Are you an atheist?

[Bladerunner]

I do. Somewhere at 17 years old. But I remember pretty well, because, after I read once, I have tried to keep a track (using a pencil and paper - no computers at that time in Romania) between records (something like this: Genesis 19:23 say:.... but Genesis 20:54 say..... first record = not the second one ????). Hope you understand what I mean. Of course I fail because the enormous amount of situations like I described.
So, I do: I have read the Genesis myself.
And because is YOU who don't tell us the all story, let me fill (with my poorly English) the gaps in this (funny) story:

So, the Lord was informed (this sound like an ancient FBI ????) that in two towns (Sodom and Gomorrah) the people are very bad (the homosexuality being the main problem). But the Lord need to verify the information so He send 2 more undercover agents (2 angels) in Sodom. And He said: If you will find at least one believer I'll not punished this towns.

The two angels arrived in Sodom and they go to the Lot house (the faith).
Now, the club of homosexuals, somehow, was informed and they ask Lot to give they the two (very young and very beautiful) angels in order to have sexual relation with they.
Lot said "No". Is better to take my young, virgin, daughters for this task, but leave alone this 2 guys.
Of course, with no result.

The angels inform the Lord that the information was verified. But, because they know very well the Lord, they know that they can't believe in His word (see the bold text).
So they say to Lot:
Take your wife and your daughters and run to the mountains. But do not look backward !!!!

In time they run, Lot's wife (named Sara if I remember well) has looked backward (she was a woman, isn't it ? ) and, instantly, she become a stick of salt.

Sodom and Gomorrah was erased by Lord from the Earth.
Lot arrived in the mountains with his daughters and camp here.

After a wile one of the girl say to the other one:
We are here for a while and the single man around is our father.
So, it is a huge risk to never have kids. What can we do ?

And a smart idea raised:

The girls give drinks (a lot of drinks) to their father, until he was no more able to understand the real word and the first girl has sexual relation with him (after that she born a child).
Next day, the other girl do the same, and she born a child too.

Of course that in my native language I say this story much better
So, Bladerunner, I have read myself the Genesis, maybe before Galaxiom because I suspect that I am older than he is.

More, I have read also some books written by Erich von Däniken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Däniken
Note that he never sustain that his "theories" are "the truth". He just show us another possibility. (and make good money by selling the books)

In one of his books, von Däniken has write about this story and he said that the Lord has used an atomic bomb. He argue that Lot was send to the mountains because the natural protection that the walls from rock ensure.
But this is another story, my friend

All the best !

Hi Mihail: What version are you looking at. I am looking at the King James Version of the Bible. I am not really sure where you got that Homosexuality was the main problem the Lord had with Sodem and Gamorrah. I believe without looking at it, 'wickedness' was used without a detailed list.

Don't read other books. How could Lots wife become a 'pillar of salt' from a nuclear weapon? They would have to be about 100 miles away from the wind blast/ radiation and at least 50 miles away to keep from getting melted instantly.

Have a nice day :>)


Bladerunner


Have a nice day :>)

 

[Bladerunner]

Tell me more of the catholic collusion with hitler again? Lets see if your beliefs hold up to scrutiny?

Or is this just a personnel one way diatribe against religion generally.

Hi AnthonyGerrard: If the bible and religion were destroyed, then the sins it (the bible) speaks of are null and void.

Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

And there I was thinking the bible told of them being taken in captivity to Babylon and the Romans conquering Palestine. Just shows you can't trust it's accuracy

Opps Rabbie: got ahead of myself, was talking about modern times.

Have a nice day:>)


Bladerunner

 

[Mihail]

Hi Mihail: What version are you looking at. I am looking at the King James Version of the Bible. I am not really sure where you got that Homosexuality was the main problem the Lord had with Sodem and Gamorrah. I believe without looking at it, 'wickedness' was used without a detailed list.

So, if you have only this observation, seems that the Lot's story is how I tell it.

