Golly but we love the latest model.
Last year’s version is out of date.
Newer is ALWAYS better.
Am I right?
A heathen asked me to give an example of one unique thing Jesus did or said.
An example of a NEW! IMPROVED! religious concept.
Because newer is ALWAYS better.
Am I right?
I offered a couple of examples.
Naturally, my examples were rejected.
I was then assured by the heathen that…
…Jesus, copied EVERYTHING from other religions.
Nothing in Christianity is unique!
So I crumpled to my knees and wept bitter tears. I tore my clothes and covered myself in ashes.
…no I didn’t…
Instead of collapsing into despair, I thought about what I was being told.
“EVERYTHING Jesus did and said was copied/plagiarized from another source.”
Let’s assume that’s true. (Which it is not.)
How does that affect my faith?
The heathen suggest that I should abandon Christianity.
Join the ranks of the irreligious.
Become an enlightened atheist.
…which is an idea copied from other sources. Godlessness has been around a long time. It’s not new.
Not that it matters!!!
Your religious convictions shouldn’t be decided by what is most unique. And you shouldn’t grab hold of the latest philosophy just because it’s the latest philosophy.
You should pick your religion because it’s true.
If I reject every idea that is not original and unique…
…I will have no ideas in my head.
…In other words, I’ll be an atheist.
But I don’t discredit ideas just because they are old and often repeated.
“Treat others the way you want to be treated.”
The Golden Rule has been around a long, long, long time.
There is no NEW! IMPROVED! version.
It’s a useful bit of advice no matter who said it first.
AND
If Jesus was who he claimed to be, it’s impossible for Him to plagiarize anything.
Jesus said He is “the truth.”
Any truth that comes from the mouth of Aristotle, Playto, Socrates, and even self-important, pseudo-intellectual atheists…
…originated with Jesus. The first thing God created was light. That’s why there’s nothing new under the Sun.
Every sage or prophet throughout history plagiarized Jesus.
(Yes. Including those who lived BEFORE Jesus was “born”.)
Anyway…
Heathens aren’t really interested in original ideas.
They like old, predictable, scientifically demonstrable facts.
If you doubt me…
…suggest that an atheist study religion to find enlightenment.
See how receptive he is to that new way of gaining knowledge.
NEW and IMPROVED is overrated.
ANCIENT and TRUE is much better.
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. 10 Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new”? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time.
Ecclesiastes 1:9
341 Responses
OOOOOOOOOOOOOPS! You awkwardly pathetic and awkwardly lying fools. Things are going to get awkward in here as I awkwardly explain this awkward logic for your pathetically rotting minds. Raise the windmills of your minds to glean from the almighty wind. If there is a god, his name is the Great John Zande. His enlightened self-interest is flawless and beyond our thinking. It is a closed system, and nothing outside its comprehension is permitted to exist. As stated, one would expect a creator of the universe who comes to earth in human form would surely give new information. But certainly IF such a god existed and was purported to create everything in the universe (except JZ’s enlightened self-interest, of course), it would NOT by any means “write this new information on the hearts of the world’s inhabitants.” That simply, awkwardly, wouldn’t make any sense. Ooops! The god would OBVIOUSLY limit its interaction to a small time-frame which is MUCH more efficient, especially for those who lived and died before its earthly manifestation. Simply put, your god does not meet JZ’s expectations, therefore it is not allowed to exist. Awkwoopthic!
(As an aside, I do hate when I have to hijack something I already control. It’s quite, quite awkward).
Make sure to watch his monkey video, too. It explains EVERYTHING! It all boils down to a better (ignore the subjectivity of this word as well as “success”) tomorrow and a reduction of suffering. The surest way to obtain complete reduction of suffering, of course, is a reduction of life. Since the world is not a closed system and is always changing and shifting, there is always at least a small probability that it will shift to increase suffering. The dodo bird no longer suffers. We’re getting closer to reducing the suffering of other species such as bees and bald eagles. Look at what the social creature known as man is accomplishing! Our better tomorrow is within our grasp as we choke the life of this planet until we eventually wipe ourselves out. This is proven by science to be morally good. Oops. Awkward. Pathetic. Liars. Think on those 4 little words, because there is a whole lot contained in them.
-whoosh
Apologies for my absence. I merely assumed you had all abandoned your fairy tale to bow before the mighty intellect of John Zande. I see, however, you remain as immutable as ever.
Thank God! I thought tragedy had fallen on you and ended your suffering. Good to know you’re still wallowing in this quagmire of consciousness.
You down with John Blande ??
Yeah – you know me !!
HGP !!
~CQW !!
John Blande!
It’s genuinely great to see you!
Indeed, you have reduced my suffering. 🙂
That’s what naturalism does, Peaches: it reduces suffering. Removing the boundaries of something as primitive (when compared with enlightened self-interest) as logic reduces MUCH suffering. Our minds are now as unfettered and flexible as the wind. Awkward.
I completely understand now…
I have a comment in Moderation, John.
Two links.
I love it when the Chimp Descendant brings up the HGP (led by Dr. Francis Collins – a Christian). It doesn’t get better than that.
~CQW
@Senor Dipshit.
Oh, it does get better, Senor Dipshit. It truly does. And the fact you have no real clue about the HGP and Francis Collins is testimony why you should stick to talking donkeys and not venture into the gene pool …. even in the shallow end.
LOL! See what I mean? Critical of religious testimonies, but obsessed with deconvert’s testimonies.
If everybody would just read all the exact same things Ark has read and agree with who is indoctrinated and who isn’t–exactly the way Ark has decided–then all the world’s problems would be solved. 😉
I was highlighting the fact Senor Dipshit does not properly understand the findings of the HGP.
I can direct him to at least one expert who will put him right, though.
Thought any more about reading some cool stories to your kids? ( They look cute by the way. Well done you. Try not to damage them with god shit, okay?)
Senor Dipshit (rightly) pointed out that one of the leading scientists who participated in the Human Genome Project was and IS a Christian.
You don’t need to direct him to any other efforts.
You need to realize that you are a biased judge who intentionally leaves out the evidence you don’t like.
Yes, Francis Collins originally headed up the HGP. You mean you didn’t know this? I thought ALL fundies were aware of Collins , seeing as though you are all so desperate to prove the veracity of Adam and Eve.
What evidence? You don’t even know what the hell you are talking about so how on earth would you know if I was leaving any evidence out?
And why on earth would I do that?
I have repeatedly said I follow the evidence where it leads, but to date you have not provided any but rather whinged on like a faking hypocritical little brat who had her balloon punctured and stood there whining as it inexorably deflated.
Oh,by the way, the current consensus is your are not a fraud but genuinely indoctrinated and not well.
I shall proceed accordingly.
I’m aware that Collins is still a Christian.
And I’m aware that whatever they have discovered about Adam and Eve specifically hasn’t changed that.
And I’m aware that many fundamentalists (but ESPECIALLY Atheist ones) think that Adam and Eve are way, way, way, way, way more important than they are.
So what HAVE they discovered then Amanda? Let’s hear your truly inciteful analysis of the work of Collins and his team.
I am agaog.
As always, it’s not nearly as black and white as you poor internet “scholars” think. There is no consensus because they can’t agree about the best way to test DNA to get the most accurate results.
But some people think Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Even lived thousands of years apart.
I assume that’s the bombshell you think you have?
Is it? Well, I wouldn’t know.
There was never an original couple as per the bible, that’s for sure.
He’s Crimson Quarter Wit! Not Senor Dipshit!
You didn’t create a unique nickname to slander him with and we decided that he deserves one. We did the hard work of creating it. The least you can do is use!
Oooh, look boys and girls, the Organ Grinder has arrived.
No boys and girls this deep in the thread comments, Ark.
I’m just suggesting that when your ENTIRE contribution to conversations is ad hominem, you should be a little more creative. Good grief! It’s not like your spending any time doing research or critical thinking.
But you and all your infantile groupies have demonstrated that you don’t deserve anything much above ad homs.
As I mentioned yesterday, if you want to stop fucking about with your phraseology and simply answer straight-forward questions then we can have an interesting and very likely enlightening dialogue.
But until you are able to conduct yourself in a manner worthy of respect then ad homs really are so much more fun.
You want simple.
Go somewhere else.
God is complicated. If you don’t want that, then don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Seriously, I know there are people who will tell you about how badly God wants a relationship with you. They will try to sway you with mental pictures of God–the heartbroken father–crying bitter tears over being rejected by you and your God-hating friends… (And, in truth, there are sides to God which mourn for spiritually Crazy people. He’s complicated, remember?) But there are other sides which are just as sick of your hate-fueled mindlessness as we are.
