Motivations of redefinition

[bluewater2]

I have noticed how lots of words get redefined on this board. The latest is the word "pagan". The proper definition of the word pagan is something along the lines of:

-a person who does not acknowledge your god
-a person who follows a polytheistic or pre-Christian religion (not a Christian or Muslim or Jew)
-not acknowledging the God of Christianity and Judaism and Islam
-someone motivated by desires for sensual pleasures
-a practitioner of an Earth Religion; from the Latin paganus, a country dweller.

No where in all of the accepted definitions of pagan is the criteria that "Pagan in my usage would pertain to indigenous religions where harmful practices of human sacrifice, voodoo mind control, man worshipping... are observed" as stated by a poster on another thread.

Another word being redefined by the religious community, most notably the Christian community, is the word atheist. There is an attempt by organized religions to define atheism as a religion.

Why would this be? Why would there be such attempts to redefine these words by organized religion?

In the case of the paganism redefinition, certainly in the case of the poster, it seems to be an attempt to distance Christianity from mysticism and the supernatural experiences that it relies upon to make it's belief, well, believable. It is a well known fact that paganism is NOT christianity, judaism, or muslim so to lump mysticism, voodoo, sacrifice and the supernatural into paganism alone helps to make christianity less mystical and more "normal." Is the supernatural ever normal?

In the case of atheism being redefined by Christians as a religion it seems to be an attempt to make atheists seem as open to the supernatural as Christians and that atheism is some organized system of beliefs that has doctrines, an accepted "religious book", and it's own 10 Commandments.

Certainly, paganism is paganism, look it up. Any attempts to redefine it is an attempt to rewrite history. History shows us that the major religions share many of the rituals and practices of pagan religions.

And atheism is simply the belief that there is no god. As with any idea, even atheism can be taken too far by an idividual and it can become their personal religion. But atheism is simply the lack of a belief in god.

If somehow I have misdefined these terms, direct me to an accepted dictionary where these words are more accurately defined.

Thank you.

[jeff_franklin]

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

Your words are failing you. The reader will not be boxed into to your precepts of how you define words to best further your atheist proselytizing. Definitions change with the times. Got a 1950's dictionary around? You'll see. Constant updating.

You've got these really ancient word tracts that you use to sell atheism and yet they don't work in the real world. For God's sake, the U.S, Supreme Court has declared atheism a religion.

If you left factnet, we never heard from you, ihs, t.o. anymore, no more selling atheism to the public then I might think well, maybe atheism is not a religion.

But no you three are on this cult awareness forum everyday selling and preaching atheism. So therefore it has dogma, beliefs, it counters other religions, has it's fanatical zealots such as yourself, fellow believers.... atheism is a religion. Proof is is that you are religious about atheism. It is your lifeblood as God is to a theist.

Too bad for you your canned word tracts don't work. Maybe the biggest reason they fail you is because they are not the truth.

92% of the world's people believe in God. Your religion, atheism, is not selling. Too bad! No cigar! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/sad.gif

[bluewater2]

My definitions are from several recent dictionaries. Not a dictionary from the 1950's. It is difficult for me to see posts by those that make misleading statements and just let them hang there.

There is no one here selling atheism. Just people asking questions.

So, Franklin. Lets stay on topic. Show me where a dictionary defines paganism the way you do, or atheism as a religion. If you cannot, please post about other topics in the appropriate threads.

Thank you.

[jeff_franklin]

Just atheists asking question? http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

If that was all that was going here then that would not be a problem. But we all know that is not what you are doing. The factnet triplets of Atheism are making outright slanderous, denigrating statements ridiculing anyone who believes in God. You rig the debate, you insist that only your definitions of words be allowed. Now you want to argue with the Supreme Court? rots of ruck!

And then you want to tell me you're not selling atheism?http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif lmao!

Quit being dishonest. Be a man. Be upfront. You're selling your religion and you're using cultic methods to sell it.

foak does not believe that definition, I do not, most people do not. How do Hindus define pagans? Buddhists? Shintoists, Sikhs....? Not as "not acknowledging the God of Christianity and Judaism and Islam".

Your definitions of the words "logic" and "reason" do not fit the definitions in any dictionary. The atheist twisting of those words make them mean the opposite of believing in God. You try to convert those words to be synonymous with atheism. Yet those words are used in the proper context by billions of theists everyday.

Even if you were successful in rigging everything in Atheism's favor nobody will buy your spiritual poison. And that is what atheism is. Spiritual suicide!

[bluewater2]

Please direct me to a post where any atheists are as blatantly pushing atheism as others do christianity with such statements as, "God is the creator, the builder."

"God dwell within all of us whether we acknowledge God or not."

"Christianity is a rock solid faith that is indestructible."

"I believe the message of the story of Jesus is the He is the Son of God, the promised Messiah and the Savior for all humanity."

"For whosoever shall believe in Him shall not perish but shall have everlasting life!"

"God through his spirit implanted his Spirit in Mary's womb."

"Thank God! Christ is Risen!"

"All glory and authority belongs to God alone."

"I believe that Christ ascended into heaven and has gone to prepare a place for all who believe in him."

"I believe that Christ died on the cross, was buried and after three says arose from the dead."

"I believe Jesus is the Son of God."

These are obvious and blatant attempts to impose christian beliefs on others. Why do atheists have to play by different rules?

Please direct me to posts that are as blatant of an attempt to push atheism on others as the above are for christianity.

Thank you.

[searchlight86]

BW, How about the "20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity" FACTnet thread you started (and I responded to) at:
http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/20773.html?1146601975 ?

[bluewater2]

I don't see that as an attempt to push people to atheism as much as citing 20 good reasons not be be christian. Again, my problem is not with those that do promote christianity here. It is with certain, or should I say, a certain individual who thinks that there is some atheist wolfpack trying to convert everyone to atheism. Why should we not be allowed the same freedoms as christians seem to enjoy here?

[jeff_franklin]

Most important reason is this.

Wrong board. What you are doing is counterproductive to the purpose of factnet....

Religious Cults and Sects
Potentially Destructive Religious Cults and Sects. Does your religious organisation use spiritual abuse to enforce cultic behaviour and mind control? What are your personal experiences?

You are way off the selected topic of this forum.

Atheism is NOT the cure for cults. It's just another religion that can be just as cultic.

Why you persist in selling atheism on a cult awareness forum just shows you have no respect for this website just like you have no respect for the people who post here.

[bluewater2]

"Wrong board. What you are doing is counterproductive to the purpose of factnet...." How is promoting your brand of christianity any more on topic than what your percieve the atheists to be doing?

Also, I sincerely see christianity and all of religion as a cult of one type or another. There are so many different xtian sects and you obviously think some are cults.

Again, why do you consider promoting your christian beliefs to be any more valid than the atheists asking questions and wanting to know why christians think like they do?

[rachelengland]

Everyone has equal rights on these boards..not just christians...This was never meant to be a board that belonged to just anybody-but to everybody... If that makes sense.

I happen to think we can all learn from each other..I have learned from many different people on these boards Blue,TO, Franklin-Stage Director and I like to hear what each side has to say..In fact many of those ideas helped me to arrive at my beliefs about God..

I did want to say I spoke with a Christian friend today who said this to me " I do not know if there is heaven or hell-I don't want to push my ideas on anyone-all I know is I want to live my life like Christ did-that is being a christian". I found that to be a new spin. Lots of spins in religion.R

[jeff_franklin]

Number 1. If you will read my entire posts on factnet the only time I am defending Christianity is when it under attack, which is constant, by an atheist. Other than that I do not proselytize.

My posts deal directly with cults is not proselytizing. It is done within the purpose of this board of public cult awareness.

2. You are so insincere when you say that you believe that Christianity is a cult. Even factnet states on it's front page that it is not. First you want to argue with the definitions of the Supreme Court, now factnet.

The only reason you came up with that lame excuse to preach atheism is when I busted your chops enough times for you shoving your religion down everyone's throats.

3. I, Rachel and many, many others here, the majority came to factnet because of our personal experiences with actual cults. And our posts reflect that.

You came here ONLY to preach atheism.


So you can whine all you want. This is the game called factnet. Cult awareness. And you're wanting to change the game and it's rules to discuss anything you want wasting this website's cyberspace. It's about C U L T S.

You are nothing more than an obscene spammer for spiritual poison. That is obvious when you have defended dodge's porno obscene posts. Another atheist obscene spammer.

Your words on factnet well qualify as hate speech against Christians as much as the Shep Chaplers' hate speech against Jews, blacks and orientals.

Get with the program or go start your own site and then do what you want there.

People come to factnet for cult awareness. That is what factnet is known for. They do not come here to read a constant Atheism vs. Christianity debate. That is way off topic. You are way off topic.

You were kicked off of Cultbusters for doing the same thing. Why you are allowed to remain here on factnet doing what you do is a great mystery.

You do NOT question theist beliefs. Attacking is not questioning. You insult, ridicule, denigrate..... You lack couth and basic, common respectful tolerance for other human beings. Grow up!

[searchlight86]

BW said: I don't see that as an attempt to push people to atheism as much as citing 20 good reasons not be be christian. Again, my problem is not with those that do promote christianity here. It is with certain, or should I say, a certain individual who thinks that there is some atheist wolfpack trying to convert everyone to atheism. Why should we not be allowed the same freedoms as christians seem to enjoy here?

Searchlight86: I looked up the word 'cult' in several dictionaries and the following is representative: "a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader". As we've discussed on other threads, a lot of current groups that falsely call themselves Christian fall into this camp, but Biblical Christianity does not. I know you view all 'religion' as cultic, but we are all generally aware of the distinction made in the above definition, and most people use the 'cult' term consistently with this definition. Accordingly, Christianity is not generally regarded as a cult.

My intent on FACTnet has never been to proactively convert anyone to Christianity, but to clarify what genuine Christianity is and logically defend it. Regarding the classification of what you advocate, it seems more a matter of semantics than substance. Since you are intensely devoted to (e.g.) promoting abandonment of Christianity, the net result if successful would be 'converting' people to your belief, atheism.

Atheists have the same freedoms as everyone else, but I think there's a superior method to utilize them in this case. At least in my experience, most people sucked into cults aren't looking for or responsive to a debate about atheism, and truly devoted atheists are relatively rare. It would seem to make more sense for atheists to promote beliefs and make their case in a section devoted to this (whether on FACTnet or not), so people interested in exploring atheism can do so efficiently and effectively. If you would think of atheism as another belief system among many to be represented (I know you would disagree with the use of the term religion although many have classified it so), just organize and present the information accordingly. This would be much more useful and considerate to everyone (atheists and theists) than scattergunning atheism into as many topics as possible on FACTnet.

(Message edited by searchlight86 on August 26, 2007)

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). bluewater2:

Quoting: "My definitions are from several recent dictionaries."
End quote.

Your definition was taken near verbatim from Wikipedia. Honesty goes a long ways.

M(r)(s). searchlight86

Quoting: " . . . Christianity is not generally regarded as a cult."
End quote.

