Does it bother you when someone here quotes the bible to make a point or try to prove something?

Your opinion, and sadly mistaken. Chances are great that I’ve spent more time studying these topics than you have. I dismiss the Book because of what I do know about it. Believe what you will. This post was edited by Don Barzini at April 19, 2018 10:57 AM MDT

I think when opposers are making accusations against the Bible like Christians are supposed to fight in wars and that the Bible teaches a literal hell fire where immortal souls of the wicked are consciously tortured for eternity that it is appropriate to give the scriptures in context rather than just an opinion that may or may not be accurate and may be biased.

I absolutely agree with this statement:  "To me, it is unfortunate when Bible scripture is quoted as if something is proven by doing so, or it is posted in lieu of an actual personal response."

Aristotle said that all knowledge comes through the senses.  It is only in the personal experiences that we have with reality that lends credence to what we say about that reality..

Perhaps God does not exist, perhaps He does---there is no compelling proof either way. And both positions are sufficiently reasonable as to be held by intelligent men. However, If He does exist, how He may have affected one personally is much more interesting and worthwhile that reading what He may or may not have said and what He may or may not have meant when and if He said it.

And for that matter, one's lack of experience with a God who does not exist is also valuable to the rest of us.

As they say, whether it is true or not, one can prove anything with quotes from the bible.

As I could expect, you get it, Tom. 
          
The following is my opinion: 
Parroting scripture is a method of presenting someone else’s position by rote instead of expending the effort in articulating our own.
Scripture doesn’t present proof, but narratives that are self-certain, following the premise that faith in Word coming “from God” is sufficient without evidence. The faithful then seek to match their experiences to these narratives, to validate them both. 


I would suggest, I beg your indulgence on this, that IF the God we are presented exists, He could easily issue a consistent and unambiguous message; but that, in sum, isn’t what we have.

Perhaps we might find common ground in that what we have is man’s (uneven) attempt to convey concepts of God, but where we differ is how effective this effort is. This post was edited by Don Barzini at April 22, 2018 10:38 AM MDT

Perhaps you could convert to Catholicism? You don't have to read or follow the Bible, just learn a little bit of philosophy and how to quote Aristotle, Plato, Augustine and a few other post biblical people as if they were Bible writers. You can still fight in any war you want to or either side you want just like WWII and Rwanda. You can continue to attack the Bible and anyone that actually follows the Christian Greek scriptures. The Catholic Church has done more in trying to discredit the Bible than even you. Perfect match.

Without ever reading the Bible you can make claims like: "I am satisfied with speaking the truth and preaching the good news found in the bible."

https://answermug.com/forums/topic/55125/is-texas-escimo-to-religion-and-the-bible-what-randy-d-is-to-engl/view/post_id/467835



EDIT:
Forgot to mention you may be proud to know that the Church used to forbid the reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue (common language of the people) and even burnt people at the stake for translating it.

[... In 1079 Vratislaus, who later became king of Bohemia, asked the permission of Pope Gregory VII to translate the Bible into the language of his subjects. The pope’s answer was no. He stated: “It is clear to those who reflect often upon it, that not without reason has it pleased Almighty God that holy scripture should be a secret in certain places, lest, if it were plainly apparent to all men, perchance it would be little esteemed and be subject to disrespect; or it might be falsely understood by those of mediocre learning, and lead to error.”1
8 The pope wanted the Bible to be kept in the now-dead tongue of Latin. Its contents were to be kept “secret,” not translated into the languages of the common people. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, produced in the 5th century to make the Bible accessible to all, now became a means of keeping it hidden.
9 As the Middle Ages progressed, the Church’s stand against vernacular Bibles hardened. In 1199 Pope Innocent III wrote such a strong letter to the archbishop of Metz, Germany, that the archbishop burned all the German-language Bibles he could find.3 In 1229 the synod of Toulouse, France, decreed that “lay people” could not possess any Bible books in the common tongue.4 In 1233 a provincial synod of Tarragona, Spain, commanded that all books of “the Old or New Testament” be handed over to be burned.5 In 1407 the synod of clergy summoned in Oxford, England, by Archbishop Thomas Arundel expressly forbade the translating of the Bible into English or any other modern tongue.6 In 1431, also in England, Bishop Stafford of Wells forbade the translating of the Bible into English and the owning of such translations.7
10 These religious authorities were not trying to destroy the Bible. They were trying to fossilize it, keep it in a language that only a few could read. In this way, they hoped to prevent what they called heresy but what really amounted to challenges to their authority. If they had succeeded, the Bible could have become just an object of intellectual curiosity, with little or no influence in the lives of ordinary people.] This post was edited by texasescimo at April 22, 2018 10:40 AM MDT

Convert? That’s funny.

