Slansky Go Away

[theBruiser500]

slansky get lost you are ruining this place, no one cares about religion. check out the name of this forum, it is "science, math, and philosophy" forum, not the "slansky gets pedantic about relgiion" forum. adios sucker

[Zapp]

[ QUOTE ]
no one cares about religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting.

[fluxrad]

I know, it's a ton of crap, Sklansky running around like he owns the place.

[andyfox]

Who do you think this forum was created for?

It's fast becoming the most interesting forum, largely because of David's posts.

[PairTheBoard]

If there were no David Sklansky we would have to invent him.

PairTheBoard

[wacki]

wow bruiser, just wow.

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
not the "slansky gets pedantic about relgiion" forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

one of my rules in life is to ignore anything said by anyone whoever uses the word pedantic. that said i agree with the other replies....easily the best stuff on here.

[fluxrad]

you just used the word pedantic in citing his use of the word pedantic.

oh [censored]. i just said it twice.

somewhere, a hole was just ripped in the space-time continuum.

[theBruiser500]

yeah maybe my post was a bad idea, it is kind of stupid. its just everytime i look at this forum that could have a lot of interesting stuff on it, it's all about religion, i know god doesn't exist and am not interested in reading or talking about it further, wish the discussion was on other stuff.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah maybe my post was a bad idea, it is kind of stupid. its just everytime i look at this forum that could have a lot of interesting stuff on it, it's all about religion, i know god doesn't exist and am not interested in reading or talking about it further, wish the discussion was on other stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then start a topic.

[chomsky53]

i dont know of yall see it yet but skalansky is actually just dumb about philosophy. like any undergrad who takes phil seriously should find this obvious. if his painfully large ego would ever allow him to aknowledge his shortcommings this whole situation would be embarassing for him

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah maybe my post was a bad idea, it is kind of stupid. its just everytime i look at this forum that could have a lot of interesting stuff on it, it's all about religion, i know god doesn't exist and am not interested in reading or talking about it further, wish the discussion was on other stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing wrong with making this post if you really feel that way.

I dunno. I find it interesting. I also find that I often disagree with your opinions. Usually strongly. We probably wouldn't get along.

[Zygote]

common. Did you ever think maybe some people enjoy those discussions? They are the most popular threads on this forum so i dont see merit for a complaint. You and everyone else are still welcome to post about whatever you want. Its not like Sklansky declared that only religion can be discussed because that is where his interest lies.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

People hate whenever someone smarter than them questions them about core values they hold. Sklansky hardly holds some nefarious agenda, and he rarely makes fun of people who are obviously stupid. He doesn't understand why people hold such beliefs and is interested in understanding it, he even likes the chief guy who argues against him.

People naturally hate philisophical and religious debate because they are always trying to win their argument. If you disagree with what Sklansky, or anyone else posts why not point it out and your reasoning why. Instead of these types of posts.



Light a candle, don't curse the darkness.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
I know God doesn't exist and I am not interested in reading or talking about it further. I wish the discussion was on other stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are the biggest moron to walk the earth. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

You claim to "know" a god doesn't exist, yet I'd bet everything I own that you have only lived a portion of one life, that you don't know where the soul goes when the heart stops (if you can prove a soul doesn't exist mind you), and that all you knowledge has been spoon-fed to you by other thinkers because you cave to peer pressure and can't make up your own mind or bother to investigate outside of a few cliched questions such as "If God is so good why do bad things happen?" etc etc.

Here's what you know:

Jack and his mate "[censored]".

Everything you know comes from human reason, which is the most powerful tool we have, but it takes a certain amount of arrogance to rely on only this as you 'conclusive proof' that God doesn't exist. (Especially when alot of conclusions arrived at by this reason were established by thinkers other than yourself)

David Sklansky has a right to say what he wants on any forum here, ever seen the back of a 2+2 book? I guess he has stronger ties to 2+2 than you.

I'll admit at times I find David's posts disappointing purely because he comes off as either attacking religion or asking a question that is really just a covert attack.

I wouldn't have a problem with this normally as this thing is expected and done before, but what amazes me at times is David's lack of knowledge about Christianity.

I would recommend to Sklansky to put down any books that deal with opposing Christianity, put down any dogma from ecclesiastical institutions and just read the bible, from cover to cover, Genesis to Revelations.

Then go back to the opposing stuff and also read the apologetic stuff, make up your own mind using your own "raison" David.

That being said, David has some interesting posts as times, as do most people here, and as always the rule is this:

If ye don't like the topic of a thread, clicketh on it not!

Cheers,
SDM

PS - You English sucks, FYP biatch. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

PPS - Take what I wrote about you with a grain of salt, I'm intoxicated and my tone is not 'mean', rather 'jovial', and I'm having a little fun with you about your strong beliefs. Open your mind dude, You can be 99% sure about most things but seldom 100%, and that 1% can really be a monkey wrench in your works if its true. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[theBruiser500]

Post deleted by wacki

reason: name calling w/o any logical arguement to back it up

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont know of yall see it yet but skalansky is actually just dumb about philosophy. like any undergrad who takes phil seriously should find this obvious. if his painfully large ego would ever allow him to aknowledge his shortcommings this whole situation would be embarassing for him

[/ QUOTE ]

Your failure to elaborate by giving specifics is often an indication that you're talking out of your ass. Most likely, you're upset by his willingness to question your beliefs.

[kpux]

[ QUOTE ]
slansky get lost you are ruining this place, no one cares about religion. check out the name of this forum, it is "science, math, and philosophy" forum, not the "slansky gets pedantic about relgiion" forum. adios sucker

[/ QUOTE ]

I pretty much think the same thing. Although I wouldn't have said it in such an awesome manner. Bruiser is my hero.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
okay nutjob

[/ QUOTE ]

Deep.

