# Selfish Atheists



## pnome (Feb 23, 2009)

All,

Maybe I'm wrong, but I keep getting the impression from some of you on this forum that atheists are somehow "selfish"  or self centered.  With some variations on that same theme.

I really don't see the connection and it seems like a non sequitur to me. So...

I was wondering if you could enlighten me as to why you think it's selfish to not believe in your god.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 23, 2009)

I think what they're talking about is that you rely on yourself and/or see yourself as the end all be all of your existence.  That there is nothing beyond what you yourself can comprehend.  Something like that, I think.   At least that's what I've always heard.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 23, 2009)

I'm not sure I think it's selfish to not believe in my God.  It's self-destroying ultimately.  

But selfish?  The only time I've thought the atheists who frequent this area are selfish was recently when it was argued that some would attempt to convince Christians that God does not exist.  

As I said in that conversation, the razor really only cuts one way.  If we're both happy and I am wrong, we both just die and rot.  If we're both happy and you are wrong, you die...and I live.  It's inherently selfish to cheat me out of that if we start on equal "happy" playing ground.

I do think that most of the atheists I've run into SEEM to be highly self-important and they leave the impression that believing in Christ is for the simple minded, which is incredibly insulting.

I think, honestly, what you're hearing is recoil against that.  You're hearing recoil against the air that many of you are giving off that, if you believe in God, you've not thought logically about the subject; that you're just believing what your old Pappy taught you and that, somehow you're not smart enough to think for yourself.

Whether intended or not, that's what is coming across sometimes.  None of this in meant as an attack.  You asked a question.  I'm just trying to answer honestly.  So, I hope I don't offend.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 23, 2009)

A belief in a deity is not required for morality.
Actually, it is more selfish to think your way is the only right or moral way.


----------



## ToLog (Feb 23, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I'm not sure I think it's selfish to not believe in my God.  It's self-destroying ultimately.
> 
> But selfish?  The only time I've thought the atheists who frequent this area are selfish was recently when it was argued that some would attempt to convince Christians that God does not exist.
> 
> ...



i can understand what you say. for me, i'm certain i didn't create myself.  something holds me up, so to speak. that is, consciousness is how we inter-relate across the internet, from one computer terminal to another.

it's not intelligence, a monkey could do it, if trained properly.  well, on second thought, maybe some intelligence might be involved.

that said, something holds us up.....consciousness, self-awareness, whatever energy or condition, or whatever..

we're all here together, in various ages, maturities, understandings, gender, etc. 

serious discussion, no sense in giving up on the expression of ideas, energies, consciousness levels now.  we've come a long way, and as the Buddhists might say, yon shore beckons.


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 23, 2009)

Here you go..

http://www.atheists.org/

From their site: 

1. It's fun to watch religion slide into its down-spiral! According to a recent Harris Poll, President Barack Obama topped the hero list beating the likes of Jesus and God.

Interpreted: It's fun for us to make fun of those who believe in God = arrogant. 


2. Atheists attack the Boyscouts: http://www.atheists.org/press_releases/Obama_Asked_to_Turn_Down_Boy_Scouts_of_America_

3. In desribing themselves they say, "There is no proof or evidence for the existince of gods. There is no need for or use for gods. Superstition and ignorance have never served mankind in a good way. Religions have shown themselves to be intolerant and bigoted. Religions have impeded scientific progress, liberty, and reformation." 

This arrogant and prideful as they set themselves above and as better than anyone who has a belief in God. 

I could share more. 

-five


----------



## footjunior (Feb 23, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Here you go..
> 
> http://www.atheists.org/
> 
> ...



Sounds like you have problem with the American Atheists organization.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 23, 2009)

1.  A blog point discussion about a Harris poll and it's results?
Come on.  Use the top bar on the site and see what is really there, not what is found on a blog hit piece making fun of how people rank other humans as influential.  Even fundamentalists can debate that type of poll.

2.  Fundamentalists attack the Boy Scouts at various times too.  Historically factual.

3.  Historically and scientifically factual.  The only part some Atheists will disagree with is that religious belief systems are required for some people to be at peace and to have moral guidance.


----------



## ToLog (Feb 23, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Here you go..
> 
> http://www.atheists.org/
> 
> ...



Consciousness is the last unexplored frontier, right? 

without consciousness, the air-breathing Christians, and the air-breathing others wouldn't be able to communicate.

what is that thing we have in common called consciousness?  where did it come from? what does one do to understand it?

Consciousness.  it's better to be conscious than un-conscious, right?


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 23, 2009)

So the largest Atheist organization is no representitive of atheists? ooooook. lol


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 23, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Interpreted: It's fun for us to make fun of those who believe in God = arrogant.



But you don't think it's arrogant of you to think that your belief is the only way to God?

Isn't that a bit hypocritical?


----------



## ToLog (Feb 23, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> But you don't think it's arrogant of you to think that your belief is the only way to God?
> 
> Isn't that a bit hypocritical?




oh my. there's those of us who feel and know we're on the right track to the top of the mtn.  if you're not above us or directly below us, you're off-course. 

they, the climbers,  might be forgetful of their brothers and sisters who are serving as direction finders at the bottom of the mountain in the valley, saying go that way....go that way... to the beginning of the base of the mtn, if you want to ascend the heights to the top.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 23, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> But you don't think it's arrogant of you to think that your belief is the only way to God?
> 
> Isn't that a bit hypocritical?



Dixie, it follows in the belief system from the top down.  

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
That implies other gods, but they are lower in status.  And you can not get to the real top deity except through one certain belief system.


----------



## pnome (Feb 23, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Here you go..
> 
> http://www.atheists.org/
> 
> ...




Five,

These are reasons you think atheists are arrogant.  Not what I'm looking for, we could trade jabs on this point all day (seems it has already started).

I'm talking about "selfish" or self-centered.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 23, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> But you don't think it's arrogant of you to think that your belief is the only way to God?
> 
> Isn't that a bit hypocritical?



Dixie- Hasn't this question been asked and answered enough here? I mean how many times have you and I discussed it?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 23, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Dixie, it follows in the belief system from the top down.
> 
> "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
> That implies other gods, but they are lower in status.  And you can not get to the real top deity except through one certain belief system.



Actually it implies that you will make gods by placing a higher importance of certain things than you do on God. That creates them.


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 23, 2009)

pnome said:


> Five,
> 
> These are reasons you think atheists are arrogant.  Not what I'm looking for, we could trade jabs on this point all day (seems it has already started).
> 
> I'm talking about "selfish" or self-centered.



Ok, I missed your point then.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 23, 2009)

Not believing in God isn't a new phenomena.  That was going on long before Noah began work on the Ark.
It does seem to be new, at least to me, that those who don't believe in God have begun to organize and seem to be anxious to convince the world that they are right and those who believe in God are wrong.  What is really surprising to me is that unbelievers come to a religious forum not to learn or ask questions, but to play with the animals.
Sometimes we Christians have a difficult time dealing with the unbelievers who seem to be on the "hunt".
You telling us that God doesn't exist is about like someone saying something derogatory about one of your family members.  
It's only words, but it can be difficult.


----------



## THREEJAYS (Feb 23, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Not believing in God isn't a new phenomena.  That was going on long before Noah began work on the Ark.
> It does seem to be new, at least to me, that those who don't believe in God have begun to organize and seem to be anxious to convince the world that they are right and those who believe in God are wrong.  What is really surprising to me is that unbelievers come to a religious forum not to learn or ask questions, but to play with the animals.
> Sometimes we Christians have a difficult time dealing with the unbelievers who seem to be on the "hunt".
> You telling us that God doesn't exist is about like someone saying something derogatory about one of your family members.
> It's only words, but it can be difficult.



Well put.


----------



## pnome (Feb 23, 2009)

I guess I was just wrong then.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 23, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> You telling us that God doesn't exist is about like someone saying something derogatory about one of your family members.
> It's only words, but it can be difficult.



...

Which one of the main reasons why religions have lasted as long as they have. People feel hurt when their created identity is being attacked. If your faith is so great shouldn't you be able to brush off the arguments without effort?

People need to grow some skin, get out of the kitchen, etc. People call me small-minded, idiotic, absurd, etc. all the time when I discuss these topics. It doesn't bother me.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 23, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Actually it implies that you will make gods by placing a higher importance of certain things than you do on God. That creates them.



Circular reasoning.  But, I will agree with your last sentence.  We create our god.  It has to come from within our own belief and mind.  It can be shaped by imputs from holy books or whatever we choose.
Or, we can decide the idea of a god is manmade and made up and not participate in the activity of believing in one.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 23, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Circular reasoning.  But, I will agree with your last sentence.  We create our god.  It has to come from within our own belief and mind.  It can be shaped by imputs from holy books or whatever we choose.
> Or, we can decide the idea of a god is manmade and made up and not participate in the activity of believing in one.



Then you replace God with something else. In that case (atheism) the belief in the utmost importance and rightness of your thought process.

Thou Shalt Not Have Any Gods before Me.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 23, 2009)

No, an Atheist places nothing above a deity, as they do not recognize any gods.  It's a hard concept for some to really understand, especially those deeply rooted in the belief of the Bible.  But, try to think like there is only one accepted deity at this time, Apollo.  And the holy book is the words of Apollo.
And you do not believe in Apollo.  Simple.

An Agnostic only leaves the window open for discussion and a future decision.  Some Atheists will discuss as well.  But it will take more than the human written supposed word of Apollo, or being visited by the ghost of Apollo, for them to change their minds.  That is it.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 23, 2009)

footjunior said:


> ...
> 
> Which one of the main reasons why religions have lasted as long as they have. People feel hurt when their created identity is being attacked. If your faith is so great shouldn't you be able to brush off the arguments without effort?
> 
> People need to grow some skin, get out of the kitchen, etc. People call me small-minded, idiotic, absurd, etc. all the time when I discuss these topics. It doesn't bother me.



I have to admit to you that it's very unsettling when I identify myself as a child of God to someone who identifies themself as an atheist.  It kinda pulls the rug from under my feet.  The life that I live forces me to want others to be able to live this same life.  The one person that can't happen with, is a person who identifies themself as an atheist.
Being an atheist says:  Stop! Don't waste your time.

You have to understand what that says to someone who believes in God.
It means you've already made up your mind, and, for us, you made the worst decision possible.

It's not easy to accept that.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 23, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> No, an Atheist places nothing above a deity, as they do not recognize any gods.  It's a hard concept for some to really understand, especially those deeply rooted in the belief of the Bible.  But, try to think like there is only one accepted deity at this time, Apollo.  And the holy book is the words of Apollo.
> And you do not believe in Apollo.  Simple.
> 
> An Agnostic only leaves the window open for discussion and a future decision.  Some Atheists will discuss as well.  But it will take more than the human written supposed word of Apollo, or being visited by the ghost of Apollo, for them to change their minds.  That is it.



But in Christianity by doing that you have placed your ability to know and reason above all else.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 23, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> But in Christianity by doing that you have placed your ability to know and reason above all else.



That thought would be no different to any other religious belief system, not just Christianity.

It's not how an Atheist views their own opinion.  They look at each religious belief system that has a deity at the top as human fabrication.  They just do not buy in.  It is not replacing a deity with anything else.  A human can live a full and complete life without belief in a deity.  Many do not believe in Ra or Zeus, are they any less complete for that?

If a person holds the Bible to be their book of complete truth and a guide to all both physical and spiritual, they can rarely comprehend how anyone else can refuse to do that.
It is the exclusiveness of the system that prevents it.
That's OK.  I'm not trying to break it down or destroy it for anyone.
I only want folks to think.  Use reasoning.  Learn to express what you believe and do in in a rational manner without insult or emotion.  I'll admit that last part is totally a pipe dream, as religion is highly emotional.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 23, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> I have to admit to you that it's very unsettling when I identify myself as a child of God to someone who identifies themself as an atheist.  It kinda pulls the rug from under my feet.  The life that I live forces me to want others to be able to live this same life.  The one person that can't happen with, is a person who identifies themself as an atheist.
> Being an atheist says:  Stop! Don't waste your time.
> 
> You have to understand what that says to someone who believes in God.
> ...



