Tracking Earth's Future via Current Events, etc.

[mad_gater]

Oh and as for those "Chick Tracts?" Complete hogwash. There's a reason I don't tend to find them in any place other than the occasional public bathroom stall

That crazy bum makes allegations that are quite easily debunked, sometimes by other Protestants.

For example, the allegation that the Vatican has some kind of electronic database containing information on pretty much everybody in the world for the purpose of persecution of non-Catholics. Do you realize how many people there are in the world? I don't think there are enough servers in the whole world with the combined hard drive capacity to store all that potential information. And I'm pretty sure any server or combination of servers thereof, if such a combination of servers with the required combined hard drive capacity existed, when activated, would likely have such high power requirements that it would probably blow out the local grid in Rome.

Then there's the allegation that the Church was in league with Islam, totally disregarding the historical fact that Muslims and Catholics were bitter enemies for centuries, culminating in the epic smackdown of the Ottoman Muslims at the Gulf of Lepanto.

And the allegation that the Catholic Church was behind the KKK, totally disregarding the historical fact that the KKK was made up of WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon *Protestants*). And totally disregarding the fact that the KKK hated Catholics just as much as they did blacks. Meaning that Catholics in Klan territory had just as much chance of waking up to a burning cross on their lawn as blacks.

And that's just for starters. Quite frankly if you're lookin' for truth you ain't gonna find it in any publication of Jack Chick's.

[Gatefan1976]

(sorry for the length... this got longer, the more I was thinking about it...)

I've never found the length of your posts objectionable, and thinking is a good thing.

I've worked in retail, so I hear you (GF) loud and clear. I still work in retail, but now as a volunteer, and cringe when I see hordes and hordes of young folks crowding the aisle where the "goods" are, while I have to work behind the register. At least in the general public, (generic) you know you are dealing with some souls who are bound to be mischievous or deceptive in their actions. Expecting that behavior from Church kids is natural, but as I mentioned on several occasions, the Church kids I knew ages ago weren't "very Christian" in their actions. They would be all pious inside the Church building (of *any* denomination), but once outside, they did whatever they *blank* well pleased.

Sure, which is why I said some of it is certainly kids being kids, breaking rules is fun sometimes, no argument. That was not the point of my story though, my point was when directly confronted, the church itself claimed no responsibility for the morality of it's flock.
How can a church claim moral authority when it refuses to even teach it, or punish it?

Also, I do understand your (GF) distrust of *ANY* Church. But the ones I was referring to were bare bones type and small in congregational size. Our current one is the same one my hubby and I attended shortly after we got married. There were over 200 people in there then, and some of them right from the Pastor's own family weren't exactly in line with my line of being helpful "Christians" ...!

Ever notice that for all my disagreements with you, or MG, or Tood, or Womble, I have never gone after any of your -personal faith-?

Moving along decades later... same Church. It has suffered thru many Pastor leaders since the first one we knew retired. It -- the people within its walls -- saw much wavering of weakened faith and futility. And I happened to visit it a few times during those OFF years of not being a "member" there, and prayed for some of the people I met within, especially since they were coworkers at another place with me.

Moving timeline to current year(s)... Same Church described above. It has been thinned out enough that it seemed like the spiritual weeds choking the good fruit have mostly left. There are less than perhaps 100 "regulars" in there. It's more a geriatric place now. People who have stayed within now leave because they have died (age related) and moved onto their next life stage.

It's more of a sad POV in seeing this, but at the same time, seeing who the more genuine Christians really are. The people within are more like an extended family and small community of faithful believers, similar to the original Christians of the 1st century (A.D./C.E.). Yet as small as this *building of believers* are, we are challenged to feed our town and extended community outside those "Church" building walls. Amazingly, the few families who exist in this "building" have come thru with 2 to 3 times more food supplies than what would be expected from such a small sized congregation.

See, I see that as the efforts of a community, or those willing to help, and while the church may have given them a focal point, my question is, would they have done it -without- the church?
Would those few families still have done the proverbial "good works"?

Unfortunately, more and more financially desperate people live all around us in our County and come for help. I can only wonder how much longer the few hands helping out the needs of the many more can continue with their reaching out, since people (inside this now tiny Church) keep dropping out from dying off...

Then I would suggest finding a way to motivate altruism -without- a church.
You can find it without a church, trust me.

This is what I mean, when I refer to a *Faith* based Church... it's not the building itself, but who resides within those walls from week to week. This means having enough faith for one's own family needs, plus reaching out beyond that and helping not only other people within the "Church" community one is in attendance with, but going far beyond that and being able to reach out to the average Jane and Joe Somebody on the street who have suffered from some financial crisis, and are now seeking a meal sometimes several times a week.

Again, do you need a church?
What about a community hall, or the local school hall to have meetings and develop strategies to deal with the problems?
By only going through a church structure, you are essentially cutting of resources you might otherwise have in an open environment, and if the goal is aid, why not be as inclusive as you can be?

When this particular "Church" was twice its size, *it* did local, holiday food charities maybe twice a year (Thanksgiving and Christmas). But now with less than half of the people it used to have, there are monthly major food/financial (outreach--no strings attached) drives, and weekly food bank support to maintain often on an increased daily need basis. It takes faith to keep that goal constantly activated, especially from within a shrinking sized "Church" family. It takes people who are willing to help out, achieve those goals by acting on their level of *Faith*, especially when their own financial needs start to suffer --usually from personal health or various family dilemmas that come up.

