Semmelweis Reflex

[Edgarcito]

27 minutes ago, florduh said:

It seems you use the Bible to support your ever changing views, and that's okay. FWIW, you are the least obnoxious believer around these here parts. That's pretty high praise. 

 

lol, but there's only two of us....

[Joshpantera]

On 6/19/2021 at 10:51 AM, SemmelweisReflex said:

So Does God see into the future? No. He doesn't. How could he? The future doesn't exist. God sees how things are in all probability to unfold. Setting dates or trying to determine when the end of the world - not the end of the planet we live on but the societies we build - is superstitious religious nonsense predicated upon the fact that the uninformed see God as some cosmic fortune teller. 

 

There's a sense that no one knows the day or the hour except god the father. As in the father does know when it will end according to the revelation scenario. But not the son nor the angels as the verse specifies. Only the father knows. 

 

Now I realize that the bible was written in different periods by people who believed conflicting things. You go back to Genesis and the "gods" were not all knowing, all power, or all present. Those where later philosophical and religious developments that weren't there from the outset. There's no cosmic fortune telling at that point. But later on, where people find verses to support the "omni" god traits, while glossing over these older verses which do not, the cosmic fortune telling becomes more and more of a thing and that's probably why it's the dominant view in christianity today. 

 

What you're missing here is that it's ALL superstitious nonsense. The entire thing, not just selects parts of it. 

 

On 6/19/2021 at 10:51 AM, SemmelweisReflex said:

You could more rationally argue that God will decide when the kingdoms of men will be destroyed or more realistically allowed to destroy themselves. God says: "All right, that's enough." God will know it is time when it is time. In the case of the flood a period of 120 years was set in which time Noah prepared. It took 50 years to build the ark, it took time for animals to gather, Noah's sons to be born, grow, find wives while allowing for them to warn people. (Genesis 6) 

 

This is all just as superstitious as anything else. Sure, one could argue that only the father knows when he will call it quits and make a judgement call. But that's still a little disingenuous considering that some biblical writers did see god as all knowing, which is why the omni's were pulled out of scripture in different places and became the dominant view of christianity. 

 

There's no credible evidence for the existence of any god, let alone the biblical "gods." There's no evidence for a global flood and in fact there's mountains of evidence against it. There's evidence that the biblical flood is mythology. And there's no reason to take any of this literally from an intellectually honest stand point. Every bit of it is merely "religious superstition."

[SemmelweisReflex]

5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

There's a sense that no one knows the day or the hour except god the father. As in the father does know when it will end according to the revelation scenario. But not the son nor the angels as the verse specifies. Only the father knows. 

 

Right, if you mean that the Revelation scenario isn't foreordained or predestined, it's a series of events that could easily be seen as unfolding in a vaguely specific prediction. The easiest way to explain it is that as far as seeing the future, spirit beings, like God and angels, are more like a weather forecaster than a fortune teller. God knows when the end is here because and when he says it's here. Only he decides. Angels (Jesus was an angel before and after coming to earth as the son of man), demons can see the bigger picture that we can't but they aren't going to decide when the end is here. 

 

5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Now I realize that the bible was written in different periods by people who believed conflicting things. You go back to Genesis and the "gods" were not all knowing, all power, or all present. Those where later philosophical and religious developments that weren't there from the outset. There's no cosmic fortune telling at that point. But later on, where people find verses to support the "omni" god traits, while glossing t these older verses which do not, the cosmic fortune telling becomes more and more of a thing and that's probably why it's the dominant view in christianity today. 

 

Excellent. Yes. That's correct as far as I can tell. [ETA: I read that again and so much of it is wrong even though the conclusion is right. I would rephrase it that the Bible was written in different periods by people who may have believed in different things going on around them at that time, and though the Bible doesn't reflect those things but only reports a few of them in a way that is often too vague to discern unless you really investigate them further, the idea that Jehovah God of the Bible was omnipresent is flat out wrong, and the ideas that he was omniscient or omnipotent, in the strict sense rather than the religious superstitious sense, isn't accurate though it can appear to be without more careful consideration. I think that may be the longest sentence I've ever typed, and from my usual verbosity that is saying something. 

 

God, I'm bored . . . are you bored? Who are you [scrolls] Josh. Again an island of fairly apparent reasoning in a rolling sea of insanity. 

 

5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

What you're missing here is that it's ALL superstitious nonsense. The entire thing, not just selects parts of it. 