I am convinced beyond doubt that Theist doctrines are, in turn, false, backward, and wicked -in that they enforce mass ignorance and shame. And all man-made.
The Catholic Church is just the best known example. I find amusement in that you think your sect’s version is any different.

The historical examples of Christian iniquities you list are well documented in various sources and familiar to me.

A thorough reading of the Bible has been the most potent cause for atheism ever known. This post was edited by Don Barzini at April 22, 2018 10:41 AM MDT

Quote: [Convert? That’s funny. 

All theist doctrines are false, backward and wicked. Your version is no exception. The Catholic Church is but the most egregious case. The historical examples you list are well documented and familiar to me.

A thorough reading of the Bible has been the most potent cause for atheism ever known.] This post was edited by Don Barzini at April 20, 2018 3:31 AM PDT


Quote: [Convert? That’s funny. 

I am convinced beyond doubt that Theist doctrines are, in turn, false, backward, and wicked -in that they enforce mass ignorance and shame. And all man-made.
The Catholic Church is just the best known example. I find amusement in that you think your sect’s version is any different. 

The historical examples of Christian iniquities you list are well documented in various sources and familiar to me.

A thorough reading of the Bible has been the most potent cause for atheism ever known.] This post was edited by Don Barzini at April 20, 2018 4:13 AM PDT


I don't think a thorough reading of the Bible has been done by very many atheist. Several on answermug admit that they have not read it and from post from others and yourself about Christians supposedly being advised to fight in wars and the supposedly hell fire doctrine with souls of the wicked being consciously tortured for eternity belie the claim of a thorough reading.

If you don't see a difference between the Catholic Church and JW's, especially in Bible reading, following the Christian Greek scriptures and war, that speaks for your being thorough.

Obviously you have little familiarity with any actual atheists. Being a JW pretty much excludes you from associating with us. We are not saddened. 

The difference in the ways various stripes of Christians literalize and practice from their scriptures is so trivial in the larger light of the total man-made fakery of the source material. 

There’s no ”supposedly” about it: Christians have fought in wars of their own making. Slaughtered millions. They have repeatedly ordered their Christian minions far away to recapture the Holy Lands, even offering special dispensations for doing so. But these weren’t “Real Christians”, were they? They would all disagree. They’ve done more for God than you have. 

i respect that you believe in the pacifist stuff you believe in, but as one who has fought in battle for my country, you should thanking folks like me who provide a safe haven for you to practice your sullen cult, everyday. If all [Americans] were like you, we’d be now conversing in German. 


PS - what are the odds that you are one of the 144,000.... This post was edited by Don Barzini at April 22, 2018 10:42 AM MDT

You have no idea what or who I am familiar with. Some of my family excludes me for being a Christian but that's not really your business.

You think the 'Christians' that have slaughtered millions are any different than you? Us against them mentality to make people from other Countries seem like non-human seems to be the best way to get those blinded by hate to commit the acts of the politicians or whatever or whoever.

The Christian Greek scriptures give criteria for being a Christian so out of your abundant knowledge should be able to tell rather or not they were "Real Christians". (Mt 7:21-23)
If everyone was like JW's and the Christian Greek scriptures teach there would not being any wars. (2 Cor 10:3-4; Romans 12:17-21)

JW's have been persecuted and/or banned in almost every Country at one time or another. Tarred and feathered and run out of town here in the US. In Winnsboro, Texas, in December 1942, O. L. Pillars was beaten and lynched while exercising his supposed freedoms. Luckily the rope broke. I don't feel that you personally agree with the freedoms being espoused as fighting for.

Odds are 0% that I am one of the 144,000 people going to rule in heaven.

True Christians don’t fight in wars, you said so yourself. Whoever instigated the Crusades, they weren’t Christians, or were they. 
You want it both ways. You are, but you aren’t. Claim the belief but disavow the other believers. 
The No True Scotsman Fallacy. 

I bore of your weak repartee. Maybe your family excludes you because you are simply unbearable. I don’t know, but there are clues.  

I wonder how many JW‘s were burned alive for heresy, or for anything else? Atheists and infidels were for centuries. Even the mere allegation could send one to grim death. At the hands of Christians, no less. The. Parties of Christianity also persecuted Scientists, Muslims, Jews, blacks, Hindus, Chinese, and Native Americans. Or were they not actually Christians? 