It takes people willing to help (with no strings attached), and faith be damned. Faith is not the only thing that drives people to "good works". It can help, for sure, but I'll take 50 meals from a brothel owner with no strings attached than none just because I find their job "morally questionable".

[Chaka-Z0]

Chaka-Z0...
As to your first sentence there ---- Considering how the pages within this "thread" have turned onto a semi-spiritual level -- perhaps "GOD" (the real one) was trying to gain your attention (to Him)...? To me, that is an example of Physical *Proof* that HE/"GOD" allowed a horrific disaster to cross your path, yet spared you a direct hit and continues to give you access to internet conversations, like this one.

I guess we all have our explanations eh? I guess arguing on Gateworld is something important in God's great plan

I had major issues with my landlord the year before and had to serve her with a formal notice and cancel my rent. After a few weeks that I had moved in I found out the place was infested with cockroaches! So this December, I moved to the new place I live in right now. Turns out my previous apartment was more or less directly in the Tornado's path. I call it luck, I guess you would say its God's hand at work

The saddest thing in all that... The tornado hits one of the poorest neighborhood of my town... sad for these folks that had not much to begin with. If you truly believe God's work is at will, well that's a nasty blow he dealt to these folks.

(GF) Hell is of our own creation?
You could make the same argument about life in general my dear
However, my point with Hell and Hel is that they are two separate places. Hell is a place of punishment at worst or a separation from the divine at best. Hel however is simply where the vast majority of souls go under my beliefs simply because the vast majority of people do not do anything that warrants them going elsewhere. Think of it as the default position, but there is no punishment aspect to it. It's not good, it's not bad, it just is.

I do remember reading on the subject in regards to Ancient Greeks and they had I believe *tartarus* as their hell, in the Underworld? Criminals would go to Tartarus, which was a place of punishments. If I am not mistaken that is where Christianity got their idea of hell. Difference is Tartarus was for the worst of the worst, killers, rapists, etc. whereas Hell is for any sinner.

You are again missing Chaka's point.
Your holy book, my holy, well, poems and reconstructions have no basis in objective, factual reality, that's NOT an attack, it is a simple statement of fact. A CHURCH however has a basis in objective, factual reality, and it is ENTIERLY fair to call them on their objective, factual ACTS.

You said it in a much better fashion than I did, thanks for that.

[Gatefan1976]

Friday was chosen as a traditional day of penitence because Christ died on a Friday. As for fasting and abstaining from meat, there are plenty of instances where people fasted in order to outwardly show their penitence. Repentance isn't just about SAYING "I'm sorry" it's also about sacrificing in order to do some form of penance. This is because sin has both spiritual and temporal effects. God through Christ and those He calls to His royal priesthood can absolve the spiritual effects of sin but cannot absolve any temporal effects of the sin.

As far as the fact that people sin again and again, that has more to do with the fact that sin is like a drug (easier to start than it is to stop) than with any effect of going to confession

And back to fasting, according to the rules....if you have a medical condition that precludes fasting then don't fast. Likewise for abstinence, although I haven't heard of a medical condition where a person can't abstain from meat for a day. Diabetes mellitus though is very common and people who live with this medical condition do not generally have to fast although some might attempt to fast anyway although generally it is not recommended since a person with this condition can easily descend into a hypoglycemic coma just trying to fast for a day.

How can Christ have died on a Friday?
Friday is a linguistic bastardization of Freyr.
All 7 days are a linguistic bastardization of The Gemanic Heathen names.
Sunday = Sun Day
Monday = Moon Day
Tuesday = Tyr's Day
Wednesday = Wodin's Day
Thursday = Thors Day
Friday = Freyr's Day
Saturday = Star Day (though, this one is more of a Roman one to be fair)

[Gatefan1976]

I do remember reading on the subject in regards to Ancient Greeks and they had I believe *tartarus* as their hell, in the Underworld? Criminals would go to Tartarus, which was a place of punishments. If I am not mistaken that is where Christianity got their idea of hell. Difference is Tartarus was for the worst of the worst, killers, rapists, etc. whereas Hell is for any sinner.

Tartarus is indeed a place of punishment, but when you use it in that manner, you are more making it a oppositional force to Elysium, which returns the whole Good go to Heaven, Evil go to hell dichotomy.
Originally, Tartarus was merely a pre-titan force like Gaia, who then turned into the prison for the Titans, and then the prison for "all evil doers".

You said it in a much better fashion than I did, thanks for that.

I have a lot of practice.

[Gatefan1976]

Pot:

I didn't realize your religion was based on an RPG. Sorry.

Kettle:

You are attacking the beliefs themselves by regulating them to a game of Dungeons and Dragons. You are clearly stating that anything involving God or spiritual aspects is "fiction" and thus unequivocally disqualify it as having any sort of claim to any level of reality. You are delegitimizing the source of those beliefs you disqualify as completely unreliable. You are categorizing entire swaths of people (creationists) with terrorists. Yeah, that's a textbook definition of attacks on the religion itself.

Did I miss anything?