 

Well, that sort of goes against the logical conclusion. It's a quasi scientific fundamentalist atheist bias.  

 

5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This is all just as superstitious as anything else. Sure, one could argue that only the father knows when he will call it quits and make a judgement call. But that's still a little disingenuous considering that some biblical writers did see god as all knowing, which is why the omni's were pulled out of scripture in different places and became the dominant view of christianity. 

 

No. For example, we could discuss those, being, from your perspective, fictional and from my perspective as non-fictional, and come to the logical conclusion that your quote directly above is inaccurate. Honestly, though, neither of us would want to do that because each of us would dismiss the other's argument as being biased. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

There's no credible evidence for the existence of any god, let alone the biblical "gods."

 

Define gods.

 

Quote

There's no evidence for a global flood and in fact there's mountains of evidence against it.

 

The Bible is the evidence for it, present the evidence which you claim exists against that. 

 

Quote

There's evidence that the biblical flood is mythology. 

 

Again, present the evidence to support your claim. 

 

Quote

And there's no reason to take any of this literally from an intellectually honest stand point. Every bit of it is merely "religious superstition."

 

Dismissing blindly in the guise of intellectual honesty. Hardly original, and hardly scientific. 

[florduh]

Seventy-five-million years ago, a nefarious alien named Xenu (aided and abetted by a cabal of evil psychiatrists) paralyzed hundreds of billions of Galactic Confederacy citizens and transported them across vast expanses of outer space to a planet known to his race as “Teegeeack” (but which we call Earth) aboard a spacecraft that looked exactly like a Douglas DC-8 jumbo airliner minus the turbofans.

Xenu then clustered these hapless hundreds of billions of paralyzed aliens around the bases of volcanoes and nuked them with hydrogen bombs. Their tortured souls (or “Thetans,” to use Hubbard’s lingo) were then collected by use of an “electronic ribbon” and forced to watch a 3D movie that was 36 days in duration. (No, the movie wasn’t “Avatar.” That one only FELT like it was 36 days long.)

Do you think I’m crazy yet? Reading the above paragraph feels like peeking into the fever dreams of a schizophrenic “Star Wars” fan. But what I just described is believed to be literal fact by thousands of Scientologists around the world.   

 https://www.postindependent.com/entertainment/cravens-notes-thetan-place-scientology-founders-foray-into-music/

 

Crazier than the Bible story? I think not. Less reliable? I think not.

[midniterider]

17 minutes ago, florduh said:

Seventy-five-million years ago, a nefarious alien named Xenu (aided and abetted by a cabal of evil psychiatrists) paralyzed hundreds of billions of Galactic Confederacy citizens and transported them across vast expanses of outer space to a planet known to his race as “Teegeeack” (but which we call Earth) aboard a spacecraft that looked exactly like a Douglas DC-8 jumbo airliner minus the turbofans.

Xenu then clustered these hapless hundreds of billions of paralyzed aliens around the bases of volcanoes and nuked them with hydrogen bombs. Their tortured souls (or “Thetans,” to use Hubbard’s lingo) were then collected by use of an “electronic ribbon” and forced to watch a 3D movie that was 36 days in duration. (No, the movie wasn’t “Avatar.” That one only FELT like it was 36 days long.)

Do you think I’m crazy yet? Reading the above paragraph feels like peeking into the fever dreams of a schizophrenic “Star Wars” fan. But what I just described is believed to be literal fact by thousands of Scientologists around the world.   

 https://www.postindependent.com/entertainment/cravens-notes-thetan-place-scientology-founders-foray-into-music/

 

Crazier than the Bible story? I think not. Less reliable? I think not.

 

It is written, therefore it is evidence: 

 

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/studytech.org/red_volumes.htm

 

[SemmelweisReflex]

7 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

It is written, therefore it is evidence: 

 

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/studytech.org/red_volumes.htm

 

 

Uh, no. See Scientology comparison above. I think it's above. Somewhere. I haven't written it yet so we will see. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

26 minutes ago, florduh said:

Seventy-five-million years ago, a nefarious alien named Xenu (aided and abetted by a cabal of evil psychiatrists) paralyzed hundreds of billions of Galactic Confederacy citizens and transported them across vast expanses of outer space to a planet known to his race as “Teegeeack” (but which we call Earth) aboard a spacecraft that looked exactly like a Douglas DC-8 jumbo airliner minus the turbofans.

