i am a evangelical christian

[cslewislover]

One of them has just quoted revelations, at first I thought it was somebody from this site taking the piss but its actually one of the administrators, it's hilarious, it sounds like something out of a porno:

The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life (Rev 22:17). He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon" (Rev 22:20a).

lol

And I thought you liked me, munster. *sigh* It does sound pornographic in our modern day, yes, if taken out of context. Lol. Your response here just shows me, however, that you do not know the bible (or you just like being really disrespectful. Lol, I was just thinking of changing what I had in my signature, too). It's hard to discuss something when you aren't educated about it, right? Or you simply want to ridicule it?

One thing that might interest you in this regard, which you might think is quite funny, or fun, perhaps, is that the Christian mystical writers actually did use some somewhat erotic language when speaking of their close experiences with God. It's simply the best way to describe the most intimate relationship we can have, but they didn't mean anything actually erotic. You know, like metaphor and all that.

But, the verses you quote above are from the bible, not from a mystical writer. And I could explain what they mean if anyone was interested. I would also discuss with you why you were banned from the site (I didn't ban you), but, I think if you read the board purpose and discussion guidelines, I think it would be pretty clear.

I'd still sit down and have coffee with you (even if you weren't cute). Hey, I'd even have a beer or margarita (yummy) with you. And I wouldn't call you a nutter, like someone just called us from here (I believe) on my board.

[truthhurts]

Hi Cslewislover,
It may have been me that called you all nutters over there on your site but i dont think so.
however since i have been banned permantely from the site after one post i cant see the post i left and so dont know for sure. if it was me i'm sure i didnt come straight out and say your all nutters...though it may have been implied
welcome to the other side (as it were) anyway.

truthhurts

[davef]

It was me.

[munsterdevil]

Welcome to the Darkside Cslewislover

And I thought you liked me, munster. *sigh* It does sound pornographic in our modern day, yes, if taken out of context. Lol. Your response here just shows me, however, that you do not know the bible (or you just like being really disrespectful. Lol, I was just thinking of changing what I had in my signature, too). It's hard to discuss something when you aren't educated about it, right? Or you simply want to ridicule it?

It was taken out of context, but it's called a sense of humour, and an Irish one at that!
I have been educated on the bible, in fact for 13 years I was educated on the Bible, but thankfully I am also educated in the art of History.

But, the verses you quote above are from the bible, not from a mystical writer. And I could explain what they mean if anyone was interested. I would also discuss with you why you were banned from the site (I didn't ban you), but, I think if you read the board purpose and discussion guidelines, I think it would be pretty clear.

I'm not interested, but feel free to do so if you want.
I would like to know why I was CONVENIENTLY banned from the site, when Gman could not come up with an answer on scientific evidence that supported the Garden of Eden. It took a lot of posts for me to get banned, and I have learned since that if anyone supports my view on the thread they are banned straight away. I pointed Gman to works that scientifically support evolution, and he went off in a childish tangent about there being no 100% concrete evidence for evolution. Admittedly science is not my strong point and History is my thing, but from what I read it wasn't his strong point either.

I'd still sit down and have coffee with you (even if you weren't cute). Hey, I'd even have a beer or margarita (yummy) with you. And I wouldn't call you a nutter, like someone just called us from here (I believe) on my board.

I never called anyone nutters,or resorted to name calling when I was over there. But I did reply sarcastically (something I make no apology for) to when godslanguage and Gman ridiculously stated that Atheists believed in the god of chance and time.

[cslewislover]

Hi Munster, Dave, and Truthhurts.

Munster, since you have devil in your name and you welcomed me to the dark side, I don't think you are unbiased in your views about faith. Lol. And like I said on the board, we all do bad things. We are all part dark, part light. I want more light to be in me, and shine out; that's the thing.

Also, it was Dave who called us nutters, as he admitted above.

Actually, Gman knows a lot about evolution, as far as I can tell. There are quite a few other threads on the board where he goes into it in great detail. At the time, I had just read quickly all that was being posted, since a bunch of it was a kind-of useless negative banter, it seemed to me. If you can use banter that way.

Bans are not necessarily permanent. A ban can be reversed if a mod decides to reverse it.

Munster. Part of the guidelines state that if your mind is already made up about something, and that you do not want to consider or engage with others on the board respectfully, then the board is not for you (it just turns into a presentation of your views, not a discussion or debate). You engaged with me respectfully enough, but not with the others. It may be that they did not answer to evolution since there wasn't anything specific about it being discussed. The home site has articles regarding evolution and design, that are either written or approved by the site owner. The site owner used to work with Hugh Ross, if you wanted to look him and his site up. He's a PHd physicist. The site owner is a medical researcher.