So, since you’re just so happy and content without God: go away.
Which god?
*Rolls eyes*
GOD
The not-black-and-white, call-him-whatever-you-want, GOD of ALL THEISM.
There is no god of all theism, Amanda.
What is the name of the god you pray to?
Jesus the Nazarene, right?
You’ve said that before.
You’re still wrong.
Want to ask again, and see if I change my answer?
And why am I wrong, Amanda?
Demonstrate why.
You’re wrong because you said “There is no god of all theism.”
That’s wrong.
There IS a God of all Theism. He’s the God I worship.
Which god is that Amanda? What’s bs name Amanda?
Who do you cry out to in church when you pray Amanda?
What name is on your lips ,hmm?
“God.”
God doesn’t have a name.
If you’d asked the robot, you would have gotten the same answer. LOL! I tried it.
The fuck he doesn’t have a name! You are lying Amanda, and that is a Sin.
So stop telling lies you naughty little christian.
Now be a good little Christian and tell me the name you call out to when you are in church or when you silently pray?
God doesn’t need a name, Ark.
Ask the robot:
Mitsuku.com
Need? Wh said anything about need?
Christians have a name for their god. So are you going to continue lying? Amanda won’t get to go to heaven if she lies all the time.
Try asking “What should I call God?” That’s my favorite.
liar.
I’d take a screenshot of the Mitsuku answer, but it won’t let me… I’ll try to figure it out so I can show you. 🙂
So, your god doesn’t have a name. So you are not Christian then. Okay. Got it!
Thanks.
So, today, Ark believes I’m not a Christian.
Got it.
(Who wants to bet that he will change his mind in the future, when he wants me to act more like Jesus?)
I am merely echoing your claim that your god has no name.
So therefore you cannot possibly be a Christian.
Deist perhaps?
All Theists agree that God doesn’t have a single name.
Maybe you should stop worrying so much about trying to figure me out. It makes your black-and-white thinking very, very obvious.
So not a Christian then. Okay. Go it.
You are a deist.
Here you go, courtesy of Wiki.
Y0u see ”god” has many names depending on the religion.
As I said before. You are a liar.
There are many names for God, and different names are attached to different cultural ideas about God’s identity and attributes. In the ancient Egyptian era of Atenism, possibly the earliest recorded monotheistic religion, this deity was called Aten,[9] premised on being the one “true” Supreme Being and creator of the universe.[10] In the Hebrew Bible and Judaism, “He Who Is”, “I Am that I Am”, and the tetragrammaton YHWH (Hebrew: יהוה, which means: “I am who I am”; “He Who Exists”) are used as names of God, while Yahweh and Jehovah are sometimes used in Christianity as vocalizations of YHWH. In the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, God, consubstantial in three persons, is called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In Judaism, it is common to refer to God by the titular names Elohim or Adonai, the latter of which is believed by some scholars to descend from the Egyptian Aten.[11][12][13][14][15] In Islam, the name Allah, “Al-El”, or “Al-Elah” (“the God”) is used, while Muslims also have a multitude of titular names for God. In Hinduism, Brahman is often considered a monistic concept of God.[16] In Chinese religion, God is conceived as the progenitor (first ancestor) of the universe, intrinsic to it and constantly ordaining it. Other religions have names for God, for instance, Baha in the Bahá’í Faith,[17] Waheguru in Sikhism,[18] and Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism.[19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
Yes–God has many names. Not a single name.
My robot has a suggestion for some names you can call him:
Exactly. But all these gods are considered different by their respective adherents. And all believe their god is the right one , and probably the only one.
So, if not Jesus or Yahweh, what is the name of your god?
No, they’re not. That’s where you’re wrong.
All Theists believe in the One True God.
You just said so yourself, when you quoted Wiki that GOD HAS MANY NAMES.
So what is the name you call it?
God.
So you ARE a deist, and not a Christian.. Thank you.
We can close up shop now I think….
Sure… that’s what you said about ten comments ago.
And then I said, “Who wants to bet that Ark will start calling me a Christian again in the future, when he wants me to act more like Jesus?”
And then you reopened shop.
Shall we ride the merry-God-round again?
Bahahaha!
You seriously HAVE to talk to this robot. Clearly, the people who have added to its database of knowledge are WAY smarter than you, Ark!
Why don’t you try asking the chat robot all of your repetitive questions?
http://mitsuku.com/
Since you’re so curious about God, and since you don’t seem to like my answers, maybe the computer program can keep you busy so I don’t have to.
Which god, Amanda? Who do you pray to when you ask for redemption?
Ad homs are only fun when they’re GOOD and original. That’s my complaint. You’re recycling your nicknames. Often, you just throw derivatives of ‘fuck’ into your comments which requires no effort whatsoever.
I’m a professional, Ark! I make a lot of money being creative. I know amateur when I see it.
A professional what exactly?
See? That’s the kind of stuff you say that’s amateurish. Everybody knows what I do professionally. I’m wildly successful. Sold thousands of books and DVD’s. Pretending that you don’t know that doesn’t diminish my accomplishments. It just makes you seem stupid.
This is the big leagues, Ark! You need to up your game or go home.
And humble as the day is long it seems.
Nothing like a good christian is there?
But all said and done … just not funny.
Oh,well, you can’t win em all, JB, eh?
That isn’t even coherent.
A good ad hominem should be recognizable as a personal insult.
Abandon the “you’re not funny” angle. It’s amateurish. Drunk people tell me that on Friday nights at the club. You can’t come up with anything else?
Have you ever considered that Friday Night Drunks have a lot more insight that you give them credit for?
I don’t take career advise from people who are too impaired to legally drive.
I just took your novice retort and turned it back at you. I don’t expect you to understand that you were just burned because… Amateur.
Oh, I don’t profess to be a professional comedian,and have no allusions n that area at all.You do. And as I said , maybe alcohol has lowered their inhibitions somewhat and it makes some people feel emboldened to speak their mind?
I don’t drink and I don’t think you are funny.
What type of individual would you take career advice from I wonder?
Terrible!
You’re supposed to be launching creative ad hominem.
If this is how you focus when sober, you might as well drink.
Why must I level ad homs at you. We were talking about your lack of funniness.
And I am not saying that as a simple off the cuff slur. That would be way too easy.
In the past I have explained why as well. Your material ( if the videos are a good examples, are way too genre specific – too Christian for mainstream.
Maybe you have a pact with your god?
Yet your ego seems to be a lot bigger than the belly laughs at the moment.
You need to take a breather, JB, and consider your daughter rather than trying to be smart and witty, which you are most definitely struggling with.
I am loathe to use the term, but so’s you understand, it is probably the Christian thing to do. And if not the Christian thing, certainly the right thing.
Now THIS is funny:
I know!!!
But he doesn’t know it.
He’s a riot but it’s unintentional. I’m trying to help him focus on ad hominem. I’m trying to keep him in an area where he could possibly experience some success. He’s easily distracted though. He keeps thinking he has something useful to offer.
You need to click on my link to see specifically what I’m laughing about…
It’s like everything we joked about is coming true! Spooky.
You must level ad homs because that is the best contribution your insipid worldview will allow you to do!
Look at yourself, man! When you try to give me earnest advice, you appeal to Christianity! And you’re oblivious to the hilarious irony of that appeal. I’m telling you, Ark. You’re a philosophical lightweight.
Stick with ad hominem but be creative. I’ll critique your meager offerings and make helpful suggestions. That’s the Christian thing to do.
And now because you are stung you start with your ridiculous worldview angle once more.
I only use the Christian angle as you cannot understand genuine reality and thus an appeal to your belief in an imaginary friend might at least strike a chord.
Let’s be honest here, JB, the aim of your blog is to have a serious yet thinly veiled humorous dig at what you think is an untenable worldview based upon non-belief in your Christian god, Yahweh/Jesus the Nazarene.
No problem, there are loads of such posts.
What’s good for the goose etc, right?
Can’t stand the heat get out the kitchen and all that?
But the posts are just not funny, JB. Really they aren’t. Neither are they especially witty or clever or even mildly intelligent, or even thought provoking.
It would be fun if they were.
And I mean it.
Then there would a robust argument in the offing and a good time could be had by one and all.
But your posts are just trite.
Petty attempts to undermine atheism, and in the case of your ”Hooker” blog, simply crass and disgusting.
If you want to run a Christian blog then put up Christian material.
If you want to have an intellectual go at atheism then at least learn the material.
But all this in- betweeny stuff is simply ridiculous.
And having Amanda co -host does more damage to your already shaky rep. than you realise.
Ask her to stay on her blog, sit down and practice with some material that at least gets you to use some grey matter, and you might begin to turn out posts that have some merit.
