# Bible Thumpers!



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

Gentlemen

How do you all feel about bible thumpers. Those, that hide, or use the bible. Either to justify their thoughts. Or to argue, sometimes valid discussion here? Where there is no recourse in their argument even. Such as the bible.
I am curious.
You gentlemen have a nice day


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The true ones are despicable. However, many who dislike Christianity use that term for almost any Christian.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

All I know is that there are two types of men, whoremongers and ho-mo-sex-u-als. LOL - you trying to start trouble Jimmy? - :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Bible*

Gentlemen

Not starting trouble, but I will give you a LOL. I can argue the bible gentlemen. I know it 
inside and out. 
25 years in the military, we learn our history, and the bible.
I just dont think falling on the bible, is a valid arguement
Give me answers, or science.
Nice day my friends


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Don't have many that would be called Bible thumpers in the Lutheran church...that would be too "showy". :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

People can believe or not believe as they wish. If someone belives the bible is literally true and wishes our laws to follow biblical law then there is no difference to me between them and the taliban in Afghanistan. People can belive in the bible literally all they want so long as it has no effect on me. Just call me an admirer of the Enlightenment - Age of Reason and all that. Freedom and independence so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

IMO, most bible thumpers are in dire need of a good thumping. 

This reminds me of one of my favorite movie quotes.

Max von Sydow in "Hanna and Her Sisters":

"But the worst are the fundamentalist preachers. Third grade con men telling the poor suckers that watch them that they speak with Jesus, and to please send in money. Money, money, money! If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in his name, he'd never stop throwing up."


----------



## TheWardrobeGirl (Mar 24, 2008)

Funny, I JUST had this conversation with someone...I don't have a problem with people that talk about it but TRULY live by it and treat people accordingly (I actually admire people like that)...but...I have a BIG problem with the people that stuff it down your face then act and treat other people in a completely different fashion...unfortunately, most that I know are the latter...

Kind of like the old saying about money...those that have the most, talk about it the least...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> All I know is that there are two types of men, whoremongers and ho-mo-sex-u-als. LOL - you trying to start trouble Jimmy? - :icon_smile_wink:


There is just so much I can do with this comment....

I am not a religious person in the least. People that use a religious text as authority do not get far with me, no matter what religion that text might belong to.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Just the other evening, I had a conversation with my wife where I tried to explain my belief that the Bible is a literay device used to explain very complex ideas of nature and faith to very primitive and uneducated people. Its a touchy subject for people here in the south.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*TMMKC*

I like that!

Those that favor TV. I really don't consider them religious. Especially those that have talked to God, or Jesus.
That is a sad situation in itself.
Nice day


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The bible is work of Mankind and God. Our involvement makes it empiricaly fallible, God's makes it divinely true. And thats the trick isn't it? You can take it as literal truth without question, or subsribe to Biblical Archaeology magazine etc and discover even greater truths and wisdom. The Red Sea didn't part for Moses. Moses took his people into the Reed Sea and safety. Pharoah had his panties in such a bunch he charged on in with his chariots and everybody drowned in a swamp. So that was one smart jew and you'd think today's Pharoahs would get a clue. Of course, the greater danger is Sola Scriptura, which leaves us with only the menu and the actual food getting cold in the kitchen. And you have to ask 'which Bible?' I use the Septuagint, the oldest known greek edition, greek being the world lingua of it's day for the Old testament, or Bible. I LOVE the Old King James version for it's literary beauty and my early instruction in the C of E with it. I cross reference a relatively new orthodox translation for the gospels. As to Bible thumpers? Oh Dear, talking to them is an exercise in frustration and I try not to. But I succumb when some bobblehead with a beautific smile asks " have you heard of Gee-A-zuzzz?" I'm like, duh, I'm 54 years old kid and stumbled through the later half of the 20th century and haven't an effing clue kid. So I reply " Jesus? are you trying to find more work for your landscaper? I'm already exploiting another illegal named Juan!" and they still ,more earnestly ( Oscar Wilde, Be Earnest) say "NO! have you been saved?" And I use a Orthodox reply " Why yes, I was saved 2000 years ago on a friday afternoon on a hill in Jeruselum." I know, it's not very Christian of me. But I invite them to Liturgy and they get all uptight like old Pharoah and talk about Roman Catholics being a false religion while giving the born again-born to lose finger to the sky ( not THAT finger) roman like salute and I cross myself wrong ( even the thumpers jump me for ging in the wrong direction, so they are watching.) So I just seek refuge in the sanctuary of my car, slip a CD of Canticles of Ecstacy by that feisty Mother Superior Hildegaard Von Bingen, drive off with my small russian Ikon giving me a look for not doing better.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen
> 
> How do you all feel about bible thumpers. Those, that hide, or use the bible. Either to justify their thoughts. Or to argue, sometimes valid discussion here? Where there is no recourse in their argument even. Such as the bible.
> 
> ...


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> Don't have many that would be called Bible thumpers in the Lutheran church...that would be too "showy". :icon_smile_wink:


The showy ones among us drink French Roast instead of weak Folgers, put dried onions on the tuna hot dish instead of crushed potato chips, and have the nerve to take an extra lemon bar at the church social.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

TMMKC said:


> The showy ones among us drink French Roast instead of weak Folgers, put dried onions on the tuna hot dish instead of crushed potato chips, and have the nerve to take an extra lemon bar at the church social.


We joke about the tuna hot dish with peas added as being fancy.

We had a potluck a few weeks ago for our new asst. pastor, and the pastor joked that those bringing food should try to be a little more creative than multi colored Jello. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I never could warm up ( literaly) to Lutheranism. I mean, do you guys set the thermostats low on purpose, or is it those stonefaced seniors who thought my tie was to flamboyant and gave me looks like Field Marshal Von Rundstedt?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Are those tuna hotdishes actually edible? What we call tuna casserole in Michigan was awful!!! EGAD - not at all godly!


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Are those tuna hotdishes actually edible? What we call tuna casserole in Michigan was awful!!! EGAD - not at all godly!


The reason they put masking tape on the underside of the dish with their name is that in case it is not edible, the maker has to take it back home. (I was raised Roman but married a Luthern - Wisconsin synod - jeeze)


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

Kav said:


> The bible is work of Mankind and God. Our involvement makes it empiricaly fallible, God's makes it divinely true.


+1000. The Bible is a collection of stories that teach you how to live well. It's full of historical inaccuracies and contradictions, which doesn't matter as the details of the stories don't matter, the morals do.

Studying the minutiae of the Bible to be a better Christian is, to me, like studying the owner's manual of your car to become a better driver. If you get something out of it, more power to you, but that's not the original purpose.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Best I can tell a 'Bible-thumper' is someone who actually believes the Bible and a 'fundamentalist' is someone who takes his religion more seriously than I do.


----------



## SuitUP (Feb 8, 2008)

I am a devout Christian, however I am not a fan of bible thumpers. What really gets me is that some times I'll be downtown and I'll see them and they will say something like "you need Jesus" or "save your soul become Christian" and I will thank them and tell them I am Christian. Yet they totally ignore what I just said and then going on trying to get me to go to their church or take literature. Its like unless I am like them or go to their church they don't consider me Christian.

At the same time I hate when people who don't believe in the bible pick pieces ofit to prove a point. The bible is to be take as a whole, you are not supposed to take pieces that you like or fit your needs and leave the parts you don't like by the wayside. That is how groups like that polygamy band start.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Relayer*

Relayer

The bible, is not a blueprint on how to lead a "Proper life"
Find another argument to support what is a proper life, and on how to lead this.
Something scientific.Or another book. The bible does not cut it.
I refer you simply to one of Robert Fulgrams books, instead of the bible.
A "better argument".I just do not believe this argument.
And I disagree with that comment. I know of better books to refer people to.

Nice day


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I had to rent a car a few months ago. It was a Dodge. I was struck first by how so different it was from my 1966 built 383, 300 in silver yet so maddening familiar in dowdyness to the last Chrysler I rode in the late 70s. I was sitting in the market parking lot for 50 minutes while my mom went shopping for the same 5 minutes of stuff she always buys . I was trying to find the location for the gas filler neck release. 80 pages of stuff about electronic gizmos before I found a diagram showing the location and the instructions " to access filler cap, open door." I confirmed my gasoline was totally accessable to anyone with 6' of gasoline credit card at 2 A.M. I got back in the car and started reading further. There, on another page was another diagram showing the filler neck on the other side of the car, and an arrow showing the release lever under the instrument fascia.If I put more faith in that lousy Chrysler manual odds are I'd be dead in a wreck and going somewhere. I couldn't wait to ge my heathen, buddhist Toyota back from the shop!


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

I'm personally fond of Matthew 6 and Matthew 7. I love those writings.

I find it delightfully ironic that some of the most fundamental and "saved" Christians (i.e. bible-thumpers) violate almost every verse. :devil:


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

SuitUP said:


> At the same time I hate when people who don't believe in the bible pick pieces ofit to prove a point. The bible is to be take as a whole, you are not supposed to take pieces that you like or fit your needs and leave the parts you don't like by the wayside. That is how groups like that polygamy band start.


The books contained in the bible were agreed by a committee, the Council of Nicea in 325. When you say that the bible should be taken as a whole, do you mean that the bits left out in 325 should be put back in?


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Kav said:


> I never could warm up ( literaly) to Lutheranism. I mean, do you guys set the thermostats low on purpose, or is it those stonefaced seniors who thought my tie was to flamboyant and gave me looks like Field Marshal Von Rundstedt?


It's the thermostats, because the stonefaced seniors are all severely near-sighted and haven't purchased new glasses in 25 years (it's that Lutheran thriftyness...and new glasses would be too garsh-darn showy).

The way we figure it, the cold will keep you awake during the more somber hymns...which is most of them.

They don't call us The Frozen Chosen for nothing, you know!:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

DukeGrad said:


> Relayer
> 
> The bible, is not a blueprint on how to lead a "Proper life"
> Find another argument to support what is a proper life, and on how to lead this.
> ...


Sorry, DukeGrad, but that is laughable.

Nice day.


