(June 1, 2015 at 11:44 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: My point was just that emotion plays a role in our determining what's true or not.  And when it comes to religious matters, the feeling may be the thing in our experience that we predominately have to go on.  This is especially true when ritual thoughts and ritual actions play with the soup in our brain (raising your hands overhead, singing, chanting, touching things, all these have subtle but profound effects on that soup), ramping up the pleasurable feelings associated with the religious activity.

No argument on that count from me.  If -all- we have to go on is that feeling, with regards to some specific thing like religion, then I would consider it prudent to withhold judgement on truth, personally.  Emotional response isn't enough to decide the truth of anything other than how a person feels about something. The muslim feels that his religion is true, the christian his...if we actually relied on that then the word truth wouldn't mean much, eh?

My counterpoint, since we're simplifying, is that while the situation you've described -may be- the way our brains evolved to lead us in the direction of true propositions...it's no longer the only show in town. We've upped our game, wouldn't you agree?

(June 1, 2015 at 9:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: -and neither do you.

Well I do know that I personally have gone door to door for my whole engaging with people on what they believe. I live in an area where people are really open to discussing their beliefs. I know that the general RULE is that people don't know the bible. It is very easy to prove my beliefs with the bible and very easy to disprove other religious beliefs with the bible. Do you have personal experience going and talking to people in person from ranging demographics and belief systems? I don't believe these forums count. I'll be happy to debate what the scriptures say if you want to play the catholic. But the only rule is that have to agree beforehand if the bible is the ultimate authority or the pope. When you have a church spokesman or prophet then you're beliefs can change easily. Mormons have their prophet for example, so they can go from polygamy being a god given command to it being apostasy. Not saying that there is anything wrong for admitting that you were wrong. But rather, you can see that religions will easily adjust their teachings for whatever suits their purpose. In the mormons case it was statehood

You think it's easy to prove your beliefs with the bible.  So do they. You think that it's easy to disprove theirs with the bible.  They think the same of yours.  That the bible isn't actually proof for either of your beliefs seems to be lost on both groups.

Yes, to your question, I do have experience with that...and in fact you and I are doing that right now..what a ridiculous question, given the environment you're asking it from, eh?  You can discount the forums as easily as I can discount your door to door sales trips..and still my answer would be yes.  I didn't start talking about religion with people -here- any more than you did.

Your sects beliefs changed easily as well- and recently no less-, so just stop with that shit like you're better or more consistent than they are on that count.  I wouldn't agree to any of your ridiculous stipulations, I would simply present you with the chapter and verse that each sect has for their beliefs and call you out on the lie you continue to sell - that they don't possess that, and you do.   

Easy to adjust...like all of those failed doomsday prophecies, eh witness? I don't even know why you'd bring that up..the very existence of your sect is due to an adjustment in beliefs. All of a sudden that's a bad thing..lol?

I notice that you've decided not to demonstrate the truth of your earlier claims..running to something else, pigeon. Will this be a pattern...cause I've gotta tell you...I've seen it before, from all of those other, less christian christians. You're making it very difficult for me to tell you apart right now. Now...now friend..I'm pointing out hypocrisy, but not the hypocrisy of religion, only your own.

(June 1, 2015 at 4:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You think it's easy to prove your beliefs with the bible.  So do they.

You think that it's easy to disprove theirs with the bible.  They think the same of yours.  

Yes, to your question, I do have experience with that...and in fact you and I are doing that right now..what a ridiculous question, given the environment you're asking it from, eh?  You can discount the forums as easily as I can discount your door to door sales trips..and still my answer would be yes.  I didn't start talking about religion with people -here- any more than you did.

Your sects beliefs changed easily as well- and recently no less-, so just stop with that shit like you're better or more consistent than they are on that count.  I wouldn't agree to any of your ridiculous stipulations, I would simply present you with the chapter and verse that each sect has for their beliefs and call you out on the lie you continue to sell - that they don't possess that, and you do.   

Easy to adjust...like all of those failed doomsday prophecies, eh witness?

You're just wrong. Its a lot easier to bawl people out on the internet, its a lot different to go door to door. I am making a claim that I know my bible better than most christians. The claim that christians don't know their bible is pretty widely accepted, on this forum at least. I can prove it too. I have spoken to thousands of people my whole life and most "christians" don't even know where most bible books are located in their bible. You're making a claim from complete ignorance. I am making one from 2 decades of talking to people about what I believe and what they believe. The one thing we have in common usually is that we both believe in god and Jesus and that the bible is gods word. So when they're shown the bibles clear denunciation of their beliefs, it is a reflection of their biblical acumen

Again, pigeon, I have no trouble telling you anything I would tell you here face to face.  I've never had any trouble with it.  I'm not a door to door salesman, so I never went door to door...but it hardly matters, because you're having gone door to door won't actually help to establish that your claims are true, or accurate.  They are -anecdotal-..and, I suspect..not entirely factual. The kindest I can put it, is that you are expecting me to accept this based only on your side of the story..lol.

