PDA

View Full Version : I find it mildly amusing...


Firedraikke
June 11th, 2007, 05:42 AM
I find the logic of it all intriguing, it is definitley something to discuss with my friends and random people.

I find it amusing, however, the fact that "people" take time out of their "lives" to deface peoples ideas to the extreme, though the people that comment on it in a civil manner...I give you my respect!

To the major religions...IF your belief in your religion is strong, and you believe that your religion is better than the Google religion...then why are you so threatened by it? An underlying realisation at the absurdity of your religion? The lack of logic to realise the entirety of the satire? (by this I am talking about this religion and parody religions such as the IPU, and the spaghetti monster.)

Alice Shade
June 11th, 2007, 06:06 AM
What makes you think Invisible Pink Unicorn and Flying Spaghetti Monster don`t get same amount of flak?

On the contrary. They DO get loads of hatemail as well for "mocking religion".

Main problem with hatemailers is that they do not understand, that religion (Xianity, in particular) is NOT a self-explaining truth. Most of our arguments fly over their head simply because of their assumption, that no matter what we say, we still subscribe to their superstition.

Therefore, they send and yell and hate and are a nuisance. Simply because they fail to understand, that we do NOT agree, that YHWH/Allah/Brahmin/Odin/whoever is anything more then figment of imagination.

Why? Well, answer to that is also answer to why this site was made, partially.

People are indoctorinated not to question faith by their upbringing. What`s worse, the way it`s done - especially by christian faith. Inquisition may`ve consisted of deranged sadists, but they were brilliant psychologists. The mere affirmation of Christian faith denies logic - and does so in such a way, that allows the believer to rationalise that any agruments against are only small nitpicks to the otherwise-infallible truth.

The point of Church of Google (as well as FSM, IPU and other such) is to use the very same rationalisation exagerratedly-mockingly, to provoke... Shock, if you will, at least SOMEONE into thinking.

Obviously, people who use "hauling ass" proof can not be helped... But those, who do come here to argue are different matter. Simply comparing the hatemail with our responces is sometimes enough to make someone think. And even if not... Arguing with us makes believers seek factual confirmation for their claims - provoking them to research their own religion, and THINK, yet again, how to rationalise or rebuff our arguments. That, really, is all that needed - that someone starts to think. They might not reject their favorite religion on the spot... Or ever, for that matter, but they WILL know a part of score. They would be more aware of WHAT they subscribe to, and how precariously over the void are their logical constructions.

Firedraikke
June 11th, 2007, 06:20 AM
Oh, I've tried a large amount of religions out, well, not trying out as most people would interpret it, rather, I bury myself into it to get a deeping understanding of it, so I can argue with people and encourage them to think. Every religion gets flak, as do every philosophy, it is human nature to quarrel with people whose beliefs to not coincide with theirs, even if the only differance are names.

As a stoic, I get accused/condemned of/to many things, Hell, blastphemy, Satanism, etc. My attempts at a deep philosophical conversation with my peers is foiled each time by the close-mindedness that plagues most believers in the main-stream religions.

Alice Shade
June 11th, 2007, 06:32 AM
I can relate to that. Being a Satanist myself, even more so.

However, that`s the whole point. You don`t follow mainstream religion because you`re smart, y`know? Smart people own the churches... And rack in hell profits.

Firedraikke
June 11th, 2007, 06:50 AM
I stay away from accepting religions as my following, as the whole basis of religion was to explain why the sun rose each day and then decended, or why any natural phenomenon happened for that matter. I've stuck with stoicism because the philosophy of it, I realised, is what I've been following all my life, of course, I've incorporated a few things into it.

Alice Shade
June 11th, 2007, 06:56 AM
Oh? I`m going to poke a bit at that.

Stoicism alone isn`t exactly the sound philosophy. I`m pretty sure yours have hefty doses of rationalism and cynicism mixed in.

As for religions... Problem is, that every religion is a form of philosophy. But not vice-versa.

Firedraikke
June 11th, 2007, 07:23 AM
Yes, I haven't met a single stoic whose entire and only philosophy was stoicism, mostly because if you look at it...it's like a cake without frosting, to me, I view it as the base of my belief. Yes, I have incorporated cynicism into my philosophy...but I do not walk around naked/dirty XD, rationalism is a big part. I do have a bit of Nihilism. I am also, as of recent, becoming a "glass is half-empty" person because of my increasing loss of faith in humanity...

Alice Shade
June 11th, 2007, 08:43 AM
Uh. Cynicism has nothing to do with naked/dirty. That "half-empty glass" idea is more about cynicism, actually.

As for nihilism, all of us are nihilists here, in one way or another.

Serenstar
June 11th, 2007, 04:28 PM
Simply because they fail to understand, that we do NOT agree, that YHWH/Allah/Brahmin/Odin/whoever is anything more then figment of imagination.



Hey! I believe in Odin! :icon_lol:

I also believe that all gods are a result of human imagination. :D

Don't ask why I believe that. I could never really explain it except that it makes sense to me.

I also believe that Google is the closest thing to a typically defined god.


No wonder my Christian friends won't talk about religion anywhere near me. :icon_lol:

Firedraikke
June 11th, 2007, 05:25 PM
Uh. Cynicism has nothing to do with naked/dirty. That "half-empty glass" idea is more about cynicism, actually.

As for nihilism, all of us are nihilists here, in one way or another.