[aretood2]

It's not.
You are confusing -VALUE- (the subjective) with FACT (the objective) I have no objective, factual basis to back up my faith, nor do you, nor does MG, nor does SG.
Do I get VALUE from it?
YES, as do you, MG and SG.
Do I get VALUE from a bunch of books that allow me to teach or learn?
Yes.
Do you get VALUE from the Bible?
Yes
Does MG get VALUE from his Magisterial writings?
Yes.
In this way, the Bible, the Magisterial writings, The Edda's and a RPG rulebook are no different, they subjectively influence the people reading or using them.
Do they OBJECTIVELY change the world?
Nope.

Value? Sure. But let's go back to your post:

No, I said they were of equal value.
I played RPG's for decades, Do you think I would have done that if I found no "value" in it?.
I never claimed the bible was useless, nor worthless.
You just said that my knowledge was "as worthless as a house game"
Sounding slightly militant yourself there Tood.



It's not a shift at all.

I think you should re-read the exchange Tood.

Huh...so an RPG is of equal value...so you are equating the two which is what I was arguing against. So to you religious beliefs are of the same value as Dungeons and Dragons? This is what You aren't really explaining yourself. If you are talking value to an individual, I say I take more value in the Bible than the vast majority of D&D players do in their RPG by a long shot. So how are they equitable, exactly?

Let's go further back:

No, what he means is that my catalogue of knowledge about RPG's is as relevant to the real world as knowledge of the bible.
Knowing a lot about a subject does not make that subject objectively "real"

Here's the problem between this post and the first one quoted above. The first post quoted above recognizes the value inherent to the individual, but this post degrades its worthiness in the real world despite that individuals are part of the real world. Do you see why I take issue with that?

Now this was not in response to me, but I feel the need to comment as it is in the same vein

You are again missing Chaka's point.
Your holy book, my holy, well, poems and reconstructions have no basis in objective, factual reality, that's NOT an attack, it is a simple statement of fact. A CHURCH however has a basis in objective, factual reality, and it is ENTIERLY fair to call them on their objective, factual ACTS. The adherent can be given leeway to a degree because faith is subjective. For example, you, MG and SG must believe that -I- am going to Hell, cause I'm batting a pretty good fail average for getting into heaven just based on the 10 commandments. I think you three will -probably- go to Hel (note the single L) simply based on choosing criteria that has nothing to do with faith, Hel is just where the vast majority of people end up because they have not done anything meriting going elsewhere.
The difference is, Hel is not some divine punishment, it's just the big net.
Churches are different, they do not operate on faith, they abuse it.

That's a valid point to make, but from you.

He may agree with that, but it is not what I saw in his posts. The Bible is fantasy like like an RPG and therefore you shouldn't care for what it says. That is the message or point that I saw in his post which is immensely different then what you stated. Sure, he had critiques of the Catholic Church as you do, but it went beyond that. Let's go to the post that started this:

You mean expert on an adaptation of an adaptation of an interpretation of an interpretation of a rewritten version of the Bible? Unless we find the Ark of the Covenant along with the original Bible, those experts expertise is to me completely bogus.

I'm an expert on Cthulhu's sacred teaching myself. Just ask Soul, he's my most devout fan.

Unless he is a religious practitioner of the Cthulhu faith or something, he does not obtain as much value from any of that as MG (or myself) do from the bible. Otherwise he would understand just how important it is to be able to interpret and use the Bible in any related discussion. So yes, it matters to us and it is not "Completely bogus" to us. It has value to us. He is merely throwing out that value as part of his critique. That's what I was speaking to. So, GF, is the bible's interpretation for us a bogus argument when discussing our own faith? Is that really the hill you are throwing yourself on? Especially after what is quoted below?

Pot:


Kettle:


Did I miss anything?

Yes, yes you did. You missed the part where I argued against the idea that religious literature (yours and mine) is equitable to an RPG in value or worth in the "real world", depending on which word you were using in your post at the time for you have used both, for we as individuals are part of the real world as well as many other peoples who derive value from literature they hold sacred. It has very real value and very real worth in the real world.

You argued against and I recognized your POV by sarcastically stating that I didn't realize that your religion was nothing but an RPG to you. It should have been obvious that that is the very notion I was arguing against. So no, it's not really a pot calling the kettle black but me pointing to the logical conclusion of your odd choice of wording/argument.


Let's look at that post again:

No, I said they were of equal value.
I played RPG's for decades, Do you think I would have done that if I found no "value" in it?.
I never claimed the bible was useless, nor worthless.
You just said that my knowledge was "as worthless as a house game"
Sounding slightly militant yourself there Tood.

My sentence, if you actually look at it beyond one clause of it, said "You made the wild claim that knowledge of the Bible or the Bible itself is as worthless as a house game." So how are those my words? They were my interpretation of your words. You never quantified that a house game or an RPG in general is of any worth so you allowed any interpretation to follow. And I did. Can I be blamed for not knowing what base worth you give an RPG?

Can you really not see how easily I could have interpreted your post to mean you saw no value in the Bible? To an average person, how would an RPG rank in terms of value? Not much, so that's what I went on. I myself, may not be into fantasy RPG's or board games, But I am into planty of games and RPG's yet none of that do I value anywhere near the Bible. So yes, by being awfully general and ambiguous it is easy for me to make that conclusion. That you were devaluing the Bible's worth to anyone. You made your point poorly. And I maybe I did too, but it was a poorly made point nonetheless.

