🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <frBc2.2357$961....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
tabmok99....@damnspaz.com says...
> I do get what you're saying.  

Thank fuck for that :)

> Even if you don't believe in the same things I 
> do, you also must admit that much of the Bible is not so much explaining the 
> unexplainable, but a set of rules that people should go by.

Yes it is a moral code designed in society some 2000 years ago. Society 
changes. It evolves. The bible has not evolved along with it so has ended 
up a collection of myths together with outdated and outmoded beliefs and 
rules of society 2 millennia ago. 

Everything in a society has to evolve along with society. Laws changes 
and are updated. Fashions changes. Jobs changes. Relationships change. 
Religion tries desperately to hold onto the past and changes very slowly 
and very rarely. Remember there were many religions followed before 
Christianity and there are new ones cropping up all the time. If 
Christianity cannot adapt to the needs of today's society it will fail. 

Also take into account this simple fact. 2000 years ago you were 
considered lucky to live to your late 20s or early 30s. You spent half 
your life a child and the rest an adult. Now, thanks to medical science 
we live far longer and can expect to die anytime between 60 and over 100 
years of age with predictions for the next 100 years extending the 
average life to some 200 years. 

The bible did not change to accommodate the fact that out extended life 
span makes it's moral strictures difficult to realise. Look at monogomy. 
If you only lived to 30 you maybe spent 10 years with someone. Today, if 
you live to 70 you may have to spend 50 years with someone. It is only 
natural to want to reproduce since it is built into our genes to 
guarantee the future of the species. It is not natural to restrict one's 
chances of offspring to one mate. I am not going to argue the morals of 
adultery since it is a personal issue that people must decide upon 
themselves. However, I appreciate that monogamy is more difficult when 
spread over such a lengthy time span. And if in biblical times it was 
felt that a rule about adultery was necessary, it must have been hard 
when you only had to be faithful for a few years ;)

Also until recently, the Church frowned upon divorce. There are a number 
of reasons why divorce could be necessary but the Church would rather not
be aware of these issues (e.g. wife beating) and turn a blind eye. More 
recently, the Church appears to have relented and has made a very small 
adaptation to current society. But IMHO it is too little, too late.

I remember you talking recently about parental control in the home. This 
is a set of rules you must abide by as a member of that household. These 
generally evolve as you grow older and more responsible to be more 
lenient. The bible remains immutable and is therefore out of date. 

(Can't think of any more ways to say the same thing ;) )

> > But as I recall the tree was supposed to have *all* the answers. :P
> 
> They didn't eat the whole tree, they just had a bite!

Why did they not get bits of unrelated info like some stuff that we are 
only just discovering now and only got crap things like self 
consciousness of nudity? And as for eating a *tree* ... ;)

> > Tress aside, how come God has never given us any more information. We 
> > have discovered many things, 
> 
> Maybe because he knew we would figure it out for ourselves eventually, and it 

I write "he" since I do not believe and therefore do not respect the 
capital when referring to God. (Capital G for names though ;) !). I would 
have expected you to use "He" ;)

> would be easier to understand if we learned that way.  However, I'm not God, 
> I'm just Superman ;)

That's cheating you have been reading ahead :P

> > (including the lack of a hell beneath our feet and a heaven in the skies)
> 
> I think that Heaven and Hell aren't so much physical places, and that you 
> can't really walk there.  Kind of like dreams - if you dream of a place that 
> doesn't exist, you can't make it exist, you'll only get there by dreaming of 
> it again.

So Heaven and Hell are dreams? ;) AIUI they were "invented" to convince 
the fearful majority that death was not the end. In part to allay fears 
of their own death and in part to make coping with the loss of a loved 
one easier. Since no one understood death at the time, it was more 
misinformation as with creation in Genesis.

> > > > Isn't it interesting that most of man's worst fears are based on being 
> > > > second to top. E.g. Vampires - preying on the blood of Man. And isn't it 
> > > > arrogant that we think the only thing "better" than us could be a 
> > > > slightly different version!
> > > 
> > > No we don't.  We think about aliens, too.
> > 
> > And how do we envisage them. As either benevolent improvements of 
> > ourselves or hostile improvements or hostile throwbacks to other earthly 
> > creatures. More arrogance. 
> 
> OK, this isn't really proving anything except that we're arragont :)  

Got there in the end :)

> But if you want an example of beings that are better than man without being 
> some kind of version of man, check out Planet of the Apes.  Just the first 
> one, the sequels really don't mean anything :)

Origin of the species comes to mind :P

Besides from what I remember it was much more like George Orwell's Animal 
Farm that a better species. The apes displayed all of Man's worst traits. 
More arrogance, that any subsequent species must not only be a form of 
Man (albeit an earlier one) but that they would follow in Man's 
footsteps.