I repeat: I have read the bible at 17 years old. So, there are 35 years from that "event". Maybe the impression that the homosexuality was the main problem is only in my brain.

But I have good reasons for this:
1) The single "wickedness" presented in this story is the homosexuality.
2) In English is a word (maybe a family of words) that derived from Sodom name:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sodomise
I discovered this because:
3) In Romanian language we have also a family of words, derived from Sodom name:
- "sodomie" (noun): sodomy see the link
- to be a "sodomist" (noun): to be a homosexual (male); a person (male) who practice the sodomy.
- to "sodomiza" someone (verb): anal copulation by a man inserting his penis in the anus either of another man or a woman (the definition is Copy-Paste from the link I provided, and is the exact meaning for the Romanian word)

Don't read other books....

Should I understand from this that the Bible is the single book that you ever read ?
Hm. I have heard many times (from the believers, of course) that the Bible is self explanatory.
Really, you, the believers, don't realize that you try to use a "dictionary" with this structure (?):

Word - Explanation
Mother - Mother
Water - Water
Sugar - Sugar
..........................

And you (the believers) try to use this "dictionary" in order to explain to ME a "thing" (the Bible), even if I am a lot more informed in this area because I have read a lot of other books.

For example:

1) Edgar Rice Borough - Tarzan, the monkey man.
Where is bounded this book with the religion ?
From the top of my head Borough written, somewhere in this book:
As much a man increase his knowledge about a religion, as less he believe.

Maybe someone (like a priest), with many years of theological school, where he has learned Philosophie, Psychology, The history of religions etc etc have a chance to explain better the Bible. Like this priest :

2) Léo Taxil - The Amusing Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Léo_Taxil

How could Lots wife become a 'pillar of salt' from a nuclear weapon?

God wishes. Why you can't believe that ?

Read the The Doc Man post. He has another explanation. Just his explanation don't "stay up". . Sara should fall down as ash but if the God wish... she can become a pillar (thank you, both, for the word).

As I already said in one of my posts, I can explain everything in a believer manner, by using only 3 words: God/Creator/Wish .
So, why you think that my logic is no good ?

Hi Rabbie ! I am the concurrence.

 

[Galaxiom]

1) The single "wickedness" presented in this story is the homosexuality.

Actually no, if you consider this perspective.

http://www.luciferianliberationfront.org/stories.html#sodom

 

[Mihail]

A hypothetical situation (as an add to my previous post):
Someone ask a question about Access.
I provide a solution.
Then, Pat Harman, provide another one.
Now is the time to say something like this:

Hi Pat.
Your solution is not good, and can't be, because I have a book about Access and I can't find your solution in this book.
I don't know, and I don't care, that you have read thousands other books. I advice you to buy this book, maybe you will start to understand something about DBs.
Cheers.

How sound this ?

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Tell me more of the catholic collusion with hitler again? Lets see if your beliefs hold up to scrutiny?

Or is this just a personnel one way diatribe against religion generally.

Are you still checking the facts after you statement - I would have thought as a follower of evidence based systems - you could have at least responded fairly quickly with what you had based your conclusion on?

 

[Mihail]

Thank you, Galaxiom (BTW: where is the "thanks" button? )
As I said, there are a lot of years from when I have read the Bible.
I bookmarked the page and I think that I'll have fun by reading it at all.

 

[Galaxiom]

You're not far off a Mel Gibson esque - Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world - kind of sentiment in your full quote - just targeted to a broader church?

I didn't say that Jews are responsible for all the wars. Such an accusation is designed to drive attention away from the point.

The Hebrews used an age old human technique of vilification of those who they intended to conquer. The next step paints them as a threat. The third step tells how killing them is the only righteous thing to do.

The way of God is the way of war.

Exodus 15:3 says it quite well:

The Lord is a man of war;
The Lord is His name.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+15:3&version=NKJV

Yet another "one true name" for Abraham's god?