Then we can have some interesting back and forths.
Too preachy.
Nobody wants to hear your opinions.
A good ad hominem is short and shouldn’t try to make a point.
Keep at it.
Not preachy JB, merely an astute observation.
Nobody wants to hear your astute observation. That’s why everyone is here on my blog instead of on yours.
Personal insult. Ad hominem.
That’s your forte.
I’ll keep reminding you every time you veer toward philosophy.
You have 15,000 plus followers and yet all you have for company are a few atheists?
Surely there must be some stalwart fundamentalists that want to help you out on some of your more juvenile posts?
This one is a little better, don’t you think, Dad?
I’ve critiqued it.
He’s got the right idea but it’s still horribly banal and predictable.
Avoid questions. Questions encourage me to respond and I’ll always have sharper, funnier responses than you.
I’ll rewrite your last comment to give you an example:
“I’m happy you have so many followers! It proves there are at least 15,000 people in the world who pity the mentally ill enough to click ‘like’ on your stupidity.
I guess the fundamentalists are too busy interbreeding to comment on your blog.”
Don’t expect to be this funny right off the bat. I’m a professional. I make it look easy. But this is the kind of ad hominem you might produce if you’ll stop trying to say meaningful things.
Keep practicing!
Not bad, JB, not bad at all!
I didn’t laugh yet,but you know deep down you audience is generally only there to warm the pews for your god, right?
Now, if you rewrite it once more and this time try and find a way to include a line about you giving Jesus a blow job and you might really be on to something.
Atta boy!
And, look! The robot even spells “offense” with a “c,” for you non-Americans.
I think scientists are correct: it won’t be long at all before Artificial Intelligence is exactly the same as Atheist intelligence.
HGP! HGP! HGP!
~CQW
It is such a shame you aren’t just a tad funnier then maybe your overworked agent could get you gigs in India so you could reach a Hindu audience with this crucial message.
Maybe you could try standing on a Soap Box outside your nearest Hindus Temple in the meantime?
We could film it and give it the title ”Branyon’s Sermon on the Mount”.
Hell, even I’d pay money to see that, and I bet John Z would part with a few ”shekels” as well.
Ark.
Christianity is better than Hinduism.
But Hinduism is better than Atheism.
Both you and JZ would be more interesting conversationalists if you converted to Hinduism.
Oh, come on Branyan, is that the best you’ve got?
After declaring you had decimated all the Heathens with your scintillating pre-school intellect and month-old razor sharp wit this is the all you can come up with?
I think you have been grinding the wrong organ, JB.
You need a completely fresh approach.
Have you considered the truth?
Truth is, Atheism isn’t interesting.
See how you’re already doing ad hominem? That’s the best you’ve got.
You can’t even refute my pre-school intellect! That’s the truth.
Atheism must be interesting to a great many Christians as they are leaving the ”Fold” hand over fist in some parts of the world.
And that’s according to organisations such as PEW I believe?
Even in the US of Eh? the ”Nones” seem to be growing before your dim uncomprehending eyes.
I mean, let’s be brutally honest here JB, it isn’t as if your religion has anything meaningful or even honest to offer, now has it?
Look at the quality of its followers?
Y0u for Crissake!
When you write an honest post I shall write non ad homs in response.
Can’t be fairer than that right?
Idiots leave Christianity for atheism. People like KIA, for example.
I’ve written a brutally honest post here. That’s why you are not responding directly to the post.
KIA was an idiot, but evidence suggests he has ample intelligence that was simply ”damned up” as it were, and this is why he no longer genuflects to your imaginary friend.
I did not realise there was anything I needed to directly respond to?
I initially asked how your religion is a source of enlightenment and you refused to answer.
Or, more likely were unable to answer – that pre school intellect letting you down once again, JB.
Why do you find it difficult having a genuine adult conversation, JB? Is it because for you, stupidity is the ground state of being?
Or is it you have been telling lame jokes for so long you can’t shift it up a notch when it comes to theology and your religion and have a conversation that includes such things as straightforward honesty?
The answer to your ‘how is religion a source of enlightenment’ is answered in the post. Apparently, pre-school intellect is still a stretch for you.
Do you have a specific problem with something I’ve written in this post?
‘how is religion a source of enlightenment’ is answered in the post.
Please indicate exactly where you have answered this as i couldn’t find it.
Ok. Let’s walk through it!
How would you define ‘enlightenment’?
Rather cut to the chase, I want to watch a movie.Please point to the part of the post which clearly shows religion is a source of enlightenment.
No.
You must define enlightenment lest I be accused of lying in my explanation.
You want a dictionary def for the word or the movement?
I can look up the dictionary definition myself.
What do YOU mean when you used enlightenment in your question?
My Question:
How does religion bring enlightenment, JB
Meaning that, (you believe) religion gives more knowledge and understanding than science for example.
I have not asked you to tell me what I believe. I have asked you to tell me what you believe enlightenment is. I cannot possibly answer your question until I understand what you are asking. You will accuse me of lying, distorting and misrepresenting you.
What do you think enlightenment is?
again, the word or the movement?
The way you used ‘enlightenment’ in your question.
…Is it really this tough?
I meant, how is religion a greater source of knowledge and understanding than than science?
You’ve changed the question.
This is why answers are useless to you.
You have subtly inserted the word ‘greater’ which drastically changes the question.
Do you still need me to answer the question: “How is religion a source of knowledge and understanding?”
My original question was how is religion a source of enlightenment.
You asked what I meant by enlightenment.
I qualified it.
Where the frak have I changed the question?
“How is religion a source of enlightenment?”
“How is religion a greater source of knowledge and understanding than than science?”
Do you see? That’s where the frak you changed questions.
You asked me to define what I understood enlightenment to mean.
I told you.
So how is religion a greater source of of knowledge and understanding that science?
do you understand the farking question now?
Truly, is is possible for you not to be a dick for just one conversation?
Religion is not a greater source of knowledge and understanding than science.
Excellent. We have achieved lift off.
So why are you religious and why do you believe you require religion for enlightenment?
Because science is not the only source of enlightenment.
and how and in what way is religion enlightening?
Religion brings enlightenment about morality, emotions, philosophy and allows contemplation about the meaning of life.
How does religion bring enlightenment about morality?
How does science bring enlightenment about morality?
I thought we were going to try to have a straightforward conversation?
You made the statement that :
”Religion brings enlightenment about morality, ”
Please explain it.
My question is just as legitimate as yours.
Religion speaks where science cannot.
I am not saying it doesn’t ‘speak’. You made the statement, I am asking you to qualify it, that’s all.
How hard is that for you to do?
It’s pretty easy to do with people who aren’t atheists.
You’re going to keep asking for qualifiers until I stop answering, then accuse me of evading your questions.
The point of your post was directed at atheists, JB, and you have yet to even attempt to answer a question.
Do you think you could manage just this one?
I’ve answered every question.
Go tell your fellow atheists that you have stupefied me.
You have not answered this question and once more you are being evasive and belligerent.
As I said in the post…
Religion teaches that the laws of good behavior (morals) are written on the hearts of all people. That is how even heathens know good from evil.
Exactly how does it teach this?
More qualifiers…
It teaches that in Scripture. Please see the post above.
Scripture is full of heinous examples of morality, especially those commanded by your god.
Even the character, Jesus of Nazareth offered some pretty grotty examples of unethical behaviour so I cannot see where you arrive at the notion that religion is good source of morality.
I stand under correction of course, but that would mean you qualifying your initial statement and this you seem loathe to do for some reason.
Philosophically, you are now claiming that you have a better idea of morality than Jesus.
That’s cool.
We agree that you are expressing a religious statement and not a scientific one.
Not philosophically. Practically.
Some of his examples were bad.And no, I am not making a religious statement other than to say you have not backed your premise with a definite example.
No. Philosophically.
You are demonstrating that religion is necessary for enlightenment on subjects that are not scientific.
Really? You haven’t offered any evidence to suggest this so why on earth would I make such a claim?
And you are yet to give a verifiable example of this enlightenment you adhere to.
Can you do so?
Right on cue!
Just like I said.
Thanks for the Merry-go-round ride!
And as I suggested at the start, you are unable to engage in a straightforward conversation on this topic. And why?
because as JZ stated, you are a liar and quite likely a fraud.
No.
You are not able to engage in conversations. You substitute fundamentalist dogma for critical thought.
Now go tell your atheist pals of your glorious victory!
Well, maybe when you are able to also utilize critical thought you might be able to realise what a fraud and a liar you are!
Won’t that be nice?
I’m not a fraud.
