Dear OLO folk.

I'm wondering how you would describe the article linked here, specially the title and first paragraph?

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/our-father-to-thine-own-pathological-self-be-true-20090901-f6vg.html

TITLE :Our Father, to thine own pathological self be true:

Here's my theory. God has narcissistic personality disorder. Stay with me as I indulge in two of my favourite pastimes: illuminating monotheistic religion's exploitation of the human desire to feel safe, loved and special; and my constant need to question and expose maladaptive behaviour. Let's pathologise!

Any thoughts ? I'd appreciate comments from both Christians and non Christians.

"human desire to feel safe, loved and special"

I think if you refuse to try and understand - (as you never could because you think it's funny to make fun of people with faith; which is the APEX of arrogance and ignorance) - people of faith and not slot them all into the same little pigeon hole so things just make sense to you then you might actually learn to respect people for who and what they are; humans, with hopes and dreams AND feelings just like you.

I respect your right to believe what you believe without feeling the need to ridicule you. How about you respect me that way too?

Well I do think He does have a bit of a God Complex.

He's been asked MANY times to lay off and the reasons why but still thinks it's funny to insult others who think differently than him. This makes him no better than the bigot, the racist, or the xenophobe.

Sociopathic, much?

Our Father,
to thine own
path-o-logic
to thyne own logical path ..let ourself be true:

[quote]
Here's my theory.
[/quote]
here is mine
freewill begets it fruits
god[good] gave us freewill

so either way...wether athiest buddist or jew
let the vile in/of this world..not be blamed on god

you say..[opinionate]
your theory..[theo-wry]

[quote]

God has narcissistic personality disorder.
[/quote]

as previously explained
your theory gets theo a-wry

either those who judge god..[are athiest]..
meaning they dont ..'believe'..in* ..a god

thus reflect ..only their own need ..to blame others
..things *others believe..

..but they think dont egsist..!
[thus are taking a cheap shot] ..in attacking
..what they believe ..others believe amiss..

ie are decieving..getting off on attacking
..that they see as..others believe

yet believing [wrongly]
..their diss-belief ..to be more valid

so who is more decieved..?
those having belief..or those attacking others ..for their belief?

yet they dont have a valid/logical reason
for their own un-belief

even so ..its their choice
to attack others

clearly athiests ..attacking god
..are just oppertuinistic
servants of vile..doing the work ..of their OWN delusioning

yet calling others
having reason/logic ..for their belief..as delusional

quote
I indulge two of my favourite pastimes:
[/quote]
clearly getting off
on your own delusioning diss-beliefs?

[quote].. illuminating monotheistic religion's
exploitation of the human desire
to feel safe, loved and special;
[/quote]

yes religeons are decieving
but decievers abusing gods love dosnt legitimise
your chosing to pick on ..those you regard ..as fools

the people are decieved..there is no doudt
but why pick ..on the abused*
pick on the abusers..!

[quote]
and my constant need to question
and expose maladaptive behaviour.
Let's pathologise!
[/quote]

yes lets

how come
you can abuse
those you claim ..allready abused..?

its sick..!

ask thyself
just who is proven..by his own words ..to be mal-adeptive?

you claim to be exposing..'maladaptive behaviour'
but reveal it within..your self

..in being ..the one doing
that able to be judged as ..
ex-posed ..maladaptive behaviour

you cant see the joke?
me either..!

Can’t find NPD listed on the Mental Health Hotline. How might we include it and what would the description be?

Mental Health Hotline

If you are obsessive compulsive – Press “1” repeatedly

If you are co-dependent - ask someone to press “2” for you

If you have multiple personalities – Press 3, 4, 5 and 6

If paranoid – we know where you are and what you want, stay on the line and we will trace your call.

If you are delusional – press “7” and you will be transferred to the “Mother Ship”

If you are schizophrenic – listen very carefully and a small voice will tell you what number to press.

If you are depressive – It doesn’t matter what key you press, no one will answer you.

If you are dyslexic – press 69,69,69,69.

If you have a nervous disorder – please fidget with the “#” key until you hear the “Beep”, after the “Beep” please wait for the “Beep”

If you have short term memory loss – please try again later.

If you have low self esteem – please hang up now because all our operators are too busy to take your call.

If you have NPD………………………………?

"I think we invented God and then God invented us."

Most apt from an 11 year old.

AGIR <"It was Galileo who said, ''I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.' "

Lol ! Love that quote.

StG, I very much doubt AGIR is having a go at Christian beliefs at all.

He just loves stirring the pot so that Christians and non-Christians will be at each others' throats, and he can join in and spout his considerable knowledge of biblical texts, and utter sarcastic remarks from his pulpit.

So yes AGIR, I liked that article because it made me smile and shake my head at the same time about the extreme gullibility of us
humans at times :)

Nice one, spindoc.

How about...

"If you have NPD, there's no need to call us, you're just perfect as you are."

And my apologies, Boaz, but dredging up an eighteen-month-old column by a professional comedian in order to promote your version of religion isn't up to your usual standard of "manufacture-a-controversy".

