not get the right answer by paying attention to the teaching. Paul wasnt in the class though. The mass movement of people away from christian churches is composed of people who love jesus and reject paul. I recognise the difference and so do so many others. It is obvious if jesus wanted paul around who was right outside the window at the time he would have recruited him. But he spoke instead of those coming after himself claiing things in his name and that is exactly what happened starting with Paul.

No, the evidence shows that the author of "Thomas" was not Thomas the apostle and was someone else who simply took synoptic traditions and Gnosticized them in the 2nd century.

Your own reference if you read it states that it is traced to a document contemporary with Jesus. All the texts in that age were reproduced by hand to slowly spread them.

These embellishments cannot be "traced back" to any credible sources. Same thing with the "gospel of Mary". It has nothing to do with the Mary Magdalene who actually followed Jesus.

The councils of nicea and comporting with Pauline doctrine for conquest and control, determining what is credible is source.

Quote
So miracles due to praying to allah or krishna or the universe or source within can happen and are not the work of demons, as christians often claim if the people do not belong to jesus.

Maybe... give me a specific account with details and perhaps we can assess its credibility. Although we probably can't identify the source of this supernatural experience as "not being demons". The only reason I believe Jesus' Resurrection was not the work of the Devil is because of the vast surrounding historical and theological context in which it occurred.

Maybe? How could that be possible when Jehovah declares I am a Jealous God? is he saying there are other gods too and they can MAYBE answer prayers? If you do not categorically rule out miracles and answered prayers to non christians, THEN;

WE ARE ALL PRAYING TO THE SAME GOD.

Historical and theological context only means that a person existed and that their followers believe in their divinity. You can say there is the same historical and theological context for David Koresh or Reverand Moon or Sai Baba. I would have thought all the holy wars and genocide would make for a context associated with the work of the devil.[/color]


Quote
Its a matter of interpretation and new sect are forever springing up based on different interpretations of the bible. Its almost as if Jesus WANTED us to work it out for ourselves.[/color]

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll."

Does that sound like someone who wanted us to "work it out for ourselves"? Of course you will probably claim this was not actually testimony from Jesus, along with many similar sentiments recorded in the Gospels, despite any evidence to the contrary. Such is the way of always avoiding the objective meanings of Jesus' revelation and making it whatever you want it to be.

1 Those are the words of John not Jesus from the end of Revelation. If you look up ambiguous in the dictionary it will say revelation as a synonym. there are as many interpretations of that scroll as there are readers.

2. Claiming I will probably say something om the bible is not the words of jesus is not something i have ever done but is something you need to attribute me in order to escape the logic I have presented.

3. Yes, "such is the way of always avoiding the objective meaning of jesus revelation and making it whatever you want it to be".  You needed to ascribe this insult to me by ignoring what I said, accusing me of probably doing something I have never done. Furthermore you yourself are taking huge leap of interpretation license to suggest that John saying not to add or subtract from his own book, has jack shit to do with anyone interpreting the bible, not adding or subtracting from it as the councils of nicaea did,any way they like. That certainly would have the plagues described heaped on your head to glean that meaning so objectively and not making it whatever you want it to be.




Quote
Jesus promised to return very soon after being crucified, and he did. He had shown he could resurrect the clinically dead already and had mastered himself sufficiently to do the same with himself. I do not see any reason why many of the original apostles and others such as Joseph of Arimathea and Mary Magdalene would not continue to write of his teachings for the rest of their lives if he were still teaching them more advanced things at ahigher level in the masterclass than the public lecture for the layman. This practice is described in the gospels you accept where after the crowds had gone jesus taught the disciples higher knowledge but is not then set out, or more likely LEFT OUT.

Where does this teaching of "higher knowledge" to the disciples happen in the Gospels? Please show us. Most likely you are talking about passages where he simply explains to them more clearly the same thing he said to before.

I dont have a bible handy to pull exact verses, it is in most translations referred to as explaining and revealing mysteries, in the greek the word for mystery is meaning the knowledge reserved for close devotees and not public consumption. This is clearly the context, aftere the crowds had gone away and some seclusion between master and pupils the unspecified mysteries are given.

The reason why he probably did not remain on Earth teaching is because the Gospels say that he ascribed this evangelical task to his disciples before he ascended, and no account, not even the Gnostic texts, claim that he did any such thing. If Joseph and Mary wrote anything about his teachings, we have not yet discovered those writings, unless you believe they lived to be a few hundred years old.

Azozeo has provided a link the  something sophia for starters. I will not say that you will probably claim jesus never said all that though lol.

Quote
That sounds like something from the OLD testament, not the new testament LOL.

Game of Thrones, actually.

The biblical anthropomorphic conceptions of God do talk a lot about Father and Son being seated on thrones. There is nothing wrong with that, just as 7 headed Ravana or 8 armed Vishnu are simply conceptualizations for simple people to relatte to too.

Quote
They would say that we all, no matter how evil are part of gods creation.

No, they say we ARE Gods constantly creating our reality as it happens. The only thing that needs to be sacrificed is our "deluded" belief that we are a part of God's creation and do NOT share his divine nature.

While christian texts claim we can all be kings without kingdoms, to suggest that "we ARE Gods" without worshippers yet subjecting ourselves to society and authority is a huge departure from 'we are God' as JDW in his own words "God amuses ourselves" put it and accurately reflects the philosophy. Just because we create our circumstances does not mean we think we created the universe or 7 billion universes. The crusades and inquisition are what happens when people believe they even represent the will of God.


Quote
I submit my learned friend (as attorneys call the respondents representatives when cheerfully ruining their lives) is going to jail hell. Then the respondent will tell you to go to hell. Remember people have very strong feelings about their own beliefs or the bible, its not like a book club where you liked it or you didnt and it doesnt matter.

So we should abandon any reasoned logical arguments just because the subject matter involves spiritual beliefs instead of beliefs about whether someone committed a crime or whether bits of matter interact in a certain way?

A true believer can never truly have reasoned and logical arguments about their sacred cow or their world will implode.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on August 30, 2014, 11:23:11 AM
Religion is a "service" .....
Says so right on front of the building ------ "SERVICES 10:00 A.M."
Religion just doesn't have a duck or lizard for a front man. They use a guy in a cloth, splayed across two timbers
If you fold up the two timbers it makes a box. A hexagon. We used to live in the age of the hexagon. 4 walls, a top & bottom.
We've now entered the age of the octagon, a new house as Luke puts it.
Why is this so difficult to understand.
We will now be doing things differently. A new experience. The age of Aquarius is all about the knowing.
Of course it's new age .... DUH !
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on August 31, 2014, 04:59:18 AM
Religion is a "service" .....
Says so right on front of the building ------ "SERVICES 10:00 A.M."
Religion just doesn't have a duck or lizard for a front man. They use a guy in a cloth, splayed across two timbers
If you fold up the two timbers it makes a box. A hexagon. We used to live in the age of the hexagon. 4 walls, a top & bottom.
We've now entered the age of the octagon, a new house as Luke puts it.
Why is this so difficult to understand.
We will now be doing things differently. A new experience. The age of Aquarius is all about the knowing.
Of course it's new age .... DUH !

Hi Azozeo, Don't you feel your ideas might receive a better reception if you weren't showing such disdain, ridicule, and employing disrespectful terminology about a Person that many members here have expressed is their God?

It appears that rather than try and explain your views, you are merely trying to incense and demean people.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 31, 2014, 05:09:02 AM

People who throw around "genocide" loosely clearly don't understand what that word means. God never commands genocide in the OT. Neither the Crusades nor the Inquisition were examples of genocide, although they were obviously atrocities.

Please justify that statement.  It certainly seems like Genocide to me, based on the Definition.

Quote
noun
1.
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

The Crusades and the Inquisition were Deliberate & Systematic Extermination.  Jews were Targeted, Infidels were Targeted, in fact anybody who did not Toe the Line of Christian Doctrine was Targeted based on their National, Racial, Political or Cultural Group.  Both events were positively the DEFINITION of Genocide.

RE

These quotes should be sufficient justification of my statement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide)
"Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group via the (a) Killing of members of the group; (b) Causing of serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberate inflicting on the group's conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing of measures intended to prevent births within the group; or (e) Forcible transferring of children of the group to another group"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades)
"The Crusades were military campaigns sanctioned by the Latin Roman Catholic Church during the High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages. In 1095 Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to holy places in and near Jerusalem. Many historians and some of those involved at the time, like Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, give equal precedence to other papal-sanctioned military campaigns undertaken for a variety of religious, economic, and political reasons, such as the Albigensian Crusade, the Aragonese Crusade, the Reconquista, and the Northern Crusades.[1] Following the First Crusade there was an intermittent 200-year struggle for control of the Holy Land, with six more major crusades and numerous minor ones. In 1291, the conflict ended in failure with the fall of the last Christian stronghold in the Holy Land at Acre, after which Roman Catholic Europe mounted no further coherent response in the east."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition)
"The Inquisition is[1] a group of institutions within the judicial system of the Roman Catholic Church whose aim is to combat heresy. It started in 12th-century France to combat the spread of religious sectarianism, in particular the Cathars and the Waldensians. Among the other groups which were investigated later were the Spiritual Franciscans, the Hussites (followers of Jan Hus) and Beguines. Beginning in the 1250s, inquisitors were generally chosen from members of the Dominican Order, to replace the earlier practice of using local clergy as judges.[2] The term Medieval Inquisition covers these courts up through the 14th century.

In the Late Middle Ages and early Renaissance, the concept and scope of the Inquisition was significantly expanded in response to the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Its geographic scope was expanded to other European countries,[3] resulting in the Spanish Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition. Those two kingdoms in particular operated inquisitorial courts throughout their respective empires (Spanish and Portuguese) in the Americas, Asia, and Africa.[4] One particular focus of the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions was the issue of Jewish and Muslim converts to Catholicism, partly because these minority groups were more numerous in Spain and Portugal than in many other parts of Europe, and partly because they were often considered suspect due to the assumption that they had secretly reverted back to their previous religions."
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 31, 2014, 05:31:49 AM
"worldviews" is a poor choice of word when you are talking about things far greater than this material world, communist or capitalist apply but not the realm of universes and miracles. If you are going to put "spirit" and "enlightenment" in quotes you need to give the text you are quoting, same thing if you are paraphrasing. Ones own ETERNAL spirit if you mean the soul is referred to also in the bible. I have talked about god pervading every atom of your being, you therefore being a part of god. Many people christian or otherwise consider the soul to reside in the heart. Jesus "stands at the door of the heart and knocks....the kingdom of heaven is within. " Faith in ones own spirit as connected to God and enlightenment via gods good grace is just a mature understanding of the bible treated as having truth in common with other faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view)
"A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point of view. A world view can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics"

I put enlightenment in quotes because, according to my worldview, that isn't actually achieved by following New Age philosophy (it's also not something we should strive to achieve, because it's ultimately a selfish pursuit).

Quote
He orders even the livestock of rival tribes exterminated, and only virgin girls kept to be bred into israelite blood. Thus the extinction of the former tribe is nothing but genocide.

About the livestock, yes... you are referencing one example in which God wanted to make sure Israelites did not PROFIT from the destruction of the Amorite Kingdom. (Saul disobeyed this command and was punished). If anything this clearly shows that genocide was not the aim.

Please reference what you are talking about with "virgin girls being kept to be bred into Israelite blood".

Quote
That is only because it happened to God's chosen people the team you support, 6 million jews and over 20 million russians in ww2 both by the nazis. Darwin did not state Aryans were superior, he considered himself, an englishman at the pinnacle of human evolution. If you want to attribute Hitler borrowing from Darwin then you can also attribute Darwin borrowing from the Bible. Arguably is an understatement, you should set out your argument for why Blavatsky and Bailey have anything to do with it, because it is like blaming mother theresa and the dalai lama.

Seriously? The Holocaust was not an example of genocide? Darwin borrowed from the Bible? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about here.

Quote
They are unambiguous, and could not be mistranslated. There are not a thousand of sects like calvinists/methodists/protestants etc based on various interpretations from it.

They are relatively unambiguous, true, and they HAVE been mistranslated, as I have evidenced numerous times.

www.sitchiniswrong.com (http://www.sitchiniswrong.com) - much of the evidence of mistranslations is laid out RIGHT THERE by an expert in those ancient languages.

Quote
Your own reference if you read it states that it is traced to a document contemporary with Jesus. All the texts in that age were reproduced by hand to slowly spread them.

What are you talking about? If by "traced to a document" you mean some of the traditions are directly from Mark or Matthew/Luke, then YES that's true. And that completely undermines any independent credibility of the gnostic Gospel of Thomas.

Quote
The councils of nicea and comporting with Pauline doctrine for conquest and control, determining what is credible is source.

Again you are repeating the propaganda that Nicea had something to do with determining the Biblical canon. How many times does this need to be debunked before you stop spreading lies?

They are too many different lines of argument in our comments now, so I'm not going to respond to the rest of yours yet.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Surly1 on August 31, 2014, 06:14:46 AM

People who throw around "genocide" loosely clearly don't understand what that word means. God never commands genocide in the OT. Neither the Crusades nor the Inquisition were examples of genocide, although they were obviously atrocities.

Please justify that statement.  It certainly seems like Genocide to me, based on the Definition.

Quote
noun
1.
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

The Crusades and the Inquisition were Deliberate & Systematic Extermination.  Jews were Targeted, Infidels were Targeted, in fact anybody who did not Toe the Line of Christian Doctrine was Targeted based on their National, Racial, Political or Cultural Group.  Both events were positively the DEFINITION of Genocide.

RE

These quotes should be sufficient justification of my statement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide)
"Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group via the (a) Killing of members of the group; (b) Causing of serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberate inflicting on the group's conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing of measures intended to prevent births within the group; or (e) Forcible transferring of children of the group to another group"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades)
"The Crusades were military campaigns sanctioned by the Latin Roman Catholic Church during the High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages. In 1095 Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to holy places in and near Jerusalem. Many historians and some of those involved at the time, like Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, give equal precedence to other papal-sanctioned military campaigns undertaken for a variety of religious, economic, and political reasons, such as the Albigensian Crusade, the Aragonese Crusade, the Reconquista, and the Northern Crusades.[1] Following the First Crusade there was an intermittent 200-year struggle for control of the Holy Land, with six more major crusades and numerous minor ones. In 1291, the conflict ended in failure with the fall of the last Christian stronghold in the Holy Land at Acre, after which Roman Catholic Europe mounted no further coherent response in the east."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition)
"The Inquisition is[1] a group of institutions within the judicial system of the Roman Catholic Church whose aim is to combat heresy. It started in 12th-century France to combat the spread of religious sectarianism, in particular the Cathars and the Waldensians. Among the other groups which were investigated later were the Spiritual Franciscans, the Hussites (followers of Jan Hus) and Beguines. Beginning in the 1250s, inquisitors were generally chosen from members of the Dominican Order, to replace the earlier practice of using local clergy as judges.[2] The term Medieval Inquisition covers these courts up through the 14th century.

