Originally Posted by Strell I just want to say that your outlook is refreshingly amiable, PP. WAY better than most people I could talk to regarding these types of subjects.

Thank-you. I'm not very evangelistic and never want to force others to take on my beliefs. Free will is essential in Christianity. I do however like to express my views and let others know about the things I like. It sorta goes along w/ my drug usage days. Back when I smoked weed daily whenever I came across some really good dank green bud I always wanted to share the good stuff I found with as many ppl as I could. They didn't have to try it out if they didn't want, hey more for me, but I certainly wanted to give them the chance to try it before everything was gone. I feel the same about my religion. I like it and enjoy it so much that I want others to experience the same joys I've found in it. If they want to know how the bud is grown then I'd tell them what I know, if they want to know how Christianity came to be then I'll tell them what I know. If they want to know where to get some of the bud then I'd hook them up, if they want to know how to become a Christian then I'll lead them to the path. If they want to continue smoking some brown mexican ragweed with no decent buzz then by all means I'd let them go on their way, if they want to continue a life with no reward in the end then that is totally on them. I'm not the pusher, just the user.

Originally Posted by PottyPops Thank-you. I'm not very evangelistic and never want to force others to take on my beliefs. Free will is essential in Christianity. I do however like to express my views and let others know about the things I like. It sorta goes along w/ my drug usage days. Back when I smoked weed daily whenever I came across some really good dank green bud I always wanted to share the good stuff I found with as many ppl as I could. They didn't have to try it out if they didn't want, hey more for me, but I certainly wanted to give them the chance to try it before everything was gone. I feel the same about my religion. I like it and enjoy it so much that I want others to experience the same joys I've found in it. If they want to know how the bud is grown then I'd tell them what I know, if they want to know how Christianity came to be then I'll tell them what I know. If they want to know where to get some of the bud then I'd hook them up, if they want to know how to become a Christian then I'll lead them to the path. If they want to continue smoking some brown mexican ragweed with no decent buzz then by all means I'd let them go on their way, if they want to continue a life with no reward in the end then that is totally on them. I'm not the pusher, just the user.

LOL life with no reward at the end.

For a former methhead you sure are a sanctimonious son of a bitch.

Originally Posted by PottyPops I'm not 100% sure what you're asking. If you are wanting proof the authors of the Bible were speaking figuratively about the age of the earth then it is impossible because NOWHERE in the Bible does it give any mention to the age of the earth. 6,000 yrs is derived from men trying to guess it's age using vague genealogies in the Bible. If you're asking for proof that ancient Hebrew used some numbers figuratively, then I'm not going to dignify you with proof of something that is of such general, uncontested knowledge. I never claimed "all numbers" (as you say) were used in such a manner. If you take all the words in the English (including words pertaining to science and biology) you have over 4 million possibilities to describe something. Ancient Hebrew on the other hand has only several thousand words. If you can't deduce that those few words were used for multiple meanings, both literally and figuratively used, then you have no interest in the facts anyway. You're just trolling for an argument. As for what age I think the earth is... I simply don't know, nor do I care. The age of the earth has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my life, it doesn't affect me the slightest bit in any way, shape or form. I don't need science to prove the age to verify Christianity because as I stated before, the Bible makes no mention of the earth's age. It could be 6 trillion yrs old or 6,000 yrs old, it just doesn't matter. I'm here today, not in the past nor in the future but in the present.

Well, the point is that for the Bible to be this divinely inspired piece of writing, we couldn't have any dissonance between the writers. That's why I said all. I did notice you said most often, though.

Now, it may not affect what you buy at the grocery store, but it does matter if your religion can't stand up to scientific scrutiny. Additionally, it's odd that a god would communicate through an ancient anthology of books and letters only, yet fail to make them clear enough for each person to understand on his/her own. If the Christian god that most Christians believe gives everyone a chance to accept 'salvation', then why would he allow his Bible to be not only confusing, but so easily manipulated and taken out of context. For most of the Christians I've seen, they have trouble even understanding most of the Bible (let's be nice and say the New Testament only.)

