Are We Alone?

No. Only forgotten as they have no interest in us.

1. Read the Book of Enoch and Ezekiel explain how they could offer a description of earth 4000 yrs ago, from above.

2. Look around at architecture of past civilsations. Egypt. Sri Lanka, India, Turkey, etc.

3. Explain what is the significance of the Nazca Lines and their accuracy.

4. The sudden leap in aviation from simply learning to fly to travelling to other planets.

We don't even know what is in the oceans having only explored about 5% of the worlds oceans. So how does one explain the Sphinx, and the alignment of pyramids to stars and coincidence is quite a long shot.

I think we are just forgotten as having nothing to offer. The alternate stand point could be, we have been taken over and we don't know it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazca_Lines

It may not be believable, but this reference is worth looking over:

http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/high-technology-in-the-bible/

And I missed what?

Nicely done.

It really is hard to find scientific evidence for Earth 1.0, so did we or not have a collision that made the moon? Just kidding, I have no problem with that theory.

At the same time, it is hard to find the antediluvian world that Noah built his boat in. So how do we know it did not exist? As far as I can tell, no one really has ever offered up physical evidence to the certain contrary, or to the positive side either.

For me, it somewhat remains as a skeptical remnant of my faith (which is obviously lacking in many respects, including demeanor, conduct, manners, etc.).

'...The sudden leap in aviation from simply learning to fly to travelling to other planets....'

.

Are you suggesting there must be some other-worldly or godly intervention that took us from the Wright brothers to the Apollo program? It is indeed quite an achievement, but the results are those of hard work and creative thinking not magic or aliens. All the necessary technological advancements are well documented with credit to those responsible.

.

Also, don't find the alignment of the Pyramids incomprehensible. Surveying land has similar equipment to rudementary surveying of stars. More importantly there are so many stars, it would be more remarkable if nothing lined up. Additionally, being build long ago, the stars weren't in the same place....and unless you know the date construction commenced....

'Are you suggesting..." No, I left that to you and the experts to answer and decide. And of course, nearly everything is well documented. That which is not documented is fully theorised, and that which is fully thoerised, is by virtue, true. ???

This is of course why we have oddities such as the Stone spheres of Costa Rica, Metalic Balls of Ottosdal, Tungusta, The Glass Wall of Sigyria, Anradhapura, Area 51, Rendalsham Woods or Rosswel, Aurora jets and hosts of other oddities that have not/cannot be explained.

It is fascinating.

Well, okay then....so long as there was no suggesting,

I liked this really simple method which might have been used to align the pyramids NSEW.

You stick a post in the middle of a field, and get a friend with another post to stand near the edge when the sun goes down. When a constellation rises above the horizon you get your mate to line up his post between your post and an easily identifiable star in the constellation as it appears. You then spend the night in a local bar, get another post and line it up with the same star as it drops below the horizon. Finally you just have to bisect the angle subtended by the two "edge" posts at your middle post. Exact North (assuming your in the Northern hemisphere).

We can only assume they knew the compass trick for bisecting that angle, or drawing perpendicular line to an existing line.

Well, considering that they subsequently built the Great Pyramids, I'd have to say that's a pretty safe bet.

Nah, I would rather just step it off, and run over the posts with my road grader.

Looking over my own work, I realize that when post C₁ is placed, the line from B to C₁ *IS* the perfect East-West line, so no further effort is required. The completed structure as a line running North-South through posts A and D, and a line running East-West through posts B, D, and C.

Sometimes I'm so clever even *I* don't recognize my full genius at first.

Or it could be said that sometimes I'm so half-witted I don't realize when I've finished solving a problem.

(It's hard to tell if you're the clever one or the fool when you end up out-witting YOURSELF.)

"...I'm so half-witted..."

Which half - right/ left, yin/yang, top/bottom...?

The other half.

And stop holding back my better half from fulfilling their dream!

That is nothing, my nephew can light matches stuck in the hard pack of an oil field well pad with his maintainer. That is precision bladesmanship. The rest is just company men standing around talking about p***y.

Good link, great stuff.

Wait a tick?

How can "we" be alone?

Now that IS logical.

That is truly the ONLY logical statement to come out of this entire thread.

The reason we do not get invaded by Missionaries from other worlds: "They were sent past their own Samaria and Judea, to the end of the world(s). No one told them to come here, they just stumbled upon us (like we did the Polynesian islands and ruined forever, damit).

