Honest questions for God

[NCclimber 0]

I now see my post was lacking on key details, namely that the last several censuses have consistently shown net migration increases of African-Americans into the Southeast.

Anyhow, my point was that if the Southeast is so racially intolerant, then why is it so increasingly desirable (especially compared to the rest of the US) for African-Americans?

[unformed 0]

Quote

I now see my post was lacking on key details, namely that the last several censuses have consistently shown net migration increases of African-Americans into the Southeast.

Do you have sources? I've provided mine.

Quote

Anyhow, my point was that if the Southeast is so racially intolerant, then why is it so increasingly desirable (especially compared to the rest of the US) for African-Americans?

Where exactly in the Southeast? States like Florida or states like Mississippi? While there are parts of Florida that are Deep South, gool ol' boy style (and I should know as I spent a good 25 years there), not all of it is, and there is a major difference between Florida and Mississippi/Georgia/Alabama.

I would find it extremely hard to believe that there was a migration into Mississippi greater in percentage than the rest of the country. Florida, however, I can believe as it has considerably grown in the last few decades. However, as I stated, most of Florida is not typical South.

Regardless, as I provided my sources, and you've been clamoring for them, I expect you to provide them as well.

This ad space for sale.

[unformed 0]

Okay, I did your research for you. The Great Migration @ Wiki

From 1914 to 1950, there was a massive migration out of the South into idustrial cities in the North, primarily for economic reasons.

Then, in the 1980s began another migration back into the South. However, the destination was large, urban areas in the South (primarily Atlanta) which do not have the same Deep South personality, and really has no bearing on the strong racial prejudice in what non-urban areas.

This ad space for sale.

[DSE 3]

Unformed, there is no sense in trying to speak logically with people that are more interested in supporting their illogical agenda.
Nightingale, great means of dancing around the issues.
Does it matter if it's 6oo, 6000, 600,000, or 6 million?
Significant number of non-Christians have died as victims of a Christian agenda. Isn't that the relevant fact?
Like I said, try being a non-white, non-Christian in the deep south. Anything you have to say on the subject is weak postulation. Done it, been there, got the scars. You?

[billvon 2,380]

>I'm still waiting to read about the 60 million men, women and
> children (that) have been burned, tortured, raped and killed for not
> bowing their knee to jesus . . .

I think around 9 million people were killed during the crusades. Roughly half were muslim; they were killed for not being christian, although the underlying reasons have a lot more to do with papal and secular politics. The other half were crusaders or innocents who got in the way. From a speech by Urban II calling for the first crusade:

----------
On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion!
-------------

[hairyjuan 0]

you still have not answered the question! christianity murdered everyone who would not bow their knee to it and destroyed everything it could get it's hands on(to destroy the evidence of it plagiarizing earlier religous texts, how do you consider this acceptable behaviour from the "faithful"?



Thomas Jefferson-"the christian religion is the most perverted system that ever shone upon man"

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[steveorino 7]

Quote

you still have not answered the question! christianity murdered everyone who would not bow their knee to it and destroyed everything it could get it's hands on(to destroy the evidence of it plagiarizing earlier religous texts, how do you consider this acceptable behaviour from the "faithful"?

I don't. Just as I said ALL atrocities done in the name of Christ are reprehensible.

steveOrino

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Not long ago earthquakes were "Acts of God". Now we understand plate tectonics quite well, and getting a better understanding every year. No supernatural forces needed. Same with lightning, hurricanes, tornados, etc.

According to my homeowner's policy, natural disasters are still considered to be "acts of God"!!! Why don't you enlighten them?

Anyway, I assume from your response that you agree that you don't "know it all." However, I understand your reasoning behind this admission: that science is still discovering, still learning (thank God--- oops!). I'm curious to know tho' if you would agree that you could be mistaken in your presupposition about the non-existence of God and/or the supernatural.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

From a speech by Urban II calling for the first crusade:

----------
On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are those who opposed absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion!
-------------

Good grief.
I, being a Christian myself, would sure like to know:

1. Where Urban got the idea that Christ was "commanding" the destruction of any people or race? He certainly didn't get it from the words of Christ recorded in scripture.
2. What right he had to give a blanket pronouncement of the "remission of sins" to all...?
3. Where he got the idea that Christians have the right to be persecutors?
Sorry, but attitudes like his aren't at all like the Christ I read of in the Bible.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[billvon 2,380]

>Where he got the idea that Christians have the right to be persecutors?