----------



## Mark Anthony (Apr 2, 2007)

SuitUP said:


> I am a devout Christian, however I am not a fan of bible thumpers. What really gets me is that some times I'll be downtown and I'll see them and they will say something like "you need Jesus" or "save your soul become Christian" and I will thank them and tell them I am Christian. Yet they totally ignore what I just said and then going on trying to get me to go to their church or take literature. Its like unless I am like them or go to their church they don't consider me Christian.
> 
> At the same time I hate when people who don't believe in the bible pick pieces ofit to prove a point. The bible is to be take as a whole, you are not supposed to take pieces that you like or fit your needs and leave the parts you don't like by the wayside. That is how groups like that polygamy band start.


+1!!! Well said SuitUp.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> It's the thermostats, because the stonefaced seniors are all severely near-sighted and haven't purchased new glasses in 25 years (it's that Lutheran thriftyness...and new glasses would be too garsh-darn showy).
> 
> The way we figure it, the cold will keep you awake during the more somber hymns...which is most of them.
> 
> They don't call us The Frozen Chosen for nothing, you know!:icon_smile_big:


Uh oh. My pastor told me we Methodists were the Frozen Chosen a couple of weeks ago. Is it really the Lutherans?


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> I'm personally fond of Matthew 6 and Matthew 7. I love those writings.
> 
> I find it delightfully ironic that some of the most fundamental and "saved" Christians (i.e. bible-thumpers) violate almost every verse. :devil:


"Very good Annelle, spoken like a true smarta$$"


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Are those tuna hotdishes actually edible?


No, not really...but we figure the suffering we must endure by eating it puts us closer to God.

I'll let you in on a little Lutheran secret: In actuality, there are only six known tuna hot dishes (err...casseroles) in existence. We simply ship them off to each other's churches and re-heat them. The newest of the six dates back to 1971.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

TMMKC said:


> No, not really...but we figure the suffering we must endure by eating it puts us closer to God.
> 
> I'll let you in on a little Lutheran secret: In actuality, there are only six known tuna hot dishes (err...casseroles) in existence. We simply ship them off to each other's churches and re-heat them. The newest of the six dates back to 1971.:icon_smile_big:


:biggrin2: I've really been enjoying your Lutheranisms in this thread. Thank you! They remind me of why I really enjoy gentle humor, the kind that entertains everyone and injures no one. (Well, maybe in this case, if there is a Tuna Rights organization or Society for the Promotion of Tuna Hot Dishes you might be in for a little trouble. :icon_smile_wink: )

It also reminds me of why I like Garrison Keillor so much. Although I didn't grow up in Minnesota he did help me to understand why all the Lutherans in my home town drove Fords.

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

mpcsb said:


> "Very good Annelle, spoken like a true smarta$$"


I'm incorrigible and *Evil Incarnate®*. :devil:

:icon_smile_big:


----------



## SuitUP (Feb 8, 2008)

Pulledpork said:


> The books contained in the bible were agreed by a committee, the Council of Nicea in 325. When you say that the bible should be taken as a whole, do you mean that the bits left out in 325 should be put back in?


Ah, well I actually asked a similar question about 8 months back. Only mine was how can we fully trust a bible that the roman catholics put together. The answer was the bible is Gods will and God knew everything that was going to happen before it happened. So that whatever the council of Nicea took out and left in, it was God's will. In addition to that since the bible is God's work, his word shines thru no matter what. Makes a whole lot of sense, IMO.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

No, We are not using a Readers Digest condenced version. The biblical 'Apocrypha' are readily available, along with other inspirational lit like the Philokalia, Ladder of Divine ascent, Everything important I learned in Kindergarden and the Trinity Church 1984 Romanian Cookbook.Again, the Bible is a human construct under god's grace. I think one of my most pleasant hours was spent recently just down off the Camarillo Grade. This Van was having obvious control problems and I fell in behind with my emergency blinkers on. It was a van of the Gideons, and several boxes had come loose and shifted the wieght. I'm reboxing Gideon bibles destined for Motel 6 with a man out of some 1950s movie starring Burt Lancaster. He was wearing spectators! I had on Park Avenues and learned he was a native of Wisconsin. that was a lot more fun than trying to read the Baghavad Gita I bought from a Hare Khrishna outside a Kmart in 1970. Man, you ever try to read those various Sutras? War and Peace is a short story in comparison- So don't complain.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> I find it delightfully ironic that some of the most fundamental and "saved" Christians (i.e. bible-thumpers) violate almost every verse. :devil:


Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.


I admit to being *Evil Incarnate®* and a bad example of a Christian. So I am exempt. :devil:


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

SuitUP said:


> Ah, well I actually asked a similar question about 8 months back. Only mine was how can we fully trust a bible that the roman catholics put together. The answer was the bible is Gods will and God knew everything that was going to happen before it happened. So that whatever the council of Nicea took out and left in, it was God's will. In addition to that since the bible is God's work, his word shines thru no matter what. Makes a whole lot of sense, IMO.


I suppose that is one possiblilty, but in order to logically accept it one would first have to prove that God exists before we can start to make statements about his omnipotence and perfection of vision.

If one goes out on a limb and says that God does exist and this omnipotent being created man, then all of the other holy books must be equally as valid as there is just as much evidence to show that they are the work of God as the stuff agreed by the meeting he called in 325. I find this idea a bit baffling to be frank.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Roman Catholics did not assemble the bible. The still unified christian church did at the aforementioned 325 A.D Council of Nicea. Things got silly when the east and west split over the acendancy of Rome and the Fillioque. Then Martin Luther posted his well thought out grievances, Henry wanted a Divorce ( and a England free of papal interferance in state matters) and Martin invented the electric Guitar for evangelists. You see, this is the problem. Most Protestants are like a housewife after a bitter divorce, still angry with her ex. There was another church , a unified church before all this stupidity. And no, Orthodoxy doesn't claim it all, though we think a good portion is preserved. Personally, I think like my monk friend with the brothers of Saint John Of Shanghai. I called to order candles and he hung up on me. The goats were all giving birth that morning and he got called to help with a difficult one. " To everything a season" and all that. I wasn't offended .


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

Kav said:


> The biblical 'Apocrypha' are readily available, along with other inspirational lit like the Philokalia, Ladder of Divine ascent, Everything important I learned in Kindergarden and the Trinity Church 1984 Romanian Cookbook.Again, the Bible is a human construct under god's grace. I think one of my most pleasant hours was spent recently just down off the Camarillo Grade. This Van was having obvious control problems and I fell in behind with my emergency blinkers on. It was a van of the Gideons, and several boxes had come loose and shifted the wieght. I'm reboxing Gideon bibles destined for Motel 6 with a man out of some 1950s movie starring Burt Lancaster. He was wearing spectators! I had on Park Avenues and learned he was a native of Wisconsin. that was a lot more fun than trying to read the Baghavad Gita I bought from a Hare Khrishna outside a Kmart in 1970. Man, you ever try to read those various Sutras? War and Peace is a short story in comparison- So don't complain.


I approve of the spectators.


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

Kav said:


> Roman Catholics did not assemble the bible. The still unified christian church did at the aforementioned 325 A.D Council of Nicea. Things got silly when the east and west split over the acendancy of Rome and the Fillioque...


It got even sillier than that when there were three popes (Rome, Byzantium, and Avignon) all vying for position as the one appointed word of God on earth. I am amazed that Christianity survived this, as at the time I don't know how anyone managed to keep a straight face.


----------



## SuitUP (Feb 8, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.


There is also another versus about if you do judge then let the judger be judged by the same standard. Also somewhere its says that Christians should judge other Christians, how are we supposed to hold ourselves accountable otherwise? We are not supposed to judge non-Christians though because they don't live by the same rules as us.

Recently a group of friends asked me to talk with one of the group about her inappropriate clothing. I did, she acknowledged her mistake and promised to change and was happy I spoke to her. She did bring up that versus saying she hoped the rest were judged to the same standard as her. They knew I was the right man for the job, she couldn't comment on my clothes as I dress well. However, now I have to talk to the rest about dressing better, no more sweats and tshirts for the guys. :aportnoy:



Pulledpork said:


> I suppose that is one possiblilty, but in order to logically accept it one would first have to prove that God exists before we can start to make statements about his omnipotence and perfection of vision.
> 
> If one goes out on a limb and says that God does exist and this omnipotent being created man, then all of the other holy books must be equally as valid as there is just as much evidence to show that they are the work of God as the stuff agreed by the meeting he called in 325. I find this idea a bit baffling to be frank.


You make a good point. I think we will only know which is the truly right religion at the end of time. The ancient greeks, babylons, cananites and other thought theirs was the right God, however, where are they now? So in 2,000, 10,000 or 50,000 years which ever religion is still standing is the right one. Although it does console me that 6 out of the 8 G8 countries are dominately Christian.


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

SuitUP said:


> The ancient greeks, babylons, cananites and other thought theirs was the right God, however, where are they now? So in 2,000, 10,000 or 50,000 years which ever religion is still standing is the right one. Although it does console me that 6 out of the 8 G8 countries are dominately Christian.


They are all part of us as the shared history of humanity which is available to all who care to read about it. In fact if you are interested in the study of morality then I can heartilly recommend Aristotle, because it all starts there...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

No, moral study was first painted by animal fat lamps in Southern france by caribou hunters. All these idiot art history instructors who flippantly say it was 'hunting magic' never asked a paleolithic caribou hunter why they painted those animals, but I can assure you it was more than 'hunting magic' Hunting magic is rubbing Hoppes solvent on your Filson.


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

Kav said:


> Hunting magic is rubbing Hoppes solvent on your Filson.


Utter filth! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

TheWardrobeGirl said:


> Funny, I JUST had this conversation with someone...I don't have a problem with people that talk about it but TRULY live by it and treat people accordingly (I actually admire people like that)...but...I have a BIG problem with the people that stuff it down your face then act and treat other people in a completely different fashion...unfortunately, most that I know are the latter...
> 
> Kind of like the old saying about money...those that have the most, talk about it the least...


As a devout christian I totally agree with this comment.

On the points others have made about authority - everyone has an "authority" they live by, not just christians. Science, reason, personal experience, " what makes me happy" , "do anything as long as it doesn't hurt others" etc etc. Science and reason in particular as often seen as dependable unlike the bible. Many atheists have a fundamentalist adherance to science and reason. However may I remind such folk that science changes its mind completely about life the universe and everything every so often - Einstein throws Newtonian physics into question , String Theory is questioning much of Einsteins work and so on. And reason - what seems to be reasonable to one generation is unreasonable to another - take slavery for example. May I also say that science does not claim to offer a way of life or a moral compass. Neither does it claim to answer questions about God. Here in the UK a famous "TV scientist" claims it does but most scientists would shy away from the " God question".