All of Christianity is, in fact, considered a cult.

[searchlight86]

ATM, considered a cult by whom? You are free to consider all Christianity a cult and disregard the dictionary, but it is not generally classified so.

[bluewater2]

"Your definition was taken near verbatim from Wikipedia. Honesty goes a long ways." Actually no, I generally do not use wikepedia. There are many sources for a definition of cults that includes christianity as one.

"Number 1. If you will read my entire posts on factnet the only time I am defending Christianity is when it under attack, which is constant, by an atheist. Other than that I do not proselytize." If I can show you where that is not the case, will you admit you were wrong?

"2. You are so insincere when you say that you believe that Christianity is a cult." Actually, I am very sincere.

"The only reason you came up with that lame excuse to preach atheism is when I busted your chops enough times for you shoving your religion down everyone's throats." Actually, no, Franklin. Your continuous interuptions of conversations about a subject that you do not like is what I find annoying.

"You do NOT question theist beliefs. Attacking is not questioning." Actually, there are many here that question theist beleifs and you see it as attack. That is something you have to grow up about. I suggest you join the dialogue in a productive manner.

"You were kicked off of Cultbusters for doing the same thing." I was kicked off of cultbusters, (which is no great loss), for not becoming part of the little christian circle jerk over there. I can see that there is now an atheism thread over there which is, again, nothing but a bunch of holy rollers sitting around patting themselves on the back. Very stimulating.

Now, as I have asked you several times, please direct me to posts where I have blatantly told people that atheism is the best system. Do that or go back to your little fantasy space ship with all of your little fantasy girlfriends.

[bluewater2]

"The path that follows Christ leads to life. The other path leads to death.(seperation from God)" Here is another redefinition that I find interesting. Obviously one must already be alive to make the choice. How can the path to christ lead to life if one is already alive? And how is not choosing this path the path to death? Isn't really, rather that a path to death, simply a choice not to believe that Jesus is the son of god and that he died for your sins? Only christians believe that there is life after death if you choose Jesus.

My question is, why not just say, "If you choose not to believe in Jesus you will not continue to live even after your body dies?" Why not just say that?

[jeff_franklin]

Any definition that defines Christianity as a cult is referring to an old definition of the word that is no longer operative. It was a synonym of sect.

People's Temple and Jim Jones (a communist atheist) changed all of that. The world now knows a cult is dangerous and mind controlling. David Koresh and the Branch Davidians etc. What Christianity is not. You know all of this but your playing your propaganda games again. Your admiration for Joseph Goebbels really shows.

My posts dealing directly with cults is not proselytizing. It is done within the purpose of this board of public cult awareness. Bring it on!

If you are sincere then that only means that you have been deeply brainwashed with atheist lies.

Actually it is YOU who is notorious for threadjacking theist on theist discussions pertaining to cults inappropriately interjecting atheism and why you are right and everyone else is wrong. It's always "My way or the highway" with you.

No, you and the other 2 atheists here do not question. You ridicule, denigrate and cyberbully. t.o. just made a point to offend a very patient egk as one of many examples. The end result is always the same with you trolls.

Cultbusters is just a theologically diverse as factnet is. You speak of not of what you know or you are just lying and twisting as usual. The atheist thread has been there for well over a year. Another fact you've conveniently distorted.

The fantasy girlfriends comment got a good chuckle out of me. Something your fellow cultists the SCers accuse me of too. Haha. Very funny.

Let the readers decide if what you say about me is true.

http://www.cultbusters.com.au/index.php?topic=145.msg17116;topicseen#new

How can one to be lead to life if they are already alive? Duh!?! Can't think out of your one dimensional box can you?

It means if one is SPIRITUALLY DEAD, like you. You are like a zombie. You walk, you talk... all of the motions of the living but inside you are dead in the spirit. And that death emanates outward from you and just like in a zombie movie you try to bite the living to cause them spiritual death. Your whole motive for getting up in the morning. Kill more of those who are living in the spirit.

All theists believe in life after death. Many asians believe in reincarnation and eventually going on into heaven. All believe in life after death. You will never brainwash the planet to forget God. Never.

What communist indoctrination of American P.O.W.s in the Korean and Vietnam Wars included is exactly what you are doing now. Attacking a belief in God, selling atheism. Same cliched word tracts. Same denigrating, ridiculing, bullying you do. Your words are the same as those brutal interrogators. You would have fit right in. Probably would have gotten medals from Pyongyang or Hanoi.

The wars are over. The atheist worlds are dying. Theism lives. Because atheism is lies, death and God is the truth and lives!

Reason why we do not say what you suggest is because it is not true. Those who do not believe in Christ continue to live after their body dies. As you will.

We will not let you force us into changing our message to your warped Orwellian political correctness so as not to offend your sensitive atheist ears.

If you had one ounce of tolerance and respect for humans we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Your atheist brainwashing is very deep. What could be a warm, loving, living human heart is darkened and closed off like an iron curtain around it. Well the iron curtain fell, as well as forced atheism, your day is coming.

[rachelengland]

"I can see that there is now an atheism thread over there which is, again, nothing but a bunch of holy rollers sitting around patting themselves on the back. Very stimulating".BW

I am part of that thread and I think I may have started it-I am far from a holy rolling christian..nice try

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). searchlight86:


Quoting: “ATM, considered a cult by whom? You are free to consider all Christianity a cult and disregard the dictionary, but it is not generally classified so.”
End quote.

Cult: Noun
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator *health cults*
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary.

Cult: Noun
1617, "worship," also "a particular form of worship," from Fr. culte, from L. cultus "care, cultivation, worship," originally "tended, cultivated," pp. of colere "to till" (see colony). Rare after 17c.; revived mid-19c. with reference to ancient or primitive rituals. Meaning "devotion to a person or thing" is from 1829.
Online Etymology Dictionary

Cult: Noun
In anthropology, an organization for the conduct of ritual, magical, or other religious observances. Many so-called primitive tribes, for example, have ancestor cults, in which dead ancestors are considered divine and activities are organized to respect their memory and invoke their aid. A cult is also a religious group held together by a dominant, often charismatic individual, or by the worship of a divinity, an idol, or some other object.
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition.

Cult:
The term "cult" first appeared in English in 1617, derived from the French culte, meaning "worship" or "a particular form of worship" which in turn originated from the Latin word cultus meaning "care, cultivation, worship," originally "tended, cultivated," also the past participle of colere "to till". Thus in French, for example, sections in newspapers giving the schedule of worship at Catholic churches are headed Culte Catholique; the section giving the schedule of protestant churches is headed culte réformé.
Wikipedia.

Me thinks you should spend some time reading a dictionary.

[bluewater2]

Franklin. Please answer this question. It is very simple and in response to an accusation that you made. "Please direct me to posts where I have blatantly told people that atheism is the best system."

Thank you.

[jeff_franklin]

That has been said and re said to you many times before yet you are still in denial.

Just by stating that atheism is based solely on logic and reason you are stating it is the best system.

As if all other beliefs are illogical and unreasonable.

You try to state your opinion as fact.

By ridiculing theists you clearly demonstrate that atheism is the best system. You exhibit intolerance daily here toward anyone who is not an atheist. Which is a matter of fact over 90% of the world.

Those old atheist word tracts you spew are only used by insecure, intolerant, fanatical and insensitive atheists. No one speaks like you do in polite company. I'm sure you are a joy at a social function.

Tone it down to tolerant and respectful levels and maybe someone might pay attention to you.

[bluewater2]

"You try to state your opinion as fact." No, I generally try to say that it is my opinion, just as what you state as fact, that jesus is god, etc, etc, is only YOUR opinion.

I am here to say, as I have many times before, that the words I place here are my opinion and open for discussion.

Are the things you state about Jesus your opinion, or are they fact?

[jeff_franklin]

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif You'll never admit that your tactics here at factnet have been flaming and trolling.Your posts are there for people to see. You use rhetoric that purposely flames readers. Not because they are insecure in their beliefs but because they recognize you are.

There is no opinion being stated when the obvious impression your statements of supposed fact give the reader is that anyone who disagrees is a moron who believes in childish fairy tales and superstitions. Voodoo, mysticism..... typical cliched hateful atheist word tracks.

This is the facts about your posts here on factnet. Yours, t.o.'s. dodge's. and ihs's. The sum total of the factnet atheist thought police. Anyone who believes in God is ridiculed by your flaming posts. You are just one notch lower in your anti Christian flaming diatribes than frankenchrist. Which makes you still a troll like he is.

And yet you are in total denial of what you've done as well as you are in denial of your eternal soul and the natural law that God put there. Your denial of not having moral code within you is exhibited in the way you live and speak. The end justifies the means. Whatever dirty trick you have to use or mud you have to sling to browbeat someone to convert to atheism is your modus operandi.

Your atheist programming is deep. I know arron is still praying for you. I am too. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[bluewater2]

"Are the things you state about Jesus your opinion, or are they fact?" Well. Can you answer that?

[jeff_franklin]

What I believe about Jesus Christ is my belief.

The same as it is yours. Belief.

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

[bluewater2]

I have as much right to state my beliefs here as you do. Stating my beliefs or questioning the beliefs of others is not attacking. You seem to be the only one here who takes questions as an attack on your beliefs. Questioning the beliefs of others is one way of testing your own beliefs. I am open to changing my beliefs if I see a better way out there. So far, no better alternative has been presented. Certainly not by you or arron.

Keep up the good work.

[jeff_franklin]

for the millionth time, flaming, trolling, ridiculing, denigrating, demeaning, insulting, intolerant offending is NOT questioning.

Everything you write comes straight out of ancient atheist dogma. You are not a man of reason or logic. You are incapable of either. You are just a fanatic as much as a muslim jihadist is.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). jeff_franklin:

Quoting: "People's Temple and Jim Jones (a communist atheist) changed all of that. David Koresh and the Branch Davidians etc."
End quote.

You are quiet ill informed. Jim Jones was a licensed and ordained Church of Christ minister who enjoyed priveleges at all pentecostal churches. David Koresh was a Seventh-day Adventist.

[searchlight86]

ATM, my post was also from an online dictionary that I thought most descriptive among many I looked at, but the additional ones you provided are fine too. What's the point, do you think your additional definitions support the position that Chriatianity is a cult? They don't.

On a possibly related note, why do you call yourself the apostolic truth (ministries?) if you believe all Christianity is a lie?

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). searchlight86:

My dear friend, I again suggest you spend some quality time with a dictionary. The word 'cult' is in no way associated with the word 'lie'.

Quoting: "What's the point, do you think your additional definitions support the position that Chriatianity is a cult? They don't."
End quote.

Cult: Noun
1 : <u>formal religious veneration : WORSHIP </u>
2 : <u>a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents </u>
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator *health cults*
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary.