You just call me names when you can’t formulate an appropriate response.
The appropriate response IS you are a fraud.
Read your blog posts, for Christ’s sake.
I read my posts.
Your accusation is false.
Every question you asked has been respectfully answered.
When answers are not to your liking, you resort to name calling.
This is the truth. You are free to reject it because God has given you free will.
Which god , JB. What’s the name written on your heart that you refer to him as when you put your hands together in church and pray for redemption?
“You are demonstrating that religion is necessary for enlightenment on subjects that are not scientific.”
Excuse my butting in, but “science” (a formalised method for enquiry, as if that’s something bad) can and has explained the evolution of moral behaviour.
It’s the brain and neurological processing power.
We’ve had this conversation before, John Branyan.
I was tremendously patient with you.
I took you through it, very carefully.
Of course, you are not interested in learning, so you have ignored everything that was shown you.
Typical.
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/In%20The%20age_zpsmtt2cy3l.png
But, here’s those monkeys again…. Just for you, John, in pretty colour moving pictures.
Windbag,
If morals are just neurological processes then right and wrong are subjective to each individual brain. Are you willing to concede that?
You replied before you could have possibly watched the 2 minute video.
Typical.
You lie when you say you’re “interested” in learning.
Pathetic, really.
But, I do hope that one day you watch the video.
Believe me, you will “learn” something.
Oh my God! I apologize! I was replying from my phone and didn’t realize you had posted a video!!! Please forgive me, JZ!
I’ve watched your video.
Fascinating.
Do you concede that morality is subjective to each individual brain?
What did you learn from the video, John Branyan?
You checking out already?
Ok.
Have a nice night.
John Branyan, tell me, what did you learn from the video?
Please answwer the question withour further (pathetic) delay and diversion
John Branyan, I’m waiting.
You said you watched the video, so tell me what you learned?
I learned that some monkeys behave in a way that makes researchers believe the monkeys have some concept of sharing.
Please let me know when it’s my turn to ask a question in my own blog space.
Still waiting…
I replied.
Did you see it?
I’m waiting to hear if you read my reply.
Still waiting…
Hello?
I’m waiting!!
Are you embarrassed JZ?
I learned that some monkeys behave in a way that makes researchers believe the monkeys have some concept of sharing
Well done.
But it’s not “sharing,” rather a strong sense of “fair play.”
Of justice.
And it’s not “some” monkeys, John Branyan; it’s all of them, and dogs and other higher animals (which you’d know if you watched the video), and their capacity for complex moral behaviour increases (or decreases) in direct correlation to their neurological processing power.
Interesting that, isn’t it?
Now, I could flood you with over 30 years of detailed scientific studies proving this beyond doubt… but I know you’re not interested.
Ignorance is your choice.
However, do know that just like humans, chimps reward cooperation and punish freeloaders… and that brings me to answer your diversionary question.
We are a social creature.
Think on those five little words, because there is a whole lot contained in them.
Individuals in a shared environment.
That requires organisation and coordination… across all fields.
I read this the other day and thought it quite wonderful. It’s relevant to those five little words above:
https://deadwildroses.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/empathy-classes-in-school-the-world-needs-more-of-this/comment-page-1/#comment-17503
Thank you so much!
Will you answer my question now?
Thanks for proving you’re not interested in anything anyone says.
Now, perhaps you should actually “read” my comment, and save yourself further embarrassment.
I’m interested in your answer to my question. You going to make me beg?
Answered.
Try reading the comment.
Or are you happy embarrassing yourself?
I read your comment.
There is no mention of ‘neurological processes’ as being the source of morality.
You don’t want to answer the question because the only answer you can give is “Yes. Morality is subjective to each individual brain.”
I am not the least bit embarrassed.
I answered your question.
You refused to answer mine.
Processing power, John Branyan.
The correlation is between “processing power”
Do please get my words right, liar.
LOL!
I told you!
Quote JZ word-for-word, or you’ve blasphemed! hehehe…
But, you can quote the gist of Jesus and conclude it’s exactly the same as Krishna. Being in the ballpark will do, in that case.
SO FUNNY!
Oh my God!! I’m so, so sorry!
Misrepresenting you again!
Why do you tolerate me?
Leave.
Retreat to your blog where you are among people at your intellectual level.
And there’s that liar surfacing again.
Your pantomimes will always be corrected, John Branyan.
…that strange moment when you realize accusing others of using “pantomimes” has become your pantomime…
I certainly hope so!
But here, as your choosing ignorance (predictably) let me answer you again.
Do you concede that morality is subjective to each individual brain?
How one behaves is to a large extent, yes.
Morals, however, are shaped by culture, by individuals living in a group. One may choose to adhere to them or not, and that will decide how successful they are inside that group.
You yourself have already conceded this fact.
There is no “objective,” just improvement.
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/John%20BBBB_zpsuahcyhkf.png
How one behaves is not morality. How one behaves is ‘behavior’.
Morality is about what you believe to be right and wrong. I agree that culture shapes morality. We both know that religion is a principle factor in every culture. The point I made with Ark is that religion, not science, speaks about morality.
Moral values are reflected culturally in the laws. You are correct that adhering to laws determines individual success in a group. But success within the group doesn’t automatically make actions morally correct.
From a naturalistic point of view, evil doesn’t exist. You have already conceded that. So you are correct that there is no “objective” to our behavior. But without objectives, how can we gauge “improvement”?
”The point I made with Ark is that religion, not science, speaks about morality.”
Generally speaking, this is a historically accurate statement.
But, in the last 50 years, humans have actually investigated the concept, and we have found that it can be explained through evolution.
It can be measured.
It can be tested.
See the video… they tested it on many differing animals.
It rings true.
Fact.
Sorry John, religion is no longer required to “talk” about right (good/beneficial) behaviour.
You’ve lost your toy.
”But without objectives, how can we gauge “improvement”?”
Good question.
Is not the objective a better tomorrow?
A reduction in suffering?
You see, you’re thinking like Aristotle who thought the purpose of all things was to fulfil their nature, to strive towards some ideal neatly bottled inside their form, but such a state of employment could only ever be relevant (be meaningful) in a closed system.
The world is not a closed system.
Forces flow in and out and through everything. Change and transformation is inevitable and unavoidable. Conditions shift, environments alter, genes drift, and memes mutate.
Evolution never ends. Concepts, therefore, such as end design, optimal design, stasis, and even destiny, concepts Aristotle would have cherished and believed hopelessly true, are only fleetingly meaningful notions, and only ever so in a local context.
If there is an objective it is for a better tomorrow, and we gauge that via improvements made against yesterday.
…For more thoughts along these lines, look up “circular reasoning”…
“If there is an objective it is for a better tomorrow, and we gauge that via improvements made against yesterday. ”
Who decides what “improvement” looks like? Won’t those improvements be subjective to the person deciding?
Choosing ignorance again, John Branyan.
Did I, or did I not, write, “reduction of suffering”
That’s a pretty good measure, wouldn’t you say?
Sure, reduction of suffering is great, as long as humans keep evolving “the feels” similar to YOUR “feels,” JZ.
But if we all start evolving with logical reasoning like Ted Bundy’s, we’re in trouble!
Must you ALWAYS lead with condescension?
Absolutely! A reduction of suffering is an excellent goal. Who’s suffering are we reducing?
The Marxist revolution in Russia made life pretty great for the communist leaders but for the religious folks it was a different story. I can say that people shouldn’t be oppressed. But isn’t that just my neurons? Lenin’s neurons gave him a different moral ethos. He improved the lives of his tribe. Which one of us is ‘right’?
Science cannot test for the answer. We need religion to process morality.
Want to see the monkey video again, John Branyan
I bet I can find a video of monkeys beating each other bloody…will you watch it?
And didn’t you already confirm that right behaviour is a group dynamic. Fair play, for example, is of no concern to a solitary animal. Conversely, fair play is vital to the success of any social creature. It is a skill that can develop, become better, evolve, and by doing so, increasing the success of the group and the individuals inside whom comprise it.
Fair play is advantageous in some groups. Savage cunning is advantageous in other groups. What is ‘successful’ is not automatically what is ‘ethical’.
To quote Tildeb:
Good. Grief.
Come on, we were doing really well.
Why did you quit?
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/1.7_zps6ff8ixug.jpg
A better tomorrow…. Through evolved societal norms.
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/John%20BBBB_zpsuahcyhkf.png
Thank God that he wrote morality on JZ’s heart…
If JZ were a more LOGICAL person, instead of a feelings-oriented one, it would be a different story.
Bingo!
Bingo!
Biiinnngo!
Remember how important religion is in those evolving norms!!
