The Bible is a Book of Fairy Tales

Many people receive the Holy Spirit, that does not mean they are God or the Son of God. Thousands received it on Pentecost (read Acts).

Glad you posted that bit. You have it wrong. In Christianity, a person does not have "divine powers". Miracles show the closeness of the relationship a person has with God, but God does miracles, not the person. The person asks God to do something miraculous, and God decides whether or not to grant the miracle, God wields the "power" not the person.

 

Ha ha, I'm sorry, but that's too funny.

I can see god coming onto his office in the morning, buzzing his secretary, and asking her(sexist, I know) for the list of requested miracles for the day. I wonder if his secretary has any input? "I think you should give this family the benefit of the doubt, god".

 

Exactly right, and very relevant. If you can except that though, how hard life can be, you can cut down on a lot of the suffering. We all suffer. The key is to realize that, and share your life, suffering and all, with those you value. If the person you've been sharing with the most dies, you must except that to, and continue to share with others.

 

Worldly possessions do not mourn their owners when they die!

Only those you loved and who loved you will miss you when you die.

People, not possessions, matter!

 

I believe they did, meaning they must have had a working knowledge of basic physics.

 

Of course they had cranes and pulleys .......

They used pulleys to draw water for irrigation using camels.

 

Then there was the Archimedes screw for drawing up water. The Antikythera mechanism indicates that the ancients had a sufficiently sophisticated grasp of mechanical engineering to build the pyramids, stonehenge, et al. Levers and pulleys are force multipliers for muscle power and sand pours easily.

 

I have seen camels pulling up water in Arabia. Ancient people were pretty innovative.

 

Nah, the view is much better up here.

 

Kinda like Christianity and Judiasm are mutually exclusive. I'd say every religion is mutually exclusive of all others. In fact there are mutually exclusive sects within religions.

OTOH, I tend to take a different view. ALL orthodox religionists have faith in their supreme righteousness.
We are currently experiencing the floor sweepings of ignorance and psychopathy of violent regressive Islamists (twisted orthoxody) which does not represent the vast majority of muslims or scriptural interpretation.

 

Are you moving the goal posts? What you describe is a case where there is no freedom ***OF*** religion. The status quo - where government doesn't sponsor or promote religion, and where people can proselytize - is one where there is no freedom FROM religion.

 

Of course the "promise" of the resurrection is taught by the Jesus of Mark but, there is no smoking gun (Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death)

You build a straw-men because you can not deal with the fact that "believe or be tortured eternally" is a sophisticated mind control technique.
Denial and avoidance of info conflicting with dogma, and demonization of the messenger are common reactions of adherents. Such as is present in this post.

I did not say belief in God was mind control. Nice Straw man (accusing me of something I did not say) followed by demonization on the basis of something I did not say. .
Who said anything about not supporting one's freedom to choose ? - another strawman combined with demonization.

Both Islam and Christianity have the same formula. Both use the OT texts as background material, believe in the same God of Abraham, and have a new prophet. Fundamentalists selectively use OT law - as does Islam. Both make heavy use of the "fear factor" - sophisticated mind control.

Typical .. standing on a soapbox crying "NO NO WRONG WRONG" is not an argument for much. The Sermon on the Mount is where that passage is from "Will of the Father". There is not one word about faith in Jesus as a salvation formulation. The will of the is then what Jesus has taught in his sermon - works works and more works.

I am not the one building straw-men (making false accusations against you) and then demonizing you based on those false accusations in a desperate attempt to avoid addressing information that conflicts with ingested dogma.

That would be you.

 

I wish I could remember the rest of this Old Viking creedo. The first line "The Truth - is that life is hard and dangerous" has always stuck though.

We find a similar parallel in Ecclesiastes an Proverbs. Wisdom passed down through the ages.

 

Nope! Not moving anything at all.

This nation was founded as a SECULAR state with NO state religion whatsoever and a PROHIBITION that the state can NEVER mandate a religion. That is de facto freedom FROM religion.

If you have a state mandated religion then there can be no freedom FROM religion because the state mandates that the religion that it endorses is the official state religion and it can set the rules and regulations pertaining to that state religion. The state can require that it be taught in school and that all religious observances for that religion be obeyed.

The current status quo with NO state religion whatsoever is freedom FROM religion. That is what the 1st amendment is all about. There can be NO state religion under any circumstances.

Yes, INDIVIDUALS can proselytize but NOT by using STATE facilities such as schools, government buildings, etc, etc.

No individual is allowed to use the state as a means to proselytize their religion. They do have the freedom to do so via privately owned facilities such as houses of worship.

To use Jefferson's words the Separation of Church and State is the only way to ensure that there is freedom FROM religion that is not imposed by the state.

Freedom OF religion can only exist with freedom FROM religion.

 

NO, i DON'T know WHAT is SO hard ABOUT this. FREEDOM of RELIGION means FREE practice OF religion, WHERE religion CAN'T be MANDATED by THE state. WHAT you DESCRIBE as FREEDOM from RELIGION is FREEDOM of RELIGION. and FREEDOM from RELIGION doesn't APPEAR anywhere IN our CONSTITUTION.

you're JUST quibbling OVER what TO call THE exact SAME thing I'M talking ABOUT, and ARE insisting ON using TERMS plainly CONTRARY to COMMON usage. THAT makes NO sense, BUT i THINK it's CLEAR to ANYONE reading THIS. i'm NOT going TO go ON with YOUR quibble, IF you INSIST on USING the WRONG terms IN such A way THAT is OBVIOUSLY different FROM the PLAIN and COMMON usage.

 

You have a complete misunderstanding of the concepts of the religions in question.

 

Its easy to cry "Strawman!" rather than actually become educated, we see that in the gun rights section of the forum as well.

You should read a good explanation of the Sermon on the Mount (but I know you won't). Without a solid understanding of Jewish law, you can't understand the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount is absolutely not about salvation through works. The most detailed is Dr. Bill Creasy's (English prof, UCLA, he taught this course at UCLA for 20+ years) 23 lectures on Matthew, you can get it on Amazon Audible. But you won't because thats far too much work and education for a religion hater.

 

The Sermon on the Mount is about teaching the Jews how to cope with the Roman oppression and the Roman laws. Its about shaming the enemy with non resistance.

 

No, it is not. Not even close.

 

Sure it is.. Turn the other cheek, carry the pack two miles, give also your cloak.. That's all in response to Roman laws and what they could demand of a Jew. You'd know that if your were educated.

 

There goes use of physics, therefore a known knowledge and use of scientific principles.

 

who was the stenographer for this sermon on the mount? When was it actually written down?

 

What I have is an understanding of life and death, free of concepts. And if you think someone, or some thing, doles out miracles, it's my guess you don't.

 

You're really going to die in this trench? Fine.

Does my ingestion of organic substances to stay alive imply an understanding of chemistry or biology on my part?

Does that same ingestion of substances on behalf of a single-celled bacteria imply it's understanding of chemistry or biology? Does response to electromagnetic waves imply that a flower understands the Maxwell Equations?

 

If that is the only evidence you see....you really are blind. Question is, what makes you so intent on putting it down?