Jesus H. Christ

On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 09:56:08 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:18:25 -0500, Gordon
wrote:

The main problem here is that many seem to try to get by with a
simplistic, literal interpretation of the Bible.

Why not? A simplistic literal interpretation of the laws of physics
works quite well. It's only fair to compare like with like.

Rod.

The laws of physics apply to this physical realm. The Word of God
applies to the spiritual realm. We can't put the two into the same
box. Gordon

Al Drake wrote:

On 8/5/2015 12:32 AM, Stef wrote:
Al Drake wrote:

On 8/4/2015 11:06 AM, Stef wrote:
Al Drake wrote:

On 8/3/2015 6:14 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
Vitalic wrote:
On 8/3/2015 5:31 PM, ray carter wrote:
I didn't realize that was his middle initial.


yep, Herbert

Harold
as in
"Our father, which art in heaven, Harold be thy name".

Ed
His father's name was Harold.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...esus+H.+christ

H stood for Haploid since Jesus has no human father.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/haploid

If you believe what the Bible says. I never did. Not even as an 8 year
old.

Stef

How can anyone believe anything when the goal posts keep getting
moved? Most now look at the King James Version. It's like relying on an
operating system and then the terms of use get changed.

The bottom line it that the bile was written by humans.

Worse than that: The Bible was written and, later, assembled by
BELIEVERS. To find the extent and bias of that belief, read about all
that was left OUT!

Stef

I have first hand knowledge of what it's like to be a "believer". I
was raised by a woman who was a "believer". Her husband had a BLACK BELT
in "believing". To this day that old lady "believes" till it hurts
everyone around her.

Fanatics, particularly religious ones, are the worst. Intractable.
Totally without reason. I could never understand how someone could be
rational when it comes to everything else except their religion. Of
course, maybe, I was the one not normal: I was rational about
everything.


There's plenty left out but most believers I was exposed to had plenty
of their own stuff to add.

And some of the stuff they come up with, I don't know where they
got it. They don't either. One of the bad things about blind belief.

The Fifteen Commandments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah-WdAwVg9c

Mel Brooks as Moses. Type casting? Funny man. Great satirist.

Stef

On 08/03/2015 05:14 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
Vitalic wrote:
On 8/3/2015 5:31 PM, ray carter wrote:
I didn't realize that was his middle initial.


yep, Herbert

Harold
as in
"Our father, which art in heaven, Harold be thy name".

Ed

I always had a problem with that use of "art". It sounds too much like
"aren't".

--
If God is perfect, why did He create discontinuous functions?

Gordon wrote:

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:01:05 +0000 (UTC), Stef
wrote:

Gordon wrote:

The main problem here is that many seem to try to get by with a
simplistic, literal interpretation of the Bible. That works only to a
very minimal extent, but an in depth understanding requires that one
look for the embedded meanings and directives in the Bible. To do this
effectively, one must be submissive to the lead of the Holy Spirit.
That is, the human, carnal brain can't get the gist of this
information very well. Gordon

Ah! A believer. I was never any good at accepting without proof.

Stef
Then you have found proof that your significant other will always
treat you well and not ever be deceptive about anything serious? How
did you manage to do this? Gordon

I did. It's called integrity. Easy to recognize. How? I used what
was between my ears, not my legs, to decide. ;-)

Stef

On 8/5/2015 11:21 AM, Stef wrote:
Al Drake wrote:

On 8/5/2015 12:32 AM, Stef wrote:
Al Drake wrote:

On 8/4/2015 11:06 AM, Stef wrote:
Al Drake wrote:

On 8/3/2015 6:14 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
Vitalic wrote:
On 8/3/2015 5:31 PM, ray carter wrote:
I didn't realize that was his middle initial.


yep, Herbert

Harold
as in
"Our father, which art in heaven, Harold be thy name".

Ed
His father's name was Harold.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...esus+H.+christ

H stood for Haploid since Jesus has no human father.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/haploid

If you believe what the Bible says. I never did. Not even as an 8 year
old.

Stef

How can anyone believe anything when the goal posts keep getting
moved? Most now look at the King James Version. It's like relying on an
operating system and then the terms of use get changed.

The bottom line it that the bile was written by humans.

