# Al Qaeda



## crackaton (12 March 2006)

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD111206


----------



## sam76 (12 March 2006)

*Re: al quaeda*

we see propaganda like this everyday.  

It's fear mongering, and they play on peoples paranoia about the unknown.

The guy is a tool.


----------



## crackaton (12 March 2006)

True. Just hope he does not have nukes or something


----------



## Julia (12 March 2006)

I agree with Sam's comments.   As we've seen, fear is disabling.
What these crazies are not considering is that human beings have a fairly remarkable facility for developing a tolerance towards this sort of rubbish.
I doubt too many will start trembling as a result of reading this stuff.

Julia


----------



## yogi-in-oz (12 March 2006)

Warning ..... astrostuff ahead:

Hi folks,

Leaving aside the terrorists' propaganda, it has become
apparent, that they do seem to have a rhythm in their 
attacks.

For example, the London bombings came 1000 days after
the Bali bombing, on 12th October 2002.

Some will say that is just coincidence and that's fine,
believe what you will, but be sure to be watching the
dates below for other big world events ..... not
necessarily terrorist related.

25-26 March 2006 ..... 3 conjunctions in a stellium of
6 planets, within a 47 degree arc.

Our XJO market may resume a downward slide, about
20-22032006 = March equinox and the 6th anniversary of 
the 2000 highs, when the tech bubble burst.

-----

24 May 2006 ..... does not appear to be any direct bearing 
on XJO, but we will be alert for some big news out of US
money markets, at this time (???)

-----

08 June 2006 .....  Saturn transiting USA’s natal North Node 
will likely see a drain on speculative markets.

These events may not be triggered, until the Moon transits
Jupiter next day, on 09062006 ???

We will be monitoring the money markets, at this time, as 
well as XJO for another slide.

-----

Skeptix will tip-the-bucket on these natural time cycles,
but if they bothered to do some research, they would 
find some exact correlations in very significant periods
of past history, like the duration of both WW1 and WW2 ...

..... or the time lapse, between 09112001 and the death
of the Pope, in 2005.

happy days

  yogi


----------



## Porper (12 March 2006)

yogi-in-oz said:
			
		

> Warning ..... astrostuff ahead:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> ...




Just for entertainment value I have had a look back through your posts Yogi (& predictions).No better than random, so I won't be losing sleep over Mars aligning with Jupiter and venus which predicts world war 3 is about to break out.

My view only but what a load of  :fu:


----------



## Duckman#72 (12 March 2006)

yogi-in-oz said:
			
		

> Warning ..... astrostuff ahead:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> ...




Hi Yogi 

Another true believer - excellent.

I also have some important dates to add to yours if that is OK...
-----------
25th March - National Greece Day 
-----------
13th May - Full Moon  (As we are entering the phase I like to call "Winter" - there should be some excellent Bream fishing opportunities on the three nights leading up to this full moon. I suggest yabbies and mullet gut)
-----------
17th June - My mate Rob is coming to visit. Big night on the town expected!!
-----------
21st June - Winter Solstice (my prediction is that this will be the shortest day of the year - but that's just my opinion)
-----------
1 August - This is the first day of the 8th month. It will be a Tuesday.

I think that is about it.

And for all those doubters out there - ignore these at your own peril.

Regards 

Duckman


----------



## crackaton (12 March 2006)

Duckman#72 said:
			
		

> Hi Yogi
> 
> Another true believer - excellent.
> 
> ...





You left out one important date.

March 17 St Patricks day lol, all the green beer you can drink after work friday ,
Warning though saturday 18th March  all hell will have to be paid for.


----------



## Duckman#72 (12 March 2006)

crackaton said:
			
		

> You left out one important date.
> 
> March 17 St Patricks day lol, all the green beer you can drink after work friday ,
> Warning though saturday 18th March  all hell will have to be paid for.




How could I have overlooked that one!! Thanks Crackaton


----------



## sandik17 (12 March 2006)

Duckman#72 said:
			
		

> -----------
> 17th June - My mate Rob is coming to visit. Big night on the town expected!!
> -----------
> 
> ...





I see now your priorities...I won't expect a phone call on my birthday!


----------



## justjohn (12 March 2006)

Duckman#72 said:
			
		

> Hi Yogi
> 
> Another true believer - excellent.
> 
> ...



August 1st also horses birthday if thats any help :birthday:


----------



## Happy (13 March 2006)

Our emotions swing between disbelief, anger, defiance, ignorance, arrogance and it is powerful stuff, almost like trading.

I wonder if it works on Chinese calendar or Orthodox calendar?


----------



## visual (9 June 2006)

wanted one cruel immoral cretin,to fill space left open by a dead pig,apply osama bin laden,caves pakistan.


----------



## wayneL (9 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> wanted one cruel immoral cretin,to fill space left open by a dead pig,apply osama bin laden,caves pakistan.




Sheesh, I thought Dubya must have resigned for a split second there.


----------



## visual (9 June 2006)

gees,
Wayne,at least you get to kick him out when you get an opportunity
these bastards do their horror for a bunch of virgins,by the way what happens after 72 times. : do they recycle,and are they virgins only for the first 72 morons or is heaven running some kind of production line ,of full humans or just hymens,sorry dont want to be graphic but its gotta be asked.


----------



## wayneL (9 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> gees,
> Wayne,at least you get to kick him out when you get an opportunity
> these bastards do their horror for a bunch of virgins,by the way what happens after 72 times. : do they recycle,and are they virgins only for the first 72 morons or is heaven running some kind of production line ,of full humans or just hymens,sorry dont want to be graphic but its gotta be asked.




Well I'm not concerned with their cretins. The chances of them affecting my life is almost zero. I'm more concerned with our own, soon to be totalitarian, corporatist, fascist, cretinous, meglomaniacal cabalists. They have far more capacity to affect me personally. But only if "we" let them. But I fear we are all asleep at the wheel.  

Cheers


----------



## rederob (9 June 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> But I fear we are all asleep at the wheel.



Huh!
How can you fall asleep at the wheel when you are on drugs!
Aren't you on drugs Wayne?

visual, you have a vivid and elastic imagination.
I thought you might be a candidate for the vacancy, but then I realised you didn't know what to do with the women folk.


----------



## visual (9 June 2006)

gees,Wayne,you are in a fine mood,
what are you talking about its not another conspiracy theory is it?


----------



## wayneL (9 June 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> Huh!
> How can you fall asleep at the wheel when you are on drugs!
> Aren't you on drugs Wayne?




Hah yes! Good observation!

(and for the record, apart from the occasional ridiculous {and invariably regretted} overconsumption of alcohol, not even aspirin    )


----------



## wayneL (9 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> gees,Wayne,you are in a fine mood,
> what are you talking about its not another conspiracy theory is it?




Not theory, fact! Read the various antiterrorist legislations in place around the western world and you will see the framework is in place. These are designed to control resident populations, law abiding citizens, not terrorists.

When a politician says "trust us" like Johnny did in relation to our own antiterrorist legislation, I get nervous. Our system has always prided itself on checks and balances.... someone policing the police, so to speak. This has been removed with this legislation and a stinking politician say trust us. They are the "very" last people I would trust.

Wake up Australia!


----------



## visual (9 June 2006)

Wayne,
these laws only became necessary because these bastards behave as they do,what would you rather,or are you waiting for another Bali,or London or God forbid New York.Then its going to be too late,better prevent than try and fix later.People who are afraid of how these laws affect them have something to hide.Have you something to hide Wayne?


----------



## wayneL (9 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Wayne,
> these laws only became necessary because these bastards behave as they do,what would you rather,or are you waiting for another Bali,or London or God forbid New York.Then its going to be too late,better prevent than try and fix later.People who are afraid of how these laws affect them have something to hide.Have you something to hide Wayne?




A ridiculous arguement. I am in more danger statistically from the local hoodlums than terrorists. Thats just an emotive arguement generated by the continuous fearmongering in the media, to justify the legislation.

I am afraid of the laws because they a/ do not define what a terrorist is. It's whoever they deem to be a terrorist. A mary river dam protester could be deemed to be a terrorist b/ they suspend all civil rights, access to representation, even access to the courts. They can simply detain you indefinately. 

Please get all the facts before using arguments such as "what do you have to be afraid of"

By the way, it's not just kooky conspiricy theorists who doubt the 911 story.

Check out this list of scientists who have joined the naysayers:

The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven 

Enough from me on this. 

Cheers


----------



## visual (9 June 2006)

Wayne,
so far I havent seen any evidence that protesters have been treated as terorists,however people have been arrested in the act of preparing for a terorrist act.Thats what the law is designed for and thats what they are using it for.
As for the experts regarding 9 11 ,this is the beauty of a free society you can make money writing and talking about whatever you want,by the same token the real experts can then make those experts look like the dickheads that they are and the rest of us can make up our own minds as we please.

For example you accuse me of having a ridiculous argument by that token I can then dismiss what you say because in effect you are doing what you claim you dont like,see thats the freedom that we enjoy in our society.

As for hoodlums being more dangerous than terorrists,I`ve had my wallet stolen,it didnt kill me,or change my way of life, major difference.


----------



## Bobby (10 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> gees,
> Wayne,at least you get to kick him out when you get an opportunity
> these bastards do their horror for a bunch of virgins,by the way what happens after 72 times. : do they recycle,and are they virgins only for the first 72 morons or is heaven running some kind of production line ,of full humans or just hymens,sorry dont want to be graphic but its gotta be asked.




Hey Visual can you imagine the look on their faces when they find out that the 72 virgins was a stuff up .
 Its one virgin whos 72   

Bob.


----------



## visual (10 June 2006)

and she cant remember what all the fuss is about,


----------



## Bobby (10 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> and she cant remember what all the fuss is about,



CORRECT! 72 year old female camels are like that  :


----------



## macca (10 June 2006)

Wayne,

Living where you do I can understand that you don't feel as threatened by terrorists as those who live in the city.

In parts of Sydney the racial hatred on the faces of some "Eastern European" young males, for people who are not of eastern european appearance is quite frightening.

They do like to drive around in western cars, playing western music at mega decibels and wearing western clothes BUT they absolutely HATE any other race. 

Their treatment of any female who is not dressed according to their beliefs is disgusting.

People go about their daily lives living in fear any time they see a group of these guys nearby. It is this situation that needed the new laws so that the powers that be can actually keep them in line.

I know that it is a small minority of the people but that small minority probably numbers a couple of thousand people. When they are out and about, as young people tend to be, they really do strike fear into the hearts of most women near them.

It is sad that we needed to have these laws BUT they are a REACTION  to what has already happened in society, not some secret scheme.

Sad but true


----------



## visual (10 June 2006)

Macca,
unfortunately people like Wayne are too busy reading stuff about 9 11 conspiracy,and are not interested to look around and see where the real threat comes from.
But I`d bet my bottom dollar that if terrorism ever affected him personally he`d be the first to blame the government for not having done enough to prevent it in the first place,what with all the laws that we have in place now.

It amazes me how people like him can live in a free society but havent the guts to go and behave like that where it counts like Iraq,or Afganistan ,yep way too dangerous and anyway probably would be killed because hes white and too outspoken,has anyone heard from the christians who were kidnapped months ago,or what about that woman who with all good intentions tried to help the women under this monstrous way of life but was killed anyway her body never found.yep Wayne,these laws are discriminatory against these morons who would in every likely hood would behave in a similar way here.


----------



## wayneL (10 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Macca,
> unfortunately people like Wayne are too busy reading stuff about 9 11 conspiracy,and are not interested to look around and see where the real threat comes from.
> But I`d bet my bottom dollar that if terrorism ever affected him personally he`d be the first to blame the government for not having done enough to prevent it in the first place,what with all the laws that we have in place now.
> 
> It amazes me how people like him can live in a free society but havent the guts to go and behave like that where it counts like Iraq,or Afganistan ,yep way too dangerous and anyway probably would be killed because hes white and too outspoken,has anyone heard from the christians who were kidnapped months ago,or what about that woman who with all good intentions tried to help the women under this monstrous way of life but was killed anyway her body never found.yep Wayne,these laws are discriminatory against these morons who would in every likely hood would behave in a similar way here.




A most unreasonable and _ad hominen_ post visual, and completely missing the point.


----------



## visual (10 June 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> A ridiculous arguement. I am in more danger statistically from the local hoodlums than terrorists. Thats just an emotive arguement generated by the continuous fearmongering in the media, to justify the legislation.
> 
> I am afraid of the laws because they a/ do not define what a terrorist is. It's whoever they deem to be a terrorist. A mary river dam protester could be deemed to be a terrorist b/ they suspend all civil rights, access to representation, even access to the courts. They can simply detain you indefinately.
> 
> ...




Wayne,re read through your post and tell me how I should`ve interpreted your post,you used words like ridiculous,as not having the facts or understanding the facts ect..if you are offended I apologise however this was not my aim.George Bush can be as moronic as the next person however he did not nor did John Howard go out of his way to bomb these people,they did that.So no regrets on my contempt for them.

P.S
and what the hell is AD HOMINEM


----------



## visual (10 June 2006)

Yep,just looked it up,
thats what you tried to do,isnt it?
play the man not the ball,its what it means in a nutshell.Which then validates my point.


----------



## wayneL (10 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Wayne,re read through your post and tell me how I should`ve interpreted your post,you used words like ridiculous,as not having the facts or understanding the facts ect..if you are offended I apologise however this was not my aim.George Bush can be as moronic as the next person however he did not nor did John Howard go out of his way to bomb these people,they did that.So no regrets on my contemp for them.
> 
> P.S
> and what the hell is AD HOMINEM




It means you are playing the man not the ball.

When I said yours was a ridiculous argument, it was the argument I was critisizing, rather than you personally.

You have called into question my very character by doubting my intestinal resolve to fight for what I believe in. (which does not include the military takeover of the middle east BTW)

I have zero admiration for islamic fundamentalists and the world should be defended from them, of course. 

But the real issue I'm concerned with is our own civil liberties which are rapidly being repealed. 9/11and other "terrorist" attacks are topical in this regard, as it is being used as the primary emotive tool to justify this... and there is a very large and credible body of folk (ex military and scientific community, not CT kooks) who doubt the government version of events.

My government has never proved trustworthy in the past and I have no reason to trust them over this, hence the reason I will examine views to the contrary 

My hope is that people do their own research and look at both sides rationally, rather than believing what is comfortable for them to believe.

Good day madam


----------



## visual (10 June 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Well I'm not concerned with their cretins. The chances of them affecting my life is almost zero. I'm more concerned with our own, soon to be totalitarian, corporatist, fascist, cretinous, meglomaniacal cabalists. They have far more capacity to affect me personally. But only if "we" let them. But I fear we are all asleep at the wheel.
> 
> Cheers




So your argument is that we will soon be living like this,see above,
and the reason is ?

There you go!

Freedom is well and good but it`s got to be defended and protected,even if what you think happens good will always prevail,yes sometimes it can be a long and bloody fight,but freedom is what humans were designed for,any other way and we end up like the people we are now fighting to free.Who in all likelyhood want to be free,don`t forget before saddam wrecked the place Iraq was known as the most livable country in that part of the world.
Have a good day,sir


----------



## wayneL (10 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> So your argument is that we will soon be living like this,see above,
> and the reason is ?
> 
> There you go!
> ...




Visual,

Your arguments lack clarity and balance. There is a quotable quote regarding situations such as this, which, for fear of likewise resorting to the _ad hominem_ level, I will refrain from posting.

I could introduce, more of my argument here. But I don't think ASF is necessarily the place for it. Happy to take it private, or a more appropriate forum.

Cheers


----------



## visual (10 June 2006)

Wayne,
so that this doesn`t end up into another Bullmarket fiasco or is that Ad hominen 

I`m going to say good on the Americans et al,next osama ben laden, after that some peace.

Althought once again you resort to personal insults,yes I know you have to read between the lines.You obviously have different opinions to myself on another forum or in private you will never convince me that what i believe in is wrong,these arguments need to be had in the light of day not in the dark thats what you fear our government is doing yet you insist on doing the same.

Have agood day,this time without the American sugar coat.


----------



## yogi-in-oz (10 June 2006)

yogi-in-oz said:
			
		

> Posted 12 March 2006:
> 
> Warning ..... astrostuff ahead:
> 
> ...





Hi folks,

So much for the skeptix who tipped the bucket on
us, after that post.

On 12th March 2006, we forecast last week's slide in
XJO from our astroanalysis and a critical time cycle
from the Bali bombing in October 2002 .....

..... and what happened this week ???

We get news of 17 terrorists arrested in Canada and
Al-zaqhawi killed in Iraq ..... two prominent terrorist-
related events, that supports our theory of some
regular time cycles in terrorist activity.

-----

So, what's ahead .... stay tuned, because we figure there
will be some huge world events this month, not necessarily 
terrorists, between 14062006 and 30062006 ..... in particular, 
be watching  on latitude 19 degrees North, (GOM???),
around 24 June 2006 ... and there's lots more as well ... 

...... POO down on 15-16062006 ???

More later .....

have a great weekend

  yogi


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (10 June 2006)

The infestation of islamists needs to be stopped urgently. 

If I go to a temple in another country and preach hatred I get dealt with. But in countries such as Australia, Britain etc, it is ok, weird heh? 

I`m with Wayne when the governments of the US etc, are not to trustworthy, but we need to stop what is becoming a worldwide conspiracy against anything un islamic. I`m with you Visual when it comes to depriving the evil their unwarranted, falsely claimed rights - back home they have none.

Passify until it is too late, no way.


----------



## wayneL (10 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Wayne,
> so that this doesn`t end up into another Bullmarket fiasco or is that Ad hominen
> 
> I`m going to say good on the Americans et al,next osama ben laden, after that some peace.
> ...






			
				visual said:
			
		

> Have you something to hide Wayne?







			
				visual said:
			
		

> unfortunately people like Wayne are too busy reading stuff about 9 11 conspiracy,and are not interested to look around and see where the real threat comes from.
> But I`d bet my bottom dollar that if terrorism ever affected him personally he`d be the first to blame the government for not having done enough to prevent it in the first place,what with all the laws that we have in place now.







			
				visual said:
			
		

> It amazes me how people like him can live in a free society but havent the guts to go and behave like that where it counts like Iraq,or Afganistan ,




The words Pot, Kettle and Black come to mind. Your insults to me are utterly contemptable, and I remind you this acrimony was initiated by you by insinuating I have something to hide. Unfortunately typical of your ilk.

Unlike Snake who is able to separate the issues of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism and the suspect agenda of The US and tag-along western regimes, you refuse to consider the introduction of credible data, so that you may continue believing what is comfortable for you to believe.

I like to deal in two sided debates where one may state their view along with supporting data, and the otherside can do likewise, without degenerating into emotive prejudice and blinkered views.

I will readily accept the islamist threat, but in balance I must examine the agenda of our own side. I have researched this to the best of my ability.