You seem to be strawmanning -every other christian sect on earth- right now...imo. lol.  Have it it brosef.  

You continue to assert and assume what you must demonstrate.  Go ahead, disprove other christian's religions for us?  I'll drag some of them in here as well....I'm good at chumming the water.  I wouldn't dispute that many christians don't seem to know the bible. I'm wondering what that would prove...that they were somehow less christian than you? You're a piece of work...lol. I could dig you up a study, if you like, that shows that atheists are more knowledgeable regarding religion and scripture than believers. Does that mean that you, as a witness, are less christian than an atheist? The fact that you have attempted to manouver our discussion into a corner where you feel that it will be easy to dismiss the christianity of others shows that you are not actually willing to take their religious claims as they come..that you must impose restrictions of -your- choosing. That's fine...I do it too...but at least I realize it, and own up to it.

Full disclosure..before we go down the rabbit-hole. I may be more familiar with your religion than you think - I've been to the kingdom hall, I love the watchtower (I collect em..buddy of mine worked at the press in Wallkill for awhile) - and I've tagged along on those little missionary sojourns. I may be a better apologist for other's religions than those dimwitted fucks you schlepped your wares to. It's not like they screened them before letting them join the club..after all, eh? I find it hilarious to see you bragging about how you totally picked the low hanging fruit. Perhaps you should have witnessed to a priest, for the challenge?

(you'll need to tell me which version of the bible, btw, you'd prefer me to answer from........or else I can't.)

Meh, fuck it, I'll use the NWT.  How does that sound?

John 1:1- In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.


Who/what does this verse make reference to?
(any other christers that want to chime in feel free...but please don't shit all over the NWT- yet, lol....)

(June 1, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Meh, fuck it, I'll use the NWT.  How does that sound?

John 1:1- In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.


Who/what does this verse make reference to?
(any other christers that want to chime in feel free...but please don't shit all over the NWT- yet, lol....)

In response to your previous post first... I never said that I don't believe you wouldn't say the same things to my face. But you don't have my experience. I am not trying to convince you of anything, I know my experience and I know that the average christian doesn't know the bible at all. I have spoken to bishops of the mormon church, priest of the catholic church, and clergy of many types of denominations. You know what one catholic priest said to me once, "if you took away the bible you wouldn't have anything. at least we have the pope, our traditions and our history." Or once I had two missionaries come to my house and the one stormed off when I asked if the US went to war with Italy (his missionary partner was italian) would he fight for the US and possible kill his missionary partner. You'll probably just say I made these stories up but it doesn't make a difference to me because I know that your arguments are weak.

So in response to John 1:1... so in the beginning the word was WITH god. This seems to differentiate the two. Jesus is a god. One prophecy calls him a mighty god. Still not the almighty god. And the greek word you used for god at the end of John 1:1 had a different conjugation than the word used for the first mention of god. So you can just say that I am just molding it to what I want to believe, which I am sure you're thinking right now. Well if you keep reading John, let a lone the other gospels, you see a clear distinction between god and Jesus. From Jesus own words. Even John 3:16 says that god loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten son. So, can someone just read John 1:1 and conclude what they want? Of course, but I can use the bible as a whole to refute it. Who is showing more earnest?

I'd give anything for a missionary partner. Or a doggy one.

Quote:So in response to John 1:1... so in the beginning the word was WITH god. This seems to differentiate the two.  Jesus is a god. One prophecy calls him a mighty god.  Still not the almighty god. And the greek word you used for god at the end of John 1:1 had a different conjugation than the word used for the first mention of god. So you can just say that I am just molding it to what I want to believe, which I am sure you're thinking right now.

Isaiah 9:6, not "one prophecy"..lets be specific...I think you might be reading to much Awake! and not enough scripture, after seeing that above.

-For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

I didn't use any word, btw, your NWT did....and I don't care that the translation of John 1:1 in the NWT is blatant horseshit...I really don't.  I just wanted to make sure we had the same understanding of the verse..seems we do.  I'd like to quote a very smart man..let me see if I can find it, ah yes...here it is:

Quote:The point that I am trying to get across is that I want you to argue with what I say. Not what you'll anticipate I'll say

-think you might know that guy....



Moving on.....  So, Jesus is a god.  Jehovah is a god...how many gods do you believe in? After you count out how many gods you believe in (there are more gods in your sect..lol, can't forget about Old Scratch now can we?), care to reconcile that with Isaiah 44:6 (also in your NWT..of course)

-I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.