Cult: Noun
1617,<u> "worship," also "a particular form of worship,"</u> from Fr. culte, from L. cultus "care, cultivation, worship," originally "tended, cultivated," pp. of colere "to till" (see colony). Rare after 17c.; revived mid-19c. with reference to ancient or primitive rituals. Meaning "devotion to a person or thing" is from 1829.
Online Etymology Dictionary

Cult: Noun
In anthropology, <u>an organization for the conduct of ritual, magical, or other religious observances.</u> Many so-called primitive tribes, for example, have ancestor cults, in which dead ancestors are considered divine and activities are organized to respect their memory and invoke their aid. <u>A cult is also a religious group held together by a dominant, often charismatic individual, or by the worship of a divinity, an idol, or some other object.</u>
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition.

Cult:
<u>The term "cult" first appeared in English in 1617, derived from the French culte, meaning "worship" or "a particular form of worship"</u> which in turn originated from the Latin word cultus meaning "care, cultivation, worship," originally "tended, cultivated," also the past participle of colere "to till". Thus in French, for example, sections in newspapers giving <u>the schedule of worship at Catholic churches are headed Culte Catholique; the section giving the schedule of protestant churches is headed culte réformé</u>.
Wikipedia.

That sounds an awful lot like Christianity to me, sweetie.

[jeff_franklin]

That definition of cult is no longer recognized in the current vernacular. Here on factnet and other cult related sites there is only one meaning of cult and Christianity does not fit that definition.

Ask randomly anyone on the street what their definition of a cult is.

People's Temple

Branch Davidians

Heaven's Gate

Scientology

Moonies

Krishnas


<u>Not</u>

Baptists

Methodists....


Atheism has had many many cultic sects.

[bluewater2]

"Atheism has had many many cultic sects" That ranks up there with some of your most ignorant comments.

[rachelengland]

Why am I having visions of Peter O Toole and Sophia Loren right now.....


ATM-when I was a little girl...not all so long ago. I attended a church called People's Church-now known as (Resurection Life Full Gospel church) many people at the time thought we had some relation to Jim Jones..but no it was a non-denominational pentecostal type church...I now feel it is a cult... do you really feel all forms of christianity are cults? How about ALL religions in general...R

[searchlight86]

ATM, the word 'apostolic' is generally associated with Christianity, as I'm sure you're well aware. So, again, why call yourself 'the apostolic truth' if you believe all Christianity is a cult? You clearly stated all Christianity is a cult but now avoid calling it a lie. Please clarify your 'title' and clearly state your position.

[jeff_franklin]

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif You just can't resist hurling the insults can you? You continue to demonstrate what I say to be true about you. Your atheist word tracts are just crumbling around your toes and it enrages you. You have no response but insults, more personal attacks.

That's another propaganda myth you are trying to perpetrate on us and it doesn't wash either. Atheists can be just as cultic as anyone. Even more so.

It would be so much easier for you to just admit that yes, atheism has cults too. And let it be. You certainly can't blind us all to the facts of the world and it's history. Propaganda won't sweep it under the rug. Attacking me won't divert people's attention from the fact that atheism is cultic.

Cults are according to factnet are religious, corporate, marketing, political, social, family, marital wherever mind control is used.

Did not a personality cult of Lenin exist, even to this day? He replaced the Czar and God. Same with the personality CULT of Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Slobidan Milosevic, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il.... these alone are atheist CULTS.

Jim Jones in Guyana had an atheist cult. "There is no God". Drink the Kool aid.

The former communist cells in the free world were atheist/communist cults. You can check in but you can't check out. Total control of one's personal life. Total obedience required. Atheism enforced. Cultic through and through. All hinging on atheism. Go ahead and be in denial but you won't convince anyone otherwise that atheism can be cultic also.

Now show me your logic and reason by calling me some more insulting names.

[jeff_franklin]

ihs, in many circles what you describe is called being a man.

It is obvious you believe that all standing nails get hammered down.

That is what would happen if you ever chose to believe in God again. The atheists would hammer you down. You dread that thought so much you could never show the courage or humility to believe in God. That's called peer group pressure.

A man does not respond to peer group pressure, or the threat of cultic shunning.

A man stand up above the crowd of lemmings like you and speaks for what he believes the truth regardless of the consequences. That's called courage. That's called being a man.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Ms. rachelengland:

Quoting: "ATM-when I was a little girl...not all so long ago. I attended a church called People's Church-now known as (Resurection Life Full Gospel church) many people at the time thought we had some relation to Jim Jones..but no it was a non-denominational pentecostal type church...I now feel it is a cult... do you really feel all forms of christianity are cults? How about ALL religions in general...R"
End quote.

The short answer? Yes. According to the definition, all religions are cults. Is that a good definition? When you read the definition again, you will see that even liberalism is a cult with Big Daddy Bill as leader. To the second part of your response, yes, Jim Jones was closely associated with pentecostalism. We spoke briefly on the confusion of charism and pentecostalism, this is part of that confusion. Jim Jones and his followers were big on 'tongues' and 'faith healing'. Jim Jones preached salvation by baptism (Acts 2:38) = regeneration (Acts 3:19). That is the same salvic plan used by most of pentecostalism. Jim Jones . . . (EH? Please read this in context) . . . Jim Jones' church is considered by many as the beginning of "Civil Rights" in Christianity. Jones catered to and exploited the black community. Now, I must ask "have you ever been in a black church?" William Seymour gave pentecostalism its sensationalistic hysteria. The rhythmic swaying, the near chant like singing, the sheer repetition of those chants, the thump, thump of the music, all began in the black church. The black community is also heavily steeped in the occult. The occult and pentecostalism are simply inseparable.

Close your eyes, place your finger tips on your temples . . . think back to the time you sat in the Full Gospel church. Compare that to a Methodist church (or any church). Everything you saw that would be identified as charismatic/pentecostal came from the black church. When the world’s laity saw Jim Jones, they saw pentecostalism. For those in pentecostalism, they saw their own church services. The cleric, who knew better, saw the almighty buck. The cleric of pentecostalism saw Jim Jones as the chance to take their religion into the mainstream of America. The confusion was a win - win proposition for both sides.

Back momentarily to the meaning of cult, have you considered the word ‘unorthodox’? Have you read the book of Acts and thought about the first church? The religion, often identified as Judaism, was orthodoxy at the time. Jesus Christ was seen as having a charismatic (the other meaning) personality (he was a natural or born leader). The sect of the Nazarene had a communal living arrangement. Do you recall the phrase “all things in common?” The first church at Jerusalem also dabbed in socialism. Go back to the meaning of cult . . . charismatic leader? Unorthodoxy? Communal living? Socialism? Contrary to popular culture? Now pick up a Strong’s and find the meaning of ‘Christian’. You can easily see how or why Christianity is considered a cult.

[jeff_franklin]

That was a pretty weak axx argument from someone many here on factnet suspect as being an atheist in disguise obviously selling their own brand of something fishy.

None of what was listed has anything to do with the Christian church today. I suggest those that are confused as to the meaning of the word cult go to factnet's home page and learn what the word "cult" means in the current vernacular of the real world. Christianity does not fit that description.

So no, that lame atheist attack on Christianity and any other theist faith is defeated from the gitgo.

[smyrna]

Better watch it,AP/Truth,

Frankie will accuse you of being racist talking like this:

"Now, I must ask "have you ever been in a black church?" William Seymour gave pentecostalism its sensationalistic hysteria. The rhythmic swaying, the near chant like singing, the sheer repetition of those chants, the thump, thump of the music, all began in the black church. The black community is also heavily steeped in the occult. The occult and pentecostalism are simply inseparable."

I agree somewhat with that, but the reason I decided to chime in here, is because Frankie claims "None of what was listed has anything to do with the Christian church today.'

That's a lie, but Frankie is predisposed to lying.

I live in the south, and there are many of the very same churches you describe.

Frankie claims to be a black Methodist,(but he also claims he's white too) so he is clueless about what Southern black Pentecostal Churches are all about.

You sound like a pretty intelligent guy Ap/Truth.

I like the way you toy with Frankie.

I do it all the time on the Shepherd's Chapel threads.

Frankie has his own denomination. It's called Franklinism.

It's a cult, just as you describe. He teaches that Genesis 3:15 means stomping on snake eggs.

I'm serious. I'll prove it if you wish. I hope Frankie denies it!

[ihavesinned]

"None of what was listed has anything to do with the Christian church today. I suggest those that are confused as to the meaning of the word cult go to factnet's home page and learn what the word "cult" means in the current vernacular of the real world. Christianity does not fit that description. "

This from the guy who suggests that China and North Korea and the former USSR are cults???

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). smyrna:

hehehehehe!!! Forgive me for laughing. Unfortunately, I don't know if I am laughing at you or with you? For you? Now I'll miss my nap trying to figure that out.

[jeff_franklin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Il-sung

http://www.historyguide.org/europe/cult.html

http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?action=L2&amp;SubjectID=1939personality&amp;Year =1939

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

http://www.singlespark.org/?id=P-Cult-Ranga

Go ahead atheist, try to sweep the facts of history under the rug. Mighty lumpy rug you've got there. All atheism ever does is replace the worship of God with the worship of man. Always cultic. And as in all cults there is never any disagreement within the cult allowed. No free thinking. Evidenced here on the pages of factnet. ihs, bw and t.o. never disagree. All three have one cultic mindset.

[ihavesinned]

Wow, three people agree! Must be in the same cult.

BTW, I disagree with BW all the time. He gives you too much credit and seems to think you are occasionally capable of rational thought, which I disagree with. I think you're the Don Quixote of cyberspace, jousting atheist windmills.

If you're such a big man, standing up for Jesus, why don't you go to North Korea and take on that cult? You're real brave on the internet, but why not team up with Jesus in the real world to take on all those atheist cults of personality?

Answer: they would just kill you. Just like they would kill people who speak out inside the country. People's mouths are easily controlled, but not their minds.

N. Koreans are in a dictatorship, not a cult. Most would happily move to the South if given a chance. That's why the border is guarded by machine guns. I doubt you could find one person who worships Kim Jung Il. They have to act like it to protect their families.

I really shouldn't have to explain this to you.

[jeff_franklin]

Thank you for more insults. I wear them like medals.

And most people would leave cults if they would. If you knew anything about cults I wouldn't really have to explain that to you. Whether being shot in the back or the fear of being shunned by your family has the same result. Fear of leaving. Go ahead and spray some more perfume on the skunk that is atheist personality cults. Man worshipping. No matter how you try to spin it, it is still just an atheist cult.

[trainedobserver]

Man worshipping.

Christianity is the worship of a man who claimed to be a god.

Your cartoon-like attempts to make the assertion that atheism leads to despotism is pretty telling.

Projection
# Psychology.

1. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others: “Even trained anthropologists have been guilty of unconscious projection—of clothing the subjects of their research in theories brought with them into the field” (Alex Shoumatoff).

2. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.
From Answers.com

[bluewater2]

Thank you for the educational links, Franklin. As I have an open mind and am always looking at ways to improve myself I took the opportunity to paruse your suggestions. They are all lengthy, but so far having looked at three of the links, I am unable to find any that mention atheism at all, let alone some atheist cult that at work there. Even the cult of personality link suggests that Jesus is a likely candidate for that moniker.