I ask you, have you done the same? If so perhaps you could provide some  data to support your view that such legislation is in our best interests.



			
				visual said:
			
		

> so far I havent seen any evidence that protesters have been treated as terorists,




BTW, did you know that is actually illegal for the press to report detentions under the current legislation? If protesters did get arrested (and I'm not saying they have) you would not be allowed to know about it. Now that is very Orwellian, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## wayneL (10 June 2006)

Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> The infestation of islamists needs to be stopped urgently.
> 
> If I go to a temple in another country and preach hatred I get dealt with. But in countries such as Australia, Britain etc, it is ok, weird heh?
> 
> Passify until it is too late, no way.




Not withstanding my comments above. I agree with you Snake. It's time to reclaim and be proud of our culture.


----------



## visual (10 June 2006)

Wayne,
honestly now I know what <deleted> was saying about you ,if you are going to quote me,do it by showing why I was saying what I was saying,you know show yours and mine.

This seems abit one sided.But if it makes you feel better ,good.I`m happy.

Althought seeing that the law has been used effectively and we know about it because we read about it,it seems that yourfears are unfounded.Then again like I said maybe you have something to fear unlike myself.
Now Wayne I`m going to ignore you because your theories are absurd ,yes thatsa personal opinion,unlike you I dont hide behind words that I hope other people wont understand.
Have a good day,sir,will you have chips with that.


----------



## wayneL (10 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Wayne,
> honestly now I know what ,<deleted> was saying about you ,if you are going to quote me,do it by showing why I was saying what I was saying,you know show yours and mine.
> 
> This seems abit one sided.But if it makes you feel better ,good.I`m happy.
> ...




LOL, Now I'm a bum for using the english language!!! That's the first time I've been insulted for that! What does that say about you?

Your insults are merely insults not supported by anything in fact and hence is just peurile name-calling. In light of the lack of any rational arguement from you, I do believe you have been hoisted by your own petard. 

Now you want to extract yourself from the debate because facts which you are not able to furnish have been called for. LOL

BTW petard - old french for "bomb".


----------



## rederob (10 June 2006)

Wayne
I am reporting that your "unfair" reference to including another poster. which you edited out of visual's post, was subsequently added by you in your reply to visual.
The pots are getting blacker!


----------



## wayneL (10 June 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> Wayne
> I am reporting that your "unfair" reference to including another poster. which you edited out of visual's post, was subsequently added by you in your reply to visual.
> The pots are getting blacker!




oops better get the scrubbing brush out then 

...and just to clarify, that was in regard for the poster mentioned. No other reason.


----------



## visual (10 June 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Visual,
> 
> Your arguments lack clarity and balance. There is a quotable quote regarding situations such as this, which, for fear of likewise resorting to the _ad hominem_ level, I will refrain from posting.
> 
> ...




Wayne,you were going to get out of this argument ,as you thought that it was not an appropiate argument to have on ASF.Now you accuse me of running scared.  

And as for you explaining petard,what made you think I didnt know what it meant ,and I do know how to use a dictonary if I dont know,as in Ad hominen,
this started as a tongue in cheek post,you then went on about your delirious fears about the government and so on,I dont agree with you,I will not waste my time following kooky theories and as I`m not likely to ever be a terorrist I`m not going to notice these so called changes the government is bringing in to control us all.
Relax man ,smoke a bit of weed, I hear its very relaxing or have you already indulged and hence the allucinations and paranoia.
Go Georgie,Go Johnnie,Go Tony,ect...

Now Wayne if you were truly scared about the changes the government is bringing in what are you doing about it,have you spoken to your local member,have you tried protesting these changes,oh hang on you cant because then they`l take you away never to be seen again,ok then how about running for parliament,or presenting a private bill ,I`m not sure how that works but I believe that you can do that,by getting in contact with the politician representing your seat,hang on that will bring you to the attention of asio,gee sorry run out of ideas better consult someone from your other forum,I`m sure they`ll be able to help you.

Notice Wayne unlike you I`m actually finding this thread funny,maybe its because i`m not scared and have nothing to hide.

P.S what facts are your referring to,when did you call for facts,are you referring to the laws that are going to imprison us all,well how I`m I supposed to get those,remember the government is doing this secretly.But I read the paper daily and see how the laws that scare you so witless report these things ,anyway go to go Wayne,Asio just called they want a report.


----------



## wayneL (10 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Wayne,you were going to get out of this argument ,as you thought that it was not an appropiate argument to have on ASF.
> 
> And as for you explaining petard,what made you think I didnt know what it meant ,and I do know how to use a dictonary if I dont know,as in Ad hominen,
> this started as a tongue in cheek post,you then went on about your delirious fears about the government and so on,I dont agree with you,I will not waste my time following kooky theories and as I`m not likely to ever be a terorrist I`m not going to notice these so called changes the government is bringing in to control us all.
> ...




Hyperbole is the refuge of the gormless  Nice try, but no cigar!

Tell you what. I'll make it easy for you. Read this link, it is a submission by Gideon Polya regarding the impending (now law) terrorist legislation. If you can be bothered reading it, it will give you clues as to where to do some more research as well as a different point of view.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/terrorism/submissions/sub112.pdf

cheers

PS Keep your dictionary handy.


----------



## Rafa (10 June 2006)

i posted something similar in the thread labelled 'Outrage'...

the israellis have just killed innocent beach goers.... in gaza....

great!!!!

more cause for outrage... and more recruits for the terrorist...

frankly, i don't know whose right and whose wrong... we are dealing with issues that are not simple to resolve and go back centuries.... and have been brought to a head with the israel - palestine issue...

debate on a forum such a this achieves nothing as no one i know has ever changed his/her opinion....


----------



## wayneL (10 June 2006)

Here is one provision of the law I was refering to, mentioned in the document above.



> Imprisonment for 2 years is provided if a lawyer, partner, family member, journalist or indeed anyone reports the detention.


----------



## Julia (10 June 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Here is one provision of the law I was refering to, mentioned in the document above.




Wayne

I share your concern about such aspects of the laws as that quoted above.
I understand this can even apply to a child taken into detention.

However, with respect to the more general aspects of the new anti-terrorist legislation, however much I may have misgivings about it, I can't come up with any viable alternatives.

e.g. we can't just pretend it's still 1960 and we are not at risk from terrorists here in Australia.  Living in regional Queensland I don't personally feel at risk but probably would find myself occasionally thinking about getting on a train if I lived in Sydney.

I acknowledge that some of our freedoms and rights are being eroded.
However, I guess I'd have to say that I would opt for the present restrictions and somewhat Orwellian laws if that's the price we have to pay for at least some degree of security.


Do you think it would be better if our intelligence services et al (for what they are worth) simply ignored the terrorist threat?

I am frankly more concerned about the madness of politically correct behaviour which has seen the Gideon Bibles removed from hospital bedsides, just in case they might offend any Muslim who should occupy the bed!!
If we were admitted to hospital in a Muslim country, would we be offended at finding the Koran in the bedside drawer?  No, of course not.
I have no personal interest in the Bible, but we should not be so sycophantic towards other religions that we remove it from our hospitals.

Julia


----------



## visual (11 June 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Hyperbole is the refuge of the gormless  Nice try, but no cigar!
> 
> Tell you what. I'll make it easy for you. Read this link, it is a submission by Gideon Polya regarding the impending (now law) terrorist legislation. If you can be bothered reading it, it will give you clues as to where to do some more research as well as a different point of view.
> 
> ...




Wayne,such angst,you should really be careful you may have a stroke,all that anger simply isnt very healthy.

As Kamal beautifully put it 
why are people so unkind.


----------



## rederob (11 June 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> I am frankly more concerned about the madness of politically correct behaviour which has seen the Gideon Bibles removed from hospital bedsides, just in case they might offend any Muslim who should occupy the bed!!
> Julia



Madness confined to a small sector (The Royal Brisbane and Women's and Princess Alexandra hospitals in Brisbane) should not be seen as political correctness.  The hospitals concerned have been condemned from every quarter, and the lame excuse that really caused the banning was a supposed need to "clean" the bibles after each patient because of possible infection.
You have a greater chance of contracting disease by handling money.
No.
Because everyone cleans their money before handing it to the next person I guess that's why no diseases are transmitted.
What?
Nobody cleans their filthy lucre!
Keep your money.
ahhhhhhchooooo


----------



## wayneL (11 June 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Wayne
> 
> I share your concern about such aspects of the laws as that quoted above.
> I understand this can even apply to a child taken into detention.
> ...





Hi Julia,

I see three separate issues

1/ We have no business in Iraq or Afganistan. Neither were a threat to Australia at the time. Now they are, because our troops are there. The pretext of invading these counties has proved to be false.

2/ Now that there is a threat, what to do about it? Well these laws do not in any way protect us from terrorism, they are designed to control you and me. The real terrorist would land up in the north west (just like Indon fishing boats do regularly, and set about there business clandestinely, avoiding the mainstream surveillance of the general populace. 

The west has dealt with terrorism for years... IRA, Black September, PLO etc without the need for draconian laws that remove the rights of ordinary citizens. These laws are NOT for the reason stated, and are so draconian (as pointed out in Polyas' submission) as to arouse suspicions of a greater Orwellian agenda, using fear of terrorism as a tool to justify it...successfully it seems.

3/ The terrorism, though very real, is overstated, and the various government versions of events surrounding each of the major attacks to date, do not stack up under scrutiny. This means their investigations are incomplete, shoddy (which I cannot believe) or a complete pack of lies. As to the reason for the subterfuge, I will not speculate here, but sans any serious truth telling from governent, others are left to connect the dots.

911 STILL has not been seriously investigated and valid questions posed by acedemia and ex-military personel are not being answered, studiously avoided in fact... suspicious.

This all leaves me to arrive at uncomfortable conclusions about the future direction of western democracies.

As to giving up liberty for security, I agree with this quote, generally attributed (allegedly incorrectly) to Benjamin Franklin : "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Thats my view on the matter.


----------



## wayneL (11 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Wayne,such angst,you should really be careful you may have a stroke,all that anger simply isnt very healthy.
> 
> As Kamal beautifully put it
> why are people so unkind.




Visual, 

Schoolyard stuff, still no cigar. Sorry. You should listen to Kamal more often.

Cheers


----------



## visual (11 June 2006)

Wayne,
the conspiracy is growing now Julia is in too,
hope that bunker you are building is long term,still better build it away from the coast where the indon fisherman are landing.

love you work,Wayne keep it up


----------



## Julia (11 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Wayne,
> the conspiracy is growing now Julia is in too,
> hope that bunker you are building is long term,still better build it away from the coast where the indon fisherman are landing.
> 
> love you work,Wayne keep it up




Visual

Umm, perhaps I'm misunderstanding your post.  Are you suggesting that I am subscribing to various conspiracy theories?

Julia


----------



## visual (11 June 2006)

No,
Julia,
my post is tongue in cheek,


----------



## Rafa (11 June 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> I am frankly more concerned about the madness of politically correct behaviour which has seen the Gideon Bibles removed from hospital bedsides, just in case they might offend any Muslim who should occupy the bed!!
> Julia




Julia,

I think you'll find the removal of bibles was more a work of the atheist leftys rather that any attempt of removal by muslims...

Infact, the muslims have gone on record for being against the plan... I don't know if you are aware, but the old testament is the same in both christianity and islam...

Infact most of the political correctness you witness today, i.e. the non singing of christmas carols, non teaching of religion is public schools, is because of atheistist agenda amongst some political and public service rather than as a result of complaints from muslims, or any other religion for that matter...

So, on this point, I hope you reconsider your statement... However, I do agree with you on your other points...

Rafa.


----------



## Julia (11 June 2006)

Rafa said:
			
		

> Julia,
> 
> I think you'll find the removal of bibles was more a work of the atheist leftys rather that any attempt of removal by muslims...
> 
> ...




Rafa:

You've misunderstood what I meant.  I realise absolutely that Muslims themselves clearly expressed their opposition to the removal of the Bibles.
I wasn't suggesting  the stupidity occurred at their request or instigation.
As you say, it's the atheistic agenda amongst some decision makers which  prompted this silliness, similar to the banning of Nativity scenes in shopping malls etc over Christmas.

My criticism was directed towards our very own Australians who seems to have a warped idea of what is appropriate.

Julia


----------



## Rafa (11 June 2006)

Ooops, sorry for the misunderstanding.....

Its so hard nowadays to work out what peoples hidden agenda's are... (i don't mean you, i mean politicians... )...  Their actions can result in numerous either un-intended or intended repercussions.... all of them quite ligitamate...

I find I always read The Australian for a blatantly 'right' point of view and the SMH for a blatantly 'left' point of view... then theres the pragamatic point of view, the humanitarian point of view, the religious point of view, the athiest point of view, the multicultural point of view, the integrationist point of view, the racist point of view, the 'human-familiy' point of view, the environmental point of view, the conservationist point of view, the 'sh#t happens' point of view... it goes on...

everyones got their own agenda, the truth lies somewhere in between

Its just too hard...


----------



## Jay-684 (11 June 2006)

Could anyone expand on the whole 'AUstralian flag' saga at Bondi/Wollahra council earlier this year? Also heard a Muslim council member at Wollahra had ham sandwiches banned.... dont know if it is rumour or fact though...

anyone who could clarify, that would be great!


----------



## Happy (11 June 2006)

I heard that flag was too expensive to maintain, as there were repeated attempts to pinch it or destroy, and some attempts were successful, hence cost.

As to sandwiches, I saw some of the comments on TV myself, with actually Muslims voicing their surprise, followed by statement, that they did not expect such a sacrifice.


----------



## Bobby (11 June 2006)

Got to say this .

labour or liberal could include this plebiscite as part of their next election policy.
No more ******* will be allowed to immigrate if we are elected.

We live in a democracy so the winning party would have a mandate to implement the will of the people on being elected.   

Your thought ?

Bob.


----------



## rederob (11 June 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> Got to say this .
> labour or liberal could include this plebiscite as part of their next election policy.
> No more ******* will be allowed to immigrate if we are elected.



Bobby, I have nothing against the English, but I like the idea of banning them.
Too many come over here and recently learned from us to play better cricket, and now have the Ashes to prove it.
Although maybe we should be banning our cricket elite from coaching other national teams - isn't Rod Marsh a disgrace, and Greg Chappel, and.... geez, they're all overseas!
Now I'm not sure this has anything to do with the thread title, and suggest that this or the bible debate or the flag debate move over to "outraged".

On the pure topic of Al Qaeda, we should not forget that Under Saddam's Iraq they had no presence.  Under Bush's Iraq they now have established themselves so widely that it may take generations to rid the scurge.
Bush's terrorism agenda is very encouraging, isn't it!


----------



## dj_420 (11 June 2006)

WanyeL is arguing the point that slowly but surely we are turning into a police state, following in big brothers footsteps (America). Although to the public it may seem that we are been protected by new laws and bills etc but really they are just reducing our freedom, which is what i thought democracy was supposed to be about anyway??

Anyhow

I have a topic for people to comment on:

GLOBAL TAX:
If we are going to start a really serious issue here is any one up to speed on the proposed global tax? 

This has been on the United Nations agenda for some years now and they keep pushing to get it through. The United Nations want to create a global tax system so that every one of the developed nations in the world pays tax to the United Nations so they can "redistribute funds" as they see fit. If this tax system were to be put in place we would find ourselves taxed on a huge variety of areas such as email tax, land tax (in addition to local rates), higher taxes on fuel, higher import export tax, the list goes on and on. 

They plan to redistribute funds to underdeveloped nations and to increase foreign aid as "developed nations have not done enough". They state that increased taxes on fossil fules would reduce pollution and curb global growth to acceptable levels.

Now some people argue that this would be a good thing, BUT how can one organisation (United Nations) be seen fit to effectively tax the entire world and this be not seen as global control?? 

Many people will argue that this is impossible and it CANNOT and will not happen. However the wheels are in motion and as minnows of society we are unable to stop these sort of things occuring. United Nations have recently taken steps to pass a global airline tax. The first country to help them pass the tax was the french. By passing this tax it will pave the way for many other taxes to come.

U.N. Global Tax 

I would like to know what people actually think of this and how it would affect developed nations.


----------



## Bobby (11 June 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> Bobby, I have nothing against the English, but I like the idea of banning them.




Hullo Rob, Ha ha hu   

It was not the English I was alluding to but those that have first names like Abdul, but in England that name is common now isn't it?  

Bob.


----------



## visual (12 June 2006)

cathers_420 said:
			
		

> WanyeL is arguing the point that slowly but surely we are turning into a police state, following in big brothers footsteps (America). Although to the public it may seem that we are been protected by new laws and bills etc but really they are just reducing our freedom, which is what i thought democracy was supposed to be about anyway??
> 
> Anyhow
> 
> ...



You should probably have started another thread,
but personally,this help the underdeveloped countries is getting to be a boring argument,Maybe the UN should concentrate on getting rid of the corrupted leaders who keep these countries underdeveloped,and lets not forget about Rwanda,they apologised ten years too late,as for the global tax that to me sounds like a rort,but on a much grander scale,maybe thats what in the end they`ll end up called the aid that they give .So in effect the global tax already exists,aid


----------



## Rafa (12 June 2006)

tax or no tax... muslims or no muslims...
we xenophobes better start watching our backs....

capitalism works well for the most part, but like all good systems, there comes a tipping point... poverty, hopelessness, coupled with global warming that will lead to environmental catastrophes, will cause an exodus of people across continents of a scale never before seen...

after all there are 5 billion people, living in substandard condition, and just 1 billion (if that) middle class/rich people... living in the western world.... and in the end, people power is what matters...

no armies or detention camps will be big enough to stop the movements of billions of people...

check out this article in the Australian...


*Modern-day Goths and Vandals threaten the West via cheap flights and the net*

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19441287-601,00.html


----------



## Sean K (12 June 2006)

I think you are all assuming that humans are a special entity in the universe. We are just animals, just like the ants crawling along the dirt. We protect our space, look after our own survival at all costs, and when pressured, resort to all  means to defend our own interests. That's what Muslim extremists are doing, and it's what we are doing. Ultimately, it's about protecting ourselves and those who can assist in defending us. Religious fundamentalism; whether Islamic, Christian Evangalistic, or even Monastic Buddhism, is based on historic culture and a desire to survive as progammed by centuries of DNA. One day, through globalism, there will be a world order, where we are so intermingled that cultural (and religious) differences will so diluted that we may be able to live side by side contently. But, I think the Earth will smash into the Sun before that! Perhaps there are some more evolved humans on the planet. (You only have to have travelled though the highlands of PNG to understand that) But, if you analyse your own life, right this minute, it becomes obvious that we are only just a second away from wanting to murder that person who just tortured and raped your sister or daughter. While you might think revenge for that is just, it's the perspective of many in the Middle East who have been 'prorgammed' by their _human_ culture to protect their space and spiritual being by the last means available: By sacrificing their own lives. We, in the West, must ask why! Why would people do such things? Let's treat the cause, not the symptom. A simple solution is cancel religion, but religion is just based on culture. So, with our big brains we need to find another solution. Is it to rationalise? No. Because our brians have not got any bigger in the past 3000 years. In fact, Aristotle's investigations and insightes tower over anyhting else mankind has come up with since 350 BC. The answer is that we are not as compassionate, ultruistic, understanding, loving, or benevolent as we might think. All of those values, or virtues, are just a means to make us feel good about ourselves and 'survive' a little better in our world. Accept that we are just animals trying to survive as best we can.   