The alternative to Christian missionaries would be something like Muslim invaders who also provide a decision (at least sometimes they do). The difference? With Christians, if the indigenous people do not accept Christ as their personal savior with remission of their sins in baptismal waters, then the missionaries do not keep pestering them all the time, and only take the ones who believe.

With Islam, the decision has to be right now, join or die. It clearly states that in the Quran. How is it that Westerners keep missing that fact? Could it be that early followers of Mohammed's faith got their personal understanding wrong? Is it right at this time?

Quran clearly written in English, with audio.

Of course there are many other sources of the scriptures of all the world's religions. Go and ask where you may find your own truth. You do not have because you do not ask.

'...With Christians, if the indigenous people do not accept Christ as their personal savior with remission of their sins in baptismal waters, then the missionaries do not keep pestering them all the time, and only take the ones who believe....'

.

�� That's a good one.

Wait. You aren't serious, are you?

If you are going to attempt revisionism it would be best if the thing you are attempting to revisewasn't still on going.

It is not the book or the sword, last time I checked, so why don't you lighten up on Christians. What did anyone ever do to you?

Why would lighten up include agreeing to inaccurate portrayals?

A statement like 'Christians only engage believers and never bother nonbelievers' isn't doing anyone much good, and has real potential to do harm.

First to establish the claim is not true; Christian organizations actively bother many nonbelievers in many nontrivial ways. From attempts to get creationism taught in school, to attempts (and some successes) at controlling the reproductive organs in females (believers and otherwise), to facilitating the spread of HIV/AIDS by working against condom use, to fascilitating the molesting young boys (some of those boys grew to no longer believe), there are many many examples.

One of the most pervasive and very damaging bothers is the promotion of a standard that an idea should be taken seriously if it has two conditions: someone said (or wrote) the idea, and no test has been conceived by which the idea might be demonstrated false. That bar is absurdly low and does untold harm in so many ways.

.

Second, why such a statement would be harmful. Aside from the above, the type of statement that attempts to whitewash Christianity and then goes on to point out the dangers of Islam, damages the important message about Islam.

What is going on in Saudi funded religious schools in many places is a time bomb. Many interpretations of Islam are very dangerous. When you make statements pointing that out, but paint Christianity in such a rosey, clearly biased view, people can easily discount your whole comment as out of touch with reality.

.

I'm really not being hard on Christian, just honest. On Islam I am being hard because I am being honest....there is really no way to go soft if you are honest about whats going on.

Trust me, I feel the same way. I also affirmatively defend the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion. Everybody, even TNTC, has some form of religion, even if it merely "hating" on religion.

The thing I really disdain is all the straw arguments against a faith based on what happened several hundred years ago, or what a few corrupt, morally bankrupt individuals did, that wore the tapestries of religion while doing it.

It is not what is on the outside that makes a follower of Jesus (or Mohammed), it is what is in the heart. If the hate is all there is, then there is no place there for God, or for Allah.

I love being present in a natural setting, and worshiping God within my own heart, not bothering anyone. I also love people, except when I find them to be full of venom, then I just want to crush their head under my boot.

I'm glad you appreciate most people. I hope your designs on crushing the skulls of the few you find unacceptable never come to fruition....mainly for your welfare, not so much out of concern for theirs.

When the church works against widespread condom use, thereby contributing to the widespread AIDS epidemic in Africa, Southeast Asia, and other places, blame cannot be shifted away from the religious organization onto some rogue individuals hiding in religious uniforms. This also is not something that occurred hundreds of years in the past.

When the church repeatedly attempts to silence the claims of sexual abuse of boys in their supervision, and facilitates further abuse by shuffling priests to different locations where they will again be alone with children under their supervision....when this happens in different places under different superiors and the pattern is the same, blame cannot be shifted from the religious organization solely onto morally bankrupt individuals. This also did not occur hundreds of years in the past.

When the church attempts to to control via physical or legislative means all women reproductive organs, blame cannot be shift solely to individuals. This did not happen hundreds of years in the past.

Those are not straw arguments. The only thing made of straw was your rebuttal.

.

Now I do not agree that everyone has a religion. I don't think that model is very useful. However, if you feel comfortable with it, let's work from there.

If my religion compels me to call out inaccuracies in public statements, especially those that downplay the real harm done by religion, how well are you are you keeping you commitment to 'affirmatively defend the freedom of religion'?