[Chaka-Z0]

Unless he is a religious practitioner of the Cthulhu faith or something, he does not obtain as much value from any of that as MG (or myself) do from the bible. Otherwise he would understand just how important it is to be able to interpret and use the Bible in any related discussion. So yes, it matters to us and it is not "Completely bogus" to us. It has value to us. He is merely throwing out that value as part of his critique. That's what I was speaking to. So, GF, is the bible's interpretation for us a bogus argument when discussing our own faith? Is that really the hill you are throwing yourself on? Especially after what is quoted below?

1- You say the value you find in the Bible is all about the interpretation you make of it. You insist a lot on that point. Answer me this then, how can you be an expert on the subject? You think I'm dismissing and consider the Bible as worthless. Wrong. I say those that proclaim themselves as EXPERTS on something that is supposed to be an INTERPRETATION is bogus, and stand by it. Please explain to me how I was wrong stating that because I'm not getting what you're saying. How can one be an expert on something that has no common basis if its open to interpretation and imagination?

2- As for the rest of your post, more specifically the part on the value you accord to the Bible, what if to me, the Bible has a big zero on the scale of personal importance? What if to you, the Bible has lets say a 9 on your scale of personal importance? Is there any of us that has the moral high ground?

Yes, yes you did. You missed the part where I argued against the idea that religious literature (yours and mine) is equitable to an RPG in value or worth in the "real world", depending on which word you were using in your post at the time for you have used both, for we as individuals are part of the real world as well as many other peoples who derive value from literature they hold sacred. It has very real value and very real worth in the real world.

[aretood2]

You obviously did not read one word of what I posted before. Such blind hatred you have of the Church Christ founded. Celibacy is a practice, not a hard and fast teaching, a practice that can be modified to include a man's current marriage. This is the practice that permanent deacons and Eastern Rite priests follow: that they can be married as long as the marriage occurred prior to ordination and cannot re-marry. And dispensations from the vow of celibacy can be given to clerics whose wives died early and suddenly and perhaps left behind small children that the cleric would not be able to care for on his own AND have sufficient time to carry out the vastly higher calling of the clerical state to which he was ordained.

Are priests allowed to marry? No. This is a practice that started late in the 3rd century, not in the first century. Legalistic loopholes like calling it a "practice" is nothing more than just that. And action that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for, legalism to subvert, add to, or remove from scripture.

And let's not forget that God Himself called for fasting and abstinence from certain foods in times of penitence and remembrance.

The passage you cite clearly talks about people who would forbid marriage and advocate fasting and abstinence for no purpose whatsoever other than to be control freaks and not for some higher purpose.

You mean the feasts celebrated by Israel?
"I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, they have become a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing them." Isaiah 1:14

Or do you mean the Catholic ones? if the latter, I made no mention of feasts nor fasts. Not eating meat on Fridays does not count as a fast for you still eat food.

You seem to consider the metaphysical/spiritual aspect as non-fiction, probably because you have faith, which I don't. See this is why it's always next to impossible to have discussions on religions without hurting one's beliefs. You consider this spiritual, metaphysical world as something more veritable than fiction because you believe in it. To consider any of this as non-fiction, one element is absolutely required: faith, which is an absolute illogical and irrational concept.

Why? And what does that matter? If it is how one perceives reality, what is that to you? My question for you is why is it so important that it be recognized as fiction when every book store, every library, every academic space that I know of, and am aware of, does not place religious literature from the major religions in the category of fiction?

And it is possible to have these conversations without offense. It's actually rather easy. Just don't be a jerk about people's faith and their scripture. Speak respectfully and don't use dumb examples meant to deride and devalue. Avoid insensitive jokes. You know, follow good manners. I know I'm not perfect but when called on it at least I try to back away from that instead of defend and continue to do it.

I'm sorry but this comparison simply does not stand. Philip K Dick wrote hundreds of short sci-fi stories describing his view on the world, which was tainted by paranoia. He ended up killing himself too. Throughout his work, he describes future worlds, in the near and non-near future, that turned out in some cases to be actually accurate.

Using your logic (bolded) it shouldn't be considered as fiction because he expressed his view on reality. Thor was not fiction to the Vikings, but it is to us. All these examples you named are subject to the perspective of the one who reads it. You think it's not because you believe in it, simple as that to me.

Read the sentence immediately after the sentence you bolded. I mentioned that if I were to write a story about those same three elements then it would be fiction. Dick didn't write a manifesto, he wrote a story. You also didn't answer my question, but that's cool, I guess.

If you want to know, I am an agnostic myself. Some might think I'm against religion, which is not the case. I only have strong opposition against any sort of institutions that seeks to control the masses using brainwashing. Trump flavored populism is another one of those.

I was merely pointing out that claiming revisions is not enough, you actually have to say something for me to discuss. I won't make your arguments for you. Here's what I said that prompted your comment about "being mature"

"You mention "countless revisions" yet you can't name one. How are you any different than Trump talking about fake news? He calls them fake he just can't name one fake thing they said."

I wasn't calling you trump, but pointing out that you can't simply cry "revisions" without elaboration just as he can't cry "fake news" without actual examples of such.
"You mention "countless revisions" yet you can't name one. How are you any different than Trump talking about fake news? He calls them fake he just can't name one fake thing they said."

