I just heard this for the first time.

John Lennon - God

God is a concept,
By which we can measure,
Our pain,
I'll say it again,
God is a concept,
By which we can measure,
Our pain,
I don't believe in magic,
I don't believe in I-ching,
I don't believe in bible,
I don't believe in tarot,
I don't believe in Hitler
I don't believe in Jesus,
I don't believe in Kennedy,
I don't believe in Buddha,
I don't believe in mantra,
I don't believe in Gita,
I don't believe in yoga,
I don't believe in kings,
I don't believe in Elvis,
I don't believe in Zimmerman,
I don't believe in Beatles,
I just believe in me,
Yoko and me,
And that's reality.
The dream is over,
What can I say?
The dream is over,
Yesterday,
I was dreamweaver,
But now I'm reborn,
I was the walrus,
But now I'm John,
And so dear friends,
You just have to carry on,
The dream is over. 

We're not the interpreter, the Holy Spirit is. Without Him, you don't have any hope of getting the True meaning out of the text. Anyway, we had a long debate about this subject once before, the general conclusion was that Jesus 'was' actually talking about the people of the End Times, not the generation that was listening to him at the time.

Lansdowne5

That was your conclusion, the conclusion of everyone else who spoke was that was some pretty funny stuff.

If that's your opinion, fine. The mountains and hills signify the nations of the world, the great and the small. And the water signifys the great sorrow that they will feel. :)

Lansdowne5

Sooooooo let me get this strait.  When it says "hills" it means "nations" and when it says "water" it means to say "sorrow," but when it says "days" it has to mean "days" because god himself is unable to do anything that doesn't agree with what you think the holy spirit wants it say?

It never said the gentiles would actually "use" the name Yahweh. Read it again.

Lansdowne5

V V V V V V V V V V V

Malachi (in 430 B.C) predicting that Yahweh's name would be honored by the Gentiles (Malachi 1:11), which was fulfilled in the 1st century and has carried on to this day.

Lansdowne5

 

Common misconception. The way he reveals himself is different, he's just the same. :)

Lansdowne5

Someone else that agrees with you that we should pretend?

Here is a funny little skit about this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmhFniUTQIE&feature=related

I recognize that that's how you feel, and to be honest I myself am sympathetic to that view, but the fact of the matter is that it's basically impossible to tell where the line precisely is at all times between normal adult discourse and overly harsh or insulting language.  Like I said, as long as your posts are in the gray area, I really can't offer any guarantee that they won't be moderated.

GabuEx

And I appreciate you hearing me out on this.  I just wish I knew what to expect in the grey area.  I think I tend to live there, and if there was a clear standard that was constantly enforced, I could either say "this is something I can live with" or "I don't think this place encourages the free flow of ideas that I need to make it satisfying."

Well, that's basically the problem with sarcasm: it's basically impossible to say something in a sarcastic manner that doesn't also carry with it an air of condescension or haughtiness, since the very nature of sarcasm is the implicit statement that you consider a point of view or a statement to be so ridiculous, laughable, or flimsy that you don't even consider it worthy of a serious response.  Again, this is another case of a post being in the gray area.

GabuEx

Don't some things demand it of us to give a little relief at times.  Also I am sure you have seen this quote: 

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."  -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816 

I think the theme can be extended beyond the trinity.  Some ideas really don't deserve a serious response.  I haven't seen anything in the TOU that say sarcasm if forbidden, and you can find it in abundance on the boards.

 I recognize that it can be momentarily satisfying to reply like that, but really, I can tell you from experience that you'll get much better results if you tone it down a bit and keep things more respectful.  Retaliation has never particularly solved anything; to be frank, I think the best thing you could do to get under someone's skin is to effectively reply to what they're saying without giving them a single thing to possibly report.  Not only will it keep you safe from people going to the moderators, but I also found my arguments becoming much more well-received when I conveyed them in a respectful manner.

GabuEx

Isn't that what the bulk of a forum is?  momentary satisfaction.  None of us are pulling a paycheck or getting credit here.  We just share ideas, thoughts, outside resources.  Occasionally we get a laugh, occasionally we identify with someone, occasionally if we are lucky we learn something new.  In one of my arguments with BR he corrected a misconception I had about a very common Mohamed myth.  I felt like a better person after it was done because I now know something that I think I should. If it wasn't for the challenging of ideas I wouldn't have been so lucky.  That wass one of the times here where satisfaction has been more than momentary, but if it wasn't for many short term payoffs, I wouldn't have been here for that one or others.  And those payoffs are always the result of something you did read, no one could ever possibly claim that they really gained anything or are better off because of something they didn't read or something they read and were able to get deleted.

I think this is a good explanation. That cartoon only shows a lack of understanding when I read it. Everyone has his or her opinion I guess.

stepnkev

Is it possible that you have a misunderstanding and the author didn't imply an overarching attack on people it doesn't apply to?