Xenu then clustered these hapless hundreds of billions of paralyzed aliens around the bases of volcanoes and nuked them with hydrogen bombs. Their tortured souls (or “Thetans,” to use Hubbard’s lingo) were then collected by use of an “electronic ribbon” and forced to watch a 3D movie that was 36 days in duration. (No, the movie wasn’t “Avatar.” That one only FELT like it was 36 days long.)

Do you think I’m crazy yet? Reading the above paragraph feels like peeking into the fever dreams of a schizophrenic “Star Wars” fan. But what I just described is believed to be literal fact by thousands of Scientologists around the world.   

 https://www.postindependent.com/entertainment/cravens-notes-thetan-place-scientology-founders-foray-into-music/

 

Crazier than the Bible story? I think not. Less reliable? I think not.

 

Okay. How does the claims of Scientology mentioned above, compare to those of the Bible and secular history as far as that goes? 

 

 

[florduh]

1 hour ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Okay. How does the claims of Scientology mentioned above, compare to those of the Bible and secular history as far as that goes? 

 

 

 

"I don't subscribe to the concept of experts, religious, or the educated have any more to say than anyone else could say as well." - Semi-Wise.

[Joshpantera]

19 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

22 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

What you're missing here is that it's ALL superstitious nonsense. The entire thing, not just selects parts of it. 

 

Well, that sort of goes against the logical conclusion. It's a quasi scientific fundamentalist atheist bias.  

 

What logical conclusion???

 

From Genesis forward extends creation mythology and myriad not literally true content and assertions. The logical conclusion is that we're dealing with bronze age traditions, being of a superstitious bent. That's history. That's academia outside of tainted believer biases. 

 

End of logical conclusion. 

 

What you consider logic is a series of logic leaps based solely on your foundational, presuppositional belief in god. You have nothing but pre-assuming that a god exists without first establishing the truth of the belief. And then logic leaping to further assumptions to get to a belief that the biblical YHWH IS the god of your initial presupposition. Whether right or wrong you could never know - because you've jumped ahead into positive belief premature to establishing the truth 

of the matter first and foremost. 

 

19 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

No. For example, we could discuss those, being, from your perspective, fictional and from my perspective as non-fictional, and come to the logical conclusion that your quote directly above is inaccurate. Honestly, though, neither of us would want to do that because each of us would dismiss the other's argument as being biased. 

 

Yours is extremely biased. Biased to the core of your fundamental presupposition lacking credible evidence and confirmation. 

 

19 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Quote

There's no evidence for a global flood and in fact there's mountains of evidence against it.

 

The Bible is the evidence for it, present the evidence which you claim exists against that. 

 

The fact that only local, non global event floods are found in the geological record. Including all of the glacial, rapid ice melts which have been found in recent years and are suspected asteroid and meteor impacts during the last ice age. None of it amounts to evidence of a global scale flood, let alone matching the flood myth given Genesis. 

 

The evidence is the words I type and you googling the topics to figure it out for yourself, just as you prefer, citation free and off the cuff!

 

19 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Quote

There's evidence that the biblical flood is mythology. 

 

Again, present the evidence to support your claim.

 

It's called the entirety of academic comparative world mythology and religious studies. You'd do well for yourself to look into it. Much to learn. 

 

19 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Quote

And there's no reason to take any of this literally from an intellectually honest stand point. Every bit of it is merely "religious superstition."

 

Dismissing blindly in the guise of intellectual honesty. Hardly original, and hardly scientific. 

 

Intellectual honesty dictates that you are making a claim for positive belief in what you call Jehovah, based on the truth and accuracy of the bible. Which is neither accurate nor true about origins than it is about it's presuppositional claim that the gods, or Elohim exist. 

 

This is square one foryour end of the argument or discussion:

 

 

Something never established as true, is then paraded forward 'as if' true, prematurely.

 

 

The truth of your claims was never established to begin with. It's not reasonable for you to expect others like myself to BELIEVE you. You speak of truth recklessly with no regard for a dedicated and honest approach to truth seeking. With an openness to accepting where ever the truth may lead. No matter how disappointing or unflattering the truth may be. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sdelsolray]

30 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

...

The truth of your claims was never established to begin with. It's not reasonable for you to expect others like myself to BELIEVE you. You speak of truth recklessly with no regard for a dedicated and honest approach to truth seeking. With an openness to accepting where ever the truth may lead. No matter how disappointing or unflattering the truth may be. 