Numbers 31:1-18
Numbers 32:20-23 (fighters get forgiven)
Numbers 33:52 ('cleanse the land' of heathens)
Deuteronomy 3:18-21
1 Samuel 15:1-9 (destroy those who are unkind to God's chosen)
Acts 3:22-24 (nonbelievers shall be destroyed)
Romans 1:28-32 (evildoers are deserving of death)

would be some parts of the bible that could be (mis)used to justify violence against nonbelievers. (Paj, I know, that's intentionally interpreting them the wrong way - which is what, unfortunately, some people do.)

If you really want to you can justify almost anything you want with religion - a sad reality that's reared its head often in many religions, not just christianity. Which is why I've always thought that the measure of a christian is how much he follows the teachings of Christ, not the leader of a church or its catechism.

[DSE 3]

[edited];Billvon answered it mo betta'.

Quote

Sorry, but attitudes like his aren't at all like the Christ I read of in the Bible.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Numbers 31:1-18
Numbers 32:20-23 (fighters get forgiven)
Numbers 33:52 ('cleanse the land' of heathens)
Deuteronomy 3:18-21
1 Samuel 15:1-9 (destroy those who are unkind to God's chosen)
Acts 3:22-24 (nonbelievers shall be destroyed)
Romans 1:28-32 (evildoers are deserving of death)

would be some parts of the bible that could be (mis)used to justify violence against nonbelievers.

The Bible is probably the most misused book in history then. Taking phrases, verses, passages out of context in order to justify any injustice or any violence is a misuse of it. People who genuinely have a respect and love for God and who believe He is responsible for the bible's existence and preservation will bend over backwards NOT to misuse it for any reason, but to responsibly interpret it and properly apply its teachings to one's personal life and relationships, primarily one's relationship to God. For instance, here is what it (Christ and His apostles/disciples) taught about the disciples' relationships with non-Christians: "Be wise as serpents and as harmless as doves." And, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody." And, "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." He never gave orders to go out and kill people. Christ said that the highest commandment of God is to first, love God with all your heart, and second, to love others as you love yourself.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

I agree with what you're saying except for this: "Additionally, you've not ever read one literal word of Jesus. Ever. What you have read are books written by others after his death, all of which are recounts of oral histories."

Obviously I have more faith in the providence of God in the preservation of Christ's words. I believe the Bible to be, in a sense, a supernatural book in that I believe that the spirit of God superintended the recording of Christ's claims and His works so that Christ's followers (the authors of the NT) put it down right. (In fact, Christ, on his last night with the disciples before He died, promised them that the Holy Spirit would cause them to remember His words and teachings so they could record them accurately.) And since its original composition, it has been supernaturally preserved, even through all the hand-copying it's undergone.

I'm sleepy; gotta' go to bed. Talk to y'all tomorrow.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[DSE 3]

Quote

I agree with what you're saying except for this: "Additionally, you've not ever read one literal word of Jesus. Ever. What you have read are books written by others after his death, all of which are recounts of oral histories."

Obviously I have more faith in the providence of God in the preservation of Christ's words. I believe the Bible to be, in a sense, a supernatural book in that I believe that the spirit of God superintended the recording of Christ's claims and His works so that Christ's followers (the authors of the NT) put it down right. (In fact, Christ, on his last night with the disciples before He died, promised them that the Holy Spirit would cause them to remember His words and teachings so they could record them accurately.) And since its original composition, it has been supernaturally preserved, even through all the hand-copying it's undergone.

I'm sleepy; gotta' go to bed. Talk to y'all tomorrow.

Not even close to accurately recorded. The King James version is the result of a government-ordered version to restore peace amongst those that were fighting as to which version of the bible was "right."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html
http://www.victorious.org/translat.htm

http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm
http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/bibleaccuracy.htm
http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther02.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale
http://www.dtl.org/links/christian/versions.htm
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/banned.htm

Maybe God just changed his mind a lot about what he wanted to say over the past 2000 years? Even the oft-quoted King James version has undergone nearly 1000 error corrections since 1611 (wasn't aware of the number until doing a bit of reading tonight, thanks for the inspiration, I'm now better armed when people claim the KJV is the *only* correct version). Prior to Tyndale's translation, the Bishop's Bible had undergone 20 different translative changes and hundreds of "error" corrections.
At one point in time, the bible was undergoing so many changes that it was illegal to own one during the reign of Innocent III. He claimed it was because folks just weren't smart enough to "get it."