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

I didn't say that Jews are responsible for all the wars. Such an accusation is designed to drive attention away from the point.

The Hebrews used an age old human technique of vilification of those who they intended to conquer. The next step paints them as a threat. The third step tells how killing them is the only righteous thing to do.

The way of God is the way of war.

Exodus 15:3 says it quite well:

The Lord is a man of war;
The Lord is His name.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+15:3&version=NKJV

Yet another "one true name" for Abraham's god?

Yes I know you didn't and didn't say you did , I asked

Is your point that religion is the cause of all the wars in the world. Because that's how I broadly read what you were saying.
?



Which isn't so dissimilar, just based on a broader church.

The way of God is the way of war? - but most religions preach peace and mostly practice peace, do they not?

 

[Mihail]

Is your point that religion is the cause of all the wars in the world. Because that's how I broadly read what you were saying.
?

I don't understand this from Galaxiom but, if he said that I must say that is entirely false.

The wars has, with no exception, economics causes.
I speak here about real causes, not about legendary causes (Helena from Troy is the first example that come in my mind).

But how to motivate the stupid soldiers to fight for a cause that they don't understand ?
Or, if they understand, they have no personal benefit ?

By telling they that this is a holly war.
By telling they that the God itself is implied in this (the "WISH" clause).
By telling they that they are the "selected" people and the enemy is also an enemy of God.

Do you recognize Hitler ? And not only.
Do you recognize the crusades ?
... or the "Jihad" ?
... or the "100 years war"
or... or... or...

Show me, if you can, a single war where the combatants are not motivated (also, not only) by religion belief.

"The religion is a powerful tool that help the (already) powerful man to keep the weakness people in chain" - quoted (not very exact) from the greatest Romanian poet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihai_Eminescu

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

I don't understand this from Galaxiom but, if he said that I must say that is entirely false.

The wars has, with no exception, economics causes.
I speak here about real causes, not about legendary causes (Helena from Troy is the first example that come in my mind).

But how to motivate the stupid soldiers to fight for a cause that they don't understand ?
Or, if they understand, they have no personal benefit ?

By telling they that this is a holly war.
By telling they that the God itself is implied in this (the "WISH" clause).
By telling they that they are the "selected" people and the enemy is also an enemy of God.

Do you recognize Hitler ? And not only.
Do you recognize the crusades ?
... or the "Jihad" ?
... or the "100 years war"
or... or... or...

Show me, if you can, a single war where the combatants are not motivated (also, not only) by religion belief.

"The religion is a powerful tool that help the (already) powerful man to keep the weakness people in chain" - quoted (not very exact) from the greatest Romanian poet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihai_Eminescu

Land, wealth, greed, revenge, nationalism, racism , coercion, subjugation, payment , food - theres many a reason why wars start and combatants fight.

Religion can play a part in that of yes but I am not buying into the idea that atheism is above it all. That's seemingly is why war is being talked of here - that it proves religion or atheism as better than the other.

I think war is a red herring in an argument between whether atheism or religion is the better option. A cheap shot. From either side.

In all respect I wont answer further to yourself Mihail as I haven't the time generally for a 3000+ post thread. I apologise in advance my friend.

I merely wanted to pick Galaxiom up on a few anti religious statements he threw in , which to me were presented without evidence, let alone balanced well interpreted evidence.

 

[dan-cat]

Well you have made a incorrect assumption that I believe the bible to be the word of God?.

I seem to remember calling him for a similar error. Extraordinary how he unknowingly exhibits the same qualities that he attacks.

 

[Mihail]

@AnthonyGerrard

Land, wealth, greed, revenge, nationalism, racism , coercion, subjugation, payment , food - theres many a reason why wars start and combatants fight

Let me sort your list:

A) Land, Wealth, Greed, Subjugation, Payment, Food
This are, all, economics causes that can start a war.