Why not?  Do you feel you have to change them?  I know, the Great Commission. 
I think you understand why some Atheists and Agnostics want you to understand where they come from.

If you feel it is a waste of time, then don't.  There is too much for us to have to worry over in our lives.  Taking on the worry of the world is unnecessary.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 23, 2009)

I follow you. But would add this...

If I believe you will perish in the next life for not believing and did nothing to convince you. I have been of poor service to my beliefs and my Lord.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 23, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Being an atheist says:  Stop! Don't waste your time.



I didn't know that's what it meant to you. There are plenty of ex-atheists who are now Christians, and their reconversion most likely had something to do with a Christian being involved in discussions with them. Perhaps on a hunting and fishing website, no?


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 23, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I follow you. But would add this...
> 
> If I believe you will perish in the next life for not believing and did nothing to convince you. I have been of poor service to my beliefs and my Lord.



Understood.  The Great Commission.  
But there are those people who will wonder just how a person can build such a strong belief in the unknown and unproven based on some stories in a book?  That's the divide, and sometimes it can not be brought together.
Some people have no fear of the unproven/unknown.  They will blame the book itself which created that fear in the first place.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 23, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Understood.  The Great Commission.
> But there are those people who will wonder just how a person can build such a strong belief in the unknown and unproven based on some stories in a book?  That's the divide, and sometimes it can not be brought together.
> Some people have no fear of the unproven/unknown.  They will blame the book itself which created that fear in the first place.



Yep. His Sheep will hear his voice.


----------



## pnome (Feb 23, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> I have to admit to you that it's very unsettling when I identify myself as a child of God to someone who identifies themself as an atheist.  It kinda pulls the rug from under my feet.  The life that I live forces me to want others to be able to live this same life.  The one person that can't happen with, is a person who identifies themself as an atheist.
> Being an atheist says:  Stop! Don't waste your time.
> 
> You have to understand what that says to someone who believes in God.
> ...



Works very much the same for me.  Only in the other direction.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 23, 2009)

pnome said:


> Works very much the same for me.  Only in the other direction.



I don't understand what you're saying.


----------



## SBG (Feb 24, 2009)

Atheist are selfish and they are not unique in their make up. They are no different than a person that has been born again. The only difference, obviously, is that the born again person is no longer liable for the penalty that is required of their iniquity. 

My personal experiences with atheists are that they are for the most part psychological egoists and hedonists-which selfishness is a symptom of.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 24, 2009)

SBG said:


> Atheist are selfish and they are not unique in their make up. They are no different than a person that has been born again. The only difference, obviously, is that the born again person is no longer liable for the penalty that is required of their iniquity.
> 
> My personal experiences with atheists are that they are for the most part psychological egoists and hedonists-which selfishness is a symptom of.



That seems more than a little self-righteous and selfish!  Wow.
It's the exclusivism of the belief system.  It's not personal.  I know that.


----------



## SBG (Feb 24, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That seems more than a little self-righteous and selfish!  Wow.
> It's the exclusivism of the belief system.  It's not personal.  I know that.



That is the typical response of someone that cannot counter a point on its merits or lack of. 

BTW...thanks for the edit.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 24, 2009)

SBG said:


> That is the typical response of someone that cannot counter a point on its merits or lack of.
> 
> BTW...thanks for the edit.



I've never said that to anyone who uses scripture quotes to answer a question.

Sometimes the fingers move faster than the brain does!  Especially before I've gotten the first three cups of java into the system!


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Feb 24, 2009)

pnome said:


> All,
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I keep getting the impression from some of you on this forum that atheists are somehow "selfish" or self centered. With some variations on that same theme.
> 
> ...


 
Pnome, and all Athiest

This is not meant to be an attack, just telling you like I see it... being "Blunt" as some call it...

For me it goes back to the Deprave Nature that everyone has....

Someone that is not Saved, is only concerned with Self, that is an effect of the Deprave Nature.... You are only concerned with your self... and how things that are done can benefit you...

That is my take on it...

DB BB

edited to add:  In the eyes of God, no amount of "good" works by the unsaved is "good"...


----------



## footjunior (Feb 24, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> For me it goes back to the Deprave Nature that everyone has....
> 
> Someone that is not Saved, is only concerned with Self, that is an effect of the Deprave Nature.... You are only concerned with your self... and how things that are done can benefit you...
> 
> DB BB



I disagree. I am not a Christian, yet I regularly perform actions that do not benefit me, directly nor indirectly.


----------



## SBG (Feb 24, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I disagree. I am not a Christian, yet I regularly perform actions that do not benefit me, directly nor indirectly.



But it does cross your mind, doesn't it?


----------



## footjunior (Feb 24, 2009)

SBG said:


> But it does cross your mind, doesn't it?



What crosses my mind?


----------



## Big7 (Feb 24, 2009)

pnome said:


> All,
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I keep getting the impression from some of you on this forum that atheists are somehow "selfish"  or self centered.  With some variations on that same theme.
> 
> ...



As a Christian ( I think I can speak for Catholics and Protestants on this one, at least)
It is our hope and duty to evangelize on the Teachings of Christ.

Having said that, It is a free country and you can worship (or not) anyway you choose. 
Most atheists don't cause real  a problem for MOST of society, except when infringing on 
the rights of others to worship as they please and when
they don't recognize that this country was founded on the principals of Christianity.

Protesting things like prayer in schools and taking the Ten Commandments 
out of Courthouses etc.. It is hardly tolerable.

Blasphemy - Case in point below is where I (and I would
say MOST Christians) draw the line. They should if they don't.

This atheist’s attack on Catholicism—
offensive, deliberate, and hateful. (that's the title)

If you want a real shock, GO HERE:
http://www.catholic.com/appeals/new_atheism_appeal.asp

These are the kind of FOOLS that do nothing to help your cause.
I would like to break his neck! And would, if given the chance. 
I'm not saying atheists on here are that way, because I just don't know. 
I hope they are not.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 24, 2009)

Big7 said:


> This atheist’s attack on Catholicism—
> offensive, deliberate, and hateful. (that's the title)
> 
> If you want a real shock, GO HERE:
> ...



lol thank you so much for posting that Big7. It brought me to tears.

Does this remind anyone else of the Muslims who issued death threats against the Dutch cartoonist last year?


----------



## pnome (Feb 24, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Someone that is not Saved, is only concerned with Self, that is an effect of the Deprave Nature.... You are only concerned with your self... and how things that are done can benefit you...




Tell me something then.  Why are you good?  Why do you worship Jesus?  Why do you worship God?  

I would submit that you do so for selfish reasons.  You wish to be repaid, in full, for your faith and good deeds.  You expect an eternal reward in heaven.

I, on the other hand, expect no such payment for my good deeds.  

Who's is only concerned with "self" then?


----------



## pnome (Feb 24, 2009)

Big7 said:


> As a Christian ( I think I can speak for Catholics and Protestants on this one, at least)
> It is our hope and duty to evangelize on the Teachings of Christ.
> 
> Having said that, It is a free country and you can worship (or not) anyway you choose.
> ...



In the very first amendment, in the very first statement of the bill of rights it says: 



> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion




If you can't grasp this concept, you need to leave this country.

I'll tell ya what though.  I'll make you a deal.  I'll agree that you can have the commandments on government property, IF you get rid of the first four.  6 out of 10 ain't too bad is it?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 24, 2009)

pnome said:


> In the very first amendment, in the very first statement of the bill of rights it says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Freedom of not freedom from... Getting rid of the traditional interpretation of the Bill of Rights will only end up hurting you.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 24, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Freedom of not freedom from... Getting rid of the traditional interpretation of the Bill of Rights will only end up hurting you.



I don't see how... if atheism is considered a 'religion'....


----------



## pnome (Feb 24, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I don't see how... if atheism is considered a 'religion'....



Oh snap!


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 24, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I don't see how... if atheism is considered a 'religion'....



Yep and you are free to practice it.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 24, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Yep and you are free to practice it.



Well, since I'm not an atheist and I don't consider it a religion, that's really not an issue for me.

This is the definition of 'religion':

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.  
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.  
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.  
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.  
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites. 
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow. 


I don't see how atheism fits into that, but that's just me...


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 24, 2009)

That is just you. Atheism fits all of those. In each person. The only difference is they bend it to make sense individually.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 24, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> That is just you. Atheism fits all of those.



How so?
Atheism has no 'beliefs' nor any 'practices'.  They simply say they don't have enough evidence for belief.  Are you saying that the absence or denial of faith is in itself, faith?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 24, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> How so?
> Atheism has no 'beliefs' nor any 'practices'.  They simply say they don't have enough evidence for belief.  Are you saying that the absence or denial of faith is in itself, faith?



Yes indeed. You have to replace it with some form of morality. Some form of basis for thought. Even if you create it yourself then it is a religion. You hold to it and have your own eschatology. It may be a religion of one but it's still there.


----------



## Big7 (Feb 24, 2009)

footjunior said:


> lol thank you so much for posting that Big7. It brought me to tears.
> 
> Does this remind anyone else of the Muslims who issued death threats against the Dutch cartoonist last year?



You have your very own thread. Dismissed.
Go troll somewhere else.
"Thought you said you were outta' here"
C'Ya'
You might want to try Saudi-Arabia too...



pnome said:


> In the very first amendment, in the very first statement of the bill of rights it says:
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
> 
> ...



For starters, your twisting "Congress shall make no 
law respecting an establishment of religion" means:
There will be NO established State Religion.
If you like that kind of stuff, I suggest YOU be the 
one to leave the country. Try Saudi-Arabia. 
You would make it about .000002 seconds, 
right before they chopped your head off.

Now - a little history lesson for you, the one that knows so much.

Washington Monument:
One detail that is never mentioned is that in Washington , D.C. there can never be a building of greater height than the Washington Monument.

With all the uproar about removing the ten commandments, etc., this is worth a moment or two of your time.  I was aware of this amazing historical information. You evidently, were not.

On the aluminum cap, atop the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C., are displayed two words: “Laus DeÅ�.”

No one can see these words.  In fact, most visitors to the monument are totally unaware they are even there and for that matter, probably couldn’t care less.

Once you know the history of “Laus DeÅ�” you will want to share this with everyone you know. These words have been there for many years; they are 555 feet, 5.125 inches high, perched atop the monument, facing skyward to the Father of our nation, overlooking the 69 square miles which comprise the District of Columbia , capital of the United States of America.

“Laus DeÅ�!”  Two seemingly insignificant, unnoticed words. Out of sight and, one might think, out of mind, but very meaningfully placed at the highest point over what is the most powerful city in the most successful nation in the world.

So, what do those two words, in Latin, composed of just four syllables and only seven letters, possibly mean?  Very simply, they say “Praise be to God!”

Though construction of this giant obelisk began in 1848, when James Polk was President of the United States , it was not until 1888 that the monument was inaugurated and opened to the public.  It took twenty-five years to finally cap the memorial with a tribute to the Father of our nation, “Laus DeÅ�, Praise be to God!”

From atop this magnificent granite and marble structure, visitors may take in the beautiful panoramic view of the city with its division into four major segments.  From that vantage point, one can also easily see the original plan of the designer, Pierre Charles l’Enfant—a perfect cross imposed upon the landscape, with the White House to the north.  The Jefferson Memorial is to the south, the Capitol to the east and the Lincoln Memorial to the west.