 

I don't believe Poster SemmelweisReflex' sky fairy claims.  His presuppositionalism is quite boring, as are his DMS-IV Cluster B personality disorders.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

53 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

The truth of your claims was never established to begin with. It's not reasonable for you to expect others like myself to BELIEVE you. You speak of truth recklessly with no regard for a dedicated and honest approach to truth seeking. With an openness to accepting where ever the truth may lead. No matter how disappointing or unflattering the truth may be. 

 

This is exactly why I respect Bart Ehrman @SemmelweisReflex. He went into the study of theology as a believer wanting to learn more about the God he worshipped. 

 

In the process of seeking God he eventually, from what I've gathered reading his books and watching videos, realizes that it was all a myth. No different than Greek mythology, Norse mythology, hindu mythology, etc, etc, etc.

 

That in my opinion makes him an authority on the Bible. He went through years of college, years of research, and years of study. He took the initiative to learn the languages the Bible was written in. So that he could see with his own eyes what the very hand of the authors had wrote. Without depending on the prior interpretations we have access to today. 

 

What have you done? Nothing. You claim to believe but don't prescribe to any religion. You give your interpretations without any foundations or facts to offer. You have offered nothing tangible to support ANY and I mean ANYthing you have said in these forums. 

 

The people I listen to now are those that give lengthy reasons why they know what they know. They don't bullshit around. They give tangible reasons for their conclusions that make sense. 

 

Josh is absolutely right. 

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

From Genesis forward extends creation mythology and myriad not literally true content and assertions. The logical conclusion is that we're dealing with bronze age traditions, being of a superstitious bent. That's history. That's academia outside of tainted believer biases. 

 

This is the truth.

 

You said before that the only authority on the Bible is the Bible itself. 

 

They tried the Bible first and it failed to prove itself. At every turn they found something different than what the biblical account had said. When a criminals alibi turns out to be a lie we put them under greater scrutiny to find the truth. That's the Bible. It's account turned out to be a lie. So it had to be held under greater scrutiny. And the evidence paints a much different picture than what any Bible based religion has to say. 

 

Including yours. 

 

Therefore.... no. The Bible isn't an authority on the Bible. Academia is. 

 

But please. Continue. You only serve to prove our point and aid us in the mission of Exchristian dot net. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

2 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

I don't believe Poster SemmelweisReflex' sky fairy claims. 

 

Sorry, but could you be more specific and just list one claim I've made?

[SemmelweisReflex]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

 

This is exactly why I respect Bart Ehrman @SemmelweisReflex. He went into the study of theology as a believer wanting to learn more about the God he worshipped. 

 

This is what I'm going to do with you right now; I'm going to imagine that you are someone I would be having a discussion with in a pub or tavern over a drink. Because you've mentioned that to me repeatedly. I'm going to tell you what you say makes me feel, which I wouldn't if we were in a pub, and then I'm going to respond. Hypothetically you are someone who I've worked with. A musician. But I'm just getting to know you. Okay? Now, when you are reading my response I want you to read it like a conversation you haven't taken part in. I want you to read your comments and then my responses as if you were reading a transcript of an interview or discussion someone else had. That will allow you to better see where I'm coming from . . . if you are open to that. 

 

To the above I would think, to myself, that this guy probably puts too much importance on what Ehrman thinks. But I say that I think it's great that you read Ehrman. Maybe you can learn from him. 

 

The meaning of what I think and what I say is that you could learn from Ehrman but I think you aren't really looking to learn, you are looking to confirm. I would think and say the same thing if you were instead a believer talking about reading William Lane Craig. 

 

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

 

In the process of seeking God he eventually, from what I've gathered reading his books and watching videos, realizes that it was all a myth. No different than Greek mythology, Norse mythology, hindu mythology, etc, etc, etc.

 

This comment would immediately provoke me to think. I would very quickly start to evaluate the statement in my mind and contemplate possible meanings. It's my experience that most people don't think before speaking. That means that they tend to respond emotionally to something they feel strongly about without having given it much thought. Much like an argument with your spouse or partner isn't always really what the argument is actually about. 

 

My first thought would probably be something like wondering if Ehrman's Bible education consisted of any contemporary study on the other religious paradigms mentioned. That would make me think that such an education should do just that, but does it normally? I don't know. I know that my own self education did and it was very helpful. I would recommend it to anyone. 

 

Then I would probably think that the comparisons you've made are hyperbolic. In many ways these mythologies are similar and in other ways they are not. This leaves me to evaluate the statement by trying to guess exactly what you mean. How they are alike and how they are different. It's pretty obvious, I would think to myself, that this guy has an agenda. He could be trying to use me as a springboard of ideas, or trying to convince himself of something having to do with that apparent agenda. 

