Digital Radio Central - Sponsored by TSS Radio
  DRC Home Page DRC Forums Contact Us  
 
SIRIUS Backstage Forum
 
 
 
  Sirius Satellite Radio XM Satellite Radio iTunes/iPod Slacker Pandora  
 
 
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  
Go Back   SIRIUS Backstage Forum > >
Visit Digital Radio Central

Notices

The Doghouse Here is where people are talking everything not SIRIUS related. So be cool, be smart and have something to say!

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
 
Old 01-11-2007, 11:33 PM   #676
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

i did a search for st. jerome and the sermon on the mount. lots of hits, but none talking about him advocating killing heretics.

however, he did live in 400 ad - 1700 years ago. if you have to go back that far, your argument loses its value.

since you brought this up, i would like to see you furnish a url backing it up.

but lets assume for the moment, that st. jerome did say this. you cant seriously be using this as an argument about jesus advocating it ?

as i said previously, you or st. jerome, or whomever is taking a very, very small portion of the sermon, stripped away from the rest of it, and applying it the way that you, st. jerome, or whomever wants to, in order to fulfill your wants.

the majority of the popes have been corrupt, and bent on financial gain, instead of a spiritual one, if we examine the almost 2 centuries of them. so if your argument is one about the history of the catholic church being terrible, you are preaching to the choir.

that is not at all an argument against the teachings of jesus.

remember, i also told you to forget about the bible, when talking to me. i have no argument with you there, either. the old testament has nothing to do with jesus, when you look at the content of what each has said.

but when you continue to misconstrue what jesus said, and then use some silly argument that religious leaders in the past have done so - i draw the line.

the powers have always used religious programming to better control its populace. and they still do. and it has then always interpreted the religion to suit its needs. are the powers to blame ? yes. are the people to blame ? yes, we need to start using our own brains, instead of allowing some uppity-up tell us what dogma to believe, and how to believe it.

i do commend you for doing that. you have put effort towards making up your own mind. and i have no problem with you concluding that the likelihood of the existence of god is small, or that christianity is not for you, or whatever you conclude - as long as it has been an honest search for the truth.

i do not believe you have done this with your search for christianity - your bias comes thru like a blinding light. you have made serious logical reasoning errors - in a magnitude that i do not believe you would have made in a serious search for the truth - because you come across as being too intelligent to have made them accidentally.

so before responding to me, i will ask you to do what i asked aaron to do - give it a couple of days, and be honest with yourself - no rationalizing allowed. i believe if you are honest, you will admit that you have a bias to want to find the teachings of jesus to be inconsistent, lacking, or whatever.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 01-11-2007, 11:48 PM   #677
SoundWave
Just Tuned In
 
SoundWave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 08, 2007
Posts: 1
SoundWave is on a distinguished road
Default RE Does god exist

Of course god exists, who do you think invented beer?
__________________
Tired of all the Howard wannabies
SoundWave is offline  
 
 
Old 01-12-2007, 12:41 AM   #678
memebag
Sirius Star
does god exist ?
 
memebag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 30, 2006
Location: Raxacoricofallapatorius
Posts: 2,320
memebag will become famous soon enoughmemebag will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
i did a search for st. jerome and the sermon on the mount. lots of hits, but none talking about him advocating killing heretics.

however, he did live in 400 ad - 1700 years ago. if you have to go back that far, your argument loses its value.
How so? You asked for information about how the Sermon on the Mount was used to justify violence. St. Jerome is part of that information. His reasoning about Matthew 5:17-18 gave the Roman church the scriptural justification for killing heretics and non-believers. They built on that and used it to justify the Crusades and the Inquisition. Those were violent events, justified in part by the Sermon on the Mount.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
since you brought this up, i would like to see you furnish a url backing it up.
I wish I had one, but I don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
but lets assume for the moment, that st. jerome did say this. you cant seriously be using this as an argument about jesus advocating it ?
No. I can't think of anything I've said that would make you think I did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
as i said previously, you or st. jerome, or whomever is taking a very, very small portion of the sermon, stripped away from the rest of it, and applying it the way that you, st. jerome, or whomever wants to, in order to fulfill your wants.