Now, one more glass of wine............ :alcohol:


----------



## Julia (12 June 2006)

Interesting comments, Kennas.  I essentially agree, but do think there's a small percentage of people who are genuinely motivated by altruism in what they do.  That doesn't include governments.

If it were possible to wipe out all religions, do you think our chances of a peaceful co-existence would be enhanced?  (Yes, I know this won't happen, but it's just an extension of the thought that religion is at the base of most of the resentment and antagonism so prevalent throughout history).

Julia


----------



## Sean K (12 June 2006)

We created religion, religion did not create us. Therefore, it will probably always exist. It's a necessity to make us feel happier and safer, it gives us strength, hope, and easy answers to the origin of life and life after death. When there are no real answers we refer to those who have charisma, can articulate themselves well, and promise happiness and safety. They are The Prophets of mankind. There have been numerous throughout history: The Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad the most well known. There are several others who didn't have a good PR team or enough money to make the big time, but they are all the same. All promising quick and easy solutions to leading the 'good life' or to a 'better world', like heaven. Wholey crap, 'heaven'! Just where is that on the GPS?


----------



## Rafa (13 June 2006)

kennas...

Brilliant post on humanity...

I think you have nailed it all at once... and why i think most of these debates are pointless... But you have put it so eloquently...

Its a battle for survival ladies and gentleman... and we all have to do what we all have to do...


----------



## Ants (13 June 2006)

> Not the
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wayne, wise comments. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge is simply a dill.



p.s I only got to the 1st page before posting. So if this post seems a little incongruous, my apologies.


----------



## tech/a (13 June 2006)

Kennas.

Good stuff!!!

I knew I'd seen you somewhere.


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

Hi kennas 

I suppose what you are saying is that it boils down to whether someone believes in God or not and what life is like after we move on from this world...and that is everyones' choice to make.

_Personally, I haven't seen any religion that teaches murdering innocent people in suicide bombings, terrorist attacks etc etc is an acceptable thing to do......if there is one, please feel free to name it_ 

The way I see it, most of the problems around the world atm are caused by people who live for this life only with no regard and/or acceptance that there is life after we leave this world or by those who use some twisted or imaginary view of a religion and supposedly what it teaches to justify their own personal objectives and vendetas.

Religion itself, of any kind, I have no problem with  - but unfortunately there are those in this world that have no comprehension and/or regard of religion or use their own twisted/imaginary views of religion to justify to themselves their own causes and vendetas against others.

just my   food for thought.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## professor_frink (13 June 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> Personally, I haven't seen any religion that teaches murdering innocent people in suicide bombings, terrorist attacks etc etc is an acceptable thing to do......if there is one, please feel free to name it




It's called islam.

Think we christians are better than that? Oh wait, there was the crusades. Yeah christians are a peaceful lot! George bush=peaceful christian.

How about judaism? Very peaceful lot. Just ask the palestinians.

It doesn't really matter if you think violence isnt  part of religion, it's there. In all of them.


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> It's called islam.
> 
> Think we christians are better than that? Oh wait, there was the crusades. Yeah christians are a peaceful lot! George bush=peaceful christian.
> 
> ...




*PF - that is simply not true. Islam does not teach that murdering innocent people is acceptable*. It actually teaches the opposite....ie....murder is totaly wrong and forbidden.

It's very easy for someone, like you have, to accuse any religion of supporting murder and not provide the source and/or documentation that shows what you are saying is true.

To me it looks like you're believing the extremists' justifications for their actions.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## professor_frink (13 June 2006)

Your right bullmarket, killing innocents is bad according to them. But no christian is regarded as an innocent person so it's ok to kill them.



> God's curse be upon the infidels! Evil is that for which they have bartered away their souls. To deny God's own revelation, grudging that He should reveal His bounty to whom He chooses from among His servants! They have incurred God's most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits the unbelievers.
> 
> Q 2:92-6
> 
> ...




bullmarket, I'll accuse every major religion of murder for 2 reasons-
1. It has happened throughout history.
2. There are quotes from all of the religious texts promoting this as acceptable.

For you to come out and say that I need to prove to you that something isn't true, after you have provided no facts to contrary is just plain hypocritical. I do believe the extremists justification for such actions because it's right there in their religious texts. However, I also believe that good christians like yourself are justified in believing it's wrong because that's in there too. Hence my extreme dislikng of religion.

Have a nice day


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

hi PF

_*If you look back through my post you will see that at no place whatsover did I say that christians do not murder innocent people * - of course they have, so I don't know what point you are trying to make when you ask me to prove anything._

All religions will have 'bad apples' so to speak, but that doesn't mean that religion itself is the cause of the problems in our world today.  Imo it's peoples' ignorance or non accepttance of religions and what they teach or peoples deliberate twisted interpretations of religous reachings to suit their own objectives and/or agendas.

re your comment:



> 2. There are quotes from all of the religious texts promoting this as acceptable.



 - *I don't believe this is true at all*.

If you choose to believe that religion itself is the cause of today's problems then that is fine by me, but I disagree with you because of the reasons I posted earlier.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## professor_frink (13 June 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> hi PF
> 
> _*If you look back through my post you will see that at no place whatsover did I say that christians do not murder innocent people * - of course they have, so I don't know what you are trying to make when you ask me to prove anything._




Ahh the old look back through my posts bit hey bullmarket! I never accused you of saying that so don't change the subject.
You said that Islam doesn't teach that murdering innocent people is acceptable. I agreed with that statement. They don't consider any christians to be " innocent", hence the killing. I backed this up with quotes from their texts.You said I made a baseless accusation(which you did as well), hence the quotes.



			
				bullmarket said:
			
		

> re your comment:
> 
> Quote:
> 2. There are quotes from all of the religious texts promoting this as acceptable.
> - I don't believe this is true at all.




Would you care to expand on this point please. Is there NO condoning of violence at all in the bible, or other religious texts?



			
				bullmarket said:
			
		

> All religions will have 'bad apples' so to speak, but that doesn't mean that religion itself is the cause of the problems in our world today.  Imo it's peoples' ignorance or non accepttance of religions and what they teach or peoples deliberate twisted interpretations of religous reachings to suit their own objectives and/or agendas.




I'd have to disagree with that statement. Religion IS the problem. It's just that most choose to ignore the parts that incite hatred and violence. Why should someone believe part of a book and not the rest? It's all part of the same book.



			
				bullmarket said:
			
		

> If you choose to believe that religion itself is the caise of today's problems then that is fine by me, but I disagree with you because of the reasons I posted earlier.
> 
> cheers
> 
> bullmarket




Because of what reasons bullmarket? I can't find any.


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2006)

I think much of the killing done 'in the name of religion', has occurred when tribal leaders needed some extra tool to motivate the troops. I think Moses leading the Israelites out of the Sinai and marching on Palestine and having Yahweh (who was the original God of War for the Pagans and somewhere in history turned into the One God) assisting them is a good case in point. They killed a lot of people with Yahweh's assistance. But, Yahweh didn't really tell Moses from the Burning Bush to go and kill everything in sight on the way to The Promised Land. No, Moses made it up to get support from the troops and make them fight hard for his cause! 

Of course at that time he was also telling his troops to hand over their first born sons to be sacrificed to God. Or, they could get their kids back if they handed over 10 silver pieces...Nice work Moses! That'd be worth a bit at today's prices. 

What strange creatures we are.


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

Hi PF

re your question
:


> Would you care to expand on this point please. Is there NO condoning of violence at all in the bible, or other religious texts?




you are the one who made the statement:



> There are quotes from all of the religious texts promoting this as acceptable.




*so the onus is on you to prove your statement is correct and accurate* _if you want me to take it seriously and until you do I will continue to believe that what you said is simply not true _ 

The 'violence' you are referring to above I assume is in reply to my view that no religion promotes the murder of innocent people. 

re your comment:



> Because of what reasons bullmarket? I can't find any.




The reasons for my views are in my original and subsequent posts.

We obviously disagree on whether religion itself is the cause of the problems in the world today.  You are entitled to your view and I don't have a problem with that.  All I am saying is that my view is different as a result of the reasons in my earlier post 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

Hi kennas



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> I think much of the killing done 'in the name of religion', has occurred when tribal leaders needed some extra tool to motivate the troops. I think Moses leading the Israelites out of the Sinai and marching on Palestine and having Yahweh (who was the original God of War for the Pagans and somewhere in history turned into the One God) assisting them is a good case in point. They killed a lot of people with Yahweh's assistance. But, Yahweh didn't really tell Moses from the Burning Bush to go and kill everything in sight on the way to The Promised Land. No, Moses made it up to get support from the troops and make them fight hard for his cause!
> 
> Of course at that time he was also telling his troops to hand over their first born sons to be sacrificed to God. Or, they could get their kids back if they handed over 10 silver pieces...Nice work Moses! That'd be worth a bit at today's prices.
> 
> What strange creatures we are.




The Book of Exodus (supposedly written by Moses) gives a slightly different version of events to what you describe above.

The Book of Exodus is in the Bible's Old Testament if anyone wants to read what really happened.....it looks to me you are twisting reality....but you are entitled to your 'interpretation' just like I and everyone else I guess 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## visual (13 June 2006)

Professor fink,
did you know that racism is also man made,in fact we are all from the same race,Over the centuries people have adapted to the climate where they settled ,we all came from africa,Cant remember what university did this study,remember black people were though to be less intelligent because of their head shape and hence their brain was suppoded to be different,wrong,not true by the time this was discovered the book had been printed, I kid you not and once the theory began circulating it was too late to stop.Sounds a bit like religion doesnt it,if people want to manipulate they will,as you said we have just chosen to pay attention to the parts that make us feel good.Islam,i reckon it just needs a good pr.woman and then its all level,


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2006)

I've read Exodus a few times, but I don't have a copy on me to quote directly. The statement was meant more as a general account of the situation than 'factual' events. I can't remember what Yahweh told Moses from the burning bush, or from Mt Sinai or from the Tent. All places only he and sometimes Aron were allowed to go, so we only know what they reckon He said. I do believe the price for a return of your boy was 10 silver pieces though.


----------



## professor_frink (13 June 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> *so the onus is on you to prove your statement is correct and accurate* _if you want me to take it seriously and until you do I will continue to believe that what you said is simply not true _




Once again a well thought out comment bullmarket :swear: 



			
				Bullmarket said:
			
		

> re your comment:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You said you don't belive it to be true. I have already posted quotes from the koran pointing out that it is. You said you still don't belive it to be true. I ask for more information as to why you think this, and the onus is still on me? Give me a break bullmarket, can't you come up with a proper argument, rather than just trying to shift people's attention away from the fact that there is no actual reason for your statements.



			
				Bullmarket said:
			
		

> The 'violence' you are referring to above I assume is in reply to my view that no religion promotes the murder of innocent people.
> 
> re your comment:
> 
> ...




Once again bullmarket, there are no reasons in your posts. You have posted an opinion in your first post. I challenged that opinion and gave evidence to the contrary. You are still to give a reason for any of your opinions.



			
				Bullmarket said:
			
		

> We obviously disagree on whether religion itself is the cause of the problems in the world today.  You are entitled to your view and I don't have a problem with that.  All I am saying is that my view is different as a result of the reasons in my earlier post
> 
> cheers
> 
> bullmarket




Once again, what reasons for your view? There aren't any. The only thing we can agree on is that we have a different view. Except I have given a reason for mine.


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

ok no problem kenna 

but when you make statements like this one:



> But, Yahweh didn't really tell Moses from the Burning Bush to go and kill everything in sight on the way to The Promised Land. No, Moses made it up to get support from the troops and make them fight hard for his cause!




and then tell me that:



> I can't remember what Yahweh told Moses from the burning bush, or from Mt Sinai or from the Tent.




no offence, but you then loose all credibility imo.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## professor_frink (13 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Professor frink,
> did you know that racism is also man made,in fact we are all from the same race,Over the centuries people have adapted to the climate where they settled ,we all came from africa,Cant remember what university did this study,remember black people were though to be less intelligent because of their head shape and hence their brain was suppoded to be different,wrong,not true by the time this was discovered the book had been printed, I kid you not and once the theory began circulating it was too late to stop.Sounds a bit like religion doesnt it,if people want to manipulate they will,as you said we have just chosen to pay attention to the parts that make us feel good.Islam,i reckon it just needs a good pr.woman and then its all level,




well said visual.


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

Hi PF

I think you're just going round in circles now 

You are the one who made the statement:



> There are quotes from all of the religious texts promoting this as acceptable.




and you seem a little upset that I don't believe you....no-one is under any obligation to blindly believe what see/read in chatrooms.  If you want me to take you seriously you're going to have to come up with proof supporting your statement.

I gave the reasons for my views in my earlier posts.  Others understand the reasons I gave, but if you can't find them or if you disagree with them or don't believe them then so be it 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2006)

No Bullmarket, you misinterpreted my comments. I meant that Moses _did_ say that Yahweh told him to take the Holy Lands, but I don't have exact quotes. As I said I don't have the book on me. I'll find it for you. Wait, out.


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> No Bullmarket, you misinterpreted my comments. I meant that Moses _did_ say that Yahweh told him to take the Holy Lands, but I don't have exact quotes. As I said I don't have the book on me. I'll find it for you. Wait, out.




kennas - I don't think I misinterpreted anything at all.  Your version of events and what Exodus states are different.

You originally posted:



> But, Yahweh didn't really tell Moses from the Burning Bush to go and kill everything in sight on the way to The Promised Land. No, Moses made it up to get support from the troops and make them fight hard for his cause!




and Exodus tells a different story.  I don't think Moses made anything up as you suggested.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## professor_frink (13 June 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> Hi PF
> 
> I think you're just going round in circles now



I'm going round in circles now? that's the funniest thing I've read today!



			
				bullmarket said:
			
		

> You are the one who made the statement:
> 
> 
> > There are quotes from all of the religious texts promoting this as acceptable.
> ...




I'm not upset bullmarket. It takes alot more than your childish ramblings to make me upset. I've spent most of the afternoon laughing at you, not getting angry. What kind of proof would you like? Were my previous quotes from the koran not enough, or do I have to go and get some from the bible as well. I think even if I do you won't believe me.
"talk sense to a fool and he will call you foolish" 
It's probably best that you don't agree with me.



			
				bullmarket said:
			
		

> I gave the reasons for my views in my earlier posts.  Others understand the reasons I gave, but if you can't or if you disagree with them or don't believe them then so be it
> 
> cheers
> 
> bullmarket




Would you care to repost these reasons? I can't see them. Opinion is not reason bullmarket.


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2006)

This is just some of the drivel that was said to Moses. From where it isn't clear. I suppose you could interpret this in different ways but it reads to me like Yahweh is telling Moses that he is to wreak havok on Palestine. That would include killing the odd Jebusite or two I imagine. 

*Exodus Chapter 23*

     But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.
23:23
    For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off.
23:24
    Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.
23:25
    And ye shall serve the LORD your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee.
23:26
    There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil.
23:27
    I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.
23:28
    And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee.
23:29
    I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee.
23:30
    By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land.
23:31
    And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee.
23:32
    Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.
23:33
    They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee.


----------



## professor_frink (13 June 2006)

I'll leave this debate with this-



> And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.




love thy brother!



> And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.




very peaceful.



> 2:33  And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
> 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
> 2:35 Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took.
> 2:36 From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us




sounds rather like genocide.

 I know it's not proof enough for bullmarket, because he won't be able to verify this, or the other quotes from the koran, but my lack of sleep has caught up with me and I ain't gunna wait around for another B.S reply. It's been fun folks


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2006)

How about this one from Deuteronomy Chapter 2:

 31 The LORD said to me, "See, I have begun to deliver Sihon and his country over to you. Now begin to conquer and possess his land."

 32 When Sihon and all his army came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz, 33 the LORD our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed [c] them””men, women and children. We left no survivors. 35 But the livestock and the plunder from the towns we had captured we carried off for ourselves. 36 From Aroer on the rim of the Arnon Gorge, and from the town in the gorge, even as far as Gilead, not one town was too strong for us. The LORD our God gave us all of them.

Holy Cow man!!! This is the bible!!!!!!!!!!!! Better do some more reading Bullmarket.


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

no prob PF 

But you made a statement ealier saying that:



> There are quotes from all of the religious texts promoting this as acceptable.




*and you still haven't provided proof that this statement is true and so all I am saying is that I don't believe what you say is true.*

For some reason, judging by your posts, it seems important to you that I believe you - so in that case simply provide proof to back up your statement above and so far you're not even close 

What you have provided are selected extracts, none of which show that any religion promotes as acceptable the murder of innocent people.

From memory, isn't one of the Ten Commandments : 'Thou shalt not kill'

Imo that commandment shoots down any 'interpretation' you may have that murdering innocent people is acceptable by any, let alone all religions 

sweet dreams 

bullmarket


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

hi kennas

I'm not sure what point you are making.

I didn't say the Bible is innacurate.

*What I said was that your original version of events is different to what is in Exodus....nothing more, nothing less....and you then tried to change your original story by posting what you 'meant' to say in a subsequent post.....*

As I said earlier, getting it wrong like you did takes away any credibility you might have had.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## visual (13 June 2006)

Kenna,this has been interesting,reminded me why I couldnt ever read the bible past the first page.
Basically the only difference here is that the koran is still being mainly interpreted literally and Christians have learned to interpret  the bible with discretion .


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2006)

He he Bull, Playing your little games again.

Your quote previously:

"and Exodus tells a different story. I don't think Moses made anything up as you suggested."

You're telling me that what Moses says in Exodus is _factual_? The truth? The events actually occurred as written? Holy cow man get a grip. Next thing you know you'll be telling me that 2 of every animal actually fitted on Noah's Arc, and Moses did actually part the Red Sea. 

My point was that Moses was using God as a tool to succeed in getting the Israelites out of the crappy mess they were in by attacking the tribes living in Palestine and taking their nice fertile land off them. God 'assisted them' and gave them 'authority' to invade and destroy the tribes mentioned. God was their 'secret weapon' which Moses seemed to use to good effect. The Sinai Peninsula is not a place to spend too much quality time. Except for the diving. Very good. IMHO of course!


