POSTED by Creative:


REPLY by Pan:


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

The above is very brief but if it’s not the proof you wanted, it does offers a lot of other sources with over 87 references and a couple dozen, or so, other reading suggestions, not to mention all the internal links within the writing.

Sometimes gaining knowledge is not as simple as listing bullet points or summaries of personal conclusions. Sometimes it takes a lot of effort and a lot research. Like trying to understand why first degree incest is considered harmful.

It might also benefit you to read about the Treaty of Versailles, a fabulous read, and it’s necessary background to understand why the majority of German people genuinely supported Hitler and his ideology, and they did so without coercion.


POSTED: Creative


REPLY Pan:


Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the ‘rise’ of the Third Reich and what preceded it. You will find the facts that support the statement which Creative made through that history.

Of course if ALL you are looking for are the ‘facts’ that confirm your own bias, you will undoubtedly find it, but you will miss an opportunity to gain a lot of other knowledge, a lot people do that, especially when they read the Bible.

What do you think I have a hard time understanding the bible?The bible isn't hard to understand.It is basicaly telling us how to deal with people concerning good and evil,and gives us very basic laws,rules,and standards to live by.If you have a hard time understanding things like "Do not kill,do not steal,do not worship other God's"I don't know what to tell you.


I know the bible is true for many reasons.

1.)It makes sense concerning human nature and how people behave good or evil.

2.)It is filled with advice that if you follow will lead you to a happy,no regrets life.

3.)The Old testament was filled with over 200 prophecies written about Jesus hundreds of years before he was born.All of them came true.Future prophecies in the bible are coming true as we speak and talk about what the future will be like.

4.)It is a bible that teaches love,equality,fairness,happiness,forgiveness,every lasting life,hope,and peace.

5.)It gives me hope where there is none and how to deal with issues such as death and despiar.

6.)History has shown the bible to be correct in locations such as former temples,markets,roads,buildings,etc.It tells what kind of people who ruled the region,who lived there,what they wore,what they ate,and what they were doing at the time there.These events are confirmed by other sources other than the bible.

7.)I can feel the spirit of the Holy ghost around me when I am in church and when I am praying with groups of people.

8.)People have died for refusing to deny Christ.Nobody is going to die in the name of Wicca or Hinduism.People do die for Islam but they are dying for the sake of the destruction of other religions so Islam can be the only one.Christians don't die because they are trying to wipe out other religions.They die because they won't deny Christ.

amen!!

Here is the fact.

The word "summary" does not change the meaning nor measure of criterion regarding the content of what consititutes being a satisfactory answer to the question "What does the Bible say."



You're trying hard to prove a false accusation about me Pan. You cannot prove that the accusations are true, because they are not. There is no amount of empirical evidence to support your remarks about me dude. None. Only thoughts which can and are systematically being shown to be based upon a flawed translation.



I was not agreeing with you. I was pointing out where he and I were talking past one another, and then clearly showing why and how that was the case. So, I have no idea what you're even talking about here. Show me where I paraphrased him to 'make him' say what I want. Nothing I quoted from Thomas had the order of appearance changed.

You've made the accusation enough times that it needs to be addressed. The prominent complaint and the main focus of your expression has been your accusation(s) regarding what you claim to be a deliberate omission on my part. That accusation has no empirical grounding. The evidence, in part at least, has been shown as being a misunderstanding on your part, one of which you finally admitted.

The omission of the word "summary" is completely irrelevent. The question "What does the Bible say?" still has the exact same meaning, and that which constitutes being satisfactory answer meets the exact same criterion. The fact, once again *IS* that the answer that followed the question was not what the Bible says.

However, here in your attempts to justify your accusations, you have paraphrased my words and changed the very meaning of the words by doing so.

That quote is taken completely out of context, which means the words surrounding the quote are imperative to understand the meaning of the words as they were being used. The fact of the matter here is that I was, once again, standing in Thomas' defense while simultaneously making a deliberate attempt at gaining understanding through reflecting back onto the exchange between he and I.

I was identifying where that misunderstanding took place, and attempting to correct it.



One makes claim 'X'.
One then realizes that claim 'X' is likely to be misunderstood.
One then clarifies the ambiguity in claim 'X' as a preemptive measure to avoid that possibility.