 

Then I would come to the conclusion, in my mind, that I could either just nod at this remark or I could agree with it and allow your agenda to manifest itself so that I could further explore it. It wouldn't be a good idea to disagree at this point because then it would just become a heated argument. About something other than what it actually seems to be about. I could, I think to myself, agree with the statement as it is, so that's what I do. Although I'm not sure of your agenda, I'm sure that disagreement would be counter productive. So I just nod in agreement. 

 

There would probably be a flash of discernment in your eyes. A sort of electronic flinch. You would wonder to yourself, in that flash, if I were only patronizing you or if I actually disagreed. If you did this I would know I had made the right choice. If you didn't have that flash I would probably lean more towards the conclusion I had begun to draw at the beginning. That it doesn't matter much what I say, you are only talking to yourself through me. Arguing with the world at large vicariously through our discussion here. 

 

 

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

 

That in my opinion makes him an authority on the Bible. He went through years of college, years of research, and years of study. He took the initiative to learn the languages the Bible was written in. So that he could see with his own eyes what the very hand of the authors had wrote. Without depending on the prior interpretations we have access to today. 

 

This would be difficult for me to ignore or set aside while waiting for you to get to your point. I could do it if I had to, but . . . it would be tough. I would quickly have to decide whether you can listen to me even though I disagree with you, knowing that I can listen to you . . . I mean really listen to you . . . if you disagree with me. Caution here if I expect this discussion to go anywhere meaningful. 

 

I went through years of research and years of study. But I didn't go to Bible college. I do know that scholars of ancient languages don't read, speak or write those languages. 

 

I decide to shrug. You could take that as disinterest, or a lack of commitment, even cowardliness. My hope was that you take it as an indication that I suspect you don't know much about what you are saying. Which of course, only confirms my suspicions of your agenda. Obvious agenda. 

 

This sort of assumption always makes me think of a documentary I saw once where one of the worlds most respected Ichthyologist decided the best thing he could do to learn more was to go to the Amazon and live for a while with the local fishermen who lived there. They couldn't tell him the scientific labels given arbitrarily, in a sense, to the fish there or speculate how those fish evolved, but they could tell him a great deal about the fish there that he didn't know. 

 

I would have to say, cautiously, to you at this point that anyone can take a college course for free. See and hear everything anyone paying for the course would see and hear, but not get the degree. Not many people do that. 

 

So a Bible language scholar looks at words like they would fish. Maybe they've memorized what some other scholar before them has but if they are good they research the word and possible variations of it's interpretation. We only are conversant in a small percentage of the words which is why the cultural significance, of, lets say, a certain class of less accurate manuscripts are important even though not at all accurate. They were used in temples to read to the public. But they consist of a wealth of information of a cultural significance which can teach us much about the language itself. 

 

Like the Amazon fish. In a way. Only not so slimy and stinky. Ideally. 

 

[sigh] 

 

Well, I say, no one alive has actually seen the original writings with their own eyes, have they? Knowing the answer. Diplomatic enough, I think. Anyone with Internet access can look at what the scholars have documented. 

 

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

 

What have you done? Nothing. You claim to believe but don't prescribe to any religion. You give your interpretations without any foundations or facts to offer. You have offered nothing tangible to support ANY and I mean ANYthing you have said in these forums. 

 

At this l would laugh to myself for my mind's immediate response which would be to want to punch you directly in the face for being such an arrogant and simultaneously ignorant fuck. I think the natural smile that comes across my own face will suffice. Why bother, huh? I would think to myself. 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

These kinds of "discussions" are one reason I seldom visit this site anymore.

[SemmelweisReflex]

1 minute ago, Weezer said:

These kinds of "discussions" are one reason I seldom visit this site anymore.

 

Specifically what kind of discussions and what has changed?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

30 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

At this l would laugh to myself for my mind's immediate response which would be to want to punch you directly in the face for being such an arrogant and simultaneously ignorant fuck. I think the natural smile that comes across my own face will suffice. Why bother, huh? I would think to myself. 

 

 

This kind of "discussion".   With people who call themselves a genuine christian.

[SemmelweisReflex]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

 

This kind of "discussion".   With people who call themselves a genuine christian.

 

And who in this discussion calls themselves a genuine christian?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

3 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

This kind of "discussion".   With people who call themselves a genuine christian.