Of course, this doesn't explain the millions who will never have access at all to this one true religion. I've heard some say that they are to have an innate desire to seek God out and not doing so is their own fault.

Now, of course, you could be something of a Calvinist, who, as I understand, pretty much believes that God chose only a certain number of people in the human timeline to be saved. He knew who they were and that they would accept this salvation. Everyone else was out of luck long before their own existence. Many would never have the chance in the first place, though some would bumble in to it by accepting 'salvation' while adhering to a mostly different set of beliefs.

It is just odd that this perfect god would create something that couldn't hold up to perfection, then damn them for eternity, give them a crappy confusing manual for survival, and forget to make enough copies for everyone. Anyway, if you want to ignore the controversy around the creation / arrival of Homo Sapiens or whatever, that's your call.

Originally Posted by PottyPops I'm not 100% sure what you're asking. If you are wanting proof the authors of the Bible were speaking figuratively about the age of the earth then it is impossible because NOWHERE in the Bible does it give any mention to the age of the earth. 6,000 yrs is derived from men trying to guess it's age using vague genealogies in the Bible. If you're asking for proof that ancient Hebrew used some numbers figuratively, then I'm not going to dignify you with proof of something that is of such general, uncontested knowledge. I never claimed "all numbers" (as you say) were used in such a manner. If you take all the words in the English (including words pertaining to science and biology) you have over 4 million possibilities to describe something. Ancient Hebrew on the other hand has only several thousand words. If you can't deduce that those few words were used for multiple meanings, both literally and figuratively used, then you have no interest in the facts anyway. You're just trolling for an argument. As for what age I think the earth is... I simply don't know, nor do I care. The age of the earth has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my life, it doesn't affect me the slightest bit in any way, shape or form. I don't need science to prove the age to verify Christianity because as I stated before, the Bible makes no mention of the earth's age. It could be 6 trillion yrs old or 6,000 yrs old, it just doesn't matter. I'm here today, not in the past nor in the future but in the present.

I take it you aren't really the curious type? See, that is part of what I credit for keeping me from believing in the supernatural or religion in general. You don't' care how old the earth is, well I'd actually like to know. In fact, thousands of people in various fields would like to know, if for no other reason than scientific curiosity. That curiosity is what makes life worth living to me, I couldn't just stop caring,if I did I might as well be dead because I've ceased learning. That's what I find so frustrating about many religous people, you don't care to know, you seem to think that scientific knowledge isn't worth exploring.

Originally Posted by camoor LOL life with no reward at the end. For a former methhead you sure are a sanctimonious son of a bitch.

I've sene it, people often times swing from one extreme to the other. Either they're wild and trying to kill themselves, or they're ultra religious, no moderate in between like most people.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

He who s nuns will later join the church?

Works for priests and choir boys.

Oh wait, no, the priests are already in the church. Hmm.....

ID2006, did you even bother to read what I wrote before you tried to claim that I feel the exact opposite of what I said? You basically just told me my religion doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny because of the 6,000 yr theory and that I am choosing to ignore the controversy of creation. That's pure ignorance. I clearly stated that I believe the earth is older than 6,000 yrs and that time-frame was established from man and his theories, not from God. Not only am I engaging the topic, but it also passes scientific scrutiny.

Clak, I don't think people should stop learning. Those ppl who work in the various fields have an interest and follow it. My interests lie elsewhere so naturally I care to study up on and spend time on other things. Exploring science is very prudent, just not my personal interest. I don't ignore it, nor do I dwell on it.
I can empathize with your misgivings about the Bible's vagueness. I feel it is entirely on purpose that so many things are left directly unanswered. If everything were explicitly explained then there would be no finding God on my own. I wouldn't be 'choosing' God but merely following a set of rules. That is why the Israelite people never held Jerusalem for long. They always put more emphasis on the law rather than focusing on God and the purpose of the law. So God sent Jesus to shatter the law and bring focus back to Him.

