Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I have been. I've made many posts requesting you to back up your statements, which you ignore.

I asked you to be specific. Instead I get a Gish Gallop. boxcar tries the same thing.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.

Although it takes a trivial amount of effort on the Galloper's part to make each individual point before skipping on to the next (especially if they cite from a pre-concocted list of Gallop arguments), a refutation of the same Gallop may likely take much longer and require significantly more effort (per the basic principle that it's always easier to make a mess than to clean it back up again).

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

By your above rant ...

Rant?

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

... concerning other people's opinion, you prove you are not participating for the reasons boxcar started this thread.

I never said I was. My point was that I am not prohibited from posting on this thread.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

You are here to mock.

Mock = ridicule. Ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by traynor

Has anyone given any thought to the reality of "eternal bliss"? Bliss--in moderate doses--may be okay once in awhile. As in "a nice place o visit, but I wouldn't want to live there." If one is miserable or unhappy, "eternal bliss" seems highly desirable. To anyone who has experienced such states, I gotta warn you--they get old really fast. Not many can maintain unflagging interest in the same old same old bliss every bleeping day. Spend a week or two in Tahiti. Anyone who lingers longer has some serious issues, and might consider professional counseling. "Paradise" is only such in comparison to "not Paradise."

I don't mean to denigrate anyone's neverending lalaland visions of the "great hereafter," but you might want to give it some serious thought. I know "heaven" (of whatever flavor or persuasion) may seem like wish fulfillment. But wishes are only made when something is lacking, or a change is desired. One RARELY wishes that today will be just like yesterday, tomorrow will be just like today, on and on for-bleeping-EVER. Think. Don't just jump at the chance for "eternal bliss" because "eternal bliss" might turn out to be about as desirable as a pothead staying stoked 24/7, or a junkie staying high 24/7. It might "seem like a good idea at the time" but it all gets old really fast.

I am not saying "heaven is bad" (although it may well be--I'm still looking). I find the notion of spending "eternity" in some pseudo-euphoric altered state of consciousness "worshiping" someone or something of unknown motivation, for some unknown reason(s), (and with some even more unknown effect on me) as somewhat less than idyllic. It all seems pleasant enough if one is miserable here, thinks everyone is evil, blah blah. I kind of like this place. I like many (if not most) of the people I encounter and have encountered. I look forward to meeting (and enjoying the company of) many more. Oh, well.

Agree, And I really like your posts...I've asked this question before..."Like what do think you will be doing in Heaven for all eternity...?" Worshiping the gods, ad infinitum, ad nauseam...? It is just so far-fetched I can't even begin to understand how a lot of people actually believe this stuff...like jesus floating away in the sky and all...they actually want us to believe that stuff,...it's like they don't even think about what they are saying...they are just repeating what they have been told or have read in the bibles or the korans or whatever...however wild and crazy it sounds, the better...I guess when you are superstitious, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE....people float away, walk thru walls, sit at the right hand of the gods....fight dragons, and monsters and devils, new earths appearing out of nowhere...a jillion angels dancing on the head of a pin....LIFE EVERLASTING..!!!

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Thank you and no I never considered a diplomatic career. Problem solving was a substantial part of my career though.

Consider: a situation in which you are the only spokesman for humanity. Great special effects, huge golden chariots, golden trumpets, impressively immense "celestial beings." All the poor folk are groveling on their ground, burying their faces in the dirt in abject terror.

You have five minutes to persuade the wrecking crew that this place should not be wiped, that the locals are sentient, and are worth allowing to continue. No second chances.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Agree, And I really like your posts...I've asked this question before..."Like what do think you will be doing in Heaven for all eternity...?" Worshiping the gods, ad infinitum, ad nauseam...? It is just so far-fetched I can't even begin to understand how a lot of people actually believe this stuff...like jesus floating away in the sky and all...they actually want us to believe that stuff,...it's like they don't even think about what they are saying...they are just repeating what they have been told or have read in the bibles or the korans or whatever...however wild and crazy it sounds, the better...I guess when you are superstitious, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE....people float away, walk thru walls, sit at the right hand of the gods....fight dragons, and monsters and devils, new earths appearing out of nowhere...a jillion angels dancing on the head of a pin....LIFE EVERLASTING..!!!

I understand your questions about people floating away (the specifics of such). One thing to consider is perception. If you are familiar with Huxley, his belief was that the physical senses (through which most conscious "knowledge" is acquired) is only a small potion of a wide range of perceptual possibilities. Meaning, in plain English, what one "normally" perceives is only a small part of the available input. In order to avoid cognitive dissonance, people narrow their range of perceptions as much as possible.