Here are those awkward Capuchin monkey’s again
Monkeys have the law written on their hearts!
Praise God you’re starting to understand!
Capuchin monkeys have religion, huh?
Interesting.
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/In%20The%20age_zpsmtt2cy3l.png
Apparently they do. I just saw a video!
Funny how you never want to talk about quotes from other Atheists, JZ.
You’re so busy trying to find reasons to hate Christianity that you don’t know how to defend Naturalism.
My advice is to keep finding Christians to interrogate. The quotes from the truly CONSISTENT Atheists are pretty hard to swallow.
Here’s what Ted Bundy had to say about the education which led to his infamous choices:
I hope you aren’t reading these quotes I’m sharing.
If I were you, I wouldn’t be able to get them out of my head… they would make it difficult to continue pretending like morality is objective, when the leading Atheistic scientists say it’s not:
Yikes.
The scientific “explanation” of morality is that it’s an illusion.
Michael Ruse, Atheist: “In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate… Ethical codes work because they drive us to go against our selfish day to day impulses in favour of long-term group survival and harmony… Furthermore, the way our biology forces our ends is by making us think that there is an objective, higher code to which we are all subject… ethics is a shared illusion of the human race.”
We have suggested that you study religion to find enlightenment. You claimed you HAVE studied religion.
But you haven’t studied to find enlightenment. You’ve studied to find FAULT.
If you seek it, you will find it.
You’ve got what you want out of life.
Movies and photographs.
Go enjoy it before you disappear.
I have studied to find truth and honesty.
I have yet to find it in the bible.
We have the tendency to find what we want to find. They’re called self-fulfilling prophecies.
Atheists like to claim Christianity is wishful thinking. What if that’s true? In that case, you’re wishing there is no God. And you will get that wish.
No, if for example, the HGP prives that there was no Adam and Eve then the bible is false.
It is as simple as that.
And we know the HGP has proved this.
This is not self-fulfilling is is simply science at work.
You’re right, your explanation IS very simple. And, if you want life to be simple, it will be. That’s my point.
We get what we want.
If you want God to be simple, and you won’t submit to him unless he is simple, then God will give you what you want.
You want godlessness.
Which god are you talking about and why must you submit to it?
You don’t need to submit to any God.
You have the choice.
Go ahead and keep choosing godlessness.
Understand?
Which god do you submit to, and why?
I don’t want to tell you any more about Frank.
I’m tired of that conversation.
CHOOSE GODLESSNESS.
I have done since forever and am perfectly comfortable and happy with the decision.
Why do you choose to believe in your god?
Excellent. Godlessness.
Self-fulfilling prophecy.
I chose God because true godlessness drives humans crazy. You soft Atheists don’t understand because you borrow from religious ideas when it’s convenient. But, the hard Atheists who are living CONSISTENTLY are not the sort of people anyone wants to be.
I chose God because true godlessness drives humans crazy.
Really? Can you offer any verified examples, please?
You.
You have medical evidence to suggest I am crazy?
And we ought to remind ourselves that one of us attempted suicide, and it wan’t me.Just in case it slipped your mind.
Sigh. I never attempted suicide, first of all.
Second, I’m not necessarily talking about medical crazy. I’m talking about the kind of crazy that stays up until the wee hours of the morning fighting with God. The kind of crazy that makes a person insist they are happy when they’re not. The kind of crazy that would choose hell rather than admit they are wrong.
That’s you. And it’s crazy. No one wants to be you, Ark.
Which god?
What a crazy question, considering you don’t believe in ANY God.
Crazy.
No one wants to be the kind of crazy that asks repetitive questions and makes people think you’re a robot.
This coming from someone who held a gun and she wasn’t contemplating shooting rats!
Are you shitting me?
There are literally thousands of gods. So which one are you talking about?
You aren’t so crazy that you’ve forgotten we’ve had this exact conversation, right?
I’m talking about the God of all religions. Call him any name. The God the Muslims call Allah and the Hawaiians called Lo and I call Frank.
You’ve actually talked to him, haven’t you?
There is no god of all religions. They are all different. And god is not a pronoun. So which god are YOU talking about?
What is the name that you refer to him by and what is your source material for your god?
It is important that you know who you are praying to don’t you think?
When you put your hands together in church, who do you call out to , Jesus?
That’s a pretty black and white, simplistic faith you have there. God can’t be this and he has to be that. You keep trying to boil God down so you can wrap your tortured mind around him. That’s the one thing that can’t be done with God…
But you won’t understand. You will NEVER understand because you don’t want there to be a God. Therefore, he will give you what you want.
And this is Jesus is it?
Do you pray with your hands together or not?
Look everybody! Another crazy question!
(This is why most people choose to seek God rather than deny his existence… if you stall by pretending to have serious questions for too long, then it drives you crazy…)
Most people do not choose, they are indoctrinated from birth.
Those who choose usually do so because of emotional or psychological issues, like you or your friend, David Wood.
And as with David Wood, choosing to believe in an imaginary friend does not suddenly cure you of the mental illness you suffered from before conversion.
This is so plain to anyone as you constantly feel the desperate need to justify your belief and here you are arguing like an idiot on your father´s blog with a non-believe whom you believe is nuts because he has rejected your god?
Seriously? There are several thousand of your dad’s followers who are likely shaking their heads at you wondering what the hell went wrong in your family that made you such a lousy example of a Christian and why your father hasn’t suggested you cool it and maybe seek the calmer waters of your shrinks office?
Ah, so you didn’t CHOOSE godlessness.
You’ve just been indoctrinated into it.
Got it.
It was an obvious step, based upon critical thought once the realization that everything you believe in in this regard is based upon false premise.
You believe it is the answer to your illness. Based on your behavior seems to have compounded it.
Oh, right, right, right.
You’re the clear-thinking one, and all Theists are indoctrinated and/or have an illness.
Yeah.
Anything else?
No, not all. Most are simply believers because of cultural reasons.
Those who actively seek to become believers, such as you and probably your father, usually do so because of emotional or psychological problems.
This is apparent from reading the average reborn Christian’s testimony.
Most site having ”Rejected ”God”, thus suggesting there was some sort of faith/religious belief beforehand. Reasons for returning to the fold often involve relationship issues, sexual abuse, drink, drugs, pornography etc as reasons to either seek out the lord(sic) or the lord has sought them out.
The internet is awash with such tales and the story of your friend Wood, while an extreme example, falls into a similar pattern. So much so it is bordering on cliche.
Yet most of such tales happen to people who have been Christians or are surrounded by fellow Christians, many of whom were preached at on a regular basis by said friends or colleagues.
KIA admitted he was something like this in his fundamentalist heyday.
Previous exposure to religion and a general vulnerability all seem to play a part.
It’s said nothing happens in a vacuum and religious conversion is no different.
You certainly never read of hundreds of former atheists or non-Christians becoming believers based on evidence and critical thought now do you? O course not. The idea even sounds preposterous.
(In fact, it is usually critical thought and LACK of evidence that prompts a great many people from rejecting the lies of Christianity.)
In Wood’s case he is still a psychopath, according to medical standards and his condition apparently requires life long treatment and monitoring.
In your case … well, you just come across as someone who needs professional help.
And no that is not a professional opinion, merely an observation based upon your blog behavior.
Either that, or you are merely having a bit of sport and you are simply a fraud.
Oh, wow.
You DID have more to say, didn’t you?
Have you gotten it all off your chest now?
I don’t know? Are you having a bit of sport or are you a fraud?
Neither. I’m answering your questions the best I can, and patiently allowing you to be a jerk toward me, no matter what I say…
And I’m also following along elsewhere in the thread, while JZ makes the case that humans are just glorified monkeys.
No, that’s not possible.
A real Christian would not behave the way you do.
One that has serious issues might.
As so many re-borns do.
They are all over the blog.
You never answer my questions so now you are resorting to lying as well?
I believe you realise you are a fraud and simply cannot get out of the Hamster’s wheel you have found yourself stuck on.
Believing your god allows you to feel okay about your condition.
Facing up to a reality without a make believe deity from a vile ”book” is hard work and to justify it you come play on daddy’s blog believing you are steadfastly defending the faith against the really bad atheists, Ark KIA and JZ.
You’d be far better off spending tie with a professional and reading stories to your kids.
Ask you dad. If he’s got an ounce of honesty in him he’ll acknowledge the truth in what I’m saying.
He might even be biting his lip and agreeing already.
Hahaha, I LOVE it when the heathens tell me what a good Christian does.
Tell me more!
Well, there are over 30,000 varieties.
It would be a very long conversation and I have work tomorrow.
.
