It seems to me that a good portion, if not most, atheists defend atheism by attacking the Bible and Christianity. Another post in this forum shows a link to an atheist web site that devotes a page to the contradictions in the Bible.
However, I see no connection between the possible existance of a supreme diety/power and Christianity. Whether Christians are right, wrong, or hallucinating doesn't really matter. Whether the Bible contradicts itself (and it does) or not doesn't matter, either.
Christianity is not God. The Bible is not God. Religion is not God. This is the fallacy of the false dilemma--pretty much what is being said is "There is either a God, or Christians are wrong." But that is not the question. There can easily be a God and Christians still be wrong. And it is also possible (though unlikely) that Christians are right, even if the Bible contradicts itself.
They are three separate questions:
Is there a God or supreme power/diety?
Is Christianity correct in it's assertions about God and how to worship?
Is the Bible really the word of God and/or accurate?
Religion and spiritualism are two different things. Religion is
quote:
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
Spiritualism is
quote:
A philosophy, doctrine, or religion emphasizing the spiritual aspect of being.
Spiritualism is the belief. Religion is the method of worship. Attacking a specific religion is not going to disprove the existance of God. And it's certainly not going to change any Christian minds.
I think if atheists (and agnostics, for that matter) wish to discuss the possible existance of God, they should probably leave Christianity out of it. God is a separate question and dealing with that specific religion only confuses the issue.
++++++++++++++++++++++++ 06-09-04, 06:41 PM jusork That a good point. But are those people trying to discredit the existence of God or the credibility of whatever theist religion? A lot of people put a lot of their faith in the Bible and I think doubters point out flaws just for that faith that people put in it. There's only one way to discredit spirituality though and it usually only takes a couple back and forths. How many atheists do you see getting in debates with deists anyway?
06-09-04, 07:16 PM MommyTimesTwo Not many, but it would be kind of pointless. Two people who are both 100% sure they are right shouldn't bother with discussion--they're only going to end up each being even more sure they are right. Wink
06-09-04, 07:46 PM jusork Yeah, but they can explain to each other what they think. It gives them a better understanding of each other. I think that's kind of another way to look at when people try to explain why they think someone's beleifs don't make sense. They're trying to explain why they think the other person's beliefs don't make sense in a way, too.
06-09-04, 07:59 PM MommyTimesTwo How often does that kind of mature exchange actually happen? You know what they say--"Never discuss politics, religion, or sex in polite company." Wink
6-09-04, 09:42 PM jusork I can't say it happens less than immature discussions actually. I think most people are relatively mature. I don't think most of the non-theists I've seen come through this board criticize very harshly.
6-09-04, 11:50 PM MommyTimesTwo Oh, I wasn't referring just to this board. I was actually thinking about an unmoderated board I used to go to (used to being the key term there!) I've not seen anyone fighting here, which is why I talk religion here! Big Grin
06-10-04, 08:35 PM jusork A lot of people are pretty civilized at some of the other forums I go to that are a lot more slack in their moderating.
06-11-04, 09:16 AM MommyTimesTwo Where are those ones? I'd be interested in going. The unmoderated or lightly moderated ones I've been to are pretty much used just for swearing and insulting people. This includes one that is just for talking about money!! Like, how do you insult other people on questions about taxes Roll Eyes But they do! So I'd be interested in any other ones if you don't mind sharing.
06-11-04, 10:14 AM MkStfnz You make a valid point. You can believe in God without believing what man says about God.
First, there has to be a supreme Deity out there somewhere. The universe is so perfectly ordered that it couldn't have happened haphazardly.
I think that Christianity is correct in its assertions about God. I won't try to explain an emotional understanding and acceptance of Christianity to someone who is not open to such ideas, as is evidenced by your choice of forums.
The Bible tells how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go. It is meant to be understood in a literary way, not in a literal way. The Bible is inspired by God, but is expressed in the context of man's understanding of the world 2000 years ago. Sure, there are contradictions in the picky details, but the major message not contradicted.