Yes, about the cynicism, I did not get it when my friend looked me up and down and said "You are well dressed, and well groomed, you are not a dog-philosopher," my puzzled look caused him to explain to me. The basis of it, is that all you need to live a happy life is your virtue, and that is all you need to attain happiness, which as a cause of, the people who use it as a main leg in their philosophy tend to "live like dogs", neglecting hygiene, some traveling about in the nude, and without money, since they were viewed as hinderances on the path to happiness. However, modern day cynicism is differant, since now it refers to the lack of trust/faith in man-kind.

I would be considered a modern-day cynic. The "half-empty glass" is considered a pessimistic statement.

Alice Shade
June 11th, 2007, 05:37 PM
What you describe sounds pretty close to Luddism, actually.

The connotation that cynicism is "dog`s philosophy" is flawed. It`s history dates to such, but cynicism describes slightly different idea. It just happened so at the time of Socrates and Diogenes, those two ideas coincided.

As it is now, Cynicism is a concept closely tied with Occam`s razor and healthy pessimism, and, if one is really willing to do a metaphor, suggests that whole society lives like dogs, and thus, is most probably to behave like such.

Unregistered
June 25th, 2007, 03:46 AM
I find the logic of it all intriguing, it is definitley something to discuss with my friends and random people.

I find it amusing, however, the fact that "people" take time out of their "lives" to deface peoples ideas to the extreme, though the people that comment on it in a civil manner...I give you my respect!

To the major religions...IF your belief in your religion is strong, and you believe that your religion is better than the Google religion...then why are you so threatened by it? An underlying realisation at the absurdity of your religion? The lack of logic to realise the entirety of the satire? (by this I am talking about this religion and parody religions such as the IPU, and the spaghetti monster.)

Who are you even TALKING to? I see a bunch of people in here defacing religion in general, and ESPECIALLY Christianity. I DON'T see a bunch of Christians expressing that they are "threatened" by any of this.

See, it would simply be amusing, if it did not belittle people of other faiths. Despite your tired left coast stereotypes, not ALL religious people feel the need to do that. I myself, was intially amused, by the commandments, and the proofs, and such until I came across this -

"Your god is in no way different than any other supernatural god. You believe in it simply for the comfort it provides you with, despite it being completely illogical. It is a psychological tool you use to cope with reality."

and this -

"The Christian G-d, Islamic god and Hindu gods are also man made concepts. They exist only in the imagination of believers."

Consequently, I'm trying to track down any links between google.com and thechurchofgoogle.com. If they are wholly separate that's fine. If they are entangled in any way, then sadly, I'll have to find a new favorite search engine. While I don't begrudge anyone their own unique beliefs, I certainly have a choice, to vote with my every dollar and click, for those who respect others, not make fun of them.

So far, I see no link between Google Inc, to whom is registered google.com, IPs 209.85.165.99, 209.85.165.103, 209.85.165.147, 209.85.165.104, located in Mountain View, CA, and Frank Gadegast, to whom is registered thechurchofgoogle.com, IP 85.237.86.193, based in Germany. They're not even in the same server farm.

However, I still find it unusual that a company as large and publically owned as google would allow such a transparently altered version of their logo to be used on such a controversial website without having some knowledge, or perhaps even granting them permission, under the table.

You site admins do understand the size of the audience you're potentially scaring away from google, don't you? I mean, not everyone is GOING to question whether they're related, seeing that you do use (basically) the google logo.

Alice Shade
June 25th, 2007, 12:10 PM
No, we do not.

We use our own logos, SIMILAR to Google logo. Not the same. Why, should be more then obvious to anyone, who read the site.

On a side note, NO, we are NOT affiliated with Google, Co. in any way.

Moreso, we are NOT affiliated with thechurchofgoogle.com. We are thechurchofgoogle.org.

I have no doubt, that Google, Co. is quite aware of our presence. If we`d be in any way detrimental to their business, they`d take away our pagerank, and noone`d find us anymore, simple as that.

_____

As for our "belittling" of other religions - we express our disbelief in them. We give our reasons, why we find other religions ridiculous and dangerous. Ane we make a "show" out of Googlism, in hopes that some people would find it in them to question what they believe in instead of following by crowd instinct.

Belittling, you say? What about atheists being belittled all around?

This is a PROTEST. Protest against religion invading OUR safety zones.

I do NOT fucking want my kids to learn ID in school. I do NOT want fucking Jehovas` Witnesses to show up on my porch. I do NOT want my fucking taxes being spent on useless church, damnit!

I want to be FREE to religion, and I want it AWAY from me. Religious people an mass are dangerous nutjobs, who would not let go of their delusions even with overwhelming evidence that they are wrong.

And I`m scared to be near religious people. People, who in all seriousness say - "Devil made this rock look million years old to fool you!" are dangerous to the extreme. They are regressors of society, obstacles to knowledge, killers of the mind.

-AoG-Kero
June 25th, 2007, 03:59 PM
As for our "belittling" of other religions - we express our disbelief in them. We give our reasons, why we find other religions ridiculous and dangerous. Ane we make a "show" out of Googlism, in hopes that some people would find it in them to question what they believe in instead of following by crowd instinct.

Belittling, you say? What about atheists being belittled all around?

This is a PROTEST. Protest against religion invading OUR safety zones.

And I`m scared to be near religious people. People, who in all seriousness say - "Devil made this rock look million years old to fool you!" are dangerous to the extreme. They are regressors of society, obstacles to knowledge, killers of the mind.


rock on! religious should be a more personal thing. I dont have any problem with someone trying to convert me as long as when they do it, they only do it once. Persistence is quite annoying.

And the ignorance of some people astounds me since for some reason the close their minds to any other possibilities.

People who indeed say "Devil made this rock look million years old to fool you!"
are just being ignorant.