[David Sklansky]

What reason do you have to believe that my reading the bible will significantly change my opinion? Do others think so too?

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
What reason do you have to believe that my reading the bible will significantly change my opinion? Do others think so too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well here's how I see it.

The Church, The Mosque, The Synagogue et al, all represent what is supposed to have been given. (ie- the "truth")

But ...

The Church, The Mosque, The Synagogue et al, all make their living and derive great power and influence from their positions, and if history has shown us anything, it is that humans + power (generally) = corruption.

It is without doubt that the many ecclesiastical bodies over the years have commited atrocities in order to keep their power and control over people.

So interpreting a religion through it's ecclesiastical embodiement is a receipe for disaster, because you are interpteting a supposed interpretation, but with the element of human control present.

The original text of a religion should be read with an open mind, to reason for yourself the nature of this "god" it talks about, and then, only then, should one read the apologists and critics alike, and make up their own mind. (any starting preposition beforehand, either favourable or critical will skew perception of said message in text)

Surely, you must concede David if you haven't read the Bible, yet have read x number of criticisms against it, then you will ultimately be lead to a conclusion which may be unbalanced and biased.

Perhaps this is the position you wish to be in, but bear in mind that you owe it to yourself to be honest if you truly wish to know if there is a "chance" that one of these religions could be the "truth".

In your discovery of 'ultimate truth' one cannot dismiss what they have not personally encountered and analyzed for themselves.

Even the great thinkers of the Enlightenment were open minded to the concept of a 'god' while chastising the Church and its practices.

If you look at, say, the Spanish Civil War, you will see the way the Church aligned itself could be seen as wrong (there is a part in the film "Land or Freedom" which is especially applicable to this point) and also in French history regarding Slavery in which the Catholic church endorsed the practice under the reason that 'at least the slaves would be exposed to Christianity'. (when the real reason was purely economics and lack of willingness for mainland french people to go to colonies and work the fields)

These choices are wrong, because these choices are human, and ultimately linked to the retainment of power, and not the representation of the God this ecclesiastical institution claims to represent.

You should judge "God" on "God" and not of his followers, regardless of the robes they wear and the fancy titles they possess.

And perhaps the men behind the text (Moses, Matthew, & Muhammad) are the same as the men who are behind the pulpit, power hungry and greedy?

Maybe, but what if they aren't? What if the text was 'divinely inspired'? Either way, you won't know unless you read it, and if you don't read it and yet choose to reject it, then your starting preposition is one of bias because you don't really open yourself to the idea of truth, no matter how slim science says the chance of that truth being is.

If that is the case, then your postings about religion (Christianity especially) are nothing more than your own form of 'anti-Christian evangelizing' and do not have the goal of 'discovery of truth' but the 'discovery of truth if it serves your bias' at best and 'convert to athiesm' at worst.

At the very least David, if you wish to reject a religion you must first know it, and not from second hand criticisms or robed men who enjoy their tentative titles in respect to the governments/monarchies of their day.

You have built yourself a great reputation in the poker world for your thoughts on poker, yet your ignorance about some religions is glaring and reflects poorly on you ... David Sklansky, a perceieved well-learned man, whom has the respect of nearly all the posters on 2+2.

I hope I haven't offended David, and I appreciate your posts. These are only my thoughts and could very well be wrong, this is just 'food for thought', take it or leave it.

Cheers,
SDM

[David Sklansky]

Sorry but your long post didn't answer my question. I agree that critics of anything could conceivably change their mind if they learned more details. I asked what details those might be that could change MY mind regarding ANY religion that believes in a god that is in some way presently interfering with the workings of the universe.

[The once and future king]

At leat they could be intresting questions about religion, not "Hey Christians how do you deal with these glaringly obvious contradictions?"

On a tangent, given DS's comment on Aristotle it is obvious he has no understanding of the history and development of western thought and knowledge.

However he is just a mathematician so we shouldnt expect to much.

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
What reason do you have to believe that my reading the bible will significantly change my opinion? Do others think so too?

[/ QUOTE ]
I suspect that if any of the 'read your bible' people actually read the bible themselves (and not just parts of it), they'd become one of the following"

1. Athiests
2. Hardcore fundamentalists
3. Buddhists.

depending on how sane they were before they started.

[Zapp]

I think it would be a worth while endeavor for you to read the Bible through. If the creator of the universe decided to write a book that gives the way to eternal life (the Bible claims that such is the case), it would be silly not to read it. If it is all a hoax, you are smart enough to figure that out, right?

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
okay nutjob

[/ QUOTE ]

vnh!

[Hofzinser]

You can be a fully justified, rational, reasonable, and non-narrow-minded atheist without ever needing to read the Bible, Koran, Torah or any other religious tract.

All these books do is tell you about the tenets and morality of their particular religion (and I'm sure all these books contain some sound advice). It is quite possible to agree with pretty much all the moral teachings in the Bible, and to believe everyone should live their lives by these teachings, yet remain an atheist.

A possible reaction might be: "Thou shalt not kill? Sounds reasonable. Turn the other cheek? I guess so. Wait, a virgin birth? Water into wine? Rising from the dead? Why on earth should I believe this? The stuff about not coveting my neghbours ox was fine - good advice, in fact - but am I expected just to unquestioningly believe that all this happened? Is there any evidence at all?"

And there's not, is there? The Bible doesn't do that sort of stuff. It's not designed to either - which is why it would be highly unlikely to convince a sceptic who had thought through the notion of a supreme being at a more metaphysical level.

When pondering the meta-question of whether there is a supreme being or a creator - whether one needs to exist, whether one is likely to exist and all that kind of thing - I see no need for any other tools than reason, logic, and a certain level of knowledge about the world.