the majority of the popes have been corrupt, and bent on financial gain, instead of a spiritual one, if we examine the almost 2 centuries of them. so if your argument is one about the history of the catholic church being terrible, you are preaching to the choir.

that is not at all an argument against the teachings of jesus.
No, it's an argument against using the Bible as the basis for morality or religion. Those popes may or may not have been corrupt, but all of them have been able to cite scripture to support their actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
remember, i also told you to forget about the bible, when talking to me. i have no argument with you there, either. the old testament has nothing to do with jesus, when you look at the content of what each has said.

but when you continue to misconstrue what jesus said, and then use some silly argument that religious leaders in the past have done so - i draw the line.
Grrrr. Please stop. Listen. Using Matthew 5:17,18 to justify cherry picking parts of the Old Testament isn't my argument. It's as valid an argument as ignoring Matthew 5:17,18, or saying Jesus didn't really mean what he said, or that he never said it, but none of those are my argument. My argument is that there is no single interpretation of the Bible that is objectively more correct than all others, that the Bible is internally inconsistent and therefore unfit as the basis for morality or law. That's my argument. I'm tired of typing it. When you think I'm arguing that Jesus was evil or Christianity sucks or whatever, stop and go back to this post. Read the bold part again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
the powers have always used religious programming to better control its populace. and they still do. and it has then always interpreted the religion to suit its needs. are the powers to blame ? yes. are the people to blame ? yes, we need to start using our own brains, instead of allowing some uppity-up tell us what dogma to believe, and how to believe it.
Amen!

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
i do commend you for doing that. you have put effort towards making up your own mind. and i have no problem with you concluding that the likelihood of the existence of god is small, or that christianity is not for you, or whatever you conclude - as long as it has been an honest search for the truth.

i do not believe you have done this with your search for christianity - your bias comes thru like a blinding light. you have made serious logical reasoning errors - in a magnitude that i do not believe you would have made in a serious search for the truth - because you come across as being too intelligent to have made them accidentally.
You don't have enough information about my search for truth to jump to that conclusion. Don't imagine that St. Jerome or the Catholic church had anything to do with my decision to be an atheist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
so before responding to me, i will ask you to do what i asked aaron to do - give it a couple of days, and be honest with yourself - no rationalizing allowed. i believe if you are honest, you will admit that you have a bias to want to find the teachings of jesus to be inconsistent, lacking, or whatever.
I don't need a couple of days, I know the answer. I believed the teaching of Jesus were absolutely true until I was about 13 years old. I had no bias. I was a Christian. Our church had a brilliant and fairly progressive minister who encouraged us to think for ourselves. There was no reason for me to doubt what I'd been taught, other than what I read about other religions, science and history. Eventually it became clear that the beliefs of my parents couldn't be literally true. There were too many holes in the logic, too much that didn't test out. Over the next seven years I tried being a Buddhist, a Pagan, a Muslim, a Taoist, Shintoist, Druid, Deist etc., and eventually called myself an agnostic. After another 10 years of that I realized I was an atheist, that there was no reason to entertain even the possibility of any supernatural aspect of reality. All of this happened to a person who truly loved Christ and his teachings, just from thinking for myself.

It wasn't easy. It meant giving up a loving and supporting community. It meant enraging some members of my family and saddening others. My life probably would have been easier if I had stayed a Christian. It scared me to stop, but I was incapable of continuing.
memebag is offline  
 
 
Old 01-12-2007, 06:17 PM   #679
Edgar
Mixologist
 
Edgar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 25, 2005
Posts: 340
Edgar is on a distinguished road
Smile Why worry?

People only worry about God's existence if they think they will be punished for all their sins.

Why worry? Just believe that God exists. It doesn't cost you anything. It might even be good for you. You may or may not learn the answer until you die. If it turns out there really isn't a God, well you're dead. It doesn't matter.