Oh all right, if you insist.

"I'm wondering how you would describe the article linked here, specially the title and first paragraph?"

My response: it is mildly amusing, but not particularly original, or even very thought-provoking. A touch smug, perhaps, in places. Overall 5.5/10

I expect you are going to claim that it is a form of hate-speech, that falls foul of some Victorian law or other, that you would like to see repealed.

Good luck with that.

Thanks people. I can understand the various taunts :) if anyone was a worthy target...I sure am given the amount of criticicism I've levelled at another faith and certain sexual behaviors.

Stg.. the paragraph after the title was not mine..it was from the Deveny Article.

But that's all good.. I try not to mock.. but to assert.. I will say that "The bible describes homosexual behavior as an abomination"...I don't couch such remarks in terms like "aaah.. aids will get all you poofs"..... which would, in my view be not only in VERY poor taste.. but insensitive and cruel.

But regarding the article.... I have 2 questions which I'm interested in gathering a spread of hopefully serious opinion on.

1/ Do you think it reasonable that the title identifies the 'God' in question as the Christian God?

2/ Do you think the article mocks Christian belief and Christians?

Feel free to have a bash at me/on me/to me .. after that.. but if you can give a concise answer to those 2 questions it will be appreciated.

For background.. "Our father, who art in heaven" is the beginning of a prayer Jesus taught. We open Parliament sessions with that prayer.
The old English is echoing 'King James English'... "Thine"

For the record.. I feel rather sorry for Deveny herself... life must be pretty miserable for her.

Perilous .. the Law ?... we just had a huge victory already.. the changes brought in by Labor will be stillborn... not gonna happen (Equal Opportunity Act reform)

Been following those scallywags in the EDL lately ? :)
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/175956/EDL-TO-BECOME-POLITICAL-PARTY/
Cameron is taking them seriously.. same day as their Luton demo he declares Multiculturalism 'dead'.. amazing stuff.
(Don't get sidetracked though...pweese)

Deveny is a fool. (fullstop)

I apologise blaming you for such trolling rubbish. That ... woman ... gets off on being offensive and I have nothing but contempt for such a mole. I'm still looking at you sideways for posting it knowing that it will do nothing but stir, but I'm sorry attributing it to you.

1: She's calling faith, a disease. God is God. Whether that's my God, the Jewish God, the Muslim God, or any other God. Specific targets of that woman's warped imagination and whims for the sake of a pay day are irrelevant. She does things like that ONLY for hits on her blogs.

2: I won't read that woman's tripe. I have nothing nice to say about her and anything I would say would get me banned here ... again.

Removing Christian rituals from something is doing EXACTLY what Atheists want to get rid of. Censoring something for freedom of belief is oxymoronic at best. Sure, Atheists shouldn't be pressured to contribute but a moment of silence for Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Jedi's, or who the ... ever to thank, bless, pray, or think about the weekend for half a minute won't kill anyone. Stand there and pick your nose for all I care, but banning it is retarded logic. Sounds like deveny logic.

...that is my assumption of the parliament comment. If that's not what you meant, well, that's what I think anyway. ;o)

Deveny's poking

Fun at God, not spouting hate

At anybody real

Stg... no problem mate :) thanx for your comments.

Shintaro.. 'that' is exactly my point...she IS "poking fun at"..another word for that is "mocking"..or .."ridiculing" or "holding up to public contempt"

It should be remembered...that there are 3 corpses of schoolgirls in the ground in Indonesia who were beheaded simply for being 'Christian' (to pick just one of uncountable examples)... so.. I don't really think that deeply held convictions that people are prepared to die for, or forced to die for.. are things to be 'made fun of'. Disagree by all means.. argue persuasively that such ideas are irrational... absurd..silly... all good... but it must be an evidentiary or argumentative process..not a 'mocking' process.

RE-FOCUS could we have some thoughts/comments about the 2 questions I raised in the earlier post please ?

1/ "Is the 'Christian' God implied/intended"?
2/ "Is she mocking/ridiculing that God"?

little wonder parliment gets so much wrong

god is beyond sex
is neither father nor mother as such
yet is both father and mother

so right from the first word..the prayer goes astray

its unlikely jesus got it that wrong
but does explain the need for an anti-christ
to rebut the clever editing of his life and what he really said or intended

jesus was to be called emmanuel
god with us..[meaning god WITH-in us all]
thus not a 'fat-her in heaven'...its basic stuff

but with god ..'in heaven'
we can ignore the truth of god within all of us
can tghus name call others..[recall that we do TO THE LEAST ..we do to the most?]..thats because god works unseen..doing all the things that sustain life..IN all of us..even the most vile..

its sad that even our leaders have been decieved
and the members in govt dont even stand..when its read

now ..even worse ..they talk of the first people and THEIR lands
god owns aLL LAND... he made the dust from the waters all land belongs to him ..he is the landlord supreem..

but the media and its opinion pieces..in lue of real NEWS
or worse lack of researched investagative reporting
and explasing and monitoring..the govt doing their elitist torying

raping the masses with ever more taxes
policing morals in lue of policing crime

bah
why bother
this is satans realm
its time we learned truths..but that cant happen..in this realm

Al
I understand your wish to defend 'God' and Christianity but remember Deveney is an atheist. She cannot mock a 'God' that she does not believe exists. For my take on it, Deveney is describing the nature of God as it is written in many texts including the Bible in her rather strident and comedic style (she is a comedienne).