Endless Nameless
June 26th, 2007, 12:06 AM
Yes, I DO say belittling. Saying you don't BELIEVE in someone else's religion is simply a statement of your OWN faith.

Trying to say what's in THEIR head, why you THINK they believe in it, is belittling, particularly when your theory is that it's some sort of psychological disorder; a coping technique. Yes, I say the makers of this site belittle those of other religions, and I stand behind it.

"If we`d be in any way detrimental to their business, they`d take away our pagerank, and noone`d find us anymore, simple as that."

As I understand it, that would be a violation of their own policies.

"What about atheists being belittled all around?"

What ABOUT it? The world ain't fair. The sooner you get used to that, the better off you are. I WILL say that you're true to your real religion.. in the words of the "Rev" Maynard "Do unto others, what has been to you", but don't try to tell me you give a crap about what kind of world you're leaving for the next generation, if you think the appropriate response to discrimination is NOT its eradication, but its reversal.

It's amusing to me to count the same pitfalls and mindsets you seem to share with those you seem to detest.

An open minded person doesn't need to AVOID those who think differently. I've had Mormons coming to my house for over a year. I'M not Mormon, I'll never BE Mormon, and them finally realizing that probably means I'm not going to see them much anymore. But I don't need to shun them. I have the truth. The truth has no more reason to fear a lie, than the sun has reason to fear a shadow.

Alice Shade
June 26th, 2007, 12:50 AM
Oh? Well, if belittling Atheists is ok, and world is not fair place...

So you think we are belittling other religions. Too bad for you. World isn`t fair place. Cope with it and sod off... Hypocrite.

We stand by our opinions, and we have our FACTUAL truth. Go ahead and deny it all that you want. Facts have a nasty habit to come back and smack you down when you least expect it, if you don`t heed them.

___

And no. If we were to infringe on Google copyrighted trademarks, it would be VERY according to their policy to deny us a pagerank - just a part of Google doing it`s best to assist international trademark law, you understand.

endless nameless
June 26th, 2007, 01:50 AM
oooh... Did I touch a nerve there, implying that deep down, you're just like the typical Americhristian?

It is what it is. They think the have the final truth, and they're not really interested or open to anyone else's opinions or beliefs on that.. just like you.

I don't see why you have to call me out of MY name for that. I haven't called YOU names. I could've. I have human nature, too. But thus is the nature of your real religion, to embrace the lesser instincts, while mine teaches me to do my best to rise above them.

This is just silly, though...

"And no. If we were to infringe on Google copyrighted trademarks, it would be VERY according to their policy to deny us a pagerank - just a part of Google doing it`s best to assist international trademark law, you understand."

That wasn't the issue, was it? You said earlier-

"If we`d be in any way detrimental to their business, they`d take away our pagerank, and noone`d find us anymore, simple as that."

Alice Shade
June 26th, 2007, 02:04 AM
You don`t mean to say trademark infringement isn`t detrimental, do you?

___

Actually no. I know I`m not any bit like christian.

Simply because I can change what I currently take as working hypothesis to adhere it to existing facts.

I don`t need to change facts to make them adhere to whatever skewered idea I might have.

___

As for "hypocrite", I feel it was entirely warranted, considering you was complaining about us being demeaning to religions and saying it`s cool to be demeaning to atheists in one post.

Don`t like it? Bite me.

Unregistered
June 26th, 2007, 02:07 AM
Oh? Well, if belittling Atheists is ok, and world is not fair place...

And, for the record, I never said it was okay. I was trying to make the point, that if you dont' appreciate being treated contemptuously and disrespect, you ought to set a better example, instead of taking your frustrations from persons A and B, and reflecting them onto persons C-F. That doesn't help anything. That only results in more people being mistreated without cause.

I'm just trying to show you, if you're being honest about your problems with Christians, they ARE problems with Christians (specific Christians), not Christianity or every last Christian.

-AoG-Kero
June 26th, 2007, 02:38 AM
I'm just trying to show you, if you're being honest about your problems with Christians, they ARE problems with Christians (specific Christians), not Christianity or every last Christian.

he is kinda right, i mean im a christian(albeit a liberal one) and though we have opposing ideas, ive managed so far to not get into any "heated" debates

Alice Shade
June 26th, 2007, 03:04 AM
According to my research (17 visited forums, each one been posted to numerous times and then left alone after the conditions became unbearable, or after ban) over the last year, I have to say, that ALL Christian SOCIUMS I`ve encountered so far are deeply xenophobic, with highly-developed censorship and round-robin support.

While separate christians might as well be entirely decent people (which is often the case, by the way), there MUST be something inherently wrong with christianity to produce such high level of social xenophoby.

On a side note, I`ve NEVER encountered anything similar on any other religion-oriented forums.

Unregistered
June 26th, 2007, 03:51 AM
"While separate christians might as well be entirely decent people (which is often the case, by the way), there MUST be something inherently wrong with christianity to produce such high level of social xenophoby."

See, I would agree with that. The problem is that it's corrupted. Yeshua (Jesus) didn't come to start a new religion. He HAD a religion, Judaism. He never spoke out against, or said that He had come to start a new religion. And all those prophecies His believers point to said that He HAD to be a Jew, to be the Messiah. For decades, if not centuries, Jews and Christians learned together, lived together, worshipped together. It was until 300 years later, at the Council of Nicea that an entirely new religion, with a new Sabbath, new festivals, new rules, new teachings, and a new 3-in-1 G-d were created, in His Name.