Worse than that: The Bible was written and, later, assembled by
BELIEVERS. To find the extent and bias of that belief, read about all
that was left OUT!

Stef

I have first hand knowledge of what it's like to be a "believer". I
was raised by a woman who was a "believer". Her husband had a BLACK BELT
in "believing". To this day that old lady "believes" till it hurts
everyone around her.

Fanatics, particularly religious ones, are the worst. Intractable.
Totally without reason. I could never understand how someone could be
rational when it comes to everything else except their religion. Of
course, maybe, I was the one not normal: I was rational about
everything.

Roots are that of guilt. Some just can't forgive themselves and expect
their GOD will release them from the pain.

On 4/8/15 11:06 PM, Stef wrote:

If you believe what the Bible says. I never did. Not even as an 8 year
old.


Turn this stone into bread!

--
@~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora release 22) Linux 4.0.8-300.fc22.i686+PAE
^ ^ 01:03:01 up 7:34 0 users load average: 0.01 0.02 0.05
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 15:44:36 +0000 (UTC), Stef
wrote:

Gordon wrote:

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:01:05 +0000 (UTC), Stef
wrote:

Gordon wrote:

The main problem here is that many seem to try to get by with a
simplistic, literal interpretation of the Bible. That works only to a
very minimal extent, but an in depth understanding requires that one
look for the embedded meanings and directives in the Bible. To do this
effectively, one must be submissive to the lead of the Holy Spirit.
That is, the human, carnal brain can't get the gist of this
information very well. Gordon

Ah! A believer. I was never any good at accepting without proof.

Stef
Then you have found proof that your significant other will always
treat you well and not ever be deceptive about anything serious? How
did you manage to do this? Gordon

I did. It's called integrity. Easy to recognize. How? I used what
was between my ears, not my legs, to decide. ;-)

Stef

No objective proof? That is okay in situations like this but it is not
okay when accepting or rejecting the idea that God exists?

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 01:06:29 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
wrote:

On 4/8/15 11:06 PM, Stef wrote:

If you believe what the Bible says. I never did. Not even as an 8 year
old.


Turn this stone into bread!

Figure of speech. The soil is comprised of miniature stones/granules
and this is the basic support for cereal grains that are used to make
bread. Get the picture? Gordon

Gordon wrote in
:

On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 09:56:08 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:18:25 -0500, Gordon
wrote:

The main problem here is that many seem to try to get by with a
simplistic, literal interpretation of the Bible.

Why not? A simplistic literal interpretation of the laws of physics
works quite well. It's only fair to compare like with like.

Rod.

The laws of physics apply to this physical realm. The Word of God
applies to the spiritual realm. We can't put the two into the same
box. Gordon

Gordon, youo are absolutely correct in your statement. That is why
neither should be used to control, condone, condemn, exacerbate, or
influence anything in the realm they do not belong in.

"Keep your theocracy out of my democracy" should be a commandment, not a
taunt. Unfortunately, not everyone is of the mindset that can support
that position.

- Lizard




--
The Lizard


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 13:30:34 -0500, The Lizard
wrote:

Gordon wrote in
:

On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 09:56:08 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:18:25 -0500, Gordon
wrote:

The main problem here is that many seem to try to get by with a
simplistic, literal interpretation of the Bible.

Why not? A simplistic literal interpretation of the laws of physics
works quite well. It's only fair to compare like with like.

Rod.

The laws of physics apply to this physical realm. The Word of God
applies to the spiritual realm. We can't put the two into the same
box. Gordon

Gordon, youo are absolutely correct in your statement. That is why
neither should be used to control, condone, condemn, exacerbate, or
influence anything in the realm they do not belong in.

"Keep your theocracy out of my democracy" should be a commandment, not a
taunt. Unfortunately, not everyone is of the mindset that can support
that position.

- Lizard

True to an extent but the situation isn't really that simple. Remove
theocracy (in its prudent form) from democracy and tyranny takes over.
Of course imprudent theocracy is even worse. The best situation would
be a comfortable balance of the two, in a prudent form, with neither
imposing unreasonable restrictions upon the other. Gordon

On 8/5/2015 10:38 AM, notX wrote:
On 08/03/2015 05:14 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
Vitalic wrote:
On 8/3/2015 5:31 PM, ray carter wrote:
I didn't realize that was his middle initial.


yep, Herbert

Harold
as in
"Our father, which art in heaven, Harold be thy name".