Either the history was recorded correctly and bastardized right up until recent times, or it was recorded poorly past the point of ridicule and God has been "guiding" various translators of the books ever since. Or a mixture of both follies.
Jesus didn't follow through on his promise that what you're reading is accurate.
Or maybe, like so many hundreds of new words added to the bible, most of them prolific and assigned to Jesus' mouth, perhaps his "assurance" was added to assuage those that wonder if the translations and writings were accurate.
Can you still believe that Jesus assured it would be recorded correctly and that his assurance meant squat?

[JackC 0]

Quote

Jack, you said this to Speedracer:

Quote

Time is supposed to have began with the big bang so there was no "before".

And you said this to Pajarito:

Quote

So exactly how am I supposed to understand this crap with my limited human intellect? Just give up and blindly accept it like you do? Not an option for me I'm afraid.

Somewhere along the way you decided to accept the idea that Time began with the big bang and that before the big bang there was nothing, not even time.

All I'm pointing out is that you already "blindly accept" some things. No one doesn't blindly accept certain things. It's not a fault; it's just something we all do after pondering whatever evidence exists and adopting a philosophical framework to fit it into.

Not quite. I said "Time is supposed to have began with the big bang". Wheather I accept Big Bang cosmology is not stated but from what I've read, it seem plausible although I still have my doubts. If I so desired, I could read the literature, rework all the mathematics, review the astronomical data and make an informed decision based on the evidence presented therein.

Now from what I've read, god does not seem plausible but that is as far as I can go. I can do no experiments, "god theory" is not existant, I can't review any data, I'm stuck with scripture. If I want to go any further, I have to blindly accept and that I cannot do.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Unformed, there is no sense in trying to speak logically with people that are more interested in supporting their illogical agenda.

There's no sense in trying to speak logically with people who make up gross misrepresentations, that even a moron can see are bullshit claims... and who claim "Oh. I was mistaken. At least I'm not a liar" when they get called on their bullshit.

Quote

Does it matter if it's 6oo, 6000, 600,000, or 6 million?

considering you're the one making the gross exagerations, I'd guess you'd think not.

Does it matter if deaths related to the Trail of Tears was 4 or 4000?
Only four indians died. What's the big deal?

Quote

Significant number of non-Christians have died as victims of a Christian agenda. Isn't that the relevant fact?

Yes it is relevant. But so is the overall number.

Quote

Like I said, try being a non-white, non-Christian in the deep south. Anything you have to say on the subject is weak postulation. Done it, been there, got the scars. You?

blah, blah, blah, blah

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

Quote

Not long ago earthquakes were "Acts of God". Now we understand plate tectonics quite well, and getting a better understanding every year. No supernatural forces needed. Same with lightning, hurricanes, tornados, etc.

According to my homeowner's policy, natural disasters are still considered to be "acts of God"!!! Why don't you enlighten them?

Why don't you - it's your policy.

Quote

Anyway, I assume from your response that you agree that you don't "know it all." However, I understand your reasoning behind this admission: that science is still discovering, still learning (thank God--- oops!). I'm curious to know tho' if you would agree that you could be mistaken in your presupposition about the non-existence of God and/or the supernatural.

Based on empirical evidence, there is no justification whatsoever for a belief in the supernatural. There is considerable reason for belief in the scientific method as a way of investigating the workings of the universe.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>I'm still waiting to read about the 60 million men, women and children (that) have been burned, tortured, raped and killed for not bowing their knee to jesus . . .

I think around 9 million people were killed during the crusades. Roughly half were muslim; they were killed for not being christian, although the underlying reasons have a lot more to do with papal and secular politics. The other half were crusaders or innocents who got in the way.

Nine million... one quarter of a million. Are we splitting hairs here? I don't think so. Your claim of 9 million is the first time I've heard such a high number. I call BS.