I wasn't calling you trump, but pointing out that you can't simply cry "revisions" without elaboration just as he can't cry "fake news" without actual examples of such.

So if you want a mature level, then proceed on a mature level....let's digress a bit back to the revision issue.

You are quick to jump in the accusation boat my friend. The Codex of Sinataicus (not sure of the spelling) is one of the oldest we know, I also know the Russians have one as well, can't remember the name of this one without further research. As I said previously, I don't think discussing specifics about the Bible is relevant to this discussion. You tell me to stop these little jokes I do on Diablo 2 yet you're the one that brings Trump. Please let's keep this on a mature level shall we?

You are quick to use quibs. So what of the Sinataicus Codex? I'm not going to make your argument for you. What is your evidence for revisions?

What claim does your faith have on reality, I mean seriously you can't prove any of it, other than the historical parts which confirms that some characters in the Bible existed. The Catholic Church has a claim on reality although, that's true. They live in golden castles in their little secluded kingdom where child molesting goes unpunished. How twisted is that reality? It's certainly not one similar to mine or most of the inhabitants of this world that's for sure. Yet they are at the pinnacle of the catholic faith, what do you say on that?

I have at least 95 things to say about that (Seriously is the reference lost on people?)

Wasn't really what I meant. I meant that both groups have ridiculous, laughable and completely illogical beliefs and are both deaf to reason. Do you really think I consider creationists as terrorists? I'm not that dense

I have no reason to believe one way or the other. I've seen people claim as much.

By your own admission, you're dismissing your previous claim that all terrorists are willingly in.

No I don't. You and I have a vastly different understanding of what constitutes free will. An act done in ignorance is still an act chosen.

You tell me, how many people that have joined sects, extremist religious groups and such that have escaped realized only after how deeply they had been maneuvered by their masters? They make a choice to join, that's true, but to you it seems that making a choice is a sign of acceptance with a clear mind, which in most cases is not. You can easily steer people towards of a choice of your own by using the right words. Sociopaths are pretty good at it. Easy example:

Listen Timmy, you can eat only one of those, choose carefully. One item is a disgusting apple, YUK fruits! The other one is a delicious caramel-glazed chocolate bar that will bring you joy and happiness. Which one do you think Timmy will choose? He was influenced and steered towards the chocolate bar, and thinks he made a choice for himself when it was you all along.

Timmy still made a choice just like my niece who didn't listen to me and proceeded to eat a bug. Plenty of people leave, plenty of people don't leave. I'm interested in the idea of how street gangs brainwash, sorry, condition people though. They don't seem like the overly sophisticated type yet their members are fanatical and few leave...outside of a body bag. So the crimes done by gangsters should not be punished since they had no free will? They still made a choice and the law recognizes that, and rightfully so. Now certain circumstances where one is under duress, judges and courts are known to be lenient.

Maybe a clumsy example but that's exactly what's going on in some cases. The Church gathered so many followers in ancient times, why is that? They promised eternal damnation to those that wouldn't repent for their sins. Crusaders simply killed them. Peasants at the time didn't have google to inquire around as to if any of this is true. It's not surprise that many local parishes are closing and followers dwindling. People are now educated and unlike my grandparents generation have access to a decent education and able to think critically and for themselves, not by what the local priest tells them to. If they chose the catholic faith on their own accord that is absolutely fine and a true choice, not a conditioned one.

There's a difference between a choice freely done and whether or not guilt should be attributed for the chosen course of action.

Let's say you live in the Middle-East in a poor family. You have no education or knowledge since your parents couldn't afford school. Some guy drops in your village, talks about how he can give you a good life fighting the holy wars of Allah. You then make a ''choice'' and go with him, okay that's a conscious choice as you describe. But that's where my point comes in, its the ONLY choice that was available to you. You didn't know anything else and literally this guy offers you the world. What I call brainwashing is lets say child-prospect for terrorist groups are subject to hate speech on a 24/7 basis and become convinced that this is the only truth. You can only help them by taking them out of this biased environment and by ''deprogramming'' them.

How exactly would one "deprogram" a human? Does the flash drive go through the nose? I say this because I think it is a mistake to use computer lingo here. Maybe reducate?

SS officers weren't solely assigned to Jews slaughter. They were the internal police of the Reich, and had many duties.

Sure, them and mostly the Gestapo. But that doesn't change anything I said.

I can see why you're opposed to the notion of brainwashing and dismiss it as a conscious choice reading this. But of course, Hitler's propaganda branch had nothing to do with this. Nothing to do with the fact that Germans were subject to propaganda 24/7 by the use of the radio, movies, posters, etc. This element was so important to the Nazis that they went as far as to shoot a movie on the last year of the war, when all was but lost. All SS members were volunteers, so I'm not going to talk talking about those. I'm not denying many Nazis were consciously in and racist bigots, yet you're falling in generalizations and I think it's regrettable.

They are not generalizations. You may be reading too much into it.

[aretood2]

1- You say the value you find in the Bible is all about the interpretation you make of it. You insist a lot on that point. Answer me this then, how can you be an expert on the subject? You think I'm dismissing and consider the Bible as worthless. Wrong. I say those that proclaim themselves as EXPERTS on something that is supposed to be an INTERPRETATION is bogus, and stand by it. Please explain to me how I was wrong stating that because I'm not getting what you're saying. How can one be an expert on something that has no common basis if its open to interpretation and imagination?

