What I have is on pp.4 and 7-10 at the next link. As it bears on this, prayer
and worship were the two main ways 1st century Jewish people indicated belief in
God, and followers were praying to and worshipping Jesus in the mid-30's AD, which
is why Paul went after them at first. He later popularized it among the Gen-
tiles and is the biggest contributer of writing to the NT, but the most signifi-
cant part was underway.
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/
glenster
JoinedPosts by glenster
-
14
Is Paul responsible for founding "christianity"?
by cameo-d indid jesus really have the intention to start a new religion?.
did he really plan his own execution in order to save mankind from eternal damnation?.
did jesus actually regard himself as a divine being, knowing it would be an infringement of the first of the ten commandments?.
-
-
glenster
-
20
Illuminati-Church Connections
by cameo-d intake a look at what appears in the "capstone" area of this very old church!
(duomo).
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/photo503305.htm.
-
-
-
31
Foxnews today; "UFO crashed into Meteor to save earth in 1908".....Bullcrap!
by Witness 007 inrussian scientist claims a ufo saved earth by smashing into a meteor which blew up in tunguska 1908 knocking down miles of trees in the explosion????
he claims to have found a "control panel" in a slab of rock, and meterial that "can only be found in space" duuuuur!
i think ufo's are just another fantasy religion that people rely on..
-
-
-
347
Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject...
by Tuesday inpersonally i hate bible ping-pong.
i don't think it ever gets anywhere, i don't think it solves anything and i don't think the participants ever make any head room.
however i will say in this case, i have been proven wrong.
-
-
glenster
What I have on it is mainly on pp.4 and 7 to 10 of the "GTJ Brooklyn" article
at the next link (repeated on those pages of the "GTJ Brooklyn" article at the
2nd link).
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/index.html
http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/gtjbrooklynindex.htm -
29
Science in the bible......
by insearchoftruth inlast week my wife and i were returning from a trip to the store and she starts talking about how amazing the bible is and how one should really not need to take any science classes, cause everything that one needs to know is in the bible.
she sites the creation story on how it is all in the bible that there was first water, then earth, then vegetation.........i really did not even know how to reply.
i asked her if she ever really critically read genesis for what it said, it is an interesting story, but there are many inconsistencies and even contradictions within the written word.....but of course she attributes that to the mistakes of man recording the information, since every word of the bible is of course inspired by jehovah.
-
-
glenster
Some reactions to the Bible might be better as references to certain interpretations of the Bible.
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id12.html
Popular use of "Dark Ages"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_ages#Modern_popular_use
An alternative interpretation to taking Genesis literally, when that interpretation is at odds with science, is imaginable without intending theological damage to the scriptures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Natural_knowledge_and_biblical_interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christianity#Compatibility_with_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
An example from 115, or 130-140, AD by Papias: "Taking occasion from Papias of Hierapolis, the illustrious, a disciple of the apostle who leaned on the bosom of Christ, and Clemens, and Pantaenus the priest of [the Church] of the Alexandrians, and the wise Ammonius, the ancient and first expositors, who agreed with each other, who understood the work of the six days as referring to Christ and the whole Church."
-
9
Sick! How many million worldly babies and children will be killed by Jehovah?
by Witness 007 inoffically babies and children will be destroyed with worldly parents at armagedon.......sick!
what a kind and loving god!
imagine a frightened 6 year old holding her parents hand while jehovahs fire-ball destroys them.
-
-
glenster
The God of the Bible isn't meant as a concept of an all-beneficent God, just
love as it's found in Him. To be credible, the God concept has to be reconciled
with the seeable touchable world. A bigger concern than deaths in battles or
such is that an all-beneficent God would have everyone live forever in heavenly
circumstances, which wouldn't be credible. The God of the Bible has everyone
die and didn't need to have it that way.An early example of the Bible dealing with that is in Job. Someone could be
cynical about life because of all the bad things that can happen, but someone
could be glad they got the chance to find what good in life they found. The
latter may or may not believe in God, but just add God, and that's Job.The danger is in the believer or non-believer leader getting too 'centric about
it, and that's what the JWs leaders do to the point of cooking up the research
books to try to prove their dozen or so distinctive rules, meant to prove their
exclusiveness, are right. People who believe i God or don't can be friends, but
thousands have died by making the mistake of following the JWs leaders' cooked up
cases about blood, worldliness and politics, and were separated over their
shunning rules. The case I have for that is at the next links, which is what I'd
recommend to JWs worried about the fate of those who don't follow the JWs lead-
ers.
http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/gtjbrooklynindex.htm
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/index.html -
150
Article: The Atheist's Dilemma
by BurnTheShips incampos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?
that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.
"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".
-
-
glenster
Belief in God is faith. Even the NT says you're saved by faith--a hope
commitment in a possible God. In my ideal of it, it's not a disagreement about
the see-able, touchable, measureable things (some people's arguments for literal
interpretations of Genesis and such notwithstanding). I would think both sides
of it would understand that, it's just one chooses to hope for a God beyond those
things and the other doesn't. When either side tries to rationalize it too much,
I think they miss the point. It's fair game that one might try to persuade the
other to their choice, but whether the other goes for it or not, I hope they're
still friends afterward.But when people see they're in a group, some rationalize they're the good ones
and others are stupid and crazy and cause all the trouble in the world--they get
'centric. They might do it over race, income level, nationality, etc., and they
might do it over the choice of whether or not to believe in God. But a recent
article in Yahoo showed that more kids in school are more relaxed over each
other's different choices about God. I think that's healthy.It's when people get too 'centric over it that someone is burned at the stake
or the jets fly into the skyscrapers or a Hitler tries for genocide and to mani-
pulate Christianity or a Stalin has tens of thousands of priests, etc., killed.