 

I've actually come to realize that this type of discussion with people like @SemmelweisReflex is actually important. It's people like him that are the David koresh's and Charles T. Pratts of the future. Making up more and more extreme apologetics,creating cults, and denominations. 

 

They all have their own interpretations. In the right circumstances those interpretations have caused a lot of harm in the past. 

 

Atleast if they come here first theres a record of people pointing out all the holes in their lunacy. 

[freshstart]

6 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

It's my experience that most people don't think before speaking. That means that they tend to respond emotionally to something they feel strongly about without having given it much thought.

I actually agree with this statement.  The irony here is that every single non-believer here actually DID give a lot of thought to what we believed, challenged our own beliefs, allowed ourselves to scrutinize the bible, and made a huge paradigm shift, despite the strong emotional attachment to our faith.

So you are talking to people who are perfectly capable of giving serious thought to ideas that counter their own.  If those ideas are dismissed, it has nothing to do with an inability to think before speaking. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

4 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

I've actually come to realize that this type of discussion with people like @SemmelweisReflex is actually important. It's people like him that are the David koresh's and Charles T. Pratts of the future. Making up more and more extreme apologetics,creating cults, and denominations. 

 

They all have their own interpretations. In the right circumstances those interpretations have caused a lot of harm in the past. 

 

Atleast if they come here first theres a record of people pointing out all the holes in their lunacy. 

 

You know . . . if you were any dumber you'd be Gomer Pyle, don't you?

[SemmelweisReflex]

3 hours ago, freshstart said:

I actually agree with this statement.  The irony here is that every single non-believer here actually DID give a lot of thought to what we believed, challenged our own beliefs, allowed ourselves to scrutinize the bible, and made a huge paradigm shift, despite the strong emotional attachment to our faith.

So you are talking to people who are perfectly capable of giving serious thought to ideas that counter their own.  If those ideas are dismissed, it has nothing to do with an inability to think before speaking. 

 

I'm not buying it. Just listen to the way you people respond to Christians, who are supposed to spread the good news of Christ. A number of red flags are frantically waving from outside the ex-Christian camp. The formerly warmer are a dichotomous group of evil idiots and everyone knows this. The people outside of the group - their families even - probably prefer they had stayed Christian. They always see themselves as these heroes, converting the poor doubting Thomas's. Oh, those poor stupid Christians . . . attack them! Destroy them by any means possible. Come and join our group now. We are so much more happy. We don't waste our time with this nonsense anymore. You need us to save you from salvation. 

 

It's a fascinating spectacle to watch. And if spectator sports isn't your thing then jumping in the fray with these dregs of humanity is as fun as a mosh pit. 

 

Abject stupidity doesn't dissipate overnight. The failed metaphysical experimentation of evolution takes time, monkey men. 

 

What sort of individuals make up the group? Every time, without fail, like a Nazi instruction manual. One guy who thinks education is the most important thing in the world but who's grammar and thought process is so bent upon it's own transparent destruction only he is oblivious to it's demise, ironically not the least due to the fact that it never existed in the first place.

 

Another one is an educated ruffian who's absolute control is so paramount to his very survival that he takes an almost predatory sexual fiend's delight in exercising it. There is always one or two who have better sense and you can just see in their words that they at least have the self awareness to recognize that they are rolling around in the mud of the prodigal son's dietary competition with a bunch of hypocritical pigs they are forced, from time to time, to have to admit, are contemporaries. 

 

Think about it. The only thing different about the new paradigm of these lunatics from their former, which they can't have been stupid enough to buy into without having replaced them with equally stupid ones, is the removal of the remote possibility of salvation!

 

They always think that I'm going to limp off into the darkness with some martyr complex and even that serves as an insatiable replacement for their own demented egos and validation they can hardly stand to suppress. 

 

The only people foolish enough to listen to these people are the ones who deserve to spend eternity outside the gates of paradise gnashing their teeth. They've just decided to get a jump on the competition. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

10 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Well, I say, no one alive has actually seen the original writings with their own eyes, have they? Knowing the answer. Diplomatic enough, I think. Anyone with Internet access can look at what the scholars have documented. 

 

I  agree that the old testament texts they have are copies, of copies, only written after years and years of mouth to ear story telling around campfires. Mythological fish stories that got bigger and bigger and more outlandish until their is a epic world wide flood, languages being scrambled because people tried to build something, 2 million + people wondering in the desert, walls of Jericho falling, water coming from rocks and snakes convincing females to eat a forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil. 