I know we have discussed this before, but I am really trying to grasp your belief that atheism is responsible for the reprehensible acts of reprehensible people.

IHS, TO and I likely agree on one thing: the simple belief that there is no god. The rest is up in the air, as I do not know these people. Well, I guess we all agree that you likely have a personality disorder called Paranoid Personality Disorder which is why at time I am saddened at your seeming sociopathic nature.

Please see this link for a description of that personality disorder.

www.enotes.com/mental-disorders-encyclopedia/paranoid-personality-disorder (http://www.enotes.com/mental-disorders-encyclopedia/paranoid-personality-disorder)

It is the only explanation that I can come up with as to why you manipulate peoples words, redefine accepted words and ideas to fit yours, and why you are so distrustful of others.

QUESTIONING IDEAS IS NOT ATTACKING PEOPLE

[rachelengland]

One thing is for sure many times if people do not have a God ..... a man replaces that idea-we see that often in political situations such as communist countries-where religious freedom is not a choice..if their leader tells them to all hold hands and jump off a bridge they would do it!

[trainedobserver]

Lack of belief in supernatural gods does not cause one to default to 'man worship' for goodness sake.

The only man worship going on in the world has to do with ancestor worship and Chippendale's. Although the neo-con worship of George Bush probably boarders on idolatry at this point.

When enslaved people jump because they've been beaten and brainwashed to obey it has nothing to do with the lack of worshiping the supernatural in their life and everything to do with criminal abuse of their civil rights.

(Message edited by TrainedObserver on August 27, 2007)

[bluewater2]

History also shows us that in more cases, people who are willing to turn their lives over to a god or gods, they are also willing to allow some "person" who claims to represent god tell them what to do.

[jeff_franklin]

bw, thank you for proving my point once again. Your motto of "Question ideas is not attacking people" has turned out to be a total lie. You continue to attack me personally. Why? Because I question YOUR beliefs. Your sacred atheism and it's saints. You are such a blind hypocrite.

How would you know whether or not I trust people or not? I certainly do not trust you. But thank God, you are not all the people in the world.

Thanks for all your efforts to get me fired as moderator on Cultbusters.

http://www.cultbusters.com.au/index.php?topic=145.msg17147;topicseen#new

Now we'll see how you like it.


Good point as always Rachel. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/wink.gif

[trainedobserver]

Can you say "Peyton Place?"

I thought you could.

This pathetic show hasn't improved since the "Voyage to Where-ever" pick-up thread you started here and which was shut-down, years ago. You like playing Star Trek with the girls don't you? I fail to see how galactic cult busters is anything but a vanity pick-up forum for trekies. Which is just fine if that is what you want to do. But trying to pretend you are doing some sort of religious in there is just lame.

[jeff_franklin]

Who the hell I am picking up! That is so stupid it is hard to find words to respond to your lunacy. The original space thread was to rid factnet of the persecuting atheists taking to the far side of the galaxy where God does not exist, where Christians do not exist, an atheist paradise to drop the sorry bunch of you off. If you remember!

Then when I moved away from bw's and dodge's constant invasions to Cultbusters and bw came over obscenely uninvited getting him banned from cultbusters, then bw deleted my space thread on factnet out of rage and jealousy. Remember that?

So let's keep the story straight buster!

Stop being big prissy babies and admit there are types of atheist cults.

[bluewater2]

What is that link supposed to show?

Why would I care if you are a moderator at cultbusters or not? I have no interest in getting you fired from anything.

I would love for you just once to actually question my beliefs. That would be a new approach.

[bluewater2]

Franklin, you are more and more proving lunacy. I can guarantee you that if an admin or moderator on factnet removed your stupid star trek site it is because it was a complete waste of valuable space.

"then bw deleted my space thread on factnet out of rage and jealousy" Can you say, PPD?

[smyrna]

AR/TRUTH

"M(r)(s). smyrna: (It's Mr. or if you wish, "Dr." I don't flaunt my credentials. Wait, yes I do, I'm Dr. DOOM for www.cultbusters.com.au)!!!!!!!

hehehehehe!!! Forgive me for laughing. Unfortunately, I don't know if I am laughing at you or with you? For you? Now I'll miss my nap trying to figure that out.

Hey, sorry to disturb your nap. But as for your puzzlement over how to laugh, if you really had to loose sleep over it, then I'll have to take my comment back about you being intelligent.

Just kidding! Laugh with me! Laugh at me! Laugh for me!!

Doesn't matter, today is a GREAT day, and Glenn/Frankie knows why!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Franklin, you are more and more proving lunacy. I can guarantee you that if an admin or moderator on factnet removed your stupid star trek site it is because it was a complete waste of valuable space."

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey, anywhere Frankie is standing right now is a waste of space!

So is his skull!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a great day!

(Message edited by smyrna on August 27, 2007)

[jeff_franklin]

Yep, an unholy alliance for sure. Nazi Jew hating racists and God hating atheists.

Can you say jealous liar! Prove to me you did not personally remove the factnet space thread after you were banned off of cultbusters. Too many remember what happened for you to spin your lies out of that now.

So when are you going to delete the cuckoos nest?

[trainedobserver]

Stop being big prissy babies and admit there are types of atheist cults.

Well there may very well be but I've never encountered one. What and where are they? The Freemasons maybe? No wait they worship ... who knows what they really worship. Just where and who are these atheist cults?

I personally don't belong to any group that I take queues on what to believe from. I don't attend meetings or knock on doors passing out literature or spreading the word about anything. I weigh the evidence and I decide what I believe, I don't get told what to believe on Sunday or any other day.

The closest I have come to evangelism lately is leaving free copies of America:Freedom to Fascism on peoples windshields in a parking lot one day.

[searchlight86]

There are two kinds of ‘cultic’ religions, those that worship nature ...

“Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day [that] the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: Lest ye corrupt [yourselves], and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, The likeness of any beast that on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that [is] in the waters beneath the earth: And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, [even] all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven” (Deut. 4:15:19).

[i]And those that worship angels or men ...

“And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (II Thess. 2:8-12). “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8).

But ultimately, all will recognize the one true Creator, Savior and Redeemer, whether they humbly accept or foolishly reject His loving and gracious offer of salvation ...

“Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear” (Isa. 45:22-23). “And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him” (Heb. 1:6), and “All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name” (Psalm 86:9). “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phl. 2:10-11).

Each of us chooses and lives out one of these options and its consequences for <u>eternity</u>, whether we believe it, like it or not. So consider well, and choose wisely.

[bluewater2]

"Prove to me you did not personally remove the factnet space thread after you were banned off of cultbusters." There is as much chance of me proving that I did not as you proving you did not. Kind of like trying to prove there is no god. Cannot prove a negative. Now maybe you are getting the point. If admin here had problems with you and your idiotic posts, why not remove you as well? Common, Franky, you are really going off the deepend here.

[jeff_franklin]

Nope, you are the one going off the deep end buddy. You accuse anyone who believes in God of being insane. Someone questions your beliefs in atheism and you accuse them of being insane. The whole world is insane to you. Where is your logic and reason? Nowhere to be found. By you believing that you are the only sane person in the world means only one thing. You are the one who is insane. As insane as the atheist Pol Pot.

http://downtheroad.org/Asia/images/Cambodia_picturesb/DSC00094c.JPG

[smyrna]

'Can you say jealous liar! Prove to me you did not personally remove the factnet space thread after you were banned off of cultbusters. Too many remember what happened for you to spin your lies out of that now.'

After I run a few tests, don't be surprised if the entire Cultbusters site is deleted!

What should I be jealous of?

You get your tranquilizers for free or something?

Sorry, I don't take them.

[bluewater2]

Franklin, you made some pretty outragious declarations about me. Can you back them up or are you just blowing smoke like usual in an effort to distract people from the truth that you have no clothes? You fool no one.

[jeff_franklin]

Back up cyberbully boy! You are the one who calls me insane.

[bluewater2]

I can back that one up.

[rachelengland]

Franklin isn't insane..come on how old are you guys..12??? Learn from my great example and behave http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/biggrin.gif


That last part was a joke for all you humourless MEN!

[bluewater2]

I actually never called Franklin insane. But he must feel that way. Having a personality disorder is not necessarily being insane.

[jeff_franklin]

That is totally uncalled for and slanderous but just typical of a godless atheist who reveals his insecurities whenever his false religion is questioned.

What year did you graduate from what University of Psychiatry that approves your diagnosing debate opponents on internet discussion forum's.

Cyberbullying doesn't work with me troll.

Just another one of your disgraceful actions you will have to apologize for later.

[rachelengland]

Don't hold yout breath Franklin-BW will apologize when you do..which means....when hell freezes over..

Go to bed you naughty boys, dream of something pretty and sweet..like my youtube wonder woman signature you can all view at cb....much Love Rhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/wink.gif

[smyrna]

"Go to bed you naughty boys, dream of something pretty and sweet..like my youtube wonder woman signature you can all view at cb."..


Hey Rachel,why hold yourself back with that? Just do an entire porno site?

Let the naughty boys...(use your imagination here).....LOL!

You always try to come and rescue Glenn/Frankie/"FoxyLoxy" even though it's useless.

I'm no fan of you, Bluewater, but I have to side with you in this case. Frankie is a world class fruit loop.He thinks someone has to be a doctor to see that's he's a whack job.

Just that tells you he's loony tunes.

Now that the Cultbusters crew has been throughly defeated on the SC threads: (see ICGJC and Cultbusters)on the Shepherd's Chapel threads)

Glenn/Frankie/FoxyLoxy/Gavin is over here stirring up the pot.

Bluewater, have at him. He'll break down and start whining to the moderator he's being personally attacked.

He's a spineless coward who can't fight his own battles. There's always someone he tries to call in to help him.

He can never stand up on his own.

(Message edited by smyrna on August 28, 2007)

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

P L E A S E! Even an ardent pro-lifer would vote for abortion after reading this thread. It is a given fact that liberalism/socialism/progressivism/humanism/Sataanism/intellectualism/atheism/democrats or any other name or combination there of, are in the business of revising history, science and the dictionary. The question is not ‘are they revising/redefining history/science/dictionary?’ The real question is ‘are they the only ones doing so?’

Now to the question “have I been to North Korea?” The short answer, No. I have spend time in South Korea working in several orphanages. What I did or where I visited while there . . . I can neither confirm nor deny. Some things are better unsaid.

Are the people in North Korea being held against their will? Liberalism/socialism/progressivism/humanism/Sataanism/intellectualism/atheism/democrats or any other name or combination there of, proved that false under Kennedy with Viet Nam. Fifty-eight-thousand American boys died trying to free a people that didn’t want to be free.

Now here is a simple mathematic challenge for you mental giants. Find out how many people live in China. Now determine twenty-five percent of that number. Multiple the population number times .25 or divide by four, that will be close enough for this challenge. If you shot one person a minute, how long would it take you to shot that many people? Now do some minor research on the internet, and tell me what kind of weapon you would use. And I thought only liberalism/socialism/progressivism/humanism/Sataanism/intellectualism/atheism/democrats or any other name or combination there of, were ignorant.

