GP's book stirs holy row

[whodat]

At the risk of monopolising this thread (perhaps we should start our own?) as to your questioning the number of those dead through religion, I never once said just Christianity or Judaism. There have been religions as long as man has been around. Similarly there has been war and sacrifice perpetrated in the name of those religions. That's a lot of years and a lot of dead bodies, my friend. And remember, your god (allegedly) once drowned an ENTIRE WORLD. That would account for a few million, right there, I'd guess. If you believe it. And if not, well who is to say any of it can be believed? Or are you selective in your beliefs as well as your quotes?

 

In fact, if you believe in your vengeful god, then technically every person who has ever died through plague, natural disaster, war, or even at the hands of those communist bounders you villify so much, can be attributed to that same omnipotent, omniscient god, thereby laying those selfsame deaths at the feet of religion. Discuss.

 

Shalom.

[Sherlock]

I confess to having followed this "discussion" with some modicum of interest, as - Jesuit educated as I was - theology, philosophy and science are all interests of mine. Yes, we are allowed some interests outside of work! 8O

 

For a thread title, I respectfully tender, "moomin for tat"

 

I jest. I fear it does not take a detective to work out the veracity of either side's argument with regards to this argument/discussion.

 

Allahisamoongod has deeply entrenched dogmatic views that lead him to believe he knows better than anyone who dares to argue or disagree with him. His very name declares this like a foghorn going off in your face. Subtle? I think not. And yet I cannot help but reflect that, strangely enough, this is the same sort of mentality that one would expect in a communist or fascist dictator/regime. Lord knows, I have met enough so called Christians - some of them men of the cloth - with the same smug mentality. We are not, any of us that different, it would seem.

 

Whodat, I suspect to be a self-educated man with a passion for challenge and debate (not a criticism, by any means!) who is fond of gently needling his opponents ("shalom, salaam" anyone? ). His motives, at least, appear to be genuine in challenging what I too find to be a wholly unacceptable rewriting of history.

 

"Misguided crimes of passion" is - I submit - a wholly appalling attempt to justify mass murder and genocide carried out by men who sought to further their own twisted delusions or material ends on this earth, not the ends of any God. That single statement displays the thinking behind a twisted dogmatic philosophy which - has to be said - preaches intolerance and hate just as surely as any Finsbury Park rant by (allegedly) mad mullahs.

 

To both men I would quote my namesake (I do like this quote):-

"It is not really difficult to construct a series of inferences, each dependent upon its predecessor and each simple in itself. If, after doing so, one simply knocks out all the central inferences and presents one's audience with the starting-point and the conclusion, one may produce a startling, though perhaps a meretricious, effect."

 

Or to paraphrase, you can make anything mean anything if you break it down, reassemble, twist and turn it for long enough. Apparently a mathematician proved this previously to demonstrate that he could make 2 + 2 = 5. 8O Or is that merely an apocryphal story? In which case, I give Allahisamoongod permission to use it along with all his others!

 

Having carefully examined all the evidence posted thus far, I respectfully suggest that both men leave the debate as stands, as it is readily apparent to any outsider that both are equally intransigent and entrenched in their respective views.

 

This thread was once about a local issue, not a history or theology or philosophy lesson. Or a point scoring exercise. Why not call it a draw.8O

 

Adieu to you both, and as Dave Allen used to say, "May your God go with you".

[peeriebryan]

I enjoyed your prose sherlock

[Sherlock]

Why, thank you, PeerieBryan. And I yours.

 

Forgive me if I have stepped on any moderating toes, however it seemed to me - as a reasonable and reasonably objective fellow - that the debate was bogged down, had digressed markedly and was going exactly nowhere (other than up some folks' noses).

[Njugle]

If I tell you that I would be disobeying the god and on that account it is impossible for me to keep quiet, you won’t be persuaded by me, taking it that I am ironizing. And if I tell you that it is the greatest good for a human being to have discussions every day about virtue and the other things you hear me talking about, examining myself and others, and that the unexamined life is not livable for a human being, you will be even less persuaded.