You have quite an...interesting way to say that. You could have simply lead with what you said here instead of brining in RPGs or whatnot. In fact, had you said this, We wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead you opted out for quibs and insensitivity.

2- As for the rest of your post, more specifically the part on the value you accord to the Bible, what if to me, the Bible has a big zero on the scale of personal importance? What if to you, the Bible has lets say a 9 on your scale of personal importance? Is there any of us that has the moral high ground?

You're asking a set of Christians to change their ways and at the same time demand that they ignore the very source of their faith and then using examples and arguments that further undermine the fact that they value said source greatly. It's a non-starter and a dead end position.

[Chaka-Z0]

Why? And what does that matter? If it is how one perceives reality, what is that to you? My question for you is why is it so important that it be recognized as fiction when every book store, every library, every academic space that I know of, and am aware of, does not place religious literature from the major religions in the category of fiction?

For reference

Spoiler:

Posted by Chaka-Z0
You seem to consider the metaphysical/spiritual aspect as non-fiction, probably because you have faith, which I don't. See this is why it's always next to impossible to have discussions on religions without hurting one's beliefs. You consider this spiritual, metaphysical world as something more veritable than fiction because you believe in it. To consider any of this as non-fiction, one element is absolutely required: faith, which is an absolute illogical and irrational concept.

I mentioned this trying to prove my take on the argument we had in the definition of the word fiction, using faith as an example. To recap, to me having faith is believing in something without seeing the evidence for yourself (illogical) nor having an explanation to justify it (irrational). It mattered in the sense of that conversation, on a theoretical level, not in the way you put it now.

It's not important at all to me what genre is globally attributed to the Holy Bible. It is simply how I see it, on a personal level, and just happened to express myself on this board since the subject arose. Same goes for your perception of reality and whatever else at all that makes you human, it is your business and nobody should tell you to change that.

But you asked me a question, and I'll give you my opinion. The Bible is not in the fiction row because it would offend people on a global scale and since its the best-selling book of all time, that'd be a really bad business move, it's not worth it.

The philosophical ''Is the Bible / Quran Fiction or Non-Fiction?'' question, as I'm sure you are well aware of, has been a long debated and heated topic.

And it is possible to have these conversations without offense. It's actually rather easy. Just don't be a jerk about people's faith and their scripture. Speak respectfully and don't use dumb examples meant to deride and devalue. Avoid insensitive jokes. You know, follow good manners. I know I'm not perfect but when called on it at least I try to back away from that instead of defend and continue to do it.

I am the kind of guy that thinks any joke is a legit joke and I know this is offensive to many. But believe me when I say this, I sincerely apologize for offending you. Please know that it never is nor was my intent, but unfortunately might happen again since we are discussing religion themed subjects.

Read the sentence immediately after the sentence you bolded. I mentioned that if I were to write a story about those same three elements then it would be fiction. Dick didn't write a manifesto, he wrote a story. You also didn't answer my question, but that's cool, I guess.

I still fail to see the difference between ghost, elves, witches, ice giants killed by Thor and Angels and demons, God, the Devil, miracles, spirits, etc. To me the Bible is just a story, stories can be told in many forms, manifesto included, story is a very vague term. Still, it doesn't mean I dismiss the religion itself, nor deny the possible existence of an All-Mighty God.

I was merely pointing out that claiming revisions is not enough, you actually have to say something for me to discuss. I won't make your arguments for you. Here's what I said that prompted your comment about "being mature"

"You mention "countless revisions" yet you can't name one. How are you any different than Trump talking about fake news? He calls them fake he just can't name one fake thing they said."

I wasn't calling you trump, but pointing out that you can't simply cry "revisions" without elaboration just as he can't cry "fake news" without actual examples of such.
[COLOR=#000080]"You mention "countless revisions" yet you can't name one. How are you any different than Trump talking about fake news? He calls them fake he just can't name one fake thing they said."
So if you want a mature level, then proceed on a mature level....let's digress a bit back to the revision issue.

I did when I spoke about the first translation to English of the Bible in my previous post, only not by name. That would be King James revised and translated version. You were also right to correct me on my usage of the Dark Ages term and countless was probably an exaggeration. Fact remains that there has been changes to the text throughout the Bible's history. Can we close the loop on this particular matter or you would deny it?

You are quick to use quibs. So what of the Sinataicus Codex? I'm not going to make your argument for you. What is your evidence for revisions?

This particular Codex is supposedly the compilation of all the holy books of your faith. How come is it that the pages are scattered all around the World? Why were they stored in different places and in different degradation shape? Perhaps it is because some group of people did not want some part of the scriptures known? Maybe its not revisions, maybe its conscious omissions.

I have at least 95 things to say about that (Seriously is the reference lost on people?)

I know many Christians have distaste for the Vatican and co, well many in my social circle do. Fact remains that this is a claim to our reality made by the Catholic Church of the Christian faith.

I have no reason to believe one way or the other. I've seen people claim as much.

I have yet to see someone approach this level of stupidity on this board, please give me any available insight if that's the case so I may block them right away.