The tests to put against the bible are the same tests we put against other claimed history - and when we do that the bible comes out rather well! I don't mean in a fundamentalist, literalist way - but in a way that makes it irrational to dismiss it as some are doing in this thread.

Like the Wardrobe Girl - it is disturbing when people who go on about their faith the most live by the teachings of Christ the least - how refreshing to meet christians who actually make an honest attempt to live by Christ's teachings - as WG says - these folks usually "bible bash" the least. I hope I can be one of them.


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

Leather man said:


> Many atheists have a fundamentalist adherance to science and reason. However may I remind such folk that science changes its mind completely about life the universe and everything every so often...


Science is self-policing in that it has the process of peer-review to keep it honest. That is one of the reasons why so many prefer a scientific world view over the idea of a deity moving mysteriously (his wonders to perform).

I question your use of the word "fundamentalist" as atheism is simply the absense of belief in a supreme being. As it isn't possible to prove a negative I personally would never make the assertion that God doesn't exist. What I can say though is that the existance of a Christian God is equally as unlikely as the Greek pantheon, the deification of the Roman emperors, or the validation of the John Frum Cargo Cult.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Well, the John Frum cult has a specific earthly beginning, as does buddhism and many other religions. You take the Chidren of Abraham; Jew,Christian and Moslem and we have to go waaaaay back to ,again, an earthly man. But here was this guy who talked to God while everyone else was constructing golden moocows in adobe temple taco bells so the Tigris and Euphrates wouldn't drown everybody. Talking to an invisible friend is cute when your a child. Do it when your supposed to be working to support the government and you get arrested. But Abraham's conversations apparently impressed enough people that these three expressions dominate the world. As a scientist, albiet social, I sometimes think about the eternity of time, unending dimension of the universe, if not pluraverses, the micro universe of the sub atomic realm that itself gets smaller than we can measure and wind up falling to the floor with the ceiling spinning around like I did as a child before that one peyote vision quest everybody condemns my thoughts with. Scientists don't ( as a rule) touch the GOD word because of the same peer pressure some christians use against the Evolution word. I just walked out to check my mail. 3 whole days and the Garuda Bird hasn't brought my Sam Hobers ties from Thailand yet. I know I should be patient, these things take time, but dammit it all even my romanian book of folklore and mythology and patriotic romanian songs CD hasn't come. My faith can be tested! But it was very hot, 3 digits and I raced back inside. There was something hanging on top a cinderblock fence piller by the pool. I looked closer and it was a tree squirrel, obviously also distressed by the heat just flopped there. I got a spray bottle, filled it bottled water ( $ 1.02 + CRV) and spritzed him down till he revived and hopped off. I just looked out my window. I have 20 squirrels genuflecting out there.


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

Kav said:


> Well, the John Frum cult has a specific earthly beginning, as does buddhism and many other religions. You take the Chidren of Abraham; Jew,Christian and Moslem and we have to go waaaaay back to ,again, an earthly man. But here was this guy who talked to God while everyone else was constructing golden moocows in adobe temple taco bells so the Tigris and Euphrates wouldn't drown everybody.


Well quite, but so much of the Christian mythology can also be traced back to earthly origins, vis: the Mesopotamian flood myths, the Hamurabi laws influencing Moses, etc. Much of the old testement is built on myths from older cultures and belief systems. It is up to the observer to determine whether or not this is a natural progression of events due to successive civilisations establishing themselves in the few areas of arable land in a large desert, or indeed one may choose to see it as a signature of God.



Kav said:


> ...I just walked out to check my mail. 3 whole days and the Garuda Bird hasn't brought my Sam Hobers ties from Thailand yet. I know I should be patient, these things take time, but dammit it all even my romanian book of folklore and mythology and patriotic romanian songs CD hasn't come....


Gah, I hate that. I have a 19th C. study of Dante and the Italian Renaissance written by The Prebendary Lonsdale Ragg (!) coming from Amazon UK, and it still isn't here...


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Pulledpork said:


> I question your use of the word "fundamentalist" as atheism is simply the absense of belief in a supreme being. As it isn't possible to prove a negative I personally would never make the assertion that God doesn't exist. *What I can say though is that the existance of a Christian God is equally as unlikely as the Greek pantheon, the deification of the Roman emperors, or the validation of the John Frum Cargo Cult*.


Would you call that your fundamental belief?


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Laether Man/Pulled Pork/KAV*

Gentlemen

Wow, you all are on fire today! Love your comments. KAV the funny thing here my friend. I understand you immensely. This scares me.

Relayer. I am sorry. Robert Fulgram. I threw at you to see what you had to say. I should have been more clear. My apologies.
I get more comfort out of his books, or another persons poem. Than I do from the bible.
I get more comfort out of music, classical, rock. What have you. If I need to read the bible, then I will. On my own time.
On the other hand, again, it is not the blueprint for how to live your life.Maybe your blueprint. But not "others."
That is wrong.

Nice day my friends


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

Mark from Plano said:


> Would you call that your fundamental belief?


No, I would call it a rational observation of history, and I am very open to any evidence that might convince me otherwise. I was born into a rather high Anglican family, and this is something I have thought a great deal about over the years. Sometimes, having a magic pixie to believe in would make the world a nicer place. :icon_smile_big:

Christianity has been successful in Europe and North America for provable historical reasons. If any of the Christians now reading this thread had been born in India to Hindu parents, they would probably be Hindus now rather than Christians. Had they been born in the Middle East to Muslim parents, they would probably be Muslims now instead of Christians. Some may wish to see the places and circumstances of their birth as a signature of God, and others may not.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

DukeGrad said:


> On the other hand, again, it is not the blueprint for how to live your life.Maybe your blueprint. But not "others."
> *That is wrong.*


It seems you've made a moral judgment, doc. Did you learn that in kindergarten?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I never liked that word, fundamentalist once I learned an application for the root word fundament.


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

DukeGrad said:


> Wow, you all are on fire today!...


Thanks that's kind of you to say. If the Christians are right though, it is only a matter of time before I really am on fire. :icon_smile:


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

Kav said:


> ....a friday afternoon....


A dubious, debatable tradition.

Some make a good case for Wednesday crucifixion. www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was-jesus-in-the-grave-for-three-days-and-nights.html

Other explanations have crucifixion on Thursday. www.thebereancall.org/node/5889

Most unlikely on Friday.

There are a variety of computer calculations for the specific calendar date of crucifixion that are confusing.

In any case, it was the day before Jewish Passover, a conflict with the traditional "Easter" dates established by RC that're all over the calendar. (The term "Easter" is another subject in its own right.)

Not going to debate. It's a complex subject, and Friday is by no means a consensus of those Christians who are skeptical of a significant amount of post-apostolic, pagan-influenced institutionalized Christian tradition; RC, Orthodox & Protestant.

(The date, repeat date, December 25 is apparently a complete fabrication in an effort by the Roman state church to assimilate Winter solstice oriented pagans. Jesus' birth was more likely sometime in the Spring through Autumn.)

So, a believer in Christ, commanded to proclaim The Gospel, is to be denounced as a Bible Thumper by those involved in a quiet, subdued, social (apostate?) Sunday morning churchianity as well as by skeptics? Welcome to the post Judeo-Christian influenced USA of your local evening news and urinal-humored prime time network sit-coms.

Messiah Y'hoshua offends the reprobate mind, no matter abundantly acronym-ed surname suffixes. Always has. Always will. Argumentation's futile. Dust off feet and move on. Ain't Oxford Union.

That line in a previous post about peer review keeping scientific-ism honest, ROTFLMG-M/M/MO!

(In no way a defense of the charlatans on T--.)

Nap Time


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

jamgood said:


> ...That line in a previous post about peer review keeping scientific-ism honest, ROTFLMG-M/M/MO!...


What I said is that the peer review process helps to keep science honest. I have never heard the term "scientific-ism" before. Care to expand?


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

Pulledpork said:


> What I said is that the peer review process helps to keep science honest. I have never heard the term "scientific-ism" before. Care to expand?


Coined by a turf accountant....


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I foolishly took an elective class in Union History. The instructor was this unreconstructed Jack London socialist who found a safe harbour from the real world in academia. He spoke dates and names with the studied reverence of a monk reciting holy texts. I swear I saw tears half spilled from his eyelids. Last day of class this girl raises her hand. "Uh, prof X, you never told us, what was this all about? I got the Haymarket bombing date and 4 out of 8 codefendants right on his final exam. He assigned me a C. I went to his office, flashed my Merchant Seaman's Union card and negtotiated an A in the spirit of London. Dates, who cares? It's the story.


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

jamgood said:


> Coined by a turf accountant....


Well, not even Waugh was perfect. Close, but not perfect. 

Do you think his tailor actually let him walk out of the shop dressed like that?


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

What is Duke Grad's shtick?
Snow falling happy. Water.
His writing. Awkward.

But we still respond.
I am the stallion, man. Spring.
Could it be haiku?

:crazy:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Sits opposite Apthorpe and crosses legs in Lotus position ( damn I hate aging) rolls up sleeve from my Soto Zen days robe ( after I got tossed out of the Rinzai Temple.) Slaps Apthorpe with one hand ( why I got tossed out) stands up, bows and walks away. Mixing OM Mane Padme Hums with Kyrie Elyasums in a thread is like serving California Roll sushi with that Lutheran Tuna casserole.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Pulledpork said:


> Science is self-policing in that it has the process of peer-review to keep it honest. That is one of the reasons why so many prefer a scientific world view over the idea of a deity moving mysteriously (his wonders to perform).
> 
> I question your use of the word "fundamentalist" as atheism is simply the absense of belief in a supreme being. As it isn't possible to prove a negative I personally would never make the assertion that God doesn't exist. What I can say though is that the existance of a Christian God is equally as unlikely as the Greek pantheon, the deification of the Roman emperors, or the validation of the John Frum Cargo Cult.