[allahisamoongod]

Sherlock never impressed me because he figured out who the culprit was by the process of elimination, meaning that after the serial killer killed off the nine other suspects, Sherlock fingered the last suspect standing!

 

One reason I as a Protestant reject Catholicism and Islam is for all the killing each religion has done. I don't go as far as WhoDat and reject Christianity because I realize that atheists have killed more than Catholics and Muslims combined. Of course, one can quibble about the exact figures, but I think that statement stands as is. There is nothing intrinsic in Christianity that makes Christians kill, but in Islam there are the open-ended fight, kill, conquer and tax commands (e.g. K 9:5, 29, 30).

 

Actually, I'm not dogmatic in the sense that Sherlock might have in mind, that being that I defend church theology handed down to me. I am early in my writing career, but if you read my first two books in four volumes (The Jewish Trinity and the Jewish Trinity Sourcebook, and Moon-o-theism, vol i and ii), you'll see that I approach the evidence anew and develop new arguments. You can read a lot of these books online for free at: http://books.google.com/books?q=yoel+natan

 

In my upcoming two books I'll present an entirely new Christian eschatology, and prove that it is the right, and conclusively prove that baptism is by sprinkling.

 

I believe that these books on four subjects will provide much of the theology of the church in the near future when they catch on and go big. (Yes, yes, save your comments.)

 

I just came out of my study to help Dr. Mick Russon, and otherwise you would not have heard from me here. I need to write a reply to a critique of my books at Carm.org, and finish two more books!

 

About WhoDat's concern that Yahveh (more scholarly spelling) causes too much death and destruction, and even more troubling, damnation. Yes, that has concerned me, but thinking that there might be no god or another god does not help since all the death and destruction does not go away. Either the other god wills the same death and destruction, or is powerless to stop it. The Bible's depiction of Yahveh and the Devil and sin explain most satisfactorily of any religion why the universe is the way it is. As Paul said in Rom 1--2, his glory is seen in the universe. Evil is the real cause of death and suffering, not Yahveh except in the sense that he upholds the universe as this all goes on.

 

As to the Creation Myths, I didn't answer it right away because I thought WhoDat was using it to buttress his Yahveh is vicious argument. I didn't realize he wanted to discuss that, too.

 

Sumer's myths were recorded between 2200 and 1700 BC, if I recall correctly. Flood myths (or narratives) had to predate Sumer's since they are found in every culture even though there was no contact with Sumer. Anyway, there's no reason to believe that the Bible's version had to originate in Sumer any more than the other versions originated in Sumer.

 

The Bible provides some clues as to the origin of these myths. It seems the knowledge of Yahveh was widespread after the Flood and the Tower of Babel. Melchizadek, King of Salem, met Abraham, and the writer of Hebrews says that Melchizadek was greater than Abraham. So all these myths are just faded memories of what really happened, which is recorded in Gen 1--11. Gen 1-11 may have come straight from Noah, or may have been re-revealed later to Abraham or someone. I believe that Moses was only an editor/compiler of Genesis, not the first writer.

 

Creationist site deal with this issue. None of the issues that liberals used to bring up and still bring up are a challenge to creationist anymore, hence, the burgeoning of Creationism and revivification of Christianity even in the West:

 

creation myths sumer*

http://answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?qt=creation+myths+sumer*&col=

 

creation myths

http://answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?qt=creation+myths&col=

 

http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/critics.asp

 

http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/critics.asp

 

As to whether Gen 1--11 is just a collection of myths, that view is based partly on the JEDP theory which I debunk in my first book:

 

http://books.google.com/books?q=yoel+natan+jedp+theory&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0

The Impact of the Trinitarian Interpretation of Genesis on Exegesis The JEDP theory is buttressed mainly on the assumption that different writers and...

 

I'm sure you'll let me know if I didn't answer something

 

God bless!

[Ghostrider]

<--snip--> I am early in my writing career, <--snip-->

 

....but perhaps not quite so early in a self-publicising career.

[whodat]

Too true!!!

 

So, let me get this straight, I am a vicious arguer. Let's look at that.

 

To PeerieBryan:- "You are making the monkey look bad using these arguments" (kind of personal, and insulting).