What one person perceives as a range of possibilities is unique to that person. In a scenario in which one person says: "WTF is that! A UFO?", another person adjacent is VERY likely to be so tweaked (especially if what is happening or believed to be happening is both unusual and surprising) they will "see" a high-flying seagull or whatever as a UFO. Because of the way the human mind processes information, minimal perceptual cues create full-blown memories/perceptions. The interesting part is the way in which cognitive dissonance kicks in again to prevent them from realizing the utter absurdity of what they think they are seeing.

As for the "floated up, up, and away" scenario, the best explanation I have heard is that the emphasis on "You must BELIEVE!" that any absurdity can be presented and be dutifully believed because to do otherwise would mean that one is less than whatever they fancy themselves to be. Again, cognitive dissonance prevents non-belief. You may recall the old commercial in which movie producers had been told the success of their movie depended on the audience believing their premise (the original Superman, the commercial, endlessly repeated, was, "YOU WILL BELIEVE A MAN CAN FLY!" Most religion is no more complex than that. Simple suggestions, endlessly repeated, with explicit and implicit censure of any questioning of content as "being a non-believer/one-lacking-faith/generally bad person."

Pretty simple stuff. People have been herded around for a long, long time.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The "proof" you ask for is in the modern translations that I quoted from yesterday and are the work of Greek language scholars.

You keep saying you have given proof yet have never once mentioned the word at the heart of the controversy:εντος. . How old are you? Like 12?

Originally Posted by boxcar

your interpretation doesn't fit the immediate context of the passage.

I am not interpreting anything. You are. There is a hard cold fact that Luke 17:21 originally used the word εντος. that can never be translated into "among" or "midst" no matter how it is used in a sentence which you have yet to explain.

Anything you say without addressing that word is a complete avoidance of the question which you have a ton of experience in.

[Light]

Ok let me help you out. I know you are full of it and will never admit the truth. I KNOW why it was changed. And it was not a linguistic thing. I don't need you to keep coming up with more BS. I have better things to do than argue with your stupidity. I will drop it for now like I did before. But I will continue to say that God is within you whether you like it or not.

I found God in myself, that's how I know it is true. But don't ask me about it cause your aim is to mock, and that will just darken your heart. Yes, God lives in the Heart, not a book.

[traynor]

Of course the short version would be, "Any relatively competent hypnotherapist could readily induce positive visual and auditory hallucinations that would make you believe--in utter sincerity and with total conviction--that you had seen exactly the same thing." With a bit of creative suggestion, you could be convinced that you had been there and watched the whole thing as it happened.

The more you learn about hypnosis, the less effective the techniques are when others attempt to use them on you. And the more readily you are able to recognize when those techniques are being used.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Moral without a god. Optimistic without a heaven. Per usual!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Ok let me help you out. I know you are full of it and will never admit the truth. I KNOW why it was changed. And it was not a linguistic thing. I don't need you to keep coming up with more BS. I have better things to do than argue with your stupidity. I will drop it for now like I did before. But I will continue to say that God is within you whether you like it or not.

I found God in myself, that's how I know it is true. But don't ask me about it cause your aim is to mock, and that will just darken your heart. Yes, God lives in the Heart, not a book.

You know nothing. You are one the most deceitful people in this thread who has often quoted things out of context and will equivocate on a dime whenever it suits your religious views. God is no more in you than he is in a pile of horse manure!

You think there was this vast conspiracy and collusion among different teams of Greek language scholars to change the older translation when the fact of the matter is that "among" or "in the midst of" is actually an old translation, although not the dominate one, dating back to the 4th century or so. Eventually, though, over the centuries more and more modern translations adopted the non-dominant view by either revising the text itself with the phrases "among you" or "in your midst" or by offering their readers an alternate reading in a footnote, such as the older version of the NIV does (which is what I have.) (However, I have just found out online that the updated NIVs have supposedly revised the text itself.) The fact that so many modern translations put together by different teams of language scholars over the course of many decades have opted to go with the alternate reading right in the text itself speaks volumes. Below is a link that goes into a little bit of the history of the alternate translation.

http://shepherdproject.com/kingdomwithin/

To say, therefore, that I have provided you with no proof is your biggest lie to date. (Your god "within" is truly the the god of this world-- the father of lies!) If there are 20 translations out there with the alternate reading, these don't constitute proof in your universe that, at bare minimum, these various teams of Greek language scholars might actually have valid reasons for not translating the way the KJV, NKJV, ASV and other translations have? Have you gone mad!? This isn't proof because you you have deceived yourself into believing that you are the most honest Joe on the planet, and all these teams of scholars are frauds or a bunch of liars who want to foster their evil theological agenda upon their readers? Below is a link that will discuss a little about the historical background of how v.21 has been translated. This is proof number 2.

