Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


TEG last won the day on August 24

TEG had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

57 Good

About TEG

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    Photography, coding, ancient philosophy, fretted instruments, Spotify.
  • More About Me
    Ex-fundamentalist, raised in the christian churches/churches of christ.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So how do I get a piece of the action? Gotta come up with a kooky religious video that everyone will want to watch. Hmm . . . .
  2. The fact that english doesn’t have a “real” second person plural is annoying. It’s “yous” in the east, “y’all” in the south, sometimes even “y’uns” (you ones). It used to be “ye,” and supposedly still is in some places. Why don’t y’all decide on one . . . .
  3. The earth’s shadow on the moon during an eclipse is always a circle, no matter what direction the moon is; that means that the object casting the shadow is a sphere. The ancient greeks figured that out. Flat-earthers might as well go back to living in caves. Anti-science people living in the modern world are a total contradiction. They use computers and cell phones, microwaves, fluorescent lights, airplanes, etc. without a second thought. But when something like evolution comes up, they insist it can’t be true because it contradicts their ancient book. It’s all the same science . . . .
  4. The church I grew up in was “bible-only” and their goal was to restore the “original” apostolic church by sticking strictly to the bible (which they manifestly did not do). But Paul told the churches to maintain the traditions he had taught them: https://www.catholic.com/tract/apostolic-tradition https://www.catholic.com/tract/scripture-and-tradition The position of the catholic church is that the bishops are the successors of the apostles, and the church is therefore an authority today the way the bible was back then. So which is it? This issue is probably the main cause of division in the church. I do not remember ever having had a discussion of this topic back in the church days; we just went with our assumptions as usual. For what it’s worth . . . .
  5. But - the flood reshaped the earth’s surface, so we don’t know where anything was before the flood, including the garden of eden. It could have been in south america. (Someone once told me this in all seriousness.)
  6. Scientific American’s latest issue has an article that addresses the nature of existence; The Search for Truth in Physics. The entire issue is interesting. Why we believe lies, etc. https://www.scientificamerican.com/magazine/sa/2019/09-01/
  7. For argument reference, ranting and raving etc.: https://www.biblegateway.com/ https://worldenglish.bible/ (public domain, full downloads in multiple formats) https://biblehub.com/interlinear/ I found it interesting to read some of the non-canonical books like the epistles of Clement (includes some interesting pseudo-science), the epistle of Barnabas (sounds a lot like Peter’s sermons in Acts, reviewing old testament history; was this what sermons were like back then), the Didache (several methods of baptism o.k.), the shepherd of Hermas (not consistent with the trinity), and the book of Enoch (quite a wild ride; it is quoted in the new testament, and would therefore qualify under “all scripture is god-breathed”). I think a lot of fundamentalists believe that anything that just barely did not make it into the canon is somehow suspect, and have never read any of the above, if they have even heard of them. But if your ideal is the “original” apostolic church, it would help you to know what they were reading back then; several of the above had been considered canonical, and are included in our oldest manuscripts. Then there are the gnostic writings, Nag Hammadi etc. The gnostic world-view intrigues me, but some of those books sound like they were written by someone on acid. The cartoon about christian movements is exactly the kind of church I grew up in.
  8. Winter solstice holidays predate christianity, so I don’t have any qualms about enjoying the smell of the tree, the candles, the frankincense, and the music, especially if it is in a language that I don’t understand. You can find all kinds of cool stuff on Spotify; I think the Russian orthodox choir music is the best. Palestrina is also a favorite. Then there is the Windham Hill instrumental stuff. Happy solstice!
  9. This is one of those protective mechanisms of christianity. “Interpret scripture with scripture.” Since the bible is god’s word, it is all one piece, and if two sources seem to conflict, they have to be “harmonized.” We can’t acknowledge the fact that three of the four gospel writers failed to mention the earth-shattering fact that Jesus was god incarnate.
  10. That’s the gospel of John; just sayin’ . . . . The fact that someone was an incarnate god would be important enough for ANY biographer to make clear.
  11. Peter’s sermons in the book of Acts: Jesus was elevated to the right hand of god after his resurrection. The gospel of Mark: Jesus became the son of god at his baptism. The gospels of Matthew and Luke: Jesus was the son of god at his birth. The gospel of John, and some of the epistles: Jesus was pre-existent, creator, god, etc. Christians call it “progressive revelation.” In any other context it is called “making it up as you go along.”
  12. What would the respectful, loving Jesus do? He might: call his enemies “blind fools” (Matthew 23:17) condemn whole cities to hell, fire, and brimstone for not listening to him (Matthew 11:21) curse a tree for not bearing fruit out of season (Mark 11:14) hate his parents (Luke 14:26)
  13. A horse is a horse, of course, of course.
  14. That undifferentiated center is the Tao, Nirvana, the neoplatonists’ One. Heraclitus used the analogy of a bow and bowstring to illustrate it; you have to pull both ways (one interpretation). Not to say that everything has to be both good and bad. Of human behavior, I think it is more like, the capacity for good implies the capacity for evil. If we were robots mindlessly carrying out preprogrammed instructions, there would be neither good nor evil. Our capacity to think, “I am going to choose this action because it is for the common good, even though I personally could do better,” it implies that we could have thought, “I am going to get mine even if it means ruining everybody else.”
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.