 

To me:- "So let me get this straight. After you scoff at the God of the Old Testament you are sick in bed for 10 days? Sounds like the God of O.T. went biblical on you. I'm just sayin':

 

So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways (Rev 02:22)

 

You will suffer the penalty for your lewdness and bear the consequences of your sins of idolatry. Then you will know that I am the Sovereign LORD" (Eze 23:49)

 

Perhaps when the people of Judah hear about every disaster I plan to inflict on them, each of them will turn from his wicked way; then I will forgive their wickedness and their sin (Jer 36:03)

 

"Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each one according to his ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live! (Eze 18:30-32).

 

As long as you are breathing, there's still time to repent and be saved. Go to a good Protestant church to hear the Law and Gospel."

 

So I'm an idolator, an adulterer, wicked, sinful and lewd. All this surmised with no knowledge whatsoever of me or mine other than that I do not believe in the same vengeful god who demands his worship or he will "smite", damn and wipe you from the face of the earth.

 

All your information sources seem to be this "Answersingenesis" rubbish or Wikipedia. The latter is known to be open source and therefore prone to persons putting in whatever they want without any accreditation, the former is not accredited in any way whatsoever (you didn't have a hand in writing that too, did you, perchance? )

 

As to your books providing the foundation for future eschatology, hmmm. That makes you a prophet, does it? Maligned as were your forebears, I suppose? (L Ron Hubbard, eat your heart out! )

 

Some quotes spring to mind (sorry, Sherlock, can't resist - and AIAMG, Sherlock deduced killers without the need for everyone else to be killed off - read the books before making inaccurate comments):-

 

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

 

 

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity

 

Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

 

Micah 3:11 [NIV] Her leaders judge for a bribe, her priests teach for a price, and her prophets tell fortunes for money. Yet they lean upon the LORD and say, "Is not the LORD among us? No disaster will come upon us."

 

Micah 3:12 [NIV] Therefore because of you, Zion will be plowed like a field, Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble, the temple hill a mound overgrown with thickets.

 

Jer 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.

Jer 14:15 Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that prophesy in my name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land; By sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed.

Jer 14:16 And the people to whom they prophesy shall be cast out in the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and the sword; and they shall have none to bury them, them, their wives, nor their sons, nor their daughters: for I will pour their wickedness upon them.

 

Anyways, all that fire and brimstone aside, what do you actually propose the good Christian - sorry, only Protestants qualify in your blinkered worl, making you sectarian as well as racist/ethnicist - folk do about this "satan worshipping" Muslim threat? Go to war? Wipe THEM all from the face of the earth, man woman and child? Go on, o Prophet, tell us?

 

Sala'am.

[peeriebryan]

I apologise for dragging this back to the top

Historically, atheists have done more evil than anyone else

Then some evolutionists determined that the Jews were inferior and we had the Holocaust, and so it went and goes on today.

you are fooled by Hitler, a politician, and his Big Lie just as many of the Germans were. He had well-documented evolutionary and eugenics goals in mind, but needed the support of the people to carry out his goals. Therefore, he played on their Anti-Semitic prejudices in order to get votes. Nevertheless, historians and every scholar worthy of the name knows Hitler did what he did because of evolution and not religion.

So Hitler persuaded Christians into voting for him by playing on their anti Semitic prejudices (amongst many other factors). We are agreed on that. I would suggest that Hitler could not have come to power without the aid of Christianity

 

I suppose these Christians, after voting him into office, then became atheists in order to carry out his bidding and/or "support" "his goals"?

 

Or maybe it was only the atheists who actually killed anyone? (Hmm... but Vermacht soldiers wore belt buckles inscribed with "Gott mit uns" (God is with us) so even these atheists were doing "evil" deeds in God's name)

 

I am aware that Hitler "had well-documented evolutionary and eugenics goals in mind", but to claim that religion played no part in how these goals were to be achieved and justified would undermine the validity of your point

 

 

There are many religious people who believe in evolution. Not all evolutionists are atheist. Heresy!