Going back to engaging. I don't mean to be mean here, I'm just saying that from my experience in universities, including my graduate level classes filled with people who think "they know it all," I can say that you seem less open than most. There are academic Christians out there who present their data, historical and scientific, in an unbiased fashion. But, it seems to me, you cannot accept that there are Christians who actually do want to know the truth, and who look at facts in an unbiased way. If this is your view, then it is disrespectful, and one would expect responses just like you gave. Yes, there are closed-minded Christians, and Christians that do outrageous things that get into the media. But all the ones that are quiet, quietly doing good in the world or doing research - you don't hear about those.

By the way, there are a lot of different views about evolution and creation held by regular posters at that board. We have very few young earth creationists, because our site is not for them. The views most held are old earth (progressive) creationism, design (which is similar), and theistic evolution. Frankly, I don't know what my view is. A lot of Christians don't. That's because we're open-minded and want to know the truth (I do believe God did it, but how?). I feel that it is a mystery with what we know so far. And, since no one was around when life itself began (if not God, then panspermia?), no one can say how it in fact began. Lol. Thus all the arguments, which actually lead to nothing but antagonism.

Anyway, I could post some of our guidelines here if anyone wanted, since banned people can't see them. Can you see the home site, with the articles? If you wanted to read some of those and ask about them, I could either try to answer your questions, or unban you. I'm not up on all the latest evolutionary information, so I probably would not be the best person for that. Although I do know some, and I could look some things up, if I have the time.

[munsterdevil]

Cslewislover said:

Gman knows a lot about evolution

If he did he would not be a New Earth Creationist.

You engaged with me respectfully enough, but not with the others.

I hardly call godslanguage and Gman's posts towards me as respectful, when they tried to force the issue that I beleved in the God of time and luck, and that atheism was a religion. Also the amount of times I had to repeat myself to Gman was chronic. Maybe I shouldn't have been the only one to be banned.

Bans are not necessarily permanent. A ban can be reversed if a mod decides to reverse it

I wouldn't put my life savings on being allowed back in.

There are academic Christians out there who present their data, historical and scientific, in an unbiased fashion. But, it seems to me, you cannot accept that there are Christians who actually do want to know the truth, and who look at facts in an unbiased way. If this is your view, then it is disrespectful, and one would expect responses just like you gave. Yes, there are closed-minded Christians, and Christians that do outrageous things that get into the media. But all the ones that are quiet, quietly doing good in the world or doing research - you don't hear about those.

Ah yes we're back to the unbiased Historian, there is no such thing, and you can never look for facts in an unbiased manner, no matter how much you tell yourself, and that goes for believer and non-believer. Likewise when I look at their findings as an atheist, I am biased, plain and simple, its part of being human and there is nothing wrong with it. I already in the other site pointed out the fallacy of comparing the works of Aristotle, Pliny to the Bible. I do not doubt the historical authenticity of when the New Testament was written (50-60 years after Jesus), but as I have said it does not prove their content. At least with Aristotle he was talking of facts (at least contempoary facts), and wasn't claiming to have seen a man who walked on water and died to save all our sins.

[cslewislover]

Hi Munster. Do you have a name besides that?

Cslewislover said:

Gman knows a lot about evolution

If he did he would not be a New Earth Creationist.

Do you mean young earth creationist? If so, Gman is not one of those. I don't know what made you think that. ???

You engaged with me respectfully enough, but not with the others.

I hardly call godslanguage and Gman's posts towards me as respectful, when they tried to force the issue that I beleved in the God of time and luck, and that atheism was a religion. Also the amount of times I had to repeat myself to Gman was chronic. Maybe I shouldn't have been the only one to be banned.

I know what you mean. A lot of people, including the mods, get sarcastic (I disagree with this). I don't like it because I view it as disrespectful in most situations. I'm not totally free of it, but when I am sarcastic I usually put humor in it. Lol.

As far as you having to repeat yourself, I'm sure you can see that he/they were trying to make a point. That's what it seemed like to me. Now, I think because of the way it all went, that maybe they should have explained themselves better. Or you, too. Like bring in some statistics or something. We could bring in stories, too, of people in other cultures that came to faith in Christ almost before missionaries or whoever talked with them. There are those who go, "Oh, yeah, I knew of your God, from inside me (or whatever they might say is their experience), and now I know his name and more about him. Thanks." But these testimonials are just not in the New York Times (and I should start keeping a file of them); in other words, they are not easy to look up, like so many things are on the internet, say. And, most people would probably think it was not worth presenting things like this to you anyway.