 

But it is feasible that some of the new testament writings that have been found are the original. 

 

10 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Then I would come to the conclusion, in my mind, that I could either just nod at this remark or I could agree with it and allow your agenda to manifest itself so that I could further explore it. It wouldn't be a good idea to disagree at this point because then it would just become a heated argument. About something other than what it actually seems to be about. I could, I think to myself, agree with the statement as it is, so that's what I do. Although I'm not sure of your agenda, I'm sure that disagreement would be counter productive. So I just nod in agreement. 

 

 

I'm more than happy to tell you my agenda but first the why I have an agenda. Keep in mind I was a part of this church well after the events I'm about to describe unfolded. To say the least. These days they don't discuss it. Their past garnered national attention and caused laws to be created protecting minors from their teachings. But this church was built on apologetic Interpretations just like yours.

 

The church I was a bishop/assistant pastor in was the Church of God of the Gospel assembly. Started by a man named Wayman Pratt after a power struggle that left him beaten by men in his own house by men from his own church at the time. The church of God of the Union assembly.

 

The Union assembly was started by Charles T. Pratt (waymans father) after he left the Mountain assembly. He had had what he felt was Devine revelation on certain truths of the Bible. That the mountain assembly didn't want him preaching.

 

Starting out with probably the best intention he created the Union assembly. But it was quickly corrupted as the church grew. During world War 2 he became convinced Hitler was the anti-christ in Revelations and convinced his people that it was time for God's people to come together. He preached many people into sell there land and give the proceeds to the church, as the Bible said, or just give the land to the church. In return the church would provide free housing. But that housing didn't stay free. It got so bad they were making their followers work in church managed jobs, who would directly take the workers to church on payday where the preachers would guilt trip all their money from them. 

 

They began teaching faith healing only. They would not allow their members to seek medical aide without fear of excommunication. They also taught that if they weren't a member of that church. Then they would go to hell. The people were prisoners, locked into obedience by their leaders own interpretations. 

 

There were many people that lost families, that were told to shun their own parents for not believing. Families were broken and people died. PEOPLE LITERALLY DIED from listening to a self educated man with his own interpretations, just like you and most the Christians that come here. 

 

It wasnt until the case of a young girl with treatable cancer hit the courts that it became a national event. The parents wouldn't seek medical help and even the young girl believed she would go to hell if she didn't have faith in God's healing. The girl died.

 

After this laws were passed to protect minors from cults like them. The heat they caught from that made them change many church policies.

 

Wayman was in on a lot of that abuse himself before he formed his own church. And probably didn't get hit with the spotlight during that time because it wasn't the gospel assembly that a girl was dying in. It was his brother's church. The union assembly.

 

MY AGENDA

 

To do my best,  in my own little way here on ExC, to keep people with fanciful apologetic Interpretations from spreading their BS without rebuke. People like you in the right circumstances can be "The Devil". 

 

When I started discovering the past of my church it was after my deconversion. A very well written non-fiction book on the church was released a couple years ago. The book is "Religion of Fear" by David Cady. He interviewed hundreds of members and former members. Taking in the witness testimonies of those that were directly affected by the church. 

 

It made me sick to think I had fallen into a cult and preached their apologetic teachings to the members. I'm still chipping away at the book. I can only read so much at a time before it starts fucking with me. I always wanted to know God's truth but in seeking that truth I made my own interpretations at times and ended up swallowed up into the Gospel assemblies drastically different interpretations, passed down from an Uneducated/self educated charismatic mountain man from kentucky.

 

You and your interpretations are a vile vomit in the world that needs to be cleaned up with verifiable truths from academia. Hopefully there are people that will read your threads and not be fooled by others like you they may be faced with. 

 

As I said before. Please continue posting your blather. It only aides me in my agenda. 

 

Dark Bishop

 

Ps. Nice try with the whole two guys at a bar bit. I do like to drink. But I dunno if I would drink with you. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

14 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

I'm not buying it. Just listen to the way you people respond to Christians, who are supposed to spread the good news of Christ. A number of red flags are frantically waving from outside the ex-Christian camp. The formerly warmer are a dichotomous group of evil idiots and everyone knows this. The people outside of the group - their families even - probably prefer they had stayed Christian. They always see themselves as these heroes, converting the poor doubting Thomas's. Oh, those poor stupid Christians . . . attack them! Destroy them by any means possible. Come and join our group now. We are so much more happy. We don't waste our time with this nonsense anymore. You need us to save you from salvation. 