IMO, this is why it's so easy for Christians to think they know it all- Right off the bat, they throw away the majority of the Bible, as being written for the Jews, not for them (while they simulataneously claim to BE the new Jews).. I short (I know, too late), there isn't that much to KNOW if you approach the search for truth as the typical Americhristian does, thus after a few short years, they can easily become convinced that they know it all (or everything that matters).

You don't see Jews cramming religion down anyone's throat, or threatening them with hell all the time to scare them into church. I even did a word count on the NT, and found that Yeshua (Jesus) Himself spoke of heaven 6x as often as He spoke on hell. That's not the ratio you're likely to hear in today's churches.

Alice Shade
June 26th, 2007, 04:07 AM
Now that is better.

Majority of hostility to the christianity around here comes from the simple fact, that we never ever had any hatemail or trolling from anyone but christians, whereas they did their best to make themselves as much of a nuisance, as possible.

___

Getting back to the problem of gods.

There is a lot of beef over particular wording.

Putting it simply, indeed, there is no evidence, that there does NOT exists some omnipotent supernatural deity.

On the other hand, there is evidence against omnipotent creator, and against Abrahamic god.

Putting it simple, if the world had been created, then creator really sucks, and anyone can design better solutions.

Now, Abrahamic god.... the problem is, that bible/qu`ran/torah define god in such a way, that is inherently contradictive. Simply put, if we were to try and put together a "model" of God, that fullfilled all the requirements in either of those holy texts, we would not be able to come up with model, that omits contradictions somehow else then by non-existance.

This is where a lot of religious people take umbrage, by the way. But it`s all there. One just needs logic to examine the evidence and see, how it all fits together.

-AoG-Kero
June 26th, 2007, 08:21 PM
so would it be correct for my form of thinking for me to convert to judaism? i dont think i would either way, since its only really a title

Endless Nameless
June 29th, 2007, 06:12 PM
Majority of hostility to the christianity around here comes from the simple fact, that we never ever had any hatemail or trolling from anyone but christians, whereas they did their best to make themselves as much of a nuisance, as possible.

I dunno.. you're obviously an intelligent person. Surely it has occured to you that this could simply be because there are so many more OF them?

On the other hand, there is evidence against omnipotent creator, and against Abrahamic god.

Putting it simple, if the world had been created, then creator really sucks, and anyone can design better solutions.

Huh? So where are they? How long did OUR sheep live? Where's OUR oceans? The ones that we designed? Where are OUR mountains? I dont understand how you can claim that we can do what G-d is alleged to have done.

Now, Abrahamic god.... the problem is, that bible/qu`ran/torah define god in such a way, that is inherently contradictive. Simply put, if we were to try and put together a "model" of God, that fullfilled all the requirements in either of those holy texts, we would not be able to come up with model, that omits contradictions somehow else then by non-existance.

I disagree. I think it's bad interpretations, and people inserting their own dogma into the texts that produces the apparent contradictions. But I'll hear anyone out.

And, Allah is not the Abrahamic G-d. The name Allah existed as a pagan deity before Muhammed. They can claim to worship the same G-d, and I gave them the benefit of the doubt for years, but if you refuse to accept G-d's Word, and you refuse to acknowledge His eternal covenant with Israel, I don't see how that's the same god at all.

AoG-Kero-

Not so much, no. There's really no method of conversion listed in the Bible, although there certainly other cases of a convert or a "stranger who dwells among us" who are subject to the exact same regulations (The earliest record in history of a civil law requiring racial equality, btw).

I'm simply talking about a Hebraic persective. Some of this can be gained simply by learning about the language and the vocabulary. That taught me that there are relatively few adjectives in biblical Hebrew; It's an action oriented language, with mostly verbs (actions) and nouns (performing an action). There's a lot more to it.

Personally, I find Kabbalah to be helpful in interpreting Torah sometimes, but that comes with its own trappings. There are plenty of people, like Crowley and Manly Hall, who write books supposedly about Kabbalah, but who plainly have no #$^ing clue what they're talking about. Even a Jew is not supposed to be taught Kabbalah until he's 40, according to tradition. It's that much harder to find anyone to teach a Gentile.

-AoG-Kero
June 30th, 2007, 04:12 AM
well then maybe i should take some time to study the jewish religion to enlighten myself.

Alice Shade
July 4th, 2007, 10:40 AM
Percentage does not matches.

Xenophoby among christians has the highest percentage I`ve ever encountered.

Or, putting it in layman terms, chances are much higher that christian will turn to be intolerant jerk, then any other religion representative. (Note, I said jerk. Muslims have even higher percentage of intolerance, but they rarely express it in argumentative way. Rather, they simply refuze to argue about the point, and say they are not qualified to answer those questions.)

___

Islam does shares the same root with Christianity and Judaism.

Mere fact, that "Allah" was used for another deity before Islam does not particularly changes anything - as far as I understand Arabic languages, "Allah" is not a name of god, but the word "god" itself.

Using the same argument, I can argue, that Christianity is not really an abrahamic religion - after all, Zeus was considered God before christianity was even concieved.

___

On a side note, I`ve heard "interpretations" argument before, and I have to note, that it`s a weak one.

Considering, that Bible was wrought down in it`s entirety by humans, it`s interpreting the interpreters.

Putting it simply - there is NO way to assure, that any interpretation is a correct one - they are all equally false, being all made by humans.

The only way to obtain original would be to contact Yhwh himself, and record his own version for posterity. However, this solution, albeit scientifically sound, is highly improbable one to carry out with any degree of accuracy - simply because of mandatory presence of human medium.

I suppose, that if God could be persuaded to sit down and write his memoirs himself, or even simply dictate them to sound-recording device, that would`ve sufficed as a final proof. Too bad that it`s impossible.