I wouldn't knock myself out arguing over the seeable, touchable things because
that isn't where the difference is. And you want to guard against getting
'centric about it, which is what rationalizing to try to persade someone else to
your choice can get into. -
32
Today's Foxnews headline = NASA study warns of Solar doomsday 2012!
by Witness 007 in{yes another doomsday thread...but blame foxnews not me}.
a study by the "national academy of sciences" warns of increasing solar activity destroying all electrical systems of earth!
in 1859 a huge solar flare wiped out the telegraph and exisiting comunications of that period.
-
-
glenster
If it screws up the ability to play GTA online, there's still the single
player campaign and stunts. -
50
Anecdotal evidence for atheism
by hamilcarr inbelievers on this board repeatedly claim subjective experience as a major source for their belief.
this anecdotal evidence can't be checked by science because it falls outside the empirical realm.. what about atheism?
would it be possible that an atheist too has had a personal experience that convinced him of the non-existence of god?
-
-
glenster
The video above refutes certain conservative views of the God concept and
creation, which have long been disagreed about between conservative and liberal,
not necessarily belief or non-belief points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Natural_knowledge_and_biblical_interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_GenesisIt ends with a refutation of the idea of an an all-beneficent God, not the God
of the Bible. In order to be credible, the God concept has to be reconciled
with the same world with its tragedies as everyone else has. It leads to ideas
that might come up in a discussion of God's prerogative, not necessarily whether
you believe in God or not let alone decisive for not believing.The idea of belief in a God that isn't all-beneficent is illustrated in one of
the oldest books of the OT--the book of Job. in Job, the devil wants Job to for-
get God because of them, but Job maintains his faith. An easy way to understand
how Job could do that in a secular way is to remove God from the account--some
might say life stinks due to those tragedies, yet another might say they recog-
nize the same tragedies but they're glad for the good they found in life and the
opportunity they got to find some for themelf. Just substitute ability to be-
lieve in God for ability to believe in life, and it's basically the same thing.
Job knows God isn't all-beneficent (like life isn't all-heavenly), but is glad
for the good he believes God provided anyway. My point is just that the trage-
dies don't create the make or break point for non-belief the video condescend-
ingly intends.In my ideal on the matter, it can be simplified to seeing that both the
believer and the non-believer can know the same see-able, touchable stuff. The
believer wants to have a hope commitment for something beyond that the other
doesn't want. Arguments about what the see-able touchable stuff is as intending
to decide which you pick probably went wrong somewhere, and are probably better
understood as matters of how you look at each and not decisive for which you
should take.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science
Also see the book by Mortimer Adler, "How to Think About God," for an empiri-
cal philosophical analysis that concludes that the basic God concept--of a
neccesary, eternal (in the sense of transcendant of time, not in existing for-
ever in time as we exist in it), creative cause for the cosmos--that the unnec-
cesary cosmos could become necessary there--is a compelling, not arbitrary, pos-
sibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#The_argument_from_contingency
Beyond that, it's a personal choice whether or not to have the hope commitment
about it, not a matter of how intelligent you are. Any two big groups, such as
believers and non-believers, probably have about the same average IQ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
Be careful of surveys meant to show lower intelligence or higher crime rates,
etc., among believers--see the refutation of the article at the next link:
http://bluegrassroots.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=2469
Someone can try to rationalize a 'centric view by taking one aspect--race,
sex, or belief choice--of another group and try to connect it to bad social
trends. They leave out it's really due to other things. For instance, about
every ethnic group that's come to the USA initially had a higher unemployment
and crime rate which dissipated as the group assimilated, yet a bigoted group
like the KKK might try to take such findings out of context in an attempt to
show that the group they attack is inherently prone to crime, etc.
Besides, the Christian faith involves the book of James and "show me your
faith by your works." An habitually bad-behaving unrepentant alleged Christian
is a non-believer, not a bad Christian. -
5
A different thought on the blood issue..... perhaps ?
by Homerovah the Almighty insomething about the blood issue that has been circulating my brain that i would like to express and maybe see what you folks think ?.
correct me if i'm wrong all opinions will appreciated !.
the observation that the jws have taken the laws of the use of blood out of the old mosaic laws from the old covenant.
-
-
glenster
The JWs leader's stance is that their version of the blood verses of Act 15
is defined by context, including OT context. Context goes against establishing
that (pp.12-42 at the next link), so the authority switches to the 12 or so GB
leaders having divine guidance. Evidence goes against establishing that, so the
shunning rules are stretched to make sure those with the evidence aren't around
long to cut back on profits.
http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/gtjbrooklynindex.htmThe law doesn't require that something be true to be printed. What would
improve things is something to popularize the facts of the case.