In the Late Middle Ages and early Renaissance, the concept and scope of the Inquisition was significantly expanded in response to the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Its geographic scope was expanded to other European countries,[3] resulting in the Spanish Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition. Those two kingdoms in particular operated inquisitorial courts throughout their respective empires (Spanish and Portuguese) in the Americas, Asia, and Africa.[4] One particular focus of the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions was the issue of Jewish and Muslim converts to Catholicism, partly because these minority groups were more numerous in Spain and Portugal than in many other parts of Europe, and partly because they were often considered suspect due to the assumption that they had secretly reverted back to their previous religions."

Very sanitized, very clean, very dispassionate.

The Inquisition probably looked much more menacing and direct than "combating heresy" and "investigation" would make it sound to those accused heretics on the strappado or the rack. Also included in the Inquisition's bag of tricks were other torture devices to their bodies-- heated metal pincers, thumbscrews, boots, or other devices designed to burn, pinch or otherwise mutilate their hands, feet or bodily orifices. The good news is that inquisitors, such as Dominicans, were able to absolve one another of any sin should the "investigation" get a little too... enthusiastic.

Another triumph of religion wielding secular power.

Interesting article here:
http://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/spanish-inquisition3.htm (http://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/spanish-inquisition3.htm)

(http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/spanish-inquisition-rack.jpg)
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on August 31, 2014, 06:35:54 AM

Quote
The Inquisition probably looked much more menacing and direct than "combating heresy" and "investigation" would make it sound to those accused heretics on the strappado or the rack. Also included in the Inquisition's bag of tricks were other torture devices to their bodies-- heated metal pincers, thumbscrews, boots, or other devices designed to burn, pinch or otherwise mutilate their hands, feet or bodily orifices.

Hi Surly, I keep mentioning these devices to RE, the Rack being my favorite. He is so hung up on that damn Guillotine however, that broadening his horizons is most difficult.  Guess we all have a favorite.  :exp-laugh: :exp-laugh: ;D

                                                                  (http://retrorpg.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/the-medieval-rack-torture-device1.jpg)
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on August 31, 2014, 09:17:19 AM
Religion is a "service" .....
Says so right on front of the building ------ "SERVICES 10:00 A.M."
Religion just doesn't have a duck or lizard for a front man. They use a guy in a cloth, splayed across two timbers
If you fold up the two timbers it makes a box. A hexagon. We used to live in the age of the hexagon. 4 walls, a top & bottom.
We've now entered the age of the octagon, a new house as Luke puts it.
Why is this so difficult to understand.
We will now be doing things differently. A new experience. The age of Aquarius is all about the knowing.
Of course it's new age .... DUH !

Hi Ox,
Having spent hours & hours researching this ponzi scheme called religion which by the way was set up
by Constantine & his wife Justinian in the 3rd century to control the masses is a travesty. If there are
people on this board still stuck in this ponzi scheme I'll mention the fact. It pains me to see people
getting sucker punched & liking it. Here's a prime example : Being Sunday morning the "tell"-a-vision
is loaded with scamers pushing this nonsense. I was flipping through the channels to make absolutely
sure there's still nothing on worth watching & low & behold there's good old Joel O'steen up there vomiting
lies ..... It's a real crowd pleaser "You can't love god if you love yourself" WHAT THEE F%$# is up with this ?
Joel, please put down the crack pipe bubba .......
Nuf said...
Happy frolicking earthlings

Hi Azozeo, Don't you feel your ideas might receive a better reception if you weren't showing such disdain, ridicule, and employing disrespectful terminology about a Person that many members here have expressed is their God?

It appears that rather than try and explain your views, you are merely trying to incense and demean people.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on August 31, 2014, 09:44:50 AM
Here's a quick little history lesson on this mythical place called hell.
The origin of hell :
When the Roman soldiers invaded the city walls of Jerusalem they had an agenda.
The Romans strong armed the citizens of Jerusalem that they need to see things
their way or it would be "hell" for them. Well it turns out hell was a bottomless burning
pit outside the city walls, of garbage. Yes, the Romans put a spear to the citizens throats
and said you will go to this place if you don't see things our way. The story stuck, and still
today we have evangalista's still using this old line to control the masses. Amazing isn't it.
Feel free to use this true story with your neighborhood pastors & see their reactions.
What a hoot.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 31, 2014, 10:14:34 AM
Here's a quick little history lesson on this mythical place called hell.
The origin of hell :
When the Roman soldiers invaded the city walls of Jerusalem they had an agenda.
The Romans strong armed the citizens of Jerusalem that they need to see things
their way or it would be "hell" for them. Well it turns out hell was a bottomless burning
pit outside the city walls, of garbage. Yes, the Romans put a spear to the citizens throats
and said you will go to this place if you don't see things our way. The story stuck, and still
today we have evangalista's still using this old line to control the masses. Amazing isn't it.
Feel free to use this true story with your neighborhood pastors & see their reactions.
What a hoot.

First we learned from az that Plato was a contemporary of Jesus, then that Josephus never wrote about Jesus, now we find out that Jesus never said anything about "hell" and it was a concoction of Roman invaders. Thank you for your wholly factual, accurate and insightful lessons az!   ::) :emthdown:
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Surly1 on August 31, 2014, 11:27:37 AM

Quote
The Inquisition probably looked much more menacing and direct than "combating heresy" and "investigation" would make it sound to those accused heretics on the strappado or the rack. Also included in the Inquisition's bag of tricks were other torture devices to their bodies-- heated metal pincers, thumbscrews, boots, or other devices designed to burn, pinch or otherwise mutilate their hands, feet or bodily orifices.

Hi Surly, I keep mentioning these devices to RE, the Rack being my favorite. He is so hung up on that damn Guillotine however, that broadening his horizons is most difficult.  Guess we all have a favorite.  :exp-laugh: :exp-laugh: ;D

                                                                  (http://retrorpg.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/the-medieval-rack-torture-device1.jpg)

Apparently after the limbs were pulled from the joints via the rack, they could actually be pulled off the body. This would apparently disturb the digestion and repose of the devout clerics involved.

By comparison, the guillotine was positively humane.

(http://media.giphy.com/media/wSRFaMfu2WeD6/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on August 31, 2014, 02:40:51 PM
"worldviews" is a poor choice of word when you are talking about things far greater than this material world, communist or capitalist apply but not the realm of universes and miracles. If you are going to put "spirit" and "enlightenment" in quotes you need to give the text you are quoting, same thing if you are paraphrasing. Ones own ETERNAL spirit if you mean the soul is referred to also in the bible. I have talked about god pervading every atom of your being, you therefore being a part of god. Many people christian or otherwise consider the soul to reside in the heart. Jesus "stands at the door of the heart and knocks....the kingdom of heaven is within. " Faith in ones own spirit as connected to God and enlightenment via gods good grace is just a mature understanding of the bible treated as having truth in common with other faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view)
"A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point of view. A world view can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics"

You are part of american society, christianity has declined and been replaced with consmerism and new age and interest in bhuddism and gaia, that is your societies worldview. If we are talking about the individual, then we are talking about experience and practice free christianity which is a good reason not to talk about your religion but worldview instead.


I put enlightenment in quotes because, according to my worldview, that isn't actually achieved by following New Age philosophy (it's also not something we should strive to achieve, because it's ultimately a selfish pursuit).

So turning away from the anthroporphic fear, hellfire, judgement obedience to orders to kill in the bible, a history of conquest and control, genocide, child sex abuse instituionalized, and instead doing self improvement without including any of those christian traits is not enlightened but  selfish.

Quote
He orders even the livestock of rival tribes exterminated, and only virgin girls kept to be bred into israelite blood. Thus the extinction of the former tribe is nothing but genocide.

About the livestock, yes... you are referencing one example in which God wanted to make sure Israelites did not PROFIT from the destruction of the Amorite Kingdom. (Saul disobeyed this command and was punished). If anything this clearly shows that genocide was not the aim.

For christians who attend churches, they usually have it explained to them that the people who were also all killed by the israelites (they didnt just watch their animals die and escape with their own lives), they usually are told that the animals had STD's from the bestiality practiced, but priests/pastors dont pass it off as not killing all the people too.

Please reference what you are talking about with "virgin girls being kept to be bred into Israelite blood".

Midianites and moabites for a start, Numbers 31. kill everyone except the virgin girls so that they can be raped by the guys that killed the rest of their family.

Quote
That is only because it happened to God's chosen people the team you support, 6 million jews and over 20 million russians in ww2 both by the nazis. Darwin did not state Aryans were superior, he considered himself, an englishman at the pinnacle of human evolution. If you want to attribute Hitler borrowing from Darwin then you can also attribute Darwin borrowing from the Bible. Arguably is an understatement, you should set out your argument for why Blavatsky and Bailey have anything to do with it, because it is like blaming mother theresa and the dalai lama.

Seriously? The Holocaust was not an example of genocide? Darwin borrowed from the Bible? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about here.

You say you onlu examine new age teaching to see if it is 'intellectually honest' Here you claimed that the holocaust of the jews was the pinnacle of genocide. I said you think it is the pinnacle because you believe they are the chosen people. I pinted out that over 3 times as many russians were killed by hitler and the nazis at the same time, suggesting that you can only claim the jews are he pinnacle if you think one jew is worth at least 4 russians. I did not say that the holocaust of the jews was not genocide.

You claimed that Agelbert had shown me good reasoning out by extended extrapolation. This belief that Darwin influenced Hitler is what he claimed and you told me was sound reasoning. Telling me i have no idea what i am talking about is trademark condescension you employ inplace of anything substantive, notice I am pointing out your trademark unearned and unwarranted condescension in every response you make now.

Quote
They are unambiguous, and could not be mistranslated. There are not a thousand of sects like calvinists/methodists/protestants etc based on various interpretations from it.

They are relatively unambiguous, true, and they HAVE been mistranslated, as I have evidenced numerous times.

No you have not ever. I do not think you are even familiarwith these ancient texts, let alone try and explain what they actually are talking about. They describe experiments in genetic engineering which closely resemble our own in its infancy. You have never tried to tell anyone what the true translation of these is meant to mean. That is your belief based on faith alone. You adhere to a faith that other christians have 'debunked' aliens  etc, but you can not rationalise this faith other than express your belief in its truth.

www.sitchiniswrong.com (http://www.sitchiniswrong.com) - much of the evidence of mistranslations is laid out RIGHT THERE by an expert in those ancient languages.

I see no sidebar subheadings on genetic engineering on that site. Given that two of the references you provided yourself in this thread support the gospel of thomas authenticity, you provided a reference for actual real building of pyramids rather than just doing it in theory with a site from someone who again did not build anything but said he "could", ended the great flood noah debate of 50 page fame with a very long reference appealing to the alien demigods you claim to debunk, I am not going to read the whole website searching for what you claim it contains when it usually does not prove what you claim. Too many times people including myself have taken the time to read long references you provide as evidence of debunking only to reprt there was nothing in there to support your claim.

This is your faith, there has never in all the encyclopaedic volumes of diner debate ever been a mention of what th experience of believing in jesus is like or what he has done in your life. There is only endless testimony of your belief in debunking of other beliefs based only on faith.

Quote
Your own reference if you read it states that it is traced to a document contemporary with Jesus. All the texts in that age were reproduced by hand to slowly spread them.

What are you talking about? If by "traced to a document" you mean some of the traditions are directly from Mark or Matthew/Luke, then YES that's true. And that completely undermines any independent credibility of the gnostic Gospel of Thomas.

No the document of Thomas not the other gospels, read your own reference you provided.

Quote
The councils of nicea and comporting with Pauline doctrine for conquest and control, determining what is credible is source.

Again you are repeating the propaganda that Nicea had something to do with determining the Biblical canon. How many times does this need to be debunked before you stop spreading lies?

It has never been debunked, reincarntion and gnostic beliefs were binned from the bible there. They did not just go along for free food they had to get down to the business of making of jesus life a conduit for control and conquest. They succeeded.

They are too many different lines of argument in our comments now, so I'm not going to respond to the rest of yours yet.

Of course
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on August 31, 2014, 02:42:08 PM
Here's a quick little history lesson on this mythical place called hell.
The origin of hell :
When the Roman soldiers invaded the city walls of Jerusalem they had an agenda.
The Romans strong armed the citizens of Jerusalem that they need to see things
their way or it would be "hell" for them. Well it turns out hell was a bottomless burning
pit outside the city walls, of garbage. Yes, the Romans put a spear to the citizens throats
and said you will go to this place if you don't see things our way. The story stuck, and still
today we have evangalista's still using this old line to control the masses. Amazing isn't it.
Feel free to use this true story with your neighborhood pastors & see their reactions.
What a hoot.

First we learned from az that Plato was a contemporary of Jesus, then that Josephus never wrote about Jesus, now we find out that Jesus never said anything about "hell" and it was a concoction of Roman invaders. Thank you for your wholly factual, accurate and insightful lessons az!   ::) :emthdown:

Though they have ears to hear & eyes to see. There blind & deaf. We just can't fix "fuknbroken"
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on August 31, 2014, 03:51:41 PM
Religion is a "service" .....
Says so right on front of the building ------ "SERVICES 10:00 A.M."
Religion just doesn't have a duck or lizard for a front man. They use a guy in a cloth, splayed across two timbers
If you fold up the two timbers it makes a box. A hexagon. We used to live in the age of the hexagon. 4 walls, a top & bottom.
We've now entered the age of the octagon, a new house as Luke puts it.
Why is this so difficult to understand.
We will now be doing things differently. A new experience. The age of Aquarius is all about the knowing.
Of course it's new age .... DUH !

Hi Azozeo, Don't you feel your ideas might receive a better reception if you weren't showing such disdain, ridicule, and employing disrespectful terminology about a Person that many members here have expressed is their God?

It appears that rather than try and explain your views, you are merely trying to incense and demean people.