In fact, if speaking out against what I see as wrongs perpetrated by religion makes you see me as filled with venom and deserving of having my head squashed, since you see my action related to what you see as religion, shouldn't you perceive your own self as filed with venom and worth of head squashing?

.

See. The liberties with logic/reason necessary to buy into religious stories can be dangerous in the real world.

In reference to condom use: Which church? The Roman Catholic church, of which I am not a part?

I am a WASP. I am sure you have a clue what that means.

Believe it or not: Condoms were invented by Charles Goodyear. Was he or was he not another WASP? I don't know his religion, and could glean not a lot from the Wikipedia article on him, but this simple invention has prevented a lot of disease and unwanted pregnancy, so I posthumously declare him a Christian by his works (although salvation is not by works, but by the grace of God). Still, I would vote for his entry to God's heaven if I were granted such.

Still, it is a better plan to have a happy marriage, a safe place for the upbringing of children, and a lot of arrows in the quiver (children), so to speak. It is a rightful part of replenishing the earth.

Simply denying that the largest sect of Christians does not count because that isn't your sect does nothing to improve Christianity's far from exemplary record on things moral/ethical.

Yes, there are multitudes of amazing and wonderful people designated as Christians. Multitudes who have influenced the world remarkable ways for the better. But that doesn't mean Christianity itself is right, good, or even helpful net net.

I am not holding any nonreligiouly inspired battery, rape, and murder ever committed by someone designated as a Christian against Christianity. In the same light Christianity should not be praised for all the various inventions those labled as Christians developed.

.

I do like that you have attempted an actual rebuttal of one of the points I made. It may not have succeeded, but at least you are interacting like an adult and fighting the good fight. Bravo.

"Believe it or not: Condoms were invented by Charles Goodyear."

Partially correct, he may have invented the latex rubber condom, but the concept was around long before him.

There is documentation from Roman times about condoms. Back then they were made from knotted sheep intestine, and considered reusable⁽¹⁾. Not as effective as the later single-use latex, but better than using nothing.

Notes:

1. All I'm going to say about 'reusable' condoms is: ick.

You are correct!

How does the Bill of Rights go again? What is the First Amendment? Does it not have to do with the free expression of religion within the United States?

I think you are stubborn, and you think I am stubborn, so let's set this aside for now.

Yes, historically there is this and that. Humans have never been perfect in behavior, and are not now, nor will they ever be. To be human is to sin, even the clergy sins.

The bad part is when people do not repent of their sin, and do not apologize for sins against others (such as vindictive comments, generalizing people because of a few beliefs they hold, etc.) Therefore I simply ask you to forgive me where I have offended your sensibilities, in order to put this aside, and we both move on.

What? Now you try and (jokingly) fail to site the First Amendment. Even after I provide you a link to the exact wording of this amendment. That's beyond simple stubborn to the point of being obstreperous.

That is because obstreperous monkeys always stop reading that amendment after the first phrase. That is all I have to say on the matter.

I also am a proponent of accountability for one's actions, so we do share common ground.

I ask you to forgive me for not making it more evident that I am not and have no intention of disparaging people who are considered or identify as Christians. Christianity and more broadly religion deserves to be laid bare under the brightest of lights for a rigorous dispassionate review.

Similarly I hold no ill will toward the group of people with OCD, Turrets, fibromyalgia, sickle cell anemia, or morbit obesity.

"How does the Bill of Rights go again? What is the First Amendment? Does it not have to do with the free expression of religion within the United States?"

I think the friction starts when one religion tries to overlay its own belief system on the people that are NOT part of the congregation.

Proselytizing is fine, talk to people one on one and try to convince them that your God (or your interpretation of God) is better than theirs and that they should join your religion. But saying "My God hates plaid worn with stripes! Such is an abomination and must be destroyed!" is an attack on the free expression of the religion of BadTasteism, as well as an attack on athesists who just happen to like wearing plaid with stripes. Should things be banned just because they offend one or more religions?

I try to avoid actual religions as topics of debate, but I feel this example is too good to pass up, as well as this being an appropriate use of the example, based on my understanding of said religion:

"On the first Friday after becoming a Discordian (hail Eris!), the new convert is to partake joyously of a hot dog, thus offending five major religions: Judaism (No pork), Hinduism (No meat), Islam (No pork), Christianity (No meat on Fridays), and Discordianism (No hot dog buns)."