 

It's a fascinating spectacle to watch. And if spectator sports isn't your thing then jumping in the fray with these dregs of humanity is as fun as a mosh pit. 

 

Abject stupidity doesn't dissipate overnight. The failed metaphysical experimentation of evolution takes time, monkey men. 

 

What sort of individuals make up the group? Every time, without fail, like a Nazi instruction manual. One guy who thinks education is the most important thing in the world but who's grammar and thought process is so bent upon it's own transparent destruction only he is oblivious to it's demise, ironically not the least due to the fact that it never existed in the first place.

 

Another one is an educated ruffian who's absolute control is so paramount to his very survival that he takes an almost predatory sexual fiend's delight in exercising it. There is always one or two who have better sense and you can just see in their words that they at least have the self awareness to recognize that they are rolling around in the mud of the prodigal son's dietary competition with a bunch of hypocritical pigs they are forced, from time to time, to have to admit, are contemporaries. 

 

Think about it. The only thing different about the new paradigm of these lunatics from their former, which they can't have been stupid enough to buy into without having replaced them with equally stupid ones, is the removal of the remote possibility of salvation!

 

They always think that I'm going to limp off into the darkness with some martyr complex and even that serves as an insatiable replacement for their own demented egos and validation they can hardly stand to suppress. 

 

The only people foolish enough to listen to these people are the ones who deserve to spend eternity outside the gates of paradise gnashing their teeth. They've just decided to get a jump on the competition. 

 

Again..... we didn't go to your website. You came here. That makes you the antagonist here. I think you could probably place the above post in front of a mirror and place most of that on yourself as well. I mean ya gotta be a pretty arrogant asshole to come into a community of non believers posting your assertions as fact right?

 

I'm assuming I'm the one with the bad grammar? I told ya. I'm just an average joe from the south east. My education has been in a trade. Not academia. I listen to those that their education was in academia. They are the professionals in their fields of study just as I would be in my trade.

 

My biblical studies were either my own or through the churches I was part of. My own former religious views are no better than yours. Just a pile of bullshit I finally was able to leave behind. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

29 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

who's grammar

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/whos-whose/#:~:text=Both who's and whose come,it's two words stuck together.&text=Whose is a possessive pronoun,telling) to whom something belongs.

 

29 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

it's own

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/its-vs-its/#:~:text=It's is a contraction of,to or refers to something.

 

 

[midniterider]

40 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

I'm not buying it. Just listen to the way you people respond to Christians, who are supposed to spread the good news of Christ. A number of red flags are frantically waving from outside the ex-Christian camp. The formerly warmer are a dichotomous group of evil idiots and everyone knows this. The people outside of the group - their families even - probably prefer they had stayed Christian. They always see themselves as these heroes, converting the poor doubting Thomas's. Oh, those poor stupid Christians . . . attack them! Destroy them by any means possible. Come and join our group now. We are so much more happy. We don't waste our time with this nonsense anymore. You need us to save you from salvation. 

 

It's a fascinating spectacle to watch. And if spectator sports isn't your thing then jumping in the fray with these dregs of humanity is as fun as a mosh pit. 

 

Abject stupidity doesn't dissipate overnight. The failed metaphysical experimentation of evolution takes time, monkey men. 

 

What sort of individuals make up the group? Every time, without fail, like a Nazi instruction manual. One guy who thinks education is the most important thing in the world but who's grammar and thought process is so bent upon it's own transparent destruction only he is oblivious to it's demise, ironically not the least due to the fact that it never existed in the first place.

 

Another one is an educated ruffian who's absolute control is so paramount to his very survival that he takes an almost predatory sexual fiend's delight in exercising it. There is always one or two who have better sense and you can just see in their words that they at least have the self awareness to recognize that they are rolling around in the mud of the prodigal son's dietary competition with a bunch of hypocritical pigs they are forced, from time to time, to have to admit, are contemporaries. 

 

Think about it. The only thing different about the new paradigm of these lunatics from their former, which they can't have been stupid enough to buy into without having replaced them with equally stupid ones, is the removal of the remote possibility of salvation!

 

They always think that I'm going to limp off into the darkness with some martyr complex and even that serves as an insatiable replacement for their own demented egos and validation they can hardly stand to suppress. 

 

The only people foolish enough to listen to these people are the ones who deserve to spend eternity outside the gates of paradise gnashing their teeth. They've just decided to get a jump on the competition. 

 

I give your word salad 7/10.