Are Moonies really held against their will? Get real! The Branch Davidian exist today though, liberalism/socialism/progressivism/humanism/Sataanism/intellectualism/atheism/democrats or any other name or combination there of, tried to massacre them several years ago. People are caught-up in cults/political-religious philosophies by choice.

The idea of a porn site won't work. Some folks is jest to childist to know what they are looking at! hehehehehe

[ihavesinned]

I don't know if Franklin is really crazy, but he definitely seems to have an over inflated sense of his own importance.

His feigned offense at "attacks" has always been a go-to tactic of changing whatever subject happens to be under discussion at the time.

Clearly he sees himself as some kind of defender of the faith. Defending the faith usually consists of pointing out that Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists, or acting offended about something.

I think he just needs attention.

[jeff_franklin]

If you do not want to be reminded about the evils of atheism I will gladly change the topic whenever you stop lying about the fundamentals of Christianity. History proves my claims. History disproves yours. Whatever I chose to be, know this atheist you keep attacking Christianity and Christians I will respond. And I will appropriately point out the invalidity of your intolerant religion of hate that has mass murdered more innocent people, denied more basic human rights of freedom than any other religion ever. That's the facts Jack! Whatever is under discussion at the time by you is always insulting to believers in God. You do not know how to have a respectful civil discussion. When you learn how to, come back. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[bluewater2]

I see, Franklin. So it is only a civil discussion if there is no questioning of the doctrines of christianity?

[jeff_franklin]

Listen fool! Be honest with yourself and everyone! You do not question. You attack, insult, denigrate, demean, ridicule with everyone of your posts. What you write is preloaded with hatred toward anyone who believes differently than you. You of all people are incapable of a civil discussion. You are like a black plague who everyone avoids here on factnet. Not because of your beliefs but because you are a cyberbullying troll who has no respect for other factnet members and therefore gets no respect in return. Change your words from bigotry and hate to tolerance and respect and then ask all the questions you want.

ATTACKING PEOPLE AND THEIR BELIEFS IS NOT QUESTIONING THEIR IDEAS. IT IS JUST HATE!

[bluewater2]

So, if I ask a question like, um, "What does Christianity offer to a person who already is living a loving and healthy life? What is available to Christians that is not available to anyone else?". Is that attacking Christians and Christianity?

[jeff_franklin]

No, that is not. If that is all there is attached. That was one of your rare lucid moments where you slipped out of your programming. But as usual what followed was your ridicule of those who answered you back. You can't change your past behavior here. But you sure as hell can try to be tolerant and respectful from now on. Just think free of your programming, realize that the rest of the world deserves to be respected for what they believe and one day you might be able to free yourself from that cultic atheist dogma you are shackled to.

[bluewater2]

Ok, then. How about answering the question? "What does Christianity offer to a person who already is living a loving and healthy life? What is available to Christians that is not available to anyone else?".

[jeff_franklin]

Refer to my answers on the thread that you originally asked that question. Right now I don't have time for what I suspect is just another game for you.

If anyone else wants to respond let them go ahead.

In return you can answer...

"What does atheism offer to a person who already is living a loving and healthy spiritual life with God and all of God's creation? What is available to atheists that is not available to anyone else?".

Mind you if you answer that do so in respectful and tolerant terms. Not in an anti theist but in a pro atheist way.

Let's see if you are capable of doing that. You'll have to abandon your slanted atheist word tracts and think freely on your own before you answer. Check with you later.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. bluewater2:

Quoting: ""What does Christianity offer to a person who already is living a loving and healthy life? What is available to Christians that is not available to anyone else?".
End quote.

Medically speaking? Lower blood pressure and a longer life. Of course, you have to be willing to accept the AMA's word for that.

[bluewater2]

"Right now I don't have time for what I suspect is just another game for you."

Can you say PPD?

"People with PPD do not trust other people. In fact, the central characteristic of people with PPD is a high degree of mistrustfulness and suspicion when interacting with others. Even friendly gestures are often interpreted as being manipulative or malevolent. Whether the patterns of distrust and suspicion begin in childhood or in early adulthood, they quickly come to dominate the lives of those suffering from PPD."

I will also go and check out your answers on the other thread.

"Mind you if you answer that do so in respectful and tolerant terms." Please don't tell me what to do.

[ihavesinned]

Franklin
You have noticed how you're fellow christians don't even show up to defend your nonsense? Nobody on this board seems the least bit threatened by we atheists but you. Go polish your armor Don Quixote.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. bluewater2:

Quoting: "People with PPD do not trust other people."
End quote.

EH? PPD is the shot you get in the inner arm to determine if you have tuberculosis. (Purified protein derivative [tuberculin]).

[bluewater2]

It is also the term used for Paranoid Personality Disorder.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. bluewater2:


Quoting: "Paranoid Personality Disorder."
End quote.

Post Partum Depression!

[oneway]

"Quoting: ""What does Christianity offer to a person who already is living a loving and
healthy life? What is available to Christians that is not available to anyone else?".
End quote.





Medically speaking? Lower blood pressure and a longer life. Of course, you have to be
willing to accept the AMA's word for that."

tatm, are you truly a Christian? Then why not give the man the answers he is seeking?

bluewater2, there are many things avail to Christians that are not avail to others, but the catch is, actually all that is avail to us is avail to all others including you, it merely comes down to ones' desire to heartfully seek and obtain and find. Christians are promised eternal life thru Christ, and so are you and everyone else, but you have to be willing from the heart to accept the gracious gift bestowed on all mankind, that God offers because of what Christ accomplished at the cross.
So in simple terms, we don't have anything that is not also offered to you or anyone else for that matter, but we do have many things avail to us that are not avil to you, simply because you just don't want it or are not seeking from the heart, the Word of God, the bible, the book in which the Lord reveals himself to those that truly seek him
from the heart.

[bluewater2]

"but we do have many things avail to us that are not avil to you," Such as? Please, documentable benefits. Not something promised but not verifiable.

Thank you.

[smyrna]

Glenn/Franklin/Gavin/FoxyLoxyTrashcanman/Bruno/wrote:

"You are like a black plague who everyone avoids here on factnet."

Is that a racist statement? How come you never say "white plague" ?

Never mind this guy, folks, he's probably smoking weed or something.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). oneway:

Quoting: ". . . why not give the man the answers he is seeking?"
End quote.

I did.

[bluewater2]

Oneway

I have been trying to find that AMA material. Could you send me a link to that information?

Thank you.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Bluewater2:

I have no intention of doing your research for you. Disprove my claim, if you can.

http://www.webmd.com/balance/guide/20070201/spirituality-may-help-blood-pressure

http://dr.pierce1.net/PDF/Healthyheart.pdf

http://www.worldandi.com/public/1996/february/ar4.cfm

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Here is one more.

http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/7/2/118

[trainedobserver]

Wow, now isn't that the height of 'spiritual' warfare?

Can't you guys just pray for each other or something? Isn't that what it says? Pray for those who spitefully use you all that business?

Peace and stuff like that there. Sheeesh.

(Message edited by TrainedObserver on August 28, 2007)

[jeff_franklin]

Don't know what you're talking about smeagle. I'm at the Cultbusters site now.

[searchlight86]

May I suggest this thread gets back to the original purpose, unless that has already been fulfilled? Whatever that is, I'm not sure I remember ...

[smyrna]

Hey, Glenn/Franklin/Gavin/FoxyLoxy/Bruno

That's because the site was brought back online. Ask Neil. he knows it was down. I was just practicing.

Your a real Tallywagger,
Glenn/Franklin/Gavin/FoxyLoxy/Bruno

Know what that means?

I'll give you a hint: I'm Irish.

[oneway]

"Quoting: ". . . why not give the man the answers he is seeking?"
End quote.

I did."

attm, I apologize. I had no clue you were being serious or that you provided the answer bw2 was seeking. That's what I get for not paying attention.

Bw2, I'm sorry that I misunderstood your question. I'll try not to bore you anymore with anything from the heart.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). Oneway:

No apology necessary. I knew Mr. Bluewater2 would not accept the answer you gave (for the reason he gave). The links, I gave, are but a few of the thousands of studies that show attending church is healthful. Several on this site follow Ellen White's (founder of the Adventist Movement) vegan's diet. Many will rightfully argue Ms. White's diet (taken from scripture) is also healthful.

[bluewater2]

Thanks for the links. I did notice though that none said any of the benefits are attributed to a belief in Jesus, but spirituality in general. Certainly, xtianity falls into that category, but again, my question was what does a belief in Jesus have that cannot be found elsewhere? I suspect that these studies included Hinduism, Muslim and other spiritual practices such as meditation as being beneficial as well.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. bluewater2:

I did not expert you to agree. You absolutely must march lockstep with your religion. Hinduism does not have a diety.

[jeff_franklin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_deities

http://www.koausa.org/Gods/

http://www.hindunet.org/god/summary/index.htm

http://www.sanatansociety.org/hindu_gods_and_goddesses.htm

.......

[jeff_franklin]

http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/deities/bodhisattvas.htm

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/maitreya2.htm

http://www.khandro.net/deities.htm

http://www.iloveulove.com/buddhistdeities.htm

http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/family-tree.shtml

[ihavesinned]

"I did not expert you to agree. You absolutely must march lockstep with your religion."

I'm ready to march lockstep with his religion (atheism) too. But how do I know where to step? I'm stuck over here thinking for myself, can someone email a PDF of the atheist bible or something. Since atheism is a religion I'm sure there's some sacred text or something that shows you how to not believe in god/gods/goddesses.

I've been using Joseph Heller's "Catch-22" for some time now, but I feel I am missing out on some mysterious secret handbook. People here seem to be in the know about these things - I checked Half-Price Books, but I couldn't find any atheist bible, or even a junior atheist's fieldguide to not believing. A little help here?

(Message edited by ihavesinned on August 28, 2007)

[bluewater2]

"Hinduism does not have a diety." Do you think that because of that they would not show up on the study as benefiting from their religious practices with lower blood pressure? The studies that I read mostly said that "those involved in spiritual practices", some form of "religious practice", "meditation", etc., had some results of lower blood pressure. I don't deny this, just dispute that the benefits are for those who except Jesus only.

I too would love to see an atheists bible and maybe an atheist church or two.

[jeff_franklin]

http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Bible-Illustrious-Collection-Irreverent/dp/0061349151/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-3555394-8701236?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1188361157&amp;sr=1-1

http://www.atheistbible.net/

http://www.theatheistbible.com/

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/



http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&amp;page=affirmations

<font color="ff0000">SORRY FOR THE EDIT. REPOST THE URL'S IN SMALLER CHUNKS. THANK YOU.</font>

(Message edited by admin on August 29, 2007)

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Bluewater:

Quoting: ". . . those who except Jesus . . .."
End quote.