The first amendment protects the right of people to worship as they please, even if what pleases them is NOT worshiping. Many atheists will state, "Christianity rejects all gods except one, Atheism just takes that line of thinking one god further." And agnostics just admit that they don't know for sure one way or the other. One also has to look at the difference between Theistic and Dieistic. Buddhism, for example, is a non-Deistic religion: there is no 'Buddhist god,' and many Buddhists in the US will accept and follow the teachings of Deistic religions without considering it to be a violation of their own Buddhist nature⁽¹⁾.

notes:

1. If asked about it, they will probably reply with an analogy about truth being like water; it can come from many rivers, and can be poured into many vessels, but the water remains water, no matter what shape it conforms to.

Who said Christians cannot have meat on Fridays? I Protest that, but there again, I am a Protestant.

Christians can have meat on Fridays. A group of Christians (Catholics) are not suppose to eat meat on Fridays.

Like most religious texts, the Pricipalia Discordia doesn't go into much details about outside religions⁽¹⁾. Some Christian sects abstain from meat on every Friday, some abstain from meat on Fridays during Lent, some do not have a food restriction at any time during the year. And at least one secluded monastery on a small, resource-poor island at the northern tip of the UK (if memory serves about the location), made a decision that seals were a kind of fish so they could maintain their Lenten meatless fast while also not starving to death⁽²⁾.

Notes:

1. One would not expect detailed information on Judaism to be in a Hindu sacred text, for example. There's little point in giving honest details about 'the competition' to the congregation.
2. The fishing was extremely poor, due to the seal migration devouring most of the stock, and, if memory serves, that small island only had olive trees, wild chickens (scrawny and hard to catch), and fish as the food supply, so even outside of Lent, the monks were rather dependent on 'the bounty of the sea' to keep themselves fed.

You should've stated that in your post. Your statement about meat on Friday was aimed at Christians vs a group of Christians.

An example why you shouldn't make errors like this.

Let's say you're speaking of us Americans. A group of Americans believes that Obama was our best POTUS. So would it be offensive to some to say that Certain countries believe that Obama was the best POTUS (Americans)?

Get it?

However, when quoting a passage from a book, one does not normally launch into a dissertation correcting a vague part of the quote, especially when such a dissertation would distract from the overall message the quote is being used to present.

Or, as they say in Vaudeville, "Don't explain the joke, kid." Did you not notice that the Act of Offending is also designed to offend the very religion the convert is joining? That should be a clue that Discordianism itself is or may be a Parody Religion, and therefore none of its writing is to be taken seriously or at face value, even/especially when it's talking about other religions.

When quoting a passage from a book, one should consider what the passage says. To try to slam a group of people known as Christians, because a group of them decide that it's not good to eat meat on Fridays, well ... in my book, that's not a good quote.

Or, you do believe that the quote states your point, which I think you've made clear to us. You can't pick and choose what part of a quote is correct or incorrect. I shouldn't say you can't; you can do as you please. It just weakens your argument when your quote is found to have a flaw.

The subtle shift that attempts to equate slamming religion with slamming the people who have been raised believing in religion is quite underhanded. It shows a willingness to choose derision over clear sight. It betrays a lack of true belief....there would be no need to distort what is being slammed (and thereby attempt to convince others of an attack/slight) if the premise of religion were robust enough to withstand rigorous evaluation.

Everyone makes mistakes. That does not mean mistakes should not be pointed out, for fear that someone feel slammed because they did not always have perfect understanding.

.

On a different note, I feel like I must be misreading your previous comment. Did you intend to admonish the act of picking and choosing among various scriptures? i.e. not accepting it all if you accept any?

And let us not forget that this branch was based off my statement of the idea that in America, religions are expected to coexist with each other. Church A's right to preach its truth is free and unfettered up until the point where it advocates the death of members of Church B. It seems a bit hypocritical for this to have led to a 'you can't say that about *MY* religion, that's offensive to me!'

I'm reminded of the controversy when Isaac Hayes refused to participate in the South park episode mocking Scientology, after he had cheerfully joined in with mocking EVERY OTHER MAJOR RELIGION ON THE PLANET⁽¹⁾. The hypocrisy was so strong there, and the fact that he chose to quit⁽²⁾ rather than mock his own religion, forcing the writers to kill off his character, that he was considered to be a 'first class <BLEEP>hole⁽³⁾' by the South Park fans⁽⁴⁾.