06-11-04, 10:44 AM MommyTimesTwo Mk
I'm agnostic, not athetist. I posted this here because this forum seems to get the most posts Wink
What IS the main message of Christianity? I was raised without any religion and do not even know most of the basics of the religion. I'm trying to read the Bible just so I can understand it (my husband's family is Methodist) but I'm totally lost. And the more I try to learn, the more confused I get. Overall, I believe there is more than likely a God (for the same reason you said), but I don't see anything about the church in the Bible (granted I'm only on Leviticus). And I don't see where the Bible has to be right for there to be a God. Maybe if you explain the main message to me I'd understand better Smile
06-11-04, 11:00 AM jusork
quote:Originally posted by MkStfnz: The universe is so perfectly ordered that it couldn't have happened haphazardly.
Really? How do you figure that?
The main one I go to is youthink.com. They talk about anything and religion comes up every now and then. If someone comes on stupidly, they're usually put down by someone smarter. The first forum I ever went to was on some AOL religion board and they were very easy to discuss with and talk with. I've been to plenty of other places. After Jeeves died, the Jeeves religion section gave out all these religion forums. I posted a little and read some on most of them and they all seemed respectable. Want the links to those? Right now I don't go to very many places. I can't really think of anytime I've talked about religion in a forum and people were mean.
06-11-04, 11:11 AM MommyTimesTwo If you wouldn't mind, I'd appreciate them, J.
Mk has a point about the orderliness. For example, phi, also known as the Golden Mean. Virtually every natural thing on Earth, from sunflowers to snail shells to the human body, is set to the ratio of phi (1.6180...). It can be found in the rings of Saturn and George Cloony's face. Can we really look at something like that, where the exact same ratio appears over and over and over, and call that chance?
Here is more info on phi. You may be more interested in this page that talks about the theology aspect..
06-11-04, 11:54 AM jusork I always thought coincidences were bound to happen somewhere and you can make one out of anything.
06-11-04, 12:21 PM MommyTimesTwo I see a coincidence as...going to see the Grand Canyon and just happening to run into your long lost best friend there. Stuff like that. I think things like phi are greater than coincidences. Particularly since it is undeniable. It's not like that picture that looks like the kid from Mad Magazine that is on a wall in Egypt. It's throughout the entire world, in all living things. How can that just be a "coincidence"? That's what I think anyway.
(and thanks Smile)
06-11-04, 02:28 PM babthrower This conversation is beginning to get really interesting. There are other really strange things in the universe. In fact the universe is probably a lot stranger than any of us realize.
Another thing:
I don't think people have to be mean about religion, because regardless of whether one is a theist, an atheist, or agnostic, we can agree on most common values. Values are in a sense spiritual, because they have to do with making the human world a better place. (Technically they are not, because there are no spirits. But I'm begging the question.)
Occasionally there is an issue in which theist values are different. That is because they tend to enshrine a value from an ancient time. For example, when the Decalogue was written, the Jews were a small group living in hard and dangerous circumstances; they had many enemies who wanted to exterminate them, and they in turn wanted to exterminate their enemies, because they were competing for an unforgiving land. In those times, numbers were important, so sex must be procreative. (cf. Onan)
But now even the 'new world' (the Americas) is overpopulated. So population control becomes a 'good thing' for all humans. But there are conflicts over this issue due to the views of some theists.
06-11-04, 02:46 PM jusork Well, here's how I look at it, Times2. Coincidences are random, right? Well given all the coincidences that could ever happen, some will. Maybe phi is one of those coincidences that happened. And since it's random, any level of coincidence can happen. A few really really big ones are bound to happen if the number of possible big coincidences are as big as I bet they are.
06-11-04, 03:15 PM MommyTimesTwo
quote:Coincidences are random, right?
And therein lies the question.
Are coincidences random? To an atheist, yes. To a theist, no. To an agnostic, maybe.