I see both sides here, you have a good point GO, however when pulling off something so outrageous/audaciaous alot of what you call 'chutzpah' if thats not an outdated term, is needed. Azozeos ideas are waaaay out there, so to not be ridiculed himself he has to carry a lot of showman and  swagger.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on August 31, 2014, 03:59:17 PM
OK, sports fans. This article was just posted over at NBL.
Maybe, just frickin maybe, this will help illuminate some folks paths here.
Now I know what Copernicus had to put up with ........ sheeesh  ::)

http://guymcpherson.com/2014/08/learning-how-to-live-all-over-again-dealing-with-the-anger-and-continual-backsliding-upon-the-acceptance-of-meaninglessness-overcoming-the-schizophrenia-of-awakening/ (http://guymcpherson.com/2014/08/learning-how-to-live-all-over-again-dealing-with-the-anger-and-continual-backsliding-upon-the-acceptance-of-meaninglessness-overcoming-the-schizophrenia-of-awakening/)

Blessings to all (I truly mean this)
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on August 31, 2014, 05:06:20 PM
"worldviews" is a poor choice of word when you are talking about things far greater than this material world, communist or capitalist apply but not the realm of universes and miracles. If you are going to put "spirit" and "enlightenment" in quotes you need to give the text you are quoting, same thing if you are paraphrasing. Ones own ETERNAL spirit if you mean the soul is referred to also in the bible. I have talked about god pervading every atom of your being, you therefore being a part of god. Many people christian or otherwise consider the soul to reside in the heart. Jesus "stands at the door of the heart and knocks....the kingdom of heaven is within. " Faith in ones own spirit as connected to God and enlightenment via gods good grace is just a mature understanding of the bible treated as having truth in common with other faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view)
"A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point of view. A world view can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics"

You are part of american society, christianity has declined and been replaced with consmerism and new age and interest in bhuddism and gaia, that is your societies worldview. If we are talking about the individual, then we are talking about experience and practice free christianity which is a good reason not to talk about your religion but worldview instead.

You said worldview is a "poor choice of word" when talking about spiritual matters. I provided the definition of worldview, which clearly encompasses spiritual beliefs. Can you now admit that "worldview" is an appropriate word to use?? Not that it matters to any substantive argument, I'm really just curious to find out how stubborn you are willing to get.

Quote
Quote
I put enlightenment in quotes because, according to my worldview, that isn't actually achieved by following New Age philosophy (it's also not something we should strive to achieve, because it's ultimately a selfish pursuit).

So turning away from the anthroporphic fear, hellfire, judgement obedience to orders to kill in the bible, a history of conquest and control, genocide, child sex abuse instituionalized, and instead doing self improvement without including any of those christian traits is not enlightened but  selfish.

Placing oneself as the ultimate means of salvation is selfish, yes. AG has already explained why at length.

Quote
For christians who attend churches, they usually have it explained to them that the people who were also all killed by the israelites (they didnt just watch their animals die and escape with their own lives), they usually are told that the animals had STD's from the bestiality practiced, but priests/pastors dont pass it off as not killing all the people too.

This makes clear that your criticisms of the Bible are always based on how other people represent it rather than careful consideration of the text. The text makes clear that God did not want the Israelites to take the livestock and profit from the attack, contrary to usual practice in warfare.

Quote
Please reference what you are talking about with "virgin girls being kept to be bred into Israelite blood".

Midianites and moabites for a start, Numbers 31. kill everyone except the virgin girls so that they can be raped by the guys that killed the rest of their family.

These are not easy passages to deal with, but above all they must be considered in context. First and foremost is the overall context that humanity is fallen and therefore NOTHING is done in an ethically perfect manner, or even close to it.

I'm pretty sure we discussed Numbers 31 awhile back. The reality of ancient warfare is that something must be done with those who are spared.  Much of the OT law was enacted as a way of dealing with these realities and were a huge step up from surrounding cultures which had no such codes of conduct.

10“When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, 11and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, 12then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13“She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14“It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her. " (Deuteronomy 21)

Quote
You say you onlu examine new age teaching to see if it is 'intellectually honest' Here you claimed that the holocaust of the jews was the pinnacle of genocide. I said you think it is the pinnacle because you believe they are the chosen people. I pinted out that over 3 times as many russians were killed by hitler and the nazis at the same time, suggesting that you can only claim the jews are he pinnacle if you think one jew is worth at least 4 russians. I did not say that the holocaust of the jews was not genocide.

Yes and you are not being intellectually honest here. The reason I say the Holocaust (which was not limited to Jews) was the epitome of genocide is because it fits the definition perfectly. The Russian deaths which occurred as a part of the Nazi offensive do not fit the definition of genocide at all, so I don't call it that. You are using this distinction to claim that I value Jewish lives over the lives of other people, which is not only untrue, but absurd on its face.  For one thing, a few hundred thousand Jewish people fought for the Russian army and were killed by the Germans, but I don't call that "genocide" because it's NOT.

(incidentally, many Jews were also treated as second-class citizens in Russia).

Quote
You claimed that Agelbert had shown me good reasoning out by extended extrapolation. This belief that Darwin influenced Hitler is what he claimed and you told me was sound reasoning. Telling me i have no idea what i am talking about is trademark condescension you employ inplace of anything substantive, notice I am pointing out your trademark unearned and unwarranted condescension in every response you make now.

OK, so you do have a rebuttal to AG's reasoning about the influence Darwin had on the Nazis?

And why did you claim that Darwin "borrowed from the Bible"? If you are going to make claims like that with no support, then my condescension is not unwarranted.

Quote
They are unambiguous, and could not be mistranslated. There are not a thousand of sects like calvinists/methodists/protestants etc based on various interpretations from it.

They are relatively unambiguous, true, and they HAVE been mistranslated, as I have evidenced numerous times.

Quote
No you have not ever. I do not think you are even familiarwith these ancient texts, let alone try and explain what they actually are talking about. They describe experiments in genetic engineering which closely resemble our own in its infancy. You have never tried to tell anyone what the true translation of these is meant to mean. That is your belief based on faith alone. You adhere to a faith that other christians have 'debunked' aliens  etc, but you can not rationalise this faith other than express your belief in its truth.

www.sitchiniswrong.com (http://www.sitchiniswrong.com) - much of the evidence of mistranslations is laid out RIGHT THERE by an expert in those ancient languages.

I see no sidebar subheadings on genetic engineering on that site. Given that two of the references you provided yourself in this thread support the gospel of thomas authenticity, you provided a reference for actual real building of pyramids rather than just doing it in theory with a site from someone who again did not build anything but said he "could", ended the great flood noah debate of 50 page fame with a very long reference appealing to the alien demigods you claim to debunk, I am not going to read the whole website searching for what you claim it contains when it usually does not prove what you claim. Too many times people including myself have taken the time to read long references you provide as evidence of debunking only to reprt there was nothing in there to support your claim.

Every time you give me a specific reference to something which you believe describes, depicts or otherwise implies the ancient visiting of ETs, I have responded with reasons why you are mistaken. Lately you have given up on the specific references and just make general claims. If you reference a specific text with a purported description of ET genetic engineering, I will once again give you the reasons why you are mistaken. Until then, the website I provided goes into most of the "research" of Zecharia Sitchin, who is a godfather of the Ancient Alien/Astronaut theories and the idea that ancient texts talked about them.

I don't believe you have ONCE read or watched any of the articles or videos I have linked on this subject, so I'm not surprised you are still refusing to do so.

Quote
This is your faith, there has never in all the encyclopaedic volumes of diner debate ever been a mention of what th experience of believing in jesus is like or what he has done in your life. There is only endless testimony of your belief in debunking of other beliefs based only on faith.[/color]

I rarely mention my personal experiences in regards to any subject, economic, geopolitical, spiritual, etc., because I believe it is largely irrelevant to the types of arguments being made.

Quote
Quote
What are you talking about? If by "traced to a document" you mean some of the traditions are directly from Mark or Matthew/Luke, then YES that's true. And that completely undermines any independent credibility of the gnostic Gospel of Thomas.

No the document of Thomas not the other gospels, read your own reference you provided.

How about being more specific and quoting the article? I can't respond to you when I have no idea what you are claiming.

Quote
It has never been debunked, reincarntion and gnostic beliefs were binned from the bible there. They did not just go along for free food they had to get down to the business of making of jesus life a conduit for control and conquest. They succeeded.

I have debunked it a few times, and more recently Surly has provided extensive articles on what Nicea was about, namely the debate over Arianism. You are simply ignoring the established history and making erroneous speculations for your own purposes.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on August 31, 2014, 06:29:03 PM
We're going to miss your stand up philosophy George.
http://www.youtube.com/v/6_zwB6GLpo4#&fs=1

Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on August 31, 2014, 07:54:24 PM
Here's a new rabbit hole of lies ...... Thought we might take a religious break for the time being.
http://www.youtube.com/v/NX-laeKljTo#&fs=1
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Surly1 on September 01, 2014, 02:36:41 AM
Here's a new rabbit hole of lies ...... Thought we might take a religious break for the time being.
http://www.youtube.com/v/NX-laeKljTo#&fs=1

One of the best things about science is that it doesn't care if you believe in it or not.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moon_landing_hoax (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moon_landing_hoax)

I want my hour back.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on September 01, 2014, 03:38:22 AM
Religion is a "service" .....
Says so right on front of the building ------ "SERVICES 10:00 A.M."
Religion just doesn't have a duck or lizard for a front man. They use a guy in a cloth, splayed across two timbers
If you fold up the two timbers it makes a box. A hexagon. We used to live in the age of the hexagon. 4 walls, a top & bottom.
We've now entered the age of the octagon, a new house as Luke puts it.
Why is this so difficult to understand.
We will now be doing things differently. A new experience. The age of Aquarius is all about the knowing.
Of course it's new age .... DUH !

Hi Azozeo, Don't you feel your ideas might receive a better reception if you weren't showing such disdain, ridicule, and employing disrespectful terminology about a Person that many members here have expressed is their God?

It appears that rather than try and explain your views, you are merely trying to incense and demean people.

I see both sides here, you have a good point GO, however when pulling off something so outrageous/audaciaous alot of what you call 'chutzpah' if thats not an outdated term, is needed. Azozeos ideas are waaaay out there, so to not be ridiculed himself he has to carry a lot of showman and  swagger.

Showman and swagger are fine Unc, Azozeo's  right to present them that way are fine with me too.

I'm talking about something different. For example, Buddhism is of no interest to me, I was born of another religion and am staying put.

It just seems disrespectful to me, if I were to mingle around a group of Buddhists and say something like, Hey Guys, What do you see in this Guy?  The Chinese gin mill I go to on occasion has a statue of him eating Chop Suey. What's with you clowns? Is the Gook food that good?

Respect is only what I was trying to convey in my posting Unc.

                                                             (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kX2LU7-w01M/UZdJYoKwP1I/AAAAAAAALx4/ta9FhrtTW1g/s1600/siddhartha-gautama-buddha+(1).jpg)
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 01, 2014, 04:01:29 AM
Rule 62 states : Don't take yourself or life to seriously.
Gook food's great if prepared properly. Love fresh veggies  ;D
Ox, going through life LOOKING for reasons to be offended isn't healthy.
Happy frolicking
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on September 01, 2014, 04:02:35 AM
Religion is a "service" .....
Says so right on front of the building ------ "SERVICES 10:00 A.M."
Religion just doesn't have a duck or lizard for a front man. They use a guy in a cloth, splayed across two timbers
If you fold up the two timbers it makes a box. A hexagon. We used to live in the age of the hexagon. 4 walls, a top & bottom.
We've now entered the age of the octagon, a new house as Luke puts it.
Why is this so difficult to understand.
We will now be doing things differently. A new experience. The age of Aquarius is all about the knowing.
Of course it's new age .... DUH !

Hi Ox,
Having spent hours & hours researching this ponzi scheme called religion which by the way was set up
by Constantine & his wife Justinian in the 3rd century to control the masses is a travesty. If there are
people on this board still stuck in this ponzi scheme I'll mention the fact. It pains me to see people
getting sucker punched & liking it. Here's a prime example : Being Sunday morning the "tell"-a-vision
is loaded with scamers pushing this nonsense. I was flipping through the channels to make absolutely
sure there's still nothing on worth watching & low & behold there's good old Joel O'steen up there vomiting
lies ..... It's a real crowd pleaser "You can't love god if you love yourself" WHAT THEE F%$# is up with this ?
Joel, please put down the crack pipe bubba .......
Nuf said...
Happy frolicking earthlings

Hi Azozeo, Don't you feel your ideas might receive a better reception if you weren't showing such disdain, ridicule, and employing disrespectful terminology about a Person that many members here have expressed is their God?

It appears that rather than try and explain your views, you are merely trying to incense and demean people.

Understood Azozeo, Your right to speak what you wish and how you wish is of much greater importance to me than my comment about your mannerisms.   
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on September 01, 2014, 04:04:53 AM
Rule 62 states : Don't take yourself or life to seriously.
Gook food's great if prepared properly. Love fresh veggies  ;D
Ox, going through life LOOKING for reasons to be offended isn't healthy.
Happy frolicking

Your a nasty bastard, but I like you. You can be one hot ticket at times.  :emthup: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on September 01, 2014, 04:19:00 AM
Rule 62 states : Don't take yourself or life to seriously.
Gook food's great if prepared properly. Love fresh veggies  ;D
Ox, going through life LOOKING for reasons to be offended isn't healthy.
Happy frolicking

Your a nasty bastard, but I like you. You can be one hot ticket at times.  :emthup: :laugh: :laugh:


Besides, any guy with his own Gold mine, has just got to be a pal of mine.  :exp-laugh: :exp-laugh: :D

                                                           
Where exactly is it AZ?
Where exactly is it AZ?
   ;D ;D
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Surly1 on September 01, 2014, 04:31:00 AM
Religion is a "service" .....
Says so right on front of the building ------ "SERVICES 10:00 A.M."
Religion just doesn't have a duck or lizard for a front man. They use a guy in a cloth, splayed across two timbers
If you fold up the two timbers it makes a box. A hexagon. We used to live in the age of the hexagon. 4 walls, a top & bottom.
We've now entered the age of the octagon, a new house as Luke puts it.
Why is this so difficult to understand.
We will now be doing things differently. A new experience. The age of Aquarius is all about the knowing.
Of course it's new age .... DUH !

Hi Ox,
Having spent hours & hours researching this ponzi scheme called religion which by the way was set up
by Constantine & his wife Justinian in the 3rd century to control the masses is a travesty. If there are
people on this board still stuck in this ponzi scheme I'll mention the fact. It pains me to see people
getting sucker punched & liking it. Here's a prime example : Being Sunday morning the "tell"-a-vision
is loaded with scamers pushing this nonsense. I was flipping through the channels to make absolutely
sure there's still nothing on worth watching & low & behold there's good old Joel O'steen up there vomiting
lies ..... It's a real crowd pleaser "You can't love god if you love yourself" WHAT THEE F%$# is up with this ?
Joel, please put down the crack pipe bubba .......
Nuf said...
Happy frolicking earthlings

Hi Azozeo, Don't you feel your ideas might receive a better reception if you weren't showing such disdain, ridicule, and employing disrespectful terminology about a Person that many members here have expressed is their God?

It appears that rather than try and explain your views, you are merely trying to incense and demean people.

Understood Azozeo, Your right to speak what you wish and how you wish is of much greater importance to me than my comment about your mannerisms.

Oh by all means, say what you wish. But every so often, you will find it necessary to hose the bullshit off your shoes:

Quote
Having spent hours & hours researching this ponzi scheme called religion which by the way was set up
by Constantine & his wife Justinian in the 3rd century to control the masses is a travesty.

Constantine's "pedigreed" wife was named Theodora (Flavia Maximiana Theodora).  He apparently had an earlier marriage along the way as well.