Notes:

1. We later found out that it wasn't Issac himself refusing, but Sientologists acting as his 'minders' refusing 'on his behalf.' He was actually cool with the idea, and thought it fair that Scientology got its turn in the mocking limelight.
2. Again, we later found out that his resignation was made by his minders 'on his behalf' and against his wishes.
3. If you know the show, you know the fans are very free with using crude language when talking about the show itself, after all, the four kids in the leading roles are chronic potty-mouths, especially Cartman.
4. The hatefest did mellow into sympathy when it was discovered that he had basically been 'kidnapped' by his church and other people were making up lies to try and reshape the perception of the situation to further their ends.

When one has a belief in a higher power, he has faith. Faith helps people get by when things seem bleak and there's no light in sight. I'm not too proud to admit that I've been there and I'm pretty sure most here have been there as well. We have free will to choose what we do when we're in that position. The sad thing is when one chooses anger over love and they become bitter. I've seen it too many times where he curses God for doing this to him and he chooses to no longer believe.

When I hear things like this, it makes me sad.

I guess my 'disappointment' in people being easily offended by jokes about their religion when they laugh at jokes about other religions stems from my own beliefs:

I believe God has a great sense of Humor, covering the full breadth from playful and fun to dark and twisted. As evidence, I present Mankind: It took a real deep appreciation of irony to create a species with NO natural defenses, that comes in second or third on any athletic test you can think of, yet becomes the dominant species because, while they don't excel at anything, they do a good job of adapting to almost anything.

As we are created in His image, we should also try to posses the same breadth of humor within ourselves. Some times in our lives we may wear the Golden Crown, other times, the tasseled and belled Fool's Cap. We should be willing to accept that both hats fit equally well and play our assigned roles as best we can.

Sam Kinnison often said that, since he was a minister turned 'rude comic,' that God was going to punish him with death. That always got a bit of nervous laughter from the audience, the part he never said, as the long-standing comic tradition of "Don't explain the joke," is that if he had stayed a minister, then God would have rewarded him with death. The same outcome either way; dead Sam.

If one has a personal interpretation of God as All-Powerful and All-Knowing, then He already knows the punchline to every joke ever make. He cannot be offended by any joke because he's "heard them all before." If one has a personal interpretation of God that CAN be offended by a mere joke, then that does not seem to be so All-Knowing and All-Powerful. (Yes, I'm borrowing that argument against the types of legislation that seek to protect one religion above others: "It's a weak sort of God that requires man's law to defend Him.")

He made you didn't he, then quite obviously, God has a sense of humor, twisted, but yes a sense of humor.

I am ba-ack!

I see that the ridiculous arguments about religion continue. Oh well, at least we do have something to argue about. Worms never argue.

Welcome back, James!

Could science be considered a religion?

"Should reliable evidence show a tenet to be false or even not always reliable, that tenet will have to be reworked or discarded."

Not just discarded, a new tenet needs to be devised that not only explains everything the old tenet explained, but also explains the things that the old tenet could not. Newtonian Physics could not explain relativistic effects. Einsteinian Physics, in order to be accepted as a replacement for Newtonian Physics, had to explain everything that Newtonian Physics did, which it does, to a finer degree of detail. We still use Newtonian Physics for day-to-day calculations, because it gives fine enough detail for the special cases of "objects in a 1G gravity well moving at non-relativistic speeds," which accounts for at least 99.9% of the phenomena on and under the surface of the planet.

Sometimes there is nothing that directly or completely replaces the tenet and it is intentionally discarded or slowly distanced through disuse. Other times the tenet is shown to be unscientific yet tenacious and science must work to separate itself from such pseudoscience.

Phrenology

Ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny

Aquatic ape theory

Blood letting

Blowing smoke up someone's rectum to revive from drowning.

Homunculus

Well, when the "phenomena⁽¹⁾" described is nothing more than coincidence and observer bias, then the replacement theory is simply "Studies have proven that there is no causal kink between condition A and behavior B."⁽²⁾ Some plans are just flawed from the start, but there times an experiment needs to be tried and fail to prove that the current state of something is not just an 'accident of politics.'⁽³⁾

Notes:

1. ♪Do Doo Do-do-do♪⁽⁴⁾
2. This is also known as "Failing/Being torn to shreds in Peer Review."
3. Such as the theory that Snow clearing patterns in cities are deliberately laid out to benefit men at the inconvenience of women. That theory was proven false, as changing a snow removal pattern to prioritize schools, markets, parks and residential areas over commercial areas brought a city to a grinding halt. It turns out that the 'business oriented' clearing pattern is the best for cities.⁽⁵⁾
4. If you have that song from the Muppet Show in your head now, raise your hand. If you saw that episode (which was the first ep broadcast) in its initial broadcast, lower your head and feel old.⁽⁶⁾
5. And the pattern grew organically; clearing Arterial roads first allows for the greatest initial benefit to all. The fact that most businesses that cater to the public set up their stores on Arterial roads is due to the nature of Arterial roads; they bear the majority of the traffic within a city, and more traffic means more potential customers.
6. Yes, my head is down too, and I feel VERY old at times.