As for being 'sanctimonious'... I apologize for coming across that way. I do not believe I am any better than any of you. I was simply saying that Christianity has a reward of eternal life in Heaven, whereas atheism is life then death, the end. No rewards or reflections, just start and stop. I guess you could say the reward is life itself, but I assure you there are a large percentage of non-Christians who do not feel that this life is a reward. (I'm assuming that atheism is the alternative expressed in most of you). I don't see how you could consider this extreme, but so be it. You certainly are right about many ppl going from one extreme to the other though. I know you guys don't want a Bible lesson so I won't go into detail, but the Bible almost says as much. It says something to the effect of those who have a harder path in finding God make a greater witness for Him.

Originally Posted by PottyPops As for being 'sanctimonious'... I apologize for coming across that way. I do not believe I am any better than any of you. I was simply saying that Christianity has a reward of eternal life in Heaven, whereas atheism is life then death, the end. No rewards or reflections, just start and stop. I guess you could say the reward is life itself, but I assure you there are a large percentage of non-Christians who do not feel that this life is a reward. (I'm assuming that atheism is the alternative expressed in most of you). I don't see how you could consider this extreme, but so be it. You certainly are right about many ppl going from one extreme to the other though. I know you guys don't want a Bible lesson so I won't go into detail, but the Bible almost says as much. It says something to the effect of those who have a harder path in finding God make a greater witness for Him.

First off, it's great you're off the meth and if it takes the Bible then keep running with that.

But let's be honest for a second, you're basically saying that we're all going to 'not heaven' because we're not good Christians. OK fine, we all know what you mean by that. Just want to say that for me, your posts would be easier to swallow if you prefaced them with "I believe", after all there is no proof for anything you're saying about heaven yet you sound so matter-of-fact.

Also don't assume you know the beliefs of other people.

Tell a Jew to go to hell, watch their response.

Originally Posted by camoor First off, it's great you're off the meth and if it takes the Bible then keep running with that. But let's be honest for a second, you're basically saying that we're all going to 'not heaven' because we're not good Christians. OK fine, we all know what you mean by that. Just want to say that for me, your posts would be easier to swallow if you prefaced them with "I believe", after all there is no proof for anything you're saying about heaven yet you sound so matter-of-fact. Also don't assume you know the beliefs of other people.

I have not used the words 'I beleive' because there was no cause to use them. I talked about the use of numbers in ancient Hebrew- not a belief but a fact. When I did speak of Heaven I had already stated the things I spoke about were what I liked and that others may take another view. I expressly stated others could do as they liked. It is already determined that those things were my belief and not something of irrefutable proof. I opined, I did not dictate. What you're asking is essentially telling me to put 'I believe" before every single sentence, but there's no need to do that when it is reasonably concluded those are beliefs by simply reading the whole post. And I cannot say anyone is going to Heaven or Hell. I see how my chosen words reflect that, but I do not mean to say such. In my world view God is the only judge for that matter. I do not have the to power to save anyone, so therefore I do not have the power to condemn anyone. I believe I am going to Heaven. I believe everyone has the chance to go too. I do not believe I have any say what-so-ever as to whether another person is going or not. My words did reflect that notion and I will be more careful choosing terminology in the future.

Now for assuming others' beliefs. What choice do I have. No one here has stated a belief other than they believe science disproves any notion of a god. To what conclusion could I arrive at other than those posts were atheistic in nature? Does anyone here who states science disproves the notion of a god believe themselves to be something other than atheist? And to be extra clear, I'm not bashing atheism. I think it is quite bold and admirable to believe there is no higher power, I just do not happen agree.