For this specific question, I would actually argue that the Bible is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
You can be a fully justified, rational, reasonable, and non-narrow-minded atheist without ever needing to read the Bible, Koran, Torah or any other religious tract.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can, but it's certainly an eye opener. After reading the bible and some of the Quoran, I've come to the conclusion that religious people:

A) Are mad, loony, loopy, crazy scary fools (and I am glad they have religion to keep them in check).
OR
B) Have never actually read the bible.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry but your long post didn't answer my question. I agree that critics of anything could conceivably change their mind if they learned more details. I asked what details those might be that could change MY mind regarding ANY religion that believes in a god that is in some way presently interfering with the workings of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok example:

Book of Revelations, re: the Mark of the Beast:

ch. 13 verses 16-17

[ QUOTE ]
And he caused all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to recieve a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets explore this passage a little.

Firstly, what is this book?

It is the Book of Revelations, it's author is "John". Whether this is the same John that wrote the gospel of John is debateable, but we know the author was a prisoner on the Greek island of Patmos, and apparently was revealed the end of the world. (ie- the apocalypse)

Great, we have the background, think what you may of it but lets move on.

The Book of Revelations is highly symbolic. It is this symbolism which makes the book one of the most interesting and debateable books of the New Testament.

Protestants believe it is the map for the end of days. The Catholic church believes it represents a time when Romans persecuted Christians and has no future meaning. Muslim apologists like Ahmed Deedat believe it was "a dream" and means nothing.

So lets take a look at this example a little closer, it can't hurt.

- The Mark of the Beast

Ok, so a mark is mentioned, as this mark pertains to the "beast", and apparently all people in society (ie- buy or sell, free or bond) must take this mark.

Q. Who is this beast?

This "beast" is the anti-christ.

Q. Who is the anti-christ?

Unknown. While popular movies have fantasized the anti-christ being this unholy supernatural being that will decieve the world, those who study Apocalyptic prophecy believe the anti-christ will be involved in politics and dupe the world through his charisma, and despite what Hollywood tries to push, there will be nothing on the surface 'fantastical' about him.

Q. What is this Mark?

The Mark has been heavily debated over the years. Some thought it may be tattooing, yet the koine greek word used here is Charigma which means 'to scratch'.

The common consensus amongst those study this believe it relates to a microchip which will be mandatory for all citizens to have under their skin to continue to partake in society.

On this microchip will be your financial information, and most likely medical records. The great thing about this microchip is that unlike a passport or identity card, it can't be forged or stolen, and may quite possibly have tracking potential, though nobody knows.

In Time magazine, April 27 1998, with the cover titled "The future of Money": (see below)

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1998/1101980427_400.jpg

In an article within, (possibly "The Big Bank Theory" - though I have a copy I seem to have misplaced it) it mentions the future of money, and a general consensus is that with the EFT trend, one day we will live in a truly cashless society, and it mentions that one day people will be able to transfer funds to people who have "chips under their skin" (horribly misquoted, though in the story it gives the example of a mother wishing to transfer funds via EFT to her daughter to has a chip under her skin and she can then go instantly and verify the funds are there or make purchases)

The world we currently live in relies heavily on electronic transfers (EFT) and purchases. In some ways we have made the choice to live in a pseudo-cashless society, although cash is not dead yet, many people still use it, despite record rates of Credit Card usage and online options such as NETeller leading the way to more 'cashless purchasing'.

The article also mentions something of an "Omnicard", a generic name given by the article to describe an "all in one" card that will a one card solution for your bankcard, credit card, medicare card, and identitfication.

If this card is introduced, it is only a matter of time until the card becomes a microchip implant, it is logical as it solves the issue of cards being stolen or counterfeited.

Read on...

Q. What about civil liberties?

Since 9/11 the world has changed. Things that pre-9/11 would not have been kosher are now kosher. Increased security is one of the things that has happened.

Prior to 9/11, Theorists were claiming Globalization was creating a 'borderless world' (see The Globalization of World Politics; Baylis & Smith) wheras post 9/11 security changes at airports and so forth in the US and EU have tightened considerably. (also in other countries)

In Australia, an I.D Card was proposed in the 1980's but shot down by civil libertarians, yet after 9/11 and the London bombings, an I.D Card is back on the drawing board.

An I.D card has a plethora of government plusses and virtually no minuses.

An I.D card would not only serve foir identification purposes but could also double for financial transactions.

If cash was abolished, money laundering and the black market would be on the verge of death, as all financial transactions would leave a 'paper trail' (or should that be "electronic trail") and it would be harder for people to cheat the IRS in the US and other tax collection departments around the world.

The problem will ultimately be, if an I.D card is eventually implemented (most probably because of the world fear of "terrorism" - interpret as you please) just like Passports and other cards, it is still suceptible to theft - ie- identity theft, which people would be told was being carried out by "terrorists".

Logically then step in the I.D card evolution process is the chip in the card to be implanted into the skin.

Technology is already available for this. Japanese scientists have invented microchips that are so small they can be inserted via Syringe (remember that koine Greek work Charigma meaning to "scratch") and this technology is already being used on domesticated animals (Mark of the beast, a double meaning?) wheras all domesticated animals have to be microchipped.

Ok, so take this example

So here we have this example, just one example of the Mark of the Beast.

Lets forget the Bible for a minute.

Time magazine and CNN and other sources in the new today have talked about an I.D card in these times of terrorism, so it is a good idea to keep an idea on how this notion progresses, especially in these times of "terrorism" (almost sold to us a 'panic' << Terror level elevated >> etc etc)

C.S Lewis said something to the effect of "If Christianity is untrue, it is of no importance, but if it is true, it is of significant importance".

Nothing could sum up the current situation in the world today.