Let's use Tarot cards for an example, because they are something I'm familiar with. Someone who does not beleive in a higher power would probably suggest that the cards that come up in a Tarot reading are random, and that any coincidental correlation between the meaning of the cards or spread is just random. (Ignoring the oft spoke "subconcious cheating" and "vague meanings" theories).
Now, a theist that used Tarot cards and saw such a correlation would probably think that their diety caused the cards to lay that way, and give them the divination. That is the intended purpose of Tarot cards, and lacks any coincidence at all. This is wholly directed.
Then we come to agnostics. Agnostics don't know. Is there a God? Are Tarot cards giving a divination? Is that divination coincidental or directed by a diety...or a combination?
I think one's opinion on the nature of coincidence depends greatly on their views on God.
06-11-04, 03:40 PM newnickname
quote:The universe is so perfectly ordered that it couldn't have happened haphazardly.
And what would a haphazard universe look like? Clumps of matter, spinning round each other, scattered at random over unimaginable distances? Volatile chemicals combining and recombining crazily until, on one isolated speck of a planet out of the infinite number available, a little algorithm (reproduction with random variations, plus natural selection) gave us our mometn in the sun?
Whatever the universe was like, if there were conscious beings in it, they would say, "It's perfectly ordered. It must have been designed!".
"... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'" Douglas Adams
This message has been edited. Last edited by: newnickname,
06-11-04, 09:02 PM babthrower My fave on this point of view is by Rupert Brooke (1887-1915), called "Fish".
Fish (fly-replete, in depth of June Dawdling away their wat'ry noon) Ponder deep wisdom, dark or clear, Each secret fishy hope or fear. Fish say, they have their Stream and Pond; But is there anything Beyond? This life cannot be All, they swear, For how unpleasant if it were! One may not doubt that, somehow, good Shall come of Water and of Mud; And, sure, the reverent eye must see A Purpose in Liquidity. We darkly know, by Faith we cry, The future is not Wholly Dry. Mud unto Mud! Death eddies near - Not here the appointed End, not here! But somewhere, beyond Space and Time, Is wetter water, slimier slime! And there (they trust) there swimmeth One Who swam ere rivers were begun, Immense, of fishy form and mind, Squamous, omnipotent, and kind; And under that Almighty Fin The littlest fry may enter in Oh! never fly conceals a hook, Fish say, in the Eternal Brook, But more than mundane weeds are there, And mud, celestially fair; Fat caterpillars drift around, And Paradisal grubs are found; Unfading moths, immortal flies, And the worm that never dies. And in that Heaven of all their wish, There shall be no more land, say fish.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 3065 | Location: A place with palm trees and sunshine! | Registered: 03-17-03
Can you say with absolute certainty that the hole wasn't made for the puddle?
++++++++++++++++++++ 06-14-04, 07:39 PM newnickname Of course, no, not with absolute certainty. But maybe Occam's razor suggests it's more likely that water simply fills depressions in the ground, than that the dirt shapes itself in anticipation of the form the water will take. And why would a puddle take such a haphazard shape? A hole made for a puddle would be a perfect hemisphere, wouldn't it?
Like a universe made for us would be one heck of a lot smaller.
06-14-04, 09:36 PM MommyTimesTwo You're making a lot of assumptions in your post. Maybe there is a reason why the hole is oddly shaped. Nothing says that it couldn't or shouldn't be.
Smile Occam aside, I'm just playing the devil's advocate. I'm just trying to show the doubt.
06-14-04, 11:04 PM stampeding turtles I like this from an interview with Douglas Adams about agnostics and atheists:
"If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. .. It’s funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much. People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)
Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know? Isn’t belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don’t see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don’t believe my four-year old daughter when she tells me that she didn’t make that mess on the floor. I 'believe' in justice and fair play (though I don’t know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also 'believe' that England should enter the European Monetary Union...... I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. But as a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.
I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” - then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all."
Douglas Adams in interview
06-14-04, 11:10 PM MommyTimesTwo
quote:Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.
I take exception to that--I am unsure if there is a God or not BECAUSE I've thought about it so much. I can see evidence both ways.