The Council of Nicaea was a fourth century event, not a third century event.  if your point is that much of "institutional Christianity" was created at this council, so be it. The facts support it. Constantine had an empire to run, and the last thing he needed was a gaggle of squabbling bishops at one another's throats shrieking about "heresy."  What Constantine did was the equivalent of locking them in a room and saying, "Fix this shit."  The result became Christian orthodoxy.

Justinian, also known as "Justinian the great," was a Sixth century Byzantine Emperor who reconquered much of the lost Western Empire, and made significant contributions to civil law.

The fact that you would post such specious bullshit in a thread titled, "Zero Tolerance for the Lie" is amusing.  Nonsense like the "NASA moon landing is a hoax video" goes only to prove that P.T. Barnum was correct  when he said, "there's a sucker born every minute."

Do us the courtesy of a little fact checking in the future.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on September 01, 2014, 05:28:03 AM
Quote
The fact that you would post such specious bullshit in a thread titled, "Zero Tolerance for the Lie" is amusing.  Nonsense like the "NASA moon landing is a hoax video" goes only to prove that P.T. Barnum was correct  when he said, "there's a sucker born every minute."

Got the impression he was jesting and mocking and taunting when he posted that stuff; after reading your posting Surly, forced to reconsider.  :icon_scratch:  ::)
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Surly1 on September 01, 2014, 06:04:40 AM
Quote
The fact that you would post such specious bullshit in a thread titled, "Zero Tolerance for the Lie" is amusing.  Nonsense like the "NASA moon landing is a hoax video" goes only to prove that P.T. Barnum was correct  when he said, "there's a sucker born every minute."

Got the impression he was jesting and mocking and taunting when he posted that stuff; after reading your posting Surly, forced to reconsider.  :icon_scratch:  ::)

You could be right, GO. Maybe I am overly surly this AM, reading about Wal-Mart "celebrating" Labor Day with low, low prices.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on September 01, 2014, 06:15:52 AM
Quote
The fact that you would post such specious bullshit in a thread titled, "Zero Tolerance for the Lie" is amusing.  Nonsense like the "NASA moon landing is a hoax video" goes only to prove that P.T. Barnum was correct  when he said, "there's a sucker born every minute."

Got the impression he was jesting and mocking and taunting when he posted that stuff; after reading your posting Surly, forced to reconsider.  :icon_scratch:  ::)

You could be right, GO. Maybe I am overly surly this AM, reading about Wal-Mart "celebrating" Labor Day with low, low prices.

Yes indeed, the chain that prides itself in hiring only part time help and offering no benefits.

The saddest part is they have the nicest most polite employees of all of them. Poor people that really need a job and are petrified of losing it I guess.

They put most all the local businesses in their area out of business as well, and now that they have screwed everyone and taken over they are jacking up prices and laughing.

Of course they justified it all by having low prices as their excuse, but those days are gone.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 01, 2014, 11:36:37 AM
"your a nasty bastard" ............
Flattery will get you everywhere Ox ! HAH  I have ex - significant others (for a reason)
I've been to hell     IT'S SERIOUSLY OVER RATED .... I watched the video, mailed the post card from there & bought the T-shirt.
Sold fire to Lucifer - blah, blah, blah   :evil4:
Anyway, enough about my travails.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 01, 2014, 11:45:42 AM
Rule 62 states : Don't take yourself or life to seriously.
Gook food's great if prepared properly. Love fresh veggies  ;D
Ox, going through life LOOKING for reasons to be offended isn't healthy.
Happy frolicking

Your a nasty bastard, but I like you. You can be one hot ticket at times.  :emthup: :laugh: :laugh:


Besides, any guy with his own Gold mine, has just got to be a pal of mine.  :exp-laugh: :exp-laugh: :D

                                                           
Where exactly is it AZ?
Where exactly is it AZ?
   ;D ;D

Prove to me that azozeo is a guy, or gal for that matter. Not one of you has even bothered to look up
my pen name. Did you think I just conjured up this pen name. There's some serious research going on here.
Do you think the magic fairies just granted me THEE most prolific gold & silver mine in this state.
There's some serious research going on here. The location is a matter of public record. Perform some serious
research here. If you become my BFF maybe we will take the silver dollar tour someday. Complete with cougars
(not the Rodeo Dr. species either) & diamond backs, and of course Mohave Greens.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on September 01, 2014, 02:17:19 PM
Quote
Prove to me that azozeo is a guy, or gal for that matter. Not one of you has even bothered to look up
my pen name.

Not true AZ, I did look it up right away; as besides being a gold bug and gold coin collector, I collect turquoise and gemstones. Your name reminded me of Azurite so I looked it up and came across gems sites and such and figured one was yours

Besides gem grade turquoise jewelry I also collect Gaspeite, and Sugilite, mineral gemstone jewelry. Sugilite is my favorite, I just adore the look of it with gold or silver jewelry. A Navaho indian made me some beautiful Sugilite jewelry which are my absolute favorite pieces. I love the deep purple Sugilite blended with lighter stones.

The following aren't mine but similar types. .

                                                                   (http://www.gemselect.com/photos/sugilite/sugilite-gem-333604b.jpg)

                                                                  (http://www.kokopellinh.com/files/images/western-jewelry-sugilite-pendant-113523.jpg)


                                                                   (http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cb/0d/cf/cb0dcf1be7e306bb60d174bc8cb5258f.jpg)


                                                                    (http://www.mineralminers.com/images/sugilite/jewelry/sugj244-sugilite-jewelry.jpg)                             

                                                                     (http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/9b/ba/67/9bba67ed090afb25467df7b90dba738b.jpg)


                                                                       

                                                                    (http://gbnavajojewelry.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/000_0350.28573206_std.JPG)

  The bolo is the shade and look of a lot of my stuff real dark purple with the gloss.


I am just guessing Azozeo the Heaven and Earth Metaphysical jewelry is your site?   :icon_scratch:

heavenandearthjewelry.com



                                                                   

                                                                 

                 

   

Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 01, 2014, 02:38:01 PM
Quote
Prove to me that azozeo is a guy, or gal for that matter. Not one of you has even bothered to look up
my pen name.

Not true AZ, I did look it up right away; as besides being a gold bug and gold coin collector, I collect turquoise and gemstones. Your name reminded me of Azurite so I looked it up and came across gems sites and such and figured one was yours

Besides gem grade turquoise jewelry I also collect Gaspeite, and Sugilite, mineral gemstone jewelry. Sugilite is my favorite, I just adore the look of it with gold or silver jewelry. A Navaho indian made me some beautiful Sugilite jewelry which are my absolute favorite pieces. I love the deep purple Sugilite blended with lighter stones.

The following aren't mine but similar types. .

                                                                   (http://www.gemselect.com/photos/sugilite/sugilite-gem-333604b.jpg)

                                                                  (http://www.kokopellinh.com/files/images/western-jewelry-sugilite-pendant-113523.jpg)


                                                                   (http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cb/0d/cf/cb0dcf1be7e306bb60d174bc8cb5258f.jpg)


                                                                    (http://www.mineralminers.com/images/sugilite/jewelry/sugj244-sugilite-jewelry.jpg)                             

                                                                     (http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/9b/ba/67/9bba67ed090afb25467df7b90dba738b.jpg)


                                                                       

                                                                    (http://gbnavajojewelry.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/000_0350.28573206_std.JPG)

  The bolo is the shade and look of a lot of my stuff real dark purple with the gloss.


I am just guessing Azozeo the Heaven and Earth Metaphysical jewelry is your site?   :icon_scratch:

heavenandearthjewelry.com



                                                                   

                                                                 

                 

   
Sorry I'm not a retailer. To much paperwork & taxes. I just mine, leach, smelt, & collect 10 kilo bars.
Got pallets of 'em. Real pretty at 22k.
 :icon_sunny: Gold star on your forehead for looking up the meaning of Azozeo.
Pmail me your address & I'll send you some raw Azurite & gold ore. The mine
has malachite, azurite, obsidian, copper, silver, platinum, gold of course, quartz, lead, iron, & nickle ....
Basically complex ore at 200 mesh & finer.
That jewelry you've posted pics of is gorgeous. Bet it looks nice between your money makers  :o
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on September 02, 2014, 10:37:20 PM
So youre our own Howard Hughes, Azozeo, billionnaires are allowed to be a little, uh you know... visionary.  :icon_mrgreen:
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 03, 2014, 03:48:59 AM
So youre our own Howard Hughes, Azozeo, billionnaires are allowed to be a little, uh you know... visionary.  :icon_mrgreen:
Yeah, me & ol' Carlos Slim text each other regularly. We chest beat & back slap each other constantly  :icon_mrgreen:
The cool part about owning a mining claim is you own to the chewy center of the earth !
Ya gotta watch that gold fever greed stuff, it plays on your head.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 03, 2014, 03:29:50 PM
This video is for Ashvin or anyone else that wants to debate me
on this hocus pocus B.S. of the Jesus of Nazareth story.
Enjoy, maybe you'll learn something here. If not, to bad for you  :o
http://www.youtube.com/v/QqFtpV4i4zs&index=17&list=LLfhYKxfb_JaIz2aNT-2ZdaQ#&fs=1
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on September 03, 2014, 04:46:09 PM
This video is for Ashvin or anyone else that wants to debate me
on this hocus pocus B.S. of the Jesus of Nazareth story.
Enjoy, maybe you'll learn something here. If not, to bad for you  :o
Quote

I'll forgo watching until you respond to the numerous other pieces of evidence I have provided in rebuttal to the following claims you made:

1) Plato lived around the same as Jesus but didn't write about him
2) Josephus didn't write about Jesus
3) The town of Nazareth didn't exist until hundreds of years after Jesus

I'm not sure what you are trying to claim exactly (that Jesus never existed?), but I have debunked all 3 above and you have failed to respond with any counter-arguments.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 03, 2014, 05:01:59 PM
This video is for Ashvin or anyone else that wants to debate me
on this hocus pocus B.S. of the Jesus of Nazareth story.
Enjoy, maybe you'll learn something here. If not, to bad for you  :o
Quote

I'll forgo watching until you respond to the numerous other pieces of evidence I have provided in rebuttal to the following claims you made:

1) Plato lived around the same as Jesus but didn't write about him
2) Josephus didn't write about Jesus
3) The town of Nazareth didn't exist until hundreds of years after Jesus

I'm not sure what you are trying to claim exactly (that Jesus never existed?), but I have debunked all 3 above and you have failed to respond with any counter-arguments.

This is your response............. WTF ?
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 03, 2014, 05:04:24 PM
Ashvin,
You're being lead around by the nose & you like it.
Your absolutely amazing.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on September 03, 2014, 05:22:48 PM
Ashvin,
You're being lead around by the nose & you like it.
Your absolutely amazing.

Yeah, it's absolutely amazing that after listening/watching to two of your hour-long postings, responding with lengthy posts and getting NOTHING back in response, I would hesitate to watch yet another hour-long video...  :icon_scratch:

You say you want someone to debate you on the Jesus of Nazareth "hocus pocus", and I am more than willing to, but I'd like to know you are serious and not just gonna disappear after I watch the video and respond with my counter-arguments.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 03, 2014, 05:43:23 PM
Ashvin,
You're being lead around by the nose & you like it.
Your absolutely amazing.

Yeah, it's absolutely amazing that after listening/watching to two of your hour-long postings, responding with lengthy posts and getting NOTHING back in response, I would hesitate to watch yet another hour-long video...  :icon_scratch:

You say you want someone to debate you on the Jesus of Nazareth "hocus pocus", and I am more than willing to, but I'd like to know you are serious and not just gonna disappear after I watch the video and respond with my counter-arguments.

Cognitive dissonance is not an asset.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on September 03, 2014, 06:59:00 PM
http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx (http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx)

Did Jesus Exist? Bart Ehrman Q&A - Unbelievable? - 18 August 2012   

http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443 (http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443)
"In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert [and Agnostic] Bart Ehrman confronts the question, "Did Jesus exist at all?" Ehrman vigorously defends the historical Jesus, identifies the most historically reliable sources for best understanding Jesus’ mission and message, and offers a compelling portrait of the person at the heart of the Christian tradition.

Known as a master explainer with deep knowledge of the field, Bart Ehrman methodically demolishes both the scholarly and popular “mythicist” arguments against the existence of Jesus. Marshaling evidence from within the Bible and the wider historical record of the ancient world, Ehrman tackles the key issues that surround the mythologies associated with Jesus and the early Christian movement.

In Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Ehrman establishes the criterion for any genuine historical investigation and provides a robust defense of the methods required to discover the Jesus of history."
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 03, 2014, 07:49:59 PM
http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx (http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx)

Did Jesus Exist? Bart Ehrman Q&A - Unbelievable? - 18 August 2012   

http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443 (http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443)
"In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert [and Agnostic] Bart Ehrman confronts the question, "Did Jesus exist at all?" Ehrman vigorously defends the historical Jesus, identifies the most historically reliable sources for best understanding Jesus’ mission and message, and offers a compelling portrait of the person at the heart of the Christian tradition.

Known as a master explainer with deep knowledge of the field, Bart Ehrman methodically demolishes both the scholarly and popular “mythicist” arguments against the existence of Jesus. Marshaling evidence from within the Bible and the wider historical record of the ancient world, Ehrman tackles the key issues that surround the mythologies associated with Jesus and the early Christian movement.

In Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Ehrman establishes the criterion for any genuine historical investigation and provides a robust defense of the methods required to discover the Jesus of history."


Ashvin,
When you have to resort to quoting "agnostics" research, I know you're on the ropes. You're scraping
the bottom of the barrel bubba. The term agnostic implies the author is "against knowing or knowledge".
That's like asking Jack the Ripper to babysit the kids while you & the misses go out to dinner & a movie.
Sheeesh.....
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on September 03, 2014, 07:51:26 PM
He existed from a virgin birth to bless all nations. All OT atrocities (distinct from genocide as sex slaves were kept) were collateral damage to bring about this blessing. Tracing his lineage down to David and back to abraham and adam all because this bloodthirsty bloodline was needed fo jesus to be born...with a pure hebrew kingly lineage STEP father. A godless argument about whether he existed has nothing to do with Christian faith in Him walking on water or coming on the clouds when conditions are ripe.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on September 04, 2014, 01:56:14 AM
http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx (http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx)

Did Jesus Exist? Bart Ehrman Q&A - Unbelievable? - 18 August 2012   

http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443 (http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443)
"In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert [and Agnostic] Bart Ehrman confronts the question, "Did Jesus exist at all?" Ehrman vigorously defends the historical Jesus, identifies the most historically reliable sources for best understanding Jesus’ mission and message, and offers a compelling portrait of the person at the heart of the Christian tradition.

Known as a master explainer with deep knowledge of the field, Bart Ehrman methodically demolishes both the scholarly and popular “mythicist” arguments against the existence of Jesus. Marshaling evidence from within the Bible and the wider historical record of the ancient world, Ehrman tackles the key issues that surround the mythologies associated with Jesus and the early Christian movement.

In Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Ehrman establishes the criterion for any genuine historical investigation and provides a robust defense of the methods required to discover the Jesus of history."


Ashvin,
When you have to resort to quoting "agnostics" research, I know you're on the ropes. You're scraping
the bottom of the barrel bubba. The term agnostic implies the author is "against knowing or knowledge".
That's like asking Jack the Ripper to babysit the kids while you & the misses go out to dinner & a movie.
Sheeesh.....

Not what knowing what "agnostic" means is one thing, but not even bothering to Google it up... well...

ag·nos·tic
agˈnästik/
noun

"a person who believes that nothing is known OR can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."


The key point here is that Bart Ehrman, who apparently you are unfamiliar with, is a vociferous critic of orthodox Christianity and has written numerous books questioning the reliability of the Gospel accounts, YET EVEN HE thought it worthwhile to write a book dismantling the silly arguments which call into question Jesus' existence.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 04, 2014, 10:06:51 AM
The true meaning of the last supper.....
http://www.youtube.com/v/U2w0uVbdgcI&index=196&list=LLfhYKxfb_JaIz2aNT-2ZdaQ#&fs=1
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 04, 2014, 10:34:39 AM
http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx (http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx)

Did Jesus Exist? Bart Ehrman Q&A - Unbelievable? - 18 August 2012   

http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443 (http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443)
"In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert [and Agnostic] Bart Ehrman confronts the question, "Did Jesus exist at all?" Ehrman vigorously defends the historical Jesus, identifies the most historically reliable sources for best understanding Jesus’ mission and message, and offers a compelling portrait of the person at the heart of the Christian tradition.

Known as a master explainer with deep knowledge of the field, Bart Ehrman methodically demolishes both the scholarly and popular “mythicist” arguments against the existence of Jesus. Marshaling evidence from within the Bible and the wider historical record of the ancient world, Ehrman tackles the key issues that surround the mythologies associated with Jesus and the early Christian movement.

In Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Ehrman establishes the criterion for any genuine historical investigation and provides a robust defense of the methods required to discover the Jesus of history."


Ashvin,
When you have to resort to quoting "agnostics" research, I know you're on the ropes. You're scraping
the bottom of the barrel bubba. The term agnostic implies the author is "against knowing or knowledge".
That's like asking Jack the Ripper to babysit the kids while you & the misses go out to dinner & a movie.
Sheeesh.....

Not what knowing what "agnostic" means is one thing, but not even bothering to Google it up... well...

ag·nos·tic
agˈnästik/
noun

"a person who believes that nothing is known OR can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."


The key point here is that Bart Ehrman, who apparently you are unfamiliar with, is a vociferous critic of orthodox Christianity and has written numerous books questioning the reliability of the Gospel accounts, YET EVEN HE thought it worthwhile to write a book dismantling the silly arguments which call into question Jesus' existence.

The key point here is this history lesson I posted about the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.
Ashvin, you slid right past it & posted a bunch of irrelevant dark age mumbo jumbo ........
Where's your debate on the key issue ? THE COUNCIL OF NICEA in 325 A.D. The little meeting ol' Constantine & the his Bishops had
to propagate the lie we are still living to this day.
You left brained christians crack me up, you wander off into the back of the book & you haven't even got a clue as to
what the bible talks about in the 1st couple of pages. It's the creation of the cosmos. You can open ANY book, be it
a math book, romance novel, physics book, & the 1st few pages gives you a clear idea of the cast of characters
the author or authors are trying to reveal to the reader. The bible is about Astro-Theology, biochemistry, & physics,
not religion. That crap was forced on us by Constantine & the boys in 325 A.D.
Now go back to your comic books & stay there. I'm done with all your foolishness.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on September 04, 2014, 11:22:56 AM
The key point here is this history lesson I posted about the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.
Ashvin, you slid right past it & posted a bunch of irrelevant dark age mumbo jumbo ........
Where's your debate on the key issue ? THE COUNCIL OF NICEA in 325 A.D. The little meeting ol' Constantine & the his Bishops had
to propagate the lie we are still living to this day.

This has been discussed at length on this forum before you showed up, but since you're a newbie I'll sum it up for you:

What Really Happened at Nicea?
Article ID: DN206 | By: James R. White

Summary

The Council of Nicea is often misrepresented by cults and other religious movements. The actual concern of the council was clearly and unambiguously the relationship between the Father and the Son. Is Christ a creature, or true God? The council said He was true God. Yet, the opponents of the deity of Christ did not simply give up after the council’s decision. In fact, they almost succeeded in overturning the Nicene affirmation of Christ’s deity. But faithful Christians like Athanasius continued to defend the truth, and in the end, truth triumphed over error.

The conversation intensified quickly. “You can’t really trust the Bible,” my Latter-day Saints acquaintance said, “because you really don’t know what books belong in it. You see, a bunch of men got together and decided the canon of Scripture at the Council of Nicea, picking some books, rejecting others.” A few others were listening in on the conversation at the South Gate of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City. It was the LDS General Conference, and I again heard the Council of Nicea presented as that point in history where something “went wrong,” where some group of unnamed, faceless men “decided” for me what I was supposed to believe. I quickly corrected him about Nicea — nothing was decided, or even said, about the canon of Scripture at that council.1

I was reminded how often the phrase “the Council of Nicea” is used as an accusation by those who reject the Christian faith. New Agers often allege that the council removed the teaching of reincarnation from the Bible.2 And of course, Jehovah’s Witnesses and critics of the deity of Christ likewise point to that council as the “beginning of the Trinity” or the “first time the deity of Christ was asserted as orthodox teaching.” Others see it as the beginning of the union of church and state in light of the participation of the Roman Emperor, Constantine. Some even say it was the beginning of the Roman Catholic church.

THE BACKGROUND

Excepting the apostolic council in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15, the Council of Nicea stands above other early councils of the church as far as its scope and its focus. Luther called it “the most sacred of all councils.”3 When it began on June 19, 325, the fires of persecution had barely cooled. The Roman Empire had been unsuccessful in its attempt to wipe out the Christian faith. Fourteen years had elapsed since the final persecutions under the Emperor Galerius had ended. Many of the men who made up the Council of Nicea bore in their bodies the scars of persecution. They had been willing to suffer for the name of Christ.

The council was called by the Emperor Constantine. Leading bishops in the church agreed to participate, so serious was the matter at hand. To understand why the first universal council was called, we must go back to around A.D. 318. In the populous Alexandria suburb of Baucalis, a well-liked presbyter by the name of Arius began teaching in opposition to the bishop of Alexandria, Alexander. Specifically, he disagreed with Alexander’s teaching that Jesus, the Son of God, had existed eternally, being “generated” eternally by the Father. Instead, Arius insisted that “there was a time when the Son was not.” Christ must be numbered among the created beings — highly exalted, to be sure, but a creation, nonetheless. Alexander defended his position, and it was not long before Arius was declared a heretic in a local council in 321.

This did not end the matter. Arius simply moved to Palestine and began promoting his ideas there. Alexander wrote letters to the churches in the area, warning them against those he called the “Exukontians,” from a Greek phrase meaning “out of nothing.” Arius taught that the Son of God was created “out of nothing.” Arius found an audience for his teachings, and over the course of the next few years the debate became so heated that it came to the attention of Constantine, the Emperor.

Having consolidated his hold on the Empire, Constantine promoted unity in every way possible. He recognized that a schism in the Christian church would be just one more destabilizing factor in his empire, and he moved to solve the problem.4 While he had encouragement from men like Hosius, bishop of Cordova, and Eusebius of Caesarea, Constantine was the one who officially called for the council.5

THE PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR VIEWS


The Council of Nicea was mostly Eastern. According to tradition, 318 bishops were in attendance, though most historians believe this number is a bit high. The vast majority came from the East, with less than a dozen representing the rest of the Empire.

The council was divided into three groups. Arius was in attendance, at the command of the Emperor, along with a few supporters. Most notable of these were two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus, as well as Eusebius of Nicomedia. This group represented the viewpoint that Christ was of a different substance (Greek: heteroousios) than the Father, that is, that He is a creature.

The “orthodox” group was led primarily by Hosius of Cordova and Alexander of Alexandria (accompanied by his brilliant young deacon, and later champion of the Nicene position, Athanasius6). They represented the view that Christ was of the same substance (Greek: homo-ousios7) as the Father, that is, that He has eternally shared in the one essence that is God and in full deity.

The middle group, led by Eusebius of Caesarea (and hence often called the “Eusebian” party), distrusted the term homoousios, primarily because it had been used in the previous century by the modalistic8 heretic Sabellius and others who wished to teach the error that the Father and the Son were one person. This middle group agreed with the orthodox party that Jesus was fully God, but they were concerned that the term homoousios could be misunderstood to support the false idea that the Father and Son are one person. The middle group therefore presented the idea that the Son was of a similar substance (Greek: homoiousios) as the Father. By this means they hoped to avoid both the error of Arius as well as the perceived danger of Sabellianism found in the term homoousios.

THE ROLE OF CONSTANTINE

We are dependent, in large measure, on the words of Eusebius of Caesarea for our knowledge of many of the events at the council. This is somewhat unfortunate, because Eusebius, the first “church historian,” was a partisan participant as well. Historians recognize that his viewpoint is influenced by his desire for the favor of the Emperor and by his own political and theological goals and positions. Philip Schaff, in reproducing Eusebius’s description of the entrance of the Emperor into the council, speaks of Eusebius’s “panegyrical flattery.”9 Eusebius presents Constantine in the highest possible terms so as to enhance his own position.

What really was Constantine’s role? Often it is alleged (especially by Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example) that, for whatever reasons, Constantine forced the “same substance” view upon the council,10 or, at the very least, insured that it would be adopted. This is not the case. There is no question that Constantine wanted a unified church after the Council of Nicea. But he was no theologian, nor did he really care to any degree what basis would be used to forge the unity he desired. Later events show that he didn’t have any particular stake in the term homoousios and was willing to abandon it, if he saw that doing so would be of benefit to him. As Schaff rightly points out with reference to the term itself, “The word…was not an invention of the council of Nicea, still less of Constantine, but had previously arisen in theological language, and occurs even in Origen [185-254] and among the Gnostics….”11 Constantine is not the source or origin of the term, and the council did not adopt the term at his command.

THE DECISION AND THE CREED

The truth of how the council came to use the term is not difficult to discern. Athanasius notes that the gathered bishops truly desired to express their faith in primarily scriptural language, and they tried to do so. But every time they came up with a statement that was limited solely to biblical terms, the Arians would find a way of “reading” the statement so as to allow for agreement.12 They were forced to see that they needed to use a term that could not be misunderstood, that would clearly differentiate between a belief in the full deity of Christ and all those positions that would compromise that belief. Therefore, they focused on the term homoousios as being completely antithetical to the Arian position, and at the same time reflective of the scriptural truth that Jesus Christ is not a creature, but is fully God, incarnate deity.

The “orthodox” party had to express clearly to the “middle group” that by the use of the term homoousios they were not in any way attempting to give aid and comfort to the modalists and Sabellians in the East who continued to teach their errors even in the days of Nicea. They were not compromising the existence of three Persons, but were instead safeguarding the full deity of the Persons, and in particular, the Son.13 The resulting creed, signed by all but Arius and two bishops, was quite clear in its position:

We believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousios) with the Father, through Whom all things were made….

The creed also contained the “anathema” (i.e., condemnation) for those who rejected these truths, and for the first time, such anathemas carried with them civil repercussions. Arius and some of his followers were banished, even though for a short time. This set a precedent that eventually would have tremendous impact on culture and church, but it is also a separate issue from the theological proclamation of the council.

Nicea did not come up with something “new” in the creed. Belief in the deity of Christ was as old as the apostles themselves, who enunciated this truth over and over again.14 References to the full deity of Christ are abundant in the period prior to the Council of Nicea. Ignatius (died c. 108), the great martyr bishop of Antioch, could easily speak of Jesus Christ as God at the opening of the second century. More than once Ignatius speaks of Jesus Christ as “our God.”15 When writing to Polycarp he can exhort him to “await Him that is above every season, the Eternal, the Invisible, (who for our sake became visible!), the Impalpable, the Impassible, (who for our sake suffered!), who in all ways endured for our sake.”16 Ignatius shows the highest view of Christ at a very early stage, when he writes to the Ephesians: “There is only one physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord.”17

Melito of Sardis (c. 170-180), a much less well-known figure, was tremendously gifted in expressing the ancient faith of the church regarding the deity of Christ:

And so he was lifted up upon a tree and an inscription was provided too, to indicate who was being killed. Who was it? It is a heavy thing to say, and a most fearful thing to refrain from saying. But listen, as you tremble in the face of him on whose account the earth trembled. He who hung the earth in place is hanged. He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place. He who made all things fast is made fast on the tree. The Master is insulted. God is murdered. The King of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand.18

Nicea was not creating some new doctrine, some new belief, but clearly, explicitly, defining truth against error. The council had no idea that they, by their gathering together, possessed some kind of sacramental power of defining beliefs: they sought to clarify biblical truth, not to put themselves in the forefront and make themselves a second source of authority.

This can easily be seen from the fact that Athanasius, in defending the Nicene council, does so on the basis of its harmony with Scripture, not on the basis of the council having some inherent authority in and of itself. Note his words: “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.”19

The relationship between the sufficient Scriptures and the “Nicene Bishops” should be noted carefully. The Scriptures are not made insufficient by the council; rather, the words of the council “remind” one of the “religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” Obviously, then, the authority of the council is derivative from its fidelity to Scripture.

CANON #6

While the creed of the council was its central achievement, it was not the only thing that the bishops accomplished during their meeting. Twenty canons were presented dealing with various disciplinary issues within the church. Of most interest to us today was the sixth, which read as follows:

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.20

This canon is significant because it demonstrates that at this time there was no concept of a single universal head of the church with jurisdiction over everyone else. While later Roman bishops would claim such authority, resulting in the development of the papacy, at this time no Christian looked to one individual, or church, as the final authority. This is important because often we hear it alleged that the Trinity, or the Nicene definition of the deity of Christ, is a “Roman Catholic” concept “forced” on the church by the pope. The simple fact of the matter is, when the bishops gathered at Nicea they did not acknowledge the bishop of Rome as anything more than the leader of the most influential church in the West.

THE AFTERMATH

Modern Christians often have the impression that ancient councils held absolute sway, and when they made “the decision,” the controversy ended. This is not true. Though Nicea is seen as one of the greatest of the councils, it had to fight hard for acceptance. The basis of its final victory was not the power of politics, nor the endorsement of established religion. There was one reason the Nicene definition prevailed: its fidelity to the testimony of the Scriptures.