If what the Books of Revelations talks about concerning citizens to have a mark (ie- most likely microchip under skin) and the world demands an I.D card and/or microchip implant to stop "those evil terrorists" (ie- giving up civil liberties believing through fear, as humans have done for centuries by giving up their power to The Church, Feudal Lords etc) by authenticating identification in a double effort to step up security and also conveniently stop the black market and quell tax evasion, then Christianity is of major importance for a book written in 96 AD to predict such a thing. (the book also talks about the war of Armageddon and various world powers - without getting into it, it is interesting to note that the symbolism for the powers involve the Eu, Russia, and China, all seperately identifiable and to this day Russia is a EU "neighbourhood community" - ie not a member state, and China as we know is not affiliated with the EU)

It's a very deep subject that unfortunately I can't do justice to in one post, and I hope you have stayed with me during this post, which I will now wrap up.

So all religions have their thoughts on how the world will end, and I've read a few. (eg- The Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon don't devote many verses to the end of days, and are very vague)

No religion though gives as much attention to this as Christianity, which has a book devoted to it, and the study also corresponds to the prophetic book of Daniel in the Old Testament also, albeit to a lesser extent, the bulk of the future Christianity predicts can be found in the Book of Revelations.

So to end, if Christianity is true, we are faced with a big choice to reject or accept, if it is false, it is of no importance whatsover, go about your business.

Before the advent of the Internet and EFT, the prophecies in the book of Revelations could not have been possible at all. Rome at the height of it's power still did not conquer the whole world, not even close, so the Catholics treatment towards the book is somewhat curious, especially when you consider the book of Revelations mentions "the great whore" which students of bible propechy equate with Rome and Catholicism (see Ch. 17 but below is an excerpt)

[ QUOTE ]
Ch 17, verses 1-2
Andthere came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither, I will shew thee the judgement of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC, the great whore refers to Rome, from its inception to its transformation to catholicism and to end of days.

When many people attack Christianity, what they are really attacking a lot of the time is Catholicism. That's not to say Protestants didn't do their own share of atrocities like burning witches in the US etc, but so did the Jews in Moses' days ... ever read Leviticus or Deuteronomy?

But Catholics took it to a level unlike any other relgiious group.

Rome in its papal form has been in bed with all the dictators - Franco (Spain), Mussolini (Italy), Hitler (Nazi Germany) not to mention the Spanish Inquistion, the Crusades, and the virtually countless trials and murders of people who posed a threat to it, and ofcourse a favorite subject - slavery, and the endorsement of.

Lets not forget when Spain and Portugal came to the Pope in the 15th century disputing what land they could have in Latin America (despite there already being thousands of indians there already having established civilizations and their own religion) it was the pope of that day who decided Portugal could have Brazil and the amazon and Spain could have the rest.

The papacy has funded and fought in wars not only in Latin America but also mainland Spain (they percieved the democratically "left" elected government as a threat because of their communist/anarchist ideologies and thus supported Franco and in doing so assisted in the coup and the loss of many lives to save 'Catholic Spain')

I could go on forever, sorry Sklansky but the Papacy really did it's share to sour the taste of an otherwise peaceful religion in the mouths of many intelligent people through their actions. (eg. Diderot and his contributors in L'Encyclopédie were more against Catholicism than they were protestants, and Voltaire's hatred of Christianity largely stems from Catholicism's actions in France - Voltaire was also an anti-semite BTW, just some trivia for you) /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Anyway, that's a 'detailed example' of one thing in the Bible, which makes reading the original text with an open mind very important ... if it could be correct.

If not, keep watching the news, if the developments in the "war of terror" progress to a point where ID cards are implemented it might be worth reading it then if not now.

Excuse any spelling/grammatical errors, I'm tired.

Regards,
SDM

[ QUOTE ]
What reason do you have to believe that my reading the bible will significantly change my opinion? Do others think so too?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it would alter your most basic conclusions about Christianity as Christianity is commonly held to be, but I do think it might alter some of your impressions and understanding of Christianity.

Had I derived my impressions of Christianity primarily from reading this forum (or from listening to preachers), those impressions would be quite different than the impressions I gathered by actually reading parts of the Bible (especially the four Gospels). In other words I do not believe that that which has been discussed on this forum necessarily conveys the most accurate or comprehensive view of essential Christianity.

If you were to read nothing else, I would suggest reading the four Gospels (or at least the gospels of Matthew and Mark), preferably in the older style King James version (as some of the newer versions are linguistically biased in a simplistic limiting fashion, in my opinion).

If you can get a red letter edition King James version (with Jesus' words in red), so much the better. Also bear in mind that the gospel of John, while generally the most popular, is the latest written and therefore perhaps the least accurate.

You could then best compare what are considered to be the teachings of Jesus, with the abundant mythology built up around him. I found considerable room for difference when I did this, and it gave me a new view into what Christianity might be all about (or better put, what it might have been intended by Jesus to be all about).

A lot of people are not capable of, or inclined towards, interpreting things in any fashion other than the literal. I would surmise that if you read the gospels with particular attention to Jesus' words, you may see room for an interpretation that is somewhat less literal, and more symbolic or metaphorical. That difference is quite significant in my opinion (although some aspects may remainliteral, especially given the historical context).

If you take Jesus' teachings (which, by the way, also include his life-example), and view them through the lens of the historical context and setting, it may help to see "where he was coming from". This may also help explain some of the mythological aspects of the whole thing.

At any rate, I think that if one focuses primarily on the teachings of Jesus, as related in his words in the gospels, there is room for an interpretation of Christianity that has a somewhat different take or emphasis than those interpretations most commonly held. And such a take, in my opinion, is perhaps the more essential Christianity than the more popularly held versions.

[noggindoc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


SDM

[/ QUOTE ]

somebody pass this guy some lithium /images/graemlins/crazy.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[BZ_Zorro]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm not a biblical historian by any means), but didn't those naughty protestants add an 'Old Testament' onto the bible a few years ago? (circa 1847 I think)

I'm just wondering because it seems pretty big and wasn't mentioned at all in your post.