Very nice! Science is always changing, while religion is fixed. If you believe in your God , then the truths better not change, because if they do, then how can you have faith?

Then do please try to make sense of the environmentalist religion supposedly based on science, but which as yet, remains totally unproved.

To the point where people are willing to die to defend it, I'd say yes.

However, it has one major difference from most religions: It freely and openly acknowledges when it is wrong, and makes changes to reflect the new discoveries that proved a previous part wrong. Most religions tend to claim that what is in their holy books to be the Absolute and Immutable Truth, and come of with various excuses, mental gymnastics, or pithy phrases, such as "...moves in mysterious ways," "grand divine plan," or "unknowable mind" when something written is found to contradict the Clearly Observed Facts, or when the book contradicts itself. To religions, their books are always True; they claim it is our understanding of the books that is flawed.

Oh my! You seem to know many things, so I'll ask you how many people have died defending a new scientific fact? At one time, you could lose your head if you said we weren't the center of the universe. How about the earth being round? How many people died because doctors didn't believe in those tiny things that made people sick and die ?

Maybe, but who changed their tune relatively quickly when bacteria were shown scientifically?

Looking at the history of man, you could say it happened relatively quickly, however it did take decades for the medical community to embrace sterilization. In those years, many people did die.

Maisma causes illness - 2nd century.

Germ Theory 1546

Bacteria discovered in 1676

Germ Theory expanded 1762

Study showed washing hands reduced deaths 1846

Pasteur Germ Theory 1864

Many doctors still believed in maisma until the late 1800's.

Typical ideologue comment on your part. Your comment:

"A statement like 'Christians only engage believers and never bother nonbelievers' isn't doing anyone much good, and has real potential to do harm."

My rebuttal: You totally did not quote my comment, and are therefore not allowed to use small quotes, by authority of the grammar Nazi.

When are you going to grow up. OR it would be just fine with me if you sit in the corner little boy, and suck your thumb, or some other

accoutrement.

.

I was paraphrasing and should have noted it as such.....but, you attribute grammar Nazi-ism soley to liberals, your apparent enemy. What are you doing over there?

.

Let'sLet's a dress your grievance. In what meaningful way(s) does my paraphrasing depart from what you wrote?

My paraphrasing: ' 'Christians only engage believers and never bother nonbelievers' '

Are you sure that came out right? Other than being ridiculously false, there is not much wrong with it. Of course, you are paraphrasing someone else, who should be held responsible for explaining it. But I'm just too lazy to backtrack.

Ah, yeah. There was more. Not sure why it was truncated.

It should have been:

'....

.I was paraphrasing and should have noted it as such.....but, you attribute grammar Nazi-ism soley to liberals, your apparent enemy. What are you doing over there?

.

Let's a dress your grievance. In what meaningful way(s) does my paraphrasing depart from what you wrote?

My paraphrasing: ' 'Christians only engage believers and never bother nonbelievers' '

Original statement I was paraphrasing:

'... The difference? With Christians, if the indigenous people do not accept Christ as their personal savior with remission of their sins in baptismal waters, then the missionaries do not keep pestering them all the time, and only take the ones who believe....'

.

I think the paraphrasing is decent and not unreasonable. Let me know where you think it goes astray.

Unfortunately, your paraphrasing of your original statement does suggest a shade of difference from your original statement.

Those who must deal in specifics, whether liberal, conservative or somewhere in between, are aware of such a difference without being a "grammar Nazi".

This is in essence the same as most of us calling a color tan or light brown, when an artist or anyone else who works with color will call it taupe.

(Daughter is a fine arts grad - I've been corrected may times)

Sure, a shade of difference. You say taupe, I say tan. Paraphrasing inevitably introduces some difference as it is not verbatim. The question should be is the same general assertion carried forward.

.

We can twist and turn over if the original intent was to make a statement solely about those people who travel to foreign countries and call themselves missionaries, or whether the original intent was to make a general statement about Christianity as opposed to Islam.