06-14-04, 11:59 PM newnickname I think Adams was talking about wishy-washy English agnosticism in particular. Worrying about the deep questions in life and (worse) talking about them run against some cherished stereotypes the English have about themselves.
Of course the hole could be Intelligently Designed; anything's possible. If that were your belief, I'd have to say 'fair enough'. (Or, if I were English, smile uncomfortably and then stare at my shoes.)
06-15-04, 12:21 AM MommyTimesTwo ROFL! I'm not only American, but I'm from NY. I don't think New Yorkers on a whole do anything wishy-washy Big Grin
I don't know if there is a God or not, or if there is intelligent design. Because I don't know, I like to question everything Big Grin
06-15-04, 12:33 AM newnickname Actually, we can be pretty sure that there isn't "Intelligent Design" as it's generally understood. "Intelligent Design" is a tricky new name for Scientific Creationism, the collection of falsehoods and misconceptions which claims that a literal reading of the Bible is supported by scientific evidence.
If you said not only that the hole was designed for the puddle, but that you had a valid scientific theory which supported this, I'd be forced (if English) to turn red, clear my throat a couple of times and say, "Oh, well, I don't know about that, you know..."
06-15-04, 12:55 AM MommyTimesTwo It is not generally understood that there is not intelligent design. The idea that an intelligence designed the world and all that it is in it is the basis of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam...which covers most of the people on the planet, collectively. Certainly it is not only believed by Christian Scientists. They are just the ones that use that exact phrase.
06-15-04, 01:06 AM babthrower 'Course there's a very basic flaw with the theory of intelligent design. So much of it is not intelligent. Looks a lot more as if living things just evolved. Used what they happened to have, and were shaped by natural selection. There is no embarrassment in saying the human spine is a design disaster if it is the product of evolutionary shaping. But if it is the product of a consious designer... well, what can I say?
06-15-04, 09:14 AM MommyTimesTwo There is also the midway--intelligent evolution. The idea is that someone/thing direct evolution. Now I personally think it was environment, but some people believe it was God.
06-15-04, 09:41 AM newnickname I agree, Mx2. I expressed myself clumsily. Of course many, if not most, people in the world see no conflict between religious and scientific accounts of how the world came to be, believing that a divinity of some kind shaped the processes which we have observed.
When I said "Intelligent Design" as it's generally understood, I was talking precisely about those frauds who use that exact phrase - usually, it seems , as part of an attempt to smuggle their religious agenda into school classrooms. What marks "Intelligent Design" off from the ideas about divine direction which you describe is that advocates of the former claim to have scientific evidence, which they don't.
06-15-04, 11:51 AM MommyTimesTwo Yes, I have heard in defense of "Intelligent Design" the following: "If natural evolution were true, we'd have an example of every animal from every stage of development". Of course, the chances of even a single animal from any given stage of development becoming a fossil AND being found by someone who would not only know what it is but handle it properly is about 0.00000000000000000000000000001%, so the chances of finding an example of each and every animal in every single state of development is so small that I will blow the thread if I try to type it out. That's not even counting all the fossilized critters that were found throughout recorded history and lost/destroyed. It's just silly.
06-15-04, 03:33 PM Elexina
quote:Originally posted by MommyTimesTwo: I'm not only American, but I'm from NY. I don't think New Yorkers on a whole do anything wishy-washy.
I'm with you on that one, MTT. Big Grin
06-15-04, 03:43 PM MommyTimesTwo Big Grin
06-15-04, 09:50 PM Shaggy MX2,
Can I call you that? :-)
Contrary to popular opinion, it is possible to prove a negative. In fact, there are two ways: proving existence would cause a contradiction (e.g. square circles) or just simple observation (e.g. I looked, but did not find).
When it comes to contradictions, it would first require a definition. However, there is no consistent definition of "God". Hence, we end up with the problem of showing why any individual religion's definition is contradictory (hence, getting into the problem you wish to avoid).