> > I don't think it makes cats high does it not just have an attractive 
> > smell for them? 
> 
> Have you ever seen a cat on catnip?  :)

I so hate I cannot think of something to say to that :). Can I come back 
to it if I think of something? It was just too good to miss :)

> > The truth is we are *not* "better". We are just *arrogant*. I have kind 
> > of talked about this in another post so I'll let you read it all there :)
> 
> We're better, and we're arragont about it  :)  

Well nearly got there ;)

> > > Really?  I think that by *accepting* it, they become hypocrites.  
> > 
> > So by not accepting it and banning "ministers" from "practicing" they 
> > would end up with a severe shortage of staff. Since they cannot 
> > discipline their followers, they have to accept it or be hippocrites. 
> 
> That's the path some of them have chosen.

And this is OK with you?

> > Did you ever wonder if they guy that wrote the line merely found it 
> > obnoxious so put it in on behalf of God? 
> 
> There's more lines where that came from, but they don't mean anything to you 
> so I won't bore you with any more of them.

Go on, I am interested even though they "don't mean anything to me". I 
think we will get much further, much faster if we just talk rather than 
making me beg you for every answer ;)

> > "Thou shalt not murder" - (small print - except for homosexuals and 
> > witches ;) )
> > 
> > "Love thy neighbour as yourself" - (small print - as for murder)
> > 
> > You probably won't, but would you post the big ten :) I can remember the 
> > common ones but it would be interesting to see them all.
> 
> No, I won't post all ten of them, you'll just make a mockery of them as you 
> are now.  

Hey I was not mocking. Stop being so god damn touchy. Look out ****;)**** 
about.

Oh fuck was I OK to say that (god damn) - Only noticed on the proof read 
but didn't want to take it out ;).

I was merely pointing out that two of those so important commandments are 
contradictions of other commands issued by God in this moral code. 

> And what you just wrote proves that people are stupid, and won't 

Hope you are not putting me in that category :P

> obey the Bible that they believe in.  

How can they when they are told not to murder but to put homosexuals to 
death? Which *is* the correct one?

> But don't knock the Bible, or me for 
> using it - that would be like arresting someone who only used morphine for a 
> pain killer for their broken arm, 'cuz you're mad at some high driver who 
> killed your girlfriend or whatever.

Hey I am not knocking it. I am pointing out the holes in the hope that 
you can explain the fix. You are doing a great job of affirming my lack 
of religion and nothing to make your belief plausible. 

BTW - Bad analogy man.

> Well there were periods when I didn't believe in God.  I told you about this,
> I was confused about the Santa thing.  There were other times too.  
> Anyway, I formed a lot of my opinions about morality during these periods of 
> time, but it was after reading the Bible.  So it's really hard to say.

OK now we are getting somewhere. A little discussion and a little give as 
to your background. Thank you. Now, let's just relax and stop bracing 
ourselves for an attack. I am not attacking you or your beliefs. I am 
curious. Pure and simple. 

>  
> > > Well that's not God or religion's fault - it's their's.  There are a lot of 
> > 
> > But what about the biblical instructions to put certain persons to death. 
> > God's commands as you have quoted him.
> 
> The Commandmant that people want to follow today is "Thou shalt not kill."  
> Originally, it was "Thous shalt not murder."  Murder and kill have slightly 
> different meanings, and killing certain people was okay back then, hence the 
> weapons.

He he, a relaxation on your refusal to discuss commandments. More 
progress and in the same article. :)

> 
> > They fight because everyone believes different things. Everybody believes 
> > they are right. Another example of human arrogance. When all else fails 
> > we go back to our primal roots and kill, maim, hurt etc.
> 
> That's true, but we take things to bigger scales than animals do.  And that 
> might not be better, morally, but it's better physically.

Why is it better physically?

> 
> > > I don't feel like I have to validate my belief for any reason.  
> > 
> > I am not asking you to validate anything, I am just genuinely interested. 
> > I want to know why you believe. For want of a better term - What made you 
> > "see the light"? Stuff like that. As I say it is pure interest. I cannot 
> > see any reason why someone would and from conversations we have had here 
> > now and in the past, I thought you would be open to talk. 
> 
> Well, I just don't want you to use this against me somehow, but all right.