Originally Posted by PottyPops I have not used the words 'I beleive' because there was no cause to use them. I talked about the use of numbers in ancient Hebrew- not a belief but a fact. When I did speak of Heaven I had already stated the things I spoke about were what I liked and that others may take another view. I expressly stated others could do as they liked. It is already determined that those things were my belief and not something of irrefutable proof. I opined, I did not dictate. What you're asking is essentially telling me to put 'I believe" before every single sentence, but there's no need to do that when it is reasonably concluded those are beliefs by simply reading the whole post. And I cannot say anyone is going to Heaven or Hell. I see how my chosen words reflect that, but I do not mean to say such. In my world view God is the only judge for that matter. I do not have the to power to save anyone, so therefore I do not have the power to condemn anyone. I believe I am going to Heaven. I believe everyone has the chance to go too. I do not believe I have any say what-so-ever as to whether another person is going or not. My words did reflect that notion and I will be more careful choosing terminology in the future. Now for assuming others' beliefs. What choice do I have. No one here has stated a belief other than they believe science disproves any notion of a god. To what conclusion could I arrive at other than those posts were atheistic in nature? Does anyone here who states science disproves the notion of a god believe themselves to be something other than atheist? And to be extra clear, I'm not bashing atheism. I think it is quite bold and admirable to believe there is no higher power, I just do not happen agree.

Of course others can do as they like, this is America and we will - with or without your consent. You have no ability to dictate jack shit to me, so your first paragraph is a pretty empty statement.

Also if you really care so much about our views you could choose not to assume, and just ask the question. I'll do it for you:
Q: Am I an atheist?
A: In a strict material rationalist sense, no.

You can dance around it all you like but your disdain for other religions and ways of thought leak through. I guess what irked me from the start was that you said that before Jesus you were into meth and Wicca. The way I see it, if you didn't look down on Wicca you wouldn't have lumped it in with meth.

I'd just like to say that Frank Lutz is one of the biggest pieces of shit on the planet.

Originally Posted by camoor Of course others can do as they like, this is America and we will - with or without your consent. You have no ability to dictate jack shit to me, so your first paragraph is a pretty empty statement. Also if you really care so much about our views you could choose not to assume, and just ask the question. I'll do it for you: Q: Am I an atheist? A: In a strict material rationalist sense, no. You can dance around it all you like but your disdain for other religions and ways of thought leak through. I guess what irked me from the start was that you said that before Jesus you were into meth and Wicca. The way I see it, if you didn't look down on Wicca you wouldn't have lumped it in with meth.

I did not "dictate jack shit," I opined. I formed an opinion and expressed it. I even said as much. So, in your own words... "your 1st paragraph is an empty statement."

"Lumping together" meth and Wicca was merely a time frame of me before Christianity. I admire your effort to change the meanings of my statements, but it just doesn't work. I dance around nothing. To take offense is showing your own insecurities and your inability to follow the written structure. You are just trying to pick a fight, no different than a bully. If that is what serves as your authority to attempt to change my meaning then I pity you. Spin it as you see fit though, you obviously enjoy it.

Originally Posted by PottyPops Thank-you. I'm not very evangelistic and never want to force others to take on my beliefs. Free will is essential in Christianity. I do however like to express my views and let others know about the things I like. It sorta goes along w/ my drug usage days. Back when I smoked weed daily whenever I came across some really good dank green bud I always wanted to share the good stuff I found with as many ppl as I could. They didn't have to try it out if they didn't want, hey more for me, but I certainly wanted to give them the chance to try it before everything was gone. I feel the same about my religion. I like it and enjoy it so much that I want others to experience the same joys I've found in it. If they want to know how the bud is grown then I'd tell them what I know, if they want to know how Christianity came to be then I'll tell them what I know. If they want to know where to get some of the bud then I'd hook them up, if they want to know how to become a Christian then I'll lead them to the path. If they want to continue smoking some brown mexican ragweed with no decent buzz then by all means I'd let them go on their way, if they want to continue a life with no reward in the end then that is totally on them. I'm not the pusher, just the user.

Can I ask you something? I know that some people who oppose legalizing pot/smoking pot oppose it for religious reasons. Do you know why?

Originally Posted by The Crotch He who s nuns will later join the church?

Well, *I* get the reference. Thanks for making my day.