As for observation, man has been observing the cosmos for millenia of millenia, yet there has never been a verifiable sighting of God.
If God's constant interaction with the universe is part of the definition of "God", we end up disproving the god defined that way... and once again, we get into the problem you wish to avoid.
The problems with the disproofs are not the disproofs themselves, but in how one defines a term (e.g. God) in their premise. Without a consistent definition, one has to fall back on "your religion is wrong and here's why."
Shaggy
06-15-04, 09:51 PM Shaggy "There are other really strange things in the universe. In fact the universe is probably a lot stranger than any of us realize."
There is one theory that says if anybody ever discovers what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable... there is another theory that says this has already happened. :-)
Shaggy
06-15-04, 10:43 PM MommyTimesTwo The problem with disproving something is that it is only not there until you find it.
06-16-04, 01:47 AM babthrower Mommy, a bit cryptic. Here's a simple way of saying it. If we all agree that all crows are black, we are in great shape until someone discovers an albino crow.
06-16-04, 08:02 AM MommyTimesTwo Or we're sure all the goldfish are gold until we find a bronzefish? Razz
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 3065 | Location: A place with palm trees and sunshine! | Registered: 03-17-03
Or that bread isn't fish until we eat a Fishloaf. Smile
06-17-04, 03:15 AM tsaeb
quote:
Originally posted by MommyTimesTwo: + Is there a God or supreme power/diety? Yes. Every time I try to not think, He or one of His angels puts words in my head . . . ahem, against my will. + Is Christianity correct in it's assertions about God and how to worship? Christianity is the witness of believers in next to everything except true prophecy, prophecy being the one thing--with its visions and revelations--which can authenticate the Bible (also the Koran, ahem) and the existence of God. + Is the Bible really the word of God and/or accurate? Certainly. The Bible offers a path to a close relationship with God. It's very name indicates this truth. Bible = ib, B el = id, be El. In other words, the name Bible indicates that we are to make an identity and that the identity should be El, a Hebrew word for God.
06-17-04, 09:41 AM newnickname So is the message of the Holy Diblee only for English speakers who know a little Hebrew? Does it indicate different truths when written in other languages?
06-17-04, 10:07 AM MommyTimesTwo It doesn't make the slightest sense to suggest that the Bible is only for English speakers seeing as English didn't exist yet when it was written, and the people for whom it was written spoke Hebrew.
I really think that some people try way, way too hard to conform the Bible to their "truth", as opposed to conforming the truth to what the Bible actually says. Then what happens? They lose all credibility, which is probably why the religion is losing credibility.
BTW Tsaeb, the Bible wasn't called the Bible by the people who wrote it or used it. It was called the Gospel. Bible is a generic term that was applied to the book by English users. "Bible" is the word applied to any book that is the authority on a topic. It is from the Greek biblion (meaning, papyrus), NOT from any Hebrew word.
06-17-04, 10:45 AM babthrower Originally posted by tsaeb:
"Every time I try to not think, He or one of His angels puts words in my head . . . ahem, against my will."
Tsaeb, everyone has that experience, of being unable to stem the stream of consciousness. People have tried different ways to try and stop the voice. For example, meditators who are seeking a deeper level than the stream of consciousness may repeat a syllable which has no meaning, as they concentrate on shutting out physical sense data.
So these people who try to stop the stream do not think the words are from god, joking with them. They think it's the brain, taking care of business. They want something deeper.
06-18-04, 04:59 AM tsaeb Folks: LOL.
newnickname: "Holy Didlee"? From where did the extra "e" come? You ask a question that I prefer to leave to scholars to answer. Maybe some day while I am yet alive they will first read my observable interpretation of tongues.
MTT: I cannot lose credibility with those with whom I never had credibility. I refer to certain claims which I make, not all claims which I make, thankfully. As for "Gospel," gospel = go spel = go spell. God must laugh repeatedly at that one. Recall the scripture about how God uses foolish things to confound the wise.