That is youse, dude! Or did you mean 'accept'? hehehehe.

Someone requested we get back to redefining words . . . well here us's is!!

[bluewater2]

Ok, tatm, you are going to force me to go back through all of your posts and find typos. With such attention to detail, can I address you as Ms. TATM?

[ihavesinned]

Hey thanks Franklin,

I suspect that atheist bible is intended to be a joke of sorts, but it has some relevant points that we've tried to address here in less flowery language. How about this little tidbit from the atheist bible -

"Epicurus' old questions are yet unanswered. Is he [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?"
-David Hume

The atheistbible.com seems to be a placeholder site with no content. It consists only of the following sentence:

"Welcome to the Atheist Bible!
This website is designed to help Atheists get more accepted in society. It will be hard but it can be done. It is Particularly hard in the United States. Odd that the land of freedom doesn't
respect freedom. Hopefully this changes one day."

The Skeptics Annotated Bible is quite interesting but hardly has any tenets of my "atheist religion", it merely points out discrepancies in yours.

I've read "the Selfish Gene" and I don't see how that could be considered an atheist bible. I know you know who Dawkins is Franklin, but have you read any of his books?

Are you implying here that Dick Dawkins is the atheist god? A contradiction in terms there if ever there was one...

[ihavesinned]

PS,
Posting those long links screws up the whole display of the thread.

Admin, are you out there?

[searchlight86]

ihs, Here is a Biblical answer to your (Hume’s) question:

Since God is omniscient, why did He create the angelic host or mankind at all if He knew in advance they would fall into sin?
Even in this fallen, decaying world, we see many magnificently beautiful reflections of God’s original Creation. From before the genesis of time, God desired to create this universe as an unimaginably beautiful, joyous home for His created intelligences, filled with His glorious love. Although God foresaw the temporary intruder of evil in His universe, completely the enemy of His will, should He not then have proceeded with the Creation? Seeing the very end from the beginning, that evil will proceed to its own eternal isolation by its own choice, and that a holy, loving universe will be forever established, it was overabundantly good and loving for God to establish the universe and its inhabitants, despite the temporary and hideous corruption of evil. Moreover, God was fully conscious that His loving plan would require His own permanent incarnation to endure the worst possible torture, and death, and yet chose to proceed! God’s eternal plan for His Creation will finally be fully and gloriously accomplished, never again to be tainted at all with evil or decay. Although our finite minds can only scarcely grasp a faint shadow of what must have been involved in such a unique, all-encompassing decision, we can fully trust the revealed light of abundantly demonstrated love, truth, and infinite wisdom, that God’s Creation was the very best and right conclusion among all possibilities.

How can evil exist at all, since God is the Creator and source of everything?
God did not create evil, but allowed for its possibility for the following reason: God created men and angels in His image, with the ability to sovereignly choose Him or not, so we can have genuine, loving relationships with Him and each other. When we self-centeredly choose ourselves over God, His goodness is no longer present with us, and evil is the only possible result. This is why Lucifer became the father of evil by choosing himself above God, even though there was no external temptation in this case. Evil is not a special creation of God, but is merely the natural state in the absence of good. Since God is the only source and sustainer of goodness and spiritual life, choosing anything other than Him and His will is only and completely evil and spiritual death.

[searchlight86]

Why was evil not immediately destroyed when it first appeared, or why isn't it immediately destroyed now?
The primary reason provided in Scripture is that He is merciful, gracious, and very patient with those who have chosen evil (see I Tim. 1:12-16). He provides an opportunity for those who have sinned to repent. If God were to destroy evil right now based on His eternal standard of absolute perfection, He would have no choice but to utterly destroy all those who have not effectively appropriated the perfect righteousness of Christ up to this time (i.e. we're talking about the Judgment Day). In addition, the presence of good and evil gives the angelic host and all humankind a chance to see good and evil (and their results) for what they really are, and thereby to make informed choices between serving God or Satan. It also helps us not take the goodness of God and His blessings for granted, but to be genuinely thankful. As it was long ago when Lucifer "walked among the fiery stones", and as it was in the garden of Eden, God is still looking for meaningful, loving relationships with His created intelligences, based on mutual choice. Real love must be based on genuine choice, but evil will receive justice at the due, providential time appointed by God.

Summary
As its sole Creator, God has complete rights to His Creation and all that is therein. God’s sacrificial work and rescue of mankind through Jesus Christ is purely due to His unimaginable love, mercy and grace, and no part or credit of our own work. Moreover, all things truly of eternal good are from God, and all evil things originate purely and independently from angels and men. As the sole source and sustainer of existence, life and goodness, God is the only One who truly deserves praise, glory, honor and love, and our reasonable purpose and service should be to glorify Him alone, and not ourselves.

[fatherofaking]

The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
US (Russian-born) novelist (1905 - 1982)

[trainedobserver]

God did not create evil,

The god of the Bible says he did.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

[fatherofaking]

if one is to believe in the god of the bible as taught by christian, jew and muslim then you must accept that god created evil.

this is just one of the many problems with this sort of teaching.
the common definition of evil holds people back from knowing the truth.

evil is not something tangible, it is an idea, a concept.
evil is a perspective.
it is a moral declaration.

i would go so far as to say that it is, in the full light of the truth, an illusion.

the idea that evil is something that is real has been used to scare people into accepting the christian message for centuries.


at it's core,language is nothing but symbolism .
it only has the meaning that we give to it, and the meaning changes often.
each nation has it's own alphabet (symbols) and yet they communicate the same ideas.
we should not get bogged down by old definitions when new truths are learned.

[trainedobserver]

if one is to believe in the god of the bible as taught by christian, jew and muslim then you must accept that god created evil.

It would seem so but many people are either ignorant of that fact or have developed elaborate methods of reconciling verses like the above with their concepts of what the god of the bible is.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). fatherofaking:

Quoting: "i would go so far as to say that it (evil) is, in the full light of the truth, an illusion."
End quote.

Did I understand you right? Micheal Vick came to mind, first. Vick's treatment of dogs, was that just some honkies trying to keep the Falcons out of the Superbowl? What about Waco? Was that shot on a Hollywood back lot to discredit Clinton? What about the Twin Towers, just a figment of someone's imagination?

[fatherofaking]

ATM,
you can point to those things and call them evil, but where do you get your definition from?
it is a construct of the human mind.

why is it that animals are not concerned with good and evil?
to them neither one exists.

we have to learn about it.
we know nothing of it as a child.
the behavior of our parents, no matter how bizarre, was perfectly normal to us as a child.

the concepts of good and evil do not exist until we create a standard to judge the difference.

you can either accept that, or you can accept that god is both good and evil, or that god created evil.

any one of those ideas are very difficult, if not impossible to defend.

(Message edited by fatherofaking on August 30, 2007)

[searchlight86]

to, the more complete context and better translation is "That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else. Forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; the LORD does all these" (Isa. 45:6-7).

The idea of 45:7 is completeness by contrast of opposites, to show God is the only God per 45:6. The Heb. word 'ra translated 'evil' here in the KJV is used over 500 times in the Bible, and although it can mean evil, is also translated as (e.g.) hurt, trouble, affliction, or adversity. In this case, it is clear these latter terms would be better, since it is contrasted to shalowm (peace/well being), just as light is contrasted to darkness, and this is consistent with the rest of the Bible.

There is only good, and no evil from God. "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:17). "Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God" (III John 1:11).

[fatherofaking]

There is only good, and no evil from God.

then that means that god created evil.

where did the tree of the knowledge of good and evil come from?

if god did not create evil then man did.
this is a very difficult philosophical position to hold.

[searchlight86]

fof, I provided a reasonable and Biblically-based explanation for this in posts 90-91 above, although granted it is a profound topic. Evil does not require creation, it is the natural order in the absence of good.

When one has the free will capacity to decline good (which God's created sentient beings were given, e.g. the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), and declines good, evil always ensues. We can even see this principle in our day to day lives, whether theist or athiest. We and our ancestors (as well as certain angels), are fully responsible for turning away from God to evil, and we need to take personal responsibility for it instead of falsely blaming God. I assume you agree with this in any case since you don't beleive God exists.

(Message edited by searchlight86 on August 30, 2007)

[fatherofaking]

SL,

first of all you should be more careful about what you assume.

i do hold a belief in god.
just not the christian god.

the power to decline something implies having a choice.
where did evil come from?
it must have existed in order to choose it.
one of the angels chose it (satan).
how did he know to choose it?
he did not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil did he?
adam and eve already had the knowledge of good and evil before they ate from the tree.
they were given a standard to live by.
that is the knowledge of good and evil.
it was their law.
what they did not have was the experience.
an experience that would give them knowledge that until then only god and satan had.
where did the knowledge come from?
before satan was god.
all knowledge comes from god.
how much evil does god know?
more than the amount of good?
how do we decide?

do you see how many questions there are when trying to defend this position?

this does not even include trying to defend the existence of the supernatural.

i cannot even defend my belief in god.
neither can my atheist friends prove he does not exist.
so i don't feel so bad about having taken this position.

(Message edited by fatherofaking on August 30, 2007)

[ihavesinned]

We (atheists) don't think we can prove god does not exist. I think we can make a pretty good case that if there is a god, he is not the one in the bible. In fact the god in the bible seems to be bipolar.

I guess Fatherof ,this is the conclusion you have come to as well.

I think most atheists would be more comfortable if they thought god did exist. Especially a warm fuzzy one that loves us. As it stands, we remain unconvinced.

There are some big implications here, most of them concerning the future of the planet. There seems to be a belief among some christians that whatever is happening to the earth is either god's will and cannot be undone, or god will destroy the earth before long, so why worry about it. This makes us a little squeamish.

[searchlight86]

fof, please accept my apology if I made an invalid assumption. From a Biblical standpoint, the first sin of Lucifer as a result of pride is a much more difficult question that Adam and Eve, since temptation was already externally present for them (from Satan). For Lucifer, the temptation came purely from within. It may seem overly simplistic, but it seems free choice and the capactity for evil go hand in hand.

Although you are right these are difficult questions, the character of God does not hinge on the answer to them, for His good and pure character is overwhelmingly revealed in Christ, and this is the clearest revelation of God to man.

ihs, you can say what you will, but none of us are in a position to say God is bipolar, especially since our very ability to think such things and every breath we take is dependent on Him. I know you don't believe this of course, but athiest or no, it seems unwise to take such a haughty position given our microscopic knowledge compared to God's omniscience (or all knowledge that could theoretically be known, from an atheist standpoint).

Atheists are right to be squeamish. The destruction of the Earth, and the massive deception therein, we are doing a fine job of ourselves, and unwittingly with demonic help as well, against the will of God. The best thing we can do for the Earth (as well as ourselves) is join with the Creator of the Earth, and thereby do what we can to stop the deception and destruction. Trying to do it without God flatly won't work because the root causes are spiritual problems (pride, lust, greed, etc.) that are part and parcel of our unregenerate nature, and we cannot escape them from within. If man's corrupt and selfish nature isn't changed from the inside out (and only God can do this through giving us a new nature), man's externally destructive actions will inexorably continue despite increasing deceptive rhetoric to the contary. Ultimately though, only God Himself can completely stop the corrupt juggernaut as prophesied, and He will indeed return and do so before the Earth is completely decimated. The Bible says if God/Christ didn't return, men would completely destroy themselves.