If there is a God after all, well you always believed in Him anyway so you're fine. Don't make things so complicated.
Edgar is offline  
 
 
Old 01-12-2007, 07:07 PM   #680
memebag
Sirius Star
does god exist ?
 
memebag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 30, 2006
Location: Raxacoricofallapatorius
Posts: 2,320
memebag will become famous soon enoughmemebag will become famous soon enough
Default

Any god fooled by Pascal's Wager doesn't deserve to be believed in.
memebag is offline  
 
 
Old 01-13-2007, 02:29 PM   #681
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

one area of my physics book tells me that the only thing that is necessary to cause acceleration is force.

wait, another area of my physics book tells me this is not true.

throw away all physics books. they are inconsistent.

oh, wait. someone just told me that i need to view what i am reading in its context.

oh, okay. i understand now.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 01-13-2007, 07:41 PM   #682
memebag
Sirius Star
does god exist ?
 
memebag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 30, 2006
Location: Raxacoricofallapatorius
Posts: 2,320
memebag will become famous soon enoughmemebag will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
one area of my physics book tells me that the only thing that is necessary to cause acceleration is force.

wait, another area of my physics book tells me this is not true.

throw away all physics books. they are inconsistent.
You probably want to throw that one away. And I wouldn't plot a trajectory to Venus with it.
memebag is offline  
 
 
Old 01-14-2007, 05:54 PM   #683
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by memebag
You probably want to throw that one away. And I wouldn't plot a trajectory to Venus with it.
all physics texts are like that. light and relativity are not usually discussed until the 4th semester.

mechanics is the first semester, and mass is considered to be a constant - so force and accelleration are linearly related. no theoretical limit to accelleration in newtonian mechanics.

all subjects are this way.

AGAIN, YOU NEED TO TAKE WHAT YOU ARE READING IN CONTEXT.

the teachings of jesus can be very figurative. it is not meant to be a literal text. however, this does not mean that it does not have an exact meaning. it does not mean that it can be interpreted in many ways.

the parable of the good samaritan has one interpretation. however, it is not meant for us to believe that the story actually occurred, but rather the lesson we are to learn from the story itself.

when i read the sermon on the mount, i see only one extremely obvious interpretation. i emphasize EXTREMELY OBVIOUS.

and if you conclude that jesus was keeping everything intact after reading the ENTIRE SERMON - then boy do you have some reading comprehension problems.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 01-14-2007, 10:45 PM   #684
memebag
Sirius Star
does god exist ?
 
memebag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 30, 2006
Location: Raxacoricofallapatorius
Posts: 2,320
memebag will become famous soon enoughmemebag will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
and if you conclude that jesus was keeping everything intact after reading the ENTIRE SERMON - then boy do you have some reading comprehension problems.
Stop saying I'm saying what I'm not saying and go back to the bold text.
memebag is offline  
 
 
Old 01-15-2007, 12:36 AM   #685
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by memebag
And I have, but we aren't talking about what I know. We're talking about what Christians believe. You are free to reject the passage in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says Mosaic law still applies, but it's entirely reasonable to accept that passage and reject others. There's nothing objectively more "correct" about one interpretation than the other. That's the problem with using an internally inconsistent document to support morality or law.
in case you forgot, i have not forgotten. so i will say once again to you, that there very much is one correct interpretation of the sermon of the mount. AN OBVIOUS ONE. one which you apparently do not yet understand.

so you see, you very much did say what you said you didnt say, which is why i continue to say that you said it.

you still do not understand the difference between christianity and people who call themselves christians. you still do not understand the difference between being a christian and being a catholic, methodist, lutheran, etc.

you still do not understand that a christian is someone who follows the teachings of jesus.

go back to my chocolate cake example. or your chocolate cake example. it does not take ice cream, cherries or anything else to make a chocolate cake. the fact that other groups of people have partially adopted the teachings of jesus and mixed other things together with it, and call them christians does not mean they are christians. a christian is a follower of CHRIST.

i have already told you 5 million times that i have no argument with you regarding the consistency of the bible. i have told you 10 million times that the old testament has nothing to do with the teachings of jesus.

but when you tell me that the teachings of jesus are inconsistent, then i put my foot down, and you had better be prepared to answer to it. you have most definitely stated that the sermon on the mount can be interpreted in many ways, and one is no more correct than the other.

and i am telling you that this isnt so. which is why i am saying that it is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS what jesus was saying in the sermon.

i cant help it if people have used it for their gain. people do that all the time, with anything that they can use. religion is one way, and perhaps the best way, to control people. so it is not unexpected that religious teachings will be misused moreso than other types of books.