Which kind of proves my point.

[Cyrus]

So glad you finally made it to the den. I know there is gossip that you waited until BossJJ run out of ammo and took a vacation, but I do not believe it. If only you were here when BossJJ was wreaking havoc with Christians.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Aside to Sklansky : Do keep us abreast of MMMMMM's climb up the IQ ladder on account of his theological input, will you?

[BluffTHIS!]

Actually my only question regarding MMMMMMMM is whether the other name he habitually posts under as well has moderator privelges now too. (I've always believed the reason he has more than one account to make 50+ posts a day under was due to modesty in not wishing to surpass Microbob's post count.)

[raisins]

[ QUOTE ]
It is the Book of Revelations, it's author is "John". Whether this is the same John that wrote the gospel of John is debateable, but we know the author was a prisoner on the Greek island of Patmos, and apparently was revealed the end of the world. (ie- the apocalypse)

[/ QUOTE ]

No biblical scholar thinks there is any possiblity that the John who wrote the Book of Revelations is also the Evangelist John. No chance. The way the authors write in Greek is completely different. The Evangelist has a very good command of Greek and writes without grammatical error. St. John of Patmos was obviously a Jew who learned Greek late and not very well. It's been some years since I read about this but there is a type of grammatical construction that is common in Hebrew which does not exist in Greek that St. John of Patmos keeps using.

Trying to convince an atheist of the "truth" of the bible by using a literal interpretation of the Bible is pretty unlikely. Despite the Fundamentalist Evangelical fascination with the Book of Revelations there is little evidence to suggest that the Book of Revelations was intended to be written as a book of prophecy. You have to be pretty devout already to think that matters of fact are discussed with any accuracy in a sacred text. Most atheists may concede that there is insight or wisdom in the texts and that is about it. Many who study the bible as literature see Revelations as a poetic compression of the whole of the bible. When you take the meaning of the bible to be the imposition of filters on how to understand the facts of the world it is a different approach from seeing the bible as a source of challenging one's worldly beliefs (like the value of revenge and self regard). The latter is a different type of truth and one that atheists may or may not be open to hearing about.

Apparently you do see the bible, or Revelations at least, as being about facts in this world. You may wish to consider that Revelations is just one of a genre or books written over 300 years - Apocalypses. There are many of them. The early Christians did not give any of them special accord. It was a text that brought all the fugurative language of the bible together in the context of the times of the Christian persecutions by the Romans. The Beast most likely refers either to Nero or to one of the Roman Governors in Anatolia. 666 is a code referring to him. There is no common consesus that the mark is a microchip. Common consesus among millenialists, maybe; among scholars, no way. The mark of the beast in the context of the writer's times refers to those who were outside the heavily persecuted Christian community, i.e. those doing the persecuting.

Anyway, if the bible is right about these sorts of things, who cares? I mean, damn, if God says the whole world is going to walk around with microchips in their forehead, well there you go, not much to be done. Doesn't sound like a voter initiative is likely to change much. These beliefs about what things "mean" and the way the world is going to be engender fatalism. In order to be available to respond to the world as it happens and to use judgement and reason, presupposes that the future is open and that our actions matter. And when I say that our actions matter, not in the sense of some scorecard of our soul but matter here, in this world.

regards,

raisins

[Wes Mantooth]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll admit at times I find David's posts disappointing purely because he comes off as either attacking religion or asking a question that is really just a covert attack.


[/ QUOTE ]

at times? everyone of his posts in this forum at like this.
Disappointing that few are truely open minded.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah maybe my post was a bad idea, it is kind of stupid. its just everytime i look at this forum that could have a lot of interesting stuff on it, it's all about religion, i know god doesn't exist and am not interested in reading or talking about it further, wish the discussion was on other stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Next time try to put this in the original post. Your OP looks like a trolling thread as it doesn't have a lot of supporting arguments and ends with "sucker". If you weren't as well known as you are it might of been deleted.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually my only question regarding MMMMMMMM is whether the other name he habitually posts under as well has moderator privelges now too. (I've always believed the reason he has more than one account to make 50+ posts a day under was due to modesty in not wishing to surpass Microbob's post count.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I only have one account, and have always had only one account, on 2+2 forums.

BluffTHIS, whatever gave you the idea I had more than one account at a time? Are you joking? The only other account I have ever had was "M" (which was made defunct when the changed-over forum software compeeled me to create a user name of more than one letter).

[Wes Mantooth]

[ QUOTE ]

Next time try to put this in the original post. Your OP looks like a trolling thread as it doesn't have a lot of supporting arguments and ends with "sucker". If you weren't as well known as you are it might of been deleted.

[/ QUOTE ]

theBruiser likes to call DS on random things, this is not the first time... (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=tv&Number=2427633&Forum=,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,All_Forums,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,&Words =&Searchpage=17&Limit=25&Main=2427633&Search=true& where=&Name=5790&daterange=&newerval=&newertype=&o lderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post2427633)

He does it for the shock value and the attention.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
BluffTHIS, whatever gave you the idea I had more than one account at a time?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have always believed, and despite your denial still do unless Matt were to say otherwise, that the account name Michael Davis is you. Both sound the same, often alternated days/periods posting, posted lots in same forums, and were created like 1 day apart if memory serves.

[wacki]

I thought that was a very good thread. Bruiser is ballsy and isn't afraid to speak his mind which is a good thing. I have even more respect for Davids honest responses.

There were complaints about this thread and so I thought I should just clarify some things. This thread started out a bit borderline but anyone that knows bruiser knows that he isn't trolling and is truly expressing an opinion. He proved that in his later responses.

[FNHinVA]

Don't bother. A better read is The Skeptics Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com).