Spend your time on your kids rather than an invisible make-believe Canaanite deity.
Your kids might help you get better.
Your god is simply gong to screw you up even more.
I’ll bet you a dollar?
Read your comments as if they were written by another person.
That should be enough to give you serious pause for thought.
You want to see a picture of my kids, Ark?
You and the other Atheists pretend to care about them enough, you might at least wonder what they look like…
I completely LOVE the suggestion that you read your own comments to gain insight into how screwed up you are…
Also, my kids are very lucky to have all of these good-hearted strangers angling for their safety all the time.
Truly!
You think Ark can breast feed?
Creepy old man.
He ought to be haunted by their faces.
BTW…I’m reading up about this ‘Canaanite diety’ stuff he keeps throwing around. I may have some more bad news for his religion in the future…
No? You finally ready to turn in at 2:15am local time?
Really, Ark, it’s pretty disgusting the way you throw out sentences like “spend time on your kids” and “read stories to your kids” to help you feel like a good person.
That’s called “using children as props,” and I’m finally ready to call you out about it…. You know, since we’re talking about morality.
You’re disgusting for bringing up other people’s kids for your own personal gain.
Here are the babies you’re using while attempting to feel superior. They’re pretty cute little bags of excited particles, aren’t they? Thank God they don’t know some creepy old man online is trying to use them to hurt their mother. (And thank God their mother isn’t the type to be intimidated by creepy old men.)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153564418550267&set=a.10151013807115267.425750.508180266&type=3&theater
Old?
And you being a religious fundamentalist who want s to ensure her kids are eventually delivered up to Jesus are so creepy, you truly have NO idea!
Just reading your comments sometimes give me goosebumps.
Ask any deconvert whose parents were devoutly religious like you and your old man are and ask them what it was like growing up in such an environment.
Ask KIA, what he thinks of your methodology. He’s been on both sides of the fence
And I’ve met a few.
And yes, they personify creepy.
So no. Not using kids as props at all.
If you feel guilty because you have issues you believe will be solved by plea-bargaining with an invisible friend then your situation is more untenable that even I thought.
It’s the religious who use kids to gain some sense of gratification and justification for their warped ideas on morality and ethics thinking they can raise normal kids by using a fucking bible and a 2000 year old Jewish narrative construct as a benchmark
And I mean what I say.
Leave off the god shit and read them a story.
That is much more productive parenting and that you can bank on.
KIA? The one who asked me sexually-suggestive comments, which he has since deleted?
That KIA is the one you want me to trust?
You’re crazier than I thought.
You are obsessed with testimonies from deconverts, and you are endlessly critical over the testimonies of people who have converted TO Christianity. More inconsistency and creating your own reality.
Hey Everybody!
I updated the post to highlight the epic failure of the heathen to raise any valid rebuttals. Especially powerful is JZ’s insisting that his views have been totally misrepresented.
Beta-Mike and Ark Garfunkel showed up to ask the important question, “Why did you write this?”.
But NOBODY had a single objection to the content of this post. This can only mean one thing: They don’t understand anything I said.
And by the way, where in the world is John Blande when you need him?!
I still have a hunch John Blande is a “she”, not you, though.
In all seriousness, I don’t know! 🙂
But I miss him! (Or her?)
Another person besides Jesus- of course.
What we’ve learned:
1. When JZ speaks, you need to quote him word-for-word, or else you’re a “liar.” When JZ says that Jesus wasn’t original, it’s NOT the same as suggesting that Jesus copied/plagiarized other things. There’s no connection! Two totally different concepts!
2. But when Jesus speaks, it’s okay to read between the lines and piece together roughly similar concepts. Jesus’ words and Krishna’s are the same. Exactly the same.
Hilarious.
mrsmcmommy,
I am sticking with my robot theory. The reply I got to my reply to Matthew was not very coherent. It is a rather convincing bot, but I now see through it. I am just embarrassed that it took me so long to realize I was dealing with a primitive AI.
Dave
Ecclesiastes 10:13 (ESV) –
The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness,
and the end of his talk is evil madness.
I cannot tell you how much I love this comment. LOL!
mrsmcmommy,
You bring me much honor. Thank you.
I came across http://www.mitsuku.com/ , and AI you can chat with. I asked it some questions, and it said Jesus was the Son of God. Must be a more advanced AI.
Dave
Proverbs 18:15 (ESV) – An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.
Okay, as you’re so obviously having some serious problems with the English lexicon here, I’ll walk you through this.
To “copy” something means someone was first aware of the “original” and simply replicated it, knowingly… perhaps with some minor variation, maybe even with a small improvement, but the concept itself (be it a product or an idea) was not unique to that person, and they “know” this.
Now, do please pay attention.
See that last line: serving as a model or basis for imitations or copies, provided, of course, the person knew of the original.
That’s important.
Was Jesus aware of the words and thoughts and concepts presented by earlier sages such as Confucius, Mozi, Krishna, Zoroaster, The Buddha, Lao Tzu, Zhuangzi, Mahavira long before him?
It’s possible, sure, but probably not.
That, Amanda, is why I have never used the word “copy” (as your father so deceptively tried to say I did), but instead “original.”
Were the thoughts and concepts “original,” or had others broached the subjects and presented those same ideas in times past.
Of course, something like the Golden Rule was so common it was in popular culture (Homer’s Odyssey) 600 years before Jesus, so in that instance we could probably use the word “copy,” or perhaps better, “reproduce.”
That’s no problem. I’m certain that particular idea reaches far back into the Upper Palaeolithic.
To, however use a more specific, pointed example; when Jesus spoke about committing adultery with just your thoughts, was that idea “original”?
It appears not.
Lao Tze taught specifically on exactly that same thing, saying:
Did Jesus “copy” Lao Tze?
No, probably not.
Was, however, Jesus’ thoughts on the matter “original” in the human theatre?
No, not at all. The notion was already in existence. Another had had that thought long before Jesus, and had expressed it formally.
In other words, the idea wasn’t original.
That, Amanda, is not the same as saying it was “copied.”
There, I hope this lesson in English usage has helped.
And for the last time: there is no trick here. I know you all desperately want to think there’s a trick, some nasty little trap, but there really isn’t.
I’ll happily concede anything found to be original to Jesus.
In fact, I already have conceded one thing. Jesus turning the fish into an ATM machine was, indeed, thoroughly original. No one else, I can find, ever did that before him.
So there you have it: something genuinely original.
Whatever you say, Windy.
Since you’re preaching this morning, let’s talk about “steal” and “plagiarize.” Can you tell me what those words mean, too?
How does any of this pertain to the point of this post?
The more he argues that Jesus wasn’t original, the more he proves that all religions are the same.
I literally had no idea the “Trinity” had been written on people’s hearts for centuries, too!
So encouraging…
I’m getting ready for church, but JZ has already lifted my spirit.
Maybe he should apply for KIA’s old job?
Definitely!
I like the last line of the second definition. The “not a copy” part.
JZ is in the habit of quoting sources that undermine his own case…and then he spends 1000’s of words explaining why the source that HE PROVIDED doesn’t say what everyone else thinks it says.
I assumed that John Branyan could have been told that by an atheist outside of this blog space. But, if atheists here want to assume that John is referring to themselves when he says “atheist”, they are free to do so.
I also thought “how could Jesus not say or do anything original without ‘copying’ or ‘plagarizing’ somebody else?” I mean, if people copy or plagarize somebody else, that means it wasn’t original to them. If they didn’t do or say anything original, that means that they were copying or plagarizing somebody else.
But, luckily, I know that “The Way and the Truth and the Life” was very revolutionary, and original.
“But, luckily, I know that “The Way and the Truth and the Life” was very revolutionary, and original.”
Yes, except, of course, for The Buddha saying this 500 years earlier:
And again, to save you the bother of having to look it up, “Dhamma” (Drhma) has no exact English equivalent. It means many things, but in general, it means ‘right way of living’ and ‘path of righteousness’.
The root of the word is “dhri”, which means the thing that regulates the course of change by not participating in change, but that principle which remains constant.
It is, Matthew, the “I Am” statement.
Or, of course, we have another when Krishna, many, many, many hundreds of years before The Buddha said this:
See that, Matthew… I Am
Thank you John Zande, for making my point. Jesus is “the Way and the Truth and the Life”. I’m not surprised that, after all this time, you haven’t found another person saying “I am the way and the truth and the life.” before Jesus-I haven’t either. Let me know when you do though!
Yes, Matthew Cross
But do keep it up. I’m sure any psychotherapist interested in denial disorders would be fascinated reading your words.