Ed

I always had a problem with that use of "art". It sounds too much like
"aren't".



Maybe it would be prudent to kill this thread and pursue religion in a
more appropriate newsgroup.

Regards, Rene

Al Drake wrote on 8/4/2015 10:29 PM:
On 8/4/2015 8:24 PM, Alek wrote:
Al Drake wrote on 8/4/2015 8:13 PM:
On 8/4/2015 7:34 PM, Alek wrote:
Al Drake wrote on 8/4/2015 1:05 PM:
On 8/4/2015 11:06 AM, Stef wrote:
Al Drake wrote:

On 8/3/2015 6:14 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
Vitalic wrote:
On 8/3/2015 5:31 PM, ray carter wrote:
I didn't realize that was his middle initial.


yep, Herbert

Harold
as in
"Our father, which art in heaven, Harold be thy name".

Ed
His father's name was Harold.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...esus+H.+christ

H stood for Haploid since Jesus has no human father.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/haploid

If you believe what the Bible says. I never did. Not even as an 8 year
old.

Stef

How can anyone believe anything when the goal posts keep getting
moved? Most now look at the King James Version. It's like relying on an
operating system and then the terms of use get changed.

What's even more interesting is the number and scope of contradictions.

Many things changed after the New Testament was created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

http://www.biblestudytools.com/books-of-the-bible/

There is a marked lack of consistency through both old and new.

I agree. What would anyone expect to happen to a book/religion over
thousands of years? Corruption at the least.

Not to mention the difficulty in knowing what was actually said in Aramaic!

On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 14:37:54 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

On 8/5/2015 10:38 AM, notX wrote:
On 08/03/2015 05:14 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
Vitalic wrote:
On 8/3/2015 5:31 PM, ray carter wrote:
I didn't realize that was his middle initial.


yep, Herbert

Harold
as in
"Our father, which art in heaven, Harold be thy name".

Ed

I always had a problem with that use of "art". It sounds too much like
"aren't".



Maybe it would be prudent to kill this thread and pursue religion in a
more appropriate newsgroup.

Regards, Rene

It smells like it may already be dead!

On 8/5/2015 4:51 PM, Gordon wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 14:37:54 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

On 8/5/2015 10:38 AM, notX wrote:
On 08/03/2015 05:14 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
Vitalic wrote:
On 8/3/2015 5:31 PM, ray carter wrote:
I didn't realize that was his middle initial.


yep, Herbert

Harold
as in
"Our father, which art in heaven, Harold be thy name".

Ed

I always had a problem with that use of "art". It sounds too much like
"aren't".



Maybe it would be prudent to kill this thread and pursue religion in a
more appropriate newsgroup.

Regards, Rene

It smells like it may already be dead!

Thank GOD!

Gordon wrote:

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 15:44:36 +0000 (UTC), Stef
wrote:

Gordon wrote:

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:01:05 +0000 (UTC), Stef
wrote:

Gordon wrote:

The main problem here is that many seem to try to get by with a
simplistic, literal interpretation of the Bible. That works only to a
very minimal extent, but an in depth understanding requires that one
look for the embedded meanings and directives in the Bible. To do this
effectively, one must be submissive to the lead of the Holy Spirit.
That is, the human, carnal brain can't get the gist of this
information very well. Gordon

Ah! A believer. I was never any good at accepting without proof.

Stef
Then you have found proof that your significant other will always
treat you well and not ever be deceptive about anything serious? How
did you manage to do this? Gordon

I did. It's called integrity. Easy to recognize. How? I used what
was between my ears, not my legs, to decide. ;-)

Stef

No objective proof? That is okay in situations like this but it is not
okay when accepting or rejecting the idea that God exists?

There is no objective proof for the existence (or not) of a "God." Each
person should decide on their own by means that satisfy them. The vast
majority never do this as they have been indoctrinated from a very young
age when they're easy to influence and too young to question or defy.
the indoctrinators.

This is my last response. A nice diversion, but this thread has gone
too far off-topic to continue.

Thanks for your responses.

Stef