Unregistered
July 5th, 2007, 10:34 PM
Oh please..

Talking about probabilities, as if you had some kind of scientific study.

Let's be real here. You're taking experiences from your own life, and wrapping them in pseudo-scientific lingo, so that it sounds like there's something to it.

And how old are you, that you feel qualified to talk, even from personal experience, about probabilities related to those kids' lives as they grow up?

Mere fact, that "Allah" was used for another deity before Islam does not particularly changes anything - as far as I understand Arabic languages, "Allah" is not a name of god, but the word "god" itself.

Using the same argument, I can argue, that Christianity is not really an abrahamic religion - after all, Zeus was considered God before christianity was even concieved.

Uh, that's not the same argument at all, but we CAN use the Greek pantheon as a comparison. Zeus doesn't work though, he was still like the alpha god. Say if a people took Eros, or Aphrodite, and started worshipping them, saying they were the ONLY G-d. Well, that wouldn't make sense, since they WERE already the object of worship as part of a larger GROUP of deities.

Putting it simply - there is NO way to assure, that any interpretation is a correct one - they are all equally false, being all made by humans.
Exactly. That's why people, particularly Christians, should be a little more humble in what they believe. Or as "the prophet" Rufus said in Dogma, it's better to have ideas than beliefs. Ideas can be changed. That doesn't make the whole text inaccurate.

Here, we're talking about Muslims, there's more circumstantial evidence for the truth of the Hebrew prophets (notice, I don't say "The Bible", since there is no "the Bible").

"I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring." Genesis 21:13

"And God was with the lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt" Genesis 21:20-21

Alice Shade
July 5th, 2007, 11:37 PM
Each member of Greek pantheon was still called "God" or "Goddess". So, each of the male members of Greek panteon was also the christian God, it seems?

Nope. Word "God" does NOT means specific deity, and can be applied to a large number of supernatural concepts of masculine gender. Similarly, it`s potentially silly to say that Allah means specific god.

It it`s of any consolation for you... Yes, there is specific god - patron of christians. His name is Yhwh. Coincidentally, he doubles over as a patron of Judaism and patron of Islam, being originally the god of abrahamic religion.

____

As for probabilities, I`ve specifically visited seventeen different christian forums, offering similar behavior everywhere - polite, but questioning. Each of the forums had applied censoring as soon as my questions became a bit too pointed to answer with vague allusion to bible.

___

As for no translation being perfect, it also means, that ANY version of text is fallacious.

If christians agreed to view Bible by parts, it would be more or less viable to weed out potentially incorrect places with careful semantic matching.

But since bible is always represented as one whole text, and each part is declared correct because whole is infallible... Sorry. Reasonable people have to conclude, that any version of bible is fallacious, and therefore can not be taken as accurate.

Endless Nameless
July 17th, 2007, 07:58 AM
Each member of Greek pantheon was still called "God" or "Goddess". So, each of the male members of Greek panteon was also the christian God, it seems?

Nope. Word "God" does NOT means specific deity, and can be applied to a large number of supernatural concepts of masculine gender. Similarly, it`s potentially silly to say that Allah means specific god.

Again, a result of a pet peeve of mine, willful ignorance. G-d isn't really G-d's Name, and if people understood that, I likely wouldn't feel the need to take the 'o' out. "G-d" is NEVER used in the Bible as His Name.

Allah, on the other hand, IS used in the Koran, is in fact the primary name of the Muslim god.

It it`s of any consolation for you... Yes, there is specific god - patron of christians. His name is Yhwh. Coincidentally, he doubles over as a patron of Judaism and patron of Islam, being originally the god of abrahamic religion.

First off, there's no equivilent to "w" in Hebrew. I don't know where people get that particular attempt at transliteration, but I, with my limited understanding, find no linguistic evidence to support that over any other version. And again, the Muslims do not refer to the four letter Name, or the other biblical names, elohim/eloheinu, Ad-nai, etc.. It's always Allah, a name which predates the Koran, and has no biblical (Abrahamic) basis.


As for probabilities, I`ve specifically visited seventeen different christian forums, offering similar behavior everywhere - polite, but questioning. Each of the forums had applied censoring as soon as my questions became a bit too pointed to answer with vague allusion to bible.

I don't doubt it. But I've told you about a site where you would be treated differently, invited you to come, and I've not seen any of these biting questions on the forums. It's www.mypraize.com if you change your mind. But see, if someone let you say your piece, you couldn't claim a 0% tolerance rate anymore..


As for no translation being perfect, it also means, that ANY version of text is fallacious.

No, no, no... No translation of anything is ever going to be perfect, because languages do not always have a perfect translation for every word. Culture comes into play in the common usage of a word, and those cultural nuances can never be translated. 'Shalom' is a prime example. In English, they call it 'peace' but 'peace' barely scratches the surface of 'shalom.' It's not the translators' fault. There simply is no English equivilent. The perfect version, then, is the original.

If christians agreed to view Bible by parts, it would be more or less viable to weed out potentially incorrect places with careful semantic matching.

But since bible is always represented as one whole text, and each part is declared correct because whole is infallible... Sorry. Reasonable people have to conclude, that any version of bible is fallacious, and therefore can not be taken as accurate.

But it's not always. I'm not representing it as such. It causes strife between myself and my brethren, but that's okay. I seek His truth first, and all other concerns, even Shalom, come after that.

I believe Paul corrupted and watered down the true message of Meshiach. We would barely know of His life or death if we had only Paul to go on, and many of his preachings can not be found in the scriptures used by preachers of the day.