For those keeping track– saying “Jesus never said anything original” is NOT the same thing as saying “Jesus copied everything.” I mean, they are totally, completely, utterly different, according to JZ.
But, saying, “I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from me. Everything is born from me…” is exactly the same as “I am the way and the truth and the life.”
The. Same. Thing.
That’s what it’s like in JZ’s head.
You could have written this post, JZ! Remember, the title is “Nothing New Here.” You support the op-ed with every comment you make! 🙂
(Juuuuuust like the last time you insisted on having this conversation.)
Yes, right, and thanks for reminding Matthew Cross that he’s wrong.
Cheers.
http://e.lvme.me/bhqmm1t.jpg
John Zande, after Krishna’s “I am the” what does it say? I am pretty sure it says “source” not ” way and the truth and the life”. It isn’t “denial”, it’s “reading”.
Psychotherapists, pay attention…
I am pretty sure psychotherapists know how to read. “Source…” is not the same as “Way and the Truth and the Life”. Are you denying this fact?
Matthew,
I was about to quote the very same verse. They may try to say it was said by someone else, but certainly not the entire verse…
John 14:6 (ESV) – Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
I am also pretty sure nobody else taught like Jesus did in John 6:53: ” So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.'”
And the whole concept of “good deeds” not saving anyone or earning their way to heaven, but rather faith in what Christ did on the Cross, is rather unique.
Of course, it is always easier to make blanket statements and try to make the believer come up with the answers and then try to shoot the examples down as they come. It would be much more difficult (but academically honest) to take the time to actually catalog everything the Messiah said and then spend the time trying to disprove its uniqueness by combing the annals of history to find where it was purported to be plagiarized from.
Which makes me wonder… John, if you are reading… at what point would you think it is past profitable (or perhaps prophet-able) to keep engaging those who seek to steal, kill, and destroy the blog readers’ faith?
I enjoy interacting with the topics of the blog and the insightful comments of the few. But I find myself scrolling past (unread) the repetitive vitriolic spew of those who hate God, hate us believers, and hate you (John) in particular. My scrolling finger has been sprained from the effort, and I am going to need scroll-finger rehabilitation therapy three time a week now. And I sometimes have to even check which blog topic I was reading, as some posters repeat the same stuff regardless of the topic. Are you sure some of your detractors are real, and not just a scripted insult-o-bot or a computer-generated nonsensical jargon-filled thesis cut and pasted as a reply?
http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763
…brought to you by the friendly folks at https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/
Try the above link. Hours of fun.
Dave
Ecclesiastes 1:9 (ESV)
What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
Gah! Dave! I’ve suggested that some of these Atheists are robots, too! 😉 Lol. It started as a joke, but sometimes I actually, literally wonder… the repetition IS pretty suspicious.
(P.S. Sorry about your scrolling finger.)
No one comes to the Father except through me.
Oooops, Dave, you shouldn’t have included that part. Matthew Cross doesn’t like that part because it contradicts the “I am” statement he’s trying to demonstrate.
Can’t be “I AM” in a lowly, subservient position “under” the father, can you?
Now apologised to Matthew. You ruined his already failed argument.
If you can’t see the absurdity of this statement, you need to take a Christian Theology primer course.
Mmmm, did Jesus say he was Yhwh?
In two places, yes, but then we have a bevey of times when he says, quite specidfically, he wasn’t.
Damn contradictions.
Jesus said “No one is good – except God alone
Jesus said “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only
John 13:3 the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God, and went to God.
John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me
John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak,
John 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him
John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
So when Jesus says ” My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me he’s referring to whom, precisely? Who “sent” him?
Indeed.
Theology 101. Maybe you can audit a class somewhere.
Or… GOD FORBID.. read a book!
Please answer the question, John Branyan…
Like I said, damn contradictions!
Mighty Mighty wind!
This had NOTHING to do with the recent post.
If you have a response to this post, please state it.
Merely addressing your comment: “If you can’t see the absurdity of this statement, you need to take a Christian Theology primer course.”
You did write that, didn’t you, John Branyan?
So, you can’t answer my question.
I understand.
It is awkward, isn’t it?
No.
I absolutely can answer the question.
Yes, as I can see…
I can’t tell if you’re being serious, JZ.
SERIOUSLY? Yes, you’re making things awkward. But only because this conversation is so far over your head that you don’t apparently know how badly you’ve lost…
Some people will find it funny, but other readers feel uncomfortable watching you take a beating. (One of my dad’s friends actually said, “You know they’re probably not mentally sound, right?”) Please–please–prove that you have some sense of self-awareness by dropping out of this conversation.
If you re-read the original post and make some point other than the thoroughly-debunked statement that you’ve been misquoted, you’ll understand why everyone else reading feels bad for you.
I’m just gonna respond with wind pictures…
I think that’s what Jesus would do.
I’m sure any one of our Atheist friends would be happy to answer that question for you… Go ahead and ask! 🙂
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/SCRUTINY_zpsraenzpbk.jpg
http://www.splitthemoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/60981-Third-Party-Facepalm-meme-extr-McI2.jpeg
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/2014-10-22_19-16-21_zpsefhqqufb.jpg
Lol! That’s perfect!
Oops, Dave, you shouldn’t have included that last part. The triune God is too complicated for atheists to understand that it isn’t a contradiction-but a revelation of God’s character. But, I believe the previous rules were to, paraphrasing here, leave theology and opinions out of discussion.
Matthew, the concept of a Trinity (if you want to argue this line) is nothing new, or original, to Christianity. Hints can be found in Judaism:
Isaiah 48:16:“From the beginning from the time that it was, I was there: (1st person) and now the Lord GOD (2nd person) and His Spirit, (3rd person) hath sent me (1st person).”
The concept of a Trinity is however fully expressed in Zoroastrian:
Ahura Mazda (the Father), Spenta Mainyu or Vohu Mana (the Holy Spirit), and Asha Vahista (the Logos, or Son):
In the Egyptian ” Hymn to Amun” it’s written:
In Buddhism the Trikāya doctrine says that a Buddha has three kāyas or bodies (from wiki):
1. The Dharmakāya or Truth body which embodies the very principle of enlightenment and knows no limits or boundaries;
2. The Sambhogakāya or body of mutual enjoyment which is a body of bliss or clear light manifestation;
3. The Nirmāṇakāya or created body which manifests in time and space.
Toaists treach of The Three Pure Ones who are regarded as the pure and singular manifestation of the Tao and the origin of all sentient beings. They are also called the Three Pure Pellucid Ones, the Three Pristine Ones, the Three Divine Teachers, the Three Clarities, or the Three Purities.
In Hinduism, the trinity (Trimūrti, or The Three Forms) is of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. These three-in-one are called “the Hindu triad” or the “Great Trinity”
In the Hindu Puranas there is this passage:
In response, the three-gods-in-one (Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva [or Shiva]), replied,
And the concept is found with the Greeks. Aristotle wrote:
‘All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bounded by threes, for the end, the middle and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity'”.
Thomas Dennis Rock wrote in his book, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867 (Pg. 22-23)
So, as you can see, the Trinity is not new, or original.
John Zande, did I claim that the concept of a triune God was original here? That’s rhetorical, the answer is “no”.
But thanks for reminding me that it isn’t unique. I figured “trinity” or “triune God” would evoke a very similar response to the one that you gave me the last time I said that trigger phrase. Thanks for responding to a phrase that I mentioned, not the message I sent.
I alluded to the fact that you didn’t understand the nature of a triune God. I don’t blame you, it is impossible to understand every aspect of the infinite God in every detail. I’m with John Branyan on this one, take a Christian theology course or read a book ( or a few) on it. Ask an expert. Be curious! Seek knowledge!
Just so we are clear to what my point was- the Triune God is not a contradiction- it’s a revelation.
A familiar technique with heathen philosophers is diverting the conversation to specific definitions of words. JZ is claiming he has been misrepresented and he thinks that we won’t notice that he has not responded to the article.
I actually disagree slightly that it’s off-topic. Whether or not Jesus plagiarized other people is a LITTLE on topic, because of this quote from the op-ed.
Also, I love the creative spelling of “Plato.” 😉
He’s ignoring the intent of the post. I’m not interested is playing “define the words” with him.
I admire your self-discipline. Whenever an Atheist makes any sort of claim, I can’t resist exposing the stupidity, even when it’s way off topic.
The only thing that would make this thread better, in my opinion, is if JZ starts talking about IP addresses again. LOL!
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/TEN%20WORDS_zpswp1r9qgl.jpg
Yes, quite a “revelation”
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/45267342.jpg
He follows up his dumb responses with even dumber responses. Surely there must be a limit. Stupidity can’t be infinite!