Originally Posted by PottyPops I did not "dictate jack shit," I opined. I formed an opinion and expressed it. I even said as much. So, in your own words... "your 1st paragraph is an empty statement." "Lumping together" meth and Wicca was merely a time frame of me before Christianity. I admire your effort to change the meanings of my statements, but it just doesn't work. I dance around nothing. To take offense is showing your own insecurities and your inability to follow the written structure. You are just trying to pick a fight, no different than a bully. If that is what serves as your authority to attempt to change my meaning then I pity you. Spin it as you see fit though, you obviously enjoy it.

Yeah but my point is that if you think it's irrelevant then why even mention it?

Originally Posted by PottyPops ID2006, did you even bother to read what I wrote before you tried to claim that I feel the exact opposite of what I said? You basically just told me my religion doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny because of the 6,000 yr theory and that I am choosing to ignore the controversy of creation. That's pure ignorance. I clearly stated that I believe the earth is older than 6,000 yrs and that time-frame was established from man and his theories, not from God. Not only am I engaging the topic, but it also passes scientific scrutiny...

Nice try, but I was referring to the rest of the Bible. Creationism isn't the only ludicrous claim so many Christians think it makes. Are you to disavow yourself of every one? Great, so perhaps you believe in a few moral lessons and that Jesus existed but may have been exaggerated. What else is left?

You may wish to ignore parts of your religion, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Too many Christians believe in this short-term universe theory. Too many believe in the flood and its dimensions being literal (though apparently that's all figurative, but, hey, I guess God forgot to clear that up for the billions of people he created who didn't understand how to think critically.) Maybe all the miracles were figurative, too.

According to Christianity, the Bible was intended for use throughout all time. Stop acting like ancient language being figurative is the reason for the confusion. God can manipulate animals, the ocean, and even the rotation of Earth itself, but he can't make sure his book was written in a language that will be easily translated and understood for the future? Great idea.

If your god cannot even keep things straight among most of his followers, that's pretty sad.

Let's not forget the numerous instances of god-approved violence, sexism, torture, and bigotry.

Originally Posted by camoor Of course others can do as they like, this is America and we will - with or without your consent. You have no ability to dictate jack shit to me, so your first paragraph is a pretty empty statement. Also if you really care so much about our views you could choose not to assume, and just ask the question. I'll do it for you: Q: Am I an atheist? A: In a strict material rationalist sense, no. You can dance around it all you like but your disdain for other religions and ways of thought leak through. I guess what irked me from the start was that you said that before Jesus you were into meth and Wicca. The way I see it, if you didn't look down on Wicca you wouldn't have lumped it in with meth.

I dunno...seems like it's reaching a little to talk about grouping Wicca and meth, but it comes off as pretty sanctimonious when he's talking about rewards in the afterlife for being christian and whatever else for everyone else. I could be convinced otherwise about the former though...haha.

Originally Posted by IRHari Can I ask you something? I know that some people who oppose legalizing pot/smoking pot oppose it for religious reasons. Do you know why?

I would have to hear more of what the person says to know for sure why they say that. I would suspect that most Christians believe it is wrong due to the verse that says your body is a temple and not to desecrate it. However that verse lies within a book that is a letter lecturing a church on their sexual immorality. If kept within the context of the letter then it has no meaning towards use of pot. I personally don't believe pot is so bad, only placing it as a higher importance than God.

Originally Posted by camoor Yeah but my point is that if you think it's irrelevant then why even mention it?

Do I really need to point out that it is you attacking my beliefs and as such I made a rebuttal? This all started because I agreed that the universe was older than 6,000 yrs despite the general consensus of my peers. Then it was like... "THERE HE IS!!!! GET THE CHRISTIAN!!!!" And so it began. I got accused of saying one thing or another, so I showed I never said nor meant any of those accusations held against me.

Originally Posted by ID2006 You may wish to ignore parts of your religion, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Name me one, just one single example of how what I've said in this forum is ignoring parts of my religion. I do choose to ignore man's speculation but I've given no example of me dismissing parts of my religion. You are taking something I said on a single subject and applying it to all of Christianity. Nowhere do I even hint that the ancient language is the cause of all confusion. I said the use of the language is why man's theory of a 6k yr old universe is wrong. What I said about confusion is God wants his followers to find Him on their own, not because others say to.