A cross you ask?  Why a cross?  What about separation of church and state? Yes, a cross; separation of church and state was not, is not, in the Constitution.  So, read on. How interesting and, no doubt, intended to carry a profound meaning for those who bother to notice.

Praise be to God!  Within the monument itself are 898 steps and 50 landings.  As one climbs the steps and pauses at the landings the memorial stones share a message.

a. On the 12th Landing is a prayer offered by the City of Baltimore ;

b. on the 20th is a memorial presented by some Chinese Christians;

c. on the 24th a presentation made by Sunday School children from New York and Philadelphia quoting Proverbs 10:7 (”The memory of the just is blessed: but the name of the wicked shall rot”), Luke 18:16 (”But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God”), and Proverbs 22:6 (”Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it”). Praise be to God!

When the cornerstone of the Washington Monument was laid on July 4th, 1848 deposited within it were many items including the Holy Bible presented by the Bible Society. Praise be to God! Such was the discipline, the moral direction, and the spiritual mood given by the founder and first President of our unique democracy: “One Nation, Under God.”

I am awed by Washington ’s prayer for America. Have you ever read it? Well, now is your unique opportunity, so read on!

“Almighty God; We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection; that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large. And finally that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.”

Laus DeÅ�!

When one stops to observe the inscriptions found in public places all over our nation’s capitol, he or she will easily find the signature of God, as it is unmistakably inscribed everywhere you look. You may forget the width and height of “Laus DeÅ�,” its location, or the architects but no one who reads this will be able to forget its meaning, or these words: “Unless the Lord builds the house its builders labor in vain.  Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain” (Psalm 127: 1).

Any questions?

Next, I will educate you on the Biblical References
regarding text, images and insignia on the Buildings of The United States Supreme Court buildings. That is if you have the stomach for it.

To try and claim this country was not founded on Christian principals is just plain stupid.

Any more questions?



SBG - I think I may have an answer for your question in this post. And the cure.

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=3242904&postcount=1

See attached image.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 24, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Yes indeed. You have to replace it with some form of morality. Some form of basis for thought. Even if you create it yourself then it is a religion. You hold to it and have your own eschatology. It may be a religion of one but it's still there.



We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 24, 2009)

Big7 said:


> You have your very own thread. Dismissed.
> Go troll somewhere else.
> "Thought you said you were outta' here"
> C'Ya'
> You might want to try Saudi-Arabia too...



Well I was trying to be serious. You're the one who said that you would break his neck if you had the chance. Sounds like you'd fit right in if you were part of the Spanish Inquisition.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 24, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.



Dixie this is not an agree to disagree moment. The Atheism pushed by FJ and several others on here meet ALL of those criteria. The absence of "God" does not make it a non-religion.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 24, 2009)

Oh and they even have their spiritual book writers. Dawkins and Russell. 

Granted it's kind of like reading a hooked on phonics level book but hey they put a lot of stock in them.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 24, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Dixie this is not an agree to disagree moment. The Atheism pushed by FJ and several others on here meet ALL of those criteria. The absence of "God" does not make it a non-religion.



That's what I mean... I disagree, so I'm agreeing that we disagree


----------



## Big7 (Feb 24, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Well I was trying to be serious. You're the one who said that you would break his neck if you had the chance. Sounds like you'd fit right in if you were part of the Spanish Inquisition.



I am serious too..
Rest assured.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Feb 24, 2009)

pnome said:


> Tell me something then. Why are you good? Why do you worship Jesus? Why do you worship God?
> 
> I would submit that you do so for selfish reasons. You wish to be repaid, in full, for your faith and good deeds. You expect an eternal reward in heaven.
> 
> ...


 

I do good because I am Saved.  I worship Jesus and God because He choose me, because He knew I would never choose Him.

I just like you deserve an eternity in He11, if God felt the need to send me there then I would be going there, but God felt the need to spare me, and use me for the furthering of His kingdom...

The difference between me and you is that I know I deserve He11.

Sorry if that hurts, but you wanted the truth.

DB BB


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 24, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I do good because I am Saved.  I worship Jesus and God because He choose me, because He knew I would never choose Him.
> 
> I just like you deserve an eternity in He11, if God felt the need to send me there then I would be going there, but God felt the need to spare me, and use me for the furthering of His kingdom...
> 
> ...



Don't let the secret handshake out too.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 24, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I just like you deserve an eternity in He11



Just curious, what did you do that makes you think you would deserve that?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Feb 24, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Just curious, what did you do that makes you think you would deserve that?


 
All mankind deserves it. We inherited it from Adam's fall...

DB BB


----------



## pnome (Feb 24, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I do good because I am Saved.  I worship Jesus and God because He choose me, because He knew I would never choose Him.
> 
> I just like you deserve an eternity in He11, if God felt the need to send me there then I would be going there, but God felt the need to spare me, and use me for the furthering of His kingdom...
> 
> ...



It doesn't hurt because it's not the truth.

You don't deserve he!! my friend.   I can think of some people who do, but you're not one of them.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Feb 24, 2009)

pnome said:


> It doesn't hurt because it's not the truth.
> 
> You don't deserve he!! my friend. I can think of some people who do, but you're not one of them.


 
pnome,

I surely hope and pray that God touches your heart, I feel that if He does you would be a great witness!

Still praying for you man! I will continue until you are touched or I die...

DB BB


----------



## footjunior (Feb 24, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Oh and they even have their spiritual book writers. Dawkins and Russell.
> 
> Granted it's kind of like reading a hooked on phonics level book but hey they put a lot of stock in them.



Putting a lot of stock in them is a little different than believing they are infallible, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## RThomas (Feb 24, 2009)

Big7 said:


> This atheist’s attack on Catholicism—
> offensive, deliberate, and hateful. (that's the title)
> 
> If you want a real shock, GO HERE:
> ...



I'd suggest going to his website and expressing your displeasure.  I'm sure his readers will give you a warm reception.  http://www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Also, the professor in question isn't hard to find.  Perhaps you could follow up on your promise to "...break his neck! And would, if given the chance."  Very christian of you.  You think your actions would be less or more deplorable than his?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 24, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> All mankind deserves it. We inherited it from Adam's fall...
> 
> DB BB



So you didn't do anything to deserve it.  Yet somehow you still believe that you do deserve it.  I'm sorry, I don't mean this in a condescending way, but that doesn't make much sense.  You believe you deserve he11 for something someone else did thousands of years ago.  Why?  Just because the bible says so?  Or that you think that's what the bible says?

And I agree with pnome.  You certainly don't deserve it.  And I'm sure those children that you have taken into your home would agree as well.


----------



## Big7 (Feb 24, 2009)

RThomas said:


> I'd suggest going to his website and expressing your displeasure.  I'm sure his readers will give you a warm reception.  http://www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
> 
> Also, the professor in question isn't hard to find.  Perhaps you could follow up on your promise to "...break his neck! And would, if given the chance."  Very christian of you.  You think your actions would be less or more deplorable than his?



No need to go to his web-site.
Found out all I need to know about him in the 
link I posted. It is from a reliable, well respected 
Catholic site. I take it verbatim.

And yes - my action would be less deplorable.
I do not desecrate The Body of Christ.

Any more questions?


----------



## RThomas (Feb 24, 2009)

Big7 said:


> Any more questions?



No.  I'd get more reasoned responses by talking to my wall.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 24, 2009)

Big7 said:


> Any more questions?



Why haven't you broken his neck yet? This man is a professor in Minnesota. I don't know about Minnesota, but if it's anything like GT, you just walk into a building and there are the professors. No ID required for most buildings during school hours. You could fly up there, walk into his office and break his neck. You don't consider this situation "a chance" when you said, "And would, if given the chance."? This man pierced the body of Christ with a rusty nail. Literally. The body of Christ.

Guess you aren't as serious as you say you are.


----------



## Big7 (Feb 25, 2009)

No - I'll not fly all the way to Minnesota, just to break some fools neck.

Let's just put it this way. HE WOULD NOT DO THAT
IN FRONT OF ME or MANY other Catholics.

Remember the atheist FOOL that did something EVEN 
less severe in Florida a few years back. There were people 
in the streets, that would have torn him to shreds if not for the Police. 
He just removed the consecrated host from Mass and did nothing to it.

You need to understand - believer or non-believer,
even you should be able to understand this.

Catholics believe in transubstantiation. (look it up)
To us this despicable action would be to us as it
would be to you to pierce the body of your mother, 
father, child etc.. with a rusty nail. Even worse because 
of the Divinity of Christ... Got it?

What would you do in the above situation?
Well, I guess because your mother, father, child etc..
does not have a soul, according to atheist belief, it wouldn't 
bother you at all I suppose.

Now - I have spoke my piece with you two.

Maybe I was wrong when I said in post #43:

"I'm not saying atheists on here are that way, 
because I just don't know. 
I hope they are not."

Looks like you may be.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 25, 2009)

Big7 said:
			
		

> Remember the atheist FOOL that did something EVEN less severe in Florida a few years back. There were people in the streets, that would hve torn him to shreads if not for the Police. He just removed the consecrated host from Mass and did nothing to it.



 Yes! Preach that Christian, American love! Tear him to shreds! That's the difference between Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists right there. Christians are so much more zealous! You create a film denouncing Islam and Muslims decapitate you in the streets of your home country. Big deal, right? But... you steal a cracker and Christians will tear you to shreds!



> You need to understand - believer or non-believer, even you should be able to understand this.
> 
> Catholics believe in transubstantiation. (look it up)
> To us this dispicable action would be to us as it
> would be to you to pierce the body of your mother, father, child etc.. with a rusty nail. Even worse because of the Divinity of Christ... Got it?



...



			
				Footjunior said:
			
		

> This man pierced the body of Christ with a rusty nail. Literally. The body of Christ.



Got it.



> What would you do in the above situation?
> Well, I guess because your mother, father, child etc..
> does not have a soul, according to atheist belief, it wouldn't bother you at all I suppose.



Well... I don't want to be outdone by Muslims or Christians so... I would decapitate him like the Muslims would and save his head. I would tear his body to shreds like Christians would. Then I would grind up those shreds and feed them to my pet parrot, who's only purpose is to continuously spout out random sentences from the The God Delusion. Then I would take the head, shrink it, and add it to the other skulls on the necklace which I hang around the bust of Richard Dawkins in my library which contains 4 books: The End of Faith, The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, and The Bible, which are all obviously the 4 main books which inspire many to the greatness which is called Atheism.



> Now - I have spoke my piece with you two.
> Maybe I was wrong when I said in post 33:
> "I'm not saying atheists on here are that way, because I just don't know. I hope they are not."
> 
> Looks like you may be.



PZ Myers got just what he was looking for: media attention. If he knew that we are on a hunting and fishing website discussing his actions he would probably laugh in glee. I think what he did was done in a serious manner to make a point. I think the response to his actions is hilarious yet serious at the same time. Hilarious because people believe a cracker becomes the body of Christ. Serious because people's lives are in danger because of this belief.

This kid that you speak of has received death threats, as has PZ Myers. People often want to compare Islam with Christianity. Here's your chance. We have a man (Big7), who is motivated by his beliefs, and feels so confident in his beliefs that he is, not only willing, but "would like" to end the life of another human being because of these beliefs.



This has been a very entertaining thread because of you Big7. Thank you. Thank you so much for posting that link (which everyone should check out by the way). It made my day.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 25, 2009)

Big7 said:


> No - I'll not fly all the way to Minnesota, just to break some fools neck.
> 
> Let's just put it this way. HE WOULD NOT DO THAT
> IN FRONT OF ME or MANY other Catholics.
> ...



Yep he may be...