It is laughable to hear a Christian of any brand claim persecution. You J-Dubs stay off my porch, and you’ll save yourself some.

BTW, You’re welcome for the free country in which to practice your sad cult. My buddies and I only spilt a little blood defending it. 



This post was edited by Don Barzini at April 22, 2018 10:42 AM MDT

Quote: "True Christians don’t fight in wars, you said so yourself. Whoever instigated the Crusades, they weren’t Christians, or were they. "

Did you miss this?
"The Christian Greek scriptures give criteria for being a Christian so out of your abundant knowledge should be able to tell rather or not they were "Real Christians". (Mt 7:21-23)"
I thought you might know what it says but I will quote it for you:
(Matthew 7:21-23) “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’

No true Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy. lol
I am Napoleon Bonaparte. I said it, you have to believe it despite any reasoning or that certain criteria isn't met. I am the President of the United States. I said it, you have to believe it despite any reasoning. If someone claims to be a war hero even though they have never been in a war do you accept that too? No True Scotsman Fallacy? Be consistent. 


Quote: [I bore of your weak repartee. Maybe your family excludes you because you are simply unbearable. I don’t know, but there are clues.]

You are just a loving tolerant individual aren't you.


Quote: [I wonder how many JW‘s were burned alive for heresy, or for anything else? Atheists and infidels were for centuries. Even the mere allegation could send one to grim death. At the hands of Christians, no less. The. Parties of Christianity also persecuted Scientists, Muslims, Jews, blacks, Hindus, Chinese, and Native Americans. Or were they not actually Christians?]

Research it, I don't know all the different methods war mongers have used to murder my brothers. 

True Christians have been burned alive by the Catholic Church. Michael Servetus was burned alive for accepting the God of the Bible rather than the 4th century trinity at the orders of Calvin after escaping from his Catholic captors. Modern day JW's have been, tortured and murdered in various ways including gas chambers. 


Quote: "It is laughable to hear a Christian of any brand claim persecution. You J-Dubs stay off my porch, and you’ll save yourself some."

You could do a little research but your HATRED AND BIAS have blinded you from seeing any facts or any reasoning ability. Seems you deny any persecution and offer it at the same time. 


Quote: [BTW, You’re welcome for the free country in which to practice your sad cult. My buddies and I only spilt a little blood defending it.]

I respect the fact that some are willing to die for what they believe in. Just wish they were not so willing to kill others in the process. You don't really sound so welcoming but more like those that have tarred and feathered, beat or killed my brothers for practicing perceived freedoms. 
Please don't risk your life or kill anyone on my account. If there was no God I would fight tooth and nail for me and mine at the detriment of others just like many other people do. But as it is, I know why the world is in such chaos.

This post was edited by texasescimo at April 22, 2018 10:43 AM MDT

Just a tip.

Most of on here (with the possible exception of you, apparently) are able to remember the content of an answer to which you are responding.

Why not just copy and past the whole answer into a word document, split the screen, and post just your answer?

You tend to use more words than are needed to make your point---we already know what the bible says.

The thing is that I sometimes when responding to a long comment or one with several different issues, I like the person I am responding to to know which part of my comment corresponds to their specific point. I am also starting to try to copy and paste the previous comment when responding to a person that has a habit of editing their comment after I have already started to respond or in some cases, have already responded to a comment. 

 Take my #5 comment in this thread at: April 20, 2018 5:27 AM

The previous comment was edited at 3:31 AM and again at 4:13 AM. By time I finished responding, it could possibly no longer be relevant to the initial comment I was responding to.


Also, sometimes I am only responding to a specific part of a comment and want to be clear.


(It used to irritate me how CLURT would number and title all of his points. Now I understand why)

Excellent.

I'm fairly content with the (at least apparent) lack of a consistent and unambiguous message from "on high."  I find it less so with time---based on my personal experience with life---but that is a whole other issue.
 
You and I are both fathers.  While on the one hand we are both crystal clear on expectations with our children , but also realize that our pronouncements must come with the option of disagreement---we both know that it is necessary that our children know and feel that they can stand up to us without fear of fatherly "lightning" striking them down for disagreeing while they wrestle with the truths we wish to communicate.

Although your children are younger than mine, I am sure you have had the pleasure of finding them wrestling with the values you shared and coming to the same conclusions about the worth of those values.

I think that is how "God the Father" treats us as (HIS children) in a similar way.  Things are not made so clear that we lack a real chance to reject their reality.  (I suspect human sheep are as distasteful to God as they are to you.) 