[Wes Mantooth]

I have meet before, he is a good guy, I was more just busting his chops in that post. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm not a biblical historian by any means), but didn't those naughty protestants add an 'Old Testament' onto the bible a few years ago? (circa 1847 I think)

I'm just wondering because it seems pretty big and wasn't mentioned at all in your post.

Which kind of proves my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

.....For serious?

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
No biblical scholar thinks there is any possiblity that the John who wrote the Book of Revelations is also the Evangelist John. No chance. The way the authors write in Greek is completely different. The Evangelist has a very good command of Greek and writes without grammatical error. St. John of Patmos was obviously a Jew who learned Greek late and not very well. It's been some years since I read about this but there is a type of grammatical construction that is common in Hebrew which does not exist in Greek that St. John of Patmos keeps using.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct here sir.

[ QUOTE ]

Trying to convince an atheist of the "truth" of the bible by using a literal interpretation of the Bible is pretty unlikely. Despite the Fundamentalist Evangelical fascination with the Book of Revelations there is little evidence to suggest that the Book of Revelations was intended to be written as a book of prophecy. You have to be pretty devout already to think that matters of fact are discussed with any accuracy in a sacred text. Most atheists may concede that there is insight or wisdom in the texts and that is about it. Many who study the bible as literature see Revelations as a poetic compression of the whole of the bible. When you take the meaning of the bible to be the imposition of filters on how to understand the facts of the world it is a different approach from seeing the bible as a source of challenging one's worldly beliefs (like the value of revenge and self regard). The latter is a different type of truth and one that atheists may or may not be open to hearing about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky asked me, by saying:

[ QUOTE ]

I agree that critics of anything could conceivably change their mind if they learned more details. I asked what details those might be that could change MY mind regarding ANY religion that believes in a god that is in some way presently interfering with the workings of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I merely gave him an example, which is IMHO a pretty good example (possibly the best) for following a religion.

Watching supposed events unfold and then making a decision to the worship the God that told you is IMHO more logical than read about supposed events that occured and then making a decision to worship the God that says 'trust me, it happened'.

"Trust everyone, but cut the cards yourself" /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]

Apparently you do see the bible, or Revelations at least, as being about facts in this world. You may wish to consider that Revelations is just one of a genre or books written over 300 years - Apocalypses. There are many of them. The early Christians did not give any of them special accord. It was a text that brought all the fugurative language of the bible together in the context of the times of the Christian persecutions by the Romans. The Beast most likely refers either to Nero or to one of the Roman Governors in Anatolia. 666 is a code referring to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the Catholic church's and histories view of it, and secular historians.

If the beast was Nero or such the book would be false.

Rome never conquered the entire world, the propehcy could not have been fulfiflled before the internet age, especially where Capitalism is king.

There was just no way before electronic transactions, satellite navigation and GPRS, and Globalization for the prophecy to have been fulfilled before the internet age.

One could argue that the Catholic church chooses to see this book as a 'past' event because the symbolism in it (ie - seven hills etc) would cast them and their powerful institution in a bad light ... and God forbid they should let that happen. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]

There is no common consesus that the mark is a microchip. Common consesus among millenialists, maybe; among scholars, no way. The mark of the beast in the context of the writer's times refers to those who were outside the heavily persecuted Christian community, i.e. those doing the persecuting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which scholars? I agree the words 'common consensus' are a poor choice but it has been my experience that many protestants and greek orthodox believe along these lines. (though my sample size could be of question)

You have to keep in mind that Catholics don't percieve the book to have any prophetic meaning, and since protestantism began it has factioned off into a variety of sects and within those sects you get different people having different interpretations of the bible. (This is why Catholicism never let their followers own a bible at home before Luther and "that other guy" printed them, the claim was that they couldn't interpret it)

Ofcourse its logical for someone not wishing to believe this, just as it is logical for someone not wishing to believe any old book can predict a future, especially when said book talks about an 'invisible' God and an 'invisible' devil in such rational times.

But even if secular scholars did believe in this, we live in a world where it's cooler to be pessimistic and shoot things down in a nanosecond with a scoff that to actually keep an open mind and open eyes.

If you could travel back in time before any major disaster and warn people of what was coming, you that you would be scoffed at in the least and possibly institutionalized at the worst.

Take this little example:

Assume you could go back in time to September 10 2001 and tell everyone who works in the towers not to come to work tommorrow because planes will crash into the building. I guarantee you you'll recieve a security escort out of the building at the very least, and/or the authorites will be called to assess your mental state at the worst. Hardly any 'Hard nosed New Yorker' will harken to your words "Chicken Little". /images/graemlins/wink.gif

And why should they? You can't blame them, it is totally understandable given the level of mental illness in our societies.

However regarding the Book of Revelations, it can't hurt to keep your eyes open and just watch which dirrection the world is going, then one must make the choice if they personally believe the book was on to something or if it wasn't, personal choice.

[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, if the bible is right about these sorts of things, who cares? I mean, damn, if God says the whole world is going to walk around with microchips in their forehead, well there you go, not much to be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

True and false. In the grand scheme of things if God (assume for this example he exists railbirds) had set out to do this, it is true, nobody can stop it.

However, if this God who revealed this does exist, then why did he reveal it? The purpose of salvation maybe? After all the book is not just a prohpetic ending but the first 4 chapters and last talk about Jesus and salvation.

[ QUOTE ]

Doesn't sound like a voter initiative is likely to change much. These beliefs about what things "mean" and the way the world is going to be engender fatalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only correlation I can draw here is the Aztecs.

They believed there was 5 ages, the ages of 5 suns (sun worship) and that 4 of those suns had collapsed and that they were in the 5th age.