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Feb 25, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> So you didn't do anything to deserve it. Yet somehow you still believe that you do deserve it. I'm sorry, I don't mean this in a condescending way, but that doesn't make much sense. You believe you deserve he11 for something someone else did thousands of years ago. Why? Just because the bible says so? Or that you think that's what the bible says?
> 
> And I agree with pnome. You certainly don't deserve it. And I'm sure those children that you have taken into your home would agree as well.


 
DD,

Thanks for the kind words.

Nope, I believe I don't deserve Salvation, but God elected me to it, which now my duty is to serve Him, and further His Kingdom. Am I happy that God chose me unto Salvation? Most definately YES!!!! But I have done nothing in my life that warrants me deserving Salvation.

Yep because the Bible says so.... For all have sinned and fell short of the glory of God. (my paraphrase)

There is none righteous, no not one...

Thanks agin for those kind words,
DB BB


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 25, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> DD,
> 
> Thanks for the kind words.
> 
> Nope, I believe I don't deserve Salvation, but God elected me to it, which now my duty is to serve Him, and further His Kingdom. Am I happy that God chose me unto Salvation? Most definately YES!!!! But I have done nothing in my life that warrants me deserving Salvation.


 
I think that's very interesting.  The question wasn't whether or not you deserved salvation... it was whether or not you deserved to go to hel1.  There is a difference. 

And you're welcome for the compliment... it was very deserving!


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Feb 25, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I think that's very interesting. The question wasn't whether or not you deserved salvation... it was whether or not you deserved to go to hel1. There is a difference.
> 
> And you're welcome for the compliment... it was very deserving!


 

opps, guess I was reading too fast...

Here is my answer to why I think I deserve he11:

Yep because the Bible says so....

Adam's sin cause all of mankind to be sinful.

For by one man Sin entered into the world.

For all have sinned and fell short of the glory of God. (my paraphrase)

There is none righteous, no not one.

DB BB


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 25, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Here is my answer to why I think I deserve he11:
> 
> Yep because the Bible says so....
> 
> ...



That still doesn't explain why YOU deserve hel1.  It only explains why Adam might have deserved it.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 25, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> That still doesn't explain why YOU deserve hel1.  It only explains why Adam might have deserved it.



It is an inherited part of our make up. Sin is why you question God's existence.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Feb 25, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> It is an inherited part of our make up. Sin is why you question God's existence.


 

Thanks Celtic!  You said it much better than I could have...

DB BB


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 25, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> It is an inherited part of our make up. Sin is why you question God's existence.



Doesn't really fit with what the bible teaches.  God says in the bible that everyone is responsible for their own sin.  That the sin of the father is not passed down to the sons.  Yet here you say otherwise.

I also disagree that sin is why people question God's existence.  When Adam ate the apple, he didn't question God's existence. Nor did he question it after he ate it.  That simply doesn't make sense.  Where is your biblical support for that idea?

And I'm sure you were speaking generally when you said 'you question God's existence'.  I don't deny a creator.  I just don't agree that he's the same one you believe in.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 25, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Doesn't really fit with what the bible teaches.  God says in the bible that everyone is responsible for their own sin.  That the sin of the father is not passed down to the sons.  Yet here you say otherwise.
> 
> I also disagree that sin is why people question God's existence.  When Adam ate the apple, he didn't question God's existence. Nor did he question it after he ate it.  That simply doesn't make sense.  Where is your biblical support for that idea?
> 
> And I'm sure you were speaking generally when you said 'you question God's existence'.  I don't deny a creator.  I just don't agree that he's the same one you believe in.



Dixie I am not even sure where to begin but to ask what bible you read this in. Start in Genesis with the fall and work your way to Revelation and this is a pretty common thread. No interpretation needed.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 25, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Dixie I am not even sure where to begin but to ask what bible you read this in. Start in Genesis with the fall and work your way to Revelation and this is a pretty common thread. No interpretation needed.



What bible I read what in?

I have read the bible.  Many times over.  I'm not sure what you're getting at.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 25, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> What bible I read what in?
> 
> I have read the bible.  Many times over.  I'm not sure what you're getting at.



And came away with what you claim is in there??? I am not doubting you only realizing that has been said that you will not understand until it is revealed to you. You purposefully do not understand.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 25, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> And came away with what you claim is in there??? I am not doubting you only realizing that has been said that you will not understand until it is revealed to you. You purposefully do not understand.



Which part are you disputing?  I will gladly give you supportive verses and/or reasoning for my conclusion, just let me know what part you don't agree with.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 25, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Which part are you disputing?  I will gladly give you supportive verses and/or reasoning for my conclusion, just let me know what part you don't agree with.



Basically all of what you have said in the forum Dixie. Including original sin the fall being the reason for judgment.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 25, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Basically all of what you have said in the forum Dixie. Including original sin the fall being the reason for judgment.



I don't know what that means... where did I say that?

You claimed that my denial of God (although you are incorrect on this) is due to Adam's sin.  What I said was that isn't consistent with the bible because Adam never denied the existence of God.  Do you dispute that?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 25, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I don't know what that means... where did I say that?
> 
> You claimed that my denial of God (although you are incorrect on this) is due to Adam's sin.  What I said was that isn't consistent with the bible because Adam never denied the existence of God.  Do you dispute that?



I asked you to explain no original sin. Why anyone else should not go to he11 over what Adam and Eve did. 

If you have seriously considered Mormonism and Judaism and JW's after reading the Bible Dixie that is the rationale conclusion. Sorry. But since it is just my opinion it shouldn't matter much.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 25, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I asked you to explain no original sin. Why anyone else should not go to he11 over what Adam and Eve did.



The punishment for what Adam and Eve did was not he11 as you think of it with eternal fire and ****ation.  That is your misunderstanding.  He11 is the grave.  The idea of the he11 you have in mind with the devil and eternal torment is not even a Jewish idea and never was in the Old Testament.

I don't expect you to understand the concept of no original sin since you don't understand the basic premesis of the Old Testament to begin with.  You look at it with your Christian glasses on and all you see is blood, ****ation and sacrifice.  And that isn't what it was all about at all.  There is no such thing as original sin.  This is a Christian theological creation, not something that was ever taught in the Old Testament nor is it accepted by Judaism.



> If you have seriously considered Mormonism and Judaism and JW's after reading the Bible Dixie that is the rationale conclusion. Sorry. But since it is just my opinion it shouldn't matter much.



I am not sure what you mean... what is the rational conclusion?  Personally, if you have read the entire Old Testament, I don't see how you could believe in the NT. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 25, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> The punishment for what Adam and Eve did was not he11 as you think of it with eternal fire and ****ation.  That is your misunderstanding.  He11 is the grave.  The idea of the he11 you have in mind with the devil and eternal torment is not even a Jewish idea and never was in the Old Testament.
> 
> I don't expect you to understand the concept of no original sin since you don't understand the basic premesis of the Old Testament to begin with.  You look at it with your Christian glasses on and all you see is blood, ****ation and sacrifice.  And that isn't what it was all about at all.  There is no such thing as original sin.  This is a Christian theological creation, not something that was ever taught in the Old Testament nor is it accepted by Judaism.
> 
> ...



Still so wrong. Sorry. The punishment is death. The punishment is eternal separation from God. How you know what my interpretation of he11 is I have no idea. It ain't Dante.

The NT is quite simple. You just have to be one of the Elect...


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 26, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Still so wrong. Sorry. The punishment is death. The punishment is eternal separation from God. How you know what my interpretation of he11 is I have no idea. It ain't Dante.



The Jews never believed in eternal separation from God.  So try again.



> The NT is quite simple. You just have to be one of the Elect...



No thanks.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 26, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> The Jews never believed in eternal separation from God.  So try again.
> 
> 
> 
> No thanks.



Still wonder why I am just not going here anymore? Dixie they do believe that. The really really do. This is not something we made up. We inherited it.

AS long as this is your attitude about it. There is no purpose in the search.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 26, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Still wonder why I am just not going here anymore? Dixie they do believe that. The really really do. This is not something we made up. We inherited it.



They really really do NOT believe in 'original sin'.  Please stop perverting the Jewish faith, which you obviously know nothing about.  Before you say what they do or do not believe in, go look it up.  There are plenty of Jewish references out on the web that will tell you point blank there is no such thing as 'original sin'. 



> AS long as this is your attitude about it. There is no purpose in the search.



As long as what is my attitude... that I won't just accept your views of it and leave it at that?  I didn't spend years of my life studying with Jews to forget everything I learned just because you think you're right.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  If you want to know what a religion believes, GO TO THE SOURCE and ask them.  Your second-hand information is highly lacking. 

But I still have nothin' but love for ya.  And I agree.. probably best to 'not go there' anymore.  It's like a pit that just keeps getting deeper and deeper.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 26, 2009)

Dixie... Why else is there the Law...

This discussion os what I am talking about with you. I know a LOT about the Jewish faith. We have already established that in a previous thread. Just because what is written and said doesn't jive with what YOU think doesn't make it wrong or something else.

But yes it is not only best to not go there I won't again. When the most common response to my questions and answers is "That's your opinion" we cannot have a reasonable discussion.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 26, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> This discussion os what I am talking about with you. I know a LOT about the Jewish faith. We have already established that in a previous thread. Just because what is written and said doesn't jive with what YOU think doesn't make it wrong or something else.



But you don't seem to know anything about the Jewish faith.  At least, not what you have represented here.  You have made comments and assumptions about what they believe, with absolutely no supporting evidence, reference, or otherwise.  Before I make a statement on here about what Judaism believes in, I make sure that I double check my memory by looking at their own information, especially sites that are geared toward people who have questions about the Jewish faith. I look in my Tanakh if I need validation for a verse from their scriptures.  If I find that I have made a mistake or remembered incorrectly, I don't post it.    If you say that Judaism believes in a certain doctrine, at least look it up before you insist that you're correct and they are wrong.  I understand that there are different 'denominations' of Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, etc.) but you haven't even offered any evidence that says they vary on these doctrines.

If you know of a Jewish site that shows Judaism believes in original sin, please share with me, as I am truly curious.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 26, 2009)

Again explain the law without it?

Explain the sacrifices? Explain the cursing of Adam and his seed in Genesis when they partook of the apple?

Explain the OT without it. Explain the whole Jewish concept of God's punishment.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 26, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Again explain the law without it?
> 
> Explain the sacrifices? Explain the cursing of Adam and his seed in Genesis when they partook of the apple?
> 
> Explain the OT without it. Explain the whole Jewish concept of God's punishment.



You asking me to explain it is not showing me where Judaism believes in it.  So either you know they don't believe in it but you're saying they do to make your point, or you don't know if they do or not and are too lazy to look it up?  All I asked for was a reference.  One Jewish site that says they believe in original sin.

Your problem is that you don't understand the 'whole Jewish concept of God's punishment'.   All you see is blood, blood, blood. Which, if you think about it, really has become an idol to Christianity.  You put more emphasis on blood than what the true reasoning was for sacrifice.  You don't even understand that sacrifices were only for unintentional sins.  But I digress.

One last time.. .please show me one Jewish site that says they believe in the idea of original sin.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 26, 2009)

No I am not. What I am asking you to explain is the law since you know so much about it. I obviously have it wrong Dixie so explain it. 

Not what you think not what I think. Give me an explanation of the law and the purpose behind it. ALL of it.


----------



## SBG (Feb 26, 2009)

King David was a Jew who understood that all are sinful by nature.

Ps. 51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 26, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> No I am not. What I am asking you to explain is the law since you know so much about it. I obviously have it wrong Dixie so explain it.
> 
> Not what you think not what I think. Give me an explanation of the law and the purpose behind it. ALL of it.



Why are you dodging the question?  You said that Judaism believes in original sin.  You have yet to offer up any evidence of that.  If it is true then you should have no problem showing a link to a Jewish site that states their understanding/belief of 'original sin'.

And really, this is way  so maybe a new thread should be started....


