Messages From Marilyn Burge
41 - 60 of 3,324

of Concepts such as "truth" and "justice" for sure exist. But I think that there is a real danger in thinking that we know what they are. To me, they are something one seeks, but never assumes one has found. The minute you think you have a lock on the big questions, you're probably the farthest off-base. This is one of the main reasons why fundies drive me a little bit crazy. They don't understand where I'm coming from, and

Council Of Nicea
I'm not an idiot! I meant exactly what I said. At the time of the Council of Nicea, there WAS NOT OTHER GENTILE CHURCH EXCEPT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (or at least none that survived that Council). There were Christians, and there were Jews. Period. And that's exactly what I was saying. The Council of Nicea pretty much established the Christian Church as an entity. Prior to that there was no agreement as to what was canon, what was Jesus' intent,

Lightbulbs & X-tians
I see. So the halocaust wasn't evil because not all the non-Christians were killed. Interesting perspective. Genocide in the name of religion (or god) is evil, no matter what justification is given. If a human being gave the same order as your god, he'd be immediately declared an evil lunatic. But when you god issues the order, he's a good guy in a just cause. Interesting perspective. Not one that I share, and hardly one that can be supported by

I suspect you are misreading what Marshall said, although I would not presume to speak for him. There are two Jesuses. One is the historic figure of Jesus, the other in the mythologized figure that we know today. The former existed; the latter didn't. It's like the story about George Washington and the cherry tree. Although it makes a good story, there isn't a word of truth in it. That Washington lived is indisputible; that he was like we have

I That's your definition of god, not mine. Mine, like I said, is really quite different.

Fact Vs. Faith
If you mean "human beings" in the same sense are we are human beings, I would have to agree. The atmosphere hardly lends itself to human life. But I have no way of knowing if there is some life form that thrives in that environment, for the reasons I stated earlier. Just as we survive with oxygen etc., there may very well be a life form on the moon that survives quite nicely in that environment. I can only say

No, it was meant to cause an abortion as proof of adultery. It was an abortificient, no matter how you slice it.

Paul did not write Acts. Acts is primarily about two of Jesus' original disciples, Peter and John, and of Paul who was not one of the original twelve, although he considered himself to be an Apostle. Biblical scholars generally agree that Acts was not written by Paul, but rather by the same person who wrote Luke. It is possible that Luke, an associate of Paul, did write these mterials, but there doesn't seem to be any agreement about this matter.

a If that is precisely what I said, I misspoke. I should have said that they accepted those books (and the interpretation of those books) that was most likely to FURTHER their power. Power corrupts, and many men have lusted for power, including the heads of the Catholic Church. I will tell you my views as I see them; I will not characterize those views with a label. I don't call myself Christian, deist, or anything else except "atheist." I

Highly unlikely. Given the number of flat-out statements in the Bible, the number of ccontradictions there are among them, and the number of ways each statement can be interpreted, the likelihood of one sect getting all of the possible permutations exactly right is infinity.

The Gospel!
Rather than assume you have a handle on Martin's reason for being here, wouldn't it be better to ask him? And, given the number of "other religions" there are in this world, why rag on him because he did not choose to investigate a specific one? Maybe he's an expert on Hinduism, for all you know. And, possibly he is in this conference because he likes showing the fundies how ignorant they are about HIS area of expertise, and not

Steve, old boy, I don't know how to break this to you, but that is the definition of situational ethics.

Fact Vs. Faith
There's more in question that a mere difference in wording. To begin with, there are many more than ten. In the second place, you think they mean what you've been told they mean, but the words say something quite different in some instances. Take for example, the first commandment. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." It does not say that we may have no other gods, it says that none can come before Him. In other words, we

Lightbulbs & X-tians
Steve, that's situational ethics. "It is all right to do so-and-so under THESE circumstances, but wrong to do them under THOSE circumstances (i.e., during ancient time as opposed to during modern times). Either a thing is unethical, or it is not. If it is not ethical now, it was not ethical then.

Maybe You Can Tell Me
So if the flood happened, you would expect many civilizations to have an account of it. THINK, MAN! According to the flood myth, there was NOBODY LEFT TO GIVE AN ACCOUNT EXCEPT NOAH AND HIS FAMILY! So how did all these accounts get written all over the world? Disproving the flood is hardly proving a negative. There is zero evidence of a global deluge. Such an event would leave MUCH evidence. Such an event would have rendered ALL the species

Are you sure it was three days? Accounts vary on this issue. Are you sure she was a virgin? We've been through that one already, and MUCH evidence has been presented to you regarding whether or not Mary had an intact hymen at the time of her impregnation, whether you want to accept the evidence (or even bother to check it out for yourself) or not. As for him rising from the dead, there is a difference of opinion among

One God
More crap out of the Council of Nicea. The Council declared a trinity in order to finesse the obvious problems in creating a monotheistic religion without the concept. The "we" that is mentioned in Genesis 1, and the Elohim (note the plural) mentioned in Genesis were an artifact of the pantheistic roots of both Judaism and Christianity. THAT is your roots, Steve, whether you want to admit it or not. There is no trinity. Christ never said there was a

Inconsistencies #2
How many days between the crucifixion and resurrection? Are the discrepancies in those accounts minor and have no effect on doctrine? How did Judas die? At whose hand? While this has nothing to do with doctrine, I do think that a few more of these would leave one question- ing the credibility of the source of their doctrine. If they couldn't get such things as how the betrayer of Jesus died, why should I trust what they say about how

Well, if I do a REAL stretch, I can agree with you; otherwise I can't. There were many Christian sects prior to the Council of Nicea, but there was no "church" in the sense that we use that word today. Some of the sects were Jewish, some were Gentile. They all have very distinct ways of expressing their Christianity, and all were quite different more different than, say, the Branch Davidians and the Unitarians in some instances. The Council

There are many ancient writings that were not included in the canon many of them infinitely more interesting and enlightening than those that were included. Many of them were not included because they were gnostic. There's the Book of Mary and the Book of Thomas, for example. I have an idea you would find out more about your bible from reading the excluded books than you ever will from reading those that were included. Their omission tells a tale