The theist and non-theist seem destined to offend either intentionally or unintentionally, one deemed to be mocking a faith or deity and one the lack of a moral framework and an implication of lack of morality.

Both argue that 'truth will out' and that is what Deveney attempts, just as the theist may insist on the existence of a deity.

There's still not much mileage in taking a logical approach to a Boaz piece, pelican, but props for trying.

>>Both argue that 'truth will out' and that is what Deveney attempts, just as the theist may insist on the existence of a deity.<<

The approach here is to encourage the belief that Deveney's article is an example of "hate speech" against Christians. Hence the rapid shift from the initial broad question... "how you would describe the article", to the more direct challenge "Do you think the article mocks Christian belief and Christians?"

He hasn't changed much in the time we have known him, has he? Boaz_David, Polycarp, no_THIS_ismeBD and ALGOREisRICH - all pushed the same barrow in the exact same way.

So it is still best not to take him at all seriously when he tries to get provocative via a seemingly pointless question. It only encourages him.

Her appearances on Q&A have been cringe-worthy and I have a lot of sympathy for the long-suffering editors whose responsibility it has been over the years to get her stuff into some shape for publishing.

The article is older than Methuselah. Dusted off, it is still bait and smelly bait at that. Nothing to commend it at all. Move on I suggest.

Pericles, I suspect you are right but one must try despite a transparent agenda.

Hate speech is an entirely different animal from this piece. Hate speech is not okay in any situation particularly the abhorrent rhetoric witnessed towards homosexuals and in many cases towards those of opposing faiths. However, accusations of hate speech can be too easily plucked out just for expressing an opposing view as in this case.

There is a huge chasm between the two and Al in his usual style is seeking to blur the lines.

Bit like the demanding freedom of speech except for those who are deemed inappropriate (eg. Waleed Ali or similar)

OUG... mate.. you can do a lot better than that. Most of your longggg post was some kind of "I'll fix them with my version" kind of thing. But please..I'm not trying to prove God or Jesus or anything of the type. So.. no matter what your theological position might be, you don't need to use this thread to lecture us :) please have a look at the piece..and the 2 important questions....and try answering them. Thanx

Corny..thanx for the effort.. if you can separate yourself from any particular position on Deveny herself.. please try to view the piece simply as a piece of writing in a public place..and have a stab at how this will impact people.. 2 questions.. 2 answers if you don't mind.. would be appreciated...then we can dive off into wherever you like to go. Ta.

Pelly and Perilous.. the tag team of wisdom and of unpacking 'me' :)

As you know... I've been slogging away to get the RRT2001 repealed.
Or..at least modified/amended in a couple of important ways. This should cause you joy.. as it would avoid a lot of senseless litigation.

Yes..this does form part of that slogging. But this is not about 'hate' speech..which is a different part of the law. Deveny is not inciting people to violence.

But the law covers more than 'inciting violence'...Some parts of her piece 'could' be construed as inciting hatred.. but I'm not really concerned with that.

Try to bear with me please..and look at the face value of the title and the opening paragraph..and try to evaluate it in terms of the normal meaning of the words themselves relative to "mock and ridicule and contempt" and... please... try to offer something from your minds as to how ...if... those words of hers fall into either or both of the categories I listed.

Pelly.. you can still mock something you don't believe in.. in fact that's often 'why' people mock.

AGiR, don’t you think articles like this simply reflect badly on the style, content and intention of today’s MSM?

There was a time when we used to get dissemination, fact checking, balanced reporting of news and current affairs, followed by opinion pieces. Is see nothing wrong with individual journalists having their opinions, why shouldn’t they? However, when journalists “lead” with their opinions and omit their requisite professional processes, we end up with provocation.

Likewise many publications and broadcasters have adopted a partisan position on many topics. They too often leave themselves open to criticism for omitting the required balanced presentation of issues.

When I listen to the current “batch” (or whatever the collective noun is for journalists) of presenters, I have to wonder where on earth they get them from. They are like school kids.

Journalists provoke, mock and trivialize for one simple reason, because they can. It really is time our MSM got its act together and earned the respect their profession used to enjoy.

"Pelly.. you can still mock something you don't believe in.. in fact that's often 'why' people mock."

Al, I agree with your comment. I guess Deveney could be accused of mocking those who believe in God or much that is written about God rather than mocking "God" himself (given she is an atheist).

I would not put this article up as an example of hate speech. In general terms I would also hope for more tolerance and respect for all the differing beliefs but that does not mean one cannot argue a differing POV, especially if another's belief is encroaching on people's liberties in some way.