Science claims to be self policing but you talk to the philosophy of science people and you get a different take - what kind of policing is it when there is an orthodoxy in science that cannot be questioned ( in contradiction of the scientific method)? Believers policing same believers? This is why scientists who come forward with theories that turn out to be as true as anything can be are often not "peer reviewed" but ridiculed and put down. Only when they persist and refuse to lie down do they win through - and its not through the peer review process I can tell you! Peer reviewing works most of the time but not when orthodoxy is questioned.

I differ with you on your assessment of atheism. Atheism is indeed a faith position. As one of my old Chemistry lecturers used to say to me " you have your faith in God and I have my faith too" As you say, one cannot prove a negative, nor can one disprove the existence of God therefore to state that there is no God is also a statement of faith.

And indeed you cannot say that the existence of God is as unlikely as the existence of the Greek pantheon. Simply because no one can make that statement with the certainty you make it. The reason why I say atheism or perhaps less likely agnosticism can be fundamentalist is precisely because of these absolute certainties with which some non believers speak.

If you are going to not only question but also ridicule the certainty of religious believers then please also question your own certainties and statements of faith.

Finally, if it were so obvious that the Bible is total unbelievable and faith in God is obviously not for grown up 21stC people who have any sense, then why are a large minority of university level scientists christians? Perhaps not chrisitians in the sense of being raving fundamentalists , thank God :icon_smile_wink:, but genuine devout Christians?

I think we would all be better people for questioning our certainties, and yes, we all have them , including our non-believing friends. Only then might we have a meaningful dialogue.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Alan C*

Gentlemen

AlanC I disagree with you my friend.I just disagree with the term blueprint. I also disagree with someone who believes in this model, to direct this towards another.
In discussing sex, color, and even religion.
I know where my guides are. And I go to them. I don't tell others to do this as well.
Feel free to use this guide, if they want to.
I have no qualms with this. 
Anyway gentlemen, thanks for the input. I am going to my church right now!

The gym,
Nice day gentlemen


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen
> 
> AlanC I disagree with you my friend.I just disagree with the term blueprint. I also disagree with someone who believes in this model, to direct this towards another.
> In discussing sex, color, and even religion.
> ...


Are you sure it is a church?


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

SuitUP said:


> Ah, well I actually asked a similar question about 8 months back. Only mine was how can we fully trust a bible that the roman catholics put together. The answer was the bible is Gods will and God knew everything that was going to happen before it happened. So that whatever the council of Nicea took out and left in, it was God's will. In addition to that since the bible is God's work, his word shines thru no matter what. Makes a whole lot of sense, IMO.


But not all bibles are exactly the same. Which religion has the "correct" bible, and if only one is "correct", are the rest written by the devil or man? If the bible is the word of God, why does it contradict itself many times? The people who wrote the King James version decided that we only needed the words in their version of the bible and any other words were not acceptable to God. Did God tell them this, or did they make it up? What about other languages?

What a deal. According to your theory, I can rewrite the bible any way I want to because whatever I write is God's will, even if I dictate from behind a curtain from a secret book that no one else but I can see.

Were the various and incorrect translations from ancient greek and other languages God's will? Which ones are right? All of them? After all, God's will will shine through.

The bible has some interesting things in it and may contain a lot of good, but it has also been so warped by people that it can be very hard to find the truth and good in it.

Just don't get me started on the "science" of creationism!!

Sorry to be sarcastic.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Pulledpork said:


> It got even sillier than that when there were three popes (Rome, Byzantium, and Avignon) all vying for position as the one appointed word of God on earth. I am amazed that Christianity survived this, as at the time I don't know how anyone managed to keep a straight face.


Kind of like the Russians under Ivan the Terrible killing each other over whether you should cross yourself with three or four (or is it two or three, I can't remember, I should be killed) fingers! Pretty Bizzare how all of these Christians following God's will depending on how they read the bible killing people who read it differently!


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

jamgood said:


> So, a believer in Christ, commanded to proclaim The Gospel, is to be denounced as a Bible Thumper by those involved in a quiet, subdued, social (apostate?) Sunday morning churchianity as well as by skeptics? Welcome to the post Judeo-Christian influenced USA of your local evening news and urinal-humored prime time network sit-coms.
> 
> Messiah Y'hoshua offends the reprobate mind, no matter abundantly acronym-ed surname suffixes. Always has. Always will. Argumentation's futile. Dust off feet and move on. Ain't Oxford Union.


Jesus said to go make disciples of all nations. However, given his gentle and loving approach, I'm sure he did not mean to be obnoxious, get in peoples' faces and piss them off. The problem with too many Christians is that they feel it is their duty and obligation to latch onto a "sinner" and "unsaved" person like a skin fungus, and point out every blemish, pimple and "sin". Jesus also taught to lead by example.

What they don't realize is that, in the US at least, their rights to religious freedom and expression cease when they infringe on my rights to be left alone. So to that end, if they get their lights punched out for being forceful and dogged in their proclamation of the Good News, I have no pity for them. Rather I pity the the poor bastard being brought up on assault charges, since that is sometimes the only way to get a bible-thumper out of your face.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Jesus said to go make disciples of all nations. However, given his gentle and loving approach, I'm sure he did not mean to be obnoxious, get in peoples' faces and piss them off. The problem with too many Christians is that they feel it is their duty and obligation to latch onto a "sinner" and "unsaved" person like a skin fungus, and point out every blemish, pimple and "sin". Jesus also taught to lead by example.
> 
> What they don't realize is that, in the US at least, their rights to religious freedom and expression cease when they infringe on my rights to be left alone. So to that end, if they get their lights punched out for being forceful and dogged in their proclamation of the Good News, I have no pity for them. Rather I pity the the poor bastard being brought up on assault charges, since that is sometimes the only way to get a bible-thumper out of your face.


You take that back or you gonna burn - :devil:


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

mpcsb said:


> People can believe or not believe as they wish. If someone belives the bible is literally true and wishes our laws to follow biblical law then there is no difference to me between them and the taliban in Afghanistan. People can belive in the bible literally all they want so long as it has no effect on me. Just call me an admirer of the Enlightenment - Age of Reason and all that. Freedom and independence so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.


I think people should conduct their own lives according to their beliefs and back off on everyone else. They would do more good by setting an example by their actions.

Faith/adherence should be personal, not political.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

mpcsb said:


> You take that back or you gonna burn - :devil:


Make me!


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Make me!


Time for whips and handcuffs - :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

*Promises promises!*

But I think an appropriate punishment is having the crap kicked out of me by the Mighty Thor.

:icon_smile_big:


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> But I think an appropriate punishment is having the crap kicked out of me by the Mighty Thor.
> 
> :icon_smile_big:


The guy gets a day of the week named after him and everybody thinks he's a god - sheeze.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

mpcsb said:


> The guy gets a day of the week named after him and everybody thinks he's a god - sheeze.


Forget having a day to make him a god... look at the muscles and blond hair! And the way he swings that hammer... oh I am getting the vapours. 

Thor, the Viking God of Thunder, and his pal Odin were up in Valhalla, when suddenly Thor said to Odin, "It's been a long time now. I really need to have sex."

Odin stood and pondered for a while, before replying, "Go to Earth, O Thor, and find thyself what they call a 'lady of joy' and treat her to your manly pleasures."

And this Thor did. The next day, he came back up to see Odin, and told him of the previous night's events. "My friend," he said, grinning from ear to ear, "It was wonderful. We had passionate sex 37 times.."

"37 times!" exclaimed Odin. "That poor woman! Mere mortals cannot endure such treatment. You must go and apologize this instant!"

So Thor went back down to earth and found the aforementioned prostitute, saying. "I regret being rough and demanding too much of you, but I'm Thor..."

"You're Thor?" shouted the girl. "You're Thor? What about me? I'm tho thor I can't thpeak and can hardly pith!"


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

DukeGrad said:


> I know where my guides are. And I go to them. I don't tell others to do this as well.


Yet that's exactly what you've been doing the entire thread, telling people where not to go and what is better.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Are those tuna hotdishes actually edible? What we call tuna casserole in Michigan was awful!!! EGAD - not at all godly!





mpcsb said:


> The reason they put masking tape on the underside of the dish with their name is that in case it is not edible, the maker has to take it back home. (I was raised Roman but married a Luthern - Wisconsin synod - jeeze)


The reason I put masking tape on the underside of the dish, with the wife's tuna caserole, was to write someone else's name on the tape...and deflect the blame!

Now as to how I like Bible Thumpers; actually quite well, as long as they are properly seasoned, slow cooked and kosher, of course!


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

Leather man said:


> Science claims to be self policing but you talk to the philosophy of science people and you get a different take - what kind of policing is it when there is an orthodoxy in science that cannot be questioned ( in contradiction of the scientific method)? Believers policing same believers? This is why scientists who come forward with theories that turn out to be as true as anything can be are often not "peer reviewed" but ridiculed and put down. Only when they persist and refuse to lie down do they win through - and its not through the peer review process I can tell you! Peer reviewing works most of the time but not when orthodoxy is questioned.


I think we actually agree here, the point is that the peer review process does work, and if enough people persist in questioning what you call a scientific orthodoxy, rationality wins through and the most provable scenario then becomes accepted. The history of science is filled with examples of this sort of thing happening. Unfortunately the history of organized religion is far less rational.



Leather man said:


> I differ with you on your assessment of atheism. Atheism is indeed a faith position. As one of my old Chemistry lecturers used to say to me " you have your faith in God and I have my faith too" As you say, one cannot prove a negative, nor can one disprove the existence of God therefore to state that there is no God is also a statement of faith.


As I said earlier, I am not an atheist. I am just as agnostic about the Christian God as I am about all the other unprovable deities and creatures. Should the heavens open one day and the rapture happen, then I would certainly be prepared to rethink things. You seem to think that atheism is a faith based position because it rejects utterly the unprovable. Do you see the circular argument there?



Leather man said:


> And indeed you cannot say that the existence of God is as unlikely as the existence of the Greek pantheon. Simply because no one can make that statement with the certainty you make it. The reason why I say atheism or perhaps less likely agnosticism can be fundamentalist is precisely because of these absolute certainties with which some non believers speak.