one can not control people's behavior based upon the workings of the cosmos, so whether our universe is 10 billion years old or 10 trillion years old, doesnt make much difference in regards to our behavior.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 01-15-2007, 12:57 AM   #686
memebag
Sirius Star
does god exist ?
 
memebag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 30, 2006
Location: Raxacoricofallapatorius
Posts: 2,320
memebag will become famous soon enoughmemebag will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
in case you forgot, i have not forgotten. so i will say once again to you, that there very much is one correct interpretation of the sermon of the mount. AN OBVIOUS ONE. one which you apparently do not yet understand.

so you see, you very much did say what you said you didnt say, which is why i continue to say that you said it.
No. I said Christians say it. I didn't say it. Whatever it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
you still do not understand the difference between christianity and people who call themselves christians. you still do not understand the difference between being a christian and being a catholic, methodist, lutheran, etc.
No, I don't. They all say they are Christians. They are all correct. You can make a distinction between different sects, but your distinction is as meaningful to me as theirs. You're all Christians to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
you still do not understand that a christian is someone who follows the teachings of jesus.
Sure I do. That includes Catholics, Lutherans, Mormons and Greek Orthodox. They all follow the teachings of Jesus. None of them agree precisely on what those teachings mean or how they should be interpreted, but they all follow the teachings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
and i am telling you that this isnt so. which is why i am saying that it is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS what jesus was saying in the sermon.
One interpretation is extremely obvious to you. Another was extremely obvious to St. Jerome. Neither is objectively correct.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you have an objective proof that your interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is correct. Please provide it if you have one. (Remember, repeating that it it is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS does not constitute proof.)
memebag is offline  
 
 
Old 01-15-2007, 01:12 AM   #687
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

Originally Posted by memebag
And I have, but we aren't talking about what I know. We're talking about what Christians believe. You are free to reject the passage in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says Mosaic law still applies, but it's entirely reasonable to accept that passage and reject others. There's nothing objectively more "correct" about one interpretation than the other. That's the problem with using an internally inconsistent document to support morality or law.

can you read what you wrote ? YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU said that it is entirely reasonable to accept various interpretations of the sermon.

and i am telling you that it isnt. and you are then justifiying this by saying that other groups have interpreted the teachings of jesus differently.

and for the five billionth time, i am telling you that groups of religious leaders USE VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS for their benefit.

do you understand the difference between using something for your benefit and actually interpreting a reading solely for what the reading was intending to say ?

i am not arguing with you that various christian sects have used teachings incorrectly. this does not validate your conclusion that said statements can be interpreted CORRECTLY with different meanings.

nor does it validate your conclusion that there are various possibly correct interpretations.

try to understand the difference between interpreting a reading based upon what the reading intended - versus using an interpretation of a reading to further one's cause - which in the case of religion, is almost always an attempt to control people.

we are not all that different in many aspects of our thought patterns.

but as you just admitted, you do not yet know what being a christian is.

i have already told you that i never once was asked to open the bible while being raised catholic. i have told you that this was always a complaint about the catholic church by other christian sects. they always said that the catholic church did not want its constituents reading the bible and getting their own ideas. in retrospect, these other christian groups were entirely correct. so you see, catholics are people who follow the teachings of the pope and the catholic hierarchy. in some instances, they are following jesus, and in others, it has nothing to do with what jesus said.

so i am sorry to inform you that these christian sects that you are lumping together and labeling all of them as followers of jesus just is not entirely correct.

what is correct is to say that the teachings of the various christian sects have some sort of base with regards to the teachings of jesus. on that, i can agree with you.

there is just so much that you do not yet understand about christianity that it makes it hard for me to communicate with you so that you can understand your misunderstandings regarding christianity.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 01-15-2007, 01:40 AM   #688
memebag
Sirius Star
does god exist ?
 
memebag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 30, 2006
Location: Raxacoricofallapatorius
Posts: 2,320
memebag will become famous soon enoughmemebag will become famous soon enough
Default

Sorry, I must have missed your proof that your interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is the only correct one. Can you post it again?
memebag is offline  
 