I believe the book of Jude is one really long string of references and even direct quotes from the Book of Enoch (AKA 'The Ethiopian Book of Enoch' for any interested parties), and I think it's pretty silly that the average Christian denies any divine inspiration by its author, while claiming Jude was divinely inspired to QUOTE this allegedly false book.

I believe the Song of Songs/Song of Solomon doesn't contain a single reference to G-d, faith, heaven, religion, sin, prophesy, Torah, or anything else one might expect to find in the "Word of G-d." I find, therefore, that while it is a beautiful love poem, that is all it is.

You speak of reasonable people. I'm afraid I don't know what that is. But I can speak of truth seekers, those who put the search for truth above their own honor or esteem, above family and reputation, and even life and freedom.

Truth seekers don't follow ANY crowd, Alice... Even one that has their back. Truth seekers blaze their own trail, and their only permanent ally IS truth.

Alice Shade
July 17th, 2007, 10:27 AM
Again, a result of a pet peeve of mine, willful ignorance. G-d isn't really G-d's Name, and if people understood that, I likely wouldn't feel the need to take the 'o' out. "G-d" is NEVER used in the Bible as His Name.

Allah, on the other hand, IS used in the Koran, is in fact the primary name of the Muslim god.

***
First off, there's no equivilent to "w" in Hebrew. I don't know where people get that particular attempt at transliteration, but I, with my limited understanding, find no linguistic evidence to support that over any other version. And again, the Muslims do not refer to the four letter Name, or the other biblical names, elohim/eloheinu, Ad-nai, etc.. It's always Allah, a name which predates the Koran, and has no biblical (Abrahamic) basis.



Hebrew language isn`t all that easy to transliterate. Another transliteration offers Yagweh, but frankly, to know the correct version, one has to hear it, or read it in hebrew.

As for Allah, it is WORD "God". Muslims are not that arrogant to know the name of the God, therefore they always refer to their god as "Allah", which means simply God. No doubt, that their distant arab ancestors refered to other deities as allah too, seeing as it`s a WORD "god".

Putting it simply... We`d say "god Zeus". Arab`d say "allah Zeus".

No, no, no... No translation of anything is ever going to be perfect, because languages do not always have a perfect translation for every word. Culture comes into play in the common usage of a word, and those cultural nuances can never be translated. 'Shalom' is a prime example. In English, they call it 'peace' but 'peace' barely scratches the surface of 'shalom.' It's not the translators' fault. There simply is no English equivilent. The perfect version, then, is the original.

There is no original. It was written back in times, when original document preservation wasn`t quite developed as a practice yet.

Considering, that two millenias back, the only methods of book copying were word-of-mouth retelling and manual copying by quill, I have no doubt, that original had drastic differences from any version known today.

While it might be possible to recover stray fragments of original Bible scriptures, most part of it is swallowed by the time, at this point.

Truth seekers don't follow ANY crowd, Alice... Even one that has their back. Truth seekers blaze their own trail, and their only permanent ally IS truth.

You mean to say you`re not a truth seeker then? Because you outright deny true facts, that don`t sit well with your crowd.

Occam`s Razor. Learn that concept. It would be quite an eye-opener.


___


P.S. Out of interest, I`ve visited your suggested site. And got offended by the very first post.

Forum "Ladies Only" - post about someone`s friend being lesbian on the top. Just within one page, there was enough to make sure I`ll NEVER register at that resource.

If you are promoting THAT as bastion of tolerance... Try harder. Like, ten times harder.

Unregistered
July 17th, 2007, 08:44 PM
Your latest post, again, shows a lack of understanding of Hebraic culture.

Even to this day, if a single penstroke is misplaced in the copying or Torah, the entire scroll is destroyed. They take their historical role as the protectors of Torah VERY seriously. You can have no doubt, but you can't prove it.

It's NOT arrogant to presume to know the Name of G-d (or the Name He wants man to call Him) IF He tells us His Name. That Muslims have no more specific name for their deity than a generic title is further proof that G-d did not speak to Muhammed as He did to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and all the prophets.

I don't even know what your talking about, with the personal jab. I couldn't even understand what I was replying to, unless you want to clarify what "facts" you think I'm denying, or who it is you're referring to when you say "your crowd."

And you're completely twisting the issue with mypraize. Firstly, being a social networking site, it does attract a fair amount of younger surfers. Kids are stupid, regardless of what kind of kids. And also, I never promised you'd like a single thing a single member had to say. What I said was that you wouldn't be censored. It's their right to say what they want, it's your right to choose to take offense, as it is to decline to sign up. BUT, having made that choice, expect that any time I see you make references to those mean old censoring Christian message boards, expect to be called out. Because you were told where you could go and concerse with Christians of all ages, denominations, political affiliations, whatever.. and you chose NOT to see whether they would or would not censor you. Again, it's awfully convenient, because then you think you can keep claiming that they all censor you. You can claim it all want, but if you want it to stand unchallenged, you'll do it somewhere I can't respond.

Alice Shade
July 17th, 2007, 09:52 PM
Alright, I call bullshit on the Torah being unchanged.

The language itself had changed - and so did quill strokes.

Noone speaks or scribes Hebrew as it was two millenias ago - therefore, NO, Torah is NOT identical to original.

The meaning of words itself changes over such a span of time, you know.

___

As for your snipes at Muslims... Learn about THEIR culture before trying to argue. FYI, they deem it to be a herecy to try to learn the name of the god.

On a side note, quite similarly, pronouncing Yhwh was also herecy not so long ago.