Simple but quite true.



This has been adequately explained already, but I'll do it again to help the understanding out a bit.

A liar knowingly and deliberately claims a falsehood, it is the intentional goal to mislead another away from what is true/fact.

Covert dishonesty, however, is different in a couple of ways in that it is an underlying element regarding a set of claims. Now, one can be intentionally and covertly dishonest, but that is not necessarily the case here which is why I pointed that out. That is especially true when and if someone holds unshakable conviction in demonstrable falsehood. Someone can unknowingly believe a falsehood. But I believe 'X' necessarily means I believe 'X' is true. 'X' is not necessarily true simply because it is believed. Now then, if someone continues to hold an unshakable belief even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then they are being dishonest with themself by the act of not having enough humility(intellectual self-honesty) to admit the fact that we can be mistaken.

That constitutes being covert dishonesty without being a liar.

That very distinction is exactly what I feared might be misunderstood through it's being related to simple and wrongful thinking about what is true, what is false, and exactly how that is determined.



Perhaps I avoid openly expressing everything that I do most clearly understand. Perhaps I tend to overestimate the depth of another's understanding as well.



You mean that this is not an accuation???



Sounds rather accusatory to me. Covertly, of course. The term "convenient" is loaded with presupposition. Chock full of it.

This is quite ironic, however. In your claim here to justify you're calling me names and accusing me of things throughout this thread, you've wrongfully presupposed that I called Thomas "dishonest". That is clearly proven by careful examination of your exact words. That claim is false. If your response was, in fact, well intended in that you really were offering me "an opportunity to correct the error" then one would think that I would have had to have first made an error. It seems that that has not been demonstrated as being the case.



No need I know exactly what it means, and how I meant it's use. In fact, in spite of irrational denial, I have quite clearly explained my position without logical nor reasonable refutation. That would be accompanied by fact, or that which necessarily follows from fact.



That is a good start. I was making an attempt at such corrections of misunderstanding with Thomas earlier.



It is when there is no empirical nor logical evidence that would constitute being sufficient reason to believe that 'X', that a belief in 'X' is based in pure faith(belief without evidence), and is therefore unreasonable and irrational - by definition alone.



That is your choice. What does the evidence suggest?



That is a rather simplistic definition, and not from Webster's Collegiate, however it will do.

1.)There is a hole dug by a mole that gets covered by leaves.
2.)The dust from driving down a dirt road concealed the liscence plate numbers.
3.)I could not see the car on the drive for it was concealed behind the apple tree in the front yard.

Need I continue here?

I look at reality at fit my understanding of it to what can be known.

The reasons you gave are entirely subjective, and many can even be contested on very solid logical ground.

Let's compare our subjective views:



First off I disagree that it does. Secondly this could be said of just about all mythologies since they are written by humans about humans. Also, as was pointed out by another poster, even the writings of people like Shakespeare reflect human nature.

It truly doesn't make sense concerning human nature, IMHO, and the reasons are as follows:

First off, the Bible clearly states that all men are sinners (this of course includes women). However, in order for the Christian Bible to work virgin Mary had to be sinless because you can't have God copulating with a sinful woman, and you can't have Jesus being born of a sinner. The mere fact that Mary was a mortal who was sinless flies in the very face that all men are without sin. So the fairytale contradicts itself in this way.

Moreover, the Bible clearly states that atheists cannot be righteous people, and that all good can only come from God. But that's clearly a falsehood, IMHO, because I personally know of many atheists who do good works and radiate love, not only for other humans but even for animals.

So IMHO, the authors of the biblical cannon have not properly reflected how people behave in general, and they made that grave contradiction via the Virgin Mary herself. Thus I conclude that it's evident that these stories are a work of poorly written fiction.



Same could be said of many religions, especially the writing of in the Veda of India.

Oh by the way, I haven't even followed the teachings of the Bible and I have no regrets in life. While it may be true that my life was not what I might have hoped it could be in my wildest dreams, just the same, I have no regrets concerning my actions or behavior because in hindsight there wasn't much I could have done differently. Moreover, much of what I did was in compliance with what Jesus had actually taught anyway. Not because I was trying to follow his teachings, but simply because his teachings reflect who I am naturally.