----------



## professor_frink (13 June 2006)

Bullmarket said:
			
		

> But you made a statement ealier saying that:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




bullmarket,
Before you repeated this again for about the fifth time, I wasn't sure if you were unintelligent or just mildly annoying. Now I know. I was finding your argument amusing before you started repeating it over and over again. It's almost like a small child having an argument with one of their kindergarten friends. " I know you are but what am I" repeated over and again until one grows tired of it and quits. Alright I'm over it. 

Saying the same thing repeatedly is one way to wear down someone during a discussion, and if that makes you feel better then good for you. The fact that you aren't well liked on these boards should give you an indication that this method of arguing isn't going down well with others, and it would be best to stop. 
Now I know your going to say "you haven't given me verifiable proof that no one likes me", but you'll just have to take my word for it on this one. 

The sad thing is bullmarket, there have been numerous discussions on these forums that you have highjacked with this childish method of arguing, and it ends up driving people away. It's now at the stage where a discussion can go on, and people with opposing views can have a reasonable discussion about them until you show up. Then we might as well close the thread down and wait for you to destroy the next discussion. Just like this thread.


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2006)

Yes visual, but I think they are both used when it suits us in justifying some action. We are definately more secular in the West, even though our laws are built on Christain ideals to some degree. 

A bad example of the Bible being used today might be the Pope using the Bible to justify not using condoms. The Catholic Church are probably contributing a great deal to the spread of AIDS through Africa and Sth America atm.


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

Hi PF 

I said in earlier post that if you have a different view to mine then that is fine by me and yet you kept on posting trying to convince me that your statement:



> There are quotes from all of the religious texts promoting this as acceptable.



 is true and you still haven't provided any proof that it is 

As I said earlier, imo the Commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' shoots down any 'interpretation' you might have.

Imo you're the one being childish by not providing proof to back up your statement and then getting frustrated when I don't believe you   

You then went on to say you're leaving this debate and your frustrations then brought you back in - and still without any proof to back up any of your statements.

As I said in earlier, if you disagree with my views then that is fine by me - you are entitled to your views just like anyone else and the sooner you accept that I and everyone else are under no obligation to blindly believe what you or I or anyone posts in chatrooms, the less frustrated at me you will be 

good luck 

bullmarket


----------



## visual (13 June 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Yes visual, but I think they are both used when it suits us in justifying some action. We are definately more secular in the West, even though our laws are built on Christain ideals to some degree.
> 
> A bad example of the Bible being used today might be the Pope using the Bible to justify not using condoms. The Catholic Church are probably contributing a great deal to the spread of AIDS through Africa and Sth America atm.




Absolutely correct,when you combine our education and freedom of information,you get us 
when you combine our Bible and their lack of education and lack of public information overall you get the Bible playing a more literal role in their life,


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2006)

We have provided quotes straight out of the Good Book Bull, that either infer or explicitly state that it is acceptable and even appropriate to kill others, with the only justifcation been that God had 'given' them the land the tribes occupied. Haven't you read the quotes? I suppose you will say that we could have made these up. You'll just have to check yourself I think. You are a laugh a minute.


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

no problem kennas

You're obviously frustrated at my pointing out earlier that what you originally posted and what is in Exodus are different.  Maybe you should check your facts before posting next time   

In my original post I said that I don't believe any religion promotes that killing innocent people is acceptable in any way and since you are referring to the Bible then *the Commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' imo shoots down any interpretations you might have to the contrary*.....it's as simple as that. 

If you disagree, that's fine by me 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## visual (13 June 2006)

Bullmarket,go to the local library,borrow a copy of the koran and read it.


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2006)

Yeah, I know that Thou Shalt Not Kill and should be the end of it but I wonder why God then tells Moses at other moments that certain transgressions by people are punishable by death. And all that other stuff I quoted from Deuteronomy about the killing of women and children. And didn't God send plagues plagues that kill all the first born and even frogs into Egypt to piss off the Pharaoh. 

These are some of the rules that follow the ten commandments in Chapter 21:

21:12	He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
21:13	And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
21:14	But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.
21:15	And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
21:16	And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
21:17	And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

This is a bit ambiguous isn't it? It was only a chapter ago he was saying 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' and now he's saying if you say bad words about your folkes you will be put to death? He should have stuck with the one rule I think, and not assisted the Israelites in killing so many people on the way to Palestine. He's lacking a bit of consistency and credibility Himself I reckon. If he was all powerful and omnipotent then He could have at least got the how to manual right in the first place.


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

Hi Visual, kennas

Firstly it's the Qur'an and not the koran - oh dear 

Secondly, in none of my posts have I disputed the contents of the Bible, Qur'an or whatever else anyone has quoted from so I'm not sure why you want me to go read it.

I said in my original post that I don't believe *any religion * promotes that killing innocent people is acceptable in any way and the Commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' imo shoots down any interpretations anyone might have to the contrary.....it's as simple as that.

_Now, to prove me wrong, instead of simply posting selected extracts out of context and interpreting them to suit your arguments (which imo is what terrorists do but obviously on a much larger scale and with much more devasting consequences) why not post some info that shows *any authentic religious leader/authority* promotes his/her religion as accepting the killing of innocent people_........my   says you won't come up with any.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2006)

How about the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of witches, and the sacrifice of first borns to God. Yes, that really did happen for a time. I can't provide photgraphic evidence unfortunately.


----------



## professor_frink (13 June 2006)

bullarket said:
			
		

> Firstly it's the Qur'an and not the koran - oh dear




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

The Qur'an (Arabic pronunciation), (Arabic: قرآن "recitation", also transliterated as Quran, Koran, and Alcoran, Turkish Kur'an).

Don't worry visual you were right. Both are acceptable


Oh dear indeed!


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2006)

But I suppose your point about 'innocent' people holds, because the church leaders at the time genuinely thought that these people were evil. That was enough justification to kill them. Same for the Crusaders and Al Qaeda. They do what they do because they believe that people need to be punished, or killed for not being the right religion.


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

Hi PF 

I should have addressed this post to you as well 

I said in my original post that I don't believe any religion promotes that killing innocent people is acceptable in any way and the Commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' imo shoots down any interpretations anyone might have to the contrary.....it's as simple as that.



> Now, to prove me wrong, instead of simply posting selected extracts out of context and interpreting them to suit your arguments (which imo is what terrorists do but obviously on a much larger scale and with much more devasting consequences) why not post some info that shows any authentic religious leader/authority promotes his/her religion as accepting the killing of innocent people........my  says you won't come up with any.




cheers

bullmarket


----------



## professor_frink (13 June 2006)

> 21:14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.




What exactly is the context of that then?


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

Hi PF

Without seeing the rest of wherever that came from I have no idea 

_But if you want to prove my view from my original post is wrong then instead of simply posting selected extracts out of context and interpreting them to suit your arguments (which imo is what terrorists do but obviously on a much larger scale and with much more devasting consequences) why not post some info that shows *any authentic religious leader/authority * promotes his/her religion as accepting the killing of innocent people........my says you won't come up with any. _ 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2006)

Some more gems from Exodus Ch 22:

22:16	 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
22:17	If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
22:18	Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
22:19	Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
22:20	He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

I think I transgressed 22:19 a few years ago. After a very big night out in a country town I woke up next to a sheep.


----------



## professor_frink (13 June 2006)

Bullmarket said:
			
		

> Hi PF
> 
> Without seeing the rest of wherever that came from I have no idea





I thought you were religious? Shouldn't you know? You say the quotes were taken out of context yet you don't even know where  they're from? Once again you have a solid basis for your argument :swear: 

Oh Dear


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2006)

This is a classic from Deuteronomy Ch3:

 3 So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. 4 At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them””the whole region of Argob, Og's kingdom in Bashan. 5 All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. 6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city””men, women and children. 7 But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves.

They were very bad people those women and children from Bashan.


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

Hi PF

I think your frustration is starting to show again 

Since you didn't quote the source of that extract then for all I know you could have theoretically made it up......but it probably is a legitimate quote from somewhere and unless I see the rest of that 'somewhere' then I have no idea what context that extract was written in.

cheers 

bullmarket


----------



## professor_frink (13 June 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> Hi PF
> 
> I think your frustration is starting to show again
> 
> Since you didn't quote the source of that extract then for all I know you could have theoretically made it up




Ok bullmarket I'm a liar.

Been a pleasure talking to you.


----------



## Bobby (13 June 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> Since you didn't quote the source of that extract then for all I know you could have theoretically made it up......but it probably is a legitimate quote from somewhere and unless I see the rest of that 'somewhere' then I have no idea what context that extract was written in.




How about this -- The cat sat on the mat !
Its a legitimate quote .

Bob.


----------



## moses (13 June 2006)

Curious you are all quoting from the Old Testament. 

Unfortunately, extracts from the law of Moses in the Old Testament are irrelevant to Christianity which is based on the teaching of Jesus Christ; hence the word "new" in New Testament.

Not that that dismisses the OT as a valuable book in its own right. But it sure qualifies the way in which we are expected understand it and apply it. The fact is that those commandments to kill people are irrelevant to Christian religion today.

Unfortunately Islam never accepted Jesus Christ. This makes it difficult for them to understand the importance, power and blessing of love and grace over anger, retribution and judgment. Without love and grace, righteous zeal for law keeping soon becomes a cover for fear, hatred and murder.

We in the West who abandon our Christian roots, or who use Christianity as a cover (like GWB) for war are no better, and liable to fall into the same trap.

Moses


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

> Originally Posted by bullmarket
> Hi PF
> 
> I think your frustration is starting to show again
> ...




Hi PF 

Your are now resorting to quoting only partial sentences and displaying them out of context (as per above) and so I have no reason to not believe that any previous supposed quotes you have posted are also only partial and out of context.

You could have easily quoted the source of your extract if it is legitimate but instead you choose to not disclose where it came from  which is your choice but it also removes what little credibility you might have had.

Finally  - to correct your extract above, *what I said in total is*:



> Since you didn't quote the source of that extract then for all I know you could have theoretically made it up......but it probably is a legitimate quote from somewhere and unless I see the rest of that 'somewhere' then I have no idea what context that extract was written in.




cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2006)

Ha ha, Bullmarket, the quote he put there was from one of my posts. It's a paragraph out of Exodus, as quoted and unchanged.

Moses you are right about the OT. It's the Jewish guide to the world, but still the foundation of Christianity. I think we were talking any religion anyway, so the points still stick about religion condoning or encouraging the killing of 'innocent' people. 

I thought that Islam accepted Christ as a prophet? Just not the Son of God, whoever that is! That's another disucssion....


----------



## professor_frink (13 June 2006)

bullmarket, you still implied that I could have made it up, regardless of how I quoted you. If I had known that you weren't reading the whole thread properly, then I would have put the name of the passage in. Because kennas had done it I thought you'd know what I was saying. Sorry I didn't realise. So here it is-



			
				Kennas said:
			
		

> These are some of the rules that follow the ten commandments in Chapter 21:
> 
> 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
> 21:13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
> ...




So is it possible to get an answer now?

edit: sorry kennas didn't see you already posted it.


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

Hi kennas



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Ha ha, Bullmarket, the quote he put there was from one of my posts. It's a paragraph out of Exodus, as quoted and unchanged.
> 
> 
> I thought that Islam accepted Christ as a prophet? ...




PF could easily have posted where he got the extract from.  

Does your reaction imply that all those that don't read your posts, should? 

I can't speak for others, but for me personally there are much more important things going on to spend time on than reading anything, let alone everything,  you post in here 

I also thought Islam saw Jesus Christ as another prophet.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

Hi Kennas



> Originally Posted by Kennas
> These are some of the rules that follow the ten commandments in Chapter 21:
> 
> 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
> ...




One of the dangers when reading/interpreting the Bible is that people might interpret things too literally and so end up with a twisted interpretation of what was originally meant.

Now I'm no expert, but



> 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.




might not mean death in this life literally but imo it could also mean that those that curse, swindle, disrespect etc etc their parents will not achieve salvation.....ie....eternal life in heaven (or whatever your equivalent may be) but eternal life suffering unimaginable misery in hell (or again whatever your equivalent may be).

Imo the same interpretation of death could also be applied to the other references to death in the verses you quoted above.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## moses (13 June 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Moses you are right about the OT. It's the Jewish guide to the world, but still the foundation of Christianity.




I know what you mean, but I don't see it that way. I see Jesus Christ to be the foundation of Christianity, and the reason why the Bible was written. Why? Because if Jesus was a real historical figure, who really did miracles by the power of God ah la gospel story, and most importantly, if Jesus really was raised from the dead, then we really do have a basis for religious belief, and we really do have a reason to take the Bible seriously.

If not, then we don't.

Thats why the resurrection is so important to Christianity. If it is true, then God exists and loves us and everything and everyone matters. If it is not true, well, there is no future, no morals, nothing and nobody matters and we may as well just take what we want while we can.



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> I think we were talking any religion anyway, so the points still stick about religion condoning or encouraging the killing of 'innocent' people.




Do they? We may as well condemn the concept of government on the basis that governments condone or encourage the killing of innocent people.

Or men.

It is the *character or philosophy* of the religion, the government, the man, or whatever system under discussion that is the issue.



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> I thought that Islam accepted Christ as a prophet? Just not the Son of God, whoever that is! That's another disucssion....




True. But again, not accepting Jesus Christ as the Son of God is tantamount to not accepting Jesus Christ. Either his teaching has the primacy over other teachers and prophets because he is Son of God, or he is just expressing another opinion to be ignored when it doesn't suit us.

Anyway...as you said, another discussion!!


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

Hi moses 



> I see Jesus Christ to be the foundation of Christianity, and the reason why the Bible was written. Why? Because if Jesus was a real historical figure, who really did miracles by the power of God ah la gospel story, and most importantly, if Jesus really was raised from the dead, then we really do have a basis for religious belief, and we really do have a reason to take the Bible seriously.




:iagree: 100%...if the Resurrection never happened then the rest of the BIble is a load of rubbish, but if it did then you are right and we have a lot to look forward to in the next life if we live a 'good' life here.

*Some   food for thought:*

Some say that the New Testament is actually contained in the Old Testament as a result of the writings of the various prophets and their prophecies in the Old Testament.

The Old Testament was written about 600BC and if by some chance the Old Testament was some sort of conspiracy by a group of prophets to con the rest of the world and future generations I find it impossible to believe that such a conspiracy would not have been found out and able to be continued for so many 100's of years to the birth of Jesus Christ and for the ~2000 years up to now.....(although I suppose the Da Vinci Code, although fiction, tries to create a conspiracy theory)

The fact, amongst others, that so many prophecies in the Old Testament are recorded as reality in the New Testament, ~600 yrs down the track,  convince me that the events and teachings are true......but as I said above, when reading the Bible we should try to not take things too literally by applying today's meanings of words literally to English translations of documents that were written up to ~2600 years ago where people wrote in different styles than we do today.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## moses (13 June 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Yeah, I know that Thou Shalt Not Kill and should be the end of it but I wonder why God then tells Moses at other moments that certain transgressions by people are punishable by death. And all that other stuff I quoted from Deuteronomy about the killing of women and children. And didn't God send plagues plagues that kill all the first born and even frogs into Egypt to piss off the Pharaoh.
> 
> These are some of the rules that follow the ten commandments in Chapter 21:
> 
> ...




 

I think it means quite literally what it says, but that it was designed to provoke another situation. Have you ever read what the New Testament says about this?

Rom 5:20  Now the law came in so that the transgression may increase...

So, like, before we dismiss God for inconsistency, are we sure we have any idea what God was trying to acheive? What makes us think Exodus was just a simple how-to manual?

Would you believe that Moses' law was set up to create these sorts of difficult situations to force people to look for answers beyond mere obedience to a set of rules? For example, to help people to get over the shallow idea that all we need to do is obey a set of rules (go to church, pay our taxes, don't kill or steal etc) and God will owe us eternal life.

What pathetic sort of God would that be? What pathetic sort of creatures would we be?

Moses


----------



## Bobby (13 June 2006)

Well bull tell us more about your theology interpretations ?
Maybe a interdict or two   just to control outhers.

Bob.


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2006)

Gents, 

You both seem to be sure that we can't lead a good life if we don't follow a religion and that the world would be an unethical, crazy place without a God sitting in judgement. It's a big call when we haven't had the opportunity to actually live God free yet. Although, I can not see that ever happening. It's the greatest ever human invention.   

IMHO a better approach would be to come up with an ethical, logical, just, set of laws relating to how human beings can best live on the planet in harmony and where the 'good' is what is 'good' for the greatest number. A life lived in this world, not for life after death. I think we're wasting our time on this rock as soon as we start preparing for an afterworld. Heaven was invented as a means of encouraging people to follow the laws of the day, and to make them feel warm and fuzzy in the face of the one certainty of life: Death. I don't need to be good so I get to heaven. I will be good, so that the people around me live a good live, which ultimately leads to my life being good. It's that simple.  

While we continue to believe in a supernatural diety out in the cosmos interrferring in the Earths natural state, and judging people for their worthiness to get into heaven, the world will continue to be in the diabolical state it is now. Obviously, the religions we have now have flaws in them or they are used in a way to cause unwarranted pain, death and destruction. Examples of some of the atrocities committed by each of the religions of the book are scattered throughout this thread. Athough, who can say that we wouldn't be doing these things anyway! We are all trying to survive in some way. Some better than others and thus, conflict.      

If there was a God as described in the religions of the book, why is he allowing most of the world to go on in disbelief and suffering. The 'you have to have faith' line does not wash for me because it's just an easy way to convince people of something without providing proof. It's the ultimate placebo actually. 

So, who is my God? Humanity is my God. Let's find the right human laws that are best for us in this life and worship those. 

But, maybe I'm going to hell......


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> Well bull tell us more about your theology interpretations ?
> Maybe a interdict or two   just to control outhers.
> 
> Bob.




bobby - that would be going seriously off topic for this thread and I'm not convinced you are genuinely interested anyway, but if you are then start a new thread.

bullmarket


----------



## wayneL (13 June 2006)

Posted purely for interest, and not in either camp:

FWIW



> 'I've Found God' Says Man
> Who Cracked Genome
> By Steven Swinford
> The Sunday Times
> ...


----------



## Bobby (13 June 2006)

moses said:
			
		

> What pathetic sort of God would that be? What pathetic sort of creatures would we be?
> 
> Moses




There are many good humans who don't believe in god .
They are not pathetic !

There are many doing  bad deeds that do believe in god .
They are pathetic ?

Bob.


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

Hi kennas

just a few comments about parts of your previous post:



> It's the greatest ever human invention.




If you are referring to God, then I disagree because I believe God created us and the planet we live on etc etc and not the other way round.......but obviously many don't.....



> If there was a God as described in the religions of the book, why is he allowing most of the world to go on in disbelief and suffering. The 'you have to have faith' line does not wash for me because it's just an easy way to convince people of something without providing proof. It's the ultimate placebo actually.