I don't see anything there about there not being any other almighty gods...do you?  If god wanted the scriptures to say.."there are no other almighty gods beside me" - don't you think that scripture would say that?  How might a bible based christian, rather than a polytheist like yourself, reconcile those verses? If jehovah is a god...and jesus is a god - but there is only one god............then jehovah and jesus must be [fill in the blank for me]...or else the scripture is [fill in the blank for me].  

I'll give you another (and just as you claim that you can use the whole bible I can also point to scriptures throughout the entirety)  once we get some resolution on this particular issue.  Sounds fair, right?  Explain to me how an admitted polytheist, a paganized christian such as yourself, can criticize a catholic on their relative status as True Christians™?

(June 2, 2015 at 12:17 am)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote:So in response to John 1:1... so in the beginning the word was WITH god. This seems to differentiate the two.  Jesus is a god. One prophecy calls him a mighty god.  Still not the almighty god. And the greek word you used for god at the end of John 1:1 had a different conjugation than the word used for the first mention of god. So you can just say that I am just molding it to what I want to believe, which I am sure you're thinking right now.

Isaiah 9:6, not "one prophecy"..lets be specific...I think you might be reading to much Awake! and not enough scripture, after seeing that above.

-For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

I didn't use any word, btw, your NWT did....and I don't care that the translation of John 1:1 in the NWT is blatant horseshit...I really don't.  I just wanted to make sure we had the same understanding of the verse..seems we do.  I'd like to quote a very smart man..let me see if I can find it, ah yes...here it is:

Quote:The point that I am trying to get across is that I want you to argue with what I say. Not what you'll anticipate I'll say

-think you might know that guy....



Moving on.....  So, Jesus is a god.  Jehovah is a god...how many gods do you believe in? After you count out how many gods you believe in (there are more gods in your sect..lol, can't forget about Old Scratch now can we?), care to reconcile that with Isaiah 44:6 (also in your NWT..of course)

-I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.

I don't see anything there about there not being any other almighty gods...do you?  If god wanted the scriptures to say.."there are no other almighty gods beside me" - don't you think that scripture would say that?  How might a bible based christian, rather than a polytheist like yourself, reconcile those verses?  If jehovah is a god...and jesus is a god - but there is only one god............then jehovah and jesus must be [fill in the blank for me]...or else the scripture is [fill in the blank for me].  

I'll give you another (and just as you claim that you can use the whole bible I can also point to scriptures throughout the entirety)  once we get some resolution on this particular issue.  Sounds fair, right?  Explain to me how an admitted polytheist, a paganized christian such as yourself, can criticize a catholic on their relative status as True Christians™?

Why should I even respond to you when you are proving that there is ZERO genuineness in your questions? You are not looking for a discussion, you're looking for a brow beating. Are you actually looking to learn about what I believe and why? Or do you have foregone conclusions that you're just going to argue without reasoning on a single thing I am saying? You're no better than someone who believes the earth is 6000 years old because thats all they have ever known. 

But, for one last time... Jehovah doesn't need to say that there are no almighty gods other than him. Almighty is generally singular. God does acknowledge other gods. (Exodus 20:3) He just makes the point that he is the only uncaused, first cause of everything in existence. He is the only god that is deserving exclusive devotion and worship. Satan is referred to as the god of this system. Paul said that some had made their belly their god. If you scripture mine and read one single scripture, sure, I can see your point. But when you look at the whole picture it says something else. 

And you have to understand that if God does exist, he didn't write the scriptures for small minded people that would parse individual scriptures. He wrote it for those that love him and trust him and put truth over personal preference. Could you also quote me where I admit to being a polytheist? 

I would also refer to the fact that the bible translators that translated John 1:1 used the definite article "the word was god" didn't take the same liberty in John 6:70 when they translated that scripture to say judas was "a devil" This is despite the fact that both scriptures use the indefinite article. Implying a quality rather than an identity. 

Yes, Jesus was divine and god like. But he also said that he doesn't do anything of his own will except that of his father. From his own mouth he was inferior to Jehovah. From Pauls letters, he was the FIRSTBORN of creation. In prophecies like the one you mentioned, he is to be highly revered for us humans but is still not almighty like his father. IF, someone would like to read that one scripture and say that they base their beliefs off it and are therefore true christians then they have all the right to do so. However, in my case, looking at the bible on the whole, there is no way that it teaches god and jesus are equal and the same. 


Should I conclude that Stephen Hawking is a theist based off this quote, "... if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.” 


I guess if that is the only thing I have ever read about him then I could conclude that. But in the full context, it isn't what he meant.