The Jews will disagree with you here quite passionately. They point out the fact that these prophecies were not fulfilled. In fact, the Christians even confess as much but claim that Jesus WILL fulfill the unfulfilled prophecies during his "Second Coming". So the Christians are banking on a "Second Coming" to fulfill their prophecy.

That doesn't equate to fulfilled prophecy IMHO.

Moreover, it's clear that Jesus didn't even agree with the moral teachings of the Old Testament and instead taught the moral values of Buddhism. So maybe the moral values that you find so attractive actually came from Buddhism anyway.



Well the Buddhism and the Veda teach these same things. They also offer everlasting life, hope and peace. So there's nothing unique about this. In fact, almost all religions offer these things.



Well, that's extremely subjective isn't it?

I never felt desperate about these things to begin with so I guess I don't need to reach out for hope in these matters. I've always felt innately eternal. In fact, I've never felt a need to 'seek God' because as the Bible says, "Tho I walk through the valley of death I fear no evil because that art in me" (Notice I didn't not say "with" me). I am not separate from "god" and have never felt separate from "god". In fact, as far as I can see that very notion is the most absurd notion ever. For if you are not "god" then who would you be? Something OTHER than God?

Can you not see the problem with that already? That would imply that you are an entity in your own right separate from the eternal spirit. But exactly what would you then be?

As far as I'm concerned pantheism is the only spirituality that makes any sense at all. This idea that we are all some sort of 'separate beings' from a Zeus-like Fatherly godhead is truly the material of mythologies and has no place in any serious philosophy concerning the true essence of reality.



I'm fully aware of this and find it completely unimpressive. All mythologies have some basis in the actual events that the authors wrote about. After all, these stories were indeed written by humans in their day and age, so of course they would write about the cities, people, and events that occurred in those times. This same thing can be said of Greek Mythology and just about any mythological tales.

The bottom line is quite simple, it's the claims of divine intervention that cannot be supported by any historical events. For example, you could find absolute proof that a man named Jesus lived, taught against the moral values in the Bible, and was crucified for his views, and I wouldn't be impressed in the least. On the contrary, I imagine that actually did historically occur. However, none of that even remotely suggests that he was born of a virgin, was the only begotten son of God, and rose from the dead.

So even finding evidence that some guy named Jesus lived and was crucified would not even remotely begin to give the Biblical claims about him any merit at all.

This same thing can be said of all the events in the Old Testament. In fact, IMHO, it's already been shown geologically that no world-wide flood since humans have been on Earth has ever occurred, thus demonstrating that the story of Noah and he ark is entirely fabricated fable.



Well, I'm sure the wiccans also feel the Holy Spirit when they perform their rituals and gatherings as well.

Like I say, I feel the Holy Spirit continually, 24/7 since the day I was born. In fact, I feel least "Holy" when I'm around religious people in their stuffy churches.

So again, this is quite subjective.

Moreover, if you want to go back to the Bible, it states in the Bible that God himself gave Moses instructions that if an altar it to be built to worship God it should not be made of hewn stone, or have steps leading up to the altar for if we lift up our tool we have polluted it.

Yet, what do we see in Christian Churches? The buildings are often made of hewn stone, or cut lumber, etc. And I personally have yet to see a church that doesn't have at least one or more steps leading up to the altar where a podium holds the very book that states precisely not to do this.

From my point of view most religions that claim to worship the Bible often don't even bother reading it carefully.



There aren't many religions that demand that people support a single bigoted godhead. In fact, as you point out, it's only the Abrahamic religions that do this because they are the only ones that are based on a jealous Godhead.

The whole idea that it's a sin to "deny Christ" is the very basis of this brainwashing scheme. Do you think these people truly care about Christ at all? I personally don't think they care about Jesus at one iota. The only reason they cling to the belief is because they think it's going to save their own butt.

If these same people were to discover that Jesus was just a mortal man who tried to teach love and forgiveness instead of the bigotry and revenge that was taught in the Old Testament, they would renounce him in a split second.

Christians don't gave a damn about Jesus. What they are in LOVE with is the idea of being SAVED!