I have posted this before: The human intellect cannot be put in possession of its object by some exterior agent that takes it there. There is for us no knowledge except our own knowledge, no truth except self-acquired truth.

If one is a believer, tell me why you are.  If you are not, tell me why you are not.  Both positions are supportable by honest and intelligent men.  I wan't your story and your experience that made you come to the conviction that God does  exist or that He does not.

I would suggest that we have more than just what you suggest as common ground.  Life is a mental challenge and adventure for the both of us.  Our justifications are motivations may be based on different convictions may differ, but I suspect no one would think us more likely to be either atheist or Christian based on the observations of how we act over the years.

For some reason, man over the years has felt the need to posit the existence of a god (or gods) and to attempt to understand the nature of the relationship between him (or them) and us.

And if God exists and did create everything, it must be said that we humans have become quite creative in imagining what he man look like "in the flesh."

Regards

Another symptom is an unfettered intent to impose beliefs onto the unwilling or into non-relevant discourse.

Jewels, It doesn’t appear anyone else here is as annoyed as your “rebuttal” suggests you are. (Let’s call it what it is since you didn’t answer the question). 


“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ”.  -Mahatma Gandhi This post was edited by Don Barzini at April 20, 2018 1:15 AM MDT

Ok, since you missed my point several times I will spell it out. I am annoyed when people try to quote the bible and they have never read what they are trying to quote. 

I am also annoyed when people quote various pagans who take it upon themselves to judge Christians. I have no quarrel with pagans spouting their opinions, only with people who think those pagans are somehow authorities on the subject. Mr. Ghandi, for example, misses the fact that Christ was a Jew and most Christians are not. That alone makes a very big difference.

So it isn’t the goal of Christians to be Christ-like?  ...or to “follow him”? 
That’s a new one.
No wonder you Christians can’t agree, even on the same source material. 40,000 denominations and counting. 

In the 19th century Americans started moving west and three institutions went with them. There was vaudeville, traveling entertainment. There was lyceum, traveling education and culture. And there was the itinerant preacher, offering a new style of preaching called "hell fire and brim stone". It was very entertaining, only loosely based on scripture, and pastors didn't even try to compete. Instead they switched to preaching public morality and philosophy. Eventually an entire generation grew up not knowing the first thing about the religion they claimed to believe. That is why most Christian churches don't teach doctrines, and most members don't know what they are supposed to believe.

I’ve seen your spiel on this before, in other threads. Fair to say too few self-avowed Christians fully understand their doctrines;on this we agree. Also fair to say even fewer coherently understand the alternatives to Christian beliefs.
Who’s to blame for this ignorance? Not pagans. Not atheists. The failure rests within the ranks of religions themselves. Among countless fails therein I could regale you with all day. 

This is how I see you, Jewels- a student of the Bible (in your own fashion), some selective history, but not much else. I’ve read your discrediting of scientists while you display precious little grasp of modern science. Then you discredit fellow believers for failing to see things as you do. A skewed perception might work for them, but that doesn’t make them correct.
On this, we agree again, though for different reasons. 

You go on and on in repeated posts about how no one really knows anything about anything, and it seems you cannot allow that maybe there are some who might know better than you do. 


This post was edited by Don Barzini at April 22, 2018 10:44 AM MDT

Ok. So what's your point?

Modern science is a mess, same as it has always been.

The alleged scientific method:
1. Observe something.
2. Formulate a hypothesis.
3. Devise a test.
4. If the test fails, go to #2.
5. If the test passes and is confirmed, the hypothesis might be promoted to a theory and used to prove other hypotheses. And it might not.

The actual scientific method:
1. Formulate a theory.
2. Make a computer simulation.
3. Compare the simulation to observed data.
4. If they don't agree, find some way to adjust the data. If you can't adjust the data, ignore it.
5. Be sure your fellow scientists will agree with your findings, then publish.

While certainly there is profit-driven bastardization of the method in our times (I’d cite the pharmaceutical industry as one), it’s a bit of a wide brush to paint all of scientific activity this way. 

In a way, science is like art: it cannot support itself. Equipment and facilities are not cost free, and patronage is required. This is the reality.
But, honest work is still being done, and much is still being discovered, in many fields.
Discounting it ALL as a mess is to delude oneself, or to refuse to learn. I‘d suggest we both could easily think of recent discoveries that have impressed us.  This post was edited by Don Barzini at April 22, 2018 10:45 AM MDT