OK Boaz, we seem to be narrowing it down quite nicely.

>>But this is not about 'hate' speech... Deveny is not inciting people to violence... Some parts of her piece 'could' be construed as inciting hatred... look at the face value of the title and the opening paragraph..and try to evaluate it in terms of the normal meaning of the words themselves relative to "mock and ridicule and contempt"<<

Mocking? I'd describe it as gently ribbing, rather than mocking, in a somewhat friendly and compassionate tone of voice. There's no nastiness, no vilification, no hate involved. Certainly far less of these traits than appear every day in, say, the Glenn Beck show.

Ridicule? Hardly. She does confess to enjoying the act of "illuminating monotheistic religion's exploitation of the human desire to feel safe, loved and special". But that is so self-evidently true that it can't really be categorized as anything but straightforward and factual. No malice, no denigration.

Contempt? Not a skerrick. I couldn't find a contemptuous phrase in the entire article, let alone the fragment you gave us to analyze.

But you clearly find it offensive - which part offends you the most?

Incidentally, I found this earlier remark of yours somewhat interesting.

>>It should be remembered...that there are 3 corpses of schoolgirls in the ground in Indonesia who were beheaded simply for being 'Christian' (to pick just one of uncountable examples)... so.. I don't really think that deeply held convictions that people are prepared to die for, or forced to die for.. are things to be 'made fun of'.<<

Interesting that you should select those three, when you have an entire six counties full of corpses, old and young, male and female, whose only crime was to be Catholic/Protestant*

*delete one

I note *Pericles's* comment that *Boazy* has remained largely unchanged. My view is that it is also true to say that *Pericles's* manner of addressing *Boazy* has remained largely unchanged aswell.

Hmmm ..

..

Clearly, the manner in which the clergy (generalism) view themselves, is quite different too say the manner in which I view them, or the writer of *Boazy's* opener, or *Pericles's* view for that matter.

Of course, there is much to be celebrated in diversity and recognising our differences, i.m.o.

An accurate articulation of what those different points of view are is an important starter for a thread like this, which is hopefully done in an unbiased and objective manner.

Too many posters i.m.o. like to disregard the content of a post based on their personal dislike of the style and manner of a particular poster.

For all of *Pericles's* considerable talents, if it was my choice, I'd leave him/her off the foreign affairs teams diplomatic posts, but perhaps rather offer a role in analysis.

HaHaHa

Well AGIR, I wasn't really interested in your' assertions that this mildly amusing article constituted a hate campaign towards God believers up to now.

Then I read that you were working towards changing the RRT 2001 act?

I looked it up, and must say I didn't know much about that act, although I am a big fan of what it is obviously trying to achieve.

I can also see why you wouldn't like it.

Why not start another thread on the subject?

For those who are interested, here is the definition and a website to check out:
" The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 seeks to promote conciliation and resolve tensions between people who may vilify others on the grounds of race or religion and those who may be vilified."
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/studentlearning/programs/multicultural/schrrtact01.htm#7

Hi Suz .. I'm interested in your basis for thinking I don't like the Act.

If it was removed or repealed.. none of us could lay glove on the likes of Deveny... wouldn't that be a liberating thought ? :)

For Perilous' benefit, while I can see his downplaying of Deveny's intent as a reflection of his general downplaying of anything which upsets people of faith (i.e.Christian_faith)...I have 2 things to say.. First, that the issue is not so much about how a non believer sees the material in question, but how believers do. Secondly, I find it curious that when factual information about Islam is presented here.. Perilous tends to jump up and down like a mechical bull in a saloon about hate speech and he 'ampllifies' rather than minimizing it.(a most interesting pattern)

But to answer Pericles question about which part offends me most?

Well the Title is good choice, but this rates high as well:

Considering Deveny's public show "God is BS" yep..that's also offensive.. and Mocking? well.. it's stuff like that which gives meaning to the term itself.

//? Devoid of empathy (Kill in the name of God, etc).//

"Devoid of emphathy" ? hmmmmm...meaning errr like an SS Guard at Auschwitz? that's pretty close to hate speech.
Remember.. the test is

-Public Interest
-Genuine
-Good faith
-Reasonable.

For the exemptions to apply.

"God is BS" ....how does that rate on each of those ? (Suz ?)

I can accept "I don't believe in God" and "To me..belief in God seems irrational" "Belief in God? I'm not buying it"... all are ok.