Is it possible that it is so easy for a christian to make this claim and others acquiesce to it that it intentionally or unintentionally gets abused?

Yes, but those "tooth and nail" arguments are precisely the moments from which moderations arise. What I'm saying is that you should step back a little while debating someone if your words are starting to get a bit too pointed, confrontational, and insulting. You can still get across your point perfectly well without attaching barbs to your words - I can attest to that, having had to restrain myself in the past as well.

GabuEx

Then you know when the rubber hits the road are the moments that matter.  I don't see anything wrong with confrontation.  I expect people to be able to be adults and either bite back or don't play.  Crying that they don't like the way something was worded so they want someone punished is despicable in my opinion.  This is the trait of either a vile or immature human being.

I never said that you should actually change the content of what you say. What I'm saying is that you should change the way in which you say it. The only difference between "I don't think that there is any evidence that the events in the Bible actually happened" and "The Bible is a goofy pack of fairy tales and I can't see how anyone could believe it" is the way in which the underlying content - that you don't think the Bible is accurate - is conveyed. One is detached and matter-of-factual, whereas the second one is very aggressive and is told in a much more emotionally charged fashion. The former would never get you moderated; the latter, I couldn't be so sure; but in neither case are you compromising what you actually want to say.

GabuEx

Well two problems, not everything can be worded so passively, and I don't know why it should have to be.

Could you rephrase the following comment that started this latest group of censors more passively?  Note it is desirable to keep the comic value of it.

"No No No.  The written and translated hodge podge of oral legends holds power over god.  He is bound by their words and our interpretations of them.  Silly atheist  "

1. I'm pretty sure the artist who created the cartoon was clearly ATTACKING Christianity as a whole because it presents a implication that those who follow Christianity must be just as intolerant, ignorant and very impressible as the character in the cartoon, not to mention that the fact that it was clearly attacking Christian teachings not just the concept of literalism many Fundamental Christians follow.

2. To each his own. can't argue with opinion let's just leave it as us being able to express our views on the matter.

3. Although I'm not a expert, I'll try to explain the chapters of Luke thoroughly for us to see the deeper meaning of the text. Anyone can interpret text and take it out of context, it takes actual research and dedication to realize Jesus' actual teachings.

Third, our Lord says, "Any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple." It is well known that many Christians have chosen to take this literally. They have taken vows of poverty and have entered monasteries or convents. But a crass literal understanding of this passage would contradict other passages in God's Word.

For example, when Zacchaeus gave half of his possessions to the poor, Jesus did not rebuke him and command him to give all his possessions away. Jesus rejoiced and called him a son of Abraham (Luke 19). There were wealthy people among the first Christians and the apostles never commanded them to give all of their wealth away. Instead they say, "As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share." (1 Tim 6:17-18. It is not money that is evil, but the "love of money that is a root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10). It is the love of money and mammon, loving it more than Jesus, that Jesus warns about here in the severest of terms.

When Jesus says that we cannot be his disciples unless we give up our possessions, he means we must be willing to give up all our possessions if need be; or if it comes down to a choice between being faithful to Jesus, on the one hand, or keeping our possessions, on the other, disciples must give up the possessions. Otherwise they commit idolatry and cease to be disciples.

greenprince

1. Whether a concerted effort or an honest mistake which is psychologically reinforced by a christian seeing unchristian ideas removed from the public sector by claiming they are offensive, I think this is a common mistake.

3. These are the two verses in question:

18A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

19"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 20You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'[a]"

21"All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.

22When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

and

26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

28"Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? 29For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, 30saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.'

31"Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

I don't see him being happy someone was headed in the right direction or adding the words "if need be" really washes away these words. If we can take those liberties I want to add the words "if need be" to John 3:16 and the other seven places Jesus tells us different things about how to get into heaven.

You can easily go access the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which provides numerous links to studies on all of these criteria, and there are thosuands of articles floating around in the databases.Vandalvideo

In that case I will rebut it by saying type "marijauna is not harmful" into a search engine and look there.

Whew.....that one was easy. I think I will try this with all my debates:P

Increased chance of heart, brain, and lung complications?Vandalvideo

Have any studies?

I actually agree, I'm all for jokes that take on any belief system ( including religious ones ) if it's accurate and presents constructive criticisms ( It's why like the Simpsons so much) but this cartoon isn't funny. It doesn't established a point, generalizes an entire religion and its beliefs full of billions of followers who have different perspectives, accuses Christianity as anti-science ( despite the fact that there numerous famous Scientists who were Christians) and isn't even funny when it tries to make the punch line.greenprince

I don't think it was meant to indite an entire religion, just those that try to embrace biblical literalism.

And evidently some of us do find the punchline funny.

And I think the point is, no one ever talks about the two verses where jesus says you have to give away everything you own to get into heaven.