The way I look at this one is to go back to the story of Adam and Eve (obviously many will think this is a load of rubbish - but each to their own ).

In Adam and Eve's day they were living in paradise with no illnesses, hatred, wars, droughts, famines etc etc until that fateful day when Eve was tempted into taking a bite from that apple.  After that all bets were off so to speak.  Adam and Eve failed the test that God had put before them to not take the apple and so as punishment mankind from then on had to earn the right to eternal life in paradise, heaven call it what you prefer.  To earn that right mankind has to endure and get through sometimes immense hardships and tests/temptations in this world without failing them.  As I see it, the first and most fundamental test is to have faith in God and to then do what He has taught and shown us...for example in the Bible, esepcially in the New Testament.

So all the hatred, drought, famines, evil, crime and suffering we have in the world today are simply tests to see who can get through them, by either enduring them or for those much more fortunate doing things to ease them, without losing their faith in the face of what is going on and the temptations around them imo.    

Now, obviously those that don't believe the story of Adam and Eve will say the above is a load of horse manure, but what if the the story of Adam and Eve is true ?? 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## stockGURU (13 June 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> Now, obviously those that don't believe the story of Adam and Eve will say the above is a load of horse manure, but what if the the story of Adam and Eve is true ??




The thing is bullmarket, not too many stories of paradise on earth, a woman being made out of a man's rib and talking serpents turn out to be true, do they?


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

hi stockguru

I don't see what you are getting at because obviously I have no more proof that it is true then you have that it isn't true   

But as I said in an earlier post, we should be careful to not interpret what we read in the Bible too literally given that a lot of it was written at ~600BC where writing styles were very much different to today and on top of that you have English translations of documents written in ancient languages.

I believe the overall story is true, but whether the minute fine details described are 100% accurate is irrelevant to me as they don't change the meaning of what is being told...........but it's each to their own on this one and what they choose to believe and what they don't believe.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## The Mint Man (13 June 2006)

Is 'big mouth' causing trouble again guys?
he obviously becomes frustrated very easily and takes things out of context all the time.   You only have to read through recent threads where he posted to see this, having a big cry to to moderators etc. I think theres a job going at the local Kleenex factory by the way.
IMO he is the god of hypocrisy, always right, never wrong even when he contradicts himself.

example: 
It would be like me saying: 'I dont like fish and chips but I love eating fish'...
Then professor_frink comes in and quotes me


			
				Mint Man said:
			
		

> I dont like fish and chips



saying 'how can you love eating fish then Mint Man'
Mint Man: 'Ohhh thats it.. now your just taking what I said out of context PF' :swear: 
END OF Example  

Anyway can anyone proove to me that jesus/god is real? besides a book!
Give me something hard like dinosaur bones!

Well thats my   gotta get back to reading The Da Vinci Code and watching brokeback mountain. Oh **** thats right gotta remind my girl to take the pill tonight but if she gets pregers theres always RU486 to fall back on, few.... Thank GOD for that stuff.

PS:True story, I went to church every week for the best part of 4 years.


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

Hi Mint Man


----------



## Sean K (13 June 2006)

Bullmarket, 

I think you hit the nail on the head with 'the meaning of what was being told'. Sorry, can't do the quote thing yet.

Most of the stories of in the bible are analogies to convery a message. Nothing more. Unfortunately, some are taken to have actually occurred, so then you have the various interpretations of what was really said or meant. Problem. 

Have I mentioned I'm writing a book about all of this? Obviously it's not very good. I think you will now be a character. Not sure if I'll call you Bullmarket though...


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

ok thanks kennas 

if I'm in your book, does that mean I get a % of the royalties??   

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Bobby (13 June 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> bobby - that would be going seriously off topic for this thread and I'm not convinced you are genuinely interested anyway, but if you are then start a new thread.
> 
> bullmarket




Your right , a new thread is the answer, through it we could find a covenant of the  imposition of religion.

Now all we need is a thread title Humm?
How about bulls gerrymander on religious theme's   : 

Bob.


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

Hi bobby 

it's your thread so you can call it whatever you like 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## The Mint Man (13 June 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> Hi Mint Man



hey man whats up?
heaven!! :bananasmi 
one of my old jokes at church, haha.......ahhhh the good ol' days  
Memoryyyyyss :karaoke:


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

Hi Mint Man 

I like your variation of my signature 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## The Mint Man (13 June 2006)

hey, hey...
now your putting words in my mouth.


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

just calling it as I see it 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Julia (13 June 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Gents,
> 
> You both seem to be sure that we can't lead a good life if we don't follow a religion and that the world would be an unethical, crazy place without a God sitting in judgement. It's a big call when we haven't had the opportunity to actually live God free yet. Although, I can not see that ever happening. It's the greatest ever human invention.
> 
> ...





Kennas

Thanks for expressing my own thoughts so well.  I simply don't understand why people need some God dictating right and wrong to them.  From the quotes taken from the Bible and the Koran in this thread, it seems clear that this God/Gods are putting out some pretty mixed messages anyway, so it's a bit tough for anyone trying to decipher some moral code from either of these  esteemed publications.

How complicated does it need to be to simply treat others with honesty, courtesy and basic decency?

Oh, and perhaps we could add "desist from being more irritating than a nest of ants".

Julia


----------



## The Mint Man (13 June 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> just calling it as I see it
> 
> cheers
> 
> bullmarket




call it whatever you want, your taking my signature out of context!.
gee I dunno


----------



## Julia (13 June 2006)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> bullmarket,
> Before you repeated this again for about the fifth time, I wasn't sure if you were unintelligent or just mildly annoying. Now I know. I was finding your argument amusing before you started repeating it over and over again. It's almost like a small child having an argument with one of their kindergarten friends. " I know you are but what am I" repeated over and again until one grows tired of it and quits. Alright I'm over it.
> 
> Saying the same thing repeatedly is one way to wear down someone during a discussion, and if that makes you feel better then good for you. The fact that you aren't well liked on these boards should give you an indication that this method of arguing isn't going down well with others, and it would be best to stop.
> ...




Professor Frink,

Your above comments are an excellent summary of one of the most immature posters ever encountered on any forum.  Without the disingenous interruptions, this could have been a genuinely interesting and constructive discussion, but once again it has degenerated into a pathetic squabble amongst which the essence of the topic has been lost.

I, for one, am totally fed up with your behaviour, bullmarket.  

Julia


----------



## Bobby (13 June 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> just calling it as I see it
> 
> cheers
> 
> bullmarket



Bull , It seems that you don't care WHAT others think of you on this forum.
Huge amount of posts by you, some ok, most are doctrinaire   this is sad as you could have used your limited gifts to empower some.

Is it ego that creats emulation ?

Take care of yourself .
Bob.


----------



## bullmarket (13 June 2006)

Hi Julia 

you keep saying you don't like my posts, and that's fine but I have suggested on more than 1 occasion that you put me on your ignore list and yet you still read my posts and send posts to me.

So as far as I can tell my posts aren't as annoying to you as you say they are otherwise why keep repeating the same whinges to me instead of adding me to your ignore list   

cheers

bullmarket 

back to the world cup so I'll see you in the soup tomorrow


----------



## The Mint Man (13 June 2006)

hey guys, 
what is this ignore list I have heared about?? does it stop us from seeing people that we have on it?

If so, mabey we could all do a Mass ignore list on BM effectively putting him further into his own little tunel vision world.


> I see the light :aliena:



 oops sorry bout that, just walking in bm's shoes for a sec.
Anyway,
We would be happy as we wouldnt see him and he would be happy as we wouldnt reply.... which could only mean that his storys are so air tight that no one could possibly argue


----------



## ctp6360 (13 June 2006)

Hey Guys, just a friendly reminder to try and stick to the topic of this thread, there are a lot of unrelated posts and personal digs now which is very disappointing. This is a group of very intelligent people and there's nothing wrong with a difference of opinion but I'm sure no one wants to see a whole thread of personal digs and attacks.

So the way I see it is if everyone start submitting posts relevent to this thread  we can keep it to an open an interesting discussion, otherwise we can consider closing the thread. I am happy with either solution.

Joe has suggested use of the Ignore feature before, to ignore a user please go to this URL: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/account/ and add the person's username under the ignore list.


----------



## Joe Blow (13 June 2006)

Yes, it seems another thread has degenerated into petty bickering and gone waaaaay off topic.

Come on people, I am asking everyone to be proactive in avoiding conflict. If someone's posts annoy you then either ignore them or add that person to your ignore list. It's really very simple. Responding to that person merely makes things worse, drags everything out and then the thread ends up like this.



Remember that forums are as frustrating or as rewarding as you want to make them. Ultimately, it's your choice.


----------



## ghotib (13 June 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> I am frankly more concerned about the madness of politically correct behaviour which has seen the Gideon Bibles removed from hospital bedsides, just in case they might offend any Muslim who should occupy the bed!!
> If we were admitted to hospital in a Muslim country, would we be offended at finding the Koran in the bedside drawer?  No, of course not.
> I have no personal interest in the Bible, but we should not be so sycophantic towards other religions that we remove it from our hospitals.
> 
> Julia



Just in the interests of an informed society, MediaWatch looked at this story on 5 June and discovered that it was a beatup at best. It started with the Herald Sun in Melbourne and was picked up all over the country, but the hospitals cited in Victoria and Queensland deny that there is any new policy about bibles in bedside tables, say that bibles are available on request, and in one case quoted by MediaWatch claim that the Brisbane paper grossly misrepresented them (my words).

The MediaWatch transcript is here http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1655732.htm 

It has links to other documents in the case.

Hope that makes you feel a little better?


----------



## visual (14 June 2006)

ghotib said:
			
		

> Just in the interests of an informed society, MediaWatch looked at this story on 5 June and discovered that it was a beatup at best. It started with the Herald Sun in Melbourne and was picked up all over the country, but the hospitals cited in Victoria and Queensland deny that there is any new policy about bibles in bedside tables, say that bibles are available on request, and in one case quoted by MediaWatch claim that the Brisbane paper grossly misrepresented them (my words).
> 
> The MediaWatch transcript is here http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1655732.htm
> 
> ...




The bibles that were found in bedsides tables ,are now available on request,but you never had to request them before they were there if you ever needed them.Sometimes just having the bible there gave people peace of mind or extra comfort,without thinking about asking


----------



## ghotib (14 June 2006)

macca said:
			
		

> Wayne,
> 
> Living where you do I can understand that you don't feel as threatened by terrorists as those who live in the city.
> 
> ...



Well I live in Sydney very close to two of the parts that you might mean. I've encountered some of the mobs of young men you probably mean, and speaking as a smallish, not particularly fit woman I agree that they are very intimidating.  

But they're not the only ones. Any largish group of young men, including boy scouts and senior students at highly regarded private schools, is intimidating. Apart from anything else, they tend to be BIG. And even when their size isn't overwhelming, their natural moments of extreme brainlessness can lead to damage. Car accidents involving happy young men have killed and injured thousands more people than terrorist incidents in any western country I can think of. 

I think it's likely enough that there'll be a terrorist incident somewhere in Australia, and I've dreamt up some scenarios for Sydney that scared me enough to change some habits and to weep on my husband's shoulder enough that he changed some of his. 

However I also think that some of the laws and regulations that have been brought in as "anti-terrorist" measures are actually likely to make things worse. I don't believe that destroying legal protections for all citizens is a sane way to protect a society. 

Better to find ways for all of us to meet real people from groups other than our own. That's how I get reminded all the time that brainless young men are usually kind, funny, confused, curious, HUNGRY, and good company. 

Ghoti


----------



## ghotib (14 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> The bibles that were found in bedsides tables ,are now available on request,but you never had to request them before they were there if you ever needed them.Sometimes just having the bible there gave people peace of mind or extra comfort,without thinking about asking



Some hospitals still do routinely have them at the bedsides. Some of the others changed their practices years ago for reasons to do with infection control rather than cultural differences. None of the public hospitals referred to in the recent news media have banned bibles, as the Herald Sun and the Sunday Mail claimed.

That's all according to MediaWatch. Which might be wrong, but which works very hard to be right because too many mistakes would destroy it.


----------



## Bobby (14 June 2006)

Did you hear on the radio today about a SEX offender in prison that sued & won because he was not fed halaal fresh meat in jail .

The thousands of $ he will get will be paid by us !

Whoever let this happen will answer to the Aussie tax payer I hope  

muslems  eat halaal meat.

Bob.


----------



## bunyip (14 June 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Kennas
> 
> Thanks for expressing my own thoughts so well.  I simply don't understand why people need some God dictating right and wrong to them.  From the quotes taken from the Bible and the Koran in this thread, it seems clear that this God/Gods are putting out some pretty mixed messages anyway, so it's a bit tough for anyone trying to decipher some moral code from either of these  esteemed publications.
> 
> ...




I'm with Julia. All this perceived neccessity of believing in and worshipping some God and belonging to some religion is just unnecessary hogwash. Decent people will live their lives with integrity and consideration for others, irrespective of whether or not they believe the doctrine of Christianity or Islam or any other religion.
The idea that you can't live a decent life and be a decent person without a belief in God, or that you're a better person if you do believe in God, is completely without foundation.
Those crime bosses who are slaughtering each other in the gang wars in Melbourne....quite a few of them are Catholics who attended church, consult regularly with priests, and insist on a Christian burial after they're slain. 
Kind of makes a mockery of the whole God/Christian thing doesn't it!

As Julia has correctly pointed out, the mixed messages being put out by God/gods, and also by the various religious texts, make it difficult to decipher their moral codes.
There's just too much contradiction in religion to take it seriously. The bible is a case in point.
'Thou shalt not kill' is one of the commandments in the bible. Yet when you read further into the bible you see numerous examples of it encouraging and glorifying murder.
One such example is the command "If your son is a drunkard, he should be taken outside the city gates and stoned to death".
Great stuff! Your teenage son has a night out on the town with his friends, gets drunk as teenage boys tend to do, so his penalty from you, his loving parent, is that you stone him to death!
It's this kind of ridiculous garbage that makes a mockery of the bible and it's various commands such as 'Thou shart not kill'.
I could name lots of other glaring contradictions from the bible, but I won't bother.....anyone who has studied the bible will already be well aware of these contradictions.

I know lots of decent people who don't belong to Christianity or any other religion, and don't worship any God, and yet they live decent, ethical lives and they genuinely try to help others.
I know others who are regular church goers, are always pushing the Christian/God wheelbarrow, and in their day to day lives they live without honesty, without integrity, without consideration for others, and without most of the other qualities of decent people.

The world would be a better place without religions, and some religious people would be better human beings if they focused less on religion and more on developing some integrity and decency in their personal character.

Bunyip


----------



## bullmarket (14 June 2006)

Hi bunyip

Yes I agree 100% that people can live very good lives without believing in a God - that goes without saying imo.

I also think that a lot of the perceived inconsistancies are due to some taking too literally what is written in the Bible without consideration of the context a verse was written in and the writing styles of the prophets etc at ~600BC when the Old Testament was written (as discussed in earlier posts).

But even if there are some genuine inconsistancies, that to me just means that the authors had most probably misunderstood some particular concept, culture/way of life back in those days and in no way proves there is no God.

For me, whether someone believes in God or not basically boils down to whether they believe that Jesus Christ existed and whether the miracles and preachings He gave actually happened or not......those that think Jesus Christ did not perform miracles and did not rise from the dead will most likely not believe there is a God.

*Just some    food for thought to ponder*: 

what if there actually is a God and He requires us to have faith and belief in Him whether we live good wholesome lives in this world or not before we could have *any chance * of eternal life in heaven or whatever your equivalent might be.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## professor_frink (14 June 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> Just some  food for thought to ponder:
> 
> what if there actually is a God and He requires us to have faith and belief in Him whether we live good wholesome lives in this world or not before we could have any chance of eternal life in heaven or whatever your equivalent might be.
> 
> ...




As someone who has looked at religion and made the choice of not choosing one, I am curious to hear more about this from you, or anyone else on this board that is religious(moses maybe?). Questions-
1. Do you believe that muslims, christians, jews or any other religion are all worshipping the same god in different ways?
2. If the answer to the above question is yes, do you believe you all have a right to heaven in the afterlife, regardless of differing beliefs within each religion?
4. Or do you believe that as long as someone is worshipping "a god" of somekind that they will be granted a passage to heaven?
5. Is it at all possible, that because the bible and other religious texts are texts written by men, for men, that relgious people of all kinds may be living in a way that is not appropriate enough enjoy the afterlife in heaven?

Any opinions anyone?


----------



## dj_420 (14 June 2006)

Prof Frink

I feel that religion has a common thread, and that is faith. no matter what religion you believe in, it is all about having faith in something. i am a christian and i believe in god. i feel that others are entitled to their own beliefs and to should not be crucified for what they believe in. isnt heaven a different definition in every religion??


----------



## bullmarket (14 June 2006)

Hi PF

These are just my views on your questions and not attempts to impose them on anyone else.



> 1. Do you believe that muslims, christians, jews or any other religion are all worshipping the same god in different ways?




I believe in the God that is referred to in the Bible.  I don't know enough about Islam to form an opinion on whether its God is the same as the one referred to in the Bible but I suspect it isn't solely because Islam does not  recognise Jesus Christ as the Son of God (as he is referred to in the Bible) but as just another prophet like Moses.



> 2. If the answer to the above question is yes, do you believe you all have a right to heaven in the afterlife, regardless of differing beliefs within each religion?




I guess my answer to Q1 is more of a no.



> 4. Or do you believe that as long as someone is worshipping "a god" of somekind that they will be granted a passage to heaven?




I believe that anyone who has access to learning about and following the God in the Bible but chooses, for whatever reason, to either reject Him or worship some other god will have no chance of eternal life in 'heaven' and I believe this solely because that is what Jesus Christ preached......_so it's each to their own beliefs and choices on this one. I'm not trying to impose my view on this._



> 5. Is it at all possible, that because the bible and other religious texts are texts written by men, for men, that relgious people of all kinds may be living in a way that is not appropriate enough enjoy the afterlife in heaven?




Firstly I disagree with "....the bible and other religious texts are texts written by men, for men,......".  The Catholic Church, at least, teaches that although the Old and New Testaments were written by men, the teachings, events, experiences recorded by the prophets, apostles etc are all inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit (the Holy Spirit being the 3rd person in the Holy Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

Therefore imo all the information someone needs to enable them to live a life that will give them a chance for eternal life in heaven is contained in the Bible which although physically written by men is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

So finally, before someone tries to jump down my throat the above are just my views on PF's questions and not an attempt to impose my views on anyone else.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Sean K (14 June 2006)

I think everyones personal God is different in some way and the concept of God is still evolving as we speak. Every culture has a different understanding of the Ultimate and it changes to suit current needs.  We shouldn't be limiting our discussion on the 'religions of the book' either because every indigenous culture has a concept of God, or Gods. Is he an old man with a long flowing beard, or the sun, or love, or an unseen entity floating about through everything? Answer, none of the above. He is whatever you believe it is!  