"Pathalogical self/Narcissistic personality disorder"...are not.

replied the questiions ..in my first/post
the lords prayer ..was reply to comment

not to lecture..
but to point out how divided jesus-house is

clearly there is no sex limitations ..re/god
so saying father ..is purely custom
it has its own learnings..

but so to saying god ..is mother
or nature ..included's gods/nurture..

i love jesus..but find no proof
that he is any more 'god' than you

i love mahaMOUD..MARY BAKER SWEDENBERG AND BUDDA..
BUT THEY ARE NO MORE/NO LESS THAN PEOPLE..[damm caploc]

we now have all the teachers ..of the past to draw on ..to get to know the personal-god..one to one..as jesus planed

it would be shame on us ..if we didnt think seriously
see that god ..sent many messangers

we know jesus was to be called..god with us
as his name isnt emmanuel..that important bit ..must mean more

we know ..that we do to the least...we do to the most
its clear we have an inner-god..
just like we have an inner-voice ..that is both good and bad

gods/spirit ..is within us all
within the least..sustaining them their life
as much as in the most..

there really is ..no excuse for ignorance ...nor creed

jesus told us we can know god ..one to one..a personal good
we each ..have[gods]..living-spirit inside us
without god ...there could be no us*

we didnt make god
he sustains us ..our living
he isnt some far off judge
he is the inner being ..with-in ..all our beings

if thats opinion
or if thats simply belief
its not preaching
..nor deneying he even egsists

if a religeon gave me the facts
or even something resembling truth
or even if govt or bankers did the right thing
or even if i had had a better education..or a peer-based moderation
things might be different..but they wernt to be..

i thus see the things
..as god wanted me to see..
or as my life ..formed me ..to be..

but dont dissmiss god
even in thee

only knowing the truth ..from lie..can set you free

sort the tares ..from the wheat..
its near harvest-time

AGIR<""God is BS" ....how does that rate on each of those ? (Suz ?)"

Yes I agree this would be offensive to God-believers, and to all those that are offended by swearing in general.
If it was written on this forum as a form of malice towards God-believers, I would recommend it be deleted.

Just as I would recommend that any comments about homosexuality that include derogatory terms such as 'abomination', 'freak', 'abhorrent',
'deviant' or 'depravity' etc, be immediately deleted.

The same goes for any malicious racial slurs against any group of humans

Suze:

I completely agree with you. Telling AGIR that, "Jesus loves you, but everyone else thinks you're an arsehole," would be very offensive, and I simply wouldn't do it.

Boaz, now you are concerned that:

>>the issue is not so much about how a non believer sees the material in question, but how believers do<<

[Incidentally, DreamOn, I have never, ever, called him "Boazy". And if he had changed his methods at the same time as changing his nym, I would happily embrace both]

Unfortunately, you do not practice that which you preach, having on numerous occasions described Muslims in a highly derogatory manner. This you invariably justify with selected quotations from the Qur'an, on the presumption that because these quotations exist, no Muslim can possibly be insulted by your selection of them.

Conversely, when faced with entirely analogous extracts from your own Bible, you claim that - shazam! - we are suddenly dealing with allegories and metaphors.

You are doing it again, here:

>>I find it curious that when factual information about Islam is presented here.. Perilous tends to jump up and down like a mechical bull in a saloon about hate speech and he 'ampllifies' rather than minimizing it.(a most interesting pattern)<<

Factual information? That'll be the day.

Sauce, Boaz, should be equally available for both goose, and gander.

When ascribing violent tendencies to religion, you consistently avoid the notion that your own does not have an exactly spotless history.

Witness the fact that you studiously ignore the point I made about Northern Ireland...

"...you have an entire six counties full of corpses, old and young, male and female, whose only crime was to be Catholic/Protestant*

*delete one"

You claim that the title of the article gives you offence.

a) I don't believe you. You are simply presenting some confected outrage.

b) there is nothing in the title that could possibly give a normal christian-in-the-street even the slightest pause.

And please, next time you start a thread, try to be specific about what you want to discuss. All this hunt-the-thimble approach to topics is extremely tedious.

Lexi, Lol!
You are a bad girl, but I like you :)

AGIR, malice towards any people or group that have different cultures, beliefs, skin colours, sexuality or ethnicity to yourself is abhorrent to me.

We can have adult discussions about differences between people without resorting to nastiness.

It's as simple as that.

Suze:

You've summed things up beautifully. I'm not really a "bad girl,"
(I hope), however, sometimes things simply get up my nose ... especially when supposedly religious people are driven to paroxysms of hatred against those who don't share their faith. I find it genuinely puzzling that a mere difference of theological opinion can generate such negative emotions. Dedicating an entire thread to a
tongue-in-cheek article and trying to make something out of it? Good grief. But then I suppose a crowded elevator smells different to a dwarf.

Pericles... you are not always privy to what has gone on behind the scenes.

//And please, next time you start a thread, try to be specific about what you want to discuss. All this hunt-the-thimble approach to topics is extremely tedious.//

"IF" the thread had been allowed by Graham as I originally wrote it.. you would have been in no doubt whatsoever as to my intent. I had to try 3 times and correspond with Graham before it was finally allowed in the rather obscure and tame form it was finally admitted in.

Perhaps Graham can take note of your comments.

Sus...thanx for that.. you finally nailed it. (yes it is offensive to 'God believers')

But you and Lexi seem to be on Collins street when I'm in Bourke st.