As far as atheism being a religion, I don't think they would think that. Many of us have pretty precise definitions of religion and faith. Religion is not the same as faith, at all. We all have "faith" in something, and he was trying to point out that you have a belief system, a view, that you have faith in. No, it's not a religion that you "practice." That's a real brief presentation of what I think was being said on the board, off the top of my head.

Bans are not necessarily permanent. A ban can be reversed if a mod decides to reverse it

I wouldn't put my life savings on being allowed back in.

If you're interested, let me know. If you want to abide by the guidelines (and sure, you could point out to someone if you think they are not following the guidelines). Gman himself posted on that thread about how we do have atheists that participate on the board who are not banned. As far as I can tell, most do not stick around. I think it can make for some interesting discussions, if they are open and respectful.

Ah yes we're back to the unbiased Historian, there is no such thing, and you can never look for facts in an unbiased manner, no matter how much you tell yourself, and that goes for believer and non-believer. Likewise when I look at their findings as an atheist, I am biased, plain and simple, its part of being human and there is nothing wrong with it.

Ok, sure. But there are people that do come close, and that can be judged and discerned, at least to an extent.

I already in the other site pointed out the fallacy of comparing the works of Aristotle, Pliny to the Bible. I do not doubt the historical authenticity of when the New Testament was written (50-60 years after Jesus), but as I have said it does not prove their content. At least with Aristotle he was talking of facts (at least contempoary facts), and wasn't claiming to have seen a man who walked on water and died to save all our sins.

But what you're saying makes no sense. I was only trying to get to the point where we could say that documents were not fakes, and that they had integrity as far as witnesses go. Which you seem to agree with, but which is not what you originally said. To ponder whether or not miracles happened is very different than establishing historical authenticity. Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the miracles, but he still thought the witnesses in the NT were reliable. There all kinds of different views (Jefferson's is a definite minority view). So that's a whole other thing, and of course should be brought up in a new thread, like "What makes us believe that the miracles in the bible really happened?"

There is a certain point too, that no matter how much historical or scientific data you have, that you make a choice one way or another. We're human and are not computers. If someone tells me they love me, do I believe it? Why should I believe it? And what does it mean to me? If my faith is not blind, but involves a relationship with the Lord, then it involves both "facts" about him and "actions" (love, for one). I'm having a very hard time with this, since what I want to explain is very difficult, and I don't know how to say it. I guess, to us and to any believer, to know the Lord, or to know that he exists, is not just about facts and knowledge, even though it includes that. Because it is a love relationship, and you can't "put your hand on" love. If you have a lover, you would not be able to explain that love, really, with "facts."

*sigh* You must have felt pangs of joy and love in your life, even sort-of "out of the blue." The Lord is like that.

Vicki

PS: Thanks for the welcome, truthhurts. Maybe you want to have a beer too?

[munsterdevil]

cslewislover said:

As far as atheism being a religion, I don't think they would think that. Many of us have pretty precise definitions of religion and faith. Religion is not the same as faith, at all. We all have "faith" in something, and he was trying to point out that you have a belief system, a view, that you have faith in. No, it's not a religion that you "practice." That's a real brief presentation of what I think was being said on the board, off the top of my head.

Well I'm glad you think that, but as you can see for yourself, Gman and Godslanguage were pretty adamant that Atheism was a religion and that we all had 'faith'.

But what you're saying makes no sense. I was only trying to get to the point where we could say that documents were not fakes, and that they had integrity as far as witnesses go. Which you seem to agree with, but which is not what you originally said. To ponder whether or not miracles happened is very different than establishing historical authenticity. Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the miracles, but he still thought the witnesses in the NT were reliable. There all kinds of different views (Jefferson's is a definite minority view). So that's a whole other thing, and of course should be brought up in a new thread, like "What makes us believe that the miracles in the bible really happened?"

It actually makes perfect sense, dating a document is one thing, but you cannot just leave it at that. If that was the case we could argue the integrity of eyewithness accounts from Ancient Greek and Roman legends, and our very own Cúchulainn. I do not agree of the integrity of the withnesses, as the the authors wrote the New Testament 50-60 years after the events of Jesus, so merely relied on decades of hearsay, from a very superstitious period in human history. No offence, but this is the last time I shall explain myself on the reliability of the Bible. You have your interpretation I have mine.

*sigh* You must have felt pangs of joy and love in your life, even sort-of "out of the blue." The Lord is like that.

No, humanity is.

[cslewislover]

It actually makes perfect sense, dating a document is one thing, but you cannot just leave it at that.

Yes. But dating and analysis are two different things. That's the point. It doesn't make sense to lump them together. They are important to each other, but they are not the same thing.