I agree that faith is a very important aspect when defining what is religion and it's my absolute pet hate of the entire concept. Faith and religious dogma have prevented us from developing as a human species to our maximum potential. It does this by stopping people from asking questions or developing sound rational ideas and arguments about the world we live in. Certainly, The Dark Ages were typified by this approach when religion virtually stopped human kind from progressing. 'Faith' is a tool used by religion to control the population and to provide easy answers to the questions that religion can not satisfactorily provide.  

Oooooh, there's much to talk about here!    

Pick up a book called 'A History of God' by Karen Armstrong. It gives by far the best account of the historical development of the idea of God I have read. And I have a book case full of books titled 'God' or similar!


----------



## Sean K (14 June 2006)

Bull, I think you comment about the books being virtually written by the hand of God, or Holy Spirit, is just another way the church has had to backpedal when being asked rational, logical questions about the development of religious doctrine. Philosophically, it's a sound approach. It's an easy way of diverting us away from the truth. That is, that all the books were written by various people in different locations though time and under different cultural and political conditions. That's why they are contradictory and so different. It's why Abraham's God sits down and has tea with him, while Moseses God is fearful. Surely God wouldn't change over time. There were many books and even parts of the current books that were culled at various councils over the centuries. The editors of each of the books and the Catholic Church have done their best to align them so they seem somewhat logical and ordered, but really, a modern day editor would have a field day with the entire Old and New Testament. Guess God wasn't that logical in his approach to guiding the hands of the men the wrote the books.


----------



## bullmarket (14 June 2006)

Hi kennas

yes no problem  but that is the standard response some people tend to give to try to refute that view....and I accpet anyone is entitled to take that view if they choose to.

Personally, I don't know where the teaching that writings in the Bible are inspired by the Holy Spirit comes from.  It's possible it's actually written in the Bible somewhere or it could come from some other source......but either way I have no reason to not believe it is true.......but again it's each to their own on this one because no-one can conclusively prove that the Bible wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit.

But then it's quite possible that sometimes some of the authors of the Bible misunderstood what they were taught or told by God or more likely in a few cases meanings, contexts etc could have been accidently lost or changed slightly in the Bible's translation to English.

Like I said in an earlier post.  It's the overall messages/teachings that the Bible gives that is most important, not how someone interpretes selected verses taken out of context and applying them to today's world with no consideration for the cultures, laws, writing styles and ways of life back ~2000-3000 years ago when the Old and New Testaments were written.

_I think what we need to remember is that back in the days when the books of the Bible were written the authors had no idea what the world would be like today and with the world a very much different place today, it is very easy to incorrectly apply what was written ~2000 years ago literally to today's world and come up with incorrect/misunderstood interpretations of what was originally meant._

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## bunyip (14 June 2006)

If being a true believer is our ticket to everlasting life in heaven, then I reckon those Melbourne crime bosses who got wiped out in the gang war,  must be laughing! 
Those blokes were Catholics and  regular church goers, so they obviously believed in God. No doubt they were aware of the promise in the bible.....
"Whosever believeth in me shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life".
So according to Christain teaching, these criminals whose business was breaking the law and causing suffering to others,  are languishing somewhere in paradise at this moment, where God has rolled out the welcome mat for them as their reward for being true believers.

But wait......Despite believing in God, they failed to qualify for Heaven becuase of the seedy, criminal lives they led, right?
WRONG! The Catholic teaching is that once a person goes into the confessional box and confesses his sins to a priest and to God, the slate is wiped clean, his sins are forgiven and everything is sweet once again between himself and God.

Therefore we can be pretty confident that those slain criminals played the system while they were alive, by making sure they put in regular sessions in the confessional box, thereby ensuring that, irrespective of their crimes, they kept on good terms with God.

So we can reasonably assume that despite being complete scumbags, those criminals are now enjoying life in heaven with their pal, God.

Such is the twisted thinking of Christianity and Catholicism.

Bunyip


----------



## The Mint Man (14 June 2006)

thats one big DITTO from me


----------



## bullmarket (14 June 2006)

Hi bunyip

please let me clarify a few points re your comments below:



> "Whosever believeth in me shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life".
> So according to Christain teaching, these criminals whose business was breaking the law and causing suffering to others, are languishing somewhere in paradise at this moment, where God has rolled out the welcome mat for them as their reward for being true believers.
> 
> But wait......Despite believing in God, they failed to qualify for Heaven becuase of the seedy, criminal lives they led, right?
> WRONG! The Catholic teaching is that once a person goes into the confessional box and confesses his sins to a priest and to God, the slate is wiped clean, his sins are forgiven and everything is sweet once again between himself and God.




1) It's not as simple as thinking that if you believe in God that you will go to heaven regardless of how you live your life.

"Whosever believeth in me shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life". means also (according to other sections of the Bible) that believing in God must also include following the Ten Commandments basically.  You cannot say you believe in God and then go and peddle drugs and murder people because if you genuinely believe in God and His teachings you wouldn't do those crimes.

2) Regarding Confession.....it is not a free pass or get out of jail card to then go out and recommit the same crimes over and over again.

Part of making a genuine confession is to repent and if someone is genuinely remorseful and wants to repent for previous sins (mortal or venial) then they will not commit those sins again - especially the mortal sins.  If they go out and deliberately recommit especially the more serious mortal sins then  I would imagine they will have a hard time convincing God they were genuinely remorseful and trying to repent when their time comes to be judged by God.

Me personally, I would not want to be in the shoes of the crime bosses you referred to when they meet their maker  no matter how many times they went to Church or confession.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Sean K (14 June 2006)

Bull, 

I think you are confirming that it all depends on the interpretation. Ya?

So, why not therefore take religion, and God out of the picture? No organised religion at all. Let's take the faith, the dogma, and the extraterrestrials, completely out of life. (maybe that would be boring) 

Let's create a philosophy of living based on real life, logical ethics, and 'goodness' that relates to our culture of the day. What is the best way that we can live in our culture right now? Not what was best for Moses, or Jesus, or Muhammad. Surely all those funny little rules and liturgy do not relate to us living in Australia now? 

If we did this, and everyone in this culture agreed that we were living the most appropriate life here in our culture, in our world, we wouldn't be bombing innocent people, or wasting time and money giving 10% of our wages to a church, or preventing africans from using condoms to stop getting HIV, or preventing blood transfusions, or burning witches, or stoning people to death, or not allowing women to go to school, or forcing women to be 'given away' by their fathers at a wedding, yada yada yada. 

On the other hand, maybe we'd do all this crap anyway, and it would just be based on the new 'religion' created: kennasism. It only costs 5% of your wage to join. Plus, you get some steak knives.


----------



## bullmarket (14 June 2006)

Hi kennas



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Bull,
> 
> I think you are confirming that it all depends on the interpretation. Ya?...............................




No, I am not confirming that it all depends on the interpretation.

*Imo, most of the Bible is clear cut in what it means and is saying*.

What I was saying before is that it is very easy for someone to extract a verse or passage out of context and apply it literally to today's world without any consideration for the fact that the authors of the books in the Bible would have had no idea of what the world would be like today and that the cultures, laws, ways of life, writing styles 2000-3000 years ago were very much different to what they are today and hence come up with a misunderstood or worse still twisted interpretation of what was originally written and its true meaning.

_The overall message and teachings of the Bible are clear cut for me._

I have to go for today, so I will see you around tomorrow if you would like to discuss further.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## wayneL (14 June 2006)

Dipping my toe in here...and dipping my hand, I believe there is some overriding, power in the universe, call it, God, the BIG Fella' upstairs, universal intellegence, ultimate truth, Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, Buddha, Shiva, The Great One, Cosmic Intelligence, The Tao, whatever.. I don't care.

Once more I couldn't give a fat rats @rse what anyone else thinks or believes about that.

But one thing I am sure of. The bible, the koran, the sanskrit, the Tao Te Ching, the dead sea scrolls, were all written by MEN. And all men have an agenda.

For the religious, a few questions.

How can a God teach us about forgiveness and be prepared to chuck us into hell and speak of revenge.

How can a God teach us about love and yet encourage us to hate.

How can a God tell us that we should tell the truth, and brag about deception (as is in the case in the bible)

How can a God say we are not saved unless we believe in Jesus Christ and allow his church to absolutely apostosize his message... discouraging belief in Him.

If God is all powerful, why should he even need to be worshipped. This is a need of MEN, the need to be worshipped.

The answer is simple, its because it is men saying all this stuff. Not God or whatever you want to name him.

If there is a God, I believe he would be well pleased (another human emotion superimposed onto the "mind of God") with folks who try to do good, even if they don't believe in him.

I submit that there is a purpose for all there is in the world, including bad. But aren't good and bad merely human constructs as well? What is good and what is bad? How can good exist without bad?

In my most humble and extremely fallible opinion.

Cheers


----------



## The Mint Man (14 June 2006)

BM,
I think we have already established that you think, or even are different to most people. You  seem to be like a tree, firmly planted in one spot (in other words stuborn), to the point that no matter how much the wind blows you dont move an inch (conveniently ignorant). This can be good in a way but in another it can be bad. Very Bad.
To steal a quote from Dr Phil, Hows that working for ya?



			
				bullmarket said:
			
		

> _The overall message and teachings of the Bible are clear cut for me._




I refer you to the quote above and then the various posts, especially wayneL's which quite clearly show that the teachings are not that clear, there are some fairly smart people on here that quite obviously don't get it. Why? because its the most cryptic book you could ever read.
Its not clear cut.... as a matter of fact it is an amazing resemblance of the way you talk/write in riddles.


----------



## Sean K (14 June 2006)

Wayne, I'm not sure of the Tao was written by a man. Lao Tzu is supposed to have written it but we no nothing of him, or her. It could have been God! Maybe.  

All your other points will go into my book. Thanks! (You will be quoted.) he he.


----------



## Bobby (14 June 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> If God is all powerful, why should he even need to be worshipped. This is a need of MEN, the need to be worshipped.




I like the above Wayne   good one !

Bob.


----------



## wayneL (14 June 2006)

Hey just found this link.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

If you're agnostic or an atheist, you might use this to disprove God, as these folks are doing.

That is a shame and not my intention (but each to there own), but to cast a critical eye over RELIGION.

If you do believe in God, it might encourage you do look past the control mechanisms the MEN up in the pulpit might be using on you.

Cheers


----------



## Sean K (14 June 2006)

Great link Wayne! I am sure just about every paragraph will eventually be debunked in some way. We might as well throw the books away and start again.


----------



## Rafa (14 June 2006)

Hey, great debate by the way...

Can i just say something...

There has been a lot of stuff quoted, most of it from the Old Testament of the Bible, which is actually the same stuff that is in the Torah (Jews) and the Koran (muslims)

Now I am a practising Christian... But let me say something, I DO NOT give a hoots about the Old Testament... Unfortunately, fundamentalists Christians, Jews and Muslims, get a lot of their quotes and their drive from the OLD TESTAMENT... Incidentally, Kennas and the Prof also get their quotes from there... and yes, I agree, its a BOOK of WAR!

The OLD TESTAMENT as far as I am concerned is not Christianity... Christianity is Jesus's teaches as written in the First Four Books of the New Testament... (called the GOSPELS)... This is the book Christians should be following... this is the book that I try to follow...

I have a challenge to Kennas and the Prof...
Try and quote anything from the GOSPELS... Jesus's Teachings, where violence of any type, and i repeat ANY TYPE, is condoned...

The GOSPELS are what Christianity is about, not the OLD TESTAMENT or any thing else, because they are an account of Christ’s life and teaching... I am not interested in books written crazy prophets hallucinating in the desert, and I don't think you guys should be either... If you want to understand what it is to be a Christian, then please read the GOSPELS only...

I think for those who you who are trying to live good lives, read the GOSPELS only, and you'll be pleasantly surprised the views expressed there are very similar to yours... (except for the belief in GOD bit... )

Also, can I ask another favour, please then do not look at Christians and say, hang on; they are not following the message for the Gospel... I think KENNAS knows the reason why that is... we are after all only HUMAN!


----------



## crackaton (14 June 2006)

My god I can't believe I started all this lol Anyway it's been good reading even though I don't believe in religion, god or after life. Hope people have gained what they were looking for.


----------



## professor_frink (14 June 2006)

Thanks for your comments before bullmarket, appreciated.

Rafa you are more than welcome to say something!
I have an hour and a half before the soccer starts so I accept that challenge  
Dunno how well I'll go but. In regards to you not giving a hoot about the old testament, as a non religious person I think thats a good thing. I've read the gospels(not for a few years but!), and I have to say I agree with you- It's got a much better message to it

p.s The question I asked bullmarket earlier was addressed to all religious people on these here forums. Do you have an opinion on the questions I asked? Just curious for some feedback on them?


----------



## professor_frink (14 June 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Hey just found this link.
> 
> http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
> 
> ...




Wayne just had a look at their site- they make some good points, but do alot of needless nitpicking. 
Funniest thing ever on it but- If you look on the right hand column where they put their interpretations of the passages, you will sometimes see pictures of lego people. click on it and it opens up something called "the brick testament"

Those guys have way too much time on their hands


----------



## Rafa (14 June 2006)

Yes, was going to answer them Prof... (note, my own opinion here)....



> 1. Do you believe that muslims, christians, jews or any other religion are all worshipping the same god in different ways?
> 2. If the answer to the above question is yes, do you believe you all have a right to heaven in the afterlife, regardless of differing beliefs within each religion?




NO... Christians, by definition, followers of Christ as specified in the GOSPEL, follow Jesus, Jesus says GOD is in reality Three Entities, Father, Son (Jesus Himself) and the Holy Sprit... This GOD is the about Love and Compassion... We must worship GOD and Do unto others as we would like done to us...

As my answer to Qts 1 is NO, i have no opinion on Qts 2. Each to their own...



> 4. Or do you believe that as long as someone is worshipping "a god" of somekind that they will be granted a passage to heaven?




What happened to Qts 3  ... Anyway... most religions have different 'heavens...' (i.e. there are no Virgins mentioned in jesus's heaven!!!) so again, depending on a persons religious beliefs, Heaven could be many things... so I would say, NO, they would not have passage to the Christian Heaven... eg... A Buddhist would go to Nirvana... etc... (hope i've explained that well...)



> 5. Is it at all possible, that because the bible and other religious texts are texts written by men, for men, that relgious people of all kinds may be living in a way that is not appropriate enough enjoy the afterlife in heaven?




When you mention the Bible, I would like you to exclude the GOSPELS... cause those 4 books as close to a historically accurate account of Jesus's teachings as we can get... considering its been 2000yrs ago... and Jesus is GOD... 

the rest of the books are written, as I said earlier, by prophets hallucinating in the desert (old testament) and Jesus's desciples future musings (rest of the new testament).... i.e. written by men, for men…

So in answer to your questions... YES, i agree... for all books except the GOSPELS...

If you are talking about GOSPELS in particular... NO... cause that is the way Jesus wants us to live... and people like you Prof, and Kennas are living that way… besides the belief in GOD bit….  

Hope these answers make sense… once again, they are my opinion...


----------



## Sean K (14 June 2006)

Agree Rafa. That's why it's often called 'The Good News Bible'!!!

I think it's written how it is because of the culture of the day and what the authors wanted to achieve with the books. They finally saw that it was peace and compassion that was important and we should forgive and forget, etc. Anyway, I'll have to check. I'm sure there is something about eternal damnation if you cross JC in there somewhere.  

Still, the book and devine ethics of modern Christianity rest on a demand and a threat (follow or go to hell), not on reasons, and certainly not on reasons prompted by reflection on the facts of human nature and human experience. 

I think we can just do better that's all. Let's raise that bar a bit! Let's not just take the dogma, irrationalism, and what I think has been the failures of religion, and accept that it is the only way. 

If we have a good look around the world it's very easy to see the failures of societies built on religion. Ask the Incans what they think of the Spanish (Catholic) Conquistadors. I recently spent a year on a religious pilgrimage around the globe and I tell you, the Catholic Church has got a lot to answer for in the way it destroyed indigenous cultures. In the name of their God.    

Let's strive for something better. Just being a better Christian doesn't cut it for me. The person that chooses to be good for goods sake is a more ethical person than the one that does it because a book tells them to. Or that they might personally go to heaven. Being a good Christian can be seen as selfishness dressed up as ultruism. It's not too hard to see through it when you really look.

Hope I'm not stepping over the line there. I am probably off the track, and will certainly be going to hell on judgement day, when it comes around.


----------



## wayneL (14 June 2006)

Rafa said:
			
		

> Jesus says GOD is in reality Three Entities, Father, Son (Jesus Himself) and the Holy Sprit




Hello Rafa,

Could you direct me to the passages that explicitly says that.

Thanks


----------



## professor_frink (14 June 2006)

I can't help it. this is too funny!


----------



## Sean K (14 June 2006)

Ooooh, Wayne you've hit one of the classic problems of Christian philosophy and doctrine. The holy Trinity. It makes no sence at all and was argued over for quite a while at the Council of Nicaea by all the top dogs of the Christain world in the 300s. 320 I think. This is a can of worms for any practicing Christian to try and contain. Impossible.


----------



## Rafa (14 June 2006)

I also am flabbergasted with the actions of Churches in the past... to answer why they did that, I think Kennas you should read your own post many pages ago... we are just animals... trying to survive... we use whatever means at our disposal to build our powerbase, and using GOD’s name is the easiest way to do that… But that’s not GOD’s fault is it???

And as for being Good for good sake... thats all well and good... But once again, as you said many posts ago, we are but Humans... Animals... its all about survival, we can't be good for goods sake, unless our religion tells us too...  

Do you really think you are good for goods sake… you are good, because of your upbringing, and that of your parents/mentors up bringing, they were good because of their parents/mentors upbringing, and so on… your set of morals has been inherited… at some point in the line, this goodness would have been based on religion...

One the other matter…
I don't intend it explain the Holy Trinity at all...
Its a matter of Faith... !

you either believe it or your don't! regardless, its the message of how to live your lives that is given in the GOSPELS that counts... 

Wayne, i'm no bible basher..., i am sure you can google it up... 

PS: Footballs on soon, so may not be able to reply till tomorrow morning...


----------



## Julia (14 June 2006)

Rafa said:
			
		

> I also am flabbergasted with the actions of Churches in the past... to answer why they did that, I think Kennas you should read your own post many pages ago... we are just animals... trying to survive... we use whatever means at our disposal to build our powerbase, and using GOD’s name is the easiest way to do that… But that’s not GOD’s fault is it???
> 
> And as for being Good for good sake... thats all well and good... But once again, as you said many posts ago, we are but Humans... Animals... its all about survival, we can't be good for goods sake, unless our religion tells us too...
> 
> ...




Rafa

I think "good" is a problematical term.  It's a subjective concept.