I can most certainly say that, as to date no one has proved the existance of any of these deities. This is how it works you see - first the existance of the the thing in question has to be proved, and once that is accomplished then we can then go on to discuss whatever magic powers it might have, how merciful (or not) it might be, and whether or not it favours the pratt knott over the half-windsor. I am also agnostic about the existance of unicorns, but if any empirical evidence ever came to light that one ever existed, then I would have to revise my position. This seems to me to be the only reasnable way to go through life. How can you be so very sure that the Christian god exists but the Greek pantheon doesn't? The only reason why one would accept the existance of one unprovable creature over any other is down to cultural conditioning - one is born at a certain pont in history into a certain culture, and because of this when looking for answers to the difficult questions some choose to accept the God of their culture. What genuinely interests me is why some humans regardless of their culture are wired in this way. I think the phenomenon should be studied so that we can learn more about it.



Leather man said:


> If you are going to not only question but also ridicule the certainty of religious believers then please also question your own certainties and statements of faith.


My point above about agnosticism vs atheism. Is your faith so shaky that my simple rational argument is construed as ridicule?



Leather man said:


> Finally, if it were so obvious that the Bible is total unbelievable and faith in God is obviously not for grown up 21stC people who have any sense, then why are a large minority of university level scientists christians? Perhaps not chrisitians in the sense of being raving fundamentalists , thank God :icon_smile_wink:, but genuine devout Christians?


My point above concerning the need to study why some humans need religious faith. I honestly find it utterly baffling why these scientists should chose to accept Christianity into their lives, but I think it is in our interest to understand more about why people feel the need to make those sorts of decisions.


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

Pulledpork said:


> As I said earlier, I am not an atheist. I am just as agnostic about the Christian God as I am about all the other unprovable deities and creatures.


Like beauty?


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

Yes, I do.


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

MichaelS said:


> ...The people who wrote the King James version decided that we only needed the words in their version of the bible and any other words were not acceptable to God. Did God tell them this, or did they make it up? What about other languages?...


I have no idea if God had any influence over the writing of the KJB, but I am a great admirer of Thomas Cranmer. I can appreciate greatly the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a work of great poetry, and so much of the phrasing in it has entered the English language because of it's beauty and resonance.

I think it is sad that the 1662 BOCP has been systematically phased out because it is considered difficult to understand or even elitist. The English language will be much poorer without it.


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

Pulledpork said:


> Yes, I do.


It might be more consistent to question its existence. But what do I know.


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

Apthorpe said:


> It might be more consistent to question its existence. But what do I know.


I am sorry, I don't really understand what point you are trying to make. I am probably being a bit thick here, it does happen from time to time. :icon_smile:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

mpcsb said:


> Time for whips and handcuffs - :icon_smile_wink:
> 
> __________________
> Friend of Dorothy


Looking your statement of whips and handcuffs, while Dorothy maybe your friend, are you her friend?


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Pulled Pork , thank you for your reply. I still say you cannot say *with certainty *that the existence of God as the Judeo-Christian tradition understands God is as unlikely as the existence of the Greek pantheon - or of course the germanic pantheon - some mentioned above.

You may *believe* such a deity is as unlikely but not say so with *certainty*. Indeed thoughtful and intelligent people have considered the very question - "if I don't believe in the old European pantheons of gods why should I believe in one God" Many books are written addressing this and intelligent people have explained how they came to believe in God as Christianity understands God to be. Thus such ideas are worked out over the millenia of the existance of Judeo-Christian understanding.

I do appreciate your own position - that you are an agnostic - although to state that in the same way you are agnostic about Unicorns does imply that really you don't believe in God as opposed to be in a state of "unknowing "- or agnosticim - however you are willing to be proved wrong , even though you cannot imagine that eventuality. I was merely attempting to point out that atheism is itself a faith position - this is not a circular argument but an obvious fact really. After all if it is a matter of faith to believe in a being whose existence cannot be proved, then it is also a matter of faith to disbelieve a being whose lack of existence cannot be proved.

It is for this very reason that people who do believe, come to believe in God via very different routes.

The scientific method, whilst wonderful in helping us to understand the universe we live in - as far as we do at the moment - cannot tell us anything about the existence or otherwise of a diety - or a "prime cause". Why? Because it is precisely the wrong tool. Equally the scientific method cannot tell us anything about history - why? Because it is the wrong tool - you need the tools of historical analysis to tell you about history. Much of the Bible falls into this category. You cannot prove for example that Henry VIII existed scientifically. You cannot prove there was ever a President called Abraham Lincoln. All the documents could be fabricated - perhaps in the first case to give England a great king at a time when she needed one and in the second case to validate modern American history . Of course thats not what I think , but these are the very same arguments determined unbelievers come to the Bible with.

You don't need to be a six day creationist to be a christian or to believe in the bible - this is an aunt sally often deployed by atheists; and several well known intellects have sought to disprove the life and miracles , not least the ressurection of Jesus of Nazareth and ended up becoming believers themselves. I respect your right to be agnostic but please see that believers do not believe because they close their eyes and wish for fairies! Believers come to their faith position through rational means - using reason, intellect ,and logic - though I agree in the end to say " I believe in Jesus Christ" requires a move on from studying the evidence to faith and trust - as indeed does atheism.

Anyway - this thread was about Bible bashers!! - It hard to know what the OP is saying - is he calling all committed christians " bible bashers" or just the "in your face" type? My bible says " be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is within you." It doesn't say "force people to listen to you!" On the one hand we all share our ideas - all of us - nothing wrong with that - on the other we need to be respectful of others and know when to shut up! That includes friends who are "preachy atheists!"


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)




----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

Leather man said:


> I do appreciate your own position - that you are an agnostic - although to state that in the same way you are agnostic about Unicorns does imply that really you don't believe in God as opposed to be in a state of "unknowing "- or agnosticim - however you are willing to be proved wrong , even though you cannot imagine that eventuality. I was merely attempting to point out that atheism is itself a faith position - this is not a circular argument but an obvious fact really. After all if it is a matter of faith to believe in a being whose existence cannot be proved, then it is also a matter of faith to disbelieve a being whose lack of existence cannot be proved.


Yes, I of course am prepared to be proved wrong. I do think the existance of any deity is very very unlikely, and I would find it very difficult to imagine being proved wrong.

I can't agree with your assesment of atheism as a faith based position though as your point is an example of a logical falacy called shifting the burden of proof. This fallacy is defined as being the assumption that something is true until it is proven otherwise. The burden of proof always falls on the person making the assertion, and saying that something is so does not necessarily make it so. If you are saying that to employ the tools of logic to underpin a discussion is to base every assertion on belief, then that is a completely different discussion.

I really dont want to become tiresome about this subject, so I think I will shut up about it now. :icon_smile:


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Bible Thumpers*

Wow Gentlemen,

We got some serious Christian, or bible thumper issues. Sorry, been getting ready for a party.
Alan C my friend, am not trying to tell others what to do, or read. I am not a Christian.
I am asking how people feel about Bible Thumpers. Asking how they feel when they try to shove religion down their throats. As a defense, or whatever.Asking if it is right, to use the bible to discuss these issues we have been discussing.I have been clear about my feelings. I do not like someone selling me Jesus, or God. I know, all I need to know.
That is all. I am forthright about my feelings. I do not like this happening to me.

I have only been nauseated by bible thumpers in my past. More so, than anything we discuss here. 
Again, blacks, gays, lesbians. There seems to me a negative attitude to these people. Humans my friend. And it appears to come from someone, with a bible in their hand.
This is all I have for you my friend. If I was not clear. I am sorry. Other things to do.

Like drink!

Nice day my friends


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Leather Man*

My question was about the throw it in your face type. Especially sometimes here on the forum

Nice day my friend


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

DukeGrad said:


> My question was about the throw it in your face type. Especially sometimes here on the forum
> 
> Nice day my friend


I did have to share a hotel room with a Mormon at a company event once many years ago. I shut "the" conversation down when I told him I was an orthodox druid. None of that fake virgin's blood for me!


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Pulled Pork*

Orthodox Druid!
LOL
Love it

Nice day


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

DukeGrad said:


> My question was about the throw it in your face type. Especially sometimes here on the forum
> 
> Nice day my friend


OK understood.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Pulledpork said:


> Yes, I of course am prepared to be proved wrong. I do think the existance of any deity is very very unlikely, and I would find it very difficult to imagine being proved wrong.
> 
> I can't agree with your assesment of atheism as a faith based position though as your point is an example of a logical falacy called shifting the burden of proof. This fallacy is defined as being the assumption that something is true until it is proven otherwise. The burden of proof always falls on the person making the assertion, and saying that something is so does not necessarily make it so. If you are saying that to employ the tools of logic to underpin a discussion is to base every assertion on belief, then that is a completely different discussion.
> 
> I really dont want to become tiresome about this subject, so I think I will shut up about it now. :icon_smile:


I cannot understand why you cannot see why atheism is a faith position - what else is it? It is a belief after all!

I don't want to get tiresome either, so I'll join you and shut up :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen
> 
> How do you all feel about bible thumpers. Those, that hide, or use the bible. Either to justify their thoughts. Or to argue, sometimes valid discussion here? Where there is no recourse in their argument even. Such as the bible.
> I am curious.
> You gentlemen have a nice day





DukeGrad said:


> My question was about the throw it in your face type. Especially sometimes here on the forum
> 
> Nice day my friend


I don't think there is anyone like that here on the forum. That you are still trying to explain the OP four pages later says that either you have no one specific in mind or you just won't say it. I wonder about the purpose that serves except to hurt other people.

DukeGrad, this thread is not your usual style. Que pasa?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Leather man said:


> I cannot understand why you cannot see why atheism is a faith position - what else is it? It is a belief after all!
> 
> I don't want to get tiresome either, so I'll join you and shut up :icon_smile_wink:


Very true. Atheism is a much bigger gamble when you think about it.

If an Atheist is wrong they are in much bigger trouble than the Christian.


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

Leather man said:


> I cannot understand why you cannot see why atheism is a faith position - what else is it? It is a belief after all!


No - it is not a belief it is the absence of belief.

You can't start from the position of saying that an object exists just because you say it exists, and then when someone questions it's existance you call that person's attempt to disprove it a belief because you haven't proved the object exists in the first place. I made this point several post ago.