___

As for mypraise... I`m NOT inclined to go to site, that inherently offends me at the first sight, to pledge my cause.

If you want to prove something to me, start a debate there, and invite me over to uphold it. Otherwise, don`t bother. I`m NOT going to hop all over internet checking every damn forum pointed out by someone anonymous.

___

P.S. Almost forgot to address the last issue.

Quite simple - you deny the fact that belief in abrahamic god is too self-contradictive to be viable theory. Until you find the logically-plausible reasons to explain the obvious contradictions in those beliefs, you are not truth-seeker, but truth-represser.

Unregistered
July 23rd, 2007, 01:26 AM
Alright, I call bullshit on the Torah being unchanged.

The language itself had changed - and so did quill strokes.

Noone speaks or scribes Hebrew as it was two millenias ago - therefore, NO, Torah is NOT identical to original.

The meaning of words itself changes over such a span of time, you know.

Okay, super, so you called bullshit. Now the million dollar question, Can you prove it? Or is YOUR belief that it changed a matter of faith, just like MY belief that it didn't?

___

As for your snipes at Muslims... Learn about THEIR culture before trying to argue. FYI, they deem it to be a herecy to try to learn the name of the god.

Oh my goodness. A liberal atheist trying to teach cultural sensitivity towards Muslims. Well, you're just a walking stereotype, arentcha? I don't really care what they believe. I researched it enough to know it was false, and that any further information I gained would be merely for academic purposes, thus dropping it through the floor on my hierarchy of importance.

On a side note, quite similarly, pronouncing Yhwh was also herecy not so long ago.

Pronouncing it at all is disrespectful. In Jewish society, only the High Priest would utter The Name, and only once a year. Just using the Name in conversation is a violation of the esrot devarim, the ten utterances given in Exodus 20. But, you can't pronounce it without vowels, and the original vowels are carefully protected, if indeed they have been preserved at all. This further shows the carefulness with which the Israelites have approached their role as recipients and protectors of Torah.

As for mypraise... I`m NOT inclined to go to site, that inherently offends me at the first sight, to pledge my cause.

If you want to prove something to me, start a debate there, and invite me over to uphold it. Otherwise, don`t bother. I`m NOT going to hop all over internet checking every damn forum pointed out by someone anonymous.

No, I have nothing to prove to you. I think my point is proven to the wandering surfer, though. I'm not gonna beg you to go there. But if you were really interested in uncensored (at least for IDEAS, vulgarities aren't tolerated there) conversation with Christians, I think you'd have taken the opportunity.


you deny the fact that belief in abrahamic god is too self-contradictive to be viable theory. Until you find the logically-plausible reasons to explain the obvious contradictions in those beliefs, you are not truth-seeker, but truth-represser.

I see no contradictions. And it's not a theory. The truth of His Word exists on every globe manufactured today.

Alice Shade
July 23rd, 2007, 08:31 AM
Okay, super, so you called bullshit. Now the million dollar question, Can you prove it? Or is YOUR belief that it changed a matter of faith, just like MY belief that it didn't?

Of course. Why would there be a need in specific scientific branch, which specialises in decyphering old languages, if languages were unchanged?

I`m well sure, that even when you was a kid, there were words used, which now are rarity.

Bona fide example - right now, noone would casually say "dame" about a woman, only as a joke or a part of compliment. Whereas, about eighty years ago, it was quite a commonday word.

Now think, if you can. If EIGHTY years had driven a whole lot of words into obscurity, and invented a whole lot of new ones, what would happen over a MILLENIA, let alone several? Please, if you argue, use common sense at least.

Oh my goodness. A liberal atheist trying to teach cultural sensitivity towards Muslims. Well, you're just a walking stereotype, arentcha? I don't really care what they believe. I researched it enough to know it was false, and that any further information I gained would be merely for academic purposes, thus dropping it through the floor on my hierarchy of importance.

So, if you admittedly don`t know jack about Muslims, what are you doing here arguing about them?


Pronouncing it at all is disrespectful. In Jewish society, only the High Priest would utter The Name, and only once a year. Just using the Name in conversation is a violation of the esrot devarim, the ten utterances given in Exodus 20. But, you can't pronounce it without vowels, and the original vowels are carefully protected, if indeed they have been preserved at all. This further shows the carefulness with which the Israelites have approached their role as recipients and protectors of Torah.

I can pronounce it with vowels, but English is ill-suited for transcripting that. Russian would be much easier to write it down on, but I sincerely doubt you can read Cyrillic.


No, I have nothing to prove to you. I think my point is proven to the wandering surfer, though. I'm not gonna beg you to go there. But if you were really interested in uncensored (at least for IDEAS, vulgarities aren't tolerated there) conversation with Christians, I think you'd have taken the opportunity.


I have enough of you here, hotshot. The same way you "researched" Muslims, I researched Christians, did experiments (the crucial part you forgot ^_^), and made a conclusion - Christian faith is dangerous mental delusion. I recommend forcible interventions on Christians, as Christianism is the same kind of disease as alcoholism.


I see no contradictions. And it's not a theory. The truth of His Word exists on every globe manufactured today.

That made no sense. If you meant to say around the globe - so is Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Krishnaism, Zoroastrism, Paganry, Atheism, Confucianism and whole lot of other religions and philosophies. Try better.

Unregistered
July 23rd, 2007, 08:58 PM
Bona fide example - right now, noone would casually say "dame" about a woman, only as a joke or a part of compliment. Whereas, about eighty years ago, it was quite a commonday word.

Now think, if you can. If EIGHTY years had driven a whole lot of words into obscurity, and invented a whole lot of new ones, what would happen over a MILLENIA, let alone several? Please, if you argue, use common sense at least.