I take issue with your suggestion that if one has some capacity for what you describe as goodness (I would probably say perhaps a moral code, sense of decency or something like that) then that must have religion at its base somewhere. Why?

The only possible connection I can see is the phrase "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" which I believe is from somewhere in the Bible.
Not even sure about that.  This is a phrase which has been currency of our language for so long that if it is indeed from the Bible then most of us would have forgotten that that is the source.

All it means to me is that it makes sense to behave towards other people as I would like them to behave towards me.  I think that covers most of what you might term good, bad and most stuff in between.  It absolutely does not imply any religious connotation whatsoever to me, either now or in the past.

Julia


----------



## Sean K (14 June 2006)

Hi Rafa, Yes, I have said all those things but they are aiming towards the first thing I think we need to do to truly be a good person. And that is to recognise that we are animals fighting to survive. This explains all our bad actions. It explains why we have invented and used religion to explain the origin of the universe and as a force to assist us in defeating our enemies. But until we recognise this, the whole world is fake. It's all a lie. We are living in a dream world. We think we are the rulers of the planet and control it. We do not, and we are killing it by thinking that it is ours to use utterly as God told us in creation theory. We are another organism on the globe and the earth will take us back to where we came in the future if we continue on this consumer path.  We are not a superiour being and God is not going to save us. We have to save ourselves. This recognition is the starting point in being a better human for the planet and for other humans.


----------



## wayneL (14 June 2006)

RE the Trinity

Not trying to make trouble, or have it explained, I just want to know where the bible mentions it, so I can do my own research.

Thats all.

Cheers


----------



## Sean K (14 June 2006)

Julia, I think you are so close to the method by which we can all live in harmony and it is one of the commandments. 'Do unto others as you would have them do to you.' If we all followed that, then there'd be much more peace in the world. I think there is more though, but this could be the foundation.


----------



## The Mint Man (14 June 2006)

Hi Rafa,
Firstly I appreciate your input. Less frustrating then some  



> Jesus says GOD is in reality Three Entities, Father, Son (Jesus Himself) and the Holy Sprit




Boy oh boy have I been in some heated debates about this. As I mentioned in another post, I went to church (Christian) for a few years ... Anyway, I lost count of the number of times I tried to tell people (that say they 'belived in god') about the 3 entities. I used to say 'so you belive that god is jesus and visa versa'? (or something along those lines) this is where the debate used to start, most the time they would start by saying something like 'that cant be right'.
Anyway my point here is that, IMO, there are alot of people out there that say they belive in god but dont fully understand their 'chosen religion'.

Sorry if this is a bit off track.


----------



## Sean K (14 June 2006)

Wayne, 

I'm not sure if it's mentioned in the Bible but it was debated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 and you can google that to find info. 

Here's one: 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

I am sure it's one of the Catechisms of the Catholic Church but I can't find it for now. Too much wine.


----------



## wayneL (14 June 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Wayne,
> 
> I'm not sure if it's mentioned in the Bible but it was debated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 and you can google that to find info.
> 
> ...




Thanks kennas.

If its too contentious an issue then we'll just sidestep it. We don't want this thread degrading into acrimony again. But I just can't remember any reference to it.

Cheers

PS Did y'all know the number of wise men is never mentioned either? Where did we get the "3" wise men from?


----------



## sails (14 June 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> RE the Trinity
> 
> Not trying to make trouble, or have it explained, I just want to know where the bible mentions it, so I can do my own research.
> 
> ...




Wayne, have a look at this:   http://www.allaboutgod.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?zoom_sort=0&zoom_query=trinity  They also have an on-line Bible on their site so easy to look it up.   Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19 seem to be the clearest.

If that link doesn't work - try this one and type "trinity" into the search box. http://www.allaboutgod.com/the-bible.htm

Hope this helps!


----------



## wayneL (15 June 2006)

sails said:
			
		

> Wayne, have a look at this:   http://www.allaboutgod.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?zoom_sort=0&zoom_query=trinity  They also have an on-line Bible on their site so easy to look it up.   Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19 seem to be the clearest.
> 
> If that link doesn't work - try this one and type "trinity" into the search box. http://www.allaboutgod.com/the-bible.htm
> 
> Hope this helps!




Thanks for the links Margaret.


----------



## Sean K (15 June 2006)

Rafa, Your quote:

"And as for being Good for good sake... thats all well and good... But once again, as you said many posts ago, we are but Humans... Animals... its all about survival, we can't be good for goods sake, unless our religion tells us too..."  

Rafa, I think we should aim for being good for goods sake, and come up with our own methods and ways of living to achieve a happy life. Methods that are right for us, in our life time.

Perhaps I am dreaming and this is not possible. Perhaps we do need a dogmatic set of rules and principles based on a supernatural beings statements through his angels and prohpets to keep us in check. What are terrible design we are though if we can't do it through logic. How can we be His children made in His image if we are so corrupted, naturally unethical, etc, etc. And how come I have had a bad back since I was 14 years old. Some master designer.


----------



## bullmarket (15 June 2006)

Hi kennas 

re:



> How can we be His children made in His image if we are so corrupted, naturally unethical, etc, etc. And how come I have had a bad back since I was 14 years old. Some master designer.




The way I think about this is that the world we are in (with both its good and bad/evil features) is a consequence of Adam and Eve taking a bite out of that apple as I described in an earlier post and so I wont repeat it here.

Regarding your bad back.....and I'm not saying that this is the case in your particular circumstances, but earlier when confession was discussed it was only half the story.  Although sins are forgiven in confession God still requires us to do some sort of punishment for our sins.....ie....a bit like a mother telling one of her children that she forgives them for not cleaning their room when they were told but they will still not be allowed to watch TV for a week as punishment.

Now this punishment could be served in this life, through some sort of hardship...ie....illness, loss of some sort etc etc or in the next life in purgatory before we are fit to enter heaven provided we were not in a state of mortal sin when we leave this world or a combination of both.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## visual (15 June 2006)

As I`ve said before I`m not  religious,but this idea that we should be good because it`s right doesnt make sense without the religious basis of the reason for being good,people might still think that cannibalism,is totally acceptable because its what they do.It was through religion that they learned it wasnt,ect...

Having said all that some people do behave as though going to church makes them good,when in fact they are not good at all.

So does God exists I`m not sure,and do I read the bible no,the rules by which we live are reasonbly often revised by the church so they make more sense according to what period we are up to.So God only knows what meaning to put to the Bible.


----------



## Sean K (15 June 2006)

Hi Bull,

Yep, I remember your Adam and Eve comment and this is a convenient way for Christains to explain all the pain and suffering in the world. It is further reason for us to be 'good' so that we get to heaven. It's not a true story though Bull, it's just a metaphor to explain what happens if we do bad things. I believe, and I think there are some Christain Apologists out there who also believe, that many of the stories were never supposed to be taken literally, they are there as little bed time stories to make sure we don't go out and covert thy neighbours wife. The problem has arisen however: just which of these cute stories are actually true and which are, well, cute little stories. 

Now, as for my back: I have a sneaking suspicion that it _is_ stuffed because God doesn't like me. Several years ago a cousin of mine, who is a born again minister in the Potters House church, sat me down and tried to 'heal' me. He went on and on about JC 'healing this back, this back that has been sore,' yada yada yada. Well, the very next week I had to be stretchered off to an ambulance and was in hospital for a week. One week after being healed! He's got it in for me, that nasty Yahweh! I'm sure if I truly believed I'd be fixed though, right?


----------



## Sean K (15 June 2006)

Visual, Your argument why cannibalism is wrong isn't a very good one IMO. Whey does God say it's bad? What is the _reason_? 

Have you read the book, or seen the movie 'Survival', about the Uruguan soccer team that crash in the Andes and no one finds them for yonks. They resort to eating one of their dead mates to survive. Are they going to hell? Or, did they just do what was necessary to live? To survive? It always depends on the circumstances whether you follow Gods laws. For eg, the 'Do not kill' one is fine on the surface, but what about in pure self defence? Or when we go to justified war against Nazi Germany? It always depends doesn't it. We just can't take the laws loch, stock and barrel. So, why have them based on flimsy pretexts like 'because I told you so?' Let's make up some better ones built on logic.


----------



## visual (15 June 2006)

Kennas,
when I mentioned cannibalism it was in reference to a way of living,plenty of cultures practiced cannibalism as a way of life.And now they dont.
Your points are all relevant but on what basis do you think in normal everyday life people would think it was wrong,and we go back to religion and what has been taught to us.I certainly am not going to get into a debate about the meaning of the bible,as I said havent read it and not likely to either.But would you think that killing people for food was wrong without the influence of religion,religion as we know it today which obviously has been passed down the generations.


----------



## bullmarket (15 June 2006)

Hi kennas



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Hi Bull,
> 
> Yep, I remember your Adam and Eve comment and this is a convenient way for Christains to explain all the pain and suffering in the world. It is further reason for us to be 'good' so that we get to heaven. It's not a true story though Bull, it's just a metaphor to explain what happens if we do bad things. I believe, and I think there are some Christain Apologists out there who also believe, that many of the stories were never supposed to be taken literally, they are there as little bed time stories to make sure we don't go out and covert thy neighbours wife. The problem has arisen however: just which of these cute stories are actually true and which are, well, cute little stories.
> 
> Now, as for my back: I have a sneaking suspicion that it _is_ stuffed because God doesn't like me. Several years ago a cousin of mine, who is a born again minister in the Potters House church, sat me down and tried to 'heal' me. He went on and on about JC 'healing this back, this back that has been sore,' yada yada yada. Well, the very next week I had to be stretchered off to an ambulance and was in hospital for a week. One week after being healed! He's got it in for me, that nasty Yahweh! I'm sure if I truly believed I'd be fixed though, right?




I believe the 'concept' of the Adam and Eve story is true.......now whether the 'apple test' happened *exactly * as described in the Bible I do not know....but I do believe that some sort of test was placed on 'someone' and they failed it and so I believe the consequences of that failure are as I described earlier.

I suppose that's why they call it 'faith'......ie...believing something that cannot be physically proved one way or the other.....and so I suppose we all make our choices on what we choose to believe. 

Regarding your back - in your case I'd suggest finding a good phsiotherapist   

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Sean K (15 June 2006)

I actually think killing any animal is wrong unless we absolutely need to do it for our survival. Call me an animal lover, but I don't really like eating anything that had a mother. Except a meat pie at the footy now and then. I think humans were originally designed to eat meat as our teeth are made to tear, but that could be for bark. Bark's not very tasty though. 

Anyway, eating humans isn't on my menu because I like humans alive. They are good fun to talk to, have their own family and friends and can positively contribute to a better world. So, I like them alive, and they like to be alive too.  I'm not sure how tasty they'd be anyway. Too fatty for the most part these days.  

I think the fact we have emotions and can sympathise means we wouldn't like putting humans on the menu. Back to the 'do unto others' principle. I wouldn't like to be served up as someones entree so best I don't eat you.

Of course, you are right, we have done it through history. Not long ago in the highlands of PNG actually. I think the reason though, was that they ate their enemies after they'd killed them in battle as a sign of respect. I could be wrong, they might have just been hungry.

Anything happening on the market today?


----------



## visual (15 June 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> I actually think killing any animal is wrong unless we absolutely need to do it for our survival. Call me an animal lover, but I don't really like eating anything that had a mother. Except a meat pie at the footy now and then. I think humans were originally designed to eat meat as our teeth are made to tear, but that could be for bark. Bark's not very tasty though.
> 
> Anyway, eating humans isn't on my menu because I like humans alive. They are good fun to talk to, have their own family and friends and can positively contribute to a better world. So, I like them alive, and they like to be alive too.  I'm not sure how tasty they'd be anyway. Too fatty for the most part these days.
> 
> ...




Do unto others
based on religion.
(how would you know it wasnt how you wanted to be treated if you hadnt been taught that it was wrong)
about the PNG,only a short time ago  sixty minutes featured the story of a six year old destined for the table because somehow he was being blamed for the death of two people.

And in India people are being killed because they are being accused of witchcraft,not cannibalism but I did say ect.


----------



## Sean K (15 June 2006)

Yeah Visual, the 'do unto others' thing is in the bible, but I don't accept it just because of that. I think it's a solid principle that we can base our actions on to create a better world and be better people. Not to get to heaven. There are many good ideas in all the books of religion and Buddhism and Taoism. I don't accept them all, just the ones I can apply to my life here in sunny Melbourne. 

I would like to add a commandment. 'Thau shall go to the MCG for a Boxing Day test at least once in your life.' Perhaps the Muslims could do this one instead of the Hajj too. Mecca is just too far away.


----------



## Rafa (15 June 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Do unto others
> based on religion.
> (how would you know it wasnt how you wanted to be treated if you hadnt been taught that it was wrong)




I think Visual has nailed it... Yes, Julia and Kennas, do unto others, etc... its the way to live... and it is based on a religion...



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Julia, I think you are so close to the method by which we can all live in harmony and it is one of the commandments. 'Do unto others as you would have them do to you.' If we all followed that, then there'd be much more peace in the world. I think there is more though, but this could be the foundation.




But Julia, you did not invent that methodology... History will record that it was invented many years ago, by the founder of a religion... Infact its one of the principle requirements of a follower of this particular religion/s, and claiming it as something you have just thought up out of the blue... is well, breach of copyright... (ooops, just did a Legal Studies course...  )... 

That teaching, that philosophy has been passed down by your ancestors... and you have inherited those set of morals... whether you like it or not, someone has taught you those morals... or you have read a book written by someone else who morals have been gained by that teaching... (i hope i am explaining this well enough...)

All i am saying is, while many of us discount the value of religion, esp christianity, many of us follow a lot of the principles of a religion, and hence to say if christinanity was never invented, we would have been better off, is to discount the very reason for your own set of morals... and to discount the very reason we are able to enjoy our present way of life... which, for the most part, is rather peacefull, loving, compassionate, kind and generous...


----------



## Ageo (15 June 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> I actually think killing any animal is wrong unless we absolutely need to do it for our survival. Call me an animal lover, but I don't really like eating anything that had a mother. Except a meat pie at the footy now and then. I think humans were originally designed to eat meat as our teeth are made to tear, but that could be for bark. Bark's not very tasty though.




Hehe i hunt regular and enjoy it very much. Too me i love animals and respect them but i also know that they are a major food source. The wild meat that i aquire is 10x better than the processed crap you get from the shops.

 

each to his own i reckon


----------



## professor_frink (15 June 2006)

Rafa said:
			
		

> But Julia, you did not invent that methodology... History will record that it was invented many years ago, by the founder of a religion... Infact its one of the principle requirements of a follower of this particular religion/s, and claiming it as something you have just thought up out of the blue... is well, breach of copyright... (ooops, just did a Legal Studies course...  )...
> 
> That teaching, that philosophy has been passed down by your ancestors... and you have inherited those set of morals... whether you like it or not, someone has taught you those morals... or you have read a book written by someone else who morals have been gained by that teaching... (i hope i am explaining this well enough...)
> 
> All i am saying is, while many of us discount the value of religion, esp christianity, many of us follow a lot of the principles of a religion, and hence to say if christinanity was never invented, we would have been better off, is to discount the very reason for your own set of morals... and to discount the very reason we are able to enjoy our present way of life... which, for the most part, is rather peacefull, loving, compassionate, kind and generous...




You make some great points rafa. Whether someone agrees with what you've said or not doesn't matter, it's good that a religious person can discuss it calmly with people who aren't religious.
That last paragraph is quite well put- now all we have to do is get some of todays religious leaders to stop quoting biblical passages to justify their stance against things like homosexuality, and start making comments like the one you just did. It would definately boost the credibility of religion with us non-religious folks!

p.s I haven't forgotten about your challenge- after getting up to watch brazil and croatia yesterday morning, and not going to bed until spain v ukraine, I'm struggling to put my analytical hat on today! I'm hearing my bed calling me- "sleep in me frinky, sleep in me!" Hopefully I'll get to looking at it soon.


----------



## Rafa (15 June 2006)

How good was Spain eh... Xabi Alonso and Garcia... If only Liverpool had enuf cash to buy Torres...

Ah... what were we talking about... football, religion, ISTANBUL, its all the same...  

Ok... 

Religion is a very beautiful thing, as long as you look at it in the right point of view... its a philosophy on how to live your life, in harmony with other humans, with nature and with your Creator...

When it comes to the 'divisive' issues of today... Its important to ask one question, What would Jesus do... The answer can be found be reading the Gospels... Yes there is a RIGHT and WRONG, but NO ONE is an OUTCAST, and we must treat others as we would like ourselves to be treated...

The rest of the RULES are made by HUMANS... !!! To me, following them is OPTIONAL! but yes, I still go to Church once a week... to give thanks to GOD for giving me a great life... and that, for me, is the right thing to do...



NOW... do Christians actually follow Christs Teachings... ??? 
But does that make Christianity and Christ and GOD the villain... NO!!!


so.... Prof, once you've recovered, i await your response to the challenge...


----------



## professor_frink (15 June 2006)

Rafa, just came to the conclusion I am religious- football is my religion  .
It's a harsh religion that involves me neglecting my girlfriend by staying up all night watching the tv while she sleeps in bed, but it's my religious duty to do such things. Liverpool boys were great, but It's to be expected- look who they play for!! Torres was a target for them, but is a little pricey! kuyt is also still on the list, but is a little too expensive. Where is our russian billionare? Stupid chelsea.

What day is it? Don't even know at the moment  . I should have time and energy on the weekend for a thorough reading of the gospels. Until then my religious football following friend.........


----------



## Prospector (15 June 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> Hi kennas
> 
> re:
> 
> ...





Wow, Mr Bull, this is the first time I have read of someone with a Christian perspective actually linking physical difficulties with some kind of holy punishment.

So, babies and children who develop serious illnesses like Leukemia are being punished for what?  Or is it maybe their parents?

I totally object to the texts that are read in the Christening service which say that the Christening is needed to purify the sinner (or words to that effect)- we are talking about a 6 week old baby here - what sins did they commit?  Babies are born pure!  Christianity suggests we are inherently bad without it -  I am old enough not to worry about the guilt stuff.  Purgatory - well, I don't believe in that either.

Live Julia's creed, do without the guilts and retribution associated with religion and we would start to live together.

On the original topic, I am far more likely to suffer the effects of a mentally ill person that our society has mistreated, than the effects of a terrorist.  The terrorist gets more headlines though so we are being treated to the fear campaign from the media.  I have always thought you get way more sympathy by being blown up by a terrorist than being knocked over by a drink driver.  Funny thing that!


----------



## bullmarket (15 June 2006)

Hi mrs prospector



			
				Prospector said:
			
		

> .............So, babies and children who develop serious illnesses like Leukemia are being punished for what?  Or is it maybe their parents?
> 
> I totally object to the texts that are read in the Christening service which say that the Christening is needed to purify the sinner (or words to that effect)- we are talking about a 6 week old baby here - what sins did they commit?  Babies are born pure!  Christianity suggests we are inherently bad without it -  I am old enough not to worry about the guilt stuff.  Purgatory - well, I don't believe in that either......................