Leather man said:


> I don't want to get tiresome either, so I'll join you and shut up :icon_smile_wink:


I believe in just over an hour I am going to make a Woodford mint julep and catch some sun out on the deck. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Pulledpork said:


> I have no idea if God had any influence over the writing of the KJB, but I am a great admirer of Thomas Cranmer. I can appreciate greatly the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a work of great poetry, and so much of the phrasing in it has entered the English language because of it's beauty and resonance.
> 
> I think it is sad that the 1662 BOCP has been systematically phased out because it is considered difficult to understand or even elitist. The English language will be much poorer without it.


I agree completely. I grew up with it in an Army family (I grew up with a General and in those days, higher ranking US Army officers, at least from the East, were often Anglican/Episcopalian, in my humble opinion at least in part due to it's grace and quiet dignty) . I think it is very sad to replace it with the "modern" language which is so plain and unchallenging. When did it become wrong for something to be a little difficult (although I would argue that the 1662 BOCP is not really difficult)?


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

Pulledpork said:


> I am sorry, I don't really understand what point you are trying to make. I am probably being a bit thick here, it does happen from time to time. :icon_smile:


The position that empirical evidence (presumably physical evidence and a testable, and falsifiable theory) is required to accept the existence of something doesn't seem to properly account for the existence of immaterial somethings. Unlike a unicorn, a man-bear-pig, or the missing link, we would not expect to find material evidence of an immaterial thing. But maybe there are other ways to know things that we can't hit with a rock. Or a fish. ic12337: Certainly plenty of smart people have thought so. On the other hand, maybe there aren't even rocks. If one is going to be skeptical he might as well be bold about it.


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Very true. Atheism is a much bigger gamble when you think about it.
> 
> If an Atheist is wrong they are in much bigger trouble than the Christian.


Pascal's gamble.

Atheists wont be in anywhere near as much trouble as the Christians are in if the Muslims are right. Their hell is much worse than the Christian one. Don't you ever worry that they could be right and you could be wrong?


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

Apthorpe said:


> The position that empirical evidence (presumably physical evidence and a testable, and falsifiable theory) is required to accept the existence of something doesn't seem to properly account for the existence of immaterial somethings. Unlike a unicorn, a man-bear-pig, or the missing link, we would not expect to find material evidence of an immaterial thing. But maybe there are other ways to know things that we can't hit with a rock. Or a fish. ic12337: Certainly plenty of smart people have thought so. On the other hand, maybe there aren't even rocks. If one is going to be skeptical he might as well be bold about it.


Please define "immaterial something".


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Pulledpork said:


> I believe in just over an hour I am going to make *a Woodford mint julep* and catch some sun out on the deck. :icon_smile_big:


Now THAT is a heresey!

Don't you have an Jim Beam for ruining, errr mixing?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Pulledpork said:


> Pascal's gamble.
> 
> Atheists wont be in anywhere near as much trouble as the Christians are in if the Muslims are right. Their hell is much worse than the Christian one. Don't you ever worry that they could be right and you could be wrong?


Well, since Mohammed was a well-documented murderer and pedophile, no. There is no way he was God's prophet. That seems obvious even without faith or discernment. You've either read too much or too little.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Pulledpork said:


> Pascal's gamble.
> 
> Atheists wont be in anywhere near as much trouble as the Christians are in if the Muslims are right. Their hell is much worse than the Christian one. Don't you ever worry that they could be right and you could be wrong?


Having spent some time studying Islam, I would say no. I think Mohammad's bizarre distortions and occasional careless errors in retelling scripture are the real clincher for me.


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

MichaelS said:


> I agree completely. I grew up with it in an Army family (I grew up with a General and in those days, higher ranking US Army officers, at least from the East, were often Anglican/Episcopalian, in my humble opinion at least in part due to it's grace and quiet dignty) . I think it is very sad to replace it with the "modern" language which is so plain and unchallenging. When did it become wrong for something to be a little difficult (although I would argue that the 1662 BOCP is not really difficult)?


I don't know, but there is certainly a lot of that sort of thinking around these days.

As a good agnostic Anglican, I have been investigating an Anglican cathedral in Portland to attend matins and vespers occasionally. Unfortunately the litergy is all in English, and they use a BOCP written in the 1920s.


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Having spent some time studying Islam, I would say no. I think Mohammad's bizarre distortions and occasional careless errors in retelling scripture are the real clincher for me.


I see, so you don't accept Islam because of innacuracies and contradictions in their holy text?


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Now THAT is a heresey!
> 
> Don't you have an Jim Beam for ruining, errr mixing?


All bourbon is for mixing, and some mix better than others. Single malt is for keeping pristine. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Pulledpork said:


> I see, so you don't accept Islam because of innacuracies and contradictions in their holy text?


I believe what I said was distortions and careless mistakes.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*ksinc*

ksinc

I apologize to you my friend. If I have been confusing regarding this with yourself. I am sorry.
I have been clear about my thoughts. And others as well. That is all we are discussing here, is that. Bible Thumpers.

Nice day, nice weekend.


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Well, since Mohammed was a well-documented murderer and pedophile, no. There is no way he was God's prophet. That seems obvious even without faith or discernment. You've either read too much or too little.


I am not so sure you know, God pulled some nasty stuff in the old testement. Many of the prophets did some rather harsh things that have been glibly cast in the narratives as human flaws.

I always think I have read too little, BTW. The life so short the craft so long to learn, etc.


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I believe what I said was distortions and careless mistakes.


Fair enough, I apologise for my error.

The point I rather clumsily tried to make is that The Koran doesn't exactly have a monopoly on distortions and careless mistakes. Why accept one flawed holy text and not another?


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

Sorry everyone - I really didn't mean to take DukeGrad's thread off track. I am going to call it a day. The bourbon and deck are calling my name.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Well, I suppose that "distortions" is a loaded word, but the Koran seems to be unique in its careless errors. Unless you're a Muslim, in which case you believe that Mohammad did things like move Biblical actors from Babylon to Egypt (and 1000 years farther back in time, no less) on purpose, but without any apparent reason.


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

Pulledpork said:


> Please define "immaterial something".


That's a pretty bold request and I'm no philosopher and certainly not up to that challenge, but I suppose examples of immaterial somethings would be God, the mind, the soul, triangles, beauty, ethics, truth, principles of unity and noncontradiction, mathematics, and angels (which can be contrasted with material creatures like FSM, unicorns and clean Oklahomans, i.e., things that if they existed would have a material existence or else they only exist in the mind--but I think you can see how those ideas exist in the mind differently from a triangle or beauty).

I'm never going to hit a hundred posts. Can you stack the AAAC discount in a BB sale anyway? I'm pretty sure that's answered somewhere in the forums.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yes, actually you can, at least sometimes. Dress shirts are cheaper with the present sale + AAAC discount than they were during the 25% off sale.


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

Then I better get crackin'. Chocolatey Peal & Co. monk strap. Mmmmmmm.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Pulledpork said:


> All bourbon is for mixing, and some mix better than others. Single malt is for keeping pristine. :icon_smile_big:


Hmmm, I must be doing it all wrong! LOL 
I get a shot of Woodford at the turn usually. :icon_smile:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

DukeGrad said:


> ksinc
> 
> I apologize to you my friend. If I have been confusing regarding this with yourself. I am sorry.
> I have been clear about my thoughts. And others as well. That is all we are discussing here, is that. Bible Thumpers.
> ...


DukeGrad,

No need for an apology to me, but you are kind to offer it.

I certainly didn't think you meant me.

You have a great day too. Cheers!


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Bourbon*

Gents/ksinc

I drank bourbon, when it was mandatory in the Army some time ago. It then was mixed or straight.
Back then there were 2-3. Jack Black and Green. And Jim Beam. There are so many bourbons, like scotch malt now.
My son likes a bourbon called Bulleit?
He sips, like I do my Glenlevit. Supposed to be smoother, not to mix.
Anway, Gents busy today. Thanks for all the answers.
Have to run! Then cook!
Nice day


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

VS said:


> I think people should conduct their own lives according to their beliefs and back off on everyone else. They would do more good by setting an example by their actions.
> 
> Faith/adherence should be personal, not political.


She has said it all! This simple statement puts this whole disgusting thread in the proper perspective, which is an exercise in attempting to transfer ones personal beliefs into the lives of others, through the internet.

The fact that the OP equates Christian beliefs with the prejudicial phrase "Bible thumpers" is in itself deeply offensive. It's like calling Muslims "*********" and wondering how anyone could possibly find that insulting. If OP could come up with an epithet to denigrate the Jewish faith, that might generate more attention, if that is what he is seeking.

The OP looks like a desperate cry for attention by insulting the religious beliefs of others. If you are not Christian, and worship at the gym, fine and dandy. Just try to understand how insignificant that is to others. As VS says, it is a personal matter; that can't be too difficult to understand.

The only way to end this nonsense is to quote the great Woody Allen line: "I dated a girl that was an agnostic, and I was an atheist. We didn't get married because we couldn't decide how to raise the children."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

DukeGrad said:


> Gents/ksinc
> 
> I drank bourbon, when it was mandatory in the Army some time ago. It then was mixed or straight.
> Back then there were 2-3. Jack Black and Green. And Jim Beam. There are so many bourbons, like scotch malt now.
> ...


Exactly! The really good ones like Woodford Reserve are smoother and served for sipping like The Glenlivet.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Pulledpork said:


> Pascal's gamble.
> 
> Atheists wont be in anywhere near as much trouble as the Christians are in if the Muslims are right. Their hell is much worse than the Christian one. Don't you ever worry that they could be right and you could be wrong?


Even granting that Pascal was a clever person, I don't think I've ever heard anything as stupid as Pascal's Wager.

First off, belief is not a matter of choice. I can repeat every day of my life that the sun rises in the West and sets in the East, but I'm never going to believe it because it isn't true, and all the evidence disproves it. You believe something because you have reasoned it out yourself, or you can understand based on the evidence why it's true, or because you've been told it by someone whose judgment you trust. I don't see how you can decide one day that you will believe that something you have believed to be false is now true. The most you can do is decide that you're going to pretend to believe something that you do not actually believe.

This simply points out the other problem with Pascal's Wager. His theory is that if you pretend to believe in god, when you die, and god is deciding what your fate will be, he will be tricked into thinking you actually believed in him and treat you like the people who actually did believe in him.