[fatherofaking]

the character of God

your idea of a benevolent god and a literal interpretation of the bible does not work.

unless you deny that christianity has a different god than the one of the old testament.

you speak of god as if he is something that is bound by our moral questions.
there is no god like that.
the god of the old testament is not the most benevolent of gods.
the justification for the actions of the god of the OT doesn't really make any sense.

god is something you can know only through experience.
otherwise god is indescribable.
you cannot describe god to anyone.
you may be able to help someone along in there search for this experience, (and i would hope that we all would want to do just that) but this search is done from within.

the god that we imagine as something infinitely bigger than ourselves is something that can only be found from within.

This above all: to thine own self be true; And it must follow, as the night the day; Thou canst not then be false to any man.
William Shakespeare, 'Hamlet,' Act I, Scene iii
Greatest English dramatist &amp; poet (1564 - 1616)

[trainedobserver]

Dualism - the idea that everything falls in a good vs evil spectrum ignores reality and is the source of a tremendous amount of human suffering. It is an artificial and completely illusionary concept that fails when it is applied to reality, particularly reality 'outside' of human society.

Is the Lion evil when it kills the young antelope Is the sun good or evil? Without it nothing would be alive but it is by its very nature perpetual 'destruction'. Good and Evil are not things that actually exist, they are interpretations of events or situations made with specific consideration usually from some human bias.

This does not mean that there are good things and bad things for human beings to say, do, or experience. Of course there are. A sunburn is a bad thing. Cruelty is a bad thing. Supernatural intervention isn't needed for those things to be recognized as bad anymore than we need supernatural help trying to figure out if getting run over by a truck is a bad thing.

[bluewater2]

It would seem to me that if god exists, any attempt to describe god, limits and minimizes god. All man made attempts, (religions), to compartmentalize or "own" god, does the the concept of god a great disservice.

Perhaps the closest one can get to "knowing" god is to admit that whatever god is, it cannot be known or understood by man.

A fish in the sea has a better understanding of what god might be than man ever will.

[searchlight86]

I agree with you Bluewater, you have reasoned it out. All man made attempts (anthropocentric religions) to define god does a genuine concept of God a great disservice. However, if there is a genuine Creator, He certainly has a right to describe Himself and reach out to man, and this is what genuine Christianity uniquely is (theocentric).

If what you say is true, we better find a way fast to communicate with sea fishes. You are right here again in that at least fishes don't deceive themselves and each other, like religions created and sustained by men.

We agree on all this, except that there is one genuine needle in the huge deceptive spiritual haystack. Consider, that it is not logically possible for anyone to know this isn't true, so it is reasonable to remain open to the idea and pursue it if it may be true and beneficial to oneself and their family. The worst thing I can imagine is taking this ultimate gamble and getting it wrong, and thereby to be the primary cause of the eternal loss of one's loved ones.

[bluewater2]

"All man made attempts (anthropocentric religions) to define god does a genuine concept of God a great disservice." I'm glad we can agree on that. However, you reverse yourself when you say:

"However, if there is a genuine Creator, He certainly has a right to describe Himself and reach out to man, and this is what genuine Christianity uniquely is (theocentric)." Right there you are projecting your so-called "anthropocentric thinking" onto the concept and poluting what would make god pure and unknowable. At that moment, a religion is created and a step away from god is made. My thinking is that god would have no more desire to reach out to man than he would a fish. Man's, and fishes, miniscule little world is theirs to do what they want with. Man is not special to anyone but man and with that responsibility comes the task of supporting each other and integrating ourselves with the fishes, (all of nature), in such a way as to be an asset, not a burden to all living things.

"You are right here again in that at least fishes don't deceive themselves and each other, like religions created and sustained by men." I use the fishes analogy not because they don't deceive each other, but because they live their lives not acknowleging god except by their deeds, not with words.

"We agree on all this, except that there is one genuine needle in the huge deceptive spiritual haystack. Consider, that it is not logically possible for anyone to know this isn't true, so it is reasonable to remain open to the idea and pursue it if it may be true and beneficial to oneself and their family. The worst thing I can imagine is taking this ultimate gamble and getting it wrong, and thereby to be the primary cause of the eternal loss of one's loved ones." Again, more of your anthropocentric thinking. I consider that is is not logically possible for anyone to know that it is true.

People are taught about god, and most definately about christianity, which is the first indication that the idea is worth questioning.

Live life, be good, if there is a god, that is enough.

[fatherofaking]

interpretation, even definition, involves experience.

whatever we do, whatever we say, is our interpretation of our own, or someone else's experience.
the only thing that we can judge is our own experience.
we must judge our experience based on fact(science) not religion (emotion, faith).
that is the only logical way to interpret our emotional response to any circumstance.

we must balance the history with the science.

[searchlight86]

Balanced yes, but not compromised. Belief systems based on emotion only are naivete, inviting deception and destruction, and are a complete abdication of commitment to truth. All truth must be consistent with a given 'religion', history, science, and everything else or it is not truth at all. If we cannot beleive a system with a reasonable, logical, rational mind and clear conscience, as well as a full, loving heart, then we shouldn't believe or follow it at all.

This is another distinction about genuine Christianity vs. 'religion' (including prevalent counterfeit Christianity) Unlike other belief systems, the Bible says our belief should be based on substance and legal quality evidence, and checked out to see if it's true: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence (legal quality proof) of things not seen" (Heb.11:1). "And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:10-11).

[searchlight86]

Many people today think 'science' conflicts with 'religion', so conveniently divorce one from the other, but this should not be so. The question of origins can be scientifically investigated, but is not subject to the scientific method. This logically places it in an entirely different category of reliability than history, or science that can be empirically tested, reproduced and proven in a laboratory environment.

Real science only appeals to what is observable, testable, and repeatable - that's the ideal. Yet in the history of science, occult (Latin occultus, "secret") forces have sometimes been employed. Two of the most notorious are widely accepted today.

The term "occult force" need not mean something demonic. It is something not yet understood: an "imponderable" substance. It can serve as a placeholder for an unknown cause of observed effects. Electricity and magnetism were named long before they were understood. And what could be more real than gravity? Yet even that has been suspect. Newton conceived of a universal force and made powerful use of it in his equations, but he "feigned no hypothesis" to explain what it was. The Cartesians criticized him for proposing a force without a mechanical explanation, ridiculing his occult force that acted mysteriously at a distance.

An occult force may produce measurable, predictable effects. Sooner or later, the proposed cause must achieve a scientific consensus. The history of science is replete with imponderable substances that were widely accepted at the time. Some lost out: caloric, phlogiston, animal magnetism. Others became accepted: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces. We tend to think of the accepted imponderables as real, and the losers as pseudoscientific. Yet the distinctions are not always clear. Is there a luminiferous ether that acts as a medium for light waves? Are quarks real? What about the strings in string theory, or alternate dimensions? Eminent scientists and philosophers have defended imponderables purely on their utility, while dismissing any claims to their real existence.

Today, most cosmologists claim that 96% of the universe consists of two imponderable substances: dark matter and dark energy. No one has a clue what these are. This huge appeal to occult forces is making many uncomfortable. Richard Panek, in a March 11, 2007 New York Times article, quipped, "'You get to invoke the tooth fairy only once,' meaning dark matter, 'but now we have to invoke the tooth fairy twice,' meaning dark energy." In an April 11, 2007 article in Nature, Jenny Hogan described the mood at a recent cosmology conference; one astronomer said, "There is a sense of desperation … The standard model is horribly ugly, but the data support it." Dark energy was called "a profound problem from the viewpoint of fundamental physics."

It remains to be seen if cosmologists will be able to establish the existence of dark matter and dark energy to everyone's satisfaction. But it becomes difficult to defend against charges of pseudoscience when the bulk of your model depends on imponderable substances. If they only serve to shield a model from being falsified, appeals to dark things seem occult in more than one sense.

Results of the scientific method have historically been distinguished from “occult forces”, and we should be much more cautious in prematurely giving credibility to the latter. We should be especially suspect of concepts that conflict with the natural reading of the Word of God, since He certainly intended it to be understood by people of all ages.

[trainedobserver]

Many people today think 'science' conflicts with 'religion', so conveniently divorce one from the other, but this should not be so.

But much of religion, and certainly Christian theology, conflicts with direct experience. That is an inescapable freely observable truth that anyone can attest to.

[jeff_franklin]

If that is so why does 92% of the world attest to the opposite. There is a God!

[bluewater2]

I agree with you, TO. Trained, I think that the notion that so many still do choose to forgo the findings of direct experience and scientific observation shows that religious training only works when these readily available tools are set aside. The fact that such a large portion of the worlds population argue incessantly about what god it, whose god is the real god to the point of killing each other shows that despite the high numbers of people who claim to believe in god, god is actually elusive and unknowable and likely a manmade concept. Thank you TO for your consistanly inciteful posts.

[jeff_franklin]

AtheistsRUS! Shoving your false religion down our throats. If 92% of the worlds population was killing each other then there would be nothing more than 8% of the worlds population left. All atheists. An atheists paradise. But of course that is not happening. Atheists kill more atheists than believers in God kill believers in God. That is why there are fewer and fewer atheists in the world and more and more believers in God. Of course you agree with t.o. Not a free thinker in the lot of you. Goosestepping your way to an Atheist's Paradise. Atheist propaganda is soooooo lame! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/crazy.gif Get used to the heat.

[trainedobserver]

despite the high numbers of people who claim to believe in god

If the popularity of any idea had any weight the world would still be thought to be flat and the center of the universe! Not all that long ago the majority thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it. The facts did not change to conform to these misconceptions however.

There was a saying that was prevalent in the late 60s and the early 70s that I don't hear that much more which applied this line of reasoning to our dietary habits. ..."Eat <explicative>! A billion flies can't be wrong!"

It doesn't take a thinking person long to realize that the popularity of a certain idea has no relationship to its truthfulness.

[ba2]

trained said, <font color="0000ff">“But much of religion, and certainly Christian theology, conflicts with direct experience.” </font> Yes, in cases when the theology becomes to fundamentalistic. But not all Christians are so legalistic. Gregor Mendel during the mid 1800’s was an Austrian Monk and scientist often called the "father of modern genetics" for his study of the inheritance of traits in pea plants. He certainly followed the scientific process and used his power of observation. The problem is not Christianity, it is legalism and fundamentalism which is what I would consider cultism and potentially as dangerous as the fundamental Muslims.