During the six decades between the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constantinople in 381, Arianism experienced many victories. There were periods where Arian bishops constituted the majority of the visible ecclesiastical hierarchy. Primarily through the force of political power, Arian sympathizers soon took to undoing the condemnation of Arius and his theology. Eusebius of Nicomedia and others attempted to overturn Nicea, and for a number of decades it looked as if they might succeed. Constantine adopted a compromising position under the influence of various sources, including Eusebius of Caesarea and a politically worded “confession” from Arius. Constantine put little stock in the definition of Nicea itself: he was a politician to the last. Upon his death, his second son Constantius ruled in the East, and he gave great aid and comfort to Arianism. United by their rejection of the homoousion, semi-Arians and Arians worked to unseat a common enemy, almost always proceeding with political power on their side.

Under Constantius, council after council met in this location or that. So furious was the activity that one commentator wrote of the time, “The highways were covered with galloping bishops.”22 Most importantly, regional councils meeting at Ariminum, Seleucia, and Sirmium presented Arian and semi-Arian creeds, and many leaders were coerced into subscribing to them. Even Liberius, bishop of Rome, having been banished from his see (position as bishop) and longing to return, was persuaded to give in and compromise on the matter.23

During the course of the decades following Nicea, Athanasius, who had become bishop of Alexandria shortly after the council, was removed from his see five times, once by force of 5,000 soldiers coming in the front door while he escaped out the back! Hosius, now nearly 100 years old, was likewise forced by imperial threats to compromise and give place to Arian ideas. At the end of the sixth decade of the century, it looked as if Nicea would be defeated. Jerome would later describe this moment in history as the time when “the whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian.”24

Yet, in the midst of this darkness, a lone voice remained strong. Arguing from Scripture, fearlessly reproaching error, writing from refuge in the desert, along the Nile, or in the crowded suburbs around Alexandria, Athanasius continued the fight. His unwillingness to give place — even when banished by the Emperor, disfellowshipped by the established church, and condemned by local councils and bishops alike — gave rise to the phrase, Athanasius contra mundum: “Athanasius against the world.” Convinced that Scripture is “sufficient above all things,”25 Athanasius acted as a true “Protestant” in his day.26 Athanasius protested against the consensus opinion of the established church, and did so because he was compelled by scriptural authority. Athanasius would have understood, on some of those long, lonely days of exile, what Wycliffe meant a thousand years later: “If we had a hundred popes, and if all the friars were cardinals, to the law of the gospel we should bow, more than all this multitude.”27

Movements that depend on political favor (rather than God’s truth) eventually die, and this was true of Arianism. As soon as it looked as if the Arians had consolidated their hold on the Empire, they turned to internal fighting and quite literally destroyed each other. They had no one like a faithful Athanasius, and it was not long before the tide turned against them. By A.D. 381, the Council of Constantinople could meet and reaffirm, without hesitancy, the Nicene faith, complete with the homoousious clause. The full deity of Christ was affirmed, not because Nicea had said so, but because God had revealed it to be so. Nicea’s authority rested upon the solid foundation of Scripture. A century after Nicea, we find the great bishop of Hippo, Augustine, writing to Maximin, an Arian, and saying: “I must not press the authority of Nicea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but let us come to ground that is common to both — the testimony of the Holy Scriptures."

NEXT ARGUMENT PLEASE...
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 04, 2014, 12:09:23 PM
Now your quoting jehovah's witness' ........... GREAT !
I kind of figured we would get to this point.
The J.W.'s biggest benefactor is ......... (drumroll please Nigel) THE MORGAN FAMILY TRUST !!!!!!!
Ah yes good ol' J.P. himself & his oodle's & oodle's of fiat currency. That'll solve anything.
A frickin' bankster is behind your evangelista movement bubba. How's that shit grab ya' ?
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 04, 2014, 12:18:55 PM
Ashvin,
Since you support the Zionist movement in Israel, you naturally support ethnic cleansing. WTF ?
1) Christianity = My god is better than your god WTF ?
2) Judaism = The chosen people WTF ?
3) Islam = Believes in Sharia Law WTF ?
Those are your 3 anti-christs 
That all has to do with archonic toxoplasmosis
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 04, 2014, 12:30:13 PM
NEWBIE ......

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Glad to see your winning the battle of self-importance one more time.
You wear your time in service proudly bubba
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 04, 2014, 12:46:40 PM
@ RE
If you're reading this friendly banter, is this site a front for the J.W.'s ?
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on September 04, 2014, 01:20:18 PM
@ RE
If you're reading this friendly banter, is this site a front for the J.W.'s ?

Nope, you're just a front for careless reading...

The author I quoted is James White, who is NOT a JW, and in fact, if you read what he wrote at the very beginning, you would have seen this - "I was reminded how often the phrase “the Council of Nicea” is used as an accusation by those who reject the Christian faith. New Agers often allege that the council removed the teaching of reincarnation from the Bible.2 And of course, Jehovah’s Witnesses and critics of the deity of Christ likewise point to that council as the “beginning of the Trinity” or the “first time the deity of Christ was asserted as orthodox teaching.”

Maybe you should try using Google or Wiki before making any more of your silly accusations...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_White_%28theologian%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_White_%28theologian%29)
"James Robert White (born December 17, 1962) is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, an evangelical Reformed Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is the author of more than 20 books and has engaged in numerous moderated debates."
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on September 04, 2014, 01:23:01 PM
Ashvin,
Since you support the Zionist movement in Israel, you naturally support ethnic cleansing. WTF ?

Another reckless and false accusation...

BTW, I'm loving this "friendly banter", since you are destroying your own credibility and integrity with every new comment you post. I barely have to lift a finger...  :emthup:
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on September 04, 2014, 02:47:05 PM
Oh, and one more thing...

You assumed I was pro-Zionism because I am 100% against ANTI-SEMITISM. When you come with Jew hatred dressed up in New Age Ancient Alien "Archon toxoplasmosis" nonsense, a la John Lash, I will call you out on it every single time.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 04, 2014, 04:07:04 PM
Ashvin,
How come you haven't gone after Max Igan. He can't stand you & your zionist cold blooded friends either.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on September 04, 2014, 04:09:40 PM
Ashvin,
Since you support the Zionist movement in Israel, you naturally support ethnic cleansing. WTF ?

Another reckless and false accusation...

BTW, I'm loving this "friendly banter", since you are destroying your own credibility and integrity with every new comment you post. I barely have to lift a finger...  :emthup:

As you ARE in fact a newbie to DD azozeo, you dont know that literally hundreds of pages have been devoted here to many people acting as heaven sent angels for ashvin  to wrestle his demon of doubt about his worldview NOT FAITH. The more the truth is presented the more he declares he has integrity and you do not, he has credibility and you do not, he read the the irrelevant long references he posted and you did not, he is intellectually honest and you are not, his argument is substantive and yours is not etc. Its a waste of time when the argument is increasingly against self declared superiority.



Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 04, 2014, 04:22:09 PM
Thanks Bob,
You just can't fix fuckin broken. It has to be dismantled, and thrown on the scrap heap.
Ashvin's taken the blue pill & is happy & content in his Truman show existence.
And that's fine by me. I try to allow all to walk their own path in life. I should
have realized days ago this fact about him my boo-boo. Ashvin, you be right
& I'll be happy.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on September 04, 2014, 04:42:24 PM
Back to the substantive argument...

Both of you guys (UB, AZ) have endorsed the Council of Nicea conspiracy theory multiple times now. So are either of you going to even attempt a rebuttal of the points raised in that article, or are you going to conveniently IGNORE it, go off on a few irrelevant anti-Christian rants and then repeat the PROPAGANDA a few days or weeks later?

UB, I'm especially looking at you because this is your tried and true tactic. Every time I criticize another belief system, instead of defending against my points, you start attacking orthodox Christian belief and talking about OT "genocide, slavery, child abuse" etc. If I say anything about NT historical reliability, inevitably you start talking about the Council of Nicea (but hey, at least you have the good sense not to claim Jesus didn't exist!!). So how about dealing with this Nicea issue head on for a change?

Quote
Ashvin, you be right & I'll be happy.

I'm very happy if no one here buys into your pseudo-scientific, false historical and racist propaganda. And as far as I can tell, not even UB, the person who endorses Ancient Astronaut theories (and also loves to hate on me the most), is buying any of the shit you're shining  ;D
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 04, 2014, 04:46:48 PM
Back to the substantive argument...

Both of you guys (UB, AZ) have endorsed the Council of Nicea conspiracy theory multiple times now. So are either of you going to even attempt a rebuttal of the points raised in that article, or are you going to conveniently IGNORE it, go off on a few irrelevant anti-Christian rants and then repeat the PROPAGANDA a few days or weeks later?

UB, I'm especially looking at you because this is your tried and true tactic. Every time I criticize another belief system, instead of defending against my points, you start attacking orthodox Christian belief and talking about OT "genocide, slavery, child abuse" etc. If I say anything about NT historical reliability, inevitably you start talking about the Council of Nicea (but hey, at least you have the good sense not to claim Jesus didn't exist!!). So how about dealing with this Nicea issue head on for a change?

Quote
Ashvin, you be right & I'll be happy.

I'm very happy if no one here buys into your pseudo-scientific, false historical and racist propaganda. And as far as I can tell, not even UB, the person who endorses Ancient Astronaut theories (and also loves to hate on me the most), is buying any of the shit you're shining  ;D

http://www.youtube.com/v/HLAGRwEaxMk&list=LLfhYKxfb_JaIz2aNT-2ZdaQ&index=41#&fs=1
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 04, 2014, 04:48:32 PM
Ashvin,
you're full of fear bubba.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on September 04, 2014, 05:13:01 PM
Thanks Bob,
You just fix fuckin broken. It has to be dismantled, and thrown on the scrap heap.
Ashvin's taken the blue pill & is happy & content in his Truman show existence.
And that's fine by me. I try to allow all to walk their own path in life. I should
have realized days ago this fact about him my boo-boo. Ashvin, you be right
& I'll be happy.

We are all people who are happy to allow others to walk their won path, u got sucked in for the same reason i did in those really long exchanges above that i doubt anybody else bothered to read, again...

If you want to talk about why you believe what you do or whether some other idea/s do or dont stack up, you do it straight up on how much sense they make, or if u just plain have FAITH in it anyway in spite of what cant be explained and your own experience is all the explanation YOU need. Coming at it from tangential angles trying to use far removed associations to history and science to imply demons, angels, virgin births, millions of other miracles and barbaric beliefs are justified.  OR ignore that any of that is even part of what youre suggesting, sounds like a politicians pre-prepared press release and pisses people off, which is why we bite.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 04, 2014, 06:16:33 PM
Well said Bob. We have to remember not all folks have been blessed with open mind.
They simply can't operate without being lead around by the nose. I'm sure these pirates
who think their running the planet are laughing their asses off at these narrow minded fools.
The system we live in was designed to confuse & difuse any free-thinking that may come about.
People like Ashvin & the ilk Ashvin hangs with were conditioned from birth with this numbness
and never recovered. Max Igan talks about this with those poor Palestinian's & the constant bombings
they have to endure on a daily basis, by those god damn Zionist blood thirsty psychopaths in the middle
east.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on September 04, 2014, 06:19:31 PM
Back to the substantive argument...

Both of you guys (UB, AZ) have endorsed the Council of Nicea conspiracy theory multiple times now. So are either of you going to even attempt a rebuttal of the points raised in that article, or are you going to conveniently IGNORE it, go off on a few irrelevant anti-Christian rants and then repeat the PROPAGANDA a few days or weeks later?

UB, I'm especially looking at you because this is your tried and true tactic. Every time I criticize another belief system, instead of defending against my points, you start attacking orthodox Christian belief and talking about OT "genocide, slavery, child abuse" etc. If I say anything about NT historical reliability, inevitably you start talking about the Council of Nicea (but hey, at least you have the good sense not to claim Jesus didn't exist!!). So how about dealing with this Nicea issue head on for a change?

Quote
Ashvin, you be right & I'll be happy.

I'm very happy if no one here buys into your pseudo-scientific, false historical and racist propaganda. And as far as I can tell, not even UB, the person who endorses Ancient Astronaut theories (and also loves to hate on me the most), is buying any of the shit you're shining  ;D

As I said way earlier, heaping on the "you always" and insults in place of argument in the end. Az has already given a valid reason to not take that reference seriously. When i reference anything u say I an not thinking for myself, or when i reason out my thinking  u say its not serving me  well, catch 22, but somehow does not apply also to you. u heap insults in place of arguments and then say "back to substantive". I forgot to mention "psuedo scientific, false historical" being another favourite. How have u disproved any science to say anything is psuedo scientific. U have not, everything presented is attempted witness discrediting by negative description/ character asassination.

I have only referred to the bible and orthodox christian concepts to point out the hypocrisy in reference to claims you make. YOU made a claim that The new age movement advocates genocide of christians when it does no such thing, and reminded you of the direct examples of genocide and ordered by god with no ambiguity about it in the bible, wheras the proof of the pudding is "New age" has not killed anyone, christians kill millions. Its a flat out fucking lie to say "instead of defending against your points" People can spend every minute of every hour of every day going round and round in such stupid circles with you.

U should not crow about anyones reactions to Az's material they may be keeping an open mind to, when nobody is buying any of yours either and the impression is worse. As for ancient astronaut theories, I have said above that I have only an open mind to them and would prefer to meet jesus than an alien after u claimed i was "heavily invested", now u say 'endorses'. This is just more mischaracterization after the fact like "hating on you". Do a search under Ashvin and Hate or Hateful and see a hundred or so people who spent their time out of love for you that you have called 'hateful' (two in this thread alone including karpatok already) when u can not argue anything logically, but still consider yourself the king of logical argument.






Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 04, 2014, 06:42:17 PM
Well said again, Bob. From the crusades to the current B.S.
It's been a constant blood bath with these inbreds.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 04, 2014, 06:46:46 PM
Ashvin-ism's

"I'm very happy if ..............
The world according to a sociopath mind.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ka on September 04, 2014, 08:16:09 PM
I'm convinced. There really must be an alien controlling bunch. For the best way to exercise control is to do so in a way that people don't suspect you exist. And the surefire way to make that happen is to have agents who say you DO exist, but do so in a way that no sensible person will take them seriously. Then, and this is the crucial part, when the agent is attacked for his apparently silly ideas, show no mercy in dodging those attacks. Never acknowledge, must less respond, to any contrary data or argument. Take words out of what the attacker says and spin them 180 degrees if necessary. And, of course, accuse the attacker of being close-minded, inbred, -- and here is the kicker -- left-brained dominated. Now there is rhetorical genius: "Open your mind and think for yourself but for God's Cthulhu's sake don't let the left brain spoil anything."  Works like a charm. So given the clear evidence of such an agent here, it only makes sense to conclude there is the hidden reality for whom the agent is working.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on September 04, 2014, 10:14:26 PM
I'm convinced. There really must be an alien controlling bunch. For the best way to exercise control is to do so in a way that people don't suspect you exist. And the surefire way to make that happen is to have agents who say you DO exist, but do so in a way that no sensible person will take them seriously. Then, and this is the crucial part, when the agent is attacked for his apparently silly ideas, show no mercy in dodging those attacks. Never acknowledge, must less respond, to any contrary data or argument. Take words out of what the attacker says and spin them 180 degrees if necessary. And, of course, accuse the attacker of being close-minded, inbred, -- and here is the kicker -- left-brained dominated. Now there is rhetorical genius: "Open your mind and think for yourself but for God's Cthulhu's sake don't let the left brain spoil anything."  Works like a charm. So given the clear evidence of such an agent here, it only makes sense to conclude there is the hidden reality for whom the agent is working.