At Last! :) And heh, RELAX. 

> My parents believed in God since I was little.  At first it was genuine 
> interest, like "How did God do this?" and "Why did people do that?"  Then 
> there was a period of time where I didn't believe.
> 
> "Where is God anyway?"  "How could he let this happen to me?"  Things like 
> that.  I was "thinking for myself," as so many non-Christians put it.
> 
> When I was older, I started to belive that there was enough historical
> evidence and even scientific evidence to support Christianity.  Example,
> animals were first, then man.  (Please don't make light of the point by saying 
> men are animals too! That's not the point!)  

Paranoid too but I can see why you said that :P Actually it never crossed 
my mind until you said it but... only kidding ;)

I am listening...

> So I started to think about how 
> much of it was true.  I knew that you can still be Christian, and think for 
> yourself.
> 
> When they found pieces of Noah's Ark and the true cross, that made me think 

Never heard about the finds. Still, there have been plenty of floods in 
the past many formed at the end of an ice age when glaciers melt. 

Now don't take this personally but how do they know it was Noah's ark and 
the "true" cross? I remember the whole "Shroud of Turin"(sp?) fiasco so I 
just wonder how they verified it this time.

Slightly away from discussion here but what is with this letter in the 
Vatican? We had a "mysteries of the world" type program recently which 
mentioned how some woman had written a set of prophecies that each Pope 
(and only he) reads after "inauguration". Apparently, they predicted 
certain events in the Church. But getting back to where we were...

> how maybe there was a flood that covered the Earth - or at least as much of it 
> as they knew.  

Glad you clarified that, you reputation is returning by leaps and 
bounds. :) It shows thought since it would have been my first response ;)

> Maybe it wasn't forty days, maybe it was, but we're never going 
> to know.  

If they carbon dated the "ark" then they can probably time it using 
geology to coincide with an ice age during the million years we have been 
here. I guess a location to start would help them find it though :)

Personally I always thought the 40 days of flood was kind of a "magic" 
number in the bible. Was it not for 40 days that Jesus went "into the 
wilderness"? And I am not sure but I think there is another 40 in there 
somewhere. Long time ago :)

> There was a man who walked the Earth named Jesus Christ, and he had 
> twelve apostles... well I'm not going to bore you again.  
Have you bored me yet? I asked for it enough times :) Feel free to 
continue next time round if you want.

> Either you believe 
> or you don't.  I think you see why I am a believer.

Thank you. Now we are getting somewhere. Was that so hard? :) I feel like 
a bloody psychiatrist ;) Anyway, hope my responses have not offended. 

> > > I have however 
> > > read and saw why you don't believe.  I just think, I have my religion, you 
> > > don't want one, fine.  I'm not going to try to convert you or anything, you 
> > 
> > Now I wonder why there are so many wars over religion? :P 
> 
> Because people get all violent, and there's too many extremists.  That's why 
> people fight about it, not me though.

Actually I was referring to us and how I got your back up with only 
simple questions ;) Thank fuck we do not have any "buttons" to press :P

> I told you, I didn't want you to mock my faith.  I hope you won't, but I did 
> tell you why I believe.  

Now you have. And AFAIK I have not mocked but have discussed. I might 
want to come back on a few things later if they don't crop up but since 
this was a big thing for you, I'll leave it a little while.:)

> > Cos God came down your chimney every Christmas? :P
> > (I so hope you take that as it is meant :) )
> 
> Yeah, I got it.  As long as I understand what you're saying, I can
> understand what you mean by it.  Otherwise, it's the English language at
> fault :)

I am glad. Just promise me one thing. Don't read more into my words than 
I write. I will not "mock" you for the simple reason you are not forcing 
it down my throat. Most people with your beliefs are so enthralled as to 
make conversation with them pointless while others are too "scared" to 
discuss it. I saw a chance and seemed to have pestered you enough to get 
you to talk ;) Now if my replies are sarcastic or humorous it is to 
*avoid* offending your belief. If I had been perfectly serious about my 
comments so far, we probably would not be here now. It is better to 
approach this from a light hearted point of view rather than serious. 
This way you won't get too offended. And believe me, if I wanted to mock 
I would have done so already. ;)

-- 
Mark