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 26, 2009)

SBG said:


> King David was a Jew who understood that all are sinful by nature.
> 
> Ps. 51:5
> Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.



Nope.  It is your preconceived idea about original sin and lack of information that makes you incorrectly interpret that verse.

Who was King David's mother?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 26, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Why are you dodging the question?  You said that Judaism believes in original sin.  You have yet to offer up any evidence of that.  If it is true then you should have no problem showing a link to a Jewish site that states their understanding/belief of 'original sin'.
> 
> And really, this is way  so maybe a new thread should be started....



I'm not Dixie. I am waiting on you to explain why I am wrong. You can declare we are wrong all night long. But you do not explain why or give references or teach anyone the right. You just claim we are wrong. Well put up or quit.

Show us.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 26, 2009)

SBG said:


> King David was a Jew who understood that all are sinful by nature.
> 
> Ps. 51:5
> Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.



Good scripture reference!


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 26, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I'm not Dixie. I am waiting on you to explain why I am wrong. You can declare we are wrong all night long. But you do not explain why or give references or teach anyone the right. You just claim we are wrong. Well put up or quit.
> 
> Show us.



Judaism does not believe in 'original sin'.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Original_Sin.html

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/original.htm

http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/original_sin2.htm

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=369

http://christianity.wikia.com/wiki/Judaism#Sin_and_Original_Sin   (<~ that is a Christian site, by the way.... )



There you go.  That ought to get you started.  Your turn.  Show me where they do.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 26, 2009)

SBG said:


> King David was a Jew who understood that all are sinful by nature.
> 
> Ps. 51:5
> Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.



Um, a little Hebrew history might apply here.....it must come from the teachings of the Temple.

http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/280331/jewish/Nitzevet-Mother-of-David.htm


----------



## DouglasB. (Feb 26, 2009)

Man o man, I can't believe I'm getting myself into this mix. 

First, Dixie... you asked a question back on page one that I don't feel was ever answered in how does atheism qualify as a religion. You went on to say how they have no beliefs, etc. etc. 

The BELIEVE that there is nothing to believe in. That alone is a belief. They do this with organizations that are very very close to our churches and websites to spread their "word". That is a very fitting way to file a religion. Only, they will not accept that fact because of the fact that its so hard to understand how you can believe in the lack of anything to believe in with such force that it compares to any other religion out there.

The price of sin is death. That simple. Why do I deserve death on Adams sin? I don't. I deserve death on my sin. Humans in their very right are sinners. We can't help it. God established ways of forgiveness in the days of old, but gave us his son to pay that price for us. Everlasting life is our promise for accepting that. 

The idea of, "You're either with us, or against us" starts with God. In MY beliefs he11 is the holding tank as the Lake of Fire is being created. They are two completely different things. The Lake of Fire is designated after the second coming for satan and his minions. His minions being all those that weren't saved. Whether they believed in it or not. 

"My way or the highway"... You call it selfish. I call it selfless. It is our duty to attempt and help lead to christ everyone that we can. We aren't being paid in Heaven for our deeds. We are paid in heaven for accepting Jesus and the Father. Our "good deeds" are things that we choose to do. I choose to tell everyone I can about God, simply because in my beliefs you will suffer if you don't. And suffer the worst possible way. I don't want that for anyone. Period. 

How do you believe in a book? Faith. That plain and simple. Its the fact that no matter what is going on in my life I can just open that book and the first phrase I read makes me feel better. It seems that it was written exactly for that problem. Its the feeling a get sometimes when I'm praying and i get chills over my entire body when I KNOW that I'm being touched by an angel. Its the feeling that comes over me when a thousand voices ring out in the same praise song. 

Its like oxygen to me. I can't see it. Normally I can't feel it. When I move my hand up and down there is no way to know if its there or not. However, every single time I inhale, there it is. Everytime I need it, there it is. Without any questions... there it is. You believe in it too because its always been there for you. You have faith that when you wake up tomorrow, it'll still be there. You don't question its existance just because normally you can't see it. You go every day without even thinking twice about it simply because it's just there. It's the same exact basic idea. I BELIEVE IN SOMETHING I CAN'T SEE for the exact same reasons that I know oxygen sustains me. 

Let me say this... We preach about our God out of love. We gain nothing by it. Its the care we have where if you asked me a question I would do everything it took to answer you and everything it takes to find that answer. If you needed my hand, I'd give it to you. It's not because I have to... because theres payment later. I'm already receiving my payment regardless... its because I want you to experience that same payment. I KNOW my beliefs are right because I feel it day after day after day. I know when I look at my wife, that because of my actions throughout this life, I don't deserve her, but I'm so grateful that God felt so obliged to place her into my life. I know every time I'm in the stand and watch the sun rise, that its another gift from my Father. 

If I'm wrong, and you're right... well... nothing happens. If you're wrong and I'm right... you're in a world of hurt. Its my job to do my best to try and show you that it isn't about WHO is right and who is wrong... but WHAT is right and what is wrong. 

Christianity is FULL of hypocrites. Those that go to church for fellowship before education. Those that say things on Sunday, but live the complete opposite on Friday night. You will see it day in and day out. I myself don't live anywhere near where I should, as I am supposed to strive to walk the walk that Jesus walked. 

It is seflish to believe in "dumb luck" or the fact that you have made it this far in life simply because of yourself. This is how atheism is very selfish. It is giving yourself credit for the things that take place in your life that are completely out of your control. No... It's not selfish to take all of our words and analyze them and pick them apart to find every single part that seems wrong or that doesn't fit what you believe. It makes you human. It make your concerned. It makes you curious. You wouldn't spend so much time doing that if part of you wasn't searching for the RIGHT answer. That is that need deep inside that you can't explain, or maybe don't even know is there that makes you read this entire post. Its the need to believe. 

Just as God has his angels in place, the devil has his demons in place. His demons take a toll on humanity. They are the whisper that tells you everything is wrong. They are the whisper that tells you to take another drink. To sleep with that person and that person and that person. They are the whisper that tells you its ok. The other side of you that feels a little remorse for those things are the angels trying to work against it. Its a constant battle thats end has already been fortold.

There is PLENTY of proof that the bible is factual. Hard evidence. Enough in fact, that if this was a murder case it would without a shadow of a doubt by cut and dry among even the toughest of jury's. That is for another day when I decide to step out from just reading this section and posting. 

Have a blessed day.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 26, 2009)

DouglasB. said:


> Man o man, I can't believe I'm getting myself into this mix.



    Welcome to the mosh pit!


----------



## footjunior (Feb 27, 2009)

DouglasB. said:


> The BELIEVE that there is nothing to believe in. That alone is a belief.



This is a confusion of the definitions of "belief". You are correct, the belief that there is nothing to believe in is indeed a belief in itself. However, this belief is due to a logical default. On the other hand, your belief that God exists is under an entirely different context of the word "belief" because it relies on faith. Atheists do not believe that God exists because there is no evidence that supports the claim that he does. Until that evidence comes up, atheists will continue to hold to the logical default, which is a non-belief of deities.

An analogy: When a crime is committed and a suspect is held, there is a claim that is brought forth: "This suspect committed this crime." Before the investigation starts, there is no evidence that has been discovered to prove that the suspect committed the crime, therefore the law will hold to the logical default, which is that the suspect did not commit the crime (innocent until proven guilty). Via the investigation, evidence may or may not come forth to act as proof for the logical alternative, which states that the suspect did commit the crime. If the evidence is adequate enough, then the logical alternative is proven.

A person brings forth the claim: "God exists." The logical default is "God does not exist." The logical alternative is "God exists." Only by providing adequate evidence can someone prove the logical alternative.



> It is seflish to believe in "dumb luck" or the fact that you have made it this far in life simply because of yourself. This is how atheism is very selfish. It is giving yourself credit for the things that take place in your life that are completely out of your control.



I'm an atheist but I don't think I've made it this far just because of "dumb luck" or just because of my efforts. There have been many who have helped me along the way.



> There is PLENTY of proof that the bible is factual. Hard evidence. Enough in fact, that if this was a murder case it would without a shadow of a doubt by cut and dry among even the toughest of jury's.



Then why is only 1/3 of the world Christian? Why have so many Christians became atheists?


----------



## 11P&YBOWHUNTER (Feb 27, 2009)

Seems to me that Atheists are nothing more than a batting post for those who believe in a book.  Ever occur to you that some Atheists on here could care less what others believe.  I personally do not care what others believe till they start throwing the bible, koran or whatever in my face.  I do not ask for you to preach to me, and i return the favor by not bringing up the fact you believe in a book.  

Who cares?

As for being selfish...A person must care more about themselves than others to be selfish.  EVERYONE is selfish to an extent.  Some more than others.  I personally do not believe i am as selfish as the majority on here, but i am selfish in a sense that i make sure my family and myself are taken care of before i offer a helping hand to others, but that just makes sense.  Self preservation is the key to surviving.  Passing along your genes and making sure that your bloodline survives is what everyone does in some form. 

Atheists more selfish than others...doubt it.  Atheists have more money to play with because we do not throw a bunch of our money in collection plates once or twice a week which in turn, enables us to make sure our family is taken care of, and possibly giving someone the chance to help others.  OK, that was weak but it is 4:30 in the morning.  

Bottomline...I think that there is NOT a certain religion that is more selfish on here than others, but there are some who are far more selfish than others...regardless of religion.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 27, 2009)

DouglasB- Good post. Really enjoyed reading it. A new version is needed on this.


----------



## pnome (Feb 27, 2009)

DouglasB. said:


> There is PLENTY of proof that the bible is factual. Hard evidence. Enough in fact, that if this was a murder case it would without a shadow of a doubt by cut and dry among even the toughest of jury's. That is for another day when I decide to step out from just reading this section and posting.



Please come back and present this evidence.  

To be truthful, I hope you are right.  Well, maybe wrong about one or two things concerning God's willingness to forgive.   But I hope you're right about a good and just deity who watches out for us and takes good people to a wonderful place when they die.


----------



## SBG (Feb 27, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Nope.  It is your preconceived idea about original sin and lack of information that makes you incorrectly interpret that verse.
> 
> Who was King David's mother?



Actually it is spiritual discernment and the correct interpretation of the Hebrew. 

There are many, many born again Jews that were raised Jewish with no prior "pre-conceived" ideas that now grasp the truths of the Word easily.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 27, 2009)

SBG said:


> Actually it is spiritual discernment and the correct interpretation of the Hebrew.
> 
> There are many, many born again Jews that were raised Jewish with no prior "pre-conceived" ideas that now grasp the truths of the Word easily.



Really......  

Well ok then... who was King David's mother???


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 27, 2009)

A repeat in case celticfisherman missed it.....



celticfisherman said:


> I'm not Dixie. I am waiting on you to explain why I am wrong. You can declare we are wrong all night long. But you do not explain why or give references or teach anyone the right. You just claim we are wrong. Well put up or quit.
> 
> Show us.



Judaism does not believe in 'original sin'.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Original_Sin.html

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/original.htm

http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/original_sin2.htm

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=369

http://christianity.wikia.com/wiki/Judaism#Sin_and_Original_Sin   (<~ that is a Christian site, by the way.... )



There you go.  That ought to get you started.  Your turn.  Show me where they do.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 27, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> A repeat in case celticfisherman missed it.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Please explain. Because I can read all of this and still come back with what I have been saying from the Old Testament. We all can.



1st reference- 

 Saint Augustine (354-430) was the first theologian to teach that man is born into this world in a state of sin. The basis of his belief is from the Bible (Genesis 3:17-19) where Adam is described as having disobeyed G-d by eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden. This, the first sin of man, became known as original sin.

Many Christians today, particularly members of the Anglican, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian Churches, subscribe to this belief. They maintain that the sin of Adam was transferred to all future generations, tainting even the unborn. Substantiation for this view is found in the New Testament (Romans 5:12) where Paul says, "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. By one man's disobediance many were made sinners."