But isn't this god of yours omniscient? Isn't he smart enough to figure out that you are just pretending to believe? When I was growing up in Catholic schools, the people that were held up for the highest praise were those who stuck to their beliefs regardless to the consequences to themselves, whether those consequences included death, torture, or whatever. These people are called martyrs, and they are considered unusually praiseworthy. Wouldn't this god reasonable be madder at you for trying to trick him than for sticking to your honest beliefs?


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

DukeGrad said:


> My son likes a bourbon called Bulleit?


One of my favorites. Probably not as smooth as Woodford, Basil Hayden, or 1792, but great value. And the bottle is very manly.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Intrepid*

Gentlemen

I am not exercising my own beliefs my friend. And apologize to you if you feel this. I have gone over a few times. What I feel and asked everyone else to tell me how they feel. That is all.What they feel about bible thumpers.
I apologize if you think that of this forum.I think it best we all go to the witch hazel forum. It is more exciting. 
I am content with what I have learned. I still go to church. Every Sunday gentlemen.
I just do not like Bible Thumpers. I wish they keep to themselves. Leave others alone.
They have no say, in others lives my friend.
Nice day my friends. I have enjoyed this forum. Learned a great deal. I am busy today at a party.
Enjoy your weekends


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> The most you can do is decide that you're going to pretend to believe something that you do not actually believe.
> 
> This simply points out the other problem with Pascal's Wager. His theory is that if you pretend to believe in god, when you die, and god is deciding what your fate will be, he will be tricked into thinking you actually believed in him and treat you like the people who actually did believe in him.


I'm no expert on Pascal, but I don't think this represents his thoughts. Accepting the wager is insufficient for salvation. And I don't think Pascal would agree that believing in God is like believing in something proven empirically to be false (to the extent Pascal believed that anything could be empirically proven or falsified). He thinks agnosticism about God in the face of uncertainty doesn't make much sense given that we're uncertain to some degree in the face of all knowledge, and that you need to pick a horse if you intend to go anywhere. Although I am not sure whether Pascal ever said it, it seems to me that accepting the wager removes the primary obstacle to faith: pride. Grace takes care of the rest.


----------



## Where Eagles Dare (Feb 14, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Exactly! The really good ones like Woodford Reserve are smoother and served for sipping like The Glenlivet.


IMO, I think Woodford is over-rated and over exposed. It's too expensive to mix, and too lousy to drink straight.

Try anything from the Buffalo Trace distillery and it puts Woodford to shame.


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

Where Eagles Dare said:


> Try anything from the Buffalo Trace distillery and it puts Woodford to shame.


Good to know. I've always shied away from Buffalo Trace in the store out of concern regarding the name and its implication.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Intrepid said:


> She has said it all! This simple statement puts this whole disgusting thread in the proper perspective, which is an exercise in attempting to transfer ones personal beliefs into the lives of others, through the internet.
> 
> The fact that the OP equates Christian beliefs with the prejudicial phrase "Bible thumpers" is in itself deeply offensive. It's like calling Muslims "*********" and wondering how anyone could possibly find that insulting. If OP could come up with an epithet to denigrate the Jewish faith, that might generate more attention, if that is what he is seeking.
> 
> ...


Hey, I was quoted... that makes my day.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*TRansference*

My friends

m confused still. How can ones personal beliefs, my ow I believe. Be transferred the internet, to others. This is a discussion, This is all about" learning".
Psychiatricall, this is not probable. In a dicussion, that has been clear, open, and searcing for answers. PLain as the daylight. Hw, do you see transference here. Please educate. Am open to knowledge. Even simple logic, is acceptable.
Again, a discussion of a great many people, all with different thoughts anout a situation that seems to bother people.
Help me here.
Again, have had a bad time with Bible Thumpers, and they are overwhelming. I do not like them.I do not like their religion. I do not like how they dictate, write from wrong.
To me, this is tansference, of a religious order, unto another.

Confused my friend, again, educate.

nice day


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Thoughts on Transference*

Transference: Are you a biological time machine?

Published in "The Source", June, 2001

Revised: February 21, 2007

By: Michael G. Conner, Psy.D

Sigmund Freud first identified the psychological process of transference and brought it into what is now modern day psychotherapy. As a therapist he noticed that people had strong feelings and fantasies about him that had no basis in reality. But Freud died before there was such a thing as "rock and roll." Transference has become a more modern concept since Freud. In fact, many people believe transference is actually something that happens in life - and not just psychotherapy.

What is Transference? During transference, people turn into a "biological time machine". A nerve is struck when someone says or does something that reminds you of your past. This creates an "emotional time warp" that transfers your emotional past and your psychological needs into the present. In less poetic terms, a transference reaction means that you are reacting to someone in terms of what you need to see, you are afraid of or what you see when you know very little about the person. This all happens without you knowing why you feel and react the way you do.

What Is Projection? Some people refer to transference as a "projection." In this case you are projecting your own feelings, emotions or motivations into another person without realizing your reaction is really more about you than it is about the other person. In a life filled with transference, your job may be "the family reunion you are avoiding and you are forced to go to each day." In other cases of projection, your girlfriend may remind you of all the irritating things your mother did when you were growing up. Love at first sight is usually a projection - especially if it ends in disaster and you could have seen it coming.

Harmful Patterns. Transference reactions are caused by unmet emotional needs, neglect, seductions and other abuses that transpired when you were a child. In some forms of psychotherapy, a therapist will intentionally create or allow transference to form. When done properly, this helps a therapist to understand and find a connection between the patient's past and how the patient misreads the present and may react ineffectively. Once you discover a transference pattern, you can chose to respond in terms of what is really happening instead of what happened 20 or 30 years ago. People who don't recognize the difference between past and present can end up in the same messed-up relationships over and over or with the same problem over and over.

Extreme Transference. In an extreme form of transference, you may conclude that someone is an awful or evil person when in fact that person's favorite food and television show reminds you of an emotionally abusive mother and a sexually abusive brother you have been trying to forget since childhood. That's an example of negative transference. A warm, supportive and kind person could remind you of what you are missing and wanting in their life. You might then idealize that person and begin to see him or her as wonderful beyond belief. The idea is that you will react to your therapist based on your experience with another person. This is usually a parent that the patient has an unresolved conflict with. In extreme cases a patient will become overly attached to their therapist or they will enter into and create conflicts without realizing how.

Transference Melt-Downs. Extreme forms of transference can turn into a full-blown obsession if it is not dealt with. Transference "meltdowns" can result in accidents, dangerous choices, nightmares, fantasies, stalking someone, psychotic reactions and sometimes violence. While it does not happen frequently in therapy, it can happen in the patient's personal life.

How Can You Tell? How do you know you are having a "transference reaction"? It's not always easy, but you probably are if you know very little about a therapist (or anyone) and you are having a powerful reaction that is not justifiable to a reasonable person. It can be difficult if the patient can rationalize their reactions. Having a strong sexual attraction to your therapist is almost always a transference reaction, unless of course your therapist is actually hitting on you - and they're not supposed to do that on purpose. Intentionally seducing a vulnerable patient in sick and wrong! In fact that applies to any health-related profession or any employer-employee relationship. Becoming angry at you therapist as if they were a parent is a good sign that there is a transference reaction. Termination of treatment pre-maturely is another sign of transference - unless the therapist is just doing a bad job.

Counter-Transference. Therapists and other health care professionals can also have transference reactions while treating a patient. It's a two way street. Counter-transference is basically a therapist's "emotional time warp" around their patient's transference. In other words, counter-transference is a therapist's counter- reaction. That's why some therapists think they are falling in love with their patients. That's also why older guys become obsessed with younger female employees they barely know.

Ethics And The Law. A therapist, counselor and even a physician could possibly lose their license for seducing or sleeping with a patient they are treating. Trying to seduce an employee on the job may result in a successful lawsuit. You can also sue a licensed mental health professional for sleeping with you if you are their patient. And employers must follow the law. On the other hand, unlicensed therapist can do almost whatever they want and there may be nothing anyone can do about it. It's hard to sue an employer and win. Unlicensed therapists do not have a "duty" to act within a standard of practice. Employers may not know the law.

Unseen Dangers. Transference can sometimes produce a powerful love or a destructive hatred based on a complete illusion. There can be a loud and painful thud when people act on their transference reactions and the bubble finally bursts. In addition to being embarrassed, it can also backfire. Sometimes people will end up stalking, assaulting or killing someone. Please don't kill yourself or anyone because of some transference from your childhood. And if you think your therapist, or an employer for that matter, is seducing you, tell your therapist, or contact a licensed therapist to talk about it.

Should I or Shouldn't I Risk Transference. Transference is really difficult to recognize, deal with and understand, but it is incredibly interesting. I tend to avoid people who are "oozing" with transference potential. Working with transference, or creating transference in therapy can make a therapist look mystical and brilliant. Cult therapies are based in part on generating positive transference to control and manipulate people. I avoid treatment approaches that artificially inflate my ego, would allow me to control anyone and make me feel powerful. But not everyone feels the way I do about transference. Some counselors and therapists love the power and think they can handle it. A therapist must face transference issues and encourage patients to deal with them as much as possible. In some cases a patient is not able to deal with transference issues and will terminate therapy. While it is regrettable and potentially a lost opportunity, it must be supported.

copyright 2002 to 2006, Michael G. Conner


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*My question*

Gentlemen

I have discussed the above briefly. I am asking a simple question, not doing anythni else. My process, and question is about education. Of me, and all of us on this issue. I amnot trying to change a thin. Maybe my feelings will be helped. From this, am that much stronger in my feelings about Thumpers, and feel much better after this.

You all have a nice day


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Duke, Psychology can be a mess. What they believe today can be gone tomorrow. And each person veiws words differently, including psychologist. We are influenced by our parents, peers, teachers, everybody else and what we read, and experiences, so, when words are put together how often do we absolutely agree? Psychology, like in church, there are thousands of theories on each subject. I think one of the first lessons in psychology is not to believe any of the theories.