No I don't. You and I have a vastly different understanding of what constitutes free will. An act done in ignorance is still an act chosen.

That we do. I believe the notion of constricted choice exists. To me, having someone make you pick between submission or death and force a gun into your hand is not an act chosen on your (he/she) part.

Timmy still made a choice just like my niece who didn't listen to me and proceeded to eat a bug. Plenty of people leave, plenty of people don't leave. I'm interested in the idea of how street gangs brainwash, sorry, condition people though. They don't seem like the overly sophisticated type yet their members are fanatical and few leave...outside of a body bag. So the crimes done by gangsters should not be punished since they had no free will? They still made a choice and the law recognizes that, and rightfully so. Now certain circumstances where one is under duress, judges and courts are known to be lenient.

I'm sorry, you're wrongfully implying that I believe these people should not be punished for their actions, I do not. You said it yourself, those that are under duress are subject to a lenient judgment, sometimes see their accusations lifted entirely. Why do you think that is? Because the court of law recognizes that people can be forced into doing something they didn't want to under the barrel. Doesn't excuse what they did. That, was exactly my point towards terrorists.

Ironically, you're answering yourself about the street gangs. What might have started with a few small robberies for the thrill of it drags you into this nasty underworld. Next thing you know you can't get out of it, you know too much, you made too many enemies, most do end up in body bags as you said. You made a choice to do a few robberies, that's true, but then you were constricted into doing more and more grave actions. You realized that on your way up the crime ladder, but you can't get out of it. This situation could very well happen to anybody, I'm not suggesting all criminals are like that, some willfully join and stick with it. Denying the possibility exists however is that which I am in disagreement.

[COLOR=#000080]How exactly would one "deprogram" a human? Does the flash drive go through the nose? I say this because I think it is a mistake to use computer lingo here. Maybe reducate?

You deprogram someone by physically and mentally breaking them to reprogram them with ideas and thought patterns of your choosing. Mentally breaking someone does not always mean actually torturing people as can be seen in action movies. It can simply be by turning everything one knows upside down over a long period of time, just like Islamic radicals do. The deprogramming can take many form, could be like the Russians do with misinformation all over the web, could be propaganda demonizing the Allies in WW2, could be torture, could be blackmail, threats to your family. Kids don't need the first step since they're a blank slate already, just load it up and hop they go.

As for the lingo, I know you don't know me and have no reason to believe me but I don't think anybody's called me a liar so far on Gateworld, but that is one of the many terms used in the field I work in.

[Gatefan1976]

Value? Sure. But let's go back to your post:


Huh...so an RPG is of equal value...so you are equating the two which is what I was arguing against. So to you religious beliefs are of the same value as Dungeons and Dragons? This is what You aren't really explaining yourself. If you are talking value to an individual, I say I take more value in the Bible than the vast majority of D&D players do in their RPG by a long shot. So how are they equitable, exactly?

No, What I am saying is that your belief, my belief, and anyone's in between has no impact on the objective greater reality. You have a creation story, I have a creation story. What neither of us have is a creation objective FACT. We have things that have personal, SUBJECTIVE meaning, and we can bend them to suit objective fact if we so chose to.
For Example, if first the universe was nothing, and God said "let there be light" we could think that from darkness, came light, right?
In mine, it's the collision of two diametrically opposed forces (Fire and Ice).
Scientifically, it would be called the big bang because big bangs only happen when oppositional forces collide, or react.
Notice BOTH of our creation myths have the same reaction, but the story is different. Science has no story to tell because the story is irrelevant to objective fact, but to both you and I, and all faithful people of any stripe, the story becomes relevant because it is relevant to us on a personal (therefore subjective) level.

Let's go further back:



Here's the problem between this post and the first one quoted above. The first post quoted above recognizes the value inherent to the individual, but this post degrades its worthiness in the real world despite that individuals are part of the real world. Do you see why I take issue with that?

No, I disagree.
I see value in both the subjective, and the objective. An Atheist would see this as a "god of the gaps" argument, that "GOD/S" only exist to fill in the blanks of science. I would argue that faith (just faith, not religious dogma) exists to fill in the blanks of the subjective personal self and can easily co-exist with an objective view of the greater reality.

That's a valid point to make, but from you.

He may agree with that, but it is not what I saw in his posts. The Bible is fantasy like like an RPG and therefore you shouldn't care for what it says. That is the message or point that I saw in his post which is immensely different then what you stated. Sure, he had critiques of the Catholic Church as you do, but it went beyond that. Let's go to the post that started this:

But, it is a fantasy insofar as it cannot be proven. If your personal line is what can and cannot be proven, fact is fact and all else is either fantasy or self delusion, then he is subjectively correct. I would say objectively, but there is proof that faith can affect an outcome (the placebo effect) which kinda wrecks the notion on the purely objective being more important that the purely subjective.

Unless he is a religious practitioner of the Cthulhu faith or something, he does not obtain as much value from any of that as MG (or myself) do from the bible. Otherwise he would understand just how important it is to be able to interpret and use the Bible in any related discussion. So yes, it matters to us and it is not "Completely bogus" to us. It has value to us. He is merely throwing out that value as part of his critique. That's what I was speaking to. So, GF, is the bible's interpretation for us a bogus argument when discussing our own faith? Is that really the hill you are throwing yourself on? Especially after what is quoted below?