I personally feel that I have far more love for Jesus than any Christian. I mean just look at my views. I recognize Jesus as a mere mortal man and I still feel that his moral values are superb and agree with his teachings. If Jesus could be brought back to life today I would give him a great big brotherly hug along with my condolences of his horrible fate. And I would do that all knowing that he was just a mortal man like myself.

The only reason that Christians care about Jesus at all is because they think he hold the ONLY KEY to paradise! When they die for his namesake they think they are doing the utmost righteous thing and will be rewarded for it. They aren't doing it because they love Jesus.

Besides do you honestly think that Jesus has such a fragile ego that he actually cares what people think of him? This whole idea of a personified God who needs to be recognized and worshiped as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords already reeks of extreme egotism.

That's yet another reason why the biblical picture of "god" can't be true. I personally don't believe that "god" even has an 'ego'. The very notion of an 'ego' is a human attribute, not a divine attribute.

So clearly we have totally different subjective opinions about religions and mythologies.

You claim to "know" the bible is true. I claim that it must be false because it's utterly absurd.

And we go, round and round and round. All because of what? Because the Biblical God has such a HUGE EGO that he is pleased to see people die to protect it?

That's a reason to reject the mythology as being ungodly, not to support it, IMHO.

To me, that was the most despicable brainwashing scheme that mankind has ever written into a religious mythology.

wouldn't any book concerning human nature make sense pertaining to good or evil..even a comic book?...so going by your theory that would mean that if a comic book made sense to you dealing with human behavior you therefore will believe that everything else beyond human nature that was written in the comic book is true and that all the characters in that comic book that was beyond human actually exist



like stone unruly children to death ...let's face it...they were just little brats anyway



it's funny how none of those 200 prophecies mention the name Jesus ...I guess they couldn't prophecize that



people alway say that but never say what ....it's called "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" ...which is the practice of prophecizing events after they happen



don't all religious books teach that....even the Satanic Bible



when it comes to how to deal with death and dispair it's best to read the story of "JOB" ...especially if they don't like their family



wouldn't it be logical that those that wrote the bible would know those things since they most likely lived in or around those locations ..in other words are any of those locations in America



since "Free Will" supposely presents a non-interference and/or non-influence by God option ...are you sure what you were feeling was the holy ghost and not gas



right...The Christian Crusades wasn't about wiping out other religions ...it's merely a coincidence that the people they were wiping out just happen to be in different religions other than Christianity

FALSE!

If you have a verse that "clearly states" that belief, I'd love to see it, in the meanwhile, I'll just prove that statement wrong immediately.

This chapter speaks loads of what Slowhand was trying to convey to you a few weeks back. Remember when he said God doesn't care what religion you are as long as you are a good person?


Romans 2 (KJV)
1Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

2But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

3And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

4Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11For there is no respect of persons with God.

12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

17Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

18And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;

19And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,

20An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.

21Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?

22Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?

23Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?

24For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

25For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

27And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

It has been.

Look, here's the way it is.

Thomas answered the question that was posed by the OP and current discussion about judging others. *the question was first posed by others*
Since it was specifically about people's "gods", he quoted scripture from the Bible. *he addressed the question appropriately from the Bible"
He then stated his "SUMMARY" was forthcoming, quite obvious and bold I might add.
1st line, "Judge not?", summarizes the original question...
The 2nd line, "What does the Bible say", summarizes where his quoted verses came from...
The rest is obviously his summary of the verses quoted above. They are there for you to read them, he wasn't hiding anything.

You then deceptively paraphrased his words to imply that his question was to be answered by exact quotes from the Bible. "What does the Bible say?", was the answer to "Judge not?"



When the truth was, someone else asked the question, he offered scripture as the answer, and then his translation as the summary.
You really do have a problem with sequencing, huh?

You've shown that your understanding of covert in the context used is lacking. It could not have been anything but intentional when you know the meaning of the word "dishonest".