Do you presume to have credibility even wisdom? I thought that in your quest for spiritual and doctrinal truth that you were standing on shaky legs. Correct me if you have a gimmick of your own from my God, who has a sense of humor.
babthrower: When God and some angels in heaven read your quip, they must have laughed so hard that they screamed. I refer to the following.
"So these people who try to stop the stream do not think the words are from god, joking with them. They think it's the brain, taking care of business. They want something deeper."
What did you eat? Are you under stress? Sorry, but sometimes I cannot stop myself--taking care of business, you see. Also, do you have one of those expensive connections which never go off, because all I have is one of those cheap dial-ups? The people you describe would be right at home with the Taos hum, eh?
06-18-04, 08:05 AM juanruiz One more time folks, the Bible is an invention of man. The OT was codified ca. 100 CE in Jammia. The NT is the product of St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons.
06-18-04, 09:47 AM MommyTimesTwo Tsaeb
I can't even understand what you are saying, let alone respond.
06-18-04, 09:57 AM newnickname
quote: "Holy Didlee"? From where did the extra "e" come?
" Bible = ib, B el = id, be El." If you're going to cheat on your anagrams, you might at least keep track of what you add. Smile
quote:You ask a question that I prefer to leave to scholars to answer. Maybe some day while I am yet alive...
I do like this idea however. I'm going to use it next time I'm asked, "Why haven't you cleaned the bathroom?" or "Where are those end-of-the-month reports you're supposed to hand in?"
06-18-04, 02:03 PM babthrower Tsaeb says:
"As for "Gospel," gospel = go spel = go spell. God must laugh repeatedly at that one. "
God isn't the only one. Smile The word gospel comes from Old English godspel and means, roughly, 'good news'. ( Spel means more like 'tale' or 'story'in the related Norse/Germanic (older root) language.) Cf. the good book.
06-18-04, 02:37 PM MommyTimesTwo The problem with trying to find secret meanings in American words is that our language is comprised mostly of deformed words from other languages.
06-18-04, 04:47 PM juanruiz It is one thing to study the linguistic gamesmanship of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, it's another to claim that the same may be done for translations.
06-18-04, 04:56 PM MommyTimesTwo Exactly. One can't take the American/English word "bible" and try to place meaning to it from the writers of the bible. They didn't write in English. I don't imagine most of the American/English words we use now even existed when the Bible was written. Therefore it is impossible to read American/English translations and ascribe "hidden" meanings to them by the original writers.
06-18-04, 06:04 PM newnickname Actually, I think Tsaeb's idea would be that God, who knows everything and exists at all times (yada yada Roll Eyes), hid these messages. God knew that eventually the word 'Bible' (or 'Diblee') would pop up, for instance.
What's mystifying is why God didn't just say 'we are to make an identity and that the identity should be El' (Possibly because that doesn't make much sense; does it mean that we should invent God? Is tsaeb a closet atheist? tsaeb = as bet = as a bet = I did this as a bet with my atheist buddies).
What's more worrying is the idea that God isn't very good at anagrams. You need to change and add letters to make it work. Is the floor of heaven littered with half-finished crosswords, torn up in divine frustration? Smile
06-18-04, 06:22 PM newnickname God isn't dead; He's just busy trying to think of a three-letter word, beginning with 'e', meaning 'flightless bird'. Big Grin
06-18-04, 07:20 PM MommyTimesTwo Oh, no...he's trying to solve an anagram..."Idiot sex...'I don't'...something..."
06-18-04, 08:17 PM babthrower All this pales before the monumentally gimongous task of tearing apart, letter by letter, every word in every language into which the OT and the NT have ever been copied or printed, making sure that all anagrams work.
No wonder he doesn't answer his calls.
And guess what. Tsaeb does it too. I began to suspect when I read the sentence:
"Do you presume to have credibility even wisdom?"
Obviously a hidden message here.
"Do you presume..." = pseudo me your
Aha! The game's afoot!
"to have credibility" = vertical debit hoiy
Aha! The joke! Hooey is deliberately misspelled!