Let me clarify a couple of things you have clearly misunderstood.

1) In my earlier post I said 



> Now this punishment could be served in this life, through some sort of hardship...ie....illness, loss of some sort etc etc or in the next life in purgatory before we are fit to enter heaven provided we were not in a state of mortal sin when we leave this world or a combination of both.




*which undeniably states that the punishment for our sins could be served in this life OR in the next life and in no way suggests that every illness suffered by anyone is some sort of 'Holy punishment'*

Of course a 6 week old baby, as per your example, is not capable of sinning and so any illness he/she unfortunately suffers is not a punishment.

2) Christening/Baptism is much more than just 'purifying' the person being christened.....if you google using something like baptism, christening etc etc I'm sure you'll find plenty more info on the meaning and purpose of Baptism and Christenings if interested so I'm not going to go into it here.

But to clarify a misconception you have about babies being born pure, in at least the Catholic religion everyone is born with 'Original Sin' (again you can google it for more info if interested) which is the sin that Adam and Eve commited when they ate that infamous apple. Baptism removes the Original Sin.

I hope this clarifies a few things for you 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Prospector (15 June 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> But to clarify a misconception you have about babies being born pure, in at least the Catholic religion everyone is born with 'Original Sin' (again you can google it for more info if interested) which is the sin that Adam and Eve commited when they ate that infamous apple. Baptism removes the Original Sin.





OK, Mr B, I have quickly read this thread because it is a bit long and have probably skipped on a few things : 

Doesnt it worry you, just a tad, that the Church labels something as natural as the birth of a baby, as also having the Original sin?  Seriously, do you actually believe in that?  I just cant get my head around the concept.

Were Adam and Eve born with the original sin, or did they just create the mess for everyone else!  Was it the eating of the apple that did it or is that just the metaphor for sex.  If the latter then who created Adam and Eve.  I am not trying to be a smarty, I just cant get it!


Actually I googled this and came up with: Sexy Angelina Jolie turns on the heat as a mysterious woman whose insatiable lust for her new husband (Antonio Banderas) is exceeded only by her desire for ...


----------



## bullmarket (15 June 2006)

Hi again Mrs P 

no, Adam and Eve were not born with original sin but them succumbing to temptation and eating 'that apple' was the first sin ever committed and I suppose hence the name 'original sin'.

if you are interested, I describe in an earlier post my understanding and beliefs of the consequences for mankind after Adam and Eve took that fateful bite.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Julia (15 June 2006)

Rafa said:
			
		

> I think Visual has nailed it... Yes, Julia and Kennas, do unto others, etc... its the way to live... and it is based on a religion...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Rafa

Of course I didn't invent it.  However, I think I can see what you are getting at, and it's a reasonable suggestion.

I am actually agnostic - I have no idea if there is a God or not.  I have complete respect for anyone who says "I believe in God.  I cannot explain it and I cannot prove it.  That is the nature of faith".  Fine.  That's a personal belief.

I'd genuinely like to know more about what having this sort of faith means in people's lives and if anyone feels like sharing that, then I'd be grateful.
e.g. is it because it gives your life a sense of structure?  A sense of not having to make some decisions because God has a plan for you which you cannot alter?  A sense of comfort when things are tough that you have some sort of spiritual father figure?  Anything else?

What I do dislike intensely is organised, dogmatic extreme religion of all varieties.  Don't care whether it's Christianity, Islam or anything else.
This inevitably involves zealots who are intent on converting everyone else to their way of thinking and will go to all sorts of lengths to achieve that end.

I'm happy for everyone to believe whatever they want and to privately practice what makes them feel good.  But, just like our taste in food, fashion or sexual preference, we shouldn't try to force it onto others or condemn them because they don't share our convictions.

The last paragraph is just a general statement - not a suggestion that anyone on this thread was trying to force their beliefs on to others.

Julia


----------



## Sean K (15 June 2006)

Rafa in regards to your quote:

"The rest of the RULES are made by HUMANS... !!! To me, following them is OPTIONAL! but yes, I still go to Church once a week... to give thanks to GOD for giving me a great life... and that, for me, is the right thing to do.."

Are you saying that you don't follow the law of the day, just what's in the Good Book? Isn't that like Sharia and what the Muslim extremists are wanting to do. Surely not. Maybe you mean just some of the things in the bible are what Jesus intended, and some of it is just what the authors and editors thought. 

And, I don't give thanks to God for anything. My thanks are to my parents, my family, friends and aquaintences who make this life what it is. I don't believe that anyone else is responsible but these humans around me and the natural world. Life is not in the hands of the Gods but in the hands of those around us and in nature. Having that perspective on the world will mean we treat one another and nature in much higher regard and respect and the world will be a better place. IMHO, of course. 

Defering to God to solve all of our problems or blaming him for world events is a bit of a cop out isn't it? 

He does work in mysterious ways though I suppose. I really liked how he saved the two miners down in Tassie but killed the other one. How remarkable was it to see the town folk all at church looking up to the heavens thanking the Lord for saving the two blokes. But, I'm sure the guy who died must have deserved it because he had sinned, or he had in a past life!


----------



## The Mint Man (15 June 2006)

BM, Rafa, anyone else that would care to answer.
Question, If a baby dies at birth (obviously not baptised) where do they go?




> What I do dislike intensely is organised, dogmatic extreme religion of all varieties. Don't care whether it's Christianity, Islam or anything else.
> This inevitably involves zealots who are intent on converting everyone else to their way of thinking and will go to all sorts of lengths to achieve that end.



Hear what your saying... I have seen many people go to church only to be scared away by people such as this, I even feel I could possibly be one of those scared off people. It really does leave you wondering..... Definitly makes you look at all religous people in a bad way!! constantly wondering what their agenda is.
Is that fair??? probably not BUT its a Bit the same as us having to pay for 'someone elses sins'  isnt it?


----------



## bullmarket (15 June 2006)

hi kenna 

re:



> He does work in mysterious ways though I suppose. I really liked how he saved the two miners down in Tassie but killed the other one.




It's a fact that we all will be leaving this world one day and so with the above I suppose you can ask Him when you meet Him   : 

I suppose what you are asking is the same as asking why in a car collision do sometimes some survive and some die.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## bullmarket (15 June 2006)

Hi MM

if a baby dies before it has had an opportunity to be baptised then my understanding is that it will go to heaven.

In earlier posts I said that baptism is much more than just the removal of the 'original sin' that we are all born with....there is truck loads of info on baptism and it's meaning and purpose on the www if you google it so I won't go into it here.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Sean K (15 June 2006)

Bullmarket, yes I am. The world is quite arbitrary. Chaos abounds. God does not interfere in the everyday events of humans. It's fruitless to pray to something that will not assist. Unless, you're saying he does? Then I suppose it's different. Then, it means that those who do not pray, or have faith will be punished. Like me and my bad back! Ouch, I need an antiinflamatory. Or, I should pray!


----------



## The Mint Man (15 June 2006)

> if a baby dies before it has had an opportunity to be baptised then my understanding is that it will go to heaven



Cool! My thinking was along those lines aswell... this subject is close to home.


----------



## The Mint Man (15 June 2006)

on another note,
what about a child that dosn't have a choice and is not baptised? what about them?
as they cant exactly say ' see ya mum and daddyO, just goin down to the local church to be baptised'... 'might stop off at the pub on the way home'(ignore that last bit)


----------



## bullmarket (15 June 2006)

Hi kennas



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Bullmarket, yes I am. The world is quite arbitrary. Chaos abounds. God does not interfere in the everyday events of humans. It's fruitless to pray to something that will not assist. Unless, you're saying he does?......................




I disagree. I believe God can and does 'interfere' with our daily lives if He chooses to.....................and please don't ask me how He decides who and how to help because I'm not a mind reader and I don't have an answer for that one. : 

Personally, I believe that anyone with a genuine faith and belief in God will have their prayers answered but not always with the answer they like   ...........a bit like a 6 year old continously nagging mum for lollies but rarely being given any   

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## visual (15 June 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Bullmarket, yes I am. The world is quite arbitrary. Chaos abounds. God does not interfere in the everyday events of humans. It's fruitless to pray to something that will not assist. Unless, you're saying he does? Then I suppose it's different. Then, it means that those who do not pray, or have faith will be punished. Like me and my bad back! Ouch, I need an antiinflamatory. Or, I should pray!




Kennas,are you expecting some kind of personal service,your bad back could be the result of misdiagnosis,possible.Or you doing something wrong and damaging it,surely you dont expect God to protect you from yourself?Just asking :


----------



## bullmarket (15 June 2006)

Hi MM



			
				The Mint Man said:
			
		

> on another note,
> what about a child that dosn't have a choice and is not baptised? what about them?
> as they cant exactly say ' see ya mum and daddyO, just goin down to the local church to be baptised'... 'might stop off at the pub on the way home'(ignore that last bit)




sorry MM but I really don't know what the answer to that one is   I suppose it depends on the age of the child and whether they genuinely have an opportunity to be baptised or not.

imo, maybe google the www for baptism and/or pop back and visit your local parish priest and ask him.  I'm sure he will be able to give you much more reliable info than I can on your above scenario.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Sean K (15 June 2006)

Mint Man, These are great points and display another chink in the religion armour. This is not easily explained away.  

One classic thing in Islam is that if a woman is menstruating during Ramadan then they can not be 'clean' during the month which means they can not satisfy the requirements of one of the Five Pillas. In extremist Islam this means that women will always be inferior to men because they cannot satisfy the faith. This is true! They have overcome this in more modern, moderate, Islamic countries like Indonesia by saying that if a women is mentruating, she must make up for that time of being 'unclean' at the end of Ramadan. So, effectively, they just do a few days more fasting to get the required tick in the box. Another great example of the religion been designed by men for men at a time where women were virtually slaves. And in Sharia, are.


----------



## Rafa (15 June 2006)

will try to answer both your comments...



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> What I do dislike intensely is organised, dogmatic extreme religion of all varieties. Don't care whether it's Christianity, Islam or anything else.
> This inevitably involves zealots who are intent on converting everyone else to their way of thinking and will go to all sorts of lengths to achieve that end.




Spot on... i think we are both in agreement on that one... 




			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Rafa in regards to your quote:
> Are you saying that you don't follow the law of the day, just what's in the Good Book?




Yes, tho by Good Book, I don't mean the Bible, only the first 4 books of the New Testament... I certainly don't follow the Old Testament, which is what Sharia Law is based on....

I think if you read just those 4 books, and I know the Prof has taken up the challenge, you might be pleasantly surprised...




			
				kennas said:
			
		

> And, I don't give thanks to God for anything....
> 
> Having that perspective on the world will mean we treat one another and nature in much higher regard and respect and the world will be a better place. IMHO, of course.




personally, i trust GOD more than fellow humans... and kind actions of humans are God working thru them... but we are both entitled to our individual opinions there...

re the miners... well, again, I thank GOD for all the good things that happen to me and all the bad things... I am an eternal optimist and believe everything happens for the best... including the current stock market crash, :swear:  :swear:  :swear: even tho it hasn't done me any good, i am sure there is a reason for it!!!! Hmmm!!!  

and finally...


			
				Julia said:
			
		

> I'm happy for everyone to believe whatever they want and to privately practice what makes them feel good. But, just like our taste in food, fashion or sexual preference, we shouldn't try to force it onto others or condemn them because they don't share our convictions.




I agree with that, but can I just be the devils advocat, so to speak, and ask you this question... 

Your conviction is ‘Love thy Neighbour…etc, etc ‘ right? Is there any good in you following the 'Love thy neighbour...' principle, but your neighbour following the Law of the Jungle... i.e. strike first, survival...., whatever...??? 

There is a good chance you might get clobbered on the head one day for ticking him off! 

Hence, Julia, (and Kennas and others), I think its in your best interest to spread your message of Love thy Neighbour, to the whole world, cause its only when the whole world understands that message, can you expect that way of life, to become reality...

I'll leave you with that thought...


----------



## Sean K (15 June 2006)

Visual, It's my mums fault I have a bad back. And playing Australian Football. My cousin, the born again minister, was sure he could fix me during a 'healing' ceremony though. Red wine helps with the back too...


----------



## bullmarket (15 June 2006)

Hi kenna



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Mint Man, These are great points and display another chink in the religion armour. This is not easily explained away.....................




Imo the answer to the first point MM raised is straight forward and I gave it.

His second point most probably has a straight forward answer as well but I don't know what it is without googling or asking a priest as I suggested as an option to MM ......maybe someone else here can help MM out with the answer.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Sean K (15 June 2006)

Rafa, Yes, love is the answer. Unfortunetly, my love is in India at the moment so I just have to talk to you characters.


----------



## visual (15 June 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Visual, It's my mums fault I have a bad back. And playing Australian Football. My cousin, the born again minister, was sure he could fix me during a 'healing' ceremony though. Red wine helps with the back too...




So really you are determined to blame someone anyone for your back.
And as for this great healer,what made you think he could fix your back,he sounds like someone quite prepared to use religion as a deceiving tool,again a man foible nothing to do with God or anyone else.,
As for the red wine,its good even without a bad back,or do you reckon I`d enjoy it more if I had a bad back,just jocking


----------



## Rafa (15 June 2006)

Kennas, on the bright side, that should help your bad back...


----------



## Sean K (15 June 2006)

Visual, I've got a sore wrist too though so it's all bad.


----------



## Sean K (15 June 2006)

Ooops, I meant Rafa. This damn Shiraz!


----------



## Sean K (15 June 2006)

:goodnight  :goodnight


----------



## yogi-in-oz (16 June 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Rafa
> 
> 
> I am actually agnostic - I have no idea if there is a God or not.  I have complete respect for anyone who says "I believe in God.  I cannot explain it and I cannot prove it.  That is the nature of faith".  Fine.  That's a personal belief.
> ...






Hi Julia,

..... addressing the questions you have raised is a worthwhile
exercise for all of us, but Christians especially, as it affords 
them an opportunity for some personal  and timely introspection.                    

=====

Is it because it gives your life a sense of structure?

Yes  ... it's partly a sense of being able to place ourselves within the framework 
of God's plan for us, helps us to know ourselves better and position ourselves 
for living in the light of Christ, using the Holy Trinity as our life guide.

Seeking out and exploiting our natural and learned talents, to achieve our own 
proper goals is within God's overall plan for this world.

=====

A sense of not having to make some decisions because God has a plan for you which you cannot alter?  

On the contrary,  it is because we DO HAVE CHOICE in every 
move we make, that Christians have to make very conscious 
decisions, in a continuous battle between right and wrong.

Fortunately, we all know the difference, between right and 
wrong or goodness and evil, Since the Crucifixion, we have 
had the support of the Trinity, by the  work of the Holy Spirit 
within us all .... part of its job, is to continuously make us 
aware of right and wrong as we make the hundreds of 
choices, that we must face in our daily routine.

So, while God may have an overall life plan for us to live in a Christ-like 
manner and be delivered to Him in the End Times, we have TOTAL control
over the DECISIONS we make, about HOW our individual lives will unfold.

=====

A sense of comfort when things are tough that you have some sort of spiritual father figure?  

Having FAITH is only ONE of the many intangibles that help to mould 
Christian lives, with many others coming into play, like HOPE, LOVE, 
CHARITY, FORGIVENESS, HONESTY, PATIENCE and PRAYER .... and 
there  may be others that you can add yourself, as well ..... 

W.D. Gann's last book "THE MAGIC WORD" (pp 33-40) lists many Bible
quotes, but there's one particular quote by Paul in 1 Cor 13:13 that seems
to stand out in the chiastic structure, in Chapters 12, 13 and 14.

In context, Chapter 13 deals with the intangible gifts mentioned above,
but the central theme is summed up very well, in 1 Cor 13:13 ... :

"Meanwhile, these three remain; FAITH, HOPE and LOVE; and the
greatest of these is LOVE." 

.... LOVE being the CENTRAL THEME of the chiasm in 1 Cor 12, 13 and 14, 
where we read about those intangible gifts, that we ALL receive from the
Holy Spirit.

Since we all possess these gifts through God's Grace, it is natuiral for us
to lean on Him, especially when we are procrastinating over some tough
decision.

=====

Anything else?

Sin has also been raised in this thread and it is an issue that we all face on a
continual basis, when making our everyday decisions.

If we view the Bible, as a history of the heavens and earth, then Genesis
gives us Creation, including the animals and finally humankind.

Those animals, as they continue even today, were sinless creatures.

In contrast, humans were given higher intelligence, including the faculty of 
reason, which also brought with it responsibility for ALL the decisions we
make in our lives.

Since Adam was disobedient and responsible for the decision that led 
to the Original Sin, all of Adam's descendants (all of us) have the trait
of sinners within us ..... this is part of the concept, as we learn of the 
Church (community), as a corporate body.                                                                         

Fortunately Christians believe, that God loves humans so much, that he
was prepared to sacrifice Christ, His Son so that ALL of OUR sins have
ALREADY been forgiven ..... all that is required of Christians, is to 
BELIEVE and ACCEPT Christ, as our Saviour.

=====

Before signing off, here's a short story about how we can learn about 
the value and power of LOVE for each other ..... and it can surface in
our lives, when it is least expected ..... !~!

For example just yesterday,  we had occasion to visit a 42 year-old woman
with both physical and mental disabilities, in an effort to resolve a bungle,
where her husband/carer has been denied access to his wife.

As a result of a restraining order not being lifted from the husband, even 
after it had been so ordered by the courts, it has caused both husband
and wife considerable anxst, as it is the wish of both husband and his
wife to be reunited, ASAP.

To hear how this woman spoke about the LOVE for her husband, during
the course of the interview,  was just amazing. Despite having 3 other 
carers attend to her needs throughout any week, the only one that she 
really wants in her life,  is her husband/carer.

"He is always so kind to me and I just love him soooo much", probably 
does not convey the message as well as the tone of her voice and her body
language, as she clutched  her heart, every time she spoke about him.

Enough.

=====

Of course, there's much more to say on many issues, that 
have been raised in this thread, but we end this note here for
fear of boring other people, with an extended monologue, 
that some may construe as a sermon ..... lol ... 


have a great day

  yogi


----------



## Julia (16 June 2006)

Hello Yogi

Thank you.  You've made a really genuine effort to explain what your beliefs mean to you.  I suspect you would act in a moral way anyway, without the need for the religious reinforcement, but completely respect your point of view, largely because you don't make any attempt to be evangelistic about what you believe.

All the best and thanks for your response.

Julia


----------



## Sean K (16 June 2006)

Ooooh, Yogi, I wish I could respond but this is the Al Qaeda thread.


----------



## bullmarket (16 June 2006)

well said yogi 

cheers

bullmarket


----------