You both fall into the classic 'liberal gene challenged' syndrome of connecting 'disagreement with 'hate'. Now you are BOTH naugggghty girls. But I don't hate you.. truly..

Re those who are different.. either creedaly or sexually or culturally...it's a bit sad to suggest that if one follows the Bible and quotes from it about a particular subject that it automatically means we 'hate' someone. It's an irrational stretch in fact.

Homosexual behavior is described in the Bible as a perversion. But adultery and calling someone 'a fool' is also condemned. We are also called to follow the "God so loved the world" pattern. But if the Bible and it's Author.. God.. declares child abuse.. incest, bestiality and homosexual behavior as 'no no'...then no amount of 'hateful' rebuke from you mob will change it. (see how I mirrored you? "hateful") I don't think you folks 'hate' us for that ...do you?

When it comes to morality, it's clear that most liberal minded progressive people simply do not compute the Christian view on such issues. You have a different concept of rubbery right and wrong.
We don't. Why condemn us for that?

AGIR, Just because ancient peoples from thousands of years ago did not understand or approve of homosexuality, does not mean we have not moved on and matured as a race of people now (well, most of us anyway).

We no longer burn 'witches' at the stake, or consider epileptics or mentally disturbed people as being possessed by the devil.
We know the earth wasn't flat, or that it was created in 7 days.
We don't stone adulterers any more.

I have always liked the following quote, and find it very wise to consider:

"That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not." --Thomas Paine

Dear Suz
it's great that you and I can express our world view isn't it? :)

Clearly we have a difference of opinion about some issues.

I don't consider people with Epilepsy to be demon possessed, but.. and this is important.... if a person manifests symptoms similar to 'epilepsy' and a man Jesus comes along and commands the evil spirit to come out of that person..and they are instantly 'fixed' from that problem.... one is tempted to side with Jesus and the Bible in regard to 'that' instance....the person was demon possessed. There were many other examples of deliverance of demonic spirits, in some cases they addressed Jesus from their host. Would you like an example of this?(not 100% sure but it sure does seem like it)

Worthy of note also, is that the example you chose is just one of many where the Lord did similar miraculous things,
-Healed lepers
-Walked on water
-Raised Lazarus from the dead
-Turned water into wine
-Calmed storms by his word
-Gave paralyzed people instant strength and healing.
-Sight to the born blind
-Hearing to the deaf

and so it goes on. You might consider the broader picture of such things in Biblical context.

You quote Paine, the noted atheist polemicist. His argument is only half right. Agreed, Priests can lie even if God does not. However..the issue of the Scriptures? well his argument is falacious in that we derive our information about God FROM the Scriptures. So they are the starting point. From them, we can evaluate priests behavior, and when they act or speak falsely, they deserve appropriate condemnation.

But we still have to ask, Boaz, which bits?

>>...we derive our information about God FROM the Scriptures. So they are the starting point.<<

As we have discussed on many occasions, you are completely addicted to cherry-picking the verses and stories that you choose to believe, and which you then present to the rest of the world as "evidence" of something.

In this case, it would appear that you have chosen to believe that...

>>...the Lord did similar miraculous things,
-Healed lepers
-Walked on water
-Raised Lazarus from the dead
-Turned water into wine
-Calmed storms by his word
-Gave paralyzed people instant strength and healing.
-Sight to the born blind
-Hearing to the deaf<<

You naturally have an agenda that bases itself on these stories. But what is it about them that convinces you that they might actually be accurate?

Do you give, for example, the same credence to the "miracles" described in the Old Testament? In which case, should we also use some of the cultural instructions that book also contains?

You know the ones I mean.

Do you not occasionally pause to question the manner in which Christian "miracles" have metamorphosed over time, in the manner in which they are purported to occur?

"There is also a discernible evolution - in the Old Testament, from miracles performed directly by God to miracles performed by Moses, Joshua and the prophets with God's power; in the New Testament from miracles performed by Jesus in his own power to miracles by apostles and saints, then by dead saints, and finally in conjunction with the relics of saints."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_26_36/ai_62087489/

To do so - to question, analyze and discuss the phenomenon of "miracles" would require a level of intellectual curiosity that, alas, so far eludes you.

I do still hold out some hope that you will one day see the light, of course. But you really need to put in a bit more effort yourself, you know, I can't make it happen on my own.

JuliaGillardHasFailed,

You must be totally out of breath....dashing about so fast between threads, you're liable to become a little addled....I suggest a good lie down and a Bex.

Dear Pericles
'which' ones do I believe? well that question would become increasingly obvious if you actually devoted some serious time to not only reading the Old and New Testaments, but in understanding them.
Galatians 2:20 is a good place for you to begin.

I'm pressed for time right now.. got ZAPPED by lightning yesterday and lost half of my USB inputs.. only back on line now.

I've no idea what you are talking about, Boaz.

>>Dear Pericles 'which' ones do I believe?<<

Which ones of what? Your "verse of the day" didn't help much.

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me"

Enigmatic, to say the very least.

And nothing whatsoever to do with the subject we were - theoretically, at least - discussing.

