May 31, 2009

[jpw.in.wi]

And in case anyone else fancies posting any more BIG pictures of sweet little Mother Teresa, spend a few moments watching this...

Oh that's lovely: A hateful propaganda film that features a former "insider" of Mother Teresa's "cult of death and suffering", as Hitchens defines The Missionaries of Charity, comparing her order's shelters to Nazi death camps! An 8 minute segment of that crap is more than enough. And some of you actually pushed the "thanks" button after watching it.

Since someone else saw fit to bring up the Nazi comparison ... if he could see Hell's Angel, I have a feeling that even Dr. Goebbels would approve.

Just unbelievable ...

​

 

[Xylo]

Xylo, it is to your credit that you were able to perservere. It's awfully difficult to bow out of a strong environment like that. Congratulations!

Thanks. But really I owe it all to my inquisitiveness and the tale of Judas Iscariot-the original scapegoat. I asked a few questions about Judas and why wasn't he celebrated as a hero rather than a villian. Strangely enough, my questions went unanswered so I kept throwing questions around and realized that everything they believed stems 100% on faith, not logic.

My folks still believe that evolution is a myth and the world is less than 10,000 years old, since the bible, to them, is the literal word of god.

Scary, huh?

 

[Xylo]

First of all thank you Schuyler for not attacking my whole belief system. All I can say is at least I have a beautiful family a plane to fly and something to believe in. I am only sorry that you can't share the peaceful feeling you get when you look into your child's eyes and see a creator not a ape or something that an alien created. I completely understand you offensive nature though, you are just a animal and it is survival of the fittest.

So ad hominem is the best you can come up with? That's sophmoric at best.

 

[Experiencer7]

rcfish,

Don't be so defensive. I don't care what people believe in, and I certainly don't care about Marzulli's beliefs. His ideas have zero logic, they consist of religious brainwashing, and therefore hold little value to me, and most other thinking, rational people, IMO. Anyone who wants to base their entire reality on the Bible should have fun, I could give a shit, but to try to impose it's brutal violence, wanton destructiveness and obvious man-made origins as the will and word of whatever is behind this vast Universe we live in, is a load of horseshit.

Oh, and welcome to our forums, if I didn't say hi to you before!

dB

I've been an avid listener., for some time. I've never gotten the impression that David is an atheist. Only someone who is on a profound spiritual journey would continue to explore this realm with the level of fervor he expresses. Isn't that what faith really boils down to, (believing that there IS an answer)?

 

[Experiencer7]

(left to right) Archbishop Óscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez- martyred during mass while saying his homily, 1980; Blessed Omeljan Kovc- martyred at Majdanek 1944 for aiding Jews; (bottom) Mother Teresa of Calcutta- needs no introduction

I want to meet the God these folks lived and died for!

There have been many martyrs for various ideals. Christians don't have a monopoly.

 

[Ally]

Oh that's lovely: A hateful propaganda film that features a former "insider" of Mother Teresa's "cult of death and suffering", as Hitchens defines The Missionaries of Charity, comparing her order's shelters to Nazi death camps! An 8 minute segment of that crap is more than enough. And some of you actually pushed the "thanks" button after watching it.

Since someone else saw fit to bring up the Nazi comparison ... if he could see Hell's Angel, I have a feeling that even Dr. Goebbels would approve.

Just unbelievable ...

​

Moulder,
I thanked this post because it is always good to get a different perspective on a public hero. Mother Teresa may indeed be a saint, just a good PR person or a little of both. I never met her personally and take the media hype with a grain of salt. It doesn't mean i believe this you tube as THE truth either but it might be A truth.

 

[rwahrens]

While I am an atheist (and David says he isn't), many people misunderstand what it is to be atheist.

The literal meaning of the term implies that one is not theistic. What does that mean? To me, it means that I do not subscribe to any religious belief in a creator that needs to be worshiped and who has an earthly organization that is devoted to that activity.

Atheism does NOT mean that one denies the spiritual side of humanity. People have been exploring that side of man for a very long time, and it would be the height of arrogance for anyone to deny the existence of this side of people. I just think that religion, as an organized activity, is designed more for the benefit of the organizers than anybody else!

Benjamin Franklin was most likely an atheist. He certainly was no christian, and made no bones about it. He was, however, most respectful of other people's right to believe and act in accordance with that belief.

However, he reserved the right (and acted upon it often) to ridicule the beliefs themselves. He also wrote about spiritualism, though I understand he didn't use that term. Jefferson, another non-christian founder, wrote often about the spiritual side of man, and seems to have believed in a creator figure, tho he most decidedly refused the christian religion.

This show, the Paracast, explores the paranormal, which includes aspects of that spirituality. Neither David nor Gene have, in episodes I have listened to, denied this side of mankind, as a matter of fact, their exploration of it explicitly recognizes its existence.