To keep the universe from collapsing into chaos they had to offer human sacrifice. (facinating culture BTW, their city was surrounded by water in México before the Spainards drained the lake and turned it into a wasteland IIRC)

With Christianity, taking this above example, it would seem fatalistic in the sense that human beings can offer no sacrifice to prevent the end - ie - to keep this age from passing.

But, a common theme in the Bible has been the Judeo-Christian God's interest with mankind and his soul, not the world around him so much.

This "God" saw The tower of babel and ended it. He saw a world that displeased him and flooded it. And he was always making covenants with human beings because he seemed to value their souls more than the socieites they built.

There are a lot of unanswered questions, especially about the role Satan currently plays in God's eyes and why God will specifically end the world this. (the topic of Satan is fasinating, it is somewhat unclear what his position is in the eyes of the Judeo-Christian God, especially if one reads the first chapter of the Book of Job)

[ QUOTE ]

In order to be available to respond to the world as it happens and to use judgement and reason, presupposes that the future is open and that our actions matter. And when I say that our actions matter, not in the sense of some scorecard of our soul but matter here, in this world.

regards,

raisins

[/ QUOTE ]

So does reason conflict with religion? Interesting question.

If you take the view that all that is here is what we can see and reason should be our torch in the dark then most (possibly all) religion is going to conflict with that.

Religion (pick one for example) says 'there is something else you can't see behind this', thus the concept of faith.

Example: A rationalist sees the material world and that's it. Religion tells you there is another world or worlds, with other beings, some which may interact with or towards you, others that look on ... but you can't see them.

Personally I think this concept it stupid. I think all religion is stupid. Given the choice I don't want to believe nor worship a 'God' based on faith. Yet, if this "God" could somehow show me something like the example given above, I would have no choice but to concede ... unfortunately.

As for our actions mattering, the Judeo-Christian God is big on discourse with him and judging your desires and actions, and clearly he focuses on the individual and their actions, so in the end your actions to assist the 'collective' may not delay this, but your motivations may be taken into account. (in all honesty I don't know. The Judeo-Christian God is very arbitrary in his decision making process it seems and nobody can really know him fully)

Anyway, enough of that, where's my beers? /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Cheers,
SDM

[John Cole]

I can assure you--although I can't prove it to you--that M is not Michael Davis--nor is he John Cole, David Sklansky, Andy Fox, Rick Nebiolo, or any other name you could conjure.

[Zapp]

[ QUOTE ]
No biblical scholar thinks there is any possiblity that the John who wrote the Book of Revelations is also the Evangelist John. No chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a ridiculous statement.

[raisins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


No biblical scholar thinks there is any possiblity that the John who wrote the Book of Revelations is also the Evangelist John. No chance.

[/ QUOTE ]




This is a ridiculous statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a point. I overstated the case. It is not a decided issue. That being said the differences between the two books are substantial and have been pointed out since the 4th century. I think the similarities, reference to Christ as the Lamb and Logos, quoting of Zechariah in that form, etc. are more easily explained by a sharing of community by the authors than a sharing of authorship by the texts. These are very different texts, and not just in grammar but in mood and theology as well.

regards,

raisins

[raisins]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky asked me, by saying:

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that critics of anything could conceivably change their mind if they learned more details. I asked what details those might be that could change MY mind regarding ANY religion that believes in a god that is in some way presently interfering with the workings of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I missed this. I forget that when Sklansky talks about religion his focus is on revealed knowledge and the possiblity of a God that interferes in the world. Since this is his concern in discussing religion I can see why you focus on prophecy and possible practical implications.

regards,

raisins

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BluffTHIS, whatever gave you the idea I had more than one account at a time?




[/ QUOTE ]
I have always believed, and despite your denial still do unless Matt were to say otherwise, that the account name Michael Davis is you. Both sound the same, often alternated days/periods posting, posted lots in same forums, and were created like 1 day apart if memory serves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely not, and please feel free to ask Mat if you care to.

I have been posting here years longer (on the old forum software) than the so-called "start date" on the current forum software would indicate (as were John Cole, Andy Fox, Cyrus, Vince Lepore, Rick Nebiolo, and certain others). Also if I'm not mistaken isn't Michael Davis in his 20's? I am in my forties. 'Nuff said, hopefully.

[BluffTHIS!]

OK then. I apologize. It's settled.

[punter11235]

Before reading other responses. I cant agree more. Religion should be in OOT or Other Gambling but certainly not here.
If religious people get offended by this maybe we should create religion forum.

Best wishes

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Before reading other responses. I cant agree more. Religion should be in OOT or Other Gambling but certainly not here.
If religious people get offended by this maybe we should create religion forum.

Best wishes

[/ QUOTE ]


From the Wikipedia

"Philosophers ponder such concepts as existence or being, morality or goodness, knowledge, truth, and beauty. Historically most philosophy has either centered on religious beliefs, or science. "

Philosophy (http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=Philosophy)

PairTheBoard

[Big Steve]

[ QUOTE ]
What reason do you have to believe that my reading the bible will significantly change my opinion? Do others think so too?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so.

I went to Southwestern Assembly of God University in Waxahachie, Texas for 2 years. I have read the bible countless times. I am now a happy christian-hating homosexual. Should I read the "good book" one more time to see if I missed something?

Big Steve /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[iSTRONG]

The irony of this thread... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[chomsky53]

"Your failure to elaborate by giving specifics is often an indication that you're talking out of your ass. Most likely, you're upset by his willingness to question your beliefs."

dont waste my time faggot. sklansky doesn't have the philosophical intellect to have an earth shattering effect on my beleifs. maybe if you read some philosophy you would realize that skalansky when skeptical is the shittiest sort of skeptic. read up and stop saying gay [censored]. and next time when you clap dont bring the weak [censored].