I must search that endless series of posts on bookkeeping because obviously there was hidden meaning there!
"even wisdom" = demon wives.
Well! There we have it.
Tsaeb said:
"Pseudo me your vertical debit hoiy demon wives."
Umm, is she addressing the demon wives? Should there be a comma after debit? Or is she warning us about demon wives? And the vertical debit hooey? Does that have something to do with the the patronage scandal?
That's the trouble with that darn prophecy stuff. You never know what it means until after it happens.
06-18-04, 08:36 PM Sarai
quote:Originally posted by newnickname: quote from Tsaeb: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You ask a question that I prefer to leave to scholars to answer. Maybe some day while I am yet alive... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I do like this idea however. I'm going to use it next time I'm asked, "Why haven't you cleaned the bathroom?" or "Where are those end-of-the-month reports you're supposed to hand in?"
Ha ha ha ha! Newnick, every post of yours on this page has had me in stitches, but this one actually sent milk flying out my nose!
06-18-04, 08:40 PM Sarai Tsaeb: First, thank you for leading this thread in this hilarious direction. I haven't laughed this hard in weeks! The holy Diblee!
quote:Originally posted by tsaeb: prophecy being the one thing--with its visions and revelations--which can authenticate the Bible (also the Koran, ahem)
Just curious: are you becoming a Muslim? (And will you please call the Koran "The Glorious Narko?")
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 6612 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
God stopped answering prayers and making bushes burn because he was "inspiring" books like this. I watched a show on this, it was just amazing how the word BUSH and the word SADAM (obviously jokingly misspelled) interconnected on a random page that meant nothing about war! Really, I was truely inspired Then again, there was another page that said KENNEDY and DIES, and it was amazing to me that random plays of letters that happened to fall in those exact positions in that randomly chosen translation by the printer's press just PREDICTED that someone named Kennedy would one day DIE!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++ 06-19-04, 05:20 AM tsaeb I am glad that all or most of you got a good laugh. Yes, I was trying to be funny.
That extra "e" came into the "Didlee," because the letter "B" was heard as the word "be." As babs pointed out, anyone can recast the language into nonsense--also into false prophecy. I try to match the interpretations to designs on paper so that the consistency maintained makes the prophesying more credible. Well, it has been almost three years since the publication of the book, and I have yet to receive any disagreements with the interpretations. I suspect that when I add the mathematics book, then there will be more serious interest. Don't be so sure that God's new thing will not be taken seriously some day.
06-19-04, 07:32 AM MommyTimesTwo Seeing as when a book is printed, the way the the words fall on each page is decided by the printer, wouldn't any hidden messages/prophecies be those of the printer? Maybe whomever printed your Bible is trying to tell you something.
06-19-04, 07:46 AM tsaeb babthrower: Allow the Holy Spirit to help!
"Do you presume to have credibility even wisdom?"
do you presume to have credibility even wisdom = do you dom reep incredibly weve the sum as iv o t i (rearranged letters?) = do you dumb reap incredibly we've the sum as 40 + 1 (listened?) = do you dumb read incredibly we've the sum as 40 + 1 (saw p=d?) = do you dumb read incredibly we have the sum as 40 + 1
I count 41 characters in the answer above.
Do you dumb read? Incredibly, we have the sum as 40 + 1!
P.S. Do not miss it! God adds the "ha" to "we've" when He forms "we have." Do you recall that he changed "Abram" to "Abraham"? Also, "Sarai" became "Sarah." That was not an addition of "ah," because "I" rotated is "H." Recall, too, that Abraham laughed at Sarah's pregnancy. ha
06-19-04, 07:49 AM tsaeb MTT: I write, I type, I print out of my printer, and the printer does an exact offset printing job of the one printout which I give him. Since God is the Word, it is readily understandable that He can manifest in words.
06-19-04, 07:53 AM MommyTimesTwo I was refering to the position of the letters in the Bible.