STOP thinking, slow down BOTH Left AND Right cerebral hemispheres from beta to at least alpha state and the illusion of duality disapears. If Merrel-Wolf can anyone can, dont you base your empirical understanding on his leaving out the Left?
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ka on September 05, 2014, 12:45:19 AM
STOP thinking, slow down BOTH Left AND Right cerebral hemispheres from beta to at least alpha state and the illusion of duality disapears. If Merrel-Wolf can anyone can, dont you base your empirical understanding on his leaving out the Left?

No, since he didn't stop thinking, right up to and through the moment of Realization, or so he says. What matters is being detached from one's thoughts, not stopping them. In any case, translating "left" and "right" into my terms (form that is not other than formlessness, formlessness that is not other than form, respectively), you can't have one without the other.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 05, 2014, 03:48:08 AM
Gold Star on your forehead Ka  :icon_sunny:
Fits Ashvin to a tee
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on September 05, 2014, 04:02:07 AM
As I said way earlier, heaping on the "you always" and insults in place of argument in the end. Az has already given a valid reason to not take that reference seriously. When i reference anything u say I an not thinking for myself, or when i reason out my thinking  u say its not serving me  well, catch 22, but somehow does not apply also to you. u heap insults in place of arguments and then say "back to substantive". I forgot to mention "psuedo scientific, false historical" being another favourite. How have u disproved any science to say anything is psuedo scientific. U have not, everything presented is attempted witness discrediting by negative description/ character asassination.

You are great at playing the victim, UB. Out of the many, many comments I have made with all substantive arguments and NO personal references, you remember the few which came after you started attacking me personally, and even then it's something I said like, "your reason is not serving you well" or you are promoting "psuedo-science" and "manipulating history". In RE terms, that would be zero calorie, sugar-free, watered-down Napalm LITE. And, in fact, I still believe all those statements are true!

As to the bolded statement, what "valid reason" would this be? You mean when he claimed the author was a Jehovah's Witness (FALSE) and therefore there is no need to consider any of his points about Nicea? Please respond to this, because unenlightened minds are very curious to know!

Quote
I have only referred to the bible and orthodox christian concepts to point out the hypocrisy in reference to claims you make. YOU made a claim that The new age movement advocates genocide of christians when it does no such thing, and reminded you of the direct examples of genocide and ordered by god with no ambiguity about it in the bible, wheras the proof of the pudding is "New age" has not killed anyone, christians kill millions. Its a flat out fucking lie to say "instead of defending against your points" People can spend every minute of every hour of every day going round and round in such stupid circles with you.

I know you're strategy well, so you don't need to explain it to me. It's called "avoid and sidetrack", i.e. attack the Bible in response to every issue raised by me so as to avoid them, and then devolve the thread into a sporadic hodgepodge of various accusations and counter-accusations. People only have to go back a few pages to see how this played out for the Nth time. Even if the Bible and orthodox Christian faith was 100% full of shit, that would do nothing to discredit my arguments against the ideas you and Az have promoted. So I'll just stipulate that and move on.

As for me claiming the New Age "advocates genocide against Christians", I simply pointed out Tsarion's clear statement from the video AZ posted and that I watched (unlike the articles and videos I post and you guys refuse to consider) - "If you don't accept that [man is his own savior], you are an UNsane person (not insane). You are toxic and you need to be quarantined or something. That's the long and short of it IMO... then I WANT TO GET THE CRUCIFIX OUT."

What, if anything, is your defense of this reasoning?

Quote
U should not crow about anyones reactions to Az's material they may be keeping an open mind to, when nobody is buying any of yours either and the impression is worse. As for ancient astronaut theories, I have said above that I have only an open mind to them and would prefer to meet jesus than an alien after u claimed i was "heavily invested", now u say 'endorses'. This is just more mischaracterization after the fact like "hating on you". Do a search under Ashvin and Hate or Hateful and see a hundred or so people who spent their time out of love for you that you have called 'hateful' (two in this thread alone including karpatok already) when u can not argue anything logically, but still consider yourself the king of logical argument.

I really hope that no one is keeping an "open mind" towards Az's material anymore. Maybe we should take a poll on who takes anything he has claimed so far seriously...

It is not a mischaracterization to say you are "heavily invested" in AA theories. Every time I question them you get super riled up and go on the offensive. You have endorsed them MANY times before, and you have recently claimed that ancient texts clearly describe ET genetic engineering (but have not defended that claim in the slightest). So your latest comment about keeping an "open mind" and preferring to "meet Jesus than an alien" does not suddenly wipe out your ongoing promotion of the AA meme.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on September 05, 2014, 04:05:53 AM
I'm convinced. There really must be an alien controlling bunch. For the best way to exercise control is to do so in a way that people don't suspect you exist. And the surefire way to make that happen is to have agents who say you DO exist, but do so in a way that no sensible person will take them seriously. Then, and this is the crucial part, when the agent is attacked for his apparently silly ideas, show no mercy in dodging those attacks. Never acknowledge, must less respond, to any contrary data or argument. Take words out of what the attacker says and spin them 180 degrees if necessary. And, of course, accuse the attacker of being close-minded, inbred, -- and here is the kicker -- left-brained dominated. Now there is rhetorical genius: "Open your mind and think for yourself but for God's Cthulhu's sake don't let the left brain spoil anything."  Works like a charm. So given the clear evidence of such an agent here, it only makes sense to conclude there is the hidden reality for whom the agent is working.

Absolutely brilliant!!  :emthup:

Although I think that one flew right over Az's head...
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: RE on September 05, 2014, 04:11:07 AM
I am SOOOO GLAD I stayed out of this one.  AcccKKKK.  lol.

RE
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on September 05, 2014, 06:05:18 AM
Thanks Bob,
You just fix fuckin broken. It has to be dismantled, and thrown on the scrap heap.
Ashvin's taken the blue pill & is happy & content in his Truman show existence.
And that's fine by me. I try to allow all to walk their own path in life. I should
have realized days ago this fact about him my boo-boo. Ashvin, you be right
& I'll be happy.

We are all people who are happy to allow others to walk their won path, u got sucked in for the same reason i did in those really long exchanges above that i doubt anybody else bothered to read, again...

If you want to talk about why you believe what you do or whether some other idea/s do or dont stack up, you do it straight up on how much sense they make, or if u just plain have FAITH in it anyway in spite of what cant be explained and your own experience is all the explanation YOU need. Coming at it from tangential angles trying to use far removed associations to history and science to imply demons, angels, virgin births, millions of other miracles and barbaric beliefs are justified.  OR ignore that any of that is even part of what youre suggesting, sounds like a politicians pre-prepared press release and pisses people off, which is why we bite.

It doesn't piss many of us off.

You don't bite, you ask the questions of him and get pissed off at his answers.

Then your group demeans him for having the ignorance to even answer, cannot refute his arguments, and start the name calling and subject changing tactics.

You were doing good for a while Unc, I commended your behavior, but your back to bashing him because you cannot deal with his inquiries of what he presented in rebuttal.

The Newbies who have entered the fray are just mudslingers IMHO, you at least appear serious and genuine until punched silly by the champ.

Only my two centavos and humble opinion of course.



Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on September 05, 2014, 06:56:44 AM
Thanks Bob,
You just fix fuckin broken. It has to be dismantled, and thrown on the scrap heap.
Ashvin's taken the blue pill & is happy & content in his Truman show existence.
And that's fine by me. I try to allow all to walk their own path in life. I should
have realized days ago this fact about him my boo-boo. Ashvin, you be right
& I'll be happy.

We are all people who are happy to allow others to walk their won path, u got sucked in for the same reason i did in those really long exchanges above that i doubt anybody else bothered to read, again...

If you want to talk about why you believe what you do or whether some other idea/s do or dont stack up, you do it straight up on how much sense they make, or if u just plain have FAITH in it anyway in spite of what cant be explained and your own experience is all the explanation YOU need. Coming at it from tangential angles trying to use far removed associations to history and science to imply demons, angels, virgin births, millions of other miracles and barbaric beliefs are justified.  OR ignore that any of that is even part of what youre suggesting, sounds like a politicians pre-prepared press release and pisses people off, which is why we bite.

It doesn't piss many of us off.

You don't bite, you ask the questions of him and get pissed off at his answers.

Then your group demeans him for having the ignorance to even answer, cannot refute his arguments, and start the name calling and subject changing tactics.

You were doing good for a while Unc, I commended your behavior, but your back to bashing him because you cannot deal with his inquiries of what he presented in rebuttal.

The Newbies who have entered the fray are just mudslingers IMHO, you at least appear serious and genuine until punched silly by the champ.

Only my two centavos and humble opinion of course.

Only already avowed christians could see it that way and not show which argument you believe he won or why. The proof of the pudding is in the baking. His apostate arguments convincing only a christian jury cause divisions between other diners twice already now. Lets just make him the christian captain, exactly the way christ would want it.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on September 05, 2014, 07:39:34 AM
 
Quote
  It doesn't piss many of us off.

    You don't bite, you ask the questions of him and get pissed off at his answers.

    Then your group demeans him for having the ignorance to even answer, cannot refute his arguments, and start the name calling and subject changing tactics.

    You were doing good for a while Unc, I commended your behavior, but your back to bashing him because you cannot deal with his inquiries of what he presented in rebuttal.

    The Newbies who have entered the fray are just mudslingers IMHO, you at least appear serious and genuine until punched silly by the champ.

    Only my two centavos and humble opinion of course.


Quote
Only already avowed christians could see it that way and not show which argument you believe he won or why. The proof of the pudding is in the baking. His apostate arguments convincing only a christian jury cause divisions between other diners twice already now. Lets just make him the christian captain, exactly the way christ would want it.

Hi Unc, I never mentioned Christians or religion.

My posting was about the methodology of the debate.

Nor did I mention winners or losers, except to imply you get pissed when he punches you silly with his rebuttals, and resort to calling him names rather than deal with them.

I was thinking of the questions he posed directly on the Council of Nicea, and his answering of AZ's inquiries and receiving no answers to his efforts in replying.The ignoring tactic and moving on to another topic is used repeatedly in my view.

There is a whole lot more than arguments about religion that have split Diners into factions Uncle. May I just mention Energy and Politics for the sake of brevity? Blaming religion solely for divisiveness on a forum dedicated to exchanging ideas and opinions hardly seems fair.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Golden Oxen on September 05, 2014, 09:17:05 AM
I am SOOOO GLAD I stayed out of this one.  AcccKKKK.  lol.

RE

Never too late to enter the fray.   :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on September 05, 2014, 09:30:03 AM
 
Quote
  It doesn't piss many of us off.

    You don't bite, you ask the questions of him and get pissed off at his answers.

    Then your group demeans him for having the ignorance to even answer, cannot refute his arguments, and start the name calling and subject changing tactics.

    You were doing good for a while Unc, I commended your behavior, but your back to bashing him because you cannot deal with his inquiries of what he presented in rebuttal.

    The Newbies who have entered the fray are just mudslingers IMHO, you at least appear serious and genuine until punched silly by the champ.

    Only my two centavos and humble opinion of course.


Quote
Only already avowed christians could see it that way and not show which argument you believe he won or why. The proof of the pudding is in the baking. His apostate arguments convincing only a christian jury cause divisions between other diners twice already now. Lets just make him the christian captain, exactly the way christ would want it.

Hi Unc, I never mentioned Christians or religion.

My posting was about the methodology of the debate.

Nor did I mention winners or losers, except to imply you get pissed when he punches you silly with his rebuttals, and resort to calling him names rather than deal with them.

I was thinking of the questions he posed directly on the Council of Nicea, and his answering of AZ's inquiries and receiving no answers to his efforts in replying.The ignoring tactic and moving on to another topic is used repeatedly in my view.

There is a whole lot more than arguments about religion that have split Diners into factions Uncle. May I just mention Energy and Politics for the sake of brevity? Blaming religion solely for divisiveness on a forum dedicated to exchanging ideas and opinions hardly seems fair.

So u never noticed that I had pointed out myself in all the prior posts that he was increasingly substituting insults and smear instead of responding to the arguments I made, even defending this behavior as 'warranted'. U did not notice that he left answering anything and many things himself when i got down to 'we all pray to the same god' supposedly because of 'too many threads' supposedly for the time being.


If u had read the prior posts objectively you would have seen that his long references did not have relevance or support what he claimed they supported at all. When I point that out several times he says he doesnt believe i read them. Read them yourself. If u missed me saying nobody has successfully built a pyramid other than in theory and he then posts some guy saying again that he COULD build one, who read and who didnt read the article then? Why would i bother with another one about nicaea when i had just been over it in detail already wasting a lot of time.

 Political press releases are propaganda and prove nothing at all. There are plenty of opposing ones in print as well, we all know what other texts were around at the time and got left out. You WOULD forget that Ashvin used to deny there even was a meeting to draft the final version of the bible until I pointed him to the council of nicaea myself.

As I asked, point out exactly where he punches me silly with which rebuttal to which point or you are guilty of ignoring and moving to another topic yourself. Also point out what u think is bashing him and we can see if it is not an accurate appraisal.






Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on September 05, 2014, 09:49:20 AM
Quote from: Ashvin
As I said way earlier, heaping on the "you always" and insults in place of argument in the end. Az has already given a valid reason to not take that reference seriously.

As to the bolded statement, what "valid reason" would this be? You mean when he claimed the author was a Jehovah's Witness (FALSE) and therefore there is no need to consider any of his points about Nicea? Please respond to this, because unenlightened minds are very curious to know!

Quote from: UB
Why would i bother with another one about nicaea when i had just been over it in detail already wasting a lot of time.

So... we're still waiting to hear that "valid reason".
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Surly1 on September 05, 2014, 09:57:40 AM
I am SOOOO GLAD I stayed out of this one.  AcccKKKK.  lol.

RE

Never too late to enter the fray.   :laugh: :laugh:

Are you kidding me? :laugh:

This thread is as radioactive as a wild boar in the forests of Chernobyl.

Have at it, GO, and we'll hold your coat!!  :icon_mrgreen: :icon_mrgreen:
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: agelbert on September 05, 2014, 11:36:32 AM
Ka's wisdom, equanimity and admiral sense of justice and logic  shines through:
Quote
I'm convinced. There really must be an alien controlling bunch. For the best way to exercise control is to do so in a way that people don't suspect you exist.