I can't speak with certainty about the original intent. I can speak with certainty about how it reads (granted, from my perspective): when read in context the statement is very clearly not about missionaries but about Christianity as opposed to Islam.

.

If James did not intend the statement to be about Christianity but merely about that very small subset of Christians that are missionaries, then I retract my statement, not because it is necessarily untrue, but because in that light the original statement becomes so narrow matter that much.

FYI, Christians are people who believe in Jesus Christ and who choose to be followers of the New Testament of The Bible.

It does not mean that we are missionaries - most of us aren't.

It does mean that we try our best to live by the guidelines and rules set in The Bible.

One thing that we are (or we try very hard to be) is forgiving. God sent His son to Earth, so that we would be forgiven for our sins. On the night before His death, Jesus knew what the next day would bring. God gave Him the strength. Jesus endured this for us.

If you're not a believer, I only ask that you do some research on what happened to Jesus on the day of his crucifixion. Research what a crown of thorns feels like (there are medical reports on what happens to our body when in that much pain). Or research how they crucified people. Where the "nails" go and what it does to your body. Then ask yourself how much you would need to love someone to go through that much pain and torture. That's how much God loves us and it's a shame for people to shun Him. But He did give us free will.

Think about it.

You do seem to have yourself convinced. Good luck with it. Stop pestering those of us who will never accept your version of religion. Stop pushing it on us.

This is harassment in a form of its own.

Redefining terms like 'religion' to encompass the understanding of those who do not believe does not do anything to make actual religion more believable/sound/helpful.

Moreover, religion can never escape it foundation of illogic/unreason. The problems in the structural stories aren't just oversights or screwups. Those problems are a sine qua non of religion. Without the problems, the stories would just be considered history or historical tales. Without asking people to attest to belief in unreasonable things, it wouldn't be religion, because it would just be reasonable things people think happened. There would be no way to tell who was in the club....who was willing to alter their reality for acceptance into the group.

The point being, you can work your way out of the complex fallacies constructef in your mind with dilligence and reason; but there will be consequences. You might find yourself agreeing with me more often. You will likely lose your religion, at least any belief that the fairy tales are literally true.

One word: faith.

Without faith, it is impossible to please God.

You are illogical, rambling, and annoying.

Leave me the <expletive deleted> alone.

You sound like a prime example of a Devil's Advocate. I've never understood the principle of arguing for the sake of it, although my wife does it all the time. In her case it's a way of trying to be "in charge."

I would refer you to Monty Python's Argument Clinic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

But who gets to be the fair cop today?

You haven't watched enough Python yet, my friend, you're still misunderstanding some bits.

The "fair cop" isn't a person, it's an event.

The word 'cop' in "It's a fair cop," means 'catch/apprehend/arrest.' To translate it from British into American, "It's a fair cop" means "You got me." It's a statement of agreement with the accusation, and a claim that the speaker is not going to resist arrest. It may or may not count as a confession, depending on the court.

It's also used as a way to agree or acquiesce to a verdict, as shown in the closing scene of the witch trial from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The accused witch is sitting in a cage on a balance scale, which has a duck in the other cage, and the scales are balanced. As the knights ride off to the next scene, she looks at the camera, shrugs and says "It's a fair cop."

Faith.

Faith that God has a purpose for us.

Faith that God will protect us.

Faith that God will allow us to have a bountiful life.

Faith that we will be forgiven for our sins.

Faith that there is a heaven.

Faith that God wants us all to be by his side.

Faith!

Keep an open mind. God loves you.

Wow, I hope you're not serious about this.

A) I think most received my message, but for you, I'll spell it out more clearly. Christians believe in both the Old and New Testament of the Bible. The traditional Jews believe in only the Old Testament. There are Jewish Christians - I'm not a religious expert, but it exists.

B) I was making a statement about what most Christians are. Sure, some are missionaries, but to group the Christian people in general as missionaries, you are wrong.

C) The idea of Christianity is to have God in your heart. We do try our best, but we're human, just like you. Did I include the word "always" or is that something you felt were necessary to prove your argument? Remember that one who argues from an extreme (using the word always is a dead giveaway) only does so, because their point is weak and they need to exaggerate to make is seem viable.

D) You brought this one up, so I'll discuss it here. Those who die being born have no sin and therefore will be with the Father.