Although I guess it is not much of a discussion when one side asks a question, and the other responds with an unrelated quote.

"Hi Boaz, do you think Collingwood are in with a chance this year?"

"As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity"

"Yeah, right..."

But back to this reality. What I asked, put simply, was this:

What is it about the miracles that you selected, that convinces you that they might actually have occurred as described?

And are they different in some way from the others, e.g miracles performed directly by God, miracles performed by the prophets with God's power, miracles by apostles and saints, miracles by dead saints, and miracles in conjunction with the relics of saints?

If there are some that you reject, on what basis do you reject them?

Golly Perilous.. it's a bit late at night for this.. mentally exhausted +toothache extrordinaire.

"Which...ones"

Old and New testament.. all.

It boils down to a bit of common sense. If you readdd the Gospels.. and note the various details about each incident..they are suggestive of eye witness accounts and reliable descriptions. Back to Gal 2:20

I'm not surprised you dont get that... it's deeper than you realize.
(Perhaps)

You are approaching it academically, but the transformative impact of the Gospel is not an academic exercise. The Gospel of Christ encounters the human heart, and it responds.. one way or the other.

We believe and affirm that the Almighty speaks to us through the Gospel.. He knocks.. will we open? If we do.. we experience Gal 2:20

There is something supernatural about the human heart/Gospel encounter.

Here is one more verse to ponder... and I'm not meaning to talk down to you:

II Cor 4:3ff
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+4&version=NI

As always, Boaz, your concept of "common sense" and mine are as chalk and cheese.

>>It boils down to a bit of common sense. If you readdd the Gospels.. and note the various details about each incident..they are suggestive of eye witness accounts and reliable descriptions.<<

Also, it has to be said, if you "readdd" the Da Vinci Code, and note the details about each incident... they are suggestive of a liaison between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

Common sense tells us that at least one of these is fiction.

Common sense also tells us that if it were your intention to start a religious movement, you would need an event, or series of events, to kick it off.

Christians have the stories made available in the selected books that make up the current "Bible" as their motivation. Muslims have the Qur'an, that performs a similar function. Mormons have Joseph Smith and the Angel Moroni's golden plates. Hindus have the vedas. Scientologists have Hubbard's Dianetics to refer to.

Common sense also tells us that not all of these can represent an absolute - whether this is an absolute "truth" (it happened this way, folks), or an absolute morality (this is the only way to run your life).

Common sense also tells us that because there are so many different approaches to religion, and belief systems in general, that the odds strongly favour the notion that none is actually valid in its entirety - i.e. including its provenance, its history and its modern-day conduct.

Which is why I cannot accept your use of your own chosen "gospels" as evidence for anything, except your own dedication to them.

and... dear Pericles... your last post is why I ended my previous one with:

II Cor 4:3ff
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+4&version=NI

//And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.//

It is veiled to you.. and I know exactly why... I hope and pray you will come to see it as it really is in due course. But that is a divine work... not a human one.
We can sow the seed... we can even add a little water.. but it all needs the SON...to shine on it to make it grow.

The sense which makes sense of the Gospels.. is not 'common' it is divinely inspired.

That inspiration can come from an open heart and something as simple as John 3:16...

Or.. an enlighened reading of Isaiah 53 with a humble heart.

Oh dear, Boaz. Oh dear indeed.

>>The sense which makes sense of the Gospels.. is not 'common' it is divinely inspired.<<

But did you not, in your immediately prior post, state that it only requires common sense?

You did, you know...

>>It boils down to a bit of common sense. If you readdd the Gospels.. and note the various details about each incident..they are suggestive of eye witness accounts and reliable descriptions.<<

As I suspected - and as you now freely confess - it has absolutely nothing to do with common sense. At all.

You should have written instead, that "it boils down to a bit of divinely inspired sense."

Which is precisely my position on the "miracles". Only those who have previously decided that they will believe in them, could possibly believe in them.

My original question remains unanswered, I notice.

What is it about the miracles that you selected, that convinces you that they might actually have occurred as described?

And are they different in some way from the others, e.g miracles performed directly by God, miracles performed by the prophets with God's power, miracles by apostles and saints, miracles by dead saints, and miracles in conjunction with the relics of saints?

If there are some that you reject, on what basis do you reject them?

Please don't tell me that your selection process is "divinely inspired"...?

And would it be possible cut a deal on the scriptures?

>>... dear Pericles... your last post is why I ended my previous one with: II Cor 4:3ff<<

Let me repeat that to me, the use of your chosen "gospels" is evidence of nothing, except your belief in them.

Which I do not share.

Quoting your Bible at me is exactly as meaningful as quoting from the Qur'an, or the Book of Mormon, or the Rig Veda.

In Sanskrit.