Some of what you are writing seems to be knee jerk reaction. This transference problem as you placed above can be dealt with without a shrinks help. Unpleasent things happen to all of us which we need to 'tell' about. Some of us have parents that we trust and can talk to. While others of us have parents who are a problem. Some more so than others. We all need to tell, but to somebody we can trust that what we tell won't come back on us. Some of us have good parents when childern but not good enough to tell, and sometimes they give us a story we need to tell. Now, you can go to a shrink and blab out all of your stories, or, you can make the stories interesting and tell strangers here and there in life. When telling the stories you can not acuse, nor omitt anything necessary, or your problems will continue. It is sort of like handing the problem to somebody else and then you are free. Some people have many stories connected, which all need to be told. If All Bible thumpers are a problem to you then you must have some stories to tell, or you are running from something you need to change, which probably has a story connected to tell. No doubt some Bible thumpers are a problem. But, all of them? I really don't think Bible thumpers are your problem but some other things are. Bible thumpers, as you describe, seems to be a symptome to other problems, like a running noise is not the problem when you have a sore throat- get rid of the sore throat and the runny noise problem is gone. Anyway, some thoughts to think about.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Pulledpork said:


> Pascal's gamble.
> 
> Atheists wont be in anywhere near as much trouble as the Christians are in if the Muslims are right. Their hell is much worse than the Christian one. Don't you ever worry that they could be right and you could be wrong?


No, we've been right since 1517. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Interesting survey on today's news. It seems 70% of us in the US believe in either a personal or impersonal creator. It went on into the pretty liberal %s of how many major faith members believed the others had a good shot at equal salvation. Then there was a piece about many communist chinese party leaders also turning to different faiths. I had an interesting sunday myself. I went to a russian orthodox church in Oxnard with another recent convert to the church. It was tiny, a small congregation that still boasted a priest, deacon and two readers. And in drops another priest from yet another church I wasn't aware of. This one is Old Calender Russian and after Liturgy we visited there. So I'm in this nameless latino housing tract, and suddently we pull up to a equally small church replete with onion domes and an interior of painted Ikons. Once returned to my apt I found a message from the buddhist temple to please come to a celebratory dinner. I did, and returned in time to chat with my Chabbad Rabbi about the hot weather and progress assembling my shetnaz outfit for the wedding. I was doing my best to outflank the stairwell leading to my Charismatic christian nieghbors upstairs ( nearer my God to thee) and ran into a Goth. She? looked like the Wizard Of Oz witch about to melt into a pool of black makeup and then I saw it, the inverted pentagram. She saw the silver and gold three bar cross and sort of hissed like a big black rubber tyre losing air 'MEESHA AN ****** SHIDDIE' I asks if she's from Boston and she hisses back "I'm a wiccan. " I had just learned George Carlin died and replied " well good! It's smart to sleep during the day in this weather and wake up at sunset with all the other bats. I walked on as she tried to puzzle me out. I could hear CBN news on my upstairs nieghbor's teevee. I put on the Old believer music CD, lit some Joss Sticks and slipped into my old monk's robe. I meditated in the Lotus position to relax and then read The Ladder of Divine Ascent with a cheap, but hearty Chardonnay and salad for dinner.PBS had a repete of The Voyage of the Beagle. I watched it and had enough TUC to hit the remote off button, say a quick evening prayer and return to the Dreamtime. Sometime around 4 AM I woke to red lights outside my window. The Goth Girl really did melt!I toyed with the philosophical freedoms of Athiesm once. Then I realised how much fun I'd be missing ( and good food.)


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav, I sure like all the art work in those onion domed russian orthodox churches. Unfortunately, all I get to see of them are pictures.

I wonder what athiest in America think of the song God Bless America?


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Gentlemen*

WA and Michael

Thank you for that Helpful to me.

Gentlemen, gonna go to the gym
Later
Jimmy


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

WA said:


> I wonder what athiest in America think of the song God Bless America?


It's fab-u-lous when Kate Smith sings it - wave them flags boys - :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I was in Basic Training and we got the obligatory lecture from a service chaplain.And he finds cause to quote the famous ' There are no athiests in Foxholes.' My first thought was I joined the Coast Guard to avoid foxholes. My second thought unfortunately found voice and without thinking I spoke out " and damned few good Christians either if they're trying to kill each other." 2 hours on the grinder with my Garand- Up-Down-Out-In doing a penetant version of crossing oneself. 5 years later I am back on that base on light duty. The chaple was being renovated and the big redwood cross needed to go to the woodshop for refinishing. I'm in a hurry to get it moved before noon chow and walking across base for another truck seemed dumb. So I carried it on my back down hte main base avenue just as the two current chaplains were walking past; Lutheran and Catholic. They sort of gasped at this SF Bay fog figure and got off to help carry the cross. We were challenged by base security, a wretched gang of sandcrabs led by a E5 of whispered sexual depravity. The priest got angry and told the insecure security team to "Get to hell out of the way." Lutheran minister mumbled ' Three Hail Marys Father.' WA if you do a simple search, there are lots of Orthodox churches in Washington state and you are welcome to talk to the Ikons.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> Interesting survey on today's news. It seems 70% of us in the US believe in either a personal or impersonal creator. It went on into the pretty liberal %s of how many major faith members believed the others had a good shot at equal salvation.


I was surpised about how many believed it doesn't matter which belief you have concerning after death.

My belief is only a few churchs teach the 'right way' to heaven. There is a clear seperation between obeying the church and obeying the 'right way'. Obeying the church has nothing to with obeying God. I think people get God and church confused. I think obeying the church can be spiritually dangerous.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> I think obeying the church can be spiritually dangerous.


You got that right!


----------



## Persephone (Jul 17, 2008)

I am jumping in late, but jump in I must. Yesterday morning, I was sitting at my computer reading an article on TheAtlantic.com, sipping a cup of tea, minding my own business, when the phone rang. It was a quarter past eight in the morning!! My caller ID did not recognise the number, and I guess I never should have bothered answering it, but I did. It was some "non-denominational" (so they claimed, but research uncovered they are affiliated with the Southern Baptists) church that had just opened a new mega-church in my area. I tried to be polite, told them I was not interested, etc. To no avail. Eventually, I just told this annoying man that I am a liberal Roman Catholic who has no interest in attending some hellfire and brimstone church and ended the call! 

Had I not hung up, I am sure he would have berated me for that, too. The simple truth is that I cannot stand Bible thumpers. Living in my native Austria, I had never even encountered the type, as there are mostly Catholics, a few Orthodox Christians, and very few Lutherans who just don't believe in the literal approach and the anti-science nature that's almost always at the root of Christian fundamentalism, which in turn often leads to Bible-thumping behaviour. I was unfamiliar with the brewing crisis in many states and counties over the teaching of evolution, and unprepared to deal with the lack of scientific understanding/knowledge, as well as the level of hostility to the natural sciences that are hallmarks of these strange people. In Europe the Bible is viewed as a collection of stories that was meant to record certain events (historic and otherwise, as not every event in the Bible is truly historic, but rather allegories) in a way that could be comprehended by people with limited education. It's not regarded as a science book or an accurate depiction of history.

My husband (he's British) has an uncle who emigrated to the United States, where he joined a charismatic Pentecostal church. The family in the UK thinks that was a smart move, because they rarely have to deal with him. He does not believe in consuming alcohol, and has on several occasions tried to prevent John and me from drinking a glass of wine, saying that it's not in compliance with the Bible. I countered that after all Jesus turned water into wine, to which he responded in all earnestness that that was incorrect and that it was actually unfermented grape juice!!! I am mentioning this, because it proves my point: They use the pieces that fit their particular world view, and ignore those that contradict them.

I apologise for writing so much, but I needed to get this off my chest.


----------



## mczewd (Jul 21, 2008)

*Now I understand*

As a newcomer to this forum who has just spent the better part of an hour reading this lengthy thread, it is now abundantly clear why so many forum members dislike Church shoes.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

It's funny how the evolutionists don't want to talk about science when we argue against social Darwinism, racial superiority, or abortion.


----------



## Lynd (Aug 13, 2008)

mczewd said:


> As a newcomer to this forum who has just spent the better part of an hour reading this lengthy thread, it is now abundantly clear why so many forum members dislike Church shoes.


:icon_smile_big: That's a good way to sum it up!


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> It's funny how the evolutionists don't want to talk about science when we argue against social Darwinism, racial superiority, or abortion.


It's funny how the creationists don't want to talk about how low the US rates in education, health care and standard of living when compares to the other 1st world nations.


----------



## johnm (Jul 12, 2005)

I'm not a big fan of religion in general but I don't see anything especially irritating with the "bible thumper." I love having debates with people and people base their positions on flawed premises all the time. Is the bible really any worse than "grandpappy always did this and so do i?" The end result is the same either way. I do really hate to see it used to justify things like not giving medical treatment for children but that happens without the bible's influence too.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

young guy said:


> It's funny how the creationists don't want to talk about how low the US rates in education, health care and standard of living when compares to the other 1st world nations.


Thank you for your response. I have no idea what the turkey boy was trying to say, but then I generally can't figure him out or get past his pontificating and blathering.

Oh well, its off to Acadia tomorrow and away from the computer for a week.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

MichaelS said:


> Thank you for your response. I have no idea what the turkey boy was trying to say, but then I generally can't figure him out or get past his pontificating and blathering.


Is that a comment on the pitiful state of education in this country?


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Is that a comment on the pitiful state of education in this country?


No, just a comment about you.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

MichaelS said:


> No, just a comment about you.


So, maybe just not intended to be one, huh?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Not to mention that the US has without a doubt the best health care system in the world and the best post-secondary education. I'm not sure how one compares something so nebulous as "standard of living," but I'm yet to see any metrics that put America anywhere but right up there near the top.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

I don't want anyone thumping my Bible, I like it too much:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Acknowledging the improbability of anyone being foolish enough to sit on a sunlit Saturday morning and read all six pages of this thread, I must admit to all that that indeed, is what I just did...And having done so, must also say, what follows is the most memorable post of the lot! Thanks Frank!  For now I will drop off and complete my daily Bible reading.



Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Forget having a day to make him a god... look at the muscles and blond hair! And the way he swings that hammer... oh I am getting the vapours.
> 
> Thor, the Viking God of Thunder, and his pal Odin were up in Valhalla, when suddenly Thor said to Odin, "It's been a long time now. I really need to have sex."
> 
> ...


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Eagle*

I just read that again, and it is still the greatest I have read here as well.

Nice day


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Jimmy (and other AAAC forumites): May your day be nice as well and may your weekend be great. How's the fishing holding up. I suspect you're still getting a lot of use out of that new fly rod(!)?


----------