[Monty]

[ QUOTE ]
"Your failure to elaborate by giving specifics is often an indication that you're talking out of your ass. Most likely, you're upset by his willingness to question your beliefs."

dont waste my time faggot. sklansky doesn't have the philosophical intellect to have an earth shattering effect on my beleifs. maybe if you read some philosophy you would realize that skalansky when skeptical is the shittiest sort of skeptic. read up and stop saying gay [censored]. and next time when you clap dont bring the weak [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you are just stealing from Socrates.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
"Your failure to elaborate by giving specifics is often an indication that you're talking out of your ass. Most likely, you're upset by his willingness to question your beliefs."

dont waste my time faggot. sklansky doesn't have the philosophical intellect to have an earth shattering effect on my beleifs. maybe if you read some philosophy you would realize that skalansky when skeptical is the shittiest sort of skeptic. read up and stop saying gay [censored]. and next time when you clap dont bring the weak [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you require that all of your posts insult someone?

[2+2 wannabe]

[ QUOTE ]
The irony of this thread... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

damn - i was going to post this exact thing

[mike4bmp]

I don't know....it seems that the concept of God or the divine was always at the center of ancient and medieval Western philosophy...isn't most of the atheist philosophers' (of today) main objective to disprove God or faith based religions...they have to have an antithesis...
So I think the discussion of God or religion in a philosophy forum is quite appropriate....
Mike...out

[chomsky53]

Do you require that all of your posts insult someone?
yes
and to the socrates guy.
honestly stopping talkign nonesense.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
What reason do you have to believe that my reading the bible will significantly change my opinion? Do others think so too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a good read, lot of sex, violence, and drugs. Well, maybe not drugs so much.

[spaminator101]

im with sklanksky and pair the board and the others here

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
Q. Who is this beast?

This "beast" is the anti-christ.

Q. Who is the anti-christ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bill Gates

[bohemian]

[ QUOTE ]
Who do you think this forum was created for?

It's fast becoming the most interesting forum, largely because of David's posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly the most idiotic forum on the Net, "largely because of David's posts".

[element00]

[ QUOTE ]

If there were no David Sklansky we would have to invent him.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL that's the best quote ever.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I would recommend to Sklansky to put down any books that deal with opposing Christianity, put down any dogma from ecclesiastical institutions and just read the bible, from cover to cover, Genesis to Revelations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reading the whole bible has an opposite influence. All the stuff in there about killing infants, pregnant women, castrating inferior peoples, etc. usually doesn't sit well with civilized humans.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, maybe not drugs so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bottle-o-wine....fruit-o-the-vine...

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be a worth while endeavor for you to read the Bible through. If the creator of the universe decided to write a book that gives the way to eternal life (the Bible claims that such is the case), it would be silly not to read it. If it is all a hoax, you are smart enough to figure that out, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Great, so you'll read whatever bs storybook I put in front of you as long as it claims that the creator of the universe wrote it? Fine, that's you. I doubt David Sklansky's time means so little to him.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly the most idiotic forum on the Net, "largely because of David's posts".

[/ QUOTE ]

So... uhm... what exactly is it that you're doing here?

I mean, there are hundreds of thousands of forums out there, and it only takes a second to google them up...
Of course you would know, since you have good knowledge of all of them, enough to conclude that this is the most idiotic...

[spoohunter]

This just in...

there is no God.

[spoohunter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If there were no David Sklansky we would have to invent him.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL that's the best quote ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually once made a thread title in this exact forum with that name. It was about 'how unique is genius?'. If albert einstein wasn't born, what are the chances relativity would have been discovered and by when?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
What reason do you have to believe that my reading the bible will significantly change my opinion? Do others think so too?

[/ QUOTE ]No, I do not think if you read the Bible any of your opinions would change.

I would find it interesting, though, if an atheist of your caliber actually did study the Bible and or some Theology. Not sure if it has actually been done before. N.B. I am not talking about genius Christians who became atheist. There is a difference.

[RJT]

Has brusier500 ever posted anything in SMP of any worth? I am not asking this rhetorically. I just don’t remember him posting here at all, let alone anything profound.

Why would he post such as asinine post as the OP here? The validity of David’s post is not the issue. They speak for themselves as does the interest in them.

I am just curious, why would he care about DS’s posts? (Now this last question is rhetorical. I really don‘t care what he cares about, judging from this OP.)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I asked what details those might be that could change MY mind regarding ANY religion that believes in a god that is in some way presently interfering with the workings of the universe.


[/ QUOTE ]

You demonstrate 2 biases in this 1 sentence.

1. That God's activity is "interference".

2. That the universe normally works without God.

Hebrews 1:

2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power

Colossians 1:

16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

[ICE TREY]

man you guys like to make really long posts. interesting read though

[jogger08152]

Omitting the "K" from Sklansky's name in the body of your post might be a typo.

[ QUOTE ]
slansky get lost you are ruining this place, no one cares about religion. check out the name of this forum, it is "science, math, and philosophy" forum, not the "slansky gets pedantic about

[/ QUOTE ]

Omitting it from the title though? That just makes you loo fucing stupid. Oay?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Omitting the "K" from Sklansky's name in the body of your post might be a typo.

[ QUOTE ]
slansky get lost you are ruining this place, no one cares about religion. check out the name of this forum, it is "science, math, and philosophy" forum, not the "slansky gets pedantic about

[/ QUOTE ]

Omitting it from the title though? That just makes you loo fucing stupid. Oay?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are obviously unfamiliar with Bruiser's work.

Also, you are commenting on a two year old post.

[joes28]

David, I strongly recommend that you DO NOT READ THE BIBLE. It is way too long, and is terribly boring. I was forced to read a lot of it for a class and I would say that it just reinforced my belief that Christianity/religion in general is ridiculous. I guarantee you it will not change your views.

and to the guy with the super long posts about money and satan and stuff...ummm no. There is no god. Quit wasting your time on stuff like this.