 

 

P.S. allahisamoongod, I noted that you titled your earlier reply to me with the "Subject" heading (which doesn't show up in any post other than the first in a thread) "Re: Peerie Bryan, Those arguments aren't worthy of a monkey." I would suggest that insults are not an effective way to engage in debate. Many of my friends are primates and would be offended to have their deliberative skills compared to mine

 

Disclaimer: I am in no way stating that the Holocaust is attributable to Christian values. Quite the opposite!

[Njugle]

P.S. allahisamoongod, I noted that you titled your earlier reply to me with the "Subject" heading (which doesn't show up in any post other than the first in a thread) "Re: Peerie Bryan, Those arguments aren't worthy of a monkey." I would suggest that insults are not an effective way to engage in debate. Many of my friends are primates and would be offended to have their deliberative skills compared to mine

Aha! Opportunity for another Socratic quote:

When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

[Njugle]

*sighs*

 

Try as i might to ignore the trend in this debate, i feel i may as well get something off my chest, as it seems everyone else is.

 

Point; I can't see any reconcilable debate in picking over who was right and wrong in the theology or eugenics of the holocaust. It is both a sensitive and perhaps inappropriate debating tool.

 

Allahisamoongod; I find fault with you in the same way that whodat has alluded to. It is perhaps misguided of you and under chrsistian tenets maybe downright wrong for you to present yourself as a prophet, that is not for you to decide. For you to also decry all other faiths bar your own also burns as an abhorrence against the early descriptions of the teachings of the prophet you claim to follow.

 

Peeriebryan; As the subject has arisen elsewhere, i feel obliged to point out that any implication that all christianity and religions are warmongering evil incarnate is not fair either. Many good things have been done by many goodly people of christian faith, and buddhists, muslims and Hindus etc, etc, over centuries. Man is the cause of war. The denial of anothers beliefs and confidence of ones own has triggered more wars than anything else, when it comes down to it.

 

And now having attacked both sides of this debate, i shall run, run away.....for a bit.

[allahisamoongod]

WhoDat, I operate on this principle:

 

When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself (Ezekiel 33:8-9).

 

I'd rather have you call me "pompous" and hear you say "The sheer arrogance of this man is astonishing and breathtaking" than be accountable for your misbelief at the end of the world. If I sound arrogant, it's only because the Bible and Yahveh sound arrogant to you, but the Bible and Yahveh are in truth not arrogant at all.

 

About peeriebryan and the monkey. Hey, he posts with a monkey picture, and he seems to have seen the humor in it when he says his relatives are monkeys. So if he saw the humor in it, why shouldn't you? I know that as people get older, they have what is called "hardening of the categories," and lapse into humorless judgmentalism. Also, since everyone in this forum but me is posting anonymously, I don't see how you can take all this so personally if I don't.

 

Ok, now WhoDat says I claim to be a prophet. What?! I'm an interpreter of Bible prophecy, not a prophet. If I can show that my historical-grammatical analysis of the Bible's eschatology is sound and consistent throughout and that other interpretations are unsound and inconsistent at certain points, then people should adopt my interpretation as their own, or improve upon it. Your saying that I claim to be a prophet just shows your previously admitted animus towards me, the Bible and Yahveh.

 

I guess there's no use arguing anymore since I'm off the hook (Eze 33:8-9). Now the only thing that's left is the coming of God judgment:

 

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years" (Gen 06:03).

[Pooks]

Could somebody please tell me what the past few posts have to do with the doctor chappy? I maybe missed something somewhere.

 

Can I make a suggestion that either this gets split into a new thread or a new thread is created for the discussion of preaching nonsense?

[crofter]

Can I make a suggestion that either this gets split into a new thread or a new thread is created for the discussion of preaching nonsense?

 

 

Why is it that the nutters who want to share their religious views with you are never interested in letting you share yours with them?

[pernjim]

I agree with Pooks; if the circular thinkers and iconoclasts want to go head-to-head over religion they should do it elsewhere.

 

I thought what was up for discussion was whether or not it was appropriate for someone like the Good Doctor to do what he did, when he 'shared his thoughts' with the people of Northmavine.