Ok, you are switching gears here (not subject or goalposts).
Can a Agnostic or Atheist gain as much from a text as a believer I think is the question you are really asking.
Honestly, I'm not sure because the "faithful" are looking for one answer, and the Atheist/Agnostic is looking for a different answer. Both are looking for validation however.
I think religious texts contain subjective truth, I think Atheism contains objective truth and I don't see why those two positions must be in opposition, THAT is what makes zero sense to me.

Yes, yes you did. You missed the part where I argued against the idea that religious literature (yours and mine) is equitable to an RPG in value or worth in the "real world", depending on which word you were using in your post at the time for you have used both, for we as individuals are part of the real world as well as many other peoples who derive value from literature they hold sacred. It has very real value and very real worth in the real world.

What you missed is that calling it equal to a RPG is -valid-
If it was not valid, why do you think there was such a scare in the 80's of RPG's being the "devils tool"
Just the dice?
RPG's were seen as a threat, and they got treated that way.

You argued against and I recognized your POV by sarcastically stating that I didn't realize that your religion was nothing but an RPG to you. It should have been obvious that that is the very notion I was arguing against. So no, it's not really a pot calling the kettle black but me pointing to the logical conclusion of your odd choice of wording/argument.

What do you think my post was?

Let's look at that post again:



My sentence, if you actually look at it beyond one clause of it, said "You made the wild claim that knowledge of the Bible or the Bible itself is as worthless as a house game." So how are those my words? They were my interpretation of your words. You never quantified that a house game or an RPG in general is of any worth so you allowed any interpretation to follow. And I did. Can I be blamed for not knowing what base worth you give an RPG?

Would I have played games for decades if I found no value in them?
That's what I said
Would you believe in God if you found no value in God?
I DID give you my base worth of RPG's.

Can you really not see how easily I could have interpreted your post to mean you saw no value in the Bible? To an average person, how would an RPG rank in terms of value? Not much, so that's what I went on. I myself, may not be into fantasy RPG's or board games, But I am into planty of games and RPG's yet none of that do I value anywhere near the Bible. So yes, by being awfully general and ambiguous it is easy for me to make that conclusion. That you were devaluing the Bible's worth to anyone. You made your point poorly. And I maybe I did too, but it was a poorly made point nonetheless.

To the "average person", what is the ranking of the Bible?
Not much.
What is the ranking of the Edda's?
Even less, if they even know what they are.

[Falcon Horus]

So you're still releasing the identities of both the accuser and the accused before conviction.

But a trial, unless otherwise specified like behind closed doors, is an open eventwhere accused and accusor stand on opposite sides, known to all.

During an investigation, however, keeping names out of statements or faces -- in order not to judge someone before they are or aren't found guilty of their crime committed, or not committed.

I think keep names out of the media during investigations, could benefit the investigation and the public opinion.

If I had my way every priest convicted of such abuses would automatically lose their priestly faculties (i.e., would still be a priest as the sacrament of Holy Orders leaves an indelible mark but be unable to exercise any of the official duties that come with being a priest save for confession in event of an emergency) forever AND be excommunicated until they reconcile (but again would never again be trusted to exercise the faculties of the priestly office)

Sexual assault is jailtime -- priest or not.

Does or does not the Bible state that priests must be celibate?

It's not -- the Church implemented that during the middle ages, or a little before that.

[Annoyed]

But a trial, unless otherwise specified like behind closed doors, is an open eventwhere accused and accusor stand on opposite sides, known to all.

During an investigation, however, keeping names out of statements or faces -- in order not to judge someone before they are or aren't found guilty of their crime committed, or not committed.

I think keep names out of the media during investigations, could benefit the investigation and the public opinion.

Ok, so exactly when do you release info about both parties? During the police investigation? When the grand jury makes a formal indictment?

Oh, and just as a conundrum for you... how about the current Kavanaugh situation? Since it's not even an "investigation" at this point, let alone a trial, that should be secret too, right?

[Chaka-Z0]

But a trial, unless otherwise specified like behind closed doors, is an open eventwhere accused and accusor stand on opposite sides, known to all.

True, to the exception when a minor is implicated, in Canada at least, the identity is not divulged even if found guilty of a crime. They are sent to youth penitentiaries.

During an investigation, however, keeping names out of statements or faces -- in order not to judge someone before they are or aren't found guilty of their crime committed, or not committed.

I think keep names out of the media during investigations, could benefit the investigation and the public opinion.

I agree, but impossible to apply to a high-profile case such as Kavanaugh or Trump or any big shot such as them.

Sexual assault is jailtime -- priest or not.

If proven guilty. How does one prove a priest guilty if the most incriminating evidences related to allegations targetting say, Bishops and Cardinals, lay in the hands of the Vatican, which systematically hides, buries and destroys evidences related to such cases?

We all know sexual assaults victims are in most cases unwilling to testify, or even to admit that it happened, for a multitude of reasons. But, the fact that pedo-priests are men of God makes it that much harder for the victims, especially if the community around them never saw that side to them and consider them as Saints. Only in our modern days are we seeing such allegations related to priests, such a thing was unthinkable a few decades ago, even if it was blatant and known by all.

Its saddening that these vermins gives Catholicism a bad name.