 
Old 01-15-2007, 02:14 AM   #689
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by memebag
Sorry, I must have missed your proof that your interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is the only correct one. Can you post it again?
when i have time, i will post the only logical interpretation - based upon what is said, and what jesus preached.

however, we both know that there is no proof. there is no proof of anyone's statements. proof means a 100% possibility of correctness, which would mean that one would have to be inside the mind of another, to know what was absolutely meant with 100% certainty.

however, there are various probablility curves of the possible correctness of interpretations. and i am willing to debate with any christian scholar about my interpretation of the sermon. because if one's only goal is to interpret it correctly, then it is a slam dunk - because the sermon is easy to understand. and i dont say that about all the statements of the bible, for sure. and i am happy to entertain anything that jesus said. i do not call myself a scholar of the bible, so it is entirely possible that you may come up with a saying of jesus, that i am not sure about. but the sermon is not one of them. one aspect of my interpretation that is different from most interpretations that you will read about is that i have no axe to grind. my only goal is to correctly understand what was said. i have no desire to control anyone with them. now this is true with the large majority of people, but the large majority of people is not what you will most likely be reading about on the internet. you will find interpretations by catholic hierarchy, agnostics, atheists, and all sorts of groups whose only goal is to forward an interpretation that they want to be true for their own benefit.

i think one reason why the sermon is easy to interpret is because of its length. you pull out a paragraph about what jesus said, and you really have to then start investigating in more depth other things that jesus said, so that you can tie things together. this has to be done in physics textbooks, as well. one set of teachings helps to enforce the next set of teachings, etc.

but the entire sermon itself is quite lengthy, so when read in its entirety it has a straight forward meaning.

i havent the foggiest idea of what others have said about the sermon - simply because i believe any interpretation other than my own has a personal bias based on it. in other words, the conclusion is based upon something other than just the desire to understand. i say this because i find the sermon easy to understand.

to do the best job of understanding jesus, one must read everything that jesus said. this gives said person a better perspective.

this is true, regarding the writings of anyone. sorta like the blind men on the elephant, all sure the elephant was different, because they were only examining parts of the elephant, and not the elephant as a whole.

this is why it is dangerous to do what you are doing - taking a few sentences out of a very long sermon, and then making such specific conclusions about them. this will give extremely poor results, regarding anyone's writings.

unfortunately, people are sheep, and want to be spoonfed - so they listen to these groups of people who are doing just that - taking whatever words from jesus that they can use to make a group of people believe in a way that is beneficial to the interpreters.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 01-15-2007, 03:53 AM   #690
memebag
Sirius Star
does god exist ?
 
memebag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 30, 2006
Location: Raxacoricofallapatorius
Posts: 2,320
memebag will become famous soon enoughmemebag will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
when i have time, i will post the only logical interpretation - based upon what is said, and what jesus preached.
God's speed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
i havent the foggiest idea of what others have said about the sermon - simply because i believe any interpretation other than my own has a personal bias based on it.
Is that a joke? Or are you saying your interpretation has no bias? Must be a joke. Good one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
to do the best job of understanding jesus, one must read everything that jesus said. this gives said person a better perspective.
Do you imagine that St. Jerome and the others didn't read everything attributed to Jesus?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
this is why it is dangerous to do what you are doing - taking a few sentences out of a very long sermon, and then making such specific conclusions about them.
Jebus H. Abbot, gymeejet! How many times do I have to say this? I'm not making conclusions based on a few sentences of the sermon! Multiple Christian scholars (who have read the entire Bible, btw) interpreted the text this way. Why can't you understand this? Why do you keep confusing me with St. Jerome, Pope Leo I, Justinian, et al? Is it my chasteness? My piety? My funny hat??

Last edited by memebag; 01-15-2007 at 04:40 AM..
memebag is offline  
 
 
 

Go Back   SIRIUS Backstage Forum > >


Digitalradiocentral.com




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:22 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.39 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
All Content Copyright SIRIUS Backstage. All Rights Reserved. SIRIUS and registered trademarks are the property of SIRIUS Satellite Radio, Inc. The opinions posted on SIRIUS Backstage website and forums are those of the individual posters and/or this website and are not necessarily the opinions or positions of SIRIUS Satellite Radio, Inc.