B) Revenge, Nationalism, Racism and here I'll add, the Religion
This are not real causes to start a war.
This all are methods to motivate the stupid (more or less) soldiers to fight in a war.

C) Coercion
This is a method. Can be applied to the defeated population in order to gain economics benefits or to your own soldiers in order to force (motivate ?) they to fight (if you will not fight you will be treat as a traitorous or as a traitor)

Let me show you the short movie for a mini-war where I was one of the "combatants".

In December 1989 was so named "Romanian Revolution".
Before this event (until 22 December), Romania was a communist country. In 23 December Romania has become, suddenly, a capitalist country.

Now the events movie:
A small group has "conquered" the Romanian television.
After few minutes they started to said (using this television)

- We are informed that terrorist groups attack the civilian in whole the great towns.
and a part of population get out of their houses in order to stop this "terrorist"

- We are informed that terrorist groups try to put bane in the water web
and another part of population get out of their houses in order to stop this

- ... try to destroy the factories
here they "catch" me

- ... Russian commandos are in our country
Some of us don't like Russians.

- ... Hungarian peoples try to gain control in their area
(Nationalism)

- ... try to kill as and to put out of order our (OUR) communications by destroying bridges, roads etc

- Ceausescu family (the presidential family at that time) has money in Switzerland's banks.

Of course, the religion was not forget:

- ... try to destroy our churches because "they" are communists non-believers.

and the variant for atheists:
- ... try to destroy our ancient churches that are part of our history.

No one (NO ONE) of this has proved at a later time.

As well as Saddam Hussein nuclear and/or biological weapons.
So what ?

Ceausescu family was assassinated (as well as Saddam)
A new power is raised (as well as in Iraq)

We (including me), stupid soldiers, wonder even now who orchestrate all this scenario.

So, my friend, as I said:
the religion was never a cause, but was, at any time, a powerful tool (weapon).

 

[Rabbie]

(BTW: where is the "thanks" button? )

It's in the bottom right hand corner of each post

 

[dan-cat]

So, my friend, as I said:
the religion was never a cause, but was, at any time, a powerful tool (weapon).

He never argued against this. He was stating that religion is one of an armory of such tools.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

I seem to remember calling him for a similar error. Extraordinary how he unknowingly exhibits the same qualities that he attacks.

Maybe we can all make mistakes - but the regularity Galaxiom fails to follow any of the rigour he requires in others beliefs to form his own beliefs and opinions is remarkable.

 

[Mihail]

@Rabbie
Now it is. When I asked it wasn't.

@dan-cat
Who is "He" ? Is not important your answer here, because my post wasn't an argue against someone.
Was an argue in order to sustain my affirmation ( #3519)

The wars has, with no exception, economics causes.

 

[Bladerunner]

I don't understand this from Galaxiom but, if he said that I must say that is entirely false.

The wars has, with no exception, economics causes.
I speak here about real causes, not about legendary causes (Helena from Troy is the first example that come in my mind).

But how to motivate the stupid soldiers to fight for a cause that they don't understand ?
Or, if they understand, they have no personal benefit ?

By telling they that this is a holly war.
By telling they that the God itself is implied in this (the "WISH" clause).
By telling they that they are the "selected" people and the enemy is also an enemy of God.

Do you recognize Hitler ? And not only.
Do you recognize the crusades ?
... or the "Jihad" ?
... or the "100 years war"
or... or... or...

Show me, if you can, a single war where the combatants are not motivated (also, not only) by religion belief.

"The religion is a powerful tool that help the (already) powerful man to keep the weakness people in chain" - quoted (not very exact) from the greatest Romanian poet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihai_Eminescu

All Wars the U.S. has been in.


Have a nice Day:>)

Bladerunner

 

[Brianwarnock]

All Wars the U.S. has been in.


Have a nice Day:>)

Bladerunner

I wonder if the Islamic people waging their war against THE GREAT SATAN would agree with that.

Brian