Christianity believes that only through the acceptance of Jesus that the "grace" of G-d can return to man. A Christian need only believe in Jesus to be saved; nothing else is required of her.

The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews (as it is to Christian sects such as Baptists and Assemblies of G-d). Jews believe that man enters the world free of sin, with a soul that is pure and innocent and untainted. While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon mankind on account of Adam's sin, the dominant view by far was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful.

This isn't near accurate.

2nd-

You stated in your question that the doctrine on original sin teaches that "all human beings are born with an innate tendency to disobey God."  While this statement is superficially correct, it fails to convey the far-reaching scope of this church doctrine.  Although Christianity does teach that the entire human race is born with an evil inclination, this tenet encompasses a far more extreme position than the one that you briefly outlined.  In fact, missionaries insist that as a result of the fall in the Garden of Eden, man's unquenchable desire for sin is virtually ungovernable.  In Christian terms, man is not inclined toward sin but more accurately is a slave to sin.  As a result, the church concludes, short of converting to Christianity, humanity can do nothing to save itself from Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----. 

Unless you are Jew there is no reaching Heaven in Judaism so correctly stating the doctrines of both is important. And again what is the point of the Law but to control our Sin nature?


#3- 
The words "Original Sin" don't exist in the Bible or Jewish writings. The "fall" of Adam was an interpretation formed sometime after the Exile and return of the Jews to Judea. This is the heart of Christian theology as taught by Paul. Jesus was some kind of human/deity sacrifice to make up for the alleged "sin" of Adam where mankind became mortal as punishment for Adam. Quoting Paul,

Rom. 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"

Rom. 5:19, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners"

1 Cor. 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 

This contradicts the first reference about Augustine.

#4- 

Question: Do Jews believe in the doctrine of original sin?

Answer: Jews do not believe in the doctrine of original sin. This is a Christian belief based on Paul's statement, "Therefore just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12). The doctrine was fully developed by the church father, Augustine of Hippo (354-430).

According to this doctrine, hereditary sinfulness is inescapably transmitted to human beings by their parents, starting with Adam and Eve. It is alleged that only acceptance of Jesus as savior from sin can redeem a person from sin. All those who do not accept Jesus as their savior from sin are condemned to eternal suffering in Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----.

Whether man is a sinner by nature or not is immaterial. Judaism teaches the biblical way to repentance and reconciliation with God. Sincere repentance in which the sinner pledges to rectify his sinful ways and lead a righteous life is one means that is open at all times to all of humanity (Jonah 3:5-10, Daniel 4:27). God counsels Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do good [that is, change your ways], will it not be lifted up [that is, you will be forgiven]. But if you do not do good, sin rests at the door; and it desires you, but you may rule over it" (Genesis 4:6-7). God informs Cain that repentance and subsequent forgiveness are always open to him. The remedy for sin is clear. Biblically, God's loving-kindness depends on right conduct and extends to all humanity. 

Again he refutes the 1st.

Also still says it is immaterial. If so what is the purpose of the Law? What is Good? How do we accomplish it?

#5

Original Sin is a slightly different concept in Christianity, it is not part of Jewish belief or philosophy. Original sin refers to the idea that the sin of Adam and Eve's disobedience (sin "at the origin") has passed on a spiritual heritage, so to speak. Christians teach that human beings inherit a corrupted or damaged human nature in which the tendency to do bad is greater than it would have been otherwise, so much so that human nature would not be capable now of participating in the afterlife with God. This is not a matter of being "guilty" of anything; each person is only personally guilty of their own actual sins. However, this understanding of original sin is what lies behind the Christian emphasis on the need for spiritual salvation from a spiritual Saviour, who can forgive and set aside sin even though humans are not inherently pure and worthy of such salvation. St. Paul in Romans and First Corinthians placed special emphasis on this doctrine, and stressed that belief in Jesus would allow Christians to overcome death and attain salvation in the hereafter.

Like much of Wikipedia it has to be taken with a grain of salt. Original Sin is our nature. It is our desire for what is not Godly. It is our rebellious nature towards the Law.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Please explain. Because I can read all of this and still come back with what I have been saying from the Old Testament. We all can.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What isn't?



> 2nd-
> 
> You stated in your question that the doctrine on original sin teaches that "all human beings are born with an innate tendency to disobey God."  While this statement is superficially correct, it fails to convey the far-reaching scope of this church doctrine.  Although Christianity does teach that the entire human race is born with an evil inclination, this tenet encompasses a far more extreme position than the one that you briefly outlined.  In fact, missionaries insist that as a result of the fall in the Garden of Eden, man's unquenchable desire for sin is virtually ungovernable.  In Christian terms, man is not inclined toward sin but more accurately is a slave to sin.  As a result, the church concludes, short of converting to Christianity, humanity can do nothing to save itself from Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----.
> 
> Unless you are Jew there is no reaching Heaven in Judaism so correctly stating the doctrines of both is important. And again what is the point of the Law but to control our Sin nature?



That is incorrect.  You have a lack of understanding what the Jews believe in.




> #3-
> The words "Original Sin" don't exist in the Bible or Jewish writings. The "fall" of Adam was an interpretation formed sometime after the Exile and return of the Jews to Judea. This is the heart of Christian theology as taught by Paul. Jesus was some kind of human/deity sacrifice to make up for the alleged "sin" of Adam where mankind became mortal as punishment for Adam. Quoting Paul,
> 
> Rom. 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"
> ...




How so?

I'm starting to think that we are arguing different points here.  You made a statement that Judaism believes in 'original sin'.  I said that was incorrect, and I presented evidence that supports what I have said.  You haven't presented any evidence to the contrary.  My argument was not whether or not there is original sin.  It was whether or not Judiasm believes in it.

If you want to discuss whether or not there is 'original sin', then let's start another thread.  But let's try and keep one argument at a time... otherwise it gets very confusing.

So do you have any Jewish sites, documentation, etc. that say Judaism believes in original sin, or not? Let's work that out and then we can move on...


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Like much of Wikipedia it has to be taken with a grain of salt. Original Sin is our nature. It is our desire for what is not Godly. It is our rebellious nature towards the Law.



   The Christian site was thrown in there for your benefit.  It merely supported my statement that Judaism does not believe in original sin.  That is a Christian concept.  Again, I am starting to think we are arguing different points here.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> An analogy: When a crime is committed and a suspect is held, there is a claim that is brought forth: "This suspect committed this crime." Before the investigation starts, there is no evidence that has been discovered to prove that the suspect committed the crime, therefore the law will hold to the logical default, which is that the suspect did not commit the crime (innocent until proven guilty). Via the investigation, evidence may or may not come forth to act as proof for the logical alternative, which states that the suspect did commit the crime. If the evidence is adequate enough, then the logical alternative is proven.



Bad analogy. 

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a basic premise of our legal system. Other legal systems take the opposite approach. It is just a matter of which side has the burden of proof. We tend to favor our system because we see it as more often resulting in a just outcome, in large part due to the cost of finding and presenting evidence being borne by the government rather than the accused. We also show a preference to erring on the side of the accused so that the innocent are less likely to be punished unjustly. All of this has nothing to do with your "logical default" buzzword. It allows you to avoid facing the responsibility of providing the proof for what you believe. You cling to it as though your life depended on it, rather than agreeing that neither side has unrefutable, concrete, unimpeachable, scientific proof and going your separate way. Your belief in atheism is just as much faith-based as any religion and just as unprovable.

You and your ilk have descended to the point of plain and simple annoyance. There is nothing to be gained by continuing to  with you. And if you are truly seeking to know and understand the things of God, you need to quit arguing. Arguing will not bring you understanding. Otherwise, you are just another trouble-making.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 27, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> What isn't?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As far as Augustine goes all the rest of the posts reflect what is wrong with the first.

We are arguing two different views. 

It is to the point of arguing colors with a blind person. You can either see the connection from Gen to Rev and the reasons for the teachings of Paul (a Jew a Pharisee) or you can't. There is nothing more we can do to do this. Paul was preaching to Jews. They knew what he was saying. They understood.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 27, 2009)

gtparts said:


> All of this has nothing to do with your "logical default" buzzword. It allows you to avoid facing the responsibility of providing the proof for what you believe. You cling to it as though your life depended on it, rather than agreeing that neither side has unrefutable, concrete, unimpeachable, scientific proof and going your separate way. Your belief in atheism is just as much faith-based as any religion and just as unprovable.



No. It is a good analogy because it is how you construct logical proofs. You start with a claim, "God exists," and then you proceed to prove that claim. It is the same way in the US court of law. There is no atheist out there that is putting forth the claim that there is no god because you cannot prove a negative. Do you understand the importance of this fact?

The theist puts forth the claim of existence for his preferred god, and then attempts to provide evidence for it. Until the proof is provided, we cannot accept the claim. 

Do you see the difference? The theist is attempting to prove a positive (It exists). The atheist is not attempting to prove a negative (It does not exist), because attempting to prove a negative is impossible.



			
				gtparts said:
			
		

> You and your ilk have descended to the point of plain and simple annoyance. There is nothing to be gained by continuing to  with you. And if you are truly seeking to know and understand the things of God, you need to quit arguing. Arguing will not bring you understanding. Otherwise, you are just another trouble-making.



Me thinks if I'm so annoying to you, that ye should put me on yer ignore list. If you are capable of doing so.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> No. It is a good analogy because it is how you construct logical proofs. You start with a claim, "God exists," and then you proceed to prove that claim. It is the same way in the US court of law. There is no atheist out there that is putting forth the claim that there is no god because you cannot prove a negative. Do you understand the importance of this fact?
> 
> The theist puts forth the claim of existence for his preferred god, and then attempts to provide evidence for it. Until the proof is provided, we cannot accept the claim.
> 
> ...



Yes, I was aware of the difference before you were born. Thanks for pointing out that you have proudly progressed to the point where you can articulate that for yourself.

Logically you are at the 50% mark. You have already conceded that you can not prove that God exists. In as much as we have 100% certainty either He does or He does not, there being no other option, and we are 100% certain you cannot provide proof of a negative. That leaves only the possibility of proving He does exist. Start there and get back with me when you have proof that He does exist. And here is a hint: Don't waste time trying to prove that He doesn't exist. Whether He exists or not is your question, not mine. I already know!

 Love the sarcasm. You have been on that list before.


----------



## SBG (Feb 27, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Really......
> 
> Well ok then... who was King David's mother???



Can you tell me its relevance to the discussion?


----------



## footjunior (Feb 27, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Logically you are at the 50% mark. You have already conceded that you can not prove that God exists. In as much as we have 100% certainty either He does or He does not, there being no other option, and we are 100% certain you cannot provide proof of a negative.



Well we have a thread up where there are several people who voted to be between the two degrees of certainty. In fact, no one has voted that they are 100% certain that God doesn't exist. It seems that only within your dogmatism can you have the audacity to think that you know anything for certain. One person has even voted "4", which is exactly 50%. Therefore, there are other options, and they are chosen by people.



> That leaves only the possibility of proving He does exist. Start there and get back with me when you have proof that He does exist. And here is a hint: Don't waste time trying to prove that He doesn't exist. Whether He exists or not is your question, not mine. I already know!



Sorry, already tried that. It led to atheism. If I were you, I would advise all new Christians to not seek out knowledge about their faith and it's history, and especially not try to mix their faith with science.

Rather, it is the theist who claims the positive, and therefore must provide proof. Some poor theists even have to give reasons for their hope.

1 Peter 3:15 - Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.


----------



## SBG (Feb 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> It seems that only within your dogmatism can you have the audacity to think that you know anything for certain.



It is only audacious to one that is not capable of understanding.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 27, 2009)

SBG said:


> It is only audacious to one that is not capable of understanding.