You are forgetting (or ignoring) that Hebrew, unlike English, is both a liturgical language as well as an esoteric one. The common language of conversation can be considered as a separate langauge from the liturgical language, Biblical Hebrew. In fact, synogogues around the world, including the one I go to for lessons, DO teach them in separate classes. Conversational Hebrew is less rigid, and more prone to vernacular and culture. Liturgical Hebrew is not. A better comparison would be Latin, which is a liturgical language, though not an esoteric one. Yet even if the Catholic church should allow their liturgical language to change, Hashem does not. You have not proven otherwise, or proven ANY thing beyond a given (conversational) language's propensity towards changing with culture. This proves nothing about Hebrew.

So, if you admittedly don`t know jack about Muslims, what are you doing here arguing about them?

I think it was YOU that brought them up. You just didn't my response, that you were in fact making my points for me. The Israelites don't believe in using G-d's true Name either, but we do know His Names. This truth is reflected in that while Hashem has made Himself known to the Hebrews, telling them what Names they may call Him by, and calling them from the world by name, even calling them His children, (Exodus 4:22), and thus making Him their Father, the Muslims have no such relationship with G-d, do NOT refer to Him as their Father, and do not even know His Name.

I can pronounce it with vowels, but English is ill-suited for transcripting that. Russian would be much easier to write it down on, but I sincerely doubt you can read Cyrillic.

Eh, I took some in high school, but since I have no Russian speaking friends, I'm sure I'm quite rusty. Regardless, my point is that you wouldn't know what vowels to put in. You don't even seem to know what consonents to put in, to be honest. The Hebrew letter Heh does not transliterate to an English G (Hebrew Gimel would be more accurate), nor does Hebrew Vav transliterate to English W. I say again, you can try, but you wouldn't know how. The most common attempted pronunciation of the 4-letter Name, is the consonents from the tetragrammaton with the vowels from "Ad-nai", "my L-rd" put into it. This has no historical or biblical basis, but works fine considering all the people that seek to pronounce The Name in defiance of Hashem's instructions.

I have enough of you here, hotshot. The same way you "researched" Muslims, I researched Christians, did experiments (the crucial part you forgot ^_^), and made a conclusion - Christian faith is dangerous mental delusion. I recommend forcible interventions on Christians, as Christianism is the same kind of disease as alcoholism.

Yes, I'm sure this is where I'm supposed to get all offended or something. But you don't seem to realize that where you're at, I've been, and where you're headed, I've left. I have to once again challenge your use of scientific lingo to try to give objective credibility to your personal experiences. You call this an experiment? Where are your protocols? We know your hypothesis, and your claim of results. If you find it accurate to call it an "experiment," then I now ask you to name the 17 sites you say have censored you, and provide the body of text for which you were censored.

That made no sense. If you meant to say around the globe - so is Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Krishnaism, Zoroastrism, Paganry, Atheism, Confucianism and whole lot of other religions and philosophies. Try better.

No, I said quite what I meant. Every globe being manufactured in the last 50 years has the word 'Israel' printed on it, in some form. Thus, every globe and world atlas contains evidence that 1900 years of being scattered across the world, followed by some of the worst persecution and genocide in history, in Russia and Europe, can not stop Hashem from fulfilling His Holy Word.

Alice Shade
July 23rd, 2007, 11:55 PM
Even litugrical language changes within two millenias.

every liturgical language changes. Latin, Old Russian, and yes, Hebrew. If that was not so, there would be no scientists who research the very changes in languages.

If you want to say that liturgical Hebrew is still very same, prove that scientists, who research it`s changes don`t exist.

___

There is NO God, get it through your thick head at last. Muslims have the very same claim to god, as do you. No more, no less. Every "proof" you have about Allah being not true god and God - true god, can be twisted inside out, and applied to prove Allah being true god, and God - not true. They were all born from one root. Disproving one means disproving another.

___

Nevermind. Eggs teaching hen.

___

Using your own words - I`ve nothing to prove you.

But, as I`m feeling especially generous, I`ll describe the last account.

Name of the site will be withheld, because I do not want to indemnate numerous people possibly meaning well because of one zealot.

The account went as follows:

1) I`ve registered at the site, and in the specially-separated zone, I`ve announced, that I am sceptical towards the idea of Christianity, and would like to hear explanation for questions I`ve not had, yet.

2) After two days of debating, denisens of the site, frustrated by their inability to mount logical defence against my questions, offered me to scan through John`s Gospel and sum up questions I`ve had about them.

3) I`ve opened my copy of Bible, sat down, and scribbled down questions for first three chapters (out of twenty one). I`ve had about a dosen questions about each chapter, on average.

4) Per request of the site denisens, I`ve created a topic, and posted my questions into it. Some attempted to answer, but topic was promptly deleted, and I`ve been notified, that I am "not qualified to lead a discussion about word of God".

As the site moderators had explicitly forbidden me to ask too many questions by this censorship, I`ve had no choice but to retire my presence there.

I can email my questions for first three chapters, if someone is nitpicky enough to want to see them. Too big to place them right here.

___

Israel on globe? Please.... That`s not even funny.

Russia had been on the every globe ever made. Does that means that orthodox church got it best of all?

Saudi Arabia had been on every globe ever made. Does that means that Islam is the "right" religion?

India had been on every globe ever made. Why aren`t you worshipping Brahmin?

Israel being on map means only one thing - someone was smart and courageus enough to put it there. Don`t credit God for what Golda Meir did.

And don`t ever forget - not every israelite is jew.