On a semi-related note, the world’s religions are listed as:
Christianity: 2.1 billion 33%
Islam: 1.5 billion 21%
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion 16%
Hinduism: 900 million 14%
Buddhism: 376 million 6%
Judaism: 14 million less than 1%

[fatherofaking]

i think there might be something that is being missed.

where is the balance in all of this?
we have two ideas directly opposed to one another.

one says self sacrifice is the way and the other says that self determination is the way.

i think there is a balance that is in direct correlation with our experience.

we get nowhere in this world unless we have some determination.
we also get nowhere unless we serve somebody.
happiness is in the balance.

christianity didn't survive by brute force alone.
it holds truth that resonates with all of our experience.
science does not conflict with this but rather it balances it.
if we sat around waiting for god to do things for us we would never get anything done.
we must rule our own lives.

self determination and self sacrifice are just two sides of the same coin.
the secret is not to go to far in either direction.
there is little doubt that religion holds a place in our lives.
it is an undeniable part of our life.
for some it is a necessary part.

[searchlight86]

to, when you say Christian theology conflicts with experience, you mean 'miracles' specifically is that right? i.e. anything that is not a 'naturalist' phenomenon (this precludes the existince of God by definition of course)?

[fatherofaking]

SL,

if you don't mind taking the time, i am interested in what you consider real christianity.

you speak of science in some of your posts.
you speak of miracles in others.
in other posts you speak of true christianity.
i am curious how you fit all of these things together.

[searchlight86]

fof, Let me think about how to best answer this question on FACTnet (since I would prefer face to face conversations), but yes you are absolutely right I believe strongly in fitting all these things together, unlike the typical approach of seprating them. Although we certainly can't understand everything, we must try our best if 'truth' is to be truth at all.

[searchlight86]

fof, here is my initial answer, and I know it may seem like it wouldn't make any difference but trust me http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/crazy.gif. Instead of trying to fit Christianity and its miracles into 'science', try to fit 'science' into Christianity and its miracles. While you are doing this, humbly ask God to help you understand the whole (integrated) truth, and be open to any new insights you may receive.

As you do this, remember the distinctions I've made above about 'genuine' vs. 'counterfeit' Christiantity, as well as 'scientific method' vs. 'occult' science. Put questionable 'counterfeit' christianity and 'occult' science aside for the moment (even though today's world typically lumps them all together resulting in an unsolvable conundrum), and focus initially to see if you can fit 'scientific method' (only) science into 'genuine' Biblical Christianity. At least to my own satisfaction, I have done so, and suspect my scientific and logical standards are no less than anyone here.

An initial book I found helpful when I had similar questions, is What is Creation Science?. It is written by two very dedicated former evolutionists, and unlike some books on the topic has no 'attitude', and does not appeal at all to Biblical exegesis or dogma. Here is a link: http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Science-Henry-Madison-Morris/dp/0890510814/. I liked the life sciences section by Gary Parker better than the physical sciences section, but both are worth reading. The other book that looks at the situation from an overall perspective is The Long War Against God, http://www.amazon.com/Long-War-Against-God-Evolution/dp/0890512914/ and I recommend this book without qualification. They can be read in either order.

If you have further questions how to approach this please ask, or feel free to email me offline at r0ryr@hotmail.com.

This post may get a lot of flak from resolute evolutionary naturalists/atheists, and if so I recommend ignoring it at least until you give this a fair chance. What I say here is a reasonable approach, even though it may seem paradoxical at first. There is a potentially a lot to gain, and relatively nothing to lose. If you look at this material with an open mind and heart, and conclude it's all nonsense, good for you, and whatever you determine post your results here for all to see. How about it?

[fatherofaking]

SL,

i think you misunderstood me.

i do not have a conflict with any of these things.
i wanted to know how you do it.

[searchlight86]

fof, I think I answered that in the above also, yes?

[trainedobserver]

to, when you say Christian theology conflicts with experience, you mean 'miracles' specifically is that right? i.e. anything that is not a 'naturalist' phenomenon (this precludes the existince of God by definition of course)?

Miracles are just one aspect of it. The whole metaphysics of Christianity is unworkable and impractical and conflicts with everyday experience. Name an aspect ... any aspect.

Souls. Human beings are supposed to possess an eternal spirit that is the real 'them' that survives after death. Reality- Human beings have brains and if you alter the brain you alter 'them' if you alter the brain enough ... no 'them' at all.

[searchlight86]

What do you mean by alter the brain? Men have no capability whatsoever to place a different consciousness in another body (although I have gladly seen this happen on Star Trek).

The Bible indicates we are composed of body, soul and spirit. Although different respective Hebrew and Greek words for `soul' and `spirit' are used in Old and New Testaments, 'soul' refers to living physical beings with breath, such as men, fish, birds, and cattle, while `spirit' is apparently eternal, and something completely distinct and unique to men, angels and God. `spirits' do not necessarily need a physical body (at least a physical body as we know it), but can reside in physical bodies and utilize them. This distinction is also consistent with thousands of recorded `out of body' and `near death' experiences. In one recorded case in the Bible, thousands of "unclean spirits" resided in and used the body of a single person, and in another, similar "unclean spirits" resided in swine. Spirits depart from the body at physical death and return to God, who made them. Jesus Christ said "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Just because this and other things cannot be verified by your personal experience (yet) does not mean they are not so, and what evidence we have points to the fact that the Bible is accurate and reliable in this area (just as in all others).

[trainedobserver]

Good grief. "Alter" as in physically removing portions of it or introducing substances into the brain to change its chemistry.

Medical science has revealed that the human mind is a combination of various chemical reactions occurring in the medium of the physical material making up the brain and as such could never be "transferable" to another "brain" somewhere. That is just bad science fiction.

Out of the body and near death experiences are completely explainable using modern medical science. Supernatural explanations are totally unnecessary and uncalled for. The body is a miniature chemistry factory, when the brain dies many things happen that normally don't. As the brain dies and hormones are pumped into it and/or oxygen deprivation starts to happen hallucinations occur.

You don't have to be dieing to hallucinate and many people will hallucinate during their lifetime. And there is a certain percentage of the population hallucinate regularly due to various medical conditions.

Human beings perception of reality is totally dependant on the information coming from their sense organs being interpreted correctly ...or at least consistently. When the brain's chemistry or physical configuration is changed the internal “representation” that the brain puts together of these sensory information can be radically changed. Head injury or drug use are both good examples of what I'm talking about.

The idea that human beings have some supernatural component hanging around inside their bodies doesn't pan out. As I've demonstrated previously, the human mind and therefore the individual's personality is inexorably tied to the condition of the brain. If a spirit/soul existed as the mind and personality generation/support/retention system then the brain would serve no purpose and would be unnecessary.

The everyday experience of our mind/body/brain demonstrates to us that the spirit world of Christian theology is a fiction.

[jeff_franklin]

So that's it? That's your response? That all believers in God believe in God because we're all on drugs, sick in the head, hallucinating and have suffered head injuries......? http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

92% of the world is wrong but you're right????

That insulting ridiculous statement alone screams out "THERE IS A GOD!"

If anyone on the planet is nuts it's the atheists.

[searchlight86]

to, many people had NDE's while medically confirmed to be brain dead, so it's not possible our human identity is dependent only on our physical brains. The idea that mankind is only a heap of chemicals that came from a heap of chemicals from an explosion is a heap of fiction.

[trainedobserver]

The idea that mankind is only a heap of chemicals that came from a heap of chemicals from an explosion is a heap of fiction.

I can see no good reason for you to say such a thing.

It is a fact that to change who "you" are all that has to be done is alter your brains physical and or chemical properties. Remove a bit, add a bit, and your personality, memories, and ego-self change. In fact ... persistence of something called 'the self' is an illusion. We, along with everything else in the universe are in a constant state of change. You aren't the person you were only moments ago. Cells have died, new cells have grown, connections have changed in your brain, new memories are available, etc., etc.

Making emphatic statements about invisible, undetectable, and as I've pointed out unnecessary things like etherical components of the human being seem a bit rash.

to, many people had NDE's while medically confirmed to be brain dead, so it's not possible our human identity is dependent only on our physical brains.

Can you produce the evidence or references to these cases? What exactly can be trusted of 'experiences', the dreams, and hallucinations of brains that have died and been revived considering what is happening chemically to those brains? How much trust can we or should we put in them exactly? Not enough to contradict reason, common sense, and the evidence of our "healthy" senses I would think.

[searchlight86]

Take a look at this case:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

... and see this broad case study, which references the above case among others:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/40891/Neardeath-experience-in-survivors-of-cardiac-arrest

Excerpts:
"Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE" ... "With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG? ... Furthermore, blind people have described verdical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience."

"Persistence of something called 'the self' is an illusion"??? This doesn't match with clinically observed facts, but scientifically observed facts match with the Bible's description of unique spiritual consciousness in human beings (as well as angels and God).

I respectfully but strongly suggest any who count on their existence ending with the death of their current physical bodies reconsider their position in light of confirmed Biblical and medical evidence.

[arron]

atm ... is not a cristian as far as i can tell. he hates pentecostal religions and hates people who are pentecostal. he has been hurt by some fanatic [entecostal claiming person and thefroe hate all pentecost. he doesnt say he hate the baptist methdis.... but just pentecost. well i am PENTECOSTAL and will never chnage

[arron]

atm ... is not a cristian as far as i can tell. he hates pentecostal religions and hates people who are pentecostal. he has been hurt by some fanatic [entecostal claiming person and thefroe hate all pentecost. he doesnt say he hate the baptist methdis.... but just pentecost. well i am PENTECOSTAL and will never chnage

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Arron, you sir, are my favorite philistine. Here is a golden opportunity just for you. Show me where I have said "I hate pentecostals." Show me where I have been "hurt by a pentecostal." Otherwise, my friend, shut up!

When you expose someone to the truth, it is not a sign of hatred. You do not minister to someone through hate.

I, sir, am obeying the calling of God. Whose calling are you following?

[arron]

you have never said it but you can tell by your posts that you cant stand pentecostal for you make fun of them and talk about them and i am sure that you have been hurt by one who was fanatical dont tryt o chnge my way of thinking about you and i want shut up either.
you said you do not miniter through hate but that is exacatly what you are trying to do,

[ihavesinned]

Speaking of ministering, I am becoming an ordained minister, and so can you, by filling out a simple form at this website -

http://www.nlcordinations.org/ordained.htm

enjoy!

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

M(r)(s). ihavesinned:

There was a site, . . . Seven Hills (maybe). . ., That would not only license you but give you a doctorate in divinity as well. Now here is your golden chance. Just tell folks you are pentecostal. You should practice babbling, giggling, and slinging snot deliriously. Remember to tell everyone, it is the Holy Ghost dun made you dun it!!! You will be a millionaire in no time.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Joyce Meyers . . . that is the name I was thinking of. If you can babble, giggle, sling snot and do stand up comedy, you too can make $100 million a year! Just make sure you remember it was the holy ghost dun made you dun it.

[arron]

tatm ... hey liar i dont agree with joyce myers on a lot of things but then i dont tallk about her just because she is pentecostal either... you in stead are nothing but an unbeliever thats why i can talk about you