I am capable of understanding, for I once understood. Now I understand that I was deluded. I was the captive of a powerful system of indoctrination which started from the moment I was born. I feel very fortunate to have escaped.


----------



## SBG (Feb 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I am capable of understanding, for I once understood. Now I understand that I was deluded. I was the captive of a powerful system of indoctrination which started from the moment I was born. I feel very fortunate to have escaped.



You are correct in the fact that you were deluded. Your delusion is a product of your own rebellion. You are not unique. Only a true relationship with the Creator can produce the capability of understanding.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> As far as Augustine goes all the rest of the posts reflect what is wrong with the first.
> 
> We are arguing two different views.
> 
> It is to the point of arguing colors with a blind person. You can either see the connection from Gen to Rev and the reasons for the teachings of Paul (a Jew a Pharisee) or you can't. There is nothing more we can do to do this. Paul was preaching to Jews. They knew what he was saying. They understood.



And they rejected it because they knew of no such thing as original sin.

I find it a little disappointing that you cannot or will not admit that you made an incorrect statement that Judaism believes in original sin.  I thought you were more honest than that.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 27, 2009)

SBG said:


> Can you tell me its relevance to the discussion?



Yes.  You claim that the reason David wrote he was conceived in sin is because of 'original sin'.  I submit that he was speaking in a literal sense.  If you know who his mother is, this will show the entire passage in a new light.

So either you know or you don't.


----------



## Israel (Feb 27, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Yes.  You claim that the reason David wrote he was conceived in sin is because of 'original sin'.  I submit that he was speaking in a literal sense.  If you know who his mother is, this will show the entire passage in a new light.
> 
> So either you know or you don't.



They ain't no sin in sexual union...simply that like begets like and the only way a sinless creature can be born is by the spirit.
Man's own seed=death.
God's seed=life


----------



## ToLog (Feb 27, 2009)

Israel said:


> They ain't no sin in sexual union...simply that like begets like and the only way a sinless creature can be born is by the spirit.
> Man's own seed=death.
> God's seed=life



we find ourselves on this forum, and others, speaking about spirituality over and over and over.

why can't we engage a discussion about one or two cliicks closer to home?

Humans, choosing to eat all kinds of food, if they can afford it, but others amongst us can't afford even Peanut Butter and Crackers?

heh, the opportunity presented, so i thought the question should be asked?? 

just because there's lots of Eaters, doesn't mean the Divine Power isn't in operation, right??

how do we best engage "in the borderlines" between the spiritual on the one hand, and the biological on the other hand?

nobody wants to talk about the "graft" between the Hebrews and the Gentiles?  ....what did the joint between the two look like?? was it a pretty thing, or was it pretty ugly, in your opinion??


----------



## Israel (Feb 27, 2009)

roothog said:


> we find ourselves on this forum, and others, speaking about spirituality over and over and over.
> 
> why can't we engage a discussion about one or two cliicks closer to home?
> 
> ...



I love the graft, love the root, love the tree.
Planted by the Lord from the beginning, a peculiar people, revealed in these last days for us.
Christ in you, the hope of glory...do you see him?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 27, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> And they rejected it because they knew of no such thing as original sin.
> 
> I find it a little disappointing that you cannot or will not admit that you made an incorrect statement that Judaism believes in original sin.  I thought you were more honest than that.



Dixie they did not reject him. The first Christians are Jews. Why? The understood the sacrifices, the fests, the laws, and when he said these things to them and pointed out the progressive revelation (thanks Reformedpastor) they KNEW what it meant. My evidence is the Bible. Not just the old testament but the WHOLE book. The Jews knew this and understood it when Paul was preaching. Pentecost happened at a time when Jews from all around the Mediterranean were gathered in Jerusalem. They became Christians. Why? They understood the meanings of what had happened and it fulfilled their prophecies and ALL the prior planning.

Read Acts.


----------



## ToLog (Feb 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Dixie they did not reject him. The first Christians are Jews. Why? The understood the sacrifices, the fests, the laws, and when he said these things to them and pointed out the progressive revelation (thanks Reformedpastor) they KNEW what it meant. My evidence is the Bible. Not just the old testament but the WHOLE book. The Jews knew this and understood it when Paul was preaching. Pentecost happened at a time when Jews from all around the Mediterranean were gathered in Jerusalem. They became Christians. Why? They understood the meanings of what had happened and it fulfilled their prophecies and ALL the prior planning.
> 
> Read Acts.



when Adam and Eve (for those of us who believe in the Two) left the Paradise as set down by the Original Settlers, they moved into the world of the Economic. they were Conscious Beings who had to depend upon the Land for their well-being, and for their Children (off-spring).

once beyond the Gates of Eden (Paradise) they were on their own.

Conscious Beings, loose upon the Earth. 

Birth control might be a good thing, but they could only imagine such.  Much as today. 

anyways, besides my Baptist upbringing, the only other source of the Story comes from Creation Theology....Dr. Mathew Fox, and he was ex-communicated from the Catholics, because his views didn't fit theirs.... 

my only thought, at this late date in the development of the world, is don't let anyone's opinion supercede yours. because you might be the one that is right.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 27, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Yes.  You claim that the reason David wrote he was conceived in sin is because of 'original sin'.  I submit that he was speaking in a literal sense.  If you know who his mother is, this will show the entire passage in a new light.
> 
> So either you know or you don't.



His Father Yishai (Jesse) and mother Nitzevet. Looks to me like David is paying for his Father's and Mother's sins...

However, later in his life, doubt gripped at Yishai's heart, gnawing away at the very foundation of his existence. Being the sincere individual that he was, his integrity compelled him to action.

If Yishai's status was questionable, he was not permitted to remain married to his wife, a veritable Israelite. Disregarding the personal sacrifice, Yishai decided the only solution would be to separate from her, by no longer engaging in marital relations. Yishai's children were aware of this separation.

After a number of years had passed, Yishai longed for an offspring whose ancestry would be unquestionable. His plan was to engage in relations with his Canaanite maidservant.

He said to her: "I will be freeing you, conditionally. If my status as a Jew is legitimate, then you are freed as a proper Jewish convert to marry me. If my status, however, is blemished and I have the legal status of a Moabite convert forbidden to marry an Israelite, I am not giving you your freedom, but as a Shifchah Canaanit, a Canaanite maidservant, you may marry a Moabite convert."

The maidservant was aware of the anguish of her mistress, Nitzevet. She understood her pain in being separated from her husband for so many years. She knew, as well, of Nitzevet's longing for more children.

The empathetic maidservant secretly approached Nitzevet and informed her of Yishai's plan, suggesting a bold counter plan.

"Let us learn from your ancestress and replicate their actions. Switch places with me tonight, just as Leah did with Rachel," she advised.

With a prayer on her lips that her plan succeed, Nitzevet took the place of her maidservant. That night Nitzevet conceived. Yishai remained unaware of the switch.

After three months, Nitzevet's pregnancy became obvious. Incensed, her sons wished to kill their apparently adulterous mother and the illegitimate fetus that she carried. Nitzevet, for her part, would not embarrass her husband by revealing the truth of what had occurred. Like her ancestress Tamar, who was prepared to be burned alive rather than embarrass Judah,5 Nitzevet chose a vow of silence. And like Tamar, Nitzevet would be rewarded for her silence with a child of greatness who would be the forebear of Moshiach.

Unaware of the truth behind his wife's pregnancy, but having compassion on her, Yishai ordered his sons not to touch her. "Do not kill her! Instead, let the child that will be born be treated as a lowly and despised servant. In this way, everyone will realize that his status is questionable and, as an illegitimate child, he will not marry an Israelite."

From the time of his birth onwards, Nitzevet's son was treated by his brothers as an abominable outcast.6 Noting the conduct of his brothers, the rest of the community assumed that this youth was a treacherous sinner full of unspeakable guilt.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Dixie they did not reject him. The first Christians are Jews. Why? The understood the sacrifices, the fests, the laws, and when he said these things to them and pointed out the progressive revelation (thanks Reformedpastor) they KNEW what it meant. My evidence is the Bible. Not just the old testament but the WHOLE book. The Jews knew this and understood it when Paul was preaching. Pentecost happened at a time when Jews from all around the Mediterranean were gathered in Jerusalem. They became Christians. Why? They understood the meanings of what had happened and it fulfilled their prophecies and ALL the prior planning.
> 
> Read Acts.



I have read it. And I know the Jews rejected Jesus.  The only ones who accepted any part of the NT were the ones who didn't know the Torah or the prophets.

But I think I am going to have to stop on this topic, because you are being extremely disingenuous in your insistance that Judaism believes in original sin.  You keep saying that they do but offer zero reference.  I have provided only a few of MANY Jewish sites that flat out say it is not a Jewish concept.  You have yet to offer any information to the contrary. 

I'm disappointed that you do not follow the same demand you gave me to either 'put up or quit'.  If you can't, then at least be honest enough to say so.  Because when you keep skirting the issue and dancing around playing smoke and mirrors, it just looks dishonest.  I had more respect for your ideas than that.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> His Father Yishai (Jesse) and mother Nitzevet. Looks to me like David is paying for his Father's and Mother's sins...
> 
> However, later in his life, doubt gripped at Yishai's heart, gnawing away at the very foundation of his existence. Being the sincere individual that he was, his integrity compelled him to action.
> 
> ...



And there you have it... conceived in sin.  Pretty simple, isn't it.

Of course, it would have been nice if you had posted the link you got that from so that others could read the entire story if they would like more information. You somewhat cut it off 

And by the way, this isn't from the bible. It's from the other Jewish holy books.  Which means I'm surprised that you even used it as your 'answer'.  The name of David's mother isn't found in the bible. It's only found in other Jewish holy books.

http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/280331/jewish/Nitzevet-Mother-of-David.htm


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 27, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I have read it. And I know the Jews rejected Jesus.  The only ones who accepted any part of the NT were the ones who didn't know the Torah or the prophets.
> 
> But I think I am going to have to stop on this topic, because you are being extremely disingenuous in your insistance that Judaism believes in original sin.  You keep saying that they do but offer zero reference.  I have provided only a few of MANY Jewish sites that flat out say it is not a Jewish concept.  You have yet to offer any information to the contrary.
> 
> I'm disappointed that you do not follow the same demand you gave me to either 'put up or quit'.  If you can't, then at least be honest enough to say so.  Because when you keep skirting the issue and dancing around playing smoke and mirrors, it just looks dishonest.  I had more respect for your ideas than that.



Dixie- We have all given you plenty. Now who is being disengenius to proclaim that a Pharisee did not know the laws, the torah, and the prophets. Truth is truth. I have given references in the Bible several times. Including answering your question about who David's mother was.

No. This is simply a case where you are picking and choosing from Reformed Jews (or not even that in a couple of cases) and not an orthodox teaching nor a historical one. Reformed Judaism is nothing but a Humanist religion that has been so degraded it bears no semblance of the Jewish tradition of Jesus, Paul, ALL 12 Apostles, and ALL of Jesus converts and John the Baptist... They were all Jews. Jesus is repeatedly called Rabi. Why??? Because he was allowed to teach in the Temple. He was a learned Jewish man. He knew and they knew what he was saying. They didn't toss their religion out the window they understood he was the fulfillment of the prophecies. The understood now what the feasts and festivals and sacrifices were pointing to. 

Your references do not even agree amongst themselves. One says Augustine one Paul. Do they know there is 300+ yr difference and that one WAS A JEW? Not only that but a Pharisee??? It don't get no more jewish than that. It's more jewish than lox and bagels.  

Explain where we are wrong here not just go find websites. Give specific theological reasons to not believe this in your own words. 

As I have said before. It is either clear or like trying to describe a color to a blind man.