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

Based on empirical evidence, there is no justification whatsoever for a belief in the supernatural. There is considerable reason for belief in the scientific method as a way of investigating the workings of the universe.

and in the words of Dawkins [sic] We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin's principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[unformed 0]

Quote

Quote

I think around 9 million people were killed during the crusades. Roughly half were muslim; they were killed for not being christian, although the underlying reasons have a lot more to do with papal and secular politics. The other half were crusaders or innocents who got in the way.

Nine million... one quarter of a million. Are we splitting hairs here? I don't think so. Your claim of 9 million is the first time I've heard such a high number. I call BS.

Have a source? I didn't think so. I haven't seen you offer a single one yet.

So, I'll give you one instead. From http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/crusades.html, complete with literary references. Regarding this one, specifically: Robertson, History of Christianity: p168:

Quote

The total number of deaths due to the crusades had been estimated at around nine million, at least half of which were Christians. Many of these were simply innocent civilians caught in the carnage.

This ad space for sale.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think around 9 million people were killed during the crusades. Roughly half were muslim; they were killed for not being christian, although the underlying reasons have a lot more to do with papal and secular politics. The other half were crusaders or innocents who got in the way.

Nine million... one quarter of a million. Are we splitting hairs here? I don't think so. Your claim of 9 million is the first time I've heard such a high number. I call BS.

Have a source? I didn't think so. I haven't seen you offer a single one yet.

Well, Einstein , you've only asked me for one... and you provided a credible link before I could reply. I saw no need to give you an answer you have already found for yourself.

Quote

So, I'll give you one instead. From http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/crusades.html, complete with literary references. Regarding this one, specifically: Robertson, History of Christianity: p168:

Quote

The total number of deaths due to the crusades had been estimated at around nine million, at least half of which were Christians. Many of these were simply innocent civilians caught in the carnage.

How about a site that (at least) tries to appear objective and neutral.... not one that opens with "The main thesis of this website is that Christianity is both untrue and harmful."

No bias there.

I couldn't find History of Christianity by Robertson.

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

Quote

How about a site that (at least) tries to appear objective and neutral.... not one that opens with "The main thesis of this website is that Christianity is both untrue and harmful."

No bias there.

An OBJECTIVE analysis indicates that Christianity is most probably untrue. There is no OBJECTIVE evidence of its truthfulness. A historical analysis suggests that Christianity is indeed harmful.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

An OBJECTIVE analysis indicates that Christianity is most probably untrue.

How open ended. What specifically do you mean?

Quote

There is no OBJECTIVE evidence of its truthfulness.

Again, what specifically do you mean?

Quote

A historical analysis suggests that Christianity is indeed harmful.

Are you talking about select parts of its history? Or are you claiming something along the lines of "the net impact of Christianity is negative"?

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

The King James version is the result of a government-ordered version to restore peace amongst those that were fighting as to which version of the bible was "right."

I applaud James' eagerness for an accurate translation. There had been in English the translations/versions of Tyndale, Wyclif, Coverdale, Geneva (in which chapter and verse divisions were first made--- hooray), etc. The English language was still developing. A reading of the Canterbury Tales or Shakespeare's stuff will illustrate that. English has changed since James' time, too.

Quote

Maybe God just changed his mind a lot about what he wanted to say over the past 2000 years? Even the oft-quoted King James version has undergone nearly 1000 error corrections since 1611 (wasn't aware of the number until doing a bit of reading tonight, thanks for the inspiration, I'm now better armed when people claim the KJV is the *only* correct version). Prior to Tyndale's translation, the Bishop's Bible had undergone 20 different translative changes and hundreds of "error" corrections.

Yes, but what actual changes were made? What "errors" were corrected? None of any consequence. The message was preserved throughout the various translations/versions. As more manuscripts were found and compared, the message only got clearer, not fuzzier. Now that thousands of manuscripts (most only portions, but in some instances practically complete NTs) have been logged, we've discovered what we'd always known... Every time something is found, the message from centuries of translation is confirmed. Authorities on ancient texts estimate the variations among copies (Gk. manuscripts) to be trivial-- less than 1%. No other text or document is as accurately preserved as the New Testament.

So, yes Jesus DID keep His promise to those disciples in the Upper Room that night.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

If I so desired, I could read the literature, rework all the mathematics, review the astronomical data and make an informed decision based on the evidence presented therein.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"