You realize that each different translation and publisher and edition has different words in different places, right? The pages are different sizes, the fonts are different sizes, the words are changed (oh my are the words changed). So finding some "prophecy" in your personal Bible does not mean it appears in all Bibles or any other Bible.
Furthermore, that parlour trick can be done with any book. More than one person has found "prophecies" in Moby Dick and even The Wind in the Willows.
And unless you paid for a vanity publisher who just copied off what you already had, your book doesn't appear in the exact same organization page by page that you typed it. If it was vanity published, you should stop saying you have a book published because you don't. Having a book published is having a publisher by the rights to your book and print it. Vanity publishing is paying someone with a printing press to shoot off some copies. (This is to be distinguished from self-publishing, like is used by people on the talk circuit, and is a legitamate means of selling a book). Who published your book T?
06-19-04, 07:58 AM MommyTimesTwo
quote:Allow the Holy Spirit to help
Lethally pistol-whip hooter.
Pistol-whip rat toy hellhole.
Yo-ho-ho! the ill will pest part.
Lowish, petty, poor ill-health.
Hostilely pit hollower path.
To Hell With It! sappy or hello. (my personal favorite Smile )
06-19-04, 08:13 AM tsaeb MTT: ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Since you call me "T," that prophetic "MTT" must mean "MT" with "T," which being interpreted amounts to "Empty" with "tsaeb"!
Only because 1) you are around the age of my publishing company (23+ years), 2) you are fairly new to this debating game, and 3) I am in a very patient mood (understatement), do I kindly inform you that 1) if my printer did not make every book alike, he said that he would throw them all the hell out and redo the job, 2) all KJV's (that's King James Versions) of the Bible are alike, and 3) the Bible code which you read and loved is not at all the same as the interpretation of tongues, which I showed you above. Interpretation of tongues is a spiritual gift, which requires the leading of the Holy Spirit, not a computer to put the equidistant letter sequences into matrices from which words and phrases are read and associated by humans--most often without the leading of the Holy Spirit.
I am not into "parlour tricks," as you falsely accuse me, but I wish that one of your ghosts of whom you say you are so fond gives you a Eek.
06-19-04, 08:21 AM MommyTimesTwo 1) I'm older than 23
2) I've never read the Bible Code
3) NOT all KJV bibles are "exactly the same". Some are larger, some are smaller. Sentences break off in different places in each different edition.
4) It is a parlour trick. See, in your post I see "I sea" diagonally down from "interpretation", which is obviously a joking misspelling of "I see", meaning that "I see right through you".
5) What is the name of your publisher?
6) MTT is short for MommyTimesTwo, and since I do not represent myself as MTT AND that most people actually type "Mx2", your "interpretation" is silly.
7) "Interpretating tongues" is translating other languages. The KJV is in English. Exactly what are you interpreting?
8) "Ghosts of whom you are so fond"?? Are you referring to my saying in another forum that I have seen ghosts? Can you please leave footnotes on what you are going to "interpret" of my words because I can't keep track of your "interpretations". Try to keep them actually addressing what I said, please, and it will be easier.
06-19-04, 08:32 AM tsaeb Fellow participants, is Mx2 calling God and me "frauds"? Oops, will someone pray that God does not take vengeance? I am beside myself. So I can't do it.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 3065 | Location: A place with palm trees and sunshine! | Registered: 03-17-03
This thread has not only gone off topic, but a number of posts have contravened the rules with their personal insults.
The very silly thing about it all is that if the people involved would take the time to read back, they would see that they have misunderstood each other on a number of occasions.
I am closing this thread for today so that deep breaths can be taken and I can edit posts. MX2 and tsaeb, please stop misunderstanding each other and either get back on topic or leave this thread. Thank you.
Or that all fish are mute until we discover a BabelFish.
Then again, there was another page that said KENNEDY and DIES, and it was amazing to me that random plays of letters that happened to fall in those exact positions in that randomly chosen translation by the printer's press just PREDICTED that someone named Kennedy would one day DIE! 