As with UFOs, the existence of ghosts, spirits, and other "ghostly" apparitions and figures of mythology have their detractors and supporters, and the supporters have a long history of evidence behind them to support their belief.

Just because I and others like me deny the christian religion (as well as other organized religions) does NOT mean that we deny this entire field of study. Obviously, there is, like with UFOs, something there. Too many people have had direct experience with its manifestations to deny the existence of at least something.

What I have a problem with (and I think David does too, correct me if I am wrong, please) is people that claim to have the answers and point to the bible as if they have made their case with no further explanation required.

The issues Gene and David deal with are complex issues, and one cannot point to one single explanation as "evidence"; using a source that has been studied exhaustingly by many people for years and shown to be less than stellar in its veracity is just bad scholarship and should not be accepted as anything close to real evidence.

This show has just exposed more noise. Good job, Gene and David!

 

[tyder001]

Learn something new everyday. I was under the distinct impression that an atheist denied any spiritual component to life. I thought it meant that one who calls themselves an atheist meant that they felt there was no chance or hope of life after death or before life. I don't know if you are the exception but then again most of the loud atheist (similar to the loud fundies I guess)have seemed to be total materilist. Thanks for the info. As for Jefferson I think he was a Deist and Franklin had at least a passing interest in Reincarnation. I identify with my own experience in life and I certainly have my own beliefes. If asked to label myself I say "Liberal Christian." But I am certainly not a fundie cause I been there and got the t-shirt. But a persons religion if they have thought it through to any extent at all is more personal and important to them than a few pros and cons on a message board about the bible or reductionism.

 

[tyder001]

Sorry in a hurry and didn't use spell check. (again)

 

[rwahrens]

tyder,

The "group" calling itself atheist isn't really a group. It's sorta like calling everybody that doesn't believe in horoscopes "ahoroscopists"! We come from all walks of life, and encompass the entire spectrum of the political stage, not just liberals.

So yes, there are those that deny the spiritual. But in the Humanist group I meet with monthly, many of them do see a spiritual side to humans, we just reject the organized aspect of it as a con job and mind/crowd control.

We prefer to see evidence, not testimonials.

 

[David Biedny]

Oh, as far as Mother Teresa is concerned, those who are putting her on a pedestal do realize that she didn't believe in God or Jesus, right?

RIGHT?

Just FYI...

dB

 

[rwahrens]

Oh, as far as Mother Teresa is concerned, those who are putting her on a pedestal do realize that she didn't believe in God or Jesus, right?

RIGHT?

Just FYI...

dB

LOL!!

I just love the way major christian icons keep falling, one by one. Especially one like this that expose the rotten underbelly of the church. How many more have to fall before intelligent people start seeing the REAL light and dump these folks for good?

 

[threed]

That's a case in point. This fetish we have in America that somehow authority is established by the precident of it having been first stated by the "founders." This comes from the same modern fundamentalist conception that the bible is a law book and upon finding a verse in it somewhere -- that that establishes truth.

All of these thought patterns come from the ancient fact that when these campfire stories were first being written down, writing was a relatively new artform. Not everyone was literate. Most people still found it magical that you could scribble down some marks on papyrus or parchment and someone else -- in another time or place -- could hear your thoughts.

So, the bible -- aside from becoming a national novel -- also took on the significance of an incantation. It followed the exact same pattern that we find later used in the essoteric occult writngs of the medieval (and later) periods.

Whether something is wrong or right can be observed in everyday practice. You can see by the consistent consequences of certain patterns of behavior that this is a destructive behavior or that is a beneficial one.

Looking to a rule book or the "founders" is to abrogate your own responsiblity for making choices to someone (or something) else. It's the easy way out for someone too lazy to think for themselves or take adult responsibility for their own lives.

Isn't it that way in art? When you're new -- inexperienced and ignorant -- you paint by number or look for techniques (formulas). When you're mature, you break rules. You relax. You fly. Only then are you really creating art. (It's a back brain - front brain thing.)

 

[Schuyler]

First of all thank you Schuyler for not attacking my whole belief system. All I can say is at least I have a beautiful family a plane to fly and something to believe in. I am only sorry that you can't share the peaceful feeling you get when you look into your child's eyes and see a creator not a ape or something that an alien created. I completely understand you offensive nature though, you are just a animal and it is survival of the fittest.

So I don't attack your whole belief system and my reward from you is to call me an animal. Great. And you've got a PLANE to fly! My goodness, that is so relevant! Hey everybody! This guy is a PILOT!! That means he flies ABOVE everyone else! Get it? (BTW, me, too: ASEL. Every landing I have ever made has been PERFECT cause I'm still here!)

What really pisses me off about these people is that they take such a superior attitude about their religion. They are so RIGHT and everyone who does not share their beliefs are so WRONG. It may bring them peace, but it has brought the rest of the world an incredible amount of destruction. I look upon the effects of the Christian religion with just about as much respect as I do the Nazis, except Christianity has been much more destructive.