If that was the case we could argue the integrity of eyewithness accounts from Ancient Greek and Roman legends, and our very own Cúchulainn. I do not agree of the integrity of the withnesses, as the the authors wrote the New Testament 50-60 years after the events of Jesus, so merely relied on decades of hearsay, from a very superstitious period in human history. No offence, but this is the last time I shall explain myself on the reliability of the Bible. You have your interpretation I have mine.

But you're wrong. Who wrote the the letters of Peter? Peter. Who wrote the Gospel of John? John. LOL. And, of course, these were direct followers of Jesus, apostles. Lol. If you think otherwise, you are reading very biased people indeed. There is actually more recent scholarship that points to original authorship than was known or thought not all that long ago. I'd need to get out my sources and references for this.

And, we could very well argue the contents of the ancient writings you cite. The Illiad is considered to have the greatest historical manuscript authority outside of the NT (yes, the NT has the greatest manuscript authority out of all historical documents), and the earliest copy of it was composed 500 years after the original. Aristotle's document copies are from over 1000 years later (!). So yes, if I just wanted to argue about these things, simply because of transmission issues, I could.

Your belief about whether the miracles in the NT (or OT, for that matter) happened or not is a belief. A conviction. Just like believers have a conviction.

*sigh* You must have felt pangs of joy and love in your life, even sort-of "out of the blue." The Lord is like that.

No humanity is.

You cannot prove that I have not experienced the love of the Lord. So isn't it unkind, and even unthoughtful (unscientific) of you tell me 'no'? Because that's what you have done. If you cannot prove that I have or have not experienced the Lord, then you shouldn't make statements like that. What's really hilarious is that I have had guys, good friends, close friends, say adamantly that they'd never leave me. Yet they have. What kind-of love is that? Lol, the human kind. I'm not saying I don't love guys now (!!!), or that I'm bitter, as if only the Lord can love. That's not true. But humans are weak, selfish, etc. Humanity is not like the Lord, at least not fully. Any pure love that comes through humans, is actually of the Lord. With our selfish motives, none of us can love purely. Anyway, I'll pray for you (hee hee) that you see this intense beauty (pangs of joy and love) that I spoke of, and which you so inprovidently stepped on.

*hugs*

From Vicki

[munsterdevil]

First off I have stated previously that I am not going to repeat myself on the document Vs. content of the Bible, so thats it, finito on that discussion.

But you're wrong. Who wrote the the letters of Peter? Peter. Who wrote the Gospel of John? John. LOL. And, of course, these were direct followers of Jesus, apostles. Lol. If you think otherwise, you are reading very biased people indeed. There is actually more recent scholarship that points to original authorship than was known or thought not all that long ago. I'd need to get out my sources and references for this.

The Gospel of John was written 80 years after Jesus' time, and so were the letters. You can find that information from the link I gave you on the Godandscience forum. Can you honestly say something is fact if it is written 80 years after an event?

And, we could very well argue the contents of the ancient writings you cite. The Illiad is considered to have the greatest historical manuscript authority outside of the NT (yes, the NT has the greatest manuscript authority out of all historical documents), and the earliest copy of it was composed 500 years after the original. Aristotle's document copies are from over 1000 years later (!). So yes, if I just wanted to argue about these things, simply because of transmission issues, I could.

The Iliad does not dictate to us the outlandish claims of the Bible, everlasting lie, God's son died for our sins etc, and we do (well I don't) not believe in the mythology of the Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Greek that Homer talks about.

You cannot prove that I have not experienced the love of the Lord. So isn't it unkind, and even unthoughtful (unscientific) of you tell me 'no'? Because that's what you have done. If you cannot prove that I have or have not experienced the Lord, then you shouldn't make statements like that. What's really hilarious is that I have had guys, good friends, close friends, say adamantly that they'd never leave me. Yet they have. What kind-of love is that? Lol, the human kind. I'm not saying I don't love guys now (!!!), or that I'm bitter, as if only the Lord can love. That's not true. But humans are weak, selfish, etc. Humanity is not like the Lord, at least not fully. Any pure love that comes through humans, is actually of the Lord. With our selfish motives, none of us can love purely. Anyway, I'll pray for you (hee hee) that you see this intense beauty (pangs of joy and love) that I spoke of, and which you so inprovidently stepped on.

Claiming it is the Lord who has caused me to experience Love and Joy is a way of forcing your beliefs on me.
Humans are at times weak, selfish etc., and that is being human, when we love and are kind I dont believe (obviously) that it is a benevolent God responsible, but humanity. When we are weak and selfish do you think it is God, satan or humans that are responisble?