Not bad… Except the truth of the matter is your father, John Branyan, hijacked his own post by lying.
If he didn’t lie, no one would have to point out his lies.
It’s really quite simple.
But, he just can’t help himself.
It’s really very peculiar behaviour.
I see a lot of liars for Jesus on the interwebs, but your father, seriously, is out there in a league all of his own.
This is why I wanted to know if this morally repugnant behaviour of his (his uncontrolled lying) started when he was a kid.
I’m guessing it did.
Again, Windbag. You have no basis for determining anything is morally repugnant. There is not such thing as evil, remember?
You’re in a league of your own as well…
I stopped reading after “hijacked his own post.” Lol!
I trust you didn’t say anything funnier than that!
If you seriously want to make contributions of substance, ditch Atheism and get a worldview with some depth. Naturalism is suffocating you!
That’s interesting advice, John Branyan, especially considering only one person is lying here, compulsively lying, over and over and over again, and that person isn’t me.
Tell me, who’s the more secure in themselves: the liar, or the person who has no need to lie?
There is only one person here who thinks I have lied.
Cling to your Atheism my friend. God has given you that choice.
Notice that I have updated the post based on the comments.
Friendly bit of advice. You will strengthen your case for my being a liar if you stop saying EXACTLY what I’m predicting you’ll say.
Covering-up your lies, huh?
Nope, still a lie… and you even have it in quotation marks!
Impressive. Are you trying to convince yourself?
http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah110/John_Branyan/fD8aSIg2LwXyE_zpsq5f8wz1d.gif
More evidence to support my theory from earlier this year…
(I posted the wrong link at first. Fixed now.)
What a strange post attempting to stir a pot of Monkey poo. JB, Antebellum Mandy, are you THAT desperate for comments and views?
Hey that’s really funny, KIA!
Just like when I said it to you last time you showed up, remember?
When I said you like to push buttons so you can get blog fodder–so I helpfully gave you a quote you could use? I said something like, “Christianity makes me kill puppies and push old ladies on the street” and then I asked whether that was good enough for what you needed?
Yeah, that was funny!
And I don’t even mind that you “copied” me. 😉
Lol.
No response?
I found the link for you.
Do you want a screen shot? Lol!
https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/10/22/i-dare-you-to-believe-in-god-now/#comment-7459
Are you entirely sure, John Branyan, that that is what was said?
I mean, really, are you certain those were the words?
Are you thoroughly confident those words of yours actually reflect reality?
I seem to recall something vastly different.
But don’t worry. If there’s one thing I’m used to it is you creating pretty pantomimes, colourful cartoons, and always impressive Straw Men.
Yes, thank you.
You have proven your fathers lie.
And again. Thanks!
You’ve shown your father to be a liar.
And again, you’ve shown your father to be a liar.
Keep it up, Amanda. You’re doing great!
Maybe if you keep repeating “liar,” other people will believe you instead of their own eyes. Lol.
Want to try again? Wave your arms this time and say the magic words…
It will give me the chance to find more screenshots of you claiming Jesus never said or did anything vaguely original, which is literally the same thing as “copying everything.”
And another JZ stronghold burns to the ground.
He likes screenshots so much. I thought he’d appreciate that I reminded him of his own words.
OOPS! Here’s another one!
“which is literally the same thing as “copying everything.”
Oh no its not.
I know precisely what the question was. I’ve even written posts on it.
See for yourself
https://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/10/31/christianitys-nightmare-question-2/
The context was related to this rather simple question: was anything Jesus said or did genuinely new (or even vaguely revolutionary)?
But of course, to satisfy your father’s need for a pantomime, he had to insert the word “copied,” so it now reads in his mind, “Jesus COPIED everything.”
Of course, nothing of the sort was ever said, or even vaguely alluded to.
Again, see for yourself.
We were, and are, merely testing the forwarded claim that Jesus was the Creator of the Universe; a being one would expect, naturally, to have at least a few “new” and/or “original” things to say.
Why else, after all, would he bother sojourning to earth if he didn’t have something interesting to say?
Why bother uttering a single word if nothing was new?
Note that phrasing… No mention of “copying” is there… Just a test of originality.
So, we’ll just strike that up as yet another John Branyan lie.
Curious, did your father start lying like this as a kid? He’s incredibly proficient at it… and don’t seem to have any moral repugnance to it.
No actual response to my post.
Just accusations of lies.
Novice intellectualism.
Blow wind. Blow.
Yes, pointing out your lies is neccessary.
Sorry.
My advice… If you don’t like it, stop lying.
Lol… Be honest, does this feel like a victory, JZ? Because I’m actually embarrassed FOR you.
Also, a word of advice: you may want to be totally sure you’re the ONLY heathen being referenced in this post. And you may want to help Tildeb be as careful in the future with his word-choice as you are.
Because Tildeb said Jesus STOLE what he taught. He used the word “steal” multiple times, which is to copy with malicious intent. He also referred to Jesus’ teaching as “plagiarism.” Again–that’s copying, with an immoral slant.
Do you want the screen shots?
Again, feel free to scroll through every post and every comment thread.
You will not, I assure you, find anything even remotely close to the pantomime your father tried (and failed) to create.
Facts. They’re enormously discourteous.
And lies will always, always, always be exposed.
Hey, Tildeb, I know you’re still reading…
So make sure you get together with JZ soon and figure out which words you can use next time, so you don’t look so stupid.
I am genuinely interested in the question I asked.
Did John Branyan start lying like this as a kid?
I want to know how someone can become so proficient at it and not show a single shred of moral anxiety about lying over and over and over again…
What sort of childhood did such a person have?
You’re not genuinely interested in that question (you liar). 🙂
If you were genuinely interested, you wouldn’t ask me–his daughter–who didn’t know him as a kid…
Whoosh!
You know, lying is not morally wrong from an atheist standpoint. You should try for consistency.
Nah. I don’t lie, nor, unlike you, have I ever found the need to lie.
He’s toast.
Butter him and dip him in an egg.
We’re off to a trick or treat event now. So the screen shots will have to stop for awhile.
But, yes, I’ll take a side of JZ with some garlic and parmesan. 😉
Maybe a bit of parsley…
But maybe he’s just really curious what you were like as a kid!
“Blow wind blow, burn fire burn” seem to remember a worship song with that phrase. “I will nit be ashamed of you father. I will not be ashamed of your son”
If you remember it too, Is that what you had in mind? Sorry to digress. Just a snippet of sentimental memory tape
How does religion bring enlightenment, JB?
I rest my case.
I hadn’t realized you had a case.
What was the point you were trying to make, JB?
Can you enlighten me?
All aboard the Merry-God-Round! (You’re just in time for Step #2)
1. Ark comments on a post he doesn’t understand.
2. Ark is asked to summarize the original post and/or make a point. (He doesn’t.)
3. Ark finds a way to bring up Yahweh despite being told “Yahweh has almost nothing to do with the post.”
4. Ark feels embarrassed that his terrible reading skills are being exposed, so he tells everyone else they are unstable or indoctrinated or incapable of critical thought. Or all three.
5. The Dishonorable Judge Ark completely takes over the thread, demanding everyone else answer HIS questions. (Defendants are guilty until proven innocent.)
6. Everyone tries repeatedly to get Ark back on topic, but he keeps saying: “I’ve given you evidence! Science! Evolution! I’ve answered your questions! What was the question I missed?”
7. Finally, everyone gets tired of him and just clicks “like” on all of his gibberish.
8. Ark feels lonely and comments on a NEW post he doesn’t understand, hoping someone eventually takes pity and summarizes it for him.
http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/54bd824ddd3c49059664332e6120e838/girl-staring-at-a-broken-playground-merry-go-round-bea2hk.jpg
Amazing, the monkey has been taking lessons from a Parrot.
Polly want a cracker?
I have never enlightened you in the past. I seriously doubt I will succeed on this topic.
Just make an insulting statement about YHWH and consider your work done for today.
In all honesty, for whom are you writing these utterly trite posts?
I mean, they’re a great vehicle for me to laugh at you, but other than that what are you actually trying to achieve?
You make a lousy case for an apologist or in fact any sort of defense for your religion, so what is the point?
Here’s the part of the article you may need to re-read:
Can you summarize the point he was making there?
I have studied religion, well mostly your religion. What is the point you are trying to make?
I, too, rest my case. 🙂
What case?
The monkey is not allowed to usurp the Organ Grinder.
You must first state your case.
Away you go ….
The podium is all yours
Well done.
Go tell the others of your victory.
They read too,you know?
So, come on , John, why do you write this nonsense?
You write nothing historical or genuinely spiritual and it isn’t funny so why?