Although I have a lot of respect for serious Christian scholars (Crossan, Meier, Schweitzer, Funk) most Christians who talk like this guy have a very shallow understanding of their own religion with about as much knowledge as anyone who attends Sunday School. Their understanding is far more emotional than intellectual. I don't think they should be mocked, particularly, except when they dish it out, but I am frightened of people like this because if they become convinced that God wants them to do terrible things, they'll do literally anything, as history has shown.

Thank God the Christians are no longer in charge of western civilization. Thank God Henry VIII had the balls to stand up to Papal authority and as for Constantine: What hath thou wrought, you fucking idiot? Clearly the biggest mistake in history.

And my kid is cuter than your kid.

 

[Wannabeliever]

I don't see how Marzulli's theories are any less likely than any other theoretical explanation for UFOs. "There is precious little we know for sure.." Which possible explanation does not have a big set of associated problems and inconsistencies?

It is true, however, that the guest would seem more credible if he were to present this as a theory vs. a demonstrable fact.

 

[rwahrens]

I don't see how Marzulli's theories are any less likely than any other theoretical explanation for UFOs. "There is precious little we know for sure.." Which possible explanation does not have a big set of associated problems and inconsistencies?

It is true, however, that the guest would seem more credible if he were to present this as a theory vs. a demonstrable fact.

Most theoretical explanations for UFOs are predicated upon observations of UFO behavior and other observable facts. Observations CAN be debated and interpreted in many different ways, sure, which is why this field is so wide open.

But Marzulli's claims are not only presented as fact, but he depends, as has been noted, upon biblical references and old Jewish mythology for his "proof". In short, unless you are a fundamentalist christian, you won't buy into his claims.

Bad scholarship, bad investigating technique.

 

[UBERDOINK]

Bad scholarship, bad investigating technique.

Wow, actually most UFO nuts and bolts guys are HORRIBLE scholars and investigators because they only look at the subject in a 50 year span, (rowswells the answer!!!! right)

The guest didn't tell his story well, but his concepts and the history behind it is very well thought out and a has far less holes in the explanation that the "nuts and bolts" guys theories do.

But if your biased, then of course any "spirituality" in an explanation means it is false, right?

 

[rwahrens]

Wow, actually most UFO nuts and bolts guys are HORRIBLE scholars and investigators because they only look at the subject in a 50 year span, (rowswells the answer!!!! right)

The guest didn't tell his story well, but his concepts and the history behind it is very well thought out and a has far less holes in the explanation that the "nuts and bolts" guys theories do.

But if your biased, then of course any "spirituality" in an explanation means it is false, right?

Uh, did you READ my post?

But Marzulli's claims are not only presented as fact, but he depends, as has been noted, upon biblical references and old Jewish mythology for his "proof". In short, unless you are a fundamentalist christian, you won't buy into his claims.

I didn't say because of spirituality, but because he based his claims (NOT theory) on unverified, sketchy source material. Any idiot can assemble a decently thought out "explanation", and base it on some cock-eyed spiritual theory if it's based upon material that cannot be verified, and has been altered so much in 1700 years it is unrecognizable from the original.

In short, his "well thought out" concepts are based upon mythology, and if you'd read some of my first couple of posts, you'd see that his timelines are off in several ways.

Perhaps you should concentrate on reading comprehension? Did you read any of my former post on spirituality?

 

[UBERDOINK]

Perhaps you should concentrate on reading comprehension? Did you read any of my former post on spirituality?

Hey well because I didn't read your views I guess that means all those other views from scholars etc. are wrong.

To set you straight can you tell me the sources which you site for the many changes over 1700 years in the texts?

as far as I know, from what I read from scholars that study the texts, they have stayed almost completely unchanged from their original form for 2000 years (if you use the dead sea scrolls as an example) , and if you use all 24,000 extant manuscript as evidence it is overpowering more accurate than any other written work in history.

Homer having the only other closest work and that is based only 500 manuscripts.

We know Alexander the Great exists from only 10 documents or so, but I don't see people arguing that he was just a myth.

Again the more shoddy your learning on the subject the easier it is to discount.

 

[Schuyler]

We know Alexander the Great exists from only 10 documents or so for example, but I don't see people arguing that he was just a myth.

Fascinating! And how many texts do we have that prove Jesus ever lived? The four canonical gospels were written well after the alleged death of Jesus, John over 100 years after. Plus the gospels copied each other with more or less the same story, perhaps from a lost 'Quelle' or 'Q' gospel. There is a single sentence in Josephus Flavius' chronicles, and he also wrote well after the death of Jesus during the reigns of the Flavian emperors after the destruction of Jeruslaem. And that's just about it.

So if you want to go play dueling texts you better watch out cause you don't have much! Even if something is accuately copied, such as the Torah, what does that prove? That it was accurately copied.