E) Please read my statement. Jesus was not concerned about death. It was the manner in which he would die. It seems like you spent a lot of time coming up with rebuttals to my comments. I only ask that you read this modern day medical assessment of what Jesus went through. After reading it, ask yourself what you would do if you knew that tomorrow, you would be beaten and tortured like He was. http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=145

F) If you read the article I attached just above, we don't need to go any further.

You have the right to choose your own religious belief, or in your case, you choose to be an athiest. I don't know who hurt you so badly as a child, but I feel sorry for you and I do hope you find peace in your soul and someday find something greater to believe in. Think about it; It sure would be sad for our entire being to be limited to our time here on earth, wouldn't it?

"It sure would be sad for our entire being to be limited to our time here on earth, wouldn't it?"

I'm afraid you nailed it right there for me: to those of us who don't believe, the faith of those of you who do seems to be entirely based on some kind of wishful thinking.

'...A) I think most received my message, but for you, I'll spell it out more clearly. Christians believe in both the Old and New Testament of the Bible. The traditional Jews believe in only the Old Testament. There are Jewish Christians - I'm not a religious expert, but it exists.....'

You missed the point of my inquiry. Most Christians do not even pretend to live by everything proscribed in the New Testament, much less the New and Old Testment. The reason that it is important is it clearly demonstrates that morals do not come from the book, since morals are used in picking out which parts of the book to ignore. If there are intelligent aliens, I am sure they would have no problem seeing this.

.

'....B) I was making a statement about what most Christians are. Sure, some are missionaries, but to group the Christian people in general as missionaries, you are wrong. ....'

You may make all the statements you like. My comment originally was not about your statement. I have already explained the relation to the original statement. I think the original statement had broader implications. You should read it. I doubt intelligent aliens would have so much trouble with this point.

.

'....C) The idea of Christianity is to have God in your heart. We do try our best, but we're human, just like you. Did I include the word "always" or is that something you felt were necessary to prove your argument? Remember that one who argues from an extreme (using the word always is a dead giveaway) only does so, because their point is weak and they need to exaggerate to make is seem viable....'

Let's go with your 'God in your heart' premise. Why? ...and why that God? There are plenty of examples that show that God to be a very poor model for decent behavior. Why have something that vengeful and jealous in your heart?

.

'....D) You brought this one up, so I'll discuss it here. Those who die being born have no sin and therefore will be with the Father.....'

That would directly contradict the claims about original sin. I know it seems like he right thing, but it isn't consistent.

.

'....E) Please read my statement. Jesus was not concerned about death. It was the manner in which he would die. It seems like you spent a lot of time coming up with rebuttals to my comments. I only ask that you read this modern day medical assessment of what Jesus went through. After reading it, ask yourself what you would do if you knew that tomorrow, you would be beaten and tortured like He was. http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=145....'

Like I said, you eem to suggest his death was the worst possible. Even if that were true, what does it say about all the other people who have been crucified? Not really that special.

.

'....F) If you read the article I attached just above, we don't need to go any further.....'

We didn't need to come this far. It is all voluntary. It is no bother for me to point out the obvious inconsistencies and misalignment. You are certainly under no obligation to even read my comments.

.

'....You have the right to choose your own religious belief, or in your case, you choose to be an athiest. I don't know who hurt you so badly as a child, but I feel sorry for you and I do hope you find peace in your soul and someday find something greater to believe in.....'

No need to feel sorry for me. There are ups and downs but overall I enjoy my existence to a great degree. It would be extremely rude and ignorant to disavow how amazing it is to be me, here and now. I am so fortunate is so many ways.

You concern over some imagined great injury or me during my childhood is misplaced. Like most growing up, I experienced my share of disappointment, but nothing excessive and nothing that could compete with the joy I experienced the other times.

The statements I have made are not intended to hurt you. I have pointed out some facts that are meant to suggest religious organizations (Christian and otherwise) do a lot of harm and that they may have a negative net influence on the world.

.

.

'.... Think about it; It sure would be sad for our entire being to be limited to our time here on earth, wouldn't it? ...'

No! No! A thousand times, No! That is exactly the point!

How sad it would be to have such a sense of entitlement to miss incredible fortune of being part of his world. How utterly misguided it would be to diminish at all the appreciation of this actual reality because you have swallowed a fairy tale about some super duper extra special even better handle here place you go after you die.

There are no cities of pearl and gold in the sky. The miracle is this reality right now. Don't let omega poorly composed fantasy land distract you from one moment you get out experience this amazing reality.