All from "http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dishonest"

dis·hon·est adj
1: obsolete : shameful, unchaste
2: characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness : unfair, deceptive

Synonyms: lying, mendacious, untruthful

Synonym Discussion of DISHONEST *bolded for emphasis*

dishonest, deceitful, mendacious, untruthful mean unworthy of trust or belief. dishonest implies a willful perversion of truth in order to deceive, cheat, or defraud <a swindle usually involves two dishonest people>. deceitful usually implies an intent to mislead and commonly suggests a false appearance or double-dealing <the secret affairs of a deceitful spouse>. mendacious may suggest bland or even harmlessly mischievous deceit and when used of people often suggests a habit of telling untruths <mendacious tales of adventure>. untruthful stresses a discrepancy between what is said and fact or reality <an untruthful account of their actions>.


So in fact, covert is actually a bit redundant in the context I thought you used it. It's a contradiction the way you define it though.
If you can call a man dishonest who spreads falsehoods without knowing it, then why can you not call the same man a liar?
A synonym for dishonest is lying, so you're saying he unintentionaly covered up his intentional lying and then you later "preemptivly" say you weren't calling him a liar? (preemptive is another word you should look up)


There is tons of "imperical and logical" evidence of what I believe. Your mistake is thinking that it doesn't meet the proper "criteria".

And as for your "truth"... You will NEVER be what determines what TRUTH is (except to yourself). The best you can hope for is to recognise it when it presents itself to you.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...



Just because everything comes through a subject, it does not follow that everything coming through is equally subjective.

I'm done here addressing your meaningless drivel.

I am always amazed by those who engage in a discussion in a manner that has been clearly shown to be based upon mistaken presupposition. Even after that, you still insist upon telling me that you know what I meant better than I do, despite the fact that the evidence you present supports what I've said just as much as you think it supports your judgment of and about me and my thoughts?

Tell me Pan, how in the world do you think that you can prove that you know what I think and mean better than I do by using a dictionary?

Astounding.

Let me demonstrate here.

Your definition of dishonest:



You chose to pursue the parts that do not apply to what I mean. Those apply to your presupposition. I've already clarified the possibility of mistranslation prior to this part of our discussion. I forsaw the possibility. Evidently there *is* a problem understanding what is meant by the term preemptive.

Why do you insist upon forcing your wrongful presupposition(s) into my meaning despite the fact that I have already taken adequate measures to avoid it?

Look more closely at #2.) for it clearly states "characterized by a lack of truth"

The answer that followed the question did not contain words that satisfy being a correct answer. Answers follow questions, not the other way around. Your insisting upon that being the case as well as insisting that you know what I meant better than I do. This is getting rather ridiculous.

The lengths to which some will go to rationalize their own mistaken presupposition amazes me.

Yes, it does appear that you amaze yourself immensely. I however, am not amazed at all. It's sad, really, really, sad, the lengths with one will go to conceal the truth.

Just admit your error and slink away while you still have your dignity...

Brilliant.

Exposing is not concealing.

Deliberately attacking me online is cowardly.

So have we not hashed this to the point of returning to the beginning question which was "If god is the judge of man then why don't the religious trust god to judge people?" It is he/she/it's job after all is it not?

So in the case of gay marriage, since the religious do not have a monopoly on marriage, we should allow any adult to marry whoever they want as long as both are of sound mind and of age, right?

Leave the attacks off of the forums. If this continues, the topic will be locked.

Kim

I will still say "no" unless you want to permit all types of marriages regardless of age or soundness of mind. Even then, I would still disagree...

I included all adults of age and sound mind to marry. The age limit is definitely not a religious doctrine because we know that Christians of old married in their teens or younger.

Being of sound mind is in there so that a mentally challenged person is not taken advantage of by someone else.

As to marrying in the family and such, that is by state too.

But again if the religious trust their god to do the judging. Why don't they allow him/her/it do it?

That's discrimination against teens. We also know that about a hundred years ago Americans married in their teens or younger. What has changed since then? Public opinion?





Again, discrimination... Who decides if a person is of sound mind, you?





Are you saying it's legal in some states? or are you refering to distant cousins only?





Because God isn't supposed to judge anyone at this point in time...
And just because a person doesn't support gay marriage does NOT imply judgement of that person, only of gay marriage.


So by that logic, since the governmental court systems are supposed to judge criminals, you won't speak up if you witness a crime?