----------



## pnome (Feb 27, 2009)

wow, this thread has strayed a bit.  

 

Not that I'm complaining I do it to threads all the time.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 27, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> And there you have it... conceived in sin.  Pretty simple, isn't it.
> 
> Of course, it would have been nice if you had posted the link you got that from so that others could read the entire story if they would like more information. You somewhat cut it off
> 
> ...



You are pushing it Dixie. That was not intentional on leaving out the website.




As for her not being in there (this is the lineage of Christ in both Luke and Matthew):

God who was the father of Adam, who was the father of Seth, who was the father of Enos, who was the father of Cainan, who was the father of Mahalalel, who was the father of Jared, who was the father of Enoch, who was the father of Methuselah, who was the father of Lamech, who was the father of Noah, who was the father of Shem, who was the father of Arpachshad, who was the father of Cainan, who was the father of Shelah, who was the father of Eder, who was the father of Peleg, who was the father of Reu, who was the father of Serug, who was the father of Nahor, who was the father of Terah, who was the father of Abraham.

Abraham begot Isaac; and Isaac begot Jacob; and Jacob begot Judah and his brethren; and Judah begot Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begot Hezron; and Hezron begot Ram; and Ram begot Ammin'adab; and Amminadab begot Nahshon; and Nahshon begot Salmon; and Salmon begot Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begot Obed of Ruth; and Obed begot Jesse; and Jesse begot David, the king; and David, the king, begot Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah; and Solomon begot Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begot Abijah; and Abijah begot Asa; and Asa begot Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begot Joram; and Joram begot Uzziah; and Uzziah begot Jotham; and Jotham begot Ahaz; and Ahaz begot Hezekiah; and Hezekiah begot Manasseh; and Manasseh begot Amon; and Amon begot Josiah; and Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon and after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel; and Zerubbabel begot Abiud; and Abiud begot Eliakim; and Eliakim begot Azor; and Azor begot Sadoc; and Sadoc begot Achim; and Achim begot Eliud; and Eliud begot Eleazar and Eleazar begot Matthan; and Matthan begot Jacob; and Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Jesus being the son of Joseph, [the husband of Mary, who was the daughter of] Heli, who was the son of Matthat, who was the son of Levi, who was the son of Melchi, who was the son of Jannai, who was the son of Joseph, who was the son of Mattathias, who was the son of Amos, who was the son of Nahum, who was the son of Esli, who was the son of Naggai, who was the son of Maath, who was the son of Mattathias, who was the son of Semein, who was the son of Josech, who was the son of Joda, who was the son of Joanan, who was the son of Rhesa, who was the son of Zerubbabel, who was the son of Shealtie, who was the son of Neri, who was the son of Melchi, who was the son of Addi, who was the son of Cosam, who was the son of Elmadam, who was the son or Er, who was the son of Joshua, who was the son of Eliezer, who was the son of Jorim, who was the son of Matthat, who was the son of Levi, who was the son of Simeon, who was the son of Judas, who was the son of Joseph, who was the son of Jonam, who was the son of Eliakim, who was the son of Melea, who was the son of Menna, who was the son of Mattatha, who was the son of David, the king.

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.


How many women are in there???

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/genealogy.htm


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> No. This is simply a case where you are picking and choosing from Reformed Jews (or not even that in a couple of cases) and not an orthodox teaching nor a historical one.



Sorry, but you are wrong.  ALL 'denominations' of Judaism reject original sin and always have.  You can keep twisting it all you want, but that ain't going to make it true.  It's been fun


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 27, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Sorry, but you are wrong.  ALL 'denominations' of Judaism reject original sin and always have.  You can keep twisting it all you want, but that ain't going to make it true.  It's been fun



Dixie it is just not acceptable to claim you are wrong when you don't get your way. You have twisted what is said in the OT to no end. You have twisted the New.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> You are pushing it Dixie. That was not intentional on leaving out the website.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I count three, but I don't know what your point is in posting this.  All it does is verify what I stated.  If it weren't for the holy Jewish texts that Christians reject in all other circumstances, you would not have been able to come up with the name of David's mother.

The genealogy of Jesus is bogus anyway.... and definitely


----------



## pnome (Feb 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Dixie it is just not acceptable to claim you are wrong when you don't get your way. You have twisted what is said in the OT to no end. You have twisted the New.



And you don't twist it?  You just provide "context" and a "spiritual" understanding right?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Dixie it is just not acceptable to claim you are wrong when you don't get your way. You have twisted what is said in the OT to no end.



    

That's the funniest post I've seen on here in a long, long time


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 27, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I count three, but I don't know what your point is in posting this.  All it does is verify what I stated.  If it weren't for the holy Jewish texts that Christians reject in all other circumstances, you would not have been able to come up with the name of David's mother.
> 
> The genealogy of Jesus is bogus anyway.... and definitely



Congratulations!!! You just claimed that it is Bogus when it is the number one thing that was never questioned. Know why??? They kept the records... The Jews of the time KNEW who their ancestors were. It was important. 

You brought it up by saying she was not mentioned in the OT or NT. I simply pointed out the only place it was relevant in the NT and asked how many women were in it?

That is a bogus argument and one that even the Pharisee's and Sagacisees of the day (who could have proved if he was anything else because His genealogy IS that important to the fulfillment of Scripture) bothered to try and make.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 27, 2009)

pnome said:


> And you don't twist it?  You just provide "context" and a "spiritual" understanding right?



No I do not. The understanding I have is backed by 2000 yrs of Christian learning. That is why individual interpretation of the bible is dangerous.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 27, 2009)

Now I will heed my own advice and quit.

There is nothing to be gained here on this one. You really do not have the open mind you claim.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Congratulations!!! You just claimed that it is Bogus when it is the number one thing that was never questioned. Know why??? They kept the records... The Jews of the time KNEW who their ancestors were. It was important.



I said the genealogy of Jesus is bogus. And it is.  If Joseph wasn't his biological father, his genealogy doesn't matter.  And let's not even get into the fact that the other genealogy is from a cursed line, so Jesus would be disqualified from being the messiah.  That is for another thread, I'm sure... and one that has been discussed here before.



> You brought it up by saying she was not mentioned in the OT or NT. I simply pointed out the only place it was relevant in the NT and asked how many women were in it?



I still don't know why... it doesn't matter what the NT says anyway.  She isn't mentioned in the NT or the OT.  So how else would you have known than to use other Jewish holy texts?  Why is it ok for you to use them when you want but not in any other circumstance?  



> That is a bogus argument and one that even the Pharisee's and Sagacisees of the day (who could have proved if he was anything else because His genealogy IS that important to the fulfillment of Scripture) bothered to try and make.



Like I said... it's bogus because the paternal genealogy is worthless if he is conceived by God, and the (supposed) maternal genealogy comes from a cursed line.  Just one more reason they rejected him.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 27, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Now I will heed my own advice and quit.
> 
> There is nothing to be gained here on this one. You really do not have the open mind you claim.



I do.  But you should know by now that I'm not going to take your word for it with absolutely no supporting evidence, which is what you are asking me to do.  NO JEWISH SITES SAY THEY ACCEPT THE IDEA OF ORIGINAL SIN.  Therefore, you are wrong.

But I still love ya


----------



## SBG (Feb 28, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Yes.  You claim that the reason David wrote he was conceived in sin is because of 'original sin'.  I submit that he was speaking in a literal sense.  If you know who his mother is, this will show the entire passage in a new light.
> 
> So either you know or you don't.



Actually, I perceive your reason for asking the question was a rabbit chase to draw attention away from the fact that I gave accurately translated scriptural justification of one particular Jew that understood that he was born a sinner.

It is of no relevance for me to know who David's mother was, it is only relevant that he knew who his mother was. I didn't write the statement. So your question, and its answer, has no relevance to the course of this thread.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 28, 2009)

There's one of the biggest problems found in the Christian belief system.
Folks think they have the one and only correct interpretation.
I highly doubt anyone other than Hebrew priests are more credible in the Old Testament and its teachings.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 28, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> There's one of the biggest problems found in the Christian belief system.
> Folks think they have the one and only correct interpretation.
> I highly doubt anyone other than Hebrew priests are more credible in the Old Testament and its teachings.



Actually lots are. Ethnicity is not a prerequisite for knowledge of anything.


----------



## SBG (Feb 28, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> There's one of the biggest problems found in the Christian belief system.
> Folks think they have the one and only correct interpretation.
> I highly doubt anyone other than Hebrew priests are more credible in the Old Testament and its teachings.




This proves your lack of knowledge in regards to Biblical Hermeneutics.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 28, 2009)

SBG said:


> Actually, I perceive your reason for asking the question was a rabbit chase to draw attention away from the fact that I gave accurately translated scriptural justification of one particular Jew that understood that he was born a sinner.
> 
> It is of no relevance for me to know who David's mother was, it is only relevant that he knew who his mother was. I didn't write the statement. So your question, and its answer, has no relevance to the course of this thread.



Then don't expect to be able to understand the passage when you have no desire to do so.


----------



## SBG (Feb 28, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Then don't expect to be able to understand the passage when you have no desire to do so.



You missed the whole point of the post. I understand completely what the text is referring to and also understand that the David's mother question was not relevant in the least to this entire thread. It was gotcha question when no gotcha was required. What an absurd argument to ask who the mother was, to illustrate that David, in your opinion, did not believe in the inherent sin nature of all mankind-when the text clearly states that he knew both whom his mother was and the fact that he was shapen in iniquity.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 28, 2009)

SBG said:


> You missed the whole point of the post. I understand completely what the text is referring to and also understand that the David's mother question was not relevant in the least to this entire thread. It was gotcha question when no gotcha was required. What an absurd argument to ask who the mother was, to illustrate that David, in your opinion, did not believe in the inherent sin nature of all mankind-when the text clearly states that he knew both whom his mother was and the fact that he was shapen in iniquity.



And it is absurd for you to use that verse as 'proof' that David believed in a 'sin nature', when you don't know (or care) about the circumstances of his conception.

And to be perfectly frank, none of this discussion at all has been relevant to this entire thread.  Jesus has absolutely zero relevance to atheism.


----------



## ratherbefishin (Feb 28, 2009)

*Atheist*

If you are an atheist and are confident that there is no God, then why are you concerned with a Christian's opinion of you? Can you honestly say that you have never said "oh God" or Oh my God. I seriously doubt it. Whether you believe in God or not, he believes in you, and one day you shall meet him.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 28, 2009)

ratherbefishin said:


> If you are an atheist and are confident that there is no God, then why are you concerned with a Christian's opinion of you? Can you honestly say that you have never said "oh God" or Oh my God. I seriously doubt it. Whether you believe in God or not, he believes in you, and one day you shall meet him.



Yep... And what will you say to him when he says "I was always there for you but yet you never believed"...


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 28, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Actually lots are. Ethnicity is not a prerequisite for knowledge of anything.



So, let's discount historical Hebrew teachings following the Talmud.
Christians are sorely lacking there, ask any evangelical professor of theology.
Celt, I'm certain the Hebrew leaders know what they have interpreted, taught and followed for MANY generations.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 28, 2009)

SBG said:


> This proves your lack of knowledge in regards to Biblical Hermeneutics.



Go to your closest theological seminary.  Grab a tenured professor of theology and put forth question as to who is the most knowledgeable in the Talmud and Old Testament teachings.

You will find I am not off the mark at all.

Why the need to question their stance?  Does it undermine a fundamental within the Christian belief system?
Too many feel the book they base everything off of, the 1611 KJV, is the ultimate authority.  It is prudent to look back even further, and the Masoretic Rabbi's have held constant for a LONG time on some crucial fundamentals.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Yep... And what will you say to him when he says "I was always there for you but yet you never believed"...




"You made me do it."


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 2, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> "You made me do it."



Nope. Your decision. Enjoy it.


----------