http://shepherdproject.com/kingdomwithin/

The fact is that it is you who are extremely biased against the voluminous biblical teachings of Christ and the apostles -- and even the OT prophets -- that inform us of a visible, external kingdom of God/Heaven. And the reason you are so biased against this teaching is that scripture also teaches that upon the return of the King, he will judge the entire world before he restores the entire universe to its original, pristine, sinless glory -- before he ushers in his visible, external Davidic kingdom. Even the spiritually dead, Christ-hating Pharisees understood, from their OT scriptures, that the Messiah would come to establish his visible, external Davidic Kingdom, which is precisely why they asked Jesus when the kingdom of God was coming. This is the question they put to Jesus, not where the kingdom will be! Nor did Jesus deflect by giving a "where" answer, i.e. "within you". His entire answer was strictly TIME-RELATED. The kingdom they were expecting in the future would not come with observable signs because Jesus will return as a thief in the night -- suddenly, unexpectedly, unannounced -- as he clearly explained to his disciples in the same passage. But Jesus also told the Pharisees that presently the "kingdom was right in their midst", and the megabytes of irony was that these blind guides missed all the signs of Christ's numerous miracles that validated his teachings and identity. The Pharisees knew WHERE the kingdom would be from their OT scriptures. It would be in Israel! They were never concerned about the "where" but the "when"! And this is precisely how Jesus answered them.

The link below is proof number 3 which gives more reasons from a linguistic perspective:

http://bibleq.net/answer/3561/

And the fourth way I have proved my case has been with the numerous theological and exegetical arguments Overlay and I have provided since 2012! If you want the numbers of all those posts in the old Religion thread, let me know. Be happy to accommodate you.

And just where is all your proof again?

And by the way...if God isn't in a book...why are you so convinced that the book version you are reading has correctly translated v.21?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

You keep saying you have given proof yet have never once mentioned the word at the heart of the controversy:εντος. . How old are you? Like 12?

I am not interpreting anything. You are. There is a hard cold fact that Luke 17:21 originally used the word εντος. that can never be translated into "among" or "midst" no matter how it is used in a sentence which you have yet to explain.

Anything you say without addressing that word is a complete avoidance of the question which you have a ton of experience in.

By the way, you are correctly right. You have never interpreted Lk 17:20-36. Thanks for stating the obvious and for having an honest moment. You have just unwittingly confessed to making things up rather than engaging in the work of interpretation. You have never bothered to explain or tell the meaning of v.21 in the context of the passage. Of course, you have previously admitted this as much when you have naively said that "entos" has only one meaning.

[boxcar]

Good morning to One an All:

Now that I'm working on my third cup of delicious java, I must confess to everyone that I may have been too hard on Mr. Light. He might actually be on to something when he confessed that he never bothered to interpret LK 17:21, which can only mean he cannot possibly understand what it's meaning is in its larger context. So, I said to my alter-ego, "Self, maybe you're been knocking yourself out unnecessarily trying to understand scripture by actually interpreting it." So then I thought...well, let me pick a random passage and see how that works out in the real world. And the good Lord above immediately put this passage within me (no pun intended):

Matt 21:43
43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.
NASB

So there you have it, folks. What Jesus said was "within" the Pharisees, he later said that he's taking it away from all Jews and giving it to some other nation. This truly proves that the Lord giveth and Lord taketh it away, as it is so often said at funeral services.

Oh yeah...plus the Lord must be a racist! What other conclusion could we possibly reach? Jesus plainly said the kingdom would be taken from Israel and given to one nation -- A nation. I bet God is a right-leaning capitalist and he has given his kingdom to the nation that flies the stars and stripes!
(Praise the Lord, and pass the ammo!) This is why America has been so blessed all these years. How Kool is this!? Deep down in the goodness of my own heart, I must have realized this in my subconscious all this time. This is probably why I have never subscribed to Dispensational Theology. Plus -- this would go a very long way in explaining why so many people in the world want to come to God's chosen Promised Land -- America. This is God's Promised Land! And the world knows it! YES! Long Live America! Now until the day I die, I can thank God for having the good sense to take the kingdom away from undeserving Israel and give it to a good people!

Thank you, Mr. Light. You are my bud for life. All it took for us to become soul brothers is to agree on one issue -- in this case the utter futility of interpretation. I owe you one...

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

I asked you to be specific. Instead I get a Gish Gallop. boxcar tries the same thing.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Te most current request for peer review consensus, was your unsupported opinion John's Gospel was written by more than one person, another which comes to mine is your opinion Jesus never existed.

In neither instant did you support your claims with peer review. I don't recall you actually supporting any claim, unless you think slogans and cartoons qualify as peer review.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Serious questions:

1. When jesus ascended (floated up into the sky), how many feet above sea level did he rise before the disciples could no longer see him...?
2. When the point in the air was reached when people below could no longer see him....then what happened next? Where did jesus go...?
3. How did jesus escape the gravity of the earth...?
4. Was jesus able to breathe in space...?
5. What happened to the body of jesus after he floated away...?

You can't be this dense. So stop being a dick.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Most words have multiple meanings.

Oh really? Interesting...