And the surefire way to make that happen is to have agents who say you DO exist, but do so in a way that no sensible person will take them seriously.

Then, and this is the crucial part, when the agent is attacked for his apparently silly ideas, show no mercy in dodging those attacks. Never acknowledge, must less respond, to any contrary data or argument.

Take words out of what the attacker says and spin them 180 degrees if necessary. And, of course, accuse the attacker of being close-minded, inbred, -- and here is the kicker -- left-brained dominated. Now there is rhetorical genius: "Open your mind and think for yourself but for God's Cthulhu's sake don't let the left brain spoil anything."  Works like a charm.

So given the clear evidence of such an agent here, it only makes sense to conclude there is the hidden reality for whom the agent is working.  ;D (http://media.giphy.com/media/HjPbLbmep2aJO/giphy.gif)

Ka RULES!  :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/computer3.gif)



Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: agelbert on September 05, 2014, 11:52:56 AM
Agelbert NOTE: Below please find a Summary of this THREAD... (http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1230/6680/original.jpg) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/4fvfcja.gif)


(http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/078/5/1/Literary_Pissing_Contest_by_kevinbolk.jpg)
(http://www.alexjonesmachine.com/oneup.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ymjMt1qIEes/TVrjFYbhiwI/AAAAAAAAAUE/g-Re--cGGSw/s1600/090226%2BPissing%2BContest%2BPosters.jpg)
 ;D
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 05, 2014, 12:47:55 PM
Ashvin,
are you sucking on a crack pipe ?
WTF is napalm lite. You've been hangin' with your buds over at the zionist temple again .
You really need to let go of this war on all fronts thing or you head is going to explode off
of your shoulders. Can anyone here say Ashvin meltdown in 10-9-8-7-6 etc.
BTW, I saw a couple of your J.W.'s hanging out by the soda machine over at the grocery store
this a.m. , complete with comic books in hand. I wasn't approached though..... hmmmmmm  :icon_scratch:
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: RE on September 05, 2014, 12:56:25 PM
Take it down a notch AZ or you will find yourself rooming with Moriarty.

RE
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 05, 2014, 01:08:43 PM
Take it down a notch AZ or you will find yourself rooming with Moriarty.

RE

Oh please, not that.
A fate worse than death ..............
Than I'll have to listen to his wind up, run of the mill Chevy stories till earth gives birth to that star
I'm claiming will happen. Maybe I shouldn't hit the crack pipe so often  ::)
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 05, 2014, 01:35:47 PM
I'm D.U.N. done with this thread for now. You cats know where I
stand on this material anyway. I'll leave Ashvin to his Crusades
& evangelism for some other poor unsuspecting "newbie".....
I've got a whole new rabbit hole to find the bottom of. It should
be a real Depends changer of a topic anyway. Never a dull
moment when the Zo's in da house   :evil4: As oxie labeled me -
You nasty bastard. Somebody's got to play the villain around this
shack.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on September 05, 2014, 04:17:49 PM
Quote from: Ashvin
As I said way earlier, heaping on the "you always" and insults in place of argument in the end. Az has already given a valid reason to not take that reference seriously.

As to the bolded statement, what "valid reason" would this be? You mean when he claimed the author was a Jehovah's Witness (FALSE) and therefore there is no need to consider any of his points about Nicea? Please respond to this, because unenlightened minds are very curious to know!

Quote from: UB
Why would i bother with another one about nicaea when i had just been over it in detail already wasting a lot of time.

So... we're still waiting to hear that "valid reason".

You are very predictable ashvin. I new you would think u finally had something on this and try and lock on that little corner. There are plenty of opposing studies as I have said, I read about them before google existed so im not go ogling anything. The outcome and history speaks for itself, i have said that several times. I brought the council of nicaea to your attention in the first place. But that matters little, you know where I stand on it, of far more importance is;


1. The impression you make when you claim you are all about intellectual honesty vs intellectual dishonesty. Then tell me what I know, when i do not believe or know what you suggest i do and then say I am intellectually dishonest. So how about I also just say you know what I do about nicaea and you are being intellectually dishonest. How intellecually honest would that be? When you claimed at the start of this thread that you are only about examining the "new age" for intellectual honesty, being quite familiar with all your arguments I justtook that then to mean you wanted to wrestle your demon.

2. I had already discontinued the debate with you, as you were wholesale not responding to inescapable truth susch as we all pray to the same god, and as I had pointed out you were increasing the number of insults per post, all smears. These are lawyerly attempts to discredit calling someone "stubborn" if they refuse to confess your version of events etc. I had stopped as it was a big waste of time, especially as you said your own experience was irrelevant. A christian and evangelist has nothing else but their own experience.

3. I had pointed out to azozeo after that the same thing so many newbies have had pointed out to them by other people already familiar with the diner being devoted to endless arguments with ashvin, when they arrive and its the first thing that happens. That was a brief one to him explaining this is nothing new, not restarting the debate with yourself.

4. I am not interested in arguing with christians who are good examples of the FAITH causing bad blood. You have failed to convince me of anything except you could not care less about that collateral damage and have hardly made progress during your sabattical toward living the faith.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Petty Tyrant on September 05, 2014, 04:27:09 PM
Agelbert NOTE: Below please find a Summary of this THREAD... (http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1230/6680/original.jpg) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/4fvfcja.gif)


(http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/078/5/1/Literary_Pissing_Contest_by_kevinbolk.jpg)
(http://www.alexjonesmachine.com/oneup.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ymjMt1qIEes/TVrjFYbhiwI/AAAAAAAAAUE/g-Re--cGGSw/s1600/090226%2BPissing%2BContest%2BPosters.jpg)
 ;D

Exactly, someone hit me with a hammer.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on September 05, 2014, 04:42:42 PM
Quote from: Ashvin
As I said way earlier, heaping on the "you always" and insults in place of argument in the end. Az has already given a valid reason to not take that reference seriously.

As to the bolded statement, what "valid reason" would this be? You mean when he claimed the author was a Jehovah's Witness (FALSE) and therefore there is no need to consider any of his points about Nicea? Please respond to this, because unenlightened minds are very curious to know!

Quote from: UB
Why would i bother with another one about nicaea when i had just been over it in detail already wasting a lot of time.

So... we're still waiting to hear that "valid reason".

You are very predictable ashvin. I new you would think u finally had something on this and try and lock on that little corner. There are plenty of opposing studies as I have said, I read about them before google existed so im not go ogling anything. The outcome and history speaks for itself, i have said that several times. I brought the council of nicaea to your attention in the first place. But that matters little, you know where I stand on it, of far more importance is;


1. The impression you make when you claim you are all about intellectual honesty vs intellectual dishonesty. Then tell me what I know, when i do not believe or know what you suggest i do and then say I am intellectually dishonest. So how about I also just say you know what I do about nicaea and you are being intellectually dishonest. How intellecually honest would that be? When you claimed at the start of this thread that you are only about examining the "new age" for intellectual honesty, being quite familiar with all your arguments I justtook that then to mean you wanted to wrestle your demon.

2. I had already discontinued the debate with you, as you were wholesale not responding to inescapable truth susch as we all pray to the same god, and as I had pointed out you were increasing the number of insults per post, all smears. These are lawyerly attempts to discredit calling someone "stubborn" if they refuse to confess your version of events etc. I had stopped as it was a big waste of time, especially as you said your own experience was irrelevant. A christian and evangelist has nothing else but their own experience.

3. I had pointed out to azozeo after that the same thing so many newbies have had pointed out to them by other people already familiar with the diner being devoted to endless arguments with ashvin, when they arrive and its the first thing that happens. That was a brief one to him explaining this is nothing new, not restarting the debate with yourself.

4. I am not interested in arguing with christians who are good examples of the FAITH causing bad blood. You have failed to convince me of anything except you could not care less about that collateral damage and have hardly made progress during your sabattical toward living the faith.

Thank you Bob, well said.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Karpatok on September 05, 2014, 04:50:12 PM
Quote from: Ashvin
As I said way earlier, heaping on the "you always" and insults in place of argument in the end. Az has already given a valid reason to not take that reference seriously.

As to the bolded statement, what "valid reason" would this be? You mean when he claimed the author was a Jehovah's Witness (FALSE) and therefore there is no need to consider any of his points about Nicea? Please respond to this, because unenlightened minds are very curious to know!

Quote from: UB
Why would i bother with another one about nicaea when i had just been over it in detail already wasting a lot of time.

So... we're still waiting to hear that "valid reason".

You are very predictable ashvin. I new you would think u finally had something on this and try and lock on that little corner. There are plenty of opposing studies as I have said, I read about them before google existed so im not go ogling anything. The outcome and history speaks for itself, i have said that several times. I brought the council of nicaea to your attention in the first place. But that matters little, you know where I stand on it, of far more importance is;


1. The impression you make when you claim you are all about intellectual honesty vs intellectual dishonesty. Then tell me what I know, when i do not believe or know what you suggest i do and then say I am intellectually dishonest. So how about I also just say you know what I do about nicaea and you are being intellectually dishonest. How intellecually honest would that be? When you claimed at the start of this thread that you are only about examining the "new age" for intellectual honesty, being quite familiar with all your arguments I justtook that then to mean you wanted to wrestle your demon.

2. I had already discontinued the debate with you, as you were wholesale not responding to inescapable truth susch as we all pray to the same god, and as I had pointed out you were increasing the number of insults per post, all smears. These are lawyerly attempts to discredit calling someone "stubborn" if they refuse to confess your version of events etc. I had stopped as it was a big waste of time, especially as you said your own experience was irrelevant. A christian and evangelist has nothing else but their own experience.

3. I had pointed out to azozeo after that the same thing so many newbies have had pointed out to them by other people already familiar with the diner being devoted to endless arguments with ashvin, when they arrive and its the first thing that happens. That was a brief one to him explaining this is nothing new, not restarting the debate with yourself.

4. I am not interested in arguing with christians who are good examples of the FAITH causing bad blood. You have failed to convince me of anything except you could not care less about that collateral damage and have hardly made progress during your sabattical toward living the faith.

Thank you Bob, well said.
    Well better late than never. And BTW just for the record, "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting"  not in the "baking", just so everyone knows. Maybe that's why it tastes so awful to some but not to others. To each his very own of course. Karpatok
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: jdwheeler42 on September 05, 2014, 08:27:19 PM
Exactly, someone hit me with a hammer.

:hammer:

There you go...  ;D

And since the name of Cthulu (;,;) was invoked, just remember, in Lovecraft's stories, everyone who learned the truth ended up dead or insane....

(http://images.cafepress.com/image/50386683_400x400.jpg)
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Ashvin on September 06, 2014, 04:08:58 AM
You are very predictable ashvin. I new you would think u finally had something on this and try and lock on that little corner. There are plenty of opposing studies as I have said, I read about them before google existed so im not go ogling anything. The outcome and history speaks for itself, i have said that several times. I brought the council of nicaea to your attention in the first place. But that matters little, you know where I stand on it, of far more importance is;

I'm glad I'm predictable, that means I'm consistent. And I do think I have something on this because you are STILL avoiding the issue. Here you are committing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority, EXCEPT, you are not even appealing to a specific authority, but rather "plenty of opposing studies". If you have any intellectual integrity whatsoever, you will reference at least ONE of these "opposing studies" you claim to have read "before google existed".

I don't think you will, though, because in the very next sentence you claim "the outcome and history speaks for itself". So now you are no longer appealing to authority, you are appealing to ignorance (which, btw, is exactly what the banksters and politicians do). You brought the council of nicea to my attention? What does that even mean? And what is the "VALID REASON" why the author I referenced isn't to be taken seriously?
 

Quote
1. The impression you make when you claim you are all about intellectual honesty vs intellectual dishonesty. Then tell me what I know, when i do not believe or know what you suggest i do and then say I am intellectually dishonest. So how about I also just say you know what I do about nicaea and you are being intellectually dishonest. How intellecually honest would that be? When you claimed at the start of this thread that you are only about examining the "new age" for intellectual honesty, being quite familiar with all your arguments I justtook that then to mean you wanted to wrestle your demon.

2. I had already discontinued the debate with you, as you were wholesale not responding to inescapable truth susch as we all pray to the same god, and as I had pointed out you were increasing the number of insults per post, all smears. These are lawyerly attempts to discredit calling someone "stubborn" if they refuse to confess your version of events etc. I had stopped as it was a big waste of time, especially as you said your own experience was irrelevant. A christian and evangelist has nothing else but their own experience.

3. I had pointed out to azozeo after that the same thing so many newbies have had pointed out to them by other people already familiar with the diner being devoted to endless arguments with ashvin, when they arrive and its the first thing that happens. That was a brief one to him explaining this is nothing new, not restarting the debate with yourself.

4. I am not interested in arguing with christians who are good examples of the FAITH causing bad blood. You have failed to convince me of anything except you could not care less about that collateral damage and have hardly made progress during your sabattical toward living the faith.

BLAH BLAH BLAH... four different EXCUSES for you to avoid admitting you have no idea WTF you are talking about when it comes to Nicea. Four different personal attacks and not a single substantive argument to be found among them.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: azozeo on November 27, 2014, 03:56:13 AM
Excellent lecture by John Lash.
enjoy..........

John Lash The Sophianic Vision Story Of The Mysteries 08/25/14 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSsjpu93_f8#ws)

In this interview, John lays out the true creation story as told in the Nag Hamadi texts.

John is the foremost authority & scholar of these texts.
Well worth the listen. Don't miss out.
Title: Re: Zero Tolerance for the Lie
Post by: Karpatok on August 04, 2017, 01:02:00 AM
Human nature my arse.........
We've (our species) has been screwed with. Our DNA is altered from the original blueprint.
The creators of our species would have had to have been frickin' morons to build such an idiotic
creature. It's been discussed in the book of genesis. The fallen ones found earth girls pleasurable.
They made babies & wha-la here we are. Watch Tsarions lecture that I just posted. If you don't have
a lot of time, watch the last hour. It's jaw dropping.

So... AG and Surly... and whoever else is interested, how about we take azozeo up on his offer and watch the Tsarion "lecture"? In my estimation, GO already dispatched Karpatok and all of her hateful ilk brilliantly, so there's no need to even bother with her. She has proven time and again over the last few years to be counter-productive to any reasonable and ethical discussion. I say, let's get back to what we are claiming is most important... the substantive arguments at issue.

I have already offered some thoughts via Chris White on why Tsarion is FULL OF IT. I will go ahead and offer some more tomorrow when I have the time. I hope you guys will also weigh in. Who knows, maybe AZ is right and we will all become RACISTS like Tsarion after watching a few of his Nazi propaganda films (apparently it's OK to be a Nazi as long as you justify it with Ancient Alien newspeak). I'm guessing, though, that it's more likely we will end up exposing the FASCIST RACISM which he promotes.