As a means to "convert" me, it is guaranteed to fail. As a source of "evidence", it is meaningless.

its sad and funny
i want to help both..walk a middle path

christ himself said about believing ..by miracles
[it just dosnt bring the required works..
christians need to chose to be doing..to walk the walk of jesus]

did he not say let the tares ..grow with the wheat ..till harvest
[and by harvest that dont mean some delusional day of judgment..but simply the time we sloth off this suit of skin]..ie die..and our spirit..lives on...

for we are of the spirit..not the flersh
we make our works spiritual..[eternal not temporal]

im sure that you both hold faith
but the key is faith in what..the things of this realm or the next?

maybe i could reply boazies origonal concepts better
i recall he said he needed to rewrite 3 times
well lets have a go at what you really meant?

ps i havnt read the link
i feel i rebutted the miss-conceptions
put up in the origonal posted comments/question..

those needing god and jesus to be the same are in for a big dissapointment...[ye shall call HIM emmanuel...has to be a clue]

its not jesus that could have a call to be god
but this emmaunuel dude..[no not even him]
god never was human
yet he is all human..

[in that he sustains each of us our lives from within..[god with us]

in the end its our works..not our words
love god love neighbour..[how hard is that]

if boaz can take my sins ..is too stupid for believing
yet to believe jesus can ..take our sins ..is equally nutts

if its not logical
its not of the christ

[if its not all good
its not of god]

he could takeaway our will* ..to sin

but then ..we wouldnt be us..[me]...which isnt a real good deal
how can forgivness means.. im not me anymore?..[see its nutts]

till we CHOSE to reject all sin
the sin we bear is our alone..

[no one owns it ..but us]

I'll give it a go. Yes, the article is poking fun at Christian belief. Those of us who are secure in our belief can smile at it and get on with our lives.

Yes Pericles.. I do see why it looks like I changed my position.

1/ Common sense needed.
2/ Divine sense needed.

Both are true. I still hold that 'common' (albeit unprejudiced) sense is all that's needed to grasp the Gospels. The scripture about "the god of this world has blinded" is a factor which causes normally common sense to be uncommon.

In my case.. to attempt to answer your question, I look at the scriptures as a whole, and look for cross references which all contribute to a stronger sense of credibility for particular bits.

The Miracle of the healing of man born blind is a good one. John 9

The incident happened at the Pool of Siloam. Rather than woffle on about 'then' (the denial) and "now" (after Archeological digs) where the trend has only been to confirm rather than weaken the Biblical accounts, I'll let you do some digging on that. But the trend.... is clear.. "confirmation" which lends more credibility to the accuracy of the accounts.

It all boils down to the balance of probabilities.
The link you gave is a bit dodgy. It mentions "Islam" as a faith where holy men raised the dead. Errr...really? who? when? I know of none.
When I google it... I get this :) have a peek
http://www.whenistherapture.com/miracles.html

Sure..it might have gathered a bit of mythical moss along the way but it does ring true to my own experience with Muslims.

The narrative of the man born blind is quite compelling I find. All the reactions.. by the Jews.. his family etc.. all seem most natural.

But the primary delineation between 'genuine' and 'fake' seems to be where they morph into 'anamistic/magic' which has the sole purpose of benefitting the recipient rather than proclaiming the Glory of God in Christ.

It didn't just "look like" you changed your stance, Boaz.

>>Yes Pericles.. I do see why it looks like I changed my position. 1/ Common sense needed. 2/ Divine sense needed. Both are true.<<

You contradicted yourself, quite spectacularly.

Exhibit A: >>It boils down to a bit of common sense. If you readdd the Gospels...<< 17 February 2011 8:28:41 PM

Exhibit B: >>The sense which makes sense of the Gospels.. is not 'common' it is divinely inspired.<< 18 February 2011 10:13:54 AM

Your Friday-morning correction is far more credible than your Thursday-evening throw-away line. The problem with it, as I pointed out, is that it is circular: only if you are "divinely-inspired" can you possibly believe the miracles described, and - presumably - only if you believe the miracles can you become "divinely-inspired".

Your reference to the Pool of Siloam has a similar structure to it. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the re-discovery of the pool that indicates that it healed a blind person. Nor is there even definitive evidence that it is, in fact, the Pool of Siloam. To believe that it is, and that it witnessed a miracle, you have to first of all... believe. Another circle.

http://www.bibleplaces.com/poolofsiloam.htm

There is nothing specific. Just speculation. As usual.

And some doubt.

"I'm struck by Charlesworth's statement that the pool was found 'exactly where John said it was.' I don't see anything in the Gospel of John that indicates a location. Look for yourself: chapter 9. So is this a misquote or a 'caught up in the heat of the moment' misstatement? Or maybe he simply means that it was found in Jerusalem."

http://www.bibleplaces.com/poolofsiloamanalysis.htm

As you say...

>>It all boils down to the balance of probabilities<<

Unsurprisingly, your idea of balance and mine, clearly differ.

>>But the primary delineation between 'genuine' and 'fake' seems to be where... the sole purpose [is] benefitting the recipient rather than proclaiming the Glory of God in Christ<<

Not really. The whole idea is build a substantial legend. Which also explains miracles reported prior to, and subsequent to, the Jesus period.